4.7 Article

Assessment of human exposure to triclocarban, triclosan and five parabens in US indoor dust using dispersive solid phase extraction followed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 360, 期 -, 页码 623-630

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.08.014

关键词

Dust; Paraben; Triclosan; Triclocarban; QuEChERS

资金

  1. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Microbiology of the Built Environment Program [G-2015-14023]
  2. Virginia G. Piper Charitable Trust [LTR 05/01/12]
  3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Science to Achieve Results Program [RD-83575701]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antimicrobials in indoor dust pose concerns due to their endocrine disrupting activities and potential promotion of antibiotic resistance. We adopted dispersive solid phase extraction (d-SPE) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to quantify antimicrobials in dust. The method showed favorable linearity (R-2 > 0.99), recovery (83-115%), and method detection limits (1.2-5.6 ng/g, dry weight). All seven analytes were found at median concentrations in ng/g in each of the 80 U.S. dust samples collected from athletic facilities and residential homes: methyl paraben (1920) > propyl paraben (965) > triclosan (390) > triclocarban (270) > ethyl paraben (195) > butyl paraben (80) > benzyl paraben (6). Triclosan levels in dust from athletic facilities were significantly higher than those in private homes (p < 0.05). Median estimated daily intake (EDI) of antimicrobials in ng/kg-body weight/d from dust ingestion was lowest for adults (1.9) and higher for more sensitive subpopulations, including infants (19.8), toddlers (23.6), children (11.8) and teenagers (4.6). This first application of d-SPE to the analysis of dust produced U.S. baseline data for triclosan and triclocarban levels in indoor dust just prior to the 2017 Federal ban on use of these trichlorinated aromatics in antiseptic soaps and related personal care products.

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