AUTOMATION & FOOD SAFETY

HOST Bill KinrossPublisher, Meatingplace

MODERATOR Mike FieldingEditor, Meatingplace

THE ROLE IN AUTOMATION

Jonathan HolmesResearch EngineerGeorgia Tech Research Institute

Topics

• Overview of research at the Georgia Tech Research Institute’s Food Processing Technology Division

• Challenges of working in food processing environments

• Automation in food processing• Impacts of automation on food safety

GTRI Food Processing Technology Division Overview

Supported by the state of Georgia through the Agricultural Technology Research Program as well as some industry funding with a focus on the poultry industry with research associated with other industries such as baked goods. GTRI’s research also extends into worker safety, water quality, food safety, and sensor development.

Automation Challenges in Food Processing

• Daily cleaning routines involve highly caustic cleaners applied at high temperature and pressure

• Food products are non-uniform and conformal making end effector design difficult

Automation in Food Processing

• Automation is not mechanization• Automatic control involves

integration of sensors and often results in a complex system integration effort

Automation Challenges in Food Processing• Sensor integration

challenging due to environmental constraints – especially machine vision tools

• Low profit margins require cost effective solutions

• IP69K approval not available for many electronics IP69K Test Diagram

Selection of Drive Components and Materials

Servo Motors

Product Conveyance Pneumatic Components

Drive Components

Automation Design for Food Processing• Several good sources of hygienic design guidelines

– American Meat Institute, European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group, and National Sanitation Foundation among others

• GTRI has performed extensive tests on automation equipment resulting in guidelines for the design of automation equipment in food processing

• “Guidelines for Designing Washdown Robots for Meat Packaging Applications” published in Trends in Food Science & Technology (Volume 21, Issue 3)– Addresses packaging considerations associated with material

selection, bearings, belts, manufacturing processes, and general design guidelines

Design Guideline Examples

Automation Effects on Food Safety

• Positive effects are clear– Removing the worker can reduce the level of pathogens– Possibility to introduce automated cleaning solutions

• Research in this area will continue to bring new and viable solutions to the market

IMPLEMENT AUTOMATION PROPERLY AND WITH CAUTION:When improperly implemented, automation of processes can

cause a number of problems ranging from significant down time in operation to actually increasing the existence of pathogens

EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

Fred HayesDirector of Technical Services - Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute

Food Safety Machinery Issues

What is at stake

Problem areas

Standards and Guidance Docs

Risks• Foodborne Illness– E. Coli– Listeria– Salmonella

• Allergens• Cross contamination

Foodborne Illnesses

• Outbreaks– <5% of the total illness– Get all the media attention– Source of the attribution data

• Sporadic Illness– >95% of illness– Virtually no attribution data– No media coverage

• Are things getting worse?

Outbreaks 1998 - 2007

(CSPI Outbreak Alert – 2009)

PCA salmonella

contaminationRecall of 1800 products impacting 250 BRANDS

Number of Bacteria

Time1

2

48

51264

4,05632,768

262,144

12:0012:00

12:4012:20

2:001:00

4:003:00

5:00 6:00

7:00

MICROBES DIVIDE & MULTIPLY RAPIDLY

2,097,152

Time

FLOW & LINKAGES

EN ISO 14159-1-2008

Guiding Standard

AMI 10 Principles

Communication / training tool

Equipment Manufacturers

Processors

AMI 10 Principle Check List - A Tool to Promote & share common expectations

1 - Clean to a Microbiological level~ 47 uinch

A scratch on a piece of stainless steel acts a harborage point for Listeria.

Courtesy Univ. Wisconsin, Madison

2 - Made of Compatible Materials

6061 Aluminum

3 - Accessible for Inspection, Maintenance, Cleaning & Sanitation

4 - No Product or Liquid Collection

5 - Hollow Areas are Hermetically Sealed

Hardware improperly mounted to frame by bolting through tubing.

6 - No Niches

Multiple Pulleys that are not easily removable for cleaning

7 - Sanitary Operational Performance

8. Hygienic Design of Maintenance Enclosures

View from back side

Fully Enclosed Supply line

From This To This

Previous Design Sanitary Redesign

9 - Hygienic Compatibility with Other Plant SystemsDesign of equipment must ensure hygienic compatibility with other equipment and systems, e.g., electrical, hydraulics, steam, air, water.

10 - Validate Cleaning & Sanitizing ProtocolsThe procedures prescribed for cleaning and sanitation must be clearly written, designed and proven to be effective and efficient. Chemicals recommended for cleaning & sanitation must be compatible with the equipment, as well as compatible with the manufacturing environment.

Standards and Guidance

EN ISO 14159-1 2008 Safety of machinery

Hygiene requirements for the design of machinery

AMI 10 principles of sanitary design

SPONSOR SLIDE #2

RAPID MICROBIOLOGICAL TESTING

Jim DicksonProfessor, Dept. of Animal Science - Iowa State University

Outline

• Sampling• Methods of detection• What do we mean by rapid?• Results• Automation

Sampling

Robust Sampling

• “Given its shortcomings and the presumed low occurrence of this pathogen, the N-60 sample size and design may not be adequate for detecting E. coli O157:H7 in beef trim.”

• UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (24 Feb 2011)

Iowa State University

Methods to Detect Microorganisms in Foods

• Quantitativesome regulatory standards are based on quantitative measures (e.g. population of bacteria allowed in raw milk; E. coli Biotype I on carcasses)

• Qualitative some regulatory standards are based on qualitative measures (e.g. presence/absence of E. coli allowed in pasteurized milk)

Iowa State University

Quantitative Sample Analysis Flow Diagram

Collect SampleTransport to Laboratory

Analyze Sample(incubate)

Prepare Sample

Results

Qualitative Sample Analysis Flow Diagram

Collect SampleTransport to Laboratory

Pre-Enrich Sample

Prepare Sample

Select Enrich Sample

Analyze Sample

Presumptive Result

Confirmed Result

What do we mean by “rapid”?

Sample Collection

Collect SampleTransport to Laboratory

Pre-Enrich Sample

Prepare Sample

Select Enrich Sample

Analyze Sample

Presumptive Result

Confirmed Result

Sample Handling• Collection• Transport• Chain of Custody• Sample preparation

Iowa State University

IN OUT

Sample Enrichment

Collect SampleTransport to Laboratory

Pre-Enrich Sample

Prepare Sample

Select Enrich Sample

Analyze Sample

Presumptive Result

Confirmed Result

Sample Enrichment

• Pre- and Selective enrichment steps often combined

• Typically 8 to 24 hours

Analyze Sample

Collect SampleTransport to Laboratory

Pre-Enrich Sample

Prepare Sample

Select Enrich Sample

Analyze Sample

Presumptive Result

Confirmed Result

Analyze Sample

• The “rapid” in rapid methods

• ELISA – “dipstick” test – 10 min

• PCR – “molecular” test – 3 1/2 – 5 hours

Analyze Sample

• Factors to consider - technical– Sensitivity and Specificity

• Factors to consider - pragmatic– Number of samples per day or week– Training of personnel– Cost (equipment, supplies, etc)

Results

• Presumptive vs. Confirmed– a positive result usually requires confirmation

• What is confirmation?– Traditional bacteriology – isolate and identify a

culture

Isolation and Identification

• Conventional Bacteriology– Selective media– Biochemical reactions

Iowa State University 2009

www.mc.maricopa.edu/~johnson/labtools/Dbiochem/3mac.jpg

www.bacto.com.au/images/crystal_c.jpg

www.rapidmicrobiology.com/news/1054h29p.JPG

Automation

Automation• What can be automated?– Sample analysis– Culture identification

• Why?– Labor costs– Consistency– Throughput

Conclusions

• “Rapid” is– Collect and Transport to lab – 30 min to 24-28h– Sample preparation and enrichment – 10 -26 h– Sample analysis – 3 ½ - 5 h

• Total – 14 hours to 2 ½ days• Confirm Result- 1 ½ - 2 days

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

FOR MORE INFORMATIONJonathan Holmes: jonathan.holmes@gtri.gatech.edu

Fred Hayes: cfhayes@sbcglobal.netJim Dickson: jdickson@iastate.edu

Lisa Keefe: lkeefe@meatingplace.comBill McDowell: bmcdowell@meatingplace.com

Weber: sscriven@weberslicer.comMultivac: jerry.hirsh@multivac.com

Webinar recording and PowerPoint presentation will be emailed to you within 48 hours. For more information:

www.meatingplace.com/webinars