Next Article in Journal
Chemical Profiles and Toxicity of Electronic Cigarettes: An Umbrella Review and Methodological Considerations
Next Article in Special Issue
Impacts of Wildfire Smoke and Air Pollution on a Pediatric Population with Asthma: A Population-Based Study
Previous Article in Journal
Leisure-Related Social Work Interventions for Patients with Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Controversy in Electromagnetic Safety
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 3
10.3390/ijerph20031907
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Simplified Unified BARGE Method to Assess Migration of Phthalate Esters in Ingested PVC Consumer Products

by
Dana Fahad M. S. Mohamed
1,
Du Yung Kim
1,
Jinsung An
2,
Minhye Kim
3,
Sa-Ho Chun
3 and
Jung-Hwan Kwon
1,*
1
Division of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, 55 Hanyangdeahak-ro, Sangnok-gu, Ansan 15588, Republic of Korea
3
Chemical Products Team, FITI Testing and Research Institute, 21 Yangcheong 3-gil, Cheongju-si 28115, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(3), 1907; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031907
Submission received: 16 December 2022 / Revised: 13 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 20 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Challenges and Emerging Approaches in Environmental Exposure and Human Health Risk Assessment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The unified bioaccessibility research group of Europe (BARGE) method (UBM) suggests using in vitro experimental conditions for simulating the release of chemicals from confined matrices, such as soils and sediments, in the human gastrointestinal tract. It contains comprehensive steps that simulate human digestion pathways and has good potential for application in the leaching of plastic additives from accidentally ingested plastic particles. However, its complexity could be a challenge for routine screening assessments of the migration of chemicals from consumer plastic products. In this study, the UBM was modified to assess the migration of plastic additives from consumer products with five model phthalate esters (i.e., dibutyl phthalate (DBP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), and di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP)) from polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The migration of phthalate esters was observed in four digestive phases (saliva, gastric, duodenal, and bile). Three separate experiments were conducted with the addition of (1) inorganic constituents only, (2) inorganic and organic constituents, and (3) inorganic and organic constituents in combination with digestive enzymes. While using enzymes with the UBM solution, the migrated mass for leached compounds was comparatively low (0.226 ± 0.04 μg) in most digestion phases, likely due to a self-generated coating of enzymes on the plastic materials. However, higher mass migration (0.301 ± 0.05) was observed when phthalate esters were analyzed in the UBM solution, excluding the enzymes. A ring test among six independent laboratories confirmed the robustness of the modified method. Therefore, we propose a simplified version of the original UBM designed mainly for the migration of inorganic elements using only the inorganic and organic components of the solution throughout all phases of digestion.

1. Introduction

The exposure of children to environmental contaminants is expected to differ from that of adults owing to their physiological and behavioral characteristics [1]. Infants and toddlers, specifically from 3 to 36 months of age, tend to engage in mouthing behaviors, which result in increased exposure to environmental contaminants [2,3]. The metabolic rates of children are faster than those of adults, which consequently leads to a faster breakdown. Infants and children are smaller than adults and thus receive a larger dose of these contaminants due to their food and water requirements per unit of body mass, hand-to-mouth activity, and ventilation rate [4,5]. Infants and toddlers tend to place various types of objects in their mouths such as plastic toys, pacifiers, and teethers. Plastic toys often contain a mixture of plasticizers, flame retardants, and antimicrobial substances [6,7,8]. Phthalate esters are a type of plasticizer that help improve the flexibility of plastic materials and some are classified as endocrine disrupting chemicals that cause developmental disorders [9]. They are not covalently bound to the polymer chain, allowing them to migrate from the product to the saliva when mouthed or to digestive fluids when ingested [6,10,11,12].
Many studies have focused on the total concentrations of contaminants in ingested matrices. However, this does not mean that all unbound chemicals in the product readily migrate and become bioaccessible in the gastrointestinal fluids. Not considering the migration of these unbound additives in the risk assessment of chemicals in consumer products can lead to a serious overestimation of exposure [13]. The bioaccessible fraction is defined as the maximum amount of contaminant that can be absorbed within the gastrointestinal tract [14], whereas the bioavailability means the proportion of the contaminant that enters the circulation when it is introduced into the body. Although relative bioavailability needs to be derived using animal models for site-specific human risk assessment of hazardous substances, economic/ethical issues have been continuously raised [15]. Thus, various in vitro test methods that can replace the in vivo toxicity test are proposed. As a representative in vitro method, the Bioaccessibility Research Group of Europe (BARGE) developed a unified method that simulates the human gastrointestinal tract under laboratory conditions. This method is used to determine the bioaccessibility of contaminants in soils in human health risk assessments in Europe [16].
The unified BARGE method (UBM) was developed primarily for evaluating the bioaccessibility of heavy metals accumulated in soil matrices [17,18]. To the best of our knowledge, few studies have used the UBM protocol to evaluate the migration of contaminants from orally ingested plastic consumer products. Owing to the increasing needs for risk assessment of chemicals in consumer products [19], it is necessary to extend the applicability of UBM. The UBM solution contains inorganic, organic, and enzymatic components in four digestion phases (saliva, gastric, duodenal, and bile fluids) that mimic the human digestive system and bring it to relatively simple in vitro systems. However, salts, soluble proteins, and enzymes may cause difficulties in extracting target analytes from test solutions, as has been observed in many earlier biomonitoring studies of hydrophobic organic compounds (HOCs) in tissue residue analysis [20,21,22]. Therefore, it is important to determine an optimized composition of digestive solutions for screening the bioaccessibility of HOCs from ingested products. Phthalate plasticizers, such as di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), are known to cause adverse effects, even at low exposure concentrations [23,24]. As plasticizers are added in high percentages in plastic products, the careful experimental evaluation of bioaccessibility from accidentally ingested products is vital to estimate their exposure, especially for infants and toddlers.
Traditionally, sample preparation methods include liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) and solid-phase extraction (SPE) [25,26,27]. However, these methods do not agree with the current trends in green analytical chemistry [28], promoting the reduction in toxic and harmful solvents during the preparation and pre-treatment steps of analytical processes [29]. Other aspects (including those related to extraction efficiency, reproducibility, and cost) should be considered [30]. The main objectives of this study were (i) to evaluate which extraction method is most appropriate for the UBM, (ii) to obtain the extraction efficiency of the UBM protocol for the selected phthalate esters from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) consumer products by varying the solution compositions containing inorganic components only, both inorganic and organic components, or both inorganic and organic components with enzymes, and (iii) to compare the mass migrated out of PVC consumer products using experimental UBMs and those from mathematical exposure models. The robustness of the proposed modified UBM was evaluated using a ring test performed in six independent laboratories.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals and Materials

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 506 standard mixture of seven phthalates (benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), di(2-ethylhexyl) (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), dimethyl phthalate (DMP), di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP), and di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA)) containing 1000 μg mL−1 of each chemical, dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP), and the internal standard (IS) (benzyl benzoate in 5000 μg mL−1 in n-hexane) was purchased from Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA). Methanol (≥99.9%, Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was used as a solvent for dilution, tetrahydrofuran (≥99.9%, Sigma Aldrich) was used to dissolve the PVC toys, and hexane (≥97.0%, Sigma Aldrich) was used as a solvent for phthalate extraction. The standards were diluted in 100% methanol to five concentrations (0.1, 1, 5, 10, and 50 μg mL−1) and the internal standard was prepared in hexane at 1 μg mL−1. During method development, working solutions were prepared by spiking standard solutions with ultrapure water or gastric (G) and gastrointestinal (GI) fluids.
The digestive fluids were prepared according to the UBM protocol. In the original UBM protocol, 250 mL of inorganic constituents and 250 mL of organic constituents are combined to produce a total volume of 500 mL. The solid enzymes were then added to the mixture of both constituents to mimic the digestion process. The experiment was conducted by adding inorganic (I), inorganic and organic (IO), and inorganic, organic, and enzyme (IOE) chemical solutions. For the analysis, I solution (5 mL) and deionized water (5 mL) were used. For the IO solution, inorganic (5 mL) and organic (5 mL) solvents were used. For the IOE solution, 10 mL of each of the combined solutions incubated with the enzymes were used. The reagents used for the composition of each digestive fluid are listed in Table 1.
PVC for phthalate analysis (CRM 113-03-006) was purchased from the Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (Daejeon, Republic of Korea). The certified values in the reference material were 972, 962, 999, and 967 mg kg−1 for DBP, BBP, DEHP, and DNOP, respectively. The PVC material was ground to finer particles (208 ± 89 μm) using a freezer mill (6875 Freezer/Mill®, SPEX SamplePrep, LLC, Metuchen, NJ, USA) to establish the modified UBM. For external validation using the ring test, a sample of a consumer product containing 34.1% (w/w) DEHP was used.

2.2. Instrumental Analysis

The phthalate concentration was quantified using an Agilent 7890A gas chromatograph (GC) with a 5975C mass spectrometry detector (MSD) (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) for method validation. An Agilent DB-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm; 0.35 μm film thickness) was used for separation. Helium was used as the carrier gas at 1 mL min−1. The inlet temperature was set at 300 °C and the pressure was 10.523 psi. The initial GC oven temperature was 100 °C and increased at a rate of 15 °C min−1 for 6.67 min till it reached 200 °C. It was then increased at a rate of 5 °C min−1 until it reached 270 °C. The total run time was 36.67 min per sample. The ions were monitored in scan and selective ion monitoring mode. The concentration of the phthalates were quantified using benzyl benzoate as an internal standard. The external standards were selected ranging from 0.1 μg mL−1 to 50 μg mL−1. The mass-to-charge ratios (m/z) were 149 and 223 for DBP, 149 and 206 for BBP, 149 and 167 for DEHP, 149 and 279 for DNOP, 149 and 167 for DOTP, and 212 and 213 for benzyl benzoate. The coefficients of determination for the calibration were greater than 0.99. All the samples were analyzed in triplicate. The analytes were not detected in the blank extractions of the digestive fluid. The absence of carry-over of analytes in GC-MS was evaluated using an injection of hexane as a control for each sample analysis. The detection limits were obtained as 0.14, 0.29, 0.09, 0.14, and 0.09 μg mL−1 for DBP, BBP, DEHP, DNOP, and DOTP, respectively. All the certified reference material and products tested contained sufficiently greater concentration of phthalates than their detection limits.

2.3. In Vitro Oral Bioaccessibility Test (UBM)

Following the UBM protocol (Bioaccesibility Research, 2011), artificial solutions mimicking saliva (S), gastric fluid (G), duodenal fluid (D), and bile (B) were prepared (detailed compositions are listed in Table 1). The components in each digestive fluid were dissolved in ultrapure water and completely mixed with a magnetic stirrer for 1 h. Each fluid was prepared separately to determine the maximum possible migration in each combination (i.e., inorganic constituents only, both inorganic and organic constituents, both inorganic and organic constituents with enzymes, etc.). To ensure the enzyme activity, the enzyme solutions were prepared freshly on the same day and incubated for 1 h at 37 ± 2 °C for activation before the start of the simulated digestion process. To analyze the extraction recovery, 1 mg L−1 of each phthalate was added to a 15 mL glass centrifuge tube. For the preparation of the gastric phase (pH 1.2 ± 0.1), 1.5 mL of saliva and 2.3 mL of gastric fluid were added and mixed in an end-over-end rotator for 1 h at 37 ± 2 °C. The intestinal phase (pH 6.3 ± 0.5) was prepared by adding 4.6 mL of duodenal fluid and 1.5 mL of bile fluid to the gastric phase and was mixed in an end-over-end rotator for 4 h. The pH of each phase was adjusted using 1 M NaOH and 37% HCl. The same procedure was used to analyze the mass migrated from 0.1 g of PVC reference material (CRM 113-03-006).

2.4. Analysis with Different Extraction Methods

2.4.1. Liquid-Liquid Extraction at Different Volumes of Extraction Solvents

In accordance with green analytical chemistry, the solvents were tested at different volumes to determine whether the efficiency was appropriate even at smaller volumes.

Higher Volume of Extraction Solvent

A volume of 20 mL of spiked samples in the combined phases of digestion fluid was added to a separatory funnel and 10 mL of n-hexane was used to extract the analytes. This process was repeated 3 times and the combined supernatant was concentrated under a gentle nitrogen stream (1.0 mL) and subjected to GC/MS analysis.

Lower Volume of Extraction Solvent

The spiked samples (10 mL) were added to a 15 mL glass centrifuge tube and mixed with 1.0 mL n-hexane. The samples were vortexed for 2 min and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 μm PTFE membrane filter (Advantec, Dublin, CA, USA) and the filtrate was subjected to GC/MS analysis.

2.5. Screening of the Migration of Phthalates in Children’s Toys Using the Simplified UBM

Four different bath toys were purchased online. The details of each item are presented in Table 2. The samples mainly contained an alternative phthalate plasticizer (DOTP). To measure the initial concentration of phthalates in the sample, 0.3 g of the sample was weighed and placed in a 40 mL glass vial. A volume of 10 mL of tetrahydrofuran (THF) was added and the solution was sonicated for 1 h. For the analyte extraction, 20 mL hexane was added to the THF solution and the mixture was left at room temperature for 30 min. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 μm PTFE syringe filter and subjected to GC/MS analysis.
After verifying the initial concentration of the toy samples, the mass that migrated during oral migration was analyzed similarly to the previous method using certified reference material. The samples were weighed up to 0.07 g and 1.5 mL of saliva and 2.3 mL of gastric fluid was added and mixed in an end-over-end rotator for 1 h at 37 ± 2 °C [16,31]. The intestinal phase (pH 6.3 ± 0.5) was prepared by adding 4.6 mL of duodenal fluid and 1.5 mL of bile to the gastric phase and was mixed in an end-over-end rotator for 4 h. The phthalates were extracted with 1 mL of n-hexane and the supernatant was subjected to GC/MS analysis.

2.6. Ring Test to Determine the Reproducibility of the Simplified UBM

Inter-laboratory validation of the method was conducted in six laboratories, including the Environmental Chemistry Lab where the modified UBM was developed. The ground-certified material was sent to each participating laboratory using the test protocol. The robustness of this method was evaluated using a robust Z-score.
robust Z-score = |(x − μ)/normalized IQR|
normalized IQR = 0.743 × (3rd quartile value − 1st quartile value)
where x is an individual amount of DEHP migrated from the certified material, μ is the median and standard deviation values of the six participating laboratories, and IQR is the interquartile range.

3. Results

3.1. Comparing Conventional Liquid-Liquid Extraction to Low Volume Liquid-Liquid Extraction

The extractions at different volumes were compared to determine whether a simplified extraction method may be more appropriate for a standardized process. n-Hexane was used as an extractant at different volumes (1 and 30 mL) and the two methods were compared (Figure 1). Distilled water was spiked prior to the UBM protocol to determine the most efficient extraction method. The extraction recovery using 1 mL and 30 mL of solvent had similar results (both having an average extraction recovery of 85%). The lower volume was chosen as an ideal extraction method as it used a smaller volume of solvent and was performed in a shorter amount of time than conventional techniques. DNOP is a more hydrophobic analyte than the other phthalates, which could explain why the extraction efficiency was lower than that of the other analytes of interest (Figure 1). For both methods, the standard deviation was within the acceptable range. The relative standard deviation ranged 8–21% for 30 mL and 7–30% for 1 mL. Therefore, 1 mL of n-hexane was used for the extraction of phthalates in the UBM solution.

3.2. Comparison of Extraction Efficiency of Phthalates Extracted in Addition of Each UBM Solution

The UBM solution comprised various inorganic, organic, and enzymatic components. The phthalates were spiked, extracted, and analyzed by using four types of solutions: the first used deionized water, second only used the inorganic solution, third used the inorganic solution with the addition of the organic solution, and lastly used the original method, which included all of the inorganic, organic, and enzymatic solutions. Figure 2 compares the extraction efficiencies obtained for the four different solutions.
Although there were scatters, the extraction recovery in deionized water was generally the greatest. As more components were added to the UBM solution, the recovery decreased. Another trend was found to be lower for the more hydrophobic phthalates (DEHP and DNOP) than for the less hydrophobic phthalates (DBP and BBP). In the solution containing enzymes, the extraction recovery was the lowest; this was more apparent for the more hydrophobic DEHP and DNOP. This is likely because these hydrophobic analytes were not extracted by the solvent, as they may bind to proteins and other polymeric substances in the matrix [31].

3.3. Measuring the Mass Migration Using PVC-Certified Reference Material

In contrast to the previous results, the results varied in the presence of a solid plastic material. Excluding the saliva solution, the mass migration was lower in the solution containing enzymes than in the inorganic and organic (IO) solution when 0.1 g of the PVC-certified material was added to the matrix. In the duodenal and bile fluid, the mass that migrated to the BBP and DNOP was lower (Figure 3).
Upon observation of this solution, the enzymes formed a coat around the reference material that may have inhibited the leaching of phthalates. Since the UBM protocol was originally designed to determine the bioavailability of inorganic elements such as heavy metals, it may not necessarily be applicable when observing the maximum possible migration of phthalate esters from consumer products. Sequential extraction following the addition of each fluid was conducted by comparing inorganic fluid (I) with inorganic and organic fluid (IO) (Figure 4). The mass migrated was similar between the two solutions; therefore, a solution containing inorganic and organic materials can be used to analyze the migration of phthalates from consumer products. Approximately 0.2% of phthalates were leached from the certified reference material into the artificial gastrointestinal matrix.

3.4. Validation of the Modified UBM Using a Ring Test

Each participating laboratory conducted triplicate analyses using the same reference materials. The robust Z-scores were 0.33, 0.33, 0.65, 0.93, 1.26, and 5.12. As it is regarded that the performance of the experimental results is satisfactory when the robust Z-score is less than 2.0 [32], the proposed method is likely to be conducted providing robust results. One participating laboratory reported a very high migrated mass compared with the other five laboratories, which might be due to the grinding step of the reference material.

3.5. Using the Simplified Unified BARGE Method for the Screening of the Migration of Phthalate Esters from Children’s Toys

Four toys were tested using inorganic and organic matrices. Sample 1 had a lower concentration of DOTP present in the sample in comparison to the other samples. Therefore, the migrated mass of DOTP was 2.02 ± 0.57 μg. The other samples had concentrations of 926 ± 296, 1223 ± 530, and 907 ± 181 μg for samples 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Approximately 3–5% (w/w) of the DOTP migrated into the artificial gastrointestinal fluid during the extraction period.

3.6. Estimating Mouthing Exposure to Phthalates in Children’s Toys

The results of the phthalate ester migration from the toy products into saliva are shown in Figure 5. The samples listed in Table 1 were used in this process. The amount of DOTP that migrated immediately within 5 min of exposure and the migrated mass of DOTP between 5 and 25 min were not statistically significant. The average masses of DOTP between 5 and 25 min were 1.963± 0.246, 1244.7 ± 302.91, 1017.83 ± 78.3, and 968.3 ± 130.49 μg for samples 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. These results demonstrate that the migrated mass of DOTP was not significantly affected by the experimental time.

4. Discussion

Many studies have been conducted on children’s exposure to PVC mouthing articles [12,33,34]. However, there are few studies involving the in vitro digestion of children’s products containing phthalates [35]. In this study, steps were followed according to the UBM digestion protocol to mimic human digestion pathways. Following green analytical chemistry, the use of a lower volume of solvent has been found to be sufficient to attain appropriate extraction recovery [29]. Although studies have been conducted using the UBM to measure heavy metals in soil matrices [17,18], this study mainly focused on the oral exposure of consumer products and their debris with experimental reproducibility. The digested samples were extracted using a lower volume of solvent (1 mL) after the extraction efficiency was compared using 1 and 30 mL of the solvent. The oral exposure presented was built upon a previous work [31] with a similar method using a lower volume of extraction solvent for phthalates in the UBM solution. However, this study included an additional step of analyzing the mass migrated from the PVC products. As plastic matrices can be quite complex, the conventional UBM was modified to simulate the maximum migration of leached phthalates to the body. This was broken down by each component of the digestive fluid and inorganic, organic, and enzymatic components of the liquid. Although it is possible to obtain a high extraction efficiency of spiked phthalates in the UBM matrix, it is difficult to determine the leached phthalates in the case of a solid sample. The UBM protocol using inorganic and organic (IO) solutions can be used as a standardized method to determine the maximum amount leached from consumer products. This modified method may be used in the future for other types of hydrophobic endocrine disruptors (EDCs) such as organophosphate flame retardants and various UV stabilizers.
As observed during the ring test, the size and shape of the ground particles are important in determining the total mass of migrated DEHP during in vitro digestion. As it is well acknowledged that the leaching of plastic additives and associated contaminants from microplastics is strongly influenced by particle sizes [36,37,38], further research is necessary to identify the size range of microplastics accidentally ingested via mouthing behavior in children.
In compliance with the ban on phthalates, many toys were found to use DOTP as an alternative to phthalate (DEHP) [39,40]. Therefore, the mass migration of DOTP from PVC according to children’s mouthing behavior was also observed. The migrations at different times were compared to determine whether the mouthing duration may affect the migration of DOTP from PVC. The saliva phase from the original UBM method was used and the migrated mass did not differ at different mouthing durations. Therefore, DOTP migration occurs immediately and does not increase with a longer mouthing duration.

5. Conclusions

Low volume liquid-liquid extraction was used as it is more environmentally friendly, time effective, and has an easier sample clean up. The UBM solution spiked with phthalate had the highest extraction recovery in the enzyme-containing solution but does not apply to consumer products. Applying this method to a solid PVC reference material resulted in the formation of a coating on the material that inhibited the leaching of phthalate esters, causing a lower migrated mass. After analysis, we found that excluding the enzymatic components resulted in clearer and more consistent results in all the phases of digestion and the modified UBM was found to be robust in a ring test in six different laboratories. The UBM protocol using inorganic and organic solutions can be used as a more reproducible method to determine the maximum quantity leached from consumer products.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.F.M.S.M., D.Y.K. and J.-H.K.; methodology, D.F.M.S.M., D.Y.K. and J.A.; validation, D.Y.K., M.K. and S.-H.C.; investigation, D.F.M.S.M.; data curation, D.F.M.S.M. and J.-H.K.; writing—original draft preparation, D.F.M.S.M.; writing—review and editing, D.Y.K., J.A., S.-H.C. and J.-H.K.; visualization, D.F.M.S.M.; supervision, J.-H.K.; funding acquisition, J.-H.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Korea Environment Industry and Technology Institute (KEITI) through the Technology Development Project for Safety Management of Household Chemical Products Program, funded by the Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) (Nos. 2020002970001 and 1485017105).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from authors upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the testing laboratories that participated in the ring test.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. All co-authors have seen and agree with the contents of the manuscript and there is no financial and non-financial interest to report.

References

  1. Hubal, E.A.C.; Sheldon, L.S.; Burke, J.M.; McCurdy, T.R.; Berry, M.R.; Rigas, M.L.; Zartarian, V.G.; Freeman, N.C.G. Children’s Exposure Assessment: A Review of Factors Influencing Children’s Exposure, and the Data Available to Characterize and Assess That Exposure. Environ. Health Perspect. 2000, 108, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Babich, M.A.; Chen, S.-B.; Greene, M.A.; Kiss, C.T.; Porter, W.K.; Smith, T.P.; Wind, M.L.; Zamula, W.W. Risk assessment of oral exposure to diisononyl phthalate from children’s products. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2004, 40, 151–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Hammel, S.C.; Levasseur, J.L.; Hoffman, K.; Phillips, A.L.; Lorenzo, A.M.; Calafat, A.M.; Webster, T.F.; Stapleton, H.M. Children’s exposure to phthalates and non-phthalate plasticizers in the home: The TESIE study. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 105061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants. In Proceedings of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, USA, 7 April 2005. [Google Scholar]
  5. Braun, J.M.; Sathyanarayana, S.; Hauser, R. Phthalate exposure and children’s health. Curr. Opin. Pediatr. 2013, 25, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Aurisano, N.; Fantke, P.; Huang, L.; Jolliet, O. Estimating mouthing exposure to chemicals in children’s products. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2021, 32, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Groh, K.J.; Backhaus, T.; Carney-Almroth, B.; Geueke, B.; Inostroza, P.A.; Lennquist, A.; Leslie, H.A.; Maffini, M.; Slunge, D.; Trasande, L.; et al. Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 651, 3253–3268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Philippat, C.; Bennett, D.; Calafat, A.M.; Picciotto, I.H. Exposure to select phthalates and phenols through use of personal care products among Californian adults and their children. Environ. Res. 2015, 140, 369–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Li, D.; Suh, S. Health risks of chemicals in consumer products: A review. Environ. Int. 2019, 123, 580–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Żwierełło, W.; Maruszewska, A.; Skórka-Majewicz, M.; Goschorska, M.; Baranowska-Bosiacka, I.; Dec, K.; Styburski, D.; Nowakowska, A.; Gutowska, I. The influence of polyphenols on metabolic disorders caused by compounds released from plastics—Review. Chemosphere 2019, 240, 124901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Radke, E.G.; Galizia, A.; Thayer, K.A.; Cooper, G.S. Phthalate exposure and metabolic effects: A systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 104768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Souza, J.M.O.; Souza, M.C.O.; Rocha, B.A.; Nadal, M.; Domingo, J.L.; Barbosa, F. Levels of phthalates and bisphenol in toys from Brazilian markets: Migration rate into children’s saliva and daily exposure. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 828, 154486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kim, D.Y.; Chun, S.-H.; Jung, Y.; Mohamed, D.F.M.S.; Kim, H.-S.; Kang, D.-Y.; An, J.-W.; Park, S.-Y.; Kwon, H.-W.; Kwon, J.-H. Phthalate Plasticizers in Children’s Products and Estimation of Exposure: Importance of Migration Rate. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Xia, Q.; Peng, C.; Lamb, D.; Mallavarapu, M.; Naidu, R.; Ng, J.C. Bioaccessibility of arsenic and cadmium assessed for in vitro bioaccessibility in spiked soils and their interaction during the Unified BARGE Method (UBM) extraction. Chemosphere 2016, 147, 444–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Oomen, A.G.; Sips, A.J.A.M.; Groten, J.P.; Sijm, D.T.H.M.; Tolls, J. Mobilization of PCBs and Lindane from Soil during in Vitro Digestion and Their Distribution among Bile Salt Micelles and Proteins of Human Digestive Fluid and the Soil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 34, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. BARGE—INERIS. UBM procedure for the measurement of inorganic contaminant bioaccessibility from solid matrices. Food Chem. 2011, 277, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fernández-Landero, S.; Giráldez, I.; Fernández-Caliani, J.C. Predicting the relative oral bioavailability of naturally occurring As, Cd and Pb from in vitro bioaccessibility measurement: Implications for human soil ingestion exposure assessment. Environ. Geochem. Health 2021, 43, 4251–4264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Wragg, J.; Cave, M.; Basta, N.; Brandon, E.; Casteel, S.; Denys, S.; Gron, C.; Oomen, A.; Reimer, K.; Tack, K.; et al. An inter-laboratory trial of the unified BARGE bioaccessibility method for arsenic, cadmium and lead in soil. Sci. Total. Environ. 2011, 409, 4016–4030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Lee, J.-H.; Kim, Y.-H.; Kwon, J.-H. Fatal Misuse of Humidifier Disinfectants in Korea: Importance of Screening Risk Assessment and Implications for Management of Chemicals in Consumer Products. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 2498–2500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tang, X.-Y.; Tang, L.; Zhu, Y.-G.; Xing, B.-S.; Duan, J.; Zheng, M.-H. Assessment of the bioaccessibility of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soils from Beijing using an in vitro test. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 140, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, Y.; Pignatello, J.J.; Tao, S.; Xing, B. Bioaccessibility of PAHs in Fuel Soot Assessed by an in Vitro Digestive Model with Absorptive Sink: Effect of Food Ingestion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 14641–14648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zeng, Y.; Fan, Y.; Yan, X.; Zheng, J.; Chen, S.-J.; Mai, B.-X. In vitro oral and inhalation bioaccessibility of hydrophobic organic contaminants (HOCs) in airborne particles and influence of relevant parameters. Environ. Res. 2018, 170, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Meeker, J.D. Exposure to Environmental Endocrine Disruptors and Child Development. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2012, 166, E1–E7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Kumar, M.; Sarma, D.K.; Shubham, S.; Kumawat, M.; Verma, V.; Prakash, A.; Tiwari, R. Environmental Endocrine-Disrupting Chemical Exposure: Role in Non-Communicable Diseases. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 553850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Viera, I.; Herrera, M.; Roca, M. In Vitro Bioaccessibility Protocol for Chlorophylls. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2021, 69, 8777–8786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Paulo, F.; Tavares, L.; Santos, L. In vitro digestion, bioaccessibility, and release kinetics studies of encapsulated bioactive compounds obtained from olive mill pomace. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2022, 16, 4880–4895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Teng, F.; Reis, M.G.; Yang, L.; Ma, Y.; Day, L. In-depth lipidomic analysis of tri-, di-, and mono-acylglycerols released from milk fat after in vitro digestion. Food Chem. 2019, 297, 124976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Armenta, S.; Garrigues, S.; de la Guardia, M. The role of green extraction techniques in Green Analytical Chemistry. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2015, 71, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kaya, S.I.; Cetinkaya, A.; Ozkan, S.A. Green analytical chemistry approaches on environmental analysis. Trends Environ. Anal. Chem. 2022, 33, e00157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Aly, A.A.; Górecki, T. Green Approaches to Sample Preparation Based on Extraction Techniques. Molecules 2020, 25, 1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Trujillo-Rodríguez, M.J.; Gomila, R.M.; Martorell, G.; Miró, M. Microscale extraction versus conventional approaches for handling gastrointestinal extracts in oral bioaccessibility assays of endocrine disrupting compounds from microplastic contaminated beach sand. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 272, 115992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Thompson, M.; Ellison, S.L.R.; Wood, R. The International Harmonized Protocol for the proficiency testing of analytical chemistry laboratories (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl. Chem. 2006, 78, 145–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ashworth, M.J.; Chappell, A.; Ashmore, E.; Fowles, J. Analysis and Assessment of Exposure to Selected Phthalates Found in Children’s Toys in Christchurch, New Zealand. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Babich, M.A.; Bevington, C.; Dreyfus, M.A. Plasticizer migration from children’s toys, child care articles, art materials, and school supplies. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2020, 111, 104574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Brandon, E.F.; Oomen, A.G.; Rompelberg, C.J.; Versantvoort, C.H.; van Engelen, J.G.; Sips, A.J. Consumer product in vitro digestion model: Bioaccessibility of contaminants and its application in risk assessment. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2006, 44, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Do, A.T.N.; Ha, Y.; Kwon, J.-H. Leaching of microplastic-associated additives in aquatic environments: A critical review. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 305, 119258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lee, H.; Lee, H.-J.; Kwon, J.-H. Estimating microplastic-bound intake of hydrophobic organic chemicals by fish using measured desorption rates to artificial gut fluid. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 651, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bakir, A.; Rowland, S.J.; Thompson, R.C. Enhanced desorption of persistent organic pollutants from microplastics under simulated physiological conditions. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 185, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Xie, M.; Wu, Y.; Little, J.C.; Marr, L.C. Phthalates and alternative plasticizers and potential for contact exposure from children’s backpacks and toys. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2015, 26, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. McCombie, G.; Biedermann, S.; Suter, G.; Biedermann, M. Survey on plasticizers currently found in PVC toys on the Swiss market: Banned phthalates are only a minor concern. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2017, 52, 491–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 20 01907 g001 550
Figure 1. Comparison of extraction recovery using liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) with different volume of extracting solvent. Error bars represent standard deviations of triplicate analyses. DEP: diethyl phthalate, DBP: dibutyl phthalate, BBP: benzylbutyl phthalate, DEHP: di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and DNOP: di(isononyl) phthalate.
Figure 1. Comparison of extraction recovery using liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) with different volume of extracting solvent. Error bars represent standard deviations of triplicate analyses. DEP: diethyl phthalate, DBP: dibutyl phthalate, BBP: benzylbutyl phthalate, DEHP: di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and DNOP: di(isononyl) phthalate.
Ijerph 20 01907 g001
Ijerph 20 01907 g002 550
Figure 2. Extraction recovery with addition of each type of fluid (deionized water (DI), inorganic (I), inorganic and organic (IO), and inorganic, organic, and enzymes (IOE)) by each phase of digestion ((a) saliva, (b) gastric, (c) duodenal, and (d) bile fluids). Error bars represent standard deviations of triplicate analyses. DBP: dibutyl phthalate, BBP: benzylbutyl phthalate, DEHP: di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and DNOP: di(isononyl) phthalate.
Figure 2. Extraction recovery with addition of each type of fluid (deionized water (DI), inorganic (I), inorganic and organic (IO), and inorganic, organic, and enzymes (IOE)) by each phase of digestion ((a) saliva, (b) gastric, (c) duodenal, and (d) bile fluids). Error bars represent standard deviations of triplicate analyses. DBP: dibutyl phthalate, BBP: benzylbutyl phthalate, DEHP: di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and DNOP: di(isononyl) phthalate.
Ijerph 20 01907 g002
Ijerph 20 01907 g003 550
Figure 3. Mass of phthalates leached from PVC-certified reference material with addition of each fluid (deionized water, inorganic, inorganic and organic, and inorganic, organic, and enzymes) by each phase of digestion ((a) saliva, (b) gastric, (c) duodenal, and (d) bile fluids). Error bars represent standard deviations of triplicate analyses. DBP: dibutyl phthalate, BBP: benzylbutyl phthalate, DEHP: di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and DNOP: di(isononyl) phthalate.
Figure 3. Mass of phthalates leached from PVC-certified reference material with addition of each fluid (deionized water, inorganic, inorganic and organic, and inorganic, organic, and enzymes) by each phase of digestion ((a) saliva, (b) gastric, (c) duodenal, and (d) bile fluids). Error bars represent standard deviations of triplicate analyses. DBP: dibutyl phthalate, BBP: benzylbutyl phthalate, DEHP: di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and DNOP: di(isononyl) phthalate.
Ijerph 20 01907 g003
Ijerph 20 01907 g004 550
Figure 4. Sequential extraction of the reference material using inorganic (I) and inorganic and organic (IO) digestive fluid. Error bars represent standard deviation of triplicate analyses.
Figure 4. Sequential extraction of the reference material using inorganic (I) and inorganic and organic (IO) digestive fluid. Error bars represent standard deviation of triplicate analyses.
Ijerph 20 01907 g004
Ijerph 20 01907 g005 550
Figure 5. Migrated mass of DOTP in saliva at different durations. Error bars represent standard deviations of triplicate analyses.
Figure 5. Migrated mass of DOTP in saliva at different durations. Error bars represent standard deviations of triplicate analyses.
Ijerph 20 01907 g005
Table
Table 1. Composition of digestive fluids (S, G, D, and B) in 250 mL inorganic solution (I) and 250 mL of organic solution (O).
Table 1. Composition of digestive fluids (S, G, D, and B) in 250 mL inorganic solution (I) and 250 mL of organic solution (O).
ReagentSaliva (S)Gastric (G)Duodenal (D)Bile (B)
Inorganic
constituents (250 mL)		KCl448 mg412 mg282 mg188 mg
NaH2PO4444 mg133 mg
KSCN100 mg
Na2SO4285 mg
NaCl149 mg1376 mg3506 mg2630 mg
CaCl2 200 mg
NH4Cl 153 mg
NaHCO3 2803.5 mg2893 mg
KH2PO4 40 mg
MgCl2 25 mg
NaOH (1 M)0.9 mL
HCl (37%) 4.15 mL90 μL90 μL
Organic
constituents (250 mL)		Urea100 mg42.5 mg50 mg125 mg
Glucose 325 mg
Glucuronic acid 10 mg
Glucosamine hydrochloride 165 mg
Enzymesα-amylase72.5 mg
Mucin25 mg1500 mg
Uric acid7.5 mg
Bovine serum albumin 500 mg500 mg900 mg
Pepsin 500 mg
CaCl2 100 mg111 mg
Pancreatin 1500 mg
Lipase 250 mg
Bile salts
(Bovine)		 3000 mg
pH 1 6.5 ± 0.51.1 ± 0.17.4 ± 0.28.0 ± 0.2
1 values after mixing inorganic and organic solutions.
Table
Table 2. Description of PVC bath toy samples used for this experiment with the dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP) concentration.
Table 2. Description of PVC bath toy samples used for this experiment with the dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP) concentration.
Toy Sample IDDescriptionConcentration of DOTP (μg)
1Bath toy playset 150 ± 10
2Bath toy playset 226,600 ± 1500
3Rubber duck 123,100 ± 2960
4Rubber duck 222,500 ± 500
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mohamed, D.F.M.S.; Kim, D.Y.; An, J.; Kim, M.; Chun, S.-H.; Kwon, J.-H. Simplified Unified BARGE Method to Assess Migration of Phthalate Esters in Ingested PVC Consumer Products. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1907. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031907

AMA Style

Mohamed DFMS, Kim DY, An J, Kim M, Chun S-H, Kwon J-H. Simplified Unified BARGE Method to Assess Migration of Phthalate Esters in Ingested PVC Consumer Products. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(3):1907. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031907

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mohamed, Dana Fahad M. S., Du Yung Kim, Jinsung An, Minhye Kim, Sa-Ho Chun, and Jung-Hwan Kwon. 2023. "Simplified Unified BARGE Method to Assess Migration of Phthalate Esters in Ingested PVC Consumer Products" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 3: 1907. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031907

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop