Occurrence and human exposure risk assessment of brominated and organophosphate flame retardants in indoor dust in Ha Noi, Viet Nam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread use of flame retardants in commercial and industrial products has led to their increased presence in the environment. Recently, indoor dust has been identified as a major human exposure route for flame retardants. In the present study, brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) were examined in indoor dust samples collected from apartments in Hanoi, Vietnam. OPFRs were detected at the highest concentrations with the mean concentration of ∑OPFRs was 8700 ng/g (ranged from 1400 to 18000 ng/g). Tris(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCPP) and tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (TBOEP) were the most abundant OPFRs in all indoor dust samples, accounting for 50 % (ranged 22 – 69 %) and 33 % (ranged 16 – 63 %) of the total OPFRs levels, respectively. The mean concentrations of total polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and total novel brominated flame retardants (NBFRs) in these samples were 200 ng/g (ranged 67 - 480 ng/g) and 310 ng/g (ranged 56 - 1500 ng/g), respectively. Polybrominated diphenyl ether congener 209 (BDE 209) and decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE) were the most predominant components in PBDEs and NBFRs, respectively. Other BFRs were only found in some samples at very low levels. The estimated daily intake doses (IDs) of FRs via dust ingestion were calculated for both adults and children. The results revealed that the estimated levels of compound exposure through dust ingestion, even under the high-exposure scenario were also below their reference dose (RfD) values, indicating that human health risks from exposure to flame retardants (FRs) via indoor dust ingestion are not significant.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".