4.8 Article

Combustion products of plastics as indicators for refuse burning in the atmosphere

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 39, 期 18, 页码 6961-6970

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es050767x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite all of the economic problems and environmental discussions on the dangers and hazards of plastic materials, plastic production worldwide is growing at a rate of about 5% per year. Increasing techniques for recycling polymeric materials have been developed during the last few years; however, a large fraction of plastics are still being discarded in landfills or subjected to intentional or incidental open-fire burning. To identify specific tracer compounds generated during such open-fire combustion, both smoke particles from burning and plastic materials from shopping bags, roadside trash, and landfill garbage were extracted for gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analyses. Samples were collected in Concon, Chile, an area frequently affected by wildfire incidents and garbage burning, and the United States for comparison. Atmospheric samples from various aerosol sampling programs are also presented as supportive data. The major components of plastic extracts were even-carbon-chain n-alkanes (C-16-C-40), the plasticizer di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, and the antioxidants and lubricants/antiadhesives Irganox 1076, Irgafos 168, and its oxidation product tris(2,4-di-tertbutylphenyl)phosphate. Major compounds in smoke from burning plastics include the non-source-specific n-alkanes (mainly even predominance), terephthalic acid, phthalates, and 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, with minor amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (including triphenylbenzenes) and tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate. 1,3,5Triph enylbenzene and tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate were found in detectable amounts in atmospheric samples where plastics and refuse were burned in open fires, and thus we propose these two compounds as specific tracers for the open-burning of plastics.

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

4.8
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