In this case most likely not anomalous. It all depends on the process and risk levels. In case I mention it was used as a flush for finished RTE. In the initial post was not sure of the process or the risk factors which is why I mentioned it. By treating it as we did it also served as confirmation as to the integrity of the lines.
Dear Snookie,
After some reflection, it appears that, for compressed air, these SQF criteria apply to both raw/RTE foods -
“compressed air (CA) used in the manufacturing process shall be clean and present no risk to food safety.”
“compressed air used in the manufacturing process shall be regularly monitored for purity.”
The Guidance Manual's response to above with respect to micro. control (in 11.5.7.1) is -
Wherever the compressed air comes in contact with the food, either directly or indirectly, high efficiency filters are to be in place at point-of-use where the air enters the final section of tubing (not in the compressor room).
And -
The recommended final stage of filtration in these food contact areas should have a rating of 0.01 micron with an efficiency of 99.999% (or as determined by appropriate risk analysis). Sufficient filtration is to be in place directly upstream of the final stage to protect the final stage from oil and water aerosols.
Nozzles and air hoses are to be in good condition, properly repaired and maintained in a hygienic state (e.g.,cleaned and sanitized). Hoses and nozzles are to be kept off the ground.
It is generally advisable to locate the filtration as close as practically possible (near the “point of use,” or the point where air contacts the food), so as to not have long lengths of piping/tubing between the microbial removal filter and the air/food contact point.
The underlined portion is elsewhere interpreted in various ways as discussed in older threads here. Proposals for other, more tolerant, filtering methods exist (eg the SQF website). from an audit POV, the recommended expectations from SQF to their auditors seem to be unknown. In practice, it is so far equally unclear as to the actual rules in place.
The above is for compressed air which will consequently be essentially sterile at POU.. Whether the presentation in the Guidance Manual is actually followed by SQF (or how much followed) is, quite simply, unknown.
The question from OP's POV is whether N2, CO2 will also be treated as above. This, afai can see is unspecified in the Code/Guidance Manual although it can be claimed that the Guidance proposed system for CA is microbiologically "as good as it gets", ie "Best Practice".
From a risk analysis POV, it presumably becomes a question of the risk difference between delivery systems (eg gas/cylinder/lines vs air/compressor/lines) for aspects like oil contaminants but from a micro. POV i daresay the CA-SQF Guidance still represents "best practice", ie a sterile input.
Clearly there is a substantial cost/effort difference between implementing the CA logic as compared to using an approved supplier.
@ Carol - It would be nice to be informed of the audit results regarding above.
Rgds / Charles.C