Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2021) 28:49507–49528

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15861-8

REVIEW ARTICLE

A review of environmental occurrence, analysis,

bioaccumulation, and toxicity of organophosphate esters
Tadiyose Girma Bekele 1,2 & Hongxia Zhao 1 & Jun Yang 3 & Ruth Gebretsadik Chegen 4 & Jingwen Chen 1 &
Seblework Mekonen 5 & Abdul Qadeer 6

Received: 30 March 2021 / Accepted: 3 August 2021 / Published online: 10 August 2021
# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The ban and restriction of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and major brominated flame retardants (BFRs), including
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), due to their confirmed detrimental effects
on wildlife and humans have paved the way for the wide application of organophosphate esters (OPEs). OPEs have been
extensively used as alternative flame retardants, plasticizer, and antifoaming agents in various industrial and consumer products,
which leads to an increase in production, usage, and discharge in the environment. We compile recent information on the
production/usage and physicochemical properties of OPEs and discussed and compared the available sample treatment and
analysis techniques of OPEs, including extraction, clean-up, and instrumental analysis. The occurrence of OPEs in sediment,
aquatic biota, surface, and drinking water is documented. Toxicity, human exposure, and ecological risks of OPEs were sum-
marized; toxicological data of several OPEs shows different adverse health effects on aquatic organisms and humans. Much
attention was given to document evidence regarding the bioaccumulation and biomagnification potential of OPEs in aquatic
organisms. Finally, identified research gaps and avenues for future studies are forwarded.

Keywords Organophosphate esters . Environmental occurrence . Bioaccumulation . Biomagnification . Toxicity . Human

exposure

Introduction materials (van der Veen and de Boer 2012). Brominated

To decrease the flammability/combustibility of consumer
and industrial products, researchers focused on the syn-
thesis and development of flame retardants (FRs). FRs
have different compositions. They may have phosphorus,
chlorine, bromine, metals, nitrogen, molybdenum, borax,
etc., and they are important to enhance the fire safety of
flame retardants (BFRs) have been extensively used for
decades to maintain the fire safety of products. The ban
and restriction of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
some major BFRs, e.g., polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs) congeners, particularly Penta-BDE and Octa-
BDE formulations were added to persistent organic pol-
lutants (POPs) list of the Stockholm Convention since

Responsible editor: Hongwen Sun

* Hongxia Zhao 3
Department of Neurology, The First Hospital of China Medical
hxzhao@dlut.edu.cn University, Shenyang 110001, China
* Jun Yang 4
yangjun0224@sina.com Department of Marine Engineering, Dalian Maritime University,
No.1 Linghai Road, High-tech Zone District, Dalian 116026, China
1
Key Laboratory of Industrial Ecology and Environmental 5
Department of Environmental Health Sciences and Technology,
Engineering (MOE), School of Environmental Science and Jimma University, 378 Jimma, Ethiopia
Technology, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024,
China 6
National Engineering Laboratory for Lake Pollution Control and
2
Department of Natural Resource Management, Arba Minch Ecological Restoration, Chinese Research Academy of
University, 21 Arba Minch, Ethiopia Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China
49508
2009, due to their confirmed persistence, long-range at-
mospheric transport (LRAT), bioaccumulation, and/or
toxicity in the environment, wildlife, and humans (van
der Veen and de Boer 2012; Stasinska et al. 2014;
Abbasi et al. 2016; UNEP 2019), have paved the way
for the use of organophosphate esters (OPEs). As a result,
in the past decades, the production and consumption of
OPEs has increased and covered 30% of global FRs usage
in 2013 (Wang et al. 2015a, b, c; Wei et al. 2015). In
addition to being used extensively as FRs, OPEs have
also been widely used as plasticizers and antifoaming
agents in several industrial and consumer products
(Marklund et al. 2003; van der Veen and de Boer 2012;
Wei et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2017b). Therefore, the pro-
duction and usage of OPEs could be more extensive than
PBDEs, which are simply used as flame retardants. It
should be noted that terms like “emerging,” “new,” and
“alternate” have been commonly used when referring to
organophosphate ester flame retardants and plasticizers.
Several thousand industrial and consumer products are
currently listed to contain OPEs, as the use and produc-
tion of these synthetic chemicals increases, so will their
discharge into different environmental compartments, es-
pecially into freshwater and marine environments over
their entire lifecycle, including production, usage, trans-
portation, recycling, and disposal processes (van der Veen
and de Boer 2012; Wei et al. 2015; Wolschke et al. 2015).
As a result, OPEs have been detected in various environ-
mental matrices worldwide such as dust (Cristale et al.
2016; Velázquez-Gómez et al. 2019; De la Torre et al.
2020; Zhao et al. 2020; Ali et al. 2021), water (Bekele
et al. 2019; He et al. 2019; Lai et al. 2019; Sutton et al.
2019), air (Salamova et al. 2013; Wolschke et al. 2016;
He et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2020), biota (Greaves et al.
2016; Bekele et al. 2019, 2021; He et al. 2019; Liu et al.
2019a, 2019b), sediment, and soil (Yadav et al. 2018;
Zeng et al. 2018; Zha et al. 2018; Cristale et al. 2019;
Fabiańska et al. 2019; Mo et al. 2019; Wang et al.
2020a). Besides, OPEs have been determined in different
foodstuffs and drinking water (Kim and Kannan 2018; Li
et al. 2019a). The ubiquity of OPEs in food, drinking
water, and human environments and their diverse toxic-
ities render them a potential threat to human health
through diverse exposure routes, including the dietary in-
take, dermal contact, dust ingestion, and inhalation of air
(Xu et al. 2016; Poma et al. 2017, 2018; Zhu et al. 2020;
Hou et al. 2021). Several studies have already reported
OPEs in human breast milk, serum, hair, urine, nails,
and placenta (Cequier et al. 2015; Ding et al. 2016;
Qiao et al. 2016; He et al. 2018a, b; Gao et al. 2019;
Xu et al. 2019a; Hou et al. 2020a; Li et al. 2020; Percy
et al. 2020). Thus, they become an emerging concern to
the environment and human health. Therefore, it is
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
important to review and highlight the properties, produc-
tion/usage, environmental levels, toxicity, and human ex-
posure risks of OPEs.
Several reviews about OPEs have been conducted to
provide information mainly on the environmental occur-
rence (van der Veen and de Boer 2012; Wei et al.
2015; Yang et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2020c), human
exposure (Wei et al. 2015; Hou et al. 2016), and ana-
lytical methods (Pantelaki and Voutsa 2019; Wang et al.
2020b). These studies mainly addressed limited analysis
and environmental compartments, and latest results are
still not reviewed. Besides, a comprehensive review of
studies focusing on different environmental compart-
ments, detailed analytical methods, toxicity, and human
exposure is still lacking; thus, more information is re-
quired. Given this, we made a comprehensive review
and compiled recent information in the literature and
gave more emphasis on production/usage, biological
sample treatment and analysis, environmental occur-
rences, toxicity, human exposure, ecological risks, and
the bioaccumulation potential of OPEs (the basic
information of selected OPEs is given in Table 1 and
Table S1, and chemical structures of selected OPEs can
be found in Supporting Information Figure S1). In ad-
dition, identified knowledge gaps and avenues for future
studies are forwarded.
Methodology
In this review paper, the most common online database, Web of
Science, was used to search for scientific literatures published up to
2021 using the following keywords (and their combinations): “or-
ganophosphate esters,” “organophosphate flame retardants,”
“OPEs,” “OPFRs,” “occurrence,” “bioaccumulation,”
“biomagnification,” “toxicity,” “human exposure,” “risk assess-
ment,” “biota,” “surface water,” “drinking water,” and “sediment.”
Searching was carried out by two authors, following that further
inspection was done and duplicates were excluded from the col-
lection by screening titles and abstracts of researches. The follow-
ing major inclusion criteria were used: (1) the studies must be in
English and published in a scientific journal, (2) those studies
reported the environmental occurrence and or bioaccumulation
or toxicity of OPEs, and (3) studies reported the detailed sample
treatment and analysis of OPEs. Using the selection criteria, further
screening was conducted by the authors, and the final references
were critically reviewed. Overall, this review article mainly pre-
sented recent studies comprehensively and concisely; however,
attention should be given in comparing different concentration data
mainly lipid weight (lw), dry weight (dw), and wet weight (ww),
and special caution should be made when comparing ∑OPE data
as the number of OPE congeners varies among studies.
Table 1. Physicochemical properties of organophosphate esters (at 25 °C)

Full names of OPEs Acronym logKOW logKOC Water solubility Boiling Melting point (°C) Vapor pressure Henry’s Law
(mg/L) point (°C) (mm Hg) constant (atm/m3/mol)

Trimethyl phosphate TMP −0.65 1.1 3 × 105 197 −10 5.6 × 10−3 2.5 × 10−7
Triethyl phosphate TEP 0.8 1.68 5 × 105 216 −56 3.9 × 10−1 3.5 × 10−6
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528

Tri-n-butyl phosphate TBP 4 3.28 280 289 −80 1.2 × 10−3 1.8 × 10−4
Tripentyl phosphate TPeP 5.29 2.9 2.2 × 10−3
Tri-n-propyl phosphate TPrP 1.87 2.83 827 254 17 2.9 × 10−2 8.2 ×10−6
Trihexyl phosphate THP 7.45 5.43 9.1 354 86 7.0 × 10−5 1.1 × 10−4
Tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate TBEP 3.75 3.01 1.2 × 103 414 −70 2.1 × 10−7 1.3 × 10−11
Tris(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate TEHP 9.49 6.87 0.6 220 87 2.0 × 10−6 9.6 × 10−5
Tri-iso-butyl phosphate TiBP 3.6 3.05 3.72 264 16 1.3 × 10−2 2.8 × 10−4
Tris(2-choroethyl) phosphate TCEP 1.44 2.48 7.4 × 103 351 −55 1.1 × 10−4 3.3 × 10−6
Tris(2-chloroisopropyl) phosphate TCPP 2.59 2.21 1.6 × 103 359 72 1.9 × 10−6 6.0 × 10−8
Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate TDCP 3.85 2.35 1.5 457 88 7.4 × 10−8 2.6 × 10−9
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate TDBPP 4.29 8 5.5 1.9 × 10−5
Cresyl diphenyl phosphate CDPP 4.51 3.95 1.9 235 −38 4.7 × 10−6 4.4 × 10−8
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate EHDP 5.73 4.21 1.9 375 87 5 × 10−5 2.4 × 10−4
Tricresyl phosphate TCP 5.11 4.35 0.36 439 77 1.8 × 10−7 9.2 × 10−7
Triphenyl phosphate TPP 4.59 3.72 1.9 370 49 1.2 × 10−5 2 × 10−7
Triphenylphosphine oxide TPPO 2.87 2.94 62.8 463 87 2.6 × 10−8 5.3 × 10−10
Dimethyl methylphosphonate DMMP −0.61 0.59 3.2 × 105 181 −48 1.2 1.3 × 10−6
Di-n-butyl phosphate DnBP 2.29 250 4.3 × 10−9
Isopropyl phenyl phosphate IPPP 5.31 2.2 424 89 5.2 × 10−7 7.7 × 10−8

logKOW octanol−water partition coefficient, logKOC soil adsorption coefficient; the data are compiled from previous reports (Marklund et al. 2003; van der Veen and de Boer 2012; Wei et al. 2015; Li et al.
2019b; Yang et al. 2019).
49509
49510
Physicochemical properties
and production/usage of organophosphate
esters
Physicochemical properties of OPEs
Organophosphate esters can be divided into three main groups
based on their different chemical structures and functions (es-
ter functional groups): (1) halogenated alkyl-OPEs: TCPP,
TCEP, etc.; (2) non-halogenated alkyl-OPEs: TBEP, TEHP,
etc.; and (3) Aryl-OPEs: TPP, TCP, etc. Owing to their differ-
ent functional groups, OPEs have substantial differences in
their physicochemical properties (e.g., polarity, volatility,
and solubility) (Table 1) (Reemtsma et al. 2008). For example,
the presence of halogen gives an extended lifetime of the FRs
in the products by reducing its mobility in the polymer mole-
cule (van der Veen and de Boer 2012). In addition to the
halogens, the presence of nitrogen (nitrogen-containing
OPEs) provides a better flame retardant efficiency than those
OPEs without nitrogen. This is because nitrogen in nitrogen-
containing FRs is mainly used as a gas source which can dilute
the concentration of the oxygen near the flame and form a char
layer in condensed phase, which acts as a barrier/protective
layer against the heat and flame (Nguyen et al. 2012).
Due to the distinct nature of substituents, there is a consid-
erable difference in the physicochemical properties of OPEs in
the environment (Table 1 and Table S1). These properties
have been frequently used in the assessment of OPE fate in
various environmental matrices and their potential impacts on
biota, particularly in aquatic organisms (van der Veen and de
Boer 2012). Mainly, their water solubility, Henry’s law con-
stant, vapor pressure (VP), the octanol−water partition coeffi-
cient (KOW), and bioconcentration factor (BCF) showed a
considerable variation between congeners (Table 1). For ex-
ample, TCP had limited water solubility (0.36 mg/L) when
compared to TCEP (700 mg/L) (van der Veen and de Boer
2012). The solubility of OPEs decreases as the molecular
mass increases and vice versa. Like the water solubility of
OPEs, the KOW of OPEs is a decisive property that determines
their bioaccumulation potential in tissues of biota. The bioac-
cumulation potential of a substance is one of the leading con-
cerns for food safety and ecosystem health. Several findings
suggested that chemicals with higher KOW are more lipophilic
than hydrophilic. The logKOW values of OPEs vary substan-
tially among congeners, ranging from −9.8 to 10.6 (van der
Veen and de Boer 2012). However, the commonly used OPEs
have logKOW values ranging from −0.65 for TMP to 9.49 for
TEHP (van der Veen and de Boer 2012). As shown in Table 1,
most OPEs have a positive logKOW value, which indicates that
they are more lipophilic than hydrophilic. Meanwhile,
chemicals with very higher logKOW value become less bio-
available, and they bind themselves tightly with the organic
matters in the soil and sediment (Cao et al. 2017; Cui et al.
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
2017; Li et al. 2018; Yadav et al. 2018; Zha et al. 2018; Zhong
et al. 2018; Ren et al. 2019). Thus, soil and sediment are
among the major sinks of OPEs in the environment.
There is also a great variation in Henry’s law constant and
vapor pressure values of OPEs at 25 °C (Table 1). The wide
variation in Henry’s law constant values of OPEs shows that
the distribution of OPEs over air and aquatic environment is
significantly variable. In addition, those OPEs with higher
vapor pressures, i.e., TBP, TCEP, and TEP, are volatile and
easily diffuse into the air and deposited in large amount on
dust than the heavier/larger OPEs (van der Veen and de Boer
2012; Cristale et al. 2013; Wei et al. 2015).
Production/usage of OPEs
The use and production of OPEs can be tracked back several
hundreds of years but has increased rapidly in the past two de-
cades, due to the restriction and ban of main BFRs. Many OPEs
are produced in large volumes (greater than 1000 t per year)
(Cequier et al. 2014), and their level in the applied materials
can reach percentage amounts by weight (Alaee et al. 2003;
Kajiwara et al. 2011). In 1992, the global consumption of
OPEs was only 100,000 t/year (Hou et al. 2016), while between
1995 and 2001, OPE consumption has increased from 108,000
to 186,000 t (Marklund et al. 2005; van der Veen and de Boer
2012; Lee et al. 2018) and climbed to 210,000 t/year in 2004
(Makinen et al. 2009). Similarly, in the past 10 years, the global
consumption volume of OPEs has increased rapidly from
500,000 to 680,000 t from 2011 to 2015 (Hou et al. 2016), and
more recent figures estimate 1,050,000 t/year for 2018
(Figure 1a) (He et al. 2017a). Such a rise comes mainly from
increased usage of OPEs in several countries, including Japan,
China, and Western Europe (Figure 1). In Western Europe,
OPEs are among the high-production volume chemicals, and
their use as FRs sharply increased from 58,000 in 1998 to
83,000 t/year in 2001. It climbed from 85,000 in 2005 to
91,000 t/year in 2006, which might be explained by the fact that
OPEs are often used as FRs, plasticizers, anti-foaming, and re-
placement of PBDEs (Figure 1b) (Reemtsma et al. 2008; Wei
et al. 2015). On the other hand, in Japan (Figure 1c), the total use
of OPEs has increased from 22,000 to 45,000 t/year from 2001 to
2005, and approximately 87,500 t were consumed in 2010
(Möller et al. 2012; RSD 2010; Wei et al. 2015). The consump-
tion of OPEs in China in 2007 was 70,000 t and increased to
100,000 t in 2011, and approximately 300,000 t were consumed
in 2013, and it is estimated to increase around 15% per year
(Figure 1d) (Wang et al. 2010; Zhong et al. 2017). As the eco-
nomic development and growth of China is among the leading
countries, the increasing trends of OPE consumption is expected
even greater than 15% per year, due to the high production of
industrial and consumer products which needs the application of
OPEs (Wang et al. 2010; Zhong et al. 2017).
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
Fig. 1 Consumptions of
organophosphate ester flame
retardants and plasticizers in
different regions. a Global, b
Western Europe, c Japan, and d
China. Data are compiled from
previous studies (Björklund et al.
2004; H. He et al. 2017a, b; Hou
et al. 2016; Lee et al. 2018;
Marklund et al. 2005; Möller et al.
2012; Reemtsma et al. 2008; RSD
2010; Wang et al. 2010; Wei et al.
2015; Zhong et al. 2017).
Most of OPEs are recognized as FRs and plasticizers.
However, there are still various uses of these emerging
chemicals, such as their use as additives to floor polishes
and as stabilizers for anti-foaming to floor polishes, hydraulic
fluids, lacquers, and lubricants. The halogenated OPEs are
primarily used as FRs, while the non-halogenated ones are
frequently used as plasticizers (Andresen et al. 2004).
Generally, OPEs are used as additives to different materials,
such as textiles, furniture, mattresses, automotive, electronics,
rubber, polyurethane foams, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plas-
tics, building materials, antistatic agent, cotton, cellulose,
glues, epoxy resins, and phenolics resins (Andresen et al.
2004; van der Veen and de Boer 2012). For example, TPP,
TEHP, and TCP are largely used in PVC and unsaturated
polyester resins for their plasticizing properties. The most
widely used halogenated OPEs (i.e., TCPP, TCEP, and
TDCP) are primarily applied in rigid and flexible polyure-
thane foams (Marklund et al. 2003). In addition, TBP,
TBEP, and TPP are also used as antiwear agents pressure
additives in lubricants, hydraulic fluids, motor oils, and trans-
mission fluids (Regnery and Püttmann 2010; van der Veen
and de Boer 2012). For some industrial or consumer products,
several OPEs are applied. In Table S2, an overview of OPEs
with their applications is given.
Sample treatment and analysis of OPEs
Extraction of OPEs
Only few extraction methods of OPEs from the biota samples
have been developed and optimized (Table S3).
Accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) and ultrasonic ex-
traction are the most commonly employed methods for
49511
the recovery of OPEs from biota samples; Soxhlet ex-
traction and microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) are
also frequently used.
Accelerated solvent extraction
ASE, also referred as pressurized liquid extraction (PLE), is an
automated system that uses organic solvents for extracting
organic compounds from solid and semisolid samples at ele-
vated pressures (500−3000 psi) and temperatures (50−200 °C)
above the boiling point of the solvents. The US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has recommend-
ed ASE method as a standard method (EPA-3545A in update
III of the USEPA SW-846 methods) because of its advantages
of stable recovery and savings in time for short periods (5−10
min), labor, and solvent costs over traditional extraction meth-
od (Richter et al. 1996; Dionex 2011).
In comparison to OPE extraction methods, ASE has been
successfully implemented to the pretreatment of OPEs in var-
ious biological matrices in the last few years. For instance,
Gao et al. (2014) developed an ASE-solid-phase
microextraction (SPME), followed by gas chromatography-
flame photometric detector (GC-FPD) method for the deter-
mination of eight OPEs in fish. The ASE was operating at 150
°C and 1500 psi, using a 9:1 (v/v) solution of water and ace-
tonitrile. The recoveries of OPEs were from 79.8 to 107.3%,
and relative standard deviations (RSDs) were below 9%. The
method detection limits (MDLs) were in the range of 0.010–
0.208 ng/g. Chen et al. (2012) proposed a method for the
analysis of 12 OPEs in herring gull eggs based on ASE-
SPE-GPC, followed-by LC-MS/MS determination. The fol-
lowing ASE parameters were employed: extraction solvent
hexane/dichloromethane (Hex:DCM 1:1, v/v); pressure:
1500 psi; and temperature: 100 °C. Method quantification
49512
limits (MQLs) and instrumental detection limits (IDLs)
ranged from 0.06 to 0.20 ng/g and 0.01 to 0.12 ng/mL, respec-
tively. The mean recoveries of 12 OPEs ranged from 67 to
104%, and RSD was less than 16% for all congeners. Overall,
ASE is becoming popular, and different solvent combinations
have been used for the extraction of OPEs from biological
matrices, e.g., Hex/DCM (1:1, v/v) (McGoldrick et al.
2014), Hex/DCM (4:1, v/v) (Hou et al. 2017), ethyl acetate/
cyclohexane (5:2 v/v) and cyclohexane/diethyl ether (9:1 v/v)
(Sundkvist et al. 2010), DCM/Hex (1:1, v/v) and acetone/Hex
(1:1, v/v) (Su et al. 2014), and DCM/acetone (1:1, v/v)
(Hallanger et al. 2015) (Table S3).
Ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE)
UAE is a widely used technique; it is fast (10−30 min), simple
(easy procedures), and feasible, which can meet the standards
of most laboratories. Chu and Letcher (2015) proposed a fast
UAE method for extraction of 13 OPEs from the biota sam-
ples (herring gull egg, pork liver, and fish tissues) and cleaned
up further by dispersive solid phase extraction (d-ESP),
followed by ultra-high performance LC-MS/MS determina-
tion. The recovery of the method ranged from 54 to 113%,
and RSD was less than 17%, with MQLs ranging from 0.05 to
0.50 ng/g wet weight for all samples. In another study, Santín
et al. (2016) established a USE-LC-QqLIT-MS (QqLIT =
quadrupole-linear ion trap) for the determination of sixteen
OPEs in fish tissue samples. The recoveries of OPEs were
from 45 to 115%, and RSDs were below 25%. MQLs and
MDLs were ranged from 1.12 to 38.8 ng/g lipid weight (lw)
and 0.34–11.6 ng/g lw, respectively. The developed method
was applied to the detection of OPEs in fish collected from the
Llobregat River, Spain, and 13 major OPEs were detected.
Soxhlet extraction
Soxhlet extraction technique has been used for long time in
analytical procedures and is known for its time consuming
(i.e., needs at least 24 h of extraction) and demand for higher
volumes of solvents. Recently, Liu et al. 2018a, b) established
a Soxhlet-SPE based method combined with GC−MS/MS for
the quantification of 12 OPEs in fish. The recoveries of
OPEs were in the range of 56–108%, while MDLs were
ranged from 0.004 to 0.059 ng/g. The proposed method
was tested for the detection of OPEs in fish collected
from the Pearl River Delta, China; eleven OPEs were
detected. Different solvents have been used in Soxhlet
extraction to determine OPEs in biological samples,
such as methanol (Liu et al. 2018b), DCM (Liu et al.
2019b), and acetone/Hex (1:1, v/v) (Cao et al. 2017; He
et al. 2019).
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
Clean-up methods
After extraction of biological samples, a clean-up step is need-
ed to reduce matrix interferences and lipid contents. SPE,
dSPE, and GPC are popular techniques, which have been used
for the clean-up of biota samples for OPE determination
(Table S3). SPE is a kind of adsorbent extraction that involves
bringing the sample into contact with solid phase whereby the
analytes are selectively adsorbed onto the surface of the solid
phase. SPE column usually uses aminopropyl silica gel, hy-
drophilic lipophilic equilibrium column (Oasis HLB car-
tridge), octadecyl solid phase extraction column (C18), NH2
cartridge, florisil column, or a combination of different adsor-
bent (McGoldrick et al. 2014; Su et al. 2014; Hallanger et al.
2015; Santín et al. 2016; Guo et al. 2017; Choo et al. 2018; Liu
et al. 2018b; Zhao et al. 2018; He et al. 2019; Xu et al. 2019b).
For example, Chen et al. (2012) used an aminopropyl silica
gel SPE column and GPC for the clean-up of herring gull egg
samples for OPE determination. After discarding the first frac-
tion of the elutes (2 mL, 1:4 DCM/Hex v/v), 8 mL of DCM/
Hex 1:4 was used to elute target OPEs. After testing different
dispersive extraction ESP sorbents, Chu and Letcher (2015)
reported that the primary secondary amine (PSA) bonded sil-
ica sorbents displayed the highest recoveries for 13 commonly
detected OPE congeners in biota samples. In another method
development study, Santín et al. (2016) reported that a tandem
of basic alumina + C18 SPE showed better performance over
neutral alumina + C18 and florisil + C18.
Instrumental analysis
OPEs have considerable variations in their physicochemical
properties (Table 1), varying from very hydrophobic to very
polar, which is a cause of concern for the establishment of
analytical methods. A reliable, selective, sensitive, and rapid
analytical method is vital for the accurate detection and quan-
tification of trace environmental contaminants, including
OPEs. To date, gas chromatography (GC) and liquid chroma-
tography (LC)-based methods have been reported, and some
representative analytical methods for OPE quantification are
briefed in Table S3. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
(GC-MS), gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
(GC-MS/MS), and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spec-
trometry (LC-MS/MS) are powerful instruments for structural
identifications and play vital roles in OPE analysis in biolog-
ical and other environmental samples. In addition, both GC
and MS, combined with selective detectors (e.g., flame pho-
tometric detector, FPD), were also used for the determination
of OPE residues in environmental samples.
Gas chromatography has been used for the analysis of non-
polar compounds, via non-polar stationary phases (usually 5%
phenyl methyl-polysiloxane) mainly DB-5MS, HP-5MS, and
RTX-1614 (Gao et al. 2014; Guo et al. 2017; Choo et al. 2018;
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
Liu et al. 2018b, 2019b). Quadrupole or triple quadrupole are
mostly employed as detectors in mass spectrometer (Guo et al.
2017; Liu et al. 2019b). Electron impact ionization (EI) mass
spectrometry is important to obtain structural information of a
compound, while selected ion monitoring (SIM) is employed
to improve the sensitivity and selectivity. In GC-MS, SIM
mode has limited confirmation and quantification due to low
m/z range in spectrum (usually affected by constituents of
matrix). Such interferences could increase background noise
level and reduce instrumental sensitivity and selectivity. GC-
MS/MS shows a reduction in the limitation of GC-MS by the
integration of selective reaction monitoring (SRM), which
helps in the reduction of noise level and increase selectivity
significantly (Teo et al. 2015). In addition, multiple reaction
monitoring (MRM) acquisition mode is attainable by Triple-
quadrupole (QqQ)-MS detector, which cannot be attained via
GC-MS/MS with SRM mode or GC-MS (SIM mode)
(Quintana et al. 2008).
LC-MS has also been used in analyzing OPEs in biota
samples; especially it is suitable for OPEs which are less vol-
atile. LC or ultra-high performance liquid chromatography
(UHPLC) is attained in the reversed-phase mode, mostly
using octadecyl bonded (C18) stationary phases (Waters
Symmetry C18, Luna C18, BEH C18, and RP-18)
(McGoldrick et al. 2014; Hallanger et al. 2015; Santín et al.
2016; Giulivo et al. 2017; He et al. 2019). Mixtures of water
(acidified with formic acid) with acetonitrile or methanol in
gradient elution are the most commonly used mobile phases.
UHPLC-MS/MS or LC-MS/MS shows high sensitivity, selec-
tivity, and reduced matrix effect in the analysis of OPEs in
environmental matrices, mainly if atmospheric pressure chem-
ical ionization (APCI) or electrospray ionization (ESI) mode
and MRM acquisition mode are applied (Quintana et al.
2008). In general, these techniques offered low LOQs and
good recoveries for most OPE congeners.
Environmental occurrence of OPEs
Several researches have documented the ubiquitous occur-
rence of OPEs in different environmental compartments. At
present, OPEs are reported in surface water, soil, sediment,
biota, air, and indoor dust, demonstrating the ubiquity of
OPEs (Santín et al. 2016; Kim and Kannan 2018; Bekele
et al. 2019, 2021; Ren et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2020a).
OPEs in surface and drinking water
Depending on the industrial and anthropogenic activities in
the surrounding area, a wide range of OPE levels was detected
in the surface water worldwide (Table 2). This demonstrates
the ubiquity of OPEs, with congener concentration ranging
from ng/L to tens of μg/L, in which TCPP, TBEP, TCEP,
49513
and TBP are the predominant OPEs (Wei et al. 2015; Wang
et al. 2020b). For example, a study conducted along River
Aire, UK (i.e., a river affected by anthropogenic and industrial
pressures) reported the highest level of ΣOPEs, where TCPP
was the most prominent compound with the highest concen-
trations ranging from 113 to 26,050 ng/L (mean concentra-
tion: exceeding 6,000 ng/L) (Cristale et al. 2013). A study that
monitored 14 OPEs in rivers, lakes, and seawater of New
York State, USA, also reported levels of ΣOPEs in the range
of 37 to 510 ng/L in rivers, 8 to 1280 ng/L in lakes, and 40 to
60 ng/L in seawater. TBEP and TCPP were the dominant
compounds with average concentrations of 689 ng/L and
329 ng/L in lakes, respectively (Kim and Kannan 2018).
Relatively lower levels of OPEs were examined in studies that
assessed 19 OPEs in 23 rivers of Sweden, with concentrations
of ΣOPEs ranging from 10 to 100 ng/L (Gustavsson et al.
2018). Another recent study that monitored 18 OPEs in the
Lake Shihwa of Korea reported the highest detection frequen-
cy (DF) for TBEP, TCPP, and TDCP, with DF of 100%, 93%,
and 81%, respectively. The concentrations of ΣOPEs were in
the range of 28.3 to 16,000 ng/L, in which mean concentration
of TCEP (255 ng/L), TCPP (211 ng/L), TEP (182 ng/L), and
TBEP (164 ng/L) were the most predominant congeners (Lee
et al. 2018). Similarly, of 14 OPEs screened for, high DF (80–
99%) was observed for TBEP, TCEP, TCPP, TMP, and TEP
in water samples collected from rivers and lakes of Beijing
(Shi et al. 2016). The high concentration of ΣOPEs (range:
3.24–10,945 ng/L; mean: 954 ng/L) were mainly due to in-
creased human impacts from the densely populated city (Shi
et al. 2016). Seawater samples obtained from East China Sea
and Yellow Sea near Lianyungang, Xiamen, and Qingdao
were screened for halogenated OPEs including TCEP,
TCPP, TDCP, and TDBPP and contained total concentrations
in the range of 91.9 to 1392 ng/L, and the mean levels of these
four congeners were 134, 84, 109, and 97 ng/L, respectively
(Hu et al. 2014). Zhong et al. (2017) also reported seven OPEs
in the seawater from Bohai Sea and Yellow Sea, the coastal
seas of China. Relatively low levels of ΣOPEs were detected,
with total concentration ranging from 8 to 98 ng/L (Zhong
et al. 2017). Meanwhile, Wang et al. (2018c) have reported
the extensive occurrence of OPEs in the coastal area of Dalian
China, with concentration varying from 48 to 681 ng/L.
Globally, only five studies have assessed OPEs in drinking
water and reported the levels in purified water, tap water,
bottled water, well water, filtered drinking water, and barreled
water from China, Korea, Pakistan, and the USA (Table 2) (Li
et al. 2014; Ding et al. 2015; Khan et al. 2016; Lee et al. 2016;
Kim and Kannan 2018). Li et al. (2014) screened for nine
OPEs in tap water, in China. The total concentrations of
OPEs were in the range of 85 to 325 ng/L; of the screened
OPEs, TBEP, TPP, and TCPP were the predominant
congeners. In another study from Eastern China, Ding et al.
(2015) reported the residual levels of nine OPEs in different
 49514

Table 2. A summary of ΣOPEs, dominant and frequent organophosphate esters in aquatic organisms (ng/g lw), surface water (ng/L), drinking water (ng/L), and sediment (ng/g dw) as reported in the
literature.

Matrix Region Most dominant congeners Most frequent congeners ΣOPEs References

Aquatic biota Pearl River Delta, China TBEP, TCEP, TBP, TBEP, TCEP, TBP, TCPP Ma et al. (2013)
Swedish lakes and coastal areas TCPP, TPP, TBP 34−11000 Sundkvist et al. (2010)
Llobregat River, Spain TEHP, IPPP, TBEP TEHP, IPPP, TBEP 110−1900 Santín et al. (2016)
a
Nakdong River, South Korea TEP, TBP, TCEP, TBEP TBEP 4.59−5.87 Choo et al. (2018)
Freshwater, Beijing, China TBP, TCEP, TCPP, TEHP TBP, TCEP, TCPP 264−1973 Hou et al. (2017)
Western Scheldt, The Netherlands TiBP, TBEP, TCPP, TPP TBEP, TCPP, TCEP, TPP Brandsma et al. (2015)
Taihu Lake, China TiBP, TCEP and TPP TCPP, TiBP, TDCP, TEP, EHDP, TCEP Zhao et al. (2018)
Taihu Lake, China TCPP, TMP, EHDP TPP, TCEP, TDCP, TCPP 1.8−21.75a Wang et al. (2019a)
European river basins TBP, TCEP, IPPP EHDP, TCEP, TBEP 14−650 Giulivo et al. (2017)
Laizhou Bay, North China TEHP, TBP, TBEP, TPP, EHDP TCPP, TiBP, TBP, TBEP, EHDP, TEP 21−3510 Bekele et al. (2019, 2021)
Manila Bay, The Philippines TEHP, TEP, TBP, EHDP TEP, TPeP, TBP, EHDP 110−4600 Kim et al. (2011)
Surface water River Aire, UK TCPP TCEP, TCPP, TDCP, TPP 13−26050 Cristale et al. (2013)
Rivers, lakes, and seawater, USA TCPP, TBEP TCPP, TBEP, TEP 37−1280 Kim and Kannan (2018)
Swedish river water TDCP, TEHP, TCEP Gustavsson et al. (2018)
Lake Shihwa, Korea TCEP, TCPP, TEP, TBEP TBEP, TCPP, TDCP 28−16000 Lee et al. (2018)
Rivers and Lakes, Beijing TCPP, TCEP TBEP, TCEP, TCPP, TMP 3−10945 Shi et al. (2016)
Bohai and Yellow Seas, China TCPP, TCEP, TPPO TCPP, TCEP, TDCP, TPPO 8−98 Zhong et al. (2017)
Drinking water China TBEP, TPP, TCPP TCPP, TPP, TBP, TBEP 85−325 Li et al. (2014)
East China TEP, TCPP TEP, TCEP, TBP, TPP 09−339 Ding et al. (2015)
Pakistan TCPP, TCEP TCPP, TCEP, TBP MDL−71 Khan et al. (2016)
Korea TCEP, TCPP, TBEP TCEP, TCPP, TBEP MDL−1660 Lee et al. (2016)
Tape water, NY, USA TBEP, TCPP TBEP, TCPP 3−366 Kim and Kannan (2018)
Sediment North China TCPP, TCEP TCPP, TCP, TPP 340−270000 Ren et al. (2019)
Europe TCPP, TBEP TCPP, TBEP, TCP 2.5−181 Wolschke et al. (2018)
Taihu Lake, China TCPP, TCEP TCEP, TCPP, TBEP, TiBP, TDCP, TEHP 2.8−47.5 Wang et al. (2018b)
Laizhou Bay, Bohai Sea, China TBP, TCEP, TCPP 6.7−102 Wang et al. (2017c)
Pearl River Estuary, China TCPP, TCEP, TBEP TCEP, TBEP, TEHP, TBP 13−377 Hu et al. (2017)
Sediment from European river EHDP, TCPP, IPPP EHDP, TCPP, TPP, TEHP 0.31−549 Giulivo et al. (2017)

a
Wet weight (ww) concentration
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
drinking water, i.e., tap, direct drinking, barreled, well, and
bottled waters, with the median total concentrations of 192,
59.2, 27.6, 4.5, and 3.9, respectively. Khan et al. (2016) also
reported the residual levels of six OPEs in potable water from
Pakistan, in which the total concentrations ranged from below
detection limit (MDL) to 71 ng/L. In Korea, 10 OPEs were
screened in purified and bottled water collected from major
cities; the total concentrations ranged between below MDL
and 1660 ng/L. Of the screened OPEs, TCEP, TBEP, and
TCPP were predominant OPEs, and elevated residual level
of TCPP was observed due to contamination occurred during
purification process (Lee et al. 2016). For tap water in New
York State, USA, 14 OPEs were screened, and total concen-
trations ranged from 3 to 366 ng/L; TBEP and TBP were
found to be the most abundant (Kim and Kannan 2018).
OPEs in sediment
Apart from aquatic environment, sediment is another main
environmental compartment and major reservoir of OPEs.
Several studies reported the level of ΣOPEs in sediment rang-
ing from a few tens to hundreds of ng/g dry weight (dw)
(Table 2). However, recently, Ren et al. (2019) have reported
exceptionally high level of OPEs in sediment samples near an
OPE manufacturing plant Hengshui, North China, with total
concentration ranging from 340 to 270,000 ng/g dw. TCPP
and TCEP were main congeners in the sediment samples and
ranged from 280 to 190,000 ng/g dw and 61 to 79,000 ng/g
dw, respectively. Meanwhile, Giulivo et al. (2017) screened
10 OPEs in sediment samples collected from three European
river basins (the Adige, the Sava, and the Evrotas) at a level
ranging from 0.31 to 549 ng/g dw. Another study that moni-
tored OPEs in surface sediment samples from large river basin
deltas/estuaries across Europe reported total concentrations in
the range of 2.5 to 181 ng/g dw, where congener concentra-
tions varied from below detection limit to 142 ng/g dw with
the dominancy of TBEP and TCPP (Wolschke et al. 2018).
Wang et al. (2018b) also reported eleven OPEs in sediment
samples from Taihu Lake, China. The total OPE concentra-
tions were in the range of 2.8 and 47.5 ng/g dw. In sediment
samples from coastal Laizhou Bay of the Bohai Sea of China,
Wang et al. (2017c) reported eight OPEs at a concentration
ranging from 6.7 to 102 ng/g dw, of which TCPP and TCEP
were the predominant congeners. In comparison, lower levels
of total OPEs were detected in sediment samples collected
from North Pacific (Bering Sea) to the Arctic Ocean (0.2
−4.7 ng/g dw) (Ma et al. 2017) and Yellow Sea and Bohai
Sea (0.08−4.6 ng/g dw) (Zhong et al. 2018). Hu et al. (2017)
found 11 OPEs dominated by TCPP, TCEP, and TBEP in
sediments from three mangrove wetlands (Guangzhou,
Zhuhai, and Shenzhen) in the Pearl River Estuary of South
China. The total OPE concentrations in the mangrove sedi-
ments ranged from 13.2 to 377 ng/g dw (Hu et al. 2017).
49515
OPEs in aquatic biota
Relatively few studies have investigated OPEs in aquatic or-
ganisms, the level of ΣOPEs ranging from tens to thousands
of ng/g lw (Table 2, Table S4). For example, Ma et al. (2013)
reported extremely high levels of OPEs in fish from the Pearl
River Delta, China. TBEP (164–8,840 ng/g lw), TCEP (83
−4,690 ng/g lw), TBP (44−2,950 ng/g lw), and TCPP (62
−883 ng/g lw) were the most predominant of all OPEs.
Similarly, Sundkvist et al. (2010) found high concentrations
of TBP (34−4,900 ng/g lw), followed by TBEP (240−1000
ng/g lw) and TCPP (170−770) in fish from Swedish lakes and
coastal areas where there is known potential sources of OPEs.
Another study that examined 16 OPEs in fish from Llobregat
River, Spain, reported total concentrations of OPEs up to 2423
ng/g lw. IPPP (nd-601 ng/lw), TEHP (37−326 ng/g lw), and
TBEP (6.40−296 ng/g lw) were the dominant congeners
(Santín et al. 2016). Choo et al. (2018) reported the levels of
OPEs in crucian carp from the Nakdong River, South Korea.
The total levels of OPEs ranged from 31.1 to 256 ng/mL
whole blood, 6.22−18.1 ng/g wet weight (ww) in liver, 3.08
−7.70 ng/g ww in gonad, and 4.23 to 7.75 ng/g ww in muscle.
Hou et al. (2017) also reported 8 OPEs and their metabolites in
fish from freshwater around Beijing, China, with very high
detection frequency (100%) for TBP, TCPP, and TCEP. The
total OPEs were ranged from 265 to 1973 ng/g lw. Brandsma
et al. (2015) measured the levels of 9 OPEs in the Western
Scheldt estuarine food web, consisting of shrimps, crabs, and
worms, of which lugworm had the highest median concentra-
tion for TiBP (7.4 ng/g ww), TBEP (17 ng/g ww), TCPP (4.6
ng/g ww), and TPP (2 ng/g ww). Zhao et al. (2018) have
recently screened for 17 OPEs in the food web from Taihu
Lake. Plankton had the highest total OPE concentration (100 ±
23 ng/g ww), followed by invertebrates (17.1 ± 11.0 ng/g ww)
and fish (9.8 ± 6.2 ng/g ww). Similarly, in another study that
investigated the biomagnification of OPEs in a food web (in-
cluding plankton, invertebrates, and fish) in the Zhushan Bay
of Taihu Lake, China, the ∑OPEs in the biota were in the
range of 1.83 ng/g ww in snakehead fish to 21.8 ng/g ww in
bivalve, where fish accumulated less OPEs than studied inver-
tebrates (Wang et al. 2019a). Giulivo et al. (2017) also ana-
lyzed 14 OPE congeners in 27 fish samples from three
European river basins (the Adige, the Evrotas, and the Sava)
and detected all OPEs with the total concentration ranging
from 14.4 to 650 ng/g lw. TBP (102 ng/g lw), EHDP (31.8
ng/g lw), and TCEP (18.0 ng/g lw) were the most dominant
OPEs in European fish, and the levels in benthic and pelagic
fish do not show significant difference. In contrast, benthic
fish accumulated significantly higher OPE concentration than
pelagic fish from studies that analyzed the food web of
Laizhou Bay, North China (Bekele et al. 2019, 2021);
Western Scheldt, The Netherlands (Hallanger et al. 2015);
Taihu Lake, China (Wang et al. 2019a); and Manila Bay, the
49516
Philippines (Kim et al. 2011). Generally, physicochemical
properties, bioavailability, exposure levels, accumulation
mechanisms, and biotransformation rate of the OPE are
among the decisive factors that determine the level and accu-
mulation potential of this ubiquitous chemical.
OPEs in other environmental compartments
Apart from aquatic biota, sediment, surface, and drinking water,
OPEs have been reported in soil (Cui et al. 2017; He et al.
2017b; Yadav et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2019b; Han et al.
2020), groundwater (Fries and Püttmann 2001, 2003; Hou
et al. 2019), indoor dust (Abdallah and Covaci 2014; He et al.
2015; Abafe and Martincigh 2019; Cao et al. 2019; Chen et al.
2019; Guo et al. 2019; Ali et al. 2021), and air (Luo et al. 2016;
Cao et al. 2019; He et al. 2019; Han et al. 2020; Liang et al.
2020; Sun et al. 2020). For example, Yadav et al. (2018) deter-
mined the level of OPEs in soil samples from Kathmandu
Valley, Nepal. The total OPE concentrations were in the range
of 25 to 27,900 ng/g dw, while TMP was the dominant conge-
ner accounting for 35−49% of total OPEs. Meanwhile, lower
total OPEs (range: 10.1 to 315 ng/g dw) were measured in soil
from Chongqing, China; TBEP was the most concentrated of
all OPEs (He et al. 2017b). Hou et al. (2019) screened for 13
OPEs in groundwater from Chengdu, China, with the total con-
centrations ranged from 12.5 to 253 ng/L.
OPE toxicity and human exposure
OPE structural similarity to neurotoxic organophosphate pes-
ticides is the cause of concern. The majority of reported stud-
ies on the toxicity/exposure of OPEs are based on their simi-
larity with organophosphate pesticides. Exposure of human-
kind to OPEs and the health risk have increased due to the
extensive application. Endocrine disruptive effects, develop-
mental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and reproductive toxicity are
among the effects reported in recent studies.
Toxicity
Several toxicological studies reported that OPEs such as TBP,
TCPP, TBEP, TPP, TCEP, TDCP, and TCP causes develop-
mental, transgenerational, reproductive, and other health ef-
fects on daphnia, fish, rodents, birds, and humans (Figure 2)
(van der Veen and de Boer 2012; Greaves and Letcher 2014;
Schang et al. 2016; Yuan et al. 2018). Carcinogenicity, neu-
rotoxicity, kidney toxicity (Regnery and Püttmann 2010; van
der Veen and de Boer 2012; WHO 1998, 2000), skin irrita-
tion, decreased sperm quality (Meeker and Stapleton 2010),
dermatitis (Meeker and Stapleton 2010; WHO 1991), and
endocrine disruption (Heindel et al. 2017) are among the
health effects on humankind linked with OPE exposure.
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
Fig. 2. Major confirmed and potential effects of OPEs to humans and
other organisms (daphnia, fish, rodents, birds, etc.)
More specifically, toxicological effects were reported in
fish exposed to OPEs at environmentally relevant concentra-
tions. For example, Du et al. (2015) showed cardiotoxicity in
zebrafish embryos after exposure to 100 μg/L of TPP.
Neurobehavioral effects of TPP on zebrafish were also report-
ed in several studies (Jarema et al. 2015; Noyes et al. 2015;
Shi et al. 2018). Under static exposure experiment, Behl et al.
(2015) demonstrated developmental toxicity of TPP in
zebrafish and Caenorhabditis elegans. Yu et al. (2017) inves-
tigated effects of TDCP on the parent generation and larvae of
first generation of zebrafish after 240-day exposure and
reported growth and transgenerational effects. Further, Wang
et al. (2015b) confirmed that the neurological effects of TDCP
could be transferred from the parent generation (exposed adult
zebrafish) to larvae.
Some OPEs are being considered as potential carcinogenic
based on animal studies, for instance, TCPP and TDCP have
been restricted from addition in child supplies in western
countries (European Commission 2014). Frederiksen et al.
(2018) reported that TCPP can readily permeate through the
skin. In chicken embryos, TCPP was demonstrated to induce
developmental toxicity, reduction of tarsus length, and pip-
ping delay (Farhat et al. 2013).
Similarly, TCEP was considered carcinogenic for animals
(WHO 1998). Apart from the carcinogenic nature, longer es-
trous cycle length, reduced sperm density and motility,
and reproductive and hemolytic effects are among the
major biological effects reported as toxic effects of
TCEP (Chapin et al. 1997).
Animal experiments and epidemiological studies have
documented the neurotoxic effect of TCP. Noyes et al.
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
(2015) studied the effect of TCP on the embryonic and larval
zebrafish exposed statically, and hyperactivity was observed
for both developmental stages. In another experimental
exposure study, Jarema et al. (2015) reported developmental
toxicity effects of TCP on zebrafish embryos and
Caenorhabditis elegans.
Human exposure and ecological risk assessment
Considering the ubiquitous occurrence of OPEs in the air,
dust, sediment, and water and their bioaccumulation in biota
samples, humans are frequently exposed to these chemicals
through air inhalation, dust ingestion, dermal absorption, and
diet. Contaminated environmental matrixes, mainly sediment,
dust, and water, are the main routes for dermal exposure. For
instance, a study from Nepal showed that dermal absorption
overwhelmingly contributed to OPE exposure than inhalation
and dust ingestion (Yadav et al. 2017). The estimated daily
intake of ∑OPEs via dermal absorption (adults: 16.8 ng/kg
bw/d and children: 45.22 ng/kg bw/d) were higher than via
inhalation (adults: 0.98 ng/kg bw/d and children: 3.73 ng/kg
bw/d) and dust ingestion (adults: 0.98 ng/kg bw/d and chil-
dren: 3.73 ng/kg bw/d) (Yadav et al. 2017). Another study
revealed that exposure pathways are different from one con-
gener to the other. For instance, Xu et al. (2016) assessed three
exposure pathways (dust ingestion, air inhalation, and dermal
absorption) and reported that air inhalation and dust
ingestion were the most important pathways for volatile
(TCPP and TCEP) and less volatile (TCP, TBEP, and
TPP) OPEs, respectively.
Furthermore, several studies have revealed that foodstuff
ingestion is one of the major exposure pathways. Poma et al.
(2017) indicated that dietary intake contributed more because
of its larger consumption rate (100,000-fold higher) than those
of dust ingestion, air inhalation, and dermal absorption for
humans. Different food matrices were screened, mainly meat,
vegetables, dairy product, fish, cereals, beverages, fruit, etc.
(Zhang et al. 2016; Poma et al. 2017, 2018; Ding et al. 2018;
Wang and Kannan 2018). From screened foodstuffs, rice in-
gestion was the dominant pathway for human exposure to
OPEs, and the mean daily intake of ∑OPEs was 601 and
539 ng/kg bw/day for females and males, respectively.
Additionally, Liu et al. (2019b) determined the dietary risks
of OPEs from fish consumption, and the value ranged from 17
to 98 ng/kg bw/day, indicating that fish ingestion is also the
other main pathway of human exposure to OPEs. In general,
the reported estimated daily intake values of OPEs are two to
five orders of magnitude lower than the available correspond-
ing reference dose (RfD) values (13,000−125,000 ng/kg bw/
d) (USEPA 2014).
Several researches have reported ecotoxicological effects
of OPEs. An overview of toxicological profiles of OPEs in
fish, Daphnia, and algae is given in Table S5. The acute
49517
median lethal concentration (i.e., LC50) of OPEs to aquatic
organisms varied greatly and generally in the order of mg/L.
The LC50 values of OPEs were reported in the range of 0.42
for TDCP to 1250 mg/L for TEP in zebrafish.
Daphnia magna, ecologically representative zooplankton,
is widely used in ecological and ecotoxicological studies. The
50% effect concentration (i.e., EC50) of OPEs documented for
daphnia (48 h) ranged from 0.31 for TCP to 381 mg/L
for TCEP (Table S1). Overall, most OPE congeners are
considered to be toxic to humans and aquatic biota and
hazardous for environment.
As a result, different regulatory bodies are taking restrictive
measures to address this issue with a chemical class and/or
chemical-by-chemical approaches (see Table S6 for detailed
information). More restrictions have been placed on those
products commonly used by infants and toddlers because of
their higher vulnerability to OPEs. For example, in 2010,
Canada Consumer Product Safety Act bans foam-padded chil-
dren’s products with TCEP (Government of Canada 2010).
Similarly, TCEP was banned for use in children’s products by
Maryland General Assembly (MD 2013), and in 2015,
European Commission (EU) generally prohibits the use of
TCEP (REACH 2015). In addition, in 2017, the US
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) warned man-
ufacturers and consumers to prohibit all halogenated OPEs in
electronics, mattresses, furniture, and children’s products
(CPSC 2017).
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification
potentials of OPEs
After Rachel Carson described the consequences of extensive
use of chemicals in Silent Spring (Carson 1962), several coun-
tries, organizations, and scientists became cautious about the
danger of chemicals released to the environment, and present-
ly they are evaluating the environmental behavior of thou-
sands of chemicals. In 2001, the Stockholm Convention on
POPs (POPs Convention) was adopted in Stockholm,
Sweden, to identify chemical that biomagnifies, toxic, and
harmful and protect human beings and the environment from
the hazards of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). In addition
to the POPs Convention, EU’s REACH (Registration,
Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals) is playing a
key role in identifying/restricting PBT substances. BCF/
bioaccumulation factor (BAF) assessments are widely used
in regulatory criteria, and they are important endpoint to spec-
ify the adverse effects of PBT substance and help to identify
those chemicals that should be reduced from large-scale pro-
duction (Table 3). Bioaccumulation regulations in the USA,
European Union, Canada, and Japan set specific criteria to
evaluate bioaccumulative chemicals (Table 3). These regula-
tions categorize bioaccumulative chemicals based on the
49518 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528

Table 3. Regulatory bioaccumulation assessment endpoint, criteria, and category (adopted from Arnot and Gobas (2006) and Gobas et al. (2009)

Regulatory body Bioaccumulation endpoint Criteria Category Program

Environment Canada KOW ≥100000 - CEPA 1999a

Environment Canada BCF ≥5000 - CEPA 1999a
Environment Canada BAF ≥5000 - CEPA 1999a
European Union BCF ≥2000 “Bioaccumulative” REACHb
European Union BCF ≥5000 “Very bioaccumulative” REACHb
USA BCF 1000-5000 “Bioaccumulative” TSCA, TRIc
USA BCF ≥5000 “Very bioaccumulative” TSCA, TRIc
UNEPd KOW ≥100000 - Stockholm Convention
UNEPd BCF ≥5000 - Stockholm Convention
a
CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act
b
REACH Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals
c
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act, TRI Toxic Release Inventory
d
United Nations Environment Program

BCF, BAF, and KOW values. These criteria are often applied
to aquatic biota, mainly fish (Arnot and Gobas 2006; Gobas
et al. 2009).
Meanwhile, several controlled laboratory-based studies
have assessed bioaccumulation potentials of OPEs in different
fish species and showed that OPEs have the potential to accu-
mulate in aquatic organisms (Table 4). For instance, Wang
et al. (2017b) conducted a bioconcentration study to investi-
gate accumulation and depuration of seven OPEs (TCP, TPrP,
TDCP, TCEP, TBEP, TPP, and TBP) in zebrafish (Danio
rerio) for 19 days and 3 days under a semi-static aqueous
exposure test. At steady state, the BCF values of OPEs were
in the range of 0.50–335 L/kg ww, and all congeners showed
higher accumulation potential at low exposure concentrations.
Among the OPEs, higher BCF were observed for TCP and
TPP, indicating that these congeners have higher potential to
accumulate in tissues of zebrafish. Arukwe et al. (2018) stud-
ied accumulation, toxicological responses, and metabolite for-
mation in juvenile salmon exposed to TCEP and TBEP for 7
days under exposure concentration ranging from 0.04 to 1 mg/

Table 4. Measured bioconcentration factors (BCFs) of OPEs in different fish species

OPEs Test organisms Exposure concentration (μg/L) Exposure time (days) BCF (L/kg ww) Reference

TCP Adult zebrafish (Danio rerio) 0.8–4.3 19 56–364 Wang et al. (2017b)
TEHP Rare minnow (Gobiocypris rarus) 10 30 19.4–29.3 Hou et al. (2020b)
TDCP Adult zebrafish 4–100 90 10.1–84.1 Wang et al. (2015a)
TDCP Zebrafish (Danio rerio) 0.5–7.5 240 45–66 Yu et al. (2017)
TDCP Juvenile common carp 4.3 28 4.8–35 Tang et al. (2019)
TBEP Juvenile salmon 0.04–1 mg/L 7 0.17–1.77 Arukwe et al. (2018)
TBEP Juvenile common carp 5.4 28 4.8–14.8 Tang et al. (2019)
TPP Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) 50 24 573 Muir et al. (1983)
TPP Flathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) 50 24 561 Muir et al. (1983)
TPP Adult zebrafish 20 19 32–157.4 Wang et al. (2016)
TCEP Juvenile salmon 0.04–1 mg/L 7 0.16–0.34 Arukwe et al. (2018)
TCEP Juvenile common carp (Cyprinus carpio) 9.1 28 1.5–4.2 Tang et al. (2019)
TCPP Juvenile common carp 7.3 28 2.5–5.4 Tang et al. (2019)
TBP Juvenile common carp 5.9 28 1.7–31.4 Tang et al. (2019)
EHDP Juvenile common carp 5.3 28 3.5–65.3 Tang et al. (2019)

a
1 month old
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528 49519

L. Low BCF values for both TCEP (BCF: 0.16–0.34 L/kg
fresh weight) and TBEP (BCF: 0.17–1.77 L/kg fresh weight)
were reported. At high exposure concentration, the BCF value
of TCEP and TBEP were higher. Hou et al. 2020a, b) studied
tissue-specific accumulation and metabolism of TEHP in rare
minnows (Gobiocypris rarus) under static water exposure for
30 days. Under 10 μg/L exposure concentration, the BCF
values were in the range of 19.4–29.3 L/kg ww, in which
kidney accumulated the highest TEHP. The half-life of
TEHP was in the range of 1.03 days in testis and 2.57 days
in muscle. Muir et al. (1983) studied uptake and depuration of
TPP in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and fathead minnows
(Pimephales promelas) using short-term static exposures. The
BCF value of TPP was 573 L/kg ww in rainbow trout and 561
L/kg ww in flathead minnows.
Like the controlled laboratory studies, bioaccumulation of
OPEs has also been demonstrated in field-based studies.
However, the bioaccumulation factor (BAF) values of OPEs
in many field aquatic organisms are higher than those simu-
lated experimental studies (Table 5). For instance, Choo et al.
(2018) reported the bioaccumulation potential of OPEs in a
field study on Crucian carp (Carassius auratus) from the
Nakdong River, South Korea; BAFs of 2440–71000 L/kg
ww, 5900–140000 L/kg ww, and 1970–59900 L/kg ww were
measured in muscle, liver, and gonad tissues, respectively,
which exceeds the bioaccumulation standard set by POPs con-
vention. On the other hand, a study from Beiyun river system,
Beijing, China, reported the bioaccumulation of eight OPEs
with average BAF value ranging from 34.5 to 1983 L/kg ww
(Hou et al. 2017). The results showed that, except for TEHP,
the BAF values of screened OPEs were far below the bioac-
cumulation standard of POPs Convention (BAF/BCF ≥ 5000
L/kg, Table 3). Liu et al. (2019a) quantified eight OPE con-
geners in fish and invertebrates from freshwater body pond,
South China. Their average BAF values are in the range of
6.6–1109 L/kg ww, which are 1–3 order of magnitude lower
than the bioaccumulation standard of POPs Convention. In
contrast, much higher BAF values (2–50119, 24–31623, 4–
2570, and 4–1479 L/kg ww for invertebrates, planktons, ben-
thic fish, and pelagic fish, respectively) were found in a food
web from Taihu Lake, China (Wang et al. 2019a), which also
exceeded the bioaccumulation standard of POPs Convention.
Comparatively, very few field-based studies on bioaccu-
mulation potential of OPEs were reported than laboratory-
based studies. In most controlled laboratory studies, the expo-
sure time is short, there is difficulty of reaching equilibrium,
the exposure pathway is limited (mostly consider absorption
of OPEs in gills, which ignored dietary intake), and usually,
data are obtained from the fitted BCF kinetics. In contrast, in
the actual aquatic environment, the above limitations (factors)

Table 5. Bioaccumulation factors (BAF) of OPEs in aquatic organisms from different regions.

Region OPEs Aquatic organisms Average BAF (L/kg ww) Reference

Nakdong River, South Korea TEP Crucian carp (Carassius auratus) 44700 Choo et al.
TBP Crucian carp 140000 (2018)
TCEPCrucian carp 14100
TCPPCrucian carp 5900
TBEPCrucian carp 21100
Beiyun river system, Beijing, TPP Topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva), 1008 Hou et al. (2017)
China TEHP loach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) and Crucian carp 1983
Freshwater body pond, South TPP Oriental river prawn (Macrobrachium nipponense), 898 Liu et al. (2019a)
China TEHP crucian carp, mud carp (Cirrhinus molitorella), 1109
TCP catfish (Clarias batrachus), and snakehead (Ophiocephalus 906
argus)
Zhushan Bay of Taihu Lake, TEHP Phytoplankton, zooplankton, invertebrates, pelagic fishes, 31623a Wang et al.
China TMP benthic fishes 10471a (2019a)
EHDP 19055a
TPP 513a
Laizhou Bay, North China TPeP Invertebrates, pelagic fishes, benthic fishes 5350a Bekele et al.
THP 12358a (2019)
TPP 5097a
EHDP 5134a
TEHP 35768a
TCP 15529a
CDPP 26147a
a
Maximum measured values.
49520
are insignificant, and the measured BAF values are thermody-
namic BAF. These differences might be the reasons for having
different accumulation patterns in controlled laboratory-based
studies and field-based studies; hence, the accumulation
pattern and mechanism warrant further attention.
Relatively very limited studies have examined OPEs in
aquatic food web and reported their trophic transfer and
biomagnification potentials. For example, Wang et al.
(2019a) documented bioavailability and biomagnification of
OPEs in a food web (mainly composed of plankton, inverte-
brates, and fish) in the Zhushan Bay of Taihu Lake, China,
and explored their trophic transfer potentials. The highest tro-
phic magnification factor (TMF) value (TMF = 3.61) was
calculated for TEHP, which was because of lower metabolic
potential in high trophic level (TL) fish and its relatively high
logKOW value. Another study was conducted to explore the
biomagnification potential of OPEs in a benthic food web of
the Western Scheldt estuary, The Netherlands (Brandsma
et al. 2015). The results showed that three OPE congeners
undergo trophic magnification, with TMF values of 2.2, 2.6,
and 3.5 for TCPP, TCEP, and TBEP, respectively. Similarly,
in a study that evaluated the bioaccumulation and
biomagnification potential of 20 OPEs in a marine food web
of the Laizhou Bay, North China, a BAF of > 5000 L/kg ww
(benchmark value for bioaccumulative substance) were re-
ported for seven congeners (Bekele et al. 2019). In addition,
a TMF > 1 were reported for Cl alkyl-OPEs (1.17−1.84), non-
Cl alkyl-OPEs (1.06−2.52), and aryl-OPEs (1.75−2.03),
which shows the potential of OPEs to biomagnify in aquatic
food web (Bekele et al. 2019). In contrast, much lower TMF
values of 0.39, 0.42, and 0.55 for TDCP, TMP, and TCPP,
respectively, were reported in a study that detects nine OPEs
from food web of Taihu Lake, China (Zhao et al. 2018). These
differences observed in TMFs among studies could be the
difference in ecosystem characteristics that determine the tro-
phic transfer behavior of OPEs and, subsequently, the degree
of biomagnification. The difference in ecosystem characteris-
tics can be explained by main distinct differences in species
composition; habitat condition, food chain length, pollution
level, biotransformation of OPEs in biota, and other environ-
mental factors could play a major role in the reported incon-
sistencies (Borga et al. 2013; Sun et al. 2015, 2017; Walters
et al. 2016). Several studies indicated that bioaccumulation/
biomagnification potential of OPEs and their trophic transfer
behavior is mainly governed by physicochemical properties,
biotransformation, and lipid content; these factors are
discussed in detail.
Physicochemical factors
Physicochemical properties are vital in determining the degree
of bioaccumulation or biomagnification potentials of organic
pollutants in aquatic organisms. Organic matter enrichment
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
mechanisms from aqueous phase to biological phase are com-
parable with distribution between octanol and water. Thus, the
octanol–water partition coefficient (KOW) can be used to ex-
plain the distribution capacity of organic pollutants between
aqueous and biological phases, which is related to solubility,
biological enrichment, and toxicity. In addition, KOW is usu-
ally used to identify and evaluate bioaccumulative substances
of hydrophobic organic pollutants in aquatic organisms along
with BCFs and BAFs by different regulatory authorities
(Kelly et al. 2007). Different laboratory and field-based stud-
ies show that bioaccumulation and biomagnification potential
of organic pollutants in tissues of aquatic organisms have
good correlations with KOW (Fisk et al. 1998; Kelly et al.
2007; Greaves et al. 2016; Bekele et al. 2018, 2019, 2021;
Liu et al. 2018a). As a result, regulatory bodies classify
bioaccumulative chemicals as hydrophobic, usually fat-
soluble substance having high KOW (≥100,000) (Kelly et al.
2007). Generally, it is believed that those organic pollutants
with higher KOW are strongly hydrophobic, and they are ex-
pected to have high BCF/BAF values, which could result in
the greater bioaccumulation/biomagnification capacity (Fisk
et al. 1998; Kelly et al. 2007). However, some substances with
KOW ≥100,000 have less or no bioaccumulative potential than
estimated, mainly because of rapid biotransformation
(Weisbrod et al. 2007).
For most hydrophobic organic pollutants, bioaccumulation
is viewed as a physical-chemical partitioning process between
the organism body water and body fat. In the absence of suf-
ficient excretion or metabolism, hydrophobic organic pollut-
ants, once absorbed, are more easily distributed into the lipid
phase of the cells because of their high affinity for lipid than to
water and accumulate in organism (Gobas et al. 1986). On the
other hand, hydrophilic chemicals are more likely to be
discharged in vitro. As a result, the bioaccumulation potential
of hydrophobic organic pollutants is greater than those of
hydrophilic organic pollutants. OPEs have positive logKOW
(range 0.8–10.6), most of the congeners had high/extremely
hydrophobic (logKOW > 4) properties, and certain compounds
may present high bioaccumulative potential. Additionally,
molecular weight of a compound could affect assimilation
efficiency, that is if the compounds with too large molecular
weight tend to be absorbed by the intestinal mucosa of aquatic
organisms, eventually, biological amplification may not oc-
cur. On top of that, as the compound molecular mass in-
creases, the solubility decreases (Mackintosh et al. 2004; van
der Veen and de Boer 2012).
Biotransformation
Apart from physicochemical factors, metabolism is an impor-
tant biological factor that controls the degree of
biomagnification potential of pollutants in aquatic organisms.
It can eliminate or reduce the expected bioaccumulation or
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
biomagnification potential if the metabolic transformation rate
is sufficiently high (Kelly et al. 2007). Recent studies have
reported the metabolic transformation of OPEs in vitro cells or
microsomes; only few studies have shown the metabolic
transformation of OPEs in vivo. However, the whole metabol-
ic transformation pathways are yet not fully developed.
Recently, Wang et al. (2017a) reported metabolic transforma-
tion of six OPEs (TBEP, TPrP, TBP, TCEP, TDCP, and TCP)
in adult zebrafish in a laboratory; the major metabolites were
organophosphate diester, hydroxylated organophosphate dies-
ter, hydroxylated organophosphate triesters, and glucuronic
acid conjugated metabolites after hydroxylation.
Van den Eede et al. (2015) reported hydroxylated metabo-
lites in liver of zebrafish, and the oxidation of organophos-
phates occurred in the body of fish that may be catalyzed by
the enzyme cytochrome P450 (CYPs). Van Den Eede et al.
(2013) also showed further transformation of hydroxylated
metabolites in zebrafish to their sulfuric acid conjugates or
glucuronic acid catalyzed by sulfotransferases (SULTs) or
glucuronyl transferases (UGTs). In another recent experimen-
tal study, Hou et al. (2020) investigated the metabolites of
TEHP in rare minnow (Gobiocypris rarus); TEHP was oxi-
datively metabolized to di 2-ethylhexyl phosphate (DEHP) or
dealkylated metabolite and hydroxylated TEHP (OH-TEHP).
Further, OH-TEHP transformed into phase II and yield glucu-
ronic acid conjugates. Some of the transformed metabolites
are similar to the metabolites reported in human liver micro-
somes via in vitro cell experiments (Arukwe et al. 2018). In
general, OPEs can be metabolized through phase-I and phase-
II biotransformation to metabolites. Hou et al. (2016) summa-
rized and proposed the general metabolic pathways for each
group of OPEs (halogenated alkyl-OPEs, non-halogenated al-
kyl-OPEs, and aryl-OPEs).
Lipid
Lipids are the major components for the accumulation of organic
pollutants in organisms. Measured chemical levels in biota sam-
ples are usually normalized to the total lipid content of the biota to
estimate the degree of bioaccumulation (Endo et al. 2011).
Accordingly, concentration proportion of chemicals in biota to
different environmental phases (e.g., BCF, BAF, BSAF) are fre-
quently calculated based on the concentrations in biota, which are
normalized to total lipid content.
Organic chemical distribution in tissues is mainly governed
by passive diffusion to the lipid compartment. Several studies
reported that OPE concentration had a significant correlation
with lipid content. Recent controlled laboratory-based studies
showed that lipid contents played a significant role in the
bioaccumulation potential of OPEs (Wang et al. 2016,
2017b; Bekele et al. 2018). Similarly, field-based studies also
indicated a significant effect of lipid contents on the degree of
OPE accumulation in tissues of aquatic organisms (Kim et al.
49521
2011; Bekele et al. 2019, 2021). These studies documented a
linear and significant relationship between the levels OPEs in
tissues of organisms and their extractable lipid content,
indicating that lipid content is among the main factors that
govern accumulation of OPEs in aquatic organisms. Kim
et al. (2011) reported a significant and positive correlation
between lipid contents and the level of TPeP and TEP.
Bekele et al. (2019) also reported a linear and significant in-
crease in Σ17OPEs concentrations (ng/g dw) with an increase
in the extractable lipid content. In addition, Wang et al.
(2017b) showed significant and positive correlation between
BCF of OPEs (TBP, TDCP, EHDP, and TPP) and lipid con-
tents. However, no correlation was observed between lipid
contents and BCF of TCPP, and TCEP. Kim et al. (2011) also
showed similar observations, where most OPE concentration
do not depend on lipid content. Meanwhile, Wang et al.
(2016) demonstrated an increase in TPP-d15 concentration in
the liver, muscle, and brain of zebrafish with the in-
crease in lipid contents. Therefore, lipid (particularly
phospholipids) might play a vital role in the accumula-
tion of OPEs in aquatic organisms.
Apart from the three factors discussed above, other biolog-
ical factors mainly breeding season, sex, feeding habit, body
size, body weight, developmental stage, growth rate, habitat,
selective excretion abilities, and trophic level of species are
important factors that may affect bioaccumulation and
biomagnification of OPEs in aquatic organisms (Brandsma
et al. 2015; Hou et al. 2016; Kim et al. 2011). Due to these
factors, the accumulation potential of OPEs is different among
species and individuals. For example, Sundkvist et al. (2010)
reported that total OPE concentrations in small perch were
lower than in large perch. This indicates that larger fishes
could accumulate more OPEs. In a controlled laboratory
study, Wang et al. (2015b) showed that concentration of
TDCP in male zebrafish were lower than females after expo-
sure to similar concentration and period, indicating sex-
dependent bioaccumulation of OPEs.
Conclusions and perspectives
In this study, we made a comprehensive review on production/
usage, biological sample treatment and analysis, environmental
occurrences, toxicity, human exposure, and the bioaccumulation
potential of OPEs. Consumptions of OPEs in different regions
including China, Japan, and Western Europe and global usage
have been summarized in this review; however, the production,
use, and environmental levels of OPEs in Oceania, South
America, and Africa are poorly documented. These data will assist
future studies on OPEs in this region and will provide insight into
the global production and consumption trends of OPEs.
Meanwhile, limited extraction methods of OPEs from biological
samples have been developed; ASE, UAE, MAE, and Soxhlet are
49522
the common techniques. ASE has been successfully implemented
and expected to be increasingly used because of its high degree
automation and advantages. To reduce matrix interferences and
lipid contents of biological samples, SPE, dSPE, and GPC tech-
niques are preferred for the clean-up of biota samples for OPE
analysis. Mainly GC–MS, GC–MS/MS, and LC-MS/MS have
been used in analyzing OPEs in biota samples. LC-MS/MS-based
analysis is more advantageous than GC-MS techniques in its
higher selectivity and suitability for OPEs which are less volatile;
however, the high lipid proportion and matrix interference of biota
samples remains challenging when analyzing OPEs. Hence, there
is a need for robust extraction and clean-up method for the quan-
tification of OPEs and their metabolites in a biological sample.
Due to their extensive uses and weak chemical bonding to the
substrate material, OPEs are easily released to various environ-
mental compartments during production and usage. As a result,
OPEs have been reported in various matrices and become ubiqui-
tous. The residual levels of OPEs in surface and drinking water,
sediment, and aquatic organisms have been summarized in this
review. Relatively limited data are documented on the contamina-
tion level of OPEs in drinking water; hence, more comprehensive
studies are required for better evaluation of human exposure via
drinking water. OPE structural similarity to neurotoxic organo-
phosphate pesticides is the cause of concern. The majority of
reported studies on the toxicity/exposure of OPEs are based on
their similarity with organophosphate pesticides. Exposure of hu-
mankind to OPEs and the health risk have increased due to the
extensive application. Endocrine disruptive effects, developmental
toxicity, neurotoxicity, and reproductive toxicity are among the
effects reported in recent studies. Besides, OPEs showed a signif-
icant bioaccumulation potential and trophic transfer behavior in
aquatic food webs. However, the mechanisms for the bioaccumu-
lation of OPEs in the aquatic food web are still far from clear, and
we underscore its importance. Metabolism is an important biolog-
ical factor that controls the degree of bioaccumulation or
biomagnification; however, studies focused on metabolites of
OPEs are very limited. Nonetheless, few recent studies revealed
that the metabolites of OPEs have increased toxicity (Kojima et al.
2016; Wang et al. 2018a; Lee et al. 2020) and comparable bioac-
cumulation potential with parent OPEs (Hou et al. 2017).
Therefore, for comprehensive risk assessment and environmental
management of OPEs, we underline the importance of evaluating
the toxicological effects and bioaccumulation potential of OPE
metabolites in aquatic organisms.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary
material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15861-8.
Author contribution TGB: Conceptualization, data curation, formal anal-
ysis, investigation, methodology, software, validation, visualization, and
writing—original draft.
HZ: Funding acquisition, project administration, resources, supervi-
sion, and writing—reviewing and editing.
JY: Writing (reviewing and editing) and resources.
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
RGC: Data curation, investigation, and writing—reviewing and editing.
JC: Project administration, resources, validation, and supervision.
SM: Writing—reviewing and editing.
AQ: Writing—reviewing and editing.
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding This work was financially supported by the Arba Minch
University, Ethiopia (GOV/AMU/TH4/COA/NaRM/01/2010), the
National Science Foundation of Liaoning Province (Grant 2019-MS-
057), and the Petro China Innovation Foundation (2019D-5007-0502).
Data availability Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Abafe OA, Martincigh BS (2019) Concentrations, sources and human
exposure implications of organophosphate esters in indoor dust from
South Africa. Chemosphere 230:239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2019.04.175
Abbasi G, Saini A, Goosey E, Diamond ML (2016) Product screening for
sources of halogenated flame retardants in Canadian house and of-
fice dust. Sci Total Environ 545:299–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2015.12.028
Abdallah MAE, Covaci A (2014) Organophosphate flame retardants in
indoor dust from Egypt: Implications for human exposure. Environ
Sci Technol 48:4782–4789. https://doi.org/10.1021/es501078s
Alaee M, Arias P, Sjödin A, Bergman Å (2003) An overview of com-
mercially used brominated flame retardants, their applications, their
use patterns in different countries/regions and possible modes of
release. Environ Int 29:683–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-
4120(03)00121-1
Ali N, Alhakamy NA, Ismail IMI et al (2021) Exposure to phthalate and
organophosphate esters via indoor dust and pm10 is a cause of
concern for the exposed saudi population. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 18:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042125
Andresen JA, Grundmann A, Bester K (2004) Organophosphorus flame
retardants and plasticisers in surface waters. Sci Total Environ 332:
155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.04.021
Arnot JA, Gobas FAPC (2006) A review of bioconcentration factor
(BCF) and bioaccumulation factor (BAF) assessments for organic
chemicals in aquatic organisms. Environ Rev 14:257–297. https://
doi.org/10.1139/A06-005
Arukwe A, Carteny CC, Eggen T, Möder M (2018) Novel aspects of
uptake patterns, metabolite formation and toxicological responses
in Salmon exposed to the organophosphate esters—Tris(2-
butoxyethyl)- and tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate. Aquat Toxicol
196:146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2018.01.014
Behl M, Hsieh JH, Shafer TJ et al (2015) Use of alternative assays to
identify and prioritize organophosphorus flame retardants for poten-
tial developmental and neurotoxicity. Neurotoxicol Teratol 52:181–
193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2015.09.003
Bekele TG, Zhao H, Wang Y et al (2018) Measurement and prediction of
bioconcentration factors of organophosphate flame retardants in
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 166:270–
276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.09.089
Bekele TG, Zhao H, Wang Q, Chen J (2019) Bioaccumulation and tro-
phic transfer of emerging organophosphate flame retardants in the
marine food webs of Laizhou Bay, North China. Environ Sci
Technol 53:13417–13426. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03687
Bekele TG, Zhao H, Wang Q (2021) Tissue distribution and bioaccumu-
lation of organophosphate esters in wild marine fish from Laizhou
Bay, North China: implications of human exposure via fish con-
sumption. J Hazard Mater 401:123410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2020.123410
Björklund J, Isetun S, Nilsson U (2004) Selective determination of or-
ganophosphate flame retardants and plasticizers in indoor air by gas
chromatography, positive-ion chemical ionization and collision-
induced dissociation mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass
Spectrom 18:3079–3083. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.1721
Borga K, Fjeld E, Kierkegaard A, Mclachlan MS (2013) Consistency in
trophic magnification factors of cyclic methyl siloxanes in pelagic
freshwater food webs leading to brown trout. Environ Sci Technol
47:1439–1402. https://doi.org/10.1021/es404374j
Brandsma SH, Leonards PEGG, Leslie HA et al (2015) Tracing organo-
phosphorus and brominated flame retardants and plasticizers in an
estuarine food web. Sci Total Environ 505:22–31. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2014.08.072
Cao D, Guo J, Wang Y et al (2017) Organophosphate esters in sediment
of the great lakes. Environ Sci Technol 51:1441–1449. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05484
Cao D, Lv K, Gao W et al (2019) Presence and human exposure assess-
ment of organophosphate flame retardants (OPEs) in indoor dust
and air in Beijing, China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 169:383–391.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.11.038
Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin 1962:34–
42
Cequier E, Ionas AC, Covaci A et al (2014) Occurrence of a broad range
of legacy and emerging flame retardants in indoor environments in
Norway. Environ Sci Technol 48:6827–6835. https://doi.org/10.
1021/es500516u
Cequier E, Kaur A, Maria R et al (2015) Human exposure pathways to
organophosphate triesters — a biomonitoring study of mother–child
pairs. Environ Int 75:159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.
2014.11.009
Chapin RE, Sloane RA, Haseman JK (1997) The relationships among
reproductive endpoints in Swiss mice, using the reproductive assess-
ment by continuous breeding database. Fundam Appl Toxicol 38:
129–142. https://doi.org/10.1006/faat.1997.2341
Chen D, Letcher RJ, Chu S (2012) Determination of non-halogenated,
chlorinated and brominated organophosphate flame retardants in
herring gull eggs based on liquid chromatography-tandem quadru-
pole mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1220:169–174. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chroma.2011.11.046
Chen M, Jiang J, Gan Z et al (2019) Grain size distribution and exposure
evaluation of organophosphorus and brominated flame retardants in
indoor and outdoor dust and PM10 from Chengdu, China. J Hazard
Mater 365:280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.10.082
Choo G, Cho H, Park K et al (2018) Tissue-specific distribution and
bioaccumulation potential of organophosphate flame retardants in
crucian carp*. Environ Pollut 239:161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envpol.2018.03.104
Chu S, Letcher RJ (2015) Determination of organophosphate flame re-
tardants and plasticizers in lipid-rich matrices using dispersive solid-
phase extraction as a sample cleanup step and ultra-high perfor-
mance liquid chromatography with atmospheric pressure chemical
ionization mass. Anal Chim Acta 885:183–190. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.aca.2015.05.024
CPSC (2017) Commission guidance document on hazardous additive,
non-polymeric organohalogen flame retardants in certain consumer
49523
products. https://www.cpsc.gov/Business%2D%2DManufacturing/
Business-Education/Business-Guidance/flame-retardants. Accessed
10 Jan 2021
Cristale J, Katsoyiannis A, Sweetman AJ et al (2013) Occurrence and risk
assessment of organophosphorus and brominated flame retardants in
the River Aire (UK). Environ Pollut 179:194–200. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2013.04.001
Cristale J, Hurtado A, Gómez-Canela C, Lacorte S (2016) Occurrence
and sources of brominated and organophosphorus flame retardants
in dust from different indoor environments in Barcelona, Spain.
Environ Res 149:66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.05.
001
Cristale J, Aragão Belé TG, Lacorte S, de Marchi MRR (2019)
Occurrence of flame retardants in landfills: a case study in Brazil.
Environ Res 168:420–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.
10.010
Cui K, Wen J, Zeng F et al (2017) Occurrence and distribution of organ-
ophosphate esters in urban soils of the subtropical city, Guangzhou,
China. Chemosphere 175:514–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2017.02.070
De la Torre A, Navarro I, Sanz P, de los Ángeles Martínez M (2020)
Organophosphate compounds, polybrominated diphenyl ethers and
novel brominated flame retardants in European indoor house dust:
use, evidence for replacements and assessment of human exposure. J
Hazard Mater 382:121009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.
121009
Ding J, Shen X, Liu W et al (2015) Occurrence and risk assessment of
organophosphate esters in drinking water from Eastern China. Sci
Total Environ 538:959–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2015.08.101
Ding J, Xu Z, Huang W et al (2016) Organophosphate ester flame retar-
dants and plasticizers in human placenta in Eastern China. Sci Total
Environ 554–555:211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2016.02.171
Ding J, Deng T, Xu M et al (2018) Residuals of organophosphate esters in
foodstuffs and implication for human exposure. Environ Pollut 233:
986–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.09.092
Dionex ASE (2011) 350 Accelerated solvent extractor operator’s Manual.
Document 065207. Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Du Z, Wang G, Gao S, Wang Z (2015) Aryl organophosphate flame
retardants induced cardiotoxicity during zebrafish embryogenesis:
by disturbing expression of the transcriptional regulators. Aquat
Toxicol 161:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2015.01.027
Endo S, Escher BI, Goss KU (2011) Capacities of membrane lipids to
accumulate neutral organic chemicals. Environ Sci Technol 45:
5912–5921. https://doi.org/10.1021/es200855w
European Commission (2014) Commission directive 2014/79/EU of 20
June 2014 amending appendix C of annex II to directive 2009/48/
EC of the European Parliament and of the council on the safety of
toys, as regards TCEP, TCPP and TDCP
Fabiańska MJ, Kozielska B, Konieczyński J, Bielaczyc P (2019)
Occurrence of organic phosphates in particulate matter of the vehicle
exhausts and outdoor environment – a case study. Environ Pollut
244:351–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.060
Farhat A, Crump D, Chiu S et al (2013) In ovo effects of two organo-
phosphate flame retardants-TCPP and TDCPP-on pipping success,
development, mRNA expression, and thyroid hormone levels in
chicken embryos. Toxicol Sci 134:92–102. https://doi.org/10.
1093/toxsci/kft100
Fisk AT, Norstrom RJ, Cymbalisty CD, Muir DCG (1998) Dietary accu-
mulation and depuration of hydrophobic organochlorines: bioaccu-
mulation parameters and their relationship with the octanol/water
partition coefficient. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:951–961. https://
doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620170526
Frederiksen M, Stapleton HM, Vorkamp K et al (2018) Dermal uptake
and percutaneous penetration of organophosphate esters in a human
49524
skin ex vivo model. Chemosphere 197:185–192. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chemosphere.2018.01.032
Fries E, Püttmann W (2001) Occurrence of organophosphate esters in
surface water and ground water in Germany. J Environ Monit 3:
621–626. https://doi.org/10.1039/b105072a
Fries E, Püttmann W (2003) Monitoring of the three organophosphate
esters TBP, TCEP and TBEP in river water and ground water (Oder,
Germany). J Environ Monit 5:346–352. https://doi.org/10.1039/
b210342g
Gao Z, Deng Y, Yuan W et al (2014) Determination of organophosphorus
flame retardants in fish by pressurized liquid extraction using aque-
ous solutions and solid-phase microextraction coupled with gas
chromatography-flame photometric detector. J Chromatogr A
1366:31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2014.09.028
Gao D, Yang J, Bekele TG et al (2019) Organophosphate esters in human
serum in Bohai Bay, North China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:2721–
2729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07204-5
Giulivo M, Capri E, Kalogianni E et al (2017) Occurrence of halogenated
and organophosphate flame retardants in sediment and fish samples
from three European river basins. Sci Total Environ 586:782–791.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.056
Gobas FAPC, Opperhuizen A, Hutzinger O (1986) Bioconcentration of
hydrophobic chemicals in fish: relationship with membrane perme-
ation. Environ Toxicol Chem 5:637–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/
etc.5620050704
Gobas FAPC, De Wolf W, Burkhard LP et al (2009) Revisiting bioaccu-
mulation criteria for POPs and PBT assessments. Integr Environ
Assess Manag 5:624–637. https://doi.org/10.1897/IEAM_2008-
089.1
Government of Canada (2010) Canada Consumer Product Safety Act
(S.C. 2010, c. 21). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-1.68/
FullText.html. Accessed 26 Dec 2020
Greaves AK, Letcher RJ (2014) Comparative body compartment compo-
sition and in ovo transfer of organophosphate flame retardants in
North American Great Lakes herring gulls. Environ Sci Technol
48:7942–7950. https://doi.org/10.1021/es501334w
Greaves AK, Letcher RJ, Chen D et al (2016) Retrospective analysis of
organophosphate flame retardants in herring gull eggs and relation
to the aquatic food web in the Laurentian Great Lakes of North
America. Environ Res 150:255–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2016.06.006
Guo J, Venier M, Salamova A, Hites RA (2017) Bioaccumulation of
Dechloranes, organophosphate esters, and other flame retardants in
Great Lakes fish. Sci Total Environ 583:1–9. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.063
Guo H, Zheng X, Ru S et al (2019) Size-dependent concentrations and
bioaccessibility of organophosphate esters (OPEs) in indoor dust: a
comparative study from a megacity and an e-waste recycling site.
Sci Total Environ 650:1954–1960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.09.340
Gustavsson J, Wiberg K, Ribeli E et al (2018) Screening of organic flame
retardants in Swedish river water. Sci Total Environ 625:1046–
1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.281
Hallanger IG, Sagerup K, Evenset A et al (2015) Organophosphorous
flame retardants in biota from Svalbard, Norway. MPB 101:442–
447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.09.049
Han X, Hao Y, Li Y et al (2020) Occurrence and distribution of organo-
phosphate esters in the air and soils of Ny-Ålesund and London
Island, Svalbard, Arctic. Environ Pollut 263:114495. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114495
He CT, Zheng J, Qiao L et al (2015) Occurrence of organophosphorus
flame retardants in indoor dust in multiple microenvironments of
southern China and implications for human exposure.
Chemosphere 133:47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.
2015.03.043
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
He H, Gao Z, Zhu D et al (2017a) Assessing bioaccessibility and bio-
availability of chlorinated organophosphorus flame retardants in
sediments. Chemosphere 189:239–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2017.09.017
He MJ, Yang T, Yang ZH et al (2017b) Occurrence and distribution of
organophosphate esters in surface soil and street dust from
Chongqing, China: implications for human exposure. Arch
Environ Contam Toxicol 73:349–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00244-017-0432-7
He C, English K, Baduel C et al (2018a) Concentrations of organophos-
phate flame retardants and plasticizers in urine from young children
in Queensland, Australia and associations with environmental and
behavioural factors. Environ Res 164:262–270.https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envres.2018.02.040
He C, Toms LML, Thai P et al (2018b) Urinary metabolites of organo-
phosphate esters: concentrations and age trends in Australian chil-
dren. Environ Int 111:124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.
2017.11.019
He MJ, Lu JF, Wei SQ (2019) Organophosphate esters in biota, water,
and air from an agricultural area of Chongqing, western China:
concentrations, composition profiles, partition and human exposure.
Environ Pollut 244:388–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.
10.085
Heindel JJ, Blumberg B, Cave M et al (2017) Metabolism disrupting
chemicals and metabolic disorders. Reprod Toxicol 68:3–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2016.10.001
Hou R, Xu Y, Wang Z (2016) Review of OPFRs in animals and humans:
absorption, bioaccumulation, metabolism, and internal exposure re-
search. Chemosphere 153:78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2016.03.003
Hou R, Liu C, Gao X et al (2017) Accumulation and distribution of
organophosphate flame retardants (PFRs) and their di-alkyl phos-
phates (DAPs) metabolites in different freshwater fish from loca-
tions around Beijing, China. Environ Pollut 229:548–556. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.06.097
Hou L, Jiang J, Gan Z et al (2019) Spatial distribution of organophos-
phorus and brominated flame retardants in surface water, sediment,
groundwater, and wild fish in Chengdu, China. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 77:279–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-019-
00624-x
Hou M, Shi Y, Jin Q, Cai Y (2020a) Organophosphate esters and their
metabolites in paired human whole blood, serum, and urine as bio-
markers of exposure. Environ Int 139:105698. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envint.2020.105698
Hou R, Xu Y, Rao K et al (2020b) Tissue-specific bioaccumulation,
metabolism and excretion of tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (TEHP)
in rare minnow (Gobiocyprisrarus). Environ Pollut 261:114245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114245
Hou M, Shi Y, Na G, Cai Y (2021) A review of organophosphate esters in
indoor dust, air, hand wipes and silicone wristbands: implications
for human exposure. Environ Int 146:106261. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envint.2020.106261
Hu M, Li J, Zhang B et al (2014) Regional distribution of halogenated
organophosphate flame retardants in seawater samples from three
coastal cities in China. Mar Pollut Bull 86:569–574. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.009
Hu YX, Sun YX, Xu WH et al (2017) Organophosphorus flame retar-
dants in mangrove sediments from the Pearl River Estuary, South
China. Chemosphere 181:433–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2017.04.117
Jarema KA, Hunter DL, Shaffer RM et al (2015) Acute and developmen-
tal behavioral effects of flame retardants and related chemicals in
zebrafish. Neurotoxicol Teratol 52:194–209. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ntt.2015.08.010
Kajiwara N, Noma Y, Takigami H (2011) Brominated and organophos-
phate flame retardants in selected consumer products on the
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
Japanese market in 2008. J Hazard Mater 192:1250–1259. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.06.043
Kelly BC, Ikonomou MG, Blair JD et al (2007) Food web specific
biomagnification of persistent organic pollutants. Science (80)
317(5835):236–239. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1138275
Khan MU, Li J, Zhang G, Malik RN (2016) First insight into the levels
and distribution of flame retardants in potable water in Pakistan: an
underestimated problem with an associated health risk diagnosis. Sci
Total Environ 565:346–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2016.04.173
Kim UJ, Kannan K (2018) Occurrence and distribution of organophos-
phate flame retardants/plasticizers in surface waters, tap water, and
rainwater: implications for human exposure. Environ Sci Technol
52:5625–5633. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00727
Kim JW, Isobe T, Chang KH et al (2011) Levels and distribution of
organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in fishes from
Manila Bay, the Philippines. Environ Pollut 159:3653–3659. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.07.020
Kojima H, Takeuchi S, Van den Eede N, Covaci A (2016) Effects of
primary metabolites of organophosphate flame retardants on tran-
scriptional activity via human nuclear receptors. Toxicol Lett 245:
31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.01.004
Lai NLS, Kwok KY, Xhong W et al (2019) Assessment of organophos-
phorus flame retardants and plasticizers in aquatic environments of
China (Pearl River Delta, South China Sea, Yellow River Estuary)
and Japan (Tokyo Bay). J Hazard Mater 371:288–294. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.03.029
Lee S, Jeong W, Kannan K, Moon HB (2016) Occurrence and exposure
assessment of organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) through
the consumption of drinking water in Korea. Water Res 103:182–
188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.07.034
Lee S, Cho HJ, Choi W, Moon HB (2018) Organophosphate flame retar-
dants (OPFRs) in water and sediment: occurrence, distribution, and
hotspots of contamination of Lake Shihwa, Korea. Mar Pollut Bull
130:105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.03.009
Lee JS, Morita Y, Kawai YK et al (2020) Developmental circulatory
failure caused by metabolites of organophosphorus flame retardants
in zebrafish, Danio rerio. Chemosphere 246:125738. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125738
Li J, Yu N, Zhang B et al (2014) Occurrence of organophosphate flame
retardants in drinking water from China. Water Res 54:53–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.031
Li G, Du Y, Liang J et al (2018) Characteristics of gasoline–air mixture
explosions with different obstacle configurations. J Energy Inst 91:
194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2017.01.001
Li J, He J, Li Y et al (2019a) Assessing the threats of organophosphate
esters (flame retardants and plasticizers) to drinking water safety
based on USEPA oral reference dose (RfD) and oral cancer slope
factor (SFO). Water Res 154:84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2019.01.035
Li J, Zhao L, Letcher RJ et al (2019b) A review on organophosphate Ester
(OPE) flame retardants and plasticizers in foodstuffs: levels, distri-
bution, human dietary exposure, and future directions. Environ Int
127:35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.03.009
Li Y, Fu Y, Hu K et al (2020) Positive correlation between human expo-
sure to organophosphate esters and gastrointestinal cancer in pa-
tients from Wuhan, China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 196:110548.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110548
Liang Y, Wang H, Yang Q et al (2020) Spatial distribution and seasonal
variations of atmospheric organophosphate esters (OPEs) in Tianjin,
China based on gridded field observations. Environ Pollut 263:
114460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114460
Liu S, Bekele T-G, Zhao H et al (2018a) Bioaccumulation and tissue
distribution of antibiotics in wild marine fish from Laizhou Bay.
North China Sci Total Environ:631–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.03.139
49525
Liu YE, Huang LQ, Luo XJ et al (2018b) Determination of organophos-
phorus flame retardants in fish by freezing-lipid precipitation, solid-
phase extraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J
Chromatogr A 1532:68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2017.
12.001
Liu Y, Luo X, Zapata P et al (2019a) Organophosphorus flame retardants
in a typical freshwater food web: Bioaccumulation factors, tissue
distribution, and trophic transfer *. Environ Pollut 255:113286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113286
Liu YE, Luo XJ, Huang LQ et al (2019b) Organophosphorus flame
retardants in fish from Rivers in the Pearl River Delta, South
China. Sci Total Environ 663:125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.01.344
Luo P, Bao LJ, Guo Y et al (2016) Size-dependent atmospheric deposi-
tion and inhalation exposure of particle-bound organophosphate
flame retardants. J Hazard Mater 301:504–511. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhazmat.2015.09.014
Ma Y, Cui K, Zeng F et al (2013) Microwave-assisted extraction com-
bined with gel permeation chromatography and silica gel cleanup
followed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for the deter-
mination of organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in
biological samples. Anal Chim Acta 786:47–53. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.aca.2013.04.062
Ma Y, Xie Z, Lohmann R et al (2017) Organophosphate ester flame
retardants and plasticizers in ocean sediments from the North
Pacific to the Arctic Ocean. Environ Sci Technol 51:3809–3815
Mackintosh CE, Maldonado J, Hongwu J et al (2004) Distribution of
phthalate esters in a marine aquatic food web: comparison to
polychlorinated biphenyls. Environ Sci Technol 38:2011–2020.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es034745r
Makinen MSE, Makinen MRA, Koistinen JTB et al (2009) Respiratory
and dermal exposure to organophosphorus flame retardants and
tetrabromobisphenol A at five work environments. Environ Sci
Technol 43:941–947. https://doi.org/10.1021/es802593t
Marklund A, Andersson B, Haglund P (2003) Screening of organophos-
phorus compounds and their distribution in various indoor environ-
ments. Chemosphere 53:1137–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0045-6535(03)00666-0
Marklund A, Andersson B, Haglund P (2005) Organophosphorus flame
retardants and plasticizers in Swedish sewage treatment plants.
Environ Sci Technol 39:7423–7429. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es051013l
McGoldrick DJ, Letcher RJ, Barresi E et al (2014) Organophosphate
flame retardants and organosiloxanes in predatory freshwater fish
from locations across Canada. Environ Pollut 193:254–261. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.024
MD (2013) Public health - child care products containing flame-retardant
chemicals (TCEP) - prohibition. https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/
mgawebsite/legislation/details/hb0099?ys=2013rs. Accessed 17
Sep 2020
Meeker JD, Stapleton HM (2010) House dust concentrations of organo-
phosphate flame retardants in relation to hormone levels and semen
quality parameters. Environ Health Perspect 118:318–323. https://
doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901332
Mo L, Zheng J, Wang T et al (2019) Legacy and emerging contaminants
in coastal surface sediments around Hainan Island in South China.
Chemosphere 215:133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.
2018.10.022
Möller A, Sturm R, Xie Z et al (2012) Organophosphorus flame retar-
dants and plasticizers in airborne particles over the Northern Pacific
and Indian Ocean toward the polar regions: Evidence for global
occurrence. Environ Sci Technol 46:3127–3134. https://doi.org/10.
1021/es204272v
Muir DCG, Yarechewski AL, Grift NP (1983) Environmental dynamics
of phosphate esters III. Comparison of the bioconcentration of four
49526
triaryl phosphates by fish. Chemosphere 12:155–166. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0045-6535(83)90159-5
Nguyen TMD, Chang S, Condon B et al (2012) Synthesis and character-
ization of a novel phosphorus-nitrogen-containing flame retardant
and its application for textile. Polym Adv Technol 23:1036–1044.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pat.2008
Noyes PD, Haggard DE, Gonnerman GD, Tanguay RL (2015) Advanced
morphological - behavioral test platform reveals
neurodevelopmental defects in embryonic zebrafish exposed to
comprehensive suite of halogenated and organophosphate flame re-
tardants. Toxicol Sci 145:177–195. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/
kfv044
Pantelaki I, Voutsa D (2019) Organophosphate flame retardants
(OPFRs): a review on analytical methods and occurrence in waste-
water and aquatic environment. Sci Total Environ 649:247–263.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.286
Percy Z, Vuong AM, Ospina M et al (2020) Organophosphate esters in a
cohort of pregnant women: variability and predictors of exposure.
Environ Res 184:109255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.
109255
Poma G, Glynn A, Malarvannan G et al (2017) Dietary intake of phos-
phorus flame retardants (PFRs) using Swedish food market basket
estimations. Food Chem Toxicol 100:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fct.2016.12.011
Poma G, Sales C, Bruyland B et al (2018) Occurrence of organophos-
phorus flame retardants and plasticizers (PFRs) in Belgian foodstuff
and estimation of the dietary exposure of the adult population.
Environ Sci Technol 52:2331–2338. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.7b06395
Qiao L, Zheng XB, Zheng J et al (2016) Analysis of human hair to assess
exposure to organophosphate flame retardants: influence of hair
segments and gender differences. Environ Res 148:177–183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.03.032
Quintana JB, Rodil R, Reemtsma T et al (2008) Organophosphorus flame
retardants and plasticizers in water and air II. Analytical methodol-
ogy TrAC - Trends Anal Chem 27:904–915. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.trac.2008.08.004
REACH (2015) The prohibition of TCEP. https://echa.europa.eu/
authorisation-list. Accessed 2 Oct 2020
Reemtsma T, Quintana B, Rodil R et al (2008) Organophosphorus flame
retardants and plasticizers in water and air I. Occurrence and fate.
Trends Anal Chem 27:727–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2008.
07.002doi:10.1016/j.trac.2008.07.002
Regnery J, Püttmann W (2010) Occurrence and fate of organophosphorus
flame retardants and plasticizers in urban and remote surface waters
in Germany. Water Res 44:4097–4104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2010.05.024
Ren G, Chu X, Zhang J et al (2019) Organophosphate esters in the water,
sediments, surface soils, and tree bark surrounding a manufacturing
plant in north China. Environ Pollut 246:374–380. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2018.12.020
Richter BE, Jones BA, Ezzell JL et al (1996) Accelerated solvent extrac-
tion: a technique for sample preparation. Anal Chem 68:1033–1039.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ac9508199
RSD (Research and Statistics Department) (2010) Economic and
Industrial Policy Bureau, Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry, Tokyo J Yearbook of Chemical Industry Statistics
Salamova A, Ma Y, Venier M, Hites RA (2013) High levels of organo-
phosphate flame retardants in the Great Lakes atmosphere. Environ
Sci Technol Lett 1:8–14. https://doi.org/10.1021/ez400034n
Santín G, Eljarrat E, Barceló D (2016) Simultaneous determination of 16
organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in fish by liquid
chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1441:
34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2016.02.058
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
Schang G, Robaire B, Hales BF (2016) Organophosphate flame retar-
dants act as endocrine-disrupting chemicals in MA-10 mouse tumor
Leydig cells. Toxicol Sci 150:499–509
Shi Y, Gao L, Li W et al (2016) Occurrence, distribution and seasonal
variation of organophosphate flame retardants and plasticizers in
urban surface water in Beijing, China. Environ Pollut 209:1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.11.008
Shi Q, Wang M, Shi F et al (2018) Developmental neurotoxicity of
triphenyl phosphate in zebrafish larvae. Aquat Toxicol 203:80–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2018.08.001
Stasinska A, Heyworth J, Reid A et al (2014) Polybrominated diphenyl
ether (PBDE) concentrations in plasma of pregnant women from
Western Australia. Sci Total Environ 493:554–561. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.001
Su G, Greaves AK, Gauthier L, Letcher RJ (2014) Liquid
chromatography-electrospray-tandem mass spectrometry method
for determination of organophosphate diesters in biotic samples in-
cluding Great Lakes herring gull plasma. J Chromatogr A 1374:85–
92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2014.11.022
Sun Y, Zhang Z, Xu X et al (2015) Bioaccumulation and
biomagnification of halogenated organic pollutants in mangrove
biota from the Pearl River Estuary, South China. Mar Pollut Bull
99:150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.041
Sun R, Luo X, Tang B et al (2017) Bioaccumulation of short chain
chlorinated paraffins in a typical freshwater food web contaminated
by e-waste in south china: bioaccumulation factors, tissue distribu-
tion, and trophic transfer *. Environ Pollut 222:165–174. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.060
Sun Y, Guo JQ, Liu LY et al (2020) Seasonal variation and influence
factors of organophosphate esters in air particulate matter of a north-
eastern Chinese test home. Sci Total Environ 740:140048. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140048
Sundkvist AM, Olofsson U, Haglund P (2010) Organophosphorus flame
retardants and plasticizers in marine and fresh water biota and in
human milk. J Environ Monit 12:943. https://doi.org/10.1039/
b921910b
Sutton R, Chen D, Sun J et al (2019) Characterization of brominated,
chlorinated, and phosphate flame retardants in San Francisco Bay,
an urban estuary. Sci Total Environ 652:212–223. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.096
Tang B, Poma G, Bastiaensen M et al (2019) Bioconcentration and bio-
transformation of organophosphorus flame retardants (PFRs) in
common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Environ Int 126:512–522. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.02.063
Teo TLL, Mcdonald JA, Coleman HM, Khan SJ (2015) Analysis of
organophosphate flame retardants and plasticisers in water by iso-
tope dilution gas chromatography-electron ionisation tandem mass
spectrometry. Talanta 143:114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
talanta.2015.04.091
UNEP (2019) Stockholm convention on POPs, Governments unite to
step-up reduction on global DDT reliance and add nine new
chemicals under international treaty
USEPA (2014) HPV chemical hazard characterizations. http://iaspub.
epa.gov/oppthpv/hpv_hc_characterization.get_report. Accessed 2
Oct 2020
Van Den Eede N, Maho W, Erratico C et al (2013) First insights in the
metabolism of phosphate flame retardants and plasticizers using
human liver fractions. Toxicol Lett 223:9–15. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.toxlet.2013.08.012
Van den Eede N, Erratico C, Exarchou V et al (2015) In vitro biotrans-
formation of tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (TBOEP) in human liver
and serum. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 284:246–253. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.taap.2015.01.021
van der Veen I, de Boer J (2012) Phosphorus flame retardants: properties,
production, environmental occurrence, toxicity and analysis.
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
Chemosphere 88:1119–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2012.03.067
Velázquez-Gómez M, Hurtado-Fernández E, Lacorte S (2019)
Differential occurrence, profiles and uptake of dust contaminants
in the Barcelona urban area. Sci Total Environ 648:1354–1370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.058
Walters DM, Jardine TD, Cade BS, Kidd KA (2016) Trophic magnifica-
tion of organic chemicals : a global synthesis. Environ Sci Technol
50:4650–4658. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00201
Wang Y, Kannan K (2018) Concentrations and dietary exposure to or-
ganophosphate esters in foodstuffs from Albany, New York, United
States. J Agric Food Chem 66:13525–13532. https://doi.org/10.
1021/acs.jafc.8b06114
Wang X, Liu J, Yin YG (2010) The pollution status and research progress
on organophosphate esters flame retardants. Prog Chem 22:1983–
1992 (in Chinese)
Wang Q, Lai NLS, Wang X et al (2015a) Bioconcentration and transfer of
the organophorous flame retardant 1,3-dichloro-2-propyl phosphate
causes thyroid endocrine disruption and developmental neurotoxic-
ity in zebrafish larvae. Environ Sci Technol 49:5123–5132. https://
doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00558
Wang Q, Lam JCW, Man YC et al (2015b) Bioconcentration, metabolism
and neurotoxicity of the organophorous flame retardant 1,3-dichloro
2-propyl phosphate (TDCPP) to zebrafish. Aquat Toxicol 158:108–
115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2014.11.001
Wang R, Tang J, Xie Z et al (2015c) Occurrence and spatial distribution
of organophosphate ester flame retardants and plasticizers in 40
rivers draining into the Bohai Sea, north China. Environ Pollut
198:172–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.12.037
Wang G, Du Z, Chen H et al (2016) Tissue-specific accumulation,
depuration, and transformation of triphenyl phosphate (TPHP) in
adult zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ Sci Technol 50:13555–
13564. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04697
Wang G, Chen H, Du Z et al (2017a) In vivo metabolism of organophos-
phate flame retardants and distribution of their main metabolites in
adult zebrafish. Sci Total Environ 590–591:50–59. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.038
Wang G, Shi H, Du Z et al (2017b) Bioaccumulation mechanism of
organophosphate esters in adult zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ
Pollut 229:177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.05.075
Wang Y, Wu X, Zhang Q et al (2017c) Organophosphate esters in sed-
iment cores from coastal Laizhou Bay of the Bohai Sea China. Sci
Total Environ 607–608:103–108
Wang D, Zhu W, Chen L et al (2018a) Neonatal triphenyl phosphate and
its metabolite diphenyl phosphate exposure induce sex- and dose-
dependent metabolic disruptions in adult mice. Environ Pollut 237:
10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.047
Wang X, Zhu L, Zhong W, Yang L (2018b) Partition and source identi-
fication of organophosphate esters in the water and sediment of
Taihu Lake, China. J Hazard Mater 66:13525–13532. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.07.082
Wang Y, Wu X, Zhang Q et al (2018c) Occurrence , distribution , and air-
water exchange of organophosphorus fl ame retardants in a typical
coastal area of China. Chemosphere 211:335–344. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.07.062
Wang X, Zhong W, Xiao B et al (2019a) Bioavailability and
biomagnification of organophosphate esters in the food web of
Taihu Lake, China: impacts of chemical properties and metabolism.
Environ Int 125:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.01.
018
Wang Y, Yao Y, Li W et al (2019b) A nationwide survey of 19 organo-
phosphate esters in soils from China: spatial distribution and hazard
assessment. Sci Total Environ 671:528–535. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.335
Wang Q, Zhao H, Bekele TG et al (2020a) Organophosphate esters
(OPEs) in wetland soil and Suaeda salsa from intertidal Laizhou
49527
Bay. Levels, distribution, and soil-plant transfer model. Sci Total
Environ, North China. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.
142891
Wang X, Zhu Q, Yan X et al (2020b) A review of organophosphate flame
retardants and plasticizers in the environment: analysis, occurrence
and risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 731:139071. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139071
Wang Y, Yao Y, Han X et al (2020c) Organophosphate di- and tri-esters
in indoor and outdoor dust from China and its implications for hu-
man exposure. Sci Total Environ 700:134502. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134502
Wei GL, Li DQ, Zhuo MN et al (2015) Organophosphorus flame retar-
dants and plasticizers: sources, occurrence, toxicity and human ex-
posure. Environ Pollut 196:29–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.
2014.09.012
Weisbrod AV, Burkhard LP, Arnot J et al (2007) Workgroup report:
review of fish bioaccumulation databases used to identify persistent,
bioaccumlative, toxic substances. Environ Health Perspect 115:
255–261. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9424
Wolschke H, Sühring R, Xie Z, Ebinghaus R (2015) Organophosphorus
flame retardants and plasticizers in the aquatic environment: a case
study of the Elbe River, Germany. Environ Pollut 206:488–493.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.08.002
Wolschke H, Sühring R, Mi W et al (2016) Atmospheric occurrence and
fate of organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizer at the
German coast. Atmos Environ 137:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2016.04.028
Wolschke H, Sühring R, Massei R et al (2018) Regional variations of
organophosphorus flame retardants - fingerprint of large river basin
estuaries/deltas in Europe compared with China. Environ Pollut
236:391–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.061
World Health Organization (1991) Triphenyl phosphate. Environmental
Health Criteria 111; World Health Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland
World Health Organization (1998) Flame retardants: Tris-(chloropropyl)
phosphate and tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate. Environmental Health
Criteria 209; World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
World Health Organization (2000) Flame retardants: Tris(2-butoxyethyl)
phosphate, tris(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate and tetrakis-
(hydroxymethyl) phosphonium salts. Environmental Health
Criteria 209; World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
Xu F, Giovanoulis G, Van Waes S et al (2016) Comprehensive study of
human external exposure to organophosphate flame retardants via
air, dust, and hand wipes: the importance of sampling and assess-
ment strategy. Environ Sci Technol 50:7752–7760. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.6b00246
Xu F, Eulaers I, Alves A et al (2019a) Human exposure pathways to
organophosphate flame retardants: associations between human bio-
monitoring and external exposure. Environ Int 127:462–472. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.03.053
Xu L, Hu Q, Liu J et al (2019b) Occurrence of organophosphate esters
and their diesters degradation products in industrial wastewater
treatment plants in China: implication for the usage and potential
degradation during production processing. Environ Pollut 250:559–
566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.04.058
Yadav IC, Devi NL, Zhong G et al (2017) Occurrence and fate of organ-
ophosphate ester flame retardants and plasticizers in indoor air and
dust of Nepal: implication for human exposure. Environ Pollut 229:
668–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.06.089
Yadav IC, Devi NL, Li J et al (2018) Concentration and spatial distribu-
tion of organophosphate esters in the soil-sediment profile of
Kathmandu Valley, Nepal: implication for risk assessment. Sci
Total Environ 613–614:502–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.09.039
Yang J, Zhao Y, Li M et al (2019) A review of a class of emerging
contaminants: the classification, distribution, intensity of
49528
consumption, synthesis routes, environmental effects and expecta-
tion of pollution abatement to organophosphate flame retardants
(opfrs). Int J Mol Sci 20:1–38. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijms20122874
Yu L, Jia Y, Su G et al (2017) Parental transfer of tris(1,3-dichloro-2-
propyl) phosphate and transgenerational inhibition of growth of
zebrafish exposed to environmentally relevant concentrations.
Environ Pollut 220:196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.
2016.09.039
Yuan S, Li H, Dang Y, Liu C (2018) Effects of triphenyl phosphate on
growth, reproduction and transcription of genes of Daphnia magna.
Aquat Toxicol 195:58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2017.
12.009
Zeng X, Hu Q, He L et al (2018) Occurrence, distribution and ecological
risks of organophosphate esters and synthetic musks in sediments
from the Hun River. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 160:178–183. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.05.034
Zha D, Li Y, Yang C, Yao C (2018) Assessment of organophosphate
flame retardants in surface water and sediment from a freshwater
environment (Yangtze River, China). Environ Monit Assess 190:
222
Zhang X, Zou W, Mu L et al (2016) Rice ingestion is a major pathway for
human exposure to organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) in
China. J Hazard Mater 318:686–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2016.07.055
Zhang W, Wang P, Zhu Y et al (2020) Occurrence and human exposure
assessment of organophosphate esters in atmospheric PM2.5 in the
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:49507–49528
Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 206:
111399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111399
Zhao H, Zhao F, Liu J et al (2018) Trophic transfer of organophosphorus
flame retardants in a lake food web. Environ Pollut 242:1887–1893.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.077
Zhao L, Zhang Y, Deng Y et al (2020) Traditional and emerging organ-
ophosphate esters (OPEs) in indoor dust of Nanjing, eastern China:
occurrence, human exposure, and risk assessment. Sci Total Environ
712:136494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136494
Zhong M, Tang J, Mi L et al (2017) Occurrence and spatial distribution of
organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in the Bohai and
Yellow Seas. China Mar Pollut Bull 121:331–338
Zhong M, Wu H, Mi W et al (2018) Occurrences and distribution char-
acteristics of organophosphate ester flame retardants and plasticizers
in the sediments of the Bohai and Yellow Seas, China. Sci Total
Environ 615:1305–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.
09.272
Zhu H, Al-Bazi MM, Kumosani TA, Kannan K (2020) Occurrence and
profiles of organophosphate esters in infant clothing and raw textiles
collected from the United States. Environ Sci Technol Lett 7:415–
420. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00221
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.