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.

Small businesses from coast to coast have contacted us this past year asking us to help them with the “insanity,” as one woman said, of the CPSIA.  We have been trying to assist them with compliance of regulations with children’s products, while reducing their testing expenses and helping them get their products to market faster.

In August 2008, President Bush signed the CPSIA into law.  This law restricts the amount of certain heavy metals in children’s products, among other regulations.   More to the point, there are two main elemental testing requirements; total lead content and soluble content of several elements (ASTM F963).  It requires manufactures, importers and retailers to ensure that their products comply with regulations.
 
The CPSIA requires specific testing methods for determining lead and other heavy metals in children’s products, and further requires certification of testing by a third party approved laboratory.  The testing methods required are destructive in nature and expensive.

Currently, there is a stay on the enforcement of certain testing requirements and certification, until 2/10/11.  Certain testing of children’s products are not stayed and need to be certified by third-party accredited laboratories; lead in paint, small parts, cribs, pacifiers and children’s metal jewelry.  All children’s products must meet the required limits for lead and other metals, but only those mentioned above need to be tested by a CPSC-recognized third-party conformity assessment body.

Yet, within the CPSIA there is a term “reasonable testing program” and many small businesses have asked me about this. 

What is a reasonable testing program?  According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Guidance Document: Testing and Certification Requirements under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA)

A reasonable testing program is a set of procedures that are employed to provide reasonable certainty that products made are in compliance with all applicable rules, bans, and standards. The minimum essential elements are:

(1) Product specifications that describe the consumer product and list the safety rules, standards, etc., with which the product must comply;
(2) Certification tests, which are performed on samples of the manufacturer’s consumer product to demonstrate that the product is capable of passing the tests prescribed by the standards;
(3) A production testing plan, which describes the tests that must be performed and at what intervals as long as the consumer product is being manufactured to provide reasonable assurance that the products as produced continue to meet all applicable safety rules;
(4) Remedial action plans, which must be employed whenever samples of the consumer product or results from any other tests used to assess compliance yield unacceptable or failing test results; and
(5) Documentation of the reasonable testing program and how it was implemented.
The CPSC expects that any general conformity certificate will be based upon a testing program that, at a minimum, includes these five elements.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines reasonable as:

Main Entry: rea•son•able
Pronunciation: \?r?z-n?-b?l, ?r?-z?n-?-b?l\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a : being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c : MODERATE, FAIR <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d : INEXPENSIVE
2 a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man>

Is it reasonable to therefore ask a small business, which has limited revenue dollars, to pay for a testing method that is expensive and destructive, specifically when a non-destructive, less expensive testing method is currently available?  Would it be extreme or excessive for a business to have to lay people off to pay for destructive testing methods?

Is it reasonable to ask small manufacturer to pay more for testing than they make in revenue?  That is a common problem that I hear from my customers, “testing is so expensive, the cost of testing will put me out of business.”  Or, “I can only afford to test a few items so I will only make a few different products.”

In this guidance document, there is a question about one-of-a-kind items and must they receive third-party tests on each product?  In the first sentence of the response, the CPSC says that “testing required by the applicable product safety rules would be impractical.”

Component testing is offered as an option, yet that is still very expensive and destructive, and in no place in this guidance is X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) offered as an option, the CPSC has talked and written about XRF many times.

In regards to ASTM-F963 (the soluble metals standards for lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, antimony, selenium, chromium and barium), manufactures, importers and sellers must ensure that their products conform to all the applicable regulations, but a notice of requirement for this particular standard, rule and regulation has not been issued yet.  Therefore, certificate of compliance based on the results of testing by a CPSC-recognized third-party conformity assessment body will not be required until 90 days after the commission issues the notice of requirements for ASTM F963.

What does all of this mean in terms of a reasonable testing program?  It appears to me that all children’s products that are not painted, have small parts (designed for children 3and under), a crib, pacifier or children’s metal jewelry can use a reasonable testing program until 90 days after the CPSC has issued requirements for ASTM F963 or the stay of enforcement has been lifted.

The XRF Analyzers that we use can detect lead as little as 10 PPM and are certified by the EPA and HUD for lead testing of government properties.  Yet there is some criticism that they are inaccurate in their quantification in terms of consumer products and different substrates.  Let us just use some common sense and forget any quantification by XRF about any elements for a moment.

For starters, XRF analyzers are non-destructive, mobile testing platform that can identify all eight elements associated with ASTM F963.  Using the spectrum data, we can accurately determine if an element is present or not present. 

Let me remind you, forgetting the quantification or amount of an element found (for example the current regulation for lead is 300 PPM in children’s products that are not painted), if we don’t find lead, it isn’t there in the area we tested.  If we don’t find any elements, why would you require further destructive, expensive testing?

Now if we find lead using XRF analyzers, there can be a question to how much lead is actually present.   As a business, we are working on this solution, but for now, I would suggest that if we find lead, further testing should take place using traditional testing methods.  Or, the manufacturer can change materials and have us further test.  If we find lead, it starts all over again.  If we don’t find lead, why would you require more testing?  This should be part of the remedial action plan for the reasonable testing program.

XRF gives manufactures a mobile, non-destructive means for identifying if elements are present or not present.  Further analysis of the spectrum detail gives us evidence if the elements are present or not present. 

What am I suggesting?  I believe that XRF analyzers gives businesses the appropriate testing results to use for a reasonable testing program on children’s products that are not painted or metal children’s jewelry.  (I believe we will be able to provide accurate quantification for children’s products in the future)

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to use a technology that is non-destructive and readily available to test children’s products for lead and other regulated heavy metals?  Logically speaking, if there is not a requirement for specific testing on non-painted or children’s jewelry types of items (i.e. plastic toys), wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that XRF could be used to create certificates of conformity and thus be part of a reasonable testing program?

The requirements set out by the CPSC, in my opinion, can be completed with XRF testing and information provided by the manufacturer.

What are your thoughts about this issue?

Antimony is regulated under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) along with arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and selenium for soluble “leachable” content limits.  The CSPIA also regulates lead for total content, as well as, various other toy safety standards.

Good Guide uses an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzer from Niton to detect a variety of heavy metals.  XRF Analyzers are great for determining the total content limits; however, XRF cannot accurately determine soluble level limits.  Soluble testing required under the CPSIA is set under testing method ASTM F963, this testing method is essentially a weak acid test that digests the material and mimics ingestion.

The CPSC did this form of testing to determine the levels of antimony and other metals in the Zhu Zhu Pet Hamsters that it tested.  It found all soluble content levels and total content level for lead were below standard limits.

This is not to say that this product doesn’t contain antimony, but there is a difference in the two limit standards (soluble content and total content). 

Let me take you a bit deeper into this world of children’s product testing.

First, the CPSIA basically requires that any children’s product (designed and marketed to children 12 and under) needs to meet certain requirements for safety.  If the product is manufactured overseas, then the importer or ultimately the retailer is required to ensure that all products do not contain specific quantities of certain metals (mentioned above) in addition to other safety standards (example: small parts, painted surfaces, phthalates, etc).

The current regulation says that (a portion of the CPSIA is under a “Stay” and this stay comes to an end on 2/10/10, meaning other regulations with go into effect) painted surfaces and children’s jewelry (metal) must be tested by an accredited 3rd party laboratory that uses specific, destructive testing methods to determine total content for lead and soluble content levels for all metals are in compliance with the regulation.  This test essentially will provide information to create a General Certificate of Conformity (GCC), which is required under the law for all CPSIA regulated products beginning 2/10/10.

Currently, all other children’s products still need to conform to the regulations, meaning that these products (plastic toys for example) do not contain more than 300 Parts Per Million (PPM) of lead, as well as the soluble limit standards for all metals.  However, no specific testing method for determining the levels of these metals in total or soluble content is given by the CPSC and no GCC is required.  

All of this will change on 2/10/10 when all children’s products will need to be tested by the approved 3rd party laboratory’s that use specific, expensive, destructive, older but well established methods to test for these heavy metals.

X-Ray Fluorescence Technology is being looked at by the CPSC as a potential means of providing compliance testing, but currently, XRF is only a suggested tool to screen for these heavy metals.

If XRF is capable of identifying if these elements are present or not present (which it is, there is only a question of quantification with XRF), XRF can be a tool in the system of consumer product safety that can help businesses, consumers and impact the CPSIA. 

XRF can help businesses by non-destructively, accurately and inexpensively complying with regulations.  This will help businesses reduce testing costs dramatically, ensure the safety of their products, get products to market faster and ultimately create jobs.  More testing, screening of products helps consumers ensure that what their children are playing with, what they are eating off of are safe from potentially harmful toxics such as lead and antimony.

How is this possible? 

Logically, if XRF can identify these elements simply as either present or not present in consumer products, we have a means of screening.  If these regulated elements are not found, why would you require a company to pay for much more expensive, destructive testing? 

If a regulated element such as antimony was found in the Zhu Zhu Pet Hamster using XRF as a first means of testing (screening), than further testing for that element should be done, but just that element.  We are not eliminating the testing laboratory, but asking for a more specific test, reducing business expenses.

In testing by Good Guide, their testing method used an XRF Analyzer, their results showed that lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, selenium, chromium and barium were not present, all elements part of the regulation. 

When this story first broke a few days ago, the CPSC quickly jumped in to test this product.  Using the testing methods within the CPSIA, the CPSC found that the soluble level of antimony was below the regulation standard.

Basically the CPSC confirmed the results of Good Guide; there was just a slight misinterpretation with Good Guide’s results.

Once again, this does not mean that antimony is not present, but it was determined to have passes all safety standard tests.

I believe that this is a teachable experience and that X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzers have the ability to help businesses comply with regulation and reduce business expenses and ultimately create jobs, simply by helping people and businesses know what is in their environment.

The CPSIA was signed into law by George W. Bush (Aug 2008) and was enacted February 10th, 2009.  In its most simple form, the CPSIA regulates lead and other heavy metals in products designed and marketed to children 12 years of age or younger.  As of today (11/30/09) the regulation for lead in total content is 300 Parts Per Million (PPM) in these products, there is a lower total lead content for painted surfaces at 90 PPM. 

There is also the soluble content limit standards for; Antimony (60 PPM), Arsenic (25 PPM), Barium (1000 PPM), Cadmium (75 PPM), Chromium (60 PPM), Lead (90 PPM), Mercury (60 PPM) and Selenium (500 PPM) under ASTM F-963 at testing requirement for the CPSIA. 

Under the CPSIA, firms must meet the total lead content for all children’s products in ADDITION to meeting F963 soluble limit for childrens products, as well as, phthalate standards (a chemical additive to plastics).

In most cases, the total lead content is the stricter standard, but in some cases it is possible that the F963 leachable limit will be the stricter standard. The scope of each is different, but where both are applicable, both are required. Indeed, CPSC has published methods for testing the total lead content of paint, metals and non-metals, and F963 contains the method for its prescribed soluble test.

I contacted the CPSC and specifically asked questions about both testing methods.  In a response that I received from John Mullan of the CPSC, he said “It is required to meet both the total content limits of the CPSIA and the soluble content limits of ASTM F-963.  CPSC has issued a number of standard operating procedures for measuring lead content in various substrates.  There also are accreditation rules for labs measuring lead content and more will be coming out.  If you want more info on this subject, please check our CPSIA website or write back to me.  Thanks, J.G. Mullan”

Is any manufacture, importer, retailer actually having both tests done? 

Currently, all testing methods associated with the CPSIA are destructive in nature, and multiple tests need to be performed for the total content of lead, and the soluble content of the eight elements, including lead.

X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) technology is non-destructive and capable of testing for all eight elements simultaneously, with one test.  XRF is only looking for total content, not the soluble content. 

Soluble content testing essentially is a weak acid test to mimic digestion.  However, the language of the CPSIA says that “total content by weight for any part of the product” is required, and the testing requirement ASTM F-963.  ASTM F-963 is a testing method that provides information on the soluble content limits of the eight elements, not total content limit of lead. 

The CPSC has issued testing methods for total lead in children’s jewelry and would apply to all children’s metal containing product.  The CPSC has not yet issued a requirement for testing lead in non-metal products, due to the stay on testing (set to expire 2/10/10) and certification. However, they have issued a Standard Operating Procedure for testing for the total lead content in non-metal product.  The CPSC has also issued Standard Operating Procedure for Determining Lead (Pb) in Paint and Other Similar Surface Coatings.

Simple Logic

XRF can test for all eight elements, simultaneously, non-destructively, efficiently and accurately (well, this part is somewhat debatable, but my company is working on software solutions to these pending problems).  The biggest question is quantification; can XRF accurately quantify all the results?  We say yes!

Let’s think about this logically for a second, if XRF can simply say if an element is present or not present (which it can do with spectrum analysis), we can take the quantification out of the equation for a second.  If we perform a test on a children’s product and the elements (associated with ASTM F-963) are not present, why make a company do further, expensive destructive testing. 

I’m in no way suggesting to get rid of the traditional testing methods; however, XRF is a perfect, simple, efficient, cost effective way to identify elements (our analyzers can detect 15 to 94 on the periodic chart) and we use spectral analysis to positively identify if they are present of not present. 

If we do find the elements associated with the soluble limit standards, than further testing should be required.

But if we do not find the elements, than why make a company pay for expensive destructive testing? 

Every time that a product is sent to a laboratory for testing they are destroyed, how is this impacting small businesses, the One of a Kind mom and pop manufacturer/retailer?  They have to make two products and send one out for expensive testing, what will that do to their prices?

All I’m suggesting is to use some logic to help businesses reduce expenses, help them comply with regulation, help them ensure the safety of our children all while being proactive.

XRF can help identify all eight elements within the CPSIA regulations.

Know what is in your environment!