# Introduction leaning and disinfecting cooking utensils, and cleaning and disinfecting hands, avoid the risk of food poisoning. Cleaning and disinfecting kitchen knives, which often come into contact with food, helps prevent secondary contamination. Many researchers have achieved hygiene management in hospitals and other kitchens through hygiene education 1,2,3,4) . In particular, hygiene management using the ATP wiping test made it possible to create an easy-to-understand and hygienic environment by expressing invisible microorganisms as ATP values 5,6,7,8) . In the past, we also reported the results of hygiene tests on kitchen utensils using ATP wiping test 9,10,11) . Since it is impossible to know what kind of bacteria are present in the ATP wiping test, a more detailed hygiene test can obtain by examining food poisoning bacteria using a microbial II. # Materials and Methods # a) Hygiene tests on Kitchen knife Hygiene tests on six vegetable knives performed using the ATP test kit (KIKKOMAN CO., Ltd.) and the microbial stamp test kit (NISSUI Co., Ltd.). # b) ATP wiping tests ATP wiping tests performed on the handles and blades of 6 meat and fish knives. The ATP test was performed by the inspector three times immediately after cooking, after washing, and after 70%spraying alcohol. The inspector recorded the ATP test results. # c) Microbial stamp test And the inspector performed a microbial stamp test as same as ATP tests (three times: after cooking, after washing, and after spraying alcohol). The microbial stamp was then cultured in an incubator at 38 degrees for three days. After culturing, microbial stamps were counted and recorded by the inspector. # d) Statistical processing The results obtained compared using statistical methods. Compared data were 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 t-test 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. # III. # Results # a) Vegetable knife: ATP results and microorganisms stamp test results of Alcohol disinfection i. ATP test results of vegetable kitchen knife handle and blade The ATP test values were lower on both the handle and blade of vegetable knives after washing than after cooking, and after spraying 70% alcohol than after washing. After spraying alcohol, the ATP value of both the handle and blade of the knife was 100 or less. It judged that the handle and blade of the vegetable knife were in a hygienic condition (See Table 1 and Table 2). # b) Microbial stamp test results of vegetable kitchen knife handle and blade i. General bacteria A microbial stamp test (general bacteria) performed on the handle and blade of a vegetable knife. The results are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Bacterial counts decreased after washing than after cooking and after 70%alcohol sprayings than after washing, not all were statistically significant. The number of microorganisms after spraying with 70%alcohol was not sufficiently reduced as compared with that after washing. ( D D D D ) ii. Escherichia Coli (E Coli) The number of E. coli performed on the handle and blade of a vegetable knife. The results shown in Tables 5 and 6. Bacterial counts decreased after washing than after cooking and after 70%alcohol sprayings than after washing, not all were statistically significant. The number of microorganisms on the handle of the kitchen vegetable knife did not decrease statistically significantly. # iii. Staphylococcus aureus Tables 7 and 8 show the results for Staphylococcus aureus. There was no statistically significant difference between the knife blade after cooking and after cleaning and after cleaning and after70% spraying alcohol. However, the number of bacteria is decreasing. The number of bacteria on the handle of the kitchen vegetable knife is statistically significantly reduces after washing and after spraying with 70%alcohol. # iv. Salmonella The results of Salmonella shown in Tables 9 and 10. The number of bacteria decreased after washing than after cooking and after spraying 70%alcohol than after washing. However, the number of Salmonella was not statistically significantly reduced in the handle of the kitchen vegetable knife. With the knife blade, the number of Salmonella bacteria after70% alcohol spraying was statistically significantly lower than that after cooking. ( D D D D ) K v. Vibrio parahaemolyticus The results of Vibrio parahaemolyticus shown in Tables 11 and 12. The number of bacteria decreased after washing than after cooking and after spraying 70%alcohol than after washing, but there was no statistically significant difference. IV. # Discussion This time, the ATP value became 100 or less after spraying 70%alcohol, and the handle and blade of the knife became hygienic. However, the results of the microbial stamp test using the selective medium showed that the number of bacteria did not decrease sufficiently even after spraying with 70%alcohol. The bactericidal effect of alcohol spray differed depending on the type of bacteria. After cleaning, wipe off the water sufficiently and spray 70%alcohol, and we think it is better to spray 70%alcohol multiple times instead of once. In the future, we would like to count the number of microorganisms by sterilizing by increasing the number of 70%alcohol sprays. aureus, Salmonella, Vibrio parahaemolyticus) on the handle and blade of vegetable knives for the use of hygienic cooking utensils in the kitchen went. As a result, the ATP value after washing after cooking and after spraying70% alcohol was statistically significantly lower than after washing. However, although each bacterium in the selective medium decreased, not all of them were statistically significant. In the future, after cooking, we would like to wipe off the water from the kitchen vegetable knife and then spray70%alcohol, and then spray 70%alcohol multiple times instead of once before conducting a microbiological test. 3Table1. ATP test value and statistical processing result of Kitchen knife HandleNo alcohol treatmentAlcohol treatmentFor vegetablesBefore washing After washing After washingAfter alcohol11595504828482859222945585582333795269196919841283636913691775130094260426028625312813281318Average value38028.73844.83844.835.5SD60934.62120.42120.426.6F testP=0.0001**P=0.0001**Year 2020Student-t* Wilcoxon F test Student-t* WilcoxonP=0.046*P=0.0001** P=0.028*P=0.028*2*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01Volume XX Issue XII Version INo alcohol treatment Before washing After washing After washing Alcohol treatment 157036 163 163 183 1232 1232 4635 91 91 7962 58 58 382923 664 664 1102 529 529 92306.8 456.2 456.2 155082.7 453.5 453.5 Table2. ATP test value and statistical processing result of Kitchen knife Blade For vegetables After alcohol 1 45 2 21 3 47 4 7 5 8 6 15 Average value 23.8 SD 17.9 F test Student-t* Wilcoxon F test Student-t* P-0.0001** P=0.0001** P=0.075 P=0.028* P=0.0001**WilcoxonP=0.028**Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01Medical ResearchGlobal Journal ofFor vegetables 1 2 3 4 5 6No alcohol treatment Before washing After washing 22 14 35 18 41 20 10 1 70 3 20 3Alcohol treatment After washing After alcohol 14 3 18 15 20 20 1 3 3 2 3 0Average value33.09.89.87.2SD21.28.58.58.2F testP=0.021*P=0.473Student-t*P=0.206WilcoxonP=0.028*F testP=0.018*Student-t*WilcoxonP=0.028**Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01 4No alcohol treatmentAlcohol treatmentFor vegetables Before washing After washingAfter washing After alcohol1491142013132638171724415959051984848216044440Average value49.330.330.38.8SD75.823.123.111.6F testP=0.021*P=0.473Student-t*P=0.206WilcoxonP=0.028*F testP=0.0001**Student-t*WilcoxonP=0.138*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01No alcohol treatmentAlcohol treatmentFor vegetablesBefore washingAfter washingAfter washingAfter alcohol1814143213303340011410005011060000Average value7.33.03.02.3SD13.45.55.54.4F testStudent-t*WilcoxonF testStudent-t*Wilcoxon 5P=0.024*P=0.301P=0.826P=0.787P=0.008**P=0.068*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01No alcohol treatmentAlcohol treatmentFor vegetables Before washing After washingAfter washingAfter alcohol1350042221212366787804411055533161110Average value27.217.317.31.2SD29.030.830.81.6F testStudent-t*WilcoxonF testStudent-t*Wilcoxon 6P=0.444P=0.0001**P=426P=0.173P=0.0001**P=0.043**Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01 7processing resultNo alcohol treatmentAlcohol treatmentFor vegetablesBefore washing After washingAfter washingAfter alcohol165424202701212036646434133059110670220Average value36.820.720.70.5SD34.626.326.31.2F testP=0.259P=0.0001**Student-t*P=0.425WilcoxonP=0.028F testP=0.0001**Student-t*WilcoxonP=0..028**Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01No alcohol treatmentAlcohol treatmentFor vegetablesBefore washing After washingAfter washingAfter alcohol140393902173311331515041330545006616652Average value17.811.011.011.5SD20.114.714.720.3F testStudent-t*WilcoxonF testStudent-t*Wilcoxon 8processing resultP=0.231P=0.223P=0.453P=0.957P=0.488P=0.660*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01No alcohol treatmentAlcohol treatmentFor vegetablesBefore washing After washingAfter washingAfter alcohol190042100031000400005033060000Average value1.80.50.50.7??3.51.21.21.6F testStudent-t*WilcoxonF testStudent-t*Wilcoxon 9P=0.010*P=0.251P=0.862P=0.465P=0.041*P=0.109*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01 10No alcohol treatmentAlcohol treatmentFor vegetables Before washing After washing After washingAfter alcohol13594940210003100045000513011161000Average value28.815.815.80.2??51.338.338.30.4F testP=0.247P=0.0001**Student-t*P=0.629WilcoxonP=3.17F testP=0.0001**Student-t*WilcoxonP=0.028**Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01No alcohol treatmentAlcohol treatmentFor vegetablesBefore washing After washingAfter washingAfter alcohol1100027100132822223410025033760000Average value16.84.24.22.2??28.78.88.82.6F testStudent-t*WilcoxonF testStudent-t*Wilcoxon 11processing resultP=0.006**P=0.005**P=0.225P=0.715P=0.0001**P=0.418*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01No alcohol treatmentAlcohol treatmentFor vegetablesBefore washing After washingAfter washingAfter alcohol1000120330300004100054033060220Average value6.81.31.30.2??16.31.51.50.4F testStudent-t*WilcoxonF testStudent-t*Wilcoxon 12P=0.001**P=0.003**P=1.000P=0.144P=0.0001**P=0.423*Paired Student-t test * P<0.05, ** P<0.01 © 2020 Global Journals Effect of Alcohol Disinfection on the Handle and Blade of Vegetables Knives by using ATP Inspection and Microbial Stamp Test ## 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. * Comparison of results of ATP bioluminescence and traditional ygiene swabbing methods fro the deteminaton of surface cleanliness at a hospital kitchen HAycieck UOquz KKarci Int J Hyg Environ Heatth 209 2 2006 * Bioluminescence ATP monitoring for the routine assessment fo food contact surface cleanliness in a university canteen AOsimani CGarofalo FClementi STavoletti LAquilanti Int J Environ Res Public Health 17 10 2014 * An investigation of Factors that influence Hygiene Practices at a small Day Care Center JHLee J Food Prot 81 1 2018. 2018 * An evaluation of hospital cleaning refimes and standards CJGriffith RACoooper JGilmore CDavies MLweis J Hosp Infect 45 1 2000 * Rapid microbiology: application s of bioluminescence in the food industry-a review CJStannard PAGibbs J Biolumin Chemilumin 1 1 1986 * Effectiveness of ATP bioluminescence to assess hospital cleaning: a review NNante ECeriale GMessina DLenzi PManzi J Prev. Med. Hyg 58 2 2017 * Use of ATP bioluminescence for assessing h eclealiness of hospital surfaces: a review of the published literature EAmodio CDubi J infect Public Health 7 2 1990-2012. 2014 * A review of bioluminescent STP techniques in papid microbiology PEStanley J Biolumin Chemilumin 4 1 1989 * Results of Hygiene Education of Kitchen Knife by using ATP Inspection -Comparison of Handle and blade NKatayama AIto MHirabayashi SKondo YNakayama ANaka NSasaki MInuzuka TTamura Global Journal of Medical Research 20 5 2020 * Results of Hygiene Education of Kitchen Cutting Board by using ATP Inspection -Comparison of Vegetable Cutting Board and Meat Cutting Board NKatayama MHirabayashi AIto SKondo YNakayama ANaka NSasaki MInuzuka TTamura Global Journal of Medical Research 20 5 2020 * Results of Hygiene Education of Kitchen Stove Konb and Water Faucet by using ATP Inspection NKatayama SKondo AIto MHirabayashi YNakayama ANaka NSasaki MInuzuka TTamura Global Journal of Medical Research 20 5 2020