Carcass cleaning system

Abstract

A carcass cleaning system. Specifically, a system for cleaning an animal carcass using potable water passed through an offline treatment system and the application of this treated water to the surface of the carcass, for example, by running through a bath or by spraying or nebulisation at or onto the surface of the carcass. The invention finds utility in the fields of butchery and slaughtering of animals in the preparation for sale as meat.

Claims

1. A method for cleaning a carcass, the method comprising the sequential steps of: (a) providing a fluid source; (b) providing a source of ozone to or at the fluid source; (c) providing a source of radiation to or at the fluid source; (d) providing a source of disinfectant to or at the fluid source; and (e) cleaning a carcass with the fluid; wherein the fluid source is a potable water source; wherein the radiation is ultraviolet radiation; wherein the source of disinfectant comprises an electrolyzed water source; wherein the fluid source, the source of ozone, the source of radiation, and the source of disinfectant are in fluid communication.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the fluid source provides fluid at a rate of 0.2-3.0 m.sup.3/hour.

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the source of ozone comprises an ozone generator further comprising a source of oxygen, wherein the source of oxygen provides oxygen to the ozone generator at a rate of up to 20 L/min.

4. The method according to claim 3, wherein the source of ozone generates up to 8 g/hour of ozone.

5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the source of disinfectant further comprises a water source and means for splitting the water.

6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the water splitting means comprises a palladium plate.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

(1) Embodiments of the present invention will now be described with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:

(2) FIG. 1 is a graph illustrating >10.sup.3-fold reduction in contamination on whole chicken, and significant reduction (p<0.05) in contamination on whole chicken when the cleaning step comprises spraying;

(3) FIG. 2 is a graph in which the control sample was above 10.sup.3 cfu/g at day 0 and so was excluded, and illustrating no microbial growth was observed over the 20 days life;

(4) FIG. 3 is a graph illustrating chicken samples that were contaminated with 10.sup.8 viable Campylobacter cells, left to rest for 2 hours and then treated. In this case, the control was treated in 200 ppm chlorine solution for 3 min, and all other treatments are the same as previously described;

(5) FIG. 4 is a graph illustrating significant reductions (p<0.05) in E. coli levels after treatment, wherein a minimum 2 log reduction was observed throughout this study;

(6) FIG. 5 is a graph in which the control sample was above 10.sup.3 cfu/g on day 4, and so was excluded, and illustrating no microbial growth was observed over the days life;

(7) FIG. 6 is a graph illustrating chicken samples that were contaminated with 10.sup.10 viable E. coli cells, left to rest for 2 hours and then treated. In this case, the control was treated in 200 ppm chlorine solution for 3 min, and all other treatments are the same as previously described;

(8) FIG. 7 is a graph illustrating significant reductions (p<0.05) in Salmonella levels after treatment, wherein a minimum 2 log reduction was observed throughout this study;

(9) FIG. 8 is a graph in which the control sample was above 10.sup.3 cfu/g on day 2, and so was excluded, and illustrating no microbial growth was observed over the 20 days life;

(10) FIG. 9 is a graph illustrating chicken samples that were contaminated with 10.sup.10 viable Salmonella cells, left to rest for 2 hours and then treated. In this case, the control was treated in 200 ppm chlorine solution for 3 min, and all other treatments are the same as previously described;

(11) FIG. 10 is a graph illustrating >10.sup.3-fold reduction in contamination on whole beef, and significant reduction (p<0.05) in contamination on whole chicken when the cleaning step comprises spraying;

(12) FIG. 11 is a graph in which the control sample was above 10.sup.3 cfu/g at day 0 and so was excluded, and illustrating no microbial growth was observed over the 20 days life;

(13) FIG. 12 is a graph illustrating beef samples that were contaminated with 10.sup.8 viable Campylobacter cells, left to rest for 2 hours and then treated. In this case, the control was treated in 200 ppm chlorine solution for 3 min, and all other treatments are the same as previously described;

(14) FIG. 13 is a graph illustrating significant reductions (p<0.05) in E.coli levels after treatment, wherein a minimum 2 log reduction was observed throughout this study;

(15) FIG. 14 is a graph in which the control sample was above 10.sup.3 cfu/g on day 4 and so was excluded, and illustrating no growth was observed over the days life;

(16) FIG. 15 is a graph illustrating beef samples that were contaminated with 10.sup.10 viable E. coli cells, left to rest for 2 hours and then treated. In this case the control was treated in 200 ppm chlorine solution for 3 min, and all other treatments are the same as previously described;

(17) FIG. 16 is a graph illustrating significant reductions (p<0.05) in Salmonella levels after treatment, wherein a minimum 2 log reduction was observed throughout this study;

(18) FIG. 17 is a graph in which the control sample was above 10.sup.3 cfu/g on day 2 and so was excluded, and illustrating no microbial growth was observed over the 20 days life;

(19) FIG. 18 is a graph illustrating beef samples that were contaminated with 10.sup.10 viable Salmonella cells, left to rest for 2 hours and then treated. In this case, the control was treated in 200 ppm chlorine solution for 3 min, and all other treatments are the same as previously described; and

(20) FIG. 19 is a photograph performed on a scanning electron microscope illustrating the ability of the present invention to remove bacterial cells from the surface of a chicken carcass.

EXAMPLES

(21) Embodiments of the present invention will now be described by way of non-limiting examples.

Example 1

(22) Testing of Fluid of Present Invention for Compliance with Current Potable Water Standards

(23) The legal standards in the UK (National Requirements) are those set by the European Union (EU) in the Drinking Water Directive 1998, and aim to maintain the high quality of water already achieved. The standards are strict, include wide safety margins, and address: micro-organisms, chemicals such as nitrate and pesticides, metals such as lead and copper, and the way water looks and tastes. These parameters were tested by an independent accredited laboratory to the legal requirement.

(24) Microbiological

(25) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Directive requirements Parameters as Concentration or Units of Present per regulation Value maximum) Measurement Invention Enterococci 0 number/100 ml 0 Escherichia coli 0 number/100 ml 0 (E. coli)

(26) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 National requirements Parameters as Concentration or Units of Point of per regulation Value maximum) Measurement compliance Coliform bacteria 0 number/100 ml 0 Escherichia coli 0 number/100 ml 0 (E. coli)
Chemical Parameters

(27) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Directive requirements Concentration or Units of Present Parameters Value maximum) Measurement Invention Acrylamide 0.10 μg/l Pass Antimony 5.0 μgSb/l Pass Arsenic 10 μgAs/l Pass Benzene 1.0 μg/l Pass Benzo(a)pyrene 0.010 μg/l Pass Boron 1.0 mgB/l Pass Bromate 10 μgBrO3/l Pass Cadmium 5.0 μgCd/l Pass Chromium 50 μgCr/l Pass Copper (ii) 2.0 mgCu/l Pass Cyanide 50 μgCN/l Pass 1,2 3.0 μg/l Pass dichloroethane Epichlorohydrin 0.10 μg/l Pass Fluoride 1.5 mgF/l Pass Lead (ii) 25 (up to 25th μgPb/l Pass December 2013) 10 (on and after 25th μgPb/l Pass December 2013) Mercury 1.0 μgHg/l Pass Nickel (ii) 20 μgNi/l Pass Nitrate (iii) 50 mgNO3/l Pass Nitrite (iii) 0.50 mgNO2/l Pass 0.10 Pass Pesticides (iv) (v) Pass Aldrin 0.030 μg/l Pass Dieldrin 0.030 μg/l Pass Heptachlor 0.030 μg/l Pass Heptachlor epoxide 0.030 μg/l Pass other pesticides 0.10 μg/l Pass Pesticides: Total (vi) 0.50 μg/l Pass Polycyclic aromatic 0.10 μg/l Pass hydrocarbons (vii) Selenium 10 μgSe/l Pass

(28) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Sensory parameters Concentration or Value (maximum unless Units of Present Parameters otherwise stated) Measurement Invention Aluminium 200 μgAl/l 110 Colour  20 mg/l Pt/Co 12 Iron 200 μgFe/l 90 Manganese  50 μgMn/l 11 Odour <1 at 25° C. Dilution number 0.1 Sodium 200 mgNa/l 190 Taste <1 at 25° C. Dilution number 0.94 Tetrachloromethane  3 μg/l <1 Turbidity  4 NTU 2

(29) TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Secondary tests Specification Concentration Units of Present Parameters or State(maximum) Measurement Invention Ammonium 0.50 mgNH4/l 0.12 Chloride 250 mgCl/l 142 Clostridium perfringens 0 Number/100 ml 0 Coliform bacteria 0 Number/100 ml 0 Colony counts No abnormal change Number/1 ml at 22° C. Pass Number/1 ml at 37° C. Pass Conductivity 2500 μS/cm at 20° C. 2100 Hydrogen ion 9.5 (Maximum) pH value 7.5 6.5 (minimum) pH value 6.5 Sulphate(i) 250 mgSO4/l 120 Total radioactivity 0.10 mSv/year Pass Total organic carbon No abnormal change mgC/l Pass Tritium (for radioactivity) 100 Bq/l ND Turbidity 1 NTU 1.2

(30) The parameters in Tables 1-5 show the change in the water over the course of a day of treatment and are used as indicators of a possible problem in the system or in the future processing of water. The results demonstrate that, in laboratory trials, the fluid used in the present invention passes and exceeds all current regulations with respect to meeting current requirements for potable water.

Example 2

(31) Testing of Carcasses for Microbial Infection

(32) 100 samples of whole chicken, each chicken ranging in weight from 1.6 to 2.5 kg, and 50 chicken fillets were purchased from three different UK supermarket chains; and were evaluated for the presence of E. coli, Campylobacter; Listeria, Salmonella, Legionella, Cryptosporidium, and general yeast and mould counts. Each sample was purchased with a minimum of three days prior to the recommended expiry of shelf life (“best before date”).The samples were all tested within 24 hrs of purchase and were stared at 2° C. prior to being tested.

(33) A random selection of 120 beef samples were selected from a variety of full carcasses and cuts purchased form a local butcher to ensure the quality of the product and all samples of the meat were evaluated using standard plate counts for contamination of the microbial varieties mentioned above.

(34) A random sampling of 45 pork products including whole carcass and various large cuts were also tested for the microbial varieties mentioned above.

(35) The microbiological tests were performed by an independent accredited laboratory according to the following standards:

(36) TABLE-US-00006 Presumptive Coliforms SP 035 Based on ISO 4832 (2006) Coagulase + staphylococci SP 036 Based on ISO 6888-1 (1999) Bacillus cereus SP 045 Based on ISO 7932 (2004) Aerobic colony count SP 048 Based on ISO 4833-1: 2013 Salmonella SP 102 Based on Solus ELISA Moulds SP 133 Based on ISO 21527-1 (2008) Yeasts SP 133 Based on ISO 21527-1 (2008) Listeria spp. SP 142 Based on AES Chemunex ALOA 1 day Thermotolerant Campylobacter SP 043 Based on ISO 10272-1 (2006)

(37) During initial studies it was found that the level of contamination on chicken was significantly different (p<0.05) among samples. Accordingly, microbiological examinations were performed on control samples, which were divided up and further treated as follows to ensure a uniform level of initial contamination.

(38) Group 1: Control samples were untreated;

(39) Group 2: Control samples dipped in a turbulent bath of water at 10° C.;

(40) Group 3 Treated potable water was sprayed onto the surface of the control samples; and

(41) Group 4: Control samples dipped in a turbulent bath of water at 10° C. and treated potable water was sprayed onto the surface of the dipped control samples.

(42) The results shown in the figures are the average of the triplicate of three independent experiments on ten chicken fillets or whole chickens, with upper and lower outliers being excluded.

(43) In all cases these microbes were completely inhibited in chicken using treated potable water dipped as well as sprayed and in combination. Legionella and cryptosporidium were included in this study as there is “chance” that if dirty water is used in the production process or the chicken makes contact with stagnant water, contamination of chicken could occur.