ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating food contact surface and its influence on restaurant health ratings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moisture matters: unintended consequences of performing wet sanitation in dry environments.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Six-Year Environmental Surface Hygiene Monitoring in Hungarian School Kitchens (2019-2024): Hotspots, Seasonality, and One Health Implications.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Food Safety in the Catering Sector: Nonconformities, Challenges, and Strategic Interventions With Insights From South Asia and Africa.Food science & nutrition · 2026Review
- Descriptive study of foodborne disease outbreaks using monitoring data from foodborne disease outbreak surveillance system (FDOSS) in Jiaxing City, China, 2013-2023.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Deoxynucleosides as promising antimicrobial agents against foodborne pathogens and their applications in food and contact material surfaces.Current research in food science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Controlling and maintaining the cleanliness of the working environment in restaurants is crucial. The aim of this study was to determine the level of contamination on food contact surfaces in restaurants. A total of 28 restaurants were surveyed, and 500 samples were taken from food contact surfaces that appeared clean and ready for use. The surfaces evaluated in this research included workers' hands, tools and equipment, worktops, chopping boards, meat grinders, spoons and forks, plates, and kebab skewers. Each sample was collected using a swab on a designated 10 cm × 10 cm square area of the surface. The samples were then tested using a luminometer device to measure enzyme levels and identify bacterial contamination, helping to maintain health and control contamination. The unit of measurement for this device is RLU (Relative Light Unit). The results showed that the cleanliness of contact surfaces varied as follows: workers' hands (46.43%), worktops (53.57%), kebab skewers (89.29%), plates (92.86%), meat grinders (76%), chopping boards (60.71%), tools and equipment (89.29%), and spoons and forks (96.43%). Regarding foodstuff contamination levels, the chopping board, worktop, and workers' hands had the highest contamination with average RLU values of 1700.89, 1184.50, and 790.71, respectively. In contrast, plates had the lowest contamination, with an average RLU value of 46.68. Based on these findings, training restaurant staff in personal health, food safety, and regular hygiene practices, along with routine inspections based on guidelines from inspectors, will improve restaurant health standards and help reduce foodborne illnesses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.