Exposure to Organophosphate Ester Flame Retardants in the Occupational Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: Flame retardants (FR) are commonly used in consumer products, electronics, and safety equipment. Organophosphate esters (OPEs) are a sub-class of FRs and are widely used in various industries. Occupational risk of exposure is expected for many workers in various industries. However, the evidence of occupational exposure to OPE FRs is limited. Objectives: This study aimed to summarize evidence of occupational exposure to OPE FRs. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using Scopus (April-2022) and Google Scholar (January-2022). Search terms included ""occupational"", ""exposure"", ""flame retardants"", ""organophosphate"" and similar. Studies with quantitative measures of OPE exposure in workplaces were retained. Information on sample types, exposure levels, routes of exposure, and contextual information was extracted and summarized. Results: To-date, 15 studies have met the inclusion criteria. Groups most frequently assessed for OPE exposure include workers in e-waste recycling facilities and constructions. Published studies have described inhalation exposure, incidental ingestion, and dermal absorption routes. Sampling methods included active air sampling, passive air sampling, biological sampling, and dermal sampling. Triphenyl phosphate (TPhP), Tris(2-chloroisopropyl) phosphate (TCIPP), and Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) were the three most common sampled OPEs. Conclusions: There is evidence of OPE exposure in a limited number of industries and occupations at levels higher than the general population. The adverse health effects associated with OPE exposure included reproductive complications, endocrine disruption, and potential carcinogenicity. More research is needed to understand the prevalence and level of occupational exposure to OPE FRs and the potential work-related health impacts.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".