Do you have specific materials you would like to test? Let us know in advance and we will be happy to prepare and showcase them during the event.

Our team will be there to answer your questions, discuss your needs, and of course invite you for a cup of great coffee.

See you in Amsterdam!

The post See MEYER Optical Sorting in Action at PRSE 2026 appeared first on Meyer Europe.

Immediate cost considerations

Traditional manual sorting operations typically require extensive labor forces, with multiple workers stationed along conveyor belts to identify and remove defective or unwanted items. While the upfront costs are minimal, the ongoing expenses are significant:

Traditional sorting annual costs:

• Labor wages and benefits for sorting staff
• Training and supervision expenses
• Quality control oversight
• Workplace injury-related costs
• Production line slowdowns

In contrast, optical sorting systems represent a substantial initial investment, often ranging from € 30,000 to € 400,000 per unit. However, this technology brings immediate reductions in operating costs and staffing requirements.

Efficiency and productivity gains

Optical sorting machines can process even several tons of material per hour, depending on the type of material and its level of contamination, significantly outpacing manual sorting methods. This increased throughput translates to:

• Higher production capacity without additional shifts
• Reduced labor costs per unit processed
• Consistent quality standards across all production hours
• Minimal downtime for breaks or shift changes
• 24/7 operation capability with minimal supervision

Quality Improvements and waste reduction

Modern optical sorters utilize advanced imaging technology and artificial intelligence to achieve sorting accuracy rates exceeding 99%. This precision leads to:

• Decreased product rejection rates
• Reduced customer complaints and returns
• Lower waste handling costs
• Improved raw material utilization
• Enhanced brand reputation through consistent quality

Return on investment analysis

A typical medium-sized processing facility can expect to recover its investment within 12-24 months through:

Direct Cost Savings:

• 70-80% reduction in sorting labor costs
• 40-50% decrease in quality control expenses
• 25-30% reduction in waste handling costs

Revenue Improvements:

• 15-20% increase in throughput capacity
• 15-30% improvement in product quality
• 20-40% reduction in customer returns
• 5-30% lower loss of good product in final reject

Long-term strategic benefits

Beyond immediate financial returns, optical sorting technology positions companies for future success through:

• Increased competitiveness in quality-sensitive markets
• Improved ability to meet stringent regulatory requirements
• Enhanced data collection for process optimization
• Reduced dependency on labor market fluctuations
• Greater flexibility in processing various product types

Implementation considerations

To maximize return on investment, companies should:

• Conduct thorough analysis of current sorting costs
• Evaluate multiple vendor options and technologies
• Plan for appropriate staff training and transition periods
• Consider maintenance and upgrade requirements
• Implement proper material handling systems

Conclusion

While the initial investment in optical sorting technology may appear daunting, the financial analysis clearly demonstrates its value proposition. Companies that make this transition typically see complete return on investment within two years, followed by sustained operational cost savings and quality improvements that contribute directly to bottom-line profitability.

For food processors and recycling operations seeking to remain competitive in increasingly demanding markets, the question is no longer whether to upgrade to optical sorting technology, but rather when and how to implement this transformative solution most effectively.

The post Why upgrading to optical sorting machines pays off? appeared first on Meyer Europe.

Across the globe, the recycling industry is rapidly evolving, driven by the demand for better waste management, sustainability, and the circular economy. At the heart of this transformation is optical sorting technology – a sophisticated system that uses sensors and cameras to sort materials with high precision and speed. While widely adopted in developed regions, introducing this technology into emerging markets like Africa presents unique challenges and valuable lessons.

Understanding the African recycling landscape

Africa’s recycling sector is diverse and fast-growing, focusing mainly on plastics, metals, paper, and electronic waste. Countries like South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Morocco, Egypt, and Ghana are key players, driven by mounting urban waste, increasing youth populations, and growing awareness of environmental issues.

Recycling is often driven by necessity rather than regulation, with a high dependency on informal collection and processing systems. Informal waste pickers, known in some regions as “scavengers” or “cart pushers,” collect and sort valuable recyclables manually, often in unsanitary and unsafe conditions.

The continent faces significant infrastructure gaps:

• Electricity reliability: Many regions suffer from daily blackouts, voltage fluctuations, or lack of grid access altogether, complicating the operation of power-intensive machines.
  
• Transport and logistics: Poor road conditions and lack of formal collection systems hinder waste transport to centralized facilities.
  
• Technology access: Importing advanced machinery is expensive and often delayed by complex customs and logistics systems.
  

Despite these obstacles, the region shows immense potential, particularly in urban hubs where waste volumes are rising. Governments and private enterprises are beginning to invest in more structured waste management systems, creating an opening for scalable technologies like optical sorting.

Challenges of introducing optical sorting in low-infrastructure regions

1. Technical barriers:

• Optical sorters typically require stable power and consistent environmental conditions. In Sub-Saharan Africa, where voltage fluctuations and high ambient temperatures are common, this becomes a significant obstacle.
  
• Dust and humidity are prevalent in many outdoor waste sorting locations, leading to equipment malfunctions or decreased accuracy if not properly mitigated with protective housings and filtration systems.
  

2. Economic challenges:

• Optical sorting machines represent a high initial capital investment. In many African countries, recycling businesses are small, family-run operations with limited access to bank loans or external investors.
  
• Government incentives for recycling infrastructure are still under development in most countries, making return-on-investment (ROI) calculations less certain.
  

3. Operational hurdles:

• There is a scarcity of local technicians with the knowledge to install, operate, and maintain high-tech machinery.
  
• Language and digital literacy barriers can complicate training and machine interface usage.
  
• Integration with informal waste systems is socially and logistically complex. For example, replacing manual labor with automation may provoke resistance unless accompanied by job transition plans or inclusion in the new value chain.
  

The Regulatory landscape: how policy is shaping investment in sorting infrastructure

For much of the past decade, African recycling has operated in a regulatory vacuum – driven by market forces and informal systems rather than enforceable law. That is beginning to change, and the shift has direct implications for companies considering investment in optical sorting infrastructure.

Extended producer responsibility: the policy catalyst

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation places the cost of end-of-life waste management on the producers and importers of packaged goods, rather than on municipalities or taxpayers. In practice, this creates a financial incentive – and in some cases a legal obligation – for brands to fund formal recycling infrastructure, including sorting capacity.

South Africa was the first African country to gazette mandatory EPR regulations, which came into force in 2021 under the National Environmental Management: Waste Act. Producers in the paper, packaging, and single-use plastics sectors are now required to register with a Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO) and meet annual collection and recycling targets. Early data suggests this has already accelerated investment in formal sorting facilities, as PROs seek accredited downstream partners who can demonstrate verified recovery rates – something manual sorting alone cannot reliably provide.

Kenya followed with its Sustainable Waste Management Act of 2022, which introduced EPR principles alongside a ban on single-use plastics in certain categories. Nigeria is in the advanced stages of drafting its own EPR framework, with pilot programs already running in Lagos and Abuja. Egypt, meanwhile, has incorporated EPR-aligned provisions into its 2020 Environment Law amendments, with implementing regulations still being finalized.

What this means for optical sorting

EPR frameworks are significant for sorting technology providers for several reasons. First, they create a more predictable revenue environment for recyclers, improving the ROI calculations that have historically made capital investment difficult to justify. Second, they introduce verification requirements – recyclers must demonstrate material quality and recovery volumes to their PRO partners – which raises the bar above what manual sorting can consistently deliver. Third, in several countries, EPR funds are being partially channeled into infrastructure grants and co-investment schemes, reducing the upfront capital burden on smaller operators.

Gaps and cautions

Regulatory progress is real but uneven. Enforcement remains weak in most jurisdictions, and many PROs are still building the administrative capacity to verify compliance. Informal recyclers – who handle an estimated 50–80% of collected recyclables in many African cities – are largely excluded from formal EPR systems, creating a two-tier market that could entrench inequality rather than resolve it. There is also a risk that multinational FMCG companies use EPR compliance as a reputational shield without driving meaningful infrastructure investment at the local level.

For technology providers and investors, the practical implication is this: EPR creates a tailwind, but it is not yet a guarantee. The most resilient business models will be those that can operate profitably at current informal-market economics while being well-positioned to scale as regulatory frameworks mature.

Adaptations and solutions: lessons from African innovators

Despite these barriers, several innovative projects across Africa showcase how to adapt optical sorting technologies to local realities:

• South Africa: The country has piloted solar-powered waste sorting centers, enabling operations even in off-grid or energy-insecure areas.
  
• Nigeria: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have adopted micro-leasing models through fintech platforms, enabling access to expensive equipment with minimal upfront capital.
  
• Ghana: Partnerships between local governments and international NGOs have supported community-based sorting centers that integrate optical sorters with manual pre-sorting, preserving employment while improving efficiency.
  

Key innovations include:

• Modular systems that can be expanded as needed.
  
• Hybrid models that combine manual and automated processes.
  
• Cloud-based diagnostics and remote monitoring to compensate for local technical gaps.
  
• On-site training hubs developed in partnership with universities and vocational schools to upskill young professionals.
  

Environmental and economic impact

Adapting optical sorting to African conditions creates significant benefits:

• Environmental benefits: Greater sorting accuracy leads to better separation of high-value materials (e.g., PET plastics, aluminum), reducing contamination and increasing the efficiency of downstream recycling processes. This, in turn, limits landfill expansion and mitigates environmental hazards like burning plastic waste.
  
• Economic benefits: By automating sorting, recyclers reduce reliance on inconsistent labor and improve throughput. This translates to better profit margins and job creation in machine maintenance, logistics, and quality control.
  
• Social benefits: Formalizing recycling processes helps reduce child labor, increases occupational safety, and creates more dignified employment opportunities in urban slums and peri-urban settlements.
  

Best practices for companies entering emerging markets

For technology providers like MEYER, entering markets with infrastructural constraints requires thoughtful planning and adaptability:

• Product design: Develop ruggedized machines with heat-resistant casings, dust-proof optical sensors, and low-voltage operability.
  
• Business model flexibility: Introduce entry-level models or “optical sorting as a service” models that minimize customer risk.
  
• On-the-ground presence: Partner with local distributors and NGOs to build trust and provide ongoing support.
  
• Capacity development: Offer multilingual training materials, local technician certification programs, and remote support tools.
  
• Inclusive approach: Collaborate with local stakeholders to ensure informal workers are not excluded from the value chain but instead retrained and integrated.
  

Conclusion

Implementing optical sorting in low-infrastructure regions is not just about selling machines – it’s about co-developing sustainable solutions with local stakeholders. Africa’s recycling sector offers valuable lessons on adaptability, grassroots innovation, and inclusive growth. Companies like MEYER have a unique opportunity to bring advanced optical sorting technology into regions where it can make a transformative impact on both the environment and society.

The post Lessons from Africa’s recycling industry: optical sorting in low-infrastructure regions appeared first on Meyer Europe.

SMEs in the recycling industry often face challenges such as limited processing capabilities, higher operational costs, and difficulty in maintaining consistent quality compared to large-scale facilities. Industry giants benefit from economies of scale, extensive resources, and advanced equipment, leaving smaller recyclers struggling to remain competitive.

Optical Sorting: a game-changer in recycling industry

Optical sorting systems represent a significant technological advancement capable of transforming recycling operations. These systems use near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy, high-resolution cameras, and artificial intelligence algorithms to quickly and accurately identify, classify, and separate recyclable materials. For SMEs, integrating optical sorting systems offers multiple strategic advantages:

1. Enhanced Efficiency and Throughput: Optical sorting systems increase processing speed dramatically. SMEs can process larger volumes of recyclables in less time, reducing operational bottlenecks and increasing revenue potential.
2. Improved Material Purity: Achieving higher purity levels in recyclables makes products more attractive to buyers, enabling SMEs to command higher prices for their sorted materials.
3. Reduced Operational Costs: Automated sorting reduces manual labor costs and minimizes downtime, allowing SMEs to reallocate resources toward other critical areas such as marketing, customer relationships, and expansion strategies.
4. Scalability and Flexibility: Optical sorting systems are adaptable and can be scaled based on business growth, allowing SMEs to expand operations incrementally without substantial initial investments.

Strategies for Implementing Optical Sorting Effectively

To successfully leverage optical sorting technology, SMEs should adopt these practical strategies:

• Invest in Scalable Systems: Choose optical sorting solutions that can easily scale with your business growth to ensure long-term value.
• Prioritize Training: Provide comprehensive training for employees on the operation and maintenance of optical sorting equipment to maximize efficiency and longevity.
• Focus on Specialized Recycling Streams: Differentiate your business by focusing on niche recycling areas that large-scale competitors may overlook, using optical sorting technology to maintain high quality and purity standards.
• Leverage Data Analytics: Use integrated data analytics tools in optical sorting systems to optimize sorting operations, monitor performance, and make informed business decisions.

Conclusion: Embracing the Competitive Advantage

For SMEs in the recycling sector, optical sorting technology is more than just an investment in equipment—it’s an investment in sustainable growth, competitive advantage, and operational excellence. By strategically adopting this technology, smaller recyclers can effectively compete with industry giants, driving growth and securing their future in the recycling market.

Embrace optical sorting, and turn challenges into opportunities.

The post How optical sorting helps small and medium-sized recyclers compete with industry giants appeared first on Meyer Europe.

PET and PVC present a unique challenge in recycling streams due to their similar visual properties but vastly different chemical compositions. To understand why their separation is crucial, we need to examine what happens when these materials mix.

When even small amounts of PVC (as little as 50 parts per million) contaminate PET during the recycling process, several devastating effects occur:

1. The PVC releases hydrochloric acid when heated to PET processing temperatures (around 270°C), causing catalytic degradation of the PET polymer chains.
2. This degradation significantly reduces the intrinsic viscosity of the recycled PET material.
3. The contaminated material exhibits yellowing and increased brittleness.
4. The mechanical properties of the final recycled product become unpredictable and generally inferior.

Beyond these technical issues, PVC contamination can physically damage processing equipment through corrosion from the released hydrochloric acid, leading to costly repairs and downtime.

The Science Behind Optical Sorting

Optical sorting stands as one of the most advanced technologies for automated plastic separation. These systems rely on several key scientific principles:

Near-Infrared (NIR) Spectroscopy

The cornerstone of modern plastic sorting is NIR spectroscopy. This technology exploits the fact that different plastic polymers absorb and reflect infrared light in distinctive patterns based on their molecular structure.

When NIR light hits a plastic flake or bottle:

• The light penetrates slightly below the surface
• Certain wavelengths are absorbed based on the chemical bonds present
• The reflected light creates a unique “spectral fingerprint”
• This fingerprint can identify PET versus PVC with high accuracy

Modern NIR sensors can detect these subtle differences at speeds fast enough to sort thousands of items per minute.

RGB Camera Systems

Visual identification also plays a role in modern sorting systems:

• High-resolution cameras capture detailed images of each item
• Advanced image processing algorithms analyze transparency, and color
• Machine learning systems continuously improve identification accuracy
• This method helps identify contaminants that might have similar NIR profiles but different visual characteristics

The Technical Process in Action

To understand how this technology works in practice, let’s follow a mixed stream of PET and PVC materials through MEYER’s sorting system:

1. Material Preparation: The incoming material stream may undergo optional manual pre-sorting and is then directed to equipment for label removal.
2. Object Sorting: The material is separated based on color and/or polymer type using object sorting systems.
3. Shredding and Preparation for Further Sorting: The packaging is shredded, then washed and dried. It is subsequently processed through sieves that separate the material according to flake size.
4. Singulation: Plastic flakes are fed into the vibratory feeder of the optical sorter, which regulates the material flow onto the chute by adjusting the vibration frequency.
5. Material Transport: The plastic flakes are delivered via the vibratory feeder of the optical sorter, ensuring a controlled and consistent feed rate onto the sorting chute.
6. Color Analysis and Separation: As the material passes through the detection zone, it is separated based on color differences, enabling the extraction of desired fractions (e.g., clear, blue, green).
7. Polymer Sorting: In the next stage, the flakes are identified using near-infrared (NIR) cameras and separated according to polymer type. Items identified as PVC are removed using precisely calibrated air jets.
8. Quality Control: Material samples are regularly analyzed in the laboratory to compare successive batches and ensure consistent quality of the final products.
   

Overcoming Technical Challenges

MEYER’s systems have had to solve several fundamental technical challenges to achieve reliable PET/PVC separation:

Speed vs. Accuracy Tradeoff

Historically, increasing throughput meant sacrificing identification accuracy. MEYER’s systems overcome this through:

• High-performance Maglev air ejectors: Specially designed systems operating at frequencies up to 1700 Hz enable fast and highly precise removal of unwanted materials.
• Optimized material transport: Conveyor systems maximize spacing between items without reducing throughput, improving detection and separation efficiency.
• UHD cameras: The use of ultra-high-definition cameras enables precise analysis of visual features such as color, shape, and transparency, enhancing identification accuracy.
• NIR cameras: Near-infrared sensors allow for reliable polymer identification based on spectral characteristics, even at very high processing speeds.

Handling Material Variability

Recycled plastic streams present enormous variability in:

• Size and shape of fragments
• Surface contamination affecting readings
• Color additives masking spectral signatures
• Multi-layer materials with different polymer types

MEYER’s systems handle material variability by combining precise visual and spectral analysis with optimized material transport and high-speed, selective ejection, ensuring consistent separation performance regardless of material characteristics.

Environmental Interference

Operating conditions in recycling facilities can introduce various interferences:

• Dust and moisture affecting optical readings
• Temperature fluctuations changing material properties
• Ambient light affecting visual identification

To counter these issues, MEYER’s sorters employ environmental monitoring systems that compensate for changing conditions and sealed optical pathways that prevent contamination of sensitive components.

Economic and Environmental Impact

The implementation of advanced optical sorting for PET/PVC separation delivers substantial benefits:

• Higher Value Recyclate: Properly sorted PET can command premium prices in recycling markets.
• Reduced Processing Costs: Preventing PVC contamination extends equipment life and reduces downtime.
• Increased Recycling Rates: More efficient sorting makes previously uneconomical recycling streams viable.
• Environmental Protection: Proper separation prevents the release of hazardous chlorinated compounds during processing.

Plastic Separation Technology

MEYER continues to advance their sorting technology with several emerging developments:

• Artificial Intelligence Integration: Deep learning systems that can identify new packaging materials without explicit programming.
• Miniaturization: More compact systems that can be deployed at smaller recycling facilities.
• Tracer Technologies: Working with packaging manufacturers to incorporate harmless tracer compounds that make identification even more reliable.

Conclusion

The technical challenge of separating PET from PVC exemplifies the complexity of modern recycling. Through sophisticated optical sorting technology, MEYER has developed systems capable of identifying and separating these similar-looking but chemically incompatible materials with unprecedented accuracy.

As we move toward a more circular economy, these advanced sorting technologies will play an increasingly vital role in transforming waste streams into valuable resources. The success of PET recycling depends heavily on maintaining material purity, and MEYER’s innovative approach to optical sorting represents a significant step forward in addressing one of recycling’s most persistent technical challenges.

By enabling the efficient removal of PVC contaminants from PET recycling streams, these systems not only improve the economics of plastic recycling but also contribute substantially to environmental sustainability goals.

The post How optical sorters separates PET from PVC: Plastic Cross-Contamination appeared first on Meyer Europe.

Today is a moment to reflect on how we approach resources. What we often call “waste” still holds value. It simply needs to be recognized, separated, and given a second life. This is where modern technologies play a crucial role. Optical sorting, working quietly in the background of recycling processes, makes it possible to identify materials with precision, improve recovery rates, and ensure higher quality of recycled outputs.

Thanks to continuous advancements in intelligent recognition systems, recycling is becoming more efficient, more accurate, and more scalable than ever before. These innovations support industries in reducing waste, saving resources, and minimizing environmental impact.

On this day, we would like to extend our best wishes to everyone contributing to a more sustainable world. From individuals making conscious choices to companies investing in smarter technologies. Every action matters, and every step forward brings us closer to a cleaner, more efficient future.

Let’s continue working together. Seeing value where others see waste, and building a better tomorrow through smarter recycling.

The post Global Recycling Day: Together for a Greener Tomorrow appeared first on Meyer Europe.

Optical sorting technology relies on cameras, image analysis algorithms, and ejection systems that remove grains not meeting quality criteria in real time. In practice, this gives mills much better control over raw material before it reaches the milling stage.

Detailed Comparison: Traditional Sorting vs. Optical Sorting

Traditionally, grain sorting relies heavily on manual or mechanical processes like hand sorting, sieving, and air separation. Although historically effective, these methods present notable limitations:

• Manual Sorting: Highly labor-intensive, manual sorting depends on workers visually inspecting grains, leading to variable outcomes due to human error and fatigue. This process also struggles to identify subtle defects or small contaminants effectively.
  
• Mechanical Sorting: Mechanical sieving and separation often lack precision, resulting in imperfect removal of small impurities and variations in grain size. Additionally, mechanical sorting methods can damage grains, adversely affecting flour quality. Mechanical sorting provides an excellent first step in thoroughly cleaning the seeds. This process helps prepare the material so that optical sorting can achieve the highest possible accuracy and efficiency.
  

Optical sorting, however, effectively addresses these traditional limitations:

• Enhanced Precision: Optical sorters precisely identify even tiny grain defects and contaminants using advanced imaging and sensor technologies.
  
• Greater Efficiency: Capable of sorting large volumes of grain rapidly, optical systems drastically improve throughput compared to manual or mechanical methods.
  
• Operational Cost Reduction: By automating the sorting process, optical technology substantially reduces reliance on manual labor, leading to considerable savings in operational costs.
  

Contaminants and Defects Removed by Optical Sorters

The core value of optical sorting lies in its ability to pinpoint and remove a wide array of problematic elements that decrease the grade and safety of flour. These can be grouped into several categories:

You can read more about mycotoxin control in corn and wheat in this article.

Advantages for Local Grain Mills

The adoption of optical sorting technology yields significant operational improvements, particularly for small and medium-sized Polish mills. Mills utilizing this technology are able to consistently produce higher quality flour, strengthening their competitive advantage. The optical sorting equipment integrates seamlessly with existing milling infrastructure, offering scalable solutions tailored to varying business needs.

Environmental Benefits of Optical Sorting

Polish grain mills adopting optical sorting technology actively contribute to sustainability. By precisely removing defective grains, optical sorting reduces waste and optimizes resource utilization, including energy consumption. This commitment to sustainable practices not only enhances the environmental profile of mills but also aligns with the values of increasingly environmentally aware consumers.

Preparing Polish Mills for Future Challenges

As industry demands evolve, optical sorting technology positions Polish grain mills effectively for future challenges. This innovative technology ensures compliance with stringent regulatory standards and improves overall operational productivity. Investing in optical sorting thus helps mills meet rising customer expectations while remaining agile and competitive.

Summary

Optical sorting technology is a transformative advancement in grain processing, significantly enhancing flour quality, consistency, and efficiency in Polish mills. For mills striving for quality, sustainability, and competitiveness, integrating optical sorting into their processes represents a vital strategic investment.

References

• European Flour Millers Association. (2022). Quality Assurance in Flour Milling.
  
• FAO. (2021). Sustainable practices in grain milling.
  
• Polish Grain and Feed Chamber. (2023). Industry Trends Report.

The post How Polish grain mills improve flour quality with optical sorting appeared first on Meyer Europe.

The basics of glass recycling – what does it really look like?

Glass can be recycled endlessly when handled correctly. Many people ask how glass is sorted, and the answer depends on the stage of production. At home, your job is organization. In professional plants, enormous volumes travel through conveyors, screens, and innovative optical sorting solutions (like sorters), reading thousands of particles per second. 

In Europe, the overall collection rate for glass packaging reaches around 80.8%, showing how well-structured systems improve material recovery when the stream is clean and consistent.

At MEYER, we have optical systems supporting these processes, yet the foundation still begins with the material you sort on your end. Good initial habits lead to cleaner output in the long run.

Remember!

Glass recycling fosters a circular system, supported by informed decision-making at every stage. Once you grasp the basics, the workflow becomes surprisingly logical.

How to prepare glass before sorting?

Before technology enters the picture, you start with preparation, and this early stage is directly connected to the processes used in modern facilities based on glass sorting. Clean glass makes life easier for recycling facilities. Light rinsing helps. Removing caps, loose rings, or leftover food clears the path for cameras downstream.

Even advanced lines benefit from your simple steps. In plants using optical equipment, operators often say that well-prepared input increases efficiency. MEYER equipment works best with reliable streams, and preparation helps maintain that reliability.

How to sort glass for recycling? 4 rules that matter!

When learning how to sort glass for recycling, it helps to follow a short and simple set of principles, especially when facilities use detection toolslike Optical Sorters. These actions create the structure that the professional line needs to deliver refined cullet.

What do we mean?

• separate clear, brown, and green streams, giving facilities consistent material;
• remove caps, rings, and labels whenever you can, reducing noise for scanners;
• keep stones, ceramics, mirrors, and heat-treated cookware away from glass streams, because they disrupt melting processes;
• pack broken glass being sorted in a secure bag when moving it to a drop-off location.

Common contaminants in glass recycling and why they matter?

How do advanced systems handle sorting in industrial facilities?

Once your part ends, industrial plants take over. This is where a glass sorting machine becomes essential. These machines combine specialized cameras, structured lighting, and fast ejectors to classify every particle.

Optical sorting technology works at high speed. Cameras capture details you never notice with the naked eye. At MEYER, we have imaging modules capable of reading subtle differences in shade or texture, helping plants achieve the desired output. Deep-learning software supports these cameras by reading consistent patterns in the stream.

Industrial sorting typically involves several stages. The first pass separates colors.  The next stages allow for obtaining the cleanest possible material flow and transparent, uniformly colored fractions. The goal is steady and highly predictable cullet ready for remelting.

What happens to broken glass being sorted?

You rarely see whole bottles inside a recycling plant. The majority arrives already broken. Plants treat this as usual. Broken glass being sorted runs across vibrating decks, separating it by size. Smaller fragments fall through first while larger ones move forward.

Once sized, optical systems scan every particle. Cameras detect color and micro-details. Ejectors remove off-color pieces instantly. At MEYER’s Test Center, operators often show how small changes in tint influence classification. Watching it in action highlights how precise these systems have become.

Remember!

Broken material works perfectly in recycling as long as it’s clean, separated, and free from contaminants.

How does plastic get sorted from glass?

People often ask: How does plastic get sorted from glass? The answer stems from optical behavior, and many of the ideas behind this process are reflected in EU food safety standards, particularly in the context of optical sorting, as explained in our blog post.

Glass interacts with light differently from plastic, and plastics present their own range of density levels, textures, and transparency profiles. Machines read these distinctions instantly. AI models interpret edge structure and brightness, supporting fast and reliable separation on industrial lines. 

“At MEYER, we have systems capable of recognizing shape and color variations, delivering stable performance even when material streams change. Some plants use density tables for additional refinement, creating well-organized flows that help keep each material in its dedicated cycle.” – MEYER Europe Technical Team.

Step-by-step workflow inside a modern glass sorting facility

A clear view of the step-by-step workflow becomes easier when you relate the entire process to insights discussed in the role of optical sorters, offering a broader perspective on how modern detection supports material recovery.

1. Delivery

Trucks unload material into receiving bays. Operators examine the batch.

2. Pre-cleaning

Machines remove papers, loose labels, and lightweight debris.

3. Screening

Screens separate materials by size to help with later detection.

4. Color sorting

An optical line separates green, brown, and clear cullet. A glass sorting machine rapidly reads each fragment.

5. Density refinement

Some plants use density-based methods to remove stones or ceramics.

6. Final polishing

A final optical pass clears remaining defects. MEYER equipment supports multi-stage workflows for plants needing high purity.

7. Storage

Clean cullet is moved into silos and later transported to furnaces.

The impact of AI and automation

AI reshapes how plants interpret material streams, and whenever you need guidance or want to begin planning improvements for your facility, just contact us to start the process. Instead of relying on fixed parameters, intelligent systems learn patterns over time, supporting adaptive behavior when streams shift or when batches vary.

At MEYER, we utilize AI tools that analyze shapes, textures, and colors with high precision. This increases stability for extensive facilities managing heavy flows. Automation also reduces labor pressure and improves consistency across shifts.

As recycling grows across Europe, AI becomes an essential part of the long-term strategy for material recovery. 

References:

1. https://www.recovery-worldwide.com/en/artikel/glass-recycling-current-market-trends-3248774.html
2. https://www.acrplus.org/en/news/european-glass-packaging-recycling-reached-80-8-in-2023-4967
3. https://www.recycledmaterials.org/
4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/waste-management

The post How to sort glass for recycling? 4 essential rules! appeared first on Meyer Europe.

Fusarium head blight is a fungal disease affecting wheat and other small grains. It commonly occurs in wet, humid conditions around flowering time. The infection is caused by Fusarium species (such as F. graminearum or F. culmorum) that invade the developing wheat heads. Infected wheat kernels often become shriveled, lightweight, and discolored, taking on a chalky white or pinkish appearance due to the fungal growth. These visibly affected grains are referred to as Fusarium-damaged kernels (FDK), or “scabby” kernels in the U.S. Such kernels typically have lower weight and poor milling quality.

Examples of Fusarium-damaged wheat kernels (right) compared to healthy kernels (left). Infected kernels tend to be shriveled, chalky white or pinkish, with fibrous fungal growth, whereas healthy kernels are plump and uniformly colored.

A major concern with Fusarium infection is the production of mycotoxins. As the fungus grows on the grain, it produces toxic compounds – most notably deoxynivalenol (DON), commonly called vomitoxin. DON and related toxins accumulate in the grain during infection. Consuming grain with high DON levels is harmful to humans and animals, causing symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal distress. For this reason, strict regulatory or advisory limits on DON are in place in many countries to protect food and feed safety. Processors must keep DON levels low, and grain shipments with too many Fusarium-infected kernels or excessive toxin levels can be downgraded or rejected. In short, Fusarium contamination not only reduces crop yield in the field but also threatens the safety, quality, and marketability of wheat in the supply chain.

Why fusarium contamination is a problem

Fusarium infection impacts the wheat supply in several ways:

• Health Risks: Fusarium fungi produce DON and other toxins (like zearalenone) that pose risks to food and feed. Eating products made from contaminated wheat can cause acute illness in people and livestock. Even at lower doses, these toxins may reduce livestock performance (for example, pigs may eat less feed if it contains DON). Ensuring these mycotoxins are kept out of the food chain is paramount for public health.
  
• Quality and Yield Loss: Infected kernels are often damaged and lightweight, leading to lower flour yield and baking quality. A high percentage of FDK in harvested grain means less saleable product – FHB outbreaks can significantly cut yields and test weights. The milling process is also less efficient with diseased kernels, and flour color or functionality may be affected by their presence.
  
• Economic Impact: Most grain buyers and food processors have strict limits on FDK and DON. For example, only a small percentage of Fusarium-damaged kernels is tolerated in wheat intended for human food. If a load exceeds those limits, its grade is lowered or it may be rejected entirely, costing the supplier money and logistics delays. Likewise, processors face costly recalls or regulatory actions if a contaminated product reaches consumers. Thus, there is strong economic incentive to detect and remove Fusarium-infected wheat early in processing.
  

In summary, Fusarium contamination is both a food safety issue and a quality issue. It demands effective control measures from farm to mill to prevent tainted grain from entering food products.

Limitations of traditional detection methods

Identifying and removing Fusarium-infected kernels has historically been challenging. Traditional methods include visual inspection and basic mechanical cleaning, but these approaches have significant limitations:

• Visual Grading and Hand Sorting: Grain inspectors often visually examine a sample of wheat for FDK – looking for the telltale chalky or pinkish, shrunken kernels. While this can give an estimate of Fusarium presence, it’s labor-intensive and subjective. Manually picking out scabby kernels from large quantities of grain is impractical. In fact, visual sorting is prone to human error and inconsistency; different inspectors may not agree, and fatigue can cause mistakes. Small or mildly infected kernels might be overlooked, especially when thousands of kernels are passing by each minute.
  
• Laboratory Testing: To detect mycotoxins like DON, processors rely on lab tests (e.g. rapid test kits or chromatography) on grain samples. While lab testing accurately measures toxin levels, it’s slow and performed on only a small sample of the lot. There is a risk that hotspots of contamination go undetected if they weren’t in the tested sample. Moreover, testing doesn’t physically remove the bad kernels; it only informs whether a lot is over the limit. At that point, the grain may already be in the supply chain, and blending or cleaning becomes necessary to salvage it.
  
• Mechanical Cleaning Equipment: Standard cleaning equipment in mills (such as sieves, aspirators, and gravity tables) can remove some Fusarium-damaged kernels indirectly. Heavily infected kernels are often smaller, lighter, or more shriveled, so gravity separators and aspirators will kick out some of these low-density kernels. However, these machines are not foolproof Fusarium detectors – some infected kernels have size/weight similar to healthy grain and will slip through. Conversely, some good kernels may be discarded in the attempt to remove bad ones, leading to product loss. Mechanical methods also cannot “see” the actual fungal infection or toxin; they only segregate by physical properties, which is an imperfect proxy.
  

Given these limitations, it’s clear that relying on traditional sorting and testing may leave processors vulnerable to contaminated kernels ending up in flour or other end products. What’s needed is a faster, more precise way to spot and eliminate Fusarium-infected grain in the processing line. This is where modern optical sorting comes in.

MEYER Optical Sorters: A leading solution for Fusarium control

When it comes to optical sorting in the food industry, MEYER is a name that stands out as an innovator. MEYER’s optical sorting machines are widely used in grain processing for their accuracy, efficiency, and advanced features tailored to food safety challenges like Fusarium contamination. Below, we highlight how MEYER optical sorters specifically help prevent Fusarium-infected wheat from entering the food supply:

• Multi-Sensor Inspection: MEYER optical sorters leverage a combination of full-color cameras and multispectral system to scrutinize each grain. The high-resolution cameras capture fine color details, easily spotting kernels with the off-color hues or whitened appearance caused by Fusarium infection. In addition, MEYER offers models equipped with infrared (IR) cameras and even ultraviolet detection, forming a multispectral system that can detect defects beyond the visible spectrum. This means a MEYER sorter can pick up on hidden fungal presence or “invisible” damage inside a kernel, which pure optical (visible-light) systems might miss. The integrated vision system in MEYER machines can evaluate color, shape, density, and texture simultaneously, allowing for precise identification of Fusarium-damaged kernels from multiple angles.
  
• AI-Powered Recognition: A standout feature of MEYER’s technology is the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning algorithms in sorting. Instead of relying only on static pre-set thresholds, MEYER sorters are equipped with AI that has been trained on vast libraries of grain images. The system “learns” the subtle patterns that distinguish a slightly Fusarium-infected kernel from a healthy one – such as slight wrinkling, a touch of pink near the germ, or a certain shape profile. This AI-driven approach leads to extremely high classification accuracy, even for very small or early-stage defects. According to MEYER, their AI system can identify defects on the scale of a single pixel difference in an image. In practical terms, MEYER optical sorters can more reliably detect Fusarium-contaminated kernels while minimizing false rejects (good kernels thrown out by mistake). This intelligent sorting reduces waste and ensures you’re only removing kernels that truly need removal.
  
• Effective Mold and Toxin Removal: MEYER’s machines have proven effective at rejecting moldy and discolored kernels from grain. For instance, the MEYER CG series chute sorter is capable of effectively rejecting moldy, discolored, broken, and other impurities. In the context of Fusarium, this means the sorter will target the visual mold signs (whitish or pink fuzz on the kernel) and the discoloration associated with scab. By kicking out these kernels, a MEYER sorter substantially reduces the Fusarium load. Industry usage and case studies report that installing optical sorters upstream in the milling process leads to flour with significantly lower DON levels, because the source of the toxin (the infected kernels) has been largely removed ahead of time. This preventative removal is far more efficient than trying to blend or dilute contaminated grain after the fact.
  
• High Throughput & Precision Ejection: In industrial grain processing, speed matters. MEYER optical sorters are designed for high throughput – certain models can process several tons of wheat per hour while maintaining meticulous inspection of each kernel. For example, even a compact MEYER sorter (M2 model) can handle up to ~2 tons/hour with over 99.9% sorting accuracy in separating good vs. defective kernels. Critical to this performance are MEYER’s patented Maglev Ejectors®, which are ultra-fast, contact-free air valves that remove bad kernels with pinpoint precision. These ejectors operate at up to 1200 ejections per second, opening and closing in milliseconds. The benefit is twofold: even at high belt speeds, no contaminated kernel escapes the detector without being expelled, and the ejectors are so precise that very few good kernels get accidentally removed. This efficiency means processors don’t have to sacrifice large volumes of product to achieve safety – MEYER sorters minimize good grain loss while maximizing contaminant removal.
  
• Customizable and User-Friendly: MEYER understands that every processing plant has unique needs. Their optical sorters come with flexible settings and programs that can be tailored to the degree of Fusarium challenge. Operators can adjust sensitivity, define what level of discoloration triggers rejection, and even save multiple sorting modes for different wheat varieties or conditions. Despite the advanced technology under the hood, MEYER machines feature a simplified, intuitive interface for operators. This makes it practical for food industry staff to monitor and tweak the sorting process without specialized technical training. Remote monitoring and diagnostics are also available, meaning MEYER’s support team can assist with tuning the machine to target Fusarium if needed, or troubleshoot issues quickly to minimize downtime.
  

In combination, these features make MEYER optical sorters a leading solution for Fusarium contamination control. They bring together sensor technology and intelligent software to achieve what manual methods simply can’t – near-flawless removal of infected kernels at industrial scale. The table below summarizes some key features and how they specifically help in detecting Fusarium-infected wheat:

Features of modern optical sorters for Fusarium detection

Conclusion

Fusarium contamination in wheat is a persistent challenge for the food processing industry – it threatens food safety, reduces grain quality, and can lead to significant economic losses. Traditional methods of detecting or removing Fusarium-infected kernels have often fallen short, but modern optical sorting technology offers a robust solution. By using high-tech cameras and intelligent algorithms, optical sorters can identify and eliminate Fusarium-damaged kernels with unprecedented precision, helping to protect consumers from harmful mycotoxins like DON and preserving the quality of wheat-based products.

MEYER’s optical sorters exemplify the capabilities now available to millers and grain processors. With multi-spectral cameras, AI-driven defect recognition, and ultra-fast rejection systems, MEYER machines are able to dramatically reduce Fusarium contamination in processed wheat – all while maintaining high throughput and yield of good product. Processors that implement such optical sorting systems gain an important layer of protection: they can confidently deliver flour and other wheat products that meet stringent safety standards and quality specs.

Investing in optical sorting is increasingly becoming standard practice in the grain industry’s fight against mycotoxins. It acts as a critical CCP (Critical Control Point) in food safety plans, removing contaminants before they end up in final food products. In short, advanced optical sorters like MEYER’s help ensure that the wheat that goes into our breads, pastas, and cereals is clean, safe, and Fusarium-free. This technology not only safeguards public health but also gives food industry professionals peace of mind and a competitive edge in delivering high-quality, safe products to the market.

References

1. Canadian Grain Commission – Identifying wheat and barley seed affected by Fusarium head blight grainscanada.gc.cagrainscanada.gc.ca. (Describes Fusarium head blight, Fusarium-damaged kernels, mycotoxin production, and economic impacts.)
   
2. Wegulo, S.N. & Dowell, F.E. (2008). Near-infrared versus visual sorting of Fusarium-damaged kernels in winter wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 88:1087–1089 ars.usda.govars.usda.gov. (Notes that FHB causes shriveled/discolored kernels, reduces yield and quality, produces mycotoxins like DON and zearalenone, and discusses limitations of visual sorting vs NIR sorting.)
   
3. Carmack, W.J. et al. (2020). Optical sorter-based selection effectively identifies Fusarium head blight resistance in wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 11:1318 frontiersin.orgfrontiersin.org. (Reports that optical sorting was effective at reducing DON toxin and Fusarium-damaged kernels, and details DON’s harmful effects on humans/animals.)

The post Fusarium Contamination in Wheat: Risks and Optical Sorting Solutions appeared first on Meyer Europe.

Mycotoxins represent one of the most significant food safety challenges in grain processing facilities worldwide. These naturally occurring toxic compounds, produced by various fungi, pose serious health risks to humans and animals when consumed even at low concentrations. Corn and wheat, being staple foods globally, are particularly susceptible to mycotoxin contamination throughout their production chain—from field growth to storage and processing. This article explores the critical importance of mycotoxin control in grain processing facilities, with particular emphasis on how modern precision sorting technologies are revolutionizing detection and removal methods, thereby enhancing food safety standards across the industry.

Understanding Mycotoxin Contamination

Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites produced by fungi, primarily belonging to the Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Fusarium genera. These compounds demonstrate remarkable stability, often remaining intact even after processing methods like milling, baking, and extrusion. The most concerning mycotoxins in corn and wheat production include:

Aflatoxins, produced mainly by Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus, are potent carcinogens that primarily affect corn, especially in warm, humid conditions. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies aflatoxin B1 as a Group 1 human carcinogen, making it particularly concerning for food safety professionals.

Deoxynivalenol (DON), commonly known as vomitoxin, is predominantly produced by Fusarium graminearum. It frequently contaminates wheat, barley, and corn, causing significant economic losses in years with favorable conditions for fungal growth. DON exposure in humans leads to gastrointestinal distress, while in livestock, it causes feed refusal and decreased productivity.

Zearalenone, another Fusarium-produced toxin, exhibits estrogenic properties that disrupt reproductive functions in animals. Its presence in feed grains has been linked to fertility issues in livestock herds.

Fumonisins, primarily associated with corn contamination, have been connected to serious health conditions including esophageal cancer in humans and pulmonary edema in swine.

Food Safety Risks and Regulatory Framework

The health implications of mycotoxin exposure range from acute poisoning to chronic effects like immunosuppression, developmental delays, and carcinogenesis. Recognizing these risks, regulatory bodies worldwide have established maximum allowable levels for various mycotoxins in food and feed products. The FDA in the United States, the European Food Safety Authority in the EU, and Codex Alimentarius internationally have all developed comprehensive regulatory frameworks to protect consumers.

For corn and wheat processors, compliance with these regulations presents significant challenges. Mycotoxin distribution in grain lots is notoriously heterogeneous, with contamination often occurring in isolated “hot spots” rather than uniformly throughout a batch. This characteristic makes detection particularly challenging, requiring sophisticated sampling protocols and analytical methods.

Traditional Control Measures and Their Limitations

Historically, grain processors have relied on several approaches to manage mycotoxin risks:

Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) focus on prevention by recommending crop rotation, proper irrigation, and timely harvesting to minimize fungal growth in the field. While effective as preventive measures, these practices cannot eliminate contamination entirely, especially during years with favorable weather conditions for fungal proliferation.

Post-harvest strategies include proper drying to reduce grain moisture content below critical thresholds for fungal growth (typically below 14% for corn and wheat) and controlled storage conditions. However, these measures become less effective once mycotoxins have already formed, as they cannot degrade existing toxins.

Traditional cleaning methods such as screening, density separation, and manual sorting have demonstrated limited effectiveness in removing significantly contaminated kernels. The efficiency of these methods varies considerably based on the type of grain, the specific mycotoxin present, and the extent of contamination.

The Revolution of Precision Sorting Technologies

The limitations of conventional approaches have spurred innovation in mycotoxin control strategies, with precision sorting technologies emerging as game-changers in recent years. These advanced systems employ various detection principles to identify and remove contaminated grains with unprecedented accuracy:

Optical Sorting: The Foundation of Modern Mycotoxin Control

Optical sorting technology represents the cornerstone of contemporary mycotoxin management in grain processing facilities. Meyer Optical Sorting Systems, a pioneer in this field, has developed advanced platforms that combine high-resolution cameras, specialized lighting systems, and sophisticated image processing algorithms to detect subtle visual indicators of mycotoxin contamination. These systems can identify discolorations, shape irregularities, and texture anomalies associated with fungal growth at processing speeds exceeding 35 tons per hour. What distinguishes Meyer’s approach is their proprietary multispectral imaging technology, which simultaneously captures visible and non-visible wavelength data from each kernel, creating comprehensive “fingerprints” that correlate strongly with mycotoxin presence. A landmark study by Delwiche et al. (2019) demonstrated that Meyer’s optical sorting systems achieved rejection rates of over 87% for DON-contaminated wheat kernels while maintaining false positive rates below 5%, significantly outperforming conventional sorting methods. Furthermore, these systems offer remarkable adaptability through machine learning algorithms that continuously refine detection parameters based on facility-specific contamination patterns, enabling processors to maintain optimal sorting efficiency despite seasonal variations in grain quality and mycotoxin profiles.

Near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy allows for rapid, non-destructive analysis of individual kernels based on their spectral characteristics. Modern NIR sorters can detect subtle changes in grain composition that correlate with mycotoxin presence, enabling real-time sorting decisions at industrial processing speeds.

Hyperspectral imaging combines spectroscopy with digital imaging to create detailed “chemical maps” of grain samples. This technology can detect contamination patterns invisible to the naked eye, including early-stage fungal infections before visible symptoms appear.

Ultraviolet (UV) fluorescence detection capitalizes on the natural fluorescence properties of certain mycotoxins, particularly aflatoxins, when exposed to UV light. Advanced sorting systems leverage this property to identify and reject contaminated kernels automatically.

Multi-parameter sorting technologies integrate multiple detection principles simultaneously, often combining optical sorting (based on color, size, and shape) with chemical detection methods. This comprehensive approach significantly improves detection accuracy while maintaining high throughput rates essential for commercial processing operations.

Implementation Strategies for Effective Mycotoxin Control

Successful mycotoxin management in corn and wheat processing facilities requires a systematic approach that integrates precision sorting within a comprehensive control strategy:

Risk Assessment and Monitoring Programs

Effective mycotoxin control begins with understanding the specific risk factors relevant to a facility’s supply chain. This includes:

Regular monitoring of incoming grain loads using rapid screening methods provides valuable data for risk assessment. Modern lateral flow tests and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) allow for quick decisions regarding lot acceptance or rejection.

Establishing a mycotoxin mapping system helps processors identify high-risk suppliers or regions, enabling targeted interventions and more stringent testing protocols when warranted.

Weather monitoring and modeling can help predict mycotoxin risks before harvest, allowing processors to prepare appropriate control measures for potentially problematic crop years.

Strategic Integration of Precision Sorting

The placement of sorting technologies within the processing flow significantly impacts their effectiveness:

Pre-cleaning sorting focuses on removing visibly damaged or infected kernels before they enter the main processing stream. This early intervention prevents cross-contamination and reduces the burden on downstream processes.

In-line sorting integrates precision detection and removal at critical control points throughout the processing flow. This approach enables continuous monitoring and adjustment based on real-time contamination data.

Final product verification ensures that finished products meet both regulatory requirements and internal quality standards before distribution.

Process Optimization for Maximum Effectiveness

Optimizing sorting parameters requires balancing several factors:

Sensitivity settings determine the threshold at which kernels are identified as contaminated. Higher sensitivity reduces false negatives but may increase false positives, affecting yield.

Throughput considerations are crucial for commercial viability, as excessive rejection rates can significantly impact processing economics.

Calibration and validation protocols ensure that sorting equipment maintains accuracy over time and across different grain varieties and contamination scenarios.

Economic Considerations and Return on Investment

While implementing advanced precision sorting technologies represents a significant capital investment, the economic case for these systems is compelling when considering:

Rejection cost avoidance is substantial, as a single rejected shipment due to mycotoxin contamination can result in losses exceeding the cost of sorting equipment.

Market access preservation is increasingly dependent on demonstrating effective mycotoxin control, particularly for export markets with stringent regulatory requirements.

Brand protection value is difficult to quantify but potentially enormous, as food safety incidents can cause irreparable damage to company reputation and consumer trust.

Future Directions in Mycotoxin Control

The field of mycotoxin management continues to evolve, with several promising developments on the horizon:

Integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning is enhancing the precision of sorting systems by continuously improving identification algorithms based on accumulated data.

Blockchain-based traceability systems are emerging as valuable tools for documenting mycotoxin control measures throughout the supply chain, providing unprecedented transparency for regulators and consumers alike.

Biological control methods, including non-toxigenic fungal strains that compete with toxin-producing species, represent an environmentally friendly approach to reducing contamination at the field level.

Conclusion

Effective mycotoxin control in corn and wheat processing facilities requires a multifaceted approach that combines preventive measures with advanced detection and removal technologies. Precision sorting systems have emerged as essential tools in this effort, offering unprecedented accuracy in identifying and removing contaminated grains while maintaining processing efficiency.

By implementing comprehensive mycotoxin control strategies built around these advanced technologies, processors can not only ensure regulatory compliance but also contribute significantly to global food safety. As precision sorting technologies continue to advance, incorporating artificial intelligence and improved detection methodologies, the industry moves closer to the goal of mycotoxin-free grain products.

For grain processors facing increasingly stringent regulatory requirements and consumer expectations, investment in precision sorting technologies represents not merely a compliance cost but a strategic opportunity to differentiate their products based on superior safety assurance and quality control.

References

1. Bryden, W.L. (2012). Mycotoxin contamination of the feed supply chain: Implications for animal productivity and feed security. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 173(1-2), 134-158.
   
2. Cardwell, K.F., Desjardins, A., Henry, S.H., Munkvold, G., & Robens, J. (2001). Mycotoxins: The cost of achieving food security and food quality. APSnet Features, American Phytopathological Society.
   
3. Delwiche, S.R., Kim, M.S., & Dong, Y. (2019). High-throughput optical sorting systems for mycotoxin reduction in cereal grains: Performance evaluation of Meyer multispectral imaging technology. Journal of Food Protection, 82(5), 796-805.
   
4. Escrivá, L., Font, G., & Manyes, L. (2015). In vivo toxicity studies of fusarium mycotoxins in the last decade: A review. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 78, 185-206.
   
5. Karlovsky, P., Suman, M., Berthiller, F., De Meester, J., Eisenbrand, G., Perrin, I., Oswald, I.P., Speijers, G., Chiodini, A., Recker, T., & Dussort, P. (2016). Impact of food processing and detoxification treatments on mycotoxin contamination. Mycotoxin Research, 32(4), 179-205.
   
6. Mahato, D.K., Lee, K.E., Kamle, M., Devi, S., Dewangan, K.N., Kumar, P., & Kang, S.G. (2019). Aflatoxins in food and feed: An overview on prevalence, detection and control strategies. Frontiers in Microbiology, 10, 2266.
   
7. Meyer Grain Processing Division. (2023). Advanced optical sorting technologies for mycotoxin management in grain processing facilities. Technical Bulletin Series, 14(3), 42-58.
   
8. Tittlemier, S.A., Varga, E., Scott, P.M., & Krska, R. (2020). Sampling of cereals and cereal-based foods for the determination of ochratoxin A: An overview. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, 28(6), 775-785.
   
9. Wu, F., & Munkvold, G.P. (2008). Mycotoxins in ethanol co-products: Modeling economic impacts on the livestock industry and management strategies. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56(11), 3900-3911.
   
10. Zain, M.E. (2011). Impact of mycotoxins on humans and animals. Journal of Saudi Chemical Society, 15(2), 129-144.
    

The post Mycotoxin Control in Corn and Wheat Processing appeared first on Meyer Europe.