4.7 Article

Toxicokinetics and metabolisms of benzophenone-type UV filters in rats

期刊

TOXICOLOGY
卷 248, 期 2-3, 页码 89-95

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tox.2008.02.009

关键词

benzophenone-type UV filters; toxicokinetics; metabolism; rats; gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sunscreens containing UV filters are recommended to reduce damage caused by solar UV radiation. Recently, benzophenone (BP)-type UV filters have become widely used as UV stabilizers in skin-moisturizing products and sunscreen lotions; however, very little information is available regarding the potential harmful effects of prolonged exposure to these compounds. Therefore, we investigated the toxicokinetics and metabolism of BP-type UV filters in rats using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-.MS). To examine the metabolism of BP-type UV filters, we analyzed the parent compounds BP and 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (HMB). In rats, BP was mainly converted to benzhydrol (BH) and 4-hydroxybenzophenone (HBP) (i.e., type A UV filters). In contrast, HMB was converted into at least three intermediates, including 2,4-dihydroxybenzophenone (DHB), which was formed via o-demethylation and subsequently converted into 2,3,4-trihydroxybenzophenone (THB), and 2,2'-dihydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (DHMB), which formed via the aromatic hydroxylation of HMB (i.e., type B UV filters). Next, the toxicokinetic curve for BP showed a peak concentration (C-max) of 2.06 +/- 0.46 mu g/ml at approximately 4 h after BP administration. After a single oral dose of HMB, the Cm, of HMB reached 21.21 +/- 11.61 mu g/ml within 3 h (T-max), and then declined rapidly compared to the kinetic curve of BP. The concentration of these metabolites in rat blood decreased much more slowly over time compared to the parent compounds. Thus, our results indicate that such metabolites might have more significant adverse effects than the parent compounds over the long term. (c) 2008 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据