Background: Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been widely used as flame retardants in consumer products and are ubiquitous in residential indoor air and dust. However, little is known about exposure in the office environment.Objectives: We examined relationships between PBDE concentrations in the office environment and internal exposure using concurrent measurements of PBDEs in serum, handwipes, and office dust.Methods: We collected serum, dust, and handwipe samples from 31 participants who spent at least 20 hr/week in an office. We used a questionnaire to collect information about work and personal habits.Results: We found positive associations between PBDEs in room dust, handwipes (a measure of personal exposure), and serum. PBDE office dust concentrations were weakly correlated with measurements in handwipes: r = 0.35 (p = 0.06) for pentaBDE (sum of BDE congeners 28/33, 47, 99, 100, and 153) and 0.33 (p = 0.07) for BDE-209. Hand washing also predicted pentaBDE levels in handwipes: low hand-washers had 3.3 times the pentaBDE levels in their handwipes than did high hand-washers (p = 0.02). PentaBDE in handwipes predicted pentaBDE levels in serum (p = 0.03): Serum concentrations in the highest handwipe tertile were on average 3.5 times the lowest handwipe tertile. The geometric mean concentration of pentaBDEs in serum was 27 ng/g lipid. We detected BDE-209 in 20% of serum samples, at levels ranging from < 4.8 to 9.7 ng/g lipid.Conclusion: Our research suggests that exposure to pentaBDE in the office environment contributes to pentaBDE body burden, with exposure likely linked to PBDE residues on hands. In addition, hand washing may decrease exposure to PBDEs.

Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) is a flame retardant widely used in furniture containing polyurethane foam. It is a carcinogen, endocrine disruptor, and potentially neurotoxic. Our objectives were to characterize exposure of adult office workers (n=29) to TDCPP by measuring its primary metabolite, bis(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (BDCPP), in their urine; measuring TDCPP in dust from their homes; offices and vehicles; and assessing possible predictors of exposure. We identified TDCPP in 99% of dust (GM=4.43 µg/g) and BDCPP in 100% of urine samples (GM=408 pg/mL). Concentrations of TDCPP in dust were significantly higher in vehicles (GM=12.5 µg/g) and offices (GM=6.06 µg/g) than in dust from the main living area (GM=4.21 µg/g) or bedrooms (GM=1.40 µg/g) of worker homes. Urinary BDCPP concentrations among participants who worked in a new office building were 26% of those who worked in older buildings (p=0.01). We found some evidence of a positive trend between urinary BDCPP and TDCPP in office dust that was not observed in the other microenvironments and may be related to the timing of urine sample collection during the afternoon of a workday. Overall our findings suggest that exposure to TDCPP in the work environment is one of the contributors to the personal exposure for office workers. Further research is needed to confirm specific exposure sources (e.g., polyurethane foam), determine the importance of exposure in other microenvironments such as homes and vehicles, and address the inhalation and dermal exposure pathways.

We aimed to investigate the role of indoor office air on exposure to polyfluorinated compounds (PFCs) among office workers. Week-long, active air sampling was conducted during the winter of 2009 in 31 offices in Boston, MA. Air samples were analyzed for fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs), sulfonamides (FOSAs), and sulfonamidoethanols (FOSEs). Serum was collected from each participant (n=31) and analyzed for twelve PFCs including PFOA and PFOS. In air, FTOHs were present in the highest concentrations, particularly 8:2-FTOH (GM=9,920 pg/m3). FTOHs varied significantly by building with the highest levels observed in a newly constructed building. PFOA in serum was significantly correlated with air levels of 6:2-FTOH (r=0.43), 8:2-FTOH (r=0.60), and 10:2-FTOH (r=0.62). Collectively, FTOHs in air significantly predicted PFOA in serum (p < 0.001) and explained approximately 36% of the variation in serum PFOA concentrations. PFOS in serum was not associated with air levels of FOSAs/FOSEs. In conclusion, FTOH concentrations in office air significantly predict serum PFOA concentrations in office workers. Variation in PFC air concentrations by building is likely due to differences in the number, type, and age of potential sources such as carpeting, furniture and/or paint.

We aimed to characterize levels of polyfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in indoor dust from offices, homes, and vehicles; to investigate factors that may affect PFC levels in dust; and to examine the associations between PFCs in dust and office workers’ serum. Dust samples were collected in 2009 from offices, homes, and vehicles of 31 individuals in Boston, MA and analyzed for nineteen PFCs, including perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs), and sulfonamidoethanols (FOSEs). Serum was collected from each participant and analyzed for eight PFCs including PFOA and PFOS. Perfluorononanoate, PFOA, perfluoroheptanoate, perfluorohexanoate, PFOS and 8:2 FTOH had detection frequencies >50% in dust from all three microenvironments. The highest geometric mean concentration in office dust was for 8:2 FTOH (309 ng/g), while PFOS was highest in homes (26.9 ng/g) and vehicles (15.8 ng/g). Overall, offices had the highest PFC concentrations, particularly for longer-chain carboxylic acids and FTOHs. Perfluorobutyrate was prevalent in homes and vehicles, but not offices. PFOA serum concentrations were not associated with PFC dust levels after adjusting for PFC concentrations in office air. Dust concentrations of most PFCs are higher in offices than in homes and vehicles. However, indoor dust may not be a significant source of exposure to PFCs for office workers. This finding suggests that our previously published observation of an association between FTOH concentrations in office air and PFOA concentrations in office workers was not due to confounding by PFCs in dust.

Our objectives were to determine relative contributions of diet and dust exposure from multiple microenvironments to PentaBDE body burden, and to explore the role of handwipes as a measure of personal exposure to PentaBDE. We administered a food frequency questionnaire and collected serum, dust (office, main living area, bedroom, and vehicle) and handwipe samples from 31 participants. ΣPentaBDEs (sum of BDE 28/33, 47, 99, 100, and 153) in handwipes collected in the office environment were weakly correlated with dust collected from offices (r=0.35, p=0.06) and bedrooms (r=0.39, p=0.04), but not with dust from main living areas (r=−0.05, p=0.77) or vehicles (r=0.17, p=0.47). ΣPentaBDEs in serum were correlated with dust from main living areas (r=0.42, p=0.02) and bedrooms (r=0.49, p=0.008), but not with dust from offices (r=0.22, p=0.25) or vehicles (r=0.20, p=0.41). Our final regression model included variables for main living area dust and handwipes, and predicted 55% of the variation in serum ΣPentaBDE concentrations (p=0.0004). Diet variables were not significant predictors of ΣPentaBDEs in serum. Our research suggests that exposure to dust in the home environment may be the most important factor in predicting PentaBDE body burden in North Americans, and potential exposure pathways may involve PBDE residues on hands.