Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
186,546 studies31 sourcesUpdated 45 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDEnvironmental science & technology

Comparative Assessment of Personal Exposures to Environmental Contaminants Using Silicone Wristbands and Fresh Air Wristbands.

  • Elizabeth Z Lin1
  • Nicholas J Herkert2
  • Duncan Hay2
  • Ellen M Cooper2
  • Heather M Stapleton2
  • Krystal J Godri Pollitt1
  1. 1Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut06520, United States.
  2. 2Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina27710, United States.
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Wearable passive samplers are practical tools for personal exposure assessment, yet how sampler design and analysis methods shape the resulting measurements remains poorly characterized. We compared two widely used samplers, silicone and Fresh Air wristbands, worn simultaneously by 30 adults in Durham County, North Carolina, USA over 5 days with paired urine collection. All samples were analyzed using gas chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry, covering a broad chemical space (m/z 53.4-1050), using five analytical approaches to separate the influence of sampler design from that of analytical workflow. Targeted analysis of 15 chemicals showed systematically different concentrations that were correlated between designs for several compounds: silicone wristbands had 33- to 189-fold higher levels of less volatile compounds, while Fresh Air wristbands captured 9- to 80-fold higher levels of more volatile compounds. The magnitude of these differences increased with the log KOA. Suspect screening annotated 1330 compounds in silicone wristbands versus 2261 in Fresh Air wristbands, with distinct molecular weight distributions: higher in molecular weight in silicone wristbands (80% at 100-300 MW) compared to Fresh Air wristbands (93% at 50-200 MW). Measurement of the flame-retardant TCPP from both wristbands correlated with its urinary metabolite. Sampler design and analytical methods each influenced measured exposures, underscoring the need for harmonization and well-documented methods to enable cross-study comparison.

Related

  1. Feasibility and Acceptability of a Prospective Remote Pilot Study for Assessment of Airborne Environmental Exposures and Male Fertility
    I. H. Robertson, L. Boland, D. W. H. Chan +18
    medRxivPreprintCC BY-NC-NDFull textObstetrics, gynaecology & paediatricsmedRxiv
  2. Combined toxicity of cyanotoxins and anthropogenic contaminants on Chlorella vulgaris: insights from single and binary mixture exposures.
    Carlos Pinheiro, Joana Azevedo, Alexandre Campos +3
    Ecotoxicology (London, England)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textPharmacology & toxicologyEurope PMC
  3. Environmental exposures and intergenerational cardiovascular risk: epigenetic reprogramming via parental exercise
    Yuhang Zheng, Guanfeng Qin, Zijian Li +3
    Frontiers in physiologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  4. Nutrition, Lifestyle, and Environmental Exposures in Endometriosis: Toward Personalized Supportive Care
    Antonella Iaconis, Marika Cordaro
    NutrientsPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Obstetrics, gynaecology & paediatricsCrossref
  5. Microplastics as Emerging Contaminants: Pathways, Environmental Persistence, and Human Health Implications
    Jana Rammal, Assi Al Moussawi, Chaden Haidar +4
    MicroplasticsPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full text1 citedEcologyMaterials & polymersHAL

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{lin2026comparative,
  title = {{Comparative Assessment of Personal Exposures to Environmental Contaminants Using Silicone Wristbands and Fresh Air Wristbands.}},
  author = {Elizabeth Z Lin and Nicholas J Herkert and Duncan Hay and Ellen M Cooper and Heather M Stapleton and Krystal J Godri Pollitt},
  journal = {Environmental science \& technology},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  doi = {10.1021/acs.est.6c09387},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42916272},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Comparative Assessment of Personal Exposures to Environmental Contaminants Using Silicone Wristbands and Fresh Air Wristbands.
AU  - Elizabeth Z Lin
AU  - Nicholas J Herkert
AU  - Duncan Hay
AU  - Ellen M Cooper
AU  - Heather M Stapleton
AU  - Krystal J Godri Pollitt
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/09/01
JO  - Environmental science & technology
DO  - 10.1021/acs.est.6c09387
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42916272
AB  - Wearable passive samplers are practical tools for personal exposure assessment, yet how sampler design and analysis methods shape the resulting measurements remains poorly characterized. We compared two widely used samplers, silicone and Fresh Air wristbands, worn simultaneously by 30 adults in Durham County, North Carolina, USA over 5 days with paired urine collection. All samples were analyzed using gas chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry, covering a broad chemical space (m/z 53.4-1050), using five analytical approaches to separate the influence of sampler design from that of analytical workflow. Targeted analysis of 15 chemicals showed systematically different concentrations that were correlated between designs for several compounds: silicone wristbands had 33- to 189-fold higher levels of less volatile compounds, while Fresh Air wristbands captured 9- to 80-fold higher levels of more volatile compounds. The magnitude of these differences increased with the log KOA. Suspect screening annotated 1330 compounds in silicone wristbands versus 2261 in Fresh Air wristbands, with distinct molecular weight distributions: higher in molecular weight in silicone wristbands (80% at 100-300 MW) compared to Fresh Air wristbands (93% at 50-200 MW). Measurement of the flame-retardant TCPP from both wristbands correlated with its urinary metabolite. Sampler design and analytical methods each influenced measured exposures, underscoring the need for harmonization and well-documented methods to enable cross-study comparison.
SN  - 0013-936X
SN  - 1520-5851
ER  -