UKM-SUM24-PG16+17_Layout 1 22/06/2024 13:41 Page 17
MACHINERY
SENSITIVITY SIGNATURES
Dairy product applications are typically wet and conductive, which can present an additional challenge for metal detectors. Cheese, for example, with its high moisture content, combined with salt, can be highly conductive and cause a reaction like metal being present. This product effect can result in the product being rejected and good food being discarded. To identify a metal contaminant within conductive products, a metal detector must remove or reduce this product effect. Single pass calibration is meant to do this. However, the underlying operating frequency of the metal detector impacts how effective a calibration can be at eliminating the product effect. With single frequency metal detectors running ‘wet’ products there is often a trade-off between ferrous and stainless-steel performance depending on the selected frequency. Typically, higher frequencies exhibit increased performance in detecting stainless-steel versus ferrous metals. The best approach is to find a frequency that provides a balance between the lowest product effect and the detection of target contaminants.
Using simultaneous multi-frequency technology is the most reliable way to remove product effect without compromising the sensitivity of a metal detector. This processing technology powers the
UKManufacturing Summer 2024
Fortress Interceptor, enabling it to run real-time analysis of the low-frequency and a high- frequency signals in parallel.
The increased sensitivity was one of the primary reasons why dairy processor Vepo Cheese selected seven Interceptor metal detectors to integrate with their vertical packing machines. The cheese giant specifically requested “state of the art inspection equipment that could deal with variations in density and product effect.” Technical operations manager at Vepo, Hugo
van Put recounts: “These metal detectors are really sensitive. This helps us to feel confident that the risks of contaminants are minimal, with less chance of a food safety issue. Having the double readings within the Interceptor system also lowers the risk of false-positive rejects, which saves on food waste.”
TEST SPHERES: SHAPE AND SCIENCE The standard technique for measuring the sensitivity of metal detectors in food inspection is to use metal test spheres. Yet, metal contaminants typically enter the production line as flat metal flakes, shards, swarf or thin wires, rather than globular shapes. So why test using spheres?
The main rationale is it provides machinery suppliers and food processors with a comparative sensitivity control. A sphere does not exhibit orientation effect and will always produce the
same signal when passed through the same position of a metal detector’s aperture. The food metal detection industry has general sphere size guidelines. For example, a wet block of cheese measuring approximately 75mm high, currently has sphere size parameters of 2.0mm for ferrous metals, 2.5mm for non-ferrous and 3.5mm for stainless steel. However, these levels are not always one size fits all, as the product effect from different types of cheese as an example, can vary greatly.
FREQUENCY FOCUSED
There are multiple variables that can affect a metal detector’s performance, from the potential size and composition of possible contaminants to the liquid content and consistency of the product matrix. It is equally important to note that there is no
‘best’ metal detection frequency. There are only ranges of frequencies, each better for different purposes. As with any aspect of food safety, there’s always a cause and a consequence. Having sufficient scientific understanding about how dairy products behave and conditions that can trigger a false positive reaction is important. If in doubt, seek expert guidance.
Fortress Technology
www.fortresstechnology.co.uk
17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
