bs_bs_banner

Journal of Food Process Engineering ISSN 1745-4530

GUIDING CRITERIA FOR HYGIENIC DESIGN OF FOOD

INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT
CARLOS ALBERTO COSTA1, MARCOS ALEXANDRE LUCIANO and ANDREI MARCOS PASA
Mechanical Engineering, University of Caxias do Sul, Caxias do Sul, RS, Brazil

1
Corresponding author. University of Caxias ABSTRACT
do Sul, Mechanical Engineering, Rua Francisco
Getúlio Vargas 1130, 95070560 Caxias do Equipment design for food industry should consider, in addition to performance,
Sul, RS 95050470, Brazil. cost and quality requirements, further aspects regarding to hygiene and food
TEL: +55-54-3218-2160, safety. This paper discusses how information associated with hygiene aspects can
FAX: +55-54-3218-2168;
be used as orientation criteria for equipment design for food industry. The study
EMAIL: cacosta@ucs.br
was based on specialized literature and national and international standards to
Received for Publication June 18, 2013 establish valuation criteria for hygienic design. Eighty-five criteria were estab-
Accepted for Publication August 13, 2013 lished, grouped into six orientation classes, as follows: processes, materials, geom-
etry, accessories, sealing and others. The criteria were validated through their
doi:10.1111/jfpe.12044 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 under-
stand how to identify, classify and store the best practices for hygienic design of
food processing equipment. In very specific sectors such as food equipment indus-
try, 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 orga-
nize this knowledge.

This paper proposes a group of valuation criteria to be

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 phenom-
ena (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 perspec-
tives related to each product life cycle phase must be consid-
ered (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).
considered for machines and equipment development for
food industry under HD point of view. Such criteria were
elaborated considering the minimum hygiene conditions
for processing food with minimum risk. Different aspects
that support the development of these types of equipment
have been approached. The study was developed in four
stages as follows: gathering information about HD from dif-
ferent sources; grouping information in two parameter
groups of design (macro and micro); creating orientation
classes considering mainly the microparameters and, finally,
the elaboration of a procedure that contains the valuation
criteria to verify the quality of the equipment. In all, 85 ori-
entation criteria were defined. The proposal was validated
considering equipment that are currently in use and which
were not conceived, purchased nor installed according to
the proposed criteria, so it is proved that some of the
current problems could have been avoided.
The next section presents a brief review concerning DFx
techniques and HD concepts. Then, the developed stages

Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753–762 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 753
CRITERIA FOR HYGIENIC DESIGN FOOD INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT
within the research method are described, followed by the
concepts validations and, finally, by the conclusion.
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, usabil-
ity, etc.), and the ones that improve a product in one par-
ticular stage of the life cycle (manufacturing, assembling,
recycling, etc.). Agyapong-Kodua et al. (2012) state the dif-
ferent 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 inte-
gration 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 sup-
ported 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 probabil-
ity 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
C.A. COSTA, M.A. LUCIANO and A.M. PASA
Safety Executive (2001), the need for HD during specifica-
tion, 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, func-
tionally adequate and commercially viable equipment.
Engineers involved in the food industry equipment
design have knowledge and experience in designing solu-
tions to obtain safe and ergonomic equipment for opera-
tors, functionally adequate, considering mechanic and
electric aspects as well as the transfer of mass and heat. Nev-
ertheless, 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 tech-
niques are required and must be considered in the equip-
ment 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.
ELABORATION AND DEFINITION OF
VALUATION CRITERIA
Research Stages
This study proposes a group of valuation criteria that must
be considered in the sanitation and hygiene design (HD) of
equipment for food industry. Figure 1 presents the four
stages followed by this work in order to develop the valua-
tion criteria:
(a) Data collection about HD in different research sources;
(b) Grouping design parameters (macro and micro);
(c) Definition of orientation classes for the design, empha-
sizing microtechnological parameters;
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753–762 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
C.A. COSTA, M.A. LUCIANO and A.M. PASA
FIG. 1. STAGES FOR VALUATION CRITERIA
ELABORATION
(d) Valuation criteria identification in order to identify (or
check) equipment quality considering the HD.
For the first stage, different sources of information, which
can influence the HD, were studied, such as: national and
international regulation and standards, typical client speci-
fications, articles, books and procedures of better practices
that deal with food processing considering different areas of
application and raw materials (food) to be processed,
among others. The sources considered for this study are
presented in the next sections.
In the second stage, the pieces of information gathered
were divided into two groups of project parameters. The
first one, called macro or social parameters, contains broad
parameters about use and application of the equipment,
such as: laws, market and the insertion of the equipment in
the manufacturing process of the company. The second one,
called micro or technological parameters, points out the use
and specific application of the equipment. Within the
macro group, three parameters were established, which are:
market, law and customer’s needs. For the micro group,
functional parameters were set about application and clean-
ness. The observance of the two groups of parameters in the
design process and activities provides a group of valid solu-
tions that are also microbiologically safe.
It is important to emphasize that, in spite of these groups
showing their parameters distributed in different levels of
coverage, a macroparameter, for instance, law, may be asso-
ciated with microparameters, such as functional or clean-
ness requirements, so that it constitutes a dimension to be
considered during the project.
The third stage comprised the organization of the design,
social or technological parameters in one group of classes
that will guide equipment design, manufacturing and instal-
lation considering the HD principles. Six orientation classes
were defined including essential areas of knowledge for safe
equipment as follows: processes, materials, geometry, acces-
sories, sealing and others.
Finally, based on orientation classes defined, it was
created the design criteria for supporting and guiding the
design, manufacturing and installation of equipment for
food processing. These criteria must be observed in order to
warrant the quality of equipment design under a hygiene
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753–762 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
CRITERIA FOR HYGIENIC DESIGN FOOD INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT
and sanitation point of view. Furthermore, the observance
of these criteria will reduce the range of design solutions,
demanding specific set of solutions and, in some cases,
unique solution. The next sections show each stage men-
tioned above.
Social and Technological Design Parameters
Regarding the development of equipment for food industry,
there are two important aspects that lead the HD. One is
related to the social aspects and another is related to the
technological aspects. In order to facilitate the under-
standing and the visualization of the context, two groups
of parameters (macrosocial microtechnological) were
proposed.
Macroparameter: Legislation. Standards for creating
equipment for food processing have been developed by dif-
ferent organizations, showing small differences, but all
intending to guarantee food safety. Ordinance SVS/MS No.
326, from July 30 1997, in Addendum I, presents “Technical
regulation about hygiene and sanitation conditions and
good manufacturing practice for food producers and manu-
facturers.” The goal is setting general requirements of
hygiene and good manufacturing practices regarding food
for human consumption.
The hazard analysis critical control point is based on a
series of stages, including operations related to the raw
material selection until the food consumption, based on
the identification of potential dangerous to the food safety,
as well as measures about the control of conditions that
may create danger. The Codex Alimentarius identifies the
essential principles of hygiene that may apply to all food
chain (from the primary production to the final consumer)
to ensure that food is safe and adequate to human
consumption.
These standards define what it is expected from equip-
ment regarding hygiene and sanitation point of view;
however, they do not explicitly define how it is possible to
achieve such goals. The following topics establish orienta-
tion for the equipment development with ensured quality.
755
CRITERIA FOR HYGIENIC DESIGN FOOD INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT
Macroparameter: Client Requirements. Equipment
for food processing, beyond executing its specific function,
must avoid microbiologic contamination. Equipment that is
difficult to clean needs more severe procedures and longer
cleaning cycles and longer decontamination, resulting in
more costs, limited availability for production, shorter life
cycle and more effluent generation (Lorenzen 2011). In
some cases, because of technical-functional reasons, the
HD can be compromised in order to achieve the equip-
ment capacity of executing its function. However, in these
cases, such action must be minimized and clearly
documented.
The equipment development must also consider the food
processing context that can impact on the level of
microbiologic contamination (Fig. 2). There are some attri-
butes that must be considered, such as: layout, by the proper
integration of the equipment with other manufacturing
processes; production, because it allows the equipment to be
operational and profitable; operation, minimizing human
intervention and eliminating operator-machine-product
crossed contamination; product, obtaining a higher quality
product; and cleanness, favoring the cleanness and making
it more difficult to accumulate impurities.
Macroparameter: Market Requirements. Equipment
design and manufacturing without risks of contamination
have to face the stages of risk valuation and determination
of hygiene and sanitation safety level of the equipment.
Holah (2011) shows a sequence of steps that help on defin-
ing the equipment potential risks. It starts by the definition
of the process for which the equipment is aimed consider-
ing whether the equipment is working on a specific function
756
C.A. COSTA, M.A. LUCIANO and A.M. PASA
FIG. 2. INTEGRATION BETWEEN HYGIENIC
DESIGN AND THE MANUFACTURING
PROCESS
(Source: Adapted from Lorenzen 2011).
or several different functions. Such choice depends on a
product technical and cost valuation, once there may be
different options in the market. After that, relevant risks
must be identified as well as the methods that must be
used in order to eliminate or reduce them. Finally, it is veri-
fied the efficiency concerning the elimination of risks
and the precautions that must be taken to operate the
equipment.
After the risk valuation, it is possible to attribute the level
of safety to the equipment according to its original func-
tion, to the existent resources, to the required production
level and to the desired cleanness process (Holah 2011). The
equipment can be classified from the ones that attend the
minimum safety requirements according to its purpose to
the ones that are designed for a specific chemical treatment
or decontamination temperature so that microorganisms
wound not enter the machine (ascetical ones).
Microparameter: Functional Requirements. The
project of equipment for food industry must consider
aspects such as materials and contact surfaces, auxiliary
equipment and equipment geometric features.
Materials in contact with the product (food) must be
inert to the food as well as to detergents and sanitation
products. They must also be resistant to corrosion, non-
toxic, nonabsorbent, mechanically stable, and its surface fin-
ishing can not be altered in normal usage conditions
(Lelieveld et al. 2003; EHEDG Doc32 2005).
Any welding in direct contact with the food product must
be continued, free of imperfections and polished. Welding
that is not in contact with the product must be continued
and allow a good cleanness (EHEDG Doc09 1993).
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753–762 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
C.A. COSTA, M.A. LUCIANO and A.M. PASA
Materials used for thermal insulation must be covered
with stainless steel to prevent air inflow or humidity reten-
tion (EHEDG Doc8 2004). Another characteristic is that the
equipment must be designed in such a way that the lubri-
cants do not contact the food product. In the event of an
accidental contact, lubricants must be food grade type
(EHEDG Doc23 2009). These are some examples of
requirements that have an impact on the conception of
equipment and, therefore, in its functionality.
Microparameters: Application Requirements. Good
communication between the equipment manufacturer and
the food producer results in a risk minimization for trans-
ferring danger to the final product (food) during equipment
manufacturing. It also allows to produce the equipment in a
more economic and efficient way. Thus, Holah (2011) states
some aspects to be observed during equipment design: type
of food product to be processed and its limitations regard-
ing contamination and equipment materials to be used;
main application of the equipment, i.e., for a specific
purpose or for a wide range of products; the degree of sub-
sequent transformation of the food product, i.e., if the
product to be processed by the equipment will be later sub-
mitted to a new process or not; the level of cleanness and
inspection related to the frequency; and the conservation
and the frequency of equipment utilization.
Microparameters: Cleanness Requirements. Equip-
ment manufacturers, food producers and cleaning chemical
product suppliers have an important responsibility in clean-
ing and sanitizing the equipment, to ensure an adequate
hygiene state, according to the product that will be pro-
cessed. There are three important recommendations to be
considered. First, the manufacturer of the equipment must
recommend cleanness and disinfection procedures, as well
FIG. 3. PROPOSED ORIENTATION CLASSES
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753–762 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
CRITERIA FOR HYGIENIC DESIGN FOOD INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT
as the indication of acceptable cleaning products based on
the chemical resistance of the materials used. Second, the
manufacturer of chemical cleaning products, in agreement
with the equipment supplier and the food producers, must
recommend the products for cleanness and sanitization,
and the best methods for their application. The last one is
related to the food manufacturer regarding the definition of
an adequate cleaning program (level of cleanness and fre-
quency) verifying its performance.
Considering the macro- and microparameters, the HD
can be used in different situations, which include: during
the development of equipment to analyze a new configura-
tion or concept; after the design, to demonstrate the confor-
mity to the applicable legislation; as a technique of quality
control during the process of equipment manufacturing; as
a way to exempt the manufacturer or designer from respon-
sibilities after the installation of the product; and as part of
the selection process by the client. Orientation classes pro-
posed in this work consider such different situations.
ORIENTATION CLASSES FOR HD
The quality of the equipment according to HD has, as a
result, the quality of the final product, i.e., food processed.
Orientation classes were defined, taking different aspects
related to the design, manufacturing and installation in con-
sideration. These different aspects were grouped into main
topics to be taken into account during HD. Thus, this study
proposes a structure of six orientation classes, namely pro-
cesses, materials, geometry, accessories, sealing and others
(Fig. 3).
Valuation Criteria of the HD
Considering the orientation classes defined, 85 valuation
criteria were elaborated and distributed as follows:
757
CRITERIA FOR HYGIENIC DESIGN FOOD INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT C.A. COSTA, M.A. LUCIANO and A.M. PASA

Was the maximum misalignment acceptable for a sanitary welding respected?

Less than 15% of depth (t) of tube, external diameter up to 29 mm.
Less than 20% of depth (t) of tube, external diameter from 29 mm to 85mm.
Less than 0.6 mm for tubes with external diameter bigger than 85 mm.
A 1.5

Misalignment

Source: EHEDG DOC35 (2006, p.12).

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

Source: EHEDG DOC13 (2004, p.13).

Do the joints have a coaxial alignment, axis limitation for controlled compression of the seal,
and room for sealing thermal expansion?

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])

Was the coefficient of thermal expansion of elastomer taken in consideration?

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

Source: EHEDG DOC13 (2004, p. 21)

FIG. 4. EXAMPLES OF VALUATION CRITERIA OF HD

758 Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753–762 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
C.A. COSTA, M.A. LUCIANO and A.M. PASA
(a) “Processes Class”: 10 criteria for welding (A1.0 to A1.9)
and 4 for surface finishing (A2.1 to A2.4);
(b) “Materials Class”: 5 criteria (B1.1 a B1.5);
(c) “Geometry Class”: 5 criteria for dead points (C1.1 a
C1.5), 5 for draining (C2.1 a C2.5), 4 for covers (C3.1 a
C3.4), 3 for borders (C4.1 a C4.3), 7 criteria for joints (C5.1
a C5.7), 4 to evaluate structures and supports (C6.1 a C6.4)
and 1 criterion for the axis edges and linkages (C7.1);
(d) “Accessories Class”: 3 criteria for unions (D1.1 a D1.3),
6 for valves (D2.1 a D2.6), 2 for sprinklers (D3.1 a D3.2)
and 4 for bearings (D4.1 a D4.4);
(e) “Sealing Class”: 3 criteria for static seals (E.1.1 a E1.3)
and 3 for dynamic seals (E.2.1 a E2.3);
(f) “Others Class”: the distribution of criteria is related to
thermal insulation (F1.1 a F1.6), auxiliary equipment (F2.1
a F2.3), installation (F3.1 a F3.5) and lubrication (F4.1 a
F4.2).
Figure 4 presents examples of criteria to be verified
during the process of HD as follows:
(a) Processes (welding): misalignment between the parts to
be welded (A 1.5);
(b) Materials: associated to the types of materials used
(B1.2);
(c) Geometry: project of outputs of discharge and auto
cleaning (C2.5);
(d) Accessories: alignment of joints (D 2.2);
(e) Sealing: elastomers for sealing (E 1.3);
(f) Others: equipment accessibility (F 3.3).
In Fig. 4, there are three columns. In the left column, it is
listed the criteria code. In the central column, each criterion
itself is presented, which must be observed during HD. The
right column lists the possible alternatives for valuation, C
(according to), NC (disagreement), NA (don’t apply), which
can be considered at the moment of the design (P), manu-
facturing (F) and installation of the product (I).
VALUATION CRITERIA VALIDATION
Equipment Under Valuation
The HD valuation criteria were validated using operational
and installed equipment in a concentrated fruit juice
company. The validation allowed identifying that some
problems could have been avoided through the criteria
observation during equipment design, manufacturing and
FIG. 6. CRITERIA OF PROCESS CLASS
ASSOCIATED TO WELDING
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753–762 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
CRITERIA FOR HYGIENIC DESIGN FOOD INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT
FIG. 5. INTERNAL WELDING IN DISAGREEMENT TO HD
installation phases. For that matter, it has been evaluated a
stainless steel piping, a blend tank and an aroma extraction
tank.
The piping (Fig. 5) makes the connection between the
blend tank and the heat exchanger (pasteurizer). In the pas-
teurizer, the juice is heated under a temperature of 74C and,
after that, passes through a stage of standing by, where it
remains under this temperature for at least 20 s, and then it
is cooled down to a temperature between −2 and −5C.
The blend tank (Fig. 7) is located in the company bottling
sector, where the product (fruit juice) patterning, based on
clients’ needs, is elaborated. The product can come from the
juice evaporators (the sector where the juice is concentrated
throughout the elimination of most of the water, normally
70% is fruit and 30% is water) as well as from the chilling
rooms where the semi-elaborated product is kept. After the
concentration process, the juice keeps its natural color and
unaltered flavor. In the patterning tanks, the product is
homogenized according to the desired quality standards,
and then it is chilled and sent to bulk storage.
The aroma extraction tank (Fig. 9) allows that, during the
process of the product evaporation, the aroma in liquid
state is separated and then used in the next stages.
Valuation Criteria of Process Class
Figure 6 shows some issues related to welding on a
pipework for fruit juice when HD valuation criteria are con-
sidered. Such problems could have been identified both by
the equipment manufacturer and the company that pur-
chased the equipment according to the criterion A1.1.
759
CRITERIA FOR HYGIENIC DESIGN FOOD INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT
FIG. 7. SHOWS A CLEANING SYSTEM OF PATTERNING TANK
The criterion A1.1 (Fig. 6) enables to identify the failure
associated to the surface quality of the welded region in
contact with the product, which may result in residual accu-
mulation, requiring a more aggressive and slower cleanness
process. This criterion should have been identified in the
equipment manufacturing process.
Valuation Criteria of Accessories Class
Figure 7 shows the cleaning system of the blend tank. This
equipment shows problems regarding sprinklers which
could have been previously identified throughout a spread
sheet of verification.
The criteria D 3.2 and D 3.3 (Fig. 8) are not in confor-
mity during project and manufacturing stages because the
sprinklers used are not rotating and do not reach 360 of
amplitude. Such item may also have been identified during
equipment installation.
Valuation Criteria of Geometry Class
The aroma extraction tank (Fig. 9) shows an inconsistence
on the cover geometry which does not prevent the entrance
of dirt in its opening. This could have been easily identified
throughout item C 3.4.
Criterion C 3.4 (Fig. 10) examines whether “the covers
are designed to inhibit the entrance of foreign bodies on
them in the event of its opening.” This item could have been
identified with the use of the spreadsheet in the project,
manufacturing and installation.
760
C.A. COSTA, M.A. LUCIANO and A.M. PASA
FIG. 9. PROBLEM IN THE DESIGN OF A TANK COVER
CONCLUSION
This paper has proposed a group of valuation criteria to
support and guide HD for food industry equipment consid-
ering 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 client’s
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 orienta-
tion classes named processes, materials, geometry, accesso-
ries, 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 equip-
ment 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.
FIG. 8. INCONSISTENCIES IN THE CLEANING
SYSTEM OF PATTERNING TANK
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753–762 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
C.A. COSTA, M.A. LUCIANO and A.M. PASA
FIG. 10. INCONSISTENCIES IN THE DESIGN OF
A TANK COVER
Eventually, the criteria can be considered as a support
tool for quality programs in food industry, as well as good
manufacturing practices, serving as basis for the improve-
ment of the equipment which the companies have already
had.
The study validation has shown how problems could
have been avoided/noticed if there was a procedure of valu-
ation to be followed.
A suggestion for further studies is the creation of a verifi-
cation spreadsheet where it is possible to set values or
grades for each evaluated criterion. Such action makes the
valuation less conservative and decreases the chances of
reproving or reworking equipment due to some detail that
does not interfere directly on the final quality of the
product.
REFERENCES
AGYAPONG-KODUA, K., BROWN, R., DARLINGTON, R. and
RATCHEV, S. 2012. An integrated product-process design
methodology for cost-effective product realisation. Int J.
Comput. Integrated Manuf. 25(9), 814–828.
ANDREASEN, M.M., KÄHLER, S., LUND, T. and SWIFT, K.
1988. Design for Assembly, 2nd Ed., IFS Publications, Bedford,
U.K.
BLANCHARD, B.S. and FABRYCKY, W.J.W. 1998. Systems
Engineering and Analysis, 3rd Ed., Editora Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
BOOTHROYD, G., DEWHURST, P. and KNIGHT, W. 2002.
Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, Taylor &
Francis Group, New York, NY.
BRALLA, J. 1999. The Design for Manufacturability Handbook,
2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
CIECHANOWSKI, P., MALINOWSKI, L. and NOWAK, T.
2007. DFX Platform for life-cycle aspects analysis. In: ISPE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CONCURRENT
ENGINEERING, 14. (CE 2007), 2007, São José dos Campos.
Proceedings . . . São José dos Campos: INPE, p. 274-281.
CLARK, K.B. and FUJIMOTO, T. 1991. Product Development
Performance: Strategy, Organization and Management in the
World Auto Industry, Harvard Business Scholl Press, Boston,
MA.
COOPER, R.G., EDGETT, S.J. and KLEINSCHMIDT, E.K. 2004.
Benchmarking best NPD practices-I: Culture, climate, teams
and senior management’s roles are the focus of this first in a
3-parts series. Res. Tech. Manag. 47(1), 1–16.
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753–762 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
CRITERIA FOR HYGIENIC DESIGN FOOD INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT
EHEDG DOC10. 2007. Hygienic Design of Closed Equipment for
Processing of Liquid Food, 2nd Ed., EHEDG Guidelines,
Frankfurt.
EHEDG DOC13. 2004. Hygienic Design for Open Equipment
for Processing of Food, 2nd Ed., EHEDG Guidelines,
Frankfurt.
EHEDG DOC14. 2004. Hygienic Requirements of Valves for Food
Processing, 2nd Ed., EHEDG Guidelines, Frankfurt.
EHEDG DOC20. 2000. Hygienic Design and Safe Use of
Double-Seat Mixproof Valves, EHEDG Guidelines, Frankfurt.
EHEDG DOC23. 2009. Use of H1 Registered Lubricants, 2nd Ed.,
EHEDG Guidelines, Frankfurt.
EHEDG DOC25. 2002. Design of Mechanical Seals for Hygienic
and Aseptic Applications (Description, Design Features and
Layout), EHEDG Guidelines, Frankfurt.
EHEDG DOC32. 2005. Materials of Construction for Equipment
in Contact with Food, EHEDG Guidelines, Frankfurt.
EHEDG DOC35. 2006. Hygienic Welding of Stainless Steel
Tubing in the Food Processing Industry, EHEDG Guidelines,
Frankfurt.
EHEDG DOC8. 2004. Hygienic Equipment Design Criteria, 2nd
Ed., EHEDG Guidelines, Frankfurt.
EHEDG DOC9. 1993. Welding Stainless Steel to Meet Hygienic
Requirements, EHEDG Guidelines, Frankfurt.
HEEMSKERK, C., BAAR, M.D., ELZENDOORN, B., KONING,
J., VERHOEVEN, T. and VREEDE, F.D. 2009. Applying
principles of design for assembly to ITER maintenance
operations. Fusion Eng. Des. 84(2–6), 911–914.
HOLAH, J. 2011. Food processing equipment design and
cleanability. http://www.flairflow4.vscht.cz/
cleaning00.pdf (accessed May 29, 2011).
HOLT, R. and BARNES, C. 2010. Towards an integrated
approach to Design for X: An agenda for decision-based DFX
research. Res. Eng. Des. 21, 123–136.
HSE – HEALTH & SAFETY EXECUTIVE. 2001. Hygienic
design of machinery in the food and drink industries.
HSE information sheet. Food Information Sheet No 24.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/fis24.pdf (accessed May 14,
2011).
IRESON, W.G. and COOMBES, C.F. Jr 1988. Handbook of
Reliability Engineering and Management, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
KUO, T., HUANG, S.H. and ZHANG, H. 2001. Design for
manufacture and design for “X”: Concepts, applications, and
perspectives. Comput. Ind. Eng. 41, 241–260.
LAWLEY, R. 2011. Hygiene by design. http://www.foodsafety
.com/pu-blic/609.cfm (accessed March 15, 2011).
761
CRITERIA FOR HYGIENIC DESIGN FOOD INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT
LELIEVELD, H.L.M., MOSTERT, M.A., HOLAH, J. and
WHITE, B. 2003. Hygiene in food processing.
http://books.google.com.br/books?id=0XJYl3JeMccC&Printsec
=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed May 15, 2011).
LORENZEN, K. 2011. Hygienic requirements for food
machinery. http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&
client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Apt-BR%Aofficial&
channel=np&q=Hygienic+requirements+for+food
+machinery+Knuth+Lorenzen%2C+EHEDG+President&oq
=Hygienic+requirements+for+food+machinery+Knuth+
Lorenzen%2C+EHEDG+President&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs
_sm=e&gs_upl=64569l65855l0l1l1l0l0l0l0l338l338l3-1
(accessed May 29, 2011).
LUPO, L. 2011. Sanitary design: A stepping stone approach. QA
Quality Assurance & Food Safety mar./abr.2011.
http://www.qualityassurance.texterity.com/
qualityassurance/20110304#pg50 (accessed May 14).
MINEHANE, S., DUANE, R. and O’SULLIVAN, P. 2000.
Design for reliability. Microelectron. Reliab. 40, 1285–1294.
PAHL, G., BEITZ, W., FELDHUSEN, J. and GROTE, K.H. 2007.
Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 3rd Ed.,
Springer-Verlag, London.
PETER, J.F., PHILLIP, T.R. and KONSTANTINA, A. 2011.
Current knowledge in hygienic design: Can we minimize
fouling and speed cleaning? Procedia Food Sci. 1, 1753–1760,
11th International Congress on Engineering and Food
(Icef11)2011.
762
C.A. COSTA, M.A. LUCIANO and A.M. PASA
PORTER, R.K. 2011. Sanitary design: A competitive advantage?
Food Safety Magazine, fev./mar.2011. http://www
.foodsafetymagazine.com/article.asp?id=3938&sub=sub1
(accessed May 14, 2011).
ROSSI, M., CHARON, S., WING, G. and EWELL, J. 2006.
Design for the next generation: Incorporating cradle-to-cradle
design into Herman Miller products. J. Ind. Ecol. 10(4),
193–210.
SALOMO, S., WISE, J. and GEMÜNDEN, H.G. 2007. NPD
planning activities and innovation performance: The
mediating role of process management and moderating effect
of product innovativeness. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 24(4),
285–302.
SELVARAJ, P., RADHAKRISHNAN, P. and ADITHAN, M.
2009. An integrated approach to design for manufacturing
and assembly based on reduction of product development
time and cost. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 42(1–2), 13–29.
SLAVILA, C.A., DECREUSE, C. and FERNEY, M. 2004.
Maintainability evaluation during the design phase. In:
Bramley AN, Culley SJ, Dekoninck EA, McMahon CA,
Medland AJ, Mileham AR, Newnes LB, Owen GW (eds)
Proceedings of the IDMME 2004 conference, Bath, UK.
XIAO, A., SEEPERSAD, C.C., ALLEN, J.K., ROSEN, D.W. and
MISTREE, F. 2007. Design for manufacturing: Application of
collaborative multidisciplinary decision-making methodology.
Eng. Optim. 39(4), 429–451.
Journal of Food Process Engineering 36 (2013) 753–762 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.