Microbial standards for food contact surfaces in poultry slaughter?
The evisceration area temperature during production is in the range of 23-25c. I am unable to achieve these standards despite the same sanitation procedures and chemicals being followed as in the packing areas, which are maintained at less than 10c during production. The counts achieved in packing areas is less than 10 cfu/swab.
Any input in this regard would be appreciated.
I am working for a poultry slaughterhouse. I am in the process of reviewing the microbial limits for the Food contact and Non food contact areas. My current Microbial limits for Environmental ACC swabs is 500 cfu/ swab for FC and 1000 cfu/ swab for NFC.
The evisceration area temperature during production is in the range of 23-25c. I am unable to achieve these standards despite the same sanitation procedures and chemicals being followed as in the packing areas, which are maintained at less than 10c during production. The counts achieved in packing areas is less than 10 cfu/swab.
Any input in this regard would be appreciated.
Dear DivyaM,
Welcome to the Forum :welcome:
Meaningful interpretation/comparison of above data usually requires some/all of the following –
(a) swabbed area , eg in cm2
(b) the microbial incubation temperature / time, eg degC/days
© location of swab(s), eg tables ?
(d) timing of swab, eg with respect to cleaning/sanitizing of the location, eg "just after" C/S, random during production.
The handling / microbial cultivation procedure is usually required to be assumed “standard”.
IMEX data for NFC surfaces is rarely reported or discussed. Perhaps there is some particular interest in your case ?
Some comments / reported global ACC and other micro-parameter data for FC surfaces, are here –
http://www.ifsqn.com...ces/#entry60958
Rgds / Charles.C
We swab in2.
I have prepared a swab matrix where I have mapped all the equipments in different areas which are swabbed at adefined frequency, focussing on the inaccessible areas of the equipment.
Looking at the attached compilation report, it seems I need to work with my sanitation company and chemical provider to improve the microbial results.
Great information!
Thanks
Divya
There is approximately a gap of 4-5 hours between the cleaning process and swabbing of equipments. Would this have any adverse effect on the microbial counts. Please advise.
Divya
Dear DivyaM,
It depends on what is done to the respective equipments within the 4-5 hours and/or perhaps on the environment adjacent to the equipment.
The only comment is that the overall cleanliness is probably unlikely to significantly improve with time (pathogens are maybe an exception). :smile: Whether the delay represents a significant negative interference for comparing yr existing data depends on your target range and the actual numbers (and perhaps their scatter). If the 5hr results are all satisfactorily in compliance with yr objective, I guess you are good to go.
Maybe try comparing the ACC level just after cleaning with that for 4-5 hours if you want "some" idea of the delay consequences. But be aware that ACC counts are well-known as having large errors via sampling/analysis techniques. Hence the use of ranges.
For a routine procedure, it seems logical to assess the cleaning process in the most fair (generous) way possible. :smile:
Rgds / Charles.C
Charles, thanks a lot for all your inputs, they were a great help!!!
Hi DivyaM,
Many thanks for the feedback.
Just wanted to share on the changes implemented and the results attained. I generated a comparative report of the last 8 periods and it was noted that there were only certain equipments that came back with hifgh results and it took repeated cleaning and swabbing process to obtain the standard result. Majority of these equipments were the ones where the dressed bird was actually in contact of the equipment for the whole production forming a layer of fat on the equipment. We have been using the same chemicals and procedures for all the equipments. The sanitation company has reviewed the chemical concentrations and cleaning procedures for these equipments. And guess what???? My swab results are beautiful now!!!!
Charles, thanks a lot for all your inputs, they were a great help!!!
good improvement realized!
Just wanted to share on the changes implemented and the results attained. I generated a comparative report of the last 8 periods and it was noted that there were only certain equipments that came back with hifgh results and it took repeated cleaning and swabbing process to obtain the standard result. Majority of these equipments were the ones where the dressed bird was actually in contact of the equipment for the whole production forming a layer of fat on the equipment. We have been using the same chemicals and procedures for all the equipments. The sanitation company has reviewed the chemical concentrations and cleaning procedures for these equipments. And guess what???? My swab results are beautiful now!!!!
Charles, thanks a lot for all your inputs, they were a great help!!!
Great news DivyaM. :clap:
Thanks for coming back and providing feedback to those that helped you.
It's nice to hear; especially since you've had a psotive result.