Editors’ note: This is part 2 of a two-part series on dry cleaning. Part 1, which published in the August/September 2021 issue of Food Quality & Safety, looked at the rationale for dry cleaning and the challenges that can accompany the process. Part 2, published here, focuses on solutions to these challenges.

We tend to think of dry cleaning in the food industry as being related only to those food plants that undertake dry/low water activity food and ingredient processing. But dry cleaning and sanitization can be a valuable option in the control of microbial hazards for any processing plant. Here, we look at solutions related to microbial control through controlled use of water, dry cleaning, and sanitization techniques.

Control Water at the Site of Personnel Entry

As discussed in the first article in this series, the water used to ensure personnel hygiene at the entry point to the production area can itself lead to the growth and spread of contamination. For dry food production, this risk could be minimized through a slight change to the personnel entry procedure; have personnel wear clean production area footwear and protective clothing after thorough hand washing and drying, followed by the use of a hand sanitizer immediately after entry to the food production area (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Suggested personnel entry facility layout for a dry food plant. Image courtesy of Vikan.

Control Water Through Dry Cleaning

Fortunately, when it comes to controlling microbial growth and spread through the use of dry cleaning, there are plenty of methods available. This dry cleaning can be as simple as using a brush and dustpan or as complex as dry ice blasting. Dry cleaning methods include:

• Pigging;
• Granular purging, scrubs, and blasting;
• Dry ice;
• Compressed air;
• Vacuuming;
• Wiping;
• Scraping;
• Scourer pads;
• Brushing, scrubbing, and sweeping;
• Detail cleaning;
• Dry steam; and, if all else fails,
• Disassembly and removal for wet cleaning and drying.

While the use of these dry cleaning methods will limit microbial growth, all have the potential to spread contamination if used inappropriately. Figure 2 ranks most of the different cleaning methods in order of risk with regard to the spread of contamination.

Figure 2. Risk ranking of cleaning methods with regard to spread of contamination. Image courtesy of Vikan.

Most dry cleaning methods are ranked at the lower end of this scale. Notable exceptions to this are the blasting of surfaces with inert granules, sugar, salt, or dry ice fragments and the use of compressed air.

Pigging. This method uses a specialist projectile (the “pig”) that is pushed or pulled through pipework to remove dry debris inside. The pig has a diameter slightly larger than the pipe, and this compact fit enables it to maintain full contact with the pipe and push most of the debris to waste or for recovery. Pigging is a gross contamination removal technique, and further cleaning of the pipes may be required.

Granular purging, scrubs, and blasting. This involves the use of inert granules, or food items such as salt and sugar, to provide an abrasive force for the removal of contamination from the inside surfaces of pipework or open surfaces. For pipework cleaning, care must be taken to select a purge material that will not affect the quality or safety of the product and/or that can be fully recovered or removed as part of the cleaning process.

Dry ice. This method uses carbon dioxide to form dry ice crystals that are then projected at high velocity onto an open surface, where they provide an inert abrasive force for the removal of contamination.

Compressed air. Here, high-pressure air can be used to dislodge contamination from the nooks and crannies of equipment with complex, detailed structures.

For the techniques above that use high speed and/or pressure to aid open surfaces cleaning, be aware that all they do is move the contamination from a surface to the surrounding environment. Thorough cleaning of the surrounding environment will still be required to control the build-up of contamination.

Additionally, be aware that the use of these techniques will lead to the uncontrolled dispersion of particles that may be contaminated with microbes and/or allergens; these particles can remain in the air for considerable periods of time and travel great distances to settle elsewhere in the production area, including on food contact surfaces. Consequently, their use must be considered very carefully.

Vacuuming. This is a fast, effective, and low risk cleaning activity commonly used in dry food production. Even so, there are several things to consider regarding safety and the spread of contamination.

First, in Europe, vacuum cleaners used in dry, dusty environments must be certified to ATEX 95 “equipment” directive 94/9/EC, which covers equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. In the U.S., equipment used for this purpose must have the specific mark of one of the testing laboratories recognized nationally to test and certify this type of equipment.        

Vacuum cleaners should also be fitted with appropriate bag and exhaust filters (e.g., HEPA) to prevent re-contamination of the environment by the air being expelled from the vacuum exhaust.

Another challenge associated with vacuum cleaners is that the attachments, such as brushes and nozzles, are rarely available in different colors, making it difficult to segregate them for different uses, e.g., the cleaning of allergenic versus non-allergenic dry ingredients. Many resort to the use of colored tape, which can bubble and peel, creating contamination traps and increasing foreign body risk.

Vacuum systems are available for high-level cleaning. These will minimize the risk of debris falling onto surfaces below and reduce particle generation.

Wiping. This is another low-risk dry cleaning activity. Cloths can be made of fabric, paper, or microfiber, and can be reuseable or disposable. Low linting fabric and microfiber cloths are recommended, as they minimize foreign bodies, but, if reuseable, they must undergo a suitably validated laundry process to remove contamination between uses. Microfiber that is used dry or damp—not wet—can be extremely effective at removing traces of allergen and oily residues, respectively, even without the use of chemicals.

Similarly, microfiber dry and damp “mopping” systems can be used on floors, walls, and other large, flat surfaces, and microfiber dusters can help remove and capture dry surface contamination.

Scrapers. These can be used for the removal of stubborn deposits that have been dried or baked onto a surface, or heavy grease or confectionary deposits. Scraper blades come in stainless steel, polypropylene, or nylon materials. The choice will depend on the surface type to be cleaned (e.g., liable to scratching or a hot surface), just as the blade shape, size, and thickness will depend on what you are cleaning, such as floors or equipment. Some scrapers can be fitted to a variety of handles to achieve the required reach (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Use scrapers to remove dried or baked-on soils, heavy grease, or confectionary deposits. Image courtesy of Vikan.

Scourer pads. These can also be very effective at removing stubborn deposits; however, they tend to break up during use and, consequently, create a foreign body hazard. They are also difficult to clean and disinfect, due to their net-like structure, which allows food debris and microbes to penetrate and be difficult to remove. Additionally, most, if not all, are non-food contact compliant.

Brushes. These can be used for a variety of dry cleaning activities, including scrubbing, brushing, and sweeping. Stiff-bristled brushes are good for scrubbing and removal of dried-on, stubborn soils. Soft-bristled brushes are good for removal of loose, dry soils, in combination with a dustpan, scoop, or shovel. Single-bladed squeegees are also very effective at removing loose, dry soils and have the advantage that they don’t clog and are much quicker and easier to clean after use.

Brushes can also be used for the removal of high-level debris, but be aware of possible cross-contamination of any surfaces below. Also, be aware that vigorous scrubbing, sweeping, and brushing can lead to greater spread of contamination. The cleaning and sanitation crew should be trained in the efficient, effective use of the cleaning tools and understand that the way they are used can impact contamination spread.

Detail cleaning. This method uses small-scale brushes and scrapers to clean nooks and crannies in complex equipment.

Dry steam. Dry steam is saturated steam that has been very slightly superheated. This state results when water is heated to boiling point and is then vaporized with additional heat. It has a very high dryness fraction, with almost no moisture (<0.5%). The use of dry steam for cleaning has proved useful in aiding the removal of low moisture foods such as fats and chocolate, in combination with scrapers and wipes.

Disassembly and removal for wet cleaning and drying. If any of the above dry cleaning techniques prove untenable, equipment that is moveable can always be removed from the dry production area to a segregated room, where it can be thoroughly wet cleaned and dried before being returned to production.

Control Contamination Through the Use of Dry Sanitization

Several dry sanitization options are available, including the use of alcohol-based wipes and sprays, heat (including dry steam), radiation (including ultraviolet (UV) light), and fumigation using hydrogen peroxide vapor and ozone gas.

Alcohol-based wipes and sprays. The constituents of alcohol-based wipes and sprays produced for use in dry-processing environments should be effective against the target microorganisms, should not introduce water into the environment, and should dry rapidly following application to the surface. For best results, they should also have a residual antimicrobial effect and must be approved for use with food. Common constituents of these wipes and sprays are ethanol or isopropyl alcohol (~60%) and a quaternary ammonium compound (~200 ppm).

Heat. Whether applied to the cleaned surface through the use of hot air, radiated heat, or dry steam, heat is a useful tool in dry sanitization. Dry heat sanitizers can be used for smaller pieces of equipment. This technique is nontoxic, is easy to install, has relatively low operating costs, penetrates materials, and is noncorrosive for metal and sharp instruments. The disadvantages of this method are the slow rate of heat penetration and microbial kill compared with wet-heat options and the fact that the high temperatures used are not suitable for many materials. The most common time–temperature relationships for sanitization with dry-heat sanitizers are 170°C (340°F) for 60 minutes, 160°C (320°F) for 120 minutes, and 150°C (300°F) for 150 minutes.

UV. Treatment with UV light provides a non-thermal, non-chemical technology that will inactivate microorganisms. UV light units are commonly used to disinfect food processing water in factories, treat the air entering the processing area, and sterilize packaging materials before filling. The dose required is a combination of intensity and time and, to be effective, the light rays must strike the microorganism.

UV light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum within the wavelength range of 100 to 400 nanometers (nm). It can be divided into three main bands: UV-C (200 to 280 nm), UV-B (280 to 315 nm), and UV-A (315 to 400 nm). UV-C is commercially used for decontamination applications because it has the greatest germicidal activity. UV-C light (254 nm) primarily inactivates microorganisms by damaging their DNA, which prevents further replication. Microorganisms differ in their sensitivities toward UV treatment due to differences in cell structure, DNA base content, and repair mechanisms. Many microorganisms have enzyme systems that can repair damage caused by UV exposure. Therefore, it’s important to ensure that a sufficient fluence of UV-C is delivered to inactivate the targeted microorganism.

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of some dry sanitization methods.

Fumigation

Vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP). Hydrogen peroxide solutions have been used as chemical sterilants for many years. However, VHP offers a broad spectrum, dry oxidizing sanitization technique that can be used to sanitize both small pieces of equipment (in a chamber), and large and small areas (using atmospheric systems). The chamber systems use a deep vacuum to pull liquid hydrogen peroxide (30% to 35% concentration) from a disposable cartridge through a heated vaporizer and then, following vaporization, into the sterilization chamber. The atmospheric systems typically use a decontamination cycle consisting of four phases:

1. Dehumidification, which reduces the relative humidity of the room being disinfected to less than 40%;
2. Conditioning, when the VHP is produced by vaporization of 35% liquid hydrogen peroxide;
3. Decontamination, maintaining a steady concentration by introducing and removing VHP; and,
4. Aeration, where the residual vapor is catalytically decomposed into water vapor and oxygen.

Fumigation using VHP offers rapid cycle time (e.g., 30-45 minutes), low temperature operation, environmentally safe by-products (H₂O, O₂), good material compatibility, and ease of operation, installation, and monitoring. It has been found to be a highly effective method of eradicating vegetative cells, spores, and viruses. VHP does have some limitations, one of which is that it will cause nylon to become brittle.

Ozone. Ozone is a water-soluble, naturally occurring gas that is a powerful oxidizing agent. It is also very unstable, with a half-life of 22 minutes at room temperature, and, on exposure to air and water, it rapidly converts back to oxygen and water; it therefore needs to be generated at the point of use. Ozone has been used for years as a drinking water disinfectant and can be used as a fumigant to sanitize small pieces of equipment (in a chamber) and for whole-room sanitization. It is created using oxygen, steam-quality water, and electricity. When the O₂ is energized, it splits into two monatomic (O₁) molecules. These then collide with O₂ molecules to form O₃ (ozone). This additional oxygen atom creates the powerful ozone oxidant with demonstrable efficacy with a variety of microorganisms. As a rule, a 2-log reduction in two hours with 2 ppm gaseous ozone has been suggested. Ozone also has the advantage of being compatible with a wide range of commonly used materials, including stainless steel, titanium, anodized aluminum, ceramic, glass, silica, PVC, Teflon, silicone, polypropylene, polyethylene, and acrylic (Table 1).

No matter which solutions you choose, it is essential that the equipment and chemicals you use are appropriately approved for use in food preparation areas and can be used in contact with food and/or food-contact surfaces. The cleaning and sanitization processes should also be validated and verified. ■

Smith is global hygiene specialist at Vikan. Reach her at dsmith@vikan.com. Dr. Vasavada is professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls and co-industry editor of Food Quality & Safety. Reach him at purnendu.c.vasavada@uwrf.edu.

The post Dry Cleaning in the Food Industry: Solutions to Challenges appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Editors’ note: This is part 1 of a two-part series on dry cleaning. Part 1 looks at the rationale for dry cleaning, and the challenges that can accompany the process. Part 2, which published in the October/November 2021 issue of Food Quality & Safety, focuses on solutions to these challenges.

We tend to think of dry cleaning in the food industry as being related only to those food plants that undertake dry/low water activity (a_w) food and ingredient processing. But, dry cleaning and sanitization can be a valuable option in the control of microbial hazards for any processing plant. In this series of articles, we look at the rationale, challenges, and solutions related to microbial control through controlled use of water, dry cleaning, and other sanitization techniques.

Rationale

The production of dehydrated foods and food ingredients with low a_w, such as cereals, chocolate, cocoa powder, dried fruits and vegetables, dried meats, egg powder, herbs, spices, condiments, milk powder, whey protein powders, pasta, powdered infant formula (PIF), grains, and seeds is popular, due to their long shelf life and less stringent holding and storage condition requirements.

Low-moisture and low a_w foods also have advantages in that they are less prone to spoilage. Although low a_w foods seem to have clear advantages with respect to controlling the growth of microorganisms, there are, nevertheless, major concerns regarding the survival of pathogenic microorganisms, and outbreaks linked to low a_w foods and dry ingredients have been reported. Major foodborne pathogens of concern include Salmonella spp., Bacillus cereus, Cronobacter sakazakii, Clostridium spp., E. coli O157:H7, and Staphylococcus aureus.

Many food processors and consumers mistakenly believe that dried foods are sterile or that microorganisms do not survive in dried food due to their low moisture content. However, many microorganisms, including pathogens, are able to survive drying processes and, while they may not grow, vegetative cells and spores may remain viable for several months or even years. Microorganisms are known to persist longer in dried foods and dry food processing environments than in foods and environments with higher moisture content and low a_w. It’s also important to note that foodborne pathogens in low a_w foods and environments may have an increased tolerance to heat and other treatments that are lethal to cells in high a_w environments, making them very difficult to eliminate in many dry foods or dry food ingredients without compromising the quality of the food product.

Potential sources of microbial contamination in dried foods include incoming raw materials and ingredients, the external environment (surroundings, water, air, pests), inadequate cleaning and sanitation, inadequate processing, and post-processing contamination, mainly through the food plant environment. Primary strategies for reducing microbial pathogens include:

• Supplying specifications segregating hygiene areas to separate dry and wet processing areas;
• Controlling human and material movement in the plant to avoid cross-contamination,
• Implementing effective dry-cleaning and wet-cleaning practices; and
• Employing an effective environmental pathogen monitoring program, particularly in a facility producing ready-to-eat (RTE) foods.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), signed into law in January 2011, represents a paradigm shift from reaction-based systems to prevention-based systems and clearly places the burden of assuring food safety on the food manufacturer. The “Current Good Manufacturing Practice Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food,” or the Preventive Controls for Human Food (PCHF) rule, requires food processors to identify “known or foreseeable” hazards in foods, using a risk-based hazard analysis, and identify preventive control(s) to mitigate the hazard identified. In addition, management components such as monitoring; procedures for corrective action, verification, and record keeping; supply chain programs; and recall plans are also required. The FSMA PCHF is based on the modified cGMPs and includes sanitation controls. The PCHF regulation emphasizes environmental monitoring programs, as well as targeted sampling and testing, as appropriate ways to control microbial hazards in RTE foods.

Other FSMA regulations, including Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals (FSVP) and the Sanitary Food Transportation Act (SFTA) may also apply to dry food manufacturers.

Controlling the potential for dry/low a_w food contamination with foodborne pathogens should therefore focus on preventing this problem through implementation of efficient cleaning and sanitation procedures in the food processing environment. Food processing environments in which dried foods are handled must be maintained at low humidity and kept dry, a requirement that gives rise to the need for specific cleaning and sanitizing procedures. The challenges of cleaning and sanitation in dry food plants and specific approaches to accomplishing efficient and effective sanitation and hygiene are discussed below.

Challenges

Dry cleaning is hard work. Let’s face it: Cleaning with water is easy, fast, and effective. There also seems to be something in our psyche that makes us enjoy using water. By contrast, dry cleaning is hard work, tedious, and awkward. It often takes considerably longer to do than cleaning with water and adds pressure on an already beleaguered hygiene team to minimize cleaning windows in favor of production.

So, why should we dry clean? Well unfortunately, for all of its benefits, water also comes with some serious downsides, especially when it comes to its use in the food industry.

Water promotes microbial growth and spread. We know that some microbes can survive in dry environments, but most require five things to grow: nutrients, water, the right temperature, the right atmosphere, and time. Once established, microbes can spread throughout an environment via vectors, namely on surfaces (hands, equipment, packaging), through the air (particles), and via water (droplets, aerosols, splashes, standing water). The presence of water significantly increases the risk of both microbial growth and spread.

Figure 1. Water droplets on the floor surrounding a hand wash sink.

In a food factory, access to nutrients will rarely be a problem. Similarly, working temperatures and atmospheres must be kept at levels people can tolerate—levels that tend to also favor most microbes. Consequently, within a dry/low a_w food factory, there are generally only two things we can control—time and water. We deal with time through the use of cleaning windows that remove contamination at a frequency that limits microbial growth. But how do we clean without water?

Water spreads contamination. We know from various studies that water, in the form of droplets, aerosols, and standing water, can significantly aid the spread of contamination. Research conducted at Campden BRI demonstrated that “contamination” on a wet boot can be transferred over 24 m on a dry floor. However, if that floor is wet, the transfer distance increases to more than 35 m. If the boot is contaminated with microbes, a few can be detected on a dry floor for up to four steps, but they can be found for more than 15 steps on a wet floor.

Unfortunately, some of the measures we take to reduce the spread of contamination may actually increase it. Take handwashing, for example, which forms a fundamental part of any food production site’s personal hygiene policy. This action is aimed at the removal of contamination from peoples’ hands and, consequently, minimizing the risk of contamination transfer to the food product. However, the act of handwashing itself can lead to the spread of contamination.

Figure 2. CFUs developed on agar plates arranged on the floor around a handwash sink.

Studies conducted by Campden BRI have demonstrated that a significant number of water droplets (circled in pen in Figure 1), many of them carrying microbial contamination (as indicated by the number of colony-forming units developed on agar plates arranged on the floor around the handwash sink in Figure 2), fall onto the surrounding floor during handwashing. Imagine the amount of water and contamination that could accumulate in this area at the start of a shift and, subsequently, be transferred by footwear into the production area.

It’s not just the floor that can become contaminated during handwashing. Campden BRI studies have shown that the protective clothing worn by food production area workers can also be affected.

Additionally, if a worker’s hands are dried using high velocity air, the risk of cross-contamination from water droplets to both the floor and the protective clothing worn can be increased and, if they are not dried thoroughly after washing, any microbes remaining on the hands are more easily transferred to any surface subsequently touched.

Figure 3. Water droplet spread by a high-pressure hose.

Even in a wet-cleaned food production area, the use of some wet-cleaning activities can significantly increase the risk of contamination spread. The model in Figure 3 illustrates the spread of water droplets generated when a high-pressure hose is used to clean a slot drain. In this case, the droplets spread a minimum distance of 7 m and at a height of up to 3.5 m, meaning that they could potentially settle on food contact surfaces.

Consequently, the way we use water for cleaning, even in wet food production environments, needs to be considered carefully.

In part 2 of this article, we’ll look at the solutions to these challenges, including ways in which we can reduce the risk of microbial growth and spread through use of modified personnel hygiene and entry systems. We’ll also cover dry cleaning and sanitization techniques.

Smith is global hygiene specialist at Vikan Ltd. Reach her at dsmith@vikan.com. Dr. Vasavada is professor emeritus of food science at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls and co-industry editor of Food Quality & Safety. Reach him at purnendu.c.vasavada@uwrf.edu.

The post Dry Cleaning in the Food Industry: Rationale and Challenges appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Food processing equipment poses unique challenges for maintenance personnel. Wet operating conditions and washdown requirements can require specially designed equipment to help ensure mandated sanitation compliance. This results in increasing pressure for manufacturers to design food processing equipment that is easier to clean and maintain and reduces downtime.

Millions of dollars are invested each year in capital improvements to facilities and equipment to increase product safety, protect employees, and reduce costs. Equipment in a typical food processing plant may run 16 to 20 hours a day, every day. Often, equipment failure is the most common cause for downtime. The longer it takes plant personnel to respond and repair equipment, the more damaging the interruption. What’s more, systems that are not at full speed create a domino effect that can result in missed deadlines, lost revenue, and disappointed customers. Unplanned downtime can cost a food processing facility an astounding $30,000 per hour, according to a 2017 report from industry research firm Enterprise Strategy Group. Downtime can cost a company more than just money; it can be a logistical nightmare. The expenses and ramifications are simply too high for plants to risk equipment failures.

Maintaining Sanitation

The Food Safety Modernization Act is transforming the nation’s food safety system by shifting the focus from responding to foodborne illness to preventing it. Product recalls cost food and beverage companies millions of dollars each year, but 56 percent of last year’s recalls across the U.S., U.K., and Ireland were preventable, according to the Queen’s Center for Assured and Traceable Foods in the U.K. Processors must commit to improving equipment hygiene; however, keeping equipment clean presents obstacles, which manufacturers can help overcome.

According to a Deloitte Food Safety Programs report, Food Safety Management: An Enterprise and Operational Level Risk Perspective, “reliably delivering safe and quality food is no longer just about food safety science. An effective safe food program needs a broad approach that incorporates science as well as strategic process and risk planning. Risks to food safety exist along each step of this complex farm-to-fork continuum regardless of the journey’s length—local farmer to restaurant table or foreign source to domestic manufacturing site.”

Food processing plants are very difficult environments for motors due to the daily cleaning and sanitizing of equipment. Harsh chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and other caustics are used to clean equipment and can be extremely corrosive. In addition to caustic chemicals, high pressure spray is used, sometimes up to 1000 psi, with the nozzle held just a few inches away from the motor. While this ensures the removal of all contaminants from the equipment, water enters these motors and does extensive damage.

Washdown Motors Reduce Downtime and Energy Costs

With rising costs for energy and labor, the need is greater than ever to optimize equipment reliability to maximize uptime and productivity. According to a 2018 McKinsey & Company report, “Customers are demanding machines that improve operational efficiency, cut costs, and increase uptimes….”

Food processing companies can help reduce foodborne illnesses and operating costs through the use of encapsulated stainless steel food safety motors. Unfortunately, because electric motors are often out of sight and out of mind until production is down due to a burnout, this improvement is often not thought about. However, being proactive can have a dramatic effect on the bottom line.

A stainless steel washdown motor is suitable where motors are commonly exposed to moisture, humidity, and specific chemicals that cause corrosion. With the use of washdown motors, flexibility and durability are enhanced, which can lower operating expenses while increasing uptime. Hygienic equipment design not only mitigates the potential areas prone to harbor bacteria, but it also facilitates post-sanitation evaluation by ensuring accessibility during visual verification and environmental monitoring.

Specially engineered stainless steel motors also don’t have a need for paint that could flake into the food, hold in moisture, and hide corrosion. They are of “totally enclosed, not ventilated” (TENV) design, which means that they do not have a fan and fan cover, both of which are difficult to clean and could be breeding spaces for bacteria. For example, replacing all painted, standard motors on a plant’s conveyor belts—particularly in the processing area—with 2-HP stainless encapsulated motors allows for far greater reliability, particularly in the extreme conditions of a food processing plant.

According to a 2018 article in IndustryWeek, while electricity is the largest energy cost for most food and beverage plants, it also offers the greatest opportunities for savings and can deliver the fastest payback. Electric motors used in production facilities with conveyors are almost always on, driving the energy bill higher. The typical industrial plant can reduce its electricity use by around five to 15 percent by simply improving the efficiency of its motor-driven systems. Committing to running a more energy-efficient food manufacturing plant takes work, but the payoffs are well worth the energy, time, and money that are put into it. Manufacturing facilities in the U.S. spend $200 billion annually to power facilities, yet, by not implementing good energy management processes, the same companies waste nearly 30 percent of that energy. High-efficiency washdown motors reduce energy costs, improve plant efficiency and load factor, and lessen maintenance costs.

Upgrade Incentives

Many states have created monetary rebate programs qualifying food processing plants for upgrades. Following are just a few examples:

The Wisconsin Food Processing Plant and Food Warehouse Investment Credit is a refundable tax credit for businesses that have invested to modernize or expand food processing plants or food warehouses in Wisconsin and who have been certified by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce. Tax credits are earned by incurring eligible expenses for modernization or expansion of a food processing plant or food warehouse. This includes constructing, improving, or acquiring buildings or facilities, or acquiring equipment for food processing or food warehousing.

Wisconsin also has the Meat Processing Facility Investment Credit program to support the modernization of the state’s meat processing industry. The tax credits build on the success of the state’s dairy modernization and investment tax programs. The program provides a tax credit for up to 10 percent of the costs meat processors invest in modernization or expansion. Eligible expenditures include construction, additions, utility upgrades, equipment, and technology.

Because the food processing industry is one of the largest energy users in California, the state established the Food Production Investment Program, which encourages California food producers to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The program’s initial budget in 2018 provided up to $57 million to help accelerate the adoption of advanced energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.

The Food Production Investment Program helps producers replace high-energy-consuming equipment and systems with market-ready and advanced technologies and equipment. The program also accelerates the adoption of state-of-the-art energy technologies that can substantially reduce energy use and costs and associated GHG emissions.

Iowa’s MidAmerican Energy Advantage program realizes that a key barrier to strategic energy management for food processing companies can be the financial costs. MidAmerican Energy provides rebates for high-efficiency motors to help commercial, industrial, and agricultural businesses with energy and bill savings.

Through the installation of energy-efficient washdown motors, food processing plants can move from a reactive to a more controlled, predictive maintenance approach and help improve sanitation, extend machine life, and reduce operating costs.

Calloway is the product manager for the commercial distribution business segment of Regal Beloit Corporation based in Beloit, Wis. Reach him at john.calloway@regalbeloit.com.

The post How to Improve Sanitation at Food Processing Plants While Lowering Costs appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

In today’s ever-changing food safety environment, food manufacturers strive to meet current regulations while balancing downtime and production efficiencies. Despite the critical importance of cleaning production equipment, the task is often undervalued. In some cases, the hierarchy of cleaning processes that could be implemented is misunderstood. Regardless of the size of the production plant, routine cleaning is required and must be factored into the master cleaning schedule and daily housekeeping activities.

There are different levels of cleanliness that food manufacturers should be familiar with and strategically implement. The minimum standard for cleaning is “visually” clean; however, this is simply removing food and debris from a surface to the extent that the human eye can see it. As any microbiologist will attest, what cannot be seen can and will still hurt you. So, what’s the next step in the process after removing the visual debris? This is where sanitizing and disinfecting come in. Having a solid understanding of some general principles will better equip plants with the ability to attain a higher level of clean.

Like many terms used in the industry, plant personnel can easily confuse sanitizing with disinfecting. So, what is the difference between the two? According to the FDA, “Sanitize means to adequately treat food-contact surfaces by a process that is effective in destroying vegetative cells of microorganisms of public health significance, and in substantially reducing numbers of other undesirable microorganisms, but without adversely affecting the product or its safety for the consumer.” In simpler terms, many experts say sanitizing kills 99.9% of bacteria and helps reduce its numbers to safe levels, while disinfecting goes even further and kills more microorganisms (including certain viruses and molds).

Many factors influence an effective safety and sanitation program, with the best approach generally being more complex than simply grabbing a bottle of bleach. Because not all sanitizers and disinfectants are created equally, a good starting point is knowing what you’re trying to clean and the options available for doing so.

Define the Target
Give primary consideration to the types of bacteria and other microorganisms you are targeting; this will help you determine whether you need to sanitize or disinfect. This information is usually found in the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) or food safety plan with the ingredient and process hazard analysis.

Many facilities use adenosine triphosphate (ATP) swabbing to start a historical record of general cleaning and will then often base cleaning frequencies on this documentation, using total plate count for additional information. Since most sites will not conduct pathogen testing on a product contact surface, the microbiological swabbing programs for zones 2 and 3 are often included in the risk assessment when determining whether to sanitize or disinfect.

Biofilms from the microorganisms must also be considered because they can act like a shield preventing the removal of the bacteria from the surface and thus play a part in the frequency of cleaning and sanitizing. If the microbiological risks are uncertain, resources offering guidance are available through agencies such as USDA, FDA, universities, chemical supply companies, and private food safety consulting and training firms.

Assess Your Options
Sanitizing and disinfecting can be completed in numerous ways, including through the use of heat, pasteurization, pressure, or irradiation, to name just a few. Another—and more accessible —way to complete sanitizing and disinfection is through the use of chemicals. Multiple factors will contribute to the process of choosing the most suitable chemicals to apply.

In selecting the right chemical, first consider whether the proposed sanitizer or disinfecting agent is authorized for use in a food processing facility. Often, over-the-counter home use chemicals contain perfumes, dyes, and inert compounds that are not authorized for a food processor. In the United States, sanitizers and disinfectants are regulated by EPA and must meet its criteria for labeling, storage, use, and disposal. Always refer to the chemical label and safety data sheet (SDS) directions for this information.

In addition, depending on your type of facility, these chemicals need to meet FDA and/or USDA regulations for food contact. You can get this authorization information from the chemical manufacturer through letters of guarantee and technical data sheets.

Also take into account whether the product is high risk or low risk, and whether the sanitizing or disinfecting process will occur pre- or post-kill step. The surface the chemical will be applied to must also be considered, as many chemicals can stain, degrade, or even react with the application area. Contact the equipment manufacturer and chemical supplier to determine which chemicals can be safely used on your plant’s equipment.

Another factor to keep in mind is bacterial resistance to chemicals. Many companies choose to rotate their sanitizers throughout the year to avoid such resistance. One example would be to go from a chlorine-based sanitizer to an acid or quaternary ammonia-based sanitizer.

Also remember that sanitizers and disinfectants both need contact time (called “dwell time”) and concentration levels to achieve their goal. Many high-concentration sanitizers and disinfectants need a potable rinse following application to adequately remove them from the contact surface, so consideration should be given to whether a no-rinse sanitizer is warranted.

To help ensure proper use, many sanitizers and disinfectants can now be purchased ready to use, while other chemicals may have to be manually diluted or placed in automatic dispensers and, in some cases, specific water temperatures are required for effective use. Some chemical supply companies can even custom blend chemicals to achieve optimum results. There are many options to choose from, so discussing specific requirements with a chemical supplier can aid in implementing a successful sanitizing and disinfecting program.

Safety determinations aside, other chemical choice restrictions may apply, such as those imposed by customers, religious protocols (e.g., kosher), or special certifications (e.g., organic). Many sanitizers can also be used as disinfectants if mixed at higher concentrations or allowed to stay on a surface for longer periods of time, so, if you want to minimize the number of chemicals on hand, choosing just one chemical to serve a dual purpose may be amenable. Usage directions on the chemical label can aid in such a decision.

What to Choose

Here are a few points and situations that may further direct your approach:
• Wash pit/equipment parts washroom: Because the smaller parts cleaned in these areas can be used throughout the plant, most sites use hot water with a general-purpose cleaner and a chlorine-based or quaternary ammonia-based sanitizer.
• Floor drains: Sanitizing and disinfecting floor drains is a must in a production environment. Many microorganisms can be found in these locations, which is why most plants use a strong sanitizer or disinfect drains. Because drainpipes and drain grates are not all made of the same material, it is important to identify the material and ensure that the sanitizing and disinfecting processes does not damage or erode them.
• Roof leaks: A roof leak potentially can carry very harmful microorganisms, so disinfecting the area of the leak is strongly recommended. Items used to contain or divert the leaks should also be on a disinfecting schedule. Since disinfecting does not kill 100 percent of microorganisms, many plants discard their diverters after the roof is repaired to avoid unintentionally providing an area for microorganisms to harbor.
• A one-production-line bakery making a single type of bread: Pre- and post-oven sections of the production environment usually do not have a large space to store chemicals. In this circumstance, a general-purpose sanitizer that can also be used as a disinfectant at higher concentrations and/or longer dwell time may be most practical. You can disinfect more frequently prior to the oven and less frequently after the oven due to the differing temperatures and, thus, distinct environments for microorganism growth.
• Manufacturer of ready-to-eat refrigerated dips with no kill step: A strong sanitizer, and sometimes a disinfectant, should most likely be used in this situation because the risk of microbiological growth is much higher in this type of operation. Since the product does not go through a cooking step (kill step), the cleaning and sanitizing processes are often conducted daily or more frequently to reduce the risk of contamination.
• Biohazards: Always use a disinfectant when there is a biohazard spill in your plant. Such a spill contains many additional microorganisms not usually associated with the production process, so you’ll need to give more attention to the spill than you would with a typical disinfecting scenario. Always be sure you have the appropriate disinfectant listed in your cleaning procedures to address these types of spills.

Ultimately, the determination of whether to sanitize or disinfect is a decision that must be made in coordination with the HACCP/food safety team, as changes to equipment, processes, raw materials, or ingredients will greatly affect the requirements. In addition, actively involving the chemical supplier or chemical manufacturer will help determine and address specific chemical needs. Keeping current with microbiological research is also necessary since new potential hazards and harborage areas are identified each year.

Every plant is unique and has individual sanitizing and disinfecting needs. The more personnel and information you involve in this discussion, the more likely it is that you’ll meet your sanitizing and disinfecting needs.

Zaher is manager of operations for the Americas at AIB International in Manhattan, Kansas. Reach him at bzaher@aibinternational.com.

The post Beyond a Bottle of Bleach appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

In today’s ever-changing food safety environment, food manufacturers strive to meet current regulations while balancing downtime and production efficiencies. Despite the critical importance of cleaning production equipment, the task is often undervalued. In some cases, the hierarchy of cleaning processes that could be implemented is misunderstood. Regardless of the size of the production plant, routine cleaning is required and must be factored into the master cleaning schedule and daily housekeeping activities.

There are different levels of cleanliness that food manufacturers should be familiar with and strategically implement. The minimum standard for cleaning is “visually” clean; however, this is simply removing food and debris from a surface to the extent that the human eye can see it. As any microbiologist will attest, what cannot be seen can and will still hurt you. So, what’s the next step in the process after removing the visual debris? This is where sanitizing and disinfecting come in. Having a solid understanding of some general principles will better equip plants with the ability to attain a higher level of clean.

Like many terms used in the industry, plant personnel can easily confuse sanitizing with disinfecting. So, what is the difference between the two? According to the FDA, “Sanitize means to adequately treat food-contact surfaces by a process that is effective in destroying vegetative cells of microorganisms of public health significance, and in substantially reducing numbers of other undesirable microorganisms, but without adversely affecting the product or its safety for the consumer.” In simpler terms, many experts say sanitizing kills 99.9% of bacteria and helps reduce its numbers to safe levels, while disinfecting goes even further and kills more microorganisms (including certain viruses and molds).

Many factors influence an effective safety and sanitation program, with the best approach generally being more complex than simply grabbing a bottle of bleach. Because not all sanitizers and disinfectants are created equally, a good starting point is knowing what you’re trying to clean and the options available for doing so.

Define the Target

Give primary consideration to the types of bacteria and other microorganisms you are targeting; this will help you determine whether you need to sanitize or disinfect. This information is usually found in the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) or food safety plan with the ingredient and process hazard analysis.

Many facilities use adenosine triphosphate (ATP) swabbing to start a historical record of general cleaning and will then often base cleaning frequencies on this documentation, using total plate count for additional information. Since most sites will not conduct pathogen testing on a product contact surface, the microbiological swabbing programs for zones 2 and 3 are often included in the risk assessment when determining whether to sanitize or disinfect.

Biofilms from the microorganisms must also be considered because they can act like a shield preventing the removal of the bacteria from the surface and thus play a part in the frequency of cleaning and sanitizing. If the microbiological risks are uncertain, resources offering guidance are available through agencies such as USDA, FDA, universities, chemical supply companies, and private food safety consulting and training firms.

Assess Your Disinfecting Options

Sanitizing and disinfecting can be completed in numerous ways, including through the use of heat, pasteurization, pressure, or irradiation, to name just a few. Another—and more accessible —way to complete sanitizing and disinfection is through the use of chemicals. Multiple factors will contribute to the process of choosing the most suitable chemicals to apply.

In selecting the right chemical, first consider whether the proposed sanitizer or disinfecting agent is authorized for use in a food processing facility. Often, over-the-counter home use chemicals contain perfumes, dyes, and inert compounds that are not authorized for a food processor. In the United States, sanitizers and disinfectants are regulated by EPA and must meet its criteria for labeling, storage, use, and disposal. Always refer to the chemical label and safety data sheet (SDS) directions for this information.

In addition, depending on your type of facility, these chemicals need to meet FDA and/or USDA regulations for food contact. You can get this authorization information from the chemical manufacturer through letters of guarantee and technical data sheets.

Also take into account whether the product is high risk or low risk, and whether the sanitizing or disinfecting process will occur pre- or post-kill step. The surface the chemical will be applied to must also be considered, as many chemicals can stain, degrade, or even react with the application area. Contact the equipment manufacturer and chemical supplier to determine which chemicals can be safely used on your plant’s equipment.

Another factor to keep in mind is bacterial resistance to chemicals. Many companies choose to rotate their sanitizers throughout the year to avoid such resistance. One example would be to go from a chlorine-based sanitizer to an acid or quaternary ammonia-based sanitizer.

Also remember that sanitizers and disinfectants both need contact time (called “dwell time”) and concentration levels to achieve their goal. Many high-concentration sanitizers and disinfectants need a potable rinse following application to adequately remove them from the contact surface, so consideration should be given to whether a no-rinse sanitizer is warranted.

To help ensure proper use, many sanitizers and disinfectants can now be purchased ready to use, while other chemicals may have to be manually diluted or placed in automatic dispensers and, in some cases, specific water temperatures are required for effective use. Some chemical supply companies can even custom blend chemicals to achieve optimum results. There are many options to choose from, so discussing specific requirements with a chemical supplier can aid in implementing a successful sanitizing and disinfecting program.

Safety determinations aside, other chemical choice restrictions may apply, such as those imposed by customers, religious protocols (e.g., kosher), or special certifications (e.g., organic). Many sanitizers can also be used as disinfectants if mixed at higher concentrations or allowed to stay on a surface for longer periods of time, so, if you want to minimize the number of chemicals on hand, choosing just one chemical to serve a dual purpose may be amenable. Usage directions on the chemical label can aid in such a decision.

What to Choose

Here are a few points and situations that may further direct your approach:

• Wash pit/equipment parts washroom: Because the smaller parts cleaned in these areas can be used throughout the plant, most sites use hot water with a general-purpose cleaner and a chlorine-based or quaternary ammonia-based sanitizer.
• Floor drains: Sanitizing and disinfecting floor drains is a must in a production environment. Many microorganisms can be found in these locations, which is why most plants use a strong sanitizer or disinfect drains. Because drainpipes and drain grates are not all made of the same material, it is important to identify the material and ensure that the sanitizing and disinfecting processes does not damage or erode them.
• Roof leaks: A roof leak potentially can carry very harmful microorganisms, so disinfecting the area of the leak is strongly recommended. Items used to contain or divert the leaks should also be on a disinfecting schedule. Since disinfecting does not kill 100 percent of microorganisms, many plants discard their diverters after the roof is repaired to avoid unintentionally providing an area for microorganisms to harbor.
• A one-production-line bakery making a single type of bread: Pre- and post-oven sections of the production environment usually do not have a large space to store chemicals. In this circumstance, a general-purpose sanitizer that can also be used as a disinfectant at higher concentrations and/or longer dwell time may be most practical. You can disinfect more frequently prior to the oven and less frequently after the oven due to the differing temperatures and, thus, distinct environments for microorganism growth.
• Manufacturer of ready-to-eat refrigerated dips with no kill step: A strong sanitizer, and sometimes a disinfectant, should most likely be used in this situation because the risk of microbiological growth is much higher in this type of operation. Since the product does not go through a cooking step (kill step), the cleaning and sanitizing processes are often conducted daily or more frequently to reduce the risk of contamination.
• Biohazards: Always use a disinfectant when there is a biohazard spill in your plant. Such a spill contains many additional microorganisms not usually associated with the production process, so you’ll need to give more attention to the spill than you would with a typical disinfecting scenario. Always be sure you have the appropriate disinfectant listed in your cleaning procedures to address these types of spills.

Ultimately, the determination of whether to sanitize or disinfect is a decision that must be made in coordination with the HACCP/food safety team, as changes to equipment, processes, raw materials, or ingredients will greatly affect the requirements. In addition, actively involving the chemical supplier or chemical manufacturer will help determine and address specific chemical needs. Keeping current with microbiological research is also necessary since new potential hazards and harborage areas are identified each year.

Every plant is unique and has individual sanitizing and disinfecting needs. The more personnel and information you involve in this discussion, the more likely it is that you’ll meet your sanitizing and disinfecting needs.

Zaher is manager of operations for the Americas at AIB International in Manhattan, Kansas. Reach him at bzaher@aibinternational.com.

The post Best Practices for Effective Sanitizing and Disinfecting for Food Manufacturers appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Given what we now know about the opportunistic nature of food spoilage organisms, it is somewhat difficult to comprehend that processing plants and food service operations were once filled with food contact surfaces (e.g., wooden cutting boards, hard plastic sinks, and rubber conveyor belts) that greatly abetted their growth.

For even the most industrious sanitation crews of bygone times, cleaning and sanitizing a wide assortment of food contact surfaces were difficult, at best, to near impossible at worst.

Due to technological advances in hygienic food equipment design (clean in place), innovations in production equipment (i.e., the widespread implementation of stainless steel), and enhancements in preparation utensils, many contact surfaces are less prone to harbor potentially harmful food residues.

Nevertheless, the challenge of deterring the growth of bacteria, fungi, viruses, and other spoilage organisms on food contact surfaces is more pressing than ever in a heightened food safety-minded environment. Contaminated equipment and utensils have been cited as one of the leading risk factors most responsible for foodborne illness outbreaks in the U.S.

Local public health officials and federal regulators emphasize the importance of cleaning and sanitizing contact surfaces to prevent foodborne disease, and verification of the concentration of widely used chemical sanitizers through requisite testing. In addition to food plants, food service operations, and restaurants, contaminated food contact surfaces have been identified in a broad spectrum of institutions that prepare and serve meals, such as hospitals, military bases, long-term care facilities, supermarket delis, and schools.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the meat and poultry oversight branch of USDA, states that the proper sanitization of contact surfaces is a fundamental and important task for food establishments. When performed correctly, according to FSIS, the sanitization of food contact surfaces: 1) decreases the chance of spreading foodborne illness from a food handler to a consumer; and 2) reduces the likelihood of contaminating previously safe food by destroying microorganisms found in food processing, preparation, and storage areas.

Gone in 30 Seconds

In accordance with sanitation standard operating procedures exercised across the food industry, food chemical sanitizers are used in tandem with detergents and water to kill potentially harmful microbes on food contact surfaces.

A food product contact surface is defined as a surface in direct contact with food residue, or where food residue can drip, drain, diffuse, or be drawn. Among the most frequently referenced contact surfaces in peer-reviewed scientific literature are cutting boards, knives, prep tables, sinks, scales, slicers, mixing bowls, food containers, and thermometers.

Food-grade chemical sanitizers from reputable suppliers, such as Ecolab, Inc., Birko Chemical Corp., ChemStation International, Diversey, and Zep Manufacturing, are approved by FDA for use in food facilities.

FDA-sanctioned sanitizers must destroy 99.999 percent of harmful bacteria within 30 seconds of a single application, be stable under a myriad of environmental conditions, and have low toxicity. Chemical sanitizers, which are registered through EPA, are reviewed for concentration efficacy, safety data, and product labeling information prior to being approved.

Noting it is difficult to overstate the importance of chemical sanitizers, Mark Carter, executive vice president of corporate development of Matrix Sciences, a full-service food testing and consulting laboratory that provides companies with analytical and business-based solutions, says the effective control of spoilage organisms is a “hidden gem” in strong and sustainable sanitation programs.

“The value of effective sanitizer use can sometimes get lost or overlooked in sanitation programs,” Carter proclaims. “It is inherently obvious, however, that chemical sanitizers—when applied at appropriate concentrations—are highly beneficial in helping industry stakeholders safeguard food products from disease-causing microorganisms.”

Sanitizer Scorecard

Scores of chemical sanitizers are utilized in food establishments. When choosing one for a particular food environment, users must weigh a host of considerations. Chief among them are the effectiveness at reducing microbial contamination in specific conditions, ease of application, need for rinsing, toxic/irritating properties, and compatibility with available water. The following section provides a brief synopsis of some of the most commonly used food-grade sanitizers.

Chlorine. Highly effective and relatively inexpensive, chlorine is the most commonly used chemical sanitizer agent. Typical chlorine compounds include liquid chlorine, hypochlorites, inorganic chloramines, and organic chloramines. These germicides attack microbial membranes, oxidize cellular protein, and inhibit cellular enzymes involved in glucose metabolism. Chlorine is effective against most bacteria, viruses, fungi, and bacterial spores. Chlorine solutions are highly corrosive and should not be used on surfaces that rust easily. The activity of chlorine is affected by such factors as pH, temperature, and soil load. In comparison with other sanitizers, chlorine is less affected by water hardness. Like most chemical sanitizers, the efficacy of chlorine can be diminished by the presence of food residues. Household chlorine should not be utilized in food facilities as it often contains substances and additives that are not approved for food use.

Quaternary ammonium compounds. Commonly known as quats or QACs, quaternary ammonium compounds are positively charged ions that are naturally attracted to negatively charged materials such as bacterial proteins. Effective against bacteria, yeasts, molds, and viruses, quats are active and stable over a broad temperature range. Usually odorless, non-staining, and non-corrosive, quaternary ammonium compounds are relatively nontoxic to users.

Iodophors. These act against bacteria, viruses, yeasts, molds, fungi, and protozoans. They attach themselves to sulfurs in proteins, which basically renders those proteins inactive. Iodophors have a continuous effect on microbial death due to a sustained-release effect. From a cost consideration, they are pricey and can stain some surfaces, especially plastics.

Peroxyacetic acids. Effective against most microorganisms, peroxyacetic acids (PAAs) are also efficient in removing biofilms. Normal cleaning and sanitizing methods, including chlorine use, usually do not eliminate disease-producing microorganisms that live in protective biofilm. Deemed as environmentally friendly, PAAs break down into acetic acid, oxygen, and water.

The Human Element

Proper sanitization occurs when specific chemical concentrations, time/temperature requirements, and water conditions are met. A lengthy list of factors, however, can affect the efficacy of chemical sanitizers, including:

• Concentration of the sanitizer (ppm)—too much can be toxic, too little is ineffective;
• Temperature of the sanitizing solutions—each has an ideal temperature for best effectiveness;
• Contact time with the surface or equipment to be sanitized—time needed to have a sanitizing effect;
• The pH and/or hardness of the water being used;
• Cleaning and rinsing—poor cleaning and rinsing can inactivate or reduce the effects of the sanitizer;
• Material being cleaned (plastic, metal, wood, glass)—some sanitizers are better on certain surfaces;
• Microbial load—the number of microbes on the equipment or surface initially; and
• Type of microorganism present—some microorganisms are more tolerant to certain sanitizers than others.

The knowledge of employees is another crucial factor that can greatly affect the efficacy of chemical sanitizers. Throughout the U.S., large numbers of food workers are trained on safe food handling practices, including cleaning and sanitizing procedures. Studies have revealed that training improves the food safety knowledge of industry employees. Unfortunately, this knowledge does not always transfer to the application of prescribed sanitary practices.

Consequently, it is imperative for companies to measure the effectiveness of sanitation training through employee testing, observing worker competencies up close in actual work settings, and reinforcing learning as necessary to achieve desired training outcomes.

Workers, at a minimum, should know how to mix sanitizers properly and how to test sanitizer concentrations at assigned temperatures. Without question, food employees are a critical human element in the appropriate use and optimal performance of chemical sanitizers.

Power of Concentration

Drawing upon 24 years of experience as a food microbiologist and researcher with Kraft Foods and the McKee Food Corp. among others, Carter states it is necessary to verify every aspect of sanitation programs, including sanitizer concentration.

“Verifying sanitizer efficacy is a key process in managing a rigorous cleaning and sanitizing program,” he says. “Verification can be accomplished through various means, but when done correctly, it can help companies keep their sanitation systems under control.”

Federal, state, and local health regulations require companies to verify the concentration of chemical solutions through sanitizer test kits.

Through the efforts of companies like Micro Essential Laboratory (Hydrion) and other sanitizer kit suppliers, test strips have largely become the verification method of choice among chemical sanitizer manufacturers and users. Micro Essential supplies pH test papers, sanitizer test papers, and pH buffer standards to the global market.

Test strip kits, which are not interchangeable, contain detailed instructions (i.e., proper water temperature, contact time, correct level of sanitizer in solution) and color charts to determine accurate concentration measurements based on the type of chemical used. Generally, chemical manufacturers determine the concentration for effective sanitization.

When placed in the chemical solution, test strips produce a color change based on the amount of active chemical in the solution. Each color on the chart represents a different sanitizer concentration in ppm.

Pouring sanitizer solution into sinks and buckets can create foam. Usually, foam has a higher concentration of sanitizer and must be allowed to dissipate prior to testing unless a clear area in the solution can be found. Once the foam is gone, the test strip should be dipped directly into the solution and held still—without swirling or moving—for the correct amount of time based on the type of sanitizer being used. The test strip should then be immediately compared to the color chart located on the test strip dispenser to determine the concentration of the sanitizer.

Throughout the day, results should be documented, analyzed, and tracked as part of sanitation standard operating procedures.

For all types of sanitizers used in the food environment, the frequency of testing should be performed as needed to keep the water clean, to ensure effective sanitizer concentration, and aid in the entry of safe food into the consumer marketplace. Test kits have a maximum shelf life and should be discarded in accordance with expiration dates.

The strategic placement of technical information sheets and instructional posters in the workplace has been shown to be beneficial in reminding employees of the importance of following cleaning and sanitizing procedures. In a related vein, some chemical suppliers offer on-site training to assist operations with their sanitation efforts.

Definitive Step

Sanitation programs must operate on all cylinders to protect the integrity of food from a diverse gamut of spoilage microorganisms. It has been said that proper sanitization is often the final—and definitive—step to ensure that safe food reaches consumers. This daunting maxim significantly raises the ante on food safety stakeholders to ensure their chemical sanitizers are performing at peak efficiency.

Williams is a food writer, editor, and marketer whose articles have appeared in numerous food industry publications. He previously served as communications manager (North America) at Mérieux NutriSciences. Reach him at johnjr1145@gmail.com.

The post What to Know When Choosing a Sanitizer for Your Food Facility appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

A University of California, Davis, research team is taking a multidisciplinary approach to reduce microbial cross-contamination when produce contacts plastic totes and bins or plastic liners in bins.

Nitin Nitin, PhD, professor in food science and technology and biological and agricultural engineering at University of California, Davis, is leading the two-pronged effort that focuses on developing rechargeable antimicrobial plastic liners and novel plastic containers that reduce microbial attachment. Eventually, Dr. Nitin said, the goal is to combine the two technologies into plastic products that could both repel and reduce pathogenic and spoilage microbes. Joining him on the project (Rechargeable antimicrobial and antifouling plastics for improved cleaning and sanitation of plastic bins and totes) are co-principal investigators polymer chemist Gang Sun, PhD, and food safety microbiologist Glenn Young, PhD.

Before embarking on the research, Dr. Nitin and his group met with representatives from the Center for Produce Safety as well as several other industry representatives, including some from the apple industry.

“The input and feedback we’ve received from them has been very encouraging,” Dr. Nitin said.

The first part of their research involves developing plastic liners for bins or totes that would have antimicrobial activity and that could be recharged periodically with a bleach solution. The plastic polymers used in the liners would be designed to bind the chlorine to the surface.

“It would continue to maintain that antimicrobial activity for some period of time,” Dr. Nitin said of the liners. “Whether it’s one full day or a couple of hours, I think that needs to be determined.”

The group focused on extruded polyethylene and polypropylene materials already used by the plastic manufacturing industry. In addition, Dr. Sun met with plastic manufacturers to ensure products that look promising could be easily ramped up to large-scale production. Dr. Nitin said the group initially focused on bin liners because they are more economical to test compared to reusable plastic containers, or RPCs.

Having an antimicrobial plastic liner also would benefit produce sectors, such as the apple industry, which still rely heavily on wooden bins. “There are many examples where wooden bins are common, and they’re very difficult to sanitize,” Dr. Nitin said. “If you can develop materials that keep them relatively cleaner, that should help them.” The group has successfully completed a demonstration that showed the liners killed Listeria, their target organism, as well as other pathogens. The next step is to conduct a proof of concept.

The researchers are further along on part two of their project, which involves conducting a proof of concept on antifouling plastics that prevent Listeria surface contamination as well as formation of Listeria   biofilms. Initial testing was conducted in the laboratory, but the researchers plan to eventually field test the materials in fresh produce processing facilities. In addition to measuring the novel plastic’s effects on reducing pathogen populations, they also will examine what, if any, impact it has on produce quality after extended contact. “We believe it’s a good start to see how this works in a highly challenged environment, like bins. Then you can adapt it to other areas,” Dr. Nitin said. “Our interest is in developing this material, which could be used in other applications.”

Dr. Nitin envisions the benefits extending beyond just packers but to companies that collect, sanitize, store, and deliver RPCs to packinghouses, distributors, and retailers. “If this helps them meet their contract and improves sanitation of bins, I think they will be very interested in adopting some of this,” he said.

The researchers also have been in contact with a U.S. Army research facility interested in antimicrobial material technologies. The military facility has an extruder, which Dr. Nitin said could provide them an opportunity to determine how antimicrobial liner production could be scaled up.

The post Reducing Cross-Contamination When Produce Contacts Bins appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

Dr. Tarek Awad, a researcher at University of Toronto, shows two samples: at left, a stainless steel surface treated to trap simple cooking oil, and at right, an uncoated surface. The uncoated surface can accumulate food residue and encourage the growth of foodborne pathogens.

Cooking oils may one day have a new use—preventing bacterial growth.

Today, most food processing facilities rely on chemical disinfectants such as quaternary ammonium compounds and hydrogen peroxide for sanitizing. But disinfectants may not reach bacteria in grooves, cracks, and scratches and other hard-to-clean parts of food processing equipment. Oftentimes, bacteria live in protective biofilm colonies, which make disinfectants ineffective. Furthermore, disinfectants may contain chloramines or hypochlorites that damage the passivating oxide of stainless steel.

To prevent ongoing growth on food processing surfaces, finding ways to prevent bacteria from attachment is key. By building upon the Slippery Liquid-Infused Porous Surfaces principle developed by Harvard researchers, which showed resistance to microorganism adhesion and colonization, Benjamin Hatton, PhD, associate professor, Materials Science and Engineering, University of Toronto in Canada, and colleagues set out to do just that.

The post Can Cooking Oil Prevent Bacteria Growth on Processing Equipment? appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

As giant food processors and ingredient companies reorganize, acquire, and divest their assets to re-position themselves, quality programs are facing the brunt of some of these changes; many companies are having to modify programs to better align with important changes, such as new leadership, loss of technical expertise, and resources being stripped to bare bones. Activities such as these are becoming commonplace and almost expected in the food industry.

Despite these changes, quality and safety are not dispensable in a consumer driven market. Minor changes in quality can influence buyer behaviors; however, safety impacts are not as resilient. As the march continues to further cost reductions through automation in manufacturing, sanitation is on everyone’s radar as a place where innovation may just be the solution we are all looking for.

The post Innovative Sanitation Efforts to Improve Food Safety appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.

The Food Safety Modernization Act and the Global Food Safety Initiative have changed the game for those in the food processing industry. With new regulatory hoops for food safety managers to jump through, sanitation is trending upward as a top concern.

The industry has responded with new sanitation technologies that not only help meet regulatory requirements—they also allow companies to better manage and monitor their sanitation routines. As part of a well-planned and executed sanitation program, new technologies can help companies control costs, improve food safety, and reduce worker safety risk.

The post How Technology Is Transforming Sanitation appeared first on Food Quality & Safety.