4.1 Article

Bacterial Contamination of Hands Increases Risk of Cross-contamination among Low-income Puerto Rican Meal Preparers

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 389-397

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2008.11.001

关键词

food safety attitude; hands coliform count; S. aureus; household; Latinas

资金

  1. NIH National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities [P20MD001765]
  2. USDA-Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive-National Integrated Food Safety Initiative Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the association of microbial contamination of the meal preparer's hands with microbial status of food and kitchen/utensil surfaces during home preparation of a Chicken and Salad meal. Design and Setting: Observational home food safety assessment. Before starting meal preparation, participants' hands were tested to estimate total bacterial and coliform counts and the presence of Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria, and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus). Microbiological testing was conducted on samples from kitchen/utensil surfaces, and on food ingredients obtained before and during meal preparation. Participants: Sixty Puerto Rican women residing in inner-city Hartford, CT. Main Outcome Measures: Total bacterial and coliform counts, and presence of S. aureus in target samples. Analysis: Bivariate tests and multiple logistic regression. Results: Participants considering food safety as very important were less likely to test positive for S. aureus on hands (P < .05). S. aureus on post-handling chicken, counter/cutting board, and salad was positively associated with S. aureus on participants' hands (P < .05). Coliform count on the counter/cutting board and sink was significantly higher at baseline when participants' hands tested positive for coliform before starting meal preparation. Conclusions and Implications: Meal preparer's hands can be a vehicle of pathogen transmission during meal preparation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据