Scholarly article on topic 'Critical control points for preparing chicken meals in a hospital kitchen'

Critical control points for preparing chicken meals in a hospital kitchen Academic research paper on "Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Annals of Agricultural Sciences
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"Food safety" / HACCP / "Microbiological quality" / Chicken / "Hospital kitchen"}

Abstract of research paper on Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, author of scientific article — E.I. Yousif, I.S. Ashoush, A.A. Donia, K.A. Hala Goma

Abstract There are many concerns about the sanitation practices used in the preparation of the foods and the occurrence of the gastrointestinal illness affecting mainly peoples who eating in hospital. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the microbiological quality of chicken roasted and chicken pane meals preparing in summer and winter season in the hospital kitchen of the National Institute of Urology & Nephrology. Flow diagrams and microbiological testing of samples collected along the production line and swabs from surfaces, utensils, and equipments were used as indicator to meals safety in this work. Different food samples were examined for counts of aerobic colony bacteria, spore forming bacteria, yeast and molds, Escherichia coli, total coliform, Staphylococcus aureus, and presence of Salmonella. Swab samples were also taken from surfaces, utensils, and equipments for microbiological analysis. Results showed contamination of raw chicken, onion, egg and spices, multiplication of the microorganisms during thawing and cutting of chicken, poor hygiene of utensils and equipment, and survival of microorganisms to the cooking process. Cooking and hot-holding were considered Critical Control Points (CCPs). The results stress the importance of the implementation of training for nutritionists and food handlers to prevent foodborne diseases. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system can be also use to control the safety and quality of prepared meals.

Academic research paper on topic "Critical control points for preparing chicken meals in a hospital kitchen"

Annals of Agricultural Science (2013) 58(2), 203-211

Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University Annals of Agricultural Science

www.elsevier.com/locate/aoas

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Critical control points for preparing chicken meals in a hospital kitchen

E.I. Yousifa, I.S. Ashoush a'*, A.A. Doniab, K.A. Hala Gomac

aFood Science Dept., Fac. Agric., Ain Shams Univ., Shoubra El-kheima, Cairo, Egypt b Nephrology and Transplantation Dept., National Institute of Urology & Nephrology, Cairo, Egypt c Nutrition Dept., National Institute of Urology & Nephrology Hospital, Cairo, Egypt

Received 15 June 2013; accepted 25 June 2013 Available online 7 September 2013

KEYWORDS

Food safety; HACCP;

Microbiological quality;

Chicken;

Hospital kitchen

Abstract There are many concerns about the sanitation practices used in the preparation of the foods and the occurrence of the gastrointestinal illness affecting mainly peoples who eating in hospital. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the microbiological quality of chicken roasted and chicken pane meals preparing in summer and winter season in the hospital kitchen of the National Institute of Urology & Nephrology. Flow diagrams and microbiological testing of samples collected along the production line and swabs from surfaces, utensils, and equipments were used as indicator to meals safety in this work. Different food samples were examined for counts of aerobic colony bacteria, spore forming bacteria, yeast and molds, Escherichia coli, total coliform, Staphylococcus aureus, and presence of Salmonella. Swab samples were also taken from surfaces, utensils, and equipments for microbiological analysis. Results showed contamination of raw chicken, onion, egg and spices, multiplication of the microorganisms during thawing and cutting of chicken, poor hygiene of utensils and equipment, and survival of microorganisms to the cooking process. Cooking and hot-holding were considered Critical Control Points (CCPs). The results stress the importance of the implementation of training for nutritionists and food handlers to prevent foodborne diseases. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system can be also use to control the safety and quality of prepared meals.

© 2013 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams

University.

* Corresponding author. Mobile: +20 01001843122. E-mail address: ihab.ashoush@gmail.com (I.S. Ashoush). Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Agriculture, Ain-Shams University.

Introduction

Mishandling of foods in food service operations is frequently associated with outbreaks of foodborne diseases (Bryan, 1990). The importance of safe food for hospitalized patients and the detrimental effect that contaminated food could have on their recovery have been emphasized (Kandela, 1999).

0570-1783 © 2013 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2013.07.004

Patients receiving foods from a single kitchen with poor food handling practices could suffer a foodborne infection which could result in an outbreak involving the whole hospital (Ayliffe, 1992). Outbreaks of foodborne infections in hospitals are preventable but are facilitated by several factors; these include staff carriers, poor hygiene conditions in the kitchens, carelessness, and lack of training of food handlers. The particular danger of contaminated food in hospitals is that such food is given to consumers in poor health (Custovic and Ibrahima-gic, 2005).

Improper practices responsible for microbial foodborne illnesses have been well documented by Egan et al. (2007) and typically involve cross-contamination of raw and cooked food, inadequate cooking, and storage at inappropriate temperatures. Food handlers may also be asymptomatic carriers of food poisoning organisms. There is general agreement that good overall level of knowledge of food safety among food handlers and the effective application of such knowledge in food handling practices are essential in ensuring the consistent production of safe food in restaurant operations (Bolton et al., 2008). More procedures must be taken during the processing and by monitoring the processing procedures with a HACCP system that has been proven to be a more acceptable procedure. Food safety programs of the past tend to correct the hazard conditions after they have happened. The HACCP approach is to control problems before they happen during processing and/or serving (McSwane et al., 2003). Hazard analysis and critical control points are worldwide considered as an effective and rational means of assuring food safety, which can be applied throughout the food chain from primary production to final consumption (Domenech et al., 2008). By following the procedures of safe food production with the HACCP system, foodborne illnesses will be reduced and safer foods will be served. Today, food enterprises without an HACCP system in place are more sensitive toward food safety awareness of consumers (Jin et al., 2008).

Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the microbiological quality of patient's meals through the preparation of meals at hospital kitchen of the National Institute of Urology & Nephrology in Cairo, to assure the safety of meals.

Materials and methods

Preparing steps of tested meals

Preparation steps of chicken roasted and pane meals obtained from local suppliers are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. During manufacturing of chicken roasted meal, frozen chicken were thawed at room temperature (32 0C) and then cut and mixed with flavor sauce for a period not less than two hours. The temperature measured for samples holding in the refrigerator was between 4-6 oc, and their pH value was between 4.814.98, and refrigerated chicken were roasted on the oven at 130 oc.

Manufacturing of chicken pane meal could be simplified as follows: frozen chicken breast were thawed in separate refrigerator, spiced with pepper, salt and onion (flavor sauce for a period not less than 2 h), and then mixed with egg and ground toasted bread before being fried. The temperature measured after mixing chicken with flavor sauce and holding in the refrigerator was between 4-6 oc and the pH value was between

4.95-5.14, and refrigerated chicken pane was fried in preheating oil at 180 oc for 10 min.

Inspections and sample collection

During the summer and winter seasons of 2010-2011, inspections were undertake on the kitchen of the National Institute of Urology & Nephrology Hospital. Each inspection consisted of two phases: the first phase involved the collection of information about the hygienic state of equipments and utensils used, and evaluation of the production process according to the HACCP system (ISO 22000, 2005). The aspects taken into account were the following: (1) equipments and utensils, (2) employers who preparing foods, and (3) procedures of food production and storage. The second phase involved the collection of samples from foods (raw materials, during processing steps and from final products). In addition, swab samples were taken from various surfaces in contact with the food, after normal cleaning procedures had been completed.

Different food samples were examined for aerobic colony bacterial count, spore forming bacteria count, yeast and mold counts, Escherichia coli count, total coliform counts, Staphylo-coccus aureus count, and presence of Salmonella. All previous tests were used to reflect the microbiological quality of the foods. Swab samples were tested for aerobic colony bacterial count, yeast and mold counts, E. coli count, total coliform counts, and S. aureus (Oranusi et al., 2007).

The different separate triplicate samples from raw materials, ingredients, during different processing steps, and final products of selected meals during the tested period were selected randomly, put into sterile plastic bags, and quickly transported to the laboratory in an insulated and refrigerated box. An aliquot of 10 g or 10 ml of each food sample was homogenized in 90 ml of sterile diluents (0.1% peptone water) with a Stomacher (Seward, Model 400, England) for 30 s. Serial dilutions were prepared in peptone water, and one milliliter aliquots were plated in each specific medium and incubated at different temperatures according to Stinson and Tiwari (1978) as listed in Table 1.

For spore forming bacterial count, serial dilutions of different samples were pasteurized in water bath at 80 oc for 20 min and one milliliter aliquots were plated in the medium.

The method used for isolation of Salmonella was carried out according to the method of (ISO 6579, 2002). Twenty-five grams or milliliters from each sample was used in the pre-enrichment process in 225 ml of buffer peptone water and was incubated at 37 oc for 16-24 h. For selective enrichment, one milliliter of peptone broth was transferred to 9 ml each of tetrathionat broth and was incubated at 37 oC for 24 h. From each selective enrichment broth, a 5-mm loopfull was streaked on selective plates of bismuth sulfite agar and incubated at 37 oC for 24 h.

Swab samples were collected from the work surfaces (tables, wooden and plastic cutting boards), utensils and containers (pans, trays, large utensils, and small utensils), cutlery (spoons, knives, and forks), and interior surfaces of the refrigerators, large equipment, by using a sterile swab premoistened by dipping into 10 ml of 0.1% sterile peptone water according to Stinson and Tiwari (1978). All swab samples were placed in an icebox and taken immediately to the laboratory for microbiological analysis.

[ Receiving

Storage refrigerated

Washing

Cutting

Receiving

Storage at

room temperatur

Tomatoes

Receiving

Sorting

Cutting

1 Onion

Receiving

Sorting

Storage refrigerated

Storage at room temperature

Husking j

Washing

Receiving

Receiving

Storage at

room temperature

Storage at room temperature

Frozen chicken

Receiving

Medical observation

Frozen storage

Thawing

Cutting

Washing

Fig. 1 Flow diagram of preparation of Chicken roasted.

Application of HACCP system

In this study, two meals were selected for investigation, and the first one was "Chicken roasted meal" which consists of chicken, pepper, tomatoes, onion, and spices. The second one was "Chicken pane meal" that contains chicken breast, garlic, lemon juice and onion juice, spices, egg, rusk, and flour. According to the NACMCF (1992), HACCP system was applied in establishment based in the following seven principles: (1) Conduct a hazard analyses. (2) Identify the Critical Control Points (CCPs). (3) Establish critical limits for preventive measures associated with each identified CCP. (4) Establish CCP monitoring requirements. (5)

Establish corrective actions to be taken when monitoring indicates a deviation from an established critical limit. (6) Establish verification procedures and (7) Establish record-keeping and documentation procedures. The studied meals are summarized with reference to CCPs and their monitoring on the HACCP worksheet for Chicken roasted and pane meals (Tables 4 and 7).

Data analysis

All experiments were performed in triplicate. The data were recorded as means and were analyses with SPSS software (Noru-sis, 2008)

Oil Rusk and flour J ^ Eggs j

i , . 1

| Receiving | | Receiving | | Receiving |

1 „ 1

Storage at Storage at

room room

temperature temperature

Sorting

Frying

Storage refrigerated

Return

receiving

Pulsation

Mixing

Spices

[ Receiving

Storage at room temperature.

Mixing

Spicing

Coverage with eggs

Garlic, lemon juice and onion juice

Frozen chicken .

Medical observation

Frozen storage

Thawing

Cutting

Washing

Fig. 2 Flow diagram of preparation of Chicken pane meal.

Results and discussion

Hazard analysis and HACCP control chart of manufacturing Chicken roasted meal

Typical preparation, associated hazards, and critical control point of Chicken roasted meal are illustrated in flow diagram in Fig. 1. The possibilities of contamination, survival of contaminants, and growth of microorganisms are analyzed in process reviews. Sources of contamination are workers who handle foods and utensils that the foods contact as well as the raw foods.

Data in Tables 2 and 3 cleared that the microbiological profile of chicken roasted in kitchen was taken in winter and summer season, respectively. It could be noticed that the aerobic

bacteria count found in thawing, cutting, spices, and treatment with sauce were 4.65, 6.78, 4.52, and 5.80 log cfu/g samples in winter; on the other hand, the aerobic count in summer was higher than that found in winter being 5.78, 6.80, 4.94, 6.02 log cfu/g samples. Coliform and S. aureus were detected in chicken thighs during the treatment with sauce (spicing) in a count 2.42 and 1.12 log cfu/g samples, respectively. The samples taken in winter were 2.42 and 1.12 log cfu/g, while in summer were 3.48 and 2.31 log cfu/g samples, respectively. Salmonella were not detected in any samples during different preparing steps. According to Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management (2006), reducing the pH values by adding vinegar or lemon juice and holding mixed products at temperature <5 oc will prevent the growth of mesophilic bacterial pathogens according to Bolton and Maunsell (2004).

The core temperature measured for the thighs after grilling was between 76-80 oC, and these temperatures were enough to kill pathogens bacteria as it seen in Tables 2 and 3. The total colony count was decreased during grilling and holding at room temperature due to the effect of heating. But the contamination may occur during the packaging in winter and summer seasons.

Type of hazards during manufacturing chicken roasted meal and control measure that should be used to control an identified hazards are illustrated in Table 4. By using the NAC-MCF (1992) decision tree, the following steps in the preparations of chicken roasted meal were considered as critical control points: the thawing operation is critical control points for skinless boneless chicken breast which is frequently contaminated by enteric pathogens. Temperature in these steps should be controlled and monitored to prevent growth of pathogenic microorganisms that may be produce toxins if temperature is not controlled.

The mixing with flavored sauce for a period not less than 2 h was considered as a critical control point, because of the possibility of pathogenic microorganisms to grow and produce heat resistant toxins which are not destroyed when the food is heated. Grilling was consider as CCP, where the core temperature should be controlled and monitored to destroy pathogenic bacteria which may presenting in raw material or reach during preparation.

The HACCP control chart of chicken roasted meal (Table 4) showed that the control measures during preparation, cutting, thawing, and mixing were good hygiene practice (GHP) and good manufacturing practices (GMP). The procedures of monitoring were to do visual inspection of washing

and cutting operations to ensure GHP and GMP during preparing.

Hazard analysis and HACCP control chart of manufacturing Chicken pane

Typical preparation of Chicken pane meal, associated hazards, and critical control point are illustrated in Fig. 2. The possibilities of contamination, survival of contaminants, and growth of microorganisms are analyzed in process reviews, and the product of chicken pane spiced with pepper, salt, and onion was then mixed with egg and rusk before being fried.

Data in Tables 5 and 6 summarized the microbiological profiles of Chicken pane meal ingredients during different processing steps in kitchen during winter and summer seasons. It could be observed that Salmonella was not detected in any sample. The aerobic bacterial counts found in steps of thawing, cutting chicken, onion, egg, spices, and treatment with flavored sauce were 3.63, 4.01, 3.94, 3.28, 4.57, and 5.49 log cfu/g samples in winter season, respectively, which was lower than the count of aerobic bacteria in summer season. Mold and yeast were recorded of the all steps and the higher values reached 2.55, 2.56, and 3.20 log cfu/g in summer season, in comparison with less values obtained in winter season.

The total bacterial count decreased during frying chicken due to the effect of heating. Frying of the chicken pane at 185 oC for 10 min might be enough to destroy the microorganisms. According to the decision tree matrix, thawing and mixing were Critical Control Points (CCPs).

Thawing operation is a critical control point for skinless boneless chicken breast which is frequently contaminated by

Table 2 Microbiological analysis of chicken roasted meal in winter season.

Sample Microbiological analysis (Mean log cfu/g)

A.b.c S.F.B.C Y&M C E. coli Coliform S. aureus Salmonella

Thawing Chicken thighs 4.65 1.81 1.04 1.12 1.50 <1 ND

Cutting Chicken thighs 6.78 2.95 3.00 1.52 2.00 <1 ND

Spices 4.52 2.14 2.17 <1 <1 <1 ND

Chicken treatment with flavor sauce (spicing) 5.80 3.57 4.31 1.43 2.42 1.12 ND

Keep at room after cooking 1.56 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ND

Chicken after packaging 2.11 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ND

A.b.c: Aerobic bacterial count; S.F.B.C: spore forming bacteria count; Y&M.: yeast and mold count, Salmonella was detected (+ or —); <1: viable colony was not detected at detection limit <101 cfu/g, cfu/g: Colony forming unit per gram, and ND: no detected.

Table 3 Microbiological analysis of chicken roasted meal in summer season. Sample Microbiological analysis (Mean log cfu/g)

A.b.c S.F.B.C Y&M.C E. coli Coliform S. aureus Salmonella

Thawing Chicken 5.78 2.93 1.97 1.25 1.72 <1 ND

Cutting Chicken 6.80 3.84 3.84 1.33 2.28 <1 ND

Spices 4.94 2.88 2.26 <1 <1 <1 ND

Chicken treatment with flavor sauce (spicing) 6.02 4.07 5.82 1.15 3.48 2.31 ND

Keep at room after cooking 1.89 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ND

Chicken after packaging 2.87 1.15 <1 <1 1.24 <1 ND

A.b.c: Aerobic bacterial count; S.F.B.C: spore forming bacteria count; Y&M.C: yeast and mold count; <1: viable colony was not detected at detection limit <101 cfu/g; ND: no detected.

Table 4 HACCP worksheet for critical control points of chicken roasted in hospital kitchen.

Critical control Hazard Control measures Critical limit Monitoring frequency/ Corrective action

point documentation

1. Thawing frozen Biological Temperature/time Core temperature Check core and surface Investigate temperature/

chicken breast control <5 oc 24 h or less time between thawing and cooking temperature of the food at least twice per day Check thawing time time Discard the food if the surface temperature has reached 10 oc or higher

2. Mix chicken Biological Temperature/time Core temperature Check core and surface Investigate temperature

breast with flavored control <5 oc, 24 h or less temperature of the and evaluate risk

sauce for a period time between food at least twice per Discard the food if the

not less than 2 h thawing and cooking day (preferably at a busy time of the day) Check thawing time surface temperature has reached 10 oc or higher

3. Cooking (grilling Biological Core Temperature 75 oc or higher (core Check temperature Continue cooking until

chicken thighs) Chemical control temperature) Check temperature core temperature is

Physical Temperature Temperature 6180 o Check heating time achieved and investigate

Heating time C Avoid intermittent Visual checks temperature/time abuse

Removing foreign Removing foreign and evaluate risk

material material Discard food if contamination occurs

Table 5 Microbiological analysis of chicken pane in winter season.

Sample Microbiological analysis (log cfu/g)

A.b.c S.F.B.C Y&M E. coli Coliform S. aureus Salmonella

Thawing of frozen chicken 3.63 2.16 2.43 1.00 1.32 1.73 ND

Cutting chicken breast 4.01 2.22 2.19 <1 1.21 1.45 ND

Cutting onion 3.94 2.81 2.46 <1 <1 <1 ND

Egg 3.28 1.70 1.31 <1 1.43 <1 D

Spices 4.57 2.05 2.12 <1 <1 <1 ND

Chicken breast treatment with flavored sauce and covered with egg and flour 5.49 3.02 2.78 1.01 1.31 1.75 D

Chicken pane after frying 1.21 1.11 <1 <1 <1 <1 ND

Chicken pane after packaging 1.98 1.04 1.73 <1 <1 1.35 ND

A.b.c: Aerobic bacterial count; S.F.B.C: spore forming bacteria count; Y&M: yeast and mold; <1: viable colony was not detected at detection limit <101 cfu/g; ND: no detected and D: detected.

Table 6 Microbiological analysis of chicken pane in summer season.

Sample Microbiological analysis (Mean log cfu/g)

A.b.c S.F.B.C Y&M.C E. coli Coliform S. aureus Salmonella

Thawing of frozen chicken 5.86 2.98 2.55 1.01 1.52 1.73 ND

Cutting chicken breast 6.93 3.33 2.29 <1 1.35 1.43 ND

Cutting onion 3.16 3.20 2.56 1.02 1.52 <1 ND

Egg 4.92 1.97 1.62 <1 1.32 1.35 ND

Spices 5.97 2.48 2.46 <1 <1 <1 ND

Chicken breast treatment with flavored sauce and covered with egg and flour 6.53 3.49 3.20 1.13 1.62 2.29 ND

Chicken pane after frying 1.61 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ND

Chicken pane after packaging 2.43 1.08 1.03 <1 <1 1.42 ND

A.b.c: Aerobic bacterial count; S.F.B.C: spore forming bacteria count; Y&M.C: yeast and mold count; <1: viable colony was not detected at detection limit <101 cfu/g; ND: no detected.

enteric pathogens. Mixing skinless boneless chicken breast with flavored sauce for a period not less than 2 h and storage skinless boneless breast in refrigerator at 5 0C after coating

with eggs, flour, and crumb bread power until frying during preparing chicken were considered as CCPs. Cooking (deep frying of breast) was considered as CCPs, according to Pearce

Table 7 HACCP worksheet for critical control points of chicken pane meals in hospital kitchen.

Critical control point

Hazard

Control measures

Critical limit

Monitoring frequency/ documentation

Corrective action

1. Thawing

2. Mixing the chicken breast with flavored sauce for a period not less than 1 h

3. Covering the chicken breast with egg, flour and Rusk

4. Deep frying chicken pane

Biological Temperature/ time control

Biological

Biological

Temperature/ time control

Temperature/ time control

Biological Temperature/ Chemical time control Physical Heating time

Core temperature <5 °C 24 h or less time between thawing and cooking,

Core temperature <5 °C 24 h or less time between thawing and Cooking

Core temperature <5 °C 24 h or less time between thawing and cooking

100 °C or higher (core temperature) 6 180 °C

Check core and surface temperature of the food at least twice per day Check thawing time Check core and surface temperature of the food at least twice per day (preferably at a busy time of the day)Check thawing time Check temperature Check holding time

Check temperature Check heating time Visual checks

Investigate temperature/time Discard the food if the surface temperature has reached 10 °C or higher Investigate temperature and evaluate risk discard the food if the surface temperature has reached 10 °C or higher

Investigate temperature and evaluate risk. Discard the food if the surface temperature has reached 10 °C or higher Continue cooking until core temperature is achieved Investigate temperature/ time abuse and evaluate risk Discard contaminated food

Table 8 Microbiological analysis of surfaces in contact with food in hospital kitchen.

Surfaces Microbiological analysis (Mean log cfu/100 cm 2)

A.b.c Y & M C. E. coli Coliform S. aureus

W S W S W S W S W S

Work surfaces

Tables 3.54 3.67 2.04 2.63 <1 1.01 1.0 1.53 1.56 2.02

Blastic cutting 3.29 4.30 2.72 2.95 1.13 1.25 1.34 1.67 1.22 2.89

Wooden cutting 5.42 6.76 3.85 3.13 1.01 1.24 1.55 1.79 2.87 3.32

Utensils cooking

Pans 2.65 2.73 1.00 1.98 <1 <1 1.47 1.02 1.97 1.86

Trays 2.05 2.54 1.35 1.84 <1 <1 1.56 2.00 1.56 2.05

Large Utensils 2.48 3.83 1.79 2.04 <1 <1 1.03 1.43 <1 1.12

Small Utensils 1.75 2.02 1.56 2.68 <1 1.11 1.44 1.13 <1 1.00

Cutlery

Spoons 3.27 3.55 2.06 2.87 <1 <1 1.23 1.94 2.87 2.88

Knives 2.69 1.85 1.24 1.64 <1 <1 1.05 1.30 1.96 1.85

Forks 2.40 1.64 1.85 1.43 <1 1.02 1.35 1.46 1.93 1.82

Interior surfaces of refrigerators

Refrigerators 2.00 2.05 1.08 1.21 <1 <1 1.00 1.11 1.00 1.25

Large Equipment

Oven 2.73 2.88 1.39 1.75 <1 <1 1.27 1.48 1.65 1.83

Wall surfaces

Storing room 2.84 3.21 2.87 2.95 <1 <1 <1 1.21 <1 1.00

Processing room 4.36 4.85 2.74 3.04 <1 1.13 <1 1.76 <1 1.45

Floor Surface

Processing room 4.85 5.28 2.09 3.26 1.31 2.41 2.56 3.54 1.05 2.00

Storing room 5.45 6.75 4.14 4.45 1.02 1.05 2.45 3.11 1.00 1.23

Equipment transfer food

Inside 3.94 4.24 1.76 1.02 <1 <1 <1 1.12 <1 <1

Outside 4.79 5.45 1.57 1.09 <1 <1 <1 1.00 <1 <1

Where: W: winter; S: summery; A.b.c: Aerobic bacterial count; Y&M C.: yeast and mold count and log cfu/100 cm2: logarithmic colony forming

units/100 cm < 1: viable colony was not detected at detection limit <101 cfu/100 cm2.

et al. (2006). During cooking, core temperature should reach 75 oC or higher to destroy vegetative cells of pathogens bacteria.

Consequently, the presence of coliforms and E. coli in the main dish indicates poor handling practices of food handlers and cross-contamination in the kitchen. On the other hand, the presence of coagulase positive staphylococci in foods constitutes a significant risk of contamination by food handlers, and it can be also used as an indicator of cross-contamination (Mossel and Netten, 1991; Aycicek et al., 2004). According to (Aycicek et al., 2004), these results indicate that the level of personnel hygiene, using protective utensils during processing (mask, gloves, hats, etc.), and cross-contamination precautions should be improved in the kitchen and serving units. Chicken pane meals were subject to contamination during serving. They were frequently eaten shortly after cooking, which was good factor to prevent health risks. FDA (2001) reported that to keep food safe during serving in the caterings, pathogenic spores that survive cooking must not be allowed to grow out and multiply. FDA also cleared that hot food will maintain optimum quality and nutrient value if eaten within 30 min after preparation. Table 7 summarized the work sheet of HACCP system as which could be a guideline for application HACCP system as a food safety tool in the preparing Chicken pane meals.

Assessment bacterial contamination of surfaces in contact with the food

Results of the bacterial contamination of surfaces in contact with the food in the kitchen in winter and summer seasons are given in Table 8. The parameters taken for reference are the aerobic bacterial count which is correlated although not specifically with hygiene procedures, and the traditional indicators E. coli and S. aureus. Considering all the types of surfaces, Table 8 cleared the microbial counts of the swab taken from work surfaces, utensils cooking, cutlery, refrigerators, oven, wall surfaces, floor surface, and equipment transfer at winter and summer seasons in Urology Institute kitchen.

The obtained results of the swabs taken from the work surfaces (tables, blastic cutting, and wooden cutting) showed a total aerobic bacteria colony count, yeast and mold, E. coli, coliform, and S. aureus of (3.67, 4.30 and 6.76), (2.63, 2.95 and 3.13), (1.01, 1.25 and 1.24), (1.53, 1.67 and 1.79) and (2.02, 2.89 and 3.32 log cfu/g), respectively, in summer season, while less counts of microorganisms were observed in winter, due to the lack of hygiene and water disinfectants necessary.

Highest content of microorganisms were observed in the swabs taken from floor surface in storing room and processing room 6.75, 4.45, 1.05, 3.11, and 1.23 log cfu/g for total aerobic bacteria colony count, yeast and mold, E. coli, coliform and S. aureus, respectively, were found in summer season.

Microorganisms can remain viable on food contact surfaces for significant periods, increasing the risk of cross-contamination events between food handlers, food products, and food contact surfaces (De cesare et al., 2003). The role of food workers in food borne outbreaks has been clearly demonstrated by Todd et al. (2009). Hanssen et al. (2005) indicated that 25% of reported outbreaks are caused by inadequate consumer handling and food preparation. In fact, epidemiological studies have revealed that a significant number of consumers

follow unsafe and risky practices during meal preparation (Redmond and Griffith, 2003) and do not implement proper hygienic measures to prevent cross-contamination events (Fischer et al., 2007). In a survey performed by klontz et al. (1995) about hygiene practices, 25% of respondents were reported reutilize cutting boards without cleaning after cutting raw chicken. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a reduction of microorganisms and other food borne diseases if consumers would apply safe food handling practices. Cross-contamination and transfer rates of microorganisms from foods to lettuce were assessed by Ravishankar et al. (2010) under different food-handling scenarios, with and without washing procedures, Elena et al. (2012) revealed that the washing using only water is not enough to remove microorganisms while washing procedures including soap, hot water, and vigorous mechanical scrubbing are suitable to reduce cross-contamination. The contamination of hand swab samples highlights the need for improved personal hygiene as a major step in minimizing possible food poisoning outbreaks (Gadaga et al., 2008). According to Landeiro et al. (2007) in restaurants, foods are more likely than drinks to contain S. aureus because of repeated hand contact. Staphylococcal food poisoning results from the consumption of a food in which enterotoxigenic staphylococci have grown and formed enterotoxin(s). Recognition of the sources of transmission and outbreaks of enterotox-igenic staphylococci are important to prevent this type of food poisoning (Miokovic et al., 2001).

Conclusion

In general, food preparation and handling abuse were a characteristic of the kitchen and the data presented here have highlighted the potential food safety hazards in the preparation of meals. The microbiological conditions of meals were similar, such as those observed on surfaces and utensils. Thus, it is apparent that the microbiological conditions of the meals are determined by the way the processes are implemented and not by the type or condition of the incoming stock. Due to several hazards determined during chicken roasted and pane preparations, it seems that training programs for nutritionists and food handlers are necessary. This training program should contain principles of food microbiology, food safety, microbiological hazards, food processing, determination of critical control points, practical control measures, and monitoring procedures which are important to prevent foodborne diseases.

References

"Aycicek, H., Sarimehmetog±lu, B.,akirog±lu, S., 2004. Assessment of the microbiological quality of meals sampled at the meal serving units of a military hospital in Ankara, Turkey. Food Control 15, 379-384.

Ayliffe, G.A.J., 1992. Control of hospital infection, third ed., vol. 10,

Chapman & Hall Medical, London, pp. 47-64. "Bolton, D.J., Meally, A., Blair, I.S., Dowell, D.A.M., Cowan, C., 2008. Food safety knowledge of head chefs and catering managers in Ireland. Food Control 19, 291-300. Bolton, D.J., Maunsell, B., 2004. Guidelines for Food Safety Control in European Restaurants. The Food Safety Department, Teagasc -The National Food Centre, Ashtown, Dublin 15, Republic of Ireland. <http://www.uma.pt/ jcmarques/docs/haccp/EUGuide foodsafety>.

"Bryan, F.L., 1990. Hazard analysis critical control points (HACCP) systems for retail food and restaurant operations. J. Food Protect. 53 (11), 978-983.

"Custovic, A., Ibrahimagic, O., 2005. Prevention of food poisoning in hospitals. Medicinski arhiv 9 (5), 303-305.

"De cesare, A., Sheldon, B.W., smith, K.S., Jaykus, L.A., 2003. Survival and persistence of campylobacter and salmonella species under various organic loads on food contact surfaces. J. Food Prot. 66, 1587-1594.

"Domenech, E., Escriche, I., Martorell, S., 2008. Assessing the effectiveness of critical control points to guarantee food safety. Food Control 19, 557-565.

"Egan, M.B., Raats, M.M., Grubb, S.M., Eves, A., Lumbers, M.L., Dean, M.S., Adams, M.R., 2007. A review of food safety and food hygiene training studies in the commercial sector. Food Control 18, 1180-1190.

"Elena, C., Andres, M., Rose, M.G., 2012. Cross-contamination and recontamination by salmonella in foods: a review. Food Res. Int. 45, 545-556.

FDA, 2001. Food Code, U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ fc01-toc.html>.

"Fischer, A.R.H., de Jong, A.E.I., Van Asselt, E.D., de Jonge, R., Frewer, L.J., Nauta, M.J., 2007. Food safety in the domestic environment: an interdisciplinary investigation of microbial hazards during food preparation. Risk Anal. 27, 1065-1087.

"Gadaga, T.H., Samende, B.K., Musuna, C., Chibanda, D., 2008. The microbiological quality of informally vended foods in Harare, Zimbabwe. Food Control 19, 829-839.

"Hanssen, H.L., TIchsen, F., Hannerz, H., 2005. Hospitalizations among seafarers on merchant ships. Occup. Environ. Med. 62, 145150.

Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management, 2006. Food Safety Hazards and Controls for the Home Food Preparer. <http://www.hi-tm.com>.

ISO, 2002. ISO 6579. Microbiology. General Guidance on Methods for the Detection of Salmonella. International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

ISO, 2005. ISO 22000. Food Safety Management Systems-Requirements for any Organization in the Food Chain. International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

"Jin, S., Jiehong, Z., Juntao, Y., 2008. Adoption of HACCP system in the Chinese food industry: a comparative analysis. Food Control 19, 823-828.

"Kandela, P., 1999. The Kuwaiti passion for food cannot be shaken. Lancet 353, 1249-1250.

"Klontz, K.C., Timbo, B., Fein, S., Levy, A., 1995. Prevalence of selected food consumption and preparation behaviors in the United States. J. Food Prot. 58, 1405-1411.

"Landeiro, C.M.P.A., Almeida, R.C.C., Nascimento, A.T.M., Ferreira, J.S., Yano, T., Almeida, P.F., 2007. Hazards and critical control points in Brazilian seafood dish preparation. Food Control 18, 513-520.

McSwane D., Rue, N., Linton, R., 2003. Essentials of Food Safety and Sanitation, third ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, USA, pp. 169-196.

"Miokovic, B., Njari, B., Kozacinski, L., Cvrtila, Z., 2001. Application of the hazard analysis of critical control points (HACCP) concept in the control of the microbiological quality of meals and cleanliness in restaurants. Veterinarski Arhiv 71 (2), 75-84.

"Mossel, D.A.A., Netten, P.V., 1991. Microbiological reference values for foods: a European perspective. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 74, 420-432.

"NACMCF, (National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods), Hazard analysis critical control point System, 1992. J. Food Microbial. 16, 1-23.

Norusis, J.M., 2008. SPSS Statistics 17.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

"Oranusi, S., Galadima, M., Umoh, V., Nwanze, P., 2007. Food safety evaluation in boarding schools in Zaria, Nigeria, using the HACCP system. Sci. Res. Essay 2 (10), 426-433.

Oxoid, 1990. The Oxoid Manual of Culture. Media and Other Laboratory Services, fourth ed., England.

Pearce R., Maunsell, B., Bolton, D.J., 2006. Guidelines for Food Safety Control in Retail Establishments. The Food Safety Department, Teagasc - Ashtown Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin 15, Republic of Ireland. <http://www.eu-rain.com>.

"Ravishankar, S., Zhu, L., Jaroni, D., 2010. Assessing the cross contamination and transfer rates of Salmonella enterica from chicken to lettuce under different food handling scenarios. Food Microbiol. 27, 291-794.

"Redmond, E.C., Griffith, G.J., 2003. Consumer food handling in the home: a review of food safety studies. J. Food Prot. 66, 130-161.

"Stinson, C.G., Tiwari, N.P., 1978. Evaluation of quick bacterial count methods for assessment of food plant sanitation. J. Food Prot. 41, 269-271.

"Todd, E., Greig, J.D., Bartleson, C.A., Michaels, B.S., 2009. Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of food borne disease. Part 6. Transmissions and survival of pathogens in the food processing and preparation environment. J. Food Prot. 72, 202-219.