Head, Shoulders, Knees, and Toes: Placement of Wearable Passive Samplers Alters Exposure Profiles Observed
Jeremy P. Koelmel,Elizabeth Z. Lin,Amy Nichols,Pengfei Guo,Yakun Zhou,Krystal J. Godri Pollitt
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05522
2021-02-24
Abstract:Chemical exposures are a major risk factor for many diseases. Comprehensive characterization of personal exposures is necessary to highlight chemicals of concern and factors that influence these chemical exposure dynamics. For this purpose, wearable passive samplers can be applied to assess longitudinal personal exposures to airborne contaminants. Questions remain regarding the impact of sampler placement at different locations of the body on the exposure profiles observed and how these placements affect the monitoring of seasonal dynamics in exposures. This study assessed personal air contaminant exposure using passive samplers worn in parallel across 32 participant's wrists, chest, and shoes over 24 h. Samplers were analyzed by thermal desorption gas chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry. Personal exposure profiles were similar for about one-third of the 275 identified chemicals, irrespective of sampler placement. Signals of certain semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were enhanced in shoes and, to a lesser extent, wrist samplers, as compared to those in chest samplers. Signals of volatile organic compounds were less impacted by sampler placement. Results showed that chest samplers predominantly captured more volatile exposures, as compared to those of particle-bound exposures, which may indicate predominant monitoring of chemicals via the inhalation route of exposure for chest samplers. In contrast, shoe samplers were more sensitive to particle-bound SVOCs. Seventy-one chemicals changed across participants between winter and summer in the same manner for two or more different sampler placements on the body, whereas 122 chemicals were observed to have seasonal differences in only one placement. Hence, the placement in certain cases significantly impacts exposure dynamics observed. This work shows that it is essential in epidemiological studies undertaking exposure assessment to consider the consequence of the placement of exposure monitors.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at <a class="ext-link" href="/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c05522?goto=supporting-info">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c05522</a>.Additional information regarding study design and the study population (Table S1); details regarding BMN to correct batch effects (Figures S1–S4); difference in chemical exposures between samplers by season (Table S2 and Figures S7 and S10), participant housing (Figures S6 and S8), and sampler position (Figure S11); and manual validation of chemicals of concern (Figure S9) and evidence that differences in storage times did not contribute significantly to differences in exposure profiles observed (Figure S5) (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.0c05522/suppl_file/es0c05522_si_001.pdf">PDF</a>)All filtered compounds and predicted and measured compound information (e.g., toxicities, name, identifiers, predictors of volatility, etc.); and all sample intensities across compounds and metadata (month of collection, type of stove, housing type, etc.) (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.0c05522/suppl_file/es0c05522_si_002.xlsx">XLSX</a>)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.
environmental sciences,engineering, environmental