4.8 Article

Occurrence and Distribution of Organophosphate Flame Retardants/Plasticizers in Surface Waters, Tap Water, and Rainwater: Implications for Human Exposure

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 52, Issue 10, Pages 5625-5633

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b00727

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The occurrence and profiles of 14 triester organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) and plasticizers were investigated in surface water, tap water, rainwater, and seawater collected from New York State. In total, 150 samples collected from rivers (n = 35), lakes (n = 39), tap water (n = 58), precipitation/rainwater (n = 15), and seawater (n = 3) were analyzed for 14 organophosphate esters (OPEs). An additional nine Hudson River water samples were collected periodically to delineate seasonal trends in OPE levels. The total concentrations of OPEs were found at part-per-trillion ranges, with average concentrations that ranged from 0.01 ng/L for tripropyl phosphate (TPP) in river water to 689 ng/L for tris(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate (TBOEP) in lake water. Tris(1-chloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TCIPP) was the most abundant compound among the investigated OPEs in all types of water. The concentrations of OPEs in river-, lake-, and rainwater were similar but >3 times higher than those found in tap water. Chlorinated alkyl OPFRs accounted for a major proportion of total concentrations. TCIPP, TBOEP, and triethyl phosphate (TEP) were found in >90% of the samples analyzed. Wet deposition fluxes for 14 OPFRs were estimated, on the basis of the concentrations measured in rainwater in Albany, New York, and the values were between 440 and 5250 ng/m(2). Among several surface water bodies analyzed, samples from the Hudson River and Onondaga Lake contained elevated concentrations of OPEs. Estimated daily intake of OPEs via the ingestion of drinking water was up to 9.6S ng/kg body weight/day.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available