temperature management in food cold chain
TRANSCRIPT
Retail Storage Temperature Profile and Its Impact on Food Shelf-life
National Taiwan Ocean University
Department of Food Science
Seminar
Seminar Instructor:
Professor Yeuk-Chuen Liu
Professor Chyuan-Yuan Shiau
Advisor:
Hsiao Hsin-I
Presented by:
Nodali Ndraha
10432071
1
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Retail food cold storage temperature control
3. Impact of abusive temperature on food shelf-life
4. Conclusion
2
Postharvest Transport Processing Transport
WarehousingTransportRetail
Cold Chain in Food Sector
Industry Temperature Standards
Banana
13°CChill
2 - 7°CFrozen
-18°CDeep Frozen
-29°C3
Source: 2015 ITA Cold Chain Top Markets Report
The retail level appears to be one of the weakestpoints where more temperature abuses have beenobserved (Likar & Jevšnik, 2006; Lundén,Vanhanen, Kotilainen, & Hemminki, 2014; Lundén,Vanhanen, Myllymäki, et al., 2014)
4
Food Products in Retails
Fruits & Vegetables Meat Fish & Seafood Dairy Products Beverages
5
The Objectives
To investigate current status of temperature profile in retail refrigerators and food products, and to evaluate its impacts on food quality.
6
Retail food cold storage temperature control
(Equipment & Foodstuffs)
7
Materials
• Temperature recorder
• Refrigeration equipment
• Chilled food products
• Fresh fish, minced meat, vacuum packed processed fish(gravad or cold smoked fish) and other ready-to-eat-foods (Lundén et al., 2014)
• Fresh meat, meat preparations, meat products, dairyproducts, fishery products, RTE foods, refrigeratedvegetables and mixed (Zubeldia et al., 2016)
• bakeries, pork butcher’s/delicatessen and cheese/dairyproducts (Morelli et al., 2012)
8
Methodology
• Temperature of equipment and food products were measuredand registered by Lundén et al., (2014); Morelli et al.,(2012); Zubeldia et al., (2016) using the temperaturerecorder in food retailer.
• Temperature was recorded at different shelf location (Top,Half, Bottom) and different season (summer, winter).
• Predictive microbiology was conducted to investigate theproduct shelf life.
• Surveying to investigate the awareness of equipment andfood products temperatures
9
Workflow of research
Retail Selection
Product selection
Temperature recording
Data analyzingData
Interpretation
10
Figure 1. Temperature variations during a sales period for each profile.
(Morelli et al., 2012)
78.3% foodstuffs temperature rises up to 160C, but
can decrease by up to 8.50C
Products: bakeries, pork butcher’s/delicatessen and
cheese/dairy products
11
Products profiles
79
68
63 63
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Perc
en
tages
Food Products
Bakeries
Products
Pork Butcher’s
Delicatessen
Cheese
Dairy ProductsGlobal Food
Stuff
Class 1 =
Satisfactory,
constantly ≤ 70C
Class 2=
Unsatisfactory,
Raises above 70C
Figure 2. Distribution of foodstuffs throughout the sales period (Morelli et al., 2012).
12
Table 1a. Temperature control requirement (TCR), Display Temperature of equipment (DT),
Room Temperature (RT) and Display Temperature (DT) according to food categories and
season
(Zubeldia et al., 2016)
Display temperatureRoom Temperature
13
Table 1b. Temperature control requirement (TCR), and recorded temperature of products are
stored at different shelves (bottom, half and top) according to food categories and season
(Zubeldia et al., 2016)
+4
+2
+3
14
Display
Temperature Buttom Half Top
Table 2a. Percentage of refrigerators by food categories and season in which either the
display temperature of the equipment (DT), or the surface temperature of food products at
different shelves (BST, bottom shelf; HST, half shelf; TST, top shelf) did not meet the
temperature control requirement (TCR) for that category (percentage of non compliance).
(Zubeldia et al., 2016)
All the temperatures
are non-compliance, except meat
preparation and fishery product
15
Table 2b. Percentage of refrigerators by food categories and season in which either the
display temperature of the equipment (DT), or the surface temperature of food products at
different shelves (BST, bottom shelf; HST, half shelf; TST, top shelf) did not meet the
temperature control requirement (TCR) for that category (percentage of non compliance).
(Zubeldia et al., 2016)16
Table 3. Temperatures (0C) violations of food products in food stores (n=32) during a 24 h (1440
min) measurement.
Food type
(number of food
products)
Proportion of
products
exceeding
temperature limit
by >1ºC
%
Duration of time
(min) when
products
exceeded
temperature limit
by >1ºC
Mean (min –
max)
Proportion of
time when
products
exceeded
temperature limit
by >1ºC
% of 24 h
Proportion of
products
exceeding the
temperature limit
by >3ºC % for
>30 min
%
Fresh fish (n =18) 89.5 781 (15 – 1440) 54.2 52.6
Processed fish
(n=8)
50.0 641 (45 – 1395) 44.5 25.0
Minced meat
(n=28)
40.0 249 (15 – 1425) 17.3 10.0
Ready-to-eat
(n=27)
33.3 308 (15 – 1395) 21.4 0
Total (84) 50.0 - - -
(Lundén et al., 2014)17
Product type
Spearman’s rank correlation with temperature of fix thermometer
Correlation coefficient
Temperature of
product (logger)
Temperature of
equipment (logger)
Temperature
setpoint of
equipment
Fresh fish 0.350 0.530*a 0.111
Processed fish 0.571 0.238 -b
Minced meat 0.422* 0.234 0.264
Ready-to-eat 0.003 0.091 -0.372a The artistic indicates that the correlation with the temperature of the fixed thermometer was significant (p<0.05)b Correlation analysis was not done due to low number of data
Table 4. Correlation between the temperatures indicated by the refrigeration equipment’s
fixed thermometers with the temperature setpoints of the equipment and with the product and
equipment temperature measured by temperature data loggers
(Lundén et al., 2014)18
Table 5. Temperatures (0C) of refrigeration equipment and products in food stores (n=32).
(Lundén et al., 2014)
19
Product type
Product
temperature
limit
Temperature
of
refrigeration
equipment
(fixed
thermometer)a
Temperature mean over 24h measured
by loggerb (min-max)
Temperature of
refrigeration
equipment
Temperature of
the product
Fresh fish (n=18) 2 1.5Ac 2.2 (-0.8 to 4.7)B 3.5 (0.3 to 8.6)A
Processed fish (n=8) 3 1.0A 2.4 (0.8 to 4.6)B 2.7 (1.2 to 5.1)A
Minced meat (n=28) 4 1.3A 2.4 (-2.4 to 6.0)B 3.1 (0.1 to 6.9)A
Ready-to-eat (n=27) 6 3.4AB 4.5 (-0.5 to 8.1)B 4.8 (0.0 to 8.1)A
a the temperature observed of time of inspection was documentedb temperature data logger position next to the productc similar capital letters within row indicate significant difference between temperatures (Mann – Whitney U test,
p<0.05)
The factors influencing the refrigerators and foodstuffs temperatures
20
Factor category Factors influencing foodstuff classification Cases concerneda
Number %b
Factors related to
refrigerated
displays (RD)
A High temperature at cold air discharge (>70C) 11 20.8
B High temperature at air return (>100C) despite correct
temperature at discharge
17 32.1
C Areas in the RD with poor cold air circulation 9 17.0
Factors related to
professional
practices
D Air flow obstructed by unsuitable positioning of
foodstuffs
2 3.8
E Foodstuffs placed in display When too warm (>70C) 16 30.2
F Inappropriate RD operation times 11 20.8
G Manual intervention on the RD during sales period 2 3.8
H Poorly scheduled defrosting 4 7.5 a one item may be concerned by several factors b percentage calculated on the 53 class 2 profiles
Table 6. Factors influencing foodstuff classification
(Morelli et al., 2012)
21
Figure 3. Distribution of air temperatures at the return according to foodstuffs class
(Morelli et al., 2012)
Class 1, 95.8% < 100C
Class 2, 63.2% > 100C
Class 1=
satisfactory,
constantly ≤ 70C
Class 2 =
unsatisfactory,
Raises above 70C
22
Tabel 7. Food stores (n = 32) awareness of temperature and alarm settings of
refrigeration equipment.
(Lundén, et al., 2014)
Refrigeration
equipment
(number of
equipment
Awareness of the settings of equipment (%)
Temperature of
equipment
Temperature
setpoint
Alarm
setpoint
Time from reaching
the alarm setpoint to
forwarding the alarm
Fresh fish
equipment (19)
17 (89.5) 13 (68.4) 12 (63.2) 13 (68.4)
Processed fish
equipment (9)
8 (88.9) 2 (22.2) 4 (44.4) 4 (44.4)
Minced meat
equipment (31)
27 (87.1) 13 (41.9) 16 (51.6) 18 (58.1)
Ready to eat
equipment (31)
22 (81.5) 10 (37.0) 13 (48.1) 12 (44.4)
Total (86) 74 (86.0) 38 (44.2) 45 (52.3) 47 (54.7)
23
Impact of abusive temperature on food safety
24
Kind of Food pHWater
ActivityShelf life TCR Season X Shelf life X
Smoked salmon (100% CO2)
6.60 0.980 30d (720h) 4 Summer 6.6 18d (428h)
Cooked chickenbreast (100% CO2)
6.31 0.971 30d (720h) 4 Summer 9.0 13d (326h)
Burgos cheese packaging (40% CO2)
5.94 0.994 20d (480h) 5 Summer 6.4 15d (370h)
TCR = Temperature Control Requirement in food labellingShelf life declared in the Spanish market
Tabel 8. Changes in the shelf life of three different kinds of food depending on storage
temperature (TCR versus X)
25
Conclusion
26
• 63% of time temperature profiles were unsatisfactory where bakeries, pork butcher/delicatessen and cheese dairy must remain at temperatures below or equal to 7C
• The higher food product temperature limit should be placed at the top shelf position.
• Refrigeration design and the professional practices contribute to the abusive temperature at the food retail and food product.
• Low awareness of temperature set points of the equipment
• Improper temperature control might be shorten the food product shelf life.
Referred paper
Zubeldia, B. B., Jiménez, M. N., Claros, M. T. V., Andrés, J. L. M., Martin-Olmedo, P., Baldera Zubeldia, B., Nieto Jiménez, M., Valenzuela Claros, M. T., Mariscal Andrés, J. L., & Martin-Olmedo, P. (2016). Effectiveness of the cold chain control procedure in the retail sector in Southern Spain. Food Control, 59, 614–618.
Morelli, E., Noel, V., Rosset, P., & Poumeyrol, G. (2012). Performance and conditions of use of refrigerated display cabinets among producer/vendors of foodstuffs. Food Control, 26, 363–368.
Lundén, J., Vanhanen, V., Myllymäki, T., Laamanen, E., Kotilainen, K., & Hemminki, K. (2014). Temperature control efficacy of retail refrigeration equipment. Food Control, 45, 109–114.
27
28