Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

APC Swabs on Non-Food Contact surfaces in food support areas

Share this

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic
- - - - -

Ragga

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 32 posts
  • 4 thanks
2
Neutral

  • New Zealand
    New Zealand

Posted 19 September 2013 - 01:12 AM

Hey Guys,

 

Just looking for some opinions/experience/research/other countries regulations' regarding APC swabbing of non-food contact surfaces. I.e walls, doors in food support areas, like chillers etc where food is not exposed but stored and "clean" staff enter these areas

 

We are a low risk raw meat processing plant, and our limit for food contact surfaces is <1000cfu/cm2, but there is no legislation/guidance I can find on a reasonable limit for non-food contact areas.. For a reference point our finished product limit is <750,000 apc

 

I can remove them from the the swab site list altogether but I think there could be some validity in having them (i.e. ensuring cleaning of these areas is effective). Most times our swabs in these areas tend to be below.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

 

 



Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,223 posts
  • 1288 thanks
608
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:World
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 19 September 2013 - 02:09 AM

Hey Guys,

 

Just looking for some opinions/experience/research/other countries regulations' regarding APC swabbing of non-food contact surfaces. I.e walls, doors in food support areas, like chillers etc where food is not exposed but stored and "clean" staff enter these areas

 

We are a low risk raw meat processing plant, and our limit for food contact surfaces is <1000cfu/cm2, but there is no legislation/guidance I can find on a reasonable limit for non-food contact areas.. For a reference point our finished product limit is <750,000 apc

 

I can remove them from the the swab site list altogether but I think there could be some validity in having them (i.e. ensuring cleaning of these areas is effective). Most times our swabs in these areas tend to be below.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

 

Hi Ragga,

 

You have answered the question yourself:

 

'I think there could be some validity in having them (i.e. ensuring cleaning of these areas is effective). Most times our swabs in these areas tend to be below.'

 

You could reduce the frequency if you are consistently meeting your target.

 

Regards,

 

Tony



Thanked by 1 Member:

scppvjune

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 36 posts
  • 11 thanks
2
Neutral

  • Thailand
    Thailand
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 19 September 2013 - 04:40 AM

Hello,

Do agree with Tony.

Actually, I believe the APC swab test is just one of the indicators to proof / verify how good or efficience of your cleaning program and might be used to show that your products should not be contaminate from the processing environment.

I think the limit is depended upon each facility. The products are low risk and your final product set limit as < 750,000, so the limit for your swab should be any number lower than this limit.

The limit might be set up by gather your own data. Set limit too low, it is potential to be easily to get result beyond the limit and will result improper corrective actions due to re-occurence of the problem. Set limit too high, your product might be on risk to recontaminate from unsanitary condition. Frequency is depended as well....as I said the APC swab test is the indicator to verify your cleaning program. Therefore, you need to determine based on the performance of your clean-up crew.

Regards,



Thanked by 1 Member:

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 19 September 2013 - 01:42 PM

Dear Ragga,

 

To start with, you might consider applying a more demanding limit for APC on yr food contact surfaces. :smile:

Or is this an official  NZ norm ?

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

Ragga

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 32 posts
  • 4 thanks
2
Neutral

  • New Zealand
    New Zealand

Posted 24 September 2013 - 12:24 AM

Hi,

 

Thanks for the feedback guys, 

 

Hi Charles, the upper limit of 1000 cfu/cm2 is a norm in NZ for raw meat food contact surfaces. We generally get much lower than this but to reduce the limit any lower would just add further unnecessary paperwork. As far as i'm concerned cleaning in the processing area is well under control. Was just looking for opinions on limits for non food contact surfaces (We do finished product testing on all our product anyway as a customer requirement, so far any problems in micro counts have been traced back to the meat itself).



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 24 September 2013 - 03:56 AM

Dear Ragga,

 

It does depend on the associated details of course (eg material / just after cleaning/sanitising [C/S] or ??) but from memory the official EC limit is 10cfu/cm2 for stainless work tables in early stage meat processing and (probably) after C/S. This is at the strict end of the typical expectation range but is apparently routinely attainable in EC,  i personally find this rather amazing.

 

I suspect yr "norm" is an internal or "business" one ? If otherwise, some one is being quite brave IMO within a global context. Normally IMEX ( not meat), NZ finished product micro. specs are at the "demanding" end of the global expectation range.

 

Not criticising yr OP but there are sooo many variables involved in a  generalisation even for FCS. Obviously where "significant" locations are involved one might be more enterprising. Toilet door handles for example. The Good, the Bad and the Unbelievable ?. :smile:

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,223 posts
  • 1288 thanks
608
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:World
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 24 September 2013 - 05:12 AM

Hi,

 

Thanks for the feedback guys, 

 

Hi Charles, the upper limit of 1000 cfu/cm2 is a norm in NZ for raw meat food contact surfaces. We generally get much lower than this but to reduce the limit any lower would just add further unnecessary paperwork. As far as i'm concerned cleaning in the processing area is well under control. Was just looking for opinions on limits for non food contact surfaces (We do finished product testing on all our product anyway as a customer requirement, so far any problems in micro counts have been traced back to the meat itself).

 

If your finished products and food contact surfaces are fine then you are in a good position. I would start by looking for < 1,000. You will be able to trend and see what is typical and react to anything above the norm.

 

Regards,

 

Tony



marxu

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 8 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 06 October 2013 - 07:09 PM

Hello All I think there is no EC legislation stating the limits now. maybe this page can help a bit http://www.ukmeat.org/Surfaces.htm



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 07 October 2013 - 05:27 AM

Hello All I think there is no EC legislation stating the limits now. maybe this page can help a bit http://www.ukmeat.org/Surfaces.htm

Dear  marxu,

 

Thks for the comment and I think you are (legally) correct.

 

The numerical limit I mentioned seems to derive from the Commission Decision 2001/471/EC  -

Attached File  me1 - l_16520010621en00480053.pdf   185.65KB   92 downloads

 

which was “repealed” within Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 by virtue of this paragraph –

 

(20) The microbiological criteria laid down in Commission Decision 93/51 EEC of 15 December 1992 on the microbiological criteria applicable to the production of cooked crustaceans and molluscan shellfish [7] are incorporated in this Regulation. It is therefore appropriate to repeal that Decision. Since Commission Decision 2001/471/EC of 8 June 2001 laying down rules for the regular checks on the general hygiene carried out by the operators in establishments according to Directive 64/433/EEC on health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat and Directive 71/118/EEC on health problems affecting the production and placing on the market of fresh poultrymeat [8] is repealed with effect from the 1 January 2006, it is appropriate to incorporate microbiological criteria set for carcases in this Regulation.

 

Attached File  me2 - EUR-Lex - 32005R2073 - EN (condensed format).pdf   138.62KB   54 downloads

 

However do note that in the somewhat ambiguous UK advisory document  linked in yr post, the actual micro. limits are not themselves specifically disagreed with, rather the necessity for routine implementation of the procedure. AFAIK, EC have not subsequently issued any further  micro.limits. Similarly the content of iso18593 (?).

 

In contrast, and just to illustrate the degree of consensus involved, can consider  the  presentation  (me3) below where the above APC limit is compared to what the author apparently considered as “attainable” for various food industries. Some kind of support for the OP of  this thread perhaps.

Attached File  me3 - validation, monitoring, verification of cleaning programs, 2008.ppt   113KB   86 downloads

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Harish R

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 26 posts
  • 4 thanks
1
Neutral

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Arab Emirates

Posted 24 October 2013 - 09:17 AM

good info


With Best Regards

Harish


Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 644 posts
  • 230 thanks
52
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000

Posted 25 October 2013 - 08:15 AM

Hi Charles, the upper limit of 1000 cfu/cm2 is a norm in NZ for raw meat food contact surfaces. 

 

Dear Ragga,

 

This limit seems extremely high to me and I tried this morning to find information about legal standards for this out here.

Unfortunately I can not find English languaged documents with limits in the short time, I have been searching.

A lot of sites make reference to ISO standard 18593: 2004, which has to be paid for. Titel of this document is: Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs -- Horizontal methods for sampling techniques from surfaces using contact plates and swabs.

 

The most used limits in the Netherlands are for example named in the product board livestock, meat and eggs: manual meat product industry, dated May 2008.

Samples are taken by rodac plates of (i think) 5,5 cm diameter.

(the following text is translated by me from the above mentioned source)

 

classification system based on 7 cm2 stamped surface:

less then 3 cfu --> class 0  --> good

3 to 9 cfu  --> class 1 --> sufficient

10 to 29 cfu --> class 2 --> moderate

30 to 90 cfu --> class 3 --> insufficient

> 90 cfu --> class 4 --> poor

 

If in an area at least 10 stamps are taken the average class of these stamps should be:

< 0,5 --> very good

0,5 - 1,0 --> good

1,0 - 1,5 --> sufficient

1,5-2,0 --> moderate

2,0 - 2,5 --> poor

> 2,5 very poor


Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 20,542 posts
  • 5662 thanks
1,544
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 25 October 2013 - 08:48 AM

Dear Madam A.D-tor,

 

If yr last set of limits are in units of  cfu / cm2, they are probably the strictest in the world (slightly stricter than  Sweden [in 1998 anyway]). :smile:

 

For comparison, when last implemented, the  EC regs  considered that <10cfu/cm2 was an acceptable target for meat processing tables.

 

Admittedly, the topic is loaded with subjective data.

 

The iso standard 18593, from memory, sadly contained no limits. Typical ISO.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

PS - It is good to see you posting here again. :thumbup:


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 644 posts
  • 230 thanks
52
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000

Posted 25 October 2013 - 09:24 AM

Dear Charles,

 

The limits are per 7 cm2 stamped surface. So the actual counted number of CFU on the Rodac stamp used.

These standards are generally applied in meat processing plants and slaugherhouses.

 

Off topic: thanks for your warm welcome back.


Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor



Share this

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users