|Publication number||USRE43453 E1|
|Application number||US 10/888,967|
|Publication date||Jun 5, 2012|
|Filing date||Jul 12, 2004|
|Priority date||Feb 9, 2000|
|Publication number||10888967, 888967, US RE43453 E1, US RE43453E1, US-E1-RE43453, USRE43453 E1, USRE43453E1|
|Inventors||Grant S. Humphrey|
|Original Assignee||Neogen Corporation|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (52), Non-Patent Citations (16), Classifications (4), Legal Events (4)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
This invention relates to a new use of stainless steel. Stainless steel hypodermic needles are used in raising livestock to be processed in meat packing plants. The needles break leaving metal in processed meat. Although metal detectors are employed in most meat packing plants, currently they don't detect stainless steel needles in meat.
Needles, which have broken off in livestock, are a problem in processed meat. Although disposable, in the field they are used repeatedly until they snap or break off in livestock (pigs and cattle). The needle has a stainless steel cannula fixed in a hub. The cannula breaks away from the hub or the cannula itself breaks, and remains unrecovered in the animal. Hubs are generally plastic (often polypropylene), aluminum, or chromium coated brass. Broken needles are more common in pork than beef because of the sheer volume of pigs processed each year. Needles will be present in processed meat from all livestock subject to injection. The current disposable needles used in the raising of livestock are usually made of 304 stainless steel, an austenitic alloy typically about 18 to 20% chromium and 8 to 12% nickel. It is not magnetic and needles made of it are not detectable by metal detectors currently used in meat plants, nor are other disposable hypodermic needles made of non-magnetic metals and alloys. One hundred million disposable hypodermic needles are used yearly. The current usage of disposable needles in the raising of livestock causes them to break. These undetectable needles end up in processed meat and pass through packing plants, which are sold to consumers, domestically and internationally. Many meat packing plants in North America use metal detectors in an attempt to detect and remove disposable hypodermic needles from processed meat. Despite this practice few, if any, disposable needles are detected and removed. For all practical purposes disposable hypodermic needles of austenitic 304 stainless steel and other non-magnetic metals and alloys are not detectable.
The problem is as at least as old as disposable hypodermic needles, and the meat packing industry is well aware of it. The problem has not been addressed by the needle manufacturers, who are also aware of the problem. The suggestion sometimes made that the stainless steel disposable needles should not be used in livestock raising, or at any rate not repeatedly used, is fanciful and not at all practical.
Although this suggestion is obviously ridiculous it is the sole suggestion to emerge from an in depth study at the Iowa State University, Ames (Hoff et. al., American Journal of Veterinary Research, 60, No.3, 292-298, 1999) which concluded that stainless steel needles and their hubs were sufficiently resilient to avoid breakage in single use. The contributory factor of breakage is that the animal moves when injected deforming the needle. The prime cause of breakage is that the deformed needle is straightened by hand and reused. The needle when straightened is much more likely to break off in the animal, and the chance increases with repeated straightening. While the manufacturers place product notices on needle packaging specifying “single use only”, this is not followed in practice. The Iowa study also recommended “single use only.”
There is increasing worry about disposable needles in the processed meat industry especially since complaints and presumably incidence are increasing. Export contracts are especially sensitive to the discovery of needles in meat. Two surveys were carried out in 1999 in Canada by the Canadian Cattlemen, a trade publication; one of veterinarians, one of processors, purveyors and retailers. The veterinarians (25% of whom had experienced broken needles) recommended use of proper animal restraints (50%, but difficult in practice), restricted reuse of the needle 5 to 20 times (41%), and discarding damaged needles (28%). Of the producers 41% had from 1 to 12 complaints about needles in the average year, 30% had metal detectors, and 31% used metal detectors (14% supplemented by visual inspection), about 14% passed all products through a metal detector, and another 14% passed some products through a metal detector. About 73% had high confidence in metal detection in trim (not whole muscle), 18% medium and 9% low. The surveys as summarized (Donkersgoed, Canadian Cattlemen, January 2000, p. 28) stated that the processors had little confidence in the ability of metal detectors to detect metal in large cuts of meal. As noted above, austenitic stainless steel is non-magnetic and one of the hardest metals to detect using a metal detector.
There are four groups involved, the needle manufacturers, veterinarians, producers, meat packers. Neither the packer nor the producer can rely on the other to detect needles in meat. In practice the packer is liable, because it is difficult if not impossible to identify the producer. Although some meat packing plants use metal detectors these are rarely successful in detecting needles.
There is therefore a need for detectable disposable needles. Current common needles come in several sizes especially 20 gauge×˝ inch, 18 gauge×1 inch, 18 gauge×1˝ inch, 16 gauge×1 inch, 16 gauge×1˝ inch, 14 gauge×1 inch, 14 gauge×1˝inch, with larger needles used for larger animals and smaller needles for smaller animals. The primary need is to detect the smallest needles when broken off (20 gauge×˝ inch), and preferably smaller broken portions of such needles.
Applicant is not aware of any prior art.
It is a principal object of the invention to provide hypodermic needles detectable in meat by metal detectors currently used in meat packing plants. It is a subsidiary object of the invention to provide hypodermic needles detectable in meat as broken portions by metal detectors currently used in meat packing plants.
The invention in its broadest aspect is directed to a magnetic stainless steel hypodermic needle detectable in meat by metal detectors. The magnetic stainless steel is preferably selected from the group of ferritic and martensitic stainless steels. The stainless steel may be ferritic, preferably 430 stainless steel, or it may be martensitic, preferably 420 stainless steel. The needle is preferably of length from ˝ to 1˝ inches long and gauge from 14 to 20. The needle may be of length ˝ inch and gauge 20, of length 1 inch and gauge 18, of length 1˝ inch and gauge 18, of length 1 inch and gauge 16, of length 1˝ inch and gauge 16, of length 1 inch and gauge 14, of length 1˝ inch and gauge 14.
In another aspect the invention is directed to the novel use of magnetic stainless steel in disposable hypodermic needles, detectable in meat by metal detectors. The magnetic stainless steel is preferably selected from the group consisting of ferritic and martensitic stainless steel. More preferably the stainless steel is martensitic stainless steel, conveniently 420 stainless steel. Also more preferably the stainless steel is ferritic stainless steel, conveniently 430 stainless steel.
In another aspect the invention is directed to the manufacture of disposable hypodermic needles detectable in meat by metal detectors from magnetic stainless steel. The magnetic stainless steel is preferably selected from the group consisting of ferritic and martensitic stainless steel. More preferably the stainless steel is martensitic stainless steel, conveniently 420 stainless steel. Also more preferably the stainless steel is ferritic stainless steel, conveniently 430 stainless steel. The preferred method of manufacture is cold drawing of tubular stock, which typically requires several iterations.
The invention is illustrated but not restricted by reference to the preferred embodiments. It is well known that austenitic stainless steels are non-magnetic, and almost impossible to detect using metal detectors, which rely on distortion of an oscillating electromagnetic field. The reason is that non-magnetic stainless steel is a relatively poor conductor of electric current and has no magnetic properties and therefore not detectable. The stainless steel used in hypodermic needles is typically austenitic 304 stainless steel, and therefore not detectable.
Austenitic stainless steels are iron-chromium-nickel alloys with specified but variable carbon content, which are not hardenable by heat treatment, and are regarded as non-magnetic due to the nickel present. Martensitic stainless steels are iron-chromium alloys with no or little nickel content (less than 1%), hardenable by heat treatment, and regarded as magnetic. Ferritic stainless steels are iron-chromium alloys with no or little nickel content (less than 1%), are not hardenable by heat treatment, and regarded as magnetic. Ferritic stainless steels have a lower carbon content than martensitic stainless steels. These terms are well known to those skilled in the art. 304 stainless steel is the most common grade of austenitic stainless steel. 420 stainless steel, a martensitic stainless steel, has a higher carbon content than 410 stainless steel, the most common grade of martensitic stainless steel. 430 stainless steel is the most common grade of ferritic stainless steel.
Since stainless steel disposable needles are desirable, applicant decided to test other stainless steels to see if they could be detected. Applicant had no prior knowledge of whether magnetic stainless steel disposable needles would be detected by metal detectors in meat packing plants. A martensitic 420 stainless steel welding rod was reduced to approximately the size of a 20 gauge ˝ inch needle for test purposes. It was then placed in meat and run through Loma and Safeline brand name metal detectors on meat production lines and easily detected, unexpectedly and to the surprise of applicant and to the amazement of everyone else. No one at the meat plants believed that the experimental rods of stainless steel that size could be detected. The experiment was repeated in 2 and 4 kilogram pork butts with bone, as bone is believed to affect metal detection, to convince both applicant and observer (packer). The 20 gauge ˝ inch rod was detected on every trial. It was decided to manufacture a batch of needles for further testing. Unfortunately not only did 420 stainless prove impossible to obtain in the tubular form necessary for needle manufacture, but so did other martensitic stainless steels.
Ferritic stainless steel which is similar in composition, but not structure, was considered as a possible alternative. Ferritic 430 stainless steel was available in suitable tubular form. A small sample of 20 gauge 1 inch disposable cannulae (needles without hubs) were made up from this material and were similarly tested and detected. Again, applicant could not be certain before testing that the needles would be detectable, and nobody else had any inkling that they would be detectable. First 1 inch needles were tested in 2 and 4 kilogram pork butts with bone on meat production lines using Loma and Safeline brand name metal detectors and detected on every trial. Needles were then cut in half to simulate 20 gauge ˝ inch needles, which were then tested in 2 and 4 kilogram pork butts with bone. Again, the needles were easily detected on every trial, to the amazement of observers.
Ferritic cannulae, 20 gauge 1 inch, were made up with chromium plated brass hubs as needles for injection testing. Generally, 430 stainless has lower tensile strength than 304 stainless so the question whether ferritic needles were as effective as austenitic needles arose. The ferritic needles were fitted onto a hypodermic syringe and tested by jabbing into a pork cadaver. Since the skin of pork cadavers toughens after death, the needles were tested about twenty-four hours after death. Forty-one punctures were made in the cadaver, using a single needle. When the 20 gauge needle deformed, it was finger straightened. The needle deformed with use, breaking at the forty first puncture. As far as applicant is aware this performance is comparable to existing 304 stainless needles. Since 430 stainless has less tensile strength than 304 stainless, the needle may deform and break with less use, but the practical difference is small.
There was no prior reason to believe that martensitic or ferritic stainless steel in the dimensions of disposable hypodermic needles would be detectable by metal detectors in meat production lines. There was thus no inkling or useful intention to combine martensitic or ferritic steel and the form of disposable hypodermic needles, which would be easily and routinely detected by metal detectors in meat processing lines. These detectors are set at high sensitivity to attempt (unsuccessfully) to detect the austenitic needles. Applicant was not faced with ignorance but active disbelief in the meat packing industry. Hearsay was not enough, demonstration was and is required to convince people.
The production batch of ferritic 430 stainless steel needles was made by cold drawing through a die from 2 inch diameter ⅜ inch wall thickness tubular stock. Some needles were fitted with brass hubs, some with plastic hubs. The hubs can be brass, aluminum, plastic (often polypropylene). Generally, several iterations of cold drawing are required. In the particular method used six were necessary.
By selecting magnetic stainless steel for disposable hypodermic needles applicant has solved a long standing problem in the meat industry.
As those skilled in the art would realize these preferred described details and materials and components can be subjected to substantial variation, modification, change, alteration, and substitution without affecting or modifying the function of the described embodiments.
Although embodiments of the invention have been described above, it is not limited thereto, and it will be apparent to persons skilled in the art that numerous modifications and variations form part of the present invention insofar as they do not depart from the spirit, nature and scope of the claimed and described invention.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US3179107||Nov 21, 1962||Apr 20, 1965||Becton Dickinson Co||Hypodermic unit with an improved mounting for a replaceable needle assembly|
|US3723102 *||Jun 15, 1970||Mar 27, 1973||Airco Inc||High strength iron-chromium-nickel alloy|
|US3741198||Oct 12, 1971||Jun 26, 1973||Univ Temple||Radiological diagnostic method|
|US3780734||Dec 10, 1971||Dec 25, 1973||Wulff G||Hypodermic syringe holder and injector device|
|US3865644||Apr 9, 1973||Feb 11, 1975||Bofors Ab||High strength, corrosion resistant, austenite-ferrite stainless steel|
|US3882849||Mar 25, 1974||May 13, 1975||Khosrow Jamshidi||Soft Tissue Biopsy Device|
|US4409046||Dec 10, 1980||Oct 11, 1983||Sortimat Creuz & Co. Gmbh||Method of and an apparatus for producing disposable syringes and the disposable syringe produced|
|US4449973 *||Jun 26, 1982||May 22, 1984||Luther Medical Products, Inc.||Small gauge, pre-split cannula and process for manufacture|
|US4490139||Jan 28, 1983||Dec 25, 1984||Eli Lilly And Company||Implant needle and method|
|US4508119||Nov 2, 1981||Apr 2, 1985||Kenkichi Tukamoto||Needle|
|US4526177||Jun 24, 1983||Jul 2, 1985||Rudy Michael A||Electronic anatomical probe|
|US4560880||Sep 19, 1983||Dec 24, 1985||Varian Associates, Inc.||Apparatus for positioning a workpiece in a localized vacuum processing system|
|US4702737||Jul 14, 1986||Oct 27, 1987||Pizzino Joanne L||Dual dose syringe|
|US4747834||Sep 28, 1987||May 31, 1988||Ideal Instruments, Inc.||Back-fill syringe|
|US4774741||Feb 11, 1987||Oct 4, 1988||Meat Processing Service Corporation||Method for treating slaughtered animals|
|US4788844||May 1, 1987||Dec 6, 1988||Inventive Enterprises Inc.||Apparatus for straightening slender shafts|
|US4968362 *||Jun 22, 1988||Nov 6, 1990||American Cyanamid Company||Dark metallic product|
|US4969963||Dec 27, 1988||Nov 13, 1990||Aichi Steel Works, Ltd.||Soft magnetic stainless steel having good cold forgeability|
|US5000912||Dec 15, 1989||Mar 19, 1991||Ethicon, Inc.||Nickel titanium martensitic steel for surgical needles|
|US5015235||Sep 15, 1989||May 14, 1991||National Carpet Equipment, Inc.||Syringe needle combination|
|US5041098||May 19, 1989||Aug 20, 1991||Strato Medical Corporation||Vascular access system for extracorporeal treatment of blood|
|US5162037 *||May 7, 1991||Nov 10, 1992||Whitson Laboratories, Inc.||Magnetically influenced homeopathic pharmaceutical formulations, methods of their preparation and methods of their administration|
|US5165218||Jun 20, 1991||Nov 24, 1992||Callahan Jr Bernard C||Automatic sorting, stacking and packaging apparatus and method|
|US5306251 *||Mar 27, 1991||Apr 26, 1994||Alexander Nicholas J||Device for injecting a fluid or inserting an object beneath the skin of an animal|
|US5336186||Feb 10, 1993||Aug 9, 1994||Habley Medical Technology Corporation||Safety syringe with displaceable barrel hub|
|US5372778||Dec 9, 1993||Dec 13, 1994||Daido Tokushuko Kabushiki Kaisha||Electromagnetic stainless steel|
|US5411613||Oct 5, 1993||May 2, 1995||United States Surgical Corporation||Method of making heat treated stainless steel needles|
|US5412182 *||Apr 9, 1992||May 2, 1995||City Of Hope||Eddy current heating for hyperthermia cancer treatment|
|US5433711 *||Aug 1, 1994||Jul 18, 1995||Monsanto Company||Syringe with cannula-protecting sheath and sealing center rod|
|US5512237||Oct 2, 1992||Apr 30, 1996||Sandvik Ab||Precipitation hardenable martensitic stainless steel|
|US5527283||Feb 28, 1992||Jun 18, 1996||Swisher, Iii; Kyley||Safe medical syringe and method of manufacture|
|US5601664||Nov 8, 1995||Feb 11, 1997||Crs Holdings, Inc.||Corrosion-resistant magnetic material|
|US5649546||Jun 20, 1992||Jul 22, 1997||Steinbeck; Ulrich||Metal detector for the localization of a metallic foreign body penetrated or implanted into a human or animal body|
|US5651843 *||May 29, 1996||Jul 29, 1997||Ethicon, Inc.||Means for predicting preformance of stainless steel alloy for use with surgical needles|
|US5715822||Sep 28, 1995||Feb 10, 1998||General Electric Company||Magnetic resonance devices suitable for both tracking and imaging|
|US5720300||Feb 21, 1995||Feb 24, 1998||C. R. Bard, Inc.||High performance wires for use in medical devices and alloys therefor|
|US5792180||Jan 23, 1996||Aug 11, 1998||United States Surgical Corporation||High bend strength surgical needles and surgical incision members and methods of producing same by double sided photoetching|
|US5814166||Nov 14, 1996||Sep 29, 1998||Ethicon, Inc.||Process for heat treating and tempering surgical needles|
|US5815790 *||Jan 12, 1995||Sep 29, 1998||Soderfors Powder Aktiebolag||Method relating to the manufacturing of a composite metal product|
|US5894015 *||Apr 7, 1993||Apr 13, 1999||Rechtin; Michael D.||Disinfection of medical sharps|
|US5923165||May 8, 1997||Jul 13, 1999||Ykk Corporation||Method and apparatus for detecting broken sewing needles in sewn articles|
|US6027482||Apr 28, 1997||Feb 22, 2000||Becton Dickinson And Company||Syringe tip cap|
|US6211789||Jan 21, 2000||Apr 3, 2001||Courtney A. Oldham||Method and system for manual entry of data into integrated electronic database for livestock data collection|
|US6238491||May 5, 1999||May 29, 2001||Davitech, Inc.||Niobium-titanium-zirconium-molybdenum (nbtizrmo) alloys for dental and other medical device applications|
|US6315113 *||Jun 30, 1998||Nov 13, 2001||Richard B. Britton||Chemical disposal of medical syringe needles and other hazardous sharps|
|USRE28713||Oct 1, 1973||Feb 17, 1976||Sherwood Medical Industries, Inc.||Hypodermic needle and support structure therefor|
|EP0030353A1||Dec 2, 1980||Jun 17, 1981||SORTIMAT Creuz & Co. GmbH||Process and apparatus for manufacturing disposable cannulae|
|EP0279583B1||Feb 10, 1988||Oct 6, 1993||Owen Mumford Ltd.||Syringe needle combination|
|EP0806683A2||Apr 16, 1997||Nov 12, 1997||Ykk Corporation||Method for detection of magnetic substances in non-magnetic products and apparatus for the detection|
|EP0899589A2||Aug 10, 1998||Mar 3, 1999||Ykk Corporation||Method and apparatus for detecting the presence of magnetic substances in non-magnetic products|
|GB1217561A||Title not available|
|WO1993007303A1||Oct 2, 1992||Apr 15, 1993||Sandvik Ab||Precipitation hardenable martensitic stainless steel|
|1||American Society for Testing and Materials, Table of Stainless Steel Chemical Composition Requirements, 1999.|
|2||ASTM A 908-91 (Reapproved 1998) 1998.|
|3||Donkersgoed. A Broken Needle in my Steak. Cattleman. 2000 p. 28.|
|4||Federal Standard Stock Catalog, Section IV (Part 5), Federal Specification for Needles, Hypodermic; for Luer Syringes; Sep. 19, 1940.|
|5||H.K. Worner. An Investigation of Properties of Some Hypodermic Needles used in Dentistry. Australian Journal of Dentistry. vol. 44. No. 6. Jun. 1940 pp. 205-214.|
|6||Hoff and Sunberg; Breakage and Deformation Char. of Hypodermic Devices Under Static and Dynamic Loading; Am. Journal of Veterinary Research, vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 292-298.|
|7||Hoff and Sundberg; Breakage and Deformation Char. of Japanese and U.S. Manuf. Hypodermic Needles Under Static and Dynamic Loading; Journal Paper No. J-17718.|
|8||Hoff, Dr. Steven J. ; Evaluating Breakage Characteristics of Swine Injection Devices; Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Dept, Iowa State University.|
|9||Hoff, Dr. Steven J.; Comparing Japanese Needle Strength Characteristics; Jul. 31, 1998.|
|10||International Standard; Stainless steel needle tubing for manufacture of medical devices; ISO 9626 First Edition, Sep. 1, 1991.|
|11||ISO 9626 Jun. 1, 2000.|
|12||*||Joyce Van Donkersgoed, A broken needle in my steak!, Jan. 2000, Cattlemen, p. 28.|
|13||Lock, Andrew; The Guide to Reducing Metal Contamination in the Food Processing Industry; Safeline Metal Detection; Copyright 1990, Safeline Ltd.|
|14||S.J. Hott & P. Sunberg. Breakage & Deformation Characteristics of Hypodermic Devices Under Static & Dynamic Loading. 1999. AJVR. Go. No. 3. 292-298.|
|15||Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Metals & Alloys in the Unified Numbering System, 8th Edition, Jan. 1999, pp. i-iii, 275, 288 and 289.|
|16||Texas Specification No. 475-82-05, dated Jul. 30, 1971.|
|Aug 9, 2004||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: PROCESS DETECTABLE NEEDLES, INC., CANADA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:HUMPHREY, GRANT S.;REEL/FRAME:015649/0427
Effective date: 20030612
|Aug 9, 2005||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: RIVARD INSTRUMENTS INC., CANADA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:PROCESS DETECTABLE NEEDLES INC.;REEL/FRAME:016623/0924
Effective date: 20050117
|Jan 11, 2008||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: NEOGEN CORPORATION, MICHIGAN
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:RIVARD INSTRUMENTS, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PROCESS DETECTABLE NEEDLES INC.);REEL/FRAME:020353/0001
Effective date: 20071203
|Jan 7, 2015||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 12