Use of pooled samples to assess human exposure to parabens, benzophenone-3 and triclosan in Queensland, Australia

Parabens, benzophenone-3 and triclosan are common ingredients used as preservatives, ultraviolet radiation filters and antimicrobial agents, respectively. Human exposure occurs through consumption of processed food and use of cosmetics and consumer products. The aim of this study was to provide a preliminary characterisation of exposure to selected personal care product chemicals in the general Australian population. De-identified urine specimens stratified by age and sex were obtained from a community-based pathology laboratory and pooled (n= 24 pools of 100). Concentrations of free and total (sum of free plus conjugated) species of methyl, ethyl, propyl and butyl paraben, benzophenone-3 and triclosan were quantified using isotope dilution tandem mass spectrometry; with geometric means 232, 33.5, 60.6, 4.32, 61.5 and 87.7. ng/mL, respectively. Age was inversely associated with paraben concentration, and females had concentrations approximately two times higher than males. Total paraben and benzophenone-3 concentrations are significantly higher than reported worldwide, and the average triclosan concentration was more than one order of magnitude higher than in many other populations. This study provides the first data on exposure of the general Australian population to a range of common personal care product chemical ingredients, which appears to be prevalent and warrants further investigation.

Insights into PBDE uptake, body burden, and elimination gained from Australian age–Concentration trends observed shortly after peak exposure

Background Population pharmacokinetic models combined with multiple sets of age– concentration biomonitoring data facilitate back-calculation of chemical uptake rates from biomonitoring data. Objectives We back-calculated uptake rates of PBDEs for the Australian population from multiple biomonitoring surveys (top-down) and compared them with uptake rates calculated from dietary intake estimates of PBDEs and PBDE concentrations in dust (bottom-up). Methods Using three sets of PBDE elimination half-lives, we applied a population pharmacokinetic model to the PBDE biomonitoring data measured between 2002–2003 and 2010–2011 to derive the top-down uptake rates of four key PBDE congeners and six age groups. For the bottom-up approach, we used PBDE concentrations measured around 2005. Results Top-down uptake rates of Σ4BDE (the sum of BDEs 47, 99, 100, and 153) varied from 7.9 to 19 ng/kg/day for toddlers and from 1.2 to 3.0 ng/kg/day for adults; in most cases, they were—for all age groups—higher than the bottom-up uptake rates. The discrepancy was largest for toddlers with factors up to 7–15 depending on the congener. Despite different elimination half-lives of the four congeners, the age–concentration trends showed no increase in concentration with age and were similar for all congeners. Conclusions In the bottom-up approach, PBDE uptake is underestimated; currently known pathways are not sufficient to explain measured PBDE concentrations, especially in young children. Although PBDE exposure of toddlers has declined in the past years, pre- and postnatal exposure to PBDEs has remained almost constant because the mothers’ PBDE body burden has not yet decreased substantially.

Excel’s Sumif and Sumifs function

As accountants, we are all familiar with the SUM function, which calculates the sum in a range of numbers. However, there are instances where we might want to sum numbers in a given range based on a specified criteria. In this instance the SUM IF function can achieve this objective.

Naming ranges in Excel

When working with functions in Excel you can reference a range of cells by simply selecting the cells. For instance if you wanted to sum all your first month sales located in the range B3:B16, the function would be =SUM(B3:B16).

Competition for aid and trade policy

This paper considers the optimal allocation of a given amount of foreign aid between two recipient countries. It is shown that, given consumer preferences, a country following a more restrictive trade policy would receive a smaller share of the aid if the donor country maximises its own welfare in allocating aid. If, on the other hand, the donor country allocates aid in order to maximize the sum of the welfare of the two recipient countries, the result is just the opposite. Finally, we analyze the situation where the recipient countries compete with each other for the given amount of aid. It is shown that this competition tends to lower the level of optimal tariffs in the recipient countries.