Assessing potential human health and ecological implications of PFAS from leave-in dental products.

Contaminated water and food are the main sources of documented per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure in humans. However, other sources may contribute to the overall PFAS intake. While several studies documented the presence of PFAS in consumer products, PFAS evaluation in dental products has been limited to floss and tape to date. This study estimated PFAS exposures from a convenience sample of leave-in dental products (night guards and whitening trays), which remain in contact with the mouth for longer durations than previously evaluated dental products. This analysis evaluated whether consumer usage of these dental products meaningfully contributes to oral exposure of PFAS. Leaching of PFAS upon disposal of products was also considered. Out of 24 PFAS measured, perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA; 3.24-4.17 ng/product or 0.67-0.83 ng/g) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS; 7.25-16.45 ng/product or 1.2-2.3 ng/g) were detected in night guards, and no PFAS were detected in whitening trays. Non-targeted analysis showed additional possible PFAS, which could not be characterized. The findings showed that PFOS and/or PFBA present in night guards were unlikely to pose a health concern. From an ecological perspective, the dental products examined were shown to constitute a negligible contribution to environmental PFAS. In conclusion, the examined dental products do not represent a significant source of exposure to PFAS for humans or the environment. The study demonstrates how risk assessment can be integrated by the industry into product stewardship programs to evaluate the potential health and environmental impacts of chemicals in consumer products.

Evaluation of chemicals leached from PET and recycled PET containers into beverages.

The use of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET) containers, a recent shift in the beverage industry, poses new potential human health concerns including contamination from the original container; use of additives, detergents, and catalysts during recycling; and improper recycling practices. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate available data regarding: (1) chemicals leached from PET and rPET in bottle form; (2) concentration of these chemicals; and (3) trends between rPET percent and concentration of chemicals leached. This analysis identified 211 scientific articles related to recycled plastic and leachables. Three articles met the inclusion criteria: (1) plastic was in bottle form; (2) plastic was made of PET or rPET; and (3) the study analyzed both PET and rPET using the same methods. This evaluation demonstrated that only nine compounds - benzene, styrene, acetaldehyde, 2-methyl-1,3-dioxolane, furan, bisphenol A (BPA), 2-buta-none, acetone, and limonene - have been studied. Notably, the leachable concentration of benzene, styrene, and BPA increased as the percent of recycled content increased from 0 to 100%. However, 2-methyl-1,3-dioxolane and furan implied a reverse trend, where the leachable concentration decreased as the percent of recycled content increased from 0 to 100%. The concentrations of 2-butanone, acetone, and limonene did not follow any suggested trend. Evidently, recycling PET can lead to changes in the leachables profile. This analysis further identified key areas of research, including testing a variety of liquid types, that need to be addressed to adequately conduct a human health risk assessment.

Risk characterisation of milk protein contamination in milk-alternative ice cream products sold as frozen desserts in the United States.

Milk protein is recognised as one of the eight most common food allergens in the United States, and one of the most common causes of fatal or near-fatal food-induced anaphylactic reactions globally. Undeclared allergens in food products are the leading cause of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requests for food recalls, with undeclared milk protein as the most frequently cited allergen. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of milk protein contamination in milk-alternative ice cream products sold as frozen dessert in the U.S. and labelled as 'non-dairy', 'dairy-free', and/or 'vegan', and to characterise the potential risk for allergic individuals consuming these products. Thirty-two unique milk-alternative frozen dessert products, including flavours with and without inclusions, from 16 different brands, were tested for the presence of milk proteins using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Milk protein was detected in three of the tested products: two contained solid inclusions, and one did not have inclusions. One of the three products with detectable milk protein had an advisory statement indicating the product was made in a facility that processed milk. Although no consensus exists as to the minimal dose of milk protein necessary to elicit an adverse effect in a milk-sensitised individual, the milk protein quantities in one serving of each of the three products exceeded some of the published thresholds. These results suggest that one serving of certain milk-alternative frozen dessert products could potentially elicit an allergic response in highly sensitive individuals.