## 4 Discussion  
This study assessed the effectiveness of sprayed and aerosolised ECAS in reducing total bacterial load and inoculated \(S\). Enteritidis on egg surface and their effects on the cuticle layer. The bacterial load on eggshells is usually acquired through contamination from the farm environment; therefore, farm type and poultry housing system influence the egg surface total bacterial count [31; 32; 33; 34]. Eggshells from conventional-caged hens usually harbour lower total bacterial counts compared to other housing systems [35]. The total bacterial load of 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.2 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/egg found in this study was lower than those observed by [PERSON] et al. [36] (2.7 log\({}_{10}\)) and [PERSON] et al. [31] (2.3 log\({}_{10}\)) on eggshells from conventional-caged hens, probably because the eggs used in this study were laid by hens housed individually with a low density of hens in the shed (49 hens/shed). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatment**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_S. Enteritidis Counts_} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Log Reduction \&**} & **Significance** \\  & **(log\({}_{10}\) CFU/Egg)** & & & _(p-Value)_ \\ \hline Untreated control & 5.4 \(\pm\) 0.1 & — & — \\ NaOCl spray (45 s) & 0 & 5.4 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ Water spray (45 s) & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 1.0 & 0.0005 \\ ECAS spray (45 s) & 0 & 5.4 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ Water fog (60 s) & 5.3 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.9926 \\ ECAS fog (60 s) & 2.6 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 2.8 & 0.0008 \\ Water fog (120 s) & 4.3 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 1.1 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ ECAS fog (120 s) & 1.2 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 4.2 & 0.0022 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} _S. Enteritidis counts calculated as log\({}_{10}\) CFU/egg and presented as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD); * log\({}_{10}\) reduction = (log\({}_{10}\) counts of untreated control)—(log\({}_{10}\) counts after sanitising treatment)._  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Effect of sanitisation treatments on the reduction level of \(S\). Enteritidis counts on egg surface. Figure 3: Effect of sprayed and aerosolised ECAS treatments on cuticle integrity (\(\Delta E_{\text{ab}}\)*). Data presented as mean \(\pm\) SD, n = 12; ns—not significant. ECAS spray-wash of eggs for 45 s and aerosolisation of individual eggs with ECAS for 120 s completely reduced the native total bacterial load and \(S\). Enteritidis on eggs shell surface. These two sanitisation approaches showed an effectiveness like that of a sodium hypochlorite (-200 mg/L of FAC) spray-wash for 45 s, which was used as a positive control. Although relevant literature is not available on the sanitisation of eggshell surface with ECAS fog, previous research has shown a significant reduction in total bacterial counts from the eggshell surface when the latter is spray-washed with pH-neutral EO water or acidic EO water [22; 37]. In the present study, the effectiveness of aerosolised ECAS with one and three eggs per oscillating try for 60 s and 120 s was also tested. ECAS fogging of multiple eggs (three simultaneously) as well as of a single egg for 120 s showed a significant reduction in total bacterial load when compared with the respective 60 s treatments, confirming that a longer treatment time may be more appropriate for total bacteria load reductions. It is noteworthy that a higher variation was observed in treating three eggs simultaneously, which could be attributed to an uneven distribution of the fog, as fogging was performed in a biological safety cabinet that quickly sucked out the surrounding air including the fog. Previous studies have assessed the effectiveness of various forms of electrolysed water (acidic, slightly acidic, neutral, alkaline) by immersion or spray-washing of eggshell surface inoculated with \(S\). Enteritidis [38; 39; 40; 24]. In this study, we assessed a pH-neutral EO water in the form of fog in addition to spray-washing. The significant microbial reduction observed in our study for sprayed water and aerosolised water (120 s) could be due to the dislodgment of the inoculated \(S\).