02638762/04/$30.00+0.

00
# 2004 Institution of Chemical Engineers
Trans IChemE, Part A, November 2004
Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 82(A11): 14851493

FOOD SAFETY AND HYGIENE

Systematic Layout Planning of Food Processes
D. P. VAN DONK and G. GAALMAN
Department of Production Systems Design, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

H
ygiene and food safety have been dealt with from different fields of science such as
biology and health, and from different angles such as HACCP and GMP. Little
systematically ordered knowledge is available for the analysis of a layout, taking
hygienic factors into account. HACCP and GMP are perfectly usable for monitoring and
determining risks in a running operation. These methods are also good to show that hygiene
is dealt with in a proper way, but they do not translate risks into layout-specific requirements.
On the other hand, layout planning has been used for decades in production management and
one can find elaborate methods in the production management literature, but hygienic factors
have not been systematically dealt with here. This paper offers an approach that enables
hygienic layout design of a food-processing plant that is particularly useful in production
engineering and design for food processing companies that face a large number of product
changes.

Keywords: hygiene; food processing; layout; hygienic design.

INTRODUCTION point of view. It is expected that these rules will be further

One of the crucial elements in current food processing is
safety of the products (Figee and Oortwijn, 2004; Lelieveld
et al., 2003). Most consumers associate safety with pro-
ducts that are produced while taking ultimate care with
respect to hygiene. Failing to produce according to (high)
hygienic standards has a direct influence on production
efficiency by loss of production, but an even greater
effect through loss of consumer confidence.
Hygiene has been approached from various angles. A sub-
stantial amount of work has been done on biology and health
(Banwart, 1989). Here the main topics are the circumstances
that favour growth of bacteria and other micro-organisms and
how to stop growth or even remove micro-organisms from
food products. In health sciences the influence of micro-
organisms on people is the main subject of study. These
studies look at single effects and means of preventing
these effects.
Another view on hygiene is offered if it is considered
from a legal perspective (see first three chapters in Lelie-
veld et al., 2003). A large number of national and European
rules and regulations prescribe in detail what is allowed or
needed for products to be safe and good from a hygiene

Correspondence to: Dr D. P. van Donk, University of Groningen, Depart-
ment of Production Systems Design, P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen,
The Netherlands.
E-mail: d.p.van.donk@bdk.rug.nl
tightened, and conforming to these rules is generally seen
as a minimal level of performance. However, laws hardly
provide information on how to reach an acceptable level
of hygiene.
Chemical and food engineering provide a number of
rules and knowledge to design and run food processing
plants. Most of this knowledge applies to designing a
greenfield site from scratch. Within this field substantial
knowledge is available with respect to equipment design,
plant design (stressing all aspects of civil engineering
such as walls, floors, heating, piping), air control, control
of personnel, and use of materials (see Lelieveld et al.,
2003, EHEDG, 2003 and the associated articles in Trends
in Food Science and Technology). However, most of
these contributions pay attention to specific technical
aspects of hygienic design at the detailed level of machines,
materials used, floors, piping, etc. Publications and reports
almost neglect one aspect of hygienic design as distin-
guished by Holah (2000): the systematic analysis and
evaluation of an overall factory with the aim of segregating
work areas to control hazards. Segregation of work areas
(or hygienic zoning, EHEDG, 2003) is important for food
processing industries as they are characterized by a con-
tinuous change in volume, type and mix of products (see
Meulenberg. and Viaene, 1998; Figee and Oortwijn,
2004) due to constantly changing market requirements.
These apply to new products for specific groups of custo-
mers that might need specific hygienic care. In contrast to
many chemical factories, a large number of food processing

1485
1486 VAN DONK and GAALMAN
industries constantly need to adapt their equipment to the
changing requirements of new recipes and products.
From a management point of view, hygiene is
approached as a control problem. Based on management
principles, Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
(HACCP) (De Smedt and Easter, 1994) and Good Manu-
facturing Practice (GMP) have been implemented to help
plants to maintain high levels of hygiene. Here as well,
these approaches have proven their value in food proces-
sing companies, but give hardly any help in designing or
redesigning the layout of a plant to maintain hygienic stan-
dards. Their main aim is to be able to prove that production
has been executed according to the predetermined rules and
that critical points are sufficiently controlled.
The aim of this paper is to develop a decision aid that can
be used to evaluate the design or redesign of the layout of
food processing plants, explicitly taking into account hygiene
of product and process and aiming to find the appropriate seg-
regation of work areas or different hygienic zones. This is
usually considered one of the aspects of hygienic design
(Holah, 2000). Our decision tool can be part of a HACCP
analysis for a running plant or can be used in the (re)design
stage. Product and process are taken into account by develop-
ing methods to determine product sensitivity and required
hygiene level, as the pivotal elements in layout engineering.
Although large industries and engineering offices have
developed tools and methods for this purpose, there is no
systematic method published that is widely available for
finding the appropriate level of segregation. In our research
project we found that small and medium-sized companies
have a lack of knowledge in this field. The present paper
aims to fill this gap in the available literature.
While in discrete manufacturing, layout decisions aim to
locate specific processes close to each other to minimize
the flow of goods, layout decisions in food processing,
taking into account a hygiene perspective aim in design
and engineering often limit the level of interaction between
stages, as the order of the process is given. Our approach is
inspired by principles of layout planning and design as
developed in the field of production engineering on the
one hand, and the specific characteristics of food processing
industries and its products on the other hand. While
hygiene is relevant for all food processing companies, our
approach is specifically suited for companies that deal
with turbulent markets and relatively many new product
introductions that operate batch processes, which are
partly open. Large scale, continuous processes that have
a totally closed process (like a dairy plant) will probably
benefit less from the insights developed here.
The paper is organized as follows. The next section will
introduce the food processing industry and its main charac-
teristics. Then we will give the standard approach to layout
planning and use it to address the situation in food process-
ing. The fourth section of the paper will start to describe
two main elements for layout decisions: product sensitivity
and the required level of process hygiene. Determining
those is pivotal for the decisions with respect to which pro-
cesses need to be separated and which processes can be
located in one room (referred to as hygienic zoning).
The subsequent section will use these elements to explain
the five steps of our approach. The sixth section will
describe parts of a real-life application to illustrate the
approach. We end with some conclusions.
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A11): 14851493
HYGIENE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
FOOD PROCESSING
The food processing industry has a number of specific
characteristics that distinguish it from other industries.
Some of these characteristics can be encountered in other
process industries, but the blend of characteristics is
unique. These characteristics relate to the different stages
of processing, the type of layout, and the specific characte-
ristics of demand, as sketched above. Most of the characte-
ristics influence the hygiene of products.
Typically, a food processing industry has four main
stages (e.g. Van Donk, 2001): storage of raw materials, the
actual processing/production of food products, packaging
and storage/distribution of finished products. We shortly
pay attention to these four stages and relate them to hygiene
(risks). Most attention will be paid to the processing stage.
The first stage (storage) normally has limited hygiene
risks that are related to the way raw materials are stored
and the type of packaging used for those raw materials.
Still, some risk with respect to micro-organism, vermin
and physical risk (e.g. dust) exist. However, raw materials
will normally be cleaned or controlled before processing,
limiting risks. At this stage different types of raw materials
such as packaging and natural raw materials should be
separated.
With respect to processing stage, Potter and Hotchkiss
(1995) distinguish a number of typical unit operations in
food processing:
(1) Cleaning of raw materials is mainly done to remove
physical dirt from the ingredients. Micro-organisms
are mostly removed in subsequent steps, unless raw
materials enter a room with a high hygiene level
directly.
(2) Separation is used to remove parts or raw materials
that are below standard, but mostly to separate the
unwanted parts from the useful part (e.g. making juice
of oranges or refining sugar). At this stage the hygiene
can be affected positively (e.g. sugar is more stable
than sugar beets), or negatively (e.g. peeled potatoes
are more easily affected than unpeeled potatoes).
(3) Disintegration is a process that reduces the size of raw
materials by cutting, homogenizing, pulping or milling.
Disintegration is easily influenced by infection either
because the equipment is infected/not clean enough
or because the disintegrated raw material is prone to
infection by micro-organisms.
(4) Mixing is a step in which different ingredients are put
together to form an intermediate or finished product.
As a general rule, adding water increases hygiene
risk. Mixing products with vinegar or sugar will usually
conserve the mix.
(5) Heating is often used to destroy the majority of the
micro-organisms by pasteurization or sterilization.
Other reasons for heating are to change the character-
istics of a product by cooking, baking or steaming.
Mostly the hygiene effect is positive, as micro-organ-
isms are destroyed. Heating frozen materials can have
the opposite effect.
(6) Cooling is often used to stop the growth of micro-
organisms (temperatures below 78C) and will extend
the life of food products (e.g. frozen foods). However,
 FOOD SAFETY AND HYGIENE
micro-organisms can become active as soon as the
temperature rises.
(7) Evaporation is the removal of water in order to concen-
trate the food product. Mostly the effect on hygiene is
positive as evaporation is usually done at high tempera-
tures, moreover micro-organisms are far less active at
low concentration of water.
(8) Drying removes as much water from a product as
possible. As such it can be considered a natural next
step from evaporation. Here the effect on micro-organ-
isms is even greater as the percentage of water can be
as low as 2 3%, which effectively stops the growth.
(9) Forming is a process that gives a food product its
physical appearance. Here the greatest risk for hygiene
is machinery that is not cleaned well enough.
In practice, it might be difficult to define precisely the main
category from those presented above. For example, is the
milling of flower a separating step or mainly a disintegra-
tion step, and is distillation mainly heating or separating?
Mostly, different unit operations will overlap.
Packaging is often integrated with processing: products
are packaged directly after pasteurization as in the packa-
ging of beverages using one integrated operation, or pro-
ducts are packaged and then sterilized, as in canned meat.
In other situations products are prepared and then packaged
as a final step. Examples can be found in salads or
beverages. In all cases the greatest dangers are that unin-
tended elements are packed or that the packaging material
itself contains some micro-organisms.
The last stage (the storage of packaged products) usually
has limited hygiene risks. Most risks can directly be
connected to the type of packaging and how easily it can
be damaged, and to necessary conditions for storing (e.g.
cold storing).
While the above gives the main stages of a typical food
processing plant, the subjects of the sequence and location
of processes and stages are not explicitly addressed. That
will be done in the next section.
LAYOUT AND DETERMINING A LAYOUT
Generally, layout can be defined as the arrangement of
processing stages to different spaces and the interaction
between these spaces. In production management one of
the best-known methods for determining this arrangement
is systematic layout planning (SLP), as developed by
Muther and Haganas (1969). In SLP it is assumed that
the location of facilities, equipment and staff is primarily
based on their mutual relationship. Typical elements
included in SLP are the amount of goods to be transported
between processing stages, the movements of people or
shared usage of certain equipment. Flows of goods,
people and equipment between departments or between
an organization and its suppliers or clients are typically
addressed. Most attention has been paid to situations
where products have different routings or order of process-
ing such as in the manufacture of discrete parts in a
jobshop.
In general, SLP distinguishes a number of steps to deter-
mine a layout:
(1) collect information on relations between the whole
plant and its suppliers and other outside relations;
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A11): 14851493
1487
(2) collect information relating to all work centres and
their relations;
(3) draw a schematic layout showing the flow of goods
between the work centres;
(4) adjust the schematic layout to take into account the
available space;
(5) evaluate the resulting layout and associated costs of
flow of goods and consider alternatives at lower costs.
The central aim of SLP is to find a layout that minimizes
the costs of transportation of goods. In other words the
aim is to locate suitable departments as close as possible.
Layout decisions in food processing are different in
nature: the sequence of different processing steps is
given, a product-oriented layout (Forsyth and Hayes,
1998). From a hygiene point of view, stages might influ-
ence each other as dirt or micro-organisms in one stage
can influence the processing and quality in a next stage.
Moreover, subsequent stages are connected as the products
move from one stage to the next. A basic difference
between the standard SLP approach and what is needed
in our case is that SLP assumes closeness between stages,
while we need to know what types of interaction might
occur, how this interaction might influence quality and
hygiene of food products, and if we need to take measures
to restrict or even prevent interaction between stages.
Whereas in SLP minimizing the flow of goods is the
main reason for location of one stage near another stage,
it is not directly clear what the important elements in
food processing are for making the above decisions on
interaction and demarcations between stages, such that
hygiene of the product is best maintained.
As hygiene of products is the main point of attention, we
submit that the characteristics of the product are an impor-
tant element. Here, we focus on those attributes of a product
that determine hygiene or can diminish hygiene. A product
cannot be considered in isolation, because all types of fac-
tors from the processing environment can directly influence
hygiene. Factors include the flow of goods from other
stages, influences from possible interaction with issues out-
side the plant, temperature of the processing environment,
and carriers of micro-organisms like air and people.
In general, we can state that our method aims to restrict
the influence of environmental factors depending upon the
characteristics of the product. Restricting those influences
means making a choice between two extremes: totally
demarcated process stages and totally free interaction
between stages. Between those two extremes, several
types of limited interaction between processing stages are
possible.
METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE
REQUIRED HYGIENE LEVEL
Guiding the layout decision are the required hygiene
levels at each stage of production. The required hygiene
level of a stage is defined as the level of hygiene that
prevents a product deteriorating during that stage. The
required hygiene level is a means of controlling the effects
of environmental factors. Literature pays attention to diffe-
rent hygienic levels or different zones (e.g. EHEDG, 2003)
and the consequences for each zone with respect to
hygiene. However, there is no systematic method available
1488 VAN DONK and GAALMAN
Figure 1. Main steps in determining the required hygiene level.
to determine the required hygiene level or appropriate zone.
The method developed here integrates existing knowledge
in the fields of hygiene and food safety. The basic steps
are shown in Figure 1. The starting point for our analysis
is the product characteristics. Product characteristics are
limited to those influencing the decay of a product. We
use these characteristics to determine the product sensi-
tivity. This part of the method excludes outside influences.
In general, high product sensitivity will result in higher
requirements in the processing environment, but we need
a structured way to find out what is required. In the next
step, the processing conditions or environmental factors
are analysed. The result of this part of our structured
approach is the required hygiene level or zone in a stage.
The analysis needs to be performed for each processing
stage. Each of the central themes of Figure 1 will be further
elaborated.
Product Characteristics and Product Sensitivity
The main indicator for the risk of deterioration or decay
is the product sensitivity. In order to be able to differentiate
between products, we distinguish three categories of pro-
duct sensitivity (see Table 1).
The literature (Jay, 1996; Adams and Moss, 2000) pays
attention to different product characteristics and their influ-
ence on product sensitivity. Mostly, each characteristic is
treated separately. From the literature four main product
characteristics can be distilled: the level of water activity
Table 1. Categories of product sensitivity.
Product
sensitivity Characteristics Typical examples
Category 1 Highly sensitive for growth Fresh products, fish, meat,
of micro-organisms dairy, vegetables
Category 2 Sensitive for growth of Bread, cheese, citrons,
micro-organisms salami
Category 3 Almost insensitive for growth Toast, flower, sugar,
of micro-organisms vinegar
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A11): 14851493
in a product, the degree of acidity (pH-value), the presence
of nutrition, and the level of preservatives in the pro-
duct. The ideal circumstances for micro-organisms are
availability of nutrition, high or medium water activity in
a product (above 0.98 or between 0.70 and 0.98 water
activity), moderate acidity (pH between 3.5 and 10) and
the absence of preservatives. Extreme high (.10) or low
(,3.5) acidity or low water activity make growth of
micro-organisms hardly possible. Based on this knowledge
we can construct a relatively simple model to determine the
category of product sensitivity that offers a coherent model
that combines all known elements into one decision model
(see Figure 2). The model is confirmed by interviews with
experienced practitioners and comparing their opinion with
the outcomes of our model.
A first remark with respect to Figure 2, is that for pro-
ducts such as most (alcoholic) beverages and oils the
above model cannot be used. These products have a distinct
method of production and need an adapted model. A
second remark is that, whenever products are composed
and the different ingredients are not blended to become a
homogeneous mix (as in a salad), the most sensitive
element should be taken to determine product sensitivity.
Interaction between components is hard to forecast. A
last remark is that the numerical values mentioned in the
model might need adaptation to either specific circum-
stances or legislation.
The Required Hygiene Level
The literature has different categorizations for the
hygiene level (Lelieveld et al., 2003; EHEDG, 2003),
which can be specific for a certain type of industry (e.g.
FIL-IDF, 1997). Here we distinguish six levels, as shown
in Table 2, based on the literature and on the levels used
in practice.
The model for determining the required hygiene level of
a production stage has a number of inputs. The most
important is the product sensitivity, which indicates how
vulnerable a product is. For each category of product sen-
sitivity, we thus construct a separate decision model for
determining the required hygiene level. Basically three
types of inputs are needed: type of process, processing con-
ditions and type of end-users. The literature does not offer
an integrated approach that uses different factors in a struc-
tured way. However, the literature (e.g. Adams and Moss,
2000; Banwart, 1989) clearly lists some of the major
process factors: temperature, humidity and type of process
equipment (open vs closed). Relevant processing con-
ditions are whether the product is already packaged and
whether the product still needs to undergo a preservative
process (e.g. sterilizing, heating). The last factor is the
type of end user. Generally, babies, children, elderly and
sick people can be considered at-risk groups, for whom a
higher level of hygiene is required: a clear example is the
production of drip-feeds for these groups.
Some remarks can be made with respect to the above fac-
tors and their relation to hygiene. Open processes need a
higher level of hygiene of the processing room than
closed processes. As long as a product still needs to be pre-
served, a lower hygiene level will be required, unless
growth of micro-organisms needs to be prevented. At
high and low temperatures of the environment, growth of
 FOOD SAFETY AND HYGIENE 1489

Figure 2. Determining the product sensitivity category.

micro-organisms is unlikely, whereas a temperature range
of 36 388C is optimal (and comfortable in a range of
20 388C) for most micro-organisms, necessitating a high
hygiene level. However, for some micro-organisms quite
different optimal ranges exist.
In order to deal with all these factors and conditions, we
developed a structured decision diagram for determining
the required hygiene level, as shown in Figure 3. As
noted, each product sensitivity category is different, thus
separate diagrams are needed for each category. Figure 3
shows the diagram for a product sensitivity of category 1.
Similar diagrams have been developed for the other
categories, but we have left them out due to a lack of
space. The approach needs to be applied for each processing
stage again.
The main difference between the left and right parts of
Figure 3 is the difference between a closed and an open
process. If micro-organisms are not de-activated in the cur-
rent stage (but later in the process), keeping the activity of
micro-organisms low is not that important, unless the level
of micro-organisms is relevant for the decay or toxicity of a
product. Specifically, if the temperatures are within a range
that is optimal for growth of micro-organisms, the hygiene
level of the production room should be high. In general, we

Table 2. Description of hygiene levels.

Hygiene level Type of room Risk-level Example

Level 1 Micro clean Extremely high Preparation of baby food

in open process
Level 2 High care Very high Preparation of meat
Level 3 Medium care High Removing packaging of
nutritious ingredients
before processing
Level 4 Low care Negligable Mixing of dry ingredients
Level 5 Room to support Zero Storing packaged goods
production
Level 6 Non-production Situation-dependent Offices

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A11): 14851493
1490 VAN DONK and GAALMAN
Figure 3. Determining the required hygiene level for product sensitivity level category 1.
need a higher level of hygiene if the products are produced
for an at-risk group such as small children or babies.
Some specific attention needs to be given if a process
stage aims to preserve the food product. The preservation
activities (e.g. cooking, sterilization, pasteurization) are
not easily affected, as infections by micro-organisms
during these activities will have no effect. If the product
leaves preservation in a packaged form, hygiene levels
can be fairly low (level 4), unless a specific at-risk group
is produced for. If the product leaves preservation without
packaging, we need higher levels of hygiene (level 2 or 3 or
even level 1 if specific at-risk groups are involved). For
closed processes, we can take lower levels that depend on
the answers to the questions depicted on the left-hand
side of Figure 3. As indicated earlier, for totally closed
processes our approach is less applicable.
The above section provides us with the means to deter-
mine the required level of hygiene for stages in a food pro-
cessing company. That knowledge is necessary in making
layout decisions in food processing companies: determin-
ing demarcations and the level of interaction between
stages. That will be the subject of the next section.
DETERMINING A HYGIENIC LAYOUT
As explained earlier, SLP normally distinguishes five
steps. These five steps are adapted to be useful for deter-
mining a layout for food processing taking into account
hygiene. As explained, determining a hygienic layout
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A11): 14851493
mainly addresses the determination of the level of per-
mitted interaction (ranging from demarcation to free inter-
action) between process stages, as the sequence of the
processing steps determines the location and place of the
processing steps opposite to each other (a product-oriented
layout).
In the first two steps of our approach, relevant infor-
mation is collected on external influences (as in step 1 of
SLP) and on the process stages (as in step 2 of SLP). The
third step determines the required hygiene level for each
stage of processing. The fourth stage determines the per-
mitted level of interaction between stages and the type
and level of demarcations based on the hygiene levels.
Here the flow of goods as well as other indirectly process-
related flows such as materials and people are taken into
account. These two steps are comparable to steps 3 and 4
of SLP. In these steps, the basic decisions regarding
layout are taken. The last step evaluates (as in SLP) the
resulting layout and alternative solutions are considered.
It should be clear that the steps below are comparable
with the steps taken in a HACCP analysis. The main differ-
ences are the incorporation of the product sensitivity and
the required hygiene level. Further refinement of the last
steps can be based on existing knowledge in hygienic
design (e.g. Lelieveld et al., 2003; EHEDG, 2003).
(1) Determine the possible interaction between factory and
environment and the effects of this interaction on
hygiene. In this step the analysis focuses at the plant
level, without interest in the details of the production
 FOOD SAFETY AND HYGIENE
processes. In general, the influences of outside light,
temperature, dirt and vermin are determined here.
Specific attention is given to the construction and
place of roofs, doors and windows, as they are potential
spots that give easy access to a plant. Another import-
ant factor is the influence on hygiene of suppliers of
materials. At best, supply personnel are not allowed
to enter production rooms. As a general rule, we pro-
pose locating the most vulnerable parts of the process
in the middle of the factory.
(2) Determine and analyse the stream of products of sub-
sequent process stages and the type of processing
taking place in each stage. The type of processes
described in the second section of this paper can give
some guidelines and some first indicators of what mat-
ters for hygiene in each processing stage. We aim in
this stage to get a clear picture of the subsequent
stages. A product-oriented layout can be a straight
line, but arrangement into an angle, U-shape or other
forms are possible as well. In general one should be
very careful if a line is crossed by another line.
A second point to consider is the type of production:
batch or continuous. Batch production in kettles is
quite common, for example in preparation of canned
meat, sausages and soups. Production in batches may
give rise to the need to have buffer stocks between
two stages that may give rise to specific hygiene pro-
blems. Continuous production leads to an ongoing
flow of products between subsequent production
stages and the rooms associated with these.
Different parts of production can join together in the
later stages of processing. Most food processing com-
panies have only a limited number of packaging
lines, which need to be suited to packaging different
products. Lines can be divergent (as in slaughter
houses) or convergent (assembly-type of operation,
e.g. putting together different elements of a pre-
cooked meal on a plate before packaging). In both
cases the necessary hygiene level needs to be carefully
determined. This also holds true for different products
that are processed on one line.
(3) Determine the required hygiene level for each stage.
The hygiene level depends on the product sensitivity
and the processing conditions as elaborated in the pre-
vious section.
(4) Determine the permitted level of interaction and the
demarcation between different processing stages.
Large differences in required hygiene levels of sub-
sequent stages will normally result in a demarcation.
Stages requiring a high level of hygiene can possibly
be located in one production room. Other reasons to
restrict the interaction between or separate two stages
are differences in temperature, or wet and dry sub-
sequent processing stages. In this step the need, type
and level of interaction and separation between stages
are mainly determined in our approach. In addition to
the above, the remaining (indirectly process-related)
interaction between different spaces (and their possible
effects on hygiene), stemming from flow of materials,
air or personnel needs attention. Even if stages in
processing are clearly separated, products need to be
transported from one stage to the next. Each mode of
transportation can affect an aspect of hygiene for the
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A11): 14851493
1491
next stage: it is generally proposed that an automatic
conveyor belt does not run from one stage to another,
but is divided into different parts. Material handling
equipment used in different rooms, pallets or packaging
materials can be a source of infection. Waste should be
disposed of rapidly in order to prevent infection from
garbage cans. An important source of infections is
the movement of people. High-level hygiene stages
need separate locker rooms and personal sluices for
entry to limit the danger of infection. This step possibly
adds additional boundaries to those directly stemming
from differences in hygiene level and determines how
interaction between stages can be controlled or limited.
The literature (e.g. EHEDG, 2003; Lelieveld et al.,
2003) offers many technical tools to design and main-
tain hygiene with respect to each of the separate
elements mentioned.
(5) This step evaluates the resulting layout, the demar-
cations and permitted interactions and considers
alternatives. Possible actions can be to see if one pro-
cessing stage can be combined with another not
directly subsequent stage into one room, if both need
the same (high) hygiene level. It can consider if it is
better to have two subsequent processes at the same
hygiene level in one room instead of having a separ-
ation between them. In general, alternatives are con-
sidered also taking economic or practical aspects such
as ease of maintaining certain rules into consideration.
So far, we have checked the above steps (including the
determination of hygiene level) in a number of existing
plants. We have also discussed the method with experts
from the field. Our approach can find the same solutions/
decisions, demarcations and permitted interaction between
stages in a number of cases, which were considered to
be examples of good practice. One of the cases will be
discussed in the next section.
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE STUDY
This case concerns a relatively simple food processing
process. The product is a prepacked meal that consists of
a number of ingredients. The main ingredients are chicken,
vegetables, a dairy product, cooked sausage, and additives
like spices, cream, oil and vinegar. All ingredients arrive at
the plant as prepared products, packed in different types of
packaging. The process is storage removing packaging
pre-processing (e.g. cutting) mixing (mixing different
components into meal components) processing (assembly
of one consumer meal into one packaging unit)
packaging case-packaging. These stages are located in
three production halls, as shown in Figure 4.
Now we apply our method. We leave out step 1. Step 2 is
shown in Figure 4, accompanied by a detailed description
of how processing takes places.
Step 3
First, we determine the product sensitivity. In this case
almost all ingredients have a nutrition value for micro-
organisms and a high level of water activity and therefore
are considered to be category 1-level products.
1492 VAN DONK and GAALMAN
Figure 4. Schematic representation of the production process of the case.
Secondly, for each stage the required hygiene level is
determined. As an example, we show how the method is
used for case-packaging. At this stage the packaged consu-
mer products are packed in cases. We follow the questions
of Figure 3:
. the product is not in free contact with the environment;
. the micro-organisms are not de-activated in this stage;
. no risk of infection;
. the stage is not concerned with storage.
The conclusion is that this stage needs to have hygiene
level 4. The same analysis is performed for each of the
stages: storage, pre-processing, mixing, processing and
packaging, and the resulting hygiene levels are shown in
Figure 5.
Step 4
The resulting hygiene levels for each stage are com-
pared. It is clear that a demarcation needs to be added
between storage and pre-processing. The main problem to
be addressed is how to deal with the processing stages
mixing, processing and packaging, as their required
hygiene levels are different. The first idea is to separate
mixing from processing and processing from packaging
by building some type of wall between the processes. Inter-
action between the highest hygiene level of processing with
other rooms can be limited by having overpressure, limited
access to the room and only allowing products to flow
through the rooms. The existing walls and the allowed
type of interaction between the production halls need to
be analysed in a similar way.
Figure 5. Hygiene levels and alternative layouts in the case.
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A11): 14851493
Step 5
Here we concentrate again on the hygiene level in pro-
duction hall 2. We distinguish between two alternatives.
The first is to have the whole hall on level 1, the highest
hygiene level. A disadvantage might be the costs of a
large micro-clean room. On the other hand it might lower
operational costs, as people can easily work in all three
stages, and little needs to be done to limit flows. Another
solution might be to move processing to a new hall, and
leave the other two processing stages in production hall 2.
Now, the benefit can be that the most critical process will
be operated in an up-to-date new-built micro-clean room,
while the other two processes can effectively be operated
together, with easy exchange of people and/or materials.
The two alternatives are shown in Figure 5.
For experienced people the above results might not be
too surprising. The case is mainly presented to show the
working of our approach. The main advantage of our
approach is that it provides a structured method which
can be relied upon, whereas experience-based knowledge
might overlook some aspects.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
A neglected area in food processing is the relation
between hygiene and the layout of the processing stages.
While food hygiene has been dealt with in different disci-
plines and a considerable amount of knowledge is available,
this knowledge is not linked systematically to the evaluation
and design of the layout in food processing systems. The lit-
erature on layout planning has so far ignored the influence of
hygiene factors and the specific nature of food processing
companies. However, a systematic method to evaluate the
layout of food processing industries is certainly needed,
 FOOD SAFETY AND HYGIENE
given the constant changes in food consumer markets,
resulting in regularly changing products and processes,
and the large impact of failing to produce hygienically.
This paper presents a systematic method to take into
account hygienic factors in evaluating and (re)designing
the layout of food processing companies. Whereas layout
can be easily understood as determining the location of var-
ious processes, in food processing the main layout
decisions refer to establishing different hygienic zones,
the determination of the permitted interaction and the
necessary demarcations between subsequent stages.
The main elements in the method are the determination
of the product sensitivity and the required hygiene level.
These are used to guide layout decisions in the above
sense. The method has been tested in real-life situations
and is illustrated with a case. The method has proven its
usability, but further refinement of the decision diagrams
and models can be considered, as well as the usage in
other related types of industries.
REFERENCES
Adams, M.R. and Moss, M.O., 2000, Food Microbiology (The Royal
Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK).
Banwart, G.J., 1989, Basic Food Microbiology (Chapman & Hall,
New York, USA).
De Smedt, J. and Easter, M., 1994, HACCP, Hazard Analysis Critical
Control Point (Chapman & Hall, London, UK).
EHEDG, 2003, Hygienic Engineering of Plants for the Processing of Dry
Particulate Materials (CCFRA Technology Ltd, Chipping Campden,
UK).
Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2004, 82(A11): 14851493
1493
Figee, E. and Oortwijn, M., 2004, High Pressure Cooking: European
Foodservice Market Matures, While Value Dynamics Just Start (Cap
Gemini Ernst & Young Nederland B.V., Utrecht, The Netherlands).
FIL-IDF, 1997, Hygienic Design and Maintenance of Dairy Buildings and
Services, Bulletin no. 324 (FIL-IDF, Brussels, Belgium).
Forsyth, S.J. and Hayes, P.R., 1998, Food Hygiene, Microbiology and
HACCP (Chapman & Hall, New York, USA).
Holah, J., 2000, Food Processing Equipment Design and Cleanability,
Flair-Flow Europe Technical Manual F-FE 377A/00 (Teagasc, The
National Food Centre, Dublin, Ireland).
Jay, J.M., 1996, Modern Food Microbiology (Chapman & Hall, New York,
USA).
Lelieveld, H.L.M, Mostert, M.A., Holah, J. and White, B. (eds), 2003,
Hygiene in Food Processing (Woodhead, Cambridge, UK).
Meulenberg, M.T.G. and Viaene, J., 1998, Changing food marketing
systems in western countries, in Innovation of Food Production
Systems: Product Quality and Consumer Acceptance, Jongen, W.M.F.
and Meulenberg, M.T.G. (eds) (Wageningen Press, Wageningen, The
Netherlands), pp 836.
Muther, R. and Haganas, K.,1969, Systematic Handling Analysis (SHA)
(Management and Industrial Research Publications, Kansas City, MO,
USA).
Potter, N.N. and Hotchkiss, J.H., 1995, Food Science (Chapman & Hall,
New York, USA).
Van Donk, D.P., 2001, Make to stock or make to order: the decoupling
point in the food processing industries, Intl J Prod Econ, 69(3):
297306.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the contribution of their former student Laura
Kooijman and the support of Geert Wierenga (Ingenieursbureau Het
Noorden, The Netherlands).
The manuscript was received 8 March 2004 and accepted for publi-
cation after revision 26 August 2004.