16 replies to this topic

[tripathi_shivendra]

Dear Simon,
Are there any international standards for values of-
1. Swab Test on clothing
2. Swab test on human hands for Total Plate Count and Coilform Count etc

rgds

Shivendra

[Simon]

Any microbiologists out there?

[okido]

Goodday Shivendra

I faced the same problem years ago, no formal microbiological standard available.
After discussion with a test lab for food we reached the conclusion that less than 100 cfu would be our standard for swab test's on hands.
Till now nobody challanged this standard.

Have a nice day, Okido

[TAWAN]

Goodday Shivendra

In this point I think it also depends on your processing line.

When you swab in the low risk area you might set low standard (large amount) for micorbiological and you have to concentrate on contamination level and risk of food contact it very useful to set and can save cost on analysis.

In contrast, when you swab in high risk area might set high standard (small amount) for microbiological and you have to concentrate on food contact surfaces.


And in my opinion, I think we ought to concentrate for poor-sanitary microbial indacator that it would be fine.

You shall focus on Listeria sp. especially L. monocytogenes in high risk area both food contact surface and surrounding.


The standard of microbiological in swab may be;

High Risk Aea = Daily Low Risk Aea = Weekly

1.Hands
Coliforms = <50 CFU
E. coli = NIL
S. aureus = NIL

2.Utensil/Equipment/Machines
Coliforms = <200 CFU
E. coli = NIL
S. aureus = NIL

The frequency of Listeria sp. swab may be;

1.High risk area = Twice a week
2.Low risk area = Monthly

Food contact ; Hands/ Equipment and Machines
Non-Food contact ; Facilities and surrounding


Regards,
Tawan.

Edited by TAWAN, 10 March 2005 - 10:52 AM.

[Charles Chew]

Basically no standard for swab tests because they are generally not reliable enough but remain acceptable for "quick-check" verification purposes on cleaning and other hygiene connected elements.

As their results are only indicative, ONLY micro tests from a certified laboratory can be used for validation purpose.

Regards
Charles Chew

[okido]

Hello Tawan,

What do you define as a low/high risk area?
The microbiological standards you mention are they based on legislation?

Okido,

Be yourself, there are plenty of others

[tripathi_shivendra]

Thanx for all the feedback. Probably starting with a value of 100 cfu(As suggested by Okido) may just be the right thing and later on one could benchmark oneself with the Nestle's and Cadbury's of this world.

rgds

Shivendra

[Simon]

Probably starting with a value of 100 cfu(As suggested by Okido) may just be the right thing and later on one could benchmark oneself with the Nestle's and Cadbury's of this world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is their Standard Shivendra?

REgards,
Simon

[Andy]

Thanx for all the feedback. Probably starting with a value of 100 cfu(As suggested by Okido) may just be the right thing and later on one could benchmark oneself with the Nestle's and Cadbury's of this world.

rgds

Shivendra

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, tripathi

From the answers I've seen, that there was no microbiologist out there.

In general the 100 cfu approach is ok for the most areas especially when these counts are PRPs according to ISO22000.
If any microbial contamination is a true hazard to your product, for the limits should be considered:
a) the product you produce
b) the materials the personel is handling
c) the stage of production

Point b) comes into the play for example in a brewery. Malt contains naturally some coliforms. So you wont ever come under the limits specified by TAWAN, when the worker is handling the malt. On the other hand 50 coliforms is quite high, when the same worker is dealing with the cooled wort.

The frequency of the test seems to me not so important and a daily check may be a little bit too much for three reasons:
1) the sampling method (swabing) especially on hands and clothing is not very reliable (even in the hand of an accredited lab), which means that the statistical variation is large
2) the sampling from a hand shows an even larger varaition since the bugs grow on the skin and the counts depend much on whether the worker just washed the hands or not
3) the results come much to late to prevent anything - this is basic hygiene and serves only to maintain a deserved status

Only when you see a tendency (worker A an C had dirty hands the last 2 weeks), it is a hint which personel should be trained.

Nevertheless, it's never to late to ask a microbiologist for a true evaluation!

PS: for this simple check a contact plate is quite as good as a swab and very much more comfortable

[Simon]

Thanks for your expert input Andy - welcome to the forums.

Regards,
Simon

[Witch]

Hey there,
I can add some documents that are not internationally, but nevertheless official:
DIN 10113-1 Determination of surface colony count on fitment and utensils in foodareas - part 1: quantitative swab method
DIN 10113-2 Determination of surface colony count on fitment and utensils in foodareas - part 2: semiquantitative swab method
DIN 10113-3 Determination of surface colony count on fitment and utensils in foodareas - part 3: semiquantitative method with culture media laminated taking up equipment (squeeze method)

Hope this will help
Witch

[bibi]

Goodday Shivendra

I faced the same problem years ago, no formal microbiological standard available.
After discussion with a test lab for food we reached the conclusion that less than 100 cfu would be our standard for swab test's on hands.
Till now nobody challanged this standard.

Have a nice day, Okido

hi Tawan

reading this topic and your suggestions high risk area on a daily basis and weekly for low risk area

In a total how many swabs are you taking weekly? it seems a fortune.

what is the benefit?
prove your cleaning are satisfactory to standard, or just to give us a psychological confort.

if we spend 25% of that money for training purpose which should be more cost effective in long term and leave the swabing as on monthly & random basis
(depending on your size company, your policy, auditor or certified bodies requirememts)


any comments?

BIBI

[Simon]

what is the benefit? Prove your cleaning are satisfactory to standard, or just to give us a psychological confort. If we spend 25% of that money for training purpose which should be more cost effective in long term and leave the swabing as on monthly & random basis (depending on your size company, your policy, auditor or certified bodies requirememts)

any comments?

BIBI

Hi Bibi,

Seems sensible to spend your limited budget on preventive action such as training rather than verification activities. Depends on what you are finding at your current swabbing frequency; if you are all clear (all of the time) then maybe you can reduce the frequency. I'm only speaking from a common sense point of view - what would a food safety auditor say?

Simon

[Charles Chew]

Simon,

Its Chinese New Year for us soon and I am having a break which is the reason why I am able to spend more time than usual on Saferpak. On the issue of Bibi's idea of spending time and money on preventative training measures - I personally feel it is in the right direction.

Again there is no specific international standard for microbes (although this may change in future but the variables we are talking about makes it almost impossible to do so). IMO, an internally set microbiological criteria is merely an indication of the level of hygiene standard that you apply in your facility.

Whether acceptable or not is matter for the buyer to decide. With regards to end products, you already have process controls in place which is why these microbe tests are merely to confirm whether these controls remain effective or not. Sound judgement must be used in applying criteria and interpreting microbe test results.

Whats most buyers require and is also a requirement under ISO 22000 is the establishment of a "Two & Three Class Sampling Plan"

"End Product Testing Alone Cannot Guarantee Food Safety"

You may want to refer to ICMSF for further details

[Simon]

Its Chinese New Year for us soon and I am having a break which is the reason why I am able to spend more time than usual on Saferpak.

Thank goodness for Chinese New Year. What do you do at this time of year Charles; tell me about it - I'm interested.

Simon

[bibi]

Thank goodness for Chinese New Year. What do you do at this time of year Charles; tell me about it - I'm interested.

Simon

me too Charles and happy new year

I work in a small manufacturer of short shelf life between 4 & 10 days
Do you believe three class sampling will be best for us and how often shall we do it?
Is it going to validate the HACCP system?

bibi

[Charles Chew]

What do you do at this time of year Charles; tell me about it - I'm interested.

CNY will happen on the 29th of this month and will go on for the next 15 days. Its a big thing Some of us (the lucky ones) would have gone off work a few days ago but most would be working up till today (Friday).

On the 1st morning of CNY, we will have a vegetarian meal (normally brunch) and settle for a re-union dinner with all family members. We exchange gifts ......etc. After that, I would personally be watching TV etc and probably end up having dinners over the next few days in an Italian or some European Restaurants in town to "pamper" myself and my family.

Apart from all these - the firecrackers will be heard all over. Personally, its too noisy for me and CNY is just an excuse to have a break. I am off work for the next 10 days



Hello Bibi

A two class sampling plan will determine whether your samples are acceptable or not acceptable.

While a three-class sampling plan will consider "m" as acceptable quality while units with counts greater than "M" will be unacceptable. Therefore, marginally acceptable quality will affect counts between "m" and "M".

ICMSF recommends the use of both plans to determine the microbiological safety of a product. IMO, I would have both plans in place but I would be likely to use the 3 class plan for my internal use unless a specifics are requested by my buyer.