Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Metal detector rejects: Is Root cause analysis necessary for every rejection?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

AngieGH

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 21 posts
  • 2 thanks
4
Neutral

  • Ghana
    Ghana

Posted 13 November 2020 - 03:32 PM

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if for every rejection by the metal detector(MD), the rejected product should be taken through a root cause analysis.I think it should because the product with the metal contaminant  has now become a non-conforming product hence the detection and rejection by the MD. The MD is supposed to detect and reject (actually means the control measure in place is working) but then should'nt we be conducting a root cause analysis to prevent recurrence of  the presence of metal contaminants in the products?

What's your take on this.

 

Thanks.

 

AngieGH.



mohamed ahmed yusuf

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 168 posts
  • 38 thanks
14
Good

  • Egypt
    Egypt
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading, Listening music, handball , volleyball, food safety, drawing , R&D, Photoshop

Posted 15 November 2020 - 07:02 AM

Hello AngieGH, 

 

You are aboslutely right about MD rejection but you won't get a root cause for the rejection itself, you will inspect the rejected quantity and then do root cause analysis for the FM that made MD did the rejection.

 

Example: your MD rejected specific quanityt of product and by inspection you found a metal piece 3mm, then you shall your factory team to get the root cause and know the source of this FM ( this step is a type of improvement for CAPA , preventive maintenance and monitoring itself of IPC plus HACCP).

 

Hope that i could help you! 


M.Yusuf


AngieGH

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 21 posts
  • 2 thanks
4
Neutral

  • Ghana
    Ghana

Posted 16 November 2020 - 03:41 PM

Thanks M.Yusuf.

I get you right, the rejected product must be taken through root cause analysis.

 

Thanks.

 

BR,

AngieGH.



Thanked by 1 Member:

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,090 posts
  • 5312 thanks
1,278
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 17 November 2020 - 07:40 AM

Standard ??


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Leila Burin

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 134 posts
  • 39 thanks
13
Good

  • Spain
    Spain

Posted 18 November 2020 - 05:45 PM

Hello AngieGH.

yes! it is a deviation of a CCP,

best regrds,

Leila



Slab

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 426 posts
  • 200 thanks
99
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Heel of the Boot
  • Interests:Reading (history, science fiction), Photography, drawing,food safety, metrology, TQM, hoplology, etc.

Posted 18 November 2020 - 06:25 PM

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... 

 

 

Hello AngieGH.

yes! it is a deviation of a CCP,

best regrds,

Leila

 

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


Food Safety News  Marine Stewardship Council

 

"Some people freak out when they see small vertebra in their pasta" ~ Chef John


wtheriot

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 47 posts
  • 24 thanks
33
Excellent

  • United States
    United States

Posted 23 November 2020 - 10:28 PM

Hello AngieGH.

yes! it is a deviation of a CCP,

best regrds,

Leila

A metal detector reject is not a deviation of a CCP. The metal detector functioned exactly how it is supposed to.

The only thing to do is investigate the FM source.



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,090 posts
  • 5312 thanks
1,278
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 24 November 2020 - 02:29 AM

A metal detector reject is not a deviation of a CCP. The metal detector functioned exactly how it is supposed to.

The only thing to do is investigate the FM source.

I suppose there is (somehow) a "deviation" of the validation of CCP if it continually, wrongly, rejects.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Planck

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 29 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral

  • China
    China
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Shanghai, China

Posted 28 November 2020 - 04:39 PM

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:

Attached File  Snap4.jpg   220.04KB   0 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.


Professional & Engrossed in all series Metal Detectors.


Slab

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 426 posts
  • 200 thanks
99
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Heel of the Boot
  • Interests:Reading (history, science fiction), Photography, drawing,food safety, metrology, TQM, hoplology, etc.

Posted 29 November 2020 - 10:09 AM

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:

attachicon.gif Snap4.jpg

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.

 

When you are selling something, you should really work on your "bedside manner" 


Food Safety News  Marine Stewardship Council

 

"Some people freak out when they see small vertebra in their pasta" ~ Chef John


Planck

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 29 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral

  • China
    China
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Shanghai, China

Posted 29 November 2020 - 03:00 PM

When you are selling something, you should really work on your "bedside manner" 

I'm sorry, very sorry. I sincerely apologize for any offense or rudeness!

Since English is not my native language, I may not be able to describe my apology most accurately, including previous responses.

But anything that makes you uncomfortable, I'm really very sorry.

And it’s almost impossible for me to conduct any meaningful business here, because we are not in the same country.

But I do want to share my experience with everyone.

And in fact, almost all of my experience has benefited from my customers, who are almost all multinational factories from your country.

I am really grateful to these high-quality customers. It is precisely because of their extremely high quality control standards that they reversely promote my further thinking and improvement.

So I should also thank you and the excellent companies in your country!

Any offense, my sincere apology again! I'm very very sorry!


Professional & Engrossed in all series Metal Detectors.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users