Environmental Public Health Journal 2017 | BCIT Institutional Repository

Environmental Public Health Journal 2017

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
Quantification of temperature fluctuations in restaurant coolers and modelled Listeria monocytogenes growth
Background: Coolers in food service establishments should ideally operate at 4°C or less. However in restaurant environments cooler doors are continually being opened and closed as food workers gather and store items. These actions may lead to temperature fluctuations in coolers which may pose a health risk towards the storage of potentially hazardous foods. This study measured and analyzed temperature fluctuations in coolers and quantified the risk they presented by modelling Listeria monocytogenes growth in response to these temperatures. Method: ACR Systems Inc. Smart Buttons were placed near the opening of restaurant coolers and recorded temperatures over a 1-week span. Food Spoilage and Safety Predictor (FSSP) was used to model L. monocytogenes growth in response to the collected cooler temperatures. Results: Coolers spend significantly less than 50% of the time above 4°C. The magnitude of temperature fluctuations during open business hours was found to be insignificant in comparison to fluctuations during closed business hours. However, fluctuations were significantly greater in reach-in coolers than in walk-in coolers. With respect to modeled L. monocytogenes growth, it was inconclusive on whether growth would be more or less than Health Canada’s 100cfu/g policy in smoked salmon. However growth was significantly less than this limit in ready-to-eat ham. Conclusions: More restaurant coolers need to be analyzed to confirm whether the defrost cycles of coolers have a greater impact on temperature fluctuations above 4°C than the daily activities of staff members. In addition, more coolers need to be analyzed to determine whether L. monocytogenes growth in smoked salmon stored in coolers for a week grow significantly more than 100cfu/g. However, it can be concluded L. monocytogenes growth will be significantly less than 100cfu/g in ready-to-eat ham and will pose a lower risk for listeriosis than smoked salmon., 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, Restaurant, Coolers, Temperature, Fluctuation, Listeria monocytogenes, Growth, Smoked salmon, Ready-to-eat ham