Premium
Comparison of laboratory and field results for prediction of the environmental behavior of phosphate esters
Author(s) -
Muir D. C. G.,
Grift N. P.,
Lockhart W. L.
Publication year - 1982
Publication title -
environmental toxicology and chemistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.1
H-Index - 171
eISSN - 1552-8618
pISSN - 0730-7268
DOI - 10.1002/etc.5620010202
Subject(s) - pimephales promelas , phosphate , environmental chemistry , bioconcentration , volatilisation , chemistry , lemna minor , triphenyl phosphate , sorption , rainbow trout , sediment , bioaccumulation , fire retardant , fish <actinopterygii> , ecology , biology , aquatic plant , organic chemistry , fishery , paleontology , macrophyte , adsorption , minnow
Two phosphate ester flame retardants, triphenyl phosphate (TPP) and 2‐ethylhexyldi‐phenyl phosphate (EHDPP) (both 14 C‐labelled) were added to two small artificial ponds (3 m 3 volume) to give water concentrations of 60 μg/L for each compound. Both phosphate esters had half‐lives of about 15 h in the water column and showed rapid sorption to bottom sediment. At 24 h posttreatment an estimated 28% of EHDPP and 9% of TPP added could not be accounted for by measurements of radioactivity in water, sediment and biota. Calculations of volatilization rates from water of the two compounds suggested that losses of EHDPP may have been due in part to volatilization. Bioconcentration of TPP by fathead minnows ( Pimephales promelas ) was similar to that predicted from laboratory studies on the uptake and clearance of TPP by rainbow trout ( Salmo gairdneri ). Prediction of the bioconcentration of EHDPP by duckweed ( Lemna minor ) from laboratory studies underestimated the rapid uptake of this compound observed in the ponds.