Republication - THE NUMBER “3”

Introduction

Approx. 2,5 years ago a competent consultant to the international beverage sector published a very good article on his views of and experience with MZE technology (also known as ECA or the electro-activation of water). Whilst cleaning out my desk, I came across the article and decided, it was time to share his words and knowledge again ...

Johannes provides valuable insights to all softdrink and brewery companies, interested in implementing this innovative technology! 

The editor has included various media and comments in cursive writing. 

ENJOY!

Disinfectants produced by membrane cell electrolysis – how things stand?

Author: Johannes P. Siepert

During the last few years, a great deal has been written about the terms “ECAW” or “anolyte”, and there has been even more discussion about them – at times highly controversial. 

Alone the publishing house Sachon has brought out more than two dozen articles on the subject of disinfection over the last three years, more than 1/3 of them about the use of electrolytically produced disinfectants. This article intends to provide an overview of the current state of the technology, its use, its position in the market environment, and the discussion about it.

In addition, a look beyond the borders will help place the topic in its wider context. The number “3” will be a recurring companion on this excursion.

The author has already contributed to an objective consideration and a technical and scientific classification of the technology in talks delivered at various events in 2008 to 2010 (Fresenius, Verband Deutscher Mineralbrunnen, Compe-tence Pool Weihenstephan, VLB Berlin).

After a number of publications had appeared in various journals presenting what was in part a rather one-sided view from the standpoint of the respective author and his interests, an article was published in December 2009 with the findings of an extensive study conducted in conjunction with a doctorate thesis at the TU Berlin that provided a rational consideration and assessment of the technology [1]. For that reason it is hardly necessary to repeat the familiar mechanisms
of action here. The essential point is the proven efficacy against microorganisms and biofilms. (Please find a copy of the study in the Compedium section of my Summary) 

Towards a correct use of terminology

The term Electrochemically activated Water (“ECAW” or “ECA” in short form) is actually not a correct designation, although very common in international usage. After all, “ECA” sounds catchy both in the Anglo-Saxon and Romance language realms.

In electrolysis a chlorine compound (HOCl) is produced as an active
disinfectant substance from common salt (NaCl) in an aqueous solution. The so-called “anolyte” (an electrochemical term and not a brand name!) is therefore
definitely not a “water-based disinfectant”, as maintained by certain manufacturers of electrolysis devices (so-called generators), but clearly a disinfecting agent that draws its efficacy from the chlorine.

The assertion “we disinfect with common salt and water” is, frankly speaking, also misleading and gives reasonable cause to question the expertise of those
who maintain it. And when in an article from another generator producer “the cell nuclei of microorganisms implode” and “viruses, fungi, germs, bacteria,
and even Legionella burst asunder”, that hardly makes a positive contribution towards the acceptance of the technology in professional circles.

The epitome of deception is reached when the article is decorated with a photo
suggesting the use of the agent as a spraying application after the crown-capper in a brewery, although the author definitely knows that no ECA is used in that operation. But let us allow charlatans and swindlers to divert us from a neutral assessment. There are enough serious participants on the market who find nothing to endorse in such behaviour either.

Consulting work conducted for a large number of different users in eight European and Asian countries has led to the conclusion that whether or not the
technology is deployed with success essentially depends on how open-minded the interested parties are to this “new” technology. With certain restrictions, one can maintain that smaller and medium-sized beverage firms have less trouble
in perceiving the advantages whereas major companies are more inclined to see the risks involved in the introduction of or conversion to their own
electrolytically produced disinfectants or harbour exaggerated ROI expectations.

On the subject of “new”: in its outlines, the electrolysis of common salt for disinfection purposes goes back to a Russian development from the 1960s. It has only been the development and deployment of effective membranes and the optimisation of the electrolysis generators that have led to the spread of the technology since the beginning of this century and ensured its operational
capability in the food sector as well.

Picture 1: A short clip illustrating just how far back electrolysis goes

Alone during the last ten years, there has been an almost overwhelming
number of studies, publications, and patents from all across the world relating to
a host of applications in areas such as water disinfection, agriculture and fishing, food, retailing, healthcare/hygiene, water circulation systems, or
wastewater.

One count showed a 3-digit number of practised applications; analogous to that, a rising number of patent registrations is evident worldwide. It is noticeable here that particular attention has been given to the subject in the USA and Japan. Indeed, the subject of chlorine is dealt with in these countries in a less inhibited manner.

Incidentally: one company even managed to win over the German Reconstruction Loan Corporation (KfW) as a source of funding for its “innovative” process/appliance. As a tax-payer, one is tempted to ask what else all our hardearned money is (mis)spent on.

When a disinfectant agent is produced electrolytically by a generator, this generally takes place on-site, i.e. generation for own use. Consequently, the process becomes part of the competitive environment for familiar and widely prevalent entities:

1. Chlorine dioxide (ClO2)
2. Ozon
3. Electrolysis for the production of hypochlorous acid solutions (anolyte)     – ECA.

 

It is therefore no surprise when the relevant producers of trade-specific chemicals are not happy to see the emergence of this up-andcoming process, which enables insourcing for sectors like the brewing and beverage industry, and accordingly take pains to argue against it.

It is logical that such a development is not exactly welcomed with open arms by the manufacturers of ClO2 and ozone production plants. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that there are several positive arguments the most frequently cited of which should be specified at this point:

1. Simple and relatively hazard-free handling of the base material NaCl, the generated concentrate and the application solution;
2. Storable application solution with a largely stable efficacy;
3. Very reasonably priced.

Further arguments brought forward:

1. Few disinfection by-products
2. Can be largely deployed without problems in sensory terms
3. Non-irritating, not cell-toxic, not mutagenic.

Regarding the points specified as advantages, it should be noted that most of them are strongly influenced by the electrolysis equipment itself – no anolyte is the same as another. In particular, a consideration of what is a frequently mentioned disadvantage – namely the corrosion risk – allows the devices to be divided up into 3 generations, those with

1. high,
2. medium, and
3. low chloride content.

No secret should be made of the fact that a good deal of attention should be given to this aspect, especially when the dilution water of the respective factory already manifests a high initial content of chlorides. Whether or not
the process is appropriate for a particular operation therefore depends on:

1. the water quality
2. the electrolysis generator used, and
3. the desired application.

 

Application

Where are the possible fields of application in the brewing and beverage industry? Primarily, we can discern 3 main areas:

1. Drinking water treatment / biofilm prevention or removal
2. Package disinfection
3. Cleaning and surface disinfection.

 

At the secondary level, these are supplemented by:

1. Bottle pasteurisers
2. Bottle cleaning machines
3. Cooling towers.

At the beginning of a consulting project, emphasis is initially placed on selecting the right, i.e. best generator. Subsequently, it then becomes clear that a total of 3, equally important aspects have to be considered:

1. Choice of the generator;
2. Integration in the operating facilities, such as a CIP station or surface disinfecting unit;
3. Implementation in the operational processes and, if required, validation.

Details about the technology are extensively described in the literature and should not be repeated here. However, in view of the fact that there is a whole

range of suppliers on the German market and the development has taken place in an 18-month rhythm, the task of filtering out the right equipment at any one
time is not made easier.

When choosing a generator, one can draw upon the detailed comparison matrix elaborated within the scope of the consulting projects: this embraces around a dozen makes from Germany, the rest of the EU and overseas. Particularly during the last few months, highly efficient generators have come onto the market that have a good price-performance ratio and represent the decisive
parameters in an optimised way. The following points are important in making  this choice: 

1. a high conversion rate from NaCl to HOCl and therefore a minimised corrosion potential;
2. a stable, monitored, and reliable operation (7-point check list)
3. and few disinfection by-products.

 

Deployment in day-to-day operations

When we consider the actual deployment in day-to-day operations, success tends rather to depend on the appropriate integration in the plants and the
good implementation in operational processes, a fact that is reflected in the integrated, holistic consulting approach preferred by the author.

The question that arises here is: what are the drivers that provide for a conversion to electrolytically produced disinfectants? These are:

1. a desire (or the demand from traders) to manufacture products without preservatives;
2. a desire (or the economic necessity) to shorten cleaning times
3. a saving of material costs and/or effort in the field of handling.

Without any doubt, the first two points have made sure that, alone in Germany, a high doubledigit number of firms have today already decided in favour of ECA.

With regard to the avoidance of preservatives, the following is generally converted:

1. Packaging treatment (bottle rinser and closure)
2. Surface disinfection
3. CIP.

There are a number of both major producers of non-alcoholic drinks for brand names and small and medium-sized firms that manufacture, for example fruit juice based CSD. The opportunity has therefore opened up for these
producers to achieve a greatly enhanced hygiene level on existing conventional bottling plants and thus avoid investment in Ultra Clean, let alone aseptic
technology. 

However, the product spectrum is limited and consequently it cannot completely replace aseptic procedures. The driver “avoidance of preservatives” is so powerful for commercial or organic labelling reasons that almost all projects
have been successfully implemented.

But now, the next market player is taking to the stage (now there are 3): the manufacturers of preservatives are not pleased about it either. A conversion of the CIP technology is not imperative, but it is usually carried out as well. Whereas the previously mentioned application relates more to the
non-alcoholic drinks domain, the shortening of the cleaning times of bottling plants is also interesting for the brewing industry; in our consideration it means
both the realisation of a “cold CIP” and/or a change of the surface disinfection in the filler. Both measures lead to a considerable saving of time, which finds
economic expression in a better utilisation of the equipment.

“ECA-CIP” allows the avoidance of heating up and cooling down times (Coca-Cola has recently lectured about this at the VLB Spring Convention
in Berlin). The associated energy saving, lower water consumption, less material stress, and reduced servicing costs are only side effects, albeit welcomed ones. In the vast majority of cases, a problem relating to aroma
carry-over without the application of heat does not occur.

Whether or not a conversion pays off depends on the current cleaning and production programme of the filling line and, in particular, on the feasibility of turning the gain in time of approx. 30 to 90 minutes/day into earnings with
a given plant capacity utilisation. Consultations here have already sometimes led to a recommendation to postpone the changeover.

There are major, globally operating companies that see the procedure as a strategic investment and, following extensive examination, are now involved in rolling out the procedure. Some of the “Big 5” breweries have also approached
the subject – with the assistance of the author.

Also interesting is the potential saving inherent in dispensing with hot water rinsing. These installations have tended not to improve the hygiene situation in many cases, and they consume a lot of time, energy, and water. In conjunction with a new configuration of existing foam cleaning, time gains in the intermediate disinfection of up to (an almost unbelievable) 100 per cent can
be recorded. What is decisive is a rethinking in the direction of “keeping clean” instead of “making clean”.

Legal situation
The legal situation with regard to REACH is simple: no registrations are required as long as one does not oneself generate more than 1,000 kg of chlorine. This quantity is not even reached by larger generators in major companies. Things are more complicated as regards to the Biocide Directive. There are two opposing legal opinions held respectively by the supporters and the opponents [2] [3] of the technology.

Since the present Biocide Directive explicitly relates to those bringing substances onto the market, end consumers should not be affected for the time being, in contrast to the business model with the sale of the anolyte to the end consumer.

Nevertheless, a registration requirement is then deduced by the one party via the precursor (here NaCl), which would demand from the producer/supplier of the precursor that registration documents be submitted for the biocide product
resulting from it [3]. If one pursues this logic, the same principles would have to be applied as a next step for all chlorine dioxide plants.

Now at the latest, when a registration procedure has to be considered for
the suppliers of common salt and, where applicable, for every ClO2 plant,
it becomes evident just how bizarre the system of regulations has become.
Against the background that work is being conducted on an amendment to the Biocide Directive, and the procedure for treating drinking water is listed by the German Technical and Scientific Association for Gas and Water DVGW (Deutscher Verein des Gas und Wasserfaches), the present discussion should rather be considered academic.

Users (potential ones, too) should therefore not allow themselves to be led astray and should simply await clarification, especially because it will
probably be some time before this occurs.

2,5 years down the line the legislation around biocides has changed significantly and the companies producing and selling biocides have, in a lot of cases, have failed to keep up. On the 1st of September 2015 it became illegal to sell biocides that included Active Substances that were not listed on ECHA's Article 95 list.

Users of biocides need to understand this regulation and also need to ensure that the biocides that they use are legal.  Unfortunately there isn't a simple database saying what products are and are not legal, instead there is a duty on the user to check that - 

1. The Active Substance is registered - “The active substance or mix in a formulation that confers the efficacy of a product."
2. The Active Substance Supplier is registered - “A person established in the EU who manufacturers or imports a relevant substance, on its own or in biocidal products (Article 95(1), second sub-paragraph of the BPR).”
3. The type of use is registered.

As from 1st September 2015, it became illegal to sell biocidal products in the EU unless the Active Substance (the biocide component) was approved or included in the EU biocide approval process. This means that the Active Substance and the specific Active Substance Supplier must be included on something called the ECHA Article 95 list, or that the biocide is subject to an exclusion (a very limited number and none that are used for water treatment).  The Article 95 list also covers chemicals that are produced in-situ such as chlorine dioxide, or our biocide, Innowatech Anolyte.

Conclusion

“ECA” or anolyte has been sufficiently investigated, and the possibilities of use are also diverse and well proven in the brewing and beverage industry. The anolyte produced by the generator should be tested for suitability in the specific application (none are the same, some are better) and there are considerable
differences with regards to applicability or corrosion potential. It has been proved that substantial cost savings can be achieved, although these savings are indeed dependent on the specific operating situation.

The process of onsite generated HOCl has started to establish itself as an alternative to the customary disinfectants used to date. The legal situation
as regards to the Biocide Directive is ambivalent, depending on the standpoint. However, the revision of the Biocide Directive could/should lead to a pragmatic solution in the future.

It is advisable to conduct a careful examination as to whether the procedure is suitable for an application in the respective operation and whether it is advantageous in economic terms. ??

Literature
[1] Wolf, Diana; Schuchert, Ulrike; Evers, Hartmut; Methner, Frank-Jürgen; Fleischer, Lutz-Günter: Elektrodiaphragmalytisch hergestellt – Der Einsatz von Anolytl?sungen als Desinfektionsmittel. BRAUINDUSTRIE 12/2009, 10–13
[2] Meyer, Florian: Rechtliche Einordnung von Desinfektionsl?sungen im Bereich der Getr?nkeindustrie. BRAUINDUSTRIE 2/2009, 31
[3] N.N.: Elektrolyseverfahren im Spannungsfeld der Biozid-Richtlinie. BRAUINDUSTRIE 12/2009, 20