Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Metal Detector Settings


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

Stacys

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 19 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 29 July 2021 - 07:50 PM

Our metal detectors are set at the following due to a specific customer;  2.0 mm fe, 1.2 mm Nfe and 1.85 mm SS. This was done about four years ago and fortress says this is very low for the units. Before we had 2.0 mm fe, 2.5 mm Nfe and 3.0 mm SS. What are your thoughts on going back to the original cards? What is the standard industry for metal detection size? Stacy



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,504 posts
  • 5408 thanks
1,342
Excellent

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

Posted 30 July 2021 - 12:06 AM

Our metal detectors are set at the following due to a specific customer;  2.0 mm fe, 1.2 mm Nfe and 1.85 mm SS. This was done about four years ago and fortress says this is very low for the units.  before we had 2.0 mm fe, 2.5 mm Nfe and 3.0 mm SS.  what are your thoughts on going back to the original cards?

 

What is the standard industry for metal detection size?

 

 

Stacy

 

Hi Stacy,

 

Implemented Sensitivity  is related to (a) Validation capability and, perhaps, (b) Instrument Stability (eg frequency false positives/difficult food matrix).

 

Ideally Sensitivity  is minimized using a "Standardised" Procedure for (a) but (b) may sometimes necessitate a degree of compromise.

 

I have never seen a test piece of 1.85mm ?

 

^^^(red) an FDA answer might be to use a setup such that no metal contamination is detectable in the output.

 

Afaik there is no specific "Standard". Different Industries may have varying "Best Practices".


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Scampi

    Fellow

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 4,331 posts
  • 1188 thanks
914
Excellent

  • Canada
    Canada
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 30 July 2021 - 11:44 AM

Metal detection is a varied thing depending on your process

 

I agree with Charles, particularly about the test piece.......do you actually have a 1.85mm test wand?

 

Why do you want to move backwards in your detection?  Seems to go against continuous improvement.......

 

For your reference/review

https://www.ams.usda...l Detection.pdf

https://www.grainsca...cp-final-en.pdf

https://www.food-saf...om-adulteration

https://www.loma.com...metal-detection


Please stop referring to me as Sir/sirs


PQEdwards

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 25 posts
  • 2 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 05 August 2021 - 07:23 AM

Hi,

 

Sensitivity will depend on the product and pack size (i.e. detector orifice size), for example our system must deal with 25kg sacks and so the 3mm ferrous and 4mm stainless steel are the smallest that can be reliably detected. Perhaps consider producing a response curve using different size pieces, taking into consideration the background signal.

 

However, if you are not having problems with many false rejects or failure for the test pieces to sound then why change?

 

John



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,504 posts
  • 5408 thanks
1,342
Excellent

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

Posted 06 August 2021 - 12:23 AM

Hi,

 

Sensitivity will depend on the product and pack size (i.e. detector orifice size), for example our system must deal with 25kg sacks and so the 3mm ferrous and 4mm stainless steel are the smallest that can be reliably detected. Perhaps consider producing a response curve using different size pieces, taking into consideration the background signal.

 

However, if you are not having problems with many false rejects or failure for the test pieces to sound then why change?

 

John

 

Hi PQEE,

 

It may well be a "Best Practice" but IMHO,  a necessary tolerance of up to 4mm suggests a POI. The problem is the 25kg of course.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users