Know what is in your environment

November 2, 2010

Home improvement products found with lead, cadmium and phthalates

Lead, cadmium and other heavy metals and chemicals have been found in home improvement products such as flooring, tile and wallpaper.  Healthystuff.org, a non-profit organization researching toxic chemicals in everyday products tested 1016 flooring products and 2312 types of wallpaper and lead, cadmium and phthalates were found.

In similar testing, Essco Safety Check has also found heavy metals in tile and wallpaper.  On July 13, 2010 Essco Safety Check posted a blog entitled “Warning to homeowners, renovators, and contractors: beware of lead and other heavy metals in tile.”  The State of Washington Department of Commerce Lead Lines Volume 3, Issue 1 October 2010 published (on page 3) Essco Safety Checks findings on tile and our recommendations to contractors and homeowners.

There are currently no federal standards for lead, cadmium or phthalates in home improvement products, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).  Yet there are regulations for lead in children’s products, currently with a total content limit of 300ppm and 90ppm for painted surfaces. 

As long as the tile is not disturbed, or children are directly “licking” the surface of the tile, there should be no direct harm.  However, if the tile is disturbed or children have direct hand-to-mouth or direct mouth contact, there is a potential for harm.

There are new federal regulations regarding lead found in properties older than 1978.  The renovation, repair and painting rule (RRP) went into effect to address lead dust hazards created during renovation of properties older than 1978, this rule only applies to painted surfaces.  Tile, flooring and wallpaper are not considered painted surfaces, but each can potentially possess harmful heavy metals of chemicals.

Healthystuff.org found that more than half of the wallpaper tested contained one or more hazardous chemicals and that 1 in 8 contained cadmium above 100ppm.  Of the vinyl flooring testing, 15% contained one or more hazardous chemicals compared to 8% for non-vinyl flooring.  Healthstuff.org found that linoleum, cork, bamboo and hardwood floorings all tested negative for lead and cadmium.

Lead found in the left tile, cadmium found in the right tile

In similar testing, Essco Safety Check has found tile to contain lead with a total content limit of over 2.4%, testing was done using an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzer. 

Additionally, we have found lead and cadmium to be present in wallpaper.  This testing was not done on new wallpaper, but wallpaper found currently in people’s homes.  In one case, we found that the wallpaper present in several parts of a home contained lead, cadmium antimony and was found to be PVC which may indicate the presence of phthalates.

Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm!

Share


Essco Safety Check

October 14, 2010

Lead isn’t the only thing being found in bounce house materials; arsenic and antimony are also found.

Children playing in a bounce house

In August of 2010, a lawsuit was filed by the office of Attorney General Jerry Brown of California claiming that unsafe levels of lead were being found in bounce houses.  The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) in Oakland, California initiated the suit.  The CEH found levels of lead in the vinyl up to 2.9% or 29,000 parts per million (PPM).  The federal limit for lead in a children’s product is 90 PPM for painted surfaces or 300 PPM for non-painted surfaces.

Recently my company, Essco Safety Check, preformed X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) testing of vinyl samples of materials that bounce houses are made of, and like CEH, we found lead, however we also found fairly high levels of arsenic and antimony.  The lead levels were found with a high of approximately 11,000 PPM but overall percentages of lead found were lower than that of antimony and arsenic. Lead was found to contain more than 500 PPM in 16.2% of the samples, however, 500 PPM of arsenic was found in 24.3% of the samples and 500 PPM of antimony was found in 86.5% of the samples.

Here are some general numbers of the samples we tested.

Antimony found with more than 1000 PPM in 86.5% of the samples tested
Arsenic found with more than 1000 PPM in 21.6% of the samples tested
Lead found with more than 1000 PPM in 8.1% of the samples tested
Antimony found with more than 5000 PPM in 35.1% of the samples tested
Arsenic found with more than 5000 PPM in 13.5% of the samples tested
Lead found with more than 5000 PPM in 2.7% of the samples tested

I’m not exactly sure why arsenic would be found in the vinyl materials of bounce houses, potentially as a stabilizer in Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) production, however, antimony is potentially used as a fire retardant. 

The CPSC is currently attempting to decide what exactly is the definition of a children’s product, I’m not sure that a bounce home a children’s product.  I’m not even sure that the CPSC knows this answer.  In discussions with several people in the “know” about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), they are not sure if this is a child’s product.

However, in the vinyl materials that were tested, lead, arsenic and antimony were found.  Now I want to stress that all testing done was with an XRF analyzer which tests for total content.  Lead is the only element that has a total content standard within the CPSIA, antimony and arsenic (among other elements) have voluntary soluble standards according to ASTM F963.  The results shown are NOT a soluble reading, but total content. 

Now just because the samples we tested were found to contain lead, antimony and arsenic does not mean that all bounce houses have these elements.  However, the material PVC is known for its ability to leach heavy metals.  All the samples tested were made of PVC. 

In producing PVC a lot of Chlorine (Cl) is used (some estimates say that 40% of the worlds chlorine is used to make PVC) and of course there is Hydrogen (H).  If H & Cl combine, they form Hydrochloric Acid (HCl), to prevent this the PVC manufactures add stabilizers, sometimes they use heavy metals such as lead, or maybe in this case arsenic. 

In a study that Essco Safety Check did with a few local laboratories in 2008 & 2009 lead was detected in PVC material and subjected to a variety of conditions of heat.  Lead was found to accumulate on the surface and leach from the PVC material, the more heat, the more leaching.  I wonder if this could be happening in these materials.

We know that exposure to lead can cause a variety of mental and physical conditions including; learning disabilities, behavioral problems, seizures, coma and even death.

Bounce house

Picture the beautiful summer evening at your towns 4th of July celebration, its 90 degrees and you’re having fun.  Your children want to go play in the bounce houses, children love these activities.  You say go play, have fun, don’t hurt yourself.  Little did you know that the act of playing in these houses could be potentially harmful to your child, all because of what they are made of.

Regardless if the CPSC determines that bounce houses are in-fact children’s products and subject to CPSIA regulations, why would you need to put these potentially harmful elements like lead, arsenic or antimony in this product or other children’s and consumer products?

Knowing what is in your environment is important, especially to children and pregnant women. 

Know what’s in your environment and mitigate harm!

Share


Essco Safety Check

October 7, 2010

Common Sense! My take on the CPSIA and the definition of a children’s product.

How do you define a children’s product?  This is the question that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is trying to answer and relates directly to the Children’s Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 which regulates how much lead and other potentially harmful toxicants are permitted in products designed and marketed for children 12 years of age and younger.  The CPSIA also regulates how the children’s products are tested and by whom.  The question of “what is the definition of a children’s product?” is unfortunately causing strife for small and large businesses that manufacture, import or sell children’s products.  Businesses everywhere are asking for exemptions from this law, claiming that there products are not “children’s products.” 

As a business owner of an environmental testing and software company, Essco Safety Check, who has been helping parents and businesses “know what is in their environment” since 2007, I have a unique perspective on this situation.  We have performed testing services for moms and dads who are very curious and care about what is in their child’s environment.  We have helped businesses that manufacture and sell their products, know what their products are made with.  We understand the retailer and what concerns them, their customer and the bottom line.  We have helped small business owners trying to sell quality handmade products, or the mom and pop crafter making baby products, trying to supplement their income.  We’ve been involved with children’s advisory safety councils with Washington State, as well as, discussions with the CPSC, EPA and FDA about a variety of environmental issues. 

With all of this insight I wanted to propose a common sense approach to the CPSIA; the definition of children’s products and how to solve this issue, reducing testing expenses, insuring safety, save businesses billions of dollars (also see), while creating jobs and improving lives.

Why do we have so many different regulations for so call “consumer products”?  Why does a child’s product have a different regulation and testing requirements than medical products, ceramics, and personal care items?  Do you know that medical devices, which are not considered consumer products, don’t have to be tested lead?  This includes toothbrushes, dental floss, bulb syringes and surgical tubing.  Do you know that ceramics in the kitchen can contain lead and cadmium and that they are regulated differently than toys? 

Currently, the definition of a “children’s product” as defined by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is, a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger.

Are these children's products?

Is a football a child’s product?  What about model trains?  What about Halloween costumes?  What about tooth brushes?  What about bounce homes?  What about ceramics that children eat off of? Do you see where I’m going with this?  There would be a lot of specifics to make this definition accurate.  Is a science kit, which is intended for learning, a child’s product?  If so, then the paperclip in this product needs to be tested for lead, but if a teacher walks into an office supply store and buys paperclips in a box, those don’t need to be tested.   If a lamp has childish embellishments on it, it needs to be tested for lead, but that same lamp without the embellishments doesn’t need to be tested.

Please read and article by Jennifer Kerr of the Associated Press and an article by Andrew Martin of the New York Times

Children have access to most, if not all, products in the home that are not considered children’s products, other consumer products and non-consumer products.  Wouldn’t it be easier, more prudent, and to the benefit of everyone’s health if we just said, “we don’t want lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and other potentially harmful heavy metals and chemicals in products other than…”?  Is it possible that the constant exposure of these heavy metals is contributing to our decline in academics (math, science and English scores) or to disorders such as autism and ADHD? 

Don’t get me wrong, there are some beneficial usages for lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals, but not in toys or other children’s products, or ceramics a child drinks out of or eats off of.   What about a pregnant woman, do we want them to have access and exposure to harmful heavy metals?   I think that all people should want to limit their toxic exposure from these potentially harmful elements we find in our homes or at work.   Why do we find lead in toys, ceramics and jewelry?   We even find lead in protein drinks!  Is it because corporations are trying to save a penny here and a penny there?  Does it make sense that we permit these potentially harmful heavy metals in the consumer products and medical devices used daily by ordinary people, including children and pregnant women?

If we start to think like this, we do not need to define what a children’s product is, and only define what materials or which certain items do not need to be tested for these heavy metals.   If we test products in our environment that we interact with, our children and even our pets interact with, we can reduce potential toxic exposure.  This doesn’t just mean toys!  It should include our schools, daycare centers, what’s in our kitchens, what’s at the hospital and the like.  Wouldn’t you want to live in a home with the least number of potentially harmful items, especially homes with children and pregnant women?

Do you know that the CPSIA requires that all children’s products must be tested by a third party independent accredited laboratory?  These laboratories use a destructive, expensive testing method, typically ICP-MS or AAS to look for lead and other heavy metals.  Typical costs can range from $50 to $300+ per test.  Unfortunately, not all manufactures have to abide by this rule, Mattel applied and was granted the ability to do their own testing in-house (in my opinion, this creates a huge market advantage to them and harms the small business owner).  Other large manufactures/importers have also asked the CPSC to be exempt from having to use a third party independent accredited laboratory and therefore they could control their testing expenses more while be self monitored. 

As far as testing to ensure that products “children’s products” and all other consumer products and non consumer products we interact with don’t have lead we should utilize low cost, accurate, portable technologies to reduce the overall testing expenses. This would create a reasonable testing program for consumer and non-consumer products.

If we started to test all products that citizens use in the home or at work for lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and other heavy metals with X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers, a non-destructive, scientifically accurate, low-cost testing system, we could effectively reduce the potential for harm while reducing overall testing costs.  The use of XRF analyzers with appropriate data collection and analysis can become a screening platform to test for heavy metals.  This can help businesses be in compliance with CPSIA regulations, while reducing their testing costs, helping get products to market faster, and putting thousands of people to work, creating small businesses to help other businesses.  Did I mention that if we test all products, we’d reduce our overall toxic exposure?

If a manufacturer has their raw materials or products tested with XRF analyzers and no lead is found, why would you need to do further expensive, destructive testing?  However, if lead or other potentially harmful elements are found, then further testing should occur if the manufacturer wants to use that material in the product they are selling.

If we start to think like this, then we realize that we don’t need to define what a child’s product is, but rather products in general and the materials that they are made of.  I would hope that the surgical tubing a child or pregnant woman uses at a hospital has been tested for lead and other harmful metals and chemicals.  I would hope that the toothbrush a pregnant mom uses is tested as strictly as her child’s toothbrush.  I would hope that coffee cup a child uses for their hot chocolate is tested for heavy metals and that those regulations are as stringent as a children’s product.  I would hope that the soccer field made of field turf is tested for heavy metals and that the levels are below what is for children’s products. 

If we use common sense, reducing the amount of toxic materials in our environment, combined with a low-cost, accurate, screening system, we could reduce testing expenses for businesses, insuring safety, creating jobs and improving lives.

Wouldn’t it be easier to apply one testing standard to the things in our environment, the toys, ceramics, jewelry, housing, paint, pocketbooks, footballs, baby bottles, etc?  Why so many different regulations?  Why do so many companies want to have their products not regulated like a children’s product?  Are they afraid of what may be found in the materials that make up their products?

My version of common sense means that we wouldn’t need to debate what a child’s product actually is, rather, treat all consumer products and like items the same, insuring we don’t have any potentially harmful heavy metals in our homes.  If we decide which materials and what products don’t need to be tested for lead because there is a benefit to the use of lead in that item, we don’t need a definition.  All of this will help to reduce potential toxic exposure to children, pregnant woman and everyone else, don’t forget about the workers making the products, all of this insures safety.  Other benefits include the creation of jobs, businesses helping businesses, the reduction in overall testing costs and improving lives.

What do you think?

Share


Essco Safety Check

July 28, 2010

The Price of Pollution; how XRF testing can protect people and save billions of dollars

Environmental toxicants are harmful to people, the environment and economics.  Several studies have been done to estimate the cost of these toxicants and the diseases that they cause.  Michigan is the latest to produce a report showing direct and indirect costs associated with environmental related diseases. Michigan Network for Children’s Environmental Health and the Michigan Ecology Center has produced a report that gives an estimate of environment-related childhood disease in Michigan.  You can review this report here.

This report found that four childhood environmental disorders (lead poisoning, asthma, pediatric cancer and neurodevelopmental disorders) cost Michigan on average $5.85 billion per year.  That is just the cost for these disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders include; cognitive impairment, autism and cerebral palsy. 

These costs include both direct and indirect costs; direct costs include things such as prescriptions and hospitalizations, indirect costs include such things as parental wages lost due to their children’s missed school days and loss of lifetime earnings.  The methodology used to develop these estimates was originally published by Landrigan et al. (2002).

The overall annual cost estimate for Michigan is $5.8 billion, with a range of $3.65 to $6.68 billion.

  • Lead Poisoning: $4.85 billion (range $3.2 to 4.85 billion) annually
  • Childhood Asthma: $88.4 million (range $29.5 to $103.2 million) annually
  • Pediatric Cancer: $17.3 million (range $6.9 to $34.6 million) annually
  • Neurodevelopmental Disorders: $845 million (range $423 million to $1.69 billion) annually
  • These cost estimates represent approximately 1.5% of Michigan’s Gross domestic Product every year.

    If people and businesses can learn what is in their environment, they can mitigate harm.  If you can reduce the amount of exposure you have to a particular environmental toxicant, not only can you improve your quality of life, it could be potentially economically advantageous.  

    Safety V. Money

    I can only speak about lead poisoning and autism, as those areas I have been greatly involved in.  Essco Safety Check has been providing non-destructive environmental testing for potential harmful toxicants such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and other heavy metals by utilizing X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers and software to collect and analyze the environment around us.  Autistic families contact us because they claim their children have a variety of heavy metals in their blood and we can quickly identify a variety of heavy metals non-destructively, quickly, efficiently and accurately.  We specialize in helping people and businesses know what is in their environment.

    A study that I wrote earlier this year, The potential economic impact of the CPSIA, was submitted US House of Representative, House Energy Commerce Sub-Committee for Consumer Protection by the Handmade Toy Alliance as “Allowing XRF testing for CPSIA compliance could save $3.7 billion and save small businesses”  This study looked at new federal regulation, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and how businesses are affected by the regulations and how XRF technology can help them reduce costs in testing, getting products to market faster and creating jobs.

    If we can now combine these two visions of protecting children and saving small businesses, we are not only doing the ethical thing, were are going to be creating jobs, improving lives, while protecting children, creating jobs and saving people, businesses and government billions of dollars.

    Essco Safety Check is proud to be a leader in XRF testing services and environmental software solutions as well as, equally proud to help protect children, homeowners, businesses and government.

    Know what is in your environment and mitigate harm.

    Share


    Essco Safety Check

    February 25, 2010

    One Small Business Rises to the Challenge; Creating Jobs, and Stimulating Small Business

    If i ran the government – Permit XRF screening with the CPSIA

    The current administration has challenged businesses across the country to help create new jobs.  Environmental Services & Solutions Corporation (Essco Safety Check), a Redmond, WA based company steps up to the government’s challenge by:

    • Proposing the creation of thousands of jobs. 
    • Helping to stimulate business; especially small businesses impacted by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).

    The CPSIA (Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act) is a law that regulates the amount of lead and other harmful toxicants in children’s products.  There are approximately 700,000[1] manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers that are impacted by this current legislation; approximately 40%[2]of these businesses have 0-4 employees working for them.

    Currently, XRF testing is not a government approved testing method.  Current approved testing methods are destructive in nature; which means the tested product must be destroyed during the testing procedure.  This method of testing is very costly and the test results could take weeks to obtain.  In addition, products can only be tested by a select group of government approved testing laboratories worldwide.

    XRF testing equipment is completely portable; it can be easily transported to the testing site.  Testing using XRF is non-destructive, low-cost, fast and an accurate way to determine if elements (including those regulated by the CPSIA) are present or not present in virtually anything.  If XRF technology becomes a government approved screening process, it is estimated that thousands of jobs could be created nationally.  These jobs include certified consumer product inspectors, support staff and office positions.

    A direct result of XRF screening is to prevent potentially harmful products from reaching the retailer’s shelves and eventually the homes of consumers. 

    By utilizing XRF analyzers to screen consumer products, businesses could save money on government mandated testing expenses and be able to get products to market faster.  For example, traditional testing is destructive in nature, very expensive and time consuming; it costs, on average, $100 per test (each product may need 5 tests) and can take weeks for results.  XRF testing costs on average $2 to $7 per test and usually provides results within 48-hours.

    Hypothesis:  If XRF Analyzers and technology are approved for screening heavy metals in children’s products and with a conservative estimate of 5 million products that need to be tested with an average of 5 tests per item, over $3.7[3] billion dollars can be saved.  However, research has suggested that there are literally tens of millions of products that are potentially impacted by the CPSIA regulation and, with that number in mind, there could be savings in the tens of billions of dollars for business all while creating thousands of jobs.

    ESSCO-Safety Check proposes that by using XRF technology:
    • Thousands of jobs can be created.
    • Businesses will be in compliance with CPSIA regulations.
    • Mandatory testing expenses are reduced for business.
    • Products get to market faster.

    It’s a win-win situation for consumers, the environment and business.
    www.essco-safetycheck.com

    [1] www.naics.com North American Industrial Classification System
    [2] www.census.gov  U.S. Census Bureau
    [3] http://handmadetoyalliance.blogspot.com/2010/02/allowing-xrf-testing-for-cpsia.html Handmade Toy Alliance Blog – Cross Post from Essco Safety Check

    February 12, 2010

    Cadmium found in jewelry and other consumer products

    Last month, an investigation by the Associated Press found alarming high amounts of cadmium in children’s jewelry.  This investigation lead to a recall of children’s jewelry and further investigation by the Associated Press has found cadmium in adult jewelry as well.

    Considering that data that we have collected for over two years assisted with the initial investigation with the AP reporter, I thought I would look further into the data about cadmium and share this information. 

    The information is only about consumer products and was collected by using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzers to look for a variety of heavy metals by using X-Rays to determine if elements are present or not present in virtually anything.  Over 8000 test results have been compiled.

    The data present in this article is looking at a total content for cadmium found at 40 Parts Per Million (PPM) or greater.  In 2008, Washington State passed the Children’s Safety Product Act (CSPA) which regulated lead and cadmium in total content (Lead at 90 PPM and Cadmium at 40 PPM) which are stricter standards than were established by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).  Considering that total content of cadmium is not part of the federal regulation, and my company is based in Washington State, I have decided to use that number as my standard for this data.

    My desire is not to scare anyone with this information; I am just trying to provide some awareness.  Just because we find some harmful metals in everyday items does not mean that they are going to harm you, however, they are present and that means there is a potential for harm.  With knowledge and awareness you can mitigate harm.

    XRF analyzers provide awareness, fast, efficiently, accurately, non-destructively and very economically.

    During our testing we have found cadmium and lead in a variety of different substrates including; metal jewelry (necklaces, rings, pins and pendants), glass, plastics, ceramics (cups, plates and bowls), cooking equipment, furniture, toys, handbags and even personal care items.

    In total we have found 3.64% of all items tested appear to have cadmium.

    Age of the item also appears to make some difference.  In items that were brand new, we have found 2.75% of these items to have cadmium, yet used “older” items have approximately 4.88% cadmium.

    Children’s products in general have less cadmium than the average with 2.63% found with cadmium.

    Of all substrates tested the three with the highest percentages of items found with cadmium are ceramics, metals and glass. 

    Ceramics are typical items found in the kitchen environment; coffee cups, plates, dishes, cooking equipment and the like.  Of all ceramics tested we have found cadmium in 12.03% of these items. 

    Metal substrates refer mostly to jewelry, but some metals found with cadmium include pots and pans.  Of all metals tested we have found cadmium in 9.09% of these items.  However, two points standout when the data is further evaluated concerning metal.  The levels of cadmium found in these items appear to be much greater than other substrates and when we breakdown the results by age, children’s products appear to have a slightly higher average then overall metals.  I have seen cadmium over 10% in many of these items.

    Glass is typically found in two types of products, jewelry (beads) and kitchen items.  Although we find that glass as a substrate appears to have the most overall percentages found with cadmium of any one substrate, these levels appear to be much lower than jewelry.  Overall, with glass substrates tested we have found 30.68% to contain cadmium.

    Once again, I just wish to provide awareness, my goal is not to scare you!

    Please don’t go run to your kitchen and throw away your dishes and coffee cups.  With ceramics, the most important thing is the condition of the glaze.  If the glaze appears to be in good condition with no cracks, chips, blemishes, than you really shouldn’t worry.

    This was just a snap shot of cadmium found in the typical home, with typical consumer products, using XRF analyzers.

    If you know what is in your environment, you can mitigate harm.

    January 29, 2010

    Children’s necklaces recalled due to high levels of cadmium

    Essco Safety Check played a small role in this recall; we initially assisted the Associated Press with data and information from over two years of testing consumer products using our XRF analyzers.  Our data, along with data from HealthStuff.org lead the AP to do an investigation about cadmium in children’s jewelry.  That investigation has lead to this recall.

    Today, January 29, 2010, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a voluntary recall of children’s metal necklaces.  In corporation with F.A.F. of Greenville, R.I. about 55,000 units were recalled. 

    The products recalled are shaped as a frog pendant or metal crown on a metal chain necklace.  The model #’s are 4616-4187 & 4616-4190 with UPC #’s 72783367144 & 72783367147

    Children's jewelry recalled

    Children's jewelry recalled

    These items were sold exclusively at Wal-Mart retail stores nationwide from November 2009 through January 2010 for approximately $5.

    It is recommended that consumer immediately remove these recalled items from children.  Please take all the recalled jewelry to any Wal-Mart retail store for a full refund or a free replacement product.

    For those of you who wish to further contact F.A.F or additional information, please call F.A.F Inc at 1-800-949-3311 between 8 am and 4:30 pm ET Monday – Friday or visit www.faf.com

    January 22, 2010

    The Potential Economic Impact of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

    This is an objective view of how the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is potentially affecting small businesses, the testing costs and methods, as well as a common sense approach to certification and job creation.

    The CPSIA was written in 2008 to ensure that children’s products don’t contain harmful amounts of certain elements, like lead and cadmium.  All children’s products must eventually be certified by an accredited 3rd party laboratory who utilizes specific testing methods.  With these laboratory results a company can create the required general certificate of conformity (GCC).

    There is also a stay of enforcement with the CPSIA until 2/10/11 for the GCC on all children’s products other than those that are painted, children’s jewelry, cribs or pacifiers.  Additionally, there is regulation in total content of lead and regulation in soluble content for eight elements (including lead), this method (soluble) ASTM F-963 is currently voluntary.  There is also regulation for the amount of certain phthalates, a chemical added to plastics to make them softer.

    All current approved testing methods are destructive, they are very costly, can take extensive periods of time to get results.  This testingcan only done by a select group of laboratories (only 227 worldwide and 60 within the United States, many of these labs have one parent company). 

    While researching this article, I attempted to find an economic impact analysis that was performed for CPSIA, but was unable to find one.  I even contacted a state representative with Washington State, in April 2008, four months prior to the federal CPSIA regulation, Washington State passed the Children’s Product Safety Act, but apparently no impact study was done either.

    How does one figure out the economics behind this piece of legislation? 

    I thought to try and simplify things and try to figure out how many businesses would be impacted, what size of business they are and ultimately how products that would be affected.  I will compare an approximate cost of traditional testing methods, to a technology that is mobile and non-destructive (X-Ray Fluorescence).  And I will show how many jobs could be potentially created. 

    Number of businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA

    Businesses that are potentially affected by the CPSIA include; Manufacturers, importers, retailers, charities and re-sellers who make, distribute in commerce, children’s products, those designed and marketed to children 12 and under.

    I found two main sources for this data, the US Census and the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).  The US Census numbers were from 2006 and the numbers from the NAICS are from 2009.

    Here is data from the North American Industy Classification System (NAICS)  their data was used to calculate the number of potentail businesses affected by the CPSIA.

    Total number of manufacturers potentially affected by the CPSIA in the United States 52,544***
    Total number of wholesalers potentially affected by the CPSIA in the United States 125,624***
    Total number of retailers potentially affected by the CPSIA in the United States 511,240***
    Total number of businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA according to the NAICS 689,408***

    The US Census provided data on the size of the businesses affected and is broken down by percentage.  My use and definition of small business is based on <500 employees, however, I include data on 0-4 employees and <20, this data is based only on the businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA.

    Total Manufacturers potentially affected have 0-4 employees 46.3%, <20 employees 78.7% and <500 employees 97.4%*** (these are cumulative totals)
    Total Wholesalers potentially affected have 0-4 employees 54.1%, <20 employees 79.7% and <500 employees 94.8%*** (these are cumulative totals)
    Total Retailers potentially affected have 0-4 employees 37.9%, <20 employees 56.9% and < 500 employees 65.7%*** (these are cumulative totals)
    Average for all businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA have 0-4 employees 40.2%, <20 employees 60.8% and <500 employees 70.9%*** (these are cumulative totals)

    What does all of this mean?  More small businesses are going to be affected by this regulation than large businesses.  40% of all businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA are very small with only 0-4 employees. 61% of all businesses potentially affected by the CPSIA have less than 20 employees.  All businesses classified as small businesses, less than 500 employees, 71% of them potentially will be affected by the CPSIA.

    Number of products potentially needing testing

    Attempting to figure out the amount of SKUs or total products potentially affected was an even larger task than trying to figure out the number of businesses potentially affected.  There is no single source of data about the number of products manufactured or sold, so I took a slightly different approach.  I researched a few key consumer websites and contacted a few experts to make my assumptions.

    Yes, I said assumptions.  The problem with figuring out some specifics is that I’m guessing on a few key points.  Here we go!

    I first visited ETSY.com.  ETSY.com is a website that sells handmade consumer products, you know, made by your friends and sold online.  When I looked on their site earlier this week, they had over 280,000 children’s products listed.

    I decided to go to two other major consumer product retail sales websites, Buy.com and Amazon.com.  At Buy.com when I tallied all the potential products that could be affected by the CPSIA I found over 66,000 different products.  On Amazon.com the amount was much more.  I will add one caveat, at amazon.com they did not separate jewelry into a product category “children’s jewelry” so I used the total of all jewelry in my tally.  With all jewelry listed and all other products I found that could be potentially affected by the CPSIA, the total was almost 1.18 million products on Amazon.com.  Without the jewelry the total was over 150,000 products.

    In a conversation I had with a regulatory agency employee in the State of Washington, she suggested that the total number of potential products on the market is in the tens of millions.

    Based on these numbers and suggestions, I’m going to split the middle and suggest that there are five million different products on the market that could be impacted by the CPSIA.

    The Cost Breakdown

    First we need to look at the traditional testing methods.  I’m only going to look for three things, amount of lead, amount of cadmium and phthalate testing (traditionally this is tested using a Gas Chromatography machine).  For this analysis, disregard all other potential costs.

    Traditional ICP-MS testing for heavy metals can easily be hundreds of dollars per test, per color, per substrate.  I have been quoted ranges from $75 to $300 per test for heavy metal testing; phthalate testing has been a bit lower from $75 to $150.  For this comparison, I’m going to use the low end of $75 per test.

    I am also going to assume that every item needs to be tested a total of five times.  Every product is a little be different, they’re made with different colors, different substrates and materials.  Take an old childhood favorite Rubik’s Cube.  It has six different colors and is made of one substrate (black plastic), that item would require a minimum of seven tests.  As I said, I’m going to use a five test average.

    If there are five million items and each has to be tested five times, that is a total of twenty-five million tests.  Considering we are looking for three things (lead, cadmium and phthalates at $75 per test) the total for traditional testing methods would be $5.625 billion.

    If all the accredited laboratories split this testing evenly, that would be approximately $25 million per lab worldwide.

    Other testing method

    There is a technology that is mobile and non-destructive that can simultaneously look for lead, cadmium and PVC in one simple push of the button.  Unfortunately, it is not the approved testing method for the CPSIA.

    This technology is called X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) and is readily available to use for consumer product testing.  It is the approved testing source for HUD Lead inspections, and is used by the EPA, FDA and CPSC.

    Data that I have collected from over 8000 test results using XRF analyzers shows that of all consumer products tested only 16.3% are found with any amount of lead, 4.3% are found with any amount cadmium and 11.1% are identified to be made of PVC.  In total only 31.7% of all consumer products I have tested using XRF analyzers have been found with lead, cadmium or PVC, yet all products are required to be tested destructively.

    I used these percentages to help figure out the comparable numbers.

    Comparison

    If all products are tested by traditional testing methods using ICP-MS and GC machines the cost for testing for lead, cadmium and PVC would be $5.625 billion.  However, if you were to use XRF analyzers to screen all these products, at a cost average of $5.00 per test the total cost would be $125 million. 

    At this point, all items that tested positive for lead, cadmium or PVC should be further tested by the traditional testing methods.  Using the percentage of items found with lead, cadmium or PVC (31.7%) traditional testing methods would cost $1.784 billion.  If you add up the XRF screening and then the re-testing by traditional testing methods, the costs would be approximately $1.9 billion. 

    That would be a cost savings of $3.7 billion or 66.1% for consumer product testing for the CPSIA.

    That is a tremendous amount of money that these businesses can put back to work in our economy, hiring people, investing, building business all while keeping compliant with the regulations.

    Number of jobs created

    I’m going to specifically look at this as the formation of XRF Certified Consumer Product Inspectors.  If a total of twenty-five million tests need to be done annually, and each inspector can do two hundred tests per day, two hundred and fifty days per year, that could create five hundred jobs.  That is not including managers and office staff to handle additional work.  Overall, I would suspect that close to one thousand jobs could be created, but that is only based on five million products that need to be tested.

    What if that total number is closer to twenty million?  That would potentially be upwards of four thousand jobs and a potential economic impact of close to $15 billion going back in to the pockets of businesses of which almost 71% are considered small businesses.

    Conclusion

    What I’m suggesting is a common sense approach to testing and the certification that consumer products meet the regulations of the CPSIA.  If XRF testing is approved to simply screen products for certain heavy metals and PVC, and only those found to contain these elements or chemicals would be further tested, there can be a huge positive economic impact for small businesses, as well as the creation of jobs.

    ***These figures were calculated from two sources, the US Census and the NAICS.

    January 10, 2010

    AP IMPACT: Toxic Metal in Kids’ Jewelry From China

    Here is an article written January 10th, 2010 by Justin Pritchard, Associated Press Writer, that my company is mentioned in.

    {{desc}}

    via AP IMPACT: Toxic Metal in Kids’ Jewelry From China – ABC News.

    Barred from using lead in children’s jewelry because of its toxicity, some Chinese manufacturers have been substituting the more dangerous heavy metal cadmium in sparkling charm bracelets and shiny pendants being sold throughout the United States, an Associated Press investigation shows.

    The most contaminated piece analyzed in lab testing performed for the AP contained a startling 91 percent cadmium by weight. The cadmium content of other contaminated trinkets, all purchased at national and regional chains or franchises, tested at 89 percent, 86 percent and 84 percent by weight. The testing also showed that some items easily shed the heavy metal, raising additional concerns about the levels of exposure to children.

    A spokesman for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulates children’s products, said Sunday that the agency “is opening an investigation” and “will take action as quickly as possible to protect the safety of children.”

    Cadmium is a known carcinogen. Like lead, it can hinder brain development in the very young, according to recent research.

    Children don’t have to swallow an item to be exposed — they can get persistent, low-level doses by regularly sucking or biting jewelry with a high cadmium content.

    To gauge cadmium’s prevalence in children’s jewelry, the AP organized lab testing of 103 items bought in New York, Ohio, Texas and California. All but one were purchased in November or December.

    The results: 12 percent of the pieces of jewelry contained at least 10 percent cadmium.

    Some of the most troubling test results were for bracelet charms sold at Walmart, at the jewelry chain Claire’s and at a dollar store. High amounts of cadmium also were detected in “The Princess and The Frog” movie-themed pendants.

    “There’s nothing positive that you can say about this metal. It’s a poison,” said Bruce A. Fowler, a cadmium specialist and toxicologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On the CDC’s priority list of 275 most hazardous substances in the environment, cadmium ranks No. 7.

    Jewelry industry veterans in China say cadmium has been used in domestic products there for years. Zinc, the metal most cited as a replacement for lead in imported jewelry being sold in the United States, is a much safer and nontoxic alternative. But the jewelry tests conducted for AP, along with test findings showing a growing presence of cadmium in other children’s products, demonstrate that the safety threat from cadmium is being exported.

    A patchwork of federal consumer protection regulations does nothing to keep these nuggets of cadmium from U.S. store shelves. If the products were painted toys, they would face a recall. If they were industrial garbage, they could qualify as hazardous waste. But since there are no cadmium restrictions on jewelry, such items are sold legally.

    The CPSC has cracked down on the dangers posed by lead and products known to have killed children, such as cribs, it has never recalled an item for cadmium — even though it has received scattered complaints based on private test results for at least the past two years.

    There is no definitive explanation for why children’s jewelry manufacturers, virtually all from China in the items tested, are turning to cadmium. But a reasonable double whammy looms: With lead heavily regulated under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, factories scrambled for substitutes, just as cadmium prices plummeted.

    That law set a new, stringent standard for lead in children’s products: Only the very smallest amount is permissible — no more than 0.03 percent of the total content. The statute has led manufacturers to drastically reduce lead in toys and jewelry.

    The law also contained the first explicit regulation of cadmium, though the standards are significantly less strict than lead and apply only to painted toys, not jewelry.

    To determine how much cadmium a child could be exposed to, items are bathed in a solution that mimics stomach acid to see how much of the toxin would leach out after being swallowed.

    The jewelry testing for AP was conducted by chemistry professor Jeff Weidenhamer of Ashland University in Ohio, who over the past few years has provided the CPSC with results showing high lead content in products that were later recalled. His lab work for AP assessed how much cadmium was in each item. Overall, 12 of the 103 items each contained at least 10 percent cadmium. Two others contained lower amounts, while the other 89 were clean.

    Ten of the items with the highest cadmium content were then run through the stomach acid test to see how much would escape. Although that test is used only in regulation of toys, AP used it to see what hazard an item could pose because unlike the regulations, a child’s body doesn’t distinguish between cadmium leached from jewelry and cadmium leached from a toy.

    “Clearly it seems like for a metal as toxic as cadmium, somebody ought to be watching out to make sure there aren’t high levels in items that could end up in the hands of kids,” said Weidenhamer.

    The CPSC reacted swiftly to the AP story. Agency spokesman Scott Wolfson said: “CPSC will open an investigation into the products tested by Professor Weidenhamer, who we have worked closely with before.” He said CPSC would study Weidenhamer’s results, attempt to buy the contaminated products content and “take appropriate action as quickly as possible.”

    Weidenhamer’s test results include:

    — Three flip flop bracelet charms sold at Walmart contained between 84 and 86 percent cadmium. The charms fared the worst of any item on the stomach acid test; one shed more cadmium in 24 hours than what World Health Organization guidelines deem a safe exposure over 60 weeks for a 33-pound child.

    The bracelet was purchased in August 2008. The company that imported them, Florida-based Sulyn Industries, stopped selling the item to Wal-Mart Corp. in November 2008, the firm’s president said. Wal-Mart would not comment on whether the charms are still on store shelves, or how many have been sold.

    Sulyn’s president, Harry Dickens, said the charms were subjected to testing standards imposed by both Wal-Mart and federal regulation — but were not tested for cadmium.

    In separate written statements, Dickens and Wal-Mart said they consider safety a very high priority. “We consistently seek to sell only those products that meet safety and regulatory standards,” Wal-Mart said. “Currently there is no required cadmium standard for children’s jewelry.”

    As was the case with every importer or retailer that responded to AP’s request for comment on the tests, neither Sulyn nor Wal-Mart would address whether the results concerned them or if the products should be recalled.

    — Four charms from two “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” bracelets sold at a Dollar N More store in Rochester, N.Y., were measured at between 82 and 91 percent cadmium. The charms also fared poorly on the stomach acid test. Two other charms from the same bracelets were subjected to a leaching test which recreates how much cadmium would be released in a landfill and ultimately contaminate groundwater. Based on those results, if the charms were waste from manufacturing, they would have had to be specially handled and disposed of under U.S. environmental law. The company that imported the Rudolph charms, Buy-Rite Designs, Inc. of Freehold, N.J., has gone out of business.

    — Two charms on a “Best Friends” bracelet bought at Claire’s, a jewelry chain with nearly 3,000 stores in North America and Europe, consisted of 89 and 91 percent cadmium. The charms also leached alarming amounts in the simulated stomach test. Informed of the results, Claire’s issued a statement pointing out that children’s jewelry is not required to pass a cadmium leaching test.

    “Claire’s has its products tested by independent accredited third-party laboratories approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission in compliance with the commission’s standards, and has passing test results for the bracelet using these standards,” the statement said. Those standards scrutinize lead content, not cadmium.

    — Pendants from four “The Princess and The Frog” necklaces bought at Walmart ranged between 25 and 35 percent cadmium, though none failed the stomach acid test nor the landfill leaching test. The Walt Disney Co., which produced the popular animated movie, said in a statement that test results provided by the manufacturer, Rhode Island-based FAF Inc., showed the item complied with all applicable safety standards.

    An official at FAF’s headquarters did not respond to multiple requests for comment when informed of Weidenhamer’s results; a woman at the company’s office in southern China who would not give her name said FAF products “might naturally contain some very small amounts of cadmium. We measure it in parts per million because the content is so small, for instance one part per million.” However, the tests conducted for AP showed the pendants contained between 246,000 and 346,000 parts per million of cadmium.

    “It comes down to the following: Cadmium causes cancer. How much cadmium do you want your child eating?” said Michael R. Harbut, a doctor who has treated adult victims of cadmium poisoning and is director of the environmental cancer program at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit. “In my view, the answer should be none.”

    Xu Hongli, a cadmium specialist with the Beijing office of Asian Metal Ltd., a market research and consultancy firm, said test results showing high cadmium levels in some Chinese-made metal jewelry did not surprise her. Using cadmium alloys has been “a relatively common practice” among manufacturers in the eastern cities of Yiwu and Qingdao and the southern province of Sichuan, Xu said.

    “Some of their products contain 90 percent cadmium or higher,” she acknowledged. “Usually, though, they are more careful with export products.”

    She said she thought that manufacturers were becoming aware of cadmium’s dangers, and are using it less, “But it will still take a while for them to completely shift away from using it.”

    The CPSC has received dozens of incident reports of cadmium in products over the past few years, said Gib Mullan, the agency’s director of compliance and field operations. Though the CPSC has authority to go after a product deemed a public danger under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act — the law used in lead-related recalls several years ago — there have been no enforcement actions.

    “We are a small agency so we can’t do everything we think would be a good idea. We have to try to pick our spots,” Mullan said. At most, the agency can investigate 10 percent of the tens of thousands of reports filed by the public each year, he said.

    With the help of an outside firm, the CPSC has started a scientific literature review of cadmium and other heavy metals, including how the substances fare in leaching tests, according to spokesman Wolfson. “If there has a been a shift in manufacturing to the use of cadmium, CPSC will take appropriate action.”

    Meanwhile, the CPSC’s Mullan cites “a trend upward” in cadmium reports the agency has received — and private-sector testing AP reviewed shows cadmium is showing up more frequently.

    Two outfits that analyze more than a thousand children’s products each year checked their data at AP’s request. Both said their findings of cadmium above 300 parts per million in an item — the current federal limit for lead — increased from about 0.5 percent of tests in 2007 to about 2.2 percent of tests in 2009. Those tests were conducted using a technology called XRF, a handheld gun that bounces X-rays off an item to estimate how much lead, cadmium or other elements it contains. While the results are not as exact as lab testing, the CPSC regularly uses XRF in its product screening.

    Much of the increase found by the Michigan-based HealthyStuff.org came in toys with polyvinyl chloride plastic, according to Jeff Gearhart, the group’s research director. Both lead and cadmium can be used to fortify PVC against the sun’s rays. Data collected by a Washington-based company called Essco Safety Check led its president, Seth Goldberg, to suspect that substitution of cadmium for lead partly explains the increase he’s seen.

    Rick Locker, general counsel for the Toy Industry Association of America, and Sheila A. Millar, a lawyer representing the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association, said their industries make products that are safe and insisted cadmium is not widely used.

    Millar said jewelry makers often opt for zinc these days. “While FJTA can only speak to the experience of its members,” Millar wrote in an e-mail, “widespread substitution of cadmium is not something they see.”

    January 6, 2010

    Modification of HUDs Lead-Based Paint Inspection Certification Program can create CPSIA XRF Consumer Product Inspectors

    I believe that there is currently a system in place by the federal government that can be modified fairly easily to create XRF Consumer Product Safety Inspectors.  These inspectors can help businesses comply with regulation and reduce testing costs dramatically.  According to the Study on the Effectiveness, Precision, and Reliability of X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry and Other Alternative Methods for Measuring Lead in Paint

    X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry has the potential to accurately measure lead content in painted films on children’s products at the limits required under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of2008, but appropriate standard reference materials (SRMs) and standard analytical methods need to be developed before a complete evaluation or determination is possible.

    Now the system that I’m referring to is from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  I am currently a certified HUD Lead Inspector and Risk Assessor in the State of Washington.  In order for me to receive my certification, I had to first take a class and then pass a state exam (one as a lead inspector and a year later as a risk assessor)  You can review their guidelines here: http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/lbp/hudguidelines/Ch07.pdf

    What I am suggesting is that with proper modification and adoption by the CPSC of Chapter 7 of the HUD (Lead-Based Paint Inspection), standard analytical methods can be developed.  I will even offer to assist with my experience and knowledge of consumer product testing using XRF analyzers.

    We have developed data collection methods, testing methods and procedures, analytical software solutions to verify if the elements found are truly present in the consumer product or not present.

    The HUD prefers to do a lead-based paint inspection by using XRF analyzers rather than destructive testing, like the CPSC. 

    Some advantages that XRF offers according to the CPSC include:

    1. XRF is often non-destructive (When we test we will even return your products tested to you)
    2. Little sample preparation is required, typically less than two minutes. 
    3. XRF can test small painted areas which is often difficult for ICP method (destructive testing)
    4. Handheld XRF analyzers are portable, allowing for field-screening of products.

    The CPSC did forget to mention the cost benefits of XRF verse ICP method.  On average, traditional testing using ICP-MS is in the range of $100.00 to $300.00 per color, per substrate, per test.  The costs we typically charge for XRF testing is in the range of $2.00 to $7.50 per color, per substrate, per test.

    Some disadvantages with XRF suggested by the CPSC include:
    1. XRF instruments do not readily measure in mass per units such as weight %, mg/kg or PPM and they have difficulty with quantification on a mass per mass unit basis.   (As a company are working on the quantification issue with software solutions and our XRF analyzers currently provides information in PPM among other measures)
    2. The source radiation can travel through the paint into the underlying substrate, leading to a measurement result that has contributions from both.  Special care needs to be taken in ascertaining the source of lead in any measurement.  (This is exactly what I am suggesting by creating standards and guidelines for consumer product testing, just like testing for lead in a home like the HUD requires, we can reduce or eliminate this issue.  Common Sense solves certain problems)
    3. XRF is matrix sensitive (This is true, but we are working on this as a company and we have never had a false positive for lead in any matrix and with proper software solutions and data this problem can be easily solved.  And if you forget about any quantification of the elements and just ask if they are there or not, XRF offers amazing opportunities to provide screening)
    4. There is currently no consensus industry standard test methods for quantifying lead on a mass per mass unit basis (We are here to help create this industry standard, if you look at the HUD chapter 7 as a basis for creation of standards, we can be started down the right path.  And with proper or industry standard for data collection, testing and analysis, this problem can be easily solved.)

    Here is the conclusion from the CPSC about XRF analysis:

    The ability of XRF to be used to accurately measure lead content in painted films on children’s products at the limits required under the CPSIA is currently limited due to the unavailability of SRMs and standard analytical methods. CPSC staff will continue to study the feasibility of using XRF technology for analyzing painted films on children’s products as SRMs and standard analytical methods become available.

    XRF technology is suitable in many cases for the accurate determination of lead in plastics provided appropriate test methods are followed, with the use of appropriate SRMs.

    All I am suggesting is that there is currently a system to provide elemental information specifically about lead by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development.  With proper modification of Chapter 7 of the HUD guidelines, the CPSC can create certified CPSIA Consumer Product Safety Inspectors who use X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers to test consumer products and more specifically children’s products regulated under the CPSIA.

    Would you want to see the creation of certified CPSIA XRF Consumer Product Safety Inspectors?

    What do you think about modification of HUDs chapter 7 to assist the CPSC with CPSIA consumer product testing?

    Older Posts »

    Powered by WordPress