Urinary metal concentrations among mothers and children in a Mexico City birth cohort study.

Personal care product use is a potential source of metals exposure among children, but studies have been limited. We measured urinary concentrations of 10 metals (aluminum, arsenic [As], barium [Ba], cadmium, cobalt [Co], lead [Pb], manganese [Mn], molybdenum [Mo], nickel, and zinc [Zn]) in third trimester pregnant women (n = 212) and their children at 8-14 years of age (n = 250). Demographic factors (child sex, age, socioeconomic status, and maternal education), body mass index (BMI) z-score, and child personal care product use in the 24 h prior to urine collection were examined as predictors of urinary metal concentrations. Metals were detected in 80-100% of urine samples, with significant differences in maternal versus childhood levels. However, metal concentrations were not strongly correlated within or between time points. In linear regression models including all demographic characteristics, BMI z-score, and specific gravity, age was associated with higher Co (6% [95% CI: 2, 10]), while BMI z-score was associated with lower Mo (-6% [95% CI: -11, -1). In addition, significantly higher metal concentrations were observed among users of colored cosmetics (Mo: 42% [95% CI: 1, 99]), deodorant (Ba: 28% [3, 58]), hair spray/hair gel (Mn: 22% [3, 45]), and other toiletries (As: 50% [9, 108]), as well as with an increasing number of personal care products used (As: 7% [3, 11]) after adjustment for child sex, age, total number of products used, and specific gravity. However, significantly lower metal concentrations were noted for users of hair cream (As and Zn: -20% [-36, -2] and -21% [-35, -2], respectively), shampoo (Pb: -40% [-62, -7]), and other hair products (Pb: -44% [-65, -9]). We found that personal care product use may be a predictor of exposure to multiple metals among children. Further research is recommended to inform product-specific exposure source identification and related child health risk assessment efforts.

The challenge of predicting problematic chemicals using a decision analysis tool: Triclosan as a case study.

Manufacturers lack a reliable means for determining whether a chemical will be targeted for deselection from their supply chain. In this analysis, 3 methods for determining whether a specific chemical (triclosan) would meet the criteria necessary for being targeted for deselection are presented. The methods included a list-based approach, use of a commercially available chemical assessment software tool run in 2 modes, and a public interest evaluation. Our results indicated that triclosan was included on only 6 of the lists reviewed, none of which were particularly influential in chemical selection decisions. The results from the chemical assessment tool evaluations indicated that human and ecological toxicity for triclosan is low and received scores indicating that the chemical would be considered of low concern. However, triclosan's peak public interest tracked several years in advance of increased regulatory scrutiny of this chemical suggesting that public pressure may have been influential in deselection decisions. Key data gaps and toxicity endpoints not yet regulated such as endocrine disruption potential or phototoxicity, but that are important to estimate the trajectory for deselection of a chemical, are discussed. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:198-207. © 2016 SETAC.

Chemical assessment state of the science: Evaluation of 32 decision-support tools used to screen and prioritize chemicals.

The last decade has seen an increased focus on evaluating the safety and sustainability of chemicals in consumer and industrial products. In order to effectively and accurately evaluate safety and sustainability, tools are needed to characterize hazard, exposure, and risk pertaining to products and processes. Because many of these tools will be used to identify problematic chemistries, and because many have potential applications in various steps of an alternatives analysis, the limitations and capabilities of available tools should be understood by users so that, ultimately, potential chemical risk is accurately reflected. In our study, we examined 32 chemical characterization tools from government, industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The tools we studied were diverse, and varied widely in their scope and assessment. As such, they were separated into five categories for comparison: 1) Screening and Prioritization; 2) Database Utilization; 3) Hazard Assessment; 4) Exposure and Risk Assessment; and 5) Certification and Labeling. Each tool was scored based on our weighted set of criteria, and then compared to other tools in the same category. Ten tools received a high score in one or more categories; 24 tools received a medium score in one or more categories, and five tools received a low score in one or more categories. Although some tools were placed into more than one category, no tool encompassed all five of the assessment categories. Though many of the tools evaluated may be useful for providing guidance for hazards - and, in some cases, exposure - few tools characterize risk. To our knowledge, this study is the first to critically evaluate a large set of chemical assessment tools and provide an understanding of their strengths and limitations.