Next Article in Journal
Animal Reproduction: Semen Quality Assessment
Previous Article in Journal
Genetic Resistance of Bovines to Theileriosis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 21
10.3390/ani12212902
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Salmonella Behavior in Meat during Cool Storage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Jorge Luiz da Silva
1,*,
Bruno Serpa Vieira
2,
Fernanda Tavares Carvalho
3,
Ricardo César Tavares Carvalho
3 and
Eduardo Eustáquio de Souza Figueiredo
4,*
1
Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Mato Grosso (IFMT), Cuiabá 78106-970, Brazil
2
Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Mato Grosso (IFMT), Alta Floresta 78106-970, Brazil
3
Postgraduate Program in Animal Bioscience, University of Cuiabá, Cuiabá 78065-900, Brazil
4
Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFMT), Cuiabá 78060-900, Brazil
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(21), 2902; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212902
Submission received: 13 September 2022 / Revised: 9 October 2022 / Accepted: 17 October 2022 / Published: 23 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Safety System: Inspection of Products of Animal Origin)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Salmonella is an important pathogen associated with many foodborne disease outbreaks that can cause serious issues regarding public health, economic conditions, and quality of life, among others. Meat is the main human infection route for this bacterium, making food quality control in all production steps paramount. As Salmonella is a mesophilic bacterium, the cold chain is very important during meat processing, so pathogen behavior studies under cool storage, simulating the industry environment, can provide important data to the food industry. In this context, the aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of Salmonella behavior in meat during cool storage. Other conditions were also analyzed, such as meat sources (beef, chicken, pork, poultry, and turkey), fish, shellfish, media broth, package types, storage time, and bacterial inoculation (concentration and inoculation type).

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate Salmonella behavior in meat stored in cool conditions (between 0 °C and 7.5 °C), by employing a systematic review and meta-analysis. The data were obtained from research articles published in SciELO, PubMed, the Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The results of the retrieved studies were obtained from meat (beef, chicken, pork, poultry, and turkey), fish, shellfish, and broth media samples The data were extracted as sample size (n), initial concentration (Xi), final concentration (Xf), standard deviation (SD), standard error (SE), and microbial behavior effects (reduction or growth). A meta-analysis was carried out using the metaphor package from R software. A total of 654 articles were initially retrieved. After applying the exclusion criteria, 83 articles were selected for the systematic review, and 61 of these were used for the meta-analysis. Most studies were conducted at 0 °C to 4.4 °C storage temperatures under normal atmosphere package conditions. Salmonella Typhimurium, S. Enteritidis, and a cocktail (strain mixture) were inoculated at 5.0 and 6.0 log CFU mL−1. Articles both with and without the addition of antimicrobial compounds were found. Salmonella concentration decreases were observed in most studies, estimated for all study combinations as −0.8429 ± 0.0931 log CFU g−1 (95% CI; −1.0254, −0.6604) (p < 0.001), varying for each subgroup analysis. According to this survey, Salmonella concentration decreases are frequent during cool storage, although concentration increases and no bacterial inactivation were observed in some studies.

1. Introduction

Salmonella is an important pathogen, responsible for food disease outbreaks and termed salmonellosis. This microorganism can be found in the gastrointestinal tract of farm animals and can contaminate carcasses and meat when slaughter is carried out under inappropriate conditions.
This pathogen was responsible for 21.3% of the 2627 foodborne outbreaks that occurred between 2007 and 2019 in Brazil. It is important to highlight that 8998 outbreaks during this period were related, but the causative agents of only 29% were identified [1].
About 1.35 million illnesses, 26,500 hospitalizations, and 420 deaths occur each year in the United States due to foodborne outbreaks caused by Salmonella [2]. In Europe, a total of 91,662 and 94,425 salmonellosis cases were registered in 2016 and 2017, respectively, with Salmonella Enteritidis being the most common serotype reported [3].
Many food types can be contaminated by Salmonella, such as meat [4], fish and seafood [5,6], and fruit and vegetables [7,8]. Salmonella can also be present in processing environments (water, utensil and equipment surfaces, and handlers) [7]. One study indicated Salmonella contamination frequencies in Brazilian cattle carcasses and on their surfaces as 6.7% (6/90) and 2.6% (7/270), respectively [9].
It is essential to understand microorganism behavior in food to ensure food quality. Mathematical models have been developed in this regard to predict microbial risks in food products, describing microbial inactivation or growth according to intrinsic and extrinsic factors [10,11].
Storage temperature is a critical point of control in the food industry, as pathogens can grow at temperatures higher than 5 °C. One study [12] analyzed S. enterica behavior inoculated in poultry meat stored at 6 °C ± 2 °C for 35 days, reporting a 2.0 log CFU g−1 increase during the first seven days, followed by a 4.0 log CFU g−1 decrease at the end of the experiment. At 2 °C ± 2 °C, the concentration remained constant for two days, decreasing, thereafter, to 1.0 log CFU g−1, until undetectable from 25 to 35 days. Viable Salmonella concentrations have also been observed in frozen ground beef stored under a normal atmosphere for 5 to 75 days, following thawing in a refrigerator at 4 °C for 16 h [13].
Beyond the cold chain, the food industry has used natural compounds in the control of spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms. The addition of 0.5% cinnamon essential oil, for example, caused a 0.62 log CFU g−1 decrease in Salmonella Typhimurium concentrations in ground pork meat stored at 4 °C for 7 days [14], with higher antimicrobial concentrations causing more significant decreases in microorganism loads (p < 0.05). Olive extract also significantly affect S. Typhimurium. In another study, a 5.0 to 4.0 log CFU mL−1 decrease in Salmonella concentrations was observed in Muller Hilton broth containing 0.5% malic and acetic acid addition at 4 °C for 21 days [15]. In another assessment, the addition of 2.5% water–ethanol swamp cranberry and pomace extracts reduced pathogen concentrations in four log cycles in minced pork meat stored at 4 °C for 4 days under a normal atmosphere [16]. A decrease in Salmonella concentrations has also been observed in vacuum-packed ground beef stored at 3 °C for 12 days [17]. Decreases higher than 5 log CFU g−1 were observed for S. Typhimurium in vacuum-packed turkey meat treated with rosemary and oregano essential oils stored at 4 °C for 21 days [18]. Kahraman et al. [19], on the other hand, did not report decreases in S. Typhimurium concentrations in poultry meat containing 0.2% rosemary essential oil stored in modified-atmosphere packaging at 4 °C for 7 days.
These findings demonstrate discrepant results on Salmonella behavior in meat during refrigeration storage. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis of Salmonella behavior in meat and its derivates under cooling storage and several environmental conditions, such as package type and antimicrobial compound addition, was carried out herein.

2. Material and Methods

The systematic review methodology has been registered on OSF (Open Science Framework) platform [20] (https://osf.io/8ayu2, accessed on 29 September 2022) under the doi registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8AYU2.
Initially, three important observations were defined, namely population (sample), intervention or treatment, and measured outcome. Cold storage effects on Salmonella behavior (log CFU reduction or growth) in meat (beef, chicken, pork, poultry, and turkey), fish, shellfish, and in broth media were the specified populations. The measured outcome was derived from pathogen concentrations detected after cool storage.

2.1. Search Strategies

The research was performed in the SciELO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, using the following terms as a string: “(Salmonella) AND (Meat) AND ((growth) OR (survival) OR (Kinetic)) AND ((cold AND storage) OR (chill) OR (shelf AND life) OR (refrigerat*))”. No restriction filters were applied, and the terms were searched in retrieved paper titles, abstracts, and keywords.
The JabRef program (JabRef Team, US) [21] was used to organize the publications and identify duplicate articles. The selected articles included in this review employed storage temperatures between 0 °C and 7.5 °C.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Selected articles should be published in English or Spanish. Reviews, book chapters, and articles that did not use bacterial inoculation were excluded.
A second selection was performed by reading the titles and abstract, followed by full article reading. The third criterion was the use of an approved microbiological method for pathogen enumeration. Salmonella concentrations should be reported as log CFU per g, mL, or cm2. Experiments with results in MPN (most probable number) were excluded. As a fourth inclusion criterion for meta-analysis, the primary study must clearly describe the sample size and the standard deviations or errors for means. Several studies that did not report standard deviations or errors were used only for the systematic review. Experiments using ozone, high pressure, irradiation, and combined antimicrobial agents were excluded from the systematic review and meta-analysis. The selected articles were categorized as (1) no use of antimicrobial compounds and (2) use of antimicrobial compounds.

2.3. Data Extraction

Data of interest described in the articles were organized into spreadsheets by one reviewer. The extracted information included authors, year, sample type (meat or culture medium), package condition (normal atmosphere, vacuum, modified atmosphere), antimicrobial type, antimicrobial concentration, forms of antimicrobial application, Salmonella strain (subspecies or cocktail), inoculum concentration (in CFU g−1, CFU mL−1, CFU cm−2), inoculation type (surface and mixture), time (day) and temperature (°C) of storage, sample size (n), initial concentration (Xi), final concentration (Xf), standard deviation (SD), standard error (SE), and effect (reduction or growth) on microorganism behavior.
Gimp 2.10.8 (GIMP team) [22] and ImageJ (ImageJ team, US) [23] software were used to plot the data.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Effect size was determined by the raw mean difference between the initial and final concentrations, as all the primary studies were reported on a log CFU scale. Each treatment was considered an individual observation.
Considering a primary study j, the effect size θ is the difference (RawDiff) in the sample means log reduction (R) or growth (G). Equation (1) was used for experiments without the addition of antimicrobial compounds, and Equations (2) and (3) were used for experiments with the addition of antimicrobial compounds.
θ = R a w D i f f = X f − X i
θ = R a w D i f f = X c f − X c i
θ = R a w D i f f = X t f − X t i
where Xi, Xci, and Xti are the means of the initial concentration, initial concentration in the control samples, and initial concentration in the treated samples, respectively, while Xf, Xcf, and Xtf are the means of the final concentration, final concentration in the control samples, and final concentration in the treated samples, respectively.
The variance of mean log reduction or growth (VarRawDiff) was estimated as:
V a r R a w D i f f = S D f 2 n f + S D i 2 n
where Sdf and Sdi are the final and initial standard errors, respectively, nf and ni are the numbers of final and initial samples (repetitions), respectively.
When the article only provided the standard error (SE), this was transformed into SD through Equation (5).
S D = S E . n
The systematic review and meta-analyses results were separated into groups from 0 °C to 4.4 °C and 5.0 °C to 7.5 °C, as many scientific reports describe that Salmonella cannot survive at temperatures below 5 °C. The metafor R software package [24] was used to fit meta-analytic random-effects models.

3. Results

3.1. Systematic Review

A total of 654 articles published between 1985 and 2019 were selected following an electronic database search (Table 1).
A total of 155 duplicate articles were found. After initial title, abstract, and full article reading, 83 studies [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97] were selected for the systematic review, and 61 of them were used in the meta-analysis (Figure 1), as the remaining articles did not present concentration means alongside standard errors or deviations. Several experiments employed normal, vacuum, and modified atmosphere package systems, also employing antimicrobial agents such as natural compounds, organic acids, seasoning, marination, and industrial sanitizers.
Data from 363 treatments were extracted from 83 selected articles in the systematic review. Most selected studies stored samples in a normal atmosphere between 0 °C and 4 °C for 11 to 35 days and applied a cocktail strain inoculation (Table 2). Articles with antimicrobial compound additions were also selected, and most cases used inoculum levels from 5.0 to 6.0 log CFU mL−1 of Salmonella.

3.2. Meta-Analyses Results

A total of 61 articles were selected for the meta-analysis, while 22 studies were excluded because they did not present means alongside standard deviations or standard errors.
Salmonella behavior was tested under many environmental conditions, such as different sample types (beef, chicken, pork, fish, and turkey), package conditions (normal, vacuum, and modified atmosphere packaging), inoculum concentrations, and binomial time versus temperature. Concentration decreases were observed in most studies, but a pathogen concentration increase or no changes were also noted.
The first meta-analysis with all the retrieved data (n = 61 articles/292 treatments) indicated high heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 97.52%, p < 0.0001), and the combined effect size was reduced by −0.8429 ± 0.0931 log CFU g−1 (95% CI: −1.0254, −0.6604). The combined meta-analysis result (k = 292 treatments) presented a significant effect (p < 0.001), demonstrating that cool temperatures can control and decrease Salmonella concentrations.
Decreased Salmonella concentrations were observed in most treatments, independent of package condition and antimicrobial compound addition (Table 2). Decreased between 0.1 and 2 log CFU g−1 or mL−1 were more frequently reported, although some increases of less than 1 log CFU g−1 were also observed.
A funnel plot graphic was prepared to verify potential publication bias between the results (Figure 2).
The first subgroup effect analysis was observed as a function of sample, categorized as beef, chicken, pork, turkey, and fish. Beef analyses were performed in 107 treatments reported in 23 studies (Figure 3), while chicken and pork samples were used in 60 (17 articles) and 37 (10 articles) treatments, respectively (Figure 4 and Figure 5). Turkey and fish samples were employed in 25 (2 articles) and 20 (two articles) treatments, respectively.
The package effect was the follow subgroup, and the retrieved studies were categorized as storage under normal atmosphere packages (NA: 211 treatments from 43 articles), vacuum packages (VC: 34 treatments from 16 articles), and modified atmosphere packages (MAP: 27 treatments from 8 articles) (Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively).
Another subgroup consisted of effects analyses as a function of two storage temperature intervals, from 0 °C to 4.4 °C and 5 °C to 7.5 °C. These temperature intervals were selected because temperatures lower than 5 °C are a challenge for microorganisms, and a maximum temperature at 7 °C is recommended for refrigerated storage. Data from 226 treatments extracted from 48 studies were analyzed for the group stored at 0 °C to 4.4 °C, while data from 66 treatments extracted from 17 articles were analyzed for the group stored at 5 °C to 7.5 °C (Figure 8).
Subgroup analyses were also performed on Salmonella concentration results as a function of the already referenced storage temperature intervals (Table 3).

4. Discussion

4.1. Systematic Review

Storage temperatures between 0 °C and 4 °C (77.97%) were more commonly applied compared to temperatures between 5 °C and 7.5 °C (22.03%), probably because the retrieved studies aimed to observe Salmonella behavior at low temperatures.
In general, most treatments comprised beef samples (23.96%), antimicrobial compound addition (38.84%), normal packaging (53.99%), more than 10 storage days (47.10%), 6 log CFU mL−1 inoculum concentration (25.61%), and Salmonella Typhimurium strains (32.23%) (Table 2).
Beef (24.4%), chicken (18.18%), and pork (12.95%) were the major samples used at 0 °C to 4 °C storage temperatures. Under these conditions, studies were performed using antimicrobial compounds (38.84%), normal atmosphere (53.99%), and storage times of less than 10 days (47.10%).
In studies conducted at 0 °C to 4 °C, Salmonella Typhimurium was the most inoculated strain (32.23%), and the most frequent inoculum concentrations were 5, 6, and more than 6 log CFU mL−1.
At 5 °C to 7.5 °C storage temperatures, beef was the most common sample (13.49%), with antimicrobial compound addition (9.36%) and normal atmosphere packing (16.52%), during 11 to 35 storage days using cocktail and S. Typhimurium strains (7.43%) at a 3 log CFU mL−1 inoculum concentration (7.71%).
As a result, decreases lower than 1 log CFU g−1 in the control (18.73%) and treated (11.29%) groups at 0 °C to 4 °C storage were the most frequent. A reduction of more than 2 log CFU g−1 was also observed at both temperatures. However, about 19.28% of the analyzed treatments presented growth rates of 5.23% and 3.58% at 0 °C to 4 °C, respectively.
At temperature intervals from 0 °C to 4 °C, the control group treatments presented 18.73% decreases less than 1 log CFU g−1 and 21.48% decreases between 1 log CFU g-1 to 2 log CFU g−1 in pathogen level. From 5 °C to 7.5 °C, the main results were 5.78% reduction <1 log CFU g−1 and 3.03% reductions both >1 log CFU g−1 and >2 log CFU g−1.
Most articles analyzed bacterial behavior under a normal atmosphere and demonstrated pathogen reduction. Experiments with vacuum packing and MAP also resulted in Salmonella decreases in most cases, although growth-rate values were noted in all conditions.
Although most selected studies reported decreases in Salmonella concentrations, some indicated increased pathogen concentrations even under cool storage. One study, for example, observed a reduction between 1.4 and 1.9 log CFU g−1 in Salmonella concentrations in ground beef packed under a vacuum and in a modified atmosphere at 3 °C for 12 days [17]. In another study, 0.17 and 0.97 log CFU Salmonella -concentration decreases were detected in modified-atmosphere packed (MAP) beef stored at 7.5 °C for 12 days, although a 1.69 log CFU g−1 pathogen reduction was observed in vacuum-packed beef in the same study [42].
A decrease in Salmonella concentrations was observed in chicken samples containing 2% acetic acid at 2 °C, 6 °C, and 8 °C for 9 days, with reduction values of 0.7, 0.9, and 0.9 log CFU/g, respectively [61]. However, in another study, Salmonella Typhimurium growth was observed in vacuum-packed minced chicken treated with olive oil and stored at 2 °C for 60 days [43].
Increasing Salmonella concentrations in vacuum-packed whole shrimp with potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, sodium diacetate addition and control were observed at 4 °C for 7 days, ranging from 0.93 to 1.84 log CFU g−1 [96]. Edwards et al. [40] also reported decreases between 0.01 and 0.23 log CFU g−1 in shrimp inoculated with S. Typhimurium, S. Enteritidis, and S. Infantis stored at 4 °C for 2 days. The authors, however, also observed growth of approximately 0.10 and 0.13 of the same Salmonella strains in the same storage conditions.
Regarding challenge tests with antimicrobial compounds, Salmonella concentration decreases were observed with malic and acetic acid addition in Mueller Hilton broth stored at 4 °C for 21 days [16]. In another study, decreases of 1.6 and 0.37 log CFU g−1 in Salmonella Typhimurium concentrations were detected in BHI broth stored at 4 °C and 7 °C, respectively, for 7 days [69]. Silva et al. [88] reported a pathogen decrease of over 6.0 log CFU g−1 using chitosan coating in inoculated beef stored at 4 °C for 3 days. Salmonella concentrations were also reduced by approximately 1.8 and 1.6 log cycles following the addition of 0.3% carvacrol and thymol essential oils in beef stored at 4 °C for 7 days [68].
A study comprising lactic acid or acidified sodium chlorite addition in minced beef stored at 5 °C for 14 days reported a 0.031 to 0.264 log-cycle reduction in Salmonella cocktail concentrations, although an increase was observed in the control treatment of 0.8 log CFU g−1 bacterium concentrations [50]. A Salmonella Typhimurium concentration reduction higher than 3 log CFU g−1 was reported for minced meat stored at 4 °C for 7 days [67]. Nisiotou et al. [74] also indicated a decrease in Salmonella Typhimurium concentrations in modified-atmosphere-packaged beef, with or without marination, stored at 5 °C for 19 days of 0.6 and 2.90 log CFU g−1 in control and treated samples, respectively.

4.2. Meta-Analysis

The funnel plot graph (Figure 2) presents the dispersion noted for the selected data, with the most observed outcomes varying between approximately −3 and 1 log CFU g−1, demonstrating result variability and the absence of publication bias.
The beef sample effect was −0.9951 ± 0.1524 log CFU g-1 (95% CI: −1.2937, −0.6964), and a reduction of −0.8943 ± 0.1880 log CFU/g (95% CI: −1.2628, −0.5258) was found for the pork samples. However, studies on chickens indicated a reduction of −0.1639 ± 0.1994 log CFU g−1 (95% CI: −0.5548, 0.2270), although the pathogen growth rate was observed within a sample confidence interval (p = 0.4111) according to the combined meta-analysis result.
For turkey and fish samples, reductions of −1.0140 ± 0.1495 log CFU/g (95% CI: −1.3070, −0.7211) and −1.8090 ± 0.1924 log CFU/g (95% CI: −2.1860, −1.4319) were observed, respectively. Significant effects (p < 0.001) in the meta-analyses results were presented in experiments using beef, pork, turkey, and fish.
The second subgroup comprised antimicrobial compound addition, categorized into groups with (152 treatments/37 articles) and without (142 treatments/55 articles) antimicrobial compound addition compounds or controls. Both studies demonstrated a significant effect (p < 0.001), but antimicrobial addition was reduced by −1.2041 ± 0.1559 log CFU g−1 (95% CI: −1.5096, −0.8986), while in the control group or in treatments without antimicrobial compounds, a −0.4526 ± log CFU g−1 (95% CI: −0.6282, −0.2769) was observed. This demonstrated the importance of studying antimicrobial compound effects, mainly those of natural compounds, against Salmonella in meat.
The normal atmosphere and modified atmosphere packaging displayed more significant Salmonella concentration reductions, of −0.8446 ± 0.1056 log CFU g−1 (95% CI: −1.0515, −0.6376) (p < 0.001) and −0.8604 ± 0.3273 log CFU g−1 (95% CI: −1.5018, −0.2190) (p < 0.01). No significant effect was observed for vacuum-packaged samples (p = 0.3934), with a combined value of −0.2506 ± 0.2936 log CFU g−1 (95% CI: −0.8260, 0.3249).
A decrease in Salmonella concentrations was observed in both temperature intervals, albeit with a difference in p values and higher pathogen concentration decreases at lower temperatures.
The general effect at 0 °C to 4.4 °C temperature storage was a −0.9217 ± 0.1063 log CFU g−1 (95% CI of −1.1301, −0.7132) (p value < 0.001) decrease, while Salmonella concentrations at 5 °C to 7.5 °C were reduced by −0.5742 ± 0.1955 log CFU g−1 (95% CI of −0.9574, −0.1910) (p value < 0.01). Temperatures from 0 °C to 4 °C promoted more significant pathogen concentration decreases, with a statistically significant effect.
Concerning all subgroups, a higher Salmonella concentration reduction was observed for fish, under both normal and MAP atmospheres, with antimicrobial compound addition and stored between 0 °C and 4.4 °C.
As expected, decreases were noted in all analyses except for treatments using broth samples and MAP packages at 5 °C to 7.5 °C (interval 2), with treatments analyzed at 0 °C to 4 °C (interval 1) presenting more significant Salmonella concentration decreases. At 0 °C to 4 °C, only vacuum-packaged pork samples with up to 4 log CFU mL−1 pathogen concentration treatments presented no significant statistical effect, and, at 5 °C to 7.5 °C, these effects were observed in less than half of the studies.
The more significant effects in both temperature intervals were observed for studies employing fish samples, with −1.93 and 1.34 log CFU g−1 decreases at intervals 1 and 2, respectively. When considering studies with K > 60, beef samples and antimicrobial compound addition treatments exhibited more significant effects, with −1.24 and −1.25 log CFU g−1 values, respectively.
Thus, differential statistical effects were observed between treatments according to storage temperature intervals. For example, beef samples presented a −1.2 log CFU g−1 (p < 0.001) decrease at interval 1 and a −0.59 log CFU g−1 (p < 0.05) decrease at interval 2. In addition, this same condition was observed in many other results. Only studies on fish presented the same statistical effect at both temperature intervals (p < 0.001). It is important to note that chicken samples did not present significant effects at either temperature interval.
Experiments without antimicrobial compound addition and under vacuum packaging and MAP packaging are less effective in controlling Salmonella growth at interval 2. Decreases in Salmonella concentrations were lower for treatments using the S. Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis mixture inoculation type, up to 4 log CFU g−1 for 10 days, compared to interval 1 treatments.

5. Conclusions

Salmonella concentration decreases were observed in meat under cool storage, which were higher at lower storage temperatures. According to this meta-analysis, other factors also contribute to Salmonella concentration decreases during refrigerated storage time, such as beef and fish samples, normal atmosphere and MAP, antimicrobial compound addition, and storage from 0 °C to 4.4 °C.
Cool storage was effective for Salmonella growth control, where decreases in meat between −0.15 and −1.24 log CFU g−1 were observed at colder temperatures, demonstrating the importance of cold chains for both the industry and customers.
Although most experiments reported Salmonella decreases during cool storage, the pathogen was not eliminated in the samples. Thus, the risk of salmonellosis transmitted by meat remains and should be considered.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.E.d.S.F. and J.L.d.S.; methodology, E.E.d.S.F., B.S.V., and J.L.d.S.; software, E.E.d.S.F. and J.L.d.S.; validation, E.E.d.S.F. and J.L.d.S.; formal analysis, E.E.d.S.F. and J.L.d.S.; investigation, E.E.d.S.F. and J.L.d.S.; resources, E.E.d.S.F. and J.L.d.S.; data curation, E.E.d.S.F. and J.L.d.S.; writing—original draft preparation, E.E.d.S.F. and J.L.d.S.; writing—review and editing, E.E.d.S.F. and J.L.d.S.; visualization, E.E.d.S.F. and J.L.d.S.; supervision, E.E.d.S.F. and R.C.T.C.; project administration, E.E.d.S.F. and J.L.d.S.; funding acquisition, E.E.d.S.F., R.C.T.C., and F.T.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (process 310181/2021-6), the Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Mato Grosso (IFMT), and the Universidade de Cuiabá (UNIC).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to this report be analysis of datasets form electronic database.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Mato Grosso (IFMT).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. BRAZIL. Surtos de Doenças Transmitidas por Alimentos no Brasil: Informe 2018. Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde, Departamento de Vigilância das Doenças Transmissíveis, Coordenação Geral de Doenças Transmissíveis. Maio de 2019. 2019. Available online: https://www.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2019/maio/17/Apresentacao-Surtos-DTA-Maio-2019.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2020).
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases (DFWED). 2019. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/general/index.html (accessed on 10 July 2020).
  3. EFSA—European Food Safety Authority. Zoonotic Diseases: Progress Has Stalled. 2018. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/zoonotic-diseases-progress-has-stalled (accessed on 5 October 2019).
  4. Ferrari, R.G.; Rosario, D.K.A.; Cunha-Neto, A.; Mano, S.B.; Figueiredo, E.E.S.; Conte-Júnior, C.A. Worldwide epidemiology of Salmonella serovars in animal-based foods: A meta-analysis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 84, e00591-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Dib, A.L.; Agabou, A.; Chahed, A.; Kurekci, C.; Moreno, E.; Espigares, M.; Espigares, E. Isolation, molecular characterization and antimicrobial resistance of enterobacteriaceae isolated from fish and seafood. Food Control 2018, 88, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cunha-Neto, A.; Panzenhagen, P.; Carvalho, L.; Rodrigues, D.; Conte-Junior, C.; Figueiredo, E. Occurrence and antimicrobial resistance profile of Salmonella isolated from native fish slaughtered and commercialised in Brazil. J. Food Saf. Food Qual. 2019, 70, 94–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gomba, A.; Chidamba, L.; Korsten, L. Prevalence and serovar diversity of Salmonella spp. In primary horticultural fruit production environments. Food Control 2016, 69, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Yang, X.; Wu, Q.; Huang, J.; Wu, S.; Zhang, J.; Chen, L.; Wei, X.; Ye, Y.; Li, Y.; Wang, J.; et al. Prevalence and characterization of Salmonella isolated from raw vegetables in China. Food Control 2019, 109, 106915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bier, D.; Kich, J.D.; Duarte, S.C.; Silva, M.R.; Valsoni, L.M.; Ramos, C.A.; Rodrigues, D.P.; Araújo, F.R. Survey of Salmonella spp. in beef meat for export at slaughterhouses in Brazil. Braz. J. Vet. Res. 2018, 38, 2037–2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Marks, B.P. Status of microbial modeling in food process models. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2008, 7, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pouillot, R.; Lubran, M.B. Predictive microbiology models vs. Modeling microbial growth within Listeria monocytogenes risk assessment: What parameters matter and why. Food Microbiol 2011, 28, 720–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Akbar, A.; Anal, A.K. Isolation of Salmonella from ready-to-eat poultry meat and evaluation of its survival at low temperature, microwaving and simulated gastric fluids. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 52, 3051–3057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Manios, S.G.; Skandamis, P.N. Effect of frozen storage, different thawing methods and cooking processes on the survival of Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli O:157:H7 in commercially shaped beef patties. Meat Sci. 2015, 101, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, C.H.; Ravishankar, S.; Marchello, J.; Friedman, M. Antimicrobial activity of plant compounds against Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 in ground pork and the influence of heat and storage on the antimicrobial activity. J. Food Prot. 2013, 76, 1264–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Olaimat, A.N.; Al-Holy, M.A.; Ghoush, M.H.A.; Al-Nabulsi, A.A.; Qatatsheh, A.A.; Shahbaz, H.M.; Osaili, T.M.; Holley, R.A. The use of malic and acetic acids in washing solution to control Salmonella spp. on chicken breast. J. Food Sci. 2018, 83, 2197–2203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stobnicka, A.; Gniewosz, M. Antimicrobial protection of minced pork meat with the use of swamp cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos L.) fruit and pomace extracts. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 55, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Djordjević, J.; Bošković, M.; Starčević, M.; Ivanović, J.; Karabasil, N.; Dimitrijević, M.; Lazić, I.B.; Baltić, M.Ž. Survival of Salmonella spp. in minced meat packaged under vacuum and modified atmosphere. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2018, 49, 607–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Morys, M.K.; Khalaf, H.H.; Sharoba, A.M.; El-tanahi, H.H.; Cutter, C.N. Incorporation of essential oils and nanoparticles in pullulan films to control foodborne pathogens on meat and poultry products. J. Food Sci. 2014, 79, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kahraman, T.; Issa, G.; Bingol, E.B.; Kahraman, B.B.; Dumen, E. Effect of rosemary essential oil and modified-atmosphere packaging (MAP) on meat quality and survival of pathogens in poultry fillets. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2015, 46, 591–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. OSF– Open Science Framework Platform. Available online: https://osf.io/8ayu2 (accessed on 29 September 2022). [CrossRef]
  21. JabRef Team. 2020. Available online: https://www.jabref.org (accessed on 11 April 2021).
  22. GIMP. GNU Image Manipulation Program. Available online: https://www.gimp.org (accessed on 20 August 2021).
  23. ImageJ. ImageJ Team. University of Wisconsin-Madison, US. Available online: http://imagej.net (accessed on 20 August 2021).
  24. R Development Core Team. R: A language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2018. Available online: https://www.r-project.org (accessed on 20 August 2021).
  25. Ahn, J.; Grun, I.U.; Mustapha, A. Effects of plant extracts on microbial growth, color change, and lipid oxidation in cooked beef. Food Microbiol. 2007, 24, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ahn, J.; Grun, I.U.; Mustapha, A. Antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of natural extracts in vitro and in ground beef. J. Food Prot. 2004, 67, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Baker, R.C.; Qureshi, R.A.; Hotchkiss, J.H. Effect of an elevated level of carbon dioxide containing atmosphere on the growth of spoilage and pathogenic bacteria at 2, 7, and 13 °C. Poult. Sci. J. 1985, 65, 729–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bolton, D.J.; Meally, A.; McDowell, D.; Blair, I.S. A survey for serotyping, antibiotic resistance profiling and PFGE characterization of and the potential multiplication of restaurant Salmonella isolates. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 103, 1681–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cagri-Mehmetoglu, A. Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella Enteritidis on chicken wings using scallop-shell powder. Poul. Sci. 2011, 90, 2600–2605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chaine, A.; Arnaud, E.; Kondjoyan, A.; Collignan, A.; Sarter, S. Effect of steam and lactic acid treatments on the survival of Salmonella Enteritidis and Campylobacter jejuni inoculated on chicken skin. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 162, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Chang, V.P.; Mills, E.W.; Cutter, C.N. Reduction of bacteria on pork carcasses associated with chilling method. J. Food Prot. 2003, 66, 1019–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Chen, X.; Bauermeister, L.J.; Hill, G.N.; Manpreet, S.; Bilgili, S.F.; Mckee, S.R. Efficacy of various antimicrobials on reduction of Salmonella and Campylobacter and quality attributes of ground chicken obtained from poultry treated in a postchill decontamination tank. J. Food Prot. 2014, 77, 1882–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Cho, T.J.; Kim, N.H.; Kim, S.A.; Song, J.H.; Rhee, M.S. Survival of foodborne pathogens (Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella Typhimurium, Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, and Vibrio parahaemolyticus) in raw ready-to-eat crab marinated in soy sauce. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016, 238, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cosansu, S.; Ayhan, K. Effects of lactic and acetic acid on survival of Salmonella Enteritidis during refrigerated and frozen storage of chicken meats. Food Bioproc. Technol. 2012, 5, 372–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cutter, C.N.; Dorsa, W.J.; Handie, A.; Rodriguez-Morales, S.; Zhou, X.; Breen, P.J.; Compadre, C.M. Antimicrobial activity of cetylpyridinium chloride washes against pathogenic bacteria on beef surfaces. J. Food Prot. 2000, 63, 593–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cutter, C.N.; Riveira-Betancourt, M. Interventions for the reduction of Salmonella Typhimurium DT 104 and non-O157:H7 Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli on beef surfaces. J. Food Prot. 2000, 63, 1326–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. De oliveira, T.L.C.; Soares, R.A.; Piccoli, R.H. A Weibull model to describe antimicrobial kinetics of orégano and lemongrass essential oils against Salmonella Enteritidis in ground beef during refrigerated storage. Meat Sci. 2013, 93, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dorsa, W.J.; Cutter, C.N.; Siragusa, G.R. 1998. Long-term bacterial profile of refrigerated ground beef made from carcass tissue, experimentally contaminated with pathogens and spoilage bacteria after hot water, alkaline, or organic acid washes. J. Food Prot. 1998, 61, 1615–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dow, A.; Alvarado, C.; Brashears, M. Reduction of inoculated Salmonella cocktail in ground turkey and turkey breasts using Lactobacillus-based intervention. Poul. Sci. 2011, 90, 876–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Edwards, G.; Janes, M.; Lampila, L.; Supan, J. Consumer method to control Salmonella and Listeria species in shrimp. J. Food Prot. 2013, 7, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ellis, M.; Cooksey, K.; Dawson, P.; Han, I.; Vergano, P. Quality of fresh chicken breats using a combination of modified atmosphere packaging and chlorine dioxide sachets. J. Food Prot. 2006, 69, 1991–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Erkmen, O.; Barazi, A. Modeling the effects of modified atmosphere on Salmonella Typhimurium in packaged meat during storage in the refrigerator and at 12 °C. Ann. Microbiol. 2008, 58, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Escriu, R.; Mor-Mur, M. Role of quantity and quality of fat in meat models inoculated with Listeria innocua or Salmonella Typhimurium treated by high pressure and refrigerated stored. Food Microbiol. 2009, 26, 834–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fratianni, F.; Martino, L.; Melone, A.; Feo, V.; Coppola, R.; Nazzaro, F. Preservation of chicken breasts meat treated with thyme and balm Essentials oils. J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Grisi, T.C.S.L.; Gorlach-Lira, K. Action of nisin and high pH on growth of Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella sp. In pure culture and in the meat of land crab (Ucides Cordatus). Braz. J. Microbiol. 2005, 36, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Gunes, G.; Ozturk, A.; Yilmaz, N.; Ozcelik, B. Maintenance of safety and quality of refrigerated ready-to-cook seasoned ground beef product (meatball) by combining gamma irradiation with modified atmosphere packaging. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hajmeer, M.; Basheer, I.; Hew, C.; Cliver, D.O. Modeling the survival of Salmonella spp. in chorizos. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 107, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Harris, K.; Miller, M.F.; Loneragan, G.H.; Brashears, M.M. Validation of the use of organic acids and acidified sodium chlorite to reduce Escherichia coli O157 and Salmonella Typhimurium in beef trim and ground beef in a simulated processing environment. J. Food Prot. 2006, 69, 1802–1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hayouni, E.A.; Chraief, I.; Abedrabba, M.; Bouix, M.; Leveau, J.V.; Mohammed, H.; Hamdi, M. Tunisian Salvia officinalis L. and Schinus molle L. essential oils: Their chemical compoitions and their preservative effects against Salmonella inoculated in minced beef meat. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 125, 242–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Hughes, M.K.; Yanamala, S.; Francisco, M.S.; Loneragan, H.; Miller, M.F.; Brashears, M.M. Reduction of multidrug-resistant and drug-susceptibles Salmonella in ground beef and freshly harvested beef briskets after exposure to commonly used industry antimicrobial interventions. J. Food Prot. 2010, 73, 1231–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Hwang, C.; Beuchat, L.R. Efficacy of a lactic acid/sodium benzoate wash solution in reducing bacterial contamination of raw chicken. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1995, 27, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ingham, S.C.; Losinski, J.A.; Becker, K.L. Growth of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella serovars on raw beef, pork, chicken, bratwurst and cured corned beef: Implications for HACCP plan critical limits. J. Food Saf. 2004, 24, 246–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ingham, S.C.; Tautorus, C.L. Survival of Salmonella Typhimurium, Listeria monocytogenes, and indicator bacteria on cooked uncured turkey loaf store under vacuum at 3 °C. J. Food Saf. 1991, 11, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. King, A.M.; Miller, R.K.; Castilho, A.; Griffin, D.B.; Hardin, M.D. Effects of lactic acid and commercial chilling processes on survival of Salmonella, Yersinia enterocolitica, and Campylobacter coli in pork variety meats. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 1589–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Kinsella, K.J.; Prendergast, D.M.; McCann, M.S.; Blair, I.S.; McDowell, D.A.; Sheridan, J.J. The survival of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium DT104 and total viable counts on beef surfaces at different relative humidities and temperatures. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 106, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kinsella, K.J.; Rowe, T.A.; Blair, I.S.; McDowell, D.A.; Sheridan, J.J. The influence of attachment to beef surfaces on the survival of cells of Salmonella enterica Typhimurium DT104, at different aw values and at low storage temperatures. Food Microbiol. 2007, 24, 786–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Knudsen, G.M.; Sommer, H.M.; SØrensen, N.D.; Olsen, J.E.; Aabo, S. Survival of Salmonella on cuts of beef carcasses subjected ti dry aging. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2011, 111, 848–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kudra, L.L.; Sebranek, J.G.; Dickson, J.S.; Mendonca, A.J.; Zhang, Q.; Jackson-davis, A.; Prusa, K.J. Control of Salmonella enterica Typhimurim in chicken breats meat by irradiation combined with modified atmosphere packaging. J. Food Prot. 2011, 74, 1833–1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kuleansan, H.; Çakmakçi, M.L. Effect of reuterin produced by Lactobacillus reuteri on the surface of sausages to inhibit the growth of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella spp. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2002, 46, 408–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jacob, R.; Porto-Fett, A.C.S.; Call, J.E.; Luchansky, J.B. Fate of surface-inoculated Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella Typhimurium on kippered beef during extended storage at refrigeration and abusive temperatures. J. Food Prot. 2009, 72, 403–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jiménez, S.M.; Tiburzi, M.C.; Salsi, M.S.; Moguilevsky, M.A.; Pirovani, M.E. Survival of Salmonella on refrigerated chicken carcasses and subsequent transfer to cutting board. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 48, 687–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jofré, A.; Garriga, M.; Aymerich, T. Inhibition of Salmonella sp. Listeria monocyotgenes and Staphylococcus aureus in cooked ham by combining antimicrobials, high hydrostatic pressure and refrigeration. Meat Sci. 2008, 78, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, C.; Mou, J.; Su, Y.C. Behavior of Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes in raw yellowfin tuna during cold storage. Foods 2016, 5, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mann, J.E.; Smith, L.; Brashears, M.M. Validation of time and temperature values as critical limits for Salmonella and background flora growth during the production of fresh ground and boneless pork products. J. Food Prot. 2004, 67, 1389–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mbandi, E.; Shelef, L.A. Enhanced antimicrobial effects of combination of lactate and diacetate on Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella spp. in beef bologna. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002, 76, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Melo, G.F.A.; Costa, A.C.V.; Garino-Junior, F.; Medeiros, R.S.; Madruga, M.S.; Neto, V.Q. The sensitivity of bacterial foodborne pathogens to Croon blanchetians bail essential oil. Braz. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 44, 1189–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Mohan, A.; Pohlman, F.W.; McDaniel, J.A.; Hunt, M.C. Role of peroxyacetic acid, octanoic acid, malic acid and potassium lactate on the microbiological and instrumental color characteristics of ground beef. J. Food Sci. 2012, 77, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Moon, H.; Kim, N.H.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, Y.; Ryu, J.H.; Rhee, M.S. Teriyaki sauce with carvacrol or thymol effectively controls Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella Typhimurium, and indigenous flora in marinated beef and marinade. Meat Sci. 2017, 129, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Morey, A.; Singh, M. Low-temperature survival of Salmonella spp. in a model food system with natural microflora. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2012, 9, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Muras, T.M.; Harris, K.B.; Lucia, L.M.; Hardin, M.D.; Savell, J.W. Dispersion and survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium during production of marinated beef inside skirt steaks and tri-tip roasts. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Nam, K.C.; Ko, K.Y.; Min, B.R.; Ismail, H.; Lee, E.J.; Cordray, J.; Ahn, D.U. Influence of rosemary-tocopherol/packaging combination on meat quality and the survival of pathogens in restructured irradiated pork loins. Meat Sci. 2006, 74, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Nair, D.V.T.; Nannapaneni, R.; Kiess, A.; Schilling, W.; Sharma, C.S. Reduction of Salmonella on Turkey Breast Cutlets by Plant-Derived Compounds. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2014, 11, 981–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Niebuhr, S.E.; Laury, A.; Acuff, G.R.; Dickson, J.S. Evaluation of nonpathogenic surrogate bacteria as process validation indicators for Salmonella enterica for selected antimicrobial treatments, cold storage, and fermentation in meat. J. Food Prot. 2008, 71, 714–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Nisiotou, A.; Chorianopoulos, N.G.; Gounadaki, A.; Panagou, E.Z.; Nychas, G.J.E. Effect of wine-based marinedes on the behavior of Salmonella Typhimurium and background flora in beef fillets. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 164, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Park, N.Y.; Hong, S.H.; Yoon, K.S. Effects of commercial marinade seasoning and a natural blend of cultured sugar and vinegar on Campylobacter jejuni and Salmonella Typhimurium and the texture of chicken breats. Poul. Sci. 2014, 93, 719–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Park, S.; Marsh, K.S.; Dawson, P. Application of chitosan-incorporated LDPE film to sliced fresh red meats for shelf life extension. Meat Sci. 2010, 85, 493–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pradhan, A.K.; Li, M.; Li, Y.; Kelso, L.C.; Costello, T.A.; Johnson, M.G. A modified Weibull model for growth and survival of Listeria innocua and Salmonella Typhimurium in chicken breats during refrigerated and frozen storage. Poul. Sci. 2012, 91, 1482–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Prandl, O.; Kniewallner, K.; Jochle, W. Storage of vacuum ground meat pretreated with acetylated monoglycerides: Effects of temperature on natural occurring or artificial microbial contamination and on shelf life. J. Vet. Med. 1988, 35, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Provincial, L.; Guillén, E.; Gil, M.; Alonso, V.; Roncalés, P.; Beltrán, J.A. Survival of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella Enteritidis in sea bream (Sparus aurata) fillets packaged under enriched CO2 modified atmospheres. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 162, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pathania, A.; Mckee, S.R.; Bilgili, S.F.; Singh, M. Antimicrobial activity of commercial marinades against multiple strains of Salmonella spp. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 139, 214–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sakaridis, I.; Soultos, N.; Batzios, C.; Ambrosiadis, I.; Koidis, P. Lactic acid bactéria isolated from chicken carcasses with inhibitory activity against Salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes. Czech J. Food Sci. 2014, 32, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Widdowson, M.-A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M. Emerging Infectious Diseases. Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011, 17, 16–22. Available online: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/1/pdfs/p1-1101.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2022). [CrossRef]
  83. Scannell, A.G.M.; Ross, R.P.; Hill, C.; Arendt, E.K. An effective lacticin biopreservative in fresh pork sausage. J. Food Prot. 2000, 63, 370–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Scannell, A.G.M.; Hill, C.; Buckley, D.J.; Arendt, E.K. Determination of the influence of organic acids and nisin on shelf-life and microbiological safety aspects of fresh pork sausage. J. Appl. Microbiol. 1997, 83, 407–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Senne, M.M.; Gilliland, S.E. Antagonistic action of cells of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subs. lactis against pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms in fresh meat systems. J. Food Prot. 2003, 66, 418–425. [Google Scholar]
  86. Sharma, C.S.; Ates, A.; Joseph, P.; Nannapaneni, R.; Kiess, A. Reduction of Salmonella in skinless chicken breats fillets by lauric arginate surface application. Poul. Sci. 2013, 92, 1419–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Shin, J.; Harte, B.; Ryser, E.; Selke, S. Active packaging of fresh chicken breats, with allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) in combination with modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) to control the growth of pathogens. J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Silva, A.S.; Sampaio, A.P.; Santos, M.S.; de Souza, B.W.S.; Evangelista-Barreto, N.S. Effect of chitosan coating on contamination of fresh bovine meat sold in the open market. Rev. Cienc. Agron. 2019, 50, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Skandamis, P.; Tsigarida, E.; Nychas, G.-J.E. The effect of orégano essential oil on survival/death of Salmonella Typhimurium in meat stored at 5 °C under aerobic, VP/MAP conditions. Food Microbiol. 2002, 19, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Smith, L.; Mann, J.E.; Harris, K.; Miller, M.F.; Brashears, M.M. Reduction of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella in ground beef using lactic acid bacteria and the impact on sensory properties. J. Food Prot. 2005, 68, 1587–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Stelzleni, A.M.; Ponrajan, A.; Harrison, M.A. Effects of buffered vinegar and sodium dodecyl sulfate plus levulinic acid on Salmonella Typhimurium survival, shelf-life, and sensory characteristics of ground beef patties. Meat Sci. 2013, 95, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Stollewerk, K.; Jofré, A.; Comaposada, J.; Arnau, J.; Garriga, M. 2014. NaCl-free processing, acidification, smoking and high pressure: Effects on growth of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella enterica in QDS processed dry-cured ham. Food Control 2014, 35, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Stollewerk, K.; Jofré, A.; Comaposada, J.; Arnau, J.; Garriga, M. The effect of NaCl-free processing and high pressure on the fate of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella on sliced smoked dry-cured ham. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 472–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Van Netten, P.; Valentijin, A.; Mossel, D.A.A.; Veld, H.I. The survival and growth of acid-adaptaded mesophilic pathogens that contaminate meat after lactic acid decontamination. J. Appl. Microbiol. 1998, 84, 559–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wan Norhana, M.N.; Poole, S.E.; Deeth, H.C.; Dykes, G.A. Effects of nisin, EDTA and salts of organic acids on Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella and native microflora on fresh vacuum packaged shrimps stored at 4 °C. Food Microbiol. 2013, 31, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wan Norhana, M.N.; Poole, S.E.; Deeth, H.C.; Dykes, G.A. The effects of temperature, chlorine and acids on the survival of Listeria and Salmonella strains associated with uncooked shrimp carapace and cooked shrimp flesh. Food Microbiol. 2010, 27, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wen, X.; Dickson, J. Survival of Campylobacter jejuni and Salmonella enterica Typhimurium in vacuum-packed, moisture-enhanced pork. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 576–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 12 02902 g001 550
Figure 1. Search diagram and article selection criteria for the systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA [98].
Figure 1. Search diagram and article selection criteria for the systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA [98].
Animals 12 02902 g001
Animals 12 02902 g002 550
Figure 2. Funnel plot graphic concerning Salmonella behavior data in meat and media under cool storage.
Figure 2. Funnel plot graphic concerning Salmonella behavior data in meat and media under cool storage.
Animals 12 02902 g002
Animals 12 02902 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot of data on Salmonella concentration effects in beef stored at 0 °C to 7.5 °C (n = 23 articles/107 treatments) (I2 = 98.48%, p < 0.0001).
Figure 3. Forest plot of data on Salmonella concentration effects in beef stored at 0 °C to 7.5 °C (n = 23 articles/107 treatments) (I2 = 98.48%, p < 0.0001).
Animals 12 02902 g003
Animals 12 02902 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot concerning Salmonella concentration effects in chicken stored at 0 °C to 7.5 °C (n = 17 articles/60 treatments) (I2 = 96.60%, p = 0.4111).
Figure 4. Forest plot concerning Salmonella concentration effects in chicken stored at 0 °C to 7.5 °C (n = 17 articles/60 treatments) (I2 = 96.60%, p = 0.4111).
Animals 12 02902 g004
Animals 12 02902 g005 550
Figure 5. Forest plot concerning Salmonella concentration effects in pork stored at 0 °C to 7.5 °C (n = 10 articles/37 treatments) (I2 = 91.70%, p < 0.0001).
Figure 5. Forest plot concerning Salmonella concentration effects in pork stored at 0 °C to 7.5 °C (n = 10 articles/37 treatments) (I2 = 91.70%, p < 0.0001).
Animals 12 02902 g005
Animals 12 02902 g006 550
Figure 6. Forest concerning Salmonella concentration effects in meat stored at 0 °C to 7.5 °C in vacuum packages (n = 16 articles/34 treatments) (I2 = 96.45%, p = 0.3934).
Figure 6. Forest concerning Salmonella concentration effects in meat stored at 0 °C to 7.5 °C in vacuum packages (n = 16 articles/34 treatments) (I2 = 96.45%, p = 0.3934).
Animals 12 02902 g006
Animals 12 02902 g007 550
Figure 7. Forest plot concerning Salmonella concentration effects in meat stored at 0 °C to 7.5 °C in modified atmosphere packages (n = 8 articles/27 treatments) (I2 = 97.38%, p < 0.01).
Figure 7. Forest plot concerning Salmonella concentration effects in meat stored at 0 °C to 7.5 °C in modified atmosphere packages (n = 8 articles/27 treatments) (I2 = 97.38%, p < 0.01).
Animals 12 02902 g007
Animals 12 02902 g008 550
Figure 8. Forest plot concerning Salmonella concentration effects in meat under cool storage at 5 °C to 7.5 °C (n = 17 articles/226 treatments) (I2 = 97.59%, p < 0.001).
Figure 8. Forest plot concerning Salmonella concentration effects in meat under cool storage at 5 °C to 7.5 °C (n = 17 articles/226 treatments) (I2 = 97.59%, p < 0.001).
Animals 12 02902 g008
Table
Table 1. Number of articles retrieved through the database search.
Table 1. Number of articles retrieved through the database search.
DatabaseNumber of Articles
SciELO117
PubMed184
Web of Science139
Scopus214
Total654
Table
Table 2. Data on Salmonella behavior during cool storage were extracted from selected articles for the systematic review.
Table 2. Data on Salmonella behavior during cool storage were extracted from selected articles for the systematic review.
Extracted Data (n = 83 Studies)TemperaturesTotal Treatments
0 °C to 4.4 °C
(k = 283 Treatments)		5 °C to 7.5 °C
(k = 80 Treatments)
SampleBeef87 (23.96%)50 (13.77%)363
Chicken66 (18.18%)6 (1.65%)
Pork47 (12.94%)6 (1.65%)
Turkey24 (6.61%)5 (1.37%)
Fish16 (4.40%)4 (1.10%)
Seafood19 (5.23%)1 (0.27%)
Broth9 (2.47%)6 (1.65%)
Other15 (4.13%)2 (0.55%)
TreatmentsTreatments *95 (26.17%)30 (8.26%)363
Control **47 (12.94%)16 (4.40%)
Antimicrobial **141 (38.84%)
(72 S)		34 (9.36%)
(21 S)
PackingNormal196 (53.99%)60 (16.52%)363
Vacuum51 (14.04%)8 (2.20%)
MAP22 (6.06%)7 (1.93%)
Media (broth)14 (3.85%)5 (1.37%)
Storage time (days)≤10 d171 (47.10%)27 (7.43%)363
11 ≤ d ≥ 35 d94 (25.89%)48 (13.22%)
>35 d18 (4.95%)5 (1.37%)
SerovarCocktail65 (17.90%)27 (7.43%)363
Enteritidis52 (14.32%)13 (3.58%)
Typhimurium117 (32.23%)27 (7.43%)
Others49 (13.49%)13 (3.58%)
Inoculation level (log CFU mL−1)1.0 and 2.02 (0.55%)7 (1.92%)363
3.015 (4.13%)28 (7.71%)
4.044 (12.12%)13 (3.58%)
5.066 (18.18%)15 (4.13%)
6.093 (25.61%)14 (3.85%)
>6.063 (17.35%)3 (0.82%)
Storage effect on control treatmentGrowth (>2 log)3 (0.82%)4 (1.10%)363
Growth (>1 log)3 (0.82%)2 (0.55%)
Growth (<1 log)19 (5.23%)8 (2.20%)
Reduction (<1 log)68 (18.73%)21 (5.78%)
Reduction (>1 log)25 (6.88%)6 (1.65%)
Reduction (>2 log)22 (6.06%)3 (0.82%)
Not changed2 (0.55%)2 (0.55%)
Storage effect on antimicrobial treatmentGrowth (>2 log)7 (1.92%)0 (0.00%)
Growth (>1 log)6 (1.65%)0 (0.00%)
Growth (<1 log)13 (3.58%)5 (1.37%)
Reduction (<1 log)41 (11.29%)5 (1.37%)
Reduction (>1 log)32 (8.81%)11 (3.03%)
Reduction (>2 log)37 (10.19%)11 (3.03%)
Not changed5 (1.37%)2 (0.55%)
* experiments without antimicrobial compound addition; ** experiments with antimicrobial compound addition: control and antimicrobial treatments (N = natural antimicrobial, S = synthetic antimicrobial).
Table
Table 3. Subgroup analyses concerning Salmonella concentration data as a function of temperature intervals (0 °C to 4.4 °C/5 °C to 7.5 °C).
Table 3. Subgroup analyses concerning Salmonella concentration data as a function of temperature intervals (0 °C to 4.4 °C/5 °C to 7.5 °C).
SubgroupStorage Temperatures
0 °C to 4.4 °C5 °C to 7.5 °C
Effects (log CFU/g ± Se) (95% CI)I2 (%)p-ValueEffects (log CFU/g ± Se) (95% CI)I2 (%)p-Value
SampleBeef
(K = 66 and 41)		−1.2423 ± 0.1908
[−1.6163, −0.8684]		98.56***−0.5966 ± 0.2600
[−1.1063, −0.0869]		98.39*
Chicken
(K = 55 and 5)		−0.1567 ± 0.2108
[−0.5700, 0.2565]		96.870.4572−0.3200 ± 0.4213
[−1.1458, 0.5059]		73.040.4476
Pork
(K = 31 and 6)		−0.9883 ± 0.2140
[−1.4077, −0.5690]		92.74***−0.3873 ± 0.2565
[−0.8900, 0.1154]		54.040.1310
Fish
(K= 16 and 4)		−1.9339 ± 0.2286
[−2.3818, −1.4859]		83.62***−1.3413 ± 0.3165
[−1.9615, −0.7211]		80.07***
Turkey
(K= 20 and 5)		−1.0523 ± 0.1536
[−1.3534, −0.7512]		80.23***−0.7743 ± 0.6247
[−1.9988, 0.4501]		75.720.2152
Broth
(K = 3 and 4)		−3.5328 ± 1.7255
[−6.9146, −0.1509]		97.93*0.5373 ± 0.5992
[−0.6371, 1.7116]		93.100.3699
PackageNormal
(K =161 and 50)		−0.8666 ± 0.1196
[−1.1010, −0.6322]		97.62***−0.7720 ± 0.2280
[−1.2188, −0.3252]		97.74***
Vacuum
(K = 29 and 5)		−0.2512 ± 0.3315
[−0.9009, 0.3985]		96.560.4485−0.2741 ± 0.6339
[−1.5165, 0.9683]		95.350.6654
MAP
(K = 22 and 5)		−1.1129 ± 0.3519
[−1.8025, −0.4232]		97.00**0.2235 ± 0.7322
[−1.2116, 1.6585]		97.790.7602
AntimicrobialWith
(k = 122 and 30)		−1.1911 ± 0.1912
[−1.5658, −0.8164]		97.96***−1.2572 ± 0.2807
[−1.8076, −0.7074]		98.20***
Without
(K = 71 and 24)		−0.7376 ± 0.1199
[−0.9726, −0.5026]		96.07***−0.1628 ± 0.3071
[−0.7647, 0.4390]		96.320.5959
SerovarCocktail
(K = 58 and 19)		−1.0364 ± 0.1385
[−1.3079, −0.7649]		92.62***−0.4163 ± 0.1982
[−0.8046, −0.0279]		83.14*
Typhim.
(K = 91 and 24)		−0.7557 ± 0.1637
[−1.0766, −0.4348]		96.46***−0.4878 ± 0.3458
[−1.1654, 0.1899]		97.340.1584
Enteriti.
(K = 48 and 10)		−1.1029 ± 0.1923
[−1.4798, −0.7260]		95.38***−0.5041 ± 0.5966
[−1.6733, 0.6652]		99.100.3981
Inoculation typeMixture
(K = 69 and 27)		−1.2321 ± 0.1569
[−1.5396, −0.9247]		95.34***−0.4277 ± 0.3105
[−1.0363, 0.1809]		98.550.1684
Surfa.
(K = 157 and 39)		−0.7828 ± 0.1344
[−1.0462, −0.5195]		97.91***−0.6779 ± 0.2394
[−1.1471, −0.2087]		95.39**
LevelUp 4 log
(K = 51 and 33)		−0.2101 ± 0.1335
[−0.4717, 0.0515]		96.550.1154−0.4656 ± 0.3017
[−1.0570, 0.1257]		98.650.1227
> 4 log
(K = 175 and 33)		−1.1305 ± 0.1446
[−1.4140, −0.8470]		97.42***−0.680 ± 0.1874
[−1.0494, −0.3147]		89.58***
Storage timeUp 10 d
(K = 150 and 22)		−0.9794 ± 0.1612
[−1.2953, −0.6636]		97.51***−0.2729 ± 0.1907
[−0.6466, 0.1008]		81.220.1523
>10 d
(K = 76 and 44)		−0.8010 ± 0.1350
[−1.0657, −0.5364]		97.21***−0.7017 ± 0.2504
[−1.1924, −0.2110]		98.30**
*** p < 0.001,** p < 0.01,* p < 0.05, Se = standard error.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Silva, J.L.d.; Vieira, B.S.; Carvalho, F.T.; Carvalho, R.C.T.; Figueiredo, E.E.d.S. Salmonella Behavior in Meat during Cool Storage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Animals 2022, 12, 2902. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212902

AMA Style

Silva JLd, Vieira BS, Carvalho FT, Carvalho RCT, Figueiredo EEdS. Salmonella Behavior in Meat during Cool Storage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Animals. 2022; 12(21):2902. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212902

Chicago/Turabian Style

Silva, Jorge Luiz da, Bruno Serpa Vieira, Fernanda Tavares Carvalho, Ricardo César Tavares Carvalho, and Eduardo Eustáquio de Souza Figueiredo. 2022. "Salmonella Behavior in Meat during Cool Storage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Animals 12, no. 21: 2902. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212902

APA Style

Silva, J. L. d., Vieira, B. S., Carvalho, F. T., Carvalho, R. C. T., & Figueiredo, E. E. d. S. (2022). Salmonella Behavior in Meat during Cool Storage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Animals, 12(21), 2902. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212902

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop