975

Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 76, No. 6, 2013, Pages 975–983

doi:10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-450
Copyright G, International Association for Food Protection

Microbiological Performance of Dairy Processing Plants Is

Influenced by Scale of Production and the Implemented Food
Safety Management System: A Case Study
BEATRICE ATIENO OPIYO,* JOHN WANGOH, AND PATRICK MURIGU KAMAU NJAGE

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/76/6/975/1687177/0362-028x_jfp-12-450.pdf by Indonesia user on 18 October 2022

Department of Food Science, Nutrition and Technology, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 29053-00625, Nairobi, Kenya

MS 12-450: Received 9 October 2012/Accepted 16 January 2013

ABSTRACT
The effects of existing food safety management systems and size of the production facility on microbiological quality in the
dairy industry in Kenya were studied. A microbial assessment scheme was used to evaluate 14 dairies in Nairobi and its environs,
and their performance was compared based on their size and on whether they were implementing hazard analysis critical control
point (HACCP) systems and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 22000 recommendations. Environmental
samples from critical sampling locations, i.e., workers’ hands and food contact surfaces, and from end products were analyzed for
microbial quality, including hygiene indicators and pathogens. Microbial safety level profiles (MSLPs) were constructed from the
microbiological data to obtain an overview of contamination. The maximum MSLP score for environmental samples was 18 (six
microbiological parameters, each with a maximum MSLP score of 3) and that for end products was 15 (five microbiological
parameters). Three dairies (two large scale and one medium scale; 21% of total) achieved the maximum MSLP scores of 18 for
environmental samples and 15 for the end product. Escherichia coli was detected on food contact surfaces in three dairies, all of
which were small scale dairies, and the microorganism was also present in end product samples from two of these dairies, an
indication of cross-contamination. Microbial quality was poorest in small scale dairies. Most operations in these dairies were
manual, with minimal system documentation. Noncompliance with hygienic practices such as hand washing and cleaning and
disinfection procedures, which is common in small dairies, directly affects the microbial quality of the end products. Dairies
implementing HACCP systems or ISO 22000 recommendations achieved maximum MSLP scores and hence produced safer
products.

Like any other food business, the dairy industry is faced
with the challenge of implementing good hygiene practices
to ensure production of safe products. Some dairies have
made significant efforts and investments in designing and
implementing good hygiene practices, using hazard analysis
and critical control point (HACCP) systems (7), and
following International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) 22000 recommendations (29) as part of their food
safety management systems (FSMSs). The aim of these
approaches has been to produce safer products and to meet
the established statutory and regulatory requirements.
An FSMS is a company-specific system of control and
assurance activities that help the company guarantee food
safety (33). Control activities are conducted to prevent
microbial contamination, prevent growth of microorganisms
present in production areas, and reduce the levels of
pathogens. These activities include cleaning, disinfection,
and analysis and control of critical points. Assurance
activities are conducted to assure food safety and include
development of sampling plans, performance of internal
audits, and validation and verification of the FSMS (34).
* Author for correspondence. Tel: (z254) 722 802228; Fax: (z254)
20 6004031; E-mail: atienobm@gmail.com.
Control activities therefore are concerned with keeping
product and process conditions within acceptable limits, and
assurance activities are concerned with the evaluation of
system performance (46). Performance of an FSMS
therefore greatly affects the microbiological quality and
safety of end products (33, 35).
Various researchers have shown that two of the major
causes of microbial contamination and growth in food
products are dirty food contact surfaces and poor personal
hygiene practices among food handlers (15, 37, 38, 51). The
main sources of cross-contamination have been equipment,
food contact surfaces, and food handlers’ hands (1, 9, 17,
48). According to Evans et al. (16), food contact surfaces
can be a source of contamination when surfaces are not
effectively cleaned or remain wet between cleaning and use.
Walker et al. (50) found that food handlers play a major role
in possible cross-contamination because these workers can
be asymptomatic carriers of foodborne disease–causing
microorganisms.
Monitoring and verifying the effectiveness of cleaning
and sanitation programs and procedures established by a
processor is of great importance if the operator is to achieve
an acceptable level of food safety. Environmental sampling
can be done by taking swabs from cleaned surfaces and food
976 OPIYO ET AL.
handlers’ hands. Various processors have used analysis of
bacteriological swabs in combination with other tests to
verify the efficiency and effectiveness of cleaning proce-
dures, which is important for monitoring the presence of
specific pathogens. Early detection of pathogens allows
suitable action to be taken to eliminate the pathogen,
which increases the safety level an operator can achieve.
Environmental sampling is a tool to ensure that products
meet the relevant food safety requirements.
The microbial assessment scheme (MAS) methodology
developed by Jacxsens et al. (33) can be used to determine
the efficacy of implemented quality control and assurance
activities by performing microbiological analyses. System
audits combined with microbiological sampling and analy-
sis give insight into the performance of implemented control
and assurance activities and the actual microbial quality,
which is the food safety output (34).
The dairy industry consists of large, medium, and small
scale facilities with varied practices and controls for
ensuring product safety. Few studies have been done on
the actual practices used in these dairies and the effect of
such practices on the safety of the dairy products. This study
was conducted to investigate the actual hygienic practices
used at dairies, using the Kenyan dairy industry as a case
study. The effect of these practices on the microbiological
quality of food contact surfaces and food handlers’ hands
and ultimately on the microbiological quality of the end
products was studied. Using MAS, we were able to compare
the effects of size of the production facility, the ability to
achieve safer products, and implementation of an FSMS on
product safety.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Description of the dairies studied. Fourteen dairies (D1
through D14) were selected for this study: two dairies produced
pasteurized milk, one produced ice cream, one produced cheese,
and the rest produced yoghurt plus one or more of the other dairy
products. The daily production capacity of the dairies was 1,000 to
170,000 liters of milk per day. Small dairies (D7, D8, D9, D10, and
D13) processed fewer than 10,000 liters with a workforce of fewer
than 50 employees, medium dairies (D1, D3, D4, D11, and D14)
processed 10,000 to 50,000 liters of raw milk per day with a
workforce of 50 to 100 employees, and large dairies (D2, D5, D6,
and D12) processed more than 50,000 liters of raw milk per day
with a workforce of more than 100 employees.
MAS. The MAS tool (33) was used to carry out objective
measurement of the performance of an FSMS by validation of
various control and assurance activities performed in the dairies
during production. The MAS involved identification of critical
sampling locations (CSLs), selection of appropriate microbiolog-
ical parameters to be analyzed, assessment of sampling frequency,
selection of sampling and analytical methods, data processing, and
interpretation of results (34). The MAS did not include a statistical
sampling plan because the primary aim was to obtain a picture of
the current effectiveness of the core safety assurance activities
(2, 3, 45). Swab samples collected at critical process locations,
from personnel, and from end products during production were
analyzed for various microbiological parameters.
Sampling was supplemented by system audits with observa-
tions of the implemented FSMS at the time of sampling. Interviews
J. Food Prot., Vol. 76, No. 6
and discussions were held with individuals in charge of the systems
to determine the actual practices and operations at each dairy.
Identification of CSLs and sampling methods. CSLs were
selected based on published information. The CSLs included food
contact surfaces (11, 47), hands of food workers (1, 4, 18, 33), and
end products (Table 1). These areas are considered to be in direct
contact with semifinished products (CSL1, CSL3, and CSL6) or
final products (CSL1, CSL2, CSL4, and CSL5), and any high
microbiological loads at these locations would result in unsafe
products (CSL7).
Hands (CSL1) were considered critical because they are a
potential source of cross-contamination and can be a source of
Staphylococcus aureus (1, 4, 18). Microbial analysis of hand
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/76/6/975/1687177/0362-028x_jfp-12-450.pdf by Indonesia user on 18 October 2022
samples was done to give an indication of the actual performance
of personal hygienic practices (33).
Working surfaces such as packing tables are the most
contaminated of food contact surfaces, and cross-contamination
can result because these surfaces are in direct contact with food
(11) and are frequently touched by workers (47). Equipment in
direct contact with food and packaging materials could be a
potential source of contamination. CSL2 to CSL6 were defined for
these surfaces. CSL4 and CSL5, both packaging materials, were of
different types and undergo different treatments or preparations
before use.
The actual microbiological quality of the end products (CSL7)
was determined to compare the safety of the end products as
affected by the practices at various critical process stages important
for final product safety and quality.
Samples were collected at each of the CSLs from each dairy
for analysis. The 98 total samples consisted of 84 swab samples
and 14 end product samples. Swab samples were collected from
hands and/or gloves (CSL1) of workers who handle food items at
the packing tables or are in direct contact with food contact
surfaces. Swab samples of food contact surfaces that contact either
semifinished products (CSL3 and CSL6) or final products (CSL2,
CSL4 and CSL5) and samples of final product (CSL7) also were
collected. The environmental samples (swabs) were linked to
samples of the final product for comparison of results. Samples
were analyzed for similar selected parameters (Table 1) to provide
information on the microbiological load at each sampling location
on the processing line of each dairy.
Selection of microbiological parameters. Microbiological
parameters selected were three categories of microorganisms:
pathogens, hygiene indicators, and utility parameters. Samples
were checked for Salmonella because this pathogen is associ-
ated with dairy products (21). Hygiene (fecal) indicators were
Escherichia coli and Enterobacteriaceae (14). S. aureus was
selected as an indicator of personal hygiene and correct hand
washing practices (1, 12). Total coliforms were an indicator of
overall performance of production processes. Utility indicators
were yeast, molds, and total viable bacteria counts (TVCs) (20).
Microbiological parameters selected for the environmental
samples and the hand swabs were similar in all sampling locations
and dairies (Table 1). Microbiological parameters for end product
samples differed depending on the type of dairy product that was in
production at the time of sampling. A total of 95 analyses of
quality parameters, 378 analyses of hygiene indicators, and 98
analyses of foodborne pathogens were performed.
Assessment of sampling frequency. Sampling frequency was
the same as described by Jacxsens et al. (33) with modifications.
Samples were collected only once during production in each of the
TABLE 1. Analyzed microbiological parameters and legal requirements or microbial guidelines for selected critical sampling locations (CSLs) for food contact surfaces, food handlers, and
end products a
End products (CSL7)b
Food handlers’ hands Food contact surfaces
J. Food Prot., Vol. 76, No. 6

Parameter Analytical method or gloves (CSL1) (CSL2–CSL6) Yoghurt Pasteurized milk Dairy cream Ice cream Cheese

Total viable bacteria Environmental samples: m , 1.9 log CFU/ m , 1.9 log CFU/ ND m ~ 0; M ~ 3 | ND ND ND
ISO 4833:2003 (24); cm2; M . 3 log cm2; M . 3 log 104 CFU/ml
end products: BS 4285, CFU/cm2 c CFU/cm2 c
Sect. 2.1, 1984 (5)
Total coliforms Environmental samples: Good, #1; average, Good, #1; average, m ~ 0; M ~ m ~ 0; M ~ m ~ 0; M ~ m ~ 0; M ~ m ~ 0; M ~
ISO 4832:2006 (32); #1.8; bad, #1.8; bad, 10 CFU/ml 10 CFU/ml 10 CFU/g 10 CFU/g 10 CFU/g
end products: BS 4285, #2.5; #2.5;
Sect. 3.7, 1987 (6) intolerable, .2.5 intolerable, .2.5
log CFU/16 cm2 log CFU/16 cm2
Enterobacteriaceaec ISO 21528-2:2004 (27) Good, #1; average, Good, #1; average, ND ND ND ND ND
#1.8; bad, #1.8; bad,
#2.5; #2.5;
intolerable, .2.5 intolerable, .2.5
log CFU/16 cm2 log CFU/16 cm2
Escherichia coli ISO 11866-2:2005 (31) Absent on tested Absent on tested Absent in 1 ml Absent in 1 ml Absent in 25 g Absent in 25 g Absent in 25 g
surfaced surfaced
Staphylococcus aureus ISO 6888-1:1999/Amd Absent on tested Absent on tested Nil in 1 ml Nil in 1 ml Nil in 25 g Nil in 25 g Absent
1:2003 (25) surfaced surfaced
Salmonella Environmental samples: Absent on tested Absent on tested Absent in 1 ml Absent in 30 ml Absent in 25 g Absent in 25 g Absent in 25 g
ISO 6579:2002 (23); surfaced surfaced
end products: ISO
6785:2001 (22)
Yeasts ISO 6611:2004 (28) ND ND m ~ 0; M ~ ND m ~ 0; M ~ 100/g m ~ 0; M ~ 100/g m ~ 0; M ~ 100/g
100/ml
Molds ISO 6611:2004 (28) ND ND m ~ 0; M ~ ND m ~ 0; M ~ 10/g m ~ 0; M ~ 10/g m ~ 0; M ~ 100/g
10/ml
a
CSL1, hands and/or gloves of food handler; CSL2, working or packing table surface; CSL3, cleaned jacketed vessel; CSL4, packaging material, cup or container; CSL5, packaging material, porch;
CSL6, milk can or product transfer container; CSL7, end product. ND, analysis was not done; m, maximum level of bacteria per test volume considered acceptable; M, maximum level of bacteria
per test volume considered marginally acceptable (values at or above M are unacceptable).
b
According to the legal criteria established in Kenya Standards (39–43).
MICROBIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF DAIRY PROCESSING PLANTS

c
According to the recommendations by Herbert et al. (19).
d
According to microbiological guidelines of the LFMFP-UGhent (49).
977

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/76/6/975/1687177/0362-028x_jfp-12-450.pdf by Indonesia user on 18 October 2022

978 OPIYO ET AL.
dairies because the objective of the study was to provide an overall
microbiological profile at each of the CSLs in every dairy, to
evaluate the current FSMS at each dairy, and to compare the
microbiological performance of the different dairies during
production.
Selection of sampling method and method of analysis. The
horizontal method for collecting samples from surfaces using
contact plates and swabs in accordance with ISO 18593:2004 (26)
was adopted for environmental sampling. This method was used to
detect and enumerate viable microorganisms from food contact
surfaces and food handlers’ hands or gloves. A sample area of
50 cm2 was used for surfaces. Swabs covered 25 cm2 (5 by 5 cm
square) of each food handler’s hand. A sterilized steel template was
used to define the swabbing area.
Analytical methods based on ISO standards were used for
analysis of the samples (Table 1). Analyses were performed in an
ISO 17025:2005 (30) accredited laboratory.
Microbial safety level profiles. Microsoft Office Excel 2007
(Microsoft, Redmond, WA) was used to make tables and graphs to
visualize the levels of microbiological contamination at the specific
CSLs in each dairy during production. Microbial safety level
profiles (MSLPs) were calculated from the microbiological data to
give an overview of contamination. This overview enabled
comparison of the microbial contamination at each CSL in the
different dairies, giving some insight into the overall levels of
microbial contamination, which are related to the control and
assurance activities (33) and the good hygiene practices.
Standard deviations were not needed to evaluate the
variability in a single dairy because sampling was performed only
once at each of the CSLs; in the MAS, variation is not accounted
for during calculation of MSLPs.
The results were evaluated in two phases. First, the individual
results for each microbiological parameter at each CSL were
evaluated for all dairies. The results were then compared with defined
legal criteria established in the respective Kenya standards (39–43) for
the end products. Because there are no legal criteria established for
food contact surfaces, the microbiological values established by the
Laboratory of Food Microbiology and Food Preservation at the
University of Gent (LFMFP-UGhent) (10, 49) and the recommenda-
tions made by Herbert et al. (19) were used for comparisons (Table 1)
and to evaluate whether the hygiene practices in each dairy were
adequate for reducing the possibility of contamination.
The second phase of evaluation was the assignment of the
MSLPs. For each dairy, the individual results for each analyzed
parameter were evaluated across the CSLs by assignment of an
MSLP score to each type of microbiological parameter. Each
microbiological parameter was assigned a score from 1 to 3. A
good result (level 3) was defined as when legal criteria or guideline
values were respected and no improvements were needed because
the control and assurance activities were adequate to control
microbial hazards. A moderate result (level 2) was defined as when
legal criteria or guideline values were exceeded in some situations
and improvements were needed in a single control activity of the
FSMS. A poor result (level 1) was defined as when legal criteria or
guideline values were exceeded and improvements were needed for
multiple control activities of the FSMS. The total sum of these
levels gave the MSLP score (33, 44). The maximum MSLP score
for CSL1 through CSL6 was 18 (six microbiological parameters
with a maximum MSLP score of 3 for each) and that for CSL7 was
15 (five microbiological parameters with a maximum MSLP score
of 3 for each). The evaluation resulted in the score attribution
system summarized in Table 2.
J. Food Prot., Vol. 76, No. 6
TABLE 2. Attribution system for assignment of microbial food
safety level profile scores
Score Benchmarksa
0 R . M, organism present in x grams or on the surface
1 R~M
2 m,R,M
3 R # m, organism absent in x grams and on the surface
a
Legal criteria for end products or microbiological guidelines for
food contact surfaces and hands (33, 43). R, results obtained
from analysis; m, maximum level of bacteria per test volume
considered acceptable; M, maximum level of bacteria per test
volume considered marginally acceptable (values at or above M
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/76/6/975/1687177/0362-028x_jfp-12-450.pdf by Indonesia user on 18 October 2022
are unacceptable).
Scores were allocated as follows. When the legal criteria or
the guideline values were below the minimum acceptable value for
a specific microorganism at a specific CSL, the specific hygiene
practices in the FSMS at that location were considered to be
working properly, and a score of 3 was given. A score of 2 was
given when the results were less than the maximum level
considered marginally acceptable but more than maximum level
considered acceptable. A score of 1 was given when the results
were the same as the maximum level considered marginally
acceptable. When the legal criteria or the guideline values were
exceeded for a specific microorganism at a specific CSL, the
specific hygiene practices in the FSMS at that location were
considered to be not working properly, and a score of zero was
given. This score indicates that corrective action(s) is required to
change this noncompliance situation and improve the FSMS
performance (33).
RESULTS
System audit findings. Dairies D2, D3, D5, D11, and
D12 were implementing an FSMS based on either HACCP
or ISO 22000 standards (29). The dairies had well-
documented systems with adequate record keeping. For
dairies other than D3, the FSMSs were certified by an
external certification body. D2 and D11 recently received
their certification. All of these dairies had a well-functioning
clean-in-place (CIP) system and appropriate equipment
maintenance and calibration programs. The majority of
workers were well trained and practiced appropriate
personal hygiene. Verification activities were performed
after cleaning to confirm the efficacy of cleaning protocols.
D1 and D7 were just beginning to document and implement
food safety systems. D4, D6, D8, D9, and D10 had no
established FSMS but were implementing to varying
degrees good hygiene practices as defined for the dairy
industry (8).
Large dairies (D2, D5, D6, and D12) generally had
appropriate and adequate machinery and well-trained staff.
Small dairies (D7, D8, D9, D10, and D13) lacked well-
defined or documented procedures for cleaning equipment
and surfaces. They had no adequate hand washing facilities,
and some workers did not have appropriate protective
clothing. In D4, D8, D10, and D13, most operations were
manual, including packing, and workers were not well
trained in technical and hygiene matters. D10 did not have a
CIP system. D13 had a CIP system but had no documented
J. Food Prot., Vol. 76, No. 6 MICROBIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF DAIRY PROCESSING PLANTS
cleaning instructions for the system, the system was not
regularly inspected, and the efficacy of the cleaning process
was not verified. D4, D10, and D13 did not have sufficient
or well-managed sanitary facilities.
Microbial assessment: hands and/or gloves of food
handlers. The large dairies (D2, D5, and D12) achieved
higher MSLP scores (17, 18, and 18, respectively) for hand
swabs (CSL1) compared with medium and small dairies. D3
(medium dairy) also achieved the maximum MSLP score of
18 (Fig. 1A). E. coli was detected on the hands of a food
handler at D4 (medium dairy) and at D10 and D13 (small
dairies) but not at the large dairies. S. aureus was found on
hands of a food handler at D7. Most small and medium
dairies had high counts of total coliforms 0.1 to .1.2 log
CFU/cm2. Coliforms were not detected on the food handlers’
hands in the large dairies and D3 and D9 (medium dairies).
Enterobacteriaceae counts on hand swabs were 0.3 to .1.2
log CFU/cm2 in small and medium dairies and 0.1 (D2) to 0.9
(D6) log CFU/cm2 in large dairies. Enterobacteriaceae were
not detected in D8, D3, D5, and D12. In dairies other than
D3, all the food handlers’ hands at the other small and
medium dairies had high TVCs. Salmonella was not detected
on the hands of any food handler (Fig. 1A).
Microbial assessment: food contact surfaces. Large
processors (D2, D5, D6. and D12) achieved the maximum
MSLP score of 18 for most of the food contact surfaces
(Fig. 1B through 1F). The poorest performing dairy was
D13 (small dairy), which had MSLP scores of 12 at CSL4, 8
at CSL3, and 6 at CSLs 2, 5, and 6. D10 (small dairy) had
MSLP scores of 9 for all food contact surfaces. D4 (medium
dairy) MSLP scores ranged from 8 at CSL4 to 17 at CSL3.
Packaging materials (CSL5 and CSL6) had high TVCs,
total coliform counts, and Enterobacteriaceae counts among
the small dairies (D7, D8, D9, D10, and D13) and one
medium dairy (D4). TVCs, total coliforms, and Enterobac-
teriaceae counts were 0.1 to 4.5 log, 0.1 to .1.2, and 0.1 to
.1.2 log CFU/cm2, respectively, for these dairies.
Microbial assessment: end products. Three dairies
(D3, D5, and D12) achieved the maximum MSLP score of
15, followed by D2, D6, and D14 with scores of 14 each.
D1 and D9 had MSLP scores of 13. The poorest performing
dairies with MSLP scores of 10 and below were D4
(medium dairy) and D7, D10, and D13 (small dairies). E.
coli was detected in the end products of two small dairies,
D10 and D13.
DISCUSSION
The effect of implemented hygienic practices and the
control and assurance activities on the microbiological quality
of food contact surfaces, food handlers’ hands, and ultimately
of the end products was studied. Hygienic practices and the
control and assurance activities are used to control microbi-
ological growth and cross-contamination that could arise from
contaminated surfaces and/or food handlers’ hands.
Based on the results of the MSLPs for pathogens, level
3 was attributed because no Salmonella was detected at any
979
CSL, which implies acceptance according to legal require-
ments and guidelines. Thus, indicates that the FSMS in
the dairies was effective for controlling this pathogen. The
results correspond to those obtained by Jacxsens et al. (33),
who attributed level 3 to Salmonella because this pathogen
was not detected on the hands and food contact surfaces or
on fresh, intermediate, and final meat products. However,
for pathogenic microorganisms with low prevalence (,1 to
5%), inherent limitations in sampling schemes determine
the level of contamination that is detectable (44).
MAS results revealed unsatisfactory performance for
dairy D7, where personal hygiene was placed at level 0
because of the presence of S. aureus. Microbiological
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/76/6/975/1687177/0362-028x_jfp-12-450.pdf by Indonesia user on 18 October 2022
guidelines recommend that this microbe be absent on all
tested surfaces. This dairy must improve personal hygiene
practices by better training of personnel (12). A level of 0
was also attributed to this dairy for yeast and molds at
CSL7. The results were above the maximum legal criteria of
100 cells per g.
Among the food contact surfaces considered in this
study, jacketed vessels such as milk tanks (CSL3) had high
MSLP scores compared with other surfaces; 8 (57%) of 14
had the maximum score of 18, 3 (21%) had a score of 17,
and only 2 (14%) had a score below 10. These surfaces were
cleaned using CIP systems with well-documented proce-
dures and instructions on performing the cleaning under
controlled conditions. Verification was performed after
cleaning operations to confirm the adequacy of cleaning.
However, D10 and D13 had low MSLP scores of 9 and 8,
respectively, at CSL3. D10 (small dairy) did not have a CIP
system. Although D13 (another small dairy) had a CIP
system, there were no documented cleaning instructions for
using the system, the system was not regularly inspected to
ensure proper functioning and mechanical integrity, and
verification of the efficiency of cleaning was not performed.
The food contact surfaces with the lowest scores were
manually cleaned equipment such as milk cans and product
transfer containers (CSL6). Only 5 (36%) of the 14 dairies
achieved the maximum MSLP score of 18, and the lowest
score was 6. Effective cleaning of food contact surfaces is
an important component of an FSMS (36). Poor perfor-
mance can be attributed to lack of well-defined and/or
documented procedures and guidelines for cleaning of such
equipment in most of the dairies. Verification to confirm the
adequacy of cleaning operations was seldom performed.
Such equipment is used to transfer processed product from
the larger processing or holding tanks to the packaging
section in dairies D4, D7, D8, and D10, where packing of
products such as yoghurt is done manually. In such cases,
surfaces of the equipment (CSL6) that are not adequately
cleaned can come into contact with finished products just
before packaging, posing a high risk of cross-contamination
and partly explaining why end product (CSL7) MSLP
scores at D4, D7, D8, and D10 were relatively low.
Dairies D3, D5, and D12 representing 21% of the
dairies achieved the maximum MSLP score of 15 at CSL7
(end product) and achieved maximum scores of 18 at each
of the sampling points (CSL1 to CSL6), with the exception
of D12, which had a score of 17 at CSL1. The FSMSs of
980 OPIYO ET AL. J. Food Prot., Vol. 76, No. 6

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/76/6/975/1687177/0362-028x_jfp-12-450.pdf by Indonesia user on 18 October 2022

FIGURE 1. Microbial safety level profile scores for critical sampling locations (CSL1 through CSL7) at 14 dairies in Nairobi and its
environs. (A) CSL1, hands and/or gloves of food handler; (B) CSL2, working or packing table surface; (C) CSL3, cleaned jacketed vessel;
(D) CSL4, packaging material, cup or container; (E) CSL5, packaging material, porch; (F) CSL6, milk can or product transfer container;
(G) CSL7, end product.
J. Food Prot., Vol. 76, No. 6 MICROBIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF DAIRY PROCESSING PLANTS
dairies D5 and D12 (large dairies) had been certified for
more than 3 years. These dairies periodically undergo
external verification of implemented control and assurance
activities through certification and surveillance audits. D3
(medium size dairy) has implemented a HACCP system for
more than 8 years. Although their system has not been
certified by an external body, they occasionally have second
party audits conducted by their main customers, the airlines.
The airline companies are motivated to ensure stringent
controls in supplier operations to meet the high customer
food safety requirements. D12 also supplies airlines.
External and internal audits conducted frequently at these
dairies partly explain the high performance of their FSMSs.
Among the large dairies, D6 did not achieve maximum
MSLP scores for the end product and CSL1. Although the
dairy has appropriate and adequate machinery and well-
trained staff, they are not implementing a HACCP system
or any other FSMS in their production processes. FSMS
implementation enhances and improves the control and
assurance activities through routine audits and checks to
verify that the implemented FSMS results in safer foods.
Dairies D2 and D11 had just received certifications of
their FSMSs and hence had implemented these programs for
a relatively very short time, which may explain why the end
product (CSL7) did not achieve the maximum MSLP score.
These dairies will need to continue to improve the
performance of their FSMSs.
The sample from the food handler (CSL1) at dairy D14
had high coliform counts (Fig. 1A). This worker was
responsible for handling, cutting, and packing cheese. The
working table (CSL2) on which cheese was cut also had
high of coliform counts (Fig. 1B). The containers (CSL6)
used for transferring cheese to the packing area had poor
performance in terms of total coliforms (Fig. 1F). This dairy
had an MSLP score of 14 and did not achieve the maximum
MSLP at CSL7 because of high coliform counts in the end
product, above the maximum legal limit of 10 CFU/ml.
These high counts could be attributed to cross-contamina-
tion from CSL1, CSL2, and CSL6. Although the dairy had
been implementing a HACCP system for more than 3 years,
their system was not certified and they did not have second
party or internal audits.
E. coli was detected in hand swabs (CSL1) collected at
D4, D10, and D13 and in the end products (CSL7) from
D10 and D13. The presence of this organism in the end
products could be attributed to cross-contamination. The
food handler at dairy D4 was involved in manual packing of
yoghurt (filling, capping, and sealing) because of a
breakdown of the packing machine. In D13, the food
handler also manually packed the product because the dairy
had no packing machine. In D10, the food handler was
involved in weighing ingredients such as flavors and
sweeteners to be mixed with the product after the heat
treatment step. Cross-contamination of the ingredients or
packaging material could have come from the food handler,
resulting in E. coli in the final product. The detection of E.
coli at CSL1 and CSL7 was in contrast to the results
obtained by Lahou et al. (44) for three production processes
in a catering establishment.
981
The dairies with the poorest performance were those in
which operations were manual and food handlers were not
well trained on technical and hygiene matters. All of these
poorly performing dairies were small, with the exception of
D4. The results obtained for a number of the microbial
parameters, especially TVC, total coliforms, and Entero-
bacteriaceae, at most of the CSLs in these dairies were
unsatisfactory; the counts were higher than the recom-
mended level. In a study on microbiological levels of
selected food contact surfaces, Domenech-Sanchez et al.
(13) found that about a quarter of the surfaces had
microbiological contamination levels higher than the
recommended levels. Results of the present study indicate
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/76/6/975/1687177/0362-028x_jfp-12-450.pdf by Indonesia user on 18 October 2022
that improvements in some core assurance activities in the
FSMSs of small dairies are needed.
Dairies that had very low MSLP scores at CSL1 (food
handlers’ hands), indicating inadequate hand washing
practices, also had low MSLP scores at CSL7 (end product).
Most of these dairies were small. These dairies also had low
MSLP scores at CSL6, which included surfaces that were
manually cleaned. Low MSLP scores are an indication of
insufficient cleaning procedures by the dairies. Noncompli-
ance with hygienic practices such as hand washing and
cleaning and disinfection procedures therefore directly
affects the microbial quality of the end products. Two
dairies (both large) that achieved the maximum MSLP
scores of 18 at each of the process sampling points (CSL1
through CSL6) also achieved the maximum MSLP score of
15 for the end product (CSL7). Three small dairies had the
lowest MSLP scores of 9 or 10 for the end product (CSL7)
and generally performed poorly, with low scores for the
other CSLs. Large dairies are better situated than small and
medium dairies for achieving safer dairy products. Dairies
that were implementing a HACCP system or following ISO
22000 guidelines achieved the maximum MSLP scores and
hence had safer end products than did dairies that were not
implementing either system.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the Kenya Bureau of Standards for allowing the
experimental studies to be performed at their microbiology facility and
providing all the required materials for the experiments. We also thank the
Kenyan dairy industry for cooperation and willingness to provide
information on food safety systems.
REFERENCES
1. Aarnisalo, K., K. Tallavaara, G. Wirtanen, R. Maijala, and L. Raaska.
2006. The hygienic working practices of maintenance personnel and
equipment hygiene in the Finnish food industry. Food Control 17:
1001–1011.
2. Augustin, J., and B. Minvielle. 2008. Design of control charts to
monitor the microbiological contamination of pork meat cuts. Food
Control 19:82–89.
3. Baird-Parker, A. C. 1995. Development of industrial procedures to
ensure the microbiological safety of food. Food Control 6:29–36.
4. Bidawid, S., J. Farber, and S. Sattar. 2000. Contamination of foods by
food handlers: experiments on hepatitis A virus transfer to food and
its interruption. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66:2759–2763.
5. British Standards Institution. 1985. Microbiological examination
for dairy purposes. Part 2. Methods of general application for
enumeration of microorganisms. Section 2.1. UDC637.1.055.07:579.8.
BS 4285, 1984. British Standards Institution, London.
982 OPIYO ET AL.
6. British Standards Institution. 1987. Microbiological examination for
dairy purposes. Part 3. Methods for detection and/or enumeration of
specific groups of microorganisms. Section 3.7. UDC637.1.055.07.
BS 4285, 1987. British Standards Institution, London.
7. Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2003. Recommended international
code of practice—general principles of food hygiene. CAC/RCP 1-
1969, Rev. 4-2003. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
8. Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2004. Code of hygienic practice
for milk and milk products. CAC/RCP 57-2004. Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome.
9. Cools, I., M. Uyttendaele, J. Cerpentier, E. D’Haese, J. H. Nelis, and
J. Debevere. 2005. Persistence of Campylobacter jejuni on surfaces
in a processing environment and on cutting boards. Lett. Appl.
Microbiol. 40:418–423.
10. Debevere, J., M. Uyttendaele, F. Devlieghere, and L. Jacxsens. 2006.
Microbiological guide values and legal microbiological criteria.
Laboratory of Food Microbiology and Food Preservation, Ghent
University, Ghent, Belgium.
11. DeVere, E., and D. Purchase. 2007. Effectiveness of domestic
antibacterial products in decontaminating food contact surfaces. Food
Microbiol. 24:425–430.
12. Dijk, R., D. van den Berg, R. R. Beumer, E. de Boer, A. Dijkstra, P.
Kalkmand, H. Stegeman, M. Uyttendaele, and H. Veenendaal. 2007.
Microbiologie van Voedingsmiddelen: methoden, principes en
criteria (vierde druk). Uitgeverij Keesing Noordervliet, Houten, The
Netherlands.
13. Domenech-Sanchez, A., E. Laso, M. J. Perez, and C. I. Berrocal.
2011. Microbiological levels of randomly selected food contact
surfaces in hotels located in Spain during 2007–2009. Foodborne
Pathog. Dis. 8:1025–1029.
14. European Commission. 2005. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/
2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs.
Off. J. Eur. Union L 338:1–29.
15. European Food Safety Authority. 2007. The community summary
report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents,
antimicrobial resistance and food borne outbreaks in the European
Union in 2006. Available at: www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa-locale-
1178620753812_117871312912.htm. Accessed 12 June 2012.
16. Evans, J. A., S. L. Russell, C. James, and J. E. L. Corry. 2004.
Microbial contamination of food refrigeration equipment. J. Food
Eng. 62:225–232.
17. Fuster-Valls, N., M. Hernandez-Herrero, M. Marin-de-Mateo, and
J. J. Rodriguez-Jerez. 2008. Effect of different environmental
conditions on the bacteria survival on stainless steel surfaces. Food
Control 19:308–314.
18. Gorman, R., S. Bloomfield, and C. Adley. 2002. A study of cross
contamination of food-borne pathogens in the domestic kitchen in the
Republic of Ireland. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 76:143–150.
19. Herbert, M., T. Donovan, and P. Manger. 1990. A study of the
microbial contamination of working surfaces in a variety of food
premises using the traditional swabbing technique and commercial
contact slides. Public Health Laboratory Service, Ashford, UK.
20. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for
Foods. 2002. Microorganisms in foods. 7. Microbiological testing
in food safety management. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers,
New York.
21. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for
Foods. 2005. Microorganisms in foods. 6. Microbial ecology of food
commodities, 2nd ed. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New
York.
22. International Organization for Standardization. 2001. Milk and milk
products. Detection of Salmonella spp. ISO 6785:2001, IDF 93-
2:2001. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
23. International Organization for Standardization. 2002. Microbiology
of food and animal feeding stuffs. Horizontal method for the detection
of Salmonella spp. ISO 6579:2002. International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva.
24. International Organization for Standardization. 2003. Microbiology
of food and animal feeding stuffs. Horizontal method for the
enumeration of microorganisms. Colony-count technique at 30uC.
J. Food Prot., Vol. 76, No. 6
ISO 4833:2003. International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva.
25. International Organization for Standardization. 2003. Microbiology
of food and animal feeding stuffs. Horizontal method for the
enumeration of coagulase-positive Staphylococcus aureus and other
species. Part 1. Technique using Baird agar medium. Amendment 1.
Inclusion of precision data. ISO 6888-1:1999/Amd 1:2003. Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
26. International Organization for Standardization. 2004. Microbiology
of food and animal feeding stuffs. Horizontal methods for sampling
techniques from surfaces using contact plates and swabs. ISO
18593:2004. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
27. International Organization for Standardization. 2004. Microbiology
of food and animal feeding stuffs. Horizontal method for the detec-
tion and enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae. Part 2. Colony-count
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/76/6/975/1687177/0362-028x_jfp-12-450.pdf by Indonesia user on 18 October 2022
method. ISO 21528-2:2004. International Organization for Standard-
ization, Geneva.
28. International Organization for Standardization. 2004. Milk and milk
products—enumeration of colony-forming units of yeasts and/or
moulds. Colony-count techniques at 25uC. ISO 6611:2004, IDF
94:2004. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
29. International Organization for Standardization. 2005. Food safety
management systems. Requirements for any organization in the food
chain. ISO 22000:2005. International Organization for Standardiza-
tion, Geneva.
30. International Organization for Standardization. 2005. General re-
quirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.
ISO 17025:2005. International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva.
31. International Organization for Standardization. 2005. Milk and milk
products—enumeration of presumptive Escherichia coli. Part 2.
Colony-count techniques at 44uC using membranes. ISO 11866-
2:2005, IDF 170-2:2005. International Organization for Standardiza-
tion, Geneva.
32. International Organization for Standardization. 2006. Microbiology
of food and animal feeding stuffs. Horizontal method for the
enumeration of coliforms. Colony-count technique. ISO 4832:2006.
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
33. Jacxsens, L., J. Kussaga, P. A. Luning, M. Van der Spiegel, F.
Devlieghere, and M. Uyttendaele. 2009. A microbial assessment
scheme to measure microbial performance of food safety manage-
ment systems. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 134:113–125.
34. Jacxsens, L., P. A. Luning, W. J. Marcelis, T. van Boekel, J. Rovira,
S. Oses, M. Kousta, E. Drosinos, V. Jasson, and M. Uyttendaele.
2011. Tools for the performance assessment and improvement of
food safety management systems. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 22:80–
89.
35. Jacxsens, L., M. Uyttendaele, F. Devlieghere, J. Rovira, S. Oses
Gomez, and P. A. Luning. 2010. Food safety performance indicators
to benchmark food safety output of food safety management systems.
Int. J. Food Microbiol. 141:180–187.
36. Joint Hospitality Industry Congress, Food Safety and Hygiene
Working Group. 1995. Industry guide to good hygiene practice:
catering guide. Food safety (general food hygiene) regulations, 1995.
Chadwick House Group, London.
37. Jones, S. L., S. M. Parry, S. J. O’Brien, and S. R. Palmer. 2008. Are
staff management practices and inspection risk ratings associated with
foodborne disease outbreaks in the catering industry in England and
Wales? J. Food Prot. 71:550–557.
38. Kaferstein, F. 2003. Actions to reverse the upward curve of food
borne illness. Food Control 14:101–109.
39. Kenya Bureau of Standards. 1990. Specification for cheese. Part 1.
General requirements for cheese. UDC 637.3. Kenya standard 05-28,
1990. Kenya Bureau of Standards, Nairobi.
40. Kenya Bureau of Standards. 1999. Specification for dairy cream for
direct consumption. ICS 67.100.10. Kenya standard 05-35, 1999.
Kenya Bureau of Standards, Nairobi.
41. Kenya Bureau of Standards. 1999. Specification for dairy ice-cream
and milk ice. ICS 67.10. Kenya standard 36, 1999. Kenya Bureau of
Standards, Nairobi.
J. Food Prot., Vol. 76, No. 6 MICROBIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF DAIRY PROCESSING PLANTS
42. Kenya Bureau of Standards. 2001. Specification for yoghurt. ICS
67.100.10. KS 34:2001. Kenya Bureau of Standards, Nairobi.
43. Kenya Bureau of Standards. 2002. Specification for pasteurized
liquid milk. ICS 67.100.10 Kenya standard 30, 2002. Kenya Bureau
of Standards, Nairobi.
44. Lahou, E., L. Jacxsens, J. Daelman, F. Van Landeghem, and M.
Uyttendaele. 2012. Microbiological performance of a food safety
management system in a food service operation. J. Food Prot. 75:706–716.
45. Legan, J. D., M. Vandeven, S. Dahms, and M. Cole. 2001.
Determining the concentration of microorganisms controlled by
attributes sampling plans. Food Control 12:137–147.
46. Luning, P. A., and W. J. Marcelis. 2007. A food quality management
functions model from a techno-managerial perspective. Trends Food
Sci. Technol. 18:159–166.
47. Rusin, P., P. Orosz-Coughlin, and C. Gerba. 1998. Reduction of fecal
coliform, coliform and heterotrophic plate count bacteria in the
983
household kitchen and bathroom by disinfections with hypochlorite
cleaners. J. Appl. Microbiol. 85:819–828.
48. Tsalo, E., E. H. Drosinos, and P. Zoiopoulos. 2007. Impact of poultry
slaughter house modernization and updating of food safety
management systems on the microbiological quality and safety of
products. Food Control 19:423–431.
49. Uyttendaele, M., L. Jacxsens, A. De Loy-Hendrickx, F. Devlieghere,
and J. Debevere. 2010. Microbiological guideline values and legal
microbiological criteria. Laboratory of Food Microbiology and Food
Preservation, Department of Food Safety and Food Quality, Ghent
University, Ghent, Belgium.
50. Walker, E., C. Pritchard, and S. Forsythe. 2003. Food handlers’
hygiene knowledge in small food business. Food Control 14:339–343.
51. World Health Organization. 2007. Food safety and food borne illness.
Factsheet 237. Available at: www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/76/6/975/1687177/0362-028x_jfp-12-450.pdf by Indonesia user on 18 October 2022
fs237/en/index.html. Accessed 13 June 2012.