1Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitaeVolume 30 | Number 03 | Article 351649
Characterization of decontamination procedure of beef carcasses at slaughterhouses in the province of Antioquia, Colombia
JOURNAL VITAE
School of Pharmaceutical and
Food Sciences
ISSN 0121-4004 | ISSNe 2145-2660
University of Antioquia
Medellin, Colombia
Filliations
1MV, Esp. Gerencia de proyectos,
Centauro, Escuela de Medicina
Veterinaria, Facultad de Ciencias
Agrarias, Universidad de Antioquia
UdeA, Calle 70 No. 52-21,
Medellín, Colombia
2Ing. de procesos, MSc., Dr. Ing.
GRICA, Escuela de Producción
Agropecuaria, Facultad de
Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad de
Antioquia UdeA, Calle 70 No. 52-
21, Medellín, Colombia.
3MV, MSP, INCA-CES Facultad de
Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia,
Universidad CES, Calle 10 A
No. 22-04, Medellín, Colombia
4MV, MSP, Dr. med. vet. Centauro,
Escuela de Medicina Veterinaria,
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias,
Universidad de Antioquia UdeA,
Calle 70 No. 52-21, Medellín,
Colombia.
*Corresponding
Jorge A. Fernández-Silva
jorge.fernandez@udea.edu.co
Received: 27 October 2022
Accepted: 08 May 2023
Published: 22 September 2023
Characterization of decontamination
procedure of beef carcasses at
slaughterhouses in the province of
Antioquia, Colombia
Caracterización del procedimiento de lavado
descontaminación de canales bovinas en las plantas de
beneficio animal del departamento de Antioquia, Colombia
Mauricio Sánchez-Acevedo1 , Carolina Peña Serna 2 , Francisco J. Garay Pineda3 ,
Jorge A. Fernández-Silva4
ABSTRACT
Background: Beef slaughterhouses must use a carcass decontamination procedure to control
pathogens and thus prevent foodborne diseases transmitted by meat. Objectives: This study
aimed to characterize beef carcass decontamination procedures at slaughterhouses located
in the province of Antioquia (Colombia). All the slaughterhouses were in service, registered,
and approved by Invima (Instituto Nacional de Vigilancia de Medicamentos y Alimentos in
Spanish) at the time of the study. Methods: This descriptive study collected information from
23 beef slaughterhouses between July 2019 and April 2021 through documentary reviews
and visits to slaughterhouses, using forms and questionnaires. Results: The study allowed the
characterization of the procedures used to decontaminate beef carcasses, showing that the
chemical disinfection of the carcasses is used to control microorganisms in at least 73.9% of
the slaughterhouses analyzed. According to secondary sources, it was found that most of the
slaughterhouses are small (slaughter volume <50,000 heads per year); 10 of them use citric acid,
lactic acid, peracetic acid, and a mixture of organic acids in concentrations between 900 and
1,200 ppm, 1.5 and 1.7%, 180 and 190 ppm, and 900 and 1,200 ppm, respectively, as carcass
disinfectants and according to the technical data sheet of the product. During the visits and
through the application of the questionnaire, it was found that the 12 slaughterhouses had
implemented chemical disinfection which is not scientifically based, using manual devices as
an intervention method to control pathogenic microorganisms. It was found that the type of
company, slaughter volume, and the lack of financial resources are the determining factors in the
selection of decontamination procedures. The validation of the beef carcass decontamination
procedures in the different slaughterhouses in the study was demonstrated. Conclusions:
Although it was established that at least one decontamination procedure, such as chemical
disinfection, is used in the slaughterhouses of study, this option is not supported by scientific
or technical evidence. The findings support the need for improvements in the slaughterhouses
of the province of Antioquia, including the improvement of surveillance programs to reduce
pathogens in the meat chain effectively.
Keywords: Beef carcass, Carcass decontamination, Processing interventions, Organic Acids
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Published 22 September
Doi: https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.vitae.v30n3a351649
Characterization of decontamination procedure of beef carcasses at slaughterhouses in the province of Antioquia, Colombia
JOURNAL VITAE
School of Pharmaceutical and
Food Sciences
ISSN 0121-4004 | ISSNe 2145-2660
University of Antioquia
Medellin, Colombia
Filliations
1MV, Esp. Gerencia de proyectos,
Centauro, Escuela de Medicina
Veterinaria, Facultad de Ciencias
Agrarias, Universidad de Antioquia
UdeA, Calle 70 No. 52-21,
Medellín, Colombia
2Ing. de procesos, MSc., Dr. Ing.
GRICA, Escuela de Producción
Agropecuaria, Facultad de
Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad de
Antioquia UdeA, Calle 70 No. 52-
21, Medellín, Colombia.
3MV, MSP, INCA-CES Facultad de
Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia,
Universidad CES, Calle 10 A
No. 22-04, Medellín, Colombia
4MV, MSP, Dr. med. vet. Centauro,
Escuela de Medicina Veterinaria,
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias,
Universidad de Antioquia UdeA,
Calle 70 No. 52-21, Medellín,
Colombia.
*Corresponding
Jorge A. Fernández-Silva
jorge.fernandez@udea.edu.co
Received: 27 October 2022
Accepted: 08 May 2023
Published: 22 September 2023
Characterization of decontamination
procedure of beef carcasses at
slaughterhouses in the province of
Antioquia, Colombia
Caracterización del procedimiento de lavado
descontaminación de canales bovinas en las plantas de
beneficio animal del departamento de Antioquia, Colombia
Mauricio Sánchez-Acevedo1 , Carolina Peña Serna 2 , Francisco J. Garay Pineda3 ,
Jorge A. Fernández-Silva4
ABSTRACT
Background: Beef slaughterhouses must use a carcass decontamination procedure to control
pathogens and thus prevent foodborne diseases transmitted by meat. Objectives: This study
aimed to characterize beef carcass decontamination procedures at slaughterhouses located
in the province of Antioquia (Colombia). All the slaughterhouses were in service, registered,
and approved by Invima (Instituto Nacional de Vigilancia de Medicamentos y Alimentos in
Spanish) at the time of the study. Methods: This descriptive study collected information from
23 beef slaughterhouses between July 2019 and April 2021 through documentary reviews
and visits to slaughterhouses, using forms and questionnaires. Results: The study allowed the
characterization of the procedures used to decontaminate beef carcasses, showing that the
chemical disinfection of the carcasses is used to control microorganisms in at least 73.9% of
the slaughterhouses analyzed. According to secondary sources, it was found that most of the
slaughterhouses are small (slaughter volume <50,000 heads per year); 10 of them use citric acid,
lactic acid, peracetic acid, and a mixture of organic acids in concentrations between 900 and
1,200 ppm, 1.5 and 1.7%, 180 and 190 ppm, and 900 and 1,200 ppm, respectively, as carcass
disinfectants and according to the technical data sheet of the product. During the visits and
through the application of the questionnaire, it was found that the 12 slaughterhouses had
implemented chemical disinfection which is not scientifically based, using manual devices as
an intervention method to control pathogenic microorganisms. It was found that the type of
company, slaughter volume, and the lack of financial resources are the determining factors in the
selection of decontamination procedures. The validation of the beef carcass decontamination
procedures in the different slaughterhouses in the study was demonstrated. Conclusions:
Although it was established that at least one decontamination procedure, such as chemical
disinfection, is used in the slaughterhouses of study, this option is not supported by scientific
or technical evidence. The findings support the need for improvements in the slaughterhouses
of the province of Antioquia, including the improvement of surveillance programs to reduce
pathogens in the meat chain effectively.
Keywords: Beef carcass, Carcass decontamination, Processing interventions, Organic Acids
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Published 22 September
Doi: https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.vitae.v30n3a351649
2Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitae Volume 30 | Number 03 | Article 351649Mauricio Sánchez-Acevedo, Carolina Peña Serna, Francisco J. Garay Pineda, Jorge A. Fernández-Silva
RESUMEN
Antecedentes: Las plantas de beneficio animal deben utilizar un procedimiento de descontaminación de canales para el control
de patógenos y con ello, prevenir la aparición de enfermedades transmitidas por el consumo de carne. Objetivos: El objetivo
de este estudio fue caracterizar el procedimiento de descontaminación de canales bovinas en las plantas de beneficio animal
del Departamento de Antioquia, Colombia, que se encontraban en servicio, inscritas y autorizadas por el Invima al momento
del estudio. Métodos: Este estudio descriptivo recolectó información de 23 plantas de beneficio animal de la especie bovina,
a partir de revisiones documentales y visitas a las plantas, usando formatos y cuestionarios entre julio de 2019 y abril de 2021.
Resultados: El estudio permitió caracterizar los procedimientos y técnicas de descontaminación de canales bovinas, revelando
que en al menos el 73,9% de las plantas de beneficio estudiadas se realiza la desinfección química de las canales para el control
de microorganismos. A partir de fuentes secundarias, se encontró que la mayoría de las plantas de beneficio animal en el
Departamento de Antioquia son muy pequeñas, 10 de ellas utilizan productos de desinfección de canales, tales como el ácido
cítrico, ácido láctico, ácido peracético y mezcla de ácidos orgánicos en concentraciones entre 900 y 1200 ppm, 1,5 y 1,7%, 180
y 190 ppm y 900 y 1200 ppm, respectivamente; y estos son utilizados de acuerdo con las recomendaciones de la respectiva
ficha técnica del producto. Por otro lado, durante la visita a las plantas de beneficio y mediante la aplicación del cuestionario,
se constató que las 12 plantas visitadas han implementado la desinfección química como método de intervención para el
control de microorganismos patógenos, realizando su aplicación mediante dispositivos manuales, no obstante, estas prácticas
no están fundamentadas científicamente. Por otro lado, se estableció que aparentemente el tipo de empresa, volumen de
sacrificio y falta de recursos financieros son los factores que determinan la elección del procedimiento de descontaminación
de canales. De igual manera, se evidenció la necesidad de realizar estudios para validar la efectividad del procedimiento de
descontaminación en las diferentes plantas de beneficio. Conclusiones: Aunque se estableció que en las plantas de beneficio
animal visitadas se implementa al menos una técnica de intervención como la desinfección química, esta elección no tiene un
sustento con base a fundamentos científicos y técnicos. Estos hallazgos respaldan la necesidad de mejoras en las plantas de
beneficio animal del Departamento, incluyendo mejoras al programa de vigilancia de la reducción efectiva de patógenos en
la cadena cárnica.
Palabras clave: Canales de res, Descontaminación de canales, Intervenciones de procesamiento, Ácidos orgánicos
INTRODUCTION
Food of animal origin is a relevant source of foodborne
diseases; among them, meat is one of the main food
vehicles for biological hazards to humans (1). Due to
its physical and chemical characteristics, meat can
favor the growth of pathogenic microorganisms
such as Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli O157:H7,
and other potential foodborne disease carriers or
related toxins, which makes meat a food of major risk
to public health (2, 3, 4) and for which its handling
requires adequate safety practices. Indeed, it has
been estimated that 14.8% of foodborne disease
outbreaks in Colombia were caused by consuming
meat and meat products (5).
Microbial contamination of meat can occur during
the slaughter process, which inevitably takes place
in transforming live animals into meat. Debe ir
todo el siguiente texto: Most of this contamination
comes from dirt, dust, and feces associated with
the animal’s skin, which encounters the carcass
when removed (6, 7) the prevalence and genetic
characterization of STEC O157 in bovine feces,
offal, and carcasses at slaughtering were examined
between July and October in 2006. STEC O157 was
detected in 31 of 301 cattle feces (10.3%).
Several decontamination methods have been
reported to reduce the microbial contamination of
carcasses: physical (e.g., hot water, steam, steam
vacuuming), chemical (e.g., organic acids, chlorine,
acidified sodium chlorite, polyphosphates), and
biological (e.g., bacteriophages, bacteriocins) (8).
However, the most effective carcass decontamination
techniques are nonbiological, with chemicals, acids,
steam, and hot water washes being the most
effective (1).
Chemical decontamination involves the application
of a chemical substance at some point during
slaughter. The most commonly used and extensively
studied substances for chemical decontamination
of carcasses are low molecular weight organic
acids (e.g., lactic, acetic, citric, fumaric) and other
chemicals such as chlorine, acidified sodium chlorite,
peroxyacids, and trisodium phosphate (8).
Several studies worldwide, including two Colombian
studies, have investigated the effect of chemical
decontamination and bacterial reduction of beef
carcasses (9, 10, 11, 12, 13).
Nevertheless, the characterization of decontamination
procedures of beef carcasses in abattoirs is scarce,
with few studies characterizing these procedures
among other food safety practices (14, 15). This lack of
reliable information on decontamination procedures
of beef carcasses in any country constrains the
possibilities for evaluation and improvement, which
represents a risk of contamination of meat with
pathogenic microorganisms of public health concern
RESUMEN
Antecedentes: Las plantas de beneficio animal deben utilizar un procedimiento de descontaminación de canales para el control
de patógenos y con ello, prevenir la aparición de enfermedades transmitidas por el consumo de carne. Objetivos: El objetivo
de este estudio fue caracterizar el procedimiento de descontaminación de canales bovinas en las plantas de beneficio animal
del Departamento de Antioquia, Colombia, que se encontraban en servicio, inscritas y autorizadas por el Invima al momento
del estudio. Métodos: Este estudio descriptivo recolectó información de 23 plantas de beneficio animal de la especie bovina,
a partir de revisiones documentales y visitas a las plantas, usando formatos y cuestionarios entre julio de 2019 y abril de 2021.
Resultados: El estudio permitió caracterizar los procedimientos y técnicas de descontaminación de canales bovinas, revelando
que en al menos el 73,9% de las plantas de beneficio estudiadas se realiza la desinfección química de las canales para el control
de microorganismos. A partir de fuentes secundarias, se encontró que la mayoría de las plantas de beneficio animal en el
Departamento de Antioquia son muy pequeñas, 10 de ellas utilizan productos de desinfección de canales, tales como el ácido
cítrico, ácido láctico, ácido peracético y mezcla de ácidos orgánicos en concentraciones entre 900 y 1200 ppm, 1,5 y 1,7%, 180
y 190 ppm y 900 y 1200 ppm, respectivamente; y estos son utilizados de acuerdo con las recomendaciones de la respectiva
ficha técnica del producto. Por otro lado, durante la visita a las plantas de beneficio y mediante la aplicación del cuestionario,
se constató que las 12 plantas visitadas han implementado la desinfección química como método de intervención para el
control de microorganismos patógenos, realizando su aplicación mediante dispositivos manuales, no obstante, estas prácticas
no están fundamentadas científicamente. Por otro lado, se estableció que aparentemente el tipo de empresa, volumen de
sacrificio y falta de recursos financieros son los factores que determinan la elección del procedimiento de descontaminación
de canales. De igual manera, se evidenció la necesidad de realizar estudios para validar la efectividad del procedimiento de
descontaminación en las diferentes plantas de beneficio. Conclusiones: Aunque se estableció que en las plantas de beneficio
animal visitadas se implementa al menos una técnica de intervención como la desinfección química, esta elección no tiene un
sustento con base a fundamentos científicos y técnicos. Estos hallazgos respaldan la necesidad de mejoras en las plantas de
beneficio animal del Departamento, incluyendo mejoras al programa de vigilancia de la reducción efectiva de patógenos en
la cadena cárnica.
Palabras clave: Canales de res, Descontaminación de canales, Intervenciones de procesamiento, Ácidos orgánicos
INTRODUCTION
Food of animal origin is a relevant source of foodborne
diseases; among them, meat is one of the main food
vehicles for biological hazards to humans (1). Due to
its physical and chemical characteristics, meat can
favor the growth of pathogenic microorganisms
such as Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli O157:H7,
and other potential foodborne disease carriers or
related toxins, which makes meat a food of major risk
to public health (2, 3, 4) and for which its handling
requires adequate safety practices. Indeed, it has
been estimated that 14.8% of foodborne disease
outbreaks in Colombia were caused by consuming
meat and meat products (5).
Microbial contamination of meat can occur during
the slaughter process, which inevitably takes place
in transforming live animals into meat. Debe ir
todo el siguiente texto: Most of this contamination
comes from dirt, dust, and feces associated with
the animal’s skin, which encounters the carcass
when removed (6, 7) the prevalence and genetic
characterization of STEC O157 in bovine feces,
offal, and carcasses at slaughtering were examined
between July and October in 2006. STEC O157 was
detected in 31 of 301 cattle feces (10.3%).
Several decontamination methods have been
reported to reduce the microbial contamination of
carcasses: physical (e.g., hot water, steam, steam
vacuuming), chemical (e.g., organic acids, chlorine,
acidified sodium chlorite, polyphosphates), and
biological (e.g., bacteriophages, bacteriocins) (8).
However, the most effective carcass decontamination
techniques are nonbiological, with chemicals, acids,
steam, and hot water washes being the most
effective (1).
Chemical decontamination involves the application
of a chemical substance at some point during
slaughter. The most commonly used and extensively
studied substances for chemical decontamination
of carcasses are low molecular weight organic
acids (e.g., lactic, acetic, citric, fumaric) and other
chemicals such as chlorine, acidified sodium chlorite,
peroxyacids, and trisodium phosphate (8).
Several studies worldwide, including two Colombian
studies, have investigated the effect of chemical
decontamination and bacterial reduction of beef
carcasses (9, 10, 11, 12, 13).
Nevertheless, the characterization of decontamination
procedures of beef carcasses in abattoirs is scarce,
with few studies characterizing these procedures
among other food safety practices (14, 15). This lack of
reliable information on decontamination procedures
of beef carcasses in any country constrains the
possibilities for evaluation and improvement, which
represents a risk of contamination of meat with
pathogenic microorganisms of public health concern
3Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitaeVolume 30 | Number 03 | Article 351649
Characterization of decontamination procedure of beef carcasses at slaughterhouses in the province of Antioquia, Colombia
(16). In addition, this undesirable contaminated meat
also affects productivity (17) since the ineffectiveness
of microbiological risk control leads to commercial
and economic disadvantages for slaughterhouses
(17,18). The decontamination process chosen by
the slaughterhouse to guarantee meat safety
and reduce the risk of biological hazards must be
validated according to government regulations and
their preferred methods under specific production
conditions and circumstances (8, 19,20).
In 2019, the Colombian cattle slaughter was
3,407,750 heads, of which 96.4% were intended for
national consumption. Of this number, the province
of Antioquia provided the highest proportion,
with 541,003 heads (15.88%) (21), making the
decontamination characterization procedure
highly relevant in this province to reduce the risk of
contamination with pathogenic microorganisms of
public health concern. Therefore, this study aimed
to characterize the decontamination procedures of
beef carcasses in slaughterhouses located in the
province of Antioquia (Colombia).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ethical considerations
This study has the approval of the Committee for
Animal Experimentation (Act Nr. 133, June 2 th ,
2020) and of the Committee of Bioethical of the
University Research Headquarters (CBE-SIU) (Act
Nr. 20-110-905, June 26th , 2020). Both committees
of the Universidad de Antioquia, Colombia.
Type and study design
A descriptive study was conducted to characterize
beef carcass decontamination procedures (Fig. 1).
The characterization of beef carcass decontamination
procedures was carried out in the 23 slaughterhouses
registered and authorized by Invima in the province
of Antioquia. Both primary (i.e., the information
provided by the slaughterhouses themselves and by
direct observation of the researchers during a visit)
and secondary sources (i.e., the information provided
by the Invima) were used. Several strategies were
implemented to increase the likelihood of voluntary
participation in cattle slaughterhouses. Information
on the legal representative of the slaughterhouse
(including email and telephone contact numbers in
the Invima database and on the commercial pages)
was collected to establish the initial contact. The
abattoirs were then contacted by email through
an invitation letter, and later phone calls were
made to confirm the email arrival. Twelve cattle
slaughterhouses agreed to participate and were
finally enrolled in the study.
Documentary review from the Invima´s repository
Documentary information registered, authorized,
and available in the Territorial Working Group (TWG)
West (Grupo de trabajo territorial Occidente 1, in
spanish) repository, through informed consent, were
collected and reviewed to identify the characteristics
of each cattle slaughterhouse. For this purpose, a
form was designed to collect general, socio-cultural,
and technical information and for the characteristics
of the decontamination procedures.
Visits to the slaughterhouse
A single visit was carried out between November
2020 and April 2021 to each of the 12 cattle
slaughterhouses that agreed to participate in
the study. During the visit, the characterization
information of each slaughterhouse was collected
through a questionnaire completed by the delegated
and responsible person who attended the visit.
The questionnaire included five sections: 1)
general information, 2) socio-cultural information,
3) technical information, 4) characteristics of the
disinfection process, and 5) verification of the
decontamination procedure. In addition, an open
non-cooperative observation (22) of the routine
decontamination procedure of carcasses was carried
out during the same visit, using a form to record this
specific information.
Pre-test of the information collection instruments
A ll infor mation collec tion ins t r ume nt s —
questionnaires and forms, were pre-tested at a
small scale to evaluate their effectiveness. In each
case (i.e., documentary review from the Invima´s
TWG West 1 repository, characterization information
of each slaughterhouse during the visit, and
characterization of the routine decontamination
procedure during the visit). Six experts in the field
(one doctor of engineering and five veterinarians
with long experience in beef abat toirs and
postgraduate studies in the field of veterinary public
health) evaluated the structure to ensure that all
important issues were identified and covered, and
to identify problems, such as unnecessary length,
poorly worded, unclear questions, or allowance of
subjective responses (23) (Figure 1).
Characterization of decontamination procedure of beef carcasses at slaughterhouses in the province of Antioquia, Colombia
(16). In addition, this undesirable contaminated meat
also affects productivity (17) since the ineffectiveness
of microbiological risk control leads to commercial
and economic disadvantages for slaughterhouses
(17,18). The decontamination process chosen by
the slaughterhouse to guarantee meat safety
and reduce the risk of biological hazards must be
validated according to government regulations and
their preferred methods under specific production
conditions and circumstances (8, 19,20).
In 2019, the Colombian cattle slaughter was
3,407,750 heads, of which 96.4% were intended for
national consumption. Of this number, the province
of Antioquia provided the highest proportion,
with 541,003 heads (15.88%) (21), making the
decontamination characterization procedure
highly relevant in this province to reduce the risk of
contamination with pathogenic microorganisms of
public health concern. Therefore, this study aimed
to characterize the decontamination procedures of
beef carcasses in slaughterhouses located in the
province of Antioquia (Colombia).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ethical considerations
This study has the approval of the Committee for
Animal Experimentation (Act Nr. 133, June 2 th ,
2020) and of the Committee of Bioethical of the
University Research Headquarters (CBE-SIU) (Act
Nr. 20-110-905, June 26th , 2020). Both committees
of the Universidad de Antioquia, Colombia.
Type and study design
A descriptive study was conducted to characterize
beef carcass decontamination procedures (Fig. 1).
The characterization of beef carcass decontamination
procedures was carried out in the 23 slaughterhouses
registered and authorized by Invima in the province
of Antioquia. Both primary (i.e., the information
provided by the slaughterhouses themselves and by
direct observation of the researchers during a visit)
and secondary sources (i.e., the information provided
by the Invima) were used. Several strategies were
implemented to increase the likelihood of voluntary
participation in cattle slaughterhouses. Information
on the legal representative of the slaughterhouse
(including email and telephone contact numbers in
the Invima database and on the commercial pages)
was collected to establish the initial contact. The
abattoirs were then contacted by email through
an invitation letter, and later phone calls were
made to confirm the email arrival. Twelve cattle
slaughterhouses agreed to participate and were
finally enrolled in the study.
Documentary review from the Invima´s repository
Documentary information registered, authorized,
and available in the Territorial Working Group (TWG)
West (Grupo de trabajo territorial Occidente 1, in
spanish) repository, through informed consent, were
collected and reviewed to identify the characteristics
of each cattle slaughterhouse. For this purpose, a
form was designed to collect general, socio-cultural,
and technical information and for the characteristics
of the decontamination procedures.
Visits to the slaughterhouse
A single visit was carried out between November
2020 and April 2021 to each of the 12 cattle
slaughterhouses that agreed to participate in
the study. During the visit, the characterization
information of each slaughterhouse was collected
through a questionnaire completed by the delegated
and responsible person who attended the visit.
The questionnaire included five sections: 1)
general information, 2) socio-cultural information,
3) technical information, 4) characteristics of the
disinfection process, and 5) verification of the
decontamination procedure. In addition, an open
non-cooperative observation (22) of the routine
decontamination procedure of carcasses was carried
out during the same visit, using a form to record this
specific information.
Pre-test of the information collection instruments
A ll infor mation collec tion ins t r ume nt s —
questionnaires and forms, were pre-tested at a
small scale to evaluate their effectiveness. In each
case (i.e., documentary review from the Invima´s
TWG West 1 repository, characterization information
of each slaughterhouse during the visit, and
characterization of the routine decontamination
procedure during the visit). Six experts in the field
(one doctor of engineering and five veterinarians
with long experience in beef abat toirs and
postgraduate studies in the field of veterinary public
health) evaluated the structure to ensure that all
important issues were identified and covered, and
to identify problems, such as unnecessary length,
poorly worded, unclear questions, or allowance of
subjective responses (23) (Figure 1).
4Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitae Volume 30 | Number 03 | Article 351649Mauricio Sánchez-Acevedo, Carolina Peña Serna, Francisco J. Garay Pineda, Jorge A. Fernández-Silva
Statistical analysis
For the processing of the information collected
from the different sources, a database was built
in Excel ® software (Redmond, Washington, USA).
Subsequently, the information was analyzed to
estimate frequencies and proportions.
RESULTS
General characteristics of the slaughterhouses
According to the Invima repository, 23 cattle
slaughterhouses in Antioquia were active and
authorized during the evaluation period (July 2019
and April 2021). Seventeen paid for the permanent
inspection ser vice. Five conducted periodic
inspections, and information was not obtained from
one slaughterhouse because it was registered in
another jurisdiction (i.e., Caribbean Coast-2 TWG).
According to the origin of the working capital (type
of company), 11 public, eight private, and four
mixed slaughterhouses are in Antioquia. Following
the sanitary authorization, five slaughterhouses
can allocate their products for self-consumption,
seven at the local level, nine at the national level,
and only one has the authorization to export. In
general, it was identified that most slaughterhouses
have a slaughter volume of <50,000 heads per year
(monthly average-based) (Table 1).
Figure 1. General information on the study design for the characterization of beef carcass decontamination procedure at slaughterhouse
in the province of Antioquia (Colombia), 2019-2021.
Statistical analysis
For the processing of the information collected
from the different sources, a database was built
in Excel ® software (Redmond, Washington, USA).
Subsequently, the information was analyzed to
estimate frequencies and proportions.
RESULTS
General characteristics of the slaughterhouses
According to the Invima repository, 23 cattle
slaughterhouses in Antioquia were active and
authorized during the evaluation period (July 2019
and April 2021). Seventeen paid for the permanent
inspection ser vice. Five conducted periodic
inspections, and information was not obtained from
one slaughterhouse because it was registered in
another jurisdiction (i.e., Caribbean Coast-2 TWG).
According to the origin of the working capital (type
of company), 11 public, eight private, and four
mixed slaughterhouses are in Antioquia. Following
the sanitary authorization, five slaughterhouses
can allocate their products for self-consumption,
seven at the local level, nine at the national level,
and only one has the authorization to export. In
general, it was identified that most slaughterhouses
have a slaughter volume of <50,000 heads per year
(monthly average-based) (Table 1).
Figure 1. General information on the study design for the characterization of beef carcass decontamination procedure at slaughterhouse
in the province of Antioquia (Colombia), 2019-2021.
5Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitaeVolume 30 | Number 03 | Article 351649
Characterization of decontamination procedure of beef carcasses at slaughterhouses in the province of Antioquia, Colombia
Table 1. Information of the slaughterhouses registered, in service, and with sanitary authorization by Invima in the province of
Antioquia (Colombia), 2019-2021
Slaughter-
house Municipality State of
operation Inspected by Type of
inspection
Type of
company7
Destination of
the carcass
Slaughter
volume 8
Enrolled and visited
during the study
1 Amalfi In service TWG West 1 2 Not permanent Mixed Self-consumption <50,000 Yes
2 Amagá In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private National <50,000 No
3 Andes* Closed1 TWG West 1 Permanent Public Local <50,000 No
4 Anorí In service TWG West 1 Not permanent Public Self-consumption N.D. No
5 Cañasgordas* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Public National <50,000 Yes
6 Caramanta* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private Local <50,000 Yes
7 Caucasia In service Caribbean-2 Coast
TWG
N.D. Private N.D. N.D. No
8 Ciudad Bolívar* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Mixed National <50,000 No
9 Copacabana In service TWG West 1 Permanent Public Local <50,000 No
10 Ebéjico In service TWG West 1 Not permanent Public Self-consumption N.D. No
11 Fredonia In service 3 TWG West 1 Permanent Public Local <50,000 Yes
12 Marinilla* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private National <50,000 No
13 Medellín* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Mixed National <100,000 No
14 Peque In service TWG West 1 Not permanent Public Self-consumption <50,000 Yes 9
15 Puerto triunfo In service 4 TWG West 1 Permanent Public Local N.D. No
16 Rionegro* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Mixed National <50,000 Yes
17 San Carlos In service 5 TWG West 1 Not permanent Public Self-consumption <50,000 Yes
18 San Roque* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private National <50,000 Yes
19 Santa Rosa de
Osos* 6
In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private National and
export
Between 50,000
and 100,000
No
20 Sonsón* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private National <50,000 Yes
21 Turbo* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private National <50,000 Yes
22 Urrao In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private Local <50,000 Yes
23 Yarumal* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private Local <50,000 Yes
1Closed since November 2020; 2
TWG: Territorial Working Group; 3
Open since March 2020; 4
Open since November 2020; 5
Open since July 2020; 6
Slaugtherhouse
with authorization to allocate carcasses for export and the only beef slaughterhouse in Antioquia with Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) certification by
Invima; 7According to the origin of the working capital; 8 Heads per year (monthly average-based); 9 Through virtual means; *Slaughterhouse subject to review of the
beef carcass decontamination procedures in 2019, according to the TWG Occidente 1; N.D.: No data.
Documentary characterization of the beef
carcass decontamination procedure
A 52.17% (12/23) of the slaughterhouses in the study
had information on the decontamination procedures,
identifying some sociocultural and technical
features. Six slaughterhouses had personnel trained
to perform the decontamination procedures, and
10 used carcass disinfection products. In the latter
case, five plants used citric acid, two used lactic acid,
the other two used peracetic acid, and one used
a mixture of organic acids. It was evidenced that
66.67% of the slaughterhouses (8/12) used carcass
disinfection products according to the product’s
technical data sheet, but only two used it in an
adequate concentration for the intended purpose
and consistent with scientific publications (18,33).
It was also found that eight slaughterhouses had a
documented carcass decontamination procedure;
however, in six of these procedures, corrective
actions were described when a non-conformity of
the disinfectant solution was evidenced. Finally,
eight slaughterhouses had a verification record of
the microbiological results of the decontamination
procedure (Table 2).
Characterization of decontamination procedure of beef carcasses at slaughterhouses in the province of Antioquia, Colombia
Table 1. Information of the slaughterhouses registered, in service, and with sanitary authorization by Invima in the province of
Antioquia (Colombia), 2019-2021
Slaughter-
house Municipality State of
operation Inspected by Type of
inspection
Type of
company7
Destination of
the carcass
Slaughter
volume 8
Enrolled and visited
during the study
1 Amalfi In service TWG West 1 2 Not permanent Mixed Self-consumption <50,000 Yes
2 Amagá In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private National <50,000 No
3 Andes* Closed1 TWG West 1 Permanent Public Local <50,000 No
4 Anorí In service TWG West 1 Not permanent Public Self-consumption N.D. No
5 Cañasgordas* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Public National <50,000 Yes
6 Caramanta* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private Local <50,000 Yes
7 Caucasia In service Caribbean-2 Coast
TWG
N.D. Private N.D. N.D. No
8 Ciudad Bolívar* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Mixed National <50,000 No
9 Copacabana In service TWG West 1 Permanent Public Local <50,000 No
10 Ebéjico In service TWG West 1 Not permanent Public Self-consumption N.D. No
11 Fredonia In service 3 TWG West 1 Permanent Public Local <50,000 Yes
12 Marinilla* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private National <50,000 No
13 Medellín* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Mixed National <100,000 No
14 Peque In service TWG West 1 Not permanent Public Self-consumption <50,000 Yes 9
15 Puerto triunfo In service 4 TWG West 1 Permanent Public Local N.D. No
16 Rionegro* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Mixed National <50,000 Yes
17 San Carlos In service 5 TWG West 1 Not permanent Public Self-consumption <50,000 Yes
18 San Roque* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private National <50,000 Yes
19 Santa Rosa de
Osos* 6
In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private National and
export
Between 50,000
and 100,000
No
20 Sonsón* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private National <50,000 Yes
21 Turbo* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private National <50,000 Yes
22 Urrao In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private Local <50,000 Yes
23 Yarumal* In service TWG West 1 Permanent Private Local <50,000 Yes
1Closed since November 2020; 2
TWG: Territorial Working Group; 3
Open since March 2020; 4
Open since November 2020; 5
Open since July 2020; 6
Slaugtherhouse
with authorization to allocate carcasses for export and the only beef slaughterhouse in Antioquia with Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) certification by
Invima; 7According to the origin of the working capital; 8 Heads per year (monthly average-based); 9 Through virtual means; *Slaughterhouse subject to review of the
beef carcass decontamination procedures in 2019, according to the TWG Occidente 1; N.D.: No data.
Documentary characterization of the beef
carcass decontamination procedure
A 52.17% (12/23) of the slaughterhouses in the study
had information on the decontamination procedures,
identifying some sociocultural and technical
features. Six slaughterhouses had personnel trained
to perform the decontamination procedures, and
10 used carcass disinfection products. In the latter
case, five plants used citric acid, two used lactic acid,
the other two used peracetic acid, and one used
a mixture of organic acids. It was evidenced that
66.67% of the slaughterhouses (8/12) used carcass
disinfection products according to the product’s
technical data sheet, but only two used it in an
adequate concentration for the intended purpose
and consistent with scientific publications (18,33).
It was also found that eight slaughterhouses had a
documented carcass decontamination procedure;
however, in six of these procedures, corrective
actions were described when a non-conformity of
the disinfectant solution was evidenced. Finally,
eight slaughterhouses had a verification record of
the microbiological results of the decontamination
procedure (Table 2).
6Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitae Volume 30 | Number 03 | Article 351649Mauricio Sánchez-Acevedo, Carolina Peña Serna, Francisco J. Garay Pineda, Jorge A. Fernández-Silva
Table 2. Information registered in the Invima´s Territorial Working Group (TWG) Occidente 1 on the beef carcass Washing and
Disinfection (decontamination) procedures in 12 slaughterhouses located in the province of Antioquia (Colombia), 2019-2021
Slaughterhouse
The educational
level of the person
responsible for the
quality area
Personnel trained
to conduct the
decontamination
procedure
Chemical product
used
Use of disinfection
products according
to the product’s
technical data sheet
Use of a
decontamination
product according
to scientific
publications
Documented
decontamination
procedure
Documented
decontamination
procedure,
describing
corrective actions
when non-
compliance is
evidenced
Record of the
verification of
microbiological
results of the
decontamination
procedure
1 Professional, DVM 1 No Citric acid No No No No No
2 N.D. No None No No No No No
3 Professional, DVM 1 No Citric acid Yes No Yes Yes No
4 Technologist, FQC 2 Yes Peracetic acid Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5 Technologist, F 3 No Citric acid Yes No Yes No Yes
6 Professional, DVM 1 Yes Citric acid Yes No Yes Yes Yes
7 Professional, DVM 1 Yes Organic acids No No Yes Yes Yes
8 Technologist, F 3 Yes NA NA NA NA NA Yes
9 N.D. Yes Citric acid Yes No Yes Yes Yes
10 Professional, IE 4 No Citric acid Yes No No No Yes
11 N.D. Yes Citric acid Yes No Yes Yes Yes
12 Professional, DVM 1 No Peracetic acid Yes Yes Yes No No
1DVM: Veterinarian; 2
FQC: Food Quality Control; 3
F: Foods; 4
Industrial Engineer; N.D.: No data; NA: Not applicable (the information recorded by the TWG was related
to the general decontamination program).
Characterization of the carcass Washing and
Disinfection (decontamination) procedure
Twelve out of the 23 slaughterhouses allowed the
visit; however, these 12 establishments differed
from the 12 for which a record of information
related to the carcass decontamination process was
found during the documentary review of the TWG
Occidente 1 records. Seven slaughterhouses were
consistent with the information collected during the
face-to-face visit and the documentary review from
the TWG (Fig. 1).
Ten of the 12 slaughterhouses had a documented
carcass decontamination procedure. In addition, it
was evidenced that the 12 slaughterhouses visited
had implemented chemical intervention in the
process of obtaining carcass meat as a method
to control pathogenic microorganisms. Regarding
the chemical products used, it was identified
that four slaughterhouses applied citric acid in
concentrations of 0.10-0.15% (1000-1500 ppm), three
of them used lactic acid in concentrations of 1.2-2%
(12,000-20,000 ppm), three other slaughterhouses
applied peracetic acid in concentrations of 160-
210 ppm, and two used organic acid mixtures in
concentrations of 0.02-0.12% (200-1200 ppm). In
addition, eight of the 12 slaughterhouses used
carcass disinfectants according to the product’s
technical data sheet but did no provided scientific
support for the implemented procedure; therefore,
no carcass decontamination procedure has
been properly validated to date. Concerning the
microbiological verification of the process, the study
showed that nine of the 12 slaughterhouses carried
out a sampling to detect generic E. coli (indicator
microorganism) and Salmonella spp. (pathogenic
microorganism) (Table 3).
Table 2. Information registered in the Invima´s Territorial Working Group (TWG) Occidente 1 on the beef carcass Washing and
Disinfection (decontamination) procedures in 12 slaughterhouses located in the province of Antioquia (Colombia), 2019-2021
Slaughterhouse
The educational
level of the person
responsible for the
quality area
Personnel trained
to conduct the
decontamination
procedure
Chemical product
used
Use of disinfection
products according
to the product’s
technical data sheet
Use of a
decontamination
product according
to scientific
publications
Documented
decontamination
procedure
Documented
decontamination
procedure,
describing
corrective actions
when non-
compliance is
evidenced
Record of the
verification of
microbiological
results of the
decontamination
procedure
1 Professional, DVM 1 No Citric acid No No No No No
2 N.D. No None No No No No No
3 Professional, DVM 1 No Citric acid Yes No Yes Yes No
4 Technologist, FQC 2 Yes Peracetic acid Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5 Technologist, F 3 No Citric acid Yes No Yes No Yes
6 Professional, DVM 1 Yes Citric acid Yes No Yes Yes Yes
7 Professional, DVM 1 Yes Organic acids No No Yes Yes Yes
8 Technologist, F 3 Yes NA NA NA NA NA Yes
9 N.D. Yes Citric acid Yes No Yes Yes Yes
10 Professional, IE 4 No Citric acid Yes No No No Yes
11 N.D. Yes Citric acid Yes No Yes Yes Yes
12 Professional, DVM 1 No Peracetic acid Yes Yes Yes No No
1DVM: Veterinarian; 2
FQC: Food Quality Control; 3
F: Foods; 4
Industrial Engineer; N.D.: No data; NA: Not applicable (the information recorded by the TWG was related
to the general decontamination program).
Characterization of the carcass Washing and
Disinfection (decontamination) procedure
Twelve out of the 23 slaughterhouses allowed the
visit; however, these 12 establishments differed
from the 12 for which a record of information
related to the carcass decontamination process was
found during the documentary review of the TWG
Occidente 1 records. Seven slaughterhouses were
consistent with the information collected during the
face-to-face visit and the documentary review from
the TWG (Fig. 1).
Ten of the 12 slaughterhouses had a documented
carcass decontamination procedure. In addition, it
was evidenced that the 12 slaughterhouses visited
had implemented chemical intervention in the
process of obtaining carcass meat as a method
to control pathogenic microorganisms. Regarding
the chemical products used, it was identified
that four slaughterhouses applied citric acid in
concentrations of 0.10-0.15% (1000-1500 ppm), three
of them used lactic acid in concentrations of 1.2-2%
(12,000-20,000 ppm), three other slaughterhouses
applied peracetic acid in concentrations of 160-
210 ppm, and two used organic acid mixtures in
concentrations of 0.02-0.12% (200-1200 ppm). In
addition, eight of the 12 slaughterhouses used
carcass disinfectants according to the product’s
technical data sheet but did no provided scientific
support for the implemented procedure; therefore,
no carcass decontamination procedure has
been properly validated to date. Concerning the
microbiological verification of the process, the study
showed that nine of the 12 slaughterhouses carried
out a sampling to detect generic E. coli (indicator
microorganism) and Salmonella spp. (pathogenic
microorganism) (Table 3).
7Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitaeVolume 30 | Number 03 | Article 351649
Characterization of decontamination procedure of beef carcasses at slaughterhouses in the province of Antioquia, Colombia
On the other hand, the direct observation of the
decontamination procedure during the visit allowed
us to identify that the 12 visited slaughterhouses
implemented this process; nevertheless, none of
the slaughterhouses recognized the combination
of methods or the multiple obstacles strategy, and
none had implemented the Hazard Analysis Critical
Control Points (HACCP) safety assurance system.
From a quality point of view, it was identified that
seven slaughterhouses carried out prior verification
of the disinfectant concentration and monitored
the concentration during the workday or shift.
Regarding the technique or mode of application
of the disinfectant, it was observed that all the
slaughterhouses applied the disinfectant by
spraying with manually operated devices, five
slaughterhouses had an exclusive operator for
the carcass decontamination procedure, one
slaughterhouse knew the pressure of the equipment
used for the application of the disinfectant
solution, and none of them knew the applied
volume of disinfectant solution per carcass. When
reviewing the documentation of the slaughterhouses
visited, it was found that six had the documented
procedure to carry out the carcass decontamination,
evidencing a lower number of slaughterhouses
than initially indicated such procedure when the
questionnaire was applied during the visit. Four
slaughterhouses were also identified to perform
the carcass decontamination activities described
in the documented procedures; therefore, the
decontamination procedures need to be correctly
validated, according to the results. However,
seven slaughterhouses have laboratory records of
microbiological results of the carcasses.
Factors determining the selection of the Washing
and Disinfection (decontamination) procedure
Based on the information collection instruments
—both from primary and secondary sources, and
what was observed during the visit, the factors
that determined the selection of the carcass
decontamination procedure in the slaughterhouses
of the study were the type of company, slaughter
volume, and lack of financial resources.
Table 3. Characterization of the carcass Washing and Disinfection (decontamination) procedure in the 12 slaughterhouses of study,
located in the province of Antioquia (Colombia), 2019-2021
Slaughterhouse
Municipality
QD
The educational level
of the personnel res-
ponsible for quality
DP of decontamination
Chemical product used
Concentration (%)
Application of the
disinfectant according
to TS
Scientific support of
the IP
Use of the decon-
tamination product
according to scientific
publications
Microbiological verifi-
cation of the deconta-
mination procedure
1 Amalfi No NA Yes Citric acid 0.10 Yes No No No
2 Cañasgordas Yes Technologist Yes Citric acid 0.15 Yes No No Yes
3 Caramanta No NA Yes Citric acid 0.15 Yes No No Yes
4 Fredonia Yes Technician Yes Organic acids 0.12 No* No No Yes
5 Peque Yes Professional Yes Lactic acid* 1.45 No* No Yes No
6 Rionegro Yes Technologist No Peracetic acid 0.02 Yes No Yes Yes
7 San Carlos Yes Bachelor Yes Organic acids 0.02 No* No No No
8 San Roque Yes Technologist Yes Citric acid 0.13 Yes No No Yes
9 Sonsón Yes Technologist Yes Lactic acid 1.21 Yes No Yes Yes
10 Turbo Yes Technologist Yes Peracetic acid 0.02 No* No Yes Yes
11 Urrao Yes Professional No Lactic acid 2.02 Yes No Yes Yes
12 Yarumal Yes Professional Yes Peracetic acid 0.02 Yes No Yes Yes
QD: Quality Department; DP: Documented Procedure; TS: Technical Sheet; IP: Implemented Procedure; NA: Not applicable; * slaughterhouse does not present a
technical sheet of the disinfectant.
Characterization of decontamination procedure of beef carcasses at slaughterhouses in the province of Antioquia, Colombia
On the other hand, the direct observation of the
decontamination procedure during the visit allowed
us to identify that the 12 visited slaughterhouses
implemented this process; nevertheless, none of
the slaughterhouses recognized the combination
of methods or the multiple obstacles strategy, and
none had implemented the Hazard Analysis Critical
Control Points (HACCP) safety assurance system.
From a quality point of view, it was identified that
seven slaughterhouses carried out prior verification
of the disinfectant concentration and monitored
the concentration during the workday or shift.
Regarding the technique or mode of application
of the disinfectant, it was observed that all the
slaughterhouses applied the disinfectant by
spraying with manually operated devices, five
slaughterhouses had an exclusive operator for
the carcass decontamination procedure, one
slaughterhouse knew the pressure of the equipment
used for the application of the disinfectant
solution, and none of them knew the applied
volume of disinfectant solution per carcass. When
reviewing the documentation of the slaughterhouses
visited, it was found that six had the documented
procedure to carry out the carcass decontamination,
evidencing a lower number of slaughterhouses
than initially indicated such procedure when the
questionnaire was applied during the visit. Four
slaughterhouses were also identified to perform
the carcass decontamination activities described
in the documented procedures; therefore, the
decontamination procedures need to be correctly
validated, according to the results. However,
seven slaughterhouses have laboratory records of
microbiological results of the carcasses.
Factors determining the selection of the Washing
and Disinfection (decontamination) procedure
Based on the information collection instruments
—both from primary and secondary sources, and
what was observed during the visit, the factors
that determined the selection of the carcass
decontamination procedure in the slaughterhouses
of the study were the type of company, slaughter
volume, and lack of financial resources.
Table 3. Characterization of the carcass Washing and Disinfection (decontamination) procedure in the 12 slaughterhouses of study,
located in the province of Antioquia (Colombia), 2019-2021
Slaughterhouse
Municipality
QD
The educational level
of the personnel res-
ponsible for quality
DP of decontamination
Chemical product used
Concentration (%)
Application of the
disinfectant according
to TS
Scientific support of
the IP
Use of the decon-
tamination product
according to scientific
publications
Microbiological verifi-
cation of the deconta-
mination procedure
1 Amalfi No NA Yes Citric acid 0.10 Yes No No No
2 Cañasgordas Yes Technologist Yes Citric acid 0.15 Yes No No Yes
3 Caramanta No NA Yes Citric acid 0.15 Yes No No Yes
4 Fredonia Yes Technician Yes Organic acids 0.12 No* No No Yes
5 Peque Yes Professional Yes Lactic acid* 1.45 No* No Yes No
6 Rionegro Yes Technologist No Peracetic acid 0.02 Yes No Yes Yes
7 San Carlos Yes Bachelor Yes Organic acids 0.02 No* No No No
8 San Roque Yes Technologist Yes Citric acid 0.13 Yes No No Yes
9 Sonsón Yes Technologist Yes Lactic acid 1.21 Yes No Yes Yes
10 Turbo Yes Technologist Yes Peracetic acid 0.02 No* No Yes Yes
11 Urrao Yes Professional No Lactic acid 2.02 Yes No Yes Yes
12 Yarumal Yes Professional Yes Peracetic acid 0.02 Yes No Yes Yes
QD: Quality Department; DP: Documented Procedure; TS: Technical Sheet; IP: Implemented Procedure; NA: Not applicable; * slaughterhouse does not present a
technical sheet of the disinfectant.
8Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitae Volume 30 | Number 03 | Article 351649Mauricio Sánchez-Acevedo, Carolina Peña Serna, Francisco J. Garay Pineda, Jorge A. Fernández-Silva
DISCUSSION
The current study characterized the beef carcass
decontamination procedures routinely used in
slaughterhouses. The response rate obtained was
lower (52%) when compared to similar studies using
comparable methodologies (14, 15). Although
several efforts were made to increase the response,
the voluntary participation in the research and some
pre-existing prejudice against sharing information
on safety procedures with academia led to the
response rate obtained.
The five slaughterhouses that did not have a
permanent official inspection could get access to
this critical inspection service provided by territorial
entities taking advantage of the regulations and
guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and
Social Protection (24, 25) similar to the inspection
system of other countries, such as Mexico, USA, and
Canada, with federal and state inspection (14, 26,
27, 28). Some authors have suggested a relationship
between the reduction in the prevalence of
pathogens in the final product and access to an
official inspection, resulting in microbiologically
safer carcasses (26).
More than 90% of the slaughterhouses were small
and/or very small plants, similar to others found in
previous studies (14, 15, 27, 28). It was hypothesized
that slaughterhouses with higher slaughter volumes
—at least 80,000 cattle/year (6,700 cattle/month),
can invest in aspects related to ensuring product
safety, as suggested by other studies (14, 27). Due
to their size, very small slaughterhouses have a low
income and limited financial resources, so they save
on aspects such as performing validation studies
of the decontamination process used, acquiring
technological resources such as automated
intervention systems, and training personnel.
According to national health regulations, the
personnel responsible for the operation must
understand and conduct the activities under their
responsibility (3, 29). Continuous training in aspects
associated with carcass decontamination should
be reinforced in slaughterhouses since personnel
training is essential to produce safe food (15,30).
The use of chemical products such as citric
acid, lactic acid, peracetic acid, and a mixture
of organic acids in carcass decontamination has
also been identified by other researchers for the
control of pathogenic microorganisms in meat
(31, 32, 33, 34). Although the substances used
in the decontamination process vary between
slaughterhouses, sprinkling organic acids was also
evidenced in a previous study (14).
According to our results, citric acid is the most
commonly used product at concentrations between
900 and 1,500 ppm (0.09-0.15%), which is consistent
with the product’s technical data sheet (i.e., 900-
3,000 ppm). However, the concentrations at which
the product was being applied were well below,
compared to other studies, where 2% citric acid
was not enough to significantly reduce pathogens
(34, 35). In the current study, it was established that
three of the 12 slaughterhouses visited applied
lactic acid at concentrations between 1.2 and 2%;
however, previous research has recommended
the use of lactic acid at concentrations between
2 and 4% to obtain reductions greater than one
logarithmic unit (6, 27, 31) we compared its use
with that of lactic acidas a preevisceration wash in a
commercial setting. A commercial hot water carcass
wash cabinet applying 74 ºC (165 ºF)..
Three of the studied slaughterhouses used peracetic
acid at concentrations between 160 and 210 ppm,
which is the recommended maximum concentration
of 220 ppm (36). However, another study reports
that it is not an effective intervention according to
what is recognized (35).
It was identified that in most of the slaughterhouses
of the study, the method of application of the
decontamination product was manual. This type of
application is less effective in reducing microbial
populations (34). Considering that most of the
slaughterhouses in Antioquia are small or very
small —many in the latter classification, it is unlikely
that the automated application mode was one of
the most used since the latter is more suitable for
larger slaughterhouses slaughter volumes (15)we
conducted a national survey of federally inspected
meat slaughter and processing establishments
(376 completed surveys, 66% response rate. One
explanation is the cost of such equipment and
production needs, which makes it more likely to
be used by larger slaughterhouses since they have
more resources to implement these technologies.
In most of the slaughterhouses visited, it was
obser ved that the operator responsible for
the carcass decontamination procedure is not
exclusively responsible for conducting this activity,
which may increase fatigue. In addition, during
the direct observation of the decontamination
procedure, the slaughterhouses indicated that
they were unaware of the disinfectant volume and
application pressure. Other research has reported
DISCUSSION
The current study characterized the beef carcass
decontamination procedures routinely used in
slaughterhouses. The response rate obtained was
lower (52%) when compared to similar studies using
comparable methodologies (14, 15). Although
several efforts were made to increase the response,
the voluntary participation in the research and some
pre-existing prejudice against sharing information
on safety procedures with academia led to the
response rate obtained.
The five slaughterhouses that did not have a
permanent official inspection could get access to
this critical inspection service provided by territorial
entities taking advantage of the regulations and
guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and
Social Protection (24, 25) similar to the inspection
system of other countries, such as Mexico, USA, and
Canada, with federal and state inspection (14, 26,
27, 28). Some authors have suggested a relationship
between the reduction in the prevalence of
pathogens in the final product and access to an
official inspection, resulting in microbiologically
safer carcasses (26).
More than 90% of the slaughterhouses were small
and/or very small plants, similar to others found in
previous studies (14, 15, 27, 28). It was hypothesized
that slaughterhouses with higher slaughter volumes
—at least 80,000 cattle/year (6,700 cattle/month),
can invest in aspects related to ensuring product
safety, as suggested by other studies (14, 27). Due
to their size, very small slaughterhouses have a low
income and limited financial resources, so they save
on aspects such as performing validation studies
of the decontamination process used, acquiring
technological resources such as automated
intervention systems, and training personnel.
According to national health regulations, the
personnel responsible for the operation must
understand and conduct the activities under their
responsibility (3, 29). Continuous training in aspects
associated with carcass decontamination should
be reinforced in slaughterhouses since personnel
training is essential to produce safe food (15,30).
The use of chemical products such as citric
acid, lactic acid, peracetic acid, and a mixture
of organic acids in carcass decontamination has
also been identified by other researchers for the
control of pathogenic microorganisms in meat
(31, 32, 33, 34). Although the substances used
in the decontamination process vary between
slaughterhouses, sprinkling organic acids was also
evidenced in a previous study (14).
According to our results, citric acid is the most
commonly used product at concentrations between
900 and 1,500 ppm (0.09-0.15%), which is consistent
with the product’s technical data sheet (i.e., 900-
3,000 ppm). However, the concentrations at which
the product was being applied were well below,
compared to other studies, where 2% citric acid
was not enough to significantly reduce pathogens
(34, 35). In the current study, it was established that
three of the 12 slaughterhouses visited applied
lactic acid at concentrations between 1.2 and 2%;
however, previous research has recommended
the use of lactic acid at concentrations between
2 and 4% to obtain reductions greater than one
logarithmic unit (6, 27, 31) we compared its use
with that of lactic acidas a preevisceration wash in a
commercial setting. A commercial hot water carcass
wash cabinet applying 74 ºC (165 ºF)..
Three of the studied slaughterhouses used peracetic
acid at concentrations between 160 and 210 ppm,
which is the recommended maximum concentration
of 220 ppm (36). However, another study reports
that it is not an effective intervention according to
what is recognized (35).
It was identified that in most of the slaughterhouses
of the study, the method of application of the
decontamination product was manual. This type of
application is less effective in reducing microbial
populations (34). Considering that most of the
slaughterhouses in Antioquia are small or very
small —many in the latter classification, it is unlikely
that the automated application mode was one of
the most used since the latter is more suitable for
larger slaughterhouses slaughter volumes (15)we
conducted a national survey of federally inspected
meat slaughter and processing establishments
(376 completed surveys, 66% response rate. One
explanation is the cost of such equipment and
production needs, which makes it more likely to
be used by larger slaughterhouses since they have
more resources to implement these technologies.
In most of the slaughterhouses visited, it was
obser ved that the operator responsible for
the carcass decontamination procedure is not
exclusively responsible for conducting this activity,
which may increase fatigue. In addition, during
the direct observation of the decontamination
procedure, the slaughterhouses indicated that
they were unaware of the disinfectant volume and
application pressure. Other research has reported
9Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitaeVolume 30 | Number 03 | Article 351649
Characterization of decontamination procedure of beef carcasses at slaughterhouses in the province of Antioquia, Colombia
volumes ranging from 250 to 473 mL per carcass
(37), and better results have been reported when
using 2 to 3 L per carcass (34) and an application
pressure range between 10-123 psi (18, 38).
Therefore, and in accordance with what has been
pointed out in other studies, in addition to the
concentration of the disinfectant, several specific
variables of the process must be controlled, such
as operator fatigue, pressure or lack of spraying
of the product, the volume of the disinfectant
applied, time of exposure to the disinfectant, and
coverage area of the carcass with the spray, since
these factors significantly influence the efficacy of
carcass decontamination treatments (31, 34, 41).
According to what was observed, most of the
slaughterhouses in the study have implemented
an intervention method to control pathogenic
microorganisms. In Antioquia, the most used
method is washing carcasses with water at room
temperature (average 19.9 °C) and sprinkling organic
acids. Although it is recognized and accepted that
an intervention is effective when it achieves at
least a logarithmic reduction (27), and although the
effectiveness of this decontamination procedure has
been demonstrated, washing with water at room
temperature and spraying with organic acids is the
least effective alternative since it reduces only 1
to 1.5 logarithmic units (27, 39). Hot water carcass
washing was not used in the slaughterhouses study,
an intervention that, like chemical disinfection, has
increased over time as a pathogen control strategy
in the US (15). Other studies have found that the
combination of hot water washing (<55 °C) followed
by organic acid spraying resulted in additional
reductions of 0.2 to 0.5 and of 0.5 to 1.9 log units
for E. coli O157: H7 and S. typhimurium, respectively,
which are pathogenic bacteria of interest in
meat (6, 35, 15, 40). Furthermore, this strategy
could reduce the bacterial load due to cross-
contamination and is suggested for small and very
small slaughterhouses (26). Therefore, it is considered
a viable alternative to improve the conditions of the
carcass decontamination procedures, according to
the features of the slaughterhouses located in the
province of Antioquia.
As discussed above and considering that none of the
slaughterhouses visited acknowledge implementing
the multi-barrier strategy —including a good
preventive intervention such as supplier control, the
multi-barrier approach significantly improves results
and is more effective than a single intervention is
used (14, 41, 42). Combining washing with hot water
(<55 °C) followed by spraying with organic acids
would be a practical and acceptable option for
slaughterhouses in Antioquia.
Most of the slaughterhouses visited carried out a
microbiological sampling of the carcasses to verify
the effectiveness of the decontamination procedure,
an aspect required according to Colombian health
regulations (3, 29). However, process control could
be improved and monitored through well-designed
sampling plans. Therefore, it is agreed to state that
although the good manufacturing practices are
essential for properly carrying out the slaughter
process, pathogen sampling and control plans
can help filter contaminated products during the
transformation process, stimulate improvements in
cleaning and disinfection procedures, and reduce
consumer risk and financial costs associated with
rejected products by improving product safety
(43). In addition, to achieve control of pathogens
in carcasses, sanitar y standards require the
interventions used to destroy and prevent the growth
of pathogens to be validated under manufacturing
conditions (3, 29). Therefore, it is recommended
that the beef carcass decontamination procedure
chosen by the slaughterhouses must be validated
under the local environments and conditions of each
one, as has been recommended in other research
works (11,41).
CONCLUSION
Although it was established that at least one
decontamination procedure, such as chemical
disinfection, is implemented in the slaughterhouses
of study, this option is not supported by scientific or
technical foundations. It is likely that, due to limited
resources or low income, slaughterhouses are saving
on technical factors, technology, and staff training
and suitability. These findings support the need
for improvements in the slaughterhouses of the
province of Antioquia, including the improvement
of surveillance programs to effectively reduce
pathogens in the meat chain.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Invima for
the access to information and the slaughterhouses
for allowing the visits and for sharing the information.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest in the
present investigation.
Characterization of decontamination procedure of beef carcasses at slaughterhouses in the province of Antioquia, Colombia
volumes ranging from 250 to 473 mL per carcass
(37), and better results have been reported when
using 2 to 3 L per carcass (34) and an application
pressure range between 10-123 psi (18, 38).
Therefore, and in accordance with what has been
pointed out in other studies, in addition to the
concentration of the disinfectant, several specific
variables of the process must be controlled, such
as operator fatigue, pressure or lack of spraying
of the product, the volume of the disinfectant
applied, time of exposure to the disinfectant, and
coverage area of the carcass with the spray, since
these factors significantly influence the efficacy of
carcass decontamination treatments (31, 34, 41).
According to what was observed, most of the
slaughterhouses in the study have implemented
an intervention method to control pathogenic
microorganisms. In Antioquia, the most used
method is washing carcasses with water at room
temperature (average 19.9 °C) and sprinkling organic
acids. Although it is recognized and accepted that
an intervention is effective when it achieves at
least a logarithmic reduction (27), and although the
effectiveness of this decontamination procedure has
been demonstrated, washing with water at room
temperature and spraying with organic acids is the
least effective alternative since it reduces only 1
to 1.5 logarithmic units (27, 39). Hot water carcass
washing was not used in the slaughterhouses study,
an intervention that, like chemical disinfection, has
increased over time as a pathogen control strategy
in the US (15). Other studies have found that the
combination of hot water washing (<55 °C) followed
by organic acid spraying resulted in additional
reductions of 0.2 to 0.5 and of 0.5 to 1.9 log units
for E. coli O157: H7 and S. typhimurium, respectively,
which are pathogenic bacteria of interest in
meat (6, 35, 15, 40). Furthermore, this strategy
could reduce the bacterial load due to cross-
contamination and is suggested for small and very
small slaughterhouses (26). Therefore, it is considered
a viable alternative to improve the conditions of the
carcass decontamination procedures, according to
the features of the slaughterhouses located in the
province of Antioquia.
As discussed above and considering that none of the
slaughterhouses visited acknowledge implementing
the multi-barrier strategy —including a good
preventive intervention such as supplier control, the
multi-barrier approach significantly improves results
and is more effective than a single intervention is
used (14, 41, 42). Combining washing with hot water
(<55 °C) followed by spraying with organic acids
would be a practical and acceptable option for
slaughterhouses in Antioquia.
Most of the slaughterhouses visited carried out a
microbiological sampling of the carcasses to verify
the effectiveness of the decontamination procedure,
an aspect required according to Colombian health
regulations (3, 29). However, process control could
be improved and monitored through well-designed
sampling plans. Therefore, it is agreed to state that
although the good manufacturing practices are
essential for properly carrying out the slaughter
process, pathogen sampling and control plans
can help filter contaminated products during the
transformation process, stimulate improvements in
cleaning and disinfection procedures, and reduce
consumer risk and financial costs associated with
rejected products by improving product safety
(43). In addition, to achieve control of pathogens
in carcasses, sanitar y standards require the
interventions used to destroy and prevent the growth
of pathogens to be validated under manufacturing
conditions (3, 29). Therefore, it is recommended
that the beef carcass decontamination procedure
chosen by the slaughterhouses must be validated
under the local environments and conditions of each
one, as has been recommended in other research
works (11,41).
CONCLUSION
Although it was established that at least one
decontamination procedure, such as chemical
disinfection, is implemented in the slaughterhouses
of study, this option is not supported by scientific or
technical foundations. It is likely that, due to limited
resources or low income, slaughterhouses are saving
on technical factors, technology, and staff training
and suitability. These findings support the need
for improvements in the slaughterhouses of the
province of Antioquia, including the improvement
of surveillance programs to effectively reduce
pathogens in the meat chain.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Invima for
the access to information and the slaughterhouses
for allowing the visits and for sharing the information.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest in the
present investigation.
10Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitae Volume 30 | Number 03 | Article 351649Mauricio Sánchez-Acevedo, Carolina Peña Serna, Francisco J. Garay Pineda, Jorge A. Fernández-Silva
AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS
Mauricio Sánchez-Acevedo designed the study and
questionnaires, carried out the field work, collected
and analyzed the data, and draft the manuscript.
Jorge A. Fernández-Silva designed and supervised
the study. Carolina Peña Serna and Francisco J.
Garay Pineda advised some aspects of the study and
contributed to the validation of the questionnaires.
All authors contributed to the discussions, read and
approved the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Nielsen B, Colle MJ, Ünlü G. Meat safety and quality: a biological
approach. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2021;56(1):39–51 https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijfs.14602
2. Organización Mundial de la Salud OMS, FAO. Guía FAO/OMS
para la aplicación de principios y procedimientos de análisis de
riesgos en situaciones de emergencia relativas a la inocuidad de
los alimentos [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2019 Oct 15]. Available from:
http://www.fao.org/3/ba0092s/ba0092s00.pdf
3. República de Colombia, Ministerio de la Protección Social.
Decreto 1500 de 2007, mayo 4, por el cual se establece el
reglamento técnico a través del cual se crea el Sistema Oficial de
Inspección, Vigilancia y Control de la Carne, Productos Cárnicos
Comestibles y Derivados Cárnicos, destinados para el Consumo
Humano. Colombia: El Ministerio; 2007
4. República de Colombia, Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social.
Resolución 2674 de 2013, julio 22, Por la cual se reglamenta
el artículo 126 del Decreto Ley 019 de 2012 y se dictan otras
disposiciones. Colombia: El Ministerio; 2013.
5. Colombia. Ins tituto Nacional de Salud. Enfer medades
Transmitidas por Alimentos Colombia primer semestre 2019
[Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Jun 6]. Available from: https://www.ins.
gov.co/buscador-eventos/Informesdeevento/ENFERMEDADES
TRANSMITIDAS POR ALIMENTOS_2019.pdf
6. Bosilevac JM, Nou X, Barkocy-Gallagher GA, Arthur TM,
Koohmaraie M. Treatments Using Hot Water Instead of Lactic
Acid Reduce Levels of Aerobic Bacteria and Enterobacteriaceae
and Reduce the Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 on
Preevisceration Beef Carcasses. J Food Prot. 2006 Aug;69(8):1808–
1813. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x-69.8.1808
7. Dickson JS, Anderson ME. Microbiological decontamination
of food animal carcasses by washing and sanitizing systems:
A review. J Food Prot. 1992 Feb 1;55(2):133–140. https://doi.
org/10.4315/0362-028x-55.2.133
8. Hugas M, Tsigarida E. Pros and cons of carcass decontamination:
The role of the European Food Safet y Authorit y. Meat
S c i . 2 0 0 8;78 (1 – 2 ) :4 3 – 5 2 . h t t p s : //d o i . o r g /10 .1016 / j .
meatsci.2007.09.001
9. Sallam KI, Abd-Elghany SM, Hussein MA, Imre K, Morar
A, Morshdy AE, et al. Microbial Decontamination of Beef
Carcass Surfaces by Lactic Acid, Acetic Acid, and Trisodium
Phosphate Sprays. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2020/2324358
10. Kocharunchitt C, Mellefont L, Bowman JP, Ross T. Application of
chlorine dioxide and peroxyacetic acid during spray chilling as
a potential antimicrobial intervention for beef carcasses. Food
Microbiol. 2020;87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2019.103355
11. Greig JD, Waddell L, Wilhelm B, Wilkins W, Bucher O, Parker
S, et al. The efficacy of interventions applied during primary
processing on contamination of beef carcasses with Escherichia
coli: A systematic review-meta-analysis of the published research.
Food Control. 2012;27(2):385–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodcont.2012.03.019
12. Corpas-Iguarán EJ, Arcila-Henao JS. Recuento de coliformes
y Escherichia coli en canales bovinas sometidas a tratamientos
físicos y químicos. Biotecnol en el Sect Agropecu y Agroindustrial
[Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Oct 6];12(2):125–133. Available
f rom: ht t p://w w w.s cielo.org.co/s cielo.p hp?s c r ipt=s ci _
arttext&pid=S1692-35612014000200014&lng=en
13. Valencia Montero V, Acero Plazas V. Comparación de ácido
láctico, ácido peroxiacético e hipoclorito de sodio en la
desinfección de canales bovinas en un frigorífico de Bogotá,
Colombia. Rev Med Vet (Bogotá). 2013;(26):13–23. https://doi.
org/10.19052/mv.2632
14. Cates SC, Viator CL, Karns SA, Muth MK. Food Safety Practices
of Meat Slaughter Plants : Findings from a National Survey. Food
Prot trends. 2008;28(1):26–36.
15. Viator CL, Cates SC, Karns SA, Muth MK. Food safety practices
in the U.S. meat slaughter and processing industry: Changes
from 2005 to 2015. J Food Prot. 2017;80(8):1384–1392. https://
doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-378
16. Pan American Health Organization, World Health Organization
- PAHO. Surveillance and prevention of foodborne diseases
[Internet]. 1997 [cited 2019 Sep 1]. p. 20. Available from: http://
iris.paho.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/19083/doc198.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
17. Vipham JL, Chaves BD, Trinetta V. Mind the gaps: How can food
safety gaps be addressed in developing nations? Anim Front.
2018;8(4):16–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy020
18. Zhilyaev S, Cadavez V, Gonzales-Barron U, Phetxumphou K,
Gallagher D. Meta-analysis on the effect of interventions used in
cattle processing plants to reduce Escherichia coli contamination.
Food Res Int. 2017;93:16 –25. ht tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodres.2017.01.005
19. Antic D, Houf K, Michalopoulou E, Blagojevic B. Beef
abattoir interventions in a risk-based meat safety assurance
system. Meat Sci. 2021;182:108622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
meatsci.2021.108622
20. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ). Scientific Opinion
on the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of lactic acid for the
removal of microbial surface contamination of beef carcasses,
cuts and trimmings. EFSA J. 2011;9(7):2317, 35 pp. https://doi.
org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2317
21. Colombia. DANE. Encuesta de sacrificio de ganado (ESAG) censo-
Sacrificio de ganado_total_nacional_enero_diciembre_2019
[Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Oct 12]. Available from: https://www.
dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/agropecuario/
encuesta-de-sacrificio-de-ganado
22. Varkevisser CM, Pathmanathan I, Brownlee A. Diseño y realización
de proyectos de investigacion sobre sistemas de salud [Internet].
Ottawa: Centro Internacional de Investigaciones para el
Desarrollo (CIID); 1995 [cited 2020 Oct 22]. p. xix + 376. Available
from: https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/3088/
Disenio y realizacion de proyectos de investigacion sobre
sistemas de salud (2), 1.pdf?sequence=1
23. Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H. Questionnaire design. In: Veterinary
epidemiologic research. 2nd ed. Charlottetown; 2009. p. 57–68.
24. República de Colombia. Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social.
Circular 0046 de 2014 [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 Feb 27].
Available from: https://www.minsalud.gov.co/Normatividad_
Nuevo/Circular 0046 de 2014.pdf
25. República de Colombia. Ministerio de Salud y Protección
Social. Circular 46 de 2016 [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Feb 27].
AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS
Mauricio Sánchez-Acevedo designed the study and
questionnaires, carried out the field work, collected
and analyzed the data, and draft the manuscript.
Jorge A. Fernández-Silva designed and supervised
the study. Carolina Peña Serna and Francisco J.
Garay Pineda advised some aspects of the study and
contributed to the validation of the questionnaires.
All authors contributed to the discussions, read and
approved the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Nielsen B, Colle MJ, Ünlü G. Meat safety and quality: a biological
approach. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2021;56(1):39–51 https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijfs.14602
2. Organización Mundial de la Salud OMS, FAO. Guía FAO/OMS
para la aplicación de principios y procedimientos de análisis de
riesgos en situaciones de emergencia relativas a la inocuidad de
los alimentos [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2019 Oct 15]. Available from:
http://www.fao.org/3/ba0092s/ba0092s00.pdf
3. República de Colombia, Ministerio de la Protección Social.
Decreto 1500 de 2007, mayo 4, por el cual se establece el
reglamento técnico a través del cual se crea el Sistema Oficial de
Inspección, Vigilancia y Control de la Carne, Productos Cárnicos
Comestibles y Derivados Cárnicos, destinados para el Consumo
Humano. Colombia: El Ministerio; 2007
4. República de Colombia, Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social.
Resolución 2674 de 2013, julio 22, Por la cual se reglamenta
el artículo 126 del Decreto Ley 019 de 2012 y se dictan otras
disposiciones. Colombia: El Ministerio; 2013.
5. Colombia. Ins tituto Nacional de Salud. Enfer medades
Transmitidas por Alimentos Colombia primer semestre 2019
[Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Jun 6]. Available from: https://www.ins.
gov.co/buscador-eventos/Informesdeevento/ENFERMEDADES
TRANSMITIDAS POR ALIMENTOS_2019.pdf
6. Bosilevac JM, Nou X, Barkocy-Gallagher GA, Arthur TM,
Koohmaraie M. Treatments Using Hot Water Instead of Lactic
Acid Reduce Levels of Aerobic Bacteria and Enterobacteriaceae
and Reduce the Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 on
Preevisceration Beef Carcasses. J Food Prot. 2006 Aug;69(8):1808–
1813. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x-69.8.1808
7. Dickson JS, Anderson ME. Microbiological decontamination
of food animal carcasses by washing and sanitizing systems:
A review. J Food Prot. 1992 Feb 1;55(2):133–140. https://doi.
org/10.4315/0362-028x-55.2.133
8. Hugas M, Tsigarida E. Pros and cons of carcass decontamination:
The role of the European Food Safet y Authorit y. Meat
S c i . 2 0 0 8;78 (1 – 2 ) :4 3 – 5 2 . h t t p s : //d o i . o r g /10 .1016 / j .
meatsci.2007.09.001
9. Sallam KI, Abd-Elghany SM, Hussein MA, Imre K, Morar
A, Morshdy AE, et al. Microbial Decontamination of Beef
Carcass Surfaces by Lactic Acid, Acetic Acid, and Trisodium
Phosphate Sprays. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2020/2324358
10. Kocharunchitt C, Mellefont L, Bowman JP, Ross T. Application of
chlorine dioxide and peroxyacetic acid during spray chilling as
a potential antimicrobial intervention for beef carcasses. Food
Microbiol. 2020;87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2019.103355
11. Greig JD, Waddell L, Wilhelm B, Wilkins W, Bucher O, Parker
S, et al. The efficacy of interventions applied during primary
processing on contamination of beef carcasses with Escherichia
coli: A systematic review-meta-analysis of the published research.
Food Control. 2012;27(2):385–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodcont.2012.03.019
12. Corpas-Iguarán EJ, Arcila-Henao JS. Recuento de coliformes
y Escherichia coli en canales bovinas sometidas a tratamientos
físicos y químicos. Biotecnol en el Sect Agropecu y Agroindustrial
[Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Oct 6];12(2):125–133. Available
f rom: ht t p://w w w.s cielo.org.co/s cielo.p hp?s c r ipt=s ci _
arttext&pid=S1692-35612014000200014&lng=en
13. Valencia Montero V, Acero Plazas V. Comparación de ácido
láctico, ácido peroxiacético e hipoclorito de sodio en la
desinfección de canales bovinas en un frigorífico de Bogotá,
Colombia. Rev Med Vet (Bogotá). 2013;(26):13–23. https://doi.
org/10.19052/mv.2632
14. Cates SC, Viator CL, Karns SA, Muth MK. Food Safety Practices
of Meat Slaughter Plants : Findings from a National Survey. Food
Prot trends. 2008;28(1):26–36.
15. Viator CL, Cates SC, Karns SA, Muth MK. Food safety practices
in the U.S. meat slaughter and processing industry: Changes
from 2005 to 2015. J Food Prot. 2017;80(8):1384–1392. https://
doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-378
16. Pan American Health Organization, World Health Organization
- PAHO. Surveillance and prevention of foodborne diseases
[Internet]. 1997 [cited 2019 Sep 1]. p. 20. Available from: http://
iris.paho.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/19083/doc198.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
17. Vipham JL, Chaves BD, Trinetta V. Mind the gaps: How can food
safety gaps be addressed in developing nations? Anim Front.
2018;8(4):16–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy020
18. Zhilyaev S, Cadavez V, Gonzales-Barron U, Phetxumphou K,
Gallagher D. Meta-analysis on the effect of interventions used in
cattle processing plants to reduce Escherichia coli contamination.
Food Res Int. 2017;93:16 –25. ht tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodres.2017.01.005
19. Antic D, Houf K, Michalopoulou E, Blagojevic B. Beef
abattoir interventions in a risk-based meat safety assurance
system. Meat Sci. 2021;182:108622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
meatsci.2021.108622
20. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ). Scientific Opinion
on the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of lactic acid for the
removal of microbial surface contamination of beef carcasses,
cuts and trimmings. EFSA J. 2011;9(7):2317, 35 pp. https://doi.
org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2317
21. Colombia. DANE. Encuesta de sacrificio de ganado (ESAG) censo-
Sacrificio de ganado_total_nacional_enero_diciembre_2019
[Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Oct 12]. Available from: https://www.
dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/agropecuario/
encuesta-de-sacrificio-de-ganado
22. Varkevisser CM, Pathmanathan I, Brownlee A. Diseño y realización
de proyectos de investigacion sobre sistemas de salud [Internet].
Ottawa: Centro Internacional de Investigaciones para el
Desarrollo (CIID); 1995 [cited 2020 Oct 22]. p. xix + 376. Available
from: https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/3088/
Disenio y realizacion de proyectos de investigacion sobre
sistemas de salud (2), 1.pdf?sequence=1
23. Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H. Questionnaire design. In: Veterinary
epidemiologic research. 2nd ed. Charlottetown; 2009. p. 57–68.
24. República de Colombia. Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social.
Circular 0046 de 2014 [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 Feb 27].
Available from: https://www.minsalud.gov.co/Normatividad_
Nuevo/Circular 0046 de 2014.pdf
25. República de Colombia. Ministerio de Salud y Protección
Social. Circular 46 de 2016 [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Feb 27].
11Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitaeVolume 30 | Number 03 | Article 351649
Characterization of decontamination procedure of beef carcasses at slaughterhouses in the province of Antioquia, Colombia
Available from: https://www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/Lists/
BibliotecaDigital/RIDE/DE/DIJ/circular-46-de-2016.pdf
26. Algino RJ, Ingham SC, Zhu J. Survey of Antimicrobial Effects
of Beef Carcass Intervention Treatments in Very Small State-
Inspected Slaughter Plants. J Food Sci. 2007 Jun;72(5):M173–
M179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00386.x
27. Brashears MM, Chaves BD. The diversity of beef safety: A global
reason to strengthen our current systems. Meat Sci. 2017;132:59–
71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.03.015
28. Essendoubi S, Stashko N, So I, Gensler G, Rolheiser D, Mainali
C. Prevalence of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli
(STEC) O157:H7, Six non-O157 STECs, and Salmonella on beef
carcasses in Provincially Licensed Abattoirs in Alberta, Canada.
Food Control. 2019;105:226–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodcont.2019.05.032
29. República de Colombia, Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social.
Resolución 240 de 2013. Por la cual se establecen los requisitos
sanitarios para el funcionamiento de las plantas de beneficio
animal de las especies bovina, bufalina y porcina, planta de
desposte y almacenamiento, comercialización, expendio,
transporte, importación o exportación de carne y productos
cárnicos comestibles. Colombia: El Ministerio; 2013.
30. López AM, Sáez AC, Marteache AH, Martín de Santos MR. Informe
del Comité Científico de la Agencia Española de Seguridad
Alimentaria y Nutrición (AESAN) sobre medidas de prevención
y recomendaciones aplicables para evitar posibles infecciones
alimentarias por cepas de Escherichia coli verotoxigénicos. Rev
Del Com Científico La AESAN [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2022 Apr
19];16:71–100. Available from: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/
articulo?codigo=5858584
31. Han J, Luo X, Zhang Y, Zhu L, Mao Y, Dong P, et al. Effects of
spraying lactic acid and peroxyacetic acid on the bacterial
decontamination and bacterial composition of beef carcasses.
Meat Sci. 2020;16 4:10 810 4. ht t ps://doi.org /10.1016/ j.
meatsci.2020.108104
32. Huffman R. Current and future technologies for the decontamination
of carcasses and fresh meat. Meat Sci. 2002;62(3):285–294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00120-1
33. Iñiguez-Moreno M, Avila-Novoa MG, Iñiguez-Moreno E,
Guerrero-Medina PJ, Gutiérrez-Lomelí M. Antimicrobial
activity of disinfectants commonly used in the food industry in
Mexico. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2017;10:143–147. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jgar.2017.05.013
34. Signorini M, Costa M, Teitelbaum D, Restovich V, Brasesco
H, García D, et al. Evaluation of decontamination efficacy of
commonly used antimicrobial interventions for beef carcasses
against Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli. Meat Sci.
2018;142:44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.009
35. Mohan A, Pohlman FW. Role of organic acids and peroxyacetic
acid as antimicrobial intervention for controlling Escherichia
coli O157: H7 on beef trimmings. LWT - Food Sci Technol.
2016;65:868–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.08.077
36. FDA. 21 CFR 173.370 [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Oct 4]. Available
from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/
cfrsearch.cfm?fr=173.370
37. Castillo A, Lucia LM, Roberson DB, Stevenson TH, Mercado I,
Acuff GR. Lactic Acid Sprays Reduce Bacterial Pathogens on
Cold Beef Carcass Surfaces and in Subsequently Produced
Ground Beef. J Food Prot. 2001;64(1):58– 62. https://doi.
org/10.4315/0362-028X-64.1.58
38. Cutter CN, Siragusa GR. Efficacy of Organic Acids Against
Escherichia coli 0157: H7 Attached to Beef Carcass Tissue Using
a Pilot Scale Model Carcass Washer. J Food Prot. 1994;57(2):97–
103. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-57.2.97
39. Loretz M, Stephan R, Zweifel C. Antibacterial activity of
decontamination treatments for cattle hides and beef carcasses.
Food Control. 2011;347– 359. ht tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodcont.2010.09.004
40. Castillo A, Lucia LM, Goodson KJ, Savell JW, Acuff GR. Use
of Hot Water for Beef Carcass Decontamination. J Food Prot.
1998;61(1):19–25. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-61.1.19
41. Young I, Wilhelm BJ, Cahill S, Nakagawa R, Desmarchelier P, Rajić
A. A rapid systematic review and meta-Analysis of the efficacy of
slaughter and processing interventions to control nontyphoidal
salmonella in beef and pork. J Food Prot. 2016 Dec;79(12):2196–
2210. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-203
42. Phebus RK, Nutsch AL, Schafer DE, Wilson RC, Riemann MJ,
Leising JD, et al. Comparison of steam pasteurization and other
methods for reduction of pathogens on surfaces of freshly
slaughtered beef. J Food Prot. 1997;60(5):476–484. https://doi.
org/10.4315/0362-028X-60.5.476
43. Pollari F, Christidis T, Pintar KDM, Nesbitt A, Farber J, Lavoie
MC, et al. Evidence for the benefits of food chain interventions
on E. coli O157:H7/NM prevalence in retail ground beef and
human disease incidence: A success story. Can J Public Heal.
2017;108(1):e71–e78. https://doi.org/10.17269/CJPH.108.5655
Characterization of decontamination procedure of beef carcasses at slaughterhouses in the province of Antioquia, Colombia
Available from: https://www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/Lists/
BibliotecaDigital/RIDE/DE/DIJ/circular-46-de-2016.pdf
26. Algino RJ, Ingham SC, Zhu J. Survey of Antimicrobial Effects
of Beef Carcass Intervention Treatments in Very Small State-
Inspected Slaughter Plants. J Food Sci. 2007 Jun;72(5):M173–
M179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00386.x
27. Brashears MM, Chaves BD. The diversity of beef safety: A global
reason to strengthen our current systems. Meat Sci. 2017;132:59–
71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.03.015
28. Essendoubi S, Stashko N, So I, Gensler G, Rolheiser D, Mainali
C. Prevalence of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli
(STEC) O157:H7, Six non-O157 STECs, and Salmonella on beef
carcasses in Provincially Licensed Abattoirs in Alberta, Canada.
Food Control. 2019;105:226–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodcont.2019.05.032
29. República de Colombia, Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social.
Resolución 240 de 2013. Por la cual se establecen los requisitos
sanitarios para el funcionamiento de las plantas de beneficio
animal de las especies bovina, bufalina y porcina, planta de
desposte y almacenamiento, comercialización, expendio,
transporte, importación o exportación de carne y productos
cárnicos comestibles. Colombia: El Ministerio; 2013.
30. López AM, Sáez AC, Marteache AH, Martín de Santos MR. Informe
del Comité Científico de la Agencia Española de Seguridad
Alimentaria y Nutrición (AESAN) sobre medidas de prevención
y recomendaciones aplicables para evitar posibles infecciones
alimentarias por cepas de Escherichia coli verotoxigénicos. Rev
Del Com Científico La AESAN [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2022 Apr
19];16:71–100. Available from: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/
articulo?codigo=5858584
31. Han J, Luo X, Zhang Y, Zhu L, Mao Y, Dong P, et al. Effects of
spraying lactic acid and peroxyacetic acid on the bacterial
decontamination and bacterial composition of beef carcasses.
Meat Sci. 2020;16 4:10 810 4. ht t ps://doi.org /10.1016/ j.
meatsci.2020.108104
32. Huffman R. Current and future technologies for the decontamination
of carcasses and fresh meat. Meat Sci. 2002;62(3):285–294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00120-1
33. Iñiguez-Moreno M, Avila-Novoa MG, Iñiguez-Moreno E,
Guerrero-Medina PJ, Gutiérrez-Lomelí M. Antimicrobial
activity of disinfectants commonly used in the food industry in
Mexico. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2017;10:143–147. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jgar.2017.05.013
34. Signorini M, Costa M, Teitelbaum D, Restovich V, Brasesco
H, García D, et al. Evaluation of decontamination efficacy of
commonly used antimicrobial interventions for beef carcasses
against Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli. Meat Sci.
2018;142:44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.009
35. Mohan A, Pohlman FW. Role of organic acids and peroxyacetic
acid as antimicrobial intervention for controlling Escherichia
coli O157: H7 on beef trimmings. LWT - Food Sci Technol.
2016;65:868–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.08.077
36. FDA. 21 CFR 173.370 [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Oct 4]. Available
from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/
cfrsearch.cfm?fr=173.370
37. Castillo A, Lucia LM, Roberson DB, Stevenson TH, Mercado I,
Acuff GR. Lactic Acid Sprays Reduce Bacterial Pathogens on
Cold Beef Carcass Surfaces and in Subsequently Produced
Ground Beef. J Food Prot. 2001;64(1):58– 62. https://doi.
org/10.4315/0362-028X-64.1.58
38. Cutter CN, Siragusa GR. Efficacy of Organic Acids Against
Escherichia coli 0157: H7 Attached to Beef Carcass Tissue Using
a Pilot Scale Model Carcass Washer. J Food Prot. 1994;57(2):97–
103. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-57.2.97
39. Loretz M, Stephan R, Zweifel C. Antibacterial activity of
decontamination treatments for cattle hides and beef carcasses.
Food Control. 2011;347– 359. ht tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodcont.2010.09.004
40. Castillo A, Lucia LM, Goodson KJ, Savell JW, Acuff GR. Use
of Hot Water for Beef Carcass Decontamination. J Food Prot.
1998;61(1):19–25. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-61.1.19
41. Young I, Wilhelm BJ, Cahill S, Nakagawa R, Desmarchelier P, Rajić
A. A rapid systematic review and meta-Analysis of the efficacy of
slaughter and processing interventions to control nontyphoidal
salmonella in beef and pork. J Food Prot. 2016 Dec;79(12):2196–
2210. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-203
42. Phebus RK, Nutsch AL, Schafer DE, Wilson RC, Riemann MJ,
Leising JD, et al. Comparison of steam pasteurization and other
methods for reduction of pathogens on surfaces of freshly
slaughtered beef. J Food Prot. 1997;60(5):476–484. https://doi.
org/10.4315/0362-028X-60.5.476
43. Pollari F, Christidis T, Pintar KDM, Nesbitt A, Farber J, Lavoie
MC, et al. Evidence for the benefits of food chain interventions
on E. coli O157:H7/NM prevalence in retail ground beef and
human disease incidence: A success story. Can J Public Heal.
2017;108(1):e71–e78. https://doi.org/10.17269/CJPH.108.5655