Vol.
37
Dishwashing Practice and
Effectiveness (Swab-rinse Test)
in a Large city as Revealed
by a Survey of 1,000 Restaurants*
HYMAN J. KLEINFELD, PH.G., AND LEON BUCHBINDER,
PH.D., F.A.P.H.A.
Bureaus of Food and Drugs and Laboratories, Department of Health,
New York, N. Y.
HE purpose of this survey was to
obtain a representative picture of
dishwashing practice and effectiveness
in New York City. This, as far as is
known, is the first large-scale study car-
ried out in a large city. It was hoped
that analysis of the findings obtained
might indicate a program for the im-
provement of eating-utensil sanitation in
this city.
TECHNIC
A total of 1,005 restaurants were
studied and 3,657 swab samples of
utensils were secured in the years 1944
and 1945. This was prior to the present
clean-up program of the Health Depart-
ment. The first 196 restaurants ex-
amined were chosen by locality or to
check a given type of establishment or
process. The remainder were chosen by
selection of every 20th card from an
alphabetical card index file of approxi-
mately 20,000 restaurants in New York
City.
Dishwashing efficiency was deter-
mined by means of the swab-rinse test.
The technic of swabbing of utensils fol-
lowed the procedure recommended by
the U. S. Public Health Service.' The
*
Presented before the Engineering Section of the
American Public Health Association at the Seventy-
fourth Annual Meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, Novem-
ber 12, 1946.
* 13791
maximum interval of 4 hours between
sampling and plating recommended by
the U.S.P.H.S. was adhered to in most
instances, but in a few unavoidable in-
stances the interval was extended to 5
hours.
Although every effort was made to
obtain freshly washed utensils for
swabbing, this was not always possible,
particularly when samples were taken
during rush periods. As a result,
utensils tested were frequently selected
from those ready for service and no
information was available as to the
elapsed time between washing and
sampling. In studies now being carried
on in this laboratory it has been clearly
shown that there is a marked reduction
in the number of recoverable bacteria
while utensils are drying, and that the
death rate is maintained at a reduced
but appreciable level for a number of
hours after the utensils have dried.2 If
it had been possible to secure uniformly
freshly dried utensils for sampling, a
more accurate picture of dishwashing
effectiveness might have been obtained.
The procedure for the examination of
the swab samples in the laboratory
followed that of the proposed method
of the A.P.H.A.3 The major deviation
from this technic was that metal swabs
were used instead of wooden ones. This
380 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
technic fails to reveal the presence of
as many organisms as does the use of
the wooden swab.2
DESCRIPTION OF TYPES OF RESTAURANTS
AND WASHING EQUIPMENT
The restaurants visited during the
survey are arbitrarily sorted for descrip-
tion and analysis of the data obtained
into five categories: cafeteria, waiter
service, bar, luncheonette, and open
stand.
Cafeterias - These restaurants are
usually large and of the self-service
type, i.e., ones in which patrons select
silverware from an open tray, glasses
from racks at a drinking fountain, and
food from a counter. Cups are the only
utensils sampled which are distributed
individually by the cafeteria personnel.
Waiter Service-This category in-
cludes restaurants where food is served
by a waiter to patrons seated at tables,
as distinguished from cafeterias where
patrons serve themselves, and luncheon-
ettes where they usually are served at a
counter. Included in this group are the
most expensive restaurants in the city.
Waiter service establishments may have
bars, and if so, bar glasses were sampled.
Bars-The serving of liquor is the
main business in this type of restaurant,
while the serving of food is incidental.
Frequently knives, forks, and cups
which may not have been used for a
long time were sampled at these estab-
lishments. Glasses, on the other hand,
were often sampled from the drain board
immediately after the washing process.
Luncheonettes-Most of the patrons
in this type of establishment sit at a
counter although some may be served
at tables. These are usually small
establishments and include the so-called
diners (dining cars).
Open Stands-This type of establish-
ment usually has no seats and the
patron is served, from an open counter
facing the street, with coffee, sand-
wiches, frankfurters, cold drinks, etc.
April, 1947
DISHWASHING
The two main types of dishwashing
operations found were hand washing
and machine washing. The washing of
glasses and crockery was carried out in
one of the following ways:
Hand Wash-The usual type of
washing equipment consists of a two
compartment sink. One compartment
is designed as a wash sink and the other
as a rinse sink. This latter is usually
equipped with a gas burner underneath,
the function of which is to maintain the
water in the sink, at a temperature of
1800 F. and with a wire basket for
holding. dishes in this scalding water.
Another type of sink used has three
compartments. The functions of the
three compartments are those of wash-
ing, rinsing, and scalding.
Machine Wash-Four distinct types
of machine washing operations were
observed.
Counter Tvpe Machine-This ma-
chine is a simple rinse spray and has
no recirculating tank. Water is sprayed
from nozzles connected directly to a
city water line without auxiliary pump-
ing. Some machines have a device for
mixing hot and cold water and others
a device for mixing detergent with the
rinse water.
Single Tank Machine-This machine,
which may be either of the " push
through " or " closed door " variety, has
a wash tank, which should contain water
and a detergent, and a separate rinse
spray. The wash tank water is recirculated
and sprayed on the utensils by a pump.
Thus, the same water is re-used for
variable periods of time on succeeding
batches of utensils. Rinse water is
sprayed directly from a city water line
without additional pump pressure. The
rinse water drains into the wash tank
thus constantly diluting its content of
both soil and detergent.
Double Tank AMachine-This machine
has a wash tank and a rinse tank and a
final so-called curtain rinse spray.,
Vol. 37 FOOD UTENSIL SANITATION
Water from each tank is recirculated
separately by force pumps and sprayed
onto the utensils. The final rinse comes
directly from a city water line and
drains into the rinse tank.
Triple Tank Machine-This machine
has three tanks with a pump for each.
The first is a wash tank and the others
are rinse tanks. There is also a final
curtain rinse.
Silverware was found to be washed
by hand or machine in one of the fol-
lowing ways:
Hand Wash-The soiled utensils are
usually first dropped into a wooden tub
containing water and allowed to soak.
They are then placed in a wire basket,
plunged into soap solution, and rinsed
in hot running water. A superior hand
washing technic makes use of a series of
two cylindrical sinks, each of which is
heated by means of a steam jet, steam
jacket or gas burner. The utensils,
which are handled in wire baskets, are
plunged into and shaken in a strong
soap solution in the first sink and then
rinsed in steaming hot water in the
second sink. After rinsing they are
emptied on cloths and are then usually
dried with a towel.
Machine Wash-Silverware may be
washed mechanically by either of the
following methods: (a) spread in a
single layer in shallow metal trays and
passed through a standard spray type
washing machine, or (b) washed in a
special silverware washing machine.
The latter machine consists of two main
parts. One is a cast iron cylinder, with
perforations and a removable end, in
which silverware is placed together with
a detergent. The other is a horizontal
tank into which the cylinder is placed.
The tank is closed and the cylinder
rotated by gears connected with a motor.
A slow stream of hot water mixes with
the detergent and washes the utensils.
When the water valve is opened fully,
the utensils are automatically rinsed.
Finally, hot air under pressure is ad-
381
mitted to dry the utensils. This last
step is automatically timed.
A number of establishments which
wash by hand or machine also burnish
their silverware at intervals with a
special machine. This technic also
promotes better bacteriological cleanli-
ness of silverware.
RESULTS
All the swab-rinse data are sum-
marized briefly in Table 1 where they
are listed under the categories of hand
washing and machine washing. The
number of samples of the several types
of utensils studied which meet the
standard of no more than 100 bacteria
per utensil are listed as such and are
also expressed as percentages of the total
number of samples. Percentages based
on a standard of 1,000 bacteria per
utensil are presented in the same table.
Perhaps the most important finding is
that in only one of the eight groups of
utensils, glasses washed by machine, do
the samples which meet the 100 stand-
ard exceed 50 per cent of the total num-
ber studied. It is further noticed in the
table that the machine washing of
glasses and cups yields results which are
far superior to those obtained by hand
washing of the same utensils, the dif-
ference in each instance being highly
significant. There is, on the other hand,
no significant difference in the apparent
effectiveness of machine and hand oper-
ations with either spoons or forks.
When the 1,000 standard is used as a
basis of comparison, the results are very
similar. It is noted that the combined
samples for machine washed spoons
and forks which pass (74.9 per cent)
are just significantly greater than the
combined samples of the same utensils
washed by hand (68.6 per cent). As
a matter of fact, the combined passing
average for all silverware (spoons and
forks) washed by hand is greater by far
than that of glasses and cups washed by
hand. This difference is at least
382 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH April, 1947
TABLE 1
Comparison of Swab-rinse Findings of Utensils Washed by Hand and by Machine
(All Samples)
Hand Washing,
877 Establishments
Machine Washing,
175 Establishments
,
No More than No More than
100 Bacteria 100 Bacteria
per Utensil per Utensil
No. of A No. of { - Diff.
Utensils Samples No. Per cent Samples No. Per cent D(c%) S.E.diff. S.E'dift.
Glasses 1,046 113 10.8 131 68 51.9 41.1 3.35 * 12.27
Cups 629 63 10.0 179 59 33.0 23.0 3.04 7.56
Spoons 733 258 35.2 137 55 40.1 4.9 4.47 1.09
Forks 688 251 36.5 114 34 29.8 6.7 4.83 1.40
No More than No More than
1,000 Bacteria 1,000 Bacteria
per Utensil per Utensil
Glasses 1,046 245 23.5 131 93 71.0 47.5 4.18 11.36
Cups 629 243 38.7 179 102 56.9 18.2 4.21 4.32
Spoons 733 497 67.8 137 103 75.2 7.4 4.28 1.73
Forks 688 478 69.5 114 85 74.6 5.1 4.64 1.09
The calculation of the standard error of the difference in percentages (S.E.diff.) is illustrated as follows
f
15.4 X 84.6 15.4 X 84.6
for glasses: S.E.di.=f +_ = 3.35% where 15.4% is the total per cent passing,
1046 131
namely (113 + 68) . (1046+ 131) and 84.6% is the total per cent fail:ng, namely 100/G 15.4%. A ratio
of Difference/S.E.dff of 2 or more is generally regarded as statistically significant.

partially due to the special treatment
which silverware received. It is of in-
terest that in another study the machine
washing of glasses was also revealed to
be superior to hand washing of the same
utensil, but that the bacterial quality
of spoons and dishes washed by ma-
chine was found to be no better than
that of those washed by hand.4 In
summarizing the data in Table 1, apart
from the generally poor conditions dis-
closed, it is obvious that machine wash-
ing of glasses and cups yields results
definitely superior to hand washing.
No such clear-cut difference appears for
spoons and forks. The data on spoons
and forks will be examined in greater
detail subsequently.
A comparison of hand and machine
washing is made in Table 2 on the basis
of the standard of no more than 100
bacteria, with the data further broken
down according to the types of establish-
ment sampled. The findings include
those from cafeteries, waiter service
restaurants, luncheonettes, and bars.
Those from open stands are omitted be-
cause the number of samples was too
small to be statistically significant.
When the machine and hand washing
processes for glasses and cups in the first
three types of establishments are com-
pared, it is noted that significant dif-
ferences again exist. The degree of
significance, as noted in the final
column, is less for each type of estab-
lishment, as would be expected, than
for all establishments combined (Table
1), and also differs among the several
types of establishments. The differences
for both waiter service and luncheonette
restaurants are both of clear-cut sta-
tistical significance, whereas those for
cafeterias are just significant. The
results of the washing of silverware by
the two methods show the lack of sig-
nificant differences previously indicated
in Table 1, with the exception that in
luncheonettes, machine washing appar-
ently did produce a significantly higher
passing percentage of spoons than did
hand washing. When the quality of
hand washing of the several types of
utensils in each of the four types of
Vol. 37 FOOD UTENSIL SANITATION 383

TABLE 2
Comparison by Types of Establishments of Swab-rinse Findings on Utensils Washed by
Hand and by Machine
Hand Wash Machine Wash
A_
No More than No More than
100 Bacteria 100 Bacteria
per Utensil per Utensil
No. of No. of A Diff.
Utensils Samples No. Per cent Samples No. Per cent D(%l) S.E.diff. S-E'dffl.
113 Establishments 57 Establishments
Cafeteria
Glasses 120 6 5.0 22 7 31.8 26.8 6.68 4.01
Cups 71 2 2.8 58 11 19.0 16.2 5.33 3.04
Spoons 93 17 18.3 37 12 32.4 14.1 8.08 1.74
Forks 91 22 24.2 32 8 25.0 0.8 8.82 0.09
208 Establishments 63 Establishments
Waiter Service
Glasses 228 22 9.6 65 37 56.8 47.2 5.63 8.38
Cups 157 13 8.2 68 22 32.4 24.2 5.26 4.60
Spoons 179 65 36.4 56 21 37.5 1.1 7.39 0.1S
Forks 173 63 36.4 S0 15 30.0 6.4 7.66 0.84
260 Establishments 47 Establishments
Luncheonette
Glasses 285 29 10.2 34 17 50.0 39.8 6.46 6.16
Cups 259 21 8.1 45 21 46.7 38.6 5.57 6.93
Spoons 264 72 27.3 42 22 52.4 25.1 7.66 3.28
Forks 246 62 25.3 29 11 38.0 13.7 8.66 1.58
275 Establishments
Bar
Glasses 388 50 12.9 + 1.70*
Cups 126 23 18.2 + 3.22
Spoons 181 98 54.1 + 3.71
Forks 173 102 59.0+3.74
*
1.70 is the Standard Error of the value 12.9% computed as (12.9) X (87.1)/388. In general the tru, {X
may be regarded as falling somewhere within 2 S.E. of the obtained value.

establishments listed is compared, the tained with silverware in the other types
major differences in Table 1 are again of establishments. It should be made
noted; i.e., in each instance, samples of clear, however, that the superior
spoons and forks passed more frequently cleanliness of silverware and cups in
than did those of glasses and cups. bars probably is due to circumstances
It is also observed from the table that unrelated to dishwashing practice. It is
the overall picture of cafeterias is the the fortuitous coincidence of (1) a state
poorest while that of bars apparently is law which compels all establishments
the best of those establishments which serving liquor at retail to serve food as
wash by hand. Thus the standard of well, and (2) the technic used in our sur-
excellence of cups in bars is somewhat vey. Bars, as a result of the law, carry a
higher than that in any of the other stock of eating utensils even though
types of restaurants, even though the most of them serve food only infre-
total percentage of passed samples for quently. This fact was not considered
bars is under 20. Likewise, the relative in the survey and as a result utensils
cleanliness of the silverware sampled in were sampled which probably had not
bars is, at first glance, surprising; both been used for some time. Such a pro-
spoon and fork samples passed more cedure, as has been mentioned earlier,
times than they failed. These results, gives a misleadingly low estimate of the
54 per cent and 59 per cent respectively, number of micro6rganisms present when
are superior by far to any of those ob- the, utensils were freshly dry. The
384 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
above conclusion is confirmed by the
fact that the status of the bar glass, the
commonly used bar utensil, is no better
than that of the waiter service or
luncheonette restaurant, being superior
only to that of the cafeteria.
When findings for hand washed
utensils in cafeterias, waiter service
restaurants, and luncheonettes are com-
pared it is seen that, although the pass-
ing percentage of both glasses and cups
from cafeterias are lower than those of
the other two types of restaurants, these
differences are not significant. When
the results with glasses and cups in each
of these three types of restaurants are
consolidated, however, that of cafeterias
is found to be just significantly poorer
than those of either of the other two.
The passing percentages of spoons and
forks from waiter service establishments
seem to be just significantly better than
those of the other two types but when
the findings for spoons and forks are
pooled the differences become definitely
significant.
It is of interest when the findings for
machine washed utensils are compared,
that cafeterias generally still occupy the
poorest position.
Further analyses were made of hand
and machine washing of silverware in
an attempt to ascertain causes for the
apparent lack of superiority of machine
TABLE 3
Comparison of the Washing of Forks and Spoons by Several Hand and
Machine Technics
Hand Wash
(High Temperature Water and Basket)
Hand Wash t
(Low Temperature Water and No Basket)
Machine Wash
(Special)
Machine Wash
(Single Tank)
Machine Wash
(Double Tank)
* Includes all types of establishments.
t Includes only cafeterias, luncheonettes and. waiter service establishments.
April., 1947
washing. The hand wash data (spoons
and forks combined) were divided into
two groups; in one were placed the
findings obtained in restaurants which
washed in baskets and rinsed in very
hot water, and in the other those which
used neither baskets nor an adequate
sterilization technic. The correspond-
ing machine wash data were broken
down into three groups, one for single
tank machines, another for double tank
machines, and the third for the special
silverware machine previously described
under Technic. Too few samples of
silverware for adequate analysis were
obtained from counter type machines,
which were found in only 12 luncheon-
ettes and open stands. It is of interest,
however, that 21 of 29 (72 per cent)
samples of glasses and cups from these
machines did pass. Likewise, triple
tank machines which were found only
in six waiter service establishments also
yielded too few silverware samples to
record, although here too glasses and
cups combined yielded a fair passing
percentage, 14 of 26 (56 per cent). A
comparison of the findings is contained
in Table 3.
The first point of interest in Table 3 is
that only about 5 per cent (53 of 1,030)
of samples of hand washed utensils were
obtained from restaurants which had
clearly complied with the present New
Samples with Count
ANo More than 100
Total No.
of Samples No. Per cent
53 25 47
977 293 30
28 19 68
123 44 36
50 8 16
Vol. 37 FOOD UTENSIL SANITATION
York City Sanitary Code. These few
establishments use an approved rinsing
technic and water at high enough tem-
perature. It is also worthy of note that
this small group of samples met the
standard of 100 more frequently (47
per cent) than did the remaining large
group (30 per cent). This difference is
statistically just significant. The high
temperature hand wash results are also
definitely superior to those of the double
tank machine.
The most interesting finding in the
machine data is the indicated marked
superiority of the special silverware ma-
chine, as shown by the high passing
percentage (68), over the single tank
machine (36 per cent) and the double
tank machine (16 per cent). The re-
sults with the special silverware ma-
chine are also superior to those of the
great majority of establishments which
wash by hand but are not statistically
better than those of the relatively few
samples from establishments which wash
by hand and rinse with water in the
proper temperature range.
AN EXAMPLE OF SATISFACTORY
MACHINE OPERATION
Some 79 establishments which use
single tank machines, the most common
type, were studied. The general
average of results obtained from this
type of machine was raised by the find-
ings obtained in a chain of luncheon-
ettes. This organization, which sells
food at very moderate prices, has de-
veloped an exceptional -technic not only
in dishwashing practice but also in the
general sanitary operation of its estab-
lishments. A single tank machine whose
operation is uniform is used in each
restaurant. The operation is as fol-
lows: A trayful of dishes is inserted
into the machine, a tablespoonful of
trisodium phosphate is spread over the
dishes manually and a sliding door is
closed, automatically locking the ma-
chine. The process is started by press-
385
ing a button and the utensils are auto-
matically washed for 2 minutes and
rinsed for 15 seconds. The machine
automatically stops when this operation
is completed and the door may then be
opened. Silverware is soaked or pre-
rinsed in a shallow well of water with
detergent before it is placed in the ma-
chine. It should be noted that there is
no automatic control of hot water tem-
perature nor automatic addition of
detergent. An adequate supply of hot
water, however, is furnished by a local
steam company. It should be men-
tioned in fairness to the dishwashing
problems of other establishments that
the menu in this chain is limited to
sandwiches, soups, frankfurters, pies,
cakes, fruit juices, coffee, and milk.
A special swab-rinse study of some
ten restaurants of this chain was made
to determine what a well ordered
process could accomplish. Fifty-three
swab-rinse samples of glasses, cups, and
spoons were obtained. Counts of these
samples in all instances were under 100
with some showing very few bacteria.
A machine in one of these restaurants
was used by us for some special tests
in which the water temperature was
lowered. It was found that all the
samples of cups, glasses, forks, and
spoons rinsed at temperatures ranging
from 840 to 1400 F. complied with the
bacterial standard. It might be con-
cluded from this that water tempera-
ture is not a very critical item if the
detergent and the duration of wash and
rinse are adequate. Findings similar to
these have been reported by Tiedeman,5
by Ward and Dack,6 and by others.
DISCUSSION
The state of dishwashing practice and
accomplishment as found in this survey
is, on the whole, dismal. These swab-
rinse results, however, are apparently
not much worse than those which were
found in surveys carried out in several
sections of the United States during a
386 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Ai
A pril., 1947

corresponding period (1944 and 1945)
by mobile laboratories of the U. S. Pub-
lic Health Service.7 Thus, while we
found that 303 of 1,985 (15.3 per cent)
samples of cups and glasses passed the
100 bacteria per utensil standard, the
U.S.P.H.S. found that only 3,894 of
14,664 (26.5 per cent) samples of the
same utensils were satisfactory by the
same standard. Likewise, we found that
598 of 1,672 (35.7 per cent) samples
of forks and spoons met the standard
and the U.S.P.H.S. found that 2,423
of 7,086 (34.3 per cent) samples of
spoons passed in its surveys. It seems,
therefore, that much must be done to
improve the status of utensil washing in
restaurants. There is good reason to
believe that such improvement is en-
tirely feasible. I dispensers, it was noted that operation of
AN ESTIMATE OF THE FUTURE USEFUL-
NESS OF THE SWAB-RINSE TEST IN
NEW YORK CITY
Our findings seem to indicate that in
the presence of an effective dishwashing
technic, the swab-rinse test usually
yields a result which is in compliance
with the standard of no more than 100
bacteria per utensil as advocated by the
A.P.H.A. It can be stated generally
that, when the dishwashing operation is
visually satisfactory to an experienced
inspector, the swab-rinse test usually
yields a satisfactory count; when the
practice is questionable, on the other
hand, a satisfactory count may or may
not be obtained; finally, when the prac-
tice is obviously poor, the count usu-
ally fails to meet with the standard.
CAUSES OF POOR MACHINE WASHING
The main defects in machines are in
original design and in operation. De- observed in operation or construction of
fects in design are difficult to rectify in machines during the survey:
existing models in which the funda-
mental design is inadequate. The
effects of poor design, however, may be sufficient
ameliorated if all that is needed is the
addition of timing devices or tempera- sence of auxiliary pumping.
ture controls or the alteration of certain
small parts. Operational technic can be
improved by the educational efforts of
properly trained inspectors. Some de-
fects noted in the operation of counter
type and single tank machines are
listed.
Counter Type Machine-Three com-
mon defects were found in the operation
of this type of machine. The rinse
water rarely reached 180° F., the city
water pressure was often inadequate,
and the application of detergent was
irregular. It was found that operators
were reluctant to use very hot water
even if it were obtainable because of
the fear that they might burn their
hands. Although most machines are
equipped with-semi-automatic detergent
these dispensers was often deficient and
as a result the detergent well overflowed.
The feeding of detergent was inconstant
for this and other reasons. It should be
reiterated that -despite these deficiencies
the swab-rinse findings from the twelve
establishments which used counter
types machines indicated* fairly good
operation.
Single Tank Machine-Poor results
from this type of machine are usually
caused by haphazard timing of the wash
and rinse operation and the irregular ad-
dition of detergent. The operator of a
single tank machine frequently deter-
mines the duration of the wash and rinse
periods by manipulating a handle. Ob-
viously at that time of the day when
clean dishes are at a premium, the oper-
ation will be rushed.
SUMMARY OF DEFECTS
The following are the chief defects
1. Dishes are not scraped or prerinsed.
2. The time of washing and rinsing is in-
to clean or sterilize the utensils.
3. Water pressure is insufficient in the ab-
Vol. 37 FOOD UTENSIL SANITATION
4. The rate of dilution of water in the wash
tank compartment by waste rinse water is
often too great in single tank machines so
that the detergent may be dissipated. The
rate is insufficient in multiple tank machines
so that too great an increase of bacteria and
other organic material may occur.
5. The wash and rinse tanks in multiple
tank machines are sometimes constructed so
as to permit a flow of water from the wash
tank to the rinse tank with consequent con-
tamination of the rinse water.
6. Nozzles are often clogged with food and
are not regularly cleaned. In certain sections
of the city, where hard water is used, lime
deposit also reduces nozzle efficiency.
7. There are insufficient or inadequate hot
water facilities and lack of a proper booster
heater, on the rinse water particularly.
8. Automatic detergent feeding devices fre-
quently do not function properly either be-
cause they are not refilled when empty or
because they have become clogged.
Defects similar to these have been
reported by Andrews.8
CAUSES OF POOR HAND WASHING
The inferior quality of results ob-
tained by the hand washing process,
particularly as regards glasses and
crockery, is not at all surprising when
viewed in the light of field observations.
This, perhaps, can best be illustrated
by citation of some instances of poor
practice. Thus, it was found that the
common two compartment sink is very
frequently not used in the intended
manner. It is quite obvious that the
second or rinsing and sterilizing com-
partment is either improperly used or
not used at - all. In the case of the
three compartment sink, it was often
found that the third or sterilizing com-
partment is not used as such but as a
pot washing or glass washing sink. It
was observed, likewise, that the steri-
lizing facility of the two compartment
sink with an adjacent sterilizer often is
used exclusively for the washing of
silverware. Bars, it was found, usu.ally
have a two compartment sink with an It is the considered belief of the
adjacent sterilizer. The sterilizer as a present authors, as a result of the fore-
rule is not used or else appears to be in going observations on hand dishwashing,
387
poor condition. Frequently, one of the
two sink compartments is used to store
bottled soda and ice cubes while the
remaining one is used to wash glasses
by merely plunging them into water,
usually in the absence of soap or other
detergent. Occasionally, an inverted
brush is used. Detergent is usually em-
ployed once or twice a day after the
glasses have become obviously dirty and
sticky. This condition applies to the
so-called better type as well as to the
run-of-the-mill establishment.
There are several reasons why this
improper or non-use of existing hand
washing facilities is a very difficult prac-
tice to alter. Perhaps, the most impor-
tant factor is the frequently itinerant
status of dishwashing personnel, since
dishwashing is usually not a permanent
profession. Should the proprietor actu-
ally desire to do a good job, which is
not always the case, he would have great
difficulty because of the lack of under-
standing of proper dishwashing technic
by his personnel and their aforementioned
transient status. Another complicating
factor is the normal occurrence of rush
periods in restaurants when often, be-
cause of insufficient stock on hand,
there is a greater demand for than
supply of clean utensils. This condition
frequently gives rise to a quick and
careless cleaning operation with the
occasional by-passing of the rinsing or
sterilization operation or both.
Finally, it would appear that a much
more extensive inspectorial supervision
will be needed to police hand washing
operations properly. In fact, the task
of satisfactorily supervising the hand
washing process in the approximately
15,000 restaurants in New York City
which are estimated to be using it ap-
pears to be a well nigh impossible one.
RECOMMENDATIONS
3S8 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
that no great improvement in the
quality of washed utensils will be ob-
tained until a large majority of eating
establishments have efficient mechani-
cal or combination manual-mechanical
utensil washing devices.
It is realized that this conclusion
although logical is unquestionably
radical, and also difficult to implement
immediately. But as part of a long-
range program, it seems both sound and
feasible.
Assuming the validity of this con-
clusion that universal mechanical wash-
ing of dishes is necessary-how may it
be implemented? There are two possible
complementary approaches.
One would consist of investigations to
correct existing defects in mechanical
equipment. In many cases existing
equipment can produce satisfactory re-
sults-if some alterations are made-
or if it is used intelligently. In this
connection, the existence of adequate
hot water facilities for each type of
machine is an important factor. It is
almost needless to add that alert
restaurant management is almost always
ready to cooperate in such endeavors.
The second approach would be made
via the permit system. Health depart-
ments in most cities require restaurants
to obtain permits in order to operate.
In the great majority of instances no
attempt or only a minimal one is made
to regulate the physical structure or
other facilities of the restaurant when
a permit is issued. If this practice were
changed so that plans were submitted
before any construction, installation, or
alterations were undertaken, a health
department could insist upon the pro-
vision of sufficient space, ample hot
water supply, and other adequate facili-
ties for the washing of dishes.
When a permit is first granted or an
important alteration is to be made in
an eating establishment the number of
meals that can be served at peak
periods based on the number of seats
A pril., 1947
available and the expected turnover time
would be determined. This figure would
indicate the number of eating utensils
of the several kinds needed and the
types and capacity of dishwashing
equipment required to handle this
maximum load. Presence of a sufficient
quantity of dishes and silverware and
of good dishwashing equipment of ade-
quate capacity would eliminate or
mitigate the rushing of the dishwashing
operation during busy periods. The
capacity of the hot water system, both
as to temperature and volume, would
also be determined as would the type
of detergent and detergent dispenser to
be used. Finally the number of persons
needed to operate properly and super-
vise the dishwashing equipment would
be established.
SUMMARY
A survey of dishwashing practice and
performance was carried out in 1,005
restaurants in New York City. It was
found that about 88 per cent of estab-
lishments used hand methods either en-
tirely or in part and that 17.5 per cent
used machine methods entirely or' in
part.
The quality of washing as measured
by the swab-rinse test was found in
general to be very poor. Evidence is
presented which indicates that unsatis-
factory conditions are not peculiar to
New York but also exist in other sec-
tions of the country.
Hand washed glasses and cups met
the bacterial standard of no more than
100 colonies per utensil in 10.5 per cent
of instances (176 of 1,675 samples),
whereas the analogous figure for the
same utensils washed by machine was
35.8 per cent (509 of 1,421). This dif-
ference is a very significant one and in
favor of machines. Yet it is evident
that, since only about two-fifths of ma-
chine washed samples passed, much
improvement is needed both in the de-
sign and in the operation of machines.
Vol. 37 FOOD UTENSIL SANITATION
Hand washed spoons and forks were
found to pass 35.8 per cent of instances
(509 of 1,421). This percentage is
higher than that for hand washed cups
and glasses and" is equal to that for
machine washed spoons and forks, 35.4
per cent (89 of 251). It was observed
that only about 5 per cent of silverware
samples which were washed by hand
came from establishments which actu-
ally made a serious attempt to sanitize
these utensils properly. It is note-
worthy that the findings with this small
group of samples were about 50 per cent
better than those from the remaining
96 per cent of samples, which came from
establishments in which less care is ex-
ercised. Another small group of samples
which had been washed by a special
silverware machine yielded a passing
percentage which was about twice as
good as the general average for machine
washing.
When the three main types of restau-
rants studied were compared, it was
noted that both hand and machine
washing in cafeterias was generally in-
ferior to that in waiter service restau-
rants and in luncheonettes.
389
The obvious defects noted in both
hand and machine operations are de-
scribed in detail.
After evaluation of the present and
possible future status of hand washing,
the conclusion seems justified that hope
for satisfactory dishwashing practice
lies in conversion to machine or manual-
mechanical practice and the intelligent
operation of this adequate equipment.
The broad outlines of a program to im-
plement this conclusion are described.
I REFERENCES
1. Ordinance and Code-Relating to Eating and
Drinking Establishments Recommended by U. S.
Public Health Service. Pub. Health Bull. 280, 1943.
2. Buchbinder, L., and Mazur, S. Unpublished
data.
3. Tiedeman, W. D. (Chairman). A Proposed
Method for Control of Food Utensil Sanitation. Re-
port of Subcommittee on Standard Methods for the
Examination of Dishwashing Devices. A,J.P.H., 34:
255 (Mar.), 1944.
4. Scott, W. J. Survey of Dishwashing Methods in
Restaurants in a Number of Connecticut -Cities and
Towns. Health Bull., Connecticut State Department
of Health, Aug., 1943.
5. Tiedeman, W. D. Restaurant Hygiene. New
York State J. Med., May 15, 1942.
6. Ward, W. E., and Dack, G. M. Bacteriological
Tests on Mechanical Dishwasher for Mome Use.
A.J.P.H., 29:10 (Oct.), 1939.
7. Fuchs, A. W. Personal Communication.
8. Andrews, J. Methods of Sanitizing Eating and
Drinking Utensils. Pub. Health Rep., 59:34, Aug. 2S,
1944.