Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

BRC Metal Detection - Correct Placing of Test Pieces


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

Poll: Which way is best for 175 mm diameter cakes (159 member(s) have cast votes)

What is the general consensus on the placing of test pieces when checking a metal detector

  1. Inside the product being tested (106 votes [66.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

  2. Fixed on top of the product carton being tested (22 votes [13.84%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 13.84%

  3. Either way is good (31 votes [19.50%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.50%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#26 vazelos64

vazelos64

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 10 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Greece
    Greece
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:12 AM

the metal detector we use is the same.. Safeguard 360. We are very pleased from the device


  • 0

#27 Jeffrey Ort

Jeffrey Ort

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 19 posts
  • 6 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 08 February 2015 - 10:56 PM

It is necessary to place the test wands as close to the center of the aperture as possible, so it will depend on the product, this would define whether on top or in the packaging.


  • 1

#28 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,590 posts
  • 3278 thanks
350
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 22 April 2015 - 03:08 PM

It is necessary to place the test wands as close to the center of the aperture as possible, so it will depend on the product, this would define whether on top or in the packaging.

 

 

Assuming a conventional conveyor set-up, yes. And you are probably correct that a compromise may be unavoidable if a new detector is not an option.

 

I believe this situation is discussed here somewhere (maybe another thread if not in this one)


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#29 Dr Vu

Dr Vu

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 189 posts
  • 33 thanks
15
Good

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Action movies...

Posted 09 June 2015 - 01:09 AM

it doesnt matter where you place the wand,the MD must detect it. in our case our own  inhouse validation tells us if sample is trailing our reject mechanism has chances of failure so we put sample at trailing edge...


  • 0
A vu in time , saves nine

#30 Hammar

Hammar

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Germany
    Germany
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 June 2015 - 07:01 AM

it doesnt matter where you place the wand,the MD must detect it. in our case our own  inhouse validation tells us if sample is trailing our reject mechanism has chances of failure so we put sample at trailing edge...

it does, the rewording in the new BRC makes it clear that the wand should be placed inside the product. Since this is more or less impossible in most cases, I would suggest that people make a RA and then do 1-2 tests per year inside the product.


  • 0

#31 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,974 posts
  • 800 thanks
168
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 09 June 2015 - 08:20 AM

it does, the rewording in the new BRC makes it clear that the wand should be placed inside the product.

 

:welcome:

 

Sure it does but I'm not too sure it has been reworded?

 

BRC Issue 6 4.10.3.5
In addition, where metal detectors are incorporated on conveyors:
● the test piece shall be passed as close as possible to the centre of the metal detector aperture and wherever possible be carried out by inserting the test piece within a clearly identified sample pack of the food being produced at the time of the test.


BRC Issue 7 4.10.3.4
In addition, where metal detectors are incorporated on conveyors, the test piece shall be passed as close as possible to the centre of the metal detector aperture and wherever possible be carried out by inserting the test piece within a clearly identified sample pack of the food being produced at the time of the test.

 

Regards,

 

Tony


  • 0

#32 Hammar

Hammar

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Germany
    Germany
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 June 2015 - 09:43 AM

:welcome:

 

Sure it does but I'm not too sure it has been reworded?

 

BRC Issue 6 4.10.3.5
In addition, where metal detectors are incorporated on conveyors:
● the test piece shall be passed as close as possible to the centre of the metal detector aperture and wherever possible be carried out by inserting the test piece within a clearly identified sample pack of the food being produced at the time of the test.


BRC Issue 7 4.10.3.4
In addition, where metal detectors are incorporated on conveyors, the test piece shall be passed as close as possible to the centre of the metal detector aperture and wherever possible be carried out by inserting the test piece within a clearly identified sample pack of the food being produced at the time of the test.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

thx and you are correct.

 

I was soo hooked up on the change from best pratice to good pratice that I simply assumed they had turned up the requirements a bit.


  • 0

#33 Rouwenhorst

Rouwenhorst

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 15 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands

Posted 02 November 2015 - 12:56 PM

As much 'blended in' as possible (therefore the middle, approx. equal mass/volume on all sides of test particle) since you would want to be getting these out in a real scenario aswell, and now you know the detector will detect those, just placing it on top still leaves that incertainty (however it's still an indication that it does detect metal but better safe than sorry in my opinion).


  • 0

#34 DavidAR

DavidAR

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 116 posts
  • 13 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 29 January 2016 - 02:34 PM

Purpose of test is to ensure that at the WEAKEST point of the metal detectors field of detection is able to detect you seleccted test pieces within the product benig tested.

 

The weakest point of detection of your specific detector can be given to you by your machines manufacturer!


  • 0

#35 redfox

redfox

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 260 posts
  • 80 thanks
7
Neutral

  • Philippines
    Philippines

Posted 22 February 2017 - 02:34 PM

Hello,

 

We are placing the test piece on top and bottom of the product.

 

regards,

redfox


  • 0

#36 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,974 posts
  • 800 thanks
168
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 22 February 2017 - 05:26 PM

Hello,

 

We are placing the test piece on top and bottom of the product.

 

regards,

redfox

 

See below:

 

:welcome:

 

Sure it does but I'm not too sure it has been reworded?

 

BRC Issue 6 4.10.3.5
In addition, where metal detectors are incorporated on conveyors:
● the test piece shall be passed as close as possible to the centre of the metal detector aperture and wherever possible be carried out by inserting the test piece within a clearly identified sample pack of the food being produced at the time of the test.


BRC Issue 7 4.10.3.4
In addition, where metal detectors are incorporated on conveyors, the test piece shall be passed as close as possible to the centre of the metal detector aperture and wherever possible be carried out by inserting the test piece within a clearly identified sample pack of the food being produced at the time of the test.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

 

I don't see any mention of top and bottom .........

 

Please note: where the standard states the centre of the aperture the expectation is that the metal detector is designed for the product size/shape.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony


  • 0

#37 redfox

redfox

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 260 posts
  • 80 thanks
7
Neutral

  • Philippines
    Philippines

Posted 24 February 2017 - 01:52 AM

Hello Tony,

 

During our BRC7 audit last year, we presented it to the auditor the way put test pieces on our product during verification. We do verification before the operation, every 30 minutes during the operation and right after the operation is finished. We have only 250 to 300 grams of product in canister which is manually fed to  center-most part of the conveyor. The reason we do putting the test specimen on the top and bottom of the canister with the product in it is to avoid contamination which the auditor agreed.

 

regards,

redfox


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#38 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,974 posts
  • 800 thanks
168
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 24 February 2017 - 09:31 AM

Hello Tony,

 

During our BRC7 audit last year, we presented it to the auditor the way put test pieces on our product during verification. We do verification before the operation, every 30 minutes during the operation and right after the operation is finished. We have only 250 to 300 grams of product in canister which is manually fed to  center-most part of the conveyor. The reason we do putting the test specimen on the top and bottom of the canister with the product in it is to avoid contamination which the auditor agreed.

 

regards,

redfox

 

Hi redfox,

 

This may be acceptable if your initial validation demonstrates the same sensitivity & detection of a test piece inside the product as on the top/bottom:

 

4.10 FOREIGN-BODY DETECTION AND REMOVAL EQUIPMENT
4.10.1.2 Interpretation Type, location and sensitivity
The Standard expects validation of the detector and its location. Validation should be undertaken at set-up – for example by adjusting the machine sensitivity using a range of typical products to establish the most sensitive practical setting which allows consistent rejection without false rejects. The established settings must be recorded and verified through regular checks of the equipment, generally undertaken using test pieces of a size just above the limit of detection.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony
 


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#39 DavidAR

DavidAR

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 116 posts
  • 13 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 24 February 2017 - 12:59 PM

I think you are all perhaps missing the main point of this clause:

BRC Issue 7 4.10.3.4
In addition, where metal detectors are incorporated on conveyors, the test piece shall be passed as close as possible to the centre of the metal detector aperture and wherever possible be carried out by inserting the test piece within a clearly identified sample pack of the food being produced at the time of the test.

 

To me there is no reason you cant insert test piece inside a pack, you just make one up, label it as so. obviously you would make a new pack each batch so long as practical...and that is assuming that there is no real material variance in the batch from start to end.

 

for example a ready meal that is frozen could vary a lot but i have worked in situations where a single pack was removed test piece inserted, taped up with BLUE or RED tape and used as a test pack for an entire run. (each run was like 1hr so defrosting of said pack was not an issue.

 

In any case we dont have to wreck lots of packs, we just need to use a clearly identified SAMPLE pack....also if mad right you can test the MD's ability by placing pack in several orientations to test fail safes etc.


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#40 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,974 posts
  • 800 thanks
168
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 24 February 2017 - 03:29 PM

I think you are all perhaps missing the main point of this clause:

BRC Issue 7 4.10.3.4
In addition, where metal detectors are incorporated on conveyors, the test piece shall be passed as close as possible to the centre of the metal detector aperture and wherever possible be carried out by inserting the test piece within a clearly identified sample pack of the food being produced at the time of the test.

 

To me there is no reason you cant insert test piece inside a pack, you just make one up, label it as so. obviously you would make a new pack each batch so long as practical...and that is assuming that there is no real material variance in the batch from start to end.

 

for example a ready meal that is frozen could vary a lot but i have worked in situations where a single pack was removed test piece inserted, taped up with BLUE or RED tape and used as a test pack for an entire run. (each run was like 1hr so defrosting of said pack was not an issue.

 

In any case we dont have to wreck lots of packs, we just need to use a clearly identified SAMPLE pack....also if mad right you can test the MD's ability by placing pack in several orientations to test fail safes etc.

 

I think I've posted that several times if you read through the posts:

 

:welcome:

 

Sure it does but I'm not too sure it has been reworded?

 

BRC Issue 6 4.10.3.5
In addition, where metal detectors are incorporated on conveyors:
● the test piece shall be passed as close as possible to the centre of the metal detector aperture and wherever possible be carried out by inserting the test piece within a clearly identified sample pack of the food being produced at the time of the test.


BRC Issue 7 4.10.3.4
In addition, where metal detectors are incorporated on conveyors, the test piece shall be passed as close as possible to the centre of the metal detector aperture and wherever possible be carried out by inserting the test piece within a clearly identified sample pack of the food being produced at the time of the test.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

 

There may be justifiable exceptions.

 

I don't think I've seen a procedure with a single pack/test piece, be interesting to see your procedure.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony


  • 0

#41 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,217 posts
  • 471 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 04 April 2017 - 09:07 AM

I have still successfully argued that on the top of a sample pack is right.  When you have a low product like a tart going through an aperture which is >2x the height of the tart, you need to get that piece as close as you can to the centre of the aperture.  If you insert the stick into the tart, it will be, at best, 1cm below the top of the tart as the pastry is often higher at the sides, now that is obviously wrong.  This means you aren't at the weakest point anymore.  Although putting the stick on top of the tart is then taking it to c. 3-4mm above the top of where the pastry will be, this at least does put the stick in a place where it is least likely to be detected and as close to both the top of the product and the centre of the aperture as you can without doing some major pastry work.

 

I am also yet to see a situation where the product "shields" the stick.  There is a product signal for sure but this isn't a visual method, you are looking for a disturbance in a magnetic field.  Putting the stick in or on the product, in my experience makes it no easier nor harder to detect, it is the positioning relative to the aperture which has more impact.  This is hard for some auditors to accept because you are using the technique to look for metal in the product.  Certainly though if your aperture is ideally sized for your product so, say 1.25 - 1.5 times the height then in the product will be closest to the centre but it's not always the right answer as many of us have to use the one line for products of multiple heights.

 

You can always use test cards which would then make the distance from your product to the ballbearing <2mm as an alternative to narrow that gap.
 


  • 0

#42 Hassan2017

Hassan2017

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 20 posts
  • 12 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 26 April 2017 - 11:51 AM

Its according to the manufacturing process & products type, you will choose the metal detector type.

 

Thanks Tony for the BRC Requirement Clause regarding this matter.

 

Regards


  • 0

#43 rdeboer1986

rdeboer1986

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 22 posts
  • 8 thanks
1
Neutral

  • Norway
    Norway

Posted 28 July 2017 - 12:55 PM

We had our annual BRC audit in June. During the testing of the metal detector, the employee placed it in the carton but, on top of the product. Auditor commented that it is best to have it in the middle of the box but, did not give an NC for it just a comment.


  • 0

#44 Robert Rogers

Robert Rogers

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • Corporate Sponsor
  • 29 posts
  • 24 thanks
4
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 August 2017 - 04:38 PM

IMO

Conduct thorough validation studies to identify worst case or least sensitive location and utilize the findings for your decision.  

 

In theory worst location is center of the aperture, validation will prove.

 

It is also important to understand rejection capability with various locations to validate successful rejection regardless of location.

 

You could also argue validating larger contaminants to ensure proper rejection as well. A large contaminant may be detected earlier than a small one due the exposed electromagnetic field outside of the aperture causing an early reject and possibly affecting successful rejection.

 

There are many ways a contaminated product may not be removed from production (too small of contamination. improper reject, unsecure reject area).

 

Thorough validation, considering all potential scenarios, is critical so the facility can make informed decisions in development and continuous improvement of their food safety programs. 


  • 0

#45 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,590 posts
  • 3278 thanks
350
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 05 August 2017 - 05:41 AM

IMO

Conduct thorough validation studies to identify worst case or least sensitive location and utilize the findings for your decision.  

 

In theory worst location is center of the aperture, validation will prove.

 

It is also important to understand rejection capability with various locations to validate successful rejection regardless of location.

 

You could also argue validating larger contaminants to ensure proper rejection as well. A large contaminant may be detected earlier than a small one due the exposed electromagnetic field outside of the aperture causing an early reject and possibly affecting successful rejection.

 

There are many ways a contaminated product may not be removed from production (too small of contamination. improper reject, unsecure reject area).

 

Thorough validation, considering all potential scenarios, is critical so the facility can make informed decisions in development and continuous improvement of their food safety programs. 

 

Hi Robert,

 

Thks for the above.

 

Theoretically (and perhaps assuming a symmetrical coil/loading arrangement [?]) I'm sure you are correct regarding worst case position but the number of (claimed valid) alternative recommendations/exceptions which can be found in the literature (and on this forum) is sort of "legendary".


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#46 usmanashraf

usmanashraf

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 17 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Pakistan
    Pakistan

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:00 AM

Auditor checked our metal detector in both ways


  • 0

#47 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,217 posts
  • 471 thanks
55
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 26 September 2017 - 08:09 AM

Just reading through UK retailer codes of practice, approx. 80% say "closest to the centre of the aperture" one says "inserted into the product".  Personally I go with the majority on this as it also makes sense to me to place the test piece where it is least likely to be detected but, if BRC comes and questions you, you could justifiably say "I am following this retailer code of practice" and show them.  But as the previous poster said, the metal detector should be capable of detecting and rejecting packs irrespective of where the piece is placed.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users