Relationship Between Cleaning Practices and Microbiological Contamination in Domestic Kitchens Fur-Chi Chen,* Sandria L

Food Protection Trends, Vol. 31, No. 11, Pages 672–679 Copyright© 2011, International Association for Food Protection 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W, Des Moines, IA 50322-2864 Relationship between Cleaning Practices and Microbiological Contamination in Domestic Kitchens FUR-CHI CHEN,* SANDRIA L. GODWIN and Agnes KILONZO-NTHENGE *Dept. of Family and Consumer Sciences, College of Agriculture, Human and Natural Sciences, Tennessee State University, 3500 John A. Merritt Blvd., Nashville, TN 37209-1561, USA INTRODUCTION ABSTRACT Foodborne diseases caused by mi- A study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of crobiological hazards in major outbreaks consumers’ kitchen cleaning practices in reducing microbiological have received widespread attention as a result of broad coverage by the media. In contamination in home kitchens. One hundred fifty participants contrast, the sporadic foodborne illnesses completed an in-home survey. A total of 747 samples of kitchen linked to domestic kitchens are less often surfaces and 100 samples of kitchen cleaning tools were collected reported and sometimes difficult to doc- and analyzed for the indicator microorganisms. The reported ument. As a result, cases of foodborne cleaning practices were compared with various bacterial counts. illnesses related to home-prepared foods Kitchen sinks and faucet handles were the most contaminated are often underestimated (11, 14). Stud- places in the kitchens. Dishcloths and sponges used for cleaning ies have indicated that cross-contami- often contained more bacterial contamination than kitchen nation during food handling, prepara- surfaces. Our results indicated inefficient cleaning procedures tion, and storage in the home is a major applied by the respondents even though most of them reported contributing factor in the transmission incorporating sanitizing agents in their cleaning scheme. Kitchens of foodborne diseases (4, 7, 16). Many foods, such as raw poultry, meat, eggs, of respondents who reported cleaning kitchen surfaces on a fish, shellfish, fruits and vegetables, have regular basis had significantly lower contamination levels than been cited as potential sources of food- those of respondents who reported cleaning the surfaces only borne pathogens, including Salmonella, when they look dirty. Respondents who “worry about” food Campylobacter, Listeria, E coli O157:H7, safety at home were more likely than others to have clean and Staphylococcus aureus in the kitchen kitchens. In contrast, respondents who think they have done all environment (5, 13, 15, 16). they can to keep food safe were less likely than others to have Although researchers have repeat- clean kitchens. We have identified several practice patterns and edly stressed the importance of effect- socioeconomic characteristics that may contribute to higher ive hygiene procedures in prevention of microbiological contamination in home kitchens. cross-contamination (1, 2, 18), consumer hygiene practices have been shown frequently to be inefficient in controlling bacterial growth and survival in A peer-reviewed article the kitchen environment (8, 9, 12, 19). Several locations and utensils in home *Author for correspondence: Phone: +1 615.963.5410; Fax: +1 615.963.1557 E-mail: [email protected] 672 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2011 TABLE 1. Demographic summary of respondents see, at least 18 years old, and responsible for food purchasing, storage, and prepa- Demographic factors Response (%) ration at home. The researchers con- (N=150) tacted the participants by phone to verify their eligibility and to schedule the time Gender Male 24.0 of the visit. Participants (n = 150) com- Female 76.0 pleted an in-home survey that included Age 18–29 19.3 questions regarding handling of foods 30–44 26.0 and cleaning practices for kitchens and 45–59 38.7 refrigerators. At the end of the interview, 60–69 5.3 the respondents received a twenty-five 70+ 10.7 dollar grocery gift card as remuneration Race White 18.0 for participation. African American 74.0 Others 8.0 Collection of kitchen samples Education Less than high school 13.3 High school diploma or GED 26.0 During the in-home visit, research- Some college 28.7 ers, with the permission of the partici- College or higher 32.0 pants collected samples from kitchen and Employment status Work full time 35.9 refrigerator surfaces. Using Hydra Sponges Work part time 20.9 moistened with Neutralizing Buffer (Bio- Unemployed 12.8 trace International Inc., Muncie, IN), Retired 17.6 swab samples were taken from several In school/homemaker, not working 12.8 locations in the kitchens, including the Marital status Married 29.3 countertop, sink bottom, faucet handle, Single 42.7 refrigerator handle, and meat drawer. Divorced, widowed, or separated 28.0 Sampling areas were approximately Household income Less than $15,000 33.3 20 cm × 20 cm for countertops, sink $15,000 – $34,999 27.3 bottoms, and meat drawers, and the $35,000 – $49,999 14.0 entire areas of faucet handles and refrig- $50,000 – $74,999 16.7 erator handles. After sampling, the Hydra $75,000+ 8.7 Sponges were placed in sterile bags with People in the household 1 32.7 appropriate labels. Additionally, clean- 2–3 42.0 ing tools (dishcloths, sponges and dish 4–5 20.6 pads) used in the participants’ homes were collected in labeled sterile bags. 6+ 4.7 The participants received new items as replacements. All kitchen samples were temporarily held in a cooler containing kitchens, including kitchen sinks, faucet MATERIALS AND METHODS ice packs and transferred to the labora- handles, refrigerators, wash sponges, and Consumer survey tory within three hours after collection. dishcloths, have been found to be highly Participants were recruited by a contaminated (3, 6, 10, 17). Studies are multi-project research team investigat- needed to better understand consumers’ Laboratory analysis ing consumers’ food safety practices at cleaning patterns and to identify the hur- home. The protocols and instruments Microbiological assays were per- dles to effective hygiene practices. for in-home interviews were reviewed formed within two hours after the sam- The purpose of this study was to and approved by the Institutional Re- ples were brought to the Food Microbi- evaluate the effectiveness of consumers’ view Board (IRB) at Tennessee State ology Laboratory in the Department of cleaning practices in controlling mi- Univer-sity prior to implementation of Family and Consumer Sciences. Aerobic crobiological contamination in home the study. The participants signed up for Plate Count (APC), Enterobacteriaceae kitchens. We examined the relationship the project in response to recruitment Count (EBC), and Staphylococcus aureus between cleaning patterns and levels of brochures posted at community orga- Count (SAC) were used to assess the indicator microorganisms on kitchen nizations, senior housing communities, levels of microbiological contamination. Approximately 25 ml of Butterfield’s surfaces and kitchen tools. The informa- churches, and other sites of social gather- phosphate buffer (pH 7.2) was added to ings. The survey targeted low to middle tion obtained from this study can be used each bag containing a Hydra Sponge and to provide evidence-based educational income communities, with a major- 100 ml to each bag containing a sponge, messages to improve the effectiveness of ity represented by the African-American dishcloth, or dish pad. The contents cleaning practices and to reduce the risk population. It was required that the par- of the sample bags were mixed using a of cross-contamination in home kitchens. ticipants be residents of middle Tennes- Stomacher R 400 Circulator (Seward NOVEMBER 2011 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 673 TABLE 2. Summary of survey questions and answers Question/Answer N % Frequency of cleaning kitchen countertops Several times a day 40 26.7 Just about every day 68 45.3 A few times a week 16 10.7 About once a week 17 11.3 About once every two weeks 5 3.3 About once a month 4 2.7 Items used for cleaning kitchen countertops (Multiple responses) Dishcloth 108 72.0 Cloth used just for cleaning 35 23.3 Sponge 57 38.0 Paper towel 98 65.3 Handy-wipe 32 21.3 Brush 16 10.7 Scouring pad 42 28.0 Cut up raw poultry on the countertop Always 11 8.4 Usually 2 1.5 Sometimes 20 15.3 Never 98 74.8 Wash the countertop with warm soapy water after cutting up raw poultry Always 26 78.8 Usually 2 6.1 Sometimes 3 9.0 Never 2 6.1 Sanitize the countertop after cutting up raw poultry Always 18 54.5 Usually 1 3.1 Sometimes 11 33.3 Never 3 9.1 Cleaning compounds used for cleaning kitchen sink (Multiple responses) Powder cleaner 50 33.3 Cream cleaner 8 5.3 Vinegar 12 8.0 Bleach 99 66.0 Baking soda 15 10.0 Anti-bacteria cleaner 43 28.7 Dishwashing liquid 108 72.0 Plain water 51 34.0 Wash sink with warm, soapy water or sanitizer after washing poultry in it Always 85 85.0 Usually 4 4.0 Sometimes 9 9.0 Never 2 2.0 How often wash the handles on the sink Whenever it looks dirty 19 12.7 More than once a day 27 18.0 Once a day 57 38.0 Few times a week 21 14.0 Once a week 14 9.3 Few times a month 8 5.3 Less often or never 4 2.7 674 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | NOVEMBER 2011 TABLE 2. Summary of survey questions and answers (Continued) Question/Answer N % How often wash the refrigerator handles Whenever it looks dirty 28 18.7 More than once a day 10 6.7 Once a day 26 17.3 Few times a week 36 24.0 Once a week 21 14.0 Few times a month 15 10.0 Less often or never 14 9.3 How often wash the dishcloth (only the respondents who used dishcloth) After each

Load more