Weight calibration
hi
i have got a question regarding calibration of weights please
we use 25kg ,10kg,2kg weight on site .our scales are calibrated by external contractor ,we then do a daily verification of the scales using weights .My question is do the weights have to be send away for calibration as well ?
we manufacture bulk spices .
i am thinking yes but my boss says no
thank you in advance
I always get mine certified annually. SQF auditors usually look for that in addition to your outside calibration service on the scales themselves.
Yes, We just received our test weights along with the calibration certificate. we are scheduled to recalibrate it after one year.
hmmmm, I disagree.......depends on your margin of error, calibrated weights are very expensive, particularly in the size range you need.
Are you selling bulk for further processing or are you packaging for retail?
Hello,
Yes we do. Auditor will look for the weights calibration at least annually done by 3rd party laboratory which is ISO-17205 accredited/certified. During verification, correction factor on the weight itself, if any, must be applied.
I suggest, find a laboratory that gives a minimal uncertainty of measurement, because laboratory gives different degree of uncertainty of measurement.
regards,
redfox
Hi Anysuj,
Another yes here - they're not a very useful check unless you know that they weigh what they're supposed to ;)
If your boss is saying no then I wonder if budget is a factor? (Yep, voice of experience...)
Could be worth giving your local Trading Standards officer a call - ours do the check weights in an accredited lab for a very reasonable price.
Hi, Anysuj.
What do your regulation require? If this is stated that scales need to be verified by use of calibrated test weight then just show the document and they cannot say no if they still wanted to "have" that business. If it is required by your plant then just tell them the "why" you have that procedure in the 1st place. Given that you do it daily and given the handling, how can you be sure that what you in your scale is what you get (especially if you have chip 25 Kg, would you believe your scale showing 25 Kg on a chipped 25Kg test weight or the other way around)
But it is a YES for me to (like an X-factor) :)
As long as you are having your scales calibrated annually or twice/year depending on volume, and you've got a margin of error (yes, even calibrated scales have a margin of error) then I really don't see the need for "calibrated" weights.
So you are testing down to 2 kg; let's assume that your package of 2 kg product really has a fill range of 1.90 to 2.10 kg, it probably makes just as much sense to use non-calibrated weights to verify that the scales are "within range" YOU ARE NOT CALIBRATING THE SCALE
I would also not suggest that you leave calibrated weights out and about for daily verification.............at best the calibrated weights (the ones with the certificate) should only be used by QA and only once a week at the most, so you're still going to need weights for daily checks
I think this is the difference between validation and verification
hmmmm, I disagree.......depends on your margin of error, calibrated weights are very expensive, particularly in the size range you need.
Are you selling bulk for further processing or are you packaging for retail?
hi Scampi
we are selling bulk spices for further processing
thank you
Hi Anysuj,
IMEX the solution where cost is a factor (and as per Scampi's comment it probably will be) is to invest in master (documented) checkweights and then internally generate sub-masters as appropriate to requirements.
From a purely technical POV, i do not see the necessity to have scales calibrated externally if can use checkweights. Especially where you have 100 balances.
Charles, the UK government does not regulate scales used in commerce?
In Canada it's a requirement to have scales calibrated by a third party by Weights and Measures Canada (it's part of fair business practices) Which is why I suggested not purchasing any certified weights
Hi Anysuj,
IMEX the solution where cost is a factor (and as per Scampi's comment it probably will be) is to invest in master (documented) checkweights and then internally generate sub-masters as appropriate to requirements.
From a purely technical POV, i do not see the necessity to have scales calibrated externally if can use checkweights. Especially where you have 100 balances.
Agree with Charles, besides, there's no standard in the code other than that they're calibrated and verified at a valid interval (performance, manufactureres specs. etc.
I calibrate my scales internally using the scale's calibration program with traceable weights. I send my weight out every 3 years OR in the event that they are damaged in some way.
Generally this is sufficient for the amount of accuracy needed for my processes to be safe and accurate.
-Austin
"The bulk of the weights and measures regulatory authority is the responsibility of the states and most weights and measures laws and regulations are adopted at the state and local level. In a few that are greater than the MAV is controlled by the sampling procedure. beyond which the deficiency is considered to be an “unreasonable error.” The number of packages with deficiencies Maximum Allowable Variation (MAV) is a deficiency in weight, measure, or count of an individual package 4 10 cases, Congress has given regulatory authority to Federal agencies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has regulatory authority regarding meat and poultry products, and grain transactions for export. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) controls the labeling of many foods and pharmaceutical products. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also regulates labeling and advertising. NIST is not a regulatory agency. Congress has charged NIST with the responsibility to define the units of weights and measures and to work with the states to secure uniformity in weights and measures requirements and procedures to facilitate trade, both nationally and internationally."
www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/04/28/hb-155-final.pdf
What i gathered from this article, is that for most food stuffs, weights and measures is regulated by the state...........
Question for you all -- we check our pound scales daily with a 1# test weight. One scale read +/- 0.02# this morning so we replaced it with a scale in our R&D area in the meantime.
What is a reasonable margin of error? Does any variance at all require maintenance? We just had them calibrated a couple of weeks ago so my boss wants me to double check before we call them back out here.
Background: bread bakery, not GFSI.
There is a difference between a check weight and a certified weight.
You need a certified weight to calibrate a balance.
You cannot calibrate a balance with a check weight. You only need a check weight to check the repeatability of a balance, as the check weight is only testing if the balance has drifted since it was calibrated. That is, as long as the check weight reads the same each time a check is performed (daily or before use), the balance is still in calibration.
If a regulating authority says otherwise (i.e. NATA), then that would prevail and the resultant costs of having to use certified weights as check weights!
There is a difference between a check weight and a certified weight.
You need a certified weight to calibrate a balance.
You cannot calibrate a balance with a check weight. You only need a check weight to check the repeatability of a balance, as the check weight is only testing if the balance has drifted since it was calibrated. That is, as long as the check weight reads the same each time a check is performed (daily or before use), the balance is still in calibration.
If a regulating authority says otherwise (i.e. NATA), then that would prevail and the resultant costs of having to use certified weights as check weights!
Hi daxman,
Maybe a question of semantics,
See Post 10.