Are we speaking of actual metal inclusion rejects or all rejects?
99.9% of our MD rejects are false positives. We deal with moisture and frozen form variances in our product which has been documented in our validation study for reject thresholds and verification standards. I can't imagine performing RCA/CAPA for all...
Hi, Leila;
If the metal detector is a monitoring instrument, and during this monitoring activity the MD rejects as it should by the challenged verification methods, how is this a deviation at this CCP?
99.9% false positives ???
This is really terrible! This must be improved. I think such high false positives have actually caused MD to lose its meaning and greatly increase the intensity of your meaningless work.
Because in this case, MD itself will lose everyone's trust! Among our customers, this is absolutely intolerable and must be improved.
We are a service provider of equipment, which may be due to the following reasons:
1, Because you mentioned moisture and frozen, I guess the most likely reason is that your product is not sufficiently deep-frozen.
May I know what food you produce?
2, If deep freezing is not possible for any reason, the MD detection standard you set is actually not reasonable.
In other words, your MD cannot reach the current detection capability in this case.
3, There may also be reasons for the equipment itself, such as no professional maintenance.
This is actually very complicated, not to mention here.
4, As service providers or users, we should evaluate false positives.
If you can provide data of 200 or more signal values for your product, Fe, NFe and SS respectively, totaling 800 datas and the more the better, I can analyze it for you here!
Under normal circumstances, we help users achieve about one-thousandth of false positives.
This is our analysis method:
Snap4.jpg 220.04KB
1 downloads
I don’t know if I have described this issue accurately, if anyone has further questions, I would be happy to discuss with you.
Many thanks.