Skip to main content
English Cymraeg
International review of the literature and guidance on food allergen cleaning

Review of the literature and guidance on food allergen cleaning: Appendix

Appendix for the report.

Last updated: 14 June 2023
See all updates
Last updated: 14 June 2023
See all updates

11.1 Lists of websites searched

List of organisation websites searched

List of trade association websites searched

List of analytical test kit and cleaning chemical suppliers and analytical laboratory websites searched

Authority and agency websites searched

Governmental websites searched

Argentina

Brazil

Caribbean countries

Central America

Chile

China

Colombia

Cuba

Fiji

GSO (Gulf States)

Hong Kong

India

Israel

Japan

Kazakhstan

Malawi

Malaysia

Mexico

Morocco

Philippines

Singapore

South Africa

South Korea

Taiwan

Thailand

Turkey

Venezuela

Vietnam

The websites of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine Governments were not searched. 

The websites of Bolivia, Cuba, Egypt and South Korea did not upload after several attempts. 

11.2 Journal articles and theses summaries

Perry et al. (2004) Distribution of peanut allergen in the environment. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Study design summary: Peanut butter applied to a clean table and hands of volunteers before samples taken after cleaning with cleaning agents or plain water and using a regular hand-washing method respectively.

Allergen Peanut

Surfaces

Tables; Hands
Detection method Ara h 1 ELISA (INDOOR Biotechnologies)
Cleaning methodologies

TABLE:

Plain water; Dishwashing liquid; Formula 409 cleaner; Lysol sanitising wipes; Target cleaner with bleach

HANDS:

Antibacterial hand sanitiser; Tidy Tykes wipes; Wet Ones antibacterial wipes; Liquid soap; Bar soap

Efficacy of cleaning summary

After hand washing with liquid soap, bar soap, or commercial wipes, Ara h 1 was undetectable. Plain water and antibacterial hand sanitiser left detectable Ara h 1 on 3 of 12 and 6 of 12 hands, respectively. Common household cleaning agents removed peanut allergen from tabletops, except dishwashing liquid, which left Ara h 1 on 4 of 12 tables. Of the 6 area preschools and schools evaluated, Ara h 1 was found on 1 of 13 water fountains, 0 of 22 desks, and 0 of 36 cafeteria tables.

Conclusion: The major peanut allergen, Ara h 1, is relatively easily cleaned from hands and tabletops with common cleaning agents and does not appear to be widely distributed in preschools and schools.

Jackson et al. (2008) Cleaning and other control and validation strategies to prevent allergen cross-contact in food-processing operations. Journal of Food Protection.

Study design summary: This is a review, which includes reference to the following studies conducted by the same author: The efficacy of different cleaning protocols for removing hot milk soils, cold milk soils, and peanut butter soils from plates made of different food contact materials.

Allergens Milk; Peanut

Surfaces

Stainless steel; Teflon; polyethylene; urethane; polycarbonate
Detection method No details provided
Cleaning methodologies

Washed with various types of cleaning agents or solutions (water; chlorinated alkali cleaner; acid detergent cleaner) at different temperatures (ambient temperature; 62.8ºC; 73.8ºC) for 30 minutes

Efficacy of cleaning summary

The efficacy of the cleaning protocols differed depending on the type of soil, the food contact surface, the temperature of the cleaning solution, and the concentration of the detergent in the cleaning solution. For example, water without chlorinated alkali cleaner was not effective at removing hot milk soil from stainless steel plates. Chlorinated alkali cleaner was able to remove all hot milk residues even when the detergent solution was at ambient temperature. In contrast, water alone at 62.8ºC and 73.8ºC was effective at removing cold milk soils. Water alone at 62.8ºC, but not at ambient temperature, was effective at removing peanut butter soils from most of the food contact surfaces studied. Both chlorinated alkali cleaner and acid detergent cleaner at 62.8ºC, but neither at ambient temperature, were able to effectively remove all peanut butter residues from the food contact surfaces.

Rӧder et al. (2008) Pilot plant investigations on cleaning efficiencies to reduce hazelnut cross-contact in industrial manufacture of cookies. Journal of Food Protection.

Study design summary: Product change after cleaning, from cookie dough with 10% hazelnut to cookies without hazelnuts simulated in a pilot plant. The experiments were performed repeatedly with finely ground hazelnuts and with roughly chopped hazelnut kernels.

Allergen

Hazelnut

Surfaces

Kneaders; rotary molder; wire cutting machine; steel band oven

Detection method

Hazelnut protein specific ELISA

Cleaning methodologies

No cleaning – push-through with cookies without hazelnut; Manual scraping; Manual scraping plus cleaning with 52ºC hot water; Manual scraping plus cleaning with 52ºC hot water containing 0.2% dish detergent and final rinse with hot water.

Efficacy of cleaning summary

Cross-contact from chopped kernels was distributed heterogeneously; sampling and analysis with the ELISA was therefore not reproducible. For the homogeneously distributed, finely ground hazelnut, apart from product changes without intermediate cleaning, the highest cross-contact was found after mechanical scraping: up to 100 mg/kg hazelnut protein was found in the follow-up product. After additional cleaning with hot water, the cross-contact decreased to levels at or below 1 mg/kg hazelnut protein. In the pilot plant study, an appropriate wet cleaning procedure in combination with quantitative monitoring of the cleaning efficiency reduced the hazelnut protein cross-contact to a level at which severe hazelnut-related allergic reactions are unlikely to occur.

Spektor (2009) Effect of cleaning protocols on the removal of milk, egg and peanut allergens from abraded and unabraded stainless steel surfaces (Thesis).

Study design summary: Peanut butter, pasteurised liquid egg and milk were applied to coupons, which were subjected to four cleaning protocols.

Allergen

Egg; Peanut; Milk

Surfaces

Abraded and unabraded stainless steel surfaces

Detection method

Visual inspection; Veratox Allergen Test Kits, Neogen Corporation, Lansing, MI.

Cleaning methodologies

Juice Products Association (JPA) Type 4 wash and food degreaser wash;

Chlorinated alkaline detergent (CAD) and food degreaser wash; Acid detergent (AD) and food degreaser wash; Water only treatment. All applied at 63°C

Efficacy of cleaning summary

For all three allergens, JPA and CAD resulted in the highest percentage reductions (99.6% on average for all surfaces), while AD resulted in the least allergen percentage reduction (91.6% on average for all surfaces). The average reduction for water was 96.5% for all allergens and surfaces.

Wang, Young and Karl (2010) Evaluation of cleaning procedures for allergen control in a food industry environment. Journal of Food Science.

Study design summary: Eleven products (chicken products with wheat derivates as a batter) prepared on three processing lines and 15 production runs sampled at random over six months. Cleaning protocols carried out over 5 hours and the still-wet rinsed surfaces swabbed 20 minutes after each step.

Allergen

Gluten

Surfaces

Stainless steel wire mesh conveyors

Detection method

ATP surface swabs (Biotrace Intl.); Protein (Coomassie dye method, Pierce); ELISA (gliadin) immunoassay (RIDASCREEN)

Cleaning methodologies

RINSING: remove solid material and wash with water 40-50⁰C;

FOAM and RINSE: 1% enforce foam comprising NaOH, NaOCl and surfactant, scrub, wait 20 minutes, water rinse;

SANITISE and RINSE: broad spectrum sanitiser, comprising of range of antimicrobials, wait 20 minutes, water rinse.

Efficacy of cleaning summary

The ELISA assay results for gliadin show that the cleaning procedures at the facility were extremely effective at gliadin removal. The comment is made that even modest cleaning would be sufficient for gliadin removal in this facility.

A comparison of ATP results with the gliadin ELISA showed that the results of the 2 tests agree. It was, however, emphasised that these outcomes apply only to the chicken product range processed in the facility and are not necessarily able to be extrapolated to other foods and processing protocols.

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010) Efficacy of different dry cleaning methods for removing allergenic foods from food-contact surfaces (Poster).

Study design summary: The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of two dry cleaning methods for removing allergenic residues from a variety of food-contact surfaces. For experiments evaluating the effectiveness of wipes, slurries containing peanut flour, skim milk powder, whole egg powder, soy flour, soy milk and soy infant formula powder were deposited on the surface of stainless steel, Teflon and urethane plates. The plates were heated at 80°C for 1 hour to form a cooked food residue. For experiments evaluating the use of vacuum, plates were prepared as described above. In addition, peanut flour, milk powder, whole egg powder, soy flour and soy infant formula powder were applied to the surface of the plates without heat.

Allergens

Milk; Egg; Peanut; Soy

Surfaces

Stainless steel; Teflon; Urethane faced belting

Detection method

Visual inspection; Neogen Alert qualitative ELISA kits for peanut, total milk, egg and soy; conventional ATP swabs (Pocketswab, Charm Sciences); sensitive ATP swabs (Allergiene, Charm Sciences); protein swabs (Aller-tect, 3-M)

Cleaning methodologies

Alcohol-moistened wipes; High efficiency vacuum

Efficacy of cleaning summary

Wipes removed all cooked food residues from all surfaces, as determined using all the detection methods. However, conventional and sensitive ATP swabs detected the presence of residue when the surfaces were clean according to all tests. For all trials, the vacuum was unable to remove cooked food residues using all detection methods. For uncooked foods, the vacuum was able to remove all visible traces of the foods, with the exception of milk powder on the urethane surface. However, in some cases, ELISA, the protein swab and both ATP swabs detected the presence of food residues.

Schreder et al. (2013) Management of allergens in the gastronomy: difficulty of cross-contact referred to the context of food regulatory. Ernaehrungs-Umschau.

Study design summary: Investigating cross-contact in restaurants/catering businesses: food preparation stages were filmed at different times (breakfast, midday, evening) and prime activity areas were tested for allergens.

Allergens

Milk (casein); Gluten (G12); Egg

Surfaces

Work surfaces (e.g. cutting board), utensils (e.g. knife) and hands/gloves

Detection method

Allergen test strips by Romer Labs

Cleaning methodologies

Water; Water and detergent/soap

Efficacy of cleaning summary

Cleaning work surfaces, utensils or hands and gloves with water only (without detergent and soap) is not sufficient to prevent cross-contact.

Cleaning work surfaces, tools or hands and gloves with detergent or soap is mostly sufficient to prevent cross-contact.

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013) Persistence of peanut allergen on a table surface. Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology.

Study design summary: Peanut butter applied to a laminated plastic surface kept in a hospital office at room temperature and ambient light conditions and tested for Ara h 1 at regular intervals. On day 110, a commercial cleaning wipe was used to clean the surface.

Allergen

Peanut

Surfaces

Laminated plastic surface

Detection method

Ara h 1 ELISA (INDOOR Biotechnologies)

Cleaning methodologies

Clorox® Disinfecting Wipes

Efficacy of cleaning summary

Detectable Ara h 1 on every sample collected for 110 days. Immediately after cleaning the surface, Ara h 1 was not detected.

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014) Comparison of egg allergens retained on food service tableware made from different materials (Abstract only). Journal of Home Economics of Japan.

Study design summary: Egg allergens remaining on food service tableware made of different materials were analysed after washing with water or with water and detergent.

Allergen

Egg

Surfaces

Food service tableware made from four different materials (polypropylene, strengthened porcelain, polyethylene naphthalate, and melamine)

Detection method

LFDs and ELISA

Cleaning methodologies

Wash with water only; Wash with water and/or detergent

Efficacy of cleaning summary

The tableware tested positive or weakly positive after washing with only water, and negative or weakly positive after washing with detergent, there being no differences among the tableware materials. The tableware was then rinsed twice or four times and tested again as positive or weakly positive. The quantitative ELISA results showed the allergen levels to be slightly higher than or close to 50 ng/mL after washing with only water, and below the lower limit of quantification (<0.78 ng/mL) after washing with detergent for many of the tested allergens. There were no significant differences among the four kinds of tableware material for the residual characteristics of the egg allergens.

Zhang (2014) Effectiveness of cleaning regimens for removing peanut, milk and egg residue from pilot-scale cereal bar and muffin processing lines (Abstract only, Thesis).

Study design summary: The objectives of this project were to evaluate the effectiveness of cleaning regimens on removing allergenic food residue (peanut flour, non-fat dry milk, egg powder) from pilot-scale cereal bar and muffin processing lines and measure the levels of allergens transferred into allergen-free (control) cereal bars and muffins processed on an inadequately cleaned processing line. Another objective was to investigate the analytical methods used (conventional ATP, sensitive ATP, total protein and lateral flow) to evaluate the effectiveness of allergen cleaning procedures.

Allergens

Peanut; Milk; Egg

Surfaces

Mixer; Depositor; Nozzle; Conveyor belt
Detection method

LFDs for surfaces Quantitative; ELISAs for samples

Cleaning methodologies

1) push-through with control cereal bar dough or muffin batter; 2) scraping the equipment surfaces with rubber scrapers; 3) a rinse with hot (54-60°C) water until “visibly clean”; 4) a full cleaning cycle with alkaline detergent followed by use of a sanitiser

Efficacy of cleaning summary

Results of LFD tests indicated that hot water rinse was effective for the cereal bar processing line but not for the muffin line. Only the full cleaning cycle was effective at removing allergenic food residues for both processing lines. During the cross-contact study, substantial levels of peanut, milk and egg were detected in samples obtained both before and after baking. Overall, these results illustrate the importance of validated cleaning protocols for preventing allergen cross-contact on shared processing lines.

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015) Removal of peanut allergen Ara h 1 from common hospital surfaces, toys and books using standard cleaning methods. Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology.

Study design summary:  Peanut butter smeared on hospital surfaces before cleaning with a common household wipe and two commercial hospital wipes.

Allergen Peanut

Surfaces

Laminated plastic surface; plastic doll; textured plastic ball; smooth and textured book covers
Detection method Ara h 1 ELISA (INDOOR Biotechnologies)
Cleaning methodologies

Clorox® Disinfecting Wipes; Ultrawipes™ hospital wipes; Butcher’s PerCept RTU Wipes™ hospital wipes

Efficacy of cleaning summary

After cleaning with any product, no Ara h 1 was detected on any item. Table surfaces, book covers and plastic toys can be cleaned to remove peanut allergen Ara h 1 using common household and hospital cleaning wipes. Regular cleaning of these products or cleaning prior to their use should be promoted to reduce the risk of accidental peanut exposure, especially in areas where they have been used by many children with common cleaning agents and does not appear to be widely distributed in preschools and schools.

Courtney (2016) Evaluation of qualitative food allergen detection methods and cleaning validation approaches (Thesis).

Study design summary:  Chapter 3 of this thesis details a study of the effects of cleaning on removal of milk soils from various food processing surfaces as detected by commercial milk-specific lateral flow devices and general protein tests. Four food-processing surfaces were soiled with non-fat dried milk and cleaned with each cleaning solution of a typical CIP system separately and then sequentially.

Allergen Milk

Surfaces

316 grade stainless steel;  high density polyethylene (HDPE); Nylon 6/6; Delrin

Detection method

Romer AgraStrip Casein (Romer Labs, Runcorn, Cheshire, UK); Neogen Reveal 3-D Total Milk (Neogen Corporation, Lansing, MI, US); 3M Clean-Trace Surface Protein Allergen (3M Health Care , St. Paul, MN, US)

Cleaning methodologies

Commercial caustic; Commodity caustic; Acid cleaner; Oxidizing sanitiser

Efficacy of cleaning summary

The caustic solutions easily removed the milk soil while the acid and sanitising solutions left a soiled surface. When used separately, a commercial caustic solution was observed to outperform a commodity caustic solution. Stainless steel was most easily cleaned, followed by HDPE and Nylon 6/6.

Wells and Jeong (2017) Evaluating current industry dry cleaning practice using vacuum with regard to food allergens on processing surfaces (Abstract only). Journal of Food Protection.

Study design summary: Stainless steel coupons were electrostatically coated with soy protein isolate powder as an allergenic material.

Allergen Soy

Surfaces

Stainless steel coupons
Detection method Neogen 3D Reveal test kits
Cleaning methodologies

Vacuum cleaning at about 3mm above the surface. After 10 seconds of vacuuming followed by a brushing, second vacuuming was applied for 10 seconds

Efficacy of cleaning summary

Allergen tests showed 50% negative and 50% positive for soy (n=6), which indicates the uncertainty of the vacuum cleaning practice for allergen removal. The results of the vacuum cleaning test provided further evidence that visual cleanness poses the risk of allergen cross-contact.

Kiyota et al. (2017) Evaluation of cleaning methods for residual orange extract on different cookware materials using ELISA with profilin allergen indicator. Journal of Food Process Engineering

Study design summary: Development and production of an antibody detection method (plate ELISA), before spreading orange extract over an area of 5cm x 5cm on 4 types of surface material, then cleaning and analysis for residual orange extract.

Allergen Orange

Surfaces

Propylene (PP) chopping board; Wood chopping board; Stainless steel tray; Glass dishes
Detection method Study involved development of an ELISA based on recombinant protein to produce polyclonal anti-rCit s 2-SUMO antibody
Cleaning methodologies

Rinsed with 1 L running water for 5–10 seconds at 28ºC; Scrubbed 10 times with a urethane sponge scourer containing a household detergent, followed by rinsing with 1 L running water for 5–10 seconds at 28ºC

Efficacy of cleaning summary

Rinsing with 1 L of water showed a >95% removal efficiency for stainless steel and glass cookware, whereas half the PP and wood cookware required scrubbing with a detergent-containing sponge for complete cleanliness. When the surfaces were cleaned with foam and rinsed, the orange extract was removed from all cookware; however, in the case of wood, levels below the LOQ were detected in two of the five experiments.

Schembri (2017) Improving food allergen management in small food service businesses serving loose food (Thesis).

Study design summary: Pans spiked with the target allergens, then washed using different methods, were tested for allergen residue.

Allergens

Egg; Gluten

Surfaces

Pan
Detection method LFDs: Reveal RAPID 3-D (Neogen)
Cleaning methodologies

Washing by hand; Washing by dishwasher; Brisk hand washing with dedicated brush

Efficacy of cleaning summary

Egg was not detected following hand washing or dish washing (egg was not tested for following brisk hand washing). Gluten was detected after hand and dish washing, but not after brisk hand washing, even though the pan was visually clean.

Zhang et al. (2018) Effectiveness of push-through cleaning methods for removing milk chocolate from a stainless-steel pipe and butterfly valve (Abstract only). Journal of Food Protection.

Study design summary: Melted milk chocolate used to coat inner surfaces of a heated stainless-steel pipe and attached butterfly valve. Evaluated effectiveness of using a silicone pig and push-through with cocoa butter, as a cleaning method to remove milk chocolate.

Allergen Milk

Surfaces

Stainless steel pipe and butterfly valve
Detection method ELISA (Neogen Veratox for Total Milk)
Cleaning methodologies

PUSH-THROUGH (use of a silicone pig (7.6cm in length)), followed by dark chocolate;

PUSH-THROUGH (recirculating cocoa butter (~27kg, 40°C, 1 hour)

Efficacy of cleaning summary

PUSH-THROUGH (silicone pig) – Following the pig, after 13 to 15 kg of milk-free dark chocolate was pumped through the pipe and valve, milk levels were below the ELISA limit of quantitation (LOQ=2.5 ppm). Use of the pig dramatically reduced levels of milk in initial dark chocolate samples.

PUSH-THROUGH (recirculating cocoa butter) - Recirculating cocoa butter decreased initial milk levels, but 11 (3% CV) ppm milk was detected after ~13 kg dark chocolate purge.

Ortiz et al. (2018) Survey on the occurrence of allergens on food-contact surfaces from school canteen kitchens. Food Control.

Study design summary: Fifty school canteens were visited during 2 school years. The study included not only food-contact surfaces of general use but also surfaces for exclusive use in meals free of specific allergens. The total number of samples was 621 (213 were analysed for milk and egg, and 195 for gluten).

Allergens

Egg; Milk; Gluten

Surfaces

Kitchen surfaces (glasses, pots, pans, plates, trays and food boxes) and utensils (blenders, knifes, ladles, slotted spoons, spatulas, spoons, strainers, tongs, forks, pastry brushes, scissors and spaghetti spoons)
Detection method

On-site LFDs: Milk (beta-lactoglobulin), egg (ovalbumin) and gluten (Proteon Express, ZEULAB, Spain). Followed by ELISAs for laboratory confirmation: Proteon Milk and Egg (ZEULAB, Spain) and GlutenTox ELISA (Biomedal, Spain).

Cleaning methodologies

Most of the kitchens used automatic washer systems for small tools and containers of general use. Some kitchens washed by hand the biggest food-contact surfaces of general use and the tools and containers of exclusive use to prepare allergen-free menus. In all cases, cleaning was performed with conventional detergents and disinfectants to control microbial contamination.

Efficacy of cleaning summary

The current cleaning procedures in kitchens of school canteens are not effective to remove allergens from food-contact surfaces and surfaces. Therefore, processes should be improved in order to reduce the risk of allergen cross-contact. Validation of cleaning processes and verification of its effectiveness after each cleaning should be demonstrated by using the suitable tools of analysis. The use of exclusive food-contact surfaces to avoid allergen cross-contact during the preparation or serving meals is not a guarantee of the absence of allergens.

Zhang et al. (2019) Effectiveness of cleaning strategies for removing milk chocolate from pilot-scale chocolate processing equipment (Abstract only). Journal of Food Protection.

Study design summary: Piot scale investigations involving milk chocolate processed in a ball mill and horizontal-shaft conch, followed by draining the majority of the chocolate, then carrying out cleaning or push-through with cocoa butter. After cleaning, three batches of milk-free dark chocolate were processed and each batch was collected for analysis. Milk chocolate processed on a three-roller refiner, followed by push-through with dark chocolate, after which samples were collected for analysis.

Allergen Milk

Surfaces

Ball mill; horizontal shaft conch; three-roller refiner

Detection method ELISA (Neogen Veratox® for Total Milk)
Cleaning methodologies

PUSH-THROUGH (cocoa butter (40ºC, 5 min rinse);

WET CLEANING (detergent-rinse-air dry);

PUSH-THROUGH (dark chocolate)

Efficacy of cleaning summary

PUSH-THROUGH (cocoa butter) - Levels of milk reduced from up to 40,300ppm milk (ball mill) and 18,100ppm milk (conch) detected in dark chocolate that had been passed through uncleaned equipment, to 1,960ppm milk (ball mill) and 2,440ppm milk (conch) in the first batch of dark chocolate following the cocoa butter push-through. Milk levels decreased in subsequent batches of dark chocolate processed on both pieces of equipment.

WET CLEANING - Milk levels were below the ELISA limit of quantitation (LOQ; 2.5 ppm) for all three dark chocolate batches produced.

PUSH-THROUGH (dark chocolate) - Initial dark chocolate samples contained up to 2,140ppm milk. After approximately 3kg of dark chocolate was processed on the refiner, measured milk levels were below the ELISA LOQ.

Galan-Malo et al. (2019) A study to reduce the allergen contamination in food-contact surfaces at canteen kitchens. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science.

Study design summary: Ten school canteens were visited during a school year. Between 26 and 34 cleaned utensils were selected from each school (resulting in a total of 308 samples for analysis; 99 for gluten, 100 for egg and 109 for milk).

Allergen

Egg; Milk; Gluten

Surfaces

Kitchen surfaces and utensils, made from Teflon, Stainless steel, Plastic
Detection method

On-site LFDs: Proteon Milk Express, Proteon Casein Express, Proteon Egg Express, Proteon Gluten Express (ZEULAB, Spain). Followed by ELISAs for laboratory confirmation:  Proteon Milk, Proteon Egg (ZEULAB, Spain), GlutenTox ELISA, Biomedal, Spain).

Cleaning methodologies

The usual cleaning was with conventional detergents in 5 out of the 10 schools - either by hand or in an automatic dishwasher. In the other 5 schools, an additional cleaning step was implemented using a detergent with proteases (DetzymSurfaces, Hypred) after the ordinary cleaning.

Efficacy of cleaning summary

Detergent with proteases, rinsing the utensils before use and wash by hand, reduced significantly the occurrence of allergens on kitchen surfaces or utensils. Some storage conditions such as keeping utensils in a cupboard or covered somehow, also protect the utensils from allergen post-contamination, this was particularly true for egg and gluten (both of which are used in powdered from).

The higher level of contamination when using an automatic dishwasher could be explained by the partial recirculation of water.

None of the materials showed a significant impact on the number of utensils contaminated with allergen residues. Only the utensils made of Teflon shown a clear trend to be contaminated with gluten, but this requires confirmation.

When comparing LFD and ELISA results, more positive results were found by ELISA test, as the limits of detection of this method are lower.

Bedford et al. (2020) Allergen removal and transfer with wiping and cleaning methods used in retail and food service establishments. Journal of Food Protection.

Study design summary: Dry or powdered, wet, or sticky and paste forms of foods containing non-fat dry milk powder, cream cheese, fluid whole milk, whole egg powder, mayonnaise, peanut powder and peanut butter were applied individually to surface material coupons (stainless steel, textured plastic and maple wood). Different cleaning regimes were conducted, and surfaces were checked by LFDs.

Allergens

Peanut; Milk; Egg

Surfaces

Stainless steel; Textured plastic; Maple wood

Detection method Allergen-specific Reveal 3-D (Neogen) LFD tests for total milk, egg and peanut
Cleaning methodologies

Dry paper wipes; Dry terry dish cloths; Wet terry cloth (soaked in tap water); Wet terry cloth (soaked in 50ppm of total chlorine sanitiser solution); Alcohol quaternary ammonium chloride wipes; Wash-rinse-sanitise-dry rinse procedure.

Efficacy of cleaning summary

Although dry wipes and cloths were not effective for removing allergenic foods, terry cloth pre-soaked in water or sanitiser solution, use of multiple quat wipes, and the wash–rinse–sanitise–air dry procedure were effective in allergen removal from surfaces. Allergens present on dry wipes were transferred to wiped surfaces. In contrast, minimal or no allergen transfer to surfaces was found when allergen-contaminated terry cloth was submerged in sanitiser solution prior to wiping surfaces. The full cleaning method (wash–rinse–sanitise–air dry) and soaking the terry cloth in sanitiser solution prior to wiping were effective at allergen removal and minimizing allergen transfer.

Aleksić et al. (2020) Controls of nutritive allergens in a hospitality kitchen. Meat Technology.

Study design summary: Hospitality kitchen conducted everyday business operations; allergen status of surfaces was determined after specific cleaning methodology carried out using microfibre cloths and combinations of cold or warm water, with or without detergent, changing the cloth between wipes and changing the work uniform between food preparation and cleaning activities. Foods containing allergens in the kitchen were identified as savoury cornbread (gluten), pizza pastry (gluten), sweet muffin (gluten) and pork neck (soya).

Allergens Gluten; Soya

Surfaces

Worktops; knives; meat slicers; convection ovens; worker aprons and worker hands
Detection method FLASH® Allergen-Indicator Protein Test swabs (Millipore)
Cleaning methodologies

A - Wipe with cold, then warm water, using the same wiping cloth (microfiber);

B - Wipe with warm water, then warm water with detergent, using the same wiping cloth (microfiber):

C - Wipe with warm water, then warm water with detergent, the cloth (microfiber) was changed to a fresh cloth after the first wipe with warm water;

D - Wipe with warm water, then warm water with detergent, the cloth (microfiber) was changed to a fresh cloth after the first wipe with warm water, the work uniform was changed after food preparation, before the cleaning activity

E - Wipe with warm water, then warm water with detergent, the cloth (microfiber) was changed to a fresh cloth after the first wipe with warm water, the work uniform was changed after food preparation, and hands were washed after food preparation

Efficacy of cleaning summary

A - Contamination was detected on all surfaces. There was little difference in results after wiping with cold or warm water.

B - Results showed possible contamination or some contamination on all surfaces.

C - Results showed possible contamination or some contamination on all surfaces except for the worktop following the wipe with warm water and detergent.

D - Results showed possible contamination or some contamination on all surfaces following the initial wipe with warm water. After the wipe with warm water and detergent only the employee apron showed possible contamination, for all other surfaces contamination was not determined.

E - Results showed possible contamination or some contamination on all surfaces following the initial wipe with warm water. After the wipe with warm water and detergent no contamination was determined on any surface.

Remington et al. (2020) Risk of equipment in restaurants for consumers with peanut allergy: a simulation for preparing Asian foods. Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

Study design summary: Three peanut-containing sauces, representing different textures (stickiness), were prepared using a range of kitchen equipment and utensils, which were washed using common procedures to represent normal daily practice.  Although not a study to determine effective cleaning methodology, this study provides important information about the efficacy of cleaning using ‘normal’ practices with a food service kitchen.

Allergen Peanut

Surfaces

EQUIPMENT: Wok, Saucepan;

UTENSILS: Whisks, Tongs, Spatulas, Ladles, Spoons

Detection method Weighing of the equipment/utensils before and after cleaning, followed by calculations of level of peanut protein in the residue
Cleaning methodologies

EQUIPMENT: Brief scrub with a brush and warm water (no soap or detergent used);

UTENSILS: Brief rinse in a shared pot of warm water for a couple of seconds

Efficacy of cleaning summary

EQUIPMENT: There was no measurable sauce residue found in most cases (32 of 35) after common cleaning practice (brief scrub with a brush and warm water).

UTENSILS: Rinsing with warm water significantly decreased the amount of peanut residue, but it did not completely remove all peanut protein. Sauce residue, containing calculated levels of peanut protein, remained on all the utensils following cleaning.

Chen et al. (2022) Environment, food residue, and dry cleaning tool all influence the removal of food powders and allergenic residues from stainless steel surfaces. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies.

Study design summary: Powders (wheat flour and non-fat dried milk) deposited on stainless steel coupons. A custom experimental rig was developed to standardise brushing and scraping treatments.

Allergen Gluten; Milk

Surfaces

Stainless steel
Detection method

ATP Test swabs (UltraSnap™, Hygiena, Camarillo, CA)

General surface protein test swab (Clean-Trace™, 3M, St. Paul, MN) (quantitative)

Specific allergen lateral flow devices (LFD) (3M, St. Paul, MN) tests for gluten and milk proteins.

Cleaning methodologies

Brushing; Scraping

Efficacy of cleaning summary

Number of brush passes needed to reach the “clean state” were numerically but not statistically less than the number of scraper passes needed in the removal of wheat flour under all water activity (aw) conditions. Scraping was significantly less effective than brushing in the removal of powder under all conditions. Two to four passes of scraper required to achieve the “clean state” under all conditions. Wheat flour residues were consistently detected with all biochemical swab tests under all conditions following scraping. Allergenic residues were consistently detected following scraping or brushing under most conditions, even as the surfaces appeared visibly clean and passed ATP testing. Overall, the findings highlight the potential for allergenic residue retention after conventional dry cleaning using hand tools.
 

11.3 Journal articles and theses publication type, country and citations summary

Publication reference Country Journal article Poster Thesis Full text Abstract only WoS Citations* GS Citations*

Perry et al. (2004)

US

Y

-

-

Y

-

123

184

Jackson et al. (2008)

US

Y

-

-

Y

-

62

116

Rӧder et al. (2008)

Germany

Y

-

-

Y

-

22

34

Spektor (2009)

US

-

-

Y

Y

-

0

1

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

New Zealand

Y

-

-

Y

-

17

29

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

US

-

Y

-

-

-

0

0

Schreder et al. (2013)

Austria

Y

-

-

Y

-

0

0

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

Canada

Y

-

-

Y

-

7

12

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

Japan

Y

-

-

-

Y

0

3

Zhang (2014)

US

-

-

Y

-

Y

0

0

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

Canada

Y

-

-

Y

-

3

9

Courtney (2016)

US

-

-

Y

-

-

0

4

Wells and Jeong (2017)

US

Y

-

-

-

Y

0

0

Kiyota et al. (2017)

Japan

Y

-

-

Y

-

1

1

Schembri (2017)

UK

-

-

Y

Y

-

0

0

Zhang et al. (2018)

US

Y

-

-

-

Y

0

0

Ortiz et al. (2018)

Spain

Y

-

-

Y

-

11

26

Zhang et al. (2019)

US

Y

-

-

-

Y

1

0

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

Spain

Y

-

-

Y

-

7

8

Bedford et al. (2020)

US

Y

-

-

Y

-

4

7

Aleksić et al. (2020)

Croatia

Y

-

-

Y

-

0

3

Remington et al. (2020)

US

Y

-

-

Y

-

4

4

Chen et al. (2022)

US

Y

-

-

Y

-

3

4

TOTAL NUMBER PER PUBLICATION TYPE

N/A

18

1

4

16

5

N/A

N/A

Y = study matches stated category
- = study does not match stated category
*WoS citations = number of citations recorded on Web of Science
GS citations = number of citations recorded on Google Scholar

11.4 Journal articles and theses scenario summary

Publication reference Food processing Food service

Perry et al. (2004)

-

Y

Jackson et al. (2008)

Y

-

Rӧder et al. (2008)

Y

-

Spektor (2009)

Y

-

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

Y

-

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

Y

-

Schreder et al. (2013)

-

Y

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

-

Y

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

-

Y

Zhang (2014)

Y

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

-

Y

Courtney (2016)

Y

-

Wells and Jeong (2017)

Y

-

Kiyota et al. (2017)

-

Y

Schembri (2017)

-

Y

Zhang et al. (2018)

Y

-

Ortiz et al. (2018)

-

Y

Zhang et al. (2019)

Y

-

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

-

Y

Bedford et al. (2020)

-

Y

Aleksić et al. (2020)

-

Y

Remington et al. (2020)

-

Y

Chen et al. (2022)

Y

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER SCENARIO

11

12

Y = study matches stated scenario category
- = study does not match stated scenario category

11.5 Journal articles and theses allergens studied summary

Publication reference Milk Gluten Soy Peanut Egg Other

Perry et al. (2004)

-

-

-

Y

-

-

Jackson et al. (2008)

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

Rӧder et al. (2008)

-

-

-

-

-

H

Spektor (2009)

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

-

Schreder et al. (2013)

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

-

-

-

Y

-

-

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Zhang (2014)

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

-

-

-

Y

-

-

Courtney (2016)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Wells and Jeong (2017)

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Kiyota et al. (2017)

-

-

-

-

-

O

Schembri (2017)

-

Y

-

-

Y

-

Zhang et al. (2018)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Ortiz et al. (2018)

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

Zhang et al. (2019)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

Bedford et al. (2020)

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

Aleksić et al. (2020)

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

Remington et al. (2020)

-

-

-

Y

-

-

Chen et al. (2022)

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER ALLERGEN

12

7

3

9

9

2

Y = allergen included in the study
- = allergen not included in the study
O = Orange
H = Hazelnut

 

11.6 Journal articles and theses matrices studied summary

Publication reference Peanut butter Peanut flour Milk liquid Milk  dry Egg liquid Egg  dry Soy 'milk Soy flour Wheat flour Other

Perry et al. (2004)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 

Jackson et al. (2008)

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

Hot milk

Rӧder et al. (2008)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cookie dough

Spektor (2009)

Y

-

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

-

 

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Battered chicken

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

-

Y

-

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

-

Soy infant formula

Schreder et al. (2013)

-

-

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

-

See Note (1)

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

See Note (2)

Zhang (2014)

-

Y

-

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

Cereal bars, muffins

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 

Courtney (2016)

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

 

Wells and Jeong (2017)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Soy protein isolate

Kiyota et al. (2017)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Orange extract

Schembri (2017)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

See Note (2)

Zhang et al. (2018)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Milk chocolate

Ortiz et al. (2018)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

See Note (2)

Zhang et al. (2019)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Milk chocolate

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

See Note (2)

Bedford et al. (2020)

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

See Note (3)

Aleksić et al. (2020)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

See Note (4)

Remington et al. (2020)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Asian sauces

Chen et al. (2022)

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

 

TOTAL NUMBER PER MATRIX

6

3

5

4

2

3

1

1

 

N/A

Y = matrix included in the study; - = matrix not included in the study
Note (1) – Matrices also included toast, salad, bread, cheese, sausage.
Note (2) – No specific information on the matrix or matrices provided.
Note (3) – Matrices also included cream cheese and mayonnaise.
Note (4) – Matrices were savoury cornbread, pizza pastry, sweet muffin and pork neck.

11.7 Journal articles and theses cleaning methodology summary

Publication reference Dry Wet Controlled wet Push-through CIP

Perry et al. (2004)

-

-

Y

-

-

Jackson et al. (2008)

-

Y

-

-

-

Rӧder et al. (2008)

Y

Y

-

Y

-

Spektor (2009)

-

Y

-

-

-

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

-

Y

-

-

-

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

Y

-

Y

-

-

Schreder et al. (2013)

-

Y

-

-

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

-

-

Y

-

-

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

-

Y

-

-

-

Zhang (2014)

Y

Y

-

Y

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

-

-

Y

-

-

Courtney (2016)

-

-

-

-

Y

Wells and Jeong (2017)

Y

-

-

-

-

Kiyota et al. (2017)

-

Y

-

-

-

Schembri (2017)

-

Y

-

-

-

Zhang et al. (2018)

-

-

-

Y

-

Ortiz et al. (2018)

-

Y

-

-

-

Zhang et al. (2019)

-

Y

-

Y

-

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

-

Y

-

-

-

Bedford et al. (2020)

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Aleksić et al. (2020)

-

-

Y

-

-

Remington et al. (2020)

-

Y

-

-

-

Chen et al. (2022)

Y

-

-

-

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER CLEANING METHODOLOGY

6

14

6

4

1

Y = cleaning methodology included in the study
- = cleaning methodology not included in the study

11.8 Journal articles and theses surface type summary

Publication reference Steel Plastic Wood Glass Utensils Teflon

Perry et al. (2004)

-

Y

-

-

Y

-

Jackson et al. (2008)

Y

Y

-

-

-

Y

Rӧder et al. (2008)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Spektor (2009)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

Y

Y

-

-

-

Y

Schreder et al. (2013)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Zhang (2014)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Courtney (2016)

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Wells and Jeong (2017)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Kiyota et al. (2017)

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Schembri (2017)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Zhang et al. (2018)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ortiz et al. (2018)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Zhang et al. (2019)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

Bedford et al. (2020)

Y

Y

Y

-

-

-

Aleksić et al. (2020)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Remington et al. (2020)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Chen et al. (2022)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER SURFACE TYPE

12

9

2

1

8

3

Y = surface type included in the study
 - = surface type not included in the study

11.9 Journal articles and theses detection method summary

Publication reference Visible ELISA LFD ATP Protein PCR

Perry et al. (2004)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Jackson et al. (2008)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Rӧder et al. (2008)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Spektor (2009)

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

-

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Schreder et al. (2013)

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

Zhang (2014)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Courtney (2016)

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

Wells and Jeong (2017)

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Kiyota et al. (2017)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Schembri (2017)

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Zhang et al. (2018)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Ortiz et al. (2018)

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

Zhang et al. (2019)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Bedford et al. (2020)

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Aleksić et al. (2020)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Remington et al. (2020)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Chen et al. (2022)

-

-

Y

Y

Y

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER DETECTION METHOD

2

12

8

3

4

0

Y = detection method included in the study
- = detection method not included in the study

11.10 Cleaning methodology categories referenced within guidance documents

Guidance Country Wet Dry Push-through CIP

Food Standards Agency, 2006

UK

Y

Y

-

-

Campden BRI, 2009

UK

-

-

Y

Y

Catalan Food Safety Agency, 2009

Spain

Y

Y

Y

 

Campden BRI, 2013

UK

-

-

Y

-

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013

US

Y

-

-

-

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 2014

CANADA

Y

Y

-

Y

ASSIFONTE, 2018

EU

Y

Y

-

Y

Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, 2018

Brazil

Y

Y

Y

 

Farmhouse and Artisan Cheese & Dairy Producers European Network, 2018

EU

Y

-

-

-

Codex Alimentarius, 2020a

Global

Y

Y

Y

Y

FoodDrinkEurope, 2020

EU

Y

-

-

-

Peanut and Tree Nut Processors Association, 2020

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group, 2021

EU

Y

Y

Y

Y

Food Allergy Canada, 2022

CANADA

Y

Y

-

-

FoodDrinkEurope, 2022

EU

Y

Y

Y

-

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, 2022

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

US Food and Drug Administration, 2022

US

Y

Y

-

Y

Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, no date

US

Y

-

-

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER CLEANING METHODOLOGY

N/A

16

12

9

8

Y = Cleaning methodology mentioned
- = Cleaning methodology not mentioned

11.11 Principles of cleaning validation for food allergens referenced within guidance documents

Guidance Country P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14

Food Standards Agency, 2006

UK

Y

-

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Campden BRI, 2009

UK

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Catalan Food Safety Agency, 2009

Spain

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

Safe Quality Food Institute, 2012

Global

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

Y

Campden BRI, 2013

UK

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 2014

Canada

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

Y

Neogen, 2016

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, 2018

Brazil

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Canadian Celiac Association, 2018

Canada

Y

-

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Dairy Food Safety Victoria, 2018

AUS

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Codex Alimentarius, 2020a

Global

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Peanut and Tree Nut Processors Association, 2020

US

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

Australian Food and Grocery Council, 2021

AUS/NZ

Y

-

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

-

European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group, 2021b

EU

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

British Retail Consortium, 2022

Global

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

European Commission, 2022

EU

Y

-

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Food Allergy Canada, 2022

Canada

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

FoodDrinkEurope, 2022

EU

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

International Life Sciences Institute Europe, 2022

EU

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Japan Food Safety Management Association, 2022

Japan

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

-

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, 2022

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, no date

US

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Y = Principle recommended
- = Principle not mentioned

Principle 1: Validation of cleaning to remove allergens is required
Principle 2: Cleaning procedures should be defined and thoroughly documented
Principle 3: Consider the physical form of the allergen
Principle 4: Validation should consider a ‘worse-case scenario’
Principle 5: Validation should involve appropriate allergen analysis, where feasible and appropriate
Principle 6: Validation should include checks for visual clean
Principle 7: Validation should demonstrate that cleaning is effective on multiple separate production runs
Principle 8: Re-validation of cleaning procedures should be conducted periodically and if significant changes take place
Principle 9: Appropriate sampling/swabbing procedures should be determined
Principle 10: Focus sampling on hard-to-clean areas that may trap product residues
Principle 11: Include positive controls when sampling
Principle 12: Select an appropriate analytical method
Principle 13: Analytical methods should be validated
Principle 14: Analytical results should meet acceptable criteria

11.12 Principles of cleaning verification for food allergens referenced within guidance documents

Guidance Document Country P1 P2 P3 P4

Food Standards Agency, 2006

UK

Y

Y

Y

-

Campden BRI, 2009

UK

Y

-

-

-

Catalan Food Safety Agency, 2009

Spain

Y

Y

Y

-

Safe Quality Food Institute, 2012

Global

Y

Y

Y

-

Campden BRI, 2013

UK

Y

Y

Y

Y

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 2014

Canada

Y

Y

Y

Y

Neogen, 2016

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, 2018

Brazil

Y

-

-

-

Canadian Celiac Association, 2018

Canada

Y

Y

Y

-

Dairy Food Safety Victoria, 2018

AUS

Y

Y

Y

-

Codex Alimentarius, 2020a

Global

Y

Y

Y

-

Peanut and Tree Nut Processors Association, 2020

US

Y

Y

Y

-

Australian Food and Grocery Council, 2021

AUS/NZ

Y

Y

Y

-

European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group, 2021b

EU

Y

Y

Y

-

British Retail Consortium, 2022

Global

Y

-

Y

Y

European Commission, 2022

EU

Y

Y

Y

-

Food Allergy Canada, 2022

Canada

Y

Y

Y

Y

FoodDrinkEurope, 2022

EU

Y

Y

Y

Y

International Life Sciences Institute Europe, 2022

EU

Y

Y

Y

Y

Japan Food Safety Management Association, 2022

Japan

Y

Y

-

-

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, 2022

US

Y

-

Y

Y

Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, no date

US

Y

Y

Y

-

Y = Principle recommended
- = Principle not mentioned

Principle 1: Allergen cleaning verification is appropriate to check efficacy of cleaning
Principle 2: Ensure the ‘visibly clean' standard is achieved (check for visual clean)
Principle 3: Allergen analysis is appropriate for verification
Principle 4: Select the appropriate analytical method (i.e. LFD rather than ELISA)

11.13 Information provided within industry and professional body publications

Industry/ Professional body publication Author(s Year Author organisation and country Validation Verification Wet Dry Push-through CIP

Food Safety Magazine

Baumert and Taylor  

2013

University of Nebraska, US

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Food Quality

Teng

2013

University of Otago Wellington, New Zealand

-

-

-

Y

-

-

International Food Hygiene

Lopez and Morales

2015

AIB International, US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Quality Assurance Magazine

Zerva

2015

AIB International, US

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

International Food Hygiene

Easter

2015

Hygiena International Ltd, UK

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

Food Safety Magazine

Kochak

2016

Auburn University Food Systems Institute, US

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

Food Safety Magazine

Haley and Brouilette

2018

Commercial Food Sanitation, US

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

-

International Food & Meat Topics

Brown

2019

Fortress Technology, UK

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

New Food

Smith

2019

Vikan, UK

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

Manufacturing Confectioner

Franzmeier

2019

Sollich KG, Germany

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Food Processing, UK

Gill

2020

Deeside Cereals, UK

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

Food Safety Magazine

Schaffner

2020

Rutgers Food Innovation Center, US

Y

Y

Y

-

-

-

Food Science and Technology

Littleton, Walker and Ward

2021

Christeyns Food Hygiene Ltd, UK

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Food Manufacture, UK

Ridler

2022

Food Manufacture, UK

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Food Processing, USA

Demetrakakes

2022

Food Processing, US

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Y

TOTAL NUMBER PER CATEGORY

N/A

N/A

N/A

11

7

10

11

4

2

Y = Topic mentioned
- = Topic not mentioned

11.14 Information provided within webpages and other information

Organisation/Author Country Validation Verification Wet Dry Push-through CIP

Emport LLC, 2015

US

-

-

Y

Y

Y

-

Smith, 2015

UK

-

-

-

-

-

-

Gloves by web, 2016

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Howlett, 2016

Ireland

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Smith, 2016

UK

-

-

-

-

-

-

The Acheson Group (TAG), 2016

US

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE), 2017

US

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Food Safety Experts, 2017

Canada

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Jackson, 2017

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Food Safety Authority Ireland (FSAI), 2020

Ireland

-

-

-

-

-

-

Romer Labs, 2019a

UK

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Romer Labs, 2019b

UK

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Campden BRI, 2020a

UK

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2020

Canada

-

-

-

Y

-

Y

Christeyns, 2020

UK

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Romer Labs, 2020a

UK

-

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Diversey, 2021

US

-

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Hygiena, 2021

UK

-

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Rochester Midland Corporation, 2021

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Singapore Food Agency, 2021

Singapore

-

Y

-

-

-

-

AIB International, 2022

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2022

Canada

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Reading Scientific Services Ltd (RSSL), 2022

UK

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Biocel, 2022

Ireland

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Food & Allergy Consulting & Testing Service (FACTS), 2022

South Africa

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Food Standards Agency, 2022

UK

-

-

-

-

-

-

Hygiena, 2022

UK

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Uğurcan, 2022

Turkey

-

-

Y

-

-

Y

Allergen Bureau, 2023

AUS/NZ

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Connection Team (FAACT), 2023

US

-

-

-

-

-

-

Food Safety Standard App, 2023

India

Y

-

-

-

-

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER CATEGORY

 

18

15

16

14

5

11

Y = Topic mentioned
- = Topic not mentioned

11.15 Information provided within book chapters

Author(s) Country Validation Verification Wet Dry Push-through

Stone, Jantschke and Stevenson, 2009

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Burrows, 2010

US

-

-

Y

Y

-

Gowland, 2010

US

-

Y

Y

-

-

Stone and Yeung, 2010

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cochrane and Skrypec, 2014

UK

Y

Y

-

-

-

Nikoleiski, 2015

UK

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Moerman and Mager, 2016

UK

-

-

-

-

Y

Crevel, 2016

UK

Y

Y

-

-

-

Holah, 2016

UK

-

Y

-

-

-

Jackson, 2018

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Marriott, Schilling and Gravani, 2018

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Eisenberg and Delaney, 2018

US

-

Y

Y

-

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER CATEGORY

 

7

10

8

6

6

Y = Topic mentioned
- = Topic not mentioned

Organisation

Country

Webinar title and link

International Food Safety and Quality Network, 2017

Ireland

Validation of Cleaning & Sanitation programs

Romer Labs, 2020b

UK

Identify. Control. Eliminate. New developments in allergen management and cleaning

Anaphylaxis Campaign, 2020

UK

The Role of Cleaning in the Management of Allergens

 

Romer Labs, 2021a

UK

Effective food allergen management for businesses and consumers

Romer Labs, 2021b

UK

How do you manage allergens in gluten free production

Food & Allergy Consulting & Testing Services, 2021

South Africa

Validation vs Verification in a Food Factory