Citation: Rodionova K., Nalyvaiko L., Hnysiuk D., Zaharova O. (2026) Efficiency of using an immunochromatographic rapid test for the diagnosis of salmonellosis in poultry. VeterinaryBiotechnology, 48, 161-175. https://doi.org/10.31073/vet_biotech48-12
RODIONOVA K.,1 Cand. Sci. (Vet. Med.) Assoc. Prof. e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7245-4525
NALYVAIKO L., 2 Doc. Sci. (Vet. Med.), Prof. e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7485-4127
HNYSIUK D., 1 e-mail:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6207-9344
ZAHAROVA O., 2e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
1 Odesa State Agrarian University
2 East Ukrainian National University named after V. Dahl
EFFICIENCY OF USING AN IMMUNOCHROMATOGRAPHIC RAPID TEST FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF SALMONELLOSIS IN POULTRY
Introduction. Salmonellosis remains one of the most widespread bacterial infections in poultry farming and poses a significant epizootological and sanitary risk. Poultry products, particularly meat and eggs, are considered the primary sources of human infection. The circulation of Salmonella spp. among domestic and wild birds creates additional risks of environmental contamination and spread of zoonotic infection. Traditional bacteriological diagnostic methods are highly informative but require prolonged cultivation and identification procedures. Therefore, rapid immunochromatographic tests (ICT) are becoming increasingly important in veterinary practice as screening tools for prompt detection of Salmonella spp. in poultry, especially under field conditions and limited laboratory capacity.
The goal of the work. To evaluate the effectiveness of immunochromatographic rapid tests for the detection of Salmonella spp. in fecal samples of domestic and wild birds and to assess their applicability for rapid screening diagnostics of poultry salmonellosis.
Materials and methods. The study was conducted during the first half of 2026 at the Department of Infectious Pathology, Biosafety and Veterinary-Sanitary Inspection named after Prof. V.Ya. Atamas, Odesa State Agrarian University. The material for the study included individual fecal samples from 10-day-old chicks (n = 40), as well as fecal samples from wild pheasants (n = 4 pooled samples), quails (n = 15), and wild ducks (n = 15). Sampling was carried out under aseptic conditions with transportation at +2…+8 °C. Two immunochromatographic rapid test systems were used: CITO TEST® Salmonella (Pharmasco, Ukraine) and Rapid immunochromatographic Salmonellosis Test No. 25 (Medical Distribution Agency s.r.o., Czech Republic). The methodology included preparation of fecal extracts, application onto test cassettes, incubation, and visual interpretation of results within 10–15 minutes according to the presence of control and test lines.
Results of research and discussion. The use of CITO TEST® Salmonella revealed positive results for Salmonella spp. in 2 out of 40 chick fecal samples (5.0%), whereas the rapid test No. 25 detected one positive sample (2.5%). In samples obtained from wild birds, both test systems demonstrated identical results: one positive pooled sample from pheasants (25.0%) and one positive sample from wild ducks (6.7%), while all quail samples were negative. The obtained data indicate circulation of Salmonella spp. among both domestic and wild avifauna despite the absence of clinically expressed disease signs. The differences observed between the two test systems in chick samples may be associated with variations in analytical sensitivity and specificity. The findings correspond with current reports on the epizootological significance of Salmonella spp. in poultry production and environmental contamination in Ukraine. The rapid immunochromatographic assays provided operational detection of potential carriers and significantly reduced diagnostic time compared with conventional bacteriological methods, which is critically important for biosafety systems and epizootic monitoring.
Conclusions and prospects for further research. The conducted study demonstrated the practical applicability of immunochromatographic rapid tests for screening detection of Salmonella spp. in poultry fecal samples. CITO TEST® Salmonella showed higher positivity rates compared with rapid test No. 25, which may indicate differences in diagnostic sensitivity. Positive findings in samples from wild pheasants and ducks confirm the possible role of wild birds as reservoirs and disseminators of salmonellosis. The use of rapid ICT methods considerably accelerates preliminary diagnostics and improves epizootological monitoring efficiency in poultry farming. However, the obtained results should be considered preliminary and require confirmation by reference bacteriological and molecular-genetic methods, including PCR. Further research will focus on evaluating the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the investigated rapid tests in comparison with bacteriological culture and PCR methods to optimize monitoring systems for salmonellosis in domestic and wild birds.
Keywords: salmonellosis, Salmonella spp., poultry, immunochromatographic test, rapid diagnostics, fecal samples, poultry farming, biosafety, wild birds.
REFERENCES
1. Mekh, N. Ya., Harkavenko, T. O., & Yablonska, O. V. (2016). Tsyrkuliatsiia salmonel na terytorii Ukrainy. Veterynarna medytsyna, 102, 169–171.
2. Salmoneloz – khvoroba liudei i tvaryn. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.ses.lviv.ua/seslab/index.
3. Myzaliuk, Y. (2013). Po tu storonu yaitsa. Retrieved from http://kontrakty.ua/article/62124
4. Chechet, O. M., Karpulenko, M. S., Korniienko, L. Ye., Ukhovskyi, V. V., Moroz, O. A., Haidei, O. S., Gutyj, B. V., & Krushelnytska, O. V. (2022). Epizootological analysis of the prevalence of salmonellosis in poultry in Ukraine in 2012–2021. Scientific Messenger of Lviv National University of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnologies. Series: Veterinary Sciences, 24(106), 68–73. https://doi.org/10.32718/nvlvet10611
5. Liu, W., Liu, B., Zhu, X., et al. (2011). Diversity of Salmonella isolates using serotyping and multilocus sequence typing. Food Microbiology, 28(6), 1182–1189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2011.04.001
6. Gonzales-Barron, U. A., Redmond, G., & Butler, F. (2012). A risk characterization model of Salmonella Typhimurium in Irish fresh pork sausages. Food Research International, 45(2), 1184–1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2010.04.036
7. Visscher, C. F., Klein, G., Verspohl, J., et al. (2011). Serodiversity and serological as well as cultural distribution of Salmonella on farms and in abattoirs in Lower Saxony, Germany. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 146(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.01.041
8. Little, C. L., Walsh, S., Hucklesby, L., et al. (2007). Survey of Salmonella contamination of non-United Kingdom-produced raw shell eggs on retail sale in the north west of England and London, 2005–2006. Journal of Food Protection, 70(10), 2259–2265. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-70.10.2259
9. European Commission. (n.d.). Control Salmonella in poultry. Retrieved from European Commission Food Safety
10. El-Sharkawy, H., & Hassan, W. (2024). Genotypic characterization of β-lactamase resistant Salmonella species isolated from different quail houses and their susceptibility to extracts of thyme and chitosan, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 52(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2024.2417051
11. Nowak, J., Kowalski, P., et al. (2022). Occurrence of Salmonella in quail farms in Poland. Annals of Animal Science, 22(2), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2021-0068
12. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ). (2019). Scientific opinion on Salmonella control in poultry flocks and its public health impact. EFSA Journal, 17(2), 5596. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5596
13. EPIWATCH analysis. (2024). Impact of war on infectious disease surveillance: Ukraine case study. Emerging Infectious Diseases, CDC.
14. Avdosieva, I. K., Chaikovska, O. I., & Kolodiy, H. V. (2024). Innovative approaches to the prevention of salmonellosis in poultry. Scientific and Technical Bulletin of State Scientific Research Control Institute of Veterinary Medical Products and Fodder Additives and Institute of Animal Biology, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.36359/scivp.2024-25-1.01
15. Rublenko, N. M. (2021). Detektsiia faktoriv patohennosti bakterii rodu Salmonella spp. v polimeraznii lantsiuhovii reaktsii[Extended abstract of candidate’s thesis, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine]. Kyiv, Ukraine.
16. Peredera, O. O., Peredera, R. V., & Savchenko, K. S. (2020). Diahnostyka salmonelozu broileriv u pryvatnomu hospodarstvi. Visnyk Poltavskoi derzhavnoi ahrarnoi akademii, (3), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.31210/visnyk2020.03.25
17. Kozytska, T., Chechet, O., Harkavenko, T., Nedosekov, V., Haidei, O., Horbatiuk, O., Andriiashchuk, V., Kovalenko, V., Ordynska, D., & Kuriata, N. (2023). Antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella strains isolated from food products of animal origin in Ukraine between 2018–2021. German Journal of Veterinary Research, 3(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.51585/gjvr.2023.1.0049
18. Harkavenko, T. A., Andriiashchuk, V. A., Horbatiuk, O. I., Kozytska, T. H., Musiiets, I. V., & Harkavenko, V. M. (2021). Rezultaty bakteriologicheskikh issledovanii i spektr serologicheskikh variantov salmonell, vydelennykh iz pishchevykh produktov zhivotnogo proiskhozhdeniia v Ukraine za period 2016–2020 gg. Veterynarna biotekhnolohiia, 39, 29–43.
