1. Introduction
Ensuring food safety and preventing foodborne diseases are crucial considerations, as they pose significant challenges to public health and contribute to healthcare costs amounting to millions annually [
1,
2]. Numerous documented outbreaks of foodborne illnesses are linked to foodservice establishments, with a major issue being improper handling, preparation, storage, transportation, and sanitation practices. The origins of foodborne diseases span various sources, including bacteria, viruses, parasites, chemical contaminants, and allergens [
3]. Consequently, there is a heightened emphasis on the verification, implementation, and continuous monitoring of codes of good practices [
2,
4]. It is crucial for food handlers to receive training that combines theoretical knowledge with practical examples. This integrated approach enhances learning capacity and contributes to the improvement of their daily adherence to good food safety practices [
5].
This study was aimed to proportionate the knowledge of food safety and to help the workers follow the right path. It was evaluated if the training given to the food manipulators was helpful and had a significant impact in reducing the load of microbiological contamination present during the work.
In this present work we have achieved a reduction exceeding 80% in the microbiological load of Enterobacteriaceae and mesophilic microorganisms on equipment, surfaces, utensils, and hands in most cases. Addressing the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in drains proved to be another challenge that appeared to be effectively resolved through worker training. They were provided with guidance on both physical and chemical approaches tailored to specifically address this issue.
2. Material and Methods
For the present work were carried out four rounds of analysis in four restaurants: two analyses were conducted before food safety training and the other two were conducted after food safety training. In each visit, thirty-two swabs were taken from the equipment, surfaces, and utensils all together and eight swabs were taken from four manipulators (right and left hand). Also, we evaluated the presence of
Listeria monocytogenes in drains using absorbent sponges. This study analysed mesophilic microorganisms in Plate Count Agar
® (PCA),
Enterobacteriaceae in Violet Red Bile Glucose Agar
® (VRBG),
Escherichia coli in Tryptone Bile X-Glucuronide Agar
® (TBX),
Staphylococcus aureus in Baird Park Agar
® (BP) and
Listeria monocytogenes in Chromagar
Listeria and enrichment media Fraser I and Fraser II. The results were analysed based on the microbial criteria of Moragas, M. et al. [
6] K. Soares et al. [
7] and Labović et al. [
8].
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Equipment, Surfaces, and Utensils Analysis
It was evaluated global hygienic conditions among the four restaurants. Of the swabs performed, before food safety training, to equipment, surfaces, and utensils, 15% of the results for
Enterobacteriaceae and 26% of the results for mesophilic microorganisms weren’t compliant with the hygienic safety limits and for the swabs done to the food manipulator’s hands 31% of the
Enterobacteriaceae and 64% of the mesophilic values were well above the safe limits. The number of non-compliant
Enterobacteriaceae and mesophilic microorganisms’ values for equipment, surfaces and utensils were much higher before the food safety training then after the food safety training (
Figure 1 and
Figure 2).
After the employee training there was a severe reduction on Enterobacteriaceae and mesophilic microorganisms load of more than 90% (
Table 1) that can be explained by the fact that before the employee food safety training there was a big lack of good hygiene practices like for example the fact that cutting boards and other surfaces weren’t cleaned after handling or cutting raw food or only cleaned with water and most of the times were left there forgotten with blood. Utensils used for cutting and handling raw food were also used for other things without proper cleaning between tasks leading to cross-contamination. These stated reasons contributed to a high degree of contamination and high microbiological count. After the training the employees started to clean the surfaces, equipment, and utensils with proper disinfectant after finalizing their tasks and even some old cutting boards were replaced by new ones due to the high degree of wear and the presence of many deep cuts.
3.2. Drains Analysis
In this study we also searched for the presence of
Listeria monocytogenes in the drains of 4 restaurants turning out 25% of the analysis to be positive (
Figure 3). After the training, where was suggested the combination of mechanical and chemical techniques, the presence of
Listeria monocytogenes was absent (
Figure 3).
3.3. Food Manipulator’s Hands Analysis
The number of non-compliant
Enterobacteriaceae and mesophilic microorganisms’ values for the analysis taken from the manipulator’s hands were much higher before the food safety training then after the food safety training (
Figure 4 and
Figure 5).
Before the employee training there was a lack of understanding or uninterest in complying with the good self-hygiene practices. Washing the hands was most of the times neglected only washed with water and, in some cases, the workers forgot to wash their hands between different tasks which led to cross-contamination between raw and cooked meals.
Staphylococcus aureus results were mixed with only restaurant A and D having higher non-compliant values before training (
Figure 6). Restaurants B and D were the ones with the most presence of
Staphylococcus aureus (
Figure 6). The analysis was always taken without gloves and as we can see only restaurant B had a substantial increase in non-compliant values explained by the fact that one of the employees allegedly had a disease that provoked the presence of constant open wounds on the hand’s surface.
After the employee food safety training they recognized the importance of using proper disinfectants for washing their hands and started doing it more frequently in correct times leading to the reductions on microbiological load of more than 80% for most of the cases (
Table 2).
4. Conclusions
With these results we can conclude that food safety training was crucial to make the employees more aware of the bad hygiene practices and how to do it the right way. The employees comprehended the importance of cleaning the surfaces, utensils, equipment, and hands after changing tasks or always, when necessary, with the right disinfectant product.
The combination of theorical and on-job training was very effective as we can see by the results of 80% reduction in microbiological load in most of the cases. Was reported by the restaurant owners that some of the workers didn’t pay attention to the previous formations because they were only theorical and boring, that’s why the including of practical demonstrations was efficient in enhancing the employee’s learning capacity.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.C., A.E. and C.R.; methodology, M.C., A.E. and C.R; software, M.C.; validation, M.C., A.E. and C.R; formal analysis, A.E. and C.R.; investigation, M.C.; resources, A.E. and C.R.; data curation, M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C.; writing—review and editing, M.C.; visualization, A.E., C.R. and K.S.; supervision, A.E. and K.S.; project administration, A.E.; funding acquisition, A.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by National Funds from FCT–Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under the projects UIDB/CVT/00772/202, and LA/P/0059/2020 and UIDB/04033/2020.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Chapman, B.J.; Linton, R.H.; McSwane, D.Z. Food safety postprocessing: Transportation, supermarkets, and restaurants. Foodborne Infect. Intox. 2021, 523–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rifat, M.A.; Talukdar, I.H.; Lamichhane, N.; Atarodi, V.; Alam, S.S. Food safety knowledge and practices among food handlers in Bangladesh: A systematic review. Food Control 2022, 142, 109262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdul Halim-Lim, S.; Mohamed, K.; Muhammad-Sukki, F.; David, W.; Abidin UF, U.Z.; Jamaludin, A.A. Food Safety Knowledge, Attitude and Practices of Food Handlers in Restaurants in the Maldives. Preprints 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaskela, J.; Ollila, S.; Vainio, A.; Lundén, J. The perceived openness to interpretation of food inspection grading associates with disagreements between inspectors and food business operators. Food Control 2021, 128, 108207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkandari, D.; Al-Abdeen, J.; Sidhu, J.S. Food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices of food handlers in restaurants in Kuwait. Food Control 2019, 103, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moragas, M.; Valcárcel, S.; Recopilación Normas Microbiológicas de Los Alimentos y Asimilados. Otros Parámetros Físico-Químicos de Interés Sanitario. 2022, p. 76. Available online: https://www.euskadi.eus/contenidos/informacion/cont_alim_seg_micro/es_def/adjuntos/NORMAS-MICROBIOLOGICAS-ALIMENTOS-2022.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2024).
- Soares, K.; Moura, A.T.; García-Díez, J.; Oliveira, I.; Esteves, A.; Saraiva, C. Evaluation of Hygienic Quality of Food Served in Universities Canteens of Northem Portugal. Indian J. Microbiol. 2020, 60, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Labović, S.B.; Joksimović, I.; Galic, I.; Knežević, M.; Mimović, M. Food Safety Behaviours among Food Handlers in Different Food Service Establishments in Montenegro. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Number of values non-compliant with the food safety limits (Before and After training) for the Enterobacteriaceae analysis taken from restaurant A, B, C, and D.
Figure 1.
Number of values non-compliant with the food safety limits (Before and After training) for the Enterobacteriaceae analysis taken from restaurant A, B, C, and D.
Figure 2.
Number of microbiological values non-compliant with the food safety limits (Before and After training) for mesophilic microorganisms’ analysis taken from restaurant A, B, C, and D.
Figure 2.
Number of microbiological values non-compliant with the food safety limits (Before and After training) for mesophilic microorganisms’ analysis taken from restaurant A, B, C, and D.
Figure 3.
Presence of Listeria monocytogenes before and after the food safety training.
Figure 3.
Presence of Listeria monocytogenes before and after the food safety training.
Figure 4.
Number of microbiological values non-compliant with the food safety limits (Before and After training) for Enterobacteriaceae present on food manipulators hands for the restaurants A, B, C, and D.
Figure 4.
Number of microbiological values non-compliant with the food safety limits (Before and After training) for Enterobacteriaceae present on food manipulators hands for the restaurants A, B, C, and D.
Figure 5.
Number of microbiological values non-compliant with the food safety limits (Before and After training) for mesophilic microorganisms present on food manipulators hands for the restaurants A, B, C, and D.
Figure 5.
Number of microbiological values non-compliant with the food safety limits (Before and After training) for mesophilic microorganisms present on food manipulators hands for the restaurants A, B, C, and D.
Figure 6.
Number of microbiological values non-compliant with the food safety limits (Before and After training) for Staphylococcus aureus present on food manipulators hands for the restaurants A, B, C, and D.
Figure 6.
Number of microbiological values non-compliant with the food safety limits (Before and After training) for Staphylococcus aureus present on food manipulators hands for the restaurants A, B, C, and D.
Table 1.
Percentage of difference between the microbiological count means (% Mean Diff.) obtained from the analysis taken before and after formation on the restaurants A, B, C and D for Enterobacteriaceae and mesophilic microorganisms present in equipment, surfaces, and utensils.
Table 1.
Percentage of difference between the microbiological count means (% Mean Diff.) obtained from the analysis taken before and after formation on the restaurants A, B, C and D for Enterobacteriaceae and mesophilic microorganisms present in equipment, surfaces, and utensils.
Restaurant | A (% Mean Diff.) | B (% Mean Diff.) | C (% Mean Diff.) | D (% Mean Diff.) |
---|
Enterobacteriaceae | −98.0 | −99.9 | −99.7 | +32.6 |
Mesophilic microorganisms | −98.7 | −99.5 | −96.7 | −98.9 |
Table 2.
Percentage of difference between the microbiological count means (% Mean Diff.) obtained in the analysis taken before and after formation on the restaurants A, B, C and D for Enterobacteriaceae, mesophilic microorganisms and Staphylococcus aureus present on the hands of food manipulators.
Table 2.
Percentage of difference between the microbiological count means (% Mean Diff.) obtained in the analysis taken before and after formation on the restaurants A, B, C and D for Enterobacteriaceae, mesophilic microorganisms and Staphylococcus aureus present on the hands of food manipulators.
Restaurant | A (% Mean Diff.) | B (% Mean Diff.) | C (% Mean Diff.) | D (% Mean Diff.) |
---|
Enterobacteriaceae | −99.8 | −100 | −99.8 | +125 |
Mesophilic microorganisms | −98.8 | −35.8 | −94.6 | −92.2 |
Staphylococcus aureus | +190.4 | +58.8 | +100 | −80.4 |
| Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).