Combinations of Non-di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate Collection Sets, Storage Bags and Additive Solutions for Red Blood Cells

For decades, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) has been the primary plasticizer used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) blood bags flexible. DEHP leaches into the blood product, stabilizing red blood cell (RBC) membranes and preventing excessive hemolysis. Despite being classified as a substance of very high concern due to its potential endocrine-disrupting and carcinogenic effects, DEHP has continued to be used in red cell concentrate (RCC) storage bags, as alternatives have often led to reduced RCC quality during storage. However, under the European Medical Device Regulation the use of DEHP in medical devices is restricted to below 0.1% by weight per July 2030. As a result, the effect of several alternative plasticizers on RCC quality, such as di(2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate (DEHT), 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid diisononyl ester (DINCH), and N-butyryl-n-hexyl citrate (BTHC), have recently been investigated in combination with different storage solutions. Although previous studies using these new combinations showed variable results, these alternatives remain the most promising options, with current data demonstrating reduced leaching and lower toxicity compared to DEHP. This review highlights key publications on the transition from DEHP-PVC blood bag systems for RCC storage, demonstrating that several non-DEHP alternatives are viable replacement options, particularly when combined with next-generation storage solutions. Future studies are required to assess the frequency of adverse events, the occurrence of handling issues such as leakage, and to evaluate practical performance and clinical efficacy through post-transfusion recovery and increment studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Transfusion Medicine Reviews
Published
2025-05-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmrv.2025.150904
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.60

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Combinations of Non-di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate Collection Sets, Storage Bags and Additive Solutions for Red Blood Cells

Johan W.M. Lagerberg, Stefan F. van Wonderen, Christie Vermeulen, Thomas R. Klei et al.
3 citations
Transfusion Medicine Reviews
Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
3.60
article

Combinations of Non-di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate Collection Sets, Storage Bags and Additive Solutions for Red Blood Cells

Johan W.M. Lagerberg, Stefan F. van Wonderen, Christie Vermeulen, Thomas R. Klei, Alexander P. J. Vlaar
article en
3 citations

Abstract

For decades, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) has been the primary plasticizer used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) blood bags flexible. DEHP leaches into the blood product, stabilizing red blood cell (RBC) membranes and preventing excessive hemolysis. Despite being classified as a substance of very high concern due to its potential endocrine-disrupting and carcinogenic effects, DEHP has continued to be used in red cell concentrate (RCC) storage bags, as alternatives have often led to reduced RCC quality during storage. However, under the European Medical Device Regulation the use of DEHP in medical devices is restricted to below 0.1% by weight per July 2030. As a result, the effect of several alternative plasticizers on RCC quality, such as di(2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate (DEHT), 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid diisononyl ester (DINCH), and N-butyryl-n-hexyl citrate (BTHC), have recently been investigated in combination with different storage solutions. Although previous studies using these new combinations showed variable results, these alternatives remain the most promising options, with current data demonstrating reduced leaching and lower toxicity compared to DEHP. This review highlights key publications on the transition from DEHP-PVC blood bag systems for RCC storage, demonstrating that several non-DEHP alternatives are viable replacement options, particularly when combined with next-generation storage solutions. Future studies are required to assess the frequency of adverse events, the occurrence of handling issues such as leakage, and to evaluate practical performance and clinical efficacy through post-transfusion recovery and increment studies.

Transfusion Medicine ReviewsVol. 39(3)
Sanquin (NL), Amsterdam Neuroscience (NL), Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL), University of Amsterdam (NL)
Landsteiner Foundation for Blood Transfusion Research, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Academisch Medisch Centrum, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Stichting Sanquin Bloedvoorziening
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
3.60
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.