A Microbial Assessment Scheme to measure microbial performance of Food Safety Management Systems
Open accessAbstract
A Food Safety Management System (FSMS) implemented in a food processing industry is based on Good Hygienic Practices (GHP), Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles and should address both food safety control and assurance activities in order to guarantee food safety. One of the most emerging challenges is to assess the performance of a present FSMS. The objective of this work is to explain the development of a Microbial Assessment Scheme (MAS) as a tool for a systematic analysis of microbial counts in order to assess the current microbial performance of an implemented FSMS. It is assumed that low numbers of microorganisms and small variations in microbial counts indicate an effective FSMS. The MAS is a procedure that defines the identification of critical sampling locations, the selection of microbiological parameters, the assessment of sampling frequency, the selection of sampling method and method of analysis, and finally data processing and interpretation. Based on the MAS assessment, microbial safety level profiles can be derived, indicating which microorganisms and to what extent they contribute to food safety for a specific food processing company. The MAS concept is illustrated with a case study in the pork processing industry, where ready-to-eat meat products are produced (cured, cooked ham and cured, dried bacon).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis
Green, S. B. (1991) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7 · Cited by 3,916 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Jacxsens, L., Kussaga, J., Luning, P. A., Van der Spiegel, M., Devlieghere, F., & Uyttendaele, M.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University (BE)
- Wageningen University & Research (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Jacxsens, L.
- Venue
- International Journal of Food Microbiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-08
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 113-125
- ISSN
- 0168-1605 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2052276421
- Cited by
- 153
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 18.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.wur.nl
- Locations
- International Journal of Food Microbiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Toronto
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
- Keywords
- food safety management systems, microbiological sampling, sampling frequency, pork processing, ready-to-eat meat products, dry-cured ham, HACCP, good hygienic practices
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Consumer Product Safety, Decision Trees, Food Contamination, Food Handling, Food-Processing Industry, Humans, Hygiene, Meat Products, Quality Control, Risk Management, Swine, Colony Count, Microbial, Proportional Hazards Models, Risk Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review