5 replies to this topic

[Alexxx]

Hi everyone,

My company is located in Canada and I was looking for some guidelines for the TPC limits for food contact surfaces. I've seen that some countries have their guidelines but Canada does not seem to have any. I'm not sure which one to follow in this scenario.

I appreciate your help in advance.

[Scampi]

the entire premise of SFCR was to remove as much prescriptive regulation as possible.  That is not always helpful, as in this case

 

You get to decide what your limits are, so if you find other regulations that make good sense, use those as your starting point. If you are significantly below those in your results, you could think about lowering your cap

[kingstudruler1]

It kinda depends on the product, process, and equipment and what you are wanting to accomplish by doing the test.  I would be much more cautious if I was producing refrigerated milk vs producing Capn Crunch.  

 

To me it doesnt matter if you set the limit at 1, 10, 100, etc.   If you have results of 2, 11, 101, it would be hard to justify that at these levels that the equipment is "unsafe", that the sanitation cycle was not effective, or that correcitve actions are needed.  In most cases, the risk is not there.  You are most likely  "opperating" outside of sampling and testing error.

 

For this reason, in general, I'm not a big fan of developing "limits" for TPC for sanitation.   I'd say go ahead and conduct them if you want.  Establish a resonable baseline.   Then track, trend, and investigate / develope corrective actions when if you see a trend up or spike.   You could set up some measure such as above "X" standard deviation(s) where an investigation is warranted.  

[Alexxx]

Thank you for all your reply. My company used to have set their limit at 100 UFC / 100cm². I will keep this limit for now but will most likely lower it, since our results are almost always <5 UFC/100cm². I've also started to make trends with all our analysis results, so I'll keep an eye on those too.

Thanks again.

[GMO]

I agree with all of the above.  This is indicator organisms you're looking for.  Just a rough and ready verification of cleanliness and cleaning efficacy.

 

If you're routinely getting <5 cfu per 100cm², just an auditor type question, are you sure you're looking in the right places, swabbing effectively and not just swabbing disinfectant solution?  I'm asking because before I lowered my limit, I'd be really sure I'm looking hard for the niches in equipment which could be missed rather than swabbing flat surfaces all the time.  Just from experience to routinely get levels so low you must have the best hygiene team in the world!

[Alexxx]

I agree with all of the above.  This is indicator organisms you're looking for.  Just a rough and ready verification of cleanliness and cleaning efficacy.

 

If you're routinely getting <5 cfu per 100cm², just an auditor type question, are you sure you're looking in the right places, swabbing effectively and not just swabbing disinfectant solution?  I'm asking because before I lowered my limit, I'd be really sure I'm looking hard for the niches in equipment which could be missed rather than swabbing flat surfaces all the time.  Just from experience to routinely get levels so low you must have the best hygiene team in the world!

I am fully aware that I should be swabbing in places that could most likely be neglected to ensure cleaning is properly done, and that is what I'm trying to do. I've only been working here for a few months, so previous tests were done by previous quality control managers. From the records that I have, almost all results came back <5 cfu per 100cm². I will do my best from now on to ensure the swabbing in appropriate locations and change the limit accordingly afterward.