AUTOMATION & FOOD SAFETY

HOST Bill Kinross Publisher, Meatingplace MODERATOR Mike Fielding Editor, Meatingplace

THE ROLE IN AUTOMATION Jonathan Holmes Research Engineer Georgia 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 Hayes Director 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 (CSPI Outbreak Alert – 2009)

PCA salmonella contamination Recall of 1800 products impacting 250 BRANDS

Number of Bacteria Time ,056 32, ,144 12:00 12:40 12:20 2:00 1:00 4:00 3:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 MICROBES DIVIDE & MULTIPLY RAPIDLY 2,097,152 Time

FLOW & LINKAGES EN ISO 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 ThisTo This Previous DesignSanitary Redesign

9 - Hygienic Compatibility with Other Plant Systems Design of equipment must ensure hygienic compatibility with other equipment and systems, e.g., electrical, hydraulics, steam, air, water Validate Cleaning & Sanitizing Protocols The 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 Safety of machinery Hygiene requirements for the design of machinery AMI 10 principles of sanitary design

SPONSOR SLIDE #2

RAPID MICROBIOLOGICAL TESTING Jim Dickson Professor, 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 Quantitative some 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 Sample Transport to Laboratory Analyze Sample (incubate) Prepare Sample Results

Qualitative Sample Analysis Flow Diagram Collect Sample Transport 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 Sample Transport 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 Sample Transport 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 Sample Transport 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 m/3mac.jpg h29p.JPG

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 – h – Sample analysis – 3 ½ - 5 h Total – 14 hours to 2 ½ days Confirm Result- 1 ½ - 2 days

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

FOR MORE INFORMATION Jonathan Holmes: Fred Hayes: Jim Dickson: Lisa Keefe: Bill McDowell: Weber: Multivac: Webinar recording and PowerPoint presentation will be ed to you within 48 hours. For more information: