Next Article in Journal
Oviduct Transcriptomic Reveals the Regulation of mRNAs and lncRNAs Related to Goat Prolificacy in the Luteal Phase
Next Article in Special Issue
Optimization of Capture ELISAs for Chicken Cytokines Using Commercially Available Antibodies
Previous Article in Journal
Supplementation of Paraformic Acid as a Substitute for Antibiotics in the Diet Improves Growth Performance and Liver Health in Broiler Chickens
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rapid Oxford Nanopore Technologies MinION Sequencing Workflow for Campylobacter jejuni Identification in Broilers on Site—A Proof-of-Concept Study
 
 
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 20
10.3390/ani12202826
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:
Review

Effects of Sanitizers on Microbiological Control of Hatching Eggshells and Poultry Health during Embryogenesis and Early Stages after Hatching in the Last Decade

by
Gabriel da Silva Oliveira
1,
Concepta McManus
1,
Cristiane Batista Salgado
2 and
Vinícius Machado dos Santos
3,*
1
Faculty of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, University of Brasília, Brasília 70910-900, Brazil
2
Laboratory of Geosciences and Human Sciences, Federal Institute of Brasília—Campus Brasília, Brasília 70830-450, Brazil
3
Laboratory of Poultry Science, Federal Institute of Brasília—Campus Planaltina, Brasília 73380-900, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(20), 2826; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202826
Submission received: 4 September 2022 / Revised: 24 September 2022 / Accepted: 28 September 2022 / Published: 18 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Current Advances in Poultry Research)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Poultry systems, especially conventional comprehensive production systems to meet the global demand for eggs and meat, are constantly challenged by pathogens, requiring intense sanitary practices. Operations, including the sanitization of hatching eggs, can employ synthetic chemical sanitizers as well as natural plant extracts to minimize the microbial challenge. As the application of formaldehyde sanitizer in hatching eggs cannot be justified in terms of safety for embryonic and human health, studies are underway to assist the industry in adopting new alternative sanitizers. This review aims to evaluate the effects of different sanitizers on the microbiological quality of hatching eggshells and poultry health during embryogenesis and early stages after hatching.

Abstract

The sanitization of hatching eggs is the backbone of the hygienic–sanitary management of eggs on farms and extends to the hatchery. Poultry production gains depend on the benefits of sanitizers. Obtaining the maximum yield from incubation free of toxic sanitizers is a trend in poultry farming, closely following the concerns imposed through scientific research. The toxic characteristics of formaldehyde, the primary sanitizer for hatching eggs, are disappointing, but it is a cheap, practical and widely used antimicrobial. To overcome this shortcoming, multiple synthetic and natural chemical sanitizers have been, and continue to be, tested on hatching eggs. This review aims to evaluate the effects of different sanitizers on the microbiological quality of hatching eggshells and poultry health during embryogenesis and early stages after hatching.

1. Introduction

In poultry, embryonic mortality from pathogenic microbial infection is preventable through simple, cheap and efficient preventive guidelines. In most countries, the sanitization of hatching eggs is the primary countermeasure to the attacks of pathogenic microorganisms on the embryo. Studies have shown that sanitizing hatching eggs with synthetic products such as hydrogen peroxide [1] and natural products such as clove essential oil [2] reduced the pathogenic microbiota in eggshells and increased the percentage of hatched chicks. These active materials are non-toxic, non-corrosive and non-damaging to the eggshell. However, unsatisfactory effects such as possible severe toxicity in embryos that led to their death were reported in eggs sanitized with formaldehyde [3]. Microfragments were found in the cuticle and the vertical crystalline layer in eggs sanitized with peracetic acid [4], and reduced hatchability was found in eggs sanitized with propolis [5].
The beneficial and non-beneficial effects of sanitizers in hatching eggs result from synchrony (favorable) or non-synchrony (unfavorable) factors, such as concentration and application time [4,6]. As mentioned earlier, it is clear that sanitizers, when applied to hatching eggs under certain conditions, can generate a repertoire of adverse effects that affect embryonic development. Embryonic health is undoubtedly an important aspect that influences the entire poultry sector. It is through a healthy embryo that a healthy chick will be born. In turn, if handled properly, this chick will become a healthy broiler that will reach the consumer’s table without undue influence on human health. At the same time, the poultry chain experiences significant economic gains for maintenance and growth. However, no sanitizers should be definitively rejected before being fully and continuously evaluated unless the compound is known to be lethally toxic to the point that humans cannot manipulate it with personal protective equipment. Human health must be a priority over all matters considered when choosing a sanitizer for hatching eggs.
Formaldehyde is the primary sanitizer in the routine sanitization of hatching eggs on European poultry farms (for example, Germany and Poland), as well as in Brazil and Egypt, among other countries [2,7,8,9,10]. However, it has genotoxic and cytotoxic properties [11] that subject poultry farmers and chicken embryos to a high risk of hazardous chemical exposure and possible irreversible bodily harm. Indoors, a short exposure not exceeding 0.1 mg/m3 (0.08 ppm) of formaldehyde is recommended to avoid damage to human health [12]. Cadirci [13] reported that the concentration required to reduce practically 100% of the microbial load of hatching eggshells is at least 600 mg/m3 (489 ppm) of formaldehyde, which is an excessively high concentration when compared to those recommended for human exposure. Therefore, formaldehyde needs to be removed from the routine sanitizing of hatching eggs.
There is a versatile repertoire of synthetic and natural sanitizing formulations for hatching eggs that have contributions from researchers dedicated to studying this line of research in various parts of the world. However, are these formulations able to meet the safety tripod (eggshell microbiological, embryonic and human health) at the oviposition–hatch interface? The compilation of this information is vital for helping the industry by showing it the potential products that can replace formaldehyde once and for all because the trend is for formaldehyde to be banned entirely from poultry farming. This review aims to evaluate the effects of different sanitizers on the microbiological quality of hatching eggshells and poultry health during embryogenesis and early stages after hatching.

2. Eggshell and Its Contamination

The eggshell is a physical, physiological and immunological protective surface that morphologically and functionally regulates the health of the embryo and supports its development through structural impermeability to pathogens and the expression of proteins that mobilize an antimicrobial response to pathogens [14,15]. Disturbances in antimicrobial functions of the shell by effects on its structure, as well as the resistance and motile capacity of some microorganisms [15,16,17,18] and exposure time of the shell to the microorganism [19,20], are possible causes of horizontal transmission of pathogens (shell–embryo) (Figure 1B), inducing infectious and inflammatory processes. Pathogens such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella, Micrococcus, Proteus, Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus spp. and Salmonella Enteritidis may be associated with egg penetration and embryonic mortality [17,21,22,23]. The sanitation process on the farm is continuously controlled to avoid this burden on embryonic health, chick fatality and eggshell contamination by fungal and bacterial organisms. The latter can be favored by the microclimate on farms and hatcheries [24] and persists from pre-lay to pre-hatch (Figure 1A) [25].

3. Sanitizers and the Sanitization of Hatching Eggs

3.1. Articles and Search Criteria

Google Scholar was searched using the following keywords: hatching egg sanitization, hatching egg sanitizers and hatching egg disinfectants, in that order. The search process included papers published (between January 2012 and May 2022) in peer-reviewed journals published in English. The first 20 papers were considered for each keyword search, totaling 600 papers. For each year, 10 papers were selected (the first 10 papers found in the search order). A total of 120 papers could have been included. However, after analyzing the title and abstract of the 600 papers, only 69 papers were reviewed, as they studied and evaluated sanitizers for hatching eggs. Review articles on the topic published in this period or other research papers that did not meet all the search criteria were considered to reinforce the discussion.
The research studies of papers from the search process were carried out mainly in Egypt, Brazil and Turkey (Figure 2), and the papers were published primarily in Poultry Science, Egyptian Poultry Science Journal and the Journal of Applied Poultry Research.

3.2. Objective, Optimal Timing and Methods for Sanitizing Hatching Eggs

Egg contamination triggers an embryonic health crisis and threatens the world’s poultry economy. This state of affairs can be alleviated by sanitizing hatching eggs, a relatively simple protocol in which the eggs must be submitted, soon after collection, to intervention in the high proliferation of pathogens in the eggshell and their possible mobility to the microenvironment of embryonic development, making the egg suitable for generating a chick. The ideal time to sanitize hatching eggs is up to 30 min after oviposition or collection (if it is immediate) [26,27,28]; otherwise, the probability of having no effect or worsening production results is very high. This is corroborated in [29], which reported improved hatchability of eggs sanitized immediately compared with those sanitized six hours after laying, probably due to microbial penetration. In this protocol, the contact of the sanitizer with the eggs occurs through gaseous or indirect means and by liquid or direct means (Figure 3):
  • Fumigation: the release of sanitizing vapors on the surface of hatching eggshells in an enclosed space.
  • Spraying: the dispersion of a sanitizing mist on the surface of hatching eggs.
  • Immersion: the act of immersing hatching eggs in sanitizer until there is an interaction between them.
Animals 12 02826 g003 550
Figure 3. Main methods of sanitizing hatching eggs.
Figure 3. Main methods of sanitizing hatching eggs.
Animals 12 02826 g003
The use of each method is based on the size of the production system, number of eggs produced daily, costs and availability of equipment and facilities, type of sanitizer, number of professionals involved in the process and the specific limitations of each method.

3.3. Formaldehyde

Formaldehyde (liquid or gaseous; also called paraformaldehyde-polymerized phase) has been linked to reduced eggshell microbiota and increased hatchability percentage. There are also reports that it did not affect any of these variables (Table 1). Nevertheless, it is also associated with reports of toxicity and permanent harmful damage to embryos and chicks when applied to hatching eggs (Table 1). Although these effects depend on the concentration, length of time and method of application of formaldehyde and the period in which the egg is exposed [13], formaldehyde itself is carcinogenic because it impairs and inhibits DNA repair [30]. Therefore, its use is unjustifiable regarding embryonic life safety, health and protection. Poultry production should value lower risks to bird life (whether during development or after hatching), which will benefit the highest priority condition of preserving human health. Given the possible future restrictions on using formaldehyde in the poultry industry, other sanitizers must be readily available and approved by competent bodies to meet the global poultry demand.

4. Sanitizers and Their Effects on the Microbiological Quality of Hatching Eggshells and the Health and Survival of Poultry in the Developmental Phase and Early Period after Hatching

The health and survival of embryos and chicks remain the most vital issues for the constant advancement of industrial poultry. This is due to the presence of dangerous microbial agents and the use of risky sanitizers for hatching eggs, representing unquestionable concern for the safety of these animals. In the last 10 years, much research has been conducted on the manufacturing and evaluation of sanitizers to minimize risks during embryogenesis and post-hatch (Table 2). The aim is for these sanitizers to provide vitality and supplements to support the poultry’s quality of life during their development and further growth in the production system. Thus, the effects of sanitizers on eggshell microbiology and hatchability were reviewed (Table 2). Based on the studies reviewed, synthetics stand out over natural sanitizers in the number of published studies. However, when it comes to reducing the microbial load of the shells and increasing hatchability, the positions are reversed, as natural sanitizers present better results than synthetic ones (Table 2). Hatchability and eggshell microbial level are partially capable of predicting health and fully predicting embryo survival and level of risk of damage by pathogens, respectively. They are also associated with production profitability [47]. Studies must be complemented with other analyses, including quality, microbial counts, blood constituents and organ development during embryogenesis and post-hatch, to ensure health and survival.
Among the synthetic chemical sanitizers, hydrogen peroxide, ozone and Virkon S were most commonly tested. Hydrogen peroxide is a reactive oxygen type that exerts antimicrobial activity by inducing oxidative damage to cell DNA [87]. Ozone is a strong oxidant that exhibits antimicrobial characteristics by degrading cellular constituents, impairing their metabolic activity [88]. Virkon S is a combined formulation that includes peroxygen compounds, with antimicrobial action associated with cell wall damage and inhibition of enzymatic systems [89]. These three sanitizers appear to have a safety profile for humans [89,90,91]. Most studies that evaluated hydrogen peroxide reported the ability to reduce eggshell microbial load with almost no damage to hatchability (Table 2). The effectiveness of ozone in reducing eggshell microbial load is still dubious based on the studies reviewed, as half reported no reduction. On the other hand, only 20% reported a significant adverse effect on hatchability, the same ones that reported reduced microbial load. Therefore, the lower hatchability was possibly a response to the toxic action of ozone on the embryo, not seeming to be a good option to sanitize hatching eggs. Regarding the control of the eggshell microbial load, Virkon S performed very well, as demonstrated in all studies, and had no record of significant loss in hatchability. Other examples that may be viable for hatching eggs are ammonium compounds [64], peracetic acid [75], nanosecond electron beam [66], low-energy electron irradiation [38] and ultraviolet radiation [83].
Among the natural sanitizers for hatching eggs, essential oils, volatile liquids produced in flowers, leaves, fruits, seeds, stems and roots [92]; propolis, a resinous product produced by bees using resins and other plant substances [93,94]; and garlic, which is a herb with bulbous flowering [95], are the most tested materials. These have more beneficial than harmful characteristics in terms of antibacterial and antifungal effects and production rates (Table 2), supported by three recently published reviews [25,27,28]. Propolis can improve hatchability by up to 11% [28], and essential oils by up to 12.59% [27]. There are no negative records of garlic in hatchability [25]. The effects of these compounds on eggshell microbial reduction ultimately influence an increase in hatchability. They kill bacterial and fungal pathogens by fully compromising the cell membrane/wall, leading to cell dysfunction and loss [96,97,98,99]. These results, added to the recognized safety of most natural compounds, are essential for preparations of natural origin intended for hatching eggs to acquire a consensual reputation that will be useful for their insertion and permanence in commercial practice to sustain the sanitation management of hatching eggs. They will also be well accepted in free-range, organic and agroecological poultry farming. Other examples include live yeast, vinegar and alcoholic extract of eucalyptus, which showed potential as alternatives as sanitizers for hatching eggs [62,74,77].
The degree of pathogenicity and the concentration of eggshell microorganisms are key considerations in embryo infection, particularly in yolk sac infection [21,25]. If the yolk sac becomes infected, the embryo dies or survives after hatching and remains infected (the microorganism causing the infection (e.g., Escherichia coli) can remain for months). Clinical signs include swelling, edema and redness, in addition to limited movement due to abdominal distention, which negatively affects weight distribution, causing balance disturbance. This infectious framework will result in the deprivation of nutrients and maternal antibodies and the absorption of toxins [100]. Therefore, prevention through the application of sanitizers to eggs is the way forward. Upadhyaya et al. [57] reported that essential oil substances, trans cinnamaldehyde and eugenol, reduced Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (inoculated on the surface of eggs) to undetectable levels in embryos after being applied to eggshells. The rate of embryonic Escherichia coli infection can be minimized in eggs sanitized with Virkon S [3]. Mousa-Balabel et al. [29] reinforced that contaminated hatched chicks are reduced when eggs are efficiently sanitized with propolis. In eggshells experimentally contaminated with Salmonella (primary poultry isolate of Salmonella Typhimurium), the sanitizer combining hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet irradiation ensured that this microorganism was undetectable in chicks up to two weeks post-hatch [60]. This is due to the potential of many sanitizers to provide ongoing antimicrobial protection that restricts microbial penetration. Li et al. [68] experimentally inoculated nalidixic acid-resistant Escherichia coli (isolated from broiler digestive tract) into hatching eggshells. They indicated that lysozyme prevented this microorganism’s penetration into the egg’s internal environment. This reduces the risk of bacterial infection for embryos and chicks during the early stage of their life, supported by the significant reduction in Escherichia coli in the yolk sac. The hatching egg must also be of quality to minimize cracks or shell breaks, reduce incubation residues and infection of birds and increase immunological resistance [78]. In addition, litter eggs should be avoided, as the dirtier the shell, the greater the possibility of containing more pathogenic microorganisms [63].
Sanitizing hatching eggs can optimize embryonic and chick development (based on body weight, organs and length) as well as chick blood hematology and immunity, in addition to microbiological protection of the embryo and chick. These effects have been reported with sanitizers based on garlic oil [67], live yeast [62] and vinegar [74]. Other reports were also described. Sanitizers based on hydrogen peroxide (Hydro-Clean), ammonium compounds (Amino-Steril), peracetic acid (Oxydion) and aldehydes (Viron FF) promote a low frequency of embryonic defects and death, discarding toxic and teratogenic effects [64]. Mousa-Balabel et al. [61] reported that eggs sanitized with Virkon S did not generate weak chicks (inability to hatch) or chicks with incomplete feathers and distorted and wet beaks. Cantu et al. [72] reported the best percentage of hatching ducklings without defects after sanitizing was with hydrogen peroxide plus ultraviolet light. Sanitizers such as Polydez (which contains hydrogen peroxide, benzalkonium chloride, cocamidopropyl betaine, neonol and other components) and Virosan (which contains benzalkonium chloride, glutaraldehyde and excipients) did not harm the development of poultry in the embryonic and post-hatch period [78]. In vitro and in vivo tests performed by Patrzałek et al. [79] confirmed that sanitizing eggs with Dergall (organomodified trisiloxanes) is not toxic to chicken embryos. Oliveira et al. [2] demonstrated that eggs sanitized with clove essential oil improved the physical quality of chicks. This same result was found when the eggs were sanitized with oregano juice [46]. No harmful effects on organ development during embryogenesis and post-hatch were reported in eggs sanitized with clove essential oil [10]. Bekhet and Sayed [82] observed that treating eggs with essential oregano oil did not cause malformations in embryos, benefiting them by restoring their antioxidant balance. Gholami-Ahangaran et al. [3], Batkowska et al. [43] and Oliveira et al. [10] reported improvement in the survival percentage of chicks from eggs sanitized with Virkon S, propolis and clove essential oil, respectively, in the first days of post-hatch life.
Sanitizers capable of inducing damage that prematurely interrupts the development and growth of poultry or that reduces their quality of life have been reported. In the study of Shafey et al. [18], low hatchability was associated with the sanitization of eggs with ultrasonic waves. According to this report, embryos exposed to these waves can develop abnormally. Low hatchability has also been described in hatching eggs sanitized with lemongrass and pedestrian tea essential oils [6]. Mousa-Balabel et al. [61] noted that eggs sanitized with hydrogen peroxide recorded weak chicks and a high percentage of omphalitis, and eggs sanitized with TH4 recorded weak chicks with distorted beaks. Oliveira et al. [5] observed that the few chicks that managed to hatch from eggs sanitized with propolis were super-hydrated. Wlazlo et al. [44] showed that ozone has a toxic profile for interrupting embryonic development, justified by the high mortality rate recorded. These studies say much about the sensitivity of embryos to the stressful effects of sanitizers in hatching eggs. Hasyim et al. [101] found a numerical increase and decrease in hatchability when eggs were sanitized with cherry leaf extract at low and high concentrations, respectively, justifying the reduction in hatchability due to the occlusion of the shell pores. Chung et al. [69] reported that the use of chlorine dioxide at low concentrations has no adverse effect on hatchability as seen at high concentrations. The side effects of chlorine dioxide on the embryo were associated with low temperature, high concentration of sanitizer and contact time with the egg [102]. Reducing incidents of sanitizer toxicity can be achieved by adequately balancing the intrinsic factors linked to efficiency that influence toxicity, such as efficiency, safety, minimum concentration and shorter contact time.
Progress in sanitizer evaluation offers some possibilities and future avenues of application at the commercial level. Hydrogen peroxide and Virkon S are among the synthetic chemicals, and essential oils, propolis and garlic are among the natural products due to their antimicrobial efficiency and little or no adverse effect recorded on embryos and chicks, in addition to meeting safety requirements for humans. However, we believe that it is necessary to continuously deepen the evaluations carried out (mainly in vivo toxicity analyses at different concentrations) during embryogenesis and post-hatch after sanitizing the eggs with these antimicrobials to find the most suitable, affordable, efficient and safe protocol possible. We need to reinforce the benefits of existing protocols or discard those that, in part, may persistently cause some disadvantages to the process. While hydrogen peroxide, Virkon S, essential oils, propolis, and garlic may meet safety criteria, proper protective clothing and other safety precautions are necessary during exposure.
Despite being a challenge, a problem observed among the studies reviewed is the non-standardization of the time for sanitizing eggs after collection. Some studies performed this outside the ideal timeframe, for example, very close to or during the incubation process. This can negatively affect the process. Oliveira et al. [25] recommended that eggs should be sanitized in the shortest possible time after collection, which also requires speed, to achieve the objective of minimizing in ovo penetration and ensuring the chances of increasing the hatchability rate healthily. Laboratory studies should be complemented with egg sanitization repetitions on commercial farms. If carried out efficiently and adequately after collection, a single treatment should be sufficient until hatching, keeping all other surfaces where the eggs pass clean and sanitized.

5. Conclusions

Knowing that the abusive and poisonous use of formaldehyde fumigation for hatching eggs cannot be underestimated, this review demonstrates that research advances in the last decade have defended, at different levels, powerful safe alternatives based on synthetic and natural products. In addition to their antimicrobial capacity, these substances can mitigate the toxic effects that decrease bird health and survival by respecting the protocols recommended by researchers. This is a big step for the poultry industry, helping to understand and limit the use and availability of formaldehyde towards its total exclusion, making future handling of hatching eggs increasingly free of toxicity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.d.S.O. and V.M.d.S.; writing—original draft preparation, G.d.S.O.; writing—review and editing, G.d.S.O., C.M., C.B.S. and V.M.d.S.; visualization, G.d.S.O., C.M., C.B.S. and V.M.d.S.; supervision, V.M.d.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) grant number 001 and the APC was funded by University of Brasília.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for the granted scholarship.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Al-Shemery, N.J.; Kamaluddin, Z.N. Effect of Using Different Concentrations of Hydrogen Peroxide and Formalin Compared to Formaldehyde Evaporation in Sterilization of Hatching Eggs of Broiler. Euphrates J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 10, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
  2. Oliveira, G.S.; Nascimento, S.T.; dos Santos, V.M.; Silva, M.G. Clove Essential Oil in the Sanitation of Fertile Eggs. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 5509–5516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gholami-Ahangaran, M.; Shahzamani, S.; Yazdkhasti, M. Comparison of Virkon S and Formaldehyde on Hatchabil-ity and Survival Rate of Chicks in Disinfection of Fertile Eggs. Rev. Med. Vet. 2016, 167, 45–49. [Google Scholar]
  4. Soares, C.E.S.; Cartabiano-Leite, C.E.; Ferreira, W.X.; Maiorka, A.; Dahlke, F.; Scussel, V.M.; de Dea Lindner, J. Peracetic Acid: Effect on the Chicken Eggshell Cuticle and Decontaminating Action on Filamentous Fungi. Jokull J. 2021, 71, 82–96. [Google Scholar]
  5. Oliveira, G.S.; dos Santos, V.M.; Nascimento, S.T.; Rodrigues, J.C. Alternative Sanitizers to Paraformaldehyde for Incubation of Fertile Eggs. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 2001–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nogueira, W.C.L.; Pena, A.C.S.; de Souza, C.N.; Azevedo, I.L.; Fariafilho, D.E.; Almeida, A.C. Disinfection of Fertile Eggs of Free-Range Poultry with Essential Oils. Rev. Bras. Saude Prod. Anim. 2019, 20, e0822019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Al-Shammari, K.I.; Batkowska, J.; Gryzi, M.M. Assessment of Ultraviolet Light Effect in Hatching Eggs Disinfection on Hatchability Traits of Two Breeds of Quails and Chickens. Acta Sci. Pol. Zootec. 2015, 14, 33–44. [Google Scholar]
  8. Badran, A.M.M.; Osman, A.M.R.; Yassein, D.M.M. Comparative Study of the Effect of Some Disinfectants on Em-bryonic Mortality, Hatchability, and Some Blood Components. Egypt. Poult. Sci. J. 2018, 38, 1069–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tebrün, W.; Motola, G.; Hafez, M.H.; Bachmeier, J.; Schmidt, V.; Renfert, K.; Reichelt, C.; Brüggemann-Schwarze, S.; Pees, M. Preliminary Study: Health and Performance Assessment in Broiler Chicks Following Application of Six Different Hatching Egg Disinfection Protocols. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0232825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Oliveira, G.S.; Nascimento, S.T.; dos Santos, V.M.; Dallago, B.S.L. Spraying Hatching Eggs with Clove Essential Oil Does Not Compromise the Quality of Embryos and One-Day-Old Chicks or Broiler Performance. Animals 2021, 11, 2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, L.; Steinmaus, C.; Eastmond, D.A.; Xin, X.K.; Smith, M.T. Formaldehyde Exposure and Leukemia: A New Meta-Analysis and Potential Mechanisms. Mut. Res./Rev. Mut. Res. 2009, 681, 150–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Selected Pollutants; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010; pp. 103–156. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cadirci, S. Disinfection of Hatching Eggs by Formaldehyde Fumigation-a Review. Eur. Poult. Sci. 2009, 73, 116–123. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hincke, M.T.; Da Silva, M.; Guyot, N.; Gautron, J.; McKee, M.D.; Guabiraba-Brito, R.; Réhault-Godbert, S. Dynamics of Structural Barriers and Innate Immune Components during Incubation of the Avian Egg: Critical Interplay be-tween Autonomous Embryonic Development and Maternal Anticipation. J. Innate Immun. 2019, 11, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kulshreshtha, G.; D’Alba, L.; Dunn, I.C.; Rehault-Godbert, S.; Rodriguez-Navarro, A.B.; Hincke, M.T. Properties, Genetics and Innate Immune Function of the Cuticle in Egg-Laying Species. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 838525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. de Reu, K.; Grijspeerdt, K.; Messens, W.; Heyndrickx, M.; Uyttendaele, M.; Debevere, J.; Herman, L. Eggshell Factors Influencing Eggshell Penetration and Whole Egg Contamination by Different Bacteria, Including Salmonella Enteritidis. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 112, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gantois, I.; Ducatelle, R.; Pasmans, F.; Haesebrouck, F.; Gast, R.; Humphrey, T.J.; van Immerseel, F. Mechanisms of Egg Contamination by Salmonella Enteritidis. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2009, 33, 718–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Shafey, T.M.; Hussein, E.O.S.; Al-Batshan, H.A. Effects of Ultrasonic Waves on Eggshell Strength and Hatchability of Layer-Type Breeder Eggs. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 43, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Williams, J.E.; Dillard, L.H.; Hall, G.O. The Penetration Patterns of Salmonella Typhimurium through the Outer Structures of Chicken Eggs. Avian Dis. 1968, 12, 445–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Berrang, M.E.; Frank, J.F.; Buhr, R.J.; Bailey, J.S.; Cox, N.A.; Mauldin, J. Eggshell Characteristics and Penetration by Salmonella Through the Productive Life of a Broiler Breeder Flock. Poult. Sci. 1998, 77, 1446–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rezaee, M.S.; Liebhart, D.; Hess, C.; Hess, M.; Paudel, S. Bacterial Infection in Chicken Embryos and Consequences of Yolk Sac Constitution for Embryo Survival. Vet. Pathol. 2021, 58, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Orajaka, L.J.E.; Mohan, K. Aerobic Bacterial Flora from Dead-in-Shell Chicken Embryos from Nigeria. Avian Dis. 1985, 29, 583–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Higenyi, J. Microbial Contamination Load of Hatching Eggs in Butaleja, Eastern Uganda. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2014, 2, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Zhelev, G.; Lyutzkanov, M.; Urumova, V.; Mihaylov, G.; Petrov, V.; Marutsov, P. Microbial Contamination in a Duck Hatchery. Rev. Med. Vet. 2012, 163, 319–322. [Google Scholar]
  25. Oliveira, G.D.S.; McManus, C.; dos Santos, V.M. Garlic as Active Principle of Sanitiser for Hatching Eggs. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2022, 78, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Araújo, W.A.G.; Albino, L.F.T. Incubação Comercial [Commercial Incubation]; Transworld Research Network.: Trivandrum, India, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  27. Oliveira, G.D.S.; dos Santos, V.M.; Nascimento, S.T. Essential Oils as Sanitisers for Hatching Eggs. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2021, 77, 605–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Oliveira, G.D.S.; dos Santos, V.M.; McManus, C. Propolis: Effects on the Sanitisation of Hatching Eggs. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2022, 78, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mousa-Balabel, T.M.; Mohamed, R.A.; Al-Midani, S.A.; El-Samad, M.S.A. Impact of Boiler Breeders Hatching Eggs Disinfection Time on Some Hatchability Parameters. Int. J. Sci. Basic Appl. Res. 2016, 30, 230–240. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ge, J.; Yang, H.; Lu, X.; Wang, S.; Zhao, Y.; Huang, J.; Xi, Z.; Zhang, L.; Li, R. Combined Exposure to Formaldehyde and PM2.5: Hematopoietic Toxicity and Molecular Mechanism in Mice. Environ. Int. 2020, 144, 106050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hrnčár, C.; Prachárová, S.; Bujko, J. The Effect of Disinfection of Hatching Eggs on Hatchability of Oravka Chickens. Sci. Pap. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 45, 411–414. [Google Scholar]
  32. Durmus, I. Determining Effects of Use of Various Disinfecting Materials on Hatching Results and Total Bacterial Count. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2012, 7, 739–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Fidan, E.D.; Turkyilmaz, M.K.; Ahmet Nazligul, A. The Effects of Different Storage and Fumigation Lengths on Hatchability and Hatching Weight in Japanese Quails (Coturnix coturnix Japonica). J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2012, 11, 1400–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Shahein, E.H.A.; Sedeek, E.K. Role of Spraying Hatching Eggs with Natural Disinfectants on Hatching Characteris-tics and Eggshell Bacterial Counts. Egypt. Poult. Sci. J. 2014, 34, 213–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Keïta, A.; Huneau-Salaün, A.; Guillot, A.; Galliot, P.; Tavares, M.; Puterflam, J. A Multi-Pronged Approach to the Search for an Alternative to Formaldehyde as an Egg Disinfectant without Affecting Worker Health, Hatching, or Broiler Production Parameters. Poult. Sci. 2016, 95, 1609–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bekele, M.W.; Leta, M.U. Effect of Egg Storage Temperature and Fumigation on Hatchability of Cobb 500 and Hub-bard Broiler Strains. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 11, 3418–3424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Clímaco, W.L.D.S.; Melo, É.D.F.; Vaz, D.P.; Saldanha, M.M.; Pinto, M.F.V.D.S.; Fernandes, L.C.C.; Baião, N.C.; Oliveira, L.G.D.; Sant’Anna, F.M.D.; Souza, M.R.D.; et al. Eggshell Microbiology and Quality of Hatching Eggs Subjected to Different Sanitizing Procedures. Pesq. Agrop. Bras. 2018, 53, 1177–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pees, M.; Motola, G.; Hafez, M.H.; Bachmeier, J.; Brüggemann-Schwarze, S.; Tebrün, W. Use of Electron Irradiation versus Formaldehyde Fumigation as Hatching Egg Disinfectants-Efficacy and Impact on Hatchability and Broiler Performance. Tierärztliche Prax. Ausg. G Großtiere/Nutztiere 2020, 48, 406–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hrnčár, C.; Hanusová, E.; Hanus, A.; Arpášová, H.; Kokoszyński, D.; Bujko, J. The Effect of Various Disinfectants on Hatching Results in Chickens. Sci. Pap. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2021, 54, 193–196. [Google Scholar]
  40. Zeweil, H.S.; Rizk, R.E.; Bekhet, G.M.; Ahmed, M.R. Comparing the Effectiveness of Egg Disinfectants against Bacte-ria and Mitotic Indices of Developing Chick Embryos. J. Basic Appl. Zool. 2015, 70, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Baylan, M.; Akpınar, G.C.; Canogullari, S.D.; Ayasan, T. The Effects of Using Garlic Extract for Quail Hatching Egg Disinfection on Hatching Results and Performance. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic. 2018, 20, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Batkowska, J.; Al-Shammari, K.I.A.; Gryzinska, M.M.; Brodacki, A.; Wlazlo, L.; Nowakowicz-Debek, B. Effect of Us-ing Colloidal Silver in the Disinfection of Hatching Eggs on Some Microbial, Hatchability and Performance Traits in Japanese Quail (Coturnix Cot. Japonica). Eur. Poult. Sci. 2017, 81, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Batkowska, J.; Al-Shammari, K.I.A.; Lukasz, W.; Nowakowicz-Debek, B.; Gryzinska, M. Evaluation of Propolis Ex-tract as a Disinfectant of Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix Japonica) Hatching Eggs. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 2372–2377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Wlazlo, L.; Drabik, K.; Al-Shammari, K.I.A.; Batkowska, J.; Nowakowicz-Debek, B.; Gryzińska, M. Use of Reactive Oxygen Species (Ozone, Hydrogen Peroxide) for Disinfection of Hatching Eggs. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 2478–2484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Bekhet, G.M. Impact of Hatching Egg Disinfection on Hatching Characteristics and Chick Embryos. Indian J. Anim. Res. 2021, 55, 353–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Taşdemir, A.N.; Onbaşılar, E.E.; Yalçın, S.; Boyalı, B.; Aygören, H.; Tülek, E.; Sarıçam, S.; Akan, M. Effects of Oregano Juice on Eggshell Microbial Load, Layer Embryo Development, Hatching Results, and Growth at the First 2 Weeks after Hatch. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Harikrishnan, S.; Narayanankutty, K.; Chacko, B.; Anitha, P. The Effect of Various Sanitizing Agents on the Economics of Hatching Kuttanad Duck Eggs. Indian J. Vet. Sci. Biotechnol. 2014, 9, 67–68. [Google Scholar]
  48. Vilela, C.O.; Vargas, G.D.; Fischer, G.; Ladeira, S.; de Faria, R.O.; Nunes, C.F.; de Lima, M.; Hübner, S.O.; Luz, P.; Osório, L.G.; et al. Propolis: A Natural Product as an Alternative for Disinfection of Embryonated Eggs for Incubation. Arq. Inst. Biol. 2012, 79, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Aygun, A.; Sert, D.; Copur, G. Effects of Propolis on Eggshell Microbial Activity, Hatchability, and Chick Performance in Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix Japonica) Eggs. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 1018–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Uçan, U.S.; Gök, A. Efficacy of a Water-Based Disinfectant on Reduction of Eggshell Bacterial Contamination. Eur. J. Vet. Sci. 2012, 28, 57–59. [Google Scholar]
  51. Nowaczewski, S.; Szablewski, T.; Cegielska-Radziejewska, R.; Kontecka, H. Microbiological Response of Japanese Quail Eggs to Disinfection and Location in the Setter during Incubation. Folia Biol. 2013, 61, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Aygun, A.; Sert, D. Effects of Prestorage Application of Propolis and Storage Time on Eggshell Microbial Activity, Hatchability, and Chick Performance in Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix Japonica) Eggs. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 3330–3337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lowman, Z.S.; Parkhurst, C.R. Effects of Bac-D on Total Aerobic Bacteria Naturally Found on Broiler Breeder Eggs. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2013, 12, 505–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Buhr, R.J.; Spickler, J.L.; Ritter, A.R.; Bourassa, D.V.; Cox, N.A.; Richardson, L.J.; Wilson, J.L. Efficacy of Combination Chemicals as Sanitizers of Salmonella-Inoculated Broiler Hatching Eggshells. J. Appl. Poul. Res. 2013, 22, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Musgrove, M.T.; Stephens, C.B.; Bourassa, D.V.; Cox, N.A.; Mauldin, J.M.; Berrang, M.E.; Buhr, R.J. Enterobacteri-aceae and Salmonella Recovered from Nonsanitized and Sanitized Broiler Hatching Eggs. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2014, 23, 516–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hanafy, A.M.; Ahmed, E.G.; Abdel-Ghany, A.M.; Nashaat, M.H. Effect of Disinfectants, Flock Physiological Status, Season and Storage Period of Broiler Breeder Eggs on Field Hatchability and Hatchery Operation Quality under New-Salheya City Situation. Egypt J. Anim. Prod. 2015, 52, 115–125. [Google Scholar]
  57. Upadhyaya, I.; Yin, H.B.; Nair, M.S.; Chen, C.H.; Upadhyay, A.; Darre, M.J.; Venkitanarayanan, K. Efficacy of Fumi-gation with Trans-Cinnamaldehyde and Eugenol in Reducing Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis on Embryonated Egg Shells. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 1685–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yildirim, I.; Aygun, A.; Sert, D. Effects of Preincubation Application of Low and High Frequency Ultrasound on Eggshell Microbial Activity, Hatchability, Supply Organ Weights at Hatch, and Chick Performance in Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix Japonica) Hatching Eggs. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 1678–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gottselig, S.M.; Dunn-Horrocks, S.L.; Woodring, K.S.; Coufal, C.D.; Duong, T. Advanced Oxidation Process Sanitiza-tion of Eggshell Surfaces. Poult. Sci. 2016, 95, 1356–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rehkopf, A.C.; Byrd, J.A.; Coufal, C.D.; Duong, T. Advanced Oxidation Process Sanitization of Hatching Eggs Re-duces Salmonella in Broiler Chicks. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 3709–3716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mousa-Balabel, T.M.; Al-Midani, S.A.; Al-Refaay, M.A.; Kerady, S.M. Coliform Bacteria and Hatching Egg Disinfect-ants. Int. J. Sci. Basic Appl. Res. 2017, 33, 151–163. [Google Scholar]
  62. Fouad, W.; Abdel-Hafez, M.S. Effect of Spraying Hatching Eggs of Japanese Quails by Live Yeast on Physiological Changes in the Embryonic Development, Hatchability and Total Bacterial Count. Egypt. Poult. Sci. J. 2017, 37, 1303–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Olsen, R.; Kudirkiene, E.; Thøfner, I.; Pors, S.; Karlskov-Mortensen, P.; Li, L.; Papasolomontos, S.; Angastiniotou, C.; Christensen, J. Impact of Egg Disinfection of Hatching Eggs on the Eggshell Microbiome and Bacterial Load. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 3901–3911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Korowiecka, K.; Trela, M.; Tombarkiewicz, B.; Pawlak, K.; Niedziółka, J.W.; Swadźba, M.; Lis, M.W. Assessment of the Effect of Selected Substances Used for Disinfection of Hatching Eggs on Hatching Results in Chickens. Sci. Ann. Pol. Soc. Anim. Prod. 2017, 13, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kusstatscher, P.; Cernava, T.; Liebminger, S.; Berg, G. Replacing Conventional Decontamination of Hatching Eggs with a Natural Defense Strategy Based on Antimicrobial, Volatile Pyrazines. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 13253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Sokovnin, S.Y.; Donnik, I.M.; Shkuratova, I.A.; Krivonogova, A.S.; Isaeva, A.G.; Balezin, M.E.; Vazirov, R.A. The Use of Nanosecond Electron Beam for the Eggs Surface Disinfection in Industrial Poultry. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 1115, 022034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Fouad, W.; Abdel-Hafez, M.S.; El-Halim, H.A.H.A. Influence of Spraying Garlic Oil on Embryonic Development, Hatchability, Physiological Parameters, Post-Hatch Chick Growth and Bacterial Contamination of Fertile Quail Eggs. Egypt. Poult. Sci. J. 2018, 38, 877–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Li, X.; Anderson, D.; Rathgeber, B.; McLean, N.; MacIsaac, J. Fumigating Broiler Hatching Eggs with Lysozyme Product (Inovapure) to Reduce Eggshell Microbial Load. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 4252–4261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chung, H.; Kim, H.; Myeong, D.; Kim, S.; Choe, N.H. Effect of Chlorine Dioxide Gas Application to Egg Surface: Microbial Reduction Effect, Quality of Eggs, and Hatchability. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2018, 38, 487–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Batkowska, J.; Wlazlo, L.; Drabik, K.; Nowakowicz-Debek, B.; Al-Shammari, K.I.A.; Gryzinska, M. Evaluation of Grapefruit Juice (Citrus paradisi) as an Alternative Disinfectant for Hatching Eggs. Pak. J. Zool. 2018, 50, 647–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gatea, S.M.; Altaie, S.M.S.; Khafaji, S.S.; Aljanabi, T.K.; Shatti, D.H.; Hussain, M.A. Influence of Spraying Different Solutions at Different Incubation Periods on Hatchability Parameters of Local Iraqi’s Eggs. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 388, 012034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Cantu, K.; Archer, G.S.; Tucker, Z.S.; Coufal, C.D. Effectiveness of Duck Hatching Egg Sanitization with the Combi-nation of Hydrogen Peroxide and Ultraviolet Light. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2019, 28, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hidayat, M.N.; Thaha, A.H.; Mayanti, R. Effect of the Use of Noni Leaf Extract as a Natural Disinfectant on the Per-centage of Hatchability and Day Old Quail (DOQ) Hatching. Chal. J. Anim. Husb. 2020, 4, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Fouad, W.; Abdelfattah, M.G.; Abdelnabi, M.A. Effect of Spraying Hatching Eggs by Different Levels of Vinegar on Embryological Development, Hatchability and Physiological Performance of Dandarwi Chicks. Egypt. Poult. Sci. J. 2019, 39, 291–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Melo, E.F.; Clímaco, W.L.S.; Triginelli, M.V.; Vaz, D.P.; de Souza, M.R.; Baião, N.C.; Pompeu, M.A.; Lara, L.J.C. An Evaluation of Alternative Methods for Sanitizing Hatching Eggs. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 2466–2473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Al-Asadi, K.J.T.; Ibrahim, B.M. Effect of the Use of Immersion and Injection Methods for Eggs Hatching of Broiler Breeders in the Aquatic Extracts of Some Plant Seeds as Early Feeding: 2-Subsequent Production Performance. Plant Arch. 2020, 20, 2123–2130. [Google Scholar]
  77. Toghyani, P.; Shahzamani, S.; Gholami Ahangaran, M.; Ali Mousavi Firouzabadi, S. Comparison of Eucalyptus Ex-tract and Formaldehyde on Hatchability and Survival Rate of Chicks in Disinfection of Fertile Eggs. Int. J. Pharm. Res. All. Sci. 2020, 9, 105–109. [Google Scholar]
  78. Stegniy, B.T.; Paliy, A.P.; Pavlichenko, O.V.; Stegniy, O.O.; Palii, A.P. Comparative Assessment of the Effect of Dis-infectants on the Level of Biotic Contamination and Hatchability of Chicken Eggs. J. Vet. Med. Biotechnol. Biosaf. 2020, 6, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Patrzałek, M.; Kosecka-Strojek, M.; Lisowska-Łysiak, K.; Trela, M.; Kot, M.; Gawlak, M.; Liszka, D.; Sajewicz, M.; Tombarkiewicz, B.; Pawlak, K.; et al. Preliminary Evaluation of Application of a 3-Dimensional Network Structure of Siloxanes Dergall Preparation on Chick Embryo Development and Microbiological Status of Eggshells. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1581–1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Melo, E.F.; McElreath, J.S.; Wilson, J.L.; Lara, L.J.C.; Cox, N.A.; Jordan, B.J. Effects of a Dry Hydrogen Peroxide Dis-infection System Used in an Egg Cooler on Hatchability and Chick Quality. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 5487–5490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cassar, J.R.; Bright, L.M.; Patterson, P.H.; Mills, E.W.; Demirci, A. The Efficacy of Pulsed Ultraviolet Light Processing for Table and Hatching Eggs. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 100923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bekhet, G.M.; Sayed, A.A. Oregano-Oil Antagonist Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) Induced Toxicity in Pre- and Post-Hatch Chick Embryo. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2021, 49, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Branco, J.R.O.; Dallago, B.S.L.; Bernal, F.E.M. Efficiency of Ultraviolet Light for Disinfection of Fertile Broiler Eggs. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 2021, 73, 1137–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Koc, S.; Aygun, A. Effects of Ozone on Eggshell Microbial Load, Hatching Traits and Chick Performance in Quail Eggs. Innoriginal Int. J. Sci. 2013, 8, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  85. Abo-Samaha, M.I.; Basha, H.A. Effect of Spraying Japanese Quail Eggs with Garlic Oil on Hatching Performance and Hatch Weight. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2021, 9, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Liu, C.; Zheng, W.; Li, Z.; Zhou, L.; Sun, Y.; Han, S. Slightly Acidic Electrolyzed Water as an Alternative Disinfection Technique for Hatching Eggs. Poult. Sci. 2021, 101, 101643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Asad, N.R.; Buarque, L.M.; Asad, O.; Bonacossa De Almeida, C.E.; Felzenszwalb, I.; Bispo Cabral-Neto, J.; Leitão, A.C. Several Pathways of Hydrogen Peroxide Action That Damage the E. Coli Genome General Aspects. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2004, 27, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Patil, S.; Valdramidis, V.P.; Karatzas, K.A.G.; Cullen, P.J.; Bourke, P. Assessing the Microbial Oxidative Stress Mechanism of Ozone Treatment through the Responses of Escherichia Coli Mutants. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2011, 111, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Dunowska, M.; Morley, P.S.; Hyatt, D.R. The Effect of Virkon®S Fogging on Survival of Salmonella enterica and Staphylococcus Aureus on Surfaces in a Veterinary Teaching Hospital. Vet. Microbiol. 2005, 105, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ventura, M.; Wemimont, E. Review of Hydrogen Peroxide Material Safety Data Sheets. In Proceedings of the 38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Indianapolis, Indiana, 7–10 July 2002; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  91. Baysan, A.; Lynch, E. The Use of Ozone in Dentistry and Medicine. Part 2. Ozone and Root Caries. Prim. Dent. Care 2006, 13, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Irshad, M.; Ali Subhani, M.; Ali, S.; Hussain, A. Biological Importance of Essential Oils. In Essential Oils-Oils of Nature; El-Shemy, H.A., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  93. Stojanović, S.; Najman, S.J.; Bogdanova-Popov, B.; Najman, S.S. Propolis: Chemical Composition, Biological and Pharmacological Activity–a Review. Acta Med. Median. 2020, 59, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Scripnic, E.; Eremia, N. Propolis Extract Use in Incubation Technology for Hens’ Eggs Treatment. Sci. Pap. Ser. D. Anim. Sci. 2015, 53, 330–333. [Google Scholar]
  95. Sasi, M.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, M.; Thapa, S.; Prajapati, U.; Tak, Y.; Changan, S.; Saurabh, V.; Kumari, S.; Kumar, A.; et al. Garlic (Allium sativum L.) Bioactives and Its Role in Alleviating Oral Pathologies. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Chen, C.; Liu, C.H.; Cai, J.; Zhang, W.; Qi, W.L.; Wang, Z.; Liu, Z.B.; Yang, Y. Broad-Spectrum Antimicrobial Ac-tivity, Chemical Composition and Mechanism of Action of Garlic (Allium sativum) Extracts. Food Control 2018, 86, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Tariq, S.; Wani, S.; Rasool, W.; Shafi, K.; Bhat, M.A.; Prabhakar, A.; Shalla, A.H.; Rather, M.A. A Comprehensive Re-view of the Antibacterial, Antifungal and Antiviral Potential of Essential Oils and Their Chemical Constituents against Drug-Resistant Microbial Pathogens. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 134, 103580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Vadillo-Rodríguez, V.; Cavagnola, M.A.; Pérez-Giraldo, C.; Fernández-Calderón, M.C. A Physico-Chemical Study of the Interaction of Ethanolic Extracts of Propolis with Bacterial Cells. Coll. Surf. B Bioint. 2021, 200, 111571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Stähli, A.; Schröter, H.; Bullitta, S.; Serralutzu, F.; Dore, A.; Nietzsche, S.; Milia, E.; Sculean, A.; Eick, S. In Vitro Activity of Propolis on Oral Microorganisms and Biofilms. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Nolan, L.K.; John Barnes, H.; Vaillancourt, J.-P.; Abdul-Aziz, T.; Logue, C.M. Colibacillosis. In Diseases of Poultry; Swayne, D.E., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  101. Hasyim, A.R.; Lase, J.A.; Alwiyah, A.; Suroto, S.; Khairiyah, K.; Hutagalung, M.; Harahap, S.M.; el Ramija, K.; Lestari, D.; Ardiarini, N.; et al. The Effectiveness of Cherry Leaf Extract (Muntingia calabura L.) as an Anti-Bacterial Against Hatchability of Kub Chicken Eggs in Artificial Hatchery. Bul. Peternak. 2021, 45, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Patterson, P.H.; Ricke, S.C.; Sunde, M.L.; Schaefer, D.M. Hatching Eggs Sanitized with Chlorine Dioxide Foam: Egg Hatchability and Bactericidal. Avian Dis. 1990, 34, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 12 02826 g001 550
Figure 1. (A) Some sources of egg contamination in pre-incubation; (B) horizontal transmission of microbes in eggs.
Figure 1. (A) Some sources of egg contamination in pre-incubation; (B) horizontal transmission of microbes in eggs.
Animals 12 02826 g001
Animals 12 02826 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of published papers in each country. Countries in the same color have the same number of published papers.
Figure 2. Number of published papers in each country. Countries in the same color have the same number of published papers.
Animals 12 02826 g002
Table
Table 1. Some reports of the effects of formaldehyde on hatching eggs.
Table 1. Some reports of the effects of formaldehyde on hatching eggs.
Study (Reference)Effect on Eggshell Microbial Count *Effect on Hatchability *
[31]Non-evaluatedNo effects
[32]No effectsNo effects
[33]-No effects
[34]ReducedIncreased
[35]ReducedNon-evaluated
[36]-Increased
[37]ReducedNon-evaluated
[38]ReducedNo effects
[2]ReducedIncreased
[39]Non-evaluatedIncreased
Study (Reference)Some Reports of Adverse Effects on Embryos and Chicks
[40]Underweight, underdeveloped and malformed embryos.
[41]Increased embryonic mortality in the early stage.
[42,43,44]Reduced chick survival rate in the first post-hatch week.
[45]Increased embryonic mortality in early, mid and late stages.
[46]Reduced chick quality score as a result of slow activities and high number of unclosed navels.
* Effect compared to a negative control (non-sanitized eggs) and in the absence of negative control compared to the other sanitizers tested.
Table
Table 2. Reports of the effects of sanitizers on eggshell microbial counts and hatchability.
Table 2. Reports of the effects of sanitizers on eggshell microbial counts and hatchability.
Study (Reference)SanitizerEffect on Eggshell Microbial Count *Effect on Hatchability *
[31]Ozone-No effects
[48,49]PropolisReducedNo effects
[50]PotoCleanReduced-
[32]OrthophenylphenolReducedNo effects
Stabilized hydrogen peroxide + peracetic acid + acetic acid
Sodium hypochlorite + chlorine dioxide + sodium chlorite + ozone + water
[51]EthanolReducedNo effects
[52]PropolisReducedNo effects
[18]Ultrasonic waves-Increased
[53]Bac-DReducedNo effects
[54]Quaternary ammoniums + bronopol + biguanideReduced-
Quaternary ammoniums + polyhexamethylenebiguanide hydrochloride moiety
Hydrogen peroxide
Ammonium chlorides + hydrogen peroxide
Quaternary ammoniums
[34]PropolisReducedIncreased
Thyme essential oil
[55]Quaternary ammoniums + a polyhexamethylenebiguanide hydrochloride moietyReducedReduced (commercial facility testing) and no effects (lab testing)
[56]Biosentry 904-No effects
Egg-Washer-Pro
Virkon S
[57]Trans-cinnamaldehydeReduced-
Eugenol
[7]Ultraviolet light-No effects
[58]Ultrasonic wavesReducedNo effects
[40]Hydrogen peroxideReduced-
Sodium chloride
Betadine
Virkon S
Cumin essential oil
Oregano essential oil
Cumin + oregano essential oils
[59]Hydrogen peroxide + ultraviolet irradiationReduced-
[35]Sodium dichlorocyanurateReduced-
Hydrogen peroxideReduced
Electrolyzed oxidizing waterNo effects
[3]Virkon S-No effects
[29]PropolisReduced-
TH4
Virkon S
[60]Hydrogen peroxide + ultraviolet irradiationReduced-
[61]Hydrogen peroxideReducedIncreased
TH4
Virkon S
[42]Colloidal silverReducedNo effects
[62]Live yeastReducedIncreased
[63]VirocidReduced-
[64]Amino-Steril-No effects
Oxydion
Viron FF
Hydro-Clean
[65]Volatile pyrazinesReduced-
[1]Hydrogen peroxideReducedIncreased
[66]Nanosecond electron beamReducedNo effects
[67]Garlic oilReducedIncreased
[8]Hydrogen peroxideReducedReduced
TH4
[68]LysozymeReducedNo effects
[69]Chlorine dioxide gasReducedNo effects
[41]Garlic extract-No effects
[70]Grapefruit juiceReducedNo effects
[37]OzoneNo effects-
Ultraviolet lightReduced
Hydrogen peroxideNo effects
Peracetic acidNo effects
[43]PropolisNo effectsNo effects
[71]Olive oil-Reduced
Albumin
[72]Hydrogen peroxide + ultraviolet lightReducedIncreased
[73]Noni leaf extract-No effects
[6]Lemongrass essential oilReducedReduced
Pedestrian tea essential oil
Lemongrass + pedestrian tea essential oils
[74]VinegarReducedIncreased
[75]OzoneNo effectsNo effects
Ultraviolet lightReduced
Hydrogen peroxideNo effects
Peracetic acidReduced
[2]Clove essential oilReducedIncreased
[5]Propolis -Reduced
Clove essential oilNo effects
[76]Fenugreek seed extract-No effects
Oat seed extract
Basil seed extract
[77]Eucalyptus alcoholic extractReducedIncreased
[78]PolydezReduced-
Sterylii ABNo effects
VirosanReduced
[79]DergallReducedNo effects
[9]Hydrogen peroxide-No effects
Low-energy electron irradiation
Peracetic acid
Essential oil (not specified)
[38]Low-energy electron irradiationReducedNo effects
[44]Hydrogen peroxideReducedNo effects
OzoneReduced
[80]Hydrogen peroxide-No effects
[81]Pulsed ultraviolet lightReducedNo effects
[82]Oregano essential oil-Increased
[83]Ultraviolet lightReduced-
[39]Ozone -Increased
Aldekol
Virkon S
[84]OzoneReducedNo effects
[85]Garlic oil-Increased
[46]Oregano juiceReducedNo effects
[86]Slightly acidic electrolysisReducedNo effects
* Effect compared to non-sanitized eggs (or water or alcohol control) and formaldehyde (or other positive control). The negative control (non-sanitized eggs) had priority in the comparison. An increase was also considered when the sanitizer was tested at different concentrations or methods and at least one of those concentrations or methods showed improvement. (-) When the tested sanitizer did not have the variable evaluated or when it did, the study did not apply or clarify a statistical analysis and was not compared to a positive or negative control group. Studies that evaluated only formaldehyde were not included in this table, as the focus was on alternatives.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oliveira, G.d.S.; McManus, C.; Salgado, C.B.; dos Santos, V.M. Effects of Sanitizers on Microbiological Control of Hatching Eggshells and Poultry Health during Embryogenesis and Early Stages after Hatching in the Last Decade. Animals 2022, 12, 2826. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202826

AMA Style

Oliveira GdS, McManus C, Salgado CB, dos Santos VM. Effects of Sanitizers on Microbiological Control of Hatching Eggshells and Poultry Health during Embryogenesis and Early Stages after Hatching in the Last Decade. Animals. 2022; 12(20):2826. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202826

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oliveira, Gabriel da Silva, Concepta McManus, Cristiane Batista Salgado, and Vinícius Machado dos Santos. 2022. "Effects of Sanitizers on Microbiological Control of Hatching Eggshells and Poultry Health during Embryogenesis and Early Stages after Hatching in the Last Decade" Animals 12, no. 20: 2826. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202826

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