3.6_Impacts-of-fine-particulates-and-of-chemicals-in-products-1a.pptx

3.6 Impacts of fine particulate & chemicals in products
Olivier Jolliet, PhD, Peter Fantke PhD

Healthy and Sustainable Foods and Products
Table of contents
1. MAIN FACTORS IMPACTING SUSTAINABILITY AND HEALTH
2. HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE FOODS
3. LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS OF PRODUCTS (LCA)
 3.1 Introduction to LCA
 3.2 Goal and scope definition
 3.3 Life cycle inventory
 3.4 Life cycle impact assessment
 3.5 Interpretation
 3.6 Impacts of fine particulate and chemicals in products
 3.6.1 Assessment framework
 3.6.2 Impact of fine particulate
 3.6.3 Chemicals in personal care and household products
 3.6.4 Chemicals in toys
4. SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION

Impacts of fine particulate & chemicals in products
Introduction and framework
Olivier Jolliet, PhD, Peter Fantke PhD

Learning Objectives
► Identify the environmental impacts on human health
► Develop the cause-effect framework to address these
► Compare the various tools assessing impacts of chemicals

Global Burden of Disease – environmental deaths
6.5 million death/year due to ambient and indoor fine particulate
This is 60 Malaysian air plane crashes equivalent per day!
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). GBD Compare. Seattle, WA: IHME, University of Washington, 2015.
Available from http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare. (Accessed 08/12/2020)

Global Burden of Disease – environmental DALYs
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). GBD Compare. Seattle, WA: IHME, University of Washington, 2015.
Available from http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare. (Accessed 08/12/2020)

UNEP Global Chemicals Outlook (GCO) II, 2019
Seeks to alert policymakers and other
stakeholders to the critical role of the
sound management of chemicals and
waste in sustainable development.
It takes stock of global trends as well as
progress made and gaps in achieving
the global goal to minimize the adverse
impacts from chemicals and waste.

Exposure to chemicals in consumer products
Main factors influencing
measured chemical
biomarker exposure
doses (source: NHANES)
in the U.S.
Wambaugh et al. 2014. ES&T 48: 12760-12767
Consumer use/industrial use
Industrial use (without consumers)
Pesticides – active ingredients
log (production volumes)
Pesticides – co-formulants
Regression
coefficient
(16-49)
(BMI>30, obese)
(BMI≤30, not obese)

Age Pattern: Phthalate in urine Plasticizers vs cosmetics
Parent: Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate Parent: Diethyl phthalate DEP

Chemicals in consumer products
ALCOHOLIC DRINKS
APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
AUTOMOTIVE
BEAUTY AND PERSONAL CARE
CONSUMER APPLIANCES
CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
CONSUMER FINANCE
CONSUMER FOODSERVICE
CHALLENGES
 300,000+ chemicals used in thousands
of product types.
 Flexible framework, taking advantage
of similarities  adapt to product
specificities
 Multiple interactions between chemical
and product properties
 Facilitate interpretation for non chemists!
CONSUMER HEALTH
EYEWEAR
FRESH FOOD
HEALTH AND WELLNESS
HOME AND GARDEN
HOME CARE
HOT DRINKS

Exposure and related risks estimated with
respect to environmental concentrations
Conservative ranking of risks based on
exposure and toxicity potential
Risk assessment +
high-throughput
risk screening
Various perspectives and related methods
Fantke & Ernstoff 2018. LCA Textbook
Producer/emitter perspective Receptor perspective
(Product- or service-specific impacts) (Chemical-specific hazards and risks)
How to compare impacts of products
or chemicals in products?
Are individuals, population groups
or entire populations safe?
Q. Q.
Exposure and related impacts estimated
per unit of chemical emitted/used
Comparative ranking of impacts based
on functional service or use
Life cycle assessment +
chemical alternatives
assessment

Needs for different chemical assessment tools
Exposure to chemicals in consumer products needs
To be considered in the toxicity characterization
and comparison of chemicals in products for
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), especially during use stage
To be quantitatively estimated for specific
comparison of different alternatives for
Chemical Alternatives Assessment (CAA)
To be consistently combined between near-field and
environmental exposure for ensuring product safety in
Risk Assessment (RA) and High Throughput Screening (HTS)

Our proposed solution
SPECIFIC AIMS
 Develop a multi-compartment
framework to combine near-field
and far-field exposure pathways,
considering emitter and receptor
perspectives
 Differentiate sensitive populations
and high-end users from general
exposure scenarios
 Couple exposure and hazard
information quantitatively
Integrate exposure to
chemicals in consumer
products into LCA, CAA, and
HTS/RA frameworks
accounting for product and
chemical properties.
PROPOSED SOLUTION

Human health assessment framework
HUMAN TOXICITY IMPACT PATHWAY
Chemical inventory mass
Chemical distribution in near-field and far-field environment
Chemical mass directly transferred to environmental and human compartments via environmental
fate and exposure processes and pathways
[kg to compartment/functional unit]
Human product user and population exposure
Cumulative chemical mass taken in via inhalation, indigestion, and dermal exposure
[kg intake/functional unit]
Disease incidences in exposed humans
Cumulative population cancer, reproductive development, and other non-cancer risk
[incidence risk/functional unit]
Toxicity-related damage on human health
Disability- adjusted life years (DALY)
[DALY/functional unit]
Health effect severity factor
[DALY/incidence]
Human dose-response factor
[incidence risk/kg intake]
[kg intake/kg in product]
Intake fraction
[kg intake/kg emitted]
Product transfer fraction
[kg to compartment/kg in product]
Emission transfer fraction
[kg to compartment/kg emitted]
Chemical mass emitted to the environment
[kg emitted/functional unit]
Chemical mass in product application
[kg in product/functional unit]
Characterization
factor
[DALY/kg
inventory
mass]

Summary
► The proposed framework combines exposure and effect to eventually
quantify DALY per functional unit over product life cycle
► Also applicable for RA and CAA
► We will now apply this framework to product-related
► Impacts of fine particulate on human health
► Impacts of chemicals in cosmetics and household product
► Impacts of chemicals in toys

Impacts of Fine Particulates on Human Health
Part A Intake fractions
Olivier Jolliet, PhD

Learning Objectives
► Apply the assessment framework to fine particulate impacts
on human health
► Define intake fractions (iF) and determine iF for indoor,
urban and rural areas as the exposure metric
► Determine PM2.5 Exposure-response
► Combine iF and dose-response to calculate characterization factors,
i.e. impacts per kgPM2.5 emitted

Air pollution impacts on human health
17800 death/day,
equivalent to 60 Malaysian
airplane crashes per day
6.5 million deaths per year, 65% in Asia, largely cardiovascular disease
A sunny day in Beijing!

Assessment framework – cause effect diagram
Fantke et al. 2015, JLCA 20: 276-288

Defining intake fraction
Cumulative fraction of the emission taken in by the entire population
Bennet et al, 2002,
ES&T, 36 (9), 207A-211A
mtaken in
Ambient Air Water Soil
Far-field points of entry
Direct human
points of entry
Epidermis
Respiratory tract
Gastrointestinal
tract
memitted
Defining Intake Fraction
This concept simplifies
discussions of emissions-to-intake
relationships, enabling easy
intercomparison of the results
of many risk investigations.
𝑖𝐹 =
𝑚𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛
𝑚𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑

Example: Indoor Intake Fraction
The indoor intake fraction can be seen as
a competition between
a) the breathing rate of all occupants and
b) the air renewal rate (n 1/h) – the fraction
of the indoor air that is removed to outdoor
per hour.
1. Calculate the indoor air volume taken in per hour (Qintake m3
/h)
by the two occupants: Qintake =
2. Calculate the indoor air volume removed per hour
(Qair renewal m3
/h) from the room: Qair renewal =
3. Calculate the intake fraction iF = Qintake / (Qair renewal + Qintake) =
4. If you have spare time: verify that iF = Intake / Source,
assuming steady state (i.e removal in kg/h = source in kg/h)
IR = 0.5 [m3
/pers/h]
S [kg/h]
C [kg/m3
]
n = 0.5 [1/h]
V = 200 [m3
]
N = 2 persons

Worldwide 3000 city, country specific and generic human exposure and effects
Apte et al., 2012, ES&T, Fantke et al, 2016, ES&T
Detroit-Ann Arbor
17 ppm
Lansing
5 ppm
NY 49 ppm
USA
94 ppm
260 ppm
Asia
22 ppm
3 ppm
17 ppm

Intake fraction for urban and rural continental areas
Fantke et al. 2017, ES&T 51: 9089-9100

iF table for urban and rural areas worldwide
Fantke et al. 2017, ES&T 51: 9089-9100

Intake fractions for primary and secondary PMs [ppm]
Humbert et al., 2011, ES&T 45, 4808–4816
[ppm]
[ppm]

Impacts of Fine Particulates on Human Health
Part B - Exposure-response and characterization factors
Olivier Jolliet, PhD

Epidemiological data: Six cities study
Laden et al., 2006

Effect factor: Damage on human health per kginhaled PM2.5
Gronlund et al., 2015
𝐴𝐹 𝑃𝑀 2.5,𝑖=
𝑀𝑅𝑃𝑀 2.5 ,𝑖
𝑀𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙, 𝑖
=1−
1
ℯ
𝛽 𝐶𝑖
≈
( 𝑅𝑅−1) 𝐶𝑖
( 𝑅𝑅− 1) 𝐶𝑖+1

Characterization factors: Impact per kgemitted to air
Gronlund et al., 2015

Indoor and outdoor PM2.5 burden of disease
9
Indoor
wood stove
New Delhi
Beijing
NY
Adapted from Apte et al. 2015, ES&T 49: 8057-
8066

Application: Health impacts of my last purchase

Health impacts of my last purchase
Substance Impact per kgemitted
[DALY/kgemitted]
Emissions/purchase
[kgemitted/purchase]
Human health impacts
[DALY/purchase]
Conversion in minutes
Gronlund et al., 2015, De Schryver et al., 2009,
Jolliet et al., 2015, LCA book table 5.7
Conversion in hours
NH3 1.30x10-4
0.038 4.94x10-6
[m/year] [h/year]
NOx 1.40x10-5
1.39 1.95x10-5
525960 8766
Primary PM10 7.20x10-4
0.39 2.81x10-4
Primary PM2.5 1.20x10-3
0.14 1.68x10-4
Minutes of life
lost per purchase
Hours of life
lost per purchase
SO2 6.90x10-5
1.19 8.21x10-5
292 4.9
Total conv.
Air pollutants
5.55x10-4
191 3.2
Climate change
Impact world+ first
100 years
8.30x10-7
437 3.63x10-4
460 7.7
Impact world+
> 100 years
2.00x10-6
437 8.74x10-4
650 10.8
Total climate
change
1.24x10-3

Health impacts of my last purchase: excel tool
Substance Impact per kgemitted Emissions/purchase Human health impacts
(Gronlund et al., 2015) [DALY/kgemitted] [kgemitted/purchase] [DALY/purchase]
NH3 1.30E-04 0.00E+00
Conversion in
minutes
Conversion in
hours
NOx 1.40E-05 0.00E+00 [min/year] [h/year]
Primary PM10 7.20E-04 0.00E+00 525960 8766
Primary PM2.5 1.20E-03 0.00E+00
SO2 6.90E-05 0.00E+00
Min. of life lost
per purchase
Hours of life lost
per purchase
Total conv. air pollutants 0.00E+00 0 0.0
Climate change Impact world + first 100
years
8.30E-07 0.00E+00 0 0.0
Impact world + >100 years 2.00E-06 0.00E+00 0 0.0
Total climate change (Jolliet, et al.,
2015, LCA book table 5.7)
0.00E+00 0 0.0

Summary
► Impacts of fine particulate on human health are substantial and
need to be considered when improving products
► Intake fractions characterizes human exposures indoor (10,000ppm),
in urban (39 ppm) and in rural areas (2 ppm)
► PM2.5 Dose-response is in the order of 78 DALY/kgPM2.5 inhaled
► Characterization factors are available for 3646 cities in the world,
with global values in the order of 0.001 DALY/kgPM2.5 emitted
► Further work needed on secondary particles

Impacts of chemicals in products
Part A1 Parabens case study - exposure
Olivier Jolliet, PhD, Peter Fantke PhD., Lei Huang, PhD.

Learning Objectives
► Establish the product intake fraction and the assessment framework to
measure exposures to and impacts of chemicals in products
► Apply the framework to chemicals in personal care products (PCPs),
comparing exposure to measured biomarkers
► Identify the key parameter influencing impacts of PCPs

[kgto compartment/functional unit]
[kgintake/functional unit]
[DALY/incidence]
[incidence risk/kgintake]
Product intake fraction
[kgintake/kgin product]
Intake fraction
[kgintake/kgemitted]
[kgto compartment/kgin product]
[kgto compartment/kgemitted]
[kgemitted/functional unit]
[kgin product/functional unit]
Characterization
factor
[DALY/kg
inventory
mass
]

Multiple PCPs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Mean
95th Percentile
Data from Loretz et al. 2005, 2006, 2008
PCP
usage
(g/pers-d)
fc :Ingredient fraction
Mass of product used by females combined with concentrations in PCPs

Multiple PCPs
Cowan-Ellsberry & Robison 2009

[DALY/incidence]
Intake fraction
Characterization
factor
[DALY/kg
inventory
mass
]

Near field consumer exposure: product intake fraction (PiF)
mtaken in
Direct human
points of entry
Epidermis
Respiratory tract
Gastrointestinal
tract
𝑃𝑖𝐹 =
𝑚𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛
𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡
Near-field chemical mass in compartment of entry  multi-compartments  PiF
Fantke et al. 2018. Environ Health Perspect 126: 125001
Near-field points of entry
Food & beverage
min product
Object surface
(dry or wet)
Skin surface
(dry or wet)
Object interior
Inside enclosed
devices
Dust
Indoor or near-person air
Product life cycle
Chemical mass
in product
Product
usage
Chemical
content

Skin surface - model
Approximate as a simple three-box mass balance
Mass balance equations:
Mass in product:
Air
Skin
Product
h
mp = mass of chemical in product [kg]
kps = product-to-skin transfer rate [1/h]
kpa = product-to-air transfer rate [1/h]
Kp = skin permeation coefficient [m/h]
Paw = air water partition coefficient = H/RT
h = product thickness on skin [m]
Ernstoff et al. 2016. Environ Int 92-93: 87-96 | Csiszar et al. 2016. Chemosphere 163: 490-498
𝑘𝑝 𝑠 ≅
𝐾𝑝
h
Model solutions for direct transfer fractions at time t:
𝑘𝑝 𝑎=
𝑃𝑎𝑤 ∙𝜑𝑎𝑖𝑟
h
Cumulative transfer fractions Tcum
obtained by matrix inversion
Where:

Product Intake Fraction Leave-on vs. rinse-off products
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
MeP EP
PP BP
Time (h)
PiF
d,aq
Rinse-off
eg. shampoo
(4 min: about 2%
dermal uptake)
Leave-on
e.g. body lotion
(8 hours: 40-80%
uptake)

Intake Dose Calculation (Methyl paraben mean)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Applied dose Adjusted dose
(product
usage)
Adjusted dose
(paraben
occurrence)
Dose taken in
Intake
(mg
kg
-1
d
-1
)
Hairspray aerosol
Hairspray pump
Lipstick
Eye shadow
Foundation
Deodorant
Facial cleanser
Night cream
Facial cream
Conditioner
Body lotion
Body wash
Shampoo
Mass of chemical
applied per day
% of people who use
a given product
% of products with
MeP
× PiF
Csiszar et al., 2017, JEES 27, 152-159

Model versus biomonitoring data for 4 parabens over 13 PCPs
Converted intakes to urine concentrations using fraction urinary excretion1
Most modeled concentrations were within a factor of 2 of urine levels from NHANES female US population data (2009-2010)
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Modeled
urine
concentration
(µg
g
-1
)
NHANES urine concentration (µg g-1)
50th %-ile
75th %-ile
90th %-ile
95th %-ile
1:1 line
MeP
EtP
PrP
BuP
Csiszar
et
al.,
2017,
JEES
27,
152-159

Product exposure mapping: PiF for 700 chemical as a function of chemical properties
log KP[cm/h]
log
P
aw
Formaldehyde
Methyl paraben
log
P
aw
log
P
aw
log KP[cm/h] log KP[cm/h]
Rinse-off
Leave-on

Mass applied
•Wash-off products
dominate mass of
chemical applied
•Applying the PiF results
in leave-on products
dominating exposure
across ~400 chemicals
in relevant product types
Intake dose
=
Exposure dose estimates

Part A2 Parabens case study – impacts and risks

Human toxicity in LCA : Linearized dose-response
Selection of Point of Departure (POD)
 Extrapolation to derive dose-response factor

Severity factor
Due to difficulty to determine
human endpoint, taken the average
for:
All cancers: 11.5 DALY/case
Non cancer: 2.7 DALY/case
5.56
17.56
13.00
8.03
22.12
15.8615.95
6.09 7.28
11.70
3.74
13.03
3.38 4.63
13.85
27.96
25.53
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Disability
Adjusted
Life
Years
YLDp [0,0]
YLLp [0,0]
Future recommendations
Disease category DALY/incidence [year]
Cancer 11.5
Reproductive/
developmentb
, average
44.1
Other non-cancer, average 2.4

Human health assessment: formaldehyde in body lotion
Chemical inventory
mass
Chemical mass directly transferred to environmental and human compartments via
environmental
Cumulative chemical mass taken in via inhalation, indigestion, and dermal
exposure
Cumulative population cancer, reproductive development, and other non-cancer
risk
Toxicity-related damage on human
health
Health effect severity
factor
[DALY/incidence]
Intake fraction
[kgin product/functional unit] FU: 1 day use of
13.8 [g/d] shampoo with
0.2% formaldehyde
min product=28 [mg/d]
PiF=0.0045 [mginhaled/mginproduct]
Intake=0.13 [mginhaled/d]
DR=1.06 [cases/kg]
Incidence=0.13∙10-6
[case/d]
Severity=11.5 [DALY/case]
Damage=1.5 ∙10-6
[DALY/d]
= 1.5 [µDALY/d]
= 0.8 [min. lost/user/d]

Cancer and non-cancer risk characterization in one slide!
End
point
Mechan. Exposure
Dose – response
metric
Assessment metric
& criteria
A
Cancer
Linear
(default)
Oral ingestion
Dlifetime [mg/kg-day]
Dose-response
Cancer slope factor
CSF [1/(mg/kg-day)]
Risk= Dlifetime∙CSF
Risk<10-4
to 10-6
Inhalation or
drinking water
Clifetime[mg/m3
,mg/L]
Conc.-response
Unit Risk UR
[1/(mg/m3
)]or[1/(mg/L)]
Risk= Clifetime∙UR
Risk<10-4
to 10-6
B
Non-
cancer
Non-
linear
Oral ingestion
D [mg/kg-day]
Reference dose RfD
Safe dose = PoD/UF
[mg/kg-day]
Dose ratio:
Hazard quotient
HQ=D/RfD<1
Inhalation or
drinking water
C [mg/m3
] or [mg/L]
Reference
concentration
RfC [mg/m3
] or [mg/L]
Safe conc. Ratio:
HQ=C/RfC
HQ<1, MoS>1
Dformaldehyde inh
= 0.0018 [mg/kg/d]
RfD = 0.0022 [mg/kg/d]
HQ=0.8 < 1
Formaldehyde 0.2%
in 13.8 g/d shampoo
Dformaldehyde inh =0.13/70
= 0.0018 [mg/kg/d]
CSF= 1.9 [1/(mg/kg/d)]
Riskinh= 0.0034 >> 10-4

Summary
► The (product) intake fraction is a useful metric to characterize
and compare exposures to chemicals in consumer products
► Important to account for mass balance and competition
between various removal and exposure processes
► Skin permeation, air-water partition coefficient and exposure
durations are the parameters that drive product intake fraction
► Essential to assess both exposure and toxicity and to combine
these consistently

Part B USEtox calculation tool

Learning Objectives
► Apply the USEtox (UNEP-SETAC toxicity assessment) tool to
determine exposures and impacts per functional unit
► Experiment how product intake fraction varies for different types
of personal care products and different chemical properties
► Interpret the results of exposure, impacts and risk calculations
UNEP: United Nations Environmental Programme – UN Environment
SETAC: Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

USEtox: the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model
USEtox: A parsimonious model to assess toxic impacts of chemicals on humans and ecosystems.
Now extended to chemicals in products
USEtox Team
Tom
McKone
Olivier
Jolliet
Manuele
Margni
Ralph
Rosenbalm
Michael
Hauschild
Dik
vd Meent
Mark
Huiibregts
Peter Fantke
Weihsueh Chiu Leo Postuma

USEtox: the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model
USEtox: A parsimonious model to assess toxic impacts of chemicals on humans and ecosystems.
Now extended to chemicals in products
USEtox Team
Tom
McKone
Olivier
Jolliet
Manuele
Margni
Ralph
Rosenbalm
Michael
Hauschild
Dik
vd Meent
Mark
Huiibregts
Peter Fantke
Weihsueh Chiu Leo Postuma
Click the link below to watch the video.

USEtox direct transfer models
Direct environmental emission
Skin surface
Article interior
(with indoor sorption)
USEtox training + seven basic models
applied to 10000 chemicals in 500 products
 customized to particular applications + developed
necessary QSARS for high throughput determination
Food contact materials
Object surface
Pesticide residue

Human health assessment: formaldehyde in body lotion
Chemical inventory
mass
Chemical mass directly transferred to environmental and human compartments via
environmental
Cumulative chemical mass taken in via inhalation, indigestion, and dermal
exposure
Cumulative population cancer, reproductive development, and other non-cancer
risk
Toxicity-related damage on human
health
Health effect severity
factor
[DALY/incidence]
Intake fraction
[kgin product/functional unit] FU: 1 day use of
13.8 [g/d] shampoo with
0.2% formaldehyde
min product=28 [mg/d]
PiF=0.0045 [mginhaled/mginproduct]
Intake=0.13 [mginhaled/d]
DR=1.06 [cases/kginhaled]
Incidence=0.13∙10-6
[case/d]
Severity=11.5 [DALY/case]
Damage=1.5 ∙10-6
[DALY/d]
= 1.5 [µDALY/d]
= 0.8 [min. lost/user/d]

Start from compartment of entry  direct transfers
Formaldehyde
in shampoo
Direct human
points of entry
Epidermis
Respiratory tract
Gastrointestinal
tract
Food & beverage
Object surface
(dry or wet)
Object interior
Inside enclosed
devices
Dust
Product life cycle
Chemical mass
in product
Product
usage
Chemical
content
Far-field points of entry
Landfill (WWTP) Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Skin surface
(dry or wet)
0.331
0.005
0.664
13.8
g/d
0.2%
28
mg/d

USEtox training model – formaldehyde in shampoo

USEtox training model – substance data sheet
Default – 80 substance, data available for > 10,000 substances

> 500 products
USEtox training model – Product data

Exposure and impacts of formaldehyde in shampoo

Risks characterization of formaldehyde in shampoo
Cancer risk= Dlifetime∙CSF
Risk<10-4
to 10-6
Non cancer dose ratio:
Hazard quotient HQ=D/RfD
HQ<1

Summary
► The USEtox training tool enables to assess thousands of chemicals
for 500 products
► It combines far-field and near-field exposures, accounting for multiple
exposure pathways
► Exposure in the near-field environment are usually dominant,
but environmental exposures can remain high for persistent and
bio-accumulating chemicals
► The tools are now available to screen exposure to chemicals in
consumer products and combine them with hazard information to
assess impacts and risks

Part C Should we care?

Cosmetic and Health, should we care?

Learning Objectives
► Analyze common usage of personal care products
► Contrast US and European regulations
► Identify chemicals of concern
► Propose practical actions to reduce exposure to
chemicals in PCPs

Cosmetics? >3000 years of history
The turn came for each girl to go in to
King Ahasuerus, after being twelve
months under the regulations for the
women, since this was the regular
period of their cosmetic treatment,
six months with oil of myrrh and six
months with perfumes and cosmetics
for women.
Book of Esther, 500 BC
Nefertiti bust with eye liner applied
~1,320 BC (~3,300 years ago)

Shampoo and body lotions have a lot of ingredients
Effects on health
• Teens use 17 personal care products
versus 12 for an average adult woman,
with e.g. phthalates, parabens and musk
found in their body
• Usage and biomarker concentration has
most increased in young men
Usage
• Indications that women with higher levels
of chemicals experience menopause
two to four years earlier

Parabens in regulations
The main concern regarding parabens in cosmetics is the potential of some of them to act
like hormones in the body, in particular like estrogens, the female sex hormone.
With the adopted measures the Commission limits the maximum concentration of two
preservatives, Propylparaben and Butylparaben, from currently allowed paraben limit of
0.4% when used individually and 0.8% when mixed with other esters, to 0.14%, when used
individually or together. They are being banned from leave-on products designed for the
nappy area of young children below the age of three.
Secondly, the Commission bans the mixture of Methylchloroisothiazolinone (and)
Methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) from leave-on products such as body creams. The
preservative can still be used in rinse-off products such as shampoos and shower gels at a
maximum concentration of 0.0015 % of a mixture in the ratio 3:1 of MCI/MI.
European commission improves safety of cosmetics

Parabens in regulations
FDA FAQ: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), cosmetic products
and ingredients, other than color additives, do not need FDA approval before they go on
the market
Are parabens safe as they’re used in cosmetics? Are they linked to breast cancer
or other health problems?
FDA scientists continue to review published studies on the safety of parabens. At this time,
we do not have information showing that parabens as they are used in cosmetics have an
effect on human health
On which side is the burden of proof and need for evidences?
Precautionary: the producers have to demonstrate how the substance can be safely used,
and they must communicate the risk management measures to the users.
Unregulated: Agency has to prove that a chemical is damageable to restrict its usage
FDA – how are we (un)protected?

REACH regulation – Burden of proof on companies
1. Registration: dossiers checked by EChA
2. Evaluation: list substances for evaluation. Can lead to
proposals for regulatory action (e.g. authorisation,
restriction, C&L change)
3. Authorization: for substances of high concern, EChA
draws up proposed list for authorization
(can only be used for specific purposes if authorized)
4. Restriction of CHemicals: European Commision, EChA
can propose restrictions
5. Downstream Users: mandatory instructions via suppliers
about how to use chemical safely – exposure scenarios –
and opportunity to feedback to registrants
101,000 dossiers,
23,000 substances
registered

Product information
e.g. environmental working group or household product database (NIH)

According to Environmental Working Group
 BHA: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) a likely human carcinogen
 Boric acid and Sodium borate
 Coal tar hair dyes and other coal tar ingredients
(including Aminophenol, Diaminobenzene, Phenylenediamine) and Petroleum distillates
 Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde releasers – Bronopol, DMDM hydantoin, Diazolidinyl urea,
Imidzaolidinyl urea and Quaternium-15, as well as Toluene
 Hydroquinone as skin bleaching agent and Resorcinol in hair color & bleaching products
 Lead and Lead acetate
 Methylisothiazolinone (MI/MIT), methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and benzisothiazolinone (BIT),
Parabens (specifically Propyl-, Isopropyl-, Butyl-, and Isobutyl- parabens), Triclosan & Triclocarban
as preservatives or antimicrobials
 Oxybenzone as UV filter and Phthalates & PEGs/Ceteareth/Polyethylene compounds
 Sprays and powders containing Nanoparticles (OK as cream)
 Vitamin A compounds (retinyl palmitate, retinyl acetate, retinol)
AVOID

What can we do?
Reduce usage to what is needed:
moisturizer + sunscreen
Think twice before offering
cosmetics that would not be
bought anyway!
Reduce exposure duration - rinse it asap!
Major effect is linked to leave-on
products such as body lotions and
moisturizer  test if more natural
products would satisfy the same function

Body/hand lotion: coconut oil
Lotion
Ingredients: Aqua, Cetearyl Alcohol, Glycerin, Sorbitol,
Paraffinum liquidum, Sodium Lactate, Decul Oleate,
Chamomilla recutita extract, Lecithin, Ascorbyl Palmitate,
Allantoin, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Sodium
Cetearyl Sulfate, Dimethicone, Sodium Citrate, Parfum,
Alcohol, Methylparaben, Phenoxyethanol, Propylparaben.
Coconut Oil
Ingredients: Organic Coconut oil.
Contains: Coconut
 Perfect for frying or sautéing as it is virtually
odorless and tasteless, with a high heat point
 A great butter substitute in baking
(use at a 1-to1 ratio) or in place of vegetable oil
 An excellent skin moisturizer, lip balm or
hair treatment

Summary
► Exposure to chemicals in personal care products is high,
with high product intake fraction especially for leave-on products
► This implies that exposure can exceed safe doses,
even for chemicals with moderate toxicity
► Reduce usage to essential needs, searching for alternatives
► Reduce intake, especially for leave-on products by limiting
exposure duration
► Chemicals in consumer products are largely unregulated.
There is a high need for systematic screening of chemicals in
products beyond usual suspects!

Part D Impacts of household products

Learning Objectives
► Screen chemicals in multiple household products,
including personal care, cleaning, home maintenance products
► Analyze how chemicals and product properties influence
exposure and impacts
► Compare exposure of (high end) users and of the
overall population
► Identify chemicals and products of high concern

Chemicals in household products: high throughput screening
SHEDS-HT: 25,000 persons, predicts the number of user, the amount of product used per d
and the weight fraction  stochastic prediction of user and mean population chemical usage
Kristin Isaacs SHEDS-HT
850 chemicals in 300 personal
care, cleaning, maintenance
products
 usage for 9000+
product-chemical combinations

[kgto compartment/person/d]
[kgintake/person/d]
[incidence risk/person/d]
[DALY/person/d]
[DALY/incidence]
Intake fraction
[kgto compartment/kgin product]
[kgemitted/person/d]
[kgin product/person/d]
Characterization
factor
[DALY/kg
inventory
mass
]

Mass of chemical in product (b) and product intake fraction (c)

User exposure doses (d) and user impact in µDALY/user/d (e)

Chemicals in household products: Human Health impacts on users
Several home maintenance, cosmetics & cleaning product with substantial impacts on users, 20-1500
minutes lost per user per day  product-chemical combinations to further study or replace in priority
Jolliet et al., 2020. Risk analysis – https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13604
AVOID!

Chemicals in consumer products: average impacts at population level
Several cosmetics, cleaning products with substantial impacts at population level, 1-50 minutes lost per
person per day  product-chemical combinations to further study or replace in priority
AVOID!

Hazard quotient – ingestion & dermal
 57% of chemical-product
combinations HQ > 1
(up to 10+4
)
 8% lifetime cancer risks
exceeding 10-4
(up to 10-2
)

Summary
► The proposed framework is a flexible and efficient screening
approach for rapidly evaluating the magnitude of potential risk for
hundreds of chemical-household product combinations
► Crucial to have good data on chemical content
► Main household products of concern: home maintenance
PCPs, and cleaning products
► Use protective measures for home maintenance
► Put a MERV13 filter on your air furnace system…
and especially in case of forest fires, e.g. in California or Australia
► The present study calls for more scrutiny of most impacting
chemical-product combinations, fully ensuring from a regulatory
perspective consumer product safety for high-end users

Chemicals in toys
Olivier Jolliet, PhD, Nicolo Aurisano, Lei Huang, PhD, Peter Fantke PhD

Learning Objectives
► Apply the framework to chemicals in toys,
using the article interior model
► Identify the chemical usage in the room of a child
► Identify chemicals of concern in toys
► Assess the magnitude of the risks

Chemicals and product life cycles
Life cycle of entire product
Life cycle of
individual chemical
Chemical/product
life cycle interface
Feedstocks
& ancillary Ancillary
Chemical use
(in specific
product application)
Chemical extraction
(from used product)
Resources
extraction
(e.g. ore, water, oil)
Material
processing
(e.g. molding)
Product
manufacturing
(e.g. assembling)
Product use
(e.g. consumer
application)
Product
end-of-life
(e.g. disposal)
Chemical
end-of-life
(e.g. recycling)
Chemical
processing
Chemical
synthesis
Product
supply
chain
Chemical
supply
chain
Direct
exposure
(industry
workers),
Population
exposure,
Emission/resource-based
impacts
(e.g.
climate
change,
water
use)
Direct
exposure
(consumers/professional
users)
Population
exposure
&
fractions
to
environment
Direct
exposure
(industry
workers),
Population
exposure,
Emission/resource-based
impacts
(e.g.
climate
change,
water
use)

Toys consumption
Sales statistics in US 2018:
$467/child per year
Total amount of toys/year: 33 kg/child/year, Fraction of plastic toys: 0.55
Total amount of plastic toys purchased/child/year: 18.3 kg/child/year
If keep minimum three year: 54 kg plastic in the room of a child
Comtrade data:
$14/kg toys

[DALY/incidence]
Intake fraction
Characterization
factor
[DALY/kg
inventory
mass
]

Dataset: Chemical content in plastic toys (mgchemical/mgtoys)
Ingredients
Mostly residues –
non targeted analysis
Aurisano et al., 2020, Environment International 146 (2021) 106194
613
chemical-material
combinations
covering
419 chemicals
9 orders of
magnitude variation

Near field consumer exposure to toys
Direct human
points of entry
Epidermis
Respiratory tract
Gastrointestinal
tract
Food & beverage
min product
Object surface
(dry or wet)
Skin surface
(dry or wet)
Object interior
Inside enclosed
devices
Dust
Product life cycle
Chemical mass
in product
Product
usage
Chemical
content
Landfill
Far-field
points of entry

Near field consumer exposure to toys
Direct human
points of entry
Epidermis
Respiratory tract
Gastrointestinal
tract
Food & beverage
Object surface
(dry or wet)
Skin surface
(dry or wet)
Object interior
Inside enclosed
devices
Dust
Product life cycle
Chemical mass
in product
Product
usage
Chemical
content
Landfill
Far-field
points of entry
min product

USEtox near-field/far-field model for toys
VOC: Toluene 100%
emitted at 3 years
Semi-volatile SVOC
DEHP 1.2% at 3 years
Article interior model

QPPR for Diffusion Coef, (D) and Material-Air Partition Coefficient (Kma)
Huang et al., 2017, Diffusion coefficient, Indoor Air, 27(6), 1128-1140; Kma,
Indoor air, 29 (1), 79-88, Huang et al., 2019 Kpf , STOTEN, 658, 493-500

Product intake fraction and exposure dose (mgintake/child/d)
Product
intake
fraction

Non-cancer risk assessment
 Exposure and toxicity
results per exposure
route
 Risk driven by
plasticizers mainly
in soft plastic toys

Maximum acceptable chemical contents in toys (ACC)
test toys content (black) > ACC (yellow & red)?
Aurisano et al., 2020, Environment International 146 (2021) 106194
 54 kg toy and only 1 toy
(error bars)
 For plasticizers toy
contents > ACC for 47
out of 61 combinations
(back-calculated ACC for HI=1)
12
Chemical
mass
fraction
in
material

Maximum acceptable chemical contents in toys (ACC)
Content>ACC only
for plasticizers and
few flame retardants
& other chemicals,
not fragrances
test toys content (blue) > ACC (yellow & red)?

Mouthing model - experimental vs. predicted migration rates
f (Dp and Kpf): depends on both material and chemicals
Aurisano et al., 2021 in preparation

Chemicals of concern: this and other studies
Substance Name CAS RN Function Hazard Index Cancer Risk
Substances of concern: Category I – identified by present and other studies
Mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 4376-20-9 Metabolite 3.87 x 102
N/A
Triphenyl phosphate [TPHP] 115-86-6 Flame retardant; plasticizer 1.15 x 102
N/A
Diisobutyl-phthalate [DiBP] 84-69-5 Plasticizer 8.25 x 101
N/A
Dibutyl-phthalate [DBP] 84-74-2 Plasticizer 6.98 x 101
N/A
Dioctyl phthalate [DNOP] 117-84-0 Plasticizer 5.79 x 101
N/A
Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate [DEHA] 103-23-1 Plasticizer 2.04 x 101
8.99 x 10-5
Di-(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate [DEHP] 117-81-7 Plasticizer 1.78 x 101
5.08 x 10-4
Tricresyl Phosphate 1330-78-5 Flame retardant 1.55 x 101
N/A
Bisphenol A [BPA] 80-05-7 Crosslinking agent 1.43 x 101
N/A
Di-(2-ethylhexyl)-terephthalate [DEHTP] 6422-86-2 Plasticizer 1.35 x 101
N/A
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl
cyclohexyl ester
84-64-0 Plasticizer 1.27 x 101
N/A
Diethyl phthalate [DEP] 84-662 Plasticizer 8.89 x 100
N/A
Diisononyl phthalate [DINP] 28553-12-0 Plasticizer 6.53 x 100
N/A
HI > 10 or CCR
>10-5
1 < HI ≤ 10 or
10-5
< CCR ≤ 10-6
0.1 < HI ≤ 1 or
10-7
< CCR ≤ 10-6
HI ≤ 0.1 or
CCR ≤ 10-7

Chemicals of concern: this and other studies
Substances of concern: Category I – identified by present and other studies
Pentamethyldiethylenetriamine 3030-47-5 n.d. 6.15 x 100
N/A
Bis[2-(dimethylamino) ethyl] ether 3033-62-3 n.d. 4.31 x 100
N/A
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid,
bis(2-propylheptyl) ester [DPHP]
53306-54-0 Plasticizer 3.89 x 100
N/A
Butyl benzyl phthalate [BBP] 85-68-7 Plasticizer 3.79 x 100
6.29 x 10-6
1,4- Diazabicyclo [2.2.2]octane 280-57-9 Catalyst 3.77 x 100
N/A
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate [EHDPP] 1241-94-7 Plasticizer 2.59 x 100
N/A
Diisodecyl phthalate [DiDP] 26761-40-0 Plasticizer 2.18 x 100
N/A
diisooctyl phthalate [DiOP] 27554-26-3 Plasticizer 1.31 x 100
N/A
Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate 115-96-8 Flame retardant 1.09 x 100
9.85 x 10-6
Hexabromocyclododecane [HBCD] 3194-55-6 Flame retardant 1.03 x 100
N/A
Decabromodiphenyl oxide [DBDE] 1163-19-5 Flame retardant 7.08 x 10-1
2.04 x 10-6
Tributyl phosphate [TnBP] 126-73-8 Plasticizer 4.89 x 10-1
1.33 x 10-5
Styrene 100-42-5 Monomer 2.99 x 10-3
1.53 x 10-4
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 Solvent 9.75 x 10-4
2.39 x 10-5
HI > 10 or CCR
>10-5
1 < HI ≤ 10 or
10-5
< CCR ≤ 10-6
0.1 < HI ≤ 1 or
10-7
< CCR ≤ 10-6
HI ≤ 0.1 or
CCR ≤ 10-7

Chemicals of concern: specific to this study
Several
alternative
plasticizers also
of concern
Substances of concern: Category II –specific to present study
2,2-Dimethylpropane-1,3-diol 126-30-7 Plasticizer 1.17 x 102
N/A
2,2,4-Trimethyl-1,3-
pentanediol diisobutyrate [TXIB]
6846-50-0 Plasticizer 1.05 x 102
N/A
2,4-Bis(1-methyl-1-phenylethyl) phenol 2772-45-4 n.d. 2.47 x 101
N/A
Acetyl-tributyl-citrate [ATBC] 77-90-7 Plasticizer 7.89 x 100
N/A
Diisobutyl adipate 141-04-8 Plasticizer 7.19 x 100
N/A
di-2-ethylhexyl hexahydrophthalate 84-71-9 Plasticizer 6.73 x 100
N/A
Tributyl citrate 77-94-1 Plasticizer 6.61 x 100
N/A
Diethylene glycol dibenzoate 120-55-8 Plasticizer 5.38 x 100
N/A
1,2,3-Propanetriol, diacetate 102-62-5 Solvent 2.51 x 100
N/A
Triethyl phosphate 78-40-0 Flame retardant 2.09 x 100
N/A
Diisononyl-adipate [DINA] 33703-08-1 Plasticizer 1.93 x 100
N/A
Hexadecanoic acid 57-10-3 Fragrance 1.87 x 100
N/A
Dipropylene glycol dibenzoate 27138-31-4 Plasticizer 1.82 x 100
N/A
Tri-(2-ethylhexyl)-trimellitate 3319-31-1 Plasticizer 1.74 x 100
N/A
HI > 10 or CCR
>10-5
1 < HI ≤ 10 or
10-5
< CCR ≤ 10-6
0.1 < HI ≤ 1 or
10-7
< CCR ≤ 10-6
HI ≤ 0.1 or
CCR ≤ 10-7

Chemicals of concern: specific to this study
Several
alternative
plasticizers also
of concern
Substances of concern: Category II –specific to present study
Trioctyl trimellitate 89-043 Plasticizer 1.64 x 100
N/A
Diethylene glycol 111-46-6 n.d. 2.04 x 10-1
4.62 x 10-6
Tris(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate 78-42-2 Flame retandant 1.77 x 10-2
1.65 x 10-6
HI > 10 or CCR
>10-5
1 < HI ≤ 10 or
10-5
< CCR ≤ 10-6
0.1 < HI ≤ 1 or
10-7
< CCR ≤ 10-6
HI ≤ 0.1 or
CCR ≤ 10-7

Chemicals of concern in building
Formaldehyde
Content > ACC?
Maximum Acceptable
Chemical Content

Summary
► Exposure to chemical in toys is substantial, with inhalation or dermal
gaseous uptake, since contact or mouthing with a single toy
► Ingredients much more relevant than trace residues from e.g. recycling
► Plasticizers is the main chemical class of concern in toys – not all alternatives
to phthalates are substantially better  beware regrettable substitutions and
crucial to screen these alternatives
► The maximum acceptable chemical content is a useful tool for product
design and the USEtox modeling tool can be used internally to screen potential
chemical alternatives
► High Throughput is possible. Working on additional exposure pathways,
e.g. mouthing

3.6_Impacts-of-fine-particulates-and-of-chemicals-in-products-1a.pptx

More Related Content

Similar to 3.6_Impacts-of-fine-particulates-and-of-chemicals-in-products-1a.pptx (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

3.6_Impacts-of-fine-particulates-and-of-chemicals-in-products-1a.pptx

Editor's Notes