2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.10.038
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distributions and compositions of old and emerging flame retardants in the rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soil in an e-waste contaminated area of South China

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

5
19
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
(46 reference statements)
5
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Concentrations measured in this study were lower than those found in eucalyptus foliage (0.45e16.7 ng g À1 ) and pine needles (0.51e51.9 ng g À1 ) at another e-waste site, but close to those measured in plant samples from the reference site (0.09e2.46 ng g À1 ) , which indicated that DPs were not the dominant contaminant at this e-waste recycling site. This was also confirmed by the relatively low concentrations of DPs in the corresponding soils described in our previous study (Wang et al, 2016). Previous studies (Tian et al, 2012 reported that concentrations of DBDPE were lower than those of BDE 209 in pine needle and air samples around e-waste contaminated sites.…”
supporting
confidence: 70%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Concentrations measured in this study were lower than those found in eucalyptus foliage (0.45e16.7 ng g À1 ) and pine needles (0.51e51.9 ng g À1 ) at another e-waste site, but close to those measured in plant samples from the reference site (0.09e2.46 ng g À1 ) , which indicated that DPs were not the dominant contaminant at this e-waste recycling site. This was also confirmed by the relatively low concentrations of DPs in the corresponding soils described in our previous study (Wang et al, 2016). Previous studies (Tian et al, 2012 reported that concentrations of DBDPE were lower than those of BDE 209 in pine needle and air samples around e-waste contaminated sites.…”
supporting
confidence: 70%
“…In this study, the values of f anti (ratio of anti-DP to total DPs) ranged from 0.48 to 0.67 (mean ¼ 0.57) in shoots and 0.46 to 0.75 (mean ¼ 0.61) in roots (Table S1), lower than the values in a commercial DPs product (0.75e0.8) (Qiu et al, 2007), but higher than those reported in rhizosphere soils (ranging from 0.47 to 0.61, with an average of 0.53) (Wang et al, 2016). This was an indication that DPs in the study area may not originate from raw commercial DPs products, and anti-DP and syn-DP underwent different environmental processes.…”
Section: Homologue Pattern Of Hfrs In Vegetablesmentioning
confidence: 65%
See 3 more Smart Citations