4.5 Article

Levels of flame retardants HBCD, TBBPA and TBC in surface soils from an industrialized region of East China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE-PROCESSES & IMPACTS
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 1015-1021

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3em00656e

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Scientific Foundation of China [21307125]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [IUEQN-2012-08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDs) and tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) are of increasing concern because of their potential environmental persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity. Tris-(2,3dibromopropyl) isocyanurate (TBC) is another brominated flame retardant (BFR) which has recently been found in the environment and begun to attract attention. The objective of this study is to determine the concentration of these three BFRs in surface soil samples collected from a heavily industrialized and urbanized region in East China. Levels of Sigma HBCDs ranged from below detection limits (0.020 ng g(-1)) to 102.6 ng g(-1) on a dry weight basis (dw) with a median level of 15.8 ng g(-1) dw. For TBBPA, the concentration ranged from below detection limits (0.025 ng g(-1)) to 78.6 ng g(-1) dw with a median level of 9.17 ng g(-1) dw. TBC was found at relatively lower concentrations ranging from below detection limits (0.024 ng g(-1)) to 16.4 ng g(-1) dw with a median level of 0.95 ng g(-1) dw. The concentrations of these three BFRs are significantly positively correlated, indicating a common source. Variable BFRs levels were found in different types of soils, with significantly higher concentrations observed at waste dumping sites and industrial areas. The diastereoisomer profiles of HBCDs in most of the soil samples differed from those of the commercial products. The mass inventories of HBCDs, TBBPA and TBC in this region gave preliminarily estimates of 6.68, 2.67 and 0.85 kg, respectively. Therefore, the ubiquitous contamination of soils by these BFRs may well reflect their widespread usage in the study area.

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

4.5
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