New Changes to the U.S. Toy Safety Standard,
ASTM F963-16
And
Other Federal and State Product Safety Updates
presented October 5, 2016 by:
Quin Dodd, Esq. – Product Safety Attorney
Bridget Wallace – Regional Sales Manager, XOS
ASTM F963
• Formerly voluntary standard
• Made mandatory by Congress as part of CPSIA
• Current version (F963-11) became mandatory
CPSC rule June 2012
• 3rd party (lab) testing and importer/U.S.
manufacturer must certify to all provisions
relevant to that toy
• F963-16 currently going through final editing
and likely to be “published” (made final) any
day
• 180 days before becomes mandatory
© XOS
Key Changes of F963-16
• Technical changes to requirements for
magnets in toys (ingestion hazard) to align
with EN-71 and ISO 8124 (European and
international toy standards)
• Similar alignment for projectile toys
• New provision for expanding (in water) toys
• New performance standards for ride-on toys
• New labeling for button/coin batteries in toys
and new performance standards for LI
batteries
© XOS
Key Changes of F963-16
• New design guidelines for projection bath toys
• Clarification of ban of certain toys with spherical
ends
• Clarification that plastic film requirement applies
to all film
• Soft-fill exemption for rattle/teether/squeeze toy
provisions
• Changes to test methods for jaw entrapment, yoyo balls and sound-producing toys
• Addition of heavy metals substrate requirements
and composite testing procedure
© XOS
Key Changes of F-963-16: Allowance for
HDXRF for All 8 Heavy Metals
• Current limits on 8 heavy metals in both
substrate and surface coatings (paints) for toys
(Pb, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg and Se)
• General test method for soluble release of
metals (to simulate ingestion) using “wet
chemistry”
• Current allowance for use of HDXRF as
alternative for Pb to be expanded to all 8
metals (for homogenous plastic substrates)
© XOS
Allowance for HDXRF “Screening”
• All advantages of XRF generally (nondestructive/less sample prep; speed; cost; onsite testing)
• Limited in F963-16 to homogenous plastic
substrates only (for other 7 metals)
• Action supported by extensive CPSC and
private test data
• Seen by CPSC as reduction of third party test
burden/cost
© XOS
Other Recent/Pending CPSC Test Burden Actions
• Exclusion from lead testing of
natural/untreated wood
• “Expansion” of phthalates “Determinations”
list
• Likely to allow FTIR to screen for phthalates
• May exclude manufactured wood from lead
testing mandate
© XOS
CPSC Violations at Ports -- 2014
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lead – 225 (paint 14; content 211) (41%)
Phthalates – 114 (20%)
Tracking labels – 62 (11%)
Art materials – 49 (8%)
Small parts – 39 (7%)
Certification – 21 (3%)
Durable nursery products – 21 (3%)
Mislabeled (mostly small parts) toys – 15 (2%)
Mislabeled balloons (no warning label) – 8 (1%)
Battery-operated toys (F-963) – 5 (1%)
© XOS
3 Ways States Regulate Substances
1.
Bans of restricted substances in certain (typically
children’s) products
2.
Reporting requirements for priority chemicals in
certain products
3.
Warning label requirements (especially CA Prop 65)
© XOS
Key Regulated Substances
• Lead and lead compounds
• Flame Retardants (esp. brominated, chlorinated and organohalogen
e.g., TRIS)
• Cadmium
• Phthalates (CPSC six plus one under Prop 65) – CPSC could change
• Chromium (hexavalent compounds)
• Nickel and nickel compounds
• Formaldehyde
• Arsenic
• Mercury
• BPA
© XOS
Key State Laws
California:
-
Proposition (“Prop”) 65 (warning labels)
Various lead and cadmium limits for jewelry and cosmetics
New: CA “Green Chemistry” (Safer Consumer Products)
Regulations (effectively a ban on “priority products”)
Pending: flame retardant labeling for upholstered furniture
Washington State: Children’s Safe Products Act
Requires reporting to State if measurable amount of any of
66 chemicals in most children’s products (including apparel)
Maine, Vermont and Oregon:
Reporting laws very similar to Washington State w/authority to
ban chemicals
Similar reporting/ban authority laws being actively considered
in more than 20 states and additional laws are almost certain
to be enacted. (And existing and several new not likely to be
preempted)
© XOS
CA Green Chemistry Law
3 “Priority Products” proposed:
-
-
Children’s foam-padded sleep products containing TDCPP (flame retardant);
Spray polyurethane foam insulation containing unreacted diisocyanates; and
Paint/varnish strippers containing methylene chloride
7 additional product categories being reviewed:
- Clothing (looking at alkyl phenol & ethoxylates, aromatic amines & azo
dyes, bisphenols, phthalates, and volatile organic compounds like hexane,
toluene and xylene)
- Beauty/personal care/hygiene;
- Building products (e.g., paints, adhesives, sealants and flooring)
- Household/office furniture containing FRs
- Cleaning products
- Fishing/angling equipment; and
- “Consumable” office machinery products (e.g., inks/toners)
Alternatives analysis process extremely burdensome and time
consuming/costly (likely not an option for most companies)
© XOS
Tips to Maximize Compliance/Minimize Costs
• Push compliance up the supply chain where
possible/practical
• Establish clear contractual and procedural obligations for
suppliers
• Partner with a good lab
• Properly categorize (and label and market) products
• Prioritize risk (can’t test for all Prop 65 substances);
establish practical and updated RSL
• Establish multidisciplinary and consistent product safety
team w/clear lines of responsibility and communication
• Find/develop good IT system for document
production/retention and issue response
• Learn, monitor and adapt
• Have fun!-)
© XOS
Technology Overview
presented October 5, 2016 by
Bridget Wallace – Regional Sales Manager, XOS
Conventional XRF
10000
From Sample
Counts
1000
100
K
S
From Tube
Fe
Ca
Cr
Ni Cu
Mn
Zn
Zn
Ti
Pb+As
Se
10
Br
Pb
Br
Sr
1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
Energy (keV)
X-Rays Generated
Secondary X-Rays Detected
Sample
Secondary X-Rays Emitted
from Sample
© XOS
Conventional XRF
 An inexpensive screening option which can be a valuable tool to screen at
a high level for material failures
 Difficult to quantify low concentrations of heavy metals, even in
substrates or bulk materials due to high background from X-ray source
 Measurement result is an uncontrolled average of the coating and the
substrate material
 Results for surface coating in μg/cm2 or mass per unit area, not the
regulated parts per million (ppm)
 Average across multiple features and materials due to large illuminated
area
© XOS
HDXRF – principle of operation
Secondary X-Rays Emitted
from sample
© XOS
HDXRF
 A screening and quantifying tool which can identify failures as well as
verify compliance.
 An instrument can only verify compliance if it is capable of quantification below the
regulatory limit.
 Coating and substrate material can be measured separately with a single
measurement
 Results for surface coating reported in ppm AND in μg/cm2 or mass per
unit area
 Reduction of scattering background from x-ray tube source allows for
lower limits of detection
 Small but intense 1-mm spot size
© XOS
Advantages of XRF over digestion/ICP
for total element screening
• XRF is non-destructive for homogenous materials
• Little to no sample preparation – reduces analysis
time and cost.
– Less than 5 minutes per measurement versus several
hours to cut, weigh, digest, and analyze
– Faster analysis times obtained with XRF would be
expected to result in lower test costs
• XRF does not involve hazardous acids, no cost for
disposal of hazardous wet chemicals
October 2016
© XOS
How do I know HDXRF is capable
of F963 total screening?
© XOS
CPSC Technical Report
Equipment
Samples
• HD Prime (HDXRF) –
2 min quantification,
plastic material selection
• Thermo NITON XL3t 700
(Traditional HHXRF) –
5 min measurement time,
main filter = 60 sec
light filter = 40 sec,
Consumer Goods/Test All
• Inductively-Coupled
Plasma Optical Emission
Spectroscopy (ICP-OES)
• Plastic reference materials
• Plastic parts from
consumer goods
• Polyvinyl chloride material
formulated by CPSC staff
A CPSC Chemist operated the equipment and
interpreted the data presented in this study.
© XOS
Conclusions
After comparing the results from measuring samples with each
of the three techniques, the following conclusions were
reported:
• “HDXRF is a suitable alternative test method for measuring total content
of heavy metals in homogenous polymeric materials”
• “It is recommended that this test method (ASTM 2853-10e1) be accepted
as an approved alternative total screening test method in the ASTM F96311 standard.”
• “Traditional HHXRF technology has the potential to be a suitable
alternative test method for measuring total content of heavy metals in
homogenous polymeric materials.”
• However, there were a number of discrepancies in the results obtained by
the traditional HHXRF technology and the ICP or referenced amounts.
• CPSC staff encourages traditional HHXRF manufacturers to develop a
standard test method that could be used for F963 total element screening
when validated with appropriate certified reference materials.
© XOS
To read the full CPSC report:
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research-Statistics/Chemicals/Lead/Lead-Technical-Report-/
Customized HDXRF Demonstrations Available
For additional information or to request a free
customized demonstration either in person or via the
web visit:
www.xos.com/hdxrf
[email protected]
© XOS
Thank You!
Bridget Wallace
Quin Dodd
Law Offices of
Quin D. Dodd, LLC
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.xos.com/hdxrf
Email: [email protected]
© XOS