Halogenated flame retardants and organophosphate esters in the air of electronic waste recycling facilities: Evidence of high concentrations and multiple exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In response to a worldwide increase in production of electronic waste, the e-recycling industry is rapidly rowing. E-recycling workers are exposed to many potentially toxic contaminants, among which flame retardants (FRs), mainly suspected of being endocrine disruptors, are thought to be the most prevalent. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an exposure assessment of four chemical groups of FRs in Canadian e-recycling facilities, and to identify the main cofactors of exposure. METHODS: Personal air samples were collected over a workday for 85 workers in six e-recycling facilities, grouped into three facility sizes, and for 15 workers in control commercial waste facilities. Total particulate matter was measured by gravimetry with stationary air samples. FRs were collected on OSHA versatile samplers, which allow particulate and vapor phases collection. Fifteen polybrominated diphenyl ether congeners (PBDEs), nine novel brominated (NBFRs), two chlorinated (ClFRs), and fourteen organophosphate ester (OPEs) flame retardants were analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Sociodemographic data, tasks performed and materials processed by participating workers were recorded. Tobit regressions were used to identify cofactors of exposure, and their conclusions were corroborated using semi-parametric reverse Cox regressions. RESULTS: . The most important cofactor of exposure was the size of the e-recycling facility, with the largest one presenting on average 12 times the concentrations found in the control facility. Among tasks as potential cofactors of exposure, manual dismantling and baler operation exposed workers to some of the highest concentrations of PBDEs and ClFRs. There was a reduction of up to 27% in exposure to FRs associated with a 3-year increase in seniority. Finally, particulate matter concentrations in e-recycling facilities were highly correlated with all chemical classes except OPEs, and were higher in the large facility. CONCLUSIONS: Among the FRs analysed, PBDE exposure was particularly high in e-recycling. Dust and particulate matter reduction strategies in these workplaces, together with training on proper working practices would certainly be important first steps to lower occupational exposures and prevent potential health effects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".