<%BANNER%>

Effectiveness of Standardized Food-Grade Tanker Sanitary Wash Protocols

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0023525/00001

Material Information

Title: Effectiveness of Standardized Food-Grade Tanker Sanitary Wash Protocols
Physical Description: 1 online resource (299 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Winniczuk, Paul
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: allergens, cip, clean, detergents, food, grade, hydraulics, juice, microbiology, protocols, sanitary, slurries, soils, tanker, validation, wash
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Improperly cleaned tankers may be a source of foodborne bacterial and allergen cross-contamination, particularly with non-dedicated tankers. Tanker cleaning procedures are practical guidelines but may not have adequate details in some critical cleaning parameters. This research was undertaken to validate two sanitation protocols for their effectiveness to remove microorganisms and food soils. To assist in validating the wash protocols, a model tanker with a barrel partially constructed of Plexiglas was used. The model tanker aided in visually determining wash flow characteristics of CIP systems and the cleaning effectiveness. All washes were conducted at the University of Florida, Citrus Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred to better control the washing parameters. The Juice Products Association?s Type 2 and 4 washes were evaluated with three different CIP devices. Appropriate food slurries containing microorganisms were applied to predetermined areas of the tanker and allowed to dry for 24 hours. After washing, sample sites (100 cm2) were evaluated for microorganisms, residual soils, and allergens by standard microbiological methods and commercial test kits. The wash protocols can be effective to clean a tanker if the appropriate CIP parameters are used. For rotating CIP devices, important parameters are flow rate and pressure, head rotation speed, and nozzle extension length while important parameters for stationary devices are flow rate and pressure, and installation positions of centering and pitch. When using the appropriate CIP parameters both type 2 and 4 wash protocols were effective to reduce microorganisms by 5 log units per 100 cm2 in all sample sites of the tanker. Both washes were also effective to reduce their respective soils by at least 4 log units ( < 3 ?g/100cm2 and < 1 ?g/100cm2, respectively). The current research indicates that JPA Type 2 and 4 wash protocols if properly adhered to and when the proper CIP system parameters are used, can be effective to reduce microorganisms and soil residues to non-recoverable or low levels. It is extremely important to ensure that the CIP system is operated at the optimum conditions for flow impact and volume.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Paul Winniczuk.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Goodrich, Renee M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0023525:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0023525/00001

Material Information

Title: Effectiveness of Standardized Food-Grade Tanker Sanitary Wash Protocols
Physical Description: 1 online resource (299 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Winniczuk, Paul
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: allergens, cip, clean, detergents, food, grade, hydraulics, juice, microbiology, protocols, sanitary, slurries, soils, tanker, validation, wash
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Improperly cleaned tankers may be a source of foodborne bacterial and allergen cross-contamination, particularly with non-dedicated tankers. Tanker cleaning procedures are practical guidelines but may not have adequate details in some critical cleaning parameters. This research was undertaken to validate two sanitation protocols for their effectiveness to remove microorganisms and food soils. To assist in validating the wash protocols, a model tanker with a barrel partially constructed of Plexiglas was used. The model tanker aided in visually determining wash flow characteristics of CIP systems and the cleaning effectiveness. All washes were conducted at the University of Florida, Citrus Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred to better control the washing parameters. The Juice Products Association?s Type 2 and 4 washes were evaluated with three different CIP devices. Appropriate food slurries containing microorganisms were applied to predetermined areas of the tanker and allowed to dry for 24 hours. After washing, sample sites (100 cm2) were evaluated for microorganisms, residual soils, and allergens by standard microbiological methods and commercial test kits. The wash protocols can be effective to clean a tanker if the appropriate CIP parameters are used. For rotating CIP devices, important parameters are flow rate and pressure, head rotation speed, and nozzle extension length while important parameters for stationary devices are flow rate and pressure, and installation positions of centering and pitch. When using the appropriate CIP parameters both type 2 and 4 wash protocols were effective to reduce microorganisms by 5 log units per 100 cm2 in all sample sites of the tanker. Both washes were also effective to reduce their respective soils by at least 4 log units ( < 3 ?g/100cm2 and < 1 ?g/100cm2, respectively). The current research indicates that JPA Type 2 and 4 wash protocols if properly adhered to and when the proper CIP system parameters are used, can be effective to reduce microorganisms and soil residues to non-recoverable or low levels. It is extremely important to ensure that the CIP system is operated at the optimum conditions for flow impact and volume.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Paul Winniczuk.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Goodrich, Renee M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0023525:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EFFECTIVENESS OF STANDARDIZED FO OD-GRADE TANKER SANITARY WASH PROTOCOLS By PAUL P. WINNICZUK A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Paul P. Winniczuk

PAGE 3

3 To my parents, Filip and Jefrosina, who were my first instructors in f ood science and who taught the best lessons allowing me to be the person I am.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Mickey E. P arish for convincing me to come back to the university and complete a PhD. Without his confid ence in me, this would not have been started. I would like to thank Dr. Rene Schneider for taking me and this project in mid-stream. She has been a good mentor, for which I am grateful. I would like to thank my other supervisory committee members (Dr. Keith Schneider, Dr. Rona ld Schmidt, and Dr. Reza Ehsani) for their time and understanding and input, which was essential for the projects completion. I am grateful to my family for bearing with me during this project. The encouragement I received from my wife, Patti, a llowed me to complete this, even when I wanted to give up. I would like to thank my father-in-law, Dr. Freder ick McCarthy, for his help and insights into photography and life lessons that were beneficial to this study. My study would not have been feasible withou t the assistance of USDA and JPA grants: USDA Grant No. 00037828, USDA Grant No. 00003855, and JPA Grant No. 057358. My study would have been much more cost ly and difficult to accomplish without the assistance, cooperation, and support in some ma nner of the following transport companies; Bynum Transport Inc, Auburndale FL; Indian River Transport Inc, Winter Haven FL; North American Transport, Lake Wales FL; Oakley Tr ansport Inc, Lake Wales FL; and Jim Aartman Transport, Mulberry FL. Cooperation, assistance, openness, industry persp ective, and valuable wash bay time of the following tanker wash facilities and personnel wa s greatly appreciated; Bynum Transport Inc, Auburndale FL; Clewiston Tank Wash, Clewiston FL; Florida F ood Tankers, Winter Haven FL; Indian River Transport Inc, Wi nter Haven FL; Kentuckiana Ta nk Wash Inc, Louisville KY; Lafayette Sani-Wash Inc, Lafayette IN; North American Transport, Lake Wales FL; Oakley

PAGE 5

5 Transport Inc, Lake Wales FL; Sterling Tank Wa sh, Mulberry FL; and USA Tank Wash, Haines City FL. Cooperation and assistance of the follow ing beverage production facilities was appreciated; Blue Lake Citrus Winter Haven FL; Dairy Mai d, Newport News VA; Southern Garden Citrus, Clewiston FL; Sun Orchard Citr us, Haines City FL; Tropicana Products Inc, Bradenton FL; Velda Dairy, Miami FL, and Winn Dixie Dairy, Plant City FL. The loaning of CIP devices, technical support and assistance, and re search interest was valuable for the completion of this research a nd was very much appreciated from the following manufacturers; Chemdet Inc, Sebastian FL; Gama jet Cleaning Systems Inc, Devault PA; Ecolab Company, St. Paul MN; Lechler Spray Company, St. Charles IL; Sellers Cleaning Systems, Piqua OH; and Spraying Systems Inc, Wheaton IL. Support and assistance for CIP cleaning equi pment, equipment supplies, equipment maintenance, or sanitation supplies was received and appreciated from the following companies; Betts Industries Inc, Warren PA; Brenner Tank LL C, Mauston WI; Central Florida Industries, Lakeland FL; Chemical Containers Inc, Lake Wa les FL; Chemical Systems of Florida, Zellwood FL; Equipment Specialists Inc, Haines City FL; Florida Truck and Trailer Company, Lake Wales FL; MG Newell Company, Lakeland FL; Floyd Peacock Cleaning Systems, Dallas TX; VPC Inc, Green Bay WI; and Zep Manufacturing, Atlanta GA. The research also would have been difficult to accomplish without the advice and/or assistance of the following associates of the Univ ersity of Florida Citrus Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred, Florida. Sherry Cunningham, UF CREC Facilities John Henderson, Pilot Plant Manager, UF CREC Gwen Lundy, Asst. Research Scientist, UF CREC Dr. Bill Miller, Professor Emeritus, UF CREC

PAGE 6

6 Aida Pea, FDOC Research Scientist II Dr. Jose Reyes, Assistant Professor, UF CREC Meg Richards, MS Student (currently R&D Scientist, Stonyfield Farms Inc.) Bruce Robertson, UF CREC Electrician (retired) Dr. Masoud Salyani, Professor, UF CREC Tracy Williams, Research Asst. (currently Research Asst., Stonyfield Farms, Inc.)

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........11LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................18ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................20CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................22Foods.......................................................................................................................................22Tankers...................................................................................................................................232 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................27Industry Practices............................................................................................................. .......27Transported Volume........................................................................................................ 27Tankers............................................................................................................................29Dedicated Tankers........................................................................................................... 31Regulatory..................................................................................................................... ..........32Issues and Regulations.................................................................................................... 32Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) System..................................... 32Cleaning..................................................................................................................................35Food Contact Surfaces..................................................................................................... 35Soils.................................................................................................................................36Microorganisms...............................................................................................................37Detergents........................................................................................................................37Removal of Potential Allergens During Cleaning........................................................... 39Temperature.................................................................................................................... .41Action: Cascade and Impingement.................................................................................. 42Cleaning Time.................................................................................................................44Previous Cleaning Studies...............................................................................................44Assessment of Cleaning/Sanitizing Performance............................................................ 47ATP (Adenine Tri-Phosphate).........................................................................................48Allergen Residues............................................................................................................49Clean-In-Place (CIP) Devices......................................................................................... 50

PAGE 8

8 3 BASELINE RESEARCH....................................................................................................... 61Materials and Methods...........................................................................................................61Soil Slurry Production..................................................................................................... 61Inoculation and Application to Tanker Surfaces............................................................. 62Tanker Wash Rack Equipment........................................................................................ 62CIP Device and Cleaning................................................................................................63Site Sampling.................................................................................................................. .64Visual Assessment...........................................................................................................65Microbiological Analysis................................................................................................66Allergens...................................................................................................................... ....67Statistical Analysis.......................................................................................................... 67Results and Discussion......................................................................................................... ..68Riboflavin........................................................................................................................68Type 2 Soil......................................................................................................................68Type 4 Soil......................................................................................................................71Wash Temperature...........................................................................................................75Conclusion.......................................................................................................................764 THE CIP DEVICES............................................................................................................... 89Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........89Materials and Methods...........................................................................................................90Tanker Equipment........................................................................................................... 90CIP Devices.....................................................................................................................92Calculation and Determination of Ro tating Device Impingement Angles...................... 93Determining Center and Degrees Off-Center for Sd-HVMP.......................................... 94Determining Pitch for Sd-HVMP.................................................................................... 94Device Qualification........................................................................................................95Soil Inoculation............................................................................................................... 95Cleaning Method.............................................................................................................96Cleaning Assessment and Sampling................................................................................ 96Statistical Analysis.......................................................................................................... 97Results and Discussion......................................................................................................... ..97CIP Device Field Validation...........................................................................................97Stationary, directional-high volum e, medium pressure (Sd-HVMP)....................... 97Rotating high volume, medi um pressure (R-HVMP).............................................. 98Rotating low volume, high pressure (R-LVHP)....................................................... 98Fluid Reach Performance Validation............................................................................ 100RLVHP...................................................................................................................100Surface fluid delivery characteristics.....................................................................100Rotation speed........................................................................................................101Nozzle extensions...................................................................................................106Pressure effect........................................................................................................ 108Pressure and extension effect................................................................................. 109Flow rate effect....................................................................................................... 110

PAGE 9

9 Nozzle variations flow volume with constant pressure....................................... 111Sd-HVMP......................................................................................................................113Surface flow rates................................................................................................... 113Installation orientation Pitch............................................................................... 114Installation orientati on Width centering.............................................................. 115Rotating-High Volume Medium Pressure (R-HVMP).................................................. 116Rotation speed........................................................................................................117Surface flow rates................................................................................................... 119Flow pressure.........................................................................................................120Installation depth.................................................................................................... 120Significant Observations of Rotating Devices.............................................................. 121Conclusion.....................................................................................................................127CIP Preliminary Washing Qualifiers 11Brix OJ............................................................... 127R-LVHP......................................................................................................................... 128R-HVMP........................................................................................................................129Sd-HVMP......................................................................................................................129Conclusion.....................................................................................................................1325 WASH PROTOCOL VALIDATION...................................................................................211Introduction................................................................................................................... ........211Materials and Methods.........................................................................................................211Tankers..........................................................................................................................211CIP Devices...................................................................................................................212Soil Slurry Production................................................................................................... 212Type 2 Wash.................................................................................................................. 213Type 4 Wash.................................................................................................................. 213Surface Inoculation........................................................................................................214Washes...........................................................................................................................215Visual Assessment.........................................................................................................215Microbiology.................................................................................................................216Allergens...................................................................................................................... ..218Residual Microbial and Soil Analysis with ATP.......................................................... 218Residual Soils................................................................................................................219Statistical Analysis........................................................................................................ 219Results and Discussion......................................................................................................... 219Detergent Concentration................................................................................................ 219Temperature................................................................................................................... 221Type 2 Wash.................................................................................................................. 223Rotating-low volume, high pr essure device (R-LVHP)......................................... 223R-LVHP study determined rotation speed............................................................. 224R-LVHP study determined extension length......................................................... 225R-LVHP study determined flow rate..................................................................... 226Rotatinghigh volume, medium pressure device (R-HVMP)................................ 227Stationary directionalhigh volume, medium pressure device (Sd-HVMP).......... 227Type 2 Wash Conclusions......................................................................................229Type 4 Wash.................................................................................................................. 230

PAGE 10

10 Rotatinglow volume, high pressure device.......................................................... 231Rotatinghigh volume, medium pressure device................................................... 232Stationary directionalhigh volum e, medium pressure device.............................. 232Type 4 Wash Conclusions......................................................................................2346 RESEARCH CONCLUSION...............................................................................................2787 FUTURE WORK.................................................................................................................. 282APPENDIX A JUICE PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION FOOD C OMMODITY AND WASH TYPE LIST. 283B DETERGENT DILUTION RATES AND AS SOCIATED CHEMICAL ANAL YSES...... 286C CALCULATION OF INSIDE TANKER SU RFACE AREA OF A 12.2 M (40FT) TANKER ..............................................................................................................................287D DETERMINATION OF DETECTION LI MIT W ITH ACCUCLEAN SWAB..................288E DETERMINATION OF ALLERGEN DETECT ION LIMIT W ITH ALERT TEST KIT..289LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................290BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................299

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Solubility characteri stics of various soils. ......................................................................... 55 2-2 Percent composition of so m e typical liquid foods............................................................. 55 3-1 Data from preliminary wash tests with riboflavin soil....................................................... 77 3-2 Results of field validation for Type 2 wash with Type 2 soil............................................ 77 3-3 Type 2 post-wash average of residues per 100cm2............................................................78 3-4 Results of field validation work for Type 4 wash with Type 4 soil. .................................. 79 3-5 Field work Type 4 post-wash l og average and range population per 100cm2 ..................80 3-6 Type 4 average visual and allergen concentration per 100cm2 .........................................81 3-7 Calculated allergen content in Single Strength Orange Juic e (SSOJ) with variable surface residues on food contact surfaces.......................................................................... 82 3-8 Results of field validation work for T ype 4 wash with lowered tem perature (71C feed and 52C discharge).................................................................................................83 4-1 Results of CIP device performance valid ation by m anufacturers suggested methods.... 133 4-2 Visual results of CIP device performan ce under actual operating conditions in the CThru tanker. ......................................................................................................................134 4-3 Examples of percent surface flow for R-LVHP CIP device. ........................................... 135 4-4 Impact force of R-LVHP CIP device using 1G and 5G i mpact indicators......................135 4-5 R-LVHP air pressure, rotation speed, and cycle tim e compared..................................... 136 4-6 R-LVHP air motor pressure supply related to shaft speed (rpm).................................... 136 4-7 R-LVHP speed effects at 69 Lpm an d 24.1 bar (17.8 gpm and 350 psi at sprayer feed) (wash rack conditions)............................................................................................ 137 4-8 R-LVHP speed effects at 74 Lpm and 27.6 bar (19 gpm and 400 psi at sprayer feed)... 138 4-9 R-LVHP speed effects at 75.8 Lpm a nd 31.0 bar (20 gpm and 450 psi at sprayer feed).................................................................................................................................139 4-10 Calculated circumferences based on poten tial cleaning distances of a rotating CIP device. ........................................................................................................................ ......140

PAGE 12

12 4-11 Calculated fluid speeds at various distances based on device head speed (rpm ) of RLVHP device....................................................................................................................140 4-12 Theoretical fluid dwell time and flui d delivery at device head speed (rpm ) and distance for R-LVHP device............................................................................................141 4-13 R-LVHP extension effects 68 Lpm at 24 bar and 10 psi (4 rpm ) shaft speed)(18 gpm and 350 psi at sprayer feed)............................................................................................. 142 4-14 R-LVHP extension effects at 74 Lpm and 27.6 bar (19 gpm and 400 psi at sprayer feed). ................................................................................................................................143 4-15 R-LVHP extension effects at 75.8 Lpm and 31.0 bar (20 gpm and 450 psi at sprayer feed). ................................................................................................................................144 4-16 R-LVHP extension effects at 79.5 Lpm and 34.5 bar (21 gpm and 500 psi at sprayer feed). ................................................................................................................................145 4-17 R-LVHP flow pressure effect 0030 nozzl e, no extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm ) air motor speed......................................................................................................................146 4-18 R-LVHP flow pressure effect 0030 nozzl e, no extensions, and 20 psi (10 rpm ) air motor speed......................................................................................................................147 4-19 R-LVHP flow rate effect 0030 nozzle, no extensions, and 30 psi (14 rpm ) air motor speed................................................................................................................................148 4-20 R-LVHP flow pressure effect 0030 nozzl e, no extensions, and 40 psi (20 rpm ) air motor speed......................................................................................................................149 4-21 R-LVHP flow pressure effect 0030 nozzl e, no extensions, and 60 psi (22 rpm ) air motor speed......................................................................................................................150 4-22 R-LVHP flow rate with 0030 nozzle, no extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm ) air motor speed................................................................................................................................151 4-23 R-LVHP flow rate with 0030 nozzle, 3 i n. extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm ) air motor speed................................................................................................................................152 4-24 R-LVHP flow rate with 0030 nozzle, 6 i n. extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm ) air motor speed................................................................................................................................153 4-25 R-LVHP flow rate with 0030 nozzle, 9 i n. extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm ) air motor speed................................................................................................................................154 4-26 R-LVHP flow rates at 350 psi with vari ed nozzles, 9 in. extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm ) air motor speed........................................................................................................ 155

PAGE 13

13 4-27 R-LVHP flow rates at 450 psi with vari ed nozzles, 9 in. extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm ) air motor speed........................................................................................................ 156 4-28 R-LVHP wall flow rates with nozzle variations. ............................................................. 157 4-29 R-LVHP flow rates for test nozzle and extensions at 68 Lpm and 24 bar....................... 158 4-30 R-LVHP flow rates for test nozzle and extensions at 87 Lpm and 31 bar....................... 159 4-31 Percent surface flow for Sd-HVMP CIP device.............................................................. 160 4-32 Sd-HVMP wall flow rates with va ried pum p delivery conditions...................................161 4-33 Sd-HVMP wall flow rates with varied installation pitch. ................................................162 4-34 Sd-HVMP wall flow rates with varied centering installation. .........................................163 4-35 Sd-HVMP wall flow rates with varied centering installation. .........................................164 4-36 R-HVMP vane design related to body and hub speed (rpm)...........................................164 4-37 R-HVMP wall flow rates w ith varied rotation speed....................................................... 165 4-38 Calculated fluid speeds at various distances based on device head speed (rpm ) of RHVMP device...................................................................................................................166 4-39 Theoretical fluid dwell time and flui d delivery at device head speed (rpm ) and distance for a R-HVMP device........................................................................................ 167 4-40 Examples of percent surface flow for R-HVMP CIP device........................................... 168 4-41 R-HVMP wall flow rates with varied flow rates............................................................. 169 4-42 R-HVMP wall flow rates with varied pressure rates....................................................... 170 4-43 R-HVMP wall flow rates with vari ed installation depth at 4.5 bar. ................................ 171 4-44 R-HVMP wall flow rates with vari ed installation depth at 6.2 bar. ................................ 172 4-45 Impact angles at vari ed installation depths. .....................................................................173 4-46 Rotating device installation pos ition standard versus 90. ........................................... 173 4-47 Chemical residue tests for R-L VHP operating param eter qualification.......................... 196 4-48 Visual residue tests for R-LVHP operating param eter qualification............................... 197 4-49 Residue tests for R-LVHP ope rating param eter qualification......................................... 198

PAGE 14

14 4-50 Chemical residue tests for R-HVMP operating param eter qualification......................... 199 4-51 Visual residue tests for R-HVMP operating param eter qualification.............................. 200 4-52 Residue tests for R-HVMP operating param eter qualification........................................ 201 4-53 Chemical residue tests for Sd-HVM P operating param eter qualification....................... 202 4-54 Visual residue tests for Sd-HVM P operating param eter qualification............................ 203 4-55 Residue tests for Sd-HVMP ope rating param eter qualification...................................... 204 4-56 Chemical residue tests for Sd-HVMP installatio n position qualification........................205 4-57 Visual residue tests for Sd-HVMP installation position qualification ............................. 206 4-58 Residue tests for Sd-HVMP inst allation positions qualification .....................................207 4-59 Chemical residue tests for SdHVMP installation pitch qualification .............................208 4-60 Visual residue tests for Sd-HVMP installation pitch qualification .................................. 209 4-61 Residue test summary for Sd-HVMP installation pitch qualification .............................210 5-1 Detergent concentration effect for R-LVHP JPA Type 4 wash. ...................................... 237 5-2 Detergent concentration effect for Sd-HVMP JPA Type 4 wash....................................237 5-3 Temperature effect for JPA Type 4 wash........................................................................ 238 5-4 Type 2 wash results for R-LVHP vali dation at 68.1 Lpm @ 24.1 bar, 20 rpm, no extensions, and 71C minimum discharge temperature................................................... 238 5-5 Type 2 wash results for R-LVHP valida tion at 68.1 Lpm @ 24.1 bar, no extensions, 4 rpm and 71C minimum discharge temperature........................................................... 239 5-6 Type 2 wash results for R-LVHP valida tion at 68.1 Lpm @ 24.1 bar, 4 rpm, 6 in extensions and 71C discharge temperature.................................................................... 240 5-7 Type 2 wash results for R-LVHP valida tion at 68.1 Lpm @ 24.1 bar, 4 rpm, 9 in extensions and 71C discharge temperature.................................................................... 241 5-8 Type 2 wash results for R-LVHP vali dation at 75.7 Lpm @ 31.0 bar (20 gpm @ 450 psi), 4 rpm, 22 cm (9 in) extensi ons and 71C discharge temperature............................ 242 5-9 Type 2 wash results for R-LVHP vali dation at 83.3 Lpm @ 31.0 bar (22 gpm @ 450 psi), 4 rpm, 22 cm (9 in) extensi ons and 71C discharge temperature............................ 243

PAGE 15

15 5-10 Type 2 wash results for R-HVMP valid ation at 416 Lpm @ 4.5 bar (110 gpm @ 65 psi), 16 rpm, 12 cm (5 in) extensi ons and 71C discharge temperature.......................... 244 5-11 Type 2 wash results for R-HVMP valid ation at 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar (100 gpm @ 90 psi), 16 rpm, 12 cm (5 in) extensi ons and 71C discharge temperature.......................... 245 5-12 Type 2 wash results for R-HVMP valid ation at 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar (130 gpm @ 80 psi), 16 rpm, 12 cm (5 in) extensi ons and 71C discharge temperature.......................... 246 5-13 Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 454 Lpm @ 3.1 bar (120 gpm @ 45 psi), 0 centered, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature.......................................... 247 5-14 Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 416 Lpm @ 4.5 bar (110 gpm @ 65 psi), 0C, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature...................................................... 248 5-15 Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar (100 gpm @ 90 psi), 0C, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature...................................................... 249 5-16 Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar (130 gpm @ 80 psi), 0C, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature...................................................... 250 5-17 Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 0C, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature...................................................... 251 5-18 Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 1LC, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature.................................................... 252 5-19 Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 2.5LC, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature................................................. 253 5-20 Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 5LC, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature.................................................... 254 5-21 Wash results stats for Sd-HVMP off cen ter installation for wo rse case situation. .......... 255 5-22 Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 0C, 76 pitch and 71C discharge temperature...................................................... 256 5-23 Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 0C, 82 pitch and 71C discharge temperature...................................................... 257 5-24 Wash results for Sd-HVMP installation pitch position.................................................... 258 5-25 R-LVHP operating parameter differences for Type 2 wash ............................................258 5-26 R-HVMP operating parameter differences for Type 2 wash........................................... 259 5-27 Sd-HVMP operating parameter differences for Type 2 wash......................................... 259

PAGE 16

16 5-28 Sd-HVMP operating parameter differences for Type 2 wash......................................... 259 5-29 Sd-HVMP operating parameter differences for Type 2 wash......................................... 260 5-30 Type 4 wash results for R-LVHP vali dation at 68.1 Lpm @ 24.1 bar (18 gpm @ 350 psi), 20 rpm, no extensions, and 71C minimum discharge temperature........................ 261 5-31 Type 4 wash results for R-LVHP val idation at 76 Lpm @ 31 bar (20 gpm @ 450 psi), 4 rpm, 22cm extensions, and 71 C minimum discharge temperature..................... 262 5-32 Type 4 wash results for R-LVHP val idation at 83 Lpm @ 31 bar (22 gpm @ 450 psi), 4 rpm, 22cm extensions, and 71 C minimum discharge temperature..................... 263 5-33 Type 4 wash results for R-HVMP valid ation at 416 Lpm @ 4.5 bar (110 gpm @ 65 psi), 16 rpm, 12 cm extensions, and 71C minimum discharge temperature.................. 264 5-34 Type 4 wash results for R-HVMP valid ation at 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar (100 gpm @ 90 psi), 16 rpm, 12 cm extensions, and 71C minimum discharge temperature.................. 265 5-35 Type 4 wash results for R-HVMP valid ation at 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar (130 gpm @ 80 psi), 16 rpm, 12 cm extensions, and 71C minimum discharge temperature.................. 266 5-36 Type 4 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 454 Lpm @ 3.1 bar (120 gpm @ 45 psi), 0 centered, 79 pitch, and 71 C minimum discharge temperature......................... 267 5-37 Type 4 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 416 Lpm @ 4.5 bar (110 gpm @ 65 psi), 0 centered, 79 pitch, and 71 C minimum discharge temperature......................... 268 5-38 Type 4 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar (100 gpm @ 90 psi), 0 centered, 79 pitch, and 71 C minimum discharge temperature......................... 269 5-39 Type 4 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar (130 gpm @ 80 psi), 0 centered, 79 pitch, and 71 C minimum discharge temperature......................... 270 5-40 Type 4 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 0 centered, 79 pitch, and 71 C minimum discharge temperature......................... 271 5-41 Type 4 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 1 centered, 79 pitch, and 71 C minimum discharge temperature......................... 272 5-42 Type 4 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 2.5 centered, 79 pitch, and 71C minimum discharge temperature...................... 273 5-43 Type 4 wash results for Sd-HVMP valid ation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 5 centered, 79 pitch, and 71 C minimum discharge temperature......................... 274 5-44 Type 4 wash combined results and stats for Sd-HVMP worse case installation position. ...................................................................................................................... ......275

PAGE 17

17 5-45 R-LVHP operating parameter differences for Type 4 wash. ...........................................275 5-46 R-HVMP operating parameter differences for Type 4 wash........................................... 276 5-47 Sd-HVMP operating parameter differences for Type 4 wash......................................... 276

PAGE 18

18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Diagram of tanker components.......................................................................................... 56 2-2 Typical over-the-road tanker.............................................................................................. 56 2-3 The Spraying Systems CIP device (AA190)..................................................................... 57 2-4 Close up of the AA190 spray head.................................................................................... 57 2-5 Sellers 360................................................................................................................ ..........58 2-6 Gamajet IV-GT.............................................................................................................. ....58 2-7 Lechler M20................................................................................................................ .......59 2-8 Typical cleaning spray balls............................................................................................... 59 2-9 Klenz-Spray SB 8 directional spray ball............................................................................ 60 3-1 Inoculation sites on tanker s for field survey work. ............................................................ 84 3-2 Manual cleaning of bulkheads........................................................................................... 85 3-3 Riboflavin residue pre-wa sh (A) and post wash (B) .......................................................... 86 3-4 Temperature profile of ta nker cleaning (R-LVHP device) ................................................ 87 3-5 Visual confirmation of CIP device....................................................................................88 4-1 Picture of the UF C-Thru tanker showing sluice, funnels and tubes ............................... 174 4-2 UF C-Thru Model tanker dimensions and sampling sites............................................... 174 4-3 UF C-Thru Model Tanker................................................................................................175 4-4 UF C-Thru Model Tanker with CIP device..................................................................... 176 4-5 Graph of surface flow pattern for R-LVHP CIP device for 2 ro tation speeds (40 and 60 psi supply)...................................................................................................................177 4-6 Relative impact force for RLVHP device with 0035 nozzles. ....................................... 177 4-7 R-LVHP stream tip impingement velocit y, stream dwell time, and delivered fluid com parison..................................................................................................................... ..178 4-8 Graph of surface flow pattern for a Sd-HVMP CIP device............................................. 179

PAGE 19

19 4-9 Bulkhead view of the Sd-HVMP CIP devices center stream strike positions on the bulkhead in degrees off-center......................................................................................... 180 4-10 Sd-HVMP device stream flow when installed correctly.................................................. 181 4-11 An Sd-HVMP device pitch installation........................................................................... 182 4-12 Examples of surface flow volumes for R-HVMP installation......................................... 182 4-13 R-HVMP stream velocity, stream dwell tim e, and delivered fluid comparison. A)12 rpm, B) 16 rpm, and C) 20 rpm....................................................................................... 183 4-14 Impingement contact points 10-22 ft (tape). .................................................................... 184 4-15 Impingement contact points 14-18 ft............................................................................... 185 4-16 Rotating device patterns downward a nd upward stream s from 0 to 22 ft....................... 185 4-17 Pattern 1 (first nozzle) for the bulkhead direct stream strikes......................................... 186 4-18 Pattern 2 (sec nozzle) for the bulkhead direct stream strikes........................................... 186 4-19 Diagram of strikes for entire cycle time.......................................................................... 187 4-20 Impingement path dimensions......................................................................................... 187 4-21 CIP device circular pattern impos ed on a tanker, drawn to scale .................................... 188 4-22 CIP device with body hub in position A and B............................................................... 189 4-23 Rotating device installation position................................................................................ 190 4-24 R-HVMP device installed with 90 elbow......................................................................191 4-25 Installation position of rotating device............................................................................ 192 4-26 Lechler CIP 90 cradle device......................................................................................... 193 4-27 CIP device cradle (Model GJ-88).................................................................................... 194 4-28 Comparison of low versus high volume ro tating device at the sam e rotation speed (20 rpm)...........................................................................................................................195 5-1 UF C-Thru tanker view of sluices, funnels and tubes ......................................................277 5-2 UF C-Thru Model tanker dimensions and sampling sites............................................... 277

PAGE 20

20 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EFFECTIVENESS OF STANDARDIZED FO OD-GRADE TANKER SANITARY WASH PROTOCOLS By Paul P. Winniczuk December 2008 Chair: Rene M. Goodrich-Schneider Major: Food Science and Human Nutrition Improperly cleaned tankers may be a source of foodborne bacterial and allergen crosscontamination, particularly with non-dedicated tankers. Tanker cl eaning procedures are practical guidelines but may not have adequate details in so me critical cleaning parameters. This research was undertaken to validate two sanitation pr otocols for their effectiveness to remove microorganisms and food soils. To assist in validating the wash protocols, a model tanke r with a barrel partially constructed of Plexiglas was used. The model ta nker aided in visually determining wash flow characteristics of CIP systems and the cleaning e ffectiveness. All washes were conducted at the University of Florida, Citrus Research and Educa tion Center in Lake Alfred to better control the washing parameters. The Juice Products Associa tions Type 2 and 4 washes were evaluated with three different CIP devices. Appropriate food slurries containing micr oorganisms were applied to predetermined areas of the tanker and allo wed to dry for 24 hours. After washing, sample sites (100 cm2) were evaluated for microorganisms, residual soils, and allergens by standard microbiological methods and commercial test kits.

PAGE 21

21 The wash protocols can be eff ective to clean a tanker if the appropriate CIP parameters are used. For rotating CIP devices, important paramete rs are flow rate and pressure, head rotation speed, and nozzle extension length while important parameters fo r stationary devices are flow rate and pressure, and installa tion positions of centering and pitc h. When using the appropriate CIP parameters both type 2 and 4 wash protocols were effectiv e to reduce microorganisms by 5 log units per 100 cm2 in all sample sites of the tanker. Both washes were also effective to reduce their respective soils by at le ast 4 log units (<3 g/100cm2 and <1 g/100cm2, respectively). The current research indicates that JPA Type 2 and 4 wash protocols if properly adhered to and when the proper CIP system parameters are used, can be effective to reduce microorganisms and soil residues to non-recoverable or low levels. It is extremel y important to ensure that the CIP system is operated at the optimum conditions for flow impact and volume.

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Foods Liquid food products m ake up a large part of the food industry in Am erica and other parts of the world. Liquid foods are those food products that are typically consumed as beverages (e.g., milk and juices) or as ingredients by industria l food processing facilities such as dairies and bakeries. These liquid foods incl ude pasteurized eggs, soy milk a nd oil, other vegetable oils, and peanut butter base. Milk and orange or apple juices are en joyed by many people nationally. These foods once were local produ ction products or seasonal. Th e advent of bulk transport and storage of these products has meant that these products may not have seasonal or regional limitation. Hauling liquid foods by bulk over-the-road tankers is more efficient and cost effective compared to hauling in smaller volume drums and bins. Costs of hauling bulk juice and then packing in a regional f acility (independent juice packager s or dairies) are usually less than packing in one location and distributing the packaged product to other areas. Much effort has been instilled to ensure the quality and safe ty of these products th rough pasteurization and sanitation research. However, the cleanliness of the bulk transport tanker has not been fully evaluated. Many raw liquid foods undergo pasteuri zation or other food-sa fety processing steps prior to being consumed thereby masking the ta nker sanitary condition. However, some liquid foods (for example, juice concentrates or sw eetener syrups) may not undergo this food safety treatment which increases the risk of foodborne bacteria l illness if the tank er is not cleaned properly. Therefore the sanitary condition of th e bulk transport tanker is more important for proper food safety for these products. This was the case with a tanker that hauled raw liquid eggs prior to hauling ice cream mix (FDA 1996). Also, due to the wide variety of food products that are hauled, there is a potential for cross-contamination of one food type to another. This

PAGE 23

23 becomes important when a potentially allergenic food product (e.g., milk, eggs, peanut products, and soy milk products) is hauled and the tanker is not properly cleaned out prior to loading with another food product. This situ ation may occur when pasteurized milk is hauled before the tanker is used to haul not-from -concentrate orange juice or othe r juices. In this situation, a person that is allergic to milk proteins may ha ve a reaction to the oran ge juice due to residual milk proteins from an improperly cleaned tanker. Proper cleaning also has implications to the FDA Code of Federal Regulations Good Manuf acturing Practices (21CFR110) (FDA 2003), and the AFDO Guidelines for Food Transportation (AFD O 2004) in that residual foods in the tanker may be considered filth (if spoi led) or deleterious or poten tially hazardous (in the case of allergens) which would make the next produc t adulterated and potentially unsuitable for human consumption. Tankers Food-grade over-the-road tankers are large with dim ensions of 39 to 41 ft long (11.8 to 12.5 m) and a barrel diameter of 63 to 79 in (160 to 200 cm) with an entry in the middle and a product discharge at the rear bottom. Cleani ng a tank of these dimensions can be difficult. Food-grade tankers are primarily cleaned by a cl ean-in-place (CIP) process. CIP cleaning regimens are theoretically sound but need to be pr operly reviewed to ensure it is effective in cleaning a tanker of all remaini ng food products. CIP processes can be broken down into four factors that are required to pr operly clean a tanker. These ar e 1) cleaning time, 2) solution temperature, 3) detergent concentration, and 4) cleaning solution mechanical action. Proper cleaning will use a combination of these that are cost effective. Each factor has its limits in which a minimum level is needed to clean while an excessive amount does not produce better results and is more costly. Also, excessive levels of some factor s may be detrimental to cleaning efficiency. Water quality and the nature of the soil (residual food product) are other factors that

PAGE 24

24 affect proper cleaning but are not traditionally ad dressed. Published investigations evaluating CIP cleaning have been conducted with vertical tanks in which the CIP device is positioned equal distance to the walls of th e tank. Transport tankers can be considered a horizontal tank in that all the tank walls are not equa l distance to the CIP spray device. There is little research on these types of tanks. Research that has been conducted has been on ra w products (Richter 1975; Steele 1997) or with shorter or compartment ta nkers (Bell et al. 1994) Results of these investigations indicate that some residue may re main in tankers after cleaning. Seiberling (2003) published an overview of CIP cleaning in which ta nkers are considered a special horizontal tank. There is also little independent research on the differences in the sprayer devices. With water conservation being important, the use of low volum e, high pressure sprayers is becoming more common. Currently, there is not an effective single st andard to clean tankers. There are various cleaning procedures for tankers which are defi ned by CIP equipment manufacturers, chemical suppliers, industry guidelines, or facility experience however these procedures, in general, have not been validated. Provisions of the Past eurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) (FDA 2003) detail requirements for the construction and sanitation of wash facilities as well as licensing and tagging requirements, but leave spec ific procedures for tanker clean ing to the dairy processor or wash facility. In 1990, the U.S. Congress i ssued the Sanitary Food Transportation Act designating the US Department of Transportation as the regulatory agency. The objective of this Act was to protect the public from contamina tion from the transporta tion of food and other consumer products. The Act mentioned that fo od, cosmetics, and other products shall be transported without the risk of contamination. While leaving speci fics to industry personnel, the Act recommends that a third party validate the wa sh protocols, and is thus the foundation for

PAGE 25

25 other guidelines. The Food Industry Transportati on Coalition (FITC) has written the Bulk Overthe-Road Food Tanker Transport Safety and Security Guideline (FITC 2002) which are voluntary guidelines for handling ta nkers used to haul food and ot her products. These guidelines do not specify tanker cleaning procedures, but recommend that personnel follow the current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) (FDA 21CFR 110) and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point system (HACCP) (9CFR 417) and/or cust omer, manufacturer, or chemical supplier recommendations. The Juice Products Associat ion (JPA) Wash Guidel ines for the Tanker Industry contains some information regarding ta nker cleaning but also leaves specifics to each tanker wash facility and to manufacturer or chemical supplier reco mmendations. These guidelines leave much of the specifics in a g ray area with certain CIP parameter open to interpretation. Also, these guidelines have not been validated by a third party as to their effectiveness. FDA reiterat ed these guidelines in their Bulk Over-the-Road Food Tanker Transport Safety and Security Guidelines. This guideline again leaves much of the specifics on tanker cleaning to facilit y, customer, manufacturer, systems manufacturer, and chemical supplier recommendations. A general point is made that the cleaning solutions and procedures should be appropriate to clean and sanitize internal su rfaces. Also, the FDA issued the Guidance on Bulk Transport of Juice Concentrates and Certain Sh elf Stable Juices that is a general review of recommended cleaning protocol. The guidance emphasizes post-cleaning handling of the tanker (seals and documents). FDA leaves the proof that a tanker is properly cl eaned to the producers, transporters, and users of the juice since they are responsible for the ultimate safety of their product. The JPA Wash Guidelines were adopt ed by the FDA for the Juice HACCP Rule (FDA 2004) that deals with orange and other juices or juice concentrates th at do not undergo further processing. The JPA Wash Guidelin es suggest that a tanker can be washed properly without risk

PAGE 26

26 or at least a reduced risk of microorganism or allergen co ntamination. However, proper validation of the wash type s has not been performed. The objectives of this research are 1. Conduct a baseline study to review and ev aluate CIP supplier recommended equipment parameters suggested for tanker cleaning, 2. To determine effective CIP equipment perfor mance by using a novel approach to evaluate the equipment performance, 3. To evaluate and validate the effectiveness of wash protocols for the juice industry, specifically for food-grade water-soluble soils (Type 2) and food-grade food allergen soils (Type 4) using 3 CIP devices and operating systems. This research may have implications for a st andardized national tanker wash procedure in which not only the citrus industr y, but also the dairy, caloric sweetener, and edible oils industries will benefit. Also, this research may provide information on the better understanding and performance of CIP spray devices and potentially improving the performance of these devices.

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Industry Practices Transported Volume Many liquid food products are transported by bu lk over-the-road tankers. These include m ilk, juices, eggs, oils, sweeteners, and other f ood-grade liquid products. Transport tankers have a typical volume of 18,000 to 26,000 l (5,500 to 7,000 gallons) with an average net weight of 19,958 kg (44,000 pounds) that is based on the US Department of Transportations Federal Highway Administration (DOT FHWA) regulati ons for gross vehicle weight limit of 80,000 pounds (36,287 kg) for federal highways (US DOT 2006) and as required by 23 CFR Part 658. Some states may allow larger transporta tion weights on a permit basis (US DOT 2006). Unfortunately, compiled statistics for the ove rall volume of food products hauled do not exist. However, it is possible to extrapolate the volume of th e liquid food transport industry by investigating the key segments. According to US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Services (USDA/ERS) statistics, th e US fruit juice and fruit juice beverage market was valued at approximately $18 billion in 2004 (USDA ERS 2 006) with a per capita consumption of 5.9 single strength equivalent (SSE) gallons annua lly. Based on previous conversations with industry representatives coupled wi th known statistics, it is estimat ed that over 80% of all citrus juice consumed in the US is transported by tanke r-truck at some point before entering the final retail package. Mid-sized juice packaging comp anies in Florida handle about 8,000 tankers per year (Parish PC 2003). It is likely that the f our largest citrus proces sing companies in Florida load and unload more than 15,000 tankers each, wh ile the smallest pro cessors load 2,000 to 3,000 tankers of juice per year. Based on the pe rsonal communication and th e statistics of the USDA ERS (2006), it is estimated that juice processors loaded approximately 146,000 tankers

PAGE 28

28 total per year bound for final packaging. This doe s not include loads used for the intermediate transport between company facilities. An estimate of total citrus juice transports including intracompany transported juice is 293,000 loads per y ear. Combined with other juices (apple and grape), it is estimated that there are a pproximately 507,000 tanker loads of juice being transported per year. US milk production in 2005 was approximately 176.9 billion pounds with over 53 billion pounds consumed as fluid milk havi ng a value of approximate ly $18 billion in the retail market (NASS 2006). Per capita consumption of beverage milk in 2005 was approximately 180 pounds or 20.9 gallons (NASS 2006). Approximately 155.7 billion pounds of milk are hauled by bulk transport for bevera ge and processed milk, utilizing over 3.5 million transport loads (44,000 pounds per lo ad) per year (NASS 2006). Tr ansported milk loads include fluid milk for dairy processing, as well as manufactured products (cheese, yogurt, powdered milk). Another product that is largely moved by tanker-truck is vegetable oils (corn, soy, cottonseed, sunflower, canola, and peanut). Based on information from the Corn Refiners Association (2006) and NASS (200 6), there are approximately 23.2 billion pounds of vegetable oils produced annually (corn: 2.47 billion, soy: 1 8.71 billion, cottonseed: 0.92 billion, sunflower: 0.31 billion, canola: 0.63 billion, and peanut: 0.17 billion pounds). It is estimated that 85% of all oils have to be transported some time during th e oil production and use (raw oil or refined). Based on these statistics, it is calculated that there are over 8 89,000 tanker loads (44,000 lbs per tanker) of oil per year. Liquid sugars such as sucrose and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) are also hauled by bulk tankers. Corn Refiners A ssociation statistics (2005) indicate that there was 23.5 billion pounds of HFCS shipped annually. With an estimated 80% of the HFCS shipped by over-the-road tanker-trucks (refi ned HFCS only), it is calcula ted that there are over 427,000 tanker loads of HFCS annually. Ha uling of unrefined corn syrups was not determined but it is

PAGE 29

29 expected to be at least the same volume as the refined HFCS. Combining all products, it is estimated that there is over 5.7 million tanker loads used by food processors each year. According to the U.S. Department of Tran sportation (DOT) 2002 Census of Transportation (DOT 2002), there are approximately 231,000 registered food-grade tanker trailers in the US that are used to haul liquid food produc ts. This includes over-the-road transports and farm pick-up tanker-trucks. Farm pick-up tankertrucks are those that pick up m ilk directly from a dairy farm while the over-the-road transports haul liquid foods from one facility to another. Based on the US Economic Census data (US Census Bur eau 2004), there were approximately 75,200 food grade tanker-trucks on the nations highways. Th is means that each tanker potentially averages 78 hauls per year that may require subsequent washes. Tankers Tankers can haul liquid food products over long distances and m ay contain the food product for many days prior to being unloaded ( DOT 2005). Some tankers are also loaded onto ships and transported overseas to other countries. Most tankers are manufactured to 3A specifications (3A 2002) and are insulated to lim it product temperature changes to approximately 2F within a 24 hour period at 75F (3A 2002). For example, when orange juice is loaded into a tanker at 35F and an ambient temperature of 75F, after 24 hours the product temperature should not reach a temperature higher than 37F. All specifications of food grade tankers are listed in 3A standards 05-15 (3A 2002). Standa rd over-the-road tankers are comprised of a barrel with a manway installed in the top center, 2 bulkheads (fore and aft) with a discharge port and valve in the aft, a ladder to reach the manway, and the standa rd hitch plate, landing gears, and wheels. Figure 2-1 is a diagra m of the key tanker components. The barrel and the bulkhead comprise the food-c ontact vessel. A tanker can be insulated or not depending on the composition of a normal load. If insulated, the insulation is sandwiched

PAGE 30

30 between the food-contact vessel and an outer shell. All openings ar e fitted with dust covers and at least one sealing fixture. Valves for food-grad e tankers are either the plunger or butterfly type. Plunger type valves consist of a valve body, plun ger, plunger seal, plunger cap, and dust cap. The valve body is manufactured from one piece of metal with a tapered mating surface for the seal and is secured to th e tanker by bolts with a fl ange plate. Opposite to the flange plate is a threaded end where the plunger cap is attached. Plungers have a se al end where an o-ring seal is installed and a handle end that is used to operate the valve. Th e plunger cap is between the ends and is used to secure the plunger to the body by a threaded cap. The valve is operated by inserting the plunger into the body until the plunger seal comes in contact with the machined surface of the body making a tight seal. Butterf ly valves consist of a valve body, seal, and butterfly plate. The valve body consists of two pieces, a flange end that attaches to the tanker and a discharge end that allows fl uids to be discharged. The two ends are held together by bolts and compression plates where the seal is placed and compressed. The butterfly plate is also installed between the two body ends. In the closed position, the butterfly plate is held tight against the seal. To open the va lve, the butterfly plate is turn ed 90 that places the plate perpendicular to the opening. Since the butterfly plate is held in place by compression, it is not easily removed. Due to easier disassembly for cl eaning, the plunger type valve is preferred for food tankers. Chemical tankers can use any valve type but if the tankers primary use is for food, the plunger valve is usually inst alled. Transport tankers overall length is 11.9 to 13.4 m (39 to 44 ft) with an inside barrel length of 11.6 to 13.1 m (38 to 43 ft). Barrel diameter is 1.4 m (4.5 ft) for a chemical tanker and 1.6 to 1.8 m (5.3 to 5.8 ft) for food grade tankers. Figure 2-2 is a photograph of a typical over-the-road tanker.

PAGE 31

31 Dedicated Tankers Tankers m ay or may not be dedicated to one type of food. For a tanker to be designated as dedicated, it can only haul one type of product. Ideally, to prevent product crosscontamination, a dedicated tanker is desirable. FDA in their Guidance for Industry (FDA 2003) recommended that dedicated tankers would be ideal to transport ce rtain foods since the risk of product cross-contamin ation is controlled. However, dedicated tankers may not be adequate for the microbial aspect of cleaning since a cleaning regime may not effectively eliminate or reduce microbial contamination. If the tanker cannot be cleaned and sanitized properly, it can still be a source of potential food borne pathogen contamination even though it is not a product cross-contamination issue. Liquid sugar, primarily sucrose or high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), is one example of a product that usually is hauled only by dedicated tankers. Milk is another product that may be hauled onl y by dedicated tankers. A dedicated tanker may make over-the-road trips completely empty (ter med deadheading) since it cannot haul another food product (other than a simila r product) back to its origin al location. The practice of deadheading is costly and is generally not an economically reasonable practice for a company (NTTC 2005). Many tankers are no t dedicated thereby allowing the tanker company to haul any type of liquid food in return trip s that makes transporta tion costs more efficient. For instance, on a particular day, the tanker may haul pasteurized milk from Location A to Location B. After unloading, the tanker will be cleaned and may haul orange juice back to Location B, since that commodity is not available in Location B. When tankers are used under these conditions, the tanker needs to be cleaned properly to remove a ny residue of the previous product and to ensure that foodborne pathogens are reduced or eliminat ed. Sanitary tankers are generally required under FDA inspection according to current GMPs (21CFR110) (FDA 2003), and the Association of Food and Drug Officials Guidelines for Food Transportation (AFDO 2004). Under the

PAGE 32

32 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations, a food product is considered adulterated if it contains illegal residues of filt h, or potentially hazardous substan ces, or is prepared, packed or held under insanitary conditions. Thus, transpor t of food products in an improperly cleaned tanker would constitute food adulteration. Regulatory Issues and Regulations The cleanliness of liquid food tankers has b een questioned due to a m ajor bacterial foodborne outbreak in 1994 (FDA 2001) In this outbreak, a tanker that hauled raw liquid eggs was not properly cleaned and sanitized prior to hauling an ice cream mix that received no further thermal processing. An estimated 224,000 pe ople contracted salmonellosis (due to Salmonella enteritidis ) after eating the ice cream w ith 507 confirmed cases (Henne ssy et al., 1996). Also, a tanker was partly implicated in a 1997 outbreak from not-from-concentrate (NFC) orange juice when a tanker hauled orange juice from Mexico was contaminated with Salmonella contaminated ice (FDA 2000). An earlier incide nt that may have caused foodborne illness may have been caused by an improperly cleaned tank er occurred when pasteurized milk was hauled from Mexico to the US (Chomel 1994). This outbreak was of regional concern affecting approximately 120 people. In 2003, the report of th e use of food-grade tankers to haul non-food grade industrial wastes again put the s potlight on tanker sanitation (Isbitts 2003). Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) System Because of these poten tial sources of out breaks and due to the transport of juice concentrates and certain single strength juices that may carry potent ial pathogens, FDA became involved with tanker cleanliness and food safety (FDA 2003). Due to the potential for human pathogens in juices ( E. coli in apple juice and Salmonella in orange juice) FDA put forth the HACCP regulation for fruit and vegetable juices (FDA 2004). HACCP system is a management

PAGE 33

33 system focused on preventing problems that may l ead to unsafe foods. The management system is a common-sense application of technical and scientific prin ciples of food production from field to table (Stevenson 1999), and involves evaluation of all aspects of food production and manufacture, and attempts to prevent, eliminate or reduce the risk of f ood hazards. Food hazards can be biological, chemical, or phys ical in nature and are consider ed as those that are reasonably likely to cause illness or injury, if not controlled (Stevens on 1999). The HACCP regulation stated that juices would be required to under go treatment at the fina l processing facility to achieve a 5-log unit reduction of the pertinent microorganism prior to packaging, and, in addition, assure safety from potential chemical and/or physical hazards. Potential chemical hazards that may be present in juice and juice products include pot ential food borne allergens via cross-contamination during manufacture; improper storage and use of chemicals (e.g., detergents, sanitizers, additives, pesticides, en vironmental contaminants), and mycotoxins (e.g., aflatoxin, patulins, others) due to mold cont amination. Physical issues include potential contamination with glass, metal, and wood fragments. By strict interpre tation of the FDA Juice HACCP rule, processors would be required to apply a 5-log reducti on process to juice concentrates at the final processing facility, ev en if a 5-log reduction wa s previously achieved during the concentration process at another faci lity and the concentrated juice is simply transported to the final facility for packaging. In response to this requirement, the juice industry proposed, as part of their HACCP plan, that unde r current industry practices, bulk over-the-road food grade tankers are cleaned and sanitized to a poi nt that does not cause nor contribute to the transfer of potential pathogens, allergens, or other harmful food borne components. Thus, tanker cleanliness is part of a juice HA CCP plan, and the effectiveness of cleaning procedures and the cleanliness of over-the-road tankers needs to be verified to ensure that the potential hazards are

PAGE 34

34 addressed. The JPA guidelines (JPA Model Tanker Wash Guidelines for the Fruit Juice Industry 2002) were developed in response to this rule. The JPA guideline describes, in general, how to clean a tanker with the appropr iate cleaning regimes and cleaning products. The guidelines emphasize the use of a CIP system as a method to clean and sanitize with out personnel entering the tanker. The CIP system is described to be able to impinge clean the inside walls of the tanker. These guidelines do not specify exact co nditions, and while they represent industry best practices, they have not b een validated for efficacy. In the FDA Guidance for Industry: Guidance on Bulk Transport of Juice Concentrates and Certain Shelf Stable Juice, Final Guidance, FDA decided to consider the industry proposal on the over-the-road transport of juices and juice concentrates. As stated in the guidance, FDA is concerned with the potential for contamination duri ng bulk transport of juice, as noted below, we have decided to consider the exercise of en forcement discretion as to the single facility requirement provided that certain conditions are met. It seem s that in deciding whether to enforce standards, FDA is basing the rule enfo rcement on the situation and the information and documents that are gathered during the investigat ion of the safety deviation. Information that will be pertinent to the decision is what pre-requisite programs are used and applied, how the HACCP plan was determined, what information is available and how it is used by the affected facilities during this crisis, and what type of deviation occurred. Further enforcement discretion criteria as discussed in the guidance are belo w (FDA 2003) and can be used for legal actions. FDA intends to consider the exercise of enfo rcement discretion for covered products when the following three conditions are met: 1. The producer and user (receiver) establish approp riate prerequisite programs and sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOPs) for the bulk transport of covered products.

PAGE 35

35 2. The producer and user designate as a critical control point (CCP) in their respective HACCP plans, the bulk trans port of covered products from the pr oduction facility to a separate facility for further processing and final packaging. 3. The producer and user establish control measures to prevent, reduce to acceptable levels, or eliminate the risk of contamination or r econtamination of covered products during bulk transport. In the event that there is a rule violation, these criteria are used to determine product withdrawal requirements, product recall, and other penalties. Cleaning Food Contact Surfaces Due to the fact that food supplies nutrients to microorganisms, food contact surfaces have to be cleaned on a regular basis (Katsuyama 1993). According to the FDA cGMPs, All foodcontact surfaces, including utensils and food-contact surfaces of equipment, shall be cleaned as frequently as necessary to protect against c ontamination of food (FDA 2005). Thus, the cleaning of food contact equipment is the action that removes all food resi dues and cleaning agents from a surface to ensure that the ensuing food is pr otected from contamination. Cleaning can be performed manually or by mechanical means. Cleaning processes whether manual or mechanical, use the same basic principles to acco mplish the task. Effective cleaning requires the proper temperature for cleaning, proper clean ing action, the proper chemical solution concentration, and the proper cl eaning time (Marriott 1999). A simple abbreviation for these parameters is TACT. For manual cleaning, in which a person is in phys ical contact with the cleaning solutions and the surfaces, the cleaning parame ters have to be within safe levels for the person not to be injured (Katsuyama 1993). In manual cleaning, temperature and detergent concentration have to be adequa te to remove soils and the clea ning parameters must be within safe levels to ensure that the person is not injured. Cleaning time will be dependent on the persons willingness to work and how well they were trained while the cleaning action is the

PAGE 36

36 amount of effort the person will exert to remove soils. Some food contact surfaces or equipment such as over-the-road tankers are designed for m echanical cleaning that requires less exposure of workers to harsh cleaning chemicals and environm ents. This method is the CIP method in which the cleaning action is replaced by fluid flow a nd pressure instead of human power. In CIP cleaning the detergent temperatur e and concentration can be incr eased to be more effective without injury to the person. CIP processes should be performed to optimize each parameter and to be cost effective (Katsuyama 1993). CIP pa rameters and standard cleaning procedures are both based on the understanding of what and how to clean. The how is the above mentioned cleaning parameters while the what is the soil that is to be removed. Soils are defined as residue material that must be removed from a surface. Soils include dirt, grease, and other foreign materials and residue from the previous food product. Soils When discussing any cleaning regim en, it is importa nt to start with the soil that is to be removed. Discussion of any cleaning regimen begi ns with an understanding of the soil to be removed. Not all soils are alike and the differenc es can be important to effective cleaning. Table 2-1 presents the solubility characteristics of va rious soils (Marriott 1999). Soils can be classified as water soluble or water insoluble. With water soluble soils, the water readily dissolves the soil and these can be flushed or otherwise removed from the vessel easily. The soils readily are dispersed in the water withou t re-depositing on the su rface. With water insoluble soils, water itself has almost no affect on the soil and a solvent is required to aid the water in the removal process. Solvents are dete rgents or non-polar solu tions that are used to dissolve water insoluble soils.

PAGE 37

37 Microorganisms Soils also include m icroorganisms that are entr ained in product residue or are present from post-hauling contamination or surf ace colonization. Microorganisms that can affect a tanker can be as varied as the products a nd include spoilage, pathogenic, a nd transient types. Spoilage microorganisms are those microbes that will s poil the product over time if not properly dealt with. Examples of spoilage microorganisms are yeast ( Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Pichia membranaefaciens), bacteria ( Bacillus circulans Alicyclobacillus acidoterrestris Lactobacillus plantarum Leuconostoc mesenteriodes Streptococcu lactis ) and mold ( Penicillium citrinum Aspergillus flavus, Geotrichum candidum ) (Jay 2001). Pathogenic microorganisms include the bacteria, such as E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella species, Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium botulinum and the molds, such as Fusarium acuminatum and Fusarium moniliforme (Stevenson 1999). Yeasts are less likely to be pathogenic in foods however some may be found (example Candida albicans ) particularly in water that may cause sk in irritations (Tournas 1999). Transient microorganisms typically do not cause spoilage a nd are not pathogenic but are a nuisance to the microbiologist when evaluating samples. Microorganisms are transient depending on the product since in one product, the microbe is tr ansient but in another may be a spoilage or pathogen type. In orange concentrate, Bacillus cereus may be considered transient while in milk, it is a potential pathogen (Benne tt 2001). Unlike soils, microorganisms can be entirely removed during cleaning or their population can be reduced by removal or destruction. Removal is by the cleaning that occurs whereas destruction is the inactivation of cells by detergent or sanitizer chemical reactions or by th ermal (heat) destruction. Detergents Detergents are com plex solutions of cleani ng, wetting or surfactants, and sequestering agents and may be polar solutions (e.g., acidic, neutral, alkaline) or non-polar solvents. In

PAGE 38

38 general, the function of detergent ingredients is to aid in chemically solubilizing the soils (cleaning and wetting agents) and to suspend or retain the soil s in solution so they can be discharged from the surface (wetting and sequestering agents). A detergent will have hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends. These are im portant for soil solubilizing and for soil emulsification for removal ease (Marriott 1999). Specific ty pe and chemical makeup of detergents will also dictate the amount to us e (Marriott 1999) and application parameters. Marriott (1999) provides a table that indicates soil t ypes and best used detergent. Non-polar solvents are derived from plan t oils (e.g., d-limonene) or are petroleum based (Showel 2006). They have specific uses and usuall y require a detergent wash and ri nse after use. These solvents are not required in cleaning typi cal food soils. Neutral pH dete rgents are useful for manual cleaning since the detergent is less corrosive to the skin. Emulsification is accomplished with added surfactants. Acidic deterg ents are useful for dissolving mi neral soils that are left by the food product, by water deposits such as from calci um and magnesium salt precipitates, or by the cleaning agent particularly from alkaline cleaning (Katsuyama 1993). Alkaline detergents are useful to clean most if not all organic mate rial that comprise nor mal human food as they effectively remove most complex carbohydrate, protein, and fat component removal (Marriott 1999). When dealing with detergents, the concen tration is very meaningful. Detergent concentration is the useful concentration that ai ds in removing the soils and is dependent on the soil. Low detergent concentrations may be ineff ective while high concentrations may not be cost effective or detrimental to soil in teraction. The proper detergent used will be dictated by the soil that is being removed. In general, most food soils will be combinations of organic material (sugars, carbohydrates, protein, and fa t) and minerals. For example, orange juice is composed of

PAGE 39

39 water (88%), carbohydrates (11%) with a small amount of protein (0.5%), fats and oils (0.4%), and minerals (0.3%) (Fennema 1996). Percent and type composition make this soil easy to clean. Milk on the other hand is composed of water (87%), ca rbohydrates (4.6%), fat (3.9%), protein (3.3%), and minerals (0.7 %) (Fennema 1996). Thus, due to higher fat and protein levels, milk soil is more difficult to remove by cleaning th an juice. Table 2-2 lis ts some other typically hauled foods and their components. Most of th ese soil components can be removed with alkaline detergents. These soils can be solubilized easily in the alkaline nature of the detergent. If the soil is stubborn, the use of chlorine in the alkalin e detergent aids in the peptizing of the organic soils particularly proteins (Katsuyama 1999). Pe ptizing is the re-distr ibution of the organic material molecules into smaller fragments in orde r to make the protein easier to remove. The chlorine used is typically hypochlorite and when the detergent is in the use-concentration has a free chlorine concentration in the range of 50 to 100 ppm free chlorine. Due to the high pH of alkaline detergents (10.5 to 11.5 pH ), the chlorine is not a saniti zer agent but only as an aid to soil removal (Broze 1999 Showel 2006). Removal of Potential All ergens During Cleaning When dealing with soils as potentially hazardous, the com ponent that is critical for allergen con trol is the protein. Allergens are pr oteins that illicit an adverse, immune-mediated reaction to the food (Taylor 1993). With an alle rgen protein, the human immune system causes an abnormal immunological reaction via the i mmunoglobulin E (IgE) response to the protein (Yeung 2004). In extremely reactive people, th e symptomatic response may be anaphylactic shock which can lead to death (T aylor 1993). A cell mediated respons e, which is not as crucial, is a delayed reaction immunological response. FDA recognizes eight major food products as causing the majority of food allergies (FDA 2005). Other foods may produce allergenic reactions but these are le ss common. FDAs Big 8 is milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, fish,

PAGE 40

40 crustaceans, and wheat. Milk (as fluid milk or cream), eggs (as pasteurized liquid egg whites or pasteurized liquid whole egg), pean uts (as peanut butter base), soy (as soy milk and raw soy oil), and wheat (as bread flavor or enhancer or yeas t slurry) are the major food allergen containing products that are hauled by tankertrucks. Combinations of produc ts such as an ice cream mix that would contain milk and eggs may also be hauled by tankers and each allergen component would have to be recognized. Some liquid foods such as refined soy oil may not be listed as allergen-containing since the prot ein content is negligible due to the refining process (see Table 2) and is exempt from the allergen labeling requirements (FDA 2006). Since most allergens are proteins, special care may be needed to remove them from the tanker su rface. As shown in Table 2-1, the use of an alkaline detergent is preferred for prop er removal of the protein. The addition of 50 ppm free chlorine at the high pH is recommended as an aid to protein removal. Also, proteins as well as sugars and fats can be affected by heat. This is important for proteins since proteins can still have al lergenic properties even after heat treated and denatured (FDA 2005). Watrous (1975) found that an 18F (10C) increase in temperature between 90 and 185F (32 to 42C) will double the clean ing efficiency. However, a bove 185F (85C) heat-induced interactions occur that bind the milk proteins more tightly to the equipment surface (or foul the surface), decreasing cleaning efficiency and potentia lly leaving a residue. Bradley (1982) found that cleaning milk at 60 C (140F) appeared to be optimum to remove all milk residues with respect to the detergent. Milk protein residue s were quantified after washing in a test-wash solution and were found to be effectively rem oved at 72C (161.6F) (Rasmussen 1978) while a tenacious milk residue was found after cleaning at 77C (170.6F). Tenacious milk residue was characterized as being lipid in na ture and thought to be a heat i nduced complex of protein and fat

PAGE 41

41 (Maxcy 1974). These studies seem to indicate that there is a temperature limit when cleaning protein foods and foods in general. Temperature As stated ab ove, temperature impacts the detergent effectiveness as well as the characteristics of the soil, and is important to help with the energy requirements for soil removal. Higher temperatures allow the detergents chemical reactions to be more effective and to also soften soils so that they inter act with the cleaning fluid better (Broze 1999). With oil and fat soils, temperatures above the melting point are ne eded to liquefy the soil for improved chemical reaction. As a rule of thumb, wash water should be at least 2.8C (5F) above the melting point of the fat (Katsuyama 1993). Conversely, excessive ly high temperatures can be detrimental to proper soil removing as pointed out above. Use of excessively high temperatures can bind soils to the surface that makes thes e soils harder to remove (Wat rous 1975; Sikorsky 2001). High temperatures can also cause undesirable chemical reactions between the water, detergent, and soil (Culter 1975 Broze 1999 Lai 2005 Showel 2006). According to Katsuyama, cleaning solutions ideally should be applied between 54 to 71C (130 to 160F). Most detergents also have a maximum detergent usage level that once exceeded may cause inactivation of the detergent constituents (Culter 1975 Katsuyama 1993 Broze 1999 Ecolab 2006 Showel 2006). Heat transfer from the cleaning fluid to the surf ace may also be a source of concern since soils are not only dependent on the temperature but the energy that is applied. As little as 40 kJ/mole of protein or ~40 Btu is adequate to initiate de naturation changes of the protein (Sikorsky 1997). Since heat energy is transferred, th e energy in hot water can be transf erred to the steel. The fluid volume and the fluids temperature change can be su fficient to release adequate energy to initial food component changes such as protein denatura tion. The phase changes of a cleaning solution can be very detrimental to cleaning since the steam (of high temperatur e washing) can release

PAGE 42

42 more energy (up to 1000 Btu) to the surface than the actual liquid fluid phase (Sikorsky 1997; Singh 2001). Depending on the vapor temperature fo r typical cleaning, there is approximately 100 kJ/kg more energy in the vapor than in the li quid fluid that can create more damaging affects to the soil (Singh 2001). Action: Cascade and Impingement The cleaning action is defined as the kinetic en e rgy that is applied to remove the soil. Cleaning action can be low as in gravitational flow of the fluids down a surface (cascade action) or high as in a high pressure nozzle applied for ce (impingement action). Some CIP devices may use a vibrating brush or a sonic element for the ac tion. These devices are rare for tanker cleaning but are used in smaller applic ations. Cascade action can be applied with low pressure but requires relatively large volumes. Adequate fluid flow (pressure and volume) is needed to allow the CIP device to project the cleaning solutions to the intended surface while the volume on the surface is critical to solubilize, disperse, and li ft the soil from the surface and then to flush it down and out to the drain. Once the cleaning solutions are on the surface, the action is steady throughout the vessel. Impingement cleaning al so requires a certain amount of flow. In impingement cleaning, solution flow is used to remove the soil by abrasion. After the primary impingement (abrasive) action, flui d flow needs to be adequate to move the soil to the drain. Unlike cascade action, the impingement action ha s different regions on the contacted surface (Efrid 1998). Initial contact is the normal impingement or stagnation region and is approximately 1.5 stream diam. The next region is the transition region in which the stream is redirected axially on the surface. This region is about four stream diameters. The final impingement region is the wall jet region which extends to six stream diameters. This region is cleaning the surface due to the impingement je t moving along the wall and can be considered shear cleaning (Efrid 1998). As th e wall jet region gets further fr om the impingement source, the

PAGE 43

43 impingement energy gradually dissipates. Greate r than six stream diameters, the impingement energy falls off so that any furthe r cleaning is due to cascade action. At this point, it is important to ensure that there is adequate fluid to m ove soils down and out the drain. No matter what method is used, it is vital that an adequate amount of fluid is used to ensure that the soil is removed from the vessel. Impingement impact force is significant for cleaning with this device. Maximum impingement cleaning occurs within the first 1/3 m (1 ft) of the discharge of the fluid (Singh 2001; White 1979). Factors such as the fluids momentum (involving fluid mass and velocity), frictional forces, and temperature affect the force. A small fluid mass would have less force compared to a large mass at the same velocity. Impact force is also affected by the energy loss due to sudden expansion, as would occur in a tanker when the fluid leaves the nozzle (Singh 2001). Once the fluid leaves the nozz le, friction with air w ill slow the fluid particularly if there is no continued force behind it when th e rotating device is moving (Lechler 2005). To evaluate fluid coverage whether for cas cade or impingement cleaning, a riboflavin solution can be used (Voss 1999; FDA 1998). The ri boflavin solution is a safe water-soluble dye that can be used for most food or pharmaceutical production applications. Riboflavin solutions (0.02% w/v in water) are applied onto the surface to be cleaned and then rinsed off with the available equipment typically with ambient temper ature water and without th e use of detergents. This procedure strictly evaluates the cleaning ac tion coverage. After sufficient time has elapsed for fluid coverage, the surfaces are evaluated w ith a black light (UV light at 630 to 650 m) to determine riboflavin residue which if found indicates a lack of cleaning action coverage (Voss 1999).

PAGE 44

44 Cleaning Time The tim e element is the cleaning time in which all the cleaning parameters are allowed to perform. As with the other parameters, the proper time is important since if the time is too short, the surface may not be cleaned properly while t oo long of time may not be cost effective. Typically, if the other parameters are low (tem perature, concentration, action) a longer cleaning time is needed to clean the surface. If time is essential, then increasing one or a combination of the other parameters may be useful to achieve the same cleaning efficiency. Previous Cleaning Studies A survey of tanker cleanliness was conducted to determ ine the extent of tanker sanitation issues (Winniczuk unpublished). Two wash protocols were evaluated as to their effectiveness to clean tankers. The wash protocols are Type 2 Cleaning for Water Based Products and Type 4 Cleaning for Potential Allergen Containing pro ducts (JPA 2006) and ar e available at the JPA website (www.juiceproducts.org). These two wash protocols were chosen as the most likely protocols that would have the bigg est impact to the industry. Type 2 wash is a wash to remove water based or easily cleaned f ood products. Most of these liqui d foods are water soluble. According to the JPA Food Commodity list (Appendix A) Type 2 food items are juices, sweeteners, some acid solutions, and alcohol products. These items are mostly water soluble substances. For a Type 4 cleaning, there is a concern that these f oods may contain a food allergen. A food allergen is usua lly a protein component of that food. Most of these foods also contain fats or oils which are not fully water soluble. The lis ts contain liquid dairy products, liquid egg products, soybean pr oducts, wheat containing products, and peanut containing products. All these food products may contain prot eins that may cause a llergenic reactions in some individuals. These proteins may be harder to remove during the tanker cleaning. With regards to potential allergens, the cleaning of tankers is very important. Unless the tanker is

PAGE 45

45 dedicated, there is a risk of cro ss-contamination. At this time, th ere is not a definite threshold level for food allergens in foods nor what re sidue is acceptable. According to some food processing manuals, equipment is considered clean if the food-contact surface is free of visible residue (FPA 2004). However, FDA is critical on equipment clea ning and requires a consistent no residual on equipment in order to preven t cross-contamination (FDA 2006). In their Guidance on Inspections of Firms Producing Fo od Products Susceptible to Contamination with Allergenic Ingredients with re gard to CIP cleaning of food c ontact surfaces, they evaluate whether equipment can be cleaned and what the cl eaning procedures are. The no residual is based on the detection limit of the method used to monitor. FDA has not determined what methods are suitable or what the minimum requireme nts are. Thus, cleaning failure is left to their discretion during a full audit of the facility. The exact definition of allergen clean still needs to be defined. The tanker survey conducted from 2004 to 2006 indicated that over-th e-road tankers might still have potential f oodborne pathogens and potential food al lergenic proteins remaining after cleaning in various sample sites (W inniczuk unpublished). In Florida, E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria were found in 25%, 0.6% and 0.6% respectiv ely in post-cleaned over-the-road foodgrade tankers. A cooperating study in Virginia, with dairy transports only, found the levels after cleaning at 65%, 0%, and 0% respectively. Coliform and fecal coliform residual were 60% and 31% in Florida and 92% and 51% in Virginia. For three poten tial allergens, milk, egg, and peanut, (only evaluated in Florida) the residual (a t least 1 ppm/100cm2 or g/100cm2) after washing with the appropriate wash type, was found in 38 of 52 previous load milk tankers, 1 of 3 previous load egg tankers, and 0 of 2 previous load peanut product tanker s, respectively. Since

PAGE 46

46 the results of the study were f ound to be not acceptable to the industry, further research was conducted to validate the wash pr otocols for the juice industry. To determine whether these results were typica l, a review of literatu re found that milk in dairy tankers was found to contain potential pa thogens after the tanke r was cleaned (Steele 1997). If the tanker was not clea ned properly, there is a potentia l that the pathogens may be transferred to the next product. A tanker study in 1975 (Richter) again w ith milk tankers, found that tankers were cleaned ade quately with various CIP methods as long as the CIP sprayer conditions were properly met. However, even under ideal conditions, a surface film was found in some tankers indicating some sort of food or cleaner residue. Bell et al. (1997) evaluated the use of Adenosine Tri-Phosphate (ATP) biolumin escence testing for the cleanliness of tankers. Their research was to determine if ATP measurin g methods could be used to assess whether a tanker was clean. Their conclusi on was that ATP-bioluminescence testing was a useful tool in aiding to determine whether tankers are clean. Ho wever, some of their findings indicated that even after cleaning there was a risk that the ta nkers may still contain residual microorganisms or milk residue. They found that in 63 to 89% of surfaces tested ATP was still recovered even though no microorganisms were recovered. This indicated that residual milk may still have been on the surface. The research di d not identify the soils. Paez ( 2003) also evaluated the use of ATP-bioluminescence for assessing the cleanlin ess of milking equipment, bulk tanks, and transport tankers. They did not address the cl eaning methods but only evaluated the use of ATPbioluminescence tests. They also concluded that ATP-bioluminescence can be useful to determine the cleanliness of tankers prior to the app lication of a chemical sanitizer. Their results indicate that after cleaning a tanker, there were still some unclean sites. Results showed that after cleaning, 33 to 72% of the samples were considered caution or dirty by the ATP

PAGE 47

47 method. Again, no microorganisms were recovere d so the cause of the high ATP values is presumed to be residual food with residue dead microbial cells as a possi ble other cause. The limited amount of research on tanker cleaning may be contributed to the fact that most liquid food products will be pasteurized by some method prior to getting to final consumption (PMO 2003). Typically, a bacterial redu ction process effectively deal s with the microorganisms but may not affect the residual food (potential allergens). This seems to indicate that another look at tanker cleaning is needed one that removes the soils. Past resear ch indicates that even after cleaning, some residue of the previous load was present. Previous research evaluated tanker cleaning using standard microbi ological testing and ATP-biol uminescence as an aid to determining the tanker cleanliness. Even though it was reported that residues were present based on the elevated ATP levels or post-clean visual residues, the residue identity and quantity were not determined. Assessment of Cleaning/Sanitizing Performance A discussio n about cleaning cannot be conclude d until there is an understanding of what is clean. How does one determine the surface is cl ean? Small amounts of residual food may be sufficient to nourish microorganisms that can beco me potential health hazards (Kulkarni 1974). In this case, cleaning may be a function of time after cleaning to ensure a safe product. How much allergen residue is too much? Allergen re sidue may not be affected by time since whatever residue is left may not change over time. With regard to the CIP device fluid coverage test (riboflavin test), they only indi cate that the fluid can reach the bulkhead or other areas of the tanker and remove a water-soluble soil however it does not indicate whet her the cleaning fluid can remove the actual soil under the typical cleaning parameters. Applying the food or a replacement product may be ideal but requires more effort. What other method can be an aid to determine how clean? This question has been aske d for numerous years (Kulkarni et al. 1974).

PAGE 48

48 Visual inspections are subject ive and depend on the person, the light source, the observation angle, and whether the surface is wet or dry (K ulkarni 1974). With visual inspections of a surface, the observation of residual food or soil is the first item to look for (Katsuyama 1993). If no apparent food residue is seen, the appearance of the surface is need ed. Surface appearance can be seen as shiny stainless steel with no re sidues, white or other co lored residue, and water residue patterns. A shiny stainless steel surface can indicate a clean su rface whereas white or colored residue can mean mineral stone, carbohydrate, protein, or fat residue. Water residues on a wet surface can indicate the pr esence of food residue. On clean surfaces, water tends to sheet as it moves down a surface. If dirty, the wate r can bead, channel or form droplets (Kulkarni 1974). Also, observations on a wet surface or after it has dried are important to understand if the surface is truly clean. Kulkarni et al suggest s that on a dry surface during the inspection, water should be sprayed from a bottle to see how it reacts. This water should react similar to the above wet surface drainage patterns. Visual insp ections may not be strict enough to find microorganisms or minute amounts of food residue th at could be a concern. Also, all areas of the equipment may not be easily visu ally inspected as with pipes or tanks or large vessels. Rinse tests of the equipment may be c onducted which can be quick and ea sy. A rinse test is one in which the equipment, after cleaning is rinsed wi th water and a visual inspection of the rinse water is made. One can also perform microbiolog ical or chemical tests on the rinse water. Again, this test can miss some aspect of the e quipment cleanliness. This test also relies on knowing that the water-dispersing device is functioning correctly. ATP (Adenine Tri-Phosphate) The use of m icrobiological or chemical tests is an improvement to visual inspection of the cleanliness but traditiona l methods can take time. The equi pment might be used in a dirty condition long before the sanitati on results are available (Marrio tt 1999). Just-in-time methods

PAGE 49

49 such as the ATP measuring devices or the measurem ent of residual soils (sugars, proteins, fats) is an improvement and currently can be accomplished quickly (FDA 2005). ATP measuring equipment such as BioTraces Lightning or Char m Sciences Firefly is convenient and useful tools to measure residue. This equipment uses a specific swab that is used to pick up residue from a surface. Swabs are then placed into its retaining tube and activated with enzymes and buffer solutions. These release the cleaned surf ace ATP that was picked up by the swab. They react with the luciferin/luciferinase in the t ube and cause a release of energy as light. The activated swab is placed in a reader that meas ures the light energy and reports the results as relative light units (RLU). The luciferin/lucifera se combination of energy release is similar to that of the firefly (Photuris pyralis ) (Lyon 2000). Various researchers have evaluated the use of ATP measuring devices (Bell 1997; Paez 2003) an d found them acceptable for general cleaning purposes. However, their use is limited to what areas can be swabbed by the inspector. Also, the use of ATP measuring has limits of detection in that trace amounts of residue may not be detected or may not differentiate whether the su rface is dirty by microbial or food residue. Some units are improving in their detection and differen tiation levels and are re ported to be able to measure minute amounts of allerg ens (Charm Sciences 2005). Allergen Residues Measuring residual food soils is m oving forw ard with the detection of proteins and allergens being fairly new (Taylor 2001). Resear ch on allergen detection has been ongoing at the University of Nebraska with a number of pr actical test kits bei ng developed (FDA 2000). Neogen has a method of measuring residual proteins a nd sugars that can be used as an aid to the sanitarian (Neogen 2004). These devices measur e only the residual food component. As with ATP, these materials do have certain limitations. Use of allergen measuring test kits are an aid to determining whether a surface is free of a specific soil (allergen) (Hefle 2003). Most allergen

PAGE 50

50 test kits are based on the enzyme-linked immuno sorbent assay principle. This method uses a monoclonal antibody of the protein to hold the protein in a microwell. This is the first step in which the test material is added to the microwell. After a reaction time, the well is washed with buffered water and an enzyme-labeled antibody is added that attaches to the protein. After a second wash, a color substrate is added to cause a color reaction. After sufficient reaction time, a stop reagent is added and the color intensity is measured (visually or electronically) and is an indication of the amount of protein (Neogen 2005). These kits are used with a positive control for comparison purposes. Allergen kits are spec ific and can provide much information to the sanitarian about the cleaning effectiveness. Clean-In-Place (CIP) Devices In preliminary validation work (painted tanker study) of the survey project, it was noticed that some microorganisms, residual alle rgens, and some residual food solids (juice pulp or milk residue) were still on the inside surface of the tanker barrel and bulkheads even when the tanker cleaning was followed appr opriately. This did not seem possible if the cleaning stream from the CIP lance was hitting the area. In ad ditional work of examining the validation of CIP sprayers, it was found that some parameters of th e CIP system might be detrimental to the proper cleaning action of the CIP stream (Winniczuk un published). Without the CIP stream actually reaching all the walls, it was concluded that the cleaning regime as written by JPA cannot be properly validated. Soil removal from the surf ace has to have the fluid contact with the associated detergent and action otherwise cleaning performance may be limited (Seiberling 1999). Any work on the tanker wash validation st udy should first evaluate the CIP process in order to know that the water stream (including chemical cleaners and sanitizers) is reaching all parts of the inside tanker walls and what is the condition of the stre am. CIP spray device manufacturers recommended a stream validation method which is to place the device outside

PAGE 51

51 the tanker positioned along the tanker (if a motor is used, the motor is turned off) and to turn the water on (Peacock 2004 Spraying Systems 2005 Ecolab 2005). Fluids are discharged from the nozzle and should go past the end of the tanker. If the fluid does not go past the tanker end, another nozzle and flow rate combination shou ld be used. Other validation methods are available. One is to listen to the sound when the stream hits the tanker walls. An issue with this method is that echoes may be misleading. Another method is to spray a dilute riboflavin solution (0.02% w/v) on the inside tanker surface followed by running a wash cycle or test spray pattern (Voss 1999). Hydrated riboflavin fluoresces when activated by a UV light at 360 nm. After the test, the tanker or tank is entere d and the cleaning or spray patter n is observed with the UV light. If there is an area of fluorescen ce, the CIP device parameters ma y be inadequate and they should be re-evaluated and new parameters tested (Voss 1999) Please note that this test is to determine whether the CIP system is capable of delivering the cleaning solutions to all contact areas and not necessarily clean the area. A final wash te st is to inoculate the tanker surface with the offending soil and to run a wash and visually or by other method determine if the surface was cleaned by the device and operating parameters. To aid the pharmaceutical industry, FDA has issued the Guideline on General Principles of Process Validat ion. These guidelines can be applied to the food industry along with the FDAs Guide to Inspection Validation of Cleaning Processes. In the JPA wash protocol, the application of the cleanser is under high pressure through a CIP system. The JPA definition of high pressu re wash equipment stat es that the equipment can deliver the cleaning solutions with sufficient force to provid e for impergement (sic) to the bulkheads of the tanker (the term impergement probably means impingement.) In the preliminary work, it was found that some of the bulkheads were not receiving any

PAGE 52

52 impingement force, which would mean there is very little cleaning ac tion. In reviewing the equipment information, much of the equipmen t literature came from suppliers. Peacock Company, which supplies many of the CIP spraye r systems to Florida tank wash facilities, indicated that the system is operated at 21 gpm at 600 psi and up to 200F (Peacock 2004). The system is a low volume high pressure system that theoretically is effective to clean the inside surfaces of a transport tanker by impingement ac tion. The CIP device is operated by an air motor that can be adjusted by the supplied air pr essure. Information rega rding the rotation speed was not available in the company literature but was supplied when asked (Peacock 2004). The motors air speed is used to determine the proper wash cycle. The proper wash cycle determines whether a tanker can be cleaned eff ectively. Literature states that the system is a single pass type that eliminates the chance of cross-contamination as compared to a circulated system. This is useful with regard to allergen removal since the allergen would be cleaned off and discharged to drain instead of being circulat ed in the tanker and the CIP pi pelines. Unfortunately, in the literature, there was no actual data to i ndicate the systems performance capabilities. Spraying System Company, which manufactur es CIP devices, indicated how the equipment operates and supplied fluid dynamic perf ormance data but no wash data (SSI 2001). These CIP lances are reported to clean by impinge ment. Figure 2-3 is an example of a Spraying Systems unit. Wash data was dependent on all the wash factors and was beyond the scope of the company. Supplier literature indi cated that the spray devices opera ted in a cycle. Cycles were dependent on how fast the spray head was turning (rotation speed) and the various gear configurations. Spray head rota tion is in two planes, a horizonta l and vertical plane. The two planes can be seen in Figure 2-4. The horizon tal plane rotates with the device body whereas the

PAGE 53

53 vertical plane rotates around the devices nozzles. Operating cycl es were based on how fast the spray body and nozzles would return to its original horizontal and vertical starting point. During the cleaning cycle, the spray head and no zzles would index ar ound the tanker thereby theoretically hitting all parts of the tanker internal surfaces wi th an impingement stream. Cycle time also determines how long the cleaning stream will be in a certain area. This can be considered the dwell or residence time in an area. Fast cycle times will have the cleaning stream in an area for a short period of time whereas long cycle times will l eave the cleaning stream in an area longer. Indexing is the predetermined a dvancement of the nozzles after each rotation around the body. Indexing is accomplished by having gears that are off set by one or two teeth. For instance, a master gear would have 35 teeth a nd a slave gear would have 36 teeth. Typically the master gear is on the body while the slave gear is on the nozzles. During operation, the slave gear would advance by one tooth for each body revol ution. This advances the slave gear by 10.3 degrees (360 degrees divided by 35 teeth). Other rotating de vices which use the cleaning solutions to cause rotation perform in a si milar matter (Gamajet 2002; Sellers 2003). Fluid driven devices typically use a vane or impeller that is installed in the flui ds path to actuate the rotation and turn the gears. G ear sizes determine the rotation a dvance size (degrees). Indexing angles can range from 8 to 15 degrees. Examples of other rotating devices are shown in Figure 2-5 to 2-7. All rotating CIP devices state they clean by im pingement force. The impingement force is dependent on the flow rate volume and pressu re. The volume supplies the needed water for cleaning while the pressure s upplies the potential energy which combined with volume creates the cleaning force. Based on spra y device literature, flow volume is more important for impact cleaning than the pressure (Pagcatipunan 2001) Therefore when attempting to increase

PAGE 54

54 impingement action, it would be more important to increase the volume than the pressure for any particular nozzle orifice. This is important si nce exceeding a critical pr essure with the same volume from a particular nozzle, increases the ri sk of losing the cleaning stream and atomizing the fluids (Weisse 1968; Lechler 2004). A non-rotating device works differently than th e rotation devices. Non-rotating devices are spray balls in which there are many orifices in the ball that direct the fluids to the vessel surfaces (Figure 2-8). A unique spray ball that is used to clean tankers is the Klenz-Spray directional device (Figure 2-9). This device has the standard ball with two horns that are installed opposite each other. The horns have orif ices in the end caps that when installed into tankers are positioned to direct the fluids at the bulkheads. This device according to the manufacturers has a limited impingement cleani ng area but a very large cascade cleaning area (Klenz-Spray 2001).

PAGE 55

55 Table 2-1. Solubility charac teristics of various soils. Type of soil Solubility characteristics Removal Ease Changes induced by heating the surface Monovalent salts Water-soluble, Acid soluble Easy to difficult Interaction with other constituents with removal difficulty Sugar simple Carbs complex Water-soluble Water-soluble, Alkalisoluble Easy Easy to difficult Carmelization and removal difficulty Polymerization Fat Water-insoluble, alkali-soluble Difficult Polymerizations and removal difficulty Protein Water-insoluble, Slightly acid-soluble, Alkali-soluble Very difficult Denaturation and extreme difficulty in removal From Marriott 1999 Table 2-2. Percent composition of some typical liquid foods. Food component percentage Product Water Carbohydrate Protein Fat Mineral Orange Juice1 88 11 0.5 0.4 0.3 Grapefrt Juice1 89 10 0.5 0.2 0.3 Liquid sugar1 22 77 0.1 0.0 0.5 Milk1 87 4.6 3.3 3.9 0.7 Eggs1 89 0.7 10.2 0.1 0.5 Peanut butter1 7.8 18.8 21.9 50.0 1.6 Soy oil2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Corn oil3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 1 Fennema 1996 2 United Soybean Board 2007 3 Corn Refiners Association 2006

PAGE 56

56 Figure 2-1. Diagram of tanker components. Figure 2-2. A typical over-the-road tanker. (Winniczuk 2006) Dust cove r Primar y cove r Manwa y Gasket Rear bulkhead Front bulkhead Landing gear 5th wheel Wheels Barrel Discharge port Ladder

PAGE 57

57 Figure 2-3. The Spraying Systems CIP device (AA190). (Winniczuk 2005) Figure 2-4. Close up of the AA190 spray head. (Winniczuk 2005) Device body Device nozzles Device hub

PAGE 58

58 Figure 2-5. The Sellers 360. (Winniczuk 2005) Figure 2-6. The Gamajet IV-GT. (Winniczuk 2007) Device body Device nozzles Device hub

PAGE 59

59 Figure 2-7. The Lechler M20. (Winniczuk 2006) Figure 2-8. Typical cleaning spra y balls. (Wise Sprayball Co. at www.wisespray.com )

PAGE 60

60 Figure 2-9. The Klenz-Spray SB 8 dir ectional spray ball. (Winniczuk 2005)

PAGE 61

61 CHAPTER 3 BASELINE RESEARCH Materials and Methods Soil Slurry Production Microorgan isms. All microorganisms used in this research were obtained from the University of Florida Citrus Research and Edu cation Center (UF CREC) culture collection of Dr. M. Parish. The microorganisms were chosen due to their in nocuous nature and similarity to known juice microorganisms of pertinent importance as required by the juice HACCP rule (FDA 2001). Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14581) was chosen as a surrogate for heat resistant juice spoilage bacteria (e.g., Alicyclobacillus species) (Parish 20 01) while the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (ATCC 2601) was chosen to simulate heat labile spoilage microorganisms. A generic E. coli (ATCC 23522) was chosen for heat resistance properties similar to the pertinent food safety microorganism (e.g., Salmonella ) according to the Juice HACCP rule (FDA 2001). Bacteria ( B. megaterium and E. coli ) were grown in Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB), incubated for 2 days at 35C while the yeast (S. cerevisiae ) was grown in TSB incubated at 30C for 2 days. Single Strength orange juice A 12 Brix single strength orange juice was prepared by diluting 55Brix Valencia orange juice with 10% si nking pulp produced at the CREC (June 20-21, 2006) that was stored at -23C (-10F) with deionized water. Brix was confirmed with a digital refractometer (Model 10450 A.O. ABBE). Type 4 soil slurry. Type 4 soil was an equal blend of si ngle strength ora nge juice (12 0.1Brix), pasteurized whole milk (Publix brand), pasteurized egg whites (Papettis Liquid Egg), and commercial peanut butter (Publix Creamy bra nd). The mixture was pH adjusted to 5.5 with sterile 1% sodium hydroxide solution. Riboflavi n was added to the mixture at 0.1% wt/wt for fluorescent visibility.

PAGE 62

62 Preparation of food and microbiological slurries TSB with the bacter ia and yeast cultures were transferred to centrifuge tubes (120 x 15 mm 16 ml) and centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 30 min using an International C linical Centrifuge Model CL33726M -1 (International Equipment Company, Needham Heights, Mass.). The supe rnatant was removed from the tubes and the pellets were transferred to the f ood slurry by rinsing with fresh ju ice. The allergen slurry and microorganisms were blended well for 2 min at sp eed 7 using an Oster blender Model Osterizer Galaxie 14 (John Oster Manufacturi ng Company, Milwaukee, WI). Total mass of the slurry was at least 320 grams which was the minimum mass needed for the tanker surface application. Inoculation and Application to Tanker Surfaces The soil slurry was applied onto the tanker surfac e using a three inch sponge paint roller at the twelve designated sites as shown in Figure 31. Each site was 0.6 x 0.6 m The slurry was rolled on in two directions perpe ndicular to each other. The soil slurry and all application tools were tarred prior to use and re-weighed after soil application. The difference of post application mass from the pre-application mass was the applied soil mass in the twelve areas. The estimated average inoculation was 1 gram per 100 cm2 with an estimated microbial population of 1,000,000 cfu/100cm2 for each microorganism and alle rgen concentrations estimated to be 7,000 g/100cm2 for milk, 8,000 g/100cm2 for egg, a nd 14,000 g/100cm2 for peanut allergens. The allergen concentration was es timated from nutritional analysis data of the products. The soil was allowed to dry for 24 hours at ambient conditions. Tanker Wash Rack Equipment For the baseline work, all tankers were s upplied by the cooperating wash racks (Bynum Transport, A uburndale FL or Indian River Trans port, Winter Haven, FL). The tankers supplied were typically waste heel hold tankers that were not used for actual service or were service-use tankers that were pulled from serv ice for this research. All tankers were at least six years old and

PAGE 63

63 had inside barrel length of 12.2 m (40 ft) seam to seam (barrel to bulkhead weld seam) and a diameter of 1.6 m (63 in). For all tankers, th e manway was positioned equal distance (6.1 m) from each bulkhead and in the center of the barre l. All the tankers were food grade with AISI 304 stainless steel shell (AISI 2004) and an ASME No. 4 finish (ASME 2001). Prior to use, all tankers were first cleaned by the wash rack using a JPA Type 4 wash followed by a manual clean by the researcher. The manual wash protocol us ed to standardize residues was as follows; Rinse surfaces with ambient temperature water. Wash surface with warm water (43C) and Dawn dishwashing detergent (Proctor and Gamble) (3 fl oz per 1 gallon water) using a green scrubby (3M Industries). Rinse with ambient temperature water. Wash surface with warm water (43C) and Fisherbrand Sparkleen 1 for manual washing (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh PA) (1 oz per gallon water) using a new green scrubby. Rinse surfaces well with ambient temperature water. Allow the tanker to dry for 24 hours. For this study, 12 sample sites were designated in the tankers for inoc ulation (Figure 3-1). It was deemed important that all sample site information was required to determine if a tanker is cleaned properly. Based on conversations with industry personnel, the bulkhead sites (1, 2, and 3 in the front and 8, 9, and 10 in the rear) we re deemed the hardest to clean. The other inoculated areas were 1.2 meters fore and aft of the manway (Sites 5 and 6) and about 3.7 meters fore and aft of the manway for Sites 4 and 7. Als o, included were Site 11 (the rear port, external of the flange gasket) and Site 12 (t he hatch area including the gasket). CIP Device and Cleaning All washes were perform ed w ith the CIP system using standard operating procedures for the specific wash rack, strictly adhering to the appropriate guideline for Type 2 or 4 washes of the JPA Model Tanker Wash Guidelines for the Fru it Juice Industry and as directed by the wash

PAGE 64

64 facility. The CIP system was either a rotating-low volume, high pressure (R-LVHP) or a stationary-directional-high volum e, medium pressure device (S d-HVMP) operated at the wash racks parameters based on the configuration and operating parameters suggested by the CIP system manufacturer. Detergent and sanitize r solutions were prepared according to the manufacturer directions and were evaluated for concentration before washing using manufacturer supplied test kits. Wash times were monitore d by the facilities CIP system and by a manual clock. Site Sampling Tankers were sam pled before and after cleaning for comparison purposes. Sample sites are seen in Figure 3-1 for wash-rack tankers. A Spongesicle with 10 ml neutralizing broth (International BioProducts, Bothell, WA) was used for all swab samples. The before-cleaning sample sites were aseptically sampled by swabbing a 100 cm2 (2 by 2 swipes of Spongesicle) of tanker surface. The Spongesicle was returned to the labeled bag and placed in a cooler with ice packs for the trip to the lab. After cleaning, all pa rts were replaced onto the tanker and the tanker was closed bu t not sealed. The after-cleaning samples were taken after the tanker was re-opened. After-cleaning samples were taken near the before-cleaning areas ensuring that the before-cleaning site was not re-sampled. All Spongesicles were returned to their labeled bags and placed in a cooler with ice packs for the trip to the lab. Water and sanitizer solutions were collected in a Spongesicl e with the sponge removed but the neutralizing broth retained. Samples were taken before the tanker at appropriate sampling ports if available. Samples taken after the tanker were collected from the rear port after 5 minutes of flow. Cleaning solutions were collected in sterile Whirlpak bags with a neutralizing solution (0.5% sodium thiosulfate) (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh PA). If the collected solutions were hot (det ergent solutions or hot rinse water), these were cooled in

PAGE 65

65 running tap water prior to placing in the cooler. Additional samp les of inside food-contact or outside tanker surfaces were taken as needed to help understand some of the results. All samples were placed in the cooler and transported to th e laboratory at the Univer sity of Florida Citrus Research and Education Center, Lake Alfred, FL for analytical testing. Visual Assessment Visual ass essment of cleaning was accomp lished by using the guidelines of Kulkarni (1974) and Richter (1975). Visu al observations were not lim ited to the swabbed 100 cm2 but encompassed larger areas and areas that were not swabbed. The after-cleaning observations were performed prior to sampling the food cont act surface. A hand-held (MagLight Model 3-D cell, Mag Instruments, Ontario, CA) or a h ead-mounted flashlight (Eveready Model KE, Eveready Industries, St. Louis, MO) was used for the internal observations. Some areas were touched by hand to feel for certain surface qualities. This was useful for pits, rust spots, cracks, residual soils, and other abnormalities. Visual clean assessment was determined immediately after cleaning and before surface sampling. Exam ples of what was expected for an unclean surface are; pulp, residual carbohydrat es, fat spots (greasy areas due to fats or oils), blue stains (proteins), white stains (milk stone), any color pa rticulates (pipe scale, sand, detergent residue), and water droplet adhesion (indicative of thin film soils). Visual assessment of cleaning was assigned a numerical score using a 4 point Hedonic scale. Definitions of clean levels are 0 = clean surface (no visual residue, no stains, shiny stainless steel) 1 = slight amount of pulp present but no stai ns and surface has shi ny stainless steel 2 = slurry is visually present but not at the same level as applied 3 = slurry is visually present at the same level as applied

PAGE 66

66 Microbiological Analysis All sam ples were plated the same day they we re obtained. 90 ml aliquots of pre-warmed (45C) 0.1% buffered peptone water (BPW) (In ternational BioProduc ts) was aseptically transferred to each surface-swab Spongesicle sample bag. The sponge of the Spongesicle was massaged well for at least 60 seconds to releas e adhered bacteria into the BPW solution. For each liquid sample, pre-dilutions were not needed since it was deemed unnecessary other than for enumerations. All sponge and liquid BPW samples were then serially diluted to -3 and plated in the following manner; 1. B. megaterium populations: Samples were plated on Pl ate Count Agar (PCA) and incubated for 48 hours at 35C. After dete rmining the total population, the E. coli and yeast counts were subtracted to yield the total Bacillus count. 2. Generic E. coli populations: Follow methods as outlined for E.coli /Coliform Count Petrifilm (3M, St. Paul, MN). A confirma tion test on presumptive positive colonies was performed by aseptically transferring susp ect colonies to 9ml tubes of EC-MUG broth (Difco) with an inverted Durham tube and incubated at 44.5C for 24 hours. Growth, gas, and fluorescence were indicative of a positive result. 3. Presence of E. coli: Follow method as outlined by the Ecolite (Charm Sciences, Lawrence, MA) all-in-one rapid test method using 20 ml of undiluted Spongesicle sample and 80 ml of 45C sterile DI water for dilution. Confir mation on presumptive positive samples was as above for populations. 4. S. cerevisiae populations: Samples were plated on potat o dextrose agar (PDA) acidified with 10% tartaric acid to pH 3.5 +/0.2 (aPDA). Plates were incubated at 32C for up to 5 days. Full counts were typically available at 3 days. All microbiological analyses were perf ormed in duplicate except for the Ecolite test which was performed only once per sample. Positive controls were included in each set of sample sets for all protocols as a control for th e method. Raw ingredients (juice, milk, eggs, and peanut butter) were also evalua ted by these procedures to de termine residual contributions.

PAGE 67

67 Allergens From the SpongeSicle sample bag from the microbiological analysis and after removing the required amounts of BPW solutions for the microbiology testing, ali quots of the SpongeSicle BPW were removed for allergen te sting. Before-wash samples were serially diluted to -5 in order to be in the range of the test kits. Five m illiliters each of dilutions -3 to -5 were placed in pre-labeled 6 x 9 inch sterile plastic bags (F isherbrand Pittsburg, PA). For all post-wash samples, 5 mL was removed directly from th e SpongeSicle BPW samples or the liquid samples and placed in pre-labeled 6x9 inch sterile plastic bags (Fisherbrand Pittsburg, PA). All bags were refrigerated until tested. Prior to testing, allergen sample bags were removed from the refrigerator and warmed to 40C and massaged and shaken well. Once warm, test kit procedures were followed for each allergen using a commercially available allergen test kit (Alert Alle rgen Test Kits, Neogen Corporation, Lansing, Mich.) for each allerg en (Total Milk No. 8471, Egg No. 8451, and Peanut No. 8431). A micro-well reader (Stat Fax Model 321 Plus, Neogen Corporation, Lansing, Mich.) was used to read allergen levels in the wells to eliminate subjective evaluations of the wells (colorimetric evaluation). All wells were read at 650 nm at 24C according to the manufacturers specification. Allergen tests were performed once per sample but read three times within 2 min and averaged. Statistical Analysis The overall tanker wash validation w as statis tically analyzed with SAS Program version 3.1. Paired comparisons were completed usi ng the Student t-test function of Excel 2003 (Microsoft Corp.).

PAGE 68

68 Results and Discussion Riboflavin Prelim inary tests of soil removal were tested with a 0.02% riboflavin solution as described by Von (1991). A riboflavin test is deemed an acceptable method of determining the adequacy of a wash protocol or at l east the cleaning fluid coverage (Von 1991, FDA 1994). The riboflavin method is used as a factory acceptable test (FAT) for acceptance of equipment cleaning or cleanability of the equipment (Von 1991, FDA 1994). The results of the preliminary tests at wash facilities (A and C) are seen in Table 3-1 that show that thei r CIP wash process appeared to adequately clean the riboflavin soil since no fluorescent residue was seen. Based on these observations, it was determined that the CIP proc edure was adequate to clean a tanker. Upon further discussion of this project, it was deemed that a real soil should be used in a worse case situation. Therefore the Type 2 and Type 4 so ils were developed with a riboflavin tracer. Type 2 Soil Prelim inary tanker cleaning validation tests were conducted with the Type 2 soil with added riboflavin and microorganisms. The results in Table 3-2 indicated that the Type 2 wash was adequate to reduce soils and microorganism s to low or non-recoverable levels. No riboflavin was seen in any sample site while visu al and microbial positive sites were seen in the bulkheads (Sites 1, 2, 3 for front and 8, 9, 10 for rear ) which are the sites furthest from the spray device and the hatch area (Site 12) that was ma nually cleaned. The finding of visual residue (orange juice pulp) in Sites 1 a nd 8 may be expected since this is the area in the upper most corner of the bulkheads that is reported to be the hardest to clean (NTTC 2002). Pulp was also seen in the barrel closest to the bulkhead (Sit es 2 and 3 for front and 9 and 10 for rear) which was not expected.

PAGE 69

69 Considering the distance (approximately 6.1 m) and the wash fluid contact angle (calculated to be about 8 degrees based on the de pth of the CIP device), th e tankers ends may be the hardest to clean by a CIP process and the pulp hardest to clean. Depending on the CIP device, the mechanical action may be very small at this distance and angle. Cascade cleaning devices may not be affected by distance or angle since the fluid quantity is the important aspect of cleaning as long as the fluid can reach the area. Impingement cleaning devices would be affected by the distance and angle with a large influence on the impingement cleaning force. Manual cleaning was completed on all tankers whic h may have had a large factor on the cleaning of the inoculated areas. Manual cleaning is an op tion in the JPA wash pro cedures (JPA 2006). It was practiced by all cooperating tanker wash f acilities as a precursor to the CIP wash. All tankers were manually cleaned with a low volume, high-pressure hose system (3 to 6 Lpm at 68 bar) at ambient temperature (23 to 31C) that ma y have had a large impact on soil removal in these areas. Manually cleaning w ith a high pressure hose also de pends on the distance of the high pressure wand to the cleaning surface. Id eally, high pressure impingement cleaning should be close to the surface to be cleaned (NASA 1999) The cleaning force is reduced exponentially when the distance is increased (White 1979). T ypically for manual cleaning, the operator would stand so that the high pressure wands nozzle was within a m of the surface while on several occasions during the survey, the high pressure wand would be 1.5 to 3 m from the surface in order that the operator does not get wet (Fig 3-2). This proce dural change may explain the few sites that had some residue with the potential that the further one stands from the surface, the less likely that all soils will be removed. Visually, the Type 2 wash completely rem oved any trace of riboflavin but left minute traces of juice in some areas of the bulkheads an d the manway (Table 3-3). Since riboflavin is

PAGE 70

70 water soluble, it may be easier to remove with small amounts of water, which may not make it a suitable wash tracer. The juice residue was seen as a pulp or as a film when the surface was dry. The pulp may have required a higher water volume to flush the material or some other cleaning factor needs to be increased. The amount of residue was not cons idered a major detriment to the cleaning protocol since the re sidue was considered low. Based on the Hedonic score, no riboflavin residue was seen in a ny sample at any level (based on fluorescence) whereas juice was seen as pulp or as a discolorati on on the stainless steel when dry. The Type 2 wash appeared to be effective for achieving a 6 log unit reduction in microbial populations even though some soil residue was seen. Table 3-3 shows the results of the surface inoculated microbial populations. The inoculation level prior to cleaning was approximately 6 log units for each microbe (S. cerevisiae B. megaterium, and E. coli ). The populations of S. cerevisiae and E. coli were totally reduced in all sa mple sites. It could not be determined whether the reduction was due to re moval by the washing pro cess or inactivation by the high temperature (>70C for at least 10 min). For B. megaterium some residual bacteria were recovered in some sample sites. Sites 1 and 10 were bulkhead locations while Sites 11 and 12 were the rear port and manway. The recovery of the bacteria in the bulkhead may be due to the non-removal of pulp material. Both Sites 1 a nd 10 had visual residue but no visual riboflavin and also no S. cerevisiae or E. coli. Sites 11 and 12 were sites th at were manually cleaned which may not have been accomplished adequately. Si te 12 also had visual residue (pulp) but no fluorescence (riboflavin). The recovery of B. megaterium is probably due to the inability of the wash and not to the high temperatur e since the bacterias vegetative cells are not heat resistance but the spores are (Jay 1995).

PAGE 71

71 Please note that only 2 tankers were evaluated for this part and no statistical analysis was completed due to the few samples. Type 4 Soil The field work continued with a Type 4 soil with riboflavin. T hese results are seen in Table 3-4. These results were not expected consid ering the ideal results of the Type 2 wash. It appeared that the Type 4 wash as it was performe d was inadequate to properly clean the soil. Riboflavin was significantly removed from the su rfaces even though two sites (Sites 2 and 9 in different tankers) still retained some riboflavin. It was demonstrated that riboflavin was more easily soluble in water that would explain its easier removal. Vi sual soil residue was seen in many more tankers with the bulkhead areas having more visible soil. For the Type 4 wash, 9 tankers were evaluated with the center of the tankers (Sites 4, 5, 6, and 7) being less soiled than the ends. Visible residue was seen as low soile d areas that had the same appearance as the slurry. Basically, the soil slurry that was applied was not remove d. It appeared that the manual cleaning process was inadequate to remove this soil. Considering that the manual cleaning process used ambient (~23C or 73F) water, some of the fatty components of the soil may have protected the area (Wilkins 1993). Typically, to remove fatty soils a temperature at least 3C (5F) higher than the fats melt point should be used (Schmidt 2001). This soil slurry also contained proteins that may be harder to rem ove or may be cooked onto the surface by the high wash temperature (minimum discharge of 71C [160F] recommended by the JPA. To achieve this discharge temperature, a feed temperature of 80-88C [176 190F]) is required. Once cooked on, the protein soil (e.g., milk stone) will require a more severe cleaning regimen to remove it (Marriott 2006). As with the Type 2 wash, S. cerevisiae and E. coli reduction appear to be easily accomplished. Both were found in the manually cleaned areas (Sites 11 and 12, rear port and

PAGE 72

72 manway respectively) which may be due to a lack of manual cleaning. S. cerevisiae was also found in one Site 1 (front top bulkhead) which may be due to the final rinsing. Conversely, B. megaterium was recovered in many more tankers and sample sites throughout the tanker indicating that it was not eas ily removed. Considering that the bulkheads had the highest recovery rates (33 to 55%) it appe ars that the wash is inadequate and that the Type 4 wash is not acceptable. Sample sites were inoculated with an approxi mate 5 log unit inoculum (Table 3-5). Thus, for S. cerevisiae and E. coli in general the Type 4 wash resu lted in an approximate 5 log unit reduction. Manually cleaned sites had a lower reduction which may be due to the lack of training for proper cleaning or to post-cleaning contamina tion of the site. Even when microbial residue was recovered, it was low (1.23 log/100cm2 or <20 cfu/100cm2) with an effective 3 to 4 log unit reduction. Microbial re duction again is probably due to a combination of wash removal and thermal, chemical, or combined thermal/chemical inactivation. Conversely, B. megaterium being more heat and chemical resistant was recovered more frequently an d at a higher population (up to 600 cfu/100cm2). In CIP cleanable areas (Sites 1 to 10) populations were lower indicating wash removal and thermal or chemical inactiv ation while manual cleaned Sites 11 and 12 were due mostly to removal and chemical inactivati on since clean-out-of-plac e (COP) solutions were not high enough for thermal inactivation (maxim um temperature of 38C [100F]). It was surmised that vegetative bacteria were probabl y removed or inactivated while spores were retained in the soil slurry residue. The residual soils were furthe r identified by determining the allergen residue (part of the slurry). Table 3-6 shows the number of tankers th at were positive for each allergen that was in the slurry. Peanut allergen material appeared to be cleaned easily by the wash while milk

PAGE 73

73 allergen material seemed to be the least clean able. Again, the bulkheads seemed to have the highest recovery of allergens (milk, egg, and pea nut) indicating a lack of cleaning effectiveness in these areas. Areas closer to be CIP device (Sites 4, 5, 6 and 7) seemed to have the best results. Again, this seemed to indicate that the Type 4 wash was inadequate for th is soil. The residual soils may have been the reason that B. megaterium was able to be retained on the surfaces (Mosteller 1993). Table 3-6 shows results of th e riboflavin and visual scores and the residual allergen concentrations. Both riboflavin and visual sc ores are based on a visual observation of the residues with observations taken perpendicular a nd obliquely to the surface and when the surface was wet and dry. Riboflavin residue was seen in only two locations (Sites 2 and 9) and was at low concentrations since the fluorescence was not ve ry visible or was spotty in the area (Fig 33). Soil was also visible under normal light. The soil concentration was determined by a Hedonic scale with 0 being clean (no visible residue wet or dry) and 3 being dirty at the level of inoculation. The average of the visual scores was typically belo w 1 which indicated that the area appeared clean when wet but had a residue when dry. A level of 1 was given when some residue was seen when inspected wet. Typical wet residues were traces of the slurry, greasy look, and water beading. It appeared that the bulkheads had the highest residue level indicating that these areas are harder to clean. Sample sites were inoculated with an aver age allergen residue of >3.8 log units (6310 g/100cm2) (Table 3-6). After washing, the concentra tion of allergen residue was low, typically less than 1 log per 100cm2 (<10 g/100cm2). The results indicate that allergens were reduced by approximately 3 log units. Peanut allergens were least likely to be found and if found were very low (<0 log). This may be due to the fact th at peanut proteins are water soluble globulins

PAGE 74

74 (Fennema 1996; Breiteneder 2006) and may be intricately bound to the fats which make it easier to remove with heated wash fluids (Bigalke 1978 ). Milk and egg allerg ens had higher recovery rates which may be significant for the next product The exact allergen residual levels that can be left on a surface are not known (Deibel 1997). Ideally, there should be no recoverable allergens or at least below the methods dete ction limit (Marriott 2006). Detection limits are presented in Appendix D. Egg allergen levels we re relatively distributed equally throughout all sample sites with the highest levels in th e bulkheads. Egg allergens averaged -0.4 log units/100cm2 or 0.4 g/100cm2. This average is below the methods detection limit but is significant since egg allergens were recoverable up to 3 g/100cm2. Milk allergens (as whey and casein proteins) were recovered at higher concentra tions with the lowest le vels near the tankers center. The fact that allergens were recovered at lower con centrations near the tankers center which was closest to the CIP device, seems to i ndicate that the tankers bulkheads may be harder to clean and therefore the more cr itical area to ensure cleanliness. Milk allergens in the tankers center (Sites 4 to 7) were recovered at 0.1 to 0.5 g/100cm2 whereas at the bulkheads, allergen levels ranged from 0.4 to 49 g/100cm2. The bulkheads seem to be the critical cleaning areas when considering the removal of allergens. A HACCP plan should consider this and the cleaning protocol should em phasize cleaning these areas. When considering the allergen residue, there is not a definite target residue value for clean this might be significant to prevent illness. Th e FDA (FDA 2003) states that the residue should be below the methods detection limit while Marr iott and Gravani (2006) state that there should be no residue. The Food Processors Association (FPA) states that allergen clean is when the surface looks clean (Stevenson 2004). Food Allergy and Resource Program (FARRP) seem to indicate that a residue of about 10 ppm may be a safe level fo r most allergen sensitive consumers

PAGE 75

75 (FARRP 2002). Table 3-7 is a compilation of potenti al allergen residues in foods that may cause a response from susceptible indivi duals (Bindsley 2006) and the equi valent surface residues from a tanker. The results indicate that allergen residue levels up to 500 g/100cm2 may be acceptable for the majority of allergen sens itive individuals (1:100 allergen sensitivity ra te) while a level of 1 g/100cm2 may be acceptable for the most sensitive allergen individuals (1:1,000,000 allergen sensitivity rate). Given this information, the FDA and the Marriott and Gravani suggested residues should probably be used. A high wash temperature may be ideal to rem ove or inactivate microorganisms but may be the cause of the allergen resi dues (Katsuyama 1991). Figure 3-4 shows the average temperatures for the standard Type 2 wash with a rotating, lo w volume, high pressure CIP device. The return temperature typically rose to the minimum wash temperature within 5 min after commencing the wash with feed temperatures reaching 87C ( 188F). Based on the baseline results, it was concluded that the high wash temperature combin ed with the detergents low residence time due to the rotating device and possibly the low flui d volume, left baked-on soils. Allergens are proteins and proteins can be de natured by heat with moist heat more damaging than dry heat (Maxcy 1974). A lower wash temperature may be needed to remove the allergens and still be effective to reduce microbial populations (Kul karni 1974; Ecolab 2003). Various researchers have found that a reduced wash temperature is effective to reduce microbial contamination and adequately clean a surface (Wilkins 1993). Wash Temperature Since m icroorganisms and allergens should bot h be removed from a tanker, a modified wash procedure was tested uti lizing a lower temperature than recommended by the JPA wash (71C [160F] minimum discharge). The results of using a feed temperature of 71C (160F) (discharge temperature of >52C (125F) instead of a discharge temperature of 71C (160F) are

PAGE 76

76 in Table 3-8. This temperature was used based on literature (Maxcy 1974; Wilkins 1993; Ecolab 2003). Results showed riboflavin was effectiv ely removed and microorganisms were reduced but visual and allergen cleanliness were not achiev ed. The tests conclusion was that the wash temperature had little effect on th e removal of the allergens and that something else may be a factor. During the lower temperature trials severa l observations seemed to indicate that the CIP devices were not performing as expected. Work ing with the tanker wash facilities, it was observed and eventually shown that the fluids from the CIP devices were not reachi ng all parts of the inside of the tanker (Fig 3-5) sufficiently to remove soils. Howe ver, the fluids as a mist with the heat were adequate to remove the water solu ble riboflavin tracer. Th is result may indicate that the use of only riboflavin as a soil for determining cleaning performance may over-estimate the cleaning performance. Conclusion The baseline conclusion is that the wash prot ocol is not effective to properly clean a foodgrade tanker. Based on the soils residues and vi sual observations and wi th regards to the few trials (2 trials for Type2 and 9 for Type 4) the w ash protocols lack of soil removal (microorganisms, soils, and allergens) may be du e to the fact that th e CIP devices were not properly distributing the cleaning fluids to all the tankers internal surface areas and that the detergent concentration and temper ature may not be the cause of this lack of cleaning. Based on the visual observation of the CIP fluid delivery as seen in Figure 3-5, it was determined that further validation studies could not be conducted until a review of the CIP systems and devices was conducted. It became apparent that the CIP system was not delivering wash fluids (water, detergents, and chemical sanitizer) to all parts of the tankers inte rior which would affect the soil removal.

PAGE 77

77 Table 3-1. Data from preliminary wash tests with riboflavin soil. Number of positive samples (n = 3)1 Facility A3 Facility C4 Sample Sites1 Type 2 Type 4 Type 2 Type 4 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 1 9 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 1Riboflavin 0.1% wt/vol was the only soil. 2Sample sites are those as seen in Figure 3-1. 3Facility A used R-LVHP CIP device. Operated at 75 Lpm @ 41 bar with no nozzle extensions and air motor speed at 2.8 bar. 4Facility C used Sd-HVMP CIP de vice. Operated at 492 Lpm @ 4.7 bar installed randomly. Table 3-2. Results of fiel d validation for Type 2 wash with Type 2 soil. Number of samples positive fo r cleanliness quality (n = 2)1 Soil2 Microbiology3 Sites Riboflavin Visual Sacc Bac Ecoli 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 0 1 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 1 2 0 1Only 2 samples completed before determining device issues. 2Riboflavin and visual assessment at wet conditions. 3Results are the number of positive samples. Sacc = Saccharomyces cerevisiae Bac = Bacillus megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic)

PAGE 78

78 Table 3-3. Type 2 post-wash average of residues per 100cm2. Average soil Hedonic score (n=2) Average microorganism population (n=2) 3 Residue assayed Riboflavin score 1 Visual score 2 Sacc Bac Ecoli Inoculation level before wash 3 (0)3 (0)6.0 (0.1) 6.1 (0.2) 6.1 (0.2) Sample Sites 1 0 (0)1.0 (1)-1 (0)-0.3 (0.5) -1 (0) 2 0 (0)0.5 (0.5)-1 (0)-1 (0) -1 (0) 3 0 (0)0.5 (0.5)-1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4 0 (0) 0 (0)-1 (0)-1 (0) -1 (0) 5 0 (0) 0 (0)-1 (0)-1 (0) -1 (0) 6 0 (0) 0 (0)-1 (0)-1 (0) -1 (0) 7 0 (0) 0 (0)-1 (0)-1 (0) -1 (0) 8 0 (0)0.5 (0.5)-1 (0)-1 (0) -1 (0) 9 0 (0)0.5 (0.5)-1 (0)-1 (0) -1 (0) 10 0 (0)1.0 (1)-1 (0)0.9 (0.2) -1 (0) 11 0 (0) 0 (0)-1 (0)-0.3 (0.5) -1 (0) 12 0 (0)0.5 (0.5)-1 (0)-0.3 (0.5) -1 (0)1Riboflavin score based on 4 point Hedonic scale: 0 = clean (no visible residue) to 3 = dirty (residue similar to application level). Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Visual assessment is based on wet and dry stainless steel on a 4 point Hedonic scale; 0 = clean (no visible residue) to 3 = dirty (vis ual residue similar to application level). Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 3Microorganisms results are log values with the standard deviation in parenthesis. A value of -1 indicates no r ecovery. Sacc = Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Bac = Bacillus megaterium, Ecoli = E. coli (generic)

PAGE 79

79 Table 3-4. Results of field validation work for Type 4 wash with Type 4 soil. Number of samples positive fo r cleanliness quality (n = 9)1 Soil residues2,4 Microbiology3,4 Allergen3,4 Sites Riboflavin Visual Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut 1 0 ba 8 ab 1 ba 5 ba 0 ba 8 ab 3 ba 1 ba 2 1 ba 3 bb 0 ba 3 bb 0 ba 6 bb 3 ba 1 ba 3 0 ba 3 bb 0 ba 2 bb 0 ba 3 bb 1 ba 1 ba 4 0 ba 1 bb 0 ba 0 bb 0 ba 2 bb 1 ba 0 ba 5 0 ba 0 bb 0 ba 1 bb 0 ba 0 bc 2 ba 0 ba 6 0 ba 0 bb 0 ba 2 bb 0 ba 1 bc 1 ba 0 ba 7 0 ba 0 bb 0 ba 1 bb 0 ba 1 bc 2 ba 0 ba 8 0 ba 1 bb 0 ba 3 bb 0 ba 7 bb 4 ba 1 ba 9 1 ba 3 bb 0 ba 4 bb 0 ba 5 bb 2 ba 1 ba 10 0 ba 2 bb 0 ba 3 bb 0 ba 7 bb 3 ba 1 ba 11 0 ba 2 bb 2 ba 3 bb 1 ba 2 bb 2 ba 0 ba 12 0 ba 0 bb 4 ba 7 ba 1 ba 6 bb 4 ba 1 ba 19 tankers completed before determining device issues. 2Riboflavin and visual assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 3Results are the number of positive samples for Sacc (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), Bac (Baci llus megaterium), and Ecoli (E. coli ). 4First letter in each column indicates the significant difference (P <0.05) between sample sites for each test parameter. Second letter in each column is the significant difference (P<0.05) between test results (riboflavin to visual; Sacc to Bac to Ecoli; and milk to egg to peanut).

PAGE 80

80 Table 3-5. Field work Type 4 post-wash log average and ra nge population per 100cm2 Microorganism2 Saccharomyces Bacillus E coli Average log population before wash1 5.45 (0.9) a 5.95 (1.0) a 5.83 (0.8) a Sample Sites 3 1 -0.78 (0.27) b0.37 (0.88) b -1.00 (0) b 2 -1.00 (0) b-0.14 (0.60) b -1.00 (0) b 3 -1.00 (0) b-0.78 (0.27) b -1.00 (0) b 4 -1.00 (0) b -1.00 (0) b -1.00 (0) b 5 -1.00 (0) b-0.63 (0.35) b -1.00 (0) b 6 -1.00 (0) b0.33 (0.79) b -1.00 (0) b 7 -1.00 (0) b-0.51 (0.39) b -1.00 (0) b 8 -1.00 (0) b-0.78 (0.27) b -1.00 (0) b 9 -1.00 (0) b0.03 (0.70) b -1.00 (0) b 10 -1.00 (0) b0.50 (0.84) b-0.43 (0.47) b 11 1.23 (1.12) b2.50 ( 1.91) b0.53 (0.86) b 12 0.82 (1.01) b1.88 (1.42) b -1.00 (0) b1Average value of 3 sample sites for each tanker before washing (n = 27). 2Microorganism results are the average log values with the standard deviation in parentheses. A value of -1 log (0.1 g/100cm2) indicates no recovery. Letters in co lumns indicate difference compared to before wash control samples. 3The sample sites are those in Figure 3-1.

PAGE 81

81 Table 3-6. Type 4 average visual and allergen concentration per 100cm2 Soil Allergen 4 Riboflavin Visual Milk Egg Peanut Residue assayed Score 2 Score 3 Log population Average before wash1 3 (0)a 3 (0)a3.93 (0.1)a 4.40 (0.8)a 4.51 (0.9)a Sample Sites 5 1 0 (0)b 0.7 (0.4)b0.22 (0.45)b-0.31 (0.51)b -1 (0)b 2 0.1 (0.1)b 0.6 (0.4)b0.10 (0.63)b-0.27 (0.54)b -1 (0)b 3 0 (0)b 0.6 (0.4)b-0.40 (0.50)b-0.63 (0.37)b -1 (0)b 4 0 (0)b 0.1 (0.2)b-0.51 (0.43)b-0.59 (0.40)b -1 (0)b 5 0 (0)b 0.0 (0)b-1 (0)b-0.40 (0.48)b -1 (0)b 6 0 (0)b 0.0 (0)b-0.28 (0.57)b-0.78 (0.27)b -1 (0)b 7 0 (0)b 0.0 (0)b-0.35 (0.57)b-0.40 (0.48)b -1 (0)b 8 0 (0)b 0.6 (0.4)b0.82 (0.87)b-0.40 (0.48)b -1 (0)b 9 0.2 (0.1)b 0.5 (0.4)b0.82 (0.87)b-0.35 (0.52)b -1 (0)b 10 0 (0)b 0.4 (0.3)b0.83 (0.74)b-0.31 (0.54)b -1 (0)b 11 0 (0)b 0.1 (0.2)b0.54 (0.93)b-0.15 (0.64)b -1 (0)b 12 0 (0)b 0.4 (0.3)b0.56 (0.87)b-0.27 (0.56)b -0.91 (0.13)b1Before wash average value of 3 sample site s for each tanker before washing (n = 27). 2Riboflavin assessment is visual inspection for fluorescence when wet on a 4 point Hedonic scale; 0 = clean. 3 = dirty (initial inoculum leve l). The result is the average value with the standard deviation in parenthesis. Letters in the column indicate difference from control. 3Visual assessment is based on wet inspection on a 4 point Hedonic scale; 0 = clean. 3 = dirty (initial inoculum level). The result is the average value with the standard deviation in parenthesis. Letters in the column i ndicate difference from the control. 4The results are the average log unit values with th e standard deviation in parentheses. A value of -1 log indicates no recovery. Letters in th e columns indicate difference from the control. 5The sample sites are those seen in Figure 3-1. For each site n = 9.

PAGE 82

82 Table 3-7. Calculated allergen content in Sing le Strength Orange Juice (SSOJ) with variable surface residues on food contact surfaces. Allergen content in SSOJ based on post-wash surface residue (g/100cm2)1 g/100cm2 0.1 1 5 10 20 500 Estimated mg per 240 ml serving 2 8x10-6 8x10-5 4x10-4 8x10-4 2x10-3 4x10-2 Sensitivity mg range3 Allergen Group Low Target Possible allergen response Milk 1:102 2.8x10-1 8.7x10-1 No No No No No No 1:106 7.1x10-5 5.9x10-4 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Egg 1:102 2.4x10-2 1.5x10-1 No No No No No Yes 1:106 3.3x10-6 1.0x10-4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Peanut 1:102 1.9x10-1 6.6x10-1 No No No No No No 1:106 5.0x10-4 4.9x10-3 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Soy 1:102 1.3x101 4.1x101 No No No No No No 1:106 3.0x10-1 2.4x100 No No No No No No 1Residues are per 100cm2. 2The estimation is based on complete transfer of surf ace allergens to the next product and based on 6531 100cm2 squares per 12.2 m long tanker. 3Sensitivity and range data is based on re search by Bindsley 2006.

PAGE 83

83 Table 3-8. Results of field vali dation work for Type 4 wash with lowered temperature (71C feed and 52C discharge). Number of samples positive fo r cleanliness quality (n = 2)1 Sample Soil residue Micro 5 Allergen 6 Sites 2 Riboflavin 3 Visual 4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut 1 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 8 0 1 2 2 0 2 2 0 9 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 0 10 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 11 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 The results are the number of positive sample sites for the soil assayed. 2 Sample sites are those seen in Figure 3-1. For each site n = 2. 3 Riboflavin assessment is visual inspection for fluorescence when wet on a 4 point Hedonic scale; 0 = clean. 3 = dirty (initial inoculum leve l). The result is the number of positive sample sites. 4 Visual assessment is based on wet inspecti on on a 4 point Hedonic scale; 0 = clean. 3 = dirty (initial inoculum level). The result is the number of positive sample sites. 5 The results are the number of positive samples for each microorganism. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). A positive result was 1 cfu/100cm2. 6 The results are the number of positive samples for each allergen at 1 g/100cm2 using the Neogen Allergen test kit.

PAGE 84

84 Figure 3-1. Inoculation sites on tankers for field survey work.

PAGE 85

85 Figure 3-2. Manual cleaning of bulkheads. (Winniczuk 2005)

PAGE 86

86 Figure 3-3. Riboflavin residue pr e-wash (A) and post wash (B). Light blue is the fluorescent riboflavin. A B

PAGE 87

87 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0510152030354050606570 Time into wash (minutes)Steel temperature (C) FT RT T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 Figure 3-4. Temperature profile of tanke r cleaning (R-LVHP device). (n = 6) FT = feed temperature; RT = return temp erature; T1 = front top bulkhead; T2 = 3 m from front bulkhead; T3 = 1 m forward of manway; T4 = 1 m aft of manway; T5 = 1 m from rear bulkhead; T6 = rear t op bulkhead T7 = discharge port.

PAGE 88

88 Figure 3-5. Visual conf irmation of CIP device. Figure is of the R-LVHP device installed 2/3 of tanker diameter into manway.

PAGE 89

89 CHAPTER 4 THE CIP DEVICES Introduction Based on observations from the baseline work that showed that the fluids may not be contacting every internal surface ar ea of the tanker, it was deemed important to confirm the CIP device performance prior to continued wash va lidation. Originally, the CIP devices were validated by the manufacturers recommended procedures and were observed to be adequate. However, field observations indi cated poorly cleaned areas when the JPA wash procedures were followed. Further, it appeared that under some flow conditions, there was neither fluid contact nor impingement at the tanker walls. A wash pr otocol cannot be properl y validated if the CIP device cannot distribute the wash solutions pr operly. A CIP device th at does not perform adequately may give misleading wash protocol results. It was, ther efore, determined that a more in-depth investigation of CIP performance was needed prior to doing further cleaning protocol evaluation. These investigations have the followi ng objectives: the first objective was to collect fluids at each sample site location within a tanke r during cleaning. It was surmised that if fluids could not be collected at a sample site, then adequate cleaning could not be conducted in this area. The second objective was evaluate the re moval of a mild water-soluble soil (11Brix orange juice) from the sample area using an ambient temperature rinse. Adequacy of soil removal was determined by visual observation. Due to safety considerations (confined space permit required) and the inability to measure flow rate in a commercial tanker, a model tanker was fabricated with similar dimensions to t hose of a typical commer cial liquid bulk tanker.

PAGE 90

90 Materials and Methods Tanker Equipment As described above, because safety issues a nd lim itations of the field trials, a laboratory model tanker (hereafter referred to as the UF CThru model tanker) was constructed. The UF CThru model tanker allowed visual observations of the internal surfaces wi thout entering the tank (Figure 4-1). The tanker was constructed of a w ood frame and a stainless steel and Lexan plastic tanker barrel. The wood was used to form a sturdy frame while the metal formed of the barrel allowing a surface area similar to real tankers. The Lexan plastic was chosen due to its high strength, flexibility, and temperat ure and chemical stability. The Lexan also allowed good visual observations with minimal distortion. The mode l tanker length from the manway center to the end was 6.7 meters (22 ft) with an overall length of 7.6 meters. The barrel diameter was 178 cm (70 in). These dimensions were used since they were representative of the current largest food grade tanker (Oakley PC 2005). The wood frame was built to the tanker dimensions (178 cm by 178 cm inside frame measurements) using cros s-bars to make an octagon of 35.6cm for each side. Stainless steel sheets ( 13 ft by 4 ft, 18 gauge T304SS) we re supplied by Oakley Transport (Lake Wales, FL). The interior or food contact side was polished to a #4 (150 grit) finish (AISI 2005) while the exterior or non-pr oduct contact side was a mirror or reflective finish (AISI 2005). The metal sheets were fitted into the wood frame to form the barrel. The metal provided the top, bottom, and one side of the barrel. The steel sheets were overlapped by 10 mm from front to back to allow drainage and installation of fasteners to each 2x4 cross-bar. In the open side of the barrel, Lexan plastic sheets (Lexan D210 Home Depot, Winter Haven, FL) were fitted with #10 nuts and bolts for metal connection and #10 in stainless steel screws for the wood. A Bettes 19 inch diameter, 5-lug manway (compliments of Bynum Transport, Auburndale, FL and Brenner Tanks, Mauston, WI) was fitted to one side and secured with tie downs.

PAGE 91

91 To collect the cleaning fluid, metal sluices c onstructed of 18 gauge galvanized steel and plastic funnels (Model FloTool 10701, Hopkins Manufacturing Corp., Emporia, Kansas), both locally purchased (The Home Depo t), were attached to the tankers stainless steel barrel walls with stainless steel bolts a nd nuts. Sluice and funnel locations were 0, 0.3, 0.9, 1.5, 2.1, 2.7, 3.4, 4.0, 4.6, 5.2, 5.8, 6.4, and 6.7 m (0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 22 ft) from the spray device. Location 6.7 (6.7 m) was the bulkhead w ith two sample Sites 22c and 22t, which were the bulkhead center and top respectively. For the ba rrel sluices, the sluice top edge was placed at 1.52 m as measured along the barr el circumference from the tanke r top center. The bulkhead sluices were placed at 15 cm (bulkhead top samples) and 110 cm (bulkhead center) from the bulkhead top. The top edge of the sluices were cu t in a V and caulked to facilitate flow into the funnels. The funnels were connected to inch polyvinyl chlori de (PVC) tubing (Home Depot, Winter Haven, FL) that were directed to the rear of the tanker and into tarred, labeled pails. During the wash cycle (15 min minimum based on JPA guidelines and wash facility standard operating practices), th e fluids were collected at e ach location. Wash runs were repeated 3 times for each treatment. At the end of each wash run, the pails were weighed and the flow rate at each location from the CIP devi ce was determined based on run time and area (1.52 by 0.1 m). The surface flow rates were determin ed using the following calculation (Equation 41); (lbs fluid collected x 0.455 L/lb) = L collected 15 minutes = Lpm 0.152 m2 = Lpm/m2 (4-1) lbs is the pounds of fluid collected at each si te. 0.455 is the conversion of pounds to liters. 15 minutes was the collection time. Lpm is liters per minute.

PAGE 92

92 Proper CIP device performance was based on whether the device was able to distribute the cleaning fluids to all internal areas of the tanker. Pr evious investigations (Bakka 1995; Seiberling 1999) suggested that a flow rate of 8.2 Lpm/m2 (0.2 gpm/ft2) is required for a heavily soiled tanker, 4.2 Lpm/m2 (0.1 gpm/ft2) for a light wash, and 1.6 Lpm/m2 (0.04 gpm/ft2) for rinsing. The objective for CIP performance tes ting was to collect cleaning solutions in all solution sampling sites. CIP devi ces were assessed by the highes t recoverable solution rates at each sample site as determined by the volume as liters per minute per square meter (Lpm/m2) of cascade contact surface. CIP Devices Three different CIP device types that are in common comm ercial use were evaluated. CIP device brand names and models should be held confidential and are on ly used for example purposes in these investigations. The follo wing work does not endorse nor repudiate any particular CIP device or supplier, but is a comp arison of general device types. The research results only indicate the cleaning effectiveness of each particular device type, when used under the specific operating conditions. The following three representa tive devices were evaluated. Rotating, Low Volume, High pressure (R-LVHP) : The R-LVHP device is a low volume, high pressure device that is used in a one pass wash syst em, and is frequently used in commercial washing facilities. Examples include: the Spraying Systems AA190 and the Sellers Rotojet. Typical operating condi tions at a tanker wash facility are 18 to 26 gpm at 500 to 1200 psi (68 to 98 Lpm at 34 to 83 bar) (flow rate and pressure measured at the pump discharge) with a 40 to 60 psi turret speed. Based on the device manufacturers literature, these devices are reported to use impingement as the primary clea ning action with cascade cleaning as a secondary action. The Spraying Systems AA190 (supplied by the Spraying Systems Inc., Wheaton,

PAGE 93

93 Illinois) was used for this study. The manufacturer supplied the air regulator and filter and an array of nozzles. Nozzle extensions we re purchased locally (The Home Depot). Rotating, High Volume, Medium Pressure (R-HVMP): The R-HVMP device is a high volume, medium pressure CIP device. Examples include: the Sellers 360, Lechler M20, and the Gamajet IV-GT units. Based on manufacturers literature, these device s are reported to use impingement as the primary cleaning action wi th cascade cleaning as a secondary action. Typical operating conditions at tanker wash facilities are: 85 to 100 gpm at 95 to 115 psi (pressure measured at the pump discharge) and a turret speed based on flow. Turret speed was visually measured at 16 rpm at 95 gpm and 110 ps i. The Sellers 360 (supplied by Indian River Transport Inc., Winter Haven, FL) was used for this study. Static Directional-High Volume, Medium Pressure (Sd-HVMP) : The Sd-HVMP device is a stationary, directional CIP device that operates at high volu me (range is 80 to 150 gpm) and has no moving parts. Examples include: the Kl enz-Spray SB8 and the Sani-Matic TS-4. Based on manufacturers literature, th ese devices are reported to clean by cascade action only and recommended operating parameters are 110 to 120 gpm @ 65 psi or 120 gpm @ 45 psi, respectively. Observations at the tanker wash f acility indicated typical operating parameters of 90 gpm at 90 psi (pressure measured at the pum p discharge). The Klenz-Spray SB-8 unit was supplied by Ecolab (St. Paul, MN), the manu facturer and was used for this study. Calculation and Determination of Rotating Device Impingement Angles Since rotating devices are reported to clean by impingement, the impingement angles were calculated and determined in the C-Thru tank er. Impingement angles were determined with the following equation (Equation 4-2); 1/tan(brl dis hd dis) = contact angle (4-2)

PAGE 94

94 Where Tan is tangent, Brl dis is the barrel distance in m for the impingement point, and Hd dis is the head distance into the tanker in m. To confirm the angles, the impact angles we re measured in the C-Thru tanker using a protractor. The CIP device wa s installed at the desired depth (86, 112, and 137 cm) into the tanker. A cotton string was attached to the de vice head and extended to the barrel at the sampling devices at the same head height. Impi ngement angles were only taken at the device head height at the barrel. Determining Center and Degrees Off-Center for Sd-HVMP To determ ine proper center and off-center inst allation of the Sd-HVMP device, a two point alignment system was used one on the manway neck and one on the bulkhead. The circumference of the manway and the bulkhead at 6.7 m was calculated and divided by 360 to determine the mm per degree. A cotton string was at tached with a metal screw at the manway at the appropriate site and extended and attached to a screw to the respective site at the bulkhead. A plumb line bob was dropped from this string to aid in the alignment. A second string was attached to the devices nozzle at the largest cen ter orifice with metal wire. This string was extended to the bulkhead along the plumb line. The circumference was calculated using Equation 4-3 and Equation 4-4 for the dist ance per degree at the respective radii. d = circumference of circle (in mm) (4-3) circumference 360 = mm/degree (4-4) Where is Pi and d is the diameter of the ci rcle (manway at 0.48 m or bulkhead at 13.4 m) Determining Pitch for Sd-HVMP To test the S d-HVMP pitch angle effect, an appropriately sized wooden wedge (Home Depot) was inserted in the front of the manway c over to obtain a high angle and in the back of the manway cover to obtain a low angle. To de termine the pitch of the Sd-HVMP, the angle of

PAGE 95

95 the upturned nozzle was measured with a protract or, based on the vertical drop of the device. For the standard installation the vertical drop was the devices wate r pipe. For the other angles, a plumb line was dropped from the top of the C-Thru barrel and used as the vertical drop. The angle of the upturned nozzle was measured based on this vertical drop an d not on the devices water pipe. Device Qualification To reduce the am ount of final wash test s, the spray devices were qualified by administering an ambient temperature rinse to re move a water soluble soil. The qualifications allowed for the evaluation of the fl ow rate effect. Prior to a qualif ication run, the tanker stainless steel surface was cleaned following the previous ly mentioned manual cleaning process. The water soluble soil was an orange juice soluti on (11 Brix), prepared from orange juice concentrate (55 Brix) obtained from UF CRE C stock (June 17, 2006 production). The juice was applied at 10 C with a manually operated spray bottle onto the stainless stee l side of the C-Thru tanker from 0 to 6.7 m and the bulkhead and from the top dead center line to the top of the sluices. The inoculation streng th was estimated at 0.8 gm/100cm2. The inoculation was allowed to dry for at least 6 hours prior to qualification runs. CIP device qualifications were run at the evaluated device operating parameters with ambi ent temperature water an d without the use of detergent. The Type 2 wash time guidelin es were used for the qualification runs. Soil Inoculation Prior to inoc ulation with a soil, the C-Thru tankers stainless steel was clean using the following procedure. Rinse surfaces with ambient temperature water. Wash surface with warm water (43C) and Dawn dishwashing detergent (Proctor and Gamble) (3 fl oz per 1 gallon water) using a green scrubby (3M Industries).

PAGE 96

96 Rinse with ambient temperature water. Wash surface with warm water (43C) and Fisherbrand Sparkleen 1 for manual washing (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh PA) (1 oz per gallon water) using a new green scrubby. Rinse surfaces well with ambient temperature water. Allow the tanker to dry for 6 hours. The UF C-Thru model tanker was designed to be half the length of a typical over-the-road tanker since it was expected that a CIP device w ould wash in a symmetri cal pattern so half a tanker was adequate to represent the entire wash procedure. With this in mind, the inoculation sites were increased in order to better understand the cleaning potential and to explain some of the findings in the field work. Again, prior to inoculation th e tanker was manually washed as previously described. Inoculations sites in the UF C-Thru tanker were 1.2, 2.4, 3.7, 4.9, and 6.1 m (4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 ft) from the manway on the ba rrel. Barrel inoculation sites were in the upper 1/3 of the barrel except for Sites 4.9 and 6. 1 m which had 2 zones for the sample site, an upper and lower site. The bulkhead at 6.7 m (22 ft ) was also inoculated and was sectioned in 3 zones, 6.7t, 6.7m, and 6.7b. The purpose of zoni ng sample sites was to determine wash down movement of soils. Figure 4-2 shows a diagram of the UF C-Thru model tanker with the sample sites. Cleaning Method CIP device qualifications were run at the ev aluated device operating param eters with ambient temperature water and without the use of detergent. The Type 2 wash time guidelines were used for the qualification runs. Cleaning Assessment and Sampling Visual assessm ent of cleaning was complete d prior to swabbing an area. All swab sampling was accomplished with a SpongeSicle w ith 10 ml neutralizing broth (International

PAGE 97

97 BioProducts, Bothell, WA) following by microbial and chemical evaluations. All ATP and AccuClean tests were completed after the microbia l sampling with every effort used to ensure the same sampling area was not used. Statistical Analysis The overall tanker wash validation w as statistic ally analyzed with SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary NC May 2007). Paired comparisons we re completed using the Student t-test function of Microsoft Office Excel 2003 (Micro soft Corp. Bellevue, WA April 2006). Results and Discussion CIP Device Field Validation For the field validations of the CIP devices, the validation was perf orm ed as suggested by the device or system manufacturing companie s (SSI PC 2004, PCS PC 2005, LSS PC 2005, GJS PC 2005, ECO PC 2005). The validation proced ure was observed on several occasions during the tanker wash survey and was repeated for this work. Stationary, directional-high volum e, medium pressure (S d-HVMP) The Sd-HVMP device was positioned outside a ta nker so that the device was placed where it would be if inside the tanker and with the directional component s pointed to the bulkheads. The water was turned on and the fluid reach was observed. Operating parameters and observations are in Table 4-1. Wh en operated at facility conditi ons, the device would typically send the water 9.1 m (30 ft) and have a width of 4.6 m (15 ft). The directional nozzles sent the water in an arc that aided in th e delivered distance. These nozzles were sufficient to deliver the fluid well past the 6.1 m bulkhead while the center ball combined with the directional nozzles were sufficient to deliver the water to cover the tankers radius width (0.83 m). The solid stream portion was not that important for this device si nce as discussed with the manufacturer (Ecolab PC 2006), the device cleans by cascade forces and w ould deliver adequate wash fluids to cascade

PAGE 98

98 clean the tanker and that the devi ce was angled to ensure that flui ds would travel along the barrel to all locations. Since it was not possible to see the device insi de the tanker, their explanation was plausible and realistic. Rotating high volume, me dium pressure (R-HVMP) One of the m anufacturers suggested test me thod for this device was to remove the drive vane and to place the device along si de a tanker, with the nozzles oriented toward the bulkheads, turn the water on, and observe the fluid reach. Most cooperating faciliti es were reluctant to disassemble the device due to warrantee issues. Most cooperating facilities were also reluctant to test this device in their wash bays while it was turning since it was exp ected to distribute water throughout the wash bay and would make a mess. At one cooperating facility, after removal of some electrical devices and protecting others with plastic sheeting, and w ithout a tanker in the bay, did test their device for this research. The wash bay floor was measured and marked for the tanker dimensions. The device was hung from a cei ling support and braced well. The water was turned on and the water reach was observed. Th ese results are also in Table 4-1. It was observed that the fluid easily reached 10.9 m in all directions that was expected since this is a rotating device in that the nozzles change direction during its cycl e. However, the solid stream appeared to only have a 9.2 m reach. Since th is device is reported to clean primarily by impingement, the solid stream is important to de liver the impingement force. Considering that our tankers bulkheads were 6.1 m from the manway, this should be adequate. Any additional water flow would be an aid in the cascade cleaning effect. Rotating low volume, high pressure (R-LVHP) The m anufacturers suggested method of tes ting this device was to place the device along the side of a tanker with the air motor turned o ff, orient the nozzles toward the bulkheads, turn the water on, and observe the fluid reach. Again, the results are in Table 4.1. The fluid stream

PAGE 99

99 was observed to go past the tank ers bulkhead. The fluid was m easured at 7.6 m which would be adequate to reach the tankers bulkhead distan ce of 6.1 m. However, the solid stream, which would have the most impingement force, was se en only to 4.8 m which means that 1.3 m of the tanker, on either end, would not receive the impingement forces (Figure 3-5). Since this device cleans primarily by impingement forces, the last few m of the tanker would have to be cleaned by cascade forces. Based on facility and system manufacturer information, it was surmised that the device was adequate to perform its function. When the results were discussed with the system manufacturer, it was explained that th e device does clean by both forces and with an adequate pre-CIP manual cleaning, should clean a tanker properly (Peacock Cleaning Systems PC 2004). Based on the results in Table 4-2 and from discussions with the system or device manufacturer, it appears that the sy stems and devices should be ade quate to clean the inside of a tanker. However, based on the results of the pr eliminary validation work this was not occurring for some reason. Based on observations from the outside of the tanker and to better understand the CIP device performance, a series of tests we re run to determine the device performance. These results are seen in Table 42. Based on these results, it appe ars that there are some issues with how the CIP systems and devices are perfor ming. Since working in an enclosed tanker is not the best option, an alternative method was needed to determine CIP system and device performance. The alternative was the constructi on of the UF C-Thru Mode l Tanker (Figure 4-1). The tanker was capable of being driven to a wash rack and having the CIP device inserted into the manway (Figure 4-3). With this tool, the device performance at the wash rack were better visualized and discussed with pertinent personnel.

PAGE 100

100 Fluid Reach Performance Validation RLVHP Due to the p ositive microbiological and allergen results of the field trial validations that were believed to be factors of excessive heat or to the lack of prope r CIP device performance (fluid contact, force), the CIP devices were ev aluated in the pilot plant with the UF C-Thru Model Tanker. The results of the devices are in the following tabl es (4-7 to 4-9). Each device was operated according to manufacturers suggested parameters and an upper and lower parameter. Performance was evaluated based on the fluid delivered and the cleaning potential. Surface fluid delivery characteristics Figure 4-5 shows the relative surf ace fluid volumes that are di spersed by this device. The highest su rface volumes appear to be close to th e device and within 2.1 m. Table 4-3 shows the surface collected fluid volumes as a percentage of the total collected. This data can provide some basic understandings of this device. Based on communications an d literature provided by the system and device manufacturer, this device th eoretically deliveries fluid somewhat equally throughout the tanker (PCS 2005 SSI 2005). The theory is based on the concept that the device rotates and delivers fluids in a 360 degree pattern The fluid data collected from the tanker surface seems to indicate that most (70%) of the fluid was within 2 m of the device. Further down the barrel, the amount of fluid was diminished and at the barrel end, there was approximately 1.5% of the total fluid. The bulkhead did receive slightly more fluid at approximately 5.7%. These results may indicate th at there may be a risk of poor cleaning the further one gets from the device. Since this device primarily cleans by impingement, it was important to determine the impingement force. Figure 4-6 is the relative force of this device showing that within 0.3 m (1 ft), the impact is at its maximum force and diminished the further one moves away from the device. Actual impi ngement pressures were not determined due to

PAGE 101

101 technical difficulties however data was collected with impact indicators (1G and 5G) (Teladrop impact indicators Model 1G and 5G, Telatemp Co rporation, Fullerton, CA) to indicate levels of impact. These results are seen in Table 4-4. The impact indicators measure the g-force in gs which is the gravity accelerati on of a falling object (9.81 m/s2 or 32.2 ft/s2). The impact force is considered the g-force times the objects mass (F=ma). The lowest impact force was not consistently detectable after 2 m. Due to th e rotation of the fluid, positioning the devices was extremely important. Devices had to be placed at positions that would be struck by the stream otherwise the result was no force. The conclusion of these exercises was that as the distance increased from the device, the impact pressure would decrease. This is similar to other research conclusions (Pagcatipunan 2006) and engi neering principles (White 1077 Singh 2006). Rotation speed The results are separated by device type. The first discussion is on the rotating, low volum e, high pressure device (R-LVHP). Accord ing to the system manu facturer, the rotation speed has no influence on the cleaning pot ential (Peacock 2005) however, the device manufacturer suggested it to be a significant pa rameter for effective wash es (SSI, 2005) with a slow rotation speed providing better cleaning potentia l (SSI 2005). The device manufacturers suggested air motor speed was 0.3 to 0.7 bar (5 to 10 psi) (Table 4-5) which was different than the CIP system manufacturer suggestion of 2.8 to 4.1 bar (40 to 60 psi) (Peacock 2004). Since air pressure was relative to faci lities, air motor type, and to th e age of the device (motor and head), it was necessary to correlate the supplie d air pressure to the shaft rotation speed and therefore the CIP head rotation speed. These resu lts are in Table 4-6. When the air supply was set at 0.3 bar, the devices shaft did not turn. It was found that the device would operate at this air pressure only when it started at 0.7 bar and then lowered to 0.3 bar. This process was highly unlikely to be practiced at the wash racks. Al so, when fluids were goi ng through the device (68

PAGE 102

102 Lpm @ 24.1 bar), the rotation would stop when the air pressure was lowered to the 1 shaft rpm. This would not be an appropriate speed. Howe ver, the unit tested was a brand new device supplied by the manufacturer that may have required a higher air pressure to operate due to the new parts. Older devices with worn parts may work effectively at this low pressure but this was not tested. Conversely, a device with typical worn parts would require higher air pressure to operate due to the air leakage (SSI 2005). It was found that the lowest air supply to activate the rotation of the CIP device and to maintain the rotation speed when fluid was introduced into the device, was 0.6 bar (8 psi). All further rotati on speed tests were run dry and wet since it was found that the fluids may have an effect on rota tion speed. Based on these tests, it was observed that wash facilities were rota ting relatively fast compared to the device manufacturers suggested rotation speed of 0.3 to 0.7 bar (5 to 10 psi)(SSI 2004). The rotation speed is important for effective cleaning since the fluids after leaving the nozzle have the same radial velocity as the noz zle and will have a tendency to continue in a radial arc instead of a straight stream (White 1979). This affect s how the water behaves after the nozzle since once the fluid leaves the nozzle momentum energy carries the fluid to its destination (White 1979). The momentum energy is a product of the devices fluid volume (mass) and the rotation velocity. With a faster rotation speed, the fluid stream tends to bend more particularly with low volume (fluid mass) systems. Low volu me systems disperse a small stream mass which is affected by the nozzle velocity more than a high volume system (Lechler 2005). Rotation speed is one of the CIP wash parameters that may be important. For the R-LVHP devices rotation speed, tests were run at three flow rates (rate and pressure) for five rotation speeds including the wa sh rack rotation speeds (40 and 60 psi). The tests were run with the same nozzle set (nomin al size 0030) but at diffe rent pressures (24.1, 27.6,

PAGE 103

103 and 31.0 bar) and therefore different flow rate s (69, 74, and 75.8 Lpm). Table 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9 show the results of the test at 24.1, 27.6, a nd 31.0 bar respectively. Table 4-7 were the parameters that were seen at the wash racks. Th e highest tanker surface flow rates were seen at 0 m for each rotation speed and flow rates. Intere stingly, it was seen that as the rotation speed increased, the flow rate at 0 m increased for each pressure. The differences were significant between Sites 0 and 0.3 based on the collected flui d volume (Table 4-7). This may be expected since as the rotation speed increas es, the residence time of the stream at any location is decreased and there are more strikes occurring during the test time (each test run was 15 min). An explanation for rotation speed, residence time, deliv ered fluid volume, and strike number will be dealt with under the device observations. Under th ese conditions, it would be expected that the stream residence time would be longer at close distances and therefore have higher collected flow volumes. Rotation speed is the basis for a devices cycle time. Cycle time is defined as the time needed to make a complete cycle of the de vice or another way is the time needed for a nozzle to return to its starti ng position (SSI 2001). Table 4-5 shows the relationship between cycle time and rotation speed based on the manufacturer. As the distance from the CIP device increase d, the surface flow rates decreased indicating less water to these areas and potentially less cl eaning. At 69 Lpm and 24.1 bar and 60 psi, the surface flow rates decreased to very small volumes with only 0.003 Lpm/m2 being collected at the surface at 6.4 m away. This volume appears ve ry small and may not be adequate to clean based on the literature values of 1.63, 4.88, and 8.14 Lpm/m2 for rinsing, light, or heavy washing (Ecolab 2001; Lechler 2004). At the top bulkhead (Site BHt), no fluid was collected at 40 and 60 psi (equivalent to 20 and 22 shaft rpm) for an y tested pressure whereas small amounts (0.004 to 0.077 Lpm/m2) were collected at 30 psi respectively for pressures. Sample Site BHt was the

PAGE 104

104 top bulkhead and the furthest sample site fr om the device. The highest fluid volume was collected at the slowest rotation speed for each pre ssure tested. This seem s to indicate that the slower speed is needed to be ab le to clean at this location. Ev en along the barrel (sample Sites 0 to 6.4), the slower rotation speed produced the largest collected fluid amounts. The collected volumes were higher and significan tly different at the bulkhead Sites BHc and BHt and along the barrel from a minimum of 2.1 m away from the de vice for each operating pressure. Again, this result seemed to indicate that a low rotation spee d would be needed to provide adequate cleaning volume. However, since the collected fluids are those that flowed into the sampling devices, the exact cleaning potential may not be fully underst ood. Some fluid may have reached these areas but because of surface deflection may not have b een caught by the sampling devices. The fluid that deflects may still have cleaning ability but under the test procedure was not able to be measured. These results only provide an indication of the volumes that are getting to these areas. However, if no volume is collected, it may be surm ised that since there is no cascade fluid, there may not be any cleaning since it is expected that surface deflected fluids would have a certain amount of forward momentum to carry to the next sampling point and therefore measurable. It is important to note that the rotation speed has a direct effect on the fluids contact time (Singh 2001). With stationary devices, the fluid dispersion is constant as long as the device is dispensing fluids (Ecolab 2006). With rotating devices, the fluid disper sion and contact points are constantly changing along with the fluid dwel l time (the time that the fluid contacts the surface). Once the fluid contact point moves, th e amount of fluid decreases until the surface is dry. Also, the fluid contact is based on the di stance from the device since a close distance has more contact. Table 4-10 is th e calculated circumferences of th e device at variance distances. For the tanker, a rotating device is cleaning a 1.2 m circle when the distance from the device is 0

PAGE 105

105 m which is the distance from the devices head to the tanker surface at 0 m or to the tanker top based on the devices head being pl aced into the tanker at 0.6 m. At this distance, the circular motion of the cleaning tip has a circumference of 3.8 m that is the distance that the nozzles or the fluids tips travel in 1 revolution. At the end of a 13.4 m tanker, the theoretical travel circumference is 42.1 m (138.2 ft). The calculated fluid travel speed based on the devices distance is in Table 4-11 for the RLVHP at 3 rotation speed. The fluid travel speed is the perceived velocity that the fluid is traveling at the given distance in a radial moti on. Since the devices rotation speed is constant once set-up, the fluids travel speed changes due to the distance, so that the fluid velocity appears slow (0.26 m/sec with a 4 rpm head rotation) at 0.6 m from the device and fast (2.81 m/sec) at 6.7 m from the device. This results in the flui d further away from th e device covering more distance during a revolution. Also, since the devi ces rotation speed is co nstant and the fluids travel speed increases with the distance, the flui d contact points (impingement point) will stay at any given area a shorter period of time the furthe r one gets from the device and theoretically will supply less fluid in any given area (Table 4-12). This may be one reason for the reduced fluid volumes collected at the further distances from the device. It was calculated that at 4 rpm and at 1.5 m from the device, the impingement stream will pass a 100 cm swath in 0.15 sec and deliver 0.101 liters. At 10 rpm, the rela tive velocity is 1.60 m/sec an d the stream passes 100 cm in 0.063 sec and delivers 0.043 liters and at 20 rpm, th e stream moves at 3.19 m/sec and takes 0.031 sec to pass 100 cm and delivers 0.022 liters. If the number of stream passes is determined, the results of Table 4-8 can be achieved. Deviation of the calculated values may be due to cascade volumes that come from other impingement strikes. At the furthest distan ce of 6.7 m, the slower rotation speed (4 rpm)

PAGE 106

106 provided the longest contact time and the highest theoretical delivery rates. This pattern was seen in the actual surface flow rate tests and may be the main reason for the surface flow rate results (Figure 4-7). The observed surface flow pattern may also be explained by the centripetal forces that act on the fluid. Centripetal force is defined as the center seeking force of an accelerated motion body in a circular path (Stern heim 1991). This force has an equation of: Fcent = mv2/r where m = mass of fluid, v = velocity of fluid, and r = radius (4-5) The equation shows that the force is proportional to the objects mass and velocity squared and inversely proportional to the radius. In this equati on, the velocity appears to have a larger effect on the force than either the mass or the radius. This is the main explanation for the observed reduction in distance when the device was operated at the higher rotation speeds. Based on these results it seems that a slow rotation speed is needed for low volume CIP systems. These results seem to justify visual observations of the preliminary work with the UF C-Thru tanker. For a higher volume system, furt her testing would have to be completed to determine similar effects. Higher volume systems have more water volume (mass) which may overcome the radial velocity issues. Nozzle extensions Nozzle extensions were used by one wash fac ility to aid in the st ream dispersion. The wash facility installed extensions on only one un it and was not sure if it was beneficial (BTW PC 2005). To help with understanding why tankers were ineffectively washed, nozzle extensions were evaluated with the results in Tables 4-13 to 4-14. Extensions of 0, 7.6, 15.2, and 22.9 cm (0, 3, 6, and 9 in) were tested to develop data. Th e theory behind extensions is that when a fluid such as water is sent through a pi pe or tube, there is a certain am ount of resistance to flow. This resistance to flow is the frictional forces of the pipe or tube and to any obstructions that are down stream (White 1979).

PAGE 107

107 When a fluid is in a pipe it will have a certain flow characteristic that is in balance with the system and is based on the velocity of the flui d and the frictional forces (Singh 2001). When the fluid in the pipe is redirected due to a fitting such as an elbow, T, or valve, the flow after the fitting becomes turbulent due to the hitting forces The turbulence after th e fitting will continue for about 20 pipe diameter before it gets into balance similar to before the fitting (White 1979). In CIP spray devices, the spray head can be consid ered a T fitting that is redirecting the fluid flow and causing turbulence. If a nozzle is inst alled directly onto the head hub, the redirected fluid is in a turbulent condition immediately before leaving the nozzle. When a fluid leaves a nozzle, it is under the strain of th e confinements of the tube and there is an immediate release of pressure and expansion (White 1979). If the flui d flow is released from the nozzle immediately after undergoing the turbulence of a T fitting, the fluid is then subjected to two pressure conditions that may compromise the jet stream condition which has an effect on the cleaning capability at least with respect to impingement energy (Pagcatipunan 2001). With extensions, the turbulence of the redirection is minimized prior to leaving the nozzle so that only the nozzle discharge pressure loss is seen (Pagcatipunan 20 01). Smith (1979) suggests a 20-pipe diameter distance after a fitting to maximize the fluid flow condition. In this research, the use of extensions seemed to improve the streams capab ility and the amount of fl uid that was collected at sample sites. At all flow conditions tested, there was an overall significance (P<0.05) between 0 cm extensions and all other extensions. This se emed to indicate that extensions are needed to provide the most fluids at most internal tanker locations. In Table 4-13, at 68 Lpm @ 24 bar, the 22.9 cm extensions provided the most fluid to the barrel end and the bulkhead (Sites 2.1 to BHt). Most of these collected volumes were significant (P<0.05) from the other extension lengths. The only anomaly was at site 6.40. At certain sample s sites (distances away from the CIP device)

PAGE 108

108 there were several instances that there was no significant difference between 0 and 7.6 cm extensions for 68 Lpm @ 24 bar, 74 Lpm @ 27 .6 bar, and 75.8 Lpm @ 31.0 bar but all sites were significant at 79.5 Lpm @ 34.5 bar. This seemed to indicate that the flow rate had an effect on the extension length. As the flow rate increases, the turbulence increases and the use of extensions may be more beneficial. Since the extension pipe diam eter was 0.64 cm (0.25 in) and using the 20 pipe diameter rule, it was expected that an exte nsion length of 12.8 cm (5 in) would be needed. This was seen in the data since an extension length of 15.2 cm (6 in) appeared to be more beneficial for the collected fluids. Significantly more fluids on average were collected with 15.2 cm extensions than with 0 and 7.6 cm extensions. The differe nce between 15.2 and 22.9 cm was not as clear as with the other extension lengths since the significance was at P<0.10 instead of P<0.05. This suggests that the 15.2 cm extension is required. Pressure effect Since CIP param eter include fluid pressure as an energy aid for impingement cleaning or to get the fluids to the tanker walls, a series of tests were conducted to determine this effect. Tables 4-17 to 4-21 are these results. The units nozzles remained constant for these tests while the fluid pressure was varied. Table 4-17 are the results of a slow rotation speed (4 shaft rpm) and no extensions. As expected as the pressure increased, the fluid that was collected at the tankers surface increased with the overall differences significant at P<0.05. Some differences within a sample site were not significan tly different (P<0.05) and may be due to the closeness of the device. Significant differences were more appa rent the further away from the device. The pressure effect was due to the increased pressure which had a direct effect on the flow rate as Lpm. At 24.1 bar (350 psi) th ere was a flow volume of 68.1 Lp m whereas at 31.0 bar (450 psi) the flow rate was 75.7 Lpm. Due to the flow ra te relationship of pressu re and volume, as the

PAGE 109

109 pressure increases in a confined space, the flow rate also increases (White 1979) or it can be looked at as in order to obtain the higher pressure, more fluid ha d to be pumped in the confined space. If the nozzle diameter was increased, it wa s expected that there would be an increase in volume but a decrease in pressure CIP pressure is important si nce at any given nozzle size, a higher pressure would provide more fluid whic h possibly means better cleaning. This is supported by the various device manufacturers a nd literature (SSI 2002 Ecolab 2004 Lechler 2006 Gamajet 2006). As stated in literature, in creasing volume may be a more significant parameter change then an increase in pressure. However, when operating a CIP device, there is a maximum pressure in which the discharged fl uid may have excessive energy (pressure) causing the jet stream to disrupt prematur ely. This is the premise of atomizing in which the discharging orifice is small compared to the pressure. When the fluid is discharged, there is a sudden volume enlargement that dissipates the energy quickly (Singh 1999). During these tests, the rotation speed was also va ried to help with determining its effect. The same pressure effect was seen for each rotation speed which again is explained by the increase in fluid volume (Tables 4-17 to 4-21). However, when the rotation speed was increased, the amount of collected fluids at the bulkhead and barrel ends was lower with the higher rotation speeds. Again, this shows that the rotation speed is a major factor in delivery of the fluids and may not be corrected by an in crease in pressure or volume. Pressure and extension effect Since it was found that pressure and volum e have an effect on cleaning potential and that the jet stream was benefited by the use of extens ions, the combination was tested. These results are in Table 4-22 to 4-25. Tabl e 4-22 are the results of usi ng a 0030 nozzle with no extensions and a rotation speed of 4 shaft rpm (10 psi air su pply). These results again show that as the pressure and volume are increased, the collected vo lume at each sample site typically increases.

PAGE 110

110 It was expected that the highe st collected volumes would oc cur with 79.5 Lpm @ 34.5 bar (21 gpm @ 500 psi) however this did not occur at the slowest speed (Table 4-22). The highest collected volumes were seen using 75.7 Lp m @ 31.0 bar (20 gpm @ 450 psi) except for 5 sample sites (0, 0.91, 1.52, BHc, and BHt). This may be an anomaly of the system or may be due to an excessive volume/pressure for the no zzle size (SSI PC 2006). Under these conditions, the optimum (term used loosely) operating parameter may be 75.7 Lpm @ 31.0 bar (20 gpm @ 450 psi). Based on the collected surface volumes, the overall significant statistical differences (P<0.05) were seen between the 68.1 Lpm and the other conditions while 71.9 and 79.5 Lpm were not significantly different from each othe r. Operating parameter 75.7 Lpm @ 31.0 bar (20 gpm @ 450 psi) was significantly (P<0.05) better than the other three operating parameter when used with no extensions and at a slow shaft speed. With the installation of extension pieces (7.6, 15.2, and 22.9 cm), the expected outcome was seen (Table 4-23 to 4-25). The highest operating parameter (79.5 Lpm @ 34.5 bar or 21 gpm @ 500 psi) resulted in the highest recovera ble surface flow rates for each sample site and extension piece. The overall results were significantly diffe rent (P<0.05) from the other operating conditions. This seemed to indicate that the extensions were a requirement for the low volume system. Flow rate effect The surface collected vo lume effect based on onl y flow rate was tested. The results are seen in Table 4-26 for 24.1 bar (350 psi, wash rack defined parameter) and 4-35 for 31.0 bar (450 psi, study defined parameter). The flow pr essure was maintained constant but the flow volume was changed by varying the no zzles. Larger orifice nozzles allow more fluid to flow at any given pressure (SSI 2001). W ithin sampling sites there were some differences seen. There seemed to be no significant differences (P<0.05) at the lower flow ra tes (71.9 and 75.7 Lpm).

PAGE 111

111 Also differences were more apparent the furt her one moved away from the CIP device. A critical point appears to be at 3.4 m from the de vice (Site 3.35) in which th e collected fluids seem to deviate the most. Typically there was no significant difference between sequential sized nozzles. The use of a 0040 nozzle at 24.1 bar seems to be the start of significant differences. Overall there was no significant differen t (P<0.05) between 0030, 0035, 0040, and 0045 nozzles (volume delivery rate of 71.9, 75.7, 83.3, and 90.8 Lp m). At 24.1 bar, the optimum nozzle for the most amount of water delivered to all samp le sites was 0050 which used 94.6 Lpm (29 gpm). Table 4-27 is the results using the same nozzles but at a higher flow pressure (31.0 bar or 450 psi) that may provide an improvement in clea ning. With these parameters, it was seen that the 0050 nozzle was able to deliver the most fluids to each sample site. The 0050 nozzle is large and delivered 109.8 Lpm or 29 gpm. Unlike 24.1 bar, the 0050 nozzle at 31.0 bar delivered significantly (P<0.05) more fluids to the sample sites. Over all there were no significant differences between the other 4 nozzles ( 0030, 0035, 0040, and 0045). These results seem to indicate that the large nozzle delivers the most fluid to all sample sites. Sample sites furthest away from the device (2.70 to 6.7 m), seemed to benefit the most from the larger nozzle. Based on these results, it seems the wash rack conditions (71.9 Lpm @ 24.1 bar with no extensions and fast rotation speed 20 to 22 sh aft rpm) may not be ideal for proper washing. Rotation speed and extension length seemed to ha ve the largest impact on tanker surface delivery rates. Flow conditions such as volume and pressure also have an effect but may be less critical if the proper rotation speed and extension length is used. Nozzle variations flow volum e with constant pressure CIP device suppliers have equipm ent that can be used to improve the fluids jet delivery. These are used to help maintain or improve a jet which increases the potential impingement forces (SSI PC 2006). A typical nozzle has vanes installed into th e nozzle in order to help with

PAGE 112

112 the flow development (SSI 2004). Without the vanes, the nozzle discharged stream may not fully develop into a jet which ma y not produce the required fluid r each. This is similar to the flow redevelopment conditions needed when a flow is redirected (see ab ove). Table 4-28 is a comparison of a nozzle with and without the va nes and with a jet st abilizer supplied by the manufacturer. This part of th e research is important since during the tanker survey, it was noticed that some CIP device nozzles had variations in the use of vanes. At each sample site there were significant differences (P<0.05) between the units. The nozzle without the vanes seemed to provide adequate fluids to the walls at 0 to 2.10 m but after this distance, si gnificantly delivered less fluid to the sample sites. Visually this nozzle had a good stream for a short distance (2.5 m) th at broke apart at about 3 m becoming misty. This corresponds to the adequate surface fluid collections to 2.10 m. The use of the jet stabilizers provided the most co llected fluids from 2.70 to the bulkhead and was a significant improvement to the vane installed nozzle. Interestingly, the jet stabilizer had the lowest surface volumes at 0.91 to 2.10 m that may be an indication that the jet stream was better than the other variables and caused the fluids in this area to deflect more read ily, causing the lower collected volumes. Based on this trial set, it appears that the jet stabilizer s would be a benefit for washing a tanker. Considering that the jet stabilizer nozzle is re ported to be an improvement over extensions, this aspect of the research was assessed. Table 4-29 and 4-30 show the results at two operating conditions of the jet stabilizer in stalled as directed compared to a normal nozzle and with added extension pieces. The results i ndicate that at both conditions there is a significant difference (P<0.05) between the use of the je t stabilizer nozzle and a normally installed nozzle. At 24 bar, there were no significance (P<0.05) between the jet stabilizer nozzle and the normal nozzle with

PAGE 113

113 a 3 or 9 in extension but there was with a 6 in extension yet there was not a significant difference between any extension length. At 31 bar, there was a significant differe nce (P<0.05) between the 3 and 9 in extensions and the 6 in that was seen before. The jet stabilizer basically can be used instead of a 3 or 9 in extensions but not to replac e a 6 in extension. This finding is similar to the previous extension work in which it was found that the 6 in extension was a significant improvement over no extensions and that the 9 in extension while still effective for some reason was less so than a 6 in extension. Based on these results, it seems that operati ng the R-LVHP CIP device, for the maximum amount of cleaning solutions to all internal parts of the tanker, s hould be operated with at least 15 cm (6 in) extensions at 87 Lpm (23 gpm) at 31 bar (450 psi) and at a 4 rpm rotation speed. Sd-HVMP Surface flow rates The stationary directional hi gh volum e medium pressure CIP device is a simpler unit since it does not turn. The directional nozzles are beneficial to ensuring that the bulkheads are properly wetted. This CIP device produced a surface flow pattern quite different than the rotating device (Figure 4-9). Inte restingly, this devices surfa ce pattern was almost sigmoidal with the highest flow occurring at the bulkhead (sample Sites BHc and BHt). The pattern was explained by the position of the orifices in the center ball and the direct ional nozzles. The directional nozzles were highly effective to direct the flow at the bulkheads. Table 4-31 indicates that most of the fluid that contacts the tanker surface is in the bul khead (Sites BHc and BHt) and then near the device (Site s 0 to 1.5). This is in direct contrast to the R-LVHP device (Table 4-4). The first evaluation of this unit was to determin e the flow rate effect. The results are in Table 4-32. The manufacturer recommended flow conditions of 110 gpm at 65 psi (416 Lpm @

PAGE 114

114 4.5 bar) that under the research system was achieved with 12 2 gpm @ 65 psi (462 Lpm @ 4.5 bar). These conditions were within the ma nufacturers 10% guideline for flow volume dependent on the pumping system (ECO PC 2006). The target pressure is considered the more important parameter. Here we see that a low pr essure of 3.1 bar (45 psi) appeared adequate for the fluids to reach all parts of the tankers internal surface. All tested pressures appeared to be adequate for this device. All tested conditions developed their lowest surface flow rates between 3.4 to 4.0 m but the flow rate was still much larger than the RLVHP unit and mostly above the 1.63 Lpm/m2 wetting minimum as listed in literature (Ecolab 2001). Surp rising the highest device feed flow rate (568 Lpm @ 5.5 bar) developed its lowest surface flow rate at the 6.4 m sample site. This may be because the higher feed rate forces more flui d through the directional nozzles (due to the nozzles larg er orifices) causing more fluids to reach the bulkhead. The low flow sites may be a concern for soil removal si nce there may not be adequate fluid flow to accomplish the cascade cleaning. This observation that fluid feed rate is important may be the reason for the stripes that were seen in tankers during the tanker sanitation survey. Statistically, each flow delivery condition was significant different (P<0.05) from each other but what it actually means as it relates to th e fluid distribution is not clear. The soil removal test may provide more answers. Installation orientation Pitch The Sd-HVMP is an en gineered device with its characteristic for a specific purpose. The devices pitch is significant since the manufacturer designed this for reaching the tanker bulkheads. The pitch is the nozzles angle vari ation from horizontal and is measured from the down pipe. It the pitch is too horizontal (closer to 90 angle), the fluid discharged from the nozzles would be directed straight back whereas if the pitch is small (closer to 0 angle), the fluids would be directed straight up. The pitch is engineered for the expected tanker that is to be

PAGE 115

115 cleaned (ECO 2006). For a typical tanker of 12.2 to 12.7 m, the pitch angle is 79 (Ecolab 2006). This allows the discharged fluids to hi t the top of the barrel, approximately one meter forward of the bulkhead, so that the fluids momentum carries it the last m and down the bulkhead. Table 4-33 are the results when the pitch angle is adjusted as in the case of a damaged or improperly installed device. When the pi tch angle was small (76 ) the fluid tended to accumulate near the tankers center (0 to 5.2 m) with almost no fluid reaching the bulkhead. The surface collected fluid had a peak at 4.6 m due to the direction of the nozzles. From visual observations, the fluid appeared to be directed at around 4 m with the fluids forward momentum carrying the fluid to 4.6 m and back but not to the barrel end or bulkhead. Under this condition, the barrel end and the bulkhead may not get cleaned properly. If the nozzle pitch has an angle of 82, the fluid was directed further down the ta nker and hit the bulkhead missing a good part of the barrel top. This was seen by the reduced fl uid amount collected at the barrel ends (Sites 2.70 to 6.40) and almost no fluid at th e bulkhead top site (BHt). U nder this condition, the barrel end and the bulkhead top may not get cleaned since the fluid amount was so small. Both pitch changes were significant with respec t to the overall collection of fluids. The pitch change may occur when a device is damaged due to it being dropped. If the damage occurs to only one nozzle, tanker clean ing may be compromised by the damaged nozzle so that only one end of the tanker may be poorly cleaned. If th e change in pitch angle is due to improper installation, then both ends of the tanker may be affected wi th a dirty top barrel on one end and a dirty bulkhead on the other. Installation orientation Width centering Since this device is directi onal, the in stalled position may be affected by how well the device is centered in the tanker. The device is engineered to disperse fluids in a st raight line with contact at the surface turning to radial disper sion which then flows down the surface wall. The

PAGE 116

116 center spray ball also disperses fluids so that the fluid contacts specific areas of the tankers surface. Altering the direction of this device ma y affect where the stream finally contacts the surface. How the installation affects where the flui ds come in contact with the tankers surface was observed in the following tables. For Ta ble 4-34, the device was positioned in the C-Thru tanker so that the nozzle was directed to the front left and rear right, di rectly over the collection sites (Figure 4-9). A 1 turn to the right seemed to shift the fluid slight forward and reduced the fluid to the bulkhead. Statistically based on th e collected fluids, each change in installation position was significant at P<0.05. Each position shift, or degr ee change to the right, seemed to move the maximum collected fluids up the tankers barrel as seen by the co llected fluids. This was expected since the nozzles were turning and carry the bulk of the fluid as seen by Table 434. When the device center was shifted to the left, changes were seen with the collected fluids as seen by Table 4-35. The device was facing the tankers rear left so the fl uid was less likely to come in contact with the right rear side. Wh en positioned in this manner, the nozzles were facing the left rear and the right front. Wh en these conditions were tested, no significant difference (P<0.05) were seen between 0 (dead-cen ter) and 1 off dead-center but every other off-center angle surface fluid volume was significantly different. At 2.5 and higher, there is a risk that a tanker side may not get adequate fluid volumes to clean properly. It appears from these trials that installation of this device is critical. Installation has to consider the pitch and centering of the device in order that the nozzles perform as engineered. Flow rate (volume and pressure) may be le ss critical but may be a factor in cleaning. Rotating-High Volume Medium Pressure (R-HVMP) The rotating high volume, m edium pressure CI P device (R-HVMP) did not have a visible shaft that could be used to m easure the rotation speed. As di scussed previously, the rotation

PAGE 117

117 speed has a direct impact on the cycle time of rotating CIP devices. As seen in the R-LVHP device, a slower speed produced more flow to the tanker bulkhead and potentially an improved cleaning of the area. The rotation speed of this device was observed by taping a nozzle and timing the rotation time in sec. These devices do not have an external motor and are driven by internal components that required disassembly of the device and the insertion of a new drive impeller which was supplied by the manufacturer. The four rotation speeds were evaluated and the rotation speed in rpm was determined. The results are in Table 4-36. The normal impeller developed a rotation speed of 16 rpm which is the typical type for long tanker cleaning (LCS 2006) and would result in a cleani ng cycle time of 8 min. The shor t impeller was installed that provided a turning speed of 12 rpm and a cycle ti me of 11 min. The long impellers provide a faster turning speed that should result in a shorter cycle time which was found to be 6.8 and 6.5 min respectively for long 1 and long 2. Fo r shorter tankers, the l ong impellers may be used adequately since it is expected that the stream distance would be reduced. Figure 4-12 are examples of the tankers surface flow rates. The distribution of the fluids was similar to the R-LVHP CIP device in that a high volume was seen close to the device which got smaller the further one moved from the de vice. However, unlike the R-LVHP units, the bulkhead volumes saw a very large volume increase. It is thought that this large increase is due to the large feed volume which was about 6 times larger than the low volume device. Rotation speed As with the R-LVHP unit, rotation speed m ay ha ve an effect on fluid dispersion. This was tested with the results in Table 4-37 at 12, 16, and 20 head rpm. For the overall fluid collections, there was not a significant difference (P<0.05) betw een the rotation speeds. It was expected that there would be based on the R-LVHP unit. It was concluded that with the higher flow volumes (these tests were operated at 493 Lpm @ 6.2 bar), the rotation speed may have a smaller impact

PAGE 118

118 on the fluid dispersion. This may be expected since the unit mass th at is being discharged from the nozzles would be much higher, 247 kg per minute compared to 42 kg per minute for each nozzle. This mass may not be affected by the radi al forces and may aid in the discharged fluids momentum (White 1979). It was interesting th at there were significant differences (P<0.05) between the rotation speeds at the two sample S ites BHc and BHt. The slower speed (12 rpm) had significantly more fluid collected at these s ites than at 16 or 20 rpm. So even though the overall differences were not signi ficant, a slower rotation speed ma y be needed if the bulkhead is hard to clean. The fluid velocity, dwell time, and theoretical deliver rate was also calculated for this device based on the calculated ci rcumferences from Table 4-38. The calculated fluid velocities follow a similar pattern as seen with the R-LVHP device. As the rotation speed increases, the fluid velocity increased. Th is device was operated at highe r rotation speeds based on the manufacturer recommendations. These devices may function ade quately at the higher rotation speed since the fluid volume is much larger. Wh en reviewing the centrip etal force equation, the mass that is being distributed is higher when ro tating slow which affects the overall performance of the device. Table 4-39 is the results of th e calculated travel velocity, fl uid dwell time, and theoretical volume delivered at the various samp le points. Here again it is seen that as the device head speed increases from 12 to 20 rpm, there is an in crease in the travel or radial velocity with a decrease in the fluid streams dw ell time and delivered fluid volume. Also, under the same head speed there is an increase in the radial velocity which is expected and the subsequent decreases in fluid dwell and delivery. Figure 4-13 shows th is data graphically. The delivered volume is much higher than was seen with the R-LVHP de vice. Also, the high volume systems seem more

PAGE 119

119 efficient or may perform better since the delivered volume is proportionally larger than the dwell time. With the R-LVHP device, the deliver ed volume was proportionally lower through all distances from the device. In Table 4-40, the surface flow rate was calcu lated as a percent flow based on the collected fluids. The results show that close to the device, there is a lot of flui d dispersed while as one moves away, the amount of fluid is diminished. The bulkhead volumes did increase dramatically indicating that this devi ce has two peaks, one within 1.5 m of the device and one at the bulkhead. A note of interest is that as th e volume and pressure increased, th ere was a shift in the amount of fluid from the center to the bulkhead. At 416 Lp m and 3.4 bar, 51% of the fluid was within 1.5 m while ~33% was at the bulkhead. When the fl ow rate was increased to 492 Lpm and 6.2 bar, there was only 35% of the fluid up to 1.5 m and 50% at the bulkhead. This seems to indicate that the increase in volume and pressure was effective to reach the bulkhead better. It is interesting that this pattern was not seen along the barrel. From 3.4 to 6.4 m (Sites 3.4 to 6.4), there was practically no change in the volumes collected wh en the flow rates increased. This may indicate that the barrel may be harder to clean. Surface flow rates Flow volume is one param eter for CIP cleaning. This was tested with the results in Table 4-41 for three volumes at the same pressure (4.5 bar or 65 psi). With the baseline of 416 Lpm, there was not a significant difference (P< 0.05) between 416 and 454 Lpm or between 454 and 492 Lpm. However, there was a significant di fference between the low and high volumes. The differences were noted in various sample sites particularly next to the device and at the bulkhead. At this pressure, the higher volumes appear to pr ovide more fluids to the furthest tanker areas which were expected (GSS 2006 Lechler 2006).

PAGE 120

120 Flow pressure To determ ine the pressure effect, the volume had to be increased, so a direct pressure relationship may not be truly seen. Table 4-42 are the results of th e pressure testing. The lowest pressure (and volume) was significantly different from the other three variables. This may indicate that this parameter may not clean effectively. The pressures 4.5 and 5.2 were not significantly different from each other but 4.5 and 6.2 was. Also, 5.2 and 6.2 were not significantly different. These differences are similar to the volume differences which may indicate that the pressure is less significant than volume. This finding is similar to that of the device manufacturers (GSS 2006 Lechler 2006 Sellers 2007) and to fluid mechanics literature (White 1979). Installation depth Based on literature (Seiberling 1999 Ga m ajet 2006 Lechler 2006 Sellers 2007) and personal communications with the device manufacturers (G amajet 2006 Lechler 2006 Sellers 2007), the installation depth with these sprayers is thought to be significant on the fluid dispersion. A CIP device i ndustry common practice is to place th e device at 2/3 the diameter of the vessel (Lechler 2006 Gamajet 2006 Sellers 2007). The closeness of the device to the tankers ceiling impedes the potential fluid flow that reaches the vessels furthest distances. Since the standard tankers diameter ranges from 160 to 168 cm (63 to 66 in), and average of 109 cm (43 in) was used for the baseline inst allation. The results of the installation dept h tests are seen in Table 4-43 and 4-44. The operating conditions for Table 4-43 were 492 Lpm @ 4.5 bar (130 gpm @ 65 psi) which was the manufacturers init ial suggested parameter while Table 4-44 was operated at 492 Lpm @ 6.2 ba r (130 gpm @ 90 psi). The results in dicate that overall there was a significant difference (P<0.05) between each inst alled depth for each operating condition. The differences at 492 Lpm @ 4.5 bar were noted for close distances (Sites 0 3.35) for 82 and 109

PAGE 121

121 cm depths and further away (Sites 3.96 to BHt) for 109 and 143 cm. At the higher pressure, the differences were significant thr oughout the tanker. Interesti ngly, the higher the device was installed, the more fluids were collected in each sample site. This was not expected since it was thought that the higher the device, the more the ce iling would interfere with the fluid reach (LSS 2006 Sellers 2007). Also, the higher the device is in stalled, the lower the impact angle is to the tankers ends (Table 4-45). It was thought that the better impact angles at the lower depths would be an improvement to the fluid dispersion and th erefore the amount of fluid that gets to the surface. The improved impact angle may be the cau se of the lower collected fluids since with a better impact angle, more fluid may deflect aw ay from the sampling devices. With the higher depths, the fluid acts more like cascade cleaning and delivers the fluid without deflection. The findings may also be due to the location of the sampling devices that were installed approximately 2/3 into the tanker (1.5 m from top dead center along the circumference). With the CIP device installed high in the tanker, there was more upper tanker coverage of the fluid stream which would get caught by the sampling devi ces. With a deeper installation, more of the fluid stream may have been below the sampling de vices. This explanation may be a detriment of this study. Significant Observations of Rotating Devices According to the literature, th e rotating devices have 360 cove rage of impingem ent forces (Lechler 2006 Spraying Systems 200 2 Gamajet 2006 Sellers 2007). Ob servations of the devices seemed to contradict this. Using the UF C-Th ru model tanker, impingement forces were not seen in many areas with the observed patterns indi cated by placing tape pieces at impingement contact points along the tanker barrel and bulkhe ad. Figure 4-14 and 4-15 show the C-Thru tanker with tape indicating the impingement cont act points. Figure 4-14 shows the tanker at 10 to 22 ft (tanker markings), with stream contact at around 10 ft, at around 14 ft just past 18ft, and

PAGE 122

122 then at the bulkhead at 22 ft. The tape at 22ft in dicates not only the strike s that hit this distance but also those that hit the bulkhea d. In Figure 4-15, the strikes were concentrated near the center between 0 and 3 ft mark and then the strikes became less common away from the center. The strike gaps at 0 to 3 ft were 4 to 6 in while from 3 to 10 ft ranged from 9 to 27 in. When the strikes were reaching 10 ft and fu rther, the strikes were about 36 to 48 in part. When following the next nozzle, its strikes hit with in 6 in of the first nozzle. This is in direct comparison to the device literature that states th e strikes fall between each othe r equally (Spraying Systems 2006 Gamajet 2006). Figure 4-16 shows th e stream pattern based on the visual observations for half a cycle time. The main point of these figures is to realize that unlike lit erature, the streams will strike the tanker many times during the cycle cl ose to the device while as you move away, the strikes become less frequent. This may have a direct impact on the amount of fluid that is dispensed from the device since the frequency of the strikes has an impact on the fluid rates. On the bulkhead, the strikes produced the patt ern seen in Figure 4-17 and 4-18. Each strike was about 74 cm (29 in) apart leaving a la rge gap between each impingement strikes. The pattern was seen criss-crossing due to the rotation of the nozzles in that one nozzle had a downward path while the other had an upward pa th. Figure 4-17 shows the pattern of nozzle A in the downward path while nozzle B is in the upwa rd path. Only 4 direct hits were seen on the bulkhead for this hit cycle which is half the de vice cycle time (17 min based on rotation speed). Figure 4-18 shows the patterns in the 2nd half of the device cycle time. In this figure, nozzle B is making the downward path while nozzle A is making the upward path. It was seen that each nozzle strike was only about 12 cm (4 to 5 in) away from each other in dire ct contradiction to the literature which stated that th e stream split the distance equall y (Spraying Systems 2006 Gamajet

PAGE 123

123 2006). Figure 4-19 shows the pattern of the entire cycle with the gaps that are not be struck by any impingement forces. In an entire device cycle, only 10 strikes we re seen directly hitting the bulkhead which means all cleaning of this area has to be perfor med within this time frame. Considering that impingement cleaning has a small range (radius of 6 stream diameters Figure 4-20) around the stream strike, the actual impingement cleaned ar ea (a path of 15.6 cm with a 1.3 cm stream) is small in comparison to the cascade cleaned regi ons. In the bulkhead, there are areas that potentially receive no impingement forces and re ly on cascade force to clean. In these areas, there is a potential of poor cleaning if the cascade action is inadequate. For instance, the gap between strike 1 dotted line and strike 3 solid lin es is 76 cm (30 in) and the impingement forces extend only 7.8 cm from the center th en this leaves a gap of 60 cm (24 in) that will receive only cascade cleaning forces. The observed patterns were further define d by using a computer generated diagram (Autodesk Educational Product, San Rafael, CA) operated by Mr. John Henderson (CREC Pilot Plant Manager) based on the observations. Th e CAD diagram is Figure 4-21 in which the theoretical flow is seen in a ci rcular pattern with a to-scale ta nker superimposed onto the circle. The device indexing angle for this diagram is 10. If the indexing angle is different, the stream patterns would be slightly different. Since the devices discharge water in a spherical pattern (Spraying Systems 2006 Gamajet 2006 Sellers 2007), the diagram is the 2 dimension representation of the discharge. With this view of the stream pa tterns (which are repeated), the observed tanker surface strikes seem to be better seen. Near the device, there were more frequent wall strikes while as the distance from the center in creased, the strikes were less apparent. The 2-D diagram also shows that the bulkhead would receive very few direct hits.

PAGE 124

124 The close strikes of the nozzles can be seen here represented by a dark line for nozzle A and a light line for nozzle B. This pattern was found to be due to the diameter of the CIP device. As one nozzle (A) would hit a bulkhead (front), the other nozzle (B) was hitting the opposite bulkhead (rear) at a parallel point. When the device was half-way through its cycle, nozzle B would hit the front bulkhead with nozzle A hitting the rear. However, since the device was halfway through its cycle, the nozzles were on the ot her side of the device body (Figure 4-22). This body gap provided the 4-6 in gap distance between the strikes. If the device body was neglected, the strikes would be on top of each other. Th e body gap was not considered by the CIP device manufacturers when their literature was pr inted (Lechler PC 2007 Spraying Systems PC 2007). In further discussions with the manufacturers, it was suggested that one cycle was too short to fully understand how the devices were working. It was explained that the more cycles that were allowed, the streams would close the gaps (S praying Systems 2006). This was plausible so many cycles were observed. However, the results showed that the strike s repeated the pattern after its full cycle. There was no incremental ch ange to the pattern afte r each cycle. The only incremental change was seen with the indexing of the nozzles. After much thought, this seemed sensible since the devices are based on a round gear that will repeat the pattern over and over. The only way to shift the pattern (shift the strike s) was to physically shif t (rotate) the entire CIP device (Figure 4-23). By physica lly turning the device, the stri ke patterns could be shifted around the tanker. This was one possible explan ation for surface flow rates that had large standard deviations since at the time, the installation position was not observed. If the device is installed in a certain position, the pattern will be the same each time it is run. If the device is installed in a different position, the pattern shifts. Again this may explain some of the soiled areas that were not consistently in one spot.

PAGE 125

125 Based on these observations, the cycle time is an important aspect of rotating CIP devices cleaning performance. If the de vice cycle time (example 20 min) is longer than the detergent wash time (for example 15 min minimum), then the entire tanker may not receive adequate detergent washing. The wash time has to consider the device cycle time to ensure that all areas of the tanker will get treated. If the wash time is shorter then the cycle time, there is a possibility that there will be soiled areas in the tanker since the detergent was cut short. Most of the literature shows that the rotating devices discharge fluids in a spherical pattern (Lechler 2006 Spraying Systems 2002 Gamajet 2006 Sellers 2007). Howe ver, this is not realistic in a tanker due to its rectangular dimensions. Also, most diagrams show that the top and bottom of the sphere have the streams in tersecting. This was seen in th e C-Thru tanker since the rotating devices always struck top and bottom at the devi ce. As observed, all the streams would always come to the center making a bent Figure-8 instead of the true Figure-8 of the literature (Gamajet 2006 Sellers 2006). This was a possi ble reason that the sample sites near the device would have some of the highest surface fluid rates since th e streams were always making their way to the center. While working with one device and discus sing the results (Lechler PC 2006), the manufacturer representative devi sed a new installation method to take advantage of the returning nozzles. Since the device was installed so that the nozzles would always rotate to a straight up and down position, it was conceived that by instal ling the device 90 from its current position, the straight up and down stream positions would be turned to hit the bulkheads (Figure 4-24 and Figure 4-25). The manufacturer engineered a cr adle that when installed in the tanker would allow the nozzles to center around the bulkheads instead of the manw ay (Figure 4-26). A second device manufacturer designed an en tirely different device based on this research (Figure 4-37).

PAGE 126

126 The device when operated in this installation pos ition seemed to provide more fluids to the bulkheads as seen in Table 4-46. The new posit ion overall was significan tly different (P<0.05) compared to the standard installation. Most of the sample sites also had significant differences detected when the device was installed at 90. The 90 installation supplied less fluid near the device (0 1.52 m Sites) but suppl ied more fluid further along the barrel (2.10 6.40 m Sites) and at the bulkhead (BHc and BHt Sites). Th e 90 installation position took advantage of the natural rotation pattern of the device, in that the nozzles for each hub revolution would always be in an up and down position when in the standard in stallation. By turning the device, in each hub revolution the nozzles would always rotate to the bulkheads which meant more strikes at the bulkheads. In the standard installation, it was observed that there were approximately 10 bulkhead strikes during a cycle time but when in the 90 installation, there were approximately 56 strikes in the cycle. The device fluid feed was the same whether in the standard or 90 installation, however it s eemed that the fluid was better utili zed in the 90 installation based on the bulkhead sample site fluid volume rates (BHc = 3.28 Lpm/100cm2 at 90 versus 1.32 Lpm/100cm2 at standard installation). It was seen with rotating de vices that rotation speed is important and may be more important than volume when considering a CIP de vice. The slower rotation speed delivers more fluid due to the dwell time in a given area. When looking at the difference between the low volume and high volume units, there is not a diffe rence in the dwell time at a given rotation speed (Figure 28A) and not in the velocity (Figur e 28B). However, a difference was seen for the volume (Figure 28C). The high volume unit theoreti cally delivers more fluid to each area but also takes the biggest loss within the first 3 m of the device. The loss with the high volume

PAGE 127

127 system is approximately 4.5 times larger than the low volume device when the linear slopes are evaluated in this distance (-0.017 fo r low and -0.077 for high volume device). Conclusion To properly determ ine wash validation, the CIP device and system have to perform in accordance with its intended purpose. Performan ce was determined by the ability of the CIP device and system to deliver wash solutions (wat er, detergent, and sani tizer) to all internal surface areas using a novel approach. This research determined that fluid flow rate (volume and pressure), rotation speed, extensions, and instal lation orientation are important factors for the CIP device to perform properly. The R-LVHP devi ce was found to deliver adequate fluids to all internal areas at a minimum of 87 Lpm @ 31 bar using 15 to 23 cm extensions and a rotation speed of 4 to 6 rpm while the R-HVMP device was found to deliver adequate fluids to all internal areas at a minimum of 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar with 13 cm extensions and a rotation speed of 12 to 20 rpm. The Sd-HVMP device was found effective at a minimum of 378 Lpm @ 4.6 bar and installed at the manufacturers designed pitc h (79) and when centered properly (0 2.5). CIP Preliminary Washing Qualifiers 11Brix OJ Once CIP devices and their operating param ete r were better underst ood, a set of qualifier tests using orange juice were conducted to weed out system operating parameter that may not be effective. Since the work with riboflavin showed that even parameter th at did not supply water to the bulkheads appeared clean, th e used of orange juice would ensu re that mist or just run down would not cause a misconception of the paramete r. Also, these tests were conducted without heat or detergent to determine the effects of impingement and cascade forces. Not using heat or detergent was also a cost effective way of elim inating some operating parameter that may not be effective.

PAGE 128

128 R-LVHP The data in Table 4-47 and 4-48 are the chem i cal and visual test results for the R-LVHP CIP device. Six potential parame ters were chosen from the surf ace flow rate experiments were tested. The parameter of 68 Lpm @ 24 bar (treatment 1) were included in these experiments since these conditions were observed and typically used at the wash racks based on the systems manufacturer recommendations (P eacock 2004). Significant differe nces were detected at P<0.05 for each set of conditions except for 87 Lpm @ 31 bar (23 gpm @ 450 psi) and 95 Lpm @ 31 bar (25 gpm @ 450 psi). Individual sites were not evaluated for statistical significance since the entire tanker has to be clean. Based on the surface flow rate data, the operating parameter of 68 Lpm @ 24 bar probably was inadequa te since it did not have the extensions to provide flow redevelopment and was rotating too fast. By slowing the device dow n (treatment 2), a light soil was more easily removed but still had some areas that were considered so iled (Sites 5.8 and 6.4). In the surface flow rate tests, a 15 cm (6 in) exte nsion seemed to provide the most fluid to the far sample sites. The use of a 15 cm (6 in) exte nsion at 87 Lpm and 31 bar still did not provide adequate cleaning solutions. When a 23 cm ex tension was used with 87 Lpm @ 31 bar, there appeared to be adequate fluids flow to remove soils. By increa sing the flow rate by 8 L, there was more fluid collected in the furthest sample sites and there seemed to be more soil removed by statistically there was no cleaning difference by using 87 or 95 Lpm. Table 4-48 are the visual results of the qualifier tests. These final results were very much the same as the chemical tests. There were so me differences between the chemical and visual tests which seemed to show that chemical tests would indicate an area to be cleaner than the visual assessment of the area (T able 4-49). For this research, a chemical test result was considered clean or if the residue was below 3 g/100cm2 as determined by lab tests (Appendix C results). It was observed that at a quantity of ~ 3 g/100cm2, a wet stainless steel

PAGE 129

129 surface appeared clean but when it dried, there appear ed to be soil residue seen as less shiny steel or as a blue or white film. Based on these results, the R-LVHP device operating conditions to advance to the next phase is 87 Lpm @ 31 bar with 22 cm extensions at 4 rpm rotation speed. R-HVMP The results of the water-solubl e soiled tanker cleaning are in Tables 4-50 to 4-51. The RHVMP seem s to have a very wide range of operating conditions that may be used for washing. The lowest operating conditions of 435 Lpm @ 4.5 bar was adequate to clean almost all the soils. The only area that soil was detected in by eith er the chemical or visual assessment was the barrels end (Sites 5.8 to 6.4) but the bulkhead wa s clean. All operating conditions proved to sufficiently remove the soils. There were no sign ificant differences (P<0.05) in any operating condition (Table 4-52). Even the chemical to visual assessment differences were not significantly different. The operatin g parameters that were availa ble at the wash rack (378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar) were chosen for use for the next resear ch step since these were easily obtainable at the wash rack without major equi pment changes by the wash rack. Sd-HVMP The Sd-HVMP CIP device was sim pler to evaluate than the R-LVHP device. Flow rate and installation position seemed to be the most important aspects of this device. Based on the surface flow assessments, the installation of this device was maintained at the recommended 79 pitch and placed at 0 dead center for most flow ra te tests. However, to aid in the installation position evaluations, qualification te sts were also run to determin e their impact on cleaning. The results of four flow rate variab les are in Tables 4-53 to 4-54 while the installation results are in Tables 4-56 to 4-57. For chemical assessment, the lowest operating parameter (397 Lpm @ 3.1 bar) was found to be statistically different (P<0.05) to the othe r three operating conditions yet

PAGE 130

130 there was no significant differen ces between the highest three ope rating conditions. The areas of concern for this device were at 3.4 to 4.0 m and then again at 5.8 to 6.4 m for 397 Lpm @ 3.1 bar and 416 Lpm @ 4.5 bar. These areas were also found to have the lowest surface flow rates. The higher flow rate operating conditions of 568 Lpm @ 5.5 bar and 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar did not seem to have this concern. For the visual assessment there were significa nt differences between treatment 1 and the others, also for treatment 2 and the other two but no significant differences between the highest operating pressures. This seemed to indicate that this unit should be operated at the higher pressures with the high volume. As with the othe r devices, visual soils were more apparent than the chemical residues. As mentioned prior, th e chemical assessment has a minimum detection level of 3 g/100cm2 but at this level, if trained and obs ervant, an inspector can detected the residue. Most surfaces appeared clean when wet but once dry, the residue was seen. In standard tanker cleaning, most inspections would occur wh en the surface is wet so the surface would probably be considered clean even if there is a small amount of residue. Installation position: Based on the flow rate data, only centering positions 0, 1, 2.5 and 5 were tested for qualifying to the next step since the 10 treatment did not distribute fluids to at least one sample site. All th e position tests were run at 454 Lpm at 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi) to remove flow rate differences. Tables 4-56 an d 4-53 are the results of centering the device in the tanker. When the device was pointed to th e rear right or towards the sampling devices (centering positions designated with an R), ther e were no significant differences (P<0.05) in the juice removal from the stainless steel based on ch emical or visual evaluation even though some residue remained. Based on the fluid flows (Table 4-40) when the nozzle is pointed in this direction there is sufficient fluid to remove water soluble soils. Because of the large volume and

PAGE 131

131 the fluids momentum, all areas seemed to be cleaned well. However, when the nozzles were turned to the left (centering positions designated with an L), significance (P<0.05) was detected at 5 and at 2.5 for P<0.10. These results indica ted that when the nozzles were pointed away from an area (barrel side), there is a good chance that the barrel area will not get cleaned due to either low flow or no flow (based on Table 4-43). These results are expected since the device is directional and the directional nozzles have a limited coverage ar ea. The manufacturer primarily designed this device so that the nozzles would clean the bulkheads while also cleaning the entire tanker (Ecolab 2002). When the device is turned, the nozzles turn off center which limited its cleaning range. Table 4-58 are the combined chemical and visu al residues remaining af ter the rinse if the nozzle was improperly installed. These results reflect the overal l cleaning level of the tanker whether it is positioned to the right or left. It is felt that if the nozzles are pointed to the barrels right side, then the left side would be unclean and vice versa. There was no difference (P<0.05) in the cleaning performance if the device was installed up to 2.5 off dead center. The manufacturer suggests placing the device so it is centered but doe s not indicate how close to center (Ecolab 2006). During the over-the-road f ood-grade tanker cleaning survey, this device was observed on several occasions to be installe d off center that at the time was thought to explain the post-cleaned soiled area s. Based on these results it appears that the overall centering position is vital to cleaning performance. These devices also have a pitch position that may be important. The pitch of the device is the angle of the nozzles that point to an area in the tankers front or back. As previously discussed, the device is manufactur ed to distribute fluids to ce rtain points and allow the fluids momentum and volume to cascade cleans the surface. The device that was tested had a pitch of

PAGE 132

132 79 and is engineered for a tanker that is 39 to 42 ft long (Ecolab 2002). Tanker dimensions have to be considered when using this device. The pitch is important when considering damaged or improperly installed devices. Table 4-59 and 460 are the chemical and visual results of the qualifying tests. For sugar residue by the chemi cal tests, it was found that there was no overall significant difference at P<0.05 but there was at P<0.10, if the de vice was installed at 76, 79, or 82 even though there were significant differenc es detected at specific sampling sites. As mentioned previously, the sugar residue was not suffi cient to be detected by the chemical test so most of these results indicated a clean surface. However, when the device was installed at 76, the bulkhead area was less clean while at 82, th e center to barrel end was less clean. It was found that at 76, the bulkhead top was cleaned due to fluid momentum that was then distributed unevenly around the bulkhead. An overall signifi cant difference at P<0.05 was detected with visual inspection (Table 4-60). With the visual inspections, residual sugars and pulp were seen particularly when the surface was dry but for so me reason were not detected by the AccuClean tests (Neogen Corporation Lansi ng, MI). This was not expected but may be due to the actual sugar being removed while other juice so ils such as pulp and oils remained. Combining the chemical and visual results (T able 4-61), there was a significant difference (P<0.05) between the recommended pitch (79 ) and the other tests pitches (76 and 82) indicating that the pitch seems to be important for proper cleaning performance. The operating parameters that were available at the wash rack (378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar) were chosen for use for the next research step since these were easily obta inable at the wash rack without major equipment changes by the wash rack. Conclusion To properly determ ine wash validation, the CIP device and system have to perform in accordance with its intended purpose. Performan ce was determined by the ability of the CIP

PAGE 133

133 device and system to adequate water volume to all internal surface areas to remove 11Brix orange juice, a water soluble soil. This resear ch emphasized that fluid flow rate (volume and pressure), rotation speed, extensions, and instal lation orientation are important factors for the CIP device to perform properly. The R-LVHP devi ce was found to deliver adequate fluids to all internal areas at a minimum of 87 Lpm @ 31 bar using 15 to 23 cm extensions and a rotation speed of 4 to 6 rpm while the R-HVMP device was found to deliver adequate fluids to all internal areas at a minimum of 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar with 13 cm extensions and a rotation speed of 12 to 20 rpm. The Sd-HVMP device was found effective at a minimum of 378 Lpm @ 4.6 bar and installed at the manufacturers designed pitc h (79) and when centered properly (0 2.5). Table 4-1. Results of CIP device performance validation by manufactur ers suggested methods. Device 1 Sd-HVMP R-HVMP R-LVHP Flow rate Lpm (gpm) (recorded at pump) 2 378 (100)378 (100) 75 (20) Pressure bar (psi) (recorded at pump) 3 6.2 (90)6.9 (100) 41 (600) Total Fluid Bulkhead Distance m (ft) 4 9.1 (30)10.9 (36) 7.6 (25) Solid Stream Bulkhead Distance m (ft) 5 9.1 (30)9.2 (30) 4.8 (16) Total Fluid Barrel Radius Distance m (ft) 6 2.4 (8)10.9 (36) 7.6 (25)1Devices operated at wash rack operating parame ters. Sd-HVMP Stationary, directional high volume, medium pressure. R-HVMP Rotating high volume, medium pressure. R-LVHP Rotating low volume, high pressure. 2Flow rates (L per minute) recorded at the pum p with wash rack equipment. The value in parenthesis is the US units (gallons per minute). 3Pressure (bar) recorded at the pump discharge with wash rack equipment. The value in parenthesis is the US units (pounds per square in). 4Fluid flow distances to the bulkh ead measured visually in mete rs with 50 ft tape measure on floor. Value in parenthesi s is the US units (ft). 5Visual assessment of stream distance in meters Parenthesis is distan ce in US units (ft). 6Visual assessment of fluid path width or stream distance in meters. Parenthesis is distance in US units (ft).

PAGE 134

134 Table 4-2. Visual results of CIP device performance under actual operating conditions in the CThru tanker. Device 1 Flow rate Lpm (gpm) 2 Pressure bar (psi) 3 Fluid reach m (ft) 4 Comments Sd-HVMP 378 (100) 6.2 (90) 4.5 (15) Fluids did not reach the bulkhead. Fluids hit the barrel top too early or not at all due to poor angle. When directional nozzle was directed at bulkhead, fluid hit bulkhead but not barrel. Also found that fluids hit one side of tanker and not the other due to improper installation. R-HVMP 378 (100) 6.9 (100) 6.1 (20) Fluids as a stream did reach bulkhead consistently. R-HVMP 473 (125) 15.5 (225) 5.0 (16) Fluids as a stream did not reach bulkhead but mist/spray did reach bulkhead. Action was consistent. R-LVHP 75 (20) 41 (600) 3.4 (11) Fluids as a stream did not reach bulkhead but some mist/spray did. Solid stream reach to 3.4 m. 1Devices operated at wash rack operating parame ters. Sd-HVMP Stationary, directional high volume, medium pressure. R-HVMP Rotating high volume, medium pressure. R-LVHP Rotating low volume, high pressure. 2Flow rates (L per minute) recorded at the pump w ith wash rack equipment. Value in parenthesis is the U.S. units (gallons per minute). 3Pressure (bar) recorded at the pump discharge wi th wash rack equipment. Value in parenthesis is the U.S. units (pounds per square in). 4Fluid flow distances to the bulkh ead measured visually in the CThru tanker with 6.7m (22ft) bulkhead. The C-Thru tanker had 1.2 m (4 ft) mark ed increments. Value in parenthesis is the U.S. units (ft).

PAGE 135

135 Table 4-3. Examples of percent su rface flow for R-LVHP CIP device. Percent surface flow at delivered flow conditions1 Sample Sites 18 @ 350 & 4 rpm 23 @ 450 & 4 rpm 0 20.3 23.7 0.3 16.1 19.2 0.9 17.1 14.0 1.5 17.0 13.3 2.1 8.4 7.1 2.7 5.7 5.8 3.4 3.1 3.3 4.0 2.5 3.0 4.6 1.7 1.6 5.2 1.3 1.3 5.8 0.9 0.9 6.4 0.4 0.7 BHc2 3.6 3.6 BHt3 1.8 2.5 1Percent flow rate determined by dividing each s ite by the total fluid collected for each operating condition. Number of samples for each is n = 3. 2BHc indicates the bulkhead center sampling site at 6.7m from the device. 3BHt indicates the bulkhead top sampling site at 6.7m from the device. Table 4-4. Impact force of R-LVHP CIP device using 1G and 5G impact indicators. Number of positive reaction at G force detector (n = 3)1,2 Sample Sites 3 1G 5G 0 3 (0) 3 (0) 0.3 3 (0) 3 (0) 0.9 3 (0) 3 (0) 1.5 2 (0) 1 (0) 2.7 1 (0) 0 (0) 4.6 0 (0) 0 (0) 5.8 0 (0) 0 (0) 6.7 0 (0) 0 (0) 1Device operating conditions 87 Lpm @ 32 bar with no extensions and at 4 shaft rpm. 2Impact indicators measured at device head leve l (109 cm from manway) and perpendicular to the device. Results indicate the number of positive reactions (b lue arrows) which indicate the specific G force is exceeded. 3The sample site is the distance in meters from the CIP device that the Teladrop Impact indicator was installed.

PAGE 136

136 Table 4-5. R-LVHP air pressure, rota tion speed, and cycle time compared. Air pressure supply psi (bar) Rotation speed (rpm) Approx. Cycle time (min) 5 (0.34) 3.2 11 7 (0.48) 6.0 6 10 (0.68) 8.2 5 1Data from device operating manual (SSI 2006) Table 4-6. R-LVHP air motor pressure supply related to shaft speed (rpm). Air motor gauge pressure bar (psi) 1 Observed shaft speed (rpm) dry 2 Observed shaft speed (rpm) wet 3 Estimated cycle time (min) 4 0.3 (5) 0 0 Na 0.6 (8) 2.5 0.1 2.3 0.1 15.7 0.7 (10) 4.6 0.2 4.3 0.2 8.4 1.4 (20) 11.0 0.2 10.0 0.2 3.6 2.1 (30) 15.3 0.2 14.2 0.2 2.5 2.8 (40) 22.2 0.4 20.2 0.3 1.8 4.1 (60) 24.5 0.6 22.4 0.3 1.6 1Air motor pressure gauge mounted 1.5 m from spray device. 2The shaft at the motor was marked to indicate start/stop point. Shaft speed was determined by the time (in seconds) that the mark completed one rotation. Three trials were performed. 3Rotation speed determined w ith 68 Lpm @ 24.1 bar and 79.5 Lpm @ 31.0 bar following the above method. 4The cycle time is determined by dividing 36 revolutions per cycle by rpm. Cycle time is device specific.

PAGE 137

137Table 4-7. R-LVHP speed eff ects at 69 Lpm and 24.1 bar (17.8 gpm and 350 psi at sprayer feed) (wash rack conditions). Nozzle size 00300030003000300030 Extension (cm) 0 0 0 0 0 Flow (Lpm) 69 69 69 69 69 Pressure (bar) 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 Air speed 10 20 30 401 601 Sample Sites 2 Average Flow at rotation speeds L/min/m2 (std dev) (n = 3)3 0 1.672 (0.031)a2.041 (0.024)b2.035 (0.074)b2.046 (0.009)b2.170 (0.013)c 0.31 1.318 (0.035)a1.574 (0.026)b1.633 (0.012)b1.611 (0.005)c1.747 (0.037)d 0.91 1.401 (0.070)a1.408 (0.016)a1.396 (0.030)a1.391 (0.017)a1.385 (0.014)a 1.52 1.269 (0.025)a1.379 (0.024)b1.361 (0.001)a1.345 (0.013)a1.325 (0.009)c 2.10 0.577 (0.030)a0.537 (0.021)b0.512 (0.027)b0.499 (0.001)c0.504 (0.035)c 2.70 0.396 (0.016)a0.394 (0.022)a0.376 (0.036)b0.379 (0.009)b0.367 (0.003)c 3.35 0.228 (0.020)a0.229 (0.003)a0.217 (0.011)b0.211 (0.004)b0.181 (0.006)c 3.96 0.188 (0.011)a0.146 (0.007)b0.136 (0.003)c0.129 (0.002)d0.129 (0.003)d 4.57 0.126 (0.007)a0.086 (0.005)b0.076 (0.004)c0.074 (0.002)c0.064 (0.006)d 5.18 0.095 (0.006)a0.063 (0.005)b0.054 (0.002)c0.050 (0.000)c0.047 (0.005)c 5.79 0.064 (0.006)a0.035 (0.002)b0.025 (0.005)c0.021 (0.001)c0.013 (0.001)d 6.40 0.035 (0.005)a0.014 (0.002)b0.009 (0.001)c0.009 (0.001)c0.003 (0.001)d BHc 0.225 (0.022)a0.192 (0.006)b0.156 (0.008)c0.143 (0.010)c0.148 (0.001)c BHt 0.080 (0.005)a0.019 (0.002)b0.004 (0.002)c0.000 (0.000)d0.000 (0.000)d Statistical difference4 1.548 A 2.366 B 2.928 CD 3.208 DE 3.863 E 1Standard rotation speeds at wash racks. 2The sample sites are the collection devices at meter distances from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from CIP device. 3Letters indicate the significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments for each sample site. 4Values indicate the overall si gnificance by combining the averag e flow and site differences. Same letters in columns indicate no significant difference (P<0.05).

PAGE 138

138Table 4-8. R-LVHP speed effect s at 74 Lpm and 27.6 bar (19 gpm and 400 psi at sprayer feed). Nozzle size 00300030003000300030 Extension (cm) 0 0 0 0 0 Distance(m) Average Flow at rotation speed L/min/m2 (std dev) (n = 3)2 Air speed 10 20 30 401 601 0 1.709 (0.027)a2.165 (0.032)b2.196 (0.005)c2.230 (0.012)d2.270 (0.013)e 0.31 1.356 (0.018)a1.624 (0.032)b1.632 (0.007)b1.740 (0.051)b1.747 (0.037)c 0.91 1.435 (0.072)a1.468 (0.040)a1.464 (0.011)a1.477 (0.009)a1.467 (0.014)a 1.52 1.430 (0.077)a1.516 (0.042)a1.500 (0.019)b1.563 (0.032)b1.525 (0.009)b 2.10 0.707 (0.017)a0.603 (0.015)b0.573 (0.002)b0.586 (0.031)c0.544 (0.005)c 2.70 0.482 (0.017)a0.453 (0.012)b0.426 (0.008)b0.449 (0.034)c0.448 (0.005)c 3.35 0.259 (0.018)a0.258 (0.008)a0.253 (0.007)a0.257 (0.012)a0.258 (0.005)a 3.96 0.211 (0.016)a0.172 (0.009)b0.166 (0.002)b0.168 (0.012)c0.149 (0.003)c 4.57 0.142 (0.010)a0.100 (0.003)b0.094 (0.002)c0.094 (0.002)c0.085 (0.001)d 5.18 0.109 (0.006)a0.072 (0.002)b0.068 (0.001)b0.070 (0.005)c0.051 (0.001)d 5.79 0.079 (0.006)a0.047 (0.003)b0.038 (0.001)c0.003 (0.003)c0.020 (0.000)d 6.40 0.034 (0.002)a0.025 (0.001)b0.017 (0.001)c0.015 (0.002)d0.007 (0.001)c BHc 0.299 (0.003)a0.239 (0.001)b0.205 (0.003)c0.168 (0.011)d0.148 (0.001)d BHt 0.148 (0.003)a0.044 (0.004)b0.016 (0.002)c0.006 (0.002)d0.000 (0.000)e Statistical difference3 1.600 A 2.413 B 2.903 C 3.488 D 3.837 D 1Standard rotation speeds at wash racks. 2Letters indicate the significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments for each sample site. 3Values indicate the overall significance by combining the average fl ow and site differences. Same letters in columns indicate n o significant difference (P<0.05).

PAGE 139

139Table 4-9. R-LVHP speed effect s at 75.8 Lpm and 31.0 bar (20 gpm and 450 psi at sprayer feed). Nozzle size 003000300030 003000300030 Extension (cm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Distance Average flow at rotation speed L/min/m2 (std dev) (n = 3)2 (m) 8 10 20 30 401 601 0 1.765 (0.043)a1.712 (0.051)b2.214 (0.006)c 2.311 (0.044)c2.272 (0.016)c2.321 (0.020)c 0.31 1.387 (0.043)a1.311 (0.030)a1.609 (0.009)b 1.737 (0.022)c1.712 (0.017)c1.784 (0.010)c 0.91 1.436 (0.070)a1.386 (0.022)a1.500 (0.002)b 1.521 (0.008)b1.528 (0.032)b1.537 (0.001)b 1.52 1.452 (0.034)a1.439 (0.008)a1.632 (0.024)b 1.632 (0.012)b1.664 (0.043)b1.665 (0.009)b 2.10 0.799 (0.044)a0.650 (0.015)b0.681 (0.015)b 0.636 (0.029)b0.622 (0.027)b0.615 (0.014)b 2.70 0.507 (0.020)a0.418 (0.009)b0.520 (0.006)b 0.485 (0.016)c0.482 (0.020)c0.507 (0.010)c 3.35 0.288 (0.013)a0.217 (0.009)b0.295 (0.002)a 0.281 (0.010)b0.267 (0.003)b0.273 (0.009)b 3.96 0.233 (0.011)a0.166 (0.010)b0.203 (0.004)c 0.186 (0.009)c0.181 (0.002)c0.180 (0.005)c 4.57 0.161 (0.010)a0.107 (0.007)b0.115 (0.001)c 0.104 (0.004)b0.109 (0.006)b0.102 (0.002)b 5.18 0.132 (0.010)a0.069 (0.001)b0.086 (0.001)c 0.076 (0.003)c0.076 (0.005)c0.065 (0.004)c 5.79 0.091 (0.005)a0.042 (0.001)b0.060 (0.002)c 0.045 (0.001)b0.038 (0.004)b0.027 (0.002)b 6.40 0.080 (0.002)a0.032 (0.001)b0.025 (0.001)c 0.015 (0.002)c0.017 (0.004)c0.008 (0.002)c BHc 0.292 (0.024)a0.242 (0.004)a0.276 (0.006) a 0.231 (0.011)a0.182 (0.021)b0.157 (0.005)b BHt 0.138 (0.001)a0.087 (0.008)b0.077 (0.003) b 0.028 (0.002)c0.009 (0.003)c0.000 (0.000)c Statistical difference3 1.626 A 2.277 A 2.950 B 3.092 C 3.154 D 3.160 E 1Standard rotation speeds at wash racks. 2Letters indicate the significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments for each sample site. 3Values indicate the overall significance by combining the average fl ow and site differences. Same letters in columns indicate n o significant difference (P<0.05).

PAGE 140

140 Table 4-10. Calculated circumfe rences based on potential cleaning distances of a rotating CIP device. Cleaning diameter in m (nominal ft) 1 Cleaning radius in m (ft) 2 Rotating device circumference tip path in m (ft) 3 1.2 (4) 0.6 (2) 3.8 (12.6) 3.0 (10) 1.5 (5) 9.6 (31.4) 6.0 (20) 3.0 (10) 19.2 (63.8) 9.2 (30) 4.6 (15) 28.7 (94.2) 11.0 (36) 5.5 (18) 34.5 (113.1) 12.2 (40) 6.1 (20) 38.3 (125.7) 13.4 (44) 6.7 (22) 42.1 (138.2) 1Cleaning diameter is the diameter of a theoretical spherical tank. 2Cleaning radius is the radius of the theoretical spherical tank if the de vice is installed at the tanks center. 3Circumference determined with formula Pi x D, with Pi = 3.1316. The circumference is the theoretical path that the impinging fluid travels. Table 4-11. Calculated fl uid speeds at various distances ba sed on device head speed (rpm) of RLVHP device. Calculated fluid speed1 at head rotation speed (rpm) rpm4 10 20 Time per revolution0.25 15 0.1 6 0.05 3 Diameter (m) Radius (m) Circumference (m) m/min m/sec m/min m/sec m/min m/sec 1.2 0.6 3.8 15.3 0.26 38.3 0.64 76.6 1.28 3.0 1.5 9.6 38.3 0.64 95.8 1.60 191.6 3.19 6.0 3.0 19.2 76.6 1.28 191.6 3.19 383.1 6.39 9.2 4.6 28.7 114.9 1.92 287.3 4.79 574.7 9.58 11.0 5.5 34.5 137.9 2.30 344.8 5.75 689.6 11.49 12.2 6.1 38.3 153.3 2.55 383.1 6.39 766.2 12.77 13.4 6.7 42.1 168.6 2.81 421.4 7.02 842.9 14.05 1 Fluid speed is calculated by dividing the circum ference in m by the time (min or sec) for one revolution.

PAGE 141

141 Table 4-12. Theoretical fluid dw ell time and fluid delivery at device head speed (rpm) and distance for R-LVHP device. Calculated fluid dwell time and deliv ered volume at head rotation speeds (rpm) 4 10 20 Radius (m) Circumference (m) Travel speed m/sec Dwell sec/10cm1 Volume L/10cm2 Travel speed m/sec Dwell sec/10cm1 Volume L/10cm2 Travel speed m/sec Dwell sec/10cm1 Volume L/10cm2 0.6 3.8 0.26 0.376 0.261 0.64 0.157 0.109 1.28 0.078 0.054 1.5 9.6 0.67 0.150 0.101 1.60 0.063 0.043 3.19 0.031 0.022 3.0 19.2 1.33 0.075 0.052 3.19 0.031 0.022 6.39 0.016 0.011 4.6 28.7 2.00 0.050 0.035 4.79 0.021 0.014 9.58 0.010 0.007 5.5 34.5 2.40 0.042 0.029 5.74 0.017 0.012 11.49 0.009 0.006 6.1 38.3 2.66 0.038 0.026 6.39 0.016 0.011 12.77 0.008 0.005 6.7 42.1 2.93 0.034 0.024 7.02 0.014 0.010 14.05 0.007 0.005 1 Dwell determined by dividing circumference by sec per revo lution for each rotation speed (0.25, 0.1, and 0.05 respectively). 2 L/10cm determined by multiplying 41.6 Lpm per nozzle (83.2 Lpm feed rate) by dwell time divided by 60 sec/minute.

PAGE 142

142 Table 4-13. R-LVHP extension effects 68 Lpm at 24 bar and 10 psi (4 rpm) shaft speed)(18 gpm and 350 psi at sprayer feed). Nozzle size1 0030 0030 0030 0030 Extension size3 0 cm (0 in)7.6 cm (3 in)15.2 cm (6 in) 22.9 cm (9 in) Sample Sites 2 Average Flow at rotation speed L/min/m2 (std dev) (n = 3)4 0 1.628 (0.003)a1.875 (0.026)b2.085 (0.054)b 1.751 (0.040)a 0.31 1.251 (0.006)a1.513 (0.016)b1.619 (0.030)b 1.374 (0.031)a 0.91 1.309 (0.030)a0.988 (0.006)b0.945 (0.057)b 0.949 (0.033)b 1.52 1.221 (0.018)a1.040 (0.032)b1.007 (0.033)b 1.018 (0.044)b 2.10 0.445 (0.008)a0.462 (0.025)a0.471 (0.028)a 0.511 (0.016)b 2.70 0.308 (0.023)a0.374 (0.012)b0.371 (0.021)b 0.408 (0.008)c 3.35 0.176 (0.014)a0.202 (0.009)b0.183 (0.010)b 0.300 (0.011)c 3.96 0.134 (0.012)a0.163 (0.003)b0.168 (0.004)b 0.219 (0.002)c 4.57 0.081 (0.008)a0.097 (0.004)a0.090 (0.002)a 0.136 (0.001)b 5.18 0.049 (0.006)a0.070 (0.005)b0.066 (0.003)c 0.102 (0.003)d 5.79 0.028 (0.004)a0.046 (0.004)b0.049 (0.003)b 0.060 (0.002)c 6.40 0.020 (0.002)a0.037 (0.003)b0.089 (0.003)c 0.033 (0.001)b BHc 0.178 (0.012)a0.176 (0.002)a0.180 (0.008)a 0.211 (0.013)b BHt 0.041 (0.003)a0.108 (0.006)b0.131 (0.003)b 0.136 (0.013)b Statistical difference5 1.491 A 2.297 B 2.461 C 2.943 D 1Size as designated by the manufacturer. 2Sample sites are the sampling point in m from the device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites respectively at 6.7 m from the device. 3Extensions were steel pipe in. NPT fitted into the hub and the nozzles fitted to pipe with coupler. 4Same letters across columns indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 5Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determined by analysis of all site flow s and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 143

143 Table 4-14. R-LVHP extension effects at 74 Lpm and 27.6 bar (19 gpm and 400 psi at sprayer feed). Nozzle size1 0030 0030 0030 0030 Extension size3 0 cm (0 in)7.6 cm (3 in)15.2 cm (6 in) 22.9 cm (9 in) Sample Sites 2 Average Flow at rotation speed L/min/m2 (std dev) (n = 3)4 0 1.709 (0.027)a1.982 (0.030)b1.999 (0.108)b 2.110 (0.060)c 0.31 1.356 (0.018)a1.575 (0.039)a1.682 (0.023)b 1.702 (0.019)b 0.91 1.435 (0.072)a1.137 (0.031)a0.995 (0.027)b 1.010 (0.032)b 1.52 1.430 (0.077)a1.215 (0.053)a1.046 (0.033)a 1.077 (0.062)a 2.10 0.707 (0.017)a0.723 (0.054)a0.511 (0.002)b 0.619 (0.052)b 2.70 0.482 (0.017)a0.561 (0.033)b0.450 (0.014)c 0.449 (0.046)c 3.35 0.259 (0.018)a0.293 (0.014)a0.239 (0.014)b 0.285 (0.035)b 3.96 0.211 (0.016)a0.251 (0.011)a0.200 (0.012)a 0.182 (0.022)a 4.57 0.142 (0.010)a0.152 (0.010)a0.111 (0.008)b 0.104 (0.015)b 5.18 0.109 (0.006)a0.129 (0.008)a0.083 (0.004)b 0.082 (0.013)b 5.79 0.079 (0.006)a0.092 (0.002)a0.061 (0.006)b 0.052 (0.007)b 6.40 0.034 (0.002)a0.040 (0.002)a0.049 (0.006)b 0.041 (0.004)b BHc 0.299 (0.003)a0.268 (0.009)b0.177 (0.014)c 0.175 (0.018)c BHt 0.148 (0.003)a0.190 (0.009)b0.131 (0.013)c 0.108 (0.012)c Statistical difference5 1.600 A 1.901 B 2.624 C 2.714 C 1Size as designated by the manufacturer. 2Sample site are the sampling point in m from the device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites respectively at 6.7 m from the device. 3Extensions were steel pipe in NPT fitted in to the hub and the nozzles fitted to pipe with coupler. 4Same letters across columns indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 5Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determined by analysis of all site flow s and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 144

144 Table 4-15. R-LVHP extension effects at 75.8 Lpm and 31.0 bar (20 gpm and 450 psi at sprayer feed). Nozzle size1 0030 0030 0030 0030 Extension size2 0 cm 7.6 cm (3 in) 15.2 cm (6 in) 22.9 cm (9 in) Sample Sites 3 Average Flow at rotation speed L/min/m2 (std dev) (n = 3)4 0 1.712 (0.051)a2.031 (0.073)b2.280 (0.047)b 2.031 (0.028)c 0.31 1.311 (0.030)a1.640 (0.051)b1.755 (0.013)b 1.639 (0.022)b 0.91 1.386 (0.022)a1.096 (0.035)a1.001 (0.032)a 1.016 (0.017)a 1.52 1.439 (0.008)a1.184 (0.038)b1.084 (0.020)b 1.123 (0.007)b 2.10 0.650 (0.015)a0.593 (0.033)b0.573 (0.014)b 0.603 (0.011)b 2.70 0.418 (0.009)a0.517 (0.035)b0.500 (0.019)b 0.510 (0.018)b 3.35 0.217 (0.009)a0.285 (0.032)b0.264 (0.001)b 0.269 (0.012)b 3.96 0.166 (0.010)a0.228 (0.029)b0.230 (0.008)b 0.235 (0.004)b 4.57 0.107 (0.007)a0.126 (0.010)a0.116 (0.005)a 0.115 (0.004)a 5.18 0.069 (0.001)a0.096 (0.012)a0.089 (0.001)b 0.091 (0.004)b 5.79 0.042 (0.001)a0.066 (0.011)a0.066 (0.002)b 0.062 (0.003)b 6.40 0.032 (0.001)a0.055 (0.012)a0.061 (0.002)b 0.054 (0.007)b BHc 0.242 (0.004)a0.210 (0.027)a0.213 (0.011)b 0.202 (0.011)b BHt 0.087 (0.008)a0.132 (0.016)a0.146 (0.005)b 0.135 (0.006)c Statistical difference5 1.563 A 2.090 B 2.456 C 2.578 C 1Size as designated by the manufacturer. 2Extensions were steel pipe in NPT fitted into the hub and the nozzles fitted to pipe with coupler. 3Sample site are the sampling point in m from the device. BHc is the bulkhead center site and BHt is the bulkhead top site. Bulkhead is 6.7m from device. 4Same letters across columns indicate no significant differen ce (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 5Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determined by analysis of all site flow s and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 145

145 Table 4-16. R-LVHP extension effects at 79.5 Lpm and 34.5 bar (21 gpm and 500 psi at sprayer feed). Nozzle size1 0030 0030 0030 0030 Extension size2 0 cm 7.6 cm (3 in) 15.2 cm (6 in) 22.9 cm (9 in) Sample Sites 3 Average Flow at rotation speed L/min/m2 (std dev) (n = 3) 0 1.777 (0.028)a2.139 (0.008)b2.294 (0.019)b 1.937 (0.054)c 0.31 1.362 (0.035)a1.680 (0.015)b1.773 (0.020)b 1.549 (0.050)c 0.91 1.439 (0.019)a1.180 (0.007)b1.028 (0.017)b 1.153 (0.004)c 1.52 1.529 (0.015)a1.277 (0.010)b1.130 (0.013)b 1.218 (0.020)c 2.10 0.730 (0.007)a0.866 (0.008)b0.646 (0.004)b 0.733 (0.011)c 2.70 0.470 (0.015)a0.738 (0.017)b0.555 (0.014)b 0.626 (0.057)a 3.35 0.236 (0.014)a0.391 (0.005)b0.283 (0.011)b 0.479 (0.060)c 3.96 0.178 (0.009)a0.307 (0.009)b0.249 (0.010)b 0.326 (0.039)a 4.57 0.107 (0.013)a0.188 (0.006)b0.126 (0.006)b 0.197 (0.024)c 5.18 0.073 (0.005)a0.160 (0.003)b0.100 (0.000)b 0.153 (0.013)b 5.79 0.058 (0.006)a0.112 (0.007)b0.077 (0.003)b 0.090 (0.008)b 6.40 0.033 (0.003)a0.058 (0.002)b0.136 (0.005)b 0.062 (0.003)c BHc 0.350 (0.006)a0.309 (0.003)b0.261 (0.016)b 0.277 (0.014)c BHt 0.189 (0.008)a0.217 (0.005)b0.193 (0.010)b 0.182 (0.014)b Statistical difference5 1.609 A 2.687 B 2.632 B 3.856 C 1Size as designated by the manufacturer. 2Extensions were steel pipe in NPT fitted into the hub and the nozzles fitted to pipe with coupler. 3Sample site are the sampling point in m from the device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center top sites respect ively at 6.7m from the device. 4Same letters across columns indicate no significa nt difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 5Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determined by analysis of al l site flows and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 146

146 Table 4-17. R-LVHP flow pressure effect 0030 nozzle, no extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm) air motor speed. Pressure bar (psi) 24.1 (350) 27.6 (400) 31 (450) 34.5 (500) Flow rate Lpm 68.1 71.9 75.7 79.5 Sample Sites 1 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) at bar (psi) (n = 3)2 0 1.549 (0.011)a1.628 (0.003)b1.712 (0.051)b 1.777 (0.028)c 0.31 1.257 (0.018)a1.251 (0.014)a1.311 (0.030)b 1.362 (0.035)b 0.91 1.233 (0.048)a1.309 (0.030)b1.386 (0.022)b 1.439 (0.019)c 1.52 1.075 (0.055)a1.221 (0.018)b1.439 (0.008)c 1.529 (0.015)d 2.10 0.420 (0.003)a0.445 (0.008)b0.650 (0.015)c 0.730 (0.015)d 2.70 0.286 (0.009)a0.308 (0.023)b0.418 (0.009)c 0.470 (0.015)d 3.35 0.178 (0.009)a0.176 (0.014)a0.217 (0.009)b 0.236 (0.014)c 3.96 0.143 (0.009)a0.134 (0.012)a0.166 (0.010)b 0.178 (0.009)b 4.57 0.098 (0.006)a0.081 (0.012)a0.107 (0.007)a 0.107 (0.013)a 5.18 0.071 (0.049)a0.049 (0.006)b0.069 (0.001)a 0.073 (0.005)a 5.79 0.037 (0.003)a0.028 (0.004)a0.042 (0.001)b 0.058 (0.006)b 6.40 0.019 (0.010)a0.020 (0.002)a0.032 (0.001)b 0.033 (0.003)b BHc 0.161 (0.010)a0.178 (0.012)b0.242 (0.004)c 0.350 (0.006)d BHt 0.037 (0.003)a0.041 (0.003)b0.087 (0.008)c 0.189 (0.008)d Statistical difference3 1.469 A 2.062 B 2.777 C 3.395 C 1Sample sites are in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are bulkhead ce nter and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. 2Same letters across columns indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 3Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall Determined by analysis of all site flows and site differences. Higher values indicat e an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 147

147 Table 4-18. R-LVHP flow pressu re effect 0030 nozzle, no extensions, and 20 psi (10 rpm) air motor speed. Pressure bar (psi) 24.1 (350) 27.6 (400) 31 (450) Sample sites1 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) at bar (psi) (n = 3)2 0 2.041 (0.024)a2.165 (0.032)bc2.214 (0.006)c 0.31 1.574 (0.026)a1.624 (0.032)a1.609 (0.009)a 0.91 1.408 (0.016)a1.468 (0.040)ab1.500 (0.002)b 1.52 1.379 (0.024)a1.516 (0.042)b1.632 (0.024)c 2.10 0.537 (0.021)a0.603 (0.015)b0.681 (0.015)c 2.70 0.394 (0.022)a0.453 (0.012)b0.520 (0.006)c 3.35 0.229 (0.003)a0.258 (0.008)b0.295 (0.002)c 3.96 0.146 (0.007)a0.172 (0.009)b0.203 (0.004)c 4.57 0.086 (0.005)a0.100 (0.003)b0.115 (0.001)c 5.18 0.063 (0.005)a0.072 (0.002)b0.086 (0.001)c 5.79 0.035 (0.002)a0.047 (0.003)b0.060 (0.002)c 6.40 0.014 (0.002)a0.025 (0.001)b0.025 (0.001)c BHc 0.192 (0.006)a0.239 (0.001)b0.276 (0.006)c BHt 0.019 (0.002)a0.044 (0.004)b0.077 (0.003)c Statistical difference3 1.580 A 2.485 B 3.450 C 1Sample sites are in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are bulkhead ce nter and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. 2Same letters across column s indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 3Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determ ined by analysis of all site flows and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 148

148 Table 4-19. R-LVHP flow rate effect 0030 nozzle, no extensions, and 30 psi (14 rpm) air motor speed. Pressure bar (psi) 24.1 (350) 27.6 (400) 31 (450) Sample Sites 1 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) at bar (psi) (n = 3)2 0 2.035 (0.074)a2.196 (0.005)a2.311 (0.044)b 0.31 1.633 (0.012)a1.632 (0.007)a1.737 (0.022)b 0.91 1.396 (0.030)a1.464 (0.011)a1.521 (0.008)b 1.52 1.361 (0.001)a1.500 (0.019)b1.521 (0.008)c 2.10 0.512 (0.027)a0.573 (0.002)ab0.636 (0.029)b 2.70 0.376 (0.036)a0.426 (0.008)a0.485 (0.016)b 3.35 0.217 (0.011)a0.253 (0.007)b0.281 (0.010)c 3.96 0.136 (0.003)a0.166 (0.002)b0.186 (0.009)c 4.57 0.076 (0.004)a0.094 (0.002)b0.104 (0.004)c 5.18 0.054 (0.002)a0.068 (0.001)b0.076 (0.003)b 5.79 0.025 (0.005)a0.038 (0.000)b0.045 (0.001)c 6.40 0.009 (0.001)a0.017 (0.001)b0.015 (0.002)b BHc 0.156 (0.008)a0.205 (0.003)b0.231 (0.011)b BHt 0.004 (0.002)a0.016 (0.002)b0.028 (0.002)c Statistical difference3 1.571 A 2.332 B 3.084 C 1Sample sites are in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are bulkhead ce nter and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. 2Same letters across column s indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 3Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determ ined by analysis of all site flows and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 149

149 Table 4-20. R-LVHP flow pressu re effect 0030 nozzle, no extensions, and 40 psi (20 rpm) air motor speed. Pressure bar (psi) 24.1 (350) 27.6 (400) 31 (450) Sample Sites 1 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) at bar (psi) (n = 3)2 0 2.046 (0.009)a2.230 (0.012)b2.272 (0.016)b 0.31 1.611 (0.005)a1.740 (0.051)b1.712 (0.017)b 0.91 1.391 (0.017)a1.477 (0.009)b1.528 (0.032)b 1.52 1.345 (0.013)a1.563 (0.032)b1.664 (0.043)b 2.10 0.499 (0.001)a0.586 (0.031)b0.622 (0.027)b 2.70 0.379 (0.009)a0.449 (0.034)ab0.482 (0.020)b 3.35 0.211 (0.004)a0.257 (0.012)b0.267 (0.003)b 3.96 0.129 (0.002)a0.168 (0.012)b0.181 (0.002)b 4.57 0.074 (0.002)a0.094 (0.002)b0.109 (0.006)c 5.18 0.050 (0.000)a0.070 (0.005)b0.076 (0.005)b 5.79 0.021 (0.001)a0.031 (0.003)b0.038 (0.004)c 6.40 0.009 (0.001)a0.015 (0.002)a0.017 (0.004)a BHc 0.143 (0.010)a0.168 (0.011)a0.182 (0.021)a BHt 0.000 (0.000)a0.006 (0.002)b0.009 (0.003)b Statistical difference3 1.565 A 2.418 B 2.654 C 1Sample sites are in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are bulkhead ce nter and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. 2Same letters across column s indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 3Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determ ined by analysis of all site flows and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 150

150 Table 4-21. R-LVHP flow pressu re effect 0030 nozzle, no extensions, and 60 psi (22 rpm) air motor speed. Pressure bar (psi) 24.1 (350) 27.6 (400) 31 (450) Sample Sites 1 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) at bar (psi) (n = 3)2 0 2.046 (0.009)a2.170 (0.013)b2.321 (0.020)c 0.31 1.611 (0.005)a1.747 (0.037)b1.784 (0.010)b 0.91 1.391 (0.017)a1.467 (0.014)b1.537 (0.001)c 1.52 1.345 (0.013)a1.525 (0.009)b1.665 (0.009)c 2.10 0.499 (0.001)a0.544 (0.005)b0.615 (0.014)c 2.70 0.379 (0.009)a0.448 (0.005)b0.507 (0.010)c 3.35 0.211 (0.004)a0.258 (0.005)b0.273 (0.009)b 3.96 0.129 (0.002)a0.149 (0.003)b0.180 (0.005)b 4.57 0.074 (0.002)a0.085 (0.001)b0.102 (0.002)c 5.18 0.050 (0.000)a0.051 (0.001)b0.065 (0.004)b 5.79 0.021 (0.001)a0.020 (0.000)b0.027 (0.002)c 6.40 0.009 (0.001)a0.007 (0.001)a0.008 (0.002)a BHc 0.143 (0.010)a0.148 (0.001)a0.157 (0.005)a BHt 0.000 (0.000)a0.000 (0.000)a0.000 (0.000)a Statistical difference3 1.565 A 2.401 B 2.946 C 1Sample sites are in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are bulkhead ce nter and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. 2Same letters across column s indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 3Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determ ined by analysis of all site flows and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 151

151 Table 4-22. R-LVHP flow rate with 0030 nozzle, no extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm) air motor speed. Lpm (gpm) 68.1 (18) 71.9 (19) 75.7 (20) 79.5 (21) Bar (psi) 24.1 (350) 27.6 (400) 31.0 (450) 34.5 (500) Sample Sites 1 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) by operating flow (n = 3)2 0 1.672 (0.031)a1.709 (0.027)a1.765 (0.043)b 1.777 (0.028)ab 0.31 1.318 (0.035)a1.356 (0.018)a1.387 (0.043)b 1.362 (0.035)ab 0.91 1.401 (0.070)a1.435 (0.072)a1.436 (0.070)a 1.439 (0.019)a 1.52 1.269 (0.025)a1.430 (0.077)b1.452 (0.034)b 1.529 (0.015)b 2.10 0.577 (0.030)a0.707 (0.017)b0.799 (0.044)bc 0.730 (0.007)bc 2.70 0.396 (0.016)a0.482 (0.017)b0.507 (0.020)b 0.470 (0.015)c 3.35 0.226 (0.020)a0.259 (0.018)a0.288 (0.013)c 0.236 (0.014)c 3.96 0.188 (0.011)a0.211 (0.016)a0.233 (0.011)a 0.178 (0.009)a 4.57 0.126 (0.007)a0.142 (0.010)a0.161 (0.010)b 0.107 (0.013)b 5.18 0.095 (0.006)a0.109 (0.006)a0.132 (0.010)b 0.073 (0.005)a 5.79 0.064 (0.006)a0.079 (0.006)a0.091 (0.005)b 0.058 (0.006)a 6.40 0.035 (0.005)a0.034 (0.002)a0.080 (0.002)b 0.033 (0.003)a BHc 0.225 (0.22)a0.299 (0.003)b0.292 (0.024)c 0.350 (0.006)c BHt 0.080 (0.005)a0.148 (0.003)b0.138 (0.001)c 0.189 (0.008)d Statistical difference3 1.548 A 1.957 B 2.769 C 2.681 C 1Sample sites are in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are bulkhead ce nter and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. 2Same letters across column s indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 3Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determ ined by analysis of all site flows and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 152

152 Table 4-23. R-LVHP flow rate with 0030 nozzle, 3 in. extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm) air motor speed. Lpm (gpm) 68.1 (18) 71.9 (19) 75.7 (20) 79.5 (21) Bar (psi) 24.1 (350) 27.6 (400) 31.0 (450) 34.5 (500) Sample Sites 1 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) by operating flow (n = 3)2 0 1.875 (0.026)a1.982 (0.030)a1.778 (0.303)ab 2.139 (0.008)b 0.31 1.513 (0.016)a1.575 (0.039)a1.477 (0.051)ab 1.680 (0.015)b 0.91 0.988 (0.006)a1.137 (0.031)b1.148 (0.020)b 1.180 (0.007)b 1.52 1.040 (0.032)a1.215 (0.053)ab1.184 (0.052)b 1.277 (0.010)b 2.10 0.462 (0.025)a0.723 (0.054)b0.761 (0.036)bc 0.866 (0.008)c 2.70 0.374 (0.012)a0.561 (0.033)b0.636 (0.048)bc 0.738 (0.017)c 3.35 0.202 (0.009)a0.293 (0.014)b0.355 (0.028)bc 0.391 (0.005)c 3.96 0.163 (0.003)a0.251 (0.011)b0.284 (0.021)bc 0.307 (0.009)c 4.57 0.097 (0.004)a0.152 (0.010)b0.173 (0.010)bc 0.188 (0.006)c 5.18 0.070 (0.005)a0.129 (0.008)b0.150 (0.009)bc 0.160 (0.003)c 5.79 0.046 (0.004)a0.092 (0.002)b0.108 (0.006)bc 0.112 (0.007)c 6.40 0.037 (0.003)a0.040 (0.002)b0.035 (0.001)b 0.058 (0.002)c BHc 0.176 (0.002)a0.268 (0.009)b0.318 (0.019)c 0.309 (0.003)c BHt 0.108 (0.006)a0.190 (0.009)b0.217 (0.014)bc 0.217 (0.005)c Statistical difference3 1.511 A 2.472 B 3.259 C 3.402 D 1Sample sites are in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are bulkhead ce nter and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. 2Same letters across column s indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 3Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determ ined by analysis of all site flows and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 153

153 Table 4-24. R-LVHP flow rate with 0030 nozzle, 6 in. extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm) air motor speed. Lpm (gpm) 68.1 (18) 71.9 (19) 75.7 (20) 79.5 (21) Bar (psi) 24.1 (350) 27.6 (400) 31.0 (450) 34.5 (500) Sample Sites 1 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) by operating flow (n = 3)2 0 2.093 (0.018)a1.999 (0.108)a2.280 (0.047)b 2.109 (0.107)a 0.31 1.612 (0.025)a1.682 (0.023)a1.755 (0.013)b 1.599 (0.091)a 0.91 0.926 (0.014)a0.995 (0.027)a1.001 (0.032)a 1.052 (0.027)b 1.52 0.999 (0.024)a1.046 (0.033)a1.084 (0.020)a 1.132 (0.015)a 2.10 0.461 (0.031)a0.511 (0.002)a0.573 (0.014)a 0.596 (0.015)b 2.70 0.374 (0.026)a0.450 (0.014)b0.500 (0.019)b 0.540 (0.023)c 3.35 0.184 (0.015)a0.239 (0.014)b0.264 (0.001)b 0.307 (0.010)c 3.96 0.171 (0.013)a0.200 (0.012)b0.230 (0.008)c 0.278 (0.010)d 4.57 0.090 (0.005)a0.111 (0.008)b0.116 (0.005)c 0.140 (0.003)d 5.18 0.067 (0.008)a0.083 (0.004)b0.089 (0.001)b 0.113 (0.004)c 5.79 0.049 (0.005)a0.061 (0.006)b0.066 (0.002)b 0.085 (0.006)c 6.40 0.041 (0.004)a0.049 (0.006)b0.061 (0.002)b 0.074 (0.006)c BHc 0.165 (0.009)a0.177 (0.014)a0.213 (0.011)b 0.275 (0.014)c BHt 0.111 (0.009)a0.131 (0.013)b0.146 (0.005)b 0.184 (0.009)c Statistical difference3 1.525 A 2.124 B 2.527 B 3.177 C 1Sample sites are in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are bulkhead ce nter and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. 2Same letters across column s indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 3Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determ ined by analysis of all site flows and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 154

154 Table 4-25. R-LVHP flow rate with 0030 nozzle, 9 in. extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm) air motor speed. Lpm (gpm) 68.1 (18) 71.9 (19) 75.7 (20) 79.5 (21) Bar (psi) 24.1 (350) 27.6 (400) 31.0 (450) 34.5 (500) Sample Sites 1 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) by operating flow (n = 3)2 0 1.870 (0.039)a2.110 (0.060)a2.031 (0.028)b 2.213 (0.086)c 0.31 1.511 (0.012)a1.702 (0.019)b1.639 (0.022)c 1.778 (0.097)c 0.91 0.949 (0.029)a1.010 (0.032)b1.016 (0.017)b 1.048 (0.058)b 1.52 1.012 (0.043)a1.077 (0.062)a1.123 (0.007)a 1.115 (0.082)a 2.10 0.474 (0.029)a0.619 (0.052)b0.603 (0.011)b 0.711 (0.035)c 2.70 0.398 (0.038)a0.449 (0.046)a0.510 (0.018)b 0.607 (0.062)c 3.35 0.207 (0.011)a0.285 (0.035)b0.269 (0.012)b 0.330 (0.047)b 3.96 0.180 (0.013)a0.182 (0.022)a0.235 (0.004)b 0.243 (0.028)b 4.57 0.090 (0.004)a0.104 (0.015)b0.115 (0.004)b 0.133 (0.013)b 5.18 0.071 (0.005)a0.082 (0.013)a0.091 (0.004)b 0.108 (0.013)c 5.79 0.048 (0.006)a0.052 (0.007)a0.062 (0.003)b 0.066 (0.010)b 6.40 0.044 (0.007)a0.041 (0.004)a0.054 (0.007)a 0.058 (0.009)b BHc 0.158 (0.007)a0.175 (0.018)a0.202 (0.011)b 0.222 (0.035)b BHt 0.107 (0.006)a0.108 (0.012)a0.135 (0.006)b 0.140 (0.014)b Statistical difference3 1.508 A 1.928 B 2.506 C 2.912 D 1Sample sites are in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are bulkhead ce nter and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. 2Same letters across column s indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 3Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determ ined by analysis of all site flows and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 155

155 Table 4-26. R-LVHP flow rates at 350 psi with varied nozzles, 9 in. extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm) air motor speed. Nozzle size 0030 0035 0040 0045 0050 Lpm (gpm) 71.9 (19) 75.7 (20) 83.3 (22) 90.8 (24) 94.6 (25) Sample Sites 1 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) by operating flow (n = 3)2 0 1.870 (0.039)a 1.975 (0.024)a2.379 (0.066)b2.558 (0.039)c 2.477 (0.062)c 0.31 1.511 (0.012)a 1.618 (0.050)a1.948 (0.067)b2.083 (0.034)b 2.062 (0.087)c0.91 0.949 (0.029)a 1.148 (0.014)b1.198 (0.045)b1.273 (0.019)c 1.402 (0.056)d1.52 1.012 (0.043)a 1.087 (0.039)a1.231 (0.027)b1.289 (0.017)c 1.342 (0.071)c2.10 0.474 (0.029)a 0.485 (0.026)a0.654 (0.002)b0.659 (0.027)c 0.662 (0.065)c2.70 0.398 (0.038)a 0.402 (0.020)a0.523 (0.016)b0.572 (0.008)c 0.571 (0.054)c3.35 0.207 (0.011)a 0.227 (0.015)b0.273 (0.009)b0.318 (0.019)c 0.324 (0.032)c3.96 0.180 (0.013)a 0.207 (0.014)b0.236 (0.015)c0.285 (0.014)d 0.309 (0.030)d4.57 0.090 (0.004)a 0.120 (0.007)b0.125 (0.008)b0.147 (0.006)c 0.171 (0.019)c5.18 0.071 (0.005)a 0.084 (0.006)b0.093 (0.008)c0.113 (0.004)d 0.129 (0.015)d5.79 0.048 (0.006)a 0.060 (0.005)b0.064 (0.007)b0.084 (0.004)c 0.095 (0.011)c6.40 0.044 (0.007)a 0.052 (0.008)a0.061 (0.009)b0.070 (0.004)b 0.085 (0.011)cBHc 0.158 (0.007)a 0.249 (0.020)b0.234 (0.023)b0.284 (0.015)c 0.390 (0.044)cBHt 0.107 (0.006)a 0.154 (0.020)a0.141 (0.015)b0.180 (0.012)b 0.227 (0.033)b Significant difference3 1.509 A 2.062 A 2.797 A 3.634 AB 3.875 B 1Sample sites are in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are bulkhead ce nter and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. 2Same letters across column s indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 3Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determ ined by analysis of all site flows and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 156

156 Table 4-27. R-LVHP flow rates at 450 psi with varied nozzles, 9 in. extensions, and 10 psi (4 rpm) air motor speed. Nozzle size 0030 0035 0040 0045 0050 Lpm (gpm) 71.9 (19) 75.7 (20) 83.3 (22) 90.8 (24) 94.6 (25) Sample Sites 1 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) by operating flow (n = 3)2 0 2.031 (0.028)a 2.152 (0.065)a2.473 (0.006)b2.638 (0.058)c 2.925 (0.064)d 0.31 1.639 (0.022)a 1.745 (0.020)a2.013 (0.019)b2.128 (0.033)c 2.344 (0.047)d0.91 1.016 (0.017)a 1.274 (0.023)b1.263 (0.017)c1.314 (0.060)c 1.446 (0.067)d1.52 1.123 (0.007)a 1.210 (0.003)b1.319 (0.008)c1.363 (0.077)c 1.497 (0.082)d2.10 0.603 (0.011)a 0.642 (0.031)a0.789 (0.020)b0.805 (0.057)b 0.890 (0.060)c2.70 0.510 (0.018)a 0.525 (0.033)a0.731 (0.008)b0.760 (0.041)b 0.835 (0.044)c3.35 0.269 (0.012)a 0.303 (0.024)a0.396 (0.001)b0.447 (0.034)b 0.492 (0.037)c3.96 0.235 (0.004)a 0.275 (0.012)b0.323 (0.010)b0.374 (0.022)c 0.411 (0.023)d4.57 0.115 (0.004)a 0.150 (0.001)b0.166 (0.001)b0.195 (0.001)c 0.216 (0.001)d5.18 0.091 (0.004)a 0.114 (0.002)b0.128 (0.005)b0.149 (0.008)c 0.165 (0.006)d5.79 0.062 (0.003)a 0.080 (0.001)b0.090 (0.001)c0.111 (0.005)d 0.123 (0.005)e6.40 0.054 (0.007)a 0.068 (0.001)a0.082 (0.003)b0.106 (0.004)c 0.119 (0.003)dBHc 0.202 (0.011)a 0.324 (0.013)b0.323 (0.006)b0.407 (0.016)c 0.451 (0.016)dBHt 0.135 (0.006)a 0.229 (0.028)b0.190 (0.008)b0.266 (0.005)c 0.296 (0.005)d Significant difference3 1.578 A 2.221 A 2.949 A 3.647 A 4.586 B 1Sample sites are in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are bulkhead ce nter and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. 2Same letters across column s indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments at the sample site. 3Same letters across columns indicate no significance difference (P<0.05) for treatments overall. Determ ined by analysis of all site flows and site differences. Higher values indicate an overall increase in fluid delivery.

PAGE 157

157 Table 4-28. R-LVHP wall flow rates with nozzle variations. Average wall flow rate as L/min/m2 (std dev) at 87 Lpm and 31 bar feed rate (23 gpm and 450 psi) (n = 3)1,2 Sample Sites 3 0030 nc 0030 w/o vanes 0030 w jet stabilizer 0 1.71 (0.05)a 1.58 (0.03)b 2.03 (0.02)c 0.31 1.31 (0.03)a 1.26 (0.05)b 1.62 (0.03)c 0.91 1.39 (0.02)a 1.61 (0.11)b 1.14 (0.02)c 1.52 1.44 (0.01)a 1.53 (0.09)b 1.15 (0.06)c 2.10 0.65 (0.02)a 0.72 (0.03)b 0.60 (0.02)c 2.70 0.42 (0.01)a 0.39 (0.05)b 0.44 (0.01)c 3.35 0.22 (0.01)a 0.19 (0.02)b 0.24 (0.01)c 3.96 0.17 (0.01)a 0.12 (0.01)b 0.20 (0.02)c 4.57 0.11 (0.01)a 0.08 (0.01)b 0.11 (0.01)c 5.18 0.07 (0.00)a 0.04 (0.01)b 0.09 (0.01)c 5.79 0.04 (0.00)a 0.02 (0.00)b 0.06 (0.00)c 6.40 0.03 (0.00)a 0.02 (0.00)b 0.05 (0.00)c BHc 0.24 (0.00)a 0.14 (0.01)b 0.23 (0.02)c BHt 0.09 (0.01)a 0.02 (0.00)b 0.14 (0.01)c Significant difference4 1.564 A 2.551 B 3.579 C 1Device manufacturer details. 2 Same letters in each column indicate no significance P<0.05 at the sample site for treatments. 3Sample sites are in m from the device. BHc and BHt are bulkhead center and top sites, resp ectively at 6.7m from device. 4Same letters in each column indicate no significance P<0.05 for the overall operating conditions.

PAGE 158

158 Table 4-29. R-LVHP flow rates for test noz zle and extensions at 68 Lpm and 24 bar. Nozzle2 0030 JS 0 0030 ST 00030 ST 30030 ST 6 0030 ST 9 Sample Sites 3 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) (n = 3)1 0 1.89 (0.03)a 1.63 (0.00)b1.88 (0.03)a2.09 (0.02)c 1.87 (0.04)a 0.31 1.52 (0.02)a 1.25 (0.01)b1.51 (0.02)a1.61 (0.03)a 1.51 (0.01)a0.91 1.06 (0.03)a 1.31 (0.03)b0.99 (0.01)a0.93 (0.01)b 0.95 (0.03)a1.52 1.08 (0.00)a 1.22 (0.02)b1.04 (0.03)c1.00 (0.02)c 1.01 (0.04)c2.10 0.49 (0.03)a 0.45 (0.01)a0.46 (0.03)a0.46 (0.03)a 0.47 (0.03)b2.70 0.36 (0.01)a 0.31 (0.02)a0.37 (0.01)b0.37 (0.03)a 0.40 (0.04)a3.35 0.20 (0.01)a 0.18 (0.01)a0.20 (0.01)a0.18 (0.01)a 0.21 (0.01)a3.96 0.16 (0.00)a 0.13 (0.01)b0.16 (0.00)a0.17 (0.01)a 0.18 (0.01)a4.57 0.09 (0.00)a 0.08 (0.01)a0.10 (0.01)a0.09 (0.01)a 0.09 (0.00)a5.18 0.07 (0.00)a 0.05 (0.01)b0.07 (0.01)a0.07 (0.01)a 0.07 (0.01)a5.79 0.04 (0.00)a 0.03 (0.00)a0.05 (0.00)a0.05 (0.00)a 0.05 (0.01)a6.40 0.03 (0.00)a 0.02 (0.00)b0.04 (0.00)a0.04 (0.00)a 0.04 (0.01)aBHc 0.19 (0.01)a 0.18 (0.01)b0.18 (0.01)b0.16 (0.01)b 0.16 (0.01)bBHt 0.10 (0.00)a 0.04 (0.00)b0.11 (0.01)a0.11 (0.01)a 0.11 (0.01)a Overall difference4 1.520 A 2.134 C 1.797 AB 1.952 B 1.794 AB 1Same letters in each column indicate no significant difference (P <0.05) at the sample site for each treatment. 2Nozzle size for each test is 0030 with jet stabilizer no extensions (JS 0), standard nozzle (ST) with ex tensions (0, 3, 6, or 9 in). 3Samples sites in m from the device. BHc and BHt are bulkhead center and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. 4Same letters in each column indicate no significance (P <0.05) for nozzle treatment overall.

PAGE 159

159 Table 4-30. R-LVHP flow rates for test noz zle and extensions at 87 Lpm and 31 bar. Nozzle2 0030 JS 00030 ST 00030 ST 30030 ST 6 0030 ST 9 Sample Sites 3 Average Flow L/min/m2 (std dev) (n = 3)1 0 2.03 (0.02)a1.71 (0.05)b2.03 (0.07)a2.28 (0.05)b 2.03 (0.03)a 0.31 1.62 (0.03)a1.31 (0.03)b1.64 (0.05)a1.76 (0.01)b 1.64 (0.02)a0.91 1.14 (0.02)a1.39 (0.02)b1.10 (0.03)a1.00 (0.03)b 1.02 (0.02)b1.52 1.15 (0.06)a1.44 (0.01)b1.18 (0.04)a1.08 (0.02)a 1.12 (0.01)a2.10 0.60 (0.02)a0.65 (0.02)b0.59 (0.03)a0.57 (0.01)a 0.60 (0.01)a2.70 0.44 (0.01)a0.42 (0.01)a0.52 (0.03)a0.50 (0.02)a 0.51 (0.02)b3.35 0.24 (0.01)a0.22 (0.01)a0.29 (0.03)a0.26 (0.00)a 0.27 (0.01)a3.96 0.20 (0.02)a0.17 (0.01)a0.23 (0.03)a0.23 (0.01)a 0.23 (0.00)b4.57 0.11 (0.01)a0.11 (0.01)a0.13 (0.01)a0.12 (0.01)a 0.12 (0.00)a5.18 0.09 (0.01)a0.07 (0.01)b0.10 (0.01)a0.09 (0.00)b 0.09 (0.00)a5.79 0.06 (0.00)a0.04 (0.00)a0.07 (0.01)a0.07 (0.00)b 0.06 (0.00)b6.40 0.05 (0.00)a0.03 (0.00)b0.06 (0.01)a0.06 (0.00)b 0.05 (0.01)bBHc 0.23 (0.02)a0.24 (0.00)a0.21 (0.03)a0.21 (0.01)a 0.20 (0.01)aBHt 0.14 (0.01)a0.09 (0.01)b0.13 (0.02)a0.15 (0.01)a 0.14 (0.01)a Overall significant difference4 1.579 A 2.135 C 1.591 A 2.027 B 1.934 A 1Same letters in each column indicate no signifi cant difference (P<0.05) at the distance. 2Nozzle size for each test is 0030 with jet stabilizer no extensions (JS 0), standard nozzle (ST) with extensions (0, 3, 6, or 9 in). 3Samples sites in m from the device. BHc and BHt are bulkhead center and top sites, respectiv ely at 6.7 m from device. 4Same letters in each column indicate no significance (P<0.05) for no zzle treatment overall.

PAGE 160

160 Table 4-31. Percent surface flow for Sd-HVMP CIP device. Percent surface flow at delivered flow conditions1 Sample Sites 2 122 @ 65 150 @ 80 0 8.64 11.03 0.3 8.36 11.66 0.9 4.04 4.65 1.5 4.66 5.84 2.1 3.35 4.98 2.7 1.66 1.82 3.4 1.05 1.69 4.0 1.27 1.40 4.6 2.24 2.62 5.2 3.59 2.71 5.8 1.78 1.63 6.4 2.90 1.08 BHc 30.63 25.94 BHt 25.82 22.95 1Percent flow rate determined by dividing each s ite by the total fluid collected for each operating condition. Number of samples for each is n = 3. 2Sample sites are the sampling points in m from the device. BHc and BHt are the bu lkhead center and top sites, resp ectively at 6.7m from device.

PAGE 161

161 Table 4-32. Sd-HVMP wall flow rates w ith varied pump delivery conditions. Average wall flow rate L/min/m2 (std dev) at pump delivery rate Lpm @ bar (gpm @ psi) (n = 3)1 Sample Sites 2 397@3.1 (105@45) 462@4.5 (122@65)568@5.5(150@80) 0 6.02 (0.03)a 9.45 (0.82)b 16.60 (0.35)c 0.31 2.95 (0.05)a 9.14 (0.23)b 17.55 (0.14)c0.91 2.62 (0.03)a 4.42 (0.24)b 7.00 (0.42)c1.52 5.10 (0.08)a 5.09 (0.20)b 8.79 (0.03)c2.10 3.40 (0.06)a 3.66 (0.16)b 7.49 (0.05)c2.70 2.83 (0.01)a 1.82 (0.10)b 2.74 (0.08)c3.35 2.86 (0.07)a 1.15 (0.07)b 2.54 (0.01)c3.96 2.66 (0.04)a 1.39 (0.09)b 2.10 (0.06)c4.57 6.26 (0.13)a 2.45 (0.11)b 3.94 (0.31)c 5.18 5.69 (0.04)a 3.93 (0.18)b 4.08 (0.22)c5.79 2.81 (0.06)a 1.95 (0.11)b 2.45 (0.06)c6.40 4.15 (0.05)a 3.17 (0.45)b 1.62 (0.03)cBHc 33.34 (0.61)a33.49 (3.20)b 39.03 (0.89)c BHt 10.92 (2.74)a28.23 (2.47)b 34.54 (2.75)c Overall Difference 3 7.544 A 9.810 B 13.748 C1Same letters in each column indicate no signi ficant difference P<0.05 at the distance. 2Sample sites are the sampling point in m from the devi ce. BHc and BHt is the bulkhead center and top sites, respectively at 6.7m from device. 3Same letters in each column indicate no significance P<0.05 for the overall operating conditions.

PAGE 162

162 Table 4-33. Sd-HVMP wall flow rate s with varied installation pitch. Pitch angle 76 79 82 Sampling Sites 2 Average wall flow rate L/min/m2 (std dev)1 with 568 Lpm and 5.5 bar feed (150 gpm and 80 psi) with varied pitch positions (n= 3)3 0 16.50 (0.30)a16.60 (0.35)a 16.30 (0.41)a 0.31 18.05 (0.21)a17.55 (0.14)a16.25 (0.18)b0.91 13.30 (0.22)b 7.00 (0.42)a 5.50 (0.02)c1.52 12.50 (0.03)b 8.79 (0.03)a 6.85 (0.01)c2.10 11.20 (0.08)b 7.49 (0.05)a 5.38 (0.32)c2.70 6.00 (0.12)b 2.74 (0.08)a 1.54 (0.04)c3.35 6.50 (0.72)b 2.54 (0.01)a 1.01 (0.01)c3.96 8.10 (0.01)b 2.10 (0.06)a 0.83 (0.01)c4.57 20.00 (1.21)b 3.94 (0.31)a 1.45 (0.03)c5.18 13.00 (0.81)b 4.08 (0.22)a 1.60 (0.01)c5.79 0.04 (0.01)b 2.45 (0.06)a 1.20 (0.01)c6.40 0.01 (0.01)b 1.62 (0.03)a 4.05 (0.27)cBHc 0.01 (0.01)b39.03 (0.89)a42.00 (1.01)cBHt 2.03 (0.11)b14.54 (0.75)a 0.01 (0.00)c Overall Difference4 10.945 B 10.319 A 10.212 C 1Different letters indicate significant difference (P<0.05) for each pitch angle. 2Sample sites are the sampling point in m from the device. BHc an d BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites, respectively at 6.7m from device. 3Same letters across columns for each sample site indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) for treatment. 4Same letters indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) overall for pitch installation.

PAGE 163

163 Table 4-34. Sd-HVMP wall flow rates with varied centering installation. Degrees off center2 0 1R 2.5R 5R 10R Sample Sites3 Average wall flow rate L/min/m2 (std dev)1 with 568 Lpm and 5.5 bar feed (150 gpm and 80 psi) with vari ed centering positions (n= 3)4 0 16.60 (0.35)a 14.79 (0.09)b15.9 (0.11)c10.78 (0.25)d 7.96 (0.04)e 0.31 17.55 (0.14)a 13.98 (0.52)b15.32 (0.22)c7.32 (0.20)d 8.59 (0.09)e0.91 7.00 (0.42)a 7.06 (0.22)a8.80 (0.56)b5.06 (0.10)c 3.79 (0.07)d1.52 8.79 (0.03)a 9.46 (0.11)b9.09 (0.14)c10.32 (0.16)d 18.62 (0.11)e2.10 7.49 (0.05)a 7.59 (0.21)a7.30 (0.06)a6.45 (0.21)b 5.29 (0.14)c2.70 2.74 (0.08)a 2.81 (0.04)a2.81 (0.07)a6.22 (0.07)b 9.26 (0.02)c3.35 2.54 (0.01)a 2.39 (0.07)a2.42 (0.04)a3.82 (0.03)b 5.68 (0.05)c3.96 2.10 (0.06)a 3.09 (0.01)b2.81 (0.02)c5.52 (0.04)d 31.76 (0.46)e4.57 3.94 (0.31)a 5.13 (0.01)b4.88 (0.06)d16.85 (0.44)d 16.10 (0.37)d5.18 4.08 (0.22)a 9.69 (0.06)b7.32 (0.01)c12.59 (0.60)c 21.40 (0.03)d5.79 2.45 (0.06)a 3.27 (0.06)b3.33 (0.05)c4.31 (0.07)c 3.91 (0.02)e6.40 1.62 (0.03)a 1.95 (0.06)b1.78 (0.03)c2.72 (0.06)d 3.35 (0.02)eBHc 39.03 (0.89)a 36.97 (0.57)a33.29 (0.49)b28.44 (0.02)c 6.73 (0.04)dBHt 14.54 (0.75)a 6.02 (0.17)b7.69 (0.40)c15.71 (0.33)d 1.42 (0.02)e Overall Difference5 10.319 A 10.514 B 11.267 C 13.008 D 14.990 E 1Different letters indicate significant difference (P<0.05) for each distance. 2Device rear nozzle facing right rear. Degree s are measured at manway and 6.7m radius. 3Sample sites are the sampling point in m from the device. BHc and BH t are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m from device. 4Same letters across columns for each sample site indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) for treatment. 5Same letters indicate no signifi cant difference (P<0.05) overall for treatments.

PAGE 164

164 Table 4-35. Sd-HVMP wall flow rates with varied centering installation. Degrees off center2 0 1L 2.5L 5L 10L Sample Sites 3 Average wall flow rate L/min/m2 (std dev)1 with 568 Lpm and 5.5 bar feed (150 gpm and 80 psi) with varied centering positions (n= 3)4 0 16.60 (0.35)a 18.3 (0.10)b 25.25 (0.34)c29.28 (0.25)d 33.42 (0.05)e 0.31 17.55 (0.14)a 17.61 (0.15)a18.29 (0.38)b17.53 (0.49)c 16.71 (0.08)d0.91 7.00 (0.42)a 10.18 (0.31)b10.66 (0.07)c10.05 (0.50)c 8.56 (0.07)c1.52 8.79 (0.03)a 8.61 (0.08)a 7.35 (0.14)b6.50 (0.11)c 4.89 (0.14)d2.10 7.49 (0.05)a 7.29 (0.20)a 6.33 (0.02)b5.54 (0.12)c 4.48 (0.14)d2.70 2.74 (0.08)a 2.81 (0.24)a 3.05 (0.31)b3.27 (0.16)b 2.45 (0.01)c3.35 2.54 (0.01)a 2.74 (0.11)a 2.85 (0.09)b2.14 (0.05)c 2.04 (0.04)d3.96 2.10 (0.06)a 2.22 (0.06)b 1.53 (0.07)c1.16 (0.03)d 1.02 (0.09)e4.57 3.94 (0.31)a 3.98 (0.09)a 1.64 (0.08)b0.79 (0.07)c 0.41 (0.08)d5.18 4.08 (0.22)a 4.40 (0.12)a 1.64 (0.11)b0.69 (0.06)c 0.37 (0.04)d5.79 2.45 (0.06)a 2.69 (0.05)b 0.98 (0.06)c0.47 (0.03)d 0.33 (0.03)e6.40 1.62 (0.03)a 1.48 (0.02)b 0.89 (0.10)c0.65 (0.05)c 0.37 (0.04)dBHc 39.03 (0.89)a 38.60 (0.83)b36.63 (0.24)c30.34 (0.77)d 6.73 (0.25)eBHt 14.54 (0.75)a 13.41 (0.60)a10.49 (0.23)b4.70 (0.10)c 1.39 (0.11)dSig difference5 10.319 A 11.023 A 11.541 B 11.294 C 10.084 D 1Different letters indicate significant difference (P<0.05) for each distance. 2Device rear nozzle facing left rear. Degrees are measur ed at manway and 6.7m radius. 3Sample sites are the sampling point in m from the device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites, respectively at 6.7m from device. 4Same letters across columns for each sample site indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) for treatment. 5Different letters indi cate significance (P<0.05) overall for degree installation. Table 4-36. R-HVMP vane design re lated to body and hub speed (rpm). Vane design1 Observed shaft speed (rpm)2 (n = 3) Long 2 22 0.5 Long 1 20 0.3 Normal 16 0.4 Short 12 0.2 1 Vane design designations are those of the de vice manufacturer Lechler Spray Company 2006 2 Rotation speed based on time for 1 hub revolution.

PAGE 165

165 Table 4-37. R-HVMP wall flow rate s with varied rotation speed. Rotation speed1 (rpm) 12 16 20 Sample Sites 2 Average wall flow rate L/min/m2 (std dev)3 with 493 Lpm and 6.2 bar feed (130 gpm and 90 psi) with varied rotation speed2 (n= 3) 07.86 (0.05)a 7.85 (0.08)a 7.68 (0.11)a 0.316.15 (0.06)a 6.18 (0.05)a 6.10 (0.02)a0.914.73 (0.00)b 4.68 (0.03)a 4.69 (0.08)a1.525.07 (0.02)a 4.96 (0.07)a 4.99 (0.05)a2.102.63 (0.01)a 2.61 (0.01)a 2.68 (0.05)a2.702.58 (0.03)a 2.57 (0.02)a 2.57 (0.03)a3.351.54 (0.01)a 1.51 (0.01)a 1.54 (0.03)a3.961.30 (0.01)a 1.30 (0.01)a 1.34 (0.03)a4.570.82 (0.01)a 0.83 (0.01)a 0.85 (0.02)a5.180.73 (0.00)a 0.72 (0.01)a 0.76 (0.02)a5.790.51 (0.00)a 0.50 (0.00)a 0.52 (0.02)a6.400.66 (0.01)a 0.68 (0.00)a 0.70 (0.01)aBHc48.01 (1.04)b 26.32 (1.10)a26.91 (0.62)aBHt10.76 (0.25)b 6.08 (0.66)a 6.34 (0.42)a Overall Difference 4 7.668 A 5.771 A 5.834 A 1Rotation speed adjusted by re placing drive impeller. 2Sample sites are the sampling point in m from the device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead cent er and top sites, resp ectively at 6.7m from device. 3Different letters in columns indicate sign ificance (P<0.05) for each sample site across treatments. 4Different letters indicate significance (P<0.05) overall for degree installation.

PAGE 166

166 Table 4-38. Calculated fl uid speeds at various distances ba sed on device head speed (rpm) of RHVMP device. Calculated fluid speed1 at head rotation speed (rpm) rpm12 16 20 Time per revolution0.083 5 0.063 4 0.05 3 Diameter (m) Radius (m) Circumference (m) m/min m/sec m/min m/sec m/min m/sec 1.2 0.6 3.8 46 0.77 61 1.02 77 1.28 3.0 1.5 9.6 115 1.92 153 2.55 192 3.19 6.0 3.0 19.2 230 3.83 307 5.11 383 6.39 9.2 4.6 28.7 345 5.75 460 7.66 575 9.58 11.0 5.5 34.5 414 6.90 552 9.20 690 11.49 12.2 6.1 38.3 460 7.67 613 10.22 766 12.77 13.4 6.7 42.1 506 8.43 674 11.24 843 14.05 1 Fluid speed is calculated by dividing the circum ference in m by the time (min or sec) for one revolution.

PAGE 167

167 Table 4-39. Theoretical fluid dw ell time and fluid delivery at device head sp eed (rpm) and distance for a R-HVMP device. Calculated fluid dwell time and deliv ered volume at head rotation speeds (rpm) 12 16 20 Radius (m) Circum (m) Travel speed m/sec Dwell sec/10cm1 L/10cm 2 Travel speed m/sec Dwell sec/10cm1 L/10cm 2 Travel speed m/sec Dwell sec/10cm1 L/10cm 2 0.6 3.8 0.77 0.130 0.412 1.02 0.098 0.309 1.28 0.078 0.247 1.5 9.6 1.92 0.052 0.165 2.55 0.039 0.124 3.19 0.031 0.099 3.0 19.2 3.83 0.026 0.082 5.11 0.020 0.062 6.39 0.016 0.049 4.6 28.7 5.75 0.017 0.055 7.66 0.013 0.041 9.58 0.010 0.033 5.5 34.5 6.90 0.014 0.046 9.20 0.011 0.034 11.49 0.009 0.027 6.1 38.3 7.67 0.013 0.041 10.22 0.010 0.031 12.77 0.008 0.025 6.7 42.1 8.43 0.012 0.037 11.24 0.009 0.028 14.05 0.007 0.022 1Dwell determined by dividing circumference by sec per revolu tion for each rotation speed (0.25, 0.1, and 0.05 respectively). 2L/10cm determined by multiplying 41.6 Lpm per nozzle (83.2 Lpm feed rate) by dwell time divided by 60 sec/min.

PAGE 168

168 Table 4-40. Examples of percent surface flow for R-HVMP CIP device. Flow rate 416 Lpm @ 3.4 bar (110 gpm@49 psi) 454 @ 5.2 bar (120gpm@75psi) 492 Lpm @ 6.2 bar (130gpm@90psi) Sample Sites 1 Percent surface flow at delivered flow conditions 2 0 16.1 12.3 11.3 0.3 14.3 9.7 9.0 0.9 10.3 7.5 6.9 1.5 10.3 7.9 7.4 2.1 4.4 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.2 3.9 3.8 3.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 4.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 4.6 1.4 1.2 1.3 5.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 6.4 0.8 1.0 1.0 BHc 28.4 38.8 39.8 BHt 3.7 7.8 9.4 1Sample sites are in m from the device. BHc and BHt are bulkhead center and top sample sites respectively at 6.7m from device. 2Percent flow rates determined by dividing the site flow by the total collected fluid volume.

PAGE 169

169 Table 4-41. R-HVMP wall flow rate s with varied flow rates. Average wall flow rate L/min/m2 (std dev)1 with varied feed flow rate all at 4.5 bar (65 psi) (n= 3)4 Feed flow rate Lpm 2 (gpm/ft2) 416 (110) 454 (120) 492 (130) Sample Sites 3 0 6.48 (0.04)a 7.09 (0.29)ab 6.99 (0.22)b 0.31 5.47 (0.05)a 5.55 (0.07)ab 5.62 (0.05)b0.91 4.44 (0.07)a 4.07 (0.01)b 4.13 (0.11)ab1.52 4.81 (0.09)a 4.31 (0.06)b 4.49 (0.12)ab2.10 2.51 (0.04)a 2.15 (0.09)b 2.22 (0.09)b2.70 2.57 (0.04)a 2.06 (0.10)b 2.01 (0.01)b3.35 1.67 (0.03)a 1.18 (0.02)b 1.17 (0.04)b3.96 1.39 (0.04)a 0.93 (0.04)b 0.94 (0.04)b4.57 0.96 (0.03)a 0.62 (0.02)b 0.65 (0.04)b5.18 0.81 (0.02)a 0.51 (0.02)b 0.54 (0.02)b5.79 0.49 (0.00)a 0.36 (0.02)b 0.37 (0.02)b6.40 0.52 (0.01)a 0.42 (0.03)b 0.44 (0.01)bBHc 14.70 (0.35)a 17.23 (1.29)ab 17.26 (0.16)bBHt 2.40 (0.06)a 2.72 (0.54)a 2.56 (0.10)a Overall Difference5 4.52 A 5.34 AB 5.39 B 1Different letters indicate significant difference (P<0.05) for each distance. 2Flow rate adjusted by turning divert valve. 3Samples sites are in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are bulkhead center and top respectively at 6.7 m from device. 4Same letters across columns indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) for treatments at the sample site. 5Different letters indicate significance (P<0.05) over all for treatment.

PAGE 170

170 Table 4-42. R-HVMP wall flow rates with varied pressure rates. Average wall flow rate L/min/m2 (std dev)1 with variable feed pressure (n= 3)4 Feed pressure bar and Lpm 2 (psi and gpm) 3.4 & 416 (49 & 110) 4.5 & 435 (65 & 115) 5.2 & 454 (75 & 120) 6.2 & 492 (90 & 130) Sample Sites 3 0 6.18 (0.28)a6.79 (0.38)a7.15 (0.06)b 7.68 (0.11)c 0.31 5.48 (0.52)a5.51 (0.07)a5.63 (0.06)b 6.10 (0.02)b0.91 3.94 (0.26)a4.26 (0.21)a4.34 (0.06)b 4.69 (0.06)b1.52 3.95 (0..25)a4.56 (0.28)b4.57 (0.02)c 4.99 (0.05)d2.10 1.70 (0.07)a2.33 (0.20)b2.33 (0.01)c 2.68 (0.05)d2.70 1.61 (0.08)a2.31 (0.29)b2.24 (0.02)c 2.57 (0.03)d3.35 0.92 (0.06)a1.43 (0.27)b1.32 (0.03)c 1.54 (0.03)d3.96 0.72 (0.05)a1.16 (0.25)b1.11 (0.01)c 1.34 (0.03)d4.57 0.52 (0.02)a0.79 (0.19)b0.72 (0.01)c 0.85 (0.02)d5.18 0.44 (0.01)a0.66 (0.17)b0.61 (0.01)c 0.76 (0.02)d5.79 0.31 (0.01)a0.42 (0.07)b0.41 (0.00)c 0.52 (0.02)d6.40 0.31 (0.02)a0.47 (0.06)b0.56 (0.02)c 0.70 (0.01)dBHc 10.93 (0.73)a15.97 (1.62)b22.55 (0.56)c 26.91 (0.62)dBHt 1.42 (0.19)a2.56 (0.39)b4.51 (0.56)c 6.34 (0.42)c Overall Difference5 3.75 A 5.30 B 6.93 BC 8.41 C 1Values are the average flow rates with standard deviation in parenthe ses. Different letters indicate significan ce (P<0.05) for a given sample site. 2Flow rate adjusted by turning divert valve. 3 Samples sites are in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are bulkhead center and top respectively at 6.7 m from device. 4Same letters across column s indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) for treatments at the sample site. 5Different letters indicate significance (P<0.05) overall for treatment.

PAGE 171

171 Table 4-43. R-HVMP wall flow rates with varied installation depth at 4.5 bar. Average wall flow rate L/min/m2 (std dev)1 with varied installation depth at 492 Lpm and 4.5 bar (130 gpm and 65 psi) (n= 3)4 Installed depth cm (in)2 82 (33) 109 (43) 143 (56) Sample Sites 3 0 9.44 (0.14)a 6.99 (0.22)b 6.75 (0.41)b 0.31 6.76 (0.06)a 5.62 (0.05)b 5.18 (0.26)b0.91 4.82 (0.11)a 4.13 (0.11)b 3.87 (0.13)b1.52 4.82 (0.09)a 4.49 (0.12)a 4.07 (0.04)b2.10 2.27 (0.04)a 2.22 (0.09)a 2.22 (0.01)a2.70 2.23 (0.05)a 2.01 (0.01)b 1.95 (0.04)b3.35 1.42 (0.01)a 1.17 (0.04)b 1.08 (0.00)b3.96 1.08 (0.02)a 0.94 (0.04)a 0.90 (0.01)b4.57 0.73 (0.01)a 0.65 (0.04)a 0.58 (0.00)b5.18 0.61 (0.02)a 0.54 (0.02)a 0.47 (0.01)b5.79 0.40 (0.01)a 0.37 (0.02)a 0.33 (0.00)b6.40 0.50 (0.02)a 0.44 (0.01)a 0.41 (0.01)bBHc 21.43 (0.08)a 17.26 (0.16)b 16.51 (0.26)bBHt 2.86 (0.19)a 2.56 (0.10)a 3.34 (0.23)b Overall Difference 5 5.24 A 4.96 B 5.33 C 1Different letters across row indi cate significant difference (P<0.05) for a given sample site. 2Depth adjusted by removing or installi ng appropriately sized spool pieces. 3Samples sites are in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are bulkhead center and top respectively at 6.7 m from device. 4Same letters across columns indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) for treatments at the sample site. 5Different letters indica te significance (P<0.05) overall for treatment.

PAGE 172

172 Table 4-44. R-HVMP wall flow rates with varied installation depth at 6.2 bar. Average wall flow rate L/min/m2 (std dev)1 with varied installation depth at 492 Lpm and 6.2 bar (130 gpm and 90 psi) (n= 3)4 Installed depth cm (in) 2 82 (33) 109 (43) 143 (56) Sample Sites 3 0 11.11 (0.57)a 7.68 (0.11)b 6.83 (0.08)c 0.31 8.10 (0.34)a 6.10 (0.02)b 4.91 (0.02)c 0.91 6.02 (0.14)a 4.69 (0.08)b 4.42 (0.01)c 1.52 5.57 (0.15)a 4.99 (0.05)b 4.61 (0.01)c 2.10 3.64 (0.07)a 2.68 (0.05)b 3.03 (0.04)c 2.70 3.03 (0.03)a 2.57 (0.03)b 2.62 (0.02)c 3.35 2.22 (0.04)a 1.54 (0.03)b 1.89 (0.02)c 3.96 2.10 (0.13)a 1.34 (0.03)b 1.44 (0.02)c 4.57 1.59 (0.07)a 0.85 (0.02)b 0.88 (0.02)c 5.18 1.45 (0.14)a 0.76 (0.02)b 0.73 (0.02)b 5.79 0.89 (0.03)a 0.52 (0.02)b 0.47 (0.01)b 6.40 0.99 (0.06)a 0.70 (0.01)b 0.86 (0.00)c BHc 28.46 (0.94)a26.91 (0.62)b20.83 (0.06)c BHt 2.71 (0.34)a 6.34 (0.42)b 4.37 (0.01)c Overall Difference 5 6.56 A 6.83 B 6.99 C 1Different letters across row indi cate significant difference (P<0.05) for a given sample site. 2Depth adjusted by removing or installi ng appropriately sized spool pieces. 3Samples sites are in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are bulkhead center and top respectively at 6.7 m from device. 4Same letters across columns indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) for treatments at the sample site. 5Different letters indicate significance (P<0.05) ove rall for treatment.

PAGE 173

173 Table 4-45. Impact angles at varied installation depths. Impact angles1 Installed depth cm (in) 82 (33) 109 (43) 143 (56) Sample Sites 2 0 90.0 90.0 90.0 0.31 70.6 74.7 77.4 0.91 43.4 50.7 56.3 1.52 29.5 36.3 42.0 2.10 22.0 27.7 32.8 2.70 17.5 22.2 26.6 3.35 14.4 18.4 22.3 3.96 12.3 15.8 19.1 4.57 10.7 13.7 16.7 5.18 9.5 12.2 14.8 5.79 8.5 10.9 13.3 6.40 7.7 9.9 12.1 BHc 90.0 90.0 90.0 BHt 9.0 9.5 11.5 1Impact angle is the angle the fluid hits the stainl ess steel at the distance. The angle is measure at the depth of the device at the barrel wall. 2Samples sites are in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are bulkhead center and top respectively at 6.7 m from device. Table 4-46. Rotating devi ce installation position standard versus 90. Lpm/m2 by device installation position (n = 3)2 Sample site1 Standard 90 degree 0 6.07 (0.20)a 5.29 (0.02)b 0.31 4.88 (0.13)a 4.66 (0.17)b 0.91 3.63 (0.07)a 3.19 (0.05)b 1.52 3.31 (0.04)a 3.20 (0.01)a 2.10 1.63 (0.02)a 1.74 (0.05b 2.70 1.47 (0.03)a 1.67 (0.06)b 3.35 0.81 (0.04)a 1.14 (0.05)b 3.96 0.63 (0.03)a 1.05 (0.04)b 4.57 0.35 (0.03)a 0.69 (0.05)b 5.18 0.28 (0.02)a 0.58 (0.03)b 5.79 0.20 (0.02)a 0.45 (0.02)b 6.40 0.23 (0.02)a 0.71 (0.01)b BHc 1.32 (0.09)a 3.28 (0.21)b BHt 0.50 (0.05)a 1.36 (0.11)b Overall difference3 2.81 A 4.00 B 1Sample sites are the collection points in m fr om the device. BHc and BHt are bulkhead center and top sites, respectively at 6.7m from device. 2Same letters across columns indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) for treatments at the sample site. 3Same letters across columns indicate no significant difference (P<0.05) overall for treatment.

PAGE 174

174 Figure 4-1. Picture of the UF C-Thru ta nker showing sluice, funnels and tubes. hatch rear front port Note: Dimensions are not to scale Figure 4-2. UF C-Thru Model tanke r dimensions and sampling sites. 12f 22 feet 70 in. 16b 16t 4f 20t 20b 22t 22m 8f 12f 22b 0f

PAGE 175

175 Figure 4-3. UF C-Thru M odel Tanker. (Winniczuk 2006)

PAGE 176

176 Figure 4-4. UF C-Thru Model Tanker with CIP device. (Winniczuk 2006)

PAGE 177

177 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 00.30.91.52.12.73.44.04.65.25.86.4BHcBHtDistance from CIP device (m)Surface fluid flow rate (Lpm/m2) 40 60 Figure 4-5. Graph of surface flow pattern for RLVHP CIP device for 2 rotation speeds (40 and 60 psi supply). The x-axis is the sampling de vice location in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites respectively at 6.7 m from the device. The y-axis is the calculated surface fluid flow rate based on the collected flow mass for each sampling site. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.00.30.91.01.52.12.73.44.04.65.25.86.46.7 Distance from device (m)Relative impact force rati o relative force Figure 4-6. Relative impact force for R-LVHP device with 0035 nozzles. The x-axis is the distance from the device in meters. The y-axis is the relative force ratio of the impact region at the distance perpendicular to the de vice. The relative force ratio is the ratio of the force at distances from the device compared to the force at 0m. There are no units for the ratio.

PAGE 178

178 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.61.534.65.56.16.7 Distance from device (m)dwell time (sec/10cm) or delivered volume (L/10cm ) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Impingement tip velocit y (m/sec) @ 4 rpm dwell sec/10cm volume L/10cm velocity m/secA 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.61.534.65.56.16.7 Distance from device (m)dwell time (sec/10cm) or delivered volume (L/10cm ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Impingement tip velocit y (m/sec) @ 10 rpm dwell sec/10cm volume L/10cm velocity m/secB 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.61.534.65.56.16.7 Distance from device (m)dwell time (sec/10cm) or delivered volume (L/10cm ) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Impingement tip velocit y (m/sec) @ 20 rpm dwell sec/10cm volume L/10cm velocity m/secC Figure 4-7. R-LVHP stream tip impingement velocity, stream dwell time, and delivered fluid comparison. A is 4 rpm, B is 10 rpm, and C is 20 rpm. Please note the z scale (velocity) change from A to B and C.

PAGE 179

179 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 00.30.91.52.12.73.44.04.65.25.86.4BHcBHt Distance from CIP device (m)Surface fluid flow rate (Lpm/m2) 105 @ 45 122 @ 65 150 @ 80 Figure 4-8. Graph of surface flow pa ttern for a Sd-HVMP CIP device. The x-axis is the distance in m of the sa mple sites from the device. BHc and BHt are bulkhead center and top sites, respectively at 6.7 m from device. The y-axis is the determined surface fluid flow rate based on the collected fluid mass for each site. Please note that some error bars are not visible due to the scale.

PAGE 180

180 Figure 4-9. Bulkhead view of the Sd-HVMP CIP de vices center stream strike positions on the bulkhead in degrees off-center. 10 did not strike bulkhead but struck barrel at 4 m from device. Blue squares are the bulkhead sa mple sluices. The blue line is the top of the sluices on the barrel. 0 1 2.5 5 10

PAGE 181

181 Figure 4-10. The Sd-HVMP device stream flow when installed co rrectly, A) Nozzles (rectangle) point to the center of bulkhead s or incorrectly B) Nozzles (rectangle) point away from the center of the bulkheads). front Low flow High flow High flow Low flow rear B front Equal flow Equal flow Equal flow Equal flow rear A

PAGE 182

182 Figure 4-11. An Sd-HVMP device pitch installation. Angles are measured from the down pipe. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 00.30.91.52.12.73.44.04.65.25.86.4BHcBHt Distance from CIP device (m)Surface fluid flow rate (Lpm/m2 ) 110gpm/50psi 130gpm/90psi Figure 4-12. Examples of surface flow volumes for R-HVMP installation. The x-axis is the sample site in m from device. BHc and BHt are bulkhead center and top sites, respectively at 6.7m from device. Please note that some error bars are not visible due to the scale and the small standard deviation. 79 82 76 manway Device downpipe

PAGE 183

183 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.61.534.65.56.16.7 Distance from device (m)dwell time (sec/10cm) or delivered volume (L/10cm ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Impingement tip velocit y (m/sec) @ 12 rpm dwell sec/10cm volume L/10cm velocity m/secA 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.61.534.65.56.16.7 Distance from device (m)dwell time (sec/10cm) or delivered volume (L/10cm ) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12Impingement tip velocit y (m/sec) @ 16 rpm dwell sec/10cm volume L/10cm velocity m/secB 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.61.534.65.56.16.7 Distance from device (m)dwell time (sec/10cm) or delivered volume (L/10cm ) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Impingement tip velocit y (m/sec) @ 20 rpm dwell sec/10cm volume L/10cm velocity m/secC Figure 4-13. R-HVMP stream velocity, stream dwell time, and delivered fluid comparison. A)12 rpm, B) 16 rpm, and C) 20 rpm. Please note the z scale changes from A to B and C.

PAGE 184

184 Figure 4-14. Impingement contact points 10-22 ft (tape). Blue arrows highlight the tape. The numbers on the tanker 2x4 are in ft from the spray device.

PAGE 185

185 Figure 4-15. Impingement contact points 14-18 ft Blue arrows highlight the tape. The numbers on the tanker 2x4 are in ft from the spray device. Figure 4-16. Rotating device patterns downward (b lue) and upward (black) streams from 0 to 22 ft. 2f t 0 1 3 5 7 9 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 7 1 9 2 1 6f t 10 14 18 22

PAGE 186

186 Figure 4-17. Pattern 1 (first nozzl e) for the bulkhead direct stream strikes. Blue squares are the sampling sites. No1 is the pattern of the 1st strike followed by 2, etc. The downward strike No5 hit at 13ft with spray hitting ri ght bulkhead while upwards strike No6 hit at 13ft with spray to right bulkhead. Downward strike No. 7 hits at 7ft with no spray hitting bulkhead and upward strike No. 8 hits at 7ft with spray hitting right bulkhead. Figure 4-18. Pattern 2 (sec nozzle) for the bulkhead direct stream strikes. Blue squares are the sampling sites. Downward strike No7 hits at 13ft funnel. Upward strike No. 8 hits at 14ft. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Right 1 2 3 4 Right

PAGE 187

187 Figure 4-19. Diagram of strikes for entire cycle time. Solid lines are nozzle A and dashed lines are nozzle B. The numbers indicate the obser ved strike time pattern where 1 is the first strike. 1.3cm 7.8cm True Transitional Radial Surface 2.6cm 5.2cmImpingement cleaning path = 15.6 cm Figure 4-20. Impingement path dimensions. The yellow region is the true impingement force while the blue is the transitional impingement force and red is the radial force. Black is the surface. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Right

PAGE 188

188 Diagram source: Mr. John Henderson, Plant Manager, UF CREC 40 feet 64 inch Figure 4-21. CIP device circular pattern im posed on a tanker, drawn to scale. Dark line emanating from center is one nozzle while light line is the other nozzle.

PAGE 189

189 Figure 4-22. CIP device with body hub in position A (blue arrow). Position B is position of the hub on the opposite side of the body. During the cycle, the hub would travel around the body to position B with the nozzle A facing down. Position A Position B NozzleA NozzleB

PAGE 190

190 Diagram source: Mr. John Henderson Pilot Plant Manager, UF CREC 5turned 0turned Figure 4-23. Rotating device inst allation position. The fluid impact would be at the indicated line patterns for 0 and 5 turned installations.

PAGE 191

191 Figure 4-24. R-HVMP device installed with 90 elbow

PAGE 192

192 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 0.00.30.91.52.12.73.44.04.65.25.86.4BHcBHt Distance from device (m)Surface fluid flow rate (Lpm/m2) Std L90 Figure 4-25. Installation position of rotating device. Std indicate s the standard installation as manufacturer designed. L90 indicates th e installation at 90 from standard installation.

PAGE 193

193 Figure 4-26. Lechler CIP 90 cradle device A bulkhead view B lateral view at 2 ft (Device by Lechler Spray Company). A B

PAGE 194

194 Figure 4-27. CIP device cradle (Model GJ-88) designed by Gamajet to hold two CIP devices (Model EZ-8).

PAGE 195

195 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0.61.534.65.56.16.7 Distance from device (m)Fluid tip velocity (m/sec ) R-LVHP R-HVM P A 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.61.534.65.56.16.7 distance from device (m)Dwell time (sec/10cm) R-LVHP R-HVM P B y(L) = 0.0506x-1.2941R2 = 0.9798 y(H) = 0.2288x-1.2823R2 = 0.9815 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.61.534.65.56.16.7 distance from device (m)Delivered fluid volume (L/10c m) R-LVHP R-HVMP Power (R-LVHP) Power (R-HVMP) C Figure 4-28. Comparison of low versus high volume rotating device at the same rotation speed (20 rpm) with respect to A) dwell time, B) fluid velocity, and C) delivered volume. X axis is the sampling point as distance from device.

PAGE 196

196 Table 4-47. Chemical residue tests for R-LVHP operating parameter qualification Chemical residue at operating parameter (n = 3)1 Lpm/m2@bar 68 @ 242 68 @ 24 87 @ 24 87 @ 31 87 @ 31 95 @ 31 Gpm/ft2@psi 18 @ 350 18 @ 350 23 @ 350 23 @ 450 23 @ 450 25 @ 450 Extension(cm) 0 0 22 15 22 22 Speed(rpm) 20 4 4 4 4 4 Sample Sites3 0 (0) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.3 (1) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.11 (0.19) 0.10 (0.19) 0.9 (3) 0.00 (0.00) 0.22 (0.38) 0.22 (0.19) 0.22 (0.38) 0.22 (0.38) 0.10 (0.19) 1.5 (5) 0.00 (0.00) 0.22 (0.19) 0.44 (0.19) 0.22 (0.38) 0.22 (0.38) 0.10 (0.19) 2.1 (7) 0.00 (0.00) 0.22 (0.19) 0.22 (0.38) 0.67 (0.33) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.7 (9) 0.89 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.78 (0.51) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 3.4 (11) 1.22 (0.19) 0.22 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 0.89 (0.19) 0.11 (0.19) 0.10 (0.19) 4.0 (13) 1.22 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.44 (0.19) 0.11 (0.19) 0.20 (0.38) 4.6 (15) 2.22 (0.19) 0.33 (0.00) 0.33 (0.58) 0.67 (0.00) 0.11 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 5.2 (17) 2.56 (0.19) 0.44 (0.38) 0.78 (0.38) 1.44 (0.19) 0.11 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 5.8 (19) 3.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.33) 1.33 (0.00) 1.89 (0.51) 0.49 (0.51) 0.67 (0.33) 6.4 (21) 3.00 (0.00) 1.89 (0.19) 1.78 (0.19) 2.11 (0.19) 1.00 (0.58) 0.67 (0.58) BH 2.33 (0.67) 0.11 (0.19) 0.56 (0.38) 0.67 (0.33) 0.11 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) Ave score and sig diff4 1.26 A 0.36 B 0.44 C 0.77 D 0.20 E 0.15 E 1Residue based on visual 4 point Hedonic sc ale. 0 = clean (green <3 g/100cm2); 1 = slightly soiled (gray); 2 = more soiled (first purple co lor); 3 = dirty (initial inoculation level). 2Variable tested for comparison only. Wash rack parameter. 3Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 4Values with different letters are significant at P<0.05 for the entire tanker. High values indicate a dirtier tanker.

PAGE 197

197 Table 4-48. Visual residue tests for RLVHP operating parameter qualification Visual residue score at op erating parameter (n = 3) Lpm/m2@bar 68 @ 242 68 @ 24 87 @ 24 87 @ 31 87 @ 31 95 @ 31 Extension(cm) 0 0 22 15 22 22 Speed(rpm) 20 4 4 4 4 4 Sample Sites3 0 (0) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.3 (1) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.9 (3) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 1.5 (5) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.1 (7) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.7 (9) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 3.4 (11) 0.44 (0.51) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.11 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 4.0 (13) 2.11 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.33 (0.33) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 4.6 (15) 2.78 (0.19) 0.89 (0.38) 0.33 (0.58) 0.89 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 5.2 (17) 2.78 (0.38) 1.56 (0.51) 1.56 (0.51) 1.67 (0.33) 1.00 (0.67) 0.67 (0.67) 5.8 (19) 3.00 (0.00) 2.00 (0.00) 2.00 (0.00) 1.89 (0.19) 0.67 (0.33) 1.33 (0.33) 6.4 (21) 3.00 (0.00) 2.11 (0.19) 2.00 (0.00) 2.11 (0.38) 0.53 (0.38) 1.44 (0.38) BH 1.78 (1.17) 0.33 (0.33) 0.11 (0.19) 0.33 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Ave score and sig diff4 1.22 A 0.53 B 0.46 C 0.56 D 0.17 E 0.27 E 1Residue based on visual 4 point Hedonic sc ale. 0 = clean (green <3 g/100cm2); 1 = slightly soiled (gray); 2 = more soiled (first purple co lor); 3 = dirty (initial inoculation level). 2Variable tested for comparison only. Wash rack parameter. 3Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 4Values with different letters are significant at P<0.05 for the entire tanker. High value indicates a dirtier tanker.

PAGE 198

198 Table 4-49. Residue tests for R-LVHP operating parameter qualification Residue analysis at operating parameter (n = 3) Lpm/m2@bar 68 @ 242 68 @ 24 87 @ 24 87 @31 87 @ 31 95 @ 31 Extension(cm) 0 0 22 15 22 22 Speed(rpm) 20 4 4 4 4 4 Sample sites C V C V C V C V C V C V 0 (0) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.3 (1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.000.11 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.9 (3) 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.000.22 0.000.22 0.000.22 0.00 0.10 0.00 1.5 (5) 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.000.44 0.000.22 0.000.22 0.00 0.10 0.00 2.1 (7) 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.000.22 0.000.67 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.7 (9) 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.000.78 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.4 (11) 1.22 0.44 0.22 0.000.00 0.000.89 0.110.11 0.00 0.10 0.00 4.0 (13) 1.22 2.11 0.00 0.000.00 0.000.44 0.330.11 0.00 0.20 0.00 4.6 (15) 2.22 2.78 0.33 0.890.33 0.330.67 0.890.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.2 (17) 2.56 2.78 0.44 1.560.78 1.561.44 1.670.11 1.00 0.00 0.67 5.8 (19) 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.001.33 2.001.89 1.890.49 0.67 0.67 1.33 6.4 (21) 3.00 3.00 1.89 2.111.78 2.002.11 2.111.00 0.53 0.67 1.44 BH 2.33 1.78 0.11 0.330.56 0.110.67 0.330.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sig diff3 A A B B C C D D E E E E Ave score and sig diff 4,5 2.49 A 0.89 B 0.90 C 1.33 D 0.37 E 0.41 E 1Chemical residue based on visu al 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean (green <3 g/100cm2); 1 = slightly soiled (gray); 2 = more soiled (first purple color); 3 = dirty (in itial inoculation level). Visual residue based on visual 4 point Hedonic s cale. 0 = clean (no residue wet or dry; 1 = residue wet; 2 = more soiled (pulp, juice); 3 = dirty (ini tial inoculation level). A value of 0.5 was given when residue seen when dry. 2Variable tested for comparison only to wash rack parameters. 3Significant differences (P<0.05) determined between chemical and visual assays for entire tanker. 4Average score combines visual and ch emical Hedonic scores. 0 = clean; 1 = slightly soiled; 2 = more soiled; 3 = dirty (initial inoc ulation level). 5Significance (P<0.05) determined between operating parameter with co mbined chemical and visual clean assessment.

PAGE 199

199 Table 4-50. Chemical residue tests for R-HVMP operating parameter qualification Chemical assessment at operating parameter (n = 3)1 Lpm/m2@bar 435 @ 4.52 454 @ 5.22 492 @ 6.2 378 @ 6.23 Gpm/ft2@psi 110 @ 50 120 @ 75 130 @ 90 100 @ 90 Center 5 5 5 5 Pitch 16 16 16 16 Sample Sites4 0 (0) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.3 (1) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.9 (3) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 1.5 (5) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.1 (7) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.7 (9) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 3.4 (11) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 4.0 (13) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 4.6 (15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 5.2 (17) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 5.8 (19) 0.17 (0.29) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 6.4 (21) 0.33 (0.29) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) BH 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Ave score and sig diff5 0.04 A 0.00 A 0.00 A 0.00 A 1Residue based on chemical 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean (green <3 g/100cm2); 1 = slightly soiled (gray); 2 = more soiled (first purple color); 3 = dirty (initi al inoculation level). 2Manufacturer recommended parameter. 3Available wash rack parameter. 4Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 5Values with different letters are significant at P<0.05 for the entire tanker. High value indicates a dirtier tanker.

PAGE 200

200 Table 4-51. Visual residue tests for R-HVMP operating parameter qualification Visual assessment at operating parameter (n = 3)1 Lpm/m2@bar 435 @ 4.52 454 @ 5.22 492 @ 6.2 378 @ 6.23 Gpm/ft2@psi 110 @ 50 120 @ 75 130 @ 90 100 @ 90 Center 5 5 5 5 Pitch 16 16 16 16 Sample Sites 4 0 (0) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.3 (1) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.9 (3) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 1.5 (5) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.1 (7) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.7 (9) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 3.4 (11) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 4.0 (13) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 4.6 (15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 5.2 (17) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 5.8 (19) 0.17 (0.29) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 6.4 (21) 0.17 (0.29) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) BH 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Ave score and sig diff 5 0.03 A 0.00 A 0.00 A 0.00 A 1Residue based on visual 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean (no resi due); 1 = slightly soiled; 2 = more soiled; 3 = dirty (in itial inoculation level). 2Manufacturer recommended parameter. 3Available wash rack parameter. 4Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 5Values with different letters are si gnificantly different at P<0.05 for the entire tanker. High value i ndicates a dirtier tanker.

PAGE 201

201 Table 4-52. Residue tests for R-HVMP operating parameter qualification Combined residues at operating parameter (n = 3) Lpm/m2@bar 435 @ 4.5 454 @ 5.2 492 @ 6.2 378 @ 6.2 Extension(cm) 5 5 5 5 Speed(rpm) 16 16 16 16 Sample Sites 3 C1 V2 C V C V C V 0 (0) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.3 (1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.9 (3) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.5 (5) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.1 (7) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.7 (9) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.4 (11) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 (13) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.6 (15) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.2 (17) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.8 (19) 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.4 (21) 0.33 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sig diff A A A A A A A A Ave score and sig diff 4 0.06 A 0.00 A 0.00 A 0.00 A 1Residue based on chemical 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean (green <3 g/100cm2); 1 = slightly soiled (gray); 2 = more soiled (first purple color); 3 = dirty (in itial inoculation level) 2Residue based on visual 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean (no resi due); 1 = slightly soiled; 2 = more soiled; 3 = dirty (in itial inoculation level). 3Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 4Values with different letters are significantly different at P<0.05 for the entire tanker. High va lue indicates a dirtier tanker.

PAGE 202

202 Table 4-53. Chemical residue tests for Sd-HVMP operating parameter qualification Chemical residue at operating parameter (n = 3)1 Lpm/m2@bar 397 @ 3.12 416 @ 4.52 568 @ 5.5 378 @ 6.23 Gpm/ft2@psi 105 @ 45 110 @ 65 150 @ 80 100 @ 90 Center 0 0 0 0 Pitch 79 79 79 79 Sample Sites 4 0 (0) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.3 (1) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.9 (3) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 1.5 (5) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.1 (7) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.7 (9) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 3.4 (11) 1.33 (0.87) 0.78 (0.67) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 4.0 (13) 1.78 (0.44) 1.11 (0.33) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 4.6 (15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 5.2 (17) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 5.8 (19) 1.00 (0.00) 0.89 (0.33) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 6.4 (21) 1.89 (0.33) 0.33 (0.50) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) BH 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Ave score and sig diff 5 0.46 A 0.24 B 0.00 B 0.00 B 1Residue based on chemical 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean (green <3 g/100cm2); 1 = slightly soiled (gray); 2 = more soiled (first purple color); 3 = dirty (initi al inoculation level). 2System manufacturer suggested parameter. 3Wash rack parameter. 4Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 5Values with different letters are significantly different at P<0.05 for the entire tanker High value indicates a dirtier tanker.

PAGE 203

203 Table 4-54. Visual residue tests for Sd -HVMP operating parameter qualification Visual residue at operating parameter (n = 3)1 Lpm/m2@bar 397 @ 3.12 416 @ 4.52 568 @ 5.5 378 @ 6.2 Gpm/ft2@psi 105 @ 45 110 @ 65 150 @ 80 100 @ 90 Center 0 0 0 0 Pitch 79 79 79 79 Sample Sites 3 0 (0) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.3 (1) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.9 (3) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 1.5 (5) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.1 (7) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.7 (9) 0.11 (0.33) 0.11 (0.33) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 3.4 (11) 2.00 (0.00) 0.78 (0.67) 0.22 (0.44) 0.00 (0.00) 4.0 (13) 2.00 (0.00) 1.11 (0.33) 0.22 (0.44) 0.44 (0.53) 4.6 (15) 0.22 (0.44) 0.22 (0.44) 0.11 (0.33) 0.00 (0.00) 5.2 (17) 0.11 (0.33) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 5.8 (19) 2.00 (0.00) 0.89 (0.33) 0.22 (0.44) 0.00 (0.00) 6.4 (21) 1.56 (0.73) 0.78 (0.44) 0.56 (0.53) 0.22 (0.44) BH 0.06 (0.24) 0.06 (0.24) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Ave score and sig diff 4 0.62 A 0.30 B 0.10 C 0.05 C 1Residue based on visual 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean (no resi due); 1 = slightly soiled; 2 = more soiled; 3 = dirty (in itial inoculation level). 2Manufacturer recommended parameter. 3Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 4Values with different letters are significantly different at P<0.05 for the entir e tanker. High value indicates a dirtier tanker.

PAGE 204

204 Table 4-55. Residue tests for Sd-HVM P operating parameter qualification Residue assayed at operating parameter (n = 3) Lpm/m2@bar 397 @ 3.1 416 @ 4.5 568 @ 5.5 378 @ 6.2 Centered 0 0 0 0 Pitch 79 79 79 79 Sample Sites 3 C1 V2 C V C V C V 0 (0) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.3 (1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.9 (3) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.5 (5) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.1 (7) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.7 (9) 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.4 (11) 1.33 2.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 4.0 (13) 1.78 2.00 1.11 1.11 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.44 4.6 (15) 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 5.2 (17) 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.8 (19) 1.00 2.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 6.4 (21) 1.89 1.56 0.33 0.78 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.22 BH 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Statistical diff 4 A A A A A A A A Ave score and sig diff 5 1.08 A 0.54 B 0.10 C 0.05 C 1Residue based on chemical 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean (green <3 g/100cm2); 1 = slightly soiled (gray); 2 = more soiled (first purple color); 3 = dirty (in itial inoculation level) 2Residue based on visual 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean (no resi due); 1 = slightly soiled; 2 = more soiled; 3 = dirty (in itial inoculation level). 3Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 4Values with different letters are significantly different at P<0.05 between parameters for chemical or visual residues. 5Values with different letters are significantly different at P<0.05 for the entire tanker. High value indicates a dirtier tanker.

PAGE 205

205 Table 4-56. Chemical residue tests for Sd-HVMP installation position qualification Chemical assay at operating parameter (n = 3)1 Lpm/m2@bar 454@4.7 454@4.7 454@4.7 454@4.7 454@4.7 454@4.7 454@4.7 Gpm/ft2@psi 120@68 120@68 120@68 120@ 68120@ 68120@68 120@68 Center 5L 2.5L 1L 02 1R 2.5R 5R Pitch 79 79 79 792 79 79 79 Sample Sites 3 0 (0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.9 (3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1.5 (5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2.1 (7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2.7 (9) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 3.4 (11) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 4.0 (13) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 4.6 (15) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 5.2 (17) 1.3 (0.6) 0.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 5.8 (19) 2.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 6.4 (21) 0.8 (0.3) 0.5 (0.5) 0.2 (0.3) 0.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) BH 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) Ave score and sig diff 4 0.32 B 0.11 A 0.02 A 0.03 A 0.00 A 0.00 A 0.00 A 1Residue based on visual 4 point Hedonic scale of device. 0 = clean (green <3 g/100cm2); 1 = slightly soiled (gray); 2 = more soiled (first purple color); 3 = dirty (in itial inoculation level) 2System manufacturer suggested parameter. 3Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 4Values with different letters are significant at P<0.05 for the entire tanker. High value indicates a dirtier tanker.

PAGE 206

206 Table 4-57. Visual residue tests for Sd -HVMP installation position qualification Visual assay at operating parameter (n = 3)1 Lpm/m2@bar 454@4.7 454@4.7 454@4.7 454@4.7 454@4.7 454@4.7 454@4.7 Gpm/ft2@psi 120@68 120@68 120@68 120@ 68120@ 68120@68 120@68 Center 5L 2.5L 1L 02 1R 2.5R 5R Pitch 79 79 79 792 79 79 79 Sample Sites 3 0 (0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.9 (3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1.5 (5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2.1 (7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2.7 (9) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 3.4 (11) 0.5 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 4.0 (13) 1.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.3) 0.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 4.6 (15) 1.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 5.2 (17) 2.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 5.8 (19) 2.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 6.4 (21) 2.0 (0.0) 1.3 (0.6) 0.5 (0.0) 0.3 (0.3) 0.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) BH 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) Ave score and sig diff 4 0.65 B 0.23 A 0.05 A 0.02 A 0.02 A 0.00 A 0.00 A 1Residue based on visual 4 point He donic scale of the device. 0 = cl ean (no residue); 1 = slightly soiled; 2 = more soiled; 3 = dirt y (initial inoculation level). 2System manufacturer suggested parameter. 3Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 4Values with different letters are significantly different at P<0.05 for the entire tanker. High value indicates a dirtier tanker.

PAGE 207

207 Table 4-58. Residue tests for Sd-HVM P installation positions qualification Combined residue assay at operating parameter (n = 3) Lpm/m2@bar 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 Centered ()1 0 1 2.5 5 Pitch () 79 79 79 79 Sample Sites2 C V C V C V C V 0 (0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 (5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 (7) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 (9) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 (11) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.0 (13) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.0 4.6 (15) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.2 (17) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.3 2.0 5.8 (19) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 2.0 2.0 6.4 (21) 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.8 2.0 BH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Overall score and sig diff 3 0.05 A 0.07 A 0.34 A 0.97 B 1Values are worse case of either left or right. If pointing left, then the ri ght side is unclean. If pointing right, then the left side is unclean. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 3Values with different letters are si gnificantly different at P<0.05 for the entire tanker. High value i ndicates a dirtier tanker.

PAGE 208

208 Table 4-59. Chemical residue tests for Sd-HVMP installation pitch qualification Chemical assay at operating parameter (n = 3)1 Lpm/m2@bar 454@4.7 454@4.7 454@4.7 Gpm/ft2@psi 120@68 120@68 120@68 Center 0 02 0 Pitch 76 792 82 Sample Sites 3 0 (0) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.3 (1) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.9 (3) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 1.5 (5) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 2.1 (7) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 2.7 (9) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.3 (0.6)b 3.4 (11) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.3 (0.6)b 4.0 (13) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.2 (0.3)a 0.7 (0.6)a 4.6 (15) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.3 (0.6)b 5.2 (17) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.3 (0.6)b 5.8 (19) 2.7 (0.6)b 0.0 (0.0)a 0.7 (0.6)c 6.4 (21) 3.0 (0.0)b 0.2 (0.3)a 0.0 (0.0)a BH4 0.3 (0.6)a 3.0 (0.0)b 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 1.7 (0.6)b 0.0 (0.0)a Ave score and sig diff P<0.055 0.64 A 0.03 A 0.31 A Ave score and sig diff P<0.10 6 0.64 B 0.03 A 0.31 B 1Residue based on visual 4 point Hedonic scale of the device. 0 = clean (green <3 g/100cm2); 1 = slightly soiled (gray); 2 = more soiled (first pu rple color); 3 = dirty (initial inoculation level) 2System manufacturer suggested parameter. 3Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 4Bulkhead separated by top and center respectively. 5Values with different letters are significantly diff erent at P<0.05 for the entire tanker. 6Values with different letters are significantl y different at P<0.10 for the entire tanker.

PAGE 209

209 Table 4-60. Visual residue tests for Sd-HVMP installation pitch qualification Operating parameter (n = 3) 1 Lpm/m2@bar 454@4.7 454@4.7 454@4.7 Gpm/ft2@psi 120@68 120@68 120@68 Center 0 0 2 0 Pitch 76 79 2 82 Sample Sites 3 0 (0) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.3 (1) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.9 (3) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 1.5 (5) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 2.1 (7) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 2.7 (9) 0.2 (0.3)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.7 (0.6)a 3.4 (11) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 2.0 (0.0)b 4.0 (13) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 2.3 (0.6)a 4.6 (15) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 2.0 (0.0)b 5.2 (17) 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 2.0 (0.0)b 5.8 (19) 3.0 (0.0)b 0.0 (0.0)a 1.7 (0.6)c 6.4 (21) 3.0 (0.0)b 0.3 (0.3)a 0.0 (0.0)a BH 4 2.0 (0.0)b 2.7 (0.6)b 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 2.0 (1.0)b 0.0 (0.0)a Ave score and sig diff P<0.05 5 0.78 B 0.02 A 0.91 B 1Residue based on visual 4 point Hedonic scale of the device. 0 = clean (green <3 g/100cm2); 1 = slightly soiled (gray); 2 = more soiled (first pu rple color); 3 = dirty (initial inoculation level) 2System manufacturer suggested parameter. 3Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 4Bulkhead separated by top and center respectively. 5Values with different letters are significantly diff erent at P<0.05 for the entire tanker.

PAGE 210

210 Table 4-61. Residue test summary for Sd-HVMP installation pitch qualification Combined residue assay at operating parameter (n = 3)1 Lpm/m2@bar 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 Centered (degrees) 0 0 0 Pitch (degrees) 76 79 82 Sample Sites 3 C1 V2 C V C V 0 (0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 (1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 (3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 (5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 (7) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 (9) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.7 3.4 (11) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.0 4.0 (13) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.3 4.6 (15) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.0 5.2 (17) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.0 5.8 (19) 0.0 0.0 2.7 3.0 0.7 1.7 6.4 (21) 0.2 0.3 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 BHc 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 BHt 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.0 1.7 2.0 Overall score and sig diff P<0.05 4 0.05 B 1.42 A 1.21 B 1Residue based on chemical 4 point Hedonic scal e of the device. 0 = clean (green <3 g/100cm2); 1 = slightly soiled (gray); 2 = more soile d (first purple color) ; 3 = dirty (initial inoculation level). 2Residue based on visual 4 point Hedoni c scale of the device. 0 = clean (no visual residue); 1 = slightly soiled; 2 = more soiled; 3 = dirty (initial inoculation level). 3Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 4Values with different letters are significantl y different at P<0.05 for the entire tanker.

PAGE 211

211 CHAPTER 5 WASH PROTOCOL VALIDATION Introduction In Part 1 of this study, the baseline results indicated that food-grade tankers m ay not be adequately cleaned due to at least one wash parameter (detergent concentration, wash temperature, wash action). It was observed in Part 1 that the CIP device may be performing poorly and thus the primary cause of poor cleaning. Based on observations, it was determined that the wash action was the primary cause of inadequate washing. In Part 2, the CIP systems were evaluated and adequate wash system paramete rs were determined. With these wash system parameters, the tanker wash validation was re -commenced. To fully understand the effect of detergent concentration and wash temper ature, these were also evaluated. Materials and Methods Tankers Every effort was m ade to use the C-Thru Model tanker for all wash validation work (Figure 5-1) and in the UF CREC Pilot Plant. Ho wever, due to the lack heating capacity for the large volume systems, tankers were obtained from cooperating wash-rack (Indian River Transport for Sd-HVMP and R-HVMP devices). Pr ior to tanker surface inoculation, the same surface preparation process was completed for all tankers. All manual cleaning was conducted by the researcher. The manual wash protocol that was found to remove all residues was as follows; Rinse surfaces with ambient temperature water. Wash surface with warm water (43C) and Dawn dishwashing detergent (Proctor and Gamble, Cincinnati OH) (3 fl oz per 1 gall on water) using a green scrubby (3M Industries, Minneapolis, MN). Rinse with ambient temperature water.

PAGE 212

212 Wash surface with warm water (43C) and Fisherbrand Sparkleen 1 for manual washing (Fisher Scientific, Pi ttsbugh PA) (1 oz per gallon wa ter) using a new green scrubby. Rinse surfaces well with ambient temperature water. Allow the tanker to dry for 24 hours. For this study, 12 sample sites were designated in the tankers for inoc ulation (Figure 5-2). These sites were used whether the wash was in the C-Thru Model tanker or the wash company tanker. CIP Devices Three representative devices were evaluated (CIP device brand names and models should be held confidential and are only used for example purposes): 1. Rotating, Low Volume, High pressure (R-LVHP): The Spraying Systems AA190 supplied by the manufacturer was used with the appropriate modifications. Operating parameters were 87 Lpm @ 31 bar (23 gpm at 450 psi) with 23 cm (9 in) extensions and rotating at 4 rpm. 2. Rotating, High Volume, Medium Pressure (R-HVMP): The unit used is the Sellers 360, supplied by the wash rack, operated at 360 Lpm at 6.8 bar (100 gpm at 100 psi) rotating at 16 rpm using the wash rack facility) and a turret speed based on flow. 3. Static, High Volume, Medium Pressure (S-HVMP): The unit used was supplied by the manufacturer and operated at the wash rack. Operating parameters were 530 Lpm at 4.7 bar (140 gpm at 68 psi) installed dead center (0 based on bulkhead center) and with the manufacturers pitch (79). Soil Slurry Production Microo rganisms used were the same as in Part 1 however preparation fo r the soil type were modified as discussed below. B. megaterium ATCC 14581 was used as the heat resistant sporeformer in lieu of the Alicyclobacillus species which are known spoilage microorganisms of orange and other juices (Parish 1995). S. cerevisiae (ATCC 2601) was used as a general heat labile juice spoilage microorgani sm (Parish 2000) while a generic E. coli (ATCC 23522) was used for the HACCP pertinent sa fety microorganism (FDA 2001).

PAGE 213

213 Type 2 Wash Soils for the Type 2 wash were 55Brix Va len cia orange juice with 10% sinking pulp produced at the CREC (June 20-21, 2006) and stor ed at -23C (-10F). The concentrate was diluted to 30Brix with deionized water as c onfirmed with a digital refractometer (Model 10450 A.O. ABBE). Soils were prepared in 400 gr am batches at 30Brix concentrate and were autoclaved at 121C for 10 min for sterility. Bacteria ( B. megaterium and E. coli) were grown in TSB for 1 day at 35C and then transferred to acidified (pH 5.0) TSB for 2 days at 35C. Yeast ( S. cerevisiae ) was incubated in TSB at 30C for 2 da ys. TSB growth was transferred to centrifuge tubes (120x15 mm 16 ml) and centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 30 min using an International Clinical Cent rifuge Model CL33726M-1 (International Equipment Company, Needham Heights, Mass.). Supernatants were removed from the tubes and the pellets were transferred to the orange juice by rinsing the tubes with fresh 30Brix orange juice, three times. Total soil volume for adequate surface application was 320 grams with a 3.9 pH. Juice and microorganisms were shaken well for 2 min a nd sprayed onto the tank er surface at the designated sites. The av erage juice inoculation was expected to be 1 gram per 100 cm2. This was determined by the mass difference of the slurry in the spray bottle divided by the inoculated surface area. Microbial populations were estimated to be 1,000,000 cfu/100cm2 for each microorganism. Soil residue as sugar was expected to be 3 on the 4 point Hedonic scale (0 to 3) while the ATP readings were 5.1 RLU (Relative Light Units) as determined with a Lightning Bioluminescence reader (BioControl Systems). Type 4 Wash The Type 4 soil was an equal blend of past eurized whole m ilk (Publix brand, Lakeland FL), pasteurized egg whites (Papettis Liquid Egg, Elizabeth NJ), and commercial peanut butter (Publix Creamy brand, Lakeland FL). Bacteria ( B. megaterium and E. coli) were grown in TSB

PAGE 214

214 for 2 days at 35C while the yeast ( S. cerevisiae ) was incubated in TSB at 30C for 2 days. TSB was transferred to centrifuge tubes (120x15 mm 16 ml) and centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 30 min using an International Clinical Centrif uge Model CL33726M-1 (International Equipment Company, Needham Heights, Mass.). Supernatants were removed from the tubes and the pellets were transferred to the allergen food slurry by rinsing with fresh m ilk. Total soil slurry required for adequate surface application was 320 gram s with a 6.2 pH. Allergen slurry and microorganisms were blended well for 2 min at sp eed 7 using an Oster blender Model Osterizer Galaxie 14 (John Oster Manufacturi ng Company, Milwaukee, WI). The slurry was sprayed onto the tanker surface at the designa ted sites using a sweeping motion. The average inoculation was expected to be 1 gram per 100 cm2 resulting in a microbial population of 1000000 cfu/100cm2 for each microorganism and allergen concen trations were estimated to be 8000, 22000, and 29000 g/100cm2 respectively for milk, egg, and peanut alle rgens. Allergen concentrations were estimated from nutritional analysis data of the products and confirmed in the slurry after serial dilutions in sterile phosphate water. The slurry when dry had a sugar residue based on the AccuClean method (Neogen Corporation) of 3 points on a 4 point He donic scale and ATP reading was 5.3 RLU (Relative Light Units) with a Lightning Bioluminescence reader (BioControl Systems). Surface Inoculation The appropriate soil was spray applied on the sam ple sites (Figure 5-2) using a manually operated spray bottle. Application rate was estimated at 1 gm/100cm2 which would represent an empty drained tanker. When spraying, a sweeping motion was used to apply the soil evenly. Soils were allowed to dry for 24 hours at ambient conditions.

PAGE 215

215 Washes All washes followed the guidelines of the JP A Model Tanker Wash Guidelines (JPA 2006) for the Fruit Juice Industry for Type 2 and 4 wash es. Sam e detergents and sanitizers used at wash facilities were used for this study. De tergent and sanitizer solutions were prepared according to the manufacturer directions and were evaluated for concentration before washing using manufacturer supplied test kits. To assess detergent effect, a set of Type 4 washes using the R-LVHP device were conducted with three detergent concentrati ons ranges (100 to 150, 450 to 550, and 900 to 1000 ppm active alkalinity). Wash time and temperat ure followed the JPA guidelines for the Type 4 wash. To assess temperature effect, Type 2 and 4 washes were conducted with the feed temperature at 71C (160F) measured at the de vice infeed. The tested feed temperature was chosen based on detergent suppliers recommen dations (Ecolab PC 2007 Zep PC 2007 Chemical Systems 2007) and food protein (allergen) cleaning literature (Katsuyama 1999 Schumacher 2003 Marriott 2006). Visual Assessment Visual assessm ent of cleaning was completed prior to swabbing an area. Visual assessment of cleaning was accomplished by using th e guidelines of Kulkarni (1974) and Richter (1975). Visual observations were not limited to the swabbed 100 cm2 but encompassed larger areas and areas that were not swabbed. After-c leaning, observations were performed prior to sampling the food contact surface. A hand-held (MagLight Model 2-D cell, Mag Instruments) and a head-mounted flashlight (Eveready Model KE, Eveready Industries) were used for the internal observations. Areas were touched by ha nd to feel for certain surface qualities after swabbing. This was useful for pits, rust spots, cracks, residual soils, and other abnormalities.

PAGE 216

216 Visual clean assessment was determined immediat ely after cleaning for a wet clean assay and after drying for 20 min for a dry clean assay. Wet clean was useful to determine gross cleaning inadequacies while the dry clean assay was useful for the residual minute soils that stained the stainless steel. Examples of what was expected for an unclean surface are; pulp, residual carbohydrates, fat s pots (greasy areas due to fats or o ils), blue stains (proteins), white stains (milk stone), any color particulates (pipe scale, sand, detergent residue), and water droplet adhesion (indicative of thin film soils). Microbiology Tankers were sam pled before and after cleaning for comparison purposes. Sample sites are seen in Figure 5-2 for all washes. Spongesicl e with 10 ml neutraliz ing broth (International BioProducts, Bothell, WA) was used for all swab samples. Before-cleaning sample sites were aseptically sampled by swabbing a 100 cm2 (2 by 2 swipes of Spongesicle) of tanker surface. Spongesicles were return ed to the labeled bag and placed in a cooler with ice packs for the trip to the lab. After cleaning, all parts were replaced onto the tanker and the tanker was closed but not sealed. After-cleaning samples we re taken after the tanker was re-opened. Aftercleaning samples were taken near the before-clean ing areas ensuring that th e before-cleaning site was not re-sampled. All Spongesicles were retu rned to their labeled bags and placed in a cooler with ice packs for the trip to the lab. Water and sanitizer solutions were collected in a Spongesicl e with the sponge removed but the neutralizing broth retained. Samples were taken before the tanker at appropriate sampling ports if available. Samples taken after the tanker were collected from the rear port after 5 min of flow. Cleaning solutions were collected in sterile Whirlpak ba gs with a neutralizing solution (0.5% sodium thiosulfate) (Fisher Scientific). If collected solutions were hot (detergent solutions or hot rinse water), these were cool ed in running tap water prior to placing in the

PAGE 217

217 cooler. Additional samples of inside food-cont act or outside tanker surfaces were taken as needed to help understand some of the results. All samples were placed in the cooler and transported to the laboratory at the University of Florida Citrus Resear ch and Education Center, Lake Alfred, FL for analytical testing. All samples were plated the same day they we re obtained. Aliquots (90 ml) of pre-warmed (45C) 0.1% buffered peptone water (BPW) (In ternational BioProducts ) were aseptically transferred to each surface swab Spongesicle sample bag. The sponge of the Spongesicle was massaged well for at least 60 sec to release adhered bacteria into the BPW solution. For each liquid sample, no pre-dilutions were deemed unnecessary other than for enumerations. All sponge and liquid BPW samples were then serially diluted to -3 and plated in the following manner; 1. B. megaterium populations: Samples were plated on PCA and incubated for 48 hours at 35C. After determining the total population, the E. coli and yeast counts were subtracted to yield the total Bacillus count. Confirmation of the bacteria was by microscopic evaluation. 2. Generic E. coli populations: Follow methods as outlined for E.coli /Coliform Count Petrifilm (3M, St. Paul, MN). A confirma tion test on presumptive positive colonies was performed by aseptically transferring susp ect colonies to 9ml tubes of EC-MUG broth (Difco) with an inverted Durham tube and incubated at 44.5C for 24 hours. Growth, gas, and fluorescence were indicative of a positive result. 3. Presence of E. coli: Follow method as outlined by the Ecolite (Charm Sciences, Lawrence, MA) all-in-one rapid test method using 20 ml of undiluted Spongesicle sample and 80 ml of 45C sterile DI water for dilution. Confir mation on presumptive positive samples was as above for populations. 4. S. cerevisiae populations: Samples were plated on pot ato dextrose agar acidified with 10% tartaric acid to pH 3.5 +/0.2. Plates were incubated at 32C for up to 5 days. Full counts were typically available at 3 days. All microbiological analyses were performed in duplicate except for the Ecolite test that was performed only once per sample. Positive and negative controls were included in each set of

PAGE 218

218 sample sets for all protocols as a control for th e method. Raw ingredients (juice, milk, eggs, and peanut butter) were also evalua ted by these procedures to de termine residual contributions. Allergens From the same SpongeSicle bag used for mi crobiology analysis and after removing the required amount for the microbiology testing, a liquots of the SpongeSicl e BPW were removed for allergen testing. Before-wash samples were serially diluted to -5 in orde r to be in the range of the test kits. Five mL each of dilutions -3 to -5 were placed in pr e-labeled 6x9 inch sterile plastic bags (Fisherbrand, Pittsburg, PA). Fo r all post-wash samples, 5 mL aliquots were removed directly from the SpongeSicle BPW samp les or the liquid samples and placed in prelabeled 6x9 in sterile plastic bags (Fisherbrand, Pittsburg, PA). All bags were refrigerated until tested. Prior to testing, allergen sample bags were removed from the refrigerator and warmed to 40C and massaged and shaken well for 60 sec. Procedures were followed for each allergen using a commercially available allergen test kit (Alert Allergen Test Kits, Neogen Corporation, Lansing, Mich.) for each allergen (Total Milk No. 8471, Egg No. 8451, and Peanut No. 8431). A micro-well reader (Stat Fax Model 321 Plus, Neogen Corporation, Lans ing, Mich.) was used to read allergen levels in the wells to elim inate subjective color evaluations of the wells (colorimetric evaluation). All wells were read at 650 nm at 24C according to the manufacturers specification. Allergen tests were conducted once per sample but read three times within 2 min and averaged. Standard curves we re determined using the positive controls of the test kit. Residual Microbial and Soil Analysis with ATP Microorganism s and soil residue as ATP were de termined by direct swab of an inoculated area with a Lightning MVP swab after SpongeSi cle sampling and near the SpongeSicle site

PAGE 219

219 ensuring that the same spots were not sample d. Swabs were placed in the ice cooler until returned to the lab. At the lab, prior to testing, the swabs were warmed to room temperature, activated, and ATP residues were read with a Li ghtning Model 04 Bioluminometer (BioControl, Bothell, WA). ATP residue was recorded as Relative Light Units (RLU) per 100cm2. Swabs and instruments were used according to the manuf acturer directions. A standard calibration set supplied by the manufacturer (BioControl Bo thell, WA) was used to calibrate the Bioluminometer before each set of samples. Residual Soils To determ ine residual sugars and proteins, the AccuClean Simple Sanitation test swabs were used (Neogen Corporation Lansing MI). All AccuClean sampling was conducted after the microbiology samples and every effort was made not to sample an area that was sampled by the SpongeSicle or the ATP swabs. Manufacturer pr ocedures were followed using only 3 drops of wetting solution on the test swab. Statistical Analysis The overall tanker wash validation w as statistic ally analyzed with SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary NC May 2007). Paired comparisons we re completed using the Student t-test function of Microsoft Office Excel 2003 (Micro soft Corp. Bellevue, WA April 2006). Results and Discussion Detergent Concentration Detergen t concentration results are in Tabl e 5-1 for the R-LVHP and Table 5-2 for SdHVMP device. Detergent concentration test s were conducted with these devices as representative of there respective types. R-LVHP results may also be the more critical unit since this device operates at the lowest volume and r uns the risk of barrel e nd temperature issues. Type 4 soil was used to determin e the detergents effective allergen/protein removal. Devices

PAGE 220

220 were operated according to the parameter determined previously and using the 71C discharge temperature suggested by the wash regime unless otherwise directed by the detergents manufacturer (JPA 2005). In the tanker wash survey (Winniczuk unpublished), it was found that a chlorinated alkaline cleaner was used by wash facilities at an average concentr ation of 150 ppm active alkalinity with 10 ppm chlorine at 10.5 pH. Th is concentration was used as the baseline for comparisons. Further detergent an alyses are in Appendix B. Test results indicated that there were no ove rall significant differences (P<0.05) between the detergent concentrations when either de vice was operated at th eir respective hydraulic conditions. There was some re sidue on the surface for each de tergent concentration but in general were below the target limit of 1 g/100cm2 which was below the methods detection limit. Results below the methods detection limit ma y have resulted in large standard deviations which may be the reason for the lack of signi ficant difference. Even though there were no significant differences overall, the R-LVHP devi ce did have a determined significant difference between 150 ppm active alkalinity and the other two higher concen trations at the bulkhead which may mean that 150 ppm is too low for this device This was not seen with the Sd-HVMP device which distributed much more fl uid during its cleaning cycle. Another aspect of the alkaline cleaners used is the added chlorine that is used to peptize proteins and to reduce milk stone deposits (K atsuyama 1993). At 150 ppm active alkalinity, the average free chlorine concentration was 10 pp m while at 500 and 1000 ppm active alkaline, it was 60 and 100 ppm free chlorine respectively. Wher eas the active alkalinity is used to remove fatty soils and some proteins, the chlorine is used to remove tenacious soils that may adhere to the stainless steel due to the wa rm high humid conditions of the wash (Katsuyama 1993 Mabesa

PAGE 221

221 1979 Bigalke 1978). Under these conditions, the incr eased chlorine concentration may be more important to the protein removal then the actual active alkalinity. Pre-CIP handling of the tanker may be instru mental particularly with the low volume system. Since the milk fats (or lipids of othe r products) may protect the proteins from water cleaning, a manual water wash that is higher th an the melt point of the fat may be needed (Mabesa 1979). All manual washin g/rinsing was conducted with 25 to 28C water. Typically a temperature, 3C (5F) higher than the fats me lt point would aid in re moving the lipid without affecting the protein (Katsuyama 1993 Schmidt 2003). If the R-LVHP device is used, it may have to be operated with a higher detergent concen tration to ensure adequate chemical activity in all parts of the tanker. Temperature Wash tem perature is another factor that ma y have had an effect on the tanker washing effectiveness. This factor was assessed by runni ng washes at 2 different temperatures, one at the standard 71C discharge minimum and the other at a 71C feed temperature. Other researchers (Bigalke 1978 Mabesa 1979) have found that high temperatures (>50C) may be detrimental to removing milk and other proteinaceous soils. Also, high temperatures (>37C) in combination with high humidity (>80-100%) can lead to the formation of a tenacious soil (Mabesa 1979). Tankers are a perfect vessel for combining hi gh temperature and high hum idity during the wash cycle. Results of this assessment are in Tabl e 5-3. These results indicate that there was no significant difference (P<0.05) overall between the te mperature regimes at th e tested conditions. The lack of significance may be due to the large standard deviati ons that were seen which may be due to the allergen detection methods limitatio ns. There was a signif icant difference at the bulkhead which might be expected since the flui d volume was low in this area. With the low volume of the R-LVHP device, the use of the 71C discharge temperature may be detrimental

PAGE 222

222 since the steel temperature can reach protein c ook-on or lipid polymerization temperatures long before the wash solution can get to the area (Figure 3-3) (Mabesa 1979). To obtain the 71C discharge temperature, a feed temperature of 85 to 91C was needed which was similar to observed feed temperatures of the tanker survey (Winniczuk unpublished). This high temperature can heat up the stainless steel before the nozzles are oriented properly to clean the bulkhead. A 71C feed temperat ure provided a discharge temper ature of 54C which is above the suggested discharge temperature for milk cleaning (Bigalke 1978 Wilkins 1993) and for egg cleaning (NEB 2004). These resu lts may have been observed in this study since the milk residue, as an allergen (even though below the ta rget limit), was lower cl ose to the device (Sites 0 to 3.7 m) but higher further away (4.9 to BH). The exact starting position of the rotating device was not monitored which also may explain the results since the starting point of the device may influence the soils removal during the cycle time. For example, if the wash was started when the nozzles were facing the bulkheads, these would re ceive the detergent first which would remove soils before the tanker steel heated to temperatures that produce protein cook-on. If the wash started with the nozzl es facing the tankers center (0 m from the device), the steel may heat up long before the nozzles and the wash fluid get to th e bulkhead since the device has to go through its cycle. The detergent concentration us ed (150 ppm active alkalinity) was also the wash facilities observed average that may be too low for proper washing which combined with temperature and low volume rates, may be the cause of the lack of protein removal at the bulkhead. However, since there appears to be no stat istically significant difference betw een a 71C feed or discharge temperature, it is felt that temperat ure has little bearing on the washes.

PAGE 223

223 Type 2 Wash Rotating-low volume, high pressure device (R-LVHP) Wash validations were comm enced with an a ssessment of the wash rack conditions as a baseline for comparison even though the surface fl ow rate and qualification data indicated that the wash rack conditions are not acceptable. Ta ble 5-4 are the results of the R-LVHP Type 2 wash following the wash rack conditions of 68 Lpm @ 24 bar with no extensions and a rotation speed of 20 rpm. The minimum discharge temper ature of 71C was used for all tests per JPA guidelines. The column headed Flow rate is the nearest surface flow rate for the inoculated area and is for example purposes. Soil residues (visua l, ATP, and sugar results) indicate that this device as operated was inadequate to properly clean the tanker. Flow rates appear to be adequate to clean near the device (Sites 0 to 3.7) but are very low further away (Sites 4.9 to BHt). At the bulkhead top (Site BHt) there was no flow detect ed. This soil was a simple juice solution that should be cleaned with adequate water flow combined with the detergent. Only one sample site (Site 0) was above the literature flow rate of 1.63 Lpm/m2 minimum for surface wetting which may be the reason for th e lack of cleaning (Ecolab 2002). However, Sites 1.2 to 3.7 were below this minimum but seemed to adequately clean the surface. Literature flow rates are based on cascade cleaning equipm ent which may explain this difference (Ecolab 2002 Lechler 2004). On the other hand, when the su rface flow rates were very low as in Sites 4.9 to the bulkhead, the cleaning was not accomplished. Interestingly, the BHc that was soiled, had a surface flow rate of 0.079 Lpm/m2 that was similar to the value at Site 3.7, which was relatively clean. It is felt that even though the flow rate a BHc was equivalent to Site 3.7, how the fluids are dispersed to this site may be signif icantly different than at 3.7. Visually, the stream at BHc was mist with practically no impingement forces so the cleaning at the bulkhead would rely strictly on cascade cleaning of the mist. Fluid amounts from the mist were low.

PAGE 224

224 With respect to the microorganism reduction, the S. cerevisiae and E. coli were effectively removed or inactivated during the wash. Since practically no fluid reached the bulkhead top region (Site BHt), these microorganisms were pr obably not removed but in activated due to the temperature (heat inactivation) (Jay 2001). The temperature prof ile of the tanker (Figure 4-4) indicated that the bulkh ead top region did heat to a minimu m lethal temperature of 55C for a sufficient time (approximately 28 min) to inactiv ate the microorganisms (Jay 2001). However, this time and temperature were not sufficient to inactivate the Bacillus and more specifically the Bacillus spores (Jay 2001). Since vegetative Bacillus is not known to be heat resistant, these may have been inactivated while the spores that were either in the slurry or developed during the drying process, would survive the heat process. The recovery method did not take this into account. Based on these results combined with the observa tions of the previous work, it appears that this device as operated is not effective to wash the tanker. R-LVHP study determined rotation speed To rule out the rotation speed effect, a te st set was conducted using the rotation speed variable only. These results are in T able 5-5. Flow rates were improved compared to the faster rotation speed with fluid collected at the bulkh ead top (Site BHt). By using a slow rotation speed, it was expected to see more cleaned ar eas. Soil removal was improved but the Sites 4.9, 6.1, and the bulkhead (BHt) still had visual, ATP, or sugar soils. Microorganism results were similar to the previous trial in that S. cerevisiae and E. coli were effectively reduced but the B. megaterium was at relatively high levels. Reducing the rotation speed appears to not be the only factor for effective clea ning with this device.

PAGE 225

225 R-LVHP study determined extension length The extension lengths of 15 and 22 cm (6 and 9 in) were tested since both extensions seem to provide adequate flow and were not found to be significantly different for fluid dispersion. These results are in Table 5-6 and 5-7 respectively for 15 and 22 cm extensions. The 15 cm extension was seen to significantly improve the flui d distribution in the surface flow rate tests. Flow rates were improved to each sample site with an improvement (as compared to the operating parameter of Table 5-4) in the soil re sidues as detected by visual, ATP, and sugar analysis. Areas that did not appear to be clean ed well were at the barre l end at 6.1 m. Residual soil was more noticeable when the stainless steel was dry not when wet. This may be expected due to solubility of the soil (Richter 1975). S. cerevisiae and E. coli results were not recovered as expected while a minimum 5 log reduction was seen with B. megaterium While not fully removing the B. megaterium inoculation, the reduction app eared significant (6.1 log to -0.67 log). This seemed to indicate that a Type 2 wash can effectively clean a tanker with 68 Lpm @ 24 bar with a 15 cm (6 in) extensions and at 4 rp m rotation speed. However, since the barrel end was still above the soiled minimum another various needs to be tested. Based on the previous qualification results, th e 22 cm (9 in) extension was thought to be more effective under washing conditions while a low flow rate was important to the wash facilities (Bynum Transport PC 2005; Clewis ton Tank Wash PC 2005; USA Tank Wash PC 2005; Oakley Transport PC 2006; Sterling Tank Wash PC 2006). The purpose of the next test was to confirm this combination. This test was conducted at 68 Lpm @ 24 bar with a 22 cm extension with the results are in Table 5-7. These results indicate that the soil was effectively removed up to 3.7 m while the Sites 4.9 to 6.1 (barre l end) still had residues (visual and sugar) above the target minimum. All microorganisms were effectively and significantly removed (6

PAGE 226

226 log units initial to ~0 log un its final). Due to the residue s in the barrel, these operating conditions could not be validation to effectively clean the tanker. R-LVHP study determined flow rate Since the lowest flow rate appeared to be inef fective with the im provements of rotation speed and extension length, the flow rate wa s increased to 75.7 Lp m @ 31 bar which the previous research seemed to indicate this tr end. Under these conditions, the tanker could be effectively cleaned (Table 5-8). All soils and microorganisms were reduced to acceptable levels while the results may not be ideal, these c onditions did meet the clean requirements as determined early in the research. R-LVHP CI P device when operated un der the conditions of 75.7 Lpm @ 31 bar with a 4 rpm rotation speed and 22 cm (9 in) extensions were validated to effectively clean a tanker. A further increase to 83 Lpm @ 31 bar as indica ted by the results of the qualification tests are in Table 5-9. A rotation speed of 4 rpm and th e 22 cm extensions were also used since these seem to be significant for proper cleaning. U nder these operating condi tions, all areas were effectively cleaned with the barrel end (Site 6.1) also cleaned to non-recoverable levels. Based on these results, when using the R-LVHP CIP device, effectiv e Type 2 cleaning can be achieved at a minimum of 75.7 Lpm @ 31 bar w ith a rotation speed of 4 rpm and fitted with 22 cm (9 in) extensions with a 71C discharge temperature. Based on improved cleaning results, 83 Lpm @ 31 bar with a rotation speed of 4 rpm a nd fitted with 22 cm (9 in) extensions with a 71C discharge temperature is recommended for the R-LVHP CIP devices. Compared to the wash rack operating parameters, increasing th e fluid volume and pressure combined with a decrease in the rotation speed and the installa tion of extensions for flow development are important.

PAGE 227

227 Rotatinghigh volume, medium pressure device (R-HVMP) All qualified operating conditions of the RHVMP device seem adequate for a Type 2 washed tanker. W ash results for operating parameter 416 Lpm @ 4.5 bar, 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar, or 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar are in Tables 5-10, 5-11, and 5-12. Soil residues (visual, ATP, and sugar) were all within the research guidelines as were the microbial results. However, visual residue was seen at the barrel end particularly when it was dry at 416 @ 4.5 bar and 378 @ 6.2 bar but not at 492 @ 5.5 bar. The inoculation material was 30 Brix orange ju ice solution with an estimated 300,000 g. This sugar solution was effectively reduced to below the methods detection limit of 3 g with 378 Lpm @ 6.2 ba r and 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar but not at 416 Lpm @ 4.5 bar. Visual residue may be the small sugar re sidue or a product of the sugar and the heat or detergent. No microorganisms were recovered for any wash operating condition which indicates each parameter is effective to reduce and/or e liminate microorganisms from the tanker. Proper manual washing was extremely important at the manway while all other tanker areas relied on the manual rinse and the CIP wash. Stationary directionalhigh volume, medium pressure device (Sd-HVMP) Four operating conditions were used for the Sd-HVMP device with 454 Lpm @ 3.1 bar and 416 Lpm @ 4.5 bar suggested by the manufact urers (Ecolab 2006 Sani-Matic 2006). Both of these operating parameters were effective to reduce soil and microorganisms to very low levels that met the studies guideline (Tables 513 and 5-14). Both opera ting conditions had some residue between 1.2 to 3.7 m (Sites 1.2, 2.4, and 3.7) which may be due to this units reduced fluid flow at this location. Combinations of flow and pressure were seen as the main reason for the residue. Operating conditi ons of 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar and 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar were seen at the wash rack and were highly effective for so il and microorganism removal (Tables 5-15 and 516). Lower volume and higher pressure appeared to be more effective since no visual or sugar

PAGE 228

228 residue was detected when the unit was opera ted properly. Residues at 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar did meet the studies guidelines. This device was tested for installation positio n since it was observed that this parameter may be significant to its proper performance. Resu lts of these trials are in Tables 5-17 to 5-21 for off center installation and Tables 5-22 to 523 for pitch installation. For off center trials, testing was only completed on the device when it was installed so that the nozzles were facing away from the inoculated sites. Based on the flow rate and qualification results, it was deemed appropriate to only test this si nce this would be the worse case area to be cleaned. When the device is pointed toward the inoculated sites, it was felt that cleaning would be accomplished since the fluids were adequate. These results indicate that as th e installation angle is increased, there is a greater chance of not properly cleaning the low fluid side (the area that the nozzles are not pointing at). The angle comparison of these results are seen in Table 5-21 with the statistical analysis based solely on the soil removal since the microbi al residues (non-recoverable) were of limited value. When evaluating the residual soils, a sign ificant difference (P<0.05) was seen when the device was installed at 5 off dead center compared to when installed at 0 dead center and was significantly different compared to 1 and 2.5, indicating that th is device should be used for a Type 2 wash with it installed at 0 2.5 from dead center. Further trials were run with this device for th e pitch that seemed to be significant based on surface fluid volumes and the qualification tests. Table 5-22 is the results when the device was installed with a 76 pitch (as measured from th e devices down-shaft to the linear part of the nozzles). When installed in this way, the e nd of the tanker (barrel e nd and bulkhead) was more soiled than the control of 0. However, no or very few microorganisms were present probably

PAGE 229

229 due to the temperature and the flow that was su fficient to remove microorganisms but not fully remove the soil. The device was next tested at 82 pitch (Table 5-23) ag ain with no recovery of microorganisms but some recovery of soils. Soil ed areas had shifted up the barrel to the 2.4 to 4.7 m region which was the lowest flow rates when this device was installed. Tanker ends were cleaned better except at the bulkhead top. One r eason this may have occurred is that the stream was not directed onto the barrel but below the bulkheads top so th at the fluid may not been able to cascade up to clean this area. A statistical anal ysis of the pitch is seen in Table 5-24 indicating that the 3 deviation from th e manufacturers design and reco mmendation is adequate to reduce the cleaning performance of this device. Furt her testing should be conducted with smaller deviations. Type 2 Wash Conclusions Tables 5-25 to 5-29 are the statis tical analysis data for each device for a Type 2 wash. Analysis is based on averaging the soils a nd microbiology residues. R-LVHP device was operated at the parameter (68 Lpm @ 24 bar with 0 cm extensions and 20 rpm rotation speed) observed at the wash facilities as a baseline and for comparison purposes (Table 5-25). Utilizing the studies determined parameter (flow conditions, rotation speed, and extensions), it was seen that by slowing the rotation sp eed, the microorganisms were significantly (P<0.05) reduced while the extensions were a significant aid to reducing the soils. Reduction of microorganisms seemed to be less affected by the device parame ter since operating at 68 Lpm @ 24 bar at 4 rpm with 15 or 22 cm extensions was not significan tly different (P<0.05) from 76 Lpm @ 31 bar or 83 Lpm @ 31 bar. The combination of both rotation speed and extens ions with an increased flow rate resulted in significant differences in how the unit was operated. Ideally, for a Type 2 wash, the parameter

PAGE 230

230 of 83 Lpm @ 31 bar with 22 cm extensions and a 4 rpm rotation speed were significant for soil and microorganism removal. Table 5-26 are the summarized results for the R-HVMP device. The tested operating parameters were not significantly differe nt for the reduction of microorganisms. Microorganisms were either removed or inactivated by the flow or heat. Differences were seen for the soils with no significant difference (P<0.05) between 416 @ 4.5 and 378 @ 6.8 but both being significantly different and higher than the 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar operating condition. Main differences were noted at the barrel ends. When installed correctly (0 dead center and 79 pitch), the Sd-HVMP device did not have significant differences for soils or microorganisms (Table 5-27). Sufficient fluid flow and heat was achieved to remove or inactivate the microorga nisms and to remove the soils. This device was tested for installation position also since this condition was observed many times during the tanker survey. Table 5-28 shows that when the position was at 5 off dead center, there was a significant difference in the cleaning performance as seen by residual soils. This deviation from center was large enough to result in low flow areas that were incapable of adequately cleaning the area. The devices pitch was also tested with a 3 deviatio n from the manufacturers design, sufficient to reduce the cleaning pe rformance (Table 5-29). Both installation variations should be minimized. Type 4 Wash Type 4 wash is directed at cleaning allergen so ils which are perceiv ed to be hard to remove (JPA 2005). Each device was subjected to the Type 4 wash with a complimentary soil. Again, CIP devices were tested at the parameter observe d at the wash racks for a baseline result for comparisons.

PAGE 231

231 Rotatinglow volume, high pressure device Results of the wash rack operating param ete r of 68 Lpm @ 24 bar with 20 rpm rotation speed and no extensions are in Table 5-30. Resu lts indicate that these operating conditions were not sufficient to properly clean a tanker. Soils, microorgani sms, and allergens were not effectively removed. However, it was f ound that heat sensitive microorganisms ( S. cerevisiae and E. coli ) were effectively reduced while the h eat resistant microorganisms, such as B. megaterium were able to survive. It is hypothesized that the B. megaterium survived due to spore production either in the sl urry or after it was applied, since vegetative cells are reported to be sensitive to the heat (Jay 1999). Allergens were recovered in many sample sites. It was observed that the lack of cleaning fluid was a direct cause of the lack of removal. Increasing the flow rate (to 76 Lpm @ 31 bar) and installing 22 cm (9 in) extensions with a reduced rotation speed (4 rpm) were effective to reduce or eliminate most of the soils (Table 531). Increased fluid rate effectively increased th e fluid that reached all internal areas of the tanker. This fluid increase seems to be very im portant to clean the tanker. This finding may be similar to previous findings that an increase in volume is more important than an increase in pressure (Marriott 1999). Visual and detectable soils were removed more than when operated at 68 Lpm @ 24 bar with the barrel end be ing effectively cleaned. Reduction in S. cerevisiae and E. coli was expected due to the te mperature while most of the B. megaterium was removed except for the barrel end (Site 6.1) which means th at the fluid flow to this area may still be inadequate. Allergens were not detected up to ~3.0 m (Sites 0 to 2.4) while beyond 3 m there was some recovery but at very low levels (< 0 log g or <1 g) wh ich was the target limit of this study. Increasing the flow rate to 83 Lpm @ 31 ba r did reduce the visible and sugar soils but not the allergen residue (Table 5-32).

PAGE 232

232 Based on these results, it seems that this de vice should be operated with 22 cm (9 in) extensions at a slow rotation speed (4 shaft rpm) and at a minimum of 76 Lpm @ 31 bar. A food grade tanker can be effectively cl eaned with this wash protocol. Rotatinghigh volume, medium pressure device The m inimum suggested operating parameter (416 Lpm @ 4.5 bar) of this device was sufficient to reduce visual and detectable soils to low levels (Table 5-33). Residue when visible was usually when the surface was dry indicating a ve ry low level. This low level was below the detection limit of the ATP test while residual su gar was detected only at the barrel ends. All microorganisms were effectively removed or inactivated by this operating parameter while allergens were also mostly removed. Soil residue s were similar when this device was operated at 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar or at 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar (Tables 5-34 and 5-35). It was expected that the higher flow rate (492 Lpm @ 5.5 ba r) would be more effective but this was not seen since the allergen residues were basically the same as with 416 Lpm @ 4.5 bar (Gamajet PC 2007) The lowest volume (378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar) did seem to have more allergens residues possibly substantiating the volume versus pressure contention (Marriott 1999) but all were within the studies guidelines. When operated at this low volume, B. megaterium was found close to the device (Sites 0 and 1.2) which was su rprising since this area was e xpected to be have to best cleaning pressures and volume. The two samples that were positive were probably due to poor manual cleaning of the manway, to the devices impingement gap, or to possible post-process contamination. Stationary directionalhigh volume, medium pressure device The Sd-HVMP device was affected by flow rate with the lowest pressure condition (454 Lpm @ 3.1 bar) leaving residues (Table 5-36) that were not seen with a Type 2 wash. These operating conditions were suggested by one of the device manufacturers (Sani-Matic 2006).

PAGE 233

233 Flow volumes were high for this device with th e bulkhead receiving most of the fluids. Visual soils were detected in more sample sites than other operating parameter but all were below the studies target. Residues were seen mainly when the surface was dry indicating a possible lack of flow or some other condition su ch as a reaction of heat with the soils. ATP residues were acceptable throughout all sample sites with the re sidual sugar only in the lowest surface flow area (Site 3.7). As seen in the surface flow rate data, this area is a common low flow zone that is due to the position of the orifices. No microor ganisms were recovered at this operating condition but allergens were detected at the low flow z ones and at the barrel e nd. Bulkheads were well cleaned. Another suggestion by the device manufacturer was to operate the device at a minimum pressure of 4.5 bar (65 psi) with no specified volum e rate. Table 5-37 is th e results of the device when operated to achieve 4.5 bar (65 psi) usi ng 416 Lpm (110 gpm) (Eco lab 2006). This flow parameter seemed to be more effective than the lower pressure (3.1 bar). Higher flow parameter with a properly centered and pitche d CIP device was sufficient to clean all inoculated sites in the tanker. The wash facilities used flow paramete rs that were diffe rent from the device manufacturers suggestion for this research. Wash facilities were using parameters that were determined by the pump systems that they had. Th ese parameters were however in the range of the manufacturers recommendation (Ecolab PC 2006 IRT PC 2006) since CIP operating parameters can be a range in which the prope r combination of flow volume and pressure (hydraulics) work together to produce the cleaning (Ecolab 2006) When operated at the wash facility parameters (378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar or 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar in Tables 5-38 and 5-39 respectively) the tanker was adequately cleaned ba sed on the studies analyses. No residues were

PAGE 234

234 detected with 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar while one washed tanker had egg residue in sample Site 3.7 (3.7 m from device) for 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar. This was the lowest surface flow rate that may explain this. Surface flow volume is critical for cascade cleaning. Even though this parameter used more fluid (492 Lpm) it was not distribu ted as well as the 378 Lpm since the 378 Lpm seemed to deliver more fluids at the low volum e zone. This is probably due to the pressure effect. Installation tests were repeated for the Type 4 wash with the re sults seen in Tables 5-40 to 5-47. Operating this device at dead center appears to be ideal w ith no more than a 1 deviation from the center (Table 5-41). At 2.5 there were more sites that had recoverable soils (Table 542) indicating a lack of cleaning ability at this installation positi on and when at 5 (Table 5-43), much more soil was recovered on th e tanker surfaces. Statistical an alysis of the combined soils and allergens was determined with the results in Table 5-44. For a Type 4 soil, there was no significant difference (P<0.05) between installing this device at 0 or 1 from dead center but a difference was detected at 2.5 and 5. With the Type 4 soil, the devices installation position appears to be more stringent in order to properly clean the tanker. Type 4 Wash Conclusions Summ ary of the Type 4 wash validation study is in Tables 5-45 to 5-46. Statistical analysis of the R-LVHP device (T able 5-45) indicates that the re sults of washing with 68 Lpm @ 24 bar with no extensions and a rotation speed of 20 rpm is significantly different (P<0.05) as compared to when this device is operated at 76 Lpm @ 31 bar or at 83 Lpm @ 31 bar. As previously surmised, the fast rotation speed increases the tangential velocity of the low mass (volume) fluid which allows only a small radius (Singh 2001). Also with no extensions, proper fluid flow development does not occur so the disc harged fluid leaves the nozzle with high energy which dissipates rapidly when it le aves the nozzle with a sudden expansion that allows a short

PAGE 235

235 throw distance (White 1977 Singh 2001). Residual soils, microorganisms and allergens were recovered at significantly higher levels with this operating parameter than the larger volume operating parameter. There was no significant diffe rence between the flow rates at 31 bar for microorganisms or allergens but there was for the remaining soils. Soil residues were mostly visual indicating a lack of clean ing with the 76 Lpm @ 31 bar. Effective cleaning was seen with the 83 Lpm @ 31 bar with 22cm extensions and a slow 4 shaft rpm. R-HVMP device analysis is in Table 5-46 with no significant difference (P<0.05) in soil removal for any operating condition. Based on the surface fluid flows and literature, the volume of the cleaning fluid may be more important for cleaning foods than th e pressure (Gamajet 2006 Katsuyama 1993). For some reason, soils were pr esent for all operating parameters that may indicate that a tenacious soil does exist whic h may need lower wash temperature or higher detergent concentration to be fu lly removed (Mabesa 1979). Wash temperatures that were used were chosen based on the minimum discharg e requirement of JP A (JPA 2005) and the temperature evaluation part of th is study that indicated very littl e temperature effect but with further testing, may prove to be a significant fact or. Detergent concentrations used were based on the detergent evaluation discusse d earlier and on the observations at the wash racks that used the lowest recommended detergent concentration. A higher detergent concentration may be more effective but in this study was not observe d. Microorganisms were effectively removed by all three operating conditions while allergen re sidue was significantly higher when operated at 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar however the alle rgen residues were below the studies target maximum of 0 log g/100 cm2 or 1 g/100 cm2. This CIP device seemed to be a very good choice for cleaning tankers.

PAGE 236

236 The statistical evaluation of the Sd-HVMP cleaning results are in Table 5-47. For soil removal, there was a significant difference (P<0.05) found between the 454 Lpm @ 3.1 bar treatment compared to the three other operati ng conditions. Even though the wash volume was higher than two other treatments, the lower pres sure may have caused inadequate fluid volumes to reach the tanker walls (Richt er 1975). Soils that were se en after the 454 Lpm @ 3.1 bar treatment were seen when the ta nker surface was dry. This may m ean a lack of sufficient water to flush down the surfaces. There were no sign ificant differences (P<0.05) between the other 3 parameter treatments. With micro and alle rgens, no operating parameter treatment was statistically different from th e others. All microorganisms were effectively and completely removed while small amounts of allergen were f ound in two treatments. However, the residues were below the studies target maximum. Since this CIP de vice relies on massive amounts of fluid flow across a surface to clean, it appears to be effective for this purpose. Also, based on the installation position tests, this devi ce should be installed as close to dead center as possible with no deviations of the manuf acturers pitch recommendation.

PAGE 237

237 Table 5-1. Detergent concentration e ffect for R-LVHP JPA Type 4 wash. Milk allergen residue g/100cm2 (std dev)1 (n = 3) Detergent concentration 2 (ppm active alkalinity) 150 500 1000 Sample Sites 3 0 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 1.2 0.3 (0.0)a 0.4 (0.1)a 0.4 (0.2)a 2.4 0.5 (0.1)a 0.4 (0.1)a 0.4 (0.3)a 3.7 0.8 (0.0)a 0.7 (0.0)a 0.5 (0.1)a 4.9 1.1 (0.2)a 0.9 (0.3)a 1.0 (0.2)a 6.1 0.9 (0.3)a 0.8 (0.3)a 0.9 (0.4)a BH 0.6 (0.1)a 0.2 (0.1)b 0.3 (0.1)b Overall Sig Diff 4 0.60 A 0.49 A 0.50 A 1 Type 4 wash with R-LVHP operated at 87 Lpm @ 31 bar with 22 cm extensions and 4 rpm and 71C discharge temperature (feed temperature range 85 91C). Values are the average milk allergen with standard deviation in parenthesis. Same letters across rows indicate no significant difference P<0.05 for the sample site for wash parameter. 2 Concentration determined by activ e alkalinity titration with 0 .1N sulfuric acid to pH 8.3. 3 Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 4 Values with different letters are significan tly different at P<0.05 for the entire tanker. Table 5-2. Detergent concentration e ffect for Sd-HVMP JPA Type 4 wash. Milk allergen residue g/100cm2 (std dev)1,2 (n = 3) Detergent concentration (ppm active alkalinity) 150 450 900 Sample Sites 3 0 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 1.2 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 2.4 0.1 (0.1)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 3.7 0.2 (0.0)a 0.1 (0.0)a 0.3 (0.1)a 4.9 0.2 (0.2)a 0.0 (0.0)a 0.1 (0.1)a 6.1 0.3 (0.3)a 0.1 (0.1)a 0.1 (0.1)a BH 0.0 (0.0)a 0.1 (0.1)a 0.0 (0.0)a Overall Sig Diff 4 0.11 A 0.04 A 0.07 A 1 Type 4 wash with Sd-HVMP operated at 378 Lpm @ 6.5 bar with 0 centering, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature (feed temperature range 85 89C). Values are the average milk allergen with standard deviation in parenthesis. Same letters across rows indicate no significant difference P<0.05 for the sample site for wash parameter. 2 Detergent concentrations as delivered at the cooperating wash rack. Determined by active alkalinity titration with 0.1N sulfuric acid to pH 8.3. 3 Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 4 Values with different letters are significantly different at P<0.05 for the entire tanker.

PAGE 238

238 Table 5-3. Temperature eff ect for JPA Type 4 wash. Milk allergen residue g (std dev) 1 (n = 3) Temperature (C) 71C discharge 71C feed Sample Sites 2 0 0.0 (0.0)a 0.0 (0.0)a 1.2 0.3 (0.3)a 1.0 (0.6)a 2.4 0.6 (0.3)a 0.8 (0.7)a 3.7 0.3 (0.2)a 0.7 (0.8)a 4.9 1.1 (0.1)a 0.7 (0.3)a 6.1 0.9 (0.4)a 0.0 (0.0)a BH 0.6 (0.5)a 0.2 (0.2)b Overall Sig Diff 3 0.54 A 0.49 A 1 Type 4 wash with R-LVHP operated at 87 Lpm @ 31 bar with 22 cm extensions and 4 rpm and 150 ppm active alkalinity. Values are the average milk allergen of 3 tr ials with standard deviation in parenthesis. Same letters across rows i ndicate no significant difference (P<0.05). 2 Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH is the bulkhead at 6.7m. 3 Values with different letters are significan tly different at P<0.05 for the entire tanker. Table 5-4. Type 2 wash resu lts for R-LVHP validation at 68.1 Lpm @ 24.1 bar, 20 rpm, no extensions, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3) 1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 3.5(0.1) 3(0) 6.03(0.1) 6.07(0.10) 6.12(0.05) Sample Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 2.06(0.008) 0.7(0.6) 1.7(0.1) 1.0(0) -1 (0) 1.1 (0.2) -1 (0) 1.2 1.27(0.008) 0.0(0) 1.8(0.1) 0.0(0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 0.27(0.003) 0.0(0) 1.8(0.1) 0.0(0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.08(0.003) 1.0(1.0) 2.5(0.1) 0.3(0.3) -1 (0) 2.0 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 0.019(0.001) 2.7(0.6) 3.2(0.1) 2.0(0) -1 (0) 5.0 (0.3) -1 (0) 6.1 0.001(0.001) 3.0(0) 3.2(0) 3.0(0) -1 (0) 5.3 (0) -1 (0) BHc 0.079(0.003) 2.0(0) 3.0(0) 2.7(0.6) -1 (0) 5.8 (0) -1 (0) BHt 0.00(0.00) 3.0(0) 3.3(0) 3.0(0) -1 (0) 5.3 (0) -1 (0) 1 Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2 Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3 Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4 Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5 ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6 Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 239

239 Table 5-5. Type 2 wash result s for R-LVHP validation at 68.1 Lpm @ 24.1 bar, no extensions, 4 rpm and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3) 1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values3 (0) 3.5 (0.2) 3 (0) 5.96 (0.2) 5.97 (0.05) 6.01 (0.03) Sample Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 1.58 (0.006)0 (0) 1.8 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) 1.1 (0.17) -1 (0) 1.2 1.29 (0.025)0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.4 (0.3) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 0.32 (0.012)0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.8 (0.8) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.13 (0.012)0.3 (0.2) 2.5 (0.1) 0.7 (0.7) -1 (0) 1.47 (0.06) -1 (0) 4.9 0.005 (0.007) 1.8 (0.4) 3.0 (0.1) 1.7 (0.8) -1 (0) 2.73 (0.02) -1 (0) 6.1 0.02 (0.002)2.6 (0.1) 3.4 (0) 2.8 (0.1) -1 (0) 4.99 (0.01) -1 (0) BHc 0.19 (0.009)0.3 (0.6) 3.0 (0) 0.8 (1.0) -1 (0) 4.99 (0.01) -1 (0) BHt 0.05 (0.004)0.7 (0.6) 3.5 (0.1) 1.3 (0.6) -1 (0) 4.99 (0.01) -1 (0) 1 Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2 Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3 Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4 Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5 ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6 Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 240

240 Table 5-6. Type 2 wash result s for R-LVHP validation at 68.1 Lpm @ 24.1 bar, 4 rpm, 6 in extensions and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3) 1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 3.8 (0.2) 3 (0) 5.98 (0.15) 6.12 (0.07) 6.22 (0.21) Sample Sites 2 Flow rate 3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 2.09 (0.025) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 1.00 (0.016) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.1 (0.2) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 0.37 (0.011) 0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0.2 (0.2) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.17 (0.005) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 0.07 (0.001) 0.8 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.04 (0.001) 1.8 (0.3) 2.3 (0.1) 1.8 (0.1) -1 (0) -0.67 (0.58) -1 (0) BHc 0.16 (0.092) 0 (0) 1.9 (0.1) 0.7 (0.6) -1 (0) -0.67(0.58) -1 (0) BHt 0.11 (0.082) 0.2 (0.3) 2.0 (0.2) 1.3 (1.2) -1 (0) -0.33 (0.58) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 241

241 Table 5-7. Type 2 wash result s for R-LVHP validation at 68.1 Lpm @ 24.1 bar, 4 rpm, 9 in extensions and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3) 1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 3.4 (0.2) 3 (0) 6.03 (0.03) 6.05 (0.02) 6.05 (0.03) Sample Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 2.00 (0.025) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 1.07 (0.016) 0.1 (0.2) 1.8 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 0.45 (0.011) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.22 (0.005) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 0.09 (0.001) 1.1 (0.3) 2.0 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.05 (0.001) 2.1 (0.1) 2.1 (0.1) 1.8 (0.3) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 0.22 (0.029) 0.2 (0.3) 1.9 (0.1) 0.3 (0.6) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 0.13 (0.015) 0.7 (0.6) 2.0 (0.4) 0.8 (1.0) -1 (0) 0.10 (0.17) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 242

242 Table 5-8. Type 2 wash resu lts for R-LVHP validation at 75.7 Lpm @ 31.0 bar (20 gpm @ 450 psi), 4 rpm, 22 cm (9 in) extensi ons and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3) 1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 3.4 (0.2) 3 (0) 6.01 (0.03) 6.01 (0.03) 6.07 (0.03) Sample Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 1.94 (0.025) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 1.11 (0.016) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.1 (0.2) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 0.56 (0.011) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.24 (0.005) 0.1 (0.1) 1.8 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 0.09 (0.001) 1.0 (0.3) 2.0 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.05 (0.001) 1.4 (0.5) 2.1 (0.1) 1.8 (0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 0.24 (0.010) 0.3 (0.6) 1.9 (0.1) 0.7 (0.6) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 0.14 (0.009) 0.7 (0.6) 2.4 (0.3) 1.3 (1.2) -1 (0) -0.67 (0.58) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 243

243 Table 5-9. Type 2 wash resu lts for R-LVHP validation at 83.3 Lpm @ 31.0 bar (22 gpm @ 450 psi), 4 rpm, 22 cm (9 in) extensi ons and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3) 1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 3.8 (0.2) 3 (0) 6.17 (0.45) 6.04 (0.09) 6.00 (0.47) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 2.32 (0.079) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 1.23 (0.041) 0.1 (0.2) 1.5 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 0.66 (0.034) 0 (0) 1.4 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.31 (0.012) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 0.12 (0.007) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.3) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.08 (0.005) 0.4 (0.5) 1.7 (0.2) 0.6 (0.4) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 0.29 (0.014) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 0.16 (0.017) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.2 (0.3) -1 (0) 0 (1.00) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 244

244 Table 5-10. Type 2 wash resu lts for R-HVMP validation at 4 16 Lpm @ 4.5 bar (110 gpm @ 65 psi), 16 rpm, 12 cm (5 in) extensi ons and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3) 1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 3.8 (0.2) 3 (0) 6.17 (0.45) 6.04 (0.09) 6.00 (0.47) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 4.65 (0.145) 0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 2.99 (0.080) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 1.34 (0.008) 0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.63 (0.030) 0 (0) 1.8 (0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 0.36 (0.014) 0.3 (0.6) 1.8 (0.2) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.29 (0.008) 0.8 (0.3) 2.2 (0.2) 0.5 (0.3) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 1.88 (0.017) 0 (0) 1.9 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 0.28 (0.011) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 245

245 Table 5-11. Type 2 wash resu lts for R-HVMP validation at 3 78 Lpm @ 6.2 bar (100 gpm @ 90 psi), 16 rpm, 12 cm (5 in) extensi ons and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3) 1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 3.8 (0) 3 (0) 6.05 (0.02) 6.05 (0.02) 6.08 (0.04) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 6.04 (0.130) 0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 3.19 (0.086) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 1.39 (0.043) 0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.65 (0.007) 0 (0) 1.8 (0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 0.29 (0.004) 0.3 (0.6) 1.8 (0.2) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.23 (0.008) 0.8 (0.3) 2.0 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 1.31 (0.081) 0 (0) 1.9 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 0.61 (0.049) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 246

246 Table 5-12. Type 2 wash resu lts for R-HVMP validation at 4 92 Lpm @ 5.5 bar (130 gpm @ 80 psi), 16 rpm, 12 cm (5 in) extensi ons and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 3.8 (0.2) 3 (0) 6.06 (0.04) 6.05 (0.05) 6.05 (0.04) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 8.52 (0.032) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 5.52 (0.038) 0 (0) 1.5 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 2.69 (0.020) 0 (0) 1.4 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 1.32 (0.006) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 0.74 (0.008) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.3) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.64 (0.010) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 4.43 (0.043) 0 (0) 1.8 (0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 0.81 (0.027) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP devi ce. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 247

247 Table 5-13. Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP validation at 454 Lpm @ 3.1 bar (120 gpm @ 45 psi), 0 centered, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 3.8 (0.3) 3 (0) 6.09 (0.03) 6.05 (0.02) 6.05 (0.05) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 3.83 (0.039) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 1.61 (0.041) 0.1 (0.2) 1.9 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 1.89 (0.020) 0.1 (0.1) 1.9 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 1.88 (0.023) 0.1 (0.1) 2.0 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 4.02 (0.059) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.3) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 2.38 (0.043) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.2) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 25.70 (0.168) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 15.00 (0.177) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 248

248 Table 5-14. Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP validation at 416 Lpm @ 4.5 bar (110 gpm @ 65 psi), 0C, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3) 1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 5.0 (0.4) 3 (0) 6.08 (0.04) 6.04 (0.10) 6.05 (0.04) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP3 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 2.11 (0.111) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 3.34 (0.112) 0 (0) 1.5 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 1.18 (0.065) 0.4 (0.3) 2.0 (0.2) 0.6 (0.3) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.95 (0.025) 0.3 (0.2) 2.2 (0.1) 0.5 (0.3) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 2.69 (0.108) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.3) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 2.29 (0.164) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.2) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 20.66 (1.199) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 18.68 (0.279) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 249

249 Table 5-15. Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP validation at 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar (100 gpm @ 90 psi), 0C, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 5.0 (0.4) 3 (0) 6.05 (0.02) 6.05 (0.04) 6.06 (0.05) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 3.09 (0.459) 0 (0) 1.5 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 4.30 (0.210) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 1.32 (0.062) 0 (0) 1.4 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 1.24 (0.070) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 3.15 (0.152) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.3) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 2.95 (0.030) 0 (0) 1.5 (0.2) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 32.77 (0.271) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 29.04 (0.432) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 250

250 Table 5-16. Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP validation at 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar (130 gpm @ 80 psi), 0C, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 5.0 (0.4) 3 (0) 6.00 (0.01) 6.04 (0.04) 6.05 (0.05) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 11.05 (0.230) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 5.85 (0.021) 0 (0) 1.5 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 1.82 (0.052) 0 (0) 1.4 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 1.40 (0.038) 0.2 (0.1) 1.9 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 2.71 (0.147) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.3) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 1.08 (0.022) 0.1 (0) 2.2 (0.2) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 25.98 (0.592) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 9.68 (0.500) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 251

251 Table 5-17. Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP validation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 0C, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 5.0 (0.4) 3 (0) 6.00 (0.01) 6.04 (0.04) 6.05 (0.05) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 13.28 (0.30) 0 (0) 1.5 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 7.03 (0.03) 0 (0) 1.5 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 2.19 (0.08) 0 (0) 1.4 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 1.68 (0.06) 0.2 (0.1) 1.9 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 3.26 (0.22) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.3) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 1.30 (0.03) 0.2 (0.3) 1.9 (0.2) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 31.22 (0.88) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 11.63 (0.71) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 252

252 Table 5-18. Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP validation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 1LC, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 5.0 (0.4) 3 (0) 6.00 (0.01) 6.04 (0.04) 6.05 (0.05) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 14.64 (0.10) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 6.89 (0.08) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 2.25 (0.24) 0 (0) 1.5 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 1.78 (0.06) 0 (0) 1.9 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 3.52 (0.12) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.3) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 1.19 (0.02) 0.2 (0.3) 2.0 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 30.88 (0.83) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 10.73 (0.60) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP devi ce. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 253

253 Table 5-19. Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP validation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 2.5LC, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 5.0 (0.4) 3 (0) 6.00 (0.01) 6.04 (0.04) 6.05 (0.05) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 20.20 (0.34) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 5.88 (0.14) 0 (0) 1.5 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 2.44 (0.31) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 1.22 (0.07) 0 (0) 1.9 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 1.31 (0.11) 0.2 (0.3) 1.8 (0.3) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.71 (0.10) 0.5 (0.5) 2.1 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 29.30 (0.24) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 8.39 (0.23) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 254

254 Table 5-20. Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP validation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 5LC, 79 pitch and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 5.0 (0.4) 3 (0) 6.00 (0.01) 6.04 (0.04) 6.05 (0.05) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 23.43 (0.26) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 5.20 (0.11) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 2.61 (0.16) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.93 (0.03) 0 (0) 2.0 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 0.55 (0.06) 0.9 (0.4) 2.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.52 (0.05) 0.8 (0.3) 2.3 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 24.27 (0.77) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 3.76 (0.10) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 255

255 Table 5-21. Wash results stats for Sd-HVMP of f center installation fo r worse case situation. Operating parameter (n = 3)1 Lpm/m2-bar 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 Centered ()1 0 1 2.5 5 Pitch () 79 79 79 79 Sample Sites 3 Combined clean analysis rating2 0 0.50 0.57 0.53 0.53 1.2 0.50 0.53 0.50 0.53 2.4 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.53 3.7 0.70 0.63 0.63 0.70 4.9 0.60 0.57 0.67 1.03 6.1 0.70 0.73 0.90 1.10 BHc 0.57 0.53 0.53 0.53 BHt 0.57 0.53 0.57 0.60 Overall sig diff 4 0.58 A 0.58 AB 0.61 AB 0.70 BC 1All trials when devices pointed away from sample sites, which is the worse case for installation. Values are the average of 3 trials of combined cleaned residue. 2Micro results not included in statistical analysis since it di d not contribute to analysis. 3Sample site is the area in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead cen ter and top areas, respectively at 6.7 m. 4Values with the same letter are not significantly different at P<0.05.

PAGE 256

256 Table 5-22. Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP validation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 0C, 76 pitch and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 5.0 (0.4) 3 (0) 6.00 (0.01) 6.04 (0.04) 6.05 (0.05) Sampling Sites 2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP3 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 16.50 (0.30) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 12.50 (0.03) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 6.00 (0.12) 0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 8.10 (0.01) 0.2 (0.1) 1.9 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 13.00 (0.81) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.3) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.01 (0.01) 3.0 (0) 3.1 (0.6) 3.0 (0) -1 (0) 0.5 (0.3) -1 (0) BHc 0.01 (0.01) 2.7 (0.5) 2.1 (0.3) 0.3 (0.6) -1 (0) 1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 2.03 (0.11) 2.0 (0) 3.2 (0.6) 2.5 (1.0) -1 (0) 1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 257

257 Table 5-23. Type 2 wash results for Sd-HVMP validation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 0C, 82 pitch and 71C discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Microbiology6 (log) Before wash values 3 (0) 5.0 (0.4) 3 (0) 6.00 (0.01) 6.04 (0.04) 6.05 (0.05) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli 0 16.30 (0.41) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 6.85 (0.01) 0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 1.54 (0.04) 0.6 (0.7) 1.7 (0.1) 0.3 (0.6) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.83 (0.01) 2.2 (0.6) 2.4 (0.3) 0.7 (0.6) -1 (0) 1 (0.5) -1 (0) 4.9 1.60 (0.01) 2.0 (0) 2.6 (0.1) 0.3 (0.6) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 4.05 (0.27) 0.0 (0) 1.9 (0.2) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 42.00 (1.01) 0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 0.02 (0.00) 2.0 (1.0) 2.6 (0.3) 1.7 (0.6) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determ ined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic).

PAGE 258

258 Table 5-24. Wash results for Sd-HVMP installation pitch position Operating parameter (n = 3)1 Lpm/m2-bar 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 Centered () 0 0 0 Pitch ()2 79 76 82 Sample Sites 3 Combined clean analysis rating4 0 0.50 0.57 0.60 1.2 0.50 0.57 0.57 2.4 0.47 0.50 0.53 3.7 0.70 0.70 1.77 4.9 0.60 0.60 1.63 6.1 0.70 3.03 0.63 BHc 0.57 1.70 0.60 BHt 0.57 2.57 2.10 Overall sig diff 5 0.58 A 1.28 B 1.10 B 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. 2Pitch determined by adjusting manway cover. 3Sample site is the area in m from the CIP devi ce. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top areas, respectively at 6.7 m. 4Micro results not included in statistical analysis since it di d not contribute to analysis. 5Lower values mean less soils indicating an impr oved clean. Values with the same letter are not significant at P<0.05. Table 5-25. R-LVHP oper ating parameter differences for Type 2 wash Operating parameter statistical analysis Lpm @ bar 68 @ 24 68 @ 24 68 @ 24 68 @ 24 76 @ 31 83 @ 31 Rotation speed (rpm) 20 4 4 4 4 4 Extension (cm) 0 0 15 22 22 22 Average soils 1 1.87 A 1.45 A 0.93 B 0.96 C 0.98 C 0.60 D Average micro 2 4.67 A 4.09 B -0.90 C -0.86 C -0.98 C -0.86 C 1The value is the average of all soil determinations. Lower values mean less recovered soils indicating an improved clean. Values with the same letter are not significant at P<0.05. 2The value is the average of all microorganism determinations. Lower values mean less microbial recovery indicating an improved clean. Va lues with the same letter are not significant at P<0.05.

PAGE 259

259 Table 5-26. R-HVMP operating parame ter differences for Type 2 wash Operating parameter statistical analysis Lpm @ bar 416 @ 4.5 378 @ 6.2 492 @ 5.5 Rotation speed (rpm) 16 16 16 Extension (cm) 12 12 12 Average soils 1 0.68 A 0.65 A 0.54 B Average micro 2 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 1The value is the average of all soil determinations. Lower values mean less recovered soil indicating an improved clean. Values with the same letter are not significant at P<0.05. 2The value is the average of all microorganism determinations. Lower values mean less recovered microbes indicating an improved clean. Values with the same letter are not significant at P<0.05. Table 5-27. Sd-HVMP operating parame ter differences for Type 2 wash Operating parameter statistical analysis Lpm @ bar 454 @ 3.1 416 @ 4.5 378 @ 6.2 492 @ 5.5 Centering ( from dead center) 0 0 0 0 Pitch (degrees) 79 79 79 79 Average soils 1 0.60 A 0.65 A 0.53 A 0.58 A Average micro 2 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 1The value is the average of all soil determinations. Lower values mean less recovered soil indicating an improved clean. Values with the same letter are not significant at P<0.05. 2The value is the average of all microorganism determinations. Lower values mean less recovered microbes indicating an improved clean. Values with the same letter are not significant at P<0.05. Table 5-28. Sd-HVMP operating parame ter differences for Type 2 wash Operating parameter statistical analysis Lpm @ bar 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 Centering ( from dead center) 0 1 2.5 5 Pitch (degrees) 79 79 79 79 Average soils 1 0.58 A 0.58 A 0.61 A 0.70 B Average micro 2 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 1The value is the average of all soil determinations. Lower values mean less recovered soil indicating an improved clean. Values with the same letter are not significant at P<0.05. 2The value is the average of all microorganism determinations. Lower values mean less recovered microbes indicating an improved clean. Values with the same letter are not significant at P<0.05.

PAGE 260

260 Table 5-29. Sd-HVMP operating parame ter differences for Type 2 wash Operating parameter statistical analysis Lpm @ bar 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 Centering ( from dead center) 0 0 0 Pitch (degrees) 76 79 82 Average soils1 1.28 B 0.58 A 1.10 B Average micro2 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.2 A 1The value is the average of all soil determinations. Lower values mean less recovered soil indicating an improved clean. Values with the same letter are not significant at P<0.05. 2The value is the average of all microorganism determinations. Lower values mean less recovered microbes indicating an improved clean. Values with the same letter are not significant at P<0.05.

PAGE 261

261Table 5-30. Type 4 wash results for R-LVHP validation at 68.1 Lpm @ 24.1 bar (18 gpm @ 350 psi), 20 rpm, no extensions, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Micro (log)6 Allergen (log g)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 4.1 (0.1) 3 (0) 5.81 (0.1) 6.10 (0.10) 6.12 (0.05) 3.70 (0.20) 4.38 (0.16) 4.41 (0.12) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate 3 (Lpm/m2) 0 2.05 (0.008) 0.0 (0) 2.0(0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 1.21 (0.008) 0.0 (0) 1.9(0.1) 1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 0.37 (0.003) 0.0 (0) 2.7(0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.4 (0.3) 0.70 (0.5) -1 (0) 3.7 0.13 (0.003) 2.3 (1.0) 3.0(0.1) 2.3 (0.3) -1 (0) 1.0 (1) -1 (0) 0 (1) 0.70 (0.5) 0.70 (1.0) 4.9 0.05 (0.001) 3.0 (0) 3.5(0.1) 2.0 (0) -1 (0) 1.0 (0.5) -1 (0) 1.75 (0.5) 2.0 (1.0) 1.90 (0.6) 6.1 0.00 (0.001) 3.0 (0) 3.5(0) 3.0 (0) -1 (0) 3.04 (0.4) -1 (0) 3.54 (1.5) 3.85 (0.15) 3.0 (1.0) BHc 0.01 (0.003) 3.0 (0) 3.5(0) 3.0 (0) -1 (0) 3.0 (0.5) -1 (0) 3.54 (1.0) 3.75 (0.22) 3.11 (0.8) BHt 0.00 (0.00) 3.0 (0) 3.5(0) 3.0 (0) -1 (0) 3.10 (0.2) -1 (0) 3.60 (1.5) 4.28(0.21) 3.81 (1.1) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 262

262Table 5-31. Type 4 wash results for R-LVHP validation at 76 Lpm @ 31 bar (20 gpm @ 450 psi), 4 rpm, 22cm extensions, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Micro (log)6 Allergen (log)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 5.2 (0.1) 3 (0) 5.88 (0.22) 6.35 (0.41) 6.17 (0.45) 3.84 (0.31) 4.35 (0.16) 4.15 (0.12) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 2.03 (0.028) 0.0 (0.6) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 1.12 (0.007) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 0.51 (0.018) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.24 (0.004) 0.0 (0) 1.9 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.47 (0.59) -1 (0) 4.9 0.091 (0.004) 0.5 (0.6) 2.0 (0.1) 0.3 (0.29) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.84 (0.14) -0.62 (0.66) -0.80 (0.35) 6.1 0.054 (0.007) 0.8 (0.2) 2.3 (0) 0.3 (0.29) -1 (0) -0.33 (0.59) -1 (0) -0.84 (0.28) -0.63 (0.59) -0.80 (0.35) BHc 0.202 (0.007) 0.0 (0) 1.9 (0) 0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.67 (0.19) -1 (0) -0.80 (0.35) BHt 0.14 (0.006) 0.0 (0) 2.0 (0.1) 0.3 (0.29) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.33 (0.19) -0.67 (0.19) -0.34 (0.19) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 263

263Table 5-32. Type 4 wash results for R-LVHP validation at 83 Lpm @ 31 bar (22 gpm @ 450 psi), 4 rpm, 22cm extensions, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Micro (log /100cm2)6 Allergen (log g/100cm2)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 SaccBacEcoliMilkEggPeanut Before wash values 3 (0) 4.1 (0.1) 3 (0) 5.78 (0.42) 6.35 (0.45) 6.22 (0.32) 3.86 (0.34) 4.39 (0.16) 4.41 (0.12) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 2.157 (0.08) 0.0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0.0(0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 1.221 (0.08) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0(0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 0.529 (0.03) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0(0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.83 (0.35) -0.47 (0.67) -0.80 (0.35) 3.7 0.285 (0.03) 0.0 (1.0) 2.0 (0.1) 0.0(0) -1 (0) -0.67 (0.58) -1 (0) -0.56 (0.42) -0.45 (0.59) -0.80 (0.35) 4.9 0.122 (0.01) 0.2 (0.1) 2.0 (0.1) 0.0(0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.13 (0.15) -0.62 (0.66) -0.38 (0.54) 6.1 0.081 (0.01) 0.2 (0.1) 2.0 (0) 0.1(0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.16 (0.12) -0.60 (0.70) -0.72 (0.49) BHc 0.244 (0.03) 0.3 (0.1) 2.0 (0) 0.0(0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.33 (0.19) -0.63 (0.64) -1 (0) BHt 0.326 (0.02) 0.5 (0.2) 1.7 (0.1) 0.1(0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.33 (0.19) -0.63 (0.64) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 264

264Table 5-33. Type 4 wash result s for R-HVMP validation at 416 Lp m @ 4.5 bar (110 gpm @ 65 psi), 16 rpm, 12 cm extensions, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Micro (log)6 Allergen (log g)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 3.5 (0.1) 3 (0) 6.03 (0.1) 6.07 (0.10) 6.12 (0.05) 4.25 (0.0) 4.30 (0.02) 29x103 Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 7.09 (0.29) 0.7 (0.6) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0(0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 4.31 (0.06) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0(0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 2.06 (0.11) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0(0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.93 (0.04) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 0.1 (0.1) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 0.51 (0.02) 0.5 (0.3) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.56 (0.42) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.42 (0.04) 0.5 (0.3) 1.6 (0.1) 0.2 (0.3) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.74 (0.54) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 17.23 (1.29) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 2.72 (0.54) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 265

265Table 5-34. Type 4 wash result s for R-HVMP validation at 378 Lp m @ 6.2 bar (100 gpm @ 90 psi), 16 rpm, 12 cm extensions, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Micro (log)6 Allergen (log g)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 5.2 (0) 3 (0) 6.08 (0.43) 6.50 (0.42) 5.95 (0.19) 4.12 (0.30) 4.45 (0.24) 4.26 (0.17) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 6.02 (0.20) 0.0 (0) 1.5 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -0.13 (0.8) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 3.30 (0.04) 0.0 (0) 1.5 (0.2) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -0.67 (0.58) -1 (0) -0.13 (0.40) -0.90 (0.17) -0.90 (0.17) 2.4 1.47 (0.04) 0.0 (0) 1.5 (0.2) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.10 (0.40) -0.80 (0.17) -0.50 (0.63) 3.7 0.61 (0.04) 0.2 (0.3) 1.5 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.46 (0.58) -1 (0) -0.50 (0.63) 4.9 0.28 (0.04) 0.5 (0.5) 1.5 (0.2) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.90 (0.17) -0.9 (0.17) 6.1 0.24 (0.04) 0.5 (0) 1.5 (0.2) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.9 (0.17) BHc 0.49 (0.08) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.3) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.84 (0.28) -0.90 (0.17) -0.9 (0.17) BHt 1.30 (0.08) 0.5 (0) 1.7 (0.2) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.84 (0.28) -0.90 (0.17) -0.9 (0.17) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 266

266Table 5-35. Type 4 wash result s for R-HVMP validation at 492 Lp m @ 5.5 bar (130 gpm @ 80 psi), 16 rpm, 12 cm extensions, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils (per 100cm2) Micro (log)6 Allergen (log g)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 3.5 (0.1) 3 (0) 6.03 (0.1) 6.53 (0.10) 6.12 (0.05) 4.15 (0.30) 4.30 (0.21) 4.25 (0.11) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 2.06 (0.008) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 1.27 (0.008) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 0.27 (0.003) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.08 (0.003) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.90 (0.17) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 0.019 (0.001) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.90 (0.17) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.001 (0.001) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.90 (0.28) -1 (0) -0.9 (0.17) BHc 0.079 (0.003) 0.0 (0) 1.6 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.90 (0.17) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 0.00 (0.00) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.50 (0.28) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 267

267Table 5-36. Type 4 wash results for SdHVMP validation at 454 Lpm @ 3.1 bar (120 gp m @ 45 psi), 0 centered, 79 pitch, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Micro (log)6 Allergen (log g)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 5.0 (0.4) 3 (0) 6.40 (0.50) 6.62 (0.17) 5.94 (0.60) 3.70 (0.11) 4.30 (0.10) 4.01 (0.03) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 4.64 (0.69) 0.0 (0) 1.6 (0.2) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 6.43 (0.32) 0.6 (0.4) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 1.99 (0.08) 0.5 (0.5) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.84 (0.28) 3.7 1.87 (0.12) 0.5 (0.5) 1.9 (0.5) 0.5 (0.3) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.84 (0.28) -0.9 (0.17) -0.84 (0.28) 4.9 4.72 (0.24) 0.7 (0.3) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.74 (0.45) 6.1 4.44 (0.04) 0.7 (0.3) 1.9 (0.2) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.74 (0.45) BHc 49.08 (0.41) 0.1 (0) 2.0 (0.5) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 43.51 (0.65) 0.2 (0.3) 1.9 (0.3) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BH c and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 268

268Table 5-37. Type 4 wash results for SdHVMP validation at 416 Lpm @ 4.5 bar (110 gp m @ 65 psi), 0 centered, 79 pitch, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Micro (log)6 Allergen (log g)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 3.5 (0.1) 3 (0) 6.35 (0.2) 6.47 (0.10) 6.13 (0.05) 3.92 (0.13) 4.25 (0.15) 4.05 (0.21) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 3.17 (0.17) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1)0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 5.00 (0.17) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1)0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 1.78 (0.10) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1)0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 1.43 (0.04) 0.5 (0.3) 1.8 (0.1)0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 4.03 (0.16) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1)0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 3.44 (0.25) 0.2 (0.1) 2.0 (0.1)0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 30.95 (1.80) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 27.97 (0.42) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1)0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is us ed for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 269

269Table 5-38. Type 4 wash results for SdHVMP validation at 378 Lpm @ 6.2 bar (100 gp m @ 90 psi), 0 centered, 79 pitch, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Micro (log)6 Allergen (log g)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 5.2 (0.1) 3 (0) 5.98 (0.15) 6.45 (0.23) 6.51 (0.25) 3.94 (0.05) 4.33 (0.14) 4.18 (0.05) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 5.99 (0.05) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 5.15 (0.03) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 2.82 (0.02) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 2.69 (0.02) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 5.67 (0.13) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 4.11 (0.08) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 33.77 (0.29) 0.0 (0) 1.6 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 13.37 (0.47) 0.0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 270

270Table 5-39. Type 4 wash results for SdHVMP validation at 492 Lpm @ 5.5 bar (130 gp m @ 80 psi), 0 centered, 79 pitch, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Micro (log)6 Allergen (log g)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 5.3 (0.3) 3 (0) 6.43 (0.50) 6.62 (0.18) 5.99 (0.60) 3.86 (0.30) 4.35 (0.16) 4.17 (0.03) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 4.64 (0.70) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 6.43 (0.33) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 2.08 (0.08) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 1.87 (0.08) 0.0 (0) 2.0 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -0.9 (0.17) -1 (0) 4.9 4.72 (0.24) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 2.48 (0.17) 0.0 (0) 2.1 (0.2) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHc 49.25 (0.41) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 43.58 (0.81) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 271

271Table 5-40. Type 4 wash results for SdHVMP validation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gp m @ 68 psi), 0 centered, 79 pitch, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Micro (log)6 Allergen (log g)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 5.3 (0.3) 3 (0) 6.43 (0.50) 6.62 (0.18) 5.99 (0.60) 3.86 (0.30) 4.35 (0.16) 4.17 (0.03) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 13.28 (0.30) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 7.03 (0.03) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 2.19 (0.08) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 1.68 (0.06) 0.1 (0.2) 2.2 (0.2) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 3.26 (0.22) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 1.30 (0.03) 0.5 (0.5) 2.5 (0.3) 0.3(0.3)-1 (0) 0.5 (0.3) -1 (0) -0.5 (0.17) -0.9 (0.29) -1 (0) BHc 31.22 (0.88) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 11.63 (0.71) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 272

272Table 5-41. Type 4 wash results for SdHVMP validation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gp m @ 68 psi), 1 centered, 79 pitch, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Micro (log)6 Allergen (log g)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 5.3 (0.3) 3 (0) 6.43 (0.50) 6.62 (0.18) 5.99 (0.60) 3.86 (0.30) 4.35 (0.16) 4.17 (0.03) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 14.64 (0.10) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 6.89 (0.08) 0.0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 2.25 (0.24) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 1.78 (0.06) 0.0 (0) 1.9 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -0.5 (0) -1 (0) -0.5 (0.17) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 3.52 (0.12) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 1.19 (0.02) 0.7 (0.5) 2.4 (0.2) 0.5(0.3)-1 (0) 0.7 (0.6) -1 (0) -0.5 (0.17) -0.3 (0.17) -1 (0) BHc 30.88 (0.83) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 10.73 (0.60) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 273

273Table 5-42. Type 4 wash results for SdHVMP validation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gpm @ 68 psi), 2.5 centered, 79 pitch, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n = 3)1 Soils Micro (log)6 Allergen (log g)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 5.3 (0.3) 3 (0) 6.43 (0.50) 6.62 (0.18) 5.99 (0.60) 3.86 (0.30) 4.35 (0.16) 4.17 (0.03) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 20.20 (0.34) 0.0 (0) 1.6 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 5.88 (0.14) 0.0 (0) 1.6 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 2.44 (0.31) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 1.22 (0.07) 1.0 (0.5) 2.6 (0.1) 0.3 (0.3) -1 (0) -0.5 (0) -1 (0) -0.5 (0.17) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 1.31 (0.11) 0.5 (1.0) 2.4 (0.2) 0.5 (0.3) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.71 (0.10) 1.33 (0.5) 2.6 (0.2) 0.8 (0.3) -1 (0) 0.7 (0.6) -1 (0) -0.5 (0.17) -0.3 (0.17) -1 (0) BHc 29.30 (0.24) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 8.39 (0.23) 0.0 (0) 1.9 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 274

274Table 5-43. Type 4 wash results for SdHVMP validation at 454 Lpm @ 4.7 bar (120 gp m @ 68 psi), 5 centered, 79 pitch, and 71C minimum discharge temperature. Sampling results (n=2)1 Soils Micro (log)6 Allergen (log g)7 Visual4 ATP5 Sugar4 Sacc Bac Ecoli Milk Egg Peanut Before wash values 3 (0) 5.3 (0.3) 3 (0) 6.43 (0.50) 6.62 (0.18) 5.99 (0.60) 3.86 (0.30) 4.35 (0.16) 4.17 (0.03) Sampling Sites2 Flow rate3 (Lpm/m2) 0 23.43 (0.26) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1.2 5.20 (0.11) 0.0 (0) 1.7 (0) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 2.4 2.61 (0.16) 0.0 (0) 1.9 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 3.7 0.93 (0.03) 1.3 (0.3) 2.7 (0.2) 1 (0) -1 (0) -0.5 (0) -1 (0) -0.1 (0.2) -1 (0) -1 (0) 4.9 0.55 (0.06) 1.7 (0.3) 2.8 (0.2) 0.8 (0.3) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) 0 (0.2) -1 (0) -1 (0) 6.1 0.52 (0.05) 1.7 (0.3) 2.8 (0.2) 1.0 (0) -1 (0) 0.7 (0.6) -1 (0) 0.35 (1.0) -0.3 (0.17) -0.1 (0.5) BHc 24.27 (0.77) 0.0 (0) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) BHt 3.76 (0.10) 0.3 (0.3) 2.0 (0.1) 0.0 (0) -1 (0) -1.0 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) -1 (0) 1Sampling results are the average of 3 trials. Value in parenthesis is the standard deviation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP device. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Flow rate from nearest surface flow sample device for example purposes only. 4Visual and sugar assessment on a 4 point Hedonic scale. 0 = clean. 3 = dirty. 5ATP results are Relative Light Units as determined by reader. RLU: < 2.5 = clean. RLU: 2.5 3.0 = slightly soiled. RLU: >3.0 = dirty. 6Results are log values. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery. Sacc = S. cerevisiae Bac = B. megaterium Ecoli = E. coli (generic ). 7Results are log values of g/100cm2. -1 log is used for <1 or no recovery.

PAGE 275

275 Table 5-44. Type 4 wash combined results a nd stats for Sd-HVMP worse case installation position. Operating parameter (n = 3) Lpm @ bar 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 454 @ 4.7 Centered ()1 0 1 2.5 53 Pitch () 79 79 79 79 Sample Sites2 Combined clean analysis rating3 0 -0.22 -0.22 -0.23 -0.22 1.2 -0.22 -0.23 -0.23 -0.22 2.4 -0.22 -0.22 -0.22 -0.18 3.7 -0.12 -0.10 0.23 -.48 4.9 -0.20 -0.20 0.07 0.56 6.1 0.15 0.30 0.48 0.91 BHc -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 BHt -0.22 -0.20 -0.18 -0.12 Overall sig diff 4 -0.15 A -0.13 A -0.04 B 0.13 C 1All trials when devices pointed away from sample sites, which is the worse case for installation. 2Sample site is the site in m from the CIP de vice. BHc and BHt are the bulkhead center and top sites at 6.7m. 3Results included visual, ATP, soils and al lergen results. Does not include micro results. Results are average of 3 trials. 4Values are the average of all data. Same letters indicate no significance at P<0.05 across treatments. Table 5-45. R-LVHP oper ating parameter differences for Type 4 wash. Operating parameter statistical analysis Lpm @ bar 68 @ 24 76 @ 31 83 @ 31 Rotation speed (rpm) 20 4 4 Extension (cm) 0 22 22 Average soils 1 2.18 A 1.17 B 0.67 C Average micro 2 0.46 A 0.01 B -0.03 B Average allergen 3 1.66 A -0.33 B -0.35 B 1The value is the average of all soil determina tions. Lower values indica te less residual soil. Values with the same letter are not significantly different at P<0.05. 2The value is the average of all microorganism determinations. Lower values indicate lower microbial residue. Values with the same lette r are not significantly different at P<0.05. 3The value is the average of all allergen determ inations. Lower values indicate less residual allergen. Values with the same letter ar e not significantly different at P<0.05.

PAGE 276

276 Table 5-46. R-HVMP operating parame ter differences for Type 4 wash. Operating parameter statistical analysis Lpm @ bar 416 @ 4.5 378 @ 6.2 492 @ 5.5 Rotation speed (rpm) 16 16 16 Extension (cm) 12 12 12 Average soils 1 0.65 A 0.59 A 0.58 A Average micro 2 0.0 A -0.03 A 0.0 A Average allergen 3 -0.05 A -0.5 B -0.21 A 1The value is the average of all soil determina tions. Lower values indica te less residual soil. Values with the same letter are not significantly different at P<0.05. 2The value is the average of all microorganism determinations. Lower values indicate lower microbial residue. Values with the same lette r are not significantly different at P<0.05. 3The value is the average of all allergen determ inations. Lower values indicate less residual allergen. Values with the same letter ar e not significantly different at P<0.05. Table 5-47. Sd-HVMP operating parame ter differences for Type 4 wash. Operating parameter statistical analysis Lpm @ bar 454 @ 3.1 416 @ 4.5 378 @ 6.2 492 @ 5.5 Centering ( from dead center) 0 0 0 0 Pitch (degrees) 79 79 79 79 Average soils 1 0.77 A 0.63 B 0.57 B 0.60 B Average micro 2 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A Average allergen 3 -0.20 A 0.0 A 0.0 A -0.04 A 1The value is the average of all soil determina tions. Lower values indica te less residual soil. Values with the same letter are not significantly different at P<0.05. 2The value is the average of all microorganism determinations. Lower values indicate lower microbial residue. Values with the same lette r are not significantly different at P<0.05. 3The value is the average of all allergen determ inations. Lower values indicate less residual allergen. Values with the same letter are not significantly different at P<0.05.

PAGE 277

277 Figure 5-1. UF C-Thru model tanker showing sluices, funnels, and tubes. (Winniczuk 2007) hatch rear front port Note: Dimensions are not to scale Figure 5-2. UF C-Thru Model tanker dimensions and sampling sites. (Winniczuk 2006) 12f 22 feet 70 in. 16b 16t 4f 20t 20b 22t 22m 8f 12f 22b 0f

PAGE 278

278 CHAPTER 6 RESEARCH CONCLUSION Many liquid products are hauled by over-the-road tankers. T hese over-the-road tankers need to be cleaned to a level to provide assura nce that the product they carry will not cause any illness in the next product prepared from it. Ideally, the sanitation program should reduce or eliminate any potential microbial, chemical, or physical contamination. Where many physical hazards can be reduced by proper handling procedures or product filtering to ensure that physical contamination does not occur, reduction of micr obial and chemical contamination has to be accomplished through the washing and sanitizing steps and post-wash handling procedures. Tankers can be contaminated by microorganisms (p athogens) as a result of residues that were not cleaned out or by re-contamination by post-wash handling practices. These microorganisms can increase in population while the tank er is in transport for its next load, if the tanker does not have adequate protective residues (residual sanitizer). Chemical contamination can occur by improper cleaning and by improper rinsing of detergents and sanitizers. Improper cleaning can leave the previous product in the tanker and if the previous product is considered to have toxicological effects (such as an allergen) it can contaminate the next product. Improper rinsing of detergents and sanitizers can also lead to chemical contamination of the next product. In both cases, increases in the chemical contamination are not li kely to occur so the re sidue level is the amount to contaminate the next product. With chemical contamination, the diluti on effect of the next product may provide relief from intoxication. However, regulatory guidelines indicate that the next product would be adulterated. Also, the residue amount in a tanker is not well defined. Depending on the residue, small amounts can cause t oxicological effects to certain populations. Complete removal of offending ch emical residue is required.

PAGE 279

279 Over-the-road tankers are typica lly cleaned by a clean-in-place (CIP) process. As with any cleaning, there are five factors that need to be considered for cleaning, 1) soil type, 2) temperature, 3) time, 4) chemical concentra tion, and 5) cleaning acti on. Cleaning processes entail the use of a CIP device that utilizes the fi ve cleaning factors in ce rtain combinations to accomplish a clean tanker. Soil type will depe nd on the previous product and may not be controllable so the other factors have to compensate to ensure the tanker is cleaned well. Typically, cleaning consists of using detergent at the proper c oncentration, at the proper temperature, for the appropriate amount of time with the proper cleaning action for the soil removal. Any deviation of a fact or can lead to improper cleaning. This research evaluated two tanker cleaning protocols (JPA Type 2 and Type 4) for removal of microbial, soil, and chemical (allergen) residues. In Part 1 (research baseline), many results exceeded clean residue levels which may have been due to a high cleaning temperature, a low detergent concentration, or cleaning actions (cascade or impingement) that were too low. These baseline conclusions were based on the rec overy of chemical residues (allergens) without the recovery of microbial residues. High te mperatures are effective for microorganism inactivation and in most situations is the main process fo r pathogen reduction. However, allergens are proteins that can be negatively a ffected by high temperatures. Also, the detergent concentration used may be too low, thereby not allowing adequate solubi lization of the soils. Also, soil removal may not be achieved if the cleaning actio n (cascade or impingement depending on the device) is too low. Further obs ervations of Part 1 of the study found that the cleaning action was a main point of contention for non-removal of the soil. The primary cleaning action for tanker cleaning is supplied by the CIP device.

PAGE 280

280 To achieve the wash process validation goals Part 2 of the research evaluated the operating parameters of three CIP devices typi cally used at wash facilities. This was accomplished by collecting the wash fluid dispersed from the CIP devices at various points along a model tankers internal stainless steel surface. Collection of the fluids allowed an objective determination of the CIP device operating conditions. It was determined that some CIP device operating parameters that were bein g used at tanker wash facilities were in fact not effectively cleaning the tankers, particularly in the bulkhead regions. Residues that were recovered in these regions were calculated to be high enough (>10 g/100cm2) to cause potential toxicological effects in consumers of the next product. It was found that some operating parameter combinations of rotating devices (flow rate and pressure, rotation speed, extension length) were unable to provide any fluids to at least 1 sample site in the tanker particularly in the barrel ends (4.6 to 6.7 m from device) and the bulkhead (6.4 to 6.7 m from device). Also, if a directional device was not installed correctly, fluids were no t collected in the barrel from 3.0 to 6.0 m from the device and the bulkhead. It wa s found that if CIP devices were operated at less than effective volume, pressure, rotation speeds, flow development, or installation orient ation, soil residues can be left on a tanker surface. Various qualifica tion tests were conducted to determine the device factors that can deliver wash fluids to all parts of the tanker. Re sults indicated that when using a rotating-low volume, high pressure CIP device (R -LVHP), a slow rotation speed (4 to 6 shaft rpm) with at least 15 cm flow development tubes we re needed with a flow rate of at least 76 Lpm at 31 bar pressure for adequate surface flows. R-LVHP device did not perform well when the rotation speed and pressure were excessive since either factor seemed to decrease the cleaning radius. When using a rotating-high volume, medi um pressure device, operating parameter were less limiting with an effective usage range of 303 to 492 Lpm, 4.5 to 6.2 bar, and rotation speed

PAGE 281

281 of 15 to 20 rpm and extension range of 12 to 15 cm. It was observed that with the R-HVMP device that rotation speed had less affect on the cl eaning radius but that excessive pressure (>13 bar) would reduce the cleaning radius. With bot h rotating devices, excessi ve pressure caused atomization of the fluid stream with reduced droplet size while excessive rotation speed caused increased radial momentum of the fluid stream. The stationary-directio nal high volume, medium pressure device was effective at 378 to 492 Lpm range and 4.5 to 6.2 bar however, the installation position was critical. Sd-HVMP device pitch had a 3 range from the manufacturers engineered position (as tested). Also, the centering of this device in the tanker was critical with an approximate off center range of 1. In Part 3 of this study, tests were conducted to determine the device s factors and cleaning factors (detergent concentration a nd temperature) that could be us ed to effectively clean a tanker with two wash protocols for the juice industry (JPA Type 2 and Type 4 washes). It was found that using either wash type when a CIP devi ce was operated effectively, a clean and sanitary tanker can be achieved that will not cause a transfer of potentially harmful microbial or chemical residues. Microorganisms were effectively reduced by removal with the wash fluids or inactivation by the temperature or the chemical sanitizer. Allergens were also reduced by removal with the wash fluids.

PAGE 282

282 CHAPTER 7 FUTURE WORK Based on conversations with industry personnel, cleaning with low water volum e is very important. Water is a valuable and limited re source so continued work with low volume CIP systems is important particularly with respect to other food industries such as the dairy industry. Also, with respect to valuable resources, further research should look into the use of lower wash temperatures such as 60 to 65C (140 to 149F) feed with a discharge of 48C (118F). The lower temperature may be beneficial for allerg en removal while still removing microorganisms and be more cost effective. In this study, th eoretical allergen residue values were based on previous literature indicating that a no recovery level or below the methods detection limit should be the target as indicated by FDA. Future work needs to be conducted to determine the actual allergen residue that remains on a surface after cleaning that may be detrimental to the next product. A defined allergen target woul d be important for deve loping proper cleaning guidelines. This research used a blended allergen soil to determine multiple allergen residues after a cleaning. Combining foods may have had a ne gative effect for some of the soil removal. Future work should evaluate the soils separately or at least fully investigate the possible soil interaction effects. Tankers haul products other than food in pa rticularly some high dollar value chemicals. The transport industry has interest in the proper cleaning of th ese transports so that the chemical products are not contaminate d. Based on observations in this study, an investigation into the manual wash practices ma y be important particul arly with the wash facilities that practice this. In particular is how the manual wash high pressure wand is used, how close the wand needs to be to the surface to remove soils, and the use of warm water (38C or 100F) instead of ambient water (20 to 26C or 68 to 78F).

PAGE 283

283 APPENDIX A JUICE PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION FOOD C OMMODITY AND WASH TYPE LIST Table A-1. JPA food commod ity and wash type list Indicates a product with high a llergen potential. Tanker Wash Food Commodity Types Alcohol Products, All Types (food grade) 2 Apple JuiceConcentrated and Single Strength 2 Aromatic ChemicalsFood Grade Only (GRAS, FCC Certified) 3 Beverage Bases 2 Blood Not Permitted Canola Oil 3 Caramel Color 2 Chemicals and Cleaning AgentsNon-Food Grade Not Permitted Cherry JuiceConcentrate and Single Strength 2 Chocolate 4 Citric Acid Solution 2 CitrisolNon-food Grade Cleaning Solvent from Citrus Oils Not Permitted Citrus Fruit Aroma and EssenceAqueous 2 Citrus Fruit Terpenes 3 Citrus PunchConcentrate and Single Strength 2 Cocoa Not Permitted Colors, Artificial and Vegetable BasedFood Grade Only Not Permitted Corn Oil 3 Corn Sweeteners 2 Corn Syrup 2 Cranberry JuiceConcentrate and Single Strength 2 D-Limonene Oil, Food Grade 3 D-Limonene Oil, Non-Food Grade Not Permitted Dairy Products, Pasteurized Cream, Milk, Milk Balancer 4 Dairy Products, UnpasteurizedCr eam, Milk, Milk Balancer 4 Dyes, Inks and PigmentsNon-Food Grade Not Permitted Eggs and Egg Based Products 4 Essential Oils 3 FatsProduct is solid at 70F (21C) Not Permitted Fats, Rendered Not Permitted Fish Oils Not Permitted Flavors, Natural and Artificial 3 Fruit JuiceConcentrates and single strength (including raw or fresh) 2 Fruit Punch and beverage bases 2 Glycerin, Food Grade 3 Glycerin, UnpasteurizedNon-Food Grade Not Permitted Grape Juice, All TypesConcentrate and Single Strength 2

PAGE 284

284 Indicates a product with high a llergen potential. Tanker Wash Food Commodity Types Grapefruit JuiceConcentrate and Si ngle Strength (including fresh) 2 High Fructose Corn Syrup 2 Honey 2 Hydrogenated Vegetable OilsProduct is solid at 70F (21C) Not Permitted Iso-sweet 2 Kiwi JuiceConcentrate and Singl e Strength (including fresh) 2 Lecithin (emulsifier) Not Permitted Lysine (recovered cooking oils) Not Permitted Lemon JuiceConcentrate and Sing le Strength (including fresh) 2 Malt 3 Mineral Oil 3 Mineral Salts (i.e.: Epsom Salt) Not Permitted Molasses (food grade) 2 Molasses (non food grade) Not Permitted Non-Citrus Fruit Aroma and EssenceAqueous 2 Nut Products 4 Orange ConcentrateOM 2 Orange JuiceConcentrated and Single Strength 2 Paraffin Wax Not Permitted Peach JuiceConcentrate and Singl e Strength (including fresh) 2 Peanut Based Products (other than Oil) 4 Peanut Oil 4 Pear JuiceConcentrate and Single Strength (including fresh) 2 Pepper or Plant Mash 4 Pharmaceuticals (non food grade) Not Permitted Pharmaceuticals (food grade) 3 Pineapple JuiceConcentr ate and Single Strength 2 Propylene Glycol (food grade) 3 Prune JuiceConcentrat e and Single Strength 2 Raspberry JuiceConcentrate and Single Strength 2 Sorbitol Food Grade 2 Sorbitol, Non-food Grade Not Permitted Soy based products 4 Soybean Oil 4 Strawberry JuiceConcentrate and Single Strength 2 Sugar, Liquid 2 Sunflower Oil 3 Sweeteners 2 Syrups 2 Vegetable OilsProduct Liquid at 70F (21C) 3 Vinegar 2 Water (food grade) 2 Watermelon JuiceConcentrat e and Single Strength 2

PAGE 285

285 Indicates a product with high a llergen potential. Tanker Wash Food Commodity Types Waxes Not Permitted Whey, Pasteurized 4 Whey, raw 4 Witch Hazel (food grade) 2 YeastActive and Inactive 4 Accessible at www.juiceproducts.org

PAGE 286

286 APPENDIX B DETERGENT DILUTION RATES AND ASSOCIATED CHEMICAL ANALYSES Table B-1. Detergent dilution rates a nd chem ical and physical analyses Dilution rate (oz detergent/gal water) % rate Average ppm as active alkalinity (std)1,2 Average pH1 Average chlorine (ppm)1,3 1 / 6 0.130 157 (50) 10.3 <10 1 / 5 0.156 233 (58) 10.6 10 1 / 4 0.195 367 (58) 11.3 20 1 / 3 0.260 467 (58) 11.4 60 1 / 2 0.391 667 (58) 11.6 90 1 / 1 0.781 1267 (150) 12.0 100 1.28 / 1 1 1433 (58) 12.1 130 1Average based on 6 individual determinations (n = 6) 2Active alkalinity determined Alkalinity test k it (Chemical Systems of Florida, Zellwood FL) using 0.1N Sulfuric acid and titrated to pH 8.3 3Free chlorine measured by orthotolidine te st kit (Hach Industr ies, Loveland, CO)

PAGE 287

287 APPENDIX C CALCULATION OF INSIDE TANKER SURFAC E AREA OF A 12.2 M (40FT) TANKER Table C-1. Calculation of internal s urface area Barrel surface Dimension Diameter (d) 160.0 cm Length (L) 1219.2 cm Circumference ( *d) 502.7 cm Surface Area ( *d*L) 612913.4 cm2 Number of blocks on barrel surface 6129.1 Bulkhead surface Diameter (d) 160.0 cm Radius (r) 80.0 cm Surface areas ( *r2) 20106.2 cm2 Number of blocks on bulkhead surface 201.1 2 bulkheads 402.1 Total internal surface area (barrel + bulkheads) 653125.8 cm2 Total number of blocks in tanker 6531.3

PAGE 288

288 APPENDIX D DETERMINATION OF DETECTION LI MIT W ITH ACCUCLEAN SWAB Table D-1. Determining detection limit of AccuClean swabs Serial dilutions3 start Pre diln 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 Orange juice g 3x105 0 300000 30000 3000300 30 3 0.3 0.03 n = 8 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 Gr Gn Milk g 33000 0 33000 3300 330 33 3.3 0.3 0.03 0.003 n = 6 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 Gr Gn Gn 1AccuClean is a product of Neogen Company, Lansing, MI 2AccuClean results were based on the color card Gn = Green clean Gr = Gray questionable, needs recleaning B1 = Blue level 1 dirty, needs recleaning B2 = Blue level 2 very dirty, needs recleaning 3Serial dilutions prepared with sterile deionized water.

PAGE 289

289 APPENDIX E DETERMINATION OF ALLERGEN DETECT ION LIMIT W ITH ALERT TEST KIT Table E-1. Determination of detecti on limit for allergen test kits. Estimated Allergen results at serial dilutions3 Allergen start g Pre diln 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 Milk g 33000 01 33000 3300 330 33 3 0.3 0.03 n = 6 Pos Pos Pos Pos Pos Neg Neg Egg g 30000 01 30000 3000 300 30 3 0.3 0.03 n = 6 Pos Pos Pos Pos Pos Neg Neg Peanut g 60000 01 60000 6000 600 60 6 0.6 0.06 n = 6 Pos Pos Pos Pos Pos Pos Neg Milk g 33000 1/32 11000 1100 110 11 1 0.1 0.01 n = 9 Pos Pos Pos Pos Pos Neg Neg Egg g 30000 1/32 10000 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 n = 9 Pos Pos Pos Pos Pos Neg Neg Peanut g 60000 1/32 20000 2000 200 20 2 0.2 0.02 n = 9 Pos Pos Pos Pos Pos Neg Neg 1The 0 dilution was the slurry material each analyzed independently by serial dilutions. 2The 1/3 dilution was the prepared slurry material without microorganisms and serial diluted. 3Serial dilutions were with sterile deionized water. The serial dilution concentrations were confirmed by Alert analysis and wells were read with the well reader.

PAGE 290

290 LIST OF REFERENCES 2005. Cost analysis of dedicated tanker transpor t. Anonym ous. Bulk Transporter 15:12-15. April 2005. 2006. Soybeans. Anonymous. United Soybean Board. Accessed at www.unitedsoybean.org. On February 2, 2008. United Soybean Board. Nortonville, KS. 3-A Sanitary Standards and Accepted Practices. 2002. 3-A Sanitary Stan dards for Stainless Steel Automotive Transportation Tanks for Bulk De livery and Farm Pick-Up Service, Number 05-15. Effective date November 24, 2002. 3A Sanitary Standards Inc. Mclean, VA. 3-A Sanitary Standards and Accepted Practices. 1999. 3-A Sanitary Standards for Multiple-Use Rubber and Rubber-Like Materials Used as Product Contact Surfaces in Dairy Equipment, Number 18-03. Effective date August 21, 1999. 3A Sanitary Standards Inc. Mclean, VA. 3-A Sanitary Standards and Accepted Practi ces. 2003. 3-A Sanitary Standards for Spray Cleaning Devices Intended to Remain in Pl ace, Number 78-01. Effective date November 16, 2003. 3A Sanitary Standards Inc. Mclean, VA. AFDO. 2004. Guidelines for the Transportation of Food Products Association of Food and Drug Officials. 2004-2005 Food Committee Fina l Draft Report 090204 Washington, D.C. Available at www.afdo.org/afdo/trans/html Accessed on May 5, 2004. AFDO Washington, D.C. Agalloco JP, Brame W, Ferenc B, Hall, Je nkins K, LaMagna JT, Madsen RE, Mullen MV, Wagenknecht D, Wagner CM. 1998. Points to consider for cleaning validation. PDA Technical Report No. 29. March 30, 1998. Intern ational Association for Pharmaceutical Science and Technology. Washington, DC. Bakka, D. 1995. Optimum CIP results. Beverage World 114:103-104. Barile RG. 1998. Precision cleaning verification of fl uid composition by air/water impingement and total carbon analysis. NAS A Technical Memo. U.S. NASA Publications. Washington, D.C. Bell C, Stallard PA, Brown SE, Standley JTE. 1994. ATP-Bioluminescence Techniques for Assessing the Hygienic Conditi on of Milk Transport Tanke rs. Int. Dairy Journal. 4(1994):629-640. Bennett RW, Belay W. 2001. Bacillus cereus. In : Downes FP, Ito K. Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods 4th Ed. Washington, DC. p311-316. Bigalke DL, 1978. Effect of low-temperature cleaning on microbiological quality of raw milk and cleanliness of milk ing equipment on the farm. Journal of Food Protection 41(11):902906.

PAGE 291

291 Bindsley-Jensen C, Briggs D, Osterballe M. 2006. Can we determine a threshold level for allergenic foods by statistical analysis of pub lished data in the liter ature? Allergy 57:741746. Bode K, Hooper RJ, Augustin W, Paterson WR, W ilson DI, Scholl S. 2005. Pulsed flow cleaning of whey protein fouling layers. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Heat Exchanger Fouling and Cleaning, Kloste r Irsee, Germany, June 5-10, 2005. ECI Symposium Series RP2(2005)25. p165-173. Boor KJ, Brown DP, Murphy SC, Koslowski SM, Bandler DK. 1998. Micr obial and Chemical Quality of Raw Milk in New York Stat e. Journal of Dairy Science 81:1743-1748. Broze G. 1999. Handbook of Detergents Part A: Pr operties. New York. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 560p. Bradley RL. 1980. Efficient cleaning of raw milk e quipment with colder water. Journal of Food Protection 43(5):820-821. Bradley RL. 1982. Efficient cleaning with warm wa ter. Journal of Food Protection 45(11):10101012. Bull HB, Breese K. 1973. Thermal stability of proteins. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 58:681-686. Chomel B, Debess E, Mangiamele D, Reilly K, Faryer T, Sun R. 1994. Transport of Mexico Milk to California and Texas. Jour nal of Infectious Diseases. 170:1216-1223. Conley J. 2002. Yearly transportation cost an alysis. Bulk Transporter. June 2002. 9:18-21. Costello M, Min-Suk R, Bate s MP, Clark S, Luedecke LO, Dong-Hyun K. 2003. Eleven year trends of microbiological quality in bulk tank milk. Food Protection Trends 23(5):393-400. Cutler WG, Davis RC. 1975. Detergency; Theory a nd Test Methods. New York. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 727 p. Deibel K, Trautman T, DeBoom T, Sveum WH, Dunaif G, Scott VN, Bernard DT. 1997. A comprehensive approach to reducing the ri sk of allergens in food. Journal of Food Protection 60(4):436-441. Dennis R, Lund DB (eds). 1993. Handbook of food engineering. New York Marcel Dekker, Inc. 289 p. Downes FP, Ito K (ed.). 2001. Comp endium of Methods for the Mi crobiological Examination of Foods 4th Edition. Washington, DC American P ublic Health Association. 676 p. Fennema OR. 1996. Food Chemistry 3rd Ed. New York Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1069 p. Food Allergy Research and Resource Program. 2007. Development of Detection Methods for Allergenic Foods. Available at www.faarp.org/ research.html. A ccessed on June 18, 2007.

PAGE 292

292 Food Industry Transportation Coalition. 2002. Bu lk Over-the-Road Food Tanker Transport Safety and Security Guidelines. Washington DC Food Industry Transportation Coalition Publication November 7, 2002. Available at www.cfsan.fda.gov/~acrobat/transafe. Accessed on June 6, 2004. Forsyth RJ, Van Nostrand V. 2005. Applicati on of Visible-R esidue Limit for Cleaning Validation. Pharmaceutical Technology 10:5-15. Frank JF, Chmielewski R. 2001. Influence of surface fi nish on the cleanability of stainless steel. Journal of Food Protection 64(8):1178-1182. Gamajet Cleaning Systems, Inc. 2005. Impingement cleaning A better way to clean. Devault, PA Gamajet Cleaning Systems, Inc. 43 p. Gamroth M, Bodyfelt FW. 1993. Good farm equipm ent sanitation means better milk quality tests. Publication EM8408. Oregon State Univer sity Extension Service. Corvallis, OR. Available at www://extension.oregonstate.e du/catalog/html/em/em84081. Accessed on February 21, 2005. Harper WJ, Hall CW. 1975. Dairy Technology an d Engineering. New York AVI Press. 631p. Hennessy TW, Hedberg CW, Slutsker L, White KE, Besser-Wiek JM, Moen ME, Feldman J, Coleman WW, Edmonson LM, MacDonald KL, Osterholm MT, and the Investigation Team. 1996. A national outbreak of Salmonella enteriditis infections from ice cream. The New England Journal of Medicine. 334(20):1281-1286. Higgins KT. 2002. Clean-In-Place continues to evolve. Food Engineering. 74(6):53-57. Hitchins AD, Feng P, Watkins WD, Rippey SR Chandler LA. 1998. Escherichia coli and the Coliform Bacteria. In: Jacks on GJ (ed). FDA Bacteriolo gical Analytical Manual 8th edition. Gaithersburg, MD. AOAC International. pp4.01-4.29. International Society of Beverage Technologists. 2005. Standard sanitation operating procedures. Washington DC. ISBT. 175 p. Illsley RA, Jackson ED, McRae KB, Feirta g JM. 2000. A comparison of commercial ATP bioluminescence hygiene monitoring systems with the standard surface monitoring techniques in a baking facility. Dairy, Food, and Environmental Sanitation. 20(7):522-526. Isbitts S. 2003. Trucks that hauled wastewater later carried fruit juice. Available at http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/fsnet/ 2003/10-2003/fsnet_oct_30-2.htm Accessed on May 15, 2008. Jay JM. 2000. Modern Food Microbiology 6th Ed. Gaithersburg, MD. Aspen Publishers, Inc. 679 p.

PAGE 293

293 Jones GM. 2001. Cleaning and Sanitizing Milkin g Equipment. Publication 404-400. Blacksburg, VA. Virginia Cooperative Extension Virginia Tech. Available at www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/dairy/404-400/404-400/html Accessed on June 10, 2005. Juice Products Association. 2006. Model Tanker Wash Guidelines for the Fruit Juice Industry. Washington, D.C. Juice Products Association. February 2006. Available at www.juiceproducts.org Accessed on March 3, 2006. Lai KY. 2006. Liquid Detergents 2nd Ed. Boca Raton, FL. CRC Tayl or and Francis. 689 p. Longman GF. 1975. The Analysis of Detergents and Detergent Products. New York. John Wiley and Sons. 17 p. Katsuyama AM (ed). 1993. Principles of Food Processing Sanitation 2nd ed. Washington DC. The Food Processors Institute. 540 p. Katsuyama AM, Jantschke M, Gombas DE. 1999. Chemical Hazards and Controls. In: Stevenson KE and Bernard DT, HACCP A Sy stematic Approach to Food Safety 3rd Ed. Washington, DC. The Food Processors Institute. p53-62. Kornacki JL, Johnson JL. 2001. Enterobacteriaceae, Coliforms, and Escherichia coli as Quality and Safety Indicators. In: Downes FP and It o K. ed. Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods. 4th ed. Washington, D.C. American Public Health Association. p69-82. Koutchma TK, Ho G, Slade PJ. 2005. Roadmap to Validation of Processing Technologies for Juices. Food Protection Trends. 25(2):114-119. Kulkarni SM, Arnold RG, Maxcy RB. 1974. Reuse limits and regeneration of solutions for cleaning dairy equipment. Journal of Dairy Science 58(8):1095-1100. Kulkarni SM, Maxcy RB, Arnold RG. 1974. Ev aluation of Soil Deposition and Removal Processes: An Interpretive Review. J ournal of Dairy Science 58(12):1922-1936. Lechler Precision Spray Nozzles. 2005. Tank Cleani ng Nozzles. St. Charles, IL. Lechler Nozzle Systems, Inc. 60p. Lyon WF. 2000. Firefly, HYG-2125-95. Available at www.ohioline.osu.edu/hygfact/2000/2125.htm l. Accessed on July 19, 2005. The Ohio State University Columbus, OH. Mabesa RC, Marshall RT, Anderson ME. 1979. Factors influencing tenacity of dried milk films exposed to high humidity. Journal of Food Protection 42(8):631-637. Mabesa RC, Marshall RT, Anderson ME. 1980. Milk films exposed to high humidity: Studies with electron microscopy and electrophores is. Journal of Food Pr otection 43(1):29-35.

PAGE 294

294 Marriott NG. 1999. Principles of Food Sanitation 4th Ed. Gaithersburg, MD. Chapman and Hall Food Science Book. Aspen Publications. 364p. Marriott NG, Gravani RB. 2006. Principles of Food Sanitation 5th Ed. New York City. Springer Science and Media, Inc. 413p. Maxcy RB, Arnold RG. 1974. Characterization of tenacious residue of alkaline circulation cleaning. Journal of Milk F ood Technologists 37(9):469-472. Miller B. 2005. USP, Food Grade, Feed Grade, a nd Kosher Material in Chemical Tank Trucks. Presentation at the 2005 Annual National Ta nk Truck Carriers Meeting. Branson, MO. April 4, 2005. Monaci L, Tregoat V, van Hengel AJ, Anklam E. 2006. Milk allergens, th eir characteristics and their detection in food: A review. Europ ean Food Research and Technology 223(2):149180. Mosteller TM, Bishop JR. 1993. Sanitizer efficacy ag ainst attached bacteria in a milk biofilm. Journal of Food Protection 56(1):34-41. Murphy SC, Boor KJ. 2000. Trouble-shooting sources and causes of high bacteria counts in raw milk. Dairy, Food and Environmenta l Sanitation Vol 20(8):060-011. NASA. 1996. Performance enhancement of a high sp eed jet impingement system for non-volatile residue removal microfilm. NASA Publications. NAS 1.26.205941. U.S. NASA Publications. Washington, D.C. Paez R, Taverna M, Charlon V, Cuatrin A, Etcheverry F, daCosta LH. 2003. Application of ATP-bioluminescence technique for assessing cleanliness of milk equipment, bulk tank, and milk transport tankers. Food Protection Trends 23(4):308-314. Pagcatipunan C. 2001. A Guide to Tank Wash No zzle Selection. Bulletin No. 526. Wheaton, IL. Spraying Systems, Co. 6p. Pagcatipunan C. 2006. A Guide to Tank Cleaning Automation. Bulletin No. 526A. Wheaton, IL. Spraying Systems, Co. 12p. Parish ME, Narciso JA, Friedrich LM. 1997. Survival of Salmonella in Orange Juice. Journal of Food Safety 17:273-281. Parsons PW. 1983. Cleaning large bulk tanks and pi peline systems. Journal of Food Protection 46(5):932-933. Pollack S, Perez A. 2006. Fruit and tree nu ts situation and outl ook yearbook. USDA ARS. Available at www.ers.usda.gov Accessed on Decem ber 15, 2007. Rasmussen LM, Maxcy RB. 1979. Quantitation of proteinaceous soil removal from clean-inplace systems. Journal of Dairy Science 62:249-252.

PAGE 295

295 Redd JB, Hendrix DL, Hendrix CM. 1992. Quality C ontrol Manual for Citrus Processing Plants. Auburndale, FL. Agscience, Inc. 250p. Richter RL, Bailey J, Fry DD. 1975. A field stud y of bulk milk transport washing systems. Journal of Milk Food Technology 38(9):527-531. Rowney MJ, Temple S. 1992. Impingement: Th e Key to Effective Aqueous Cleaning in The Proceedings of the 79th AESF Annual Technical Conference SUR/FIN '92 Orlando, FL. AESF Press. p413-422. Sampson HA. 2004. Update on food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immun 113(5):805-819. Sani-Matic Cleaning Company. 2006. Sani-Mat ic Spray Components. Available at www.sanimatic.com Ac cessed on July 5, 2006. Schmidt RH. 2003. Basic Elements of Equipmen t Cleaning and Sanitizing in Food Processing and Handling Operations. eIFAS Extension Publication. UF IFAS Extension ePublishing Volume FS14. Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_FS077 Accessed on May 27, 2004. Schumacher B, Bakka R, Miller G. 2003. Cl ean in Place (CIP) Systems Making the Right Choice. St. Paul, MN. Ecol ab Publications, Inc. 97p. Seiberling D. 2003. An Overview of CIP Technology. Available at www.seiberling4cip.com Accessed May 18, 2005. Shaw A. 1987. Guideline on General Principles of Process Validation. U.S. FDA CDER Accessed at www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/pv.htm Accessed on July 4, 2006. Showel MS. 2006. Handbook of Detergents Part D: Form ulation. Boca Raton, FL. CRC Taylor and Francis. 530 p. Sikorski ZE. 1997. Proteins. In Sikorski, Z.E. (e d). Chemical and Functional Properties of Food Components. Lancaster, PA. Technom ic Publishing Company, Inc. p119-160. Singh RP, Heldman DR. 2001. Introd uction to Food Engineering 3rd Ed. New York Academic Press. 659p. Skeldon P. 1994. Validation: a bitter pill. Process Engineering 75(11):29-30. Skeldon P. 1994. How clean is really cl ean? Process Engin eering 75(11):33-34. Spraying Systems Co. 1999. Providing Impact Publication No. 5829. Wheaton, IL Spraying Systems Company. 7p. Stach S, Bixenman M. 2004. Optimizing cleanin g energy in batch and inline spray systems. Proceedings of the 2004 SMTAI Technical Forum. Boston, MA. Global SMT and Packaging Issue 5.6:13-19.

PAGE 296

296 Steele ML, McNab WB, Poppe C, Griffiths MW, Chen S, Degrandis SA, Fruhner LC, Larkin CA, Lynch JA, Odumeru JA. 1997. Survey of Ontario Bulk Tank Raw Milk for FoodBorne Pathogens. Journal of Food Protection 60(11):1341-1346. Steinheim MM, Kane JW 1991. General physics 2nd ed. Weinheim, Germany. John Wiley and Sons. 912p. Stevenson KE, Jantschke M. 2004. Managing Allerg ens in Food Processing Establishments 3rd Edition. Washington, DC. National F ood Processors Association. 101p. Stone JB, Myhr AN, Davie I. 1983. Effect of lo w-temperature cleaning of milking equipment on the microbiological quality of raw milk. Journal of Food Protection 46(1):58-60. Taylor SL. 2000. Why the concerns about f ood allergies? Dairy, Food, and Environmental Sanitarian 8:664. Taylor SL. 2006. The nature of food allergey. In Koppelman SJ and Hefle SL edrs. Detecting allergens in food. Cambridge, England. CRC Press Woodhead Publishing Ltd. p3-64. Tournas V, Stack ME, Mislevic PB, Koch HA, Bander R. 1999. Yeasts, Molds, and Mycotoxins. In: Jackson GJ. Bacteriological Analytical Manual 8th Ed. p18.01-18.11. Gaithersburg, MD AOAC International Tybor P, Warren DG. 1989. Cleaning and Sanitizing in the Milking System. The University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Envi ronmental Sciences Cooperative Extension Services. Available at www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/B1025-@.html Accessed o n December 8, 2004. US FDA CFSAN. 1990. The Sanitary Food Transport Act of 1990, 49 USC 5701 et.seq. Available at www.cfsan.fda.gov/opacom/laws/sftact.htm Accessed on July 5, 2004. US FDA CFSAN. 2001. Guidance on inspections of firms producing food products susceptible to contamination with allergenic ingredients. Available at www.fda.gov/ora/inspect_ref/igs/ Allergy_Inspection_Guide.htm Accessed on April 10, 2006. US FDA CFSAN. 2003. Guidance for Industry G uidance on Bulk Transport of Juice Concentrates and Certain Shelf Stable Juices A pril 23, 2003. Available at www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/trans/htm Accessed on October 26, 2005. US FDA CFSAN. 2003. Bulk Over -the-Road Food Tanker T ransport Safety and Security Guidelines October 2003. Available at www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/trans A ccessed on October 14, 2005. US FDA CFSAN. 2003. Grade A Pastuerized Milk Ordinance 2003 Revision March 2, 2004 CFSAN Office of Compliance, Wa shington D.C. Available at www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/pmo03toc.html Accessed on May 8, 2004.

PAGE 297

297 US FDA CFSAN. 2004. 21CFR120 Title 21 Food a nd Drugs. Subchapter B Food for Human Consumption Part 120 Hazard Analysis and Cr itical Control Point (HACCP) Systems. Available at www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search Accessed on May 8, 2004. US FDA CFSAN. 2004. Food Allergen Labeling a nd Consumer Protection Act of 2004 Public Law 108-282. Available at www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgact.html Accessed on December 8, 2005 US FDA CFSAN. 2005. Sec. 555.250 Statem ent of policy for labeling and preventing crosscontamination of common food allergens. Available at www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/cpgfod/cpg555-250.htm Accessed on April 10, 2006. US FDA CFSAN. 2005. The Sanitary Food Tran sport Act of 2005, 49 USC. Available at www.cfsan.fda.gov/opacom/laws/sftact05.htm Accessed on Decem ber 3, 2005. US FDA CFSAN. 2005. 21CFR 110 Current good manufacturing practices in manufacture, packaging, or holding human food. Available at www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-tablessearch.h tml. Accessed on January 2, 2005. US FDA CFSAN. 2006. Inventory of Notifi cation Received under 21 U.S.C. 343(w)(7) for Exemptions for Food Allergen Labeling C FSAN Office of Compliance, Washington, D.C. Available at www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/falnoti.html Accessed on August 6, 2006. US FDA CFSAN. 2006. Food Allergen Labeling a nd Consumer Protection Act of 2004 Public Law 108-282. Report to The Comm ittee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions United States Senate and The Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives July 2006 CFSAN Office of Compliance, Washington, D.C. Available at www.cfsan.fa.goc/~dms/alrgact.html Accessed on August 30, 2006. US FDA CFSAN. 2007. Food Allergies: W h at you need to know. Available at www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ffalrg.html Accessed on August 22, 2007. US FDA CFSAN Threshold W orking Group. 2005. A pproaches to Establish Thresholds for Major Food Allergens and for Gluten Food. FDA Volume 6. Available at www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgn2/html Accessed on October 14, 2005. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2006. Crops and Plants. A vailable at www.nass.usda.gov Accessed on January 12, 2008. University of Guelph. 2004. Dairy Science and Technology. T he University of Guelph Dairy Science and Technology Education Series. Available at www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/chem.html Accessed on May 8, 2004. Voss JR. 1993. CIP/COP Validation Test Procedure Riboflavin procedure. Proceedings of the 1993 International Society of Phar ma ceutical Engineers. Available at www.ispe.org Accessed on April 18, 2005.

PAGE 298

298 Watrous GH. 1975. Food soils, water hardness, and alkaline cleaner formulations. Journal of Milk Food Technology 38(3):163-165. Webb BH, Johnson AH. 1965. Fundamentals of Dair y Chemistry. Westport, CT. AVI Publishing Co. 929p. Weisse HA. 1968. Fundamentals of mechanical r ecirculating cleaning: I. High-Pressure LowVolume Cleaning. Presentation at the 55th Annual Meeting of the In ternational Association of Milk, Food, and Environmental Sanita rians, St. Louis, MO August 18-22, 1968. Welander P. 1999. Choosing a Tank Washer: Key to an uncontaminated process. Powder and Bulk Solids Conference Publication. Chem ical Processing Group, Lechler, Inc. 9p. White FM. 1979. Fluid Mechanics. New York. McGraw-Hill Book Company. 701p. Whitehead DB. 1968. Fundamentals of mechanical recirculating cleaning: II. Recirculation Cleaning. Presentation at the 55th Annual Meeting of the International As sociation of Milk, Food, and Environmental Sanitarian s St. Louis, MO August 18-22, 1968. Wilkins BA. 1993. Mastering Milk Quality Basics of Dairy Sanitation. Dairy, Food, and Environmental Sanitarian 13(11):11-12. Yeung J. 2004. Chapter 1: Food Allergies and Alle rgens. In Stevenson KE and Jantschke M. (eds). Managing Allergens in Food Processing Establishments 3rd Ed. NFPA. Washington, DC. p11-39.

PAGE 299

299 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Polikarp (Paul) Pfeofil W inniczuk is the son of Ukrainian immigrant farmers. He has been working with foods since his youth on his parents farm in New Yorks southern tier where he first learned food science from his parents. Since then, he has worked in various food fields in slaughterhouses, meat processing, fluid milk and cheese processing, aseptic fluid processing, orange and other juice processing, and meal replacement and nutritional supplement products. He received a BS degree in food science from Purdue University in 1986 and an MS degree in food science from the University of Florida in 1994. He has worked in the citrus industry for at least 10 years in quality assura nce and microbiology. He was recently an assistant research scientist for the University of Florida at the Citrus Research and Edu cation Center in Lake Alfred, FL. He is currently finishing the overthe-road tanker sanitation project and a PhD in food science with an emphasis in food microbiology and sanitation. Future plans are to be selfemployed.