Citation

Abbasi G, Saini A, Goosey E, Diamond ML. Sci. Total Environ. 2015; 545-546: 299-307.

Affiliation

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, 22 Russell Street, Toronto M5S 3B1, Canada; Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto M1C 1A4, Canada. Electronic address: miriam.diamond@utoronto.ca.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.028

PMID

26747994

Abstract

Human exposure to halogenated flame retardants (HFRs) such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and their replacements, can be related to exposure to indoor dust and direct contact with HFR-containing products. This study aimed to identify electronic products that contributed to HFRs measured in indoor dust and to develop a screening method for identifying HFRs in hard polymer products. Concentrations of 10 PBDEs and 12 halogenated replacements in dust and surface wipe samples of hard polymer casings of electronic products plus Br in the surfaces of those casing measured using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) were analyzed from 35 homes and 10 offices in Toronto (ON, Canada). HFR concentrations in dust and product wipes were positively correlated. Thus, we hypothesize that electronic products with the highest HFR concentrations contribute the most to concentrations in dust, regardless of the volatility of the HFR. Abundant HFRs in dust and product wipes were PBDEs (BDE-47, 99, 100, 153, 154, 183, 209), TDCPP, DBDPE, EH-TBB and BEHTBP. Older CRT TVs had the highest concentration of BDE-209 of all products tested. This was followed by higher concentrations of HFRs in PCs, Audio/Video (A/V) devices, small household appliances (HHAs) and flat screen TVs. The removal of HFRs from polymer surfaces using wipes supports concerns that HFRs could be transferred from these surfaces to hands as a result of direct contact with HFR-containing products. Surface wipe testing shows promise for screening additive HFRs. In comparison, the Br-content obtained using a handheld XRF analyzer did not correspond to concentrations obtained from surface wipe testing.

Language: en