Exposure Levels and Oral Toxicity of Surfactants

Swisher, R. D.

doi:10.1080/00039896.1968.10665219

Cited by 33 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Aggregate exposures for commonly used alcohol ethoxysulfates and linear alkylbenzenesulfonates have been estimated to be 29 μg/kg bw per day and 4 μg/kg bw per day, respectively (HERA 2003(HERA , 2004. These aggregate exposure estimates are consistent with earlier estimates for human systemic exposure from residues on dishes and utensils, which ranged from 0.3 to 1 mg surfactant/day (Swisher 1968). Additionally, oral intake of 100 mg on an annual basis has been reported (Moncrieff 1969) and this estimate was confirmed by studies using radiolabeled surfactants (Schmitz 1973).…”

Section: Controls Increasing Surfactant Concentrationsupporting

confidence: 83%

Disrupting mitochondrial function with surfactants inhibits MA-10 Leydig cell steroidogenesis

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well established that surfactants can elicit cytotoxic effects at threshold concentrations by changing the permeability and solubilizing components of cell membranes. The purpose of this study was to characterize the relationship between perturbation of the mitochondrial membrane resulting from treatment with representative cationic, nonionic, and anionic surfactants and the extent to which this perturbation affects steroid formation and StAR protein expression and activity in MA-10 Leydig cells. The StAR protein is synthesized as an active 37 kDa extramitochondrial form, which is processed into a 30 kDa intramitochondrial form after cholesterol transfer and mitochondrial import and processing. It has been shown in several in vitro studies that the mitochondrial electrochemical gradient is required for the StAR protein to transfer cholesterol to the inner mitochondrial membrane. Each substance that was tested produced a concentration-dependent decrease in steroid formation in hCG-stimulated MA-10 cells. Decreases in progesterone production were accompanied by loss of mitochondrial membrane potential and by a decrease in the levels of the 30 kDa form of the StAR protein. However, levels of the 37 kDa form of the StAR protein did not decrease, indicating no effect on StAR protein expression. These results demonstrate how perturbation of the mitochondrial membrane by surfactants inhibits import, processing, and cholesterol transfer activity and underscore the importance of including sensitive assays that evaluate mitochondrial function when screening for potential effects on steroidogenesis with in vitro test systems.

show abstract

Section: Controls Increasing Surfactant Concentrationsupporting

confidence: 83%

Disrupting mitochondrial function with surfactants inhibits MA-10 Leydig cell steroidogenesis

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The acute oral toxicity of surfactants is low; LD 50 values normally fall in the range of several hundred to several thousand milligrams per kilogram of body weight [110]. The major detrimental effect of surfactants is damage to the mucous membranes of the gastrointestinal tract.…”

Section: Toxicologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, a number of investigations have been conducted over long periods of time with human volunteers. Substantial amounts of both anionic and nonionic surfactants were administered, but no serious side effects were discovered [110].…”

Section: Toxicologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Laundry Detergents, 4. Ecology and Toxicology

Steber

Wiebel

2011

Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article contains sections titled: 1. Ecology 1.1. Laundry, Wastewater, and the Environment 1.2. Contribution of Laundry to the Sewage Load 1.3. Detergent Laws 1.3.1. Development of the European Detergent Legislation 1.3.2. Regulatory Limitations on Anionic and Nonionic Surfactants 1.3.3. Primary Biodegradation Test Procedures 1.3.4. Regulation of Maximum Phosphate Content in Detergents 1.4. General Criteria for the Ecological Evaluation of Detergent Chemicals 1.4.1. Concept 1.4.2. Environmental Exposure Assessment 1.4.2.1. Biodegradation 1.4.2.2. Biodegradability Standard Test Methods 1.4.2.3. Supplementary Biodegradation Test Methods 1.4.2.4. Exposure Analysis 1.4.3. Assessment of Environmental Effects 1.4.3.1. Basic Ecotoxicity Tests 1.4.3.2. Subchronic and Chronic Ecotoxicity Tests 1.4.3.3. Biocenotic Ecotoxicity Tests 1.4.3.4. Bioaccumulation 1.4.4. Process of Environmental Risk Assessment 1.5. Ecological Characterization of Main Detergent Ingredients 1.5.1. Surfactants 1.5.1.1. Anionic Surfactants 1.5.1.2. Nonionic Surfactants 1.5.1.3. Cationic Surfactants 1.5.2. Builders 1.5.2.1. Zeolites 1.5.2.2. Polycarboxylates 1.5.2.3. Citrates 1.5.2.4. Sodium Carbonate (Soda Ash) 1.5.2.5. Nitrilotriacetate (NTA) 1.5.3. Bleaching Agents 1.5.3.1. Sodium Perborate 1.5.3.2. Sodium Percarbonate 1.5.3.3. Tetraacetylethylenediamine (TAED) 1.5.4. Auxiliary Agents 1.5.4.1. Phosphonates 1.5.4.2. EDTA 1.5.4.3. Enzymes 1.5.4.4. Optical Brighteners 1.5.4.5. Carboxymethyl Cellulose 1.5.4.6. Dye Transfer Inhibitors 1.5.4.7. Fragrances 1.5.4.8. Foam Regulators 1.5.4.9. Soil Repellents 1.5.4.10. Dyes 1.5.4.11. Sodium Sulfate 2. Toxicology 2.1. Detergent Ingredients 2.1.1. Surfactants 2.1.2. Builders 2.1.3. Bleach‐Active Compounds 2.1.4. Auxiliary Agents 2.2. Finished Detergents 2.3. Conclusions

show abstract

“…This is due to the fact that surfactants are stable and resistant to biodegradation [15, 18J. Accumulation of surfactants in drinking wa ter leads to constantly increasing doses of these derivatives [15]. It is accepted that man permanently ingests surfactants at dos es of 0.3-3 mg/24 h/person.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is accepted that man permanently ingests surfactants at dos es of 0.3-3 mg/24 h/person. Insufficient rins ing of dishes only, may supply as much as 0.3 mg of surfactants/24 h [6,15]. The use of surfactants as a food supplement creates a possibility of consumption of sorbitol de rivatives up to 500 mg/24 h [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Surfactants Present in Drinking Water on the Immune Activity of Mice

Szymaniec¹,

Zimecki²,

Wieczorek³

1980

Int Arch Allergy Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of some surfactants on the immune activity of mice was evaluated by determination of anti-sheep red blood cell (SRBC), plaque-forming cells (PFC), the intensity of anti-SRBC delayed type hypersensitivity, and PFC numbers to an autologous red blood cell antigen in the autoimmune response of mice drinking water containing surfactants. Depending on the substance used and on the duration of its administration, stimulation or inhibition of the immune response was revealed. The cell sensitive to Triton X-100 undergoing transformation or activation is the T cell. Possible mechanisms of interaction of the surfactants with the immunologically committed cells are discussed.

show abstract

Exposure Levels and Oral Toxicity of Surfactants

Cited by 33 publications

References 71 publications

Disrupting mitochondrial function with surfactants inhibits MA-10 Leydig cell steroidogenesis

Disrupting mitochondrial function with surfactants inhibits MA-10 Leydig cell steroidogenesis

Laundry Detergents, 4. Ecology and Toxicology

Effect of Surfactants Present in Drinking Water on the Immune Activity of Mice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About