Environmental Public Health Journal 2017 | BCIT Institutional Repository

Environmental Public Health Journal 2017

Efficacy of chlorine sanitizer spray bottles exposed to various temperatures and ambient light
Background: Gastroenteritis is largely under reported across Canada. It is estimated that one reported case represents on average 313 cases. In addition, improper cleaning is one of the top ten reported causes of food borne illness. Sanitization is important to reduce the number of pathogenic microorganisms present on food contact surfaces to a safe level. Correct concentrations of sodium hypochlorite are to be prepared and used within the range of 100ppm – 200ppm on food contact surfaces. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rate of degradation of sodium hypochlorite in spray bottles to assess if these solutions need to be prepared fresh daily to achieve efficacy. Two variables seen within a food service establishment were chosen to evaluate the rate of degradation, temperature and ambient light. Method: Room temperature (20˚C), 35˚C and ambient light exposure were tested to evaluate their effect on the degradation of free chlorine in spray bottles over time in days. The experiment was preformed by setting up 3 individual spray bottles at 20˚C with no light, 20˚C with ambient light and 35˚C with no light. The sodium hypochlorite was then sampled and recorded periodically three times a week over a 15-day period to determine the stability of the chorine solutions prepared at around 200ppm. Results: In the order of spray bottles tested, 20˚C no light, 20˚C ambient light and 35˚C no light, a correlation coefficient of -0.3027, -0.8235 and -0.8169 were recorded. In addition, the following test spray bottles held a r-squared value of 0.0916, 0.6781 and 0.6674. A p-value of 0.5094, 0.0249 and 0.0249 were also assessed, with a corresponding power of 8.99%, 73.74% and 71.75%. Conclusions: By calculating the linear regression formula, it was concluded that chlorine solution in spray bottles do not need to be prepared fresh daily. For 200ppm 20˚C no light, 200ppm 20˚C ambient light and 200ppm 35˚C no light, at days 128, 67 and 45, the estimated concentration of sodium hypochlorite will be at the minimum requirement of 100ppm respectively., Peer-reviewed article, Published., Project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Environmental Health, British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2017., Peer reviewed, Chlorine, Sodium hypochlorite, Sanitizer, Spray bottle, Temperature, Ambient light
Evaluating two methods of testing residual sanitizer concentrations in food service establishments
Objective: Utensils and tableware are food contact surfaces that have the potential to transmit disease-causing microorganisms if not washed, cleaned and sanitized correctly in a food service establishment. To prevent utensils and tableware from becoming vectors of disease, it is essential that operators and staff are able to adequately sanitize them and accurately test for it in a quick and convenient manner. It is also essential that Environmental Health officers are able to test whether adequate sanitization is occurring during their routine inspections. Currently there are no guidelines indicating the correct method of testing. Therefore, this study investigated two methods used to test residual sanitation concentration in a dishwasher. The purpose of this research was to determine if there is any difference in the two methods currently being used, and if so, which method is the more reliable one. Methods: LaMotte Chlorine Test Strips were used to detect the levels of chlorine in a commercial dishwasher. The chemically treated strips were dipped onto a freshly wet and washed utensil and directly in the rinse water of a dishwasher. Results: The difference in the mean of 60 samples from two independent groups was analyzed. Thirty samples were obtained from location one, the dishware l, and thirty samples were obtained from location two, the rinse water of the commercial dishwasher. The mean residual concentration was calculated and compared. The means demonstrated there is a significant difference (p = 0.035)between the two groups; the average residual concentration was lower for the dishware compared to the rinse water. Conclusion: Dishware is a vector capable of transmitting disease causing microorganisms if not sanitized adequately. Thus, it is important to ensure that dishes in a food service establishment have been thoroughly sanitized. The testing of that requires a consistent and reliable method. It is safe to assume that testing on the dishware is the best course of action to err on the side of caution., Peer-reviewed article, Published., Project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Environmental Health, British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2017., Peer reviewed, Test strip, Chemical dispenser, Chlorine, Low temperature dishwashers, Sanitation, Tableware, Rinse water
Methods for cleaning & sanitizing food contact surfaces (countertops) to prevent cross contamination in restaurant kitchens
Background: Cross contamination can occur in restaurant kitchens when food contact surfaces such as countertops are inadequately cleaned between preparation of raw and ready to eat foods. Previous research has demonstrated that washing with detergent and water, rinsing, then applying a sanitizer solution is the most effective cleaning method. The second most effective cleaning method is to use detergent and water alone. In practice, the author has observed kitchen staff using sanitizer alone to clean kitchen countertops. This study surveyed British Columbia restaurant kitchen staff on current practices and makes recommendations to improve cleaning and sanitization practices for the purpose of preventing cross contamination. Methods: A survey was prepared using SurveyMonkey and distributed through Facebook to the author’s contacts in the restaurant industry. The Facebook post included a request for anyone to share the survey link with their contacts who work in BC restaurant kitchens. The survey was shared 21 times by 14 different people. The survey asked questions about restaurant type and position, Foodsafe level, and about cleaning practices such as frequency and cleaning compounds used. Results: When asked what cleaning compounds are most often used to clean work surfaces (countertops) in their restaurant, 56.5% of respondents reported sanitizer solution only, 30.4% of respondents reported soap & water followed by sanitizer solution, and 13.0% reported soap and water only. When asked why sanitizer solution only was used to clean countertops, 46.2% of respondents said it was company policy, 23.1% of respondents said time savings, and 15.4% of respondents indicated that an Environmental Health Officer had recommended sanitizer use and that is what lead to sanitizer alone being used to clean countertops. Conclusions: In practice, some restaurant staff do not use sanitizer effectively and may believe it is a substitute for detergent. Using sanitizer alone is not as effective as using detergent alone. Detergent alone can provide a 2-3 log bacterial reduction. If staff are busy and are only going to use one cleaning step, detergent alone is the best method. Environmental Health Officers should review sanitation plans and talk with operators to determine current cleaning practices in food service establishments. Operators and staff should be re-educated on the importance of the three-step method. It may be beneficial to recommend that sanitizer use be decreased overall to encourage the use of soap and water. It may only be necessary to use sanitizer after high-risk jobs such as preparing raw meat or at the end of the day., Peer-reviewed article, Published., Project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Environmental Health, British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2017., Peer reviewed, Sanitizer, Sanitize, Sanitizing, Disinfect, Chemical, Effectiveness, Efficacy, Detergent, Soap, Food contact surface, Countertop, Public health, Cross contamination, Restaurant, Food service establishment, Dirt, Soil, Debris, Residue, Clean
The public health impact of infection control, sterilization and regulation in tattooing
Background: The purpose of this study was to look at infection control and sterilization procedures in relation to invasive services performed at Personal Service Establishments (PSEs) in British Columbia. The objective was to collect data on the opinions of regulation and infection control practices of persons currently working in the industries of: tattooing, micro-blading and permanent make-up. Method: Data was collected from a survey that was created and distributed online through Survey Monkey. A list of 261 personal service establishments throughout Vancouver Costal Health and Fraser Health were called and/or e-mailed and asked to participate in the online survey. Results and Analyses: Among the 261 PSEs contacted, 30 agreed to participate. They were asked about the regulation of their profession and their standard practices for infection control and sterilization. 3% of the respondent’s primary service was permanent make-up, 7% micro-blading, 7% piercing and 80% was tattooing. The majority of opinions on regulation were divided where 50% felt the industry was under regulated and 40% felt it was adequately regulated. 90% of the respondents agreed that formal training should be required before being allowed to tattoo and 43% of the respondents also agreed that the use of an autoclave should require certification. For infection control/sterilization procedures 100% of shops use one-time use (disposable) needles and ink caps, 80% use disposable tubes, 93% use cord and machine covers and 90% use disposable razors. 63% of the respondents do not use autoclaves because they use disposable items and therefore do not need to clean and sterilize re-usable equipment. The data compared in chi-squared analysis, age and formal training had a p-value of 0.01460 which indicates that there is an association between age and the belief that formal training should be required for those who practice tattooing. Those under 40 were more likely to indicate that formal training should be required. Conclusion: With a low response rate for micro-blading and permanent make-up it is not feasible to compare or contrast opinions and/or practices between the three services. The tattooing industry had the highest response rate and can be looked at in more detail. The information collected on tattooing could be used to develop a course to improve the safety of PSE’s. EHO knowledge in inspecting food service establishments is very high as a system has been put into place that ensures effective inspections. As well, the FOODSAFE program teaches safe practices to those who work in the kitchen. The growing popularity of PSEs now gives EHOs the opportunity to focus on creating safe work environments through the implementation of a training course and possibly altering the way inspections of each different PSE are conducted. Results of this study, along with other Canadian published data, should be considered when developing standardized training and education in the industry where invasive procedures are used., Peer-reviewed article, Published., Project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Environmental Health, British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2017., Peer reviewed, Tattoo, Tattooing, Tattoos, Sterilization, Infection control, Regulations