1
|
Arnold W, Blum A, Branyan J, Bruton TA, Carignan CC, Cortopassi G, Datta S, DeWitt J, Doherty AC, Halden RU, Harari H, Hartmann EM, Hrubec TC, Iyer S, Kwiatkowski CF, LaPier J, Li D, Li L, Muñiz Ortiz JG, Salamova A, Schettler T, Seguin RP, Soehl A, Sutton R, Xu L, Zheng G. Quaternary Ammonium Compounds: A Chemical Class of Emerging Concern. Environ Sci Technol 2023; 57:7645-7665. [PMID: 37157132 PMCID: PMC10210541 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c08244] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2022] [Revised: 03/24/2023] [Accepted: 03/24/2023] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), a large class of chemicals that includes high production volume substances, have been used for decades as antimicrobials, preservatives, and antistatic agents and for other functions in cleaning, disinfecting, personal care products, and durable consumer goods. QAC use has accelerated in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the banning of 19 antimicrobials from several personal care products by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2016. Studies conducted before and after the onset of the pandemic indicate increased human exposure to QACs. Environmental releases of these chemicals have also increased. Emerging information on adverse environmental and human health impacts of QACs is motivating a reconsideration of the risks and benefits across the life cycle of their production, use, and disposal. This work presents a critical review of the literature and scientific perspective developed by a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team of authors from academia, governmental, and nonprofit organizations. The review evaluates currently available information on the ecological and human health profile of QACs and identifies multiple areas of potential concern. Adverse ecological effects include acute and chronic toxicity to susceptible aquatic organisms, with concentrations of some QACs approaching levels of concern. Suspected or known adverse health outcomes include dermal and respiratory effects, developmental and reproductive toxicity, disruption of metabolic function such as lipid homeostasis, and impairment of mitochondrial function. QACs' role in antimicrobial resistance has also been demonstrated. In the US regulatory system, how a QAC is managed depends on how it is used, for example in pesticides or personal care products. This can result in the same QACs receiving different degrees of scrutiny depending on the use and the agency regulating it. Further, the US Environmental Protection Agency's current method of grouping QACs based on structure, first proposed in 1988, is insufficient to address the wide range of QAC chemistries, potential toxicities, and exposure scenarios. Consequently, exposures to common mixtures of QACs and from multiple sources remain largely unassessed. Some restrictions on the use of QACs have been implemented in the US and elsewhere, primarily focused on personal care products. Assessing the risks posed by QACs is hampered by their vast structural diversity and a lack of quantitative data on exposure and toxicity for the majority of these compounds. This review identifies important data gaps and provides research and policy recommendations for preserving the utility of QAC chemistries while also seeking to limit adverse environmental and human health effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William
A. Arnold
- University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, United States
| | - Arlene Blum
- Green
Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, California 94709, United States
- University
of California, Berkeley, California 94720, United States
| | - Jennifer Branyan
- California
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, California 95814, United States
| | - Thomas A. Bruton
- California
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, California 95814, United States
| | | | - Gino Cortopassi
- University
of California, Davis, California 95616, United States
| | - Sandipan Datta
- University
of California, Davis, California 95616, United States
| | - Jamie DeWitt
- East
Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina 27834, United States
| | - Anne-Cooper Doherty
- California
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, California 95814, United States
| | - Rolf U. Halden
- Arizona
State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, United States
| | - Homero Harari
- Icahn
School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York 10029, United States
| | | | - Terry C. Hrubec
- Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, United States
| | - Shoba Iyer
- California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Oakland, California 94612, United States
| | - Carol F. Kwiatkowski
- Green
Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, California 94709, United States
- North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695 United States
| | - Jonas LaPier
- Green
Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, California 94709, United States
| | - Dingsheng Li
- University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, United States
| | - Li Li
- University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, United States
| | | | - Amina Salamova
- Indiana University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, United States
| | - Ted Schettler
- Science and Environmental Health Network, Bolinas, California 94924, United States
| | - Ryan P. Seguin
- University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, United States
| | - Anna Soehl
- Green
Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, California 94709, United States
| | - Rebecca Sutton
- San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, California 94804, United States
| | - Libin Xu
- University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, United States
| | - Guomao Zheng
- Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518055, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Schwartz-Narbonne H, Xia C, Shalin A, Whitehead HD, Yang D, Peaslee GF, Wang Z, Wu Y, Peng H, Blum A, Venier M, Diamond ML. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Canadian Fast Food Packaging. Environ Sci Technol Lett 2023; 10:343-349. [PMID: 37970096 PMCID: PMC10637757 DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00926] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2022] [Revised: 03/01/2023] [Accepted: 03/02/2023] [Indexed: 11/17/2023]
Abstract
A suite of analytical techniques was used to obtain a comprehensive picture of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in selected Canadian food packaging used for fast foods (n = 42). Particle-induced gamma ray emission spectroscopy revealed that 55% of the samples contained <3580, 19% contained 3580-10 800, and 26% > 10 800 μg F/m2. The highest total F (1 010 000-1 300 000 μg F/m2) was measured in molded "compostable" bowls. Targeted analysis of 8 samples with high total F revealed 4-15 individual PFAS in each sample, with 6:2 fluorotelomer methacrylate (FTMAc) and 6:2 fluorotelomer alcohol (FTOH) typically dominating. Up to 34% of the total fluorine was released from samples after hydrolysis, indicating the presence of unknown precursors. Nontargeted analysis detected 22 PFAS from 6 different groups, including degradation products of FTOH. Results indicate the use of side-chain fluorinated polymers and suggest that these products can release short-chain compounds that ultimately can be transformed to compounds of toxicological concern. Analysis after 2 years of storage showed overall decreases in PFAS consistent with the loss of volatile compounds such as 6:2 FTMAc and FTOH. The use of PFAS in food packaging such as "compostable" bowls represents a regrettable substitution of single-use plastic food packaging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Chunjie Xia
- O’Neill
School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405, Indiana, United States
| | - Anna Shalin
- Department
of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 3B1, ON, Canada
| | - Heather D. Whitehead
- Department
of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University
of Notre Dame, Notre
Dame 46556, Indiana, United States
| | - Diwen Yang
- Department
of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 3B1, ON, Canada
- Department
of Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 3H6, ON, Canada
| | - Graham F. Peaslee
- Department
of Physics and Astronomy, University of
Notre Dame, Notre Dame 46556, Indiana, United
States
| | - Zhanyun Wang
- Institute
of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zürich, Zürich 8093, Switzerland
- Empa
− Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Technology and Society Laboratory, St. Gallen CH-9014, Switzerland
| | - Yan Wu
- O’Neill
School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405, Indiana, United States
| | - Hui Peng
- Department
of Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 3H6, ON, Canada
- School
of the Environment, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 3E8, ON, Canada
| | - Arlene Blum
- Green
Science Policy Institute, Berkeley 94709, California, United States
| | - Marta Venier
- O’Neill
School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405, Indiana, United States
| | - Miriam L. Diamond
- Department
of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 3B1, ON, Canada
- School
of the Environment, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 3E8, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|