NL2016020B1 - A method and system for optimization of food processing systems. - Google Patents

A method and system for optimization of food processing systems. Download PDF

Info

Publication number
NL2016020B1
NL2016020B1 NL2016020A NL2016020A NL2016020B1 NL 2016020 B1 NL2016020 B1 NL 2016020B1 NL 2016020 A NL2016020 A NL 2016020A NL 2016020 A NL2016020 A NL 2016020A NL 2016020 B1 NL2016020 B1 NL 2016020B1
Authority
NL
Netherlands
Prior art keywords
control measure
determining
hazard
probability
reliability
Prior art date
Application number
NL2016020A
Other languages
Dutch (nl)
Inventor
Johannes Maria Besseling Paulus
Original Assignee
Précon Food Man B V
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Précon Food Man B V filed Critical Précon Food Man B V
Priority to NL2016020A priority Critical patent/NL2016020B1/en
Application granted granted Critical
Publication of NL2016020B1 publication Critical patent/NL2016020B1/en

Links

Classifications

    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A23—FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS; TREATMENT THEREOF, NOT COVERED BY OTHER CLASSES
    • A23L—FOODS, FOODSTUFFS, OR NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, NOT COVERED BY SUBCLASSES A21D OR A23B-A23J; THEIR PREPARATION OR TREATMENT, e.g. COOKING, MODIFICATION OF NUTRITIVE QUALITIES, PHYSICAL TREATMENT; PRESERVATION OF FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS, IN GENERAL
    • A23L3/00—Preservation of foods or foodstuffs, in general, e.g. pasteurising, sterilising, specially adapted for foods or foodstuffs
    • A23L3/003—Control or safety devices for sterilisation or pasteurisation systems
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
    • G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
    • G06Q10/0635—Risk analysis of enterprise or organisation activities

Landscapes

  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Polymers & Plastics (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Food Science & Technology (AREA)
  • Development Economics (AREA)
  • Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
  • Educational Administration (AREA)
  • Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
  • Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
  • Nutrition Science (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Operations Research (AREA)
  • Quality & Reliability (AREA)
  • Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • General Factory Administration (AREA)

Abstract

The invention relates to a method for optimization of food processing process. The method comprises determining a hazard in a food product, determining primary control measures of a food processing process for obtaining the food-product from one or more ingredients, determining a first capability of the primary control measure with respect to the hazard, determining a first reliability of the primary control measure with respect to the likelihood of occurrence, detection and correction of a first failure the primary control measure; and determining a probability P of the hazard on basis of a combination of the first capability and the first reliability of the primary control measures and the probability and severity of hazards on a screen. The method provides an analysis tool for food processing processes.

Description

A method and system for optimization of food processing systems.
FIELD OF INVENTION
The invention relates to simulation and optimization of food processing systems. The processing may include heating, cooling, pasteurization and the like. It also relates to improving quality and avoiding hazards in the food produced by the food process system. In this document a food product is defined as any liquid, solid, or liquid/solid combination of components suitable for human/ and or animal consumption.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION A method for simulation and optimization of food processing systems can be applied for improving processes in the food industry and to assess hazard and risks related to safety of food.
The safety of food can be jeopardized by a number of hazards, which are defined as agents with the potential to cause an adverse health effect. The hazards can occur in raw materials, process and/or products. A hazard can be categorized as being a biological, chemical, physical agent or an allergen. A well-known approach for assessing hazards and related health risk in food processing is Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP). EP2514324 (Al) discloses an apparatus and method for an intelligent, optimizing, pro-active process controller for use in all types of product processing systems. The controller and its associated apparatus uniquely develop and dynamically optimize the capability and reliability to control hazards through measuring, monitoring and analysing product, process and product container attributes and performance and can thus pro-actively track, trace and control overall processing performance down to an individual unit of production thereby optimizing product processing times, while enhancing treatment flexibility, improving product quality and food safety in all types of food processing systems.
Known methods for process control take into account measurement and control of processing parameters and identify only when processing conditions actually or likely to fail minimum processing conditions. A drawback of the known method and system is that the effectiveness of control of food safety hazard throughout the food supply chain can be low.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
It is an object of the invention to improve the effectiveness, of control of food safety and/or food quality hazards.
It is a further object to improve the performance in a food processing method and system.
According to a first aspect of the invention this object is achieved by a method for optimization of food processing process comprising determining a hazard in a food-product; determining a primary control measure to control the hazard in a food processing process for obtaining the food-product from one or more ingredients; determining a first capability Cn of the primary control measure with respect to the hazard; determining a first reliability Rn of the primary control measure with respect to a likelihood of occurrence, detection and correction of the hazard by the primary control measure; - determining a probability P of the hazard on based on the first capability Cn, and the first reliability Rn, of the first control measure; displaying the determined capability Cn, reliability Rn and probability P on a screen.
The hazard that may occur in the food processing can be selected from the group of bio logical, chemical, physical agents and allergens. One or more hazards can be selected for assessment. Examples of hazards are moulds, bones in fish products or small grid pieces etc.
According to this method, an analyst can enter information of the primary control measure to correct the determined hazard of the food processing processes in a computer system or laptop in order to simulate the and assess the effectiveness for prevention or reduction of the hazard and consequently, the probability of the hazard.
The first capability of the primary control measure is defined as its capability to prevent the hazard or to reduce the hazard to a predetermined level. This capability can be expressed as a percentage. The capability of the primary control measure is determined by the characteristics of the hazard in relation to the characteristics of the first control measure.
The first reliability of a primary control measure is defined as a probability that the capability of the primary control measure will actually be reached and can expressed as a percentage. The first reliability will be less than 100 % when there is a likelihood of a first failure in the operational execution of the primary first control measure.
When the capability and the reliability of the primary control measures of the food process food are determined, the probability of the hazard can be determined. The first capability of the primary control measure is determined by the characteristics of the primary controller measure.
The result of the determined capabilities of the manufacturing process can be a combination of the determined capabilities G for the subsequent process steps.
The combination of determined reliabilities Ri of the manufacturing process can be a mathematical sum or product of the determined reliability Ri or a logical “AND”-or “OR”-function of the determined reliability Ri of the subsequent process steps.
In general, an improvement of the process for food production is based on reduction of the hazards. So, to reduce the presence of the hazard in food from an unacceptable high to an acceptable lower level. In this way unsafe products can be made safe. A number of different primary control measures can be introduced in the manufacturing process to prevent the hazards, like: cleaning, disinfection, and personal hygiene of the operators. After manufacturing, the safe products can be kept safe by a controlled environment, for example refrigeration or freezing.
Primary factors that determine the probability of hazards can be classified in 1. Hazards of a physical nature
These hazards are inextricably related to the ‘physical character’ of a primary product or raw material. Examples of hazard with a physical nature are: bones in fish, toxins in plants and allergens. 2. Contamination
Contamination means the introduction of a hazard in the raw materials or in the product. Sources of contamination are in the production environment for example equipment, utensils building, containers and packaging materials. Examples of hazards that can be present in food due to contamination are bacteria, viruses or disinfectants. 3. Development of hazards
Development of hazards is due to the growth or metabolism of micro-organisms (e.g. aflatoxin) or the formation of products from chemical reactions (e.g. acrylamide).
The primary control measures decrease the probability of the hazards and can be classified in: 1. preventing contamination, for example personal hygiene; 2. preventing development, for example refrigeration; 3. reducing the presence of hazard, for example cooking; 4. filtering out unsafe products, for example metal detection.
The characterization of the hazard may include a general description of the first capability of the primary control measures in relation to the hazard. A further embodiment of the method according to the invention comprises: determining a secondary control measure to detect and correct a first failure of the primary control measure; - determining a second capability Cn of the respective secondary control measure with respect to a likelihood of occurrence, detection and correction of the first failure; - determining a second reliability R.2i of the secondary control measure with respect to a likelihood of occurrence, detection and correction of the first failure of the primary control measure; determining a probability P of the hazard on based on the first capability Cu, the first reliability Rn, the second capability Cu and the second reliability R21 of respectively the primary control measure and the secondary control measure; displaying the determined second capability Cu, the second reliability Rn and probability P on a screen.
The first reliability of the primary control measure can be increased by the secondary control measure that is capable to detect and correct the first failure of the primary control measure. The secondary control measure comprises, for example, detection of the first failure and rejection of the food product affected by the detected first failure.
The second capability of the secondary control measure to detect and correct the first failure can be assessed and expressed as a percentage. The second capability of the secondary control measure is determined by the characteristics of the first failure and the secondary control measure. The first reliability Ri of the primary control measure is the result of the likelihood of the first failure and the second capability and the second reliability of secondary control measure to detect and correct this first failure. A further embodiment of the method according to the invention comprises: - determining a tertiary control measure to detect and correct a second failure of the secondary control measure; - determining a third capability C3i of the tertiary control measure with respect to a likelihood of occurrence, detection and correction of the second failure of the primary control measure; - determining a third reliability R3i of the tertiary control measure with respect to a likelihood of occurrence, detection and correction of the second failure; and - determining a probability P of the hazard on based on the first capability Cli, the first reliability Rli, the second capability C2i and the second reliability R2i of respectively the primary control measure and the secondary control measure; - displaying the determined second capability Cli, the second reliability Rli and probability P on a screen.
In this way the second capability of the secondary control measure for detecting and correcting the first failure at the primary control measure, can be further improved. The tertiary control measure can detect he second failure at the secondary control measure and can reduce or correct the second failure. The third capability of the tertiary control measure is determined by the characteristics of the second failure and the tertiary control measure. The third reliability can be determined based on the likelihood of failures in the tertiary control means.
The second reliability of the secondary control measure can now be determined by the likelihood of the second failure and the characteristics of the tertiary control measure.
According to the invention, the number of levels - primary, secondary, tertiary and further control measures, can be further extended. A further embodiment of the method comprises determining a severity of the hazard. In this patent application severity is defined as the impact of the adverse effects on the health of a consumer after having consumed the food-product. The adverse effects can be categorised from very serious, serious, less serious or more specific in fatalities, chronical disease, requires medical treatment or injury. A further embodiment of the method according to the invention comprises determining a risk of the hazard based on the determined probability and the determined severity of the food processing process. The information of the primary control measure comprising the first capability, the reliability and the severity of the hazard can be displayed on a screen of a computer.
Simulation with different values of the first capability and first reliability of the primary control measure and the second capability and second reliability of the secondary control measure can then performed to assess the effectiveness of the primary, secondary and tertiary control measures of the process. A further embodiment of the method according to the invention comprises determining a risk of the hazard on the basis of the determined probability and the determined severity of the food processing process. A further embodiment of the method according to the invention comprises displaying the severity, probability and the risk of the hazard. In this way the results of a simulated process with respect the severity, probability and the risk of the hazard with respect to the primary and secondary control measures can be analysed.
According to the invention this object is achieved by an apparatus for optimizing a food processing system comprising: an input device; a display device; and a control device arranged to control the input device and the display device, the control device being further arranged to the control device connect to the input device and the display device, and arranged to perform the steps of any of the claims 1-6.
The invention further relates to a computer program comprising computer program code means adapted to perform all the steps of any one of the method claims 1 to 6 when the computer program is run on a computer.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING
The above and other aspects, features, and advantages of certain embodiments of the present disclosure will be more apparent from the following description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which
Fig. 1 shows diagrammatically a first example of food processing method; and Fig. 2 shows diagrammatically a second example of a food processing system.
DETAIFED DESCRIPTION
The same reference numerals of each of the drawings may be designated to members performing the same function.
Example 1 Pieta bread
Fig. 1 shows diagrammatically a flow diagram of an example of a manufacturing process of pieta breads. The pieta bread manufacturing process can be accomplished by a number of steps 1. step 101 Mixing of flour, yeast and water/mil into dough ; 2. step 102 Rising the dough; 3. step 103 Cutting the dough in parts; 4. step 104 Baking the pieta breads; and 5. step 105 Packaging of pieta breads in a plastic bag in oxygen-free conditions. A hazard that may occur while manufacturing and packaging of the pieta breads is mould. This hazard is elected as example. The moulding may occur due to contamination of the wheat with sporules and subsequent growth. This growth makes that the pieta bread can become mouldy after a view days. Mould is regarded as the hazard because it jeopardizes the safety of the pieta bread as the mould jeopardizes the health of consumers. In general, the risk of this hazard is not considered large because consumers are able to detect the hazard and will not buy or consume this pieta bread.
In step 101, the mixing of flour, the wheat is entered in the manufacturing process. The moulds that are already present in the wheat, cannot be reduced at these steps. So, a primary control measure is not possible and the first capability Cn of the fist control measure to reduce the hazard at this step is set to 0. When the capability is 0, the first reliability to achieve this capability is not relevant.
Steps 102 and 103 are well known to the person skilled in the art.
In process step 104 baking is performed. The high temperatures during this process will reduce (kill) all the moulds. So, the capability to eliminate the hazard of this process step is 100 and the reliability is 100%, after the baking process the pieta bread might be recontaminated with moulds present in the air.
In process step 105, the packaging of pieta breads in a plastic bag is performed by packaging for example six pieta breads together in a single plastic bag. The application of a packaging gas is used as a primary control measure to prevent the growth of moulds that are already present prior to packaging and due to recontamination after the baking step 104. During packaging the plastic bag is filled with packaging gas and sealed. This packaging step 105 is referred to as MAP (Modified Atmosphere Packaging). The packaging gas is, for example, a mixture of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, CO2. The first capability C15 of this primary control measure to prevent the hazard is 100 %; the presence of packaging gas - or the absence of oxygen - will fully prevent the growth the moulds and no moulds can go through the packaging material.
Also a first reliability R15 can be determined from the characteristics of the packaging step.
The packaging step 105 may introduce first failures that lead to leaking packages and a consequent penetration of oxygen in the package. The first failure can be determined via a fault tree analysis of the packaging step. The first failure may be due to: a. Bad sealing of the plastic bag; b. Bad glue used for closing the bag; c. Holes in the plastic bag.
In this embodiment a secondary control measure 106 in the manufacturing process is introduced to improve the reliability R15 of the primary control measure. The secondary control measure 106 will detect and correct the first failure at the primary control measure. For example by measuring the CCh-level outside the plastic bag in a closed cabinet after a predetermined period of, for example, 1 min. Due to leakage of plastic bag the CCh-level inside the closed cabinet outside the bag will increase.
In this embodiment the secondary control measure comprises • the setting of limits for the CC>2-value outside the plastic bag; • measurement of the CCh-level within a predetermined period, for example, 1 minute in the closed cabinet; and • rejection of packages when the measured CCh-values exceeds the limits.
In this embodiment the CO2- value outside the bag is an estimate for the CC>2-level inside the bag. The rejected plastics bags can then reworked to improve the yield of the process.
The first capability C15 of the first control measure can be determined from analysis of the characteristics of the first control measure. A defect in the primary first control measure 105 can be, for example, a small leak; this type of the first failure can only be detected after a few hours or days after the packaging process. Since the secondary control measure takes place, for example, after 2 minutes after the closure of the plastic bag, this type of first failure cannot be detected and therefore the second capability of the secondary control measure to detect small leaks is low.
Another defect in the primary control measure 105 can be a larger leak of the plastic bag; this type of first failure can be detected directly after the packaging. The second capability C25 of the secondary control measure to detect large leaks is 100.
The second reliability R25 of the secondary control measure 106 can also be estimated. For example, the second reliability R25 of this secondary control measure 106 can be based on a parameter of the CCk-measuring equipment and on operating information of the CO2- measuring equipment, such as a life time of a critical part of the CO2- measuring equipment. The second reliability R25 can be further improved by using a fault tree analysis of the CO2- measuring equipment, determining a second failure that may occur in the secondary control measure and introduction of a tertiary control measure 107 to prevent or reduce the second failure.
The tertiary control measure 107 can be introduced in the process for monitoring the actual status of the CO2 -detecting apparatus and to detect the second failure in the second control measure and a step to reduce or prevent this second failure. Also for this tertiary control measure a third capability C35 and a third reliability R35 can be determined.
The first reliability R15 of the primary control measure, packaging step, 105 can then be calculated by combination of the second capability C25 and second reliability Ri 51 of the CCh-detection 106. The second reliability R25 of the, secondary control measure, C02-detection step 106, can be calculated by the third capability C35 and third reliability R35 of the tertiary control step, critical part detecting step 107.
The reliability of the complete process can then again be calculated from the subsequent steps by formula (1) and (2).
The probability P on the hazard of the complete process can be determined according to
(1)
Wherein Q represents the capability to prevent the hazard in the i-th process step.
The resulting reliability that the capability can be actually reached can then be expressed as
(2)
Wherein Ri represents the reliability of the i-th process step.
The obtained results analyst to assess the process steps of the manufacturing process.
Simulation with different values of the first capability and first reliability of the first control measure and the second capability and second reliability of the second control measure can then be performed to assess the effectiveness of the control measures to prevent or reduce the hazard.
Example 2 Mushroom soup
Fig. 2 shows diagrammatically a second example of a food processing system. The second example is related to a manufacturing process of mushroom soup. A hazard that can occur in mushroom soup is, for example, a bacteria that causes degrading of taste that may occur during transport and distribution. This hazard is elected as example for the analysis. Factors that may cause the degrading are growth of bacteria that can be initiated during transport of the products from the distribution centres to supermarkets. This is particularly the case in tropical or subtropical climates when transport pallets with packages of mushroom soup are temporarily exposed to high environmental temperatures during an unconditioned stay in stores or depots in open air. A primary control measure to prevent or reduce the hazard, i.e. the number of bacteria is a treatment referred to as sterilisation and packaging in a can.
The mushroom soup manufacturing process can be defined by a number of steps:
Mixing of ingredients and mushrooms;
Step 201 cooking mushroom soup;
Step 202 Packaging of soup in cans;
Step 203 sterilisation for example heating the mushroom soup at 120° C during 20 minutes.
Step 206 Transport to distribution centres;
In a cooking step 201 the ingredients, mainly mushrooms and water, are mixed and cooked.
In the packaging step 202 the soup is packaged in tin cans. The capability C22 of these type of packaging, in this example the primary control measure, to prevent further contamination is 100 % - no bacteria can go through the packaging material. Reliability is related to leaking cans. Leaks in this type of packaging are due to defects in the cans or lids or due to failure of the equipment that places and seals the lids. The reliability R22 can be estimated to 99,9 % meaning that one in every 1000 cans is leaking and will be recontaminated after sterilisation. A secondary control measure 205 can be introduced to detect leaking cans in the packaging step 202. The equipment to detect leaking cans has a capability C222 of 100; every leaking can will be detected and rejected. The reliability R222 of this equipment is 100 % as well: the design is such that when this equipment fails, all cans - leaking and non-leaking - will be rejected.
The subsequent sterilisation step 203 reduces the number of bacteria. The capability C23 of the sterilisation can be determined based on the duration of the sterilisation period and the characteristics of the hazard. In practice, the capability C23 to reduce the number of bacteria can be set at 99,9999 %. This means that one in a million cans will still host a living bacteria after sterilization. The reliability R23 can be very good and is estimated at 99,99 %.
In the transport step 204 the capability CR 24 and the reliability R24 to prevent growth of remaining bacteria is determined by a prescribed maximum duration of transport and/or distribution in environmental temperature higher than 25° Celsius. For example, the capability C24 and reliability R24 can be set at respectively 100 % and 99 %. The probability of the hazard in the final product of the mushroom manufacturing and distribution process can be determined from formula (1) and (2).
The obtained results can be displayed on a display providing an efficient way for an operator to assess the process steps of the manufacturing process.
Simulation with different values of the first capability and first reliability of the first control measures can then be performed to assess the effectiveness of the control measures to prevent or reduce the hazard.
While the present disclosure has been particularly shown and described with reference to certain embodiments thereof, it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that various changes in form and details may be made therein without departing from the scope of the present disclosure as defined by the following claims and their equivalents.

Claims (8)

1. Werkwijze voor het optimaliseren van een voedingsbewerkingsproces omvattende: - het vaststellen van een gevaar in een voedingsproduct; - het vaststellen van een eerste besturingsmaatregel om het gevaar te beheersen in het voedingsbewerkingsproces om het voedingsproduct te verkrijgen uit een of meerdere ingrediënten; - het vaststellen van een eerste geschiktheid Cn van een primaire besturingsmaatregel met betrekking tot het gevaar; het vaststellen van een eerste betrouwbaarheid Rn van de primaire besturingsmaatregel met betrekking tot een waarschijnlijkheid op het voorkomen, het detecteren, en het corrigeren van het gevaar door de primaire besturingsmaatregel; het vaststellen van een kans P op het gevaar op basis van de eerste geschiktheid Cn en de eerste betrouwbaarheid Rn van de primaire control maatregel; en - het tonen van de vastgestelde eerste geschiktheid Cn, de eerste betrouwbaarheid Rn en de kans P op een scherm.A method for optimizing a food processing process comprising: - determining a hazard in a food product; - determining a first control measure to control the hazard in the food processing process to obtain the food product from one or more ingredients; - determining a first suitability Cn of a primary control measure with regard to the hazard; determining a first reliability Rn of the primary control measure with respect to a probability of the occurrence, detection, and correction of the hazard by the primary control measure; determining a probability P of the hazard based on the first suitability Cn and the first reliability Rn of the primary control measure; and - showing the determined first suitability Cn, the first reliability Rn and the probability P on a screen. 2. De werkwijze volgens conclusie 1 verder omvattende: het vaststellen van een secondaire besturingsmaatregel om een eerste storing in de eerste besturingsmaatregel te detecteren en te corrigeren; - het vaststellen van een secondaire geschiktheid C21 van de achtereenvolgende secondaire besturingsmaatregel met betrekking tot een waarschijnlijkheid op het voorkomen, het detecteren, en het corrigeren van de eerste storing; - het vaststellen van een tweede waarschijnlijkheid R2i van de secondaire besturingsmaatregel met betrekking tot een waarschijnlijkheid op het voorkomen, het detecteren, en het corrigeren van de eerste storing in de primaire besturingsmaatregel; het vaststellen van een kans P op het gevaar op basis van de eerste geschiktheid Cn, de eerste betrouwbaarheid Rn, de tweede geschiktheid C21 en de tweede betrouwbaarheid R2i van achtereenvolgens de primaire besturingsmaatregel en de secondaire besturingsmaatregel; en het tonen van de vastgestelde tweede geschiktheid Cn, de tweede betrouwbaarheid Rn en de kans P op een scherm.The method of claim 1 further comprising: determining a secondary control measure to detect and correct a first failure in the first control measure; - determining a secondary suitability C21 of the successive secondary control measure with regard to a probability of preventing, detecting and correcting the first fault; - determining a second probability R2 i of the secondary control measure with respect to a probability of the occurrence, detection, and correction of the first malfunction in the primary control measure; determining a probability P of the hazard based on the first suitability Cn, the first reliability Rn, the second suitability C21 and the second reliability R2i of the primary control measure and the secondary control measure; and displaying the determined second suitability Cn, the second reliability Rn and the probability P on a screen. 3. De werkwijze volgens conclusie 1 of 2, omvattende: het vaststellen van een tertiaire besturingsmaatregel om een tweede storing in de secondaire besturingsmaatregel te detecteren en te corrigeren; het vaststellen van een tertiaire geschiktheid C3i van de secondaire besturingsmaatregel met betrekking tot een waarschijnlijkheid op het voorkomen, het detecteren, en het corrigeren van de tweede storing; het vaststellen van een tertiaire waarschijnlijkheid R31 van de secondaire besturingsmaatregel met betrekking tot een waarschijnlijkheid op het voorkomen, het detecteren, en het corrigeren van de tweede storing; - het vaststellen van een kans P op het gevaar op basis van de eerste geschiktheid Cn, de eerste betrouwbaarheid Rn, de tweede geschiktheid C2i en de tweede betrouwbaarheid R21 van achtereenvolgens de primaire besturingsmaatregel en de secondaire besturingsmaatregel; en - het tonen van de vastgestelde tweede geschiktheid Cn, de tweede betrouwbaarheid Rn en de kans P op een scherm.The method of claim 1 or 2, comprising: determining a tertiary control measure to detect and correct a second malfunction in the secondary control measure; determining a tertiary suitability C3i of the secondary control measure with respect to a probability of preventing, detecting, and correcting the second malfunction; determining a tertiary probability R31 of the secondary control measure with respect to a probability of preventing, detecting, and correcting the second malfunction; - determining a probability P of the hazard on the basis of the first suitability Cn, the first reliability Rn, the second suitability C2i and the second reliability R21 of successively the primary control measure and the secondary control measure; and - showing the determined second suitability Cn, the second reliability Rn and the probability P on a screen. 4. De werkwijze volgens één van de conclusies 1-3 verder omvattende het vaststellen van een hardheid van het gevaar.The method of any one of claims 1-3 further comprising determining a hardness of the hazard. 5. De werkwijze volgens één van de conclusies 1-4 verder omvattende het bepalen van een risico op het gevaar op basis van de vastgestelde waarschijnlijkheid en de vastgestelde hardheid van het voedingsbewerkingsproces.The method of any one of claims 1-4 further comprising determining a risk of the hazard based on the determined probability and the determined hardness of the feed processing process. 6. De werkwijze volgens één van de conclusies 1-5 verder omvatten het tonen van de strengheid, de waarschijnlijkheid en het risico op het gevaar.The method of any one of claims 1-5 further comprising showing the severity, the probability, and the risk of the hazard. 7. Een inrichting voor het optimaliseren van een voedingsbewerkingsysteem omvattende: een besturingsinrichting voor het besturen van het voedingsbewerkingsysteem; een invoerinrichting; en een beeldweergaveinrichting; waarbij de besturingsinrichting is verbonden met de invoerinrichting en de beeldweergaveinrichting en de besturingsinrichting is ingericht voor het uitvoeren van de stappen volgens een van de conclusies 1-6.A device for optimizing a feed processing system comprising: a control device for controlling the feed processing system; an input device; and an image display device; wherein the control device is connected to the input device and the image display device and the control device is adapted to perform the steps according to any of claims 1-6. 8. Een computerprogramma omvattende computerinstructiemiddelen ingericht voor het uitvoeren van alle stappen van één van de werkwijzeconclusie 1-6, wanneer het computerprogramma wordt uitgevoerd op een computer.A computer program comprising computer instruction means adapted to perform all steps of one of the method claims 1-6 when the computer program is executed on a computer.
NL2016020A 2015-12-23 2015-12-23 A method and system for optimization of food processing systems. NL2016020B1 (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
NL2016020A NL2016020B1 (en) 2015-12-23 2015-12-23 A method and system for optimization of food processing systems.

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
NL2016020A NL2016020B1 (en) 2015-12-23 2015-12-23 A method and system for optimization of food processing systems.

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
NL2016020B1 true NL2016020B1 (en) 2017-07-03

Family

ID=56990904

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
NL2016020A NL2016020B1 (en) 2015-12-23 2015-12-23 A method and system for optimization of food processing systems.

Country Status (1)

Country Link
NL (1) NL2016020B1 (en)

Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20080126150A1 (en) * 2006-09-21 2008-05-29 General Electric Method for assessing reliability requirements of a safety instrumented control function
EP2514324A1 (en) * 2011-04-23 2012-10-24 Paul Bernard Newman Apparatus and method for optimizing and controlling processing performance in food processing systems especially continuous sterilizing or pasteurizing systems
US20140012463A1 (en) * 2011-01-31 2014-01-09 Bernd Pfaffeneder Method, system and computer programme product for monitoring the function of a safety monitoring system of a control unit

Patent Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20080126150A1 (en) * 2006-09-21 2008-05-29 General Electric Method for assessing reliability requirements of a safety instrumented control function
US20140012463A1 (en) * 2011-01-31 2014-01-09 Bernd Pfaffeneder Method, system and computer programme product for monitoring the function of a safety monitoring system of a control unit
EP2514324A1 (en) * 2011-04-23 2012-10-24 Paul Bernard Newman Apparatus and method for optimizing and controlling processing performance in food processing systems especially continuous sterilizing or pasteurizing systems

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Loisel et al. Cold chain break detection and analysis: Can machine learning help?
Zwietering et al. Relevance of microbial finished product testing in food safety management
Luning et al. Systematic assessment of core assurance activities in a company specific food safety management system
Feng et al. Modeling and evaluation on WSN-enabled and knowledge-based HACCP quality control for frozen shellfish cold chain
Koutsoumanis et al. Application of quantitative microbiological risk assessment (QMRA) to food spoilage: Principles and methodology
Varzakas Application of ISO22000, failure mode, and effect analysis (FMEA) cause and effect diagrams and pareto in conjunction with HACCP and risk assessment for processing of pastry products
US20040158447A1 (en) Method for simulating and modeling the presence and growth of microbes, including pathogens and spoilage organisms, through a food supply chain
Nauta The modular process risk model (MPRM): a structured approach to food chain exposure assessment
Chen et al. Establishment the critical control point methodologies of seven major food processes in the catering industry to meet the core concepts of ISO 22000: 2018 based on the Taiwanese experience
CN104298868A (en) Chilled meat shelf life forecasting method and system for cold-chain logistics
KR101209404B1 (en) Apparatus and method for determine and prediction of risk level using statistic approaches on pathogenic microorganism in food
NL2016020B1 (en) A method and system for optimization of food processing systems.
Dalgiç et al. Improvement of food safety and quality by statistical process control (SPC) in food processing systems: a case study of traditional sucuk (sausage) processing
Herdiana Sardines product quality control in terms of HACCP to improve food security in Blambangan Foodpacker Indonesia company limited, Banyuwangi.
Domenech et al. Safety assessment of smoked fish related to Listeria monocytogenes prevalence using risk management metrics
Van Schothorst et al. Line monitoring, HACCP and food safety
Corlett Jr 10. Selection of Microbiological Criteria Based on Hazard Analysis of Food
Tsaloumi et al. Quantitative microbiological spoilage risk assessment (QMSRA) of fresh poultry fillets during storage at retail
De Cesare et al. Microbiological and Modeling Approach to Derive Performance Objectives for Bacillus cereus Group in Ready‐to‐Eat Salads
De Silva Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP)
Brown Safe process design and operation
Barach et al. Regulatory Requirements for Low‐Moisture Foods–The New Preventive Controls Landscape (FSMA)
Krylova et al. Systemic risk analysis of complex meat systems
Scott et al. Food safety management systems
Wallace Safety in food processing

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
MM Lapsed because of non-payment of the annual fee

Effective date: 20210101