Biological Control

Part II- : Cleaning
Biological Control
Principles of biological control
Management aspects of biological control
Microbiological control of water

Brewing equipment and biological control
Sources and seats of infection
Biological stabilisation
Principles of cleaning
Plant and cleaning

Control of cleaning
22-09-2005
Part II: Cleaning
Subject: Biological Control
PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
The application of effective, biological control requires knowledge and understanding of many diverse
disciplines. This session provides an overview of the main factors that must be understood if we are to
achieve good microbiological performance in the brewery.
The principles of and general guidance needed to apply each of the following topics will be
considered:-
Definitions, customer expectations and the law.
Good (sometimes called Best) Manufacturing Practice.
Consequences of inadequate biological control.
The 4 P's of biological control.
The microbiology of beer and its relevance to food safety.
The influence of premises and buildings on microbiological performance.
The influence of plant and equipment on microbiological performance.
The influence of processes and practices on microbiological performance.
The importance of materials storage for biological control.
The role of cleaning, disinfecting and sterilising in biological control.
Several of these topics will be considered in more detail during later lessons.
The principles of GMP apply equally to breweries of all sizes but especial attention will be paid to the 1
million hectolitre per year brewery used as a common example throughout the Diploma Brewmaster
Course, Module 2.
Literature:
Food and Drink Manufacture - Good Manufacturing Practice, Institute of Food
Science and Technology (UK) Relevant sections are on your CD as the files
24bSG01Ref1 and 24bSG01Ref2.
22-09-2005
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
1. PRINCIPLES
by
S. R. Griffin
Quentech
© SRG 2005
THIS SESSION
Definitions
Beer as food
Beer properties and biological control
Good manufacturing practice
Premises
Plant
Process
Storage
Cleaning, sanitising and sterilising
1
DEFINITIONS
Good Manufacturing Practice
Use of best currently available technology, management and
production techniques to ensure beer is consistently in
specification and is safe to consume.
Food
Any substance ingested for the purpose of nutrition or
refreshment.
Biological Control
Combination of systems, controls and activities necessary to
prevent entry and growth of unwanted micro-organisms and
maintain acceptable standards of product quality and food
safety
REASONS FOR GMP

The law
Composition and ingredients
Food safety
Hygiene
Quantity
Labelling & descriptions
Taxation
Consumer expectation
Marketing
Image
Litigation
ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST
2
CONSEQUENCES OF
INFECTION
Once done ; Cannot be undone
Beer quality Business

Flavour Inconsistent beer
Haze, Sediments, Rope, Films Reduced shelf life
ATNC Waste
Reduced shelf life Lower productivity
Customer complaints
Loss of sales
Reputation and image
BASIS OF CONTROL
Prevent Ingress
Prevent Growth
Prevent Transmission
Destroy or Remove
3
BEER & FOOD SAFETY
Conventionally safe
Boiling
No easily used sugars
Alcohol
pH
Hop compounds
CO2 toxic
Absence of O2
Synergy
BUT …..
pH - SURVIVAL & GROWTH

OF BACTERIA
Wort
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Yeast
Lactobacillus
Acetobacter
Salmonella
Clostridium
E. coli
Bacillus spp.
Beer
4
BEER & FOOD SAFETY
BUT …..
Low / No alcohol beer Sugars, other nutrient

pH, alcohol, hops
The bar / Pub / restaurant Staff hygiene, glasses
Brewery staff In process tasting
SCOPE OF GMP
People
Premises
Design
Equipment
Specification
Raw materials
Implementation
Storage
Monitoring
Methods
Resource to do it
Process
Cleaning
5
GMP
People
Trained, aware, committed
The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Written procedures & specs
Honest, complete records
Management involvement
Blame culture
Piece rate or output based payment
GMP
Premises
Located, designed, constructed & maintained to
suit operations carried out in them
Facilitate protection of materials, beer & packages

from microbial contamination or deterioration
6
GMP
Premises
Adjacent land
Brewery yard
Buildings pest proof
Lighting
Ventilation
Floors, walls, ceilings & junctures
Drains
Doors & Windows
Pipework & utilities routing
Facilities for hygiene
GMP
Premises Bright beer
A
Utilities
4
Access c Filtration
Layout c Cold Storage
Water e
s Fermenting
s Brewhouse
Malt
Footbaths
7
GMP
Plant - Session 4
Enclosed
Surfaces
Self draining
Exterior surfaces
Position of equipment
Inspection after cleaning
Deterioration with age and use
GMP
Processes & Practices
Blending vs discrete batches
Housekeeping Frequency & methods

Waste removal
High risk areas - yeast, beer recovery
Maintenance procedures
8
GMP
Storage - Session 5
Pre-infected - ergot, gushing, musty flavours
Infection - sugars & condense
Infestation - insects, rodents, birds
GMP
Storage
Intake Protect from weather & pests

Before unloading Inspect vehicle & load
Storage Temperature, humidity, pest control
Access Housekeeping, inspection, cleaning
Opened packages Re-seal
Stock control FIFO
People “need to” access only
9
CLEANING, DISINFECTING &
STERILISING
Cleaning - Sessions 8, 9, 10
Application of energy to remove soil
Disinfecting
Reduce micro-organisms to a level where they will not harm
the beer
Sterilisation
Kills all living organisms
Sanitiser
Chemical that cleans and disinfects at the same time
CLEANING, DISINFECTING &

STERILISING
Good practice
Clean immediately after use
Define all materials, strengths, conditions and methods
Define responsibility
Check all equipment before use
Only clean plant can be sterilised
Poorly maintained plant is difficult to clean
Housekeeping should be “clean as you go”
10
SUMMARY
GMP
Requires a holistic start to finish approach
Is not a quick fix
Needs understanding, training, commitment
Delivers better quality & food safety
11
PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
Session 24b-SRG-01
This session will examine how the principles of Good Manufacturing Practice
(hereafter, GMP) are applied to biological control in the brewery. Many of the
principles identified also apply to the control of chemical and biochemical aspects of
beer quality and of preventing chemical or physical contamination.
1. Definitions
Good manufacturing practice is:-
The combination of manufacturing and quality assurance procedures aimed at
ensuring beer is consistently produced within specification to a standard
appropriate to its intended use and especially that it is safe to consume. It thus
encompasses materials, brewing, processing and quality assurance
mechanisms.
Food is:-
Any substance ingested for the purpose of nutrition or refreshment. Thus, in
many countries, beer is subject to the same legislative requirements as
conventional food products.
Biological control is:-
That combination of systems, controls and activities necessary to keep the
ingress and growth of unwanted micro-organisms into the plant, process or
product within acceptable limits, thereby maintaining product characteristics,
quality and food safety.
The ever-increasing attention of customers, retailers and enforcement bodies to both

quality and safety of food and drink requires that an ability to demonstrate GMP has
been fully and effectively followed. In the event of legal action the ability to
demonstrate that all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure beer quality and
safety is an absolute necessity. If for no other reason, enlightened self-interest should
persuade all brewers to implement the principles and practices we shall be covering
during subsequent lessons.
In most countries the manufacture of any food product, including beer, must comply
with many legal requirements covering:-
1. Composition
2. Safety
3. Hygiene
4. Quantity
5. Labelling
6. Taxation
Whilst satisfying these necessities, every brewer must also meet the needs of the
market in terms of flavour, appearance, presentation, shelf life and price. All these
factors are influenced by the effectiveness of the biological control measures within a
particular brewery.
24bSG01 PrincBioContr01 new Page 1 of 9 © SRG, 2002

GMP has two complementary and interacting elements:-
* Quality assurance activities
* Control of brewing and processing operations
Both must be well designed and effectively managed. Each aspect of beer production
must be fully evaluated and then specified in advance; all the resources of:-
1. Premises
2. Suitable equipment, which is appropriately maintained
3. Trained and skilled people
4. Correct raw materials
5. Appropriate storage
6. Operational methods
7. Process conditions
8. Cleaning schedules
must be available at the right time, in the right amount, in the correct place and utilised
as intended.
In balancing quality and food safety against productivity it is necessary to guard

against unauthorised "short cuts". This is achieved by:-
1. Ensuring written procedures, process targets and specifications are
available
2. Training operators to implement procedures properly
3. Ensuring honest and complete records of processing are maintained
It is therefore implicit that an effective, documented quality system is a pre-requisite

for GMP. GMP is not a static situation but should provide the mechanism through
which continuous improvement can be identified, implemented and maintained.
These principles apply equally to all aspects of beer quality and product safety but will
only be considered at this time within the particular context of biological control.
2. Consequences of Inadequate Biological Control
Micro-organisms causing beer infection are dealt with during other lessons. Suffice to
state that beer is a medium in which only a few specialist micro-organisms can grow.
As sugary, nitrogenous wort is converted into alcoholic, less nutrient beer the risk of
biological contamination and the types of micro-organism that can grow is reduced.
However, it is important to realise that even though beer may be filtered or pasteurised
to remove unwanted micro-organisms, the consequences of their presence may still
remain in the beer as:-
1. Flavour defects
2. Haze or rope
3. ATNC
Other detrimental effects arising out of poor microbiological control are:-
4. Inconsistent beer
5. Reduced shelf life
6. Waste
7. Lower productivity
8. Customer complaints and beer returns
9. Loss of sales and reputation

3. Basis of Biological Control
The principles of practical biological control in the brewery are:-
Prevent ingress of foreign micro-organisms, e.g. enclosed vessels
Prevent growth of unwanted micro-organisms, e.g. full attenuation of beer
Prevent transmission of foreign micro-organisms, e.g. cleaning and especially
pitching yeast hygiene
Pasteurise to kill or filter to remove any micro-organisms that remain
4. Beer and Food Safety

Conventional beer is a microbiologically safe food product because:-
Water / wort is boiled during processing
The few specialist micro-organisms that can grow in beer are not pathogenic.
The conditions that inhibit the growth or prevent the survival of common food
poisoning and other pathogenic micro-organism are:-
1. Adequate attenuation leaves only small amounts of residual
carbohydrate that is not utilisable by many micro-organisms
2. Low dissolved oxygen prevents the growth of many micro-organisms
3. Carbon dioxide is toxic
4. Hop compounds exert antiseptic activity
5. Beer pH inhibits the growth of most common food poisoning bacteria
6. Alcohol damages lipid-protein cell membranes and thereby kills cells
above a critical level for each particular organism.
Alcohol probably exerts the greatest effect although some synergy between all the
above factors in suppressing the growth of micro-organisms probably occurs.
Consequently low alcohol and alcohol free beers do not prevent the survival or growth
of some common pathogenic bacteria. Low alcohol beers produced using restricted
fermentation techniques also result in a more nutritious product, sometimes with a
higher pH. These particular types of beer may have low bitterness values to achieve
palatable flavour, which also reduces the anti-microbial properties of the beer.
Pathogenic bacteria are quite capable of growing in these types of beer.
It must also be remembered that some pathogens, such as the Enterobacteriaceae

and Staphylococcus, have been reported to survive and remain infective in
conventional beer for several hours. Whereas from a food safety aspect most attention
is paid to the paying customer, it must never be forgotten that brewery staff are also at
risk because in-process tasting is a normal part of quality control.
5. Good Manufacturing Practice - Premises

Principle Buildings should be located, designed, constructed and maintained to
suit the operations carried out in them. Buildings should facilitate the
protection of materials, packages and beer from (microbial)
contamination or deterioration.

General Guidance:-
1. Risk of contamination / infection / pests from adjacent premises and land
should be assessed.
2. Buildings and outside areas should be kept clean and tidy. The brewery yard
should not create microbiological risks by encouraging vermin or becoming a
repository for unwanted materials, by-products or beer. When it is necessary to
store these items prior to disposal, proper enclosed facilities should be
provided. The site should not be liable to flooding.
3. Premises should be large enough to properly separate clean from dirty
processes.
4. Buildings must be pest proof - flying insects, crawling insects, rodents, birds,
and pets.
5. Processing areas must be properly lit in order that cleanliness can be properly
assessed, process control gauges read and records completed. Illumination at
150 lux in storerooms and 500 lux in processing areas is recommended.
Cockroaches prefer darkness and shun well lit areas.
6. Ventilation should be provided to prevent condensation if necessary. It should
be confined within a single area or be from a clean to a less clean, lower risk
area. Air supplies and trunking should not introduce contamination into product.
7. Floors (and walls and ceilings) in production areas should be impervious, laid to
an even surface, without cracks or open joints. The materials used should be
impervious to attack by product and cleaning agents, not impart taint to beer or
be of a nature that can harbour micro-organisms. In wet areas floors should
have a fall of 1 in 50 (2%) to covered drains.
8. Drains should be of adequate size, be covered with removable grilles and
incorporate proper traps to prevent backflows, entry of vermin or escape of
smells.
9. The juncture between floor and walls should be coved to avoid hard to clean
crevices and the floor material overlaid up the wall.
10. If windows are present they should be non-opening or fitted with fly screens
and the sills should slope to prevent their use as shelves.
11. Doors should have smooth, non-absorbent surfaces capable of being cleaned.
Polypropylene, stainless steel or suitably (non-toxic, gloss) painted wood are
acceptable. External doors should be fitted with metal kick plates to prevent
gnawing by rodents.
12. Pipework, light fittings, utilities supplies should be sited to avoid creating
crevices or recesses that are hard to clean. Wall should be sealed where pipes
and cables pass through.
13. The brewery should be designed so that people do not need to use production
areas for general access or for storage. Movement between different
production areas may need to be restricted
14. Facilities for personal hygiene must be provided and convenient to production
areas. Cloakrooms should be separate from production areas. Toilet facilities
must never open directly into production areas.

6. Good Manufacturing Practice - Plant / Equipment
Principle Plant and equipment should be designed, manufactured, located and
maintained to suit the materials, processes and products for which it is
used. It should facilitate the protection of materials, packages and beer
from (microbial) contamination or deterioration.
General Guidance:-
1. Plant should ideally be enclosed to prevent adventitious microbial
contamination of wort or beer. If that is not possible or not practical then steps
to prevent contamination through GMP of premises or processes or practices
as outlined elsewhere in this handout should be implemented.
2. All wort and beer contact surfaces should be non-porous and smooth, i.e. not
provide any form of "key" for soil and micro-organisms to adhere. Surfaces
should not be damaged by cleaning, disinfecting or sterilising methods.
3. Interior design or the orientation of equipment should allow self-emptying and
self-draining.
4. Exterior surfaces should not allow nutrient soils or residues to accumulate in
crevices or on ledges.
5. Plant should be positioned in such a manner that it does not prevent cleaning of
the area in which it is sited or allow the harbouring of micro-organisms or pests.
6. Product / material contact surfaces should be accessible for inspection or
sampling before committing product. Alternatively it should be demonstrated
that satisfactory results are achieved using CIP.
7. All plant and equipment deteriorates with age and use. This must be taken into
account if microbiological standards are to be maintained.
Examples of good and bad design will be discussed during session 34b-SRG-04.
7. Good Manufacturing Practice - Processes and Practices

Principle Processes and practices should be evaluated to ensure the specified
methods are capable of consistently yielding beer of the required quality.
Processes and working methods should be organised to prevent
(microbial) cross-contamination between batches of beer or items of
plant and equipment.
General Guidance:-
1. Sources of microbial infection within brewing processes will be discussed
during a later session. Suffice to state the largest potential sources of infection
within a brewery are pitching yeast and reprocessed beer.
2. Processes that involve blending of different batches of beer are less
microbiologically robust than processes where batches remain segregated.
Traceability and limiting the spread of any infection also becomes more difficult
when beers are blended. It is good practice to limit the need for blending and
should it be necessary, to ensure by adequate testing that any infection present
in individual parts of the blend is not spread more widely.

3. The susceptibility of product to infection is affected by a variety of growth
promoters and inhibitors that alter in overall effect according to the stage of the
brewing process. The presence of growth promoters and inhibitors within the
product and process conditions such as temperature influence the ability of
unwanted micro-organisms to grow in the product - see Table 1.
o
Process Water Sugar FAN O2 C2 Hop CO2 pH C
H5 Iso- (SO2)
OH acids
Malt 0 + ++ +++ 0 0 0 5.8 20
Mash ++ +++ +++ + 0 0 0 5.6 65
++ --
Sweet wort +++ +++ +++ 0 0 0 0 5.6 >76
++ --
Hopped wort +++ +++ +++ 0 0 --- 0 5.4 100
++ ---
Pitched wort +++ +++ +++ +++ 0 --- 0 5.4 10 / 18
++ ++
Early +++ +++ +++ + - --- - 5 12 / 23
fermentation + +++
Late +++ ++ ++ 0 --- --- --- 4.1 5 / 12
fermentation - ++
Cold tank +++ + + 0 --- -- --- 4.1 -1
- -
Bright beer +++ + + 0 --- -- --- 4.1 0/5
- +
Key - = degree of inhibition 0 = absence of the promoter or inhibitor, no effect

+ = amount of promoter or effect
Table 1
Summary of the effects of promoters, inhibitors and processing conditions on
microbial growth at different stages during beer production
Defects in process control that alter the normal balance of these factors can
render the product more susceptible to microbial contamination. For example:-
* Under-attenuated beer will contain less alcohol and a higher level of
residual carbohydrate, which encourage microbial growth.
* Extended processing times, especially if coupled with defective
temperature control, will encourage unwanted microbial growth at certain
stages during processing. Bacteria grow much more rapidly than yeast -
some have a generation time as low as 20 minutes in appropriate
conditions.
A rapid onset to fermentation quickly removes many of the growth promoters
from wort, which together with the excretion of growth inhibitors by the yeast
produces conditions less favourable to many bacteria. Thus it is desirable to
minimise the lag phase.
4. People should not move directly between "low risk to beer" and "high risk to
beer" areas without suitable precautions.

5. Waste must not be allowed to accumulate. Housekeeping procedures should
include prompt removal of waste material, immediate cleaning after completion
of a process, precautions to minimise or prevent spillage and prompt clean up
of any spillage. Formal standards, specific responsibilities and checks on
performance should be included.
6. Wet or vacuum cleaning is preferable to air blowing or dry brushing. However it
must be remembered that high-pressure hoses used to clean the outside of
equipment can distribute microbial contamination through aerosol formation.
7. Regular checks of microbiological performance should be planned and
implemented, bearing in mind that many such tests give retrospective results.
Trends in microbiological data should be evaluated as well as the "go / no go"
assessment.
8. Processes that encourage growth or transmission of unwanted micro-
organisms should not be used if better alternatives are available - caustic
detergent in presence of CO2, inappropriate re-cycling of recovered beer, etc.
9. Maintenance should be undertaken using a formal plant release and permit to
work system. The equipment should be re-cleaned and inspected prior to use
for beer.
8. Good Manufacturing Practice - Materials and Storage

Principle Brewing materials usually carry a high microbiological load. However,
neither they nor process aids are normally susceptible to microbiological
spoilage in the form and packaging in which they are delivered to the
brewery. Materials can act as vehicles for the transmission of micro-
organisms into beer if handling and storage are not suitable. This may
come about from the direct contamination of the beer by materials or
from microbial growth occurring on the materials, which even though the
organisms may be killed by subsequent processing or the anti-microbial
properties of beer, results in their excretion products being transferred to
the beer. These residues may be detrimental to beer quality or safety.
Examples would be:-
1. Fusarium infection of barley results in gushing beer.
2. Although rare, ergot in malt results in presence of the poisonous
alkaloid ergotamine. Fungal growth on damp malt can lead to
earthy flavours in the beer.
3. Wild yeast can grow in condense dripping onto the surface of
liquid sugar and produce off-flavours
4. Rodents constantly urinate and are an agent in the transmission
of Leptospirosis. Birds and insects transmit Salmonella. Poor
storage conditions, which encourage pests, will result in biological
as well as physical contamination.
General Guidance:-
1. Receiving and unloading areas should be protected from the weather to
prevent (microbiological) damage caused either through direct contamination or
by moisture uptake sufficient for later microbial growth to occur.
2. Materials should be inspected prior to intake. Any signs of infestation, damage,
extraneous material or insufficient residual shelf life are grounds for rejection.

3. Storage conditions should prevent deterioration and should be regularly
checked and recorded. Temperature, humidity, cleanliness and pest control are
all of particular importance. Lighting levels should be sufficient to allow proper
examination of storage areas for spillage and cleanliness.
4. Materials should be stored in a manner that allows sufficient access so they
can be used in proper rotation, the area cleaned and examination easily
accomplished. Part-used packages should be adequately protected against
(microbial) contamination and re-packaged if necessary.
5. The risk of (microbial) contamination is reduced by proper stock control.
Materials should be used in rotation on a "FIFO" basis.
6. Access to storage areas should be restricted to those people who need to work
in the area. Staff should be properly trained and aware of the risks. Whenever
materials are handled, measured or used everyone involved should adhere to
the rules of personal hygiene.
9. Cleaning, Disinfecting and Sterilising
Definitions
Cleaning is:-
Application of energy to remove unwanted soil, product residues and micro-
organisms from the surface of plant and equipment. The energy used during
cleaning may be chemical, kinetic or heat. All require an adequate contact or
application time.
Sanitising is:-
Using a chemical or mixture of chemicals to both clean and disinfect plant at
the same time.
Disinfection is:-
Reduction of micro-organisms to a level where they will not cause harm to the
beer.
Sterilisation is:-
A process that destroys all living organisms.
Commercial sterility is:-
Conditions needed to reduce the chance of survival of 1 spore of Clostridium
botulinum to 1 chance in 1012. Reference conditions satisfying this requirement
are 121o C for 3 minutes.
Principle Planned and regular cleaning of equipment, plant, premises and people
is necessary to prevent the transmission of unwanted micro-organisms
(and other residues) by these vehicles between batches of beer.
General Guidance:-
1. Plant should be cleaned immediately after use, rather than just before its next
use for product.
2. Cleaning methods, frequencies, chemicals and their concentrations, method of
application and flows, temperatures, contact times, means of chemical removal
and safety precautions should be specified and documented.
3. Responsibility for cleaning operations should be defined and records
maintained.

4. Plant and equipment should be checked for cleanliness before each use.
5. "Clean as you go" limits the amount of dirt and soil that accumulates at any one
time as well as reducing the effort, time, cost for full and intensive cleaning
especially housekeeping and utensils. End of shift is a convenient time to
implement this strategy as a routine.
6. Plant can only be sterilised if it is clean. Utensils and hoses must be clean
before they are put into sterilent soak tanks.
7. Disinfecting and sterilising procedures should be as fully defined and as well
controlled as are cleaning procedures.
8. Poorly maintained plant is more difficult to clean and disinfect / sterilise.
10. Summary
Good manufacturing practice is of major importance in controlling the biological
standard achieved in breweries. Its purpose is to consistently minimise the number of
unwanted micro-organisms in all parts of the brewery and at all stages of beer
production, so the beer suffers neither quality defects nor becomes unsafe for the
consumer to drink.
Operators and management need to possess knowledge and understanding about

micro-organisms that can grow in breweries and to utilise it in a structured manner to
prevent unwanted micro-organisms establishing a foothold. The role of people and
systems in maintaining good biological control will be considered during the nesxt
session.

Part II: Cleaning
MANAGEMENT ASPECTS OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
The objective of biological control is to reduce the number of unwanted micro-organisms in the
brewery to as low a level as is practicable, to preserve beer quality. The principles involved in
achieving this ideal state of affairs were outlined during the previous lesson. These principles must be
translated into results through effective action by management. Management achieves this goal by
describing its overall intentions concerning biological quality, as a formal policy.
Management translates the policy into action by:-

Defining and communicating standards and specifications to be met during the work.
Defining and communicating methods that should be used when undertaking the
work.
Providing and co-ordinating the resource needed to carry out the work.
Supervising the work.
Monitoring the work and product and taking corrective action when necessary.
Reviewing overall performance.
Demonstrating commitment and motivating employees.
The relevance of personal hygiene in a brewery and the role of management and of each individual
employee in implementing this part of the policy will be discussed. Specific guidelines for personal
hygiene will be given.
The detailed manner in which all these activities are implemented is usually documented as the
Quality Plan. A simple, real life example of a Quality Plan will be used to illustrate essential features in
the context of biological control.
Microbiological data usually only becomes available several days after sampling, which limits its value
for making "Go / No Go" decisions. Some techniques for maximising the value obtained from
retrospective, microbiological data will be outlined. In addition, the factors that must be taken into
account to ensure microbiological samples are truly representative of the contents of a tank, process
or product will be described.
The different methods and equipment used for taking microbiological samples and the
appropriateness of each for use at the different stages of the brewing process, will be listed and
evaluated.
Literature:
Quality Control Handbook, J.M. Juran, 4th Edition, Sections 5 & 6. Relevant pages are on your
CD as file 24bSG02Ref1
Hygiene for Management, R. Sprenger, 8th Edition, Ch 9. This chapter is on your CD as file
24bSG02Ref2
IBD / EBC Recommended Methods of Analysis
22-09-2005
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
2. MANAGEMENT
Scandinavian School
of Brewing
October 2005
by
S. R. Griffin
Quentech
© SRG 2005
THIS SESSION
Definitions
What managers must do - responsibilities
What everyone must do - personal hygiene
The quality plan
Microbiological monitoring
Microbiological sampling
1
DEFINITIONS
Quality assurance
All planned activities necessary to provide confidence
that the beer will satisfy defined quality requirements.
Quality control
Techniques used to measure the actual state of quality.
Quality management
Part of the overall management function, which determines
and implements quality policy.
Quality policy
Overall intentions and direction concerning quality as
formally expressed and implemented by top management.
Quality system
Organisation,responsibilities, resources, procedures,
processes to implement quality management - e.g. ISO 9000
MANAGEMENT
RESPONSIBILITY
Sufficient microbiological knowledge to:-
Implement (microbiological) quality policy
Set specifications
Define methods
Set objectives
And ……...
2
MANAGEMENT
RESPONSIBILITY
Supervise the work
Say what is expected Make sure it gets done
Monitor the results

Observe work in progress
Check cleanliness of plant, buildings, etc
Spot checks
Audits
Process records, check lists, analysis, the beer
Personal hygiene
Take action
MANAGEMENT
RESPONSIBILITY
Review the performance
Is it working?
Are things getting better?
Are specifications still appropriate?
Can methods cope with new circumstances?
3
MANAGEMENT
RESPONSIBILITY
Implement appropriate training
Risks to beer
Basic hygiene
Proper way to do the job
Include maintenance staff
MANAGEMENT
RESPONSIBILITY
Understand relevance of everything else
Motivate
Supply sufficient resource
Ensure everything is legal
AND Make a profit
4
PERSONAL HYGIENE
Purpose is to prevent:-
Transmission of beer spoilage organisms by people.
People being the vehicle for the microbial, physical or

chemical contamination of beer.
PERSONAL HYGIENE
First steps
Recruitment
Medical history
Written commitment upon employment
5
PERSONAL HYGIENE
Management’s role
Protective clothing
Changing rooms
Hygienic working environment
Properly serviced hand washing stations
Properly maintained toilets
Easily available first aid
PERSONAL HYGIENE
The detail
Washing
When
Soaps
Temperature
Drying
6
PERSONAL HYGIENE
The detail
Risks
Dressings
PERSONAL HYGIENE
The detail
Dirt
Stones
Loss
7
PERSONAL HYGIENE
The detail
Protective clothing - Primary purpose
Replacements
Laundering
Fastenings & pockets
Footware
Hair covering
PERSONAL HYGIENE
The detail
Physical contamination
Coughs & sneeezes
8
QUALITY PLAN
Definition
All the practices, activities and resources relevant to
ensuring the (microbiological) quality of the beer
or a process.
The QP will be documented and include improvement
strategy
QUALITY PLAN
Components
1. Specifications
Process as well as analysis
More than; less than; target & tolerance
What How much How Who

Process Spec Comments Resp
Wort cooling Brewhouse
Inlet wort temp. (o C) > 97 At start of cooling. Operator
Cooled wort temp. (o C) 16 ± 0.5 Includes any pre and follow through water.
Wort DO (ppm) 10 ± 1.0 Nominal oxygen pressure is wort line plus 10

Oxygen (psi) 28 psi. Pre- and follow through water to be
Oxygen flow (meter units) 15 ± 0.5 oxygenated as well as wort. From hot water
tank, 10 ppm is 15 litre O2 / hl liquid @ NTP.
Follow through (hl) Approx. 5 From HLT using casting pump.
Follow through (o C) 77 Use sufficient (cooled to wort temp.) to adjust

wort gravity at collection and discard
remainder.
9
QUALITY PLAN
Components
2. Sampling Schedule
Where Who What Which How When Who
Area
Sampled Sample Analysed Analysis Method Frequency Report Action
by: by: required Code To: By:
Wort Main Aseptic Main Forcing MM 1 One brew Dept. Shift
mains Micro 275 ml Micro per brand Manager Manager
Lab Before Lab per week Shift
pitching Manager
100 ml WLN MM 3 One brew Dept. Shift

First MacConkey agar MM 4 per day Manager Manager
wort Shift
Before Manager
pitching
QUALITY PLAN
Components
3. Predetermined action
Sample
Analyse
Compare
Act
10
QUALITY PLAN
Components
4. The Support Identification & Traceability
Prevent accidental use
Records
Recall
MICROBIOLOGICAL
MONITORING
Reasons
Classical methods = time lag
Trends
Early warning
Brand profiles
Assess production methods
Individual plant items
Monitor a process - pasteurisation
Effectiveness of cleaning
Drive improvement
11
MICROBIOLOGICAL
SAMPLING
Representative samples
Size
Likely level of infection
Stage of process
Viscosity
Non-uniform distribution of micro-organisms
Yeast samples and timing
Clearing sample lines
MICROBIOLOGICAL
SAMPLING
Representative results
Delays before plating
Yeast count - max 1 hour
Oxygen ingress and yeast vitality
Gases via membrane rather than saline
Aseptic technique
12
MICROBIOLOGICAL
SAMPLING
Sampling methods
Product Cleaning
Dropper Swabs
Plug cock Final rinse - plant
Rubber diaphragm Saline rinse - packages
Membrane filter Empty sterile bottle - Filler
Actual packages Full sterile bottle - Crowner
Water from taps The beer
Compressed gases
Atmospheric air * LOOK AT IT *
SAMPLE VALVES
Traditional plug cock
Tuchenhagen Varivent Sample Tap
13
SUMMARY
Management must translate microbiological policy into action.
The Quality Plan is a structured way of planning this.
Managers need both technical knowledge of microbiology

and a holistic view of the process to implement the
Quality Plan.
BUT,
Microbiological data is only as good as the sample
and
the way in which it is analysed.
14
MANAGEMENT ASPECTS OF BIOLOGICAL
CONTROL
Session 24b-SRG-02
This session will consider the role of management and of quality assurance systems in
maintaining a high standard of biological control in the brewery. The role of personal
hygiene in beer quality and product safety will be outlined.
A variety of different methods can be used to take microbiological samples - these will
be described and the matching of method to situation will be discussed.
1. Definitions
Quality assurance is:-

All the planned activities necessary to provide adequate confidence that the
beer will satisfy defined (microbiological) requirements for quality.
Quality control is:-
The operational techniques (sampling, analysis) used to measure the actual
state of (microbiological) quality, compare it with defined requirements and act
on the difference.
Quality management is:-
That aspect of the overall management function, which determines and
implements quality policy.
Quality Policy is:-
The overall intentions and direction of an organisation concerning quality that
are formally expressed and implemented by top management.
Quality system is:-
The organisational structure, responsibilities, procedures, processes and
resources for implementing quality management. ISO 9000 is an example of an
internationally recognised quality system used by many organisations.
2. Role and Responsibilities of Management in Biological Control

Principle Biological control is part of management's responsibility in formulating
and implementing its quality policy. Management must know
microbiology and understand the technical aspects of biological control
to effectively:-
Set standards and specifications
Define methods
Provide and co-ordinate resources
Provide effective supervision
Monitor and take action
Review performance
Demonstrate commitment and motivate all employees
Whilst enabling a profitable operation.
24bSG02 ManAspBiolContr02R1 doc Page 1 of 10 © SRG, 2002

General Guidance
1. Management must ensure company standards and specifications comply with
all relevant legal requirements.
2. As well as defining and documenting methods, management must ensure
everyone carrying out the operation is given sufficient training, which includes
an understanding of the microbiological risks associated with the operation and
basic hygiene.
3. Resources are manpower, machinery, money, methods and materials.
4. Supervision involves communicating microbiological standards to operators and
ensuring the standards are attained by appropriate monitoring.
5. Biological monitoring includes:-
Examination of check lists, process data, laboratory results and product
Visual checks on cleanliness of plant, equipment and buildings
Assessment of personal hygiene
Observation of work in progress
Spot-checks and inspections
Audits
6. Review is a formal examination by management, of the status and performance
of biological control in the brewery in relation to the biological control policy and
new objectives arising out of changing circumstances.
3. Personal Hygiene
Principle The 2 main issues associated with personal hygiene in a brewery are the
transmission of beer spoilage organisms and the contamination of the
beer by any other objectionable matter or micro-organisms. Both are
completely unacceptable to customers.
People can act as a vehicle for transmission of microbial contamination
by means of hands, clothing, skin infections or unsavoury practices.
Everyone working in production and packaging areas must always
observe the highest possible standards of personal hygiene to ensure
that beer does not become contaminated by spoilage organisms or by
physical or chemical contaminants. High standards of personal hygiene
play an important part in creating a good public image whilst protecting
beer quality and helping to ensure compliance with legislation.
The brewery production environment should be considered as
demanding of personal hygiene as any other food production operation.
General Guidance:-
1. Personal hygiene in the brewery starts with recruitment - suitable staff show a:-
* Neat and tidy appearance
* Absence of skin infections and good dental hygiene
* Clean hands with short fingernails and no evidence of nail-biting
* Not wear excessive make-up or jewellery
* A belief for the need in hygiene
People who cannot take the trouble to present a clean and tidy appearance at
interview do not usually respond to the hygiene disciplines needed in a
brewery.
2. Everyone working in brewery production and packaging areas should be in
good health and have clean habits to prevent the direct contamination of beer.
Medical screening is not usually undertaken for brewery workers although a
history of persistent diarrhoea or chest problems should not be ignored.
3. All staff should be advised in writing of their responsibilities regarding hygiene
and the expectation they will undertake appropriate training prior to their
commencing employment.
4. Management should encourage personal hygiene by providing:-
* Hygienic working environment
* Sufficient (clean) protective clothing at all times - regular laundering.
* Changing rooms
* Replenishment of soap, towels, etc at washing stations
* Suitably equipped and cleaned toilet facilities, which do not open directly
into production areas
* Readily available first aid facilities
5. Personal hygiene - hands.
Hands and fingernails can be the agent of cross-contamination especially if
manual operations are used within the brewery.
Fingernails should be short, kept clean and un-varnished. Nail varnish inhibits
cleaning and harbours dirt and bacteria.
Hands should be washed:-
* Before undertaking any manual operation such as drawing samples from
open vessels, using utensils to crop yeast, connecting hoses,
dismantling or re-assembling plant during cleaning, handling priming
sugar or caramel, adding dry hops to cask beer, etc.
* When moving between different areas of the brewery for manual
operations.
* After a break or going to the toilet.
* After handling spoilt beer, waste yeast or by-products.
* After smoking or eating.
Hands should be washed in hot (45 - 49o C) water using non-perfumed,
bactericidal soap. Disposable paper towels or hot air are preferred methods of
drying. Nailbrushes should be either disposable or cleaned and disinfected at
least daily.
6. Personal hygiene - cuts and wounds
Uninfected cuts should always be covered with a clean, easy-to-detect,
waterproof dressing to prevent blood and bacteria from contaminating utensils
or beer. Dressings also function to prevent cuts becoming infected. Dressings
should be issued by the brewery and be green or blue so they are easily visible
if they drop off.
7. Personal hygiene - jewellery
Because jewellery is not normally cleaned it harbours dirt and bacteria in the
settings, between stones and especially in watch straps. The only jewellery that
is acceptable in high-risk areas of the brewery, such as packaging, is one-piece
sleeper earrings and plain wedding bands. The risk of physical contamination of
beer arising from other jewellery in packaging areas is considered
unacceptable. Although not generally considered a risk to beer quality in other
areas of the brewery, jewellery poses personal safety risks in the vicinity of
machinery.
8. Personal hygiene - protective clothing
Although overalls may be worn to protect a person's own clothes and safety
these, for the purposes of this lesson, are secondary to its main purpose, which
is to protect beer from infection or contamination. Protective clothing in the
brewery should be appropriate for the duties to be performed and will include
overalls, smocks, aprons, boots, hats and gloves.
Overalls should completely cover ordinary clothing and should be clean and
light coloured so that any dirt shows easily. Replacements should always be
available. It is preferable protective clothing is fastened with press-studs or
Velcro type fastener to avoid the possibility of buttons falling off.
Outdoor clothing should not be brought into brewery production or packaging
areas. Protective clothing should not be worn outside the brewery - especially
boots.
If necessary, footwear should be cleaned when moving from one area of the
brewery to another to prevent cross contamination.
Protective clothing should be removed before visiting the toilet.
9. Personal hygiene - tobacco
Neither smoking nor snuff is acceptable in any production area. Both increase
the likelihood of people coughing and spluttering as well as possible direct
contamination by cigarette ends or ash and product taint.
10. Personal hygiene discipline should apply to everyone entering a production
area - including management and visitors.
Although not posing a risk of beer infection the following examples illustrate the
importance of personal hygiene in the context of preventing objectionable
contamination of beer:-
* 15% of people carry Staphylococcus aureus on their skin - regular hand
washing in sensitive areas should be instituted as outlined above.
* Septic cuts and boils exude pus containing pathogenic Staphylococci - anyone
affected should be moved to an area where beer is not exposed or manual
operations carried out, to prevent possible entry of bodily fluid into the beer.
* 40% of adults carry S. aureus in their nose and throat. Eating in a production
area is likely to result in the transfer of these bacteria onto hands, then to
utensils or equipment. Nail biters also run the risk of transferring bacteria and
objectionable matter from mouth and nose to their hands and thence utensils or
beer. Coughs and sneezes transfer bacteria by droplets - people with a bad
cold or cough should be re-assigned to duties away from exposed product.
* UK law states that people are not permitted to work with food when they are
suffering from a disease that could be transmitted through the food.
Cryptosporidium and Giardia are parasitic protozoans causing watery
diarrhoea, flatulence, abdominal pain and distension. Transmission is usually
via human carriers, the faecal-oral route or water. The infective cysts are very
resistant and not killed by normal water chlorination. Although these organisms
cannot survive in beer, dilution water for high gravity beer can pose a risk. It is
therefore prudent to exclude anyone with such symptoms from sensitive parts
of the brewery. Anyone working in a production area and suffering from gastro-
intestinal symptoms is duty bound to inform their management, as part of their
personal hygiene responsibility.
* Highly scented perfume, after-shave or toilet products are not acceptable due
to risk of tainting.
* Hair should be covered wherever beer is exposed and especially during
packaging operations. Pitryosporum and Trichosporon are two yeasts that
commonly grow on hair and cause dandruff, although not beer infection. The
presence of hair or dandruff in packaged beer is unacceptable.
4. The Quality Plan

Definition
The quality plan is a document or documents within the quality system that set out all
the practices, activities and resources relevant to ensuring the (microbiological) quality
of a particular product (beer) or process.
General Guidance
1. At its simplest the quality plan for a product will comprise:-
* The process specification detailing the amounts of materials, the process
conditions and the times that should be used - see example Table 1.
* A sampling schedule that defines what laboratory checks are needed -
see example Table 2.
* Quality objectives relating to acquisition of resources needed to achieve
required quality, improving QC, inspection and test procedures or the
clarification of standards.
The documents will include who does what, how it should be done, when it
should be done and responsibility for action.
Process Spec Comments Resp

Wort cooling Brewhouse
o
Inlet wort temp. ( C) > 97 At start of cooling. Operator
Cooled wort temp. (o C) 16 ± 0.5 Includes any pre and follow through water.
Wort DO (ppm) 10 ± 1.0 Nominal oxygen pressure is wort line plus 10

Oxygen (psi) 28 psi. Pre- and follow through water to be
Oxygen flow (meter units) 15 ± 0.5 oxygenated as well as wort. From hot water
tank, 10 ppm is 15 litre O2 / hl liquid @ NTP.
Follow through (hl) Approx. 5 From HLT using casting pump.
Follow through (o C) 77 Use sufficient (cooled to wort temp.) to adjust

wort gravity at collection and discard
remainder.
Yeast pitching Yeast Room
Strain S04 Sourced from XX company. Operator
Maximum generations <20
Age since cropped (hrs) <96 Preferably < 48 hrs.
Slurry temperature (o C) 4 ± 1.0 Not to be acid washed if warmer.

Viability (%) <90 Ideally > 95
Slurry solids (%) <25 Ideally 35 - 40. Adjust pitching rate
accordingly.
Slurry pH < 4.7 High values indicate yeast autolysis.
Acid washing Permitted pH 2.1 for 1 hour.

Collection Fermenting
Gravity (o Plato.) 10.0 ± 0.15 Corrected to 20 o C Room
Operator
Temperature (o C) 16 ± 0.5
Yeast count (cells x 106 /ml) 10 ± 3 Nominal 500 ml slurry pitched per hl wort.
Table 1
Example of Part of a Typical Process Specification

Sampling Schedule for XX's Premium Bitter
Area Sampled Sample Analysed Analysis Method Frequency Report Action
by: by: required Code To: By:
Wort Main Aseptic Main Forcing MM 1 One brew Dept. Shift
mains Micro 275 ml Micro per brand Manager Manager
Lab Before Lab per week Shift
pitching Manager
100 ml WLN MM 3 One brew Dept. Shift

First MacConkey agar MM 4 per day Manager Manager
wort Shift
Before Manager
pitching
Pitching Main Aseptic Main
yeast Micro 20 ml Micro
tank Lab Lab
At fill Microscope MM 2 Every tank Dept. Shift
" Solids, centrifuge MM 5 Manager Manager
" Giant colony MM 6 Shift
" Melibiose MM 7 Manager
" Raka Ray MM 8 Quality
a
" WLD MM 9 Manager
" Lysine agar MM 10
" MYGP + Cu MM 11
" MacConkey agar MM 4
Operator Before Yeast Viability, Me blue YM 1 Every As Yeast

use Operator pH GM 2 pitching above Operator
+
Main Before Main Vitality, APb YM 2 Every Yeast Yeast
Micro use Micro pitching Operator Operator
Lab Lab
FV Operator Ordinary Operator Yeast count FM 1 Two brews Shift Operator
500 ml per brand Manager
When per week
FV full
Main Aseptic Main WLD MM 9 Two brews Dept. Shift

Micro 100 ml Micro per brand Manager Manager
Lab 24 hrs Lab per week Shift
Manager
Main Aseptic Main Raka Ray MM 8 Two brews Dept. Shift

Micro 100 ml Micro Lysine agar MM 10 per brand Manager Manager
Lab 48 hrs Lab MYGP + Cu MM 11 per week Shift
MacConkey agar MM 4 Manager
Key a - WLN with cycloheximide b - Acidification Power
Table 2
Example of Part of a Typical Quality Sampling Plan
2. A specification describes or better, quantifies, the requirements with which a

process or product must conform. A specification will usually take the form of:-
* Not less than target value; yeast viability, >90%.
* Target value ± tolerance; yeast count at pitch, 20±5 x 106 cells per ml.
* Not greater than target value; beer ex-pasteuriser, <1 cfu per 500 ml.
3. Basic implementation of a quality plan entails the feedback loop:-
Sample - Analyse - Compare - Act
4. Since the realistic situation in a brewery is that there are many batches of beer
residing in many different vessels at any one time, the basic quality loop must
be supported by:-
* Identification and traceability of the beer batches in process and of the
samples in the laboratory.
* The ability to isolate and prevent the accidental use or further processing
of batches of beer with defective microbiological results, until appropriate
corrective action has been approved and determined effective.
* Appropriate records.
* A means of recalling beer if necessary.
5. Microbiological Monitoring
Principle Microbiological monitoring classically consists of taking of a sample,
which is incubated on nutrient agar under conditions that allow individual
bacteria and yeast cells present to grow and form visible colonies. It is
usually several days before a result is available.
Microbiological testing should be used to indicate much more than
simply whether a batch of beer or a sample is "OK" or "Not OK". It is
important to analyse the data in terms of trends and overall performance
as well as deciding whether the result is in specification.
General Guidance
1. An individual result should also be considered in the context of its source in the
brewery and the time lag between sampling and result. For example a defective
sample of pitching yeast should also be considered in the context of the beer
from which the yeast was cropped and, in the case of an ale brewery, the worts
into which it may have been re-pitched.
2. Microbiological data should be used to build a profile of individual brands, beer
types or processes. As illustrated during the first session the relative amounts
of growth promoters and inhibitors in different beer types can influence the
types of micro-organisms able to grow.
3. Trends in microbiological data should be used as early warning to initiate action
to prevent defective results. Trends are impossible to detect in lists of results or
from piles of reports. Graphs or simple statistical process control charts will
indicate whether performance is improving, stable or deteriorating. It is useful to
incorporate a "warning level" on the graph to trigger action before the "defective
specification level" is reached.
4. Microbiological results can be used to determine whether specific handling
techniques are satisfactory. For example the methods used to handle and
manually connect hoses between tanks could be evaluated.
5. Microbiological results can be used to monitor the performance of individual
items of plant. For example mapping data onto the layout of a tank room will
indicate presence of hotspots due to blocked cleaning heads, variable distance
of tanks from a common scavenge, etc.
6. Microbiological monitoring should be used to determine whether specific
processes are satisfactory, e.g. pasteurisation.
7. Microbiological techniques should be used to routinely monitor the
effectiveness of cleaning and disinfecting or sterilising plant.
8. The data should be used to drive a continuous improvement programme.
6. Sampling methods
Principle A meaningful result will only be obtained if the original sample is
representative of the bulk of the material, product, process, vessel,
equipment or package. The time when product is sampled will also affect
the result and hence conclusions arrived at.
Microbiological samples must be taken using aseptic techniques to
prevent contamination of the sample from external sources.
General guidance
1. The following factors must be taken into account to ensure microbiological
samples are representative:-
* Sample size must be sufficiently large to ensure it is representative of
the entire contents of vessel. Tank size and mixing should be
considered.
* Likely number of micro-organisms present - flash-pasteurised beer is
likely to contain < 2 cfu per litre and a sample of ideally 8 - 10 litres is
required. Samples from well-mixed fermenters might be expected to
contain up to 10 cfu per ml. and a sample size around 100ml would be
sufficient.
* Stage of the process - sampling late in fermentation is unlikely to reveal
the presence of wort spoilage organisms, even though the flavour
damage they cause is evident. Samples should be taken approximately
24 hours after wort has been pitched to detect gram negative wort
spoilers; approximately 48 hours after fermentation has commenced if
wild yeast and acid tolerant beer spoilage bacteria are to be detected.
* Product being sampled - yeast is much more difficult to sample than
beer because it is thick and viscous or may even be in the form of solid
cake. Obtaining a representative sample is heavily dependent upon the
effectiveness of mixers in yeast storage tanks. Sample size, position of
sample points and even sequential samples during a transfer may be
necessary.
* Non-uniform distribution of micro-organisms - the microbiological state of
beer in a cold tank is best assessed just after filling. Samples taken just
before emptying when solids have separated, especially if finings or
other clarifying agents have been used, may not indicate the true
situation. Beer blending and dosing operations may also result in non-
uniform distribution of infective micro-organisms leading to a misleading
result.
2. The time when a sample is taken may influence the result obtained. The most
obvious example of the importance of timing is yeast. Whereas samples to
assess infection are best taken immediately after cropping it is axiomatic that
viability and vitality assessments are best done just prior to pitching.
3. Sample points must be appropriately positioned on the plant. For example,
unrepresentative samples might be obtained in a situation where a sample cock
is extended away from a tank for convenience.
4. Once a sample has been taken the storage time and conditions in which the
sample is kept will affect the results obtained. Ideally, microbiological samples
should be analysed immediately they have been taken. Some examples of how
results are influenced by unsatisfactory practices are:-
* Overnight storage of cold tank samples on the bench prior to plating out
would encourage growth of any organisms present.

* A delay of more than an hour before undertaking a yeast count on
fermenting beer will allow growth. The addition of 5 ml of 3% w/v copper
sulphate solution per 100 ml sample will preserve the sample for up to
48 hours.
* Uncontrolled oxygenation of yeast samples will affect vitality analysis.
* If gases are sampled through a membrane filter rather than bubbling into
saline, the trapped micro-organisms dry out and die.
5. Whatever the type of sampling device that is used the general principles of
aseptic sampling should be adhered to:-
* All dippers, needles, syringes, membranes, swabs, plastic tubes and
sample bottles must be sealed or wrapped and sterilised before use.
* Sample cocks, membranes, dairy sample rubbers must be rinsed with
70% v/v alcohol and flamed to sterilise them prior to opening or inserting
needles. Alternatively some of these devices have facilities for steaming.
* A small amount of liquid should be allowed to flow through a sample tap
before collecting the appropriate volume in the sterilised container.
* Sample bottles should only be opened as required, the neck flamed prior
to filling with sample and re-flamed and sealed immediately the sample
has been drawn. Screw tops or other items should not be allowed to
touch non-sterile objects or surfaces during the sampling operation.
* All sampling equipment should be exposed for the shortest possible
time.
* Beer should not be spilled or allowed to flow onto floors during sampling.
* Sample points should be rinsed clean and re-flamed after sampling has
been completed. Any beer residues in the area should be cleaned away.
* Microbiological samples should only be taken by people trained and
competent in aseptic techniques.
6. Microbiological sampling methods can be classed as either appropriate for:-
* Assessing product - see Table 3 for an outline of common methods
* Evaluating effectiveness of cleaning procedures - these methods will be
reviewed during Lesson 10.
7. Summary
This session has outlined the importance of planning, organising and communicating
in the process of maintaining adequate standards of biological control. Unless
responsibility for all stages and tasks is defined, the intended outcomes will not be
achieved.
One aspect of biological control that relies heavily upon the proper understanding and
motivation of properly trained staff, is personal hygiene. The ramifications of personal
hygiene extend beyond that of biological control.
Quality planning (for biological control) must ensure that samples truly reflect the
situation in the plant, process and product. The methods and factors, which should be
taken into account when devising a realistic sampling programme are outlined.

Sampling Method Used for Strengths Weaknesses Procedure
Dropping can Product in:- Simple External surfaces as well as internal Open the sample container using aseptic
Screw top bottle on cord Open water reservoirs Foolproof if sterilised and used ones must be kept sterile. procedures.
Disposable dipper Open fermenters properly. Sometimes will not sink properly. Throw into vessel & allow it to sink.
Haul up and seal top.
Plug cock Product (Water, wort, beer) in:- Simple Spout exposed to atmosphere. Flush spout prior to sterilising.
Tanks, Mains Low cost Difficult to sterilise. Overheating Flame, etc
during flaming eventually causes Run liquid in plug hole to waste prior to
cock to leak. collecting sample
Awkward to clean during CIP.
Rubber diaphragm Product (Water, wort, beer) in:- Best design for aseptic sampling. Needle limits sample size. Sample drawn by piercing the diaphragm
(Dairy sample point) Tanks, Mains Colour coding for change date. Needle may clog - yeast or trub. with a hypodermic needle.
Max. 10 samples per sq. cm. Needle may be mounted in holder to collect
Ensuring rubbers changed. sample in bottle or onto a syringe
Keeping housings clean.
Membrane samples Product - few organisms in a large Can be mounted on tank, pipeline Premature clogging if colloidal Sterilised membrane in holder fitted with
volume. Must be concentrated or keg to capture organisms particles present in sample. hypodermic needle is inserted into rubber
before analysis. present. White colonies difficult to see if white diaphragm type sample point.
Bright & pasteurised beer Can be used in lab to capture membranes used. Sample volume is 5 - 10 litre. Membrane is
Filled packages organisms from samples brought retrieved aseptically and incubated on
Water and Detergent tanks to lab or from packages appropriate type of agar.
Actual packages Product in:- No ingress required. Retrospective results. Individual packages forced at 27o C for 7 -
Bottles, Cans, Kegs Relatively large numbers can be Not necessarily a true reflection of 10 days to accelerate microbiological
evaluated if necessary. state of biological control. deterioration.
Reflects what the customer is Non- biological haze formation may Examine for haze, bits, sediments,
likely to detect. interfere. microscopic appearance and flavour.
Water from taps Hose points, lab taps Already there. May not be representative unless Remove external tails or hoses. Clean inside
procedure followed carefully. spout. Open tap; check gland not leaking.
Open tap full for 2 - 3 minutes and flush.
Close tap and flame, etc. Cool with trickle of
water from tap & take sample.
Compressed gases Air, nitrogen or carbon dioxide in Gases often ignored. The mere Sample not representative if Bubble gas through 500 ml of sterile saline
contact with product fact they are sampled is condensate present. for 15 minutes at 1 litre per min.
advantageous. Often difficult to regulate gas flow. Membrane filter the saline in the laboratory.
Incubate membrane on nutrient agar.
Atmospheric air Environment in:- Simple Not truly quantitative Expose Petri dish containing agar medium
Yeast propagation plant, Yeast Adequate for most brewery for 15 minutes in relevant place. Ensure
rooms, Bottling halls and purposes. plates not handled during exposure.
Microbiological laboratories Incubate Petri dish and count colonies.
Table 3
Some Common Sampling Methods for Evaluating Product
secondary infection; boils and septic cuts; respiratory tract infections from heavy colds to
chronic bronchitis; infection of the eyes; recurrent discharge from the ears and dental sepsis or
purulent gingivitis may also require the suspension of food handlers until successfully treated.
Reproduced from:
Hygiene for Management,
By R. A. Sprenger
Eighth Edition, reprinted 1999
Published by
Highfield Publications
Faecal specimens should be taken at intervals of not less than 24 hours.

In 1995 guidance from the DH, “Food haiidlers: Fitness to work”, stressed that the greatest risk
of pathogenic contamination of food is from persons with diarrhoea and vomiting and that
good hygienic practices of food handlers are essential to prevent such contamination. The
guidance confirmed the same criteria as above for determining when food handlers should be
considered fit to return to work following most gastrointestinal infections, i.e. no diarrhoea or
vomiting for 48 hours, once any treatment has ceased and good hygiene, particularly
handwashing, is observed.
However, the author believes that managers should also take into account the likely reaction of
customers finding out that, for example, salmonella carriers are involved in food preparation.
Furthermore, in the event of a food poisoning outbreak, the due-diligence defence may be more
difficult to argue, if carriers are employed.
Part II: Cleaning
MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WATER
Beer consists of approximately 94% water. Water may also come into contact with product as a
consequence of cleaning, cooling, steaming and packaging operations. Good standards of water
microbiological quality are therefore necessary. These standards are mainly concerned with:-
Absence of water borne pathogens
Absence of wort spoiling Enterobacteriacae
It is usually very difficult to detect the pathogenic bacteria in water that are the consequence of faecal
contamination because these bacteria are usually present only in low numbers. Several other non-
pathogenic types of bacteria of faecal origin, which are present in larger numbers and more easily
detected, are therefore used as indicator organisms. Some of these indicator organisms also survive
longer in water than the pathogens and their presence helps indicate the time that may have elapsed
since the water was originally contaminated.
Microbiological monitoring of water should be undertaken throughout the treatment and distribution
system. The main tests are designed to detect the presence of:-
Total coliforms - Non-pathogenic water residents, indicators & potential pathogens.
Faecal (thermotolerant) coliforms - Potential pathogens from gut of animals and man.
Faecal streptococci - Longer lived indicator organisms
Sulphite reducing Clostridia - Longer lived indicator organism
Total organisms - Overview of general water quality and trends.
Most bacteria found in water are unable to survive in wort or beer. However some members of the
Enterobacteriacae are able to grow to a small extent in wort prior to active fermentation, when they
produce vegetable off-flavours that remain in the final beer. One species that is able to actively grow in
water is Legionella pneumophilia. This bacterium is relevant to brewers because it grows easily in
evaporative cooling towers (common pieces of brewery plant) and is pathogenic through inhalation.
The steps necessary to prevent this hazard will be described.
Whereas water used in the brewhouse is either boiled or stored hot for a significant time, that used for
cleaning, packaging or high gravity beer dilution requires any micro-organisms present are either
removed or killed. The usual methods used in breweries to achieve a satisfactory microbiological
condition are:-
Chlorine Chlorine dioxide Ozone
UV radiation Sterile filtration
Literature:
Kunze W., Malting and Brewing Technology
Hygiene for Management, R. Sprenger, 8th Edition, pp159, 161. These pages are on your CD as
file 24bSG03Ref1
22-09-2005
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
3. WATER
Scandinavian School
of Brewing
October 2005
by
S. R. Griffin
Quentech
© SRG 2005
THIS SESSION
Water & brewing
Micro-organisms in water
Legal requirements
QC methods for water
Water treatment
Legionella - A special case
1
WATER & BREWING
Destiny
Product - Wort
Product - High gravity dilution
Cleaning
Steaming
Cooling
DO control
Packaging
Beer in the glass 94%
WATER & BREWING
The basics
Verifiable, controlled source
Treated
Routinely monitored
2
MICRO-ORGANISMS
IN WATER
Sources
Surface vs. borehole
Faecal contamination
Birds & animals
MICRO-ORGANISMS
IN WATER
Saprophytes
Pseudomonas Food spoilage but not beer
3
MICRO-ORGANISMS
IN WATER
Beer spoilage
Zymomonas Haze, sulphur, aldehyde
Enterobacter )
Klebsiella ) Wort spoilage
Aerobacter )
Bacillus Spores survive boiling

Sweet wort spoilage (rare)
Wild yeast Water only a vehicle

Fungal spores Black mould external surfaces
MICRO-ORGANISMS
IN WATER
Indicator organisms
E. coli ) Generally harmless in beer
Clostridium spp.) But,
Streptococci ) E. coli 0157
Cl. perfringens vegetable
food poisoning
Presence Sewage contamination

Ineffective treatment
Absence Effective treatment
4
MICRO-ORGANISMS
IN WATER
Pathogens
Bacteria
Shigella Sewage
Campylobacter Water borne disease
Listeria Not survive in beer
Protozoa
Cryptosporidium Surface waters
Giardia Must boil or filter
Algae
Microcystis Blooms
Heat stable toxins
WATER QC
Sampling
Incoming riser or borehole header
Treatment plant & carbon filters
Storage tanks
Brewing liquor
Distribution system
High gravity dilution water
Pasteuriser (recirculation) tanks
Cooling towers ……..
5
LEGIONELLA
Risk areas
Cooling towers
Water baths
Safety showers
Control
List equipment at risk for formal control
Prevent aerosols
Water temperature < 20 or >50o C
Prevent stagnation
Dose bactericides
Change water
Inspection & audit
WATER TREATMENT
Surface water
Screen
Flocculate
Sediment
Sand filtration - sieving & microbial cleansing
Chlorination
6
WATER TREATMENT
Borehole or municipal supply
(Re)-chlorinate 2 ppm
Low cost but corrosion
Dose rate critical for circumstances
Carbon filter Remove chlorine

Prevent chlorophenolic taints
Remove algal toxins
BUT
No chlorine = no protection in distribution system
WATER TREATMENT
Heat
Wort boiling Non-specific
Wort cooling Effective
Expensive
7
WATER TREATMENT
Chlorine dioxide
Method
Na Chlorite + HCl 0.5 ppm
Advantages
Low cost
Residual effect
Non-tainting
Disadvantages
Under-dosing = no effect
WATER TREATMENT
Ozone
Method
On site generator from air
Advantages
Rapid action - < 1 ppm
Non-tainting
Disadvantages
Very corrosive
Over-dosing leaves residual DO
Safety - 1 ppm strongly irritant
- TLV, 8 hrs = 0.1ppm
8
WATER TREATMENT
UV radiation
Method
Mercury discharge tubes - 265nm
Advantages
High capacity
Auto operation
No residues
Disadvantages
Warm up needed
No residual protection
Coloured water
Tubes lose efficiency
9
WATER TREATMENT
Sterile filtration
Method
Membranes / cartridges to 0.45μ
Advantages
High capacity
Standard units
No residues
Disadvantages
High quality water needed
No residual protection
Can be costly
SUMMARY
Water is a major constituent of beer.
There are legal requirements for microbiological quality

of water used for food in most countries.
Difficult to detect pathogens, so check for

indicator organisms.
Microbiological purification of water uses heat, chemicals

or physical removal of micro-organisms.
Legionella does not infect beer, but must be controlled

in breweries to prevent human disease.
10
MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WATER
Session 24b-SRG-03
This session will consider the measures that must be taken to ensure water does not
contain micro-organisms that could cause beer spoilage or be potentially pathogenic.
The chemical, physical and organoleptic aspects of water quality for breweries will not
be considered.
1. Introduction
Water accounts for approximately 94% of the volume of beer and may also come into
contact with product as a consequence of:-
Cleaning
Steaming
Cooling
Packaging.
The total volume of water used in a typical brewery is about 6 times the volume of
beer produced. Even in those situations where water is not intended for direct addition
into product, accidental addition through plant faults such as perforated heat
exchanger plates, residual CIP rinse or bottle washing residues, etc. is a very real
possibility. Whereas traditional brewing procedures result in all the water being heated
or boiled, modern methods such as high gravity beer dilution or water interfaces to
reduce oxygen pick up can pose higher microbiological risks.
Controlling the biological quality of water for use in breweries requires the following
principles are implemented:-
1. Ensure verifiable source is used
2. Treatment appropriate to source and intended use
3. Routine monitoring
2. Micro-organisms Found in Water

Algae, protozoa, fungi, yeasts and bacteria may all be found in water. They can
present a variety of risks from virtually none through adverse effects on beer quality,
or even potential damage to consumer health - see Table 1.
As a general rule, water from a bore-hole contains fewer micro-organisms than

surface water, i.e. rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Surface water supports a large and
varied microbial population and may also contain many potentially harmful micro-
organisms of human or animal faecal origin. Although the number of pathogenic
bacteria in water drawn from rivers usually declines with time in temperate climates,
sufficient remain to represent a very real hazard if the water were to be used for
drinking or food preparation without treatment. It is not unknown for reservoirs and
lakes to be constantly re-inoculated with bacterial pathogens by water-fowl and
seagulls. Water borne, pathogenic bacteria of faecal origin include those responsible
for bacillary dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid, Campylobacteriosis and Listeriosis.
24bSG03 MicroContrWater03 new Page 1 of 7 © SRG 2003
Organisms Source Effect
Faecal organisms Indicators of sewage Most strains harmless.
E. coli contamination E. coli 0157 strain causes food
Clostridium spp. borne disease by verocytotoxin.
Streptococci Note Clostridium perfringens
causes food poisoning.
Pathogenic bacteria Faecal / sewage Water borne disease
Shigella contamination
Campylobacter
Listeria, etc.
Water bacteria Live in water & Can cause food spoilage but not
Pseudomonas decompose vegetable in beer
matter
Beer spoilage bacteria
Zymomonas Soil, leaking underground Haze, sulphur, aldehyde in
pipes beer
Enterobacter Sometimes found in water Wort spoilage

Klebsiella
Aerobacter
Bacillus Spores survive wort Rare but can spoil sweet wort.
boiling
Wild yeasts Water can be a carriage Beer spoilage
medium but yeasts Films, hazes, flavour
unable to grow in water
Fungal spores Water can be a carriage Black moulds on external
medium but fungi unable surfaces
to grow in water
Protozoa
Cryptosporidium Surface waters Gastro-enteritis, but not survive
Giardia contaminated by animals in beer
Chlorine resistant - heat or
filtration necessary.
Spores resistant.
Algae Surface waters with Heat stable toxins
Microcystis spp. blooms
Table 1
Micro-organisms Found in Drinking Water Supplies
Pathogenic bacteria are usually present in low numbers compared with the total
microbial population and are outnumbered by relatively harmless micro-organisms of
faecal origin. These relatively harmless bacteria have similar survival characteristics to
the faecal pathogens, both in the water and during its treatment. These harmless
organisms are easier to monitor because of the larger numbers present and are
therefore used as indicators of faecal pollution on the basis that if they are detected,
then pathogens are also likely to be present. Conversely their absence after water
treatment is taken as an indicator that the pathogens have also been removed.

The main faecal indicator organism is Escherichia coli. E. coli is a good indicator
because it is abundantly common and has similar survival characteristics to
Salmonella. Other indicator organisms are the faecal streptococci and Clostridium
spp, which both survive in water longer than E. coli. The detection of faecal
streptococci or Clostridium spp. in the absence of E. coli indicates the water has been
contaminated, but that the pollution is not recent or that partial purification has taken
place. It can also indicate marginal levels of chlorine in the treated water. The coliform
group of bacteria as a whole cannot be used as indicators of faecal pollution because
although some members are of undoubted intestinal origin, many others occur
naturally on decaying vegetation.
As discussed during session Lesson 1, these potentially pathogenic micro-organisms

do not normally survive in beer produced using traditional processes although there
are situations which can favour their survival.
3. Water Standards
Water which is used for:-
Drinking
Incorporated as an ingredient
Preparation or processing of any food
must meet EC regulations. Municipal supplies should have been treated to these
standards before entering the brewery. Water from a private bore-hole is not exempt.
The EC standards are designed to detect the presence of pathogenic bacteria in

drinking water but do not provide any assurance against the presence of beer spoilage
organisms. Until 1999, the EU Drinking Water Directive required that 4 groups of
pathogenic bacteria were monitored in water supplies, but this has been simplified to
require only that E. coli and total Enterococci are monitored. The requirements are
outlined in Table 2.
4. Quality Control
The legal requirements for potable water concentrate on the minimum standard
required to ensure the water is safe. In addition to the safety checks outlined in Table
2 the QC operation should also monitor general trends in numbers of micro-organisms
present as that data will indicate general suitability for brewing applications. The
general methods and principles are outlined in Table 2.
There are a number of practical considerations to ensure water quality data is

meaningful:-
* Residual chlorine levels vary throughout the distribution system; hence
microbiological quality may differ throughout the system.
* Organism may still grow in treated water, especially in the presence of
minute traces of jointing compounds, dead / no flow parts of the system
or in holding tanks.
* Brewery distribution systems are often labyrinthine and it may not be
possible to obtain sample from all necessary parts.
* Residual chlorine in water samples will inhibit the growth of any micro-
organisms present, leading to a falsely reassuring result. It is normal
practice to neutralise residual chlorine by adding sodium thiosulphate to
the sample.
Everyone involved in sampling and plating water samples should be aware that any
bacteria detected on agar plates are potentially pathogenic and proper handling
procedures must be adhered to.
Organism PCV Detection method +ve result Defective result

means:-
Total coliforms 0 / 100 ml Durham tubes Acid & gas General & sensitive
in 95% of Mineral modified measure of water quality.
samples lactose / glutamate Urgent response needed
broth @ 37o C to these indicator
Or: organisms.
Membrane Yellow colonies Many spp not pathogenic
Lauryl sulphate broth so small % failures can
@ 30o C be tolerated.
Faecal 0 / 100 ml Durham tubes @ 44o C Acid & gas Inhabit human & animal
(thermotolerant) Membrane @ 44o C Yellow colonies - gut.
coliforms confirm if colonies Indicators of pathogens.
Indole +ve Urgent response to trace
Catalase -ve source / correct
treatment.
Faecal 0 / 100 ml Bile, sodium azide Pink, red or As faecal coliforms
streptococci media with triphenyl maroon colonies
tetrazolium chloride dye
Sulphite 1 / 20 ml Heat sample 75o C for Black colonies As faecal coliforms
reducing 10 min - spores Confirm colonies in
Clostridia survive. litmus milk (stormy
Filter sample. Plate clot)
membrane onto iron
sulphate medium @
37o C
Total colony No PCV Yeast extract agar @ Colonies on plates Non-specific growth of
count This an 22o C moulds, yeasts &
internal Yeast extract agar @ bacteria.
QC tool. 37o C Indicates trends or
changes in water.
PCV = Prescribed Concentration Value or legal requirement
Table 2
Water Quality Standards and Tests
A typical brewery, water sampling schedule would comprise:-

1. Incoming riser
2. Borehole header
3. In-house treatment systems and carbon filters
4. Storage tanks
5. Brewing tanks

6. Strategic points in distribution system - CIP rinses, filtration slurries, beer
chase water, process aid supplies, etc.
7. High gravity dilution water
8. Pasteuriser (recirculation) tanks
5. Legionella - a Special Case

Legionella pneumophilia is a bacterium, which grows in water. If that water is sprayed
into small droplets (i.e. an aerosol) which are inhaled, it is pathogenic. The disease
(Legionellosis) is a notifiable disease in the UK that produces severe, flu-like
symptoms. There is a high mortality rate amongst susceptible people - the elderly and
those with bronchitic problems. However the disease is not contagious and neither is
drinking the water containing the bacterium harmful.
Neglected or poorly maintained water systems provide ideal growth conditions for this
organism - warm, aerobic, dirty water. In the brewery environment the main risk areas
are:-
* Cooling towers and evaporative condensers associated with refrigeration
equipment.
* Laboratory water baths
* Personnel (safety) showers
Specific sampling tests for Legionella are of limited value and the main control
measures rely on preventive management:-
* Notification of equipment at risk, to local government.
* Prevent sprays and aerosols in risk situations.
* Install spray drift eliminators on cooling towers.
* Ensure water temperature < 20o C or > 50o C in risk items.
* Prevent stagnation in shower feed pipes.
* Dose cooling tower reservoirs and (laboratory) water baths with
appropriate bactericide.
* Replace / change water before Legionella becomes established.
* Regular inspection and audit of items at risk.
6. Water Treatment
Raw ground water will undergo a series of screening, flocculation, sedimentation and
filtration processes to remove particulate matter and a large proportion of the micro-
organisms present. Sand filtration is often used as a penultimate treatment. It is
considered the sand acts as a support for a fixed population of amoebae, flagellates,
rotifers and nematodes that consume bacteria, as well as its sieving effect.
The final stage of treatment before the water is pumped from the water company's
works into the distribution system, is chlorination. Chlorine is absorbed by organic
matter present and for this reason the amount present inevitably reduces as water
flows through the distribution system. Sufficient chlorine is added to achieve
approximately 0.5 ppm free chlorine at the furthest point in the distribution system. For
this reason it is difficult to predict what level of chlorine is present in water entering the
brewery and many companies re-chlorinate incoming water as insurance.
However, chlorine reacts readily with the anthocyanogens and polyphenols naturally
present in beer to produce chlorophenols. These compounds have extremely
objectionable flavours, detectable by many people as an antiseptic character, at
fractions of a part per billion levels. Furthermore should the water originate from an
upland, acidic, moorland aquifer it is likely to contain humic acids which react with any
chlorine dosed during primary treatment to produce the same chl;orophenolic
compounds. To prevent chlorophenolic taint in the beer it is normal for all chlorinated
water to be carbon filtered. However it must be understood that carbon treated, de-
chlorinated water in the brewery water distribution system has no protection against
re-infection. Carbon filters can also become a source of infection and regular steaming
is necessary to prevent this eventuality.
Carbon filtration also removes some algal toxins, should the water originally have
suffered from an algal bloom. Many algal toxins are heat stable and wort boiling does
not provide an automatic safeguard.
The main methods of microbiological treatment of water for use in the brewery are:-
1. Heat Wort boiling or residence in hot liquor tanks, filled during

wort cooling, are the traditional methods.
Advantages Non-specific, kills everything
Resistance does not develop
Disadvantages High cost
2. Chlorine Dosed as gas or hypochlorite solution to free chlorine

approx. 2 ppm
Advantages Low cost
Easily available
Relatively safe in use
Disadvantages Taint - use restricted to CIP unless water carbon filtered.
Absorbed by organic matter, short active life
Dose rate critical
Corrosive
3. Chlorine dioxide On site mix of sodium chlorite and hydrochloric acid

injected to 0.5 ppm in water.
Advantages Low cost
Safe
Does not taint product
Relatively long lasting,.
Disadvantages Under-dosing does not sterilise the water
4. Ozone On site generation from oxygen

Advantages Rapid action
Non-tainting
Easy to control
Disadvantages Extremely corrosive
Over-dosing leaves residual oxygen
Strict safety controls necessary, especially entry into water
tanks. The 8 hr TLV is only 0.1 ppm.

5. UV radiation Mercury discharge tubes generate 200 - 280 nm
wavelength light that destroys DNA. Medium pressure
tubes more effective than low pressure. Critical energy
discharge is 30 mWs/cm2 for proper treatment of brewery
water. All the water must pass through a silica pipe
surrounded by a bank of these tubes.
Advantages High capacity, automatic operation using standard in-line
units.
No chemicals dosed.
No residues or taints in water.
No adverse effects from over treatment.
Disadvantages No residual protection - must position this treatment just
before point of water use.
Warm up before tubes fully effective.
Not effective if water has colour or algae coat the silica
water pipe - pre-treatment of water to a high standard is
necessary. Tubes become dirty and effectiveness falls.
Mercury discharge tubes lose efficiency with use.
Special disposal of old tubes necessary.
6. Sterile filtration Cartridge or membrane filtration of the water to 0.45μ or

better.
Advantages High capacity, automatic operation using standard in-line
units.
No chemicals dosed. No residues or taints in water.
No adverse effects from over treatment.
Disadvantages No residual protection - must position this treatment just
before point of water use.
Pre-treatment necessary or filter life greatly reduced.
7. Summary
Water is a major component of beer but is also used for many other purposes in the
brewery, which can potentially result in the transmission of micro-organisms into the
beer. It is a legal requirement that water used for food processing contains no
pathogenic micro-organisms but in addition to this it is necessary to ensure the few
water bacteria capable off growing in the brewery (mainly wort) are removed or killed
and that the efficacy of treatment is routinely monitored. All the water used must
therefore be microbiologically sound.
It is difficult to reliably detect the pathogenic bacteria in water. For this reason it is
usual to monitor the presence (or rather the absence) of several more resistant and
more numerous species of bacteria that are used as indicator organisms.
There are a variety of methods available to improve the microbiological quality of

water entering the brewery. The most appropriate choice will be partly determined by
the use to which the water will be put and factors such as taint potential, reliability and
cost of treatment.

Part of Chapter 11, reproduced from Hygiene for Management by R. A. Sprenger, Eighth
edition reprinted 1999
Water supplies
All cold water supplies for use with food, for cleaning equipment or surfaces or for personal
hygiene must be potable and should be mains supplied and not fed via an intermediate tank
unless chlorinated. The distribution system must not provide opportunities for contamination or
the multiplication of microorganisms. Water supplies should be subject to control and
monitoring procedures determined by hazard analysis and, if necessary, include periodic
microbiological and chemical sampling.
Hot water should have a target water discharge temperature of 600C. In hard-water areas, hot
water supplies should be softened, otherwise scale build-up will cause cleaning and operational
problems and add significantly to detergent usage. Water softeners and filters must be
maintained in a good condition so that they do not contaminate the water.
Ice used in food, drinks or buffet displays must be made from potable water. Ice machines
must not be exposed to risk of contamination and be regularly cleaned and disinfected, Utensils
must not present a foreign body hazard; glassware should not be used to “shovel ice”. Ice for
drinks should not be handled with bare hands.
Non-potable water used for steam generation or fire control must be conveyed in identifiable
systems which have no connection with, nor any possible reflux into, the potable water system.
An external water supply for washing refuse areas and loading bays should always be
available.
Drainage
Premises should have an efficient, smoothbore drainage system which must be kept clean and
in good order and repair. Drains and sewers should be adequate to remove peak loads quickly
without flooding. Sufficient drains should be installed to facilitate effective cleaning of rooms
by pressure jet cleaners or other means.
Shallow, glazed, half-round floor channels within food rooms are best left uncovered, provided
that they are not a safety hazard. If covers are necessary, these should be non-corrosive,
continuous, of suitable strength and easily removed for cleaning. In certain circumstances
trapped gullies are preferable.
To avoid fat solidifying and causing blockages, drainage systems must be well designed and
constructed, with the minimum number of bends and have an efficient self-cleaning velocity.
Cleaning and flushing, at least six monthly, is essential. Grease traps, if fitted, should be large
enough to allow adequate time for fat to separate. They should be emptied as frequently as
necessary and, as the contents may be foul smelling and obnoxious, traps should be positioned
outside food rooms.
Inspection chambers should be placed outside food rooms but if interior location is
unavoidable they must be airtight. Manhole covers should be double sealed, bedded in silicon
grease and screwed down with brass screws. All drainage systems must be provided with
sufficient access points to allow rodding in the event of blockages. Petrol interceptors may be
required for yard drains.
Items of machinery such as potato peelers and dishwashers connected directly into the drainage
system, should be trapped to avoid waste pipes acting as vents for sewers. Waste pipes to
fittings should be plastic with screw or push-fit connections to enable easy dismantling in case
of blockage.
Drains should be constructed to inhibit the harbourage and movement of vermin. Defective
drains may result in effluent, foul odours and rodents entering food rooms. They must be
repaired as quickly as possible. All external rainwater fall-pipes should be fitted with balloon
guards to prevent rodent ingress. Circumference guards should be fitted around all vertical
pipes fastened to wails, to prevent rodents climbing up them. Waste pipes exposed to constant
high temperatures should be constructed of Alkathene. The direction of flow should be from
clean areas to dirty areas. Toilets should feed into the system after food rooms.
Ventilation
Suitable and sufficient ventilation must be provided to produce a satisfactory, safe working
environment and to reduce humidities and temperatures, which would assist the rapid
multiplication of bacteria. Ambient temperatures should be below 250C. The ventilation
system, which should always flow from a clean to a dirty area, must prevent excessive heat,
condensation, dust, steam and remove odours and contaminated air. Good ventilation will
assist in reducing grease and staining of ceilings, so reducing the need for frequent decoration.
When planning a ventilation system, expert advice should be sought to ensure that food rooms
have the recommended number of air changes, for example, in kitchens, the minimum
ventilation rate should not be less than 17.5 litres per second per square metre of floor area and
not less than 30 air changes per hour. Inlets must be suitably filtered to prevent dust, dirt and
insects being brought into the food room. The input capacity should be approximately 85% of
the extract capacity to ensure a slight positive pressure and eliminate draughts. Natural
ventilation through screened windows normally needs supplementing by mechanical
ventilation to ensure effective air circulation.
Ducting should be as short as possible with man-sized access points at three metre intervals to
facilitate cleaning and removal of dirt, grease and pests. Fan motors should be located outside
the kitchen otherwise the noise produced may result in staff switching them off Fans should be
of a low-noise type but silencing may result in cleaning difficulty and fire risk.
Steam-producing equipment such as cookers, boilers and blanchers should be provided with
adequately sized canopies constructed of anodized aluminium or other suitable material.
Canopies should overhang by around 250mm. Filters, if fitted, should be cleaned frequently to
eliminate fire hazards and maintain efficiency. Drainage gutters at the base of canopies should
be provided to collect condensate.
Much of the equipment used in food rooms, especially for heat processing and cooking, emits
radiant heat which is not directly affected by air flow. Provision of lower heat-emitting
equipment such as pressure vessels and microwave ovens, and upgrading insulation on ovens
should be considered to reduce heat production.
Workroom temperature where food is handled
Generally, food hygiene law regulates food temperatures, and health and safety law regulates
air temperature. Health and safety requirements can usually be met by:
(1) maintaining a "reasonable” temperature of 160C (130C if work involves serious physical
effort); or if this is not practical
(2) providing a warm work station; or if this is not practical
(3) providing suitable protective clothing, suitable heated rest facilities and minimizing the
time in uncomfortable temperatures.
Hygiene of ventilation and water systems
Clean air and safe water are vital for a pleasant working environment and hygienic food
production, and failure to carry out routine maintenance and cleaning of ductwork, pipes and
cooling towers can result in increased risk of infection.
Water in cooling towers for industrial processes and air conditioning systems is often
contaminated with legionella bacteria. This organism develops in neglected water and air
conditioning systems and is spread by aerosols, for example, from showers and cooling towers.
Poorly maintained water systems result in a build-up of slime and dirt which support many
bacteria and algae and can result in product contamination.
Those organizations without the necessary equipment or in-house experience should consider
employing a reputable contractor to carry out regular surveys and maintenance. Filters, header
tanks, cooling tower sumps, packing and drift eliminators, overflows and plant rooms should
be cleaned and, where necessary, disinfected. Such servicing enables water treatment
programmes to operate efficiently, reduces the risk of infection, prolongs the life of pipes and
reduces the risk of fire in ducting.
Part II:Cleaning
BREWING EQUIPMENT AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
Satisfactory standards of biological control will only be achieved during operation if hygiene and
cleaning have been consciously considered during plant design, as part of the overall process. The
operating environment must also be taken into account.
The design considerations necessary to achieve a high standard of microbiological performance

include:-
Materials and microscopic appearance of surfaces
Vessel and pipe-work design, shape and arrangement
Fabrication and engineering practices and standards
Erection of plant and environment
Instrumentation
Examples of good and poor hygienic design will be shown. These examples concentrate on the
aspects which encourage retention of soil and micro-organisms rather than factors which hinder
cleaning. Factors that hinder cleaning will be considered during a later lesson. Some methods of
rectifying previous poor design will be described.
The actions necessary to ensure that the features of hygienic design illustrated on plant drawings
become hygienic plant in practice may be summarised as:-
Audit during manufacture
Examination during installation
Specific cleaning trials during commissioning
In a small brewery it is possible to implement emergency, manual cleaning if these

principles have not been adhered to and problems occur. In the case of the 1 million hectolitre brewery
used as an example throughout Module 2 of the Diploma Brewmaster Course, such a course of action
is not practicable. It is vital the requirements for biological control are considered when all items of
plant are designed or when a potential (off the shelf) purchase is being evaluated.
Literature:
www.ehedg.org
22-09-2005
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
4. EQUIPMENT
Scandinavian School
of Brewing
October 2005
by
S. R. Griffin
Quentech
© SRG 2005
THIS SESSION
Holistic approach to specifying equipment

Materials
Microscopic aspects of design
Influence of layout
Tanks
Valves
Instruments
Installation
1
MICROBIOLOGICALLY CLEAN
DESIGN
Essentials
Prevent retention of product residues
Ensure effective cleaning
Influenced by:-
Process
Work methods & instructions
Environment
Cleaning procedures
Maintenance
MICROBIOLOGICALLY CLEAN
DESIGN
Soil- the culprit

Poor design retains beer & solids
Poor design prevents detergent reaching residues
Residues dry & harden into soil
Soil interspersed with scale
Soil protects micro-organisms
Soil provides nourishment for unwanted micro-organisms
2
MATERIALS AND DESIGN
Through the ages

Wood 1. Cost
Wood lined with copper sheet 2. Availability
Copper 3. Strength
Slate 4. Ease of manufacture
Concrete lined with pitch 5. Temperature
Mild steel tolerance
Aluminium 6. Chemical resistance
Plastics - polypropylene 7. Nature of surface
Rubber - silicone, butyl, nitrile 8. Durability of surface
Epoxy resin coatings
Stainless steel - 18/8 or 18/10/2
MICROSCOPIC ASPECTS OF
SURFACE
The requirements
Smooth
No cracks, crevices, pits, flaking
The weaknesses
Wood Porous
Slate Flakes & joints
Plastics Easily scratched
Rubber UV & oxidative degradation
Metal Chemical pitting
Mechanical damage
How bright?
3
HOW BRIGHT?
Unpolished - 2B cold rolled
Micro-crevices
Hard to see soil
Polished - 240 grit

Bright
Still some scratches
Electro-polished
Smooth
But expensive
Electron micrographs, South African Breweries
WELDS, ANGLES AND JOINTS
Purged
Penetration
Butted, not overlapped
Matching filler rod
Ground & polished
Picture from R. A. Sprenger
4
Sufficient radius
especially square fermenters & water tanks

Aseptic packaging - fillers, crowners and seamers
Candle filter elements
Pictures from R. A. Sprenger
5
PIPE JOINTS
Indoor beer mains

Hose tails
Routing stations
Tank outlets

Outdoor beer mains

Water
Services
Convenient, no tool /
Craft
PIPEWORK LAYOUT
6
PIPEWORK INCLUSIONS
Heat exchangers ALL
Filters AFFECT
Dosing systems CIP
Pumps VELOCITY
Cleaning solutions discussed in lesson 9
TANKS & VESSELS
7
VALVES
General Types
Disc
Diaphragm
Plug
Butterfly
VALVES
Design features affecting microbiological

performance
Action Seat & seal Stem seal
Gate Disc Stuffing box
Slide Ball / plug O rings
Disc Butterfly Bellows
Ball / plug None in diaphragm
Butterfly
Poppet
Multi-seat
Diaphragm
8
VALVES
Risk Areas
Diaphragm Retention of beer
Crevices
Disc Wear
Cleanability
Plug
Butterfly
SENSORS

Sealed pocket

9
SWITCHES
INSTALLATION
& SUMMARY
Specify Materials Finishes Arrangement
Audit Fabrication
Installation Inspect regularly

Layout Fixings Joints Damage
Commissioning Cleaning trials
10
BREWING EQUIPMENT AND PRACTICAL
ASPECTS OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
Session 24b-SRG-04
This session will consider how plant design and construction contribute to achieving
good standards of hygiene. Aspects of design that hinder cleaning will be examined.
The design and operation of CIP plants and cleaning heads will not be considered
during this lesson, but during Lesson 9.
1. Introduction
Hygienic design of equipment is necessary to:-
Avoid wort or beer infection arising out of poor drainage of product residues
Facilitate cost-effective cleaning and disinfection
Good design necessitates a consideration of the complete process, the environment

and methods of cleaning and maintenance and not just the equipment in isolation.
Design of equipment should be considered from both the microscopic nature of the
surface as well as the macroscopic arrangement of its shape, fittings and
instrumentation. The ultimate test of whether plant is hygienic is the microbiological
standard of the beer. Furthermore, equipment must be installed such that the
surrounding areas can be cleaned.
No matter how well designed, equipment will lose the potential to be hygienic if clear
instructions for installation, operating, cleaning and maintenance are not provided. The
simpler the instructions the better, as operators sometimes attempt to short cut
complicated and time consuming systems with disastrous consequences.
Microbiological control, cleaning procedures and plant design are all intimately
associated. Their interactions can be listed as the following series of statements:-
* Unwanted micro-organisms are normally removed by cleaning between
batches of beer.
* Poorly designed plant is difficult or impossible to clean effectively.
* Ineffective cleaning leaves soil residues in equipment.
* Soil residues may contain unwanted micro-organisms.
* Soil residues protect micro-organisms from contact with cleaning and
disinfecting chemicals.
* Soil residues may absorb or de-activate disinfecting chemicals.
* Soil residues may protect micro-organisms from applied heat.
* Soil residues may provide nutrition for micro-organisms
The presence of soil or scale in tanks or pipework will, sooner or later, cause
microbiological problems in the brewery.
24bSG04 EquiptPractAspR1 doc Page 1 of 11 © SRG, 2003

2. Materials of Construction
Materials in contact with water, wort and beer must be non-toxic and non-tainting.
Constituents must not migrate into the beer from contact surfaces.
Materials of construction also need to be compatible with the detergents used to

remove the type of soil present. For example:-
* Aluminium plant is dissolved by caustic detergents and is therefore often
cleaned with detergent containing meta-silicate as a corrosion inhibitor.
Should carbon dioxide be present during cleaning a highly resistant silica
scale is deposited, which provides refuge for micro-organisms.
* Plant may be manufactured from more than one material.
The most widely used materials that satisfy the above requirements are types 304 (18
chromium, 8 nickel) and 316 (18 chromium, 10 nickel, 2 molybdenum) stainless steel.
3. Finishes & Surfaces

Surfaces in contact with product should be:-
* Continuous
* Non-flaking
* Non-porous
* Smooth, i.e. free from cracks, pits and crevices
* Strong enough to remain smooth throughout their working life, despite
anticipated abuse and normal wear and tear. Pitting may be chemical as
a result of unsuitable cleaning agents or chloride corrosion or be the
result of mechanical damage.
A rough surface provides a better key for soil and micro-organisms to adhere to than a
smooth surface. Furthermore it is more difficult to see soil on dull surfaces. Trials have
shown that the cleanability of the stainless steel walls of fermenters improves as the
surface is smoothed from the original cold rolled 2B sheet through 120 grit mechanical
polishing to 240 grit mechanical polishing. Best of all was an electro-polished surface.
The micro-surface of rubber used for door and joint seals deteriorates into a series of
small and large cracks, especially when subjected to hot cleaning or steam
sterilisation. The internal surface of hoses also deteriorates in this way. It is prudent to
examine and if necessary replace rubber seals on at least an annual basis.
4. Welds, Angles and Joints

4.1 Welds should be:-
* MIG / argon purged for stainless steel
* Properly penetrated
* Butt jointed with no overlaps unless back welded on the product side
* Ground and polished to match main vessel surface

Grinding and polishing is often not possible with pipework welds so the inherent
quality of weld is vital.
The welding rod / wire must be compatible with the stainless steel being used.
If a mild steel rod is used or if mild steel legs are directly welded onto vessel
shells without backing plates the resulting chrome migration can result in early
pitting with accompanying deterioration in microbiological standards.
Examples of hygienic and unsatisfactory welds are illustrated in Figure 1.
4.2 Internal angles and corners should have curves of sufficient radius to allow
effective cleaning. Whereas beer tanks are normally cylindrical with domed or
conical ends that lend themselves to adequate radii, water storage and rinse
tanks and older traditional fermenters are often square. Good and bad internal
angles are illustrated in Figure 2.
4.3 The growth of aseptic packaging requires that non-welded joints on filling
equipment be designed not to harbour (dried) spillage or soil. In general metal
to metal joints may still permit ingress of beer and micro-organisms. The type of
fastener used in these circumstances can influence the microbiological state of
the exterior of equipment greatly. For example, exposed threads, screwdriver
slots, hex driver recesses or bolt head recesses are difficult to clean zones that
can accumulate soil. It is axiomatic that any mechanical fastener on the product
contact surface of equipment is anathema. Some examples of these hazards
are illustrated in Figure 3.
4.4 Pipe-work should ideally be all-welded. In many instances this is not practicable
due to access for welding or the need to connect hoses. Several types of joint
are available but the microbiological performance of each is not the same -
Figure 4.
5. Pipework Layout
The most important factor in cleaning pipe-work is CIP velocity. Any inclusions,
changes in diameter, multiplexing, positive displacement pumps, heat exchangers or
increase in length will increase the pressure drop and reduce the velocity. Additionally
poorly laid out pipe-work, which is difficult to drain or which contains dead legs will
retain beer and render cleaning ineffective. A variety of pipe-work design faults are
illustrated in Figure 5.

6. Tanks and Fittings
As with pipe-work it is axiomatic that tanks must be designed with good drainage
characteristics if they are to remain hygienic - Figure 6 illustrates.
Apart from the primary vessel surfaces tanks may include:-

Man-way door Gauge glasse
Top pressure and vent pipes Sample tap
Mixer Probes and other instrumentation
Inlet / outlet Spray-head and stem
All these items must be designed and positioned to facilitate good microbiological
performance in the tank as a whole. Some common examples of poor design, leading
to cleaning blind spots are illustrated in Figure 7.
7. Valves
Valves are a relatively complex item and it is not intended, nor is there time during this
session, to consider the microbiological performance of the many different types that
are available. The aspects of valve design that affect microbiological performance
are:-
* Type of action - gate, disc, slide, butterfly, ball, diaphragm (Saunders),
poppet, multi seat block and bleed
* Seat and seal - ordinary tap with rubber washer fixed with a nut vs
butterfly
* Stem seals - stuffing box, O-rings, bellows or none in diaphragm type.
* Bonnet seal - threaded, flanged, bolted, threaded ring
The functional aspects of each design are:-

* Retention of product - plug vs. butterfly valve
* Crevices and joins - gate and disc valves, stuffing boxes, etc.
* Wear - rubber diaphragms, butterfly seals, etc.
* Cleaning - can detergent reach all parts where product may have
accumulated?
Some of the microbiological risk areas are illustrated in Figure 8.
8. Instruments
The manner in which instrument sensors are mounted will influence microbiological
performance:-
* Sealed pocket that is part of a vessel. This would be the normal choice
for a platinum resistance thermometer and delivers good microbiological
performance.

* Directly into a vessel or pipe, in which case a flange and seal will be
necessary. The flange should be of a design similar to those used for
mains joints and if the instrument requires a tee to accommodate it, the
tee fitting must be short and of significantly larger diameter than the
instrument stem. This option is used for a wide range of instruments
from expansion bulb thermometers to pressure gauges and dissolved
oxygen meters.
* Pumped sampling loop where product is withdrawn from a pipe and
returned after measurement. Nitrogen and carbon dioxide analysers
often use this approach. In addition to a hygienic arrangement of the
sensor, the sampling loop must be included as part of normal CIP and
disinfecting / sterilising operations.
Pressure gauges should not be of the basic, open Bourden tube type but of the
diaphragm, liquid filled design.
Flow meters present few microbiological risks provided the unobstructed flow design
of magnetic, ultra-sonic, vortex or Coriolus types are used. Rotary piston types of
meter are more difficult to keep clean due to the seals and moving parts. Turbine
meters may require excessive maintenance if steam is used for sterilisation, unless a
suitable bearing material is used.
Although not in direct contact with product, the design of stop / start buttons located in
processing areas can also influence biological control indirectly. They should be
waterproof and cleanable without crevices so they do not become a seat of infection.
The best design has the button totally encased in a flexible rubber membrane.
Figure 9 illustrates some of the above points.
9. European Hygienic Equipment Design Group
The EC (European Commission) has provided the legislation for food safety but
it is left to the industry how it should comply with the requirements. The EHEDG and
its working groups produce standards of design for equipment that ensure that
satisfactory standards of microbiological performance can be satisfied.
The EHEDG co-operates with:

* 3A Sanitary Standards Symbol Administrative Council
* FDA Food and Drug Administration
* USDA United States Department of Agriculture
* ISO International Standardization Organization
* IDF International Dairy Federation
* NSF National Sanitation Foundation
* EFFoST European Federation of Food, Science and Technology
* IUFoST International Union of Food, Science + Technology
* IVLV Industrievereinigung für Lebensmitteltechnologie und Verpackung

The certification of the EHEDG is granted to items of equipment which fulfil strict
hygienic design criteria. These guidelines require that all the requirements of hygienic
and aseptic applications are satisfied so that high quality products, which are
microbiologically safe are delivered to the consumer.
Further details may be obtained from the EHEDG web site, www.ehedg.org
10. SUMMARY
The design, assembly and installation of brewing equipment all play a part in ensuring
that adequate standards of biological control can be consistently maintained during
production of beer.
Successful microbiological design starts with selection of correct materials of

construction and the (internal) finish to product contact surfaces that should be used.
Both tanks and pipe-work should be designed and installed to facilitate free drainage,
to avoid pockets where soil can accumulate and to ensure ancillary equipment does
not produce shadow areas during cleaning.
To ensure all the good design features illustrated on the drawings actually become
translated into hygienic plant in the brewery it is necessary to:-
* Audit the fabrication to ensure materials, manufacturing practices and
standards are as specified.
* Carry out regular examinations during installation to ensure correct
layout, fixings, joints, etc. and that no damage has been inflicted.
* Undertake specific cleaning trials as part of commissioning. The checks
may include applying whitewash (lime) or yeast slurry coatings to
monitor CIP coverage and soil removal from parts of a vessel. Visual
examinations can be supplemented by wiping surfaces with a clean
tissue or, a rather more old-fashioned approach, a slice of bread. It may
be appropriate to dis-assemble parts of the plant for examination. At
some stage it is prudent to follow up with swabs or rinse samples for
plating out or bioluminescence checks
If the design is undertaken and the installation and commissioning carried out in this
manner then brewery equipment should deliver high standards of microbiological
performance. Maintaining the initial microbiological performance of equipment requires
not only that it is cleaned but that it is properly maintained - but that is another story!
Figures on following 5 pages

Figure 1
Figure 2
Page 7 of 11
1
Figure 3
6/4
Page 8 of 11 Figure 4
2
Figure 5
Page 9 of 11 Figure 6
3
Part II: Cleaning
SOURCES AND SEATS OF INFECTION
Sources of infection originate outside the brewery whereas a seat of infection is produced by a
situation where unwanted micro-organisms can survive or grow somewhere in the process or
equipment and re-infect subsequent batches of wort or beer. A vehicle of infection is the (mobile)
agent that transfers infection from its seat into other batches of beer.
The following potential sources of infection and the risk each poses are considered:-
Water and soil
Malt
Brewing syrups and caramel
Hops and hop products
Process aids
Yeast
Contract packaging
Process gases
Aerial contamination
Pests, vermin and people
Whereas sources of infection are usually straightforward, seats within the brewery are often fashioned
by specific operating circumstances and may be unique to a particular brewery. Nevertheless,
generalised seats of infection applicable to all breweries can be identified. The following common
instances are considered:-
Equipment
Cleaning systems (CIP and cleaning procedures are covered during lessons 9 & 10)
Scale
Pitching yeast
Reprocessed beer
High risk items of plant
An actual case, which required the seat of infection to be located and eliminated in a UK brewery will
be discussed. This case study also illustrates some of the simple techniques, other than
microbiological sampling, that can be used to resolve such problems.
Literature:
22-09-2005
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
5. SEATS & SOURCES
of INFECTION
Scandinavian School
of Brewing
October 2005
by
S. R. Griffin
Quentech
© SRG 2005
THIS SESSION
Definitions
Sources of infection
Seats of infection
What to do about it
Case study
1
DEFINITIONS
A source of infection is:-
Agent or vehicle that introduces unwanted micro-organisms
into the brewery from the outside environment.
An agent of infection:-
Supports the growth of infecting organisms during
transmission.
A vehicle of infection:-
Merely acts as a carrier without any active growth. It is
often a mobile agent - people, insects, utensils,
thermometers, sample cans, …..
A seat of infection is:-
Piece of equipment or part of the process where unwanted
organisms can survive or grow and re-infect subsequent
batches of beer.
SOURCES
Water
Risk Wort, food safety
Conditions Faecal contamination

Inadequate treatment
Stagnent pipes
Specification As previous session
2
SOURCES
Malt
Risk Barley & malt infection
Fungal - gushing
ATNC
Conditions L. delbruckii in mash < 50 C
Specification Not normally defined
SOURCES
Sugars, syrups & caramel

Risk Wild yeast
Off flavours
Conditions Condense
Specification < 100 organisms / ml
3
SOURCES
Hops & hop extracts

Risk Hops minimal (kilning)
Extracts (solvents) minimal, but
Conditions Extract injection, NRV failure & no CIP
Specification Not normally defined
SOURCES
Yeast
Risk Import from another brewery
Slopes from HQ or source
Dried yeast
Conditions Lack of QC
Too much trust / complacency
No acid washing
Specification < 1 beer spoiler / ml wort after pitching
4
SOURCES
Contract packaging
Risk Beer from another brewery
Tanks & cleaning procedures
Conditions Shared plant poses greatest risk

Recycling own beers vs imports
Specification Bright beer < 1 / 10 ml
SOURCES
Process gases
Risk O2, CO2, N2, Air
Conditions Liquefied gases - minimal

Recovered CO2 - carry over & scrubbers
Air - condense, blocked or wet filters,
NRV’s, poor routing, intake siting,
lack of blow down.
Specification < 2 organisms / 100 ml trapping fluid
5
SOURCES
Aerial contamination
Risk Environment
Spillages
Dust & aerosols
(Lambic inoculation)
Conditions Poor housekeeping
Specification Relative to circumstances
SOURCES
Pests & vermin

Risk Rodents Birds Flying insects
Crawling insects Slugs
Pets
People & maintenance
Conditions Deny access

Deny shelter
Deny food
Destroy any gaining entry
Define responsibility for control
6
SEATS OF INFECTION
Reminder
Piece of equipment or part of the process where unwanted
organisms can survive or grow and re-infect subsequent
batches of beer.
Design of tanks, mains, & other equipment

Surface finish
Welds
Angles
Fixings
Ledges, crevices
Poor drainage
CIP shadows
And …..
SEATS OF INFECTION
CIP systems
Problem
Poor control of interfaces
Inadequate pre-rinse
Low detergent / high carbonate concentrations
High soil cleaning duty
CIP tanks never examined
No routine dump of contents
No microbiological checks
Result
Froth, scum, tidelines, suspensions
Viable micro-organisms accumulate
7
SEATS OF INFECTION
Operations
Problem Cause
Hard water scale Wrong detergent. Interfaces.
Carbonate scale Residual CO2 + caustic detergent.
Beer stone Scale + yeast + protein + oxalate

+ beer solids.
SEATS OF INFECTION
Yeast
Yeast is potentially the largest seat of infection in
the brewery.
WHY?
8
SEATS OF INFECTION
Reprocessed Beer
Reprocessed beer is a common and potent seat of infection
WHY?
WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT
Infection in beer
= Flavour change
= Restoration of original quality impossible
Options
Blend but can spread infection
Reprocess but not foolproof & increases risk
Sterilise but further flavour change
Destroy Safe but expensive
9
WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT
1. Locate the SEAT
Action Example
Examine Find cause, e.g. blocked sprayball, …..
Clean it Manual, hot vs cold, …..
Maintain Replace joint rubbers, calibrate probes, ….
Change methods CIP cycle, sample schedule, …..
Modify design Up-rate pumps, pipe-work routing, …..
Train Everyone knows risk, cause and prevention.
2. Locate the SOURCE
3. MONITOR TREND PREVENT
CASE STUDY
The problem
25% of Cold Tanks infected sufficiently to
warrant destruction.
The situation will quickly change the brewery’s finances

from a healthy profit into a disastrous loss.
10
CASE STUDY
Available data
Beer in fermenter is not infected. Some cold tanks show
excellent (beer) microbiological results.
Final CIP rinses from cold tanks and fermenters contain no infection.
The pipe-work between fermenters and cold tanks is hot cleaned and
steamed after every beer transfer, since the problem started,
but to no avail.
Swabs of the transfer pipe-work in the cold room after CIP do not
indicate poor cleaning.
Process aids and the dosing system routinely deliver

excellent microbiological results.
CASE STUDY
The current situation Water chase Water chase
Fermenters
connected to
transfer main
using short
hose onto tee.
Water chase
CIP return
CIP in / Beer out
11
CASE STUDY
Enquiries revealed, 12 months previous:-
No beer infection problems
Cold CIP was OK; Steaming was not used
Beer transfer pipe-work used to be 4 separate mains
The 4 mains were made one; Some automation installed
Beer was OK for 6 months after the change
Beer out CIP in
CASE STUDY
Trace back of routine results
X X ? 4 4
12
CASE STUDY
Get your boots dirty
Operators
cannot
access
connection.
Provide
their
own
solution
CIP return CIP in / Beer out
CASE STUDY
Look in detail
Semi-permanent pipe-work made up

Cannot drain it
Temperature after steaming 35o C
Liquid under microscope - !!!!
13
CASE STUDY
Look in detail
Cleaning trial
Pace length of pipe-work
Time interface - pH
Velocity 0.75 m/sec
Seat identified
Action Training
Re-design access platform
Larger CIP pump
Performance No infection
SUMMARY
Things ain’t always what they seem to be
Lab results are useful but:-
ASK THOSE THAT DO IT

GO AND LOOK
GO AND LISTEN
14
SOURCES AND SEATS OF INFECTION
Session 24b-SRG-05
1. Introduction
This session will consider the routes through which infection can enter the brewery
and once inside, which parts of the process and what practices are most likely to
perpetuate its presence. Some examples of corrective and preventive action will be
discussed.
The different types and species of wort and beer infecting micro-organisms likely to be
encountered in the various situations outlined will not, however be considered in detail
as that is the topic of another lesson.
2. Definitions
A source of infection is:-
An agent or vehicle that brings unwanted micro-organisms into the brewery from the
outside environment.
Agents support the growth of infecting micro-organisms, e.g. tanked beer for contract
packaging.
Vehicles act as a carrier of infecting micro-organisms without supporting any active
reproduction, e.g. pests such as fruit flies.
A seat of infection is:-
A piece of equipment or part of the process where unwanted micro-organisms can
survive or grow and re-infect subsequent batches of wort or beer.
Seats of infection in the brewery are usually the result of poor design, poor
procedures, poor control, poor cleaning or poor maintenance. They may be associated
with particular items of equipment or vessels.
Two processes, pitching yeast and reprocessed beer, are particularly dangerous seats
of infection because the output from these parts of the brewing process is added in
large amounts to fresh batches of beer.
A vehicle of infection is:-
A seat of infection may reside in a particular item of process plant and result in the
direct contamination of batches of wort or beer in contact with that equipment.
A vehicle of infection is a mobile agent that transfers unwanted micro-organisms from
the seat into another batch of product or another piece of equipment.
Such vehicles may be people, flying insects, utensils, thermometers or even
inadequate sampling technique. This is also called cross contamination.
General:-
There are few absolutely definitive examples of sources, seats and vehicles of
infection. Dependent upon circumstances, an apparent source of infection such as
compressed air used to aerate wort might indeed be a seat. For example,
contaminated air arising out of a poorly sited compressor intake and inadequate
filtration would be a source of infection. On the other hand a faulty non-return valve,
which allowed wort to enter the air system would eventually result in the injection of
bacteria into subsequent batches of wort and would more logically be a seat of
24bSG05 Sourc&SeatInfect05 new Page 1 of 7 © SRG, 2002

infection. It is the understanding of the principles and the relationship between seats,
sources and vehicles that is important for their control and eradication.
3. Sources of infection
Sources of infection tend to be the same for all breweries and hence are relatively
easy to control. The most common are:-
3.1 Water (& soil) Details have already been discussed during session
34b-SRG-03. In summary, water should be drawn from a suitable source,
appropriately treated, and monitored throughout the brewery distribution
system.
3.2 Malt Poses few direct microbiological hazards to beer quality because
processing includes boiling. If the temperature of the mash or sweet wort falls
below 50o C it is possible for thermophyllic Lactobacillus delbruckii to cause
spoilage and increased levels of ATNC. Previous fungal infection of barley or
malt can give rise to gushing beers, increased colour and possible filtration
difficulties as a consequence of induced, uneven germination during malting.
The main microbiological hazard arising from malt is actually one of poor malt
handling leading to spillage or excessive dust, which encourages pests that can
act as vehicles.
3.3 Brewing syrup and caramel It is possible for unwanted micro-organisms
to be present in syrups, even though the acid or alkali and heat used in their
preparation consistently result in sterile material. However, it is prudent to
sample and monitor the microbiological state of each delivery. A realistic
specification would be < 100 organisms per ml. syrup when plated onto a
general nutrient medium. The main risk of sugars becoming a source / seat of
infection occurs as a consequence of the warm storage needed for many
syrups, coupled with poor sugar tank design or inadequate maintenance.
Should condensation form inside sugar storage tanks it can drip back and dilute
the surface layer of sugar sufficiently to allow wild yeast to develop. This is of
consequence when the syrup is used as a post fermentation addition to beer for
sweetening or assisting secondary fermentation.
3.4 Hops Kilning of hops and their normal addition during boiling is not conducive
to introducing infection. Assuming proper storage conditions, even the addition
of dry hops into British cask conditioned beer does not result in the introduction
of unwanted micro-organisms.
During the course of a long brewing career I have encountered but a single
case where diluted isomerised hop extract used for post-fermentation bittering
was a major seat of infection. The cause was poorly maintained non-return
valves in a blending system allowing beer to bleed back into the extract system,
coupled with a lack of cleaning justified by "nothing should be able to grow in
hop extract, so why waste time on CIP".
3.5 Process aids Unless packaging is damaged during transport or
they become contaminated in the brewery there is generally little risk of these
materials acting as sources of infection because the methods of manufacture
produce sterile conditions. It is however prudent to monitor the microbiological
condition of these materials and Table 1 summarises acceptable levels.

Process aid Manufacture involves Acceptable level of risk or
Specification
Activated carbon Heat Nil organisms
Antifoam < 100 cfu / 100 ml total
< 10 cfu beer spoilers / ml
Bentonite Heat Nil
Enzymes Filtration, presence of SO2 Nil beer spoilers / 10 ml
< 100 cfu / 100 ml total
Finings Acid & SO2 Nil cfu / 10 ml on WLN and
MacConkey
Mineral acids for water Heat, concentrated product Nil organisms
treatment or yeast
washing
Perlite and kieselguhr Furnacing Nil organisms
PVPP Heat & caustic Nil organisms
Salts for water treatment Strong acid, alkali, heat Nil organisms
Silica (hydro / xero) gels Strong acid, salts, heat Nil organisms
Table 1
Microbiological Aspects of Process Aids
3.6 Yeast Some small breweries rely upon larger ones for a regular supply
of fresh yeast. This can be a major source of infection and even if each intake
is acid washed wild yeast remains a risk.
It is not unknown for slopes used to inoculate yeast cultures to become infected
and in that event the propagation must be aborted. New slopes should be
checked for purity before being used.
Neither is dried yeast immune and instances have been reported when
unopened vacuum packs of dried yeast contained sufficient, viable, bacteria
and wild yeast to cause spoilage. A practicable specification for dried yeast is
< 1 beer spoiler per ml wort after pitching.
3.7 Contract packaging Intake of beer from another brewery provides
opportunity for unwanted micro-organisms to enter bright beer tanks and
packaging plant. Practices acceptable for on-site produced beers may pose
unacceptable risks when contract packaging. For example re-cycling keg racker
fob on a continuous basis throughout the day and between batches is a greater
risk operation if outside beers become part of the situation. Hygiene systems,
procedures and controls must be rigorously enforced especially where pipe-
work, hoses and vessels may be shared with the brewery's own beers.
3.8 Process gases In addition to air, breweries use carbon dioxide, nitrogen
and oxygen. These three latter gases are usually bought in as pressurised
cylinders or as liquids for cryogenic storage and pose little risk unless
contaminated during or after delivery to the brewery.
Carbon dioxide recovery systems can pose a microbiological risk if fob from
fermenters is allowed to carry over and pipe-work is contaminated and
scrubbers become overloaded.
A typical specification for all gases at point of use would be < 2 organisms per
100 ml trapping liquid.

3.9 Aerial sources The general brewery environment is naturally conducive to
any micro-organisms that grow in wort and beer. Small spillages, aerosols and
dust particles all contain traces of nutrient and will support growth of naturally
occurring wild yeasts and bacteria. These inocula settle on surfaces and
ledges, becoming a seat of infection when air currents or water spray dislodges
them. This process is in fact the basis of brewing Lambic beer, which relies on
wort inoculation by a brewery specific mix of aerial micro-organisms during
exposed wort cooling.
The infective load from aerial sources should be relatively low in a properly
designed brewery with a reasonable level of housekeeping and environmental
hygiene - even if open vessels are being used. Aerial infection becomes a
significant risk only when housekeeping is poor and operating procedures
relating to utensils and hoses are sloppy.
3.10 Pests and vermin These can act as both sources and vehicles of infection,
Any animal other than the person authorised to undertake work in an area
should be considered as a potential source or vehicle, i.e. a pest. The less the
movement of a pest about the brewery is controlled, the greater is the risk of
transmission of infection. In addition to the direct risk to product through
spoilage, pests also transmit pathogenic bacteria. Although these pathogens
may not survive in the beer to create risk for the consumer, they can create
health risks for brewery workers - although this is beyond the remit of this
session.
Common brewery pests include:-
Rodents Found in all areas where there is food. Rats and mice are active
vehicles of infection because they nibble and pass on to another
food source. They constantly urinate and leave faeces, hair and
greasy trails indiscriminately throughout the brewery.
Birds Although mainly found in malt stores and warehouses, birds also
frequent brewhouses because they are warm and often have high
ceilings. Birds are an active, extremely difficult to control vehicle
for transmission of infection. Their droppings can enter open
vessels. Droppings encourage growth of micro-organisms.
Insects Flying - fruit flies feed on yeast residues, especially around open
vessels and spillage. They pose a direct risk to beer quality
Insects Crawling - ants are attracted to sugary spillages and are mainly a
nuisance rather than posing health or product spoilage risks.
Cockroaches favour warm, dark places and find many favourable
niches in the brewery. They are good climbers and known to carry
many pathogens.
Slugs Surprisingly, slugs can be found in fermenting rooms with a poor
standard of housekeeping and open fermenters. They seem
attracted to beer and yeast residues and whilst slow, are steady
vehicles of infection when overcome by carbon dioxide and they
slide into a fermentation. Slugs seem to find mouse bait boxes
containing wax rodenticide blocks a very attractive starter.
Pets The brewery cat should be no more than a memory of the past.
People Maintenance and emergency repairs often require entry into plant.
Unless this is controlled, engineering staff and their tools can be
both a source and a vehicle of infection. The basic disciplines to
adopt should include permission to work, protect nearby product
at risk during work, ensure removal of all tools and replaced items
at conclusion of work, examination of plant, re-cleaning of plant
and formal acceptance for production use. Management should
also ensure engineers are supplied with appropriate, clean
protective clothing when required to work on sensitive equipment
and that engineers, as well as production operators, have
received training in personal hygiene.
Visitors and outside auditors should always be accompanied and
supplied with protective clothing if they enter sensitive areas of
the brewery.
An active pest control programme should be based on the 5 D's:-
Deny access
Deny shelter
Deny food
Destroy any pest gaining entry - except people.
Define specific management responsibility for pest control.
It is however beyond the time available to consider these actions in detail.
4. Seats of infection
4.1 Equipment Seats of infection develop at any place in the plant where poor
design creates dead legs and crevices that retain product or associated solids,
which hinder cleaning and form protection for micro-organisms. Poor design
may also create shadow areas, which cannot be impinged by detergent during
CIP. Many examples have already been discussed during previous sessions.
4.2 Cleaning systems Poorly monitored and controlled CIP systems can become
a seat of infection in their own right. This situation most commonly arises in
ambient temperature cleaning systems when lack of control over CIP cycles
allows solids to enter and accumulate in the detergent tank. It is exacerbated by
high carbonate levels and / or low detergent concentration. Suspensions,
scums and tide lines containing any bacteria can develop and be circulated
throughout the plant. Detergent and rinse tanks should be regularly examined
and sampled for microbiological testing and a dump frequency defined.
4.3 Scale Inadequate control of caustic detergents, ionic aspects of water
quality and / or failure to remove carbon dioxide from vessels causes scale to
form. Scale forms a lattice in which bacteria can lodge and find protection from
cleaning and sanitising agents. The worst type of scale is beer stone. This is a
tough lattice of hard water scale, carbonates, denatured protein, insolubilised
wort and beer components, yeast and infection. Its exact composition is often
specific to a brewery but in all cases removal is difficult and requires alternating
cycles of caustic and acidic detergents. In many instances chlorinated caustic is
needed to enhance protein dissolution and if the deposit has been allowed to
accumulate to any depth, abrasive cleaning may be necessary.
4.4 Pitching yeast Yeast is potentially the largest addition of infection into
fresh batches of wort. This comes about simply because yeast is re-cycled
(until the next propagation) and a large amount (up to 1% of wort volume) of
yeast slurry is deliberately added to every brew. Furthermore, results from the
microbiological assessment of yeast are not immediately available and in an ale
brewery, an infected batch of pitching yeast may have already been cropped
and re-used before the original infection has been detected.

Various disciplines, in addition to those already described (i.e. design, hygiene,
cleaning, etc) are necessary to prevent yeast becoming a seat of infection:-
Regular propagation
Acid washing
Full traceability
No blending of cultures, generations or crops
4.5 Reprocessed beer Some breweries recover beer from surplus yeast, cold tank
bottoms, filter interfaces and packaging fob. Following various clarification
treatments the recovered beer is dosed back into mainstream beer at rates
typically up to 5% by volume. Sometimes the recovered beer is added to the
wort kettle - low microbiological risk, although alcohol is lost; sometimes it is
dosed back into cold tank in which case it is first pasteurised or sterilised.
Modern systems may use sterile crossflow filtration techniques.
Reprocessed beer becomes a seat of infection because:-
Micro-organisms naturally accumulate in solids and foam
Liquid to be processed often contains more micro-organisms than
mainstream beer, especially if derived from rejected pitching yeast
Many different batches of beer are blended together
Processing is often slow due to the nature of the solids needing removal
Slow processing allows growth of any infection present
The sterilising process is critical - failure will spread infection at once
A single defective batch of reprocessed beer can be dosed into several
mainstream batches
Reprocessing is not a glamorous operation and it is easy to ignore this area of
the brewery.
4.6 Other areas Plate heat exchangers impose large pressure and velocity losses
during pipe-work cleaning. Students should consider the implications for
maintaining the microbiological performance of wort mains.
What factors should be taken into account in preventing the filter room and its
equipment becoming a seat of infection?
5. Corrective action
Low levels of micro-organisms can be tolerated at some stages in the
production process but once infection has progressed to the point where beer
flavour is affected, it is almost impossible to restore beer quality. Blending to
correct a defect should never be sanctioned unless it is also certain the micro-
biological condition of all parts of the blend is satisfactory.
Although re-processing, re-filtering and re-pasteurising are all used from time to
time these contingency procedures are not foolproof. Most effort must be
devoted to monitoring, trending and prevention.
6. Case study
A brewery was suffering unacceptable levels of infection in beers in cold tank. The
situation was:-
Beer transfer mains were originally arranged in 4 separate lines. Each line was
independently cleaned after it had been used for a beer transfer. This
arrangement was successful but labour intensive. Management instigated a
project to combine the 4 lines, incorporating appropriate sanitary valves to allow
segregation of each part of the overall system. This modification retained
flexibility for beer transfers and reduced the time and labour for CIP because all
parts were to be cleaned simultaneously, once per day. In addition the cleaning
cycles would be up-rated from manual to computer control which ensured
timings were consistent, interfaces accurately detected and that detergent
concentration would always be satisfactory.
Microbiological performance was satisfactory and the project proved a success
for approximately 6 months after the changes had been implemented. Overtime
was reduced; productivity enhanced; quality maintained.
Then, microbiological performance deteriorated. Routine laboratory results
indicated every batch of wort entering the fermenters was clean and uninfected.
Beer in fermenter, during and at the end of fermentation was not infected.
Approximately 25% of the beer in cold tank was sufficiently infected to warrant
its destruction. Checks on fermenter and cold tank cleaning procedures and
final rinses indicated satisfactory performance.
Management evaluated the data and decided to up-rate the beer pipe-work
cleaning procedures from cold to hot cleaning. This appeared to have little
effect and the number of defective beers in cold tank continued to increase.
The detergent in use could not be used above 60o C so it was decided that
steaming the pipe-work after every clean should be implemented. The situation
still did not improve!
Quentech became involved at this point. Existing data was examined and
plotted onto a layout of the plant. Defective results seemed associated only with
some fermenters.
Pipe-work located beneath the fermenters was examined. It was noted that
joining the 4 original mains into a single system had necessitated installation of
access walkways in some areas. One of the access platforms was directly over
a tee to a fermenter outlet and the valve was inaccessible. Discussion with
operators revealed they had extended the tee into a sinuous, 0.8 metre long
curve to make the valve accessible so they could do their job. Further
investigation revealed this tee did not drain and retained several litres of turbid
liquid throughout cleaning and steaming. Moreover the temperature of this
liquid the end of steaming was only 35o C. Direct examination of the liquid
under the microscope revealed numerous bacteria and wild yeast without the
need for any prior concentration.
Next, a trial was carried out to measure the time taken for a water / detergent
interface to return to the CIP plant. Joining all 4 systems together without re-
calculating pumping requirements was found to have reduced the cleaning
velocity to 0.75 m/sec.
The unauthorised tee had become a disastrous seat of infection and the
instinctive response by management to make cleaning more stringent was not
effective, because the seat of infection was totally protected from any cleaning
or sterilising effect.
The access platform was re-designed and a larger pump installed for CIP.
The moral is Don't just look at Laboratory reports and computer screens.
Get down where it happens and:-
LOOK
LISTEN
ASK THEM THAT DO IT

Part II: Cleaning
BIOLOGICAL STABILISATION
To ensure adequate shelf life of beer it is necessary to prevent biological deterioration as well as
ensuring colloidal stability. Biological stability of beer is normally achieved either by killing any micro-
organisms present using heat, or by removing them by filtration.
The theory of pasteurisation will be explained in terms of:-
Thermal death time
Decimal reduction time
Z value
F value
The relationships between these parameters and how they are used to calculate Pasteurisation Units
will be explained.
The practical factors that must be taken into account during pasteurisation are:-
The specific micro-organisms and numbers that are present
Composition and type of beer to be treated
Tunnel pasteuriser operations
Flash pasteuriser conditions
Methods of monitoring the microbiological performance of pasteurisation are:-
Temperature / time monitoring
Sampling and plating
Invertase inactivation
Sterile filtration can only be economically accomplished on beer that has already been filtered to a
high standard of clarity during primary (kieselguhr) filtration. The three mechanisms involved in
filtration are:-
Surface sieving Depth entrapment Charge
The role of each of these mechanisms in sterile filtration will be outlined, together with the factors that
affect microbiological performance.
The parameters that must be taken into account when deciding whether pasteurisation or sterile
filtration is the most appropriate process for a particular situation are:-
Microbiological performance
Tolerance of the process to abuse
Need for aseptic packaging procedures
Effect on beer flavour
Capital and operating costs
Literature:
22-09-2005
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
6. BIOLOGICAL STABILISATION
Scandinavian School
of Brewing
October 2005
by
S. R. Griffin
Quentech
© SRG 2002
THIS SESSION
Definitions
Pasteurisation theory
Operation of Pasteurising Equipment
Monitoring Pasteurisation
Sterile filtration
Pasteurisation vs. Sterile filtration
1
PRESERVATION and
STABILISATION
Food
Freezing
Dehydration
Heat (cooking)
Chemicals - vinegar, sugar, salt
Physical - micro-waves, UV, gamma
Physical - Filtration
Combination - Smoking
Prevent growth
Remove micro-organisms
Kill micro-organisms
PRESERVATION and
STABILISATION
Beer
Heat (Pasteurisation)
Physical - Filtration
2
DEFINITIONS
Pasteurisation is:-
A gentle heat treatment that uses a temperature / time
combination sufficient to kill micro-organisms whilst
minimising flavour degradation.
It does not impart sterility.
PASTEURISATION
Principle
Heat denatures proteins - structure / solubility
Proteins essential for cell function
Denatured proteins = death
Flavour changed by cooking - stewed cabbage

Limit the heat to minimise change
Different micro-organisms exhibit different susceptibility

to heat
Conditions alter susceptibility to heat
3
PASTEURISATION
Thermal death time
Time needed to kill a given number of micro-organisms
at a specific temperature.
Normally expressed in minutes
Method
Heat known number
of cells in beer, % of
surviving
in sealed vials. cells
Plate out after

different times
& count colonies
Time
PASTEURISATION
D value
Decimal reduction time = rate of kill
Time needed at a given temperature to reduce number of
viable cells by 90%
D60 = rate of kill at 60o C

D70 = rate of kill at 70o C
4
PASTEURISATION
Z value
Temperature change needed to reduce D by a factor of 10
whilst maintaining same kill.
Example
60o C kills 90% of cells in 1 minute
67o C kills 90% of cells in 0.1 minute
Z = 7o C
PASTEURISATION
F value
Time in minutes to kill a particular organism at 121o C.
Mainly meat & fish canning

Botulinum cook = 3 minutes @ 121o C
= time to kill Clostridium botulinum spores
Beer organisms a few seconds
5
PASTEURISATION
Pasteurisation unit (PU)
1 PU is the killing effect obtained on beer micro-organisms
over a period of
1 minute at 60o C
PASTEURISATION
Combine all D’s & Z’s
100
Line = same kill Lethal zone
At 60o C 10
TDT = 5.6 min Exposure at
temperature 5.6
Minimum pasteurisation
or 5.6 PU (minutes)
for brewery organisms 1
Slope = Z = 7
60o C needs 5.6 min 0.1 Under pasteurisation
67o C needs 0.56 min

74o C needs 0.056 min 50 60 70
to deliver 5.6 PU o Centigrade
6
PASTEURISATION
Theoretical PU’s needed = 5.6
But,
1. Plant not 100% efficient
Variations in heat transfer
Statistical kill; not 100%
2. Low pH )
SO2 ) Increase heat sensitivity
Alcohol )
3. Lipid )
Sugar ) Protect micro-organisms
Protein ) against effect of heat
Soil )
So, …..
PASTEURISATION
PU
Flash pasteuriser 25 - 40
Tunnel - bottle or can 15 - 25
Lager 15 -25
Ale & stout 20 - 35
Low alcohol beer 40 - 60
Alcohol free beer 80 - 120
7
CALCULATING PU
Z = 7.18
Or, every 7.18o C increase delivers 10 x PU in same time
So.
Every 1o C increase delivers 10 ÷ 7.18 PU each minute
= 1.393 PU
o C PU / minute
60 1
61 1 x 1.393 = 1.4
62 1.4 x 1.393 = 1.94
63 1.94 x 1.393 = 2.7
64 2.7 x 1.393 = 3.76
etc.
67 7.3 x 1.393 = 10
PU per minute = 1.393(Temperature - 60)
TUNNEL PASTEURISATION
Typical conditions
Slow heat up
Pasteurise 60o C / 20 minutes
Slow cool down
Total time 60 minutes
8
TUNNEL PASTEURISATION
Factors affecting performance
Package wall RB - 100%, NRB - 90%, Can - 80%
Size of package - 2 litres max.
In-package temperature gradients
Blocked sprays - uneven treatment
Part full operation - upsets heat balances
Line stoppages - increase PU’s some packages
Benefits
Beer pasteurised in package
Disadvantages
Breakage of bottles / Peaking of cans
Contamination of tanks
FLASH PASTEURISATION
Typical conditions
Fast heat up 30 seconds
Pasteurise 72o C / 30 seconds
Fast cool down 30 seconds
Optional chill 10 seconds
Total time 1 - 2 minutes
9
FLASH PASTEURISATION
Factors affecting performance

Velocity & flow patterns / Holding efficiency
High pressure to prevent gas breakout
Foam formation / burning / viscosity
Pressure drop through heat exchanger / pin holes
Benefits
Rapid, even treatment
Disadvantages
Aseptic packaging required
Recirculation & interfaces if line stops
MONITORING
PASTEURISATION
Temperature & time
Control rather than absolute verification
Flash Flow meter & temperature probe + algorithm
Tunnel Zone temperature + conveyor speed
Red Post sensor in dummy package
Microbiological sampling
Membranes
< 1 / 500 ml or container
Invertase inactivation
5 PU needed
10
STERILE FILTRATION
Definition
Sterile filtration is:-
Reduction of microbial numbers to a level which will not
cause beer spoilage during its specified shelf life.
STERILE FILTRATION
Principles %
Flow
Surface (sieving) filtration
%
Flow
Depth effect
Tim
e
Adsorption (charge) effect Flow
Ti
me
11
STERILE FILTRATION
Good Practice
Beer must be:-
Bright
No glucans
Packaged immediately
Preferably low pH, low extract, low DO
Plant hygiene must be good
STERILE FILTRATION
Cartridges
Trap filter 5 - 10 μ, depth

Pre-filter 1 - 2 μ, depth, sometimes with charge
Sterilising filter 0.45 μ, surface
Steam
Pressure decay / bubble point test
Wash using 55o C forward flow
12
COLD vs HOT
Pasteurisation
For Against
Reliable Over-treatment causes:-
Removes excess sulphur Haze
Bitterness loss
Loss of hop aroma
Increased colour
High DO accelerates flavour staling
COLD vs HOT
Sterile filtration
For Against
Easier to avoid flavour Excess pressure forces
deterioration bacteria through
Membrane too fine - head, bitterness & colour loss
13
COLD vs HOT
Conclusion
Abuse of either is what causes quality loss
Relative cost
Tunnel pasteuriser 100
Sheet filter 80
Cartridge filter 60
Flash pasteuriser 20
Both OK if properly controlled
SUMMARY
Shelf life will only be achieved if the beer is
microbiologically stable
Choices are:-
Good hygiene is necessary, whichever method is used
Little to choose between pasteurisation or sterile filtration
Tunnel pasteurisation is used by most breweries
14
BIOLOGICAL STABILISATION
Session 24b-SRG-06
1. Introduction
To ensure adequate shelf life of packaged beer, it is necessary to prevent both
colloidal and microbiological deterioration. We shall not consider any aspects of
colloidal stabilisation of beer; only microbiological factors. Neither will the design and
operation of equipment be considered in any detail.
Techniques widely used for the preservation of food include freezing, heating,
dehydration, chemical preservatives such as salt, vinegar or sugar and physical
methods such as micro-waves, UV or gamma irradiation, smoking or removing micro-
organisms by filtration.
Most of these techniques are not appropriate for beer due to their effect on flavour.
Only heat treatment and filtration are currently used. The presence of alcohol and hop
compounds, together with the low pH of beer are beneficial to biological stabilisation
and shelf life.
Since the rate of microbial growth is reduced at low temperature, whichever method is
chosen to ensure the biological stability of beer, shelf life will be extended by cold
storage. Although the main reason for ensuring low dissolved oxygen in packaged
beer is to prevent oxidation of polyphenols (haze) and aldehydes and lipids (flavour),
the absence of oxygen also reduces the range of beer spoilage bacteria that are able
to grow.
2. Pasteurisation Theory
Definition Pasteurisation is a heat treatment that uses a temperature / time
combination sufficient to kill micro-organisms, whilst minimising flavour
degradation of the food.
Principle Elevated temperatures denature proteins by destroying their 3D

structure. Once their 3D structure has been altered enzymes cannot
function, structural proteins collapse or become insoluble and cell death
ensues.
Although boiling for a long period will effectively sterilise food (who ever
heard of food poisoning being contracted from boiled potatoes, even if
they have not been washed?) it also causes significant flavour changes
by accelerating other chemical reactions. The greater the amount of
heat, the greater the flavour change. This is not acceptable in beer and a
gentler heat treatment (pasteurisation) must be used that kills bacteria
without accelerating the natural chemical changes.
Pasteurisation does not sterilise the food; it only kills a (high) percentage
of the organisms present and does not kill spores.
Different species of micro-organisms exhibit individual susceptibility to
heat treatment and this species susceptibility is further modified by the
conditions in which cells are subjected to heat.
24bSG06 BiolStab06 new Page 1 of 11 © SRG, 2002
General guidance - pasteurisation
1. The thermal death time (TDT) is the time needed to kill a given number of
micro-organisms at a specific temperature. It is normally expressed in minutes.
Figure 1 illustrates.
TDT is normally determined by placing a known number of cells suspended in
beer into a series of sealed containers, which are heated at the given
temperature. Containers are successively removed and plated out. Cells are
considered dead if no visible colonies form.
Different micro-organisms exhibit different resistance to heat. Thus the heat
treatment needed to kill bacteria found in beer will be totally different to that
used in the meat canning industry.
% of
surviving
cells
Time
Figure 1
Death of microbial cells at a given temperature
2. The D value is the decimal reduction time, abbreviated as D.

This is the exposure time to a given temperature needed to reduce the number
of viable cells by 90%. It is a measure of the death rate or conversely the
resistance of a micro-organism to a specific temperature. The temperature
used during testing is normally included as a subscript, e.g. D60 would be the D
value at 60oC.
3. The z value is the temperature change in oC needed to reduce the D value
(exposure time) by a factor of 10 whilst achieving the same effective kill of cells.
It is a measure of the relative resistance of a micro-organism to different
destructive temperatures.
4. The F value is the time in minutes at 121o C needed to destroy a particular
organism. It is a concept mainly used in the food canning industry and the
temperature of 121o C is related to the "botulinum cook" necessary to destroy
spores of Clostridium botulinum.
5. One pasteurisation unit (PU) is arbitrarily defined as the killing effect obtained
on micro-organisms found in beer over a period of 1 minute at 60o C.
Experiments to identify what combinations of temperature and time kill typical
brewery micro-organisms have established values for these parameters. If all
the individual time / temperature points are joined by a line, the graph in Figure
2 is obtained. All points on the line represent an equal lethal effect. The graph
indicates the lethal time at the reference temperature of 60o C is 5.6 minutes,
i.e. 5.6 PU. Thus the theoretical, minimum safe treatment for beer can be
established as 5.6 PU.
The slope of the line gives the z value - for brewery organisms this is
approximately 7, which defines that for every 7o C increase in temperature,
treatment time can be reduced by a factor of 10, i.e.
60o C requires 5.6 minutes for 5.6 PU treatment
100
Lethal zone
10
Minimum
Exposure at 5.6
pasteurisation
temperature
(minutes)
Under
pasteurisation
0.1
50 60 70
o
Centigrade
Figure 2
Pasteurisation Conditions for Beer Organisms
Brewers normally use more than the theoretical minimum PU's to guard against
plant inefficiency and variations in heat transfer to all parts of a package in a
tunnel pasteuriser, or throughout the body of the beer in a flash pasteuriser.
Beer pasteurised in package typically receives 15 - 25 PU and flash
pasteurised beer 25 - 40 PU.
6. The medium in which cells are suspended will affect their heat sensitivity.
Cells are more easily killed in the presence of low pH, sulphur dioxide and
alcohol.
The presence of lipid, sugar (i.e residual extract) or protein increases the
resistance of micro-organisms to pasteurisation.

It is for these reasons that the typical pasteurisation conditions used for
different types of beers vary:-
Lager 15 - 25 PU
Ale & stout 20 - 35 PU
Low alcohol beer 40 - 60 PU
Alcohol free beer 80 - 120 PU
7. The higher the number of micro-organisms originally present the greater the
number that will survive pasteurisation. Thus the brewer should not view
pasteurisation as a "put it right and compensate for poor biological control"
technique.
8. Calculating Pasteurisation Units
For brewery organisms in beer we know that the z value is 7.18, depending
upon actual species present, i.e.
Every 7.18o C increase in temperature above 60o C delivers the same
number of PU's, within 1/10 of the time.
Or, conversely
Every 7.18o C increase in temperature above 60o C delivers 10 times the
number of PU's, within the same time.
Thus
Every 1o C increase in temperature above 60o C delivers 10/7.18 times
the original PU's, per minute.
Expressed more simply
PU's increase by 1.393 times with every successive 1o C increase in
temperature. Table 1 illustrates.
Temperature PU per minute

60 1
61 1 * 1.393 = 1.4
62 1.4 * 1.393 = 1.94
63 1.94 * 1.393 = 2.70
64 2.70 * 1.393 = 3.76
65 3.76 * 1.393 = 5.24
66 5.24 * 1.393 = 7.31
67 7.31 * 1.393 = 10.1
Table 1
Increase in Pasteurisation Units with Rising Temperature
So for any temperature the following algorithm can be used to calculate the
number of PU's per minute:-
PU = 1.393 (Temperature - 60)
Example Pu's per minute at 70o C = 1.393(70 - 60)
= 1.39310
= 27
PU's vary in direct proportional with time, so an actual treatment is simply
27 x time in minutes
E.g. for a 30 second hold, PU's = 27 x 0.5
Thus pasteurising at 70o C for 30 seconds delivers 13.5 PU

3. Tunnel pasteurisation
1. Tunnel pasteurisation confers heat treatment once the beer is in package. In
this situation the rate of heat transfer into each package and internal
temperature gradients pose limiting factors; for example, it is not practicable to
pasteurise kegs in this manner. However, once treated the package retains its
integrity until consumed and presents a low risk of subsequent re-infection.
2. Typical beer pasteurising conditions would be 60o C for 20 minutes. Bottles
pass through several heating zones prior to achieving the pasteurising
temperature because they must be warmed at a rate that will not weaken the
glass and cause breakage. The heat-up temperatures used vary according to
circumstances and will contribute a small amount of treatment.
3. The factors affecting heat treatment of packages in tunnel pasteurisers are:-
* Thickness of package wall - NRB only needs 90% of time for returnable
bottle.
* Package material - aluminium can only needs 80% of time for bottle.
* Size of package and internal temperature gradients.
* Blocked sprays result in uneven treatment of packages.
* Part full operation upsets heat balances and PU's received.
* Line stoppages increase PU's received.
4. Flash pasteurisation
1. Flash pasteurisation of beer is normally carried out using a plate heat
exchanger (PHE) equipped with a holding tube, the length of which ensures
treatment time. The flow patterns within a PHE pasteuriser must be turbulent to
ensure all parts of the liquid are equally heated and retained for the defined
time. If the flow rate in a flash pasteuriser is reduced below a critical limit, the
flow becomes laminar - see Figure 3 on last page. Should this occur, parts of
the liquid flow more slowly and the hold time at pasteurising temperature is not
consistent for all parts of the liquid. This is the holding efficiency, calculated as:-
Least residence time for parts of liquid X 100 %

Average residence for liquid
At a liquid velocity of 0.8 m/second, flow is laminar and holding efficiency only
50%. Liquid flowing at 1.5 m/second is changing to a turbulent flow pattern and
the holding efficiency rises to 80%.
2. Because the temperature is high and the flow turbulent, the pressure needs to
be correspondingly great to prevent gas breakout and foaming within a flash
pasteuriser - typically 6 - 10 bar, depending on beer carbonation.
3. Typical beer treatment is 72.5o C for 30 seconds, i.e. 31 PU
4. Factors influencing the microbiological performance of flash pasteurisation are:-
* Poor pressure control or tank changes can cause foaming. Foam can
burn onto plates and reduce heat transfer. Foam is less viscous than
liquid and passes through the holding tube more quickly.
* Pressure falls as beer proceeds through the machine. This is significant
because if any of the plates develop pin-holes as a result of corrosion,
the pressure of non-sterile beer in the regeneration section is higher than
the pressure of the pasteurised beer on the other side of the plates.
Consequently the leakage from high to low pressure leads to infection in
the outlet beer, which is not cured by extra cleaning, higher pasteurising
temperature or other palliatives.
5. Monitoring Pasteurisation
1. Temperatures and Times
If the temperature and time of treatment can be measured the applied PU's can
be calculated. However this gives no guarantee that all the micro-organisms
originally present have been killed, for the reasons discussed earlier. These
measurements are used to control the plant rather than as a direct indicator of
the effectiveness of treatment.
A flash pasteuriser will be equipped with flow meter and temperature probe at
the far end of the holding tube. These sensors are usually linked to recorders.
Sometimes the data is continuously fed into the PU calculation algorithm
discussed earlier and a computer constantly calculates the level of applied
PU's.
Tunnel pasteurisers are equipped with temperature probes in each of the
heating and cooling zones. The beam or conveyor speed is controlled and
defines residence time. Due to the variations in conditions that can occur (see
section 3) between individual packages it is good practice to run a "Red Post"
temperature / time graphing and integrating sensor through the machine. The
temperature probe is located in a dummy pack full of water to ensure the
temperature actually inside bottles (or cans) is measured.
In all cases, instrumentation must be calibrated.
2. Microbiological Samples
Due to the expected very low count of micro-organisms present this monitoring
will normally be undertaken using membrane filters, which are plated out as
described during Session 2. Typical specifications would be:-
< 1 organism / 500 ml for flash pasteurised beer.
< 1 organism / container for bottles and cans.
3. Invertase Inactivation
Invertase is one of the few enzymes excreted by yeast into the beer. It is
destroyed by 5 PU, which happens to be about the theoretical minimum heat
treatment needed to kill beer micro-organisms. If invertase is detected in
pasteurised beer it indicates insufficient heat was applied.
6. Sterile Filtration
Definition Sterile filtration is the reduction of microbial numbers to a level which will
not cause the spoilage of beer during its specified shelf life.
Principles of Filtration
1. Surface Effect The pores through the filter medium are smaller than the
particles to be removed and the particles are retained on the surface of the
filter. Depending on the consistency of pore size this system ensures the
absolute removal of the particles above a specific size and for this reason is
called absolute filtration. Because the solids holding capacity is limited by the
surface area, it is more suitable for clarifying liquids containing little solid
material. Surface filtration is the principal mechanism of membrane and cross
flow filters.
The total throughput of the filter will be directly related to the volume of
suspended solids blocking the surface as shown in Figure 4.
% Flow
Time
Figure 4
Flow Change During Surface Filtration
2. Depth Effect Beer passes through a deep, convoluted filter bed where
solids, which are smaller than the average pore size, become mechanically
trapped within the matrix. Particles larger than the pores are still retained on the
surface. Because the pores are larger than the particles, some particles pass
through and the liquid cannot be guaranteed particle free. In practice,
satisfactory results can be obtained using appropriate filer media. The system
is recovered by forward or back washing using a higher flow rate than filtration,
often with appropriate detergent.
The total throughput of the filter will be initially be little affected by the volume of
suspended solids until they reach such a quantity that they start blocking the
pores and filter rate will tail off rapidly as shown in Figure 5.
% Flow
Time
Figure 5
Flow Change During Depth Filtration

3. Adsorption Effect Beer passes through a deep matrix, which also carries an
electrostatic charge or zeta potential. This charge is usually positive at the pH
of beer and the charge attracts and binds negatively charged microbial cells
within the matrix. This improves the retentive capacity of the filter. The matrix is
regenerated using detergent, which changes the pH (and therefore the charge
on the retained solids) during a back washing cycle..
The total throughput of charged filter media is often greater than in a simple
depth medium because the pores are usually larger. Once the filter becomes
full it will start to block and the flow rate starts to decrease- see Figure 6.
Particles can bleed through if excess pressure is applied.
% Flow
Time
Figure 6
Flow Change During Depth Filtration with Charge
General Guidance - Sterile Filtration

1. Sterile filtration is only an option if beer:-
Has been pre-filtered to a haze < 0.3 EBC @ 15o measurement angle
Is free of gums and glucans
Is packaged immediately
Is conducive to this form of processing, i.e. low residual extract, lower
pH, low dissolved oxygen
Plant hygiene must be of a high standard and aseptic packaging procedures
used.
2. It is important that sterile filters are located as near the packaging line as
practicable, without intermediate storage or buffer tanks.
3. Plate and sheet filters fitted with EKS grade sheets (depth and charge) can be
used but are bulky and labour intensive.
4. Many modern installations use cartridge filters that are compact enough to be
installed next to the filler. Cartridges are usually absolute and have a pore size
rating in microns. Filter systems for the microbiological stabilisation of bright
beer typically comprise three stages:-
Trap filter 5 - 10 μ pore size, usually depth effect.
Purpose, to remove kieselguhr, PVPP and other large solids
remaining after primary filtration.
Pre-filter 1 - 2 μ pore size, sometimes with charge.
Purpose, to remove yeast and most of the bacteria and protect
the sterilising filter.

Sterilising 0.45 μ pore size, mainly surface effect
Purpose, to provide absolute sterility. Yeasts are typically 5 - 10μ
diameter and beer bacteria 0.5 - 1.0μ smallest diameter. Although
filters rated at 0.2μ are available, they can reduce head retention
of the beer.
The whole filtration system must be sterilised using steam or hot water before
committing beer.
Following sterilisation and just prior to committing beer, the cooled filter
assembly must be checked for leaks or damage to filter elements that could
allow micro-organisms to pass forward. This is normally done using a forward
flow gas pressure decay test through the wet elements, called the bubble point
test.
At the end of a filter run, sterilising cartridges are often forward flushed with
warm water (55oC) to dissolve polysaccharides and proteins and flush out any
bacteria. The warm flush is often followed immediately by sterilisation whilst the
filter is still warm. Back flushing sterilising cartridges is not recommended since
it can cause elements to collapse or distort.
Because the sterilising filter has a very small pore size it is important to ensure
water, steam and gases are suitably filtered so they do not cause premature
blocking of the beer sterilising filter.
5. Crossflow filters may be equipped with membranes made from a variety of
materials ranging from polymers to ceramics. Pore size is similar to that used in
sterile cartridge filters. One company manufactures ceramic membranes have a
composite structure with an outer 6 - 8μ pore size that acts as a support and
pre-filter, with a 0.9μ inner zone. Crossflow filtration is not yet an economic
proposition for sterile filtration of beer although it is commonly used to sterilise
apple juice. A few breweries use crossflow filters to separate beer from waste
yeast slurry and tank bottoms.
7. Choice of Method for Biological Stabilisation of Beer

One aspect, often mentioned as important in deciding between pasteurisation and
sterile filtration, is the possibility of flavour change.
Poor control, leading to over-pasteurisation can result in:-
Pasteurisation haze
Reduced bitterness
Reduced hop aroma
Increased colour
Heat treatment has also been alleged to accelerate flavour staling. However it does
seem that this occurs only in the presence of dissolved oxygen. Properly controlled
pasteurisation of low DO beer using sensible levels of PU is unlikely to have a
significant effect. In-package pasteurisation delivers a low microbiological risk.
Sterile filtration can also be abused. Excessive pressures may force bacteria through
the medium. Too fine a membrane can remove head proteins, bitterness and colour.
Once again, it is probably the malpractice rather than the concept that causes
argument.
Although the technical aspects have a major input into deciding the most appropriate
method of biologically stabilising beer to use in particular circumstances, the capital
and operating costs must also be taken into account. In general terms the economics
indicate that pasteurisation requires a large capital cost but operating cost is low;
sterile filtration using cartridges has a low capital cost but the operating cost is high.
Method Relative overall

cost
Tunnel pasteuriser 100
Sheet filter 80
Cartridge filter 60
Flash pasteuriser 20
Table 2
Relative Costs of Biological Stabilisation of Beer
There is probably little to choose between the two approaches. Based on a survey of
44 brewing companies producing about 70% of world beer production the split
between each of the options is:-
Tunnel pasteurisation 68%
Flash pasteurisation 16%
Sterile filtration 16%
8. Summary
Beer must be microbiologically stable to satisfy its shelf life requirements
Microbiological stability can be achieved by removing micro-organisms (sterile
filtration) or by killing (pasteurisation) them using heat.
Both treatments produce a % reduction in viable organisms and therefore require a
high hygienic standard of associated operations.
Tunnel pasteurisation stabilises the beer inside its sealed container.
Flash pasteurisation and sterile filtration require aseptic packaging disciplines.

Part II:Cleaning
PRINCIPLES OF CLEANING
Ensuring that plant, utensils and the environment are clean is undertaken primarily to ensure product
quality although there are other reasons for cleaning, which will be discussed. This session provides
an overview of the principles that must be applied if we are to achieve consistent and cost effective
cleaning throughout the brewery.
Cleaning is the process of removing soil from a surface. Soil composition varies in different parts of the
brewery and the effect of mechanical energy, chemical energy, thermal energy and contact time will
be related to these different situations.
Detergents provide the chemical energy needed during cleaning. The desirable properties of all
detergents will be listed and discussed. The factors to be considered when selecting a detergent for a
particular application in the brewery will be outlined, together with the advantages and disadvantages
of the various different types of detergent available. Appropriate cleaning chemicals, their
concentrations and the optimum conditions during cleaning will be identified for all parts of the brewing
process.
Most brewery plant downstream of the brewhouse needs to be at least "commercially sterile" as well
as clean. A variety of physical and chemical methods are available for achieving this aim. The general
requirements and properties of all agents used during sterilisation procedures will be discussed
together with the advantages and disadvantages of specific chemical disinfectants, commonly used in
breweries.
Water is used in large amounts during cleaning operations, whether these are manual or Clean in
Place. The non-biological requirements of water to optimise cleaning and to minimise possible
corrosion of plant will be described.
Whether manually cleaning a dinner plate or automatically CIP'ing brewing plant, all cleaning cycles
consist of the same basic steps. The principles involved in each of these steps will be described as a
prelude to considering the detail of CIP cycles during a subsequent session.
Literature:
Kunze, W. Malting and Brewing Technology, pp 551 - 561
22-09-2005
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
8. PRINCIPLES OF
CLEANING
Scandinavian School
of Brewing
October 2005
by
S. R. Griffin
Quentech
© SRG 2005
THIS SESSION
Factors affecting cleaning

Soil and cleaning
Chemicals used in cleaning
Stages of all cleaning cycles
1
PURPOSE OF CLEANING
Remove dirt and soil from surfaces that contact food

I.e …..
Benefits
Eliminate microbiological infection

Prevent product waste
Consumer safety - ATNCs
Maintain heat exchange

Maximise plant life
Good working attitudes and image to customer
CLEAN IN PLACE
CIP is a means by which
plant and associated pipework can be thoroughly cleaned

without dismantling
It can be: Totally automatic

Semi automatic
Manual
Advantages
Time & labour
Safety - No manual handling; No vessel entry
More effective - Hot; Stronger chemicals
Re-contamination prevented
Large vessels
2
TYPES OF SOIL
Organic
Yeast, protein, fats, sugar, trub, hop powder, grains
Removed - caustic soda
Inorganic
Water scale
Filter powder, process aids
Removed - acids or caustic + sequesterant
Mixed
Beerstone = scale + oxalate + protein
Removed - manually or chlorinated caustic or
successive acid / caustic cycles
FOUR DIMENSIONS OF
CLEANING
Manual
CIP Mechanical (& CIP)
Temperature
Temperature Mechanical
Energy
Action
Chemical
Chemical Both
CIP Energy Time
Action
3
ESSENTIAL
DETERGENT PROPERTIES
Chemical Energy
Wetting power )
Emulsifying ability ) Often
Chelate ) added
Sequester ) chemicals
Rinsability )
Dissolve protein ) Inherent

Dissolve beer stone) but can be
Microcidal activity ) modified by
Not corrosive ) additives
ADDITIVES TO SUPPLEMENT
ACTIVITY
Agent Chemical Function
Wetting Alcohol ethoxylates Reduce surface tension

Non-ionic, ionic, Get chemical to the soil
amphoteric Control foam
Emulsifier Phosphonate Keep soil in suspension
Chelating EDTA (<pH 11) Dissolve Ca, Mg, beerstone

Gluconate (>pH 11) Different metal affinities
Sequestering Phosphonate (>pH 11) Keep calcium in solution,

Polyphosphate (<pH 11) especially when pH falls
during rinsing
Rinsing Anionic surfactants Aid detergent removal
4
TYPES OF DETERGENT
Caustic Alkali NaOH High soil
Brewing / processing
Alkaline Na3PO4 Aluminium
Orthosilicate Organic soil
Metasilicate
Mild alkali Na2CO3 Aluminium
Neutral Low soil
Acid Mineral acids Low organic soil
Sulphamic Inorganic scales
Acetic High CO2
Bright beer
Anionic Teepol Lab glassware
Washing up liquid Good wetting / rinse aid
Often used as additives
RELATIVE ACTIVITIES
OF DETERGENTS
DETERGENT Wetting Protein Emulsifying Chelating Sequestering Rinsability Microcidal
power dissolving power power power effect
Caustic soda 1 5 1 0 0 1 5
Sodium carbonate 1 2 1 0 0 1 1
Silicates 2 3 4 0 0 3 3
Tri-Na phosphate 2 2 4 0 0 3 2
Polyphosphate 1 2 3 1 3* 2 0
Sulphuric acid 1 1 1 1 1 3 1
Nitric acid 1 2 1 5 5 2 5
EDTA - 0 0 5* 5* 1 2
Gluconate - 0 0 3* 5* - -
* Activity is pH dependent
5
DETERGENTS
& PLANT COMPATIBILITY
18/8 Mild Al Cu Brass “Rubber”

SS Steel
Caustic OK OK No “OK” “OK” OK
Nitric Acid OK No No OK No OK
Phosphoric Acid OK No “OK” “OK” “OK” OK
Sulphuric acid “OK” No No “OK” No OK
Silicates OK OK OK OK OK OK
PAA OK No OK “OK” “OK” OK
Hypochlorite )
Free chlorine) “OK” No No No No Cracks
“OK” = some attack
DETERGENTS &
PLASTICS COMPATIBILITY
Caustic, 5%, 70C Perbunan Buna
HNO3, 5%, 50C Buna
H3PO4, 5%, 90C Perbunan Buna
Peracetic Perbunan Buna
Hypochlorite)
Chlorine ) Perbunan Buna Neoprene
Perbunan = Acrylo-nitrile
Buna = Ethylene propylene polymer
Neoprene = Chloro-butadiene
6
CHOICE OF DETERGENT
1. Type of soil
2. Water hardness
3. Materials and corrosion
4. CO2 present or absent
5. Hot vs cold cleaning
6. Ease of control
7. Significance of residues
8. Process and equipment to be cleaned
9. Outcome = clean or clean & sterile
10. Cost of chemicals
11. Safety - manual vs CIP
INCORRECT CHOICE OF
CHEMICALS
Corrosion
Possible product contamination
Poor Results - soil not removed / scale build up ….
Environmental / Effluent problems
Safety
Overall inefficiency
Demotivation
7
CAUSTIC SODA
AS A DETERGENT
Advantages
Easily available & low cost
Dissolves protein well
Fair sterilent - especially if hot
Easy control - conductivity
Disadvantages
Reacts with CO2
Deposits scale with water salts
Does not remove inorganic scale
Poor wetting capability
Poor emulsifier
Poor chelation & sequestration
Poor rinsing
Attacks Al
ACID DETERGENTS
Advantages
Remove inorganic scale
Not degraded by CO2
Not affected by water hardness
Automatic control by conductivity meter.
Sulphamic acid - low corrosion risk
Disadvantages
Limited removal of organic soil - new formulations better
Protein stain can develop
Limited biocidal properties - new products better
High corrosion risk - Nitric on aluminium; Sulphuric on copper / brass
8
MILD ALKALINE / NEUTRAL
DETERGENTS
Advantages
Most not affected by CO2
Compatible with aluminium kegs and tanks
Remove organic soil
Soil suspending properties
Disadvantages
Expensive compared to caustic
Silicate reaction with CO2
THE CLEANING SEQUENCE

Operation Function
Scavenge Recover product residues

Water pre-rinse Remove gross soil
Detergent Circulation Remove adhering soil
Intermediate Rinse Flush detergent and
suspended solid from system
Sterilant Circulation Destroy remaining bacteria
Final Rinse Remove all traces of chemicals
and bacteria from system
Drain Prevent dilution or contamination
Check “Fit for fill”
9
CHOICE OF CLEANING
Cold process = cold clean

Hot process = hot clean
Except Yeast propagation Pasteurisers
Note “Warm” clean in high soil areas more effective

Heat increases reaction rate
= dissolving power
= biocidal effect
Too hot can fix some soils
EQUIVALENT ACTIVITY OF
70
2 Minutes
CAUSTIC SODA
2 Minutes
60 Temp
50 Strength
40
30 1010Minutes
Minutes
20
10 70
0 60
1 2 3 50
40
30
20 2626Minutes
Minutes
10
70
0
1 2 3 60
50
40
30
Above 43oC 20
10
each +7oC = x2 germicidal effect 0
1 2 3
10
CHOICE OF CLEANING
Brewhouse
Baked protein, sugar, grains & some water scale
Caustic detergent, 3 - 4% causticity, 65oC min
CHOICE OF CLEANING
Fermentation, Yeast Handling
High soil
Caustic detergent, 2 - 3% causticity, ambient - 60oC
Acid detergent, 1 - 2% v/v
Maturation Vessels
Medium soil
As FVs, ambient
Filters & Bright Beer

Low soil
Ambient acid detergent, 1% v/v
Ambient caustic detergent, 1.5 - 2.5% causticity
11
CHOICE OF CLEANING
Cask Beer Racker
Ambient caustic detergent, 2 - 3%
Casks
Hot water, +85o C
Keg Racker
Hot caustic detergent, 2.5 - 3.5%
S/S Kegs
Hot caustic detergent, 1 - 2%
Aluminium Kegs
Acid or silicate detergent, 0.5 - 1%
Bottles
Dried soil
Hot caustic detergent, 3%
STERILISATION
vs
DISINFECTION
Sterilisation
Kill all micro-organisms on the surface of the plant
which may come into contact with the wort or beer
Disinfection
Reduce the number of micro-organisms on a surface
to a level which is acceptable in the context of
the product being produced, the process being used and
the standards to be achieved.
12
PLANT “STERILISATION”
Choices available
Heat - denature protein

Wet vs Dry
Chemical - Dissolve / pH / Oxidise
Weaken cell wall - osmotic rupture
Poison cell metabolism / block enzymes
Damage (protein) membranes
Radiation (cold pasteurisation)
Ultra-violet / X-rays / Gamma
Water, food, small packages rather
than plant
RADIATION
1 Gray = 1 Joule / Kg = 100 Rads
Grays
Complete sterilisation 20,000 - 40,000
Reduce bacteria by 106 1,000 - 10,000
Kill insects 500 - 5000
Kill man 5 265 nm
Disadvantages
Shielding & safety of source Diagram from R.A. Sprenger, 1983
Spores unaffected by legal levels
Particles / films shield target organisms - especially UV
13
HOT STERILISATION
Heat must be wet
Water or condensing steam
> 85o C for 25 minutes at coldest part
Laboratory equivalents
Autoclave = 121oC for 15 minutes
Dry heat = > 160oC for 120 minutes
HOT STERILISATION
Advantages
Non-specific
Kills spores - if hot enough & long enough
Penetrates dead legs & crannies
No chemical residues to remove
Disadvantages
Energy cost (& taxes)
Wear & tear
Not all plant suitable
Leaks / cold spots in long mains
Residues can bake on
Vacuuming
Heat up / cool down times
14
REQUIREMENTS OF A
DISINFECTANT
Effective against target organisms

Fast Acting
Low Hazard / not toxic to humans
Low Corrosivity
Non Tainting
No Effect On Head Retention
Acceptable Foam Characteristics
CHEMICAL “STERILISATION”
OR DISINFECTION
Advantages
Rapid - but contact time needed
Convenient
Low energy Disadvantages
Good in right situation Residues
pH effects
Cold conditions
Organic matter
Dilution / interfaces
Corrosion
Some organisms resistant
Spores
One use & dump
15
FREE CHLORINE
(50 -200 PPM)
Advantages
Cost effective
Broad spectrum
Non foaming Disadvantages
Taint potential
Stability on storage
Deactivated by organics
Can be corrosive (acid pH)
Safety - never mix with acid
SOURCES OF CHLORINE
Hypochlorite, 15%, SG 1.2 11% available chlorine
Chlorinated Na3PO4 4% available chlorine
Chloramine 25% available chlorine
Dichlorodimethylhydantoin 68% available chlorine
Dichloroisocyanuric acid 71% available chlorine
Trichloroisocyanuric acid 90% available chlorine
16
IODOPHORES
(30 - 70 PPM IODINE)
Advantages
Effective in Acid
Colour “self indicating”
Effective at Low Concentration
Disadvantages
Staining Potential
High Cost
Taint potential
Foams - needs a defoamer as
part of formulation
QUATERNARY AMMONIUM
COMPOUNDS
(500 - 1000 PPM)
Advantages
Non tainting
Safe to handle
Disadvantages
Residual effect
Foam Characteristics
Low corrosion
Effect on Head
Not Effective in Acid
Difficult to Rinse
Rubber goes sticky
17
PERACETIC ACID
(250 -400 PPM)
Advantages
Broad spectrum kill
Effective at low level
Non-rinse applicable
Disadvantages
Unpleasant to handle
Decomposes when diluted
Low concentrations can sustain
microbial growth.
Kill rates reduce at low temperatures
PAA EFFECTIVENESS
& TEMPERATURE
For complete kill of S. Cerevisiae
Time (mins) Temp PAA

oC (ppm)
15 17 200
15 4 900
5 8 800
10 8 500
45 8 200
18
WATER IN CLEANING
Needs
Soft
Sterile
Considerations
Scale
Corrosion
CORROSION CAUSED BY
WATER
Stress corrosion cracking
Austenitic SS
Chloride - 150 ppm; Temperature >60o C
Residual stress
Low oxygen MATERIAL Most corrosion caused by:-
Hardness pH Oxygen CO2 Chlorine Chloride
Mild steel Soft Low High High High High

304 / 316 Soft Low Low No High No safe
stainless effect if pH low level if
steels warm
Copper Soft High High High Little High
& effect
low
Aluminium Soft low Low No High High
effect
Mixed metals Electrolytic action increased by salts, etc.
19
SCALE FROM WATER
DURING CLEANING
Cause
Heat precipitates temporary hardness
Caustic precipitates Ca & Mg salts
(Caustic + CO2)
Cure
Cold rinse
Excess sequesterant in detergent
Avoid extended interfaces
Soften the water
PENALTIES OF SCALED
PLANT
Porous surface = bug trap
Porous surface holds chemicals
Heat transfer deteriorates
Moving parts abraded
De-scaling can damage equipment
De-scaling chemicals = higher safety risks
20
RINSE WATER TREATMENT
A Reminder
Heat > 85o C / 25 min

UV 265 nm
Sterile filtration < 0.45μ
Chlorine 2 ppm and remove

Chlorine dioxide 0.5 ppm
Ozone < 1 ppm
SUMMARY
Four energies of cleaning
Choice of chemical affects more than just

cleaning performance
Common stages of all cleaning cycles
If it does not look clean it cannot be disinfected
21
PRINCIPLES OF CLEANING
Session 24b-SRG-08
1. Introduction
This lesson will examine the fundamental aspects of how different types of energy are
used to remove dirt from surfaces. Successful cleaning requires a combination of
mechanical, thermal and chemical energy to be applied to the dirty surface. The
balance between these sources of energy that is used has a profound effect on both
cleaning performance and on cost. Contact time is the fourth fundamental parameter
that must be considered in order to achieve satisfactory cleaning.
The chemistry of cleaning also requires an understanding of the interactions between
soil, detergent, disinfectants, water, materials of plant construction and the conditions
inside the plant to be cleaned.
The reasons for cleaning are:-
Remove potential sources of infection and beer spoilage
Prevent waste through beer contamination and adulteration
Ensure consumer safety
Maintain heat exchange capacity and thereby ensure process targets are
achieved
Prolong plant life
Create hygienic working conditions and promote good employee attitudes
Present a positive image to customers
2. Definitions
Cleaning is:-
The application of energy to remove soil and product residues from the surface
of plant and equipment.
Clean is:-
The absence of residues to satisfy a defined standard. There are three general
standards to apply.
Visually clean requires the absence of any visible soil.
Chemically clean requires that beer subsequently in contact with the
cleaned surface will not become contaminated or adulterated.
Microbiologically clean requires the surface has been disinfected or
sterilised - see below.
CIP is:-
Cleaning in Place uses methods of cleaning which do not require the entry of
people into plant or the dismantling of equipment as part of the cleaning
process.
Detergent is:-
A material, usually comprising a mixture of chemicals, that removes soil from a
surface and prevents it re-depositing.
Soil is:-
Any unwanted material, solids or contamination adhering to a surface.
24bSG08 PrincCleanTxt08 new Page 1 of 12 © SRG, 2003

Scale is:-
A particular type of soil, comprising insoluble calcium and magnesium salts. It
forms a tightly adhering layer that requires acidic chemicals, strong chelating
agents or mechanical abrasion to remove it. Scale is sometimes called
"inorganic soil".
Beer stone is:-
A hard, resistant matrix of scale salts, calcium oxalate and calcium phosphate,
within which beer residues, denatured and insoluble protein and micro-
organisms are deposited. Beer stone is a mixed soil and is consequently
difficult to remove.
Sterilisation is:-
The total destruction of micro-organisms and their spores. It is not normally
practicable, nor necessary to achieve sterilisation within the food or brewing
industries.
Commercial sterility is:-
Conditions needed to reduce the chance of survival of 1 spore of Clostridium
botulinum to 1 chance in 1012. Reference conditions satisfying this requirement
are 121o C for 3 minutes.
Disinfection is:-
The destruction of micro-organisms, but not their spores to a level where they
will not cause harm to the quality of the beer.
Sanitiser is:-
A chemical or mixture of chemicals that cleans and disinfects in a single
operation.
3. Soil and Cleaning
In general terms there are two types of soil; organic and inorganic. The two may also
be combined to form particularly resistant soils such as beer stone.
3.1 Organic soils

These are derived from the brewing materials, yeast and beer residues. Chemically
they comprise vegetable matter (cellulose and lignin), proteins, lipids, starch and other
carbohydrate polymers, sugars and tannins.
Organic soils can be removed using alkaline or neutral detergents. However if organic
soil is heated, allowed to dry, or allowed to remain for a long time it becomes more
resistant and caustic alkaline detergent must be used to remove it. Caustic soda is the
most aggressive and most effective chemical for removing organic soils.
Brewhouse soil contains trub, which includes lipids. When such a soil is heated it can
change into a darker, sticky deposit called polymerised grease, which makes the soil
more difficult to remove. The foaming that sometimes develops in brewhouse, caustic
detergent is due to the saponification of this grease by the detergent.
Tannin is another component of organic soils that can be difficult to remove, especially
when combined with water hardness salts. Tannin soil is usually removed using an
oxidising agent such as hypochlorite. An acid will be needed if the tannin is combined
with scale but the two reagents should never be mixed or used at the same time.

3.2 Inorganic soils
These are derived from water hardness salts, products of corrosion, oxalate
deposition during processing and processing aids such as kieselguhr, bentonite or
silica gel.
Inorganic soil is normally removed using strong mineral acids, although this creates
corrosion problems with aluminium equipment. Limited treatment with dilute
phosphoric acid can be used to de-scale aluminium although some corrosion will still
occur.
Scale is normally removed from stainless steel plant and equipment using proprietary
mixtures of nitric and phosphoric acids, which leave the protective oxide layer on the
surface of the steel intact.
3.3 Beer stone

It is easier to limit the formation of beer stone by removing carbon dioxide and by
selecting a detergent that is appropriate for the conditions, than it is to remove beer
stone once it has formed a layer on the plant. Due to the mixed nature of the soil it is
often necessary to alternate alkaline and acid cycles. Hypochlorite, provided contact
with acid is prevented, can usefully loosen beerstone. A high level of EDTA in a
caustic detergent is also beneficial. In severe cases mechanical abrasion may be
necessary.
4. The Four Dimensions of Cleaning

Energy is available for cleaning in three different forms:-
Kinetic energy Manual scrubbing and abrasion
Mechanical energy from machines, e.g. centrifuges, pumps
Turbulence in liquids during CIP
Thermal energy Increased rate of chemical reaction
Increased solubility
Chemical energy Detergents, de-scalers, etc.
The fourth dimension is time. The longer the time the greater the energy that is
transferred to remove soil from a surface.
It is theoretically possible to clean a surface using only one form of energy and time -
a vessel could be cleaned by abrasion alone or by sufficient heat to vapourise all the
residues. This is patently not practical in most circumstances and it is normal that at
least two of the energies are used in combination. Thus pipe work is cleaned using a
combination of chemical and mechanical (turbulence) energies. Increasing the amount
of one form of energy enables a reduction in the amount of the second energy, or in
the time required for cleaning. Alternatively, introducing heat as a third energy into our
pipe work example would be another method of reducing the amount of other forms of
energy needed or shortening the time required. Selecting the correct balance of each
of these four dimensions is essential for safe, practical and cost effective cleaning.
Although costs vary across the world it is generally the case in Europe and America
that manual energy is the most expensive and chemical energy the most economic.
You may also find these four parameters referred to as "The four principles" or "The
four energies" of cleaning.

5. Detergents
5.1 Detergent properties

The usual cleaning medium is water because it is a good solvent, which dissolves
residues into a solution that can be easily washed away. Water is not, however good
at dissolving some soils deposited in brewing plant. Chemicals, called detergent, are
normally added to the water to improve its dissolving power. No single chemical
possesses all the desirable properties needed by a good detergent. One of the most
important functions of a brewery detergent is to dissolve organic matter, especially
protein - a function carried out very efficiently by caustic soda. However, caustic soda
does not possess good performance in other respects, such as being easily removed
from the cleaned surface. It is necessary to blend further chemicals, called surfactants
with the caustic detergent to assist its removal during rinsing. The characteristics
required of a detergent must include:-
5.1.1 Wetting power or surfactancy - increase the wetting power of water by
reducing its surface tension. The soil needs to be penetrated so that
chemicals that will dissolve it can be carried between and inside the soil
particles, rather than rolling off the surface as plain water does from dry
flour. The surface tension of distilled water is approximately 70 mNm-1
whereas that of detergent containing a good wetting agent is reduced to
35 mNm-1.
5.1.2 Emulsifying or dispersing power - this is the ability to break up large
aggregates of soil into very small particles so they can be floated away
and do not block sprayheads. The small particles of un-dissolved soil are
called micelles. Micelles are spherical zones of high concentration in
which the polarity or ionic charge of the surfactant is aligned to neutralise
the charge on the soil particle. The stabilised micelles form emulsions.
Surfactants require a specific minimum concentration in solution before
they will enable micelles to form. For this reason most formulated
detergents are compounded in such a way as to ensure this activity is
maintained even though only the overall detergent strength is monitored
using (conductivity) to ensure consistent causticity.
5.1.3 Suspending power - Soil that has been emulsified is kept in suspension
so it does not re-settle on the clean surface.
5.1.4 Chelating power - the ability to dissolve hard water salts (calcium and
magnesium) and beer stone that have deposited on plant surfaces.
5.1.5 Sequestering power - the ability to keep calcium and magnesium salts
in solution and prevent them becoming insoluble in the presence of
alkalis, carbon dioxide or changing pH during rinsing. Different
sequestering agents exhibit optimum activity at different pH; gluconate is
most effective above pH 11 and loses activity as pH falls during rinsing;
EDTA is most active below pH 11; phosphonates and polyphosphates
exhibit good scale free rinsing properties. Excessive temperature during
hot cleaning can destroy some sequestering agents.
5.1.6 Rinsability - the easy removal of detergent, without the need for large
volumes of water or extended rinse time. Caustic alkalis are difficult to
rinse and the soapy feeling experienced when washing caustic off the
skin is an example of this phenonemom. Rinse aids are usually
surfactants - see wetting power. Although sometimes used, it is usually
less cost-effective to assist removal of a caustic detergent with an acid,

neutralising rinse. Acid detergents are generally much easier to remove
than caustic during the rinse phase of a cleaning cycle.
5.1.7 Microcidal properties - the ability to reduce the total viable count of
micro-organisms on the surface being cleaned. Caustic soda, especially
if used hot has very good microcidal activity. Acids are effective against
bacteria but yeast is more resistant, viz acid washing of pitching yeast.
Nitric acid is an oxidising acid with good microcidal activity against yeast
as well as bacteria, although any nitrate residues will increase the risk of
ATNC formation.
5.1.8 Foam modification - foam is not an essential part of a detergent and
can interfere with cleaning. In a CIP situation, foam will reduce the
transfer of mechanical energy and introduce rinsing problems. The
saponification of malt lipids by caustic soda during hot cleaning can
generate detrimental foam during brewhouse cleaning. Foam may be
beneficial during manual cleaning because it increases the ability of
detergent to adhere to a surface and also enables more soil to be
suspended. Foaming agents are added to detergents used for cleaning
the exterior of equipment such as bottle and can fillers.
5.1.9 Organic dissolving power - the ability to chemically dissolve protein,
lipid, insoluble carbohydrate, yeast residues, hop material and tannins.
Caustic alkalis possess excellent organic dissolving power with non-
caustic alkaline products such as sodium meta-silicate exhibiting a
lesser but useful amount. Acid products do not exhibit organic dissolving
power when used at sensible concentrations.
These characteristics for some commonly encountered detergent components are
quantified in the accompanying slides
5.2 Detergents and plant compatibility

Detergents are, by definition, aggressive in their chemical action. In addition to
removing soil they have the potential to dissolve equipment at the same time.
There is a tendency to assume that all plant is stainless steel, that stainless steel is
corrosion proof and to forget that even modern plant incorporates several materials.
For example a cold tank may have a stainless steel shell, rubber joints and valve seals
and mild steel supports. Furthermore different grades of stainless steel exhibit varying
degrees of resistance to corrosion. The detailed consideration of corrosion of stainless
steel is beyond the remit of this lesson and all that concerns us is an overview of its
relevance to selecting a suitable detergent. The important principle is to remember
that most brewery plant is made from a variety of materials and the resistance of all
must be taken into account.
Limiting corrosion depends primarily upon ensuring the main detergent component
does not react with any of the plant materials - a matter of simple chemistry. An outline
of the compatibility of basic detergent components with different brewing plant
materials is summarised in your slides. It is worth noting that, with the exception of
acid preparations, mild steel is very similar to stainless steel in its resistance to caustic
detergents, although it is much more susceptible to water induced corrosion. It is the
inclusion of chromium (which forms a very thin, insoluble oxide layer on the surface)
and reduction in carbon content that give stainless steel its corrosion resistance.
It is also worth noting that caustic detergent reacts vigorously with aluminium and will
not only destroy equipment very rapidly but also liberate explosive hydrogen during
this reaction.

A slow rate or small amount of reaction between detergent and plant may be
acceptable and can be further limited by the inclusion of corrosion inhibitors into the
detergent formulation. For example a 5%, caustic detergent at ambient temperature
will dissolve 2g per square metre per hour from a copper vessel. The inclusion of
sulphite into the detergent vastly reduces this rate of corrosion. Even mildly alkaline
detergents such as carbonates can damage aluminium and glass and in this instance,
provided detergent pH is controlled below 11, the presence of silicate prevents
corrosion.
5.3 Types of detergent

If no other detergent chemical than caustic soda were available this would, with
appropriate additives, be sufficient for cleaning throughout the brewing process.
Caustic soda has the advantages of being:-
1. Easily available
2. Low cost
3. Dissolves organic matter well
4. Good biocidal activity, especially when hot
5. Easy strength control using conductivity or simple titration
Unfortunately it has a number of disadvantages:-
1. Reacts with CO2
2. Deposits scale with water salts
3. Does not remove inorganic scale
4. Poor wetting capability
5. Poor emulsifier
6. No chelating and sequestering power
7. Poor rinsing
8. Attacks aluminium rapidly, with evolution of hydrogen
The other main types of detergent used in the brewing industry are non-caustic alkalis,
mild alkaline or neutral materials and acids. The properties of each of these types are
summarised in your slides. All tend to be more expensive to purchase than caustic
based detergents but possess advantages in certain situations. For example acid
detergents do not deposit water scale nor do they react with residual carbon dioxide in
a vessel, which can result in a lower overall cost of cleaning when all these factors are
taken into account - we will examine some calculations to illustrate this during
lesson 9.
The main disadvantages of acid detergents are:-
1. Poor organic soil dissolving power
2. Sulphuric acid rapidly corrodes copper and its alloys
3. If accidentally mixed with hypochlorite, poisonous chlorine gas is evolved
Neutral detergents are safe to use and meta-silicate is one of the few detergents that
can be used to clean aluminium. However carbon dioxide and meta-silicate react to
produce a resistant, silica scale which is almost impossible to remove once deposited.
The first inorganic household detergent to replace traditional soap for washing clothes
was a neutral detergent mixture of perborate and silicate salts.

5.4 Factors in choosing a detergent
The consequences of using the wrong detergent for an application are:-
1. Poor cleaning performance
2. Possible damage to plant
3. Safety hazards for personnel
4. Possible product contamination leading to waste, taints, customer
complaints, loss of sales and maybe prosecution
5. Damage to building and drainage systems
6. Increased use of chemicals and stronger effluent discharge
All these consequences contribute to increased costs.
Selecting the appropriate cleaning chemicals often requires expert technical
knowledge. Selecting the correct detergent for a particular situation requires that the
basic detergent properties already considered earlier during this lesson must be
considered in relation to:-
1. Type of soil
2. Water hardness
3. Materials and corrosion
4. CO2 present or absent
5. Hot vs cold cleaning
6. Method of controlling the detergent strength
7. Significance of residues - contamination, taint, residual activity
8. Process and equipment to be cleaned
9. Outcome = clean or clean & sterile
10. Cost of chemicals
11. Safety - manual vs CIP
6. Best practice cleaning parameters

All cleaning operations consist of the same six basic operations, which are
summarised in your slides. Extra disinfecting and rinse stages are sometimes
incorporated.
Once the appropriate detergent has been identified the main parameters that require
defining to ensure effective cleaning are:-
1. Detergent concentration
2. Cleaning temperature
3. Soil
4. Cycle times
Within the standard cycle, the timing of each phase and of interfaces is plant specific
and can only be defined by trials - lesson 9 will consider these aspects in detail.
General, best practice guidelines can be proposed for detergent concentration most
appropriate for use within different areas of the brewery.
The principles of best practice cleaning procedures involve an acceptance of the
overriding significance of solids to be removed and of process temperature.
It is not good practice to attempt to clean equipment, which presents different soil
loading using the same CIP plant. For example, fermenters and yeast plant present a
high solids load during cleaning whereas bright beer tanks present a low solids load. It
would not be good practice to clean these areas from the same CIP plant. The
principles of best practice require that different potential solids loadings are
segregated into different circuits and CIP plant.

Although warm cleaning is more effective in principle than cold cleaning, there are a
number of other factors that must be taken into account. From an economic point of
view the energy input and the heat up and cool down times associated with hot
cleaning into a cold process can be significant. Furthermore the stress on plant
exposed to successive expansion and contraction cycles or differential pressure
fluctuations may be unacceptable. For example hot cleaning a cold tank may be the
theoretically most effective situation. However, when the warming effect on refrigerant
in jackets and the tank and pipe work stresses are taken into account it is probably
better to clean the vessel cold and to also ensure the coolant is isolated during
cleaning. All these considerations lead us to the conclusion that the best practice
situation is probably:-
Cold process = cold clean
Hot process = hot clean
There are two exceptions to this general conclusion; both based on quality
considerations:-
Yeast propagation is so critical that it should always be hot cleaned.
Pasteurisers are the critical control point prior to packaging and should
therefore always be hot cleaned.
Your slides summarise the recommended cleaning conditions throughout the brewery.
7. Making best use of detergent

The significant factors which limit the useful working life of alkaline detergent solutions
are:-
Dissolved organic matter
Carbon dioxide
Suspended solids
Dilution
Dissolved organic matter reduces the biocidal effect of caustic solutions. Where heavy
deposits of yeast or trub are encountered, saponification of the lipids can create foam
with subsequent handling and rinsing difficulties. Adequate pre-rinsing is essential to
remove as much loose soil as possible.
The presence of carbon dioxide neutralises caustic detergent by reacting to form
carbonate and eventually bicarbonate. Bicarbonate has no detergent activity and
carbonate much less than caustic soda, but both these salts register on the
conductivity meter normally used to control detergent strength. An economic decision
must be made whether it is better to knowingly sacrifice caustic to carbon dioxide or
whether it is better to attempt carbon dioxide removal by other means. The first step in
limiting carbon dioxide absorption by detergent is to ensure vessels are always de-
pressurised prior to cleaning. It is possible to further reduce the amount of carbon
dioxide present by re-pressuring the tank from the top with air and then releasing the
pressure from the bottom. Another approach is to change the top pressure gas from
carbon dioxide to nitrogen or air, part way through emptying beer from the tank - only
a minimum carbon dioxide blanket is maintained above the surface of the beer.
Whichever approach is adopted it is necessary to regularly monitor the amount of
carbonate in the detergent and limit its level to 1%.

Excessive detergent loss or dilution can occur when the cleaning programme
sequences follow too quickly or interfaces are not detected precisely. Drainage
periods from tanks and valve and pump signals must be co-ordinated to ensure small
amounts of detergent are not sent to drain as the last portion of pre-rinse. If final rinse
water reaches the detergent tank it will not only create loss through dilution with
subsequent overflows and requirements for concentrated detergent addition but will
also encourage scale formation.
Excessive soil suspended in detergent limits its life by consuming the surfactant
additives and by allowing films and scum to build up that provide a haven for micro-
organisms. Not only will the microbial growth result in poor microbiological
performance but the solids and microbial growth lead to blockage of sprayheads. It is
often beneficial to install in-line filters.
The need for acid rinses to combat scale is usually symptomatic of either an
inappropriate detergent or poor control at some stage of cleaning.
Caustic detergent life will be maximised if:-
1. Initial product-to-drain and pre-rinse phases of CIP are optimised.
2. Dilution is prevented - note that caustic weaker than 1% is ineffective as
a detergent.
3. Procedures to control the presence of carbon dioxide are implemented.
4. Carbonate levels in the detergent tank are monitored.
5. Solids are prevented from entering detergent or are filtered out.
6. Additives are maintained at optimum concentration as well as causticity.
7. Detergent / rinse interfaces are optimised.
8. Water may be beneficially softened to prevent scale - see section 9.
With the exception of carbon dioxide, the same parameters are important if acid
detergent is used.
Detergents, whether alkaline or acid, are generally used at strengths between 2 - 3%
depending on the plant and process to be cleaned and manufacture's
recommendation. Higher concentrations are wasteful, may cause corrosion and will
make rinsing more difficult.
8. Sterilisation and disinfection

It is important to remember the distinction between disinfection and sterilisation that
has been defined in Section 2 of this text.
Sterilisation kills all micro-organisms on the surface of the plant, which may come
into contact with the wort or beer.
Disinfection reduces the number of micro-organisms on a surface to a level which is
acceptable in the context of the product being produced, the process being used and
the standard to be achieved.
The main choice of sterilising procedures in the brewery lies between heat and
chemical agents. Chemical agents are normally used in soak tanks as well as forming
part of CIP cycles. Whatever the situation, it is a cardinal rule that only clean plant can
be chemically disinfected. Organic matter de-activates chemical disinfecting agents -
particularly chlorine. As with detergents, raising the temperature increases the killing
effect of chemical disinfecting agents, but also increases the corrosion caused by
chlorine and hypochlorite.

Your slides outline the advantages and disadvantages of each of these approaches
and all the commonly used chemical agents (Chlorine, Quats and Per-acetic acid)
are also summarised in your slides.
There are a number of less common chemicals that have been used in breweries
which, due to their lack of stability or the potential hazard they pose to human health
are only legal in some countries. These are:-
Formaldehyde (and glutaraldehyde) is an extremely effective protein
denaturant. It is unpleasant to handle, toxic and slow acting although one of the
few effective agents that will sterilise wood. It is prohibited in many countries.
Amphoteric compounds such as dodecylaminethyl glycine have a wide
spectrum of biocidal activity and are non-corrosive with no effect on beer foam.
They are safe for use as terminal disinfectant sprays and their effect is
enhanced by high pH. They can also be used as part of a sanitiser formulation.
The main disadvantage is cost.
Hydrogen peroxide is an effective disinfecting agent although it is not stable,
particularly at above ambient temperature. Its advantage is that it decomposes
into oxygen and water, neither of which pose a risk to human health. However,
strong solutions do present a manual handling hazard.
Mono-bromo acetic acid is a very effective disinfectant when incorporated into
mineral acid detergents. It is however, very toxic and suspected of being
carcinogenic. For these reasons any plant disinfected with this agent must be
thoroughly rinsed and MBAA should not be used in soak tanks. Many breweries
have ceased using this chemical for these reasons.
Biguanides are similar in performance to quaternary ammonium compounds
but have a wider kill spectrum. They posess no wetting properties and are
therefore usually compounded as part of non-ionic detergents. They are non-
foaming and sometimes used for glass washing. They are not suitable for use
in alkaline conditions and should not be used following caustic detergents.
Nitric acid is an old fashioned, simple, low cost but effective disinfectant. Used
at 5 - 10% v/v it can be sprayed onto plant as a terminal disinfectant. However
it presents obvious safety hazards during handling and can also increases
nitrate levels with consequential increased risk of ATNC formation.
9. Water for cleaning

The quality and availability of water greatly influences cleaning. Ideally it should be
soft and sterile. If only hard and / or infected water is available additional treatment is
necessary before that water is suitable for use in cleaning. Suitable treatments are
listed below but their detailed consideration is beyond the scope of this lesson.
9.1 Chemical aspects of water used for cleaning

The two key aspects of water chemistry in relation to cleaning are scaling and
corrosion under the conditions of use. These parameters should be monitored
regularly; a one-off analysis is not sufficient because water composition tends to
change with time as the blend of municipal supplies is altered or seasonally from a
surface-water well. Even deep bores tend to change over time, although they usually
provide the most stable source of water.

Corrosion of ferrous metals by water is inevitable but the corrosion will be intensified if
the water is soft and / or contains dissolved oxygen or carbon dioxide. Copper, its
alloys and lead are corroded, although at a much slower rate, in similar conditions.
Furthermore waters containing a high chloride content are, especially at low pH or
above 60o C, corrosive to stainless steel which suffers chloride stress corrosion or
may crack.
In the situation where plant is manufactured from more than one metal the underlying
corrosion may be magnified by electrolytic corrosion due to galvanic action.
Both stainless steel and aluminium form a thin oxide layer on the surface of the metal,
which protects the metal below from chemical attack. It is often the situation that
exposure to other chemicals such as chlorine, salts or extremes of pH destroys this
oxide layer, which allows accelerated corrosion by ordinary water.
Scale deposits in breweries are either the result of calcium and magnesium salt
deposition during cleaning or heating or are created during processing in the form of
beer stone. The two basic mechanisms by which scale forms during cleaning are:-
1. Deposition of carbonate scale as result of heating water containing
temporary hardness.
2. Reaction of soluble calcium and magnesium salts with caustic to form
insoluble hydroxides.
It is relatively easy to avoid these problems by:-
1. Ensuring hot rinse water has been softened.
2. Not using hot rinse water wherever possible.
3. Ensure an excess of sequestering agent with good threshold properties
is available in the detergent at all times during use.
The penalties of scaled plant are:-
1. Increased microbiological risk due to the porous surface protecting
micro-organisms from disinfectants and heat.
2. Abrasive wear on moving parts.
3. Increased corrosion as the scale absorbs and retains aggressive
cleaning chemicals.
4. Reduced rate of heat transfer - both heating and cooling processes will
be adversely affected.
5. Removal of scale requires aggressive chemicals and methods which
increase safety risks for people and which can cause damage to plant.
9.2 Microbiological aspects of water used for cleaning

All water used for cleaning must be of sound microbiological condition, certainly free of
coliforms and other general brewery bacteria or brewery organisms. A well-planned
and controlled cleaning cycle should leave plant surfaces clean and commercially
sterile. Rinsing the plant with unsatisfactory water will negate all the previous good
work.
The methods of treating water to an appropriate microbiological standard have already
been discussed during lesson 3.

10. Summary
Effective cleaning necessitates the complete removal of soil from beer contact
surfaces. The nature of the soil (organic, inorganic or mixed) has a significant effect in
determining which chemicals are most appropriate for cleaning although the materials
used for plant construction are also important.
The principles of cleaning require a combination of kinetic, thermal and chemical
energy together with sufficient exposure time, but it is the economic balance to
achieve satisfactory performance that the brewer must identify.
Detergents used in breweries are seldom a single chemical material although caustic
soda or mineral acids comprise a major proportion. Other chemicals are added to
improve wetting, rinsing, emulsifying, calcium and magnesium salt solubility and
foaming properties. The amount of these additives may be adjusted for soft and hard
water and corrosion inhibitors may also be added.
All cleaning operations consist of the same six basic operations, although extra
disinfecting and rinse stages are sometimes incorporated.
The main parameters that should be defined to ensure effective cleaning are:-
Detergent type and concentration
Cleaning temperature
Soil
Cycle times
Whatever the method of disinfection or sterilisation that is used, satisfactory
microbiological results can only be achieved if all soil has previously been removed
from the equipment and the final rinse water is sterile.
END

Part II: Cleaning
PLANT AND CLEANING
During this session the practical aspects of ensuring detergent is delivered to the surface to be
cleaned and the methods of imparting mechanical energy into the cleaning process will be considered.
The cost of cleaning is often not clearly appreciated nor properly monitored by brewery management.
Data will be presented to illustrate the true cost and how incorrect choices and poor control can
increase cleaning costs.
The transfer of chemical energy in detergents is accomplished by pumping chemicals from a source to
the dirty surface. The detergent can be used once and disposed of or it can be recovered for re-use.
The advantages, disadvantages and appropriate use of these two basic types of CIP system will be
discussed. The relevant design features of the different types of pumps used used for dosing
chemicals, delivering detergent and for scavenging vessels will be outlined.
The appropriate cleaning conditions for and design features of different pieces of brewery equipment,
such as pipework systems, plate heat exchangers and filters, necessary to ensure satisfactory
cleaning will be defined. Examples of both good and poor practice will be given.
The size and shape of tanks influences which type of sprayhead will deliver detergent to the vessel
walls in the best manner. The choices currently available and the factors that should be taken into
account when selecting equipment will be considered. Although it is important to ensure all parts of the
vessel are contacted with detergent, many cleaning problems are caused by defects in scavenging
liquid out of the vessel or by shadow areas within the vessel. This session will describe some of the
causes and cures for these problems
Literature:
Kunze, W. Malting and Brewing Technology, pp 551 – 561.
Hygienic Design of Liqud Handling Equipment for the Food Industry – Camden
and Chorleywood Food Research Association.
22-09-2005
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
9. PLANT and
CLEANING
Scandinavian School
of Brewing
October 2005
by
S. R. Griffin
Quentech
© SRG 2005
THIS SESSION
Application of mechanical energy

Coverage & contact
CIP plant
1
FOUR ENERGIES OF CLEANING
Mechanical
4 Temperature
Temperature Mechanical
Energy
Action
Chemical 4
4
Chemical
Energy
Action Time
COST OF CLEANING
CIP plant
Detergent type & amount
Sterilent type & amount
Water consumption
Hot vs cold
Effluent production
CO2 consumed / caustic wasted
Manual vs automated
Electrical consumption
Error & contamination
Mains using recovery system

Approx. £15 ($25)
1000 hl FV
Approx. £100 - 200 ($150 - 300)
2
CO2 CONSUMED DURING CIP
Vent CO2 to recovery; Clean the tank
CO2 at atmospheric = 1000 hl = 100 m3
1 m3 CO2 weighs 1.97 kg
1 kg CO2 neutralises 1.82 kg caustic soda
So
197 kg CO2 neutralises 358 kg caustic
Cost of detergent @47% = £ 220 / tonne

So 358 kg caustic costs £168
Empty under 1 bar
Cost of CO2 = £90 / tonne
CO2 top pressure
So cost of CO2 loss = £18
CO2 at atmospheric
Total cost = £186 ($295)
= 2000 hl
Empty under 1 bar

nitrogen top pressure
1000 hl CO2 present = 10 m3 = 19.7 kg
5% headspace 19.7 kg CO2 neutralises 35.8 kg caustic
1 bar pressure Cost of caustic = £17
CO2 at atmospheric 19.7 kg CO2 costs £2
= 100 hl Cost of nitrogen = £80 / tonne
1800 hl N2 weighs 214 kg which costs £17
Total cost = £36 ($57)
BASIC CIP CIRCUITS

D e liv e r y
Ta n k
C . I . P.
s y s te m R e tu rn
P ip e w o r k
D e liv e r y
Clean to dirty
3
SINGLE USE Bulk
CIP SYSTEM
detergent
Water break tank
Overflow
Detergent dose
pump Main feed
Dose
pump
rate Flow / timer
control Drain
Mains to be
Tanks to be cleaned
cleaned
Tank scavenge pump
RE-USE
CIP SYSTEM
Bulk Dilute
detergent detergent
Rinse recovery Fresh
tank for pre-rinse water for
final rinse
Mains circuit
Feed pumps Pumps for

other circuits
4
CHOICE OF CIP PLANT
S IN G L E U S E R E -U S E
T A N K S N E A R C IP U N IT TANK S REM OTE FROM

C IP U N IT
P O O R M IX IN G O F B E T T E R F O R M A IN S
D E T E R G E N T IN M A IN S C L E A N IN G
F L E X IB L E S IN G L E D E T E R G E N T
H IG H & L O W S O IL S T R E N G T H L IM IT S
A P P L IC A T IO N S F L E X IB IL IT Y
A V O ID S D E T E R G E N T U N A V O ID A B L E C O 2 &
C O N T A M IN A T IO N D IL U T IO N L O S S E S
F E W P L A N T IT E M S T O M UCH PLANT TO
C L E A N D A IL Y C L E A N D A IL Y
R E L A T IV E C L E A N IN G R E L A T IV E C L E A N IN G
C O ST = 100% C O ST = 60%
PUMPS USED FOR CIP
Circulation & feed Dosing

Centrifugal Positive displacement
Variable speed
Tank scavenge Gear or piston
Vortex
Self prime - liquid ring / outlet reservoir
5
MAINS CLEANING
The 3 most important things are:-
FLOW IN PIPES
Flow turbulent if >1.5m/sec
Flow laminar if < 1.5m/sec

Static boundary layer
Remember the pasteuriser, session 6
Turbulence must be maintained in all parts of the system
6
TURBULENT FLOW IN PIPES
Pipe size (OD) Flow

(hl/hr)
25 mm (1 ”) 40
50 mm (2 ”) 155
75 mm (3 ”) 350
100 mm (4 ”) 625
WHAT REDUCES VELOCITY

IN MAINS?
Bends & elbows
Valves & inclusions
Length
Diameter changes
7
MAINS CLEANING
WATCH OUT
FOR .....
Tee’s & manifolds
Clean each leg separately

if possible
MAINS CLEANING
WATCH OUT FOR .....
Process pumps
Dangerous in Restrict flow

series Fit bypass or remove innards
8
MAINS CLEANING
WATCH OUT
FOR .....
A ir ☺
re m o v a l
S id e a lle y s
Air entrapment
a n d te e s P o c k e ts
Pipe size changes

< 1 .5 ∅
☺
☺
S a m p le p o in t s
Sensor intrusions ☺
G auges
Valves A ir & f o b e lim in a t o r s
P lu g & b a ll v a lv e s
?☺
SHORT INTERFACES
IN MAINS CLEANING
Adverse influences
Turbulent flow
Long circuits
Poor design
Hammer
9
CLEANING HEAT EXCHANGERS
130 - 150% normal flow
Shield leaks
ΔP plates
Service flows & expansion
Reverse flow
Bypass
CLEANING FILTERS
Tank filters
CIP, sprays, jets, spin
Bypasses
Plate & frame filters

Open & manual
Close & sterilise
Filter mains
Separate from filter
10
TANK CLEANING ….
Getting the chemical to the tank surface
Chemical soak vs impingement scrub
LOW P / HIGH VOL

SPRAYBALL
ACTION Deluge
No scrubbing
APPLICATION Low soil only unless using hot strong
detergent
ADVANTAGES Cheap, simple, robust
Hygienic
FIXED SPRAYBALL Self draining, self cleaning
Low maintenance
DISADVANTAGES Easily blocked
Pressure limits throw
Jets atomise above 3 bar
Longer cip cycle needed
Small tanks only
11
MEDIUM P / MEDIUM VOL
TURBODISC
ACTION Some scrubbing

Good sweeping
APPLICATION Heavy soil
Mediumsize (2 - 300 hl) tanks
ROTARY SPRAYBALL ADVANTAGES Hygienic
Self draining, self cleaning
Robust, low maintenance
Multiple heads ok for larger tanks
Not atomise until 5 bar
Use less detergent than fixed sprayball
DISADVANTAGES Cost 5 times more than fixed sprayball
HIGH P / LOW VOL

ACTION
APPLICATION
SPRAYHEAD
Scrubbing plus ricochet into corners
Large tanks
Heavy soil
ADVANTAGES Single head can clean 4000 hl tank
Self powered
Self cleaning
Low detergent use
40% less water & effluent than fixed Gearbox
sprayball
Tune speed and action
DISADVANTAGES Cost 10 times fixed sprayball
Heavy - lifting gear needed Self clean cap
Find weak spots & leaks Figure of eight
Maintenance needed coverage pattern
Can be noisy
Care with flat bottom vessels 1 4 End of cycle
ROTARY JETTING HEAD
12
SPRAYHEAD SUMMARY
Sprayball Turbodisc Pressure
Jet
Pressure (bar) 1-2 2 - 3.5 4 - 10
Cleaning Variable up to 2.3 5 - 11.5

radius (m)
Cost
£ Sterling 80 - 120 180 - 250 1200+
$ US 145 - 220 325 - 450 2150 +
Euro 120 - 180 270 - 375 1800+
THINGS TO WATCH FOR

DURING VESSEL CLEANING
CO2 & heat
Anti-vacs - sticking, freezing

Scale
13
THINGS TO WATCH FOR
Sprayheads
Time & coverage
Single vs. multiple sprayheads
Flows & blockages
SPRAYBALLS
14
THINGS TO WATCH FOR
Conicals drain well
Tank Scavenge Horizontals need fall
Outlet pipe
Flooding
Vortexing
Position of scavenge pump

Flooded outlet Flooding
only
THINGS TO WATCH FOR

DURING
VESSEL
CLEANING
Fittings
Sensors
Pressure lines
Door rubbers
15
SUMMARY
Coverage
If the detergent don’t reach it, it can’t clean it
Design for good cleaning

The devil is in the detail
16
PLANT AND CLEANING
Session 24b-SRG-09
1. Introduction
This lesson will examine:-
Costs associated with cleaning.
Advantages and disadvantages of different types of CIP plant.
Methods of ensuring rinse water and detergent effectively cover all the surfaces
to be cleaned.
How mechanical energy can assist the cleaning process.
The over-riding importance of velocity during pipe-work cleaning is due to the

mechanical energy imparted by turbulence. Turbulent flow also ensures the entry and
circulation of rinse water and detergent into tees and small dead spots that may be
unavoidable within the practical limits of pipe-work design and layout of equipment.
There are, however, limitations in what can be achieved by velocity created
turbulence.
Tank cleaning is primarily dependent upon cleaning agents reaching all parts of the
tank surface and subsequently being completely removed, i.e. spray head design and
scavenge efficiency. The use of mechanical energy must be used more selectively
when cleaning tanks than when cleaning pipe-work. Effects such as atomisation of the
cleaning fluid and optimising scavenge to ensure the tank outlet pipe-work is also
cleaned effectively must be taken into account.
Many of these requirements conflict with each other or require a balance to be

achieved. Some typical examples will be discussed to illustrate best practice.
2. Definitions
Laminar flow is:-
Flow in which there is a steady, continuous, linear motion of particles from A to B. The
motion of particles at a given point always remains the same. The drag exerted by
pipe walls slows fluid particles near the walls, whereas fluid in the middle of the pipe
does not suffer this drag and moves more quickly. Laminar flow is associated with low
linear velocity.
Turbulent flow is:-
Flow in which particles do not flow directly from A to B but exhibit a random and
disorderly path. Turbulent flow is associated with high linear velocity. The transition
from linear to turbulent flow is affected by the viscosity of the liquid and the
dimensions of the pipe through which the liquid flows. For water and normal detergent
solutions turbulent flow becomes apparent at linear velocity around 1.5 to 2 metre per
second, or Reynolds Number approximately 4,000.
24bSG09 Plant&Cleaning09txt new Page 1 of 144 © SRG, 2003

Reynolds Number is:-
A non-dimensional ratio used for comparing the conditions for similar motion in fluids.
It is the product of the liquid velocity and dimensions of the body through which it is
flowing divided by the kinematic viscosity coefficient of the liquid.
3. Basic CIP Circuits

All CIP circuits, whether pipe-work, tanks or special equipment comprise a source of
detergent and a source of rinse water that can be pumped over the surfaces to be
cleaned and subsequently disposed of when soiled beyond use.
Whatever type of plant is being cleaned it is fundamental for effective cleaning that all
parts of the surface to be cleaned must be contacted by detergent. If detergent cannot
come into contact with the soil it matters not whether the detergent possesses all the
necessary properties or that the four dimensions have been wisely balanced;
cleaning will not be effective.
All cleaning cycles comprise the same 6 basic steps, whether dirty dishes or brewing
plant is being cleaned. A basic CIP cycle comprises:-
Step Function
1. Drain or scavenge Remove or recover product residues…
2. Water pre-rinse Remove loose soil and send to waste.
3. Detergent circulation Remove adhering soil.
4. Final rinse Remove all traces of detergent from
equipment.
5. Drain Prevent dilution or contamination.
6. Check Is the equipment fit for use?
Extra disinfecting and rinse stages are sometimes incorporated. If chemical

disinfection is used it normally follows detergent recirculation -step 3. An intermediate
rinse to remove detergent prior to circulating the disinfectant would also be included.
Heat sterilisation using steam or hot water is normally conducted after completing the
final rinse and drain - steps 4 and 5. As discussed during a previous lesson
precautions need to be taken to prevent vacuuming or ingress of non-sterile air whilst
heat sterilised equipment cools to process temperature.
A typical vessel, cleaning programme is outlined in your slides and will take between
60 and 90 minutes to complete depending on vessel size and whether a disinfecting
stage is incorporated. Burst rinsing, i.e. splitting the rinse water volume into two or
more sub-rinses rather than it being used in a single aliquot, maximises the
effectiveness of a rinse whilst minimising the amount of water needed. For example,
burst 1 rinses the vessel for one minute, after which the supply pump is stopped but
the scavenge pump continues to run. After a time determined by trials, typically 30
seconds, drainage from the vessel walls will be complete and scavenge running dry.
Burst 2 supplies the next aliquot of rinse to the vessel for a further x minutes, and so
on. The optimum sequence of burst rinses and scavenge are usually determined for a
given situation by conducting trials, during which soil and detergent residues in the
rinse would be measured against the cumulative volume of rinse water used.

Because detergent is re-circulated there is nothing to be gained from burst supply
during that part of the cycle. However it is sometimes necessary to selectively stop
and start both supply and scavenge pumps to cover mixer blades or to ensure vessel
filling / emptying mains are totally flooded during at least part of the cleaning cycle.
When vessels are cleaned, the rinse water and detergent can be positively separated
from each other by stopping the supply pump and scavenging until drainage from the
vessel is complete. Thus it is relatively easy to avoid excessive effluent discharge,
cross contamination or dilution of detergent. When cleaning pipe-work (see slides for
typical cycle) the changeover between water and detergent must be conducted "on
the run". If the interface between rinse water and detergent is not detected accurately,
the routing valves associated with the CIP plant will not operate at the correct time and
cleaning will not be effective because:-
Pre-rinse can contaminate detergent
Detergent can be diluted by rinse water
Detergent can be lost to drain
Detergent tank can overflow
Detergent can be lost to the rinse recovery tank
A further complication is that interfaces are not precisely defined lines, where water
changes immediately to detergent or vice-versa. Interfaces are usually extended
zones because the two liquids mix in the turbulent flow around a mains circuit. There
will always be some cross contamination or loss of detergent. The objective is to
minimise both and the same rules do not necessarily apply to the "water to detergent"
as to the "detergent to water" interface. The change from pre-rinse to detergent should
be set to minimise the dilution of detergent and its possible contamination with soil.
The change from detergent to post-rinse should be adjusted to minimise detergent
dilution since a small loss into the rinse recovery tank will still impart a net benefit to
the next cleaning cycle - a little detergent power in the pre-rinse will assist in loosening
and suspending the soil. Attempting to recover all the detergent from the final rinse
interface will inevitably lead to dilution and increased volume in the detergent tank,
with the result that any extra recovery of detergent is often negated by a subsequent
overflow to waste from the detergent tank.
Various methods can be used to ensure valves operate when an interface reaches the
CIP plant:-
1. Measure the length of a circuit and compare against CIP pump rating.
Initiate valve changes solely on the calculated time for liquid to travel
around the circuit.
2. Detect pH changes during commissioning trials and measure the time for
the interface to travel around the circuit. Initiate valve changes on the
observed time for liquid to travel around the circuit.
3. Install conductivity or pH electrodes in the CIP return main just prior to
the routing valves. Initiate valve changes when a target value is
detected.
Methods 1 and 2 are both approximate and will not correct for subsequent,
uncontrolled changes to cleaning circuits. Method 3 requires that electrodes are kept
clean and calibrated at appropriate intervals - they are susceptible to scale deposition,
which causes false readings. Different target values may be needed for pre- and post-
rinse interface detection if conductivity or pH is used as the detection method in order
to ensure cross contamination or dilution is minimised. A back-up timer is often
included.
As a general rule it is always good practice to clean from the least soiled end of a
circuit to the most highly soiled end.
4. Cost of Cleaning
The basic costs involved in any manufacturing process can be summarised as:-
Machinery Methods Manpower Materials Maintenance
Therefore the cost of cleaning is actually far greater than the cost of simply purchasing
detergent. These general costs for the cleaning process can be refined as:-
Machinery
Capital cost of CIP plant and associated equipment to deliver the detergent to
the surfaces to be cleaned and to control the cleaning cycles, i.e
CIP tanks Pumps and valves Sensors and control systems
Sprayheads and scavenge
Methods
Frequency of cleaning
Size of equipment to be cleaned
Hot vs cold cleaning
Is carbon dioxide removed prior to cleaning?
Duration of CIP cycle
Volume of rinses
Detergent strength
Interfaces and detergent losses
Detergent dump frequency
Is final rinse recovered for re-use?
Materials
Detergent type, e.g. caustic vs. acid
Cost of caustic detergent consumed by carbon dioxide
Gases or energy for (partial) removal of carbon dioxide
Water; rinse volumes and optimisation
Chemical disinfectant
Dumping exhausted or soiled detergent
Effluent charges
Energy and pumping cost
Hot sterilisation
Error and cross contamination
Manpower
Manual vs. automated cleaning
Manual intervention for cleaning around "shadow" zones
Checking and verification

Maintenance
Calibration
Cleaning of sensors
Replacement of filters
Removing soil and sediments from CIP tanks
Joints and rubbers if hot sterilisation used
Safety procedures and checks
The unit cost of each of these factors varies widely around the world and the specific
balance of each will be specific to a particular operation. It is therefore meaningless to
provide a generic overall cost of cleaning. It is illuminating however, to examine the
current UK cost of carbon dioxide neutralisation of caustic detergent in different
situations.
The absorption of carbon dioxide in a tank by caustic detergent varies according to the
length of the CIP cycle and the type of sprayhead used. For example, relatively more
carbon dioxide tends to be absorbed when low pressure sprayballs are used than
when using high pressure jetting heads, because the low pressure machine uses a
larger volume of detergent. In general it might be expected that if the gas in a 1000hl
tank was totally carbon dioxide, between 50 and 80% would be absorbed during a
typical CIP cycle.
The reaction between caustic soda and carbon dioxide can be represented as:-
2 NaOH + CO2 = Na2CO3 + H2O
followed by:-
Na2CO3 + CO2 + H2O = 2 NaHCO3
Sodium carbonate has much less cleaning power than caustic soda and sodium
bicarbonate has virtually none.
Substituting the molecular equivalent weights into the equations demonstrates that
1kg carbon dioxide removes 1.82kg caustic soda.
Since 1 cubic metre of carbon dioxide weighs 1.97kg the amount in the 1000 hl tank at
NTP will weigh 197kg.
It follows that the 197kg carbon dioxide can neutralise 358 kg caustic soda.
Formulated detergent contains 42 to 47% by weight of caustic soda.
The weight of formulated detergent neutralised is (358 / 47) x 100 = 762kg.
The UK cost of formulated, caustic detergent is approximately £220 per tonne.
Thus the cost of detergent neutralised is £168 per clean if all the carbon dioxide is
neutralised.
Further the tank will require re-charging with carbon dioxide to prevent oxygen pick-up
during the subsequent beer fill. The UK cost of carbon dioxide is approximately £90
per tonne, i.e. 197kg carbon dioxide costs £18.
The total cost becomes £186 per clean, assuming total carbon dioxide absorption.
It is possible to reduce this cost by initially emptying the tank under carbon dioxide top
pressure to maintain beer quality, but changing to air top pressure once the level of
beer has fallen sufficiently to retain the carbon dioxide as a blanket. If a 50hl
headspace of carbon dioxide at 1 bar were maintained as a blanket below the air, this
would be equivalent to 100 hl (10 cubic metres) of carbon dioxide when the empty
tank was vented down to atmospheric pressure. Thus the absorption of detergent and
loss of carbon dioxide would be reduced by 90%, delivering a cost of only £19 per
clean.
Furthermore it would be beneficial to vent the tank from the bottom rather than the top,
as the air top pressure would tend to blow the bottom layer of carbon dioxide out of
the tank and reduce its deleterious effect even more. Even so, this type of procedure
is never perfect due to the inevitable mixing of each gas, the influence of tank shape,
beer transfer rate and the need for consistent control of gas changeover. It is often
more reliable simply to use nitrogen, which prevents beer oxidation, does not react
with caustic soda and volume for volume is only around half the cost of carbon
dioxide.
To summarise, the true cost of cleaning:-

Is usually higher than managers realise.
Can often be optimised at no risk to quality.
Can only be determined from a bottom up calculation of specific circumstances.
5. Different Types of CIP System

Detergent at the correct strength can either be:-
Supplied from a central system and saved after each cleaning cycle for re-use
or,
Made up as required in the plant to be cleaned, used once and then sent to
waste.
These two alternatives are commonly referred to as "Recovery (or re-use) Cleaning
Plants" and "Single Use Cleaning Plants". An outline of each system is drawn in your
slides. Each of these approaches is best suited to particular circumstances - Table 1
compares the applications of each.
Although the recovery of final rinse for use during a subsequent cleaning cycle as pre-
rinse is normally associated with re-use CIP systems there is no reason why rinse
recovery should not be incorporated into a single use cleaning plant - such
arrangements are referred to as hybrid systems.

Single Use CIP plant Recovery CIP Plant
Low capital. Higher capital.
Compact with small footprint. Require greater floor area.
Flexible - single plant can be programmed Single detergent strength and risk of soil
for:- contamination limits flexibility.
High and low soil applications. Can be used for tanks and mains within
Tanks and mains. same soil loading area.
Different detergent strength applications.
Fresh detergent used each time so no Unavoidable carbon dioxide and dilution
possibility of contamination. losses.
Ideal for yeast propagation plant cleaning.Must monitor build up of soil and CO3 in
detergent in addition to strength.
More suited to tanks situated near the CIP Remoteness of plant not material.
plant - volume of detergent needed will Flexibility with minimum loss of detergent.
increase with distance, hence more would
be dumped after each clean.
Tank cleaning requires vessel to be Absorption of carbon dioxide by caustic
detergent reservoir, which may detergent during tank cleaning reduces
compromise mechanical action. activity of recovered detergent.
Poor mixing of detergent during mains Detergent concentration should always be
cleaning unless concentrated detergent correct during mains cleaning.
dosing optimised.
Lower detergent concentration can be Generally use higher concentration of
used. detergent - although it is used many
times.
Best when relatively few items of plant Best when many items of plant need to
need to be cleaned each day. cleaned each day.
Usually only able to clean one plant item
at a time.
Greater effluent volume at higher pH. Can be tuned to minimise effluent volume
Even effluent discharge. and strength.
Peak effluent discharge when detergent
tank must be dumped.
Relative cost per clean, excluding capital Relative cost per clean, excluding capital
= 100 = 60
Table 1
Comparison of Single Use and Recovery CIP Plants
6. Pumps for Cleaning

It is not the purpose of this lesson to examine the principles of operation, the
engineering or performance calculations of pumps. Nor is it intended as a
comprehensive review of all the different types of pump available. It is assumed
students are familiar with the different types of pumps used in breweries through
experience or other specific lessons. This lesson only seeks to identify appropriate
pump types for use in the various situations encountered during cleaning.
Centrifugal Pumps.
These may have open or closed impellors, single or double suction and be single or
multi-stage, depending on the duty to be fulfilled. They must be completely flooded
(primed) in order to work and cannot pump gas. Centrifugal pumps exert little suction
but can deliver high pressure and are efficient. They are ideal for supplying detergent
and rinse water to the surfaces to be cleaned and are normally situated close to
detergent or rinse tanks, which ensures they prime and pump without problems.
Centrifugal pumps, unless modified, are not suitable for tank scavenge duties.
Self-priming Centrifugal Pumps

This type of pump is basically the same as an ordinary centrifugal pump but
incorporates one, or several, of the following features to ensure the pump casing and
impeller remain flooded with liquid:-
1. The pump suction inlet is arranged to prevent back-flow and emptying of
the pump body when pumping stops, i.e. sufficient liquid always remains
in the pump for re-priming.
2. A liquid ring gas pump on the same shaft as main impeller pumps
entrained gas and re-establishes main pump prime. The liquid ring works
on the principle that, when rotating, it incorporates a series of small liquid
pistons which are caused to reciprocate in a radial direction between the
rotor blades by the specially shaped casing. When all the gas has been
removed the small liquid ring pump handles the liquid and operates as a
liquid pump, discharging in parallel to the main centrifugal pump
3. A discharge chamber with non-return valve is fitted on the pump outlet to
provide a reservoir in which entrained gas can be separated from liquid.
A small return line connects the bottom of the chamber to the pump
casing, ensuring the main pump always remains flooded.
Figure 1, next page, illustrates the main features of a self-priming centrifugal pump.
On starting, the centrifugal impeller ejects most of the liquid in the casing to the
discharge chamber through the non-return valve, which then closes and retains the
liquid in the chamber. The liquid ring pump begins to extract air from the suction pipe
and discharges it into the discharge chamber above the non-return valve. The small
return line from the discharge chamber to the pump casing keeps the liquid ring pump
charged and operating until all the gas has been removed, which can take several
minutes and needs to be taken into account when programming CIP cycles.
This type of pump is suitable for tank scavenge duties. However, this type of pump is
not suitable for handling liquids containing large amounts of abrasive or gritty solids,
such as kieselguhr, on account of the very close clearances in the liquid ring pump.

NRV
Main
Gas from flow
liquid ring
Flooded inlet
arrangement Main
impeller
Figure 1
Principle Features of Self-priming Centrifugal Pump for CIP Scavenge
(Based on drawing from MDM Pumps Ltd)
Positive Displacement Pumps

There are many different types of positive pump but not all types of positive pump are
suitable for all applications. The main types are lobe, gear, progressive cavity (Mono),
diaphragm, peristaltic, flexible vane and piston.
Although this type of pump can generally handle gases, liquids, slurries and solids
they are not normally used for tank scavenge during cleaning. Their main application
in the context of cleaning is that of accurately dosing controlled amounts of
concentrated detergents, additives or water treatment chemicals.
The designs appropriate for metering (sometimes the terms proportioning or controlled
volume may also be used) pumps are limited to either diaphragm or piston types.
Changing the length of the discharge stroke of the piston alters the amount of liquid
pumped per stroke.
When proprietary detergent is dosed these pumps are normally used in conjunction
with a conductivity or pH sensor. In the situation where neat caustic soda is used and
the additives are dosed separately, it is necessary to pump a specific, pre-determined
amount of concentrated additive as there are no sensors able to provide feedback of
the amount of additive present.
The special features of these dosing pumps are:-
1. Very low slip, i.e. speed is directly related to volume
2. Capability for the stroke to be adjusted to permit the metering of an exact
amount of liquid.
3. High repetitive accuracy, i.e. under fixed conditions of speed and stroke
setting they continue to deliver the same amount per pulse.
4. Good re-set accuracy, i.e. the pump can be set to an original capacity,
then to a different capacity then back to the original setting where it will
again deliver the original amount of liquid.
5. Several different liquids can be dosed in a fixed ratio using a multi-head
pump of this type driven from a single motor and adjusting the stroke of
each head appropriately.
6. Concentrated or corrosive liquids can be handled safely using
diaphragm pumps.
7. They are generally only able to pump relatively small flows but delivery
pressures present no constraints.
7. Cleaning Pipe-work
The most important factor in cleaning pipe-work is VELOCITY because high liquid
speeds cause turbulent flow that increases the mechanical action and assists liquid
circulate into tees and other dead spots. Turbulent flow in water and dilute detergent
solutions is achieved at 1.5 to 2 metres per second. Your slides indicate what this
means in Hl / hour for different sizes of pipe. Higher flows deliver no cleaning benefit
and can cause plant damage from hammer as well as wasting energy.
Fluid velocity is reduced by friction losses and velocity therefore reduces as the length
of the cleaning circuit becomes longer. Any obstruction in the pipe-work also reduces
the velocity of the liquid. Engineers have calculated these losses for all the standard
fittings incorporated into pipe systems. It is common practice to express the resistance
of fittings as an equivalent length of straight pipe of the same nominal diameter.
Table 2, next page, provides some examples.
Friction losses are greater during turbulent flow than during laminar flow. This means
that changes having no effect upon beer transfers, such as using longer hoses or
including extra valves for convenience, can be detrimental to cleaning.
The layout of pipe-work and especially the length and orientation of tees can greatly
affect cleaning performance. As well as the velocity reduction and dead spots already
discussed, air becoming trapped in vertical U bends and tees will prevent detergent
reaching part of the surface to be cleaned. Ideally tees should be no longer than 1.5
pipe diameters and orientated horizontally. The pipe-work should either be horizontal
or have a slight and continuous rise in the direction of cleaning.

Equipment Friction loss
100mm diameter pipe; 400hl / hr 0.2 bar per 100m length
50mm diameter pipe; 2.75 bar per 100m length
100mm diameter long radius bend 1.07m pipe length
50mm diameter long radius bend 0.5m pipe length
100mm diameter normal bend 2.1m pipe length
50mm diameter normal bend 1.07m pipe length
100mm diameter elbow 2.7m pipe length
50mm diameter elbow 1.4m pipe length
100mm diameter U bend 7.3m pipe length
50mm diameter U bend 4m pipe length
100mm diameter tee 6.7m pipe length
50mm diameter tee 3.4m pipe length
Table 2
Friction Loss in Pipework
Other situations associated with cleaning pipe-work that require special action are:-
Centrifugal pumps Do not run; allow to windmill
Positive pumps Clean in controlled forward flow with pump running
and bypass open
Heat exchangers Reverse flow at 1.3 to 1.5 times process flow rate.
Consider by-pass and separate clean in long
circuits.
Filters Clean separately from filter mains.
By-pass around filter for pipe-work cleaning.
Heat exchangers reduce cleaning velocity considerably and, particularly in longer

circuits, a large CIP pump can be needed. It is sometimes more efficient to install a
by-pass around the heat exchanger so it and the pipe-work can be cleaned separately
using a smaller, lower power pump.
8. Cleaning Tanks
Prior to the 1960's brewery tanks were relatively small and either open, square
vessels or horizontal, cylindrical tanks. Both configurations enabled entry and manual
cleaning. With the advent of vertical, cylindro-conical vessels manual cleaning became
impracticable. At the same time the need for better microbiological standards and
increasing attention by governments to the safety issues of handling chemicals and
exposure to carbon dioxide resulted in the rapid development of different types of
sprayhead suitable for cleaning in place of all sizes and shapes of vessels. Your slides
illustrate and summarise the main types available today.

Effective vessel cleaning requires only that the cleaning solution reaches all surfaces
to be cleaned and that it is removed from the vessel before significant puddling
occurs. Some of the most common causes of cleaning problems associated with
these parameters are outlined below.
Cleaning Solution Cannot Reach Tank Surfaces
1. Incorrect choice of sprayhead leads to atomisation - see your slides.

2. Sprayhead has insufficient throw to reach all parts of the tank. This is a design
fault that can only be remedied by replacement with a different unit or by
installing multiple sprayheads.
3. Cleaning cycle times reduced below the full pattern coverage time for jetting
heads.
4. Sprayhead nozzles / jets blocked or gearbox jammed. Visual checks if view port
available. Audible check on rotation of jetting head can be done. Fully
automated systems have flow switch in sprayhead delivery pipe or pressure
pad in tank that detects jet from jetting head as it rotates.
5. Fittings or inherent tank design creates shadow areas within the tank where
cleaning solution cannot impinge. Your slides illustrate some of the most
common
6. Top pressure systems, carbon dioxide recovery pipes and gauge tubes must be
an essential part of the supply to the cleaning head to ensure they are cleaned
every time without fail.
Cleaning Solution Not Scavenged Effectively
More vessel cleaning problems are probably associated with poor scavenge than with
any other single cause.
1. Many tanks may be served by a single scavenge pump. Inevitably the distance
between tank outlets and the pump will vary. Unless a good self-priming pump
is installed and due cognisance of the varying distances built into the cleaning
programmes, variations in scavenge performance will manifest between the
vessels. Some will puddle and some may not achieve a flooded outlet pipe.
Puzzling differences in microbiological performance are the result.
2. Scavenge pump is not able to handle gas with the result that puddling occurs in
vessels. When puddling occurs, the part of the vessel below the liquid surface
is not exposed to new cleaning solution. The liquid also shields the surfaces to
be cleaned from the mechanical scrubbing and ricochet into blind spots that is
part of the jetting head action.
3. Up-stands designed to retain sediments in tanks must be removed or raised
before cleaning commences or puddling will be caused.
Special situations
1. Vessel Outlets Many modern brewery vessels are connected by a long

inlet / outlet pipe to some form of routing panel or valve matrix. It is vital this
inlet / outlet is kept completely full whilst the tank is cleaned in order that the top
inner surface of the pipe is cleaned. This requires a balance is achieved
between scavenging too much liquid from the vessel with the result there is
always entrained gas in the pipe or reducing scavenge so much that liquid
accumulates in the vessel. The burst rinsing technique can also be used to
ensure vessel filling / emptying mains are totally flooded during at least part of
the cleaning cycle. However, even though sufficient liquid is available to keep
the outlet pipe flooded, gas can still be entrained if vortexing occurs. This
phenomenon is usually associated with flat bottomed vessels and can be
difficult to prevent by attempting to alter feed and scavenge rates. The best
compromise for preventing a vortex whilst optimising product flows,
microbiological performance and cleaning is probably a cruciform in the outlet
pipe - see Figure 2.
Figure 2
Cruciform in Tank Outlet to Prevent Vortex Formation
2. Manway Door Rubbers The perennial question is always whether these

seals should be cleaned in place or whether they should be removed for
cleaning, and if so at what stage during the cycle. If rubber door seals are left in
place during CIP it is frequently observed that soil remains in the crevices
between the seal and the tank. If the rubber seals are removed for manual
cleaning then the inevitable cracks in the rubber that develop with time, close
up and trap soil and micro-organisms when the rubbers are removed.
The best solution to this quandary is probably to ensure that the manway door
is opened and the seals are hosed and cleaned manually whilst still stretched
over the metal door, i.e. any cracks in the rubber remain open. The seal should
then be removed and placed in a disinfectant soak tank. The metal door should
be manually re-cleaned and a new seal from the soak tank installed. The door
should then be loosely closed and the CIP cycle initiated. Upon completion of
the CIP cycle the door is fully sealed.
3. Flat bottom vessels This type of vessel is often constructed from light
gauge metal sheet with mechanical support being provided by external girders.
This construction is susceptible to the vessel walls flexing between the
supports. Distortion of the vessel floor over time can lead to non-draining areas
that create scavenge and contamination problems when the vessels are
converted to CIP. I have also observed several instances where high pressure
jetting heads were installed in this type of vessel and their impact was sufficient
to cause floor distortion and inability to drain.
9. Summary
All cleaning cycles are the same. If in doubt simply remember that job we all must do
from time to time - washing dishes.
Cleaning costs are far greater than the cost of purchasing detergent. This is an area of
brewery operations worthy of optimisation and improvement trials.
There is great choice of cleaning systems and equipment. Its selection must be
appropriate for the particular circumstances.
The three most important factors in cleaning pipe-work are:-

Velocity
Velocity
Velocity
Perfect vessel cleaning only requires that all the surfaces are impinged with cleaning
fluid and that there is an efficient and balanced scavenge.
END

Part II: Cleaning
CONTROL OF CLEANING
This lesson considers how the basic cleaning cycle is adjusted for pipework and for vessel cleaning
operations so that the effectiveness of cleaning is maximised, whilst loss of detergent and discharge of
effluent are minimised. It is often necessary to modify a cycle to allow for the different physical position
of identical tanks cleaned from the same CIP plant.
The final step in all cleaning procedures is to check the equipment and verify it is fit for filling with
product. The methods used to verify cleanliness (and / or sterility) vary from visual examination
through to the assessment of the cleaned surface using sophisticated bioluminescence procedures.
The strengths and weaknesses of each of the techniques will be discussed and comment passed on
which are most appropriate for different parts of the brewery.
Modern brewing plant is often automated and uses shared cleaning facilities. This arrangement can
create a risk in poorly designed plant of detergent contaminating the beer in vessels, which are not
being cleaned. The mechanical design features, maintenance procedures, feedback signals and
interlocks that are normally incorporated to prevent such accidental contamination will be described.
Management plans for the control of cleaning and implementation of necessary corrective action must
include:-
1. Verification that plant to be cleaned does not contain beer.
2. All CIP liquids are available in correct quantity, concentration and temperature.
3. CIP liquids are not contaminated or dirty.
4. Detergent reaches the surfaces in the specified manner.
5. Flows and contact times are as specified.
6. Chemicals are removed from the plant surfaces as intended.
7. The cleaning process is verified as well as the outcome.
8. Calibrations and maintenance are undertaken at the specified frequency.
Training, procedures and control software must be installed by management to ensure these controls
are implemented and the results recorded.
Literature:
22-09-2005
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
10. CONTROL OF
CLEANING
Scandinavian School
of Brewing
October 2005
by
S. R. Griffin
Quentech
© SRG 2005
THIS SESSION
Cleaning cycles
Monitoring performance
Management & control
1
THE CLEANING SEQUENCE
…. a reminder
Operation Function
Scavenge
Water pre-rinse
Detergent Circulation
Intermediate Rinse
Sterilant Circulation
Final Rinse
Check
TYPICAL VESSEL CIP

PROGRAMME
Time (mins)
Pressure vent & drain 3

Pre-rinse to waste 5x2
Drain 2
Detergent 30
Drain 2
Rinse to recovery 5x2
Drain 2
Disinfect 20
Drain 2
(Sterile rinse to recovery) 2x2
2
TYPICAL MAINS CIP
PROGRAMME
Time (mins)
Flush beer to recovery Pipe length dependent

Prevent dilution / loss, detect interface pH, time, conductivity
Pre-rinse to waste System volume x 2
Detergent 30
Recover detergent, detect interface pH, time, conductivity
Rinse to recovery System volume x 2
Chemical disinfectant 20
Recover disinfectant, detect interface pH, time, conductivity
Sterile rinse to recovery System volume x 1.5
MONITORING CLEANING
PERFORMANCE
Visual inspection
Swabbing Techniques
- Conventional Techniques
- Rapid Methods
Rinse Water Analysis

- Microbiological
- Chemical residues
(Also check product)
3
MONITORING CLEANING
PERFORMANCE
Visual inspection
First line of defence

Reinforce with tissue wipe
Easy, quick, cheap
But cannot always gain access
MONITORING CLEANING
PERFORMANCE
Swabs
Specific parts, hot spots, known area

Plate out or ATP
But
Cannot cover much of surface
Need to gain access
4
MONITORING CLEANING
PERFORMANCE
Rinse samples
Final (CIP) rinse reflects average cleanliness of plant
Added (sterile) rinse assesses package cleaning performance
Micro - Plate out, ATP, DNA

Chemical - Phenolphthalein, conductivity, pH
MONITORING CLEANING
PERFORMANCE
Plating
Spread plate 0.2 ml

Pour plate 1 - 5 ml
Membrane 200+ ml, then incubate
I.e. different sensitivities
5
RAPID DETECTION
1. Bioluminescence
An instant result - a few minutes
Can detect:
50 yeast cells / sample
10 yeast / 1000 bacteria if amplified
Mainly swabs or rinses to check CIP of plant
RAPID DETECTION
1. Bioluminescence - How it works
All cells contain ATP

Any infection contains cells
ATP
Break cells to release the ATP
Detect the ATP
6
RAPID DETECTION
1. Bioluminescence - Detecting the ATP
Amount of light
proportional to
number of cells
Add another enzyme
(adenylate kinase)
as well Photometer
Luciferase
ATP + oxygen + luciferin Light 562nm
RAPID DETECTION
2. DNA
Fairly quick - several hours

Can be specific for yeast or lactics
Detection down to 10 cells / ml
Dead cells still contain DNA
High cost
7
RAPID DETECTION
2. DNA - How it works
All organisms contain DNA
Polymerase Chain Reaction multiplies traces of

DNA in sample to detectable level
Multiplied sample developed on gel
Developed sample stained
RAPID DETECTION
Other modern methods

Method Measures Limitations
Conductivity Growth products 100,000 cells / ml
Direct epi- (DEFT) Few specific dyes
fluorescence technique
Flow cytometry Physical,
immunological & Flocs & impurities
biochemical interfere
Image analysis Stained cells on Analyse single cells by
membrane filters shape & size
8
MONITORING CLEANING
PERFORMANCE
Check the product
Advantages
No entry to plant needed
Result not confused by non-spoilage organisms
Low resource when all is OK
Disadvantages
TOO LATE
FAIL = SEAT OF INFECTION ESTABLISHED
FAIL = LARGE, UNPLANNED WORKLOAD
SAFEGUARDING THE BEER
1. After each cleaning cycle

Manual / auto checks - Final rinse
pH
Phenolphthalein
Disinfectant tabs
Management
Quality system
Education & training
Responsibility
9
2. Other cleaning cycles

Mechanical design
Product overpressure
Block and bleed
Double seat valves
Valve spring to open vs. spring to close
Key pieces
Maintenance
Seals
Solenoids
3. Control & automation

Feedback control (plc; hard wired; etc)
Pumps & valves
Flow switches
Temperature, pH, conductivity
Calibrations
Interlocks
Tank contents
Product drain timers
Data logging
10
CLEANING SCHEDULE
1. What is to be cleaned
2. When or frequency
3. Who does it
4. How - cycle / manual / CIP / pre-checks
5. Chemicals, materials, equipment
6. Times
7. Standard required - visual / microbiological
8. Safety precautions & protective clothing
9. Who verifies cleaning & records
Documented Part of quality system
SUMMARY
Cleaning cycles all basically similar but require

tuning for each plant item
Control of cleaning requires:-

Progress of cycle monitored at all stages
Confirm cleanliness
Verify absence of contamination
Systematic approach as part of the formal

quality plan
11
CONTROL OF CLEANING
Session 24b-SRG-10
1. Introduction
Previous lessons have considered the principles, the chemistry, the type of equipment
required and the practical problems that may be encountered during cleaning of
brewery plant. Typical CIP cycles for pipe-work and for vessels have been described
with an outline of essential cycle times and the methods for preventing contamination
of cleaning fluids or re-contamination of cleaned surfaces. Lesson 2 listed some of the
methods that can be used to verify the performance of the cleaning process.
It is the purpose of this lesson to consider:-

* What parameters should be monitored to control the cleaning process
* How managers should interpret control information
* Methods of preventing detergent contamination of beer
* Sensitivity of various methods of monitoring microbiological performance and
how these methods work
2. Monitoring Cleaning Performance

There are various methods of ensuring that cleaning has been effective. These
methods were listed during lesson 2 and are now considered in more detail.
2.1 Visual inspection

Although this is the simplest technique it remains a powerful tool. If soil is visible at the
end of cleaning it may be assumed that microbiological contamination is present and
there is no point following up with a more sophisticated evaluation. The only course of
action is to re-clean the equipment. Visual inspection can be made more sensitive by
wiping suspect parts of the plant with a clean tissue and looking for dirt on the tissue.
The great strength of visual examination is that it is easy and quick to do, i.e. plant can
be examined regularly and frequently. The disadvantages of visual examination are
subjectivity and the requirement for entry into clean plant.
2.2 Swabs
A microbiological assessment of the state of cleaned plant can be made by rubbing a
dampened swab over the surface of cleaned plant Any micro-organisms picked up by
the swab are transferred into a nutrient medium where they grow and produce
colonies visible to the naked eye. The drawbacks of swabbing are:-
Entry into clean plant is necessary.
Only a small part of the equipment can be checked.
It is often impossible to gain access to parts needing swabbing, e.g. the top
dome of a cylindro-conical fermenter.
Several days are required for the colonies to grow and become visible
However swabs are good for checking known hot spots in vessels and for providing
quantitative data during problem solving and improvement projects.
24bSG10 ContrClean10R1 doc Page 1 of 10 © SRG 2003

2.3 Final CIP Rinse
Final rinse water from a CIP cycle is collected, membrane filtered and the membrane
put onto a nutrient plate. The growth of colonies indicates the presence of micro-
organisms. The advantages of rinse samples are that no entry into clean plant is
necessary and the results represent the average microbiological state of all the
surfaces that have been cleaned. However the rinse sample must be collected at a
sensible and specified time to prevent misleading results, especially if a disinfectant
rinse forms part of the CIP cycle. A further disadvantage is that rinse samples disguise
microbiological contamination due to shadow areas in tanks.
A further useful test on final rinse, whether conducted automatically by the CIP plant
or whether manually on final drainings, is to ensure the absence of detergent or
disinfectant to prevent contamination when the tank is subsequently filled with beer.
Automated checks will measure conductivity and / or pH. Manual checks for caustic
based, detergent residues are best conducted with phenolphthalein. Test strips are
available for checking residual disinfectant, such as per-acetic acid or chlorine.
2.4 Saline Rinse

Rather than collecting part of the final CIP rinse for assessment an alternative is to
wash a cleaned surface with sterile saline (or Ringers) solution, which is collected and
plated as above. This technique is mainly used to check the microbiological state of
washed kegs and bottles. Reproducible results depend on the saline being swilled
around the washed containers in a standard manner.
A variant of this test is used to check the cleanliness of individual crowning heads on
bottling lines. A bottle full of sterile saline is passed through the crowner, membrane
filtered, plated and examined for colony growth.
2.5 Rapid Detection Methods

Traditional microbiological detection methods depend on viable cells in the sample
growing on a nutrient medium to form visible colonies. Although these methods are
very sensitive, see Table 1, several days elapse between sampling and the result
becoming available. Although modern, rapid methods can deliver a result within a few
minutes they are generally less sensitive than traditional plating.
Method Limit of Detection

Spread plate, 0.2 ml plated out 1000 cfu / ml
Pour plate, 1 - 5 ml plated out 100 cfu / 5 ml
Membrane, 200+ ml filtered 1 cfu / 100 ml
ATP bioluminescence Standard test - 50 yeast cells
Amplified - 10 yeast / 1000 bacteria
Conductivity 100,000 cfu / ml
Polymerase chain reaction ( DNA / RNA) 10 cfu / ml
Direct epi-fluorescence technique ? - too few stains available
Flow cytometry ?
Image analysis ?
Table 1
Microbiological Limits of Detection

The sensitivity of some modern methods can be increased by pre-incubation of (swab
or rinse) samples to allow some growth, but at the cost of time.
Probably the most commonly used, rapid method for monitoring microbiological
contamination is ATP bioluminescence. The idea was originally conceived by Celsis
and has been extensively developed over the last 30 years, to the extent that the
latest automated system by Biotrace can deliver a result within 1 minute. This method
utilises the fact that living cells produce ATP (the energy carrying molecule that drives
metabolism) and the presence of ATP in a sample must therefore indicate the
presence of micro-organisms. If the cells are alive the ATP will be contained within the
cells; if dead then ATP will be present in any residual soil after cleaning. Thus there
are two measures - total and free ATP.
Fireflies use ATP to oxidise a substrate (luciferin) in the presence of oxygen and
mediated by an enzyme (luciferase) to produce light, as a means of attracting a mate.
The firefly substrate and enzyme have been incorporated into a reagent pack, to
which the sample is added.
When a rinse sample or swab is analysed for total ATP, the first step is to liberate ATP
from inside any microbial cells present, using a lysing agent. The liberated ATP fuels
the production of light from controlled amounts of luciferin and luciferase in the test
module. The amount of light generated at the wavelength 562 nm is proportional to the
amount of ATP, i.e. the number of micro-organisms present and is measured by a
sensitive photometer. Your slides also illustrate how this test works.
Convenience packaging of the reagents into a single unit, see Figure 1, and the
development of battery powered, hand-held luminometers now enables this test to be
carried out anywhere in the brewery.
(Reproduced from slide by S. Livens, BRI)

Figure 1
Bioluminescence Sample and Test Unit

Although early test packs did actually use luciferin and luciferase from fireflies
gathered in the wild, it was difficult to achieve consistent results because of genetic
differences between the flies and the fact that several species were captured.
Nowadays substrate and enzyme are both, less romantically although more
consistently, produced by growing genetically modified bacteria in a reactor.
The amount of ATP inside a cell depends on the size of the cell. A yeast cell is much
larger than a bacterial cell and contains more ATP. The sensitivity of this method,
expressed as cells detected, therefore varies by a factor of 100 according to whether a
sample contains predominantly yeast or bacteria.
DNA is another unique cell constituent, which can be detected as an indicator of

microbial presence. The techniques for the extraction and analysis of microbial genetic
material have been developing over a number of years but still tend to be manual
procedures, which depend on skilled operators to achieve meaningful and reliable
results. It is only recently that an automated version of this test has become
commercially available, although the analysis still takes several hours.
The sample is treated to extract and digest the DNA into specific, identifiable pieces,
which are amplified to increase the sensitivity of detection, using an enzyme. This is
the polymerase chain reaction - PCR. The nucleic acid fragments are separated by
size, using gel electrophoresis and then visualised by staining or by binding onto a
chemiluminescent, rRNA probe. The pattern of nucleic acid fragments on the gel is
unique to different species of bacteria and yeast, so identification accompanies
detection. More than 10,000 of these "fingerprints" are already available in databases.
Figure 2 illustrates the type of patterns that are obtained.
(Reproduced from BDI, January, 1999)

Figure 2
Nucleic Acid Fingerprints of Lactobacillus Spp.
2.6 Check product

Although this approach might be considered the ultimate test, with the advantages that
access into the cleaned vessel is not necessary and only spoilage organisms
influence the result, the obvious disadvantages far outweigh any benefits of this wait
and see approach. It is not recommended.
2.7 Summary of Methods

The strengths and weaknesses of the methods of assessing cleaning performance are
summarised in Table 2.

Method Used for Strengths Weaknesses Procedure
Swabs Hygiene control of:- Monitoring known "hot spots" of limited Cannot reflect state of entire surface of Remove swab from its case and moisten in vial of
Tanks, Mains, Utensils size in plant. plant. saline.
Swabbing requires entry, which may Rub swab over target area and put swab in vial.
introduce contamination. Break off against neck of vial, flame & replace
Results not available immediately. cap.
Vortex-mix the vial.
Put saline from vial into pour plate
Final CIP rinse Hygiene control of:- Results represent the average state of Sample must be taken at specified time to 250 ml of final rinse is aseptically collected and
Tanks, Mains, Utensils all surfaces that have been cleaned. prevent bias from presence of residual membrane filtered in the Lab.
Does not require intrusion into clean detergent or disinfectant. Membrane filter is put onto suitable agar medium.
plant. Results not available immediately.
Saline or buffer Hygiene control of:- Main value is confirmation of cleaning Results biased if container not swilled in Sterilise neck of keg and remove spear.
rinse Kegs, Casks or Bottles prior to filling conditions and cycles. standard manner - kegs and casks most Add 300 ml saline and replace spear.
(can also be used for tanks instead of Trended results can indicate gradual affected. Roll to cover all internal surfaces with saline.
swabbing) deterioration of plant, not apparent Results retrospective. Aseptically pipette 50 ml from keg into sample
through other controls. Time consuming. bottle for analysis in Lab.
Physically hard labour for large kegs and
casks.
Bioluminescence Hygiene control of:- Results available within 20 minutes. As for traditional swabbing. Used in similar manner to ordinary swab.
swabs Tanks, Mains Can be used to confirm equipment Relatively high cost. Vial contains reagent which lyses cells to release
satisfactory for use. their ATP.
ATP + luciferin + enzyme emits light which
measured in special apparatus.
Amount of light is proportional to amount of ATP
which is determined by the number of cells
present.
Sterile empty bottle Cleaning control of:- True microbiological representation of Labour intensive. Sterile, empty bottles fed into filler and retrieved
Bottle filler beer and filler. Difficult on high speed line. before crowner.
Each filling head can be evaluated Bottles sealed and taken to Lab for analysis
individually.
Bottle containing Cleaning control of:- Each crowning head can be evaluated Labour intensive. Bottles filled with sterile saline fed onto line
sterile saline Crowner individually. Difficult on high speed line. between filler and crowner.
Crowned bottles taken to Lab for analysis
Check product Tanks, packages Practical effect of infection assessed. Defective result delivers information too Beer sampled and plated immediately after filling.
late to enable control.
Large volumes of beer affected.
Not recommended.
Table 2
Some Common Sampling Methods for Evaluating Cleaning Procedures

3. Safeguarding the Beer
Detergent or disinfectant does not blend well with beer. In addition to checking that
soil and micro-organisms have been removed during cleaning, it is necessary to
eliminate any chance of contamination from cleaning chemicals, which would create
both product quality and food safety risks.
Detergent contamination of beer can arise from 3 basic causes:-
3.1. Ineffective, final rinse

Section 2 of this handout has already outlined the need for manual or
automated checks based on pH, conductivity or special indicator papers as a
routine after every cleaning cycle. Should a check indicate the presence of
cleaning chemical then the final rinse must be extended. However, the
successful outcome of extra rinsing should never be assumed and a further
check must be conducted to confirm the absence of chemicals after the
extended rinse. Whenever such a situation occurs, the cause must be
ascertained and corrected. For example it might be that a valve on the CIP
plant is leaking and rinse water is contaminated with detergent, rather than the
problem being associated with removing chemical from a cleaned surface.
Unless the cause is identified the problem will persist.
3.2. Cleaning fluids entering the wrong equipment.

In most breweries a single CIP plant will be used to clean many mains circuits
and tanks. Inevitably some items of equipment will contain beer whilst
associated equipment is being cleaned. Figure 3 illustrates a typical situation
where there could be a risk of contaminating beer in other tanks.
CIP Plant
Detergent under pressure in common sprayhead feed line
Faulty valve
leaks
detergent
Vessel being
cleaned
Figure 3
Potential for Detergent Leakage into Beer

It is, of course, just as possible for the detergent to leak into an empty but clean vessel
and for beer contamination to only occur when the vessel is next filled. Another
example would be cleaning one half of a ring main whilst using the other half to
transfer beer.
There are a number of mechanical design features that can be included to prevent
accidental contamination from this source:-
3.2.1 Ensure beer is always at higher pressure than cleaning fluid. However there are
many situations where this is not practicable.
3.2.2 Install "block and bleed" valves on sprayhead feeds and between sections of
pipe-work that need to be used at the same time. Although generally a safe
option, this solution is expensive because three times the number of valves are
needed and when automated, solenoids, wiring, position sensors and software
costs increase as well.
The principle of "block and bleed" is illustrated in Figure 4. When Tank 1
contains beer, valves A and B will be closed and valve C is open. Should
detergent leak past valve A, then valve B protects the beer from contamination.
The detergent will flow down the indicator line rather than entering the vessel
and contaminating the beer. Whilst Tank 2 is cleaned, its valves A and B are
open but its valve C is closed.
Detergent under pressure in common sprayhead feed line
A A
C C
B B
Tank 1 Tank 2
Leakage
indication
Figure 4
Principle of Block and Bleed
3.2.3 The block and bleed principle can be built into a single valve - double or multi-
seat valves, with or without bleed indication are available. Modern multi-seat
valves are the preferred option because the overall costs per application are
lower than for the original block and bleed system.

3.2.4 Valves are usually activated in one direction by a spring and in the other by
compressed air. The spring actuation provides a fail-safe option in the event of
other service failures or faults in the brewery. The correct choice of spring to
open or spring to close for various situations can therefore help prevent
contamination of beer from CIP systems.
3.2.5 In a manual or semi-manual operation, the use of a single key-piece to connect
the CIP supply to a piece of equipment provides a fail-safe method of
preventing contamination of other associated pieces of equipment. The
limitation is that only one item of plant can be cleaned at a time.
3.2.6 Maintenance of valve seals, activating solenoids and compressed air (dryers) is
also necessary to ensure the appropriate valves function in the manner
intended.
3.3 Error and Failure

Human error can be minimised by ensuring that everyone is appropriately
trained and responsibilities are clearly defined.
A HACCP analysis should be conducted to identify where contamination is a
risk and appropriate monitoring, controls and corrective action built into the
quality system.
Automation can reduce the risk of contamination and eliminate human error.
Whether hard wired or based on plc's, automation requires reliable field
sensors and / or accurate information to be able to consistently safeguard the
beer.
Direct interlocks can be provided, e.g.:-
Sprayhead supply valve cannot open if tank contents sensor or low level
probe indicate presence of beer or pressure detected in tank.
Cleaning supply pump cannot start until drain or pressure release phase
of cleaning cycle has timed out.
Data logging can be used to ensure the cleaning cycle is only able to
commence at the right time, e.g.:-
Has the equipment completed all the expected process stages?
Is the elapsed time as expected?
4. The Cleaning Schedule

Cleaning schedules are the link between management and staff and are necessary to
ensure all aspects of cleaning are controlled effectively and economically. A schedule
should exist for each piece of (or group of similar) equipment or plant.
Table 3 lists the topics and some examples of the data that should be included in a
cleaning schedule.
It matters not whether the cleaning schedule is a specific document, or whether the
information is contained within procedures or specifications or job descriptions. The
important thing is that all aspects of cleaning have been:-
Considered and evaluated.
Defined and quantified.
Everyone involved in cleaning is aware of their responsibility.
Everyone involved in cleaning knows what must be done.

Definition Example
Equipment is to be cleaned Bright beer tank; filler; etc.
Responsibility for cleaning Job title
When is it to be cleaned Within "X" hours of becoming empty
Frequency of cleaning Every time tank has been used
Pre-cleaning checks Tank empty
Carbon dioxide pressure released
Contamination prevention
CIP system - detergent quantity, strength,
amount, temperature, etc.
How should it be cleaned Manual cleaning; dismantling required;
Clean-in-place; external foam clean; etc.
Chemicals to be used Name of detergent and strength
Name of disinfectant and strength
Procedure for cleaning Define CIP cycle with details of burst rinses,
special scavenge, etc.
If manual, outline the method and list
equipment to be used.
Time allowed for cleaning Manual operations - supervision and control
Auto - investigation required if outside
specified minimum / maximum time.
Standards to be achieved Visual
Microbiological
Contamination prevention
Special notes Several tanks serviced by same scavenge
pump and distance to pump varies - ensure
specific cleaning cycle with extra scavenge
is selected for tanks X, Y, etc.
Responsibility for verifying cleaning Job title
performance
Responsibility for creating a record Job title
Safety precautions Handling or exposure to cleaning chemicals
Temperature
Protective clothing required
Any specific risks
Table 3
Outline of Cleaning Schedule
5. Day-to-Day Controls
There are specific day-to-day cleaning controls, which are preventive in nature. If they
are ignored cleaning problems eventually manifest as soiled plant or spoilt beer.
Table 4 summarises these controls and the minimum frequency they should be
implemented. These checks and controls may be manual or built into an automated
system. A full record should, of course, be maintained.

Check or Control Each Daily Weekly As
clean required
No beer in plant to be cleaned
Sufficient rinse available
Sufficient detergent available
Detergent strength (& carbonate if
caustic)
Detergent temperature
CIP route complete, safe and no
contamination risk
Sprayhead functioning
Cleaning cycle times
Verification of final rinse
Visual verification of cleaned plant
Microbiological verification of
cleaned plant Quality Problem
Plan solving
Visual state of rinse tank(s)
Visual state of detergent tank
Microbiological verification of rinse
and detergent tanks
Calibration of temperature and / or
conductivity sensors Defined
schedule
Table 4
Controls During Cleaning
6. Summary
The control of cleaning must include:-
1. Pre-cleaning checks to ensure availability of cleaning agents in sufficient
amount and strength.
2. Visual standards of cleanliness to be achieved.
3. Microbiological standards of cleanliness to be achieved.
4. Prevention of chemical contamination.
5. Ability of CIP plant to deliver cleaning solutions to the standards
required.
These controls, the standards, the methods used for cleaning and the responsibility for
all aspects should be clearly defined in a cleaning schedule for each piece of
equipment.
END

Biological Control

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biological Control

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part II- : Cleaning

Principles of biological control

Management aspects of biological control

Microbiological control of water

Plant and cleaning

Subject: Biological Control

PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL

REASONS FOR GMP

ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST

Beer quality Business

pH - SURVIVAL & GROWTH

Low / No alcohol beer Sugars, other nutrient

The bar / Pub / restaurant Staff hygiene, glasses

Brewery staff In process tasting

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Facilitate protection of materials, beer & packages

Blending vs discrete batches

Housekeeping Frequency & methods

High risk areas - yeast, beer recovery

Pre-infected - ergot, gushing, musty flavours

Infection - sugars & condense

Infestation - insects, rodents, birds

Intake Protect from weather & pests

CLEANING, DISINFECTING &

Requires a holistic start to finish approach

Is not a quick fix

Needs understanding, training, commitment

Delivers better quality & food safety

The ever-increasing attention of customers, retailers and enforcement bodies to both

24bSG01 PrincBioContr01 new Page 1 of 9 © SRG, 2002

In balancing quality and food safety against productivity it is necessary to guard

It is therefore implicit that an effective, documented quality system is a pre-requisite

2. Consequences of Inadequate Biological Control

24bSG01 PrincBioContr01 new Page 2 of 9 © SRG, 2002

4. Beer and Food Safety

It must also be remembered that some pathogens, such as the Enterobacteriaceae

5. Good Manufacturing Practice - Premises

24bSG01 PrincBioContr01 new Page 3 of 9 © SRG, 2002

24bSG01 PrincBioContr01 new Page 4 of 9 © SRG, 2002

7. Good Manufacturing Practice - Processes and Practices

24bSG01 PrincBioContr01 new Page 5 of 9 © SRG, 2002

Key - = degree of inhibition 0 = absence of the promoter or inhibitor, no effect

24bSG01 PrincBioContr01 new Page 6 of 9 © SRG, 2002

8. Good Manufacturing Practice - Materials and Storage

24bSG01 PrincBioContr01 new Page 7 of 9 © SRG, 2002

9. Cleaning, Disinfecting and Sterilising

24bSG01 PrincBioContr01 new Page 8 of 9 © SRG, 2002

Operators and management need to possess knowledge and understanding about

24bSG01 PrincBioContr01 new Page 9 of 9 © SRG, 2002

Subject: Biological Control

MANAGEMENT ASPECTS OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL

Management translates the policy into action by:-

Monitor the results

Include maintenance staff

AND Make a profit

People being the vehicle for the microbial, physical or

What How much How Who

Wort DO (ppm) 10 ± 1.0 Nominal oxygen pressure is wort line plus 10

Follow through (hl) Approx. 5 From HLT using casting pump.

Follow through (o C) 77 Use sufficient (cooled to wort temp.) to adjust

Where Who What Which How When Who

100 ml WLN MM 3 One brew Dept. Shift

Tuchenhagen Varivent Sample Tap