The editors of the environmental chemistry journal Chemosphere have published an eye-catching correction to a study reporting toxicology. Flame retardants from electronics appear in some household products made of black plasticincluding kitchen utensils. Research has caused a series of media reports a few weeks ago made an urgent appeal to everyone put away their kitchen spoons and spoon. Wirecutter even offers a buying guide for Replace them with something.
Adjustmentposted on Sunday, may take some of the heat out of besieged appliances. The authors made a mathematical error that greatly reduced the estimated risk from kitchen appliances.
Specifically, the authors estimate that if a kitchen utensil contained an average level of toxic flame retardant (BDE-209), it would transmit 34,700 nanograms of the contaminant per day if used regularly. when cooking and serving hot food. The authors then compared that estimate to a reference level of BDE-209 considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA’s safe level is 7,000 ng—per kilogram of body weight—per day, and the authors used 60 kilograms as adult weight (about 132 pounds) for their estimate. So the EPA’s safe limit would be 7,000 multiplied by 60, yielding 420,000 ng per day. This is 12 times the estimated exposure of 34,700 ng per day.
However, the authors missed the zero and reported the EPA’s safe limit as 42,000 ng per day for a 60 kg adult. The error made it appear that the estimated exposure was roughly at the safe limit, even though it was actually less than one-tenth of the limit.
“[W]e incorrectly calculated 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 reads. would approach the US BDE-209 reference dose’ to ‘a calculated daily intake that remains one order of magnitude lower than the US BDE-209 reference dose.’ We regret this error and have updated it in our draft.”
The conclusion remains unchanged
Although a deviation of this magnitude seems like a serious error, the authors don’t seem to think it would change anything. “This calculation error does not affect the overall conclusions of the article,” the correction read. The corrected study still ends by saying that flame retardants “significantly contaminate” plastic products with “high exposure potential.”
Ars reached out to the lead author, Megan Liu, but did not receive a response. Liu works for the environmental health advocacy group Toxic-Free Future, which led the study.
The study highlights that in some cases, flame retardants used in plastic electronics can be recycled into household appliances.
