4.7 Article

Size fraction effect on phthalate esters accumulation, bioaccessibility and in vitro cytotoxicity of indoor/outdoor dust, and risk assessment of human exposure

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 261, 期 -, 页码 753-762

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.04.039

关键词

Phthalate esters; Size fraction effect; Cytotoxicity; Bioaccessibility; Risk assessment; Dust

资金

  1. State Key Laboratory in Marine Pollution, Seed Collaborative Research Fund [HKBU CITYU SKLMP/SCRF/0003]
  2. Hong Kong Research Grants Council [HKBU 26209, NFSC/RGC N_HKBU210/11]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Indoor and outdoor dusts from two urban centers in the Pearl River Delta, China, were analyzed and phthalate esters varied from 4.95 to 2220 mu g g(-1) in indoor dust, significantly higher than outdoor dust (1.70-869 mu g g(-1)). Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) was the dominant phthalate found and the highest distribution factor (DF) (1.56 +/- 0.41) was noted in the <63 mu m fraction (p < 0.05). in vitro cytotoxicity of dust extract on human T cell lymphoblast leukemic cell line (CCRF-CEM) indicated by Lethal Concentration 50 (LC50) decreased with particle size. The power model was found as a better fit for explaining the relationship between LC50 and phthalates (R-2 = 0.46,p < 0.01). Bioaccessibility of phthalates in dust varied with different particle sizes, with the greatest bioaccessible fraction (2.49-38.6%) obtained in <63 mu m. Risk assessment indicated that indoor dust ingestion accounted for the major source for DEHP exposure (81.4-96.4% of non-dietary exposure and 36.5% of total exposure), especially for toddlers. The cancer risks associated with DEHP via home dust were high (10(-6)-10(-4)), with 10% of houses estimated with unacceptable risks (>10(-4)). After corrected with the bioaccessibility of phthalates, the cancer risks of dust exposure were moderate (10-2-10-6). (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据