chapter 24. food processing facility design

C H A P T E R

24

Food Processing Facility DesignTimothy J. Bowser

Food Process Engineering, Biosystems & Ag Engineering Department, R.M. Kerr Food & Ag

Products Center, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, United States

O U T L I N E

24.1 Introduction 623

24.2 Background 624

24.3 Key Facility Issues 62524.3.1 Crosscutting Issues 62524.3.2 Interacting Issues 63024.3.3 Drawings 633

24.4 Project Phases 63824.4.1 Planning 638

24.4.2 Conceptual Design 64424.4.3 Preliminary Design 64524.4.4 Final Design 64624.4.5 Construction 64624.4.6 Startup 647

24.5 Conclusion 647

References 648

Further Reading 649

24.1 INTRODUCTION

A food processing facility has been defined by the FDA (1999) as “those facilities wherefood is subject to activities that constitute processing.” Processing is further described as asystematic series of actions directed to add value to a food product. Some of the actionswill include unit operations like dehydration, size reduction (cutting, grinding, milling),heat transfer (cooking, cooling, freezing, thawing, pasteurizing), mixing, and separation(washing, sorting, grading, clarifying). Postslaughter carcass handling for meat andpoultry are also classified as processing (FDA, 1999). The purpose of a food processingfacility is to convert ingredients into shelf-stable, transportable food products that aredesirable to the consumer and generate a profit for the facility owner.

Design of a food processing facility includes the activities of ideation, planning, conceptdevelopment, testing, and evaluation. Construction startup and operation are not typicallyconsidered as part of plant design, but must be considered for successful design outcomes.

623Handbook of Farm, Dairy and Food Machinery Engineering

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814803-7.00024-5 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814803-7.00024-5

Design is often an iterative process in which the basic sciences, creativity, and experienceare applied to meet an objective which includes a variety of constraints such as economics,safety, flexibility, esthetics, reliability, and social impact (Ertas and Jones, 1996) Thepurpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of food processing facility design,highlighting some of the main factors.

24.2 BACKGROUND

Prehistoric people collected foods, such as grains or fish, and processed them in centrallocations for immediate consumption, storage, transportation, or use as currency.Documented food processing occurred as early as 3000 BCE, when workers on thepyramids of Egypt were paid with manufactured bread (Trager, 1995). One of the mostimportant early food processing facilities was probably the House of Appert, a cannerythat began operation in about 1810, based on technology discovered by the owner, NicolasAppert. Canning soon became widespread (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, 2005) andmany regard its discovery as the seminal event in modern food processing history(Pehanich, 2003). The basic food preservation technologies practiced today were discov-ered and in place by the end of the 1920s. Food Engineering (Morris, 2003) provided atimeline of the most important food processing developments from 1928 to 2003. Most ofthe listed technologies, such as air-blast freezer, forklift truck, and plate heat exchanger,are found in today’s modern food processing plants.

Automation and computer controls had one of the most significant impacts in thehistory of food plant design (Morris, 2003; Saravacos and Kostaropoulos, 2002; Cherok,2005. Economists Connor and Schick (1997) stated this differently, claiming that incomparison to other industries, food processors are “labor extensive.” The Sara Lee plantin Deerfield, Illinois, which opened in 1964, was probably the first application of a plant-wide computer control system in any industry (Gould, 1965; Thomas, 1964), and clearlymarked the beginning of the computerized era for food processing facilities. Therevolutionary Sara Lee plant included a totally automated frozen warehouse, and auto-mated batching and shipping systems (Gould, 1965). Today’s modern food plants take fulladvantage of automation technologies and are amazing centers of productivity.

In the mid-1980s, a new trend occurred in food processing plants. The number offacilities being constructed started to slowly increase. The increase was accounted for bystart-ups of small plants targeting niche markets, rather than the traditional mega-plants builtby large firms (Connor and Schick, 1997). Unfortunately, most of the smaller plants escapedthe notice of the popular media. Installation costs for facilities listed in Food Engineeringmagazine’s Plant of the Year Award have regularly exceeded 25 million dollars. Small facili-ties have also escaped the attention of the large consulting firms that carry the core knowl-edge and resources necessary for state-of-the-art facility design and construction.

Food production is becoming increasingly capital intensive. From 1963 to 1992, foodplant investment rose 7.2% per year, which is more than increases in sales, or value addedactivities. Even though the investments in new plants have increased, they made up arelatively small proportion of the total costs in the industry—about 2%�4% in the last10�20 years. Of this amount, nearly 25% was used for buildings and 75% was spent on

624 24. FOOD PROCESSING FACILITY DESIGN

HANDBOOK OF FARM, DAIRY AND FOOD MACHINERY ENGINEERING

equipment (Connor and Schick, 1997). Based on these trends, it is clear that the design ofnew food processing facilities must be better than ever to provide higher production ratesof superior products with more attractive financial returns.

24.3 KEY FACILITY ISSUES

The decision and the subsequent design path followed to develop a new foodprocessing facility is a complex undertaking that involves many sequential steps, concur-rent activities, and potential pitfalls. Each facility design is unique, but similarities betweencases exist. A new food processing facility design project begins with identification, under-standing, and resolution of key issues. These key issues fall into three broad categories: (1)products, (2) cost, and (3) prints. Products are simply what is manufactured at the facility.Cost is the estimated price of building the food manufacturing facility. Prints refer to thepaper or electronic version of the technical drawings, or plans for building themanufacturing facility (also known as blueprints). A listing of the major design itemsencountered under each key issue category is given in Table 24.1.

A graphical interpretation of the three categories and their interactions is shown inFig. 24.1. The central overlap area of Fig. 24.1 identifies crosscutting issues that arecommon within the three design categories of product, cost, and prints. Crosscuttingissues may be the most critical to project feasibility and overall success since they involveinteraction between the three categories. Table 24.2 lists the 10 crosscutting issues found innew food processing facility design. Table 24.3 lists issues that interact between two of thethree major design categories based on their location in overlap areas A, B, or C of Fig. 24.1.Area A shows interaction between the categories of product and cost. Area B encloses inter-actions between the categories of cost and prints. Area C covers the interactions betweenproduct and prints. Interacting issues found in overlap areas should be studied, identified,and treated after crosscutting issues have been resolved. Finally, individual issues locateduniquely in any of the three broad category areas should be addressed. Crosscutting issueswill now be described in the order that they are listed in Table 24.2.

24.3.1 Crosscutting Issues

Capacity of production refers to the amount of product produced per unit of time,given available resources. Several representations of capacity of production may bediscussed during facility design; these should be clearly defined to prevent misunder-standings. A brief list of capacities of production follow: theoretical, design, working,rated, machine, line, average, and sustainable. Engineering design professionals typicallysettle on design and working capacities of production. Design capacity is a theoreticalvalue and is defined as the maximum production rate possible over a given time. Workingcapacity is a practical production rate over a time interval that includes allowances forcommon production issues like stops for repairs (downtime), breaks, slowdowns, change-overs, and adjustments.



TABLE 24.1 Major Food Processing Facility Design Items (Listed in Alphabetical Order) EncounteredUnder the Key Issue Categories of Products, Cost, and Prints; Crosscutting Issues (Common in All ThreeCategories) are Listed in Italic Font

No.

Major Design Category

Product Cost Prints

1. Capacity of production Amenities Amenities

2. Ethics Automation Automation

3. Flexibility (line additions and

coproducts)

Capacity of production Capacity of production

4. Freight Cash available Cash available

5. Hygiene and sanitation Efficiency Efficiency

6. Ingredient cost Equipment cost Equipment cost

7. Locally available ingredients Ethics Ethics

8. Market demographics Facility (site, design, construction,

maintenance)

Facility and process technology/art

9. Market price/profitability Freight Facility (site, design, construction,

maintenance)

10. Packaging design Hygiene and sanitation Flexibility (line additions and

coproducts)

11. Physical properties of product Ingredient cost Hygiene and sanitation

12. Process design Insurance Labor quality

13. Research and development Labor quality Locally available construction materials

14. Safety/regulatory Market price/profitability Locally available ingredients

15. Site selection Packaging design Market demographics

16. Timing Research and development Owner preference

17. Trends Return on investment Packaging design

18. Voice of consumer Safety/regulatory Permitting

19. Waste Sales Physical properties of product

20. Site incentives Process design

21. Site selection process Research and development

22. Startup Safety/regulatory

23. Timing Site incentives

24. Trends Site selection process

25. Utilities available and cost Site topography/geography

26. Waste Timing

27. Transportation access

28. Trends

29. Utilities available and cost

30. Waste

Decisions in all aspects of food facility design must be filtered by sound ethics. AlbertEinstein (1879�1955) once said, “Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.” Relativity hasno place in food product manufacturing. Ethics of food processing (Bliss, 2011; Singer andMason, 2007) and manufacturing (Kutz, 2007; Gottwald, et al., 2010) deserve and are receivingmore attention. Animal welfare, environmental stewardship, and contract awards are exam-ples where ethical filters are established and improving. Product formulation, packagingchoices, plant and animal genetics, robotics, and reactions to consumer trends representareas of nascent ethical reasoning. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an increasing

FIGURE 24.1 Graphic showing the three descriptivecategories important to food processing facility success andthe interaction between categories. The hatched area indi-cates the location of crosscutting issues that are present in allthree categories and therefore have the most significantinteraction. The letters A, B, and C indicate the remaininginteraction areas between the three categories.

TABLE 24.2 Key Crosscutting Issues Common in All Three Major FacilityDesign Categories of Product, Cost, and Prints (Located in the Hatched Areaof Fig. 24.1), Listed in Alphabetical Order

No. Key Crosscutting Issues

1. Capacity of production

2. Ethics

3. Hygiene and sanitation

4. Packaging design

5. Research and development

6. Safety/regulatory

7. Site selection

8. Timing

9. Trends

10. Waste



trend in ethics that many companies have leveraged to improve brand perception toconsumers (Pino et al., 2016).

Of the crosscutting issues listed in Table 24.2, hygiene and sanitation have probablyreceived the most attention in the literature. Wieringa and Holah (2003) claim that hygieneis the number one element common in the design of all food plants. Milledge (1980) pointedout that a clean plant atmosphere will also inspire operators to practice good hygiene. Shoreand Jowitt (1971) summarized the objective of good hygiene as the maximization of sanita-tion during production and the minimization of cleanup effort required afterward. Thereader is encouraged to consult the literature available on hygiene and sanitation (Lelieveldand Holah, 2011; Clark, 2008; Cramer, 2006; Etienne, 2006; Marriott and Gravani, 2006;Lelieveld et al., 2003; Imholte, 1984; Jowitt, 1980) specifically related to facility design.

Packaging design choices influence product development and specifications of batch-size, shelf life, texture, and filling parameters such as fill volume or weight, temperature,and uniformity. Many food products are less costly to produce than the packaging thatcontains them. Efforts to optimize packaging processes and costs frequently have the high-est potential to impact profitability. For these reasons, packaging costs may be the mostcritical, single expense in food product manufacturing. Packaging influences thedevelopment of prints by dictating processing requirements, space for packaging machin-ery, storage space for packaging materials and finished goods, and accommodation forchange and future packaging upgrades.

Innovations, breakthroughs, and improvements that result from research anddevelopment have a broad and long-lasting impact on the food industry. Food Engineeringmagazine (Morris, 2003) compiled a list of major technologies that, because of their

TABLE 24.3 Interactions Between Two Major Design Categories

No.

Major Design Category Pair Interactions

Product/Cost (Fig. 24.1Overlap Area A)

Product/Prints (Fig. 24.1 OverlapArea C) Cost/Prints (Fig. 24.1 Overlap Area B)

1. Freight Flexibility (line additions andcoproducts)

Amenities

2. Ingredient cost Locally available ingredients Automation

3. Market price/profitability

Capacity of production Efficiency

4. Physical properties of product Cash available

5. Process design Equipment cost

6. Facility (site, design, construction,maintenance)

7. Labor quality

8. Site incentives

9. Utilities available and cost



implementation, have changed the face of food processing facility design over the past 75years. Majoor (2003) suggested that clean-in-place technologies and their implementationhave directly affected facility design, layout, and processes. Breakthroughs in processdevelopment have reduced costs. For example, form/fill/seal machines have made it pos-sible for one device to replace three pieces of equipment in a smaller footprint.

Human and product safety are integrated with every facet of food processing facilitydesign with a goal of producing safer products in a safer facility. Kletz (1998) described awidely accepted approach to accomplish inherently safer design. Safety matters havesufficient gravity to justify government and third party regulatory agencies. The FoodDrug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was one of the first examples of legislation that seriouslyinfluenced the design of food processing facilities (Gould, 1994). Other significant regula-tions and programs include the USDA Meat Inspection Act, the Good ManufacturingPractices, the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, the Occupation Health Safety Act, theEnvironmental Protection Act, Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system(Cherok, 2005; Saravacos and Kostaropoulos, 2002; Imholte, 1984), and the Food SafetyModernization Act (FSMA) of 2012.

Fassl and Schweizer (2004) cited the Bioterrorism Act as being a legislative piece thatchanged the entire food development, manufacturing, and distribution chain. Impact ofthe Bioterrorism Act has been far exceeded by the FSMA. Several years after enactment,the true significance of this landmark legislation continues to unfold. Burns andMcDonnell (2012) forecast that FSMA would affect plant design with regard to implemen-tation of preventative controls. True to their prediction, the concept of hygienic zoningwas introduced as a tool for preventive controls and environmental monitoring (FSPCA,2016). Besides legislation, policies and procedures affecting safety have been developed byindustry, professional societies, and special interest groups. The 3-A Sanitary Standards(3-A Sanitary Standards, Inc., 2012) are an example of an organization that promotesvoluntary standards that help to improve food plant design.

Good soil, a gentle slope, and close proximity to the interstate and railways are notenough to attract potential buyers to a building site. Historically, and now more than ever,facility site selection depends greatly on special incentives such as free or low-cost land,low mortgage, workforce education, tax breaks, and low utilities prices (Robberts, 2002).Most owners select several sites and encourage potential providers to bid against eachother in a contest to “win” the new facility. Beyond this very important bidding war, thereis a long list of site features that must be examined during the selection process Jowitt,1980; Imholte, 1984; Lee, 1997; Gould, 1994; Hall et al., 1963; De Meirleir, 2007).

Timing can be critical through all stages of food processing facility design. A sudden out-break of a foodborne illness or disease could affect public perception and the movements ofthe market, causing funding to disappear quickly. Other examples of unforeseen timing-related events are dips in the economy, shifting international markets, changing businesscompetition, seasonal fluctuations, and new research findings. Future Beef Operations (FBO)is an example of how timing can affect facility design. FBO was a highly celebrated [FoodEngineering (2003) magazine’s 2002 plant of the year] meat processing facility that neverachieved success despite “revolutionary” processing concepts and automation. Wes Ishmael,editor of Beef magazine (Ishmael, 2002) explained the reasons for the demise of FBO andincluded the statement “if timing is everything, the FBO had it all—bad timing that is.” Afteronly one year from opening, a court ordered FBO into Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.



Trends in manufacturing and in consumers’ diets can have significant impact on thedesign of a food processing facility. The following manufacturing trends were identifiedby Food Engineering Magazine’s 2017 State of Food Manufacturing Survey (Schug, 2017)(listed in order): automation, staff-related issues, equipment-related issues, food safety,government regulations, new products, budget constraints, clean labeling, outsourcing,and technology-related advancements. Not coincidentally, every trend on this list appearsin some form in Table 24.1.

Today, wood and wood materials are no longer used to frame structures (Imholte,1984). Stainless steel is the preferred material for wall, ceiling, drain, and curb coverings(Milledge, 1980) and process equipment (Gilmore, 2003). In the 1970s, the Department ofDefense suggested that the design of food plants should reduce their vulnerability tonuclear attack, and provide fallout shelters (U.S. Department of Defense, 1970);fortunately, this trend has disappeared. Multilevel structures were preferred in the 1960s(Parker and Litchfield, 1962) but have largely been replaced with single-story structures(Wieringa and Holah, 2003; Saravacos and Kostaropoulos, 2002). Automation is long-standing trend in the food industry (Schug, 2017) and has gained momentum recentlybecause of the limited availability and expense of labor and the increased availability andlower cost of technology and equipment. These few examples illustrate the impact oftrends on food facility design, a phenomenon that is challenging to predict.

Importance of waste recycling, handling, and disposal is frequently underestimated inpractice of facility design. Good facility design will facilitate waste minimization anddisposal activities. Waste cannot be stored for long periods and must be quickly removedfrom the premises. Products may be defined, formulated, and produced to minimizewaste; this effort places special demands on processing space, utilities, hygiene, materialshandling, and other facility design issues. For example, onsite reclamation and use of graywater will reduce potable water needs and wastewater disposal. Coproducts, like petfoods, can be purposefully designed to make use of primary product waste streams.Shipping containers may be washed and reused. Waste corrugated can be baled for recy-cling. Exhaust oven heat may be recovered for preheating air or products.

24.3.2 Interacting Issues

In this section, the interaction areas A, B, and C, shown in Fig. 24.1, will be described.Area A shows interactions between the categories of cost and product. Three key issuesare found in this region: freight, ingredient cost, and market price/profitability. Freightrelates to the cost of delivery, mode of transport, handling, and destination of materialsand products. These variables directly affect the product packaging and design for shelf-stability and consumer acceptance. Ingredient cost will naturally influence the product,having impact on many issues, including processing steps, product quality, and shelf life.Additional or fewer processing steps may be needed, depending on the purchase specifi-cation of the ingredient. Further-processed ingredients may cost more, but require lessonsite work. Product quality and shelf life may be improved by purchasing better qualityingredients. For example, a gelatin with a higher bloom strength is more expensive, butmay result in improved texture, lower overall cost, and longer shelf life compared with



alternatives. Pricing and profitability of the product affects many factors including processdesign, product quality, consumer acceptance, return on investment, and sales.

Overlap area B contains the largest number of overlap issues between the categories ofcost and prints: automation and efficiency, cash available, equipment cost, facility, laborquality, site incentives, and utilities costs and availability. Automation and efficiency canbe improved in areas such as process, facility, materials handling, waste reduction, laborsavings, and ingredient savings. Morris (2003) stated that most recent innovations in foodprocessing have focused on efficiency and effectiveness, since the basic science has beendeveloped. Collaborative robot technology is now available to improve the efficiency ofrepetitive motion processes (Belanger-Barrette, 2015).

Availability of cash and credit for investment is an obvious cost and prints issue. Oftenthe owner’s desire for a state-of-the-art facility yields to the practicality of finances andreturn on investment. Equipment and facilities costs will have serious impacts on facilitydesign. For example, continuous processes often have higher equipment costs and requireadditional space compared with batch operations. Factors leading to design of prints suchas engineer selection, site layout and location, and type of construction contribute directlyto the overall cost of the facility.

Designers may consider increased levels of automation when skilled maintenance work-ers and operators are available; lowering the cost of manufacturing and increasingthroughput. Site incentives supplied by property owners and municipalities seeking toentice new facilities can play a significant role in facility design and economics as previ-ously mentioned. Utilities costs daily impact the bottom line of plant operation. Decisionsto make use of a particular utility and alternatives or backups may change design space,ventilation, security, access, storage, and other design features.

Overlap area C includes six interaction issues from product and prints: flexibility,locally available ingredients, market demographics, packaging design, physical propertiesof the product, and ingredients and process design. Flexibility (without excess complexityor expense) for product and design is of great value to facility operations and allowscapacity increases, line extensions, ingredient changes, and other options such as utilityconversions. Flexibility may be a liability if it is cumbersome and introduces product andsafety hazards. For example, a biomass-to-energy system could result in unexpecteddowntime, reduced throughput rates, and a pest-control hazard.

Locally available ingredients are frequently a lynchpin in the decision to locate a foodplant. Local ingredient availability can improve product quality, reduce freight, and possi-bly reduce storage costs of ingredients. Use of local products may also enhance the publicopinion and reputation of the plant.

“Market demographics” is a term that refers to the statistical characteristics of a particu-lar food consumer group. Food processing companies need strategies to help them identifyconsumer target groups and understand how their unique characteristics affect purchasingbehavior. For instance, the annual food and beverage market for children is in excess of$27 billion (Swann, 2007). Demographic research reports are available covering manyconsumer groups, such as active seniors, African Americans, college students, teens, andluxury consumers (Packaged Facts, 2012). Market demographics is an important issue inselecting a product line(s) to manufacture. Will customers purchase the product? Howmuch will it cost to make the product and can target customers afford to pay for it? Whatis the best plant design to manufacture a high quality, safe product?



An understanding of the physical properties of the product and ingredients are impor-tant for process design, materials handling, and safety. For example, ingredients that maycreate dust could be flammable. Systems can be designed to limit the amount of dust andignition sources and minimize damage caused by explosions. Pumping of some liquidingredients may result in significant erosion of piping when flow rates, geometry, andmaterials of construction are not properly selected. Eroded piping could result in leaks,safety hazards, and downtime.

Process design determines the steps that transform raw ingredients into a final product,greatly influencing the outcome of prints. Three examples of process design affectingprints follow. First, batch processing is generally less space-intensive when compared withcontinuous processing. Next, ambient product cooling processes are often more costeffective than refrigerated cooling, but require additional physical space and materialshandling equipment. Finally, manual processes normally require more space, additionallighting and ventilation, increased traffic lanes, and increased employee welfare areascompared with automated processes.

Individual issues in the three categories of product, cost, and prints will now beaddressed. The only individual issue in the product category is voice of the customer.Voice of the consumer is the feedback received from customers on their likes, dislikes,needs, and desires for the product and is used for continuous improvement activities.

Unique issues in the cost category include insurance, return on investment, sales, andstartup. Insurance premiums will influence the profitability of the investment. In somecases, facility design choices are made specifically to reduce insurance costs. Firebreaksand sprinkling features are examples. Return on investment is often represented as apercentage value calculated using a set method determined by company leadership. Thefacility payback schedule must satisfy the desired return on investment or the project willnot be funded. Sales have an obvious bearing on finances. A safe, high-quality productwith a recognized brand and good marketing will enhance sales and profitability. Costs ofsales including personnel, returns, shelf space, distribution, and retail fees must bemanaged carefully to maintain profits. Startup is a one-time cost that is factored into theoverall facility investment and will be discussed in a later section.

Individual issues falling in the prints category include facility and process art, locallyavailable construction materials, owner preference, permitting, site topography and geog-raphy, and transportation access. Facility and process art are the combination of science,technology, creativity, and experience embodied by the team of professionals selected toaccomplish the food process facility design. The skills, creativity, and ability to communi-cate of the team members are proportional to the results. Hiring consultants with variedand strong backgrounds can pay off handsomely in the quality and cost of the printsdeveloped for the project.

Materials from local manufacturing plants such as acid brick, masonry, steel, tile, andinsulation should be considered for facility construction due to availability, pricing consid-erations, community relationships, and transportation costs. Many facility owners andmanagers will have firm preferences for facility design based on their experiences andpersonal beliefs. Best results for facility design follow when objectivity and willingness toexplore new approaches are maintained. Quantitative score sheets can be used to facilitateobjective evaluation of design alternatives (Bowser, 1999).



Permits and licenses are required to begin construction and operation of new processingfacilities. Permits and licenses involving long approval times should be targeted early tomaintain the project schedule. A partial list and discussion of required permits andlicenses is available by searching the US Small Business Administration website (USSBA,2018). Site topography and geology can dramatically affect the design of a facility. Steepslopes, for example, are favorable for multilevel facilities. Geology will affect foundationand structural plans. Transportation access is important to activities both within and with-out the facility, affecting shape, orientation, and safety considerations of the building.

24.3.3 Drawings

Table 24.4 shows a listing of the drawings typically rendered during the conceptual,preliminary, and final design phases of food processing facilities. A description of each designphase drawing follows. Site plans show land use for the immediate project and for the future.Buildings, parking, retention areas, open space, and “green” areas are depicted. Fig. 24.2 is an

TABLE 24.4 Drawing List for a Typical Food Processing Facility Design Project and AssociatedDesign Phase or Phases

Drawing

Design Phase

Conceptual Preliminary Final

Site plan X X X

PFD X X X

GA X X X

UFD X X X

Single-line electrical diagram X X X

Alternative design drawings X

P&ID X X

Floor plans X X X

Roof plans X X

Foundation plans (equipment and building) X X

Lighting plan X X

Reflected ceiling plan X X

HVAC X X

Controls diagrams X X

Fire protection plan X X

Plumbing details X

Construction drawings (package) X

PFD, Process flow diagram; GA, general arrangement drawing; UFD, utility flow diagram; P&ID, piping and

instrumentation diagram.



FIGURE 24.2 Conceptual site plan for a meat processing facility. Source: Used with permission from Lockwood Greene Engineers.

example of a site plan for a food processing facility. A site plan should reflect the businessstrategy of the organization, as well as the building and grounds layout of the facility. Siteplans are normally formulated by a team of specialists including industrial and civilengineers, architects, and facility designers (Lee, 1997).

Process flow diagrams (PFDs) are among the first drawings rendered. PFDs are continu-ously updated, and are useful to the owners long after the facility design project is closed.They show major steps or elements in plant processes. Process steps are represented bysimple shapes, which are interconnected by flow arrows. Materials, utilities, inputs, andoutputs are included for each step. Bowser (1999) provides examples and thoroughlyexplains the use and utility of PFDs. Fig. 24.3 shows a simple PFD of a portion of a tamaleproduction line.

General arrangement drawings (GAs) show the physical layout of an area within abuilding or structure, including equipment and access space. Fig. 24.4 is an example of aGA of a portion of a meat processing line. GAs are used to build processes into a givenspace. Field personnel use GAs to set equipment into its proper location. Envelopes areoften outlined around equipment and adjacent areas to reserve space for maintenance andoperation activities. GAs may include architectural walls, windows and door openings,

FIGURE 24.3 Simple process flow diagram (PFD) of a portion of a tamale production line. Inputs and outputsare shown enclosed in parallelograms and may include reference to other PFDs (if applicable). Process elementsare given in rectangles along with equipment numbers (if applicable). Materials and energy flow are shown byarrows. The numbered bubbles identify flow arrows.



equipment and process layout, personnel egress, vehicle lanes and movement, and mainte-nance activity areas.

A utility flow diagram (UFD) is a specialized PFD that focuses on the connectedutilities of the facility. UFDs are often drawn for electrical, steam, water, natural gas,ammonia, compressed air, ethylene glycol, and refrigerant connections. Single-line elec-trical diagrams are simplified representations of the plant’s electrical system that broadlyshow the power flow of the various major components such as transformers, switchgear, main distribution panels, and motor control centers. Alternate design drawings areused only in the conceptual phase and refer to any of the conceptual drawing types usedto describe substitute design paths. It is ultimately up to the facility owner to designatewhich of the conceptual drawings are alternate. Piping and instrumentation diagrams(P&IDs) show actual equipment, connections, piping details, line sizes, insulation, utilityconnections, and other information needed to install a working process (see examplein Fig. 24.5). P&IDs are schematic only, and do not represent the physical layout ofequipment and piping.

FIGURE 24.4 General arrangement drawing of a meat processing line. Source: Used with permission from theR.M. Kerr Food & Agricultural Products Center, Oklahoma State University.



Floor, roof, foundation, lighting, and reflected ceiling plans, are all specific types of GAdrawings. Floor plans show details of floors, walls, openings, ramps, railings, mezzanines,columns, and floor areas, including drains, slope, penetrations, and related details neededfor construction. Roof plans detail the materials, framing, joist and girders, dimensions,pitch, penetrations, egress, foundations for roof-mounted equipment, ice control, waterdrainage, and other information important to roof construction. Foundation plans givefooting requirements including materials, cross sections, and rebar size and placement.Lighting plans may include indoor and outdoor fixture locations, mounting heights, plotsdemonstrating adequate intensities and uniformities of light, proposed hours of operation,and maintenance schedules. Reflected ceiling plans show the location of lighting fixtures,ceiling coverings, decorative materials, fire sprinkler heads, smoke detectors, and air venti-lation grills.

Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) drawings detail the heating, ventilat-ing, and air-conditioning systems of the facility, including refrigeration systems or pro-cess freezers, coolers, and heaters. Control diagrams describe the regulation ofimportant process and facility systems such as HVAC, building security, fire control,computer systems, and process operations. Fire protection plans include informationabout items that may include fire resistive walls and partitions, doors, fire extinguish-ers, alarms, lighting, smoke detectors, signs, fire suppression systems, and egress path-ways. Plumbing detail drawings provide information needed to construct and connectpiping to deliver and remove gas and fluids to and from fixtures and equipment

FIGURE 24.5 Piping and instrumentation diagram for a hot-fill beverage process. Source: Used with permissionfrom the R.M. Kerr Food & Agricultural Products Center, Oklahoma State University.



located in or around the facility. Construction drawings encompass a complete set ofdrawings needed to guide the builders in construction of a facility. Construction draw-ings may include specific information for the following disciplines: civil/site, struc-tural, architectural, electrical, interior and furnishing, plumbing, HVAC, processpiping, utility piping, refrigeration, controls, electrical, and mechanical.

24.4 PROJECT PHASES

Facility design consists of four major project phases:

1. Planning and feasibility2. Conceptual design3. Preliminary design4. Final design

Final design normally leads to construction and startup. All project phases are interde-pendent and required for sound project design and successful completion. Error checkingand continuous improvement activities should be integral to each phase. A description ofthe four design phases follows, including a short treatment of construction and startup.Construction and startup are not necessarily classified as “design” phases, but the lessonslearned during the execution of these two phases are vital to the improvement of futuredesigns. In each description, the expected results are described, followed by a list ofoutputs for the phase.

24.4.1 Planning

Outputs for the planning phase of the project include:

• Scope of work• Goals and objectives• Project schedule• Identity of key participants• Project budget• Request for proposal (to solicit bids for facility design and construction)• External interfaces (USDA, FDA)• Planning session notes

Ben Franklin wrote, “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.” Food processingfacility design and construction require a great deal of organized planning. The material inthis section was developed over many years. Information to support planning must becollected from a wide array of sources and combined into documents that are simple toread and share with others. Some planning documents will merely be checklists, or fill-in-the-blank sheets, while others will provide a detailed summary of project requirements,such as the materials handling needs for a particular ingredient.



Planning sessions are a key activity of this phase and should involve persons thatrepresent all aspects of activities within and around the facility. Examples are production,maintenance, supervision, sales, accounting, receiving, warehousing, distribution, humanresources, management, engineering, research and development (Bowser, 1999), suppliers(products and services), government agencies, and consultants. Consultants includeengineers, lawyers, insurance providers, and other specialists who may not be regularlyemployed by the company. Scheduled planning sessions may proceed more smoothlywhen held at a convenient location that is free from normal work distractions. It is oftendesirable to obtain an unrelated third party to take notes, lead, and moderate planningsessions to retain objectivity and purpose. Providing an agenda for each planning sessionis essential.

Many of the elements to consider when planning food-processing plants are given inthis section. Since each situation is unique, some elements may not apply and other impor-tant elements may need to be added. Elements are not listed in any particular order ofimportance. Lists of planning considerations are grouped under four headings.

1. Cross-cutting and multicategory issues (see Table 24.1 and Fig. 24.1)2. Product3. Cost4. Prints

Examples and a brief explanation of the desired input are given for selected elements.

24.4.1.1 Crosscutting and Multicategory Issues

The cross-cutting and multicategory issues list contains elements that can be classifiedin two or more of the planning consideration areas of product, cost, and prints.

1. Capacity of productiona. Design capacity (theoretical production rate)b. Working capacity (includes downtime, production inefficiencies, breaks, and other

factors)c. Production materials and ingredients storaged. Finished product storagee. Inspection procedures, sampling and analysisf. Utilities required

2. Ethicsa. Human welfare: personnel, consumers, stakeholdersb. Product safetyc. Animal welfared. Environmental stewardshipe. Citizenshipf. Fiscal responsibilitiesg. Sales and marketingh. Technology utilizationi. Sustainability

63924.4 PROJECT PHASES


3. Hygiene and sanitationa. Sanitary facilities (cleaning and sanitizing methods and systems required)b. Standards and standard operating procedures: housekeeping, raw materials handling

and storage, processed and finished product handling and storage, waste handlingprocedures, current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs), HACCP program,FSMA, identification and treatment of visitors, handling of hazardous chemicals

c. Waste treatment, handling, disposal and recovery: wastewater pretreatment,secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment systems

d. Facility design for cleanliness: cleaning and sanitation, layout, materials flow,materials handling, grease trap location, HVAC system pressure and balance,building exterior, floors and drains, walls and ceilings, ventilation (static pressure,temperature and humidity control, filtration, makeup, and circulation), lighting(interior and exterior), pest proofing, surface treatments and coatings, truck andrailcar sanitation, warehouse wall and aisles clearance, and anterooms

4. Market demographicsa. Customer (location, age, income, habits, interests)b. Transportation methods, carriers, and routesc. Segmentationd. Salese. Market forecast

5. Research and developmenta. New technology and applications: process/equipment, facility and design,

product/packageb. Cost savings, waste reductionc. Time savings

6. Safety/Regulatorya. Personnelb. Environmentalc. Product and process: risk assessment, metal detection, line magnets and strainers,

cGMPs, explosion and other hazards, and regulatory requirements (local, state,federal, international)

d. Facility: protective guards for doors, walls, and openings; alarm systems; andcommunications

7. Site selectiona. Footprint size of the proposed facility (area): footprint of individual areas (storage,

cooler, processing, packaging, etc.), plan view of the proposed facilities layout, andestimate of expansion requirements

b. Utilities: Source(s) and cost to provide utility service as shown in Table 24.5.Review the impact of variable demand charges (if any) and limitations on quantity(e.g., concentration of waste discharge to treatment system); consider includingmeters or other devices to record utility usage and provide data for improvingoperating efficiency

c. Applicable code and permit requirements for business, construction, andenvironmental (local, state, federal, and international)

d. Expansion capability and space availability



e. Parking and access: delivery trucks, truck drivers lounge, railcar, employee, fireand emergency vehicles, ice and snow removal, and special designation (inspector,visitor, customer, etc.)

f. Local labor poolg. Local infrastructure (training facilities, hospitals, schools, services)h. Cropping practicesi. Soil typesj. Weather patternsk. Flooding

8. Timinga. Startup and marketingb. Competitionc. Emergent trendsd. Economye. Businessf. News headlines (political, outbreaks, consumer health)

9. Trendsa. Consumer health and demand (organic, natural, clean label)b. Technology research and development (nutraceuticals, high pressure processing,

ohmic heating)c. Packaging [e.g., recyclable, plastic vs. glass, radiofrequency identification device,

microwaveable]d. Process [e.g., process and analytical technology, just-in-time, lean manufacturing]e. Labor (salaries, benefit packages, training history, ethnic background)f. Facility design (single level, daycare, exercise facilities)g. Construction (favored materials and techniques of installation, design-build, other)

10. Wastea. Eliminationb. Reductionc. Recyclingd. Disposal

TABLE 24.5 Utility Source, Availability, Capacity, Fee, and Rate

Utility

Source (Provide Contact

Name and Phone Number) Hook-Up Fee Capacity (Maximum) Rate

Electric kW $/kW

Natural gas Therm $/therm

Water L $/1000 L

Sewage L/day $/1000 L

Solid waste m3/day $/m3

Other



24.4.1.2 Product

1. Describe the value-added products to be processed as shown in the examples given inTable 24.6. Include future requirements.

2. Describe the physical properties of ingredients, intermediate, and final product(s)(include or forecast ingredients in plans). Intermediate products may be important incases where physical properties and/or handling requirements of the intermediates areunique when compared with the ingredients and final product. Descriptions ofingredients and value-added products may include the following information: commonname of ingredient, source or specification, density (weight per volume), corrosivenature, viscosity (indicate temperature or range of temperatures), sensitivity to air,sensitivity to temperature, sensitivity to moisture, sensitivity to materials (contact),requirement for agitation or mixing, dustiness, flammability, volatility, reactivity,bridging, abrasive nature, toxicity, freezing point, boiling point, flowability, particlesize, stiffness, thermal properties, and electrical properties.

3. Provide recipes and examples of product/packaging materials if available.4. Product and process safety: coverings over exposed product and open containers, line

magnets and strainers, metal detection, X-ray inspection, cGMPs, and traceability.5. Determine how ingredients or raw materials will be delivered to the facility (truck, rail,

barge, pipe, delivery size, pallet or container size, stacking specifications, temperature,frequency, supply capability, and plans for handling).

6. Determine how packaging materials will be delivered to the facility (truck, rail, barge,delivery size, frequency, pallet dimensions, stacking specifications, case size, plans forhandling).

7. Describe how finished goods leave the facility (frequency, pallet requirement,wrapping, coding, handling requirement).

8. Refrigerated storage requirement (volume or area or amount of products/materials/pallets and temperatures) for proper handling, rotation, and placement of goods:a. Raw materials (ingredients)b. Finished productc. Reworkd. Long term storage requirements for seasonal goods

TABLE 24.6 Description of Product, Production Rate, and Package

Product

Production Rate

PackageMin Max Period

Sports beverage in 750 mLcontainer, three recipes

500/min 750/min Two,10-hshifts

Plastic bottle with shrink label; 6- and 12 packsin 24-bottle tray cases with plastic overwrap

Baked dog biscuits in fourshapes

350 kg/h 400 kg/h One, 8-h shift

1 kg net weight in a Mylar bag in paper box

Precooked, frozen sausagepatties

250 patties/min

300 patties/min

Two, 8-h shifts

100-count, poly bag with a twist-tie in acorrugated box



9. Ambient temperature storage requirement (volume or area or amount of products/materials/pallets):a. Raw materials (ingredients)b. Finished productc. Packaging materialsd. Reworke. Long-term storage for seasonal products (estimate)f. Incoming materials inspection and storage

24.4.1.3 Cost

1. External image desired for the facility (e.g., state-of-the-art, expansive, futuristic,practical)

2. Return on investment required3. Cash available, interest rates, and financing4. Budget estimates for large expenses: site, facility, equipment, installation, consulting

services, planning, training, startup, freight5. Marketing and sales history and forecast6. Freight7. Packaging8. Negotiations for site incentives: labor rates, training, utilities, land, permitting, taxes,

infrastructure, loans, grants, and credits

24.4.1.4 Prints

1. Expansiona. Facilityb. Processc. Storaged. Waste treatmente. Utilities servicesf. Parkingg. Access points and methods

2. Test kitchen3. Research and development laboratory4. Pilot plant5. Seasonal processing requirements6. Utility use and treatment needs (e.g., water, steam, compressed air)7. Energy and process materials recovery systems8. Gray-side maintenance (placement of service equipment and high-maintenance

portions of process equipment in rooms that are physically separate from production)9. Type of construction (steel frame, concrete, panel, prepackaged, etc.)

10. Ventilation and room/area static pressures11. Floor material and finish requirements or preference12. Drain types and locations13. Overhead clearance available or required in designated areas (especially processing)14. Description of access requirements to facility and dimensions of openings



15. Flooring, walls and ceiling specifications in washdown and special-use areas16. Floor drain size, type, and location in washdown and process areas17. Type (drop-down, floor or wall) and number of utilities connections (electric, steam,

water, air, etc.) in process areas18. Employee service facilities requirements such as drinking water fountains, toilet and

lavatory facilities, change rooms, training or classrooms, retiring room, first aid, foodservice, exercise, wellness, daycare, and pet care

19. Process electrical equipment rating (washdown, dust proof, explosion proof, etc.)20. Electrical switch gear and motor control room location21. Emergency power: Indicate the amount (size or percentage of area) and temperature of

refrigerated warehouse or facility area to be protected by an emergency power source(if any)

22. Process organization and flowa. Materials flow (product, waste, rework, packaging, ingredients, and intermediates)

and storageb. Personnel flowc. Data collection and manipulation

23. Level of process automation desired for the facility (e.g., manual, semiautomated orfully automated)

24. Level of packaging automation desired for the facility (e.g., manual, semiautomated orfully automated)

25. Carton or case requirements for products26. Internal image desired for the facility (e.g., state-of-the-art, modern, or utility)27. Equipment preferences (suppliers, new or used)28. Flexibility (changeovers, seasonal packs or products, and future upgrades)29. Reliability of equipment (lifetime requirement)30. Structural materials available and preference31. Strategy for grouping separate refrigerated areas to maximize energy efficiency,

materials handling requirements, and expansion needs32. Freezer design, frost management, foundation protection33. Disaster protection (hurricane, flood, earthquake)

24.4.2 Conceptual Design

Outputs that can be expected from the conceptual design phase include

• Conceptual design studies• Models• Drawings (see Table 24.4)• Cost estimate (6 30%)• Code review (building, process, environmental)• Conceptual design schedule• Major equipment (includes process, HVAC, and electrical) list and location plan• Materials of construction• Product and packaging specifications



• Production rates• Area classification (clean room, temperature or humidity control, hazardous materials, etc.)• Control systems requirements• Structural material options

Conceptual design of a new food processing facility involves conceiving it in theabstract, based on concrete instances, new knowledge, and visionary thinking. A thoroughidentification and assessment of the design problem is carried out as the initial task of thisphase. Literature references such as books, catalogs, encyclopedias, journal articles, hand-books, websites, and patents should be fully utilized. Lopez-Gomez and Barbosa-Canovas(2005) recommend an evaluation of the socioeconomic context of the plant design. Theyalso outline the latest techniques for analysis of process alternatives, mathematicalmodeling of food processing systems, and simulation of food plants.

Conceptual design assembles all of the facts generated in the planning phase. Planningresults and information obtained from references are integrated with other reliable infor-mation such as historical processing data, design data, laboratory and pilot plant studies,and research results. A model of an existing process (if available) is a useful starting place.Open issues are addressed by commissioning design studies (Bowser, 1999).

24.4.3 Preliminary Design

Outputs expected from the preliminary design phase may include

• Preliminary design studies• Drawings (see Table 24.4)• Cost estimate (6 15%)• Preliminary schedule• Preliminary design calculations• Major equipment (includes process, packaging, HVAC, and electrical) list and location

plan• Preliminary construction specifications (structural materials options and materials of

construction)• Area classification (e.g., biosafety level, explosion, fire protection)• Safety analysis• Detailed building code analysis• Civil engineering code review• Control system functional specification• Instrument list• Electrical load data• Lighting levels and fixture identification• HVAC code investigation and operation plan• Equipment motor list• Design calculations• Pipe sizing and specifications• Environmental permits



• Utility loads investigation• Building insulation specifications• Equipment specifications• Bid list and bid documents

Preliminary design supplies the details needed to make the conceptual design into afunctioning food processing facility using currently available equipment, materials, andtechniques. Design studies may be needed in this phase to evaluate alternatives and tocontinue to develop conceptual design into full-scale operations (Bowser, 1999).

24.4.4 Final Design

Final design phase typically produces outputs such as

• Drawings (see Table 24.4)• Final cost estimate (6 10%)• Construction specifications• Process equipment and installation• Specifications• Safety analysis• Calculations• Demolition plan• Permits• Instrumentation specifications• Control system specifications• Software design and specifications• Software test plan• Motor list• Purchase order preparation• Bid analysis

In final design, all of the documents necessary for facility construction are generatedand approved. Bid packages are sent to contractors and suppliers and subsequent quota-tions are evaluated using predetermined procedures. Quantitative bid evaluation methodsare described by Bowser (1999). Based on the results, orders are sent to suppliers andcontractors. All drawings are checked and revised as needed.

24.4.5 Construction

The construction phase of the facility design process produces the following documentoutcomes:

• Construction drawings• Construction specifications• Installation guidelines• Punch list



• Operations and maintenance manuals• Record drawings

Planning is the firm foundation that precedes legendary construction. Felix Dennis said,“Ideas don’t make you rich. The correct execution of ideas does.” Construction is the timeand place for correct execution of plans. Construction is the physical phase of the visualaspects of the project. Activities of this phase include site grading, utilities installation,concrete work, roofing, and finishing and setting of equipment. In design-build projects,construction starts long before the final design has been completed. Space may be enclosedto protect further construction activities from the weather. Successful planning and prepa-ration will have accounted for delivery of long-lead materials such as steel. Environmentalpermits and site remediation are other examples of early planning items that are requiredto facilitate construction.

24.4.6 Startup

The startup phase produces the following deliverables:

• Salable product• Nonsalable product• Training classes/manuals• Useful feedback for continuous improvement of design processes

The final phase of facility installation is startup. Startup includes the production of sal-able and nonsalable product at partial and full production speeds. Operators and supportpersonnel will benefit from live training during startup. Facility design personnel exposedto startup issues will gain feedback for continuous improvement of future designs.Budgeting adequate time and expenses for startup is necessary. Significant materials andlabor charges can be incurred during startup, and unforeseen delays in this phase canerode the confidence of management, financial supporters, and personnel. Diligent plan-ning and construction will lead to a smooth startup process. Record drawings are the lastitems to be completed in the startup phase and are finished when project drawings areupdated to reflect installed and operating conditions (Shore and Jowitt, 1971).

24.5 CONCLUSION

Food processing facility design is a challenging, dynamic, and exciting activity thatrequires an organized, methodical approach to achieve success. Success is often celebratedwhen the facility has fulfilled the requirements of the startup phase on schedule andwithin budget. True success, however, is best measured by the long-term satisfaction ofthe plant management, operations, maintenance, engineering, and cleanup crews. Theintrinsic value of advance planning and sound design and construction will be appreciatedfor many years in a food processing facility that is profitable, simple to operate and main-tain, and adaptable to meet the changes of an industry that is constantly in transition.

64724.5 CONCLUSION


References

3-A Sanitary Standards, Inc., 2012. The 3-A Symbol, ,http://www.3-a.org/symbol/about.html#benefits..Belanger-Barrette, 2015. Robotiq’s Blog. What Does Collaborative Robot Mean? ,https://blog.robotiq.com/what-

does-collaborative-robot-mean..Bliss, J., 2011. Processing Your Food (Ethics of Food). Hinemann-Raintree Publishing, Mankato, MN, p. 56p.Bowser, T.J., 1999. Process Engineering Method for Food and Agricultural Products, Circular E-959. Oklahoma

State University, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Division of Agricultural Sciences and NaturalResources, Stillwater, OK.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, July 2005. “Canning”. Encyclopaedia Britannica Premium Service. ,http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId5 9359675..

Burns & McDonnell, Inc., 2012. A New Taste of Regulation. ,http://www.burnsmcd.com/BenchMark/Article/A-New-Taste-of-Regulation..

Cherok, G., 2005. Personal Communication, Global Client Development Manager, Food, Beverages, Ingredients.Lockwood Greene Engineers, Cincinnati, OH.

Clark, J.P., 2008. Practical Design, Construction and Operation of Food Facilities. Academic Press, MarylandHeights, MO, p. 328p.

Connor, J.M., Schick, W.A., 1997. 117-118, 122, 224 Food Processing and Industrial Powerhouse in Transition, sec-ond ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 234.

Cramer, M.M., 2006. Food Plant Sanitation: Design, Maintenance, and Good Manufacturing Practices. CRC Press,Boca Raton, FL, p. 304p.

De Meirleir, M. (Ed.), 2007. Location, Location, Location: A Plant Location and Site Selection Guide. HaworthPress, Inc, Philadelphia, PA.

Ertas, A., Jones, J.C., 1996. Ch. 1 The Engineering Design Process, second ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.Etienne, G., 2006. Principles of Cleaning and Sanitation in the Food and Beverage Industry. iUniverse, Inc,

Bloomington, IN, p. 418p.Fassl, J., Schweizer, K., 2004. Annual plant construction survey: plant projects tool down. Food Eng. 76 (6), 46�50.FDA, 1999. Guidance for Industry: Antimicrobial Food Additives. US Food & Drug Administration,

Silver Springs, MD, ,http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodIngredientsandPackaging/ucm077256.htm#7..

Food Engineering, 2003. no. 9 21 Years of Manufacturing Excellence, vol. 75. BNP Media, Troy, MI, pp. 79�90.FSPCA, 2016. first ed. Preventive Controls for Human Food Training Curriculum, V1.2. Food Safety Preventive

Controls Alliance, ,https://www.ifsh.iit.edu/fspca/fspca-preventive-controls-human-food. (accessed July18.07.18).

Gilmore, T., 2003. Hygiene regulation in the United States. In: Lelieveld, H.L.M., Mostert, M.A., Holah, J., White,B. (Eds.), Hygiene in Food Processing. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, England, pp. 44�57.

Gottwald, F., Ingensiep, H.W., Meinhardt, M. (Eds.), 2010. Food Ethics. Springer Science1Business Media, NewYork, NY.

Gould, G.A., 1965. Integrated computer systems. Food Eng. 26 (1), 76�87.Gould, W.A., 1994. CGMP’s/Food Plant Sanitation. CTI Publications, Inc, Baltimore, MD.Hall, H.S., Rosen, Y., Blombergsson, H., 1963. Milk Plant Layout. Food and Agricultural Organization of the

United Nations, Rome.Imholte, T.J., 1984. , pp. 14, 37, 268 Engineering for Food Safety and Sanitation: A Guide to the Sanitary Design of

Food Plants and Food Plant Equipment. Technical Institute of Food Safety, Crystal, MN.Ishmael, W., November 2002. Why future beef went under. Beef Magazine. Primedia Business Magazines and

Media, Skokie, IL.Jowitt, R., 1980. Hygienic Design and Operation of Food Plant. The AVI Publishing Company, Inc, Westport, CT.Kletz, T., 1998. Process Plants: A Handbook for Inherently Safer Design. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA, p. 209p.Kutz, M. (Ed.), 2007. Environmental Conscious Manufacturing. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Lee, Q., 1997. ch. 6 Facilities and Workplace Design, an Illustrated Guide. Institute of Industrial Engineers,

Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA, p. 188.Lelieveld, H.L.M., Mostert, M.A., Holah, J., White, B., 2003. Hygiene in Food Processing. Woodhead Publishing,

Limited, Cambridge, England.Lelieveld, H.L.M., Holah, J. (Eds.), 2011. Hygienic Design of Food Factories. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK.



http://www.3-a.org/symbol/about.html#benefits

https://blog.robotiq.com/what-does-collaborative-robot-mean

https://blog.robotiq.com/what-does-collaborative-robot-mean

http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-12-814803-7.00024-5/sbref1




http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9359675



http://www.burnsmcd.com/BenchMark/Article/A-New-Taste-of-Regulation

http://www.burnsmcd.com/BenchMark/Article/A-New-Taste-of-Regulation
















http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodIngredientsandPackaging/ucm077256.htm#7

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodIngredientsandPackaging/ucm077256.htm#7



https://www.ifsh.iit.edu/fspca/fspca-preventive-controls-human-food
























Lopez-Gomez, A., Barbosa-Canovas, G.V., 2005. ch. 2, 5 Food Plant Design. Taylor & Francis Group, New York,pp. 10�14.

Majoor, F.A., 2003. Cleaning in place. In: Lelieveld, H.L.M., Mostert, M.A., Holah, J., White, B. (Eds.), Hygiene inFood Processing. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, England, p. 210.

Marriott, N.G., Gravani, R.B., 2006. Principles of Food Sanitation, fifth ed. Springer, New York, NY, p. 427p.Milledge, J.J., 1980. The hygienic design of food plant: liquid ‘hold-up’. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Reading,

pp. 22, 26, 36.Morris, C.E., 2003. 75 Years of food frontiers. Food Eng. 75 (9), 54�63.Packaged Facts, 2012. Packaged Facts: A Division of MarketResearch.com. ,http://www.packagedfacts.com..Parker, M.E., Litchfield, J.H., 1962. Food Plant Sanitation. Reinhold Publishing Corp, New York.Pehanich, M., 2003. Hail to the innovators: the food engineering hall of fame. Food Eng. 75 (9), 65�78.Pino, G., Amatulli, C., Deangelis, M., Alessandro, A.M., 2016. The influence of corporate social responsibility on

consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward genetically modified foods: evidence from Italy. J. Clean. Prod.112, 2861�2869.

Robberts, T.C., 2002. Food Plant Engineering Systems. CRC Press. LLC, Boca Raton, FL, p. 203.Saravacos, G.D., Kostaropoulos, A.E., 2002. Handbook of Food Processing Equipment. Kluwer Academic/Plenum

Publishers, New York, pp. 1�46.Schug, D., 2017. State of Food Manufacturing Survey the Top 10 Trends Affecting the Future of Food

Manufacturing 2018. ,https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/articles/96847-state-of-food-manufacturing-2017-survey..

Shore, D.T., Jowitt, R., 1971. Design and operation of food plant. In: Fox, A. (Ed.), Hygiene and Food Production.The Williams and Wilkins Company, Baltimore, MD, p. 134.

Singer, P., Mason, J., 2007. The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. Rodale, Inc, Emmaus, PA,pp. 151�169.

Swann, L., 2007. Food and Beverage Market for Kids Growing Like a Weed. ,http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2006/126.html..

Thomas, G.C., 1964. How Sara Lee tackled computerized handling. Modern Mater. Handl. 19 (8), 34�37.Trager, J., 1995. Ch. 1 The Food Chronology. Henry Holt and Company, Inc, New York.U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Civil Defense with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Center, 1970. 1, 2, 14 Facility Protection for Food Processing Plants: An Industrial Civil Defense Handbook forMinimizing Damage in Case of Nuclear Attack. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

USSBA, 2018. Apply for Licenses and Permits. ,https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch-your-business/apply-licenses-and-permits..

Wieringa, G., Holah, J.T., 2003. Hygienic plant design. In: Jowitt, R. (Ed.), Hygiene Design and Operation of FoodPlant. The AVI Publishing Company, Inc, Westport, CT, pp. 79�108.

Further Reading

Bowser, T.J., 1998. Planning the engineering design of a food processing facility. Fact Sheet FAPC-104. OklahomaState University, Food and Agricultural Products Center, Stillwater, OK.

649FURTHER READING










http://www.packagedfacts.com












https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/articles/96847-state-of-food-manufacturing-2017-survey

https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/articles/96847-state-of-food-manufacturing-2017-survey






http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2006/126.html

http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2006/126.html







https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch-your-business/apply-licenses-and-permits

https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch-your-business/apply-licenses-and-permits




