Diverging trends of plasticizers (phthalates and non
Background European chemicals management aims to protect human health and the environment from legacy and emerging contaminants. The plasticizer market changed in response to the restriction of low molecular weight (LMW) phthalate plasticizers such as Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) due to their hazardous properties. We investigated patterns and trends of 19 regulated and emerging
Detection of nicotine as an indicator of tobacco smoke by
Nonsmokers are even exposed to residual tobacco smoke contamination that remain on surfaces and in dust after the cigarette is extinguished and that are reemitted in the gas phase ( Matt et al., 2004 ). This level of exposure to tobacco smoke has recently been called thirdhand smoke (THS) ( Winickoff et al., 2009 ).
Direct Transfer of Phthalate and Alternative Plasticizers
The concentration of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in dust was 12 times higher than the pre-experimental level after only two days of source-dust contact. A mechanistic model was developed to predict the direct transfer process, and a reasonable agreement between model predictions and measurements was achieved.
Diverging trends of plasticizers (phthalates and non
plasticizers were considered that have been detected in at least two data sets, i.e., 19 plasticizers (12 phthalates and seven non-phthalates). ey are listed in Table 1 with their abbreviations, molecular weights and CAS numbers. Certain highly isomeric phthalates, such as DINP and DIDP, might commercially be available under dierent
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology - ResearchGate
tobacco to mainstream smoke has been estimated (with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission machine-smoking regime) (Stepanov et al., 2012). The contribution of the individual mechanisms of transfer is
- Do non-PAE plasticizers have a spatial distribution in airborne fine particles?
- In contrast with phthalate esters (PAEs), many non-PAE plasticizers (NPPs) remain poorly characterized in their environmental distribution. Our work explored the spatial distributions of 44 NPPs in airborne fine particles (PM 2.5) from 13 Chinese cities as well as the temporal change of contamination at a selected city (Jinan, Shandong Province).
- Can cigarette filters reduce PAHs in cigarette smoke?
- Through continuous efforts, cigarette filters can reduce the levels of toxic and carcinogenic substances in cigarette smoke. Studies have revealed that modified filters containing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) can significantly reduce PAHs in cigarette smoke without affecting nicotine delivery.
- How effective is adsorption of PAHs from tobacco smoke?
- PAHs are the primary carcinogen found in cigarette smoke. Therefore, it is crucial to develop advanced materials with excellent selective adsorption properties for PAHs (Figure 12a). However, there are few reports on the effective adsorption of PAHs from tobacco smoke using MIP.
- How does Tsna transfer from tobacco to aerosol differ from cigarettes?
- In contrast for THS2.2, the transfer of TSNA from tobacco to aerosol is reduced in comparison with cigarettes tobacco to mainstream smoke, due to a combination of lower evaporating transfer and the limitation of pyrosynthesis and pyrorelease induced by the lower temperature applied to THS2.2 tobacco part.
- Can Zeolite-modified filters reduce nicotine levels in cigarette smoke?
- Some zeolites recognize the functional groups of nitrosamines and nitrobenzenes. Therefore, zeolite-modified filters have the potential to significantly reduce the levels of nicotine, TSNAs, and PAHs in cigarette smoke.
- What are the adsorption efficiencies of PAH cigarette filters?
- The PAHs adsorption efficiencies were 71.0% (cotton) and 60.5% (wool), respectively. Compared with conventional cellulose diacetate cigarette filter tips, filters made of natural fibers demonstrate excellent performance in filtering toxic substances.
