Dust phase and window film phase phthalates in dormitories: profile characteristics, source screening, and estimated gas-phase concentration and dermal exposure comparison.

Abstract

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 (Koa), varying by 1-2 orders of magnitude. Moreover, compared with related studies, the gas-phase concentrations were significantly underestimated for phthalates with high Koa values, while the estimated gas-phase concentrations of phthalates with low Koa 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.