WHITE PAPER

Beverage CIP
Assessing CIP performance to reduce total
cost of ownership in beverage production

October 2016
CONTENTS

Who is this booklet for? 3

What is “cleaning in place”? 3
Beverage variations and CIP cycles 4
CIP testing for optimal cleaning cycles 5
The beverages we examined 5
Test procedure 5
Test results for orange nectar 7
Test results for other beverages 8
Documented savings 9
Customer experience 10
The Performance Assessment service for CIP 10
Additional CIP topics 11
Tetra Pak – your CIP partner 12

2 (12)
Who is this booklet for?
This booklet is for:

 Plant managers and production managers who want to reduce the total cost
of ownership (TCO) and the carbon footprint of their beverage operations.
 R&D and quality assurance specialists who need to maintain food quality
and food safety.
 Environmental managers who aim to reduce carbon footprints of their
beverage operations.
As a leader in cleaning in place (CIP) technology, we at Tetra Pak would like to
share what we know about efficient and intelligent cleaning – and keep you
informed about the latest developments in the field.
CIP is often based on experience from the dairy industry. But our experience
indicates that a CIP process can be reduced and optimized for individual beverages,
since juice, nectar, still drinks and carbonated soft drinks don’t suffer from fouling
to the same extent as dairy products. Tetra Pak stands ready to help you determine
what that optimal cost-saving process is, based on practical field trials, our tools,
and our years of expertise.
This white paper presents a methodology for assessing the effects of CIP. Based on
the field trials we have conducted with customers, we are able to offer technical
advice about how to define cleanliness in beverage operations, as well as how to
optimize CIP. Optimization of CIP can lead to up to 50% reductions in cleaning
costs, up to 50% reductions in circulation time, and up to 20% in carbon footprint
reductions.

What is “cleaning in place”?

Cleaning in place, or CIP, refers to all those mechanical and chemical systems that
are necessary to prepare equipment for food processing, either after a processing
run that has produced normal fouling or when switching a processing line from one
recipe to another. Cleaning in place means that cleaning takes place without
dismantling the system.
CIP is an important component in guaranteeing food safety in food processing
plants. Successful cleaning between production runs avoids potential
contamination and products that don’t meet quality standards. Carrying out CIP
correctly – from design to validation – ensures secure barriers between food flows
and cleaning chemical flows.

3 (12)
It is also important that CIP is carried out effectively and efficiently, and contribute
to an overall low total cost of ownership (TCO). From the food processing point of
view, any cleaning time is downtime – the equipment is not productive. Cleaning
must also be carried out safely, because very strong chemicals are involved that can
be harmful to people and to equipment. Finally, it should be carried out with the
least impact on the environment, by using minimal amounts of water and
detergents and by maximizing the re-use of resources.
We cover the fundamentals of CIP in the handbook Cleaning in place – A guide to
cleaning technology in the food processing industry, available for downloading at
http://www.tetrapak.com/about/cases-articles/cleaning-in-place-to-secure-food-
safety

Beverage variations and CIP cycles

Beverage CIP programs are often based on experience from the dairy industry,
which can be misleading. Juices, nectars, still drinks and carbonated soft drinks
don’t suffer from fouling to the same extent as milk products, as they don’t contain
any protein.
Acid cleaning is normally performed only once a week, as the products are
naturally acidic. The weekly acid cleaning is needed due to the hardness of rinsing
water.
The alkaline (sodium hydroxide/lye) cleaning is performed after each production
run. There is a strong potential for CIP reductions for alkaline cleaning by reducing
the detergent concentration, circulation time or rinse time.
Beverage products vary widely in their composition, with juices and nectars from
different fruits, and they may or may not include stabilisers. This puts different
requirements on the cleaning cycles, as we shall see.
Fruit fibres and pulp that are present in some beverages can vary in size and
behaviour but are normally not a problem if the pasteurizer cleaning cycle includes
the possibility to perform backflush. Backflush is a reversed flush during the pre-
rinse that removes fibres that can be stuck on transmitters or in narrow passages.

4 (12)
CIP testing for optimal cleaning cycles
Our project aimed to gather evidence on how to safely reduce the CIP
recommendation for juice, nectar, still drinks and carbonated soft drinks.
Our objectives were to find ways to reduce the costs, time and effort involved
by optimizing:
 Detergent consumption
 Water consumption
 Energy consumption
 Cleaning downtime

The beverages we examined

Our field tests examined the following products, which were selected by our
customer.
 Orange nectar – 50% orange juice, plus sugar and aromas, with no stabilizers
 Orange juice – 100% juice
 Orange nectar light – 30% orange juice, sweetened with stevia and stabilized
by xanthan gum
All orange test products contained 3% fibres.
The orange juice and the orange nectars were selected because they are customer
bulk products, so substantial savings are possible if the CIP could be reduced.
Tests are ongoing with other nectars, including light nectars, where the inspections
after CIP are performed by the customer and the analysis of the results is supported
by Tetra Pak.

Test procedure
Looking at a complete line for producing beverages, the pasteurizer is most critical
when it comes to cleaning due to its heat load and risk for fouling. Thus a
pasteurizer was selected as test equipment to evaluate the possibility to lower the
CIP parameters. The parameter reduction can be applied not only to the pasteurizer
but to non-heated surfaces or equipment in the beverage line as well.
The most critical places in the pasteurizer from a CIP point of view were identified
and after each cleaning cycle, the pasteurizer was opened and examined at four
different positions:
 after preheater
 after heater
 after holding cell
 after precooler

5 (12)
When opened, a visual inspection was performed, looking for fouling with and
without a UV lamp inside the heat exchanger tubes, noting any product residues
and wiping the surface with a white cloth to ensure a visually clean result after the
CIP. The inspections with UV lights were considered to be an extra validation step
to ensure no organic material remained.

Holding cell shows product Visual inspection after CIP Visual inspection with UV
residue remaining. indicates no residue. light confirms cleanliness.

As not all contamination can be detected with a visual inspection, an ATP1

swab inside the tubes was performed as well to detect organic residues.
After sampling and evaluation were completed, the heat exchanger was
re-assembled and run through a full CIP program.
The objective of the first test period, which was performed on the pasteurizer
producing orange nectar during ~30-hour production runs, was to see how far the
CIP parameters could be reduced. The different CIP parameters were reduced in
steps to a minimum level in close consultation with the customer.
This particular customer routinely used CIP settings that were much higher than
Tetra Pak standard recommendations, as displayed in the table below. The tests
were performed by Tetra Pak in close cooperation with the customer.

1 ATP (adenosine-triphosphate) is an energy molecule found in all plant, animal and microbial cells.
Determination of ATP by bioluminescence is a very well established rapid method for hygiene
monitoring. ATP systems are intended to detect small amounts of product residues and organic matter
on food contact surfaces or in liquid after the cleaning cycle. The system cannot differentiate between
food ATP and microbial ATP. ATP is measured quantitatively in an instrument called a luminometer
and is usually expressed as Relative Light Units (RLU). All instruments have different RLU values
for a given amount of ATP, due to reagent formulation and instrument design. Manufacturers of ATP
bioluminescence products provide guidance in setting clean benchmark levels for their respective
products. For our particular instrument, the ATP limit is 100 RLU, with a warning between 100 and
200, and a value >200 signalling failure. It is important for the food producer to set internal standards
and establish a baseline for cleanliness in each plant. The baseline should be considered in relation to
risk and soil type.

6 (12)
The following test measurement steps were followed:

1. Set baseline according to the beverage producer’s standard cleaning cycle.

2. Set baseline according to Tetra Pak’s standard recommendations
3. Reduce concentration of alkaline detergent
4. Reduce alkaline circulation time
5. Reduce rinsing time
6. Final testing

Test results for orange nectar

Our tests with orange nectar showed that the alkaline concentration could be
reduced from 2.8% down to 0.6%. Circulation time could be reduced from
4200 seconds to 600 seconds and rinsing could be reduced from 900 seconds to
240 seconds. All without interfering with the degree of cleanliness. The orange
nectar tested consisted of 50% orange juice, plus sugar and aromas, with no
stabilizers.

Pre-rinse, Circulation, NaOH Temp. °C Rinsing,

secs secs concentration, secs
%

Customer CIP 600 4200 2.8 90 900

routine

Tetra Pak 240-120* 1200 1.5 75 360

standard CIP
recommendations

Tetra Pak 240-120* 600 0.6 75 240*

reduced CIP
recommendations

* Corresponding to one system volume. This may be reduced to 0.5 system volume, but the customer
did not want to decrease further. Figures are based on a pasteurizer with a capacity of 16,000 l/h, CIP
flow 22,500 l/h and 1500 l system volume.
The reduced CIP program was then continuously used and monitored with orange
nectar during 16 production occasions to make sure the reduced CIP program was
effective.
The results were all approved except for two occasions which were caused by
factors irrelevant to the test programme. In one case it was due to excessive
recirculation; in another it was due to a small fibre detected on the temperature
transmitter. These were viewed as exceptions but the recommendation is not to run
reduced CIP after excessive circulation.

7 (12)
Test results for other beverages
After identifying the minimum parameters above and establishing a reduced CIP
process for orange nectar, the next test period was started, including additional
products: 100% orange juice and orange nectar light (30% orange juice, sweetened
with stevia and stabilized by xanthan gum). With the experience and results for
orange nectar in hand, these tests only involved running CIP at the new reduced
recommended levels.
The verification inspections were carried out in this order:
a) Visual inspection
b) Visual inspection using UV light
c) White cloth wiping
d) ATP swab test compared to baseline

Specialists at Tetra Pak evaluated the results and provided guidance on evaluation
procedures. Our recommendation is to run three evaluations with clean results for the
product; then we consider it safe to run the CIP with reduced settings with no following
evaluation. This is how we would do it for a Tetra Pak Performance Assessment.

Number of trials per beverage, and their outcomes:

Beverage Clean Soiled

Orange nectar 14 21)

Orange juice 6 0

Orange nectar light 2 32)

1) Excessive recirculation, small fibre remaining on temperature transmitter
2) High ATP due to Xanthan gum residue

Orange Juice showed no visual residues nor any unapproved ATP measurements
during 6 sequential trials and was approved to run with the reduced CIP program.
The post-CIP visual inspections after orange nectar light production were all
approved, but the ATP values were high for 3 out of 5 evaluations, showing that
the reduced CIP was not sufficient for the orange nectar light. The orange nectar
light contains xanthan gum, which tends to stick to the surface, thus requiring a
more substantial CIP. The orange nectar light is thus recommended to run with
Tetra Pak standard CIP settings.

8 (12)
Documented savings
For orange juice and orange nectar, our findings indicated that it is possible to cut
the CIP time and cost in half. Further, the carbon footprint can be reduced by
one-fifth (20%).
The cost savings benefits are calculated on the following premises:
 CIP 5 times a week
 Production 50 weeks a year
 Pasteurizer with a capacity of 16,000 l/h, CIP flow 22,500 l/h and
1500 l system volume
 Steam from natural gas
 Carbon footprint electricity is calculated on World Average
0.54 kg CO2-eq/kWh
 Cost base Europe is used in cost calculations.
 Alkaline dosage is based on pure lye (NaOH). If formulated detergent
is used the cost impact will be improved.

Comparison of CIP costs using Tetra Pak standard recommendations and

optimized recommendations

9 (12)
Customer experience
The customer who cooperated with us on these tests confirms that running with
reduced CIP has produced no problems with the products detailed above. The
customer further confirms that the plant is currently running with reduced CIP on
the beverages that underwent testing. The customer will continue to run trials with
other nectars to optimize their operations.
During additional tests it was discovered that grape juice required a CIP even
higher than the Tetra Pak recommendation, which may be due to a higher fibre
content. Grape juice is undergoing further testing in order to establish an optimal
CIP programme.
The results confirm our general premise: One can’t reduce CIP costs across the
board. It’s not a one-size-fits-all situation. Careful individual testing and guidelines
are necessary in order to optimize CIP settings for particular beverages.

The Performance Assessment service for CIP

From a CIP perspective, we have adapted a Performance Assessment service
built on the premise that every individual beverage product’s CIP process can be
optimized – and likely result in savings.
In our TCO tool it’s possible to isolate and look at the cost impact and change
in carbon footprint for CIP consumptions when changing CIP parameters.
A Performance Assessment can not only help you identify your optimal CIP
process for individual beverages, which helps you improve your overall
environmental and cost profile – it can also aid you in planning beverage runs
and changeovers, depending on the varying needs of your beverage assortment.
You may wish to consider a Performance Assessment related to CIP if you are
concerned about:

 Operating costs
 Problems with CIP procedures or verification
 Environmental impact
 Downtime

10 (12)
A Performance Assessment includes an initial site visit to establish:

 Analysis of products, indicating which are suitable for CIP reduction,

based on their composition and our experience
 Current CIP settings
 Training the customer on the CIP evaluation method
After the site visit the Tetra Pak expert is available to give remote support
and guidance in case of any questions regarding the CIP evaluation result.
The Performance Assessment provides calculations of potential annual cost
savings, carbon footprint reduction and decreased downtime based on a given
plant production scenario, utility and detergent costs, and the current CIP settings.

Additional CIP topics

As there is presently no technique available for measuring cleanliness continuously
in line, a plant has to be opened after cleaning at previously determined critical
control points in order to assess cleanliness in one or more ways. This is called
cleaning verification.
It’s one thing to verify the cleaning effectiveness of a particular cleaning cycle.
But how can you know if you are systematically following good cleaning regimens
that consistently produce an acceptable result that minimizes the risks of spoiled
products? This process is called cleaning validation.
Sterilization and disinfection are relevant to aseptic processing lines. Sterilization
is performed in aseptic lines and lines for extended shelf life (ESL) products.
Disinfection is used in non-aseptic production lines (except ESL lines).
You’ll find these topics covered in the handbook Cleaning in place – A guide to
cleaning technology in the food processing industry, available for downloading at
http://www.tetrapak.com/about/cases-articles/cleaning-in-place-to-secure-food-
safety

11 (12)
Tetra Pak – your CIP partner
Tetra Pak’s development engineers, process engineers, designers and field service
engineers are very knowledgeable in the field of CIP and cleaning technology. If
you would like to gain more insights into hygienic design, operation and cleaning –
particularly if you need advice when integrating processing equipment into a line –
feel free to contact your Tetra Pak representative.
For further information about CIP, or about Performance Assessment, please
contact Goran.Stjernberg@tetrapak.com or your Tetra Pak representative.
Beverage processing questions
www.tetrapak.com/processing/beverages

12 (12)