Fragrance allergens in household detergents.

Consumers are confronted with a large number of fragrance allergens from various sources. Until now, the discussion of exposure sources has mainly addressed cosmetic products and neglected other scented products in households. For the first time, fragrance allergens were evaluated in a complete set of detergents in households. In 131 households, we investigated the prevalence of detergents and searched their lists of ingredients for 26 fragrance allergens liable to be indicated on products according to the European Detergents Regulations. On the ingredient lists of 1447 products, these 26 fragrance substances were named almost 2000 times, most often limonene, linalool and hexyl cinnamal. Benzyl salicylate was used frequently in all-purpose cleaners. Linalool and limonene, hexyl cinnamal and butylphenyl methylpropional and citronellol and linalool co-occurred most often together in products. Fragrance allergens co-occurring together most frequently within households were eugenol, coumarin and cinnamyl alcohol. The study shows that detergents could play a relevant role for the exposure of consumers towards fragrance allergens and that they should not be underestimated as an exposure source during the exposure assessment.

Not only biocidal products: Washing and cleaning agents and personal care products can act as further sources of biocidal active substances in wastewater.

The emission sources of biocidal active substances in households have been under discussion since these substances have been detected frequently in municipal wastewater and receiving surface water bodies. Therefore, the goal of this study was to investigate the products responsible for the emission of these substances to wastewater. We analysed the wastewater of two streets for a set of biocidal active substances. Time-proportional sampling was conducted for one week of each season during one year in each street. The 14 substances analysed with liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry were 1,2-benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (BIT), C12-benzalkonium chloride, carbendazim, 5-chloro-2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (CMIT), dichlorooctylisothiazolinone (DCOIT), N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), diuron, icaridine, 2-octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (OIT), piperonyl butoxide (PBO), triclosan, tebuconazole, terbutryn and tetramethrin. Using data available from household product inventories of the two streets, we searched the lists of ingredients for the products possibly being responsible for the emissions. Except for four substances, all substances have been detected in at least 10% of the samples. Highest concentrations were measured for C12-benzalkonium chloride with an average concentration in the daily samples of 7.7 µg/L in one of the streets. Next to C12-benzalkonium chloride, BIT, DEET and icaridine were detected in all samples in average concentrations above 1 µg/L in at least one street. The results show that washing and cleaning agents were important sources for preservatives such as BIT and OIT, while triclosan was apparently mainly emitted through personal care products. The mosquito repelling substances DEET and icaridine were found throughout the year, with highest emissions in summer and autumn. In conclusion, the results demonstrate that the sources of biocidal active substances in municipal wastewater are complex and that measures for the prevention of the emission of biocidal active substances into the aquatic environment have to be carried out under different legislations. This has to be taken into account discussing emission reduction at the source.

Consumers' perceptions of biocidal products in households.

Biocidal products are commonly used in households and can pose a risk to human health and the environment. The aim of this study was to evaluate consumers' use and understanding of biocidal products in order to identify starting points for minimising their exposure to these products and reducing possible emissions to the environment. In a case study, standardised questionnaires were used to interview consumers in 133 households in three neighbourhoods in Northern Germany, representing the urban-rural typologies in Europe: predominantly urban, intermediate and predominantly rural regions. The questions focussed on the comprehension of the term 'biocide', pest control habits, sources of information, risk perception of different product groups and possible emission reduction measures. Only 21% of the respondents understood the term 'biocide' correctly, whereas 29% thought of 'something that had to do with organic pest control', and 28% were not able to think of a possible meaning. The risk perception of biocidal products compared to plant protection products varied depending on the living conditions. In the urban neighbourhood, biocidal products were perceived as more dangerous than in the rural area. The main pests to be fought were ants, mould and fruit fly. The results of the study indicate that there is a considerable difference between the types of biocidal products that interviewees claimed to own and those that they actually did have in their households. Most notably, respondents did not realise that they owned surface disinfectants. This result indicates that consumers often seem not to be aware of using specific biocidal products. Also, this shows the limitations of collecting data on products owned with only one method, as the results from products inventories of the households deviate from the data collected in interviews. Our results show that the term 'biocide' is not fully understood by many people. To communicate possible risks of biocidal products, other terms would have to be used. Online information regarding general facts on necessary general hygiene measures and biocidal products against bacteria and insects are likely to be of highest relevance for consumers. However, risk communication for biocidal products in general is difficult because consumers are often not aware of using biocidal products. For this reason, information and awareness raising campaigns should be accompanied by further measures such as sales restrictions for specific user-groups or prohibitions of certain uses for a sustainable use of biocidal products.

Possible underestimations of risks for the environment due to unregulated emissions of biocides from households to wastewater.

The aim of this study was to investigate the role of household products as possible sources of biocidal active substances in municipal wastewater and their regulation under the Biocidal Products Regulation (EU) 528/2012. In 131 households, we investigated the prevalence of products used to control pests, washing and cleaning agents and select personal care products with high release to wastewater. Inventories of these products were established with the help of barcode scanning. All uses of biocidal active substances were evaluated regarding their assessment under the Biocidal Products Regulation. 2963 products were scanned in total, with 48% being washing and cleaning agents, 43% personal care products and 9% products used to control pests. Biocidal active substances were found in each household. These were observed primarily in washing and cleaning agents and personal care products (90%), while only a small percentage of the observations of biocidal active substances was in biocidal products. 64% of the observations of biocidal active substances were in applications that do not fall under the Biocidal Products Regulation and are thus not subject to its environmental risk assessment. This study shows clearly that risks for the environment are underestimated because unregulated emissions to wastewater occur. It demonstrates that there are gaps in the current chemical legislation that lead to a release of substances into wastewater that were not subject to environmental risk assessment under the Biocidal Products Regulation. This is one example of the limitations of scientific risk assessment of chemicals - its complexity is immense. From our point of view, the results underline the importance of a sustainable use of the substances as this is the only way to decrease yet unidentified risks.

Emerging risks from ballast water treatment: the run-up to the International Ballast Water Management Convention.

Uptake and discharge of ballast water by ocean-going ships contribute to the worldwide spread of aquatic invasive species, with negative impacts on the environment, economies, and public health. The International Ballast Water Management Convention aims at a global answer. The agreed standards for ballast water discharge will require ballast water treatment. Systems based on various physical and/or chemical methods were developed for on-board installation and approved by the International Maritime Organization. Most common are combinations of high-performance filters with oxidizing chemicals or UV radiation. A well-known problem of oxidative water treatment is the formation of disinfection by-products, many of which show genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, or other long-term toxicity. In natural biota, genetic damages can affect reproductive success and ultimately impact biodiversity. The future exposure towards chemicals from ballast water treatment can only be estimated, based on land-based testing of treatment systems, mathematical models, and exposure scenarios. Systematic studies on the chemistry of oxidants in seawater are lacking, as are data about the background levels of disinfection by-products in the oceans and strategies for monitoring future developments. The international approval procedure of ballast water treatment systems compares the estimated exposure levels of individual substances with their experimental toxicity. While well established in many substance regulations, this approach is also criticised for its simplification, which may disregard critical aspects such as multiple exposures and long-term sub-lethal effects. Moreover, a truly holistic sustainability assessment would need to take into account factors beyond chemical hazards, e.g. energy consumption, air pollution or waste generation.