for soil cleaning. The type and concentra- tion of ingredients used in their formulation is restricted by the norms set forth in CFR 40 §180.940. These special products are for- mulated to be safe enough to be left on food contact surfaces without the need for a pota- ble water rinse. The performance trade-o, though, is their cleaning power against hard- ened food soils might be limited, because very powerful cleaning agents are excluded from CFR 40 §180.940. As such, using a proper, alternative cleaning and detergent product followed by rinsing with potable water could provide a better cleaning outcome. Procedure Cleaning agents and products will not do the job if they are not used according to label instructions and the processes they were designed for. Reading labels, though, can be a burden for employees in a retail food estab- lishment. Instead, clear, succinct, and primar- ily visual instructions and procedures for how to use a cleaning agent or product are crucial to achieve the cleaning goals of the Food Code . Items that need to be covered in the instruc- tions and procedures include how much cleaning agent to dilute or apply directly on a surface, soaking time if recommended, water
temperature requirements, and cleaning tools; these steps are the most common, necessary ones for manual cleaning of food contact sur- faces. Meticulously following all steps in a pro- cedure while using inferior commodity clean- ing agents and products might not achieve the proper food soil removal. Place According to the Conference for Food Pro- tection (2016), “cleaners should be used according to a Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure (SSOP) specific to a location or piece of equipment being cleaned.” Cleaning a deep fryer requires a dierent performance strength from the detergent of choice com- pared to products intended for a salad bar. Likewise, cleaning agents and products that meet the cleaning needs in a steakhouse or sit-down restaurant will dier from cleaning agents and products that can do the job in a limited-capacity coee shop. Practice Personal hygiene shortcomings (e.g., lack of handwashing etiquette, touching foods with contaminated hands, working while ill or fail- ure to report an illness, among others) is a major driver of food-related outbreaks. Personal
hygiene is correlated with knowledge, atti- tudes, and behaviors of food service managers and employees alike (Pragle et al., 2007), and those same factors aect the perception by food service managers and employees of the cleanli- ness of surfaces in the retail establishment. The person in charge and—equally importantly— the health inspector must educate food service workers (and validate the learnings acquired) about the importance of eective surface clean- ing through proper training and continuous monitoring and improvement. Conclusion Cleaning should not be regarded as a chore. Proper cleaning of surfaces in food service establishments remains an opportunity— and with it, an improvement—in mitigat- ing a major risk factor for transmission of foodborne pathogens. Implementing the appropriate cleaning tools, superior cleaning agents and products, easy-to-execute proce- dures, and the right mindset will help achieve these goals.
Corresponding Author: Juan Goncalves, Procter & Gamble, 5299 Spring Grove Ave-
nue, Saint Bernard, OH 45217. Email: goncalves.jj@pg.com.
References
Araújo, P.A., Lemos, M., Mergulhão, F., Melo, L., & Simões, M. (2013). The influence of interfering substances on the antimicro- bial activity of selected quaternary ammonium compounds. Inter- national Journal of Food Science , 2013 , Article 237581. https://doi. org/10.1155/2013/237581 Conference for Food Protection. (2016). Sanitation practices stan- dard operating procedures and good retail practices to minimize contamination and growth of Listeria monocytogenes within food establishments (2nd ed.). http://www.foodprotect.org/media/site/ january-2016-cfp-lm-document-v3.pdf Food and Drug Administration. (2022). Retail food risk factor study . https://www.fda.gov/food/retail-food-protection/retail- food-risk-factor-study Kim, T.J., Almanza, B., Ma, J., Park, H., & Kline, S.F. (2021). The cleanliness of restaurants: ATP tests (reality) vs consumers’ perception. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi- tality Management , 33 (3), 893–911. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJCHM-08-2020-0822 Lambert, R.J., & Johnston, M.D. (2001). The eect of interfer- ing substances on the disinfection process: A mathematical
model. Journal of Applied Microbiology , 91 (3), 548–555. https:// doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01422.x Omidbakhsh, N., Ahmadpour, F., & Kenny, N. (2014). How reliable are ATP bioluminescence meters in assessing decontamination of environmental surfaces in healthcare settings? PLOS ONE , 9 (6), e99951. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099951 Pragle, A.S., Harding, A.K., & Mack, J.C. (2007). Food workers’ per- spectives on handwashing behaviors and barriers in the restau- rant environment. Journal of Environmental Health , 69 (10), 27–33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26327276 Sherlock, O., O’Connell, N., Creamer, E., & Humphreys, H. (2009). Is it really clean? An evaluation of the efficacy of four methods for determining hospital cleanliness. The Journal of Hospital Infec- tion , 72 (2), 140–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2009.02.013 Todd, E.C.D., Greig, J.D., Bartleson, C.A., & Michaels, B.S. (2007). Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 3. Factors contributing to outbreaks and description of outbreak categories. Journal of Food Protection , 70 (9), 2199–2217. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x-70.9.2199
21
May 2023 • our4'l o, 4</ro4me4:'l e'l:.
Powered by FlippingBook