| Literature DB >> 27722057 |
L W B Olaniyan1, N Mkwetshana2, A I Okoh1.
Abstract
Triclosan (TCS) is a broad spectrum antibacterial agent present as an active ingredient in some personal care products such as soaps, toothpastes and sterilizers. It is an endocrine disrupting compound and its increasing presence in water resources as well as in biosolid-amended soils used in farming, its potential for bioaccumulation in fatty tissues and toxicity in aquatic organisms are a cause for concern to human and environmental health. TCS has also been detected in blood, breast milk, urine and nails of humans. The significance of this is not precisely understood. Data on its bioaccumulation in humans are also lacking. Cell based studies however showed that TCS is a pro-oxidant and may be cytotoxic via a number of mechanisms. Uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation appears to be prevailing as a toxicity mechanism though the compound's role in apoptosis has been cited. TCS is not known to be carcinogenic per se in vitro but has been reported to promote tumourigenesis in the presence of a carcinogen, in mice. Recent laboratory reports appear to support the view that TCS oestrogenicity as well as its anti-oestrogenicity play significant role in cancer progression. Results from epidemiological studies on the effect of TCS on human health have implicated the compound as responsible for certain allergies and reproductive defects. Its presence in chlorinated water also raises toxicity concern for humans as carcinogenic metabolites such as chlorophenols may be generated in the presence of the residual chlorine. In this paper, we carried out a detailed overview of TCS pollution and the implications for human and environmental health.Entities:
Keywords: Cytotoxicity; Endocrine disruptor; Micro-pollutant; Triclosan; Water
Year: 2016 PMID: 27722057 PMCID: PMC5031584 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3287-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1Structure of triclosan (CAS 3380-34-5)
Infant exposure to triclosan via breast milk (NICNAS 2009)
| Age (month) | Average milk intake (g/day) | Body weight (kg) | Internal triclosan dose (nmol/kg body wt/day) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 751 | 4.7 | 10 |
| 2 | 725 | 5.6 | 8.5 |
| 3 | 723 | 6.2 | 7.6 |
| 4 | 740 | 6.7 | 7.3 |
Triclosan concentrations in drinking water
| Source | Concentration (nM) | Frequency-of detection (%) | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tap water | 0.17 | 34 | Yang et al. ( |
| 0.048 | 75 | ||
| Tap water | 0.21 | 63 | Padhye et al. ( |
| Tap water | 0.021–0.052 | Li et al. ( | |
| Fountain water | 0.36 | 45 | Yang et al. ( |
| 0.028 | 75 |
Triclosan concentrations in aquatic systems
| Source | Concentration (nM) | References |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Natural streams/rivers | nd–7.9 | Ying et al. ( |
| 0.26 | Halden and Paul ( | |
| Streams with input of raw wastewater | 5.5 | Fair et al. ( |
| Ebro basin (Spain) | nd–0.98 | Kantiani et al. ( |
| Danshuei River (Taiwan) | 0.015–0.036 | Shen et al. ( |
| River (SouthWest Spain) | 0.25 ± 0.0017 | Pintado-Herrera et al. ( |
| Sea (SouthWest Spain) | 0.23 ± 0.0034 | Pintado-Herrera et al. ( |
|
| ||
| South West Spain | 0.23 ± 0.0035 | Pintado-Herrera et al. ( |
| Kabwe, Zambia | 6.9 × 10−5–1.0 × 10−4 | Sorensen et al. ( |
| West Texas USA | nd–0.18 | Karnjanapiboonwong et al. ( |
|
| ||
| Treated wastewater (Midlands, UK) | Mean 0.25–1.51 | Chi et al. ( |
| Influent (USA) | 6.91–10.36 | Anumol and Snyder ( |
| Final effluents (USA) | 0.044–0.097 | Anumol and Snyder ( |
| Effluent (South West Spain) | 0.33 ± 0.028 | Pintado-Herrera et al. ( |
nd not detected
Triclosan concentrations in human fluids
| Fluid | Concentration (nM) | Location | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Serum | 4.1–41.4 | Spain | Azzouz et al. ( |
| Plasma | 0.035–1200 | Australia, Sweden | Allmyr et al. ( |
| Urine | 8.3–13,090 | USA | Calafat et al. ( |
| 0.56 ± 1.8a | India | Xue et al. ( | |
| 0.16 ± 0.27b | India | Xue et al. ( | |
| 1630 | USA | US CDC ( | |
| 1.1–7.3 | Spain | Azzouz et al. ( | |
| 0.51 ± 0.53 | USA | MacIsaac et al. ( | |
| Breast milk | 0.86–7.3 | Spain | Azzouz et al.( 2016) |
| 0.062–252 | USA, Australia, Sweden | Allmyr et al. ( |
aNon-obese
bObese
Reported triclosan (TCS) toxicities
| Cell type | TCS Concentration (µM) | Exposure (h) | Toxicity | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human breast cancer cells MCF-7 | ≥345.4 | 120 | Proliferation (oestrogenicity) | Henry and Fair ( |
| Human (A549) lung cancer cell | 250 | 24 | Cell membrane damage (LDH release) | Kwon et al. ( |
| Human (H460) lung cancer cell | 10 | 24 | Apoptotic and proliferative effect, Cell membrane damage (LDH release) | Winitthana et al. ( |
| Human PBMC | ≥8.6 | 30 | Loss of mitochondrial transmembrane potential; metabolic acidosis; uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation | Ajao et al. ( |
| Human keratinocytes HaCaT | ≥8.6 | 30 | Loss of mitochondrial transmembrane potential; necrosis | Ajao et al. ( |
| Rat fibroblast cells (RBL) | ≥5 | 1 | Uncoupling of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation | Weatherly et al. ( |
| Human mast cells (HMC-1.2) | ≥5 | 1 | ||
| Mouse JB6 Cl 41-5a cells | ≥8 | ≥48 | Decreased growth; cell damage (increased LDH release); necrosis | Wu et al. ( |
| Zebrafish ( | 15 | 1 | Uncoupling of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation | Shim et al. ( |
| Freshwater Protozoan ( | 3.5 nM | 1 | DNA damage (20 % DNA) | Gao et al. ( |
|
| 35 nM | 24 | DNA damage | Martínez-Paz et al. ( |
Tissue distribution of triclosan in humans
| Tissue | Concentration (nmol/kg) | References |
|---|---|---|
| Liver | 10.8 | Geens et al. ( |
| Adipose | 2.1 | Geens et al. ( |
| 80.1 (7.6–80.1) | Wang et al. ( | |
| Brain | 0.1 | Geens et al. ( |
|
| ||
| Toes | 19.6 (nd–3.62 µmol/kg) | Yin et al. ( |
| Fingers | 46.9 (nd–17.4 µmol/kg) | |
nd not detected
Triclosan removal in wastewater treatment plants (Ying and Kookana 2007)
| Level of treatment | Removal rate (%) |
|---|---|
| Primary treatment | 2–96 |
| Secondary treatment | |
| 1. Trickling filter | 58–96 |
| 2. Activated sludge | 55–99 |
| 3. Activated sludge (simple treat) | 61–72 |
| Tertiary treatment | 87–99 |
Triclosan removal efficiencies (%) in selected drinking water treatment processes
[adapted from NWRI (2010), Snyder et al. (2007)]
| UVa | Chlorinationb | Chloraminationc | Ozonationd |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50–80 | 80 | 80 | 95 |
aUV dose = 40 mJ/cm2
bChlorine dose = 3 mg/l, contact time = 24 h
cChloramine dose = 3 mg/l, contact time = 24 h
dOzone dose = 2.5 mg/l, contact time = 2 min
Triclosan concentrations in wastewater sediments and sludge (Dann and Hontela 2011)
| Medium | Location | Concentration (nmol/kg) | References |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Freshwater | Switzerland | 180 | Singer et al. ( |
| Spain | nd–120 | Morales et al. ( | |
| Estuarine | USA | nd–2800 | Miller et al. ( |
| Marine | Spain | 9.3–450 | Agüera et al. ( |
|
| |||
| Activated sludge | USA | 1.7–53.9 | McAvoy et al. ( |
| Spain | 1.4–18.7 | Morales et al. ( | |
| Germany | 4.1 | Bester ( | |
| Canada | 2.1–5.0 | Chu and Metcalfe ( | |
| Biosolids | Australia | 311–58,000 | Ying and Kookana ( |
| USA | 36,300–103,600 | Heidler and Halden ( | |
| Spain | 5210 | Morales et al. ( | |
| Canada | 2350–43,200 | Lee and Peart ( | |
nd not detected
Triclosan concentrations in agricultural soils, sewage sludge, river and pond sediments (Azzouz and Ballesteros 2015)
| Medium | Location | Concentration (nmol/kg) |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural soils (4 points, n = 12) | Spain | 0.028–0.1 |
| Pond sediments (2 points, n = 6) | Spain | 0.15–0.2 |
| River sediments (3 points, n = 9) | Spain | 0–0.18 |
| Sewage sludge (2 points, n = 6) | Spain | 0.5–0.52 |