10 replies to this topic

[LECHUMI]

Hi everyone!

 

I wish to clarify on something. We are from a sugar refinery and one of our CCP is on the magnet traps whereby we shall determine the strength of the magnets using a gauss meter in a pre-determined frequency. 

 

We also practise a cleaning system of those trapped magnet traps (not a part of our CCP). We shall remove the magnets, clean them, collect the sediments trapped by the magnets, weigh and record the quantity in a log book twice daily. This is our internal control so that we are able to refer on the log books shall there any issues in future. We do have a max limit for the magnet traps collected where if the limit is exceeded, we should take an immediate action. The question is : currently I need to study back on the limit as we found that initially set limit might be too stringent (the limit was set by earlier personnel many years ago). 

 

I have done a study where I have gathered sediments collected each day for a period of time, weighed them and plot a graph to determine the maximum limit that has been achieved. Would like to clarify here, is there any reference of limits for this magnets collected during cleaning or it is totally up to the company to set their own limit based on the study? Aside, any other important aspects that I should also consider while doing this study? 

 

Thank you in advance!

[Charles.C]

do you also use metal detectors ? Probably simplifies the CCP aspect.

 

Defining solitary magnets as CCPs can be tricky as to critical limits/validation.

 

My offhand guess to yr last paragraph is simply No/Yes although the magnet supplier (or you) may have some guidelines for related performance (ie gauss). If no effect then i suggest you can do a direct trend analysis.

Edited by Charles.C, 23 November 2021 - 09:47 AM.
added

[Evans X.]

Greetings Lechumi,

 

The maximum load that the magnet can hold should be an information that the provider gives you or be in the product specifications. If it's old enough that you can't find these info, then the study you performed is your best alternative.

However, in your study since you are looking for the maximum possible load the magnet can attract, I would suggest you "store" a good amount of the sediments you collect each day and then take out a magnet and start loading it until you reach the point that you visibly see that any more falls off and also the remaining sediments are firmly attached. This way you will determine your upper weight limit and which you should set a little lower just to be extra safe.

The ultimate safety measure would be a metal detector at the end of the line, cause this way your would be a little less worried about the magnets performance.

 

Regards!

[LECHUMI]

do you also use metal detectors ? Probably simplifies the CCP aspect.

 

Defining solitary magnets as CCPs can be tricky as to critical limits/validation.

 

My offhand guess to yr last paragraph is simply No/Yes although the magnet supplier (or you) may have some guidelines for related performance (ie gauss). If no effect then i suggest you can do a direct trend analysis.

Hi Charles!

 

Thank you for your valuable sharing. Yes, we do have metal detector as CCP too at the end of the process. This magnet traps is only a part of CCP being controlled in process. 

[LECHUMI]

Greetings Lechumi,

 

The maximum load that the magnet can hold should be an information that the provider gives you or be in the product specifications. If it's old enough that you can't find these info, then the study you performed is your best alternative.

However, in your study since you are looking for the maximum possible load the magnet can attract, I would suggest you "store" a good amount of the sediments you collect each day and then take out a magnet and start loading it until you reach the point that you visibly see that any more falls off and also the remaining sediments are firmly attached. This way you will determine your upper weight limit and which you should set a little lower just to be extra safe.

The ultimate safety measure would be a metal detector at the end of the line, cause this way your would be a little less worried about the magnets performance.

 

Regards!

Greetings Evan,

 

Thank you for you kind sharing with me. This definitely gives me an idea of my next step. On the metal detector part, yes, we do have control metal detector as CCP during our packing process. 

[Charles.C]

Hi Charles!

 

Thank you for your valuable sharing. Yes, we do have metal detector as CCP too at the end of the process. This magnet traps is only a part of CCP being controlled in process. 

 

Hi Lechumi,

 

The haccp decisions for (magnet + MD) or (Magnet only) have a variety of recommendations in the Literature.

I attach some illustrative related extracts which (a) query the notion of magnet as CCP and (b) offer suggestions for CL if designated CCP  No doubt others exist also (eg PRP).

The Kraft item is probably the most directly oriented to yr current query although yr existing CL is (perhaps wisely) more like the (simpler) 4th interpretation. Also note the interesting caveat in last attachment.

 

 Magnet as CCP or not.pdf   243.01KB   55 downloads

 Necessity for using magnet with metal detector.pdf   288.5KB   44 downloads

 Kraft SOP for Magnet as CCP.pdf   258.41KB   62 downloads

 haccp plan magnet as OPRP.pdf   122.76KB   65 downloads

 Validation Magnet Size Critical Limit.pdf   162.06KB   72 downloads

 

I am curious as to yr magnet critical limit and how you validated it ?

[LECHUMI]

Hi Lechumi,

 

The haccp decisions for (magnet + MD) or (Magnet only) have a variety of recommendations in the Literature.

I attach some illustrative related extracts which (a) query the notion of magnet as CCP and (b) offer suggestions for CL if designated CCP  No doubt others exist also (eg PRP).

The Kraft item is probably the most directly oriented to yr current query although yr existing CL is (perhaps wisely) more like the (simpler) 4th interpretation. Also note the interesting caveat in last attachment.

 

Magnet as CCP or not.pdf

Necessity for using magnet with metal detector.pdf

Kraft SOP for Magnet as CCP.pdf

haccp plan magnet as OPRP.pdf

Validation Magnet Size Critical Limit.pdf

 

I am curious as to yr magnet critical limit and how you validated it ?

Greetings Charles,

 

Your sharing to me is indeed really helpful. Thank you! 

 

Our CCP for magnet trap is to detect for any physical especially metallic hazards in line during the process before going through another detection system which is the metal detector. The CL set is min 10 000 gauss to determine the magnet strength that we actually perform twice monthly. 

 

The study that I'm doing on the other hand is upon cleaning of the magnetic trap twice daily whereby we gather the sediments collected and weigh them. We wish to set a limit for it to trigger an alarm to us that we should take an immediate step if the amount collected exceeds the usual norm which is our limit. 

 

Thanks!

[Charles.C]

Greetings Charles,

 

Your sharing to me is indeed really helpful. Thank you! 

 

Our CCP for magnet trap is to detect for any physical especially metallic hazards in line during the process before going through another detection system which is the metal detector. The CL set is min 10 000 gauss to determine the magnet strength that we actually perform twice monthly. 

 

The study that I'm doing on the other hand is upon cleaning of the magnetic trap twice daily whereby we gather the sediments collected and weigh them. We wish to set a limit for it to trigger an alarm to us that we should take an immediate step if the amount collected exceeds the usual norm which is our limit. 

 

Thanks!

Hi Lechumi,

 

Thks for details.

 

Yes, i appreciate you are focussing on a parallel cleaning project. The conclusion seems to depend on (a) Punitive Objective (if any) with respect to a Supplier's Quality, (b) Influence (if any) on Magnet Performance as determined via Post 3, (c) practical convenience..

 

Regarding monitoring of the CCP, yr procedure seems similar to that shown in my 4th attachment/Post6.  However such  low monitoring frequencies are surely  debatable  vis-a-vis the logistical enormity of any consequential corrective action ?. A similar dilemma also occurs for metal detectors but usually yields  an "opposite" monitoring conclusion.

 

I presume you validate the minimum 10,000 gauss by reference to a published text ?

 

I would also comment that any substantial positive findings at the MD implies that the magnet CCP is maybe failing unless the magnet + MD is specified as a combined CCP.

[LECHUMI]

Hi Lechumi,

 

Thks for details.

 

Yes, i appreciate you are focussing on a parallel cleaning project. The conclusion seems to depend on (a) Punitive Objective (if any) with respect to a Supplier's Quality, (b) Influence (if any) on Magnet Performance as determined via Post 3, (c) practical convenience..

 

Regarding monitoring of the CCP, yr procedure seems similar to that shown in my 4th attachment/Post6.  However such  low monitoring frequencies are surely  debatable  vis-a-vis the logistical enormity of any consequential corrective action ?. A similar dilemma also occurs for metal detectors but usually yields  an "opposite" monitoring conclusion.

 

I presume you validate the minimum 10,000 gauss by reference to a published text ?

 

I would also comment that any substantial positive findings at the MD implies that the magnet CCP is maybe failing unless the magnet + MD is specified as a combined CCP.

Greetings Charles,

 

Yes, the monitoring frequency is indeed debatable even to our external auditors recently. Hence, we are in performing another internal study by increasing the frequencies of checking before making any relatable changes. However, grateful that no failure or food safety/HACCP issues been observed so far. 

 

Our CCP for magnet + MD are actually not a combined one. They are two different control systems that we are practising Charles. 

Edited by LECHUMI, 29 November 2021 - 04:56 AM.

[Charles.C]

Greetings Charles,

 

Yes, the monitoring frequency is indeed debatable even to our external auditors recently. Hence, we are in performing another internal study by increasing the frequencies of checking before making any relatable changes. However, grateful that no failure or food safety/HACCP issues been observed so far. 

 

Our CCP for magnet + MD are actually not a combined one. They are two different control systems that we are practising Charles. 

Hi Lechumi,

 

Yr OP focussed on cleaning/total weight of magnet residue (presumably aligned to yr selection of magnet strength as magnet CL). However some haccp studies choose the occurrence of hazardous metal on the magnet as a CL criterion. This would be partially analogous to the parallel thread

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...it/#entry180406

 

JFI, I did a little additional searching to Post 6 above regarding  refs for haccp  action limits relating to the hazardous nature of material retained by a magnet which is summarised below -

 

(1) Any finding of (undefined) "hazardous" metal on the magnet, etc. see mt1

(2) Any finding of defined size (eg "hazardous") metal on the magnet. Notably >2mm and 3-25mm respectively. See (a) last file Post6, (b)mt2

(3) Any finding of "abnormal" metal on the magnet where abnormal = f(size/shape/quantity,etc)..See 3rd file Post6

 

The choice of hazardous size versus magnet strength for CL is likely related to convenience since both seem to have monitoring pros/cons (and also with respect to Validation). IMO, if a MD follows the magnet, designating the MD as sole CCP  looks the more logical and documentation-friendly option.

 

 mt1 - Physical CCPs-CLs.pdf   42.29KB   34 downloads

 mt2 - haccp plan sugar.pdf   265.64KB   32 downloads

[LECHUMI]

Hi Lechumi,

 

Yr OP focussed on cleaning/total weight of magnet residue (presumably aligned to yr selection of magnet strength as magnet CL). However some haccp studies choose the occurrence of hazardous metal on the magnet as a CL criterion. This would be partially analogous to the parallel thread

 

https://www.ifsqn.co...it/#entry180406

 

JFI, I did a little additional searching to Post 6 above regarding  refs for haccp  action limits relating to the hazardous nature of material retained by a magnet which is summarised below -

 

(1) Any finding of (undefined) "hazardous" metal on the magnet, etc. see mt1

(2) Any finding of defined size (eg "hazardous") metal on the magnet. Notably >2mm and 3-25mm respectively. See (a) last file Post6, (b)mt2

(3) Any finding of "abnormal" metal on the magnet where abnormal = f(size/shape/quantity,etc)..See 3rd file Post6

 

The choice of hazardous size versus magnet strength for CL is likely related to convenience since both seem to have monitoring pros/cons (and also with respect to Validation). IMO, if a MD follows the magnet, designating the MD as sole CCP  looks the more logical and documentation-friendly option.

 

mt1 - Physical CCPs-CLs.pdf

mt2 - haccp plan sugar.pdf

Greetings Charles!

 

Thank you for your valuable input. I'll be going through them and apply whatever necessary to facilitate my study.