Effectiveness of ecologically safe disinfectants against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and the poultry main bacteriosis pathogens

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-8025.2022.266239

Keywords:

poultry, pseudomonosis, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, S. typhimurium, effectiveness, prevention

Abstract

The aim: study of the effectiveness of environmentally safe disinfectants against P. aeruginosa and pathogens of the main bacteriosis of poultry at test facilities.

Materials and methods. To study the antimicrobial action of the investigated disinfectants against a mixture of epizootic cultures of E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, S. typhimurium, isolated from poultry, bacteriological studies were carried out on test objects: galvanized iron, wooden bars (painted and unpainted), red brick, cutouts from plaster, size 10 × 10 cm.

Results. The working solutions of the new disinfectant "Dezsan" were studied in comparison with the control agents: "Virocid" and "Bi-dez" at a concentration of 0.01; 0.1; 0.25; 0.5; 1; 1.5 % in relation to suspension cultures of E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, S. typhimurium. In this case, it was established, that the "Dezsan" agent showed an antimicrobial effect on rough test objects after exposure for 3 hours at a concentration of 0.1 %, and at a concentration of 0.25 % - for 1 hour. On smooth surfaces, the agent neutralized bacterial cultures at a concentration of 0.1 % after exposure for 1 hour. The preparation "Bi-dez" at a concentration of 0.25 % was effective on smooth surfaces after exposure for 1 hour, on rough surfaces (brick, plaster) - at a concentration of 0.5 % after exposure for 3 hours or more. The working solution of 1 % concentration neutralized bacterial cultures on all types of surfaces after exposure for 1 hour or more. "Virocid" agent after exposure for 1 hour neutralized bacterial cultures on smooth surfaces in concentrations of 0.25 % and higher; on rough surfaces, the growth of cultures was not detected when using a 0.5 % solution.

Conclusions. Environmentally safe disinfectants "Dezsan" and "Shumerske sryblo" compared to the control ones ("Bi Dez" and "Virotsid") show an active antimicrobial effect at a concentration of 0.25 % and 3 %, respectively, against the suspension of epizootic cultures of E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus and S. typhimurium on different types of production surfaces, which justifies the feasibility of their use based on the principle of rotation of disinfectants for the prevention of bacterial pseudomonosis of poultry

Author Biographies

Andriy Berezovskiy, Sumy National Agrarian University

Doctor of Veterinary Sciences, Professor

Department of Veterinary Expertise, Microbiology, Zoohygiene and Safety and Quality of Livestock Products

Tetiana Fotina, Sumy National Agrarian University

Doctor of Veterinary Sciences, Professor, Head of Department

Department of Veterinary Expertise, Microbiology, Zoohygiene and Safety and Quality of Livestock Products

Yevheniia Vashchyk, National University of Pharmacy

Doctor of Veterinary Sciences, Associate Professor

Department of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy

Dmytro Berezhnyi, National University of Pharmacy

PhD, Associate Professor

Department of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy

Dmytro Morozenko, National University of Pharmacy

Doctor of Veterinary Sciences, Senior Researcher, Head of Department

Department of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy

References

  1. Jeni, R. E., Dittoe, D. K., Olson, E. G., Lourenco, J., Corcionivoschi, N., Ricke, S. C.et al. (2021). Probiotics and potential applications for alternative poultry production systems. Poultry Science, 100 (7), 101156. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101156
  2. Redweik, G. A. J., Jochum, J., Mellata, M. (2020). Live Bacterial Prophylactics in Modern Poultry. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.592312
  3. Chen, S., Yong, Y., Ju, X. (2021). Effect of heat stress on growth and production performance of livestock and poultry: Mechanism to prevention. Journal of Thermal Biology, 99, 103019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2021.103019
  4. Bovkun, G.F. (2004). Rol mikroflory pri zabolevanii organov pishchevareniia u tcypliat. Veterinariia, 4, 14-16.
  5. Al-Khalaifah, H. S. (2018). Benefits of probiotics and/or prebiotics for antibiotic-reduced poultry. Poultry Science, 97 (11), 3807–3815. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey160
  6. Stehnii, B. T., Hliebova, K. V., Petrenchuk, E. P., Bobrovytska, I. A., Maiboroda, O. V. (2014). Epizootolohichnyi monitorynh bakterialnykh khvorob ptytsi v Ukraini. Veterynarna medytsyna, 98, 99–102.
  7. Stehnii, B. T., Hliebova, K. V., Petrenchuk, E. P., Zaremba, I. A., Maiboroda, O. V. (2013). Analiz epizootychnoho monitorynhu bakterialnykh zakhvoriuvan silskohospodarskoi, dykoi ta dekoratyvnoi ptytsi na terytorii Skhodu Ukrainy Veterynanrna medytsyna, 97, 232–233.
  8. Prokudіna, N. O. (2016). Suchasnі dezіnfektanti: pliusi ta mіnusi. Suchasne ptakhіvnitctvo, 4 (161), 19–22.
  9. Zon, G. A., Vashchik, E. V., Moroz, O. S. (2010). Rezultati poshuku suchasnikh dezіnfektcіinikh rechovin, aktivnikh do zbudnika psevdomonozu ptitcі. Aktualnye problemy sovremennogo ptitcevodstva. Alushta, 89–95.
  10. Mandyhra, Yu. M. (2017). Sanitarna otsinka zastosuvannia u tvarynnytstvi dezinfikuiuchykh zasobiv na osnovi poliheksametylenhuanidynu. Kharkiv.
  11. Prokudina, N. O. (2016). Suchasni dezinfektanty: pliusy ta minusy. Suchasne ptakhivnytstvo, 4 (161), 19–22.
  12. Mandyhra, M. S., Lysytsia, A. V., Zhyhaliuk, S. V., Dmytriiev, I. M., Velychko, Yu. M., Andrushchuk, I. L. et al. (2012). Analiz zasobiv dlia veterynarnoi dezinfektsii. Veterynarna medytsyna, 96, 163–165.
  13. Newton, K., Gosling, B., Rabie, A., Davies, R. (2020). Field investigations of multidrug-resistant Salmonella Infantis epidemic strain incursions into broiler flocks in England and Wales. Avian Pathology, 49 (6), 631–641. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2020.1809634
  14. Maertens, H., De Reu, K., Van Weyenberg, S., Van Coillie, E., Meyer, E., Van Meirhaeghe, H. et al. (2018). Evaluation of the hygienogram scores and related data obtained after cleaning and disinfection of poultry houses in Flanders during the period 2007 to 2014. Poultry Science, 97 (2), 620–627. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex327
  15. Wales, A. D., Gosling, R. J., Bare, H. L., Davies, R. H. (2021). Disinfectant testing for veterinary and agricultural applications: A review. Zoonoses and Public Health, 68 (5), 361–375. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12830

Downloads

Published

2022-09-30

How to Cite

Berezovskiy, A., Fotina, T., Vashchyk, Y., Berezhnyi, D., & Morozenko, D. (2022). Effectiveness of ecologically safe disinfectants against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and the poultry main bacteriosis pathogens. ScienceRise: Biological Science, (3(32), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-8025.2022.266239

Issue

Section

Veterinary research

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>