Cited by 228Toxic Organic Pollutants ImpactIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposurePer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research

Particle Size-Specific Distributions and Preliminary Exposure Assessments of Organophosphate Flame Retardants in Office Air Particulate Matter

Yang, Fangxing, Ding, Jinjian, Huang, Wei, Xie, Wei, Liu, Weiping·2014·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

In this study, the concentrations, size-specific distributions, and preliminary exposure assessments of 10 organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) were investigated in suspended particulate matter collected from offices. OPFRs were detected in a range of 5.00-147.77 ng/m(3). Tri(chloropropyl) phosphate (TCPP) was the most abundant analog followed by tri(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) and triphenyl phosphate (TPhP). Chlorinated OPFRs (TCPP, TCEP, and tris(1,3-dichloroisopropyl) phosphate (TDCPP)) contributed to about 77% of the total OPFRs. Size-specific distributions revealed that TCEP, tri-n-propyl phosphate (TnPP), TCPP, and tri-n-butyl phosphate (TnBP) shared a similar distribution pattern with a peak in the fraction 4.7-5.8 μm. A peak was also found in the distributions of tricresyl phosphate (TCrP), 2-ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate (EHDPP), and tri(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (TEHP) but in different fractions. A bimodal distribution was observed for TDCPP, TPhP, and tributoxyethyl phosphate (TBEP). The results of mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) indicated that TDCPP, TCrP, and TEHP were mainly located on ultrafine particles (≤1 μm), while TnPP, TBEP, and EHDPP mainly on fine particles (≤2.5 μm). Furthermore, MMADs of OPFRs were found to be positively correlated with their vapor pressures (Vp) (p < 0.01), indicating that OPFR analogs with low Vp were inclined to adsorb on small size particles. Preliminary exposure assessments suggested a low risk of exposure to OPFRs for people working in such offices, and inhaled OPFRs would mainly deposit in the head region of the respiratory tract.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es403186z

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, F., Ding, J., Huang, W., Xie, W., & Liu, W.
Affiliations
Zhejiang University (CN)
Corresponding author
Liu, Weiping
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2013-12-10
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
63-70
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W1980709324
Cited by
228
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 4
FWCI
9.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
Keywords
organophosphate flame retardants, triphenyl phosphate, tributyl phosphate, tricresyl phosphate, vapor pressure, ultrafine particles, mass median aerodynamic diameter, exposure assessment, indoor air pollution
MeSH terms
Adult, Air Pollutants, Environmental Exposure, Flame Retardants, Humans, Particle Size, Organophosphates, Air Pollution, Indoor, Workplace, Risk Assessment, Particulate Matter

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review