Organophosphate Ester Flame Retardants: Are They a Regrettable Substitution for Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the use of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and the entire class of organohalogen flame retardants, is declining, the use of organophosphate esters flame retardants (OPFRs) is increasing. In this paper, we ask whether OPFRs are a better choice than PBDEs. To address this question, we compared OPFRs with PBDEs for a wide range of properties. OPFRs exposure is ubiquitous in people and in outdoor and indoor environments, and are now often found at higher levels compared to PBDE peak exposure levels. Furthermore, data from toxicity testing, epidemiological studies, and risk assessments all suggest that there are health concerns at current exposure levels for both halogenated and non-halogenated OPFRs. Obtaining the scientific evidence needed for regulation of OPFRs can take many years. Given the large number of OPFRs in use, manufacturers can move towards healthier and safer products by developing innovative ways to reduce fire hazard for electronics enclosures, upholstered furniture, building materials and other consumer products without adding flame retardant chemicals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".