Hygiene in Food Processing 2014
DOI: 10.1533/9780857098634.2.91
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hygienic design of food processing equipment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Roughness can be characterized through optical, laser, and force-based tech-niques, expressed in average roughness (R a ), root-meansquare (RMS or R q ), or others. To reduce liquid food adhesion, a maximum roughness (R a ≤ 0.8 µm) is recommended for food contact surfaces or close equipment (Lelieveld et al, 2014). Note that it requires low-viscosity materials to facilitate interlocking as thinner liquids penetrate the pores faster and more completely, whereas it is difficult to obtain good wetting of a rough surface by a viscous adhesive (Baldan, 2012).…”
Section: Mechanical Interlocking and Rough Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Roughness can be characterized through optical, laser, and force-based tech-niques, expressed in average roughness (R a ), root-meansquare (RMS or R q ), or others. To reduce liquid food adhesion, a maximum roughness (R a ≤ 0.8 µm) is recommended for food contact surfaces or close equipment (Lelieveld et al, 2014). Note that it requires low-viscosity materials to facilitate interlocking as thinner liquids penetrate the pores faster and more completely, whereas it is difficult to obtain good wetting of a rough surface by a viscous adhesive (Baldan, 2012).…”
Section: Mechanical Interlocking and Rough Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The appropriate, hygienic design of equipment and facilities, together with cleaning and sanitization procedures and training of personnel, are the primary strategies to control resident microbes and to mitigate the risk of introducing microorganisms to food processing environments through raw materials, employees, water, soil and air. Improper hygienic design results in niches, or “dead areas”, that are difficult to access during routine maintenance and inspections and are thus difficult to clean [ 112 ]. In addition, cleaning and sanitization procedures may only be partially effective and further shape the bacterial ecology in food processing facilities via the following pathways.…”
Section: The Use Of Sanitizers and Selective Ecologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Violating the allotted installation time due to errors during planning has a significant cost impact, with fish prices exceeding 5 USD per kg [1]. In addition, doing such retrofitting into existing FPPs is accompanied by an increased risk of bacterial contamination [2], [3] and [4] and the threat increases with installation time. These factors create a need for an efficient method to reduce commissioning costs and time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%