Analysis of Phthalates and Alternative Plasticizers in Gloves by Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry and Liquid Chromatography–UV Detection: A Comparative Study

Gloves represent an essential feature for hand protection because it is a requirement in the professional framework to comply with both hand hygiene standards and the principles of good laboratory practice. Despite their wide use, there is a knowledge gap regarding their composition, including phthalates. The purpose of the present study was to develop two orthogonal methods, GC–MS and HPLC–DAD, for the screening of plasticizers in gloves. Performances of these two methods were compared in terms of ease of use, number of analyzed plasticizers, and sample preparation. The two methods were validated and applied for the identification and quantification of plasticizers in ten gloves made with different materials (vinyl, nitrile, latex, and neoprene). Results revealed the presence of three main ones: DEHP, DEHT, and DINP. Additionally, the contents of plasticizers were extremely variable, depending on the glove material. As expected, the results point out a predominant use of plasticizers in vinyl gloves with an amount that should be of concern. While DEHP is classified as a toxic substance for reproduction 1B, it was, however, quantified in the ten different glove samples studied. This study provides new data regarding the plasticizers’ content in protective gloves, which could be useful for risk assessment.

Download Full-text

Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry in Occupational and Environmental Health Risk Assessment with Some Applications Related to Environmental and Biological Monitoring of 1-Nitropyrene

Current Practice of Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry - Chromatographic Science Series ◽

10.1201/9781420029512.ch7 ◽

2001 ◽

pp. 199-227 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

P Scheepers ◽

R Bos ◽

R Anzion

Keyword(s):

Mass Spectrometry ◽

Risk Assessment ◽

Gas Chromatography ◽

Health Risk ◽

Biological Monitoring ◽

Environmental Health ◽

Health Risk Assessment ◽

Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ◽

Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ◽

Environmental Health Risk

Download Full-text

Pesticide residues in bee pollen - validation of the gas chromatography-mass spectrometry multiresidual method and a survey of bee pollens from Slovenia

Acta agriculturae Slovenica ◽

10.14720/aas.2021.117.2.1822 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 117 (2) ◽

pp. 1

Author(s):

Helena BAŠA ČESNIK

Keyword(s):

Mass Spectrometry ◽

Risk Assessment ◽

Gas Chromatography ◽

Pesticide Residues ◽

Solid Phase ◽

Lower Number ◽

Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ◽

Phase Extraction ◽

Bee Pollen ◽

Active Substances

A new analytical method for determining environmental pesticide residues in pollen was introduced and validated. The extraction was conducted using acetonitrile, the clean-up using Supelclean Ultra 2400 solid phase extraction cartridges, which contain Grapsphere, anion exchanger, C18 and zirconia-based sorbent, and the determination was conducted using gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. The method was applied in practice. A total of 49 active substances (pesticides) were sought in 30 bee pollen samples gathered from Slovenian beekeepers from all 12 statistical regions of Slovenia. The fungicide azoxystrobin was the only active substance found and was found only in one sample with a concentration of < 0.05 mg kg-1. The active substances sought were not detected in 96.7 % of the samples analysed. The risk assessment revealed that the analysed pollen samples do not represent an unacceptable risk for consumers. The results were compared with those from the literature and the outcome was that bee pollen from Slovenia contained a lower number of active substances at mainly lower contents as compared pollen from some other European countries.

Download Full-text

Laboratory practice of organic acid analysis based on gas chromatography–mass spectrometry in China

Journal of Laboratory Medicine ◽

10.1515/labmed-2021-0086 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 45 (4-5) ◽

pp. 229-235

Author(s):

Lizi Jin ◽

Tianjiao Zhang ◽

Jie Zeng ◽

Chuanbao Zhang

Keyword(s):

Mass Spectrometry ◽

Gas Chromatography ◽

Organic Acid ◽

Internal Standard ◽

Turnaround Time ◽

Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ◽

Reference Ranges ◽

Laboratory Practice ◽

Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ◽

Quantitative Results

Abstract Objectives The aim of this study is to investigate the status of laboratory practice of organic acid (OA) analysis using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry in China. Methods A survey, investigating details of laboratory practice of OA analysis, was issued on the website of the National Center for Clinical Laboratories of China. Nationwide external quality assessment participating laboratories of OA assay were informed to participate in this survey. Results A total of 36 laboratories completed this survey. Most laboratories started OA analysis during 2016–2020. Most (100%) labs reported semi-quantitative results, in which 79.4% of labs adopted the form of the ratio of peak area of OA and quantitative internal standard. Rare labs reported quantitative results. Few labs released reports in three days, most in 5–7 days. The source of control materials varied, 64.5% of labs adapted self-made materials. A total of 43.8% of laboratories directly used reference intervals (RIs) from published literature, 43.8% of laboratories established RIs themselves, but 21.2% of laboratories reported they didn’t verify RIs. Conclusions Appropriate supervision for the organic acid assay is needed in the aspect of the turnaround time of reporting results, the establishment validation and verification of reference ranges, and the quantification of results.

Download Full-text

Flavour chemicals, synthetic coolants and pulegone in popular mint-flavoured and menthol-flavoured e-cigarettes

Tobacco Control ◽

10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056582 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. tobaccocontrol-2021-056582

Author(s):

Esther E Omaiye ◽

Wentai Luo ◽

Kevin J McWhirter ◽

James F Pankow ◽

Prue Talbot

Keyword(s):

Mass Spectrometry ◽

Risk Assessment ◽

Gas Chromatography ◽

Cancer Risk ◽

Mtt Assay ◽

Electronic Cigarettes ◽

Cancer Risk Assessment ◽

Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ◽

Diphenyltetrazolium Bromide ◽

Risk Of Cancer

BackgroundThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently banned flavours from pod-style electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), except for menthol and tobacco. JUUL customers have quickly discovered that flavoured disposable e-cigarettes from other manufacturers, such as Puff, are readily available. Our goal was to compare flavour chemicals, synthetic coolants and pulegone in mint-flavoured/menthol-flavoured e-cigarettes from JUUL and Puff, evaluate the cytotoxicity of the coolants and perform a cancer risk assessment for pulegone, which is present in both JUUL pods and disposable Puff products.MethodsIdentification and quantification of chemicals were performed using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Cytotoxicity of the coolants was evaluated with BEAS-2B cells using the MTT 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)−2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay. The cancer risk of pulegone was calculated using the margin of exposure (MOE).ResultsMenthol was the dominant flavour chemical (>1 mg/mL) in all products from both manufacturers. Minor flavour chemicals (<1 mg/mL) differed in the JUUL and Puff fluids and may produce flavour accents. The concentrations of WS-3 and WS-23 were higher in Puff than in JUUL. WS-23 was cytotoxic in the MTT assay at concentrations 90 times lower than concentrations in Puff fluids. The risk of cancer (MOE<10 000) was greater for mint than for menthol products and greater for Puff than for JUUL.ConclusionsSwitching from flavoured JUUL to Puff e-cigarettes may expose users to increased harm due to the higher levels of WS-23 and pulegone in Puff products. Cancer risk may be reduced in e-cigarettes by using pure menthol rather than mint oils to produce minty-flavoured e-cigarette products.

Download Full-text