RESEARCH ARTICLEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Copyright XXXX American Scientific PublishersAdvanced Science Letters

All rights reservedVol. XXXXXXXXX
Printed in the United States of America

Confusion in Design and Facilities of Layout Plan:

GMP Requirements
Mohd Bakri Jali1, Maaruf Abdul Ghani1, Norazmir MN2
1
Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 42300 Puncak Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

The effectiveness of the food safety system is influenced by design and facilities layout. The purpose of this study is to identify the confusion
over design and facilities requirement in food premise on GMP MS 1514:2009 requirements among industries, consultants and authorities.
Among the aspects discussed regarding design and facilities are location, design and layout, floors, walls, doors and windows. The
methodology used is through questionnaires involving 96 respondents and respectively 32 from each group. The confusions are grouped
into low, medium and high based on the method established. The results show there were uncertainties in the requirements of design and
facilities regarding location, design and layout, floors, walls, doors and windows. There were significant confusions in meeting the
requirements of the design and facilities among industries, consultants, and authorities. The confusion that occurs affects the level of
hygiene and food safety as well as harm consumers.
Keywords: Food Safety System, GMP, HACCP

1. INTRODUCTION

The development of GMP (Good Manufacturing
Practices) and HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point) in Malaysia refers to MS 1514:2009 and MS
1480:2007. Issues related to this are inconsistencies and
confusion of food safety system requirements by the
standards mentioned in the development and
implementation of the GMP and HACCP systems (Losito
et al. 2011) which negatively impact industry practices.
Panisello and Quantick (2001) found that infrastructure
which includes insufficient equipment and errors in
design layouts and equipment are some of the technical
obstacles in the implementation of HACCP. Issues of
design and facilities were also reported in the States of the
Western Balkans through an audit report on the layout
plan (8.6%) and cross-contamination (8.9%) (Djekic et al.
2011).
However, no detailed studies have been carried out on the
problem or confusion related to structural design and
facilities in Malaysia.
*
Email Address: mbakri@sirim.my
Therefore, this study aims to identify the aspects of the
confusion that occur related to the design and facilities
from the perspective of the industry, consultants and
authorities so that measures of improvement can be made.
2. METHODOLOGY
THE SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS
The study is done by involving three parties namely the
industry, consultants and authority directly involved with
the implementation of GMP in the Klang Valley. Industry
respondents are selected from the HACCP team and
knowledgeable about GMP. One of the respondents
selected from the industry usually holds the position as
coordinator of HACCP. Selection of consultants is made
through individuals or companies who provide
consultancy and training services on GMP. In the
meantime, the selection of authorities is done from
certification bodies mainly from the Government sector
which provides certification for GMP as they are given
the authority to oversee the matter given to them by the
Government of Malaysia.

1
 Adv. Sci. Lett. X, XXXXXX, 201XRESEARCH ARTICLE

DEVELOPMENT OF CONFUSION LEVEL

The development of the level of confusion is based on the SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION
percentage of correct or incorrect answers from the The determination of sample size is based on the equation
questionnaire responses. The percentage values used to with the approximate ratio formula accuracy 0.07 at 95%
assess the level of understanding on HACCP knowledge confidence levels (Daniel 1999). The number of samples
in the questionnaire are ' appropriate ', ' medium ' and ' (N) is 96 respondents which was then divided into three
unsafe ' (Wallace and Powell 2005). However, there is no groups, namely industry, consultants and authorities with
percentage scale range given. For the purpose of the 32 respondents per group. Industry respondents were
study, the range of percentage is done through the risk- selected from companies that have been certified with
based method of food premise grading systems used in GMP/HACCP certification from MOH, DVS and SIRIM.
the Arab Union nations (Al-Kandari and Jukes 2011). The Consultants were selected through a list of registration
grading is based on the following percentage A: 100-90, consulting firms in the Klang Valley or known private
B: C: 89-75, 74-60, d: 59-45 and E: 44-30. The consultants. However, the auditors were selected from a
percentage is then used to set the level of confusion from list of MOH, DVS and SIRIM personnel. The
the respondent feedbacks on the questionnaires as shown questionnaires were circulated to respondents via email,
in Table 1 and 2. postal mail, and closed contacts and by hand.
Respondents were given a period of two months to
Table 1. Confusion Questionnaires complete the questionnaire before being grouped and
coded for analysis.
Code Aspect Question
G2 Location Needs control actions including evacuating the premise
in the event of flooding or uncontrolled pest 3. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
G12 Design/ The layout plan requires a dressing room to control the The analytical methods used are descriptive analysis,
Layout contamination or cross-contamination caused by food
handlers.
frequency analysis, cross tabulation and ANOVA.
G14 Design/ Application and practice of cleanliness, facilities and Frequency analysis is used to determine the percentage of
Layout equipment in areas with high levels of cleanliness must confusion within the group. Cross-Tabulation was
be different, with a low level of hygiene.
G18 Floor The floor surface must be flat without the appropriate conducted to obtain a percentage of total confusion
gradient allowed in food processing premises. between the group and descriptive analysis aimed to get
G23 Wall The curve between the walls and the floor (coving) is the value of the mean and standard deviation in the group
not needed in food processing plant
G24 Wall Epoxy paint and pieces of stainless steel can be used for to determine the cause of the highest incidents of
curving materials with 1 inch width. confusion. In the meantime, ANOVA was done to
G32 Door Painted wooden door is not allowed in food premises.
determine the differences between the groups with
G38 Window Window installation needs to be constructed to reduce significant confusion fixed at the value of p < 0.05.
the accumulation of dirt, permit easy cleaning and
prevent the entry of insects.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
LOCATION
Table 2: Confusion Score Index (CSI) of Food Safety Scheme Certification The industry is certainly more aware of the need to
transfer their industry to a safer location based on their
Frequency of answer % Score Confusion Results experiences with the real problems and consequences that
True> False 75-100 Low Appropriate might occur in residential areas. However, authorities did
not experience any difficulties with the location of the
True=False 50-74 Medium Marginal
industry because they cannot always be at the location
True<False 0-49 High Unsafe proposed as well as do not suffer the consequences of
Source: Norazmir et al. (2016) wrong placements. Most of the authority respondents
disagreed with moving out of factories to other, safer
PRE-TEST areas due to the cost incurred.
Pre-test was performed on 10% of the respondents from
the total sample population involving the industry, DESIGN AND LAYOUT
consultants and authorities to ensure clarity, GMP training needs to be more specific to clarify the
understanding and finalise the content of the requirements of the process and work procedures
questionnaire. The sample concerned was no longer used according to the zone assigned to control all forms of
in the actual study. The results of the pre-test were food contamination whether biological, chemical or
analyzed to determine the reliability of the alpha physical. The industry may view that high costs is
coefficient (0.8). required to prepare all facilities to the appropriate level of
cleanliness and risk area. Previous research reported that
the cost is the main obstacles in the infrastructure
involving food premises (Fotopoulos and Kafetzopoulos
2011; Ragasa et al. 2011; Macheka et al. 2013).

2
 RESEARCH ARTICLEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

FLOOR Table 3. Confusion score towards design and facilities among groups.
Floor surfaces should be flat for food premises with an
Code Aspect Score Group
appropriate gradient to avoid stagnant water from Significant
(p<0.05)
accumulating and becoming a breeding ground for L M H I C A

microorganisms (Moerman 2010). Floor surfaces must G2 Location 3 3 3

have a slope with an estimated 1-2% (Lelieveld et al. G12 Design / 3 3 3
2005). G14 Layout 3 3 3
G18 Floor 3 3 3
WALL
G23 3 3 3
Various materials can be used for building the curve Wall
G24 3 3 3
between the walls and floors such as epoxy cement and
pieces of stainless steel plates. The use of cement is more G32 Door 3 3 3
suitable because it facilitates the adhesion with the G38 Window 3 3 3
surface of the floor and walls but must be coated with Total 5 3 0 3 0 5
epoxy to ensure a smooth surface. Plates of stainless steel L: Low; M: Medium; H: High; I: Industry; C: Consultant; A: Authority
are also frequently used but require suitable
measurements and mechanisms for adhesion between the
wall and the floor. The size of the curve must be about 1 ACKNOWLEGMENT
inch radius or more (Schmidt and Erickson 2014) to This work was supported by SIRIM Training Services
permit smooth flow of water during cleaning and Sdn Bhd and SIRIM Berhad. Many thanks to National
sanitation. University of Malaysia (UKM) for assistance and
encouragement.
DOOR
The criteria to be considered for the selection of door REFERENCES
material is a smooth surface, resistant to moisture, permit
easy cleaning and sanitizing (USDA/NCD & CS 1997; [1] Al-kandari, D., & Jukes, D. J. 2011. Incorporating HACCP
MS 1415: 2009). Compared to other material types such into national food control systems - Analyzing progress in
the United Arab Emirates. Food Control 22(6): 851861.
as PU panels or stainless steel door, wooden doors will [2] Daniel, W.W. 1999. Biostatistic: A foundation for analysis
decay especially when frequently exposed to water as the in the health sciences. 7th eds, New York: John Wiley &
results of cleaning or handling of work processes. Sons.
[3] Djekic, I., Tomasevic, I., & Radovanovic, R. 2011. Quality
WINDOW and food safety issues revealed in certified food companies
in three Western Balkans countries. Food Control 22 (11):
Window installation has flaws because of their likelihood 17361741.
of being broken, dust collection caused by the ledge [4] Fotopoulos, C. and Kafetzopoulos, D. 2011. Critical factors
formed, negative pressure in production areas as the for effective implementation of the HACCP system: a Pareto
windows open and the entry of dust. It is not suitable for analysis, British Food Journal 113 (5): 578-597.
[5] Lelieveld, H.L.M., Mostert, M.A., Holah, J. 2005. Handbook
the construction of new food premise plants to have of hygiene control in the food industry. Woodhead
windows installed for the reasons discussed (Lelieveld et Publishing in Food Science and Technology. CRC Pree Boca
al. 2005; Meorman 2010; Schmidt and Erickson 2014). Raton Boston New York Washington, DC. pp 122-146.
However, if windows are needed to be installed, there are [6] Losito, P., Visciano, P., Genualdo, M., & Cardone, G. 2011.
some approaches that may be applied such as having two Food supplier qualification by an Italian Large-scale-
Distributor: Auditing system and non-conformances. Food
layers of glass, tinted glass and the use of polycarbonate Control 22(12): 20472051.
glass to stop them from breaking. [7] Macheka, L., Angeline, F., Tambudzai, R., Mubaiwa, J., &
Kuziwa, L. 2013. Barriers, benefits and motivation factors
5. CONCLUSION for the implementation of food safety management system in
the food sector in Harare Province, Zimbabwe. Food Control
Confusion amongst industry, consultants and authority 34(1): 126131.
can be categorised into several issues, namely building [8] Malaysian Standard MS 1480: 2007. Food safety according
materials, layout, work procedures and the characteristics to hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP)
of building internal infrastructure (Table 3). The authority system. Department of Standard Malaysia (First revision).
is found to contribute to the highest confusion followed [9] Malaysian Standard MS 1514: 2009. Good Manufacturing
Practice (GMP) Fod Food. Department of Standard Malaysia
by industry and consultant. Causes of confusion were due (First revision).
to the lack of technical knowledge; the absence of [10] Moerman, F. 2010. Hygienic design of food processing
supporting documents to guide in meeting MS 1514: facilities. Food Safety Magazine: October/November 2010.
2009, lack of experience and effectiveness training. The [11] Norazmir, M.N., Mohd Bakri, J., Maaruf, A.G. 2016.
Implementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
preparation of the guidelines as a supporting document is Point (HACCP) in Malaysia, Journal of Engineering and
useful to assist practitioners in complying with design and Applied Sciences, 11(8)(2016)1774-1178
facilities of MS 1514: 2009 more efficiently.

3
 Adv. Sci. Lett. X, XXXXXX, 201XRESEARCH ARTICLE

[12] Panisello. P.J & Quantick. P.C. 2001. Technical barriers to [16] Wallace. C.A. & Powell. S.C. 2005. Post-training
hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP). Food assessment of HACCP knowledge: its use as a predictor of
Control 12: 165-173. effective HACCP development, implementation and
[13] Ragasa, C., Thornsbury, S., & Bernsten, R. 2011. Delisting
from EU HACCP certification: Analysis of the Philippine
seafood processing industry. Food Policy 36(5): 694704.
[14] Schmidt, R. H., & Erickson, D. J. 2014. Sanitary Design and
Construction of Food Processing and Handling Facilities.
FSHN 07-03, Department of Food Science and Human
Nutrition, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS,
University of Florida 1: 18.
[15] USDA/NCD&CS. 1997. Facility guidelines for meat
processing plants. Federal register 62(164): 45027-45044.
maintenance in food manufacturing. British Food Journal 107
(10): 743-759.