Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Results from Screening Polyurethane Foam Based Consumer Products for Flame Retardant Chemicals: Assessing Impacts on the Change in the Furniture Flammability Standards

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Flame retardant (FR) chemicals have often been added to polyurethane foam to meet required state and federal flammability standards. However, some FRs (e.g., PBDEs and TDCIPP) are associated with health hazards and are now restricted from use in some regions. In addition, California’s residential furniture flammability standard (TB-117) has undergone significant amendments over the past few years, and TDCIPP has been added to California’s Proposition 65 list. These events have likely led to shifts in the types of FRs used, and the products to which they are applied. To provide more information on the use of FRs in products containing polyurethane foam (PUF), we established a screening service for the general public. Participants residing in the US were allowed to submit up to 5 samples from their household for analysis, free of charge, and supplied information on the product category, labeling, and year and state of purchase. Between February 2014 and June 2016, we received 1141 PUF samples for analysis from various products including sofas, chairs, mattresses, car seats and pillows. Of these samples tested, 52% contained a FR at levels greater than 1% by weight. Tris(1,3-dichloroisopropyl)phosphate (TDCIPP) was the most common FR detected in PUF samples, and was the most common FR detected in all product categories. Analysis of the data by purchasing date suggests that the use of TDCIPP decreased in recent years, paralleled with an increase in the use of TCIPP and a nonhalogenated aryl phosphate mixture we call “TBPP.” In addition, we observed significant decreases in FR applications in furniture products and child car seats, suggesting the use of additive FRs in PUF may be declining, perhaps as a reflection of recent changes to TB-117 and Proposition 65. More studies are needed to determine how these changes in FR use relate to changes in exposure among the general population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Phosphorus flame retardants: properties, production, environmental occurrence, toxicity and analysis.

          Since the ban on some brominated flame retardants (BFRs), phosphorus flame retardants (PFRs), which were responsible for 20% of the flame retardant (FR) consumption in 2006 in Europe, are often proposed as alternatives for BFRs. PFRs can be divided in three main groups, inorganic, organic and halogen containing PFRs. Most of the PFRs have a mechanism of action in the solid phase of burning materials (char formation), but some may also be active in the gas phase. Some PFRs are reactive FRs, which means they are chemically bound to a polymer, whereas others are additive and mixed into the polymer. The focus of this report is limited to the PFRs mentioned in the literature as potential substitutes for BFRs. The physico-chemical properties, applications and production volumes of PFRs are given. Non-halogenated PFRs are often used as plasticisers as well. Limited information is available on the occurrence of PFRs in the environment. For triphenyl phosphate (TPhP), tricresylphosphate (TCP), tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP), tris(chloropropyl)phosphate (TCPP), tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP), and tetrekis(2-chlorethyl)dichloroisopentyldiphosphate (V6) a number of studies have been performed on their occurrence in air, water and sediment, but limited data were found on their occurrence in biota. Concentrations found for these PFRs in air were up to 47 μg m(-3), in sediment levels up to 24 mg kg(-1) were found, and in surface water concentrations up to 379 ng L(-1). In all these matrices TCPP was dominant. Concentrations found in dust were up to 67 mg kg(-1), with TDCPP being the dominant PFR. PFR concentrations reported were often higher than polybrominated diphenylether (PBDE) concentrations, and the human exposure due to PFR concentrations in indoor air appears to be higher than exposure due to PBDE concentrations in indoor air. Only the Cl-containing PFRs are carcinogenic. Other negative human health effects were found for Cl-containing PFRs as well as for TCP, which suggest that those PFRs would not be suitable alternatives for BFRs. TPhP, diphenylcresylphosphate (DCP) and TCP would not be suitable alternatives either, because they are considered to be toxic to (aquatic) organisms. Diethylphosphinic acid is, just like TCEP, considered to be very persistent. From an environmental perspective, resorcinol-bis(diphenylphosphate) (RDP), bisphenol-A diphenyl phosphate (BADP) and melamine polyphosphate, may be suitable good substitutes for BFRs. Information on PFR analysis in air, water and sediment is limited to TCEP, TCPP, TPhP, TCP and some other organophosphate esters. For air sampling passive samplers have been used as well as solid phase extraction (SPE) membranes, SPE cartridges, and solid phase micro-extraction (SPME). For extraction of PFRs from water SPE is recommended, because this method gives good recoveries (67-105%) and acceptable relative standard deviations (RSDs) (<20%), and offers the option of on-line coupling with a detection system. For the extraction of PFRs from sediment microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) is recommended. The recoveries (78-105%) and RSDs (3-8%) are good and the method is faster and requires less solvent compared to other methods. For the final instrumental analysis of PFRs, gas chromatography-flame photometric detection (GC-FPD), GC-nitrogen-phosphorus detection (NPD), GC-atomic emission detection (AED), GC-mass spectrometry (MS) as well as liquid chromatography (LC)-MS/MS and GC-Inductively-coupled plasma-MS (ICP-MS) are used. GC-ICP-MS is a promising method, because it provides much less complex chromatograms while offering the same recoveries and limits of detection (LOD) (instrumental LOD is 5-10 ng mL(-1)) compared to GC-NPD and GC-MS, which are frequently used methods for PFR analysis. GC-MS offers a higher selectivity than GC-NPD and the possibility of using isotopically labeled compounds for quantification. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Brominated flame retardants: cause for concern?

            Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) have routinely been added to consumer products for several decades in a successful effort to reduce fire-related injury and property damage. Recently, concern for this emerging class of chemicals has risen because of the occurrence of several classes of BFRs in the environment and in human biota. The widespread production and use of BFRs; strong evidence of increasing contamination of the environment, wildlife, and people; and limited knowledge of potential effects heighten the importance of identifying emerging issues associated with the use of BFRs. In this article, we briefly review scientific issues associated with the use of tetrabromobisphenol A, hexabromocyclododecane, and three commercial mixtures of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and discuss data gaps. Overall, the toxicology database is very limited; the current literature is incomplete and often conflicting. Available data, however, raise concern over the use of certain classes of brominated flame retardants.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An overview of commercially used brominated flame retardants, their applications, their use patterns in different countries/regions and possible modes of release.

              Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) are used in a variety of consumer products and several of those are produced in large quantities. These compounds have been detected in environmental samples, which can be attributed to the anthropogenic uses of these compounds. Brominated flame retardants are produced via direct bromination of organic molecules or via addition of bromine to alkenes; hence, an overview of the production and usage of bromine over the past three decades is covered. Production, application, and environmental occurrence of high production brominated flame retardants including Tetrabromobisphenol A, polybrominated biphenyls, Penta-, Octa-, Deca-brominated diphenyl ether (oxide) formulation and hexabromocyclododecane are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Environ Sci Technol
                Environ. Sci. Technol
                es
                esthag
                Environmental Science & Technology
                American Chemical Society
                0013-936X
                1520-5851
                23 August 2016
                04 October 2016
                : 50
                : 19
                : 10653-10660
                Affiliations
                [1]Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University , Durham, North Carolina 27708, United States
                Author notes
                [* ]Heather Stapleton. Phone: 919-613-8717. Fax: 919-684-8741. E-mail: heather.stapleton@ 123456duke.edu .
                Article
                10.1021/acs.est.6b01602
                5052662
                27552529
                69a1ff9c-f743-4bac-84d9-2553414a3801
                Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society

                This is an open access article published under an ACS AuthorChoice License, which permits copying and redistribution of the article or any adaptations for non-commercial purposes.

                History
                : 31 March 2016
                : 23 August 2016
                : 08 August 2016
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                es6b01602
                es-2016-01602v

                General environmental science
                General environmental science

                Comments

                Comment on this article