8 replies to this topic

[Anish]

Debate: Please give your views considering ozonisation of water as CCP or not.

Edited by Anish, 12 December 2010 - 10:34 AM.

[Tony-C]

Debate: Please give your views considering ozonisation of water as CCP or not.

Hi Anish

This will depend on your process and if it is the only method of treating the water.

Give some details of your process and people will be in a better position to give a view.

Regards,

Tony

[Tatsiana]

Debate: Please give your views considering ozonisation of water as CCP or not.

Hi, Anish
Ozonation is a CCP, if the microorganisms in the following stages can not be destroyed.

[Abdul Qudoos]

CCP
As Tony said its depends upon the process and hazards involved in the line. Provide flow diagram and process to get a clear view!

[elito]

Debate: Please give your views considering ozonisation of water as CCP or not.

Hello:

A detailed explanation of your process will be very important; however, one thing you have to consider is if the ozonisation you mentioned is the last point in your water treatment. If next stages of you process don't participate in the water treatment, the ozonisation may be a CCP.

Elito.

[lmugs]

well it depends on your process. If you use UV light downstream it wont be a CCP but if ozonation is the only method that you use to eliminate microbial hazard , then it becomes a CCP.

[George @ Safefood 360°]

Just to add some more confusion to the debate... a CCP by definition must be measurable. My understanding is that it is not possible to directly measure accurately the agents used for the lethal effect as they breakdown rapidly. So is it possible to be certain that ozonation has taking place as directly as say Chlorine which can be measured? Having said that nor is it possible to measure UV treatment directly or physical filtration and these are widely used and very often controlled as CCP's. In these cases however control is indirect (lamp intensity, ATP, Micro testing, integrity testing) some of which which I would consider to be just validation of the CCP by another name. Therefore can they be truly CCP's??

Perhaps they are PRP's or ever better - oPRP's (Charles might have an opinion )

[Tony-C]

Just to add some more confusion to the debate... a CCP by definition must be measurable. My understanding is that it is not possible to directly measure accurately the agents used for the lethal effect as they breakdown rapidly. So is it possible to be certain that ozonation has taking place as directly as say Chlorine which can be measured? Having said that nor is it possible to measure UV treatment directly or physical filtration and these are widely used and very often controlled as CCP's. In these cases however control is indirect (lamp intensity, ATP, Micro testing, integrity testing) some of which which I would consider to be just validation of the CCP by another name. Therefore can they be truly CCP's??

Perhaps they are PRP's or ever better - oPRP's (Charles might have an opinion )

Hi George,

It is my understanding and experience is that Ozone treatment can be measured:

Example of Ozone Measurement

It does degrade quickly so treatment is better close to application and in 'clean water'.

Whether it is a CCP or not will depend on the process and what the water is used for. For example if it is the final antimicrobial treatment for drinking water then it is very likely to be a CCP.

Regards,

Tony

[Charles.C]

Dear George,

Sadly the OP is totally devoid of process information.

I assume the query was directed to large scale water treatment.

If so, i confess ignorance regarding ozonisation however you are certainly correct that several groups have implemented ISO22000 based methodologies where oprps did slide in. Needless to say, most analyses (2/3 anyway) used custom made (French) decision trees. (the only 2 books / discussion forum I hv encountered with in-depth analysis of iso22000 hazard procedures are in French, it's a national pastime maybe).

I note from reference below that for ozone maintainance of a residual is not possible which must complicate haccp plus equipment technology is "developing".
(added later - a longer look suggests continuous monitoring systems are in use for ozone, but use of residuals less clear)

For water treatment systems, it is not always straightforward to prove the disinfection step represents a pure CCP based on my experiences in some previous threads.
I noticed this recent, 2011, encyclopedic Australian tome which discusses ozone but no implementations included.
However it does contain an impressively exhaustive haccp analysis to show that chlorination is a CCP via a custom "Codex" decision tree with an iso22000-type monitoring frequency criterion inserted. (Pg A-17) No use of oprps is indicated though . Illustrative microbial reduction data is given implying "elimination" of the majority of bacteria and high log reductions for other difficult cases. The tree used conveniently replaces the "continuous" monitoring criterion by "timely" which I presume also relates to the system use of water storage points allowing some leeway in response.
 Australian drinking water Guidelines 6, 2011, vol1.pdf   5.81MB   51 downloads

The chlorination CCP point is based on maintaining a residual Cl2 level whereas ozone is presumably controlled differently(?). Nonetheless the take-up in USA suggests that this aspect has long been accomplished.
(eg http://www.ozonesolu...drinking-water/ )

If above reported situation is really so common, the CCP status has surely been documented but I was unable to find any specific haccp plans on the net.

OT re OPRP
Personally, I hv almost succumbed to the iso22004 comment that, ultimately, it doesn't really matter how you label, as long as the operational "effectiveness" is validatable. Seems like a good excuse to relegate the oprp function to history IMO. The saga is not so different in reality to the old CCP1 / CCP2 dilemma.

Rgds / Charles