4.8 Article

Flame Retardant Chemicals in College Dormitories: Flammability Standards Influence Dust Concentrations

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 51, 期 9, 页码 4860-4869

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00429

关键词

-

资金

  1. John Merck Fund
  2. Hoffman Program on Chemicals and Health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
  3. Fine Fund
  4. University of Antwerp

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Furniture flammability standards are typically met with chemical flame retardants (FRs). FRs can migrate out of products into dust and are linked to cancer, neurological impairment, and endocrine disruption. We collected 95 dust samples from dormitory common areas and student rooms on two U.S. college campuses adhering to two different furniture flammability standards: Technical Bulletin 117 (TB117) and Technical Bulletin 133 (TB133). Because TB133 requires furniture to withstand a much-more-demanding test flame than TB117, we hypothesized that spaces with TB133 furniture would have higher levels of FRs in dust. We found all 47 targeted FRs, including 12 polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) congeners, 19 other brominated FRs, 11 phosphorus FRs (PFRs), 2 Dechlorane-Plus (DP) isomers, and 3 hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) isomers in the 95 dust samples. We measured the highest reported U.S. concentrations for a number of FRs, including BDE 209 (up to 990 000 ng/g), which may be used to meet the TB133 standard. We prioritized 16 FRs and analyzed levels in relation to flammability standard as well as presence and age of furniture and electronics. Adherence to TB133 was associated with higher concentrations of BDE 209, decabromodiphenylethane (DBDPE), DPs, and HBCDD compared to adherence to TB117 in univariate models (p < 0.05). Student dormitory rooms tended to have higher levels of some FRs compared to common rooms, likely a result of the density of furniture and electronics. As flammability standards are updated, it is critical to understand their impact on exposure and health risks.

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