## 4 Discussion
Enteritidis from the egg surface; however, these techniques were ineffective in the reduction of total bacterial load. Sprayed ECAS (45 s) and aerosolised ECAS (60 s and 120 s) showed significant reduction in \(S\). Enteritidis counts. [PERSON] et al. [24] reported that pH-neutral EO spray treatment (30 s) significantly reduced \(S\). Enteritidis (>1.45 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/egg) on egg surface. In another study [39], a slightly acidic (pH 6.53) EO water (15 mg/L of FAC) used at 20 and 45 \({}^{\circ}\)C showed a 4.2 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/mL reduction of \(S\). Enteritidis. Aerosolised ECAS (120 s) showed a significant log reduction of \(S\). Enteritidis for one egg/trav treatment but no significant reduction was observed in the three eggs/trav treatment group. As previously mentioned, the higher variation in the three eggs/trav treatment could be due to the fog being quickly sucked by the BSC and not moistening the egg surface with enough FAC to reduce the bacterial cells. The main purpose of egg washing is to reduce the bacterial load on the egg surface; however, one of the major concerns in the egg washing process is the likely damage of the cuticle layer. In the present study, no difference was observed in \(\Delta E_{\text{ab}}^{*}\) values in eggs sprayed and aerosolised with ECAS, indicating that cuticle integrity was not altered. In a recent study, [PERSON] et al. [24] reported no differences in the overall \(\Delta E_{\text{ab}}^{*}\) values when eggs were treated with pH-neutral EO. In contrast, for eggs washed with alkaline and acidic EO, changes in the \(a^{*}\) and \(b^{*}\) values were observed, hence the reduction in overall \(\Delta E_{\text{ab}}^{*}\) values, indicating damage to the egg cuticle [19]. Although electrolysed water is an environmentally friendly, non-hazardous sanitiser with proven antibacterial efficacy against foodborne pathogens such as _E. coli_ O157: H7, _L. monocytogenes_[41] and \(S\). Enteritidis on shell eggs [38; 39], it is not currently being considered in commercial decontamination settings to obtain pathogen-free eggs. The reasons for this are probably related to the corrosiveness of acidic formulations towards steel surfaces and the lack of knowledge of consumers on the impact of chemicals for disinfection of environments. The current scenario shows a shift in table egg production towards free-range systems [42]. For instance, in Australia, free-range production has increased from 39% in 2015 to 45% in 2018 [10], driven by consumer demand for bird welfare and access to a range area. However, this approach poses risks to public health as the eggshell bacterial load, including counts of _Campylobacter_ and _Salmonella_ spp. [42], in free range production systems is considerably higher than in conventional battery cage systems [42; 43]. The problem is further aggravated by the increase in the consumption of meals consisting of raw egg products [44]. Therefore, egg producers should consider eggshell cleaning and disinfection of table eggs as a priority to produce safe eggs and maintain consumer confidence. Besides issues with wastewater disposal, commonly used chlorine-based egg washing requires intensive monitoring of water temperature, pH, and chlorine concentration to retain its optimal efficacy and eggshell cuticle integrity. This suggests that electrolysed water could fill an important niche if washing and disinfection systems can be developed on a commercial level.