Intro - Case Study for Comparison for Conversion of Existing Packaging Line - Tunnel Pasteurization Vs. Flash Pasteurization

Note; the following article is an excerpt from a (now) more complete article here.





The following study was done by a group of Students at the Siebel Institute in 2007. Although the data (such as costs) are likely only representative, the findings are interesting:

The scenario is a brewery in the Caribbean contemplating the replacement of a 30 year old tunnel pasteurizer with flash pasteurization or filtration. It is based on a production level of 150 HL/ YR and a product mix which is 95% Light Lagers and 5% Malta. Options are that the existing pasteurizer could be replaced with:

1) Direct Replacement of the existing tunnel pasteurizer
2) Replaced with sterile filtration and filling
3) Flash pasteurization and sterile filling, and warming

The assumptions of the case study were:
No importation taxes onto the Island

· No personnel additions required (Sterile Monitoring/Filter Cleaning)

· This is a 300 BPM packaging line

· Bottles have paper labels, and are packed into plastic crates

· A cooling tower exists which treats pasteurizer discharge water

· Effluent is discharged into the sea at no cost to the brewery

· Capacity exists to treat any effluent additions of the project

· Currently, the brewery \filters lagers to 2µ, and does not filter Malta

· Cooling is required after the flash to arrive at filling temperatures

· Assumes no QC delay to market, and no impact to WIP

· If a Sterile Filler is purchased, the existing filler can be sold

· Malta would be sent from brew house to 100 bbl BBT

· Cost of spare parts and inventory adjustments has been neglected

· Pasteurizers and Warmers are cleaned by “Boil-Out” which does not create effluent

The assumptions made were:The study requested an analysis of:

1. Capital Cost
2. Operating Cost
3. Shelf Life
4. QC/QA Practices
5. Process Changes

These will be the next 5 posts.