Analysis of human hair to assess exposure to organophosphate flame retardants: Influence of hair segments and gender differences.

Hair is a promising, non-invasive, human biomonitoring matrix that can provide insight into retrospective and integral exposure to organic pollutants. In the present study, we measured the concentrations of organophosphate flame retardants (PFRs) in hair and serum samples from university students in Guangzhou, China, and compared the PFR concentrations in the female hair segments using paired distal (5~10cm from the root) and proximal (0~5cm from the root) samples. PFRs were not detected in the serum samples. All PFRs except tricresyl phosphate (TMPP) and tri-n-propyl phosphate (TPP) were detected in more than half of all hair samples. The concentrations of total PFRs varied from 10.1 to 604ng/g, with a median of 148ng/g. Tris(chloroisopropyl) phosphate (TCIPP) and tri(2-ethylexyl) phosphate (TEHP) were the predominant PFRs in hair. The concentrations of most PFRs in the distal segments were 1.5~8.6 times higher than those in the proximal segments of the hair (t-test, p<0.05), which may be due to the longer exposure time of the distal segments to external sources. The values of log (PFR concentrations-distal/PFR concentrations-proximal) were positively and significantly correlated with log KOA of PFRs (p<0.05, r=0.68), indicating that PFRs with a higher log KOA tend to accumulate in hair at a higher rate than PFRs with a lower log KOA. Using combined segments of female hair, significantly higher PFR concentrations were observed in female hair than in male hair. In contrast, female hair exhibited significantly lower PFR concentrations than male hair when using the same hair position for both genders (0-5cm from the scalp). The controversial results regarding gender differences in PFRs in hair highlight the importance of segmental analysis when using hair as an indicator of human exposure to PFRs.

Organophosphate flame retardants and diesters in the urine of e-waste dismantling workers: associations with indoor dust and implications for urinary biomonitoring.

Indoor dust ingestion is one of the main pathways for human exposure to organophosphate flame retardants (PFRs). The urinary concentrations of diesters (DAPs) are usually used as biomarkers to assess human exposure to PFRs. In this study, the PFR and DAP levels were measured in morning and evening urine samples of 30 workers from an e-waste dismantling site in southern China. The indoor dust samples were also collected from workshops and houses for analyzing associations between PFR and DAP levels in urine and dust. Tris(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCIPP) and triphenyl phosphate (TPHP) were the dominant PFRs in dust, while bis(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (BCEP) and diphenyl phosphate (DPHP) were the major DAPs in dust. A significant positive correlation was observed between TPHP and DPHP concentrations in dust (p < 0.001), suggesting their potentially same source and the degradation of TPHP to form DPHP. TCIPP and tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCIPP) were the predominant PFRs, and BCEP, bis(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (BDCIPP), and DPHP were the main DAPs in both the morning and evening urine samples. The DPHP levels in evening urine samples were significantly correlated with TPHP and DPHP levels (p < 0.01) in dust. A similar correlation was found for the BCEP levels in the evening urine samples and the TCEP and BCEP levels (p < 0.01) in dust. These results indicated that in addition to being biotransformed from their respective parent PFRs, direct ingestion from indoor dust could also be the potential source for urinary DPHP and BCEP. Since relatively low detection frequencies were observed for bis(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (BCIPP) and bis(butoxyethyl) phosphate (BBOEP) in urine, they may not be the major metabolites of TCIPP and tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (TBOEP), respectively, in the human body. However, BDCIPP can be considered a useful biomarker because it is a unique metabolite of TDCIPP and has high detection frequencies in urine samples. The results of this study indicated the limitations of solely using urinary DAPs as biomarkers for the evaluation of human exposure to PFRs, and certain PFRs as well as hydroxylated PFRs (OH-PFRs) should also be considered for urinary biomonitoring in future studies.