What this is
What is a sieve and filter integrity check?
What is a sieve and filter integrity check?
A physical inspection of a screen, mesh, filter, magnet or trap confirming the device is present, correctly rated, undamaged, sealed and cannot be bypassed, together with a record of anything retained. Unlike an electronic system, the barrier either physically stops a contaminant or it does not, and the inspection confirms which.
How is this different from x-ray or metal detection?
X-ray and metal detection are active electronic systems that sense a contaminant travelling through the product and reject it. A sieve, filter or magnet is a passive barrier a contaminant either cannot pass through or is attracted to, with no detection decision involved. Verifying one proves an electronic system still senses; checking the other proves a barrier is still intact.
Why does what a magnet caught matter, not just whether it was clean?
Material retained is physical evidence about the process it sits in. A sudden increase, a workplace rather than incidental source, or a piece matching a component all point at wear upstream. Discarding it without recording throws away evidence a failure is starting before it becomes a complaint.
Scope
When is a sieve and filter integrity check required?
This template covers the physical integrity of a barrier device and what it retained. It does not cover electronic detection equipment, or what happens once retained material points at a bigger problem.
Use this template when
- A sieve, filter, magnet, strainer or trap is fitted in the process and named in the HACCP plan as a control
- The device is due its scheduled check, whether that is each shift, daily, weekly or monthly
- The device has been removed for cleaning or maintenance and needs re-verification before production resumes
- A product changeover or recipe change alters the aperture or mesh size the process should be running
- Material has been retained and needs a formal record of quantity, source and any follow-on action
Do not use it for
- X-Ray Inspection Verification, which verifies an electronic system finds and rejects a test piece rather than confirming a physical barrier is intact
- Metal Detection Check, which challenges a metal detector's sensitivity rather than a mesh, filter or magnet's condition
- Blade and Sharps Accountability Record, which accounts for issued sharps and is unrelated to a fitted barrier device
- Wood and Pallet Control Check, which controls a different foreign body source and does not involve an in-process barrier
- Foreign Body Trend Review, which looks for a common source across findings rather than confirming one device on one day
Compliance mapping
Which BRCGS cl.4.10 requirements does this satisfy?
BRCGS covers detection and physical barrier equipment under the same clause, treating a sieve, filter or magnet as equivalent in principle to an electronic system: specified, checked at a defined frequency, and acted on when it fails.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Physical control equipment specified against the hazard it is intended to control, including aperture size | Header |
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Device checked at a defined frequency for damage, correct fitting and secure sealing | Integrity |
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Control cannot be bypassed without deliberate defeat of the device | Integrity |
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Material retained by the device recorded, including quantity and, where determinable, source | What was retained |
| BRCGS cl.4.10 | Documented action where a device is found damaged, bypassed or has retained material affecting product | What was retained |
| Codex Alimentarius CAC/RCP 1-1969, HACCP Annex | Monitoring and verification procedures defined for a control point, with records demonstrating the control was maintained | Result |
What it does not cover
- X-Ray Inspection Verification, which challenges an electronic detection system with test pieces at a worst case position, a different mechanism to a physical barrier check.
- Metal Detection Check, which verifies a metal detector's sensitivity rather than a mesh, filter or magnet's physical condition.
- The equipment inspection or work order this check may trigger, raised separately once wear or damage indicates the device needs maintenance.
- Root cause investigation of a rising trend in retained material, which belongs in the Foreign Body Trend Review, not a single check.
- The hold and disposition record, raised once retained material or a device failure puts product at risk, referenced here only by its ID.
Global
Sieve and Filter Integrity Check requirements by country
The duty to control physical foreign body hazards is close to universal, though the record of it sits inside a certification scheme rather than a stand-alone legal requirement in most regimes.
FDA FSMA 21 CFR 117.130; BRCGS cl.4.10
Physical hazard controls fall under the preventive controls rule's hazard analysis, with check frequency and method left to the facility's own food safety plan.
An auditor is checking whether the facility's own justified frequency and specification were followed, not comparing it against a federal checklist for sieves.
Retained Regulation (EC) 852/2004; BRCGS cl.4.10
General hygiene regulation requires hazards to be controlled, with the mechanism, including physical barriers, left to the food business's HACCP-based procedures.
Enforcement runs through the certification scheme audit rather than direct regulatory inspection of the sieve, unless a failure has already reached a consumer.
BRCGS Global Standard; Codex HACCP Annex
GFSI-recognised schemes converge on the same substance for physical barrier control: specified device, defined check frequency, and a documented response to a fail.
A check built to this structure transfers with minor relabelling to a different GFSI-benchmarked scheme.
How to complete it
How to complete a sieve and filter integrity check, step by step
The template prompts for damage, fit and what was found. What makes the record worth keeping is the judgement about what a clean result and a retained finding each mean.
Nothing retained is only good news if the device is also confirmed undamaged, correctly fitted and not bypassable. Recorded alone, a clean result is equally consistent with an intact barrier and a holed one, and the two mean opposite things.
A sieve that lifts out, a housing that runs open, or a fastening that comes loose under normal handling defeats the control without a single tear in the mesh. The check should confirm the device cannot be bypassed as deliberately as it confirms the mesh is intact.
Quantity, description and, where judgeable, source turn a routine clean-out into a signal. A trend of increasing material, or a workplace rather than incidental source, points at a wearing component and should raise an inspection before the next run, not after the next failure.
A mesh or filter rated for one product can be wrong for another run on the same line after a changeover. Confirm aperture against what the current food safety plan specifies for the product running, not the device's original installation spec.
What auditors find
Most common sieve and filter integrity check findings
Findings against this template are rarely about whether the check was done. They are about whether a clean result was verified as clean, or just assumed.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Device recorded as clean with no confirmation it was also undamaged and correctly fitted. | BRCGS cl.4.10 | Require the damage and fitting fields completed on every check regardless of what was retained. |
| Device can be lifted out, bypassed or run with the housing open without triggering a stop. | BRCGS cl.4.10 | Engineer fitting so bypass requires deliberate defeat, and record bypass resistance as a distinct pass or fail. |
| Retained material discarded without quantity, description or source recorded. | BRCGS cl.4.10 | Require a description and photograph of anything retained before disposal, even for small quantities. |
| Rising trend in retained material not linked to an equipment inspection. | Codex Alimentarius CAC/RCP 1-1969, HACCP Annex | Trigger an equipment inspection automatically when retained material increases against the recent baseline. |
| Aperture or mesh size not confirmed against the hazard specified for the product currently running. | BRCGS cl.4.10 | Check aperture against the current food safety plan at every changeover, not only at device installation. |
| Check frequency looser than the interval the device's own record specifies. | BRCGS cl.4.10 | Set the frequency from the device register and flag any check run outside that interval as a deviation. |
Case in point
Case in point: the magnet that was always clean
A dairy site ran a weekly magnet check on an ingredient intake line, recording the field as clean for eleven consecutive checks. The strength verification field, marked not required for that period, had lapsed after the annual test slipped past due, and nobody flagged it because the check kept passing.
A batch of finished product triggered a complaint over a metal fragment. Retested, the magnet's strength was well below the rating needed for material of that size, and the eleven clean results had reflected a magnet too weak to catch anything, not a contamination-free stream. The fix was making strength a hard gate rather than a field that could sit unattended while the record looked complete.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
4 sections
- Reference
- QUA-102
- Archetype
- Checklist
- Record ID
- SFC-2026-000
- Scoring
- Pass rate
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- BRCGS cl.4.10
- Links
- Links Foreign body reports, HACCP
- Tags
- Foreign body, Sieves
- Sections
- 4
- Fields
- 51
- Follow up fields
- 6
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 4
Header
16 fieldsCheck ID*
Auto sequence. Format SFC-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Raised By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Line*
Shift*
Line Lead
Batch Number*
Numeric key joining to your ERP batch record.
Links to External system reference
Product*
Production Date*
What It Caught Is The Real Result
Recording that a magnet was clean is worth little. Recording what came off it, and where that metal came from, is what stops the next one.
Device Type*
Sieve, filter, magnet, strainer or trap.
Device Reference*
Check Frequency*
Integrity
9 fieldsDevice Present And Correctly Fitted*
- Yes3 pts
- Loose1 pt
- Missing0 pts
Aperture Or Mesh Size Correct*
- Yes3 pts
- Uncertain1 pt
- No0 pts
No Damage Holes Or Tears*
- Confirmed3 pts
- Minor1 pt
- Holed0 pts
Seals And Gaskets Intact*
- Yes3 pts
- Worn1 pt
- Failed0 pts
Securely Fastened*
- Yes3 pts
- Loose1 pt
- No0 pts
Bypass Not Possible*
A sieve that can be lifted out and the flow continued is not a control.
- Confirmed3 pts
- Possible with effort1 pt
- Easy0 pts
Magnet Strength Verified
- Yes3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Verification In Date
- Yes3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Cleaned Before Check*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
What was retained
13 fieldsMaterial Retained*
- None4 pts
- Trace3 pts
- Some1 pt
- Significant0 pts
Quantity Or Description
Photograph
Material Retained For Investigation*
- Yes3 pts
- Nothing retained3 pts
- Discarded0 pts
Source Identified*
- Workplace1 pt
- Community3 pts
- Not determined0 pts
Source Detail
Increase Versus Normal*
A sudden increase in retained metal usually means a component upstream is wearing through.
- No3 pts
- Slight1 pt
- Marked0 pts
Equipment Inspection Raised*
- Not needed3 pts
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
Work Order ID
Links to MNT-002 Work Order ID
Product Affected By Device Failure*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Quantity Affected
Hold ID
Raise the hold record, then enter its reference.
Links to QUA-003 Hold ID
Product Location
Where the affected product physically is right now.
Result
13 fieldsItems Assessed*
Excludes anything marked N/A.
Items Failed*
Score Percent*
Calculated on submission. High is good. N/A items leave the denominator.
Result Band*
- Pass3 pts
- Caution1 pt
- Fail0 pts
Completeness Percent*
How much of the template was actually answered. A high score on a half completed form is not a high score.
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Operator*
Signature*
Line Lead*
Second Signature*
QUA-102 · record IDs look like SFC-2026-000 · Links Foreign body reports, HACCP
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The check is a five-minute physical inspection. What fails around it is the strength verification nobody chased, the trend nobody plotted, and the finding cleaned away before anyone looked at it.
Holds the device register against the check schedule, flags a check at the wrong frequency, and links a failed integrity result to the hold record.
Tracks magnet strength verification and device maintenance as engineering-owned tasks, independent of whether the routine check finds a problem.
Keeps the BRCGS cl.4.10 evidence pack current for audit, including device specification, aperture rating and retained-material history.
Plots retained-material quantity over time across devices and flags a rising trend for review before it reaches a complaint.
This template lives in KnowQuality — quality and food safety. HACCP, nonconformance, traceability, laboratory and customer complaints.
Meet KnowQuality→Glossary
Sieve and Filter Integrity Check definitions and key terms
- Aperture
- The size of the opening in a sieve, screen or mesh, specified against the hazard it is intended to retain.
- Bypass
- Any route by which product can pass the process point without going through the barrier device, whether by removal, an open housing or a loose fitting.
- Retained material
- Whatever a sieve, filter or magnet has physically caught, which is evidence about the process feeding it, not simply waste to discard.
- Magnet strength
- The field strength a magnet must maintain to reliably attract and hold ferrous material of the size specified, verified independently of a visual check.
- Physical barrier control
- A control that mechanically prevents or captures a contaminant, distinct from an electronic system that detects and rejects one.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about sieve and filter integrity check
Why does a clean result need the damage check as well?+
A clean device and a holed device produce the same clean result if nothing was checked beyond the mesh's presence. A hole big enough to let contaminant through can still leave the device looking empty, so the damage inspection distinguishes an intact barrier from a defeated one.
What should we do with material a magnet or sieve retains?+
Record quantity, description and, if judgeable, source, and photograph anything unusual before disposal. A rising trend or a piece traceable to a component should trigger an equipment inspection rather than being logged and discarded.
How do we know if a device can be bypassed?+
Try to defeat it the way a rushed operator would: lift it, run the housing open, or check whether a loose fitting lets flow continue past it. If it can be bypassed without visible damage or deliberate tampering, it is not functioning as a control regardless of its condition.
Does the aperture size ever need rechecking after installation?+
Yes, at every product or recipe change that alters the hazard the device controls. An aperture correctly rated for one product can be too coarse for another on the same line, and the device will pass an integrity check while failing to catch what it exists to catch.
How is this different from checking a magnet's strength?+
Integrity confirms the device is present, undamaged and cannot be bypassed. Strength confirms it can still exert enough field to hold the material it is rated for. A magnet can be intact and correctly fitted while too weak to catch anything, which is why strength is a separate field, not an assumption from a visual check.
What triggers an equipment inspection from this check?+
Damage, a bypass finding, a marked increase in retained material against the baseline, or material identified as workplace rather than incidental. Any of these points at a wearing or failing component a cleaning cycle will not fix.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Foreign Body Control
Metal Detection Check
Confirms the metal detector rejects test pieces at the required sensitivity
X-Ray Inspection Verification
Verifies x-ray detection using the specified test pieces, in product, at the worst case position
Blade and Sharps Accountability Record
Accounts for every blade, needle, cutter and sharp issued into a production area and returned at shift end
Wood and Pallet Control Check
Checks that wood, wooden pallets and similar materials are excluded or controlled in production areas
Foreign Body Trend Review
Reviews foreign body findings and complaints over a period to identify the source rather than treating each one alone
Foreign Body Awareness Training
Covers the sources of foreign body on this site, what to do when one is found and why the search matters more than the finding
More in Foreign Body Control
X-Ray Inspection Verification
Verifies x-ray detection using the specified test pieces, in product, at the worst case position
Blade and Sharps Accountability Record
Accounts for every blade, needle, cutter and sharp issued into a production area and returned at shift end
Wood and Pallet Control Check
Checks that wood, wooden pallets and similar materials are excluded or controlled in production areas
Foreign Body Trend Review
Reviews foreign body findings and complaints over a period to identify the source rather than treating each one alone
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety, clause 4.10, foreign body detection and control equipment
- Codex Alimentarius CAC/RCP 1-1969, HACCP System and Guidelines for its Application
- FDA FSMA 21 CFR 117.130, hazard analysis for physical hazards
- GFSI Benchmarking Requirements
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.