Production And Inspection: What To Do When Contamination Occurs

As much as food manufacturers take precautions to avoid all types of contaminants, there can still come a moment when you realize that your best efforts have failed. Maybe you find a broken blade or a missing wire during a sanitation break, but the product has already gone through your inline inspection machines—and nothing was detected. This is the freak-out moment that no plant manager or quality assurance manager wants to have. Knowing that there’s possible contamination of your food product (and not knowing where that contaminant might be) creates a hailstorm of possibilities that your plant works hard to avoid. And you’re probably wondering how this could have happened in the first place.

To prevent physical contamination from occurring, it’s important to understand the reasons why it happens. Metal detectors are the most commonly used inline inspection devices in food manufacturing, and they depend on an interference in the signal to indicate there is metal contamination in the product. Despite the fact that technology has progressed to deliver fewer false positives, the machines can still be deceived by moisture, high salt contents and dense products that could provide interference in the signal. When that continues to occur, it’s common for manufacturers to recalibrate the machine to get fewer false positives—but that also decreases its effectiveness. Another limitation of the metal detector is that, as the name indicates, it can only find metal.

That means contaminants like plastic, glass, rubber and bone won’t be found through a metal detector, but will hopefully be discovered through some other means before the product is shipped out. Oftentimes, contamination or suspected physical contamination is discovered when a product, such as cheese or yogurt, goes through a filtration system, or when a piece of machinery is inspected during a sanitation break. Once a food manufacturer discovers that it may have a physical contamination problem, it must make a decision on how to handle the situation. Options come down to four basic choices, each of which comes with its own risks and benefits.

The one advantage of disposing of a full production run is that it entirely eliminates the possibility of the contaminated product reaching consumers. However, this is an expensive solution, as the manufacturer has to pay for the cost of disposal in a certified landfill and absorbs the cost of packaging, labor and ingredients. It also presents the risk of lost revenue by having a product temporarily out of stock. Running the product through inline inspections a second time may result in finding the physical contaminant, but there’s also a risk that the contaminant won’t be found—and now the company has lost money through overtime pay and lost productivity. If the inspection equipment was not sensitive enough to find the contaminant the first time around, it may not find it the second time, which puts the manufacturer back at square one.

The advantage to this method is that the manufacturer maintains complete accountability and control over the process, although it may not yield the desired results. There’s always a chance that a missing bolt didn’t make its way into the product. Sometimes, if a metal detector goes off and the manufacturer can’t find any contaminants upon closer examination, they will choose to ship the product and take their chances. The advantage for them is that, on the front end, this is the least expensive option—or it could be the costliest choice of all if a consumer finds a physical contaminant in their food.

10 million; lawsuits may push that cost even higher and result in a business being closed for good. X-ray inspection is the most effective way to find physical contaminants. In addition to metal, X-ray systems can find glass, plastic, stone, bone, rubber/gasket material, product clumps, container defects, wood and missing components at 0.8 mm or smaller. When a food manufacturer has a contamination issue, it can have the bracketed product inspected by a third-party X-ray inspection company and only dispose the affected food, allowing the rest of the product to be distributed. This option allows the manufacturer to maintain inventory and keep food deliveries on schedule while still eliminating the problem of contamination. X-ray inspection can find what other forms of inspection cannot, because it’s based on the density of the product, as well as the density of the physical contaminant.

When X-ray beams are directed through a food product, the rays lose some of their energy, but will lose even more energy in areas that have a physical contaminant. So when those images are interpreted on a monitor, the areas that have a physical contaminant in them will show up as a darker shade of gray. This allows the workers monitoring machines to immediately identify any foreign particles that are in the food, regardless of the type of material. Handling contamination properly is vital to every food manufacturing company. It affects the bottom line and the future of the company, and just one case of a physical contaminant reaching the consumer is enough to sideline food companies of any size. As X-ray technology continues to evolve, it remains an effective and efficient form of food inspection. Educating plant managers and quality managers on what to do if inline inspection machines fail to detect contaminants should include information on how X-ray technology can be a food company’s first line of defense. While physical contaminants can’t always be avoided, they can be detected—and the future of your company may depend on it.

Los Angeles, CA -- (SBWIRE) -- 02/17/2019 -- X-ray Inspection Systems as one of the most promising methods of non-destructive testing (NDT). The systems are also viewed as important screening tools for quality control and risk management, with their ability to detect contaminants, defects and inconsistencies in products. X-ray imaging offers superior precision, repeatability and high-speed capabilities.The report mainly focused on industrial x-ray inspection systems. In the coming years there is an increasing demand for x-ray inspection systems in the regions of North America and Europe that is expected to drive the market for more advanced x-ray inspection systems. Increasing of automotive fields expenditures, more-intense competition, launches in introducing new products, increasing of spending on general industry, retrofitting and renovation of old technology, increasing adoption of x-ray inspection systems will drive growth in China markets.

Globally, the x-ray inspection systems industry market is low concentrated as the manufacturing technology of x-ray inspection systems is relatively matures than some high-tech equipment. And some enterprises, like YXLON International, Nikon Metrology, Nordson, GE Measurement & Control, etc. are well-known for the wonderful performance of their x-ray inspection systems and related services. At the same time, Europe, occupied 32% revenue market share in 2017, is remarkable in the global x-ray inspection systems industry because of their market share and technology status of x-ray inspection systems. The consumption volume of x-ray inspection systems is related to downstream industries and global economy.

As there will always be some uncertain in the global economy in the following years, the growth rate of x-ray inspection systems industry may not keep that fast. But it is surely forecasted that the market of x-ray inspection systems is still promising. This report focuses on X-ray Inspection Systems volume and value at global level, regional level and company level. From a global perspective, this report represents overall X-ray Inspection Systems market size by analyzing historical data and future prospect. Regionally, this report focuses on several key regions: North America, Europe, China and Japan. At company level, this report focuses on the production capacity, ex-factory price, revenue and market share for each manufacturer covered in this report. QYResearch established in 2007, focus on custom research, management consulting, IPO consulting, industry chain research, data base and seminar services.

The global "X - ray food inspection equipment market" research report offers a comprehensive analysis and forecasts of the X - ray food inspection equipment market at both the global and regional level. It offers an in-depth and unbiased market review. The report highlights the main inclinations and services that play a key role in the development of the global X - ray food inspection equipment market for the estimated period. It also emphasizes on the market drivers and opportunities of the global X - ray food inspection equipment market for the upcoming period. In addition, it also highlights the dominating players in the market joined with their market share.

The research report encompasses an in-depth value chain analysis by giving an extensive vision of the global X - ray food inspection equipment market. It uses Porters Five Forces analysis to understand the competitive scenario of the global X - ray food inspection equipment market. The report describes the market dynamics and market trends, limiting factors, drivers, and opportunities for the current and future global X - ray food inspection equipment market. The global X - ray food inspection equipment market research includes the decisive analysis of the global X - ray food inspection equipment market by classifying it on the basis of product type, end user, and application segments. The development of every segment is assessed along with the forecast of their expansion in the near future.

The pertinent facts and figures gathered from the regulatory authorities are presented in the global X - ray food inspection equipment research report to review the expansion of each segment. Furthermore, the global X - ray food inspection equipment market is bifurcated on the basis of geographical regions such as Latin America, North America, Middle & East Africa, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. Numerous analytical techniques are used to study the expansion of the global X - ray food inspection equipment market. It also highlights key parameters of the dominating market players influencing the growth of the global X - ray food inspection equipment market along with their position in the global market.

SINGAPORE, Nov 6 — From next Monday, some commuters at selected MRT stations will have to walk through metal detectors and pass their belongings through X-ray scanners before going through the fare gates. In its media statement yesterday, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) did not say which MRT stations will have the screening equipment, only that it would be deployed at up to six stations at any one time. The six-month trial will be conducted across all rail lines, the LTA added. The stations will be "selected at random and will not be disclosed beforehand due to security reasons", its spokesperson said.

On the estimated proportion of commuters who may be screened, the spokesperson said: "Similar to the security bag checks that are being performed at MRT stations today, the frequency is not fixed. Security officers contracted by the LTA will conduct the screening. When metal detectors and X-ray scanners were first deployed at the first Exercise Station Guard emergency exercise in February this year, a senior LTA official said that the checks would take an estimated eight to 10 minutes for each passenger. This included queuing time, and all commuters boarding the Downtown Line at Newton Station at the time were screened during the eight-hour drill. For the upcoming trial, information obtained will enable the LTA to "streamline and optimise its security screening processes" and reduce the future impact on daily rail operations.

It will also collect feedback from commuters and the public transport operations. LTA's chief executive officer Ngien Hoon Ping said that by the end of this year, public transport operators will progressively use handheld metal detectors during security checks at bus interchanges and MRT stations. Ngien, who is chairman of the Public Transport Security Committee, added that the public transport system, used by millions of people in Singapore daily, is a key infrastructure. "We must remain vigilant against individuals who may be carrying dangerous items that can cause harm to the public," he said. Given the vulnerability of the public transport system to terrorist attacks, security measures have increased over the years. In 2009, the Public Transport Security Command (TransCom), a Singapore Police Force specialist unit, was established. Last December, the police said that commuters could see more explosives-detector dogs around public transport hubs ahead of Christmas and New Year’s Day. This will be carried out with rail operator SBS Transit and will test preparedness against security threats. During the exercise, commuters will be directed to Exit A or Exit B of the station to undergo security screening before they enter the station. They will have to go through a metal detector and pass their belongings through X-ray scanners.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and American Airlines are to test a new computed tomography (CT) scanner at the Terminal 8 security checkpoint at New York’s John F Kennedy International Airport (JFK). CT checkpoint technology is an enhancement to today’s 2D x-ray technology scanning equipment, which is used at the majority of security checkpoints worldwide. Because CT technology is 3D, this new checkpoint technology has the potential to provide better visibility and allow the operator to rotate the bag’s image 360° to show the contents of carry-on items at every angle. CT provides the capability to virtually see beyond unwanted clutter and greatly enhances the ability to visually inspect the contents of carry-on bags for prohibited items. This results in more effective security screening at the security checkpoint. In the future, CT could offer the opportunity for passengers to leave liquids, gels and aerosols, as well as laptops, in their carry-on bags at all times. David Pekoske, TSA administrator, said, "Use of CT technology substantially improves TSA’s threat detection capability at a checkpoint. TSA expects the new CT technology will begin operation at JFK in late July. CT technology is also being tested at airport security checkpoints in Phoenix, Arizona, and Boston, Massachusetts.

Thousand by the following Product Segments: Explosives Detection, X-ray & Infrared Equipment, Metal Detectors, Perimeter & Access Control, Biometrics Equipment, Alarms & Sensors, Video Surveillance, Intercom & Video Door Phones, and Others. The report provides separate comprehensive analytics for the US, Canada, Japan, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East & Africa, and Latin America. Annual estimates and forecasts are provided for the period 2016 through 2024. Also, a five-year historic analysis is provided for these markets. Market data and analytics are derived from primary and secondary research. Company profiles are primarily based on public domain information including company URLs. Smiths Detection Watford Ltd. ReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.

We’re in the midst of one of the busiest weeks of the year for air travel, with 30.6 million passengers expected to fly on US airlines in the days leading up to and following Thanksgiving. On a daily basis, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) needs to manage both frustrations and fears. Travelers are agitated by long lines and intrusive screening measures. They are also aware of the complex and dangerous threat environment, which has included 297 mass shootings in the US this year alone. How can the TSA mitigate both the frustrations and the fears, given that these sentiments often work against each other?

The agency is experimenting with passive terahertz screening technology. Thruvision, a British company, claims its 50-pound devices can be used to screen multiple passengers simultaneously, from a distance of 25 feet away. The TSA is testing the efficacy of these devices at a facility near Arlington, Virginia. Although the large-scale deployment of Thruvision’s devices could prove significant, industry experts say that variations of passive terahertz technology have been under development for over ten years. There are differences between various companies’ iterations. In a press release, Thruvision noted that its stand-off people-screening solution uses a proprietary version of the technology. Passive terahertz solutions work by sensing the heat emission from a human body in order to visualize hidden hazardous objects.

According to an article published by SPIE, this thermal mapping approach uses the same type of radiation as active MMW imagers, but the lack of artificial illumination reduces health risks. Additionally, the tech may reassure privacy advocates. Passive thermal imagers record temperature variations instead of body shapes, which results in less-revealing imagery. Thruvision’s press release also emphasizes that its devices do not reveal anatomical details or emit energy or radiation. Thruvision claims the technology can screen more than 2,000 passengers per hour. But once it’s implemented into the practical operating environment of an airport, things might actually move much slower.

"When you’re in an airport, that doesn’t work as long as you have to screen the carry-on baggage," Ray White, a former TSA executive, told me in an interview. "So if you come through with a laptop and a carry-on bag, that has to be x-rayed. That is the slow point in the entire screening process. However, White noted that the industry has made a lot of advances in the technology that screens checked baggage. The agency is exploring high-speed explosives detections systems with a throughput that could exceed 900 bags per hour. The agency has also deployed new Computed Tomography (CT) units to selected airports.

By moving CT technology from the checked baggage area to the passenger checkpoint, it could speed up and eliminate the bottleneck the current x-ray system creates. Every day, 2,587,000 passengers fly in and out of US airports. There are 5,116 public airports and 14,485 private airports. Given the enormity and complexity of these operations, it isn’t surprising that technologies sometimes underperform in the field, despite promising lab results. In order to ensure safety and efficacy, the TSA has to carefully test and choose its tech. The agency hosts regular events where they invite industry to come in and share new innovations under development. "The TSA is working hand-in-glove, as best they can, with the industry to certainly innovate and make things more acceptable to the traveling public," said Ray White. When asked whether the immediacy of national security ever causes tech to be rolled out prematurely, White said yes.

So did Jeffrey C. Price, M.A., an aviation and aerospace science professor at Metropolitan State University of Denver, and the author of aviation security textbooks. One example was the puffer machine. These machines were meant to detect small traces of certain compounds, such as explosives and illegal drugs, by blowing particles off passengers with a puff of air. "But that was premature, we bought 80 of those, put them out in the field, tested them, and they didn’t work well enough. There were too many glitches," said White. "The problem with that is airports are dirty, dusty environments," said Price. The TSA determines specifications and standards for new technologies and then tests them at a mockup checked bag screening system and a mockup checkpoint.

Equipment is then moved out into the field and placed in a pilot program. During this stage of operational field testing, the new equipment is redundant to what is already being carried out. The stakes are too high to rely on something unproven. The equipment has to meet a certain threshold for effectiveness. That detection capability is classified. Public criticism of TSA technologies is often centered around health concerns and privacy. Scientifically, it isn’t always possible to definitively know the health effects of screening technologies or any technologies, unless you have population studies about 20 years after they have been implemented.

In past instances, the TSA has iteratively adjusted its technology in response to complaints from the public. Backscatter machines were substituted with millimeter wave scanners that produce less detailed body imagery. Additionally, researchers found that millimeter wave scanners mitigate the risk of adverse health effects by using non-ionizing radiation. When asked whether the passive terahertz technology could replace the current full-body scanners, Price said he hopes new tech can eventually replace the need for a checkpoint, as checkpoints could be targets for terrorists. He explained, "The terrorists have clearly changed tactics and they are now looking at attacking public areas, and a screening checkpoint does not fix that. He suggested installing passive terahertz scanners near the entrances of public areas. "When people are coming in, they’re scanned passively, they won’t even know it most of the time. If there’s no threat, they can just walk to the gate like they used to. The Thruvision devices have been field-tested in the L.A. Within the last five years, more than 200 units have been deployed worldwide. If the technology continues to perform well, it could be a game-changer. "I think we’ve seen the full cycle of what we can do with the screening checkpoint. It’s now time to build a better mousetrap," said Price.

Originally posted at TomDispatch. "Training." It sounds so innocuous. It also sounds like something expected of a military. All professional soldiers undergo some sort of basic training. Think: calisthenics, negotiating obstacle courses, and marksmanship. Soldiers require instruction, otherwise they’re little more than rabble. Sometimes soldiers from one country even train the troops of another, imparting skills from the basic to the complex. The U.S. military calls this, among other things, "building partner capacity." Sometimes a foreigner steps in and whips sorry soldiers into shape, as former Prussian army officer Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben did with George Washington’s Continental Army. And sometimes the foreigners, like the modern heirs to the army that Steuben trained, can’t even seem to successfully teach their wards, like Iraqis or Afghans, jumping jacks or pushups.

Each year, through a vast constellation of global training exercises, operations, facilities, and schools, the United States trains around 200,000 foreign soldiers, police, and other personnel. From 2003 to 2010, for example, the U.S. 471 locations in 120 countries and on every continent but Antarctica. Most of it goes on behind closed doors, far from public view. And almost all of it escapes independent scrutiny. Is the training effective? Does it achieve the desired results? Is it worth the cost? Does it conform to U.S. It’s often difficult to glean basic information about what types of training are taking place, let alone the results.