See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236152427

The hygienic working practices of maintenance personal and equipment

hygiene in Finnish food industry

Article  in  Food Control · December 2006

DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.07.006

CITATIONS READS

64 1,825

5 authors, including:

Kaarina Aarnisalo Gun Wirtanen

Finnish Patent and Registration Office, Helsinki, Finland University of Helsinki
14 PUBLICATIONS   747 CITATIONS    151 PUBLICATIONS   1,781 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Riitta Maijala
Academy of Finland
60 PUBLICATIONS   1,622 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Open Science and Research Initiative View project

Detergent residue test View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Riitta Maijala on 12 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Food Control 17 (2006) 1001–1011
www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont

The hygienic working practices of maintenance personnel

and equipment hygiene in the Finnish food industry
a,¤
Kaarina Aarnisalo , Kaija Tallavaara b, Gun Wirtanen a, Riitta Maijala b,
Laura Raaska a
a
VTT Biotechnology, P.O. Box 1500, VTT, FIN-02044 Helsinki, Finland
b
Department of Risk Assessment, National Veterinary and Food Research Institute, P.O. Box 45, FIN-00581 Helsinki, Finland

Received 24 January 2005; received in revised form 21 July 2005; accepted 22 July 2005

Abstract

The hygienic working practices of the maintenance personnel as well as the hygiene of the equipment in the food industry were
investigated with questionnaires and microbial surveys. The protective clothing, washing of hands and tools as well as avoiding for-
eign bodies left on the production lines should be targeted when the hygienic working practices are developed for maintenance per-
sonnel. Based on the questionnaire to food processors, packaging machines, conveyers, dispensers, slicing and cooling machines were
considered the most problematic pieces of equipment hygienically mainly because of poor hygienic design. In order to improve food
safety, both the training of maintenance personnel in food hygiene and equipment design should be more emphasised.
© 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Equipment hygiene; Hygienic working practices; Maintenance personnel

1. Introduction tion of the laws of Member States relating to machinery

Food-processing equipment has been shown to be a
source of contamination, e.g. Listeria monocytogenes, in
many studies (Aguado, Vitas, & Garcia-Jalon, 2001;
Autio et al., 1999; Fonnesbech-Vogel, Jørgensen,
Ojeniyi, Huss, & Gram, 2001; Lawrence & Gilmour,
1994; Lundén, Autio, & Korkeala, 2002; Lundén, Autio,
Sjöberg, & Korkeala, 2003; Miettinen, Björkroth, &
Korkeala, 1999; Pritchard, Flanders, & Donnelly, 1995;
Samelis & Metaxopoulos, 1999; Suihko et al., 2002;
Tompkin, 2002). Legislation on the hygienic design of
food-processing equipment or the hygienic maintenance
of these equipment is rather vague. In Europe the most
important legislation giving criteria for hygienic design
of equipment is the Council Directive on the approxima-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 9 722 7126; fax: +358 9 722 7071.
E-mail address: kaarina.aarnisalo@vtt.W (K. Aarnisalo).
(89/392/EEC, revised 98/37/EC) (Anonymous, 1989),
which contains safety requirements and the basic princi-
ples of hygienic design. National standards and/or direc-
tives applicable to the hygienic design of food machinery
are available, but only a few international standards
exist, directed mainly at the dairy industry (Holah &
Timperley, 1999). A basic standard about hygiene
requirements for the design of machinery is the ISO
14159:2002 (Anonymous, 2002a). The European com-
mittee for standardization (CEN) issues standards for
equipment manufacturers to be able to fulWl the require-
ments of the directive. One important basic standard is
the Standard EN 1672-2 “Food-processing machinery—
Safety and hygiene requirements—Basic concepts—Part
2; Hygiene requirements” (Anonymous, 1997). However,
there are also guidelines and methods published e.g.
by the European Hygienic Engineering and Design
Group (EHEDG, http://www.ehedg.org), 3-A Sanitary

0956-7135/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.07.006
1002 K. Aarnisalo et al. / Food Control 17 (2006) 1001–1011
Standards Inc. (3-A, http://www.3-a.org) and NSF Inter-
national (http://www.nsf.org) available for helping in the
design of new hygienic equipment. According to the
EHEDG-guidelines, constructions that cause problems
include dead ends, sharp corners, low-quality seals and
joints etc. (Anonymous, 1993b, 1995b).
In Finland the preventive risk management strategy
in food-processing plants is called own-checking and, as
in other Nordic countries, it is based on hygiene prereq-
uisites or good hygiene practices (GHPs) and hazard
analysis critical control point (HACCP) principles. A
own-checking system became mandatory for Finnish
food operators, caterers and retailers in 1995 (Anony-
mous, 1995a). The programmes can be certiWed accord-
ing to standards, e.g. the technical standard of the British
Retail Consortium (BRC) (http://www.brc.org.uk;
Anonymous, 2002b). A draft version of the new ISO—
series standard 22000 is also available (Anonymous,
2004a). In these standards, equipment hygiene and
hygiene in maintenance are also mentioned, although
only brieXy.
Hygiene problems in equipment are caused when
microorganisms become attached to the surfaces and
survive on them (Wirtanen, 1995) and later become
detached from them contaminating the product. This
can be due to bad hygienic design in cases where the
machines cannot be cleaned properly. A typical bacte-
rium that causes hygiene and safety problems in food-
processing equipment is L. monocytogenes. It can
become attached to diVerent surfaces and tolerate low
temperatures (Mafu, Denis, Goulet, & Magny, 1990;
Walker, Ascher, & Banks, 1990), anaerobic (Buchanan,
Stahl, & Whiring, 1989) and other process conditions,
e.g. a wide pH range (Lou & Yousef, 1999), and also per-
sist in food-processing equipment (Lundén et al., 2003).
This bacterium can also be found on hands or gloves
used in food-handling (Autio et al., 1999; Destro, Leitao,
& Farber, 1996).
The regulation on food hygiene (EU) No. 852/2004,
Annex II (Anonymous, 2004b) states, that food-handlers
must be supervised and instructed in food hygiene mat-
ters commensurate with their work activity. However,
even if maintenance personnel do not actually touch the
raw materials or food products, they presumably touch a
multitude of surfaces in contact with unpacked products.
For example, they dismantle machinery for cleaning pro-
cedures and reassemble it after cleaning in addition to
maintaining the operation of machinery during produc-
tion. Unfortunately very little is known about the eVect
of maintenance on product hygiene and according to
our knowledge, there are no scientiWc publications avail-
able on this question.
The aim of this work was to study the level of hygiene
knowledge and the hygienic practices of maintenance
personnel in the food industry in order to identify
aspects that could have a negative eVect on equipment
hygiene and that should be improved. Furthermore, this
study was performed to evaluate the most problematic
equipment in food-processing hygiene and also to Wnd
out why it is problematic. The results are based on ques-
tionnaires and microbial surveys.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Questionnaire on hygienic working practices of
maintenance personnel
A mail survey was sent in spring 2002 (and a pilot in
autumn 2001, results are included) to maintenance per-
sonnel (330), food-handlers (118), quality managers
(106) and cleaning personnel (224) in 106 Finnish food
companies, i.e. a total of 778 questionnaires. In the ques-
tionnaires, opinions about the hygiene practices of main-
tenance personnel were sought from the maintenance
personnel and from other employees in the food plant.
Some questions were directed at quality managers only.
These surveys contained questions categorised into nine
topics: protective clothing, tools, hygienic working prac-
tices, control of practices, resources, guidelines and
instructions, information Xow, training and background
information. The respondents were able to answer anon-
ymously.
2.2. Microbial sampling
In addition to the questionnaires, the working prac-
tices of maintenance personnel during two normal work
shifts was studied at four food companies (a meat com-
pany, a poultry company, a dairy and a bakery). Samples
were taken both during production and during/after
cleaning work shifts. Microbial samples of the tools, pro-
tective clothing, hands and working environment were
analysed for total aerobic bacteria, Enterobacteriaceae
and L. monocytogenes. The microbial sampling for total
aerobic bacteria and Enterobacteriaceae was performed
with commercial PetriWlm™ Count Plates (3M Health
Care, St. Paul, MN, USA). PetriWlms were chosen as
sampling method because they were easy to use and Xex-
ible. The technique has been shown to have good repeat-
ability and reproducibility (Senini & Cocconcelli, 1999).
Furthermore, contact sampling methods and swabbing
have been compared and the results have been similar
(Salo, Alanko, Sjöberg, & Wirtanen, 2002; Salo, Laine,
Alanko, Sjöberg, & Wirtanen, 2000). The PetriWlms were
moisturised a day before sampling with 1 ml of a sterile
physiological saline solution in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions. The 3M PetriWlm™ Aero-
bic Count Plates contain standard method nutrients and
a tetrazolium indicator that facilitates colony enumera-
tion. Altogether, 95 samples were taken. PetriWlm™ Aer-
obic Count Plates were incubated at 30 °C for three days.
 K. Aarnisalo et al. / Food Control 17 (2006) 1001–1011
The Enterobacteriaceae were sampled with 3M Petri-
Wlm™ Enterobacteriaceae Count Plates containing mod-
iWed violet red bile glucose (VRBG) nutrients and a
tetrazolium indicator that facilitates colony enumera-
tion. Altogether, 96 samples were taken. PetriWlm™
Enterobacteriaceae Count Plates were incubated at
37 °C for two days, after which the typical colonies were
counted.
For detecting the presence of L. monocytogenes, alto-
gether 71 samples from three plants were taken from as
large an area as possible with moisturised gauze pads
kept in 10 ml of a peptone saline solution (Maximal
Recovery Diluent, Lab M, Amersham, Bury, UK). The
isolation and detection of L. monocytogenes were carried
out according to the ISO 11290-2 method (Anonymous,
1996) with the following modiWcations: only Oxford
agar (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) was used as the selective
agar and the preliminary identiWcation was carried out
using API Listeria strips (bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Etoile,
France) in accordance with the manufacturer’s instruc-
tions.
2.3. Questionnaire on equipment hygiene
A mail survey on equipment hygiene was performed
in spring 2002. Questionnaires were sent to 184 Finn-
ish food companies. The employee, who was the equip-
ment hygiene expert in the company was asked to
answer the survey. There were 34 questions categor-
ised under the following seven topics: hygienically
problematic equipment, acquisition of equipment,
cleanability of equipment, cooperation between par-
ties who aVect equipment hygiene, lubricants used
with equipment, acquiring information on equipment
hygiene as well as background information on the
respondent and plant. The respondents were able to
answer anonymously.
3. Results
In the results of both mail surveys, individuals who
did not give any response to a particular question were
dropped from the analysis, thus causing varying respon-
dent counts (n) for the diVerent questions.
3.1. Questionnaire on hygienic working practices of
maintenance personnel
3.1.1. Characterisation of the respondents
Answers were obtained from 23.6% of the plants
(n D 106). Out of 778 employees 127 (16.3%) answered
the mail survey. Of these, 59 were maintenance personnel
and the rest belonged to other personnel groupings. One
third (33.9%) of the respondents worked in the meat and
poultry industry, 26% in the bakery industry, 20.5% in
1003
the dairy industry, 1.6% in the Wsh industry and 18% in
other types of food industry. All respondents from the
maintenance personnel were males and 66.2% of the
other respondents (n D 68) were females. The working
experience of the respondents was as follows: 7.2% of the
respondents (n D 126) had worked in the food company
<1 year, 3.2% had worked 1–2 years, 23.7% > 2–5 years,
19.8% > 5–10 years and 46.1% > 10 years. The mainte-
nance is outsourced in 36.4% of the plants (n D 22) and in
45.4% the plant’s own personnel took care of the mainte-
nance. Both outsourced and a plant’s own personnel
were involved in maintenance activities in 18.2% of the
plants.
3.1.2. Protective clothes, work practices and hygiene rules
Most of the maintenance personnel work in the pro-
duction area continuously (61%) or at least Wve times
(23.7%) during a work shift (Fig. 1a). Of the mainte-
nance personnel, 42.4% reported having touched sur-
faces with contact in food often or always (Fig. 1b) and
while working in the production area 55.9% of them usu-
ally wore gloves (Fig. 1c). However, only 13.6% washed
their hands after smoking and 23.7% before starting to
work without gloves (Fig. 1d). Only 42.4% washed their
hands before entering the production area. Almost all
(91.5%) of the responding maintenance personnel
(n D 59) knew which surfaces were in contact with food
products. An open question asked the food and cleaning
personnel, how the maintenance personnel should
improve their working practices. The respondents
(n D 32) named the following most often: use and cleanli-
ness of protective clothing, cleaning after maintenance
work, cleaning the tools and washing of hands (results
not shown).
According to the maintenance personnel and qual-
ity managers, most of the maintenance personnel had
written hygiene rules given by the food company
(64.2%) or by the maintenance company (32.3%)
(n D 81). Most (63.6%) of the maintenance personnel
knew where they could Wnd the hygiene rules (n D 55).
Maintenance is part of the own-checking systems in
most (73.9%) plants (n D 23), but a maintenance com-
pany is not normally (76.2%) audited by food compa-
nies. The quality managers were asked if they had ever
received consumer complaints, which could be linked
directly to the work of maintenance personnel. Such
complaints were rarely or seldom reported by 62.5% of
them (n D 16).
3.1.3. Tools and foreign bodies
One third (32.2%) of the respondents answered that
they washed their tools once a day or always after work.
The others answered that they washed their tools more
seldom and 32.2% only once a year or never (Fig. 1e).
Almost all (89.8%) of the maintenance personnel had
personal tools which they themselves cleaned (n D 59).
1004 K. Aarnisalo et al. / Food Control 17 (2006) 1001–1011

61.0

50 50
39.0
40 40
33.9

30 30

%
%

23.7 22.0
20 20

10 5.1 6.8 10
3.4 3.4 1.7
0.0
0 0

always

often

sometimes

seldom

never
continuously

> 5 times

approx. 5

2-3 times

once

none
times

(a) (b)

93.2 91.5 83.1 81.4

80
80 71.2

60 55.9 60
44.0
%

39.0

%
42.4
40 40
20 13.6 23.7
20 13.6
0 1.7 1.0
footwear

cap

overall

gloves

coat

other

0
after visiting after work before lunch before before after other no answer
restroom when hands and coffee entering starting smoking occasions
became breaks production work
(c) (d) dirty area without
gloves

25
20.3
20 18.6

15 13.6 13.6
%

11.9
10
6.8
5.1 5.1 5.1
5

0
always once a once a 2-4 twice a once a once a never no
after day week times a month month year or answer
(e) work month less

Fig. 1. Answers of maintenance personnel to the question on their working practices and their use of protective working clothes: (a) How many times
do you have to visit the production area during a work shift? (b) How often do you have to touch food contact surfaces in your work? (c) What type
of protective working clothes do you usually wear when working in a food plant? (d) When do you wash your hands during a work shift? (e) How
often do you clean and/or disinfect the tools you use daily? (n D 59).

For tools that are in common use, no persons were in enough washing points available for cleaning tools, and
charge of the cleaning in 71.9% of all the cases reported adequate cleaning agents and disinfectants were also
(n D 57). According to the majority of maintenance per- available (74.7%, n D 83). The opinion of 61.4% (n D 83)
sonnel, foreign bodies are never or seldom left on sur- was that there were enough sets of protective clothing
faces after the maintenance work but, according to the available. There was not much diVerence between the
majority of food and cleaning personnel, they are some- answers given by maintenance personnel and quality man-
times or even often left (Fig. 2). Clear diVerence between agers. Meetings between maintenance, food-processing
opinions could be found. and cleaning personnel in which hygiene issues were also
discussed, were not arranged in 52.9% of the plants
3.1.4. Resources, information Xow and training (n D 119). 33.9% of maintenance personnel found they
There were enough maintenance personnel in the had not received enough information about hygiene
plant according to 47% of the answers obtained from commensurate with their work. Studies about food
maintenance personnel and quality managers (n D 83). A hygiene were not included in their basic education
majority (69%, n D 87) of them considered that there were (89.9%, n D 59).
 K. Aarnisalo et al. / Food Control 17 (2006) 1001–1011 1005

50 47.0
respectively). However, the deviation between samples
45.8
42.4 was high and e.g. some tools had 25–40 cfu/cm2 aerobic
40 bacteria. Listeria spp. was found in six samples (5%) of
which L. monocytogenes was found in only one sample
% 30 24.2
21.2 (1.4%) taken from a screwdriver. Enterobacteriaceae
20 were not found in samples except on one of the gloves
10.1 (100 cfu/cm2).
10 6.1
1.7 1.5
0
3.3. Questionnaire on equipment hygiene
often sometimes seldom never cannot
answer

maintenance (n=59) food and cleaning (n=66)

Fig. 2. Opinions of respondents whether foreign bodies were left on
production surfaces after the maintenance work (n D number of
respondents).
3.2. Microbial sampling
The total number of aerobic bacteria in samples
taken from the hands and clothing of maintenance per-
sonnel was 14 cfu/cm2. However, the deviation between
samples was very high (23 cfu/cm2) (Table 1). In partic-
ular, the gloves and sleeves of overalls were highly con-
taminated with aerobic bacteria (22 and 25 cfu/cm2,
respectively). Tools and environmental samples clearly
carried fewer aerobic bacteria (average 5 and 8 cfu/cm2,
3.3.1. Characterisation of the respondents
The response rate in the questionnaire on equipment
hygiene was 23.9% (44/184): 14 plants from the meat,
poultry and ready-to-eat food industry, 11 bakeries,
eight Wsh companies, six dairies and Wve plants repre-
senting other branches of the food industry. There were
mainly 10–90 employees in the plants (69.2%), but there
were also companies with fewer than 10 employees
(5.1%) and 150–650 employees (25.7%) among the
respondents (n D 39). The respondents (n D 43) were very
often working as quality managers/hygiene responsible
operatives (44.2%) or production managers (25.6%).
3.3.2. Acquisition of equipment
New equipment investment in the plants (n D 33) is on
average 2.1% of the annual turnover with a standard

Table 1
Microbial results of samples taken from maintenance personnel and their clothes, tools and work environment
Samples Aerobic total bacteria Listeria spp. L. monocytogenes
No. of Range Average Std. dev. No. of positive samples/ No. of positive samples/
samples (cfu/cm2) (cfu/cm2) (cfu/cm2) no. of samples no. of samples
Tools
Tongs 12 2–25 7 7 0/13 0/13
Screwdrivers 13 1–40 7 11 1/8 1/8
Hexagon spanners 5 1–4 2 1 0/5 0/5
Adjustable and open 18 1–25 5 6 0/13 0/13
ended spanners
Hammer 2 1–10 6 6 – –
Pneumatic machine 0 – 1/1 0/1
Total 50 1–40 5 8 2/40 1/40
Personnel
Hands 9 2–19 7 5 0/4 0/4
Gloves 6 3–100 25 38 1/4 0/4
Sleeves of overalls 6 3–100 22 38 0/4 0/4
Knees of overalls 13 1–40 11 11 1/8 0/8
Soles 2 3–30 17 19 2/4 0/4
Total 36 1–100 14 23 4/24 0/24
Environment
Tables 6 3–10 6 2 0/4 0/4
Grindstone 1 20 20 – 0/1 0/1
Dish washer for tools 0 – – – 0/1 0/1
Tap 1 7 7 – 0/1 0/1
Tool bag 1 4 4 – – –
Total 9 3–20 8 5 0/7 0/7
The samples were taken with PetriWlm™ plates for aerobic bacteria and with gauze pads for Listeria sampling.
1006
reliability of
manufacturer/
importer 7%
other 2%
availability of spare
parts 8%
availability of
maintenance 8%
economical
efficiency of use
10%
cleanability 11%
cost 20%
Fig. 3. Factors aVecting equipment investment (n D 38).
deviation of 2.4%. The respondents were asked what fac-
tors aVect the acquisition decision (Fig. 3). Operational
reliability (34%) was clearly the most important factor
aVecting this decision, followed by costs (20%) and
cleanability (11%). The respondents were asked to iden-
tify the 10 countries from which they buy most of the
equipment. As some (15.9%) of the respondents (n D 44)
did not put them in order, the results were calculated
according to how many times the countries were men-
tioned. According to the results, the equipment in the
Finnish plants is mainly from Germany (84.1%), Finland
(77.3%), Denmark (29.5%), Holland (27.3%) and Sweden
(22.7%). Of the respondents, 2.3% had bought none of
the equipment from outside Finland, 11.4% had bought
1–20%, 6.8% had bought 21–40%, 25% had bought 41–
60%, 34.1% had bought 61–80%, 18.2% had bought 81–
99% and none had bought all of the equipment from
outside Finland. There was self-made equipment in use
in 45.2% of the plants (n D 42). It can be concluded
that self-made and domestic equipment were also con-
sidered more hygienic than equipment bought from out-
side Finland (Fig. 4a).
3.3.3. Most problematic equipment
The respondents were asked to name the Wve most
problematic pieces of equipment hygienically in their
plants and also to put them in order. As some (18.2%)
respondents did not put them in order, the results were
calculated according to how many times the equipment
was mentioned. The respondents were given 39 equip-
ment names with the possibility of naming some other
equipment seen as non-hygienic in their own process.
Altogether 61 types of equipment were listed at least
once. Packaging machines, conveyers, dispensers, slicing
machines and cooling machines were considered the
most problematic equipment. Table 2 shows diVerences
between the food areas studied. Of those respondents,
who put the equipment in order, the packaging machines
were listed by 16.7% as the most problematic and conve-
yers by 13.9% (n D 36). The main reason for these pieces
K. Aarnisalo et al. / Food Control 17 (2006) 1001–1011
of equipment being considered the most problematic
was poor construction (Table 3).
In an open question the respondents were asked to list
operational
the functions that would improve the cleanability of
reliability 34% equipment according to their own wishes concerning
process hygiene (results not shown). Thirty respondents
answered this question. The main conclusion is that the
equipment should be easy to dismantle and clean, and
simpler constructions should be used. The materials
should also tolerate strong cleaning and disinfecting
agents as well as heat. Furthermore, it should also be
possible to use water in cleaning the equipment. Cover-
ings should be easy to open for cleaning. According to
41.9% and 27.9% of respondents (n D 43), their opinions
have had a positive eVect on the equipment design of
Finnish and foreign manufacturers, respectively.
3.3.4. Cleaning of equipment
The cleaning of equipment was performed by the
plants’ own personnel (56.8%), by outsourcing (29.6%)
and by both groups (13.6%) (n D 44). According to 43.2%
of respondents, the manufacturers have given instruc-
tions on how to clean the equipment and according to
40.9% part of the manufacturers have. When instruc-
tions were available, most (76.7%) followed them
(n D 43). However, 58.1% of respondents found the
instructions inadequate. Most (70.5%) of the respon-
dents (n D 44) were given enough information about
cleaning agents and disinfectants from the cleaning
agent manufacturers.
3.3.5. Information Xow
Food personnel cooperate closely with cleaning agent
and disinfectant manufacturers and also with cleaning
personnel. However, only 15% of the respondents found
that the cooperation between food-processing personnel
and cleaning personnel works well (Fig. 4b). Coopera-
tion between food-processing personnel and equipment
manufacturers was considered inadequate. It was also
asked why the cooperation and information Xow did not
work. Many (38.1%) of respondents (n D 21) answered
e.g. that equipment manufacturers are not interested in
or do not understand hygienic aspects or, especially after
concluding the contract, do not bother about the clean-
ing aspects of equipment (results not shown).
According to the answers, the best information to
questions about equipment hygiene were obtained from
cleaning agent manufacturers (78.0%), equipment manu-
facturers (53.7%) and cleaning companies (48.8%). Infor-
mation channels such as importers, seminars, other
representatives of food companies, literature, the inter-
net and equipment hygiene organisations were of minor
importance. In the case of the last-mentioned, most
(68.3%) of the respondents (n D 41) did not know what
equipment hygiene organisations do (EHEDG, 3-A,
NSF International). Only 29.3% had heard about one or
 K. Aarnisalo et al. / Food Control 17 (2006) 1001–1011 1007

a
Equipment from
5 42 32 7 15
outside Finland

Finnish equipment 15 37 22 10 17

Self-made equipment
22 30 22 0 26
(n=23)

Food personnel -
15 49 12 5 20
Cleaning personnel

Food personnel-
Equipment 2 27 39 27 5
manufacturers

Food personnel -
Maintenance 7 49 27 12 5
personnel

Food personnel-
Cleaningand
22 39 29 10 0
disinfectant
manufacturers

0 20 40 60 80 100
%
good or excellent satisfactory passable poor cannot say/ no answer

Fig. 4. (a) Respondents’ attitudes towards the hygiene of Finnish and foreign equipment as well as self-made equipment (n D 41). (b) Respondent atti-
tudes towards cooperation and Xow of information on equipment hygiene between food-processors, cleaning personnel, maintenance personnel and
cleaning agent and disinfectant manufacturers (n D 44).

more of these organisations, and only one (2.4%) partici-
pated in the activities of one or more of these organisa-
tions.
3.3.6. Hygiene of lubricants
Of the respondents, 95.5% (42/44) gave some informa-
tion on the use of lubricants in their equipment. On the
question about hygiene problems with lubricants, 21.4%
of the respondents (n D 42) had noticed some problems
and 61.9% had not. A multiple choice question showed
that the respondents (n D 11) recognised the cause of
hygiene problems in lubricants to be: lubricants collect-
ing a lot of soil (72.7%); traces of lubricants are left on
production surfaces during maintenance work (63.6%);
inability to clean surfaces of lubricant residues (54.5%);
and a lot of microorganisms being found in the samples
taken from sites containing lubricants (36.4%). The
respondents were allowed to list more than one reason in
replying to the above-mentioned issue.
4. Discussion
Many papers have been published concerning unsat-
isfactory hygienic practices of food-handlers (Haupt,
Köfer, & Fuchs, 1999; Henroid & Sneed, 2004; Uppman
& Reuter, 1998) and outbreaks caused by them (Dun-
canson, Wareing, & Jones, 2003; Kishimoto et al., 2004;
LaPorte et al., 2003). According to our knowledge, this is
the Wrst reported study dealing with hygienic working
1008 K. Aarnisalo et al. / Food Control 17 (2006) 1001–1011

Table 2
The most problematic equipment hygienically in diVerent food industry sectors (n D number of respondents)
Most problematic equipmenta All (n D 44) Meat and poultry (n D 14) Bakery (n D 11) Fish (n D 8) Dairy (n D 6) Other (n D 5)
Packaging machines 20 7 4 5 3 1
Conveyors 17 7 6 1 3 –b
Dispensing equipment 15 4 8 2 1 –
Slicing machines 15 9 3 3 – –
Cooling equipment 9 6 2 – 1 –
Proving drawers 6 – 6 – – –
Brining equipment 5 3 – 2 – –
Pasteurising equipment 5 – 1 – 4 –
Macerating equipment 5 5 – – – –
Mixers and blenders 5 1 1 1 – 2
Cutters 4 3 – 1 – –
Cold stores 4 1 – 1 2 –
Heat exchangers 4 1 – – 3 –
Pulping machine 4 2 1 – 1 –
Ovens 4 1 3 – – –
Bagging machines 4 1 3 – – –
Pumps 4 1 – – 2 –
Filleting machines 3 – – 3 – –
Dicing machines 3 2 – 1 – –
Filling machines 3 1 1 – – 1
Shredders 3 2 1 – – –
Grinders 3 3 – – – –
a
The equipment listed was mentioned at least three times by the respondents.
b
No answers.

Table 3
Number of responses to reasons why equipment is diYcult to clean
Reason Packaging Conveyers Dispensing Slicing Cooling
machines equipment machines equipment
Poor construction (all sites cannot be cleaned or are 15 13 11 11 7
diYcult to clean)
Poor surface materials or surfaces (e.g. roughness) 5 6 3 4 1
Poor placement in production area – 6 2 – 3
Other a,b,c,d,e 5a 4b 2c 2d 2e
Respondents were allowed to list more than one reason.
a
A lot of components which do not tolerate water (n D 3), open equipment, old equipment with special problems.
b
Open equipment, Xat-top conveyors with special problems, inner parts of belts and gaps diYcult to clean, belts hard to loosen, lots of construc-
tions diYcult to clean.
c
DiYcult to dismantle for cleaning.
d
A lot of narrow belts.
e
Joints and piping which are badly cleaned in CIP cleaning.

practices of maintenance personnel in the food industry.
The maintenance personnel in food plants have to move
between the production and non-production areas and
touch food contact surfaces frequently. While they were
conscious of this and they knew which surfaces come in
contact with food, only about half of them reported to
use gloves when working in food production area and
even less washed their hands in situations where they
should in order to work hygienically. One reason for not
wearing the gloves was probably that they may hinder
the performance of some work tasks. In situations like
this the washing of hands should be highlighted. This
study also showed that some of the maintenance person-
nel did not know where they could Wnd the hygiene rules.
It is most important that the rules are available for all.
They must also be clear and planned especially paying
attention to the maintenance personnel and their work.
About 40% of the maintenance personnel and food man-
agers found that there were too few persons working on
maintenance in the plant. However, the majority of both
maintenance personnel and food managers considered
both the resources for cleaning the tools and also the
number of sets of protective clothing suYcient.
The amount of bacteria on maintenance personnel
and their clothes and tools, was, on average high.
According to the manufacturer of the Hygicult-TPC®
contact agar method (Orion Diagnostica, Espoo, Fin-
land), less than 5 cfu/cm2 of aerobic bacteria is consid-
ered an acceptable amount for cleaned surfaces
in contact with food, which was also concluded by
 K. Aarnisalo et al. / Food Control 17 (2006) 1001–1011
Rahkio and Korkeala (1997). The surfaces investigated
in this study were, however, not directly in contact with
food. The microbial samples showed that the mainte-
nance personnel carried larger amounts of total aerobic
bacteria compared to the work environment or tools.
This result may reXect the true situation although it can
also partly be caused due to the problems of using Petri-
Wlm™ Count Plates for varying forms of tools. The
result points out the need for regular and suYcient
change period of the protective clothing and the need to
change the clothes whenever they get dirty. In this study,
tools were not shown to be of special importance in con-
tamination but it is possible that they transfer contami-
nants within the process area; L. monocytogenes was
sampled from one screwdriver and another Listeria spp.
from a pneumatic machine in common use. Tools should
also be cleaned and disinfected regularly with eVective
agents. The questionnaire showed that the person in
charge of cleaning the tools in common use was often
missing. Also during the study it was noticed, that the
responsibilities, who should clean the equipment after
work of maintenance personnel, was not always deWned.
All responsibilities in hygiene rules in a company must
be clear. In general, the observations made during the
follow-up studies largely supported the results of the
questionnaire.
During the study, many of the maintenance personnel
reported that according to their opinion they had not
received enough information about hygiene commensu-
rate to performing their work. The situation has likely
improved after the beginning of 2002, when for Finnish
food personnel handling easily spoiling food products, it
became mandatory to pass a test about food hygiene, the
so called ‘hygiene passport’ (Anonymous, 2001). A num-
ber of maintenance personnel have also accomplished
this test to strengthen their knowledge and fulWl the
demands of food-processing companies. The require-
ment for suYcient hygiene knowledge of especially this
personnel group should also be stated in legislation and
studies about food hygiene should be obligatory in their
basic education.
The respondents to the equipment hygiene question-
naire rated equipment hygiene the third-most important
factor after operational reliability and costs aVecting
their investment decisions. In the Finnish food industry,
equipment is mainly bought from outside Finland, espe-
cially from Germany; However, a large number also
came from Finland. One of the advantages of buying the
equipment in Finland is that the respondents found they
could have a bigger inXuence on the hygienic design of
domestic equipment manufacturers than when buying
from foreign countries. This is probably due to easier
communication. In almost half the plants self-made tai-
lored equipment is also used and that leaves a lot of
responsibility for hygienic design with the companies
themselves.
1009
Although packaging machines and conveyers were
found to be the most problematic equipment in this
study, it also showed that hygiene problems in each com-
pany are individual; altogether 61 diVerent pieces of
equipment were mentioned. However, a common cause
of the hygiene problems in the most problematic pieces
of equipment was poor hygienic design. If the design is
poor, more frequent and longer cleaning and aggressive
chemicals are needed (Lelieveld, Mostert, & Curiel,
2003), and even this may not guarantee hygienic and safe
food production. Especially in the case of conveyers, bad
placement in the production area was found to be one of
the important factors for poor equipment hygiene. This
is understandable while the conveyers move products in
the plant and usually occupy a large area and, therefore,
can transmit contamination (Cotton & White, 1992).
Packaging machines have also been found to be a source
of contamination (Miettinen et al., 1999; Tompkin,
2002). Packaging is the last step before the product is
transported to retailers and to consumers, and the shelf-
life of a product depends to a great extent on proper
packaging. A common problem with packaging
machines is that they often do not tolerate water because
of electronic circuits, which makes the cleaning and dis-
infection procedures very diYcult.
An important factor mentioned in the questionnaire,
was that the equipment should be easy to open and dis-
mantle. Equipment is often complex and, therefore, diY-
cult to clean, as it requires laborious dismantling. Once
cleaned, it should also be easy to reassemble. The con-
struction should be as simple as possible, but take into
account technical and occupational safety aspects. If,
due to these factors, cleaning the equipment is diYcult,
this should be noticed and the best possible solution for
improving cleanability should be established immedi-
ately (Lelieveld et al., 2003). Hygiene should be included
in the equipment design at the beginning of the design
process (Holah & Timperley, 1999). Methods for assess-
ing the cleanability of constructions that are in the
equipment development phase should be further devel-
oped and also be used more. The EHEDG has published
guidelines and methods for assessing the cleanability of
closed processing equipment (Anonymous, 1992, 1993a).
Lubricants were used in equipment at all the respon-
dent plants and some of the respondents had noticed
hygiene problems in using them. Some earlier studies
also showed the ability of lubricants to support the
growth of microorganisms (Hamilton, 1991; Ortiz, Guia-
met, & Videla, 1990; Rossmoore, 1988; Van der Waa,
1995).
Information on questions about equipment hygiene
should Xow easily between the diVerent parties con-
cerned and, according to the results, this should be
improved, especially with equipment manufacturers. A
majority of respondents found the cleaning instructions
given by equipment manufacturers inadequate, but
1010 K. Aarnisalo et al. / Food Control 17 (2006) 1001–1011
when the instructions were available, many food proces-
sors rely on them. The manufacturers are obliged to give
instructions for cleaning the equipment in the EU
Machine Directive (Anonymous, 1989). This Directive
does not specify, what kind of instructions they should
give and it may be that many of the manufacturers do
not have enough knowledge of cleaning to give suYcient
information to the client. They should be made in co-
operation with cleaning specialists.
The response rates obtained from the both question-
naires are comparable with the rates of other question-
naires regarding food safety/hygiene matters sent to
food industry. The response rates of recent postal sur-
veys sent to food industry employees have not exceeded
35% (Hielm, Tuominen, Aarnisalo, Raaska, & Maijala,
in press). In case of questionnaire about maintenance
hygiene, the results from non-respondent plants could
have aVected the results more negatively due to the fact
that hygiene issues may not be taken care of actively in
these factories.
In conclusion, maintenance personnel are a potential
source of contamination of food products due to the
nature of their work. They should have enough training
concerning hygiene matters to be able to act and work
commensurate with this. Their impact on product safety
should be studied further. The results also showed that
hygiene problems with food-processing equipment are
mainly caused by poor hygienic design and equipment
designers should perform better in this area.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the participating compa-
nies and employees. Dr. Tiina Autio is acknowledged for
commenting on the questions in the equipment hygiene
questionnaire and colleagues assisting in collecting the
results and in the implementation of the hygiene surveys
are also acknowledged. The research was Wnanced by the
National Technology Agency of Finland (Tekes) and
research and industrial partners participating in the two
projects on Equipment Hygiene in Food Industry and
on Food Industry, Safety and Hygiene Management
coordinated by VTT Biotechnology.
References
Aguado, V., Vitas, A. I., & Garcia-Jalon, I. (2001). Random ampliWed
polymorphic DNA typing applied to the study of cross-contamina-
tion by Listeria monocytogenes in processed food products. Journal
of Food Protection, 64(5), 716–720.
Anonymous (1989). Council Directive 89/392/EEC on 14 June 1989 on
the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to
machinery. European Union.
Anonymous (1992). A method for assessing the in-place cleanability of
food-processing equipment. Trends in Food Science and Techno-
logy, 3(12), 325–328.
Anonymous (1993a). A method for the assessment of in-line pasteuri-
zation of food-processing equipment. Trends in Food Science and
Technology, 4(2), 52–55.
Anonymous (1993b). Hygienic equipment design criteria. Trends in
Food Science and Technology, 4(7), 225–229.
Anonymous (1995a). Elintarvikelaki 17.3.1995/361 [Finnish food law].
Finnish Parliament.
Anonymous (1995b). Hygienic design of equipment for open process-
ing. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 6, 305–310.
Anonymous (1996). Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuVs—
Horizontal method for the detection and enumeration of Listeria
monocytogenes—Part 1: Detection method, ISO 11290-1. Inter-
national Organisation for Standardization, Switzerland.
Anonymous (1997). EN 1672-2, Food processing machinery—Basic
concepts—Part 2: Hygiene requirements. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
Anonymous (2001). Hygieniaosaamisasetus 1115/2001 [Decree on
Hygiene Expertise]. Ministry of Social AVairs and Health, Finland.
Anonymous (2002a). International standard ISO 14159:2002. Safety of
machinery. Hygiene requirements for the design of machinery.
International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland.
Anonymous (2002b). Technical standard: Technical standard and pro-
tocol for companies supplying retailer branded food products.
April 2002. British retail consortium. Available from http://
www.brc.org.uk.
Anonymous (2004a). Draft international standard: ISO/DIS 22000.
Food safety management systems—Requirements for organiza-
tions throughout the food chain. International Organization for
Standardization, Switzerland.
Anonymous (2004b). Regulation on food hygiene (EU) No. 852/2004.
OJ 25.6.2004, L226/3.
Autio, T., Hielm, S., Miettinen, M., Sjöberg, A.-M., Aarnisalo, K.,
Björkroth, J., et al. (1999). Sources of Listeria monocytogenes con-
tamination in a cold-smoked rainbow trout processing plant
detected by pulsed-Weld gel electrophoresis typing. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 65(1), 150–155.
Buchanan, R. L., Stahl, H. G., & Whiring, R. C. (1989). EVects and
interactions of temperature, pH, atmosphere, sodium chloride and
sodium nitrite on growth of Listeria monocytogenes. Journal of
Food Protection, 53, 844–851.
Cotton, L. N., & White, C. H. (1992). Listeria monocytogenes, Yersinia
enterocolitica, and Salmonella in dairy plant environments. Journal
of Dairy Science, 75(1), 51–57.
Destro, M. T., Leitao, M. F., & Farber, J. M. (1996). Use of molecular
typing methods to trace the dissemination of Listeria monocyto-
genes in a shrimp processing plant. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 62(2), 705–711.
Duncanson, P., Wareing, D. R. A., & Jones, O. (2003). Application of
an automated immunomagnetic separation-enzyme immunoassay
for the detection of Salmonella spp. during an outbreak associated
with a retail premises. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 37(2), 144–
148.
Fonnesbech-Vogel, B., Jørgensen, L. V., Ojeniyi, B., Huss, H. H., &
Gram, L. (2001). Diversity of Listeria monocytogenes isolates from
cold-smoked salmon produced in diVerent smokehouses as assessed
by random ampliWed polymorphic DNA analyses. International
Journal of Food Microbiology, 65(1–2), 83–92.
Hamilton, W. A. (1991). Sulphate-reducing bacteria and their role in
biocorrosion. In H.-C. Flemming & G. G. Geesey (Eds.), Biofouling
and biocorrosion in industrial water systems (pp. 187–193). Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Haupt, H., Köfer, J., & Fuchs, K. (1999). Non-conformity rate from
hygiene regulations in fresh meat small to medium size enterprises,
risk assessment and corrective designs. Wiener Tierarzliche Mona-
tsscrift, 86(4), 122–128.
Henroid, D., Jr., & Sneed, J. (2004). Readiness to implement hazard
analysis and critical control point (HACCP) systems in Iowa
 K. Aarnisalo et al. / Food Control 17 (2006) 1001–1011
schools. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104(2), 180–
185.
Hielm, S., Tuominen, P., Aarnisalo, K., Raaska, L., & Maijala, R. (in
press). Attitudes towards own-checking and HACCP plans among
Finnish food industry employees. Food Control, doi:10.1016/j.food-
cont.2005.01.009.
Holah, J., & Timperley, A. (1999). Hygienic design of food processing
facilities and equipment. In Proceedings of 30th R3-Nordic con-
tamination symposium, Helsinki, Finland, May 30–June 2, 1999
(pp. 11–39). VTT Symposium 193. Espoo: Libella Painopalvelu
Oy.
Kishimoto, M., Hioki, Y., Okano, T., Konuma, H., Takamizawa, K.,
Kashio, H., et al. (2004). Ribotyping and a study of transmission of
Staphylococcus aureus collected from food preparation facilities.
Journal of Food Protection, 67(6), 1116–1122.
LaPorte, T., Heisey-Grove, D., Kludt, P., Matyas, B. T., DeMaria, A.,
Jr., Dicker, R., et al. (2003). Foodborne transmission of hepatitis
A—Massachusetts, 2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
52(24), 565–567.
Lawrence, L. M., & Gilmour, A. (1994). Incidence of Listeria spp. and
Listeria monocytogenes in a poultry processing environment and
in poultry products and their rapid conWrmation by multiplex
PCR. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 60(12), 4600–
4604.
Lelieveld, H. L. M., Mostert, M. A., & Curiel, G. J. (2003). Hygienic
equipment design. In H. L. M. Lelieveld, M. A. Mostert, J. Holah, &
B. White (Eds.), Hygiene in food processing (pp. 122–166). Cam-
bridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited.
Lou, Y., & Yousef, A. E. (1999). Characteristics of Listeria monocytog-
enes important to food processors. In E. T. Ryser & E. H. Marth
(Eds.), Listeria Listeriosis and food safety (2nd ed., pp. 131–224).
New York, USA: Marcel Dekker.
Lundén, J. M., Autio, T. J., & Korkeala, H. J. (2002). Transfer of persis-
tent Listeria monocytogenes contamination between food-process-
ing plants associated with a dicing machine. Journal of Food
Protection, 65(7), 1129–1133.
Lundén, J. M., Autio, T. J., Sjöberg, A.-M., & Korkeala, H. J. (2003).
Persistent and nonpersistent Listeria monocytogenes contamination
in meat and poultry processing plants. Journal of Food Protection,
66(11), 2062–2069.
Mafu, A. A., Denis, R., Goulet, J., & Magny, P. (1990). Attachment of
Listeria monocytogenes to stainless steel, glass, polypropylene and
rubber surfaces after short contact times. Journal of Food Protec-
tion, 53(9), 742–746.
Miettinen, M. K., Björkroth, K. J., & Korkeala, H. J. (1999). Character-
ization of Listeria monocytogenes from an ice cream plant by sero-
typing and pulsed-Weld gel electrophoresis. International Journal of
Food Microbiology, 46(3), 187–192.
View publication stats
1011
Ortiz, C., Guiamet, P. S., & Videla, H. A. (1990). Relationship between
bioWlms and corrosion of steel by microbial contaminants of cut-
ting-oil emulsions. International Biodeterioration, 26(5), 315–326.
Pritchard, T. J., Flanders, K. J., & Donnelly, C. W. (1995). Comparison
of the incidence of Listeria on equipment versus environmental
sites within dairy processing plants. International Journal of Food
Microbiology, 26(3), 375–384.
Rahkio, T. M., & Korkeala, H. J. (1997). Use of Hygicult-tpc® in
slaughterhouse hygiene control. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica,
38(4), 331–338.
Rossmoore, K. (1988). The microbial activity of glutaraldehyde in
chain conveyer lubricant formulations. In D. R. Houghton, R. N.
Smith, & H. O. W. Eggins (Eds.), Biodeterioration (7, pp. 242–247).
London, UK: Elsevier Publishers.
Salo, S., Alanko, T., Sjöberg, A.-M., & Wirtanen, G. (2002). Validation
of Hygicult® E dipslides in surface hygiene control: a Nordic col-
laborative study. Journal of AOAC International, 85, 388–394.
Salo, S., Laine, A., Alanko, T., Sjöberg, A.-M., & Wirtanen, G. (2000).
Validation of the microbiological methods Hygicult dipslide, con-
tact plate and swabbing in surface hygiene control: a Nordic col-
laborative study. Journal of AOAC International, 83, 1357–1365.
Samelis, J., & Metaxopoulos, J. (1999). Incidence and principal sources
of Listeria spp. and Listeria monocytogenes contamination in pro-
cessed meats and meat processing plant. Food Microbiology, 16(5),
465–477.
Senini, L., & Cocconcelli, P. S. (1999). Evaluation of PetriWlm system
for enumeration of aerobic Xora, coliforms and E. coli: results of a
ring test. Industrie Alimentari, 38(385), 1117–1120.
Suihko, M.-L., Salo, S., Niclasen, O., Gudbjörnsdóttir, B., Torkelsson,
G., Bredholt, S., et al. (2002). Characterization of Listeria monocyt-
ogenes isolates from the meat, poultry and seafood industries by
automated ribotyping. International Journal of Food Microbiology,
72(1–2), 137–146.
Tompkin, R. B. (2002). Control of Listeria monocytogenes in the food-
processing environment. Journal of Food Protection, 65(4), 709–
725.
Uppman, M., & Reuter, G. (1998). The surface count on equipment
and premises and the handling of hygiene in meat cutting plant for
pork. I. Fleischwirtschaft, 78(6), 647–648 650–651, 708.
Van der Waa, P. K. (1995). Lubrication of food processing machinery.
In Food Technology International Europe (pp. 140–144). London,
UK: Sterling Publications.
Walker, S. J., Ascher, P., & Banks, J. G. (1990). Growth of Listeria mon-
ocytogenes at refrigeration temperatures. Journal of Applied Bacte-
riology, 68, 157–162.
Wirtanen, G. (1995). BioWlm formation and its elimination from food
processing equipment. VTT Publications. Doctoral thesis. Espoo,
VTT OVsetpaino, Finland.