Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

How to get rid of high microbial load in seafood processing plant?

microbiological gmp seafood

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

#1 ChiaSL

ChiaSL

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia

Posted 15 September 2016 - 03:22 AM

Hi,

 

We are facing a challenge where we would like to ask you guys some opinion. Let me introduce the company and situation: 

 

Background: Seafood company that process (cut, degutting, clean) fish, prawn, crab and etc. No cooking/heat treatment involve. 

 

Products: Fresh/ Chill/ Frozen Seafood

 

Challenge: High microbial load (Present of Listeria/Vibrio/Staphylococcus) in products and TPC more than 1x103 for all SWAB test on knife, hand

 

Precaution steps that we had taken:

1) Proper hand washing method with sanitizer

2) Disposable apron was used

3) Utensils UV sanitizer was used to sanitize knife

4) Daily cleaning  of production using food grade chemicals  (twice a day) 

5) Proper temperature monitoring for production area (<24 oC), chiller (0-4 oC) and freezer (<-18 oC, fast moving <-15 oC)

6) Water quality testing had passed the lab test

 

What are the other steps that we can take to reduce the microbial load? We had done all the steps that we could think of. Do you guys has any idea to improve the situation?


  • 0

#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,646 posts
  • 3322 thanks
352
Excellent

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

Posted 15 September 2016 - 04:45 AM

Hi,

 

We are facing a challenge where we would like to ask you guys some opinion. Let me introduce the company and situation: 

 

Background: Seafood company that process (cut, degutting, clean) fish, prawn, crab and etc. No cooking/heat treatment involve. 

 

Products: Fresh/ Chill/ Frozen Seafood

 

Challenge: High microbial load (Present of Listeria/Vibrio/Staphylococcus) in products and TPC more than 1x103 for all SWAB test on knife, hand

 

Precaution steps that we had taken:

1) Proper hand washing method with sanitizer

2) Disposable apron was used

3) Utensils UV sanitizer was used to sanitize knife

4) Daily cleaning  of production using food grade chemicals  (twice a day) 

5) Proper temperature monitoring for production area (<24 oC), chiller (0-4 oC) and freezer (<-18 oC, fast moving <-15 oC)

6) Water quality testing had passed the lab test

 

What are the other steps that we can take to reduce the microbial load? We had done all the steps that we could think of. Do you guys has any idea to improve the situation?

 

Hi ChiaSL,

 

I assume this is locally sourced, fresh (ie not frozen import), raw materials and not farmed ?. Please inform.

 

The initially critical microbial data is that for the received raw material (body meat).

 

Please provide some raw material data with respect to, for example, APC, E.coli, L.mono, COP S.aureus, Vibrio (V.parahaemolyticus?, V.cholerae ?)

 

Please indicate what kind of microbial levels for above you are targetting in the finished product/current results.

 

Note that some Vibrio species are indigenous to the marine environment.

Note that L.monocytogenes is indigenous to the environment, although not so much to the sea itself.

Note that received, tropical marine raw materials typically have higher APC counts, etc than from cold water locations.

 

To be meaningful, the TPC swab count is preferably related to the area swabbed, eg cfu/cm2. An average limit of 100cfu/cm2 for hands (after cleaning/sanitising) is commonly quoted although practical values can relate to the working mode of employee.


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#3 ChiaSL

ChiaSL

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia

Posted 15 September 2016 - 04:58 AM

Hi ChiaSL,

 

I assume this is locally sourced, fresh (ie not frozen import), raw materials and not farmed ?. Please inform.

 

The initially critical microbial data is that for the received raw material (body meat).

 

Please provide some raw material data with respect to, for example, APC, E.coli, L.mono, COP S.aureus, Vibrio (V.parahaemolyticus?, V.cholerae ?)

 

Please indicate what kind of microbial levels for above you are targetting in the finished product/current results.

 

Note that some Vibrio species are indigenous to the marine environment.

Note that L.monocytogenes is indigenous to the environment, although not so much to the sea itself.

Note that received, tropical marine raw materials typically have higher APC counts, etc than from cold water locations.

 

Hi Charles,

 

The raw material was locally sourced from the local fresh market, not in frozen condition.

 

We outsource the lab service and thus we unable to know the number of counts.The initial lab test result show that the Listeria and Vibrio spp. are present in 25g. However, Vibrio parahaemolyticus is absent in 25 g. Staphylococcus aureus is 1.1x103. We aim that these microbe shall be non detected in the product. Is it possible? Is this lab test result acceptable?

 

 

Best regards,

Chia


  • 0

#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,646 posts
  • 3322 thanks
352
Excellent

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

Posted 15 September 2016 - 05:48 AM

Hi Charles,

 

The raw material was locally sourced from the local fresh market, not in frozen condition.

 

We outsource the lab service and thus we unable to know the number of counts.The initial lab test result show that the Listeria and Vibrio spp. are present in 25g. However, Vibrio parahaemolyticus is absent in 25 g. Staphylococcus aureus is 1.1x103. We aim that these microbe shall be non detected in the product. Is it possible? Is this lab test result acceptable?

 

 

Best regards,

Chia

 

Hi Chia,

 

results are for raw material or finished product ?.

 

If raw material, I assume the data is for 1 sample of XYZ (shrimp, meat, shell-on ???) whch is possibly not (sampling) representative.

yr target for Vibrio/Listeria of non-detection is IMO likely to be unrealistic for the reasons in my previous post. Positive detection is not unlikely.

If COP S.aureus is 1100cfu/g this is IMO unusually high.

 

If data is for the finished product, similar comments. The quantitative result may depend on the actual raw material data levels/presentation etc.

 

Note that Listeria / Vibrio are not specific species and detection can not prove that pathogenic microbial species are present although they may be (other than V.para in yr quoted sample).

 

If any particular species is present in the raw material at low level, yr described processing might reduce it to below the final instrument detection capability but improbable to "eliminate" it. You need quantitative data to investigate any deeper.

 

If yr last query is to whether the data is (Regulatory) acceptable for a finished product, it depends on the specific species, presentation etc and export destination. For example, afaik, for raw frozen seafood, USA focus initially on Salmonella. Other locations may have increased concerns.

 

 


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#5 ChiaSL

ChiaSL

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia

Posted 15 September 2016 - 06:02 AM

Hi Chia,

 

results are for raw material or finished product ?.

 

If raw material, I assume the data is for 1 sample of XYZ (shrimp, meat, shell-on ???) whch is possibly not (sampling) representative.

yr target for Vibrio/Listeria of non-detection is IMO likely to be unrealistic for the reasons in my previous post. Positive detection is not unlikely.

If COP S.aureus is 1100cfu/g this is IMO unusually high.

 

If data is for the finished product, similar comments. The quantitative result may depend on the actual raw material data levels/presentation etc.

 

Note that Listeria / Vibrio are not specific species and detection can not prove that pathogenic microbial species are present although they may be (other than V.para in yr quoted sample).

 

If any particular species is present in the raw material at low level, yr described processing might reduce it to below the final instrument detection capability but improbable to "eliminate" it. You need quantitative data to investigate any deeper.

 

If yr last query is to whether the data is (Regulatory) acceptable for a finished product, it depends on the specific species, presentation etc and export destination. For example, afaik, for raw frozen seafood, USA focus initially on Salmonella. Other locations may have increased concerns.

 

Hi,

 

Thanks for your explanation.

 

The samples were compound samples where the lab technician obtain the samples in fish group (all fish products), mollusk (all clam, oyster, scallop etc) and crustacean. 

 

So I shall find a proper reference to proof that the present of Listeria and Vibrio in raw seafood is acceptable right?

 

Meanwhile, what I can do to improve the sanitation part? The SWAB test TPC result is over the limit we set (<1x103 cfu/g). Is this limit too tight or there is any other proper reference for the SWAB test limit?

 

 

Best regards,

Chia


  • 0

#6 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,646 posts
  • 3322 thanks
352
Excellent

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

Posted 15 September 2016 - 06:15 AM

Hi,

 

Thanks for your explanation.

 

The samples were compound samples where the lab technician obtain the samples in fish group (all fish products), mollusk (all clam, oyster, scallop etc) and crustacean. 

 

So I shall find a proper reference to proof that the present of Listeria and Vibrio in raw seafood is acceptable right?

 

Meanwhile, what I can do to improve the sanitation part? The SWAB test TPC result is over the limit we set (<1x103 cfu/g). Is this limit too tight or there is any other proper reference for the SWAB test limit?

 

 

Best regards,

Chia

 

Hi Chia,

 

Try -

 

http://www.fao.org/d...3e/y4743e09.htm

 

The swab test should reference an area, not a weight ? For examples -

 

http://www.ifsqn.com...ces/#entry60958

 

Please clarify.


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users