RESEARCH PAPER
Free chlorine loss during spraying of membraneless acidic electrolyzed water and its antimicrobial effect on airborne bacteria from poultry house
Yang Zhao 1,   Hongwei Xin 1,   Deiling Zhao 1, 2,   Weichao Zheng 1, 3,   Wei Tian 4,   He Ma 1, 3,   Kai Liu 1,   Hui Hu 4,   Tong Wang 5,   Michelle Soupir 1
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, USA
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nanjing Institute of Industry Technology, China
3
College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, China
4
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Iowa State University, USA
5
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Iowa State University, USA
 
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2014;21(2):249–255
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Spray-application of membraneless acidic electrolyzed water (MLAEW) is a novel technique for disinfection in livestock houses. This study investigated the loss of free chlorine (FC – the major germicidal component in MLAEW) over distance during spraying, as affected by air temperature and initial FC concentration. The anti-microbial effect of MLAEW on airborne bacteria from an aviary laying-hen house was examined.

Material and Methods:
MLAEW was prepared at two FC concentrations: app. 15 and 60 mg L-1, and sprayed at three air temperatures (18, 25, 32°C). The original MLAEW solution and MLAEW aerosols collected at 0, 25, and 50 cm from the spray nozzle were analyzed for FC concentrations. Bacteria were immersed into these MLAEW samples and numerated for viable count after 0.5, 2 and 5-min treatments.

Results:
MLAEW aerosols collected at 0 cm lost 11.7–13.2% FC, compared with the original MLAEW solution. This initial loss was affected neither by the initial FC concentration (P = 0.13) nor by air temperature (P = 0.57). The rate of FC loss during travelling was 0.79–0.87 % per cm of aerosol travel distance (% cm-1) at 18°C, 1.08–1.15 % cm -1 at 25 °C, and 1.35–1.49% cm -1 at 32°C. This travelling loss was affected by air temperature (P = 0.02), but not by initial FC concentration (P = 0.38). Bacteria were completely inactivated at 0.5 min when treated with MLAEW samples with FC >16.8 mg L-1, in 2 min when FC > 13.8 mg L-1, and in 5 min when FC >7.2 mg L-1.

Conclusions:
Airborne bacteria from aviary hen house can be effectively inactivated by MLAEW with adequate FC concentration and contact time. During spraying, the anti-microbial efficacy of MLAEW aerosols decreased over distance due to FC loss which exacerbated at higher air temperatures.

 
REFERENCES (25)
1.
Nimmermark S, Lund V, Gustafsson G, Eduard W. Ammonia, dust and bacteria in welfare-oriented systems for laying hens. Ann Agr Env Med. 2009; 16(1): 103–113.
 
2.
Miao Z, Chai T, Qi C, Cai Y, Liu J, Yuan W, et al. Composition and variability of airborne fungi in an enclosed rabbit house in China. Aerobiologia 2010; 26(2): 135–140.
 
3.
Zhao Y, Aarnink AJA, de Jong MCM, Ogink NWM, Groot Koerkamp PWG. Effectiveness of multi-stage scrubbers in reducing emissions of air pollutants from pig houses. Trans ASABE. 2011; 54(1): 285–293.
 
4.
Wilson IG. Airborne Campylobacter infection in a poultry worker: case report and review of the literature. Comm Dis Public Health. 2004; 7(4): 349–353.
 
5.
Zhao Y, Aarnink AJA, Groot Koerkamp PWG, Hagenaars TJ, Katsma WEA, de Jong MCM. Detection of airborne Campylobacter with three bioaerosol samplers for alarming bacteria transmission in broilers. Biol Eng. 2011; 3(4): 177–186.
 
6.
Kirychuk SP, Dosman JA, Reynolds SJ, Willson P, Senthilselvan A, Feddes JJR, et al. Total dust and endotoxin in poultry operations: Comparison between cage and floor housing and respiratory effects in workers. J Occup Environ Med. 2006; 48(7): 741–748.
 
7.
Singh J, Schwartz DA. Endotoxin and the lung: Insight into the host-environment interaction. J Allergy Clin Immun. 2005; 115(2): 330–333.
 
8.
Gloster J, Alexandersen S. New directions: Airborne transmission of Foot-and-mouth disease virus. Atmos Environ. 2004; 38(3): 503–505.
 
9.
Groot Koerkamp PWG, Metz JHM, Uenk GH, Phillips VR, Holden MR, Sneath RW, et al. Concentrations and emissions of ammonia in livestock buildings in Northern Europe. J Agric Eng Res. 1998; 70(1): 79–95.
 
10.
Sakurai Y, Nakatsu M, Sato Y, Sato K. Endoscope contamination from HBV- and HCV-positive patients and evaluation of a cleaning/disinfecting method using strongly acidic electrolyzed water. Digest Endosc. 2003; 15(1): 19–24.
 
11.
Huang Y, Hung Y, Hsu S, Huang Y, Hwang D. Application of electrolyzed water in the food industry. Food Control. 2008; 19(4): 329–345.
 
12.
Chuang C, Fang W, Yang S, A Study of membrane-less electrolyzed water fogging-spread for airborne bacteria and fungus decontamination in hen house. Proceedings of International Conference on Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering; Feb 20–21 2011; Hongkong, China; IERI, 2011.
 
13.
Wu P. Applying electrolyzed water as disinfectant in animal house. Master Thesis. National Ilan University, Ilan, Taiwan 2010.
 
14.
Ogink NWM, van Harn J, van Emous RA, Ellen HH, Top layer humidification of bedding material of laying hen houses to mitigate dust emissions: effects of water spraying on dust, ammonia and odor emissions. Proceedings of The Ninth International Livestock Environment Symposium; Jul 8 – 12 2012; Valencia, Spain; St. Joseph, MI, ASABE, 2012.
 
15.
Kim C, Hung YC, Russell SM. Efficacy of electrolyzed water in the prevention and removal of fecal material attachment and its microbicidal effectiveness during simulated industrial poultry processing . Poult Sci. 2005; 84(11): 1778–1784.
 
16.
Northcutt J, Smith D, Ingram KD, Hinton A, Musgrove M. Recovery of bacteria from broiler carcasses after spray washing with acidified electrolyzed water or sodium hypochlorite solutions. Poult Sci. 2007; 86(10): 2239–2244.
 
17.
Koide S, Takeda J, Shi J, Shono H, Atungulu GG. Disinfection efficacy of slightly acidic electrolyzed water on fresh cut cabbage. Food Control. 2009; 20(3): 294–297.
 
18.
Kim C, Hung YC, Brackett RE. Roles of oxidation-reduction potential in electrolyzed oxidizing and chemically modified water for the inactivation of food-related pathogens. J Food Protect. 2000; 63(1): 19–24.
 
19.
Koseki S, Itoh K. Prediction of microbial growth in fresh-cut vegetables treated with acidic electrolyzed water during storage under various temperature conditions. J Food Protect. 2001; 64(12): 1935–1942.
 
20.
Cao W, Zhu ZW, Shi ZX, Wang CY, Li BM. Efficiency of slightly acidic electrolyzed water for inactivation of Salmonella enteritidis and its contaminated shell eggs. Int J Food Microbiol. 2009; 130(2): 88–93.
 
21.
Venkitanarayanan KS, Ezeike GO, Hung YC, Doyle MP. Efficacy of electrolyzed oxidizing water for inactivating Escherichia coli O157: H7, Salmonella enteritidis, and Listeria monocytogenes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999; 65(9): 4276–4279.
 
22.
Fabrizio KA, Cutter CN. Stability of electrolyzed oxidizing water and its efficacy against cell suspensions of Salmonella Typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes. J Food Protect. 2003; 66(8): 1379–1384.
 
23.
Zhao Y, Aarnink AJA, Doornenbal P, Huynh TTT, Groot Koerkamp PWG, Landman WJ, et al. Investigation of the efficiencies of bioaerosol samplers for collecting aerosolized bacteria using a fluorescent tracer. II: Sampling efficiency, and half-life time . Aerosol Sci Tech. 2011; 45(3): 432–442.
 
24.
Bródka K, Kozajda A, Buczyńska A, Szadkowska-Stańczyk I. The variability of bacterial aerosol in poultry houses depending on selected factors. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2012; 25(3): 281–293.
 
25.
Zucker BA, Trojan S, Muller W. Airborne Gram-negative bacterial flora in animal houses. J Vet Med B. 2000; 47(1): 37–46.
 
eISSN:1898-2263
ISSN:1232-1966