<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN" annotation-version="1.0"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">mmb</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">mmb</journal-id><journal-title>Meat and Muscle Biology</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="full">MMB</abbrev-journal-title><issn pub-type="epub">2575-985X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>American Meat Science Association</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">rmc2018.112</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.221751/rmc2018.112</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>2018 Reciprocal Meat Conference – Meat and Poultry Safety</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Assesment Of 1,3-Dibromo-5,5-Dimethylhydantoin as a Final Wash for Reducing Microbial Contamination on Beef Carcasses</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" contact-id="0" contact-type="auto"><name><surname>Reyes</surname><given-names>A. A.</given-names></name><aff>Center for Meat Safety &amp; Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" contact-id="0" contact-type="auto"><name><surname>Bullard</surname><given-names>B. R.</given-names></name><aff>Center for Meat Safety &amp; Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" contact-id="0" contact-type="auto"><name><surname>Geornaras</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name><aff>Center for Meat Safety &amp; Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" contact-id="0" contact-type="auto"><name><surname>Delmore</surname><given-names>R. J.</given-names></name><aff>Center for Meat Safety &amp; Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" contact-id="0" contact-type="auto"><name><surname>Woerner</surname><given-names>D. R.</given-names></name><aff>Center for Meat Safety &amp; Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" contact-id="0" contact-type="auto"><name><surname>Martin</surname><given-names>J. N.</given-names></name><aff>Center for Meat Safety &amp; Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" contact-id="0" contact-type="auto"><name><surname>Belk</surname><given-names>K. E.</given-names></name><aff>Center for Meat Safety &amp; Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA</aff></contrib></contrib-group><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">*Corresponding author. Email: <email>areyes23@colostate.edu</email> (A. A. Reyes)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>04</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><volume>2</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>125</fpage><lpage>126</lpage><permissions><copyright-year>2019</copyright-year><copyright-holder>American Meat Science Association</copyright-holder><license license-type="open-access"><p>This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND license (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</ext-link>)</p></license></permissions><abstract><sec><title>Objectives</title><p>The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a bromine-based antimicrobial (1,3-dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin; DBDMH) in a food safety control system to eliminate hot water wash, against inoculated populations of <italic>E. coli</italic> biotype I surrogates on beef carcasses.</p></sec><sec><title>Materials and Methods</title><p>The surrogates consisted of a 5-strain mixture of non-pathogenic<italic>E. coli</italic> biotype I. The external surfaces of the carcasses were inoculated within 4 10 × 10cm areas. The inoculation level was approximately 6 log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>. Inoculated carcasses were allowed a 10 min attachment period. Three food safety systems were evaluated. On each sampling day, 3 inoculated carcasses (6 sides) received a hot water (HW; 204.8°F) wash and were sampled immediately. Carcasses then received a lactic acid spray treatment (3.8%), were sampled again, and chilled for 36h with a 10h DBDMH spray chill treatment (106.4 ppm) before the final samples were collected (A). A second set of 6 sides received a DBDMH (467 ppm) treatment in a final wash cabinet and were sampled immediately. Those carcasses received the same remaining interventions (lactic acid spray; DBDMH spray chill; B). The third set, another 6 sides received all interventions: DBDMH final wash, HW, lactic acid spray, and DBDMH spray chill (C). All 3 systems were repeated on a second production day. Inoculated samples were analyzed for <italic>Enterobacteriaceae</italic>(EB)populations. Appropriate dilutions were plated in duplicate to enumerate EB (3M Petrifilm Enterobacteriaceae) populations for all sponge samples. Colonies on EB Petrifilm plates were enumerated following 24-h incubation at 37°C. This study was designed as a randomized complete block, with production day serving as the block. Bacterial populations recovered were analyzed using the Mixed Procedure of SAS version 9.4 and data expressed as least squares means.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>The results for this study are found in <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">Table 1</xref>. For system A, the HW reduced (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.05) inoculated surrogate populations from 6.6 log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup> to 3.2 log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>. Additionally, following a lactic acid spray, the combined effect of the HW and lactic acid spray reduced (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.05) the microbial populations to 3.0 log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup> and after DBDMH spray chill, the remaining populations were &lt; 1.2 log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>. The initial inoculated surrogate populations were 6.6 log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>prior to application of system B (DBDMH final wash, lactic acid spray, DBDMH spray chill). Following DBDMH application in a final wash, surrogate populations were reduced (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.05) to 4.9 log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>. The combined effect of the DBDMH final wash and the lactic acid spray treatment reduced (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.05) the initial surrogate populations by 1.8 log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>and ultimately, after the DBDMH spray chill, the remaining surrogate populations were 3.8 log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>. Lastly, system C interventions (DBDMH final wash, HW, lactic acid, and a DBDMH spray chill) decreased (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.05) initial populations from 6.6 log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup> to &lt; 0.5 log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>. Overall, all systems were effective (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.05) against the inoculated <italic>E. coli</italic> biotype I, surrogates for pathogenic <italic>E. coli</italic> and <italic>Salmonella</italic>, on beef carcasses.</p><table-wrap id="T1" position="float"><graphic xlink:href="125tbl1" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"/></table-wrap></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>In conclusion system C with all the intervention, provided the greatest potential for control against the inoculated <italic>E. coli</italic> biotype I surrogates when compared to the other 2 systems evaluated in this study.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><title>Keywords: </title><kwd>antimicrobial intervention</kwd><kwd>bromine</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta><meta-name>author</meta-name><meta-value>Reyes A. A.</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>author</meta-name><meta-value>Bullard B. R.</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>author</meta-name><meta-value>Geornaras I.</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>author</meta-name><meta-value>Delmore R. J.</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>author</meta-name><meta-value>Woerner D. R.</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>author</meta-name><meta-value>Martin J. N.</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>author</meta-name><meta-value>Belk K. E.</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap><ar:concepts xmlns:ar="http://appliedrelevance.com"><ar:concept><ar:id>a06e2d2a6164447fcb3aca27b61afd34</ar:id><ar:name>ppm</ar:name><ar:path a="a">Soils|Miscellaneous|ppm</ar:path><ar:taxonomy>Soils</ar:taxonomy></ar:concept></ar:concepts></front><custom-meta-container><journal-date-data><jdate>2019-04-25</jdate></journal-date-data><journal-year>2019</journal-year><journal-month>04</journal-month><journal-title>Meat and Muscle Biology</journal-title><journal-issue>2</journal-issue><journal-fpage>125</journal-fpage><journal-volume>2</journal-volume><journal-lpage>126</journal-lpage><insert-date>April 25, 2019</insert-date></custom-meta-container></article>
