Flame Retardant Transfers from U.S. Households (Dust and Laundry Wastewater) to the Aquatic Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Levels of flame retardants in house dust and a transport pathway from homes to the outdoor environment were investigated in communities near the Columbia River in Washington state (WA). Residential house dust and laundry wastewater were collected from 20 homes in Vancouver and Longview, WA and analyzed for a suite of flame retardants to test the hypothesis that dust collecting on clothing and transferring to laundry water is a source of flame retardants to wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and subsequently to waterways. Influent and effluent from two WWTPs servicing these communities were also analyzed for flame retardants. A total of 21 compounds were detected in house dust, including polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), 2-ethylhexyl-2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate (TBB or EH-TBB), bis(2-ethylhexyl) 3,4,5,6-tetrabromophthalate (TBPH), 1,2-bis(2,4,6,-tribromophenoxy)ethane (BTBPE) and decabromodiphenylethane (DBDPE), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD or HBCDD), tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), and three chlorinated organophosphate flame retardants (ClOPFRs), tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP or TDCIPP), tris(1-chloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TCPP or TCIPP), and tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP). Levels ranged from 3.6 to 82,700 ng g(-1) (dry weight). Of the 21 compounds detected in dust, 18 were also detected in laundry wastewater. Levels ranged from 47.1 to 561,000 ng L(-1). ClOPFRs were present at the highest concentrations in both dust and laundry wastewater, making up 72% of total flame retardant mass in dust and 92% in laundry wastewater. Comparison of flame retardant levels in WWTP influents to estimates based on laundry wastewater levels indicated that laundry wastewater may be the primary source to these WWTPs. Mass loadings to the Columbia River from each treatment plant were by far the highest for the ClOPFRs and ranged up to 114 kg/yr for TCPP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".