Elevated APC in Municiple/Facility Water
Good Morning fellow Food Safety Warriors,
I am having an issue that I have not encountered before and I was hoping to get a little feedback on as to some corrective actions (those involving capex are welcomed :) )
We have recently been encountering elevated APC counts in our water supply. I have eliminated the possibility of sampling error and point of use contamination so the issue is either within the pipes/treatment system or from the municipal water facility itself.
It is worth noting that I am in a low risk facility and the water is used for GMP practices (hand washing) and sanitation in a dedicated wash room area for direct food contact instruments and parts. This issue has not migrated to any other locations (verified through sampling) but I really want to knock this out at the source. Has anyone run into a similar issue as this or have any suggestions as how to correct this.
Looking forward to the feedback and questions!!!
First, what's "elevated"? There's no standard of quality for HPC in municipal water supplies, so where's it at, where do you want to see it, and why?
I'd see if you can sample from another faucet at a neighboring business/residence, then you can establish whether the counts are being distributed from your water provider or if they are somehow increasing within your plant's distribution system.
Good Morning fellow Food Safety Warriors,
I am having an issue that I have not encountered before and I was hoping to get a little feedback on as to some corrective actions (those involving capex are welcomed :) )
We have recently been encountering elevated APC counts in our water supply. I have eliminated the possibility of sampling error and point of use contamination so the issue is either within the pipes/treatment system or from the municipal water facility itself.
It is worth noting that I am in a low risk facility and the water is used for GMP practices (hand washing) and sanitation in a dedicated wash room area for direct food contact instruments and parts. This issue has not migrated to any other locations (verified through sampling) but I really want to knock this out at the source. Has anyone run into a similar issue as this or have any suggestions as how to correct this.
Looking forward to the feedback and questions!!!
Hi Guitar,
As per previous post some quantitative data may assist.
I imagine you also hv some coliform/E.coli data which are I believe typically monitored in USA (EU for "process" water initially usually focuses on APC/coliform/Ecoli and does suggest limits).
If the water is chlorinated (??) APC levels shud be "low".
Thank you for your responses. I should have added that we are looking at APC levels as this is part of our corporate policy (this would be elevated by our standards). Our APC level results have been fluctuating between 50 and 2500cfu/g. Additionally, all other pathogen testing results have been negative (e.g. E. coli).
If we determine that this is either municipal or a piping issue, has anyone had experience with filtering/treatments systems for water?
There's a million resources out there for on-site water treatment. It's expensive setup but then relatively easy maintenance.
2500 is pretty high for a chlorinated municipal source, but not unreasonable for a "first draw" sample. Non-sterile bottled water can typically have a "bloom" after bottling that takes it up to 6 log before dieing off.
To evaluate source vs your plant, it might be worth getting more data on "first draw" vs after a hose/faucet has been running for 15 minutes.
I maintain that if your water is only used for sanitation then your sanitizing step would take care of any small number of organisms introduced by your rinse step, and more importantly would be that your water was free of "organisms of concern".
Hi Guitar,
The only US "Guideline" I could see has -
HPC: NO more than 500 bacterial colonies per milliliter
HPC = Heterotrophic Plate Count
http://www.water-res...imary-standards
Is the water chlorinated ?, ie has a detectable ppm of free Cl2 ?
Hi Guitar,
The only US "Guideline" I could see has -
HPC = Heterotrophic Plate Count
http://www.water-res...imary-standards
Is the water chlorinated ?, ie has a detectable ppm of free Cl2 ?
That figure is not a regulatory standard, just a guideline by some consultant group...of course they recommend some lower levels. Helps them sell more services.... :)
As far as the OP is concerned I'm wondering why they are even concerned with this? If the water is not used as an ingredient after some type of process kill step and you are sanitizing your equipment at end of cleaning this shouldn't be an issue or even evaluated.
I would say the only concern would be rinsing down production equipment where there is food contact WITHOUT sanitizing after rinsing?
That figure is not a regulatory standard, just a guideline by some consultant group...of course they recommend some lower levels. Helps them sell more services.... :)
As far as the OP is concerned I'm wondering why they are even concerned with this? If the water is not used as an ingredient after some type of process kill step and you are sanitizing your equipment at end of cleaning this shouldn't be an issue or even evaluated.
I would say the only concern would be rinsing down production equipment where there is food contact WITHOUT sanitizing after rinsing?
Hi Ryan,
The US EPA is merely a "consultant group" ?? I sincerely hope not.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations _ Ground Water and Drinking Water _ US EPA.pdf 60.46KB 35 downloads
Although not so far discussed, i assume water as referred in OP (Municipal Authority) is intended to be of a "Quality" considered directly "suitable" for Drinking (?) (Safety is not necessarily identical to "Quality" of course).
As previously noted, the internal piping system may simply have caused contamination. A Non-detectable free-chlorine (eg <0.1 ppm) might be interesting unless this is not relevant to US Municipal water supplies (eg ultrafiltration processes ?)
PS - I note that the EPA's textual use of the word "contaminant" is IMO questionable.
Hi Ryan,
The US EPA is merely a "consultant group" ?? I sincerely hope not.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations _ Ground Water and Drinking Water _ US EPA.pdf
Although not so far discussed, i assume water as referred in OP (Municipal Authority) is intended to be of a "Quality" considered directly "suitable" for Drinking (?) (Safety is not necessarily identical to "Quality" of course).
As previously noted, the internal piping system may simply have caused contamination. A Non-detectable free-chlorine (eg <0.1 ppm) might be interesting unless this is not relevant to US Municipal water supply (eg ultrafiltration process ?)
PS - I note that the EPA's textual use of the word "contaminant" is IMO questionable.
US EPA mandates coloform levels not HPc levels. Where in that standard does it reference a requirement for HPC? On the website you had linked it was from a consultant group.
If there is a regulation for HPC from EPA that’s news to me...and a lot of places haven’t been monitoring it for quite some time here in the states.
Hi Ryan,
The US EPA is merely a "consultant group" ?? I sincerely hope not.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations _ Ground Water and Drinking Water _ US EPA.pdf
Although not so far discussed, i assume water as referred in OP (Municipal Authority) is intended to be of a "Quality" considered directly "suitable" for Drinking (?) (Safety is not necessarily identical to "Quality" of course).
As previously noted, the internal piping system may simply have caused contamination. A Non-detectable free-chlorine (eg <0.1 ppm) might be interesting unless this is not relevant to US Municipal water supply (eg ultrafiltration process ?)
PS - I note that the EPA's textual use of the word "contaminant" is IMO questionable.
Read the PDF standard you just posted...it states N/A because HPC is not a health standard.
Read the PDF standard you just posted...it states N/A because HPC is not a health standard.
Please read the footnotes.
Please read the footnotes.
You realize that the footnotes apply to treating groundwater and surface water right? Not related to drinking water standards....
Completely different Charles. You are stretching..
Again...EPA has no requirements for HPC limits on drinking water. It shows in this standard. If there was a requirement it would be stated in the past initial limits like with everything else, not in the footnotes.
You realize that the footnotes apply to treating groundwater and surface water right? Not related to drinking water standards....
Completely different Charles. You are stretching..
Again...EPA has no requirements for HPC limits on drinking water. It shows in this standard. If there was a requirement it would be stated in the past initial limits like with everything else, not in the footnotes.
Hi Ryan,
No problem. We can agree to differ.
The interesting OP datum will be the HTC level at official point of delivery. i anticipate << 2500 cfu/gm
The usage of HPC data in a drinking water context is apparently complicated and subjective. Some Countries use it for Regulatory/specific products, eg bottled drinking water, others use it more for assessing water treatment efficiency.
The 5 following links/attachments hopefully give a little detail on the US situation -
(1) Historical up to 2003 –
12.6.6 Regulations in the USA
Regulations for drinking-water quality from both private systems and public water utilities in the USA are provided by the US EPA. Drinking-water is under federal jurisdiction, so these regulations are enforceable across the country.
In the USA, acceptable HPC levels in municipal drinking-water have been set at less than 500 cfu/ml. Historically, as is the case in Canada, this level was recommended because higher colony counts interfered with the detection of total coliforms in lactose-based tests. During the development of the Surface Water Treatment Rule, it was decided that maintaining an HPC concentration below the allowable 500 cfu/ml limit could be used as a substitute for maintaining a detectable disinfection residual (US EPA 1989). More recently, the US EPA’s National Primary Drinking Water Standards (US EPA 2001) express HPC as a method of measuring the variety of bacteria present in a water sample but with no health significance. In this secondary standard, no maximum contaminant level goal is set, but the maximum contaminant level is still 500 cfu/ml. This is not an enforceable federal standard.
Other agencies, such as the American Water Works Association, have not recommended an operating level or goal for HPC bacteria in drinking-water. They do recommend minimizing HPC levels in water leaving the treatment plant and for water in the distribution system. It is suggested that each utility should establish baseline data for their water source based on at least two years of sampling of plant effluent, points of mean residency time in the distribution system and problem areas, such as dead-end reservoirs and sites downstream from pressure-reducing valves (AWWA 1990).
In the USA, bottled water is monitored by the Food and Drug Administration, and no HPC standards have been established (FDA 2001).
(Note1 - The AWWA viewpoint may now hv changed somewhat, eg this 2015 quote -
HPC-AWWA.png 37.55KB 0 downloads
(Note 2- Regarding EPA, see (3) below for present scenario.[newer technology reduces the interference aspect]
(2) A more recent article (2016) presenting a quite readable "update" from a (unusual) POV –
HPC - health concerns,2016.pdf 501.07KB 19 downloads
(3) EPA’s general opinion on HPC in drinking water
https://safewater.ze...drinking-water-
(4) Missouri’s interpretation/implementation of EPA’s Guidelines
http://health.mo.gov...picbacteria.php
(5) Although not USA-specific, this detailed analysis on the Canadian Gov. website of a situation quite similar to that in OP is well presented IMO.
https://www.canada.c...r-supplies.html
Further analysis will probably require data such as mentioned in Posts 6, 13.