For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
67
views
76
references
 Top references
cited by
46
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      515
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Consumer Product Chemicals in Indoor Dust: A Quantitative Meta-analysis of U.S. Studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Indoor dust is a reservoir for commercial consumer product chemicals, including many compounds with known or suspected health effects. However, most dust exposure studies measure few chemicals in small samples. We systematically searched the U.S. indoor dust literature on phthalates, replacement flame retardants (RFRs), perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), synthetic fragrances, and environmental phenols and estimated pooled geometric means (GMs) and 95% confidence intervals for 45 chemicals measured in ≥3 data sets. In order to rank and contextualize these results, we used the pooled GMs to calculate residential intake from dust ingestion, inhalation, and dermal uptake from air, and then identified hazard traits from the Safer Consumer Products Candidate Chemical List. Our results indicate that U.S. indoor dust consistently contains chemicals from multiple classes. Phthalates occurred in the highest concentrations, followed by phenols, RFRs, fragrance, and PFASs. Several phthalates and RFRs had the highest residential intakes. We also found that many chemicals in dust share hazard traits such as reproductive and endocrine toxicity. We offer recommendations to maximize comparability of studies and advance indoor exposure science. This information is critical in shaping future exposure and health studies, especially related to cumulative exposures, and in providing evidence for intervention development and public policy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references76

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants.

          N E Klepeis, W C Nelson, W R Ott … (2001)
          Because human activities impact the timing, location, and degree of pollutant exposure, they play a key role in explaining exposure variation. This fact has motivated the collection of activity pattern data for their specific use in exposure assessments. The largest of these recent efforts is the National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS), a 2-year probability-based telephone survey (n=9386) of exposure-related human activities in the United States (U.S.) sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The primary purpose of NHAPS was to provide comprehensive and current exposure information over broad geographical and temporal scales, particularly for use in probabilistic population exposure models. NHAPS was conducted on a virtually daily basis from late September 1992 through September 1994 by the University of Maryland's Survey Research Center using a computer-assisted telephone interview instrument (CATI) to collect 24-h retrospective diaries and answers to a number of personal and exposure-related questions from each respondent. The resulting diary records contain beginning and ending times for each distinct combination of location and activity occurring on the diary day (i.e., each microenvironment). Between 340 and 1713 respondents of all ages were interviewed in each of the 10 EPA regions across the 48 contiguous states. Interviews were completed in 63% of the households contacted. NHAPS respondents reported spending an average of 87% of their time in enclosed buildings and about 6% of their time in enclosed vehicles. These proportions are fairly constant across the various regions of the U.S. and Canada and for the California population between the late 1980s, when the California Air Resources Board (CARB) sponsored a state-wide activity pattern study, and the mid-1990s, when NHAPS was conducted. However, the number of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in California seems to have decreased over the same time period, where exposure is determined by the reported time spent with a smoker. In both California and the entire nation, the most time spent exposed to ETS was reported to take place in residential locations.
          Article 0 comments Cited 843 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Phosphorus flame retardants: properties, production, environmental occurrence, toxicity and analysis.

            Ike van der Veen, Jacob de Boer (2012)
            Since the ban on some brominated flame retardants (BFRs), phosphorus flame retardants (PFRs), which were responsible for 20% of the flame retardant (FR) consumption in 2006 in Europe, are often proposed as alternatives for BFRs. PFRs can be divided in three main groups, inorganic, organic and halogen containing PFRs. Most of the PFRs have a mechanism of action in the solid phase of burning materials (char formation), but some may also be active in the gas phase. Some PFRs are reactive FRs, which means they are chemically bound to a polymer, whereas others are additive and mixed into the polymer. The focus of this report is limited to the PFRs mentioned in the literature as potential substitutes for BFRs. The physico-chemical properties, applications and production volumes of PFRs are given. Non-halogenated PFRs are often used as plasticisers as well. Limited information is available on the occurrence of PFRs in the environment. For triphenyl phosphate (TPhP), tricresylphosphate (TCP), tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP), tris(chloropropyl)phosphate (TCPP), tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP), and tetrekis(2-chlorethyl)dichloroisopentyldiphosphate (V6) a number of studies have been performed on their occurrence in air, water and sediment, but limited data were found on their occurrence in biota. Concentrations found for these PFRs in air were up to 47 μg m(-3), in sediment levels up to 24 mg kg(-1) were found, and in surface water concentrations up to 379 ng L(-1). In all these matrices TCPP was dominant. Concentrations found in dust were up to 67 mg kg(-1), with TDCPP being the dominant PFR. PFR concentrations reported were often higher than polybrominated diphenylether (PBDE) concentrations, and the human exposure due to PFR concentrations in indoor air appears to be higher than exposure due to PBDE concentrations in indoor air. Only the Cl-containing PFRs are carcinogenic. Other negative human health effects were found for Cl-containing PFRs as well as for TCP, which suggest that those PFRs would not be suitable alternatives for BFRs. TPhP, diphenylcresylphosphate (DCP) and TCP would not be suitable alternatives either, because they are considered to be toxic to (aquatic) organisms. Diethylphosphinic acid is, just like TCEP, considered to be very persistent. From an environmental perspective, resorcinol-bis(diphenylphosphate) (RDP), bisphenol-A diphenyl phosphate (BADP) and melamine polyphosphate, may be suitable good substitutes for BFRs. Information on PFR analysis in air, water and sediment is limited to TCEP, TCPP, TPhP, TCP and some other organophosphate esters. For air sampling passive samplers have been used as well as solid phase extraction (SPE) membranes, SPE cartridges, and solid phase micro-extraction (SPME). For extraction of PFRs from water SPE is recommended, because this method gives good recoveries (67-105%) and acceptable relative standard deviations (RSDs) (<20%), and offers the option of on-line coupling with a detection system. For the extraction of PFRs from sediment microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) is recommended. The recoveries (78-105%) and RSDs (3-8%) are good and the method is faster and requires less solvent compared to other methods. For the final instrumental analysis of PFRs, gas chromatography-flame photometric detection (GC-FPD), GC-nitrogen-phosphorus detection (NPD), GC-atomic emission detection (AED), GC-mass spectrometry (MS) as well as liquid chromatography (LC)-MS/MS and GC-Inductively-coupled plasma-MS (ICP-MS) are used. GC-ICP-MS is a promising method, because it provides much less complex chromatograms while offering the same recoveries and limits of detection (LOD) (instrumental LOD is 5-10 ng mL(-1)) compared to GC-NPD and GC-MS, which are frequently used methods for PFR analysis. GC-MS offers a higher selectivity than GC-NPD and the possibility of using isotopically labeled compounds for quantification. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Article 0 comments Cited 368 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Environmental Chemicals in Pregnant Women in the United States: NHANES 2003–2004

              Tracey J. Woodruff, Ami R. Zota, Jackie Schwartz (2011)
              Background Exposure to chemicals during fetal development can increase the risk of adverse health effects, and while biomonitoring studies suggest pregnant women are exposed to chemicals, little is known about the extent of multiple chemicals exposures among pregnant women in the United States. Objective We analyzed biomonitoring data from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) to characterize both individual and multiple chemical exposures in U.S. pregnant women. Methods We analyzed data for 163 chemical analytes in 12 chemical classes for subsamples of 268 pregnant women from NHANES 2003–2004, a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population. For each chemical analyte, we calculated descriptive statistics. We calculated the number of chemicals detected within the following chemical classes: polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), organochlorine pesticides, and phthalates and across multiple chemical classes. We compared chemical analyte concentrations for pregnant and nonpregnant women using least-squares geometric means, adjusting for demographic and physiological covariates. Results The percentage of pregnant women with detectable levels of an individual chemical ranged from 0 to 100%. Certain polychlorinated biphenyls, organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, phenols, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and perchlorate were detected in 99–100% of pregnant women. The median number of detected chemicals by chemical class ranged from 4 of 12 PFCs to 9 of 13 phthalates. Across chemical classes, median number ranged from 8 of 17 chemical analytes to 50 of 71 chemical analytes. We found, generally, that levels in pregnant women were similar to or lower than levels in nonpregnant women; adjustment for covariates tended to increase levels in pregnant women compared with nonpregnant women. Conclusions Pregnant women in the U.S. are exposed to multiple chemicals. Further efforts are warranted to understand sources of exposure and implications for policy making.
              Article 0 comments Cited 281 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Environ Sci Technol
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Environ. Sci. Technol
                Journal ID (publisher-id): es
                Journal ID (coden): esthag
                Title: Environmental Science & Technology
                Publisher: American Chemical Society
                ISSN (Print): 0013-936X
                ISSN (Electronic): 1520-5851
                Publication date (Electronic): 14 September 2016
                Publication date (Print): 04 October 2016
                Volume: 50
                Issue: 19
                Pages: 10661-10672
                Affiliations
                [† ]Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University , Washington, D.C. 20052, United States
                [‡ ]Silent Spring Institute , Newton, MA 02460, United States
                [§ ]Health and Environment Program, Natural Resources Defense Council , San Francisco, California 94104, United States
                [∥ ]Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, United States
                [⊥ ]Occupational and Environmental Medicine Program, University of California San Francisco , San Francisco, California 94143, United States
                Author notes
                [* ]Phone: (202) 994-9289; fax: 2052-994-0082; e-mail: azota@ 123456gwu.edu .
                Article
                DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02023
                PMC ID: 5052660
                PubMed ID: 27623734
                SO-VID: ea59ef20-7300-42d4-b6be-0f0e3d9f30de
                Copyright © Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society
                License:

                This is an open access article published under an ACS AuthorChoice License, which permits copying and redistribution of the article or any adaptations for non-commercial purposes.

                History
                Date received : 22 April 2016
                Date accepted : 05 August 2016
                Date revision received : 29 July 2016
                Categories
                Subject: Article
                Custom metadata
                document-id-old-9 es6b02023
                document-id-new-14 es-2016-02023j
                ccc-price

                ScienceOpen disciplines: General environmental science
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: General environmental science

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content515

                See all similar

                Cited by44

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors630

                See all reference authors