Assessment of dermal exposure to halogenated flame retardants: Comparison using direct measurements from hand wipes with an indirect estimation from settled dust concentrations

There are few studies estimating dermal exposure to halogenated flame retardants in adults. To fill this gap, sixty-one hand wipe samples were collected from a Norwegian adult cohort using gauze pads immersed in isopropanol. BDE-47, BDE-209, bis(2‑ethyl‑hexyl)‑3,4,5,6‑tetrabromophthalate (BEH-TEBP) and decabromodiphenylethane (DBDPE) were the most frequently detected chemicals. The highest median mass in hand wipes was that of sumEHFR (570 ng), followed by sumHBCDD (180 ng) and sumPBDE (2.9 ng). The high EHFR level was mainly driven by tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) which accounted for 77% of the total mass. Positive and significant correlations were observed between FR levels in hand wipes and settled dust (0.26 < r < 0.56, p < 0.05), as well as between FR levels in hand wipes and the number of electronic consumer products at home (0.27 < r < 0.40, p < 0.05). Significant bivariate associations with number of laptops/tablets and phones/mobiles were further confirmed by multivariate linear regression analyses. Dermal exposure was estimated using the levels measured in handwipes. The estimated median dermal exposure was 2600, 840 and 6.2 pg/kg bw/d for sumEHFR, sumHBCDD and sumPBDE, respectively. Further, we compared these results with the dermal exposure as estimated indirectly by utilizing previously reported FR levels in settled dust collected from the residences of the same studied cohort. With the indirect approach, higher dermal exposures to sumPBDE but lower exposures to sumEHFR and sumHBCDD were observed compared to the direct dermal exposure estimated via hand wipes. Comparable exposure estimates between hand wipes and the indirect method were obtained for α‑, β‑tetrabromoethylcyclohexane (DBE-DBCH), DBDPE, BDE-28, -35, -49, -99, -153, 154, and -183. For other individual HFRs, the exposure estimates obtained from the two approaches were significantly different (Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05). Both methods gave similar dermal exposure estimates for many individual FRs. However, it is important to be aware of the value and limitations of each method when using them to estimate human exposure.