Not to be Toyed With s I write this Comment, I am quite happy to be cloistered inside as Nicole fragments across the eastern seaboard. Despite my affinity to rain (induced by Scottish and northern English ancestry, catalyzed by four years in the Arizona desert), being sheltered indoors is presently comforting. Many are so reassured by the protection of indoors that the (sudden) awareness of “environmental” hazards “in the home” sends shivering tremors into hearts and minds. Although “indoor environment” sounds oxymoronic, it is of course a perfectly reasonable concept, for all around us constitutes environs, and the ubiquity of hazard is simple reality. Since most of us spend most of our time indoors, these “sheltering” environments are host to many exposures of environmental hazards: The Great Indoors is a seriously risky place. Part of the reason for this high hazard exposure is, where airborne threats are especially concerned, an enclosure is an opportunity for higher concentrations to develop. Anyone who has bucked the ventilation warnings of some paints and adhesives has firsthand knowledge of this threat. Another factor is that indoors our familiarity with objects and arguably a greater sense of security often translates into a more casual interaction with objects (and of course select organisms): most people are far more apt to put a pen in their mouth than a twig. Higher risk of indoor exposure stems from the reality that the pen may be constructed from volatile-containing plastics that may have been synthesized with heavy metal catalysts that were not completely rinsed away. Thus while the twig may sport lethal aflatoxin, the commonality of the pen’s may (counterintuitively) have its usage more deleterious: the “five second rule” forgets cumulative effects. While many adults can curb (conscious) exposure to hazard, children are of course notorious for “hand to mouth” behavior. For infants and toddlers, their short stature also has them close to the ground with greater frequency than their minders, resulting in a higher exposure to gravitationally settled material hazards. In-
A
10.1021/es103319z
2010 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 10/28/2010
corporating these behaviors with childrens’ lower body mass (and possibly higher surface area to volume ratio) means that absolute exposure translates into a higher relative exposure, i.e. dose. Before developmental risks are even considered, this stoichiometric factor has toxicologists and epidemiologists specially attentive to the risks for children. The cover Feature of this issue addresses the chemical risk of toys, noting especially heavy metalsslead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd)sthat have reentered consumer consciousness in recent years (Environ. Sci. Technol. DOI 10.1021/es1009407). Also noted are plastics composite ingredients including phthalates, brominated flame retardants, azo dyes, and bisphenol A. While ongoing research endeavors to quantify the risk (noting the complicated challenges to Paracelsian/[L]ADME dose-response conventions), Becker et al. speak to a need for consumer product assessments. ES&T frequently contains articles within (and defining) the spectrum of research concerning indoor environmental risk. In this November 1, 2010 issue, Suzuki et al, report on “dioxin-like” behavior of indoor dusts (Environ. Sci. Technol. DOI 10.1021/es102021c). Tabone et al. apply life cycle assessment and green chemistry/ engineering principles to polymer design (Environ. Sci. Technol. DOI 10.1021/es101640n). The continued attentiveness in such research and the resultant crafting of regulations coupled with increasing user awareness can perhaps, on average, equalize indoor and outdoor risk. At least for the time being, I’m not catching a(nother) cold. P.S. Apologies to the late Edwin Newman for my (titular) grammar, which the New York Times’s obituary reminded me of.
Darcy J. Gentleman Managing Editor*
[email protected].
November 1, 2010 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 7983
