Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
- - - - -

Straining CCP- the last one or the smallest?

CCP HACCP straining

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

#1 svelasan


    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 29 posts
  • 4 thanks

  • United States
    United States

Posted 17 August 2018 - 12:09 AM


I work in a company that makes juices, mostly citrus. We strain the juices at 2 different steps, my question is what step is the CCP if I have an strainer of 600 micron after squeezing  and then my last straining step is an in-line mesh of 1000 micron just before the filler? The 600 micron is a wide strainer with a lot of surface area and the in-line mesh is very small so I can't use a 600 micron there because it would get clogged. Between the squeezing and the filler step I still have other steps where could be physical contamination from parts of equipment and that's why I need the in-line mesh before the filler to catch any nut or bolt that could have fell. In my opinion the in-line mesh should be the CCP but I would like to know your opinion.


Thank you very much!



#2 Ryan H.

Ryan H.

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 158 posts
  • 51 thanks

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Sports, traveling

Posted 17 August 2018 - 01:48 AM

Based on the information provided I would agree the last in line mesh 1000 microns would be it. Could you share a process flow? That would allow me and others to really assess your overall process.

All the best, 


Ryan Heavner 

Thanked by 1 Member:

#3 pHruit


    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 953 posts
  • 417 thanks

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Composing/listening to classical music, electronics, mountain biking, science, sarcasm

Posted 17 August 2018 - 11:28 AM

Hi Svelasan,
We make and purchase lots of juices and the use of several sieving/filtration stages isn't uncommon. Our HACCP and every other one I've seen for this type of situation puts the final one as the CCP, and it makes most sense (to me at least) in terms of best point to control potential physical hazards.
You may just need to think about how your present your hazard analysis, the decision tree you're using, how you define what constitutes a physical hazard, and what you've detailed as the purpose of the first sieve - if you really wanted to then it would be possible to construct and argument that it's also a CCP. In my opinion that would be completely unnecessary, but always good to close out the possibility of that interpretation to avoid awkward challenges from auditors / regulatory inspections ;)

Thanked by 1 Member:

#4 jcieslowski


    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 164 posts
  • 55 thanks

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 August 2018 - 12:11 PM

As a general rule, the control point closest to the end of the process is more likely to be your CCP.  When it comes to the threat of 'foreign material', which one is making sure nothing gets in?  It can't be the one in the middle of the process because, as you said, foreign material can still get in after that step.  Therefore it's only the final step that reduces the threat of foreign material to acceptable levels.

#5 Charles.C


    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 16,421 posts
  • 4586 thanks

  • Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF

Posted 29 August 2018 - 02:32 PM

It's a common generic question / OP.


There are published exceptions to previous posts but I agree many haccpers seem to take the easy way out and go to the end.


Some options in this analogous recent post/thread -



Kind Regards,



#6 012117


    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 227 posts
  • 67 thanks

  • Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philippines
  • Interests:Validation, basketball, chocolatier

Posted 30 August 2018 - 12:59 AM

Hi, Svelasan.


If you follow the criteria of ISO 22000 (keyword: subsequent step) then your end strainer would be the CCP and from your point, you have other souces of contamination between the 1st filter and 2nd filter, so having the 1st filter as CCP may raise several questions. It is also common that filters are being tagged as CCP, it may be true to some point but if you have filter/sieves that may allow "pass thru some "wire" shape contaminant then it may not eliminate" (e.g if a wire <1000 micron  thickness having >2 or 7mm in length depending on the limit you use pass thru perpendicular to opening of the strainer). So I say it is important to identify all the possible physical hazard :)

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate