Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

What is an acceptable size of a physical contaminant?


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

#1 EuroHygiene

EuroHygiene

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 19 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Worksop, UK

Posted 08 July 2011 - 12:04 PM

I'm working with a company importing essential oils for food and non food flavourings

One of the processes is filtering of some, but not all, oils. Most oils are filtered through a 1000 micron sieve. some thinner oils are filtered through filter paper, others through muslin

We're looking at whether filtering needs to be a CCP, and if so the justification behind the 1000 micron sieve.

The type of contaminants filtered out include dust, grit, bits of bark, insects etc, all from the initial production environment. There could also be laquer from the oil drum lining

The oils may be used in food flavourings, either on their own or blended with other oils / flavourings. There would be further processes undertaken at food manufacturing stage but we have no control over that, nor can we specify what processing would be required.

SO - is a 1mm filter fine enough? what's the justification behind that? does it need to be a CCP

Hoping you can help

many thanks



#2 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,697 posts
  • 691 thanks
183
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 08 July 2011 - 03:34 PM

What you're asking really is twofold; is it a CCP and if so what is my critical limit?

If it's a CCP or not is up to you, you have to consider the risk of injury or illness / choking etc from the contaminants, (you know it's likely) then you could use a decision tree to decide.

Gut feel is it probably is a CCP; there is a choking risk possible. So onto choice of critical limits. One often quoted reference is this:

http://www.fda.gov/I...l/ucm074554.htm

So contaminants below 7mm or above 25mm are unlikely to cause injury in adults. You can then say you go to 1000 micron to exceed this or for quality reasons etc.

You're right not to assume your customers will do anything with it. I've used oils and flavourings before and never thought of filtering them myself. Why would I when the supplier does it? So I'd have no chance of picking out the kind of contaminants you're talking about.



Thanked by 4 Members:

#3 EuroHygiene

EuroHygiene

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 19 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Worksop, UK

Posted 14 July 2011 - 10:31 AM

many thanks. and thanks for the link



#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,471 posts
  • 5168 thanks
1,160
Excellent

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

Posted 14 July 2011 - 05:01 PM

Dear EuroHygiene,

Just for variety, can add 3-25mm (metal/hard)

Attached File  haccp plan.pdf   3.82MB   115 downloads
(Pg8)

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#5 Biss

Biss

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 138 posts
  • 10 thanks
3
Neutral

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

Posted 15 July 2011 - 05:45 AM

Hi,

I will recommend the essentail filters size below 100 micron, preferably 5 micron to remove all foreign particles. filter should be considered as a CCP


Biss

#6 D-D

D-D

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 239 posts
  • 54 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 August 2011 - 10:41 AM

I work in this area too and filtering is definitely the CCP. We also reference the FDA as well as some Dutch work that went beyond the 7mm and considered 2mm more applicable when thinking about small children/infants (attached).
We therefore use 2mm as the Critical Limit but the actual Operating Limit is whatever size filter we can get the product through depending on its viscosity and ease of handling (1mm is our largest filter and we go down to about 10-100 micron with in-line filters).

Attached Files



Thanked by 2 Members:

#7 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 18,471 posts
  • 5168 thanks
1,160
Excellent

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

Posted 08 August 2011 - 04:50 PM

Dear All,

AFAIK, this is the current (US)FDA viewpoint -

http://www.fda.gov/I...l/ucm074554.htm

(I believe there used to be a specific comment regarding "2mm". It appears that FDA hv now become even more cautious [see "d"]).
(added - apologies to GMO for plagiarising #2post, completely missed :oops: !)

This 2005 article also may be of some interest -

Attached File  ab1 Food Safety Magazine2a, foreign materials.pdf   285.67KB   67 downloads

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:

#8 Dr Ajay Shah

Dr Ajay Shah

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 318 posts
  • 105 thanks
5
Neutral

  • Australia
    Australia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 09 August 2011 - 06:52 AM

I agree with comments of D-D in that filtering should definitely be a CCP based on the information that he has supplied which is useful to meet the requirements of children too.


Dr Ajay Shah.,
BSc (Hons), MSc, PhD, PGCE(FE)
Managing Director & Principal Consultant
AAS Food Technology Pty Ltd
www.aasfood.com


#9 EuroHygiene

EuroHygiene

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 19 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Worksop, UK

Posted 10 August 2011 - 06:29 AM

Hi,

I will recommend the essentail filters size below 100 micron, preferably 5 micron to remove all foreign particles. filter should be considered as a CCP



Biss
100 micron = 0.1mm, 5 micron = 0.005mm. We'd be filtering out invisible particles (to the naked eye) - which wouldn't cause a problem. unless we're trying to filter out cryptosporidium

1000 micron (1mm) is the standard filter size with a filter paper and / muslin to "polish" the oils and remove tiny particles

I can understand the 0.1 mm for quality purposes, and we go along with that, but to avoid hazard caused by a physical contaminant i'm not so sure that it should be applied as a CCP to filter down to this level, but am happy to be proven wrong

#10 EuroHygiene

EuroHygiene

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 19 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Worksop, UK

Posted 10 August 2011 - 06:36 AM

thanks to all for such good information, and opinions

it really is very much appreciated



#11 Food Forum

Food Forum

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 17 posts
  • 4 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 10 August 2011 - 11:04 AM

Filter with 1000 micron is only for phy,hazard what about chemical hazard as laquer dissolvein oil from drum liner also consider micro biologycal hazard as insects etc






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users