Upholding high standards of cleanliness gives rise to a thriving dairy processing operation. Without adhering to such measures, products – and profitability – can become jeopardized.

That’s why companies in the business of making dairy products put such an emphasis on finding perfect cleaning solutions for each and every aspect of their facilities.

According to the Innovation Center for US Dairy, clean in place (CIP) is a common, routine cleaning regimen which can be highly automated and is used for enclosed surfaces such as pipelines, heat exchangers, cooling presses, vats, tanks and cheese processors. CIP involves the circulation of cleaning solution through pipes at a documented and prescribed flow rate, creating turbulent flow, or through spray devices/balls for vessels and similar equipment. These systems use time, temperature, specific concentrated chemicals and mechanical force to achieve maximum cleaning. Use of CIP systems requires that the equipment is of sanitary construction, with smooth, cleanable surfaces, and can be fully drained.

Alternately, clean out of place (COP), parts that require manual cleaning, are disassembled and submerged in a horizontal vessel which uses circulating detergent, heat and agitation to remove product soil. Long pipe or small parts require different turbulent flow patterns within the COP tank.

While CIP and COP practices are well established methods within the broader food processing industry, technical specialist and food production equipment consultant Craig Reinhart said dairy processors can not rely on just one convention to solve all of their sanitation needs.

“It isn’t an either/or between CIP, COP or manually cleaning,” Reinhart said. “Each has its place, depending on a number of factors.”

The case for CIP

Reinhart was a member of the working group at not-for-profit 3-A Sanitary Standards, Inc. (3-A SSI), that developed the sanitary standard for CIP. He currently chars 3-A’s working group on plant support systems.

More often than not, he said, dairy processing decision-makers prefer CIP systems.

“It typically requires the least amount of operator work, energy, chemicals and water,” Reinhart said of the appeal of CIP. “In modern plants, CIP is almost always used for pipelines and most equipment. However, it may not be suitable for some equipment and parts or very hard to remove soils.”

In order to have an effective CIP, he noted, facilities must make sure equipment and the piping system being cleaned are designed properly. The standards established by 3-A SSI provide a blueprint for best practices and hygienic design.

A regional sales manager for Pick Heaters, Inc., West Bend, Wis., James Bushard agreed that CIP is generally considered the preferred option over COP for dairy processing companies, because CIP requires less members of the workforce to get the job done.

“But there are limitations to what can be done via CIP,” Bushard added. “There are pieces of equipment that are either too large or intricate that CIP will not clean adequately.”

Pick Heaters, Inc.'s Pick Steam Injection Heating System for CIP.

| Image: Pick Heaters, Inc.

Jonathan Davis, senior regional manager – South, for Best Sanitizers, Inc., Penn Valley, Calif., identified CIP as the “overwhelmingly” preferred approach among dairy processors.

“Typically, CIP in pure dairy production is the best method to decrease the number of outside disturbances in the production process,” Davis said.

On the other hand, Davis continued, CIP is not as easily utilized with cheese production, which he gave as one example of an opportunity to add more COP aspects to the process.

“That being said, CIP in pure dairy production would dramatically decrease the overall liability of corrupting your finished product,” Davis said.

Bryan Downer, vice president of sales and marketing for cleaning systems manufacturer Sani-Matic, Inc., Sun Prairie, Wis., pointed out that 3-A SSI recognizes both CIP and COP as acceptable methods for cleaning in a dairy processing setting.

“As far as which is best, CIP and COP both have their place, as some equipment simply cannot be effectively cleaned in place,” Downer said. “The best practice in either case is to make the operation as repeatable and traceable as possible, where you can track and record specific performance metrics to ensure the process is done reliably and repeatably.”

Electronic data collection and automation in CIP and COP, Downer added, are the norm for achieving best results in a dairy facility.

When dealing with process lines, tanks and equipment specifically designed for CIP, Downer said there is “no better option” than an engineered CIP system.

“Essential modern design elements for a dairy CIP system would include well-integrated controls, digital process recording or data collection, cleaning system OEE (overall equipment effectiveness) monitoring, preventive maintenance monitoring, a safeguarded recipe management system, and a tiered critical event alert and intervention system that sanitation, maintenance, operations and quality are all able to remotely monitor in real time,” Downer spelled out.

The most significant choice for a dairy processing facility, Reinhart advised, is between a single-use or a solution recovery design for the CIP center.

“In my experience, most CIP centers have been solution recovery designs,” Reinhart said. “However, some companies prefer single-use centers. I have seen a move to more single-use centers to prevent allergen cross contamination via the CIP solution.”

Sani-Matic, Inc.'s RW06 COP is a COP parts washer that replaces manual cleaning.

| Image: Sani-Matic, Inc.

Occasions for COP

The efficiency associated with CIP solutions makes them appealing to companies. Though COP methods may not appear as modern, they can be the optimal choice for certain aspects of a facility.

Reinhart explained that COP cleaning not only is more labor intensive than CIP cleaning, but also tends to involve using more water, chemicals and energy.

“COP in a stand-alone tank or booth is good for equipment and components that cannot be CIP cleaned,” he said. “This type of equipment must be designed to be moved from their use point and cleaned in the COP equipment.”

As an example, Reinhart said, the nozzles on some filling machines can be dirtied on the exterior as the result of product splashing. But CIP options don’t exist for those nozzles.

For a dairy processor looking to enhance its facility with COP solutions, Downer said advantages can be found by moving away from labor-intensive manual functions and choosing automated COP washing systems.

“This can be in the form of the traditional tub-style washer or the often more practical and cost effective cabinet-style washer,” Downer said. “These can reduce overall washing time, while reducing dependence on manual operations that are difficult or impossible to track, trace or record.”

Automated COP solutions, he said, monitor and record the sanitation process, making them comparable to CIP functions in that regard.

Nevertheless, sometimes old fashioned manual cleaning – an employee wielding a bucket, scrub bush and hose – is unavoidable, Reinhart admitted. He said manual cleaning is best for parts with complicated shapes that prevent them from being properly sanitized by even a CIP or COP recirculating system.

The more antiquated approach also can become necessary when the timing of CIP for the main equipment does not align with COP schedules, which Reinhart said can be the case for the sample valve and door gasket on a silo tank, as an example.

Potential deterrents

Some processors may associate limitations with certain types of solutions, impacting their decisions when deciding on the best fit for their facilities.

Bushard noted that COP practices can be labor intensive, and even COP systems that reduce the amount of labor needed to clean still require the disassembling of equipment.

“Time, money and space would all impact a processor’s decision,” Bushard said. “Compliance would also be a driving factor. At the end of the day, the process needs to be safe and clean to maintain the product integrity.”

Davis also suggested that between the prevailing sentiment within the dairy sector in favor of CIP solutions and the fact that CIP is the accepted standard for many scenarios, the use of COP is hindered overall.

Ultimately, processors that choose not to incorporate CIP or COP automation, Downer shared, most often cite space constraint, infrastructure limitations and capital expenses.

“CIP and COP systems require floor space, which is often at a premium in facilities that are in operation,” Downer said, adding that automation requires training employees to operate and maintain the systems, identifying that as a challenge in the current labor market.

Downer said a capital investment comes with purchasing and installing equipment, especially with CIP systems – he noted COP systems generally require smaller investments.

“Many automated COP washers are designed to be set in most any location with very little installation cost aside from supplying it with water and power,” Downer said.

Determining the best fit, he added, is often a function of the return on investment in operation savings or improvements.

Sani-Matic, Inc.'s three-tank CIP system.

| Image: Sani-Matic, Inc.

Seeking out innovations

As the modernization of sanitation practices keeps evolving, Reinhart remarked that cleaning and sanitizing chemicals for CIP and COP solutions continue to be innovative.

Davis said one such product is Best Sanitizers’ Alpet D2 Quat-Free Surface Sanitizer. He said the ready-to-use, alcohol-based, no-rinse surface sanitizer has become increasingly prevalent in the dairy market.

“Since it is free of quaternary ammonia, you do not run the risk of damaging your cultures and/or your waste water, which is vital in the dairy industry,” Davis explained. “This product can be used in all aspects of dairy production, from footwear sanitizing, food contact/non-food contact surfaces, CIP and COP cleaning, and sanitization, since it also has cleaning claims along with the sanitizing claims.”

He also shared that the chemical manufacturer’s Alpet PAA antimicrobial solutions have been used more frequently in the dairy industry as an alternative cleaner/sanitizer/disinfectant.

What’s more, Reinhart pointed to “smarter” CIP and COP centers and automation as a key trend for the industry.

“They monitor various operating parameters to determine how much chemicals, temperatures and time is needed to clean the equipment,” he said. “This allows the plant to reduce operating costs and put the equipment back in operation sooner.”

Downer distinguished each of the following as recent momentous innovations: the introduction of 3-A SSI authorized cabinet washing equipment (Sani-Matic’s SaniCab washer is authorized to carry the 3-A symbol), cloud-connected real-time monitoring and data collection, and OEE monitoring of cleaning processes.

“I find the OEE monitoring very interesting, as all equipment tends to operate differently over time,” Downer shared. “Often we don’t notice small changes in the function of the cleaning system, which can gradually affect efficiency and effectiveness. The OEE monitoring allows for processors to have a real-time dashboard of the health of the system and track it against the ideal performance. So as the system begins to slowly perform differently, it can be identified and rectified more quickly and easily and stay at top efficiency.”

Sani-Matic, Inc.'s SaniCab PC335 PC cabinet washer is for automating COP processes.

| Sani-Matic, Inc.