| Literature DB >> 27462513 |
Adem Hiko1, Kasahun Abdata1, Yimer Muktar1, Mezene Woyesa2, Abdela Mohammed2.
Abstract
Contamination rate of Ethiopian paper currency notes handled by various food handlers with Escherichia coli and antimicrobial susceptibility of the isolates was assessed. A total of 384 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) notes were randomly sampled from meat handlers at butchers, bread and the related food handlers at cafeteria, fruit and vegetables handlers at supermarket, and milk sellers both at open market and dairy station. Fifty control new currencies were also sampled from Commercial Bank of Ethiopia. Both surfaces of the currency were swabbed using wet sterile cotton. The swab was overnight incubated in buffered peptone water. A loop full was streaked on eosin methylene blue agar and followed by biochemical test on presumptive E. coli colonies. Randomly selected isolates were exposed to chloramphenicol (C-30 µg), neomycin (N-30 µg), oxytetracycline (OT-30 µg), polymyxin-B (PB-300 IU) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT-1.25/23.75/µg) susceptibility using disc diffusion techniques. E. coli was not isolated from currency used as control. A total of 288 (75 %) currency notes were found carrying E. coli. E. coli prevalence was ranges from 67.2 % at open market milk sellers to 87.2 % at dairy station milk sellers; from 64.8 % on ETB 100 to 82.9 % on ETB 1. Differences were not observed in E. coli prevalence on currency notes from among almost all food handlers (P > 0.05). Susceptibility of tested isolates to each chloramphenicol, oxytetracycline and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was 100 %, and to polymyxin-B was 97.3 %. High resistance (83.7 %) was observed to neomycin. The finding indicates, contaminated food can be a source of E. coli for further contamination of currency which again transfer through various foods ready for consumption.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial; E. coli contamination; Food handlers; Haramaya; Paper currency; Public health
Year: 2016 PMID: 27462513 PMCID: PMC4942441 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2742-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Rate of ETB contamination with E. coli among studied risk variables of food handlers
| Variables | No. of examined | Positive no. (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Location | |||
| HU and surrounding | 240 | 177 (73.8) |
|
| Haramaya town | 144 | 111 (77.1) | |
| Source–food type handled | |||
| Butcher—meat handlers | 92 | 68 (73.9) |
|
| Open market— milk sellers | 58 | 39 (67.2) | |
| Dairy station—milk sellers | 39 | 34 (87.2) | |
| Cafeteria—Bread and relate handlers | 92 | 70 (76.1) | |
| Supermarket—Fruit and vegetables handlers | 103 | 77 (74.8) | |
| Currency notes | |||
| Birr 1 | 82 | 68 (82.9) |
|
| Birr 5 | 81 | 61 (75.3) | |
| Birr 10 | 77 | 60 (77.9) | |
| Birr 50 | 73 | 53 (72.6) | |
| Birr 100 | 71 | 46 (64.8) | |
| Handlers age in years | |||
| 11–20 | 123 | 95 (77.2) |
|
| 21–30 | 167 | 127 (76.1) | |
| 31–40 | 94 | 66 (70.2) | |
| Handlers sex | |||
| Female | 192 | 143 (74.5) |
|
| Male | 192 | 145 (75.5) | |
| Total | 384 | 288 (75.0) | |
E. coli on ETB among studied risk variables of food handlers at Haramaya University and the surrounding
| Variables | No. of examined | Positive no. (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Source—food type handled | |||
| Butcher—meat handlers | 62 | 44 (71.0) |
|
| Open market—milk sellers | 17 | 8 (47.1) | |
| Dairy station—milk sellers | 39 | 34 (87.2) | |
| Cafeteria—Bread and relate handlers | 59 | 43 (72.9) | |
| Supermarket—Fruit and vegetables handlers | 63 | 48 (76.2) | |
| Currency notes | |||
| Birr 1 | 48 | 41 (85.4) |
|
| Birr 5 | 53 | 40 (75.5) | |
| Birr 10 | 43 | 32 (75.5) | |
| Birr 50 | 50 | 36 (72.0) | |
| Birr 100 | 46 | 28 (60.9) | |
| Handlers age in years | |||
| 11–20 | 81 | 67 (82.7) |
|
| 21–30 | 94 | 67 (71.3) | |
| 31–40 | 65 | 43 (66.2) | |
| Handlers sex | |||
| Female | 114 | 84 (73.7) |
|
| Male | 126 | 93 (73.8) | |
| Total | 240 | 177 (73.8) | |
E. coli on ETB among studied risk variables of food handlers at Haramaya town
| Variablesa | No. of examined | Positive no. (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Source–food type handled | |||
| Butcher—meat handlers | 30 | 24 (80.0) |
|
| Open market—milk sellers | 41 | 31 (75.6) | |
| Cafeteria—Bread and relate handlers | 33 | 27 (81.8) | |
| Supermarket—Fruit and vegetables handlers | 40 | 29 (72.5) | |
| Currency notes | |||
| Birr 1 | 34 | 27 (79.4) |
|
| Birr 5 | 28 | 21 (75.0) | |
| Birr 10 | 34 | 28 (82.4) | |
| Birr 50 | 23 | 17 (73.9) | |
| Birr 100 | 25 | 18 (72.1) | |
| Handlers age in years | |||
| 11–20 | 42 | 28 (66.7) |
|
| 21–30 | 73 | 60 (82.2) | |
| 31–40 | 29 | 23 (79.3) | |
| Handlers sex | |||
| Female | 78 | 59 (75.6) |
|
| Male | 66 | 52 (78.8) | |
| Total | 144 | 111 (77.1) | |
aDairy station was not available
Antimicrobial susceptibility/profiles of contaminant E. coli from ETB
| Variables | No. of | C No. (%)a | OT No. (%)a | SXT No. (%)a | PB No. (%)b | N No. (%)c | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | S | S | S | R | S | I | R | ||
| Food handlers and source | |||||||||
| Meat handlers at butcher | 8 | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 7 (87.5) | 1 (12.5) | – | 2 (25) | 6 (75) |
| Milk seller at open market | 9 | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | – | 2 (22.2) | – | 7 (77.8) |
| Milk seller at dairy station | 2 | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | – | – | – | 2 (100) |
| Bread and the related food handler at cafeteria | 10 | 10 (100) | 10 (100) | 10 (100) | 10 (100) | – | – | – | 10 (100) |
| Fruit and vegetables handlers at supermarket | 14 | 14 (100) | 14 (100) | 14 (100) | 14 (100) | – | – | 3 (21.4) | 11 (78.6) |
| Currency | |||||||||
| Birr 1 | 9 | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | – | – | – | 9 (100) |
| Birr 5 | 10 | 10 (100) | 10 (100) | 10 (100) | 9 (90) | 1 (10.0) | 1 (10.0) | 2 (20.0) | 7 (70.0) |
| Birr 10 | 9 | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | – | 1 (11.1) | – | 8 (88.9) |
| Birr 50 | 8 | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | – | – | 3 (37.5) | 5 (62.5) |
| Birr 100 | 7 | 7 (100) | 7 (100) | 7 (100) | 7 (100) | – | – | – | 7 (100) |
| Total | 43 | 43 (100) | 43 (100) | 43 (100) | 42 (97.7) | 1 (2.3) | 2 (4.7) | 5 (11.6) | 36 (83.7) |
aAll are susceptible, b Intermediate was not observed, c Susceptible, intermediate and resistance was observed
S susceptible, I intermediate, R resistance