Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
161
Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Laboratório de Virologia e Imunologia, CP 354, CEP 96010-900, Pelotas,
1
ABSTRACT
During the cooling process of embryonated eggs, there is a natural air flux from the surface
to the inner part of the eggs, carrying contaminants such as bacteria and fungi through the shell’s
pores, infecting embryos and resulting in the inability to hatch or poor chick quality. Formaldehyde, a
toxic product, is still the most used disinfectant for embryonated eggs in the aviculture industry. In
order to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of the green propolis ethanolic extract as an alternative
to formaldehyde, 140 hatching eggs from laying hens were collected and submitted to disinfection
with five different treatments: T1 - without disinfection; T2 - formaldehyde fumigated eggs; T3,
T4 and T5 disinfection by immersion in propolis solution in the concentrations of 2,400 µg, 240 µg
and 24 µg, respectively. The contamination levels by total mesophiles and fungi of the egg shells
(Aspergillus sp. and other moulds) after disinfection with propolis were lower than when compared
to the control without disinfection. In comparison with formaldehyde, the 240 µg and 24 µg propolis
concentrations did not differ regarding antibacterial activity, but for antifungal activity the 2,400
µg and 240 µg concentrations were more efficient. The 2,400 µg and 240 µg propolis treatments
presented a hatching rate of 94.1%, compared to only 84.6% for the formaldehyde treatment. The
green propolis ethanolic extract presented antibacterial and antifungal activities in embryonated
eggs showing that it can be a new natural disinfectant product substituting formaldehyde.
RESUMO
2
Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Faculdade de Veterinária, Laboratório de Bacteriologia e Micologia, Pelotas, RS, Brasil.
3
Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Conjunto Agrotécnico “Visconde da Graça”, Pelotas, RS, Brasil.
Arq. Inst. Biol., São Paulo, v.79, n.2, p.161-167, abr./jun., 2012
162 C.O. Vilela et al.
Arq. Inst. Biol., São Paulo, v.79, n.2, p.161-167, abr./jun., 2012
Propolis: a natural product as an alternative for disinfection of embryonated eggs for incubation. 163
minutes (Mauldin, 2002). From the total of 140 eggs, In the evaluation of fungi contamination, Figure
40 eggs (eight eggs from each group) were selected 2 shows the contamination by Aspergillus sp., where
for microbiological analysis at the bacteriology there was no significant difference between the
laboratory of the Faculdade de Veterinária of Uni- treatments tested (P > 0.05). Yet, propolis treatments
versidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel) and the others allowed a lower contamination than the control
were incubated for 21 days in the CAVG incubator. treatment, and the 2,400 µg and 240 µg propolis
On day seven eggs were candled and after hatching, concentrations afforded a smaller number of colonies
the rate (%) of initial embryonic mortality, fertility than the formaldehyde treatment. In Figure 3 it can
and hatchability were determined. be observed the contamination by other fungi, like
moulds, in which the treatments with 2,400 µg and
Microbiological evaluation 240 µg of propolis concentrations did not differ
statistically from the formaldehyde treatment (P >
Microbiological evaluation for determining the 0.05). On the other hand, these treatments did not
contamination level and the eggshell disinfection differ statistically from the control group. Finally, Fig-
efficiency was based on the counting of total mesophiles, ure 4 shows the total fungi contamination (Aspergillus
according to the methodology proposed by Silva et sp. and other moulds). None of the treatments
al. (1997). Initially, material from the eggshells was differed statistically from the control group (P > 0.05).
collected with a sterile swab previously damped in Regarding the embryo diagnosis (Table 1), the
1 mL of sterile saline solution. The swab was placed control treatment presented higher mortality rate
in a falcon tube with a sterile saline solution and in the first seven days of incubation. The treatments
homogenized for 30 seconds. Decimal dilution of with 2400 µg and 240 µg of propolis concentrations
the samples in saline solution was performed and and the formaldehyde treatment did not present
aliquots of 0.1 mL from the different dilutions were mortality in this initial period of incubation. Regarding
plated on Standard Count Agar. The samples from the eggs hatchability after 21 days of incubation, the
eggs, which underwent disinfection process were propolis treatments (2,400 µg and 240 µg) presented
diluted 10-1, 10-2 and 10-3, whereas the egg samples the highest rates (94.1%), even higher than the eggs
which were not disinfected were diluted 10-3, 10-4 and treated with formaldehyde. The lowest rate was
10-5. Finally, the plates were incubated at 37 ºC for observed in the control treatment (77%).
48 h when the reading of bacterial colony forming
unit (CFU/mL) was performed.
In order to evaluate antifungal activity, plating as DISCUSSION
previously described was also performed, however,
the dilution used was 10-1 and the culture medium Microbiological analyses are common prac-
was Agar Sabouraud Dextrose. The plates were tices in industrial incubators aiming at detecting
incubated at 25º C for five days to allow growth of total mesophiles and fungi like Aspergillus sp. and
filamentous fungi, where CFU counting for Aspergillus other moulds. Considering the fact that the control
sp., other moulds and total moulds were carried out. group did not receive any kind of disinfection, it
The values of CFU counting were converted into was expected that this group would present higher
log 10 scale. The variance analysis was performed microbiological contamination, which happened
by General Linear Models - SAS 8.0 (2001) looking when the total mesophiles prevalence was evalu-
for statistically significant differences between the ated with higher CFU, differing statistically from
treatments. The variables that presented statistically all the other treatments (P < 0.0001) (Fig. 1). Similar
significant differences to the F test were submitted result was observed by Cony et al. (2008) when they
to Tukey test (P < 0.05) with the aim of identifying evaluated pulverization and immersion techniques
differences between the mean of each treatment. with different disinfectants on embryonic eggs. The
three treatments with propolis presented a lower
contamination when compared to control group (P <
RESULTS 0.0001), and the treatment with 240 µg did not differ
statistically from the treatment with formaldehyde (P
Levels of contamination of the eggshells by > 0.05). This decrease in the level of contamination of
total mesophiles expressed in log10 of CFU/mL eggs makes evident the propolis antibacterial activity.
after disinfection can be observed in Figure 1. The According to Bankova et al. (1999) and Marcucci et
control treatment differed from the others (P < 0.0001) al. (2001), the propolis antibacterial activity is higher
showing a higher contamination level. However, against Gram positive bacteria, probably due to
the propolis treatment in the 240 µg concentration flavonoids, acids and aromatic esters present in the
did not differ statistically from the formaldehyde resin, which would act on the cell wall structure of
treatment (P > 0.05). these microorganisms through a mechanism not yet
Arq. Inst. Biol., São Paulo, v.79, n.2, p.161-167, abr./jun., 2012
164 C.O. Vilela et al.
elucidated. Other authors have already reported on effect of the same green propolis ethanolic extract
the propolis antimicrobial activity on a large variety evaluated in this study regarding its antimicrobial
of bacteria, especially on Gram positive (Kujumgiev activity, a chromatographic analysis (High Performance
et al., 1999; Miorin et al., 2003; Uzel et al., 2005). Liquid Chromatography – HPLC) showed high levels
Recently, Cardoso et al. (2009) found similar results of phenolic compounds and cinnamic acid and its
using green propolis ethanolic extract against derived. In this extract, the flavonoids corresponded
Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus intermedius to 22.37% of the dried extract (Fischer et al., 2007).
isolates. Through embryo diagnosis it was possible to
Regarding antifungal activity, (Figs. 2, 3 and observe that the eggs that did not go through disinfection
4) treatments with propolis allowed a lower con- resulted in a 25% embryonic mortality rate in the
tamination of eggs than the control treatment, and first seven days of incubation. This rate is considered
propolis concentrations of 2,400 µg and 240 µg were extremely high, as in this initial period of incubation
more efficient than formaldehyde. The propolis it is accepted rates of up to 3% (Rosa; Ávila, 2000).
antifungal (fungistatic and fungicide) activity is Treatments with propolis in concentrations of 2,400
attributed to the phenolic acids (cinnamic, feluric and µg and 240 µg and the formaldehyde treatment did
caffeic acids), terpenes and flavonoids like chrysin, not present mortality in this initial period, indicat-
ermanina, galangin, kaempferol, pinobanskina and ing that they provided an effective disinfection.
mainly pinocembrine (Siqueira et al., 2009). These When hatchability was evaluated, treatments with
substances are found in green propolis (Marcucci et propolis were more efficient than the others, what
al., 2001; Cushnie; Lamb, 2005). It is worth noting that makes evident that in these concentrations, propolis
in a study performed by our group (Fischer et al., besides having no harmful effect can even increase
2007) aiming at characterizing the immunomodulator the eggs hatchability.
Fig. 1 – Mean log10 CFU/mL of total mesophiles from embryonated eggs submitted to disinfection. The control
treatment differed from the others (P < 0.0001) by Tukey test. In the others treatments different letters represent
statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) by Tukey’s test.
Fig. 2 – Mean log10 CFU/mL of Aspergillus from embryonated eggs submitted to disinfection. Different letters represent
statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) by Tukey test.
Arq. Inst. Biol., São Paulo, v.79, n.2, p.161-167, abr./jun., 2012
Propolis: a natural product as an alternative for disinfection of embryonated eggs for incubation. 165
Fig. 3 – Mean log10 CFU/mL of other moulds from embryonated eggs submitted to disinfection. Different letters repre-
sent statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) by Tukey test.
Fig. 4 – Mean log10 CFU/mL of total moulds from embryonated eggs submitted to disinfection. Different letters represent
statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) by Tukey test.
Arq. Inst. Biol., São Paulo, v.79, n.2, p.161-167, abr./jun., 2012
166 C.O. Vilela et al.
CABRAL, I.S.R.; OLDONI, T.L.C.; PRADO, A.; KUJUMGIEV, A.; TSVETKOVA, I.; SERKEDJIEVA, Y.;
BEZERRA, R.M.N.; ALENCAR, S.M.D.; IKEGAKI, BANKOVA, V.; CHRISTOV, R.; POPOV, S. Antibacte-
M.; ROSALEN, P.L. Composição fenólica, atividade rial, antifungal and antiviral activity of propolis of dif-
antibacteriana e antioxidante da propolis vermelha ferent geographic origin. Journal of Ethnopharmacology,
brasileira. Química Nova, v.32, p.1523-1527, 2009. v.64, p.235-240, 1999.
CARDOSO, R.L.; MABONI, F.; MACHADO, G.; LI, F., AWALE, S.; ZHANG, H.; TEZUKA, Y.; ESUMI,
ALVES, S.H.; VARGAS, A.C. 2009. Antimicrobial H.; KADOTA, S. Chemical Constituents of Propolis
activity of propolis extract against Staphylococcus from Myanmar and Their Preferential Cytotoxicity
coagulase positive and Malassezia pachydermatis of against a Human Pancreatic Cancer Cell Line. Journal of
canine otitis. Veterinary Microbiology, v.142, p.432-434, Natural Products, v.72, p.1283-1287, 2009.
2009.
LUSTOSA, SARAH R.; GALINDO, A.B.; NUNES, L.
CONY, H.C.; VIEIRA, S.L.; BERRES, J.; GOMES, H.A.; C.C.; RANDAU, K. P.; ROLIM NETO, P.J. Propolis:
CONEGLIAN, J L.B.; FREITAS, D.M. Técnicas de atualizações sobre a química e a farmacologia. Revista
pulverização e imersão com distintos desinfetantes Brasileira de Farmacognosia, v.18, p.447-454, 2008.
sobre ovos incubáveis. Ciência Rural, v.38, p.1407-1412,
2008. MAGRAS, I.N. Formaldehyde vapour effects in chicken
embryo. Anatomia, histologia, embryologia. Journal of
CUSHNIE, T.P.T.; LAMB, A.J. Antimicrobial activity of Veterinary Medicine, v.25, p.197-200, 1996.
flavonoids. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents,
v.26, p.343-356, 2005. MARCUCCI, M.C. Propolis: chemical composition,
biological properties and therapeutical activity.
FISCHER G.; CONCEIÇÃO F.R.; LEITE F.P.; DUMMER Apidologie, v.26, p.83-99, 1995.
L.A.; VARGAS G.D.; HÜBNER S. DE O.; DELLAGOSTIN.
O.A.; PAULINO N.; PAULINO A.S.; VIDOR T. MARCUCCI, M. C; FERRERES, F.; GARCÍA-VIGUERA,
Immunomodulation produced by a green propolis C.; BANKOVA, V.S.; DE CASTRO, S.L.; DANTAS, A.P.;
extract on humoral and cellular responses of mice VALENTE, P.H.M.; PAULINO, N. Phenolic compounds
immunized with SuHV-1. Vaccine, v.26, p.1250-1256, 2007. from Brazilian propolis with pharmacological activities.
Journal of Ethnopharmacology, v.74, p.105-112, 2001.
GREGORIS, E.; STEVANATO, R. Correlations between
polyphenolic composition and antioxidant activity of MAULDIN, J.M. Maintaining hatching egg quality. In:
Venetian propolis. Food and Chemical Toxicology, v.48, BELL, D.D.; WEAVER, W.D. (Ed.). Commercial chicken
p.76-82, 2010. meat and egg production. 5.ed. Norwell: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 2002. p.705-707.
HAUPTMANN M.; STEWART, P.; LUBIN, J.; FREE-
MAN, L.; HORNUNG, R.; HERRICK, R.; HOOVER, R.; MIORIN, P.L.; LEVY JUNIOR, N.C.; CUSTODIO, A.R.;
FRAUMENI, J.; BLAIR, A.; HAYES, R. Mortality From BRETZ, W.A.; MARCUCCI, M.C. Antibacterial activity
Lymphohematopoietic Malignancies and Brain Cancer of honey and propolis from Apis mellifera and Tetragonisca
Among Embalmers Exposed to Formaldehyde. Journal angustula against Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Applied
of the National Cancer Institute, v.101, p.1696-1708, 2009. Microbiology, v.95, p.913-920, 2003.
Arq. Inst. Biol., São Paulo, v.79, n.2, p.161-167, abr./jun., 2012
Propolis: a natural product as an alternative for disinfection of embryonated eggs for incubation. 167
NOLKEMPER, S.; URGENREICHLING, J.; SENSCH, K.; SCOTT, T. A.; SWETNAM, C. Screening sanitizing
SCHNITZLER, P. Mechanism of herpes simplex virus agents and methods of application for hatching eggs. II.
type 2 suppression by propolis extracts. Phytomedicine, Effectiveness against microorganisms on the egg shell.
v.17, p.132-138, 2010. Journal Applied Poultry Research, v.2, p.7-11, 1993.
PARK, Y.K.; ALENCAR, S.M.; SCAMPARINI, A.R.P.; SESTI, L.A.C. Biosseguridade em granjas de reprodu-
AGUIAR, C.L. Propolis produzida no sul do Brasil, toras In: MACARI, M.; MENDES, A.A. (Ed.). Manejo de
Argentina e Uruguai: Evidências fitoquímicas de sua matrizes de corte. Santos: Facta, 2005. p.244-317.
origem vegetal. Ciência Rural, v.32, p.997-1003, 2002.
SFORCIN, J.M.; FERNANDES JUNIOR, A.; LOPES,
PAULINO , N.; ABREU, S. R. L.; UTO, Y., KOYAMA, C.A.M.; BANKOVA, V.; FUNARI, S.R.C. Seasonal effect
D.; NAGASAWA, H.; HORI, H.; DIRSCH, V. M.; on Brazilian propolis antibacterial activity. Journal of
VOLLMAR, A. M.; SCREMIN, A.; BRETZ, W. A. Ethnopharmacology, v.73, p.243-249, 2000.
Anti-inflammatory effects of a bioavailable compound,
Artepillin C, in Brazilian propolis. European Journal of SILVA, N.; JUNQUEIRA, V.C.A.; SILVEIRA, N.F.A. Ma-
Pharmacology, v.587, p.296-301, 2008. nual de métodos de análise microbiológica de alimentos. São
Paulo: Varela, 1997. p.295.
QUINTERO, M.; OROZCO, A.; HERNÁNDEZ,
F.; GAYOSSO, P.; MARTÍNEZ,R.; ZÁRATE, C.; SIQUEIRA, A.B.S.; GOMES, B.S.; CAMBUIM, I.; MAIA,
MIRANDA,L.; CARRILLO, G.; TOVAR, C.; SÁNCHEZ, R.; ABREU, S.; SOUZA-MOTTA, C.M.; QUEIROZ, L.A.;
T. Efecto de extractos de propóleos mexicanos de Apis PORTO, A.L.F. Trichophyton species susceptibility to
mellifera sobre el crecimiento in vitro de Candida albicans. green and red propolis from Brazil. Letters in Applied
Revista Iberoamericana de Micologia, v.25, p.22-26, 2008. Microbiology, v.48, p.90-96, 2009.
ROSA, P.; ÁVILA, V. Variáveis relacionadas ao rendi- UZEL, A.; SORKUN, K.; ÖNÇAG, Ö., ÇOGULO, D.;
mento da incubação de ovos em matrizes de frangos de GENÇAY, Ö.; SALIH, B. Chemical compositions and
corte. CT/246/Embrapa Suínos e Aves, p.1-3, 2000. antimicrobial activities of four different Anatolian
propolis samples. Microbiology Research, v.160, p.189-
SALOMÃO, K.; SOUZA, E.; PONS,H.; BARBOSA, 195, 2005.
H.;CASTRO, S. Brazilian Green Propolis: Effects In
Vitro and In Vivo on Trypanosoma cruzi. Evidence-based ZULKIFLI, I.; FAUZIAH, O.; OMAR, A.R.; SHAIPU-
Complementary and Alternative Medicine, v.2011, p.1-11, LLIZAN S.; SITI SELINA, A.H. Respiratory epithelium,
2011. production performance and behaviour of formaldehyde-
exposed broiler chicks. Veterinary Research Communications,
SAS INSTITUTE. SAS User’s guide: Statisics. Version v.23, p.91-99, 1999.
8.0 Edition. Cary, NC, 2001.
Arq. Inst. Biol., São Paulo, v.79, n.2, p.161-167, abr./jun., 2012