Case Study: UK Drinks sector

Clean-in-Place

Clean-in-Place (CIP) is not a novel technology, yet it is often

considered as such. There is significant opportunity within the

drinks sector to improve CIP, offering water, cost and

environmental savings. This document gives an overview of how

this can be achieved.

Clean-in-Place 2

WRAP’s vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses, individuals and communities to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, developing sustainable products and using resources in an efficient way. Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk

Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP]

Front cover photography: Beer production line

While we have tried to make sure this [plan] is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in

connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is

accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or

suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk

Clean-in-Place 3

Contents

Contents .................................................................................... 3

Introduction............................................................................... 4

Good process design for efficient cleaning ........................................... 5

CIP system configurations ................................................................. 6

Optimising the CIP programme .......................................................... 8

Real time cleaning verification .......................................................... 10

Novel technologies .......................................................................... 11

Conclusions .................................................................................... 14

Clean-in-Place 4

Introduction

Modern food and beverage plants must deliver different, high quality

products, often in diverse pack types and with short shelf lives, with

maximised resource efficiency. The use of Clean in Place (CIP) for

cleaning can help deliver swift product changeovers and verified hygiene

standards.

The Society of Dairy Technology defines CIP1 as:

“The cleaning of complete items of plant or pipeline circuits without

dismantling or opening of the equipment and with little or no manual

involvement on the part of the operator. The process involves the jetting

or spraying of the surfaces or circulation of cleaning solutions under

conditions of increased turbulence and flow velocity”.

Most companies understand that there are opportunities to save time,

water, chemicals and energy use by optimising CIP but they factor a

high level of contingency into their CIP programmes being conscious of

the risks associated with failure. However there are areas where savings

can be realised without compromising CIP, for example:

process design;

optimising the CIP programme;

real time cleaning verification; and

novel technologies.

The purpose of CIP is to remove product-derived soil from process plant.

This is achieved by exposing it to a detergent for the correct time at the

correct temperature and concentration. A disinfectant stage may follow

and this reduces microbiological contamination to a level at which it

presents little risk2.

Time, temperature and concentration must be correct at the soiled

plant, not just at the CIP set and it is apparent that measuring these

parameters remotely from the set can present some technical

challenges1.

A further important parameter to ensure effective CIP is mechanical

action:

1 Cleaning-in-place, Dairy, Food and Beverage Operations. 3rd Edition. A.Y. Tamime ISBN-13:978-1-4051-5503-8

2 http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/BMBL5_appendixB.pdf

Clean-in-Place 5

“In general, detergents will not remove any soil unless a certain amount

of mechanical action is applied. This action may be applied in many

different ways, including wiping, rubbing, brushing, flushing and high-

pressure jets.” 3

Good process design for efficient cleaning

The images below show examples of good and bad design.

Figure 1: Designs for efficient cleaning (source Envirowise GG154 – 1998)

It is good practice to design equipment with fewer parts and no points

that detergent cannot reach or where fluid accumulates; this will reduce

cleaning time as well as save water, chemicals and energy.

3 Cleaning-in-place, Dairy, Food and Beverage Operations. 3rd Edition. A.Y. Tamime ISBN-13:978-1-4051-5503-8

Clean-in-Place 6

Figure 2: Good design (source Envirowise GG154 – 1998)

Simple CIP systems can be retrofitted into existing plant, though this

can be more costly and difficult than consideration at the plant design

stage.

CIP system configurations

Simple systems use the vessel to be cleaned as a detergent reservoir

whilst the most complex are multi-channel with tanks for detergent, pre

and post rinses and sometimes disinfectant.

With complexity comes ease of operation, repeatability and reduced

running costs at the expense of higher installation charges and reduced

flexibility in terms of their ability to adapt to plant or product changes.

Clean-in-Place 7

Figure 3: Multi channel, full recovery CIP (source: EN894 Envirowise)

Whilst they will be more efficient than manual cleaning, automated CIP

systems need to be designed and optimised to fully realise their

potential advantages4.

The table below shows a comparison of water and detergent use by

various cleaning methods for a 3,000-litre vessel with identical cleaning

parameters for each method. The figures demonstrate the increased

resource efficiency from full re-use automated CIP.

System Water (litres) Detergent (litres)

Boil out system 6,500 45

Total loss 3,000 30

Single use 1,200 3

Partial re-use 1,100 2

Full re-use 600 2 Figure 4: The effect of CIP configuration on water and chemical use, based on the cleaning of a 3,000-litre vessel

(Source Suncombe Process and CIP Engineers 2008)

Good design does not stop with the process, since good production

planning and scheduling can reduce cleaning requirements during

product changeovers thus minimising CIP requirements.

4The Reference document on best available techniques in the food, drink and milk industries, 2006. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

Clean-in-Place 8

Optimising the CIP programme

Figure 5: CIP control point (source CS404 Envirowise)

Clean-in Place; Dairy, Food and Beverage Operations5 recommends

visual examination of stainless steel surfaces to check the efficacy of CIP

and notes that the nature of any remaining soil can indicate the type of

CIP problem:

Hard deposits, like water scale and ‘beerstone’ can indicate incorrect

detergent selection;

Soft and bulky deposits indicate problems with the spray head; it

may be wrongly specified, blocked, under pressurized, damaged etc.;

Transparent and gelatinous deposits (that are typically hard to see

without close inspection) indicate incorrect temperature, pressure or

strength of detergent;

‘Scum’, froth lines and high-tide marks show poor scavenging and

tank flooding, inadequate pre-rinse, faulty pipe joints (that allow air

to be sucked in) or too high detergent strength;

Gritty or soft powdery deposits may be hard water scale or metal

particles from recent engineering work; and

5 Cleaning-in-place, Dairy, Food and Beverage Operations. 3rd Edition. A.Y. Tamime ISBN-13:978-1-4051-5503-8

Clean-in-Place 9

Water remaining indicates poor scavenging or venting, airlocks or

deformation of the bottom of the vessel, or a poor ‘fall’ in lines.

Diageo have investigated the optimisation of its CIP systems in a

number of its sites, for example:

The Leven packaging plant reported potential savings of 222,000

litres of water per annum through more efficient CIP procedures for

vessels and pipes between bottle runs6; and

The Nangor Road Baileys plant reduced CIP water usage by 5 million

litres with water savings in the pasteuriser of 2.4 million litres per

year and in the maltodextrin dissolver of 1.05 million litres per year7.

Figure 6: Bottling line. Photo courtesy of the Scotch Whisky Association

Coors Brewing Limited reports water consumption reduced by around

20,000 m3 per year through the replacement of simple ‘total loss’ CIP

sets by multi-channel recovery sets with programmable logic controllers

(PLC)8. In addition:

More accurate dosing and control have reduced the cost of a bright

beer tank clean from around £39 to £22, saving £42,000/year in

chemical, water, effluent and electricity costs; and

6 http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/swa/files/CSWater.pdf 7 http://www.business2000.ie/pdf/pdf_11/diageo_11th_ed.pdf 8 CS457 Brewery taps into savings by working with water company A Case Study at Coors Brewers Limited, Envirowise 2006

Clean-in-Place 10

The cost of road tanker CIP operations has decreased from £35 to

£27, saving around £3,000/year. These savings alone recouped the

cost of the improvements in 41 months.

Real time cleaning verification

The idea of monitoring the critical parameters of CIP (time,

temperature, chemical concentration) and indicators of their

effectiveness in removing soil (such as turbidity, surface cleanliness,

flow etc.) in real time is attractive as adjustments could be made to the

cycle to ensure its efficiency whilst it is in progress.

The natural tendency to over-clean (wasting resources) in order to

reduce the risk of CIP failure would be overcome.

The Carbon Trust reports9 that the UK brewing sector could save 4,600

tCO2 (or 1% of total brewery sector carbon) by implementing real time

cleaning verification.

Emerson Process Management reports10 the savings German brewer

Schneider Weisse made from installing four electrode conductivity

sensors in their process pipe work. Prior to installation pipes were

cleaned 12 times a day with each clean including three water flushes of

three-minute duration each. The new sensors enabled the exact point at

which the CIP rinse water was replaced by in-specification beer to be

identified and this resulted in the duration of each flush being reduced

from three minutes to one minute. Overall this reduced flush time by 72

minutes per day and water consumption by 10m3 per day.

9 Carbon Trust (CTG058). Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator – Guide to the brewing sector, 2011.

10 www.processingtalk.com/news/eme/eme559.html

Clean-in-Place 11

Novel technologies

The Carbon Trust estimate that 7,500 tCO2 (or 1.7% of total UK brewery

sector carbon) could be saved through the implementation of novel CIP

technologies and low temperature detergents11.

Examples of novel technologies include:

In 2009, GEA brewery systems12 installed a combined vessel and

pipe cleaning CIP system in the brewhouse of the Gutmann wheat

beer brewery in Titting, Bavaria to replace the existing CIP and

manually-controlled caustic ‘brew’. They report water savings of

18%, caustic detergent savings of 30%, acid detergent savings of

24% and a time saving of up to 30% with no detriment to product

safety.

Aeolus Technologies has developed a product recovery and CIP

system that uses air instead of water as a cleaning agent13. The

system uses a four-phase clearing, cleaning and drying process.

Computer-controlled blowers supply finely filtered air into the pipes

recovering 60-80% of the product inside. A turbulent flow is then

created in the airstream and it removes most of the remaining

product still adhering to the pipe work. A small amount of air or

cleaning material is then introduced (2 – 10 litres/min) into the

airflow to remove the remaining soil. Finally heated air is introduced

to dry the internal pipe surfaces.

In the OzoneCIP project a pilot-scale ozone CIP system was

constructed to simulate conventional cleaning protocols based on the

use of ozonated water. There was no difference found between the

cleanliness and disinfection efficiencies of the two systems.

However, the following savings were identified using the OzoneCIP

system14:

11 Carbon Trust (CTG058). Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator – Guide to the Brewing sector, 2011.

12http://www.geabrewery.com/geabrewery/cmsresources.nsf/filenames/GEA%20BS%2003%202010%20Newsletter%20engl%20web.pdf/$file/GEA%20BS%2003%202010%20Newsletter%20engl%20web.pdf

13 http://www.aeolustech.co.uk/Envirolinkcasestudy.pdf 14 OzoneCIP – Ozone clean in place in food industries. Life05 env/e/000251. Best life environment projects.

Clean-in-Place 12

up to 50% water (and wastewater) saving per cleaning cycle

(based on volume); and

up to 50% reduction in organic load (g COD) in wastewater.

The advantage of using ozone in CIP systems, compared to

traditional disinfectants, is that it leaves no residues and is applied

cold. This greatly reduces the volume of water necessary to rinse

detergents from the plant and energy associated with heating the

water.

Radical Waters15 has developed a CIP system that uses

electrochemically-activated water (ECA) instead of the usual

detergent and disinfectant chemicals. A trial, and subsequent

implementation, at the SABMiller Chamdor brewery in South Africa

achieved savings of:

water reduction 83%;

time reduction 43%;

energy reduction due to cleaning at ambient temperature 98%;

and

chemical cost reduction 99%.

Low temperature detergents - The Innovation Center for U.S Dairies

reports14 that emerging technology that allows for reduced

temperature cleaning (such as catalyzed alkaline peroxide solutions)

can reduce fuel demands and associated greenhouse gas emissions

by an estimated 15%, use less rinse water, and produce a less

alkaline effluent. Such systems, though not yet proven, are being

explored in the UK beverage sector.

Thonhauser GmbH has developed a CIP verification system that uses

a coloured chemical to detect the organic contamination indicative of

an ineffective clean16.

15 http://www.radicalwaters.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-articles/80-pres

16http://www.usdairy.com/Sustainability/CommitmentOld/Documents/ProjectSummaryCIP.pdf

Clean-in-Place 13

In the example above, which compares an existing clean with a

proposed clean, that has been optimised, a potential time saving of 53

minutes is indicated, alongside water (and effluent) savings of 4,000

litres per clean.

Colour changes can be detected using varying degrees of automation

depending on the level of real time control required.

Clean-in-Place 14

Conclusions

Whilst companies do not need to embrace innovation or make significant

capital investments to improve their CIP systems the principles are

constantly challenged by innovation and potential benefits should be

carefully considered. In addition, incremental changes can be made to

existing systems in order to save water, chemical use, time, and energy

by:

Optimising process plant design;

Optimising production scheduling to minimise changeovers;

Manually remove product residues prior to CIP wet cleaning;

Move from simple CIP sets to multiple tank systems with recovery;

Raising awareness amongst staff regarding the cost and

environmental impact of CIP;

Minimising detergent loss to drain;

Select detergents and disinfectants with lower environmental

impacts;

Using water-efficient spray devices;

Consider novel and innovative approaches to CIP; and

Carefully setting manufacturing programmes that reduce the need

for frequent CIP.

www.wrap.org.uk/retail