Department of Population Health & Disease Prevention, Program in Public Health, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3957, USA.
Department of Cognitive Sciences, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-5100, USA.
Environ Res. 2017 Feb;153:55-62. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.11.010. Epub 2016 Nov 26.
Most households and workplaces all over the world possess furnishings and electronics, all of which contain potentially toxic flame retardant chemicals to prevent fire hazards. Indoor dust is a recognized repository of these types of chemicals including polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and non-polybrominated diphenyl ethers (non-PBDEs). However, no previous U.S. studies have differentiated concentrations from elevated surface dust (ESD) and floor dust (FD) within and across microenvironments. We address this information gap by measuring twenty-two flame-retardant chemicals in dust on elevated surfaces (ESD; n=10) and floors (FD; n=10) from rooms on a California campus that contain various concentrations of electronic products. We hypothesized a difference in chemical concentrations in ESD and FD. Secondarily, we examined whether or not this difference persisted: (a) across the studied microenvironments and (b) in rooms with various concentrations of electronics. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test demonstrated that the ESD was statistically significantly higher than FD for BDE-47 (p=0.01), BDE-99 (p=0.01), BDE-100 (p=0.01), BDE-153 (p=0.02), BDE-154 (p=0.02), and 3 non-PBDEs including EH-TBB (p=0.02), BEH-TEBP (p=0.05), and TDCIPP (p=0.03). These results suggest different levels and kinds of exposures to flame-retardant chemicals for individuals spending time in the sampled locations depending on the position of accumulated dust. Therefore, further research is needed to estimate human exposure to flame retardant chemicals based on how much time and where in the room individuals spend their time. Such sub-location estimates will likely differ from assessments that assume continuous unidimensional exposure, with implications for improved understanding of potential health impacts of flame retardant chemicals.
全世界大多数家庭和工作场所都拥有家具和电子产品,这些产品都含有潜在有毒的阻燃化学物质,以防止火灾隐患。室内灰尘是这些类型化学物质的公认储存库,包括多溴二苯醚 (PBDEs) 和非多溴二苯醚 (non-PBDEs)。然而,以前在美国的研究中,并没有区分微环境内和微环境之间来自高表面灰尘 (ESD) 和地板灰尘 (FD) 的浓度。我们通过测量加利福尼亚大学校园房间内高表面 (ESD; n=10) 和地板 (FD; n=10) 上灰尘中的二十二种阻燃化学物质来解决这一信息差距,这些房间内含有各种浓度的电子产品。我们假设 ESD 和 FD 中的化学浓度存在差异。其次,我们检查了这种差异是否持续存在:(a) 在研究的微环境中,(b) 在含有不同浓度电子产品的房间中。Wilcoxon 符号秩检验表明,BDE-47(p=0.01)、BDE-99(p=0.01)、BDE-100(p=0.01)、BDE-153(p=0.02)、BDE-154(p=0.02) 和 3 种非 PBDEs 中,ESD 显著高于 FD,包括 EH-TBB(p=0.02)、BEH-TEBP(p=0.05) 和 TDCIPP(p=0.03)。这些结果表明,根据在采样地点花费的时间,个人接触阻燃化学物质的水平和种类不同。因此,需要进一步研究,根据个人在房间内花费的时间和位置,估计人类接触阻燃化学物质的情况。这种亚位置估计将与假设连续单向暴露的评估不同,这对更好地了解阻燃化学物质的潜在健康影响具有重要意义。