ReviewMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Spatiotemporal Distribution and Analysis of Organophosphate Flame Retardants in the Environmental Systems: A Review.
Review in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging flame retardants in the marine environment: A comprehensive review of occurrence, fate and analytical challenges.Eco-Environment & Health · 2025Review
- Organophosphate Triesters and Their Transformation Products in Sediments of Mangrove Wetlands in the Beibu Gulf, South China Sea.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Prenatal exposures to organophosphate ester metabolite mixtures and children's neurobehavioral outcomes in the MADRES pregnancy cohort.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2023Article
- Flame Retardant Coatings: Additives, Binders, and Fillers.Polymers · 2022Review
- A scientometric analysis of research trends on emerging contaminants in the field of cancer in 2012-2021.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
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.
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.