February 18, 2025 • 14 mins
We would love to hear what you think?
Dr. Alex LeBeau is an esteemed exposure scientist and the insightful host of the "Exposure Scientist Podcast," where he addresses listeners' concerns about everyday hazards and their potential impacts on health. With a commitment to educating the public, Dr. LeBeau navigates the complex world of environmental exposures, helping audiences understand and manage the risks they face daily. Although the podcast offers valuable information, Dr. LeBeau emphasizes that it is not a substitute for professional advice and encourages individuals to seek personalized consultation with an exposure scientist for specific scenarios. Through his engaging podcast, Dr. LeBeau continues to empower people with knowledge about the unseen hazards around them.
Contact Dr. Alex LeBeau at Exposure Consulting for exposure litigation support or Exposure Science Consulting.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
You might not realize it, but we are exposed to dozens of hazardsevery day. Can any of these hazards negatively impact your
health? Definitely. This is the ExposureScientist Podcast. My name is Alex Labeaux, and
here, we answer your questions and concerns on what you may beexposed to every day. Welcome to the Exposure
(00:22):
Scientist Podcast. The viewsexpressed in this podcast may not be those of the host or management.
This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be considered healthadvice. It is recommended that you consult an exposure scientist
to discuss the particulars of your exposure scenario.
Hello, and welcome to today's episode of the Exposure Scientistpodcast. One item that has been in the news recently
(00:49):
that you may have seen is this concern ofPFAS in some consumer
products. Namely, these are stories that are involving,PFAS and Apple watch bands. What's interesting about this
is the assessment that was done and new stories that were done, and I'mlooking at some of the articles now, and you can go search them up
(01:11):
and find them. It says they're, you know, they're forever chemicalsthat were found in these bands. Some of them have specific names
that they're found in as far as the type of band it was in, andthere have been lawsuits that have been
filed against, the manufacturersfor the presence of these PFAS. So I have clients that
(01:33):
are dealing with consumer product safety assessments andevaluations, And I've had to give them some
additional warning on the potential ofthese higher scrutiny of PFAS and their
products. We're already doing those assessments, or are they setting them up for success?
But it's important to understand that, you know, there's gonna be additionalscrutiny. So we may have to do some additional steps to make sure that they
(01:58):
are covered in the event that someone does comeand and and randomly grabs the samples, sends
them off to a laboratory for analysis, and identifies PFAS.
Now, there's lots of issues herewith this assessment. What is the first issue? Well, as I
pointed out, and this is an article on Popular Science,it says that there are no established guidance on the safe level of
(02:24):
PFAS exposure. Okay. Well, and that that's that's,I'll I'll say, relevant from a consumer product standpoint. But
more specifically, depending onthe type of consumer product it is, there may not be specific
prescriptive guidance for that particular product. A lot ofthe guidance that we like to use when we're doing assessments of any
(02:48):
types from a toxicological or other type of assessment is we lookat studies that are standardized
that we can easily reproduce if we need to. We know themethods. We knew the methodology. The studies have been validated. We
go to a laboratory that is, that has experience with these, and wesay, okay. Perform these tests per
(03:10):
guidance, whether it's EPA or FDA,or OECD or whatever guidance, that's irrelevant.
So we know that the results, the positive, negatives,everything's set up, but it's it's a reproducible the intent is have it
to be a reproducible test. There area lacking of specific guidance for some consumer
(03:34):
products, namely ones that are gonna be identified as wearable.
So what we do from a toxicology standpoint is we useother guidance that are available for other
more, I'll say, restrictive products,whether it be medical devices or some other type of device that's
gonna be in a a long indirect or direct contact with the body fora prolonged period. And that's important when I say contact with the
(03:59):
body for a prolonged period to do these assessments. Nowwhat do the data tell us from these,
stories that is out there? This is kind of athought of, well, is it being evaluated in a
way that is going to mimicnormal use conditions? Okay. Well,
(04:23):
what are normal use conditions? Well, wearing a wash band. I've got an Apple washband on now. It's a metal one, but I've got one on right now.
So are are is is the condition going to beprolonged contact with the skin under a wash band, or is it going to be
hazard spotting? Are you going to be saying, well, it's in there. It must becoming out at some point. Well, what was the methodology that was used? That's that's
(04:46):
always the next question I have. And and and I I repeatthis whenever I can to anyone. I'll say anyone
who will listen. But when you're reading newsstories or articles and then do this as often as you can.
If it's available now we're talking older studies. It's not. But if you're reading anews story or article and they say, oh, well, this study says this.
(05:08):
Go get the study. Read the study. Understand what's in thestudy because a study is where the information is. And I
I know people who are interpreting these studies that may not have the experience anddo their best, but they don't always get it right or they're missing information or
or context here. So, you know, what did I do? I went to go getthe study. The study discusses the presence of,
(05:30):
PFAS, and watch bands.
But what's interesting within the study itself and, again, you can go getit. It's, it's environmental sciences and toxic
and technology letters, is themethodology that they use. The question should be,
what is the biological relevance of thepresence of PFAS and the
(05:57):
extractability or leachability and the bioavailabilityof the material when it's coming out of the band, potentially,
and impacting the skin, potentially? Is there any dermalabsorption going on? How well do the individual
PFAS that they're looking at across the skin barrieror absorbed into the body? What is the what is the mechanism for absorption and
(06:19):
distribution and excretion of these materials if it actually is?
And I find it interesting. So with if you go to the studyitself, it references it says, you know, I'm gonna
paraphrase here. I'm paraphrasing everything.
Generally, again, I recommend you go get the studies. It says the target analysismethod using the analytes described here were described elsewhere. The
(06:42):
methodology described elsewhere. Okay. Cool.
Great. What are the methodologies? What are the ways that were they weredone? And you
go to these the study that's that it'sreferencing, and it's it's, interestingly, it's referencing
FDA. I'll I'll say references ingeneral here, but it's involving,
(07:08):
for lack of better, terminology, it's it'sreferencing guidance for food
contact surfaces. It's, hey, you know what? Theseare these are, I'll say, plastic storage
containers that food are gonna contact. What is the leachability of out ofthis? What can be extracted out of these that may be
(07:30):
in food and then that you may ingest.
Well, that's a different route of exposure than thedermal route. Exposure science covers a broad subject
area, including toxicology, industrial hygiene, and riskassessment. From occupational, community, or environmental
exposure, exposure scientists apply scientific methodologiesto understand exposure risks and apply controls when necessary.
(07:57):
We at Exposure Assessment Consulting have this expertise.
Please reach out to us atinfo@exposureconsulting.com for a free fifteen
minute consultation to discuss the specifics of yourexposure scenario. When you're looking at the
standardized methodologies that we use for other I'll say guidance forother devices when we're looking at consumer products, they're they're very stringent.
(08:20):
But they are very set in their ways for what may be extractableor leachable from a chemical analysis. And you say, okay. What
is going to mimic human sweat?
That's what we're really concerned with, something that's going totouch the dermal surface and what may
leach out of it during the dermal extraction. Thematerials that were used, at least in this study
(08:47):
from what I'm preliminarily seeing, are, I'llsay, more aggressive
than it would be for the anything that may simulatea human sweat environment. So you may be getting
PFAS out of something, but what does it mean? Everything hasto be taken in the context. So if you're looking at these studies and, again,
(09:09):
I recommend you go pull them up if you can. I'm happy to have aconversation with you about them too. Is go look at the
studies, see what methods were used. Are they applicable to the exposure routethat you're concerned with? Because what I'm seeing here
is there's a disconnect betweenfinding the actual material
(09:32):
and linking it to an actual human health risk outcome.
Because there's differences in the route of exposure.
There's differences in the way that it may become bioavailable fromthe route of exposure. And what is the potential
absorption of the material, and what risk does it present? You know, a lot ofthe context here is missing the risk. Is it, are you
(09:55):
looking for a hazard, something that may be hazardous atsome study? And I'm I'm I'm talking about generally beyond PFAS.
Some study says may be hazardous. Okay. Well, nowwe've you know, I always like to say there there's a difference between and we
all know this that are listening or most of us. There's a difference between hazardand risk. Hazard is potential for something to cause harm. Risk
(10:17):
is the actual quantification and a aa a a dose assessment kind of scenario
that is going to incorporate actual real worlduse conditions. The conditions that are here, at least,
again, from what I'm seeing, I have it all read, and I again, I mentionedearlier that there's a lawsuit's been filed. I haven't read that. I'm a
(10:39):
scientist. I read the actual, you know, studies. I'm looking at thestudies, and I I think that there are data gaps
that exist between what's been done,at least in terms of these consumer products like Apple Watches that are
named here. And, you know, let me go see. Ijust wanna quickly look at this study. You know, they have a picture,
(11:02):
of what appears to be an Apple watch. I'm just gonna actually seerecall and see if it it does not actually mention
Apple here. And I think that's,you know, some important context.
But they just wanna make sure that they're, I'llsay, covering themselves to a
(11:24):
degree. This is what all the stories are saying that it'sApple Watches. It's important to understand
that there are ways to do things that arefrom a non research
methodology that are important for understanding risk andreal world conditions. That's great. You know, if if there is PFAS here
(11:48):
and it's there and it's being extracted under this method, that's probably a way thatwe say, okay. Maybe we should find a way to engineer it
out or or whatever it may be. Is it necessaryto do because they are maybe looking at it from a different
angle or way? That is somethingto for up for a scientific discussion because if they're
(12:11):
misapplying the interpretation of thedata from a hazard to
a risk without going through the steps, thenthere may be an issue. So, again, if you're involving
any cons customers like myself who haveconsumer products or putting consumer products out to market, and
(12:33):
they are doing assessments, either driven,for other regulatory purposes or, sometimes it's even
brand ambassador purposes to be associated with the brand. Someof them require steps to go through from a
biocompatibility safety aspect. Isthis something that and a lot of these have already you know, they already
(12:55):
focus on PFAS. Is there something that needs to be drilled down more here, Oris there something we need to get ahead of and say, listen. You know,
we do things this way because this is what's commonly accepted inindustry. If there are data generated that are not following these
methodologies, they don't really apply because there's been no riskassessment actually done. This is just something for you to think about, to
(13:17):
view when you're seeing this information, seeing these studies. And I like to justhammer this home because, you know, if you're seeing articles on this
stuff, go pull up the actual journal publications and find out whatit really says. And if there are people who are
contacting you from, news organizations for help andinterpretation, help them out because we're the scientists. And a lot of
(13:40):
people that are in the, publication, sectionor realm may not understand the nuances in some of the stuff we
do. I hope you enjoyed today's episode of the exposurescientist podcast. I hope it was informative and educational. If
you have any comments, you have any questions, or you'd like to discuss this more,please feel free to reach out. I'd be happy to talk to you with it.
(14:01):
Hope to see you again soon. Take care. Thank you forlistening to the Exposure Scientist podcast. You can connect with
us at our website, exposureconsulting.com, where you can book aprivate consultation and send in any questions regarding any
episodes or our guests. See you on the next episode.
You might not realize it, but we are exposed to dozens of hazardsevery day. Can any of these hazards negatively impact your
health? Definitely. This is the ExposureScientist Podcast. My name is Alex Labeaux, and
here, we answer your questions and concerns on what you may beexposed to every day. Welcome to the Exposure
(00:22):
Scientist Podcast. The viewsexpressed in this podcast may not be those of the host or management.
This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be considered healthadvice. It is recommended that you consult an exposure scientist
to discuss the particulars of your exposure scenario.
Hello, and welcome to today's episode of the Exposure Scientistpodcast. One item that has been in the news recently
(00:49):
that you may have seen is this concern ofPFAS in some consumer
products. Namely, these are stories that are involving,PFAS and Apple watch bands. What's interesting about this
is the assessment that was done and new stories that were done, and I'mlooking at some of the articles now, and you can go search them up
(01:11):
and find them. It says they're, you know, they're forever chemicalsthat were found in these bands. Some of them have specific names
that they're found in as far as the type of band it was in, andthere have been lawsuits that have been
filed against, the manufacturersfor the presence of these PFAS. So I have clients that
(01:33):
are dealing with consumer product safety assessments andevaluations, And I've had to give them some
additional warning on the potential ofthese higher scrutiny of PFAS and their
products. We're already doing those assessments, or are they setting them up for success?
But it's important to understand that, you know, there's gonna be additionalscrutiny. So we may have to do some additional steps to make sure that they
(01:58):
are covered in the event that someone does comeand and and randomly grabs the samples, sends
them off to a laboratory for analysis, and identifies PFAS.
Now, there's lots of issues herewith this assessment. What is the first issue? Well, as I
pointed out, and this is an article on Popular Science,it says that there are no established guidance on the safe level of
(02:24):
PFAS exposure. Okay. Well, and that that's that's,I'll I'll say, relevant from a consumer product standpoint. But
more specifically, depending onthe type of consumer product it is, there may not be specific
prescriptive guidance for that particular product. A lot ofthe guidance that we like to use when we're doing assessments of any
(02:48):
types from a toxicological or other type of assessment is we lookat studies that are standardized
that we can easily reproduce if we need to. We know themethods. We knew the methodology. The studies have been validated. We
go to a laboratory that is, that has experience with these, and wesay, okay. Perform these tests per
(03:10):
guidance, whether it's EPA or FDA,or OECD or whatever guidance, that's irrelevant.
So we know that the results, the positive, negatives,everything's set up, but it's it's a reproducible the intent is have it
to be a reproducible test. There area lacking of specific guidance for some consumer
(03:34):
products, namely ones that are gonna be identified as wearable.
So what we do from a toxicology standpoint is we useother guidance that are available for other
more, I'll say, restrictive products,whether it be medical devices or some other type of device that's
gonna be in a a long indirect or direct contact with the body fora prolonged period. And that's important when I say contact with the
(03:59):
body for a prolonged period to do these assessments. Nowwhat do the data tell us from these,
stories that is out there? This is kind of athought of, well, is it being evaluated in a
way that is going to mimicnormal use conditions? Okay. Well,
(04:23):
what are normal use conditions? Well, wearing a wash band. I've got an Apple washband on now. It's a metal one, but I've got one on right now.
So are are is is the condition going to beprolonged contact with the skin under a wash band, or is it going to be
hazard spotting? Are you going to be saying, well, it's in there. It must becoming out at some point. Well, what was the methodology that was used? That's that's
(04:46):
always the next question I have. And and and I I repeatthis whenever I can to anyone. I'll say anyone
who will listen. But when you're reading newsstories or articles and then do this as often as you can.
If it's available now we're talking older studies. It's not. But if you're reading anews story or article and they say, oh, well, this study says this.
(05:08):
Go get the study. Read the study. Understand what's in thestudy because a study is where the information is. And I
I know people who are interpreting these studies that may not have the experience anddo their best, but they don't always get it right or they're missing information or
or context here. So, you know, what did I do? I went to go getthe study. The study discusses the presence of,
(05:30):
PFAS, and watch bands.
But what's interesting within the study itself and, again, you can go getit. It's, it's environmental sciences and toxic
and technology letters, is themethodology that they use. The question should be,
what is the biological relevance of thepresence of PFAS and the
(05:57):
extractability or leachability and the bioavailabilityof the material when it's coming out of the band, potentially,
and impacting the skin, potentially? Is there any dermalabsorption going on? How well do the individual
PFAS that they're looking at across the skin barrieror absorbed into the body? What is the what is the mechanism for absorption and
(06:19):
distribution and excretion of these materials if it actually is?
And I find it interesting. So with if you go to the studyitself, it references it says, you know, I'm gonna
paraphrase here. I'm paraphrasing everything.
Generally, again, I recommend you go get the studies. It says the target analysismethod using the analytes described here were described elsewhere. The
(06:42):
methodology described elsewhere. Okay. Cool.
Great. What are the methodologies? What are the ways that were they weredone? And you
go to these the study that's that it'sreferencing, and it's it's, interestingly, it's referencing
FDA. I'll I'll say references ingeneral here, but it's involving,
(07:08):
for lack of better, terminology, it's it'sreferencing guidance for food
contact surfaces. It's, hey, you know what? Theseare these are, I'll say, plastic storage
containers that food are gonna contact. What is the leachability of out ofthis? What can be extracted out of these that may be
(07:30):
in food and then that you may ingest.
Well, that's a different route of exposure than thedermal route. Exposure science covers a broad subject
area, including toxicology, industrial hygiene, and riskassessment. From occupational, community, or environmental
exposure, exposure scientists apply scientific methodologiesto understand exposure risks and apply controls when necessary.
(07:57):
We at Exposure Assessment Consulting have this expertise.
Please reach out to us atinfo@exposureconsulting.com for a free fifteen
minute consultation to discuss the specifics of yourexposure scenario. When you're looking at the
standardized methodologies that we use for other I'll say guidance forother devices when we're looking at consumer products, they're they're very stringent.
(08:20):
But they are very set in their ways for what may be extractableor leachable from a chemical analysis. And you say, okay. What
is going to mimic human sweat?
That's what we're really concerned with, something that's going totouch the dermal surface and what may
leach out of it during the dermal extraction. Thematerials that were used, at least in this study
(08:47):
from what I'm preliminarily seeing, are, I'llsay, more aggressive
than it would be for the anything that may simulatea human sweat environment. So you may be getting
PFAS out of something, but what does it mean? Everything hasto be taken in the context. So if you're looking at these studies and, again,
(09:09):
I recommend you go pull them up if you can. I'm happy to have aconversation with you about them too. Is go look at the
studies, see what methods were used. Are they applicable to the exposure routethat you're concerned with? Because what I'm seeing here
is there's a disconnect betweenfinding the actual material
(09:32):
and linking it to an actual human health risk outcome.
Because there's differences in the route of exposure.
There's differences in the way that it may become bioavailable fromthe route of exposure. And what is the potential
absorption of the material, and what risk does it present? You know, a lot ofthe context here is missing the risk. Is it, are you
(09:55):
looking for a hazard, something that may be hazardous atsome study? And I'm I'm I'm talking about generally beyond PFAS.
Some study says may be hazardous. Okay. Well, nowwe've you know, I always like to say there there's a difference between and we
all know this that are listening or most of us. There's a difference between hazardand risk. Hazard is potential for something to cause harm. Risk
(10:17):
is the actual quantification and a aa a a dose assessment kind of scenario
that is going to incorporate actual real worlduse conditions. The conditions that are here, at least,
again, from what I'm seeing, I have it all read, and I again, I mentionedearlier that there's a lawsuit's been filed. I haven't read that. I'm a
(10:39):
scientist. I read the actual, you know, studies. I'm looking at thestudies, and I I think that there are data gaps
that exist between what's been done,at least in terms of these consumer products like Apple Watches that are
named here. And, you know, let me go see. Ijust wanna quickly look at this study. You know, they have a picture,
(11:02):
of what appears to be an Apple watch. I'm just gonna actually seerecall and see if it it does not actually mention
Apple here. And I think that's,you know, some important context.
But they just wanna make sure that they're, I'llsay, covering themselves to a
(11:24):
degree. This is what all the stories are saying that it'sApple Watches. It's important to understand
that there are ways to do things that arefrom a non research
methodology that are important for understanding risk andreal world conditions. That's great. You know, if if there is PFAS here
(11:48):
and it's there and it's being extracted under this method, that's probably a way thatwe say, okay. Maybe we should find a way to engineer it
out or or whatever it may be. Is it necessaryto do because they are maybe looking at it from a different
angle or way? That is somethingto for up for a scientific discussion because if they're
(12:11):
misapplying the interpretation of thedata from a hazard to
a risk without going through the steps, thenthere may be an issue. So, again, if you're involving
any cons customers like myself who haveconsumer products or putting consumer products out to market, and
(12:33):
they are doing assessments, either driven,for other regulatory purposes or, sometimes it's even
brand ambassador purposes to be associated with the brand. Someof them require steps to go through from a
biocompatibility safety aspect. Isthis something that and a lot of these have already you know, they already
(12:55):
focus on PFAS. Is there something that needs to be drilled down more here, Oris there something we need to get ahead of and say, listen. You know,
we do things this way because this is what's commonly accepted inindustry. If there are data generated that are not following these
methodologies, they don't really apply because there's been no riskassessment actually done. This is just something for you to think about, to
(13:17):
view when you're seeing this information, seeing these studies. And I like to justhammer this home because, you know, if you're seeing articles on this
stuff, go pull up the actual journal publications and find out whatit really says. And if there are people who are
contacting you from, news organizations for help andinterpretation, help them out because we're the scientists. And a lot of
(13:40):
people that are in the, publication, sectionor realm may not understand the nuances in some of the stuff we
do. I hope you enjoyed today's episode of the exposurescientist podcast. I hope it was informative and educational. If
you have any comments, you have any questions, or you'd like to discuss this more,please feel free to reach out. I'd be happy to talk to you with it.
(14:01):
Hope to see you again soon. Take care. Thank you forlistening to the Exposure Scientist podcast. You can connect with
us at our website, exposureconsulting.com, where you can book aprivate consultation and send in any questions regarding any
episodes or our guests. See you on the next episode.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Clifford Show
The Clifford Show with Clifford Taylor IV blends humor, culture, and behind-the-scenes sports talk with real conversations featuring athletes, creators, and personalities—spotlighting the grind, the growth, and the opportunities shaping the next generation of sports and culture.