IMPLEMENTATION OF TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND ...

Sci.Int.(Lahore), 24(4),475-486, 2012

ISSN 1013-5316,CODEN: SINTE 8

475

IMPLEMENTATION OF TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES: A CASE STUDY OF FRIED PEANUT PROCESSING PLANT 1 1

Farhan Aslam, 1Hakeem–Ur–Rehman, 1Aamir Ijaz, 2S. M. Irfan

Institute of Quality & Technology Management, University of the Punjab, Pakistan 2 COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

ABSTRACT: Total quality management (TQM) is a tool that helps the organizations to accelerate and compete in this global competitive environment by reducing costs and eliminating waste and delivering superior quality of product and services to their customer. This study aims to investigate that effective use of TQM tools and techniques at fried peanut processing plant that helps to increase performance. First of all precautionary risk assessment was done. After this assessment, the process steps that are most critical during the processing were identified. These recognized critical points of the process were then being executed in the Ishikawa diagrams. In this study, the main focused points were the identified critical control points of the process. Computation of risk assessment was done by calculating the risk priority number for each step. The steps that need more attention include raw material reception, segregated storage of red skin peanuts, oil quality check and frying, segregated storage of fried products, post allergen cleaning, and product final picking and inspection. And this is due to their high risk priority number. Corrective actions were taken for these steps and again risk priority number was calculated. Results of this study indicate that total quality management tools and techniques along with HACCP have a positive impact on smooth functioning of the system. Key words:- Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), Cause and Effect Diagram, Pareto Diagram, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), preliminary hazard analysis INTRODUCTION:

Peanut is presently cultivated on just about 42 million acres globally. After soybean and cotton, peanut is the third major oilseed crop of the world [1]. Among the favorite foods in the world peanut has a unique position with attractive taste, flavor and aroma [2]. Fried peanut processing goes through a series of steps from the reception of raw material to the shipment of the final product. After reception of peanut at store, quality parameters are checked to assure that the quality of peanuts is according to the standards. Peanuts are checked for their color, aroma, taste, texture, insect damage, foreign particles, broken, mouldy grains, size and moisture [3]. After reception, peanuts are stored for further usage. Red skin peanuts are then taken to a soaking machine that contains hot water with a temperature range of 90-950 C. Peanuts without skin are fried in a fryer that contains cooking oil. Peanuts are fried at a temperature range of 1801900 C for 10-15 minutes with a visual observation of the color and crispness of the final product depending on desired characteristics and peanut quality[4]. Peanuts are transferred to the picking section where the picking is done to remove any kind of foreign material. Picked material is then transferred to the packing areas which make different packet sizes of nuts. FMEA: Among the most important quality management techniques, FMEA is one of them. To put into action a congested quality control loop, FMEA helps by giving collected specialist opinion. This can be used for scheduling as well as for implementation of the processes[5]. During FMEA, RPN calculation is done for risk assessment. Three variables are used for calculating the RPN which helps to describe the possibility of the breakdown to occur (occurrence, O), the severity (S) of the possible failure form on the procedure and the possibility to detect the failure (detection, D). The value of the RPN gives intimation

whether optimization is immediately essential [6]. The RPN is determined as the product of the three distinguishing failure indicators: RPN = (Severity) X (Occurrence) X (Detectability) Risk Assessment: A development of identifying the attendant uncertainties during a process for the purpose of process evaluation is known as risk assessment. Hazard identification, hazard characterization, spotlight evaluation, and risk characterization together forms the basis of risk evaluation [7]. HACCP and risk examination system has been interlinked with risk assessment. HACCP: Physical, chemical and biological risks which could affect the quality of food and could affect the safety of the food are controlled through an administrative system that is known as HACCP. Nowadays, from the first step of food receiving to the final step of product formation, HACCP is functional world-wide [8]. LITERATURE REVIEW: [9] discussed the successful application of quality management techniques and tools (QMT&T) by keeping in view a number of critical factors. These success factors may be classified into four categories. Each of the categories was subject to influences, defined as experience, resources, management, education and training. It was these influences that create the issues and difficulties. When accumulated, these effects may have a profound adverse impact on the successful use and application of QMT&T but in isolation their effect could be minimal. [10] described the procedures for the evaluation of both HACCP tactics and their execution usually used within the food processing industry. The aptitude to constantly supply secure food is one of the purposes of HACCP. During the process of assessment, verification of the effectiveness of the HACCP system was done. This paper discuss a multiple way industrial approach mechanism of ``pre-evaluation'' and ``on-site

476

ISSN 1013-5316,CODEN: SINTE 8

evaluation''. [11] focused on the calculation of risk priority number (RPN) by using the FMEA model. The originality of the technique comprises of novel administration of figures delivered by the design panel, usually delivered on qualitative scales, devoid of focusing a random and fake mathematical alteration. [12] reported the description of the implementation, methodology and design of FMEA for a food company. The main focus of this work was the implementation of FMEA to a wafer biscuit production line. The purpose was to enhance the organization understanding and managing capability on processes and outcomes. [13] used FMEA model that is more reliable and quantitative approach to do the risk assessment. FMEA was applied to a filled chocolate manufacturing company. Two controlled techniques were used to analyze and to estimate the potential breakdown modes in food chain system. [14] has done the hazard evaluation of potato chips processing plant by using FMEA. In order to analyze the critical control points (CCPs) that were identified by using the decision tree in the processing of potato chips, a provisional advancement of FMEA implementation was attempted to be applied in a snack industry. In a food supply system to evaluate and forecast the existing failure modes, preliminary hazard analysis was done. In the cause and effect figure, identified CCPs of the process have been implemented. Lastly, Pareto diagrams were applied towards the optimization probability of FMEA. [14] analyzed the strudel manufacturing and done the risk assessment for the whole process by using FMEA. To examine and to forecast the possible failure modes in a food chain system, preliminary hazard analysis was done. [15] did the hazard evaluation of corn curl processing plant by using the FMEA. To examine and to forecast the malfunction modes in a food chain system, fault tree analysis and preliminary hazard analysis was done. The steps that were critical in the process have been recognized and executed in the cause and effect illustration. To determine the GMOs detection potential of FMEA Pareto charts were implemented. [16] evaluated the risks of failure by using the risk assessment method to calculate the RPN. On the other hand, traditional RPN tactic has been pinpointed as having five major out comings. [6] assessed the potential failures by using FMEA. Generally by assessing the three factors, occurrence (O), severity (S) and detection (D), hazard evaluation in FMEA is performed by means of hazard precedence figures or RPN. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The study provides an illustrative demonstration of the record in which potential sources of the harms are described through cause and effect diagrams that are developed by means of brainstorming techniques. The fishbone or Ishikawa diagrams are constructed on critical control points of the fried peanut processing that were identified through a decision tree and mentioned in table # 1. The resulting fishbone or Ishikawa diagrams are demonstrated in figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Figures # 1 display the flow diagram with CCP’S incorporated for fried peanut processing. Table # 2 shows the identification of hazards during fried peanut processing. The hazardous processes were identified through hazard analysis that is shown in table # 3. The FMEA (table # 4)

Sci.Int.(Lahore), 24(4),475-486, 2012

conducted to determine the RPN by determining severity, occurrence and detection of the risk at the processing steps of the fried peanut processing. The processing steps at hazard could be appropriately demonstrated by utilizing the Pareto diagram (Figure # 2 and 9). For data collection we used brainstorming technique and FMEA (severity, occurrence and detection) forms. The aims of study include:  To calculate the risk priority number (RPN) at CCPs.  Suggesting corrective measures/ actions to control the risk  Root cause determination through cause and effect diagrams. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Fried Peanut Processing: Peanuts can be eaten as straight food, medicines, used in recipes, made into solvents and oils, peanut butter, as well as many other uses. Salted peanuts are among the popular confections made from peanuts. The steps that are followed during the peanut processing are as follows. Raw material (Red Skin Peanut) Receiving: Red skin peanut reception that is used for processing is the most critical stage that requires different quality checks to ensure the best material available for processing. Specifications for peanut selection at reception stage include color, aroma, taste, texture, insect damage, foreign particles, broken, mouldy grains, under size and moisture. Decision Tree: A stage at which check can be implemented and is necessary to avoid or to abolish a food security risk or diminish it to a tolerable limit is known as CCP. In determining CCPs, the possible risks that are rationally possible to become a source of sickness or damage in the deficiency of their management must be focused. To control food safety hazards, absolute and precise reorganizations of critical control points are essential. In recognizing which stage in the method is critical control point for using decision tree[15]. Segregated Storage of Allergens (Red Skin Peanut): Sensitivity for groundnut is a form of food sensitivity different from nut sensitivities [17]. Naturally occurring mycotoxin, aflatoxin is hazardous and is amongst the main hazardous elements ever recognized [18]. Soaking (Red Skin Peanut): First, peanuts were immersed in hot boiling water at a temperature of 90-950C for 10-15 seconds. Precautions to be taken for peanuts in the soaking machine includes sorting and grading for getting almost similar size of nuts that helps in processing. Water temperature and its level in soaking machine are very keen to be observed. Peeling and Washing: After coming from soaking machine, peanuts with loose skin are transferred to peeler that removes the skin of peanuts with the help of blades that cuts the skin and plastic wheels which helps to remove the loose skin of peanut [19]. At the same time, water spray is used to wash the peanut to remove any residues that remain and could cause problem.

Sci.Int.(Lahore), 24(4),475-486, 2012

ISSN 1013-5316,CODEN: SINTE 8

477

Table 1: CCP Matrix No.

Process Steps

Hazard Type (Q1)

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Raw material (Red skin peanut) reception

P C B

Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No

No Yes Yes

No No No

(P)

1

Storage of materials (Segregated storage of allergens)

(C)

2 3

Soaking

4

Peeling and washing

5

Sifting

6

Slight drying and storage

7

l quality check and frying

8

Centrifugation

9

Used oil storage

10

Post allergen cleaning

11

Product final inspection

12

Finished product storage and shipment

picking/

CCP or Not CCP 1 -

P

Yes

No

Yes

No

C B

Yes Yes

No No

Yes Yes

No No

CCP 2 -

P

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Not

C B P C B

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No No No

No No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Not -

P

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Not

C B P C B P C B P C B P C B P C B P C B P C B

Yes Yes es Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No

Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes

Not CCP 3

Oil Quality Check and Frying: Sifting: During the process of sifting, defective material was removed. Peanuts pass through single coating cavernous and functioned at a pace which facilitate manual sorter to ensure efficient exclusion of unknown substances. Sifting machine is accustomed as frequently as feasible adjacent to values to ensure exclusion of all substandard peanuts [20]. Slight Drying and Short term Intermediate Temporary Storage: Drying process goes through a step by step approach, in the initial fraction of the humidity control, the aeration with an elevated temperature (150o to 160o F) was blown, at this high temperature moisture was evaporated quickly from

(C/B)

(C)

Not CCP 4 CCP 5 CCP 6 Not -

peanuts, then aeration hotness was decreased to about 140o F [20]. Processing, or formulation of oil used for frying of peanuts was a blend of palmolein and canola seed oil having high smoke point [21, 22]. Oil used for frying of peanuts was free from any kind of foreign material that may include dust, metallic wires and carbon particles etc. Sieve or a funnel lined with a double layer of cheese cloth was used to remove these foreign materials from oil through straining. Oil used for frying has light yellow to pale yellow color, clear appearance, oily flavor and liquid texture. Centrifugation: The step which constitutes the utilization of the centrifugal force for the departure of substances with a force is known as centrifugation [23].

478

ISSN 1013-5316,CODEN: SINTE 8

Sci.Int.(Lahore), 24(4),475-486, 2012

Figure 1: Flow Chart for Fried Peanut Processing with CCP’S

If the internal part of the machine retains dirt, broken Packing films used for of peanuts were completely air tight materials, or supplementary external substances, it is to prevent oxidation during storage. probable for these substances to be stimulated into the Finished Product Storage and Shipping atmosphere and made their space inside the sampling rods. After packing into different package sizes, peanut packets Used Oil Storage: The oil used for frying purposes was then were passed through the metal detector to detect any kind of metallic material. Then packets were again packed into placed separately in order to avoid any kind of cross contamination and the liquid oils are stored at 860F (300C) and cartons for final storage and dispatch. should not be stored at a temperature higher than 1040F (400C). Cause and effect diagram Oils are kept in a cool and dry place. Segregated storage of oil For the reason that an accomplished figure looks similar to was done by labeling it with a label that contains information the outline of a fish, cause and effect charts are also known about the oil used for peanut frying and it is necessary for future as fishbone diagrams; it is also named as Ishikawa identification. Once oil used for peanut frying always use it only Diagrams, after Professor Kaoru Ishikawa, a founder of quality management, who introduced these procedures in the for peanut frying, for future use it is kept separately and used 1960s. It is an instrument for identifying all the probable with fresh oil make-up [24]. reason for a meticulous result [25]. Failure Mode Effect Post Allergen Cleaning and Validation: Analysis (FMEA): A gradual understanding for recognizing During peanut processing, aflatoxin is the hazard that serves all probable breakdowns in a plan, in an assembly process or as allergen for people. The elevated conditions utilized for manufacturing, or a creation or facility is known as failure processing nuts could destroy the fungus; however it modes and effects analysis (FMEA). The methods, or couldn’t counterbalance any poison which it has previously modes, in which somewhat might be unsuccessful, are generated. acknowledged as “Failure modes”. Failures are any mistakes Product Final Picking and Inspection: or imperfections, particularly those that influence the After frying process, peanuts were taken to the picking area consumer, and can be probable or definite. To recognize for final picking of the peanuts to remove any kind of probable malfunction modes, conclude their consequences broken, dark colored, burnt or foreign material to ensure the on the function of the outcome, and recognize measures to good quality of product. Stainless steel trays and sieve were moderate the breakdowns we used a techniques that is used during picking that were washed with food graded known as FMEA. Breakdowns are ranked by keeping in antimicrobial cleaners. view the seriousness of the process, how regularly they Packing happen and how simply they can be recognized [26]. The After packing peanuts were taken in the packing area for function of the FMEA is to take measures to get rid of or to final packing of peanuts into different packaging sizes. diminish breakdowns, beginning with the most crucial ones.

Sci.Int.(Lahore), 24(4),475-486, 2012

ISSN 1013-5316,CODEN: SINTE 8

Pareto Chart: A perpendicular bar graph in which figures are drawn in descending arrangement of concerned incidence from left to right is called as Pareto chart, that is also known as a Pareto distribution diagram,. Pareto charts are enormously helpful for

479

evaluating what troubles need concentration primarily. A comparison by pareto chart before and after FMEA is shown in graph which clears the exact situation that which areas need more attention[14].

Table 2: Hazard Identification in Fried Peanut Processing Sr. No. 1

Biological Hazards

Chemical Hazards

Physical Hazards

Receiving (Red skin peanut)

Toxins, Yeast, Mold, Coliforms

Broken shells, Foreign matter

2

Segregated storage

3 4

Soaking Peeling and washing

Chemical contamination Heavy metals in water

Foreign matter Foreign matter

5

Sifting

Growth of pathogens/ microorganisms Pathogenic microbes Micro-organisms in water Pathogenic microbes

Heavy metals, Aflatoxins, Cross contamination by Preservatives Allergen contamination

Not common

6

Slight drying and short intermediate storage Oil quality check/ inspection and frying Centrifugation Segregated storage of allergens Post allergen cleaning and validation Product final picking/ inspection Packing

10 11 12

13

Finished product storage / shipping

Unlikely

Not common

Not common

Development of microorganisms Pathogenic microbes Micro-organisms/ Pest damage Pathogenic microbes

Not regular

Foreign matter like iron wire pieces, broken hair Foreign matter like dust/ impurities External substances

Not common Cross contamination

Foreign matter Foreign matter

Aflatoxin

Foreign matter

Not common

Not common

Foreign matter

Development of microorganisms due to high temperature challenging wrapping resources Development of microorganisms and contaminant creation mostly because of high temperature.

Not identified

External substances

Not common

Foreign matter

F M EA-e s timate d R P N pr ior to cor r e ctiv e actions 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

S te ps

Po

a st

lle

rg

100 80 60 40 20

en Oi

c le

l

an

qu

in g

ty a li

c

c he c Re

k& ei

f ry

g v in

in g (r e

S

d

r eg

s

ki n

a eg

te

S RPN Pe rce nt C um %

288 21.2 21.2

252 18.5 39.7

pe

d

an

) ut

ra s to

r eg

eg

a of

ge

d a te

s to

240 17.6 57.4

lle

ra

g

rg

s en

f eo P

d re du ro

224 16.5 73.8

sk

ct

in f in

p

t nu ea

p al

ic k

in

i g/

196 14.4 88.2

ns

pe

on c ti

160 11.8 100.0

Figure 2: Pareto chart of FMEA-estimated RPN prior to corrective actions

0

Percent

8 9

RPN

7

Procedure Steps

480

ISSN 1013-5316,CODEN: SINTE 8

Figure 3: Ishikawa Diagram for CCP1

Figure 4: Ishikawa Diagram for CCP2

Sci.Int.(Lahore), 24(4),475-486, 2012

Sci.Int.(Lahore), 24(4),475-486, 2012

ISSN 1013-5316,CODEN: SINTE 8

Figure 5: Ishikawa Diagram for CCP3

Figure 6: Ishikawa Diagram for CCP4

481

482

ISSN 1013-5316,CODEN: SINTE 8

Figure 7: Ishikawa Diagram for CCP5

Figure 8: Ishikawa Diagram for CCP6

Sci.Int.(Lahore), 24(4),475-486, 2012

Sci.Int.(Lahore), 24(4),475-486, 2012

ISSN 1013-5316,CODEN: SINTE 8

483

Table 3: HACCP control chart for fried peanut processing CCP #

Raw Material/ Process Step CCP Description

1

Receiving Inspection & Testing

2

Identification & Segregated Storage for both Allergen materials

3

Frying Oil Quality/ Temperature

4

Identification & Segregated Storage for intermediate storage of Allergen containing products (Oil used for peanut frying)

5

Cleaning after running Allergen

Haz ard Typ e

P

C

Monitoring

Verifications

Critical Limit

Product & Container must pass the Incoming food safety Inspections It should be clearly marked as Allergen & not be mixed with other non-allergen products in storage

C/B

Color of Frying Oil/ Temperature as per plan

C

It should be clearly marked as Allergen & not be mixed with other non-allergen products in storage

C

Corrective Actions

There should be no residues from the previous run/ After Allergen Run

Documents/ Records Procedure

Frequency

Visual

Each Time at Receiving

QC Inspector

Visual

Continuous

Visual/ Color test/ Temperat ure gauge reading

Visual

Manual Cleaning/ Washing where applicable

Responsibility

Procedure

Responsibil ity

Procedure

Frequency

Responsib ility

Inform QCO Put On hold Reject or accept with special precautionary measure depending upon level of problem

QCO/ QA Manager

Review Records/ Visual by visiting the site

Monthly/ Occasionally

QCO/ QA Manager

Training records for monitoring staff, Good Receiving & Inspection Note for Raw materials/ for Packaging materials

QC Inspector/ store In charge/ Area In- charge

Assure Compliance

QCO/ QA Manager, Production Manager

Review Records Visual by visiting the site

Monthly/ Occasionally

QCO/ QA Manager

Training records for monitoring staff, Allergen Audit Report,

Each time before use color test/ Temp at frying

Line staff/ QC staff

Inform QCO/ QA Mgr & Production Mgr, In case of Temperature noncompliance, readjust the gauges/ In case of oil quality change the oil before next activity

Production Manager

Review Records Visual by visiting the site

Monthly/ Occasionally

QCO/ QA Manager/ Productio n Mgr

Training records for monitoring staff, QC Inspection Report/ In process Records, Hold Records/ CCP deviation Records

Continuous

QC Inspector/ store In charge/ Area Incharge

Assure Compliance/ In case of mixing put the product on hold & decide accordingly

QCO/ QA Manager, Production Manager

Review Records Visual by visiting the site

Monthly/ Occasionally

QCO/ QA Manager

Training records for monitoring staff, Allergen Audit Report, Hold Records/ CCP deviation Records

QCO/ QA Manager/ Productio n Mgr

Training records for monitoring staff, QC Inspection Report/ In process Report & Allergen product Mgt records, QP for Allergen Cleaning Validation/ / Hold Records/ CCP deviation Records

Each time before switch over

Line staff

Inform QCO/ QA Manager & Production Manager, In case of noncompliance don’t allow to switch over & assure re-compliance

Production Manager

Review Records Visual by visiting the site

Monthly/ Occasionally

ISSN 1013-5316,CODEN: SINTE 8

484

6

Final Picking & Foreign bodies free product assurance

P

Finish Product must be free from foreign bodies & any visual foreign materials

Manual/ Visual

Each Time at before Packing

Line Production Staff/ QC Inspector

Sci.Int.(Lahore), 24(4),475-486, 2012

Inform QCO/ QA Manager & Production Manager, In case of noncompliance don’t allow to pack without compliance

QCO/ QA Manager, Production Manager

Review Records Visual by visiting the site

QCO/ QA Manager/ Productio n Mgr

Monthly/ Occasionally

Training records for monitoring staff, QC Inspection Report/ In process Report/ Hold Records/ CCP deviation Records

Table 4: FMEA table of hazardous processing methods for fried peanut processing Defective products

Estimated action results

Processing steps

Hazards

Causes

S

O

D

RPN

Corrective actions

S

O

D

RPN

Receiving (Red skin peanut)

Pathogens, toxins, metals, parasite

Polluted environment, unsuitable storage conditions

8

6

5

240

8

3

3

72

Pathogens, toxins, insects, parasites

Temperature inappropriate conditions

7

7

4

196

Supplier must be reliable (meet the required conditions) Improved storage conditions and control to assure compliance

Segregated storage of allergens (Red skin peanut)

7

4

4

112

Soaking

Micro-organisms, contamination

Improper hygienic sanitary conditions

5

4

3

60

Foreign matter control

Peeling and washing

Micro-organisms

Improper sanitation

5

4

3

60

Foreign matter control

Sifting

Pathogens

Improper sanitation

5

3

3

45

Not required

Slight drying and storage

Unlikely

----

--

---

--

----

----

--

---

--

----

Oil quality checks and frying

Development of microorganisms because of imperfect time and temp. control Growth of pathogens Pathogens, toxins

Inadequate functioning of temp. and time in the fryer

9

7

4

252

Control of time and temp.

9

3

3

81

Improper sanitary conditions Improper storage and hygienic conditions

4 8

4 7

3 4

48 224

-8

-3

-3

---72

Heavy metals, toxins, pathogens Contamination from personnel-tools Growth of pathogens

Improper sanitary conditions

8

6

5

288

8

3

3

72

8 5

5 3

4 2

160 30

8 --

2 --

2 --

32 ----

4

3

3

36

---Proper storage conditions to assure compliance Adequate cleaning schedule and practices Improve inspection procedures Approve packaging material Suitable equipments for distribution

--

--

--

----

Centrifugation Segregated storage of used oil (oil used for peanuts frying) Post allergen cleaning Product inspection Packaging Finished shipping

final

product

picking/

storage/

heavy

water

Growth of pathogens/ toxins

abusement, storage and

Improper sanitation Storage temp. of packaging materials Temp. abuse during distribution

Remedial measures are essential when RPN is above 130

corrective

Sci.Int.(Lahore), 24(4),475-486, 2012

ISSN 1013-5316,CODEN: SINTE 8

5.

FMEA-estimated RPN after undertaking corrective actions 400

80

RPN

300

60

200

40

100

Se

e gr

te ga

d

s

ge ra to

o

ed fr

RPN Percent Cum %

in sk

lq Oi

6.

20

0

Steps

Percent

100

an pe

lity ua

ut ch

k ec

&

Po

84 20.3 20.3

i fry

st

ng

ge er al c Re

n

c

ng ni le a

in g e iv

81 19.6 40.0

ed (r

eg gr Se

in sk

e at

d

72 17.4 57.4

p

nu ea

st

t)

e ag or

od Pr

uc

t

of

ge er all

ns

ing ick lp a fin

72 17.4 74.8

/

ins

72 17.4 92.3

p

ec

n t io

0

7.

8. 32 7.7 100.0

Figure # 9: Pareto chart of FMEA-estimated RPN after

9. 10.

undertaking corrective action

CONCLUSION: 11. The key focus was placed on the computation of hazard evaluation by calculating the risk priority number (RPN) per recognized processing risk during fried peanut processing. Raw material (red skin peanut) receiving, segregated storage of allergens (red skin peanut), oil12. quality checks and frying, segregated storage of allergens (after frying), post allergen cleaning, product final picking and inspection were the steps recognized as the those with the maximum risk priority number (240, 196, 224, 288, and 160, correspondingly) and remedial13. measures were performed for them. Subsequent the implementation of remedial measures, a succeeding computation of RPN values was conceded taking to significantly inferior values of risk priority number (72, 112, 81, 72, 72 and 32) beneath the superior tolerable edge of 130. It is remarkable that the implementation of fishbone (Ishikawa or tree diagram) take to approach outcomes thus corroborating the legitimacy of results resulting from hazard14. evaluation and FMEA. That why, the integration of FMEA investigation in the HACCP system of a fried peanut processing plant is measured as both fruitful and crucial. The implementation of a FMEA explores the concealed process weak-points, taking to the computation of failure related marks/ stoppage hazards and the establishment of a ranking scale for15. supplementary enhancement measures. The utilization of a FMEA can also be executed successfully for consistent up-gradation and to increase the end results. REFERENCES 1. FAO, Food Quality and Safety Systems: A Training Manual on Food Hygiene and the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) System, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 1998. 2. Shamim, S.M., Peanut allergy: case report. Journal of Pakistan Association of Dermatologists, 16: p. 183186, 2006. 3. Hoffpauir, C.L., Peanut Composition, Relation to Processing and Utilization. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 1(10): p. 668-671, 1953.. 4. Damame, S., J. Chavan, and S. Kadam, Effects of roasting and storage on proteins and oil in peanut

16.

17.

18.

485

kernels. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition (Formerly Qualitas Plantarum), 40(2): p. 143-148, 1990. Pfeifer, T., Qualitätsmanagement: Strategien, Methoden, Techniken, Hanser Verlag, 2001: Zhang, Z. and X. Chu, Risk prioritization in failure mode and effects analysis under uncertainty. Expert Systems with Applications, 2. 38(1): p. 206-214, 2011. Notermans, S., G. Mead, and J. Jouve, Food products and consumer protection: a conceptual approach and a glossary of terms. International journal of food microbiology, 30(1): p. 175-185, 1996. Gorayeb, T.C.C., et al., HACCP plan proposal for a typical Brazilian peanut processing company. Food control, 20(7): p. 671-676, 2009. McQuater, R., et al., Using quality tools and techniques successfully. The TQM Magazine, 7(6): p. 37-42, 1995. Mortimore, S., An example of some procedures used to assess HACCP systems within the food manufacturing industry. Food control, 11(5): p. 403-413, 2000. Franceschini, F. and M. Galetto, A new approach for evaluation of risk priorities of failure modes in FMEA. International Journal of Production Research, 39(13): p. 2991-3002, 2001. Scipioni, A., et al., FMEA methodology design, implementation and integration with HACCP system in a food company. Food control, 13(8): p. 495-501, 2002. Arvanitoyannis, I.S. and S.C. Savelides, Application of failure mode and effect analysis and cause and effect analysis and Pareto diagram in conjunction with HACCP to a chocolate‐producing industry: a case study of tentative GMO detection at pilot plant scale. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 42(11): p. 1265-1289, 2007. Arvanitoyannis, I.S. and T.H. Varzakas, Application of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), cause and effect analysis and Pareto diagram in conjunction with HACCP to a potato chips manufacturing plant. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 42(12): p. 1424-1442, 2007. Varzakas, T.H. and I.S. Arvanitoyannis, Application of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), cause and effect analysis, and pareto diagram in conjunction with HACCP to a corn curl manufacturing plant. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 47(4): p. 363387, 2007. Chang, K.H. and C.H. Cheng, A risk assessment methodology using intuitionistic fuzzy set in FMEA. International Journal of Systems Science, 41(12): p. 1457-1471, 2010. WOTTON, H.R. and R.N. STRANGE, Circumstantial evidence for phytoalexin involvement in the resistance of peanuts to Aspergillus flavus. Journal of general microbiology, 131(3): p. 487, 1985. Nesci, A., et al., Insecticidal activity of synthetic antioxidants, natural phytochemicals, and essential oils against an Aspergillus section Flavi vector

486

ISSN 1013-5316,CODEN: SINTE 8

(Oryzaephilus surinamensis L.) in microcosm. Journal of Pest Science, 84(1): p. 107-115, 2011. 19. Yu, J., M. Ahmedna, and I. Goktepe, Effects of processing methods and extraction solvents on concentration and antioxidant activity of peanut skin phenolics. Food chemistry, 2005. 90(1): p. 199-206. 20. Davidson Jr, J.I., T.B. Whitaker, and J.W. Dickens, Grading, cleaning, storage, shelling, and marketing of peanuts in the United States. Peanut Sci. Technol., Amer. Peanut Res. Ed. Soc., Yoakum TX, p. 571-623, 1982: 21. Metwalli, S., et al., Preparation of high quality roasted and fried peanuts. I. Moisture content, lipase activity and organoleptic quality of peanuts during roasting and frying. Alexandria Journal of Agricultural Research, 1975. 23(1): p. 131-138. 22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

Sci.Int.(Lahore), 24(4),475-486, 2012

Ryan, L.C., et al., Composition, stability and acceptability of different vegetable oils used for frying peanuts. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 2008. 43(2): p. 193-199. Coulibaly, Y., S. Ouédraogo, and N. Niculescu, Experimental study of shea butter extraction efficiency using a centrifugal process. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci, 4: p. 14-19, 2009. DANA, D. and I.S. SAGUY, Frying of nutritious foods: obstacles and feasibility. Food science and technology research, 7(4): p. 265-279, 2001. Ishikawa, K. and A.P. Organization, Guide to quality control. Vol. 2. Asian Productivity Organization Tokyo, 1982: Van Leeuwen, J., et al., Risk analysis by FMEA as an element of analytical validation. Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis, 50(5): p. 1085-1087, 2009.