Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Metal Detection - Bulk Bags


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

#1 jkoratich712

jkoratich712

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 53 posts
  • 6 thanks
4
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Food, books, bakeries, coffee, HACCP, sanitation

Posted 09 October 2017 - 06:23 PM

Good afternoon! 

 

We are currently installing a bulk bag (super sack) filler for a mix that we make and then use to make a finished good. The filler has metal detection on it. We intend to challenge the metal detector on an hourly basis, but are struggling on how to handle the material in the event that the metal detector fails to detect the test piece. There is no way, currently, to rerun the mix back through the metal detector. Looking for how other facilities that have metal detection on bulk bag fillers handle a failed metal detector. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks!


  • 0

#2 Eric G

Eric G

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 5 posts
  • 3 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 09 October 2017 - 07:09 PM

I know that Fortress Technology has a test ball retrieval that goes onto all of their free fall/gravity systems.  Essentially bars that will go across the good product side of the reject valve that will let product flow but not the test balls. 


  • 0

#3 bensmith007

bensmith007

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 13 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 09 October 2017 - 09:37 PM

I assume that your system does not have an automatic divert system for when metal is detected?

 

Is it not an option to simply stop the flow to the super sack, pass the test pieces, then resume the product flow so long as the test pieces are correctly rejected?

 

There must be a way to re-run product that has already been discharged due to the scenario whereby the test pieces are rejected correctly on one check, but not on the subsequent check- in this case, all product discharged since the last successful metal detector check would have to be quarantined and put back through the metal detector, therefore there must be some way to do this for your corrective action SOP.

 


  • 0

#4 Madam A. D-tor

Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 577 posts
  • 180 thanks
21
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000

Posted 10 October 2017 - 04:30 AM

Dear Jkoratich712,

 

For pipeline metal detectors usually a test piece is placed outside the pipeline, but in the metal detector.

However I have no ideas how you should handle the filled product if the test failed and you have to recheck the product. You state that you have no possibility to rerun the mix back through the metal detector.

I understand it is an intermediate product you are filling. When you used the filled product, will there be a metal detector in the finished product line?

Can you, for the occasion that the test fail, hire a metal detector for your finished product line?

Can the big bag from which the metal detector test failed be metal detectored elsewhere?

If you selling this product to a B2B customer? Does the customer has metal detector in line?

 

I hope these questions help you to get to a solution.


  • 0
Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor

#5 Gerard H.

Gerard H.

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 143 posts
  • 47 thanks
5
Neutral

  • France
    France
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:30 PM

Dear J. Koratich,

 

Please note, that in the case of a failed test of the metal detector, the products are to be considered as non-conforming. Meaning the products since the last test, during which the detector was functioning correctly.

 

A re-inspection of the non-conforming products against the specified criteria is necessary, to release this part of the production.

 

Some ideas to do that were already given above. The product characteristics (a dry mix, as I could understand) can be advantageous in your case.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gerard Heerkens


  • 0

#6 jkoratich712

jkoratich712

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 53 posts
  • 6 thanks
4
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Food, books, bakeries, coffee, HACCP, sanitation

Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:53 PM

Thanks for all of the feedback. The filled product is used to make a finished product, that does go through a metal detector (which is our CCP) prior to being shipped. So even if the metal detector in the filling process fails, the metal hazard will still be controlled farther down the line. The question came up as we are moving towards Edition 8 of SQF and we are now treating the facility that makes the mix as a supplier for a 2nd facility that the mix will be shipped to, which is owned and ran by the same company. That 2nd facility also has a metal detector that all finished product passes through prior to shipping.

 

Would it be acceptable to pass the risk of metal in the mix (due to a failed metal detector) on to the 2nd facility?


  • 0

#7 Madam A. D-tor

Madam A. D-tor

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 577 posts
  • 180 thanks
21
Excellent

  • Netherlands
    Netherlands
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:meat, meat products, ready to eat, food safety, QMS, audits, hazard analyses, IFS, BRC, SQF, HACCP, ISO 9001, ISO 22000

Posted 10 October 2017 - 07:24 PM

Dear Jkoratich712,

 

I am not quite sure what you mean.

You should not pass the risk of metal in the mix to the finished product line, but the corrective action.

 

If the test of the metal detector fails during the big bag filling process, identify the product as non conforming product and make sure that this products get a proper metal detector during finished product packing


  • 0
Kind Regards,

Madam A. D-tor




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users