Tube Ice, Hazard Analysis and CCP Decision Tree
Started by carine, May 24 2009 02:57 PM
i'm involved in ice manufacturing and going toward iso22000 implementation ,Can i assume that no a ccp in our proceess?? is the uv treatment is CCP?? my process as below:
1.receiving water, 2. filtration (sand filtation), 3. storing (in water tank), 4. uv treament , 5. freezing (ice machine), 6. defost, 7. cutting, 8. packing.
1.receiving water, 2. filtration (sand filtation), 3. storing (in water tank), 4. uv treament , 5. freezing (ice machine), 6. defost, 7. cutting, 8. packing.
How to fill and seal hollow tube stainless steel equipment legs?
pH and Free Chlorine tested on finished tube ice product
you tube / text hyperlinking
Validation of holding time in a tube
Pest - o - flash, tube-light protection, is it a must?
[Ad]
dear Carine..
Have you validate your UV treatment for Micro control ( to reduce micro content to acceptable level) ?...
IMO.. you have to put UV treatment as CCP, because there is no process after UV to control your micro.. THe control measure is UV power because after some day used. the power of UV should reduce and effectivity to kill micro reduce too...
Have you validate your UV treatment for Micro control ( to reduce micro content to acceptable level) ?...
IMO.. you have to put UV treatment as CCP, because there is no process after UV to control your micro.. THe control measure is UV power because after some day used. the power of UV should reduce and effectivity to kill micro reduce too...
dear Carine..
Have you validate your UV treatment for Micro control ( to reduce micro content to acceptable level) ?...
IMO.. you have to put UV treatment as CCP, because there is no process after UV to control your micro.. THe control measure is UV power because after some day used. the power of UV should reduce and effectivity to kill micro reduce too...
Dear IMO,
yes, we did validate our uv trememnet through sending out the ice sample to micro test bi-monthly. We did not include UV tremenet as our ccp, because our company not going to invest the equipment that test the indensity of UV light, cost concern. other than indensity of UV, anyone of u know the way to test the functioning of UV?? Beside that, if filtration process (ssand filter) is ccp, waht is the control measure of it??
Dear Carine,
You may be required to include a "regulatory CCP" step involving the microbiological aspects of the water post UV since this presumably (hopefully) defines the ice quality. This step is also specifically introduced for that function.
Of course, if you can prove that yr water / ice consistently meets the required micro. aspects without UV treatment, I guess no need for it.
The exact micro.requirements will probably depend on local regulations.
Rgds / Charles.C
You may be required to include a "regulatory CCP" step involving the microbiological aspects of the water post UV since this presumably (hopefully) defines the ice quality. This step is also specifically introduced for that function.
Of course, if you can prove that yr water / ice consistently meets the required micro. aspects without UV treatment, I guess no need for it.
The exact micro.requirements will probably depend on local regulations.
Rgds / Charles.C
Dear Carine,
Nice topic and a new one to discuss on. IMO both sand filtration and U.V will be your CCPs b/c both are designed for specific hazards and they dont have any backup or support or synergistic effect with any other control measure in the process.
Sand filter is the ALONE control measure for Physical hazards and same is true for U.V as it is ALONE control measure for biological hazards. If you will follow the decision tree given in 7.4.4, you will end up with 2 CCPs.
With reference to Charles view point, yes if you can prove that the initial quality of the intake water is good and it does not contain any PATHOGENS (b/c spoilage organisms cannot spoil water) then you may end up with only 1 CCP and that would be SAND FILTRATION.
Regards
Siraj
Nice topic and a new one to discuss on. IMO both sand filtration and U.V will be your CCPs b/c both are designed for specific hazards and they dont have any backup or support or synergistic effect with any other control measure in the process.
Sand filter is the ALONE control measure for Physical hazards and same is true for U.V as it is ALONE control measure for biological hazards. If you will follow the decision tree given in 7.4.4, you will end up with 2 CCPs.
With reference to Charles view point, yes if you can prove that the initial quality of the intake water is good and it does not contain any PATHOGENS (b/c spoilage organisms cannot spoil water) then you may end up with only 1 CCP and that would be SAND FILTRATION.
Regards
Siraj
Dear Carine,
Just want to clarify somethin', IMO is stands for: In My Opinion. The one who suggest you to validate UV is AS Nur. Welcome to the Abbreviations World of IFSQN
Same like Charles C. and Siraj. I think the CCP might goes well to the Sand Filtration. However, IMO, the UV step still need to be considered as O-PRP. IMO, again, a simple validation of UV might be achieved through measuring microbes content of water that passed on UV. If it still under control, then I guess it works fine. But please consider to change the bulb at least once in every year.
Regards,
Arya
Just want to clarify somethin', IMO is stands for: In My Opinion. The one who suggest you to validate UV is AS Nur. Welcome to the Abbreviations World of IFSQN
Same like Charles C. and Siraj. I think the CCP might goes well to the Sand Filtration. However, IMO, the UV step still need to be considered as O-PRP. IMO, again, a simple validation of UV might be achieved through measuring microbes content of water that passed on UV. If it still under control, then I guess it works fine. But please consider to change the bulb at least once in every year.
Regards,
Arya
Dear Carine..
I have some experience due to UV sterilization process (± 4 years ago).. at the brand new UV.. the micro parameter is OK.. but after ± 6 months, the micro tend to increase, so we decide to add another process to reduce micro ...
Sorry i can't remember all the process.. so i can't tell more detail about the problems .
I have some experience due to UV sterilization process (± 4 years ago).. at the brand new UV.. the micro parameter is OK.. but after ± 6 months, the micro tend to increase, so we decide to add another process to reduce micro ...
Sorry i can't remember all the process.. so i can't tell more detail about the problems .
I have doc. on UV treatment..
Hope can help you..
Hope can help you..
Attached Files
1 Thank
dear all,
why do u think sand filter is ccp, in my case we do not have any control measure on this process. backwash every 3 days as exclusion of a hazard, so we do not assume it as ccp, what do u think??
To me hazard is a condition that will cause an adverse health effect, then sand filter is a process filter out the mud or fine particle that may not cause is sick, therefore this is the 1 of the reason i ignore it as a harzard, am i right??
why do u think sand filter is ccp, in my case we do not have any control measure on this process. backwash every 3 days as exclusion of a hazard, so we do not assume it as ccp, what do u think??
To me hazard is a condition that will cause an adverse health effect, then sand filter is a process filter out the mud or fine particle that may not cause is sick, therefore this is the 1 of the reason i ignore it as a harzard, am i right??
Dear Carine,
A good point. I think, by any mean of HACCP that I understand, the Sand Filter itself may reduce/eliminate the water filths until met your standard. So, I think the control measure should be a turbidity test for the water. And in some period of time you might want to check the heavy metals content. And since no other step that may prevent the presence of filths/foreign matters, then I suppose to think it was CCP, for Physical Hazard.
As for the UV, it may considered as CCP for micro Hazard (as mentioned by Siraj and AS Nur). So its a different path. As for my own opinion, if you cant validate the indensity, then you should validate the effectivity of your UV, by carry on micro assay on your products.
Regards,
Arya
A good point. I think, by any mean of HACCP that I understand, the Sand Filter itself may reduce/eliminate the water filths until met your standard. So, I think the control measure should be a turbidity test for the water. And in some period of time you might want to check the heavy metals content. And since no other step that may prevent the presence of filths/foreign matters, then I suppose to think it was CCP, for Physical Hazard.
As for the UV, it may considered as CCP for micro Hazard (as mentioned by Siraj and AS Nur). So its a different path. As for my own opinion, if you cant validate the indensity, then you should validate the effectivity of your UV, by carry on micro assay on your products.
Regards,
Arya
Dear carine,
These two HACCP documents from different sources may be of interest. the exact details may not match yr system of course.
haccp_in_drinking_water_.pdf 140.86KB 377 downloads
extract_HACCP_water__Australian__2004.doc 588KB 194 downloads
(bit slow to open all pages)
generic_HACCP_water_.jpg 31.23KB 75 downloads
Obvious that there are some differences in opinion.
Personally, would hv thought that the microbiological CCPs included in 1st attachment were unsuitable due to the monitoring delay.
Rgds / Charles.C
These two HACCP documents from different sources may be of interest. the exact details may not match yr system of course.
haccp_in_drinking_water_.pdf 140.86KB 377 downloads
extract_HACCP_water__Australian__2004.doc 588KB 194 downloads
(bit slow to open all pages)
generic_HACCP_water_.jpg 31.23KB 75 downloads
Obvious that there are some differences in opinion.
Personally, would hv thought that the microbiological CCPs included in 1st attachment were unsuitable due to the monitoring delay.
Rgds / Charles.C
hi, i' have just finished and done the Hazard Analysis Worksheet and CCP Decision Tree of Tube Ice product, i'm upload it, for those who has opinion, or idea about the HA, please you comment there, in order for me to improved . Many thanks
Attached Files
Hi Carine,
Thks for the attachment.
I transferred yr latest (3rd) thread to this earlier one and modified the title slightly. Hope that's OK.
Rgds / Charles.C
Thks for the attachment.
I transferred yr latest (3rd) thread to this earlier one and modified the title slightly. Hope that's OK.
Rgds / Charles.C
Dear Carine,
Some comments to yr posted HACCP plan.
The most obvious characteristic is of course that there are no CCPs ( the decision rule / values of B-D have been omitted but in any case, the assessment will depend on yr system).
It seems likely that an auditor will hv access to similar resources as prompted the previous posted comments. Accordingly he/she will probably request, at a minimum, validation data (and the verification data if system already running) to justify the omission of occasionally published CCPs (eg detailed analyses of the local water supply [input] and the output at usage point).
I guess the possible requirements are a mix of regulatory and process / source / usage factors. In addition to the examples previously posted, I hv added a few more from various sources (the number given is the total number of CCPs mentioned). The situations referred will often not exactly match your own but may give a few ideas.
water_haccp__2____3White.pdf 277.61KB 247 downloads
water_HACCP__2__.ppt 364KB 207 downloads
water_haccp__4____6DeBeir.pdf 703.46KB 209 downloads
water_haccp__6_____.PDF 44.48KB 211 downloads
Rgds / Charles.C
Some comments to yr posted HACCP plan.
The most obvious characteristic is of course that there are no CCPs ( the decision rule / values of B-D have been omitted but in any case, the assessment will depend on yr system).
It seems likely that an auditor will hv access to similar resources as prompted the previous posted comments. Accordingly he/she will probably request, at a minimum, validation data (and the verification data if system already running) to justify the omission of occasionally published CCPs (eg detailed analyses of the local water supply [input] and the output at usage point).
I guess the possible requirements are a mix of regulatory and process / source / usage factors. In addition to the examples previously posted, I hv added a few more from various sources (the number given is the total number of CCPs mentioned). The situations referred will often not exactly match your own but may give a few ideas.
water_haccp__2____3White.pdf 277.61KB 247 downloads
water_HACCP__2__.ppt 364KB 207 downloads
water_haccp__4____6DeBeir.pdf 703.46KB 209 downloads
water_haccp__6_____.PDF 44.48KB 211 downloads
Rgds / Charles.C
Dear Charles.C:
Thank You For U Comment. Many thanks. By the way, any comment on the form format of the Hazard Analysis , it is right??
Thank You For U Comment. Many thanks. By the way, any comment on the form format of the Hazard Analysis , it is right??
Dear Carine,
It’s often a matter of personal taste and chosen decision style I think, as long as you include the fundamental audit requirements.
Looks ok except Column 9 a bit textually odd with all the NILs as per yr logic. Risk analysis also looks rather strange numbers (see previous post).
Personally I use a rather simpler style (don’t use D-tree) similar my attachment / page1 although perhaps more often with the column “control measures” moved to the left after “hazards” (like yourself but intended to be used as per the partial worked out packaging example on pg2 [after converting to a vertical rather than horizontal hazard format]). But really no fixed rules IMEX.
Partial_HACCP__Worksheet.doc 50KB 210 downloads
Rgds / Charles.C
It’s often a matter of personal taste and chosen decision style I think, as long as you include the fundamental audit requirements.
Looks ok except Column 9 a bit textually odd with all the NILs as per yr logic. Risk analysis also looks rather strange numbers (see previous post).
Personally I use a rather simpler style (don’t use D-tree) similar my attachment / page1 although perhaps more often with the column “control measures” moved to the left after “hazards” (like yourself but intended to be used as per the partial worked out packaging example on pg2 [after converting to a vertical rather than horizontal hazard format]). But really no fixed rules IMEX.
Partial_HACCP__Worksheet.doc 50KB 210 downloads
Rgds / Charles.C