11 replies to this topic

[Mehmur]

Hey plz can any one guide me what microbes can present in paper board used for packaging? Furthermore, How can I assign the Critical Limit in tha HACCP Plan.

Please help
Its Urgent

[Charles.C]

Hey plz can any one guide me what microbes can present in paper board used for packaging? Furthermore, How can I assign the Critical Limit in tha HACCP Plan.

Please help
Its Urgent

Dear Mehmur,

Not my direct area but offhand, I expect the packaging does not present a significant hazard. So there are no critical limits.

Perhaps you have some specific situation under investigation ?

For example see these documents I noticed on the net -

 guideline micro values packaging (2).pdf   130.19KB   1131 downloads

 micro.hazard in food packaging manufacturing (2) - 86-1.pdf86.pdf   1.07MB   1117 downloads
(2nd attachment is duplicate of previously posted file [had 90 downloads] but this one should open more smoothly
(see pg 834)

Rgds / Charles.C

[Tamale]

Hey plz can any one guide me what microbes can present in paper board used for packaging? Furthermore, How can I assign the Critical Limit in tha HACCP Plan.

Please help
Its Urgent

Mehmur,

Everything you need to know is in this report.

Tamale  RPTA test report.pdf   130.53KB   842 downloads

[Charles.C]

Mehmur,

Everything you need to know is in this report.

Tamale  RPTA test report.pdf   130.53KB   842 downloads

Dear Tamale,

Thks for the input.

Are the "normes" for residual bacteria / coliform quoted specific to Quebec, Canada or ?, i.e. any idea of the actual source standard ?

BTW, I was a bit amazed at the interest in the documents I attached to previous post. Here is one more document which is the part (1) associated with the No.(2)[see previous first attachment] already posted. This one has the detail to the project, additional data/limits/materials and is in the final published format so it looks a lot more professional.

 some guideline micro.values for hygienic food packaging.pdf   884.9KB   986 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

[Tamale]

The testing is done according to the Recycled Paper Technical Association (RPTA) protocol and are North American in scope.

Tamale

Dear Tamale,

Thks for the input.

Are the "normes" for residual bacteria / coliform quoted specific to Quebec, Canada or ?, i.e. any idea of the actual source standard ?

BTW, I was a bit amazed at the interest in the documents I attached to previous post. Here is one more document which is the part (1) of the (2) already posted. This one has the detail to the project, additional data/limits/materials and is in the final published format so it looks a lot more professional.

 some guideline micro.values for hygienic food packaging.pdf   884.9KB   986 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

[Charles.C]

Dear Tamale,

Thanks again for quick reply. I should have thought of googling RPTA the first time.

I have now done a little searching via RPTA. Must admit I had not realised this is such a huge topic although i might have guessed.

Seems that RPTA issue a protocol, mainly aimed at chemical testing-limit presentations. This is attached below. A "general" bacteria limit is mentioned (<1/cm2 ) which agrees with stated Quebec norme (100/100cm2) and also matches the (higher) figure quoted in my original 2nd upload. The protocol also interestingly mentions a "Dairyman's Standard" and amazingly this old standard (ca 1940) still seems (with some later refinements) to be a current basic reference in USA, specifically a max. plate count of 250cfu/gram of paperboard. This number is also referred in my original 2nd upload. The background details/current use of Dairyman's Standard is described in attachments below.
RPTA/Dairyman seem to make no mention of coliform. The limit in Quebec report (0/100cm2) matches value quoted/referenced in my 2nd upload.

Looks like historically Quebec (and Canada?) may be following "USA" system for "total" count limit (or perhaps vice-versa?). And maybe coliform also.

(Of course, the whole topic of microbiological levels/limits on "surfaces" contains a multitude of suggested values as frequently discussed on this forum).

 RPTA packaging protocol.pdf   293.56KB   453 downloads
 Packaging regulations 2010 inc. dairyman micro. standard.pdf   804.02KB   502 downloads
 packaging, development micro. guidelines for fiberboard 1994 inc. dairyman - 533544.pdf   329.91KB   394 downloads
 Use of dairyman standard in a Fiberboard Tecnical data Sheet, packaging.pdf   112.26KB   354 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C

[Mehmur]

Dear,

Thnx for the link

in the first link, there is limit for PET/plastic, bottle but not for PAPER BOARD

Dear Mehmur,

Not my direct area but offhand, I expect the packaging does not present a significant hazard. So there are no critical limits.

Perhaps you have some specific situation under investigation ?

For example see these documents I noticed on the net -

 guideline micro values packaging (2).pdf   130.19KB   1131 downloads

 micro.hazard in food packaging manufacturing (2) - 86-1.pdf86.pdf   1.07MB   1117 downloads
(2nd attachment is duplicate of previously posted file [had 90 downloads] but this one should open more smoothly
(see pg 834)

Rgds / Charles.C

[Charles.C]

Dear,

Thnx for the link

in the first link, there is limit for PET/plastic, bottle but not for PAPER BOARD

>> Post #6 ?!

Rgds / Charles.C

[Mehmur]

>> Post #6 ?!

Rgds / Charles.C

but I need according to PAKISTANI Standard.

Thanks

[Mehmur]

>> Post #6 ?!

Rgds / Charles.C

Charles thanks a lot, but I need according to Pakistan

[rajeev1965]

thanks for the updates.

 

rajeev

[GMO]

You wouldn't have a critical limit per se as this would be very unlikely to be a CCP but if you do want to find what is "typically" in your board, send off some board for testing to a lab as a product sample!  Sounds obvious but it can be done.  For info, I have found Listeria in "food contact" board before which then caused me to look into the supplier approval and realise they weren't really set up as "food contact" at all.  Probably the first step is to check your packaging supplier approval is robust.