I appreciate your response. My Engineering team has more follow-up questions:
1. The metal detection companies we have talked with wouldn't be able to detect the size or type of metal we are finding. Sometimes it is a fine dust. Production is shut down (very costly and time consuming) and Engineering is wondering how we can set parameters around contamination we can't detect or distinguish.
2. Would a machine and/or mold PM be enough to demonstrate we are taking action to act on risks to contamination of product before they become issues?
3. Can you point us to any resources, documentation, standards, etc. that may help us develop a better tolerance than we currently have in place (no tolerance)?
We greatly appreciate and value your expertise, experience and assistance with this matter.
I apologise for my ignorance but (a) I'm not a packaging Person, (b) I have zero knowledge/experience regarding yr seemingly highly specialised equipment. So I cannot help very much.
It is curious that Packaging people here do not seem to be using yr type of equipment, Perhaps this is due to -
(a) some unusual type of Packaging in yr Production demanding ultraclean surfaces ?
(b) other Producers are not experiencing the type of contamination you refer for unknown reasons ?
(c) other producers are ignoring contamination such as you refer since considered not-significant?
The article you attached in OP is definitely relevant to food evaluation however, from a tolerance POV, it is perhaps capable of misinterpretation. To illustrate what I mean, I suggest you have a look at this post/included links and the surrounding thread -
(some substantial reading involved )
Regarding post 5-
(1) I don't quite understand why yr system is unable to determine the size of metallic contamination. Calibration is not possible?
(2) what is "PM" ?
(3) As per my link above, from a purely adulteration POV, the tolerance is zero but from an MD's operationall POV this is not pragmatic, eg -