Metal Detector Validation for SQF 2000- Challenge studies?
Hello everyone,
For our previous audit, the auditor was asking about the validation for Metal detector.
He proposed challenging the metal detector.
Has anybody done a challenge study on metal detector? Your inputs will be valuable :secret:
All ideas are welcome!
JtpatT,
I'm given to understand a challenge study is to:
- Under the normal operating conditions of wherever you use the detector
- And also under any predictable extenuating conditions e.g. the production room is always 10 F degrees warmer in the afternoon.
- With the most difficult and problematic product(s) you produce, e.g., room temperature blueberry muffins are far more challenging that frozen plain muffins.
- Really every product should be validated because every product behaves differently, but sometimes products in the same category have no appreciable difference, e.g., a top round steak and a bottom round steak.
- Use the program settings (sensitivity and Phase) according to your SOP as you usually would
- Use the performance validation procedure process that your detector manufacturer's manual requires just as you would before running product through the detector during production
- Use all the certified check samples for ferrous, non-ferrous and ss in all the sizes prescribed in your SOP
- You will want to find the dead center of the aperture field
- You place the check piece on actual product and secure it so that it passes exactly through the dead center (blind spot) of the aperture. The dead center is the most probable location for the metal to NOT be detected
- You run it n number of times through the detector and document all the above . You should have each piece be detected 100% of the trials n
No, I do not know the ideal n number of times. In this manner you "challenge" and document the performance of the metal detector to detect all the appropriate metal sizes and types under the most difficult circumstances with all of your products or product categories. The ingredients, ingredient distribution and temperature of the product all can make an appreciable difference to pass or fail. Machinery and walls (anything that can disrupt a magnetic field) present or in operation near your metal detector can skew results as well. The key as in any study is to keep all the factors except the one you are measuring as consistent and stable as you may.
You need to use different metals standards, different sizes and different shapes. Companies that sell metal the equipment, often also sell these standards. It is important that the standards you use must be traceable
Hi jtpatt,
To support the previous posts, can have a look at the detailed document, "met1" attached here -
http://www.ifsqn.com...ccp/#entry68189
(basic test procedure - 3.2.1.4)
and, as an example, the standard test pieces should come with a certificate and look something like this -
(afaik, all the active standards are essentially spherical balls of diameter as stated for the test piece)
PS - AFAIK, SQF 2000 is obsolete
Please re attached file from Woolworth Australia. There is a guideline for metal detector verification How+to+Guide+-+Metal+Detection+Functionality+(Dec+2014).pdf 323.76KB 339 downloads
Regards
Sutan77
To add to xylough's post you should also consider line speed and if you have one that the rejection mechanism works.
From Guidance for Developing, Documenting, Implementing, Maintaining and Auditing an SQF System SQF Code, Edition 7.2 – Module 11: Food Safety Fundamentals – Good Manufacturing Practices for Processing of Food Products:
11.7.6 Detection of Foreign Objects
11.7.6 Implementation Guidance
'Metal detectors, x-ray, color sorters (if used for defects or foreign material) and all other detection devices must be validated to ensure that they can effectively detect a foreign object within the packaged product that is passed through the device. The passing of wands through the device to ensure that it is working is verification. An example of a means for validation of a metal detector could be the placing of a piece of metal within the package of product (product would be marked to ensure it does not enter market). All types of packaging and sizes of product that are passed through the device must be validated as well as all new packaging or size of product.'
Regards,
Tony
Hi jtpatt,
Just as an afterthought, it is possible yr auditor was familiar with the well-known US Fishery Hazards Guide –
Challenge the metal detector using validated sensitivity standards daily, at the start of production, every 4 hours during operation, when processing factors (e.g., ambient humidity and product acidity) change, and at the end of processing
Xylough,
That is typically what we do daily! Metal detection is our CCP.
We produce biscotti, that are variety packed- in bags, boxed, individually wrapped, tubs etc.
Hence we run all products through our detector and the process is verified and validated every 2 hours/start and end of each shift//every break/ every change of product, with documented results.
And the temperature is kept below 20degree C in the room to store other ingredients. So I guess that part too is covered.
Sutan 77
Will go through the attachment, thank you. didn't get a chance yet!
Charles. C
Yes! SQF code, edition 7.2
Verification : Passing of wands through the detector
Validation: Products with wands inserted in the bags/tubs are passed through the detector, and later those products are discarded.
this is done for all pack sizes, and individually wrapped items as well.
Tony C
Yes, as mentioned above, they are validated every 2 hours.
Hi jtpatt,
As per above, I suggest you should have "challenged" yr auditor as to their meaning. :smile:
Do note that as per the Guidance, yr validation procedure is not satisfactory. On the other hand (a) the Guidance IMO is ridiculous, (b) The auditor is entitled to ignore the Guidance.