CLEANING and DISINFECTION

Equipment, Engineering and Facilities.

Systems, Tools and Check-in

Fabrice BOURION
ASEPT, F
CLEANING and DISINFECTION

Object ? Why ? How ?

PHYSICAL •Foreign bodies

Cleanliness •Organic soils CLEANING
•Proper disinfection

•Chemical hazards
CHEMICAL •Corrosion RINSING
Cleanliness •Antagonism with
disinfectant

MICROBIOLOGICAL •Food preservation DISINFECTION

Cleanliness •Consumer safety

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

CHOICE of PROCEDURES
Define risk areas : risk of contamination for the end product
•High risk areas : processing, packaging of foods...

•Medium risk areas : storage of raw materials...

•Low risk areas : reception of raw materials, storage of end products,

loading quays...

Everything does not necessary have to be disinfected !

CLEANING and DISINFECTION
the STEPS
Drinking water
Pre-Washing
(or retrieved water)
Detergent Cleaning

Drinking water Rinsing GENERAL CASE

for a WET PLANT
Disinfectant Disinfection
and a HIGH RISK AREA
Water with controled Rinsing
microbiological quality
Premises but also Tidying
equipment and products
Validation

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

 PRE-WASHING
Why ?
•To prepare cleaning
Can remove up to 90%
of soluble soils
Facilitates penetration
of the cleaning compounds
•To protect equipment
•To limit waste to the station
A good preparation is never loosed time !
How ?
•Tidying of premises
•Removal of large debris
(scraping/trash)
•Cover electrical equipment
•Disassemble equipment
•Rinsing
CLEANING and DISINFECTION
CLEANING

Why ?
•To obtain visual cleanliness
•To remove organic and
mineral soils
How ?
•Proper choice of product
•Proper choice of cleaning method
•Respect of parameters for
efficiency of products

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

CLEANING : Choice of product
Function of
SOIL Mineral soil Organic soil

acidic product alcaline product

+ Surface-active agents
DILUTION WATER Sequestering agents

METHODS Foaming or anti-foaming agents

PROCESS EQUIPMENT Corrosion inhibitors

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

 CLEANING : Choice of method 1/2

Open processing Closed processing

•Foam cleaning •Cleaning-In Place :
•Spraying Single/re/multi-use systems
•Soaking
•Brushing
•Low/medium/high pressure
water systems

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

CLEANING : Choice of method 2/2
Method Advantages Drawbacks
•Foam cleaning •Contact time •Specific equipment/cost
•Tensio-active
•Visualisation
•Soaking •Contact time •No mechanical action
•Adjustable temperature
•Brushing •Mechanical action... •...But irregular
•No temperature effect
•Contact time uncontroled
•Pressure water •High mechanical action •Aerosolisation
systems

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

 CLEANING : Choice of parameters

USE Product with T.A.C.T.

Temperature mechanical Action Concentration Time

Optimal Water spray systems, Optimal

temperature Brushes concentration

! High temperature = Protein denaturation

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

CLEANING : Choice of Concentration
Efficiency Why ?
•To avoid waste of money
•To avoid waste of water
(increase time of rinsing)
•For personnel safety
•To avoid corrosion of material
•For respect of environment
Concentration

Recommended concentration range

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

 INTERMEDIATE RINSING

Why ?
•To carry away detached soils
•To remove cleaning compounds
Inactivation of disinfectants
Hazardous reactions with
disinfectants
How ?
•Drinking water
•Use of hoses or spray gun
•Validation by pH measurements

A good desinfection happens only on clean surfaces !

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

DISINFECTION
Definition

“Temporary resulting operation in order to remove or kill

undesirable microbes and/or to inactivate virus on inert
surfaces according to defined objectives”

From AFNOR, 1981

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

 DISINFECTION
Why ? How ?
•To obtain a level of surface- •On clean surfaces
contamination in accordance •Proper choice of agent/method
with production •Respect of parameters for
•To avoid post-processing efficiency of products
contamination •Ensure contact of the whole
•To minimise hazard of pathogen surface with disinfectant
microbes •Respect hygienic rules to avoid
•To ensure quality of product until post-contamination
DLC

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

DISINFECTION : Choice of agent
Thermal/Chemical ?

•Hot water : 85°C, 15 min.

No chemical residues
•Steam : 15 min. when non corrosive
condensate at 80°C BUT
Spores may survive
Water scale if hard water
Effective disinfection difficult to obtain
High energy costs

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

 DISINFECTION : Choice of chemical 1/3
Characteristics to be considered
•Spectrum activity : vegetative bacteria, spores, yeasts, molds, virus ?
•Environmental resistance : inactivation by organic matter, cleaning
product residues or hard water ? Activity only within a pH range ?
•Activity at low temperatures
•Toxicity, corrosive
•Solubility, rinsable
•Stability during storage and in use dilution
•Easily measured in use solution
•Cost

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

DISINFECTION : Choice of chemical 2/3
Spectrum activity of main disinfectants
D is in f e c t a n t V e g e t a t iv e b a c te ria S pore s M o u ld Y e asts V iru s /
G ram + G ram - Phages
P e r a c e t ic a c id +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++
H ydroge n +++ +++ + + + 0
pe roxyde
A ld e h y de s +++ +++ + +++ ++ ++
Q u ate rn ary +++  0 + + 0
a m m o n iu m
A m ph ote r ic +++ + 0 + + 0
com pou n ds
C h lor in e +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++
I o do ph o r s +++ +++ + ++ ++ ++

+ + + V e r y h i gh a c t i v i t y ++ G o od a cti v i ty + M ediu m a ctiv ity

 L o w a c t i v i ty 0 N o activ ity

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

 DISINFECTION : Choice of chemical 3/3
Properties of main disinfectants

D is in fe cta n t T o le r a n c e pH L ow T° T o x ic it y / S o lu b ilit y / S t a b ilit y

to w a rd ran ge e fficie n cy co r ro s io n rin s a ble
O M /H W
P e r a c e t ic a c id - + + - + 
H y d r o ge n - + - - + -
pe r o x y d e
A l d e h y de s + + + -  +
Q u ate r n a r y - + + + - +
am m on iu m
A m ph ote r ic + - + + - +
com pou n ds
C h lor in e - - + - + -
I o do ph o r s - /+ - + +/ - - 

+ A d v a n t a ge - D r a wba ck

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

DISINFECTION : Choice of method

Open processing Closed processing

•Foam •Cleaning-In Place :
•Spraying Single/re/multi-use systems
•Soaking
•Brushing
•Aerosol
•Fumigation

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

 FINAL RINSING
Why ? How ?
•To remove disinfectant •Water with a known
compounds microbiological quality
•To avoid residues in foods •Validation by pH measurements
•To respect legislation (in France) •Respect hygienic rules* to avoid
post-contamination

*clean dress and hands, no sponge, no floorcloth...

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

TIDYING of material and product

Why ? How ?
•To not clutter up production area •Define a location for each thing
•To avoid contamination of •Remove worn material and
cleaning material outdated products
•For personnel safety •Label each containers
•For the company image •Limited access

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

 VALIDATION

Why ? How ?
•To evaluate quality and •Choice of a method
reliability of the work •Choice of sampling location
•To progress •Choice of the moment and frequency
•Choice of responsability, registration

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

VALIDATION : Choice of method
Characteristics to be considered

•Accuracy Contact plate method

•Reproducibility Swabbing
•Safety Rinsing
•Easy and rapid to conduct ? ATP measurements
•Commercial availability of all components
•Officially recognized (AOAC, FDA, USDA...)
•Cost

CLEANING and DISINFECTION

 LIMITS

•Conception of equipment
•Corrosion of equipment
•Biofilms build-up
•Organisation of the cleaning plan
How food industries demonstrate HAACP system right management before
Administration. Development and application instances in some countries in
Northern Europe.
( Steen Christensen. D.V.M., Manager Food Safety & Hygiene. Gate Gourment
International. Dinamarca. )

How did Authorities audit companies before the “age of HACCP” ?

Even if the HACCP principles were applied to food production and supply to the first
American space flights already a couple of decades ago, we may regard the “
HACCP age” within the European Union emerging with the EU Directive 93/43/ EEC
of 14 June 1993.
As no clear control system was described, the audits – or rather inspections –
concentrated mainly on visible issues, such as tidiness, cleanliness, maintenance
( the floor, wall and ceiling approach ).
Food safety aspects, even aspects which today are regarded critical to safety, were
most often not controlled during the frequent, but relative short inspection
sessions.
When challinging authority inspectors with this problem, the response was often
lack of time and resources. However, on request inspectors might emphasize that
of course companies were responsible for compliance with all safety criteria
described in the national food legislation.

The HACCP age.

Then came HACCP, and when you listened to many hygiene people and heard how
they talked of HACCP as a kind of miracle cure to food hygiene, you might think,
that all the problems would soon be over. The beautiful logic and consequency of
the HACCP concept would bring food safety under control.
But when you opened the newspaper or the TV, you came back to reality. There is a
long way to go ! As examples of the development in the northern part of the EU, let
´s have a look at the development of HACCP control systems in the three
Scandinavian countries.

How do Authorities evaluate the HACCP-based programs worked out by the food
companies ?
In pursuance of the EU Directive and the derived national legislation in the EU
countries Denmark and Sweden, food business operators were obliged from 1995-
1996 to
 Produce self-control program based on HACCP principles
 Submit such programs to controlling authorities for approval.
 Document control activity expressed in the submitted programs.
A similar development took place in Norway.
Approval of programs.
Sweden
Control programs were approved by relevant Authorities from 1996 and onwards,
and the approval procedure is completed.
Denmark
During 1996 food companies were requested by Authorities to produce and submit
HACCP-based control programs for approval by Authorities.
The approval procedure has not yet been completed.
Norway
No formal approval procedure, but of course continuous assessment will take place
during proper auditing of the companies and their programs.

How do Authorities audit companies in the HACCP era ?

Sweden.
Hard to admit by a true Dane, but the Swedes have served as the example to the
other Scandinavians. What did the Swedes do ?
 Control of larger food producers was placed at the Central Authorities
( Livsmedelverket )
 Audits are performed instead of inspections
 Audits of the individual food company are performed with a frequency of 1 x
year, whereas inspections took place much more frequently.
 Duration of audits enable true auditing of the food company.

Denmark.
 Control of larger food producers was already placed at the Central Authorities
( Veterinary Directorate ).
 Audit approach as to enable system evaluation has not yet replaced the
tradional inspection approach.

Norway.
 Audits of adequate duration has replaced inspections in some regions, while not
in others.

How may Authorities motivate food companies to operate the EU-required control
programs in a reliable way ?
 Isolated inspections are outdated, and Authorities must demonstrate respect for
the food companies by allocating the necessary time and resources for
conducting basic audits, which concentrate at the program the food company is
operating and which do not concentrate on issues not well correlated with food
safety.
 Do not work as an inspector, but as a concultant and trainer. It is so much more
fun !
 Accept upgoing trends, even if they are slow.
 Do not accept continuously downgoing trends or status quo.
 Understand that complex or complicated control programs are most often not
operational and often lead to frustration or even unreliable documentation.
 Show the courage necesssary for accepting simple, operational HACCP plans.
After all, microbiological food safety is still ( despite the GMO, allergens and
other chemical and physical hazards emerging these days ) the no. 1 issue of
food safety, and basic microbiological food safety is – expressed in nice, simple
American terms a question of maintaining the 3K principle :
 Keep them out
 Kill them if you can
 Keep the rest from growing

 The fourth K is KISS ( Keep It Super Simple ). – It is much better to cover 95 % of

food safety in a simple, easy understandable fashion than to cover everything in
a way, which is not understood by the food producer.

How may food companies contribute to a meaningful development of the EU-

required HACCP-based control programs ?
 Understand and live the fact that the world of today requires rational defined
food safety control, as the safety challenges continue to emerge.
 Ensure that relevant employees( food handlers) understand the company
attitude to food safety and thus become motivated to perform the control.
 Look at the Authority as a free-of-charge-consultant and not a policeman. Ask
questions, and make yourself heard, if the consultant does not live up to your
expectations !
 Stand by the control program, even if you do not succeed well at the
monent.Present the real results, do not show something from another world !
Discuss why things did not go well, and how you may go in the safe direction.

Conclusion.
The food safety challenges of today are numerous. Potential as well as relevant
hazards, microbial as well as chemical, continue to emerge, either as new hazards
or as re-emerging of “old” hazards. Just think of
 Enterohaemorrhagic E.coli strains ( E.coli O 157, O 111 etc )
 Trichinellosis ( Germany, Italy 1999 )
 Multi-resistent Salmonella strains
 GMO ( genetically modified foods )
 Food-borne allergens

These challenges require a dynamic and effective system of food safety control.
Food producers and Health Authorities are key players in this system.
Accordingly it is essential that constructive cooperation between food companies
and authorities is established and maintained. Only in this way may food safety be
controlled in a rational and efficient way, to the benefit of the consumer.