Pasteurizers.Info

Pasteurization Technology In Wastewater

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 23:12:00 +0000

Most communities in the U.S. treat their wastewater just enough to legally dump it, but not reuse it. Pasteurization Technology Group has developed an inexpensive treatment system that yields water clean enough to be returned to aquifers. Instead of using chlorine, the system pasteurizes wastewater by heating it to 180ºF. The warmth comes from the waste heat of a nearby electricity generator running on either natural gas or biogas produced by an associated sewage digester. A PTG water plant opening next year in California expects to make a $160,000 annual profit by selling its extra biogas-generated electricity. Even if the turbine is fueled with natural gas, the pasteurization is energy-efficient enough to be about half the cost of chlorine treatment.

This content was borrowed from Popular Science Magazine.

Volutherm Series Flash Pasteurizer Saves Time and Money

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:55:00 +0000

The Barry-Wehmiller Company and CBI Fleetwood, both divisions of FleetwoodGoldcoWyard, are offering the Volutherm series Flash Pasteurizer. The Flash Pasteurizer has been incredibly well received and successful in some of Europe's most known beverage and brewery companies and is now being manufactured in the United States to U.S. standards and available in North America. The Volutherm series Flash Pasteurizer, developed for the brewery and beverage market, can also be utilized in many aspects of the packaging market and offers clients continuous and consistent pasteurization for their products.

The pasteurization process is one of the most important unit operations in beverage processing. Continuous pasteurization has numerous advantages over the batch (vat) pasteurization method, such as time, hygiene and cost of operation – energy savings. The Volutherm series Flash Pasteurizer utilizes a high-temperature, short time (HTST) method for most continuous pasteurization processes. The heat treatment can be achieved using either a plate heat exchanger (PHE) or a tubular heat exchanger, depending upon the product being pasteurized. The capacity range is 10gpm to 300gpm and is sized to accommodate virtually any line speed.

Some of the features and benefits of the Volutherm series Flash Pasteurizer include gentle product handling, automated clean-in-place (CIP) / sterilization-in-place (SIP) with guaranteed repeatability at variable flow rates, process records and charting. The unit is compact in design and energy efficient – offering greater than 90% energy recovery. The Volutherm series Flash Pasteurizer meets all standards for safety and beverage operations. For more information, click here.

Test Lettuce and Produce for E. Coli

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 03:37:00 +0000

The MicroMagic device is smaller than a two liter bottle. It samples for for E. coli and provides results in hours as opposed to days . B2P says it will launch additional tests next year for listeria, salmonella and other bacteria. The technology will be a game changer for early detection systems in food safety. We stumbled across this in Popular Science Magazine. You can visit the manufacturer at B2P.

Pasteurized Wine at Home

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:09:00 +0000

It has become extraordinarily difficult to find pasteurized wine. The high alcohol content combined with excellent filtering processes, sterility in the winery, and the general acceptance that wine must be sheltered from heat and sunlight and stored under certain conditions have allowed the wine industry to avoid pasteurization. As it is a thermal process wine is more susceptible to changes in flavor due the temperature than other beverages. Its common knowledge that the wine industry is highly competitive when it comes to flavor.

Pasteurization is a process of time and temperature originally created for use with wine. Pasteurization in this article is outlined based on two levels which are considered "high PU" and "low PU" depending on the purpose of the pasteurization. Low PU is intended to stop fermentation and neutralize any bacteria which may have been picked up in the wine making process. High PU is for use if the wine is needed for medical purposes (i.e. consumption by persons with weakened immune systems, cautionary pregnancy, etc).

Contrary to popular belief, Kosher wine is not pasteurized. It is made from pasteurized grape juice but fermented and subject to contamination after the fact.

The process outlined here is for a 750ml bottle of red or white wine. The pasteurization time varies depending on the water temperature being used. This process can be executed in a sink or any bath of water. The water temperature can be determined by running hot water over the end of a thermometer for 2 - 3 minutes. As can be seen by the pictures part of the process is to keep water flowing at all times. New water needs to be injected into the bottom of the bath allowing the water to overflow out the top. Other techniques (such as cracking the drain) work although sometimes difficult to ensure that the loss of water through the drain is the same as the water being put into the process. This leads to issues with level.

The immersion time for the product depends on several factors:

The water temperature being used for the pasteurization process
The starting temperature of the wine (in this case room temp or refrigerated)
The size of the bottle (in this case the bottles are 750ml red or white table wine)
The determination of pasteurization to high or low PU levels

The chart below outlines the required time for immersion to achieve the pasteurization goal. Remember that sudden changes in temperature can cause glass to crack. Remember to be gentle with temperature changes upward or downward to give the glass time to adjust. When the pasteurization process is complete, use the cold water to bring the bath temperature down. Cooling the bottle as quickly as possible will minimize flavor impact. To judge the impact to the flavor, consider using two bottles of the same product, pasteurizing one bottle and leaving the other as a control group.

Click on the chart to blow up to full size. Also note that you will not need a thermometer in the wine bottle as shown in these pictures. Corks have been known to lift in this process and a screw cap may be advantageous.

Egg Recall, Pasteurization, and Raw Milk

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 04:36:00 +0000

Are eggs pasteurized? Short answer is no if you are cracking the egg on the skillet. Shell eggs come straight from the hen. In liquid form "Egg Beaters" and other forms of liquid eggs can be put through the same pasteurization process as milk.

There are important lessons from eggs that can be learned regarding raw milk. The recent egg recall is an example of what could happen with the public supply of milk. Eggs (like raw milk) are collected from multitudes of farms and shipped to and packaged at co-ops. From there they are spread through central distribution networks. While higher in nutritional value raw milk is at risk of carrying food borne illness. The thermal treatment of pasteurization followed by refrigeration greatly reduces this risk removes and makes it safe for distribution over wider areas even if there was contamination. No one has ever made the statement that all raw milk carries food borne illness - nor do eggs. Pasteurization simply reduces this risk down to the level that it would be neutralized and digestible if harmful bacteria were to habitate in either.

Raw eggs are "unprotected" until recently. Look for the eggs with a P in circle. This denotes one of the few pasteurized eggs on the market. Locate a store with pasteurized eggs by clicking this link. Unpasteurized eggs do not pose a threat if they are seriously cooked. Pasteurized eggs are particularly recommended for infants, senior citizens, and pregnant women - the three classifications that run the most risk from the impacts of salmonella. The USDA fact sheet on salmonella can be located here. If like your eggs runny (particularly if your pregnant) and / or put raw eggs into other formats (like Caesar dressing) consider pasteurized eggs.

Raw Milk Vs. Pasteurized Milk - Weighing in on the Pro's and Con's

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:47:00 +0000

Publicity abounds on the raging battle between pasteurized and raw milk. Could this be a case where perhaps everyone is right? Looking at this objectively we have to visit back to the roots of pasteurization.

Sterilization is defined as killing everything harmful in consumable product. Sterilization is the safest approach of keeping harmful bacteria away from you. Bear in mind, this also keeps good bacteria away from you and the amount of heat required for Sterilization reduces nutritional content and breaks down proteins and other desirable elements in the food. You could associate this with boiling water for a long duration of time to kill bacteria. The bugs are eliminated, but at a flavor and nutritional detriment.

Pasteurization is defined as reducing the count of harmful bacterial to a range considered safe for consumption and production but stopping short of sterilization. Thus the intent of pasteurization has always been to create a compromise between flavor, nutritional value, food safety, and shelf stability.

Watching the argument rage over pasteurized and raw milk, it would seem all involved are have valid and valued arguments. Raw milk is not always safe to consume and can carry e-coli and listeria - and raw milk clearly woudl have more nutrients and unbroken protein strings than pasteurized milk would have. Here you can read more about it on the FDA's website.

In the end all forms of pasteurization are a trade off: Increase food safety by reducing the number of living organisms in the food. In thermal processes of pasteurization it is true that some nutritional value is reduced and flavor is changed.

Raw milk should be expected to be more tightly controlled and much more expensive than even organic milk. Count on raw milk having a price at the store that far exceeds normal milk. While there are many advocates for raw milk we all need to consider that for the average American a safe, healthy, and low cost glass of milk is their first priority.

Used Tunnel Pasteurizers Buyers Guide - Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:50:00 +0000

There are opportunities which can be done for relatively negligible expense while a used tunnel pasteurizer, or used beverage warmer, or tunnel cooler is being relocated and re-installed.

This is a list of great opportunities for improvements on the used pasteurizer, used tunnel warmer, or used tunnel coolers to consider. The payback on any modification is less challenged when the machine is already disassembled - in many cases little more than the cost of the components. After a machine is installed and running, payback opportunities diminish (or go away entirely) for many of the following.

Belt / Shafts / Bearings / Chevron Bed
Full Regeneration
PU / Process Control improvements & Limitations
Instrumentation
Valve Standardization and Replacement
Single Deck Sprays (eliminating sprays on two decks)
Spray Density
Over spray Correction
Condensate Recovery
I/C Wedge for non-round bottles
Insulated Top and Side Covers
Insulation of Steam / Hotwater / Coldwater Lines
Chemical Dosing System Upgrades
Cooling Tower
Utility Monitoring Package
PC Based PU Monitoring
Large Manholes
Energy Audit
Machine Rezoning
Pressure Gauges and Base-lining Equipment (Basic Troubleshooting Metrics)
Device Tags
Electrical Drawings
New Electrical Package
Replacement of Chart Recorders with HMI
Upgrade to PLC

Focusing in on componentry and standardizing on instrumentation can be provide a significant benefit. The technology grows quickly in these areas and it can pay down-time dividends to address the comfort level and standardization for sensors.

This is an expansion on the previous article on used pasteurizers which can be found here.

Louis Pasteur & The History of Pasteurization

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:17:00 +0000

Three Minute video covers history of pasteurization and covers pasteurization history to beer, wine, and shows argument over raw milk goes all the way back to the turn of the century. Use the search bar on the above right to look for other pasteurization data on this site.

Journey Through a Flash Processor

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:40:00 +0000

Use Search Bar on Upper Right to Look for Articles on Favorite Pasteurization Topics. Meanwhile, enjoy this amazing video of the trip through a flash plant.

Tunnel & Flash Pasteurization Case Study

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:22:00 +0000

The following study was done by a group of Students at the Siebel Institute in 2007.It is the most comprehensive study we have found to date on information comparing Tunnel and Flash Pasteurization on the internet.

The scenario is a brewery in the Caribbean contemplating the replacement of a 30 year old tunnel pasteurizer with flash pasteurization or filtration. It is based on a production level of 150 HL/ YR and a product mix which is 95% Light Lagers and 5% Malta. The plant is attempting to determine which of three options to go forward with:

Direct Replacement of the existing tunnel pasteurizer
Tunnel Pasteurizer removed and replaced with sterile filtration, sterile filling, and warmer
Tunnel Pasteurizer removed and replaced with Flash pasteurization and sterile filling, and warming

The study requested an analysis of:

Capital Cost
Operating Cost
QC/QA Practices
Process Changes

The background of the study includes the following:

Importation taxes are not considered in the study
Personnel additions are not required for Sterile Monitoring/Filter Cleaning
This is a 300 BPM / 18000 BPH packaging line
Bottles have paper labels, and are packed into plastic crates
A cooling tower exists which treats pasteurizer discharge water
Untreated water is discharged at no cost to the brewery
Effluent with yeast or dissolved solids was considered as higher value as it would require effluent treatment system exists to treat any effluent additions of the project
Currently, the brewery filters lagers to 2µ, and does not filter Malta
The line fills at 34ºF
The study does not consider any delay to market for QC administration and no impact to WIP
If a sterile filler is purchased, the existing filler would be sold producing a credit to the project
Malta would be sent from brew house to 100 bbl BBT (Bright Beer Tank)
Cost of spare parts and inventory adjustments are considered negligible

Part I Capital Costs

(Click to Enlarge Graph)Tunnel Pasteurization System Cost Elements

The Tunnel Pasteurizer
QC Equipment
Installation
Freight
Service and Training

Flash Pasteurization System Cost Elements

1. Flash Pasteurizer
2. Sterile Buffer Tank (application specific)
3. Sterile Filler
4. Clean Room
5. Tunnel Warmer
6. Conveyors and Conveyor Controls to Fill the Space in the line (may include accumulation table)
7. QC Equipment to Confirm Sterilization
8. Installation, Freight, and Service

Filtration Cost Elements

1. Sterile Filter Equipment
2. Sterile Filler
3. Clean Room
4. Tunnel Warmer
5. Conveyors and Conveyor Controls to Fill the Space in the line (may include accumulation table)
6. QC Equipment to Confirm Sterilization
7. Installation, Freight, and Service

The team executing the study noted that the analysis is more complex than the cost of the pasteurization equipment. In the end an operation faced with the decision of Tunnel or Flash would need to consider:

Is the line cold filling? If so, to bring the product temperature up after filling for packaging requires a warmer is in the operation. This is a significant point in both capital and operating cost. The warmer represents the "non regenerative" (most expensive) portion of the tunnel pasteurizer. The need for a warmer significantly tips the scale on if there will be "savings" on Capital, Operating Costs (including utilities) and Floorspace in the comparison of the two technologies.
QC Analysis must be part of the plan. In the Flash scenario we need to ensure and confirm that the filling equipment, containers, and closures will reach and maintain the same state as the pasteurized product arriving to the filler. If the filling operation is not Aseptic there must be a "sanitation" program at the filler in the flash and sterile filtration program. This could have different impacts depending on the product and operation, but needs to be in the numbers. In the scenario above a new "aseptic" filler was budgeted.
The budget for the flash pasteurizer included a machine which had "Advanced Alarming and Controls", as well as a sterile buffer tank. Where the tunnel pasteurization process is conclusive and confirmable by use of a travelling recorder. The flash and sterile filtration scenarios require QC testing run on an ongoing basis. The conclusion of QC analysis at the time the product is filled states the condition of the environment where the product was filled. Product would also have to be tested and (in many cases) tested over time to conclude if the sterile filtration and flash processes were conclusive. The flash unit, while not as conclusive and confirmable as the tunnel pasteurization process, relies on sensors to verify the temperature of the product, and the time the product is at temperature would be verified by a time calculation based on the pump speed. The process can be confirmed by sensors and calculation, but the actual experience (in terms of time and temperature) cannot be confirmed at the same level as the tunnel pasteurizer.
The cost of installation for a tunnel warmer and a tunnel pasteurizer would not be far off in this case. Assuming the same utility connections, both are single deck and the "scenario" was considering this as a replacement project. In this light the cost of installing either is approximately the same, therefore, the flash unit, sterile buffer tank, and filler all create additional installation costs. If an existing tunnel pasteurizer were to be replaced, it would also require conveyor and controls to close the gap in the line in order that a smaller footprint warmer would fit.
A cooling tower was not considered for the warmer scenario, as treated in the assumptions that it already existed for the tunnel pasteurizer. Bear in mind if this were not a machine replacement scenario, this could bring an extra expense into a "flash + warmer" and tunnel pasteurizer scenarios equally.

In any study of pasteurization, there must be some confirmation that the process is working to kill undesirable organisms from the product.

In the Tunnel Scenario, it was considered to be the machines controls alarming in conjunction with a "traveler" (passes through the machine and records the temperature profile in the bottle) which is downloadable to a PC in the quality lab.
In the flash scenario it was assumed that the flash must have the same level of "sensing redundancy" and "PLC Control" as the tunnel pasteurizer. This indicates that several of the "entry level" / lower cost flash units would not be fail safe for the application.
It was also assumed in the flash scenario that the packaging operation must have the ability to "SWAB" and confirm the level of sanitation at the filler and capper.
It would also require a "hold" period following which samples could be taken of the finished product and confirmed the process was effective.As stated in a previous article, both processes are effective.
Properly applied, the flash will pasteurize the product to perfection. Following that the plant needs to ensure that the systems are in place that the product, containers, and closures are kept in the same state.

The tunnel unit will pasteurize the product and container in the finished state, and is a readily "confirmable" process. It indicates that less QC "maintenance" will be required.

Part II Comparison of Operating Costs

Steam energy consumption was considered in total MMBTU per year. The tunnel pasteurizer was the highest, and the steam consumption from the flash unit was quoted by the manufacturer as dramatically lower. The scenarios where a warmer was required added much of the steam savings back into the plants consumption in the other two scenarios. If a warmer is needed the energy savings of the flash pasteurizer is not fully realized.

The supriting data in this study is the comparison with filtration. The team found that the cost of filters quoted to them was higher than anticipated, indicating that sterile filtration would be the highest of all the options.

The view on affluent is that it was (in this case) "free". The students at the brewing academy calculated that the flushing of the specified filters would be ongoing as filters were alternated to support continuous production. Based on their calculation the filtration scenario would send significant water to drain. What’s more the water would be heavy in yeast content and require treatment. The warmer was considered to have some incremental water usage. In the event of a stoppage, the flash unit would chase product out of the circuit with water, and would create both beer waste and water waste each time the filler has a meaningful stop. While the tunnel pasteurizer wastewater can be recycled and re-used through the cooling tower loop, water used for the sterile filtration and flash pasteurizer (as it is discharged with beer) would produce more water which is requires treatment.

The reality is that a cooling tower (to cool and re-use water and avoid effluent) was left out of all three studies but would only serve useful purpose in the tunnel scenarios. In this analysis the cooling tower is existing. In installations where this is not the case (new installations vs. machine replacements) the cost of the cooling tower would need to be considered. In brief, the team concluded that, while not pleased with the amount of water consumption of the tunnel pasteurizer, the tunnel pasteurizer water was a “better water” to have to deal with as opposed to the discharge of the sterile filtration system or the flash.

Part III Quality, Flavor and QA/QC Considerations

Process Considerations - Malta

There were concerns about the technical difficulties with the Malta Beer production in Sterile Filtration and Flash Pasteurization. Malta is thick in consistency and there would be slow filtration throughput due to high viscosity (sugar concentration) and multiple stages of filtration would be needed.
High sugar/protein concentrations require high PU, and the flash pasteurizer plates may be scorched/baked, reduce pasteurization capacity and allow contamination point – high maintenance cost and potential down time to the flash pasteurizer

QA/QC: Sanitation

Tunnel Pasteurization

Minimum changes would be required for Tunnel Pasteurization
The whole product (beer, crown, bottle) are pasteurized which the team considered to be the ideal scenario from a bacteriological standpoint. The tunnel pasteurizer would serve as a “catch all” for any stray yeast strains, or other flavor changing organisms which may be resident in the package or product.
No new issues to consider

Sterile Filtration and Flash pasteurization

Sterile Filtration and Flash Pasteurization both require a “Clean room” and Aseptic Filler
Maintaining the Aseptic Environment with a positive pressurized (HEPA filter) clean room could be difficult to maintain
Sterile bottles and crowns would need to be considered for the full measure of quality in the case of the filtration and flash scenarios
Additional QA personnel, equipment, processes, and disciplines would be required
The process in the evaluation that sanitation should slip would mean downtime to the line, and product that is put on QC hold while it is examined and (depending on the situation) placed on QC hold. This could be disruptive to the overall operations of the brewery.

QA/QC: Flavor

Whenever there are changes in process, changes in flavor should be considered / controlled
Sterile Filtration may strip flavors and large proteins below the 2µ level. This would be lesser of an issue for the Light Lager production, but would affect thicker products.
Sensory tests need to be conducted, but it is anticipated that there may be less flavor impact at time of departure from the brewery using flash and sterile filtration as the product has been exposed to less heat treatment than in tunnel. Considering that the distribution of the product is often non refreigerated after the product leaves the brewery, this was considered to be less of an issue.

Part IV Floorspace

The team concluded that the entrance of the warmer into the packaging line was a major factor in the amount of floor space required. Floorspace Scenarios:

1. Pasteurizer, including infeed and discharge conveyor

2. Flash Pasteurizer + Sterile Buffer Tanks + Warmer + Clean Room Footprint

3. (2) Filters for alternating during production + Buffer Tanks + Warmer + Clean Room Footprint

The team concluded that while there may be some slight savings depending on the final pieces of equipment specified, the initial dramatic savings on floorspace that they had anticipated was not going to be realized. It was also noted that scenarios (2) and (3) have utilize a balance of space between the process area and the packaging area, the tunnel confines all the space to the packaging area.
Part V Conclusions

The team concluded to purchase a replacement tunnel pasteurizer for the brewery.

The tunnel pasteurizer serves as a “catch all” for any bacteria that could find its way to the product at anywhere in the plant
The confirmation that the tunnel pasteurizer is performing the right process is readily confirmable. By using a travelling recorder it is possible to see the exact process which is happening to the beer.
The tunnel lightens the load on the QC department and allows QC to remain a single shift operation
While water usage was higher, the amount of effluent that can was recoverable was high in the situation of the tunnel pasteurizer
Impact on flavor in distribution is considered dramatically higher than the impact on flavor in packaging. As such the major consideration on flavor was to product product which was “consistent”, which was also thought to give strength to the tunnel pasteurizer.
Energy savings in terms of steam with the flash unit was offset by the warmer. The tunnel and flash pasteurizers are both energy regenerative in nature – heat put into the product on the initial part of the process is replaced at the end of the process. The Flash unit itself would perform better than the tunnel, but the addition of the warmer again offsets the savings.

Flash Pasteurizer Design Guide

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 01:36:00 +0000

The title of this book is "undercover" for a flash pasteurizer design guide.

Continuous Thermal Processing starts with the the basics of "how much heat" for "how long" it takes to kill particular bacteria and accomplish a pasteurization or sterilization process, and really doesn't stop from there.

Everything from flash pasteurizer P&ID diagrams to single heat exchanger and other component specification, its complete with the calculations which derive a number of equations from scratch, and goes on to quick reference tables.

The book was based on an early version and has expanded its range by new authors in this new edition to include far more than dairy applications. Its found to be extremely thorough including later sections in heat exchanger fouling, and machine CIP.

This book is available through Amazon.Com by clicking the link below. Note that it is a a part of the "Food Engineering Series" which are all equally as interesting.

Continuous Thermal Processing of Foods: Pasteurization and UHT Sterilization (Food Engineering Series)

Pasteurizer Belt Conversions

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:17:00 +0000

Conversions from Walking Beam pasteurizers to belt generally do not cost justify until the machine structure has weakened to a point where the machines life extends by putting in belt. Even at that makes a pasteurizer conversion from walking beam to belt justify is not the bed conversion itself, but the energy improvements and other packaging improvements which can be done while you’re in the machine.

A near topic has to do with a number of items and improvements which could be done while a used pasteurizer is being installed or relocated.

This is an expansion on the previous articles on purchasing used pasteurizers: Guide to Purchasing a Used Pasteurizer (Tunnel) and, Buying a New (or Used) Tunnel or Flash Pasteurizer.

This article is slightly different – covering the great opportunities that exist when purchasing and installing a used pasteurizer, used warmer, or used cooler.

In the process of purchasing and installing a piece of used machinery – or doing a pasteurizer bed conversion - there are innumerable opportunities which can be done for relatively negligible expense while the machine is being relocated and re-installed.

1. Full Regeneration – Regeneration is the number one energy saving feature on a pasteurizer and can save more than $100,000 / year. Regeneration is not to be taken lightly and should be studied and optimized.

2. Pasteurizer Belt, Shafts, & Bearings – These parts wear and create a significant amount of work to replace after the machine is in service. This is low hanging fruit. After the belts, Shafts, and bearings are in operation, the cost of replacement will double.

3. Single Deck Sprays – Access and maintenance to lower deck sprays in the pasteurizer is a challenge after installation. Eliminating lower deck sprays is a positive step that will require the speeds of the decks and other adjustments, including (effectively) re-commissioning the pasteurizer. Chances are this change will not get made after the machine is back into production.

4. Electrical Panels – if you can’t bring yourself to demo that panel and replace it with a new one before the machines installed – do you really believe it will happen after its fully wired? If you need it, it’s a good time to get a new electrical panel and drawing package with matching field tags.

5. Spray Issues – Broken nozzles, pans, and overhead overspray issues will cause the machine to chew down utilities unnecessarily.

6. PU / Process Control Improvements - Ensuring the process is proper and there is no overspray or communication of water between zones.

7. Instrumentation Standardization and Replacement – This is your chance to standardize on components that make sense in your plant.

8. Condensate Recovery – See Article on Condensate Recovery

9. I/C Wedge – great opportunity if you have no round containers on the infeed.

10. Insulated Top and Side Covers

12. Chemical Dosing System Upgrades - Crude control of dosing can cost chemical spend as well as eat away at the pasteurizers stainless steel.

14. Utility Monitoring Package

Buying a (New or Used) Beverage or Brewery Pasteurizer (Tunnel or Flash)

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:31:00 +0000

Are you purchasing or considering the purchase of a pasteurizer? You have prices on equipment from three suppliers: The "larger" and "reputable" company has a much higher price machine - and you stand to save a significant amount by using a smaller shop that has made a number of warmers and coolers? Did you mention this to the "reputable company" and they don't seem to care? Sound familiar?

Here's the rub: The smaller company is likley composed of a group of talented welders and designers who have created a product line based on its physical construction but not based on "thermodynamics" or "process specific" engineering. Here's what your missing:

ENERGY MATTERS: Remember that this equipment is moving the temperature of every package produced, day in-day out. Your utility bill for adding pasteurization to a packaging line can be from $20,000 to $250,000 per year. Machines that are not "optimally" designed will simply correct the engineering deficiencies by utilizing extraordinary levels of water and steam. This is why the "big boys" don't really care about your quote from Bob's metal shop - they understand the carrying cost of having the talent on staff, and your competitors have told them with their dollars over the years that it makes sense.

QUALITY MATTERS: No one will care how much you saved on capital costs during a product recall. There are scenarios on the packaging line - e-stop, power outage, boiler failure, air loss, stoppages, unbalanced loads through the machine, skippers, etc. which play havoc with the process. You need to rely on the process that it can handle these conditions appropriately, and many of them are difficult. In some cases, the machines are just not designed to get the right amounts of heating and cooling where needed internally to handle these situations.

What can you do?

Demand a utility monitoring system is included in the Base Price of every quote you recieve. Get data on steam and water consumption. Electrical usage generally stable on all machines. Steam and water will constitute the bulk of your utility spend, and will be variable.
Ask for a utility guarantee linked to final payment. The guarantee is useless without the monitoring equipment. Be sure to qualify the requirements of water usage on "product run in", the time and energy required to "heat up" the machine from a set temperature, and the amount of steam on "run out".
Ask for a quality guarantee linked to final payment. Will the supplier warrant that under all conditions your process will be held to specification? If they understand the process, they have the on-staff capabilities to model the process. This is a sign to you of the "depth" of process knowledge.
Make your evaluation based on the "cost of ownership" over a period of years. For a baseline, consider the IRS depreciation length on the purchase - generally 15 years. The period for which you can ensure that equipment will be in production is an important factor. Include:

Spare Parts Costs
Belt Replacements
Service Visits
Energy Consumption
Chemical Usage
Cooling Tower
Cost of Cash
Capital Costs
Installation Costs
Installation Length (downtime)

At the end of this exercise; if a supplier is advising against utility monitoring equipment or cannot give you a clear statement of usage and consumption of utilities - it is likely because they are not able. They do not have the capabilities to calculate the usage. This is the reason why many of the more advanced customers elect to stick with the larger more reputable companies.

Any supplier who cannot provide a clear estimate of utility consumption - in hard numbers - should be disqualified from your equipment selection process. Your superior will understand that. By not providing those numbers on utility consumption and gaurantees on quality - that leaves your company with the risk. The big savings on your upfront purchase will likely get paid back through your utility bills over 3-6 quarters.

Small Pasteurizer for MicroBrewerys and Copackers

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:50:00 +0000

A new small pasteurizer targeted to low volume beverage copackers and Microbreweries has recently been released by Barry-Wehmiller. Although made for beer, the MicroSE shown at right is a copackers pasteurizer as it can serve as a dual function, dual process machine in modes of pasteurizer, beverage cooler, or beverage warmer; an ideal for the copacker and small brewery which often run a wide range of beverages and filling modes.

Product enters and leaves the pasteurizer from a single end, requiring no additional conveyor to add the machine to an existing packaging line. This presents a not-to-be-underestimated savings in conveyor cost, which rise significantly when they have to run around a pasteurizer. Additionally, the 'single end' feature allows product to "run by" the pasteurizer - A unique feature for beer with live yeast or other products which don't require treatment.

Regeneration is the single most important energy saving option on a machine, and this small pasteurizer has it. The pasteurizer is available with live steam injection or an efficient coil heating system which allows for condensate recovery (reference related article on why this provides an important savings).

Per the manufacturer, the pasteurizer comes only in two sizes - 100 and 200, which are loosely matched to 100 and 200 Bottle Per Minute capacity.The pasteurization capacity can vary depending on the amount of pasteurization required.

Per the manufacturer the pasteurizer / cooler / warmer can be purchased for a price 'only slightly higher' than the price of new beverage warmer or cooler of the same size. It has a PLC based control system and small HMI, and can be outfitted with PC based process monitoring. The machines aesthetics are suitable for tour quality brewery lines. Few microbreweries pasteurize, but as the craft brewery market grows and distribution lines continue to stretch, tunnel pasteurization is imminent in the craft market.

Krones / Sander Hansen Shield Pasteurizer Copies Industry Front Runner Barry-Wehmiller Model H Pasteurizer

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:13:00 +0000

Attempting to bring back the Sander-Hansen name and giving credit to Sander-Hansen's Replacement in the market - Barry-Wehmiller. Krones has recently unveiled it's new design of pasteurizer; First the Sander-Hansen Channel, Krones - Shark, now the Sander Hansen Shield.

For nearly 100 years, Barry-Wehmiller has never separated from it's core beliefs of a heavily built structure and ease of maintenance access, and a consistent process in the PU control. Evidence of the Barry-Wehmiller design are evident throughout the new machine:

External Regenerative Piping giving access to all three sides of the machine
Open Architecture Infeed and Discharge Conveyors with adjustable Widths
Full Height Access Doors

The Deck Heights are still much higher than required which in many cases costs additional dollars in conveyor and conveyor control to get into and out of the pasteurizer. The marathon belt is still to be proven in the long run, and the machines control is still in a costly PC based based system that requires factory intervention to modify. The machine is a step in the right direction following the Shark pasteurizer and Sander-Hansen Channel Pasteurizer, both machines were arguably light-weighted to the point where many customers complained of machine life issues. While still not as cutting edge as the competition, the machine is a sign that Krones is responding to the loss of many major North American Brewery customers.

Typical Pasteurization PU Values for Beer and Juice Products

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:24:00 +0000

Pasteurization values can vary depending on points of measurement in the package and if the PU's are considered to begin accumulation at 120 or 125 degrees F. Under pasteurizing fails to neutralize yeast and flavor changing enzymes, over pasteurizing tends to degrade flavor and nutrients in the product.

All forms of pasteurization are considered compromise between "boiling" (considered sterilization) and no treatment. In addition to pasteurization consideration should be given to the discharge temperature of the package when considering a new or used pasteurizer.

UltraLight Lagers are considered to have been filtered to below the 2 micron level which removes larger particles (including yeast) from the product.

Pasteurizers should achieve three main objectives:

The process of pasteurization
Achieve a discharge temperature suitable for downstream operations
Provide a consistent treatment to all products such that equal flavor properties are achieved across all production

What's Wrong With Flash Pasteurization? The Topics of Stoppage, Flavor and Product Waste

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:51:00 +0000

We have all heard that flash pasteurization treats the product but not the package. Flash pasteurization is not always what it's sold to be, and in many cases only half the facts are considered.

A flash pasteurizer generally needs to start and stop during production. Even if the flash unit has a downstream buffer tank, it will fill periodically during which time the flash pasteurizer needs to stop. In order for the flash unit to "cease production" there are only two options:

1. The flash unit will recirculate product
2. The product is chased out of the flash unit with water, which is recirculated

Both scenarios have effects which need to be considered. In scenario #1 when a product is recirculated through the flash pasteurizer during a stoppage, the amount of product being recirculated (generally 50 liters depending on the size of the flash unit, recirculation pipe etc) is treated and retreated over and over. This product is then generally dispatched downstream to packaging. Even if the product is then mixed in a buffer tank where it is diluted, it is still a relatively large amount of product. This takes away from the argument that flash pasteurization lessens flavor impact.

In the event that the product is chased out with water, there is product which is sent to drain each time the flash unit starts and stops. Like many situations, the overall efficiency of the downstream operation then becomes a key factor in the justificaiton of the equipment, and this product waste needs to be considered.

Particularly in the case of small packaging operations the product waste can accumulate over time and product waste is generally an unforecasted cost of flash pasteurization. This is where the "turn down" ratio of a flash unit becomes important. This feature allows the flash unit to run slower as the downstream buffer tank fills and is available only with variable speed units which come with other controls challenges to ensure that all product is proprerly pasteurized.

Reference other articles in this blog relative to energy impacts and other unforeseen costs associated with flash pasteurization.

Consumption of Flash Pasteurized Products During Pregnancy

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:19:00 +0000

We receive inquiries from pregnant mothers who have written in attempting to understand if the products (mostly juices and ciders) marked "flash pasteurized" are fit for their consumption.

The difference between "Pasteurization" and "Flash Pasteurization" is straight forward and something all of us can understand. A product that is "pasteurized" has been pasteurized in the bottle after it has been filled. This indicates that both the product and the container were pasteurized together, and is the safest form of pasteurization.

"Flash Pasteurized" products were pasteurized in the pipe prior to filling. This indicates that the juice was pasteurized prior to being put into the bottle and having the cap applied. For information on pasteurization and eggs or pasteurization and raw milk - click here.

If you have a favorite juice which is "flash pasteurized" it is likely fine. You are trusting that the bottle and cap were clean and the required precautions were taken.If you are not comfortable with that answer, stick to products which are marked "Pasteurized". In particular, as we have toured the plant, Martinelli's Juice is tunnel pasteurized after filling.

If the juice is in a carton, it was likely filled aseptically (in a sterile clean environment) and the risk is relatively low that that the package was allowed to pick-up any contaminants. For other topics related to pasteurization and pregnancy, there is a link to a resource center on the FDA website below.

Link To FDA Website

Pasteurizer Energy Consumption - Direct Steam Injection Machinery and Condensate Recovery

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:03:00 +0000

It is often said "there is no faster way to heat water than direct steam injection". That may be true, but there is also no more expensive method from an operating costs. From an ongoing expense standpoint, any system that allows for the re-collection of condensate and its return to the boiler will save money.

Direct steam injection pasteurizers and warmers can generally be converted at a reasonable energy payback to return condensate to the boiler. What's so big about condensate?

It's new water and effluent cost that can be avoided
It's already been treated with boiler chemicals
(Most importantly) it has heat.

The condensate brings hot water back to the boiler which does not need the heat or chemicals which new water coming into the boiler would need. Click here for a great article on estimating the $$ associated with returning condensate.

Existing direct steam pasteurizers and warmers can generally be converted to coils, or a single heat exchanger to Hot Water with a fantastic energy savings.

Great Brief on Processing Differences between Pasteurization and Homogenization

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:48:00 +0000

Pasteurization is by definition a balance. Boiling any product will surely kill the bacteria at the expense of also breaking down nutrients. The difference between UHT and HTST & Tunnel are that UHT is meant to Sterilize, while Flash and Tunnel are meant to pasteurize.

The values shown above utilitize Milk as the product to be treated. Ironically, UHT is a higher temperature and shorter time that HTST. Values can be adjusted slightly depending on the product for Tunnel and Flash processes.

Homogenization is not related to pasteurization. It is the process used to separate (generally milk) into cream and skim (non fat) milk. This is done by taking advantage of the natural separation which occurs during chilling.

Most importantly, tunnel pasteurization is the only process which pasteurizes both the product and the package.

Shelf Stability of Apple Juices and Ciders

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:33:00 +0000

What is required by law to produce shelf stable juice or cider products? These markets are unique in the opportunity for small businesses to enter the market. Consideration must be taken to the microbial risks associated (i.e. E.Coli, etc.). Each producer needs to take into account the required mandates for production. These are covered in the FDA document: Guidance for Industry Juice HACCP Hazards and Controls Guidance First Edition.

A summary is that for each product and production facility there must be the microbe you identify as the "pertinent microorganism," which is the most resistant microorganism of public health significance that is likely to occur in the juice, e.g., E. coli O157:H7. The process used for production must consistently generate a minumum 5-log reduction of the "pertinent micro-organism."

One excerpt from the document:

4.2 Example of a Process for a Shelf Stable Juice
The National Food Processors Association states that a typical hot fill/hold process used for shelf stable juices might be to treat the juice at 90 degrees C (194 degrees F) for 2 seconds, followed by filling at 85 degrees C (185 degrees F) and holding for 1 minute at that temperature. Based upon research it conducted for E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella species (spp.) and Listeria monocytogenes in fruit juices, NFPA calculated that this typical process used for shelf stable juices would achieve a 50,000 log reduction for these pathogens without taking into account the cumulative lethality during the cool down period. (See reference to publication by Mazzotta in section V. C. 5.0).

A Second Example of a Process for a Shelf Stable Juice
If for reasons of carbonation or other considerations, the product were to be cold filled, juice or cider in glass jars could be treated with a fully regenerative tunnel pasteurizer. Temperatures of 162 degrees F for 30 minutes would be the recommended start point to be confirmed with laboratory tests focused on the "pertinent microorganism".

When deciding between tunnel and flash pasteurization, reference the other pertinent articles on this blog. As juice is a product with a large "kids" market, the ability to put "pasteurized" on the package, and state that the product was pasteurized "in the package" has been known to add commercial value.

Guide to Purchasing a Used Pasteurizer (Tunnel)

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:59:00 +0000

A used pasteurizer can be a great opportunity to offset capital costs. Studies show that internet searches on the topic of pasteurization have more internet searches for the words “used pasteurizer” than any other topic on pasteurization. While purchasing a used pasteurizer can be an opportunity, consider these points as the project progresses.

Used Pasteurizer: Tunnel

• Look for a unit made completely of stainless steel. Older carbon steel tunnel pasteurizers, and yes even flash units with carbon frames suffer from erosion.
• Consider the machines method of heating. The capital cost savings can be quickly paid back in steam, water, and electrical usage. Avoid units that are non-regenerative, coil driven, or direct steam injected. Remember that there is a significant value to condensate recovery!
• A poorly controlled or incorrectly sized pasteurizer will fight itself by adding cool water and steam, often times simultaneously.
• Machine size and zoning must be right for the machine to accomplish the process. This is not only the length, and width of the machine, but the speed of the belt, the flow rate of the water, and the heating characteristics of the product. Get professional confirmation that the sizing and zoning will match your production.
• How the machine is removed is a key factor in the re-assembly. If the machine has not been removed, consider being there or taking owenership of the removal process. This could mean the difference between your getting what’s in the picture above or the difference between a machine that leaks or doesn’t. It’s also an excellent way to begin to get to know the equipment and will make the re-assembly more straightforward.
• Take a hard look at the controls package. Remember, the shelf life stability of the product will be controlled by the machine. Ensure that there are clear electrical drawings. If there are not, or you’re confidence is not high enough comfortable, consider trashing the electrical panel and having another one designed and program built from scratch. Chart recorders are no match for todays technology.

For the areas where engineering support is needed… whether in the utility consumption, machine sizing, or electrical controls, call a competent new machinery manufacturer and ask for their help in engineering support. They will be glad to help. Contract them for the “hard parts” of the project. They will be glad to work with you in return for the ability to provide service to the machine, which may be something that needed to be considered anyway.

Feel free to write in for a list of available resources.

Pasteurizing Homebrew to Increase Shelf Life Stabilty

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:26:00 +0000

Why Pasteurize? Once the bottle is closed pasteurization will kill the microogranisms (including yeast) in the beer, cider, or wine. Microorganisms and yeast all have a "kill point" which is a product of temperature and time. Once those organisms stop "feeding" on the carbohydrates the product is "Stable" and thus its flavor is stable. Does the pasteurization process itself change the flavor? Experts say "Yes, but not dramatically". Seems natural if any process affects the product it affects the flavor.

This is what is called "vat pasteurization" or "immersion pasteurization". Turn your hot water heater to high for this, and find a sink, cooler, or tub that will hold the product desired. Pasteurization requires that an elevated temperature be held for a duration of time. So in this excercise, hot water must continually run into the "tank" at the same rate it is allowed to "leak". A home hotwater source is generally about 165F.

Put the product in the tub, sink, or cooler. Fill it with hot water (assumed to be 150F-160F). Once full, create a slight draining effect and continue to fill with hot water. For 12 oz bottles, keep the bottle in this state for approximately 45 minutes for 750 ml bottles keep the bottles in this state for approximately 60 minutes. A floating thermometer is always a good idea and confirming that the vessel is above 145F is a good idea.

Once the time has elapsed, remove the product from water and move directly into refrigeration for rapid cooling (i.e. remove all heat from the product).

Home pasteurizing in this way does not kill every flavor changing microorganism but kills most. At this point most products should maintain their flavor for roughly 8-12 months in an unrefrigerated environment. The "comeback rate" is a function of the temperature the product is stored at (i.e. growback rate at room temperature is higher than refrigerated). This process will consume roughly an hour to execute and will provide up to 12 months of flavor stability.

Part IV - Summary Results of Case Study - Flash Pasteurization Vs. Tunnel Pasteurization

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:06:00 +0000

Note; the following article is an excerpt from a (now) more complete article here.

Process Considerations

 All three options are capable to produce good biological stability for the Light Lager line

 May encounter technical difficulties with the Malta Beer production in Sterile Filtration and Flash Pasteurization
 Slow filtration throughput due to High viscosity (sugar concentration) – multiple stages of filtration needed
 High sugar/protein concentrations require high PU, and the flash pasteurizer plates may be scorched/baked, reduce pasteurization capacity and allow contamination point – high maintenance cost and potential damage to the flash pasteurizer

Sanitation Considerations

 Minimum changes required for Tunnel Pasteurization

 Sterile Filtration and Flash Pasteurization both require a “Clean room” and Aseptic Filler
 Aseptically maintained
 Positive pressurized (HEPA filter)
 Sterile bottles and crowns
 Additional QA personnel required

QA/QC: Sanitation

 Tunnel Pasteurization
 The whole product (beer, crown, bottle) are pasteurized
 No new issues to consider

 Sterile Filtration and Flash pasteurization
 Clean room needed – maintenance required
- Clean room sanitation and biological sampling
- Aseptic filler sanitation and biological sampling
 Biological stability control of the product
- Frequent bottled sample plating
(especially important for the Malta Beer)

QA/QC: Flavor

 Whenever there are changes in process, changes in flavor should be considered / controlled

 Sterile Filtration may strip flavors
 May be lesser an issue for the Light Lager line
 May severely affect the flavor profile of the Malta Beer
 Flash Pasteurization
 Potential minor flavor change for the Light Larger line
 May induce burning flavor into the Malta Beer

 Sensory tests need to be conducted

Part III - Operating Cost Analysis Packaging - Tunnel Pasteurization Vs. Flash Pasteurization Case Study

noreply@blogger.com (Webmaster) — Thu, 14 May 2009 05:17:00 +0000

Note; the following article is an excerpt from a (now) more complete article here.

The continued look at flash vs. Tunnel and filtration in terms of operating costs once again shows some eye opening data. If a warmer is needed the energy savings of the flash pasteurizer is not fully realized. The "shocker" in this study is the comparison with filtration. According to this case study the cost of filters was higher than anticipated, indicating that sterile filtration would be the highest of all the options.

If you read the initial post the case study is for a brewery in the Carribean. The view on affluent is that it was (in this case) "free". The students at the brewing academy calculated that the flushing of the filters would send more water to drain than the tunnel, and the warmer would send water to drain even when the packaging line was under continuos running conditions.

The reality is that a cooling tower (to cool and re-use water and avoid effluent) was left out of all three studies but would only serve useful purpose in the tunnel and flash pasateurization scenarios.