i-Nalysis.com

Well, its August, and it is almost like summer in New England. Normally we have 2 seasons here- Winter and the Fourth of July. Now we have Winter and Rainy Season. I-Nalysis may add a division for mold farming…

The economy has been all in the news lately, and surprisingly the tentative rebound has hit us as well. We are looking at significant customer interest, with lots of quotes going out, customers looking at interesting new customization projects as they move forward with their businesses. It does seem we are seeing a bit of blue sky after these turbulent economic times.

Let us know how we can help you- with our standard instrument, or with something more customized, that helps you move your business forward in new and interesting ways. We look forward to speaking with you!

Earlier I touched upon exactly what XRF is and talked about how it works. Since it’s turned out to be one of our most popular blog posts, I figured we could spend more time on the topic.

Last time, we talked about how every element in the universe sends back different energy X-rays when scanned by a spectrometer. To explain it even more simply – it’s like every element has its own fingerprint. Just as we are able to identify people by looking at their unique prints and determining who they belong to, we can essentially do the same thing to elements (though some are harder to determine than others). So we use XRF analyzers to collect the “prints” from all the elements making up specific electronic components, pipes, children’s toys, circuit boards, or whatever else we’re investigating. Then, we compare the intensity of these “prints” (or X-rays) with what we already know about each element so we can easily detect how much of each is in the substance or product we’re evaluating.

When you think of it that way, it’s easy to envision how useful this is for manufacturers and distributors who need to keep tabs on what’s in the products and components they sell.

So, I’ve spent a lot of time lately talking about all the new lead laws and how new lead testing will be required to make sure consumer products don’t have any lead in them. However, what I haven’t spent a lot of time talking about are the other industries that actually need lead in their products, and why.

You’ll notice on i-Nalysis.com, we talk about how XRF technology and testing is not just for consumer markets (think toys jewelers and consumer electronics), but also very necessary in the military and aerospace and medical device space. The reason being, these industries, that make and sell “high-reliability” electronics, need lead in them to last a long time and avoid disasters.

When tin is used in place of lead in these types of equipment, given the elemental makeup and nature of the material, tiny microscopic splinters start sprouting, called tin whiskers. These “whiskers” are usually less than a millimeter long, and are like little hairs that grow out of the tin over time. Sound harmless? Well it isn’t. These tin whiskers can flake off or bridge separate parts of circuit boards, causing shorts and failures. Adding lead to tin parts greatly reduces the formation of whiskers, which is why things like communications equipment in airplanes, or pacemakers, need lead in them. As long as the lead isn’t in direct contact with a human body or being ingested, it doesn’t pose a health risk and instead, it reduces the risk that these electronics will fail.

So you might ask – how does XRF fit into this? Isn’t the solution simply that makers of high-reliability electronics should buy components and parts with lead in them, while manufacturers of consumer products should buy everything lead-free?

Truth be told – yes, that is the solution. But it’s not that easy. Manufacturers in every industry buy from multiple distributors, and parts can easily be mislabeled. So when you think you’re getting something that is lead-free, or that has lead in it, you might not actually be receiving what you should be. Hence the need for XRF scanners that can immediately detect lead content and tell you if you got what you paid for.

=Drew

CNNMoney is the latest to cover the concerns of smaller manufacturers and toymakers regarding the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and how these new lead testing requirements threaten to overwhelm their businesses.

(Somebody should tell these guys about how pocket XRF analyzers can solve a lot of their problems…)

It’s a good article and includes an interesting quote from the National Association of Manufacturers, pointing to the fact that a lot of products touch multiple manufacturers, distributors, and other players before they end up on shelves for sale…so one of the questions being asked is who should ultimately be responsible for testing for lead content?

Please read the article and feel free to add your thoughts in our comments section!

=Drew

Recently, the Consumer Products Safety Commission denied a petition by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) for a one year delay in the planned labeling requirements for children’s products that Congress ordered in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008. I suspect that since manufacturers are nervous about the limited time they have to roll-out new lead testing practices, handheld XRF analyzers are going to be of more and more interest to them.

Supply Chain Digest had an interesting article on the petition, including NAM’s broader opinion on the issues the CPSIA is causing for manufacturers. I don’t want to keep re-hashing what I’ve already written about this topic, but the fact that this article was so focused on manufacturers made me think more about supply chain issues that ultimately demand more checks and balances. Whether you agree with this particular legislation or not, the thinking that manufacturers should know what is in their products (and that the amount of certain elements and compounds contained in those products should be regulated) is not totally off-base, so I encourage you to check out the article and let us know your thoughts.

President Reagan had a favorite phrase throughout the Cold War – a Russian proverb: “Trust, but verify.” These days that slogan is used a lot when talking about the need for better risk management practices in a company’s global supply chain, and supply chain executives are wise to adopt it as their own mantra. It’s easy to forget that the issue at hand is not just the CPSIA and how to regulate the amount of lead in childrens’ toys and consumer products – but that international regulations call on manufacturers to be responsible and accountable when it comes to what is in their products – especially when some of it can be hazardous to the people ultimately buying those products.

=Drew

We’re always on the lookout for news about the latest lead laws and how they’re affecting businesses of all sizes. When this story appeared in the MetroWest Daily News last week, it caught my eye since this is right in our backyard here in Massachusetts. In the article, reporter David Riley talks to toy importer Rob Wilson, whose company Challenge and Fun sells games and other children’s products. Riley says that along with other small toy manufacturers, shop owners and distributors, Wilson’s been calling for changes to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act since Congress passed it last year.

As I said before, lead can be dangerous when absorbed in the body, which is why we have strict standards regulating how much of it is acceptable to include in different types of consumer products and equipment. So at first glance, the folks who created the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act have the right intentions, and the spirit of this act is right on track. That being said, Wilson has a point, too. Concerns raised by groups like the Handmade Toy Alliance and The Alliance for Children’s Product Safety should be taken seriously.

So where does this leave us? Who’s right and who’s wrong? Well, both sides have got it right. But the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act alone is not what these toy makers and shop owners should be questioning and frustrated with. I suspect these businesses will be truly grateful when we launch iD-Prime in the coming weeks, and the market for XrF tools is opened up to finally address businesses with smaller budgets. The reality is that XrF tools and tests are so expensive for these smaller businesses that this frustration is what’s fueling most of the criticism with the law. So I wonder: is the CPSIA really the problem? Or is the real issue the fact that XrF tools today are built for scientists and huge corporations that can afford to invest $30-60,000 on a piece of equipment? Something needs to be done to bridge the gap for these smaller players…and that’s exactly why we decided to launch i-Nalysis.

=Drew

Thanks to the folks at SAE Vehicle Engineering for the nice article about i-Nalysis, which you can find here.  

The article has a great photo of our i-Nalysis instrument analyzing a sample. iD-Prime from i-Nalysis is the first palm-sized X-ray fluorescence device and the photo does a nice job of showing how small and easy it is to handle. That’s an important difference from the large, unwieldy XrF instruments of the past because the people best-suited for iD-Prime aren’t holed up in a lab all day. i-Nalysis is created for non-scientists.

Because if you spend your day climbing ladders or walking across fields or crawling under pipes, having a small and dependable XrF instrument like iD-Prime makes your life a heckuva lot easier.

=Drew

At i-Nalysis we don’t think only big companies with lots of money should be able to use X-ray fluorescence. Plenty of smaller organizations – manufacturers, suppliers, government agencies, universities — should be able to use XrF to know what’s in the products they’re selling and using, too.

So we take a different approach to XrF. The biggest difference is price. Our handheld XrF instrument starts at $10,000. Other companies’ handheld XrF instruments cost between $30,000 and $60,000. And benchtop XrF units cost between $70,000 and $250,000.

There are other differences, too. Other handheld XrF instruments on the market today have complicated user interfaces that are difficult for non-experts to use. At i-Nalysis our instrument is a straightforward industrial tool designed to be used by regular people like you and me.

Another difference: with other handheld XrF instruments the data is “trapped” inside the individual instrument. The i-Nalysis instrument is networked so the data on it is searchable from different locations and easily comparable with data on different i-Nalysis instruments.

At i-Nalysis we’re big fans of X-ray fluorescence. We think it’s a valuable tool that should be available to lots of folks. That’s why we take a different approach to XrF.

=Drew

The media “hits” just keep on coming! Electronic Engineering News Digest’s article on i-Nalysis is worth checking out. You can find it here. In this recession more publications are interested in our X-ray fluorescence instrument because more companies are interested in affordable XrF testing.

The need to know what’s in your products doesn’t go away just because the economy’s hurting. In fact, the tight economy means more companies are looking to suppliers abroad to save money. That makes it harder to know what’s in products. Fortunately our XrF-testing instrument makes it more affordable than ever before to answer the question, “What’s in there?”

=Drew

In recent months, there’s been a lot of buzz about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act regulations around lead. Plenty of magazines and newspapers have paid close attention since the regulations affect parents and kids (because some toys, especially older ones, contain lead) as well as businesses (because smaller manufacturers have found it tough to comply with expensive lead-testing options). So is all of this getting blown out of proportion? Should we be so concerned about lead in different products?

Lead is useful in things like medical devices, satellites and aircraft because it improves their reliability over time. Most people don’t realize that lead is actually important to have in things like pacemakers but the difference is that lead is inside the device and never comes into direct contact with the patient. When lead comes into direct contact with people, it can get into their body and cause harm, particularly among children.

Parents and companies are right to be concerned about lead content in children’s toys and products. Not only are children more likely to chew on a toy and ingest lead, but children are also much more susceptible to lead’s harmful effects. Children’s constant growth means their bodies rapidly absorb and incorporate almost anything they consume. So lead that’s ingested can have a significant impact since it acts as a neurotoxin, causing brain damage.

It’s because of this that we have standards regulating how much lead is acceptable in different types of consumer products and equipment. Businesses need to protect themselves and their customers and make sure they take the time to measure the lead content in the products they manufacture or distribute. For some companies, particularly small businesses, this can be a real challenge because the standard X-ray fluorescence tools used to measure lead content can be really expensive. Luckily, new XRF tools are emerging (Hello, i-Nalysis!) that make it much more affordable for these companies. This is something that will become increasingly important because without lower-cost tools to measure lead content, companies are putting themselves and consumers who buy their products at risk.

=Drew