A robot IP rating is not a hygiene plan

Ingress protection answers a narrower question

An IP rating is evidence about an enclosure under a defined classification. It is not by itself evidence that a robot is hygienically designed, compatible with a site's cleaning chemicals, suitable for food contact or cleanable as part of the configured application.

IEC 60529 classifies degrees of protection provided by enclosures for electrical equipment. Its public scope does not establish a complete hygiene or sanitation programme. A useful requirement must therefore keep ingress protection as one field inside a broader hygiene case rather than treating the highest-looking IP code as a pass.

Define the hygiene case before selecting the robot

ISO 14159:2002 remains the published international standard for machinery hygiene requirements but is marked for revision and expected to be replaced. Its public abstract applies to machines and associated equipment where consumer hygiene risks can occur. The applicable edition and detailed requirements should be confirmed by the customer's food-safety, hygiene and engineering owners.

• Identify the product, process and hygiene zone, including whether exposed product or product-contact surfaces are nearby.
• State whether the robot or configured parts can contact product directly, contact it indirectly or remain outside the product zone.
• Describe the soil, residue, allergen and contamination risks that the cleaning process must remove or control.
• Name the wet-cleaned or dry-cleaned regime, required inspection and verification, and the site owner who approves them.
• Record the applicable jurisdiction, customer rules and sector standards instead of assuming that a general robot rating answers them.

Assess the complete configured system

EHEDG released Guideline 62 Part 1 in March 2026 for fundamental hygienic-design criteria for robots in open food-processing environments, covering wet- and dry-cleaned conditions. EHEDG says it addresses construction, installation, integration and documentation across the lifecycle.

EHEDG also says later parts will address end effectors, system integration, mobile robots and other applications. That boundary matters: evidence for a robot body cannot automatically be carried across the gripper, adapters, dress pack, connectors, covers, base, fasteners, controller, nearby guarding, conveyors or drainage arrangement.

• List the exact robot variant and the protection rating for each relevant area rather than one rating for the product family.
• Include every exposed tool, sensor, cable, connector, cover, seal and mounting interface in the hygiene review.
• Identify gaps, ledges, hollow sections, fasteners, damaged coatings, trapped liquid and inaccessible surfaces that may affect cleaning or inspection.
• Define how utilities enter the hygienic zone and where runoff, residue and condensation can go.

Turn washdown into a bounded cleaning regime

ABB currently describes its IRB 1200 Hygienic body as IP67 and its axis-six flange as IP69K with a stated maximum of 30 bar. ABB separately describes wipe-down cleaning with a specified detergent and washdown cleaning using a protection cover and a defined regime. These are manufacturer instructions and ratings for the named configuration; they illustrate why pressure, robot area, cover and cleaning method must be recorded separately, not independently verified proof that a proposed cell meets a customer's hygiene requirement.

• Name each detergent and sanitiser, concentration, contact time and material-compatibility evidence.
• Set water temperature, pressure, nozzle type, spray distance, angle, duration and areas that must not be sprayed.
• State cleaning frequency, disassembly, rinsing, drying, inspection and pre-operation release steps.
• Define who cleans, who verifies, what result passes and how deviations or damaged seals and coatings are handled.
• Keep the manufacturer's current cleaning instructions with the exact robot and accessory configuration used at the site.

Keep different evidence types separate

ISO 21469:2006 covers hygiene requirements for lubricants that can have incidental product contact and is under review in 2026. Its public scope excludes substances used as product additives or in direct product contact and does not address occupational health and safety. That narrow scope is another reason to preserve each claim with its own boundary.

• Ingress protection: the rated enclosure area, test classification and any installation conditions.
• Hygienic design: surface, geometry, joints, drainage, accessibility, materials and documentation for the intended use.
• Cleaning compatibility: the exact chemical, concentration, temperature, pressure, exposure time and maintenance limits.
• Food-contact evidence: the exact material, surface or component, contact type, region and applicable rule.
• Lubricant evidence: product, use point and whether contact is incidental; do not turn a food-grade lubricant claim into a cleanability claim.

Make hygiene acceptance observable

Before production use, inspect the exact installed system against the approved drawings, component list and cleaning instructions. Run representative production and cleaning cycles, record access problems, trapped residue or liquid, coating and seal condition, disassembly effort, inspection findings and the agreed hygiene-verification results. The responsible site team should define the method and threshold appropriate to its product and process.

Reopen the assessment after a material change to the product, soil, allergen, cleaning chemical or method, robot or tool, cable routing, cover, seal, coating, lubricant, mounting, drainage, software-controlled cleaning pose or maintenance practice. Preserve the previous result as evidence for the old configuration rather than carrying its pass forward.

Record claims without turning them into certification

IEC, ISO and EHEDG are authoritative for the published scopes and status cited here, but their public pages do not verify a named installation. ABB is authoritative for its own documented product claims and instructions; those claims are not independent verification of a customer's configured robotic system.

RobotAtom records the hygiene zone, cleaning regime, component-level evidence, source date, owner, unknowns and required validation. It does not certify hygienic design, food safety, ingress protection, cleaning effectiveness, robot safety or regulatory compliance. Qualified hygiene, food-safety, engineering and safety owners must assess the actual application under the applicable requirements.