Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
Equipment design for food industry should consider, in addition to performance,
cost and quality requirements, further aspects regarding to hygiene and food
safety. This paper discusses how information associated with hygiene aspects can
be used as orientation criteria for equipment design for food industry. The study
was based on specialized literature and national and international standards to
establish valuation criteria for hygienic design. Eighty-five criteria were established, grouped into six orientation classes, as follows: processes, materials, geometry, accessories, sealing and others. The criteria were validated through their
application in a company which produces concentrated fruit juice, demonstrating
how problems could have been avoided by using this valuation method.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This work provides a contribution to food industry equipment in order to understand how to identify, classify and store the best practices for hygienic design of
food processing equipment. In very specific sectors such as food equipment industry, the knowledge related to the equipment design is usually captured in a tacit
manner. This paper provides a reflection on this subject and shows a way to organize this knowledge.
INTRODUCTION
The product development process (PDP) can be understood
as a strategic business process based on market information,
requirements and restrictions, where ideas and concepts are
organized and created, resulting in planning, design and
manufacturing of a product. Thereby, this process can be
treated as multidimensional and multidisciplinary phenomena (Clark and Fujimoto 1991; Salomo et al. 2007).
Techniques such as DFx (Design For x) have stood out
as a way to support product design, when different perspectives related to each product life cycle phase must be considered (Cooper et al. 2004). In this case, pieces of information
about these different perspectives have to be structured and
available for product designers.
When considering the development process of food
industry equipment, different perspectives and principles
related to hygienic design (HD) must be followed in order
to minimize risks related to food contamination (Lawley
2011; Lupo 2011; Porter 2011).
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753762 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
THEORETICAL REFERENCES
DFx Supporting Products Design
According to Holt and Barnes (2010), DFx techniques can
be separated into two groups: those that improve the
product having one issue to consider (cost, quality, usability, etc.), and the ones that improve a product in one particular stage of the life cycle (manufacturing, assembling,
recycling, etc.). Agyapong-Kodua et al. (2012) state the different interests, relationships and conflicts (trade-offs)
between these groups. For Ciechanowski et al. (2007), the
best results are achieved by the combined application of
such techniques.
The design for manufacturing is focused on better integration between the design, manufacturing and materials,
aiming the development of a component that meets the
functional requirements and which is easy to manufacture,
reducing production costs without compromising its
quality (Bralla 1999; Xiao et al. 2007; Selvaraj et al. 2009).
According to Andreasen et al. (1988), Boothroyd et al.
(2002) and Heemskerk et al. (2009), the design for assembly
pursues economy by reducing the number of components
toward a quality improvement as it decreases the possibility
of failure in the simplified design.
According to Pahl et al. (2007), all equipment may have a
shorter life cycle due to its use, and failures are unavoidable.
However, the design for maintainability aims to ensure that
the product can be maintained during its life cycle. The
techniques of design for maintainability are usually supported by guidance (Kuo et al. 2001) or by tools in order to
predict maintenance costs (Slavila et al. 2004). Associated
with maintenance, there is reliability, which is the probability of the product operating as planned for a determined
period of time, when it is used under specific conditions
(Blanchard and Fabrycky 1998; Kuo et al. 2001). General
guidelines of design for reliability were proposed by Ireson
and Coombes (1988) and Minehane et al. (2000).
Another DFx technique that has been broadly used is the
design for environment, which proposes that PDP considers
all environmental degradation caused through the life cycle
and that the product will have a minimum interference on
natural environment (Rossi et al. 2006).
HD
The HD consists in the application of solutions that allow
an effective cleanness of manufacturing resources, ranging
according to the type of food that is produced or that will
be produced (Lawley 2011; Lupo 2011). For HSE Health &
754
Safety Executive (2001), the need for HD during specification, design and manufacturing stages of equipment has
become a way to avoid problems related to product loss due
to lack of sanitation. Normally, projects in this area require
compromising solutions, i.e., conflicting requirements must
become compatible in order to obtain sanitarily safe, functionally adequate and commercially viable equipment.
Engineers involved in the food industry equipment
design have knowledge and experience in designing solutions to obtain safe and ergonomic equipment for operators, functionally adequate, considering mechanic and
electric aspects as well as the transfer of mass and heat. Nevertheless, in many cases, sanitation and hygiene aspects, due
to their wide range of applications, are not totally known,
which can interfere in the microbiologic quality and safety
of the equipment. In addition to the sanitation and hygiene
aspects, the equipment must guarantee a reduced need of
maintenance and cleanness and, thereafter, reduce the
manufacturing costs (Lawley 2011; Lupo 2011; Peter et al.
2011).
According to European Hygienic Engineering Design
Group (EHEDG), aiming for an efficient cleanness and
sanitation, there are some features that must be observed
during equipment design for food industry:
(a) Materials used (EHEDG Doc32 2005; EHEDG Doc35
2006);
(b) Contact surfaces (EHEDG Doc9 1993; Lelieveld et al.
2003);
(c) Auxiliary equipment (EHEDG Doc20 2000; EHEDG
Doc25 2002; EHEDG Doc14 2004; EHEDG Doc23 2009);
(d) Product geometric features (EHEDG Doc13 2004;
EHEDG Doc8 2004; EHEDG Doc10 2007).
Therefore, different design standards, patterns and techniques are required and must be considered in the equipment manufacturing for the food industry. This paper
proposes a unified view of these different aspects as guiding
criteria for professionals who work in this area.
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753762 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
757
A 1.5
Less than 0.6 mm for tubes with external diameter bigger than 85 mm.
Misalignment
B 1.2
Are the surfaces in contact with the product made with stainless steel of series AISI300?
Are the edges properly rounded and the horizontal surfaces have a minimum inclination of 3
for a good drainage and cleanness?
C 2.5
D 2.2
Product area, (b) misalignment, (c) slit, (d) harmful space, (e) elastomeric sealing,
(f) elastomeric sealing of the rectangular section before installation, (g) trapezoidal
elastomeric sealing (Source: EHEDG DOC10 [2007, p. 8])
E 1.3
Product area, (b) elastomeric sealing, (c) heating, (d) cooling, (e) microorganisms, (f) gap
Source: Adapted from EHEDG DOC10 (2007, p. 10).
Did the equipment respect the minimum distance of 300 mm from the general structures and
from other equipment?
F 3.3
758
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753762 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753762 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
759
CONCLUSION
This paper has proposed a group of valuation criteria to
support and guide HD for food industry equipment considering the manufacturing and installation points of view.
Different sources of information were researched such as
regulations and national and international standards,
typical client specifications, papers, books and procedures
of better practices which deal with food processing in search
of guidance to the criteria development for HD.
Information was divided into two groups, one of them
with a wider range, named macro or social, which involved
three parameters: the market, the law and each clients
needs. Other, more specific and punctual, was named micro
or technologic, which focuses on functional aspects of
application and cleanness.
The parameters of design were grouped into six orientation classes named processes, materials, geometry, accessories, sealing and others. These include essential knowledge
areas for the obtainment of hygienically safe equipment.
Considering different classes of orientation, 85 criteria
were generated, which must be verified so that they help on
the prevention and valuation of potential risks in equipment associated with microbiologic safety.
The conjunction of these criteria in the design process
allows that the group of developed solutions be valid and
microbiologically safe, which guarantees the quality of the
equipment regarding hygiene and sanitation.
760
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753762 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753762 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
762
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753762 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.