Organophosphate esters (OPEs) in Chinese foodstuffs: Dietary intake estimation via a market basket method, and suspect screening using high-resolution mass spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite of the ubiquity of organophosphate esters (OPEs) in various environmental matrices, information regarding the dietary intakes of OPEs is currently limited. To better understand dietary exposure and intake, the present study investigated 11 OPE flame retardants (FRs) in 105 composite food samples divided into 9 food categories, collected in 2018 and based on the contents of a typical Chinese food market basket. Nine OPEs, including triethyl phosphate (TEP), tributyl phosphate (TNBP), tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), tris(2-chloroisopropyl) phosphate (TCIPP), triphenyl phosphate (TPHP), 2-ethylhexyl-diphenyl phosphate (EHDPP), tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (TBOEP), tris(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (TEHP) and tris(methyl-phenyl) phosphate (TMPP), were measurable above the method limits of quantifications (MLOQs) in at least one of the analyzed samples. Among the 9 food categories, sweets were contaminated most severely with a mean sum (Σ) OPE concentration of 10.34 ng/g wet weight (ww). Regardless the food categories, EHDPP and TEP were the predominant OPEs with mean concentrations of 1.12 and 0.95 ng/g ww, respectively. In addition, the levels of OPEs in "processed foods" were significantly (unpaired t-test, p < 0.01) higher than those in "non-processed foods". Based on the measured OPE concentrations, we estimated daily per capita dietary intakes of ΣOPEs for Chinese adult population to be 44.3 ng/kg bw/day, that was mainly contributed by TCEP (14.3 ng/kg bw/day), TEP (12.7 ng/kg bw/day) and EHDPP (8.4 ng/kg bw/day). In addition to these 9 detected OPEs, further suspect screening in the combined extracts of foodstuffs by use of high-resolution spectrometry revealed a novel OP-FR, triphenyl phosphine oxide (TPPO). The highlight findings in this study were: 1) the amount of OPE via dietary intakes for the Chinese population is generally in the same order of magnitude as for other countries, i.e. the Swedish, Belgian and Australian adult population, and far less than the reference dosage value of each OPE (hazard index ≪ 1); 2) the total dietary intakes of OPEs were dominated by cereals, approximately accounting for 52.2%; and 3) the first reported detection of the novel OP-FR, TPPO, in foodstuff samples.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".