1

CIP Strategies Food safety issues

Biofilm control

Tony Erickson

Principal Chemist

12 June 2013

2

CIP in Biofilm Control

Good cleaning and effective sanitizing are the base of any biofilm control program

Hard to reach biofilms are a substantial issue

Standard chemistry less effective on established biofilm

Microclimates in equipment are varied and widespread

“Non-traditional” biofilms common C&S issue

General observations for discussion

3

CIP in Biofilm Control

Chemical concentration verification

Proper wash time

Mechanical design

Flow rates

Spray balls

Dead legs

Heating capacity etc

Proper use of heat

Critical component – Gasket maintenance

Key elements of a good program

4

Biofilm Issues

Traditional biofilms generally not an issue

Stainless steel pipes and tanks are clean and sanitized

- Confirmed by ATP swabs and micro sampling

Residual soil acts as hybrid biofilm/soil matrix

- Non-traditional biofilms

Nooks and Crannies

Gasketed joints

Valves

Plate heat exchangers

Evaporators

Low flow areas

Biofilms newly generated during long runs

5

Difficult to Reach Biofilms

6

Difficult to Reach Biofilms

Fluorescent dye intrusion caused by thermal cycling

7

Difficult to Reach Biofilms

Degraded gaskets showing intrusion and voids

8

Dairy CIP Simulation

9

Dairy CIP Simulation

CIP system ‘standardized’ with 175°F water for 10 min

Inoculated milk circulated 5 hours at 40 °F

Gram negative field isolate

CIP using high temp (145°F) or low temp (110°F)

Sanitized

Circulated water recovery performed

Plate counts run on recovery water

10

Dairy CIP Simulation

0.1

1

10

100

1000

100003/8

/20

11-E

xcel C

IP 1

45

3/9

/20

11-E

xcel C

IP 1

45

3/1

0/2

011

-Advan

tis L

T 1

10

3/1

5/2

011

-Exce

l C

IP 1

45

3/1

6/2

011

-Advan

tis L

T 1

10

3/1

7/2

011

-Advan

tis L

T 1

10

3/1

8/2

011

-Exce

l C

IP 1

45

3/2

2/2

011

-Exce

l C

IP 1

45

3/2

3/2

011

-Advan

tis L

T 1

10

3/2

4/2

011

-Exce

l C

IP 1

45

3/2

5/2

011

-Advan

tis L

T 1

10

3/2

9/2

011

-Advan

tis L

T 1

10

3/3

0/2

011

-Advan

tis L

T 1

10

3/3

1/2

011

-Exce

l C

IP 1

45

4/1

/20

11-E

xcel C

IP 1

45

4/5

/20

11-N

o C

he

mis

try 1

10

4/6

/20

11-A

dvantis L

T 1

10

4/7

/20

11-A

dvantis L

T 1

10

4/8

/20

11-N

o C

he

mis

try 1

10

4/1

2/2

011

-Advan

tis L

TF

E 1

10

4/1

3/2

011

-Advan

tis L

TF

E 1

10

4/1

4/2

011

-Advan

tis L

TF

E 1

10

4/1

5/2

011

-Advan

tis L

TF

E 1

10

4/1

9/2

011

-Advan

tis L

TF

E 1

10

4/2

0/2

011

-Advan

tis L

TF

E 1

10

4/2

1/2

011

-Advan

tis L

T 1

10

4/2

2/2

011

-Exce

l C

IP 1

45

4/2

9/2

011

-Advan

tis L

TF

E 1

10

5/3

/20

12-A

dvantis L

TF

E 1

10

5/4

/20

12-A

dvantis L

TF

E 1

10

5/5

/20

12-A

dvantis L

TF

E 1

10

5/6

/20

12-A

dvantis L

TF

E 1

10

5/2

0/2

012

-Advan

tis L

TF

E 1

10

Av

era

ge P

late

Co

un

t (C

FU

/L)

Circulated Water Recovery

Total Bacteria

Gram Negative

Random temperature/chemistry changes for subsequent runs

Analysis showed no statistical difference for single runs

“Weekend Effect” observed when system was not re-sanitized

11

Dairy CIP Simulation

Same chemistry and CIP temp were repeated multiple runs

“

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Gra

m N

eg

atr

ive B

acte

ria R

eco

vere

d

(CF

U/L

) 120°F vs 130°F With Same Cleaning Chemistry

130°F

120°F

12

Difficult to Reach Biofilms

Temperatures

Max 144°F

S1 137°F

S2 101°F

Thermal imaging shows areas with much lower temperature

than bulk CIP solution

13

Difficult to Reach Biofilms

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Overall Bacteria Recovery VS ATP Swab Counts

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ATP Swab Counts

14

Valve Pulsing in CIP

Proper valve pulsing is critical

Valve seats and back of valves sites for biofilm

Long term soil build up

15

Heat Exchanger Biofilm Issues

Plate heat exchangers are difficult to fully clean

Very difficult to confirm a proper clean

Buildup of soil in low flow regions

Optimal growth conditions for thermophiles

Long runs lead to high counts later in run

16

Heat Exchanger Biofilm Issues

Evaporators difficult to clean properly

Low flow areas often not fully cleaned

17

Interventions

Premium SEEC chemistry

Peracid sanitizing

Sanitizer use – Membranes, Evaporators, Pasteurizers

Aggressive C&S every CIP, not when problems arise

Global Best Practices for Biofilm Issues

18

Interventions

Produce gas bubbles in and on soil and biofilms

Improves cleaning in low flow areas

Greatly increases micro-turbulence

Two Part SEEC Chemistries

19

Difficult to Reach Biofilms

;

*.

;

°

;

:

;

:

;

*.

;

°

;

:

;

:

;

*.

;

°

;

:

;

:

;

*.

;

°

;

:

;

:

;

*.

;

°

;

:

;

:

;

*.

;

°

;

:

;

:

Current Method: NaOH (Caustic)

- Caustic causes top layer of

soil to swell and form gel

- This doesn’t allow chemistry

to reach next layer of soil

- Takes longer for chemistry

to reach all soil layers

;

*.

;

°

;

:

;

:

;

*.

;

°

;

:

;

:

OH-

OH-

OH-

OH- OH-

OH-

OH-

OH-

New Method: Pretreatment + NaOH

- Pretreatment penetrates into soil

- Caustic triggers pH activation

- Caustic reacts with pretreatment

chemistry and creates ruptures

in soil layers

- This breaks up the soil and

allows chemistry to have greater

soil contact

- Takes less time to clean

Peracid

Pretreatment

Current

20

Interventions

Peracid Sanitizers on Heat Processing Equipment

Traditionally not performed – “Heat will take care of it”

Thermophiles / Thermoduric

Hot peracetic acid very volatile and pungent

Good and Bad – can get at hard to reach areas

Corrosion levels low if Chloride levels under 500 ppm

304 / 316 SS at required use concentration

21

Interventions

Peracid Sanitizers on Heat Processing Equipment

304 SS 316 SS

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

2800ppm 1.00% 2800ppm 1.00% 2800ppm 1.00% 2800ppm 1.00%

POAA POAA Mixed

Peracid

Mixed

Peracid

POAA POAA Mixed

Peracid

Mixed

Peracid

304 SS 304 SS 304 SS 304 SS 316 SS 316 SS 316 SS 316 SS

Av

e M

PY

ACCELERATED STAINLESS STEEL CORROSION TESTING @ 180 deg F for 2 Weeks (solutions changed daily)

MPY 0 ppm Cl

MPY 50 ppm Cl

22

Interventions

Peracid Sanitizers on Heat Processing Equipment

Global survey of plants producing low count powder

Some of the highest performing were using ‘hot’ sanitizer

Research project conducted to look at the spore survival rate with a variety of hot peracid formulations

23

Interventions - Spores

50°C

Test Contact Average Average Log

Substance Time Survivors Log Reduction

(min) (CFU/mL)

Mixed 2 2.2 x 104 4.3 1.8

Peracid 5 1.0 x 101 1 5.1

2600 ppm 10 <10 <1 >5.1

Peracid 2 <10 <1 >5.1

Cleaner 5 <10 <1 >5.1

5000 ppm 10 1.0 x101 1 5.1

Experimental 2 <10 <1 >5.1

Peracid 5 <10 <1 >5.1

2000 ppm 10 <10 <1 >5.1

Proprietary Information of Ecolab, Inc.

Bacillus spp spore cocktail

24

CIP in Biofilm Control

The Goal – Get back up and running ASAP

New Zealand has proven ability to produce low spore count powder

Source of spores is primarily biofilm in Evap and other equipment

Interventions

SEEC products when appropriate – Peracid or peroxide

Fast Washes or Peracid Flush

Add sanitizer or antimicrobials to PHE, evaps, membranes

Gasket maintenance

Global Best Practices

25

CIP in Biofilm Control

A sound C&S program is the base of a biofilm control program

Selective interventions may be appropriate

Non traditional use of detergents, sanitizers and heat can yield improved outcomes

We are open to discussing specific problems

Ecolab R&D is currently trialing best practices and interventions with outcome-based metrics.

Conclusion