Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Comparison of Ozone and Chlorine in Low Concentrations as Sanitizing Agents of Chicken Carcasses in the Water Immersion Chiller

Full text
Author(s):
Trindade, Marco Antonio [1] ; Kushida, Marta Mitsui [1] ; Montes Villanueva, Nilda D. [2] ; dos Santos Pereira, David Uenaka [1] ; Lins de Oliveira, Celso Eduardo [1]
Total Authors: 5
Affiliation:
[1] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Food Engn, Fac Anim Sci & Food Engn FZEA, Sao Paulo - Brazil
[2] Pontificia Univ Catolica Peru, CTR Catolica, Ctr Negocios, Lima - Peru
Total Affiliations: 2
Document type: Journal article
Source: JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION; v. 75, n. 6, p. 1139-1143, JUN 2012.
Web of Science Citations: 7
Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the use of chlorine or ozone as sanitizing agents in the water of chicken immersion chilling, using the residual levels usually applied in Brazil (1.5 ppm), comparing the effects of these treatments on the microbiological, physicochemical, and sensory characteristics of carcasses. Chicken carcasses were chilled in water (4 degrees C) with similar residual levels of ozone and chlorine until reaching temperatures below 7 degrees C (around 45 min). The stability of carcasses was assessed during 15 days of storage at 2 +/- 1 degrees C. Microbiological, surface color (L{*}, a{*}, b{*} parameters), pH value, lipid oxidation (thiobarbituric acid reactive substances index), and sensory evaluation (on a 9-point hedonic scale for odor and appearance) analyses were carried out. The presence of Salmonella was not detected, coagulase-positive staphylococci counts were below 10(2) CFU/ml of rinse fluid, and Escherichia coil and total coliform counts were below 10(5) CFU/ml of rinse fluid until the end of the storage period for both treatments. Psychrotrophic microorganism counts did not differ (P > 0.05) between chlorine and ozone treatments, and both values were near 10(9) CFU/ml of rinse fluid after 15 days at 4 +/- 1 degrees C. pH values did not differ between treatments (P > 0.05) or during the storage period (P > 0.05). In addition, neither chlorine nor ozone treatment showed differences (P > 0.05) in the lipid oxidation of carcasses; however, the thiobarbituric acid reactive substances index of both treatments increased (P <= 0.05) during the storage period, reaching values of approximately 0.68 mg of malonaldehyde per kg. Samples from both treatments did not differ (P > 0.05) in their acceptance scores for odor and overall appearance, but in the evaluation of color, ozone showed an acceptance score significantly higher (P <= 0.05) than that for the chlorine treatment. In general, under the conditions tested, ozone showed results similar to the results for chlorine in the disinfection of chicken carcasses in the immersion chilling, which may indicate its use as a substitute for chlorine in poultry slaughterhouses. (AU)