4.7 Article

The High Complexity of Plastic Additives in Hand Wipes

期刊

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00381

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFE0106900]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21777059, 41977373]
  3. Guangdong (China) Innovative and Entrepreneurial Research Team Program [2016ZT06N258]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the abundances and profiles of various plastic additives on human hands, finding that children exhibited higher levels of exposure compared to adults, and there were close connections between the exposure profiles of the two subpopulations.
Extensive and long-term applications have resulted in global distributions of plastic additives (PAs). To facilitate the understanding of human exposure to PAs, the present study investigated the abundances and profiles of a broad range of PAs on human hands via hand wipe sampling. Sixty out of 160 PAs were detected in >50% of hand wipes collected from 30 children and 45 adults, among which a number of organophosphate esters (OPEs) and synthetic antioxidants that have rarely or never been investigated in prior studies. The total masses of PAs ranged from 650 to 87 030 ng (median: 6110 ng) and 1230 to 19360 ng (median: 5600 ng) in adults' and children's hand wipes, respectively. By categories, phthalates (PAEs) represented the most abundant group of PAs, followed by non-PAE plasticizers, UV stabilizers, OPEs, antioxidants, and bisphenol analogues. Children exhibited greater PA levels per square centimeter of hand surface, indicating elevated exposure compared with adults. Strong correlations existed for many PAs between adults and children or within each subpopulation, indicating close connections between the two subpopulations in the exposure profiles. The great complexity of plastic additives on hands raises the need for future investigations on human exposure pathways and potential health risks from the cocktail effects.

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