Addition/Correction pubs.acs.org/est
Cite This: Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Correction to Importance of Dermal Absorption of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Derived from Barbecue Fumes Jia-Yong Lao, Lian-Jun Bao, and Eddy Y. Zeng* Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 8330−8338. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b01689.
Environ. Sci. Technol. Downloaded from pubs.acs.org by UNIV OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE on 09/28/18. For personal use only.
W
Lines 14−15: “...were 0.11, 0.036, and 0.043 for...lower than...but...” should be revised to “...were >1, 0.61, and 0.22 for...higher than...and...”.
e have found an error in eq S3 of the Supporting Information. The original equation
(k p_g
ij 2.6 + MW 0.5 × k p_cw 1 yz + zzzz = 1/jjjj j 2.6HRT × k p_cw vd z k {
■
RESULT AND DISCCUSION Dermal versus Inhalation Intakes of PAHs. Lines 5−7 in the first paragraph: “...3.3−6.0 m h−1..., all greater than 3.0 m h−1,...” should be revised to “...0.03−5.67 m h−1..., and those of high molecular-weight PAHs were greater than 3.0 m h−1,...”. Lines 8−11 in the first paragraph: “...decrease...,...possess less...” should be revised to “...increase...,...are more...”. Lines 4−7 in the second paragraph: “...560, 2750, and 650 ng..., greater..., whereas opposite was true for particulate
should have been
ij 2.6 + MW 0.5 × k p_cw 1 yz k p_g = 1/jjjj + zzzz j 0.026(RT /H ) × k p_cw vd z k {
where the Henry’s law constant H was mistakenly placed in parallel with RT (HRT), while the correct form should be RT/H, as we used Pa·m3 mol−1 as the units of H. This equation was used with the measured atmospheric PAH concentrations to estimate external exposure through dermal intake. As a result, some of the external exposure data are erroneous and must be corrected (as shown below). It must be emphasized that the main conclusions from the present study are not affected by the error, because they were drawn directly from urinary OH-PAHs data (i.e., internal exposure), with the external exposure estimates as supplements. The correction to eq S3 has resulted in the need to revise some words in the main text, as well as some data in Tables 2, S3, S9, and in Figure 3. The words and numbers before and after revisions are highlighted in bold for easy recognition.
Table S3. Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (log kow; Unitless), Henry’s Law Constant (H; Pa m3 mol−1), and Calculated kp_g (m h−1) of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Nap Acy Ace Flu Phe Ant Fla Pyr BbF BkF BaP IcdP BghiP
■
ABSTRACT Lines 8−10: “Dermal intake of low molecular-weight PAHs was greater than inhalation intake from the occurrence of atmospheric PAHs. In addition,” should be deleted and “the net...” should be “The net...”.
log kow
H
kp_g
3.32 3.61 3.77 3.96 4.07 4.2 4.5 4.66 5.6 5.43 5.81 6.3 6.09
44.6 11.55 14.79 9.75 3.61 7.66 0.65 1.21 0.051 0.044 0.046 0.029 0.027
0.03 0.10 0.09 0.14 0.35 0.20 1.72 1.21 5.32 5.33 5.45 5.67 5.66
Table 2. Amount of PAH Intake (ng) by Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Barbecue Fumes during 2.5-h Period EDda Flu
d
e
EDib
Phe
Pyr
f
EDd+ic
Flu
Phe
Pyr
Flu
Phe
Pyr
gas phase
mean 95% CIg
13 9.2−18
166 115−221
131 90−174
360 340−380
1790 1690−1890
430 410−450
373 350−390
1956 1840−2070
561 510−610
particle phase
mean 95% CI
0.2 0.1−0.3
0.8 0.5−1.0
1.3 0.9−1.8
6.3 6.0−6.7
12 11−12
7.5 7.1−7.9
6.5 6.2−6.9
12.8 12−13
8.8 8−10
sum
mean
13
167
132
370
1800
440
380
1970
570
a
Intake amount of PAHs via dermal absorption. bIntake amount of PAHs via inhalation. cIntake amount of PAHs via combined dermal and inhalation exposure. dFlu = fluorene. ePhe = phenanthrene. fPyr = pyrene. gCI = confidence interval.
© XXXX American Chemical Society
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b04782 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Environmental Science & Technology
Addition/Correction
Table S9. Ratios of Excretion to Intake for Nap, Flu, Phe, and Pyr via Diet, Dermal Absorption, Combined Dermal and Inhalation Exposure, and Inhalation Nap Flu Phe Pyr
diet
dermal absorption
dermal absorption+inhalation
inhalation
0.53 ± 0.21 0.38 ± 0.24 0.14 ± 0.09 0.060 ± 0.064
−a >1b 0.61 ± 0.32 0.22 ± 0.17
− 0.26 ± 0.05 0.06 ± 0.02 0.07 ± 0.03
− 0.097 ± 0.010 0.016 ± 0.031 0.025 ± 0.050
a
Data are not available. bData are estimated based on an exposed dermal fraction of 15−30% of the body surface area. It indicates that Flu may be absorbed not only via bare skin but also via exposed clothes.
Figure 3. Amounts of PAHs dermal intake were estimated based on exposed dermal fraction of 15−30% body surface area. If the exposed skin area fraction increased to 15−100%, the dermal intake amount of Flu would be 7.8−75 ng (the net excreted amount of OH-Flu was 63 ± 32 ng). The effects of clothing were not included on model estimation.
PAHs (Table 2). These results are consistent with...” should be revised to “...13, 166, and 131 ng..., smaller..., which was the same for particulate PAHs (Table 2). These results are not consistent with...”. Lines 4−8 in the third paragraph: “Moreover,...61%, 60%, and 60%...,...higher...39%, 39%, and 39%...” should be revised to “However,...3.4%, 8.4%, and 23%...,...lower...95%, 91%, and 75%...”. Lines 8−9 in the third paragraph: “...were consistent with...” should be revised to “...were not consistent with...”. Lines 12−14 in the third paragraph: “Overall, the dermal intake of selected PAHs was greater than inhalation intake for the gaseous plus particle phases” should be deleted. Comparison of Exposure Pathways for Metabolism of PAHs. Lines 4−8 in the second paragraph: “...0.11, 0.036, and 0.043 via dermal absorption, 0.11, 0.028, and 0.035.... Dermal absorption had the second highest excretion rate of OH-PAHs after dietary ingestion.” should be revised to “...> 1, 0.61, and 0.22 via dermal absorption, 0.26, 0.06, and 0.07.... Dermal absorption had the highest excretion rate of OH-PAHs”. Lines 9−12 in the second paragraph: “The mean ratio of excretion to intake of PAHs by dermal absorption was more
than a quarter of that by dietary exposure; particularly, the excretion to intake ratio for Pyr via dermal absorption was comparable to that via dietary ingestion” should be deleted. Effects of Clothing on Dermal Absorption. Lines 15− 16 in the second paragraph: “...18%, 22%, and 18% of those from bare-skin absorption of BBQ fumes” should be revised to “...26%, 31%, and 21% of those via dermal and inhalation exposure to BBQ fumes for 2.5 h”. Implications and Limitations. Lines 4−6 in the first paragraph: “First, modeling results suggested that intakes of low molecular-weight PAHs intakes were greater via dermal absorption than via inhalation.” should be deleted. Lines 1−9 in the first paragraph: “Three pieces.... Second,.... Third,...” should be revised to “Two pieces.... First,.... Second,...”. In addition, “
