Next Article in Journal
In Vitro Evaluation of the Cytotoxic Effect of Streptococcus pyogenes Strains, Protegrin PG-1, Cathelicidin LL-37, Nerve Growth Factor and Chemotherapy on the C6 Glioma Cell Line
Next Article in Special Issue
Analytical Evaluation of Carbamate and Organophosphate Pesticides in Human and Environmental Matrices: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
A Surfactant Enables Efficient Membrane Spanning by Non-Aggregating DNA-Based Ion Channels
Previous Article in Special Issue
Application of Capillary Electrophoresis for Determination of Inorganic Analytes in Waters
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Spatiotemporal Distribution and Analysis of Organophosphate Flame Retardants in the Environmental Systems: A Review

by
Sinozuko Hope Bika
1,2,*,
Abiodun Olagoke Adeniji
3,
Anthony Ifeanyi Okoh
2,4 and
Omobola Oluranti Okoh
1,2
1
Department of Chemistry, University of Fort Hare, Alice 5700, South Africa
2
South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) Microbial Water Quality Monitoring Centre, University of Fort Hare, Alice 5700, South Africa
3
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Faculty of Science and Technology, National University of Lesotho, Lesotho P.O. Roma 180, South Africa
4
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah P.O. Box 27272, United Arab Emirates
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2022, 27(2), 573; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27020573
Submission received: 4 December 2021 / Revised: 3 January 2022 / Accepted: 5 January 2022 / Published: 17 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Frontiers in Analytical Methods for Water Analysis)

Abstract

:
In recent times, there has been a cumulative apprehension regarding organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) owing to their high manufacturing and usage after brominated flame retardants were strictly regulated and banned from being distributed and used in many countries. OPFRs are known as the main organic pollutants in the terrestrial and aquatic environment. They are very dangerous to humans, plants and animals. They are also carcinogenic and some have been implicated in neurodevelopmental and fertility challenges. OPFRs are distributed into the environment through a number of processes, including the usage, improper disposal and production of materials. The solid phase extraction (SPE) method is suggested for the extraction of OPFRs from water samples since it provides high quality recoveries ranging from 67% to 105% and relative standard deviations (RSDs) below 20%. In the same vein, microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) is highly advocated for the extraction of OPFRs from sediment/soil. Recoveries in the range of 78% to 105% and RSDs ranging from 3% to 8% have been reported. Hence, it is a faster method of extraction for solid samples and only demands a reduced amount of solvent, unlike other methods. The extract of OPFRs from various matrices is then followed by a clean-up of the extract using a silica gel packed column followed by the quantification of compounds by gas chromatography coupled with a mass spectrometer (GC–MS) or a flame ionization detector (GC-FID). In this paper, different analytical methods for the evaluation of OPFRs in different environmental samples are reviewed. The effects and toxicities of these contaminants on humans and other organisms are also discussed.

1. Introduction

Water (H2O) is regarded as the most profuse compound on earth and an important need in all parts of life, both in sufficient quality and quantity. Unfortunately, the quality of this important resource has become a global challenge due to pollution, mainly as a result of human activities and modern ways of life. Water is an ideal medium for distributing OPFRs [1], a set of chemicals identified in municipal wastewaters, surface waters, runoff of stormwater and urban precipitation, with concentrations extending from medium to high [1]. OPFRs are defined as emerging flame retardants, which are used to reduce the ignition of building and consumer materials [2]. OPFRs are used worldwide as lubricants, antifoaming agents, plasticizers, flame retardants and hydraulic fluids in consumer and building materials [3]; [3,4] reported that OPFRs can be detected in environmental and biotic matrices (i.e., water, soil, sediments, plants, humans and animals). OPFRs can enter the environmental matrices through informal e-waste handling facilities (i.e., heating, leaching of acids and burning of materials that contain OPFRs) [5].
OPFRs can also be detected in several bio-resource materials such as bio-solids and compost-like output, which are found to be beneficial in some instances and can be recycled in agriculture for soil improvement and used as alternative bedding materials for livestock [6]. The use of TPHP, TCIPP and TDCPP has increased drastically over the years, and these are examples of persistent OPFRs in the environment that have revealed toxicity and bioaccumulation that calls for investigation within industrial/municipal bio-resources to food chains in the future [6].
Practices such as the production, extensive use, volatility and improper disposal of OPFRs are known causes for their appearance in environmental systems [7]. These pollutants are also regarded as semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) that are mainly used in a variety of industries as plasticizers and flame retardants, and in the production of hydraulic fluids, foams, coatings of electronic appliances and defoamer agents to limit blazes due to their physicochemical characteristics [8]. Some of these OPFRs are shown in Figure 1.
OPFRs are often seen in parts of the environment and biota. These organic compounds are taking the place of brominated flame retardants and are raising new apprehensions considering their health and environmental risks. They are preferred as substitutes to polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are well recognized toxicants [9]. PBDEs were considered to be persistent organic pollutants (POPs) [9,10] reported that the usage of OPFRs has steeply increased over the previous 15 years, suggesting high levels of human exposure to OPFRs rather than PBDEs.
OPFRs are commonly used and often found globally in several environmental matrices such as air, indoor dust, sediment, soil and water, as shown in Table 1. Frequently detected OPFRs include “Tris(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate (TBEP), Tris(2-Chloroethyl)phosphate (TRCP), Triphenyl phosphate (TPP), Tricresyl phosphate (TCP), Tributyl phosphate (TBP), Tris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate (TEHP), Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP), Tri-o-cresyl phosphate (TOCP), Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP) and Tris(1-chloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TCPP)” [11].
OPFRs are strongly bound covalently to materials that are regarded as hosts [12]; these compounds may perhaps be drawn-out into the surroundings quite easily through leaching, abrasion and volatilization because of their use and wide range of applications as additives [13]. Usage of these OPFRs in Europe numbered, according to statistical data up to 85,000 loads in the year 2005: 39,000 loads of non-halogenated forms and 46,000 loads of chlorinated forms. In 2007, the usage of chlorinated OPFRs had increased to 51,000 loads [8,14,15].
According to the study of [16], total organic carbon (TOC) that was discovered from soil samples was found to have a high occurrence of these pollutants. TOC is one of the good physicochemical parameters used to predict the distribution of OPFRs in soil and sediments [16]. When OPFRs are analysed from soil/sediment samples, the texture of soil/sediment varies from size to size (i.e., gravel, coarse grains, fine grains, coarse clay and fine clay). OPFRs are likely to bond with fine grains, whereas those with short chains are likely to be found in gravel depending on the physicochemical properties of each OPFR [16].
In this review paper, we set our sights on the discussion of the occurrence and distribution of OPFRs as a class. Furthermore, we reviewed OPFRs based on their fate in the environment, evidence of their hazardous health effects and levels of exposure amongst the common residents, and measured their levels indoors using some collected works of other authors.

2. Physicochemical Properties of OPFRs

The physiological/physicochemical properties of OPFRs differ slightly. OPFRs that can, in particular, dissolve in water include dimethyl methyl phosphonate (DMMP) and di-ammonium phosphate (DAP), whereas isodecyl diphenyl phosphate (IDPP) and trixylenyl phosphate (TXP) cannot form a homogeneous mixture when mixed in water [17]. When solubility falls, molecular weight rises. In some cases, where the hydrolysis half-life of compounds is equal, pollutants with lower molar mass are more likely to be discovered in aquatic environments than those with higher molecular weights, as determined by log Kow for each OPFR. Most OPFRs have positive log Kow values, indicating that they dissolve or combine more readily in lipids (lipophilic) than in water. The values of log Kow differ significantly between different groups of OPFRs. [18] The study provided a calculated value of log Kow of 9.8 for tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulphate (THPS), compared to 10.6 for trioctyl phosphate. Physicochemical properties are significant factors that aid in determining the behaviour of OPFRs and evaluating their effects on organisms in a specific environment [8]. Volatile OPFRs with higher vapour pressures, such as TCEP, TEP and TBP, have a greater chance of escaping into thin air and settling on top of dust than heavier OPFRs. Higher molecular weight alkyl and aryl-OPFRs are hydrophobic (do not mix well in water), and they have similar bioaccumulation factors (BCFs) and affinity for soil/sediment samples [8].
Chlorinated OPFRs have been shown to be water soluble and are regarded as long-term threats to aquatic animals [7,8].
According to [19], there are essential physical and chemical properties of OPFRs that include numerous key parameters that tell us about the compound’s non-ionic properties, the behaviour of pollutants in the environment, and the organic chemical fate. As shown in Table 2, these properties include vapour pressure (Ps), solubility in water (SW), octanol–water (KOW), octanol–air (KOA), and air–water (KAW) constants connected to Henry’s law constant [20].
Degradation rates define environmental persistence and, as a result, are critical contributor factors to chemical outcome models.
Some authors used a writing strategy that included publishing experimental evaluations, report outcomes, studies and an online database to compile an archive for KOA and KAW. They discovered that two software programs are used as tools of estimating: SPARC On-Line Calculator 4.6 and EPISuite 4.1 [21,22]. These two programs provide more KOW and KAW values. EPISuite uses the HENRYWIN v3.20 component to calculate KAW values. The HENRYWIN estimations are judged incorrect as they are different from the PS/SW estimates by being more significant than the factor of 105. The PS/SW ratio is also used in some cases by EPIWIN to evaluate KAW value. From the published literature by [23], a third estimation tool is used to sum up the values of KOW. Degradation half-lives in air (t1/2, air), water (t1/2, water) and soil (t1/2, soil) are calculated completely by the AOPWIN v1.92a and BIOWIN v4.10 modules of the EPISuite platform [24].

3. Application of OPFRs

OPFRs are commercially manufactured to be used in different applications such as consumer products and building materials because of their broad spectrum of physiological and physical properties on earth. The bioaccumulation factor (BCF), vapour pressure (Ps), log Kow value, solubility, solvent resistance, stable molecular properties and good water resistance are examples of these properties [2]. Most OPFRs are found in substances and by-products as additives and can reach high percentages of content. OPFRs are not bound to by-products of a substance chemically because they are easily released into the environment where they pose risks to humans, plants and animals [25].
Halogenated OPFRs are part of the flame retardants (FRs) family, though non-halogenated forms are regarded as plasticizers [8,26]. Phosphates such as TPHP, TiBP and TBP are regarded as non-derivatized alkyl phosphates and are applied as lubricants and plasticizers to synchronise porosity [26]. OPFRs such as TPP can be mixed with non-halogenated and halogenated flame-retardants from changed profitable combinations that are usually added to polyurethane foam. TPP has been mixed together with PentaBDE in foam. Some examples such as TBEP are used to make floor polish [18,26,27].
OPFRs can be used in the commercial production of foams, coatings, plastics, textiles and furniture because of their stable molecular properties [28]. China is described as the utmost consumer of OPFRs; studies have revealed that an amount of 78,000 tonnes was reached due to the high production and delivery capacity of OPFRs in 2013 [29]. OPFRs can be added to products instead of chemically bonded with them; hence, they are easily spread into the environment [30].

4. Sources of OPFRs

The process of distributing organic pollutants into the environment is recognised as a prominent issue with regards to their fate, environmentally. Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), sewage treatment plants (STPs), wastewater discharge from factories and atmospheric depositions from industries are marked trails for OPFRs being distributed into the terrestrial and aquatic environment [31,32]. H2O is a prime origin of OPFRs; hence, traces of these pollutants are seen in sewage, surface water, stormwater runoff and urban precipitation. The concentration range of OPFRs in water is from a medium to a high level. Figure 2 shows a mind map of how OPFRs are spread in humans and animals.
In previous years, OPFRs were found in distinctive deposition models from Sierra Nevada [34]. These phosphates were used to fight blazes in the woodlands of Sierra Nevada. TnBP and TCPP were found in interior air and dirt [12,35]. Computers were discovered to be major sources of indoor pollution by TPP [36].

5. Bioresources and Biocomposites of OPFRs

Cereal and associated crops have become reliable sources of phenols and alcohols used as precursors for the production of OPFRs that are friendly to the environment. They are renewable, readily available, cheap and not/less toxic. Examples of these include starch from many cereal crops, from where isosorbide, a diether diol, is obtained. Other examples include phenolic compounds from plant origin, e.g., 3,5-dihydroxybenzoic acid (from buckwheat) and 3,4,5-triydroxybenzoic acid (gallic acid, produced by numerous plants), which have great flame retardancy. These materials are less toxic compared to their organohalogen counterparts [30,37]. In fact, the toxicity levels of some simple phosphate esters are very negligible, except for them being combined with some halogens [38]. These FRs from bio-sources are known to resist fire by forming chars, which serve as a heat sink, thus, disallowing the transfer of heat to the bulk of the material. These bio-based FRs are sometimes added to polymers to boost their flame retardant properties. They also serve as a heat barrier and guard to composite surfaces against heat and air [39].
Biocomposites fortified with some bio-based materials such as vegetable fibres could be either partially friendly with the environment but non-biodegradable or completely environmentally friendly and also degradable biologically. These sets of biocomposites from plant fibre origin and biopolymers are thus referred to as green composites, given their environmental friendliness [40,41,42,43]. Examples of such include polyhydroxyalkanoates, starch, cellulose, chitin and chitosan, (polylactide), proteins, bio-polybutylene succinate, and poly (butylene adipate-co-terephtalate). Some of them have found applications in the production of degradable bags for shopping, coatings, biomedical and several plastic applications. Some composite materials are fortified with nanoparticles, which improve their mechanical, optical, thermal and/or electrical properties, thus making them degradable biologically and more friendly to the environment. Many of these materials are polymeric in nature and more commonly utilized in both the construction and automotive industries. Phosphorus-based additives have in recent times been preferred to the halogen additives [44,45,46,47]. These phosphorous containing materials are used to start the charring of polyol, in order to enhance its fire retardancy [48].
Commonly used additives with flame retarding properties include nitrogen-based compounds, mineral compounds, phosphorus-based compounds, halogenated compounds, nanometric particles and silicon-based compounds. Phosphorus-based materials such as red phosphorus, phosphate esters, phosphinates, phosphonates, and even inorganic phosphates such as ammonium polyphosphate (APP) first decompose to produce phosphoric acids, which condenses to produce phosphorylated structures and water. This in turn results in a carbonaceous layer of protection. These phosphorus-based materials can also turn into vapour or gas to produce some active radicals, which can scavenge both OH and H radicals. In some cases, these FRs can be combined with nanoclays to increase their fire retardancy. Phosphorus-based FRs are amongst the most patronized in the market now because they are seen as better alternatives to the halogen-based FRs in terms of their performance, toxicity and cost [49,50,51,52,53] (https://www.aimplas.net/blog/composites-fire-developments-new-trends-flame-retardant-additives/ accessed on 2 January 2022). Some organic and inorganic phosphorus compounds, such as triaryl phosphates, ammonium polyphosphate, phosphate esters, aluminium diethyl phosphinate, resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate) and melamine polyphosphate or melamine bis(diphenyl phosphate), have been found to be very effective as FRs [54]. However, they have to be used in large amounts when considered, although this would negatively affect their polymer properties in the process [55].

6. Toxic Effects of OPFRs and Risk Exposure

OPFRs are widely used, are usually detected in different environmental matrices and have been found to be emerging contaminants [2,3]. The market trend of OPFRs has been continuously increasing and that has resulted in bioaccumulation and health harms [56]. Exposure to OPFRs can be by absorption, bioaccumulation and internal exposure [2]. These pollutants are used as additives through physical integration within the manufactured products; hence, they can be easily released into the environment through deposition, volatilization, dissolution, leaching, abrasion and infiltration [2,3]. According to [57], a class of 97 OPFRs was revealed as toxic using a model known as the “Quick Chemical Assessment Tool” (QCAT). Although certain flame retardants are considered important compounds by the US EPA, they need to be studied further to obtain more information or to predict their controlling measures. OPFRs in humans and animals have become everyday issues due to their behaviour, as shown in Figure 3.

6.1. Toxicity of OPFRs in Humans

OPFRs have been detected in humans, which has badly affected the health of humans in different ways [56]. According to the study of [58], humans in their everyday life are exposed to OPFRs through inhalation, dietary intake, ingestion, skin contact and dermal interaction in the dust and air that comprises traces of these pollutants. Ingesting dust particles and dermal/skin absorption were found to be the major ways of human exposure to these OPFRs [2]. OPFRs are found to be neurotoxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic in humans [59]. They also show systematic and endocrine disruptive effects [3,8,60]. The consumption of contaminated fishes can increase human exposure to these pollutants [3].
OPFRs are also found in children’s products, which pose great danger and has caused significant apprehension. The European Commission has approved values specifically for the existence of these pollutants in children’s toys, at a maximum of 5 mg kg−1 [58]. Therefore, it is necessary to have a better understanding of and protect humans when it comes to being exposed to these pollutants, and be familiar with their sources of emission [3]. The degree of sex hormones in people’s cells is usually disturbed by TDCPP [61,62].

6.2. Toxicity of OPFRs in Animals/Living Organisms

Due to the detection of OPFRs in organisms and their surroundings, cumulative attention is now being paid to their adverse effects. OPFRs in animals have been proven within the literature to affect and harm the reproduction, development and motor activity of Planaria, zebrafish, and Caenorhabditis Elegans [57]. Studies have proved that being exposed to OPFRs can cause neurodevelopmental toxicity in a range of in vitro tests, which indicate the dangerous effects to neurodevelopment (i.e., neurite outgrowth, synaptogenesis, proliferate of neurons and the system development in animals). Some compounds such as TnBP and TPP are neurotoxic, although some are carcinogenic to creatures, e.g., TDCP and TCEP in rats [8]. Additionally, in cultivated domestic fowl embryos, TDCPP initiated improved expression of TH-responsive genetic factors [14].

6.3. Risk Assessment of OPFRs

Risk assessments are conducted in studies relating to OPFRs in the environment by determining the hazard quotients (HQs), or risk quotients (RQs), as the case may be. This can be determined for water, soil, sediment or any aquatic organism such as fish. It is performed by taking the ratio of the measured environmental concentrations (MEC) of the FR to the predicted no effect concentration (PNEC) obtained from the literature, as represented in Equation (1)
RQ = MEC/PNEC
PNEC represents the FR’s concentration thought to have no damaging effect on the DNA in the liver. When PNEC is derived from the chronic toxicity value, then a factor of 100 is used to divide. However, 1000 is the most commonly used factor when acute toxicity value is used [63]. PNEC is often determined using Equation (2) [31,64,65].
PNEC = L(E)C50/f
where L(E)C50 represents LC50, which is the lethal concentration necessary to destroy or kill 50%, or EC50, which is the amount of a toxicant that will induce a response halfway between the baseline and maximum after a stated time of exposure, and f is the security factor. This assessment result could vary from low risk to high risk to the aquatic organisms in such an environment. Low risk is implied by 0.01 < RQ < 0.1; moderate risk by 0.1 < RQ < 1 and high risk by RQ > 1 [56,65,66,67,68,69]. Table 3 shows some PNECs for OPFRs in different environmental matrices.

7. OPFRs Analysis

Many researchers have reported the occurrence of OPFRs in numerous environmental media. The processes for clean-up, extraction, sample collection and OPFRs analytical techniques are similar to those used for analysing many other flame retardants. The sample collection, storage and extraction methods for some OPFRs in environmental media are presented in Table 4.

8. Extraction Methods for OPFRs in Different Environmental Media

Table 5 shows methods used for the extraction of certain OPFRs from certain matrices of the environment.

9. Analytical Procedures for OPFRs in Water and Sediments

Pantelaki and Voutsa [9] suggested a need to develop dependable logical methods that will permit a selective, sensitive and rapid determination of newly coming pollutants in samples from different parts of the environment [86]. Because of the flexible nature of substituents, OPFRs have varied properties, i.e., chemical and physical properties, starting from polar to more hydrophobic. The development of the method focuses on altering entire features to improve understanding and obtain precise quantification. Many methods for instrumental analysis are now obtainable in collected works for the determination of OPFRs in accessible and open water bodies, air, sediments and soil. OPFRs documented in previous studies include the tri-esters of OPFRs, chlorinated alkyl phosphates, alkyl phosphates and aryl phosphates. These contaminants were determined using GC or LC coupled with MS or selective detectors [9].

9.1. Gas Chromatographic Methods

GC methods are used to determine compounds with no polarity, using non-polar inert phases, commonly (5% phenyl)-methylpolysiloxane such as HP5 and DB-5MS. The column length ranges from 15 to 30 m; commonly used columns are 30 m length × 0.25 mm internal diameter × 0.25 μm film thickness [31,87]. There are complications when separating and detecting some OPFRs’ constituents depending on the physical properties of the inert phase. [88] confirmed the effectiveness of two duct columns with identical dimensions (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm film thickness) in comparison to the coated phases such as DB-5 ((5%-phenyl)-methylpolysiloxane) and SPB-1701 ((14%-cyanopropyl-phenyl)-methylpolysiloxane). The study reported quality results for most OPFRs, but for the depressed separation of TCEP and an isomer of TCPP in the SPB-1701 column (Supelco, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, USA) and the temperature-dependent selectivity of TBOEP and TPHP in the DB-5 column. Finally, a DB-5 column is suggested to be the most appropriate column for wastewater and sediment study [9].

9.2. Liquid Chromatographic Methods

LC/MS is appropriate for determining OPFRs such as EHDPP, TEHP, TPHP, TnBP and TMPP, which are not vaporizing enough for analysis in GC [89]. LC or UPLC are passed out in a reversed-phase mode, mostly using C18 or C8 stationary phases (UPLC BEH C18, Luna C8, Waters xterra C18) or combined reversed-phase with hydrophilic interactions column (HILIC-1). Usually, in grade washes are used as mobile phases to separate reversed-phase OPFRs, water mixtures (acidified with formic acid, acetonitrile or methanol). LC-MS/MS or UHPLC-MS/MS methods using triple quadrupole mass analysers are often used to determine OPFRs in environmentally friendly samples because of their extraordinary selectivity and sensitivity. The examination is accepted using electrospray ionization (ESI) in negative or positive mode of ionization depending on multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) gaining modes [89].

9.3. Nitrogen Phosphorus Detector (NPD)

NPD is another analytical procedure used for determining OPFRs in water samples [87,88]. Flame photometric detector (FPD) is considered a substitute to NPD for its selectivity and sensitivity, which are quite similar to the former [90]. The use of mass spectrometry has its advantages in identifying these pollutants. Therefore, GC–MS or GC–MS/MS is used as a method lower than electron impact ionization in the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode. Based on the study of [91], it is believed that NPD and FPD procedures present the same detectability for many OPFRs, although other literature preferred GC–MS/MS due to its better selectivity and detection limits [92,93]. Using chemical ionization, GC–MS is not adequate for many OPFRs except for TCPP that displays higher detectability [91,92]. The study of [94] recommended gas chromatography linked with a heated interface with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (GC-ICP-MS) to determine OPFR samples. The NPD method delivers quality sensitivity and selectivity for the determination of P-containing molecules in environmental surroundings because of the combination of a pulsed splitless injection mode with low radio frequency power and solid extraction conditions [9].

10. Levels of OPFRs in the Environment across the Globe

Organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) are the third vital set of flame retardants besides brominated flame retardants and aluminium trihydrate, constituting about 14% of the global market [5,7]. With the large-scale and economic availability of many newly made reference standards and the advent of sophisticated analytical methods, all OPFRs are analysed from numerous environmental matrixes worldwide, including North America, Europe, Asia, Africa and China, to mention a few. These pollutants were detected in indoor air, outdoor air, sediment, soil, water, adipose tissues, blood and other human fluid samples, and in animals. OPFRs were detected in different environments around the world, indicating that these pollutants are ubiquitous, The global output of OPFRs increased from 186,000 tons in 2001 to 620,000 tons in 2013 [95]. Several adverse effects of OPFRs on the ecosystem and human health have been reported [95,96].
Table 6 summarises the levels of OPFRs that have been reported from different studies and in different matrixes around the world. The surge in demand for devices containing OPFRs accounts for their high concentrations in river water [97], due to indiscriminate dumping of products with a high level of contaminants, discharge of sewage, and municipal or industrial wastes not treated or partially treated [26]. In their study, [98] reported the highest OPFRs concentrations in sediments around the world. High OPFRs concentrations are found in creeks to offshore or offshore lake waters in that order because creek sediments act as a sink for these contaminants.
Higher concentrations of TDBPP are commonly reported because this compound has been used as a flame retardant in plastics, synthetic textiles and fibers, which have been included in children’s clothing [113]. Similarly, a higher concentration of TBP in the environment may be linked with antifoaming agent in concrete, as well as a wetting agent in casein glue and as a pasting agent in pigment paste, apart from using it as the primary ingredient in hydraulic fluids [114]. In China, the concentrations of OPFRs in different matrixes from urban to industrial areas are higher than those collected from rural and agricultural areas [30]. This might be because of high industrial development, great population density and huge amounts of OPFRs vaporised into thin air and wastewater from industrial areas. The region is surrounded by industries that manufacture items that contain traces of OPFRs. Many studies have been conducted in China to greatly address the organic phosphate pollution problem worldwide. The fact remains, if the use of plastics increases and industries that produce materials containing OPFRs are not properly monitored, then the world should prepare for the consequences on the lives of humans, plants and animals.
Research conducted by [5] established a system that can analyse muscles of fish samples with traces of OPFRs. In the study, OPFRs found in animals were below the method detection limit. These low concentrations may be connected with various ways of living and diverse feeding habits [5]. It is known that physicochemical parameters of sediments, such as total organic carbon (TOC), can impact the levels of OPFRs [73].The difference in contamination profiles with sample matrixes is due to the hydrophobicity of a particular OPFR [98].

11. Conclusions

Based on previous studies, the environment has been proven to be contaminated with OPFRs due to their continuous production and the use of compounds with traces of OPFRs, improper disposal, indoor/outdoor dust, waste discharge from municipal water, waste from industries, dispersal of suburban and urban stormwater and sewage outfalls. The exposure of humans, plants and animals to OPFRs in everyday life has shown a significant impact on the aquatic and terrestrial environment. Even though there is no guideline yet for these deadly pollutants, researchers have shown that the way in which people and other creatures consume these pollutants is hazardous and can cause long and short term health effects on the body. Moreover, they are known to be possible endocrine disrupting compounds. The SPE method was established to be the best method used for the extraction of these pollutants from water samples and for aqueous clean-up because of its good recoveries and acceptable relative standard deviations. In the same vein, MAE has been proven to be a more effective method for extracting OPFRs from solid samples, considering its good recoveries and RSDs, being a faster method and requiring less solvent than other methods. The concentrations of OPFRs were greater than those of BFRs when analysing samples from schools, offices and family residences. OPFRs are mostly found in polyurethane (PU), construction, foam, construction refrigerators, electronics and electrical equipment. Therefore, it is noteworthy that higher levels of contaminants are recorded when tides are low, possibly due to a large inflow of effluents, urban runoff, stormwater and industrial discharge into an aquatic body. Aquatic environments next to mines and industries appear to be areas where high levels of these pollutants are usually found, hence, they are not suitable for people to live.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, literature reviewing, writing and editing of the manuscript as part of master’s research work—S.H.B. Design, editing and revision of the manuscript—A.O.A., O.O.O. and A.I.O. Masters research supervision—O.O.O. and A.O.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was funded by South African Medical Research Council (grant number: UFH/SAMRC/P790).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC), National Research Foundation (NRF/RAVAC) and Sasol Trust Fund for financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. Verbruggen, E.M.J.; Rila, J.P.; Traas, T.P.; Posthuma-Doodeman, C.J.A.M.; Posthumus, R. Environmental Risk Limits for Several Phosphate esters, with Possible Application as Flame Retardant; Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu RIVM: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  2. Yang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Li, M.; Du, M.; Li, X.; Li, Y. A review of a class of emerging contaminants: The classification, distribution, intensity of consumption, synthesis routes, environmental effects and expectation of pollution abatement to organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Zhang, L.; Lu, L.; Zhu, W.; Yang, B.; Lu, D.; Dan, S.F.; Zhang, S. Organophosphorus flame retardants (OPFRs) in the seawater and sediments of the Qinzhou Bay, Northern Beibu Gulf: Occurrence, distribution, and ecological risks. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 168, 112368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhang, Z.; Xu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Yang, C.; Rodgers, T.F.; Tan, F. Occurrence and distribution of organophosphate flame retardants in the typical soil profiles of the Tibetan Plateau, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 807, 150519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ma, Y.; Cui, K.; Zeng, F.; Wen, J.; Liu, H.; Zhu, F.; Ouyang, G.; Luan, T.; Zeng, Z. Microwave-assisted extraction combined with gel permeation chromatography and silica gel cleanup followed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for the determination of organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in biological samples. Anal. Chim. Acta 2013, 786, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rigby, H.; Dowding, A.; Fernandes, A.; Humphries, D.; Jones, N.R.; Lake, I.; Petch, R.G.; Reynolds, C.K.; Rose, M.; Smith, S.R. Concentrations of organic contaminants in industrial and municipal bioresources recycled in agriculture in the UK. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 765, 142787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Reemtsma, T.; Quintana, J.B.; Rodil, R.; Garcı, M.; Rodrı, I. Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in water and air I. Occurrence and fate. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2008, 27, 727–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Van der Veen, I.; de Boer, J. Phosphorus flame retardants: Properties, production, environmental occurrence, toxicity and analysis. Chemosphere 2012, 88, 1119–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Pantelaki, I.; Voutsa, D. Organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs): A review on analytical methods and occurrence in wastewater and aquatic environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 649, 247–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stockholm Convention. 2008. Available online: http://chm.pops.int/ (accessed on 15 March 2018).
  11. Du, J.; Li, H.; Xu, S.; Zhou, Q.; Jin, M.; Tang, J. A review of organophosphorus flame retardants (OPFRs): Occurrence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and organism exposure. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 22126–22136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Marklund, A.; Andersson, B.; Haglund, P. Screening of organophosphorus compounds and their distribution in various indoor environments. Chemosphere 2003, 53, 1137–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sundkvist, A.M.; Olofsson, U.; Haglund, P. Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in marine and fresh water biota and in human milk. J. Environ. Monit. 2010, 12, 943–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, Q.; Lam, J.C.W.; Man, Y.C.; Lai, N.L.S.; Kwok, K.Y.; yong Guo, Y.; Lam, P.K.S.; Zhou, B. Bioconcentration, metabolism and neurotoxicity of the organophorous flame retardant 1, 3-dichloro 2-propyl phosphate (TDCPP) to zebrafish. Aquat. Toxicol. 2015, 158, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Yu, X.W.; Yin, Y.G. The pollution status and research progress on organophosphate esters flame retardants. Prog. Chem. 2010, 22, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  16. Shao, W.H.; Chen, J.J.; Fan, S.H.; Lei, Y.; Xu, H.B.; Zhou, J.; Cheng, P.F.; Yang, Y.T.; Rao, C.L.; Wu, B.; et al. Combined metabolomics and proteomics analysis of major depression in an animal model: Perturbed energy metabolism in the chronic mild stressed rat cerebellum. Omics A J. Integr. Biol. 2015, 19, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Sigma-Aldrich. 2011. Available online: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/us-export.html (accessed on 11 November 2021).
  18. Van der Kolk, J. Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals and World Health Organization. In WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2009; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  19. Liagkouridis, I.; Cousins, A.P.; Cousins, I.T. Physical–chemical properties and evaluative fate modelling of ‘emerging’and ‘novel’brominated and organophosphorus flame retardants in the indoor and outdoor environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 524, 416–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Schwarzenbach, R.P.; Gschwend, P.M.; Imboden, D.M. Environmental Organic Chemistry; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hilal, S.H.; Karickhoff, S.W.; Carreira, L.A. Prediction of the vapor pressure boiling point, heat of vaporization and diffusion coefficient of organic compounds. QSAR Comb. Sci. 2003, 22, 565–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hilal, S.H.; Karickhoff, S.W.; Carreira, L.A. Prediction of the solubility, activity coefficient and liquid/liquid partition coefficient of organic compounds. QSAR Comb. Sci. 2004, 23, 709–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bergman, Å.; Rydén, A.; Law, R.J.; de Boer, J.; Covaci, A.; Alaee, M.; Birnbaum, L.; Petreas, M.; Rose, M.; Sakai, S.; et al. A novel abbreviation standard for organobromine, organochlorine and organophosphorus flame retardants and some characteristics of the chemicals. Environ. Int. 2012, 49, 57–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Liagkouridis, I.; Lazarov, B.; Giovanoulis, G.; Cousins, I. Chemical mass transfer of an organophosphate flame retardant between product source and dust in direct contact. Emerg. Contam. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  25. Liagkouridis, I.; Lazarov, B.; Giovanoulis, G.; Cousins, I.T. Mass transfer of an organophosphate flame retardant between product source and dust in direct contact. Emerg. Contam. 2017, 3, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Andresen, J.A.; Grundmann, A.; Bester, K. Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticisers in surface waters. Sci. Total Environ. 2004, 332, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. WHO Task Group on Environmental Health Criteria for Flame Retardants, Tris (chloropropyl) Phosphate, Tris (2-chloroethyl) Phosphate, World Health Organization and Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals. 1998. Flame Retardants: Tris (chloropropyl) Phosphate and tris (2-chloroethyl) Phosphate (No. 209). Environmental Health Criteria. Available online: https://inchem.org/pages/ehc.html (accessed on 11 November 2021).
  28. Zhang, D.; Li, S.; Zhu, F.; Li, C.; Xu, Y.; Qing, D.; Wang, J. The influence of an upgrade on the reduction of organophosphate flame retardants in a wastewater treatment plant. Chemosphere 2020, 256, 126895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lai, N.L.; Kwok, K.Y.; Wang, X.H.; Yamashita, N.; Liu, G.; Leung, K.M.; Lam, P.K.; Lam, J.C. Assessment of organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in aquatic environments of China (Pearl River Delta, South China Sea, Yellow River Estuary) and Japan (Tokyo Bay). J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 371, 288–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Zhang, X.; Zou, W.; Mu, L.; Chen, Y.; Ren, C.; Hu, X.; Zhou, Q. Rice ingestion is a major pathway for human exposure to organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) in China. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016, 318, 686–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Cristale, J.; Vázquez, A.G.; Barata, C.; Lacorte, S. Priority and emerging flame retardants in rivers: Occurrence in water and sediment, Daphnia magna toxicity and risk assessment. Environ. Int. 2013, 59, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Meyer, J.; Bester, K. Organophosphate flame retardants and plasticisers in wastewater treatment plants. J. Environ. Monit. 2004, 6, 599–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hou, R.; Xu, Y.; Wang, Z. Review of OPFRs in animals and humans: Absorption, bioaccumulation, metabolism, and internal exposure research. Chemosphere 2016, 153, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Aston, L.S.; Noda, J.; Seiber, J.N.; Reece, C.A. Organophosphate flame retardants in needles of Pinus ponderosa in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1996, 57, 859–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Carlsson, H.; Nilsson, U.; Becker, G.; Östman, C. Organophosphate ester flame retardants and plasticizers in the indoor environment: Analytical methodology and occurrence. Environm. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 2931–2936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Carlsson, H.; Nilsson, U.; Östman, C. Video display units: An emission source of the contact allergenic flame retardant triphenyl phosphate in the indoor environment. Environm. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 3885–3889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hoelting, L.; Klima, S.; Karreman, C.; Grinberg, M.; Meisig, J.; Henry, M.; Rotshteyn, T.; Rahnenführer, J.; Blüthgen, N.; Sachinidis, A.; et al. Stem cell-derived immature human dorsal root ganglia neurons to identify peripheral neurotoxicants. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2016, 5, 476–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Zhu, L.; Huang, X.; Li, Z.; Cao, G.; Zhu, X.; She, S.; Huang, T.; Lu, G. Evaluation of hepatotoxicity induced by 2-ethylhexyldiphenyl phosphate based on transcriptomics and its potential metabolism pathway in human hepatocytes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 413, 125281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Chukwunwike, S.A.; Okafor, K.J. A review on some selected bio-based (Green) flame retardants. J. Eng. Technol. 2019, 8, 38–43. [Google Scholar]
  40. Davoodi, M.M.; Sapuan, S.M.; Ahmad, D.; Aidy, A.; Khalina, A.; Jonoobi, M. Concept selection of car bumper beam with developed hybrid bio-composite material. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 4857–4865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dasari, A.; Yu, Z.Z.; Cai, G.P.; Mai, Y.W. Recent developments in the fire retardancy of polymeric materials. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2013, 38, 1357–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Reddy, M.M.; Vivekanandhan, S.; Misra, M.; Bhatia, S.K.; Mohanty, A.K. Biobased plastics and bionanocomposites: Current status and future opportunities. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2013, 38, 1653–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Thomas, A.; Arun, M.; Moinuddin, K.; Joseph, P. Mechanistic Aspects of Condensed-and Gaseous-Phase Activities of Some Phosphorus-Containing Fire Retardants. Polymers 2020, 12, 1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rabek, J.F. Contemporary Knowledge about Polymers; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa, Polska, 2008. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  45. Hamdani, S.; Longuet, C.; Perrin, D.; Lopez-Cuesta, J.M.; Ganachaud, F. Flame retardancy of silicone-based materials. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2009, 94, 465–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hull, T.R.; Stec, A.A. Polymers and fire. In Fire Retardancy of Polymers: New Strategies and Mechanisms; Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, UK; London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kiliaris, P.; Papaspyrides, C.D. Polymers on fire. In Polymer Green Flame Retardants; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1–43. [Google Scholar]
  48. Matko, S.; Toldy, A.; Keszei, S.; Anna, P.; Bertalan, G.; Marosi, G. Flame retardancy of biodegradable polymers and biocomposites. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2005, 88, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shaw, S. Halogenated flame retardants: Do the fire safety benefits justify the risks? Rev. Environ. Health 2010, 25, 261–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Suzuki, G.; Someya, M.; Takahashi, S.; Tanabe, S.; Sakai, S.; Takigami, H. Dioxin-like activity in Japanese indoor dusts evaluated by means of in vitro bioassay and instrumental analysis: Brominated dibenzofurans are an important contributor. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 8330–8336. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  51. Poston, R.G.; Saha, R.N. Epigenetic effects of polybrominated diphenyl ethers on human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Wu, L.; Li, Y.; Ru, H.; Xie, H.; Yao, F.; Ni, Z.; Zhong, L. Parental exposure to 2, 2′, 4, 4′ 5-pentain polybrominated diphenyl ethers (BDE-99) causes thyroid disruption and developmental toxicity in zebrafish. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2019, 372, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wu, Z.; He, C.; Han, W.; Song, J.; Li, H.; Zhang, Y.; Jing, X.; Wu, W. Exposure pathways, levels and toxicity of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in humans: A review. Environ. Res. 2020, 187, 109531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Alexander, B.M.; Charles, A.W. Phosphorus-Based FRs. Non-Halogenated Flame Retardant Handbook. 2014, pp. 17–74. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118939239.ch2 (accessed on 11 November 2021).
  55. Sienkiewicz, A.; Czub, P. Flame Retardancy of Biobased Composites—Research Development. Materials 2020, 13, 5253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhao, Y.; Ding, J.; Lv, L.; Zhang, H. Exposure to organophosphate flame esters during early pregnancy and risk of spontaneous abortion: A case-control study. Chemosphere 2021, 268, 129375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Blum, A.; Behl, M.; Birnbaum, L.S.; Diamond, M.L.; Phillips, A.; Singla, V.; Sipes, N.S.; Stapleton, H.M.; Venier, M. Organophosphate ester flame retardants: Are they a regrettable substitution for polybrominated diphenyl ethers? Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2019, 6, 638–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhou, L.; Hiltscher, M.; Gruber, D.; Püttmann, W. Organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) in indoor and outdoor air in the Rhine/Main area, Germany: Comparison of concentrations and distribution profiles in different microenvironments. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 10992–11005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Mo, L.; Zheng, J.; Wang, T.; Shi, Y.G.; Chen, B.J.; Liu, B.; Ma, Y.H.; Li, M.; Zhuo, L.; Chen, S.J. Legacy and emerging contaminants in coastal surface sediments around Hainan Island in South China. Chemosphere 2019, 215, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Dishaw, L.V.; Powers, C.M.; Ryde, I.T.; Roberts, S.C.; Seidler, F.J.; Slotkin, T.A.; Stapleton, H.M. Is the PentaBDE replacement, tris (1, 3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP), a developmental neurotoxicant? Studies in PC12 cells. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2011, 256, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Liu, X.; Ji, K.; Choi, K. Endocrine disruption potentials of organophosphate flame retardants and related mechanisms in H295R and MVLN cell lines and in zebrafish. Aquat. Toxicol. 2012, 114, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liu, X.; Ji, K.; Jo, A.; Moon, H.B.; Choi, K. Effects of TDCPP or TPP on gene transcriptions and hormones of HPG axis, and their consequences on reproduction in adult zebrafish (Danio rerio). Aquat. Toxicol. 2013, 134, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. von der Ohe, P.C.; Dulio, V.; Slobodnik, J.; De Deckere, E.; Kühne, R.; Ebert, R.U.; Ginebreda, A.; De Cooman, W.; Schüürmann, G.; Brack, W. A new risk assessment approach for the prioritization of 500 classical and emerging organic microcontaminants as potential river basin specific pollutants under the European Water Framework Directive. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 2064–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Chen, R.; Hou, R.; Hong, X.; Yan, S.; Zha, J. Organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) induce genotoxicity in vivo: A survey on apoptosis, DNA methylation, DNA oxidative damage, liver metabolites, and transcriptomics. Environ. Int. 2019, 130, 104914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hu, Z.; Yin, L.; Wen, X.; Jiang, C.; Long, Y.; Zhang, J.; Liu, R. Organophosphate Esters in China: Fate, Occurrence, and Human Exposure. Toxics 2021, 9, 310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Liu, Y.; Song, N.; Guo, R.; Xu, H.; Zhang, Q.; Han, Z.; Feng, M.; Li, D.; Zhang, S.; Chen, J. Occurrence and partitioning behavior of organophosphate esters in surface water and sediment of a shallow Chinese freshwater lake (Taihu Lake): Implication for eco-toxicity risk. Chemosphere 2018, 202, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lian, M.; Lin, C.; Wu, T.; Xin, M.; Gu, X.; Lu, S.; Cao, Y.; Wang, B.; Ouyang, W.; Liu, X.; et al. Occurrence, spatiotemporal distribution, and ecological risks of organophosphate esters in the water of the Yellow River to the Laizhou Bay, Bohai Sea. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 147528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sun, Y.; Zhu, H. A pilot study of organophosphate esters in surface soils collected from Jinan City, China: Implications for risk assessments. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 3344–3353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jiao, E.; Hu, X.; Li, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, Z.; Yin, D.; Qiu, Y. Occurrence and risk evaluation of organophosphorus flame retardants in two urban rivers in Yangtze River Delta. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Usepa, U. Nanotechnology White Paper; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; p. 20460. [Google Scholar]
  71. Chokwe, T.B.; Okonkwo, J.O. Occurrence, distribution and ecological risk assessment of organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in sediment samples along the Vaal River catchment, South Africa. Emerg. Contam. 2019, 5, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Scudder, B.C.; Chasar, L.C.; DeWeese, L.; Brigham, M.E.; Wentz, D.A.; Brumbaugh, W.G. Procedures for Collecting and Processing Aquatic Invertebrates and Fish for Analysis of Mercury as Part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. US Geological Survey, 2008. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1208/ (accessed on 11 November 2021).
  73. Giulivo, M.; Capri, E.; Kalogianni, E.; Milacic, R.; Majone, B.; Ferrari, F.; Eljarrat, E.; Barceló, D. Occurrence of halogenated and organophosphate flame retardants in sediment and fish samples from three European river basins. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586, 782–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Chen, X.; Li, W.; Li, J.; Fan, S.; Shi, Z. Rapid determination of 13 organophosphorus flame retardants in milk by using modified quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe technique, solid-phase extraction, and HPLC-MS/MS. J. Sep. Sci. 2021, 44, 2269–2278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Drageset, A.; Bjørsvik, H.R. Continuous flow synthesis concatenated with continuous flow liquid–liquid extraction for work-up and purification: Selective mono-and di-iodination of the imidazole backbone. React. Chem. Eng. 2016, 1, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bokhary, A.; Leitch, M.; Liao, B.Q. Liquid–liquid extraction technology for resource recovery: Applications, potential, and perspectives. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 40, 101762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Carreira-Casais, A.; Otero, P.; Garcia-Perez, P.; Garcia-Oliveira, P.; Pereira, A.G.; Carpena, M.; Soria-Lopez, A.; Simal-Gandara, J.; Prieto, M.A. Benefits and drawbacks of ultrasound-assisted extraction for the recovery of bioactive compounds from marine algae. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Vinatoru, M.; Mason, T.J.; Calinescu, I. Ultrasonically assisted extraction (UAE) and microwave assisted extraction (MAE) of functional compounds from plant materials. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2017, 97, 159–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Cao, S.; Zeng, X.; Song, H.; Li, H.; Yu, Z.; Sheng, G.; Fu, J. Levels and distributions of organophosphate flame retardants and plasticizers in sediment from Taihu Lake, China. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012, 31, 1478–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kumar, K.; Srivastav, S.; Sharanagat, V.S. Ultrasound assisted extraction (UAE) of bioactive compounds from fruit and vegetable processing by-products: A review. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2021, 70, 105325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hou, L.; Jiang, J.; Gan, Z.; Dai, Y.; Yang, P.; Yan, Y.; Ding, S.; Su, S.; Bao, X. Spatial distribution of organophosphorus and brominated flame retardants in surface water, sediment, groundwater, and wild fish in Chengdu, China. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2019, 77, 279–290. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  82. De Castro, M.L.; Priego-Capote, F. Soxhlet extraction: Past and present panacea. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 2383–2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Soon, Z.Y.; Loh, A.J.Y.; Joseph, C.G.; Sakari, M. A Review on Available Techniques to Evaluate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentration Dependency on Certain Chemical Properties. Life Sci. J. 2021, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Poole, C.F. New trends in solid-phase extraction. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2003, 22, 362–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sun, H.; Ge, X.; Lv, Y.; Wang, A. Application of accelerated solvent extraction in the analysis of organic contaminants, bioactive and nutritional compounds in food and feed. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1237, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Rodil, R.; Quintana, J.B.; López-Mahía, P.; Muniategui-Lorenzo, S.; Prada-Rodríguez, D. Multi-residue analytical method for the determination of emerging pollutants in water by solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216, 2958–2969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Jin, T.; Cheng, J.; Cai, C.; Cheng, M.; Wu, S.; Zhou, H. Graphene oxide based sol-gel stainless steel fiber for the headspace solid-phase microextraction of organophosphate ester flame retardants in water samples. J. Chromatogr. A 2016, 1457, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Rodriguez, I.; Calvo, F.; Quintana, J.B.; Rubi, E.; Rodil, R.; Cela, R. Suitability of solid-phase microextraction for the determination of organophosphate flame retardants and plasticizers in water samples. J. Chromatogr. A 2006, 1108, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lorenzo, M.; Campo, J.; Picó, Y. Ultra-high-pressure liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method for the determination of 9 organophosphate flame retardants in water samples. MethodsX 2016, 3, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Gao, Z.; Deng, Y.; Hu, X.; Yang, S.; Sun, C.; He, H. Determination of organophosphate esters in water samples using an ionic liquid-based sol–gel fiber for headspace solid-phase microextraction coupled to gas chromatography-flame photometric detector. J. Chromatogr. A 2013, 1300, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gustavsson, J.; Ahrens, L.; Nguyen, M.A.; Josefsson, S.; Wiberg, K. Development and comparison of gas chromatography–mass spectrometry techniques for analysis of flame retardants. J. Chromatogr. A 2017, 1481, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Cristale, J.; Quintana, J.; Chaler, R.; Ventura, F.; Lacorte, S. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry comprehensive analysis of organophosphorus, brominated flame retardants, by-products and formulation intermediates in water. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1241, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Wolschke, H.; Sühring, R.; Xie, Z.; Ebinghaus, R. Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in the aquatic environment: A case study of the Elbe River, Germany. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 206, 488–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. García-López, M.; Rodríguez, I.; Cela, R.; Kroening, K.K.; Caruso, J.A. Determination of organophosphate flame retardants and plasticizers in sediment samples using microwave-assisted extraction and gas chromatography with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Talanta 2009, 79, 824–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Wei, G.L.; Li, D.Q.; Zhuo, M.N.; Liao, Y.S.; Xie, Z.Y.; Guo, T.L.; Li, J.J.; Zhang, S.Y.; Liang, Z.Q. Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers: Sources, occurrence, toxicity and human exposure. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 196, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Kim, J.W.; Isobe, T.; Chang, K.H.; Amano, A.; Maneja, R.H.; Zamora, P.B.; Siringan, F.P.; Tanabe, S. Levels and distribution of organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in fishes from Manila Bay, the Philippines. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 3653–3659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Cristale, J.; Ramos, D.D.; Dantas, R.F.; Junior, A.M.; Lacorte, S.; Sans, C.; Esplugas, S. Can activated sludge treatments and advanced oxidation processes remove organophosphorus flame retardants? Environ. Res. 2016, 144, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Lee, S.; Cho, H.J.; Choi, W.; Moon, H.B. Organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) in water and sediment: Occurrence, distribution, and hotspots of contamination of Lake Shihwa, Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 130, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Li, S.; Zhu, F.; Zhang, D.; Li, C.; Xu, Y.; Qing, D.; Wang, J. Seasonal concentration variation and potential influencing factors of organophosphorus flame retardants in a wastewater treatment plant. Environ. Res. 2021, 199, 111318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Wang, Y.; Sun, H.; Zhu, H.; Yao, Y.; Chen, H.; Ren, C.; Wu, F.; Kannan, K. Occurrence and distribution of organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) in soil and outdoor settled dust from a multi-waste recycling area in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 625, 1056–1064. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  101. Sha, B.; Dahlberg, A.K.; Wiberg, K.; Ahrens, L. Fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs), brominated flame retardants (BFRs), organophosphorus flame retardants (OPFRs) and cyclic volatile methylsiloxanes (cVMSs) in indoor air from occupational and home environments. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 241, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wang, Q.; Zhao, H.; Xu, L.; Wang, Y. Uptake and translocation of organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) by hydroponically grown wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 174, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Choi, W.; Lee, S.; Lee, H.K.; Moon, H.B. Organophosphate flame retardants and plasticizers in sediment and bivalves along the Korean coast: Occurrence, geographical distribution, and a potential for bioaccumulation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 156, 111275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hu, M.; Li, J.; Zhang, B.; Cui, Q.; Wei, S.; Yu, H. Regional distribution of halogenated organophosphate flame retardants in seawater samples from three coastal cities in China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 86, 569–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Yadav, I.C.; Devi, N.L.; Li, J.; Zhang, G. Organophosphate ester flame retardants in Nepalese soil: Spatial distribution, source apportionment and air-soil exchange assessment. Chemosphere 2018, 190, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Ji, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yao, Y.; Ren, C.; Lan, Z.; Fang, X.; Zhang, K.; Sun, W.; Alder, A.C.; Sun, H. Occurrence of organophosphate flame retardants in farmland soils from Northern China: Primary source analysis and risk assessment. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 247, 832–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Li, T.Y.; Bao, L.J.; Wu, C.C.; Liu, L.Y.; Wong, C.S.; Zeng, E.Y. Organophosphate flame retardants emitted from thermal treatment and open burning of e-waste. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 367, 390–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hao, C.; Helm, P.A.; Morse, D.; Reiner, E.J. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry direct injection analysis of organophosphorus flame retardants in Ontario surface water and wastewater effluent. Chemosphere 2018, 191, 288–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Martínez-Carballo, E.; González-Barreiro, C.; Sitka, A.; Scharf, S.; Gans, O. Determination of selected organophosphate esters in the aquatic environment of Austria. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 388, 290–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Lee, S.; Jeong, W.; Kannan, K.; Moon, H.B. Occurrence and exposure assessment of organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) through the consumption of drinking water in Korea. Water Res. 2016, 103, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Choo, G.; Cho, H.S.; Park, K.; Lee, J.W.; Kim, P.; Oh, J.E. Tissue-specific distribution and bioaccumulation potential of organophosphate flame retardants in crucian carp. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 239, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Chen, R.; Hong, X.; Yan, S.; Zha, J. Three organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) reduce sperm quality in Chinese rare minnows (Gobiocypris rarus). Environ. Pollut. 2020, 263, 114525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. NICNAS, T. Priority Existing Chemical Assessment Report No. 30. In National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme; Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government: Sydney, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  114. Green, N.; Schlabach, M.; Bakke, T.; Brevik, E.; Dye, C.; Herzke, D.; Huber, S.; Plosz, B.; Remberger, M.; Schøyen, M.; et al. Screening of Selected Metals and New Organic Contaminants 2007. Phosphorus Flame Retardents, Polyfluorinated Organic Compounds, Nitro-Pahs, Silver, Platinum and Sucralose in Air, Wastewater Treatment Falcilities, and Freshwater and Marine Recipients; Norsk Institutt for Vannforskning: Oslo, Norway, 2008; Available online: https://niva.brage.unit.no/niva-xmlui/handle/11250/213998 (accessed on 11 November 2021).
Figure 1. Typical examples of some major molecular structures of OPFRs [2].
Figure 1. Typical examples of some major molecular structures of OPFRs [2].
Molecules 27 00573 g001
Figure 2. A diagram showing providence of OPFRs in animal and human bodies [33].
Figure 2. A diagram showing providence of OPFRs in animal and human bodies [33].
Molecules 27 00573 g002
Figure 3. A schematic diagram of OPFRs action in toxicology [11].
Figure 3. A schematic diagram of OPFRs action in toxicology [11].
Molecules 27 00573 g003
Table 1. A compilation of some major OPFRs with MF, MW (g/mol) [5,7,11].
Table 1. A compilation of some major OPFRs with MF, MW (g/mol) [5,7,11].
OPFRsFull NameMFMW (g/mol)
TPPTriphenyl phosphateC15H33O4P308.4
TBPTributyl phosphateC12H27O4P266.3
TBOEPTris (2-butoxyethyl) phosphateC18H39O7P398.5
TRCPTris (2-chloroethyl) phosphateC6H12Cl13O4P285.5
TEHPTris(2-ethylhexyl)-phosphateC24H51O4P435.0
TCPPTris(1-chloro-2-propyl)-phosphateC9H18Cl3O4P327.6
TOCPTri-o-cresyl phosphateC21H21O4P368.4
Keywords: MF = Molecular Formula, MW = Molecular Weight.
Table 2. Table showing the list of some major OPFRs with their water solubility, adsorption to soil and sediment, bioaccumulation factor and octanol–water coefficient [9,11,14].
Table 2. Table showing the list of some major OPFRs with their water solubility, adsorption to soil and sediment, bioaccumulation factor and octanol–water coefficient [9,11,14].
OPFRsHenry’s Law Constant (atm.m3/mol)Molecular Weight (g/mol)Water Solubility (mg/L) at 25 °C;Vapour Pressure (mm/ Hg)Log KOWBioaccumulation Factor (BCF)
TRCP1.67 × 10−7285.570000.0611.630.425
TBP1.4 × 10-6266.322801.13 × 10−34.0039.81
TBOEP1.2 × 10−11398.51.1000.033.0025.56
TEHP2.38 × 10−2434.60.68.25 × 10−89.943.162
TCEP1.67 × 10−7250.270000.0611.630.425
TOCP9.21 × 10−7368.40.31.10 × 10−76.342534
TDCPP2.61 × 10−9430.97.02.61 × 10−93.6521.4
TCIPP4.69 × 10−7327.612005.64 × 10−52.893.27
Table 3. Some OPFR congeners with PNEC (ng/g) from China in different matrices.
Table 3. Some OPFR congeners with PNEC (ng/g) from China in different matrices.
CongenerMatricesPNEC (ng/g)References
TCEPCarassius auratus auratus
Soil
90,000
386
[65]
TCPPCarassius auratus auratus
Soil
30,000
1700
[65]
TCIPPCarassius auratus auratus
Soil
5100
320
[65]
TMPPimephales promelas
Soil
7000[65]
TCrPCarassius auratus auratus
Soil
110
-
[65]
TnBPCarassius auratus auratus
Soil
880
-
[65]
TiBPCarassius auratus auratus
Soil
20
-
[65]
EHDPPcrustacean
Soil
18
302
[65]
TPHPCarassius auratus auratus
Soil
700
130,000
[65]
Table 4. Table showing the list of some matrices and how they are sampled, stored and extracted.
Table 4. Table showing the list of some matrices and how they are sampled, stored and extracted.
Type of MatrixExample of SitesSample CollectionStorageExtraction MethodReferences
AirPrivate homes, indoor microenvironments, offices, day-care centres, private cars, schools, building material markets and floor/carpet storesVacuum pump connected with a gas meterQuartz Fibre Filter (QFF) and
Polyurethane Foam Plug (PUF- PAS) covered with aluminium foil.
Ultrasonic bath[58]
WaterWaste water treatment plants (WWTPs), rivers, taps, surface water, sea and damsPre-cleaned 1 Litre amber glass bottleIce chest at 4 °CSolid Phase Extraction[3]
Sediments
Soil
Dumpsite, river and terrestrialGrab sampler
Metallic spoon
Sealed in aluminium foil and stored in an ice chestUltrasonic bath, Ultrasound Assisted Extraction (UAE), Liquid–Liquid Extraction (LLE)and Microwave-Assisted Extraction (MAE)[70]
[71]
[3]
Fishes/Other biotaWater
environment
Gill or trap netting, electrofishing, tangling, gilling, filtering, spearing and pumpingSamples are preserved on dry iceSoxhlet extraction (SE), Pressurised Liquid Extraction (PLE)[72]
[73]
Urine
Breast milk
Blood
HumanMetallic container
Passive breast milk sampler or breast pump
Syringe, needle and vein puncture
Pre-cleaned glass bottlesSolvent-induced phase transition extraction (SIPTE)
Solid Phase Extraction (SPE)
[74]
[56]
Table 5. Extraction methods used for OPFRs from different matrices, their advantages and disadvantages.
Table 5. Extraction methods used for OPFRs from different matrices, their advantages and disadvantages.
Extraction MethodAdvantagesDisadvantagesMatrices that Can Be ExtractedReferences
Liquid–liquid extraction (LLE)Remove inorganic compounds and can be used to deprotonate or protonate acids and basesChallenging, time-wasting and demanding multiple extractionsBlood
Water
[75]
[76]
Ultrasonic assisted extraction (UAE)Low-cost, appropriate, and suitable substitution to other extraction methodsVariables associated with UAE (i.e., frequency, power time etc) needs to be optimized for each product Sediments
Marine algae
Fruit and Vegetables
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
Microwave-assisted extraction (MAE)Decrease the amount of solvent used and time, enhances reproducible results and helps in retrieving analytes from samplesTo obtain results for OPFRs combine it with gel permeation chromatography and silica gelLipid samples[2]
[5]
Soxhlet extraction (SE)Affordability and ease of operation, uninterrupted distinct methodConsumption of large volume of solvent, time-consuming and labour intensiveSolid samples
(Sediments and soil)
[81]
[82]
[83]
Solid phase extraction (SPE)Low consumption of solvent, efficient, cheap, convenient operation and short time-consuming.Poor selectivityWater, milk[84]
Accelerated solvent extraction (ASE)Uses less solvent, less extraction time, high throughput and automatic operationIt is costlySolid samples, biotic matrices and food samples[85]
Table 6. Reported OPFR levels around the world from different matrixes using different extraction techniques and different analytical instruments.
Table 6. Reported OPFR levels around the world from different matrixes using different extraction techniques and different analytical instruments.
LocationSample MatrixCongenerConcentration Extraction MethodInstrumentReference
SpainWastewater
Sludge
10 OPFRs congeners3.67–50 µgL−1
35.3–9980 ng g−1dw
a
b
A[97]
ChinaRice6 OPFRs congeners0.004–287 ng/gcB[30]
Qinzhou BaySea water
Sediments
11 OPFRs congeners150–885 ng/L
32.3 ng/g dw
a
d
C[3]
Beijing of ChinaWastewater
Sludge
10 OPFRs congeners600–838 ng/La
f
K[99]
ShanghaiUrine3 OPFRs congeners0.05–2.10 ng/mLaK[56]
South Africa (Vaal River)Sediment12 OPFRs congeners68–278 ng g−1 dwdC[71]
ChinaSoil
Outdoor dust
12 OPFRs congeners37.7–2100 ng/g
9.14–42.700 ng/g
dC[100]
SwedenIndoor airTCEP310 ± 560 pg m−3eC[101]
China (Controlled environment growth)Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)14 OPFRs congeners0.18–0.37 μg/gfC[102]
Korean coastSediment
Bivalves
18 OPFRs congeners2.18–347 ng/g dw
6.12–206 ng/g dw
fB[103]
ChinaSeawater4 OPFRs congeners91.87–1392 ng/LaD[104]
Europe (European River basin)Sediment
Fish
14 OPFRs congeners0.25–34.0 ng/g dw
9.32–461 ng/g lw
gB[73]
NepalSoil8 OPFRs congeners25–27,900 ng/g dweC[105]
Northern China (Beijing)Farmland soil12 OPFRs congeners0.543 μg/kg–54.9 μg/kgdE[106]
South Chinae-waste (Thermal treatment)
e-waste (Open burning)
11 OPFRs congeners3.70 × 104–3.65 × 105 ng g−1
5.22 × 103–9.27 × 104 ng g−1
dC[107]
Canada (Ontario)Surface water
Wastewater
12 OPFRs congeners1.5–30 ng/L_F[108]
AustriaWastewater
Surface water
Sediments
9 OPFRs congeners4.1 and 13 ng/L
2.6 and 7.9 ng/L
0.48 and 11 μg/kg
h
d
E
G
F
[109]
KoreaDrinking waterTCEP
TCPP
TBEP
<MDL-1660 ng/LhH[110]
Korea (Shihwa lake)Water
Sediment
18 OPFRs congeners28.3–16,000 ng/L
2.99–3800 ng/g dw
h
e
B[98]
South Korea (Nakdong River)Fish (Crusian carp)9 OPFRs congenersLiver: 6.2–18.1 ng/g ww
Muscle: 4.2–7.8 ng/g ww
dC[111]
China (Chengdu)Surface water
Sediment
Wild fish
Groundwater
13 OPFRs
Congeners
19.1–533 ng L−1
12.50–253 ng g−1
114–2108 ng g−1 lw
11.7–149 ng L−1
a
d
e
I[81]
SpainWater
Sediment
10 OPFRs congeners0.0076–7.2 μg L−1
3.8–824 μg kg−1
a
e
I
J
[31]
ChinaRare minnows (Gobiocypris rarus)TPHP
TBOEP
TDCIPP
0.012 and 0.12 mg/L
0.24 and 2.4 mg/L
0.04 and 0.4 mg/L
iD[112]
a-SPE (Solid Phase Extraction); b-SLPE (Solid–Liquid Phase Extraction); c-MAE (Microwave-Assisted Extraction); A-Advanced Oxidation Processes (UV/H2O2 and O3); B-GC–MS/MS (Gas chromatograph–triple quadrupole mass spectrometer); d-UAE (Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction); C-GC–MS (Gas chromatograph–mass spectrometer); e-SE (Soxhlet Extraction); f-ASE (Accelerated Solvent Extraction); D-UPLC-MS/MS; g-PLE (Pressurised Liquid Extraction); E-LC-MS (Liquid Chromatography–Mass spectrometer); F-LC-MS/MS (Liquid Chromatography–tandem Mass Spectrometry); G-HPLC; h-LLE (Liquid–Liquid Extraction); TCEP-tris(2-chloro ) phosphate; TCPP-tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate; TBEP-tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate; H-GC/MSD (Gas Chromatograph–Mass Spectrometric Detector); I-GC–EI-MS/MS; J-GC–EI(ECNI)-MS; TPHP-triphenyl phosphate; TBOEP-tris-(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate; TDCIPP-tris-(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate; i-Gravimetric technique; K- HPLC-MS (high performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bika, S.H.; Adeniji, A.O.; Okoh, A.I.; Okoh, O.O. Spatiotemporal Distribution and Analysis of Organophosphate Flame Retardants in the Environmental Systems: A Review. Molecules 2022, 27, 573. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27020573

AMA Style

Bika SH, Adeniji AO, Okoh AI, Okoh OO. Spatiotemporal Distribution and Analysis of Organophosphate Flame Retardants in the Environmental Systems: A Review. Molecules. 2022; 27(2):573. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27020573

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bika, Sinozuko Hope, Abiodun Olagoke Adeniji, Anthony Ifeanyi Okoh, and Omobola Oluranti Okoh. 2022. "Spatiotemporal Distribution and Analysis of Organophosphate Flame Retardants in the Environmental Systems: A Review" Molecules 27, no. 2: 573. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27020573

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop