X-Ray Florescence Analyzers have the ability to positively impact the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). XRF Analyzers are non-destructive, handheld, scientific instruments for identification of elements, essentially a handheld mass spectrometer.
The CPSIA is an act, which among other things regulates lead and other heavy metals in products designed and marketed to children 12 years of age or younger.
All current accepted and approved methods for determining lead and other metals in children’s products are destructive, relatively expensive, at fixed site laboratories and the testing takes time, sometimes weeks or months for results.
In a summary statement from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, “Study on the Effectiveness, Precision, and Reliability of X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry and Other Alternative Methods for measuring Lead in Paint” – August 2009, David Cobb, Directorate for Laboratory Sciences
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. Staff members from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) are working with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop appropriate SRMs, and with the ASTM International (formerly the American Society of Testing and Materials) to develop appropriate standard test methods.
In contrast to the situation for paint films, the foundations required for XRF analysis of polymers are in place. A consensus standard test method for lead in polymers exists and some appropriate SRMs of leaded polymers are available. With the appropriate test methods and SRMs, XRF spectrometry is suitable in many cases for the determination of lead in polymers. CPSC staff has conducted comparison testing of plastic samples and SRMs by XRF and by using current wet chemical methods and found generally good agreement. XRF produced good results on homogeneous plastic SRMs with certified concentrations as low as 13.6 parts per million (ppm).
What I think
In my opinion, when XRF Analyzers are combined with an appropriate data collection and analysis platform, they can provide sufficient knowledge about all heavy metals associated with the CPSIA (Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Barium, Mercury, Lead and Selenium).
X-Ray Fluorescence can create jobs, help business comply with regulation, reduce testing costs for business, reduce time it takes for a product to get to market, help keep children safe from potentially harmful products, all which have both social and economic benefits.
X-Ray Fluorescence can help to reduce health care expenses simply by helping to prevent harmful products from getting to market. If there is a reduction in harmful products in the market place, children will be less exposed to harmful toxicants, like lead. If children are less exposed to lead there can be intellectual benefits, increases in test scores, which generally led to a higher earnings (economic) potential. Additionally, if children are less exposed to lead, they are less likely to be involved in criminal activity.
When we compare costs of XRF (new technology) to traditional testing methods, specifically with comparison to the CPSIA we see a huge difference. Traditional testing costs can range from $75 to $300 per color, per substrate and take weeks to get results. XRF offers a low cost, immediate results platform where costs range from $2 to $7 per test, per color, per substrate.
I believe that there is an opportunity to create jobs, to improve the health and wellbeing of people, reduce healthcare expenses, reduce business expenses and help business comply with federal regulations while putting thousands of people to work all across the country, all with the simply application and use of X-Ray Fluorescence.
***As a side note***
The day that the CPSC Study was released, I was asked by a small business owner to contact the CPSC in regards to their XRF study to offer my experience and knowledge about XRF testing of consumer products. I wrote the CPSC, “We have performed tens of thousands of tests all across the country and have developed methods and procedures. I have a unique perspective to offer to this discussion, we have more consumer product testing experience with XRF analyzers than virtually any other business out there. We have met with and spoken with the writer of the XRF NIST standards. We have preformed tests for retailers, manufacturers, importers, homeowners, government agencies, health departments and only wish to offer our voice.”
I did get a response, thanking me for my comments, but also encouraging me to participate through ASTM to make method development recommendations. When I contacted ASTM, they wanted me to pay money to participate.
We are a small business who doesn’t have extra disposable money…all I wanted to do was offer my experience and knowledge and I was asked to pay money for my knowledge.
