11 replies to this topic

[val]

Hi all


Query? Due to cost issues I have an in house laundry on site ,one which I wish to validate . (Work in a fish plant supplying wet and pre pack fresh fish to the multipiles and also involved in production of smoked salmon)I presume I swab the 'clean' coat and send swab off for TVC test? Would this prove that the time/temp of the proedure is effective? All answers gratefully received.


Thank you


valb

[Charles Chew]

Hi Val,

May I assume that since you are in the fish processing industry, your protective clothing shall comprise of a some warm inner-wear worn over with an apron.

Would be good if you can provide more details on your current control procedures including confirming the above as correct. I am very keen to discuss this issue of laundry audit / validation further.

Charles

[val]

Hi Charles

Each filleter wears a white coat and an apron over this. These aprons are washed at the end of each shift every day and hung on hooks on the production floor.
THe soiled white coats are placed in a 'bin' in the laundry room(seperate structure loated off the ladies locker room) where a designated person places these in the washing machine and then dryer each morning. the laudered coats are then placed in the operatives individual lockers ( as company initally outsourced the laundry and the lockers then supplied still remain) .

I appreicate this is not an ideal operation and am very keen for some practical advice taking into consideration that this is a small to medium sized operation(about 40 employees in total ) where all quality issues are bit of a battle.

Thanking you for your reply

valb

[Charles.C]

Dear Val,

There have been some previous threads here regarding efficiencies of laundries, frequently non-complimentary, so I guess the subject is not that simple. Some of these posters may come into this thread shortly however I can gmake a few general responses to yr post

Not an expert on smoked fish but presume this is RTE? This would normally require segregation of clothing used in the post treatment areas in the same way as the process itself. Not to say that the clothing sanitizing requirements are necessarily different but a defect will presumably have a more immediate risk potential than for the other raw finished products.

Presume from yr comment that you have no mic. facilities on site. If you are considering significant sample numbers you might consider investing in an incubator. This would allow you to use products like Petrifilm which after applying to a surface permit direct evaluation of a TVC. These certainly work ok for plastic and metal surfaces but I have no experience with cotton type materials. Other similar commercial products are also available.

Not very experienced with transmission of swab samples however I presume the priority is to maintain the sample with an appropriate transport medium. I presume commercial kits are available for this similar to those used for fecal samples. I'm sure some companies will come to yr location and do the job for you - the suitability will depend on yr budget of course.

As far as validation is concerned I have occasionally seen suggested guidelines for surface area counts of other materials but these are I think usually empirical, ie developed from experience and tend to vary. Maybe somebody else can provide data on this - the count should obviously be quite low (check before and after?).

Additionally the plastic apron which is possibly even nearer to product contact (?) should justify evaluation, in my experience the washed aprons are always stored outside the production area to enable rapid drying but I guess it depends on the situation / humidity / etc.
I realise this doesn't answer yr central question but hopefully of interest.

Regards / Charles.C

added - This thread currently running should relate also but I couldn't understand the abstract when I read it-
http://www.ifsqn.com...?showtopic=5482

Edited by Simon, 11 February 2010 - 04:22 PM.

[val]

Dear Charles,

Thank you for your response.Smoked Salmon is RTE but would only account for about 10% of the fish the remainder being raw filleted fish so I presume laundering of protective clothing is not as high a risk as it would be in RTE sites? In house or outsourcing laundry..both seem to present their own set of problems?

Val b

[Charles Chew]

Hi Val
Sorry for the late reply. Was recently experiencing some minor internet surfing inabilities.

THe soiled white coats are placed in a 'bin' in the laundry room(seperate structure loated off the ladies locker room) where a designated person places these in the washing machine and then dryer each morning. the laudered coats are then placed in the operatives individual lockers

Seems pretty good to me

Recently, I was asked about a Surimi Processing Facility where initial traffic entry is controlled at a specific point with changing facility for hand washing, pre-boot rinse and follow through food bath.

However, due to inter link of human resources at a specific time of the day, some workers are required to work at the packaging section. As they come through to a separate changing room, soiled protective clothings (aprons) are placed in a "covered bin"; boots are removed and changed to controlled footwear that are provided. They then move to the next room, change to clean boots, wear clean aprons and go through a foot bath before entering packaging area.

Both areas have physical barriers similar to your approach.

Your question on validation - My suggestions
Physical:
a. Organolaptic Observation (Sight and smell)

Microbiological:
a. Not sure if it is practical but it is true that the risk is very much higher since your Salmon product is RTE.

To beat the system:
Use disposable aprons

Charles

[Charles.C]

Dear Val,

You may have seen this thread already but it seemed to me to contain a few interesting comments regarding necessary laundry washing temperatures which could represent part of the validation (eg complies with data on the IFSQN forum) -

http://www.ifsqn.com...h...

Rgds / Charles.C

[val]

Hi Charles

Thanks for the thread,I found it very useful.
Swabs I sent for analysis returned today, positivie for yeast mould and 550 TVC /ml 30C..yikes ....laundry temperaure obviously not working?

Valb

[cazyncymru]

Hi Charles

Thanks for the thread,I found it very useful.
Swabs I sent for analysis returned today, positivie for yeast mould and 550 TVC /ml 30C..yikes ....laundry temperaure obviously not working?

Valb

Rather than do TVC Val, id look at doing Entro's or Coliforms using Petrifilm.

[Charles Chew]

Swabs I sent for analysis returned today, positivie for yeast mould and 550 TVC /ml 30C..yikes ....laundry temperaure obviously not working

Well, I am not sure if sterile swapping on porous surfaces such as clothing is reliable and again, how do you determine the sampling surfaces to be taken etc. etc

External contract laundry is really very dangerous as you never know what kind of "hazards" from other sources contaminate your Company's clothing and often, detergent may not work well enough although they do smell clean.

Since laundry is done in-house, getting positive for yeast / mould probably require you to check the entire laundry procedure process thoroughly i.e are the clothings effectively dry before they are placed inside the locker, has cooling been allowd (hot and cold effects) surrounding environment of your locker location etc.

I am still of the opinion that laundry validation by sterile swap is unreliable, gives a false sense of assurance, a waste of time and money. and thats why we have disposables and there is a clear reason for it.

[val]

Hi charles

Thank you for letting me tap into your fountain of knowledge.....armed with your suggestions I can now tackle this issues.................

Have a nice weekend

valb

[Charles.C]

Dear All,

I borrowed Val's thread to post this extract from a generous "Uniform" Supplier's detailed website . Relatively rare information IMEX although definitely not unimportant -

UNIFORM SUPPLIERS’ ROLE IN MANAGING THESE RISKS
When looking at the role uniforms and garments play in a plant’s HACCP program, customers should expect more than just clean garments. Uniform and work apparel companies must offer specialized HACCP-conscious uniform programs to companies whose success is dependent on food safety. Uniform companies should adopt a HACCP mentality as a part of their daily business, so their customers have one less control point to address. Uniform suppliers should include the following SSOPs in their HACCP program to ensure every step of their processes should guard against cross-contamination.
SSOPs CRITICAL TO PROVIDING HYGIENICALLY CLEAN GARMENTS
Wash Formulas and Temperature It is accepted and verified by many scientific evaluations that linen and garments processed in a well-engineered wash formula are hygienically clean upon completion of the washing process. Hygienically clean is defined as “a reduction in microbial counts to a level free of bacteria, viruses and other disease-producing organisms.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “The microbicidal action of the normal laundering process is affected by several physical and chemical factors. Although dilution is not a microbicidal mechanism, it is responsible for the removal of significant quantities of microorganisms.
Soaps or detergents loosen soil and also have some microbicidal properties. Hot water provides an effective means of destroying microorganisms, and a temperature of at least 71° C (160°F) for a minimum of 25 minutes is commonly recommended for hot-water washing. Chlorine bleach provides an extra margin of safety. A total available chlorine residual of 50-150 ppm is usually achieved during the bleach cycle. The last action performed during the washing process is the addition of a mild acid to neutralize any alkalinity in the water supply, soap or detergent. The rapid shift in pH from approximately 12 to 5 also may tend to inactivate some microorganisms.”
Regardless of whether hot or cold water is used for washing, the temperatures reached in drying, especially during steaming, provide an additional layer of antimicrobial protection. Once clean apparel passes through a steam tunnel, it is taken from the racks and sorted three times to ensure worn or deteriorating garments are removed from the supply chain.
The preceding process is highly effective at producing hygienically clean garments but there is still a risk of cross-contamination after the garments are washed, cleaned and processed. Such cross-contamination can occur at any point after the drying and conditioning processes within the processing plant, during transportation to distribution centers or even on the delivery trucks to final clients. This is why wrapping the clean garments in a polyurethane bag shortly after conditioning can virtually eliminate the risk of cross contamination.
Transport and Delivery It’s important to know the safeguards uniform suppliers have in place to avoid cross-contamination during transport and delivery. Some of the Critical Control Points (CCPs) are listed below:
1. Garment Material and Design
a. Garment Material Traditional materials used for aprons, like vinyl and polyurethane, have cleanability issues. The right materials can promote both food and employee safety. A vinyl apron, for example, tends to stiffen after repeated sanitizing and exposure to cold temperatures. The plasticizers used to make vinyl what it is — a pliable material — will start to leach out. On occasion the material becomes hard and brittle, and it could start flecking into the food supply.
b. Garment Design A line of work apparel must include various shirts, pants and smocks specifically designed for food-processing environments, all without buttons or pockets which could add potential for contaminants. In addition, color-coded garments can help managers better identify workers and visitors who could be contaminating food products by being outside their designated work areas. Research indicates 100 percent spun-polyester garments provide higher levels of anti-microbial protection as compared to cotton.

http://www.aramark.c...PaperSource.pdf

Rgds / Charles.C

 

PS - LINK NOW BROKEN (201121)