Search

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have previously been detected in children toys, yet the risk of child exposure to these chemicals through the mouthing of toys or other items is still unknown. We aimed to expand on the current knowledge by investigating the impact of infants' mouthing activities on exposure to PBDEs present in toys. This was established by a leaching model for determining the amount PBDEs that can leach from toys into saliva in simulated conditions. The PBDE migration rate was at its highest for the 15 min low-exposure scenario incubations (198 pg/cm2 × min) with the ERM EC-591 certified reference material (CRM) (0.17% w/w PBDEs). The leaching process was congener-dependent, since the percentage of lower brominated PBDE congeners that leached out was up to 4.5 times higher than for the heavier PBDEs. To study the scenario in which a child would mouth on a toy flame retarded with BDE 209 alone, a plastic item containing 7% BDE 209 (w/w) was also tested. The BDE 209 amounts leached out in only 15 min were higher than the amounts leached from the CRM after the 16 h incubation. For the Belgian population, the exposure scenario from mouthing on toys containing PBDEs in amounts similar to the REACH threshold was found to be lower than the exposure from mother's milk, but higher than the exposure through diet or even dust. Keywords: Polybrominated diphenyl ethers, Mouthing, Plastics, Exposure assessment, In vitro, Saliva

Objectives. Institutional review boards (IRBs), designed to protect individual study participants, do not routinely assess community consent, risks, and benefits. Community groups are establishing ethics review processes to determine whether and how research is conducted in their communities. To strengthen the ethics review of community-engaged research, we sought to identify and describe these processes. Methods. In 2008 we conducted an online survey of US-based community groups and community–institutional partnerships involved in human-participants research. We identified 109 respondents who met participation criteria and had ethics review processes in place. Results. The respondents' processes mainly functioned through community–institutional partnerships, community-based organizations, community health centers, and tribal organizations. These processes had been created primarily to ensure that the involved communities were engaged in and directly benefited from research and were protected from research harms. The primary process benefits included giving communities a voice in determining which studies were conducted and ensuring that studies were relevant and feasible, and that they built community capacity. The primary process challenges were the time and resources needed to support the process. Conclusions. Community-based processes for ethics review consider community-level ethical issues that institution-based IRBs often do not.