ArticleToxics2021
Fast and Environment-Friendly GC-MS Method for Eleven Organophosphorus Flame Retardants in Indoor Air, Dust, and Skin Wipes.
Article in Toxics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Organophosphorus based flame retardants (OPFRs) extensively used as alternatives to banned polybrominated diphenyl ethers and hexabromocyclododecane have been garnering interest due to the possibility that these compounds may have less significant impact on human and environmental health. Long pretreatment time, larger consumption of organic solvents, matrix interferents, and cross-contamination were found in previous studies while assessing OPFRs in indoor environments. We developed and optimized the extraction methods and simultaneous analysis of 11 OPFRs in indoor air, dust and skin wipe samples using the GC-MS approach. The proposed methods were validated using a standard addition approach, dust SRM 2585 and the real samples. Our procedures enabled the analyst to effectively limit coextracted interferences and simultaneous analytical methods of 11 target OPFRs for three matrices were achieved. The validation was performed according to standard guidelines (relative errors were identified by the analytes: -19% to 18% for indoor air, -11% to 14% for house dust, -15% to 16% for skin wipe). Good practices for quality assurance and quality control were well stated. The current high-Eco-scored methods could be categorized as "an excellent green analysis". All analytes for the target OPFRs were detected in the real samples of indoor air, house dust and skin wipe collected from ten Taiwanese homes. Tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate, tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate and tris(chloroisopropyl) phosphate were the most abundant OPFRs. Rapid, green and cost-effective GC-MS methods were developed and validated for the analysis of eleven OPFRs in indoor air, house dust and skin wipes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.