4.8 Article

Consumer Product Chemicals in Indoor Dust: A Quantitative Meta-analysis of US Studies

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 19, Pages 10661-10672

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02023

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NRDC Science Opportunity Fund
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [R00ES019881]
  3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [MALHH0139-05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available