Hygienic design and 10) Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) systems in breweries S. Davies, T. Sykes, M. Philips, J. Hancock Briggs of Burton Plc, Burton on Trent, Staffordshire, England, UK 10.1. Introduction Brewers would be extremely disappointed to find that the beer leaving their brewery was compromised in flavour and quality as a result of contaminating microorganisms. A brewer may also be disappointed to find that their brewery was unclean with respect to equipment fouling. Fouling of key processes involved in heat transfer would directly affect the heating and cooling medium temperature required and extend the process time. ‘This has a large impact on the brewery operation, energy requirements and cycle time. ‘Therefore to minimise the risk of contamination from spoilage microorganisms and reduce the extent of vessel and equipment fouling it is important that the brewery has been designed and engineered with hygiene in mind. Reviewed here are the fundamentals of hygienic process design and the implementation of 2 Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) system as applied in the brewery brewhouse. I should be noted thatthe actual design for an effec Live CIP system depends on the appropriate implementation of hygienic plant design, ‘The practice of CIP is thought to have been originally developed forthe dairy industry as a method (o effectively clean vessels and pipework without the requirement to disman- Ue the process equipment (Meyers, 1959), CIP technology was adopted by brewers as a method to eliminate the need for manual cleaning, This as a consequence reduced the requirement for manual labour and its associated cost. Modem health and safety regimes seek to minimise the involvement of manual labour operations and therefore reduce the risk to the plant operators. Cleaning large-scale breweries using an automated CIP sys- temis essential today to achieve the brewery throughput and required process Tumaround ‘Times (TAT) to meet the market demand, Fundamentally the CIP system removes residual soil that could lead to the introduction, growth and establishment of microorganisms. Sterilisation-In-Place (SIP) isa technology that is used in conjunction with a CIP system to provide a sterile environment. SIP is only briefly mentioned here as another process that is used to ensure a hygienic environment. An SIP system, as the name suggests, uses (sterile) steam to create an appropriately ‘sterile’ environment. This is still, however, eliant on the environment actually being clean. For example, applying steam to an unclean vessel containing residual soil would cause further physical bake fn to the equipment. In the brewery, SIP systems are only found on low temperature processes, such as the yeast propagation system, where microbial contamination is ‘most likely. It is very difficult to steam large vessels such as Fermentation Vessels eng Merbg te erp TEATS. IOBrewing Microbiology (EV). The total steam required for this process is high and often more expensive than performing a CIP cycle. Cooling large vessels increases TAT and many of the brewery vessels do not have the pressure and temperature rating to undergo the sterilisation process conditions. Vessels must also have adequate venting systems to cope with filling with cold product. Failure to do so may cause the vessel to collapse. CIP sys- ems ae the most prevalent cleaning process in large breweries and are used to clean all major brewhouse processes and vessels, including the Mash Tun/Lauter Tun, Wort Kettle and FV. CIP also has uses in keg handling, however, this chapter is focused on the brewhouse. From a process engineering perspective the CIP system is often more intricate than the actual main brewery process. This is predominately due to the tight integration of the CIP system around the main brewing process and also the organisation ofthe pipe- work and number of valves required to control the flow of wort and beer separately from the cleaning fluid. The implementation of a CIP system should not be simply aan afterthought to the brewery process but recognised as an integral design consider. ation (o ensure hygiene. The overall brewery process should therefore be designed for cleanability in the first instance. The presence of a CIP system in a brewery that has not been designed appropriately may still lead to equipment fouling and poor hygiene For example, CIP systems that feature inadequate drainage, dead legs in pipework and lunhygienie valve designs are each discussed here as examples of poor hygienic design practice and are recognised as likely factors that can contribute to equipment fouling and microbial contamination 10.2. Brewery contamination ‘The introduction of contaminating microorganisms can occur from raw materials such as malt or hops or through airborne transmission. Contamination can also occur through the brewery process pipework or vessels if they have not been appropriately designed for hygiene. The brewery is not a sterile environment, However, the pres- ence and prevalence of foreign microorganisms in the brewery should be minimised through appropriate brewery design and cleaning practices, as the presence of con- taminating microorganisms can cause stuck fermentations and affect product yield and beer flavour, consequently affecting brewery profitability (Hill, 2009). The actual brewing process and the final product (beet) are actually quite inhospitable enviton- ‘ments to many microorganisms. However, as is recognised throughout nature, there are a select few microorganisms that have the capacity to withstand this environment Unfortunately for the brewmaster these undesirable, contaminating microorganisms ‘may potentially cause undesirable off-flavours and affect the beer quality 10.2.1 Beer is a hostile environment From the perspective of a microorganism, the chemical composition of beer makes this product quite a hostile environment and poor growth medium. Beer typically contains ethanol inthe range of 05-10% w/w, hop bitter compounds (approximately 17-55 ppm of iso ceacids), a high content of carbon dioxide (approximately 0.5% w/w) and aHygiene design and CIP systems i bower ms reduced oxygen content (<0.1 ppm), a low pH 3.84.7) and only traces of nutritive substances such as glucose, maltose and maltotriose (Sakamoto & Konings, 2003). In comparison, Wort is a far more favourable environment for microorganisms to grow. Therefore ensuring that wort remains free from contaminating microorganisms and any (oxic metabolic products that they produce is an important process consid eration, especially when the presence of competing microorganisms can affect eth- anol and product yields. Wort is rich in free amino nitrogen and fermentable sugars Boulton & Brookes, 2004; Lekkas, Stewart, Hill, Taidi, & Hodgson, 2005), which are as essential to the brewer's yeast as they are to other undesirable but opportu nistic fermentative microorganisms. The contamination of wort is largely minimised by the brewing process itself, along with the introduction of compounds such as iso “ds from hops. For example, boiling wort in the wort kettle serves as a method of sterilisation. After the kettle, the wort is cooled and pitched with yeast and then twansferted to the FY. Boiling wort is unique to the brewing industry. The production of Scotch Malt whisky, which has a very similar process in the preparation of wort! wash from cereal grains, does not involve wort boiling. This difference is largely due to the requirement and presence of microorganisms, such as lactic acid bacteria in the FV (washbacks) in the production of Scotch Malt whisky, which are recognised to contribute and influence the spirit flavour. Furthermore, the high alcohol content and distillation step in Seotch Malt whisky make the final product a largely unfavourable environment for microbial growth. Whilst wort boiling in the brewery is known to improve the sterility of the wort, all the downstream interconnecting pipework and process equipment should be clean, This is especially important because the wort is cooled to temperatures that are favourable for both the brewer's Yeast and other poten- Wally contaminating microorganisms. 10.2.2 Types of contamination recognised in the brewery Froma brewer's perspective, the presence of spoilage microorganisms can be detrimen- tal othe production of beer affecting its flavour and shelf-life through the production of unfavourable smells/off-lavours including diacetyl (Chuang & Collins, 1968) orhydro- gen sulphide (Sakamoto & Konings. 2003). Spoilage bacteria are also known to affect beer turbidity and acidity (Sakamoto & Konings, 2003). Microbial infections present in breweries with less stringent hygiene and cleaning regimes often find Gram-positive anaerobic bacilli such as Lactobacillus spp. growing (Ault, 1965; Sakamoto & Konings, 2003; Suzuki, Funahashi, Koyanagi, & Yamashita, 2004). The predominance of this particular bacterial genus in breweries and other fermentation-based industzies, such as first generation bioethanol facilities and distilleries, is due to their similarity to yeast with tolerances to an acidic pH and ethanol. A more in-depth review of these ‘microorganisms is given elsewhere in this book. In addition to bacteria-based spoilage microorganisms, the brewery is also susceptible tocontamination by wild yeast, Wild yeast refers to yeast that were not intentionally pitched o the FV by the brewer. To a brewer, the yeast strain used in brewing fermentation is ‘one ofthe Key factors that contribute to beer flavour, in conjunction with the raw materials smal and hops. Therefore itis important that the brewer has confidence thatthe yeast strain pitched into the FV is the desired stain and that this can be achieved consistenlyBrewing Microbiology Hygienic design and automation of the brewer's yeast propagation, storage and pitching systems are therefore an important consideration to ensuing only the desired yeast strain is grown. Large breweries feature on-site propagation systems to specifically ‘manage the growth and handling of their own specific yeast strain, To reduce the poten- tial risk of contamination fzom wild yeast on-site the yeast propagation systems usu ally feature high levels of automation and contzol to ensure contamination is minimised and hygiene maintained, A dedicated single use CIP system is often used to minimise cross-contamination across the brewery. The application and details of the single CIP system for yeast propagation are discussed in the overview of CIP systems later 10.2.3 The prevalence of microorganisms in the brewery microorganisms have suecessfully infiltrated the brewery through the raw materials or poor hygienic process design, they can remain prevalent in pipework and crevices through their capacity to develop biofilms. Biofilms are essentially a community of cells that exist in a polymer network comprising of proteins, lipids and polysacchs- Fides (Costerton, Stewart, & Greenberg, 1999; Sutherland, 2001), The establishment of a biofilm causes the contained microbial cells to undergo both morphological and genetic alterations distinct from the planktonic state, where the microbes exist in a free-floating environment. The development of «biofilm provides the microbial com munity with greater resistance to mechanical and chemical treatment. Microorgan- isms can only synthesise exopolysaccharides required for the development of biofilms if there is an available carbon and nutrient source (Sutherland, 2001). Microbially synthesised exopolysaccharides present in the biofilm are typically structurally long (0.5-2x108Da), thin and polyanionic. The structural and chemical heterogeneity of the exopolysaccharide allows various associations through electrostatic, hydrogen bonding and ionic interactions (Sutherland, 2001), With respect to cleaning, it should be noted that the biofilm exopolysaccharides feature the greatest ordered state at low temperatures and inthe presence of salts (Sutherland, 2001). Therefore the application of high temperatures during the CIP operation is necessary to disrupt the exopoly- saccharides’ naive state. The requirement for hygienic design is therefore based on. minimising the opportunity for microorganisms to adhere and proliferate on surfaces, in crevices and in key process equipment. 10.3. The main pr in the brewery ples of hygienic design as applied ‘The concept of hygienic plant design evolved in the food, beverage and pharmaceu- tical industries. All of these industies requite processes that form products that are free from contamination and are safe for human consumption or use. As mentioned previously, the implication of microbial contamination can have detimental effects fon the quality of beer. Thetefore designing and engineering a brewery that is clean- able requites an appreciation of several hygienic plant design concepts. The Euro- pean Hygienic Engineering and Design Group (EHEDG) and The American SocietyHygiene design and CIP systems i bomeris ns of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) provide a set of guiding principles that have been developed over time from the contributions of their members. The EHEDG guide- lines and ASME BPE 2009 bioprocess document are both extremely comprehensive in specifying and justifying best practices of hygienic process design. Discussed here are the main hygienic design principles that ate most appropriate in the context of the brewery’ pipe layout, design and overall process low, which focuses on design considerations such as pipework dead legs; and the presence of erevices and imperfections in material surfaces, whic arise through fabrication and material selection a are known to promote the formation of biofilms 10.3.1 Brewery pipework design and layout to minimise contamination Designing pipelines hygienically maximises cleanability whilst minimising the preva lence of soil or potentially contaminating microorganisms, Cleaning process pipework using the CIP system requires a combination of valves and pumps to control and direct. the cleaning fluid through the brewery process, Due to their shapes, pipework fixtures, such as dead legs and "T-shaped junctions, naturally lend themselves as sinks to organic material deposition that could harbour and support the growth of undesirable microor- ganisms (Figure 10.1), In addition to the pipework design itis also important that the = Figure 101 Examples of est pastes PH va MIME soa jin hygienic process design. Dead ends and Tehaped bends an potently haboue SS sel = 7 Image reproduced from the Insitute of Brewing and Distilling Diploma, Distiling ‘Modile 2: Plant Cleaning with permission ‘rom Brian Soil rap Alrtrap end distance ye end Low turbulence High turbulence (compromise)CIP fiuid has a turbulent flow in the process pipework to scour the surface and remove the soil, Both of these aspects are reviewed next. 10.3.2 Operating conditions required to achieve a deaning action in pipework ‘The effect of surface fouling has & large impact on the heat transfer coefficient, Protein fouling creates a thermal barrier, which during wort boiling for example will increase the temperatures required by the heating medium (steam) to heat the product. Incffec~ tive cleaning will therefore have an impact on steam usage A turbulent low is requited in the pipework of the CIP system to remove any resid ual soil. The velocity of the CIP cleaning fluid in the process pipe should be between 1,5-2.0ms, Practically obtaining this velocity range is dependent on the cleaning fluid flow rate (msh) and the pipe diameter. A duid is recognised as turbulent when its Reynolds number is greater than 4000 (Eqn 10.1). Fluids with a Reynolds number of 2100 and below have a laminar flow, which is not effective at scouring the pipework surface (Chisti & Moo-Young, 1994). During laminar flow the fluid has the greatest velocity (Via) atthe centre and lowest (zero) velocity atthe pipe wall surface. There {ore there is no movement/mechanical action at the surface that you waat to clean, The CIP cleaning duids, wort and beer ate all turbulent at velocities of less than 1.Sim/s due to their density (Eqn 10.1). For example, a CIP cleaning fluid at 03m/s would hhave a Re of approximately 10,000. It should be noted that even ifthe uid has a tur- bbulent flow, if its velocity is too low it will have a thick boundary layer, which in the pipework will potentially still cause fouling and deposition, Cleaning fluid velocities agxcater than 2.0nv/s in the pipework ate not recognised to have any additional effect ‘on cleaning. Therefore increasing the fluid velocity beyond this value only increases the energy used to pump the fluid due to an increased pressure drop. For example, doubling the fluid velocity quadruples the pressure drop (Eqn 10.2). Equation 10.1 Calculation of Reynolds number to determine whether the flow is laminar, transient or turbulent Re= Pitt where Re is the Reynolds number (nondimensional), is the density # (kg/m), 1 isthe velocity (1/5), dj isthe hydraulic diameter (m) and pis the dynamic viscosity (ms) from The Engineering toolbox (Wwww.theengineeringtoolbox. com). Equation 10.2 Pressure loss in a pipe AP=KV,, where AP is the pressure difference, k is a coefficient and V is the velocity (m/s) of the fluid travelling through the pipe from The Engineering toolbox (www.theengineeringtoolbox.com).Hygiene design and CIP systems i emetic a 10.3.3 Hygienic design and operating practice of valves, fixtures and fittings Pipework in a brewery is fundamental to moving products such as wort and beer. Therefore ensuring the pipes are arranged in a manner to promote cleanability is aan important consideration for hygienic design. Dead legs in pipework should be avoided (Figure 10.1). Figure 10.1 shows several Tjunctions that create environ- rents that lead (0 poor clesnability and should be avoided in the brewery process design, If junctions are present, the cleaning fluid should be pumped in the direc tion of the dead leg so that sufficient turbulence action can be achieved in the dead leg space (Figure 10.1), Figure 10.1 shows how T-junctions may lead to the devel- ‘opment of air and soil traps, which are both undesirable from a hygiene perspec live, It is also important that the CIP supply routes are appropriately considered, ensuring a consistent flow through a single pipework run. Splitting the CIP supply flow across several different pipelines reduces its efficacy. Instead a single route that systematically works through the brewery pipework should be considered. However, additional pipework may be necessary to route the CIP cleaning fluids around the process through dedicated, separate pipework, Controlling the direction of cleaning fluids is achieved using double-seated mix-proof valves (Figures 10.2 and 10.3). These have become an integral part of a CIP system for routing both product and cleaning fuid, An example of a valve manifold containing an array of double-seated valves is shown in Figure 10.2. Instrumentation such as pH probes can be fitted to the vessels either directly or, where greater hygiene is required, using hygienic housing that can retract the probe (Chisti & Moo-Young, 1994), Probes are usually directly fitted to the vessel for cost purposes. The benefit ofthe retractable housing is that it prevents the probe from being damaged and allows periodic cleaning, independently from the CIP system. This is important for example in yeast systems where the probe will require more frequent cleaning to reduce fouling and ensure accurate readings. Figure 10.2 Mix-proof valves and valve array commonly used nex! toa chain of fermenters to hygienically contol the transfer of beer and the Cleaning-In-Place cleaning MidBrewing Microbiology Figure 10.3 Valve manifold with hygienic mix-proof valves used in a Cleaning-In-Place system, 10.3.4 The effect of material surface finish on microbial surface adhesion ‘The surface finish of metals has a large impact on the capacity of microorganisms to adhere to pipes and vessels (Milledge, 2010). The surface characteristic of metal can be changed through processes such as welding and polishing. Welds for example introduce bboth physical and chemical changes to the metal surface from both the metal filler com- position (steel) and solidified slag. Surface defects and the material topography are both knowa to influence the cleanability of stainless steel. The changes to the metal surface through processes such as Welding are thought to facilitate the accumulation of organic ‘material that can lead to the growth of mictoorganisms. The preferential colonisation ff welds by microorganisms has been correlated with the material surface roughness (Sreekumari, Ozawa, & Kikuchi, 2000). As a material for vessels and pipework stainless sel benefits from the development of a passive layer when exposed to air (chromium oxides). This effectively serves asa barrier between the luid and pipe wall itself. Period ically using acid detergents such as citric of nitric acid in the CIP system is important to re-establish this passivation layer (oxidation) and helps to ensure that the stainless steel remains rust free (BSSAPassivation of stainless steels, 2014, ‘One method of evaluating the surface finishes of a metal is the roughness average (Ra) value or the root mean square (RMS) average. The development of several surface characterisation methods has arisen due to the different possibilities of representing a ‘material's surface using an average and single digit metic. Both methods are recognised and included as par of the ASME B46. standard in determining the surface properties of materials. From a hygiene perspective a lower Ra value or the RMS average value indicates @ reduction in the depth of crevices (peaks/troughs) across the metal surface and therefore minimises the amount of organi material that may reside on the surface. A reduction inthe metal surface roughness can be achieved through more extensive polish- ing operations, Surface variations atthe macroscopic level can be reduced using mechan- ical polishing and at the microscopic level using electropolishing. The pharmaceuticalHygiene design and CTP systems in breweries 220 Figure 10.4 Tanks used in a brewery Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) system. Left to right are the previnse storage tank, the caustic tank and the CL? return tank, industry has long required highly polished vessels and process equipment to improve the levels of hygiene of their plant equipment, Similarly, the food industry demands Ra values of less than 0.8 ym (Milledge, 2010). However, increasing the extent of mate ral polishing from a manufacturing perspective increases the cost of the material, The brewing industry has never implemented the same stringent control over the material surface finish as the pharmaceutical and food industries, largely due to the additional cost and the potential to damage the material surface. The smoothest surfaces for steel ate achieved through a cold rolling process, followed by chemical descaling, 10.4 An overview of CIP systems used in the brewery Brewery maintenance is an important aspect from a hygiene perspective to prevent contamination and fouling, both of which can affect the brewery yield and process efficiency. Small breweries (<50 UK Barrel brewlength) will typically clean the pro- cess equipment by hand using brushes and spray hoses or have simple CIP systems involving a detergent tank and pump. Larger breweries would be expected to automate the cleaning process using a fully integrated CIP system, A complete CIP system used in large breweries features detergent make up tanks, interconnecting pipework, pumps, valves and heat exchangers (Figure 10.4). The whole CIP system is usually automated, relying on flow meters, temperature probes and conductivity meters to ‘monitor the process. The complexity and functionality of the overall CIP system is highly dependent on the brewer's requirements and the brewery operation, “The cleaning fluid from the CIP system can be pumped in either the same or oppos- ing ditection to the process flow. Pumping the cleaning fluid in the reverse dizection is sometimes necessary to remove soil. The number of vessels and level of automation that are requited is dependent on the application of the CIP system. The insides of vessels are cleaned using cleaning machines and spray heads. The major difference in operation relates to the cleaning fluid low rate and pressure. Cleaning machines are230) Brewing Microbiology Figure 10.5 Examples of vessel cleaning machines: Gamlet TZ-74 (left), static spray ball (eniddle) and rotary spray ball (ight) as applied in brewery vessel. typically high pressure with a low flow rate, This provides greater mechanical impact and does not simply rely on the chemical action of the CIP detergent. Spray heads in comparison operate at lower pressure with a higher flow rate. Figure 10.5 shows examples of cleaning machines and spray heads that are used on brewery vessels. Cleaning machines are typically used in brewery equipment such as the mash tun and wort ketle. The application and suitability of the cleaning system is highly dependent fon the vessel scale. The number and position of spray heads in the vessel is also an important consideration. Vessel equipment such as agitators can obstruct the spray shadowing’), which impacts the effectiveness of the cleaning fluid. During the CIP cycle the agitators should be activated to prevent shadowing from occurring. Spray breads are usually situated atthe top of the vessel to allow cleaning fluid to be sprayed across the body of the tank, which then runs down the sides of the vessel. Vessels may feature several spray devices to ensure the whole surface is covered and no shadowing ‘occurs. An internal kettle fountain for example required several spray balls to reach all the crevices in its design. To ensure sufficient mechanical action during cleaning a high pressure is required to remove soil material. Static spray heads feature no moving pats and are low cost. Spray heads use more water and energy than cleaning machines due to the higher flow rate. Cleaning fluid exiting the spray head atomises, which increases the adsorption of CO; by caustic, resulting in the formation of carbonates. Cleaning machines are the most effective and aggressive cleaning strategy, benefitting from the lowest energy and water usage. Both spray heads and cleaning machines can become blocked internally with soil that has contaminated the pretinse or caustic, or blocked externally, ifthe unit isn't self-cleaning. The internal contamination can be overcome using a strainer in the CIP supply. Ideally the solids ate completely removed from the system during the initial prerinse stage, which is discharged to drain and dis- cussed in more detail later. As an alternative a strainer may be fited to the CIP return, which will reduce the problem and reduce any sediment reaching the CIP chemical storage tanks. ‘The main terminologies used to describe the operation of the CIP system relate to the ditection of the CIP cleaning fluid, The CIP fluid leaving the CIP storage tank isHygiene design and CIP systems i emetic a referred to as the CIP supply. The CIP supply is usually heated in a heat exchanger and pumped through the process pipework, reaching spray heads or cleaning machines inside the vessels. The CIP cleaning fiuid that is recovered from vessels is referred to as the CIP return and is collected using a CIP scavenge pump. There ate three main \ypes of CIP system that are installed in a brewery. These include a single use, partial recovery and full recovery system. The variations of these different CIP systems relate to the extent that the cleaning fluids are recovered. The selection of the appropriate CIP system, its operation temperature and the extent of the number of CIP channels used in the recovery CIP system is based on the specific brewery operation and bre- whouse design, 10.4.1 Operating conditions of a CIP system in the brewery ‘An effective CIP system involves three types of processes: mechanical, chemical and sanitisation. An effective CIP system is a balance between an optimum temperature residence time, mechanical and chemical treatment. Mechanical processes physically remove materials that soil process equipment through turbulence or a scouring action. Spray balls used inside vessels and CIP pumps are necessary to remove residual par ticulate such as proteinaceous materials. Ineffective removal of residual soil reduces the effectiveness of brewery process equipment including plate heat exchangers and vessels. As mentioned previously, residual soil may also provide an adherence and nutrient rich site for biofilm development. Additional energy is required as the foul- ing of process equipment negatively affects heat wansfer. In combination with the turbulent flow generated by mechanical action, the CIP system will use chemical reagents including both base and/or acid to clean, CIP systems are a relatively large user of water in the brewhouse (Reducing water use through Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) ‘envirowise-EN894, 2008). Efforts to minimise water use in the brewery have been achieved through modifications of the CIP programme (Reducing water use through Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) envirowise-EN894, 2008), A typical CIP eyele would include: A prerinse with wateto remove any loose material. The wash water and any soluble material ate discharged diecty to the drain o eliminate any material carryover, An effective prerinse will alzo remove solids that cause equipment blockages ‘ot caustic wash to chemically remove material that has soiled and fouled the equipment ‘A 2-3% caustic wash at 75-80°C is used in the brewhouse and for processes involving wort, Lower strength caustic (1%) is used on lower soil environments such as bright beer. ‘The hot caustic should diges and dissolve any soiled material. During the CIP cycle the caustic solution is recirculated several times. Heating the caustic CIP cleaning fuid is achieved using a heat exchanger, which can use waste heat (o prewazm the CIP cleaning fuid A further washing stage to remove the caustic. ‘An acid wash which can be applied on aperiodic operation of the CIP cycle. This minimises the CIP Turnaround time (TAT) and operating cost. The use of acid has several benefits in the brewhouse, cis used in cold processes such as FV where the acid serves to eliminate bacteria, effectively serving as the sanitising agent, The acid detergent does not suffer from degradation by CO, as recognised with caustic, which is known to reduce is eflectivenessBrewing Microbiology ‘Table 10.1 Timings of the main stages of a Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) system for both vessels and the main process systems pipework Unit operation | Function Vessel CIP (min) | Mains CIP (min) Previnse ‘Mechanical removal of sit | 10-20 510 Caustic detergent | Cleaning of remaining soil | 30-40 20-30 Rinse Wash any residual detergent | 10-15, 5-10 ‘Acid detergent 20-30 15-20 Final rinse ‘Wash any residual detergent | 15-20 10-15 Sterlant 10-15 510 (orming carbonates), The acid wash can also serve to re-establish the passivation layer at the stainless steel surface, ‘A Ginal wash using either reverse osmosis or deionised water is applied to remove any residual devergent. “The operating cost ofthe CIP systems influenced by the amount and concentration of detergent used and whether itis recovered or not. Table 10.1 shows an example of \ypical CIP timings for the main process vessels and pipework. 10.4.2 Types of CIP systems recognised across the brewery 10.4.2.1 Single use ‘A single use CIP system pumps the cleaning fluid around the process pipework and vessel and on its return sends the water phase directly to the drain (Figure 10.6). The single use CIP system is the simplest cleaning system and is important for processes such as yeast handling and propagation that requite the highest levels of hygiene Brewery yeast systems are often single use CIP systems. Both the prerinse and the detergent used to clean the process vessels are sent tothe drain. This essentially serves to reduce the risk of cross-contamination by CIP systems that ae less than optimal in recovering and recycling the prerinse water and detergent. 10.4.2.2 Partial and full recovery cleaning systems Partial recovery CIP systems recover the detergent for use in the next detergent step or as a prerinse. A full recovery CIP system is designed to recover the final rinse for the next prerinse and rotur the cleaning fluid streams back to their chemical supply tanks. Examples of recovery CIP systems are shown in Figures 10.7 and 10.8. Figure 10.8, shows a CIP system that features both caustic and acid tanks as a detergent. This is a ‘more complicated system with respect tothe number of chemical detergent tanks, valves and extent of pipework routing In summary, single use CIP systems are less capital intensive, requite less space and reduce the tisk of eross-contamination as compated to recovery CIP systems. The single use CIP system is important for specific applications such as yeast handling. In comparison, recovery CIP systems have lower energy requirements, volumes of waterHygiene design and CIP systems i emesis a Water Flow Conductivity OOo GIP return Steam CIP supply +) Temperature IP supply pump “Conductivity Figure 10.6 Example ofa single use Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) system. Inline heating and chemical dosing. Wace Flow Conduct C id CIP retum supply! Temperature 0 ty ie Figure 10.7 Example of a recovery Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) system with one CIP supply and three tanks, O CIP suppl CIP supply! Flow ceewey recite pumpae Brewing Microbiology = Les or a lad ell xo. APUT® COP supply B > Lp“ na st Flow stot Seon Figure 108 Example of a recovery Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) system with two CIP supply and four tanks. Chemica tanks feature a recirculation loop with an independent heat exchange, ‘which allows the tanks to be heated during a CIP cycle for immediate we. Important on larger breweries (o minimise Turmaround Time (TAT) and efiluent, and due to the lower chemical losses have lower operating costs with respect to the amount of chemicals required. The recovery CIP system is advantageous because the main processes do not have to wait for the CIP system to be ready. For instance, the chemical detergent tanks already contain the required detergent concen- tration at the necessary temperature, This allows the cleaning to begin directly after the brewhouse processes have ended and therefore minimises unproductive time. 10.4.3 CIP fluid composition CIP systems can pump prerinse material, detergents and final rinse water to remove soil, The prerinse material (potentially dilute caustic) is used to remove any loose debris, whereas the detergents chemically remove the soil. Described below are the different detergents that can be used in CIP systems and also chemical additives such as sequestrates (chelating agents) and surfactants that improve detergent penetration. 10.4.3.1 Detergents Detergents are used to chemically remove soil. Ideally the detergents are nonfoam- ing or include antifoam, free rinsing/nontainting, noncorrosive and have minimal environmental impact. Appropriately formulated detergents are effective at removingHygiene design and CIP systems i bomeri 235 soil, Caustic-based detergents are more effective than acid detergents on high soil environments. Sodium hydroxide reacts with proteins and oils, converting them into their respective salts, which increases their solubility and therefore their removal from stainless steel surfaces. Applying detergents at elevated temperatures using a hot water medium provides a level of disinfection, Detergents axe effective at removing protein soil, which is especially important as fouling can reduce the effectiveness of ‘eat transfer surfaces. This is especially important in high temperature processes and equipment such as the Wort Kettle or heat exchangers, where the protein can become baked onto the surface and cause fouling. Controlling the strength of detergents can be achieved using conductivity metres. Disadvantages to caustic-based detergents are their degradation by CO,, forming carbonates. As a result of this the brewer would require more caustic to achieve the required working concentration, This is most important in the FV where the CO, levels are greatest. Prerinse water can absorb some of the CO, present in the FV and therefore reduce the chance of producing carbonates. It should be noted that the absorption of CO, by caustic creates a risk of forming a vacuum that can cause the FV to collapse (Manzano et al, 2011). Acid-based detergents are more frequently used to clean and sterlise FV, whereas caustic detergents ate used to remove soil from the main brewery operations. The activity of caustic detergents is also affected by water hardness. Caustic detergents ‘have poor rinsability compared to acid detergents and therefore require more water to remove. Caustic detergents ate ineffective at removing inorganic scale such as gyp- sum and beerstone. Phosphoric acid and nitic acid are often used to remove inorganic scale and to regenerate the metal's passivation layer. It should, however, be noted ‘that there are potential environmental issues of releasing phosphates and nitrates into the effluent. Selecting the appropriate detergent is based on the unit operation in the brewery, the type of equipment fouling (organic or inorganic) and the environmental impact on discharging detergents to effluent. Detergent additives including sequestrate (chelating agents) and surfactants can also be added to the CIP cleaning fluid. Sequestrate such as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), nittlotiacetic acid, gluconates and phosphonates complex with metal ions in solution and prevent the precipitation of the insoluble salts of the metal ions. ‘The main rationale for adding sequestrates is to inhibit the formation of scaling with the design philosophy that prevention is better than cure, Surfactants (wetting agents) added to detergents reduce the cleaning fluid’s surface tension, which allows the detergent to penetrate the metal surface more effectively 10.4.3.2 Sterilant A stetilant can be used after the CIP process to remove any residual microorganisms, effectively serving as a low temperature SIP. Steilants include chlorine, ionophores and peracetic acid (PAA). PAA degrades into acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide Hydrogen peroxide is a strong oxidising agent, which can be used to enhance the CIP detergent (caustic or acid). The formation of acetic acid from the decomposition of PAA increases the organic load in the effluent waste.206 Brewing Microbiology 10.4.4 Evaluation of the effectiveness of CIP systems Evaluation of the brewery CIP system and its effectiveness is usually determined using off-line laboratory analysis or portable measuring devices. This typically involves dyes such as riboflavin or ATPase activity assays used to determine the presence of living microorganisms, On-line sensors are used as part of the CIP system to check aspects such as the concentration and quality of the caustic cleaning fluid. Conductivity mettes are fitted within the CIP set itself to evaluate the detergent concentration and control a dosing pump to top up the detergent as zequited. From an overall automation perspective, all the basie parameters for flow, temperature and time are each controlled and monitored as part of the CIP system, 10.5 Conclusions Hygienic design is an important factor in brewery design and engineering. The brewer and beer drinker expects that resullant beer is safe to drink and consistent in quality and flavour. Reviewed here were the main design considerations that a brewery must employ to minimise the risk of contamination and fouling, A real appreciation of the intricacies of a good CIP system and the requirement for hygienic process design becomes apparent with larger breweries, Larger breweries typically require more extensive levels of automation and control to coordinate the vast array of mix-proof valves to correctly direct and route the CIP cleaning fluid, Furthermore, the amount of water and cleaning fluid reagent used in these large-scale breweries will have a large financial and environmental impact. Efforts to minimise water and energy usage during the CIP process is an important aspect of the overall process, particularly when considering the frequency of cleaning bbetween batches, High pressure, low flow cleaning machines are employed to remove soiled material that has fouled equipment, using less water. An effective prerinse and sufficient mechanical action are required to disrupt materials that cause fouling. Inef- fective prerinsing requires more water and chemicals during the CIP cleaning cycle. Pumping cleaning fluids at lower flow rates or adopting lower cleaning temperatures are potential strategies to minimise water and energy usage during CIP operations However, to effectively reduce water and energy use whilst maintaining an effective cleaning regime requires careful consideration of the whole CIP operation. For exam- ple, current brewery operations could simply benefit from optimisation of the CIP system schedule and cleaning detergent recipe. ‘The demand for greater flexibility in the brewery increases the requirement for cleanability. There appears to be a shift from operating vessels with a single function to adopting a more flexible approach, where the brewer can use equipment for a multitude of purpases to satisfy changes in market demand, For example, a contract brewer may require several yeast strains to produce different beets. Propagating and cropping several different yeast strains from a single on-site yeast propagation system is only practically achievable with hygienic process engineering and cleaning systems. As outlined inthisHygiene design and CIP systems i emetic aa review, a single use CIP system would be most appropriate for this application, Expand- ing on the brewer's requitement to demand more from his current brewery equipment could see storage vessels and tanks repurposed to hold scrap or waste yeast, for example Again, changing the operation of the brewery vessels without changing the equipment ‘oultight is only practical if it has been appropriately designed. ‘As mentioned in the introduction, the implementation and execution of the CIP used to be an afterthought to the design of a brewery. However, as hopefully high- lighted here, the integration of the CIP system with the main brewery operations is fundamental to its effectiveness. The cost of contamination and equipment with respect to downtime and product loss in fermentation-based processes, such a8 the brewing industry, is not always considered. However, with increasing raw material costs and utility costs the brewer cannot afford to suffer from fermentation contam- ination or fouled equipment. As these can to lead a compromise in beer quality and higher energy requirements, 10.6 Future trends 10.6.1 Future brewery designs and the impact on water and energy recovery Future mega-brewery designe will put additional technological pressure on cleanabil- ity, It would be expected that the larger breweries requite larger diameter pipework to satisy the greater volume capacity. Breweries featuring larger diameter pipework will require larger pumps to achieve the same flow velocities to obtain the nevessary tur bbulent and scouring action during the CIP process. An impact of the larger pump size will be the energy required to achieve the necessary velocity of the cleaning fluid. Heat exchangers are already used to recover heat from heat intensive processes such as the wort ketle to preheat the CIP cleaning fluid, New technologies, such as electrochemi- cally activated water generated from the electrolysis of a saline solution, could replace the requirement for the delivery of bulk caustic to a site (CIP and sanitation of process pplant-SPX, n.d). As the competition and demand for water increases in the future, the emphasis on technologies that minimise waler usage and effluent discharge will become more favourable. The future for CIP is therefore expected to feature bench- marking similar to the brewery benchmarking, which compares the number of hecto- lites of water per hectolitte of beer. One question would be is there still a requirement {or water as part ofthe cleaning process or could self-cleaning materials be the future? 10.6.2 Developments in nanotechnology to provide antimicrobial surfaces and materials ‘The application of silver nanoparticle technology as a future antimicrobial material is fan interesting azea of research. Silver nanoparticles have been shown to prevent the evelopment and establishment of biofilms (Palanisamy et al., 2014). This in principle would be an effective strategy to prevent the growth of undesirable microorganisms. ‘The application of silver nanoparticle technology seems ideal for medical equipment,28 Brewing Microbiology however, due to its nonselective mechanism and its detrimental effect towards yeast it has less use in the brewery. The application of the silver nanoparticle technology in pipework would not be expected to directly replace a CIP system, owing to its role in removing both contaminating microorganisms and soil. Extensive trials would be expected to be undertaken in adding this technology to a brewery, particularly as the size ofthe silver nanoparticles could be a potential health risk to both the operator and consumer. It could, however, find more suitable applications on discharge pipework. 10.7 Sources of further information and advice Further information around the guiding hygienic design standards and frameworks is included in the reference section and stated below for convenience: European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group (EHEDG) and The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) BPE 2009 Bioprocess, WRAPs Envirowise EN894 provides a use- ful overview to minimising water in CIP systems (Reducing water use through Clean- ing-In-Place (CIP) envirowise-EN894, 2008). Chisti and Moo-Young (1994) also offer ‘a comprehensive review of CIP in bioprocessing and fermentation-based systems References Ault, R.G. (1965). Spoilage bacteria in brewing—a review. Journal ofthe Institute of Brewing 71, 376-891. htplax doi org/10,1002/2050-0416,1965 106352, Boulton, C.A., & Brookes, P.A. (2004). Brewing: Science and practice. Taylor & Francis. BSSA. (2014). Passivation of stainless? steels (WWW Document). URL: hilp://wwcbssa.org, "uktopies php?article=68, SPX Corporation, Inc, CIP and Sanitation of Process Plant, Whitepaper, February 2013, -napilwww:spx.comvenvapv/downloadsfwhitepapers! Chis, ¥., & Moo-Young, M. (1994). Clean-inplace systems for industrial bioreactors: design, validation and operation. Journal of Industrial Microbiology, 13, 201-207 Int ax doi ore/10.10077BF01569748. Chuang, L. F, & Collins, EB. (1968) Biosynthesis of diacery in bacteria and yeast. Journal ‘of Bacteriology, 95, 2083-2088. Costerton, .W., Stewart, P.S., & Greenberg, E. P. (1999). Bacterial biofilms: a common cause ‘of persistent infections. Science, 284, 1318-1322, hip/idx doi org/0.1126\science 284,5418.1318, Hill, AE. (2008), Microbiclogical stability of beer. In Bamforth, C. (Bd), Beer: a quality per spective. Academic Press, USA. pp. 163-184 Leklas, C., Stewart, G. G., Ill, A. Tad, B., & Hodgson, J. (2005). The importance of fee amino nitrogen in wort and beer, Technical Quarterly Master Brewers Association of Amercias, 42,113 Manzano, M, lacumin, L, Vendrames, M., Cecchini, P, Comi, G., & Bult, $. (2011). Craft ‘beer microflora identification before and after a cleaning process. Journal ofthe Insitute ‘of Brewing, 117, 343-351, hp/f4x.do\org/10 1002) 2050-0416 2011 tb00878 x Meyers, V.B. (1959). Recent developments in automatic cleaning of storage tanks. Jounal ‘of Dairy Science, 42, 1790-1733. hspilidx. dos or/10.3168/)ds $0022-0502(59)90794-5,“Hygiene design and CTP systems in breweries 219 ‘Milledge, J.J. (2010), The cleanability of stainless steel used a a food contact surface: an ‘updated short review. Food Science and Technology Journal, 24, 27-28. Palanisamy, N. K., Ferina, N,, Amiruhusni, A. N., Mohd-Zain, Z., Hussaini, 1, Ping, L. J etal. 2014) Antibioflm properties of chemically synthesized silver nanopaticles found against Preudomonas aeruginosa, Journal of Nanobiotechnology, 12, 2. hiip/I4x.d0.0r9/ 10.1186/1477-5135-12-2 Reducing water use through cleaning-in-Place (CIP) emirawise-EN894. (2008). Sakamoto, K., & Konings, W. N, (2008), Beer spoilage bacteria and hop resistance, Interna tional Journal of Food Microbiology, 89, 105-124, nsp//6x doi org/10.1016/S0168- 1605(03)00153-3. Sreekumar, K.R., Ozawa, M.,& Kikuchi, ¥. (2000). Effect of surface condition on atachment of bacteria to stainless steel welds (materials, metallurgy & weldabilty). Transactions of JWRI, 29. 45-51. Sutherland, IW, (2001), Biofilm exopolyssccharides: a strong and sticky framework, Micro biology, 147, 3-9 Suzuki, K, Punehashi, W., Koyanagi, M. Yamashita H. (2004). Lactobacillus paracollinoides ‘sp. nov, isolated from brewery environments. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 54, L1S-LI7.hlpfdx doi. otg/10.1099hjs.0.02722-0,