Exposure Assessment\nof Benzotriazole Ultraviolet Absorbers\nin Plastic Sports Field Dust and Indoor Dust: Are Plastic Sports Fields\nHigh Exposure Scenarios?

Benzotriazole ultraviolet absorbers (BUVs), as emerging\ncontaminants\nof extensive use, especially in plastic sports fields, have aroused\nincreasing concern due to their potential human and environmental\nimpacts. However, BUV exposure from plastic sports field dust is still\nunknown. This study compared BUVs in plastic sports field dust and\nindoor dust for the first time. The order of the geometric mean concentrations\nof the total BUVs (ΣBUVs) in plastic sports field dust was indoor\nbadminton courts (11023 ng g<sup>–1</sup>) > basketball\ncourts\n(4777 ng g<sup>–1</sup>) > plastic tracks (3779 ng g<sup>–1</sup>) > synthetic turf (1920 ng g<sup>–1</sup>) > tennis courts\n(689 ng g<sup>–1</sup>). The geometric mean concentrations\nof ΣBUVs in indoor dust (1150 ng g<sup>–1</sup>) were\nlower than those in most plastic sports field dust. The dominant BUV\nwas 2-hydroxy-4-(octyloxy)benzophenone (UV-531) in plastic sports\nfield dust, while 2,2′-methylenebis[4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)-6-2H-benzotriazole-2-yl)phenol]\n(UV-360) was the dominant BUV in indoor dust. Releases from plastic\ntrack materials, sneaker soles, and friction between them might be\nimportant BUV sources in plastic track dust. The average estimated\ndaily intakes of ΣBUVs from plastic sports field dust for general\nexercisers were lower than those from indoor dust, but those for exercisers\nwith long time or professional athletes might be higher, potentially\nposing health risks.