Executive Housekeeping Today - March 2009 - (Page 24)

SanItatIon (continued from page 12) knew that disinfection or a greater than five-log reduction of the bioburden was not required in every situation, but we did concede that cleaning outcomes followed a continuum from high-level disinfection to aesthetic acceptance. To assign a level of cleanliness and develop meaningful cleaning protocols, we started by identifying surfaces according to risk of contamination and/or their contamination potential. To do this, we borrowed heavily from the NSF/ANSI 170-2008, Glossary of food equipment terminology. In this glossary, work and non-work surfaces of food equipment are defined by zones that are nicely detailed in section 3.225 of the standard. We expanded on some of the definitions and modified others to meet our needs. The glossary included the following: exterior zone, food zone, heated food zone, non-food zone, refuse contact zone, and splash zone. We then set a tentative objective level of cleanliness for each according to the perceived risk of food borne illness by also including the frequency and methods of cleaning as well as being mindful of customers’ aesthetic expectations. For instance, the greater portion of the front of the house was given the designation of “exterior zone,” with the exception of the wait station and customer tables. For all intents and purposes, we considered the wait station and customer tables as “splash zones.” These are surfaces that are subject to splash and spillage, or other food soiling during normal use by customers and staff and required sanitization (but not as rigorous as the food contact surfaces in the kitchen). As a result, no longer were the same wipe cloths and chemicals used for cleaning both the table and the seat by the bussing staff. We also included a “refuse contact zone” as part of the wait station service area. In so doing, we readjusted both the frequency and methods of cleaning, particularly on those surfaces that could have a public health impact or with any related activities that could potentially raise the risk of cross contamination. Aside from the goal of improving the housekeeping and sanitation, this exercise resulted in making modifications to the waste collection area to delimit the potential spread of airborne contaminants. We also included the requirement for the periodic measurement of certain areas using the ATP monitoring system to determine the frequency of cleaning beyond what which would be considered aesthetically acceptable. The ICM measurement component served us well in the kitchen by developing an all-encompassing objective monitoring scheme. Using the ATP measuring system as the basic tool for ICM, we were able to make significant continuing improvements to the total cleaning system for each designated area and surface. We did this by taking repeated measurements that provided us with baseline levels of cleanliness. In addition to the ATP, we also included other monitoring tools, such as a particle counter on a one-time basis, to measure the effect of movement and traffic patterns in the production areas. To meet the “routinely monitor” component of the SSOP and to complement the ATP measuring system, we included pH and some quasi-objective, commercially available spot test determinants of cleanliness as part of the measurement protocol. In addition, we refined the definition of “clean to sight and touch” by augmenting subjective observations with the use of wooden cotton-tipped swabs and alcohol impregnated wipes to help determine aesthetic levels of cleanliness to make modifications in cleaning frequency and meth- odology. In addition, with the regular use of the inexpensive ATP monitoring system on “food zone” surfaces, greater emphasis was placed on reducing the bioburden from the baseline measurement to the lowest possible level in the most economic way. The “heated food zone” definition for the various kitchen surfaces was broadened to include refrigerated areas well. Because these surfaces are subjected to different use and temperature stresses, they require cleaning strategies quite different from a food contact surfaces under ambient temperature conditions. Simple application of the ICM cycle did much to redirect cleaning efforts and materials in these areas. The entire process of redefining the housekeeping and sanitation efforts by using the ICM systemimprovement protocol, took several weeks. It is by no means completed; ICM is a continuing program of improvement. But the resulting housekeeping and sanitation efforts could finally be fashioned into a working SSOP that included ongoing objective monitoring and simple documentation. The SSOP now complements the actual physical cleaning. Moreover, it embraces best practices as determined by scientific measurement of outcomes and gives a scientific basis to the selection of cleaning products and processes. To learn more about the ICM system, simply type “Integrated Cleaning and Measurement” on your computer’s search engine and follow the prompts. You’ll find it well worth the time and effort. u Robert W. Powitz, PhD, MPH, RS, DLAAS, is currently a Forensic Sanitarian in private practice, a contract instructor with NSF International, and serves as part-time Health Director for three small rural towns in Connecticut. He is licensed and registered as a sanitarian in several states. He may be reached at Powitz@sanitarian.com. 24 Executive Housekeeping Today/March 2009

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Executive Housekeeping Today - March 2009

Executive Housekeeping Today - March 2009 Contents Executive Corner Why Integrated Cleaning and Measurement is Good for the Cleaning Industry Hygienic Green Cleaning - The Next Wave Frugal Housekeeper Integrated Cleaning and Measurement: A New Approach to Housekeeping and Sanitation Feature Article What's in YOUR Janitor Closet? The Green Scene 2009 Convention Information Product Highlights New Members Joint IEHA/ISSA Members Advertisers' Index Calendar of Events Inside IEHA What IEHA Has Done For Me

Executive Housekeeping Today - March 2009

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.