4.7 Article

Assessing the environmental impact due to photolytic degradation of ethane-bis(pentabromophenyl) in plastics

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 320, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138063

关键词

Photolysis; Debromination; Ethane-bis(pentabromophenyl); Decabromodiphenyl ethane; Flame retardant; Photooxidation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the photolysis of ethane-bis(pentabromophenyl) (EBP) in high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) and polypropylene impact copolymer (PP). It is found that EBP has a very long half-life and does not further degrade to lower brominated congeners. It also demonstrates that EBP is more stable in resins than structurally-similar decabromodiphenyl ether, challenging the comparison between the two flame retardant molecules for this degradation pathway.
Photolytic degradation of brominated flame retardants is one of the potential decomposition pathways in the environment, and for some flame retardants such as ethane-bis(pentabromophenyl) (EBP), also called decabromodiphenyl ethane, there are concerns that degradation products may be harmful. In this paper, we present photolytic studies of EBP in high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) and polypropylene impact copolymer (PP) using accelerated weatherometry. The half-life of photolytic debromination of EBP in HIPS was estimated to be more than 200 years, which can be contrasted with half-lives of minutes for photolysis conducted on dilute EBP solutions. Perhaps more importantly, there was no subsequent debromination to the octabrominated congeners or lower. No evidence of debromination was seen in PP, which confirms the importance of matrix effects. We also saw no evidence of accelerated resin photooxidation caused by EBP. These studies demonstrate that EBP is much more photolytically stable in resins than structurally-similar decabromodiphenyl ether, and a read-across comparison between the two flame retardant molecules for this degradation pathway is misleading.

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