School of Geography, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom; Department of Chemistry, College of Science, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq.
School of Geography, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom.
Environ Pollut. 2021 Sep 15;285:117262. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117262. Epub 2021 Apr 29.
Current assessments of human exposure to flame retardants (FRs) via dust ingestion rely on measurements of FR concentrations in dust samples collected at specific points in time and space. Such exposure assessments are rendered further uncertain by the possibility of within-room and within-building spatial and temporal variability, differences in dust particle size fraction analysed, as well as differences in dust sampling approach. A meta-analysis of peer-reviewed data was undertaken to evaluate the impact of these factors on reported concentrations of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and organophosphate esters (OPEs) in dust and subsequent human exposure estimates. Except for a few cases, concentrations of FRs in elevated surface dust (ESD) exceeded significantly those in floor dust (FD). The implications of this for exposure assessment are not entirely clear. However, they imply that analysing FD only will underestimate exposure for adults who likely rarely ingest floor dust, while analysing ESD only would overestimate exposure for toddlers who likely rarely ingest elevated surface dust. Considerable within-building spatial variability was observed with no specific trend between concentrations of either BFRs or OPEs in living rooms and bedrooms in the same homes, implying that exposure assessments based solely on sampling one room are uncertain. Substantial differences in FR concentrations were observed in different particle size fractions of dust. This is likely partly attributable to the presence of abraded polymer particles/fibres with high FR concentrations in larger particle size fractions. This has implications for exposure assessment as adherence to skin and subsequent FR uptake via ingestion and dermal sorption varies with particle size. Analysing dust samples obtained from a householder vacuum cleaner (HHVC) compared with researcher collected dust (RCD) will underestimate human exposure to the most of studied contaminants. This is likely due to the losses of volatile FRs from HHVC dust over the extended period such dust spends in the dust bag. Temporal variability in FR concentrations is apparent during month-to-month or seasonal monitoring, with such variability likely due more to changes in room contents rather than seasonal temperature variation.
目前，通过灰尘摄入来评估人类接触阻燃剂（FRs）的方法依赖于在特定时间和空间点采集的灰尘样本中 FR 浓度的测量。这种暴露评估因以下因素而变得更加不确定：室内和建筑物内的空间和时间变异性、分析的灰尘颗粒大小分数的差异，以及灰尘采样方法的差异。对同行评议数据进行了荟萃分析，以评估这些因素对报告的灰尘中溴化阻燃剂（BFRs）和有机磷酸酯（OPEs）浓度以及随后的人类暴露估计值的影响。除了少数情况外，高处表面灰尘（ESD）中的 FR 浓度明显高于地面灰尘（FD）中的浓度。这对暴露评估的影响尚不完全清楚。然而，这意味着仅分析 FD 会低估成年人的暴露量，因为他们可能很少摄入地面灰尘，而仅分析 ESD 会高估幼儿的暴露量，因为他们可能很少摄入高处表面灰尘。在同一房屋内，观察到建筑物内空间的变异性很大，同一房屋内的客厅和卧室中 BFRs 或 OPEs 的浓度没有特定趋势，这意味着仅基于一个房间采样的暴露评估是不确定的。灰尘中 FR 浓度的差异很大，不同粒径的灰尘中 FR 浓度的差异很大。这可能部分归因于较大粒径分数中存在高 FR 浓度的磨损聚合物颗粒/纤维。这对暴露评估有影响，因为通过摄入和皮肤吸收对皮肤的附着力以及随后的 FR 摄取随粒径而变化。与研究人员收集的灰尘（RCD）相比，分析房主真空吸尘器（HHVC）获得的灰尘样本会低估人类对大多数研究污染物的暴露。这可能是由于 HHVC 灰尘中挥发性 FR 随着灰尘在尘袋中停留时间的延长而不断损失。在月到月或季节性监测期间，FR 浓度的时间变异性很明显，这种变异性可能更多地是由于房间内容的变化，而不是季节性温度变化。
