APC Swabs on Non-Food Contact surfaces in food support areas
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
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
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,
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
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).
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
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
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 -
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.
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.
me3 - validation, monitoring, verification of cleaning programs, 2008.ppt 113KB 86 downloads
Rgds / Charles.C
good info
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
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:
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.