Investigation of the migration of bisphenols from baby bottles and sippy cups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bisphenol A (BPA) is used as a monomer in a number of consumer products, including baby bottles and sippy cups. Some jurisdictions around the world (including Canada) have regulated the production, advertising or selling polycarbonate baby bottles with BPA. Following the ban, makers have opted for alternative materials to BPA [named BPA analogues, BPAAs], which may not be as safe as promoted. The objective of this project was to conduct a migration study in baby bottles and sippy cups, and analyze 16 BPAAs, as a follow-up on the BPA migration study conducted by Health Canada in 2009. Baby bottles (20 brands) and sippy cups (13 brands) were tested for migration of BPAAs. The most commonly detected analytes in baby bottles were BPS, BPA, BPF, BPAF, BPM and BPTMC with detection frequency (DF) of more than 50%. In sippy cups, only BPA, BPS and BPF were frequently detected. The mean concentration of BPA in baby bottle leachate was 31.5 ng/L in water simulant whereas a 1.4-fold increase was seen in 50% EtOH simulant. Similarly, a 1.4-fold increase was seen in the mean concentration of BPS in 50% EtOH simulant, when compared to the mean concentration of 2.33 ng/L in water simulant. Increasing median concentration was observed for BPA as the ethanol content of the simulant increased (water<10% EtOH<50% EtOH). The concentration of BPS and BPA was higher in sippy cups than that in their matched brand of baby bottles with the 50% EtOH simulant. Although most of the target analytes were detected in baby bottles, their concentrations were low and no migration was observed for any of the analytes with increasing incubation time. Therefore, it is likely that known BPA analogues are not present in the polymers used in the manufacture of most of the baby bottle brands sold in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".