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
University of Florida
Figure 2. Typical tanker dimensions
39 – 44 ft
63 - 70 in
19 –22 ft
manway
FrontBulkhead
Rear Bulkhead
Barrel
University of Florida
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)
University of Florida
Review of Preliminary Validation
University of Florida
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
University of Florida
Figure 4. Diagram of risk areas
University of Florida
Figure 5. Incorrect placement of clean parts
University of Florida
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
University of Florida
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)
University of Florida
Figure 8. Example of Rotating –High Volume, Medium Pressure device (R-HVMP)
University of FloridaUniversity of Florida
Figure 9. Standard validation of rotating devices(Designs 1 and 3)
University of FloridaUniversity of Florida
Figure 10. Standard validation of stationary device (Design 2)
30 ft
15 ft
University of Florida
Figure 11. What happens inside tanker?
University of Florida
Figure 12. UF C-Thru Model Tanker
University of Florida
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
University of Florida
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
University of Florida
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
University of Florida
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
University of Florida
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
University of Florida
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
University of FloridaUniversity of Florida
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
University of Florida
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
University of Florida
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
University of Florida
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?
University of Florida
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
Sample site0 2.7 4.0 5.2 6.4 BHT
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)
Flow rate Flow rate (gpm @ psi)(gpm @ psi)
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
University of Florida
Type 3 Wash
Table 10 R-LVHP T3 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 No
23 @ 4502 6 4 No
23 @ 450 9 4 Yes
24 @ 500 9 4 Yes
1 System manufacturer recommendation 2 Device manufacturer recommendation
Table 11 R-HVMP T3 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
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)
Flow rate Flow rate (gpm @ psi)(gpm @ psi)
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
University of Florida
Type 4 Wash
Table 13 Summary of R-LVHP Type 4 wash
Sample site0 2.7 4.0 5.2 6.4 BHT
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)
Table 15 R-LVHP T4 wash summary w 71°C discharge (n =3)
Flow rate Flow rate (gpm @ psi)(gpm @ psi)
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
Table 16 R-HVMP T4 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
1 Wash facility parameters 2 Device manufacturer recommendations
Table 17 Sd-HVMP T4 wash w 71°C discharge (n =3)
Flow rate Flow rate (gpm @ psi)(gpm @ psi)
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
University of Florida
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?
University of FloridaUniversity of Florida
Acknowledgements
University of FloridaUniversity of Florida
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
University of Florida
Blue Lake CitrusDairy Maid Southern Garden CitrusSun Orchard CitrusTropicana Products, Inc.Velda Dairy Winn Dixie Dairy
Production facilitiesProduction facilities
University of Florida
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