Food Protection Trends - May/June 2023 - 219

Figure 2. Sequential transfer of E. coli from chicken to mask and from mask to lettuce. Log CFU per gram or square centimeter
of E. coli on chicken, mask, and lettuce samples. Connecting lines indicate sequential transfer from chicken to mask A (solid) and
from chicken to mask B to lettuce (dashed). Different markers correspond to chicken slicing time.
no significant differences in transfer of E. coli for the 5- and
10-min slicing intervals (P > 0.05).
Effect of inoculation level on bacterial transfer
Although inoculation level affected how much E. coli
was transferred to the mask from the sliced chicken (ca.
2-log CFU/cm2
difference), differences after ranking
normalization of transfer rates were statistically insignificant
(P > 0.05). Fig. 3 depicts boxplots of transferred E. coli
from low- and high-inoculated chicken breast to masks, and
significant overlap can be seen. Furthermore, inoculation
level had no effect on the transfer rate (rank) of E. coli from
mask B to lettuce (P > 0.05). A boxplot of E. coli transfer
from mask B to lettuce (not shown) also revealed significant
overlap and bore an almost identical resemblance to Fig. 3.
Had inoculation level significantly affected the transfer, the
boxplots would not have shown overlap with ranks; instead,
groupings would have been observed in the rank statistics
based on inoculation level.
Transfer of E. coli from contaminated masks to lettuce
For all contamination scenarios, the lettuce was chopped
for 5 min and the contaminated mask was touched every
minute, such that the lettuce samples were contaminated the
same number of times regardless of the chicken inoculation
level, amount of time chicken was sliced, and number of
times the mask was touched. Results showed that neither
slicing time nor inoculation level (noted earlier) significantly
affected E. coli transfer from masks to lettuce (Fig. 4). The
transfer of E. coli from mask B to lettuce ranged from 2.0 to
3.2 log CFU/g (contaminated from high-inoculated chicken)
and 1.0 to 1.4 log CFU/g (contaminated from low-inoculated
chicken). As with the initial mask contamination, larger
transfers of E. coli occurred for the high-inoculated samples,
although this did not affect the ratio or rank (P > 0.05).
Masks that were only touched 1 time while slicing chicken
still resulted in a significant transfer of E. coli to the lettuce
that was comparable to masks that were touched 5 or 10
times while slicing chicken. Ultimately, the slicing time and
the respective number of times the masks were contaminated
did not affect the E. coli transfer rate from mask B to lettuce
(P > 0.05).
DISCUSSION
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened interest has
been shown by consumers and the media for food safety.
Hundreds of videos and other types of messaging were
produced in the United States and Canada to discuss food
handling practices. Although SARS-CoV-2 is not a foodborne
pathogen, many consumers and health professionals were
concerned with contamination scenarios in which the virus
could spread through food as a fomite. Consumers noted that
food handling and preparation related to coronavirus risk
were of the highest concerns for food safety (10). According
to a survey by Fanelli (5), 70% of Italian consumers noted
that food safety was a priority during a health emergency,
May/June Food Protection Trends 219

Food Protection Trends - May/June 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - May/June 2023