APOLLO AUTOMATIONJAMES WARREN · ENGINEERING & PROJECT LEADERSHIPCASE-019 · Engineering case
Coordinated CIP automation to restore membrane performance while reducing manual cleaning and downtime.
Coordinated CIP automation to restore membrane performance while reducing manual cleaning and downtime.
Coordination scope: automated CIP sequencing, NaOH /NaOCl cleaning, bypass/recirculation loops, HMI controls, membrane testing, and clean-water flux validation.
Coordinated CIP automation to restore membrane performance while reducing manual cleaning and downtime.
Workstream Portfolio Rollup
18,317,000 USD
Wine Clarification and Vinegar Polishing Modernization
Recorded workstream portfolio reference. This is the workstream-level value and is not a project expenditure or a new total of reassigned projects.
| Measure | Value | Type & meaning | Attribution & operating context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time | < 5 minutes | Observation Recorded operator interaction | Applies to: Ceramic Filter CIP Interface Engineering Ceramic filtration automated operation — Recorded operator interaction of less than 5 minutes for the automated filtration/CIP arrangement. |
| Operating Measure | > 50 % | Actual Result Recorded operating improvement | Applies to: Ceramic Filter CIP Interface Engineering ceramic-filter operation — Recorded increase of more than 50% in run time between cleaning cycles; separate from the laboratory flux-recovery measurement. |
| Operating Measure | approximately 90 % | Baseline Vendor laboratory baseline | Applies to: Reviewed the vendor filterability study as a design baseline for ceramic filtration: membrane flux, pore size, clean-water-flux recovery after CIP and filtrate turbidity study, 2018 — after one CIP — Clean-water-flux recovery in the filtration supplier vendor study. |
| Turbidity | 0.26 to 0.39 NTU | Baseline Vendor laboratory baseline | Applies to: Reviewed the vendor filterability study as a design baseline for ceramic filtration: membrane flux, pore size, clean-water-flux recovery after CIP and filtrate turbidity study, 2018 — filtrate — Filtrate turbidity in the filtration supplier vendor study. |
| Proposed Concentrate Sample Volume | 500 mL | Design Parameter Vendor test proposal | Applies to: Coordinated and reviewed filtration supplier's laboratory cleanability study, using the vendor's neutralization, temperature and particulate findings to inform a production-validation decision Proposed input — Proposed concentrate sample volume |
| Proposed PES Membrane Pore Size | 0.2 µm | Design Parameter Vendor test proposal | Applies to: Coordinated and reviewed filtration supplier's laboratory cleanability study, using the vendor's neutralization, temperature and particulate findings to inform a production-validation decision Proposed laboratory filtration — Proposed PES membrane pore size |
| Proposed Neutralization Endpoint | 7 pH units | Target Vendor test proposal | Applies to: Coordinated and reviewed filtration supplier's laboratory cleanability study, using the vendor's neutralization, temperature and particulate findings to inform a production-validation decision Proposed endpoint — Proposed neutralization endpoint |
| Acetic Acid Sample Volume | 100 mL | Design Parameter Vendor laboratory test condition | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation Acid sample — Acetic acid sample volume — Acid sample |
| Acetic Acid Concentration | 20 % | Design Parameter Vendor laboratory test condition | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation Acid sample — Acetic acid concentration — Acid sample |
| Sodium Hydroxide Volume | 660 mL | Observation Vendor laboratory result | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation Neutralizing solution — Sodium hydroxide volume — Neutralizing solution |
| Sodium Hydroxide Concentration | 2 % | Design Parameter Vendor laboratory test condition | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation Neutralizing solution — Sodium hydroxide concentration — Neutralizing solution |
| Reagent Dosing Rate | 60 mL/min | Design Parameter Vendor laboratory test condition | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation Neutralization — Reagent dosing rate — Neutralization |
| Temperature Increase | 3 °F | Observation Vendor laboratory result | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation Neutralization — Approximately 3°F temperature increase, reported with ±1°F in the filtration supplier report, within one minute of dosing; membrane tolerance remained to be validated. |
| Total Suspended Solids | 106 mg/L | Observation Vendor laboratory result | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation Before neutralization — Total suspended solids — Before neutralization |
| Total Suspended Solids | 108 mg/L | Observation Vendor laboratory result | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation After neutralization — Total suspended solids — After neutralization |
| pH | 7 to 8 pH units | Observation Vendor laboratory result | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation After neutralization — pH — After neutralization |
| Initial Laboratory Temperature | 77 °F | Design Parameter Vendor laboratory test condition | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation Before dosing — Reported 77°F ±1°F ambient/starting temperature |
| Laboratory Temperature After Dosing | 80 °F | Observation Vendor laboratory result | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation After first minute of dosing — Reported 80°F ±1°F; remained near this value for most dosing duration |
| Time to Reported Temperature Increase | 1 min | Observation Vendor laboratory result | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation Neutralization — Time to reported temperature increase |
| pH | 3 to 4 pH units | Observation Vendor laboratory result | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation Before neutralization — pH |
| SEM Image Magnification | 3,900 x | Design Parameter Vendor laboratory method setting | Applies to: Filtration supplier tested dilute sodium-hydroxide neutralization of residual acetic acid at laboratory scale; the study found no identified crystal-like particulate and recommended production validation membrane filter N66 NA disc examination — SEM image magnification |
| CIP Flush Volume | approximately 6,000 gal | Observation Field observation | Applies to: Captured a complete ceramic-CIP waste stream, organized repeated multi-point sampling, and coordinated the wastewater receiver, internal stakeholders, filtration supplier and laboratories Ceramic-CIP flush — CIP flush volume — Ceramic-CIP flush |
| Wastewater Flow | 30,000 to 40,000 GPD | Observation Field observation | Applies to: Captured a complete ceramic-CIP waste stream, organized repeated multi-point sampling, and coordinated the wastewater receiver, internal stakeholders, filtration supplier and laboratories Contemporaneous plant sampling — Wastewater flow — Contemporaneous plant sampling |
| pH | 2 to 3 pH units | Observation Field observation | Applies to: Captured a complete ceramic-CIP waste stream, organized repeated multi-point sampling, and coordinated the wastewater receiver, internal stakeholders, filtration supplier and laboratories Contemporaneous plant sampling — pH — Contemporaneous plant sampling |
| Sodium Concentration | 189 ppm | Observation Field observation | Applies to: Captured a complete ceramic-CIP waste stream, organized repeated multi-point sampling, and coordinated the wastewater receiver, internal stakeholders, filtration supplier and laboratories Contemporaneous plant sampling — Sodium concentration — Contemporaneous plant sampling |
| Wastewater Flow | 10,000 to 15,000 GPD | Operating Control Receiver criterion | Applies to: Developed temporary containment and dilution measures and evaluated permanent alternatives against receiving-facility hydraulic, pH and sodium criteria Receiving facility — Wastewater flow — Receiving facility |
| pH | > 3 pH units | Operating Control Receiver criterion | Applies to: Developed temporary containment and dilution measures and evaluated permanent alternatives against receiving-facility hydraulic, pH and sodium criteria Receiving facility — pH — Receiving facility |
| Sodium Concentration | < 160 ppm | Operating Control Receiver criterion | Applies to: Developed temporary containment and dilution measures and evaluated permanent alternatives against receiving-facility hydraulic, pH and sodium criteria Receiving facility — Sodium concentration — Receiving facility |
Approximately 90% flux recovery in the separate 2018 laboratory baseline.
CIP interface records cite less than five minutes of operator interaction and more than 50% increased run time between cleaning cycles. Approximately 90% flux recovery belongs to the separate 2018 laboratory baseline.
Food and Beverage Manufacturer
Owned the full project lifecycle, from capital planning through commissioning and post-startup support. Filtration performance depended on the entire cleaning and product-flow cycle.
TSK-000035 · Method
Ceramic Membrane Ceramic-Crossflow System Integration
TSK-000036 · Method
Filtration Demand and Capacity Modeling
TSK-000038 · Method
Ceramic Filtration Cost-per-Gallon and NPV Model
TSK-000039 · Method
Ceramic Crossflow Option Comparison and AFE Clarification
TSK-000040 · Method
Carbon-Treated Vinegar Prefilter and Fouling Prevention
Application context. Are cleaning states, chemistry, flow and release logic mutually consistent?
TSK-000041 · Method
Automated Infeed / Permeate Manifold and Vinegar Path Segregation
TSK-000042 · Method
Ceramic Filtration Sustainability and Operator Exposure Reduction
TSK-000043 · Method
Ceramic Filtration Labor-Cost Reduction
TSK-000044 · Method
Ceramic Filtration Modular Expansion Strategy
TSK-000046 · Action
Ceramic Filter Electrical and Controls Coordination
TSK-000047 · Method
Ceramic Filter Electrical and Controls Coordination
TSK-000062 · Action
Ceramic-Filter SOP, Preventive-Maintenance and CIP Audit
Application context. Do flow, pressure, materials and connection details satisfy the process duty?
TSK-000063 · Method
Ceramic-Filter SOP, Preventive-Maintenance and CIP Audit
TSK-000086 · Technical context
Ceramic Crossflow Filter System + Ion Exchange Trial
TSK-000856 · Action
Ceramic Crossflow Filter System + Ion Exchange Trial
Recorded applicationTSK-000857 · Action
Ceramic Crossflow Filter System + Ion Exchange Trial
Recorded applicationTSK-000858 · Action
Ceramic Crossflow Filter System + Ion Exchange Trial
Recorded application
Baseline · Vendor laboratory baseline
Applies to: Reviewed the vendor filterability study as a design baseline for ceramic filtration: membrane flux, pore size, clean-water-flux recovery after CIP and filtrate turbidity
study, 2018 — after one CIP — Clean-water-flux recovery in the filtration supplier vendor study.
TSK-001011 · Action
Ceramic Crossflow Filter System + Ion Exchange Trial
Observation · Bench observation
Applies to: Compared the bench-test acidity, transmittance, color and turbidity results to evaluate decolorization and product effects
WDV — Before treatment — Acidity — WDV — Before treatment
TSK-001013 · Study design
Ceramic Crossflow Filter System + Ion Exchange Trial
Application context. Which formulation factors change functionality and manufacturing compatibility?
Scope or inventory quantity · Analysis scope
Applies to: Developed exploratory bed-volume, column, pump, batch and resin calculations; identified formula-error cells for correction before final sizing
Exploratory sizing — Sizing workbook sheets — Exploratory sizing
TSK-001015 · Control
Ceramic Crossflow Filter System + Ion Exchange Trial
Action
Applies capabilities
ACTIVITIES IN CONTEXT
TSK-000037 · Method
Ceramic Filter CIP Interface Engineering
TSK-001006 · Action
Ceramic Filter CIP Interface Engineering
TSK-001007 · Vendor laboratory method
Ceramic Filter CIP Interface Engineering
TSK-001009 · Action
Ceramic Filter CIP Interface Engineering
TSK-001010 · Action
Ceramic Filter CIP Interface Engineering
Full lifecycle project ownership
Owned the full project lifecycle: capital planning and prioritization, need definition, feasibility and scope development, engineering and AFE justification, procurement and vendor coordination, construction sequencing and field oversight, commissioning, turnover, and post-startup support. Connected operating requirements with technical scope, funding decisions, execution readiness, and the needs of operations and maintenance.
Project Team Contribution
Team Contribution
Internal stakeholders and the wastewater receiver participated in waste sampling, handling criteria and temporary-disposition coordination.
Supplier Participation
Vendor Contribution
Filtration supplier performed the laboratory neutralization/cleanability trial, SEM/EDXS and related analysis and recommended production-scale testing.
Less than five minutes operator interaction and more than 50% increased run time between cleaning cycles. The approximately 90% clean-water-flux recovery is a separate 2018 filtration supplier vendor-study baseline.
The proposed cleanability study sought to reduce post-filtration flush water using neutralization. It called for 500 mL Food and beverage manufacturer concentrate, 2% NaOH dosing at 60 mL/min to pH 7, ongoing agitation with periodic pH/temperature readings, 0.2 µm PES filtration and SEM examination for salts. Its overview also proposed three-vinegar XLab 5/PSD/TSS/turbidity work. The performed report instead records 100 mL 20% acetic acid and N66 disc examination; planned and executed protocols remain separate.
Proposed acceptance required acid neutralization without impairing ceramic membrane ceramics, a written report and subsequent site piloting/cleaning-cycle adjustment. The recovered lab report recommends production-scale testing and does not independently close the membrane-performance criterion.
Filtration supplier performed the bench trial in a laminar-flow hood using a sympHony pH meter; filtered the neutralized mixture through an membrane filter N66 NA disc; measured TSS by LSM 44 rev 00; and used SEM procedure LC014 plus EDXS elemental analysis. SEM/EDXS showed oxygen and carbon with no identified crystal-like deposits; a 3900x membrane image is retained as qualitative method evidence.
The report found only a small TSS difference, 106 to 108 mg/L, and no observed crystals after neutralization. It explicitly left tolerance of the approximately 3°F temperature rise by ceramic membranes unresolved and recommended production-scale trial.
The filtration supplier system operating description records: Slide 34: example caustic cleaning includes water fill, caustic dose, heated concentrate/permeate circulation, chemical flush, cooling, drain, refill, and clean-water-flux measurement.
The filtration supplier system operating description records: Slide 35: caustic dose uses AV83/89 and P80; time-delay end.
The filtration supplier system operating description records: Slide 36: chemical-line flush uses AV82/89 and P80; time-delay end.
The filtration supplier system operating description records: Slide 37: heated concentrate circulation uses AV03/01, CV08 30 percent, P01 50 percent and P02; low TT02 closes AV32/34 cooling and opens AV31/33 steam; high TT02 opens cooling and closes steam; ends after TT02 confirmation and time delay.
The filtration supplier system operating description records: Slide 38: heated permeate circulation adds AV59 and uses the same flow and TT02 steam/cooling logic.
The filtration supplier system operating description records: Slide 39: heated backflush uses P03 approximately 100 percent and the approximately 5-second backflush sequence.
The filtration supplier system operating description records: Slide 40: heated TK01 flush uses P03 approximately 50 percent, approximately 5-second delay, and AV70/77.
The filtration supplier system operating description records: Slide 41: exact visual duplicate of slide 40.
The filtration supplier system operating description records: Slide 42: chemical flushing uses AV03/01/59/65/71/76, CV08 30 percent, FCV01.1 100 percent, P01 50 percent and P02; ends when water use is at least 2x or 3x system volume.
The filtration supplier system operating description records: Slide 43: system cooling uses AV03/01/59/32/34, CV08 30 percent, P01 50 percent and P02; ends at TT02 setpoint.
The filtration supplier system operating description records: Slide 44: clean-water-flux measurement uses AV03/01/59, P01 100 percent, approximately 30-second delay; exact source math object: CWF = FIT11 / (Filtration Area / TMP) = lmh/bar.
The filtration supplier system operating description records: Slide 45: system ends full of water.
Owned the full project lifecycle: capital planning and prioritization, need definition, feasibility and scope development, engineering and AFE justification, procurement and vendor coordination, construction sequencing and field oversight, commissioning, turnover, and post-startup support. Connected operating requirements with technical scope, funding decisions, execution readiness, and the needs of operations and maintenance.
Compared filtration options against demand and lifecycle requirements, integrated CIP and instrumentation with dedicated electrical feeds, and developed clean-water-flux tracking and maintenance follow-up. Ion-exchange testing extended the investigation into product clarity and quality, while modular expansion planning connected the equipment choice with future operating demand.
