4.7 Article

Effect of common consumer washing methods on bisphenol A release in tritan drinking bottles

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 277, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130355

关键词

Bisphenol A; BPA-Free; Plastic bottles; Contamination; Cleaning; Bioactivity

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01ES027855]
  2. University of Cincinnati Center for Environmental Genetics through the NIEHS [P30ES006096]
  3. NIH/NIEHS funding from NIH/NIEHS [U2C ES026561, P30ES023515]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that BPA release was detected in some Tritan drinking bottles, and dishwashing was the most effective method in reducing BPA release, significantly decreasing or eliminating it altogether.
Bisphenol A (BPA)-free plastic products are widely available. Transient BPA release has been reported in Tritan drinking bottles. This study assessed the effectiveness of common consumer washing methods in removing BPA contamination in Tritan bottles using both ELISA and HPLC-MS/MS assays. BPA release was detected in 2 out of 10 kinds of Tritan drinking bottles tested. Average BPA level was 0.493 mg/L in water samples from a type of Tritan kid drinking bottle following 24-h incubation at room temperature, corresponding to a release rate of 0.015 ng/cm(2)/h. Of the common consumer cleaning methods identified in an informal survey, dishwashing was the most effective method that significantly reduced, even eliminated BPA release from the tested BPA-positive Tritan bottles, while rinsing with water and handwashing with soap and water were ineffective. The bioactivity of the leached BPA was confirmed using a rodent cardiac myocyte acute exposure model and an invertebrate 7-day exposure model. The BPA release is possibly the result of surface contamination in the manufacturing process. As a case study, our result may be informative for general consumer practice and for better quality control by the manufactures. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. 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