Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Meeting Presentation
Abstract. Milk safety is a major food safety concern in the United States. The cleanliness of on-farm milking
systems directly affects raw milk quality. The generally-accepted four-step procedure for milking system
Cleaning-in-Place (CIP) comprises: (1) warm water rinse, (2) alkaline wash, (3) acid wash, and (4) sanitizing
rinse prior to the next milking. Electrolyzed oxidizing (EO) water is emerging technology, which generates
acidic electrolyzed oxidizing (EO) water and alkaline EO water by electrodialysis of dilute salt solution. Previous
studies in our laboratory had shown that EO water can be an alternative for conventional milking system CIP,
both on a lab scale milking system and on a commercial dairy farm. Recently, a one-step cleaning has been
adopted on an increasing number of dairy farms; it combines the alkaline wash and acid wash cycle together;
and this saves chemical expenditure and water usage, energy cost, and time. By mixing acidic EO water with
alkaline EO water, a less corrosive but with a high oxidation reduction potential (ORP) blended near neutral EO
water can be produced. Therefore, it was proposed in this study that the blended EO water solution can be
applied to a lab scale pilot milking system as one-step CIP and the cleaning and sanitization performance
between using blended EO water solution and commercial one-step cleaning chemicals are comparable. A
response surface method was applied to determine the optimal condition of the cleaning time, the starting
temperature of the blended EO water solution and the acidic EO water percentage in the blended EO water
solution. The CIP performance comparison among the optimal blended EO water solution and two commercial
one-step cleaning chemicals were performed. Results showed that cleaning time of 17 min, a starting
temperature of 59°C and an acidic EO water percentage of 60% in the blended EO water solution (pH of 2.66,
ORP of 1109 and chlorine concentration of 48.0 ppm) could achieve the required 100% CIP performance. The
CIP performance of using optimal blended EO water solution and the commercial one-step cleaning chemicals
showed that the optimal blended EO water solution is comparable to those of the commercial one-step
cleaning chemicals. Overall, this study showed that the blended EO water had the potential to be adapted as
an alternative for one-step CIP for pilot milking system.
Keywords. Blended electrolyzed oxidizing water, Cleaning-In-Place, Pilot milking system, Milk safety.
Introduction
According to the 2011 data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the United
States produced 90,865,000 metric tons of cow milk, ranking first in the world (FAOSTAT, 2012). The annual
average consumption of dairy products per capita in the United States has increased from 244.5 kg in 1975 to
277.6 kg in 2012(USDA, 2012). Quality and safety of consumed milk is always important, therefore, the Food
and Drug Administration has issued several regulations to assure the raw milk quality and safety in the United
States (FDA, 2012). It is of great importance to ensure the safety and quality of raw milk and other dairy
products and provide the public with safe milk to consume.
The milking system cleaning-in-place (CIP) is performed right after the milking is completed, which consists of
four steps: warm water rinse, alkaline wash, acid wash, and a sanitizing rinse prior to the next milking event
(Table 1). During the alkaline and acid wash cycles, concentrated chemicals are usually used; but they
possess potential hazard to the workers and the environment after use. Therefore, previous studies in our
laboratory have contributed to addressing this issue by using a potential alternative method – electrolyzed
oxidizing (EO) water, for the milking system CIP.
Table 1. CIP Recommendations for parlor milking systems (DPC, 2010)
Cleaning Cycle Conventional CIP
Warm water rinse 2 min; 43.3-48.9°C
Alkaline wash 8-10 min; start:71.1°C-76.7°C; finish:48.9°C; pH >12.0; 120 ppm chlorine; 1100 ppm alkalinity;
>20 slugs
Acid wash 3-5 min; pH~3.0
Sanitizing rinse EPA registered dairy sanitizer solution
EO water is an emerging technology developed in Japan. Using electric current in an electrodialysis chamber,
two types of EO water solutions are generated simultaneously from dilute sodium chloride solution. Alkaline EO
water is generated from cathode with a pH as high as 11.6 and oxidation reduction potential (ORP) up to -795
mV; acidic EO water is generated simultaneously from anode with a pH as low as 2.6 and ORP up to 1150 mV
(Figure 1).
Figure 1. Schematics of electrolyzed water generator and produced compounds (Huang et al., 2008).
The similarity in properties between the EO water with that of the conventional milking system CIP chemicals
motivated the consideration of implementing EO water solutions to the milking system CIP. Several studies had
been conducted in our laboratory during the past decade. The feasibility of utilizing EO water for the CIP of
milking systems was first assessed by Walker et al. (2005 a&b). After the promising results from cleaning of the
milking system materials in the lab, a response surface model was developed for optimizing the cleaning
parameters by using a pilot-scale milking system. Their results showed that EO water cleaning solutions at
temperatures of 60°C or lower were able to remove all detectable bacteria successfully. These optimized
cleaning temperatures are lower than the temperatures recommended (70 to 75°C) for the conventional dairy
CIP process (DPC, 2010), which indicates that using EO water for milking system CIP could be an energy
effective process. Later study in our laboratory suggested a starting temperature of 70°C for the alkaline EO
The authors are solely responsible for the content of this meeting presentation. The presentation does not necessarily reflect the official
position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), and its printing and distribution does not constitute an
endorsement of views which may be expressed. Meeting presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by ASABE
editorial committees; therefore, they are not to be presented as refereed publications. Citation of this work should state that it is from an
ASABE meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author’s Last Name, Initials. 2014. Title of Presentation. ASABE Paper No. ---. St. Joseph, Mich.:
ASABE. For information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a meeting presentation, please contact ASABE at
rutter@asabe.org or 269-932-7004 (2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA).
2014 ASABE – CSBE/SCGAB Annual International Meeting Paper Page 1
water and 45°C for the acidic EO water were enough to achieve a 100% cleaning effectiveness on a pilot
milking system (Dev et al., 2014). However, the pilot-scale milking set-up is a scaled-down system and does
not fully and sufficiently represent a commercial-scale dairy farm CIP; therefore, a real-world study was also
conducted on a commercial dairy farm to evaluate the EO water performance for CIP of the milking system
(Wang et al., 2013). Based on a four-month trial on a mid-size commercial dairy farm in Pennsylvania, it was
concluded that the EO water achieved same or better cleaning effectiveness compared with the conventional
CIP method for most sampling locations and milking system components. In addition, based on the cost
analyses, the estimated operational cost of using the EO water CIP is lower than using the conventional CIP by
approximately 25%, provided an EO water generator unit and other associated accessories are already in
place. EO water is shown to be a promising technology for CIP of milking systems, both from
cleaning/sanitizing performance and economic aspects.
Recently, a new CIP approach has received attention on an increasing number of dairy farms (Parr, 2013).
This new CIP approach combines the alkaline wash and the acid wash cycles together as one, to conduct a
“one-step” CIP for the milking system. In order to do this, several commercially available one-step CIP
chemicals are on the market and their CIP performance is claimed to be comparable to the conventional
alkaline wash and acid wash of milking system. It was claimed that using one-step CIP can be cost saving
through eliminating the separate alkaline and acid wash cycles, decreasing the usage of water, chemicals,
energy, and time. In addition, the manufactures claimed that their products are capable of keeping the bacterial
count low for standard tests. However, the chemical compositions of these products are not available, nor are
any published experimental results for the milking system CIP.
There have been some commercially available EO water generators that produce a mixed EO water solution,
named as “near neutral EO water” or “mixed oxidant”. The mixing of acidic EO water into alkaline EO water can
result in less corrosive pH EO water. This near neutral EO water contains the components of chlorine found in
acidic EO water. Comparing to acidic EO water, near neutral EO water possesses a relatively less corrosive pH
while having a high ORP to function as a disinfecting agent (Guentzel et al., 2008). Researchers assessed the
disinfecting effectiveness of neutral EO water on the inactivation of five microorganisms (Escherichia coli,
Salmonella Typhimurium, Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, and Enterococcus faecalis) on the
surfaces of spinach and lettuce, and results showed a 4.0-5.0 log10 CFU/mL bacterial reduction for all five
microorganisms (Guentzel et al., 2008). In addition, compared to a water rinse, the near neutral EO water
treatment of spinach and lettuce surfaces does not leave any significant total residual chlorine. Furthermore,
the effective utilization of near neutral EO water on peach and grape surfaces postharvest sanitation to prevent
incidence of microorganism infection (Botrytis cinerea and Monilinia fructicola) was demonstrated (Guentzel et
al., 2010). These results expand the application of near neutral EO water from simple sanitization onsite to the
enhancement of fruit shelf life in commercial markets. When comparing to other fungicide like “Captan” to
conduct the disinfecting experiments on strawberry plants, study showed twice a week using near neutral EO
water with 100 ppm chlorine concentration treatment is significantly more effective than the once per week; at
the same time, the safety advantage of using near neutral EO water with 100 ppm chlorine concentration for
the strawberry plant spray is that this method did not leave significant phytotoxicity compared to the water
treatment (Guentzel et al., 2011). Mechanisms of the fungicidal efficiencies of near neutral EO water might be
attributed to more •OH radical compared to acidic EO water at the same chlorine concentration. Study showed
that the •OH radical plays an important role in destroying the cellular structures of microorganism (Aspergillus
flavus) conidia (Xiong et al., 2010). Given the rapid development of near neutral EO water applications and the
desired one-step milking system CIP approach, this study is undertaken to evaluate and optimize the blended
EO water CIP process for a lab scale pilot milking system as a one-step milking system CIP alternative.
Figure 2. Pilot plant milking system (revised from Dev et al., 2014; not to scale).
Preparation of milk
Fresh raw milk was collected from the Penn State dairy barn by directing the milk from the cow to a 38 L (10
gallon) stainless steel milk can. During the transportation of milk from the dairy barn to the pilot plant, the
temperature of the milk, 38°C, dropped by approximately 5-6°C. The milk was reheated to about 38°C by using
a custom-made hot water copper tube heat exchanger, to simulate the milk temperature from a cow.
The cocktail of the four types of microorganisms incubated for 24 hr at their optimal temperatures in 500 ml
TSB before use. After incubation, the culture broth was centrifuged at 4,000 g for 40 min and supernatant
decanted. Each bacterium was re-suspended using 500 ml of the heated fresh raw milk and then mixed with
the rest of the heated fresh raw milk. The total bacterial population for the initial “contaminated” milk for soiling
was about 108 CFU/ml.
Preparation of blended EO water solutions
Alkaline EO water was heated before use by a 305 L (80 gal) capacity tank water heater (Model RUE PRO-80-
2, Ruud Manufacturing Co., Atlanta, GA) and acidic EO water was heated using a tankless heater (Model
EX1608TC, Eemax Inc., Oxford, CT). Both EO water solutions were freshly generated before use and the
properties tested, both for heated and unheated solutions. For the unheated EO water solutions, the acidic EO
water had pH of about 2.6, ORP of about 1150 mV, and free chlorine content of about 80 ppm; whereas for the
unheated alkaline EO water had pH of about 11.5 and ORP of about -850 mV. The chlorine content of the
acidic EO water was measured by titrating against an N, N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine-ferrous ethylene
2014 ASABE – CSBE/SCGAB Annual International Meeting Paper Page 3
diammonium sulfate (DPD-FEAS) solution prepared using a test kit (Hach, Inc., Loveland, CO). When heated,
the acidic EO water solution had pH of about 2.8, ORP of about 1150 mV, and free chlorine content around 65
ppm, which depends on the heated temperature, whereas the alkaline EO water solution had pH of about 10.5
and ORP of about -800mV.
Preparation of the milking system for CIP process
i) Shock cleaning
Shock cleaning of the pilot milking system was conducted every time before each experiment to create a
consistent base line. The term “shock cleaning” comes from a more powerful, namely more concentrated,
cleaning solution for the milking system CIP:
a. Alkaline wash: 710 ml (24 oz) of Dairy Cycle 3 (Chemland Inc., Kansas City, MO) diluted into 68 L (18
gal) of alkaline wash solution with a starting temperature of 80°C and a circulation time of 10 min;
b. Water rinse: 38 L (10 gal) of tap water heated to 40°C for rinsing the system without recirculation;
c. Acid wash: 107 ml (3.6 oz) of Dairy M. S. R. 50 (Chemland Inc., Kansas City, MO) diluted into 68 L (18
gal) of acid wash solution with a starting temperature of 80°C and a circulation time of 10 min;
d. Sanitizing rinse: right before each experiment, 27 ml (0.9 oz) of LCS (Classic Technologies., Kansas
City, MO) diluted into 68 L (18 gal) of sanitizing solution with a starting temperature of 40°C and no
recirculation.
Table 2. Operation process comparison between the blended EO water and commercial one-
step chemicals for pilot milking system CIP.
Operating cycle
Operating parameter
Sanitize Soiling Warm water rinse Blended EO water CIP Commercial one-step CIP
The contaminated milk was used to soil the pilot milking system. Under the vacuum, milk was drawn into
the system pipeline and accumulated in the receiver then drained out without recirculation. The milk drawn
into the system was in turbulent state with a Reynolds number to the order of magnitude of 105. The 38 L
(10 gal) milk was introduced into the system pipeline in three equal portions of approximately 13 L (3.3 gal)
each time with a 10-min air dry between the soiling processes. The air drying was conducted with the
vacuum on, namely the claw was drawing ambient air instead of milk in to the system. The milk was not
recirculated in the system pipeline to minimize churning, cream separation, and other physio-chemical
changes in the milk.
Table 3. Three factor Box-Behnken experimental design for CIP optimization process.
Evaluation
Sampling locations are categorized into pipes, elbows, and other materials which include gaskets, liners, and a
milk hose (Figure 3). Eight straight pipe sampling locations and eight elbow sampling locations were selected
along the milking system pipeline (Figure 3) (Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Co., Waltham, MA).
Disassembled and cut-away schematics illustrating the swabbing areas of sampling locations of pipes and
elbows for soil and microorganisms are shown in Figure 4. For each of the sampling location, two types of
evaluation methods were used: Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence for the presence of soils and
calcium alginate-tipped applicators swabbing for microbial cells presence. Samples were collected from each
sampling location by disassembling the connections (also shown in Figure 3) and swabbing the inner surfaces
of elbows and straight pipes (Figure 4). With reference to the cleaning solution flow direction, the right half of
the connections of sampling locations were sampled using ATP swabs for bioluminescence analyses and the
left half using sterile calcium alginate-tipped applicators for analyzing the bacterial presence. Other system
components of gaskets, liners and milk hose were swabbed for ATP bioluminescence and bacterial presence
as well, but the only difference is the sample was taken by swabbing over the entire inner circle instead of half
inner circle due to the limited availability of milk contact surfaces for swabbing in these components.
Analysis
Inner surfaces of all sampling sites were evaluated using ATP bioluminescence PocketSwab Plus swabs
(Charm Science, Inc., Lawrence, MA) for soils and sterile calcium alginate-tipped applicators (Puritan Medical
Production Co. LLC, Guilford, ME) for analyses of bacterial cell presence.
i) ATP bioluminescence
The ATP swabs’ firefly enzyme luciferase gave a quantitative measurement in terms of Relative Light Unit
(RLU) by using a novaLUM palm-sized luminometer (Charm Science, Inc., Lawrence, MA); the RLU
readings served as an indicator of the surface cleanliness. The RLU reading of zero represents the surface
to be clean and higher RLU readings represented “dirtier” surfaces. For further discussion purposes, RLU
2014 ASABE – CSBE/SCGAB Annual International Meeting Paper Page 5
reduction percentage and RLU log reduction were used for CIP performance comparison. The RLU
reduction percentage is the after CIP RLU reading compared to the before CIP RLU reading; and higher
RLU reduction percentage represented a more effective CIP process. The RLU log reduction is difference
between the natural logarithm of before CIP RLU reading and the natural logarithm of after CIP RLU
reading. The equations used for calculations of RLU reduction percentage and RLU log reduction are
presented as follows:
(Equation 1)
(Equation 2)
In equation (2), the numeral 1 was added to avoid indeterminacy of log when the measured RLU is zero.
Since the RLU values are in the order of 106, the error introduced is negligible. By definition of the RLU
reduction percentage, a 100% RLU reduction represents an after CIP RLU reading of 0.
Bacterial samples were collected with sterile calcium alginate-tipped applicators (Puritan Medical
Production Co. LLC, Guilford, ME), which were placed in a TSB medium, and then incubated at 37°C for
48 hr for possible microbial growth. The clear medium observed visually was accepted as “negative” while
the opaque (turbid) ones as “positive.” For further discussion purposes, negative enrichment percentage
was calculated by percentage of the number of negative samples with respect to the total number of
samples (number of negative samples plus positive samples) for all three sampling categories. By this
definition, higher negative enrichment percentage represents a more sanitized surface condition.
(Equation 3)
Response surface method was generated and results analyzed using Minitab 16.2 (MINITAB Inc, State
College, PA). Three replication runs were conducted at the optimal blended EO water conditions. The
significant differences in mean values were determined using Tukey’s method at the 95% confidence
interval in Minitab 16.2.
Figure 3. Sampling location schematic of the pipes and elbows (P1 – P8 are pipe sampling
locations and E1 – E8 are elbow sampling locations, to scale).
Figure 5. RLU reduction percentages at different acidic EO water percentages for sampling
categories of pipes, elbows and other accessories.
Pipe RLU Reduction Percentage (%) = 99.980 + 0.060×T + 0.016×TEMP + 0.089×AP – 0.040×T2 –
0.023×TEMP2 – 0.048×AP2 – 0.008×T×TEMP – 0.043×AP×T – 0.030×AP×TEMP (R2=97.72%)
Elbow RLU Reduction Percentage (%) = 99.977 + 0.056×T + 0.015×TEMP + 0.084×AP – 0.028×T2 –
0.021×TEMP2 – 0.038×AP2 – 0.013×T×TEMP – 0.045×AP×T – 0.018×AP×TEMP (R2=98.04%)
Other RLU Reduction Percentage (%) = 99.670 – 0.116×T - 0.019×TEMP + 0.514×AP + 0.018×T2 +
0.075×TEMP2 – 0.363×AP2 – 0.063×T×TEMP – 0.400×AP×T – 0.163×AP×TEMP (R2=88.70%)
The 3D surface contour plot of sampling categories of pipes and elbows are shown in Figures 7 and 8. From
the trend of the surface plots and also the statistical analyses for each category, the cleaning time and acidic
EO water percentage significantly affected the RLU reduction percentage for sampling locations of pipes and
elbows (P<0.05) – higher starting temperature and longer cleaning time are more favorable to achieve a
satisfactory CIP performance. Take the RLU reduction percentage of elbow as an example, with a shorter time
(10 min) and a lower acidic EO water percentage (25%), and a median temperature of 60°C, the RLU reduction
percentage was about 99.70%, but it went up to almost 100% if the cleaning time is longer (20 min) with a
higher acidic EO water percentage (60%) without changing the temperature setting. The blended EO water
solution starting temperature, on the other hand, generated a mixed set of results –the increased temperature
would increase the reaction rate thus enhancing the cleaning performance, but the increased temperature also
decreased the chlorine concentration in the blended EO water solution, which resulted in a reduced soil
removal power. From the statistical analysis, the temperature effect was not significant for all three sampling
locations of pipes (P=0.109), elbows (P=0.090) and other accessories (P=0.153).
100.00% 100.00%
(15min)
(60°C)
Hold Values (42.5%)
100.00% time 0
reduction
99.90% temperature 0
99.80%
1 acid percentage 0
0
acid percentage
-1
0 -1
temperature 1
100.00% 100.00%
eduction 99.95% reduction 99
99.90%
90%
99.90% 99.80%
1 1
99.85%
0 99.70% 0
temperature acid percentage
-1 -1
0 -1 0 -1
time 1 time 1
100.00%
Hold Values (15min)
reduction time 0(60°C)
(42.5%)
99.90%
1
temperature 0
99.80% 0
acid percentage 0
acid percentage
-1
0 -1
temperature 1
When comparing the results among different sampling categories, it was observed that the stainless steel
materials such as pipes and elbows are more easily cleaned compared to other materials such as rubber and
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC); the average RLU reduction percentage of sampling location of pipes was as high as
99.92% and elbows 99.93% while for liners, hose and gaskets, the average RLU reduction percentage was
only about 99.52%. Rubbers had been shown to have “caverns” and crevices over the surfaces and from a
scanning electron microscopy analysis of a rubber liner sample surface collected directly from an operating
Conclusion
In conclusion, an optimal condition of the blended EO water solution for the pilot milking system CIP is
achieved in this study; they are: a CIP time of 17 min, a blended EO water of starting temperature of 59°C, and
an acidic EO water percentage of 60%. Three validations at this optimal condition showed 100% RLU reduction
percentages for both sampling locations of pipes and elbows experimentally, which fitted the model estimation
of CIP performance well. When comparing the CIP performance of the optimal blended EO water with two
commercial one-step CIP chemicals, the RLU reduction percentage results showed that the optimal blended
EO water was doing as good as the two commercial one-step CIP chemicals; for example, 100% on average
when using the optimal blended EO water compared to 100% on average when using one of the commercial
chemicals for sampling locations of elbows. However, the blended EO water did result in a higher negative
enrichment percentage on average compared to the commercial one-step CIP chemicals, indicating the
blended EO water at its optimal condition possessed more disinfecting capability; for example, 83.3% on
average when using the optimal blended EO water compared to 50.0% on average when using one of the
commercial products for sampling locations of pipes. Based on this research, it is concluded that the blended
EO water at its optimal condition has the potential to be adapted as an alternative for one-step milking system
CIP.
Acknowledgement
Funding for this project was provided in-part by a USDA Special Research Grant (No. 2010-34163-21179) and
the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station. We are also thankful to Hoshizaki Electric Co. Ltd. (Sakae,
Toyoake, Aichi, Japan) for the technical support for the EO water generator used in this study. We also would
like to acknowledge Roderick Thomas, Randall Bock, and all Penn State dairy barn personnel for their help in
the project.