validation of food-grade tanker cleaning protocols...university of florida soap concentration...

International Citrus and Beverage Conference September 18, 2008

Validation of Food-Grade Tanker Cleaning Protocols

Paul P. WinniczukUniversity of Florida IFAS

Citrus Research and Education CenterLake Alfred, FL

Figure 1. Food grade tanker

University of Florida


Figure 2. Typical tanker dimensions

39 – 44 ft

63 - 70 in

19 –22 ft

manway

FrontBulkhead

Rear Bulkhead

Barrel


Juice Industry guidelines wash typesJuice Industry guidelines wash types

Type 1 = Customer specified potable water rinse

Type 2 = Water Based Products Wash

Type 3 = Water/Oil and Oil Based Products Wash

Type 4 = Potential Allergen Products Wash(Big 8 - milk, egg, soy, peanuts, tree nuts, wheat, fish, shellfish) (sulfites)


Review of Preliminary Validation


Figure 3. Residue results of “painted” tankers (n=9) Micro positive ≥ 1 cfu/100cm2. Allergen positive ≥ 1µg/100cm2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9Fr

eque

ncy

of re

cove

ry (#

of t

anke

rs)

Yeast Bacillus E. coli Milk Egg Peanut

Residue type After


Figure 4. Diagram of risk areas


Figure 5. Incorrect placement of clean parts


Microbial residue due to post-wash contamination

Poor parts handlingWater quality

Soil and allergen residue due toHigh CIP solution temperatureLow CIP soap concentrationShort CIP solution contact time Low or no CIP energy forces

Preliminary Validation - Conclusion

Table 1. CIP device characteristics for cleaning action

Stationary devices Rotating devicesPrimary cleaning action Cascade

Primary cleaning action Impingement (impact) Secondary cleaning actionCascade

No moving parts Rotation due to external motor or internal turbine

180° contact, upper half 360° contact, all coverageHigh water volume Lower water volume than stationary

Factors affecting performanceFlow rate Rotation speedFlow pressure Flow rateInstallation orientation Flow pressure

Extension length (flow development) Installation orientation


Figure 6. Example of Stationary directional-High Volume, Medium Pressure (Sd-HVMP)

University of FloridaUniversity of Florida

Figure 7. Example of Rotating – Low Volume, High Pressure device (R-LVHP)


Figure 8. Example of Rotating –High Volume, Medium Pressure device (R-HVMP)


Figure 9. Standard validation of rotating devices(Designs 1 and 3)


Figure 10. Standard validation of stationary device (Design 2)

30 ft

15 ft


Figure 11. What happens inside tanker?


Figure 12. UF C-Thru Model Tanker


Figure 13. Video of device testing

Table 2. CIP device evaluation conclusion

R-LVHP R-HVMP Sd-HVMP

Flow rateFlow rate11

Lpm (gpm)Lpm (gpm)87 -98(23-26)

303-454 (80 - 100)

340 - 568(90 - 140)

Flow pressureFlow pressure11

bar (psi)bar (psi)32 -34 (450-500)

5.5 – 10.3 (80 - 150)

4.8 – 6.9(70 - 100)

Rotation speed Rotation speed (rpm)(rpm)

4 – 6 12 - 16 NANA

Extension length Extension length cm (inch)cm (inch)

15 - 23 (6 - 9)

13 - 18(5 - 7)

NANA

Installation positionInstallation position NANA NANA DC 0° ± 1°Pitch 79° ± 3°

1 Measured at device feed1 Measured at device feed


Final Wash Validation

ObjectiveTo confirm the effectiveness of JPA cleaning protocols to clean over-the-road food grade tankers leading to validation of 3 wash procedures using 3 standard wash systems.

Table 3. CIP system target operating parameters

R-LVHP R-HVMP Sd-HVMP

Flow rateFlow rate11 87 Lpm (23 gpm)

378 Lpm (100 gpm)

530 Lpm (140 gpm)

Flow pressureFlow pressure11 32 bar (450 psi)

6.5 bar (95 psi)

4.7 bar (68 psi)

Rotation speedRotation speed 4 rpm 16 rpm NANA

Extension Extension lengthlength

23 cm (9 in)

13 cm (5 in)

NANA

Installation Installation positionposition

NANA NANA Dead center 0°Pitch 79°

1 Measured at device feed1 Measured at device feed


Type 2 wash slurry30°Brix Orange juice

~ 0.8 gram/100cm2

300,000 µg sucrose/100cm2

Microorganism Saccharomyces cerevisiae Bacillus megatarium - Acid adapted pH 5.0E. coli (generic) - Acid adapted pH 5.0Start each at 106 /100cm2 post-dry

ATP = 4.0 RLU AccuClean = 3 pts


Type 3 wash slurry50/50 blend of 100% corn and canola oil

~ 0.7 gram/100cm2

Microorganism Saccharomyces cerevisiae Bacillus megatariumE. coli (generic) Start each at 106 /100cm2 post-dry

ATP = 4.5 RLU AccuClean = 3 pts


Type 4 wash slurryAllergens (equal blend of milk, egg, peanut butter)

~ 0.9 gram/100cm2

Milk = 9,000 µg/100cm2

Eggs = 23,000 µg/100cm2

Peanut = 28,000 µg/100cm2

MicroorganismsSaccharomyces cerevisiae Bacillus megatarium E. coli (generic) Start each at 106 /100cm2 post-dry

ATP = 5.5 RLUAccuClean = 3 pts

Table 4. Guidelines for “Clean”

Clean GuidelinesVisualVisual No visual residue (wet or dry) in 2x2 No visual residue (wet or dry) in 2x2

area or around itarea or around it

ATPATP Clean = <2.5 RLUClean = <2.5 RLUDirty = Dirty = ≥≥2.6 RLU2.6 RLU

Sugar/ProteinSugar/Protein Below detection limit ( 3 Below detection limit ( 3 μμg/100cmg/100cm22))

AllergenAllergen Below detection limit (1 Below detection limit (1 μμg/100cmg/100cm22))(FDA non recoverable)(FDA non recoverable)

MicroMicro 5 log reduction/100cm5 log reduction/100cm22 + + Absence of E. coli / 100cmAbsence of E. coli / 100cm22


Inoculate pre-cleaned tanker with food slurry (0.36m2 ea site)

Allow tanker to dry 24hrs

Collect pre-wash samples

Wash and sanitize (150 ppm Cl alkaline200 ppm LFAA) 3x each design Inspect and

collect post-wash samples (swab 100cm2)

Analyze

Figure 14. Schematic of study method

Analysis

Microorganisms

SoilsAccuClean(4 pt Hedonic)ATP

AllergensAlert allergen test kits

Figure 14. Schematic of study method

YeastaPDA

BacillusSPC

E. ColiPetrifilmEcolite

Visual4 pt Hedonic0 = clean3 = dirty


Figure 15. Diagram of inoculated sites in UF C-Thru tanker or real tanker

1.2 2.4 3.7 4.9t 6.1tBHD

4.9b 6.1m

0

6.1b


Final Wash Validation - Results

Figure 16. Soap concentration effect R-LVHP 71°C discharge 87 Lpm @ 32 bar and 4 rpm and 9 in. ext (n=3)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 1.2 2.4 3.7 4.9 6.1 bh

Distance from device (meters)

Cle

anlin

ess

(milk

ug/

100c

m2)

150 500 1000

aaaaaa

aaa

aaa aaa

abb


Soap concentration observations

Overall, no significant difference in soil or allergen removal.

At high concentration - soap scum (brown residue)Difficult to rinse out properly within time guideline.Bottom of tanker with circulation systems.Streaks in rotating devices (R-LVHP or R-HVMP).May be artifact of high wash temperature (>71°C).

At high concentration – white residue in tanker that is hard to rinse out. Leaves visible white residue.

Cloudy stainless steel. Foot prints easier. May be artifact of high wash temperature (>71°C). May be precipitation of water salts.

Figure 17. Discharge temperature effect rotating devices 150 ppm soap 87 Lpm @ 31 bar, 4 rpm & 9 in ext (n=3) (71 , 54)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 1.2 2.4 3.7 4.9 6.1 bh

Distance from device (meters)

resi

due

(milk

ug/

100c

m2)

160 130

aa aa aa aa ab aa


Discharge temperature observationsOverall, no significant difference in soil or allergen removal.

Lower temperature – no soap scum with any device. Easier rinsed.

Issue seen with circulation system at high temperature Less soap interaction?

Lower temperature – less or no white residue in tanker or soap feed tank.

No cloudy stainless steel.Less soap decomposition? Less water salts precipitation?


Type 2 Wash

Table 5 Summary of R-LVHP WR Type 2 wash

Sample site0 2.7 4.0 5.2 6.4 BHT

Lpm/mLpm/m22 2.08 0.38 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.00

Vis Vis (per area)(per area) 0 0 2.3 3 3 3

ATP ATP (RLU/100cm(RLU/100cm22))

2.0 2.0 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.2

Suc (/100cm(/100cm22)) 0 0 0 2.6 3.0 3.0

Bac Bac (/100cm(/100cm22)) <1 <1 10 10 102 103

Ecol Ecol (/100cm(/100cm22)) <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Yeast Yeast (/100cm(/100cm22)) <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

WR - 71°C, 76 Lpm @ 24.1 bar, 20 rpm, 0 ext (n=3)

Table 6 Summary of R-LVHP UF Type 2 wash


Lpm/mLpm/m22 2.05 0.38 0.29 0.10 0.05 0.21

Vis Vis (per area)(per area) 0 0 0 0 0 0

ATP ATP (RLU/100cm(RLU/100cm22))

1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

Suc (/100cm(/100cm22)) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bac Bac (/100cm(/100cm22)) <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Ecol Ecol (/100cm(/100cm22)) <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Yeast Yeast (/100cm(/100cm22)) <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

UF - 71°C, 87 Lpm @ 32 bar, 4 rpm, 9 ext (n=3)

Table 7 R-LVHP T2 wash summary w 71°C discharge (n =3)

Flow rate (gpm Flow rate (gpm @ psi)@ psi)

Extension (inches)

Rot spd(shaft rpm)

Effective

20 @ 35020 @ 35011 0 201 No20 @ 35020 @ 350 0 101 No20 @ 350 0 42 No23 @ 35023 @ 350 6 4 No23 @ 35023 @ 350 9 4 No23 @ 4502 6 4 Yes23 @ 450 9 4 Yes24 @ 500 9 4 Yes

1 System manufacturer recommendation 2 Device manufacturer recommendation

Table 8 R-HVMP T2 wash summary w 71°C discharge (n =3)

Flow rate Flow rate (gpm @ psi)(gpm @ psi)

Extension (inches)

Rotation speed(shaft rpm)

Effective

100 @ 95100 @ 9511 5 20 Yes

120 @ 100120 @ 10022 5 20 Yes

100 @ 95100 @ 95 5 162 Yes

120 @ 100 5 16 Yes

120 @ 100 5 122 Yes1 Wash facility parameters 2 Device manufacturer recommendations

Table 9 Sd-HVMP wash summary w 71°C discharge (n =3)


Center (degrees)

Pitch(degrees)

Effective cleaning

120 @ 45120 @ 4511 0 79 No120 @ 65120 @ 6511 0 79 Yes120 @ 68120 @ 6822 0 79 Yes150 @ 78 0 79 Yes120 @ 68 1 79 Yes120 @ 68120 @ 68 2.5 79 Yes120 @ 68120 @ 68 53 79 No120 @ 68 0 763 No120 @ 68 0 823 No

1 Device manufacturer suggestion 2 Facility 3 Sig difference detected


Type 3 Wash


Flow rate (gpm Flow rate (gpm @ psi)@ psi)

Extension (inches)

Rot spd(shaft rpm)

Effective

20 @ 35020 @ 35011 0 201 No

23 @ 4502 6 4 No

23 @ 450 9 4 Yes

24 @ 500 9 4 Yes

1 System manufacturer recommendation 2 Device manufacturer recommendation



Extension (inches)


Effective

100 @ 95100 @ 9511 5 20 Yes

120 @ 100120 @ 10022 5 20 Yes

100 @ 95100 @ 95 5 162 Yes

120 @ 100 5 16 Yes

140 @ 2003 5 16 No1 Wash facility parameters 2 Device manufacturer recommendations 3 Wash facility n=2

Table 12 Sd-HVMP T3 wash w 71°C discharge (n =3)


Center (degrees)

Pitch(degrees)

Effective cleaning

120 @ 65120 @ 6511 0 79 No

120 @ 68120 @ 6822 0 79 Yes

150 @ 78 0 79 Yes

120 @ 68 1 79 Yes

120 @ 68120 @ 68 2.5 79 No

1 Device manufacturer suggestion 2 Facility


Type 4 Wash

Table 13 Summary of R-LVHP Type 4 wash


Lpm/mLpm/m22 2.05 0.38 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.00VisVis 0 0 2.3 3 3 3ATP ATP (RLU)(RLU)11 2.0 2.7 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.5Suc 0 1 1.3 2.6 3.0 3.0BacBac <1 <1 10 10 103 103

EcolEcol <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1YeastYeast <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MilkMilk 0 0.4 1 56 3500 4000Egg Egg 0 0 5 100 8000 19000Pnut Pnut 0 0 5 80 10000 130001 Results per 100cm2. WR - 71°C dis, 76 Lpm @ 24.1 bar, 17 rpm, 0 ext (n=3)

Table 14 Summary of R-LVHP Type 4 wash

Sample sites0 2.7 4.0 5.2 6.4 BHT

Lpm/mLpm/m22 2.15 0.52 0.27 0.11 0.07 0.23VisVis 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0ATP ATP (RLU)(RLU) 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.0Suc 0 0 0 0 0.3 0BacBac <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1EcolEcol <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1YeastYeast <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1MilkMilk 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0EggEgg 0 0 0 0 0.1 0PnutPnut 0 0 0 0 0 01 Results per 100cm2. WR - 71°C dis, 87 Lpm @ 32.0 bar, 4 rpm, 9 ext (n=3)



Extension (inches)

Rot spd(shaft rpm)

Effective

20 @ 35020 @ 35011 0 201 No

20 @ 35020 @ 350 0 101 No

23 @ 35023 @ 350 9 4 No

23 @ 4502 6 4 No

23 @ 450 9 4 Yes

24 @ 500 9 4 Yes1 System manufacturer recommendation 2 Device manufacturer recommendation



Extension (inches)


Effective

100 @ 95100 @ 9511 5 20 Yes

120 @ 100120 @ 10022 5 20 Yes

100 @ 95100 @ 95 5 162 Yes

120 @ 100 5 16 Yes

1 Wash facility parameters 2 Device manufacturer recommendations

Table 17 Sd-HVMP T4 wash w 71°C discharge (n =3)


Center (degrees)

Pitch(degrees)

Effective cleaning

120 @ 65120 @ 6511 0 79 No

120 @ 68120 @ 6822 0 79 Yes

150 @ 78 0 79 Yes

120 @ 68 1 79 Yes

120 @ 68120 @ 68 2.53 79 No

1 Device manufacturer suggestion 2 Facility conditions

Figure 18. Stationary-directional device centering

Center line

CIP device

Front RearEqual flow Equal flow

Equal flow Equal flow

Center line

CIP device

Front Rear

Hi flow side

Hi flow sideLo flow side

Lo flow side

Figure 19. Stationary-directional device off center

Dirty

Dirty

Figure 20. StationaryFigure 20. Stationary--directional device pitch positiondirectional device pitch position

CIP device

FrontRear

Manway

79°

82°

76°

Dirty

Dirty


Final Wash Validation - Conclusions

JPA cleaning can be achieved with all sprayer designs. Correct assembly and alignment are required.Correct flow rate and pressure are needed.

Rotating sprayers have a defined cycle time which needs to be considered for cleaning.

Minimum wash time should be at least 1 cycle.Slower is better but increases cleaning time.

Pre-CIP activities are very important for T3 and T4 washRinse with warm water (38°C/100°F)Manual hose nozzle ≤ 1 meter to surface

Temperature has effect on soap, oil and allergen removal.High feed temperatures - soap precipitate – white residueRelevant to rotating devices due to cycle patternProtein cook on if not removed – tenacious soilOil/soap (caustic) interaction with precipitate (scum)

University of Floridaof Florida

Washes can be effectively accomplished at lower temperature

Cost savings through lower energy consumptionImproved soap performance(?)May improve allergen removal

Washes can be effectively accomplished at low volume

Cost savings through lower water usageCost savings through lower energy consumption

Trust but verify your supplier

Future workFuture workWhat is real effect of residues in the next load?

How clean should clean be?Example: if 10 µg/100cm2 surface milk residue = ~1 µg or 0.001 mg per OJ serving if all transferred. Is this a concern?

1:102 allergen sensitivity = No1:106 allergen sensitivity = Yes

Can a bio-security compromised tanker be effectively cleaned?

Soil surrogate?


Acknowledgements


Bynum Transport, Inc. Clewiston Tank Wash Florida Food TankersIndian River Transport, IncKentuckiana Tank Wash, Inc.Lafayette Sani-Wash, Inc. North American TransportOakley Transport, Inc.Sterling Tank Wash - Jim Aartman, Inc. U.S.A. Tank Wash

Tanker wash facilitiesTanker wash facilities


Blue Lake CitrusDairy Maid Southern Garden CitrusSun Orchard CitrusTropicana Products, Inc.Velda Dairy Winn Dixie Dairy

Production facilitiesProduction facilities


Betts Equipment Brenner TanksCentral Florida Industries Chemdet (Fury)Chemical Containers Inc. Chemical Systems of Florida, Inc. Equipment Specialists Inc.Florida Truck and Trailer CompanyGamajet Ecolab (Klenz-Spray)

Lechler Inc. M.G. NewellPeacock Wash SystemsSellers (Crane Pumps and Systems) Spraying Systems, Inc VPC, Inc. Zep Manufacturing

Equipment manufacturers and suppliersEquipment manufacturers and suppliers

Thanks to;Thanks to;

Lorrie Friedrich, Research Scientist, CRECAida Peña, FDOC Research Scientist IISandy Barros, FDOC Research Scientist IBruce Robertson, CREC Electrician (retired)Roxy Hoover, CREC Facilities-Maintenance Sherry Cunningham, CREC FacilitiesDr. Jose Reyes, Assistant Professor, UF CRECDr. Bill Miller, Professor Emeritus, UF CRECDr. Masoud Salyani, Professor, UF CREC

Special thanks to;Special thanks to;Gwen Lundy, Ast. Research Scientist, CREC

Tracy Williams, Research Asst. Stonyfield Farms, Inc.

Meg Richards, R&D Scientist, Stonyfield Farms, Inc.

John Henderson, Pilot Plant Manager, UF CREC

Dr. Fred McCarthy, Professor (ret)

Supervisory Committee Dr. Renée M. Goodrich-SchneiderAssociate Professor (PhD Committee Chair) Food Science and Extension, IFASUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Dr. Keith Schneider Dr. Ron SchmidtAssociate Professor ProfessorFood Science and Extension Food Science and ExtensionUniversity of Florida, IFAS University of Florida, IFASGainesville, FL Gainesville, FL

Dr. Reza Ehsani Dr. Mickey E. ParishAssociate Professor Professor and Depart ChairFood Science Engineering Food Science & Human NutritionUniversity of Florida University of MarylandIFAS, CREC College Park, MDLake Alfred, Florida

Research supported by

USDA Grant No. 00037828

USDA Grant No. 00003855

JPA Grant No. 057358

validation of food-grade tanker cleaning protocols...university of florida soap concentration...

Documents