The Effect of Acid Sanitizers on the Microbiome of Re-use Water

Kristina M Feye,Dale R Thompson,Andrew C Micchichi,Peter M Rubinelli,Steven C Ricke,Michael H Kogut,Carl J Knueven

doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00085

Abstract

The poultry industry is a major consumer of fresh water; therefore, in order to reduce their environmental footprint and burden, companies are in the beginning stages of evaluating water for re-use. Re-use water is classified as water from the poultry plant that has been collected, sanitized, and used again during poultry processing. One of the most commonly used sanitizers in processing water is peracetic acid (PAA). Inorganic sanitizers, such as sodium bisulfate (SBS), have documented antimicrobial and sanitation effects on a variety of surfaces. In this study, SBS and PAA were compared for their ability to sanitize re-use water collected from a local poultry plant. Fresh, commercial poultry processing plant reuse water was collected at the end of a processing shift and used within one hour of the collection. Microcosms were used and live microorganisms were collected and evaluated for aerobic plate counts, total Enterobacteriaceae, and Salmonella load. The microcosms contained either SBS (1%, 2% or 3%) or 200 ppm PAA throughout the course of the study. Water samples were collected at 0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes post-sanitation. The water was evaluated for total Enterobacteriaceae and microbial load using traditional plating methods and the total DNA was extracted and sequenced using the 16S rDNA Illumina MiSeq v3 Platform targeting the V4 region of the prokaryote rDNA molecule. All sanitation methods resulted in nearly undetectable XLD and APC counts by 60 m (P < 0.05), with 1% and 2% SBS having a slight rebounding of APC counts by 60 m. The sequences were analyzed using the QIIME2.2018.08 pipeline. Changes in alpha diversity and beta diversity were indicated across time and by treatment group, which may reflect the cumulative effects of the sanitation treatment (killing, delayed killing, and the emergence of resistant populations). Based on the ANCOM results, SBS groups had less Pseudmonas and more Bacteriodes while PAA groups had greater Actiobacter (Q < 0.05). The results of this study indicate that SBS is as efficacious as PAA for decreasing bacterial loads in poultry reuse water, but it may favor different populations of bacteria in that water.

Highlights

When factoring in seasonal variation, two-thirds of the world’s population face severe water scarcity during at least 1 month of the year (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016)
Water is a major component of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans implemented industry-wide; and, even without sanitizers water can be effective to dilute pathogens and reduce biofilm forming bacteria (Srey et al, 2013; United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service, 2016)
This regulation states that water reuse is allowed if the water is equivalent to potable standards (United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service, 2016)

Summary

Introduction

When factoring in seasonal variation, two-thirds of the world’s population face severe water scarcity during at least 1 month of the year (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016). Water is a major component of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans implemented industry-wide; and, even without sanitizers water can be effective to dilute pathogens and reduce biofilm forming bacteria (Srey et al, 2013; United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service, 2016). Water reuse in processing is covered by 9 CFR 416.2 and is enforced by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). While reducing the total amount of water per bird is unlikely, the ability to re-use water collected from the plant is promising This approach would lessen the burden of the plants on the municipal supply while satisfying federal and industry-wide regulations. Current restrictions require that reuse water can be used on carcasses at the same stage or later on the processing line where it is collected prior to sanitation (United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service, 2016)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion