4.7 Article

Characterization of organophosphorus flame retardants' sorption on building materials and consumer products

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 140, 期 -, 页码 333-341

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.019

关键词

Organophosphorus flame retardants; Material-air partition coefficient; Material-phase diffusion coefficient; Sink; Sorption strength

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Better understanding the transport mechanisms of organophosphorus flame-retardants (OPFRs) in the residential environment is important to more accurately estimate their indoor exposure and develop risk management strategies that protect human health. This study describes an improved dual small chamber testing method to characterize the sorption of OPFRs on indoor building materials and consumer products. The OPFRs studied were tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), tris(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCIPP), and tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCIPP). The test materials and products used as sinks include concrete, ceiling tile, vinyl flooring, carpet, latex painted gypsum wallboard, open cell polyurethane foam, mattress pad and liner, polyester clothing, cotton clothing, and uniform shirt. During the tests, the amount of OPFRs absorbed by the materials at different exposure times was determined simultaneously. OPFRs air concentrations at the inlet and inside the test chamber were monitored. The data were used to rank the sorption strength of the OPFRs on different materials. In general, building materials exhibited relatively stronger sorption strength than clothing textiles. The material-air partition and material phase diffusion coefficients were estimated by fitting a sink model to the sorption concentration data for twelve materials with three OPFRs. They are in the range of 2.72 x 10(5) to 3.99 x 10(5) (dimensionless) for the material-air partition coefficients and 1.13 x 10(-14) to 5.83 x 10(-9) (m(2)/h) for the material phase diffusion coefficients. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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