The editors of the environmental chemistry journal Chemosphere have posted a fascinating correction to a study reporting toxic Flame retardants from electronics end up in some household products made of black plastic.Including kitchen utensils. The study awakened a flurry of media reports A few weeks ago people were urgently urged remove their kitchen spatula And spoon. Wirecutter also offered a buying guide for what to replace them with,
AmendmentPosted on Sunday, will likely take some heat off the beleaguered pots. The authors made a math error that reduced the estimated risk from kitchen utensils by an order of magnitude.
Specifically, the authors estimated that if kitchen utensils had moderate levels of a key toxic flame retardant (BDE-209), the utensils would emit up to 34,700 nanograms of the pollutant a day, based on regular use when cooking and serving hot food. Will transfer. The authors then compared that estimate to a reference level of BDE-209 considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency. The safe level of EPA is 7,000 ng-per kilogram body weight-per day, and the authors used 60 kilograms (about 132 pounds) as the adult weight for their estimate. So, the safe EPA limit of 7,000 would be multiplied by 60, yielding 420,000 ng per day. This is 12 times higher than the estimated risk of 34,700 ng per day.
However, the authors missed the zero and reported the EPA safe limit as 42,000 ng per day for an adult weighing 60 kg. The error made it appear that the estimated exposure was approximately at the safe limit, even though it was actually less than one tenth of the limit.
,[W]“E miscalculated the reference dose for a 60 kg adult, initially estimating it as 42,000 ng/day instead of the correct value of 420,000 ng/day,” the correction said. “As a result, we revised our statement from 'The calculated daily dose will approach the US BDE-209 reference dose' to 'The calculated daily dose remained an order of magnitude lower than the US BDE-209 reference dose.'” It has happened. We regret this error and have updated it in our manuscript.”
unchanged conclusion
Although missing by an order of magnitude seems like a significant error, the authors do not think it would change anything. “This calculation error does not affect the overall conclusions of the paper,” the correction reads. The revised study still concludes by saying that flame retardants “significantly contaminate” plastic products, which have a “high risk potential.”
Ars has contacted lead author Megan Liu, but has not received a response. Liu works for the environmental health advocacy group Toxic-Free Future, which led the study.
The study highlighted that flame retardants used in plastic electronics can, in some cases, be recycled into household items.