School of Environment and Energy Engineering, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing, 100044, China.
College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001, China.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2024 Feb;31(10):15257-15270. doi: 10.1007/s11356-024-32019-4. Epub 2024 Jan 30.
Recently, phthalate exposure has become a major public health concern. However, gaps still remain in our understanding of phthalate profile characteristics, source screening, and gas-phase estimation. This study measured phthalate concentrations in dust and window films in 101 dormitories at 13 universities in Beijing, China, from October to December 2019. Based on the phthalate concentrations in the dust and window films, we estimated the gas-phase phthalate concentrations using steady-state and instantaneous equilibrium models, respectively, and male and female students' dermal exposure using the Monte Carlo simulation. Commonly used materials and supplies were screened for phthalate sources and evaluated using the positive matrix factorization (PMF) model. The results showed that the detection frequency of ten phthalates ranged from 79.2 to 100% in dust and from 84.2 to 100% in window films. Dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP), di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), and dibutyl phthalate (DBP) were the most abundant phthalates in both indoor media and were also predominant in the indoor materials and supplies. The PMF results indicated that the potential sources of phthalates in dust and window films had both similarities and differences. Indoor door seals, paint, coatings, cables, air-conditioning rubber cable ties, wallpaper, and window seals were highly probable sources of phthalates. The gas-phase phthalate concentrations estimated using the two methods differed, especially for phthalates with high octanol-air partition coefficients (K), varying by 1-2 orders of magnitude. Moreover, compared with related studies, the gas-phase concentrations were significantly underestimated for phthalates with high K values, while the estimated gas-phase concentrations of phthalates with low K values were closer to the measured values. The estimated dermal exposure using the two methodologies also considerably differed. Such findings suggest that more attention should be focused on the exposure risk from the dust phase and window film phase phthalates.
最近，邻苯二甲酸酯暴露已成为一个主要的公共卫生关注点。然而，我们在邻苯二甲酸酯谱特征、源筛选和气相估算方面仍存在差距。本研究于 2019 年 10 月至 12 月期间测量了中国北京 13 所大学 101 间宿舍内灰尘和窗膜中的邻苯二甲酸酯浓度。基于灰尘和窗膜中的邻苯二甲酸酯浓度，我们分别使用稳态和瞬时平衡模型估算了气相邻苯二甲酸酯浓度，并使用蒙特卡罗模拟估算了男、女生的皮肤暴露量。我们筛选了常用材料和用品中的邻苯二甲酸酯源，并使用正定矩阵因子分解（PMF）模型进行了评估。结果表明，十种邻苯二甲酸酯在灰尘中的检出率为 79.2%至 100%，在窗膜中的检出率为 84.2%至 100%。邻苯二甲酸二环己酯（DCHP）、邻苯二甲酸二（2-乙基己基）酯（DEHP）和邻苯二甲酸二丁酯（DBP）在室内介质中含量最丰富，也是室内材料和用品中的主要成分。PMF 结果表明，灰尘和窗膜中邻苯二甲酸酯的潜在源既有相似之处，也有不同之处。室内门封条、油漆、涂料、电缆、空调橡胶扎带、壁纸和窗封条是邻苯二甲酸酯的高度可能来源。两种方法估算的气相邻苯二甲酸酯浓度不同，特别是对于辛醇-空气分配系数（K）较高的邻苯二甲酸酯，相差 1-2 个数量级。此外，与相关研究相比，对于 K 值较高的邻苯二甲酸酯，气相浓度的估算明显偏低，而对于 K 值较低的邻苯二甲酸酯，估算的气相浓度更接近实测值。两种方法估算的皮肤暴露量也有较大差异。这些发现表明，应更加关注灰尘相和窗膜相邻苯二甲酸酯的暴露风险。
