The editors of the environmental chemistry journal Chemosphere posted a compelling correction to a study that reported toxicity. Flame retardants from electronics are consumed in some household products made of black plasticincluding kitchen utensils. The study evoked a trouble with media reports a few weeks ago urgently begged the people of take their kitchen spatulas and a spoon. Wirecutter even offers a buying guide for what will they replace?.

The correctionwhich was posted on Sunday, will probably heat up the tools. The authors made a mathematical error that put the estimated risk from kitchen appliances by an order of magnitude.

Specifically, the authors estimate that if a kitchen appliance contains moderate levels of a key toxic flame retardant (BDE-209), the appliance transfers 34,700 nanograms of the contaminant a day based on regular use while cooking and serving hot food. The authors then compared that estimate to a reference level of BDE-209 considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency. The safe level of EPA is 7,000 ng—per kilogram of body weight—per day, and the authors used 60 kilograms as an adult’s weight (about 132 pounds) for their estimate. Therefore, the EPA’s safe limit would be 7,000 multiplied by 60, yielding 420,000 ng per day. That’s 12 times more than the estimated exposure of 34,700 ng per day.

However, the authors did not have a zero and reported a safe EPA limit of 42,000 ng per day for a 60 kg adult. The error suggests that the estimated exposure is close to the safe limit, although it is actually less than a tenth of the limit.

“(W)e miscalculated the reference dose for a 60 kg adult, initially estimating it at 42,000 ng/day instead of the correct amount of 420,000 ng/day,” the correction reads. “As a result, we have revised our statement from ‘the calculated daily intake approaches the US BDE-209 reference dose’ to ‘the calculated daily intake remains one orders of magnitude lower than the US BDE-209 reference dose.’ We have corrected this error and updated it in our manuscript.”

Unchanged Conclusion

While missing an order of magnitude seems like a significant error, the authors don’t seem to think it changes anything. “This calculation error does not affect the overall conclusions of the paper,” the correction reads. The revised study still ended by saying that flame retardants “significantly contaminate” plastic products, with a “high exposure potential.”

Ars contacted the lead author, Megan Liu, but did not receive a response. Liu works for the environmental health advocacy group Toxic-Free Future, which led the study.

The study highlights that flame retardants used in electronic plastics can, in some cases, be recycled into household items.