Validation and verification for metal detector in confectionary candies
Hope all doing great. Someone can guide / advise how to conduct validation and verification for metal detector in confectionary (Candies). Will appreciate your support.
Best option---reach out to the manufacturer and have them send you a tech to assist
you need to intentionally put varying sizes of metal through the detector and confirm that they are all rejected---this needs to be repeated for all metal types and at or below the size you are using to verify the MD is working during daily production
it also needs to be done in the right (yours) packaging as this can affect how well the MD functions
Agree with Scampi and I'll add some companies will actually make specialized test pieces that match the form and shape of your product to use.
We do Rapid fire and internal Audits for validation.
Hope all doing great. Someone can guide / advise how to conduct validation and verification for metal detector in confectionary (Candies). Will appreciate your support.
It all depends on how you or the SQF Standard choose to interpret Va/Ve. (Machine providers may have a further, different again, interpretation).
Unfortunately, seemingly despite official advice, SQFauditors are effectively out on their own (eg with respect to Codex) as far as Validation is interpreted (as previously discussed in detail on this Forum).
"A Law unto Themselves".
Regardless, see -
For Verification: Use test pieces containing specified size of ferrous 0.5 mm), SS (1.2 mm) and Non-Ferrous (0.8 mm) metal particles. These test pieces shall be passed through a metal detector before and after the activity. If before and after test pieces get rejected it is verified that, the metal detector performs its activity as intended.
Validation: Intentionally introduce different types of metal particles in a small-size dummy batch and check whether candies are rejected or not. Perform this activity in specified intervals, ideally annually.
It all depends on how you or the SQF Standard choose to interpret Va/Ve. (Machine providers may have a further, different again, interpretation).
Unfortunately, seemingly despite official advice, SQFauditors are effectively out on their own (eg with respect to Codex) as far as Validation is interpreted (as previously discussed in detail on this Forum).
"A Law unto Themselves".
Regardless, see -
Hi Shahbaz,
i have attached 2 more examples to expand/clarify the material linked via Post 5 -
(a) this illustrates some practical logic involved with doing a trial run/Validation through the MD
Metal Detector (MD) Validation..pdf 797.53KB 14 downloads
(credit-techni-k)
(b) this is a complete CFIA HACCP Plan showing the full context of the Verification extract given in my previously posted attachment.
HACCP Generic Model for Fresh produce, Ready-To-Eat Fresh-Cut Vegetables.pdf 427.08KB 8 downloads
(see pg 23/24, penultimate column)
A particular difficulty with SQF's apparently, commonly experienced, auditorial interpretation of Validation relates to Chronology and consequent blurring of the [Codex] distinction between Va and Ve. (Note that SQF's Codex-attributed definition of Validation in SQF Code ver 9 is, afaik, "mythical". This aspect is, for example, more fully addressed in this Post/threads -
https://www.ifsqn.co...es/#entry132872
https://www.ifsqn.co...ion/#entry42176
(2011!)