4.7 Article

Study on the leaching of phthalates from polyethylene terephthalate bottles into mineral water

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 458, 期 -, 页码 451-458

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.056

关键词

Carbonated; Non-carbonated; DEHP; PET; Bottled water; Solar water disinfection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbonated and non-carbonated mineral water samples bottled in 0.5-L, 1.5-L and 2.0-L polyethylene terephthalate (PET) containers belonging to three different water brands commercialized in Hungary were studied in order to determine their phthalate content by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Among the six investigated phthalates, diisobutyl phthalate, di-n-butyl-phthalate, benzyl-butyl phthalate and di(2-ethyl-hexyl) phthalate (DEHP) were determined in non-carbonated samples as follows: <3.0 ng L-1-0.2 mu g L-1, <6.6 ng L-1-0.8 mu g L-1, <6.0 ng L-1-0.1 mu g L-1 and <16.0 ng L-1-1.7 mu g L-1, respectively. Any of the above-mentioned phthalate esters could be detected in carbonated mineral water samples. DEHP was the most abundant phthalate in the investigated samples. It could be detected after 44 days of storage at 22 degrees C and its leaching was the most pronounced when samples were stored over 1200 days. Mineral water purchased in PET bottles of 0.5 L had the highest phthalate concentrations compared to those obtained for waters of the identical brand bottled in 1.5-L or 2.0-L PET containers due to the higher surface/volume ratio. No clear trend could be established for phthalate leaching when water samples were kept at higher temperatures (max. 60 degrees C) showing improper storage conditions. Phthalate determination by pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometric measurements in the plastic material as well as in the aqueous phase proved the importance of the quality of PET raw material used for the production of the pre-form (virgin vs. polymer containing recycled PET). (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