David Volz

Toxic comeback looms for upholstered furniture

Tracie Ventimiglia — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 23:50:52 +0000

Toxic comeback looms for upholstered furniture Tracie Ventimiglia Mon, 06/02/2025 - 16:50 More News Jules Bernstein May 02, 2025

For decades, Californians, and by extension, Americans, have lived alongside unhealthy flame-retardant chemicals embedded in their furniture, thanks to a few lines in a 1970s state law.

David Volz, University of California, Riverside professor of environmental toxicology, has long studied how those chemicals escape into indoor air and settle in household dust. In the journal Environmental Science and Technology, Volz details the history of flame retardants in our upholstered furniture and argues that lawmakers should close a regulatory gap allowing their use before it’s too late. In this Q&A, he explains why it’s important that they do so.

Tags

David Volz

Airborne plastic chemical levels shock researchers

Lauren Chudner - Student Asst — Fri, 04 Oct 2024 18:46:16 +0000

Airborne plastic chemical levels shock researchers Lauren Chudner… Fri, 10/04/2024 - 11:46 More News Jules Bernstein October 01, 2024

A new study documents how Southern Californians are chronically being exposed to toxic airborne chemicals called plasticizers, including one that’s been banned from children’s items and beauty products.

Plasticizers are chemical compounds that make materials more flexible. They are used in a wide variety of products ranging from lunchboxes and shower curtains to garden hoses and upholstery.

Tags

David Volz

Cleaning your car may not protect you from this carcinogen

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Jan 2022 21:19:20 +0000

Cleaning your car may not protect you from this carcinogen Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 01/26/2022 - 13:19 More News January 26, 2022

"It is unlikely that a cancer-causing chemical inside your car can be dusted or wiped way, according to new UC Riverside research.

This finding has now been published in the journal Environmental Research. It follows on the heels of a related study showing the longer your commute, the more you’re exposed to this chemical."

Tags

David Volz

Commuters are inhaling unacceptably high levels of carcinogens

Anonymous — Tue, 02 Mar 2021 23:06:42 +0000

Commuters are inhaling unacceptably high levels of carcinogens Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 03/02/2021 - 15:06 More News JULES BERNSTEIN | UCR News February 15, 2021

A new study finds that California’s commuters are likely inhaling chemicals at levels that increase the risk for cancer and birth defects.

Driver wearing protective equipment. (Stan Lim/UCR)

As with most chemicals, the poison is in the amount. Under a certain threshold of exposure, even known carcinogens are not likely to cause cancer. Once you cross that threshold, the risk for disease increases.

Governmental agencies tend to regulate that threshold in workplaces. However, private spaces such as the interior of our cars and living rooms are less studied and less regulated.

Benzene and formaldehyde — both used in automobile manufacturing — are known to cause cancer at or above certain levels of exposure and are Prop. 65-listed chemicals.

New UC Riverside research shows that the average commuter in California is exceeding the threshold for exposure, breathing in unsustainably high levels of both chemicals.

Both benzene and formaldehyde are carcinogens, and benzene carries the additional risk of reproductive and developmental toxicity.

“These chemicals are very volatile, moving easily from plastics and textiles to the air that you breathe,” said David Volz, UCR professor of environmental toxicology.

The study, published in the journal Environment International, calculated the daily dose of benzene and formaldehyde being inhaled by drivers with commutes of at least 20 minutes per day.

It found that up to 90% of the population in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Santa Clara, and Alameda counties have at least a 10% chance of exceeding cancer risk from inhaling the chemicals, based on having 30-minute average commute times.

“Of course, there is a range of exposure that depends on how long you’re in the car, and how much of the compounds your car is emitting,” said Aalekhya Reddam, a graduate student in the Volz laboratory, and lead author of the study.

Previously, Volz and Reddam studied commuter exposure to a flame retardant called TDCIPP or chlorinated tris, and found that longer commute times increased exposure to that carcinogen as well.

They set out on this study wanting to understand the risk of that compound relative to other chemicals introduced during car manufacturing.

Reddam advises commuters to keep the windows open during their rides if possible. “At least with some air flow, you’d be diluting the concentration of these chemicals inside your car,” she said.

Benzene is used to produce synthetic fibers, and formaldehyde is a binder in plastics. “There should be alternatives to these chemicals to achieve the same goals during vehicle manufacturing,” Volz said. “If so, these should be used.”

Read the original article online:

VIEW ARTICLE

Tags

David Volz

New commuter concern: cancerous chemical in car seats

Anonymous — Sun, 09 Aug 2020 17:03:56 +0000

New commuter concern: cancerous chemical in car seats Anonymous (not verified) Sun, 08/09/2020 - 10:03 More News Jules Bernsten | UCR News February 06, 2020

The longer your commute, the more you’re exposed to a chemical flame retardant that is a known carcinogen and was phased out of furniture use because it required a Proposition 65 warning label in California.

That is the conclusion of a new UC Riverside study published this month in the journal Environment International.

While much research on automobile pollution focuses on external air pollutants entering vehicle interiors, this study shows that chemicals emanating from inside your car could also be cause for concern.

Study participant wearing blue silicone wristband, which captures airborne contaminants. (David Volz/UCR)

Though there are other Proposition 65-list chemicals that are typically used in the manufacture of automobiles, this flame retardant is a new addition to the list. Known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, Proposition 65 requires the state to maintain and update a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm.

Some scientists assumed that humans stopped being exposed to the chemical, called TDCIPP or chlorinated tris, after it was placed on California’s Proposition 65 list in 2013. However, it is still widely used in automobile seat foam. The study shows that not only is your car a source of TDCIPP exposure, but that less than a week of commuting results in elevated exposure to it.

David Volz, associate professor of environmental toxicology at UCR, said the results were unexpected.

“I went into this rather skeptical because I didn’t think we’d pick up a significant concentration in that short a time frame, let alone pick up an association with commute time,” Volz said. “We did both, which was really surprising.”

Zebrafish embryos are widely used for understanding the developmental effects of chemicals such as TDCIPP. (David Volz/UCR)

Over the past decade, Volz has studied how various chemicals affect the trajectory of early development. Using zebrafish and human cells as models, the Volz laboratory has been studying the toxicity of a newer class of flame retardants called organophosphate esters since 2011.

Little is known about the toxicity of these organophosphate esters — TDCIPP is one of them — but they’ve replaced older flame-retardant chemicals that lasted longer in the environment and took longer to metabolize.

Using zebrafish as a model, Volz found TDCIPP prevents an embryo from developing normally. Other studies have reported a strong association between TDCIPP and infertility among women undergoing fertility treatments.

Knowing its use is still widespread in cars, Volz wondered whether a person’s exposure is elevated based on their commute. UC Riverside undergraduates made for excellent study subjects, as a majority of them have a daily commute.

The research team included collaborators at Duke University and was funded by the National Institutes of Health as well as the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Participants included around 90 students, each of whom had commute times that varied from less than 15 minutes to more than two hours round trip. All of them were given silicone wristbands to wear continuously for five days.

The molecular structure of silicone makes it ideal for capturing airborne contaminants. Since TDCIPP isn’t chemically bound to the foam, Aalekhya Reddam, a graduate student in the Volz laboratory, said it gets forced out over time and ends up in dust that gets inhaled.

Multiple organophosphate esters were tested, but TDCIPP was the only one that showed a strong positive association with commute time.

“Your exposure to TDCIPP is higher the longer you spend in your vehicle,” Reddam said.

While Volz and his team did not collect urine samples to verify that the chemical migrated into the bodies of the participants, they believe that’s what happened.

“We presume it did because of how difficult it is to avoid the ingestion and inhalation of dust,” Volz said. Additionally, other studies have examined the accumulation of TDCIPP in urine, but not as a function of how long a person sits in a car.

Going forward, the research team would like to repeat the study with a larger group of people whose ages are more varied. They would also like to study ways to protect commuters from this and other toxic compounds.

Until more specific reduction methods can be identified, the team encourages frequently dusting the inside of vehicles, and following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for reducing exposure to contaminants.

Until safer alternatives are identified, more research is needed to fully understand the effects of TDCIPP on commuters.

“If we picked up this relationship in five days, what does that mean for chronic, long-term exposure, for people who commute most weeks out of the year, year over year for decades?” Volz asked.

Read the original article online:

View article

Tags

Environmental Toxicology

David Volz