Yearbook 2013/2014 - ehedg

EHEDG
Yearbook 2013/2014
European Hygienic
Engineering & Design Group

EHEDG
Yearbook 2013/2014
European Hygienic
Engineering & Design Group

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Contents
Articles
Page
Greeting from the President, Knuth Lorenzen, EHEDG President 5
News from the Treasurer, Piet Steenaard, EHEDG Treasurer 6
News from the Secretariat, Susanne Flenner, EHEDG Secretariat 7
EHEDG Executive Committee members 8
EHEDG Company and Institute members 10
EHEDG membership 15
Test and Certification Institutes 16
Legal requirements for hygienic design in Europe, by Hans-Werner Bellin, BELLINconsult 17
The importance of hygienic design: A process facility case study and checklist, 20
by Carolina López Arias, Kraft-Foods España (part of Mondelēz International)
Solving concrete kerb challenges to ensure hygiene and food safe wall protection 26
in manufacturing environments, by Nick Van den Bosschelle, PolySto
Hexagonal tile floors: The hygienic foundation of production areas, 28
by Volker Aufderhaar, Argelith Bodenkeramik
Research on hygienic flooring systems: Particle and VOC emissions, 30
chemical and biological resistance, and cleanability,
by Markus Keller and Udo Gommel, Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering
and Automation IPA, Department of Ultraclean Technology and Micromanufacturing
Hygienic design of floor drainage components, by Martin Fairley, ACO Technologies plc 42
Hygienic design of high performance doors for utilisation in the food industry, 47
by Daniel Grüttner-Mierswa, Albany Door Systems GmbH
Performance testing of air filters for hygienic environments: 50
Standards and guidelines in the 21st century,
by Thomas Caesar, Freudenberg Filtration Technologies SE & Co. KG
Spray cleaning systems in food processing machines and the simulation of CIP-coverage tests, 54
by André Boye, Marc Mauermann, Daniel Höhne, Jens-Peter Majschak, Fraunhofer Application Center
for Processing Machinery and Packaging Technology AVV, and Technische Universität Dresden,
Faculty of Computer Science, Institute of Software- and Multimedia-Technology, Dresden, Germany
Environmentally friendly water based surface disinfectants, 60
by Stephan Mätzschke, BIRFOOD GmbH & Co. KG
Flow behaviour of liquid jets impinging on vertical walls, 66
by Ian Wilson, Tao Wang and John F. Davidson, Department of
Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge
Optimisation of tank cleaning, by René Elgaard, Alfa Laval Tank Equipment A/S 70
Effective tank and vessel cleaning: How different systems can help meet today’s demands, 76
by Falko Fliessbach, GEA Breconcherry
Practical considerations for cleaning validation, by Hein Timmerman, Diversey 83
Integrated hygienic tamper-free production, by Stefan Åkesson, Tetra Pak 85
Damage scenarios for valves: Identifying the potential for optimisation, 87
by Willi Wiedenmann, Krones AG
Infection-free preparation of bacterial cultures, by Ludger Hilleke, amixon GmbH 92
Modern level detection and measurement technologies, by Daniel Walldorf, Baumer GmbH 94

Contents 3
An example of the development process of hygienic process sensors: A hygienic level switch, 96
by Holger Schmidt, Endress+Hauser
Storage in silos and pneumatic conveying of milk powder with up to 60% fat content, 99
by Hermann Josef Linder, Solids Solutions Group, S.S.T.-Schüttguttechnik Maschinenbau GmbH
Material and design optimisation calculated by EHEDG: Tubing systems, 103
by Torsten Köcher, Dockweiler AG
Improved hygienic design and performance of food conveyor belts, by Olaf Heide, Habasit AG 106
Smart hygienic solutions for the food industry, 108
by Peter Uttrup, Interroll España S.A and Lorenz G. Koehler, Interroll (Schweiz) AG
Examination of food allergen removal from two flat conveyor belts, 110
by Zhinong Yan, Gary Larsen, Roger Scheffler, and Karin Blacow. Intralox, L.L.C.
The future of food-grade lubrication, by Taco Mets, Van Meeuwen Groep B.V. 115
Hygienic automation technology in food production, by Alexander Wagner, Festo AG & Co. KG 117
Cleanability test of a hygienic design-compatible washer, 120
by Julia Eckstein, Application Consultant, Freudenberg Process Seals GmbH & Co. KG
Aspects of compounding rubber materials for contact with food and pharmaceuticals, 122
by Anders G. Christensen, AVK GUMMI A/S
New developments for upgrading stainless steel to improve 124
corrosion resistance and increase equipment hygiene,
by Siegfried Piesslinger-Schweiger, POLIGRAT GmbH
International Hygienic Study Award 2012, by Peter Golz, VDMA 128
EHEDG Regional Sections 130
EHEDG Armenia 132
EHEDG Belgium 133
EHEDG Czech Republic 134
EHEDG Denmark 135
EHEDG France 136
EHEDG Germany 137
EHEDG Italy 138
EHEDG Japan 140
EHEDG Lithuania 141
EHEDG Macedonia 141
EHEDG Mexico 144
EHEDG Netherlands 145
EHEDG Russia 147
EHEDG Serbia 148
EHEDG Spain 148
EHEDG Switzerland 150
EHEDG Taiwan 150
EHEDG Thailand 151
EHEDG Turkey 152
EHEDG Ukraine 153

4 Contents
EHEDG Guidelines 154
EHEDG Congresses 163
EHEDG Subgroups 164
EHEDG Subgroup “Air Handling” 164
EHEDG Subgroup “Hygienic Building Design” 165
EHEDG Subgroup “Chemical Treatment of Stainless Steel” 166
EHEDG Subgroup “Cleaning Validation” 167
EHEDG Subgroup “Conveyor Systems” 168
EHEDG Subgroup “Dry Materials Handling” 168
EHEDG Subgroup “Fish Processing” 169
EHEDG Subgroup “Materials of Construction for Equipment in Contact with Food “ 170
EHEDG Subgroup “Hygienic Design of Meat Processing Equipment” 170
EHEDG Subgroup “Open Equipment” 171
EHEDG Subgroup “Pumps, Homogenisers and Dampening Devices” 172
EHEDG Subgroup “Seals” 172
EHEDG Subgroup “Separators” 173
EHEDG Subgroup “Tank Cleaning” 173
EHEDG Subgroup “Test Methods” 174
EHEDG Subgroup “Training and Education” 175
EHEDG Subgroup “Valves” 176
EHEDG Subgroup “Welding” 177
EHEDG application forms 178
Imprint 180

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Greeting from the President
Knuth Lorenzen, President of the European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group (EHEDG),
E-mail: knuth.lorenzen@ehedg.org
EHEDG values the cooperation and positive relationship
with 3-ASSI (www.3-a.org). In our shared commitment we
work together to advance hygienic equipment design. Both
organisations exchange their draft guidelines and standards.
The contents of all EHEDG guidelines are cross-referenced
with those of the 3-ASSI standards and are summarised in
a matrix. In order to ‘talk the same language’ and to further
harmonise the documents, EHEDG and 3-ASSI experts
have jointly drafted the new issue of the EHEDG Glossary.
To complement the scope of our services, we offer you
seminars, symposia and workshops worldwide which impart
and disseminate the EHEDG Hygienic Engineering & Design
expertise.
The core business of the EHEDG, Hygienic Engineering &
Design, is still an unknown territory for many target groups.
State-of-the-art machinery and processing plant can only
fulfil the today’s needs of the food industry and meet with
the existing legal requirements if they are designed, built,
installed and maintained according to hygienic design
principles.
University graduates are highly qualified experts trained to
solve complex engineering tasks and they are expected
to design and build innovative machinery that is safe to
operate. Nevertheless they are often unaware of Hygienic
Engineering & Design as it is not a mandatory part of their
course contents.
Machines used in the food industry need to be safe and
highly productive, but at the same time they have to meet
food hygiene requirements.
In answer to these needs, the EHEDG expert network
was established to close the existing knowledge gaps
by developing teaching aids for practical use as well as
education material for students, engineers and operators
who are interested in learning more about the field of
hygienic design & engineering.
The specific and profound EHEDG expertise is collated in our
guidelines, in our training material and in other publications
which are developed by our motivated volunteers – all of
them aiming to raise the awareness in food hygiene worldwide.
EHEDG training courses on hygienic engineering & design
are meanwhile offered by various authorised institutes and
universities in Denmark, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands,
Spain, Thailand, UK and in the USA. Attendees who
successfully passed their exam are given the opportunity to
have their name published on the EHEDG webpage www.
ehedg.org.
University lecturers involved in the EHEDG are filling the
gaps in hygienic engineering & design education and have
integrated such contents in their seminars.
I invite you to benefit from our knowledge which reflects the
expertise of all volunteers involved into EHEDG, and I hereby
express my sincere thanks to these enthusiastic experts for
their tireless contribution and excellent input. Last but not
least, I should like to thank the EHEDG member companies
who support us – without them we would not be in a position
to offer our wide range of educational services.
Yours
Knuth Lorenzen
President of EHEDG

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
News from the Treasurer
Piet Steenaard, Dr. Catzlaan 19, NL-1261 CE Blaricum, e-mail: steenaard@kpnmail.nl
Apart from covering our administration costs, the positive
income was partly used for giving the growing number of
experts the possibility of joining Subgroup meetings and
EHEDG congresses. In most cases we have been able to
fund the attendance of Subgroup members without financial
back-up from a company or institute.
At the end of each year, all Regional and Subgroup Chairmen
are asked to send in their activity and budget planning for the
year to come and if in need of financial support for upcoming
EHEDG activities, we have approved most inquiries in the
past. Resulting from the growing number of Subgroups and
Regions, about 50 regular EHEDG meetings plus many local
events, workshops and training courses are held annually.
From a financial point of view, the period 2011 - 2012
was successful for the EHEDG. It was characterised by
an increase in income thanks to a significant growth in
membership and by more revenues from certification. On the
other hand, as company members benefit from downloading
the guidelines free-of-charge from the EHEDG website,
document sales have been decreasing at the same time.
Institutes have been offered an advantageous membership
fee and since then, the EHEDG has gained more universities
and institutions. This increase helps to strengthen the
scientific recognition of the EHEDG. As a result, we are now
in a position to involve more scientists into the development
of our state-of-the-art guidelines, along with our experts from
mechanical engineering with their essential know-how. Many
institutes adopt and organise our regional activities and
they translate the EHEDG guidelines and our website into
the local languages. They are active in various Subgroups
and hold seminars and workshops to disseminate EHEDG
knowledge.
The EHEDG Subgroups are ideally composed of mechanical
engineers, microbiologists, food producers and academia.
However, sometimes it is not easy to find the right experts
who can jointly provide the well-balanced and comprehensive
know-how on the topic in question. Therefore, active expert
input and EHEDG Subgroup participation on behalf of all
related industries is always highly welcome – as long as it
is considered on a basis of ‘give-and-take’. The EHEDG can
offer many benefits to the industry if it actively joins our work:
companies are offered the opportunity to feed their interests
into the discussion and they can provide influence on setting
global standards by actively contributing to the Subgroup
work. EHEDG helps to enhance the reputation of its member
companies and makes them knowledge leaders in hygienic
design and processing.
Most companies encourage and support their employees
to participate in EHEDG activities, so they can develop or
revise guidelines, training material and test methods for
equipment. We are thankful to all these companies for their
continued support.
In recent years, we brought all our Chairmen together on
the occasion of our annual Plenary Meetings to provide
updated information from EHEDG International, enhance
networking and cooperation in our fast growing organisation
and offer them an opportunity for experience exchange and
networking.
EHEDG participation in international exhibitions helps to
establish the new relationships and to expand our network
and we invite you to visit us on the occasion of e.g. Drinktec,
Anuga FoodTec and other important events.
We are interlinking more than 200 companies and 30
academic institutions. To date, about 1,000 persons have
joined the EHEDG and more than 350 experts are actively
involved in our Subgroup work. They are aiming to develop
state-of-the art documents and teaching aids for hygienically
designed machinery and equipment as well as for safe food
production processes. Any new members are welcome in
order to keep up this good work.
It was an honour and a pleasure to take care of the EHEDG
finances and to work with such highly committed people.
Piet Steenaard
EHEDG Treasurer

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
News from the Secretariat
Susanne Flenner, EHEDG Secretariat, susanne.flenner@ehedg.org
Apart from these virtual options, the EHEDG network is
real and we continue to bring the experts together in our
Subgroups to help them learn from each other. All who have
ever attended an EHEDG seminar, workshop or congress
will not only have experienced the high quality of lectures
but also the ‘EHEDG spirit’ of those who are enthusiastic in
disseminating our expertise.
In our meetings and events, you will find an open atmosphere
far away from competition. We are not only enhancing the
expert dialogue and dissemination of specific Hygienic
Design knowledge but are also streamlining our activities
and knowledge exchange with other organisations such as
our strong counterpart 3-ASSI Standards Inc. in the USA.
Having experienced a strong growth in membership and an
increasing awareness of the EHEDG for its highly recognised
expertise in the past years, this is to express our sincere
thanks to all those who are involved in our activities today –
whether on the part of our Subgroups, our Regional Sections
or our members at large who support the EHEDG work.
While global economic growth seems to be stagnating,
at EHEDG we are continuing to expand and build our
wolrdwide network in Hygienic Engineering & Design. This
continuous development is certainly seen as a success
story.
On the part of the Secretariat, we are aiming to provide
service excellence and although our organisation is lean, it is
highly efficient and we can make our experts share the knowhow
they wish to have accessible – without overloading them
with information they don’t need. A major part of the EHEDG
knowledge is available from our website with its huge data
base where additional member information is available and
where the EHEDG Subgroups build up and share their
working files.
By providing individual access rights to the different
database sections, we can help our members find exactly
what they need and want to know. The webpage is going to
be continuously built-up by additional features and add-ons
like i.e. an extended certificate database offering uploading
options to company members for their pictures and the
product information of their EHEDG-certified components.
Meanwhile, the webpage is available in 15 languages thanks
to having been translated by our regional experts. We
welcome about 8,000 visitors on the web monthly and our
Newsletter is sent out 6 times a year to keep our members
up-to-date on the most important recent and upcoming
EHEDG activities.
World-wide education in Hygienic Engineering & Design
is our credo which is well reflected by the many Regional
Sections established to date and those which are going to be
established in the future – all of them aiming to disseminate
the EHEDG know-how in their countries.
Our members do not only recognise hygienic design as a
knowledge advancement, but we help them to find design
solutions which save both cost and time by ensuring high
food safety at the same time.
About 400 EHEDG certificates issued by our accredited
testing and certification institutes to date speak their own
language. EHEDG certification is sought by many companies
as a proof of their capability in building easy to clean and
maintain equipment and machinery. The EHEDG helps
these companies to become leaders in hygienic design and
- hand in hand with our members from the food industry and
from academia - this know-how is continuously developed.
If you are not a member of the EHEDG network already, we
herewith invite you on board. Thanks again to all members for
their commitment and welcome to those who are convinced
of the benefits of joining the EHEDG after reading this book.
Contact:
Susanne Flenner
Head Office Manager
EHEDG Secretariat
Lyoner Str. 18
60528 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
Phone: +49 69 6603-1217
Fax: +49 69 6603-2217
E-mail: secretariat@ehedg.org
susanne.flenner@ehedg.org
Web: www.ehedg.org

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
EHEDG Executive Committee members
Mr Andrew Batley *
Nestlé Product Technology Center
NESTEC LTD.
SWITZERLAND
Phone (+41 31) 7 90 15 86
E-mail: andrew.batley@rdko.nestle.com
Mr Erwan Billet *
Hydiac
FRANCE
Phone (+33 61) 2 49 85 84
E-mail: e.billet@hydiac.com
Professor Olivier Cerf *
Alfort Veterinary School
FRANCE
Phone (+33 1) 43 96 70 34
E-mail: ocerf@vet-alfort.fr
Nicolas Chomel *
Laval Mayenne Technopole
EHEDG France
FRANCE
Phone (+33 243) 49 75 24
E-mail: chomel@laval-technopole.fr
Lyle W. Clem **
ESC
Electrol Specialties Company
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Phone (+972 815) 3 89-22 94
E-mail: lyleclem@att.net
Susanne Flenner ***
EHEDG Secretariat
GERMANY
Phone (+49 69) 66 03-12 17
E-mail: susanne.flenner@ehedg.org
Dr. Peter Golz *
VDMA
Fachverband Nahrungsmittelmaschinen
und Verpackungsmaschinen
GERMANY
Phone (+49 69) 66 03-16 56
E-mail: peter.golz@vdma.org
Mr Richard Groenendijk *
Stork Food & Dairy Systems B.V.
NETHERLANDS
Phone (+31 20) 6 34 86 48
E-mail: richard.groenendijk@sfds.eu
Christophe Hermon **
Conservation des Produits Agricoles
CTCPA - Centre Technique de la
FRANCE
Phone (+33 2) 40 40 47 41
E-mail: chermon@ctcpa.org
Dr. Jürgen Hofmann *
Ingenieurbüro Hofmann
Hygienic Design Experte
GERMANY
Phone (+49 8161) 8 76 87 99
E-mail: jh@hd-experte.de
Dr. John Holah *
Campden BRI
GREAT BRITAIN
Phone (+44 1386) 84 20 41
E-mail:j.holah@campden.co.uk
Jana Alicia Huth ***
EHEDG Secretariat
GERMANY
Phone (+49 69) 66 03-14 30
E-mail: jana.huth@ehedg.org
Salwa El Janati **
Lactalis RD
FRANCE
Phone (+33 24) 3 59 52 18
E-mail: salwa.eljanati@lactalis.fr
Ludvig Josefsberg *
Tetra Pak Processing Systems
SWEDEN
Phone (+46 46) 36 60 01
E-mail: ludvig.josefsberg@tetrapak.com
Mr Jacques Kastelein *
TNO - Quality of Life
NETHERLANDS
Phone (+31 30) 6 94 46 85
E-mail: jacques.kastelein@tno.nl
Huub Lelieveld *
NETHERLANDS
Phone (+3130) 2 25 38 96
E-mail: huub.lelieveld@inter.nl.net
Knuth Lorenzen *
GERMANY
Phone (+49 4173) 83 64
E-mail: knuth.lorenzen@ewetel.net
Dirk Nikoleiski *
Kraft Foods R&D Inc.
Product Protection & Hygienic Design
GERMANY
Phone (+49 89) 6 27 38 61 14
E-mail: dnikoleiski@krafteurope.com
Susanna Norrby *
Alfa Laval Tumba AB
SWEDEN
Phone (+46 85) 3 06 56 33
E-mail: susanna.norrby@alfalaval.com

EHEDG Executive Committee members 9
Andres Pascual *
ainia centro tecnológico
SPAIN
Phone (+34 96) 1 36 60 90
E-mail: apascual@ainia.es
Arno Peter *
GEA TDS GmbH
Niederlassung Büchen
GERMANY
Phone (+49 4155) 49-24 27
E-mail: arno.peter@geagroup.com
Timothy R. Rugh **
3-A Sanitary Standards, Inc.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Phone (+1 703) 7 90 02 95
E-mail: trugh@3-a.org
Satu Salo *
VTT
Industrial Contamination Control
FINLAND
Phone (+358 20) 7 22 71 21
E-mail: satu.salo@vtt.fi
Tracy Schonrock *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Phone (+1 703) 5 03 29 71
E-mail: ftracy1@cox.net
Piet Steenaard *
EHEDG Treasurer
NETHERLANDS
Phone (+31 35) 5 38 36 38
E-mail: steenaard@kpnmail.nl
Hein Timmerman *
Diversey Europe BV
BELGIUM
Phone (+32 495) 59 17 91
E-mail: hein.timmerman@sealedair.com
Dr. Gun Wirtanen *
VTT
FINLAND
Phone (+358 20) 7 22 52 22
E-mail: gun.wirtanen@vtt.fi
Mr Patrick Wouters *
Unilever Research Laboratory
NETHERLANDS
Phone (+3110) 4 60 50 28
E-mail: patrick.wouters@unilever.com
This shows the Executive Committee as listed in
December 2012:
* regular members
** liaison members
*** EHEDG Secretariat
Advertisement
ValVe Technology
TYPE EL - CLASS I
JULY 2011
We are aseptic!
Don‘t run a risk!
use the ptFe-bellow technology by rieger!
/ no dead spaces
/ long-living bellows last minimum 1.000.000 cycles
/ suitable in aseptic filling machines up to 10 Mio. cycles
gaTheR InFoRMaTIon noW! conTacT US!
gebr. Rieger gmbh & co. Kg
Phone +49 (0) 73 61/57 02-0 / e-Mail info@rr-rieger.de
MaDe In geRMany
ein Unternehmen der neUMo-ehRenBeRg-gRUPPe
www.rr-rieger.de

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
EHEDG Company and Institute members
EHEDG thanks its members for their continued support
ACO Technolgies plc,
United Kingdom
AFM Sensorik GmbH, Germany
www.aco.co.uk
www.afmsensorik.de
Aviatec, Denmark
AVK GUMMI A/S, Greece
aviatec@aviatec.dk
www.avkgummi.dk
AFRISO-EURO-INDEX GmbH,
Germany
AGORIA Federation
Multisectorielle de L’Industrie
Technologique, Belgium
Agus Innovation Sp. z o.o.,
Poland
www.afriso.de
www.agoria.be
www.agus.com.pl
AZO GmbH & Co. KG, Germany
Nordischer Maschinenbau
Rud. Baader GmbH & Co. KG,
Germany
Balluff GmbH, Germany
Bari Samaratsi LLC, Armenia
www.azo.de
www.baader.com
www.balluff.com
www.barisamaratsi.am
ainia centro tecnológico, Spain
AK System GmbH, Germany
Akvatekhavtomatika CJSC,
Austria
Albany Door Systems GmbH,
Germany
www.ainia.es
www.ak-processing.com
www.akvatekh.narod.ru
www.albint.com
Barry Callebaut Manufacturing
(UK) Ltd., United Kingdom
BASF Stavebni hmoty Ceska
republika s.r.o., Czech Republic
Baumer GmbH, Germany
Bawaco AG, Switzerland
g.benguiries@barrycallebaut.com
www.basf.com
www.baumergroup.com
www.bawaco.com
Alfa Laval Tumba AB, Sweden
Alvibra A/S, Denmark
AMEC, Spain
AMH Technologies Sdn Bhd,
Malaysia
amixon GmbH, Germany
AMMAG GmbH, Austra
www.alfalaval.com
www.alvibra.com
www.amec.es
www.amh.com.my
www.amixon.de
www.ammag.com
Birfood GmbH & Co. KG,
Germany
BJ-Gear A/S, Denmakr
Blücher Metal A/S, Denmark
Joh. Heinr. Bornemann GmbH,
Germany
Robert Bosch Packaging
TechnologyB.V., Netherlands
www.birfood.de
www.bj-gear.com
www.blucher.dk
www.bornemann.com
www.boschpackaging.com
Ammeraal Beltech srl, Italy
www.ammeraalbeltech.it
Bosch Rexroth Pneumatics
GmbH, Germany
www.boschrexroth.com
Anderol BV, Netherlands
www.anderol.com
BOSSAR - Rovema Ibérica S.A.,
Spain
www.bossar.com
Anderol Europe BV, Netherlands
Andreasen & Elmgaard A/S,
Denmark
Argelith Bodenkeramik, Germany
Armaturenbau GmbH, Germany
Armaturenwerk Hötensleben
GmbH, Germany
Arol Spa, Italy
www.anderol-europe.
comwww.chemtura.com/
petadds
www.aoge.as
www.argelith.com
www.armaturenbau.com
www.awh.de
www.arol.it
BP Biofuels UK Ltd,
United Kingdom
Brabender Technologie KG,
Germany
Brinox Engineering d.o.o., SLO
Bühler AG, Switzerland
Bürkert GmbH & Co. KG,
Germany
Burggraaf & Partners B.V.,
Netherlands
www.bp.com/biofuels
www.brabendertechnologie.com
www.brinox.si
www.buhlergroup.com
www.buerkert.com
www.burggraaf.cc
ARSOPI S.A., Portugal
www.arsopi.pt
Campden BRI
www.campden.co.uk
Aseptomag AG, Switzerland
www.aseptomag.ch
Cargill, Belgium
www.cerestar.com
Cederroth AB, Sweden
www.cederroth.com

EHEDG Company and Institute members 11
CENTA Centre of New Food
Technologies and Processes
www.centa.cat
Elmar Europe GmbH, Germany
www.elmarworldwide.com
CFT S.p.a., Italy
www.cftrossicatelli.com
Endress + Hauser Japan, Japan
www.jp.endress.com
Chronos BTH, Netherlands
www.chronosbth.com
Esenda Ingeniería, S.C., Spain
esenda@esenda.es
Ciptec Services, Finland
www.ciptec.fi
Eurobinox S.A., France
www.eurobinox.com/
Clyde Process Limited, United
Kingdom
CMS S.p.A., Italy
The Coca-Cola Company, USA
Cocker Consulting Ltd., Ireland
Consulting & Training Center KEY,
Macedonia
cool it Isoliersysteme GmbH,
Germany
Coperion Waeschle GmbH & Co.
KG, Germany
www.clydematerials.com
www.gruppocms.com
www.coca-cola.com
www.cocker.ie
www.key.com.mk
www.coolit.de
www.coperion.com
Festo AG & Co. KG
FIRDI Food Industry Research
and Development Institute,
Thailand
Food Coating Expertise SAS,
France
Food Masters Ltd. Engineering &
Equipment Supply, Israel
FRAGOL Schmierstoff GmbH+Co.
KG, Germany
Fraunhofer- Anwendungszentrum
Verarbeitungsmaschinen und
Verpackungstechnik, Germany
http://www.festo.de
www.firdi.org.tw
www.food-coating.com
www.foodmast.com
www.fragol.de
www.avv.fraunhofer.de
John Crane GmbH
Gleitringdichtungssysteme,
Germany
www.johncrane.de
Fraunhofer Institut für
Produktions-technik und
Automatisierung (IPA), Germany
www.ipa.fraunhofer.de
CSF Inox S.p.A., Italy
www.csf.it
Freudenberg Filtration
Technologies KG, Germany
www.freudenberg.dewww.
freudenberg-filter.de
Ing. Johann Daxner GmbH,
Austria
Derichs GmbH, Germany
DGL Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Lebensmittelsicherheit, Wasserund
Umwelt, Germany
www.daxner-international.
com
www.derichs.de
www.dgl-com.de
Freudenberg Process Seals
GmbH & Co. KG, Germany
Friesland Foods, Netherlands
Funke Wärmeaustauscher
Apparatebau GmbH, Germany
www.freudenberg.de www.
freudenberg-process-seals.
de
www.frieslandcampina.com
www.funke.de
DIL Deutsches Institut für
Lebensmitteltechnik e.V.,
Germany
Dinnissen BV, Netherlands
Diversey Europe BV EMA
Headquarters, Netherlands
DMN Machinefabriek
NoordwykerhoutB.V., Netherlands
Dockweiler AG, Germany
www.dil-ev.de
www.dinnissen.nl
www.diversey.com
www.dmnwestinghouse.
com
www.dockweiler.com
Galleon Rus ltd., Russia
GEA Group
GEMÜ Gebr. Müller Apparatebau
GmbH & Co. KG, Germany
Gericke GmbH, Germany
Gida Güvenligi Dernegi - TFSA -
Turkish Food Safety Association,
Turkey
www.galleon-rus.ru
www.geagroup.com
www.gemue.de
www.gericke.net
www.ggd.org.tr
Dofra bv, Netherlands
www.dofra.nl
Gram Equipment A/S, Denmark
www.gram-equipment.com
DTU Technical University of
Denmark National Food Institute,
Denmark
Döinghaus cutting and more
GmbH &Co. KG, Germany
www.food.dtu.dk
www.cuttingandmore.de
Grontmij Industrial Division,
Netherlands
Habasit AG, Switzerland
häwa GmbH & Co. KG, Spain
www.grontmij.nl
www.habasit.com
www.haewa.de
Eaton Industries GmbH, Germany
Ecolab Deutschland GmbH,
Germany
www.eaton.com
www.ecolab.com
HECHT Technologie GmbH,
Germany
H.J. Heinz & Co Ltd, United
Kingdom
www.hecht.eu
www.hjheinz.ie/

12 EHEDG Company and Institute members
Hengesbach GmbH & Co. KG,
Germany
www.hengesbach.biz
K-Tron Schweiz AG, Switzerland
www.ktron.com
HENKEL Lohnpoliertechnik
GmbH, Germany
www.henkel-epol.com
Kuipers Woudsend B.V.,
Netherlands
www.kuiperswoudsend.nl
Herding GmbH Filtertechnik,
Germany
www.herding.de
LABOM Mess- u. Regeltechnik
GmbH, Germany
www.labom.com
HES-SO University of Applied
Sciences Western Switzerland,
Switzerland
www.hevs.ch
LAEUFER International AG Food
Processing, Germany
Lamican, Finland
www.laeufer-ag.de
www.lamican.com
Hochschule Fulda - FB
Lebensmitteltechnologie
Fachgebiet
Lebensmittelverfahrenstechnik
www.lt.hs-fulda.de
LECHLER GmbH, Germany
Leibinger GmbH, Germany
www.lechler.de
www.leibinger.eu
IDMC Limited, India
www.idmc.coop
Lely Industries N.V., Netherlands
www.lely.com
Ilinox Srl, Italy
www.ilinox.com
LEWA GmbH, Germany
www.lewa.de
Interroll (Schweiz) AG,
Switzerland
Intralox L.L.C. Europe Modular
Plastic Conveyor Belts,
Netherlands
www.interroll.ch
intralox.com
GEBRÜDER
LÖDIGEMaschinenbau GmbH,
Germany
Jürgen Löhrke GmbH, Germany
www.loedige.de
www.loehrke.com/
Jentec GmbH Ingenieurbüro &
Maschinenbau, Germany
www.jentec24.de
D. Iordanidis S.A, Greece www.iordanidis-pumps.gr
J-TEC Material Handling, Belgium
Kanto Kongoki Industrial Ltd.,
Japan
Kek-Gardner Ltd, United Kingdom
KHS GmbH Werk Bad Kreuznach,
Germany
G.A. KIESEL GmbH, Germany
Kieselmann GmbH, Germany
King Mongkut’s Institute of
Technology Ladkrabang, Faculty
of Engineering Department of
Food Engineering
Maschinenbau Kitz GmbH,
Germany
Klüber Lubrication München KG,
Germany
www.j-tec.com
kanto-mixer.co.jp
www.kekgardner.com
www.khs.com
www.kiesel-online.de
www.kieselmann.de
www.kmitl.ac.th
www.maschinenbau-kitz.de
www.klueber.de
Lübbers Anlagen und
Umwelttechnik GmbH, Germany
M & S Armaturen GmbH,
Germany
Maga Metalúrgica, S.L., Spain
Magnetrol International N.V.,
Belgium
Marel Food Systems B.V.,
Netherlands
MBA Instruments GmbH,
Germany
Metal Industries Research &
Development Centre, Taiwan
METAX Kupplungs- und
Dichtungstechnik GmbH,
Germany
Mettler Toledo AG Process
Analytics, Switzerland
MGT Liquid Process Systems
Industrial Area Maalot, Israel
Microzero Corporation, Japan
www.luebbers.org/
www.ms-armaturen.de
www.maga-inox.com
www.magnetrol.com
www.marel.com
www.mba-instruments.de
www.mirdc.org.tw
www.metax-gmbh.de
www.mt.com
www.mgt.co.il
www.microzero.co.jp
KNOLL Maschinenbau GmbH,
Germany
www.knoll-mb.de
MikroPul GmbH, Germany
www.mikropul.de
KOBOLD Messring GmbH,
Germany
www.kobold.com
Mondelez / Kraft Foods R&D Inc.,
Germany
www.kraftfoods.com
Koninklijke Euroma B.V.,
Netherlands
www.euroma.com
MOOG Cleaning Systems,
Switzerland
www.moog.ch
Kraft Foods R&D Inc., Germany
www.kraftfoods.de
MQA s.r.o., Czech Republic
www.mqa.cz
Krones AG, Germany
www.krones.com
MST Stainless Steel Sdn. Bhd.,
Malaysia
www.minox.biz

EHEDG Company and Institute members 13
Müller AG Cleaning Solution,
Switzerland
info@muellercleaning.com
Reitz Holding GmbH & Co. KG,
Germany
www.reitz-ventilatoren.de
MULTIVAC Sepp Haggenmüller
GmbH & Co. KG, Germany
www.multivac.de
REMBE GmbHSafety + Control,
Germany
www.rembe.de
Municipality of Karpos, Macedonia
National Institute of R&D for
Machines & Installations for
Agriculture and Food Industries,
Romania
www.karpos.gov.mk
www.inma.ro
Gebr. Rieger GmbH + Co. KG,
Germany
Rittal GmbH & Co. KG, Germany
RONDO Burgdorf AG, Switzerland
www-rr-rieger.de
www.rittal.de
www.rondo-online.com
Negele Messtechnik GmbH,
Germany
www.anderson-negele.com
Rondotest GmbH & Co. KG,
Germany
www.rondoshop.de
Nestlé S.A.Nestlé Headquarters,
Switzerland
www.nestle.com
RULAND Engineering &
Consulting GmbH, Germany
www.rulandec.de
Nocado GmbH & Co. KG,
Germany
www.nocado.de
SAMSON REGULATION S.A.,
France
www.samson.fr
Novozymes A/S, Denmark
www.novozymes.com
Scanjet Systems AB, Sweden
www.scanjetsystems.com
Pack4Food, Belgium
www.pack4food.be
Scan-Vibro A/S, Denmark
www.scan-vibro.com
Packo Inox nv, Belgium
Parker Hannifin Corporation
Pneumatics Div. Europe/
Automation Group, United
Kingdom
www.packo.com
www.parkermotion.com/
pneu/food
SED Flow Control GmbH,
Germany
seepex GmbH, Germany
SEITAL Separatori Italia Srl, Italy
www.sed-flowcontrol.com
www.seepex.com
www.seital.it
PAYPER, S.A., Spain
Pepperl+Fuchs GmbH
PepsiCo, USA
www.payper.com
www.pepperl-fuchs.com
www.pepsico.com
SEW Food & Process bv,
Netherlands
SGS INSTITUT FRESENIUS
GmbH, Germany
www.seworks.nl
www.de.sgs.com,
www.institut-fresenius.de
Pneumatic Scale Angelus, USA
PNR Italia, Italy
Poligrat GmbH, Germany
PolySto, Belgium
www.psangelus.com
www.pnr.it/
www.poligrat.de
www.polysto.com
Shanghai AOFUDE Fluid
Equipment Science Technology
Co., Ltd
SICK AG, Germany
“SIS Natural” LLC Canneryvil.
Aghtsk Aragatsotn Region,
Armenia
www.chinaavm.com
www.sick.de
www.sisnatural.am
POWER Engineers, Inc., United
Kingdom
www.powereng.com
SISTO Armaturen S.A.,
Luxembourg
www.sisto.de
Proaseptic Technologies S.L.,
Spain
www.proaseptic.com/
SKF Sverige AB, Sweden
www.skf.com
ProCert Mexico / USA, Mexico
www.procert.ch
SMC Pneumatik GmbH
www.smc-pneumatik.de
Produsafe B.V., Netherlands
Protek Engineering Solutions Ltd,
United Kingdom
Purdue University, USA
www.produsafe.com
www.protekengineering.
co.uk
www.purdue.edu
Sociedad Mexicana de Inocuidad
y Calidad para Consumidores de
Alimentos AC (SOMEICCAAC),
Mexico
Solids Components Migsa, S.L.,
Spain
www.someicca.com.mx
www.migsa.es
QUIMIPRODUCTOS, S.A. de
C.V., Mexico
Radar process S.L., Spain
www.quimiproductos.com.
mx
www.radarprocess.com
Solids system-technik s.l., Spain
Sommer & Strassburger GmbH &
Co. KG, Germany
www.solids.es
www.sus-bretten.de
Rattiinox srl, Italy
www.ratiinox.com
SONTEC Sensorbau GmbH,
Germany
www.sontec.de

14 EHEDG Company and Institute members
SORMAC B.V., Netherlands
S.S.T. Schüttguttechnik GmbH,
Germany
SPX Flow Technology Rosista
GmbH, Germany
Steeldesign GmbH, Germany
Gebr. Steimel GmbH & Co.
Maschinenfabrik, Germany
www.sormac.nl
www.solids.de
www.apv.com
www.steeldesign.de
www.steimel.com
Van Meeuwen Smeertechniek
B.V., Netherlands
VDMA Fachverband
Nahrungsmittelmaschinen und
Verpackungsmaschinen, Germany
VEGA Grieshaber KG, Germany
Vienna University of Technology /
Institute of Chemical Engineering,
Austria
www.vanmeeuwen.nl
www.vdma.org
www.vega.com
www.vt.tuwien.ac.at
Stephan Machinery GmbH,
Germany
Stork Food & Dairy Systems B.V.,
Netherlands
Stranda Prolog AS, Norway
www.stephan-machinery.
com
www.fds.storkgroup.com
www.stranda.net
Vikan A/S, Denmark
VISCO JET Rührsysteme GmbH,
Germany
Volta Belting Technology Ltd.,
Netherlands
www.vikan.com
www.viscojet.com
www.voltabelting.com
STW – Stainless Tube Welding
GmbH, Germany
www.stw-gmbh.de
von Rohr Armaturen AG,
Switzerland
www.von-rohr.ch
Südmo Components GmbH,
Germany
www.suedmo.de
VTT Technical Research Centre of
Finland, Finland
www.vtt.fi/
Food Industry Swisslion Ltd.,
Macedonia
Taiwan Filler Tech. Co., Ltd,
Thailand
Tanis Food Tec b.v., Netherlands
TBMA EUROPE B.V., Netherlands
Tetra Pak Packaging Solutions
AB, Sweden
www.swisslion.com.mk
www.twftc.com
www.tanisfoodtec.com
www.tbma.com
www.tetrapak.com
WAM GmbH, Germany
Wennekes Welding Support BV,
Netherlands
Wenzhou Aomi Fluid Equipment
Science & Technology Co., Ltd.,
Peoples Rep. of China
Hans G. Werner Industrietechnik
GmbH, Germany
Wilco PM, Lebanon
www.wamgroup.com
www.weldingsupport.nl/
www.wzaomi.com
www.werco.de
www.wilcopm.com
TMR Turbo-Misch und
Rühranlagen, Germany
Tokachi-zaidan, Japan
www.tmr-ruehrtechnik.de
www.tokachi-zaidan.jp
Wipotec Wiege- und
Positioniersysteme GmbH,
Germany
www.wipotec.com
TPI Chile S.A., RCH
www.tpi.cl
Wire Belt Co Ltd, United Kingdom
www.wirebelt.co.uk
Forschungszentrum
Weihenstephan für Brau- und
Lebensmittelqualität Technische
Universität München, Germany
www.blq-weihenstephan.de
WITTENSTEIN alpha GmbH,
Germany
Wright Flow Technologies Ltd,
United Kingdome
www.wittenstein-alpha.de
www.idexcorp.com
Faculty of Agriculture - Institute of
Food Technology -
www.bg.ac.rs
Xylem, Inc., Germany
www.xylemflowcontrol.com
Dep. of Micobiology
University of Belgrade, Serbia
ULMA Packaging Technological
Center, Spain
www.ulmapackaging.com/
Zeppelin Reimelt GmbH, United
Kingdom
Zürcher Hochschule für
Angewandte Wissenschaften,
Switzerland
www.reimelt.de
www.lsfm.zhaw.ch
Unilever Research Laboratory
Vlaardingen, Netherlands
www.unilever.com
University of Cambridge
www.www.cam.ac.uk
University of Osijek, Faculty of
Food Technology, Hungary
www.ptfos.unios.hr
University of Parma, Italy
www.unipr.it
URESH AG, Switzerland
www.uresh.ch
List status as of December 2012

EHEDG membership 15
EHEDG membership
• The EHEDG network is open to individuals,
companies and institutes and comprises almost 1000
persons who are the representatives of
• Companies for the manufacturing of food or of
equipment for the production of food, pharmaceuticals
and/or cosmetics
• Companies supplying engineering services
• Scientific and research organisations
• Health authorities
EHEDG is an “Institution for General Benefit” and donations
may be fully deducted from tax.
Good reasons to become an
EHEDG member
• EHEDG creates a central, internationally recognized
source of excellence on hygienic engineering
• EHEDG provides networking on an international level,
opportunities for the establishment of global contacts
and are interlinking our Regional Sections
• EHEDG is a platform for an exchange of state-ofthe-art
know-how and offer advancement in hygienic
engineering knowledge
• EHEDG provides influence in setting global standards
and rules and have impact on regulatory bodies
• EHEDG offers a legal basis by practically
demonstrating how to follow existing requirements
and standards
• EHEDG guidelines are referenced by international
organisations and provide practical know-how
• EHEDG guidelines are created by gathering the
expert know-how of our members who are equipment
manufacturers of food and packaging machinery
as well as food processing companies, research
institutes and health authorities
• EHEDG follows up new trends and help to share,
disseminate and canalize hygienic design expertise
• The EHEDG mission is extended to ‘environmental
issues’ and aiming to support food safety and
sustainability
• EHEDG evaluates hygienic design in relation to shelflife
• EHEDG provides international, high-level training &
education and our training material is developed by
recognized experts in the field
• EHEDG provides equipment certification by EHEDGaccredited
test institutes
• The EHEDG certification methods are continuously
further developed and complemented by new test
methods
• EHEDG provides reference publications like the
EHEDG Yearbook and press articles in scientific
journals and trade magazines
• EHEDG enhances the reputation of our member
companies and help them to become leaders in
hygienic design and processing
• EHEDG provides an information and meeting platform
at the EHEDG Congress, an international event held
biannually in varying countries.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Test and Certification Institutes
The following institutes and organisations are authorised by EHEDG to test and certify equipment:
DENMARK
DTU National Food Institute
Dr. Jens Adler-Nissen
Søltoftsplads 221
Dk-2800 Kgs. Lyngby
Phone: +45 4525 2629 / E-mail: ehedg@food.dtu.dk
www.dtu.dk/English.aspx
Testing and Evaluation:
Dr. Per Væggemose Nielsen
Phone: +45 4525 2631
E-mail: ehedg@food.dtu.dk, pvn@ipu.dk
Mr Jon J. Kold
Phone: +45 8870 7515
E-mail: jon.kold@staalcentrum.dk
FRANCE
Adria Normandie
Dr. Nicolas Rossi
Adria Normandie – Centre d’ Expertise Agroalimentaire, Dpt.
Research
Boulevard 13 Juin 1944
14310 VILLERS BOCAGE
Phone: +33 2 31 25 43 00
E-mail: nrossi@adrianie.org
www.adria-normandie.com
GERMANY
TU München Forschungszentrum Weihenstephan für
Brau- und Lebensmittelqualität
Dr. Jürgen Hofmann
Alte Akademie 3
D-85354 Freising
Phone: +49 8161 87 68 799
Fax +49 8161 71 41 81
E-mail: jh@hd-experte.de, juergen.hofmann@ehedg.org
www.blq-weihenstephan.de/leistungen/hygienic-design.html
NETHERLANDS
TÜV Rheinland Nederland B.V.,
Ilse Wasim-Moestaredjo
P.O. Box 541
NL-7300 AM Apeldoorn
Phone: (+31 88) 8 88 78 88
E-mail: Ilse.Wasim@nl.tuv.com
www.tuv.com/nl/index.html
Testing and Evaluation:
Jacques Kastelein
TNO
P.O. Box 360, 3705 MJ Zeist,
Phone: +31 88 86 61877
E-mail: Jacques.kastelein@tno.nl
www.tno.nl/
SPAIN
AINIA Centro tecnológico
A. Pascual Vidal
Departamento de Calidad y Medio Ambiente,
Parque Tecnológico de Valencia,
c/Benjamin Franklin, n° 5-11
ES-46980 Paterna (Valencia)
Phone: +34 961 366 090
Fax +34 961 318 008
E-mail: apascual@ainia.es
www.ainia.es/web/acerca-de-ainia
UNITED KINGDOM
Campden BRI
Lawrence Staniforth
Station Road
GB-Chipping Campden, GLOS , GL55 6LD
Phone: +44 1386 842042
E-mail: l.staniforth@campden.co.uk
www.campden.co.uk/
Mr Andy Timperley
Phone: +44 1789 490081
E-mail: andy.timperley@tesco.net
USA
PURDUE University
Professor Mark T. Morgan, P.E.
Food Science Building, Room 1161
745 Agriculture Mall Drive
USA-West Lafayette, IN 479072009
In addition to the certification organisations above, the
following research institutes participate in the development
of EHEDG test methods:
• Agence Francaise de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments,
France
• Institut Nationale de la Recherche Agronomique,
France
• Lund University, Department of Food Engineering,
Sweden
• SIK - Swedish Institute for Food Research
• Unilever Research Vlaardingen, The Netherlands
• VTT Biotechnology and Food Research, Finland
For further information on EHEDG Test and Certification
Institutes please refer to www.ehedg.org.
List status as of December 2012

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Legal requirements for hygienic design in Europe
There are European requirements for food safety to protect consumers. ‘Hygienic design’ is one
of the elements that is needed to produce safe food and fulfil all of these requirements. This
article presents an overview of the food safety and hygiene regulations in Europe that provide
machinery and food producers with essential guidance.
Hans-Werner Bellin, BELLINconsult, Aarbergen, Germany, e-mail: hans-werner.bellin@bellinconsult.de,
www.bellinconsult.de
Most people in Europe buy their food in supermarkets. It is
likely that the majority of these consumers do not know the
conditions under which the products they purchase have
been produced, processed, packed, stored and distributed.
They do not know what has happened, or even what can
happen to a product during its travel from its place of origin
to the point of sale. Consumers do not always know what
chemical, biological, environmental or other factors can spoil
the product, or what the potential negative health impacts
such contamination of their foods may pose.
Both EU Regulation 852/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of
foodstuffs and EU Regulation 2073/2005 of 15 November
2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs focus on the
product and the process.
Food safety professionals, however, realise that there are
many possibilities for negative influences on food products
as they travel from farm to fork. For this reason, vigilence
along the entire food supply chain is vital to ensure that all
possible risks are reduced to acceptable levels.
Food laws and regulations provide food producers and food
equipment manufacturers with the requirements to manage
potential food safety risks. The globally influential international
food standards Codex Alimentarius (www.codexalimentarius.
org), published by the Food and Agriculture Organisation
(FAO) of the United Nation (www.fao.org) and the World
Health Organization (WHO, www.who.int), sets up a global
framework of general principles of food hygiene. Supporting
this target, the European Commission (EC) has developed
several European regulations and directives that primarily
address the food processor and require that food is produced
in a safe manner.
The overarching food safety regulation in the European
Union (EU) is EU Regulation 178/2002 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying
down the general principles and requirements of food law,
which established the European Food Safety Authority
and regulates procedures in matters of food safety. The
regulation enables the European member states to require a
certain quality management system in each food processing
plant. The main points are:
• Basic hygiene principles
• Food and feed business operators’ legal
responsibilities for ensuring product safety
• Unsafe foodstuffs may not be placed on the market
• Traceability
• Consideration of long-term, cumulative effects
Figure 1. The CE mark, which identifies industrial equipment as
in compliance with all the safety requirements established by the
European Union, must appear on each unit.
EU Regulation 852/2004 requires companies to implement a
quality control system and proposes the Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Points (HACCP) system as an appropriate measure
to ensure the quality of the process. The following steps are
necessary to fulfil this requirement:
• Conduct hazard analysis
• Determine critical control points (CCPs)
• Establish critical limit(s)
• Establish system to monitor CCPs
• Establish corrective action
• Establish verification procedure
• Establish documentation
In addition, EU Regulation 852/2004 mentions in Annex 1 that
all the equipment must be cleaned, and where necessary,
disinfected in an appropriate manner. In Annex II, Chapter V,
there is a requirement for hygienic design and cleanability
for the entire facility.
EU Regulation 2073/2005 requires the following:
• Determining limits for safe food
• Food safety criteria for best before date (BBD)
• Process hygiene criteria during manufacturing

18 Legal requirements for hygienic design in Europe
EU Regulation 1935/2004 on materials and articles
intended to come into contact with food covers the following
equipment: processing machinery and filling equipment, and
kitchen equipment, containers, and packaging materials. The
regulation specifically requires that food-contact materials
and equipment comply with the following:
• No human health hazards
• No indefensible modification of food composition
• No detraction from organoleptic food properties
• No misdirection of customers
• Use of ‘for food contact’ or the symbol (Figure 2). (This
symbol is only needed, if there is no instruction manual
and if it is not obvious that this is for food contact).
• Traceability on all manufacturing and distribution steps
EU Regulation 2023/2006 of 22 December 2006 on good manufacturing
practice (GMP) for materials and articles intended to come
into contact with food requires that the following must be set up and
installed for all producers of materials intended to come into contact
with food and are covered by EU Regulation 1935/2004:
• Quality assurance system
• Quality control system
• Documentation
According to Article 2 of EC 2023/2006: “This regulation shall
apply to all sectors and all stages of manufacture, processing
and distribution of materials and articles, up to but excluding
the production of starting substances.” This means that,
for example, all producers of plastic materials must have a
quality system that includes the required documentation if
they produce materials intended to come in food contact.
Depending on the risk assessment, this documentation must
be more or less detailed, corresponding to the known or
potential risk.
To prevent consumers from absorbing toxic substances
that may leach from plastics that come into contact with
foods, the European Commission has issued EU Regulation
10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come
into contact with food. Rubber and silicone materials are not
covered by this regulation. Since there is nothing specific
for seals in Europe, the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 21 is commonly
used in Europe.
Food safety is the core interest of the European Commission.
EC Directive 2006/42/EC, or the Machinery Directive, which
came into force at the end of 2009, sets up the essential
requirements for machinery. All machines brought to the
European market must fulfil these requirements. The CE
mark, which identifies industrial equipment as in compliance
with all the of safety requirements established by the
European Union must appear on each unit (Figure 1).
Annex I of the Machinery Directive describes in detail what
has to be taken into consideration to build safe machines.
Of particular interest to the food industry is Chapter 2.1 of
Annex I, entitled ‘Foodstuffs machinery and machinery for
cosmetics or pharmaceutical products.’ This chapter not only
takes into consideration potentially hazardous situations
for equipment operators and the environment in which the
machine is used, but it is the only chapter in this directive
that refers to the potential hazards for the consumer of the
product produced on these machines. Essentially, this means
that mistakes caused by neglecting these requirements can
have a strong impact on public health.
The Machinery Directive states that all surfaces (with the exception
of disposable parts), including joining areas that come into product
contact must:
• Be smooth, without ridges or crevices
• Reduce projections, edges and recesses to a minimum
• Be easily cleaned and disinfected
• Inside surfaces must have curves of a radius sufficient
to allow sufficient cleaning
From a hygienic design perspective, the following re quirements
are particularly noteworthy:
• It must be possible for liquids, gases and aerosols
deriving from products and from cleaning, disinfecting
and rinsing fluids to be completely discharged from the
machinery.
• Machinery must be designed and constructed in such
a way as to prevent any substances or living creatures,
in particular insects, from entering, or any organic
matter from accumulating.
• Machinery must be designed and constructed in such
a way that no ancillary substances that are hazardous
to health, including the lubricants used, can come into
contact with products.
Figure 2. EU food contact symbol used for marking materials
intended to come into contact with food in the European Union as
defined in EU Regulation 1935/2004.
For food processing machines, so-called “C-Standards”
also are provided in some detail, including how the design
of the machine (e.g., the roughness of the surfaces)
should be addressed in machines used in contact with
specific products. The standards EN ISO 14159, “Safety
of machinery - Hygiene requirements for the design of
machinery” and EN 1672-2, “Food processing machinery -
Basic concepts - Part 2: Hygiene requirements” describe the
aim of the Directive through examples.
In addition to these standards, the European Hygienic
Engineering & Design Group (EHEDG) Guideline 8 criteria
and the EHEDG Guideline 13, Hygienic design of equipment
for open processing, offer additional guidance. The content

Legal requirements for hygienic design in Europe 19
of these two guidelines is comparable with the two European
Committee for Standardisation (CEN) standards, and in
some cases, the examples used are the same. There are
some minor differences in the definition of the food zone,
but the design of the units should be such that they can be
readily cleaned within an appropriate time. Ultimately, every
machine has to be cleaned, and depending on the overall
cleanability of a machine and its components, this can be
time-consuming. For this reason it is much cheaper for food
processors to invest in machines that are designed properly
with high cleanability rather than buying cheaper machines
with low cleanability, which might cause product spoilage or
contamination triggered by product residues and/or cleaning
agents left behind.
For machines that do not meet the “easy to clean”
requirements of the Machinery Directive and the relevant
standards, the CE conformity is not valid. The only question
is, who decides if something is cleanable or not? For this,
EHEDG provides certification for various types of equipment.
This is a voluntary approval scheme that provides a high
level of confidence that the equipment conforms with the
Machinery Directive. EHEDG is working on new certification
schemes and guidelines to improve the machines for more
efficient cleanability.
3-A Sanitary Standards, Inc.
Promoting Food Safety Through Hygienic Design
Leads the development of modern hygienic design standards
for equipment and accepted practices for processing systems.
Oversees the comprehensive Third Party Verification inspection
program required for 3-A Symbol authorization and voluntary
certificates for processing systems and replacement parts.
Provides specialized education resources to enhance the knowledge
of equipment fabricators, processors and regulatory professionals.
Learn, network, and share insights on hygienic design with some of
the most qualified and trusted authorities from around the world.
3-A Sanitary Standards Inc.
6888 Elm Street, Suite 2D • McLean, Virginia • 22101-3829
PH: 703-790-0295 • FAX: 703-761-6284 • EMAIL: 3-ainfo@3-a.org
3-A Sanitary Standards, Inc.
www.3-a.org

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
The importance of hygienic design:
A process facility case study and checklist
The hygienic design of food processing facilities and equipment is becoming more important
to the food industry, since it allows for a maximisation of the efficiencies of manufacturing lines
and minimises the cleaning processes without penalising the operation’s effectiveness.
Carolina López Arias, QA Coordinator Sanitation, Mondelēz International
email: clopeza@mdlz.com
Figure 1. Processing steps of a cream cheese manufacturing line.
In this practical case study of a new cream cheese
manufacturing line installed in an existing facility (Figure 1),
the hygienic design principles that should be incorporated
into the operations of food processing facilities are described
within the framework of the phases of a project management
approach. A checklist of the elements of hygienic design
under this construct is presented.
Project Management
Figure 2. Project management phases.
Every project consists of four phases (Figure 2). There are
common functions involved in these phases, which include
the project manager, and the quality assurance, sanitation,
conversion, research and development, and supply change
departments. The inverted pyramid in Figure 2 shows that
more resources and time are required to accomplish Phases
1 and 2 of a project (i.e., development and pre-engineering
design) than Phases 3 and 4. It is critical to allocate the right
amount of time and resources to each phase to successfully
implement a project.
Phase 1. Project development:
feasibility and risk assessment
The goals of Phase 1 are to evaluate the feasibility of the
project idea and estimate the risks, costs, benefits and
resources associated with the project. By using tools that
allow for the evaluation and measurement of the risks
associated with a project, such as brainstorming or failure
modes and effect analysis (FMEA), the project team can
effectively consider the elements that involve all of the
different key functions of the project.
In this phase, it is imperative that the project team cover in
its risk assessments, at a minimum, the following aspects of
the production facility and operations:
• Microbiological safety assessment
• Allergen assessment
• Cleaning and hygiene (covering both clean-in-place
[CIP] and clean-out-of-place [COP]
• Production capacity
• Utilities capacity

The importance of hygienic design: A process facility case study and checklist 21
Phase 2. Project pre-engineering: Design
The objective of this phase is to have hygienic design
principles established for location and layout, piping and
instrumentation, and supplier specifications.
1. Location and layout determination. This involves three
hygienic design principles, as follows:
a. Hygienic design principle 1:
Separation. In the case of the cream cheese facility, a new
layout of the facility was needed in order to meet the the
hygienic design principles. Determining a new layout, in this
example, took into account the following considerations:
• Space availability within the existing facilities.
• Physical separation between the raw area and
pasteuriser area.
• Allergens segregation.
b. Hygienic design principle 7:
Proper ventilation and utility air. In order to ensure the
proper ventilation of the different areas of the facility, the
following considerations need to be taken into account:
• Air quality (i.e., filtration requirements according to
product sensitivity).
• Proper design of the installation that prevents
condensation.
• Location of the supply and extraction systems are
properly located to avoid product contamination, and
ventilation system (i.e., fans) are properly located
(Figure 5).
▬► Entrances for people to the manufacturing line
Figure 5. Ventilation map.
▬► Entrances for people to the manufacturing line
Figure 3. Initial layout of the cream cheese manufacturing facility.
As a result of the evaluation, a new layout was proposed for
the facility (Figures 3 and 4).
c. Hygienic design principle 2:
Cleanability. It is essential that the position of the drains in
the processing room is 100% compatible with the layout of
the processing line. For this specific case, it was possible
to fit the layout of the processing line to the drains location
in the room (Figure 6).
▬► Entrances for people to the manufacturing line
Figure 4. Final layout of the facility after hygienic design
evaluation.
▬► Entrances for people to the manufacturing line
Figure 6. Processing line and room layout in alignment with proper
positioning of drains in processing room.

22 The importance of hygienic design: A process facility case study and checklist
2. Piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID). This
involves one significant hygienic design principle:
d. Hygienic design principle 2:
Cleanability. During the definition of the P&ID for the
processing line, the following aspects should be considered
and included:
• Identify all of the different equipment that are part of
the process.
• Establish cleaning methods (i.e., CIP, manual, etc.)
and cleaning regimes.
• Evaluate restrictions inw the process and determine
alternative solutions to ensure that effective cleaning is
achieved.
In the cream cheese facility during the P&ID definition phase,
it was determined that for the CIP cleaning of the scraped
surface heat exchangers (SSHE), a reinforcement was
needed to ensure effective cleaning of the system (Figure
7). The red arrows represent the product flow and the pink
ones CIP reinforcement.
During the CIP cleaning additionally to the main route (red
arrows) there is a flip that makes a closed loop with the
SSHE, supported by a centrifugal pump.
Figure 7. CIP cleaning route for the scraped surface heat exchangers (SSHE).
3. Specifications for different suppliers. Once the P&ID is
completed, the next step is to define the detailed function of
the line (FDS), as well as the specifications for the quality of
the materials to be used. Once all this information is compiled
the specifications can be sent to the different suppliers in
order to get an estimated quotation for the installation.
Some hygienic design principles that are important to be
considered when defining the specifications are:
e. Hygienic design principle 2:
Cleanability.
• Identify the method of cleaning (e.g., CIP, clean-out-ofplace
[COP], foam, manual cleaning).
• Assess the capability of the equipment to handle
frequent CIP temperature exposure.
• Determine whether all of the equipment components,
such as valves, are designed to be cleaned in place.
• Ensure that the process connections of all the
measurement devices are hygienically designed.
• Decide how many process connections are needed.
f. Hygienic design principle 3:
Compatible materials. All materials that may come into
contact with food should not be able to make the food unfit
for consumption (e.g. toxic). As such, all materials used in
the composition of food manufacturing equipment should be:
• highly resistant to corrosion;
• nonporous with smooth surfaces;
• highly resistant to thermal variations;

The importance of hygienic design: A process facility case study and checklist 23
• resistant to mechanical tensions;
• absent of protective fragile coverings or coatings that
easy deteriorate; and
• of an ideal cleanliness capacity, which translates to a
high degree of elimination of microorganisms.
g. Hygienic design principle 4:
Smooth and accessible surfaces. Considerations
include:
• Roughness of the material (i.e., 0.8 mm for product
contact surfaces and 3 mm for non-product contact
surfaces).
• Smooth and continuous welding.
• Equipment accessibility for cleaning effectiveness
check (e.g., spray balls and agitators).
• Cleanability of the space around the equipment.
h. Hygienic design principle 5:
Self draining. The following actions should be taken:
• Minimise horizontal surfaces.
• Process and CIP piping should be sloped to allow
drainage (20 mm per meter).
• Equipment/installation is self-draining (Figure 8).
Figure 9. Examples of hygienic design issues identified in FAT.
In this specific case during the FAT of the filling machine,
niches in the frame and exposed treats were found that
could promote dirtiness harbourage
2. Start with the construction of the line. The first step to
be taken prior to construction is to determine the traffic
patterns. The production and personnel traffic patterns
are established in order to minimise the risks and prevent
product contamination.
▬► Entrances for people to the manufacturing line
Figure 10. The traffic patterns of personnel through the production
area can have a big impact on the hygiene of the plant.
In the case of the cream cheese production facility, a
new entrance for construction workers was established,
isolating the area under construction from the production
area (Figure 10).
Figure 8. Self-draining installation.
During the CIP cleaning the direction of the flow is opposite
to the one shown in the figure 8 (pink arrows). At the end of
the last step of the cleaning the pump changes the rotation
direction thus ensuring the complete drainage of the pipe.
Once the installation of the equipment begins it is important
to perform a regular review of the installation to ensure all
hygienic design principles and goals are and continue to be
implemented and met (Figure 11).
Phase 3. Project Execution: Building
In Phase 3, the building and execution step, there are a few
important tasks to be done. These include:
1. Perform a factory acceptance test (FAT) at all suppliers’
sites in order to:
• Confirm that all of the hygienic design principles are
met.
• Identify potential needs that were not considered in
the previous project development phases (Figure 9).
Figure 11: Equipment hygienic design issues.
Both pictures show hygienic design issues, the first one a
syphon that promotes water stagnation and the second one
the presence of a screw that could drop into the product.

24 The importance of hygienic design: A process facility case study and checklist
Phase 4. Project Commission:
Accept and installation
This is the last phase of the project. Once this phase
is completed, the installation will be approved by all of
the functions involved and production can begin. The
commissioning, under a sanitation point of view, consists of:
• An entire review of the hygienic design of the
installation once it is completely built.
• Validation of the effectiveness of the cleaning
(e.g., visual inspection + swabbing, enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) during the start-up
phase.
• Training of the operators on how to clean the new
installation.
After the line has been running for a certain period of time,
the site acceptance test (SAT) will take place to approve the
final handover of the installation to the plant. During the SAT,
a complete tear-down of the line will be carried out by the
sanitation team to confirm the absence of product residues,
biofilms, allergen residues, and other potential contaminants.
This verification will be performed using the same tools used
in the start-up phase.
Conclusion
• In addition to the takeaway messages that can
be gleaned from this example of the application
of hygienic design principles to the design and
construction of a cream cheese manufacturing facility,
there are some that are worth reiterating:
• Allocate the proper amount of time/resources for the
feasibility and pre-engineering phases. The more the
work is developed during these phases, the higher the
likelihood of successful implementation of the project.
• Sanitary design expertise has to be present in the FAT
in order to identify potential sanitary design issues that
equipment suppliers should modify before bringing the
systems on site.
• During the execution phase it is really important to
perform a frequent (i.e., daily) assessment of the
building and processing areas to identify potential
design “issues” that can still be fixed at this stage but
not in further stages in the process.
• Unexpected “surprises” may arise during the execution
and commissioning phase. Be ready to proactively
look for feasible alternatives that can be implemented
without significant impact to the efficiency of the line.

Dairy made
simple.
Life is complicated enough. So make
it simpler — with the new solutions for
process automation from Bürkert —
designed with the needs of the dairy
industry in mind, featuring a hygienic
design, easy cleaning and simple
operation. A complex automation task
can therefore become simplicity
itself in a matter of seconds.
Perfect for high process yields
and your peace of mind.
8681 control head:
A star in our system. It simply
keeps everything under control.
We make ideas flow.
www.burkert.com

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Solving concrete kerb challenges to ensure hygiene and
food safe wall protection in manufacturing environments
Using chemical- and water-resistant polymer composite kerbs and plinths help ensure that food
production facilities remain hygienic.
Nick Van den Bosschelle, PolySto, Lokeren, Belgium, e-mail: nick@polysto.com, www.polysto.com
For the past 25 years, sandwich panel constructions have
been the most popular way to construct food safe rooms in
Europe, because it offers fast installation, is easy to clean
and provides good insulation value. Nevertheless, sandwich
panels are very weak and quickly damaged. Often, kerbs in
this scheme have been made onsite in the manufacturing
plant during construction, composed of concrete and covered
by the floor finishing. This system has some important
disadvantages with regard to food safety, impact resistance
and maintenance.
Concrete covered by any kind of flooring material is never a
monolithic system and after some period of time, the bonding
between the concrete and the floor material will break as the
concrete deteriorates due to exposure to humidity and acids
in the air and other physical impacts to the surface. Physical
impacts from trollies, forklifts, hand pallets and cleaning
machines cause cracks to appear in the floor covering
(Figures 1 and 2). The result is that dirt and cleaning water
starts to leak through those cracks, building up behind the
floor covering and absorbed by the concrete. This trapped
dirty water will eventually begin to evaporate, creating a high
pressure of humidity behind the floor covering. The pressure
eventually breaks the bonding between the concrete and
the floor finishing, exposing the concrete and creating food
safety issues as dirt builds up in the resulting crevices and
provides harbourage to harmful bacteria.
Figures 1 and 2. Damaged concrete kerbs, as shown, create
harbourage niches for dirt and bacteria in food processing
environments.
Figures 3 and 4. Kerbs and plinths for food safe environments.

Solving concrete kerb challenges to ensure hygiene and food safe wall protection in manufacturing environments 27
Another problem that frequently arises when using
concrete kerbs is that the sealant between the panel and
concrete kerb can break. The difficulty is that there is no
bonding with water-resistant glues or sealant between the
concrete and sandwich panel. As such, dirty water will start
to accumulate behind the concrete kerbs creating a niche
where microorganisms can survive and grow – and become
a real cross-contamination risk in the food production
environment.
Prefabricated polymer composite kerbs and
plinths for food safe environments
For these reasons, kerbs used in food processing
environments where hygiene is a priority should be
constructed with materials that are chemical-, impact- and
water-resistant. Polymer composite kerbs and plinths
provide a solution to the hygiene challenges posed by kerbs
composed of concrete. Prefabricated polymer composite
kerb systems are made by mixing polyester resins and
quartz granulates with the surface and then finished with a
bacteriostatic and shock-resistant polyester gel coat surface.
In the production of these kerbs, a monolithic system is
created by moulding together the polyester quartz mass
with the polyester gel coat covering. Both materials have the
same chemical structure (polyester), which creates a strong
kerb that is easy to clean, water- and chemical-resistant and
repairable.
In addition to their fabrication from hygiene-promoting
materials, polymer composite kerbs can be installed to
improve hygiene in the food manufacturing environment.
Polymer composite kerbs are bonded to the sandwich
panel with a flexible; water-resistant polymer glue. The
joints can be finished with a food-safe flexible sealant that
is easy to dismantle for cleaning, or with a two-component
polyurethane finish. Even if the joints become damaged, the
polymer glue creates a secondary water barrier so that water
cannot infiltrate or become trapped behind the kerb. If the
gel coat is damaged by heavy impacts over a period of time,
the high water-resistance of the polymer composite mass
will prevent water absorption. Damage or scratches to these
types of kerbs can be easily repaired with a cleaner or a twocomponent
repair kit. Finally, polymer composite kerbs can
be delivered with a food-safe curving for renovations or with
a rebate in the front to create a seamless connection with
the floor curving.
Fig. 5. Sectional drawing showing hygienic advantages of polymer
composite kerbs.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Hexagonal tile floors:
The hygienic foundation of production areas
Producers of food and beverages expect their industrial floors to remain hygienic over many
years despite chemical and mechanical influences. Industrial floors build the foundation of
the total production area. Every machine is connected and attached to it. In case of damage,
replacement is often difficult and costly. Good planning before construction avoids this problem.
Volker Aufderhaar, Argelith Bodenkeramik, Bad Essen, Germany, e-mail: aufderhaar@argelith.com,
phone +49-151-1262 3575
A hexagonal tile floor is an excellent solution for flooring in
three production areas: locations in which hygiene is a top
priority, locations that are wet, and areas that experience
high levels of pallet truck or forklift traffic.
Hygienic areas. Practical experience recommends the use
of 18-mm thick tiles in areas with high pallet truck and forklift
traffic. A tile of this thickness will increase safety in the
event of additional stress from chemical cleaning agents or
acids inherent to products manufactured onsite. As for the
cleaning features of these flooring materials, tiles should be
easy to clean. The density of a floor finishing product is the
key for long-term cleaning. Frequently, flooring materials
show undesirable features such as gas bubble holes or
cracked-off aggregates in resin floors, sponge structures
in polyurethane resin floors, or cracks at tile aggregates. It
is essential to choose a flooring material that has density
and is durable, so that harmful bacteria do not have an
opportunity to remain on the floor surface. Modern fully
vitrified porcelain tile fired to highest density meets these
requirements and increases resistance to high mechanical
point loads. 1
Wet areas. A hexagon-shaped floor tile performs very well in
wet areas. Its near-round shape fits any kind of slope, which
solves one major problem associated with ceramic floors
from the past: wide joints and overlipping on high and low
points often caused tile chipping, creating areas vulnerable
to alkaline solutions and acids (Figure 1). Furthermore,
wastewater would stay in the wide joints so that chemicals
such as lactic acid or caustic soda could damage the joints
on a sustained basis. Also, wide joints are an ideal breeding
ground for all kinds of bacteria.
The exact calibration of hexagonal floor tiles allows reduction
of the joint size to a required minimum of approximately
2.5mm (Figure 2). In this way all types of residue run directly
across the tiles into the drains. Joints are the weakest point
of a ceramic floor. Therefore, joints should be stressed as
little as possible.
Temperature shocks often cause splits between the floor
and subsurface. Different thermal expansion coefficients of
building materials separate thinner tiles from the screed or
create breaks in coatings. Fully vitrified porcelain tiles of 18-
mm thickness slowly absorb heat and warm up continuously.
Due to the thickness of the tile, the underside remains at
a more consistent temperature and therefore prevents
fractures from forming.
Figure 1. Constant wet areas are hygienic problem zones if a floor
is failing. The risk of damage is minimised by choosing the right tile
and a professional contractor.
Traffic areas. Areas with high heavy pallet truck and forklift
traffic on a daily basis will need to reliably sustain dynamic
and heavy loads. Extruded tile floors frequently cause
significant noise due to their 6- to 10-mm wide joints. These
familiar clattering noises continuously impact tile edges,
causing damage after a short time. Such damage not only
makes the floor unhygienic, but it looks shabby as well.
Resin-based floors are often considered too thin and
incapable of permanently resisting these loads; they
would break off the substrate. Compared with resin floors,
hexagonal tiles offer optimal protection for the total floor
system. Dynamic loads from rolling vehicles occur at acute
angles to tile edges minimising vibrations and impacts (e.g.,
from hardened plastic wheels). A floor made of hexagonal
tiles creates the smoothest possible rolling surface with extra

Hexagonal tile floors: The hygienic foundation of production areas 29
damage resistance. Additionally, 18-mm thick fully vitrified
porcelain tiles are capable of resisting heavy mechanical
point loads. They distribute these loads conically into the
ground, minimising stress on the screed.
or beverage production, it may be essential to use resins
for grouting, as these provide chemical resistance of the
joints in the final floor finish – cement based joints would not
withstand the daily chemical loads in a factory and would
cause failure of the whole floor accordingly. From a hygienic
point of view it is also recommended to install resin based
joints, as these are much more dense than relatively porous
cement joints.
Additionally, the technical advantages of the ‘small tile’ cannot
be ignored. Hexagonal tiles can be installed in funnel shapes
to fit almost any slope leading towards drainage systems or
channels without overlipping and minimise cutting of tiles.
The mechanical load resistance is also far higher than with
other flooring solutions (Figures 3 and 4).
Figure 2. To receive a virtually seamless floor with small joints that
minimise the opportunity for bacteria to find harbourage, hexagonal
tiles need to be perfectly accurate in size.
Safety and size: Other important flooring
factors affecting hygiene
Slip resistance in wet areas is also important as slip and trip
injuries are a major safety issue in the food industry. Meeting
both requirements equally well has been a challenge in the
past. Older generations of tiles, such as extruded tiles, were,
due to their coarse ceramic characteristics, optically smooth
and slip-resistant, but very hard to clean. Floors used to turn
black after only a few years due to chemicals and abrasion
of forklift tires. Resin floors may not retain their anti-slip
values from the time of installation due to abrasion and may
become a hazard for the workforce over time. In addition,
resin floors are hand-made and do not give a constant tread
safety as industrial-made tiles do. Densely-fired, fully vitrified
porcelain tiles effectively fulfil both requirements in one
product. The hardness of these tiles makes them extremely
resistant to abrasion.
One might think that hexagonal 10cm² floor tiles would be
too small and consequently, that joint proportion would be
too high. Therefore, tiles must be accurate to size so that
they can be installed butt jointed via vibration or conventional
method. This means the area of the joints, calculated in m²,
will be significantly smaller, resulting in less grouting material.
A hexagonal tile floor will require approximately 0.5 kg of
the expensive epoxy grouting material. Using an extruded
or split tile in 24x11.5 cm format of the same thickness and
normal 6mm-wide joints requires approximately four times
more epoxy grouting material. To install tile floors in food
Figure 3.A floor in a bakery has to be hygienic and withstand high
thermal and mechanical loads daily.
Figure 4.Well-designed details at expansion joints or at floordrain-connections
are essential for the lifetime of a floor covering,
no matter if tile or resin floor.
Reference
1. Carpentier, B. 2011-2012. A suggested method for
assessing the cleanability of flooring materials. EHEDG Yearbook
2011-2012, p. 16.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Research on hygienic flooring systems
Particle and VOC emissions, chemical and biological
resistance, and cleanability
In the food industry, a hygienic manufacturing environment is an absolute necessity in order to
minimise reject rates due to contamination and ensure low-germ or sterile conditions. Product
quality is especially impaired by microorganisms but also by other forms of contamination, such
as particles and chemical residues. Today, some foods are already produced and packaged
under cleanroom conditions in the same way as practised by the pharmaceutical industry.
Cleanroom technology guarantees the necessary controlled conditions, fulfilling air quality
requirements such as those stated in the EU-GMP Guideline Annex 1 for the manufacture of
sterile pharmaceutical products. In order to minimise contamination risks during manufacturing
processes, cleanroom environments need to be carefully planned to ensure that no sources
of contamination will be present during later production. Materials used to make walls, floors,
housings, joins and equipment systems need to be taken especially into consideration. Using
the qualification of industrial flooring as an example, this article describes an assessment and
classification procedure that will help planners to make objective decisions about the choice of
materials.
Markus Keller and Udo Gommel, Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA,
Department of Ultraclean Technology and Micromanufacturing, Stuttgart, Germany.
e-mail: markus.keller@ipa.fraunhofer.de
To create controlled hygienic environments, appropriate
room solutions in suitable locations are needed with minimum
microbiotic base levels. To achieve this, the concentration of
particles in the air has to be drastically reduced. In a normal
urban atmosphere, a particle concentration of 0.5 to 35 billion
particles with a diameter of >0.5 µm is typical per cubic meter
air volume. Cost-intensive filtration technology can reduce
such particulate concentrations to less than 3520 particles/
m 3 >0.5 µm diameter. This is required, for example, in sterile
pharmaceutical manufacturing environments and equates
approximately to Cleanroom Class International Standards
Organisation (ISO) 5 in accordance with the cleanroom
classification standard ISO 14644-1. 1 The pharmaceutical
industry uses its own standard for the production of sterile
medicinal products, which also defines different zones for
hygienic manufacturing environments and extends the
considered contamination sources including particles to
microorganisms. 2 In the food industry, microbiological
contamination is also especially relevant. 3 Particles between
10 and 20 µm in size make up the majority of airborne
microorganisms. 4 Another hygiene-related classification
system is based on the so-called “hospital guideline” DIN
1946-4. 5 The food industry is currently implementing more
and more of the existing good manufacturing practice (GMP)
pharmaceutical guidelines. A targeted reduction in airborne
particles >0.5 µm automatically means a reduction in airborne
microorganisms. However, in hygienic manufacturing
environments, additional parameters regarding the materials
used are also of interest: chemical resistance, biological
resistance, cleanability and antimicrobial properties. 6
Solutions from other areas:
Pharmaceutical industry
As many foods are produced and/or packaged under almoststerile
conditions (milk products, meats, beverages), the
following section gives some brief background information
about manufacturing environments in the pharmaceutical
industry. In the process, many of the aspects mentioned
can be applied directly to manufacturing environments in the
food industry. A cross-industry viewpoint can be very helpful
when implementing clean and hygienic manufacturing
environments because both the pharmaceutical and food
industries have to combat the same sources of contamination:
particles and microorganisms.
EU-GMP Guideline
The European Commission Guide to Good Manufacturing
Practice (EU-GMP Guideline) is implemented as a
statutory standard in the manufacture of sterile drugs and
other contamination-sensitive products. In Annex 1 of the
EU-GMP guideline, a special emphasis is placed on the
requirements of hygienic manufacturing environments.
Clean zones for the manufacture of sterile products
are graded according to the environmental conditions
required. In order to minimise the risk of contaminating
the product or material concerned with particles or
microorganisms, each manufacturing process requires a
corresponding degree of environmental cleanliness in an
operating state. In order to fulfil operating state conditions,
the zone has to be designed to achieve a certain degree
of air cleanliness when in a resting state. The resting
state is the state whereby the entire technical equipment

Particle and VOC emissions, chemical and biological resistance, and cleanability 31
is installed and ready for operation but no employees
are present. The operating state is the state when all
equipment is being correctly operated by the prescribed
number of employees.
In compliance with the current EU-GMP Guideline Annex 1,
Figure 2 gives information about the classification of GMP
cleanliness classes according to the number of airborne
particles detected.
EU-GMP Guideline Annex 1: Cleanliness Classes
In the manufacture of sterile drugs, there are four cleanliness
classes for the zones required:
• Cleanliness Class A: sterile zones. These are
localised zones where high-risk work processes are
carried out (e.g., for filling processes, or areas where
containers with stoppers, open ampoules and bottles
are kept or sterile connections produced). Such
conditions are ensured using a laminar unidirectional
airflow system with a flow rate of 0.45 m/s + 20%.
• Cleanliness Class B: sterile zones. Unless an
insulator is used, this is where aseptic products are
prepared and filled; they form the antechamber of a
Cleanliness Class A zone.
• Cleanliness Classes C and D: clean zones.
Laboratories and manufacturing areas for less-critical
steps in the manufacture of sterile products.
• Cleanrooms of GMP Class E and F and CNC zones:
areas without defined particle or biocontamination
level. These may be manufacturing areas,
laboratories, documentation areas, offices, break
rooms and other room types. Recently, a new type of
cleanroom class is also mentioned: CNC (controlled
but not classified). These controlled zones do not
require stringent tests to be classified. Depending
on the official assessment, CNC areas may be
installed in hermetically separate sterile manufacturing
environments; for example, by using insulators, in
order to keep the extremely expensive tests and
documentation involved in classifying zones as low as
possible. 7
Figure 1 contains examples of work processes carried out in
the different cleanliness classes.
GMP Cleanliness
Class
A
B
C
D
Examples of work processes
for sterilised products in closed
end-containers
Aseptic preparation and filling
of products where the work step
represents an unusual risk
Environmental condition of Cleanliness
Class A unless an insulator
is used
Preparation of solutions where the
work step represents an unusual
risk, filling products
Preparation of solutions and ingredients
for subsequent filling
GMP
Cleanliness
Class
Maximal
permissible count
of particles per m 3
-resting state-
> 0.5 µm > 5 µm > 0.5 µm > 5 µm
A 3,520 20 3,520 20
B 3,520 29 352,000 2,900
C 352,000 2,900 3,520,000 29,000
D 3,520,000 29,000 Not fixed Not fixed
Figure 2. Classification of air quality in the manufacture of sterile
products: airborne particles in compliance with EU-GMP Annex 1.
In Figure 2, particle concentrations in the column “in a resting
state” must be attained in an area in an unmanned state
after a short clean-up phase of approximately 15-20 minutes
on completion of work processes. Particle concentrations in
the table for Cleanliness Class A in an operating state must
be observed in the immediate product area if the product or
open container is exposed to the environment. In hygienic
manufacturing environments, the number of microorganisms
on surfaces and in the air also plays a major role. Figure 3
shows the classification of cleanliness classes according to
the number of microorganisms detected.
GMP
Cleanliness
Class
Recommended limiting value for
microbiological contamination
Air sample
[CFU/m 3 ]
Maximal permissible
count of particles
per m 3
- operating state-
Sedimentation
plates
(Ø 90 mm)
[CFU/4 hours]
Contact
plates
(Ø 55 mm)
[CFU/plate]
A

32 Particle and VOC emissions, chemical and biological resistance, and cleanability
Hygienic materials suitable for use
in the food industry using the example
of flooring systems
All surfaces in a clean manufacturing environment that are
in contact with the ambient air are capable of contaminating
it. Consequently, they significantly affect the attainment
and maintenance of a required degree of cleanliness. For
example, if process water accumulates in the joint of a
flooring system sealed with poor quality sealing material, any
mould spores present could flourish there due to the good
local growing conditions (humidity, temperature, nutrients)
and become a major source of infection. If a material
corrodes as a result of the effect of an aggressive cleaning
agent, it not only loses its required material properties but
may become a dangerous source of particulate emissions.
Chemical influences may cause a flooring material to
become brittle. If mechanical action is subsequently applied
(transport rollers of a heavy preparation tank, etc.), cracks
could form, representing a microscopic hazard because it
would be impossible to remove or inactivate effectively any
microorganisms accumulating in the cracks. Among others,
this aspect was considered in the requirements of the EU-
GMP Guideline Annex 1 illustrated in Figure 4:
Extract from EU-GMP-guideline Annex 1:
» … in clean areas, all surfaces should be smooth, imperious and unbroken in
order to minimize the shredding or accumulation of particles or
microorganisms and to permit repeated application of cleaning agents and
desinfectants where used … «
» … The manufacture of sterile products is subject to special requirements in
order to minimize risks of microbiological contamination, and of particulate
or pyrogen contamination.«
Particle
Biol. Resistance and
Microbizidity
Cleaning and
Chem. Resistance
Figure 4. Extract from EU-GMP Annex 1 with derivable material
requirements.
Therefore, flooring systems installed in a hygienic
manufacturing environment need to be resistant to the
chemicals used in cleaning and disinfection agents.
Microorganisms may not colonise there or interact with them.
Surfaces must be thoroughly cleanable. No substances may
migrate from materials to the product and the material may
not host any form of contamination. In some industries,
material surfaces are treated with an antimicrobial agent.
In such cases, it is not only important to be sure that the
antimicrobial coating functions in practice but also that the
material does not represent a hazard to human health in any
way.
Due to the large surface area and associated contamination
risk of flooring systems, they are now discussed in more
detail. First of all, the under-surface of a flooring system
must be permanently sealable. Liquid residues from a
previous cleaning or disinfection process may remain on the
surface for a long time, making it extremely important for the
system to be highly resistant to the chemicals used. To be
able to clean edges and corners effectively, flooring must be
laid so that it extends upwards to cover the bottom section
of walls. The mechanical properties of the system must be
designed to prevent damage from occurring as a result of
typical stresses (e.g., rollers of transport trolleys, high point
loads). To generally aid cleanability, roughness levels must
be kept as low as possible. However, the need for a nonslip
coating, if required, may not be forgotten in the process.
Where possible, the transmission between floor and wall
systems should be seamless.
The biomaterial regulations in Annex 2 state that, for all
protective categories, surfaces are to be impermeable to
water and easy to clean. From Level 2 upwards, biomaterial
regulations require adequate resistance to acids, alkalis,
disinfection agents and solvents. 8
In the case of reactive systems (e.g., epoxy resin floors),
care must be taken to ensure that the outgassing of organic
contamination is kept to a minimum in order to protect
employees and, if sensitive processes are concerned, also
the product. No critical airborne particulate contamination
may be generated on subjecting the flooring system to
tribological stress (e.g., rollers, stress due to walking,
etc). Comparative tests need to be carried out on a wide
range of materials to determine outgassing behavior and
particulate emission due to tribological stress, and the
results appropriately classified. 9,10 It must be possible to
clean flooring systems effectively using dedicatedl cleaning
methods and agents.
Material and methods:
Comparative tests to classify materials
Particulate emission
If a material is subjected to mechanical stress due to
friction from another material, material abrasion in the form
of particle generation occurs. This also can be caused by
sliding friction from rollers or static friction from walking over
a flooring system wearing shoes. To obtain comparative
information about particulate emission from various flooring
systems due to tribological stress (friction), a special
tribological test bench has been constructed (Figure 5). It is
operated in a Class ISO 1 reference cleanroom to eliminate
measurement errors caused by potential foreign particles
in the environmental air. 2 In the comparative classification,
only sliding friction is considered. The counter sample
used in the tests is a standardised polyamide-6 roller that
simulates the sliding friction caused by transport rollers.
Both applied force and angular velocity are kept constant.
The laminar unidirectional airflow with a velocity of 0.45
m/s, which flows from the cleanroom ceiling to the raised
floor in accordance with ISO specifications for a Class 1
cleanroom, ensures that particles generated during the test
are transported downwards in a vertical direction towards
the sampling probe installed downstream that detects
the airborne particles (Figure 2). Using the principle of
scattered light, a particle counter detects all particles with
a diameter >0.2 µm and classifies the number of particles
into predefined particle size channels according to their
size. To take single events appropriately into account, the
test is performed for a minimum of one hour. On cumulating
the data and transforming coordinates, a result is obtained
that gives an assessment of the test material with regard to
particulate abrasion due to tribological stress. The procedure

PROVIDING LEVEL & FLOW INSTRUMENTATION
FOR HYGIENIC PROCESSING
level interface flow volume
Whether you need accurate and reliable level
measurement for a fermentor, a mobile bin for
single-use bags, or other bioprocessing vessels,
Magnetrol specializes in the latest generation of
hygienic measurement instruments.
nv
Our instruments provide precision accuracy in the
toughest applications, yet are easy to configure
and require negligible maintenance. Improve your
bioprocess control with leading-edge
measurement solutions from Magnetrol.
Heikensstraat 6 • 9240 Zele • Belgium
+32-(0)52-45.11.11 • info@magnetrol.be www.hygienicsolutions.magnetrol.com
ASME BPE

34 Particle and VOC emissions, chemical and biological resistance, and cleanability
is standardised and explained in detail in the guideline VDI
2083 Part 17. The material value obtained enables a direct
comparison of flooring systems to be made and shows
how much the system potentially contributes to particulate
contamination of the cleanroom environment when subjected
to tribological stress.
layered construction also is accounted for in the planned
application. Glass dishes made of borosilicate glass are
used as VOC-free carriers. Samples are preconditioned for a
period of 30 days under controlled climatic conditions (room
temperature 22+/-1°C, relative humidity of 45%. 12,13 Crosscontamination
of the samples during storage is prevented
through the use of mini-environments with VOC filtration. The
VOC-reduced quality of the environment must be at least
one class better than the anticipated VOC assessment of the
test piece. 9 After storage, material samples are heated in a
microchamber at atmospheric pressure and a standardised
temperature of 22°C +/-1°C for one hour. The VOCs emitted
from the material sample are then advanced to a sorption
tube by a rinsing gas where they are adsorbed. The sorption
tube is then analysed via TD-GC/MS. Thermodesorption
causes the VOC to be desorbed from the sorption tube and
made available for the subsequent analysis carried out in
compliance with VDA 278. The SER m of the material is then
ascertained from the results, which in turn can be expressed
as a simple standardised material value ISO AMC m . 14,15
Figure 5. Cleanroom-suitable tribological test bench at Fraunhofer
IPA to ascertain particulate emission from material surfaces. To
avoid cross-contamination, the test bench is installed in an ISO
Class 1 cleanroom.
VOC outgassing
In addition to particulate emission, the outgassing behaviour
of hygienic flooring systems due to mechanical stress also
is becoming a more important issue. When using suitable
materials, statutory limiting values for workplace stress
(MAK values) must be observed. Substances outgassing
from materials (e.g., softeners, solvents, and other volatile
constituents of materials) contribute significantly toward
contaminating the ambient air with airborne molecules (i.e.,
airborne molecular contamination, AMC). Here, organic
airborne contamination (volatile organic compounds, VOCs)
is the most relevant. 11 Airborne molecular contamination
has been identified as being the main cause of the socalled
“sick building syndrome.” The procedure, outlined
here, enables different flooring systems to be compared
with regard to the emission of VOCs; a ranking list has been
derived for their selection and classification. The quantity
of organic compounds released into the atmosphere is
dependent upon surface area, outgassing time, age, and
temperature of the test material. The specific emission rate
(SER) ascertained for each material is related to these
parameters and is expressed as mass per surface area and
time [g/m 2 s] at room temperature. To obtain comparable
results, a standardised test procedure using a microchamber
is applied (Figure 6).
Outgassing is assessed by collecting and accumulating
volatile compounds in an adsorber, followed by analysis using
thermodesorption with gas chromatography coupled with
a mass spectrometer (TD-GC/MS). Samples are selected
representatively according to their geometry and surface
quality, taking the later application of the flooring system
into consideration. In the case of multilayered materials, the
Figure 6. Microemission chamber to ascertain VOC emissions from
a material surface at Fraunhofer IPA.
Biological resistance
The international test standard Deutsches Institut
für Normung (DIN) EN ISO 846 has proven useful in
determining the biological resistance of materials to bacteria
and moulds. 16 Under the test conditions prescribed in the
standard, test materials are assessed to find out if they are
inert to moulds (Procedure A) and bacteria (Procedure C),
or if microorganisms are able to interact with them. Test
samples are incubated at 24°C and 95% relative humidity
in accordance with the parameters stated in ISO 846 and
visually evaluated after a period of four weeks. The numerical
ISO assessment of both Procedure A and Procedure C
enables classification according to a rating value based on a
worst case of both procedures.
The problem with the standard ISO 846 is the complicated
and time-consuming incubation procedure for the test
microorganisms if the procedure is done completely
according to the standard. Also ISO 846 lacks a standardized
objective assessment matrix for Procedure C to evaluate
bacterial growth as the stated assessment matrix is only
applicable for the evaluation of mould growth according to

Particle and VOC emissions, chemical and biological resistance, and cleanability 35
procedure A. So how bacterial growth should be evaluated?
There is no method described in ISO 846. Therefore,
as defeat strategy the majority of test laboratories and
Fraunhofer IPA use the assessment matrix for Procedure A
for the evaluation of procedure C. This lack has prompted
the Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN – German Institute
for Standardisation) at ISO level to initiate a revision of the
standard. The aim is to replace subjective visual assessment
with objective mechanical assessment through the use of
more cost-efficient automated image analysis methods. The
guideline series ISO 4628-1 to -6 gives an example of an
automated analysis method that uses reference images and
their black-and-white binarized images for comparison. 17
As mentioned before, the ISO 846 standard – which has
remained unchanged since 1997 – is currently being
revised. Interested institutes are invited to add their skills and
technical knowledge to the discussion and are requested to
contact the author.
Chemical resistance
There are several internationally-recognised standards for
assessing chemical resistance. Tests in accordance with
the DIN EN ISO 2812-1 immersion process have proven
especially useful in assessing the suitability of materials and
surfaces for use in hygienic manufacturing environments. 18
To compensate for the fact that future cleaning or disinfection
agents are not known at this point, materials are tested with
a representative spectrum of possible groups of chemicals.
This approach permits a general assessment about the
chemical resistance of materials to be made but not a specific
assessment regarding defined cleaning or disinfection
agents. The concept was developed by the industrial
alliance CSM under the management of Fraunhofer IPA and
is standardised in VDI 2083 Part 17 and VDI 2083 Part 18. 9,19
The resulting standard test assesses chemical resistance
to the following 10 representative reagents in dependence
upon their anticipated later maximum concentration in
cleaning and disinfection media:
With regard to outgassing:
• Formalin (37%)
• Hydrogen peroxide (30%)
• Peracetic acid (15%)
With regard to alcohols:
• Isopropanol (100%)
With regard to alkalis as constituents of alkaline cleaning
agents:
• Caustic soda (5%)
• Ammoniac (25%)
With regard to acids as constituents of acid cleaning agents:
• Sulfuric acid (5%)
• Hydrochloric acid (5%)
• Phosphoric acid (30%)
With regard to cleaning agents containing chlorides:
• Sodium hypochlorite (5%)
In accordance with the ISO 2812-1 immersion procedure,
the entire material sample is placed in a receptacle filled with
the chemical, which is then hermetically sealed. If a coating
applied to a substrate requires testing, care is to be taken to
ensure that all surfaces and edges of the carrier material are
sealed with the coating concerned. In the modified spotting
method according to VDI 2083-18, the test substance is
placed in a glass vessel. The test surface and a seal are
placed over it and then clamped into a device to create a
hermetic seal. The test apparatus is then rotated 180° so
that the test chemical is in contact with the surface of the
sample.
The modification made to ISO 2812-4 requires a much
larger volume of test chemical. 20 If only a droplet is applied,
evaporation phenomena cannot be excluded. Test pieces
are exposed to the respective reagents at room temperature
for a period of one, three, six and 24 hours and subsequently
examined to see if there any visiible alterations. Using 10-
fold magnification, the test surface is visually assessed
conform to ISO 4628-1 to -5 with regard to the following
criteria: type of damage (alteration in degree of shine,
discolouring or yellowing, swelling, softening or reduced
scratch resistance); amount of damage (N-value); size
of damage (S-value) and intensity of alteration (I-value). 17
The analysis is carried out as follows: “blistering, N2-S2” or
“discolouring, I1”. The poorest value (N, S, I) obtained after
24 hours is taken for the comparative assessment. In the
CSM procedure, the mean of all 10 values from each of
the previously mentioned chemicals gives the rating value,
which is used for classification and comparison.
Microbicidal properties
Some flooring systems have microbicidal properties;
these can be divided into bactericidal properties (effect on
bacteria) and fungicidal properties (effect on moulds). One
method of assessing bactericidal effects is to implement the
international test standard ISO 22196. 21 In the standard, the
recommended bacteria strains Staphylococcus aureus and
Escherichia coli are incubated on a surface sample treated
with a bactericide and also on another sample without the
bactericide. Other bacterial strains may also be utilised but
this must be clearly mentioned in the test report. Using the
contact plate method, the once-only assessment of the
logarithmic reduction factor R = log(CFU untreated /CFU treated ) is
made after a period of 24 hours by determining the number of
bacteria present on the reference surface, as well as on the
surface treated with bactericide. 22 CFU stands for “colonyforming
units” because bacteria can only be detected and
counted if they have grown during incubation to form visible
colonies. With the contact plate method, a solid incubation
medium (casein-soya-peptone-agar or similar) with a surface
area of approximately 50 cm 2 is applied to a flat surface with
a defined pressure over a defined period of time; specifically,
5 seconds, where possible, with sufficient force so that the
entire surface is in contact with the medium but without
any air bubbles forming. An application weight of 1 kg has
proved effective. Samples are incubated in the same way as

36 Particle and VOC emissions, chemical and biological resistance, and cleanability
other cultivation test procedures. The efficacy of fungistatic
or fungicidal coatings can be assessed on implementing
Procedure B outlined in ISO 846. Fungistatic or fungicidal
effects can be assessed if an inhibition zone is formed after
application of the material sample to a fully-colonised Petri
dish.
Cleanability
In order to assure hygienic processes and give products
a maximum shelf life, adequate cleanability is generally
necessary from a hygienic aspect. 23 A clean manufacturing
environment is capable of minimising factors that could have
a negative effect on sensitive products. 24 A standardised
test procedure verifies the degree of effectiveness with
which particles can be removed from a flooring system by
wipe-cleaning. A linear wiping simulator is used to ensure
reproducibility of the cleaning (Figure 7). Before being
cleaned, test surfaces are reproducibly contaminated with
a defined quantity of particles. Before and after the cleaning
process, the concentration of particles present is determined
by a measuring device that detects particles on surfaces
(PMT Partikel-Messtechnik GmbH, Heimsheim, Germany).
This enables the relative cleaning success of different
surfaces to be calculated, and gives a comparative value
based on standardised surface cleanliness classes. 9,25,26
Figure 15 shows the results of a cleanability test on a
material surface.
Particulate emission
The classification of particulate emission is based on the air
cleanliness classes defined in ISO 14644-1 (Figure 8). 2 It is
principally assumed that all particles generated by a flooring
system as a result of tribological stress are released into a
surrounding volume of air of 1 m 3 . 9 The ISO class calculated
according to VDI 2083 Part 17 is, however, only a material
classification value and cannot be directly correlated with
the cleanroom class in which the flooring system can
be implemented. To do this, the anticipated tribological
stress also has to be taken into consideration. However,
the material classification value established does enable
the abrasion resistance of different flooring systems to be
directly compared.
Figure 8. Classification of air cleanliness in accordance with ISO
14644-1. The classification of particulate emission behaviour from
material samples is based on this classification..
VOC outgassing
Figure 7. Linear wiping simulator.
Classification
Classifications regarding particulate emission, outgassing,
chemical and biological resistance, antimicrobial properties
and cleanability are explained below in detail as developed
by the industrial alliance CSM and standardised in the
guideline VDI 2083 Part 17. The clear comparability and
simple communication of information enables suitable
materials to be rapidly selected according to their future
conditions of use.
To convert the SER value into an ISO AMC m class for
the type of contamination concerned (in this case volatile
organic compounds) the value is normed. The classification
is based on ISO AMC cleanroom classes in accordance with
ISO 14644-8 (Figure 9). 27 The actual detection limit is ISO
AMC m (VOC) = -9.6. This material classification calculated
in accordance with VDI 2083 Part 17 does not correlate
with the corresponding ISO AMC cleanroom class. It does
however permit the outgassing behavior of different flooring
systems to be directly compared with one another. Based on
the material classification value ISO AMC m , the anticipated
ISO AMC class can be estimated if all relevant operating
parameters are known (e.g., surface area, air-conditioning
technology, volume of the manufacturing environment,
etc.). 10,14

Particle and VOC emissions, chemical and biological resistance, and cleanability 37
Results
Particulate emission,
VOC outgassing and microbiological resistance
Figure 11 shows the results from an assessment of the
floor covering Sikafloor 390 in accordance with ISO 846
Procedures A and C.
Figure 11: Assessment of the floor covering Sikafloor 390 in
accordance with ISO 846 Procedure A and C.
Figure 9. Cleanroom classification in accordance with ISO 14644-
8 and classification of the outgassing behavior of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from material samples.
Chemical and biological resistance,
microbicidity
Chemical and biological resistance and microbicidity are
classified according to Figure 10:
Figure 12 shows a summary of concrete material
results regarding particulate emission, outgassing and
microbiological resistance. Detailed data are available to
the public in the database at the websites www.ipa-csm.com
and www.ipa.qualification.com.
Figure 10. Classification of chemical and biological resistance and
antimicrobial properties.

38 Particle and VOC emissions, chemical and biological resistance, and cleanability
Figure 14 shows the results from an assessment of the
chemical resistance of a flooring system with various
exposure times (Exp.) in accordance with ISO 2812-1 and
ISO 4628-1 to -5:
Figure 12. Overview of examples of tested flooring systems,
wall coatings and sealants with regard to outgassing, particulate
emission and microbiological resistance. Note: Not all tests were
carried out on all materials. Key: Type “P” means panel material,
“E” is epoxy-system, “F” is floor system, “S” is sealant, “P” is PUsystem
and “A” is acrylic system.
Chemical Resistance.
Figure 13 shows an example of a classification of the
chemical resistance of another flooring system.
Figure 14. Assessment of the chemical resistance of a material
sample in accordance with ISO 2812-1 and ISO 4628-1 to -5.
Photographic examples of the effects of two chemicals.
Cleanability
Figure 13: Example of assessment of chemical resistance of a
material sample in accordance with VDI 2083 Part 17.
The cleanability of a material surface is currently expressed
as a relative cleaning success. If, for example, a surface
cleanliness class of SPC = 6 (SPC class in accordance with
ISO 14644-9 [26]) is ascertained before cleaning and SPC
= 4 after cleaning, the relative cleaning success is two SPC
classes. One method of standardisation would be to have a
defined level of initial contamination. As no valid standards
apply at the moment, the relative cleaning success is
used as a comparable material value. For the purposes
of comparison, an identical level of contamination was
applied to the test materials listed below, which was then
measured, removed and the surface inspected again after
cleaning. Surface roughness values Ra in accordance with
ISO 4287 along and across the direction of grinding were

Precise, safe and fast : GEMÜ 660
The diaphragm valve for filling processes
This compact diaphragm valve enables precise and safe filling in the foodstuff,
beverage and pharmaceutical industries.
The exact scaling enables strokes to be adjusted accurate to the millimeter.
Further advantages of the GEMÜ 660:
• Fast cycle duties
• Reduced control air consumption
• High repeatability
• CIP and SIP suitability
www.gemu-group.com

40 Particle and VOC emissions, chemical and biological resistance, and cleanability
also recorded. 28 Figure 15 shows a graphical illustration of
the test results and corresponding SPC class of a material
surface before and after cleaning. Figure 16 shows the final
results from different material surfaces tested.
Figure 15. Graph showing the test results and corresponding SPC
class of a material surface before and after cleaning. Particle sizes
are shown on the x-axis. Particle concentrations are shown on the
y-axis. SPC class values have been taken from ISO/FDIS 14644-9.
Figure 16. Overview of examples of material surfaces tested and
relative cleaning efficiency.
Summary
A comprehensive understanding of the various aspects of
cleanliness in hygienic manufacturing is required in order to
select suitable flooring systems for cleanroom constructions.
Reliable procedures for testing and assessing the cleanliness
suitability of materials make it possible to compare materials
objectively. The procedure has been standardised in the
guideline VDI 2083 Part 17. The ISO standardisation
currently being carried out at international level is based on
the VDI guideline. By carrying out numerous tests on flooring
systems, a pool of knowledge has been created regarding
the cleanliness suitability of materials for use in hygienic
manufacturing environments.
Under www.tested-device.com and www.ipa-csm.com, the
world’s first public database has been set up by Fraunhofer
IPA for materials and operating utilities suitable for use in
cleanrooms and hygienic manufacturing environments.
The materials and results accessible to the public can
be viewed at any time. This enables appropriate flooring
systems to be selected for use in clean and hygienic
manufacturing environments even during the design phase
of a manufacturing environment.

Particle and VOC emissions, chemical and biological resistance, and cleanability 41
References
1. EU-GMP Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice, Annex 1. (2008).
Manufacture of sterile medicinal products. Brussels: European
Commission.
2. ISO 14644-1. Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments
– Part 1: Classification of air cleanliness. Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization, 1999.
3. Keller, Markus. Hygiene and Training (in German). In: Lothar Gail,
Udo Gommel and Hans-Peter Hortig. Reinraumtechnik. 3. Auflage.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2011.
4. USP 30 . The United States Pharmacopeia. Rockville MD:
United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 2003.
5. DIN 1946-4. Ventilation and air conditioning – Part 4: Ventilation
in buildings and rooms of health care. Berlin: Beuth Verlag, 2007.
6. Bürger, Frank and Schweizer, Marion. Equipment Design in
clean and hygienic environments (in German). In: Lothar Gail, Udo
Gommel and Horst Weißsieker. Projektplanung Reinraumtechnik.
Heidelberg: Hüthig Verlag, 2009, pp. 84-85.
7. Chalk, Simon, et al. (2011). Challenging the cleanroom paradigm
for biopharmaceutical manufacturing of bulk drug substances.
BioPharm International. 2011, Vol. 24, 8, pp. 44-60.
8. BioStoffV. Ordinance on safety and health protection at work
involving biological agents. Federal Gazette I p. 50. Berlin: Federal
Ministry of Justice, 1999.
9. VDI 2083 part 17 (draft). Cleanroom technology – Compatibility
of materials with required cleanliness class and surface cleanliness.
Berlin: Beuth Verlag, 2012.
10. Keller, Markus. Molecular Emissions from cleanroom suitable
materials (in German). ReinRaumTechnik. Darmstadt: GIT Verlag
GmbH & Co. KG, 2010. Vol. 12, 3, pp. 14-17.
11. ISO 16000-6. Indoor air – Part 6: Determination of volatile organic
compounds in indoor and test chamber air by active sampling on
Tenax TA ® sorbent, thermal desorption and gas chromatography
using MS or MS-FID. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization,
2006.
12. ISO 16000-11. Indoor air – Part 11: Determination of the emission
of volatile organic compounds from building products and furnishing
– Sampling, storage of samples and preparation of test specimens.
Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
13. VDI 2083 part 9.1. Clean room technology – Compatibility with
required cleanliness and surface cleanliness. Berlin: Beuth Verlag,
2006.
14. Keller, Markus. (2011). VOC emissions test method: Calculating
VOC emissions. Cleanroom Technology. 19:19-23.
16. ISO 846. Plastics – Evaluation of the action of microorganisms.
Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 1997.
17. ISO 4628-1 to -5. Paints and varnishes – Evaluation of degradation
of coatings – Designation of quantity and size of defects, and of
intensity of uniform changes in appearance. Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization, 2003.
18. ISO 2812-1. Paints and varnishes – Determination of resistance
to liquids – Part 1: Immersion in liquids other than water. Geneva:
International Organization for Standardization, 2007.
19. VDI 2083 part 18. Biocontamination control. Berlin: Beuth Verlag,
2011.
20. ISO 2812-4. Paints and varnishes – Determination of resistance
to liquids – Part 4: Spotting methods. Geneva: International Organization
for Standardization, 2007.
21. ISO 22196. Measurement of antibacterial activity on plastics and
other non-porous surfaces. Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization, 2011.
22. DIN 10113-3. Determination of surface colony count on fitment
and utensils in foodareas – Part 3: Semiquantitative method with
culture media laminated taking up equipment (squeeze method).
Berlin: Beuth Verlag, 1997.
23. Bobe, U. The cleanability of techical surfaces in immersed
systems (in German). Technical University Munich: Department
of Apparatus and Plant Design; Center of Life and Food Sciences
Weihenstephan, 2008.
24. Gommel, Udo. Method for the determination of the cleanroom
suitability of material pairings. In: IPA-IAO research and practice
Volume 445. University of Stuttgart, Institute for Industrial Manufacturing
and Management, Dissertation, ISBN 3-936947-8, 2006.
Heimsheim: Jost-Jetter Verlag, 2006
25. Keller, Markus and Waldner, Alina. (2011). How effective ist he
cleaning of different surfaces? (in german). Der Lebensmittelbrief.
Vol. 22, 9/10, pp. 53-58.
26. ISO 14644-9. Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments
– Part 9: Classification of surface cleanliness by particle
concentration. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization,
2012.
27. ISO 14644-8. Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments
– Part 8: Classification of airborne molecular contamination.
Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
28. ISO 4287. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Surface
texture: Profile method – Terms, definitions and surface texture
parameters. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization,
2010.
15. Gommel, Udo, Bürger, Frank and Keller, Markus. Cleanroom and
Cleanliness suitability – definitions, test methods and assessment
(in German). In: Lothar Gail, Udo Gommel and Hans-Peter Hortig.
Reinraumtechnik. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2011.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Hygienic design of floor drainage components
Drainage is a critical component affecting the hygienic performance of food production facilities.
This article considers surface drainage holistically at site level initially before focusing internally
to look at how features within the drain component itself might elevate hygienic performance.
Martin Fairley, ACO Technologies plc, e-mail: mfairley@aco.co.uk, www.aco.co.uk
Drainage is a critical component that affects the hygienic
performance of food production facilities. Effective drainage
helps mitigate hazards from the external environment and
is central to the safe and hygienic operation internally.
Floor drainage specifically provides three basic functions
– interception, conveyance of fluids, and the ability to act
as a barrier. Despite its importance, relatively few academic
studies have focused on hygienic attributes of floor drains.
Of greater concern are the numerous examples of drainage
installations that exhibit some capacity to be termed
hazardous. This is often a result of a floor-drain interface
issue, but can equally apply to the component design
itself. This article considers surface drainage holistically at
site level initially before focusing internally to look at how
features within the drain component itself might elevate
hygienic performance.
Such holistic consideration of drainage is necessary for
any operation, but becomes critical where hygiene is of
importance. While surface water sewers are now more
common, many countries have a substantial legacy of
combined surface and foul drainage systems of fixed
and often inadequate capacity. Should such a system
surcharge – due to influx of large amounts of surface water
— sewer backflow may occur. The risk can be managed
through specification of adequate backflow prevention
devices. Optimally, these sense backflow and automatically
close, re-opening once the event has subsided. Figure 1
illustrates such a device with the necessary twin valves,
one operated by external power, in accordance with EN
13564 type 3,
Site level drainage consideration
Of course, drains serve both internal and external
requirements and it is worthwhile reviewing the increasing
focus on external drainage design. Many countries now
acknowledge the impact of changing weather patterns and
the implications for surface water management. The EU
Flood Directive (2007) initiated local flood risk management
plans that spurred specific legislation related to this growing
external hazard. In England and Wales, for example, the
Flood and Water Management Act (2010) empowers local
government to coordinate flood risk management, and this
translates directly to planning requirements that must be
satisfied before building work commences.
The implication for newly built construction is far more focused
on mitigating flood risk to people and property. At site level
this requires consideration of a number of potential (model)
storm events and drainage design to accommodate them.
Ultimately, the degree to which the risk is managed is a choice
of the building operator. Storm events are commonly specified
by their frequency, duration and intensity; for example,
it is necessary to consider the impact of a 1:100-year (1%
probability) storm in England, the duration and intensity of
which will depend upon the geographical area selected in
the model. The building operator may choose to manage
less probable events; in other words, a 1:200-year (0.5%
probability) event logically produces greater water volumes,
and therefore an appropriate drainage design should follow.
As may be appreciated, these new challenges to site design
are accommodated in newly built construction. Existing
facilities may well benefit from an engineering assessment
of their drainage via a qualified professional conversant with
local regulation, as many of the techniques used in a newly
built construction can be retrofitted to existing sites.
Figure 1. A sewer backflow prevention device.
In more modern schemes, site connection will be to surface
water sewer only, and in many cases, no sewer at all. In
such situations the risk of building flooding can be reduced
by accommodating more storm water in the now ubiquitous
underground geocellular storage devices as shown in Figure
2. Furthermore, the building operator may request that his
or her designer does not allow car parks or other areas of
the production facility to be designated as ‘flood storage’,
which is becoming a common approach. Although in many
cases this may be entirely justified on the grounds of cost
avoidance, food production facilities may prefer to adopt
alternative measures. In any case, it is necessary to specify
adequate freeboard over the expected flood level with
respect to the building floor.

Hygienic design of floor drainage components 43
Figure 2. Geocellular storage systems provide efficient
underground capacity to manage flood risk to the building and to
meet local volume discharge consents.
Internal floor drainage
It is well recognised that drainage is an essential component
of effective hygienic operation. Global initiatives such as the
Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI 2012) and European
Economic Community legislation (EC 852) highlight the
requirement for adequate drainage. Further definitions
can be sourced from the various European standards
as referenced in this article, as well as local building or
construction regulations.
Within the food production facility, surface fluids present a
hazard for which an appropriate risk assessment strategy
can be devised. Fluids may be part of the cleaning process,
or may originate from specific equipment discharge points,
or be simply the result of accidental spillage. Quite often
the fluid contains other components – organic matter being
prevalent. Floor drainage components cater for these
situations through three core functions:
• Interception
• Conveyance
• Barrier capability
The main categories of floor drainage, gullies and linear
channels, differ in their performance of these functions.
The property of interception can be related to the efficiency
of surface fluid removal, a function equally influenced by the
source: Point discharges can be most efficiently intercepted
by a gully, often with a tundish or funnel component on the
cover or grate to minimise splashing. In cases in which large
volumes of fluid discharge over a wider area, wide channel
systems provide interception along their length and prevent
bypass. Examples of both are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Fluid interception and conveyance illustrated on the left in
a slot linear channel, and localised point interception is shown on
the right through a tundish connected to a floor gully.
Conveyance relates to fluid movement or transport. While
fluid conveyance across floors should be minimised it is
clear that linear channels exhibit good conveyance attributes
with the benefit of generally keeping the drainage invert
higher than with a pure gully system. This is especially so in
larger areas. This attribute is also useful in drainage retrofit
schemes, where construction depths might be minimised
with subsequently less disruption. Gullies on the other hand,
convey only to the ongoing drain pipe.
The ability to create a barrier that prevents fluid bypass
may be important at specific locations, such as doorways.
As such, drainage layout may be part of the wider scheme
of segregation or zoning within the facility as illustrated in
Figure 4.
Figure 4. A common position for floor drainage.

44 Hygienic design of floor drainage components
That drains might contribute to segregation or zoning, and
indeed their impact hygienically on the facility, is a matter
for debate, though reference to drainage is made in a
number of EHEDG derived publications (Lelieveld, Mostert,
Holah: 2003; 2005; 2011). Zhoa et al. (2006) in their study
of Listeria in poultry plants noted the importance of drains:
“Floor drains in food processing facilities are a particularly
important niche for the persistence of Listeria and can be a
point of contamination in the processing plant environment
and possibly in food products” (ibid, p. 3314).
However, even when the provisions contained in component
standards are adopted, these are not necessarily aligned
with best hygienic practice. For example, the standard EN
1253 permits the design of gullies with an effective sump, as
illustrated in Figure 6. Here, the obvious sump provides all of
the potential ingredients for bacterial growth.
More recent work by Berrang et al. (2012) studied Listeria
mobilization from the drain by inadvertent water spray during
cleaning operations, with subsequent potential to transfer to
food contact surfaces. Of note, Berrang cites studies where
such bacteria have been detected in floor drainage even
after extensive plant sanitation (ibid p. 1328).
Reducing the potential for harbourage of such pathogens
should be a key concern of any floor drainage product
manufacturer concerned with hygienic principles.
Floor drainage issues in practice
Generally, two main issues give rise to hygienic concern:
issues related to installation, and in particular the floor-todrain
interface, and issues related to the component design
itself. Here, the latter is considered.
The choice of materials for drainage component manufacture
is extensive and not necessarily constrained by the key
European standard (EN 1253). Typically, where hygienic
considerations apply, stainless steels are advocated. With
the readily available supply of appropriate grade sheet,
it should come as no surprise that many components are
fabricated by none drainage-specific companies. Linear
channels in basic form, especially, can be easily fabricated,
as can simple ‘box’ type gullies. It is estimated that more
than 200 suppliers fabricate drainage components in the
European Union (EU) alone (ACO 2009), the vast majority
of which are primarily fabrication companies with no specific
expertise in drainage. Consequently, there is huge variation
in how floor drains are fabricated, two examples are shown
in Figure 5.
Figure 6. Horizontal gully as portrayed in BS EN 1253.
It thus becomes necessary to supplement general standards
with further guidance. In the case of the floor gully, many
of the design aspects of European Hygienic Engineering
Design Group (EHEDG) guidance documents, particularly
Document 13, may be economically incorporated in product
design.
ACO has sought to incorporate in its components:
• Continuous welding of joints
• Radiused corners
• Drainability
The new horizontal gully in Figure 7 shows a floor drain
body that addresses the above points.
Figure 5. A case for improved drainage component design.
For the facility operator, specification of components that
meet appropriate standards – Euronorms or their regional
counterparts – ensures compliance with a number of criteria,
not the least of which are load bearing and hydraulic capacity.
As a matter of course, certification should be requested from
component suppliers (e.g., for the internal floor gully the
recommended reference is EN 1253 [2003]).
Figure 7. Floor gully body addressing key principles of hygienic
design.

ACO. The future of drainage.
We take hygienic performance one step further.
Deep-drawn body ensures smooth
contours eliminating crevices that can
nest dangerous bacteria.
All radiuses are larger
than 3mm which greatly
increases the cleaning
effectiveness.
Edge in-fill ensures stable and
durable transmission between
the gully and surrounding floor
and helps to minimize the risk
of floor cracks that prevents
bacteria growth.
Dry sump design, completely drainable
- eliminating potential problems
of bacteria growth.
ACO gully ACO pipe ACO slot channel
ACO tray channel
ACO gully design takes hygienic performance one step further. We focus on the exacting
requirements in the food production industry, applying standards reserved for food contact
surfaces EN 1672 and EN ISO 14159 to the gully design. All our building drainage products
are tested according to European standards EN 1253, EN 1433 or EN 1124.
More than 60 years of drainage experience makes ACO the world class supplier of
drainage systems.
www.aco-buildingdrainage.com

46 Hygienic design of floor drainage components
A further step necessary to ensure hygienic design and
one that is not always taken in drain fabrication is the pickle
passivation process. The benefits of the process are well
understood. Given the nature of drains, passivation helps
prevent corrosion at points where inspection and cleaning is
more difficult, and as such, it should be part of the standard
checklist for any potential user.
In summary it is useful to provide a quick checklist of the key
aspects of hygienic floor drainage:
Certified to EN 1253 or local equivalent
Pickle passivated stainless steel Grade 304, 316
or higher to specification
Key hygienic design parameters of Document 13
evident
Specified according to the application requirements
for traffic load
Specified according to the application requirements
for hydraulic flow
Bibliography
ACO (2009) Market survey of drainage component producers in
Europe. Internal Report.
Berrang, B.E. and J.E. Frank. (2012). Generation of airborne Listeria
innocua from model floor drains. Journal of Food Protection, Vol.75,
7:1328-1331.
Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood
risks.
EN (BS) 1253:2003. Gullies for buildings. British Standards
Institution (BSI). London.
EN (BS) 13564:2002. Anti-flooding devices for buildings. British
Standards Institution (BSI). London.
EHEDG Document 13. Hygienic design of open equipment for
processing of food. May 2004.
Flood and Water Management Act (2010 ) England and Wales,
Chapter 29, (2010). London. HMSO
GFSI Guidance Document Sixth Edition Issue 3 Version 6.2 (2012).
www.mygfsi.com/technical-resources/guidance-document/issue-3-
version-62.html.
H. L. M. Lelieveld, M. A. Mostert, and J. Holah. Hygiene in food
processing: Principles and practice. Woodhead Publishing Series in
Food Science, Cambridge 2003
H. L. M. Lelieveld, M. A. Mostert, and J. Holah. Handbook of hygiene
control in the food industry. Woodhead Publishing Ltd. Cambridge
2005
H. L. M. Lelieveld, M. A. Mostert, and J. Holah. Hygienic design
of food factories. Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science,
Cambridge 2011
Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs.
Zhao, T., T.C. Podtburg, P. Zhao, B.E. Schmidt, D.A. Baker, B. Cords,
M.P. Doyle. (2006). Control of Listeria spp. by competitive-exclusion
bacteria in floor drains of a poultry processing plant. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 72, 5:3314-3320.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Hygienic design of high performance doors for utilisation
in the food industry
In order to protect human health stringent hygiene regulations are implemented throughout the
food industry, from small- to large-scale food production operations, to kitchens and canteens.
The most important hygiene regulations are comprised of mandatory requirements regarding
food safety, many of which focus on ensuring that the design of and materials used in the
manufacture of equipment, walls, floors, ceilings, and doors used in food production facilities
meet hygienic standards. In this article, hygiene regulations pertaining to doors providing
entrance and exit from food manufacturing operations are discussed, as well as a door system
designed for hygienic ingress and egress from low-risk and high-risk areas.
Daniel Grüttner-Mierswa, Albany Door Systems GmbH, D-59557 Lippstadt, Phone +49 (0 29 41) 766-644,
e-mail: Daniel.Gruettner-Mierswa@assaabloy.com, www.albanydoors.com
Doors regulate access to production, washing and storage
areas, separate these safely from each other, and are
beneficial for smooth-running logistical operations. They
also can be used as entrances to airlocks, which separate
clean and dirty areas from each other (Figure 1). For these
reasons, the hygienic design of doors is critically important,
and several European regulations and standards are in place
to help ensure that these building components contribute to
the sanitary conditions of food production facilities.
The most important hygiene regulations are comprised of
mandatory requirements regarding food safety, such as
European Commission (EC) Regulation 1935/2004 for
utilised materials, which regulates the general principles and
the requirements of the hygiene regulations for all foods.
It stipulates, among others, that doors have to be easily
cleanable and, if applicable, easy to disinfect.
Figure 1. Doors can be used as entrances to airlocks, separating
clean from dirty areas in a food production facility.
This high level of hygiene requires a special resistance of
the utilised materials against aggressive cleaning agents,
as well as smooth and water repellent surfaces. In addition,
according to EC Regulation 852/2004, operators must
integrate doors into their Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Points (HAACP) plans, the self-implemented food safety risk
analysis and management system. Specifically, under Article
5 of the regulation, food processors are obliged to introduce
a permanent procedure based on this system.
An example of a door meeting hygienic
requirements
The Albany Rapid Food Door is a good example of the type
of door that meets regulatory and other hygiene standards
criteria. The Rapid Food Door is certified with the Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social
Accident Insurance (DGUV) test mark and has been
hygiene tested by the test and certification body of the
German Berufsgenossenschaft BG Expert Committee for
Food and Drug. The hygienic suitability of the Rapid Food
door also meets the requirements of the German Product
Safety Act, the DIN EN 1672-2:2009 and EC Regulation
852/2004 regarding the cleanability of the curtain and easy
access for cleaning to all surfaces and components.
The side frames and the bottom profile of the door are
completely made of stainless steel (V2A). Additionally,
the door offers a slanted top roll cover and motor cover
to ensure drainage. The top roll cover is hinged for easy
cleaning. The side columns are open at the bottom in order
to avoid the collection of excess cleaning water. Due to
the hinged side frames, it is possible to thoroughly clean
and disinfect the inside of the side columns. The drain
drip on the bottom profile ensures that no liquid enters the
clearance between the door curtain and the floor in order to
avoid the contamination of foods. Additionally it is possible
to adjust the lower end position to stop the bottom profile
from touching the floor. Therefore it is kept dry and clean
just as the drain drip.
The smooth door curtain made of transparent PVC with blue
reinforcement stripes is resistant against cleaning aids and
is not affected in its function or appearance by permanent
cleaning, which meets the requirements of EC Regulation
852/2004. The reinforcement stripes are available in an
extensive variety of RAL colours, which means that the
door can also be customised to its production surroundings.
A curtain conforming to the regulations of the US Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), which stipulates the
requirements for PVC that come into contact with food, is
also available.
The Rapid Food Door also meets the requirements of the
Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), which divides food
production facilities into three hygiene zones. Hygiene

48 Hygienic design of high performance doors for utilisation in the food industry
Zone 1 entails stringent requirements regarding hygiene
and cleanability. Open products are processed in these
areas. Wood and glass are strictly prohibited. Access is
only granted in protective clothing after the disinfection of
hands. In Hygiene Zone 2, prepacked products are stored.
Wooden sheets are tolerated. Stringent hygienic-based
access requirements similar to Zone 1 apply to this hygiene
zone. In the third, the lowest risk hygiene zone, packed
goods are stored. There are no stringent requirements for
this area.
Figure 2. The Albany airlock system is used to ensure hygienic
and continuous material flow from low-care to high-care areas at
Milupa’s Fulda, Germany processing plant.
An example of an application: Milupa, Fulda
The Rapid Food Door is utilised at Milupa, a member of
the Danone Group, at its Fulda, Germany location. In the
production of baby and infant foods, as well as clinical
products, stringent hygiene regulations are observed in
order not to endanger the health of children or adults.
The company focuses on flawless hygienic conditions in
its food production facilities that exceed the mandatory
requirements. Complex air filters and airlocks protect against
contamination and create perfect conditions in production.
While the raw material warehouse of Milupa is classified
as a ‘low care’ area, the production is classified as a ‘high
care’ area due to the latter’s stringent hygienic requirements.
This conforms to Hygiene Zone 1 of the GFSI (Global Food
Saftey Intitiative). In order to ensure a continuous material
flow from the low care area to the high care area, Milupa
introduced the Albany airlock system into its Fulpa facility.
• Due to the interlocking system, only one door at a
time can be opened. Access to the high care area is
not granted unless the opposite door has completely
closed. This ensures additional hygiene and offers
security to the warehouse staff. The red vertical
reinforcement stripes indicate the change from the
low care to the high care area, and mark the strict
separation of the two areas. The stainless steel side
frames of the door conform to the stringent hygiene
regulations of the food industry. Just like the curtain,
they can be cleaned easily and thoroughly due to the
smooth surfaces. The company opted for this door
type not only because it meets the requirements of
the Good Hygiene Praxis (GHP), which refers to the
hygienic conditions of the surroundings and includes
hygienic measures regarding room climate, protection
against pests and/or the surface design of the interior,
but also matches the HACCP concept instituted by
Milupa.

ExcEllEnt PErformancE!
Simply more: www.freudenberg-process-seals.com
The white sealing compound 70 EPDM 253815 offers the same excellent
properties as its black counterpart 70 EPDM 291.
featuring best mechanical and chemical resistance it is able to resist extreme process conditions during
pharmaceutical and food production. trust the original: sealing compounds from Process Seals.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Performance testing of air filters for hygienic environments:
Standards and guidelines in the 21 st century
Air filtration is the key technology that supplies air of the required cleanliness to hygienic
production areas and to ensure sufficient air quality for processes, products and human
beings. Increasing demands for high-filtration performance and energy-efficient operation
have prompted recent updates of existing standards and guidelines and the definition of new
international documents.
Dr.-Ing. Thomas Caesar, Freudenberg Filtration Technologies SE & Co. KG, 69465 Weinheim, Germany
e-mail: Thomas.Caesar@Freudenberg-Filter.com
For the manufacturing, testing, classification, installation and
operation of air filters in general, and in the food industry in
particular, various standards and guidelines must be heeded.
The hygienic requirements for general building ventilation
are laid down in the European standard EN 13779. For
cleanrooms and associated controlled environments the
filter selection, installation, inspection and operation, in
particular of high efficient particulate air (HEPA) and ultra low
penetration air (ULPA) filters, is defined in the international
series of standards International Standards Organisation
(ISO) 14644. In the food industry, guidance documents of
the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and of the European
Hygienic Engineering and Design Group (EHEDG) have
to be regarded, in particular EHEDG Document 30, which
offers the defining guidelines on air handling in the food
industry. This document is currently under revision.
Unlike the hygienic requirements for building and production
area ventilation, the manufacturer testing and classification
of air filters has not yet been standardised on a global level.
In Europe, air filters are tested and classified according to
two standards, EN 779 for coarse and fine dust filters and
EN 1822 for efficient particulate air (EPA), HEPA and ULPA
filters. In the United States, this is standardised by the ANSI/
ASHRAE standard 52.2. Currently, great efforts are made
to harmonise these standards globally and to add additional
aspects that have not yet been considered in the existing
standards and guidelines; in particular, naming standards
and guidelines on the energy performance of air filters.
New ISO standard for filter high efficiency
(EPA, HEPA and ULPA) filters
In 2006, the ISO Technical Committee (TC) 142 “Cleaning
Equipment for Air and Other Gases” was reactivated, with the
aim to harmonise the world of standards and guidelines for
air and gas filtration on a global level. The first international
standard from this committee, ISO 29464 “Cleaning
equipment for air and other gases - Terminology“ was
published recently, and standardises the terminology around
filtration. In October 2011, the standard ISO 29463 “Highefficiency
filters and filter media for removing particles in air”
followed, defining in five parts the testing and classification
of high-efficiency air filters. This new international standard
is based, in its essential elements, on the European standard
EN 1822 and will likely replace it in the near future. As in
EN 1822, high-efficiency filters are subdivided into three
different groups by the new standard ISO 29463 (Table 1):
EPA. Filters of this group can neither be leak-proof tested
at the manufacturer’s premises nor after installation at the
user’s site. The efficiency is ensured by test methods as
part of the manufacturer’s quality control system based on
statistical methods. EPA filters typically are used to remove
yeast and mold from the air stream.
HEPA. Filters of this group typically are used to effectively
remove bacteria and viruses from the air stream, supplying
sterile air, and have to be individually leakage tested by the
manufacturer. The reference test method is the scan test
procedure, where the whole surface of the filter element is
scanned with particle counter probes measuring the local
efficiency values. Alternatively, other test methods are
defined, such as the oil thread leakage test method.
ULPA. Filters of this group are individually leak-proof
tested by the manufacturer, in cases where the scan test
method is the only suitable test method. ULPA filters are
used in the strictest of cleanroom applications, such as in
microelectronics.
Table 1: Filter class definitions according to ISO 29463.
Group
EPA
(E)
HEPA
(H)
ULPA
(U)
ISO
Class
Class to
EN 1822
Minimal efficiency
for MPPS
ISO 15 E E11 ≥ 95% —
ISO 20 E ≥ 99% —
ISO 25 E E12 ≥ 99,5% —
ISO 30 E ≥ 99,9% —
ISO 35 H H13 ≥ 99,95% ≤ 0,25%
ISO 40 H ≥ 99,99% ≤ 0,05%
ISO 45 H H14 ≥ 99,995% ≤ 0,025%
ISO 50 U ≥ 99,999% ≤ 0,005%
Maximum allowable
local penetration
(Leakage limits)
ISO 55 U U15 ≥ 99,9995% ≤ 0,0025%
ISO 60 U ≥ 99,9999% ≤ 0,0005%
ISO 65 U U16 ≥ 99,99995% ≤ 0,00025%
ISO 70 U ≥ 99,99999% ≤ 0,0001%
ISO 75 U U17 ≥ 99,999995% ≤ 0,0001%
After installation, HEPA and ULPA filters must be leakage
tested again at the end-user’s premises to ensure airtight fit
and freedom from leaks, as defined by ISO 14644, part 3.

Performance testing of air filters for hygienic environments: Standards and guidelines in the 21st century 51
Similar to EN 1822, the new international standard ISO 29463
defines the scan test method as the reference method, where
the local and the integral particle collection efficiencies are
measured for the most penetrating particle size (MPPS).
Table 1 defines the ISO filter classes and the related collection
efficiencies and penetrations, respectively. In total, the test
and classification procedure consists of four individual steps:
(1) Determination of the MPPS by measuring the fractional
collection efficiency curve as a function of the particle size on
flat sheet media samples (see part 3 of the standard); (2) leakproof
testing of the filter element (see part 4 of the standard);
(3) determination of the integral efficiency of the filter element
(see part 5 of the standard); and (4) classification according to
Table 1 (see part 1 of the standard). In part 3 of the standard,
the required statistical methods are described.
General ventilation air filters
Coarse and fine dust filters ensure sufficient indoor air
quality in less critical production areas and in general
building and office ventilation. In high care production areas,
cleanrooms and associated controlled environments, these
filters are used as pre-filters to the EPA, HEPA and ULPA
filters. Coarse and fine dust filters are tested and classified
in Europe according to EN 779. In contrast to the testing
of HEPA and ULPA filters, the procedure in EN 779 is a
destructive test method, where the tested element is loaded
with a synthetic test dust known as ASHRAE dust. The filter
classes are determined from the average arrestance and
the average efficiency as averaged over the dust loading.
This standard has recently been revised and published as
EN 779:2012. The main modification in this revision is the
introduction of requirements for the minimum efficiencies to
the filter classes F7 to F9, which gives higher operational
safety to the end users with regard to the particle collection
efficiency of filter elements (Table 2).
Table 2. Class definitions to EN 779:2012.
Group
Coarse filter
Fine filter
G
M
Class
G1
Final test
pressure
drop
Average
arrestance A m
to ASHRAE
dust in %
50 ≤ A m
< 65
G2
250 Pa
65 ≤ A m
< 80
G3 80 ≤ A m
< 90
G4
M5
90 ≤ A m
Average
efficiency E m
to 0.4 µm in %
Minimum
efficiency to
0.4 µm in %
— —
40 ≤ E m
< 60
M6 60 ≤ E m
< 80
F F7 450 Pa — 80 ≤ E m
< 90 ≥ 35
F8 90 ≤ E m
< 95 ≥ 55
F9 95 ≤ E m
≥ 70
To ensure a high confidence level of end users with regard
to the quality and design specifications of fine air filters,
the European Committee of Air Handling & Refrigeration
Equipment Manufacturers (Eurovent) introduced some years
ago a certification program, wherein the main performance
characteristics of the products offered by the participants are
verified by regular and independent checks (www.euroventcertification.com).
On an annual base, the initial pressure
—
drop, the initial and minimum particle collection efficiency, the
filter class, and the energy efficiency class of four randomly
chosen fine filters from the participants’ product range are
verified by independent laboratories.
Figure 1. Eurovent certification mark.
Energy efficient operation of air filters
In the context of increasing energy prices and the imperative
of reducing CO 2
emissions, the energy consumption caused
by air handling units has become the focus of attention. In
an average industrial plant approximately 10-20% of the total
energy is consumed by fans in heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems. In high care production areas
and in cleanrooms and associated controlled environments,
this percentage is even higher. Approximately one-third is
related to the flow resistance (pressure loss) of air filters,
depending on the size and the design of the HVAC units.
Besides investments in energy-efficient fans and variable
speed drives, for example, the optimisation of the filter
efficiencies used and the use of high quality, energy efficient
air filters is a comparably easy possibility to achieve significant
energy savings. Hence, a reduction of the pressure loss of air
filter systems can make a significant contribution to energy
savings and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions when
used in conjunction with variable speed drives. At the same
time, the air quality targets have to be considered, which
means that ultimately the individual optimum of sufficient
filter efficiency with lowest possible energy consumption
must be found.
To guide the end user to the most energy efficient filter
selection, Eurovent published a new document, Eurovent
4/11, which defines an energy efficiency classification
system for air filters.
Under the assumption that the volume flow rate supplied
by the fan is constant, and hence, does not depend on the
filters‘ pressure drop, the energy consumption of air filters
can be calculated by Equation 1 (Goodfellow, 2001).
⎯
q V ⋅ Δp ⋅ t
W = ⎯⎯⎯
η ⋅ 1000 (1)
The abovementioned assumption is valid if the fan is
controlled by a frequency inverter to operate at constant
volume flow rate q V
(in m³/s). In Eq. (1) W (in kWh) is the
energy consumed in the time t (in h). Since the pressure loss
of an air filter increases with the dust collected during the time
of operation, in Eq. (1) the pressure loss Δp (in Pa) has to be
introduced as integral average value over the time interval t.
The overall electromechanical fan efficiency η depends on
the design and the operating conditions of the fan. Modern
fans can have an efficiency of 70%; while for older models
or when utilised in disadvantageous operating conditions,
realised efficiencies might be just 25% or even lower.

52 Performance testing of air filters for hygienic environments: Standards and guidelines in the 21st century
In air handling units mostly pocket or rigid filters are used in
two stages (Figure 2).
group according to EN 779, different amounts of dust are
used, considering the fact that filters of group F are typically
used in the second filter stage where they are exhibited to
smaller dust concentrations compared to filters of group G or
M, which are typically used in the first filter stage.
Figure 2. Examples of a pocket filter (left) and a rigid filter (right)
used in air handling units.
The energy performance of filters largely depends on the
used filter media, the effective filtering area and the design
and quality of converting. For example, progressively
structured filter media made of polymer fibers, with a fiber
density and fineness increasing in the air flow direction,
store significantly higher amounts of dust compared to
homogeneous structured nonwovens made of polymer or
glass fibers. A higher dust holding capacity results in a slower
increase of the pressure loss over the time of operation,
and hence, a lower energy consumption. Additionally, a
high stiffness of the filter media results in self-supporting,
stabile filter pockets when no additional energy is required to
open the pocket in the air stream and an optimal V-shape of
the pocket is ensured. Also in rigid filters, in which the filter
medium typically is pleated into six or eight thin pleat panels
or one deep-pleated panel glued into a rigid filter frame, the
stiffness of the filter medium and the pleat geometry strongly
influence the energy consumption (Caesar, et al. 2002).
The energy efficiency classification system defined by
Eurovent 4/11 allows the end user to quantitatively compare
the different design aspects of different air filters according
to their energy-efficient operation. The laboratory test
procedure used is mainly based on the filter test standard
EN 779:2012, where the tested filter element is loaded
with synthetic ASHRAE test dust at a constant flow rate of
3400 m³/h (0.944 m³/s). The pressure loss curve measured
in this procedure as a function of dust loading is used
to determine the average pressure loss (Equation 1),
representing one year of operation. Depending on the filter
With the average pressure loss, determined from the loading
curve measured according to EN 779, by using Equation
1, the yearly energy consumption of an air filter can be
calculated. As a convention in the Eurovent 4/11 document,
the yearly operating hours are defined to 6000 h and the
efficiency of the fan to 50%. Based on this calculated annual
energy consumption, filters are classified depending on their
filter class into energy efficiency classes given in Table 3.
Additionally, Eurovent-certified filter suppliers can use an
energy efficiency label in a design well-known in Europe to
report and display the energy efficiency classification of their
products (Figure 3).
Freudenberg Filtration Technologies
MaxiPleat filter
MX95 1/1
3400 m³/h
62
60
1300
F8
Figure 3. Example of the energy efficiency label used by
participants of the Eurovent certification program.
A
Table 3: class limits of energy efficiency in relation of filtration class according to EN 779 (established at bei 3400 m³/h) [6].
Filter c las s
G 4
M5 M6 F 7 F 8 F 9
MTE
— — — MTE ≥ 35% MTE ≥ 55% MTE ≥ 70%
M G = 350 g ASHRAE M M = 250 g ASHRAE M F = 100 g ASHRAE
A 0 – 600 kWh 0 – 650 kWh 0 – 800 kWh 0 – 1200 kWh 0 – 1600 kWh 0 – 2000 kWh
B > 600 kWh – 700 kWh > 650 kWh – 780 kWh > 800 kWh – 950 kWh > 1200 kWh – 1450 kWh > 1600 kWh – 1950 kWh > 2000 kWh – 2500 kWh
C > 700 kWh – 800 kWh > 780 kWh – 910 kWh > 950 kWh – 1100 kWh > 1450 kWh – 1700 kWh > 1950 kWh – 2300 kWh > 2500 kWh – 3000 kWh
D > 800 kWh – 900 kWh > 910 kWh – 1040 kWh > 1100 kWh – 1250 kWh > 1700 kWh – 1950 kWh > 2300 kWh – 2650 kWh > 3000 kWh – 3500 kWh
E > 900 kWh – 1000 kWh > 1040 kWh – 1170 kWh > 1250 kWh – 1400 kWh > 1950 kWh – 2200 kWh > 2650 kWh – 3000 kWh > 3500 kWh – 4000 kWh
F
G
> 1000 kWh – 1100 kWh > 1170 kWh – 1300 kWh > 1400 kWh – 1550 kWh > 2200 kWh – 2450 kWh > 3000 kWh – 3350 kWh > 4000 kWh – 4500 kWh
> 1100 kWh > 1300 kWh > 1550 kWh > 2450 kWh > 3350 kWh > 4500 kWh

Performance testing of air filters for hygienic environments: Standards and guidelines in the 21st century 53
Summary and outlook
The world of filter standardisation is currently one of forward
motion. Existing standards are being revised, updated and
globalised. For example, the European standard EN 779
for the testing and classification of coarse and fine dust
filters recently has been revised and a new international
standard ISO 29463 for the testing and classification of highefficiency
filters and filter media has been published, which
will likely replace European standard EN 1822 in the near
future. With the new Eurovent document 4/11, a European
energy efficiency classification system for air filters has been
defined. This will likely also be the basis for future European
legislation for air filters in the context of the Eco-Design
guideline of the European Parliament and Commission
(Directive 2009/125/EC).
In the framework of ISO/TC 142, currently more than 30
standardisation projects are in process. Among them are the
series of standards ISO 10121 for the testing and classification
of gas adsorption filters and the series of standards for coarse
and fine dust filters (ISO 16890), which is written in four
parts and will likely replace EN 779 in a few years. The final
publication of ISO 16890, part 1, is planned for 2015.
Bibliography
American Society of Heating. Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers. 2007. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-2007. Method of
testing general ventilation air-cleaning devices for removal efficiency
by particle size. Atlanta.
Caesar, T. and T. Schroth. 2002. The influence of pleat geometry
on the pressure drop in deep-pleated cassette filters. Filtration +
Separation, 39(9):49-54.
DIN EN 779. Particulate air filters for general ventilation. Determination
of the filtration performance. Beuth Verlag, Berlin, 2012.
DIN EN 1822. High efficiency air filters (EPA, HEPA and ULPA), Part
1-5. Beuth Verlag, Berlin, 2011.
DIN EN 13779. Ventilation for non-residential buildings - Performance
requirements for ventilation and room-conditioning systems; German
version EN 13779:2007, Beuth Verlag, Berlin, 2007.
EHEDG Guideline DOC 30. Guidelines on air handling in the food
industry, 2005
ISO 29464. Cleaning equipment for air and other, Beuth Verlag,
Berlin, 2011
European Committee of Air Handling & Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturers (Eurovent), 2011. Eurovent 4/11: Energy efficiency
classification of air filters for general ventilation purposes. Paris.
Goodfellow, H. and E. Tähti. 2001. Industrial Ventilation. Academic
Press.
International Standards Organisation. ISO 14644: Cleanrooms and
associated controlled environments. Series of standards. Beuth
Verlag, Berlin. 1999-2012.
International Standards Organisation. ISO 29463: High-efficiency
filters and filter media for removing particles in air. Parts1-5. Beuth
Verlag, Berlin, 2011.
WESTINGHOUSE
CIP Rotary Valves and Diverters
• Suitable for clean in place process systems
• Rotary valves with wash through shaft seals
• Diverters allowing a partial or full system
wash through
• Certified levels of hygiene
Feed your process
Dairy Rotary valves and Diverters
• EHEDG Type EL Class I compliant
• USDA Dairy Accepted
• ATEX 94/9/EC Compliant
DMN-WESTINGHOUSE
T +31 252 361 800
dmn@dmn-nwh.nl
COMPONENTS FOR BULK SOLIDS HANDLING
www.dmnwestinghouse.com

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Spray cleaning systems in food processing machines and
the simulation of CIP-coverage tests
The intelligent usage of experimental and simulated cleanability tests is a further step toward
the reduction of machinery development time and costs and time of machinery for the food and
pharmaceutical industry.
André Boye 1 , Marc Mauermann 1 , Daniel Höhne 2 , Jens-Peter Majschak 1
1
Fraunhofer IVV, Branch Lab for Processing Machinery and Packaging Technology AVV Dresden, Germany
2
Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Computer Science, Institute of Software- and Multimedia-Technology,
Dresden, Germany
e-mail: andre.boye@avv.fraunhofer.de
Due to increasing hygienic requirements, more and more
machinery for the food industry is delivered with automated
clean-in-place (CIP) systems. By using such systems,
hygienic risks may decrease and cleaning efficiencies may
rise.
The validation of the hygienic design of such systems, and
thus the selection of specific nozzles for cleaning, their
alignment and built-in position has so far been done so far
only on a real prototype by means of CIP-coverage tests.
The objective of this test is to verify that the cleaning systems
associated with the machinery are capable of delivering
cleaning solutions to all exposed product contact surfaces. If
that is not the case, the cleaning system has to be adjusted
and tested further until all surfaces are wetted with cleaning
agent in the coverage test. This iterative optimisation is
extremely time-consuming and has very high resource
requirements (e.g., staff, material, etc.). Hence, many costs
arise that are also hardly calculable when submitting a
tender offer.
An approach to improving the hygienic design of food
processing machinery is to simulate the coverage test
using the computer-aided design (CAD) data of the
machinery and the cleaning system. This paper presents a
software solution that is capable of simulating the coverage
of relevant equipment surfaces with cleaning fluids from
nozzles by means of ray tracing. The main differences
between CAD and computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
methods are that the simulation is much easier to handle,
simpler in degree of detail of the results, works in real-time
and can be used for optimising cleaning systems with a
huge number of nozzles. The main requirements for the
software design were that the software should not have high
demands on construction engineers with regard to the level
of simulating knowledge and should be very practicable for
complex systems.
For characterising the spray pattern as a precondition for
integrating different nozzles in this software, an adequate
cleanability test was found. By means of the test rig,
characteristics of different cleaning nozzles can be
analysed, classified and provided in an electronic format.
In summary, the complete package consists of the software
and new test method for spray pattern characterisation.
Software for the simulation of spray shadows
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. Screenshots of the developed (a) simulation software and
(b) nozzle explorer for selecting a nozzle from the database.
With the simulation software developed, engineers are
given the opportunity to optimise their cleaning systems at
computers before any components of a new machine have
to be manufactured (Figure 1). Thereby, the presented tool
gives an estimation for the spray pattern on complex parts in
relation to the specific cleaning systems.
Software usage and features
Import CAD assembly
Choose view
Insert nozzles
Figure 2. Flow chart for software usage.
Export position of nozzles
Inspection of cleaning
results/ optimisation
Positioning/ alignment
As shown in Figure 2, there are a number of software usage
functions and features. At first, the user opens a new project
and loads the CAD assembly of the object to be cleaned
by using standardised exchange formats. In the next step,
the view can be chosen like in standard CAD software and
the nozzles are inserted via drag-and-drop, with quantity and

Partner for automation
in the food and beverage industry
www.festo.com/food

56 Spray cleaning systems in food processing machines and the simulation of CIP-coverage tests
type as required, into the scene. The computer program is
directly connected with a public nozzle database in which
the specific characteristics of different nozzles are stored
together with the related single spray pattern. Consequently,
the same nozzle doesn’t have to be measured twice at the
same operating parameters. The determination of a single
spray pattern can be managed with an adequate cleaning
test like that described below, or with impact measurements
for example. After insertion, the nozzles can be positioned
and aligned in the scene. The activated nozzle is marked
with a pyramid. This pyramid shows the maximum nozzle
distance in which the nozzle was measured. If the nozzle
is moved outside this range, no cleaning effect is shown on
the surface. The expected cleaning results are calculated
and shown in real-time, so the cleaning system can be
optimised (e.g., insert more nozzles or change their
alignment) in an iterative way without large response time.
After all, the nozzles positions can be exported for using in
CAD software.
Functional principles
Depending on the application area, one could model the
effect of a nozzle as a stream or as a spray of single particles
– omitting particle-particle interaction. In our experiments the
latter approach proved the most feasible. The behaviour of
such an isolated particle could be approximated using the
following formula:
0
Figure 3. Projection principle, from 3D space onto 2D plane with
depth information (as Z). A brighter colour is equivalent to a shorter
distance to the projection plane. Note the intersection of the ray
with the 2D plane.
After identifying where the particles collide with the surface,
the exerted influences
0
on the surface have to be computed.
For this, every nozzle gets a spate of spray masks that are
determined by cleanability tests or impact measurements
(Figure 4).
z
z
where the forces are defined as
•
•
•
•
Numerical algorithms for solving the time integration can be
found in Press et al. (2007) and are efficiently computable
on the GPU (graphics processing unit) as described by
Nguyen (2007). 1,2 But, solving the equation of motion for
millions of particles is just one step. For the interesting
effect of a particle-surface interaction, the intersection of a
particle with a surface has to be found. Despite several
well-known acceleration techniques, a lot of work had to be
done in every time step of the simulation. 3 But experiments
showed that the process could be approximated as linear
with respect to the input parameter domain in focus. These
experiences effectively broke down the simulation to a onetime
step at which the intersection occurs. In the field of
computer graphics this is known as ray-tracing, but instead
of tracing light, the ray’s linear particle paths are traced. 4 A
first implementation produced reasonable results for further
investigations, but it was too slow to be used in interactive
applications. Therefore, the process was modelled as a
projection of surface points in 3D space to 2D points on the
escape plane of the nozzle which is exactly what graphics
processing units (GPUs) are good at doing (Figure 3).
Figure 4. (Left) 2D impact map. Red means high impact. (Right) 2D
spray pattern. A black colour means a point got cleaned during the
spray process.
Thus, deciding whether a point is cleaned through the spray
process becomes essentially the inversion of the projection
mentioned before. This is equivalent to the functional
principle of a slide or movie projector. Here the nozzle is the
projector, the film or slide to be projected is the impact or
spray pattern and the to-be-cleaned surface is the functional
equivalent of the projection screen (Figure 5). In computer
graphics this technique is known as projective texture
mapping or perspective shadow mapping. 5-9
(a)
(a)

Spray cleaning systems in food processing machines and the simulation of CIP-coverage tests 57
Soiling
(a)
(a)
For the 3D soiling of surfaces from complex parts a method
similar to spray paint processes was chosen (Figure 6). In
that context, a model soil consisting of a polysaccharide
and luminescent tracer was used and the surfaces of the
test object were coated with the viscose test solution. The
maximum layer thickness was limited by the avoidance of
rinsing test soil.
(b)
(c)
Test rig for cleaning
For the experimental analyses a Washing Cabin test rig was
used. With it, cleaning tests for open surfaces of complex
parts up to a dimension of (1x1x1) m³ with several nozzle
systems are practical. Furthermore, tank cleaning systems
can be analysed by using a special test tank (Figure 7).
Figure 5. (a) Principle of projective texturing and the application of
projection for (b) a full cone nozzle; (c) and a flat fan nozzle.
A characteristic of the presented approach is that a spray/
impact map is only valid for a certain parameter configuration;
i.e., nozzle model, pressure, distance and duration. To
enhance this range further, spray patterns for different
distances were interpolated linearly between each other.
Cleanability test
Figure 7. Test rig ‘Washing Cabin’ (left) and test tank (right).
For a cleaning test the CIP station is started up by activating
the bypass (Figure 8). When the steady state is reached,
the threeway valve switches and the cleaning process starts.
During it, a camera takes continuous pictures while an
ultraviolet (UV) lamp system excites the remaining residual
soil.
Figure 6. Example for a cleaning test of a complex part: (1) Socket
with spray shadow in detail; (2) soiled test object; and (3) test
object after cleaning (green = soiled; black = clean).
For verifying the simulated scenes in contrast to real
experiments, an adequate cleaning test was developed.
With this method, it is possible to differentiate clearly
between areas with direct nozzle impact and spray
shadows. Even rinsing water does not destroy the resulting
spray pattern for a long period of time. Consequently, in
this context the test rig ‘Washing Cabin’ at Fraunhofer
AVV was used for testing single nozzles, different nozzle
combinations and tank cleaning systems combined with
different objects to clean.
Figure 8. Scheme of the test rig Washing Cabin.

58 Spray cleaning systems in food processing machines and the simulation of CIP-coverage tests
The adjustable pressure range of the test rig is 0 - 4 bar
by a maximum flow rate of 16 m³/h. Both parameters were
continuously measured. The highest frame rate is nine
pictures per second but one frame per second has been
determined as a useful value for the cleaning systems
tested. Thereby, the exposure time of 0,35 s and aperture
F4 were chosen. In order to exclude possible detection
failures due to extraneous light, the test rig is completely
darkened.
Spray pattern analysis
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. Comparison of (a) cleaning and (b) simulation result
inside a test tank.
In summary, the software gives a quite good estimation for
the expected spray pattern, but the user must always be
critical with the simulation results. For example, if a nozzle
sprays into a deep gap. In the front area of the gap the
estimation is quite good but deeper into the gap there aren’t
any cleaning effects as the simulation shows.
Figure 9. Detection principle.
The model soil of the presented cleaning test contains a
luminescent tracer, which is important for the detection
of residual soil (Figure 9). In the cleaning processes, the
surfaces are excited by UV radiation and areas with residual
soil emit visible light. This is captured by taking pictures with
a defined frame rate. After the cleaning test, the photos are
rectified and a computer program checked to ascertain in
which picture the stationary state of the spray pattern was
reached. This picture is used for the next steps of analysis,
where it is binarily divided in cleaned areas (with direct
nozzle impact) and spray shadows (areas without direct
nozzle impact). Hence, in single nozzle test, the spray
masks are obtained and stored in the nozzle database. For
this task, a semi-automated method also was developed
and used.
Conclusion
The software presented in this paper gives engineers a
computer aided constructive design and optimisation tool
for complex spray cleaning systems for the first time. Spray
shadows can be avoided preliminary in the constructive
stage before any parts of prototypes are manufactured.
Furthermore, the developed qualitative cleanability test
is a practical method for the detection of weak points of
spray cleaning systems and tank cleaners. Consequently,
by combining the use of cleaning tests and simulation,
hygienic risks are minimised and investment security is
increased.
The software and experimental methods will be further
developed. For example, the implementation of tank
cleaning systems with rotating nozzles is currently being
investigated. In the near future, the achieved cleaning effect
will be resolved quantitatively, and rinsing water, as a main
cleaning component, will be considered.
Acknowledgement
Verification
The simulation tool was verified by using specific geometrical
phenomena, such as spraying with a nozzle over edges
or into a gap between two plates. Therefore, the results
from cleanability tests and simulation were compared
qualitatively. In addition, the simulation was verified with
complex parts, including a test tank that was cleaned inside
with two full cone nozzles (Figure 10). The simulation and
cleaning tests led to nearly the same result.

Spray cleaning systems in food processing machines and the simulation of CIP-coverage tests 59
References
1. Press, W.H., S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling, and B.P. Flannery.
2007. Numerical Recipes, 3rd Edition: The Art of Scientific Computing.
Cambridge University Press. New York, NY, USA.
2. Nguyen, H. 2007. GPU Gems 3. Addison-Wesley Professional.
3. Langetepe, E. and G. Zachmann. 2006. Geometric Data Structures
for Computer Graphics. A. K. Peters, Ltd. Natick, MA, USA.
4.[PH04] Pharr, M. and G. Humphreys. 2004. Physically Based Rendering:
From Theory to Implementation. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
Inc. San Francisco, CA, USA.
6. EIsemann, E., M. Schwarz, U. Assarsson, and M. Wimmer. 2011.
Real-time shadows. CRC Press. USA.
7. Fernando, R. 2004. GPU Gems: Programming Techniques, Tips
and Tricks for Real-Time Graphics. Pearson Higher Education.
8. Stamminger, M. and G. Drettakis. July 2002. Perspective shadow
maps. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH, J. Hughes, (Ed.), Annual
Conference Series, ACM Press/ACM SIGGRAPH, pp. 557-562.
9. Whler, C. 2009. 3D Computer Vision: Efficient Methods and Applications,
1st Ed. Springer Publishing Co., Inc.
5. Williams, L. 1978. Casting curved shadows on curved surfaces. In
Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics
and Interactive Techniques. New York, NY, USA. SIGGRAPH ’78,
ACM, pp. 270–274.
SOLUTIONS FOR TOMORROW’S ENGINEERING
SEAL MATCHING AT
YOUR FINGERTIPS
Years of experience allows Trelleborg Sealing Solutions to offer
the Sealing Solutions Confi gurator, making future applications
easier to specify. Innovation in online services means that
food and pharmaceutical engineers have access to proven seal
confi gurations at the touch of a mouse or fi ngertip.
Find more information at www.tss.trelleborg.com
or check out www.seals-innovation.com

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Environmentally friendly water based surface
disinfectants
Markets fluctuate. Requirements change. And this is especially true in the highly sensitive areas
of cleaning and hygiene in the production and preparation arms of the food industry. Demand is
for innovative solutions and cost-saving methods that conserve resources, are environmentally
friendly, do not cause undue side effects to humans and are as safe as possible for the users.
Stephan Mätzschke, Dipl.- Oecotrophologist (FH), Member of the Management Board at BIRFOOD GmbH & Co. KG
E-mail: s. maetzschke@birfood.de, Tel.: + 49 421 489 960 17
The cleaning and disinfection of production plants in the
meat handling industry are two intrinsically linked processes
required to guarantee the proper hygienic production of food
in line with regulations. At a time when ultimate consumption
date periods are getting longer and the requirements from
legislators, trade and consumers are continually increasing,
producers are forced to take the hygiene measures that
accompany their production processes to a new level.1
It is standard practice in the meat handling industry today that
after thorough cleaning the production plant is chemically
disinfected using either a foam or a spray. Currently a whole
range of chemical disinfectants is available to the food
industry, but despite the choice of products available, this
article will highlight the difference between two disinfection
methods: the inhibitive methods and the destructive methods.
Some active agents like quaternary ammonium compounds
or aldehydes, for example, have an inhibitive effect on
bacterial cells. This means that these substances do not
destroy the bacterial cells; instead, they prevent their
reproduction by disrupting the cellular metabolism. Such
substances are generally suitable for use on most surfaces
and are user friendly; however, there are gaps in their
effectiveness. Certain groups of germs are less susceptible
to them and if the agents are used incorrectly, particularly if
the wrong concentration is used over a long period of time,
there is a risk that the bacteria will build up a resistance to
them.
The alternative group of active agents have a destructive
effect; specifically, these agents destroy the bacterial cells.
Active agents like peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide and
sodium hypochlorite belong to this group. This group of
active agents has a broad spectrum of effectiveness and
there is no danger of resistance if the products are used
incorrectly. However, these agents are highly corrosive
and are therefore dangerous to use on material (especially
aluminium and non-ferrous metals) as well as for the user.
A further disadvantage is their relative instability in the
presence of organic matter.
Non-hazardous water based surface
disinfectants
In contrast to the meat handling industry, the disinfection of
drinking water and the drinking water supply network has
been carried out for years using electrochemical activation
(ECA) technology as an alternative to chemical disinfection.
ECA technology frequently is used successfully in countries
with precarious water supplies and in very warm climates, as
well as in buildings with irregular water consumption where
the water in the pipes must be held for longer periods (e.g.,
hotels) as a reliable way of protecting against Legionella
and other germs. The idea of using this technology as an
environmentally or user-friendly alternative to the chemical
disinfection of surfaces in the meat handling industry is
relatively new.
How ECA technology works
The ECA technology is based on the treatment of drinking
water by electrolysis. During the electrolysis process redox
potential is generated by applying an electric voltage
(Figure 1). This redox potential imparts the resulting flow of
microbiocidal properties.
Figure 1. Electrolysis process.
During a redox reaction (effectively a reduction oxidation reaction)
an electron from one reactant is transferred to the other. As one
reactant is reduced, the other oxidises. The redox potential (in this
case, 1200 mV) serves as an indicator of the extent to which such
an electron transfer between reactants can take place. In doing so,
it also demonstrates to a certain extent the level of the solution’s
microbiocidal activity. When apparatus that has been treated with
the solution produced with ECA technology comes into contact with
bacterial cells, electrons will be transferred. The bacterial cell will
oxidise and die.
The ECA solution works in the same way as peracetic
acid, hydrogen peroxide or sodium hypochlorite: that is,
destructively. It oxidises the bacterial cell and with that, it
dies. The advantage of ECA technology over these other
solutions is that it is neither a corrosive nor an irritant for
material or users. It complies with the German Drinking Water
Directive because it does not contain anything dangerous.

THE ART OF WELDING
"The leader in orbital welding technologies"
• User-friendly
A perfect weld every time
• Hire fleet
Hire from our extensive range,
ready for immediate delivery
www.polysoude.com

62 Environmentally friendly water based surface disinfectants
Testing
As a result of the limited number of surface disinfection
available for use by the meat handling industry, there has
been a lack of empirical scientific data allowing a judgment
to be made on the suitability of the technology for application
in this environment. A project was undertaken that aimed
to identify maintenance and improvement in plant hygiene,
taking into consideration conservation of resources,
reduction in hazardous substances, optimisation of costs,
and increased safety of food products.
In September 2011, all relevant actual data such as water
use and working times were included with the original
cleaning methods (chemical disinfection). Over many
years, certain factors regarding disinfectant use and the
microbiological hygiene levels in the plant were recorded
and provided historical data from which to benchmark results
of the ECA technology trials. At the end of September 2011,
ECA technology was installed in the plant rooms at Edeka
Fleischwerk Nord GmbH. The concentrate produced using
ECA technology was fed into the network in small amounts
through an injection point in the cleaning line. As such the
concentration was measured so that the amount of chlorine
in the water did not exceed 0.3 ppm and the water quality met
the requirements of the German Drinking Water Directive.
The concentration was measured using a digital piston
diaphragm pump connected to a contact water meter. From
4 October 2011, ECA technology was installed in individual
departments. The equipment classified as “hard to clean”
was checked for organic residue using ATP bioluminescence
after cleaning but prior to sanitising with ECA water. This
ensured that the cleaning personnel had correctly completed
the required steps for the use of ECA water and that any
discrepancies in the results could not be attributed to human
error.
Each day, water consumption in each department was
calculated using electronic contact water meters and
ultrasonic measuring procedures in order that only small
measuring tolerances occurred. Further, the concentration
of ECA in the water that was used was checked daily to
make sure it met the German Drinking Water Directive. This
was done photometrically. Swab samples were taken daily.
During the trial period, more than 1,000 swabs were taken
and sent to an accredited laboratory for analysis. Tests were
carried out on the mesophilic aerobic bacteria count and for
enteric bacteria. The analysis of the swabs was performed in
line with EC Decision 2001/471/EC.
The project trials, which ran for six months, showed that the
chemical disinfection and the subsequent neutralisation step could
be replaced by ECA technology. Specifically, the foam cleaner
may be rinsed from surfaces using ECA water and in doing so the
meat handling plant can achieve surfaces that are cleaner from a
microbiological perspective.
A real-world study
In August 2011, an initial risk analysis was done. Taking
into account the fact that an ECA solution could have been
similarly unstable in the presence of organic influences on
the contact surfaces as the group of chemical disinfectants
that oxidise, the surfaces in the plant rooms were classified
as ‘easy to clean‘ and ‘hard to clean‘. Easy-to-clean
surfaces included all flat stainless steel surfaces, such as
filling machines, mixers, grinders, work benches etc., while
equipment such as carving belts, carving boards and air
cylinders were classified as hard-to-clean.
Results
The trial ended on 29 January 2012. With the exception
of decomposition, zero values were recorded for
enterobacteriaceae in all areas (Figures 2 and 3). This result
underscores the necessity of using a foam cleaning agent
with a brush at the cut-off point during the exposure period.
Over the course of the second half of the trial, this result was
also recorded.
A further finding was the significant saving of drinking and/
or hot water (Figure 4). A saving of 11.4% was recorded
across all of the meat company’s departments. The most
significant savings were found in the departments with the
highest machine-to-space ratio, because more energy is
used for rinsing disinfectant these areas than in corridors,
for example.
The results also showed a savings in working hours, with
use of the technology resulting in an average reduction in
personnel costs by more than 12.5% across the company
(Figure 5).

Environmentally friendly water based surface disinfectants 63
Figure 2. Hygiene monitoring from 04.10.2011 – Total germ count - Zero values were recorded for enterobacteriaceae in all areas
Figure 3. Hygiene monitoring from 04.10.2011 – Enteric bacteria - Zero values were recorded for enterobacteriaceae in all areas.

64 Environmentally friendly water based surface disinfectants
Figure 4. Comparison total water consumption/cost.
Figure 5. Time required by cleaning personnel - Zero values were recorded for enterobacteriaceae in all areas

Environmentally friendly water based surface disinfectants 65
Conclusion
This project showed that the use of ECA technology enables
a meat handling operation to improve the microbiological
levels in the plant as compared to using the original
chemical disinfectants. Measurable savings were made to
the time required for cleaning, and the time saved using the
new cleaning procedures can now be used for production.
A significant decrease in water consumption was also
experienced. An important side effect of using this technology
is the automatic permanent disinfection of the drinking water
supply network into which the application solution is fed. This
improves safety, even in older supply networks. The annual
thermal disinfection of the pipes that is frequently required,
can be eliminated.
Taking into consideration the results of the trial discussed
here, the use of ECA technology as a replacement for
chemical disinfection of plants in the meat handling
industry can be recommended. These trials were run in a
plant producing sausages. In plants that primarily produce
other products and where there are other (more) germs
on the surfaces from the outset (i.e., in an abattoir), a
corresponding increase similar to the case study should be
conducted before a recommendation about the suitability of
the technology can be made.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Flow behaviour of liquid jets impinging on vertical walls
Surface cleaning devices such as spray balls and nozzles direct liquid onto walls and other
surfaces in the form of jets. Knowledge of the area covered by the flow as it spreads out from the
impingement point and drains down a wall or other surface is important for designing effective
cleaning systems. Recent work on modelling the flow pattern and predicting the stability of wide
draining films is summarised.
Ian Wilson, Tao Wang and John F. Davidson, Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology,
Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3RA, UK, e-mail: diw11@cam.ac.uk
Impinging water jets are widely used in cleaning walls,
tanks and internals. The jets can be created by spray balls,
fixed or moving nozzles. Soil removal occurs either by
dissolution of the fouling layer into the liquid or by physical
disruption of the soil by the shear forces generated by the
flow. Improving the design of jet-based cleaning systems
requires knowledge of the flow behaviour of the liquid
after it strikes a wall. Figure 1 shows an example of a
flow pattern generated by a horizontal impinging jet, seen
looking through the transparent impact surface, along the
axis of the jet.
Figure 1. Photograph of flow pattern created by impinging water jet.
The point of impingement is near the crossover of the ruler tapes.
Figure 2 shows two of the possible flow patterns that can be
generated by a horizontal jet impinging on a vertical wall.
Both feature a zone around the point of impingement where
the liquid moves at high velocity radially outwards until it
forms a jump similar to the hydraulic jump seen with tap
water in a sink. We term this a film jump to differentiate it
from the hydraulic jump because gravity has less influence
when the wall is vertical.
The hydrodynamics of vertical liquid jets impinging on
horizontal surfaces and the formation of hydraulic jumps is
well understood. Jets impinging on vertical or inclined walls
have received less attention.
Figure 2. Schematics of two commonly observed flow patterns for
a horizontal liquid jet impinging on a vertical wall. (a) gravity flow;
(b) rivulet flow. O denotes the point of impingement.
For cleaning applications, we want to know the size of the
film jump, marked R in Figure 2, as the region within it
involves higher velocities and larger shear forces. We also
want to know the width of the falling film, which is marked W
on Figure 2 (a). W is larger than 2R because of the liquid
flowing around the film jump, and it gives an indication of
the area below the point of impingement that will be wetted

Flow behaviour of liquid jets impinging on vertical walls 67
by the falling film. Soil in this region will be removed by the
action of detergent and lower shear stresses, as reported
by Morison and Thorpe (2002). 1 Under some conditions
the falling film will narrow below the impingent plane and
give poor contact with the soil, as shown in Figure 2 (b). It is
therefore important to be able to predict the transition from
the wide, gravity, film flow behaviour to the narrow, rivulet
regime.
Predicting the film jump
A model for the film jump has recently been developed. 2 This
allows R to be predicted from
¼
⎡ m 3 ⎤
R = 0.276 ⎢ ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ ⎥
⎣ μργ(1− cos b) ⎦
(1)
In this equation, m is the jet mass flow rate; μ is the viscosity
of the liquid and ρ is its density; γ is the surface tension, and
β is the contact angle of the liquid on the substrate.
Figure 3 shows good agreement between experimental
data and the model for water on Perspex. Nozzle sizes, d N
,
typical of those used in industrial practice have been tested.
Comparison with other data sets, including those reported
in Morison and Thorpe (2002), are reported in Wilson et al.
(2011) and Wang et al. (2013). 1–3
surfactant molecules had time to collect at the solid/liquid/air
interface, gave poor agreement with the measured values.
This indicates that dynamic surface tension effects are
important in these flows.
A second important finding reported in Wang et al. (2013)
is that at higher flow rates and with larger nozzles, R was
independent of the nature of the substrate. This indicates
a change in the phenomena controlling the flow pattern at
higher flow rates from one controlled mainly by interfacial
forces to one where fluid inertia become important. Using
a contact angle of 90° in Equation (1) gave reasonable
predictions for R in these cases.
Predicting the film width
The relationship between W and R cannot be obtained using
the simple models behind Equation (1). Measurements of
W (= 2Rc in Figure 3) indicate that Rc ≈ 2R at lower flow
rates and approaches Rc ≈ 4/3R at higher flow rates. These
empirical results allow W to be estimated.
Falling film flow patterns
The tendency to exhibit gravity or rivulet flow in the region
below the impingement plane has been found to follow the
criterion given by Hartley and Murgatroyd (1964) for the
stability of wide falling liquid films. 4 This says that film will be
stable if the wetting rate, defined as m/W, is larger than the
critical value given by
m
⁄ W
≥ 1.69 (μρ/g) 0.2 [γ(1− cos b)] 0.6 (2)
Here g is the acceleration due to gravity. Equation (2) holds
for vertical surfaces; for inclined walls, g is modified to
account for the angle of slope.
We have found that Equation (2) gives reasonable predictions
of the transition from the gravity to rivulet regimes for these
falling films. Equation (2) has also been found to apply for
solutions containing a surfactant, using the values of γ and
b obtained from equilibrium contact angle measurements.
Surfactants which promote wetting on the soil or substrate
will give smaller values of b and therefore, from Equation
(2), reduce the flow rate required to avoid rivulet formation
(as W is less sensitive to surfactant content).
Figure 3. Comparison of experimental measurements of R with
values predicted from Equation (1) for water on Perspex for
different nozzle sizes and temperatures. Reproduced from Wang et
al. (2013) with permission.
Equation (1) shows that R is larger for liquids with a small
contact angle (i.e., ones that wet the surface) and for liquids
with a lower surface tension. Surfactants are often added
to promote wetting and change the contact angle. Recent
work has demonstrated that the effect of surfactants on
R comes mainly through their influence on the surface
tension. 3 Predictions of R using Equation (1) using contact
angles measured under equilibrium conditions, where the
Figure 4 shows an example for water jets impinging on a
vertical glass wall. Solid symbols indicate that the falling film
exhibited gravity flow, while open symbols denote rivulet flow
behaviour.
The data are plotted in terms of the Eötvös number, a
dimensionless width, and a dimensionless flow rate, F, given
by
and
Eo = ρgW 2 ⁄ γ (3)
F = ρgm 2 ⁄ γμ2 (4)

68 Flow behaviour of liquid jets impinging on vertical walls
Application to cleaning
Since R, and hence W, can now be estimated from Equation
(1), we can obtain a reasonable estimate of the wall area
contacted by the liquid in the jet and the stability of the falling
film generated. The influence of surfactants or the effect of
cleaning the surface, which will change the contact angle,
can also be assessed. Ongoing work in our group includes
investigations of inclined jets and non-vertical surfaces,
detailed analysis of the shape of the falling films, and
cleaning.
Acknowledgment
This work is not funded by a company or research council.
A PhD scholarship for Tao Wang and input from project
students is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Figure 4. Plot indicating stability of falling films generated by
horizontal jets impinging on a vertical glass wall. The lines show the
Hartley and Murgatroyd criterion, Equation (2), for water (in blue)
and an aqueous 0.1 mM Tween 20 solution (in red). Data points:
open symbols indicate that rivulet flow was observed, solid symbols
indicate gravity flow. Rivulet flow is expected for points lying on or
above the line. Test conditions: 1 mm nozzle, 20ºC.
The two lines on Figure 4 show the conditions under which
Equation (2) predicts a change in flow behaviour for water
and for a surfactant solution. The theory says that points lying
on or above the line should exhibit rivulet flow behaviour. For
the flow rates tested here, water exhibits rivulet flow, which
is consistent with Equation (2).
1. Morison, K.R., and R.J. Thorpe. (2002). Liquid distribution from
cleaning-in-place sprayballs. Food Bioproducts Proc., 80, 270-275.
2. Wilson, D.I., B.L. Le, H.D.A. Dao, K.Y. Lai, K.R. Morison, and
J.F. Davidson. (2011). Surface flow and drainage films created by
horizontal impinging liquid jets. Chem. Eng. Sci., 68, 449–460.
3. Wang, T., Davidson, J.F. and Wilson, D.I. (2013) 'Effect of
surfactant on flow patterns and draining films created by a horizontal
liquid jet impinging on a vertical surface', Chem. Eng. Sci., 88, 79-94.
4. Hartley, D.E. and W. Murgatroyd. (1964). Criteria for the breakup
of thin liquid layers flowing isothermally over solid surfaces. Intl
J. Heat Mass Transfer, 7, 1003-1015.
The presence of surfactant reduces the surface tension and
gives a smaller contact angle, which causes the transition
locus to move to larger Eötvös numbers. For similar flow
rates to the water tests, the surfactant solutions give wide
falling films, which is again consistent with Equation (2).

Discharge automatically up to 99,997 %
Goods can be powder, granules or paste of high
viscosity
Reactor / Contact Dryer
Easy to clean, to sterilize (in an antibacterial
way) automatically
Heavy duty designed spiral mixing tool is supported
and driven only from above
Extremely gentle mixing
Filling level can vary from 10 % to 100 %
Tip speed can vary from 0,3 to 5 m/s
Working capacity from 100 liters to 50.000 liters
Single-Shaft Mixer
Please visit our test centers in Paderborn /
Germany, Osaka / Japan, Memphis (TN) / USA,
Bangkok / Thailand and Satara / India!
Cone Mixer
amixon ® GmbH
33106 Paderborn (Germany) · Halberstädter Straße 55
Phone: +49 (0) 52 51 / 68 88 88-0
Fax: +49 (0) 52 51 / 68 88 88-999
E-Mail: info@amixon.com · www.amixon.com
Twin-Shaft Mixer
All components made in Germany!

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Optimisation of tank cleaning
Using hygienic sensors to monitor tank cleaning
René Elgaard, Managing Director, Alfa Laval Tank Equipment A/S
e-mail: rene.elgaard@alfalaval.com
Tank cleaning is a time-honoured tradition essential
for producing high-quality foodstuffs and beverages.
Technological advances in tank cleaning have raised the
standards for food and beverage processing dramatically;
the most drastic changes have occurred within the last 50
years. To ensure the highest standards of hygiene, more
rigorous standards and tougher regulations are now in
place, not only for the tank itself but also for tank cleaning
equipment.
The improvements in hygiene standards/guidelines are a
direct result of equipment users’ demand, as well as support
garnered through organisations such as the European
Hygienic Engineering and Design Group (EHEDG), which
share the common aim of promoting hygiene during
food and beverage handling, processing and packaging.
The guidelines put forth for hygienic design of food and
beverage process equipment essentially put all equipment
manufacturers on a level playing field by establishing
minimum standards for equipment quality.
With all equipment being equal, it stands to reason that
proper control of the tank cleaning process is the primary way
to differentiate equipment based upon the level of cleaning
efficiency achieved. The objective: to get accurate, reliable
and repeatable tank cleaning results after the completion of
each production cycle, whether a continuous process or a
batch process is used.
There are several ways to achieve the desired tank cleaning
results by controlling the tank cleaning process. However, it
is important to understand the process of tank cleaning, the
various tank cleaning methods and the product contained
in the tank before determining the best method of control to
achieve optimal cleaning efficiency.
Traditional tank cleaning
There are various parameters that contribute to effective
tank cleaning. These are perhaps best described by the
“Sinner Circle,” which was developed by the chemical
engineer Herbert Sinner to illustrate how to obtain good
cleaning results. 1 Sinner defined four critical parameters that
may be combined in numerous ways and applied to virtually
any cleaning task, whether in a pipe, on a floor or in a tank.
The parameters are time, action (or flow of cleaning fluid),
chemistry and temperature, or TACT for short (Fig. 1). All
four parameters are important to secure optimal cleaning
efficiency; however, how they are combined is decisive in
achieving optimal cleaning efficiency.
Figure 1. The Sinner Circle illustrating the cleaning parameters
of TACT. Herbert Sinner defined four critical parameters – time,
action (or flow of cleaning fluid), chemistry and temperature, or
TACT for short – which are important to secure optimal cleaning
efficiency.
Applying effective chemicals or cleaning agents and optimum
temperature to the surface to be cleaned weakens the
bond between the soil and the surface to a point where the
available force (or action) can remove the soil. 2 The unknown
factor is the available force. Time, chemical concentration
and temperature can be controlled.
What is the available force, and how is it applied to the
surface? This depends upon the method and technology
used to distribute the cleaning media in the tank.
One of the oldest methods of tank cleaning, the “fill, boil and
dump” approach, is still used by many industries for various
applications. This simple cleaning method involves filling the
tank with water and chemicals and heating its contents to the
required temperature. The mixture is kept in the tank for a
sufficient amount of time in order to allow the chemicals and
temperature to react with the soil. The tank is then emptied
or its contents “dumped.” This is a very expensive and
time-consuming cleaning method, and the amount of force
applied is minimal.
Tank cleaning
Tank cleaning-in-place (tank CIP) is a commonly used
cleaning method, which applies force to the tank surface
for the removal of soil without having to open and enter the
tank. There are three different types of technologies used for
cleaning the tank interior:
1. Static spray ball (static cleaning device)
2. Rotary spray head (dynamic cleaning device)
3. Rotary jet head (dynamic cleaning device)

Optimisation of tank cleaning 71
Whilst these technologies are not new, they have been
developed and improved over the past 50 years. The
technological advances to dynamic cleaning devices in
recent years are noteworthy. Some of the technologies have
been tested and approved by the EHEDG; however, most of
the equipment available today does not have approval from
any standards organisation.
All three technologies apply force to the tank surface in
different ways and with different degrees of efficiency. The
level of efficiency for the various technologies is determined
by the impact force (mechanical force) and the shear stress,
which significantly differ among the technologies.
Static spray ball
The static spray ball continuously disperses cleaning fluid
through each perforated hole from a fixed location in the tank
onto a fixed location on the tank surface (Fig. 2). As the jets
hit the tank surface, they create an area, or footprint, where
the impact force and shear stress are active. After impact,
the jets change to cascades of cleaning fluid, which run
down the sides of the tank, creating a free-falling film. This
free-falling film generates shear stress on the interior walls
of the tank in an uneven pattern. Here, time, chemistry and
heat are the decisive factors that determine when the tank is
clean. The wall shear stress of the free-falling film is fixed in
the range of 1 to 5 Pa, which is comparable to that present in
a pipe in which the liquid is pumped at a speed of 1.5 m/s. 3
Optimize to
economize
So where is all your energy going? The surprising fact
is that pumps account for as much as 50% of the
power consumption in some processes. Pump optimization
for maximum efficiency in each process is
key, it could cut your bill considerably.
Figure 2. Static spray ball. Static spray ball gently sprays cleaning
fluid onto the tank walls, enabling the fluid to fall freely down the
tank wall and provide uneven cleaning coverage.
Rotary spray head
Unlike the static spray ball, the rotary spray head is a dynamic
cleaning device. The flow of the cleaning media released
from the spray head causes the spray head to rotate (Fig. 3).
This creates a swirling movement, which enables the fluid to
hit the tank surface with an impact force that is higher than
the impact force of the static spray ball. The pulsating force
and impact created provide a combination of shear stress
and variable falling film of cleaning fluid that covers all the
internal surfaces of the tank. Compared to the static spray
ball, the rotary spray head reduces the amount of cleaning
time required to achieve the desired cleaning results.
Watch our pump films:
www.alfalaval.com

72 Optimisation of tank cleaning
The impact force and subsequent coverage create a
footprint that is much larger and wall shear stress that is
much higher than that provided by a static spray ball or
rotary spray head. The magnitude of the wall shear stress
in a rotary jet head footprint is approximately 104 Pa and
decreases to about 7.5 Pa at approximately 150 mm from
the impact centre. 3 This is significantly higher than the wall
shear stress of between 1 and 5 Pa in the free-falling film
created by a static spray ball.
Figure 3. EHEDG certified Rotary spray head. The rotary spray
head has a higher impact force and higher wall shear stress
compared to the static spray ball. This reduces cleaning time.
Rotary jet head
Of the three automated tank CIP technologies, the rotary
jet head is by far the most effective because it creates the
highest impact force and highest shear stress (Fig. 4). The
rotary jet head has between one and four cleaning nozzles,
each of which disperses cleaning fluid through a welldefined
jet. The rotary jet head rotates at a predefined speed
to provide a full 360-degree indexed cleaning pattern. This
ensures that the tank surfaces are thoroughly covered after
a specified interval of time, which is dictated by the actual
configuration of the machine.
Figure 5. The wall shear stress in the footprint of an impinging
jet from a rotary jet head, with water temperature at 20°C and
pressure at 5 bar, is shown.
The water from each jet of the rotary jet head creates a
moving footprint on the tank walls in the 360-degree indexed
cleaning pattern (as mentioned above). Because of the
significantly higher impact force of the rotary jet head and
subsequent increase in wall shear stress, it is possible to
predict the required cleaning time more accurately when
using a rotary jet head (Fig. 5).
Chemistry and temperature are therefore no longer the most
important parameters for cleaning efficiency. Instead, impact
force is the most important parameter. By increasing the
impact force on the tank surface, it is possible to reduce the
time, flow, chemistry and temperature.
In other words, when using a rotary jet head in most tank
CIP scenarios, it is possible to cut the cleaning time required,
reduce the amount of cleaning fluids used and realise
energy savings because the cleaning fluids do not need to
be heated to high temperatures in order to achieve optimal
tank cleaning efficiency.
Figure 4. EHEDG certified Rotary jet head. The rotary jet head is
by far the most effective tank cleaning technology available today.
Reduction of cleaning time and fluids
consumption
Recent studies indicate how the impact force from a rotary jet
head is distributed in the impact area on the tank wall (Figures
6 and 7). 4 The highest impact force occurs at the centre of
the impact area; it then decreases by approximately 50% at
a distance of 40 mm from the centre of the impact area. It
is also important to note that the rotary jet head effectively
cleans high-viscosity products, such as sticky foodstuffs,
using water at ambient temperature in just 15 seconds after
the jets hit the tank wall.

Optimisation of tank cleaning 73
In many applications, using a rotary jet head can reduce
cleaning time by 50 to 70% and cut water and cleaning
fluid consumption by up to 90% compared with using the
conventional fill-boil-dump method or static spray ball
technology. It is then easy to understand why so many
companies are considering new ways to optimise tank
cleaning performance yet maintain control over the tank CIP
process.
The Sinner Circle for tank cleaning with a static spray ball
The Sinner Circle for tank cleaning with a rotary jet head
Performance
in good hands
Validating the footprint
Figures 6 and 7. Comparison of static spray ball and rotary jet
head tank cleaning machines using the Sinner Circle. Adding the
impact force of the rotary jet head results in savings in cleaning
time, cleaning fluids and energy due to reduced pump running
time and less heating time of the tank cleaning fluid.
Ways to control the tank cleaning process
Because uptime is key to production efficiency, optimising
tank cleaning performance is critical. It is therefore important
to optimise the tank cleaning process to ensure repeatable
tank cleaning performance in the shortest possible amount
of time.
Although tank CIP systems are automated, these systems still
require monitoring and control. Temperature, flow rate and
chemical concentration are among the critical tank cleaning
process control parameters. However, the performance of
the CIP system itself also requires monitoring and control to
ensure that it operates according to design parameters. Take
the rotary jet head tank cleaning system, for instance; it is
important that the rotary jet head cleaning fluids hit the tank
surface with the right impact force in order to ensure optimal
cleaning efficiency.
The question remains: Is it possible to ensure validation of
the rotation and impact?
Alfa Laval launches the improved and innovative
Rotacheck. Validating the cleaning process inside
any hygienic tank, cleaned by a rotary jet head. The
patented teach-in and monitoring system ensures:
• Precise and reliable online monitoring
of the cleaning head
• Instant alarm output if error occurs
during cleaning
Minimizing down time, optimizing
production time!
More on tank equipment:
www.alfalaval.com

74 Optimisation of tank cleaning
Real-time tank cleaning process control
Process control depends upon reliable real-time in-line
measurements using electronic sensors, such as the
Rotacheck sensor, to monitor and verify the performance of
a rotary jet head and tank CIP. Various such devices are
readily available today. However, it is important to consider
the response time of the device, as well as its ability to
register the actual pressure at which the jets hit the tank
surface.
Fast response time is critical in order to measure the impact
force of the water jets accurately and reliably. A response
time of less than 25 ms is considered necessary to register
a jet hit against the tank wall; however, the response time for
many sensors is too long, exceeding the 25 ms and therefore
providing inaccurate measurements. Consequently, the
sensors do not measure the entire actual impact and
therefore do not properly validate the effect of the jet.
Furthermore, the signal remains “high” on the sensor even
after the jet has passed and is no longer hitting the sensor.
Registering the actual pressure at which the jet hits the tank
surface is equally important. This pressure is the actual
impact force that the jet exerts upon the tank surface. If the
amount of pressure applied to the tank surface decreases,
then the impact force decreases as well (Fig. 8). As the
pressure decreases so too does cleaning efficiency, which
consequently causes the cleaning time to increase.
Advanced sensors, such as the Rotacheck+ version that
carries the 3-A symbol and has been EHEDG-certified, offer
the same advantages as basic sensors but include built-in
intelligence. This consists of a teach-in function where the
sensor records and stores the unique and actual cleaning
pattern for any individual tank cleaning machine based upon
its initial cleaning cycle, which has the design parameters
(set point) intact.
Every time a CIP process is initiated thereafter, the sensor will
compare the actual measurements to the recorded pattern
(set point). Operators are immediately alerted during tank
CIP if there is any deviation from the initially recorded time,
pressure or registration of jet hits. This enables operators to
act immediately to remedy the situation, thereby reducing
the risk of losing valuable production time. With the right CIP
sensor in place, the process is under control.
Figure 9. EHEDG certified Electronic verification tools, such as the
Rotacheck and Rotacheck+ sensors, validate the proper function of
rotary jet heads during tank cleaning.
Figure 8. Jet impact profile of a rotary jet head when passing a
Rotacheck sensor. Typical pressure characteristics of a water jet
from a rotary jet heat at 3 bar and at 5 bar shown.
Selection of the right CIP process control
system
Choosing the right system to monitor and control tank CIP
processes can be challenging. It is important to define your
objectives for monitoring and control and to understand the
available options and advantages.
Basic sensors transmit a simple logic signal to the plant’s
control system, which indicates all jet hits and verifies
the operation of the rotary jet head. In addition to signal
transmission, some sensors also have a clear visual light
signal that is visible to operators on the plant floor. Most are
easy to install anywhere on the tank, even on a pressurised
tank.
Tank CIP process control optimises plant
hygiene and efficiency
There are several ways to achieve optimal tank cleaning
efficiency. To determine the right tank cleaning method for
a particular process, it is important to define the cleaning
criteria, understand the options available and consider the
level of cleaning efficiency and process control required.
Selecting the right tank cleaning method puts the food
manufacturer in control of the tank cleaning process and
ensures that the best cleaning results can be achieved in
terms of accuracy, reliability and repeatability.
Whilst manual tank cleaning may seem sufficient for
some processes, there are advantages to switching to an
automated system, including cleaning consistency, reduced
labour costs and increased production time. Enhancing
automated tank cleaning processes also has its advantages
in terms of less downtime, higher energy savings and
reduced water and cleaning fluid consumption.

Optimisation of tank cleaning 75
The addition of CIP process control systems, whether using
basic or advanced sensors, can further enhance cleaning
efficiency. The only way to validate that an automated tank
cleaning system is working effectively is to monitor and verify
its performance.
With so much invested in hygienic food and beverage
production, the additional expense of hygienic sensors to
validate the tank cleaning process seems a small price to
pay to ensure the optimal cleaning efficiency.
References
1. Sinner, H. 1959. The Sinner Circle “TACT.” Sinner’s Cleaning
Philosophy. Henkel.
2. Jensen, B.B.B. 2009. May the force (and flow) be with you:
importance of flow in CIP. Food Safety Magazine, 14:28-31, 51.
3. Jensen, B.B.B. et al. 2011-2012. Tank cleaning technology:
Innovative application to improve clean-in-place (CIP). EHEDG
Yearbook 2011-2012, pp. 26-30.
4. Therkelsen, Niels Vegger. 2012. Methods to determine the efficiency
of nozzles for cleaning process equipment. Master’s thesis.
BioCentrum-DTU, Technical University of Denmark.
Intelligent
Reliability
Unique Control LKB is an innovative valve automation
unit with an integrated actuator. Flow automation has
never been easier or more dependable, with onebutton
Push n’ Play self-configuration getting you up
and running in a fifth of the time. The smart, robust
design offers outstanding hygiene and durability.
Welcome to Intelligent Reliability!
Watch the film:
www.alfalaval.com

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Effective tank and vessel cleaning:
How different systems can help meet today’s demands
Continuously developing tank cleaning technology with the aim of improving effectiveness and
efficiency will help to reduce the required amount of energy and media.
Falko Fliessbach, GEA Breconcherry, e-mail: falko.fliessbach@gea.com, www.gea.com
Ever higher demands for process hygiene, combined with
significantly increased costs for the energy required to
heat up and convey cleaning media and long downtimes,
are typical challenges for many production plants. It is
therefore logical to critically analyse the cleaning processes
in production plants to determine and exploit the potential
for optimisation. Developing tank cleaning technology to
improve effectiveness and efficiency will help to reduce
the required amount of energy and media, and increase
hygiene in the plant environment.
Cleaning components are used for cleaning in various
production plants in the food, beverage, pharmaceutical
and chemical industries. They allow the cleaning of tank
vessel and reactor surfaces – irrespective of whether they
are in contact with product or not – to be integrated into
the process. Cleaning media such as water, detergents
or disinfectant solutions are applied to soiled surfaces.
Depending on the application (i.e. whether vertical or
horizontal tanks with or without internal fittings are to be
cleaned and what type of residues are to be removed),
various types of cleaning devices lend themselves to be
used more effectively in some situations than others.
Users typically want answers to the following questions:
• What is the difference between the systems on the
market?
• Which system is the most effective and the most
economical for my type of application?
• Who has the expertise to advise me and develop the
best solution?
The most popular systems on the market and details
about their technical characteristics and performance
capabilities are introduced below. Special processes also
are described.
Three groups of cleaner types are distinguished:
• Static cleaners
• Rotating cleaners
• Orbital cleaners
Static cleaners
Static cleaners, also known as spray balls, are available with
various spray patterns: up only, down only or 360°, in various
sizes and with different capacities (Figures 1 and 2). Spray
patterns that direct liquid “up” are ideally suited for tanks
without internal fittings, because the full amount of cleaning
solution can be applied directly to the tank cover and the
tank wall. “Down” spray pattern cleaners are best utilised for
tanks that are open at the top, and “360°” spray patterns are
designed for tanks with internal fittings. Depending on the
application, the spray ball requires flow rates in the range
of 30-50 litres per minute per metre of tank circumference
to work efficiently. Spray balls are usually available with a
threaded connection or pipe clip. Using spray balls for the
cleaning of tanks with internal fittings is recommended
only if large parts of the tank can be cleaned by wetting
all surfaces. If this is not the case, other cleaning devices
should be selected.
Figure 1. Different types of spray balls.
Figure 2. (a) Spray pattern “Down”; (b) Spray pattern “Up”; (c)
Spray pattern “360°.”

Efficient conveying of liquids
GEA Tuchenhagen offers a complete range of normal-priming and self-priming
centrifugal pumps, finely tuned to the task at hand.
• Reduced energy consumption
• Gentle product handling
• Hygienic design
• Capacity range of 1 m³/h up to 210 m³/h
• Optimal SIP/CIP characteristics
• EHEDG approved and certified
Whatever your process, GEA Tuchenhagen has a clever solution for you.
GEA Tuchenhagen GmbH
Am Industriepark 2 – 10, 21514 Büchen, Germany
Phone +49 4155 49-0, Fax +49 4155 49-2423
sales.geatuchenhagen@gea.com
www.gea.com
engineering for a better world
GEA Mechanical Equipment

78 Effective tank and vessel cleaning: How different systems can help meet today’s demands
Rotating cleaners
Rotating cleaners rotate around an axis, and they can be
found as fast or slowly rotating types (Figures 3 and 4).
Slowly rotating cleaners use flat or round jet nozzles to spray
the cleaning solution on the tank wall. Unlike spray balls,
the cleaner does not wet all inner tank surfaces at the same
time, but rather, applies a concentrated liquid jet to one
segment of the tank wall at a time. This means that the full
impact energy of the jet can act on this particular segment
and that a thicker liquid film forms on the tank wall, which,
due to its higher energy, achieves better cleaning results as
it runs down to the tank outlet. Without switching the supply
pump on/off, this produces a pulse/pause type of operation
for each segment of the tank that allows the product residues
to be softened and rinsed off. This effect cannot be achieved
by a spray ball.
As a result, the mechanical cleaning effect of the slowly
rotating cleaner is much greater than that of a spray ball.
This even applies if the cleaning solution flow rate is relatively
low. Under normal operating conditions the cleaning medium
consumption is about 30-50% less compared to a spray
ball.
Figure 4. Rotating cleaner in the head of a mixing tank.
Figure 3. Various types of rotating cleaners.
Orbital cleaners
The special characterristics of this type of cleaner are the
round-jet nozzles that rotate in two planes and produce
highly focused high impact jets for intensive cleaning of the
inside surfaces of tanks or vessels (Figure 5). Depending on
the type, the cleaners have two or four nozzles. The nozzles
have an inside diameter of up to 12 mm in accordance with
application requirements. The horizontal and vertical rotary
movement is produced by a turbine gear unit, driven by the
cleaning medium, or by a separate drive such as an electric
or pneumatic motor. The continuous rotation in two planes
produces a finely meshed, net-like pattern of cleaning jets
on the inside wall of the tank. At the end of a full cycle, each
and every point of the tank has been directly subjected
to mechanical impact from a strong jet. A complete cycle
typically takes between 3 and 9 minutes. In practice, orbital
cleaners generally operate at pressures of 4 to 8 bar and
can easily cover an effective horizontal cleaning diameter

Fine-tuned UHT-plants
The basis for aseptic product treatment
The decisive factors in the selection of the appropriate UHT (Ultra High Temperature)
process for thermal product treatment are product quality, production safety and
efficiency. GEA TDS markets three different types of UHT-plants – with a capacity
range from 50 to 40,000 l/h for the treatment of low and medium viscosity products,
but also allowing thermal and aseptic treatment of products with portions of fibres
and particles.
GEA TDS now offers an addition for a very smooth and gentle product handling:
the new infusion technology for milk and juice. Applying this new direct heating
technology makes the product taste remain very fresh, especially when producing
ESL milk.
GEA TDS GmbH
Am Industriepark 2 – 10, 21514 Büchen, Germany
Phone +49 4155 49-0, Fax +49 4155 49-2724
geatds@gea.com
www.gea.com
engineering for a better world
GEA Process Engineering

80 Effective tank and vessel cleaning: How different systems can help meet today’s demands
of up to 33 metres, depending on the nozzle diameter used.
This type of cleaner is especially recommended for large
tanks, tanks and vessels with complex internal fittings, and
for products that are difficult to clean (Figure 6).
Compared with a spray ball, the cleaning medium
consumption is up to 70% less.
Figure 6. Mixing tank for toothpaste, (a) before and (b) after
cleaning using orbital cleaners.
Figure 5. Various types of orbital cleaners.
Monitoring the function
Static cleaners do not have any wearing parts so that they
are mistakenly regarded as operationally reliable. But like
rotating and orbital cleaners, this type of cleaner also must
be protected from particles that could block the roughly 200
holes with a diameter of 1-3 mm each (e.g., by installing line
filters). Regular inspection is required for all devices, even if
the cleaning process has been validated.
For devices that rotate around one or two axes there are
various ways to monitor around the operation. On devices
where the turbine is fitted outside of the tank, direct
monitoring by proximity switches is easily possible. For the
other cleaner types, various measuring devices, working
according to the principles of noise/vibration analysis,
pressure pulse measurement and flow rate changes in
combination with microwave measurement, are available on
the market. Depending on the manufacturer and the type of
sensor, installation is achieved quickly and easily or is rather
complex, depending on whether, for example, separate
evaluation electronics are required for the control system in
the control cabinet or not (Figure 7a/b).

Figure 7 a/b. (a) Monitoring sensor and (b) monitoring sensor
installed.
Tanks with internal fittings
For cleaning tanks with internal fittings such as agitators,
deflectors, scrapers, and so on, it is essential that at least
two cleaning devices should be installed in the tank top,
so that no spray shadows (i.e., areas left uncleaned) are
produced. The decisive factor is that the spray pattern
should be 360°. For products that are difficult to clean, slowly
rotating cleaners or orbital cleaners are the best option.
If agitators with several agitator blades are fitted, it is also
possible to use so-called “in-line sprayers,” which can
be moved into the tank after the process by a pneumatic
extended in order to clean the underside of the agitator
blades (Figure 8a/b). While tanks with agitators are being
cleaned, these should generally turn slowly to ensure
complete cleaning coverage. Accumulating a certain amount
of clean-in-place (CIP) medium in the tank can support the
cleaning of the lower tank sections.
The Solution Finder.
There is only one thing we will not separate:
your process and our customized solution.
We adapt machines to needs, not needs to machines.
GEA Westfalia Separator Group GmbH
Werner-Habig-Straße 1, 59302 Oelde, Germany
Phone: +49 2522 77-0, Fax: +49 2522 77-2488
ws.info@gea.com, www.gea.com
engineering for a better world
GE-90-01-011

82 Effective tank and vessel cleaning: How different systems can help meet today’s demands
Figure 8a/b. In-line sprayer (a) “closed” and (b) “open”.
Conclusion
There is a large variety of tank cleaning devices available on
the market. However, this does not make selecting the right
one any easier. The most efficient and economic solution
can only be chosen from the broad portfolio offered on the
market today if the cleaning problem is clearly analysed and
all process criteria are assessed beforehand.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Practical considerations for cleaning validation
Hein Timmerman, Diversey, part of Sealed Air, Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
e-mail: hein.timmerman@sealedair.com, www.diversey.com
The European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
(EHEDG) subgroup Cleaning Validation, chaired by
Professor Rudolf Schmitt of HES-SO in Switzerland, is
working on a new guideline pertaining to cleaning validation
expected to be published in 2014. Cleaning and/or
disinfection validation is defined as ‘obtaining documented
evidence that cleaning and/or disinfection processes
are consistently effective at reaching a predefined level
of hygiene, if properly implemented on equipment and
production environment and used as intended.’ In contrast,
cleaning verification is defined as ‘the application of
methods, procedures, tests and other evaluations, in
addition to monitoring, to determine whether a control
measure is or has been operating as intended.’ Verification
is sometimes described as the documented evidence
showing that an assigned entity continues to meet the
required (hygiene) specifications. According to International
Standards Organisation (ISO) 22000, verification is the
‘confirmation through the provision of objective evidence
that specified requirements have been fulfilled.’
The goal of developing the new EHEDG guideline is
to provide a complete validation approach suitable for
equipment manufacturers, cleaning product and equipment
manufacturers and all industrial food producers, from smalland
medium-sized enterprises (SME) to multinational
companies. Cleaning validation is a documented process
that shows evidence demonstrating that the cleaning
methods that have been found applicable and acceptable
for a process/product, achieve consistently the required
levels of cleanliness.
The objective of the cleaning validation is to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the cleaning procedures in the
removal of product residues, degraded products,
preservatives, allergens, and/or cleaning, disinfecting,
cross- contamination and enzymatic agents that can post
a risk to the consumer of manufactured food products.
Together, validating cleaning, assuring a validation
standard and achieving consistent results is a topic of high
priority in the food processing industry. Cleaning validation
is used to show proof that the cleaning system consistently
performs as expected and provides scientific data that the
system consistently meets predetermined specifications
for the residuals. However, when starting a new Greenfield
plant, the integration of a validation approach from the
design phase is a good base from which to achieve the
required result. When an existing plant or line requires an
effective and validated cleaning program, a huge amount
of effort will be needed. More than 80 percent of cleaning
procedures and methods executed on a daily basis in the
food industry are not validated and are poorly documented.
Lack of cleaning validation can be one of the root causes
of food safety incidents as it relates to underperforming
cleaning routines.
The validation of process lines is more than the lineup of
single equipment. Implementation of a new validation plan
will require a holistic approach. Validation can absorb a
huge amount of a dedicated team’s time and will have an
economic impact on the manufacturing operation. Finding
the balance between a theoretical and academic-proven
method and the practical realisation of the validation plan
will require good insights in current available technologies
and their practicality on the plant floor. In addition, a simple
engineered line modification, such as the changing of a
pump type or the addition of a valve or new instrument, can
necessitate a new validation of the entire process line.
Validation requires a deep understanding of all elements
involved in the cleaning result, such as the importance
of design and development for an effective program; the
principles and calculations of residue limits for a wide variety
of residue types; routes of administration; and dosage
types the selection of available analytical methods, along
with appropriate levels of analytical method validation.
It also requires a knowledge base about the selection of
sampling methods and sampling sites, along with proper
selection of blanks and controls using the appropriate
strategies and documentation for sampling recovery
studies; the presence of a cleaning validation master plan
and/or policy components; the appropriate documentation
for cleaning validation protocols and reports; the tools used
for monitoring, verification and revalidation; and validation
maintenance for validated cleaning processes.

84 Practical considerations for cleaning validation
The new EHEDG guideline will demonstrate a practical
approach that takes into account all of the needed steps
to come to a validated cleaning. The partnership between
the food operator and cleaning chemicals suppliers and
optimisation of related services is essential to assure a
focused and professional validation approach. However,
it will be a crucial task to define a balanced strategy in
grouping cleaning activities and simplifying the validation
work to keep the validation implementation a task that will
not disrupt the company’s efficiency.
SMART SAFETY
Thanks to smart automation, the new
Tetra Alcip CIP unit uses exactly the
right temperature, amount of water,
detergent concentration and cleaning
time to achieve uncompromising food
safety. While cutting the consumption
of water by 21% and chemicals by 6%.
And delivering unique flexibility to meet
every CIP need. All at the lowest operational
cost.
Certified equipment conforming to the guidelines
of EHEDG, of which Tetra Pak is an active member.
www.tetrapak.com
Tetra Pak, , ProTeCTs WhAT’s
good and Tetra Alcip are trademarks
belonging to the Tetra Pak group.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Integrated hygienic tamper-free production
The challenge for producers is to secure food safety in their production line, profitably. It is
important to secure against operator mistakes, inconsistent product quality, and even against
manipulation of the product. Adopting a holistic view on the entire production is the answer.
Stefan Åkesson, Tetra Pak, Lund, Sweden, e-mail: stefan.akesson@tetrapak.com
Today, production is integrated: The product flows continuously
through the plant, from raw material intake to distribution,
without stopping. This means that producers must control
every step, both individually and as part of the whole.
However, recurring problems with hygienic issues are
reported from all over the world. Inconsistent food quality,
manipulation of product, wilful tampering, human error – all
of these reports have a huge impact on brands, profitability,
and consumer confidence in the food industry as a whole.
Securing tamper-free production is essential.
Hygienic design
It all starts with hygienic design. Hygienic design ensures that
every material that will ever come in contact with food – from
components right down to connections and welds – is designed
and constructed for cleanability. Using and following the
European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group (EHEDG)
guidelines ensures state-of-the-art hygienic design. It is also
important to conduct a hygienic risk assessment during the
development and engineering phases of a project to analyse
and evaluate hazards in order to eliminate or reduce hygienic
risks. Following hygienic design principles means that the
production process is designed with quality control functions
that ensure food safety from start to finish.
With quality assurance operations in place, substandard
products can be handled at an early stage, which minimises
product losses and increases product quality. One way
to secure food safety is to use guidelines – structured
procedures – as an important aid in the daily work of a food
processing plant. Furthermore, the control system not only
should monitor the procedures, but it should also actively
provide hygienic functionalities that help the producer avoid
operator mistakes, ensure quality control and secure a
tamper-free production environment.
To assist the producer’s food safety management system,
it is important that the quality control system monitors the
implementation and attainment of good manufacturing
practices (GMP) and identifies measures to correct any
failure to achieve GMP.
Integration of hygienic, aseptic and control systems is shown
in EHEDG Guideline 24.
Tamper-free production solution
Advanced control systems with recipe handling, production
monitoring and production analysis access information
about the ongoing process. To secure consistent product
quality and avoid intentional tampering, the optimal tamperfree
solution should involve all phases of production, with
multiple levels of security (e.g., automated material handling
that secures the mixing accuracy, even of manual ingredient
additions or monitoring of the cleaning sequence through
clean-in-place [CIP] sensors, and automatic adaption of
the cleaning procedure, depending on the information
received and analysed). The control system also ensures
that the product and cleaning agents are not mixed. In
the warehouse, recipe handling functions should ensure
that the right material and amounts are stored, and stock
management should show continuous inventory information.
The recipe handling also helps the operator to create the
batches according to the recipe and production schedule,
and a unique batch identification (ID) number is generated
when ingredients are being prepared for different batches to
ensure that the right ingredients and amounts are added into
the right tanks (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Cabinets containing the different ingredients have
automatic locking system integrated with the recipe handling
system. The operator is prompted by the system to add ingredients
in a preset order, and through the cabinet locking system, the
operator can pick only the correct mixture, securing product quality.
Another security function is in the mixing area. A stock-inand-out
solution is integrated with the weighing system and
a scanner device that the operator uses to keep track of
all additions. In the process area next to the mixing tanks
the operator scans the generated batch ID barcode on the
prepared bin and the barcode on the tank. If the codes
match the automatic tank locking system the tank will open.
The interlocking function makes sure that the right mix
goes into the right tank. Locks on both tanks and ingredient
containers secure the integrity of the system and this ensures
consistent product quality while reducing waste and product
loss. Another feature of an automated control system is the
availability of reports: Batch reports, stock reports, journals

86 Integrated hygienic tamper-free production
and audit reports are key performance indicators used to
optimise production through improved production planning,
logistics and production analysis.
The tamper-free production solution supports the food
safety management system for food producers, by avoiding
operator mistakes, keeping track of all raw materials and
ingredients, and preventing intentional tampering and other
food safety issues.
HigH-pressure safety
Super-efficient UHT treatment of highviscous
soups, sauces, tomato pastes, you
name it. Based on a coil tubular heat exchanger
– Tetra Vertico – that handles up
to 350 bar pressure, giving less sticking
and fouling, and up to 50% less product
loss. Faster product changes. Easier
cleaning. Safer for food. Safer for the environment.
Safer for your business.
Traceability is about trust
A well-developed method that ensures traceability can
prove invaluable to food safety while significantly reducing
the cost of recalls and bad will. A sophisticated automated
control system enables traceability quickly and efficiently
throughout the entire production chain, from raw material
intake to packaged product. Effective traceability is the result
of structured data acquisition, where the acquired data are
accessible and searchable. Traceability is essential if a
product needs to be recalled, and it limits the size of the
recall. With a traceability tree, the entire production flow can
be viewed and analysed, and performance can be improved.
Advanced control systems with traceability technologies
improve the speed and reliability of the entire production
process through real-time monitoring. In addition, complete
automation control secures traceability of the final product.
The system compares the product samples to the production
parameters. If the values are out of range, the system can
give alerts.
Traceability can make production transparent and allows
anyone along the supply chain (including the consumer) to
discover the origin and route of any given food via an Internet
portal. By tracking the origin of foods and their routes through
the food supply chain, the risk of unexpected incidents can
be reduced and consumers’ trust in food production can be
maintained.
Certified equipment conforming to the guidelines
of EHEDG, of which Tetra Pak is an active member.
www.tetrapak.com
Tetra Pak, , ProTEcTS wHaT’S
good and Tetra Vertico are trademarks
belonging to the Tetra Pak group.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Damage scenarios for valves:
Identifying the potential for optimisation
Willi Wiedenmann, Krones AG, D- Neutraubling, e-mail: willi.wiedenmann@krones.com, www.krones.com
Ideally, valves used in the production process would go
unnoticed and remain problem-free throughout a line’s
entire functional lifetime. But valve integration cannot be
ignored quite so easily; after all, these components are
indispensable for automated production processes to ensure
the appropriate routing paths and to shut off product flows.
They are required to exhibit maximum reliability in terms of
design and function, and to be sturdy enough to effortlessly
cope with any events occurring in the production process.
Where exactly are the potential problems associated with
valves? Moving parts for opening and closing the shut-off
components, duty limits of seal materials as well as product
characteristics, and the temperatures encountered in the
production and cleaning processes all demand a lot from
the components involved and influence their useful lifetimes.
Then there are the imponderables, such as water hammers
or human error in handling the individual components
when removing and installing wear parts. By designing a
radically new series of valves, Krones has taken on board
the empirical feedback from operating aseptic and nonaseptic
production lines, and has created a family of valves
that exhibit salient improvements for many of the problems
encountered in valve design. This involves valve design that
contributes to safe and contamination-free product routing,
and incorporates features that simplify the operator’s work
and enhance personnel safety.
Seal design for butterfly valves
Numerous cases of damage when using valves are
associated with the seal. In the case of a butterfly valve,
for instance, volume changes will occur, caused by rises
in temperature. These swellings on the seals protrude into
the product compartment, so that during the opening and
closing operations for the valve disc, the increased level
of friction causes small particles to be abraded, which
are then entrained in the product or the cleaning agent
(Figure 1).
The result is that the valve no longer closes properly, which
means that the liquids are no longer dependably separated,
resulting in product contamination. For example, if the flap
is no longer being positioned in a 90° configuration, the
feedback signal from the proximity sensor is not being sent,
and the system goes into fault mode, which entails substantial
costs in terms of lost production output (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Swelling of the seal, with tear, in conjunction with
imprecise closing of the butterfly valve.
With a seal design that incorporates two expansion grooves
the expansion caused by a change in temperature can be
purposefully confined to the seal’s installation space in the
housing, and the abrasion or damage in areas coming into
contact with the product can thus be avoided (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Cross-sectional view of a butterfly valve with optimum
installation situation for the seal.
Figure 1. Seal abrasion at the disc.
And in order to prevent wear phenomena due to valve
flap movements, a smooth surface has been provided in
the product compartment, thus relocating the dividing line
to outside the product area. A lead-in chamfer on the seal

88 Damage scenarios for valves: Identifying the potential for optimisation
supports the switching mechanisms of the disc, so that all
switching operations are performed with minimum stress on
the material.
Extensive tests on the capability of the valve design to
withstand pressure chock (or water hammer) also provide
precise data on the production conditions under which the
valves can be operated. Thus, in the event of unexpected
water hammers (which cannot be entirely ruled out in any
production operation), a clear statement can be made on the
state of the seal. (Figure 4).
Figure 6. Sealing configuration at the valve plate.
In the event of damage to the valve disc, safe and
contamination-free operation of the production line can only
be restored by a time-consuming and expensive replacement
of the valve plate.
The frequently observed phenomenon of the seat seal’s
tearing out at the opening and closing movements of the
valve discs is manifested with one-piece valve discs, where
installation of the seal is, in most cases, not easy, and in
actual practice is also accompanied by a bit of “helping out”
with the use of grease or washing up liquid.
Figure 4. Seal torn out after a water hammer.
The design of a two-part screwed-together valve disc with a
defined installation space for the seal ensures significantly
more precise installation conditions, and concomitantly,
reliable positioning of the seal. This provides concomitant
gains in terms of reliability against pull out and fluid behind
the seal. Leakage detection according EHEDG is warranted
between the parts of the valve disc. (Figure 7).
Weak point: Valve stem and seat seal
In the case of seat valves, it is not uncommon for traces of
wear at the valve disc and the valve shaft to be responsible for
entraining dirt into the product area and for leaks (Figure 5).
Figure 7. Sealing configuration at the seat.
Similar phenomena can be observed with mix proof valves.
Damage to the radial seal and traces of wear at the valve
disc can be prevented by providing a defined installation
space for the seal, and by designing the seal with a support
ring (Figure 8).
Figure 5. Traces of wear on the valve disc.
This is prevented by integrating a second shaft seal, which
strips off any dirt, and avoids any damage to the valve shaft
from wear traces. Leakage detection according EHEDG is
warranted between housing and seat ring. (Figure 6)

Figure 8. Traces of wear on the valve disc.
Moreover, since the seals are identical, there is no possibility
that the product paths will be shut off incorrectly due to
confusion between the axial and radial seals (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Identical seals for radial and axial sealing of the valve
disc at a mix proof valve.
Compounds for high operating temperatures
It holds true for all valve designs that newly developed highperformance
compounds have led to higher temperature
resistance. Whereas 10 years ago temperatures of up to
160°C were customary for the steam involved, in systems
designed today the temperature spectrum has to be
extended up to 210°C, which means the seal has to possess
significantly enhanced performance capabilities. By utilising
the finite element method (FEM), the framework conditions
were simulated by Krones during the design phase, and
the stress limits and expansion reproduced under defined
temperature conditions and with specified installation
spaces. A comparison with a seal of conventional design
revealed definite advantages for the newly chosen seal
construction.
Uncompromising safety
At Tetra Pak, exceptional efficiency goes
hand in hand with uncompromising food
safety. For example, our unique OneStep
technology, which combines heat treatment,
separation and standardization in a
single step, cutting the production time of
UHT or ESL milk by up to 90%, and cutting
operational costs by up to 50%. Complete
with aseptic buffering, it gives you an unbroken
chain of safety.
Certified equipment conforming to the guidelines
of EHEDG, of which Tetra Pak is an active member.
www.tetrapak.com
Tetra Pak, , and PrOTECTS
wHAT’S gOOd are trademarks
belonging to the Tetra Pak group.

90 Damage scenarios for valves: Identifying the potential for optimisation
Aseptic – strong bellows essential
The requirements involved are even more stringent in
aseptic operations. Dependable separation of the product
from its surroundings has been the strategy pursued
for many years now. Integrating the bellows elements
as a seal at the valve disc can indeed create the desired
separation; however, this introduces a not-inconsiderable
source of possible malfunctions. Defective bellows and the
concomitant possibility of rear infiltration may be responsible
for contamination phenomena not amenable to easy
detection, causing substantial losses of productivity in actual
operation quite apart from a contamination of the product
involved (Figure 10).
The conditions for operators and
maintenance staff
Besides replacing any worn seals, staff are also involved
in maintenance work on the valves and the actuators. So
maximised safety has to be assured. The foundations for
this are in place: clients, and thus the valve manufacturers
too, have to ensure that the design of their systems and
components is such as to fundamentally rule out any risk of
injury during operation, and conforms to the requirements
of the EU’s Machinery Directive (2006/42/EC) and the EU’s
Pressure Equipment Directive (97/23/EC).
With a welded version of the actuator (designed for one
million switching cycles), the amount of maintenance work
required is minimised, while the accident risk from opening
up an actuator is eliminated as well. In this context, special
attention has been paid to easy handling of the actuators, as
evidenced by the weight of < 25 kg in the case of nominal
diameters of up to ND 100. In addition, accident prevention
in production mode is enhanced by covers for moving parts
(valve yoke, feedback system) (Figure 12).
Figure 10. Damage to the bellows means that contamination is
inevitable.
A study of the stresses acting on the stainless-steel bellows
under a flow of p = 7 bar shows unequivocally (with different
process parameters and stroke positions) what vibrations
occur in the bellows construction. This quickly reveals why
a bellows breaks after only a very brief period of operation.
In the newly designed valve series, this is remedied by an
integrated support body (Figure 11), which ensures that the
bellows is properly guided and dampens the vibrations at the
individual pleats. Moreover, this also avoids damage to the
bellows due to overstressing at removal.
Figure 12. Personnel safety – protective feature at the valve yoke
and feedback system
Figure 11. Support body for guiding the bellows.
With a component inspection conducted by the TÜV Süd
technical control board, comprising a pressure test, a safety
test and a strength test, the new series of valves has been
subjected to all tests designed to document operational
safety down to the tiniest detail.

Besides safety considerations, of course, features designed
to facilitate care and maintenance work have also been
integrated, such as quick and easy seal replacement in the
product compartment without needing any special tools, and
(as already mentioned) eliminating any risk of confusion
when replacing seals.
Advertisement
Summary
New methods for determining the performance capabilities
of components, plus a rigorous scrutiny of damage
occurrences, are indispensable as a basis for design
enhancements. State-of-the-art components offer possible
approaches for optimising the useful lifetime and for reducing
cases of damage in actual production conditions.
This new designs also score in terms of financial aspects,
since with lower compressed-air consumption, fast lifting
time and free cross-sectional areas in the product flow
energy costs can be meaningfully reduced.
Of the utmost importance are improvements in terms of
hygienic design of valves. It is an excellent idea to confirm
the cleanability of valves in the process through certification
by the European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group.
Lödige supplies high-grade subsystems,
components and services for technical
processing applications, in particular in
Pharmaceutical, Food and Cosmetics
Industry.
We are spezialized in the fields of
• Mixing
• Granulating
• Coating
• Drying
• Reacting
Lödige Hygienic Design -
Part of Your Excellence
Lödige Systems not only meet the
GMP and FDA standards but also
fulfill all specifications regarding
qualification and validation.
www.loedige.de
LÖDIGE - ALWAYS THE RIGHT MIX

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Infection-free preparation of bacterial cultures
The preparation and compounding of freeze-dried bacterial cultures available in powder form
requires extremely high standards of hygiene. If the material is also deep frozen the mixing
equipment must have very good insulation and meet increased strength requirements.
Dipl.-Ing. Ludger Hilleke, amixon GmbH, D-33106 Paderborn, Phone: +49 5251 68 88 88-0, info@amixon.de,
www.amixon.de
Today, fermented specialities enhance nearly all of the most
commonly produced dairy products. Whether in cheese,
curd and yoghurt, or when used for improving meat, they
can be found everywhere. However, the production of these
powdery granular materials is a real challenge, especially in
further processing environments, which demand a high level
of cleanliness, quality of handling, and a granular dust-free
structure.
A determinant of the quality in this process is operation
with the minimum of interruptions; in other words, as nearly
continuously as possible. High-purity bacterial cultures form
by cell division, and for industrial production, the aqueous
suspension of bacteria is continuously diluted with nutrient
solution. After a constant dwell time, the matured suspension
is removed and washing processes follow. The cell division
process does not stop until the extracted cultures are frozen.
To facilitate handling, the cultures also are sometimes freeze
dried, which produces a loose powder or granulate with bulk
densities around 0.1 to 0.4 kg/dm 3 .
In subsequent automated processing of bacterial cultures
there is often a mixing process. Naturally, a quick result is
desirable, with the mixing done in a way that avoids causing
damage and that work efficiently under difficult conditions
(i.e., differing filling degrees, bulk densities, particle sizes,
rotational speeds, etc.). In addition, as a result of the
alternating stresses that result from very high temperature
changes in these processes, mixers must be specially
designed to avoid fatigue cracks.
Meeting all of these challenges of producing powderform
freeze-dried bacterial cultures in a hygienic manner
requires mixers that are designed with hygiene in mind.
A good example is a single-shaft mixer whose mixing
principle is based on a three-dimensional rearrangement,
such as those produced by amixon GmbH (Figure 1). In
such a mixer, the material in the periphery of the mixing
chamber is screwed upwards and then flows downwards
in the centre. The helical mixing tool performs mixing
very gently at circumferential speeds of 0.2 to 0.9 m/s. A
particularly useful feature is that the mixing process takes
place independently of the filling level. In this respect the
emptying process also takes place without segregation,
even when it takes a long time or occurs while pulsating.
The high degree of residue emptying assists in keeping the
mixer highly sanitary.
Figure 1. Example of a single-shaft mixer that can be used in the
manufacture of powder-form freeze-dried bacterial cultures.
Thorough cleaning of a processing plant in which mixing
of powders occurs is also clearly essential. Avoiding
contamination is both a determinant of quality and an
absolute ‘must’ in producing foods free of allergens. One
solution to this challenge is the automation of wet cleaning
and drying of powder mixers. In one patented process, a
clean-in-place (CIP) device is firmly installed on the mixing
chamber and remains there permanently. For wet cleaning,
the sealing plug in the mixing chamber opens and makes
the space available for the motion of a rotating wash lance.
The latter moves into the mixing chamber with translatory
motion. With an applied water pressure of about 3.5 bar,
the head rotates and three nozzles spray the entire mixing
chamber interior. Depending on the size and execution of
the mixer, three, four, or in some cases five, washing heads
are necessary for wetting the entire mixing chamber and all
parts of the mixing tool.
After completion of the wet cleaning, drying is essential.
Bearing in mind that the specific heat capacity of water is
about nine times as great as that of stainless steel, the wet
cleaning with hot water spontaneously heats up the mixer.
This heat assists the steam stripping of the mixer. Additional
hot air entering via an inlet through the main connection of
the CIP device accelerates the drying process.
The entire mixer and the CIP system are dried. Only then
does the rotating lance move out of the mixing chamber and
the sealing plug closes the container, gas-tight and liquidtight.

From the operator’s viewpoint, it is worth noting that the
sequence of movements of the patented device requires only
a single electro-pneumatic drive, making it easy to control.
It is employed with success in mixers, dryers, reactors and
other systems. In specific cases the rotating washing nozzle
is replaced by high-pressure aiming nozzles, particularly if
the cleaning is to be done with a small amount of water but
utilises high pressures.
Ultimately, any mixer used in the preparation and
compounding of freeze-dried bacterial cultures must
be built to sanitary standards in compliance with US
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements, 3-A
Sanitary Standards, and the requirements of the European
Hygienic Engineering Design Group (EHEDG).
Individual and
future-oriented
plants for your
process.
Tailor-made solutions for process systems
for the food, beverage and pharmaceutical
industries. Consulting, planning, construction
and service - all from a single source.
Plant design at its best.
Ruland Engineering & Consulting GmbH
Im altenschemel 55
67435 neustadt, Germany
Phone: +49 6327 382 400
Fax: +49 6327 382 499
info@rulandec.de, www.rulandec.de

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Modern level detection and measurement technologies
Sticky media, foam, changing media and hygienic installation present challenges for fill level
detection and measurement. In order to improve reliability and reduce the downtime of machinery
it is crucial that a level sensor switches off when the tank, vessel or tube is empty, even if the tip
is still covered with the medium. Any medium that produces foam is especially tricky because
an overflow protection has to detect it, whereas a level measurement and an empty detection
should mask the foam. A modern level measurement and detection should also work even if the
medium changes. This article gives a guideline of technologies to solve these challenges, as
well as some information on hygienic mounting.
Daniel Walldorf, Baumer GmbH, Friedberg, Germany, dwalldorf@baumer.com, www.baumer.com
Frequency sweep technology
for level switches
Frequency sweep technology for level switches detects fill
level of a tank, vessel or tube on the basis of the DK value.
As opposed to a classical capacitive sensor, this technology
opens the possibility to distinguish different media (e.g.,
liquid and its foam) and adhesions from sticky media to a
full tank (Figure 1). Clever set-up strategies make it possible
to use the same sensor with the same set up for a large
variety of media. Advanced sensor versions usually make it
possible to do visual set up and to get a measurement output
from the sensor (e.g., for condition monitoring of a tank).
Figure 2. Setup of a sensor for sticky media (chocolate).
Figure 1. The frequency sweep technology opens the possibility to
distinguish different media and adhesions from sticky media.
The working principle involves analysing an inductorcapacitor
(LC) circuit for its resonance frequency where the
medium to detect influences the capacitor. Therefore, the
resonance frequency depends on the medium in front of the
sensor tip. At the resonance frequency, power consumption
is at its minimum.
Hydrostatic level measurement
One might think that measuring level by hydrostatic pressure
is not very modern. Nevertheless, it is with reason that
this measurement approach remains the most popular
technology. The food, beverage and pharmaceutical industry
facilities typically operate machinery using a wide temperature
range from 0°C to 140°C. Therefore, it is critical to use a
pressure sensor with good temperature compensation.
This is typically reached by sensor manufacturers with an
internal temperature measurement and an identification of
temperature compensation for each individual sensor during
the production process. In most data sheets, the temperature
error is indicated either as temperature coefficient or as a
value for a total error band available in the compensated
temperature range.

Modern level detection and measurement technologies 95
Hygienic connection of pressure sensors are inside the
recommended tubings. For the mounting in tanks there
are fewer possibilities with standard connections. Most
manufactures offer special cavity-free process connections
for tanks together with the fitting welding parts. The user and
planner should look at the European Hygienic Engineering
& Design Group (EHEDG)-certified connections to be on the
safe side.
Altogether, hydrostatic level measurement offers a very
good and cost-effective method for tanks from about 1 m
in height and up, which corresponds to a pressure range of
about 100 mbar. For tanks under 1 m high, the use of other
technologies should be investigated.
Capacitive contact-less level switching
Standard capacitive switches can be used to detect a
medium in a tank through the tank wall. This is especially
interesting because no hygienic process connection is
needed and the set up can be extremely compact and easy
to add to an existing tank.
Potentiometric level measurement
For tanks heights lower than about 1 m, potentiometric level
measurement technology offers a very good alternative.
This technology uses a metallic rod inside the tank and
measures the level by detecting the length of the rod, which
is connected to the tank wall by a liquid.
The technology masks foam as well as adhesions by sticky
media. It is very interesting that sensors based on this
principle do not have to be set up to the used medium.
Hygienic applications are matched by taking care of special
process connections that are typically together with fitting
welding parts for tanks. A short response time of a few
milliseconds is typical, so that even for fast filling processes,
this technology offers a great alternative.
However, the technology is limited in that the medium should
be liquid, homogeneous, and must have at least a small
conductivity. In most applications in the food, beverage and
pharmaceutical industries, the parameters are inside these
limits.
Conclusion
There are several options that enable accurate measurement
of the level in tanks with liquids, even if the product is sticky
or has a layer of foam. Moreover, available technologies can
be applied in a hygienic way.
Figure 3. Capacitive sensor setup at a glass tube.
As a limitation this only works through plastic tanks or glass
windows.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
An example of the development process of hygienic
process sensors: A hygienic level switch
The development of new technologies usually follows predefined pathways. The development
of sensors for use in hygienic processes has additional requirements. This article shows the
impact of hygienic design in the product development process.
Holger Schmidt, Grad. Brewmaster, Endress+Hauser, Weil am Rhein, Germany,
e-mail: holger.schmidt@de.endress.com,
Some developments start with a good idea that seems to
come out of the blue and the result is a useful technology.
More often, the market has a specific need and the new
development is based on changing an existing instrument,
automation technology or process. It could also be based
on an economic need to improve the process. But usually,
customers want to improve safety, quality and performance
of their plant, so that their operations and facilities remain
state-of-the-art.
The Liquipoint FTW33 point level switch was born out of the
latter desire. The need for a reliable high- or low-level signal
and pump protection in point level switch technology was
previously achieved successfully over a number of years
by using tuning fork technology for nearly all applications
in hygienic processing. However, the successful use of this
technology was limited in highly viscous media in which small
“voids” are created around the vibrating forks that can cause
uncertainty in level detection. Another challenge with tuning
fork and capacitance level technologies is related to their
ingressing parts, which makes cleaning more demanding,
time-consuming and costly than necessary. This is especially
true if mechanical support is required such as the use of a
cleaning ball in pipes.
Driven by these needs, the goal was clear: Design a
sensor that works in highly viscous media without buildup
issues. The design would need to be flush-mounted to
allow sufficient cleaning such as is outlined in the European
Hygienic Engineering & Design Group (EHEDG) Guidelines
8 and 10.1
well as global customers who require additional process
connections. For this sensor, an adapter concept was
chosen to ensure necessary flexibility without compromising
any of the hygienic requirements set forth in the original
goals. It was important to focus on a smart design of the
connecting parts and gaskets. The design needed to ensure
exposure of the seal at the right place, and also protect it
against mechanical stress.
Document 10 of the EHEDG Guidelines backs up these
design criteria with a focus on corners, dead ends, edges,
gaskets, seals, and the connection of different materials. The
parts that are in contact with product, but also the housing,
only show even surfaces.
The definition phase
The engineering phase begins with determining which
technology best meets the specified goals. In this case, there
was already good know-how in capacitance and conductivity
measurement available within the engineering team. The
sensor design approach focused on a combination of both
tuning fork and capacitance technologies. The design started
with understanding the guidelines in which hygienic design
is described. For the food and beverage Industry, these are
primarily the EHEDG and 3A Sanitary Standards guidelines.
It includes EHEDG Document 8, which describes how to
define the choice of material, cleanability, tightness against
intruding microorganisms, geometry, surface treatment,
installation and self-draining requirements.
The choice of appropriate process connections was another
important decision to take in the sensor development
process. Standards like DIN 11864 were considered, as
Figure 1. Polished surfaces and crevice-free welding at wetted parts
and housing.
The sensor must also be protected against the cleaning
processes of the food and beverage industry. Even if
a high pressure jet cleaner typically spreads dirt and
microorganisms more so than manual mechanical cleaning
methods do in a given plant, the deisgn of the sensor should
ensure its reliability and ruggedness on a daily basis.
To meet the development objectives, EHEDG Document 37,
which details function and design of sensors for hygiene and
safety, also was taken into consideration. For the Liquipoint,

98 An example of the development process of hygienic process sensors: A hygienic level switch
the fulfillment of these requirements led to a design that
works with very smooth angles on a nearly flat plate. The
slight warp is needed to ensure the support of a self-cleaning
process and ensures, together with the active build-up
compensation, high reliability in nearly all media. The
precondition for reliable level detection is the requirement
for a conductivity of more than 1µS.
The materials of the Liquipoint — 316L stainless steel and
virgin PEEK as an isolator — are combined in a specific
process that ensures long-term, crevice-free tightness of
the sensor (Figures 1 and 2). All materials follow FDA and
European requirements (EN 1935/2004) as described in
EHEDG guidelines. The surfaces of wetted parts have a
surface finish better than 0.76 µm. The sensor is compact
enough to fit in small process connections, but also supports
an adapter concept. It is self-draining, and has no gaps or
crevices.
Production considerations
Following the design and testing process, there are several
significant production considerations that must be taken
into account in producing the sensor. First, production of
equipment to be used in hygienic installation must meet
all specific regulatory requirements. In ISO 9001 and
attached norms, the specific considerations are described
and equipment and component manufacturers are charged
to follow good manufacturing practices. It starts with the
purchasing of raw material, internal handling and traceability,
and continues through to a clean working environment. The
wetted parts, including all materials that are in contact with
the product, such as cleaning media or lubricants, must follow
the international regulations for food-contact materials. If
after cleaning the product prior to completion there remains
any cleaning solution or lubricant residues, there must be
validation that they cannot cause any harm. Periodic review
of procedures and the resulting products ensure that the
packaged sensor is of the expected quality.
Figure 2. Liquipoint point level switch, flush mounted, even surface.
The resulting design results in less shear forces on the
sensor, especially in agitated vessels, and offers the ability
to install the sensor in areas with very little space. The final
design fulfills the basic technical requirement: a reliable
switch signal under all conditions.
Conclusion
On the one hand, the development of a specific technology
for the hygienic industry is demanding. On the other, it is
easy, because there are clear guidelines and customer
expectations to meet. EHEDG supports efforts to join the two
market participants’ recommendations and expectations.
The supplier can be confident that by following the EHEDG
guidelines the sensor will be market-ready. And the user
is sure that he receives a hygienically designed process
component that will have a positive impact on the safety,
quality and performance of the manufacturing plant .
In this case, the technical requirements dictated the basic
design definitions, which led to the development of an
improved, safe and reliable switch that works with different
media—specifically with high- or low-viscosity media—is
unaffected by build-up, is easy to handle, and is safe to
install and operate. But even if measuring technology drives
the development, it is possible to use hygienic guidelines
to ensure proper design. The Liquipoint FTW33 is a good
example of how the product development process and result
of such a process can look.
The field testing phase
The definition of applications for testing the new device
was easy in this case, because market recommendations
led to this product development. Targeted installations were
“sticky” and demanding processes, including products such
as yogurt, jam, cream cheese, smoothies, dough or ketchup.
In these applications, the sensor must show how it can cope
with build-up, cleaning cycles, and sterilisation, and must
show its flexibility in dealing with changing products. The
installation and set-up must be easy. In-house tests with
specific treatments were added to the field test. In a short
time, a high number of cycles could be simulated through
these in-house tests. Finally, a mandatory step in product
development in the food and beverage industry is to show
how the sensor behaves in a defined cleaning cycle. In this
case, the sensor was tested using the EHEDG cleanability
test rig as a reference.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Storage in silos and pneumatic conveying of milk powder
with up to 60% fat content
Hermann Josef Linder, Solids Solutions Group, S.S.T.-Schüttguttechnik Maschinenbau GmbH, Landsberg, Germany,
Phone: +49-8191-3359-0, e-mail: H.Linder@solids.de, www.solids.de
The storage and flow of fine food-based powders with high
fat content is a challenge. An investigation conducted by
Hausner-Zahl in 1996 showed that for these types of powders
a very high degree of compaction occurs during conveying
and storage. This results in the categorisation of the product
in its deposited state as “non-flowing,” which presents
further quality and food safety control issues associated with
storage capacity in silos. 1 In addition, according to Geldart
(1973) in his assessment of pneumatic conveying, when a
classification in Group C (i.e., fine powders) was carried out,
flowability of these products was cohesive, difficult or not
able to fluidise. 2
Solid Solutions Group (S.S.T.) has conducted complex
investigations of materials used for storage and
transportability, partially under simulation of the operating
conditions, that have led to fine powder processing and
apparatus technical solutions. The primary goal was to
design pneumatic conveying apparatus and storage silos
that comply with the European Union’s (EU) Machinery
Directive 2006/42/EC, Annex 1, Clause 2.1, including food
processing equipment, as well as with the DIN EN1672/2
hygiene requirements. In addition, equipment had to
follow the European Hygienic Engineering and Design
Group (EHEDG) guidelines and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) good manufacturing practices (GMP)
and related rules and recommendations. Goals for the
development of hygienically designed equipment systems
used in the production and storage of fine powders included:
• The entire system should be free of dead spaces,
should be capable of being completely emptied and
should be easily cleanable.
• Where possible, dry cleaning by air flushing is
preferable, but wet cleaning is also possible when an
unavoidable greasy film is present in the process or
system.
• During storage, particularly during the pneumatic
conveying, the primary grain size, bulk density and
appearance of the product should be maintained and
loss of product quality should be avoided.
To ensure the flowability of fine milk powder with up to 60%
fat content, and thus the product’s storage capacity, S.S.T.
conducted investigations as outlined by Jenike (1964).
Due to the influence of the fat content, these investigations
were extended to include various storage temperatures and
storage periods.
Avoiding flowability and storage problems
through hygienic design
Higher fat content in fine powders leads to significant
deterioration of the flowability of the product. Reducing
temperatures in the product during storage results in
an increase of the bulk resistance, which leads to the
deterioration of both flowability and storability. In just a few
hours of storage time, very high levels of fat in a product
typically result in high consolidation stress, which means that
achieving flow without discharge aids is no longer possible.
Higher temperatures worsen the wall friction values, which
leads to distinctive adhesion affinity.
To make the process storage and pneumatic conveying
controllable, a distinction was made in terms of fat content:
• Milk powder with a fat content of

100 Storage in silos and pneumatic conveying of milk powder with up to 60% fat content
Storage in mass flow silo
Figure 1. Solids mass flow silo in hygienic design.
The resulting mass flow silo designed in compliance with
hygienic design goals is characterised by a horizontal drop
of the product level. The product in the entire silo crosssection
is in motion during the discharge. There are no dead
zones, and thus no product residue. The total mass has a
uniform residence time. The premise of “first-in first-out” is
upheld. During the discharge over the entire cross-section
there is a backmixing of the material, which was probably
segregated before when filling in.
Figure 3. Solids Vibration bin discharger provided in mass flow silo.
For the support and assurance of the mass flow at a
reasonable outlet diameter, vibration bin dischargers were
provided (Figure 3). All surfaces that are in contact with the
product have an average surface roughness of Ra

solids_Anz_EHEDG_Yearbook_2012_DR.indd 1 21.08.12 15:21
solids
components and
complete plants
The solids solutions group is specialised in the development and manufacturing of components
as well as in the engineering and realisation of complete, automatic bulk handling systems.
The group members are offering individual solutions acc. to the EHEDG-guidelines.
HYGIENIC DESIGN
for powder handling
Minimal cleaning costs at
maximum production hygiene
solids Vibration bin discharger
solids Pneumatic conveyor
solids Rotary valve
Bulk solids installation: storage, discharge, conveying,
feeding, weighing/metering, process automation
solids Dosing screw
system-technik GmbH
Lechwiesenstr. 21
86899 Landsberg / Germany
Phone: +49 8191 / 3359-0
Email: info@solids-systems.de
solids system-technik s.l.
Iñurritza Torrea, Extepare 6
20800 Zarautz / España
Phone: +34 943 / 830 600
Email: systems@solids.es
S.S.T.-Schüttguttechnik GmbH
Lechwiesenstr. 21
86899 Landsberg / Germany
Phone: +49 8191 / 3359-50
Email: info@solids-service.de
solids components MIGSA s.l.
Erribera Kalea 1
20749 Aizarnazabal / España
Phone: +34 943 / 147 083
Email: comercial@migsa.es
www.solids.eu

102 Storage in silos and pneumatic conveying of milk powder with up to 60% fat content
The connection of the pneumatic conveyor occurs with
centred connecting components with gap-free sleeves. The
material inlet valve is a disc valve in hygienic design, easily
disassembled and cleaned by a divided housing and gapfree
connection by centring flanges and a seal that conforms
with FDA requirements as published in the U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations (Figure 4).
The pneumatic conveyor is free of dead zones, has gapfree
centred mounting connections with FDA-conforming
gaskets. Mass flow during emptying with vibration support
and air flood cleaning minimise the need for cleaning. For wet
cleaning, the pneumatic conveyor with the entire conveying
line system is CIP-able and piggable.
Summary
The flowability of a product is influenced significantly
by moderate fat content. Longer periods of storage or
temperature variations, even when fat content is

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Material and design optimisation calculated by EHEDG:
Tubing systems
The development and manufacturing of tubing for EHEDG-compliant production are demanding
tasks that require careful engineering. They depend not only on detailed hygienic design,
but also targeted optimisation with an emphasis on flow resistance, maintenance costs and
ergonomic criteria.
Dr. Torsten Köcher, Sales Manager, Dockweiler AG, D – Neustadt-Glewe,
e-mail: t.koecher@dockweiler.com, www.dockweiler.com
Products manufactured according to European Hygienic
Engineering & Design Group (EHEDG) hygienic
requirements generally follow a series of steps that apply
to a variety of machines and system stations. Accordingly,
they must be transported as intermediate products from one
process step to the next. Provided production quantities
exceed a certain amount, engineers use tubing designed
and constructed in compliance with EHEDG requirements
for liquid and semi-liquid products. In addition to product
lines, the design of the gassing lines mounted onto the
corresponding vessels also have to meet these strict
guidelines.
EHEDG compliant tubing: strict
requirements
These requirements are significant. They are about
achieving the level of purity and avoiding the dead space
required by EHEDG, as well as ensuring that the unhindered
flow of material through the tubing system is accounted for
in dimensioning and planning. The potential dead space
geometry must also account for flow rates. A permissible
n x D ratio (e.g. 2xD, distance of valve – main tube) at a low
flow rate can cause problematic dead space (Figure 1). The
engineering expense is worth it, because the user profits
from lower operating costs and minimised maintenance
expenses, among other things. However, comprehensive
know-how and production capabilities custom-tailored to
this challenging task are an absolute must. This point is
elaborated in this article using case studies from Dockweiler
AG’s development and production portfolio.
Figure 1. A permissible n x D ratio (e.g. 2xD, distance of valve - main
tube) at a low flow rate can cause problematic dead space.
Source material: Stainless steel tubing
There are three essential methods for producing tubing:
1. In the production of seamless tubing, a thick-walled
tube, a so-called blank or hollow, is stretched using a
plug drawing. In doing so, the wall becomes thinner.
There can be many steps to the process. In general,
tubing up to approximately DN 25 is manufactured in
this way. The drawing process causes displacement of
the crystalline areas along the crystallographic planes.
The metal ‘flows’ through the tool and is smoothed.
Grid tension causes the metal to harden and deformation
martensite occurs. A final heat treatment is
necessary for maintaining homogeneous austenitic
structures.
2. In the manufacture of welded tubing, cold-rolled steel
from a coil with the best surface qualities available is
used as the primary material for producing tubing of
excellent quality. The steel sheet from the coil runs
through a series of shaping rollers, on the ends of
which the welding of the longitudinal seam occurs.

104 Material and design optimisation calculated by EHEDG: Tubing systems
After additional production steps, such as grinding,
annealing and leveling, the tubing must undergo eddy
current testing in order to ensure the quality of the longitudinal
weld seam.
3. The third method plays a role in refinery and power
plant technologies, which use tubing with wall thicknesses
exceeding 16 mm. Hot rolled steel is typically the
primary material. It is formed into tubing with the aid of
presses that exert hundreds of tons of pressure onto
the material and then longitudinally seam welded.
The mastery and exploitation of such manufacturing
processes means achieving optimal material properties. The
suitability of the material for further processing is equally
important. Analysis is made possible by the countless material
and surface testing procedures currently available. The most
well-known method is the measurement of Ra values. The
results of surface profile measurements, however, are limited
in validity because they do not provide information about
the microstructure. Additional inspections are necessary for
proving suitability of the tubing, for example, welding tests,
electrolytic polishing tests and microscopy.
Important: Materials selection
The right selection of suitable materials determines, among
other things, cleaning qualities and system life. Today, there
are a multitude of alloys on the market that possess the
necessary stable properties to stand up against different
types of corrosion. In order to fully utilise their properties,
however, they must be properly processed. The application
and its particular influencing factors, such as medium,
concentration, time and temperature determine the selection
of materials and surfaces.
Figure 2. Beyond standards: Example of a customised branch
solution.
Manifolds: Dead space minimisation is the
objective
Figure 3 shows a manifold with attached valve, for example,
for dosing an additive into a base fluid. Conspicuous here is
the short distance between the central tubing and the valve
base plate. As a result, a tiny dead space occurs when the
valve is closed. In comparison to conventional construction
with T-pieces, the potential dead space volumes are reduced
by approximately 38%; at the same time, the component is
clearly more compact (Figure 4).
Branch conduits: Know-how is in the details
The production of geometrically simple and frequently
used components, such as branches, demonstrates the
complexity of implementing EHEDG guidelines. This
begins with the selection of materials. This is the only
way that optimal welding can be ensured. Furthermore,
the processing methods must be adjusted to the future
application.
Different techniques (boring, saddle, and collaring
methods) are available for the processing of T-pieces, each
of which have their merits, but also their application limits.
Dockweiler uses the collaring method for branch conduits
with a diameter of 19.05 to 168.30 mm and also produces
special T-pieces, for example, with inclined or eccentric
outlets (Figure 2). The advantages are exact geometry and
complete drainability of the production system. Dockweiler
solely uses the Wolfram Inert Gas Process (WIG) orbital
welding method for producing components. Validated
documentation is available for all welding seams and
surfaces; depending on requirements, components are
electropolished after production. If desired by the customer,
pressure calculations or X-ray testing can be conducted for
critical components.
Figure 3. The minimisation of dead space is an important design
objective for many EHEDG-compliant tubing components.
Figure 4. Compact and hygienic: Short branch with valve base plate.

Material and design optimisation calculated by EHEDG: Tubing systems 105
The orbital welding method enables tubing to be connected
with a continuous 360º welding seam (Figure 5). To
accomplish this task, Dockweiler AG uses orbital welding
equipment, among other tools, with welding electrodes
positioned on the inside of the tubing. The result is a
continuous, high-quality welding seam that prevents dead
space, ridges, etc., and thus fulfils hygiene requirements.
At the same time, narrow dimensional tolerances are
maintained and the branches from manifolds and special
parts can be designed to be extremely short. This method is
used to engineer a variety of manifold designs for food and
pharmaceutical production.
Figure 6. Thermowell: Tube section with immersion rod for ‘inline’
measurement in product flow.
Example: Optimising design during
engineering phase
Another example: A manufacturer with a complex system
desires two individual valves for the material feed and two
valve blocks, each with three hand-operated shut-off valves,
which need to be mounted directly onto the respective entry
and outlet openings on the backside of the system. Dockweiler
AG’s engineering team determined that the valves, which
must be regularly controlled during system operation, would
be too inaccessible. An alternative was developed that
allows an operator to control all eight fittings from one central
station that is also at an easily accessible height (Figure 7).
Additional functions can be included with this basic concept,
for example, a sequence for each of the eight lines.
Figure 5. Orbital welding enables the optimal design of hygienic
tubing components.
Special components for sensors under
EHEDG conditions
Dockweiler AG also develops and produces customised
tubing components for EHEDG-compliant sensors, for
example, for detecting the temperature of media in tubing
systems. This includes, among other things, a tube section
with an dip tube where the sensor is housed (‘thermowell’).
The medium flows past the dip tube and is subject to the
strictest hygiene requirements. The entire construction
should be designed so that disruption of flow and turbulence
are avoided (Figure 6). Measurement results that are actually
reproducible are obtained in this way.
Figure 7. Clearly better results can be achieved through optimisation
of design during the engineering phase.
Strict requirements for documentation
The ‘correct’ production methods and engineering
competency are important when it comes to putting EHEDGcompliant
special constructions into practise. These examples
demonstrate the importance of designing and producing
tubing that meets the highest standards of hygiene. This
applies not only to basic processes like drawing, boring,
expanding and welding, but also surface treatments that
employ processes like grinding, honing, pickling and electropolishing.
All production steps are documented in detail so
that the traceability of each individual component as well as
the reproducibility of the processes is possible. Using this
holistic approach means that manufacturers and operators of
EHEDG-compliant systems can ensure and credibly document
that their tubing meets the highest quality standards.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Improved hygienic design and performance of food
conveyor belts
Olaf Heide, Habasit AG (Headquarters), CH - 4153 REINACH-BASEL, e-mail: olaf.heide@habasit.com
Food conveyor belts can be found in nearly all industrial food
processing and packaging lines. They are integral to ensuring
a smooth and trouble-free process flow on the production
line. For example, unexpected failures or breakdowns
can be costly and cause severe problems in a continuous
production. Hence, conveyor belts that are designed to
be reliable and rugged in the production environment can
contribute significantly to process efficiencies and profitability.
Furthermore, they typically come into direct contact with food
as an integral part of a process line, and therefore play an
important role in terms of safe and hygienic food processing.
The European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
(EHEDG) and all of its member companies aim to support
and improve safe food production through hygienic design
of equipment and components. Several leading conveyor
belt manufacturers are members of EHEDG and actively
contribute to various subgroups. As part of the equipment
design process, EHEDG assesses hygienic design of
dedicated belting solutions for direct food contact. An
example is the Habasit HyCLEAN CIP system, Following
thorough evaluation and implementation of improvements,
EHEDG recently assigned for the first time a certificate of
compliance to Habasit’s plastic modular belt types M5060
and M5065 with sprocket and clean-in-place (CIP) system.
All three components comply with hygienic design principles
but utilise their full potential when incorporated as a package
into food conveyors and equipment.
Challenges related to food conveyor belts
The vast variety of food products, processes, manufacturing
methods and equipment requires belts that are able to cope
with mechanical, chemical and environmental conditions.
Each single aspect of production, from size, weight and
shape, to consistency or temperature of conveyed goods,
can have an impact on the performance and lifetime of
a food conveyor belt. Needless to say, there is not one
universal solution that can address all of these aspects. Belts
have to be designed and selected for the intended use and
associated requirements of the manufacturing operation.
This article focuses on improving the hygienic design and
performance of synthetic conveyor belts using plastic
materials as a main design element, since steel belts
follow a different design pathway and thus require separate
considerations.
If this is not done correctly it can cause process problems
such as unexpected breakdowns, yield reduction, product
and allergen contamination by foreign objects and/or
microbial contamination and improper hygiene conditions.
All of these aspects have an impact on the food processor’s
costs and profitability.
Scratched / damaged Plastic Surface damages on coated
Modular Belt (Meat cutting line) fabric belt (Fish processing)
Waste and soiled belt surface
(dough processing)
Fraying belt edges
(Pizza processing)
Figures 1. Things you do not want to see in a food process.
Problems, as shown above, can be avoided by dedicated
selection of belts for their specific application. There are
many solutions on the market to improve durability, chemical
resistance, good release of sticky goods and cleaning
efficacy. But there is more to consider, including the three
pillars of conveyor belt hygiene:
• Food contact material legislation
• Hygiene and food safety requirements
• Impact of equipment hygienic design and cleaning
Pillars of conveyor belt hygiene
Food conveyor belt manufacturers not only must care for the
design of their products, but also ensure that all materials
used in belt construction comply with food contact legislation.
It is especially important to understand and follow the
requirements of regional legislation where food processes
are located and/or where the equipment is put into operation.
Many equipment and component manufacturers also maintain
compliance with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regulations pertaining to food-contact materials; however,
these rules are not sufficient for operations in the European
Union (EU). In Europe, the most important regulation is the
framework directive EC 1935/2004 and its amendments,
which cover materials and articles intended to come into
contact with food. EU regulation 10/2011 (also known as
Plastics Implementation Measure [PIM]) is a dedicated
regulation governing the use of plastic materials, such as

Improved hygienic design and performance of food conveyor belts 107
plastic conveyor belts. Conformity with these rules must be
ensured and declared by the belt supplier with a document
of compliance that must be provided for each belt type sold
to a food processor or equipment manufacturer.
In addition to consideration of hygienic design principles
and use of safe materials and articles that are allowed to
come into contact with food, all equipment and component
manufacturers also should understand the challenges and
requirements involved in cleaning and sanitation. Cleaning
can be a nightmare if this important activity is not considered
thoroughly during the design phase of food processing
equipment and components.
Design
Food safety
Process hygiene
Cleaning
Regulations
Experience / Innovation / Training
How to identify the ideal belting solution
Know the
Industry,
process and
applications
Analyze
conveyed
goods
Evaluate
problems and
needs for
optimization
5 Tips to upgrade hygiene of food
conveyor belts
Select and
install proper
equipment &
components
Evaluate your currently installed equipment and
components. Check if they are up-to-date and comply
with advanced hygiene requirements, standards and
legislation.
Work with experienced partners who understand your
industry, processes, applications and challenges.
Aim for upgrades and/or improvements.
Check the ability of your belting supplier to deliver them.
In addition to selecting equipment and components that
provide ideal solutions for the target applications, make
sure to consider the cleaning and maintenance as part
of the total costs of ownership.
Figure 2. Design, cleaning and regulations compose the three
pillars of conveyor belt hygiene.
No pillar can stand without a good foundation. To achieve good
design that takes into account regulatory and cleanability
requirements, the food conveyor belt manufacturer will need
a solid foundation of experienced people, the willingness to
strive for innovative solutions, and commitment to ongoing
education and learning (Figure 2). Establishing these
foundational elements are vitally important for food conveyor
belt manufacturers who aim to achieve the ultimate goals of
the EHEDG: To ensure food safety and process hygiene for
all food manufacturing operations.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Smart hygienic solutions for the food industry
Despite a stagnant economy, food and beverage companies intend to increase investments
into developing new products and technologies to fuel business growth and improve revenues,
according to a recent survey by the global audit company KPMG. While investing in growth,
many companies remain focused on keeping costs low and efficiencies high, while at the same
time emphasising compliance with food safety standards and global regulatory mandates. This
article describes continuing food safety threats and the food industry’s motivation to incorporate
smart hygienic solutions to overcome these challenges.
Peter Uttrup, Interroll España S.A., Barcelona, Spain, phone +34 677 462 788, e-mail: p.uttrup@interroll.com
and Lorenz G. Koehler, Interroll (Schweiz) AG, Sant’Antonino, Switzerland, phone: +41 91 850 25 21,
e-mail: l.koehler@interroll.com, www.interroll.com
Proactive risk management is the key to success in today’s
economically challenging global market. For businesses
in the food supply chain, this means keeping abreast of
changes in the global regulatory environment, especially new
food safety and hygiene standards and laws, and investing
in business strategies and technologies that reduce risk to
the company’s brand reputation and financial health. Some
of the risks that remain high on the list of concern for the food
sector are foodborne illness outbreaks, food product recalls,
and quality control gaps in manufacturing facilities and other
points along the supply chain.
Foodborne illnesses – a constant threat
A foodborne disease is any illness resulting from the
consumption of food that is contaminated by pathogenic
bacteria, viruses, parasites or chemical agents. Foodborne
diseases pose a growing threat to public health worldwide.
The most common effect of foodborne diseases takes the
form of gastrointestinal symptoms, but such diseases can
also lead to chronic, life-threatening conditions including
neurological or immunological disorders, multi-organ
failure, cancer and death. Recent global developments are
increasingly challenging international health security. These
developments include the growing industrialisation and trade
of food production and the emergence of new or antibioticresistant
pathogens.
Although we do not currently have an exact figure of the global
economic impact of foodborne diseases on societies, businesses
and trade, the latest estimations project the costs in hundreds
of billions of U.S dollars. Some of the most significant estimates
include:
• The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) estimates that there are roughly 48 million
cases, 3,000 deaths, and 128,000 hospitalisations from
foodborne pathogens each year in the United States
alone. Children, the elderly, pregnant and post-partum
women and individuals with compromised immune
systems are at highest risk of developing complications
from foodborne illness.
• A new study by a former U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) economist estimates the total
economic impact of foodborne illness across the U.S.
to be a combined $152 billion annually.
• According to the CDC, in industrialised countries, the
percentage of the population suffering from foodborne
diseases each year has been reported to be up to 30%.
• Thirty-one (31) known pathogens are responsible
for 9.4 million illnesses (20% of the total), 55,961
annual hospitalisations (44% of the total) and 1,351
deaths (44% of the total), according to CDC data.
The remaining unknown/unspecified pathogens are
responsible for 38.4 million illnesses (80% of the total),
71,878 annual hospitalisations (56% of the total) and
1,686 deaths (56% of the total).
These statistics illustrate why companies throughout the
food sector continue to invest in food safety and hygiene
technologies and systems that will effectively mitigate
potential risks of foodborne illness associated with their
products.
Food recall risks
Food sector companies also are increasing their vigilance
in monitoring the quality and safety of foods they place on
market shelves to avoid costly product recalls. A food recall
occurs when there is reason to believe that a food may
cause consumers to become ill. A food manufacturer or
distributor initiates the recall to take foods off the market. In
some situations, food recalls are requested by government
agencies. A food recall can cost millions and is potentially
fatal to a business. Public perception and attitudes toward a
company’s products can be negatively affected by bacteriarelated
recalls that make the headlines.
Risk reduction technologies
As a consequence of these challenges, one can expect
further pressure on food manufacturers to improve quality
control in the coming years. Risk management and reduction
is the foundation of better food safety practices. To help
food manufacturers all over the world comply with the strict
national and international regulations in terms of hygiene
in their material handling processes, many equipment
manufacturers and component makers are investing their
expertise into creating innovative hygienically designed
products to assist industry with improving quality control
measures to reduce contamination risks.

Smart hygienic solutions for the food industry 109
Advances in hygienic conveyor drives provide a good
example of how hygienic design is helping the food sector
control food safety risks on the production line. Conventional
gear motors are bulky, complex to install, require expensive
cabinets and guarding, and most importantly, are not tested
and verified as cleanable by the independent Danish
Technological Institute. In comparison, today’s drum motors
are designed to be regularly cleaned and disinfected to a
great degree of hygiene, even in environments where high
pressure water, steam and chemicals are used (Figure 1).
This helps food manufacturers achieve the highest possible
hygiene standards.
Drum motors that meet the European Hygienic Engineering
& Design Group (EHEDG) Guidelines, and that use
materials in compliance with EU Regulation 1935/2004
raise the user’s confidence that the drum motor utilised
offers optimum cleanability, providing for the lowest possible
levels of Salmonella, Listeria, E. coli and other harmful
microorganisms in the food processing environment.
Further, drum motors with standard IP66 and IP69k sealing
systems are well-suited for wet and high pressure washdown
applications (Figure 2).
Interroll drum motors meet all of these hygienic requirements
and are therefore suited for application in environments
in which high and constant exposure to great amounts of
sanitation chemicals and/or water is the norm.
Figure 2.Hygienically designed drum motors are well-suited for wet
and high pressure wash-down applications.
Figure 1.Drum motors should be designed to withstand regular
high-pressure washdown procedures at food processing plants.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Examination of food allergen removal from two flat
conveyor belts
Food allergens are an increasing public health concern. Allergen contamination can occur through
cross-contact with equipment surfaces. Designing hygienic, sanitary equipment is essential for
reducing allergen contamination risks and its consequent food recalls. The need for effective
allergen removal calls for improved dry-cleaning technologies. The results of the study illustrated
in this article demonstrate that solid, homogeneous, smooth-surface plastic flat belts can be used
in combination with a dry-cleaning tool as an alternative to fabric-reinforced flat belting in order
to reduce allergen carryover risk during dry food processing.
Dr. Zhinong Yan, Gary Larsen, Roger Scheffler, and Karin Blacow. Intralox, L.L.C., Amsterdam,
Netherlands, e-mails: zhinong.yan@intralox.com; gary.larsen@intralox.com; roger.scheffler@intralox.com;
karin.blacow@intralox.com
Food allergens are a growing public health concern. In the
United States, an estimated 9 million adults and 6 million
children are affected by food allergies. 1,2 The prevalence of
food allergies and associated anaphylaxis appears to be on
the rise. According to a study released in 2008 by the US
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an increase of
approximately 18% in incidences of food allergies occurred
between 1997 and 2007. 3 Undeclared allergens are the
leading cause of food recalls. A summary of US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) recall data from 2010 noted that
more than 60 recalls were due to undeclared allergens,
making it the second most prevalent reason for declaring a
recall, behind only Salmonella contamination. 4 In addition,
the second annual report of the US FDA’s Reportable Food
Registry showed that undeclared food allergens accounted
for 30.1% and 33.3% of food hazard adulterations in 2009
and 2010, respectively. 3
There is no cure for food allergies, so strict avoidance
of allergen-containing foods and early recognition and
management of allergic reaction are the only viable
measures for preventing severe health consequences. The
US Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act
(2004) requires clear food allergen labeling in order to avoid
potential consumption of foods that contain one of eight
major allergens (milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree
nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans).
Allergen contamination can occur during any stage of food
processing. Cross-contact during food manufacturing is
an increasing concern, especially when different types
of food are processed along the same production lines or
equipment. Removal of allergens from shared equipment or
processing lines has been identified as an important aspect
of an allergen-management program. 5 Poorly designed or
maintained equipment can make allergen removal more
difficult. A set of 10 principles of equipment design for
low-moisture foods has been developed by the Grocery
Manufacturers Association’s (GMA) Sanitary Design Working
Group in the United States. This group also has developed
an equipment checklist. More detailed information can be
found in the European Hygienic Engineering and Design
Group (EHEDG) Guidelines.
Conveyor belts —
critical food-contact surfaces
Of all the types of equipment used for food processing,
conveyor belts are the most likely food-contact surfaces
to become allergen cross-contact points if not cleaned
thoroughly. There are three major conveyor belt types
employed in dry-food processing: fabric-reinforced flat
belting; continuous, homogenous positively driven flat belts
(e.g., ThermoDrive ® belting from Intralox); and modular
plastic belts. These belts’ materials (plastics, fabric), surface
properties (roughness, crevices), and manufacturing
methods (extrusion, fabric reinforcement) need to be
considered in relation to belt designs and uses in order to
fully follow the 10 principles of sanitary equipment design.
However, few studies regarding these conveyor belts’
ease of cleaning and sanitation have been carried out. Yan
(2011) investigated the potential bacterial-contamination
risks of fabric-reinforced belts during normal processing,
finding that bacteria could penetrate the surface of the
fabric and migrate to foods during conveyance, especially
when driven by friction between the belt and motor. 6 This
same migration process also might occur with allergens. Al-
Taher and Jackson (2011) tested dry-steam vacuuming for
removing allergenic food from a urethane-faced conveyor
belt. 7 This study demonstrated that a recent commercialised
dry-steam cleaning unit may not effectively remove various
allergens from the fabric flat belt, though the efficacy of this
cleaning device may depend upon which different allergens
are applied to the belt surface. The recent development of
solid, homogeneous, positively driven smooth-plastic flat
belting might reduce the problems of cleaning and sanitation
occurring on fabric materials. However, no comparative
testing has been conducted to date.
Cleaning is considered the most fundamental method for
preventing allergens due to cross-contamination from shared
equipment or processing lines. Therefore, developing and
applying effective cleaning methods is critical for removing
allergens. The most powerful tool for removing allergens from
surfaces or interior equipment is water. For environments
that process wet mixes with floor drains, water is the best
choice. However, for the manufacturing of low-moisture
foods, introducing water into the equipment or environment

A cleaner,
healthier
future.
Cleaning In Place
Chemicals, Equipment & Optimisation
Open Plant Cleaning
Chemicals, Systems & Optimisation
Diversey hygiene solutions, enabling food
processors around the world to optimise their
hygiene procedures, meet their sustainability
targets and ensure that their products meet the
most stringent food safety standards.
Now a part of Sealed Air, the new global leader
in food safety and security, facility hygiene and
product protection, offering a full package of
solutions to protect brand image, achieve
optimum operational efficiency, manage food
safety risks and increase shelf life.
Hygiene Training &
Management Solutions
To find out more, visit www.sealedair.com
Water & Energy Management

112 Examination of food allergen removal from two flat conveyor belts
may lead to microbial growth, especially of pathogens like
Salmonella that are resistant to dry conditions and that grow
with minimal moisture. Hence, dry cleaning methods for
low-moisture food production have been a focus in recent
years, especially with the frequent incidence of Salmonella
contamination in various dry foods.
Currently, methods for dry cleaning are limited to brushing,
vacuuming, sweeping, scraping, use of compressed air, and
pushing through, or wiping with cloths. However, allergencleaning
protocol using these tools remains challenging for
effective and acceptable allergen removal. For instance,
compressed air can blow food debris from hard-to-reach
areas where brushing is difficult, but it also poses risks of
future allergen contamination to food-contact surfaces from
the floor or hidden areas. Recently, several companies have
developed dry-steaming (< 5% moisture) and vacuuming
systems that demonstrate great potential to clean equipment
and environments for dry food processing.
Figure 2. Polyurethane ThermoDrive flat belt.
As common food-contact surfaces, conveyor belts may
be the most critical points for food allergen contamination.
However, allergen removal on the fabric-reinforced and
homogenous flat plastic belts that are used in some dry-food
processing has not been much investigated. The objective
of this study was to assess the cleanability of allergens on
the above two types of flat conveyor belts using a new drysteam
cleaning system. 6
Cleanability of two flat conveyor belts:
A study
A vinyl fabric-reinforced belt (Figure 1) and a polyurethane
solid-homogenous-plastic flat belt (Figure 2) were installed
onto two different conveyors with friction drive and positive
drive, respectively. Three allergen-containing foods —
creamy peanut butter, soy protein, and egg whites — were
spread onto the belts to form a set of thin soils (ca. 1 mm)
within marked areas (10 x 10 cm), then air dried until the
soils were stuck onto belt surfaces (Figures 3 and 4).
Figure 3. Peanut butter on fabric flat belt.
Figure 4. Peanut butter on ThermoDrive belt.
Figure 1. Vinyl fabric flat belt.
A steam vacuum-cleaning device was then placed on
the belt surface (Figure 5). The temperature in the steam
generator was set to 180°C, which passed steam to the
chamber with 5% moisture and reached 77-82°C and 90
psi. The chamber was designed to clean and vacuum the
debris into a container connected to the chamber while the
belt runs at the speed of 10 meters/min. for eight revolutions
until visibly clean.

Examination of food allergen removal from two flat conveyor belts 113
Figure 5. Steam vacuum chamber installed on the conveyor.
(Photo provided courtesy of AmeriVap.)
Reveal 3-D peanut, soy, and egg test kits (Neogen) were
used to validate the effect of allergen cleaning. Each kit
contains a sterile cotton swab, buffer solution, a sample
tube, and a Reveal 3-D test device. The standard testing
protocol provided by Neogen was followed. The device
was read five minutes after reaction. The allergen
acceptable limit was determined by the testing kits’ supplier
to be < 5 ppm.
The effect of allergen cleaning was tested on each belt.
Each allergen-belt combination was tested three times with
six swab samples each time for a total of 18 samples.
Table 1. Allergen testing results on fabric-reinforced flat belt.
Replication Allergen
Peanut Soy Egg white
1 4/6 0/6 0/6
2 5/6 0/6 1/6
3 5/6 1/6 0/6
Total 14/18 (78%) 1/18 (6%) 1/18 (6%)
As shown in Table 1, after dry-steam vacuum cleaning
on the fabric reinforced flat belt, 78% of the samples
tested positive for peanut, 6% tested positive for soy, and
6% tested positive for egg whites. Allergens were not
satisfactorily cleaned, especially for peanut butter, using
this steam-cleaning system.
Table 2. Allergen testing results on homogenous smooth urethane
flat belt.
Replication Allergen
Peanut Soy Egg white
1 0/6 0/6 0/6
2 0/6 0/6 0/6
3 0/6 0/6 0/6
Total 0/18 0/18 0/18
As indicated in Table 2, the three allergens were effectively
removed from the solid smooth surface of the urethane flat
belt using the steam vacuum cleaning device.
Discussion
The results of the allergen cleaning tests using the steamvacuum
system clearly demonstrate that allergens cannot
be removed from fabric-reinforced flat belts to a level
where it cannot be detected with the applied test method
with its specific detection limits, using the system. This
was consistent with the testing carried out by Al-Taher et
al. (2011) on urethane-faced fabric belts using a dry-steam
cleaning device to clean peanuts, non-fat milk, and whole
eggs. The results showed that no egg soils were detected –
with the method applied – for all the cleaning times tested,
while peanut and milk soils were still detected after cleaning
the belt for 10 minutes using the same test kits as used in
this study. The results also demonstrated that the efficacy of
the dry-steam-cleaning unit on fabric flat belts depends on
the type of food soil applied to the belt surface, which was
also in agreement with the results obtained in this study –
that peanut butter was more difficult to clean than soy and
egg whites.
On the other hand, the smooth, solid homogeneous
urethane belt employed in this study showed effective
removal of all allergens using the same cleaning system as
the fabric flat belt. The difference with respect to allergen
cleaning could be due to the belt’s homogenous surface
properties, which fully meet the requirements for hygienic
design of equipment developed by GMA. The fabricreinforced
flat belt’s thin, laminated surface may not be
fully enclosed, which could entrap allergen molecules. In
addition, the fabric materials on the belt’s back side can
absorb moisture accumulated from steam. The belt’s
friction-driving mechanism allows that moisture to squeeze
between the drum and the belt itself, which can result in
allergens and other soils migrating to the top layer of the
belt.
In conclusion, the results from this study demonstrated
that the newly developed solid-plastic flat belt can be used
to reduce the potential allergen contamination during dry
food processing in combination with the dry-steam vacuum
system.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to AmeriVap Company for allowing
the use of their dry-steam cleaning unit to carry out this
study.
References
1. The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN). Food Allergy
Facts and Statistics for the U.S. www.foodallergy.org/files/Food
AllergyFacts andStatistics.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2012.
4. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2011. The reportable
food registration second annual report: Targeting inspection
resources and identifying patterns of adulteration. www.fda.gov/
Food/FoodSafety/FoodSafetyPrograms/RFR/ucm200958.htm.
Accessed August 10, 2012.
3. Branum, A., M.S.P.H. and Susan L. Lukacs, D.O., M.S.P.H. 2008.
Food allergy among U.S. children: Trends in prevalence and
hospitalizations. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.pdf.
Accessed August 10, 2012.

114 Examination of food allergen removal from two flat conveyor belts
4. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2010. FDA 2010 recalls,
market withdraws and safety alerts. www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/
ArchiveRecalls/2010/default.htm. Accessed August 10, 2012.
5. Jackson, L., F.M., Al-Taher, M. Moorman, J. DeVries, R. Tippett,
K. Swanson, T.-J. Fu, R. Salter, G. Dunaif, S. Estets, S. Albillos,
and S. M. Gendel. 2008. Cleaning and other control and validation
strategies to prevent allergen cross-contact in food-processing
operations. J. Food Prot. 71: 445-458.
6. Yan, Zhinong. 2011. Examining the microbial contamination
potential of fabric-reinforced flat conveyor belts. Technical presentation
at International Association for Food Protection Annual Meeting.
July 31 – August 3, 2011. Milwaukee, WI.
7. Al-Taher, F., C. Pardo, and L. Jackson. 2011. Use of a dry steam
belt washer for removal of allergenic food residue. P1-43. Abstract.
International Association for Food Protection Annual Meeting. July
31 – August 3, 2011. Milwaukee, WI.
8. Yan, Z. 2011. Examining the microbial contamination potential of
fabric flat belts. EHEDG Yearbook 2011/2012: 49-52.
Solutions for handling
pharmaceuticals
Process safety:
Unsurpassed precision
Hermetically tight – leakage-free
Long-term operational stability
Repeatable flow rates
Member of
Batch and continuous operation
LEWA GmbH · Ulmer Straße 10 · 71229 Leonberg · Germany · Phone +49 7152 14-0 · lewa@lewa.de
www.lewa.com

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
The future of food grade lubrication
Food safety is and will remain the most important issue in the food production industry. Issues
such as 100% machine availability and cost-cutting and efficiency programs also are important
to a processing plant’s performance. As food processors aim to meet the objectives of both
food protection and production efficiencies in a slow economy, it is important to consider how
food grade lubricants can play a positive role in many operations.
Taco Mets, Van Meeuwen Groep B.V., NL-1382 LV Weesp, e-mail: tm@vanmeeuwen.nl
Fortunately, the going concern of the food industry is not at
stake: Everybody will continue to consume food. Despite
the economic crisis resulting in a global manufacturing
slowdown, the food industry continues to run strong.
However, margins are always under pressure and many
people do not realise what is essential to keep production
plants operating efficiently. Today, not only are food safety
rules and regulations becoming increasingly strict but
company budgets are getting tighter and more limited for
technical departments driven by mandatory cost-efficiency
programs. These realities make it more important than ever
for food manufacturing operations to find ways to achieve
both objectives simultaneously.
Differences in lubricants for food processing
applications
Creating a mindset for preventive maintenance is the
most important factor in establishing an environment in
which significant advantages can be achieved with quality
lubricants. Food manufacturers should make sure to use H1
registered lubricants, which are allowed for incidental food
contact (Figure 2). Many experts in the lubrication sector
believe products that are H2 registered (products for the
food industry that are absolutely not allowed to come into
contact with food) will disappear from the market. Either the
processor uses a food grade lubricant, or not, that is the key
choice. Today’s technology makes it possible to formulate a
H1 registered lubricant for (almost) every application.
Figure 1. Lubrication maintenance is key to sustainable and
hygienic performance of production lines.
Food processors can maximise their current machinery
performance by focusing on maintenance of all equipment
and components along the production line. There is little
to be gained by a costly revision of a whole production line
and not optimising every aspect of maintenance of this line
to guarantee a long sustainable performance after revision
(Figure 1). Lubrication is key in this process. A focus on
the lubrication aspect of maintenance means investing in
quality lubricants, combined with performing a structural
trend analysis. Together, these will result in both hygienic
production and significant cost savings.
Figure 2. Food manufacturers should select the right type of
lubricant for the right application.
Processors may also have heard about 3H lubricants.
These 3H registered lubricants (to be differentiated from H3
lubricants that represents soluble and edible oils that prevent
rust) are allowed to come in direct food contact. There are
certain applications and situations in which contact with
the food product is inevitable, and in these situations, a 3H
registered lubricant is a good choice.
It is important to note that sometimes the status of NSF
International (US) and/or InS Services (UK) non-food
compound certification is unclear. Both registration institutes
use the similar U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (USDA/FDA) guidelines. Therefore,
a lubricant needs to have an H1 or other registration
regardless of whether certification is from NSF or InS.

116 The future of food grade lubrication
Monitoring machines and lubricants offer
other benefits
By monitoring the machine conditions and lubricants by oil
analysis, thermography and/or ultrasonic measurements,
both the machine availability and lubricant lifetime can and
probably will increase. In addition, energy saving is definitely
possible without compromising on food safety, especially if
the right lubricant is chosen for the right machinery. Most
importantly, processors should monitor machines before
switching the lubricant, shortly after the switch and then
continue measuring both energy and wear patterns for a
few months. Why is wear key? Because although some
lubricants can create energy savings, they also can damage
machines.
To make sure the lubrication maintenance is secured, a
lubrication inspection can be conducted by the lubricant
manufacturer or supplier. Such an inspection should include
questions like:
• Are all critical control points lubricated with H1
lubricants?
• How is the lubrication organised and is it efficient?
• Are there any unsafe food processing or handling
situations in the production area? (Figure 3)
Figure 3. These are all situations found in food production facilities
that can clearly be improved.
A summary of the findings can be shared with individuals in
upper management to effectively show the key importance
of investing in lubrication-related matters to guarantee both
efficient production and safe food products for consumers.
Stand out from the crowd
with NSF Certification
Customer Recognition • Market Differentiation • Competitive Advantage
The symbol of food safety and
quality in over 80 countries
• Demonstrates food safety and
cleanability of food equipment
• CWA 15596 - Cleanability recognised
across Europe
• Your passport to USA
and Canada
Safe products for food and
beverage processing
• Nonfood compounds registration
• Food grade lubricants, cleaners and
water treatment products
• ISO 21469 Registration
• Validates safety and non-toxicity
• Demonstrates commitment to safety
Total support from NSF services: consultancy and advisory services,
training and education, technical services, laboratory testing.
To get started with your NSF product certification, contact us today:
T: +32 27 713 654 E: europe@nsf.org
www.nsf.org
NSF4646 EHEDG Ad.indd 1 10/10/2012 16:20

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Hygienic automation technology in food production
How clean design automation products support food safety
Alexander Wagner, Festo AG & Co. KG, Esslingen, Germany, e-mail: awn@de.festo.com, www.festo.com
Protecting the consumer and the manufacturer’s brand are
the key benefits of hygienic and efficient automation in food
production. The aims are two-fold: high productivity and
perfect tasting food.
The key questions for food safety in the automation
technology are:
• What are the potential hazards in food production and
processing?
• What are the valid standards and directives for
hygienic automation technology?
• What standards are to be respected in the material
selection and design for hygienic machinery
components?
• How are machinery parts in the food sector to be
cleaned?
• How is a hygienic food production system to be
implemented?
Recognising and preventing risks
Salmonella in sausages, Listeria in cheese – the list of
foodborne illness outbreaks and scandals is endless.
Significant hazards in the food sector are caused by:
• Biological factors: illness caused by microorganisms or
their toxins
• Chemical factors: cleaning and disinfecting agents and
lubricants
• Foreign particles: from machines, often caused by
corrosion or abrasion, or from other sources
When ensuring that a machine‘s design is hygienic, all
known and potential hazards must be taken into account,
and action must be taken to reduce these risks.
Figure 1: Resistant surfaces and a high IP protection class, such
as those of the pneumatic valve terminal CDVI, are component
features that meet requirements for hygiene regulations.
Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC
This directive focuses on health and safety requirements
put in place to protect machinery operators. Possible risks
should be eliminated. Special hygiene requirements apply to
machinery intended for the preparation and handling of food.
The machinery must be designed and constructed in such a
way as to avoid any risk of infection, sickness or contagion.
This directive forms the basis for the EC conformity mark.
The basics – standards and directives
Standards and directives form the basis that allows people
to enjoy food with reduced risk of adverse health effects from
consuming contaminated products (Table 1). Implementing
these regulations during production reduces the risks for the
manufacturer and the consumer. The aim of the European
Commission (EC) Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC is the
protection and safety of consumers and operators wherever
food comes into direct contact with machine parts and
components. The application of standards and directives
for design (EN 1672-2 and European Hygienic Engineering
& Design Group [EHEDG] Documents 8 and 13) and
materials (US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] Code of
Regulations Title 21, International Standards Organisation
[ISO] 21469, and EC Regulation1935/2004/EC) provide
additional support for food safety.
Figure 2: The threadless design for the bearing cap as it is used
in the stainless steel round cylinder CRDSNU reduces the risk
of contamination. In addition, the self-adjusting end position
cushioning system is designed without adjusting screws, which are
susceptible to contamination.

118 Hygienic automation technology in food production
The three production zones
The European standard EN 1672-2, Food processing
machinery - Basic concepts, defines three production zones:
• The food zone
This zone encompasses all system parts and
components that are mounted directly in the food
flow and come into contact with foodstuffs. Food may
become contaminated and end up back in the product
flow. System parts and components that come into
contact with foodstuffs must be easy to clean and
disinfect. They should be corrosion-resistant, non-toxic
and non-absorbent (Figure 2). A smooth, continuous
or sealed surface reduces the chance of food getting
caught and leaving residue that is difficult to remove,
making it a contamination risk. In addition, only special
food-compatible lubricants may be used.
• The splash zone
In the splash zone, machine parts and components
come into direct contact with foodstuffs, but the
food does not end up back in the product flow.
Nevertheless, these parts must be designed and built
according to the same criteria as those in the food
zone.
• The non-food zone
In this zone, the machine components do not come
into contact with the product. However, the system
parts used in this zone should be manufactured from
corrosion-resistant materials and be easy to clean and
disinfect, as sources of infection can develop over time.
Selecting the material
In order to protect food, the machine components must
not deposit any substances during the production process
that are harmful to health or that impair the taste or aroma,
through either direct or indirect contact with the food. To
make certain that the work carried out during the cleaning
phase is safe, the materials used for the machine parts
must not react with the cleaning agents or the antimicrobial
chemicals (disinfectants). They must be corrosion-resistant
and mechanically stable to prevent the surface from being
adversely affected.
Figure 3: Quick and easy cleaning can be accomplished with large
radii, such as those of the standard cylinder Clean Design DSBF.
Common materials
• Austenitic stainless steel
High-alloy stainless steel is usually the logical choice
of material for the construction of a production
system in the food industry. Typical materials include
AISI-304, AISI-316 and AISI-316L (DIN material no.
1.4301/1.4401/1.4404).
• Aluminium
Aluminium is frequently used for construction. It is
affordable and easy to work with and process. Typical
aluminium grades include AlMg2Mn0.8, AlMgSi1 and
AlMgSi0.5. Aluminium components can be rendered
resistant to cleaning agents through the application of
an additional coating or anodised oxide layer.
• Plastics
Plastic components permitted to come into direct
contact with food must comply with Regulation
1935/2004/EC and the Plastics Directive 10/2011
(which replaces Regulation 2002/72/EU) or the
approvals of the FDA (CFR 21, Sections 170-199).
In addition to resistance to strain, ease of cleaning
also is an important factor in the selection of suitable
plastic materials. They must not give off or absorb any
hazardous substances.
• Lubricants
Lubricating greases and oils must comply with FDA
regulations (especially Section 21 CFR 178.3570) or
ISO 21469. For parts that will unavoidably come into
sporadic contact with foods, approved lubricants as per
NSF-H1 must be used.
Hygienic component design
The application of EN 1672-2, ISO 14159 and DOC 8+13
of the EHEDG forms the basis for the hygienic design of
machines and components. These standards take into
account the fundamental design elements that can be used
in the construction of components and systems.
• Surfaces
A high surface finish is absolutely essential on
components that come into contact with the product
in order to reduce microbial contamination. This can
be achieved by using a mean peak-to-valley height of
0.4 to 0.8 µm within the food zone. Components with a
peak-to-valley height of ≤ 3.2 µm are often used in the
splash zone.
• Connecting pieces, threads
Connecting components, such as screws, bolts,
rivets and so on, may cause hygiene problems. Open
threads are difficult to clean and provide the perfect
breeding ground for bacteria. Any threads that cannot
be avoided should therefore be closed off with suitable
covers and seals.
• Inner angles, corners and radii
Very small radii and corners are always a hygiene risk
as they are difficult to clean. The prescribed minimum
radius is 3 mm (Figure 3).

Hygienic automation technology in food production 119
The fundamental challenge of cleaning
All manufacturers are liable for their products. In the food and
beverage industry, complete product safety, especially from
a microbiological standpoint, must be ensured to protect the
consumer. As such, one important aspect involves designing
components and systems with hygiene and ease of cleaning
in mind in order to guarantee exemplary cleanliness, shortest
possible cleaning times and minimal expense.
To avoid drives failing in aggressive environments, for
example, the component materials must have certain
qualities that make them suitable for reliably withstanding
the prevailing ambient conditions, as well as guaranteeing
full functionality and a long service life. This applies to both
the materials used for the drive unit and those used for
interface components, such as connections and seals.
Seals and lubricants that comply with FDA regulations
must be used for system components that come into
contact with food. Depending on the requirements of the
specific application, there is a choice of valve types either
for normal cleaning or for applications using intensive foam
cleaning. Intensive cleaning of machine parts also can
wash out the lubricating grease and impair the operation
of the components. Using dry-running seals ensures that
the washed out machine components still function reliably
(Figure 4).
Figure 4: Dry-running seals are indispensable for a reliable
functionality, even when the lubricant has been washed out.
Clean and safe!
Many potential sources of contamination in food and
packaging systems such as bacteria, chemical influences
or corrosion particles in the factory can be eliminated with
just a few design tweaks. Easy-to-clean, corrosion-resistant
system components make food production safer.
When buying food, the consumer expects high-quality
products that have been hygienically produced, dispensed
and packaged by the food industry. That is why customerspecific
process and factory automation solutions are an
important part of any hygienic value-added chain.
Table 1. Important European standards and legislation pertaining
to hygienic design of equipment and components used in food
production environments.
2006/42/EC
ISO 21469
EN 1672-2
ISO14159
EHEDG Doc 8
EHEDG Doc 10
EHEDG Doc 13
1935/2004/EC
Plastics Directive
10/2011
FDA CFR 21
Festo
Directive 2006/42/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 17
May 2006 on machinery, and amending
Directive 95/16/EC (recast)
Safety of machinery – Lubricants with
incidental product contact – Hygiene
requirements
Food processing machinery – Basic
concepts – Part 2: Hygiene requirements
Safety of machinery - Hygiene requirements
for the design of machinery (IS=
141:2002)
Hygienic equipment design criteria
Hygienic design of closed equipment
for processing of liquid food
Hygienic design of open equipment for
processing of food
Regulation (EC) NO 1935/2004 of the
European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 October 2004 on materials
and articles intended to come into contact
with food and repealing Directives
80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC
Commission regulation (EU) No
10/2011 of 14 January 2011 on plastic
materials and articles intended to come
into contact with food
Food & Drugs, Part 11 “Electronic
Records, Electronic Signatures”
Product overview for the food and
beverage industry, 7 th edition

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Cleanability test of a hygienic design-compatible washer
Process Seals has developed a hygienic washer with elastomeric sealing ring for use in the
food and beverage, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. The rings are made for static
sealing that is free of dead-spaces between bolts and dome nuts. This article illustrates how an
EHEDG testing method confirms the cleanability of such hard-to-reach equipment components.
Julia Eckstein, Application Consultant, Freudenberg Process Seals GmbH & Co. KG, Weinheim, Germany,
e-mail: julia.eckstein@fst.com, http://www.freudenberg-process-seals.com
When it comes to protecting bolt heads and nuts from being
contaminated with products from the food and beverage,
pharmaceutical or biotech industries, many plant and
machinery manufacturers that supply the process industries
use complicated (and often “home-made”) solutions. This is
problematic because the complete cleaning of these points
is the only safeguard for the producers of perishable foods
and beverages and high-purity medications. Threaded
connectors generally come into contact with the product, and
after use, only the residues can be removed via disassembly.
But today’s facilities are predominantly cleaned without
disassembly, using clean-in-place (CIP), wash-in-place
(WIP) and sterilisation-in-place (SIP) methods.
With this problem in mind, a hygienic seal has been
developed. It is based on a standard design of rings for
non-food applications to simply and affordably protect
non-moving machine parts from fluid and gaseous media.
The ring consists of a combination of metallic flat seal and
elastomeric sealing ring for static sealing. The resilient,
trapezoidal sealing ring can be vulcanised on either the inner
or outer diameter of the metal disk to match applicationspecific
requirements. However, their “hard-to-clean
design” makes these sealing elements used in mechanical
engineering poorly suited to (and/or not approved for) food
processing applications.
In response, the design has ben reworked completely.
Together with hexagon bolts with flange and dome nuts
designed according to DIN EN 1665, the revised design
forms an easy-to-clean combination, which has been tested
and approved by the Weihenstephan Research Center for
Brewing and Food Quality using the European Hygienic
Engineering and Design Group (EHEDG) Cleanability
Method (Fig. 1).
Elastomeric sealing ring
made of high-performance compound
In traditional threaded connectors, fluids are able to collect
under the bolt head or in the threading. This is by no means
EHEDG-compliant and is highly unhygienic. In contrast,
the improved design ensures the clean sealing of DIN EN
1665 bolt heads with flanges in aseptic isolators and in
areas where they could come into contact with the product.
This optimal sealing prevents the medium from penetrating
under the bolt head, which can lead to the multiplication of
microbes. The washer’s design, which is tailor-made for
hexagon bolts with flanges, ensures that the sealing ring
is cleanly seated on the flange, precluding the formation of
spaces where microorganisms can accumulate (Fig. 2).
The black 70 EPDM 291, a premium compound for static
sealing in the food and beverage and pharmaceutical
industries, is used as the elastomer for the sealing ring.
Critical process conditions and aggressive media in the
food, beverage and pharmaceutical production demand
the usage of highly stable seals. The 70 EPDM 291 with
a temperature range of up to +180°C offers considerably
higher stability in water vapour, can stand up to +210°C
for a short time, and is ideally resistant to CIP-, WIPand
SIP-methods. It is accepted by the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and also satisfies the criteria
of the European regulation EU (VO) 1935/2004. Its
biocompatibility has also been tested and approved for use
in pharmaceutical components and facilities in keeping with
USP Class VI requirements 1 .
EHEDG – Test and results
The EHEDG has developed a testing method in which
microorganisms are allowed to collect in hygienically
problematic areas, in so-called dead spaces. A subsequent
cleanability test identifies those critical points that cannot
be adequately reached by the cleaning medium. 2 The same
method was used to test the cleanability of the redesigned
bolt/dome nut combination using a standard size M6 bolt. In
this test, the cleanability of the hygienic seal was compared
with that of a reference pipe with a known low inner surface
roughness (Ra = 0.5 µm).
However, before this test could be started, the elastomer
used had to be tested for antibacterial components, so as
to rule out a potential skewing of the test results. As the test
could not find any evidence of antibacterial properties in the
EPDM material, the hygienic seal then was ready for the
cleanability test.
In order to test their cleanability, components are
intentionally soiled with a suspension that contains spores
of a thermophilic bacterium. These spores not only remain
stable at high cleaning temperatures; they also are resistant
to the cleaning media. Following the soiling, components are
CIP cleaned using a 1.0-percent concentration detergent
at a temperature of +63°C for 10 minutes, followed by a
rinsing with water. The test area is then coated with an agar
growth medium, which is allowed to incubate for 18 hours
at a temperature of +58°C. In the last step, the colour of the
MSHA agar medium, which changes from violet to yellow in
response to microbial growth, is assessed. 3

Cleanability test of a hygienic design-compatible washer 121
To ensure that the results are representative, the cleanability
test is conducted a total of four times. In the case of the new
seal, none of the four tests showed a yellow discolouration
following the incubation of the agar coating covering the bolt
and dome nut. The yellow discolouration in the reference
pipe was present in an average of 13 percent of its inner
surface, which is within the tolerance range of +5 to +30
percent stated in EHEDG Guideline Doc 2 and corresponds
to an acceptable level of contamination after the very mild
(test method) cleaning cycle. As such, the new design clearly
demonstrated better cleanability than the reference pipe.
In June 2012, the TUM (Forschungszentrum für Brauund
Lebensmittelqualität) at Weihenstephan (Germany)
declared officially that the new design, which Process Seals
has named “Hygienic Usit,” meets the Hygienic Equipment
Design Criteria of the EHEDG.
Fig. 2. The Hygienic Usit combines metallic flat seal and
elastomeric ring in one component.
References
1. U.S. Pharmacopeia, USP 29, General Chapter Biological
reactivity tests, in vivo, USP 29 – NF24, page 2526.
2. European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group (EHEDG).
EHEDG Guideline Nr. 2, Method for Assessing the In-place
Cleanability of Food Processing Equipment, 3rd Ed, July 2004,
(Revised June 2007).
3. European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group (EHEDG).
EHEDG Report 01: Cleanability Test, Hygienic Usit with Bolt.
Weihenstephan Research Center for Brewing and Food Quality,
TU Munich. December 5, 2011.
Fig. 1. The Hygienic Usit provides simple and FDA-compliant
sealing for threaded connectors with flanges, while also fulfilling
the criteria of hygienic design.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Aspects of compounding rubber materials for contact
with food and pharmaceuticals
Equipment and equipment components made with rubber materials that come into contact
with food in processing lines must comply with regulatory requirements such as FDA’s Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR), 3-A Sanitary Standards, and US Pharmacoepia (USP) Class VI
standards. It is also necessary to consider the working conditions in which the gasket will be
used, including what products are produced, the cleaning and sterilization agents utilized in
those processes, and temperatures or other factors that may impact the efficiencies of equipment
and components throughout the process line. In order to maintain a high hygienic standard, a
very good cleanability of any equipment component with a rubber surface must be achieved and
thorough documentation provided.
Anders G. Christensen, Sales and R&D Director, AVK GUMMI A/S, Mosegaardsvej 1, DK-8670 Laasby, Denmark,
email: avk@avkgummi.dk, www.avkgummi.dk
For many years the food processing industry has referred
to regulatory guidelines and standards that cover the use
and compliance of rubber materials that come into contact
with food. Among these are rules outlined in the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) 21 CFR 177.2600 (Rubber
articles intended for repeat use) and the recommendations
of the German BfR XXI (Commodities based on natural
and synthetic rubber) or XV (silicone oil, resins and rubber
requirements). Recently, 3-A Sanitary Standard 18-03 also
has become a de facto standard for many food processing
sectors beyond the dairy industry from which it originates.
This standard not only regulates rubber materials that come
into contact with food, but also the manufacturing conditions,
taking hygienic standards and traceability into consideration.
EN 1935/2004 is an attempt to have a common set of rules
within the European Union (EU). While this regulation is
fully operational with regard to metals and plastics, it is still
a work-in-progress with regard to rubber materials. Until
positive lists of approved ingredients that can be used in
food-contact rubbers and associated testing methods are in
place, the FDA and BfR lists, together with extraction tests,
appear to be the most relevant regulations for food-contact
rubber materials. The member states have now begun to turn
this framework into statutory instruments; however, this may
be at the cost of uniformity and transparency.
Other standards-related developments are affecting require
ments as well. For example, the Danish Ministry
of Food is enforcing the rules of traceability and good
manufacturing practices (GMPs) by means of third-party
inspection of manufacturers’ facilities and process lines. For
pharmaceuticals, normally Class VI under the USP Monograph
88, testing is required. Alternatively, the customer can ask for
in vitro testing, either according to USP Monograph 87 or
International Standards Organisation (ISO) 10993-5.
In addition, end users require documentation for cleanability
of equipment surfaces. Most often this is provided by means
of an European Hygienic Equipment Design Group (EHEDG)
cleanability test of the component in which the rubber part
is present. Except for the geometry and the corresponding
flow profile, the rubber surface is typically the most critical
material when conducting any hygienic test.
For this reason, it is important to consider the affinity between
rubber compounds, products and cleaning agents. Long-term
field studies, such as those conducted by AVK GUMMI, have
been conducted and have led to easy-to-clean formulation of
compounds within the families of ethylene proplene rubber
(EPDM), hydrogenated nitrile (HNBR), fluorocarbon (FPM)
and silicone.
Material performance
In addition to ensuring that food-contact rubber materials
have the relevant approvals, meet appropriate compliance
requirements and have traceability documentation, it
is important to consider material performance. No two
formulations are equal. Even if two manufacturers develop
a compound for the same application, the end user will
experience different performances with each due to
variabilities ranging from the food being produced, the
production line systems, and the level of hygienic operations
in the processing plant and performed on equipment, among
others. The reason for this is shown in Figure 1:
Figure 1. Example comparison of good quality compounds versus
low-cost compounds as recipes for an EPDM 70 Sh A material.

Aspects of compounding rubber materials for contact with food and pharmaceuticals 123
Figure 1 assumes two different compound recipes of an
EPDM 70 Sh A material, both of which aim for FDA Aqueous
Food compliance. The “good” compound is of a very good
quality, while the other “cheap” compound is made from
low-cost materials. Several factors can be used to compare
the two recipes in order to determine the differences, and
ultimately, judge the material performance parameters.
For example. in looking at the EPDM polymer, one can see
that this could either be a very pure material with no residues
from the catalysts and no residual monomers (Good) or low
molecular weight oligomers (Cheap). The polymerisation is
very well controlled, giving a uniform molecular architecture
and molecular weight distribution. Also, the batch-to-batch
variation is kept at a minimum. Or it could be the opposite,
which clearly would reduce the cost. Both compounds can
be formulated to meet the same standards, ie. FDA or
BfRFrom an end user point of view, this relates to durability,
compression set, taste and smell, uniformity of the product
and extraction of residues to the product.
The next functional group is carbon black, which acts as a
reinforcing agent. Basically, this is soot, which is produced
by combusting a hydrocarbon source in a controlled
atmosphere. The type and amount is regulated to some
extent. For the good compound as shown in Figure 1,
a carbon black is used for which the hydrocarbon source
is clean and well defined. For the cheap compound, the
hydrocarbon source has a higher content of sulphur and
consists of many different molecules, preventing a uniform
end product. The end user will see a difference in taste and
smell and extraction of residues.
When aiming for a cheap compound, it is common practice
to “dilute” the compound by using chalk. This will increase
the hardness of the material and so it is necessary to add
more plasticiser in order to reach the same hardness. The
usage of chalk will increase swelling in aqueous solutions,
and the chemical resistance will suffer.
Plasticiser is added to these compounds to ensure
homogeneity and to adjust the hardness. For EPDM mineral
oil is used. This can be either a medical grade oil, which
is also used as edible oil and in healthcare products, or a
technical grade oil, which will have a higher content of
naphthenics and aromatics. Again, the user will notice the
difference in the taste and smell, as well as extractables.
Finally, a curing system must be decided upon. This is what
makes the final product elastic. While a thermoplast, which
is uncured, will deform permanently upon load, rubber will
regain the original shape due to the cross-linking of the
polymer chains. For EPDM, two curing systems are normally
used. Peroxide curing gives excellent thermal stability,
compression set, taste and smell and chemical resistance,
but the manufacturing process is more expensive. As
an alternative, a sulphur system may be used. The
manufacturing cost goes down, but so does the performance
as described for the peroxide system.
The example illustrates the complexity of choosing
materials and suppliers. As the figure illustrates, end users
of food-contact rubber materials in food or pharmaceutical
manufacturing lines should specify functional requirements
rather than material, ask for documentation, and choose
a rubber supplier who can successfully translate specific
needs into rubber solutions.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
New developments for upgrading stainless steel to
improve corrosion resistance and increase equipment
hygiene
Siegfried Piesslinger-Schweiger, POLIGRAT GmbH, 81805 Munich, Germany, e-mail: petra.ressmann@poligrat.de,
www.poligrat.de
New developments enable the upgrading of stainless steel to
improve the corrosion resistance of manufacturing equipment
and components. Unlike the state-of-art techniques that use
higher alloyed steel to produce corrosion-resistant equipment
and components, new methods have been developed
that can be applied as final treatments after production
and elevate the passive layers independently from the
underlying metallic base. One of these methods is based
on a significant increase of the chrome/iron ratio within the
passive layers by extraction of iron and iron oxides, leaving
primarily chrome oxide. The second is a heat treatment that
changes the structure and thickness of the passive layer.
The latter application can be utilised on all types of finishes
and in nearly all commonly used alloys.
These new methods result in a substantial increase of the
resistance against any type of corrosion. They also allow an
effective restoration of corroded surfaces, and with regular
application, can maintain corrosion resistance even in
cases in which stainless steel is not long-term resistant. The
treatments also can be applied to scale and heat discoloration
without pre-treatment, which could widely replace pickling or
mechanical descaling.
Since these methods are based on a treatment with a waterbased
solution of special organic compounds, they are
biodegradable, environmentally friendly, and produce no
fumes or nasty smells. The new methods also allow selection
of the best alloy and structure in terms of hardness, strength
and weight. They open a wide and commercially important
potential for additional applications of stainless steel.
Basics of corrosion-resistant stainless steel
According to the state of the art, the corrosion resistance
of stainless steel is considered a secondary property
of alloy and structure. To increase corrosion resistance
it is necessary to select a higher alloy quality. To meet
the objectives of development a fundamentally different
approach to stainless steel and its functional behaviour is
necessary.
Stainless steel is a composite consisting of a metallic base
and an oxidic cover layer, and the passive layer is similar to
aluminium and titanium. The metallic base determines the
material’s mechanical, electric and magnetic properties and
provides the metals for the formation of the passive layer.
The passive layer determines most of its other properties,
including corrosion resistance. As soon as passive layers
are locally damaged, local corrosion of the metallic base
occurs, such as pitting corrosion, crevice corrosion, Ironinduced
corrosion, stress corrosion cracking (SCC), and
more.
Passive layers completely and densely cover the surface
of stainless steel as long as it does not corrode. Passive
layers are 10 to 15 nm thick and are formed by the reaction
of the metallic base with oxygen from the environment.
They primarily consist of chrome oxides and iron oxides.
Additionally, they contain metallic chrome and iron, and
eventually, other metals like nickel and molybdenum.
Passive layers on stainless steel are not insulators like
the oxides on aluminium and titanium. They are crystalline
semiconductors with all the special properties of these
materials. Thus, the approach to understanding corrosion on
stainless steel should include semiconductor physics.
The ratio of chrome oxides to iron oxides (chrome/iron
ratio) typically is within the range of 0.8 to 2.0. The higher
this ratio, the better the corrosion resistance. That means,
that chrome oxides increase and iron oxides reduce the
corrosion resistance.
Methods to increase corrosion resistance
To improve the corrosion resistance of stainless steel two
methods are promising success. The first is to improve the
chrome/iron ratio within the passive layer and the second is
to improve the crystalline structure.
Conventional state-of-art method. According to the current
state-of-the-art approach, the method for raising the chrometo-iron
ratio within passive layers consists of reducing the
concentration of iron in the metallic base and increasing the
concentration of chrome, and eventually nickel, in the alloy.
This secondary effect leads to a higher chrome/iron ratio
in the passive layers. The structure of passive layers is not
influenced. The concentration of alloying elements besides
iron is only needed within a surface layer of less than 10-
nm thickness to provide the metal for the formation of the
passive layer.
There are a few downsides to the conventional method of
producing corrosion-resistant stainless steel. The adaption
of total alloy and structure to form the passive layer
substantially determines the other properties of the alloy.
A potential consequence of this is that expensive details
of construction like wall thickness and weldability must be
adapted. The adaption of alloy and structure to achieve
gains in the level of corrosion resistance can only occur in
the production of steel. This means that a great number of
qualities of stainless steel must be produced and be available
as semi-finished product, which reduces the flexibility in the
material’s application and increases costs.

New developments for upgrading stainless steel to improve corrosion resistance and increase equipment hygiene 125
New methods. Unlike the conventional method, new
methods have been developed to produce the desired
level of corrosion resistance by changing the consistency
and structure of existing passive layers on stainless steel,
independently from the alloy and structure of the metallic
base. These methods—one chemical and one thermal—are
applied as final treatments after fabrication and substantially
increase corrosion resistance.
Chemical treatment. A precondition for the application of
the new chemical treatment method is that the stainless
steel to which it is applied must have an existing passive
layer. Therefore, its application immediately following a
pickling process is not effective.
The chemical treatment selectively breaks the iron oxides
within passive layers and extracts the iron without affecting
or removing the passive layer. In this way, the concentration
of iron in passive layers is strongly reduced and the chrome/
iron ratio is substantially increased up to values of 6 to 8 (Fig.
1). This treatment of stainless steel substantially increases
the resistance to all types of corrosion (Figures 2 and 3). The
resistance to thermal discolouration is raised to 100-150°C.
Fig. 2. Structure of passive layer on stainless steel AISI 316 Ti -
original condition.
Fig. 3. Structure of passive layer on stainless steel AISI 316 Ti –
chemically treated.
Fig. 1. The chemical treatment significantly reduces the
concentration of iron in passive layers and the chrome/iron ratio is
substantially increased up to values of 6 to 8.
The applied chemicals are water-based solutions of organic
and biologically degradable substances, mainly comprised
of a special combination of chelating and complexing
agents. They do not contain mineral acids or their salts and
have a pH value of about 4.0. Application does not produce
harmful fumes or foul odours. Since no dissolution of metal
or passive layers takes place, the liquid does not contain
heavy metals in noticeable concentrations.
Application can be done by dipping, spraying or wiping during
a three- to four-hour period. The temperature in dipping tanks
should be kept above a minimum of 50°C to avoid biological
degradation. Higher temperatures increase the effect of the
treatment, while longer treatment times do not. All types of
finishes and nearly all types of stainless steel can be treated.
However, when the chrome content in the alloy is less than
15% the required temperature, concentration and time of
treatment must be modified.
Thermal treatment. The effect of chemical treatment can
strongly be increased by a subsequent controlled-heat
treatment. The heat treatment optimises the structure and
distribution of elements in the passive layer and increases
its thickness. The thermal treatment leads to the formation of
a second layer containing iron oxides on top of the existing
passive layer mainly formed by chrome oxides. These layers
are semiconductors forming a n/p-transition and immediately
provide a further substantial increase in corrosion resistance
(Fig. 4).
The heat treatment takes place under atmospheric conditions
at temperatures in the range of 120-220°C, dependant on
the alloy, and for a time of 5 to 10 minutes.

126 New developments for upgrading stainless steel to improve corrosion resistance and increase equipment hygiene
Fig. 4. Structure of passive layer on stainless steel AISI 316 Titreated
with combined chemical and thermal process.
Fig. 7. Comparison of pitting corrosion potential on different
materials before and after treatment with the chemical and with the
combined chemical/thermal treatment.
Applications
Corrosion resistance. The chemical treatment and
especially the combined chemical and thermal treatment of
stainless steel each substantially improve the resistance to
most types of corrosion, except in the cases in which high
temperature and wear are factors. Test results and practical
experience have shown that local mechanical damage,
such as scratches, do not result in corrosion when the
new treatments are used. For example, in one study (two
years test study by BMW), the chemical treatment was
applied to car parts made of stainless steel (AISI 304 with
brushed finish). After more than five years no corrosion was
observed due to mechanical impact or by de-icing salt or
crevice corrosion (Figures 5 and 6). Fig. 7 shows the results
of a comparison of pitting corrosion potential on different
materials before and after treatment with the chemical and
with the combined chemical/thermal treatment.
Organic pickling and passivating. In addition to the
increase in corrosion resistance, the chemical treatment
removes iron and iron oxides from scale and heat tint. It
converts the thermal oxides into effective passive layers.
Therefore, it is not necessary to remove heat tint and
local scale by pickling or mechanical cleaning prior to the
treatment (Figure 9).
Fig. 9. Use of the chemical treatment makes it unnecessary to
remove heat tint and local scale by pickling or mechanical cleaning
prior to the treatment.
Figures 5 and 6. The stainless steel chemical treatment protected
car finishes from corrosion over a give-year period.
The treatment also removes iron and rust contamination. It
does not change the finish and can be applied to construction
consisting of various qualities of stainless steel. There is no
danger of crevice corrosion initiated by residual pickling
acid. Consequently, in numerous cases the treatment can
replace pickling and passivating with mineral acids and
avoid associated environmental risks and health hazards, as
well as problems with wastewater and fumes.
Cleaning and maintenance. For application outside of
dipping tanks and to existing structures on site, a cleaner also
has been developed that can be applied at environmental
temperatures. Regular and repeated application of the
cleaner can maintain corrosion resistance under conditions
in which the stainless steel otherwise would not be resistant
long-term. Finally, the chemicals do not attack or degrade

New developments for upgrading stainless steel to improve corrosion resistance and increase equipment hygiene 127
other materials such as glass, plastic, lower alloyed stainless
steel and seals. The cleaner can be applied to complete
installations and assembled components without prior
dismantling.
Restoration. After corroded surfaces on stainless steel are
cleaned, the corrosion resistance will be restored at a higher
level. Corrosion marks remain visible, but are passivated on
their surface. Even chloride-induced pitting corrosion has
been removed and the corrosion resistance successfully
restored without prior pickling. This new technique has been
shown to have successfully repaired a considerable number
of damaged equipment and components made of stainless
steel in production plants for chemical and pharmaceutical
products, on railway coaches and handrails on seashores,
and on components for ships and offshore components.
Conclusion
To a substantial degree, the corrosion resistance of stainless
steel can be upgraded independently from alloy and structure,
as well as independently from the mechanical and other
properties of the base metal. The new methods described
here enable the selection of materials with higher strengths
and lower weights, which eventually should result in reduced
costs. The new methods also extend the lifetime of stainless
steel with upgraded corrosion resistance, maintenance and
restoration.
PROTECTING WHAT’S IMPORTANT
ANDEROL ® Specialty Lubricants are the experts in long life,
synthetic lubricants for industrial applications.
Total H1 plant lubrication for industries serving the food, animal feed
and pharmaceutical markets worldwide, and a specialization in gas
compression and vacuum applications.
Protect critical equipment today with Anderol tailored
lubricant solutions.
ANDEROL ® Europe B.V.
Tel: +31 43 352 41 90
Fax: +31 43 352 41 99
Email: info@anderol-europe.nl
www.anderol-europe.com

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
International Hygienic Study Award 2012
Happy awardees in Valencia
Dr. Peter Golz, VDMA, Frankfurt, Germany, phone: +49 69 6693-1656, e-mail: peter.golz@vdma.org
Prof. Dr. Jens-Peter Majschak, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany,
phone: +49 (351) 463 3 4746, e-mail: jens-peter.majschak@tu-dresden.de
Since 2009, the communication and information platform
www.hygienic-processing.com and its partners have held a
competition for the annual Hygienic Study Award to honour
outstanding, innovative, high-quality diploma, bachelor and
master degree theses of studies in the field of hygienic
design. In 2012, the Hygienic Study Award expanded its
global reach to recognise and strengthen the network of
international institutions engaged in academic education and
research in the field of hygienic design. Fifteen renowned
research institutes and universities from eleven countries
were invited to partake in the competition. Seven abstracts
from five countries were submitted.
The European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
(EHEDG) World Congress 2012 in Valencia, Spain, hosted
this year’s award ceremony where two first prizes and one
second prize were awarded to young research fellows from
Cambridge and Dresden. Hygienic Study Award 2012 was
sponsored jointly by EHEDG and VDMA.
Winner of 1st prize:
Hannes Stoye, University of Dresden
Development of a test set-up for pulsed spray cleaning
examinations
Abstract: As part of this work, one of the test rigs existing
at the Fraunhofer AVV was modified in such a way that
cleaning investigations could be carried out with pulsating
fluid jets on vertical plates of stainless steel. The control
unit enables it to vary two factors, pulsation frequency and
duty cycle. The detection of the cleaning process could be
ensured by use of a phosphorescent food model soil.
For the evaluation of the tests regarding cleaning time
and cleaned surface, a program was created that allows
comparison of different forms of falling liquid film and the
distinction between cleaning due to ‘direct impingement’
and cleaning due to falling liquid films. The verification of
the complex of experimental set-up, including experimental
evaluation, was based on measurements of coherent
distilled water jets from distilled water. Here, in case of
cleaning due to falling liquid films, the potential savings of
cleaning medium was 50% and in the case of cleaning due
to ‘direct impingement’ cost savings of up to 60% could be
realised. In addition, variation of the volume of flow was
performed with the aim of advancing a first user-friendly
approach to the establishment of the pulsating jet cleaning
supply.
(From left) Prof. Dr. Majschak of TU Dresden congratulates the
winners of the Hygienic Study Award 2012 first prizes: Dr. Patrick
Gordon, University of Cambridge, and Hannes Stoye, University of
Dresden, at the award ceremony on occasion of the EHEDG World
Congress 2012 in Valencia, Spain (Source: H.-W. Bellin).
Winner of 1st prize:
Dr. Patrick Gordon, University of Cambridge
Development of a scanning fluid dynamic gauge for
cleaning studies
Abstract: This thesis describes the development of a
scanning version of a fluid dynamic gauge (sFDG) to
study the cleaning of soft layers from rigid substrates,
such as the food soils encountered within an automatic
dishwasher. The sFDG measures the thickness of such

International Hygienic Study Award 2012 129
layers within a liquid environment, in real time, as they are
removed, enabling the influence of solution temperature,
composition and shear stress to be quantified between
or within experiments. It is shown to offer significant
improvements over previous fluid dynamic gauge
(FDG) variants, including improved resolution (±5 µm),
reproducibility, automation, data quantity and the ability to
generate topographical images.
The sFDG is used to study the stages of swelling and
removal during the cleaning of gelatine, egg yolk, starchbased
and oil/albumin layers. The FDG technique could
also be applied to several novel applications, including
the study of crossflow microfiltration and fragile biofilms. A
second-generation sFDG, optimised for cleaning studies
within an industrial research laboratory, has been designed,
constructed and commissioned. This technology transfer will
allow the technique to contribute toward future developments
in commercial dishwasher formulations.
Winner of 2nd prize:
Dr. Ing. Martin Schöler, University of Dresden
Analysis of cleaning procedures for complex geometries
in immerged systems
Abstract: Industrial cleaning processes are of great
importance for ensuring hygienic production conditions.
Furthermore, they represent a target for economic
optimisation due to their high consumption of energy and
natural resources. To improve the efficiency of cleanin-place
systems (CIP) it is essential to understand the
mechanisms controlling complex cleaning processes. The
investigation of cleaning phenomena shows two major
difficulties. First, there is a need for parameters that can
provide comparability between investigations that are
currently isolated because they have used different material
combinations or different experimental setups. Second,
the availability of monitoring methods to investigate
these phenomena is limited. In this work the novel local
phosphorescence detection (LPD) method is presented to
investigate the cleaning performance. It combines the use
of complex cohesive food soil, complex pipe geometries
and continuous observation of the cleaning progress to
investigate the mechanisms of cleaning in immersed CIP
systems. Cleaning tests on a sudden expansion were
compared to soil and swelling investigations, as well as CFD
results conducted by other scientists. It was shown that the
tested cleaning configuration was controlled by the mass
transfer of the detached parts of the soil. The mathematical
parameters provided can help to determine the apparent
cleaning mechanisms based on soil characteristics and the
conditions of fluid flow.
Interested in taking part in the Hygienic
Study Award 2013?
Next year, drinktec in Munich will host the award ceremony.
Interested research and university institutes are requested
to contact Prof. Dr. Jens-Peter Majschak, TU Dresden
(jens-peter.majschak@tu-dresden.de). drinktec 2013 –
the world‘s leading trade fair for the beverage and liquid
food industry – will take place from September 16 through
September 20 at Munich Trade Fair Centre. Deadline for
submitting abstracts is June 30, 2013.
Consult www.hygienic-processing.com to get full abstracts of
the studies awarded.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
EHEDG Regional Sections
Chairmen and contacts
The Regional Sections are the local extensions of the EHEDG and are created to promote hygienic
manufacturing of food through regional activities. EHEDG has established Regional Sections in
various countries in Europe and overseas. These groups organise local meetings, courses and
workshops.
ARMENIA
• Professor Dr. Karina Badalyan
Armenian Society of Food Science and Technology
(ASFoST)
Phone: (+374 10) 55 05 26 / e-mail: foodlab@inbox.ru
• Dr. Suren Martirosyan
Armenian Society of Food Science and Technology
(ASFoST)
Phone: (+374 10) 56 40 29
E-mail: surmar.3137@gmail.com
BELGIUM
• Hein Timmerman
Diversey Europe BV
Phone: (+32 495) 59 17 81
E-mail: hein.timmerman@diversey.com
• Frank Moerman
Phone: (+32 9) 3 86 65 44
E-mail: fmoerman@telenet.be
CZECH REPUBLIC
• MV Dr. Ivan Chadima
MQA s.r.o.
State Veterinary Authority of the Czech Republic
Phone (+420 607) 90 99 47
E-mail: ivan.chadima@mqa.cz
• Petr Otáhal
MQA s.r.o.
Phone (+420 724) 13 81 68
E-mail: petr.otahal@mqa.cz
DENMARK
• Bjarne Darré
GEA Liquid Processing
Phone: (+45 87) 94 11 38
E-mail: bjarne.darre@gea.com
• Jon Kold
Stålcentrum
Phone: (+45 88) 70 75 15
E-mail: jon.kold@staalcentrum.dk
FRANCE
• Erwan Billet
Hydiac
Phone: (+33 61) 2 49 85 84
E-mail: erw.billet@infonie.fr
• Nicolas Chomel
Laval Mayenne Technopole
Phone: (+33 243) 49 75 24
E-mail: chomel@laval-technopole.fr
GERMANY
• Dr. Jürgen Hofmann
TU München / Wissenschaftszentrum Weihenstephan
Phone: (+49 8161) 8 76 87 99
E-mail: jh@hd-experte.de
• Hans-Werner Bellin
BELLIN.Consult
Phone: (+49 6120) 97 99 62 0
hans-werner.bellin@bellinconsult.de
ITALY
• Dr. Giampaolo Betta
University of Parma
Phone: (+39 05) 21 90 62 34
e-mail: giampaolo.betta@unipr.it
JAPAN
• Takashi Hayashi
Kanto Kongoki Industrial Ltd.
Phone: (+81 3) 39 66-86 51
E-mail: hayashi@kanto-mixer.co.jp
• Hiroyuki Ohmura
JFMA – The Japan Food Machinery Manufacturers’
Association
Phone: (+81 3) 54 84-09 81
E-mail: ohmura@fooma.or.jp
LITHUANIA
• Dr. Raimondas Narkevicius
Kaunas University of Technology
Phone (+370 68) 4 32 26
E-mail: r.narkevicius@lmai.lt
• Prof. Dr. Rimantas Venskutonis
Kaunas University of Technology
Phone: (+370 37) 30 01 88
E-mail: rimas.venskutonis@ktu.lt
MACEDONIA
• Professor Dr. Vladimir Kakurinov
Consulting and Training Center KEY
Phone: (+389 070) 688-652
E-mail: vladimir.kakurinov@key.com.mk

EHEDG Regional Sections 131
MEXICO
• Professor Marco Antonio León Félix
Mexican Society for Food Safety and Quality
for Food Consumers (SOMEICCA)
Phone: (+52 55) 56 77 86 57
E-mail: cuccalmexico@yahoo.com.mx
NETHERLANDS
• Jacques Kastelein
TNO Kwaliteit van Leven
Phone: (+31 30) 6 94 46 85
E-mail: jacques.kastelein@tno.nl
• Ernst Paardekooper
Foundation Food Micro & Innovation
Phone: (+31 73) 5 51 34 70
E-mail: e.paardekooper@planet.nl
NORDIC (FI, N, S)
• Dr. Gun Wirtanen
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Phone: (+358 20) 7 22-1 11
e-mail: gun.wirtanen@vtt.fi
• Stefan Akesson
Tetra Pak Processing Systems AB
Research & Technology
Phone: (+46 46) 36 58 69
E-mail: stefan.akesson@tetrapak.com
POLAND
• Dr. Matuszek, Tadeusz
Gdansk University
Phone: (+48 58) 3 47 16 74
E-mail: tmatusze@pg.gda.pl
RUSSIA
• Professor Dr. Mark Shamtsyan
St. Petersburg State Institute of Technology
Phone: (+7 960) 2 72 81 68
E-mail: shamtsyan@yahoo.com
SERBIA
• Professor Dr. Miomir Nikšić
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture
Phone: (+381 63) 7 79 85 76
E-mail: miomir.niksic@gmail.com
• Professor Dr. Victor Nedović
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture
Phone: (+381 11) 2 61 53 15
E-mail: vnedovic@agrif.bg.ac.rs
SPAIN
• Andrès Pascual
AINIA Centro Tecnológico
Phone: (+34 96) 13 66 09 0
E-mail: apascual@ainia.es
• Irene Llorca / Rafael Soro
AINIA Centro Tecnológico
E-mail: illorca@ainia.es, rsoro@ainia.es
SWITZERLAND
• Professor Rudolf Schmitt
University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland
Phone.: (+41 27) 6 06 86 52
E-mail: rudolf.schmitt@hevs.ch
• Matthias Schäfer
GEA Tuchenhagen GmbH
Phone: (+41 61) 9 36 37 40
E-mail: matthias.schaefer@gea.com
TAIWAN
• Dr. Binghuei Barry Yang*
FIRDI Food Industry Research and Development.
Phone: (+886 6) 3 84 73 01
E-mail: bby@firdi.org.tw
THAILAND
• Dr. Navaphattra Nunak
King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology, Bangkok
Phone: (+66 2) 7 39 23 48
E-mail: kbnavaph2@yahoo.com
TURKEY
• Samim Saner
TFSA - Turkish Food Safety Association, Istanbul
Phone: (+90 216) 5 50 02 23
E-mail:: samim.saner@ggd.org.tr
UKRAINE
• Professor Yaroslav Zasyadko
National University of Food Technologies, Kyiv
Phone: (+38 44) 2 87 96 40
E-mail: yaroslav@nuft.edu.ua
• Professor Ivanov Sergiy
National University of Food Technologies, Kyiv
Phone: (+38 44) 2 89 95 55
E-mail: yaroslav@nuft.edu.ua
USA
• Professor Mark Morgan
Purdue University
Department of Food Science
Phone: (+1 765 ) 4 94 11 80
E-mail: mmorgan@purdue.edu
More EHEDG Regional Sections are in the process of
being formed. These are:
• Bulgaria
• Croatia
• Romania
• Slovakia
• South Africa
• United Kingdom
List status as of spring 2013

132 EHEDG Regional Sections
EHEDG Armenia
Karina Grigoryan, Laboratory of Biological Control of Food Products, Yerevan State University, Faculty of Biology,
A.Manoogyan1, Yerevan Armenia, 0025 (phone: 37410550526; e-mail: asofst@gmail.com)
and Suren Martirosyan, Chair of electrochemistry, Department of Chemical Technologies and Environmental
Protection, State Engineering University of Armenia, Teryan 105, Yerevan 25009 Armenia, (phone: 3741054742;
Fax: 37410587284; e-mail: surmar.3137@gmail.com)
Late in 2010, the Armenian Regional Section of the EHEDG
participated in the PRODEXPO 2010 exhibition. Huub
Lelieveld and Piet Steenaard, were invited to participate in
this event. A number of meetings in UNIDO were carried out
in American University of Armenia and in food processing
companies. More than a hundred people visited the EHEDG
exhibition pavilion.
Figure 1. EHEDG exhibition pavilion in PRODEXPO 2010
In 2012, the EHEDG Armenian Regional Section focused its
efforts in Guideline translation.
EHEDG Armenia has the following Guidelines ready for
publication:
• Doc. 21 Challenge tests for the evaluation of the
hygienic characteristics of packing machines for liquid
and semi-liquid products;
• Doc. 38 Hygienic engineering of rotary valves in
process lines for dry particulate materials;
• Doc. 12 The continuous or semi-continuous flow
thermal treatment of particulate foods;
• Doc. 10 Hygienic design of closed equipment for the
processing of liquid food;
• Doc. 29 Hygienic design of packing systems for solid
foodstuffs.
The following Guidelines are in the process of being
translated:
• Doc. 31 Hygienic engineering of fluid bed and spray
dryer plants;
• Doc. 35 Welding of stainless steel tubing in the food
industry;
• Doc. 37 Hygienic design and application of sensor;
The Guidelines presented below, are currently being
adapted to the Armenian Standards on hygienic design of
food processing factories:
• Doc 11 Hygienic packing of food products
• Doc 8 Hygienic equipment design criteria
• Doc 13 Hygienic design of equipment for open
processing
In 2012, the Armenian Society of Food Science and
Technology started the creation of their own web page.
A course of lectures “Hygienic design” will be introduced
for the departments of Food Processing Technologies and
Hygiene in Engineering and Agricultural State Universities
during the master study courses in 2012/2013.
In 2012, the Armenian Regional Section carried out several
activities to spread the requirements of EHEDG hygienic
design among Armenian companies. Seminars have been
organized at EHEDG company members and for other
companies as well.
The Armenian Regional Section also published several
newsletters about the EHEDG and hygienic design, which
have been distributed among the food industry, some food
equipment manufactures and universities.
UNIDO partnership has been established with the EHEDG
to strengthen national capacities and producers in meeting
international standards and quality management for
development of hygienic conditions in the food industry. A
series of Round Tables and Seminars were conducted to
introduce EHEDG Guidelines and principles.

EHEDG Regional Sections 133
In October 2012, a seminar with representatives from
state organizations was carried out in UNIDO and Food
Safety Agency. During this seminar our Regional Section
presented possibilities of cooperation with EHEDG, e.g.
the organization of trainings and providing certification
of the equipment in food factories. Using the materials of
EHEDG presentations, joint seminars were organized with
agricultural and engineering universities.
Figure 2. Meetings and seminars in UNIDO
Company-members of EHEDG have been successful,
due to our collaboration, i.e. the introduction of EHEDG
Guidelines and the organization of meetings and seminars
at the manufacturers’ locations.
The food companies of Armenia which co-operate with the
following subgroups are presented below:
• “Bari Samaratsi” LTD – “Meat Processing” subgroup.
• “Akvatechavtomatika”LTD – “Fish Processing”
subgroup.
In these enterprises interesting research work is carried out,
the results of which are the basis for determining the material
for the corresponding subgroups, for example:
• Influence of technology of processing surfaces
and equipment by biocides, on survival rate of
the microorganisms, causing safety and quality of
foodstuff;
• Use of modern methods of packing and storage of
fresh fish.
In 2012, mass media were actively used for the advancement
of EHEDG in Armenia; these are transfers on Armenian TV
and radio.
Figure 3. Meeting at Yerevan Sate Agrarian University, Department
of Food Technologies
Contact
Professor Dr. Karina Badalyan
Armenian Society of Food Science and Technology
(ASFoST)
Phone (+374 10) 55 05 26
E-mail: foodlab@inbox.ru
Dr. Suren Martirosyan ASFoST
Phone (+374 10) 56 40 29
E-mail: surmar.3137@gmail.com
EHEDG Belgium
Hein Timmerman, Diversey Belgium, a Sealed Air Company, E-mail: hein.timmerman@telenet.be
A Regional Section on the rise
For EHEDG Belgium, 2012 was a busy year. A number of
people from Belgium have been active in EHEDG work for
quite some time. Finally, after many years of involvement,
the team has taken up the task of founding the Belgium
section. EHEDG Belgian Regional Section has created a
legal identity as non-profit organisation (vzw or “stichting”
in Dutch, and “Vereinigung ohne Gewinnerzielungsabsicht”
in German). This legal identity is required to legally protect
the individuals and to be able to receive and send out
accountable invoices.

134 EHEDG Regional Sections
The following positions have been confirmed:
Chairman:
Hein Timmerman
Vice-chairman: Laurent Paul, and looking after
Walloon and German region
Vice-chairman: Johan Roels, and looking after
Flemish region
Secretary:
Frank Moerman
Treasurer:
Noel Hutsebaut
3. Preparation of a three day EHEDG Advance Course on
Hygienic Design training course in the Walloon region
by exploring the possible cooperation with EHEGD
France
4. Organisation of an EHEDG seminar as instigator of
the initiative, with possible cooperation of Agoria and
Flanders Food
5. Establishing links to different Flemish and Walloon universities
and technical colleges in order to promote our
advisory function to legislators and standards groups
6. Expanding the network to all major food producers in
the Flemish and Walloon regions
7. Expanding a networking platform for local experts in
hygienic design.
The legal papers were officialised during the Food & Feed
Value Added Services Event on Wednesday September 19,
2012 at Fortress Singelberg, Antwerp.
The bylaws were signed at the EHEDG annual meeting in
Valencia in November 2012.
He main objectives for 2012-2013 are:
1. Creation and publication of the bylaws of EHEDG
Belgium vzw in the “Belgisch staatsblad”. From the day
of publication the organisation will be officialised.
2. Organisation of a three day EHEDG Advance Course
on Hygienic Design training course in the Flemish
region
Contact
For more information and if interested in the activities of
EHEDG Belgium, please contact
Hein Timmerman
E-mail: hein.timmerman@telenet.be
Phone: +32 495 591781
EHEDG Czech Republic
New Regional Section
Ivan Chadima, MQA s.r.o., phone: (+420 607) 90 99 47, e-mail: ivan.chadima@mqa.cz
With help of the general secretary of EHEDG Susanne
Flenner, a small group of EHEDG members organised an
“EHEDG Day” in the Czech Republic on 11th September
2012. The aim was to promote ideas of hygienic design
between participants from Czech and Slovak food and food
machinery industry and teachers from universities. President
Knuth Lorenzen and general secretary Susanne Flenner
participated in this event, too.
Three presentations showing hygienic design from different
viewpoints were presented (Knuth Lorenzen from EHEDG,
Ivan Chadima from MQA s.r.o. and Jiří Loníček from ACO
Industries k.s.). There was also a fruitful informal discussion
about the founding of a Czech Regional Section.
Potential members of the Regional Committee were invited
to a separate meeting in November 2012 where Regional
committee members was confirmed and the future of
EHEDG in the Czech Republic discussed.
Contact:
MQA s.r.o.
Dr. Ivan Chadima
Jevineves 58
27705 SPOMYSL
CZECH REPUBLIC
Phone: (+420 607) 90 99 47
E-mail: ivan.chadima@mqa.cz

EHEDG Regional Sections 135
EHEDG Denmark
Jon J. Kold, regional chairman EHEDG, general manager Staalcentrum, e-mail: jk_innovation@yahoo.com
EHEDG Denmark can boast an increase of both company
and individual members that joined the EHEDG. New
members have also joined relevant subgroups to share the
work of determining the future trend for hygienically designed
equipment.
Figure 3. Display at international conference
EHEDG Denmark have been actively in contact with
the Danish technical magazines in order to promote the
awareness of hygienic design of processing equipment.
Very good connections have been made with several editors
and journalists from these magazines.
Figure 1. Display at the international conference
In November 2011, EHEDG Denmark and Staalcentrum
held an international conference “Food Processing Hygiene
– Future demands from markets and Authorities” at Hotel
Comwell in Kolding. Included in the program were more than
60 B2B meetings. Furthermore four workshops covering the
following topics were held: Robots in Production, Alternative
Materials to Stainless Steel, Testing and Certification and
Microbiology.
Since the Danish Technological Institute stopped their
testing and certification, EHEDG Danmark have been
cooperating with the Danish Technical University (DTU)
in Lyngby, north of Copenhagen, in order to transfer the
testing and certification experience to them. The chairman
for the Subgroup for Testing Methods has visited the site
and advised the management at DTU how to proceed. It is
expected that a new test rig will be in operation before the
end of 2012.
In November 2012, a seminar was held in connection with
the FoodTech exhibition in Herning, the subject was new
developments in open equipment design as open and
accessible construction and the importance of integrating
all EHEDG Guidelines when designing processing lines.
The use of certified equipment has to go hand in hand with
hygienic design guidelines for construction. Testing and
certification at DTU was part of the seminar.
Figure 2. Lecture at the international conference
The focus of the programme was to look into the future and
see how demands from the market could be implemented in
the future design of equipment as well as the documentation
for hygienic design. More than 70 persons participated in the
2 day programme.
The Danish EHEDG Committee
Chairman
Jon J. Kold, Staalcentrum
Secretary:
Ulla Stadil, Novozymes A/S
Treasurer
Bjarne Darré, GEA Liquid A/S
Members:
Mogens Roy Olesen, Grundfos A/S
Peter Uttrup, Interroll A/S
Kjeld Bagger, AVS Denmark ApS
Bo Boje Busk Jensen, Alfa Laval A/S
Per Væggemose Nielsen, IPU / DTU

Yearbbok
AZO ® Easy to clean
solutions:
• clean
• fast
• residue-free
Exceptional
ease of
cleaning
Automatically
hygienic
The No. 1
in mixer feeding
www.azo.com
M E M B E R
EHEDG France:
Seven years of existence
Nicolas Chomel, Secretary of EHEDG France,
e-mail: nchomel@ehedg.fr
Created in the end of 2005, the French Regional Section
is now well established in the national 110 x landscape 303 mm of the
food industry. EHEDG France has 76 members, including
57 industrial companies, Farbe: and is directed 4c by an administration
committee of 15 people.
The new president, Erwan Billet, elected in 2010, wished for
a closer collaboration with the EHEDG, and 2011 has been
a key year from this point
VDMA
of view.
Verlag GmbH
After his first visit to Laval in September, Knuth Lorenzen
returned in November to EHEDG give a presentation Secretariat at the “Autumn
Conferences” of EHEDG France.
The collection of 41 guidelines has been translated into
French, and 59 documents were sold in 2011.
French members are involved in nine international Subgroups
and their contribution Fax is growing, +49 especially 69 6603-2249 through the
creation of “mirror groups“ connected to international groups.
The first “mirror groups“ have already taken up their jobs
for “Cleaning validation“, “Air handling“, and “Education &
training“. EHEDG France will also initiate a new international
subgroup on “CIP“ and probably another one regarding the
hygienic design of brushes.
In the framework of the last international conference Food
Factory in July of 2012, EHEDG France was involved in
tel: 069-6603-1232
the organization of the “SME day“, gathering technical
presentations on hygienic design.
Food Factory 2012, Laval, July 5.
Contact
Erwan Billet*
Hydiac
Phone: (+33 61) 2 49 85 84
E-mail: e.billet@hydiac.com
Nicolas Chomel
Laval Mayenne Technopole
Phone: (+33 243) 49 75 24
E-mail: chomel@laval-technopole.fr
Anzeigenmotiv N7
»Reinigungsfreundlichkeit
Erscheinungstermin: 201?
Druckunterlagenschluss: 23.07
Format: 104 mm breit x 297 mm
3mm Beschnitt rundum
Ansprechpartner:
Juliane Honisch
Lyoner Strasse 18
60528 Frankfurt am Main / Ger
Tel. +49 69 6603-1249
E-Mail secretariat@ehedg.org
Internet www.ehedg.org
gesendet am: 20.07.2012
an: Martina Scherbel
per: martina.scherbel@vdma.or
Stichwort: AZO Anzeige
2013-2014 EHEDG Y
– Pressoptimized PD
Datenübertragung durch:
Unruh-Design
Frances von Unruh
Zum Birktal 9
85110 Kipfenberg / Krut
Tel: 0 84 66 / 90 40 66
Fax: 0 84 66 / 90 40 67
info@unruh-design.de
www.unruh-design.de
Ansprechpartner für alle Fragen
rundum die Anzeigenbuchung:
karle marketing-kommunikat
christiane karle
am hardberg 11
74821 mosbach
fon 06 261 91 51 29

EHEDG Regional Sections 137
EHEDG Germany
Dr. Jürgen Hofmann, Hygienic Design Weihenstephan, Postfach 1311, D-85313 Freising, Germany;
Phone +49(0)8161-8768799, e-mail: jh@hd-experte.de
Hans-Werner Bellin, BELLINconsult, Heidestr. 3, D-65326 Aarbergen, Phone: +49/(0)6120/9799620,
mobile phone: +49(0)151/42415256 , e-mail: Hans-Werner.Bellin@BELLINconsult.de.
EHEDG Germany/Austria has a total of 283 members and
about 90 member companies (2 from Austria) which is an
increase of more than 50% within the last two years. These
companies generate more than 40 % of the total income of
EHEDG.
The experience made during these tests has been used for
further training courses and seminars.
The idea of hygienic design has a long tradition in Germany
and goes back right to the beginnings of the EHEDG and its
history. Hygienic design research continues at the “Lehrstuhl
für Verfahrenstechnik disperser Systeme” (formally
“Lehrstuhl für Maschinen- und Apparatekunde”, Technical
University of Munich) whilest the University of Dresden
(Professur Verarbeitungsmaschinen / Verarbei-tungstechnik
with Prof. Dr. Majschak) does research on topics such as the
cleaning effect on open surfaces and is now involved in the
Subgroup Training & Education to develop training material.
The German Section is very active in Training and today has
six EHEDG authorized trainers: Dipl.-Ing. Martin Barnickel
(Technikerschule in Kempten), Dipl.-Ing. Hans-Werner Bellin
(BELLIN.consult), Knuth Lorenzen (EHEDG President,
Chairman of the Training & Education Subgroup), Dr. Jürgen
Hofmann (Hygienic Design Weihenstephan), Prof. Dr. Jens
Majschak (TU Dresden) Dr. Marc Mauermann (Fraunhofer
AVV), and Ferdinand Schwabe (HD-Consultant).
The “Forschungszentrum Weihenstephan für Brau- und
Lebensmittelqualität” is an authorised EHEDG Test Institute.
With approximately 50 EHEDG components assessed to
provide of optimization guidance about design and with
more than 30 EHEDG certificates in 2012, it is one of the
most active test labs for the EHEDG. The highlight last year
was the cleanability testing of a self-priming centrifugal
pump. This kind of pump is able to transport air in the liquid
phase and has different chambers and tends to be difficult
to clean. The important requirement of self-draining also has
to be considered.
Another highlight was the first certificates of Type EL Aseptic
Class I to be issued. The item tested was a pressure sensor
for mounting in pipe lines, sealed with an O-ring. This
certificate was followed by an air-operated pinch valve.
Figure 2. left to right: Dr. J. Hofmann, K. Lorenzen, Dr. Fischer,
H-W.Bellin, D. Nikoleiski
The German Section has an annual meeting which is part of
the HygieniCon in Karlsruhe (www.hygienicon.com).
At this meeting, the members receive the latest news about
what has been happening during the last year within the
EHEDG and new strategies are discussed. This year, the
Region Germany was made public by the signature of the
By-Laws through Dr. Jürgen Hofmann, Chairman, Hans-
Werner Bellin, Secretary, Dr. Sven Fischer, Treasurer and
Dirk Nikoleiski, Member of the EHEDG Executive Board.
Figure 3. Presentation of the EHEDG test during the HygieniCon
2012
Figure 1. Speech of the EHEDG President Knuth Lorenzen at the
meeting of the German Group during the HygieniCon, Karlsruhe
At the 2012 Anuga FoodTec (March 12) in Cologne EHEDG
organized a Symposium with international speakers and
around 70 participants. The EHEDG had their own booth
which helped to establish contact with many people from all
over the world.

138 EHEDG Regional Sections
Currently, there are at least three Hygienic Design courses
per year held by members of the German Section. The
“Hygienic Design Weihenstephan Akademie” will start
the additional training which will communicate the idea of
EHEDG mainly to non-EHEDG-members.
The training courses are scheduled for each February,
July and October in Munich, Cologne and Stuttgart. More
details are available under http://www.hygienic-designakademie.de/.
Contact
Figure 4. The EHEDG both on the Anuga FoodTec with Susanne
Flenner and Knuth Lorenzen
Chairman:
Dr. Jürgen Hofmann
Ingenieurbüro Hofmann
Fichtenweg 8 a
85604 Zorneding
E-mail: juergen.hofmann@ehedg.org
Secretary:
Hans-Werner Bellin
BELLIN.consult
Heidestr. 3
65326 Aarbergen
E-mail: hans-werner.bellin@bellinconsult.de
Figure 5. The EHEDG Symposium at the Anuga FoodTec in
Cologne, March 12
EHEDG Italy
Giampaolo Betta, Università degli Studi di Parma, e-mail: giampaolo.betta@unipr.it
News from the Italian Regional Section
The Italian food industry, along with agriculture, related
activities and distribution, is the foremost economic sector
in the country. It buys and processes about 70% of domestic
raw materials. It is also the ambassador of “Made in Italy” in
the world, since 76% of the food exports consist of industrial
branded products.
The Italian food industry has a turnover of € 120 billion,
with 6,400 companies (with more than nine employees)
comprising a total of 386,000 employees. Exports amounted
to € 19.84 billion (Data 2008).
61% of the total turnover is achieved in the Lombardy, Emilia
Romagna, Veneto and Piedmont regions, making this area
the most important “food valley” of Europe.
Within this area, the Province of Parma distinguishes itself
as 23% of all employees of the food industry of the entire
region Emilia Romagna work in that province.
The province of Parma is home to historically consolidated
food products, such as “Prosciutto di Parma” PDO,
“Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano” PDO and tomato
products. Currently, Parma is the location of many well-known
food manufacturing and food-equipment manufacturing
groups.
In addition, Parma is the headquarters of the Stazione
Sperimentale Industria Conserve Alimentari (SSICA), an
institute of research and experimentation founded in 1922.
Finally, Parma is home to the European Agency for Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) and, as such, is often the privileged
meeting place for working groups, seminars and conferences
involving top European experts.
Since 2007, Parma has also been the location of the Italian
Section of the European Hygienic Engineering and Design
Group.

EHEDG Regional Sections 139
Members and Subgroups
The Italian Section officially started on 17 October 2007,
the date of the “Hygiene Requirements and Standards for
Foodstuffs Machinery” Conference, which took place at
Parma at the time of the CIBUSTEC2007 Exhibition.
Italy supports EHEDG with 10 company members (Table 1),
10 individuals and Italian members actively work in 8
Subgroups (Table 2).
Italian Company Members (2012)
Ammeraal Beltech S.r.l.
AROL S.p.A.
CFT S.p.A.
CSF Inox S.p.A.
Ilinox S.r.l.
PNR Italia S.p.A.
RattiInox S.r.l.
Seital Separatori S.r.l.
S.K.F Industrie S.p.A.
Vincas S.r.l.
Table 1: EHEDG Italian Company Members in 2012
Subgroup with Italian members
Seals and Valves
Pumps, Homogenizers, Dampening Devices
Chemical treatment of stainless steel
Materials of Construction
Separators
Test Methods
Training and Education
Table 2: Subgroups with Italian members
Company / Institute
Documents
Bardiani valvole S.p.A. 14,20,
Centro Inox Milano 32
CFT S.p.A. 2,8,10
Csf Inox S.p.A. 14,17,20,25
GEA-Niro Soavi S.p.A. 17
GEA-Procomac 8
CFT S.p.A. 13, 34
IVG Colbachini S.p.A. 32
Omac Pompe S.r.l. 17
Parmalat S.p.A. 8,34
Sidel S.p.A 2,8,10,34
Stazione Sperimentale per l’Industria delle 8
Conserve Alimentari
University of Parma 2,8,10,13,
14,17,20,
25,32,34
Table 3: translation working groups
EHEDG Italy Events
The Italian Regional Section frequently participates in Italian
congresses, seminars and conferences with speeches on
Hygienic Design and Engineering. Some examples are
shown in Table 4.
The Italian Regional Section is also a candidate for hosting
and organizing the 2014 EHEDG World Congress.
Participation in events
Date
McT Alimentare - Bologna 19-06-2012
R2B - Bologna 11-06-2011
Gruppo CMS Updating - Modena 20–05-2011
51° AITB - Bari 23-09-2010
Table 4: participation in events
Translations
By now (September 2012) the Documents 2, 8, 10, 13, 14,
17, 20, 32, 34 have been translated and are hence available
in the Italian language; Documents 25, 1, 3 and 6 are under
revision.
A frequently updated list of the translated documents is
available in the web-page www.ehedg.unipr.it → Guidelines.
Many companies and institutes joined the translation
working groups of the Italian Section. The list is shown in
Table 3.
Training
The Italian Regional Section participates in the Training and
Education Subgroup.
Training on basic and advanced hygienic design and
engineering is offered in English and in Italian language. For
further information please contact giampaolo.betta@unipr.it
Contact
For more information and also if you are interested in the
activities of EHEDG Italy, please contact Dr. Giampaolo Betta,
e-mail: giampaolo.betta@unipr.it Phone: +39 0521 90 62 34
or the EHEDG Secretariat.

140 EHEDG Regional Sections
EHEDG Japan
Hiroyuki Ohmura, JFMA The Japan Food Machinery Manufacturers’, ohmura@fooma.or.jp
With the full support from the Japan Food Machinery
Manufacturers‘ Association (FOOMA), EHEDG JAPAN
mainly pursues the following activities: Translation of
EHEDG guidelines, holding seminars on EHEDG guidelines,
and EHEDG PR activities.
Translation of EHEDG guidelines
EHEDG JAPAN considers the translation of EHEDG
guidelines to be its foremost task.
In Japan, there is a strong need for translations of the
following guidelines: Doc. 9, Doc. 18, Doc. 20, Doc. 23, Doc.
32, and Doc. 37. EHEDG JAPAN set up a special translation
working group for each of these documents.
The translations of Doc. 20 and Doc. 23-2 have already
been completed.
Seminars on EHEDG guidelines, and EHEDG
PR activities
Every year in June, FOOMA organises the “FOOMA
JAPAN“, a comprehensive exhibition on food machinery and
technology industry. About 650 companies from all over the
world participate in this exhibition. The number of visitors
runs up to about 100,000. This year, FOOMA JAPAN was
held for four days from June 5 through 8 at Tokyo Big Sight.
Throughout the exhibition period, EHEDG JAPAN performed
PR activities at a booth provided by FOOMA and held a free
seminar to make EHEDG guidelines known.
EHEDG seminar
To spread the knowledge about EHEDG guidelines, EHEDG
JAPAN held a free seminar intended for food machinery
manufacturers and food manufacturing engineers in Japan.
EHEDG President Mr. Lorenzen was invited as a lecturer
(Fig 3/4).
• Topic: Materials of Construction for Equipment Coming
into Contact with Food (Doc. 32)
• Date and time: June 6, 10:00–12:30
• Attendants: 230 people
With the first FOOMA JAPAN having been held in 2009,
EHEDG JAPAN this year already held its fourth EHEDG
seminar. The audience has increased every year. This year,
with an audience of 232 people, the venue was almost bookedout.
(The number was 180 last year.) All these activities have
boosted publicity for EHEDG in Japan considerably.
Figure 2. EHEDG seminar in FOOMA JAPAN 2012
PR booth of EHEDG
At the EHEDG booth (Fig. 1), EHEDG pamphlets and
yearbooks were distributed to visitors. In addition, panel
displays were set up to explain the hygienic structure of food
processing machines as defined in the Codex Alimentarius
Commission’s “Food Hygiene – Basic Texts” and ISO/JIS, as
well as the relationship between these documents.
Figure 3. President Lorenzen acted as the speaker
Contact
Figure 1. EHEDG PR booth
Hiroyuki Ohmura
JFMA - The Japan Food Machinery Manufacturers’ Association
Fooma Bldg., 3-19-20 Shibaura
Minato-ku
108-0023 TOKYO
JAPAN
E-mail: ohmura@fooma.or.jp

EHEDG Regional Sections 141
EHEDG Lithuania
Dr.Raimondas Narkevicius, regional chairman EHEDG, Food Institute of Kaunas University of Technology,
e-mail: r.narkevicius@lmai.lt
In May 2012, a workshop on topical issues of food safety
and innovations was held in Kaunas. At this workshop
representatives of food manufacturing companies, food
research and safety control organisations participated. It
was there that the decision was reached to establish the
EHEDG Lithuanian Section.
An agreement between Kaunas University of Technology
and EHEDG was duly signed and the Food institute of
Kaunas University of Technology was appointed as the
regional representative of EHEDG in Lithuania.
In the first year of existence, the main tasks of the Lithuanian
EHEDG section were:
• translation of EHEDG Guidelines into Lithuanian and
spreading the Guidelines among food processing
companies
• organisation of and participation in events aimed at
promoting the hygienic manufacturing of food
• presentation of EHEDG activities and spreading the
knowledge about EHEDG amongst Lithuanian food
manufacturers.
In November 2012 at the annual conference of Food
Institute of Kaunas University of Technology, the EHEDG
will be widely presented and we expect to persuade food
manufactures and other professionals to join the EHEDG.
Mr. Huub Lelieveld giving a presentation at the Workshop in
Lithuania
For more information please contact
Raimondas Narkevicius
Kaunas University of Technology
Department of Food Technology
Taikos pr. 92
50254 KAUNAS
LITHUANIA
Phone: +370 68 4 32 26
E-mail: r.narkevicius@lmai.lt
EHEDG Macedonia
Prof. Dr. Vladimir Kakurinov, Consulting and Training Centre KEY, Macedonian Regional Section Chairman,
Phone/Fax: +389 2 3211-422; e-mail: vladimir.kakurinov@key.com.mk
Consulting and Training Centre Key, the headquarters of
the Macedonian EHEDG Regional Section, has organized
the First EHEDG World Congress in Hygienic Engineering
and Design. This event was a Summit of Hygienic Design
expertise, where over 230 participants from 31 countries
worldwide came for an experience exchange, and discussed
new developments and innovations.
The EHEDG World Congress took place in Hotel Granit in
Ohrid, Macedonia, 22 - 25 September, 2011.
EHEDG World Congress in Hygienic
Engineering and Design 2011 – Macedonia
During the Conference organized by RUSFoST (4 –
5 October, 2010 in St. Petersburg, Russia), EHEDG
Macedonian Regional Section was chosen to host the First
World Congress for Hygienic Engineering and Design.
Figure 1. World Congress opening

142 EHEDG Regional Sections
This event was a Summit of Hygienic Design expertise:
more than 230 participants from 31 countries worldwide
exchanged their experience, new developments and
innovations in this area.
The Congress had full media coverage. Its content,
participants, new developments and ideas were covered not
only by media in Macedonia, but in the region and worldwide.
42 presentations in two parallel sessions:
1. Hygienic Design
and
2. Food Quality & Safety and Food Production & Processing
gave an insight into the various fields of expertise of the
high-class EHEDG lecturers and academia representatives
who offered the delegates two highly informative days.
All participants were more than satisfied with the successful
outcome as is documented in the 1st Journal of Hygienic
Engineering and Design. The journal consists of 75 highquality
practical and science based papers, peer to peer
reviewed, by 32 Congress Scientific Committee members.
Figure 4. World Congress media coverage
This great event was organized by Consulting and
Training Center KEY, the headquarters of the EHEDG
Macedonian Regional Section.
Beside the working part of the Congress, there was a special
social programme, where all participants had an opportunity
to get familiar with our beautiful country, its traditions,
heritage and Macedonian hospitality.
You can find more information about the EHEDG World
Congress in Hygienic Engineering and Design at:
Figure 2. World Congress session
http://www.ehedg.mk/categories/view/430
The sponsor companies of the event: Van Meeuwen, Tensid
Chemie Cmbh, Swisslion, Tetra Pak, Danfoss, Kozuvcanka,
Scanjet, GEA, Serendipity, SKF, Skovin, and Makprogres
were able to present their latest products and services in the
exhibition space. It was an excellent and unique opportunity
for them to attract new customers, reaffirm long-term
customer relationships and present their most innovative
products, equipment, materials and services in the area of
safe food production.
The Congress turned out to be an excellent platform for
networking and meetings, especially on its final ‘Brokerage
Event’ day, where business deals were concluded reaching
a total of more than € 10 million.
Figure 3. World Congress Brokerage event
Journal of Hygienic Engineering and Design
The Journal of Hygienic Engineering and Design is
a platform for publication of evidence-based studies,
investigations, research and experience on all scientific and
expert aspects for: equipment and components, hygienic
principles, processing, utilities, services, food production
and processing, food quality and safety, and education. It
is a peer-reviewed and open access journal intended to
reveal new approaches, innovations, expert opinions and
the highest possible global scientific standards.
The first JHED volume was issued in 2011 for the first World
Congress in Hygienic Engineering and Design. This first
issue included 75 papers from 19 countries worldwide: The
Netherlands, Germany, France, Great Britain, Denmark,
Finland, Belgium, Spain, Poland, Bulgaria, Ireland, Sweden,
Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Russia, Armenia
and USA. This issue was published as a print copy. By now
each paper is available in electronic form and downloadable
from
http://www.ehedg.mk/categories/view/413.
The publisher of the Journal for Hygienic Engineering and
Design, Consulting and Training Center KEY, will continue
preparing the second and other following web based issues
of this Journal. Authors all over the world are invited to
submit their articles for the second issue.

EHEDG Regional Sections 143
Beside the manuscripts, JHED content is extended to meet
industry and consumer needs. On a regular basis, at the
JHED web page, all new developments, technologies and
innovations within the food and beverage industry worldwide
will be updated. In this way, JHED aims to be a source of
information and a networking platform for all key decision
makers throughout the world and will be an essential read
for anyone involved in this sector.
Guidelines translation into Macedonian
The translation of EHEDG Guidelines is an important part of
the EHEDG Macedonian Regional Section’s regular activities.
Seeing that all activities were focused on the organization of
the EHEDG World Congress in 2011, for that year EHEDG
Macedonia translated five Guidelines into the Macedonian
language. Macedonian titles are shown in Table 1.
More information about the Journal of Hygienic Engineering
and Design can be found at:
http://www.ehedg.mk/categories/naslovna/
Doc.
2
Title
Метод за проценка на чистливоста во место на
опремата за прехранбена индустрија
Info Days
In order to promote the EHEDG Congress in September,
2011, the Macedonian EHEDG Regional Section had
organized 4 informative days:
1. South-eastern region Strumica
2. Region Pelagonia Bitola
3. Macedonian Chambers of Commerce State level
4. Economic Chamber of Macedonia State level
In 2012, two more Info Days were held. The first EHEDG Info
Day took place in February 2012, with a main topic:
• Hygienic engineering and design of buildings for the
pharmaceutical and food industry.
The second Info Day was organized in April, 2012, with an
accent on
• Hygienic engineering and design of equipment and
its components and machinery intended for food
production and processing.
Both Info Days were attended by more than 80
representatives from civil engineering and architectural
companies engaged in food industry design and building
(construction), equipment producers, producers and
distributors of materials and components intended for food
and pharmaceutical companies, food and pharmaceutical
companies. Both events inspired huge interest among the
participants and broader public and it was covered by all
media. Also, National Television Telma prepared special
shows broadcasts solely dedicated to these events.
Figure 5. EHEDG Info Day special broadcast
12
15
26
Континуиран или полу-континуиран проток при
термички третман на храна со парченца
Метод за проценка на чистливоста во место на
опрема за производство со умерена големина
Хигиенски инженеринг на фабрики за
производство на суви материи
37 Хигиенски дизајн и апликација на сензори
Table 1: EHEDG Guidelines translated in 2011
In 2012, the EHEDG Macedonian Regional Section translated
twelve EHEDG Guidelines into Macedonian (one per month,
as planned in the activity plan for 2012). Macedonian titles
are shown in Table 2.
Doc. Title
Метод за проценка на стерилизација на
5
опремата на производната линија
Микробиолошки безбеден континуиран проток
6
при термичка стерилизација на течна храна
Заварување на не’рѓосувачкиот челик според
9
хигиенски барања
Хигиенски дизајн на вентили наменети за
14
производство на храна
16 Хигиенски спојници за цевки
Хигиенски дизајн и безбедна употреба на
20
вентили што оневозможуваат мешање
Tест за евалуација на хигиенските
21 карактеристики на машините за пакување на
течни и полу-течни производи
Водич за управување со воздух во
30
прехранбената индустрија
Хигиенски дизајн на пумпи, хомогенизатори и
17
направи за навлажнување
Хигиенски дизајн на системите за пакување на
29
цврста храна
Хигиенски инженеринг на системи за пренос на
36
суви материјали
Хигиенско инженерство на вентили во
40 производни линии за суви материјали со
парченца
Table 2: EHEDG Guidelines translated in 2012
(more on http://www.ehedg.mk/categories/view/429)

144 EHEDG Regional Sections
Hygienic Engineering and Design Conference
The First Conference for Hygienic Engineering and Design in
the Republic of Macedonia will take place on 9th of October,
2012, at the Municipality Karpos Conference Hall in Skopje.
Invited speakers at this Conference are:
Mr. Huub Lelieveld who will speak on the topics of Hygienic
engineering and design requirements for buildings and
EU legislation, standards and codes regarding hygienic
engineering and design, while Prof. Dr. Vladimir Kakurinov,
Chairman of the Macedonian EHEDG Regional Section will
speak about hygienic engineering and design requirements
regarding machinery and equipment.
EHEDG Macedonian Regional Section members will also
speak at the Conference and share their experience.
This event will be attended by representatives from the food,
pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry, food machinery,
equipment and components manufacturing companies,
companies supplying engineering services, the Food and
Veterinary Agency and inspection bodies.
Contact
You can find more detailed information about EHEDG
Macedonia and Journal of Hygienic Engineering and Design
at: http://www.ehedg.mk/categories/naslovna/
EHEDG Mexico
In 2011, the very first year of the EHEDG Regional Section Mexico, SOMEICCA A.C. as the
representative has organised the 4th International CUCCAL Congress on Food Safety, Quality
and Functionality with EHEDG support and an informative breakfast about the aims and tasks of
EHEDG. Sponsors of SOMEICCA, such as Lefix and Dantek, promoted EHEDG.
León Félix Marco Antonio. Sociedad Mexicana de Inocuidad y Calidad para Consumidores de Alimentos,
SOMEICCA, A.C. 28 de diciembre # 87 Col. Emiliano Zapata. Coyoacán, D.F.C.P.04815 México.
www.someicca.com.mx ;marcoelp@lefix.com.mx
4th International Congress CUCCAL on Food
Safety, Quality and Functionality in the Food
Industry and in Foodservice.
In October 2011, 400 attendees from México, Cuba, Chile,
Brazil, Venezuela and the United States of America enjoyed
the sessions, workshops and roundtables during the
Congress. The EHEDG was represented by Huub Lelieveld
who was the trainer of the “hygienic design in food facilities”
workshop and speaker at the conference. 16 delegates
attended the workshop and the entire conference was
attended by 50 persons, including students’ participation.
It was very interesting to note that having Cancun as the
hosting city, the attendees were from Foodservice rather
than the Food Industry, but they were very pleased by the
course. Of course, the congress also had academia and
industry representatives.
Figure 1. Closing Award session during the 4th International
CUCCAL Congress at Cancún México.
Figure 2. Attendees during the EHEDG session.

EHEDG Regional Sections 145
To promote EHEDG and to let the Mexican Chambers and
Universities know about the Congress results, SOMEICCA
organised an informative breakfast in December 2011.
The twelve attending guests were from the Industrial Food
Chambers (Seafood, Bakery and Dairy) as well as from
Universities that teach Food Science and Nutrition careers.
Before the Congress, SOMEICCA offered an informative
session about what the EHEDG is, for the most important
facilities processing seafood in México and Latin America.
Professor León Félix was present and explained the
EHEDG goals and invited Seafood enterprises to attend
the EHEDG workshop during the 5th International CUCCAL
Congress.
Figure 3. EHEDG´s Breakfast for Mexican Food Chambers and
Universities
5th International CUCCAL Congress on
Food Safety, Quality and Functionality for
Food service and Industry
In October 2012, SOMEICCA held the 5th International
CUCCAL Congress at Mazatlán, Sinaloa,México with two
EHEDG speakers, both for a short course on Hygienic
Design in Food Facilities and for conferences and round
table sessions on the importance of hygienic design.
SOMEICCA also held an informative session with the most
important facilities for Seafood Processors in Latin America
at Mazatlán, Sinaloa.
The EHEDG was represented by Huub Lelieveld and Piet
Steenaard as speakers both for a workshop on Hygienic
Design in Food Facilties and for a conference and round
table sessions about the importance and impact of hygienic
design on food safety and quality. The Congress gathered
Mexican and International experts on Food Safety, Quality
and Functionality from México, Brasil, Venezuela, United
States of America and the Netherlands.
Figure 4. CUCCAL Congress poster with EHEDG logo
Contact
Professor Marco Antonio León Félix
Sociedad Mexicana de Inocuidad y Calidad
para Consumidores de Alimentos AC
(SOMEICCAAC)
Phone: (+52 55) 56 77 86 57
E-Mail: lefix04@yahoo.com.mx
EHEDG Netherlands
E.J.C. Paardekooper, info@ehedg.nle-mail, info@ehedg.nl
Translation of Guidelines
At this moment, 32 guidelines have been translated into
Dutch, 22 of which are available as print-versions. Eight of
the 32 versions are still waiting for final approval. The plan
is to translate the remaining guidelines into Dutch and to
finalize all translations in 2013.
The Dutch Society for Food Entrepreneurs
(OSV) & Dutch Food Business Events (VMT):
EHEDG Netherlands was present at the SVO EVENT
October 27th, 2011 in Velp about Hygienic Design of
Conveyor Belts
EHEDG Netherlands Seminar “Hygienic Design & Allergens”
with the Dutch Food Magazine VMT was held December 4th,
2012 in Utrecht.

146 EHEDG Regional Sections
Training
Training and education materials remain the main topic to
promote hygiene awareness and understanding among
staff/personnel involved in the food chain, ‘from farm to fork’.
Knowledge dissemination
Other channels of spreading knowledge are magazines
and online publications. Targeted were Dutch media such
as Voedingsmiddelentechnologie (VMT), WEKA and Eisma
Voedingsmiddelenindustrie (EVMI) with 12 articles published
in total.
Several in-house training sessions were organised for
food companies as well as for equipment suppliers and
engineering firms. Most food equipment suppliers and a
large number of food companies in the Netherlands are
familiar with the EHEDG.
A significant number of seminars was held introducing
developments fulfilling EHEDG requirements and some
lectures were held at fairs, p.e. Industrial Processing, Solids
Fairs, Technivent and Stainless Steel World; in total about 30
lectures with a total exposure of more than 700 participants
were presented.
Board members of EHEDG Netherlands are active in the
Subgroups Building Design, Tank Cleaning and Testing &
Certification.
Joint activities with other associations
Interest has arisen from the metal industry to enter into a
cooperation introducing EHEDG requirements in the metal
industry.
Contact
Ernst Paardekooper
Foundation Food Micro & Innovation
Phone (+31 73) 5 51 34 70
E-mail: e.paardekooper@planet.nl
Jacques Kastelein*
TNO Kwaliteit van Leven
Phone (+31 30) 6 94 46 85
E-mail: jacques.kastelein@tno.nl
High Technology Solutions
in the dairy and fruit processing industries.
bawaco ag · Stauffacherstrasse 77 · CH-3014 Bern / Switzerland · www.bawaco.ch
bawaco gmbh · Poststrasse 15/1 · D-71384 Weinstadt / Germany · www.bawaco.de

EHEDG Regional Sections 147
EHEDG Russia
Prof. Dr. Mark Shamtsyan, St. Petersburg State Institute of Technology (RUSFoST),
e-mail: shamtsyan@yahoo.com
In 2012, the Russian Section of EHEDG made good progress
in translating EHEDG Guidelines and started translating
presentations for training courses.
On April 22-24, the First North and East European Congress
on Food was held in Saint Petersburg. The congress was
organised by RUSFoST and the St. Petersburg State
Institute of Technology (Technical University) in cooperation
with EHEDG, GHI, IUFoST and EFFoST.
The congress programme focused on recent developments
in the fields of innovative technology, food safety,
manufacturing and design of food equipment, functional
and bioactive food, new trends in food safety, and impact
of food on human health. More than 120 delegates from 28
countries participated in the congress.
During the congress, EHEDG and its activities were
specifically introduced.
Figure 2. Mr. Huub Lelieveld
Further contributions in the development of food science
and technology in Eastern Europe were given by Professor
Sergiy Ivanov, Chair of the Ukrainian Section of EHEDG,
Rector of National University of Food Technology of Ukraine
and also by Professor Kostadin Fikiin, specialist for food
refrigeration (Technical University of Sofia, Bulgaria). It was
decided to hold the second NEEFood Congress in May 2013
in Kiev, and after that every second year.
Contact
Figure 1. First North and East European Congress on Food
One of the founders of the EHEDG, Mr. Huub Lelieveld,
was awarded a special prize of NEEFood Congress for
his lifetime achievements and great contribution in Food
Science and Technology.
St. Petersburg State Institute of
Technology (RUSFoST)
Technical University
Moskovsky prospect 26
ST. PETERSBURG 198013
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
E-mail: shamtsyan@yahoo.com
Phone: (+7 960) 2 72 81 68

148 EHEDG Regional Sections
EHEDG Serbia
A new EHEDG regional section was established in Serbia
Prof. Dr. Miomir Niksic, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Dep. of Industrial Microbiology,
E-mail: miomir.niksic@gmail.com
On the 24th of May 2012, at the meeting organised in
conjugation with CEFood2012 in Novi Sad, EHEDG Serbia
was founded as a formal organization according to the
Serbian Civil Code, with the election of Chairman, Secretary,
Treasurer and Members at Large. The regional section is
strongly supported by Serbian Microbiological Society and
the Society for Nutrition and Society for Food Technology.
On the 25th September 2012 regional section were officially
established on the first Info day-mini Symposium on Hygienic
engineering and Design for Food Machinery, organized
in Belgrade in conjunction with Chamber of Commerce of
Serbia. At the meeting EHEDG Treasurer Piet Steenaard
and Huub Lelieveld and Regional Section Chairman, Prof Dr.
Miomir Niksic signed off the Regional Section By-Laws.
Figure 2. Participants at the constitutional meeting EHEDG-
Regional Section Serbia
The Serbian EHEDG Committee will schedule meetings
and training courses to be held quarterly in different regions/
cities, probably in conjunction with other regional events.
A number of actions at the end of 2012 and in 2013 are
planned, including translation of guidelines, flyers, the
Serbian version of the EHEDG web-site and we hope to gain
ever more attention from local companies to disseminate
hygienic design issues.
Contact
Figure 1. Signing the foundation of EHEDG regional section Serbia
At the symposium several topics were presented by Huub
Lelieveld and Piet Steenaard including: Hygienic design of
food factories, Safe use of lubricants in the food industry,
Hygienic design of equipment and Management of hygiene
in food factories. Approximately 50 attendees from different
companies, from both food processors and academia
participated in this meeting.
Professor Miomir Niksic
University of Belgrade
Faculty of Agriculture
Department of Industrial Microbiology
Phone: (+381 63) 7 79 85 76
E-mail: mniksic@agrif.bg.ac.rs
EHEDG Spain
Rafael Soro, AINIA Technological Centre, Valencia – Spain, e-mail: rsoro@ainia.es
The Spanish Regional Section continues to
promote EHEDG activities and to increase
the awareness of hygienic design among
the Spanish food industry and equipment
manufacturers.
The first EHEDG event in Spain was in 2001, when the 11th
International Conference was, for the first time, combined
with a Training Workshop on hygienic engineering that was
held in Valencia. The 3-day conference “Food in Europe:
Building in Safety” was organised by AINIA, and attracted
more than 200 attendees from European food companies
and food equipment manufacturers.
Four years later, in 2005, the Spanish Regional Section was
created under the initiative of AINIA Technological Centre.
In the following years, the Spanish Regional section carried
out several activities to spread the requirements of hygienic
design and EHEDG among Spanish companies. Seminars

EHEDG Regional Sections 149
and advanced courses have been organised and held
in Valencia and Barcelona. In 2006, the translation of the
EHEDG published guidelines was initiated.
A relationship was established with AMEC (Spanish Food
Equipment Manufacturers Association) aiming to disseminate
EHEDG activities in Spain. A Spanish EHEDG website was
created. Ainia has also published several newsletters about
EHEDG and hygienic design that have been distributed
among most of the Spanish food industries and many food
equipment manufacturers.
Recent activities
Dissemination activities have been organized to spread
relevant information on the EHEDG among Spanish speaking
professionals. Different communication channels have been
used for this purpose (ainia webpage, Tecnoalimentalia
electronic bulletin, etc.).
Representatives of the Regional Section participated as
speakers with lectures related to the EHEDG and hygienic
design in 6 events during 2011:
• CED Annual Meeting. Detergency and Cosmetics.
Barcelona. Rafael Soro
• Meeting at FIAB (Association of food and beverages
companies). Madrid. Andrés Pascual
• Jornadas Técnicas sobre el mantenimiento en la
Industria Alimentaria. AEM. Burgos. Irene Llorca
• Seminar on clean rooms. AICE (Spanish Association of
the Meat Industry). Madrid. Rafael Soro
• Food Safety Master. Veterinary Faculty. Madrid. Irene
Llorca
• AMEC. Hygienic Design and Food Safety. Barcelona.
Rafael Soro
The fourth edition of the Advanced Course on Hygienic Design
was held at Ainia in June 2012. As in previous occasions,
both food industries and equipment manufacturers were
represented among delegates. The 3-day course was
presented from a very practical viewpoint, relating the
theoretical fundamentals of the different subjects to practice
by means of examples on video, pictures, samples and the
EHEDG Toolbox. The course included some case studies
that were developed in a pilot plant and was held by experts
from the EHEDG Training & Education Subgroup. The
course was given in English and Spanish, with simultaneous
translation.
The process of guideline translation has continued since
its beginning in 2006. Currently, forty guidelines have been
translated into Spanish, some of which them are already
available from the EHEDG website. For some, review is still
pending or the original guideline is being updated.
Hygienic design course 2012 at Ainia
Since the EHEDG webpage had been translated into
Spanish in previous years, the activity now has turned into
a continuous translation of updated contents. In November
2011 a representative of the Regional Section was trained
in webpage management to be able to keep the Spanish
language contents updated and contribute with other
national contents. These translation activities are considered
crucial for the Regional Section since it is a very effective
way of spreading EHEDG and hygienic design issues not
only in Spain but also in other Spanish speaking countries.
EHEDG World Congress on Hygienic
Engineering and Design 2012 Spain
The EHEDG World Congress 2012 will be held in
Valencia-Spain, co-organized by EHEDG and ainia Centro
Tecnológico. More than 20 experts coming from all over the
world will offer lectures on topics related to hygienic design
and other hygiene issues.
Parallel activities are organised to complement and enrich
the Congress programme. Among others, 1:1 business
meetings have been arranged to encourage interaction and
future business relations of the participants, as well as an
exhibition area for companies and a posters sessions
area.
The Plenary Meeting of all EHEDG ExCo Members,
Regional and Subgroup Chairpersons will take place on the
pre-congress day at ainia’s facilities.
More information on the Congress is available at www.
ehedg-congress.org.
Contact
Rafael Soro Martorell
ainia centro tecnológico
c/ Benjanmin Franklin, 5-11
Parque Tecnologico de Valencia
46980 PATERNA (VALENCIA)
SPAIN
E-mail: rsoro@ainia.es

150 EHEDG Regional Sections
EHEDG Switzerland
Matthias Schäfer, e-mail: matthias.schaefer@gea.com
It is one of the objectives of the EHEDG Regional Section
Switzerland to promulgate the knowledge on “Hygienic
Design” in Switzerland. Shortly after the foundation of
the Regional Section, the Regional Committee agreed on
following this objective by organising at least one seminar on
“Hygienic Design” every year.
One seminar was organised in 2010 at the biggest Swiss
brewery “Feldschlösschen” belonging to the Carlsberg
Group. More than 100 participants from three different
countries came to enjoy six presentations on different topics
related to “Hygienic Design” and of course also to participate
in the brewery tour offered by “Feldschlösschen”.
The 2011 seminar was hosted by “Bühler AG” in Switzerland.
Our host is the biggest food machinery manufacturer in
Switzerland and also a company member of EHEDG. About
90 people joined this seminar to listen to six speakers coming
from different food business related fields.
It has to be mentioned that the EHEDG received great support
from “Feldschlössen” and “Bühler” when they were hosting
our seminars. Nevertheless it also has to be mentioned that
the organisation of each seminar was a big effort for our
small Regional Committee. People have worked hard to put
the programs together and to find the right speakers and
topics ensuring interesting and attractive lectures.
The financial success of these seminars made it possible
to give a direct financial support to the work of the EHEDG
Subgroup “Cleaning Validation” which is headed by
Dr. Rudolf Schmitt from the “University of Applied Sciences
Western Switzerland” who also acts as the Chairman of the
Regional Section.
The next milestone of the development of this Regional
Section was the completion and enhancement of the
Regional Committee during the general assembly in 2012. A
total of nine persons from different industries are now going
to ensure that the successful work will continue. Thank you
very much to all companies and people who have supported
the work of the Regional Section Switzerland during the past
two years. We can be proud that this “just” 4 year old section
is already such a success story!
Contact:
Matthias Schäfer
GEA Tuchenhagen GmbH
Phone +41 61 936 37 40, Fax +41 61 936 37 49
Mobile +41 79 304 80 43
matthias.schaefer@gea.com
Seminar at Bühler AG in Uzwil, Switzerland.
EHEDG Taiwan
A growing regional section outreaching in Far East
B. Barry Yang, Ph.D., Director, Southern Taiwan Service Center, Food Industry R&D Institute,
e-mail: bby@firdi.org.tw
Seminar
EHEDG Taiwan was present at a Hygienic Design Seminar held
by the Bürkert Fluid Control Systems and Food Industry R&D Institute
(FIRDI) in October of 2011. At this seminar, Dr. B. Barry Yang,
Regional Section Chairman, gave his presentation introducing the
EHEDG Guidelines and theirs relative applications. Moreover, an
expert from Bürkert, Mr. Mike Rodd also talked about the importance
of EHEDG and the industrial application of different types of
connections. Besides, Ms Andrea Borowsky, manager of media &
communications of the German Trade Office in Taipei also attended
this seminar to give support to Bürkert as a company of German
origin. Approximately 120 attendees from more than 40 companies,
both from food processors and the machinery manufacturing industry,
participated in this seminar.

EHEDG Regional Sections 151
Translation of Guidelines
At the present time, a total of 27 guidelines have been
translated into Traditional Chinese. 12 of these are being
corrected and proofread by experts in their special areas as
required by these document subjects. These guidelines are
scheduled to be submitted for publication by the end of 2012.
The translation of the remaining Guidelines is under way.
Training
Dr. Yang gave an introduction of EHEDG guidelines at the Hygienic
Design Seminar
In order to facilitate training and practice for the hygienic
design of food process equipment, FIRDI has set up a
team to build a test laboratory for the EHEDG equipment
assessing methods including Doc. 2, Doc. 4, Doc. 5, Doc.
7, Doc. 15, Doc. 19, and Doc. 21. The major tasks of this
team are to demonstrate the hygienic design concept of
food equipment and its related validation methods to food
equipment manufacturers and food processing companies.
Contact
For more information and if interested in the activities of
EHEDG Taiwan, please contact Dr. B. Barry Yang, Phone:
+886-6-3847301, e-mail: bby@firdi.org.tw.
EHEDG Thailand
Thai Regional Section
Navaphattra Nunak, Taweepol Suesut, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Faculty of Engineering,
Thailand, e-mail: kbnavaph@kmitl.ac.th
EHEDG Thailand was established in 2009. The Thai Section
was initiated between EHEDG centre and King Mongkut’s
Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL). The Thai
Section officially started on April 20, 2009. At present, just
one Institute member from KMITL is member of EHEDG.
However, several industrial companies are interested and
attended the activities of the Thai Section.
Translation
• Guideline no. 8 has already been published on EHEDG
website.
• Guidelines no. 1, 11, 27, 28 and 37 have already been
translated into Thai.
• Guidelines no. 2, 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23,
24, 30, 32, 34 and 38 is now in the process of being
translated.
• Website Translation is also now in the process of being
translated.
EHEDG Thailand Seminar 2012
There were two seminars on EHEDG guidelines in 2012. The
first seminar was organised by EHEDG Thailand (KMITL),
Kasetsart University and HABLA-Chemie GmbH and CPC-
Holding Ltd, at KU, Bangkok on 25th June, 2012 under the
topic of “Update on Environmental-friendly Cleaning and
Sanitizing in the Food and Beverage Industry and Rapid
Methods of Assessing Cleaning Efficiency” (Fig. 1). A
second seminar was organized by EHEDG Thailand under
the topic of “Hygienic application of Instruments for Food
Industry” on July 27, 2012 at KMITL, Bangkok (Fig. 2). About
50, 120 participants respectively attended the seminars. The
participants could be divided into 4 groups as follows:
• Government officers
• Technical and engineering consultants
• Owner and staffs from food factories
• Students

152 EHEDG Regional Sections
Figure 1. Update on Environmental-friendly Cleaning and
Sanitizing in the Food and Beverage Industry and Rapid Methods
of assess Cleaning Efficiency” (25th June 2012)
Figure 2. “Hygienic application of Instruments for Food Industry” on
27th, July 2012
Contact Person
For more information and if you are interested in the activities
of EHEDG Thailand, please contact
Dr. Navaphattra Nunak
Email: kbnavaph@kmitl.ac.th
Dr.Taweepol Suesut
Email:kstaweep@kmitl.ac.th
Phone: +66 2 3298356-8
EHEDG Turkey
Dr. Samim Saner, Turkish Food Safety Association (TFSA), Turkey, e-mail: samim.saner@ggd.com.tr
News from a new Regional Section
EHEDG Turkey was officially established at the 3rd Food
Safety Congress which was held on May 3-4, 2012, in
Istanbul. The event was hosted and organized by the Turkish
Food Safety Association (TFSA) with about 700 delegates
from Turkey and abroad. Dr. Patrick Wouters (Unilever,
EHEDG Vice President) and Dirk Nikoleiski (Kraft Foods,
EHEDG Executive Committee Member) were invited to
lecture during the Hygienic Design Session of the Congress
and experienced a lot of interest in their topics.
On the second congress day, the EHEDG ‘By-Laws’ (Regional
Section agreement) were officially signed by TFSA President
Dr. Samim Saner, the Turkish Committee members and the
above mentioned representatives of EHEDG International.
Recent Activities
EHEDG Turkey has formed its Regional Committee and
immediately started its activities. The translation of the
EHEDG website has already been completed. Starting in
the 4th quarter of 2012, EHEDG Turkey is already busily
translating EHEDG guidelines.
An article about the EHEDG and its activities was published in
Turkish Food Safety Magazine’s latest issue. This magazine
is distributed to 5000 people consisting of food producers,
food engineers, managers, equipment manufacturers and
health authorities and will help to spread the news about
EHEDG in Turkey.
Contact
For more information and if interested in the activities of
EHEDG Turkey, please contact:
Dr. Samim Saner
Gida Güvenligi Dernegi
TFSA - Turkish Food Safety Association
Hasan Amir Sok. Dursoy Is Merkezi No.4
KIZILTOPRAK ISTANBUL 34724
TURKEY
Phone: +90 0216 550 02 23 - 550 02 73
E-mail: samim.saner@ggd.org.tr

EHEDG Regional Sections 153
EHEDG Ukraine
Prof. Yaroslav Zasyadko, National University of Food Technologies, Kyiv, e-mail: yaroslav@nuft.edu.ua
In the years 2011 to 2012, the Ukrainian Regional EHEDG
Section was engaged in a number of projects. As it has
become our usual routine, the main effort has been assigned
to the translation and adaptations of the EHEDG Guidelines
to the Ukrainian State Standards where applicable. On top
of the listed in the previous issue of EHEDG Yearbook, the
following Guidelines are ready for publication:
• Doc. 9 Welding stainless steel to meet hygienic
requirements.
• Doc. 10 Hygienic design of closed equipment for the
processing of liquid food.
Guidelines Doc. 11 through to Doc. 17 are currently in the
process of being adaptated to the Ukrainian Standards.
We have finalized translation of the EHEDG webpage into
Ukrainian and also developed a website of the Ukrainian
Regional EHEDG Section linked to the main EHEDG web
site.
The Ukrainian Regional EHEDG Section has developed
a program of teaching materials including a syllabus of
the MS lecture course “Food Safety and Hygienic Design
and Operation of Food Manufacturing Equipment”. The 18
hours course contains a brief account of food contamination
sources, case studies, and practical examples. The course
also contains the EHEDG cleanability testing procedure
film subtitled in Ukrainian and Russian. The course will be
introduced at the National University of Food Technologies
(Kyiv) for MS students majoring in Mechanical Engineering
in 2013 year.
During this period we have held three EHEDG-UkrUFoST
Conferences aimed at strengthening our relations with
the industry, engagement of new members, and the
popularisation of EHEDG practices.
At the Conference held on April 4, we presented the
Guidelines that had been properly prepared for publication
and explained the procedure of EHEDG Certification to the
representatives of the industry.
In September 2012, the Ukrainian Regional EHEDG Section
became a co-organizer of the Round Table which was
conducted within a framework of the National Exhibition
INTERPRODMASH. The issues of the EHEDG activities in
the EU and in Ukraine were among the topics discussed at
the Round Table. The representatives of Dutch companies
active in Ukraine with their presentations paid special
attention to the necessity to comply with the EHEDG
Guidelines on every stage of the technological process.
Huub Lilieveld, honorary representative of the EHEDG,
co-chaired the event together with Professor Yaroslav
Zasyadko, Ukrainian Regional EHEDG Section Executive
Director, and gave comprehensive presentations describing
the EHEDG activities.
Recently, we have established a number of useful contacts
with the industry and with the National Certification Bodies.
UkrEHEDG were invited to give a presentation depicting
the EU Food Safety Regulations and Legal Practices and
the EHEGD activities by the Ukrainian State Enterprise
UKRMETROTESTSTANDARD which is the main Ukrainian
Body responsible for all aspects of certification, testing and
standardisation of food products in Ukraine. As a result of
the meeting we have jointly marked some steps that may
lead to common projects in the future.
Figure 1. The Round Table event. Co-chairs Huub Lelieveld and
Yaroslav Zasyadko
Figure 2. Yaroslav Zasyadko giving presentation about the EHEDG
activities at the SE UkrMETRTESTSTANDARD
Contact
Prof. Yaroslav Zasyadko
National University of Food Technologies Kyiv
68, Volodymyrska Str.
01033 KYIV
UKRAINE
E-mail: yaroslav@nuft.edu.ua

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
EHEDG Guidelines
EHEDG Guidelines can be ordered from the Webshop
by non-members and individual members. They are
free for EHEDG Company and Institute Members while
Individual EHEDG Members receive a 50 % discount.
Doc. 1. Microbiologically safe continuous
pasteurisation of liquid foods
First edition, November 1992 (17 pages)
There are many reasons why, in practice pasteurised products
sometimes present a microbiological health hazard. Due to
distribution in residence time, not all products may reach the
temperature required for pasteurisation or may do so for too
short a time. Further there may be a risk of contamination
with a non-pasteurised product, or the cooling medium. This
document describes the requirements particularly for liquid
foods without particulates.
Languages available:
Dutch, English, French, Spanish, Ukrainian
Doc. 2. A method for assessing the in-place
cleanability of food processing equipment
Third edition, June 2007 (16 pages)
The method is intended as a screening test for hygienic
equipment design and is not indicative of the performance
of industrial cleaning processes (which depend on the
type of soil). See Doc 15 for a test procedure designed for
moderately-sized equipment.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: Armenian, Dutch, English,
French, German, Italian, Macedonian, Russian,
Spanish
Doc. 3. Microbiologically safe aseptic
packing of food products
First edition, January 1993 (15 pages)
This guideline stresses the need to identify the sources of
This guideline stresses the need to identify the sources of
micro-organisms that may contaminate food in the packaging
process, and to determine which contamination rates are
acceptably low. It clarifies the difference in risk of infection
between aseptic processing and aseptic packing and
recommends that aseptic packing machines be equipped with
fillers that are easily cleanable, suitable for decontamination
and bacteria-tight. Requirements for the machine interior
include monitoring of critical decontamination parameters.
See also Doc. 21 on challenge tests.
Languages available:
Armenian, Dutch, English, French, Spanish,
Ukrainian
Doc. 4. A method for the assessment of
in-line pasteurisation of food processing
equipment
First edition, February 1993 (12 pages)
Food processing equipment that cannot be or does not need
to be sterilised may need to be pasteurised to inactivate
relevant vegetative micro-organisms and fungal spores.
It is important to test the hygienic characteristics of such
equipment to ensure that it can be pasteurised effectively.
This document describes a test procedure to determine
whether equipment can be pasteurised by circulation with
hot water.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: Armenian, Dutch, English,
French, Spanish, Ukrainian
Doc. 5. A method for the assessment of
in-line sterilisability of food processing
equipment
Second edition, July 2004 (9 pages)
Food processing equipment may need to be sterilised before
use, and it is important to ensure that the sterilisation method
applied is effective. Thus, it is necessary to determine under
which conditions equipment can be sterilised. This paper
details the recommended procedure for assessing the
suitability of an item of food processing equipment for in-line
sterilisation. It is advisable to conduct in-place cleanability
trials (ref. Doc.2) prior to this test in order to verify the
hygienic design of the equipment.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: Armenian, Dutch, English,
French, German, Macedonian, Spanish,
Ukrainian
Doc. 6. The microbiologically safe continuous
flow thermal sterilisation of liquid foods
First edition, April 1993 (26 pages)
Thermal sterilisation is aimed at eliminating the risk of food
poisoning and, when used in conjunction with aseptic filling,
at achieving extended product storage life under ambient
conditions. Whereas pasteurisation destroys vegetative
micro-organisms, sterilisation destroys both vegetative
micro-organisms and relevant bacterial spores. This
document presents guidelines on the microbiologically safe
continuous sterilisation of liquid products. The technique of
Ohmic heating was not considered in this paper but may
be included in an update being prepared. See Doc. 1 for
guidelines on continuous pasteurisation of liquid foods.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: Armenian, Dutch, English,
French, Macedonian, Spanish, Ukrainian

EHEDG Guidelines 155
Doc. 7. A method for the assessment
of bacteria tightness of food processing
equipment
Second edition, July 2004 (10 pages)
This document details the test procedure for assessing
whether an item of food processing equipment, intended
for aseptic operation, is impermeable to micro-organisms.
Small motile bacteria penetrate far more easily through
microscopic passages than (non-motile) moulds and yeasts.
The facultative anaerobic bacterium Serratia marcescens
(CBS 291.93) is therefore used to test bacteria-tightness or
the impermeability of equipment to micro-organisms. The
method is suitable for equipment that is already known to be
in-line steam sterilisable (see also Doc. 5).
Training DVD available.
Languages available: Armenian, Dutch, English,
French, Spanish, Ukrainian
Doc. 8. Hygienic equipment design
criteria
Second edition, April 2004 (16 pages)
This guideline describes the criteria for the hygienic design
of equipment intended for the processing of foods. Its
fundamental objective is the prevention of the microbial
contamination of food products. It is intended to appraise
qualified engineers who design equipment for food processing
with the additional demands of hygienic engineering in order
to ensure the microbiological safety of the end product.
Upgrading an existing design to meet hygiene requirements
can be prohibitively expensive and may be unsuccessful
and so these are most effectively incorporated into the initial
design stage. The long term benefits of doing so are not
only product safety but also increased life expectancy of
equipment, reduced maintenance and consequently lower
operating costs.
This document, first published in 1993, describes in
more detail the hygienic requirements of the Machinery
Directive (98/37/EC ref.1). Parts of it have subsequently
been incorporated in the standards EN1672-2 and EN ISO
14159.
Training DVD available
Languages available: Armenian, Dutch, English,
French, German, Italian, Japanese, Macedonian,
Russian, Spanish, Thai, Ukrainian
Doc. 9. Welding stainless steel to meet
hygienic requirements
First edition, July 1993 (21 pages) – update in progress
since 2010 in conjunction with Doc. 35
This document describes the techniques required to
produce hygienically acceptable welds in thin walled (< 3
mm) stainless steel applications. The main objective was
to convey the reasons and requirements for hygienic
welding and to provide information on how this may best
be achieved. This document is superseded by Doc 35,
recently published. The subgroup will continue with a
guideline on inspection of the quality of welds in food
processing machinery.
Training DVD available
Languages available: Dutch, English, French,
Japanese, Macedonian, Spanish, Ukrainian
Doc. 10. Hygienic design of closed
equipment for the processing of liquid food
Second edition, May 2007 (22 pages)
Using the general criteria for the hygienic design of equipment
identified in Doc 8, this paper illustrates the application of
these criteria in the construction and fabrication of closed
process equipment. Examples, with drawings, show how
to avoid crevices, shadow zones and areas with stagnating
product, and how to connect and position equipment in a
process line to ensure unhampered draining and cleaning
in-place. Attention is drawn to ways of preventing problems
with joints, which might otherwise cause leakage or
contamination of product.
Training DVD available
Languages available: Dutch, English, French,
German, Italian, Macedonian, Russian,
Ukrainian
Doc. 11. Hygienic packing of food products
First edition, December 1993 (15 pages)
Products with a short shelf-life, or whose shelf life is
extended by cold storage or in-pack heat treatments, do not
have to conform to such strict microbiological requirements
as aseptically packaged foods (Doc 3 discusses aseptic
packing). This paper discusses the packing of food products
that do not need aseptic packing but which nevertheless
need to be protected against unacceptable microbial
contamination. It describes guidelines for the hygienic
design of packing machines, the handling of packing
materials and the environment of the packing machines.
See also Doc. 21.
Languages available:
Dutch, English, French, Spanish, Thai, Ukrainian
Doc. 12. The continuous or semi-continuous
flow thermal treatment of particulate foods
First edition, March 1994 (28 pages)
Thermal sterilisation is a process aimed at eliminating the
risk of food poisoning and, when used in conjunction with
aseptic filling, it aims to extend product storage life under
ambient conditions. This is achieved by the destruction of
vegetative micro-organisms and relevant bacterial spores.
Liquid foods containing particulates are inherently more
difficult to process than homogenous liquids due to heat
transfer limitations in particulate-liquid mixtures and the
additional problems of transport and handling. This paper
presents guidelines on the design of continuous and semi-

156 EHEDG Guidelines
continuous plants for the heat treatment of particulate foods.
Ohmic heating techniques are not covered. See also Doc. 1
on continuous pasteurisation and Doc. 6 on sterilisation of
liquid products without particles.
Languages available:
Dutch, English, French, Spanish, Ukrainian
Doc. 13. Hygienic design of equipment
for open processing
Second edition, May 2004 (24 pages) –
update to be published in 2013
It is important that the plant design takes into account
factors affecting the hygienic operation and cleanability of
the plant. The risk of contamination of food products during
open processing increases with the with the concentration
of micro-organisms in the environment and their opportunity
to grow in poorly designed equipment. This means that
in open plants, environmental conditions, in addition to
appropriate equipment design, have an important influence
on hygienic operation. The type of product and the stage
of the manufacturing process must also be taken into
consideration.
This paper deals with the principal hygienic requirements for
equipment for open processing and applies to many different
types, including machines for the preparation of dairy
products, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, sweet oils,
coffee products, cereals, vegetables, fruit, bakery products,
meat and fish. It describes methods of construction and
fabrication, giving examples as to how the principal criteria
can be met. See also guidelines on hygienic design criteria
Doc 8, hygienic welding Doc 9, and the hygienic design of
equipment for closed processing Doc 10.)
Languages available:
Dutch, English, French, German, Italian,
Japanese, Macedonian, Ukrainian
Doc. 14. Hygienic design of valves for
food processing
Second edition, July 2004 (17 pages) –
update in progress since 2009
Valves are essential components of all food processing plants
and the quality used strongly influences the microbiological
safety of the food production process. These valves must
therefore comply with strict hygienic requirements
The guidelines apply to all valves used in contact with food
or food constituents that are to be processed hygienically
or aseptically. Aside from general requirements with regard
to materials, drainability, microbial impermeability and other
aspects, additional requirements for specific valve types are
also described. See also Doc. 20 on double-seat mixproof
valves.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: Dutch, English, French,
Italian, Macedonian, Spanish
Doc. 15. A method for the assessment of
in-place cleanability of moderately-sized food
processing equipment
First edition, February 1997 (12 pages)
This document describes a test procedure for assessing
the in-place cleanability of moderately sized equipment,
such as homogenisers. The degree of cleanliness is based
on the removal of a fat spread soil, and is assessed by
evaluating the amount of soil remaining after cleaning by
visual inspection and swabbing of the surface. This method
is not as sensitive as the microbiological method described
in Doc. 2.
Languages available:
Armenian, Dutch, English, German, Macedonian,
Spanish, Ukrainian
Doc. 16. Hygienic pipe couplings
First edition, September 1997 (21 pages)
This paper identifies and defines critical design parameters
for welded pipe couplings: easily cleanable in-place; easily
sterilisable in place; impervious to micro-organisms, reliable
and easy to install.
Gaskets of various types were tested for reliability and
hygienic aspects using EHEDG cleanability test methods
and repeated sterilisation. The objective was to provide a
reliable dismountable joint which is bacteria-tight at the
product side under the conditions of processing, cleaning
and sanitation.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: English, French, German,
Ukrainian
Doc. 17. Hygienic design of pumps,
homogenisers and dampening devices
Second edition, September 2004 (16 pages) -
update to be published in 2013
This paper sets the minimum requirements for pumps,
homogenisers and dampening devices for hygienic
and aseptic applications. The scope includes all pumps
intended for use in food processing, including centrifugal,
piston, lobe rotor, diaphragm, screw and gear pumps. The
requirements also apply to valves integral to the pump
head and the complete homogeniser head. Design aspects
and the characteristics of materials, surfaces and seals
are discussed and additional requirements for aseptic
equipment are identified. This document is currently being
updated.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: English, French, German,
Italian, Macedonian

EHEDG Guidelines 157
Doc. 18. Passivation of stainless steel
First edition, August 1998 (13 pages) –
update to be published in 2013
Passivation is an important surface treatment that helps
assure the successful corrosion resistant performance of
stainless steel used for product contact surfaces (eg. tubing/
piping, tanks and machined parts used in pumps, valves,
homogenisers, de-aerators, process monitoring instruments,
blenders, dryers, conveyors, etc).
The purpose of this document is to provide manufacturers,
users and regulatory personnel with basic information and
guidelines relative to equipment passivation. The complete
passivation process is described and environmental, as well
as safety, concerns are discussed.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: Armenian, Dutch, English,
French, German, Macedonian, Russian,
Spanish,
Doc. 19. A method for assessing
the bacterial impermeability of hydrophobic
membrane filters
First edition, June 2000 (9 pages)
Research has shown that hydrophobic membrane filters,
with a pore size of 0.22µm, do not retain micro-organisms
under all process conditions. Investigations were conducted
into risk assessment of sterilising hydrophobic membrane
filters, evaluating the performance of the filters under a
range of operating conditions.
To validate the bacterial retention ability of sterilising grade
hydrophobic membrane filters, a bacterial aerosol challenge
test methodology was developed.
Languages available:
Dutch, English, Spanish
Doc. 20. Hygienic design and safe use of
double-seat mixproof valves
First edition, July 2000 (20 pages) –
update in progress since 2009
This document describes the basic hygienic design and
safe use of single-body double-seat mixproof valves. Today,
food process plants incorporate various multifunctional flow
paths. Often one piping system is cleaned while another
still contains product. This simultaneous cleaning can
potentially result in the dangerous situation where product
and cleaning liquid are separated by just one single valve
seat. Any cleaning liquid that leaks across such a seat will
contaminate the product. Therefore, often two or three
single seat valves in a “block-and-bleed” arrangement are
applied.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: Dutch, English, French,
Japanese, Macedonian, Russian
Doc. 21. Challenge tests for the
evaluation of the hygienic
characteristics of packing machines
for liquid and semi-liquid products
First edition, July 2000 (32 pages)
After documents 3 and 11, this is the third test method
in the series. It discusses how packing machines should
be designed to comply with hygiene design criteria and
thereby with the requirements specified in Annex 1 of the
Machinery Directive1. To determine whether those criteria
are met requires validation of the design and measurement
of essential parameters. Proven methods for testing the
performance of the various functions of packing machines
are described.
These methods may also be used by the manufacturer to
optimise or redesign a packing machine and by the food
processor who may want to compare different packing
machines.
Upon delivery, a packing machine needs to be checked by a
commissioning procedure to be agreed in advance between
the food processor and the supplier. Commissioning may
include physical as well as microbiological tests. Additional
tests are specified for commissioning of machines for
aseptic packing.
1 Machinery Directive 98/37/EC – Annex 1, point 2.1, Agrifoodstuffs
machinery
Languages available:
Armenian, English, French, Macedonian,
Russian, Spanish
Doc. 22. General hygienic design criteria
for the safe processing of dry particulate
materials
First edition, March 2001 (23 pages) –
update in progress since 2012
Dry food processing and handling requires equipment that
are different from those typically associated with wet and
liquid products. This is the first in a series of documents
that go beyond equipment design and covers installation
and associated practices. In the case of dry materials, other
considerations include material lump formation, creation of
dust explosion conditions, high moisture deposit, formation
in the presence of hot air, and material remaining in the
equipment after shutdown. Appropriate cleaning procedures
are described, dry cleaning being favoured to reduce risks
of contamination.
Languages available:
Dutch, English, French, Macedonian, Russian,
Spanish

158 EHEDG Guidelines
Doc. 23. Production and use of food-grade
lubricants, Part 1 and 2
Second edition, May 2009 (Part 1: Use of H1
Registered Lubricants - 23 Pages / Part 2: Production
of H1 Registered Lubricants - 10 Pages)
Lubricants, grease and oil are necessary components
for the lubrication, heat transfer, power transmission
and corrosion protection of machinery, machine parts,
instruments and equipment. Incidental contact between
lubricants and food cannot always be fully excluded and
may result in contamination of the food product. This risk
applies to all lubricants equally. PART 1 of this guideline
covers the hazards that may occur when using food grade
lubricants and describes the actions and activities required
to eliminate them or to reduce their impact or occurrence
to an acceptable level. PART 2 of this guideline lays
down the general requirements and recommendations
for the hygienic manufacturing and supply of food-safe
lubricants.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: Dutch, English, French,
German, Japanese, Macedonian, Spanish
Doc. 24. The prevention and control of
legionella spp (incl. legionnaires’ disease)
in food factories
First edition, August 2002 (21 pages)
There are many locations in food industry sites where the
potential for the proliferation of Legionella spp in water
systems exists. These bacteria can give rise to a potentially
fatal disease in humans, which is identified as legionellosis
or legionnaires’ disease.
This document applies to the control of Legionella spp. in
any undertaking involving a work activity and to premises
controlled in connection with a trade, business or other
undertaking where water is used or stored and where there
is a means of transmitting water droplets which may be
inhaled, thereby causing a reasonably foreseeable risk of
exposure to Legionella spp.
The guidelines summarises the best practice for controlling
Legionella in water systems. It consists of two parts; namely,
Management Practices and Guidance on the Control of
Legionella spp. in Water Systems.
The first section describes a management programme:
risk identification and assessment; risk management (incl
personnel responsibilities); preventing or controlling risk of
exposure to the bacteria; and record keeping.
The second part provides guidance on the design and
construction of hot and cold water systems as well as the
management and monitoring of these systems. Water
treatment programmes, with attention to cleaning and
disinfection, are also discussed.
Languages available:
Dutch, English, Macedonian
Doc. 25. Design of mechanical seals for
hygienic and aseptic applications
First edition, August 2002 (15 pages) –
update in progress since 2012
This guideline compares the design aspects of different
mechanical seals with respect to ease of cleaning, microbial
impermeability, sterilisability or pasteurisability. It can
serve as a guide for suppliers and users of this important
component. Using EHEDG definitions, mechanical seals
are classified according to use in the food industry into
three categories: Aseptic, Hygienic equipment Class I,
and Hygienic Equipment Class II. Both single and dual
mechanical seals fall under the first two categories, which by
definition, are subject to more stringent hygienic demands.
General design criteria and basic material requirements for
food applications are explained. Materials covered include
carbon-graphite, ceramics, elastomers and metals. Hygienic
implications of seal elements and components are also
discussed. Finally, installation requirements are described
and illustrated, taking into account the product environment
side, the flushing side and the cartridge design.
Languages available:
Armenian, English, German
Doc. 26. Hygienic engineering of plants for
the processing of dry particulate materials
First edition, November 2003 (30 pages)
This document describes general engineering guidelines
to be applied to ensure that buildings, individual equipment
items and accessibility of equipment when integrated within
the plant layout are designed so that aspects of the process
operation, cleaning and maintenance comply with hygienic
design standards. It details requirements related to plant
enclosure, including hygienic zoning, building structures
and ele¬ments (from floor to ceiling) as well as process line
installation. Attention is also given to air stream and water
related aspects within the plant as well as cleaning and
contamination aspects. See also Doc. 22.
Languages available:
Dutch, English, French, Macedonian, Spanish
Doc. 27. Safe storage and distribution of
water in food factories
First edition, April 2004 (16 pages)
Water is a vital medium used for many different purposes in
the food industry. Systems for storing and distributing water
can involve hazards, which could cause water quality to fall
below acceptable standards. It is therefore critical to ensure
that water storage and distribution in a food manufacturing
operation takes place in a controlled, safe way. This Guideline
summarizes the best practice for three water categories
used in the food industry: product water, domestic water and
utility water. See also Doc. 24.
Languages available:
Armenian, Dutch, English, French, Macedonian,
Spanish

EHEDG Guidelines 159
Doc. 28. Safe and Hygienic Water Treatment
in Food Factories
First edition, December 2004 (21 pages)
Water is a vital medium used for many different purposes
in the food industry. Systems for storing and distributing
water can involve hazards, which could cause water quality
to fall below acceptable standards. It is therefore critical
to ensure that water storage and distribution in a food
manufacturing operation takes place in a controlled, safe
way. This Guideline summarizes the best practice for three
water categories used in the food industry: product water,
domestic water and utility water. See also Doc. 24.
Languages available:
Armenian, English, French, Spanish
Doc. 29. Hygienic design of packing systems
for solid foodstuffs
First edition, December 2004 (24 pages)
This document addresses packing systems of solid food
products and supplements earlier guidelines. Solid food
is characterised as having a water activity of >0.97, low
acid, not pasteurised or sterilised after packaging, and
distributed through the cool chain. Examples include fresh
meat and some meat products, cheeses, ready meals, cut
vegetables, etc. Hygiene requirements of the packaging
operations, machinery as well as personnel, are described
and reference is made to the American Meat Institute’s
principles of sanitary design. See also Docs. 3 and 11.
Languages available:
Armenian, Dutch, English, Macedonian
Doc. 30. Guidelines on air handling
in the food industry
First edition, March 2005 (43 pages) –
update in progress since 2012
The controlled properties of air, especially temperature and
humidity, may be used to prevent or reduce the growth rate
of some micro-organisms in manufacturing and storage
areas. The particle content - dust and micro-organisms -
can also be controlled to limit the risk of product
contamination and hence contribute to safe food
manufacture. Airborne contaminants are commonly
removed by filtration. The extent and rate of their removal
can be adjusted according to acceptable risks of product
contamination and also in response to any need for dust
control.
These guidelines are intended to assist food producers
in the design, selection, installation, and operation of air
handling systems. Information is provided on the role of
air systems in maintaining and achieving microbiological
standards in food products. The guidelines cover the
choice of systems, filtration types, system concepts,
construction, maintenance, sanitation, testing,
commissioning, validation and system monitoring. They
are not intended to be a specification for construction of
any item of equipment installed as part of an air handling
system. Each installation needs to take account of local
requirements and specialist air quality engineers should
be consulted, to assist in the design and operation of the
equipment.
Languages available:
Armenian, English, Macedonian
Doc. 31. Hygienic engineering of fluid bed
and spray dryer plants
First edition, May 2005 (19 pages)
Because these plants handle moist products in an airborne
state, they are susceptible to hygiene risks, including
a possible transfer of allergens between products. It is
therefore critical to apply hygienic design considerations to
both the process and machinery to prevent occurrence of
such risks.
Starting from the basics with regard to design, construction
materials, layout, and zone classification of the drying
systems to meet hygienic requirements, this paper outlines
component design aspects of the processing chamber, with
particular attention to the atomization assembly and the
distribution grids for fluidization. Systems for both supply
and exhaust air should operate in a hygienic manner and
recommendations for the use and installation of various
types of filters are listed. Finally, operational aspects,
including sampling, control and general housekeeping are
briefly discussed.
Languages available:
Dutch, English, Spanish
Doc. 32. Materials of construction for
equipment in contact with food
First edition, August 2005 (48 pages) –
update in progress since 2012
This guideline aims to offer a practical ‘handbook’ for those
responsible for the specification, design and manufacture of
food processing equipment. It offers guidance on the ways in
which materials may behave such that they can be selected
and used as effectively as possible. The properties and
selection procedures with regard to metals, elastomers and
plastics are covered in detail. Potential failure mechanisms
and influenced of manufacturing processes are also
discussed. A more general overview of composites, ceramics
and glass and materials is provided.
The guideline can serve as an aide-memoir during the design
process, so that equipment manufacturers and end-users
can together ensure that all aspects of materials behaviour
are taken into account in designing safe, hygienic, reliable
and efficient equipment which can be operated, maintained
and managed economically.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: Armenian, English, French,
Italian, Macedonian

160 EHEDG Guidelines
Doc. 33. Hygienic engineering of
discharging systems for dry particulate
materials
First edition, September 2005 (16 pages)
The introduction of the product into the processing system
is a key step in maintaining the sanitation and integrity of
the entire process. Discharging systems are designed to
transfer, in this case dry solids, from one system into another
without powder spillage, contamination or environmental
pollution. Many dry systems do not have any additional
protective heating steps, as they are merely specialty
blending processes. Therefore, any contamination that
enters the system will appear in the finished product.
Guidelines for the design of bag, big bag, container and
truck discharging systems are presented. They are intended
for use by persons involved in the design, sizing, and
installation of bag, big bag and truck discharging systems
operating under hygienic conditions.
Languages available:
Dutch, English, Spanish
Doc. 34. Integration of hygienic and
aseptic systems
First edition, March 2006 (45 pages)
Hygienic and/or aseptic systems comprise inter alia
individual components, machinery, measurement systems,
management systems and automation that are used to
produce for example food products, medicines, cosmetics,
home & personal products and even water products.
This horizontal guideline is about the hygienically safe
integration of hygienic (including aseptic) systems in a food
production/ processing facility.
Systems and components are frequently put together in a
way that creates new hazards, especially microbiological
ones. Deficiencies during the sequence of design,
contract, design-change, fabrication, installation and
commissioning are often the cause of these failures,
even when specific design guidelines are available and
are thought to be well understood. Errors in sequencing
and content can also result in major penalties in terms
of delays and in costs of components and construction.
This document examines integration aspects that can
affect hygienic design, installation, operation, automation,
cleaning and maintenance and uses system flow charts
and case studies describing the integration processes and
decision steps. It does not provide detailed guidance on
specific manufacturing processes, products, buildings or
equipment.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: Armenian, English, Italian,
Macedonian
Doc. 35 Welding of stainless steel tubing
in the food industry
First edition, July 2006 (29 pages) - update in progress
since 2010 in conjunction with Doc. 9
Abundantly illustrated, this paper provides guidelines for
the correct execution of on-axis hygienic (sanitary) welding
between pipe segments, or between a tube and a control
component (e.g. valve, flow meter, instrument tee, etc.) It
deals with tube and pipe systems with less than 3.5 mm wall
thickness, built in AISI 304(L) (1.4301, 1.4306 or 1.4307),
316(L) (1.4401, 1.4404 or 1.4435), 316Ti (1.4571) or 904L
(1.4539) and their equivalents. The requirements for a
weld destined for hygienic uses are first described, then
the possible defects which can affect the weld are listed,
and at the end the procedure for a state-of-the-art welding
execution is illustrated, including preparation of pipe ends,
final inspection and a trouble shooting guide.
It mainly refers to the part of the weld in contact with the
finished or intermediate product and the only welding method
considered is the GTAW (Gas Tungsten Arc Welding,
commonly known as TIG) without filler material (autogenous
weld), since this technique is capable of assuring the best
performance in the execution of welds for the fabrication of
thin wall stainless steel tubing. Inspection of welds will be
covered in more detail in the next project.
Training DVD available.
Languages available: Dutch, English, French,
German, Macedonian, Spanish
Doc. 36. Hygienic engineering of transfer
systems for dry particulate materials
First edition, June 2007 (21 pages)
Transfer (also known as transport or conveying) of dry
particulate materials (products) between or within plant
components in a process line is well practiced in the food
industry. The transfer operation must be carried out in
a hygienic and safe manner and the physical powder
properties must not be affected during this operation. In this
document, hygienic transfer systems for transport of bulk
materials within a food processing plant are described. This
document also covers situations where transfer systems are
used as a dosing procedure.
In principle, the less the need for product transfer within
a food processing plant, the easier it is to make a factory
hygienically safe. Furthermore, with a minimum of product
transfer between equipment, there are the added advantages
of a more compact plant, lower energy consumption and
reduced cleaning time. Less product handling results in less
adverse effects on product properties.
This guideline is intended for use by persons involved in
the design, technical specification, installation and use of
transfer systems for dry bulk particulate materials operating
under hygienic conditions.
Languages available:
Dutch, English, French, Macedonian

EHEDG Guidelines 161
Doc. 37. Hygienic design and application
of sensors
First edition, November 2007 (35 pages)
According to their working principles, all sensors rely on an
interaction with the material to be processed. Therefore, the
use of sensors is commonly associated with hygiene risks.
In many cases, the basic measuring aspect of a sensor and
the optimum hygienic design may conflict.
This guideline is intended to advise both, sensor designers
and manufacturers as well as those in charge of production
machinery, plants and processes about the appropriate
choice of sensors and the most suitable way for application
in dry and wet processes.
Sensors are crucial in the monitoring of the critical process
steps as well as the CCP´s as established by the HACCP
study of the process. Therefore validation and calibration of
sensors in time sequences are essential.
This guideline applies to all sensors coming into contact
with liquids and other products to be processed hygienically.
However, it focuses upon sensors for the most common
process parameters, particularly temperature, pressure,
conductivity, flow, level, pH value, dissolved oxygen
concentration and optical systems like turbidity or colour
measurements.
Languages available:
English, French, German, Macedonian
Doc. 38. Hygienic engineering of rotary
valves in process lines for dry particulate
materials
First edition, September 2007 (13 pages)
Rotary valve selection and operation has a considerable
influence on the hygiene standard of a process line and
thus, the end-product quality of the dry material handled.
Incorrect selection of valve type and size must be regarded
as a serious hygienic risk in the food industry. Hence, only
valves strictly conforming to hygienic design standards
and suited for hygienic operations must be used.
This guideline applies to rotary valves that are in contact
with dry particulate food and/or food related materials
being processed hygienically in designated dry particulate
material processing areas. The objective of this guideline
is to provide guidance on the essential requirements for
hygienic rotary valve design and operation. The guideline
is intended for persons involved in the design, selection,
sizing, installation and maintenance of rotary valves
required to operate under hygienic conditions.
Languages available:
Armenian, English, French, Spanish
Doc. 39. Design principles for
equipment and process areas for
aseptic food manufacturing
First edition, June 2009 (14 pages)
In many areas there is an increasing demand for self stable
products. However, microbial product contamination limits
the shelf life of sensitive products which are not protected by
any preservatives or stabilised by their formulation. Products
which fail this inherent protection have to be sterilised
and in consequence, the equipment must be cleanable
and sterilisable. Micro-organisms which are protected by
product residues or biofilms are very difficult or impossible
to inactivate and the same applies to process areas if
resulting in a recontamination risk. This guideline is intended
to describe the basic demands for equipment and process
areas for aseptic food manufacturing.
Languages available:
English, French, Spanish
Doc. 40. Hygienic engineering of valves
in process lines for dry particulate materials
First edition, October 2010 (26 pages)
Every process plant is equipped with valves. In dry
particulate materials processing, valves fulfil numerous
functions: shut-off and opening of flow lines, direction and
flow control, protection against excessive or insufficient
pressure and against intermixing of incompatible media
at intersection points in the process. The quality of the
valve has a considerable influence on the quality of the
production process and hence, the product itself. Hygienic
deficiencies resulting from poor valve design must be
regarded as a production risk in the food industry which
must ensure that only valves strictly conforming to hygienic
requirements are used. This Guideline describes in detail
the hygienic requirements of butterfly valves, slide gate
valves and ball segment valves. It also briefly mentions
pinch-off valves, ball and plug valves as well as cone
valves. The hygienic design requirements of rotary and
diverter valves are subject of separate EHEDG Documents
(Doc. 38 and 41).
Languages available:
English, French, Spanish
Doc. 41. Hygienic engineering of diverter
valves in process lines for dry particulate
materials
First edition, February 2011 (23 pages)
Every process plant is equipped with valves, which fulfil
numerous functions. These include line shut-off, opening,
change-over and control of product flow, while also giving
protection against both excessive or insufficient pressure
and intermixing of incompatible media at intersection points
in the process line.

162 EHEDG Guidelines
When dry particulate material (product) flow has to be
diverted into several directions during processing or product
coming from different lines converges into one line, diverter
valves are applied. In the area of dry product handling, these
valves need a dedicated design.
This Guideline deals with the hygienic aspects of diverter
valve design.
Valve construction, however, has a considerable influence on
the quality of the production process and hence, the product
itself. Hygienic deficiencies resulting from poor valve design
must be regarded as a production risk in the food industry
which must ensure that only valves strictly conforming to
hygienic requirements are used.
Languages available:
English
This guideline covers the hygienic aspects of disc stack
centrifuges used to separate fractions of liquid food products
or to remove dense solid matter from products. The hygienic
operation of a disc stack centrifuge, which is a complex
machine with the purpose of collecting non-milk-solids
(NMS) or other solid matter from liquid products, relies on
proper cleaning by CIP/COP. Therefore, this guideline deals
with cleaning as well as design.
The guideline does not cover cyclonic types of separators,
decanters, basket centrifuges or other types of devices.
Languages available:
English
Doc. 42. Disc stack centrifuges
First edition, April 2013 (24 pages)
Special demands are made with regard to CIP-capability
of disc stack centrifuges used in the food processing
and pharmaceutical industry. These requirements, their
implementation and related design principles are handled in
detail in this guideline.
Webshop:
http://www.world-of-engineering.eu/EHEDG:::390.html

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
EHEDG Congresses
Share our know-how and enhance your hygienic design network!
The EHEDG World Congress on Hygienic Engineering
& Design from 7 – 8 November 2012 in Valencia / Spain
was a gathering of more than 260 delegates from 24
countries world-wide who are decision makers, food
safety and quality specialists, engineers and designers
as well as other high level representatives of food-related
industries and academia. During 25 lectures various
topics were discussed including the role that EHEDG
plays to help ensuring food safety, e. g. the principles
and latest developments in hygienic equipment and
factory design, the layout of a hygienic process
environment and the adequate use of construction
materials, advanced welding technology, EHEDG test
methods and certification as well as new trends in
cleaning and disinfection.
Sponsoring companies found excellent opportunities
for presenting themselves at the congress venue of the
Chamber of Commerce Valencia and the programme
was enriched by scientific poster presentations, One to
One business meetings, face-to-face expert talks and
many opportunities for experience exchange.
The next opportunity for sharing in this high-level expert platform will be the
EHEDG World Congress
on Hygienic Engineering & Design
from 30-31 October 2014 in Parma/Italy
in conjunction with Cibus Tec.
We kindly invite you to participate and details are available from www.ehedg-congress.org.

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
EHEDG Subgroups
Within the EHEDG a number of international experts gathered in Subgroups are responsible for
the development of Guidelines. Each Subgroup is responsible for an area of expertise, and within
each area certain specific scopes are defined.
The EHEDG Subgroup specialists meet regularly to update
existing and draw up new Guidelines. They originate from
many different countries ensuring the international validity of
the work. Participants with the relevant expertise are always
welcome to join these Subgroups and share in the work and
contribute their expertise and point of view.
EHEDG is grateful for the participation of these volunteers
who share their expertise and invest their time for the
advancement of EHEDG – for the good of all. Without these
excellent specialists the good work of EHEDG would not be
possible as it is.
New guidelines still in the process of being
drawn up are
• Building design
• Cleaning validation
• Conveyor systems
• Hygienic design requirements for the processing of
fresh fish
• Meat processing between slaughtering and packaging
• Seals
• Test methods /Test institutes
• Dry Materials Handling
• Bakery Equipment
• Tank cleaning systems
Currently under revision:
• Hygienic design of equipment for open processing
(Doc. 13)
• Hygienic design of valves for food processing (Doc. 14
and 20)
• Design of mechanical seals for hygienic and aseptic
applications (Doc 25)
• Chemical treatment of stainless steel (to substitute
Doc 18: Passivation of stainless steel)
• Materials of construction for equipment in contact with
food (Doc 32)
• Hygienic welding of stainless steel tubing in the food
processing industry (Doc 9 and 35)
• Guidelines on air handling in the food industry
(Doc 30)
The following guideline topics are currently
being planned:
• CIP / Hygienic brushes
• Food refrigeration
• Pasteurization of liquid food”, Doc. 6 “The
microbiologically safe continuous flow thermal
sterilisation of liquid foods”, Doc. 12 “The continuous
or semi-continuous flow thermal treatment of
particulate foods”
• Update of EHEDG Guidelines on “Packaging”
(Doc. 3, 11, 21, 29)
• Update of EHEDG Guidelines on “Water treatment”
(Doc. 27 and 28)
EHEDG Subgroup “Air handling”
Dr. Thomas Caesar, e-mail: Thomas.Caesar@Freudenberg-Filter.com
The Subgroup Air Handling is currently editing and revising
the Guideline
• Doc 30 Guidelines on Air Handling in the Food Industry
to bring it up to date. The last issue dates back to 2005 and
is in need of revision.
A wide range of food products must be protected against
airborne contamination during the manufacture and primary
packing stages. Subject to a product risk assessment air
hygiene and quality control is one of a number of factors
necessary that promote good manufacturing practice to
ensure that safe, wholesome food is produced. These
Guidelines are intended to assist food producers in the

EHEDG Subgroups 165
design, selection, installation, and operation of air handling
systems with regard to hygienic requirements. Information
is provided on the role of air systems in maintaining and
achieving microbiological standards in food products. The
guidelines cover the choice of systems, filtration types,
system concepts, construction, maintenance, sanitation,
testing, commissioning, validation and system monitoring.
Compared to the previous version, the scope in the ongoing
revision, has been narrowed and focused on air handling
systems used for building ventilation and to make up
atmospheric pressure process supply air. Supply systems for
pressurized air and exhaust air systems such as grease filter
systems or dust removal units are excluded from the scope
of the document. These systems are significantly different
from the air handling systems dealt with in this document
and require their own Guidelines.
Chairman:
Dr. Thomas Caesar
Freudenberg Filtration Technologies SE & Co. KG
69465 Weinheim
Germany
Phone: +49 (6201) 80-2596
Fax: +49 (6201) 88-2596
E-mail: thomas.caesar@freudenberg-filter.com
EHEDG Subgroup “Hygienic Building Design”
Dr. John Holah, e-mail: j.holah@campden.co.uk
With its inaugural meeting on 4th October 2011, the Building
Design Subgroup is tasked with providing guidelines on
all aspects of construction detail relating to the hygienic
design of food factories – a significant challenge given
the complexity and diversity of operations in a global field.
Some 18 participants attended the first meeting – a healthy
cross section of producers, consultants, contractors and
building product manufacturers ensured productive debate.
Whilst comprehensive design guidelines exist at an
individual food manufacturer or organisation level there are
no public documents. This situation may give rise to different
specifications from food producers with the potential to
cause conflict for building suppliers in their ability to meet
all requirements. It was accepted that a common reference
would be extremely valuable to the industry.
A focus was decided on food processing operations with
the remit covering detailed hygienic design in wet and dry
factories. Furthermore the guidance should acknowledge
EU legislation and the Global Food Safety Initiative. It was
envisaged that the document would consist of text but be
rich in illustrations, ideally showing both ‘good’ and ‘bad’
examples.
Given the complex nature of building design and construction
the group decided to define what should be included in terms
of hygienic requirements. Agreement was made on the
following aspects:
• Defence against external hazards
• Defence against internal hazards –
• Internal flows to prevent cross-contamination
• Security against deliberate contamination
• Maintaining hygienic conditions via structure rigidity
• Maintaining hygienic conditions via material
durability
• Compliance with customer/GFSI best practice
A separate working group was set up for floors, drains,
kerbs and doors – coordinated by Martin Fairley of ACO.
Work groups like this present a fantastic opportunity to
pull together experience and expertise from a variety
of perspectives to the benefit of the industry as a
whole; however there can clearly be cases for conflict
between competing technologies or between competing

166 EHEDG Subgroups
manufacturers within the same technology field. A number
of mechanisms have allowed successful conclusion to the
work groups’ tasks, including:
• The breadth of the groups experiences - the flooring
team consisted of manufacturers, academics, and a
national agency, the drainage team had more than one
representative from each company.
• Where competition is direct, then work toward common
agreement before wider group presentation.
• The interrelationships between building components –
for example floors and drains.
• Intermediate stage presentation of intended structure
of the proposal at the central Building Design Group
meetings.
Taking part in the extra meeting the flooring group had
representation from ANSES - Brigitte Carpentier; Argelith
– Volker Aufderhaar; BASF Ucrete – Phillip Ansell; with
further input from Prof Vladimir Kakurinov. Key themes
of the flooring group included a hygienic floors checklist;
challenges in flooring; gradients; joints, materials; installation
and waterproofing.
The Drainage group from ACO – Martin Fairley, Vaclav
Kralicek and Jiri Lonicek; and Blucher Metal A/S – Martin
Frølund and Palle Madsbjerg. Key themes from the drainage
group included flow and capacity, layout, application areas
and examples, materials, installation considerations and
floor interface details, maintenance and cleaning. Input from
the door industry was supplied solely by manufacturer coolit
– Kristian Kissing. Many others have made contribution to
these teams as they progressed.
As might be expected such an extensive overall work
programme from the Building Design Group has potential
to raise issues worthy of debate; one such issue related to
the definition of segregation and zoning – critical elements
of overall hygienic design principles in modern production
facilities. A separate work group comprising of 5 participants
(Kraft Foods, Unilever, Cargill, Heinz and Campden BRI), is
to further the discussion on this central topic. Zone definitions
could include:
• Factory site – between the perimeter fence and the
building envelope
• Non food production area, e.g. locker rooms, canteens/
restaurants, smoking areas, boiler rooms, workshops,
machinery rooms, laboratories, offices, meeting rooms,
living accommodation
• Enclosed product areas, e.g. warehouses, despatch
areas, cleaning stores
• Raw material processing zone, e.g. slaughter house,
vegetable washing, waste disposal
• General processing zone, e.g. ingredients suitable for
further processing, exposed packaging and processed
products often termed Low risk, Low care or GMP
areas
• Controlled zones for decontaminated products,
microbiologically driven and often termed High Care
or High Risk areas for chilled RTE products or the
Primary Salmonella Control Area for dry RTE products
• Controlled equipment, e.g. clean to aseptic handling
and filling
It is anticipated that the Group will have its draft proposals
in place by the end of 2012 or the beginning of 2013. If it is
met then a substantial piece of work has been produced in a
relatively short timescale of just a little over a year – a great
achievement.
Chairman:
Dr. John Holah
Campden BRI
Food Hygiene Department
Chipping Campden
GLOUCHESTERSHIRE GL55 6LD
GREAT BRITAIN
e-mail: j.holah@campden.co.uk
phone: (+44 1386) 84 20 41
EHEDG Subgroup
“Chemical Treatment of Stainless Steel”
Dr. Gerhard Hauser, e-mail: gerhardwrhauser@yahoo.de
The task of the group was to review EHEDG Doc.18
“Passivation of Stainless Steel” published in 1998 which
gives essential recommendations to one of the most
important properties of stainless steels for product contact
surfaces in the food and beverage industry.
Food equipment manufacturers and users choose stainless
steels as the predominant material of construction because
of their excellent mechanical properties combined with a
high level of corrosion resistance and cleanability. The latter
two attributes are the primary determinants of the material’s
hygienic behaviour. They rely upon the ‘passive surface
layer’, a chromium-rich oxide film which naturally forms on
all stainless steels. This layer is adequately protective for the
vast majority of food and beverage applications.

EHEDG Subgroups 167
Given a clean surface and sufficient oxygen from the air
or from water, stainless steels will naturally and rapidly
establish a tenacious passive layer on all exposed surfaces.
If the passive layer is physically damaged during or after
the fabrication of the equipment, it must be afforded the
opportunity to repair itself, which it will do rapidly as soon as
the surface is clean and exposed to oxygen again.
Nevertheless, for particularly demanding applications,
the strength of the passive layer can be improved by a
treatment known as chemical passivation. For highly-critical
applications, the hygienic quality of the surface can be even
further enhanced by electro-polishing. However, the need for
the enhancement of the passive layer should be regarded as
the exception rather than the rule.
The heat of welding can destroy the passive layer local to
the weld and leave a distinctive, coloured ‘heat-tint’ which
will exhibit reduced resistance to corrosion. In this case
welding must be followed by a pickling procedure specifically
designed to remove heat-tint and allow the passive layer to
reform naturally.
Pickling, chemical passivation and electro-polishing should
be seen as separate treatments and not as alternatives. Each
treatment should only be carried out with care. It also must
be remembered that the chemical used for those treatments
in an integrated system may adversely affect elastomeric,
plastic and glass materials. It is therefore important to apply
to assembled equipment only surface treatments which are
appropriate to all the materials with which they might come
into contact.
Because of the described different influences to ensure
and improve the hygienic performance of the product
contact surface, the group decided to integrate pickling,
and electro-polishing in addition to passivation into the new
draft “Chemical Treatment of Stainless Steel”. It was finished
during the last meeting in August 2012 and has been
submitted to the EHEDG Guideline approval procedure.
Chairman:
Dr. Gerhard Hauser
Goethestr 43
85386 Eching
E-mail: gerhardwrhauser@yahoo.de
Fax (+49 81 61) 71 42 42
EHEDG Subgroup “Cleaning Validation”
Dr. Rudolf Schmitt, rudolf.schmitt@hevs.ch
In June 2011 the Subgroup “Cleaning Validation” became
active. More than 30 participating experts in this group
are ample proof for the strong interest in this particular
subject.
The purpose of this Subgroup is to prepare a new EHEDG
guideline on the basics and principles of “Cleaning
Validation” in the food sector. An inadequate cleaning
process may result in residue being carried forward.
This residue may then contaminate the next batch to be
manufactured in the same equipment.
The most significant contaminants in the food sector
are product from the previous batch, microorganisms,
allergens, cleaning agents and lubricants.
Cleaning validation is necessary to prove the consistency
and effectiveness of established procedures that have
been found acceptable. This document shall describe
how design principles and the qualification of equipment
are employed in a validation scheme that gives
documentary evidence of the effectiveness of the cleaning
procedure.
The guideline shall cover validation in the food sector in
a general way and can be applied for different purposes.
However, the development of further specific guidelines
for particular applications i.e. the validation of CIP, the
validation of manual cleaning, the validation of dry
cleaning, and the validation of disinfection, is strongly
recommended.
Chairman:
Dr. Rudolf Schmitt
HES-SO Valais
Institute of Life Technologies
Rue du Rawyl 64
1950 Sion
Switzerland
Phone +41 27 6068611
Fax +41 27 606 86 15
E-mail rudolf.schmitt@hevs.ch

168 EHEDG Subgroups
EHEDG Subgroup “Conveyor Systems”
Jon J. Kold, e-mail: jk_innovation@yahoo.com
In January 2011 the EHEDG Subgroup “Conveyor Systems”
became active.
The group has collected a huge amount of material and is in
the process of editing the content.
The purpose of the Subgroup is to prepare a new EHEDG
Guideline on the hygienic design of conveyor systems to be
used in food manufacturing or processing. The Subgroup
consists of approximately 15 professionals from companies
and institutions. This underlines the industry’s broad interest
in the subject.
Conveyor systems are widely used in food manufacturing
for moving raw materials, processed food and packaged
products. The upcoming guideline is primarily aimed at
conveyors used in high risk areas, i.e. the processing of
non-packaged foods in direct contact with the conveyor or
transported in open boxes.
There are several reasons to reduce the hygiene risk by
applying hygienic design to conveyor systems.
The guideline may be used as a communication tool
between purchasing companies and suppliers making sure
that new conveyors comply with hygienic requirements
specification.
The Subgroup “Conveyor Systems” is chaired by EHEDG
Denmark who have previously elaborated a guideline for
hygienic deign of conveyers for the food industry.
Hygienic design of conveyor systems
The hygienic design of conveyor systems is complex and
demanding. Many solutions with regard to function, design,
cleanability and service of the equipment must be considered
thoroughly.
The equipment should be as open as possible for easy
accessibility and cleaning. The number of guards should
be minimised to what is necessary for reasons of safety
and should not prevent efficient cleaning. Guards should
be removable during cleaning/disinfection, either through
opening or by unhinging.
Topics which are being dealt with during the working period:
• Different types of belts
• Lateral guides for belts
• Lateral guides for product
• Drive stations
• Drum motors
• Gear motors
• CIP cleaning systems
Time schedule
The new guideline is intended to be finalized within the next
12 – 18 months.
If you are interested in joining this Subgroup please contact
the chairman, Mr. Jon J. Kold, jon.kold@staalcentrum.dk, or
the EHEDG Secretariat jana.huth@ehedg.org.
Chairman
Jon Kold
Fredensvang 38
7600 STRUER
DENMARK
Phone:(+45 40) 57 13 46
E-mail: jk_innovation@yahoo.com
EHEDG Subgroup “Dry Materials Handling”
Karel Mager, e-mail: karel.mager@givaudan.com
When the EHEDG started in 1989 most of the available
knowledge on hygienic design was about liquid handling and
liquid processing equipment.
In the following years a couple of documents about test
methods and design principles concerning this topic were
published.
In the area of dry particulate materials (powders) there was a
need for similar documents: design principles and guidance
for hygienic engineering for the safe processing of dry
particulate materials.
The subgroup started in 1998 and since then has published
eight documents.
Published guidelines
• Doc. 22 General hygienic design criteria for the safe
processing of dry particulate materials (2001)

EHEDG Subgroups 169
• Doc. 26 Hygienic engineering of plants for the
processing of dry particulate materials (2003)
• Doc. 31 Hygienic engineering of fluid bed and spray
dryer plants (2005)
• Doc. 33 Hygienic engineering of discharging systems
for dry particulate materials (2005)
• Doc. 36 Hygienic engineering of transfer systems for
dry particulate materials (2007)
• Doc. 38 Hygienic engineering of rotary valves in
process lines for dry particulate materials (2008)
• Doc. 40 Hygienic engineering of valves in process lines
for dry particulate materials (2010)
• Doc. 41 Hygienic Engineering of Diverter Valves in the
Dry Materials Handling Area (2011)
Currently the subgroup is working on a document one
powder pack-off systems.
Furthermore, members of the subgroup have been active in
the organization of conferences, seminars and workshops.
Participants have also contributed by giving several lectures
in the area of Dry Materials Handling.
The work of this Subgroup attracts a great deal of interest.
Many requests to join this Subgroup and share the workload
have led to the decision to start a second group which will
deal with other aspects of similar topics. This Subgroup has
yet to get started.
Chairman:
Karel Mager
Givaudan Nederland B.V.
Huizerstraatweg 28
1411 GP Naarden
Netherlands
Phone: +31 35 6 99 21 86
Fax: +31 35 6 94 37 19
E-mail: karel.mager@givaudan.com
EHEDG Subgroup “Fish Processing”
Dr. Sanya Vidacek, e-mail: svidacek@pbf.hr
The future EHEDG document “Hygienic Design
Requirements for the Processing of Fresh Fish” will
describe and illustrate how the design principles of the
EHEDG Guidelines
• Doc. 8 Hygienic Equipment Design Criteria
and
• Doc. 13 Hygienic Design of Equipment for Open
Processing
can be applied to the mechanised and/or automated
processing of fish.
This document will cover the processing of fresh fish
from grading, gutting, de-heading, deboning, pin-boning,
trimming, filleting, skinning and portioning (including
its ice producing system) until packaging. Its scope will
not, however, cover further fish processing including the
smoking, cooking, frying, marinating etc. or the manual
processing of fish.
Specific hygienic risks related to the fish and the processing
conditions will be defined. The document will describe the
specific hygienic requirements of the processing lines and
the processing environment as well as the requirements for
water and ice and hygienic fish packaging. Cleaning and
disinfection practices and environmental issues associated
with fish processing will be discussed.
So far, the Subgroup has identified the risks and is putting
together the requirements for the hygienic processing of
such a sensitive product. The guideline is due to be finished
in the course of 2013.
Chairman:
Dr. Sanya Vidacek
University of Zagreb.
Faculty of Food Technology&Biotechnology
Pierottijeva 6
10000 Zagreb
Croatia
Phone: +385 1 4 60 51 26
Fax: +385 1 4 60 50 72
E-mail: svidacek@pbf.hr

170 EHEDG Subgroups
EHEDG Subgroup “Materials of Construction
for Equipment in Contact with Food”
Eric Partington, e-mail: eric@effex.co.uk
EHEDG Doc. 32 “Materials of Construction for Equipment
in Contact with Food” offers practical guidance about the
ways in which materials may behave such that they can be
selected and used as effectively as possible. The Guideline
is intended to serve as an aide-memoir during the design
process, so that equipment manufacturers and end-users
can together ensure that all aspects of materials behaviour
can be taken into account in designing safe, hygienic, reliable
and efficient equipment which can be operated, maintained
and managed economically.
The Guideline was first published in 2005. Its 54 pages
addressed legislation, materials behaviour, hygienic design
and cleanability. The materials covered included metallics,
elastomers, plastics, composites, ceramics and glasses,
and the characteristic ways in which each group of materials
behaves were discussed. Potential failure mechanisms were
identified, together with the conditions under which there is
the greatest risk of them occurring.
But since that first issue was written, much has changed in
the world of Food Contact Materials including revisions of
the Framework Directive and the Machinery Directive, new
constraints on the selection and application of some nonmetallic
materials, advances in composites, glasses and
anti-microbial materials and the advent of nano-materials. It
is now time for Doc. 32 to be reviewed and updated.
A successful first meeting of the re-formed SG Materials of
Construction was held on 27 June 2012. It established a
base for the revision of Doc 32 ― the structure of the new
Guideline would generally follow the format of the original,
each group of materials (e.g: metallics, plastics, elastomers,
ceramics) being discussed in its own separate section
prepared by a small team of experts in those materials.
The SG Materials of Construction currently comprises
experts in legislation, metals, cleanability and some areas
of plastics and elastomers but would welcome offers of
assistance in the fields of ceramics, glasses, composites,
anti-microbial surface treatments and biocidal materials,
metallic surface coatings and intelligent materials where
they apply to Materials of Construction. If you would like to
participate in the updating of Doc. 32, the secretariat and the
Chairman would be very pleased to hear from you.
Chairman:
Eric Partington
Nickel Institute
Well Croft
Ampney St. Mary
Gloucestershire GL7 5SN
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 1285 610 014
E-mail: eric@effex.co.uk
EHEDG Subgroup
“Hygienic Design of Meat Processing Equipment”
Dr. Aleksandra Martinovic, e-mail: aleksmartinovic@t-com.me
In March 2011, the new EHEDG Subgroup “Hygienic design
of meat processing equipment” again became active after a
long period since the first kick off meeting held in Belgrade
in 2009.
The purpose of the subgroup is to develop a guideline to
specify and illustrate the hygienic design of machinery
and equipment used in the meat processing industry. The
document will provide guidance by highlighting good and
bad design examples as well as by describing installations,
operations and maintenance of such equipment according
to the state-of-the-art achievements in the field. The scope
of the new EHEDG guideline in progress will focus on ‘Meat
processing between slaughtering and packaging’.
The subgroup consists of some 15 professionals from
companies and institutions. This underlines the industry’s
broad interest in the subject.
Poorly designed equipment may increase the risk of
contamination of food products such as meat and meat
products with micro-organisms, and different stages of
processing and manufacturing may demand different levels
of hygienic design. The fundamental principle, however, is
that the design of any piece of equipment must not allow any
increase in the concentration of relevant contaminants.
The guideline will cover the hygienic aspects of equipment
design, engineering unit processes, transportation systems,
production procedures, cleaning and disinfection procedures
and specific environmental requirements.

EHEDG Subgroups 171
It will address different types of equipment in connection
with the various operations during meat processing, such
as: deboning and trimming, freezing, cutting and slicing,
marinating, tumbling, mixing and grinding, forming and
coating as well as other types of handling devices.
Time schedule
The new guideline is intended to be finalized within the next
24–30 months. It is planned to have three meetings per year
to evaluate progress.
New participants from manufacturers of meat
processing equipment and machinery welcome
Additional experts in this field who wish to contribute to the
workare welcome.
If you are interested in joining this Subgroup please contact
the chairman, Dr. Aleksandra Martinovic or the EHEDG
Secretariat.
Chairman:
Dr. Aleksandra Martinovic
University of Montenegro
Biotechnical Faculty
Mihaila Lalica 1
81 000 Podgorica
Montenegro
Phone: +382 69 737 403
E-mail: aleksmartinovic@t-com.me
EHEDG Subgroup “Open Equipment”
Guideline on Essential Hygienic Design Requirements for Equipment used In Open Processes
Dr. Gerhard Hauser, e-mail: gerhardwrhauser@yahoo.de; Dr. Jürgen Hofmann, e-mail: jh@hd-experte.de
The objective is to cover all equipment in food and beverage
processing plants between the ceiling, floor, and walls
which are not intended to be in direct contact with food. In
this context the term equipment comprises all items which
are supposed to have a potential impact on product safety
when integrated into open equipment machinery or open
processes (axillaries items, integration items).
The decision as to whether an item has an adverse influence
or not must be based on a risk assessment. It must decide
what kind of equipment design is essential and how
equipment must be cleaned (CIP, automatically with foam,
or manually) to avoid cross-contamination.
The basic strategy for selecting hygiene measures for the
design shall include:
• identification of the process for which the equipment is
intended;
• identification of hazards associated with the product(s)
produced;
• risk assessment associated with each hazard
identified;
• hygienic design methods/measures which can
eliminate hazards or reduce risks associated with
these hazards;
• means of verification of the effectiveness of the hazard
elimination - or the risk reduction method;
• description of residual risks and any additional
precautions necessary in the information for use
where applicable.
The subgroup is divided into 3 working groups to achieve
more effectiveness.
• The topics of Group 1 contain the design of (e.g.)
cables and their connections, field busses, wiring,
cable trays, sensor installation, HMI, signal devices,
lamps and pneumatics.
• Group 2 deals mainly with motors and gear boxes,
pumps, process connections, covers, and thermal
insulation.
• Group 3 is involved in (e.g.) climate units, control
boxes, enclosures and mountings, movable equipment
with wheels, steel structures, frameworks and
supporting feet.
At the last Subgourp meeting (January 2012) the input of
the groups has been discussed and partly integrated into
the final draft.
Chairmen:
Dr.-Ing. Gerhard Hauser
Goethestr. 43
85386 Eching
gerhardwrhauser@yahoo.de
Dr. Jürgen Hofmann
Fichtenweg 8 a
85604 Zorneding
(+49 8161) 8 76 87 99
jh@hd-experte.de

172 EHEDG Subgroups
EHEDG Subgroup
“Pumps, Homogenisers and Dampening Devices”
Ralf Stahlkopf, e-mail:ralf.stahlkopf@gea.com
For the last four years the Subgroup has worked on the 3rd
revised edition of the EHEDG Guideline and will be finished
in spring 2013.
• Doc. 17 “Hygienic Design of Pumps, Homogenisers
and Dampening Devices”
The revised edition is scheduled to be published in 2012.
The objective of this Guideline is to provide a set of minimum
requirements for pumps, homogenisers and dampening
devices for hygienic and aseptic applications, to ensure that
food products are processed hygienically and safely.
These requirements will apply to all pumps intended for
use in food processing, including centrifugal pumps, piston
pumps, lobe rotor pumps, peristaltic pumps, diaphragm
pumps, water ring pumps, progressive cavity pumps, screw
pumps, and gear pumps and also to homogenisers and
dampening devices. It will include any valves integral with
the pump head and the complete homogeniser head.
A classification of the pumps discussed is provided together
with illustrations and pictures to explain graphically the
issues, problems (such as gabs and dead-ends) and their
solutions.
Chairman:
Ralf Stahlkopf
GEA Tuchenhagen GmbH
Am Industriepark 2-10
21514 Büchen
Germany
Phone +49 4155 49 25 78
Fax +49 4155 48 27 76
E-mail: ralf.stahlkopf@geagroup.com
EHEDG Subgroup “Seals”
Dr. Till Riehm, e-mail: till.riehm@fst.com
The Guideline “Seals” covers all aspects of seals and
seal design relevant to the construction of hygienic
equipment for food processing and packaging. It details
both the European and international regulations currently
applicable to elastomeric seals used in the food and
beverage industry. It then discusses the general design
principles which have to be taken into consideration when
designing a sealing point and it includes a practical guide
on failure analysis.
In conjunction with the Sub-Group “Materials of
Construction” (Doc. 32) it was decided that “Materials of
Construction” should describe the properties of elastomers,
leaving the Guideline Seals to recommend basic seal
design principles and to discuss which parameters have to
be taken into consideration according to the surrounding
conditions.
The Guideline “Seals” therefore identifies both the relevant
legislation and the most critical design parameters and then
gives hands-on advice for the construction and design of
such components.
Chairman:
Dr. Till Riehm
Freudenberg Process Seals GmbH & Co. KG
Lorscher Str. 13
69469 Weinheim
Germany
Phone: +49 6201 80 89 19 00
Fax: +49 6201 88 89 19 69
E-mail: till.riehm@freudenberg-ds.com

EHEDG Subgroups 173
EHEDG Subgroup “Separators”
Reinhard Moss, e-mail: reinhard.moss@gea.com
The Subgroup Separators is working on a new EHEDG
document dealing with the hygienic aspects of disc stack
centrifuges. These machines are used to separate fractions
with different densities of liquid food products or to remove
dense solid matter from products. Doc. 42 “Disc Stack
Centrifuges” will be finished in spring 2013.
Many of the design principles applicable to this kind of
equipment are already shown in the EHEDG Guidelines
Doc. 8 Hygienic equipment design criteria; Doc. 9 Welding
stainless steel to meet hygienic requirements; Doc. 10
Hygienic design of closed equipment for the processing of
liquid food; Doc. 16 Hygienic pipe couplings
• Doc. 9 Welding stainless steel to meet hygienic
requirements
• Doc. 10 Hygienic design of closed equipment for the
processing of liquid food
• Doc. 16 Hygienic pipe couplings
• Doc. 17 Hygienic design of pumps, homogenizers and
dampening devices
• Doc. 32 Materials of construction for equipment in
contact with food
• Doc. 35 Welding of stainless steel tubing in the food
Industry
The document was revised several times and descriptions
for the hygienic design of special areas were added. Also
illustrations, drawings and pictures were added to get
the sanitary problem zones across to the users of the
guideline.
The Subgroup has defined specific rules applicable to the
CIP-cleaning capability of separators which are not yet
covered by existing EHEDG documents. Also other special
hygienic design features necessary for this kind of machinery
are also described.
A final draft of the Guideline is currently going through the
EHEDG Guideline approval process.
Chairman:
Reinhard Moß
GEA Mechanical Equipment
GEA Westfalia Separator Group GmbH
Operative Technical Services
Phone: +49 2522 77-2571
Fax: +49 2522 77-32571
Mobile: +49 172 536 8803
E-mail: reinhard.moss@gea.com
EHEDG Subgroup “Tank Cleaning”
Design of tanks for cleanability and using cleaning devices
Bo Boye Busk Jensen, e-mail: bobb.jensen@alfalaval.com
The workgroup started at the beginning of 2012. The
objective of the guideline has been discussed and is currently
described as:
“This guideline is intended to provide recommendations on
cleaning aspects and hygienic design of vessels. It is limited
to product contact surfaces of tanks for liquid processing,
both vertical, horizontal and of any arbitrary shape. Excluded
are the selection of chemistry and temperature for cleaning
specific products.”
The guideline will cover many different aspects related to the
hygienic design of tanks, their appurtenances, the installation
of such in tanks and the cleaning technology chosen for CIP
cleaning. The focus of the guideline is on how the differences
in the choice of tank cleaning technology influence the
hygienic design criteria for appurtenances used in and on
tanks. The available tank cleaning technology and its design
will be presented from the point of view of its functionality in
order to allow users to make the most sensible choice of tank
cleaning equipment for their tank, tank design and product.
The cleaning mechanisms during tank cleaning somewhat
differ from those encountered in a closed pipe system. The
tanks and appurtenances are rarely cleaned by a pressurized
liquid flowing through the tank, but rather by a film or local
high impact cleaning. Also, the category of soil may influence
the best value for money choice when selecting tank cleaning
technology and cleaning strategy.
Finally, validation of tank cleaning is also included as this is
a prerequisite for a satisfactory and consistent cleaning of a
Chairman:
Bo Boye Busk Jensen
Alfa Laval Tank Equipment A/S
Baldershoej 19
2635 ISHOEJ
DENMARK
Phone: (+45 43) 55 86 88
Fax: (+45 43) 55 86 03
E-mail: bobb.jensen@alfalaval.com

174 EHEDG Subgroups
EHEDG Subgroup “Test Methods”
The EHEDG Test Methods Subgroup was one of the first Subgroups established by EHEDG and is
responsible for publishing test methods, defining validation criteria and providing assessments
of equipment according to the hygienic design criteria of EHEDG in conjunction with the EHEDG
Certification Scheme
Andrew Timperley, e-mail: andy.timperley@tesco.net
At the beginning of 2011 the Test Methods Subgroup work
was sub-divided into two divisions under the common
direction of the Authorised EHEDG Test Institutes. One
division has since been concentrating its efforts on the
development of a new test method for evaluating ‘open’
processing equipment. This division met in April 2011 and
defined various work items to develop this method. The
primary task was to construct a ‘reference piece’ in order
to conduct trials on various soiling, cleaning and detection
techniques. Results of these initial trials have shown that
it is very difficult to obtain repeatable results due to the
many variables associated with the uniformity of the
application of soil and controlling the cleaning procedure.
However, work is ongoing in this division to investigate
other techniques.
Member Companies. The website will continue to be
updated with this additional information and provide more
benefits for EHEDG Member companies to showcase their
certified equipment.
The Test Institutes efforts have been concentrated on the
updates of the test methods used to evaluate equipment in
conjunction with the Certification Scheme and these will be
reviewed by the EHEDG Executive Committee for com-ments
before publishing. Additionally, the Certification Scheme has
been expanded to include a new certification class, Type EL-
Class II Aseptic, to enable equipment to be certified for use
in Aseptic applications where CIP cleaning is not practical
and the equipment must be dismantled for cleaning. The flow
chart and testing matrix of the Scheme has been updated on
the EHEDG website and manufacturers are encouraged to
liaise with their local Test Institutes in order to co-ordinate
certification activities.
In September 2011 the Annual Test Institutes meeting was
held at ADRIA Normandie in France to review progress
on becoming an Authorised Test Institute. During the
same Year EHEDG received notification that the Danish
Technological Institute would resign as the Authorised
Institute in Denmark and this role is now being taken up
by the Danish Technical University. These new Institutes
will provide accessibility to manufacturers for testing and
certification of equipment in these regions and the Group
will continue to work with these new Institutes to satisfy the
criteria for authorisation.
In September 2012, all the Test Institute representatives
held their main Annual meeting at TNO in the Netherlands to
review any specific issues associated with repeatability and
reproducibility of the test methods and agree the next ring
trial programme for 2013. During this meeting the updated
test methods were reviewed and the next reproducibility
trial for the assessment of in-place cleanability testing
was initiated. Additionally, a new structure for the website
listing of certified equipment was finalised to include more
information about certified equipment produced by EHEDG
Figure 1. Testing Scheme
As a result of the day to day testing activities of the
Institutes information is collected to provide equipment
manufacturers with guidance on the selection of suitable
pipe couplings and process connections for hygienic
integration of equipment into processing systems. This
list was revised in April 2011 and is available to download
from the free documents section of the Guidelines area on
the website. This list will be updated as new information
becomes available.

EHEDG Subgroups 175
Chairman:
Andy Timperley
Timperley Consulting
GREAT BRITAIN
Phone +44 1789 49 00 81
Fax +44 1789 49 00 81
E-mail andy.timperley@tesco.net
Figure 2. EHEDG Certification Scheme
EHEDG Subgroup “Training and Education”
Knuth Lorenzen, e-mail: knuth.lorenzen@ewetel.net
Background to the subject
To facilitate undertaking worldwide EHEDG training courses
in local languages requires a set of training materials which
can be used by authorised EHEDG trainers to pass our
uniform message of Hygienic Design on to all participants.
Number of participants/meetings in 2012
The Training & Education Subgroup has 21 active
members who come from universities, faculties, institutes,
consultancies and companies such as Unilever, Exaris and
Givaudan. These members offer their expertise and input
to accomplish the production of ready to use presentation
material enabling EHEDG trainers to arrange and execute
training courses worldwide. With the support of the members
of the EHEDG regions this material has been and will
continue to be translated. This makes lecturing in the local
languages of the different member countries possible.
To produce this training material we create and deliver easy
to understand – both good and bad examples of hygienic
design for the different process applications. We share
our knowledge in our daily work and at our four Subgroup
meetings every year.
Proposed presentation material contents
In visual aids and on DVDs the ready to use presentation
material demonstrates the importance of hygienic engineering
and design for improving food process installations and
maintenance in order to comply with all legal requirements
and to achieve safe food.
The training modules cover the following topics:
• Legal requirements
• Hazards in hygienic processing
• Hygiene design criteria

176 EHEDG Subgroups
• Food grade lubricants
• Materials
• Test methods
• Welding
• Cleaning and disinfection
• Packaging machines
• Seals
A questionnaire with 47 questions was developed and is
used for the participants’ final exam.
Timescale to publishing
We are confident to have a full set of training materials ready
in 2013. This will enable us to run the three day Advanced
Course in Hygienic Engineering and Design globally.
At present, we are offering the EHEDG training course in the
following languages and countries:
• English, German, Spanish
• in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the
USA.
Segments of the EHEDG training material are used by our
authorised EHEDG trainers globally at seminars, symposia,
workshops or universities where EHEDG is involved.
Special service
All authorised EHEDG trainers as well as all those
participants who have successfully attended the EHEDG
Advanced Course in Hygienic Engineering and Design are
listed on the EHEDG web page.
Chairman:
Knuth Lorenzen
EHEDG President
Flurstr. 37
21445 Wulfsen
Germany
E-mail: knuth.lorenzen@ewetel.net
Phone: (+49 4173) 8364
EHEDG Subgroup “Valves”
Ulf Thießen, e-mail: ulf.thiessen@gea.com
Since the formation of the Subgroup in September 2009,
the Subgroup saw some member fluctuation but meanwhile
a consolidation has been achieved. The group has 14
regular members with an average of eight participants at the
meetings.
This manageable size led to a rapid progress of work in the
group and by the end of 2011 we succeeded to finalize the
revision of
• DOC 14: Requirements for valves in hygienic and
aseptic processes (4th edition, 2011)
The Guideline is currently being subedited for use of correct
English and will afterwards be translated into various
languages.
The subsequent task of the Subgroup is now the revision of
• DOC 20: Hygienic design and safe use of double-seat
mixproof valves (July 2000)
This work has already been started in 2012.
Due to the complexity of the topic and the long period
between its first release in 2000 and today, we have to bear
in mind that many changes both in market structure and
technology for hygienic and aseptic valves have to be dealt
with.
This will lead to a complete restructuring of the Document.
Chairman:
Ulf Thießen
GEA Mechanical Equipment
GEA Tuchenhagen GmbH
Am Industriepark 2-10
D-21514 Büchen
Germany
Phone +49 4155 49 2709
Fax +49 4155 49 2423
E-Mail ulf.thiessen@gea.com

EHEDG Subgroups 177
EHEDG Subgroup “Welding”
Peter Merhof, GEA Tuchenhagen GmbH, e-mail: peter.merhof@gea.com
The Subgroup started in May 2012 to develop the concept for
the new EHEDG guideline “Inspection of Hygienic Welds”.
It is very important from both a hygienic and economical
point of view that the demands regarding the quality of
welds will be met in tubing systems used for food processing
industry. This document should help the user to identify the
right control method for an efficient and economical testing
of the welds.
The main target group of this document will be the user/
manufacturer in the foot processing industry. Therefor the
document has to be an easily understandable mixture of text
and photos and graphic illustrations.
The accepted inspection methods still in use will be described
including with their advantages and limitations.
Finally the document will give recommendations with the
focus of documentation and shall supply standard operation
procedures.
Chairman:
Peter Merhof
Welding Supervisor
GEA Tuchenhagen GmbH
GEA Mechanical Equipment
Phone +49 (0) 4155 / 49-22 07,
Fax +49 (0) 4155 / 49-26 95
Mobile +49 (0) 172 / 45 82 563
E-mail: peter.merhof@gea.com
www.gea.com

The easiest way to apply for EHEDG membership is via the EHEDG website www.ehedg.org. You can apply directly online.
European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Company Membership Application
A company membership is open to companies, institutes and organisations. The annual contribution is based on the company’s
turnover in food related business as outlined in the following table. Companies and institutes avail of at least one free individual
membership as well as of the whole series of EHEDG guidelines.
Company Turnover EHEDG contribution Free staff Training Toolbox
member type in EUR p. a. in EUR p. a. members (Prices in EUR)
1 over 500 millions 10,000 4 complimentary
2 50 to 500 millions 5,000 2 complimentary
3 10 to 50 millions 2,500 1 3,000
4 1 to 10 millions 1,000 1 3,000
5 less 1 million 500 1 3,000
Institutes / Universities / Schools / EHEDG contribution Free staff Training Toolbox
Research Centres / Governmental in EUR p. a. members (Prices in EUR)
Authorities 500 up to 4 1,000
My company / institution expresses commitment to become a company member of the EHEDG for the
contribution of: EUR p.a. Our annual company turnover is: EUR p.a.
(Please attach a company letter stating anual turnover p. a.)
All corporate and personal data will be treated confidentially. Fields marked by * to be filled in mandatory.
Company / Institution*
Address*
VAT number if within EC*
Invoice address (if different from above)
Name and position of company representative* (Please also attach business card)
e-Mail*
Phone*
Fax
Other free staff members (full names, only for company member types 1 and 2):
1. 3.
(Please also attach business cards)
2. 4.
We understand that our membership becomes effective upon receipt of our application by the EHEDG Secretariat who will then
issue a membership invoice for the current year. To renew membership, subsequent invoices will be issued each during the first
quarter of the following year, unless a written request for cancellation is sent to the Secretariat by the end of December of the
current year.
Date / Signature
Please return to:
EHEDG Secretariat Phone +49 69 66 03 12 17
Lyoner Straße 18 Fax +49 69 66 03 22 17
60528 Frankfurt am Main E-Mail secretariat@ehedg.org
Germany Web www.ehedg.org

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Individual Membership Application
I would like to become an individual member of EHEDG at an annual membership fee of EUR 100 (excl. VAT).
Working party
Corresponding
Topics of interest:
All corporate and personal data will be treated confidentially. Fields marked by * to be filled in mandatory.
Name / First Name*
Company / Institution*
Address*
e-Mail*
Phone*
Fax
VAT number if within EC*
Invoice address (if different from above)
I understand that my membership becomes effective upon receipt of my application by the EHEDG Secretariat who will then
issue a membership invoice for the current year. To renew membership, subsequent invoices will be issued each during the first
quarter of the following year, unless a written request for cancellation is sent to the Secretariat by the end of December of the
current year.
Date / Signature
Please return to:
EHEDG Secretariat Phone +49 69 66 03 12 17
Lyoner Straße 18 Fax +49 69 66 03 22 17
60528 Frankfurt am Main E-Mail secretariat@ehedg.org
Germany Web www.ehedg.org

European Hygienic Engineering & Design Group
Published by
EHEDG
European Hygienic Engineering
and Design Group
Lyoner Str. 18
60528 Frankfurt
GERMANY
ISBN
978-3-8163-0640-5
Publishing House:
VDMA Verlag GmbH
Lyoner Str. 18
60528 Frankfurt
GERMANY
Printing:
Franz Kuthal GmbH & Co. KG
Johann-Dahlem-Str. 54
63814 Mainaschaff
GERMANY
Executive Editor
Julie Bricher
Quiddity Communications
677 SW Tanglewood Circle
McMinnville 97128
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Copyright
Copyright rests with EHEDG. All rights reserved.
The copyright of the pictures and illustrations within the
articles belongs to the authors, respectively the companies
or institutes they represent unless otherwise stated.
Illustrations:
Cover:
1. Scanjet Systems AB, S- Gothenburg
2. Coperion GmbH, D-Weingarten
3. Elmar Europe GmbH, D-Neuss
4. Ecolab Europe GmbH, CH- Wallisellen
5. GEA Westfalia Separator,D-Oelde
6. seepex GmbH Food and Beverage, D- Bottrop
7. HECHT Technologie GmbH, D-Pfaffenhofen
8. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, FI- Espoo
Contact
EHEDG Secretariat
Lyoner Str. 18
60528 Frankfurt
GERMANY
Phone (+49 69) 66 03-12 17
FAX (+49 69) 66 03-22 17
E-mail: secretariat@ehedg.org
Web: www.ehedg.org
Copy Editor
Juliane Honisch
EHEDG Secretariat
Frankfurt
GERMANY
Editorial Board
Dr. John Holah, Campden BRI, GREAT BRITAIN
Knuth Lorenzen, Wulfsen, GERMANY
Huub Lelieveld, Bilthoven, NETHERLANDS
Dirk Nikoleiski, Kraft Foods R&D Inc. Munich, GERMANY
Eric Partington, Nickel Institute, Cirencester,
GREAT BRITAIN

EHEDG Secretariat
Lyoner Strasse 18
60528 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
Phone +49 69 6603-1217 and -1430
Fax +49 69 6603-2217 and -2430
E-mail secretariat@ehedg.org
Web www.ehedg.org
ISBN 978-3-8163-0640-5