Potential endocrine disrupting properties of toys for babies and infants.

Plastic toys mouthed by children may be a source of exposure to endocrine active substances. The purpose of this study was to measure hormonal activity of substances leaching from toys and to identify potential endocrine disruptors causing that activity. For this purpose, migration experiments of toys were conducted in saliva simulants. The CALUX® assays were used to detect (anti-) estrogenic and (anti-) androgenic activity of 18 toys. Chemical trace analysis-namely, GC-MS and HPLC-MS- was used to identify which compounds may be responsible for endocrine activity in the sample migrates. Nine out of 18 tested toys showed significant estrogenic activity. For two samples, the detected estrogenic activity could be well explained by detecting the known endocrine active substance bisphenol A (BPA). For all identified substances, including BPA, a risk assessment for human health was performed by comparing the exposure dose, calculated based on the determined substance concentration, to toxicological reference values. Using worst-case scenarios, the exposure to BPA by mouthing of the two estrogen active, BPA-containing toys could be above the temporary TDI that EFSA has calculated. This demonstrates that some toys could significantly contribute to the total exposure to BPA of babies and infants. For seven out of nine estrogen active samples, the source of the estrogen activity could not be explained by analysis for 41 known or suspected endocrine active substances in plastic, indicating that the estrogen activities were caused by currently unknown endocrine active substances, or by endocrine active substances that would currently not be suspected in toys.

Introduction

Children, in particular, those below the age of 36 months, are considered particularly vulnerable to chemical substance exposure, due to physiological differences (e.g. less metabolism capacities compared to adults) and different exposure patterns, such as hand-to-mouth behavior [1]. Furthermore, developing periods constitute windows of susceptibility to some compounds showing endocrine activity. This may explain the increased incidence of certain diseases such as neurodevelopmental disorders or effects on the reproductive tract [2].

Children are exposed in their daily life to multiple chemical compounds, via food, dust, personal care products and other consumer products [3,4]. Several studies based on observations on the mouthing behavior of children from 0 to 36 months confirm that children put a great diversity of objects into their mouths, including toys [1]. Plastic toys account for the majority of toys purchased in France. However, only few studies have assessed the risks associated with chemical substances present in plastic toys and children's equipment intended for infants and children up to three years [5]. Plastic toys are often made with complex mixtures of one or more polymers combined with multiple additives such as plasticizers, flame retardants, antioxidants …. As some of these constituents are not covalently bound to the polymers, plastics have been shown to release chemicals such as phthalates or UV filters that are known endocrine disrupters [4].

Toys are regulated in the European Union by a Directive which stipulates that toy manufacturers shall carry out an analysis of the chemical, physical, mechanical, electrical, flammability, hygiene and radioactivity hazards that the toy may present and assess the potential exposure to these hazards. In terms of chemical safety, the directive prohibits the use of carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substances in categories 1A, 1B or 2 in toys or structurally separate parts, except if the substance is inaccessible or present in concentrations below a certain threshold. Plastic materials have been suggested as a relevant source of human exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) [6-8].

Today, even if a common definition of what is an endocrine disrupter has been adopted at the European level, there is no regulatory obligations for those placing toys on the market to address this concern for endocrine effects yet. On the contrary, in the recently published Medical Device Regulation 2017/745, it is stated that substances having endocrine-disrupting properties with scientific evidence of probably serious effects on humans, shall only be present in a medical device above 0.1% by weight (w/w) when justified.

Phthalates are a group of substances, which have been widely used in toys as plasticizers to increase their flexibility. Several phthalates have been classified as reprotoxicants 1B and therefore been banned in toys or other articles which may be put into the children mouth. For example, the use of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), di-n-butylphthalate (DnBP), di-iso-butylphthalate (DiBP) and butylbenzyl-phthalate (BBP) is restricted to a maximum level of 0.1% in all toy plastic parts following entry 51 of Annex XVII to REACH [9]. In addition, the same maximum threshold has to be applied to di-iso-nonyl-phthalate (DiNP), di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP), di-iso-decyl phthalate (DiDP) when children can place toys in their mouth (entry 52 of Annex XVII to REACH). Some phthalates have also been recently identified as endocrine disrupters under the REACH regulation [10].

Actually, the described low regulatory limit of 0.1% is equivalent to a ban of phthalates in plastics, as a minimal level 10% phthalates is required to achieve the softening effect on PVC. As a result, efforts have been made by industry to substitute many of the reprotoxic phthalates with less potent substances, such as bis-2-ethylhexyl terephthalate (DEHTP) or acetyl tributyl citrate (ATBC), in toys. However, for many substitutes endocrine activity data is not available. Other compounds used in plastics such as bisphenol A (BPA) have also been recently identified as endocrine disrupters under the REACH regulation [10].

In addition to chemicals with known endocrine disrupting potential, toys may contain substances that have never been evaluated for their endocrine activity. Especially for non-intentionally-added substances, such as degradation products of contaminants, little is known on their potential endocrine effects. To be able to detect not only known or suspected endocrine disruptors, but also currently unknown substances with an endocrine activity, biodetection systems can be used [11,12]. Berger et al. [6] have detected significant endocrine activity in two out of eleven tested plastic teethers using Yeast Estrogen and Yeast Androgen screen assays. The estrogenic and antiandrogenic activity of one of these teethers was linked to methyl- and propyl paraben. Antiandrogenic effects of toys and babyproducts could also be detected by Szczepańska et al [13] using the Yeast Androgen screen. Using comparable approaches, endocrine activity was reported for several plastic food contact materials ([4, 14–17], canine plastic toys [18] and water from plastic bottles [8].

Thus, the purpose of this study was to analyze selected toys for leaching of endocrine active substances potentially absorbed by toy-mouthing children. Several studies have already been carried out to assess the health risks associated with substance exposure originating from toys [19-26]. Most of these studies, however, assessed exposure scenarios based on the composition as well as migration or emission tests to identify hazardous chemicals that need to be avoided or reduced in the material composition.

Hence, in the present study, toys and children's equipment intended to be used by children up to three years were screened for EDCs using effect-directed analysis [27]. The CALUX® assays (Chemically Activated Luciferase gene expression) were applied to detect substances (i.e. ligands) interacting with the human estrogen or androgen receptors and thereby modifying the subsequent transcriptional response [16, 28].

In a previous study, composition and migration tests were already conducted on these items, in order to search for plasticizers (phthalates and their substitutes) [5]. Out of 31 toys and items of children's equipment tested, only the PVC toys contained plasticizers, except for one elastomer toy containing ATBC. The plasticizers found included two prohibited phthalates (DEHP used as a principal plasticizer associated with DINP in a toy purchased at a street market, and low levels of DEHP attributed to its presence as an impurity of DEHTP in three toys), and some of their substitutes such as ATBC, DEHTP, diisononyl cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylate (DINCH), Di-2-ethylhexyl isophthalate (DOIP) or 2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol diisobutyrate (TXIB) were quantified. Subsequently, it was shown that all the substances found migrated in a saliva simulant.

The current work focuses on the analysis of toy migrates using bioassays and known or suspected hormone active substances were screened by GC-MS and HPLC-MS/MS. The potential hormonal activities of these toys have been assessed.

Materials and methods

Selection of toys

A literature review focusing on extensive reports and surveys of professionals from the toy sector was performed to identify the materials and compounds likely to be most commonly used in toys in France and Europe [5]. The categories of toys sold most widely in the EU are pre-school and infant toys, followed by dolls, outdoor toys and board games/puzzles (more than half of all sales in the EU).

Toys and children's equipment represent a wide diversity of types. Their materials (hard/soft plastic, wood, textiles, metals, etc.) and the substances they are composed of vary in a great extent. Without this being an exhaustive list, they include the following substances: phthalates and substitutes, flame retardants, short-chain chlorinated paraffins, bisphenol A, metals, etc. In France, the best-selling toys over all age groups are construction toys, dolls, board games and puzzles, infant toys, teething rings and outdoor toys. Taking into account only toys made of plastic and the target population (children up to 36 months), this work focused on the following toy categories: infant toys, dolls and construction toys.

In a previous study, a set of toys has been analyzed for its concentrations of several endocrine active substances: tests were carried out in France to characterize toys present on the French market for which leaching of hazardous compounds may expose young children. Tests of the composition of phthalates and their substitutes in a limited sample of toys and children's equipment (bibs, teething rings, pacifiers), followed by migration testing in a saliva simulant were conducted on ANSES's request [5]. These tests were only conducted on new toys. Based on the results of these tests, 18 toys were selected by Anses for further testing to assess endocrine activity of the migration fluid. Table 1 shows the samples that were selected for analysis and ordered online.

Table 1

Samples selected for analysis and material characterization.

Sample code	Game	Age class	Sampling area	Material
T01	Bath book	From 4 months	Plastic part of page	EVA (b)
T02	Plastic toy	12 months—6 years	Plastic	PVC (a)
T03a	Book early age	Since birth	Fabric	Fabric
T03b			Battery lid	ABS (a)
T04a	First age toy	From 6 months	Support	Styrene acrylate ; core: PP/PE (a)
T04b			Orange ring	EVA (a)
T04c			Yellow ring	EVA (a)
T05a	Bath game	unspecified	Star	PVC (a)
T05b			Hippo	PVC (a)
T06a	Teething key ring	From 3 months	Blue key	PE (a)
T06b			Ring	PP-PE co-polymer(a)
T07a	Doll	From 4 years	Dress	Fabric
T07b			Hairs	Unknown
T07c			Face	PVC (a)
T08a	Doll	From 3 years	Arm	PVC (a)
T08b			Battery lid	ABS (a)
T08c			Fabric	Fabric
T09a	Doll	From18 months	Arm	PVC(a)
T09b			Fabric	Fabric
T10a	Building game	From18 months	Red brick	ABS(b)
T10b			Yellow brick	ABS(b)
T11a	Building game	12 months– 5 years	Yellow brick	ABS(b) with sticker
T11b			Green brick	ABS(b)
T12a	Building game	From18 months	Cone	Wood
T12b			Triangle	Wood
T13a	Figure	From 18 months	Tailgate	ABS/steel(b)
T13b			Wheel	ABS/steel(b)
T14a	Outdoor play equipment	From 18 months	Ball	Polyurethane coating–PVC (a)
T14b			Bucket	PP (b)
T14c			Shovel	PP (b)
T15	Ball	From 6 months	Soft shell	Polyurethane coating–PVC (a)
T16	Soft toy	unspecified	Fabric	Fabric
T17	Soft toy	Since birth	Fabric	Fabric
T18	Soft toy	Since birth	Fabric	Fabric

Characterization of materials

Toy samples were characterized following a 3-step approach. First, the toy itself, its packaging and the producers’ web sites were examined for available product information (e.g. recycling codes). If not enough information could be obtained, a formal request asking for the used raw materials was directly sent to the toy manufacturer as a second step. Several toy producers agreed to share this information (see Table 1). In a third step the remaining samples were analyzed by Fourier-transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy analysis using a FT-IR-spectrometer type Perkin-Elmer, model Spectrum One to identify the materials. As a general approach the samples were analyzed on the surface as well as in the internal part. Recordings were made using a universal ATR unit (equipped with Diamond/ZnSe crystal) in a spectral range from 4000–600 cm-1.

Migration experiments

To simulate the process of toy mouthing by children, the toy subparts were incubated with saliva simulant (0.82 mM MgCl2 (Sigma), 1 mM CaCl2 (VWR), 3.3 mM K2HPO4 (Sigma), 3.8 mM K2CO3 (Sigma), 5.6 mM NaCl (Sigma), 10 mM KCl (Sigma), pH of 6.8 –stored in the dark for 2 weeks). Migration experiments were conducted based on the JRC Scientific and Technical Report JRC EUR 23813 EN (2009) [29]. If possible, toys were migrated without any further cutting in a wide-neck 1000 ml glass bottle closed tightly with a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) cap applying saliva simulant in a ratio of 100 ml per 10 cm2 sample surface. Samples that did not fit into wide-neck 1000 ml glass bottles, were cut into pieces of 20 to 47 cm2 adjusting the volume of saliva simulant accordingly to obtain a ratio of 100 ml per 10 cm2. Some toys were split into different subsamples and analyzed independently as they were composed of different materials. For instance, a doll was split into three subsamples: dress, hair and face. For comparison, saliva blanks, filled in glass bottles with PTFE coated caps, were analyzed to check for possible contaminations of the saliva simulant. During migration, bottles were rotated on a head over heels rotator at 60 rpm at room temperature. After 30 min of rotation, the simulant was collected and replaced by fresh saliva again incubating with the sample for 30 min. Then, both migration batches were collected and pooled reaching a total volume of 400 ml. Simulants were stored at 4 to 8°C.

After migration, SPE with Oasis HLB columns (6 cc/200 mg) was carried out to concentrate the obtained migrates. The preparation procedure of the columns included conditioning with 15 ml of an ACN-MeOH 1:1 mixture and 5 ml MeOH, followed by equilibration with 5 ml ultrapure water. Thereafter the samples were applied to SPE using vacuum (around 0.7 bar), each column was washed with 5 ml ultrapure water and eluted with 4.5 ml of an ACN-MeOH 1:1 mixture. 200 μl DMSO was added to each vial as a “keeper”, before the samples were eluted and evaporated to a final volume of 250–300 μl at vacuum (between -0.2 and 0.7 bar) and stored at 4°C prior to analysis by the bioassays.

All sample treatment procedures have been previously validated for recovery and reproducibility using 10% ethanol migrates [16]. To demonstrate that the developed methods are suitable for the concentration of saliva solvent, recoveries and reproducibility were determined as previously described by Mertl et al. [16]. 1 liter of saliva solvent was spiked with 2,4-dihydroxybenzophenone, bisphenol A, benzophenone and benzylbutylphthalate at a concentration of 10 ppb and extracted by SPE and transferred to DMSO. Concentrations of the spiked substances were determined by HPLC-UV/VIS in the concentrated DMSO extracts.

Analysis of toys for hormonal activity with different in vitro tests

The DMSO extracts were analyzed by two different CALUX® bioassays (Estrogen Receptor α-CALUX® and Androgen receptor-CALUX®). CALUX® (Chemical Activated Luciferase Expression) assays are human cell-based reporter gene assays for the detection of hormonal activity. In more detail, these assays measure estrogen/androgen and anti-estrogen/anti-androgen activity as previously described by Mertl et al. [16]. Both bioassays are based on a human U2-OS osteosarcoma cell line and show a highly sensitive and selective response to natural and synthetic estrogen- or androgen agonists. In the modified U2-OS cells, an activated steroid hormone receptor binds to the promoter region of a firefly luciferase reporter gene and activates firefly luciferase transcription. The firefly luciferase reporter gene leads to a light emission if luciferin and co-factors are added and can be very sensitively and selectively quantified. This light signal increases depending on the dose of estrogen or androgen-active substances [30].

Three independent migrates of each sample extract were analyzed in triplicates in both CALUX®-assays. The concentrated DMSO extracts were added to a final concentration of 0.5% to the assay medium. The activity was quantified by comparison to a linear regression curve of a dilution series of the natural estrogen 17β-estradiol (E2) or androgen 5α-dihydrotestosterone (DHT). Estrogen activities are expressed as 17β-estradiol equivalents (EEQ) and androgen activity are expressed as 5α-dihydrotestosterone (DHT) equivalents (AEQ) Activity of anti-estrogen activity is quantified by comparison to a dilution curve of the pharmaceutical estrogen antagonist 4-ortho-hydroxy-tamoxifen (4-OHT) and expressed as 4-OHT equivalents. Activity of anti-androgen activity is quantified by comparison to the androgen antagonist flutamide and is expressed as flutamide equivalents. In addition, all samples were further tested for cytotoxic effects or growth inhibiting effects by microscopy.

To test for antagonisms or inhibiting effects by the sample matrix, each sample was spiked with a non-saturating concentration of a suitable positive control (8 pmol/l of 17β-estradiol or 400 pmol/l of DHT) and analyzed via the respective CALUX® assay. If more than 40% of the activity of the spiked hormone was suppressed by the tested sample, the samples have to be diluted prior to analysis for hormone agonists, resulting in increased detection limits. Samples, which show such a significant suppression of the hormone activity of the spiked hormone, were categorized as antagonistic, if cytotoxic effects cannot explain the reduction of the activity.

Reproducibility of the CALUX® assays and robustness towards polymer extracts was determined in a previous study [16].

Chemical trace analysis

The toys were further tested to identify which compounds may be responsible for recorded hormonal activities. Chemical trace analysis (GC-MS and HPLC-MS/MS) was performed on 34 toys or toy parts. Sample migrates were analyzed for 41 known or suspected endocrine active substances as well as common alternatives to endocrine active plasticizers. The selection of the 41 target substances was mostly based on a literature reviews by J. Muncke [7,31] on known and suspected endocrine active substances with authorized use in food packaging materials. The list was extended by further by some endocrine active substances, which are not authorized for food contact, but which are commonly present in plastics as degradation non-intentionally added substances: The styrene oligomers 1,3-Diphenylpropane and trans-1,2-Diphenylcyclobutane, which are estrogen active according to Kitamura et al. [32] and 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol and 2,4-dicumylphenol, which are degradation products of common antioxidants that are reported to be endocrine active [16,33]. In addition to already known or suspected endocrine active substances, the method was extended by plasticizers which are used as alternatives to endocrine active phthalates: Tributyl citrate (TBC), Bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA), bis-2-propylheptyl phthalate (DPHP), Di-2-ethylhexylfumarat, ATBC, DOIP and DEHTP.

Gas chromatography analysis was carried out as previously described in Mertl et al. [16] extending the substance set for additional target substances. In short, gas chromatography analysis was carried out using the SBSE technique (Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction using the PDMS GERSTEL Twister) in combination with thermodesorption und GC-MS. 5 ml each sample were extracted on a magnetic stirring plate at 2000 rpm for 1 hour. After the extraction the Twister was remove, dried with a lint-free tissue paper and placed in a thermal desorption tube. The analyses were performed using a 6890N GC equipped with a 5975C (inert XL Triple Axis) Mass Selective Detector (Agilent Technologies, Waldbronn, Germany), a Thermal Desorption Unit (TDU), Cooled Injection System (CIS4) and Multi-Purpose Sampler (MPS) (Gerstel, Mühlheim an der Ruhr, Germany). The analytical conditions for the thermodesorption were: TDU in splitless mode, the temperature program started at 40°C which was increased at a rate of 500°C/min until 280°C for 5 min; the CIS was cooled at -150°C during the thermodesorption and then the temperature was increased at a rate of 12°C/s until 300°C for 3 min. The GC system was equipped with a HP-5MS (Agilent Technologies, Waldbronn, Germany) capillary column (30m x 250μm x 0,25μm). The GC temperature program ranged from 40°C to 300°C with a rate of 10°C/min. The carried gas was helium at 1.2ml/min. Ionization was performed by electron impact mode (EI) at 70eV, the temperature of the transfer line was 300°C. Identification and quantification of 28 target compounds as already described in Mertl et al. [16] adding 10 additional substances was done applying selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode. For each reference substance a calibration curve was determined for concentrations between 1 μg/l and 50 μg/l and LODs and LOQs were evaluated according to DIN 32 645. For the identification of unknown compounds SCAN mode using the NIST02 library (US National Institute of Standards and Technology) followed by comparison with known mass spectra was conducted. Two independent migrates were separately analyzed in duplicates. Conditioning of the twisters at 300°C for ten minutes was done to avoid contaminations from previously tested samples.

Besides GC-MS analysis, concentrations of bisphenol A, F and S were measured with high-pressure liquid chromatography combined with tandem mass spectrometry (Dionex U3000 HPLC, AB-Sciex Qtrap 5500), using ESI (electrospray ionization) for ionization. An aliquot of 10 μl sample was injected on an ACE 3 C18-AR 150 x 3 mm (V13-7639) column. Mobile phase solvents were ultrapure water and acetonitrile in an initial ratio of 90:10. Separation was achieved at 50°C using a flow rate of 600 μl/min with a linear increase of the initial acetonitrile concentration up to a concentration of 100% acetonitrile during the first 20 minutes and using 100% acetonitrile as mobile phase for 10 further minutes. Measurements with a negative multi-reaction-monitoring (MRM)-mode show two different stable transitions (parent ion–fragment ion) for each analyte, which were used for qualification and quantification, respectively. For quantification, peak areas were integrated using Analyst 1.6 and an external calibration for concentrations between 1 and 10 μg/l. The limits of detection and quantification were determined statistically according to DIN 32465. Precision was determined using the repeatability between five replicates of saliva solvent matrix spiked with a concentration of 10 μg/l of each substance and reported as a relative standard deviation (RSD). Accuracy was calculated as the percentage of recovery from three replicates at the same concentration of 10 μg/l.

Fig 1 summarizes how the endocrine potential of these toys has been investigated.

Fig 1

Scheme of sample analysis.

Analysis of detected pure substances for endocrine activity

Substances detected by chemical target analysis (TBC, benzophenone and diethyl phthalate) in at least one sample were used to prepare a dilution series (100 mM, 30 mM, 10 mM, 3 mM, 1 mM, 0.3 mM and 0.1 mM) in DMSO, subsequently tested for endocrine activity in the ER CALUX® assay. Testing procedures followed instructions given in 2.4.

Assessment of the health risks associated with the mouthing of plastic toys containing phthalate substitutes

Health risk assessment was performed for critical substances detected in the selected toys—the two phthalate substitutes acetyl-tributyl-citrate (ATBC, n° CAS 77-90-7), and diethylhexyl-terephthalate (DEHTP, n° CAS 6422-86-2) as well as for other potential active substances such as tributyl citrate (TBC, n° CAS 77-94-1), bisphenol A (CAS 80-05-7) and benzophenone (CAS 119-61-9).

Exposure scenarios adapted from RIVM [20] were applied to estimate oral exposure from mouthing behavior of toys in children (0 to 12 months).

The following equation was used to calculate the daily exposure (DE) to the substances:

With:

BW : body weight [kg]; a body weight of 8kg was considered

F : migration flux [μg/min/cm2]: values measured in this study for each compounds were taken

S : surface in contact with the mouth [cm2]; a surface of 10 cm2 was considered

D : contact duration in the mouth [min/d]; a duration of 180 min per day was considered

Risks were estimated by comparing the daily exposure (DE) to toxicological reference values (TRV) when available.

Results and discussion

Selected toys and characterization of materials

In a 3-step approach (research, contact to the manufacturer and FT-IR analysis) the materials of the tested toys were characterized. Table 1 gives an overview on all selected toys and sampling areas and lists the determined material of all tested sample parts.

Endocrine activity of the toys migrates

To test the endocrine potential of selected toys, saliva migrates were prepared from each sample. Prior to bioassay analysis migrates have been concentrated. A suitable solid phase extraction pre-concentration method for 10% ethanol migrates was already validated for recovery and reproducibility by Mertl et al. [16]. The robustness of the method to dissolved polymers has already been demonstrated in the previous evaluation by Mertl et al. [16] on plastic samples extracted at much harsher conditions (10 days, 60°C, ethanol) which can be considered as a worst case. To verify the method applicability on saliva migrates, additional validation experiments were performed with saliva simulant. Therefore, saliva simulant was spiked with 4 representative reference substances to determine substance losses during SPE concentration. Targeted HPLC-UV/VIS analysis determined reasonable compound recoveries (benzophenone: 61 ± 5%, benzylbutylphthalate: 92 ± 4%, bisphenol A: 83 ± 10 and 2,4-dihydroxybenzophenone: 83 ± 3%).

After simulating mouthing by a child, the saliva simulant was concentrated by solid phase extraction, transferred to DMSO and analyzed using CALUX® bioassays. These biological assays can detect substances that can activate or inhibit the human estrogen or androgen receptor, including currently unknown hormone active substances.

The results of the bioassay screening are listed in Table 2. Nine out of 18 tested toys showed a significant estrogenic activity in at least one of the tested parts. The detected estrogenic activities ranged from 5.3 to 83 pg estradiol equivalents (EEQ)/cm2 sample surface.

Table 2

Estrogenic and androgenic activity of the selected toys (mean ± standard deviation of the analysis of three independent samples).

	ER-CALUX®		AR-CALUX®
Sample code	Estrogenic activity [pg EEQ/cm2]	Anti-estrogen activity [pg 4-OHT equivalents/cm2]	Androgen activity (pg AEQ/cm2)	Anti-androgen activity [μg flutamide equivalents/cm2]
T01	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T02	83 ± 7	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T03a	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T03b	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T04a	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T04b	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T04c	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T05a	54 ± 27	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T05b	67 ± 22	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T06a	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T06b	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T07a	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T07b	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T07c	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T08a	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T08b	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T08c	22 ± 10	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T09a	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T09b	14 ± 7	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T10a	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T10b	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T11a	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T11b	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T12a	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T12b	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T13a	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T13b	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T14a	2.6 ± 4.5 (1 of 3 extracts positive)	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T14b	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T14c	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T15	< 4	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T16	6.6 ± 2.2	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T17	5.3 ± 1.8	< 300	< 120	<0.3
T18	19 ± 17	< 300	< 120	<0.3

No androgenic activity could be detected in any of the tested samples.

To evaluate if the sample matrix of the toy migrates has an inhibiting effect on the biodetection and to check for hormone antagonists, all samples were spiked with the natural hormones in non-saturating concentrations. Test responses of spiked sample migrates were compared to spiked solvent blanks. All tested samples showed the expected response to the natural hormones—no significant inhibition of the estrogenic or androgenic activity was observed. This demonstrates, that the test worked properly in the presence of the sample matrix and shows no indication for estrogen or androgen antagonists in the samples.

The PVC sample T02 showed the highest estrogenic activity of all tested samples (83 ± 7 pg EEQ/cm2). An activity of 83 pg EEQ/cm2 means that substances migrating from one square centimeter toy surface have the same estrogenic activity in the bioassay, as 83 pg of the natural female sex hormone 17β-estradiol. If plastic components or other industrial chemicals were responsible for the determined estrogen activity, a much higher concentration would be needed to explain the reported estrogenic activity, as estrogen mimicking substances are generally not fitting as well into the receptor-binding site as the hormone itself [30].

Based on the assumptions by RIVM [20] (surface of 10 cm2 for 3 hours in contact with saliva) 2.5 ng estradiol equivalents were calculated as a maximum daily uptake for the sample with the highest estrogen activity (calculated from 0.083 ng EEQ/cm2 detected in a 60 minute extraction to 2.5 ng EEQ in 10 cm2 in 180 minute extraction time).

In comparison to estrogen activities taken up by food, the detected estrogen activities were low. Many food products naturally contain estrogens, for instance 23 ng/L of the natural female sex hormone 17β estradiol were analytically determined in cow milk by Courant et al. [34]. By orders of magnitude higher estrogen activities than in cow milk, can be found in soy bean rich food, that contains phytoestrogens [35]. The maximum total daily uptake of estrogen activity by food is estimated to be up to 10,000 ng estradiol equivalents per day for babies who are fed by milk on soy bean basis [35]. The activities detected in the migrates of the saliva solvent were also significantly lower than estrogen activities previously reported for mineral water [7, 36, 37], where no estrogen activity would be expected. That said, comparisons between in vitro estrogen activities in food and toys should be interpreted with caution, because the potential health effects depend highly on the substance causing the activity. Many aspects of endocrine action in the human body, like metabolization and half-life are not taken into account in bioassays. Very importantly, some man-made estrogens have much higher half-lives in the human body. A prominent example is the contraceptive 17α ethinyl estradiol. It has approximatively the same in vitro estrogen activity as the natural sex hormone 17β-estradiol [38], but has, by orders of magnitude, higher activity in the human body, if taken up orally [39]. This is also reflected in the acceptable daily intake values calculated for these substances. For the natural estrogen 17β-estradiol the World Health Organization calculated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 3 μg per day for an adult person. Referring to a child’s body weight of 8 kg, 2.5 ng estradiol equivalents, which was calculated as the maximum uptake by the worst-case toy, would still be well below the ADI for the natural hormone 17β estradiol. For 17α-ethinyl estradiol, however, an approximately 400-fold lower ADI of 7 ng for an adult person (60 kg) was calculated by Caldwell, et al. [40] based on working place thresholds. Therefore, for the synthetic estrogen 17α-ethinyl estradiol, the same activity would already be clearly above the calculated ADI for a child of 8 kg bodyweight.

Although the activity detected in the sample migrates was most probably neither caused by natural estrogens nor by 17α ethinyl estradiol these examples were described to illustrate that the nature of the responsible substance is influencing the hazard potential of an endocrine active sample. Consequently, no risk assessment is possible based on in vitro estrogen activities alone. Therefore, a chemical analysis was conducted in parallel to the in vitro assays.

To further investigate the substances causing the reported estrogenic activities in toy migrates, migrates were analyzed by chemical trace analysis.

GC-MS and HPLC-MS/MS tsarget screening. The validation parameters, including the correlation coefficient (r) from the linear regression curves are listed in Table 3.

Table 3

Validation parameters for GC-MS and HPLC-MS target analysis.

Substance	CAS -Number	LOD [μg/l]	LOQ [μg/l]	Recovery [%]	RSD [%]	r	Method
1,4-Dichlorobenzene	106-46-7	0.5	1.8	98%	9.4	0.9997	GC-MS
4-chloro-3-methyl-phenol	59-50-7	1.0	3.6	95%	2.6	0.9990
Methyl p-hydroxybenzoate (Methylparaben)	99-76-3	0.7	2.6	97%	3.9	0.9975
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)	25013-16-5	0.9	3.2	98%	5.9	0.9994
2-Phenylphenol	90-43-7	1.2	4.4	97%	4.6	0.9986
Ethyl-4-hydroxy-benzoate (Ethylparaben)	120-47-8	1.4	5.0	97%	6.8	0.9981
Diethyl phthalate	84-66-2	1.1	3.8	99%	7.1	0.9944
n-Propyl-p-hydroxybenzoate (Propylparaben)	94-13-3	0.8	2.9	100%	5.2	0.9994
Benzophenone	119-61-9	1.1	3.7	99%	5.2	0.9989
4-Phenylphenol	92-69-3	0.8	2.7	100%	6.7	0.9972
p-Cumyl phenol	599-64-4	0.5	1.7	100%	5.9	0.9989
4-Nonylphenol (NP)	104-40-5	1.1	4.0	98%	2.6	0.9988
Dibutyl phthalate (DBP)	84-74-2	0.8	2.9	104%	2.8	0.9994
Oxybenzone	131-57-7	0.5	1.7	99%	4.4	0.9998
Triclosan	3380-34-5	0.7	2.4	94%	2.2	0.9978
2,4-Dihydroxybenzophenone	131-56-6	0.5	1.6	102%	7.0	0.9991
2,20-Dihydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone	131-53-3	0.7	2.3	92%	4.0	0.9981
Di-n-hexylphthalate (DnHP)	84-75-3	0.5	1.9	103%	4.7	0.9987
Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP)	85-68-7	0.5	1.8	100%	6.3	0.9988
Oleamide	301-02-0	1.0	3.3	94%	3.7	0.9958
4,4´-Thiobis(6-terc-butyl-3-methyl-phenol)	96-69-5	0.6	1.9	97%	9.1	0.9986
2,2´-Methylene bis(4-methyl-6-tert-butylphenol)	119-47-1	0.6	2.1	102%	5.6	0.9983
2,2´-Methylenebis(4-ethyl-6-tert-butylphenol)	88-24-4	0.6	2.2	101%	5.1	0.9982
Dicyclohexyl phthalate	84-61-7	0.6	2.0	102%	4.7	0.9986
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phtalate (DEHP)	117-81-7	0.3	1.1	98%	4.3	0.9996
Diphenyl-p-phenylenediamine	74-31-7	0.5	1.8	97%	5.4	0.9988
4-Methylbenzophenone	134-84-9	0.8	3.0	98%	3.7	0.9993
1,3-Diphenylpropane	1081-75-0	1.1	3.9	101%	5.5	0.9989
trans-1,2-Diphenylcyclobutane	20071-09-4	1.1	3.9	99%	5.5	0.9989
2,4-di-tert-Butylphenol	96-76-4	1.0	3.7	104%	2.5	0.9990
2,4-Dicumylphenol	2772-45-4	0.5	1.7	102%	2.9	0.9989
Tributyl citrate (TBC)	77-94-1	1.2	4.4	95%	4.9	0.9986
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA)	103-23-1	0.6	2.1	100%	4.4	0.9984
(bis-2-propylheptyl phthalate) DPHP	53306-54-0	0.6	2.1	95%	9.9	0.9983
Di-2-ethylhexylfumarat	141-02-6	1.5	5.0	95%	5.1	0.9897
Acetyl tributyl citrate (ATBC)	77-90-7	0.9	3.1	87%	14.3	0.9964
Bis-2-ethylhexyl isophthalate (DOIP)	137-89-3	0.8	2.7	97%	9.2	0.9973
DEHTP (Bis-2-ethylhexyl terephtalate)	6422-86-2	0.8	2.7	95%	9.2	0.9973
Bisphenol A	80-05-7	0.4	1.6	100%	1.1%	1.0000	HPLC-MS/MS
Bisphenol F	620-92-8	2.2	8.0	101%	1.5%	0.9998
Bisphenol S	80-09-1	1.4	5.2	103%	3.2%	0.9995

LOD: limit of detection

LOQ: limit of quantification

R: correlation coefficient of linear regression curve

RSD: relative standard deviation of recovery from 6 replicates

Table 4 lists the result from screenings for 41 target compounds by GC-MS and HPLC-MS/MS. Among them, six substances could be detected in at least one of the tested samples—that are: diethyl phthalate, benzophenone, TBC, ATBC, BPA and DEHTP. The remaining 33 substances could not be detected in any of the tested samples.

Table 4

Substances detected in HPLC-MS/MS and GC-MS screenings for 41 target compounds (mean value ± standard deviation of 3 independent sample migrates in μg/cm2 surface) and GC-MS non-target analysis.

Sample	Detected substance	CAS	concentration [μg/cm2]
T01	Diethyl phthalate	84-66-2	0.092 ± 0.011
	TXIB(2)	6846-50-0	no quantification
T02	Benzophenone	119-61-9	0.33 ±0.02
	DINCH(1)	166412-78-8	no quantification
	TXIB(1)	6846-50-0	no quantification
T03a	No substances identified	-	-
T03b	No substances identified	-	-
T04a	No substances identified	-	-
T04b	No substances identified	-	-
T04c	No substances identified	-	-
T05a	TBC	77-94-1	3.7 ± 0.4
	ATBC	77-90-7	76 ± 23
	BPA(3)	80-05-7	1.3 ± 0.1
	tributyl prop-1-ene-1,2,3—tricarboxylate (2)	7568-58-3	no quantification
	DINCH(1)	166412-78-8	no quantification
T05b	TBC	77-94-1	3.0 ± 0.2
	ATBC	77-90-7	54 ± 12
	BPA(3)	80-05-7	1.1 ± 0.0
	DINCH(1)	166412-78-8	no quantification
T06a	No substances identified	-	-
T06b	No substances identified	-	-
T07a	tributyl prop-1-ene-1,2,3—tricarboxylate (1)	7568-58-3	no quantification
T07b	BPA(3)	80-05-7	1 out of 3 migrates:< LOQ, > LOD (2)
T07c	ATBC	77-90-7	0.083 ± 0.029
	Oxiranecarboxylic acid, 3-methyl-3-phenyl-, ethyl ester, (cis- and trans-) (2)	19464-92-7&19464-95-0	no quantification
	tributyl prop-1-ene-1,2,3—tricarboxylate (2)	7568-58-3	no quantification
	TXIB(1)	6846-50-0	no quantification
T08a	Benzophenone	119-61-9	12 ± 2
	TBC	77-94-1	0.26 ± 0.05
	ATBC	77-90-7	18 ± 5
	tributyl prop-1-ene-1,2,3—tricarboxylate (2)	7568-58-3	no quantification
	TXIB(1)	6846-50-0	no quantification
T08b	No substances identified	-	-
T08c	tributyl prop-1-ene-1,2,3—tricarboxylate (1)	7568-58-3	no quantification
	3-hydroxy-2,2,4-trimethylpentyl isobutyrate (2)	74367-34-3	no quantification
T09a	Benzophenone	119-61-9	0.57 ± 0.16
	TBC	77-94-1	2.2 ± 0.4
	ATBC	77-90-7	6.0 ± 2.3
	TXIB(1)	6846-50-0	no quantification
	3-hydroxy-2,2,4-trimethylpentyl isobutyrate (2)	74367-34-3	no quantification
	tributyl prop-1-ene-1,2,3—tricarboxylate (2)	7568-58-3	no quantification
T9b	Benzophenone	119-61-9	0.38 ±0.14
	TXIB (1)	6846-50-0	no quantification
T10a	No substances identified	-	-
T10b	No substances identified	-	-
T11a	Benzophenone	119-61-9	0.36 ±0.21
T11b	No substances identified	-	-
T12a	Isobutyric acid 2-ethyl-3-hydroxyhexyl ester (2)	74367-31-0	no quantification
T12b	Isobutyric acid 2-ethyl-3-hydroxyhexyl ester (2)	74367-31-0	no quantification
T13a	No substances identified	-	-
T13b	13-Docosenamide, (Z)-(1)	112-84-5	no quantification
T14a	DEHTP	6422-86-2	12 ± 9
T14b	No substances identified	-	-
T14c	No substances identified	-	-
T15	DEHTP	6422-86-2	1.0 ± 0.1
	BPA(3)	80-05-7	< LOQ
	TXIB(1)	6846-50-0	no quantification
T16	No substances identified	-	-
T17	No substances identified	-	-
T18	No substances identified	-	-

(1) Substance, identified in GC-MS non-target-screening, identification verified by comparison to an external reference standard

(2) Substance, identified in GC-MS non-target-screening, no verification of the identification

(3) Substance, identified in HPLC-MS/MS

Two substances, of the six detectable ones, have known endocrine properties, namely, bisphenol A (BPA) and benzophenone [41,42]. BPA is a monomer used in the production of polycarbonate and epoxy resins and is an integral part of thermo ink paper. These materials are therefore considered as the main sources for exposure to BPA [43]. The two parts of toy “T05”, in which BPA could be detected, consist of neither of these materials, but of flexible PVC. BPA has previously been a common additive in PVC as a production aid to stabilize vinyl chloride monomer, but the use of BPA as a stabilizer for vinyl chloride monomer was stopped in Europe since 2001. BPA has also been restricted in food contact plastic in Europe. Nevertheless, BPA still seems to be used in the PVC production for toys [43] outside the scope of the European plastics regulation (EU) No 10/2011. The detected BPA concentrations in the samples T05a and T05b were well reproducible for three independently prepared migrations. With approximately 1mg BPA migration per cm2 sample surface, the migration is by orders of magnitude higher than migration from polycarbonate or epoxy materials to water or beverages, even though the migration time and temperature were significantly lower in this study [44]. Besides “T05”, BPA could be detected in one out of three independently prepared migrates of sample T07b. However, the detected concentration was too low to be quantified.

Benzophenone was identified in five different tested sample parts (T02, T08a, T09a, T09b and T11a). Four of these are built from flexible PVC, one sample (T11a) is made of Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) with a sticker of printed paper on it. In the latter one printing inks from the paper sticker seem to be the most plausible source for the detected benzophenone, as benzophenone is a common photo initiator in UV printing colors [45]. In PVC benzophenone is often us as a UV-stabilizer.

The 41 target compounds in the analysis include seven phthalates, previously widely used in plastic toys. Except for toy sample “T01”, where trace amounts of diethylphthalate were detected, none of the 18 tested toys leached significant amounts of these phthalates. In toys made of flexible PVC, the common phthalate alternatives TBC, ATBC, DEHTP and DINCH were detected. When simulating mouthing, these plasticizers leached into saliva solvent in concentrations up to 76 μg per cm2 toy surface. While many phthalates are suspected to have endocrine disrupting potential, the detected alternatives are currently not considered as potential endocrine disruptors [10].

The tested samples were intended to reflect a realistic product status after delivery to the consumer. Therefore, some of the detected endocrine active substances might have been introduced by contaminations from packaging or during transport. Samples have indeed been ordered online and were mostly delivered in recycled cardboard boxes, which are known to frequently contain endocrine active substances, such as BPA, phthalates or benzophenone [46,47]. However, especially in the case of the relatively high BPA concentrations detected in sample T05, it does not seem plausible that the detected BPA originates from the cardboard. Migration experiments by Suciu et al. (2013) showed, that migration to dry food is low for BPA (<1%) even in direct contact, while higher migration could be expected from phthalates [48]. Phthalates are typically present at comparable concentrations in recycled cardboard but could not be detected in 33 out of 34 tested sample parts. Further, the migration was reproducibly detected in all 6 independent species of sample T05 (3 of part T05a, and 3 of part T05b), although not all sample parts had the same contact area to the cardboard. Therefore, the cardboard does not seem to be a likely source for the relatively high amounts of BPA detected in sample T05. Nevertheless, an additional analysis of packaging material and investigation of samples that are carefully drawn at production sites would be interesting for future investigations, to get better information on the source of the detected substances.

GC-MS Non-target screening. In addition to the target screening analysis for 41 substances, further substances could be identified in a GC-MS non-target screening by comparison of the mass spectra to the NIST 14 database (see Table 4).

The plasticizers DINCH and TXIB that are commonly used as phthalate alternatives could be identified in several PVC samples. Furthermore, tributyl prop-1-ene-1,2,3—tricarboxylate was identified in 6 samples. It is a less commonly used plasticizer and has been previously proposed as a safe alternative to phthalates [2].

Isobutyric acid 2-ethyl-3-hydroxyhexyl ester and 3-hydroxy-2,2,4-trimethylpentyl isobutyrate were identified at the same retention time in different samples by comparison to NIST database. However, these identifications are assumed to be wrong assignments, as it seems more likely, that the detected peaks represent the TXIB hydrolysis product (1-hydroxy-2,4,4-trimethylpentan-3-yl) 2-methylpropanoate.

13-Docosenamide, detected in sample “T13b” and more commonly known as erucamide, is one of the most common slip agents in polyolefin and styrene polymerization. 13-docosenamide is not endocrine active in the in vitro tests used in this study.

Ethyl-2,3-epoxy-3-phenylbutyrate was identified in T07c. This identification was not confirmed by comparison to a reference substance, but it seems plausible, as the identified substance is used as compound in strawberry fragrances [49], and the tested sample part had a strawberry odor.

As pure substances were only available for DINCH, TXIB and 13-Docosenamide, none of the other identifications could be confirmed by comparison to reference standards.

Correlation between bioassays results and chemical trace analysis

In order to identify the source of the hormonal activity in positively tested samples in the ER CALUX®, results from chemical analysis and bioassays were compared. For this purpose, all detected substances were tested as pure chemicals in the estrogen receptor CALUX®, if they were available. The response curves for the positively tested substances in the bioassay are shown in Fig 2. From that the half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) was calculated for all compounds showing estrogenic effects in the ER-CALUX® (see Table 5).

Fig 2

Analysis of detected pure substances in ER-CALUX®: Response of bisphenol A (BPA), diethylphthalate (DEP), tributyl citrate (TBC) and benzophenone in comparison to natural estrogen 17β-estradiol and a solvent blank.

The y-axis (“E2 max”) refers to the relative luciferase activity compared to the highest signal determined in the standard curve of 17β-estradiol (E2). The two highest concentrations of TBC led to a decrease in cell viability leading to decreased activities in the assay.

Table 5

EC50 values of detected pure substances in ER-CALUX®.

Substance	CAS#	Estrogen active [yes/no]	EC50 [mol/l]
Diethyl phthalate (DEP)	84-66-2	yes	2*10−4
2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol diisobutyrate (TXIB)	6846-50-0	no	> 5*10−4
13-Docosenamide (Z)	112-84-5	no	> 5*10−4
Benzophenone	119-61-9	yes	5*10−5
Diisononyl cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylate (DINCH)	166412-78-8	no	> 5*10−4
Tributyl citrate (TBC)	77-94-1	yes	5*10−5
Acetyl tributyl citrate (ATBC)	77-90-7	no	> 5*10−4
Bisphenol A (BPA)	80-05-7	yes	3*10−7
DEHTP (Bis-2-ethylhexyl terephtalate)	6422-86-2	no	> 5*10−4
17β-estradiol (positive control)	50-28-2	yes	1*10−11

The determined estrogen activities of BPA, benzophenone and DEP were to be expected based on previously published results [2,41,42]. The phthalate alternatives TXIB, ATBC, DINCH and DEHTP were tested negative in the ER-CALUX®. Unexpectedly, the plasticizer TBC (Merck) showed a low, but significant estrogen activity at high concentrations, although the structure of the molecule would not suggest binding affinity to the estrogen receptor. It is possible, that this low estrogen activity, was caused by contaminants of this substance, rather than the substance itself, as the purity of the tested substance was below 97%.

For substances, that could not be obtained as pure chemicals a literature survey was conducted. tributyl prop-1-ene-1,2,3—tricarboxylate, Isobutyric acid 2-ethyl-3-hydroxyhexyl ester and 3-hydroxy-2,2,4-trimethylpentyl isobutyrate are not registered yet under the REACH regulation. No data on the endocrine activity of these substances is available.

By comparing the results from Table 2, Table 4 and Table 5 some, but not all determined estrogen activities can be explained by detected substances in the migrates.

In the estrogen active migrates of samples T08c, T14a, T16, T17 and T18 no estrogen active substances could be identified by chemical analysis.

In migrates of the most estrogen active sample T02, the estrogen active UV-blocker benzophenone could be detected; however, the detected concentration only explains a small fraction of the detected estrogen activity. Based on the response curves for benzophenone and 17β estradiol in Fig 2, benzophenone is approximately by a factor of 5 x 106 less estrogen active then the natural estrogen 17β estradiol. Therefore, the detected concentration of 0.3 μg benzophenone/cm2 explains less than 1% of the determined estrogen activity of the sample. Therefore, additional unknown substances have contributed to the estrogen activity.

The same seems true for sample T9b. T9b migrates show an estrogenic activity of 67 pg EEQ/cm2. However, T9b contains benzophenone only in low amounts of 0.38 μg/cm2. Considering the discussed activity differences between 17β estradiol and benzophenone again less than 1% of the measured activity can be explained by the reported benzophenone concentration in the sample migrate.

In the migrates of the two estrogen active samples T05a and T05b, the well-known estrogen active substance BPA could be detected. In the ER-CALUX®, BPA is approximately by a factor of 30.000 less estrogen active than the natural estrogen 17ß-estradiol (see Fig 2). Based on this factor, the estrogen activity of 54 pg EEQ/cm2 detected in sample T05a can be well explained by a BPA concentration of 1.3 μg/cm2, taking into consideration the uncertainty of a biological test method. Applying the same logic, the activity of 38 pg EEQ/cm2 detected in sample T05b matches a BPA concentration of 1.1 μg /cm2 detected by target analysis. In addition to BPA, TBC was detected in both samples but based on the response curve for TBC, shown in Fig 2, the detected concentration would not significantly contribute to the total estrogen activity of the sample.

It was not always possible to link the observed endocrine activity with identified compounds. Either the chemicals in question is not detectable by the applied GC-MS method, or the substances are detected, but not covered by the NIST library. Moreover, among all possible endocrine active substances, analysis was performed for a limited set of substances by chemical analysis. Therefore, it is possible that the responsible substance cannot be detected. Thus, it would be very difficult to perform a quantitative risk assessment without an identification of the substance involved.

Risk assessment for detected substances

The concentrations of the compounds following chemical trace analysis were analyzed in the light of their potential effects on children.

For benzophenone, based on assumptions by RIVM [20], a maximum daily exposure of 1.4 μg/kg bodyweight can be calculated from the reported migration into the saliva solvent.

The calculation was done as described in the following:

sample T02: 0.33 μg/cm in 60 min equivalent to 9.9 μg in 10 cm2 in 180 min for a child of 8 kg bodyweight, a maximum daily uptake of 1.2 μg/kg.

sample T09b: 0.38 μg/cm in 60 min equivalent to 11.4 μg in 10 cm in 180 min or for a child of 8 kg bodyweight, a maximum daily uptake of 1.4 μg/kg.

These estimated daily uptakes from toys, are still below the tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 30 μg/kg body weight per day, which was recommended by the European Food Safety Agency [43].

For DINCH, considering that the lowest reference value published for this compound is 0.7 mg/kg bw/day [50], the exposure via toys is not expected to raise any safety concern for children.

Based on published data, ATBC does not seem to show estrogenic or androgenic activity but there are doubts concerning activation of the PXR-receptor pathway which could affect the metabolism of steroid hormones [2]. Therefore, no conclusion can currently be drawn on the endocrine-disrupting nature of ATBC, because no robust data are available on potential effects such as those on thyroid function.

Concerning TBC, there is also very limited toxicological data available to assess the endocrine effects for human health but based on similar chemical characteristics, an analogue approach seems plausible for systemic effects [51]. Therefore, as for ATBC, no conclusion can currently be drawn on the endocrine-disrupting nature of TBC.

For BPA, the modes of action for each of the adverse effects are not well described yet but estrogenic or anti-androgenic activities are compatible with the reported effects [41]. A maximum daily exposure of 4,9 μg/ kg bw/day can be calculated from the detected concentration of BPA in the saliva solvent in the toys T05.

The calculation was done as described in the following:

sample T05a: 1.3 μg/cm in 60 min equivalent to 39 μg in 10 cm in 180 min for a child of 8 kg bodyweight, a maximum daily uptake of 4.9 μg/kg.

sample T05b: 1.1 μg/cm in 60 min equivalent to 33 μg in 10 cm in 180 min or for a child of 8 kg bodyweight, a maximum daily uptake of 4.1 μg/kg.

The daily uptake is just above the temporary tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 4 μg/kg body weight per day, which was recommended by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) in their re-evaluation of the risks of Bisphenol A taking into account endocrine effects [.

Conclusion

By applying different in vitro bioassays, we were able to detect significant estrogenic activity in at least one part of eight out of 18 tested toy items.

The tested samples were intended to reflect a realistic product status after delivery to the consumer. Therefore, it is possible that some of the detected substances do not originate from the toy itself, but were introduced during storage or transport, e.g. by contaminations from recycled cardboard.

Therefore, direct conclusions on the origin of estrogen active substances have to be drawn with care. To ensure that detected substances originate from the product, samples would have to be drawn directly at the production site and transported under controlled conditions, e.g. wrapped in aluminium foil. However, the samples tested in this study, are more representative for toys actually used by children than samples drawn directly at the factory.

In two of the tested samples, the well-known endocrine-active substance BPA could be identified as the main source of the detected estrogen activity. Based on the results, the exposure to BPA by mouthing of these toys could be above the temporary TDI, that EFSA has calculated for bisphenol A, demonstrating that some toys could significantly contribute to the total exposure to BPA of babies and infants.

For seven other estrogen active toy items (including the most estrogen active sample in the screening), the source of the estrogen activity could not be explained by chemical analysis for known or suspected endocrine active substances in plastics, indicating that the effect was caused by currently unknown endocrine active substances.

However, compared to the exposure to natural estrogens in food (e.g. phytoestrogens), the total uptake of estrogen activity by mouthing of toys seems to be low based on the results in this study.

Data from the analysis of detected pure substances in ER-CALUX® (data for Fig 2).

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

28 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-32407

Potential endocrine disrupting properties of toys for babies and infants

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Rousselle,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 13 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shanaz Hashmi Dairkee, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  "No"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The topic of the manuscript is of high relevance. The data are worth to be published, although some questions remain open.

In the Chapter "Conclusions" is mentioned for the first time in the manuscript that BPA might not come from the investigated parts of toys, but also from the packaging (recycled cardboard boxes) and transportation. This opens the question why package material has not been investigated in this study to provide evidence for this speculation. At least citations related to this aspect should be implemented, i.e. Vandermarken et al. (2019): Chemosphere 221, 99-106 and references cited in there.

The desriptiom of the chemical analytical methods is insufficient and should be extended (see several remarks in the attrached file). It is refered to a previous publication (Mertl et al. (2014) in Plos-one). But in this publication many analytical details are also missing. Recovery rates for the quantified compounds have to be implemented in one table and it should be mentioned whether recoveries have been considered for calculation of the quantities.

I am astonished about the high values for detection limits and quantitation limits (in the µg/L ranges). The authors should explain why the limits are so bad in comparion to other studies using the same or similar analytical methods.

The data used for Figure 2 have to be presented in detail.

Some recent publications dealing with this topic have not been considered but should be considered.

Szczepańska N., Namieśnik J., Kudłak B. (2016): Assessment of toxic and endocrine potential of substances migrating from selected toys and baby products. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23, 24890-24990.

Asimakopoulos A.G., Elangovan M., Kannan K., (2016): Migration of Parabens, Bisphenols, Benzophenone-Type UV Filters, Triclosan, and Triclocarban from Teethers and Its Implications for Infant Exposure. Environmental Science and Technology 50, 13539-13547.

Potouridis T. Knauz A., Berger E. & Püttmann W. (2019): Examination of paraben release from baby teethers through migration tests and GC–MS analysis using a stable isotope dilution assay. BCM Chemistry 13, 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13065-019-0587-6 and references cited in there.

Additonal comments are provided in the attached file.

Reviewer #2: Reviewer comments:

This study was designed to evaluate potential endocrine disrupting properties of toys for babies and infants by using in vitro cell-based reporter gene assays detecting ER and AR agonist and antagonist combined with chemical analysis. Authors clearly indicated that 9 out of 18 tested toys showed significant ER agonist activity. Among them, the detected ER agonist activity could be well explained by well-known EDC “BPA” for two samples. However, for seven samples, ER agonists, which strongly contribute to detected activity, could not be identified. Exposure assessment based on the worst-case scenarios suggest that BPA-containing toys could be above the temporary TDI.

Topic is very important and meaningful. However, there are several concerns in this manuscript. After revisions according to the following comments, manuscript will be accepted in PLOS ONE.

1. Abstract – I think authors had better describe about existence of unidentified ER agonists in toys in this section because they must be important on the toxicological point of view. I think that unidentified/unrevealed ER agonists are more important than BPA detected in this study. Although BPA will phase out, unidentified/unrevealed ER agonists might be emerging contaminants. Related to this point, authors should try to think and state importance of using in vitro bioassay detecting EDC. In vitro bioassay is not mere screening method and must be useful hazard detection method.

2. Materials and Methods, 1.1. Selection of toys, line 115 – Table 2 is Table 1?

3. Materials and Methods, 1.5. Chemical trace analysis, line 185 to 189 – Authors had better state why you measured these 41 known or suspected endocrine substances as well as common alternatives to endocrine active plasticizers in not only the text but also Table 1. Related laws or regulations are very welcome and must be useful for reader to understand importance of this study.

4. Materials and Methods, 1.7. Assessment of the health risks associated with the mouthing of plastic toys containing phthalate substitutes, line 243 to 246 – Authors should indicate “BW”, “F”, “S”, and “D” used in this study in the section of results and discussion by using Table or Supporting Information.

5. Results and discussion, Table 3 – Authors should indicate LOD with a figure for “Anti-estrogen activity” and “Anti-androgen activity”.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Plos-ONE-D-19-32407_reviewer.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

16 Mar 2020

Responses to Reviewer #1:

Comment 1 : « In the Chapter "Conclusions" is mentioned for the first time in the manuscript that BPA might not come from the investigated parts of toys, but also from the packaging (recycled cardboard boxes) and transportation. This opens the question why package material has not been investigated in this study to provide evidence for this speculation. At least citations related to this aspect should be implemented, i.e. Vandermarken et al. (2019): Chemosphere 221, 99-106 and references cited in there. »

Response : We agree with the reviewer. Therefore, we have included an additional paragraph (at the end of 3.3. Chemical trace analysis, line 441 - 457), explaining the card board packaging as a possible source of contamination, and also citing the suggested reference and two new references. In the conclusion section, storage and transport are now only mentioned briefly as possible source, as this has already been discussed before.

An additional analysis of the packaging would indeed have been interesting and could maybe have helped to better explain the source. However, this additional analysis would have been beyond the scope of the study, and it is also not possible anymore to be performed as packaging material is not available for testing anymore. For this study we wanted to investigate the toy as it is delivered to the customer which includes possible contaminations from packaging or transport.

Comment 2:

«The desriptiom of the chemical analytical methods is insufficient and should be extended (see several remarks in the attrached file). It is refered to a previous publication (Mertl et al. (2014) in Plos-one). But in this publication many analytical details are also missing. Recovery rates for the quantified compounds have to be implemented in one table and it should be mentioned whether recoveries have been considered for calculation of the quantities.»

Response : The description of chemical analysis was revised and explained in more detail (Chapter 2.5, starting at Line 231). Recovery rates, and variation coefficient of a 6-fold analysis of spiked saliva solvent and the correlation coefficient of the calibration curves are listed in table 3 for all substances of the target analysis. The data are presented analogous to the original PLOS one publication by Mertl et al., where data in ethanolic solutions was presented instead of the recoveries in saliva solvent. The recovery rates have not been considered for the calculation of the quantities as discussed in the answer on page 6.

Comment 3:

«I am astonished about the high values for detection limits and quantitation limits (in the µg/L ranges). The authors should explain why the limits are so bad in comparion to other studies using the same or similar analytical methods.»

Response : The limits of detection are certainly not the best detection limits that can be technically achieved, but based on our judgement they are sufficient for the purpose of this study. For the design of this study following requirements were defined for the sensitivity of the analytics :

- The methods had to be able to detect and quantify substances at the level of toxicological safety thresholds

- The methods had to be able to detect substances at concentration levels, which would give a positive result in the in-vitro tests, in order to allow a correlation between chemical and biological analysis.

Both requirements can be fulfilled with the limits of detection achieved in this study.

Previous studies, focused on chemical analytics alone did achieve better limits of detection, but in general they are in the same order of magnitude. Limits of detection are approximately in the same range, as e.g. in a recent study by Andaluri (2018), who reported a detection limit of 3 ng for bisphenol A in 10 ml extract of ispropanol wipes referring to 0.3 µg/L in the 10 ml extraction solution, which is very close to the 0.4 µg/l, that we achieved in our study. Asimakopoulos (2016) achieved a detection limit of 0.2 ng/ml for BPA and 0.17 ng/ml for methylparabene. This is better than the detection limits we achieved in the study: 0.4 ng/ml (or µg/l) for BPA and 0.7 ng/ml for Methylparabene, but still in the same order of magnitude.

Many of the tested phthalates and other plasticizers are ubiquitously present in the environment and can be detected practically everywhere. With lower detection limits, it can be assumed that much more phthalates and other ubiquitously present substances could be detected. This would not necessarily help to estimate the contribution of toys to the total exposure, as these low, environmental contaminations would not be specific for toys.

Comment : « The data used for Figure 2 have to be presented in detail. »

Response : An additional table was introduced to the supplementary data, that lists the values that were used to create the figure. Further, the y-axis (E2 max) was explained in the figure legend.

Comment :

« Some recent publications dealing with this topic have not been considered but should be considered.

Szczepańska N., Namieśnik J., Kudłak B. (2016): Assessment of toxic and endocrine potential of substances migrating from selected toys and baby products. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23, 24890-24990.

Asimakopoulos A.G., Elangovan M., Kannan K., (2016): Migration of Parabens, Bisphenols, Benzophenone-Type UV Filters, Triclosan, and Triclocarban from Teethers and Its Implications for Infant Exposure. Environmental Science and Technology 50, 13539-13547.

Potouridis T. Knauz A., Berger E. & Püttmann W. (2019): Examination of paraben release from baby teethers through migration tests and GC–MS analysis using a stable isotope dilution assay. BCM Chemistry 13, 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13065-019-0587-6 and references cited in there. »

Response to Reviewer: We absolutely agree with the reviewer. The three publications plus one additional new reference have been included in the introduction (lines 87 and 94)

Responses to Reviewer #2:

Comment :

« 1. Abstract – I think authors had better describe about existence of unidentified ER agonists in toys in this section because they must be important on the toxicological point of view. I think that unidentified/unrevealed ER agonists are more important than BPA detected in this study. Although BPA will phase out, unidentified/unrevealed ER agonists might be emerging contaminants. Related to this point, authors should try to think and state importance of using in vitro bioassay detecting EDC. In vitro bioassay is not mere screening method and must be useful hazard detection method. »

Response: We absolutely agree, it is important to stress this directly in the abstract. Two additional sentences were added to the abstract to describe about the existence of unidentified endocrine active substances, as was suggested.

Comment :

« 2. Materials and Methods, 1.1. Selection of toys, line 115 – Table 2 is Table 1? »

Response: The order of the tables was indeed unnecessarily confusing. This Table is now Table 1. The original Table 1 was extended by validation results, moved to the Results section and is now Table 3.

Comment :

« 3. Materials and Methods, 1.5. Chemical trace analysis, line 185 to 189 – Authors had better state why you measured these 41 known or suspected endocrine substances as well as common alternatives to endocrine active plasticizers in not only the text but also Table 1. Related laws or regulations are very welcome and must be useful for reader to understand importance of this study. »

Response: The selection of the 41 substances was better explained at the beginning of Chapter « 2.5. Chemical trace analysis ». It was difficult to include this information in the Table, because this table was already extended by validation parameters based on the feedback from the other reviewer, and the table would have become confusing and overloaded. We looked on several drafts for this table, that include this information, but decided at the end to put this information in the text rather than in this table.

Comment :

4. Materials and Methods, 1.7. Assessment of the health risks associated with the mouthing of plastic toys containing phthalate substitutes, line 243 to 246 – Authors should indicate “BW”, “F”, “S”, and “D” used in this study in the section of results and discussion by using Table or Supporting Information.

Response: We agree that this information was indeed missing in our draft. As the same values were used for all calculations, we did include this information directly in the explanation of the calculation. (Lines 288 – 300)

Comment :

« 5. Results and discussion, Table 3 – Authors should indicate LOD with a figure for “Anti-estrogen activity” and “Anti-androgen activity”. »

Response: We absolutely agree, that LODs for the antagonists are missing here. We have added LODs for anti-estrogen activity (expressed as 4-OHT equivalents) and for anti-androgen activity (expressed as flutamide equivalents). A few additional sentences on the quantification of antagonistic activity by comparing to activities of the reference standards 4-OHT and flutamide was introduced in Chapter 2.4. While revising this part, it was noticed that the quantification of agonistic activity as estrogen equivalents (EEQ) and androgen equivalents (AEQ) was not well described in the original manuscript. Therefore, a better description was added here as well.

Responses to Comments in the Manuscript

Comment Line 262: „Have the revalidation experiments been carried out on the same sample set that has already been used by Mertl et al. im 2014?

At which time were the samples obtained from the suppliers?”

Response: No, the revalidation experiment for the solvent concentration by solid phase extraction was performed using just saliva solvent, without further evaluating the influence of sample matrix by dissolved substances from the toys. In the previous study by Mertl et al. much higher amounts of dissolved oligomers and low molecular weight polymer had to be expected due to the much harsher extraction conditions (e.g. 10 d, 60°C, 95% ethanol compared to 30 minutes with an aqueous buffer at room temperature). Therefore, in the study by Mertl et al. (2014) the recoveries were determined in the presence of a representative worst-case sample matrix to evaluate if this high amount of dissolved polymer could negatively influence the recovery of target substances (e.g. by overloading the SPE column). As it has been demonstrated in this validation, that even at these harsh conditions and for a worst-case sample matrix the method was working in the presence of the sample matrix, it was considered that no further investigations are necessary to evaluate the influence of dissolved polymer again for saliva solvent. Instead the focus of the revalidation was, to evaluate if the method, that was previously applied for ethanolic solutions can also be used for the concentration of saliva solvent. The description of the revalidation was revised and explained in a bit more detail (see line 315 - 319).

Comment Line 185 “In Mertl et al (15) no details regarding GC/MS-analysis of the compounds were presented: GC-temperature program, heating rate...”

Response: The requested details have been included.

Comment Line 205 “This desription of methods is insufficient and no reference is provided indicating where more details were reported previously.”

Response: The description of the method was revised and is presented in more detail now.

Comment Line 214 “you should mention the recoverys for those compounds that were quantified.”

Response: The recoveries are now listed in the revised table.

Comment Line 408. “Have quantities been corrected by recoveries?”

Response: No, recoveries were just determined to evaluate the reproducibility of the method but were not used to correct quantities. Recoveries ranged from 87% to 104%, which was not considered as necessary to correct quantities by recoveries.

Comment Line 464: “The compounds must not be volatile to be transfered to saliva simulants.”

Response: This sentence referred to the fact that only volatile or semi-volatile compounds can be detected by GC-MS, while completely involatile compounds might be responsible for the bioassay activity. It was clarified, and changed to “is not detectable by the applied GC-MS method “(see line 545 in the revised manuscript)

The other comments in the manuscript were directly addressed and do not require any further argumentation according to the judgement of the authors.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.doc

Click here for additional data file.

18 Mar 2020

Potential endocrine disrupting properties of toys for babies and infants

PONE-D-19-32407R1

Dear Dr. Rousselle,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Shanaz Hashmi Dairkee, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

23 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-32407R1

Potential endocrine disrupting properties of toys for babies and infants

Dear Dr. Rousselle:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Shanaz Hashmi Dairkee

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE