Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 22, pp 23316–23319 | Cite as

Response to the letter to the editor ‘discussion on: Dahab AA, Elhag DEA, Ahmed AB, Al-Obaid HA. Determination of elemental toxicity migration limits, bioaccessibility and risk assessment of essential childcare products’

  • Ali A. Dahab
Letter to the Editor
  • 70 Downloads

First of all we would like to thank the authors for their concern and their comments to which, we will respond below:

Guney and Zagury commented:

Study design concerns

Sample size: As a broad consumer product category, essential childcare products cannot be reduced to two product categories: teethers and teats. Also, this category cannot be adequately represented by the very limited sample size tested in the study (n = 5). Therefore, it is not possible to reach general conclusions or to make research recommendations for essential childcare products solely based on the results of this limited study.

Response:

As mentioned in the paper, the age group chosen for this study was 6–12 months old; therefore, the word essential is the most appropriate word for these two products because the children need them day and night. The word essential describes the importance of these products in children’s life and does not mean we reduced this category to these two products (simple understanding of...

Keywords

Toxic Element Hazard Index Risk Characterization Total Digestion Migration Limit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Brandon EFA, Oomen AG, Rompelberg CJM, Versantvoort CHM, van Engelen JGM, Sips AJAM (2006) Consumer product in vitro digestion model: bioaccessibility of contaminants and its application in risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 44:161–171Google Scholar
  2. DIN (Deutsches Institut fur Normung) (2004) Soil quality — bioaccessibility of organic and inorganic pollutants from contaminated soil material; Method DIN 19738; Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  3. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2009) Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys [Online]. Brussels (Belgium). Available: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards/toys/index_en.htm. Accessed 3 Sept 2015
  4. GUNEY M, ZAGURY GJ (2013) Bioaccessibility of As, Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Sb in toys and low-cost jewelry. Environ Sci Technol 47:5921–5930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guney M, Zagury GJ (2014) Bioaccessibility of As, Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Sb in toys and children’s jewelry. Environ Sci Technol 48:1238–1246Google Scholar
  6. Guney M, Nguyen A, Zagury GJ (2014) Estimating children’s exposure to toxic elements in toys and children’s jewelry via saliva mobilization. J Environ Sci Health A 49:1218–1227Google Scholar
  7. Rodriguez RR, Basta NT, Casteel SW, Pace LW (1999) An in vitro gastrointestinal method to estimate bioavailable arsenic in contaminated soils and solid media. Environ Sci Technol 33:642–649Google Scholar
  8. Ruby MV, Davis A, Schoof R, Eberle S, Sellstone C (1996) Estimation of lead and arsenic bioavailability using a physiologically based extraction test. Environ Sci Technol 30:422–430Google Scholar
  9. Wragg J, Cave, MR (2003) In-vitro methods for the measurement of the oral bioaccessibility of selected metals and metalloids in soils: a critical review. R&D Technical Report P5–062/TR/01, British Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Life Sciences & MedicineKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations