Yearbook 2013/2014 - ehedg

Examination of food allergen removal from two flat conveyor belts 113
Figure 5. Steam vacuum chamber installed on the conveyor.
(Photo provided courtesy of AmeriVap.)
Reveal 3-D peanut, soy, and egg test kits (Neogen) were
used to validate the effect of allergen cleaning. Each kit
contains a sterile cotton swab, buffer solution, a sample
tube, and a Reveal 3-D test device. The standard testing
protocol provided by Neogen was followed. The device
was read five minutes after reaction. The allergen
acceptable limit was determined by the testing kits’ supplier
to be < 5 ppm.
The effect of allergen cleaning was tested on each belt.
Each allergen-belt combination was tested three times with
six swab samples each time for a total of 18 samples.
Table 1. Allergen testing results on fabric-reinforced flat belt.
Replication Allergen
Peanut Soy Egg white
1 4/6 0/6 0/6
2 5/6 0/6 1/6
3 5/6 1/6 0/6
Total 14/18 (78%) 1/18 (6%) 1/18 (6%)
As shown in Table 1, after dry-steam vacuum cleaning
on the fabric reinforced flat belt, 78% of the samples
tested positive for peanut, 6% tested positive for soy, and
6% tested positive for egg whites. Allergens were not
satisfactorily cleaned, especially for peanut butter, using
this steam-cleaning system.
Table 2. Allergen testing results on homogenous smooth urethane
flat belt.
Replication Allergen
Peanut Soy Egg white
1 0/6 0/6 0/6
2 0/6 0/6 0/6
3 0/6 0/6 0/6
Total 0/18 0/18 0/18
As indicated in Table 2, the three allergens were effectively
removed from the solid smooth surface of the urethane flat
belt using the steam vacuum cleaning device.
Discussion
The results of the allergen cleaning tests using the steamvacuum
system clearly demonstrate that allergens cannot
be removed from fabric-reinforced flat belts to a level
where it cannot be detected with the applied test method
with its specific detection limits, using the system. This
was consistent with the testing carried out by Al-Taher et
al. (2011) on urethane-faced fabric belts using a dry-steam
cleaning device to clean peanuts, non-fat milk, and whole
eggs. The results showed that no egg soils were detected –
with the method applied – for all the cleaning times tested,
while peanut and milk soils were still detected after cleaning
the belt for 10 minutes using the same test kits as used in
this study. The results also demonstrated that the efficacy of
the dry-steam-cleaning unit on fabric flat belts depends on
the type of food soil applied to the belt surface, which was
also in agreement with the results obtained in this study –
that peanut butter was more difficult to clean than soy and
egg whites.
On the other hand, the smooth, solid homogeneous
urethane belt employed in this study showed effective
removal of all allergens using the same cleaning system as
the fabric flat belt. The difference with respect to allergen
cleaning could be due to the belt’s homogenous surface
properties, which fully meet the requirements for hygienic
design of equipment developed by GMA. The fabricreinforced
flat belt’s thin, laminated surface may not be
fully enclosed, which could entrap allergen molecules. In
addition, the fabric materials on the belt’s back side can
absorb moisture accumulated from steam. The belt’s
friction-driving mechanism allows that moisture to squeeze
between the drum and the belt itself, which can result in
allergens and other soils migrating to the top layer of the
belt.
In conclusion, the results from this study demonstrated
that the newly developed solid-plastic flat belt can be used
to reduce the potential allergen contamination during dry
food processing in combination with the dry-steam vacuum
system.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to AmeriVap Company for allowing
the use of their dry-steam cleaning unit to carry out this
study.
References
1. The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN). Food Allergy
Facts and Statistics for the U.S. www.foodallergy.org/files/Food
AllergyFacts andStatistics.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2012.
4. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2011. The reportable
food registration second annual report: Targeting inspection
resources and identifying patterns of adulteration. www.fda.gov/
Food/FoodSafety/FoodSafetyPrograms/RFR/ucm200958.htm.
Accessed August 10, 2012.
3. Branum, A., M.S.P.H. and Susan L. Lukacs, D.O., M.S.P.H. 2008.
Food allergy among U.S. children: Trends in prevalence and
hospitalizations. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.pdf.
Accessed August 10, 2012.