2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.fbp.2022.11.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of steam-induced wetting of food- and cosmetic-based contaminants on the efficiency of clean-in-place processes of containers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The resulting cleaning pattern was designed to clean the tank surface according to the assumed fouling intensity. Criteria for the adaptation of the nozzle movement and the cleaning procedure were: (1) targeted cleaning of unhygienic areas, (2) increase of mechanical cleaning force for hard‐to‐clean surface areas, and (3) consideration of positive cleaning effects due to soaking (Beckmann et al, 2023). The boundary conditions for optimizing the cleaning procedure were: (1) no design changes in the tank and (2) no changes in the installation positions of the tank cleaning devices.…”
Section: Cip Procedures Optimization Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The resulting cleaning pattern was designed to clean the tank surface according to the assumed fouling intensity. Criteria for the adaptation of the nozzle movement and the cleaning procedure were: (1) targeted cleaning of unhygienic areas, (2) increase of mechanical cleaning force for hard‐to‐clean surface areas, and (3) consideration of positive cleaning effects due to soaking (Beckmann et al, 2023). The boundary conditions for optimizing the cleaning procedure were: (1) no design changes in the tank and (2) no changes in the installation positions of the tank cleaning devices.…”
Section: Cip Procedures Optimization Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A chemical reaction is dependent on the cleaning temperature. Higher temperatures enhance chemical diffusion and increase the chemical reaction rate [8,[35][36][37]. However, only 73 % of the respondents used hot water for sanitation.…”
Section: B Knowledge Of the Sanitation Programmentioning
confidence: 99%