الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 125 |  |  |
| | | from | 125 | | |
Abstract
Food businesses have become widespread in recent times, in response to the changing lifestyle and food consumption of people. They offer convenience and ease of access to food to busy individuals, who are unable to prepare their own meals regularly at home. In large scale cooking, food passes through many hands, thereby increasing the chances of food contamination due to improper handling. Deliberate or accidental contamination of food during large production might endanger the health of consumers, and have very expensive repercussions on a country, as such outbreaks feature prominently in national statistics.
Consequently, this work aimed to assess of food hygiene condition of restaurants in Alexandria. To fulfill this objective, a total of 30 restaurants selected from 3 districts of Alexandria were visited, each for a week, to assess sanitation measures employed and level of practices of workers (180) in these restaurants using a structured checklist.
The results of the present study revealed that
Assessment of sanitation measures in restaurant
1. The overall mean score percentage was 53.12%. The highest mean score percentage was found regarding location (100%), followed by toilet facilities parameter (86.36%), food receiving (70.0%), dishwasher area (66.0%), storage area (65.13), dining room area (63.72%), followed by both food preparation area and garbage disposal (62.42%), pest control (58.21%) then food serving (53.71%). While the lowest was hand wash and sanitizing (7%).
2. Concerning dining room floors, 73.3 % of restaurants were good, and 16.7% of restaurants were poor. Regarding walls, no restaurant was good in this parameter and 96.7% of restaurants were fair. For windows, 30 % of sampled restaurants were good, and 43.3% of restaurants were fair. For doors, 80% of sampled restaurants were good. For tables, 66.7% of sampled restaurants were good and 23.3 % were poor.
3. Regarding food service, only 6.7% of sampled restaurants were good and 36.7% of restaurants were poor.
4. Concerning kitchen ceiling, 50% of sampled restaurants were good and 40% were fair. For floor, 63.3% of sampled restaurant were good and 26.7% were poor. For walls, 36.7% of restaurants were good and 13.3% of restaurants were poor. For doors, 23.3% were good and 30% were poor. For windows, 80% of sampled restaurants were good and 20% were poor. For working surface, 96.7% were good. For kitchen equipment, 23.3% were good and 53.4% of were poor.
5. In case of receiving of food material, 56.7% of restaurants were good, 26.7% of were fair and 16.7% of were poor.
6. Regarding dry storage, 10.0% of sampled restaurants were good and 73.3% were poor. As regard refrigerated storage and frozen storage, 84.3% of sampled restaurants were good and 13.3% were poor.
7. Concerning dishwasher area, 43.3% of restaurants were good, 40.0% were fair and 16.7% of sampled restaurants were poor.
8. As regard hand wash station, 86.7% of restaurants were poor, 10.0% were fair and 3.3% was good (only one restaurant).
9. Regarding hand sanitizing station, 100% of restaurants were poor.
10. Concerning of toilet facilities, 76.7% of restaurants were good, 16.7% of were fair and 6.7% were poor.
11. Regarding garbage disposal, 20% of restaurants were good, 56.7% were fair and 23.3% were poor.
12. Concerning the organization of pest control, 76.7% of restaurants were good. Regarding fly insect control, 46.7% were good. For rodent control, 33.4% were good and 60% were poor. For pesticide use, 16.6% were good and 73.4% were poor.
13. There were no statistically significant differences in all studied parameters in relation to locations.
14. There were statistically significant relation between the type of served food; and food receiving, dishwasher area, presence of organization of pest control, and fly and insect control.
14.1. 100% of restaurants serving Turkish foods restaurants, 69.2% of restaurants serving Italian foods, 33.3% of restaurants serving Spanish or mixed foods, and none of restaurants serving oriental or French foods were good in food serving.
14.2. 100% of restaurants serving Spanish foods restaurants, 53.8% of restaurants serving Italian foods, 50.0% of restaurants serving Turkish foods, 25% of restaurants serving oriental foods, and 16.7% of restaurants serving mixed foods had good dishwasher area.
14.3. 100% of restaurants serving Spanish foods (3 restaurants), 100% of restaurants serving Turkish (2 restaurants), 92.3% of restaurants serving Italian foods (12 restaurants), 66.7% of restaurants serving mixed foods (4 restaurants), 50.0% of restaurants serving Oriental foods (2 restaurants) and none of restaurants serving French foods had good organization of pest control.
14.4. 100% of restaurants serving Turkish foods (2 restaurants), 69.2% of restaurants serving Italian foods (9 restaurants), 33.3% of restaurants serving mixed foods (2 restaurants), 33.3% of restaurants serving Spanish foods (1 restaurant) and none of restaurants serving Oriental or French foods were good in fly insect control.
15. There were no statistically significant differences in all studied parameters in relation number of tables, except for food serving and dry storage. Only, 66.7% of restaurants with less than 25 tables were good in food serving. In the meantime, 66.7% of restaurants with less than 25 tables, 14.3% restaurants with 50<75 tables and none of restaurants with 25<50 or >75 tables were good in dry storage.
16. There were no statistically significant differences in all studied parameters in relation to number of workers, except for dining room floors. 91.7% of restaurants with workers number of 25-49, 80.0% of restaurants with workers number of 50-74, 66.7% of restaurants with workers number of ≥75 and 20.0% of restaurants with workers number of 0-24 had good dining room floors.
17. There were no statistically significant differences in all studied parameters in relation to presence of sanitation person, except for hand wash station and rodent control parameter. Only one restaurant with a sanitation person (25.0%) was good in hand wash station. 100% of restaurants with a sanitation person compared to 23.1% of restaurant with no sanitation person were a good in rodent control.
18. There were no statistically significant differences in all studied parameters in relation to training of workers, except for rodent control parameter. 83.3% of restaurants with a trained workers compared to 20.8% of restaurant with no trained workers were a good in rodent control.