Exposure of Canadian electronic waste dismantlers to flame retardants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure of e-waste workers to eight halogenated and five organophosphate ester flame retardant chemicals (FRs) was studied at a Canadian e-waste dismantling facility. FR concentrations were measured in air and dust samples collected at a central location and at four work benches over five-24 hour periods spanning two weeks. The highest concentrations in air from workbenches were of BDE-209 (median 156 ng m−3), followed by Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP, median 59 ng m−3). Dust concentrations at the workbenches were higher than those measured at the central location, consistent with the release of contaminated dust during dismantling. Dust concentrations from the workbenches were also dominated by BDE-209 (median 96,300 ng g−1), followed by Triphenyl phosphate (TPhP, median 47,000 ng g−1). Most FRs were in coarse particles 5.6–18 μm diameter and ~30% were in respirable particles (<~3 μm). Exposure estimates indicated that dust ingestion accounted for 63% of total FR exposure; inhalation and dermal absorption contributed 35 and 2%, respectively. Some air and dust concentrations as well as some estimated exposures in this formal facility in a high-income country exceeded those from informal e-waste facilities located in low and middle income countries. Although there is demonstrated toxicity of some FRs, FR exposure in the e-waste industry has received minimal attention and occupational limits do not exist for most FRs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".