Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.



Some teethers advertised as BPA-free leach the compound

Many baby teethers likely expose children using them to low levels of bisphenol A and other endocrine disruptors

by Deirdre Lockwood
December 22, 2016

Credit: Shutterstock
Many baby teethers leach BPA and other endocrine disruptors, likely exposing children who use them to low levels of the chemicals.
Credit: Shutterstock
Many baby teethers leach BPA and other endocrine disruptors, likely exposing children who use them to low levels of the chemicals.

Small amounts of the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A leach from many plastic baby teethers, including some labeled BPA-free, a new study shows (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04128). The teethers also leach low levels of other endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including parabens. However, the estimated exposure to BPA for babies is much lower than the safety thresholds suggested by U.S. and European regulatory agencies.

Kurunthachalam Kannan of the New York State Department of Health’s Wadsworth Center and his colleagues study the exposure of infants and children to chemicals in the environment, including endocrine disruptors. They recently decided to examine plastic baby teethers, a potential source that has not been clearly characterized. Kannan’s team tested 59 different teethers—53 of which are sold in the U.S. —for 26 potential endocrine disruptors. These include bisphenols, which are used to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins; parabens, which are used as preservatives; benzophenones, which prevent UV damage; and antimicrobials, including triclosan and triclocarban. They soaked the teethers in highly purified water, free of any of the contaminants being tested, for an hour to simulate the average amount of time per day that babies suck on a teether. After measuring the chemicals that leached into the water using high-performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass-spectrometry, the researchers estimated chemical exposure levels for average-sized, one-year-old children.

They found that the teethers leached small amounts—up to hundreds of nanograms each—of parabens, bisphenols, and benzophenones, and even smaller amounts of antimicrobials. BPA leached from all of the teethers, despite the fact that 48 of the 59 were labeled BPA-free.

The team calculated a maximum daily BPA exposure level for babies from the teethers of about 13 ng/kg body weight, which is 0.3% of the tolerable daily intake of 4 μg/kg recommended by the European Food Safety Authority, and 0.03% of the U.S. EPA’s safety threshold of 50 μg/kg/day. For parabens, the team found a maximum daily exposure level of 4 ng/kg body weight. The EFSA has established an acceptable daily intake of 10 mg/kg/day for methyl and ethyl paraben combined.

“This is one of the first pieces of evidence that ‘BPA-free’ may not actually mean that,” says Heather Patisaul, a toxicologist and endocrine disruptor expert at North Carolina State University. While noting that the exposure levels calculated in the study are very low, she says the work emphasizes how “tiny exposures start to add up over the course of the day if you’re talking about a baby that has plastic teethers, plastic cups, plastic diapers,” and so on. It’s important to determine where the BPA the researchers detected is coming from, she adds—it could come from the product itself or its packaging.



This article has been sent to the following recipient:

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (December 28, 2016 7:10 PM)
First, dose makes the poison. So, it is detectable at exceedingly low doses, but such doses are irrelevant even for babies.

Second, any BPA at such doses is excreted as the glucuronide; "BPA glucuronide is biologically inert and therefore considered harmless to the body."

All in all, this seems just more grant- and publicity-seeking wasteful spending that needs to be controlled by the next administration.
Dr. Richard Pendarvis (December 28, 2016 11:04 PM)
It does not appear to matter since no regulations prevent these from being sold. A product liability suit would be a difficult matter since that would require absolute certainty that a health problem had been the direct result of this product.

Nobody is likely to do anything. BPA is only being removed from can liners on a voluntary basis. It is rather common in cash register ink which I guess is a hint to stop spending? :-)
William Whelan (December 29, 2016 6:06 PM)
I would suspect that replicating the teething rings normal environment (being vigorously chewed) by flexing and compressing them for an hour in a solvent containing digestive enzymes would yield higher levels of BPA and other endocrine disruptors than those reported here.
István Ujváry (December 30, 2016 2:10 AM)
Clearly, it is not a toxicological issue but rather credibility one: claiming something as 'free of' a bisphenol, or any other additive for that matter, is assuring the user (educated or not) that the content (concetration) of a given substance is below of a certain (detectable) level. Which is false in this case.
Torben Andersen (January 6, 2017 8:35 AM)
When one authority has a "tolerable daily intake" limit of 4 µg/kg and another has a "safety threshold" limit of 50 µg/kg/day, does anyone really know what is safe, especially when the exposed individuals are babies?

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment