5 ms·

Who said DNA was hydrophobic? I'm sorry, but we're not disagreeing. Phtalates are very lithophilic and that's a major mechanism of their accumulation in the bod

Who said DNA was hydrophobic? I'm sorry, but we're not disagreeing. Phtalates are very lithophilic and that's a major mechanism of their accumulation in the body. If phtalates were highly polar, they wouldn't be soluble in plastic. That means they're going to bind to fat tissue and non-polar receptors. >the chemical studied in this particular paper [...] Also, the paper didn't study "a chemical," it covered about 30.

timr 2y ago
I'm telling you that you're overgeneralizing based on incorrect information. The paper being discussed here directly refutes your hypothesis of action, because it's about a particular chemical that is known to be metabolized, causing downstream effects in an extremely polar molecule (DNA). Generally, "pthalates" are not a thing, but rather a whole bunch of different things (some are hydrophobic, some are not), and many of them are metabolized by the human body, so they don't actually accumulate. You have to be more specific. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17604388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17604388/ > If phtalates were highly polar, they wouldn't be soluble in plastic. Setting aside "highly polar", which is not specific, you are wrong. Many/most pthalates are far from what chemists consider "hydrophobic", and are in fact esters, alcolhols and acids. > Also, the paper didn't study "a chemical," it covered about 30. The paper in the OP was about one molecule: BBP.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- whatshisface 2y ago
  >Generally, "pthalates" are not a thing, but rather a whole bunch of different things (some are hydrophobic, some are not), and many of them are metabolized by the human body, so they don't actually accumulate. You have to be more specific. I am being specific enough to be talking about the hydrophobic pthalates that do accumulate in the human body. If I was talking about the other ones that claim would be trivially wrong... when the popular media says cyanide is dangerous, they're talking about the dangerous molecules with R-CN, not the safe ones.
  - timr 2y ago
    > I am being specific enough to be talking about the hydrophobic pthalates that do accumulate in the human body. They're all amphiphilic, to some degree. That's how they work. It's also common to the chemical group that they break down quickly, because they tend to be esters and alcohols. Any phthalates that bioaccumulate would be the exception, not the rule. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463907001125#:~:text=Because%20of%20their%20chemical%20properties,does%20not%20result%20in%20bioaccumulation https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14384....
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

timr 2y ago

I'm telling you that you're overgeneralizing based on incorrect information. The paper being discussed here directly refutes your hypothesis of action, because it's about a particular chemical that is known to be metabolized, causing downstream effects in an extremely polar molecule (DNA). Generally, "pthalates" are not a thing, but rather a whole bunch of different things (some are hydrophobic, some are not), and many of them are metabolized by the human body, so they don't actually accumulate. You have to be more specific. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17604388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17604388/ > If phtalates were highly polar, they wouldn't be soluble in plastic. Setting aside "highly polar", which is not specific, you are wrong. Many/most pthalates are far from what chemists consider "hydrophobic", and are in fact esters, alcolhols and acids. > Also, the paper didn't study "a chemical," it covered about 30. The paper in the OP was about one molecule: BBP.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 2y ago
>Generally, "pthalates" are not a thing, but rather a whole bunch of different things (some are hydrophobic, some are not), and many of them are metabolized by the human body, so they don't actually accumulate. You have to be more specific. I am being specific enough to be talking about the hydrophobic pthalates that do accumulate in the human body. If I was talking about the other ones that claim would be trivially wrong... when the popular media says cyanide is dangerous, they're talking about the dangerous molecules with R-CN, not the safe ones.
- timr 2y ago
  > I am being specific enough to be talking about the hydrophobic pthalates that do accumulate in the human body. They're all amphiphilic, to some degree. That's how they work. It's also common to the chemical group that they break down quickly, because they tend to be esters and alcohols. Any phthalates that bioaccumulate would be the exception, not the rule. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463907001125#:~:text=Because%20of%20their%20chemical%20properties,does%20not%20result%20in%20bioaccumulation https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14384....
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]