Product-contact geometry
Review crevices, dead legs, shadowed spray zones, ledges, hollow areas, shaft seals, threads, gasket intrusion, valve cavities, filler nozzles, and instrument connections.
Hygienic design & cleaning
Treat cleaning as a process with its own flow and evidence.
An automatic-CIP label does not prove coverage or cleanability. Define soil, circuits, hydraulic conditions, chemistry, temperature, time, drainage, manual tasks, verification, and safe human access.
Design review
Trace every surface the product and cleaning route touch.
Drainability and recovery
Identify low points, trapped product, slopes, venting, pumpability, drain paths, waste segregation, and what remains after normal discharge.
Access and inspection
Define what opens, what needs tools, safe isolation, lifting, inspection visibility, reassembly controls, and the boundary between CIP and COP or manual cleaning.
Recipe and allergen change
Map allergens, pigments, oils, particulates, fermentation soils, sequence, rework, verification method, and release responsibility.
CIP design basis
01
Define circuits, route isolation, return condition, supply and return instruments, and worst-case sections.
02
Specify chemical family and concentration control, temperature, contact time, hydraulic condition, rinse end point, and recovery or disposal.
03
Prove coverage and sequence, then validate cleaning for the facility's actual soil and hazard plan.
04
Record deviations, manual interventions, verification results, and release decisions.
Cleaning evidence
Separate design review, coverage testing, cleaning validation, and routine verification.
| Evidence stage | Question answered | Typical record |
|---|---|---|
| Hygienic design review | Can product and cleaning solutions reach, drain from, and be inspected at every relevant surface? | Contact-path drawing, dead-zone review, access and drainability inspection, deviations |
| Coverage and circuit test | Does the approved sequence reach the intended route under stated hydraulic conditions? | Flow/pressure evidence, route state, spray or coverage method, return condition, worst case |
| Cleaning validation | Does the program remove the facility's actual worst-case soil and control relevant hazards? | Product/soil basis, time/temperature/chemistry, sampling plan, method, limits and approved conclusion |
| Routine verification | Was the validated program executed and did it remain in control? | Cycle trends, concentration and rinse checks, inspection or tests, deviations and release |
EHEDG test methods evaluate defined hygienic properties or cleanability under a test method; they do not prove that a named sauce and facility cleaning program is effective. The processor still needs a validated program and routine verification for the real application. EHEDG test-method boundary
Worker exposure
Capsaicin control belongs in the project risk assessment.
OSHA sampling-method material notes occupational exposure potential during cutting and grinding in chili sauce production. Enclosure, local exhaust, work practices, PPE, cleaning, maintenance access, and emergency response should be assessed by qualified safety professionals. OSHA PV2177
Do not market an unverified line as dust-free, irritation-free, or zero exposure. Capture the raw material, operations, people, ventilation, and sampling responsibilities.
Use hygienic-design standards precisely.
“Designed with reference to” is not the same as certification. EHEDG and 3-A claims require the specific equipment, current certificate or authorization, standard, scope, and validation status. EHEDG certification guidance 3-A SSI hygienic-design update