Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Magnets as CCP


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

#1 Amal

Amal

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 9 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 23 March 2010 - 08:38 AM

Hi,
I am working as a quality manager in India and we are into manufacturing corn meal and corn flour. we are in the process of implementing HACCP.
In our process just before packing the products we have magnets and I have identified as CCP.My doubt is what should be the monitoring measures for this, andnow we are cleaning the magnets manually every hour.Apart from this, is there any other means to monitor and validate magnets.I hope there is some one who can help me in this regard.

Regards,
Amal



#2 tsmith7858

tsmith7858

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 262 posts
  • 51 thanks
10
Good

  • United States
    United States

Posted 23 March 2010 - 08:10 PM

Visual inspection is the only option for magnets for which I am aware. As far as validation you could check the pull strength of the magnets at whatever frequency you deem necessary to ensure they are fully functional.

We have a similar process in one of our lines where we check the magnets and screens on the line after each batch (our batches are typically a one shfit run). We record what was found (if anything and tape it to a sheet for future reference). We do not call it a CCP but instead a PRP. Metal detectors or x-rays are used for CCPs to ensure metal does not get through to packaged product. In other words, magnets are our deterent but detectors truly reduce/eliminate the potential.

My questions for you in relation to calling this a CCP are:

  • What is your critcal limit?
  • What is your corrective action if your limit is exceeded?
  • Will your magnets catch all metal that goes through?
I am also curious if your buildup on the magnets is that much that you need to clean them every hour. If it is, are you been able to determine where the metal is coming from and reduce it?

TS

#3 Amal

Amal

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 9 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 24 March 2010 - 06:07 AM

Thank you very much
In our process before packing there is a equipment called roll body, this crushes(or grinds) the corn grits to required granulation as per our specification. Since roll body is in use regularly most of iron particles/ fragments (90%) comes from this and hardly <1% from our raw material. I couldn't find any other process steps as CCP so I have defined as CCP as physical hazards.
My critical limit is absence of metal fragments, which we monitor hourly once by visual inspection and this is our monitoring. Is there any equipment to monitor which will justify my CCP monitoring.
Regards,
Amal



#4 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 15,858 posts
  • 4370 thanks
715
Excellent

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

Posted 26 March 2010 - 02:15 AM

Dear Amal,

Is there any equipment to monitor which will justify my CCP monitoring


Yes, a metal detector. :smile: They are relatively cheap these days, thanks to haccp / auditors maybe.

There are several haccp plans for grains, flour on this forum. I agree that "CCP" is the most common choice for yr magnet, especially from auditors perspective however I'm sure that PRP can be supported also if required. Also, Tsmith's comments are relevant, eg can you justify a significant hazard, size of contamination etc (as perhaps indicated by yr post, at least one CCP location was maybe also a specific objective here :smile: , hv seen some people use sieves in the line as CCPs also, either individually or sometimes as part of a combined sieve/magnet unit).

As a matter of interest, i hv also seen the possibility of metal particles being "lost" during the magnet cleaning step as justification for a subsequent metal detector !.

In the absence of a metal detector, perhaps you could test run with a 2nd magnet system of higher (max.?) sensitivity following current unit to see if anything coming through. I hv no experience with magnets, just a thought. Basically a validation demands data.

Rgds / Charles.C

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#5 Mick

Mick

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 31 March 2010 - 11:16 AM

Hi

you can run into trouble claiming that a metal detector will pick up the sort of material that a magnet can detect - a magnet will attract and retain very small specs of metal (even stainless steel in a lot of food process, because it gets and electrostatic charge) - event the best metal detectors will struggle to achieve <1mm sensitivity.

There is probably more worth in looking at X-ray technology, but this is expensive and is reported to be 'almost be over-sensitive' in some applications (although I confess to having no direct experience of X-ray kit).

I have audited a number of sites with magnet controls. There is no doubt that small particles of metal are present in powders produced by some grinding processes, and the recognised way to remove these particles is by installation a 'processing' magnet as close to the output of the grinding process as possible - this is the CCP. The best monitoring practice that I have come across is to have a second 'policing' magnet as close to the packer as possible - the critical limit for this would be no metal found, as this would show that the 'process' magnet is doing its job and removing all metal particles.



#6 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 15,858 posts
  • 4370 thanks
715
Excellent

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

Posted 01 April 2010 - 08:16 AM

Dear Mick,

Welcome to the forum ! :welcome:

Thks yr comments.

I deduce you are only recommending one CCP (first magnet) while the 2nd magnet essentially monitors / validates / verifies the first. A similar opinion is recently offered in a long(est) running popular thread here on implementation / interpretation of metal detectors.

One other variable of course is whether the size constitutes a hazard, which involves the product utilisation also.

I think I hv now seen at least 4 alternatives, all presumably validatable –

1. the first metal remover as CCP (here, also promoted in above mentioned thread by Charles Chew from memory, thirdly by Codex in their published validation document )
2. Both magnet and metal detector as CCPs ( not 100% sure but justified from memory in a current, popular HACCP book on the grounds of minimising potential material losses at earlier stages [safety/economic]).
3. magnet + metal detector regarded as a combined unit giving one CCP (presumably unavoidable if routinely positive results in both locations [unless data on 2nd one complies with a FSO/PO perhaps?)
4. last (usually metal) detector only, my guess the standard choice (unless current authors are changing) for minimising auditorial difficulties ??

Hopefully auditors will readily accept this range of possibilities.

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#7 Tony-C

Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,320 posts
  • 967 thanks
246
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 05 April 2010 - 02:59 AM

I am also curious if your buildup on the magnets is that much that you need to clean them every hour. If it is, are you been able to determine where the metal is coming from and reduce it?
TS

Posted Image Agreed and this seems a logical way of tackling this hazard.


I am not sure magnets are a CCP? It seems that there are various opinions on defining critical limits (Absence of metal seems the only acceptable limit to me) and then if metal is found is all the product that has passed since the previous check held or is it assumed that the magnets have removed all the metal?

Maybe magnets are a prerequisite and metal detection the CCP?

Regards,

Tony

#8 Charles Chew

Charles Chew

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,178 posts
  • 52 thanks
6
Neutral

  • Malaysia
    Malaysia
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Interests:Food, food and food!

Posted 05 April 2010 - 02:41 PM

Would you say in a process involving "cooking temperature and time" that your critical limit is no survival of microorganisms when instead the cooking temperature / time range should be the CL. (Even for commercial sterilization - the CL is obvious)

CL should be measurable and can be validated scientifically and should really be the critical process step of eliminating, preventing or reducing to an acceptable level and not the end result? Those currently using Magnets should really know what I am referring to.

Cheers
Charles Chew


Cheers,
Charles Chew
www.naturalmajor.com

Thanked by 1 Member:

#9 FSSM

FSSM

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 207 posts
  • 33 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Mexico
    Mexico

Posted 05 April 2010 - 04:01 PM

Would you say in a process involving "cooking temperature and time" that your critical limit is no survival of microorganisms when instead the cooking temperature / time range should be the CL. (Even for commercial sterilization - the CL is obvious)

CL should be measurable and can be validated scientifically and should really be the critical process step of eliminating, preventing or reducing to an acceptable level and not the end result? Those currently using Magnets should really know what I am referring to.

Cheers
Charles Chew



Dear Charles Chew:

Would you further elaborate your point of view with the magnets case please?

Regards,

FSSM

Edited by FSSM, 05 April 2010 - 04:01 PM.


#10 gaboghom

gaboghom

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Nigeria
    Nigeria

Posted 13 April 2010 - 12:10 PM

Hi,
I am working as a quality manager in India and we are into manufacturing corn meal and corn flour. we are in the process of implementing HACCP.
In our process just before packing the products we have magnets and I have identified as CCP.My doubt is what should be the monitoring measures for this, andnow we are cleaning the magnets manually every hour.Apart from this, is there any other means to monitor and validate magnets.I hope there is some one who can help me in this regard.

Regards,
Amal



Hi Amal,
During the harzard analysis; can metal contaminate the flour before packing? how did you confirm the point mentioned as a CCP? Your answer will help in giving a clearer picture of your process.

Gab.

#11 Amal

Amal

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 9 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India

Posted 13 April 2010 - 02:16 PM

Hi Amal,
During the harzard analysis; can metal contaminate the flour before packing? how did you confirm the point mentioned as a CCP? Your answer will help in giving a clearer picture of your process.

Gab.



Hi Gab.
The chances of metal contaminaiton is either from raw material which is minimal and other is from roller body which due to grinding or friction between to roller bodies. My observation is for every one hour inspection the metal fragements weighs almost 3to 5g.

#12 sudarshan

sudarshan

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 48 posts
  • 6 thanks
2
Neutral

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mumbai, India
  • Interests:read standards...understand it....implement it...

Posted 15 April 2010 - 08:41 AM

Hi Gab.
The chances of metal contaminaiton is either from raw material which is minimal and other is from roller body which due to grinding or friction between to roller bodies. My observation is for every one hour inspection the metal fragements weighs almost 3to 5g.


Hi Amal

I am in spices ....we have same issue .....but we cant' keep magnets as a CCP because as you CCP is physical contaminants but Physical contamination is not only Ferrous type that also SS or Non ferrous how can you keep as a CCP.........main thing is validation for the same .... as per my knowledge their is no specific standard for magnets means which gauze value to be use for particular products

we had disused the same issue in our HACCP team & we the same thing include in PRP because we have metal detector after that.

my suggestion is use metal detector as a CCP

If any one has new information on this...please share..
many thanks in advance
Best Regards
Sudarshan Koli
koli.sudarshan@gmail.com

#13 beat.styger

beat.styger

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Switzerland
    Switzerland

Posted 09 March 2011 - 09:56 PM

Hi

Is there any standardized method of how magnets
can validate correctly in a process? The idea of Amal I findinteresting. In our process, we have the magnet is not defined asCCP. Nevertheless, we want to perform a validation of HACCPprinciples.



Rgds Stygi

 



#14 wahyuM

wahyuM

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Indonesia
    Indonesia

Posted 10 May 2013 - 05:17 AM

hi there, nice to meet you.

i'm wahyu from indonesia. i am currently working in a chocolate industry.

we produce mid-products such as cocoa powder, cocoa butter, and cocoa liquor.

i also have some problems on validating these magnets.

in the factory we have magnets during the production of cocoa butter.

Our critical limit is no iron dust found in product within 4000 gauss , 5000 gauss, and 6000 gauss magnetic power.

The validation can't be done when the production line is on. so, i'm doing a simulation on the lab by using magnet and cocoa butter to validate this CCP.

the problem is, is ther any better and easier way to validate this thing ??

please do help me out, cause my director needs me to get this thing done by the end of next week.

i really need any advice given..

Thank you very much..

 

God Bless You all.



#15 APPAJI

APPAJI

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 32 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral

  • India
    India
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Delhi

Posted 06 May 2014 - 07:12 AM

Dear Sir,

 There are three factors to understand before we validate the magnet.

1) The flow rate of product- Forced or Free Falling or moving on belt then belt speed.

2) At what distance the magnet is placed.

3) Strength of magnet- Better will be pull strength of magnet than the gauss or find correlation between both for practical monitoring.

The factors defining all three are your Critical Limits. Fix Two and monitor third for getting the required results.

 

Kindly give feed back

Regards

Appaji



Thanked by 1 Member:

#16 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 15,858 posts
  • 4370 thanks
715
Excellent

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

Posted 06 May 2014 - 08:16 AM

Dear Appaji,

 

Kindly give feed back

 

 

Unfortunately direct feedback is not likely since the previous post is 1yr old and the OP never returned. But thanks anyway for yr input.

 

As in another thread I suspect yet again there is confusion over "validation". The same thing has occurred in more recent threads on metal detectors "annual validation".

 

A question of separating the overall capability of the equipment vs haccp categorization of CCPs.

 

Rgds / Charles.C


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#17 esosabrc

esosabrc

    Grade - Active

  • Newbie
  • 4 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 07 February 2019 - 02:31 AM

Hello everyone

Does anyone have an SOP for the Sieves and Magnets?

Thank you in advance






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate