EN 1811, EN 16128, EN 12472 and ISO 12870: Which Nickel-Release Test Do You Need?

1. Why do four standard numbers share one regulatory limit?

Nickel-release testing is where suppliers most often cite the wrong standard, because four different numbers circulate for what looks like one question. The regulatory limit is single and comes from REACH Annex XVII, entry 27: an article in direct and prolonged contact with the skin must release less than 0.5 µg of nickel per cm² per week, and less than 0.2 µg/cm²/week for post assemblies inserted into pierced parts of the body. What differs between the standards is which article and what happens to the sample before the measurement.

2. Which mistake makes a nickel report unusable?

The single most common error is testing eyewear to EN 1811. It looks reasonable, the limit is the same, the fluid is artificial sweat, but EN 1811's own scope statement excludes spectacle frames and sunglasses, so a report citing EN 1811 for a frame is citing a method that does not claim to cover it. For the European market the frame goes to EN 16128. ISO 12870 is not an alternative to either: it is the frame requirements standard, and its nickel clause sends you to EN 16128.

The second common error is skipping EN 12472 on a plated article. Conformity for coated goods is assessed on a sample that has already been through the wear and corrosion simulation, because a coating that survives the shop shelf may not survive two years of wear, and the nickel underneath is the reason the limit exists. Practically this means two sets of specimens and roughly twice the solution volume for the campaign, which is worth knowing before you order.

3. How do you pick the right standard in one pass?

Is it a spectacle frame, sunglasses or an eye-protection frame? EN 16128, with ISO 12870 as the requirements reference. If the frame is plated, EN 12472 first.

Is it a post assembly for a piercing? EN 1811, against the stricter 0.2 µg/cm²/week limit, and with no ageing step even if it is plated. EN 12472 excludes articles inserted into pierced ears and other pierced body parts from its own scope, so sending one through it first produces a result the standard does not authorise.

Is it any other prolonged skin-contact article, jewellery, a watch case, a buckle, a fastener? EN 1811 against 0.5 µg/cm²/week, preceded by EN 12472 if it is coated or plated.

Is the question whether the surface itself survives sweat, rather than how much nickel migrates? That is a corrosion and tarnish test, not a release test: ISO 3160-2 for watch cases and gold coverings, with its own accelerated corrosion solution, or the eccrine sweat when you want a realistic medium. Neither is the EN 1811 solution.

4. What should you confirm with your test house before booking?

Supplier literature frequently treats an EN 1811 sweat as a drop-in substitute for eyewear testing. We are not in a position to confirm from the primary texts whether the solution specification, immersion ratio and duration in EN 16128 are identical to EN 1811's or differ, and we would rather say so than guess on your behalf. If you are testing eyewear, the reference method is EN 16128 and the fluid it specifies is not one we supply today, so confirm the exact solution requirement with your test house before assuming an EN 1811 sweat is interchangeable with it.