5 replies to this topic

[Caddyshack]

Hi, and a big hello to all of my techy food friends on this forum. I am a first timer to
this forum and would appreciate your help!!

Reviewing microbiological tolerances and "bug types" set for food contact surfaces in a high care food manufacturing environment. (post hygiene)
Target Maximum
TVCs

<100

>1000

COLIFORMS

<100

>100

E COLI

<10

>10

S AUREUS

<10

>50

PSEUDOMONAS

<100

>1000

LISTERIA

ND




any thoughts??

[Tony-C]

Reviewing microbiological tolerances and "bug types" set for food contact surfaces in a high care food manufacturing environment. (post hygiene)
Target Maximum
COLIFORMS
<100
>100
E COLI
<10
>10
any thoughts??

Welcome Caddyshack,

I would expect a clean high risk food contact surface to be virtually sterile. You should not be able to find E.coli or Coliforms on a clean high risk food contact surface.

Swab specifications depend on your swab area but food contact surfaces I would want to see < 1 Coliforms and E.coli.

In theory acceptable levels would also depend on how much your food supported or surpressed the growth of these bacteria. As you have described the food as high risk I therefore assume that they will easily support the growth of pathogens and so by definition I would be applying the most stringent of standards achievable.


Regards,


Tony

[Charles.C]

Dear caddyshack,

Welcome to the forum

Any direct answer to yr question is not so easy.

If you look up any standard micro-text (eg “US” compendium of microbiological procedures for foods), you will see a need to specify details for items like product / environment / regulatory issues, etc. Basically, it all depends.

In many situations as you may see discussed on this forum (and IMEX for cooked RTE products), most pathogenics are not routinely monitored for well-known reasons,eg the 3Ss - sampling/sensitivity/security. L.mono.. is perhaps an exception but more of a US meat favorite I thought.

Suggest you try a few general threads here for an idea about this eg –

http://www.ifsqn.com...showtopic=10523
(there are some later ones also [search +swab(space)+test], this is a much discussed topic)

Rgds / Charles

[Tony-C]

If you look up any standard micro-text (eg “US” compendium of microbiological procedures for foods), you will see a need to specify details for items like product / environment / regulatory issues, etc. Basically, it all depends.

In many situations as you may see discussed on this forum (and IMEX for cooked RTE products), most pathogenics are not routinely monitored for well-known reasons,eg the 3Ss - sampling/sensitivity/security. L.mono.. is perhaps an exception but more of a US meat favorite I thought.

Hi Charles

I would like to know the source of the standards which you posted in the previous forum linked below:
http://www.ifsqn.com...a...post&id=970
also what area it referred to and if it was for a clean or used surface?

The original question asked what were the standards for a clean high risk food contact surface. Clearly E.coli being present in any significant numbers on a clean high risk food contact surface is unacceptable and would indicate a failure in sanitation procedures.

I believe pathogen/micro swabs are not used as much beause they are retrospective and ATP technology has provided an efficient method of checking if surfaces are clean. I have always used ATP swabs to check food contact surfaces are clean prior to starting production and followed any failures up with micro swabs to verify there was a problem.

Regards,

Tony

[Charles.C]

Hi Tony,

The picture is from the link below it, (appendix M) and the area as per my text below the pic. Looks like a raw product scenario from a quick view.

I've never used ATP due cost reasons although I agree it looks useful. It's also got obvious advantages if you have no in-house lab facilities, otherwise ......

Micro guidelines are always up for debate, many people are often shocked at both raw and RTE finished product tolerances (and salads ). It often resolves to the Codex (and ICMSF I think) logic that the requirements of a standard "must be a realistic statement of what is able to be achieved". To put it another practical way, I suppose the environment must (at a minimum) be able to satisfactorily permit the manufacturing of a product within the desired (realistic) specification.

So, can you justify yr suggested limits ? max 10% of the product spec perhaps / validated achievability ?? Just musing, I don't think I hv ever seen a published general analysis (perhaps Campden if you hv the money ??)

The book I mentioned previously is viewable on line and discusses the implementation of some of these principles for TVC but not to numerical pathogen details (from memory).

Charles.C

[Tony-C]

So, can you justify yr suggested limits ? max 10% of the product spec perhaps / validated achievability ?? Just musing, I don't think I hv ever seen a published general analysis (perhaps Campden if you hv the money ??)

The limits I am quoting are based on practical experience. I first introduced ATP technology into one of the largest multi-product sites in the UK in 1994 and in order to do so I had to compare the results against micro swab results. Due to the competitive nature of the business I was in this was the sort of work that could not be published.

Regards,

Tony


Shoot for the moon and if you miss you will still be among the stars