Metal Detection Validation
Hi everybody,
I'm looking for some help to elaborate a procedure for validate che Metal detector. Every years the audotrs say that the "control" ore the procedure with different testing is not enought to demostrate the validation og the metal detector.
I dont' have the BRC guideline for metal detector but in the documents i have there is not decribe a correct procedure to validate this step.
Thank you to help me
Hello,
Have you received any non-conformances for this - if so under which clause(s)?
Could you describe your current metal detection procedure?
If you are already BRC certified you can log in (register with site code initially) to BRC Participate and access the document: Best Practise Guide - Foreign Body Detection Issue 2. Chapter 7 is Performance Verification and 7.1 is Verification Procedure. If you can access that I'd recommend a read through.
3rd party contractor to do an annual calibration on your metal detectors?
Hi everybody,
I'm looking for some help to elaborate a procedure for validate che Metal detector. Every years the audotrs say that the "control" ore the procedure with different testing is not enought to demostrate the validation og the metal detector.
I dont' have the BRC guideline for metal detector but in the documents i have there is not decribe a correct procedure to validate this step.
Thank you to help me
Hi m.erzetti,
afaik BRC Standard makes no specific reference to "Validation of metal detector".
The phrase is somewhat open to interpretation. For example if the context is to a CCP, the validation will refer to the Critical Limit.
Mettler's interpretation with respect to the instrument itself is detailed in the attachment in link below, you will see that it is multi-faceted covering various aspects of the MD function. Most of the latter are discussed elsewhere in this forum.
https://www.ifsqn.co...od/#entry142872
As per post2, to get relevant comments, you may need to clarify the specific criticism/context you refer to in the OP, eg which BRC clause ???
Validation of the metal; detection procedure is a completely different procedure from verification. I think that existing literature and most importantly the manual of your metal detector as well as all other information provided by the equipment's manufacturer and tests erfomed by your company everytime something changes in the production process are the validation material needed to be presented duting an audit/
IMO
Validation should be conducted on a routine basis to asses the ability of the control to control the identified hazard to the acceptable level. Verification ensures that the validated controls continue to operate as intended. Validation determines what is possible verification ensures it is still possible.
You need to determine the number of samples to be run during validation. This is where it gets a bit tricky. Is 1 pass enough? should it be 30? How about 300 or 10,000. It all depends on your level of confidence and reliability requirements. I often site the Bayes Success Run Theorem as a good reference.
In regards to metal detectors a few things should be validated. Detection capability, operation stability and capability.
Typically I would start with operational stability. Can the system operate at maximum sensitivity with no adverse effect from the environment (interference, ground loops metal free zone violations) or from the inspected product/item.
Products/items that are conductive in nature (high moisture products, metalized film, high temperature) will often require a reduction of sensitivity in order for them to successfully pass through the detector when un-contaminated. Focus at this stage to be setting the detector to successfully inspect contamination free product by passing X# of samples to ensure no false detection. You may need to run a range of product conditions if the product varies during production (moisture, temperature, etc)
Once the product setting has been established and validated we can move on to the detection capability. Metal samples should be passed with product and positioned to travel as close as possible to the absolute center of the detector opening, this is the weakest point for detection. Pass X# of each contamination type to determine the detection capability. This may also require multiple validations for each contamination type as well as validating a range of settings. i.e. Lowest sensitivity to detect samples and highest sensitivity to have an acceptable false reject rate.
Other validation considerations would be for the system itself. items such as reject operation, air fail sensors, bin full sensors and reject confirmation devices should also be validated and verified for proper operation and action.
Hope this helps
RR
IMO
Validation should be conducted on a routine basis to asses the ability of the control to control the identified hazard to the acceptable level. Verification ensures that the validated controls continue to operate as intended. Validation determines what is possible verification ensures it is still possible.
You need to determine the number of samples to be run during validation. This is where it gets a bit tricky. Is 1 pass enough? should it be 30? How about 300 or 10,000. It all depends on your level of confidence and reliability requirements. I often site the Bayes Success Run Theorem as a good reference.
In regards to metal detectors a few things should be validated. Detection capability, operation stability and capability.
Typically I would start with operational stability. Can the system operate at maximum sensitivity with no adverse effect from the environment (interference, ground loops metal free zone violations) or from the inspected product/item.
Products/items that are conductive in nature (high moisture products, metalized film, high temperature) will often require a reduction of sensitivity in order for them to successfully pass through the detector when un-contaminated. Focus at this stage to be setting the detector to successfully inspect contamination free product by passing X# of samples to ensure no false detection. You may need to run a range of product conditions if the product varies during production (moisture, temperature, etc)
Once the product setting has been established and validated we can move on to the detection capability. Metal samples should be passed with product and positioned to travel as close as possible to the absolute center of the detector opening, this is the weakest point for detection. Pass X# of each contamination type to determine the detection capability. This may also require multiple validations for each contamination type as well as validating a range of settings. i.e. Lowest sensitivity to detect samples and highest sensitivity to have an acceptable false reject rate.
Other validation considerations would be for the system itself. items such as reject operation, air fail sensors, bin full sensors and reject confirmation devices should also be validated and verified for proper operation and action.
Hope this helps
RR
Hi Robert,
Thks above and I agree with yr comments/suggestions on MD Instrument Validation (IV).. Text is a (much more) detailed version of the elements identified in attachment linked in Post 4.
I note that BRC, IFS make no specific mention of "validation of metal detector," SQF does require "IV" but the Guidance nonetheless focuses on Sensitivity which IMEX is also the most common user interpretation (being linkable to the CCP's critical limit), ie -
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.
(if a preliminary trial, more of a [incompletel]Validation of Sensitivity, or, if within monitoring perhaps either Verification or, in FSIS language, an "ongoing Validation")
I daresay some aspects of "Instrument Validation" might be covered within routine, instrument supplier's "Calibration".
Hi everybody,
I'm looking for some help to elaborate a procedure for validate che Metal detector. Every years the audotrs say that the "control" ore the procedure with different testing is not enought to demostrate the validation og the metal detector.
I dont' have the BRC guideline for metal detector but in the documents i have there is not decribe a correct procedure to validate this step.
Thank you to help me
For me in my last company- producing packaged cheese in multiple formats. We had annual calibration of the metal detectors, and carried out an annual validation ourselves. We used the procedure attached along with a briefcase of metal test sticks, with Fe, non Fe, stainless- 318 and 316 grade. Sizes ranging from 0.5mm to 9mm
Each head would have to reject down below the standard required for each line, ie 2mm Fe - so line would have to detect below this.
On top of this we had hourly metal checks on the line when it was running , with Fe, non Fe and SS
For me in my last company- producing packaged cheese in multiple formats. We had annual calibration of the metal detectors, and carried out an annual validation ourselves. We used the procedure attached along with a briefcase of metal test sticks, with Fe, non Fe, stainless- 318 and 316 grade. Sizes ranging from 0.5mm to 9mm
Each head would have to reject down below the standard required for each line, ie 2mm Fe - so line would have to detect below this.
On top of this we had hourly metal checks on the line when it was running , with Fe, non Fe and SS
Thks.
^^^^red - Procedure attached ??
The above (pre-monitoring) program validates "Sensitivity/Critical Limit". Also (in-monitoring) verifies the Critical Limit. Regardless, the combination often referred to as "validation of critical limit/.metal detector. :smile: