Journals / Uluslararası tarım araştırmalarında yenilikçi yaklaşımlar dergisi (Online) / 2021 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 4

Application of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis and Cause and Effect analysis for honey production in Tunisia: A Case Study

Pages
434–444
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on the FMEA analysis, an improvement plan for all stages was suggested with an emphasis on rising employees’ awareness and training.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In Tunisia, apiculture represents a growing strategic sector.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In fact, honey production increased from 220 tons in 1970 to 2500 tons in 2020.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on the FMEA analysis, an improvement plan for all stages was suggested with an emphasis on rising employees’ awareness and training.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In Tunisia, apiculture represents a growing strategic sector. In fact, honey production increased from 220 tons in 1970 to 2500 tons in 2020. However, this sector still suffers, as worldwide, from a lack of traceability and a risk of fraud which can impact honey quality. To guarantee food safety, farmers and food processors need to base their efforts on risk analysis. Failure mode and effect analysis (FEMA) is a safety and reliable analysis tool: it allows the identification of failures that could happen on a system and provides their effects and consequences. Conducting risk analysis during honey production would reduce incidents, contribute to risk management associated with the honey human consumption, save costs and improve competitiveness in the market. This research was conducted within a large scale honey production unit (1500 modern beehives) in Nabeul governorate (north-east of Tunisia). FMEA model was applied in conjunction with cause-and-effect analysis for the risk assessment of honey production. Potential failure modes and effects as well as their possible causes were identified in the honey process flow. Criticality of each failure was calculated taking into account risk, frequency and gravity. Qualitative diagnosis during honey process flow revealed 56% of nonconformities, based mainly on failures of implementation of good hygiene and good farming practices. Moreover, highest criticality was attributed to the presence of humid honey frames, honey rehumidification, microbiological contamination, fermentation and ineffectiveness of cleaning. Based on the FMEA analysis, an improvement plan for all stages was suggested with an emphasis on rising employees’ awareness and training.

🔖

Cite This Article

JRIBI, S., HANAFI, N. E. H., HAJER, D., ISMAIL, H. B. (2022). Application of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis and Cause and Effect analysis for honey production in Tunisia: A Case Study. Uluslararası tarım araştırmalarında yenilikçi yaklaşımlar dergisi (Online), Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 4, 434–444. https://ajindex.com/articles/645167

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Ahmad, N.N, & Khairatun, S.N. (2021). Exploring fraudulent honey cases from readily available food fraud databases. GATRGlobalJournal Of Business and Social Science Review, 9, 99-113.
  2. Arvanitoyannis, I.S, &Varzakas, T.H. (2009). Application of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) and cause and effect analysis for industrial processing of common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) – Part II. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 44, 79-92.
  3. Badolato, M., Carullo, G., Cione, E. & Aiello, F. (2017). From the hive: Honey, a novel weapon against cancer. European Journal of Medicine Chemistry, 142, 290-299.
  4. Ben Salem, H. (2020). Rapport annuel de l’activité du secteur apicole, Office de l’élevages et des paturages, Tunisie. Bogdanov, S (2017). Honey composition in Honey book. https://www.bee-hexagon.net/english/beeproducts/downloads-honey-book/
  5. Bogdanov, S., Jurendic, T., Sieber, & R., Gallmann, P. (2008). Honey for Nutrition and Health: A Review. J.Am.Coll.Nutr. 27, 677-689.
  6. Bond, J.K, Hitaj, C., Smith, D., Hunt, K., Perez, A. & Ferreira, G. (2021). Honey Bees on the Move: From Pollination to Honey Production and Back, ERR-290, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. CODEX STAN 12-1981. Rev.1 (1987), Rev. 2 (2001). Standard for honey. Codex Alimentarius Commission FAO and WHO standard. Fakhlaei, R., Selamat, J., Khatib, A., AbdullRazis, A.F., Sukor, R., Ahmad, S &Babadi, A.A.(2020). The Toxic Impact of Honey Adulteration: A Review. Foods, 9, 1538; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9111538. Grand View Research, (2021).
  7. Honey Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Distribution Channel (Online, Supermarket/Hypermarket), By Application (Food & Beverages, Personal Care & Cosmetics), By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2021 – 2028:https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/honey-market
  8. Hurtrel, F., Beretz, L., Renard, V., & Hutt, A. (2012). Analyse des risques liés au circuit de gestion et de dispensation des produits en expérimentation clinique par « AMDEC ». Risque & Qualité, 11, 22-30.
  9. Imtiazah, S.Z., Zaharah, H., Murni, I, Tufail Ahmad, F. &Yusof, H.M. (2021). Honeybee honey and stingless bee honey quality characteristics and their anticancer potential in HeLa cells. Food Research, 5, 413- 422. INC (2021). Résultats des analyses et des essais comparatifs sur le miel. http://inc.nat.tn/fr/r%C3%A9sultatsdes-analyses-et-des-essais-comparatifs-sur-le-miel
  10. Minitry of Agriculture, Tunisia (2020). Fiche pratique de l’apiculture.