4.7 Article

Organophosphate ester flame retardants in Nepalese soil: Spatial distribution, source apportionment and air-soil exchange assessment

Journal

CHEMOSPHERE
Volume 190, Issue -, Pages 114-123

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.09.112

Keywords

OPFRs; Fugacity fraction; Nepal; Soil organic matter; Risk assessment; Soil

Funding

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences [2014FFZB0017, 132744KYSB20170002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite soil being the major terrestrial environmental reservoir and one of the significant sinks for many hydrophobic organic compounds including organophosphate ester flame retardants (OPFRs), limited information is available about concentration and fate of OPFRs contamination in urban soil in general and especially in case of Nepal. This study investigates the environmental concentration, spatial distribution and source apportionment of eight OPFRs in surface soil (n = 28) from four major cities of Nepal with special interest on air-soil exchange. Overall, significantly high concentrations of Sigma 8OPFR were measured in soil ranging from 25-27,900 ng/g dw (median 248 ng/g dw). In terms of compositional pattern, tris(methyl phenyl) phosphate (TMPP) was the most abundant phosphorus chemical in soil, followed by tris(2-chloroisopropyl) phosphate (TCIPP), and accounted for 35-49% and 8-25% of Sigma(8)OPFRs, respectively. The high level of these OPFRs was attributed to local sources as opposed to transboundary influence from remote areas. A Spearman's rank correlation analysis exhibited weak correlation of Sigma(8)OPFRs with TOC (Rho = 0.117, p < 0.05) and BC (Rho = 0.007, p < 0.05), suggesting little or no influence of TOC and BC on the concentration of Sigma(8)OPFRs. The fugacity fraction (ff) results indicated a strong influence of soil contamination on atmospheric level of OPFRs via volatilization. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available