Contents

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Procedure

2.2 Data collection

Figure 1. The floor plan of the cooking area (labelled)

2.3 Cleaning chemicals and treatments

3. Results

3.1 Economic cost of using water for water clean and high pressure washer HDs 7/10-4 M

3.2 ATP swab

4. Discussion

4.1 ATP swabs analysis

4.2 Water clean

4.3 Detergents

4.4 Hazard of chemical detergents

4.5 High pressure washer (HDS 7/10-4 M)

4.6 The economic costs

4.7 Limitations

5. Conclusion

5.1 Further research

6. References

Appendices

Appendix 1. product produced names and ingredients

Appendix. 2 the process of production in the factory

Appendix 3. Chemical training certificate

Appendix 4. High pressure washer HDs 7/10-4 M

Appendix 5. Chemicals technical data

Appendix 6. Estimated electrical cost for new water cleaning procedure

Appendix 7. The estimated electrical cost of HDS 7/10-4 M

Contents of figures, Tables and Equations

Figure 1. The floor plan of the cooking area (labelled)

Figure 2. Cooking vats 1 (left side) and 2 (right side)

Figure 3. Ultrasnap Surface ATP test

Figure 4. Swabbed areas inside and outside of both cooking vats

Figure 5. visible difference from cleaning the product. A) before. B) after cleaning

Table 1. HACCP system for production of chutney

Table 2. ATP swabbing Reletive light units for facroy conformation

Table 3. Equipment used during trialling of new cleaning procedures

Table 4. The end of day cleaning procedures for the current clean (used by operatives), new chemical clean and new water cleaning procedures (see figure 1 for all locations)

Table 5. Time and cost, collected for cooking vat cleans

Table 6. ATP swabs before for new EOD cleaning procedures (new chemical procedure and new water procedure).

Table 7. ATP swabs after the factory EOD clean (pressure washer), new chemical procedure and new water procedure.

Table 8. RLU paired sample T test differences for before and after cleaning.

Equation 1. Energy required to heat water (Dutton. 2017).

Equation 2. The cost of water used for new water clean.

Equation 3. Cost of high pressure washer HDs 7/10M cleaners estimated water use per hour.

Equation 4. Titration equation for Renew AS concentration activate alkalinity.

Abstract

Cleaning in the food processing plants are an important obligation. Fouling from products after processing can create substantial problems for production. In this study two new cleaning procedures were developed. A chemical procedure and water procedure. To remove soiled product from two food processing vats in a chutney food manufacturer. They were developed to be used in live trials, to assess the effectiveness on cleaning. The experiments parameters were temperature (80 °C), agitation (20rpm) with the water clean. Sodium hydroxide concentration (detergent 5-10% concentration) for chemical procedure. Both used ambient water spray and mechanical parameters. Established contact times, were made for both the chemical and water cleans. To monitor the effectiveness of both cleans, hygiene ATP swab tests performed on the surfaces. Titration sample were collected to measure chemical residue. The both procedures managed to comply with the factory standards for ATP swabbing. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) found between ATP samples collected before and after cleaning. Although there was a visible difference after using both cleaning methods. No titration samples retained sodium hydroxide residue (detergent). The new cleaning methods were both effective for cooking vats. Health and safety concerns were highlighted when working with chemicals. The water procedure may raise cost of the budget set for cleaning. Despite this, both procedures can successfully be implemented for cleaning the cookers.

Keywords: Good manufacturing practice (GMP), Colony forming units (CFU), relative light unit (RLU), sodium hydroxide (detergent) & soiled product (fouling)

1. Introduction

In the United Kingdom, food manufacturing is an enormous industry that produces large quantities of food. This is executed by the use of effective cleaning. Cleaning is an essential business requirement to achieve protection from physical, chemical and microbiological hazard within food. Therefore, a consistently high standard of product quality can be maintained (Goode et al, 2013). Manufacturers must consider the financial implications of cleaning. There is lost production capacity, because of the time needed to clean, and utility costs (water, electricity and wastage disposal) (Atwell et al 2017).

Poor hygiene conformance can result in fouling layers building up and causing other problems (Liu et al. 2006). In food processing plants cleaning of the processing line are essential for eliminate fouling. Residual product remaining on the surface causes fouling and potential microbial growth. Microbes that will remain in the processing line during production. Microbes then have the possibility to transfer into any other products being made (Goode et al, 2013).

Good manufacturing practice (GMP) ensures hygiene is kept to a high standard. An ideal processing line will be completely sanitized under GMP. Complying with requirements of the Regulation (EC) N0. 852/2004 (McLauchlin et al, 2007;2012). GMP is maintained by good hygiene practices like the Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescent swab testing. ATP swab testing is a rapid hygiene monitoring tool, used to estimate how effective cleaning is in real time. It uses bioluminescence to count relative light units (RLU). One RLU is estimated to be equivalent to 102-103 Colony Forming Units/mL, these results are given immediately. ATP swabs are not used to distinguish between microbial and non-microbial ATP, but either at high level indicates poor hygiene (Aycicek et al, 2006).

Chutney production has high soiling ability of during processing. The ingredients that make up the chutney contains numerous small pieces of fruit, veg and sugars that stick to surfaces. Adhesion of ingredient is caused by heat processing and ambient cooling. The sugar and acidic based products forces a caramelised effect during cooking, binding the product to contact surfaces. Temperatures of 75^oC have increased the possibility of caramelisation in acid based foods (chutneys) (Chen et al, 2009 & Quintas et al. 2007).

Equally important, are the variations in cleaning procedures used because of a changeover of products made. This could be down to the fouling ability of each product. The cleaning requirements for one batch of product might not be sufficient to another batch of product (Atwell et al, 2017). An example of a cleaning procedure would be to use a chemical to aid the removal of a soiled product.

When using chemicals for cleaning, staff are required to use personal protective equipment under the European council (EC) 89/656/EEC legislation and COSHH (PPE, 2014). Equipment worn by staff to minimize the exposure to hazards like chemicals in the workplace and to prevent injury. Titrations minimise the risk of cross contamination from any chemicals that remain after cleaning. A sample of wash water is collected and tested for concentration. High concentration result in further washing and low results in passing.

Chutneys produced by manufacturers are condiments served along with food. They are made with a wide variety of ingredients such as fruits, veg, sugars. These ingredients generate sour, spicy, sweet or mild tastes (chutneys and sauces, 2011). The water activity (a_w) is available water in the sample (Beuchat et al, 2013). Measured by ratio between vapour pressure of water in food and pure water at the same temperature (water activity, 2009). Chutneys usually contain between 0.80-0.87aw, which indicates a low risk product from spoilage. The water activity is lowered in chutneys due to processing (heating). Water activity identifies foods stability and potential for microbiological growth (Beuchat et al, 2013). The combination of all of these ingredients and cooking result in a product with a 9 month to a year shelf life, once opened and stored correctly.

The hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) system is put in place to prevent spoilage of the product. Food manufacturers use HACCP to limit contamination in production during processing. Although, chutneys are still at risk of spoilage from yeasts, Clostridium botulinum, moulds (mycotoxin), osmophilia yeast (grow in high sugar concentrations) and halophilic bacteria (more than 1% salt) (Hobbs et al, 2012).

When chutney factories have unsuccessful cleaning of processing lines there are unfavourable consequences for the quality of the products. This may breach the health and safety legislation. The legislation requires for safe wholesome food to be produced, failure can result in fines and prosecution by the local authority (Sprenger, 2012). According to the FSA, (2013), extreme cases can result in withdrawal or recall of unsafe foods placed on the market.

A Chutney manufacturer in this project is required to keep up-to-date with new cleaning methods. The manufacture in this research project has a long history of producing chutneys. Founded in 1889, they sold relishes, jams and pickles. They produce 9 chutneys, 2 relishes and 2 sauces (seen in appendix 1). These products are stocked in many food retailers within Yorkshire. Their biggest stockists are Co- operative, Sainsbury’s and Iceland. These retailers have audit teams that access their facilities to make sure they are producing safe food. 26 members of staff, helps produce around 10 tonnes of chutney a day, which makes about 20,000 jars.

When processing is finished for the day, the chutney leaves the cooking vats soiled. Chutney deposits on to the surface of the cooker, product chutes, floors, walls and equipment. Operatives that cooked the chutney, clean this by using the; light (water), daily(water), weekly (chemical) and monthly (chemical) cleaning procedures.

The adhesion between the fouling deposit (chutney) and surface begins. Fouling is a result of reduced sugars such as fructose and glucose. They undergo caramelization and maillard reaction. During heat processing chutneys sugar is recrystallized and water is removed (Khalid et al. 2016). This causes a crispy brown fouling texture on the surface (fouled chutney). The forces holding the fouling to surface include; van der waals forces; (2) electrostatic forces; (3) hydrogen bonding; and (4) hydrophobic binding together with contact area (Khalid et al. 2016).

A high powered pressure washer (HDS 7/10-4 M seen appendix 4).  Is used for all the procedures. It is powered by diesel fuel, that uses up to 100 bar of pressure at 90 °C. To remove soils from the surfaces of the cooking vats. Moreover, it increases the risk of tainting the product from the diesel fumes produced. The high powered washer also develops large amount of aerosols, above the packing floor (ground floor).

As a result, the aims of this project were to develop two new end of day cleaning procedures for the cooking vats, by evaluating the current factory end of day procedure. The effectiveness of the new cleaning procedures will be tested on; time, ATP swabbing, titration tests and cost.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Procedure

Two students from The University of Huddersfield were introduced to the technical manager and quality assurance manager. The objectives of the project were discussed on the 20/10/2017. The factory and University of Huddersfield confidentiality forms were also signed on the 20/10/2017. The confidentiality form was under the data protection act 1998, whereby data (information) obtained is stored and not disclosed. The factories induction and Health forms were signed on the 31/10/2017. The Level 1 Staff chemical training was passed on the 10/11/2017 (appendix 4). Level 2 food safety was acquired. The documents ensured the students had the basic requires to work in the factory.

Recommendations were given to the students by the technical and quality assurance managers. The; light, end of day, weekly and monthly cleans were observed. Observations took place between the months of November and December. The students made notes on faults observed in the cleaning processes. The students finally targeted the end of day procedure, on both cooking vats seen in figure 1.

Two new cleaning procedures were developed by the students in January 2018. The students regarded the cooking process in the HACCP system (table 1) to be the most important area to clean. Factory cleaning procedures can be seen in table 2, alongside the two new procedures. A new chemical clean and, water clean. They were tested by the students on each of the cooking vats seen in figure 1, between February and March

Table 1. HACCP system for production of chutney