On this page
Published European document set
Genorma lists EN ISO 10993-18:2020 as published and sells EN ISO 10993-18:2020/A1:2023 separately. The EVS consolidated catalogue record confirms the amended set. State the complete European reference in a purchase request and check whether the copy includes the amendment.
The public scope describes a framework for identifying and, where necessary, quantifying medical-device constituents to support biological evaluation. It distinguishes materials, substances introduced through manufacture and substances potentially or actually released from the device. This guide does not prescribe analytical conditions, thresholds or a biological-safety conclusion.
Define the evidence question
| Information need | Why the distinction matters | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Material composition | Describes the construction materials. | Which material information is available and relevant to the device? |
| Manufacturing-related substances | The finished device can differ from a raw-material description. | How are the actual processing steps represented? |
| Potential or actual release | Characterisation needs a justified relationship to the intended evaluation. | Who selects and explains the analytical approach? |
| Evaluation of findings | Analytical results and their interpretation are distinct work items. | Who integrates the findings into the biological assessment? |
Before asking for a laboratory price, provide the qualified evaluator with the device description, intended contact, materials and relevant manufacturing information. Ask the evaluator to explain what the characterisation is intended to establish and how existing information will be considered. This gives purchasing a defined service to compare, instead of competing packages whose similarly named reports answer different questions.
Keep supplier information and laboratory information distinguishable. A formulation declaration may be valuable, but ask how it relates to the finished device and processing state. Where material information is confidential, agree how the necessary information can be made available to the responsible experts. Procurement should not promise a complete review based on data that neither the provider nor evaluator will receive.
Make the quotation's boundaries visible
Ask the provider to identify the samples and configurations represented, the reference set selected and the deliverables included. The analytical team should explain the scope and limitations of its proposed approach. Purchasing should not choose extraction conditions or reporting thresholds solely to lower a quotation; those are technical decisions that must remain justified within the evaluation.
Separate analysis, interpretation and final integration in the fee schedule. Establish whether the laboratory supplies analytical results only, whether an evaluator interprets them and who updates the device's wider evaluation. Naming these responsibilities avoids a gap in which every provider has completed its contracted work but no one has answered the biological-risk question.
For repeat work, describe what changed. A revised cleaning process or new processing aid can be relevant even when the polymer's name and component drawing remain unchanged. Ask the evaluator how the old evidence relates to the new finished device. The rationale for evidence reuse is a deliverable to request, not something the buyer can infer from commercial similarity.
Questions before placing the service order
- What characterisation question is being answered for the identified device?
- Which material, manufacturing and sample information does the provider need?
- Who justifies the analytical approach and its limitations?
- Are analytical reporting, interpretation and wider evaluation separately assigned?
- How will new findings or product changes affect the final evaluation deliverables?
A fictional manufacturing-change decision
A device manufacturer changes a cleaning step and introduces a new processing aid. The construction material and drawings remain the same. Procurement suggests that the earlier chemical-characterisation report should therefore remain sufficient.
The biological evaluator receives a description of the process change and checks the coverage of the earlier work. The manufacturer asks the provider to define a justified review and any further assignment, with interpretation responsibilities stated in the order. This fictional example does not identify an analytical method or determine whether the changed device is safe.
Buy the base and check the amendment
Separately listed amendment: EN ISO 10993-18:2020/A1:2023. Confirm base-document inclusion, language, licence and seller's checkout terms.
Common buying questions
Is chemical characterisation the complete biological evaluation?
It supports the evaluation. The responsible evaluator must explain its role and interpret the relevant evidence.
Does a raw-material declaration replace finished-device review?
Ask how that information represents the device and its processing state. Do not assume equivalence.
Is this the same subject as cytotoxicity?
No. Chemical characterisation and in vitro cytotoxicity address different evidence questions within the wider evaluation.
Public catalogue sources checked on 7 October 2026. Regulatory applicability and conformity conclusions need a separate responsible review.
Explore more standards buying guides
Browse standards by reference and subject to compare related document choices.