College of Environment, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310032, China.
School of Public Health, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, 310013, Zhejiang, China.
Environ Res. 2023 Jan 1;216(Pt 4):114704. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114704. Epub 2022 Nov 2.
Though the partitioning behavior of organophosphorus flame retardants (OPFRs) has been recognized in vitro incubation assay, health risk assessment on those internal exposure with or without partitioning indexes in human blood is still unclear. In this study, nine commonly used OPFRs were quantified in 96 pairs of plasma and blood cell samples from Chinese volunteers. Non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk (CR) assessment building upon two distinct scenarios were conducted and compared. The dominant OPFRs in both plasma and blood cells were TBEP, TBP and TPHP. TCEP was the most enriched compound in plasma with F nearly to 1.0 (0.92), followed by TCPP, TBEP, TPHP, TBP and TEHP (from 0.61 to 0.76). The partitioning behavior of TCP in plasma was equivalent to blood cells with F at 0.50. When fully considered the F, the estimated average daily intake (DI) of ∑OPFRs (638.44 ng/kg BW/day) reached nearly 1.48-fold higher than the conventional calculation (dividing the concentration of plasma (C) by a factor of 2.0). Accordingly, we found the average hazard quotation (index) of TBP, TPHP and ∑OPFRs was underrated 1.50-fold when neglected the partitioning behaviors. Notably, the average CR of TCEP exceeded 10 at the highest concentration (1.19 × 10 ng/mL in plasma) only when the F was introduced. These data conjointly demonstrated that most of the DI levels and the corresponding risk index of OPFRs would be underestimated without factoring F into calculation, especially for those of low plasma partitioning. To our best knowledge, this study initially uncovered the gap between introducing F and dividing C by 2.0 during health risk assessment on internal OPFRs exposure.
尽管有机磷阻燃剂 (OPFRs) 的分配行为已在体外孵育试验中得到证实，但对于人体血液中存在或不存在分配指数的这些内暴露的健康风险评估仍不清楚。在这项研究中，定量分析了来自中国志愿者的 96 对血浆和血细胞样本中的 9 种常用 OPFRs。基于两种不同的情况进行了非致癌和致癌风险 (CR) 评估，并进行了比较。TBEP、TBP 和 TPHP 是血浆和血细胞中主要的 OPFRs。TCEP 是血浆中丰度最高的化合物，F 值接近 1.0（0.92），其次是 TCPP、TBEP、THPP、TBP 和 TEHP（0.61 至 0.76）。TCP 在血浆中的分配行为与血细胞相当，F 值为 0.50。当充分考虑 F 时，∑OPFRs 的估计平均每日摄入量 (DI)（638.44 ng/kg BW/day）几乎比传统计算（将血浆浓度 (C) 除以 2.0 的系数）高 1.48 倍。因此，当忽略分配行为时，我们发现 TBP、THPP 和∑OPFRs 的平均危害指数（指数）被低估了 1.50 倍。值得注意的是，当引入 F 时，TCEP 的平均 CR 在最高浓度（血浆中 1.19×10ng/mL）下超过 10。这些数据共同表明，如果不将 F 纳入计算，大多数 OPFRs 的 DI 水平和相应的风险指数将被低估，尤其是对于那些血浆分配率较低的情况。据我们所知，这是首次在评估内源性 OPFRs 暴露的健康风险时，发现引入 F 和将 C 除以 2.0 之间存在差距。
