Salmonella Contamination in Chicken Meat: Risks, Prevention, and Public Health

Introduction

Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica is a Gram-negative, facultatively anaerobic rod-shaped bacterium belonging to the family Enterobacteriaceae. Nontyphoidal Salmonella serovars are among the most frequently isolated foodborne pathogens from poultry meat worldwide [1, 2]. Contamination of chicken meat with Salmonella occurs across the entire production continuum, from primary production on farms through slaughter, processing, distribution, and retail handling [3, 4]. The organism can survive and proliferate under a wide range of environmental conditions, and its presence in raw meat represents a major vehicle for human salmonellosis [5]. This article provides an exhaustive review of the epidemiology, detection, risk factors, antimicrobial resistance patterns, and mitigation strategies for Salmonella contamination in chicken meat, with a focus on veterinary and food safety perspectives.

Epidemiology of Salmonella in Poultry Meat

Prevalence surveys conducted across multiple continents have consistently demonstrated widespread Salmonella contamination in retail chicken meat. In a cross-sectional study of traditional markets in Surabaya, Indonesia, 42.74% (50/117) of chicken meat samples were positive for S. enterica [1]. Similarly, a study in Denpasar, Indonesia, reported a 58.33% contamination rate [6]. In Japan, Ishihara et al. recovered Salmonella from 143 of 240 chicken meat samples (59.6%), with S. Infantis (32.1%) and S. Schwarzengrund (23.3%) as the dominant serovars [7]. A survey in Peru found 77.1% of chicken meat samples contaminated with Salmonella [8]. In Khartoum State, Sudan, isolation rates ranged from 16% in street-grilled chicken to 25% in market samples, with counts reaching 4.3 log10 CFU/g in abattoir samples [9]. Conversely, some studies report lower prevalence. Tyasningsih et al. found only 3.3% (1/30) of samples from East Surabaya markets positive [5], and Boonkerd reported modest rates from Thai slaughterhouses [10]. In South Korea, Kim et al. detected Salmonella in 9% of slaughterhouse samples (15% of carcasses) and 79% of clinical samples from broiler chicks [11]. These variations reflect differences in sampling methodology, detection sensitivity, hygiene infrastructure, and geographic serovar distribution.

Seasonal and climatic factors influence contamination risk. Ishihara et al. demonstrated that air temperature was significantly negatively associated with S. Schwarzengrund isolation during spring and summer, while the risk was higher in spring and winter compared to summer (odds ratio 3.951 and 4.071, respectively) [7]. Kim et al. also observed increased Salmonella prevalence in slaughterhouses during warmer months [11].

Detection Methods for Salmonella in Chicken Meat

Conventional culture-based methods remain the gold standard for Salmonella detection. The ISO 6579-1:2017 method, which includes pre-enrichment in buffered peptone water, selective enrichment in Rappaport-Vassiliadis or tetrathionate broth, isolation on selective agars (e.g., XLD, SS agar), biochemical screening (TSIA, urease, SIM, citrate), and serological confirmation with polyvalent O and H antisera, is widely employed [2, 5, 12]. Royani et al. demonstrated the efficacy of this method for chicken meat samples in Jakarta [2]. Biochemical tests used in conjunction include triple sugar iron agar (TSIA) showing alkaline/acid with H2S production, negative urease, negative indole, and positive Simmons citrate tests [5]. The Most Probable Number (MPN) method is used for quantitative enumeration. Ikeuchi et al. used a three-tube MPN method for retail chicken products in Japan and found contamination levels ranging from <0.3 to 4.3 MPN/g [13].

Advanced molecular and metabolomic approaches have been developed to improve detection speed and specificity. Wang et al. employed headspace solid-phase microextraction gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-MS) and headspace gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (HS-GC-IMS) to identify volatile organic compound (VOC) markers during early Salmonella contamination in chicken [3]. They identified 64 volatile compounds with HS-GC-IMS, and 1-octen-3-ol was recognized as a specific VOC marker for Salmonella contamination within the first 48 hours [3]. Chen et al. used untargeted and targeted metabolomics based on UPLC-Q-Orbitrap MS and UPLC-QQQ-MS to identify five metabolite biomarkers (acetylcholine, L-methionine, L-proline, L-valine, L-norleucine) for S. Enteritidis contamination, achieving an AUC of 0.956 in receiver operating characteristic analysis [14]. Tobar et al. evaluated 16S long-read metabarcoding of the 16S-ITS-23S region for characterizing the microbiome and Salmonella contamination of retail poultry meat; however, the limit of detection (4.70 log CFU/mL) was above typical contamination levels in retail meat, limiting its utility for direct detection [15]. A polymerase chain reaction assay targeting the invA gene has been used for molecular confirmation [16].

Risk Factors for Salmonella Contamination

Risk factors for Salmonella contamination in chicken meat are multifactorial and span the entire supply chain. Wibisono et al. identified positive relationships between contamination and poor cleanliness of meat, unsanitary transport means, inadequate market sanitation, and improper tool sanitation in traditional markets [1]. A study in Banyuwangi, Indonesia, found high coliform contamination in all 30 samples, with Escherichia coli detected in 20%, although Salmonella spp. was negative in that particular sampling [17]. Wardhana et al. reported 48.3% positivity for Salmonella spp. among 60 chicken meat samples from Surabaya markets [18]. In Amazonas, Brazil, Salmonella spp. was detected in 32.9% of samples, with higher contamination in street fairs and samples sold at room temperature compared to supermarkets [19]. A cross-sectional study in Kenya found high total viable counts (mean 6.45 log10 CFU/cm² for chicken) and 7.2% Salmonella prevalence in raw meat samples [20].

Cross-contamination during processing and retail is a critical control point. Iskander et al. emphasized the need for investigation of supply chain critical points after release from broiler plants [9]. In Tanzania, Ghosse et al. assessed broiler chicken farmers' microbiological food safety knowledge; although 62% demonstrated good knowledge, Campylobacter spp. was detected in 100% of meat samples, whereas Salmonella spp. prevalence was only 4.44% [21]. In Denpasar, Azis et al. found 33.3% contamination during the transitional season, suggesting climatic influences on hygiene practices [12]. Surya Putra et al. linked contamination to lack of hygiene in processing, storage, and distribution [6].

Public Health Implications and Antimicrobial Resistance

Nontyphoidal Salmonella is a leading cause of foodborne gastroenteritis worldwide, and chicken meat is a major vehicle [8, 22]. Ho-Palma et al. estimated that Salmonella was the causative agent in nearly half (47.0%) of foodborne outbreaks in Peru over an 11-year period, with chicken, mayonnaise, and pork as the most likely vehicles [8]. Wu et al. performed a preliminary quantitative risk assessment of non-typhoid Salmonella in raw chicken meat in Beijing [23].

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Salmonella isolates from chicken meat is a growing concern. Mir et al. reported that 100% of isolates from southeast Iran were resistant to penicillin, tylosin, tetracycline, erythromycin, and tiamulin, with MAR indices ranging from 0.45 to 0.81 [16]. Wibisono et al. found high resistance in Salmonella spp. from Gresik, Indonesia: oxytetracycline 84%, azithromycin 65%, sulfonamide trimethoprim 53%, ampicillin 43%, with multidrug resistance (MDR) in 43% [24]. In Japan, Ikeuchi et al. reported 87.9% of isolates were antibiotic resistant, with 78.8% showing MDR; S. Schwarzengrund ST241 was predominant [13]. Nyanja et al. found that 86.4% of Salmonella isolates from Kenya were resistant to ciprofloxacin, with 13.6% MDR [20]. Sayed et al. highlighted the dissemination of antibiotic-resistant strains through the food chain [22]. These patterns underscore the need for antimicrobial stewardship in poultry production and routine surveillance of resistance profiles.

For a broader overview of bacterial pathogens in poultry meat, see the companion article: Bacterial Contamination of Chicken Meat: Food Safety and Public Health.

Prevention and Control Strategies

On-Farm Biosecurity and Hygiene

Prevention begins at the farm level with biosecurity measures, including all-in/all-out production, rodent and insect control, sanitation of water and feed, and vaccination where applicable [21, 11]. Kim et al. highlighted the importance of biosecurity in farms and strict hygiene protocols in processing facilities [11]. Ghosse et al. recommended targeted training for farmers on microbiological food safety, particularly regarding specific foodborne pathogens [21]. For further detail on farm-level control, see Salmonella in Poultry: Comprehensive Guide to Chicken-Associated Bacterial Pathogens.

Processing Interventions

During slaughter and processing, interventions include carcass washing, chilling, and application of antimicrobials. Bacteriophage-based biocontrol has gained attention. Duc et al. isolated and applied bacteriophages to reduce Salmonella in raw chicken meat [25]. Pelyuntha and Vongkamjan demonstrated that a phage cocktail (vB_SenM_P7 and vB_SenP_P32) combined with 0.5% propionic acid under modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) completely eliminated Salmonella (4-5 log CFU/g) on chicken meat by day 2 of storage at 4°C [26]. Aguilera et al. used a cocktail of five phages (three Siphoviridae, two Microviridae) achieving a 1.4 log reduction of S. Typhimurium at 10°C after 48 hours [27]. Moon et al. combined a commercial bacteriophage with thymol or carvacrol (1.6% w/v) and achieved reductions of 1.9-2.0 log CFU/g of a Salmonella cocktail on chicken [28].

Natural antimicrobial compounds have been extensively studied. Da Silva et al. used thymol nanoemulsion incorporated in chitosan coatings to reduce S. Enteritidis cross-contamination in ground chicken [29]. Cacciatore et al. encapsulated carvacrol in chia mucilage nanocapsules (CMNP) and achieved approximately 2 log CFU/g reduction in viable Salmonella count within 0.25 hours, maintained for 72 hours [30]. Cui et al. combined carvacrol (minimal inhibitory concentration 0.5 mg/mL) with blue light-405 nm, resulting in a 5.62 log CFU/mL reduction of S. Typhimurium through reactive oxygen species generation [31]. Sartika et al. demonstrated that cassava leather ethanol extract at 100% concentration reduced Salmonella sp. by 41.17% (4.0 × 10⁷ CFU/g decrease) on chicken meat [32]. Alhudhaibi et al. evaluated Solenostemma argel methanolic leaf extract, which showed moderate antibacterial activity with MIC of 12.5 mg/mL and MBC depending on strain [33].

Cooking Guidelines and Consumer Education

Proper cooking is the final barrier to prevent salmonellosis. Chicken meat should be cooked to an internal temperature of at least 74°C (165°F) as measured with a food thermometer. The cultural phenomenon colloquially termed the "chicken breast salmonella meme" reflects widespread consumer awareness of the risks associated with undercooked chicken breast. Despite its humorous presentation in popular internet culture, the meme underscores a serious public health message: raw chicken, particularly chicken breast, must be cooked thoroughly to ensure thermal inactivation of Salmonella and other pathogens. Post-cooking contamination (e.g., from utensils or cutting boards used for raw meat) must also be avoided. Cross-contamination at the consumer level can reintroduce pathogens onto cooked product. See related article: Survivability of Bacteria on Cooked Chicken: Post-Cooking Contamination Risks.

Integrated Control Approaches

A multi-hurdle strategy combining several interventions is most effective. The following Mermaid diagram illustrates a decision tree for Salmonella risk management in chicken meat production:

flowchart TD
    A[Primary Production], > B{Biosecurity Adequate?}
    B, >|Yes| C[Vaccination & Hygiene]
    B, >|No| D[Implement biosecurity protocols]
    D, > C
    C, > E[Slaughter & Processing]
    E, > F{Carcass Interventions}
    F, > G[Washing & Chilling]
    F, > H[Phage/Essential Oil Treatment]
    F, > I[MAP + Organic Acid]
    G, > J[Retail & Storage]
    H, > J
    I, > J
    J, > K{Consumer Preparation}
    K, > L[Cook to >=74°C]
    K, > M[Prevent Cross-Contamination]
    L, > N[Safe Consumption]
    M, > N

Li et al. assessed the relationship of Campylobacter and Salmonella contamination with hygiene indicator bacteria counts, suggesting that Enterobacteriaceae counts can serve as proxies for fecal contamination [4]. Amorim et al. emphasized the need for strengthened sanitary surveillance, vendor training, and cold chain adherence in retail settings [19]. For detailed information on Escherichia coli co-contamination, refer to Escherichia coli in Chickens and Poultry Products: Bacterial Pathogenesis, Contamination Routes, Clinical Signs in Flocks, and Public Health Risks. Additional resources on broader prevention strategies include Bacterial Pathogens in Chicken Meat: From Farm to Fork – Contamination, Toxins, and Food Safety and Salmonella in Poultry: Food Safety and Public Health Concerns.

Conclusions

Salmonella contamination of chicken meat remains a persistent global food safety challenge. Prevalence varies widely by region, season, and production system, but contamination rates exceeding 40% are common in many traditional market settings. Detection relies on standardized culture methods, while emerging techniques such as VOC profiling and metabolomics offer potential for rapid screening. Risk factors are concentrated at points where hygiene and cold chain integrity are compromised. The high prevalence of multidrug-resistant Salmonella isolates, particularly resistance to oxytetracycline, ampicillin, and ciprofloxacin, poses a significant public health threat. Effective control requires an integrated approach combining farm biosecurity, processing interventions (including bacteriophages, essential oils, and MAP), retailer education, and consumer adherence to thorough cooking and prevention of cross-contamination. Continued surveillance and antimicrobial stewardship within the poultry industry are essential to mitigate the impact of Salmonella on human health.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to substitute for professional veterinary advice, diagnosis, treatment, or regulatory guidance. Always consult a licensed veterinarian or qualified specialist regarding animal health, disease diagnosis, and therapeutic decisions.

References

[1] Wibisono F, Rahmaniar RP, Syaputra DE, et al. Risk Factors for Non-typhoidal Salmonella Contamination in chicken meat: A cross-sectional study on Traditional Markets in Surabaya. Advances in Life Sciences. 2023.

[2] Royani VA, Priyanatha DY, Sitorus JS, et al. Detection of Salmonella spp. Contamination in Chicken Meat Samples Using the SNI ISO 6579-1:2017 Method. Jurnal Biogenerasi. 2026.

[3] Wang Y, Wang X, Huang Y, et al. Identification and biotransformation analysis of volatile markers during the early stage of Salmonella contamination in chicken. Food Chemistry. 2023.

[4] Li R, Tauchi H, Adachi Y, et al. Relationship of Campylobacter and Salmonella Contamination of Commercial Chicken Meat and Liver with Hygiene Indicator Bacteria Counts. Japanese Journal of Food Microbiology. 2024.

[5] Tyasningsih W, Istiqomah N, Hestianah E, et al. Detection of bacterial contamination Salmonella sp. on broiler chicken meat for sale at the traditional market of East Surabaya Indonesia. GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2025.

[6] Surya Putra IGAU, Darwinata AE, Pinatih KJP, et al. Prevalence of Salmonella sp. And Shigella sp. Bacterial Contamination On Chicken Meat Sold By Traditional Market Traders In Denpasar City. e-Jurnal Medika Udayana. 2022.

[7] Ishihara K, Nakazawa C, Nomura S, et al. Effects of climatic elements on Salmonella contamination in broiler chicken meat in Japan. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2020.

[8] Ho-Palma A, Gonzales-Gustavson EA, Quispe E, et al. Salmonella in Chicken and Pork Meat as a Likely Major Contributor to Foodborne Illness in Peru. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2024.

[9] Iskander D, Adil M, Triki M. Isolation, identification, and quantification of Salmonella SPP. In chicken meat from Khartoum State, Sudan. Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences. 2025.

[10] Boonkerd T. Prevalence of Salmonella spp. contamination in fresh chicken meat from slaughterhouses. 2016.

[11] Kim TJ, Kim YH, Kim H, et al. Prevalence of Salmonella serotypes isolated from clinical samples in chicken farms and meat in slaughterhouses in South Korea. Poultry Science. 2025.

[12] Azis ND, Mahatmi H, Suardana IW, et al. Contamination Salmonella Spp. In Broiler Chicken Meat Sold In The Badung Market During The Transitional Season Period. Buletin Veteriner Udayana. 2024.

[13] Ikeuchi S, Sasaki Y, Okumura M, et al. Quantitative Analysis and Characteristics of Salmonella from Retail Chicken Meat Products in Japan. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2024.

[14] Chen L, Ding H, Zhu Y, et al. Untargeted and targeted metabolomics identify metabolite biomarkers for Salmonella enteritidis in chicken meat. Food Chemistry. 2022.

[15] Tobar Z, Lee KY, Gaa M, et al. Evaluation of 16s Long Read Metabarcoding for Characterizing the Microbiome and Salmonella Contamination of Retail Poultry Meat. Journal of Food Protection. 2024.

[16] Mir R, Salari S, Najimi M, et al. Determination of frequency, multiple antibiotic resistance index and resistotype of Salmonella spp. in chicken meat collected from southeast of Iran. Veterinary Medicine and Science. 2021.

[17] Wibawati PA, Chrismonica Y, Susanti R, et al. Microbial Contamination in Chicken Meat in Traditional Markets in Banyuwangi. Jurnal Medika Veterinaria. 2024.

[18] Wardhana D, Haskito AEP, Purnama MTE, et al. Detection of microbial contamination in chicken meat from local markets in Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia. Veterinary World. 2021.

[19] Amorim A, Santos ANA, Campelo M, et al. Enterobacteriaceae contamination in raw chicken meat from Amazonas, Brazil: implications for food hygiene. Brazilian Journal of Biology. 2026.

[20] Nyanja MN, Mbindyo C, Wanja D, et al. Bacterial contamination and prevalence of antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli and Salmonella isolated from raw pork and chicken meat from slaughterhouses and retail markets in Kenya. Veterinary World. 2026.

[21] Ghosse M, Nyamete F, Ngungulu AW. Assessment of Microbiological Food Safety Knowledge among Broiler Chicken Farmers and Contamination of Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp. in Broiler Meat from Dodoma City, Tanzania. European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety. 2025.

[22] Sayed F, Kaur R, Jha V, et al. Prevalence, Antibiotic Resistance, and Implications for Public Health Due to Salmonella Contamination in Food Products. South Asian Journal of Research in Microbiology. 2024.

[23] Wu Y, Cui X, Liu Y, et al. Preliminary quantitative risk assessment of non-typhoid Salmonella in raw chicken meat sold in Beijing in 2022. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu = Journal of Hygiene Research. 2025.

[24] Wibisono F, Effendi M, Tyasningsih W, et al. Antibiotic resistance profiles of Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. isolated from chicken meat sold in traditional markets in Gresik District, East Java, Indonesia. Open Veterinary Journal. 2025.

[25] Duc HM, Son HM, Honjoh K, et al. Isolation and application of bacteriophages to reduce Salmonella contamination in raw chicken meat. 2018.

[26] Pelyuntha W, Vongkamjan K. Control of Salmonella in Chicken Meat by a Phage Cocktail in Combination with Propionic Acid and Modified Atmosphere Packaging. Foods. 2023.

[27] Aguilera M, Martínez S, Tello M, et al. Use of Cocktail of Bacteriophage for Salmonella Typhimurium Control in Chicken Meat. Foods. 2022.

[28] Moon S, Waite-Cusic J, Huang E. Control of Salmonella in chicken meat using a combination of a commercial bacteriophage and plant-based essential oils. 2020.

[29] da Silva BD, Lelis C, do Rosário DD, et al. A Novel Strategy for Reducing Salmonella Enteritidis Cross-Contamination in Ground Chicken Meat Using Thymol Nanoemulsion Incorporated in Chitosan Coatings. Food and Bioprocess Technology. 2023.

[30] Cacciatore F, Scherer A, Brandelli A, et al. Carvacrol encapsulated in chia mucilage nanocapsules reduces salmonella population in chicken meat. International Journal of Food Science & Technology. 2025.

[31] Cui H, Chen X, Aziz T, et al. Inactivation mechanisms of carvacrol on Salmonella Typhimurium and its combined inhibitory effects with blue light-405 nm for chicken meat preservation. Journal of Food Microbiology. 2025.

[32] Sartika D, Astuti S, Iswandari R. Inhibitory Study Of Cassava Leather Ethanol Extract As Natural Antimicrobial In Reducing Salmonella Sp. And Escherichia Coli On Contamination Chicken Meat (Gallus Domesticus). 2021.

[33] Alhudhaibi A, Dahab M, Idriss H, et al. Antibacterial properties of Solenostemma argel (Del.) Hayne against Salmonella strains from chicken meat: integrated GC–MS phytochemical profiling and molecular docking analysis. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2025.

[34] Dedal AD, Nanual B, Miranda G, et al. Bacterial contamination of Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli (Migula, 1895) in fresh chicken meat and chicken-based street food sold in the City of Mati. The Palawan Scientist. 2026.

[35] Karisma UD, Wiqoyah N, Pusarawati S. Prevalence of Escherichia Coli, Salmonella Sp, Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteria in Chicken Meat of Traditional Market Surabaya City. 2021.