Food Protection Trends - November/December 2024 - 416

the use before widespread adoption, we acknowledge the
limitation of having a sample that at the time of the study
did not work in the food industry. Nevertheless, because
several participants mentioned previously having positions
such as cooks, waiters, and plant technicians, the results
of this study could offer a close perspective to what a food
worker might perceive when using the technology. Balanay
et al. (4) also refer to the importance of risk reduction
from workplace injuries and illnesses among college-aged
students, particularly if they are working, if occupational
health and safety (OHS) strategies are incorporated in the
college curriculum, and more awareness of OHS resources
are shared (4).
Survey qualitative and quantitative results and discussion
Participants ranked four factors considering the biggest
limitation of the superheated steam technology. Overall
results showed that 46% of them considered the time and
accuracy needed to operate the equipment as the biggest
limitation, with a mean of 1.6 (±0.64 SD), on a `rank` of 1 to
4: 1 = most important to 4 = least important. This finding
suggests that the participants anticipated that performing a
thorough procedure would require a relatively high degree of
attention and time to achieve successful microbial results. The
weight of the equipment was ranked as the second biggest
limitation by 42% of the respondents (mean, 2.1 ± 0.92). Of
note is that the handheld portion (gun) of the equipment
weighs 8.7 lb (3.9 kg) and the backpack unit (when empty)
weighs 17 lb (7.7 kg). Furthermore, employee safety was
selected as the third limitation, with a mean of 2.5 (±0.97
SD). The amount of PPE required to operate the equipment
was not frequently identified as the biggest limitation, with a
mean of 3.8 (±0.38 SD). This could indicate that participants
did not perceive the quantity or usage ergonomics (e.g.,
comfortability) of the required PPEs to be a factor that
limited their application of the technology. Among female
participants, weight was ranked as the no. 1 biggest limitation
in 41% (17) of the cases and time and accuracy in 25% (6)
of the cases. None of the male participants ranked weight
of the equipment first as the biggest limiting factor. These
findings coincide with literature that found that some workrelated
activities (e.g., lifting, rack packing) are specified
as only for male workers because of weight requirements
(22, 44). Furthermore, necessary changes such as process
and equipment design and a minimum requirement to lift
weights could be necessary (22) and a larger sample size of
participants is recommended to support these findings.
Participants ranked five options regarding the drawbacks
for a food worker using this technology. The majority of the
respondents (69%) concluded that the drawback of highest
importance was rushing the sanitation procedure (mean
± SD, 1.5 ± 0.88) on a `rank` of 1 to 5: 1 = most important
to 5 = least important, followed by using the equipment
the wrong way (2.6 ± 1). The drawback ranked as the least
416 Food Protection Trends November/December
important by 50% of the respondents (4.3 ± 1) was not
wearing appropriate PPE. Worker negligence and using the
technology on inappropriate surfaces were ranked lower in
importance, although these topics were specifically addressed
in the safety training because to properly disinfect, surfaces
first need to be clean and free of dust (6, 42).
Participants provided perceptions of safety using a
5-point Likert scale, and their responses were evaluated
at three different moments in the trial: (1) before and (2)
after viewing the safety presentation and (3) after handling
(using) the superheated steam equipment (Table 3).
Respondents were provided with a 5-point ranked question
on the perceived level of danger associated with using the
equipment at each point. No statistical significance (P >
0.05) was found based on gender (P = 0.3) or prior food
industry experience (P = 0.2). Paired t-tests performed
within the group (n = 24) before and after the training also
showed no statistically significant differences; for example,
before and after presentation training (P = 0.2) and before
training and after presentation and handling the equipment
(P = 0.1). Because this is a pilot study, conclusions derived
from a statistical analysis can be limited due to the sample
size. Before the trial, seven respondents believed that the
technology was " very dangerous " or " dangerous, " whereas six
respondents thought that it was " not very dangerous " and no
participant considered it " safe. " After the hands-on trial of the
technology, six respondents believed that the technology was
either " very dangerous " or " dangerous, " although there was
an increased number of responses for " not dangerous " (8)
or " safe " (2). Almost half of the participants changed their
perceptions of the technology as a result of training, with five
respondents viewing the technology as less dangerous after
the training presentation and four respondents viewing the
technology as less dangerous after handling the equipment.
One participant viewed the technology as more dangerous
after handling the equipment, which could be related to
learning previously unknown risks of the technology (16).
Although the differences were not statistically significant,
the changes to 10 participant' responses suggest that safety
training could help mitigate concerns and enhance user
confidence, alleviating preconceived concerns and building
trust in the technology. Visschers and Siegrist (43) found
increasing people's knowledge through communication
and education is most likely to affect their perception of
the hazard. Results for the 10-point Likert scale question
showed that the median of the 24 responses had a rating of
5 and the mean was 5.4 (±2.25 SD). Half of participants
thought that employee safety concerns were more likely to
limit use of the technology, and half thought that employee
safety concerns were less likely to limit the use of the
technology (Table 1). Eight responses skew toward the
lowest values of the scale (range between 0 and 4 ranking),
whereas 12 responses skew toward the higher end (range
between 6 and 10 ranking).
Food Protection Trends - November/December 2024

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - November/December 2024
