Health disparities in low-income communities may be linked to residential exposures to chemicals infiltrating from the outdoors and characteristics of and sources in the home. Indoor sources comprise those introduced by the occupant as well as releases from building materials. To examine the impact of renovation on indoor pollutants levels and to classify chemicals by predominant indoor sources, we collected indoor air and surface wipes from newly renovated "green" low-income housing units in Boston before and after occupancy. We targeted nearly 100 semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including phthalates, flame retardants, fragrance chemicals, pesticides, antimicrobials, petroleum chemicals, chlorinated solvents, and formaldehyde, as well as particulate matter. All homes had indoor air concentrations that exceeded available risk-based screening levels for at least one chemical. We categorized chemicals as primarily influenced by the occupant or as having building-related sources. While building-related chemicals observed in this study may be specific to the particular housing development, occupant-related findings might be generalizable to similar communities. Among 58 detected chemicals, we distinguished 25 as primarily occupant-related, including fragrance chemicals 6-acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7-hexamethyltetralin (AHTN) and 1,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta[g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB). The pre- to post-occupancy patterns of the remaining chemicals suggested important contributions from building materials for some, including dibutyl phthalate and xylene, whereas others, such as diethyl phthalate and formaldehyde, appeared to have both building and occupant sources. Chemical classification by source informs multi-level exposure reduction strategies in low-income housing.

No abstract

Introduction: This effort investigated formaldehyde vapor characteristics under various environmental conditions by the analyses of air samples collected over a time-course. This knowledge will help responders achieve desired formaldehyde exposure parameters for decontamination of affected spaces after a biological contamination incident. Methods: Prescribed masses of paraformaldehyde and formalin were sublimated or evaporated, respectively, to generate formaldehyde vapor. Adsorbent cartridges were used to collect air samples from the test chamber at predetermined times. A validated method was used to extract the cartridges and analyze for formaldehyde via liquid chromatography. In addition, material demand for the formaldehyde was evaluated by inclusion of arrays of Plexiglas panels in the test chamber to determine the impact of varied surface areas within the test chamber. Temperature was controlled with a circulating water bath connected to a radiator and fan inside the chamber. Relative humidity was controlled with humidity fixed-point salt solutions and water vapor generated from evaporated water. Results: Low temperature trials (approximately 10°C) resulted in decreased formaldehyde air concentrations throughout the 48-hour time-course when compared with formaldehyde concentrations in the ambient temperature trials (approximately 22°C). The addition of clear Plexiglas panels to increase the surface area of the test chamber interior resulted in appreciable decreases of formaldehyde air concentration when compared to an empty test chamber. Conclusion: This work has shown that environmental variables and surface-to-volume ratios in the decontaminated space may affect the availability of formaldehyde in the air and, therefore, may affect decontamination effectiveness.

Introduction: This effort investigated formaldehyde vapor characteristics under various environmental conditions by the analyses of air samples collected over a time-course. This knowledge will help responders achieve desired formaldehyde exposure parameters for decontamination of affected spaces after a biological contamination incident. Methods: Prescribed masses of paraformaldehyde and formalin were sublimated or evaporated, respectively, to generate formaldehyde vapor. Adsorbent cartridges were used to collect air samples from the test chamber at predetermined times. A validated method was used to extract the cartridges and analyze for formaldehyde via liquid chromatography. In addition, material demand for the formaldehyde was evaluated by inclusion of arrays of Plexiglas panels in the test chamber to determine the impact of varied surface areas within the test chamber. Temperature was controlled with a circulating water bath connected to a radiator and fan inside the chamber. Relative humidity was controlled with humidity fixed-point salt solutions and water vapor generated from evaporated water. Results: Low temperature trials (approximately 10°C) resulted in decreased formaldehyde air concentrations throughout the 48-hour time-course when compared with formaldehyde concentrations in the ambient temperature trials (approximately 22°C). The addition of clear Plexiglas panels to increase the surface area of the test chamber interior resulted in appreciable decreases of formaldehyde air concentration when compared to an empty test chamber. Conclusion: This work has shown that environmental variables and surface-to-volume ratios in the decontaminated space may affect the availability of formaldehyde in the air and, therefore, may affect decontamination effectiveness.

Objectives: In this study, we characterized the sweet flavor ingredients in 2 internationally popular waterpipe tobaccos, flavored and unflavored. Methods: Tobacco extracts were quantified for humectants, sugars, menthol, nicotine, and sugar alcohols. Qualitative screening of flavor volatiles was performed, and 12 flavor volatiles were quantified. Results: Humectant content was 20 times greater in the flavored brand versus the unflavored, largely due to greater concentration of the glycerol. Sugar content was approximately 1.7 times higher in the flavored tobacco. Vanillin levels were > 200 times greater in the flavored brand. Nicotine content of the unflavored tobacco was 1.5 times greater on a mg/g tobacco basis, which can be explained by the much larger humectant mass content of the flavored tobacco. Conclusions: Flavored waterpipe tobacco may contain significantly greater amounts of humectants and flavor components (the compounds that make up the overall flavor), which may be harmful to users, compared to unflavored. Limiting flavors in waterpipe tobacco could aid in maximizing public health benefits.