The International Measurement Evaluation Program (IMEP) organized the IMEP-24 interlaboratory comparison after reports in the media about high levels of lead in toys. The aim of this comparison was to verify the laboratories' capacity to evaluate trace-element levels in a possible toy-like material according to the European Standard EN 71-3:1994. As test material, it used a former certified reference material containing levels of antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead and selenium around the limits set in the standard.
Four expert laboratories confirmed the reference values (Xref) for all elements but Hg, and established a reference value for Hg. The scatter of the results reported by the participants was large, as expected, but showed a close to normal distribution around the reference values for five of the eight trace elements. The spread of results was mainly attributed to sampling and sample preparation.
One major issue observed in this exercise was the lack of legislative rules about how to report the result, or, more specifically, the use of the analytical correction, which was introduced in EN 71-3:1994 to achieve consistent interpretation of results and which is to be applied when values are equal to or above the maximum limits set in the standard. Its application by the participants was very inconsistent and led to problems in their evaluation. There is clearly a need for clarification and for more formal regulations with regard to result reporting in order to minimize the risk of confusion.
Participants were also asked to give their opinion with regard to the acceptability of the test material for the market. The majority correctly considered the material as non-compliant. However, almost one-third incorrectly assessed the material as compliant.
The authors critically reviewed published lists of nano-objects and their physico-chemical properties deemed important for risk assessment and discussed metrological challenges associated with the development of nanoscale reference materials (RMs). Five lists were identified that contained 25 (classes of) nano-objects; only four (gold, silicon dioxide, silver, titanium dioxide) appeared on all lists. Twenty-three properties were identified for characterisation; only (specific) surface area appeared on all lists. The key themes that emerged from this review were: 1) various groups have prioritised nano-objects for development as 'candidate RMs' with limited consensus; 2) a lack of harmonised terminology hinders accurate description of many nano-object properties; 3) many properties identified for characterisation are ill-defined or qualitative and hence are not metrologically traceable; 4) standardised protocols are critically needed for characterisation of nano-objects as delivered in relevant media and as administered to toxicological models; 5) the measurement processes being used to characterise a nano-object must be understood because instruments may measure a given sample in a different way; 6) appropriate RMs should be used for both accurate instrument calibration and for more general testing purposes (e.g., protocol validation); 7) there is a need to clarify that where RMs are not available, if '(representative) test materials' that lack reference or certified values may be useful for toxicology testing and 8) there is a need for consensus building within the nanotechnology and environmental, health and safety communities to prioritise RM needs and better define the required properties and (physical or chemical) forms of the candidate materials.