Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Chewing gum's factory cleaning validation.How to.


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

#1 davide101

davide101

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Italy
    Italy

Posted 31 October 2018 - 11:46 PM

Hello all, first of all sorry for my english

 

i v some doubt about the cleaning validation program for a chewing gum factory (FSSC2200)  we are working for (we are the outsorcing company that clean this factory)

 

Chewing gum have very low water activity, from 0,35 to 0,60 max, so microbiological hazard is not present.

Now, i m little bit confused,

In the risk assesment we say that there is no microbiologic hazard.

What we v to do for cleaning validation?

 

We v not to mention microbiologic hazard because is not present and validate cleaning   fisical , chemical and allergens hazards?

Or we v to proove with some studies and documents that for chewing gum this hazard is not present?

 

Another question.

 

Cleaning is a PRP, so surfaces need to be cleaned to be safe.

If our product is still safe also on poor cleaned surfaces, PRP is still satisfied or not?

 

Thanks in advance and sorry again for my english.


Edited by davide101, 31 October 2018 - 11:48 PM.


#2 Mr. Wallace

Mr. Wallace

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 22 posts
  • 4 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 01 November 2018 - 02:22 AM

you can validate a sanitation program by setting limits,then validate them through customer complaint reviews,Microbiological swab result reviews,pre-operational inspection records review and analysis. 

hope this helps. 



#3 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 17,396 posts
  • 4841 thanks
945
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 01 November 2018 - 04:47 AM

Hello all, first of all sorry for my english

 

i v some doubt about the cleaning validation program for a chewing gum factory (FSSC2200)  we are working for (we are the outsorcing company that clean this factory)

 

Chewing gum have very low water activity, from 0,35 to 0,60 max, so microbiological hazard is not present.

Now, i m little bit confused,

In the risk assesment we say that there is no microbiologic hazard.

What we v to do for cleaning validation?

 

We v not to mention microbiologic hazard because is not present and validate cleaning   fisical , chemical and allergens hazards?

Or we v to proove with some studies and documents that for chewing gum this hazard is not present?

 

Another question.

 

Cleaning is a PRP, so surfaces need to be cleaned to be safe.

If our product is still safe also on poor cleaned surfaces, PRP is still satisfied or not?

 

Thanks in advance and sorry again for my english.

 

Hi davide,

 

Yr English is fine.

 

Yr assumption that there is no possible micro. hazard is incorrect. Low aw mentioned does not necessarily prevent survival, only growth.

 

Afaik iso22000 does not require validation of PRPs, only verification. However I am unsure about iso22002-1 ?

 

Operational Verification can typically be done via  either/both of 2 ways - (a) micro data or (b) ATP data based on results of surface swabbing. The sampling procedure is ideally risk-based, eg via designation of Production Zone Risk Categories..

 

There are many, many threads here related to (a,b), eg for (a) can see this thread/Excel -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...ces/#entry60958

 

PS - the answer to yr last question is No.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#4 davide101

davide101

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Italy
    Italy

Posted 01 November 2018 - 05:42 AM

Thanks Charles,

 

we already test with system sure (ATP Tester) surfaces and the main risk that i v found is a cross contamination  from water that we use to clean if the worker don't use gloves.

 

For example, if i test a dirty surface full of powder (usually Talco) i can achieve 0 RLU on system sure, if i test the  same surface after being cleaned (visually cleaned) i could obtain a 20-30 RLU  if  the worker v not followed the correct procedure (personal hygiene, gloves not used, water not changed etc etc).

 

For the microbiological growth, i don't know if  for example salmonella or e.coli  can survive in a chewing gum.

Chewing gum is mainly gum and there is no water to  sustain the microbiological life, i believe after some hours our salmonella or e.coli  die because a lack of "food" and lack of "water".

 

I m not sure about the gelatin  inside some chewing gums, (usually fish or pork gelatin) , i m trying to find some information about it but still not founded.

 

Thanks


Edited by davide101, 01 November 2018 - 05:43 AM.


#5 MsMars

MsMars

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 598 posts
  • 192 thanks
144
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female

Posted 01 November 2018 - 01:33 PM

Have you actually performed any testing for E.Coli/Salmonella on your finished product? That would be the only way to tell, unless you can find microbiological data from previous studies on chewing gum. 



#6 Scampi

Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,832 posts
  • 779 thanks
344
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 01 November 2018 - 01:35 PM

I googled this

 

confectionary sanitation

 

And got a lot of hits.........perhaps if you try you will get some research/real information on pathogens in chewing gum and then you will be better prepared to tackle this job

 

Glove use or not really shouldn't affect the sanitation of equipment as there ought to be very little contact with the equipment.......dirty brushes, not following the actual procedure, improper contact time, wrong dosage etc etc will contribute however. If you've cleaned and sanitized using the correct dose, method and contact times you SHOULD NOT see a spike in ATP........however, some swab types need to be done post clean pre sanitize as the sanitizer will affect the results


Because we always have is never an appropriate response!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate