4.7 Review

Emissions and fate of brominated flame retardants in the indoor environment: A critical review of modelling approaches

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 491, 期 -, 页码 87-99

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.005

关键词

BFRs; SVOCs; Emissions; Indoor fate; Multimedia models; Deposition

资金

  1. EU [264600]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review explores the existing understanding and the available approaches to estimating the emissions and fate of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and in particular focuses on the brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Volatilisation, an important emission mechanism for the more volatile compounds can be well described using current emission models. More research is needed, however, to better characterise alternative release mechanisms such as direct material-particle partitioning and material abrasion. These two particle-mediated emissions are likely to result in an increased chemical release from the source than can be accounted for by volatilisation, especially for low volatile compounds, and emission models need to be updated in order to account for these. Air-surface partitioning is an important fate process for SVOCs such as BFRs however it is still not well characterised indoors. In addition, the assumption of an instantaneous air-particle equilibrium adopted by current indoor fate models might not be valid for high-molecular weight, strongly sorbing compounds. A better description of indoor particle dynamics is required to assess the effect of particle-associated transport as this will control the fate of low volatile BFRs. We suggest further research steps that will improve modelling Precision and increase our understanding of the factors that govern the indoor fate of a wide range of SVOCs. It is also considered that the appropriateness of the selected model for a given study relies on the individual characteristics of the study environment and scope of the study. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据