4.7 Article

Flame retardant exposures in California early childhood education environments

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 116, 期 -, 页码 61-66

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.02.072

关键词

Child care; Children; Exposure; Flame retardant; PBDEs

资金

  1. California Air Resources Board (ARB) [08-305]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infants and young children spend as much as 50 h per week in child care and preschool. Although approximately 13 million children, or 65% of all U.S. children, spend some time each day in early childhood education (ECE) facilities, little information is available about environmental exposures in these environments. We measured flame retardants in air and dust collected from 40 California ECE facilities between May 2010 and May 2011. Low levels of six polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) congeners and four non-PBDE flame retardants were present in air, including two constituents of Firemaster 550 and two tris phosphate compounds [tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) and tris (1,3-dichloroisopropyl) phosphate (TDCIPP)]. Tris phosphate, Firemaster 550 and PBDE compounds were detected in 100% of the dust samples. BDE47, BDE99, and BDE209 comprised the majority of the PBDE mass measured in dust. The median concentrations of TCEP (319 ng g(-1)) and TDCIPP (2265 ng g(-1)) were similar to or higher than any PBDE congener. Levels of TCEP and TDCIPP in dust were significantly higher in facilities with napping equipment made out of foam (Mann Whitney p-values < 0.05). Child BDE99 dose estimates exceeded the RID in one facility for children < 3 years old. In 51% of facilities, TDCIPP dose estimates for children < 6 years old exceeded age-specific No Significant Risk Levels (NSRLs) based on California Proposition 65 guidelines for carcinogens. Given the overriding interest in providing safe and healthy environments for young children, additional research is needed to identify strategies to reduce indoor sources of flame retardant chemicals. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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