5 replies to this topic

[Heidi_SQF]

I am being asked, by my Engineering team, to provide a specification or guideline for metal to assist in settingup our vision systems.  I am referencing the attached document.  Has anyone else had success setting metal specifications?  Or what are your parameters / guidelines around this subject?  Mostly what we see is metal dust due to wear on molds or parts handling equipment.  When we get larger pieces of metal, it is normally easy to see in or process and machines can be shut down quickly. 

 

Due to the speed of our industry and vision systems going in, I would like to provide my Engineering team with something to work from to improve our process to prevent our customers from having contamination issues.  TIA.

Attached Files

•  ucm074554.pdf   15.56KB   31 downloads

[Charles.C]

I am being asked, by my Engineering team, to provide a specification or guideline for metal to assist in settingup our vision systems.  I am referencing the attached document.  Has anyone else had success setting metal specifications?  Or what are your parameters / guidelines around this subject?  Mostly what we see is metal dust due to wear on molds or parts handling equipment.  When we get larger pieces of metal, it is normally easy to see in or process and machines can be shut down quickly. 

 

Due to the speed of our industry and vision systems going in, I would like to provide my Engineering team with something to work from to improve our process to prevent our customers from having contamination issues.  TIA.

 

Hi Heidi,

 

Sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "vision systems".

 

Is there a Food Product Packaging/Process/Metal detector involved ?

 

PS - this post looks like a duplicate of this one -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...al/#entry141525

 

If you are referring to particle size limits for metal contamination on "Packaging", I anticipate that it may relate to the type of Packaging, eg food contact (fc) or otherwise. If fc I guess the topic involves potential adulteration.

Edited by Charles.C, 14 August 2019 - 12:00 PM.
edited

[Heidi_SQF]

Hi Heidi,

 

Sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "vision systems".

 

Is there a Food Product Packaging/Process/Metal detector involved ?

 

PS - this post looks like a duplicate of this one -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...al/#entry141525

 

If you are referring to particle size limits for metal contamination on "Packaging", I anticipate that it may relate to the type of Packaging, eg food contact (fc) or otherwise. If fc I guess the topic involves potential adulteration.

We have an automation / vision system that is monitoring the parts for defects that we teach it to look for.  Issue is, these vision systems can only look at a particular part of the container....where we "teach" it to check so if the metal doesn't land in that exact spot it doesn't get kicked out.  We do not have metal detectors on our line.  

 

We are considered primary food contact packaging and that's why I am being so meticulous with my research.  That post you referenced was an identical one I posted in May when I was first asked about the issue, but no one replied.  

 

Since I have a Quality background, my answer is I want no metal defects to be present or allowed, but Engineering is looking for some kind of AQL for metal either in size, type, amount, etc. from me in case there are machine issues that lead to this happening.  I am just trying to find out if other companies have a standard, AQL or something they abide by when it comes to metal. 

 

I appreciate your help.

[Charles.C]

We have an automation / vision system that is monitoring the parts for defects that we teach it to look for.  Issue is, these vision systems can only look at a particular part of the container....where we "teach" it to check so if the metal doesn't land in that exact spot it doesn't get kicked out.  We do not have metal detectors on our line.  

 

We are considered primary food contact packaging and that's why I am being so meticulous with my research.  That post you referenced was an identical one I posted in May when I was first asked about the issue, but no one replied.  

 

Since I have a Quality background, my answer is I want no metal defects to be present or allowed, but Engineering is looking for some kind of AQL for metal either in size, type, amount, etc. from me in case there are machine issues that lead to this happening.  I am just trying to find out if other companies have a standard, AQL or something they abide by when it comes to metal. 

 

I appreciate your help.

 

Hi Heidi,

 

Thks for reply.

 

Unfortunately It seems very few people here are using the type of monitoring system you refer. I speculate that if this hazard is relevant to their production they are using metal detectors ?

 

 I can recall a Codex example where a sieve's performance for rejecting metallic contamination is evaluated/validated by setting a maximum percentage of "passed metal" in its output.

 

However I doubt that an AQL approach is generally suitable since, despite the "tolerances" discussed in yr OP attachment, this hazard IMO tends usually to be practically viewed/handled as more of a zero-tolerant type.

 

Hence the rejection function in metal detectors for any "magnetic" contamination exceeding the MD's  limit of detection (LOD). The latter is typically expected to be set at the highest sensitivity available/usable (ca. LOD). (In practice, for MDs,  specific characteristics may "interfere" with ideal LOD, eg shape/configurational aspect of contamination).

[Heidi_SQF]

Hi Heidi,

 

Thks for reply.

 

Unfortunately It seems very few people here are using the type of monitoring system you refer. I speculate that if this hazard is relevant to their production they are using metal detectors ?

 

 I can recall a Codex example where a sieve's performance for rejecting metallic contamination is evaluated/validated by setting a maximum percentage of "passed metal" in its output.

 

However I doubt that an AQL approach is generally suitable since, despite the "tolerances" discussed in yr OP attachment, this hazard IMO tends usually to be practically viewed/handled as more of a zero-tolerant type.

 

Hence the rejection function in metal detectors for any "magnetic" contamination exceeding the MD's  limit of detection (LOD). The latter is typically expected to be set at the highest sensitivity available/usable (ca. LOD). (In practice, for MDs,  specific characteristics may "interfere" with ideal LOD, eg shape/configurational aspect of contamination).

I appreciate your response.  My Engineering team has more follow-up questions:

 

1. The metal detection companies we have talked with wouldn't be able to detect the size or type of metal we are finding.  Sometimes it is a fine dust.  Production is shut down (very costly and time consuming) and Engineering is wondering how we can set parameters around contamination we can't detect or distinguish.

 

2. Would a machine and/or mold PM be enough to demonstrate we are taking action to act on risks to contamination of product before they become issues?

 

3. Can you point us to any resources, documentation, standards, etc. that may help us develop a better tolerance than we currently have in place (no tolerance)?

 

We greatly appreciate and value your expertise, experience and assistance with this matter.

[Charles.C]

I appreciate your response.  My Engineering team has more follow-up questions:

 

1. The metal detection companies we have talked with wouldn't be able to detect the size or type of metal we are finding.  Sometimes it is a fine dust.  Production is shut down (very costly and time consuming) and Engineering is wondering how we can set parameters around contamination we can't detect or distinguish.

 

2. Would a machine and/or mold PM be enough to demonstrate we are taking action to act on risks to contamination of product before they become issues?

 

3. Can you point us to any resources, documentation, standards, etc. that may help us develop a better tolerance than we currently have in place (no tolerance)?

 

We greatly appreciate and value your expertise, experience and assistance with this matter.

 

Hi Heidi,

 

I apologise for my ignorance but (a) I'm not a packaging Person, (b) I have zero knowledge/experience regarding yr seemingly highly specialised equipment. So I cannot help very much.

 

It is curious that  Packaging people here do not seem to be using yr type of equipment, Perhaps this is due to -

(a) some unusual type of Packaging in yr Production demanding ultraclean surfaces ?

(b) other Producers are not experiencing the type of contamination you refer for unknown reasons ?

(c) other producers are ignoring contamination such as you refer since considered not-significant?

 

The article you attached in OP is definitely relevant to food evaluation however, from a tolerance POV, it is perhaps capable of misinterpretation. To illustrate what I mean, I suggest you have a look at this post/included links and the surrounding thread -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...al/#entry137557

(some substantial reading involved )

 

Regarding post 5-

 

(1) I don't quite understand why yr system is unable to determine the size of metallic contamination. Calibration is not possible?

(2) what is "PM" ?

(3) As per my link above, from a purely adulteration POV, the tolerance is zero but from an MD's operationall POV this is not pragmatic, eg -

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...on/#entry133891