4.7 Article

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in the indoor dust in China: Levels, spatial distribution and human exposure

Journal

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
Volume 111, Issue -, Pages 1-8

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.09.020

Keywords

PBDEs; Indoor dust; Human exposure; China

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [21277038, 21107020, 41101493]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment (Harbin Institute of Technology) [2013DX14]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [HIT. IBRSEM. 2011003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Indoor environment is an important source of human exposure to several toxicants, such as brominated flame retardants. Indoor dust samples were collected in winter season in 2010, which covered 23 provinces across China, for the analysis of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Concentrations of PBDEs (Sigma 14PBDEs) ranged from 8.92 to 37 500 ng/g, with the mean of 3520 ng/g. BDE-209 was the most dominate congener, followed by BDE-183, BDE-47 and BDE-99. PBDE concentrations and the longitude were significantly correlated (p < 0.05), which was consistent with the status of social-economic development and human activities. The results of exposure to PBDEs through dust ingestion and dermal absorption indicated that the toddlers had the highest exposure dose, with the median value of 6.0 ng/kg-bw/day. According to the hazard quotients, health risk of PBDEs via dust ingestion in China is currently acceptable. Monte Carlo simulation was implemented to quantify the uncertainty and sensitivity of exposure models for determining the most influential variables. The results suggested that more specific and accurate parameters should be used for dust ingestion and dermal absorption exposure models in future. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available