Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34823182›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2022

Cleaning and disinfection of transport crates for poultry - comparison of four treatments at slaughter plant.

T Dzieciolowski, S Boqvist, J Rydén, I Hansson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Transport Vehicles as a Vector of Goose Parvovirus Infections (GPV).Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. ExposingInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  6. Transmission of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) during animal transport.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

T DzieciolowskiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Veterinary Public Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala SE-750 07, Sweden. Electronic address: tomasz.dzieciolowski@kronfagel.se.
S BoqvistDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Veterinary Public Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala SE-750 07, Sweden.
J RydénDepartment of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala SE-750 07, Sweden.
I HanssonDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Veterinary Public Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala SE-750 07, Sweden.
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transport crates for poultry can contribute to the spread of pathogens, with those of public health interest, for example, Campylobacter, being of particular importance. A strict cleaning procedure and use of an effective disinfection method for transport equipment are thus important to avoid introduction of Campylobacter to chicken and poultry farms, particularly during flock thinning. This study evaluated the efficacy of the disinfection procedure currently in use at one of the largest slaughter plants in Sweden and compared the effects with those of other disinfection methods. The evaluation was based on treatment ability to reduce the presence and amount of indicator bacteria belonging to the family Enterobacteriaceae and total aerobic bacteria. In 4 trials, sodium hypochlorite, peracetic acid, and drying with hot air, with or without sodium hypochlorite for final disinfection, were compared. The analysis was based on 40 cotton swab samples taken in each treatment, 20 after the soaking stage and 20 after the final disinfection step. The results showed that use of a chemical disinfectant in combination with drying with hot air (dehumidifier) was the most effective treatment, with an average reduction of 3.4 log for total aerobic bacteria and 3.8 log for Enterobacteriaceae. Since all crates treated with hot air were dry, transport conditions for the birds also improved, particularly in cold weather. A disadvantage is that this treatment is energy-consuming and would require substantial technical changes to the current cleaning process, increasing operating costs at the slaughter plant. However, considering the contribution of improved crate cleaning to overall hygiene control within the poultry supply chain and the beneficial effect on animal welfare, the costs may be justified.

Indexed as

DisinfectantsDisinfectionAnimalsChickensHygienePoultryDisinfectantsCampylobactercleaningdisinfectionpoultrytransport crate

Identifiers

PMID34823182
PMCPMC8627975
OpenAlexW3207157853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.