Ref: HUB WEER 09

Breweries Europe Limited

Page: 1 of 30

Version: 8.0
Package
Version Date: 22/08/2017

Title: Cold Process Vessels - Recommended CIP Solution Review Date: 17/08/2021

Version 0 (issued for comment) 14th May 2012

Version 1 (updated consolidated feedback Rome, Plzen, G Task F) 25th September 2012
(scope expanded to include all cold process vessels)
Version 3 –Issued BON (including comments Task force & Scanjet) 8th Nov 2012
Version 4 – Sanitizer decision tree 11th Dec 2013
Version 5 – Integration with TCO approach. 14 Jan 2014
Version 6 – Note included (flow to cleaning device & return pump design) 6 Aug 2015
Version 7 – CE changes 26th June 2017
Version 8 – Caustic dosing for pre-shots added to drawing with note 6 22nd August 2017
1 Background
Analysis of how we cleaned our brewing vessels varied enormously. Focussing on
FV’s we found the cost driven by water, effluent, chemical type and consumption,
compressed air, heat etc. varied from site to site by a factor of 12, Water
consumption varied from 0.05hl/hl to 0.22 hl/hl frequency of cleaning BBT’s varied
by a factor of 4. This opportunity existed in areas where:

 Water quality does not meet acceptable chemical and microbiological

standards.
 Hygienic design deficiency is covered by extra heat, chemical & time.
 Lack of capability in the CIP plant, and process controls.
 Use of processes and raw materials are sub-optimal.
 Disciplines are not rigorous, measures missing so that opportunities go un-
noticed.
 Performance management driven relationship is lacking with our outsource
partner.

To find a way to extract this value with minimum risk and not miss out on step
change opportunity; we wanted to work bottom up, understanding the task & the
specific solution that would work best, with the objective of providing an
optimization guide covering the topics above. At the same time minimize
duplication in effort and improve the quality of the solution through synergy with the
global CIP TF.
We selected a fermenter and packaging line filler as the test subjects. The FV
being the most difficult vessel we could extend learning to SV, and BBT. With the
filler we had the objective of trying to achieve similar results with an optimized
conventional process to the electrochemically activated solution (ECA) ex
Chamdor. (This work is now published in the line cleaning package.) Some of this
learning would be generic and could be applied to other pipelines including
brewing.

We selected Dreher brewery which performs with the lowest cost in Europe ($/hl)
and ranks 11th in SABMiller global rankings in Hygiene with a score of 94.2%. The
trials were conducted in conjunction with Ecolab with the Poznan, Grolsch and
Rome brewery experiences. It is important to note that the approach has been built
starting from first principles under the guidance of Thomas Wershofen Manager
Corporate Services RD&E for Ecolab. Work similar to this will be published for the
filler when it is ready but it will all be integrated into the package of work issued
with this document.

2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on how to clean cold brewing
vessels from the recommendations arising from this trial work conducted in Dreher
which was led by Andras Nemeth, executed and documented in the Ecolab report
2012.04.13 by György Végh, specific to FV cleaning. It is to provide breweries with
a simple guide to “go fetch” the opportunity quickly without unmanageable risk and
without having to undertake similar in depth analysis in their own breweries, saving
time and keeping resource focussed on delivering quality beer. The principles of
this document have been applied to the less onerous vessels for example SV’s
and BBT’s. The recommendations have been extensively tested and agreed with
task forces working in Latin America & Europe so there is good reason to do what
we propose. However as you implement this package you may well encounter
problems or opportunities for improvement. If this happens you should escalate
your observations to your European key account manager for the Supplier you use
or directly with the author [email protected] who will validate the
changes proposed with the all the current suppliers’ expert service providers and
HUB lead Brewing or Packaging, then update the package.

3 Scope and Team

The scope of this document includes plant, process & process control necessary to
flush, clean and sanitise cold process brewing vessels derived from work done
specifically for fermentation vessels. The scope covers the elements of the CIP
process as depicted below in Fig 1.

Team Members (acknowledgements and thanks)

Role Name
Brewing Operational Leader and Sponsor Andras Nemeth (Brewing Manager Dreher)
Project Leader György Végh (Ecolab)
Brewing Functional Leader Petr Vesely (Europe Hub)
Consulting support Thomas Wershofen & Richard Arthur
(Ecolab), Kim Kjellberg (Alfa Laval). Richard
Boughton(Scanjet),Neil Morrison &
Humberto Serrano Carreno (Global CIP task
 force), Elżbieta Jóźwicka (Poznan), Juriaan
Jansen (Grolsch), Giovanni Battista Morlino
(Roma)
SD support and co-ordination Dave Johnstone (Europe Hub)

4 Targets for Optimization (Typical stainless steel cylindo-conical)

 > 95% Hygiene score

 No thermal load (Ambient water temps > 10C)

 Not more than 16kg 100% caustic for 3 500hl FV (Less for SV, none for
BBT)
 < 2% acid interface loss (% of total mass of detergent in circulation)

 < 45hl total liquid to drain for a 3 500hl FV

 No compressed air usage to “purge tanks”

5 References:

GLT.BR.ST.0096 -1Unit Standard 1.1 – Cleaning and Sanitation Standards – Theory

GLT.BR.ST.01/3 - Unit Standard 1.3
Cleaning and Sanitation Standards – Cellars & Bright Beer
CIP optimization tool - vo 8.3xlsx
CIP hygienic design guide V2.pdf

6 The optimization process:

A general flow chart of the process is appended below to give an overview of

what needs to be done and the control documents and tools (highlighted in
purple) that are available to support the process. This process is applicable to
any cold process vessel or group of vessels you intend optimizing the cleaning
process on.

Fig 2 CIP optimization process

 CIP Optimization Process

Compare yourself to
Benchmarks

If you plan to use out-source help; the End

project must be owned by the brewery & Set up measures as per pack
Opportunity? No
supported with long term contract with and monitor process
performance management measures and sustainable
deliverables by both parties agreed
Set up Team &
conduct change Yes Package Consult HUB / CIP
management Change? Task Force
process & training
No
See CIP optimization
Hydraulic See cleaning device
tool - vo 4.1 and Building and Process Plant
Conduct Hygiene Water Quality checks pipe decision tree
Hygenic design General side using CIP Plant Side
guide Check Check lines and
process Area guide...
vessels
Yes
It is recommended during this
optimization you stay with PAA as a
sanitizing media and be Preshots Interface Program steps Root Cause
Fix & Close out Gaps No No No No Package Query?
conservative incase validation conform? Management? conform? Analysis
process fails
Yes Yes Yes No
See Primary Clean &
Set up pre- Set up Complete Validate –
Detergent Selection Decide Primary End CIP cleaning
shot (water/ interface program >90% Hygiene OK? Yes
Decision Tree Clean optimization
caustic) regime management changes & Bench losses

End
See Sanitization Set up Complete Validate –
Decide Sterilizing Set up measures as per pack
Decision Tree measurement program >90% Hygiene OK? Yes
Medium and monitor process
& coltol changes & Bench losses
sustainable

No

Root Cause Yes

The Package?
Analysis

No

7 Things that must be in place before any CIP changes are attempted:

7.1 Assign a team who will take responsibility for the project
The team must be led by the brewing manager and cover the disciplines of
laboratory analysis, control and automation, decision support (finance), brewing
operations in cellars and your CIP service provider. They should be familiarized
in the contents of this package and the supporting tools listed in the references.
The Europe HUB (Dave Johnstone) will facilitate this if required.

7.2 Hygienic Design Evaluation

Any element of the cleaning circle (fig 1) that is weak must be compensated
by another for example the circulation time may be shortened if we increase
the elements of mechanical cleaning / chemical strength / etc. One element
that is not effectively evaluated is the hygienic design, and as a consequence
we often use more rigorous regimes at higher cost to compensate. Before
any optimization process starts the team must evaluate their systems
hygienic status. (See CIP optimization tool, there is a sheet provided to guide
the evaluation, record gaps and manage closure.) In the Dreher case the
example and pictures below illustrate how a badly designed return piping
network could seriously compromise the process. (There may well be similar
problems in your own systems) The picture shows yeast trapped in dead
legs (picture left) while in the main line everything appeared OK (picture
right).
 How had they achieved a 94% hygiene score? Well they were sanitizing their
system with very high levels of per-acetic acid which were able to prevent re-
infection. When we tried to reduce the levels to “normal” we found immediate
micro contamination.
You may find areas in the hygienic check which are uneconomic to fix, for
example you would not replace an FV with a poor surface finish, you would
rather compromise on the best cleaning solution and use more detergent /
time. You would however repair dead legs, badly installed instrument fittings,
remove redundant pipes, etc. The hygienic design checklist gives some idea
on the priority areas, which must be done before optimization, and good
practice, which can be planned and executed when it makes sense. Do not
use this process to delay / stop optimization but be aware optimization efforts
will be compromised if you leave these issues open. You cannot afford not to
be making progress with real savings by moving forward but with known risk
areas which can be monitored.

7.3 CIP Plant Check

A flow sheet of critical tank CIP plant is shown below; the important issues for each
piece of equipment are discussed in the following points. The “CIP optimization
tool” will guide you to record and manage closure of these gaps.

Fig 3: Typical plant and control scheme for a tank cleaning CIP plant.
7.3.1 Clean vessels: They must be kept clean and hence must be “CIP’able”
either manually or automatically. The condition of the tank at right is what
can go wrong if you don’t manage this, you will not
achieve a clean system with this tank. You may
have a problem with your process (conductivity,
condition to change step, calibration, set in the
PLC) that is causing this problem. For example if
your interface management is not precise you may
bring organic matter back to the detergent tank
causing foam and very rapid degradation of its
cleaning or sanitizing properties. A method of testing total organic carbon
will give you a good idea of the quality of your clean, the interface
management and when the life of the acid is spent or the tank needs
cleaning. (EN1484 being investigated) If pre-rinse is good and interface
control good, it should be unnecessary to routinely dump detergent tanks.

7.3.2 Managing interface losses (water and detergent lost to drain) is a

critical part of the optimization process. You will be shown how in section
7.3.6 & 9.3 but the vessels need certain instruments to be able to measure
if your losses are in control. Contents measurement either a sight glass or
analogue level measurement to determine the volume lost and a sample
cock to determine the concentration must be in place and a magnetic flow
meter with resettable counters is essential.

7.3.3 Make up control; we recommend doing this immediately after the CIP, not
waiting to the beginning of the next CIP. Use the analogue level to estimate
the volume of water required (suitable cascade water, service water or
process water) then based on the target concentration calculate the time
required to dose the respective detergent (some positive displacement pump
will help where flow is constant / or pulses can be counted. Dose both
together then circulate the volume around the tank to mix the contents then
sample the tank. By experiment the timer can be adjusted till the target
concentration is achieved. A nice to have is conductivity measurement in the
tank. pH measurement is an alternative nice to have but careful about the
reliability of these instruments. pH-measurement is not recommended for
concentration control. Note in the case of line CIP where heating would be
required you would not heat the contents directly after make up as losses
during the wait to use would be higher especially where unstable sanitizers
are used.

7.3.4 Tank volume: contained in the detergent tank should be enough for a target
this could be reduced and depends on leakage in your system
tank furthest away from the CIP station plus 15%
to allow for some leakage and valve seat pulsing if this is required. This
minimizes heat loss in hot line systems but also reduces make up time. Be
careful if it is possible that two loops can access the same tank at the same
time the volume required would need to be for both systems + 15%. Note from
 an heat efficiency point of view it would be better to separate these systems.
In some cases the outlet to feed the CIP pump is located such that it leaves a
dead volume inside the tank. This is a waste and you should consider the
moving the outlet, but take care to ensure the NPSH of the CIP pump is still
satisfied and there is a small sludge space to allow solids to settle and
routinely inspected / drained.

7.3.5 Leakage Protection:

Where we have acid and caustic in the same system there is always the risk
of contamination due to valve failure. Where this is likely to happen valves
should have leakage protection to prevent this happening. In some cases
because these valves are expensive the return lines are often not leakage
protected with the logic that the tank is “checked” before the next step is
started so any failure will be detected. Be careful, if this is a conductivity
check it will not tell you if there is contamination that is why the leakage
valves are recommended. You could argue this will pay for pH measurement
in the tank, but again careful of reliability. A manual check by titration is
essential.
7.3.6 Volume & Flow Rate Measurement: For good interface control it is
essential that the volume to each separate tank is known and that the
media is measured to each vessel and the other media removed from the
tank so we do not mix media. This same meter can also be used to totalize
the water used to feed the CIP station but only if it has the necessary
analogue cards to count and registers to store the information so that it can
be used for control & reporting. Just because you have a meter does not
mean that you have this capability and it needs to be checked and
provided. Note that in the CIP plant it must be possible to measure the total
water used (flushes & make up) and in hot CIP’s the steam consumption.

7.3.7 Conductivity Measurement:

Conductivity is not a true measure of the amount of detergent in solution but
will be a reasonable proxy for this provided the water quality does not change,
the media is not contaminated by leakage into the solution, or the detergent
formulation is not changed. Carbonization losses/effects are excluded or
within an acceptable amount (to be checked) It is very important that the
response time of the unit is known as this, depending on the supplier, may
vary from 5 to 25 seconds. So if you consider that the velocity of the media in
the pipe may be 2m/s then the interface may have travelled between 10m and
50m (with a 100mm pipe this is 9hl of media that could go to drain!) Use the
response time to determine an appropriate location for the instrument. It must
also be regularly calibrated against a known solution to ensure that is
functioning correctly. It is recommended to use inductive conductivity probes
because these probes are less sensitive to scale formation, gas-bubbles and
soiling (compared to conductive ones) Access to be able to do this is
essential. Check the supplier information to ensure the installation, set up,
and calibration procedures are correct. For example two suitable units Ecolab
 or Endress & Hauser detail in Appendix 4. The cost of repositioning /
replacing an incorrectly installed / incapable probe could pay back in 1 month.

7.3.8 Measurement of Sanitizing Power: We have traditionally used per-acetic

acid or peroxide type sanitizers; with a move to use of chlorine dioxide which
allows you to save final rinse water which is used to remove the per-acetic
acid or peroxide type sanitizers at the end of CIP see the Poznan learning at:
(new link)
we showed how things can go wrong if the system is not clean and organic
material is left in the system to be cleaned. Chlorine dioxide’s solubility is
limited and the “dose” can very quickly be “consumed” oxidising the organics
before any sanitizing is performed. For this reason it is recommended that
actives are measured. This will ensure that there is still active substance at
the end of the sanitizing process and we can limit the dose to save chemical
but also protect our stainless steel. A link to a data sheet for this type of
instrument is placed in Appendix 4. (REDOX / FAC to be confirmed)

7.3.9 Water Quality: The water specification is in place for a reason you must
check that the water used for cleaning meets the process water standards.
Out of control levels of hardness can cause scale and chlorides will cause
stress and pitting corrosion. For detail of these and other elements and their
potential effect on stains, scale, and corrosion see appendix 2. The “CIP
optimization tool” has the elements of this specification where you can test
your quality. Note that water that is too soft can also cause problems of
corrosion and cause unnecessary water loss in water treatment.

7.3.10 Ambient Water & Temperature of cleaning: It is known that higher

temperature improves cleaning. But heat costs money so is “cold” ambient
water acceptable for cleaning? Lab testing conducted at Dreher showed that
even at 12oC in 6 minutes of contact; organic soils were removed. So in our
cleaning processes we expect that water > 10oC will be suitable for cleaning
FV vessels without heating. Below 10oC we will need to conduct further
testing. Note one must stay inside the recommended cleaning materials
shown in fig 6. Some products may not be suitable for 10C

7.3.11 Environment: Proper layout, access, drainage etc. is

discussed in the “CIP hygienic design” document but
an aspect that is not mentioned in this document is
the consequence on caustic solution’s if CO2 is not
properly ventilated from the building where the CIP
plant is situated. As can be seen on the side this
problem can cause rapid formation of carbonate
resulting in loss of caustic performance. In the CIP
optimization guide there is a tool on the sheet called “caustic chemistry” which
enables you to calculate the effect.
 7.4 Vessel Check: In the “CIP optimization tool” there is also a sheet for you to
record and manage closure of your gaps. On the sheet called “hydraulic
check” you can test if the hydraulics are optimal and within GBS guidelines.
There are also examples of typical multi axis rotating jet, single axis rotating
spray and static cleaning devices used in European Breweries.

7.4.1 Tank Top Fittings: Vacuum & Safety valves need to be an integral part of the
CIP, if this is not the case a solution to this problem must be discussed with
the HUB process engineering. The recommended solution requires that you
use a dilute caustic solution to rinse the vessel in what we call a series of “pre-
shots” in this step some of the caustic in solution will react with CO2 in the
tank and cause reduced pressure in the tank which could cause a tank failure.
You must check the “critical” limit of the tank using the calculator in “CIP
optimization tool” on the sheet “vessel vacuum check” to ensure that in your
case you are well within the safe limits of the tank; before you implement a
pre-shot program this must be done and documented with a clear strategy on
how you will limit the caustic addition to ensure no failure. Do not be unduly
worried about this risk; it is safe; provided these precautions are taken.

7.4.2 Tank Outlets: The brewing standard limits the velocity of product into the tank
to prevent oxidation / loss of CO2 and creation / loss of foam; this makes the
pipes relatively large diameter and the layout may dictate relatively long
outlets. This may create problems in achieving clean outlet piping. The
solution does not recommend “back-flush” cleaning of this piping. You must
use internal inspection equipment similar to that used in the hygienic check to
inspect internal weld quality to determine if this piping is in fact clean. Dirty
piping may also be a function of the program sequencing, if it’s a problem just
note and document the quality of the surface (with pictures) then after the
optimization process; re-evaluate the surface, if it remains a problem, please
consult the HUB process engineering team to find an appropriate solution for
you this may include back flush cleaning.. Another thing to consider is that
rotating devices need less flow which limits the flow to clean the outlet piping,
you may go below the recommended flowrates with these types of device.

7.4.3 Tank Cleaning Devices:

The following sub-sections detail the limitations and advantages of each type
of device but some general issues need to be considered. Each device has
specific flow and pressure requirements to work effectively; outside these
ranges the device will not work as it is intended. The premise is that your
system is presented with normal levels of soil; if you go out of control for some
reason and build scale and soil outside these normal situations or leave a tank
without cleaning you will have to run an extra ordinary program to get back
into control. You should not select your device for these situations. One must
consider their maintenance, cleaning and hygienic design in selection and if
routine monitoring is required make sure the disciplines are in place to check.
The total system must be considered, so if you have an outlet pipe
 dimensioned to maintain a beer flow specification, this too needs to be
cleaned as part of the vessel.

7.4.3.1 Static Cleaning Devices: the simplest and cheapest device using low
pressure but requiring high volume flow. There is limited mechanical
cleaning action since this design relies on liquid running vertically down the
surface of the vessel. Too little / too much flow will affect the dynamics of
this falling film. Too little pressure and the media will not reach the vessel
walls whilst too much pressure will cause “atomization” of the drops and a
mist spray will be formed. This physics limits the diameter where a spray
ball will work effectively. So although supplier data will show devices
suitable for a 9m diameter tank it is not recommended to use a spray ball in
a tank > 5.5m diameter. Provided the following points are checked there
should not be limitations achieving similar optimization results with a spray
ball to other cleaning devices. Note the supplier data is very important; the
numbers below are taken from “average” data from various suppliers.

 The spray ball must be inspected regularly and hence easily

removable. It must be clean i.e. holes not blocked with scale, plastic
and other objects. If not properly fitted they can fall off. Rinse water
samples are misleading since these will indicate the tank is clean as a
blockage will prevent rinse water from reaching the blind area. You
have to internally inspect and although this can be difficult these
disciplines cannot be short cut and should not be underestimated.
Proactive inspections checking the pressure / flow in the system can
also indicate blockage, these can be programed automatically to alarm
or the operator can check this while the detergent is circulating.

 Pressure range (gauge) at the spraying device: 1.5 – 2.5bar. Note if

the gauge is at ground level you will be under-reading by the static
head in the pipe to the top of the tank. Suppliers quote pressure at the
device. The flow will vary on the size of the spray ball, its intended
spraying diameter, the number and size of holes. Ensure you are in the
manufacturers range.

 Spray pattern: the mechanism of cleaning with a spray ball is with a

falling film. 360o drill patterns will be wasteful as some volume will be
directed to areas cleaned by the falling film from above so unless there
is equipment in the tank which requires 360o don’t use these types.
180o down will also be wrong as no liquid will be directed upward.
Normally 180 – 270o up are used for cylindro-conical tanks but take
care with blind spots from tank top fittings that are not installed flush
with the vessel surface.

 Flow rate: the GBS specifies a flow velocity of 15 - 35 hl/hr/m of

circumference which is a very wide range. For a 5m diameter tank this
means 235 to 550hl/hr. Ecolab (Careful Ecolab quote the flow in
different units to the GBS) recommends a different flow range for the
same vessel would be 188 – 329hl/hr. For this reason we recommend
that you set this at the low end of the GBS specification 15-20hl/hr/m.
Very important you must add the flow that might be diverted to say for
 example clean sample devices to the total flow. So be careful when
validating the tank cleaning device flow that you use only the flow that
arrives at the cleaning device.

 Once flow is set ensure that the flow patterns are similar to the picture
at right which show “good” flow with shear
stress > 5Pa without channelling and
areas of “bad” flow where shear is
approx. 2Pa. (Pictures courtesy of Alfa
Laval) You should ensure that you are
achieving even flow around the entire
tank circumference, if not try increasing
the flow. If you cannot it is likely the cleaning device is faulty or not
ideal for the task you are trying to use it. Consult your supplier or HUB
process engineering in this case. In cases where cleaning is allowed to
go out of control; soil and or scale may build up on the vessel walls this
will interrupt the flow down the walls and you will get channel flow
similar to the picture at right. A situation like this is very difficult to
recover from and easy to get into if you
are using a spray ball and do not monitor
the system carefully. If material has dried
on the vessel wall it is also going to be
impossible to get even flow unless dilute
caustic is used in the pre-shot and the
surface allowed to hydrate before the
following pre-shots.

 Position of the spray ball inside the tank is calculated for you in the
tank hydraulic test section of the optimization tool. (This works for static
cleaning devices only)

7.4.3.2 Multi axis rotating jet devices: Requiring low volume (50% less) and
higher feed pressure of ideally 5 bar , these devices are designed to rotate
and spin providing a 3 dimensional full coverage pattern of the vessel
directing pressure to all parts of the vessel (except shadows unless you
depend on a ricochet which the operating pressure of this device may
provide). With the increased pressure it is possible to reduce the time and
concentration of chemical during cleaning. It is not true that you can reduce
the amount of flush and interface rinsing water any less than what you can
with a spray ball or single axis rotating device. It is still unclear (and being
tested) if this device will actually increase interface losses due to the fact
that falling media may “contaminate” cleaned surfaces created below as a
result of the rotating nature of the machine. Having said this and because in
fermenters the time saved has relatively low value (30mins in a 6-9 day
cycle) and is easy to recover this loss without real money being wasted.
The detergent strength can still be reduced to a minimum using additional
time and because this time has low value it is not going to be easy to justify
the replacement of an existing device with a high pressure device on the
basis of chemical, and time saving. The only way this sort of application
would be entertained is if you have a vessel with diameter > 5m and you
have an existing static cleaning device that was unable to clean the vessel.
 Then in this case one would need to evaluate this type of technology
against 7.4.3.3 the single axis rotating spray cleaning devices. These are
the only devices where one can have confidence in the rinse water sample
indicating the cleanliness of all vessel surfaces.

7.4.3.3 The following discussion is more general but using data for such devices
installed in breweries

 The device will not work if it is not rotating. If you have one it is
advisable, that you are able to monitor the fact it is rotating
automatically else simple regular inspection (easy to hear in the cellar)
is necessary. They must be easily removable, preventive maintenance
is recommended every 300 -500 working hours depending on supplier.
Using the device for 1- 2 hour every 7-9 days, which means you are
using the device 52 hours per year so maintenance is every 6 -9 years.
It is possible for foreign material to block early designs but the situation
is hence more likely with static devices. In either case simple strainers
in the CIP system should protect this from occurring.

 Pressure range at the spraying device (Note if the gauge is at ground

level you will be under-reading by the static head in the pipe to the top
of the tank): Pressure should be set with the supplier on the basis of
your own tank dimensions. The tendency can be to run too high
pressure but the value of this pressure and resulting extra flow is
questionable. For example if we assume you need impact only at the
yeast ring this is more or less the diameter of the tank so again using
5m diameter you need an impact length of approx. 3m only. See point
A on the diagram below which shows that for most of our tanks we
“could operate as low as 3 bar, and achieve “effective” impact on the
yeast ring and a throw length of still 8m. Each supplier provides data
sheets showing required pressure, flow, cycle and pattern times and jet
length for every device. It will be useful to test that your device was
purchased for the correct design and operation for optimal cleaning
and consumption. Note some rotating devices are not self-cleaning
designs if you have a device that is not self-cleaning ensure that you
inspect the downpipe for potential hygienic risk.
 A

 Flow rate: You needn’t satisfy the GBS standard of 15 - 35 hl/hr/m of

circumference as this is set for static cleaning devices. Agree the
operating pressure with the supplier and this will determine the flow
rate required. So for example below if 5 Bar is agreed then the flow
would correspond to 160hl/hr as shown on the chart below use the
VSD pump to regulate this flow. Notes: The pressure is not the
pressure at the CIP pump but at the cleaning device; if the flow is

correct you should achieve the pressure by default. The pressure at

the pump will include the friction and head losses. Different size tanks
 ideally would work with different set points. And particularly if you are
servicing tanks on different floors in a building.

 Spray pattern: Can sometimes be generically simulated by the supplier

with software for similar tanks.. Very important to understand is the
difference between a full cycle compared to a pattern. Whilst it can
take over 10mins to complete a cycle it may only need 2.5 mins of
pattern time to rinse a vessel. In practice many devices have 4 or
overlaying patterns giving increasing density of impact. However jet
spread at point of impact means the first flush may only require 2
patterns whilst the main detergent stage would need 2 full cycles.
When it comes to “burst rinsing” in detailed studies done with Alfa
Laval they have proved it is possible to rinse heavily soiled tanks
(yoghurt and other material) with as little as 2.8 hl. You do not need to
have full contact to effectively rinse the vessel. What we do not
understand as yet is what the effect of the rotating device is on “purity”
of the interface management as a result of clean water and media on
the tank wall mixing. We will undertake this in trials with a brewery with
this type of device. Dreher has single axis rotating spray cleaning
devices similar to 7.4.3.3 where no issues were detected.

7.4.3.4 Single axis rotating spray cleaning devices: These are designed to
rotate directing a “curtain” or “fan” of media onto the tank walls, typically
with more pressure than a static device but not as much at a rotating jet
device. Flow is typically directed to the “yeast ring” ot the fermenting level of
the tank and the top dome of the vessel where more mechanical cleaning is
applied while the rest of the vessel is cleaned by falling film similar to a
static cleaning device but with a spiral effect caused by the rotation. Again
these are specifically designed for the application and the detail set up must
be discussed with the supplier. Similar to multi axis rotating jets we will
illustrate the device family with a typical device found in European
Breweries, the GEA / Tuchenhagen VARIPURE Rotating Cleaner Type 2E
type C1 similar to that used in Dreher, Plzen and other breweries: (beware
there are many variations that look similar but from the part number very
easily identify the specifics) This equipment is designed for vessels up to
10m in diameter (odd as we are only 5-6m dia) 3 nozzles 230 – 240hl/hr at
3.7 bar. Other suppliers sell similar solutions.
7.4.3.5 .

 The device will not work if it is not rotating. If you have one, we
recommend that you are able to monitor the fact it is rotating
automatically else regular inspection is necessary. They must be easily
removable, and routine maintenance tasks established. Since the
cleaning slot is large they are unlikely to block and any failure with the
external geared drive can normally be repaired if access to the tank top
is easy.

 Pressure range at the spraying device (Note if the gauge is at ground

level you will be under-reading by the static head in the pipe to the top
of the tank) typically 2.7 to 4.2 bar depending on the design.
 Flow rate: You still need to satisfy the GBS standard of 15 - 35 hl/hr/m
of circumference as the vessel walls below the rotating fan are cleaned
by a falling film of media, but note that the flow is not directed to the
whole circumference so the total flow is typically 30% lower than a
static device. An advantage of this type of falling film is that it falls in a
“spiral” improving its effectiveness. Set the required flow as per the
manufacturer recommendations and the optimizing guide will tell you if
the flow rate satisfies the GBS standard. If there is a problem you can
go back to the manufacturer for guidance and if still out of standard
refer this to the HUB process engineering team for resolution. Use the
VSD on the supply pump to regulate this flow. Note different size tanks
ideally would work with different set points.

You will see from the picture above that if the side wall fan is to
contact the yeast ring the depth of the device in the tank is very
important and may not be 1m (as shown) if you have 25% head
space. Inspecting your situation & setting this up properly with the
supplier is critical. If you partially fill the tank (2 instead of 3 brews)
you may also have problems so inspect after such situations by
looking specifically at the yeast ring areas.

 Spray Pattern: As this is also a rotating device you need to be careful

setting up the volume used during “burst” rinsing. We have not done
specific testing with the suppliers of this device but during trials with the
type C1 device we have observed good rinsing with bursts of 5hl. It
should be possible to do this with less and breweries are advised to do
these visually using progressively smaller volumes. Theoretical
minimum for a 3 500hl tank is 2.5 hl.

The following flow chart is designed to simplify your decision making:

Fig 4: Decision making support tool for cleaning devices:

What cleaning device should I use?

Install head similar

to existing tank
Will it be
Does the tank design provided no
Is this a new cleaned by an
Yes Yes differ from No micro or cleaning
Vessel existing CIP
existing design? issues directly
plant?
related to the
choice of device
No Yes

Install A single axis rotating Install A single axis rotating

device if FV, SV, BBT or device if FV, SV, BBT or
Spray ball if other small process Spray ball if other small process Note if your vessel has internals e.g. Agitator discuss the application with
No vessel, unless internals. vessel HUB process engineering.
Design CIP supply & return to Design CIP supply & return to
match head design. match head design.

Does it have a Does it have a

Does it have a
Multi axis rotating No Single axis rotating No
Static Spray Ball
device? device?

yes

Correct Correct Correct

Is it correctly installed & Is it correctly installed & Is the tank Diameter Is it correctly installed &
installation & installation & installation &
maintained in compliance No maintained in compliance No (vertical tanks) > No maintained in compliance No
inspection inspection inspection
with GBS / OEM with GBS / OEM 5.5m with GBS / OEM
disciplines disciplines disciplines
requirements requirements requirements

See CIP “system See CIP “system See CIP “system yes
check” Tool check” Tool check” Tool

Still issues
yes yes Yes achieving a
clean tank?

Continue to use Continue to use Replace with a

Continue to use
Single axis rotating No
Multi axis rotary single axis rotary Static Spray Ball
device device device
7.4.4 Vessel Low level Switches: Sounds easy but take care. The switch must be
positioned at a point where the vessel is empty when the switch registers
empty. There is a lot (2hl in a 3 500hl tank) which could be “held” up in the
tank, the CIP return pump is normally sized larger than the feed to ensure
there is not “pooling” when you don’t want it. If this is the case good
programming practice would be to allow time for the vessel to drain off the
walls then start return pump and change step at low level. Sometimes there is
“surging” as a result of air trapped, make sure that the low level is consistently
achieved before changing step. If this does not work well your interface losses
will not be optimized effectively.

7.4.5 CIP Pumps:

7.4.5.1 CIP Return: This pump will need to deal with a mixture of air and liquid and
hence must be designed to deal with this. A conventional centrifugal pump
will not work effectively; a liquid ring pump (self-priming pump) must be
installed. Also the capacity must be greater than the supply and designed to
achieve velocity to clean the outlet pipe. Controlling the start / stop of this
pump will then allow you to flood the outlet pipe and empty the pool,
ensuring that the whole bore is effectively flooded with velocity to clean this
pipe. Back flushing will not be required if this is designed correctly unless
there is some anomaly before defaulting to back flushing discuss the issues
with HUB process engineering. Suction line pressure drop can seriously
affect the performance of these pumps; ensure that the hydraulics is
properly engineered to ensure pump design performance. Careful, if the
level switch does not switch effectively, it’s possible that the return pump
will run with a half full pipe and the capacity of the pump will drop effectively
finishing the cycle without ever effectively filling the tank outlet pipe.

7.4.5.2 CIP Supply Pump: The system pressure drop due to friction in different
length and size pipes and different heights (or levels in a building) of tanks
will change the flow generated if you are using a fixed speed pump. This is
why it is essential that a variable speed pump is used to supply the CIP
media. If the pressure losses are very different (cleaning a small buffer tank
30 hl compared to a 4 000 hl FV) one pump may not perform this duty or it
will do it very inefficiently. Pump pressure drop calculations are specialized,
we are not suggesting you try this but if you are experiencing hydraulic
problems, (hammer, low output Hz to the pump, low / high pressure) have a
pump specialist come and review your pump system hydraulics. This is also
a small electrical energy saving opportunity.

7.4.6 Tank top Fittings: Detail to follow

8 Choice of Primary Clean & Detergents.

The recommended solution has been derived with the objective of not compromising
the quality of clean but ensuring lowest total cost. The most effective way of cleaning
organic soils is by dissolution with sodium hydroxide and this is also cost effective
however CO2 removal can account for 80% of the total cost and this is also a time
consuming step. This motivates the use of acid detergents but basic acid detergents
are not sustainable in keeping heavily organically soiled vessels clean and organic
acid formulations are expensive. The recommended solution uses the best of both
the organic removal by a small amount of dilute caustic which does not require the
expensive CO2 removal step but offers a cheap robust way of ensuring removal of
most of the organic contamination before the use of simple acid formulations that are
used to do the cleaning. It is also a way of minimizing time to CO2 collection. The
decision tree below will guide you through the choice of primary clean

Fig 5: Decision making flow chart to determine choice of primary clean.

Selection of Vessel
Primary CIP Regime

Unless the system

Is access to the
Yes can be economically
vessel required
changed
Disagree / Redo Calcs.

No

Plan to Install Document Reasons

Can the vessel be backpressure Can these reasons why not and share
Calculate payback of blower vs
cleaned under CO2 No device, check be overcome cost No with Hub Agree electrical and time savings
top pressure? vessel vacuum effectively? Engineering
design

Evacuate CO2
Is a blower Is it cost effective to using
Agree No No
installed? install a blower? compressed air

Perform
modifications Yes Share vacuum  Ensure pressure is reduced
necessary calculations with  Minimise use
Hub engineering to  Ensure safe vent practice
confirm it is not safe yes Yes
Yes

Disagree / Redo Calcs. No

Evacuate CO2
Install Blower
with Blower
Use Package
Calculator to
Can a it be done
ensure Caustic
Is the Vessel a BBT No without risk of Design as suction system
reaction with C02
vessel implosion with trap for liquid / yeast
will not risk vessel
implosion Small volumes (5hl) dilute caustic (0.5%)
Ensure system interlocked to prevent over
injection of caustic

SV’s pre-shot regime may be water if

Yes rotary device. Treat Unitank as FV
Typically this solution for BBT’s, additional pre-shot may be required.
Inspect & Deep clean caustic & acid if Deep clean acid twice / ann
Deep clean with caustic twice / ann
required

Use Package Solution Primary Acid Cleaning Use Package Solution (Caustic
process where caustic pre-shot replaced Pre-shots followed by Acid Primary Clean using Alkaline
with recovered water / water. Cleaning)

Now with the primary cleaning process decided the issue becomes the choice of
chemicals. For the caustic pre-shot there is no need for any additional formulation
straight sodium hydroxide can be used. Similarly for the acid cleaning a phosphoric
nitric blend as approved in the flow sheet below is used unless there are legal /
environmental or material constraints which are also dealt with in the flow chart
below.
Fig 6: Decision making guide for detergent choice:
9 Recommended Optimum CIP Program

The program has been tested in the Lab and in practice at Dreher and Rome
Brewery, it should not need testing of the core process but the details of burst volume
and numbers, drain times etc. will need to be set up for site conditions. The trial
report has been documented and available on request. The opportunity will only be
realizable if you get on top of the detail; make sure that when analysing your existing
program against the recommended that you ensure that the conditions to change
step are understood and are similar to that proposed other ways of doing “the same
thing” normally will not give you the same result. This is what makes or breaks a
good process, take time to analyse your process against that recommended in the
“CIP optimization tool - vo 8.xlsx” on the sheet “Recommended FV CIP program”

The way the recommended program is written is to explain the process phases e.g.
depressurize, rinse, etc… then there are steps inside each phase that go through the
activities needed to complete each process phase. In the following paragraphs the
detail expanding on why and how each process is completed is explained.
9.1 Tank Depressurization and CO2 removal: The GBS C&S standards are
clear to explain the risk of tank collapse due to vacuum and the loss of caustic
performance due to its reaction with the CO2. However a few problems arise:
the cost of removal of the CO2 the delay to remove it, the delay to collection of
CO2 the loss of CO2 in BBT & SV with consequential risk of dissolved oxygen
pick up. If we chose to clean with acid the rinse steps are less effective in acid
environments and the acid material losses are consequentially high. See “CIP
optimization tool - vo 8.xlsx” on the sheet “caustic chemistry” the cost to
neutralize all the CO2 is huge $ 550 and if compressed air is used with
Europe energy prices costs in the order of $120 for a 3 500hl vessel. You
could reduce the cost of compressed air by using a blower but… Ecolab has
 shown in testing and literature that acidified rinsing is less effective (see
appendix 1.) and that burst rinsing with dilute caustic can be performed very
effectively without CO2 removal. We have shown that with the use of only 5-
7kg of caustic in the burst rinses that traces of caustic are still in the drained
media. At maximum only 4 kg’s of CO2 is neutralized and the carbonates
produced still provide very effective rinsing. What this means is that the tank
does not even need to be depressurized and that the vessel could be put
directly on to CO2 collection as soon as its next filled (provided wasteful
aeration is not used to aerate wort). This further reduces the risk of implosion.
This has saved 1 hour in the Dreher case and in the order of $100/CIP in
compressed air.

9.2 Vessel Rinse & Caustic “Pre-shots”: As discussed above it is not

necessary to remove CO2 before rinsing. Dilute caustic has been proved to be
very effective in removing the soil during rinsing, especially if applied in bursts
(enough to wet the walls + a bit) with time to contact and drain. However it is
important that we limit the concentration and volume also to eliminate the risk
of collapse. You must check the “critical” limit of the tank using the calculator
in “CIP optimization tool - vo 8.3.xlsx” on the sheet “vessel vacuum check” to
ensure that in your case you are well within the safe limits of the tank, but also
check your vacuum valves are functional and not stuck shut with wort. Before
you implement a “pre-shot” program this must be done and documented with
a clear strategy on how you will limit the caustic addition to ensure no failure.
Do not be unduly worried about this risk; it is safe; provided these precautions
are taken. Using pre-shots there are three important parameters to manage.
We have measured caustic in the second and third pre-shots with single axis
devices so not all reacts with CO2. This may be different with static devices as
the surface area presented for reaction. Set the concentration of caustic
solution to 0.5-0.7%. The water in the line from the previous CIP is displaced
with the caustic solution with a measured volume that takes the caustic to the
tank cleaning device but not into the tank, drain the tank; then push a
measured volume in to the tank at the correct pressure (for our sample tank
380 litres.) After pre-shot supply we need effect time. Caustic flows down on
the wall and chemical reactions runs meanwhile. It takes minimum three
minutes to come down to the outlet of the tank. Set this time as an effective
pause time between pre-shots. Three pre-shots should be enough but this
may vary especially if the tank is horizontal or a unitank where the material
has had longer to dry on the tank wall. This entire media goes to drain. The
picture below shows how each shot changed visually. Chemically we move
from all carbonate to some traces of caustic on the 3rd shot. (more detail is
contained in the Ecolab report)
The 3 caustic shots are followed with recovered water shots to finally prepare
the vessel for acid cleaning. Visual inspections between caustic shots and
water shots will help you determine the optimum number but keep the volume
of each shot as small as possible ensuring proper wetting and flow during the
shot. Soil left in the tank at the end of the rinse phase will end up in the acid
tank reducing its life, effectiveness and increasing loss. In the case of SV’s
even though the soil remaining in the vessel is not as much as FV’s it is
recommended to still use the caustic pre-shot method but the mass of caustic
can be reduced. In BBT’s however as the soil is easily rinsed recovered water
can be used in the place of the caustic shot (excluding unfiltered beers)..
 9.3 Acid Cleaning: The critical part here is the interface management (or phase
separation). What we mean is essentially making sure you avoid mixing water
& acid and that you return as much of the acid you put into circulation back
into the acid tank. Management is won or lost with careful measurement of
the volume put into the system to displace water, ensuring the tank is
completely empty before acid is put into the tank then careful selection of the
set point for the conductivity measurement in the return line and that this
instrument has the capability, is calibrated, and is reliable. The process must
be controlled in discrete steps as sown in the fig below.

Step 1 – Fill the line to the

tank cleaning device with the
next media (water / pre-shot / Step 2 – Media in line
acid) Exact volume measure displaced into tank.
is critical to ensure losses Allow time to contact
minimum: End step is if pre-shot, or drain if
volume.. Target Vessel
other media (min 3
mins)
End step is time..

Detergent or Water

LSL
FE

LS
depending on phase
CIP Supply Pump FQI

Step 3 – Media in tank is

displaced to media tank or CIP Return
drain depending on phase.
Drain / Recovery
Ensure level physically
empty including tank walls.
End step is level..

9.3.1 Acid to the tank: You must have the calculated volume for each tank. The
“CIP optimization tool - vo 8.xlsx” on the sheet “hydraulic check tank” will
help you calculate this. The CIP program must work to use this volume for the
specific tank that is to be cleaned to “push” acid to the tank cleaning device.
Less / more volume will put acid into the tank which will mix with water there
or too little will mean water left in the line will be pushed with acid into the tank
mixing and diluting there (note the same discipline is required in the pre-shot
process.)

9.3.2 Tank Pooling / CIP pump control: For tank cleaning you don’t want to have
a pool in the tank else you risk not cleaning the surface under the level
effectively and creating a “scum” ring. This is why the CIP return pump is
designed with capacity greater than the supply pump and with capability to
deal with a mixture of air and liquid. However this creates a problem where
you may not effectively clean the outlet pipe if it is not completely flooded.
This is why the return pump should be controlled to stop & start during the
“scavenging” process to achieve the best of both. However as mentioned in
7.4.5 there may still be a problem this is why we must inspect this piping
internally and if you are one of the rare exceptions and don’t achieve clean
 piping please bring this to the attention of HUB process engineering to work
out a solution with you.

9.3.3 Conductivity Analysis Control: By minimizing the mixing in the tank with
careful volume control to tank and tank emptying by careful control or the CIP
return pump; the last step of interface management is the precise control of
switching from recovered water or drain to the acid tank, get it wrong and you
will lose masses of detergent, and water. Do not under estimate the
importance of getting the factors discussed in 7.3.7 right and setting the
correct set points for increasing concentration (phase separation up SU) and
decreasing concentration (phase separation down SD) (see graphic display
below)

Careful selection of set points (the limit of concentration or conductivity where

the controller decides where to switch the flow) are of crucial importance! In
the Dreher test case the conductivity of the acid cleaning solution was 21
mS/cm, and both set points (SU and SD) were set at 14 mS/cm. With
subsequent cleaning of an individual fermentation tanks the team found that a
set point 8 mS/cm was the most effective during transition from rinse water to
acid (SU) and even lower in case of transition from acid solution to final rinse
water (SD). If SU is too low we collect more dirt in our CIP tank and also we
dilute it unnecessarily, if SU is too high, we lose too much cleaning solution.
We suggest the lowest achievable SD level; the limit will be at a point where
below this you start to overflow the recovered water tank. The only way you
can determine these optimum set points is to be measuring your loss of acid
as a consequence of a % of the total acid put into circulation and as a % of
the total acid in the tank see section 9.3.5. This calculation is done for you in
the CIP optimization tool. You must also inspect the quality of your acid
recovered as if your pre-shot program is not working effectively you will bring
organic material back into the acid tank and spoil it dumping a tank of acid
because its foaming or does not clean is a very expensive situation.

9.3.4 Sanitizers: (See appendix for a side by side comparison)

At the time of writing the direction is to move from per-acetic type sanitizers to
chlorine dioxide (ClO2). This move is driven by the opportunity to save rinse
 water which is required to rinse strong oxidizing sanitizers from the vessel
post sanitization, its low cost and solid efficacy. The use of ECA based
solutions are still being investigated and at this time not recommended due to
total cost of ownership reasons. There are however important limitations to
ClO2’s use that must be understood. The fault tree in fig 7 below is intended to
aid the choice of material.
9.3.4.1 Increased corrosion risk: This can be managed by controlling chloride
levels below 100ppm and ensuring no chance of concentration of these
ions. Increasing temperature beyond ambient is not recommended.
Selection of the correct materials up to and including the point where the
ClO2 is diluted. Post this; quality 304L welded using the correct standards is
perfectly acceptable.
9.3.4.2 Limited ClO2 solubility and low stability: You cannot increase solubility
beyond recommended levels (target 0.8ppm in sprayed systems 2ppm in
closed systems) this is much lower FAC / sanitizing power than other
sanitizer types. It is also a very unstable product especially in the presence
of organic material. If a system is not properly cleaned or there is risk that
material cannot be properly removed due to poor hygienic design or some
failure in the process control; the ClO2 in solution will rapidly be consumed
before it can do its task of sanitization. Using ClO2 in these situations micro
infection risk is high. Ensure your tanks are being cleaned effectively before
any change and there are no hygienic gaps that still exist in your system.
New validation techniques are being tested but in the meantime use visual
inspection and soil ID tests explained in the C&S manual GLT.BR.ST.01/3.
Note also the risk when using a static spray ball may also be elevated.
Storage of generated ClO2 in water clean solutions beyond 4hours is not
recommended.
9.3.4.3 Tank and system materials. See the flow chart. ClO2 cannot be used in
systems which contain copper materials and in applications with a
Munkadur or similar lining the supplier’s approval must be sought.

Fig 7: Decision guide for the choice of sanitizer.

 This fault tree is generally for all cold process vessels i.e.
Sanitizer choice downstream of brewhouse. It is essential that the hygienic design
aspects are evaluated as per CIP Process Optimization Tool vo
While there are no WHO / Implement and use
4.1.xls and GLT.GRP.06.1 Audit Doc Environmental Hygiene - Ver 0
EU guidelines organics in compromise solution
COD >10 in incoming water affect the only till complete. - 30 Nov 09
Yes
incoming water? efficacy of sanitizers and it Adjust concentrations Any micro failures must be formally solved against the context of
is recommended water is to suit avoid use of the full CIP Optimization process to ensure root cause is identified
treated to < 10 COD ClO2
before changes to the sanitizing or CIP solution
No
SABMiller makes no claims
Absorbable organic
with respect to sanitization
halogen compounds
Legal / so the EU legislation with
may be an issue verify
Environmental respect to 98/8 is not Limitations on Agree with Implement and use
Yes Yes their limits but at
Limitations applicable but sites should recommended? HUB agreed solution.
their concentration in
use products registered
combined effluent.
Annex 1. Other countries
No Watch ECA
verify local No

Trimeta DUO application

Is there copper No Cl2, ClO2, Non Oxidative SOPURCLEAN CIP
Yes where a higher cleaning Divosan OSA-N
in system PAA, OCl- Organic Acids OP
effect (FV or SV) Trimeta
BBT for lower soiling
No

Is there
Aluminium in Yes No OCl- ClO2, PAA
system

No

Is there No
ClO2, PAA, OCl-
Munkadur or Yes Unapproved
other lining products

No

Discuss with
Any outstanding
Yes supplier. Agree Oxonia Active DIVOSAN ACTIV VT5 Sopuroxid 15
hygienic gaps
with HUB

No

1-2 ppm ClO2

9.3.5 Detergent Loss Measurement: Don’t measure it you can’t control it and you
won’t know if your optimization process is working. In the “CIP optimization
tool - vo 8.3.xlsx” on the sheet “detergent loss calculator” there is a tool to
help you measure this loss you should set yourself an aspirational target of
2% (acid loss as percentage of total acid in the tank at the start) loss for tanks,
but don’t get hung up on this, understand where you are and note the impact
of the changes in set point in discussed in 9.3.3 which affect your loss,
similarly they are a good guide if your volume control to tank and CIP return
pump control is good.

10 Planning Opportunities:

During off peak times where vessels may not be required for immediate use
after cleaning and sanitization it will be sensible to clean the vessel immediately
on emptying but hold the sanitization until the vessel is ready for use, then
decide based on time standing weather you just sanitize before use or re-clean
and sanitize. This is also the best time to do through vessel inspections and the
alternate deep cleans where these are required. It is highly recommended that
you keep quality photographic evidence of difficult to access difficult to clean
surfaces so that you can keep continuity year after year as people and thinking
change…
Appendix

1. Water pre-rinse – solubility of proteins

Water is an important KPI for ABEL; a key driver is to save as much water as possible. Ecolab
has experience from the field that pre-rinse with water in CO2 atmosphere causes more
headache than brings any advantage. Do we need water rinse? It was the first question.
The answer is given by the characters of beer proteins and the way they behave in weak acid
environments. In beer there is an average of 500 mg/litre proteinaceous material. Native
proteins, i.e. proteins in their natural form, are already soluble in a medium alkaline pH-range of
about pH 12. Due to their amphoteric character it is also possible to dissolve them in acids. In a
weakly acid pH-range between pH 4 - 6 proteins reach their solubility minimum. Within this
range each protein has a specific pH-value at which it is nearly insoluble. This point is termed
the iso-electric point. A protein precipitated at this iso-electric point remains in a state of poor
solubility and is extremely difficult to remove with both alkaline and acid cleaners. Whenever
dealing with proteinaceous soil, this critical pH-range must be avoided, with special regard to
pre-rinse water!
Isoelectric points of the most common beer proteins:

 protein Z (albumin) - major protein in beer – pH 5.5-5.8

 protein T (globulin-tannin) – pH 6.4
 protein C (albumin) – pH 6
 protein O (oxyprotein or nucleoprotein) – 3.9

Rinsing with water in CO2 atmosphere cause a formulation of carbonic acid and depending on
the pressure it decreases the pH of the media down to a “dangerous” range. It is with this in
mind that a pre-rinse with water in most cases is not necessary.

2. Effect of water hardness on acid consumption

Theoretical background
The quantity of dissolved inorganic compounds in water is expressed by hardness. If the hardness of
the water is 1 dGH (17.8 ppm as CaCO3 hardness) the amount of calcium and magnesium salts in 1
liter water is 10 mg (CaO equivalent).

Reactions
In CIP application among dissolved minerals the temporary hardness is essential because they
generate reactions with CIP acids or in case of precipitation repeated dissolution use acid as well.
The temporary hardness caused by (Ca(HCO3)2) and (Mg(HCO3)2), they react with class 2 acid on the
basis of the following formula:

Ca(HCO3)2+2HNO3=Ca(NO3)2+2H2CO3
Mg(HCO3)2+2HNO3=Mg(NO3)2+2H2CO3
3Ca(HCO3)2+2H3PO4 =Ca3(PO4)2+6H2CO3
3Mg(HCO3)2+2H3PO4=Mg3(PO4)2+6H2CO3
 or in case of precipitation:

CaCO3+2HNO3= Ca(NO3)2+H2CO3
MgCO3+2HNO3= Mg(NO3)2+H2CO3
3CaCO3+2H3PO4= Ca3(PO4)2+3H2CO3
3MgCO3+2H3PO4= Mg3(PO4)2+3H2CO3

The stronger acid displaces the weaker from its salt. The formulated carbon acid decomposes into
carbon dioxide and water:

H2CO3=H2O+CO2

Acid consumption
From the reaction equation and from the meaning of hardness the following conclusions can be
drawn: in case the hardness of the water is 17.8 ppm as CaCO3 hardness (1 dGH) it means that 1 m3
water contains 10 g of CaO, which will react with 22,5 g of nitric acid or with 11,66 g of phosphoric
acid. In case of calculating only with nitric acid the acid consumption is 0.45% in 1 m 3 CIP tank.
Transferring the result onto class 2 acid the consumption is 0,9 % due to its composition (mixture of
nitric and phosphoric acid). With other words we could say that every single hardness degree results
1% of acid decomposition (class 2 phosphoric & nitric mix) in CIP solution.

3. Measurement Instrumentation Details

See Detail in the package for inline systems where this data is maintained.
4. Side by side comparison of Sanitizers courtesy of Ecolab