Mechanisms of biodegradation of dibenzoate plasticizers

Biodegradation mechanisms were elucidated for three dibenzoate plasticizers: diethylene glycol dibenzoate (D(EG)DB), dipropylene glycol dibenzoate (D(PG)DB), both of which are commercially available, and 1,6-hexanediol dibenzoate, a potential green plasticizer. Degradation studies were done using Rhodococcus rhodochrous in the presence of pure alkanes as a co-substrate. As expected, the first degradation step for all of these systems was the hydrolysis of one ester bond with the release of benzoic acid and a monoester. Subsequent biodegradation of the monobenzoates of diethylene glycol (D(EG)MB) and dipropylene glycol (D(PG)MB) was very slow, leading to significant accumulation of these monoesters. In contrast, 1,6-hexanediol monobenzoate was quickly degraded and characterization of the metabolites indicated that the biodegradation proceeded by way of the oxidation of the alcohol group to generate 6-(benzoyloxy) hexanoic acid followed by β-oxidation steps. This pathway was blocked for D(EG)MB and D(PG)MB by the presence of an ether function.The use of a pure hydrocarbon as a co-substrate resulted in the formation of another class of metabolites; namely the esters of the alcohols formed by the oxidation of the alkanes and the benzoic acid released by hydrolysis of the original diesters. These metabolites were biodegraded without the accumulation of any intermediates.     

Trace phthalate and adipate esters contaminated in packaged food

A method for trace analysis of two plasticizers, di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) and di-2-ethylhexyl adipate (DEHA), contaminated in packaged curry paste were investigated by gas chromatography with flame ionization detector (GC-FID). Curry paste samples were extracted by ultrasonic and solid phase extraction using Florisil® cartridge. Analysis by the GC-FID system provided limits of detection for DEHA and DEHP at 12 and 25 μ g L^{? 1} and a linear dynamic range between 25 μ g L^{? 1} to 60 mg L^{? 1} with a coefficient of determination (R²) greater than 0.99. High recoveries were obtained, ranged from 91 to 99% and 88 to 98% for DEHP and DEHA with RSD lower than 7 and 10% respectively. The method detection limit and limits of quantitation were ranged from 27 to 30 and 90 to 100 μ g L^{? 1}. The analysis of curry paste samples showed concentrations of DEHP and DEHA in the range of 4.0 ng g^{? 1} to 0.61 μg g^{? 1}.     

Safer alternatives assessment: the Massachusetts process as a model for state governments

In 2006 the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute conducted a study to determine if states could identify safer alternatives to five chemicals of concern. The chemicals investigated included di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), formaldehyde, hexavalent chromium, lead and perchloroethylene. First, the Institute developed a methodology for assessing alternatives to these five chemicals that allowed it to quickly determine priority uses and alternatives to assess and to research the pertinent decision criteria, which included performance, technical, financial environmental and human health parameters. The methodology included important feedback from stakeholders in the state, which helped to focus and enhance the value of the work. Second, the Institute implemented the methodology over a ten month period. Based on the activities conducted by the Institute, safer alternatives were identified for each of the priority uses associated with the five chemicals studied. This report summarizes the methodology employed and provides examples of the results for one of the five chemicals, namely DEHP. The experience of the Institute and the information contained in this report indicates that alternatives assessment was a useful approach to organizing and evaluating information about chemicals and alternatives.