68
4.3.2.4 Hands of food handlers
People can also be a source of cross-contamination to foods. Some examples are: handling foods after visiting the toilet without properly hand washing; touching raw
meats and then preparing vegetables without washing hands between tasks using an apron to wipe your hands between handling different foods, or wiping a counter with a
towel and then using it to dry your hands. In this study, fecal coliforms were found in hands of personnel from outlets I and
II. Between the two outlets, RTE food outlet I had significantly high fecal contamination compared to outlet II. There was no fecal contamination from the personnel from which
the sample was taken from in outlet III. Fecal coliforms in hands of food handlers those preparing ready-to-eat foods
would have been the result of not washing the hands well after using the latrines. It could also have been cross-contamination by touching contaminated surfaces where
animal droppings may have been without noticing; using of contaminated water to wash hands would be a possibility as well.
A study carried out by Ayçiçek et al 2003 in hands of hospital food handlers that 14 out of 180 hand samples were contaminated with E.coli which belongs to the
group of fecal coliforms. With this findings it was concluded that poor hand hygiene was the major cause and all inexperienced employees would not be employed in the
kitchen or be trained in the proper codes of hygiene and sanitation practices. Another study Sobel et al 1998 detected fecal coliforms from hands of street vendors;
Hand washing is generally considered to be the most important way to stop the spread of infection. Hands must be washed before handling food, after blowing your
nose or touching your body, after using the toilet, after smoking and after handling raw food. Washing of the hands recommends the use of food grade hand sanitizers which
come in bar forms or liquid forms, such as alcohol-based sanitizers.
4.4 Comparison of coliforms and hygiene and sanitation conditions
The research results of total coliform counts when compared with the sanitation and hygiene inspection results can be stated that the poorer the GMP conditions, the
more occurrences of coliforms in the samples analyzed. As generally seen from Table 6.0 total coliforms and Table 7.0 fecal coliforms, both outlets I and II have higher
69 coliform contamination compared to outlet III. This is supported by the hygiene and
sanitation inspection results given in Figures 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11; whereby both outlets I and II are graded as good B and outlet III graded as very good A.
It can be inferred that the outlets selling more than one type of food had poorer hygiene and sanitation conditions. This must have been due to such reasons as having
limited space for food preparation areas compared to outlet III; poor employee behaviors like smoking whilst preparing food as observed in outlet II; too many items stored in the
premises limiting the ease of moving about; insects like flies and stray cats moving around the vicinities of the outlets.
4.5 Comparison of coliform count and Salmonella occurrence
Furthermore, the assumption of having more indicator organisms in an area would have the possibility that pathogens are present did influence sample types in each
outlets having higher total coliforms to have Salmonella occurring in the samples. S
.Weltevreden occurred in utensils washing water, tea towels, and food preparation tables in outlet I; S.Agona was isolated from utensils washing water and food
preparation tables in outlet II. From Table 5.0 of the total coliforms, it can be said that Salmonella
is present in the samples where the total coliform counts was 8.24 x 10
2
MPN100cm
2
contained Salmonella. Outlet III had no Salmonella occurrence as the coliform counts were generally
lower when compared to outlets I and II.
70
5. CONCLUSION
The research
found Salmonella serovars in two of the RTE food outlets outlet I and II. S. Weltevreden was isolated from RTE food outlet I, from utensils washing
water sample, tea towels and food preparation tables . S. Agona was isolated from outlet from tea towels and food preparation tables . Outlet III did not have Salmonella
serovars present. MPN counts for coliforms were comparable with the hygienic inspection results.
Again the outlets selling more than one type of food outlets and II had high coliform counts; these outlets had poorer hygiene and sanitation conditions. The space of the
outlets also was a factor contributing to the hygiene conditions in turn affecting coliform counts. Thus, generally, it is comparable that the poorer the hygiene conditions, the
higher the coliform counts. It can be also specifically noted that in outlet III there was low coliform
contamination 3.00 x 10 MPN100cm
2
in utensils washing water; importathis was same for fecal contamination in utensils washing water and hands of food handlers.
This signifying that means of hygiene and sanitation practices aligned with washing water and hands in the outlet are favorably good. Furthermore, it can be concluded that,
there was a relationship between hygiene conditions and coliform total and fecal coliforms occurrence.
Salmonella occurrence in this study was such that, the more coliform 8.24 x
10
2
MPN100cm
2
counts resulted in presence of Salmonella in the samples. This was observed in the samples having Salmonella serovars utensils washing water, tea
towels, and food preparation tables especially tea towels which showed almost all the outlets having higher coliform counts produced Salmonella. Therefore, outlets I and II
had Salmonella whilst outlet III having negative Salmonella
6. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that RTE food outlets I and II should improve their hygiene and sanitation conditions through training and supervision by safety authorities. Also
future studies are recommended especially in the areas to observe the occurrence of pathogenic bacteria and coliforms before and after cleaning the sampled areas in this
research to see the importance of having better hygienic and sanitation conditions.
Kategori