6 replies to this topic

[Julz]

Hi all,

I work for a small family owned operation that mixes and fills concentrates into small containers.  In the past we have used a Metal detector to detect metal and a screen to remove foreign materials.  The Metal detector is now no longer functioning and we would like to remove the MD from the process (was a CCP) and use the screen/filter as the CCP.  I have a couple of questions relating to this:

 

1.  The MD test pieces (FE, Non FE and SS) were 2mm and the screen size is 2mm.  My issue is that the screen has been used for many years and I can not find a calibration certificate.  Is there a simple in house test that I can use to calibrate the screen?

 

2.  I have referenced literature for the validation of the screen, but I also have many in house records (years)  where we have used the screen in conjunction with the metal detector and recorded our findings.  I do not know where to start to write a validation report and correlate all of the data.  Does anybody have template or example I can use .

 

Any advice on the above would be much appreciated.

Thanks

[Charles.C]

Hi all,

I work for a small family owned operation that mixes and fills concentrates into small containers.  In the past we have used a Metal detector to detect metal and a screen to remove foreign materials.  The Metal detector is now no longer functioning and we would like to remove the MD from the process (was a CCP) and use the screen/filter as the CCP.  I have a couple of questions relating to this:

 

1.  The MD test pieces (FE, Non FE and SS) were 2mm and the screen size is 2mm.  My issue is that the screen has been used for many years and I can not find a calibration certificate.  Is there a simple in house test that I can use to calibrate the screen?

 

2.  I have referenced literature for the validation of the screen, but I also have many in house records (years)  where we have used the screen in conjunction with the metal detector and recorded our findings.  I do not know where to start to write a validation report and correlate all of the data.  Does anybody have template or example I can use .

 

Any advice on the above would be much appreciated.

Thanks

 

I suggest to invest in a new screen which is certified. Probably not a fortune ?

[SQFconsultant]

I'd go back to square one and buy a new metal detector.

[Julz]

I'd go back to square one and buy a new metal detector.

HI Glenn,

We have reviewed the purchase of a new metal detector, but as this piece of equipment is only used 20 days per year, it seems expensive to spend the money on a new MD when a screen can deliver the same results.  I have worked in a number of juice factories, and they do not use MD's for the removal of metal, they rely on screens to remove foreign materials.   Do you mind explaining why you would buy a new MD when the screen should (?) do the same job?  I am wanting to look at this from all prospectives.... just to make sure I am not missing something....

Thanks

[Julz]

I suggest to invest in a new screen which is certified. Probably not a fortune ?

Thanks Charles,

This was one of my options I was looking at.

[pHruit]

I'd second the suggestion from Charles - generally not a vast cost for such things, and significantly simpler than trying to validate the old one.

Alternatively you could measure all of the pores, but that sounds tedious and time-consuming.

There might be a theoretical approach that could possibly give you an average pore size based on the back-pressure generated by a known fluid flow, but that sounds exceedingly non-trivial and the time to calculate whether it's even viable as an approach is likely to cost more than just buying a new screen

[Luisa Sot]

Hello!

You know, I've beedn said that the main thing to validate the CCP parameters is to prove that it helps to elimenate risk. If you cannot find in the internet historical evidence of bad work of filters screen and you don;t have claims for foreign bodies bigger than 2 mm, it can work without MD. 

In my pont of view, having two systems for one problem with the same parameters will not give extra safe for product, as they duplicate the same control for the same risk.

For example, my validation of MD was on the basis of my own tests - I proved the chosen parameters and on the basis of claims. And we are A-BRC certified. 

hope it helps.