4.8 Article

Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Human Gestational Membranes from Women in Southeast Michigan

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 43, 期 9, 页码 3042-3046

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es8032764

关键词

-

资金

  1. Michigan Institute for Clinical
  2. Health Research of the University of Michigan [NIH UL1-RR-024986]
  3. NIEHS Institutional Training Grant [T32 ES07062, T32 HD 007048]
  4. Department of Environmental Health Sciences of the University of Michigan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been incorporated into many consumer products as flame retardants. Due to their persistence and ability to bioaccumulate, PBDEs are ubiquitous in human blood and breast milk samples from industrialized nations. Although there exists a potential for environmental pollutants such as PBDEs to adversely impact birth outcomes and perinatal health, reports of PBDE levels in human reproductive tissues are limited. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the total levels and congener-specific profiles of PBDEs from human extraplacental gestational membranes. Gestational membranes from five term pregnancies were obtained from nonlaboring caesarian deliveries at the University of Michigan Women's Hospital Birth Center. Duplicate samples were extracted and analyzed by GC-MS for twenty-one PBDE congeners. Total PBDE loading was 17.4 +/- 3.9 pg/g tissue (5.62 +/- 1.28 ng/g lipid). Seventy-eight percent of the total measurable PBDE loading was due to BDEs 47, 49, 99, 100, and 153, with measured values of 3.63, 3.15, 3.05, 1.74, and 1.90 pg/g tissue(1170, 1018, 983, 561, and 612 pg/g lipid), respectively. The remaining 28% comprised BIDES 17, 28, 66, 71, 85, and 154. No octa-, nona-, or deca-BDEs were identified. Although previously unreported in the human gestational compartment, BIDE 49 comprised 17% of the total PBDE level. This work establishes baseline accumulated levels of PBDEs in gestational membranes of women in Southeast Michigan.

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

4.8
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