2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112691
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Occurrence, distribution and risk assessment of organophosphate ester flame retardants and plasticizers in surface seawater of the West Pacific

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
5
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
6
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since most previous studies concentrated on dissolved OPEs, which also dominated in this study, a specialized comparison was conducted for dissolved OPEs. The dissolved OPE concentrations of this study (340 ± 380 ng/L) were comparable to the mean OPE concentrations in worldwide coastal waters, such as the German Bight (400 ng/L) (Wang et al., 2020) and the Amazon River mouth (460 ng/L) (Schmidt et al., 2019), but higher than those observed in the open West Pacific Ocean (25 ng/L) (Xiao et al., 2021) and the remote North Atlantic‐Arctic Ocean (2.9 ng/L) (Li et al., 2017) (Table S12 in Supporting Information ). However, compared to previous studies on dissolved OPEs in the surface water of coastal China Seas, our results were overall comparable but slightly lower than the mean OPE concentrations detected in the Lianyungang (570 ng/L) (Hu et al., 2014), Pearl River Estuary (630 ng/L), Yellow River Estuary (870 ng/L) (Lai et al., 2019) and Laizhou Bay (1,200 ng/L) (Lian et al., 2021).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Since most previous studies concentrated on dissolved OPEs, which also dominated in this study, a specialized comparison was conducted for dissolved OPEs. The dissolved OPE concentrations of this study (340 ± 380 ng/L) were comparable to the mean OPE concentrations in worldwide coastal waters, such as the German Bight (400 ng/L) (Wang et al., 2020) and the Amazon River mouth (460 ng/L) (Schmidt et al., 2019), but higher than those observed in the open West Pacific Ocean (25 ng/L) (Xiao et al., 2021) and the remote North Atlantic‐Arctic Ocean (2.9 ng/L) (Li et al., 2017) (Table S12 in Supporting Information ). However, compared to previous studies on dissolved OPEs in the surface water of coastal China Seas, our results were overall comparable but slightly lower than the mean OPE concentrations detected in the Lianyungang (570 ng/L) (Hu et al., 2014), Pearl River Estuary (630 ng/L), Yellow River Estuary (870 ng/L) (Lai et al., 2019) and Laizhou Bay (1,200 ng/L) (Lian et al., 2021).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Compared to previous studies for dissolved OPEs in marine and coastal areas, the results of this work showed relatively low levels, which are 2−3 orders of magnitude lower than those detected in the German Bight, 42 Amazon River mouth, 43 Tokyo Bay, 17 and the Chinese marginal seas. 44,45 In contrast, the OPE concentrations of this work are in line with those measured in the East China Sea, 46 the Arctic, 38 the Pacific, 47,48 and the South China Sea. 25 The concentrations of TEP (measured with LLE) ranged from 400 to 7500 pg/L with an average of 2000 ± 1450 pg/L, which showed the highest concentration among the selected OPEs in this work.…”
Section: Opes In Seawatersupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Three Cl-OPEs dominated the composition profile, with a mean contribution of 72%, followed by a 22% contribution of alkyl-OPEs and a 6% contribution of aryl-OPEs. Compared to previous studies for dissolved OPEs in marine and coastal areas, the results of this work showed relatively low levels, which are 2–3 orders of magnitude lower than those detected in the German Bight, Amazon River mouth, Tokyo Bay, and the Chinese marginal seas. , In contrast, the OPE concentrations of this work are in line with those measured in the East China Sea, the Arctic, the Pacific, , and the South China Sea …”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 71%
“…Compared to SCCPs, no information is currently available on the MCCPs and LCCPs in seawater, which their lower solubility can explain. , Except for the coastal waters, there is currently no measurement of CPs in open and high-latitude waters, strongly indicating the influence of human inputs into the ocean. In addition, plastics are the carriers of chemical additives into the sea, potentially playing the role of in situ sources of CPs via plastics leaching. ,,, Plastics have been reported to be widely distributed in remote areas, including the deep-sea, Antarctic and Arctic regions. Moreover, other POPs have been detected in the surface seawater of remote areas, like the western Pacific, North Atlantic, and Arctic. Theoretically, CPs have possibly reached these remote areas due to physicochemical characteristics similar to those of other POPs.…”
Section: Distribution Of Cps In the Marine Environmentmentioning
confidence: 99%