You are not using a standards compliant browser. Because of this you may notice minor glitches in the rendering of this page. Please upgrade to a compliant browser for optimal viewing:
Internet Explorer 7
Safari (Mac and PC)
Post Archive
2020 (0)2012 (1)2011 (36)
November (1)October (3)August (3)July (6)June (3)May (4)April (4)March (4)February (4)January (4)
Rate This Post
Total votes: 6
Blogger Profile

Dangerous Experiments

Dangerous Experiments is the LabSpaces spot for guest bloggers. The purpose of the blog is to give new and old bloggers a space to experiment with blogging. If you'd like to contribute to this experiment, send us an e-mail or contact us on twitter at either @LSBlogs or @LabSpaces.

My posts are presented as opinion and commentary and do not represent the views of LabSpaces Productions, LLC, my employer, or my educational institution.

Blog RSS Feed
RSS Add to My Yahoo Add to Google
Recent Comments

Interestingly, I knew that this was the kind of work I wanted to do as soon as I heard about it. I had always loved both science and art, growing up. I didn't realize I could have a job that reache. . .Read More
Jan 08, 2013, 7:58pm

Thank you for writing Monika, and for your curiosity about this line of work. There are many reasons to be drawn to this profession, and there are many subspecialties. Aside from the lov. . .Read More
Jan 08, 2013, 7:50pm

Laura,  I am currently a student at Penn State University, and i am focused in the Visual Arts area. I was wondering about specificating my talent into medical illustration because of my p. . .Read More
Jan 08, 2013, 7:24pm

We here at approve of this post because it has our name in it. That is all... Actually that's not all. There's more! Here's a pic of a raccoon carying a. . .Read More
Nov 15, 2012, 3:04pm

Melissa, I too am fairly optimistic about the FSMA, which has great implications for the future of the lab testing industry. Although my company doesn't do food testing in particular, we have . . .Read More
Aug 15, 2012, 5:07pm
Monday, August 22, 2011

Figure 1: Aqua Dots. Image taken from <a href= target=

Last week, 2007 chemical newsmaker 1,4-butanediol  made it back on the front page with a US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruling on a lawsuit involving  1,4-butanediol  contaminated children’s toy ‘Aqua Dots’ (left).   In 2007, Aqua Dots contamination story first hit the news when Australia banned the product.  The adhesive 1,5-pentanediol was normally used in Aqua Dots, but 1,4-butanediol  was mistakenly used in the toy's manufacturing process.  The one methylene group (‒CH2‒) difference between 1,5-pentanediol  and 1,4-butanediol  (below)  led to Aqua Dots going from the most popular toy of 2007 to the most recalled toy of 2007-2009

Why would using a chemical with one less a ‒CH2‒ cause such trouble?  As explained by Molecule of the Day back in 2007, 1,4-butanediol  is converted to ɣ-hydroxybutyric acid by two of alcohol metabolism enzymes (Figure 2) when ingested. 

Most people know ɣ-hydroxybutyric acid by its abbreviation ‘GHB’, one of the so-called “date rape drugs”.  GHB is a central nervous system (CNS) depressant, denoted by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) as a Schedule I controlled substance. The effects of GHB include euphoria, drowsiness, decreased anxiety, confusion and memory impairment.  Because our bodies can easily convert 1,4-butanediol  to GHB, 1,4-butanediol is also heavily regulated

Aqua Dots weren’t meant to be eaten, but as noted by the Seventh Circuit… 

Although the directions told users to spray the beads with water and stick them together, it was inevitable  given the age of the intended audience and the beads’ resemblance to candy… that some would be eaten.

A group of US parents served the maker and distributers of Aqua Dots were hit with a class action lawsuit.  The plaintiffs, whose kids were not harmed by the contaminated toy, sought a full product refund and punitive damages.  The plaintiffs’ suit hit a speed bump when the district court declined to certify the class.  Last Wednesday brought another road block when the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, with some differences in legal reasoning.  The Seventh Circuit gave the class a no-pass for what seems* to be three reasons…


  1. The plaintiffs, who never sought refunds via the product recall, could have and still can.
  2. As they’ve previously ruled, a “…nationwide consumer class was not manageable, and  thus  could not be  certified, when it would depend on multiple states’ laws.”
  3. There is no monetary benefit to passing this class.  Follow the Seventh Circuit’s logic

There would be serious problems of management apart from the variability of state law. As we have mentioned already, individual notice would be impossible, which would make it hard for class members to opt out.  No one knows who bought the kits.  No one knows who used them without problems; this would make it difficult if not impossible to determine who would be entitled to a remedy.  The per-buyer costs of identifying the class members and giving notice would exceed the price of the toys (or any reasonable multiple of that price), leaving nothing to be distributed.  The principal effect of class certification, as the district court recognized, would be   to induce the defendants to pay the class’s lawyers enough to make them go away; effectual relief for consumers is unlikely.


The plaintiffs could appeal the US Supreme Court.  I’m not a lawyer*, but based on the Seventh Circuit's opinion, this Aqua Dots suit isn’t likely to hold much water with The Nine.  I think this particular Aqua Dots suit has run out of steam.


*I’m a chemist with a PhD, not a lawyer with a JD.  Thus, I am not a legal scholar. 

This post has been viewed: 5641 time(s)

Blog Comments
Steve Chapman

Guest Comment

This piece used to read "The adhesive 1,5-butanediol was normally used in Aqua Dots, but 1,4-butanediol was mistakenly used in the toy's manufacturing process" One of your readers pointed out your error. You could have acknowledged the error and credited the reader for bringing it to your attention. Instead you quietly fixed your mistake and deleted the reader's comment. Why?

Dangerous Experiments
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Fixing my typo (thank you, by the way, my ochem prof would be horrified) is a lesson in what not to do on this platform - which I'd never used before.  I ended up deleting comments, my images and the post, skewing up formatting... it was a mess.  At that time, I would have at least posted this comment, but I ran out of time.  Thank you again and my apologies. 


Guest Comment

Out of curiosity, why does the alcohol dehydrogenase not oxidize the other -OH on 1,4-butanediol at the same time, making 1,4-butanedial?


Guest Comment

Out of curiousity, does the 1,5-pentanediol have any affects as bad as this? Or would the toy have been completely safe had the chemicals not been mixed up?

Add Comment?
Comments are closed 2 weeks after initial post.