Comparison of ATP Values on Meat and Fish Cutting Boards before and after Alcohol Disinfection

Table of contents

1. Introduction

anitary control of cutting boards in the kitchen is important to prevent food poisoning. In the past, we reported the results of hygiene management by repeatedly cleaning the cutting board with detergent and running water for 30 seconds or more 1) . Currently, the COVID-19 epidemic requires stricter hygiene control. To control invisible microorganisms, it is necessary to take measures to avoid the risk of food poisoning accidents due to familiarity with cooking work; as the O-JT education, it is necessary to create a hygiene management manual and protect it with all the cooks 2,3,4,5) . However, if the procedure is complicated and difficult, it will not last long. We need easy and reliable procedures and methods that anyone can do. The ATP tests 6,7,8) and HACCP-based microbiological tests 9) are useful in hygiene management to transform invisible bacteria into visible forms and educate them. Therefore, in this study, and the cutting board cleaning method we performed last time, a step of spraying 70% alcohol added. The effects of this alcohol disinfection compared by adding a stamping test (General bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Vibrio parahaemolyticus) in addition to the same ATP test as in the previous report.

2. II.

3. Materials and Methods

4. a) Kitchen cutting board

The six kitchen meat or fish thick cutting board (cutting board 1) and the six kitchen meat for the fish thin cutting board (cutting board 2) prepared in the kitchen were stored in the sterilization storage the day before cooking.

5. b) ATP inspection procedure

Each of the 12 cooks carried a kitchen cutting board for meat or fish at the start of their work and brought it to the cooking table. The work start time depends on the working conditions of the cooks. Still, the inspector always performed an ATP inspection before using meat or fish with a kitchen cutting board. Then, each cook finished the work, washes the cutting board firmly with detergent and sponge, rinse with running water for 30 seconds or more. Then, each cook repeated this process twice (as same as the last report 1) ). The inspector performed an ATP inspection after using meat or fish with a kitchen cutting board, again. Then, each cook sprayed 70% alcohol on the cutting board after washing. At last, the inspector performed an ATP inspection after using meat or fish with a kitchen cutting board. The ATP test kit used manufactured by KIKKOMAN.

6. c) Stamp test inspection procedure

Five types of stamp test (General bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Vibrio parahaemolyticus) used. The stamp test conducted by the inspector at the same time as the ATP. The stamp test was colony-counted after culturing in an incubator at 38 degrees for three days. The stamp test made by NISSUI.

7. d) Statistical processing

The results obtained compared using statistical methods. The data were statistically processed, was subjected to an F test to determine whether to use a parametric test or nonparametric test. When there is no difference in the F test, the presence or absence of a significant difference was confirmed using the student ttest with or without a correspondence. If there was a difference in the F test, the presence or absence of a significant difference was confirmed using the Wilcoxon test with a pair or the Mann-Whitney test without correlation.

8. III.

9. Results

10. a) ATP value results before and after alcohol disinfection

The table 1 and 2 shows the results of ATP wiping tests on cutting board before and after alcohol disinfection. It can see that the average value of the ATP values measured after washing before and after cleaning, after cleaning, the ATP value is low. The ATP value after 70%alcohol spraying was statistically significantly lower than that before alcohol spraying. The ATP value dropped below 100 for both cutting boards.

11. b) Stamp test results before and after alcohol disinfection

Tables 3,4,5,6,7,8.9.10.11 and 12 show the results of ATP wiping tests on cutting board before and after 70% alcohol disinfection. Results of general bacteria show in Tables 3 and 4. Results of E. coli show in Tables 5 and 6. Results of Staphylococcus aureus shown in Tables 7 and 8. Result of Salmonella show in Tables 9 and 10. Result of Vibrio parahaemolyticus show in Tables 11 and 12. The number of all microbial bacteria was lower after washing than after cooking and after spraying 70% alcohol. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the number of microbial bacteria.

12. Discussion

To manage the hygiene of meat and fish cutting board that has a high risk of causing secondary contamination in cooking. We tried to verify using the ATP test and microbial stamp test by spraying 70% alcohol after cleaning instead of controlling only by the cleaning method 1) . The ATP value decreased after washing then after cooking and after spraying 70% alcohol than after washing. The ATP value was a statistically significant decrease, which was less than 100 after 70% alcohol spraying. However, the microbial stamp test results were not statistically significant reductions in bacterial counts. The cutting board inspected by spraying 70%alcohol after cleaning. But if 70% of alcohol not sprayed after sufficiently wiping off the water, the alcohol may be dilute, and the bactericidal effect may weakened. In the future, we would like to verify the sterilization of microorganisms by spraying 70% alcohol on the cutting board by thoroughly wiping off the water after cleaning and then spraying 70% alcohol. Not all microorganisms are killed even after spraying 70% alcohol, so when using a cutting board left at room temperature (with moist), it is better to wash repeatedly and cook after spraying 70% alcohol.

V.

13. Conclusions

The effects of 70% alcohol spraying investigated using cutting boards for meat and fish. Both cutting boards had high ATP and microbiological test values after cooking. However, although the value of the cutting board decreased after cleaning, the ATP value did not fall below 100. Microbial test values were also high in many cases. After spraying with 70% alcohol, the ATP value was 100 or less, and the value decreased statistically significantly. Microbial test values were decreasing with or without statistically significant reductions. Providing safe and secure meals by further spraying 70% alcohol after cleaning the cooking utensils helps prevent food poisoning. However, since the microorganisms are present even after spraying with 70% alcohol, the bacteria may grow again if the cooking utensils left for a long time. It is advisable to clean and spray 70% alcohol before using the equipment.

Figure 1. Table 3
3
Table1. ATP test value and statistical processing result of cutting board 1.
No alcohol treatment Alcohol treatment
For meat Before washing After washing After washing After alcohol
1 8414 50121 50121 13
Year 2020 2 3 4 5 6 Average value 210 132205 59141 30814 76010 51132.3 56 103 62 272 70 8447.3 56 103 62 272 70 8447.3 31 20 31 18 72 30.8
?? 49166.2 20416.0 20416.0 21.4
2 F test Student-t* P-0.025* P=0.0001**
Volume XX Issue XIII Version I Wilcoxon F test Student-t* Wilcoxon For meat 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average value ?? F test Table2. ATP test value and statistical processing result of cutting board 2. *Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01 P=0.028* P=0.0001** P=0.116 P=0.046* Before washing After washing After washing After alcohol 4817 3828 3828 38 1302 12 12 58 99080 456 456 16 61864 33 33 56 161792 293 293 17 243 85 85 50 54849.7 784.5 784.5 39.2 66022.3 1500.9 1500.9 18.9 P=0.0001** P=0.0001** No alcohol treatment Alcohol treatment
D D D D ) Student-t* Wilcoxon P=0.028* P=0.173
( F test P=0.0001**
Medical Research Student-t* Wilcoxon *Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01 P=0.028*
Global Journal of For meat 1 2 Before washing After washing After washing 82 40 40 4 0 0 No alcohol treatment Alcohol treatment After alcohol 0 0
3 200 46 46 0
4 13 0 0 0
5 200 9 9 0
6 60 0 0 14
Average value 93.2 15.8 15.8 2.3
?? 87.7 21.4 21.4 5.7
F test P=0.002** P=0.003**
Student-t*
Wilcoxon P=0.028* P=0.273
F test P=0.0001**
Student-t*
Wilcoxon P=0.028*
*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01
Figure 2. Table 4
4
No alcohol treatment Alcohol treatment
P=0.0001** P=0.035*
P=0.116 P=0.028*
P=0.0001**
P=0.075
*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01
For meat Before washing After washing After washing After alcohol
1 0 0 0 0
2 2 1 1 0
3 200 8 8 0
4 5 0 0 7
5 200 0 0 0
6 6 0 0 16
Average value 68.8 1.5 1.5 3.8
?? 101.6 3.2 3.2 6.6
F test
Student-t*
Wilcoxon
F test
Student-t*
Wilcoxon
Figure 3. Table 5
5
No alcohol treatment Alcohol treatment
P=0.0001** P=0.052
P=0.518
P=0.043*
P=0.0001**
P=0.418
*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01
For meat Before washing After washing After washing After alcohol
1 3 2 2 0
2 0 0 0 1
3 200 23 23 0
4 0 0 0 0
5 15 0 0 0
6 35 0 0 0
Average value 42.2 4.2 4.2 0.2
?? 78.5 9.3 9.3 0.4
F test
Student-t*
Wilcoxon
F test
Student-t*
Wilcoxon
Figure 4. Table 6
6
No alcohol treatment Alcohol treatment
P=0.0001** P=0.0001**
P=0.068 P=0.285
P=0.0001**
P=0.080
*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01
For meat Before washing After washing After washing After alcohol
1 0 0 0 0
2 5 1 1 0
3 0 0 0 7
4 0 0 0 3
5 152 2 2 0
6 212 0 0 0
Average value 61.5 0.5 0.5 1.7
?? 95.3 0.8 0.8 2.9
F test
Student-t*
Wilcoxon
F test
Student-t*
Wilcoxon
Figure 5. Table 7
7
Year 2020
3
Volume XX Issue XIII Version I
D D D D ) K
(
Medical Research
result No alcohol treatment and statistical processing Alcohol treatment Global Journal of
P=0.0001** P=0.004**
P=0.109 P=0.465
P=0.0001**
P=0.345
*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01
Figure 6. Table 8
8
No alcohol treatment Alcohol treatment
P=0.0001** P=0.0001**
P=0.225 P=0.655
P=0.0001**
P=0.144
*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01
For meat Before washing After washing After washing After alcohol
1 508 0 0 0
2 80 0 0 0
3 1 0 0 2
4 168 0 0 5
5 1 9 9 0
6 26 15 15 5
Average value 130.7 4.0 4.0 2.0
?? 195.4 6.5 6.5 2.4
F test
Student-t*
Wilcoxon
F test
Student-t*
Wilcoxon
Figure 7. Table 9
9
No alcohol treatment Alcohol treatment
P=0.0001** P=0.016*
P=0.075 P=0.465
P=.0001**
P=0.059
*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01
For meat Before washing After washing After washing After alcohol
1 0 1 1 0
2 0 5 5 0
3 34 1 1 2
4 0 23 23 0
5 21 1 1 0
6 55 0 0 0
Average value 18.3 5.2 5.2 0.3
?? 22.8 8.9 8.9 0.8
F test
Student-t*
Wilcoxon
F test
Student-t*
Wilcoxon
Figure 8. Table 10
10
No alcohol treatment Alcohol treatment
P=0.019 P=0.0001**
P=0.463 P=0.138
P=0.0001**
P=0.109
*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01
For meat Before washing After washing After washing After alcohol
1 21 0 0 0
2 6 0 0 0
3 1 7 7 0
4 119 0 0 0
5 0 38 38 2
6 18 0 0 0
Average value 27.5 7.5 7.5 0.3
?? 45.7 15.2 15.2 0.8
F test
Student-t*
Wilcoxon
F test
Student-t*
Wilcoxon
Figure 9. Table 11
11
No alcohol treatment Alcohol treatment
P=0.009** P=0.0001**
P=0.402 P=0.180
P=0.0001**
P=0.075
*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01
Figure 10. Table 12
12
No alcohol treatment Alcohol treatment
For meat Before washing After washing After washing After alcohol
1 0 0 0 0
2 0 4 4 2
3 5 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0
5 200 0 0 0
6 256 0 0 0
Average value 76.8 0.7 0.7 0.3
?? 118.4 1.6 1.6 0.8
F test P=0.0001** P=0.68
Student-t* P=0.363
Wilcoxon P=0.144
F test P=0.0001**
Student-t* Wilcoxon P=0.144 *Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01 Year 2020
5
Figure 11. K
1

Appendix A

Appendix A.1 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the cooks who participated in this experiment. Also, we would like to thank the inspectors who also performed the ATP inspection.

Appendix B

  1. An evaluation of hospital cleaning refimes and standards. C J Griffith , R A Coooper , J Gilmore , C Davies , M Lweis . J Hosp Infect 2000. 45 (1) p. .
  2. Rapid microbiology: application s of bioluminescence in the food industry-a review. C J Stannard , P A Gibbs . J Biolumin Chemilumin 1986. 1 (1) p. .
  3. Use of ATP bioluminescence for assessing h eclealiness of hospital surfaces: a review of the published literature. E Amodio , C Dubi . J infect Public Health 1990-2012. 2014. 7 (2) p. .
  4. Comparison of results of ATP bioluminescence and traditional ygiene swabbing methods fro the deteminaton of surface, H Aycieck , U Oquz , K Karci .
  5. An investigation of Factors that influence Hygiene Practices at a small Day Care Center. J H Lee . J Food Prot 2018. 2018. 81 (1) p. .
  6. Results of Hygiene Education of Kitchen Cutting Board by using ATP Inspection -Comparison of vegetable Cutting Board and Meat Cutting Board. N Katayama , M Hirabayashi , A Ito , S Kondo , Y Nakayama , A Naka , N Sasaki , M Inuzuka , T Tamura . Global Journal of Medical Research 2020. 20 (5) p. .
  7. Effectiveness of ATP bioluminescence to assess hospital cleaning: a review. N Nante , E Ceriale , G Messina , D Lenzi , P Manzi . J Prev. Med. Hyg 2017. 58 (2) p. .
  8. A review of bioluminescent ATP techniques in papid microbiology. P E Stanley . J Biolumin Chemilumin 1989. 4 (1) p. .
Notes
1
© 2020 Global Journals
Home 
Date: 2020-01-15