Taskir S, Klont EK, Ergün Ö. Investigation of Mass Catering Establishments in Shopping Centers of Istanbul Regarding the Food Safety and Critical Hygienic Criteria

Sinan Taskir; Esra Kurt Klont; Ozer Ergun

Research Article

Austin J Nutri Food Sci. 12(2): 1181.

Investigation of Mass Catering Establishments in Shopping Centers of Istanbul Regarding the Food Safety and Critical Hygienic Criteria

Sinan Taskir¹; Esra Kurt Klont²*; Özer Ergün³

¹BakirkÖy Province Directorate of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Istanbul, Turkey

²Istanbul University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, Istanbul, Turkey

³Istanbul Health and Technology University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Istanbul, Turkey

*Corresponding author: Esra Kurt Klont, Istanbul University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, Istanbul, Turkey. Email: esrakurt@hotmail.com

Received: October 25, 2024; Accepted: November 11, 2024 Published: November 18, 2024

Abstract

This study, conducted in 100 mass catering establishments in 10 shopping centers in Istanbul in terms of food safety and preservation of public health by using a control form, 200 audits were performed. Establishments were evaluated by the control form over 100 points in 5 categories as A (VERY GOOD), B (GOOD), C (MEDIUM), D (BAD), E (VERY BAD). 29% of the enterprises were evaluated as “A”, 52% as “B”, 18% as “C”, 1% as “D”. According to the results of establishments, shopping centers were evaluated as B (GOOD). Total polar compounds (%) of frying oil of 326 samples used in the establishments were measured and 95% found appropriate. In total 2,220 hygiene samples which are 1,000 from food contact surfaces (countertop, cutting board, chopping knife, knife and plate), 800 from the staff, 400 from air and 20 from water have been taken and analyzed. TMAB, coliform, E. coli were searched on surfaces, Staphylococcus aureus (S. Auerus), coliform, Escherichia coli (E. coli) in hands of the staff, enterococcus, coliform, E. coli in water and mold-yeast in air. 61% of the food contact surfaces, 44% of the staff, 87% of air samples, 100% of water samples were approved. Bacterial load was mostly found in chopping boards and knives-chopping knives. It has been detected that 72.8% of the staff who are working in the business have been trained in hygiene; however, it has been determined that the management systems of food security are not applied, records are not kept well, traceability is not provided properly and the controls of heat and moisture are not being made sufficiently.

Keywords: Shopping centers; Food security; Food control; Food companies; Hygiene

Introduction

Currently, more than half of the population of the developed counties, and one tenth of the population of our country eats at least one meal in places that supplies mass consumption s [13]. That is why food safety is composed of all measures taken to eliminate the physical, chemical, biological and any other damage that may arise from food, public health problems and food poisoning are increasingly gaining significance in all countries. One of the most important criteria for healthy nutrition is the production of foodstuffs under hygienic conditions and ensuring the consumption without deterioration in the hygiene chain [16]. Even a small negligence during the preparation, cooking, storing and service of food can negatively affect consumers' health which may lead to food poisoning and even deaths [33].

In this case study, samples were taken from the kitchen countertops, tools and equipment contacting with food, hands of personnel, air and water of the mass catering enterprises located in shopping malls in Istanbul province, with the purpose of determining the occupational hygiene and food safety. In Addition, the frying oils used in the operating kitchen are examined by the polar material measuring device and the risks that exist in the enterprises are determined clearly to protect consumer and public health.

Materials and Methods

Selection and Collection of Samples

In each enterprise samples were taken from 4 personnel, 5 food contact surfaces and 2 ambient air. The number of total samples received is 2,220 units formed of 800 units (4X100X2) from personnel, 1,000 units (5X100X2) from food contact surfaces, 400 units (2X100X2) from air and 20 units (1X10X2) from water. In Addition, a total of 326 pieces of frying oil samples used in the enterprises were analyzed. All samples received were delivered to the laboratory within 2 hours under cold chain conditions at 4 °C and analyzed on the same day.

Microbiological Analyses of Personnel Hand and Food Contact Surfaces Samples

Samples taken from personnel, surface and equipment (countertop surface, cutting board, chopper-knife, and ready-toserve plate) were collected in compliance with double swap (wet-dry swap) technique and ISO 18593:2004 standards [2,26,31]. Different dilutes were prepared from the test tubes which were delivered to the laboratory and kept in swap. Double-parallel inoculations were conducted in v feeding places and colonies were evaluated at the end of the incubation period for the determination of TAMB, coliform, E. coli and S. aureus [2]. Plate Count Agar was used for TMAB analysis (PCA; Oxoid CM0463) and inoculation was made with the pour plate inoculation technique. The colonies were evaluated 48 hours after media in incubated at 37°C [26,28]. For the purpose of counting S. aureus egg yolks and potassium tellurite has been added and Baird Parker Agar (BPA; Oxoid CM1127) spread plate technique method was used. Typical and atypical colonies were evaluated as staphylococcus after the Petri dishes were incubated 48 hours at 37°C. Catalase and coagulase testing were conducted for verification of suspected colonies [Brain Heart infusion Broth (BHIB-Oxoid CM225)] [24,26]. Violet Red Bile Lactose Agar (VRB; Oxoid CM0968) was inoculated to media by spreading plate method and left for 24- hour incubation at 37 °C for coliform analysis. In order to confirm the suspected colonies, it was transferred to Brilliant Green Bile Lactose (BGLB, Merk 1.05454) tubes and those generating gas after incubation at 37°C were considered positive [26,27. For the detection of E. coli, inoculation was conducted to Tryptone Bile X-glucuronide Medium (TBX, Oxoid CM0945) with spreading plate method. The Petri dishes were released to incubation firstly at 30°C for 4 hours and then 18 hours at 44°C. The bluish/green colonies formed after incubation were evaluated as E. coli [25,26].

Figure 1: The Graphics of Weak Aspects of Mass Consumption Enterprises at Shopping Centers in terms of Food Safety and non-Conformance Rates.

    
    
    Figure 1: The Graphics of Weak Aspects of Mass Consumption Enterprises
at Shopping Centers in terms of Food Safety and non-Conformance Rates.

Figure 2: Graphic of conformity of Enterprises in terms of Hygiene Criteria.

    
    
    Figure 2: Graphic of conformity of Enterprises in terms of Hygiene Criteria.

As a result of our research, we have not found any internationally recognized standard with respect to criteria based on which we have conducted analysis, and we have determined some reference values that will shed light on our work according to the reference values recommended by some researchers.

• Cleaned and disinfected surfaces (kob/cm2): TMAB<10, coliform: 0, E. coli: 0

• Surfaces in use (kob/cm2): TMAB<1.000, coliform <10, E. coli: 0

• Personnel hands (kob/cm2): coliform<10, E. coli: 0, S. aureus: 0 [1,9,12,21,23,31,32].

Microbiological Analysis of Air Samples

Mold and yeast detection in air samples was carried out by sedimentation-precipitation method using two Dichloran Rose Bengal Chloramphenicol Agar (DRBC; Oxoid CM0727) petri dishes in the production area of each enterprise [8]. Average of mold-yeast developed in 2 units petri dishes left for incubation for 5 days at 25°C was found in petri dishes. Kang and Frank (1989) have recommended the number of mold-yeast in the air of the food-processed areas as < 430 Kob/m3. The results obtained were converted into the Kob/m3 unit using the Omeliansky Formula. N = 5a x 104 (CT)-1 N = Kob/m3 (quantity of colony breeding in 1 m3 area), a = number of colonies counted in petri dishes, B = petri dish area (cm2), t = Cooling period (minutes) [11].

Microbiological Analysis of Water Samples

Water samples were obtained according to ISO 19458 (TSE 2006b). E. coli and coliform analyses were conducted according to EN ISO9308-1:2014 (ISO 2014) by using membrane filtration technique and the Brilliance E. coli/coliform selective media specified in the standard (BES; Oxoid CM1046). Enterococcus analysis was conducted according to TS EN ISO 7899-2 (TSE 2002) by using membrane filtration technique and Slanetz Baertley Agar specified in the standard (SBA; Oxoid CM0377). 100 ml of water was filtered, the filter Agar was transferred to feeding place and left for incubation at 37°C for 24 hours for E. coli/Coliform and for 48 hours for Enterococci. The assessment of water samples was conducted according to "Regulation amending regulation on Water for Human Consumption ". In the Regulation it is indicated that number of E. Coli, coliform and Enterococcus should be 0 (zero) in 100 ml of water sample [4].

Regulation of Control Forms (Checklist)

Enterprises were chosen from food establishments such as restaurants, cafes and fast food. These enterprises were audited in terms of food safety two-times between June and August 2015 with the checklist prepared according to; Food Standards Agency [17,19], Department of Public Health of Los Angeles [7].

Polar Substance Detection in Frying Oils

The frying oils has been measured during inspection with the calibrated Testo 270-Frying Oil Tester (Testo Inc., Germany) [22]. According to Legislation, frying oils with a polar substance of = 25 are considered suitable [3].

Shopping malls General Hygiene Rating

The scores are given to the enterprises at the range specified in the check list. Shopping malls are rated as A-Very good: 85-100 points, B-Good: 70-84 points, C-Medium-55-69 points, D-Bad: 40-54 points, E-Very bad: 0-39 points based on average of all points received by enterprises.

Results

Number of Hygiene Trained Personnel

During the inspections, it was determined that 2,076 (72.8%) of the total 2,852 personnel received hygiene training.

Polar Substance Measurement Results of Frying Oils

The percentage of the polarity of the 326-frying oil sample was between 4 and 60 and 310 (95%) samples were conforming and 21 of the enterprises used frying oil tester.

Microbiological Results of Personnel's Hand Hygiene

Out of 800 samples belonging to the personnel: 438 (55%) were found to be conforming in terms of S. aureus, 547 in terms of coliform (68%), and 685 (86) in terms of E. coli and 348 (44) in terms of all criteria.

Microbiological Results of Air Samples

Mould-Yeast between 0-158 Petri dishes were detected in 154 (77%) of 200 samples. 174 (87%) of them were found to be conforming

Microbiological Results of Water Samples

Enterococci, Coliform and E. coli were not detected in any of the 20 samples and the waters were found to comply with the regulation.

*A-2, A-8, B-10, B-11, B-13, C-14, C-15, C-29, D-33, D35 are codes of hygiene criteria given in Table: 1, Table: 2, Table: 3, Table: 4.

Table 1: Hygiene Results of the General Conditions of Enterprises.




  
    A- Hygiene Criteria for The General Conditions of the Enterprise
    Number of inspection (pcs)
    *Number of Conforming Enterprises (pcs)
    Conformity Rate (%)
  
  
    1
    Is there any technical staff responsible for    ensuring food safety in the enterprise or is the enterprise outsourcing    professional technical support from outside?
    200
    154
    77
  
  
    2
    Is there any food safety system applied? If    yes, which one is implemented?
    200
    26
    13
  
  
    3
    Are the floors, walls and ceilings of the    warehouses and the work area robust, easy to clean, waterproof, smooth and    non-toxic substances produced?
    200
    186
    93
  
  
    4
    Are windows protected against breakup (glass    film, etc.)? Are windows and doors built up to prevent dirt accumulation? Are    there any measures taken that will not allow the passing of pests and live    organisms? (Mosquito nets, baseboards, etc.)
    200
    195
    97,5
  
  
    5
    Are toilets open directly to the production    area? Are hygienic mats placed in appropriate places?
    200
    196
    98
  
  
    6
    Does Enterprise have a dressing area and a    sufficiently large clean wardrobe?
    200
    167
    83,5
  
  
    7
    Is regular professional pest control conducted    and are records kept regularly?
    200
    199
    99,5
  
  
    8
    Are records of products and monitoring    activities held regularly in stages such as food acceptance, storage,    processing?
    200
    62
    31
  
  
    Rating of Enterprises in Terms of Section A
    200
     
    74
  
  
    *Number of conforming enterprises: Number of    enterprises with full score over specified score.



Table 1: Hygiene Results of the General Conditions of Enterprises.

Table 2: Results of the Enterprises Regarding Preservation and Storage Hygiene Criteria.




  
    B-Storage and Preservation Hygiene Criteria for Enterprises
    Number of inspection (pcs)
    *Number of Conforming Enterprises (pcs)
    Conformity Rate (%)
  
  
    9
    Are Cleaning and disinfecting agents stored    separately from food?
    200
    158
    79
  
  
    10
    Are there a refrigerator and freezer in    adequate capacity? Are temperature values of these items controlled?
    200
    101
    50,5
  
  
    11
    Are there different warehouses suitable for    food in adequate capacity? Are temperature values of these items controlled?
    200
    106
    53
  
  
    12
    Are all food ingredients stored high on the    floor using easy-to-clean equipment? (Plastic pallet etc.)
    200
    174
    87
  
  
    13
    Is there moisture control in the warehouse?    Does Water condensation occur?
    200
    6
    3
  
  
    Rating of Enterprises in Terms of Section B
    200
     
    54,5
  
  
    *Number of conforming enterprises: Number of    enterprises with full score over specified score



Table 2: Results of the Enterprises Regarding Preservation and Storage Hygiene Criteria.

Table 3: Results of Enterprises Regarding the Kitchen Hygiene Criteria.




  
     
      C-Hygiene Criteria for the Kitchens of Enterprises
    Number of inspection (pcs)
    *Number of Conforming Enterprises (pcs)
    Conformity Rate (%)
  
  
    14
    Are all surfaces that contact with food is    easy to clean, robust, chromium-resistant, and smooth and are designed to be    attentive of the hygiene of these surfaces?
    200
    88
    44
  
  
    15
    Is there hot water, liquid soap, disinfectant    and hygienic hand drying material in the washbasin sinks?
    200
    46
    23
  
  
    16
    Is there adequate lighting? Are measures taken    against the risk of breaking artificial lighting?
    200
    196
    98
  
  
    17
    Is adequate ventilation provided by    considering air hygiene?
    200
    168
    84
  
  
    18
    Is there enough space to wash dishes? Is hot    water or dishwashers used?
    200
    193
    96,5
  
  
    19
    Are wastes quickly removed from the area where    food is processed and stored or stored in a separate section?
    200
    195
    97,5
  
  
    20
    Do garbage cans prevent contamination?
    200
    168
    84
  
  
    21
    Is raw food stored in separate cabinets with    ready-to-consume food?
    200
    171
    85,5
  
  
    22
    Are the preparation dates for high-risk foods    printed?
    200
    156
    78
  
  
    23
    Is the presentation of self-service or exposed    products protected from contamination?
    200
    145
    72,5
  
  
    24
    Are Fruits and vegetables washed and processed    in a separate section?
    200
    143
    71,5
  
  
    25
    Are all the equipments used in accordance with    the Turkish Food Codex? Is it suitable for disinfection? Is there any broken,    cracked, rusty equipment?
    200
    185
    92,5
  
  
    26
    Are packaging materials in contact with food    suitable for the Turkish Foods Codex? Is storage and packaging done to    prevent contamination?
    200
    156
    78
  
  
    27
    Are equipments used for different purposes    besides food work?
    200
    199
    99,5
  
  
    28
    Are all the equipments have been settled to    prevent contamination and clean?
    200
    169
    84,5
  
  
    29
    Are the chopping boards and cutting materials    (knives, chopper, etc.) used in food processing separately designed to    prevent cross-contamination? Is the cleaning done often enough?
    200
    58
    29
  
  
    30
    Are the frying oils used in the enterprise    often checked and replaced with a new one when they expire?
    200
    186
    93
  
  
    31
    Is potable and clean water used for drinking?
    200
    200
    100
  
  
    Rating of Enterprises in Terms of Section C
    200
     
    78,4
  
  
    *Number of conforming enterprises: Number of    enterprises with full score over specified score



Table 3: Results of Enterprises Regarding the Kitchen Hygiene Criteria.

Table 4: Results of Personnel Hygiene Criteria in Enterprises.




  
    D-Personnel Hygiene Criteria
    Number of inspections (pcs)
    * Number of Conforming Enterprises (pcs)
    Conformity Rate (%)
  
  
    32
    Are clean and light-colored clothing and    gloves, masks and caps in contact with food used?
    200
    140
    70
  
  
    33
    Are rules of personal hygiene applied? Are    hands washed regularly?
    200
    21
    10,5
  
  
    34
    Are there signs of open wounds and disease in    the hands? Are jewelers and cosmetic materials used?
    200
    190
    95
  
  
    35
    Does the staff have training in hygiene? Are    these training courses renewed periodically?
    200
    118
    59
  
  
    36
    Does staff have information on food allergies?    Are consumers being warned against allergic substances?
    200
    18
    9
  
  
    Rating of Enterprises in Terms of Section C 
    200
     
    48,7
  
  
    *Number of conforming enterprises: Number of    enterprises with full score over specified score.



Table 4: Results of Personnel Hygiene Criteria in Enterprises.

Discussion

When enterprises are evaluated in terms of all criteria covered by the check list: conformity of enterprises in terms of hygiene criteria is 74%, conformity of enterprises in terms of preservation and storage hygiene criteria is 54.5%, conformity of enterprises in terms of hygiene criteria for kitchens is 78.4%, and conformity of enterprises in terms of personnel hygiene criteria is 48.7%. From here it is observed that the general conditions of enterprises (section A) and enterprise kitchens (Section C) are in good condition, but enterprises are not good at preservation and storage issues (Section B) and personnel hygiene (Section D). The main reason for the general situation of enterprises and their kitchens is the fact that enterprises operating in the shopping centers are operated economically by strong chain companies, thereby maintaining a certain standard as a substructure. That's why conformity of enterprises with regards to floors, walls, ceilings, windows, doors, use water, lighting, ventilation, dressing cabinets, toilets and hand wash sinks, fruit and vegetable washing sinks, dishwashing section, kitchen counterparts, instrumentequipment in contact with food and waste bins. It is found that enterprises have adequate infrastructure in terms of storage and preservation conditions, but conformity rates are low due to lack of temperature and humidity follow-up and because records are not kept regularly. Low conformity of enterprises in terms of personnel hygiene criteria (Section D) arises from insufficient supply of hot water, paper towels, liquid soap and disinfectant in the washbasin sinks (Table 3), negligence of staff to fully comply with the rules of personal hygiene and missing knowledge of staff on the food allergy.

Out of 1,000 units material samples in contact with foodstuffs (kitchen counters, cutting boards, chopper-knives, plates) 84% were found conforming in terms of TMAB, 66% in terms of coliform bacteria, 95% in terms of E. coli, and 61% in terms of all three criteria (Table 6). The maximum bacterial load was found on cutting boards followed by countertop (Table 5). Rudder et al. (2009), identified 16.5% of samples for TMAB as unacceptable, 8.5% for coliform bacteria and 11% for E. coli as unacceptable. In the analysis of instruments and equipment, 15.7% of samples in terms of TMAB were evaluated as unacceptable and 7.3% in terms of total number of coliform bacteria as unacceptable and 9.9% was considered unacceptable in terms of E. coli. Balzaretti and Marzano (2013) stated that the standard for coliform bacteria in contact with food was < 1.0 log10 kob/cm2, and the conformity rate was 92.1%.

Table 5: Microbiologic Detection Ranges for Surfaces and Personnel in Contact with Food in Enterprises.




  
    Sample type
    Number of samples (n)
    Name of bacteria
    Microbiological Detection Range (kob/cm2)
  
  
    Not detected

      (n - %)
    <10¹

      (n - %)
    <10²

      (n - %)
    <10³

      (n - %)
    <10

      (n - %)
    n>10

      (n - %)
  
  
    Countertops
    400
    TMAB
    81 (%20,3)
    43 (%10,8)
    159 (%39,8)
    71 (%17,8)
    37 (%9,3)
    9 (%2,3)
  
  
    Coliform
    209 (%52,3)
    50 (%12,5)
    101 (%25,3)
    30 (%7,5)
    10 (%2,5)
    0 (%0)
  
  
    E. coli
    379 (%94,8)
    18 (%4,5)
    3 (%0,8)
    0 (%0)
    0 (%0)
    0 (%0)
  
  
    Cutting boards
    200
    TMAB
    18 (%9)
    6 (%3)
    64 (%32)
    55 (%27,5)
    41 (%20,5)
    16 (%8)
  
  
    Coliform
    58 (%29)
    17 (%8,5)
    75 (%37,5)
    31 (%15,5)
    18 (%9)
    1 (%0,5)
  
  
    E. coli
    183 (%91,5)
    12 (%6)
    3 (%1,5)
    1 (%0,5)
    1 (%0,5)
    0 (%0)
  
  
    Chopper and knives
    200
    TMAB
    40 (%20)
    21 (%10,5)
    78 (%39)
    33 (%16,5)
    25 (%12,5)
    3 (%1,5)
  
  
    Coliform
    105 (%52,5)
    30 (%15)
    38 (%19)
    18 (%9)
    9 (%4,5)
    0 (%0)
  
  
    E. coli
    184 (%92)
    13 (%6,5)
    2 (%1)
    1 (%0,5)
    0 (%0)
    0 (%0)
  
  
    Plates
    200
    TMAB
    142 (%71)
    29 (%14,5)
    25 (%12,5)
    3 (%1,5)
    1 (%0,5)
    0 (%0)
  
  
    Coliform
    191 (%95,5)
    5 (%2,5)
    3 (%1,5)
    1 (%0,5)
    0 (%0)
    0 (%0)
  
  
    E. coli
    199 (%99,5)
    1 (%0,5)
    0 (%0)
    0 (%0)
    0 (%0)
    0 (%0)
  
  
    Personnel
    800
    S. aureus
    438 (%54,8)
    256 (%32)
    91 (%11,4)
    9 (%1,1)
    6 (%0,8)
    0 (%0)
  
  
    Coliform
    453 (%56,6)
    94 (%11,8)
    196 (%24,5)
    40 (%5)
    12 (%1,5)
    5 (%0,6)
  
  
    E. coli
    685 (%85,6)
    99 (%12,4)
    12 (%1,5)
    2 (%0,3)
    2 (%0,3)
    0 (%0)



Table 5: Microbiologic Detection Ranges for Surfaces and Personnel in Contact with Food in Enterprises.

Table 6:




  
    Surfaces    That come into Contact with Food
    Number    of enterprises
    Number    of samples (n)
    Number    of Conforming Samples Appropriate for the Data Examined
    *Conforming    samples
  
  
     
     
     
    TMAB
    Coliform
    E. coli
  
  
     
     
     
    Number

      (piece)
    Rate

      (%)
    Number

      (piece)
    Rate

      (%)
    Number

      (piece)
    Rate

      (%)
    Number

      (piece)
    Rate

      (%)
  
  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
  
  
    Countertops
    100
    400
    354
    89
    259
    65
    379
    95
    244
    61
  
  
    Cutting board
    100
    200
    143
    72
    75
    38
    183
    92
    70
    35
  
  
    Chopper-knives
    100
    200
    172
    86
    135
    68
    184
    92
    128
    64
  
  
    Plate
    100
    200
    171
    86
    191
    96
    199
    100
    171
    86
  
  
    Total
    100
    1.000
    840
    84
    660
    66
    945
    95
    613
    61
  
  
    *Conforming sample: is the one in confomity in    terms of total Mesophilic Aerophilic Bacteria, Coliform Bacteria and E. coli    numbers.



Table 6:

Out of 800 samples received from personnel working in the enterprises, 55% was found conforming in terms of S. aureus, 68% in terms of coliform bacteria, 86% in terms of E. coli and 44% in terms of all three items. In other words, the personnel hygiene was very low both on the basis of enterprise (10.5%) and personnel (44%). The fact that enterprises are identified as 23% (Table 3) for the availability of hot water, liquid soap, disinfectant and hygienic hand drying materials in the washbasin sinks explains the causes of these results.

As a matter of fact, when enterprises where these cleaning materials are fully available are examined, the rate of hygiene of the personnel hands is determined as 67.4%. Konecka-Matyjec et al. (2012), found conformity of the personnel's hands in terms of coliform bacteria as 97.2%, in terms of coagulase positive S. aureus as 98% and the conformity of all personnel as 71%. In the study of Saplings and Agaoglu (2004), the positivity rate of coagulase positive staphylococcus in the hands of cooks and waiters was 90% and 85%, the ratio of coliform bacteria to as 100%, and E. coli bacteria as 75% and 70%. Aydin et al. (2007) determined coagulase positive S. aureus in personnel working in the production area as 38.7%, and in the hands of the service personnel as 34%. Balzaretti and Marzano (2013) have identified the < 1.0 log10 CFU/cm2 as standard for the coagulase positive S. aureus in personnel hands and stated the availability rate as 96.5%. Temelli et al., (2005) has reported that the high rate of detection of E. coli is due to the lack of habit of using toilets and disinfectant use of the personnel. The high number of Coagulase positive S. Aures has been explained as an indication of the presence of the personnel touching the mouth and nose or working in the kitchens despite having wounds, abscesses, and cuts etc. in their hands. The conformity of the enterprise with regards to personnel having hygiene training and renewing these trainings periodically has been identified as 59%. This training rate is 72.8% when we are on a personnel basis. Hygiene training has become mandatory according to the "Regulation on Hygiene Training" that entered into force on 05.07.2013 [5].

As a result of the 200 air samples obtained from the enterprises, the mold-yeast was examined, and the mold-yeast was found in 77% of the samples. The range of mold-yeast detection is between 0-158 petri dishes and 87% of samples were found to be conforming. In their study in animal food enterprises, Civan and Ergun (1994) found that in the air of enterprises, the number of mold-yeast was between 3-141 Petri dishes and they reported that 50% of enterprises were not conforming with respect to air samples. They explained the cause of this negativity as unplanned buildings, technological inconsistencies and ignorance. In our study, the conformity of enterprises in terms of ventilation conditions is in good condition with a ratio of 84% (Table 3). It is the biggest factor for enterprises to have ventilation systems available. Probable causes of air samples not being conforming may be that ventilation system maintenance are not fulfilled in a timely manner and the air fittings are not changed sufficiently frequently.

20 samples [4] taken from the water were examined in terms of Enterococci, coliform bacteria, E. coli according to the legislation. Because none of these bacteria have been found, water samples are found in conformity with legislation. Shopping malls and all enterprises operating here are using city mains water, and these waters are regularly disinfected by competent administration, so that the risk of contamination caused by water is very low.

The 326 samples obtained from frying oils were examined in terms of percentage of polar substances, and the percentages of polar material were determined between 4 and60 and 95% of the frying oils were found to be suitable according to regulation [3]. In addition, 21 (21%) of enterprises have been determined to control the frying oils daily by having a frying oil measuring device for auto- control purposes. In the study of the restaurant, cafeteria and school Canteen Hampikyan et al. (2001), determined that the polar substance percentages of the frying oils were between 1.5 and 40 and that 68% of the samples were in accordance with the legislation of the polar substances = 25. As a percentage of conformity, it is understood that our work result is better than the result of Hampikyan et al. (2001). The establishment of an oil measuring device as an auto-controller by enterprises, controlling the frying oils continuously with these devices in controls performed during Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock controls created an awareness about changing frying oils in appropriate periods.

After all inspections and analyses, general hygienic conditions of the shopping centers have been tried to be determined. As shown in Table 7, according to the general hygiene status, the highest score is 81 in the shopping centers based on 100 points system and the lowest rating is 72. On Average, all shopping centers were assessed with a "B" (70-84 points) note. That all shopping centers have a "B" i.e. "GOOD" score, which is an indication that a standard for food safety practices has been ensured. On the basis of the particular enterprise, 29% of 100 enterprises in the 10 shopping centers in Istanbul received "A", 52% "B", 18% "C" and 1% "D" average rating. No enterprise has received an "E" note (0-39 points). So, the companies ranked in the class between "MEDIUM" and "VERY GOOD" when rated. Only one enterprise is classified with a "BAD" rating.

Download PDF

Citation: Taskir S, Klont EK, Ergün Ö. Investigation of Mass Catering Establishments in Shopping Centers of Istanbul Regarding the Food Safety and Critical Hygienic Criteria. Austin J Nutri Food Sci. 12(2): 1181.

Home

Journal Scope

Editorial Board

Instruction for Authors

Submit Your Article

Shopping mall title	Number of enterprises (n)	Rating score					Average score	Average note
Shopping mall title	Number of enterprises (n)	A (n)-(%)	B (n)-(%)	C (n)-(%)	D (n)-(%)	E (n)-(%)	Average score	Average note
A	10	3 (%30)	5 (%50)	2 (%20)	0 (%0)	0 (%0)	81	B
B	10	3 (%30)	3 (%30)	3 (%30)	1 (%10)	0 (%0)	74	B
C	10	3 (%30)	6 (%60)	1 (%10)	0 (%0)	0 (%0)	79	B
D	10	2 (%20)	6 (%60)	2 (%20)	0 (%0)	0 (%0)	77	B
E	10	3 (%30)	6 (%60)	1 (%10)	0 (%0)	0 (%0)	79	B
F	10	3 (%30)	6 (%60)	1 (%10)	0 (%0)	0 (%0)	80	B
G	10	4 (%40)	4 (%40)	2 (%20)	0 (%0)	0 (%0)	80	B
H	10	2 (%20)	7 (%70)	1 (%10)	0 (%0)	0 (%0)	78	B
I	10	2 (%20)	4 (%40)	4 (%40)	0 (%0)	0 (%0)	72	B
J	10	4 (%40)	5 (%50)	1 (%10)	0 (%0)	0 (%0)	79	B
TOTAL	100	29 (%29)	52 (%52)	18 (%18)	1 (%1)	0 (%0)	78	B