PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
December 2023
United States Office of Chemical Safety and
Environmental Protection Agency Pollution Prevention
xvEPA
Draft Risk Evaluation for
for Tris(2-chloroethyl) Phosphate (TCEP)
Supplemental File:
Exposure Monitoring Tornado Figures, Supplemental Tables and Data
Integration Methods and Approach for TCEP
CASRN: 115-96-8
December 2023
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CONCENTRATIONS REPORTED BY MEDIA
TYPE 8
1.1 Ambient Air 8
1.1.1 Ambient Air (ng/g) - Particulate Fraction 8
1.1.2 Ambient Air (ng/m3) - All Fractions 8
1.2 Aquatic Organisms - Fish 11
1.2.1 Aquatic Organisms - Fish (ng/g) - All Fractions 11
1.3 Aquatic Organisms - Mammal 13
1.3.1 Aquatic Organisms - Mammal (ng/g) - Lipid Fraction 13
1.4 Aquatic Organisms - Mollusk 14
1.4.1 Aquatic Organisms - Mollusk (ng/g) - All Fractions 14
1.5 Aquatic Organisms - Other 15
1.5.1 Aquatic Organisms - Other (ng/g) - Wet Fraction 15
1.6 Dietary 16
1.6.1 Dietary (ng/g) - Wet Fraction 16
1.6.2 Dietary (ng/g) - Wet Fraction 19
1.7 Drinking Water 20
1.7,1 Drinking Water (ng/L) - Not Specified Fraction 20
1.8 Dust (Indoor) 22
1.8.1 Dust (Indoor) (ng/g) - Dry Fraction 22
1.8.2 Dust (Indoor) (ng/g) - Dry Fraction 28
1.8.3 Dust (Indoor) (ng/m2) - Dry Fraction 29
1.9 Groundwater 30
1.9.1 Groundwater (ng/L) - Not Specified Fraction 30
1.10 Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk 32
1.10.1 Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk (ng/L) - wet Fraction 32
1.10.2 Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk (ng/g) - Lipid Fraction 32
1.11 Human Biomonitoring - Hair 33
1.11.1 Human Biomonitoring - Hair (ng/g) - Dry Fraction 33
1.12 Human Biomonitoring - Nails 34
1.12.1 Human Biomonitoring - Nails (ng/g) - Dry Fraction 34
1.13 Human Biomonitoring - Other 34
1.13.1 Human Biomonitoring - Other (ng/g) - Dry Fraction 34
1.13.2 Human Biomonitoring - Other (ng/g) - Dry Fraction 35
1.14 Human Biomonitoring - Plasma 35
1.14,1 Human Biomonitoring - Plasma (ng/L) - Wet Fraction 35
1.15 Human Biomonitoring - Serum 36
1.15,1 Human Biomonitoring - Serum (ng/g) - Lipid Fraction 36
1.16 Human Biomonitoring - SkinDermal Wipe 37
1.16.1 Human Biomonitoring - Skin Dermal Wipe (ng/g) - Dry Fraction 37
1.16.2 Human Biomonitoring - Skin Dermal Wipe (ng/wipe) - Dry Fraction 37
1.17 Human Biomonitoring - Urine 38
1.17.1 Human Biomonitoring - Urine (ng/g) - Creatinine Adjusted Fraction 38
1.17.2 Human Biomonitoring - Urine (ng/L) - Unadjusted Fraction 39
1.17.3 Human Biomonitoring - Urine (ng/L) - All Fractions 39
1.18 Human Biomonitoring - Silicone Wristbands 40
Page 2 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
1.18.1 Human Biomonitoring - Silicone Wristbands (ng/g) - Not Specified Fraction 40
1.19 Indoor Air 41
1.19.1 Indoor Air (ng/m3) - All Fractions 41
1.20 Leachate 45
1.20.1 Leachate (ng/L) - Not Specified Fraction 45
1.21 Other 46
1.21.1 Other (ng/g) - Dry Fraction 46
1.21.2 Other (ng/g) - All Fractions 47
1.21.3 Other (ng/L) - Not Specified Fraction 48
1.22 Personal Inhalation 48
1.22.1 Personal Inhalation (ng/m3) - All Fractions 48
1.23 Precipitation 49
1.23.1 Precipitation (ng/L) - Wet Fraction 49
1.24 Sediment 51
1.24.1 Sediment (ng/g) - All Fractions 51
1.25 Soil 53
1.25.1 Soil (ng/g) - Dry Fraction 53
1.26 Surface Water 54
1.26.1 Surface Water (ng/L) - Not Specified Fraction 54
1.27 Terrestrial Organisms - Bird 57
1.27.1 Terrestrial Organisms - Bird (ng/g) - All Fractions 57
1.27.2 Terrestrial Organisms - Bird (ng/g) - Wet Fraction 59
1.28 Terrestrial Organisms - Mammal 60
1.28.1 Terrestrial Organisms - Mammal (ng/g) - All Fractions 60
1.29 Terrestrial Organisms - Plant 61
1.29.1 Terrestrial Organisms - Plant (ng/g) - Wet Fraction 61
1.30 Wastewater 61
1.30.1 Wastewater (ng/g) - Wet Fraction 61
1.30.2 Wastewater (ng/L) - Wet Fraction 62
2 METHODS AND APPROACH 66
2.1 Data Integration Methods and Approach 66
2.2 Statistical Approach of Exposure Estimates Derived from Measured Concentrations 67
2.2.1 Aggregation of Statistical Estimates 68
2.2.2 Fitting Lognormal Distributions 69
2.2.3 Fitting Normal Distributions 69
2.2.4 Quality Control of Derived Exposure Estimates 70
2.2.5 Final Exposure Estimates by Media and Pollution Source Receptor Type 70
3 REFERENCES 71
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Particulate
Fraction of Ambient Air 8
Table 1-2. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/m3) Levels in Ambient Air
10
Table 1-3. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in Aquatic
Organisms - Fish 12
Page 3 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Table 1-4. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Lipid
Fraction of Aquatic Organisms - Mammal 14
Table 1-5. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in Aquatic
Organisms - Mollusk 15
Table 1-6. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Aquatic Organisms - Other 16
Table 1-7. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Dietary 17
Table 1-8. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured BCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Dietary 20
Table 1-9. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Not
Specified Fraction of Drinking Water 21
Table 1-10. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Dust (Indoor) 25
Table 1-11. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured BCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Dust (Indoor) 29
Table 1-12. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/m2) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Dust (Indoor) 29
Table 1-13. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Not
Specified Fraction of Groundwater 31
Table 1-14. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the wet
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk 32
Table 1-15. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Lipid
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk 33
Table 1-16. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Hair 33
Table 1-17. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Nails 34
Table 1-18. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Other 35
Table 1-19. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured BCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Other 35
Table 1-20. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Plasma 36
Table 1-21. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Lipid
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Serum 36
Table 1-22. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - SkinDermal Wipe 37
Table 1-23. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/wipe) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Skin Dermal Wipe 38
Table 1-24. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured BCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Creatinine
Adjusted Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Urine 38
Table 1-25. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the
Unadjusted Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Urine 39
Table 1-26. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured BCEP (ng/L) Levels in Human
Biomonitoring - Urine 40
Table 1-27. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Not
Specified Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Silicone Wristbands 41
Page 4 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Table 1-28. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/m3) Levels in Indoor Air 43
Table 1-29. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Not
Specified Fraction of Leachate 46
Table 1-30. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Other 47
Table 1-31. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in Other 47
Table 1-32. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Not
Specified Fraction of Other 48
Table 1-33. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/m3) Levels in Personal
Inhalation 49
Table 1-34. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Precipitation 50
Table 1-35. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in Sediment.... 52
Table 1-36. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Soil 53
Table 1-37. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Not
Specified Fraction of Surface Water 55
Table 1-38. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in Terrestrial
Organisms - Bird 58
Table 1-39. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured BCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Terrestrial Organisms - Bird 60
Table 1-40. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in Terrestrial
Organisms - Mammal 60
Table 1-41. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Terrestrial Organisms - Plant 61
Table 1-42. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Wastewater 62
Table 1-43. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Wastewater 63
Table 2-1. Statistics and Methods for Data Aggregation 68
Table 2-2. Distributions Preferred Depending on Available Reported Statistics 69
Table 2-3. Assumed Percentile for Calculating Error by Statistical Estimate Type 69
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Particulate Fraction of Ambient Air in General
Population (Background) Locations in 2018 8
Figure 1-2. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/m3) in Ambient Air from 2000 to 2019 9
Figure 1-3. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in Aquatic Organisms - Fish from 2003 to 2016 12
Figure 1-4. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Lipid Fraction of Aquatic Organisms - Mammal from
2004 to 2010 14
Figure 1-5. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in Aquatic Organisms - Mollusk in Near Facility (Highly
Exposed) Locations from 2008 to 2017 15
Figure 1-6. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Wet Fraction of Aquatic Organisms - Other from
2008 to 2018 16
Figure 1-7. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Wet Fraction of Dietary from 1982 to 2018 17
Figure 1-8. Concentrations of BCEP (ng/g) in the Wet Fraction of Dietary in 2018 19
Figure 1-9. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Not Specified Fraction of Drinking Water from 1982
to 2014 21
Page 5 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Figure 1-10. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Dust (Indoor) from 2000 to 2019.. 24
Figure 1-11. Concentrations of BCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Dust (Indoor) in Residential
Locations in 2019 29
Figure 1-12. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/m2) in the Dry Fraction of Dust (Indoor) from 2000 to 2016 29
Figure 1-13. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Not Specified Fraction of Groundwater from 1978 to
2017 30
Figure 1-14. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the wet Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk
in General Population (Background) Locations from 2014 to 2015 32
Figure 1-15. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Lipid Fraction of Human Biomonitoring -
Breastmilk from 1997 to 2011 32
Figure 1-16. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Hair in
General Population (Background) Locations from 2014 to 2015 33
Figure 1-17. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Nails in
General Population (Background) Locations from 2014 to 2015 34
Figure 1-18. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Other in
General Population (Background) Locations from 2014 to 2016 35
Figure 1-19. Concentrations of BCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Other in
General Population (Background) Locations from 2014 to 2016 35
Figure 1-20. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Wet Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Plasma in
General Population (Background) Locations from 2014 to 2016 36
Figure 1-21. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Lipid Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Serum in
General Population (Background) Locations in 2016 36
Figure 1-22. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring -
SkinDermal Wipe in General Population (Background) Locations in 2012 37
Figure 1-23. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/wipe) in the Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring -
Skin Dermal Wipe in General Population (Background) Locations from 2012 to 2016 37
Figure 1-24. Concentrations of BCEP (ng/g) in the Creatinine Adjusted Fraction of Human
Biomonitoring - Urine in General Population (Background) Locations in 2018 38
Figure 1-25. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Unadjusted Fraction of Human Biomonitoring -
Urine in General Population (Background) Locations from 2010 to 2015 39
Figure 1-26. Concentrations of BCEP (ng/L) in Human Biomonitoring - Urine in General Population
(Background) Locations from 2011 to 2018 40
Figure 1-27. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Not Specified Fraction of Human Biomonitoring -
Silicone Wristbands in General Population (Background) Locations from 2012 to 2015 41
Figure 1-28. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/m3) in Indoor Air from 2000 to 2016 43
Figure 1-29. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Not Specified Fraction of Leachate from 1994 to
1995 46
Figure 1-30. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Other in Unknown/Not Specified
Locations in 2003 46
Figure 1-31. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in Other from 2001 to 2008 47
Figure 1-32. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Not Specified Fraction of Other in General
Population (Background) Locations in 2016 48
Figure 1-33. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/m3) in Personal Inhalation in General Population
(Background) Locations from 2013 to 2016 49
Figure 1-34. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Wet Fraction of Precipitation from 1994 to 2014... 50
Figure 1-35. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in Sediment from 1980 to 2017 52
Figure 1-36. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Soil in General Population
(Background) Locations from 2010 to 2014 53
Page 6 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Figure 1-37. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Not Specified Fraction of Surface Water from 1980
to 2017 55
Figure 1-38. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in Terrestrial Organisms - Bird from 2000 to 2016 58
Figure 1-39. Concentrations of BCEP (ng/g) in the Wet Fraction of Terrestrial Organisms - Bird in
General Population (Background) Locations from 2000 to 2012 60
Figure 1-40. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in Terrestrial Organisms - Mammal from 2008 to 2018 .. 60
Figure 1-41. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Wet Fraction of Terrestrial Organisms - Plant in
Remote (Not Near Source) Locations from 1993 to 1994 61
Figure 1-42. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Wet Fraction of Wastewater from 2013 to 2018 62
Figure 1-43. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Wet Fraction of Wastewater from 2001 to 2018 .... 63
Page 7 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
1 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CONCENTRATIONS
REPORTED BY MEDIA TYPE
1.1 Ambient Air
1.1.1 Ambient Air (ng/g) - Particulate Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Ambient Air with unit of ng/g, extracted from one source, are
summarized in Figure 1-1 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-1. Overall,
concentrations were 300 ng/g from 18 samples collected in 2018 in one country, PL. Location types
were categorized as General Population (Background). Reported detection frequency was 0.11.
g General Population (Background)
NonUS Particulate
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
5043433 - Fabia ska et al., 2019 - PL
<1
10
100
1000
Concentration (ng/g)
Figure 1-1. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Particulate Fraction of Ambient Air in General
Population (Background) Locations in 2018
Table 1-1. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the
Particulate Fraction of Ambient Air
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Fabianska et
al. (2019)
PL
General
Population
(Background)
2018
18 (0.11)
N/R
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.1.2 Ambient Air (ng/m3) - All Fractions
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Ambient Air with unit of ng/m3, extracted from 17 sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-2 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-2. More than one weight
fraction was reported and summarized separately below:
Overall, concentrations for Combined Vapor/Gas and Particulate ranged from not detected to 58.4 ng/m3
from 152 samples collected between 2000 and 2018 in 11 countries, AR, BO, BR, CA, CL, CO, CR, JP,
MX, NO and US. Location types were categorized as General Population (Background), Near Facility
(Highly Exposed) and Remote (Not Near Source). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.55 to
0.94.
Overall, concentrations for Particulate ranged from not detected to 3.532 ng/m3 from 855 samples
collected between 2002 and 2019 in seven countries, AQ, CA, ES, FI, JP, SE and US. Location types
were categorized as Unknown/Not Specified, General Population (Background), Near Facility (Highly
Exposed) and Remote (Not Near Source). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 1.0.
Page 8 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Overall, concentrations for Vapor/Gas ranged from not detected to 0.143 ng/nr from 49 samples
collected in 2014 in two countries, AQ and TR. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background), Near Facility (Highly Exposed) and Remote (Not Near Source). Reported detection
frequency ranged from 0.8 to 1.0.
Mix Combined Vapor/Gas and Particulate
3985267 - Guo ct al., 2017 - CA,US
NonUS Combined Vapor/Gas and Particulate
6994279 - Bohlin-Nizzetto et al., 2019 - NO
5386424 - Rauert et al., 2018 - AR,BR,CL,MX
5386424 - Rauert et al., 2018 - AR,BO,BR,CL.CO.CR,MX
632484 - Ohura et al., 2006 - JP
US Particulate
NonUS Particulate
2939998 - Peverly et al., 2015 - US
5163441 - Salamova et al., 2016-US
3864979 - Clark et al., 2017 - US
3027503 - Salamova et al., 2014 - US
3027503 - Salamova et al., 2014 - US
2539068 - Bradman et al., 2014 - US
6816026 - Maceira et al., 2020 - ES
5163827 - Wong et al., 2018 - SE
3862723-Li et al., 2017-AQ
5469544 - Siihring et al., 2016 - CA
3466615 - Abdollahi et al., 2017 - CA
5176506 - Marklund et al., 2005 - FI
1927779 - Saito et al., 2007 - JP
NonUS Vapor/Gas
3862723-Li et al., 2017-AQ
5017070 - Kurt-Karakus et al., 2018 - TR
5017070 - Kurt-Karakus et al., 2018 - TR
10*-5
U I General Population (Background)
| Remote (Not Near Source)
Near Facility (Highly Exposed)
I r Unknown/Not Specified
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
gf Non-Detect
v
|A
V V
D v
A A
V
0.01 0.1
Concentration (ng/m3)
Figure 1-2. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/m3) in Ambient Air from 2000 to 2019
Page 9 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Table 1-2. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/m3) Levels in
Ambient Air
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/m3)
Overall
Quality
Level
Combined Vapor/Gas and Particulate
Guo et al.
(2017)
CA, US
General
Population
(Background)
2013
20 (0.55)
0.0602
High
Bohlin-
Nizzetto et
al. (2019)
NO
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2017-2018
36 (0.56)
0.045
Medium
Rauert et al.
(2018)
AR, BR, CL,
MX
General
Population
(Background)
2014-2016
14 (0.93)
0.08
High
Rauert et al.
(2018)
AR, BO, BR,
CL, CO, CR,
MX
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2014-2016
36 (0.94)
0.05
High
Ohuraet al.
(2006)
JP
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2000-2001
46 (0.91)
N/R
Medium
Particulate
Peverlv et al.
(2015)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2012-2014
161 (0.87)
N/R
High
Salamova et
al. (2016)
us
General
Population
(Background)
2012-2014
359 (0.60)
N/R
Medium
Clark et al.
(2017)
us
General
Population
(Background)
2013
45 (0.93)
N/R
High
Salamova et
al. (2014)
us
General
Population
(Background)
2012
81 (0.74)
N/R
Medium
Salamova et
al. (2014)
us
General
Population
(Background)
2012
16 (0.62)
N/R
Medium
Bradman et
al. (2014)
us
General
Population
(Background)
2010-2011
14 (0.50)
0.3
High
Page 10 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/m3)
Overall
Quality
Level
Maceira et al.
(2020)
ES
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2018-2019
24 (0.62)
0.0014
High
Wong et al.
(2018)
SE
General
Population
(Background)
2014-2015
24 (0.96)
0.044
Medium
Li et al.
(2017)
AQ
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2014
9(1.00)
0.0038
High
Suhrine et al.
(2016)
CA
Unknown/Not
Specified
2007-2013
92 (0.87)
N/R
Medium
Abdollahi et
al. (2017)
CA
General
Population
(Background)
2010
21 (N/R)
0.0003
High
Marklund et
al. (2005b)
FI
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2003
1 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Saito et al.
(2007)
JP
Unknown/Not
Specified
2002
8 (0.00)
0.67
Medium
Vapor/Gas
Li et al.
(2017)
AQ
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2014
9(1.00)
0.0012
High
Kurt-Karakus
et al. (2018)
TR
General
Population
(Background)
2014
30 (0.80)
0.073
High
Kurt-Karakus
et al. (2018)
TR
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2014
10 (0.80)
0.073
High
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.2 Aquatic Organisms - Fish
1.2.1 Aquatic Organisms - Fish (ng/g) - All Fractions
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Aquatic Organisms - Fish with unit of ng/g, extracted from eight
sources, are summarized in Figure 1-3 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-3. More
than one weight fraction was reported and summarized separately below:
Overall, concentrations for Lipid ranged from not detected to 187.0 ng/g from 55 samples collected
between 2003 and 2016 in five countries, CA, ES, NO, SE and US. Location types were categorized as
General Population (Background), Near Facility (Highly Exposed) and Remote (Not Near Source).
Page 11 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.21 to 1.0.
Overall, concentrations for Wet ranged from not detected to 26.0 ng/g from 186 samples collected
between 2004 and 2015 in four countries, CA, KR, NL and NO. Location types were categorized as
General Population (Background), Near Facility (Highly Exposed) and Remote (Not Near Source).
Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.12 to 1.0.
Mix Lipid
3985267 - Guo et si., 2017 - CA.US - Other
NonUS Lipid
5164308 - Santin et al., 2016 - ES - Whole Organism
5162922 - Hallanger et al., 2015 - NO - Other
2586188 - Sundkvist et al., 2010 - SE - Muscle/Filet
2586188 - Sundkvist et al., 2010 - SE - Muscle/Filet
2586188 - Sundkvist et al., 2010 - SE - Muscle/Filet
NonUS Wet
5469301 - Choo et al., 2018 - KR - Liver
5469301 - Choo et al., 2018 - KR - Muscle/Filet
5469301 - Choo et al., 2018 - KR - Other
5469297 - McGoldrick et al., 2014 - CA - Other
2935128 - Brandsma et al., 2015 - NL - Other
6992056 - Evenset et al., 2009 - NO - Liver
6992056 - Evenset et al., 2009 - NO - Muscle/Fillet
6992056 - Evenset et al., 2009 - NO - Whole Organism
0.001
0.01
0.1
IB General Population (Background)
| Remote (Not Near Source)
Near Facility (Highly Exposed)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
Al
&
EE
V7
V
w
^7
D v
1
100
Concentration (ng/g)
1000
Figure 1-3. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in Aquatic Organisms - Fish from 2003 to 2016
Table 1-3. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in Aquatic
Organisms - Fish
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Lipid
Guo et al.
(2017)
CA, US
General
Population
(Background)
2010
14 (0.21)
20.9
High
Santin et al.
(2016)
ES
General
Population
(Background)
2016
12 (0.25)
1.39
High
Hallanser et
al. (2015)
NO
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2009
10 (0.70)
N/R
High
Page 12 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Sundkvist et
al. (2010)
SE
General
Population
(Background)
2007
7(0.57)
2.8
High
Sundkvist et
al. (2010)
SE
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2003-2007
4(1.00)
2.8
High
Sundkvist et
al. (2010)
SE
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2005-2007
8 (1.00)
2.8
High
Wet
Choo et al.
(2018)
KR
General
Population
(Background)
2015
20 (1.00)
0.22
High
Choo et al.
(2018)
KR
General
Population
(Background)
2015
30 (1.00)
0.06
High
Choo et al.
(2018)
KR
General
Population
(Background)
2015
20 (1.00)
0.09
High
McGoldrick
et al. (2014)
CA
General
Population
(Background)
2009-2010
72 (0.12)
0.03
High
Brandsma et
al. (2015)
NL
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2008
19 (0.42)
0.21
High
Evenset et al.
(2009)
NO
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2004-2008
3 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Evenset et al.
(2009)
NO
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2004-2008
5 (1.00)
0.47
Medium
Evenset et al.
(2009)
NO
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2008
17 (0.94)
N/R
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.3 Aquatic Organisms - Mammal
1.3.1 Aquatic Organisms - Mammal (ng/g) - Lipid Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Aquatic Organisms - Mammal with unit of ng/g, extracted from
two sources, are summarized in Figure 1-4 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-4.
Overall, concentrations ranged from not detected to 115.0 ng/g from 63 samples collected between 2004
Page 13 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
and 2010 in two countries, ES and NO. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background) and Remote (Not Near Source). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 0.44.
NonUS Lipid
5162922 - Hallanger et al., 2015 - NO - Adipose Tissue
| Remote (Not Near Source)
¦m General Population (Background)
ja Non-Detect
•
5469393 - Sala et al., 2019 - ES - Adipose Tissue
5162922 - Hallanger et al., 2015 - NO - Blood
1
5469393 - Sala et al., 2019 - ES - Liver
5469393 - Sala et al., 2019 - ES - Muscle/Filet
5469393 - Sala et al., 2019 - ES - Other
0.001
0.01
0.1
1 10 100
Concentration (ng/g)
1000
Figure 1-4. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Lipid Fraction of Aquatic Organisms - Mammal
from 2004 to 2010
Table 1-4. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Lipid
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Hallanger et
al. (2015)
NO
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2010
10 (0.00)
4.5
High
Sala et al.
(2019)
ES
General
Population
(Background)
2004-2010
9(0.11)
1.39
Medium
Hallanser et
al. (2015)
NO
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2009
10 (0.10)
N/R
High
Sala et al.
(2019)
ES
General
Population
(Background)
2004-2010
9 (0.44)
1.39
Medium
Sala et al.
(2019)
ES
General
Population
(Background)
2004-2010
10 (0.10)
1.39
Medium
Sala et al.
(2019)
ES
General
Population
(Background)
2004-2010
15 (0.13)
1.39
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.4 Aquatic Organisms - Mollusk
1.4.1 Aquatic Organisms - Mollusk (ng/g) - All Fractions
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Aquatic Organisms - Mollusk with unit of ng/g, extracted from
two sources, are summarized in Figure 1-5 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-5. More
Page 14 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
than one weight fraction was reported and summarized separately below:
Overall, concentrations for Lipid were not detected ng/g from 80 samples collected between 2016 and
2017 in one country, PT. Location types were categorized as Near Facility (Highly Exposed). Reported
detection frequency was 0.25.
Overall, concentrations for Wet ranged from not detected to 0.82 ng/g from five samples collected in
2008 in one country, NL. Location types were categorized as Near Facility (Highly Exposed). Reported
detection frequency was 0.4.
NonUS Lipid
5305891 - Gadelha et al„ 2019 - PT - Other
NonUS Wet
2935128 - Brandsma el al., 2015 - NL - Other
Near Facility (Highly Exposed)
gj Non-Detect
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
*
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Concentration (ng/g)
Figure 1-5. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in Aquatic Organisms - Mollusk in Near Facility
(Highly Exposed) Locations from 2008 to 2017
Table 1-5. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in Aquatic
Organisms - Mollusk
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Lipid
Gadelha et
al. (2019)
PT
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2016-2017
80 (0.25)
1.2
High
Wet
Brandsma et
al. (2015)
NL
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2008
5 (0.40)
0.2
High
1.5 Aquatic Organisms - Other
1.5.1 Aquatic Organisms - Other (ng/g) - Wet Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Aquatic Organisms - Other with unit of ng/g, extracted from two
sources, are summarized in Figure 1-6 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-6. Overall,
concentrations ranged from not detected to 0.33 ng/g from 61 samples collected between 2008 and 2018
in two countries, NL and NO. Location types were categorized as General Population (Background) and
Near Facility (Highly Exposed). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 0.2.
Page 15 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
NonUS Wet
Near Facility (Highly Exposed)
g General Population (Background)
g Non-Detect
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
2935128 - Brandsma et al., 2015 - NL - Other
7002468 - Norwegian Environment et.al. 2019 - NO - Whole Organism
2935128 - Brandsma et al„ 2015 - NL - Other
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Concentration (ng/g)
100
1000
Figure 1-6. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Wet Fraction of Aquatic Organisms - Other
from 2008 to 2018
Table 1-6. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Wet
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Brandsma et
al. (2015)
NL
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2008
5 (0.20)
0.2
High
Norwegian
Environment
(2019b)
NO
General
Population
(Background)
2018
51 (0.00)
0.5
High
Brandsma et
al. (2015)
NL
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2008
5 (0.20)
0.42
High
1.6 Dietary
1.6.1 Dietary (ng/g) - Wet Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Dietary with unit of ng/g, extracted from four sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-7 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-7. Overall,
concentrations ranged from not detected to 113.0 ng/g from 363 samples collected between 1982 and
2018 in four countries, AU, BE, SE and US. Location types were categorized as fruit, dairy, grain, baby
food-infant formula, vegetables, other, non-dairy beverages, meat, fish and shellfish and fats and oils.
Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 0.67.
Page 16 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
| fruit
| dairy
¦¦¦1 fch aiu' shellfish
grain
HHI meat
¦¦¦) non-dairy beverages
other
mg vegetables
i—baby food-infant formula
| fats and oils
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
US Wet
g Non-Detect
659041 - Fda, 1995 - US
I
NonUS Wet
5423396 - He el al., 2018 - AU
5423396-He el al.,2018-AU
5423396 - He el al., 2018 - AU
5423396-He el al., 2018-AU
mxsmi
5423396 - He el al., 2018 - AU
5423396 - He el al., 2018 - AU
Hi
5423396 - He el al., 2018 - AU
HE30
4292130 - Poma el al., 2018 - BE
m
4292130 - Poma el al., 2018 - BE
4292130 - Poma el al., 2018 - BE
mA
4292130 - Poma el al., 2018 - BE
H./ V
4292130 - Poma el al., 2018 - BE
^¦1 T T
4292130 - Poma el al., 2018 - BE
nj
4292130 - Poma el al., 2018 - BE
4292130 - Poma et al., 2018 - BE
«
5166285 - Poma et al., 2017 - SE
W
5166285 - Poma el al., 2017 - SE
m
5166285 - Poma et al., 2017 - SE
*
5166285 - Poma el al., 2017 - SE
5166285 - Poma et al., 2017 - SE
•
5166285 - Pomaetal.,2017-SE
m
5166285 - Poma et al., 2017 - SE
•
5166285 - Poma el al., 2017 - SE
•
5166285 - Poma et al., 2017 - SE
10A-5 10A-4 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
10 100 1000
Concentralion (ng/g)
Figure 1-7. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Wet Fraction of Dietary from 1982 to 2018
Table 1-7. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Dietary
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
FDA (1995)
US
fruit
1982-1991
74 (0.04)
N/R
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
dairy
2018
9 (0.56)
0.06
Medium
Page 17 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
fish and
shellfish
2018
9 (0.22)
0.06
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
grain
2018
12 (0.67)
0.06
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
meat
2018
12 (0.25)
0.06
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
non-dairy
beverages
2018
12 (0.08)
0.021
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
other
2018
3 (0.33)
0.06
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
vegetables
2018
15 (0.60)
0.06
Medium
Poma et al.
(2018)
BE
baby food-infant
formula
2015-2016
17 (N/R)
0.34
High
Poma et al.
(2018)
BE
dairy
2015-2016
27 (N/R)
0.45
High
Poma et al.
(2018)
BE
fats and oils
2015-2016
10 (0.40)
2.55
High
Poma et al.
(2018)
BE
fish and
shellfish
2015-2016
53 (N/R)
0.07
High
Poma et al.
(2018)
BE
grain
2015-2016
7 (N/R)
0.09
High
Poma et al.
(2018)
BE
meat
2015-2016
38 (N/R)
0.14
High
Poma et al.
(2018)
BE
other
2015-2016
11 (N/R)
0.44
High
Poma et al.
(2018)
BE
vegetables
2015-2016
2 (0.00)
0.01
High
Poma et al.
(2017)
SE
dairy
2015
9 (0.22)
0.3
High
Poma et al.
(2017)
SE
fats and oils
2015
4 (0.00)
2.0
High
Poma et al.
(2017)
SE
fish and
shellfish
2015
5 (0.00)
0.2
High
Page 18 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Poma et al.
(2017)
SE
fruit
2015
5 (0.20)
0.15
High
Poma et al.
(2017)
SE
grain
2015
5 (0.00)
0.5
High
Poma et al.
(2017)
SE
meat
2015
5 (0.00)
0.2
High
Poma et al.
(2017)
SE
non-dairy
beverages
2015
2 (0.00)
0.45
High
Poma et al.
(2017)
SE
other
2015
8 (0.00)
0.5
High
Poma et al.
(2017)
SE
vegetables
2015
9 (0.67)
0.3
High
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.6.2 Dietary (ng/g)-Wet Fraction
Measured concentrations of BCEP in Dietary with unit of ng/g, extracted from one source, are
summarized in Figure 1-8 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-8. Overall,
concentrations ranged from not detected to 10.0 ng/g from 85 samples collected in 2018 in one country,
AU. Location types were categorized as fruit, dairy, grain, vegetables, other, non-dairy beverages, meat
and fish and shellfish. Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 0.33.
BIB dairy
fish and shellfish
¦ fruit
grain
meat
non-dairy beverages
other
vegetables
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
NonUS Wet
gf Non-Detect
5423396 - He et al., 2018 - AU
5423396-He et al., 2018-AU
*
5423396 - He et al., 2018 - AU
ft
5423396-He et al., 2018-AU
*
5423396 - He et al., 2018 - AU
*
5423396-He et al.,2018-AU
*
5423396 - He et al., 2018 - AU
«
5423396-He et al.,2018-AU
*
1(V
x-5 10
%-4 0.001 0.01 0.1
10 100
Concentration (ng/g)
Figure 1-8. Concentrations of BCEP (ng/g) in the Wet Fraction of Dietary in 2018
Page 19 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Table 1-8. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured BCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Dietary
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
dairy
2018
9(0.33)
0.004
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
fish and
shellfish
2018
9 (0.00)
0.004
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
fruit
2018
15 (0.00)
0.004
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
grain
2018
12 (0.00)
0.004
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
meat
2018
12 (0.00)
0.004
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
non-dairy
beverages
2018
10 (0.00)
0.0013
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
other
2018
3 (0.00)
0.004
Medium
He et al.
(2018b)
AU
vegetables
2018
15 (0.00)
0.004
Medium
1.7 Drinking Water
1.7.1 Drinking Water (ng/L) - Not Specified Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Drinking Water with unit of ng/L, extracted from nine sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-9 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-9. Overall,
concentrations ranged from not detected to 1,400.0 ng/L from 675 samples collected between 1982 and
2014 in six countries, CA, ES, JP, KR, PR and US. Location types were categorized as General
Population (Background) and Unknown/Not Specified. Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to
0.88.
Page 20 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
us
4253347 - Padhye et al., 2014 - US
3975066 - Hopple et al., 2009 - US
3364193 - Kingsbury et al., 2008 - US
Mix
3559503 - Focazio et al., 2008 - PR,US
1487184 - Lebel et al., 1987 - CA,US
NonUS
3455908 - Lee et al., 2016 - KR
5469210 - Valcarcel et al., 2018 - ES
1250860 - Rodil et al., 2012 - ES
5469582 - Yasuhara, 1994 - JP
10*-6 10A-4 0.01 1
Concentration (ng/L)
Figure 1-9. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Not Specified Fraction of Drinking Water from
1982 to 2014
Table 1-9. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Not
Specified Fraction of Drinking Water
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Padhve et al.
(2014)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2009-2010
8 (0.88)
N/R
Medium
Hopple et al.
(2009)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2004-2005
57 (0.02)
500.0
High
Kinssburv et
al. (2008)
us
General
Population
(Background)
2002-2004
337 (0.33)
500.0
High
Focazio et al.
(2008)
PR, US
Unknown/Not
Specified
2001
73 (0.21)
100.0
Medium
Lebel et al.
(1987)
CA, US
General
Population
(Background)
1982-1983
20 (0.55)
N/R
Medium
Lee et al.
(2016)
KR
General
Population
(Background)
2014
127 (0.75)
0.7
Medium
Valcarcel et
al. (2018)
ES
General
Population
(Background)
2013
28 (0.75)
0.03
Medium
Page 21 of 83
General Population (Background)
¦ Unknown/Not Specified
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
gs Non-Detect
I?v
ft
100 10A4
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Rodil et al.
(2012)
ES
General
Population
(Background)
2007-2008
24 (0.71)
4.0
Medium
Yasuhara
(1994)
JP
General
Population
(Background)
1994
1 (0.00)
67.5
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.8 Dust (Indoor)
1.8.1 Dust (Indoor) (ng/g) - Dry Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Dust (Indoor) with unit of ng/g, extracted from 45 sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-10 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-10. Overall,
concentrations ranged from not detected to 1,800,000.0 ng/g from 4,578 samples collected between
2000 and 2019 in 20 countries, AT, AU, BE, CA, CN, DE, DK, ES, FI, GB, GR, JP, KR, NL, NO, NZ,
PT, RO, SE and US. Location types were categorized as Vehicle, Other, Public Space and Residential.
Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.17 to 1.0.
Page 22 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
us
Mix
NonUS
4161719 - Hoffman et al., 2017 - US
5163584 - Phillips et al., 2018 - US
6968217 - Shin et al., 2019 - US
3012534 - La Guardia and Hale, 2015 - US
3012534 - La Guardia and Hale, 2015 - US
2343712 - Stapleton et al., 2014 - US
2528320 - Schreder and La Guardia, 2014 - US
2539068 - Bradman et al., 2014 - US
2215665 - Shin et al., 2014 - US
1676728 - Fang et al., 2013 - US
1676728 - Fang et al., 2013 - US
3864462 - Castorina et al., 2017 - US
5184432 - Tan et al., 2019 - CN,US
5043338 - Velazquez-Gomez et al., 2019 - ES
5043338 - Velazquez-Gomez et al., 2019 - ES
5043338 - Velazquez-Gomez et al., 2019 - ES
5163693 - Rantakokko et al., 2019 - FI
5165944 - Liu and Mabury, 2019 - CA
5412073 - Giovanoulis et al., 2019 - SE
3223090 - Langer et al., 2016 - DK
3223090 - Langer et al., 2016 - DK
4292121 - Christia et al., 2018 - GR
4292129 - Deng et al., 2018 - CN
4292133 - Persson et al., 2018 - SE
3862555 - Zhou el al., 2017 - DE
3862555 - Zhou et al., 2017 - DE
3862555 - Zhou et al., 2017 - DE
4285929-He et al., 2018-AU
0.01
| Residential
¦ Public Space
¦Bl Vehicle
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
¦xa:
ED
¦za
t7 V
V
> V
S7V
V
W
IV V
IV V
I V V
I vv
I V V
~ v
IV
Pv
I V V
10 100 1000 10A4
Concentration (ng/g) (pt 1)
Page 23 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
NonUS
4285929-He ct al., 2018-AU
4285929-He et al., 2018-AU
4292136 - Larsson et al., 2018 - SE
3005686 - Takeuchi et al., 2015 - JP
3357642 - Xu et al., 2016 - NO
4178500 - Kim and Tanabe, 2017 - KR
4178500 - Kim and Tanabe, 2017 - KR
4433160 - Kademoglou et al., 2017 - GB.NO
1313395 - Wallner et al., 2012 - AT
3604490 - Tokumura et al., 2017 - JP
3975074 - Sugeng et al., 2017 - NL
4433160 - Kademoglou et al., 2017 - GB
4829235 - Ait Bamai et al., 2018 - JP
1927602-Ali et al., 2012-NZ
2537005 - Fromme et al., 2014 - DE
2540527 - Brandsma et al., 2014 - NL
2540527 - Brandsma el al., 2014 - NL
3350460 - Coelho et al., 2016 - PT
5164389 - Brommer et al., 2012 - DE
788335 - Bergh et al., 2011 - SE
788335 - Bergh et al., 2011 - SE
1927614 - Van den Eede et al., 2012 - BE,ES,RO
2542290 - Tajima et al., 2014 - JP
2543095 - Fan et al., 2014 - CA
3015040 - Mizouchi et al., 2015 - JP
5469392 - Bastiaensen et al., 2019 - JP
5469670 - Luongo and Oestman, 2016 - SE
697390 - Kanazawa et al., 2010 - JP
2919501 - Marklund et al., 2003 - SE
2919501 - Marklund et al., 2003 - SE
0.01
| Residential
¦ Public Space
Vehicle
Other
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
^57
m
I V V
I vv
Bv
W
E2 v
¦7 V
V
V
w
HW 1*1 !<¦
m
hd
10 100 1000 10A4
Concentration (ng/g) (pt 2)
NonUS
¦—i Residential
Vehicle
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
2919501 - Marklund et al.. 2003 - SE
2919501 - Marklund et al., 2003 - SE
4731349 - Ingerowski et al.. 2001 - DE
0.01
i
¦
10 100 1000 10A4
Concentration (ng/g) (pt 3)
Figure 1-10. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Dust (Indoor) from 2000 to
2019
Page 24 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Table 1-10. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Dust (Indoor)
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Hoffman et
al. (2017)
US
Residential
2014-2016
140 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Phillips et al.
(2018)
US
Residential
2014-2016
188 (0.98)
18.7
High
Shin et al.
(2019)
us
Residential
2015-2016
38 (0.97)
25.0
Medium
La Guardia
and Hale
(2015)
us
Public Space
2013
4(1.00)
100.0
Medium
La Guardia
and Hale
(2015)
us
Residential
2013
4(1.00)
100.0
Medium
Stapleton et
al. (2014)
us
Residential
2012
30 (1.00)
N/R
High
Schreder and
La Guardia
(2014)
us
Residential
2011-2012
20 (0.95)
1.0
High
Bradman et
al. (2014)
us
Public Space
2010-2011
39 (1.00)
1.0
High
Shin et al.
(2014)
us
Residential
2009-2010
30 (1.00)
1.0
High
Fans et al.
(2013)
us
Residential
2009
20 (0.50)
20.0
Medium
Fans et al.
(2013)
us
Vehicle
2009
20 (0.95)
20.0
Medium
Castorina et
al. (2017)
us
Residential
2000-2001
125 (1.00)
27.9
High
Tan et al.
(2019)
CN, US
Residential
2019
47 (1.00)
10.0
High
Velazauez-
Gomez et al.
(2019)
ES
Public Space
2019
33 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Velazauez-
Gomez et al.
(2019)
ES
Residential
2019
11 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Page 25 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Velazquez-
Gomez et al.
(2019)
ES
Vehicle
2019
14 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Rantakokko
et al. (2019)
FI
Residential
2019
40 (1.00)
3.0
Medium
Liu and
Maburv
(2019)
CA
Public Space
2018
85 (1.00)
0.4
High
Giovanoulis
et al. (2019)
SE
Public Space
2018
20 (1.00)
34.0
High
Lanser et al.
(2016)
DK
Public Space
2016
151 (0.78)
600.0
High
Lanser et al.
(2016)
DK
Residential
2016
497 (0.69)
600.0
High
Christia et al.
(2018)
GR
Vehicle
2016
25 (0.80)
N/R
High
Dens et al.
(2018)
CN
Public Space
2015-2016
22 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Persson et al.
(2018)
SE
Public Space
2015-2016
31 (0.58)
6.9
High
Zhou et al.
(2017)
DE
Public Space
2015
48 (0.83)
115.0
High
Zhou et al.
(2017)
DE
Residential
2015
15 (0.80)
115.0
High
Zhou et al.
(2017)
DE
Vehicle
2015
11 (0.82)
115.0
High
He et al.
(2018c)
AU
Public Space
2015
30 (1.00)
10.0
High
He et al.
(2018c)
AU
Residential
2015
40 (1.00)
10.0
High
He et al.
(2018c)
AU
Vehicle
2015
15 (1.00)
10.0
High
Larsson et al.
(2018)
SE
Public Space
2015
100 (0.61)
1200.0
High
Page 26 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Takeuchi et
al. (2015)
JP
Residential
2013-2014
19 (0.95)
N/R
High
Xu et al.
(2016)
NO
Residential
2013-2014
122 (0.76)
170.0
Medium
Kim and
Tanabe
(2017)
KR
Public Space
2014
6(0.17)
N/R
High
Kim and
Tanabe
(2017)
KR
Residential
2013-2014
14 (1.00)
N/R
High
Kademoalou
et al. (2017)
GB,NO
Residential
2013-2014
20 (1.00)
44.1
Medium
Wallner et al.
(2012)
AT
Public Space
2012-2013
36 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Tokumura et
al. (2017)
JP
Vehicle
2013
37 (1.00)
180.0
High
Suaena et al.
(2017)
NL
Residential
2013
28 (0.82)
N/R
Medium
Kademoalou
et al. (2017)
GB
Public Space
2013
12 (1.00)
44.1
Medium
Ait Bamai et
al. (2018)
JP
Residential
2013
296 (0.84)
N/R
Medium
Ali et al.
(2012)
NZ
Residential
2012
50 (0.98)
20.0
Medium
Fromme et
al. (2014)
DE
Public Space
2011-2012
63 (1.00)
200.0
Medium
Brandsma et
al. (2014)
NL
Residential
2012
16 (1.00)
70.0
High
Brandsma et
al. (2014)
NL
Vehicle
2012
16 (1.00)
70.0
High
Coelho et al.
(2016)
PT
Residential
2010-2011
28 (0.82)
4.0
Medium
Brommer et
al. (2012)
DE
Residential
2010-2011
6 (N/R)
80.0
Medium
Page 27 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Bersh et al.
(2011b)
SE
Public Space
2010
20 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Bersh et al.
(2011b)
SE
Residential
2010
10 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Van den
Eede et al.
(2012)
BE,ES,RO
Residential
2006-2010
12 (1.00)
110.0
Medium
Taiimaet al.
(2014)
JP
Residential
2009-2010
256 (0.51)
1000.0
High
Fan et al.
(2014)
CA
Residential
2010
268 (0.96)
70.0
High
Mizouchi et
al. (2015)
JP
Residential
2009-2010
10 (1.00)
10.0
High
Bastiaensen
et al. (2019a)
JP
Residential
2009-2010
196 (0.59)
N/R
High
Luonso and
Oestman
(2016)
SE
Residential
2008
62 (0.97)
190.0
Medium
Kanazawa et
al. (2010)
JP
Residential
2006
82 (0.95)
1300.0
Medium
Marklund et
al. (2003)
SE
Other
2003
5 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Marklund et
al. (2003)
SE
Public Space
2003
9(1.00)
N/R
Medium
Marklund et
al. (2003)
SE
Residential
2003
2(1.00)
N/R
Medium
Marklund et
al. (2003)
SE
Vehicle
2003
1 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Inserowski et
al. (2001)
DE
Residential
2001
983 (N/R)
400.0
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.8.2 Dust (Indoor) (ng/g) - Dry Fraction
Measured concentrations of BCEP in Dust (Indoor) with unit of ng/g, extracted from one source, are
summarized in Figure 1-11 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-11. Overall,
concentrations were not detected ng/g from 47 samples collected in 2019 in two countries, CN and US.
Page 28 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Location types were categorized as Residential. Reported detection frequency was 0.0.
Mix
5184432 - Tan ct al., 2019 - CN,US
•
Residential
)g Non-Detect
0.01
0.1
1 10
100 1000 10A4
Concentration (ng/g)
10A5
10A6
10A7
Figure 1-11. Concentrations of BCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Dust (Indoor) in Residential
Locations in 2019
Table 1-11. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured BCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Dust (Indoor)
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Tan et al.
(2019)
CN,US
Residential
2019
47 (0.00)
16
High
1.8.3 Dust (Indoor) (ng/m2) - Dry Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Dust (Indoor) with unit of ng/m2, extracted from four sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-12 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-12. Overall,
concentrations ranged from not detected to 1,243,900.0 ng/m2 from 180 samples collected between 2000
and 2016 in two countries, SE and US. Location types were categorized as Public Space, Unknown and
Residential. Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 1.0.
us
5755270 - Dodson et al., 2017 - US
3864462 - Castorina et al., 2017 - US
Residential
| Public Space
Unknown
gi Non-Detect
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
*
NonUS
4292133 - Persson et al., 2018 - SE
2919501 - Marklund et al., 2003 - SE
A
0.001 0.1
10 1000 10A5
Concentration (ng/m2)
10*7
Figure 1-12. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/m2) in the Dry Fraction of Dust (Indoor) from 2000 to
2016
Table 1-12. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/m2) Levels in the
Dry Fraction of Dust (Indoor)
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/m2)
Overall
Quality
Level
Dodson et al.
(2017)
US
Residential
2013-2014
37 (0.00)
10,763.91042
High
Page 29 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/m2)
Overall
Quality
Level
Castorina et
al. (2017)
US
Residential
2000-2001
125 (1.00)
27.9
High
Persson et al.
(2018)
SE
Public Space
2015-2016
16 (0.44)
0.07
High
Marklund et
al. (2003)
SE
Unknown
2003
2(1.00)
N/R
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.9 Groundwater
1.9.1 Groundwater (ng/L) - Not Specified Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Groundwater with unit of ng/L, extracted from 11 sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-13 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-13. Overall,
concentrations ranged from not detected to 810.0 ng/L from 582 samples collected between 1978 and
2017 in four countries, DE, JP, SE and US. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background) and Near Facility (Highly Exposed). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 1.0.
Near Facility (Highly Exposed)
BIB General Population (Background)
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
us
g Non-Detect
5469289 - Laws et al., 2011 - US
2
3975066 - Hopple et al., 2009 - US
4912133 - Buszka et al., 2009 - US
Si
4832201 - Barnes et al., 2008 - US
5469339 - Barnes et al., 2004 - US
n v
1316091 - Hutchins et al., 1984 - US
NonUS
5428453 - Gao et al., 2019 - SE
^K7 v ¦
2579610 - Regnery et al., 2011 - DE
>
0
1
2579610 - Regnery et al., 2011 - DE
5469313 - Fries and Puttmann, 2003 - DE
5469312 - Fries and Puttmann, 2001 - DE
v
V
5469582 - Yasuhara, 1994 - JP
*
0.01 0.1
10 100 1000
Concentration (ng/L)
Figure 1-13. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Not Specified Fraction of Groundwater from
1978 to 2017
Page 30 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Table 1-13. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Not
Specified Fraction of Groundwater
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Laws et al.
(2011)
US
Near Facility
(Highly Exposed)
2009
11 (1.00)
10.0
Medium
Hopple et al.
(2009)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2002-2005
276 (0.02)
500.0
High
Buszka et al.
(2009)
us
Near Facility
(Highly Exposed)
2000-2002
6(0.33)
500.0
Medium
Barnes et al.
(2008)
us
Near Facility
(Highly Exposed)
2000
47 (0.30)
500.0
Medium
Barnes et al.
(2004)
us
Near Facility
(Highly Exposed)
2000
5 (1.00)
40.0
Medium
Hutchins et
al. (1984)
us
Near Facility
(Highly Exposed)
1978
4 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Gao et al.
(2019)
SE
General
Population
(Background)
2016-2017
30 (0.83)
7.2
High
Reanerv et
al. (2011)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2009
25 (0.56)
1.0
High
Reanerv et
al. (2011)
DE
Near Facility
(Highly Exposed)
2009
11 (0.91)
1.0
High
Fries and
Puttmann
(2003)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2000-2001
76 (N/R)
1.0
Medium
Fries and
Puttmann
(2001)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2000
90 (N/R)
1.0
Medium
Yasuhara
(1994)
JP
General
Population
(Background)
1994
1 (0.00)
67.5
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
Page 31 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
1.10 Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk
1.10.1 Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk (ng/L) - wet Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk with unit of ng/L, extracted
from one source, are summarized in Figure 1-14 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-
14. Overall, concentrations ranged from not detected to 470 ng/L from three samples collected between
2014 and 2015 in one country, AU. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background). Reported detection frequency was 0.67.
NonUS
5469782-He et al., 2018-AU
| General Population (Background)
y Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
10
100
Concentration (ng/L)
1000
Figure 1-14. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the wet Fraction of Human Biomonitoring -
Breastmilk in General Population (Background) Locations from 2014 to 2015
Table 1-14. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the wet
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
He et al.
(2018a)
AU
General
Population
(Background)
2014-2015
3 (0.67)
260
High
1.10.2 Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk (ng/g) - Lipid Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk with unit of ng/g, extracted
from 2 sources, are summarized in Figure 1-15 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-15.
Overall, concentrations ranged from not detected to 512.0 ng/g from 93 samples collected between 1997
and 2011 in four countries, JP, PH, SE and VN. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background) and Near Facility (Highly Exposed). Reported detection frequency was 1.0.
NonUS
H General Population (Background)
Near Facility (Highly Exposed)
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
2921301 - Kim et al„ 2014 - JP.PH.VN
2921301 - Kim et al., 2014 - PH,VN
2586188 - Sundkvist et al., 2010 - SE
ma
0.001
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Concentration (ng/g)
1000
Figure 1-15. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Lipid Fraction of Human Biomonitoring -
Breastmilk from 1997 to 2011
Page 32 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Table 1-15. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the
Lipid Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Breastmilk
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Kim et al.
(2014)
JP, PH, VN
General
Population
(Background)
2008-2011
46 (N/R)
0.045
Medium
Kim et al.
(2014)
PH, VN
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2008
41 (N/R)
0.045
Medium
Sundkvist et
al. (2010)
SE
General
Population
(Background)
1997-2006
6(1.00)
0.4
High
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.11 Human Biomonitoring - Hair
1.11.1 Human Biomonitoring - Hair (ng/g) - Dry Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Hair with unit of ng/g, extracted from two
sources, are summarized in Figure 1-16 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-16.
Overall, concentrations ranged from 37.5 to 2,740 ng/g from 55 samples collected between 2014 and
2015 in one country, US. Location types were categorized as General Population (Background).
Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.68 to 0.8.
US Drv
3031004 - Liuet al., 2015 - US
5176476 - Liu ctal., 2016 -US
General Population (Background)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
& A
1
10
100 1000
Concentration (ng/g)
10A4
Figure 1-16. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Hair
in General Population (Background) Locations from 2014 to 2015
Table 1-16. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Hair
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Liu et al.
(2015)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2015
5 (0.80)
75.0
Medium
Liu et al.
(2016)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2014
50 (0.68)
N/R
Medium
Page 33 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.12 Human Bio monitoring - Nails
1.12.1 Human Biomonitoring - Nails (ng/g) - Dry Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Nails with unit of ng/g, extracted from
two sources, are summarized in Figure 1-17 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-17.
Overall, concentrations ranged from not detected to 1860.0 ng/g from 105 samples collected between
2014 and 2015 in one country, US. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 0.14.
mmu
General Population (Background)
H
Non-Detect
US Drv
V
Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
3031004 - Liu et al.f 2015 - US
•
5176476 - Liu et al., 2016 - US
1
<
<
1
10
100
1000
10A4
Concentration (ng/g)
Figure 1-17. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Nails
in General Population (Background) Locations from 2014 to 2015
Table 1-17. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Nails
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Liu et al.
(2015)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2015
5 (0.00)
150.0
Medium
Liu et al.
(2016)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2014
100 (0.14)
N/R
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.13 Human Biomonitoring - Other
1.13.1 Human Biomonitoring - Other (ng/g) - Dry Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Other with unit of ng/g, extracted from
one source, are summarized in Figure 1-18 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-18.
Overall, concentrations ranged from 0.055 to 41.8 ng/g from 100 samples collected between 2014 and
2016 in one country, CN. Location types were categorized as General Population (Background).
Reported detection frequency was 0.66.
Page 34 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
NonUS Drv
General Population (Background)
3866506 - Zhao et a
..2017 - CN
0.001
0.01
0.1 1
Concentration (ng/g)
10
100
Figure 1-18. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Other
in General Population (Background) Locations from 2014 to 2016
Table 1-18. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Other
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Zhao et al.
(2017)
CN
General
Population
(Background)
2014-2016
100 (0.66)
0.11
High
1.13.2 Human Biomonitoring - Other (ng/g) - Dry Fraction
Measured concentrations of BCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Other with unit of ng/g, extracted from
one source, are summarized in Figure 1-19 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-19.
Overall, concentrations ranged from 0.44 to 1,180 ng/g from 50 samples collected between 2014 and
2016 in one country, CN. Location types were categorized as General Population (Background).
Reported detection frequency was 0.88.
NonUS Drv
General Population (Background)
3866506 - Zhao et al., 2017 - CN
0.001
0.01
0.1
1 10 100
1000
10A4
Concentration (ng/g)
Figure 1-19. Concentrations of BCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Other
in General Population (Background) Locations from 2014 to 2016
Table 1-19. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured BCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Other
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Zhao et al.
(2017)
CN
General
Population
(Background)
2014-2016
50 (0.88)
0.88
High
1.14 Human Biomonitoring - Plasma
1.14.1 Human Biomonitoring - Plasma (ng/L) - Wet Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Plasma with unit of ng/L, extracted from
one source, are summarized in Figure 1-20 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-20.
Overall, concentrations ranged from not detected to 230 ng/L from 25 samples collected between 2014
and 2016 in one country, CN. Location types were categorized as General Population (Background).
Page 35 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Reported detection frequency was 0.48.
NonUS
3866506 - Zhao et ah, 2017 - CN
| | General Population (Background)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
1
10
100
Concentration (ng/L)
1000
Figure 1-20. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Wet Fraction of Human Biomonitoring -
Plasma in General Population (Background) Locations from 2014 to 2016
Table 1-20. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Plasma
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample
Size
(Frequency
of
Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Zhao et al.
(2017)
CN
General
Population
(Background)
2014-
2016
25 (0.48)
90
High
1.15 Human Biomonitoring - Serum
1.15.1 Human Biomonitoring - Serum (ng/g) - Lipid Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Serum with unit of ng/g, extracted from
one source, are summarized in Figure 1-21 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-21.
Overall, concentrations ranged from 3.12 to 3.69 ng/g from 20 samples collected in 2016 in one country,
ES. Location types were categorized as General Population (Background). Reported detection frequency
was 1.0.
NonUS Lipid
3984272 - Hcnriqucz-Hcrnandez ct al., 2017 - ES
General Population (Background)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
m a
0.1
i
Concentration (ng/g)
10
Figure 1-21. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Lipid Fraction of Human Biomonitoring -
Serum in General Population (Background) Locations in 2016
Table 1-21. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the
Lipid Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Serum
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Henriquez-
Hernandez et
al. (2017)
ES
General
Population
(Background)
2016
20 (1.00)
N/R
High
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
Page 36 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
1.16 Human Biomonitoring - SkinDermal Wipe
1.16.1 Human Biomonitoring - Skin Dermal Wipe (ng/g) - Dry Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Skin Dermal Wipe with unit of ng/g,
extracted from one source, are summarized in Figure 1-22 and supplemental information is provided in
Table 1-22. Overall, concentrations ranged from 20 to 6,920 ng/g from 30 samples collected in 2012 in
one country, US. Location types were categorized as General Population (Background). Reported
detection frequency was 1.0.
US
2343712 - Stapleton et al., 2014 - US
^¦¦Z General Population (Background)
10 100 1000 10A4
Concentration (ng/g)
Figure 1-22. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring -
Skin Dermal Wipe in General Population (Background) Locations in 2012
Table 1-22. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Skin Dermal Wipe
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Stapleton et
al. (2014)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2012
30 (1.00)
N/R
High
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.16.2 Human Biomonitoring - Skin Dermal Wipe (ng/wipe) - Dry Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Skin Dermal Wipe with unit of ng/wipe,
extracted from four sources, are summarized in Figure 1-23 and supplemental information is provided in
Table 1-23. Overall, concentrations ranged from not detected to 3,216 ng/wipe from 400 samples
collected between 2012 and 2016 in three countries, NO, SE and US. Location types were categorized as
General Population (Background). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.47 to 0.87.
us
5163584 - Phillips et al., 2018 - US
General Population (Background)
2343712 - Stapleton et al., 2014 - US
NonUS
4292136 - Larsson et al., 2018 - SE
3357642 - Xu et al., 2016 - NO
0.1
10 100 1000
Concentration (ng/wipe)
10A4
Figure 1-23. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/wipe) in the Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring -
Skin Dermal Wipe in General Population (Background) Locations from 2012 to 2016
Page 37 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Table 1-23. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/wipe) Levels in the
Dry Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Skin Dermal Wipe
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/wipe)
Overall
Quality
Level
Phillips et al.
(2018)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2014-2016
202 (0.87)
2.7
High
Stapleton et
al. (2014)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2012
43 (0.47)
24.0
High
Larsson et al.
(2018)
SE
General
Population
(Background)
2015
100 (0.51)
4.5
High
Xu et al.
(2016)
NO
General
Population
(Background)
2013-2014
55 (0.49)
N/R
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.17 Human Biomonitoring - Urine
1.17.1 Human Biomonitoring - Urine (ng/g) - Creatinine Adjusted Fraction
Measured concentrations of BCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Urine with unit of ng/g, extracted from
one source, are summarized in Figure 1-24 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-24.
Overall, concentrations ranged from not detected to 1900 ng/g from 213 samples collected in 2018 in
one country, US. Location types were categorized as General Population (Background). Reported
detection frequency was 0.87.
US Creatinine Adjusted
5164613-Wang et al., 2019-US
General Population (Background)
\7 Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
0.1
10 100 1000 10A4
Concentration (ng/g)
Figure 1-24. Concentrations of BCEP (ng/g) in the Creatinine Adjusted Fraction of Human
Biomonitoring - Urine in General Population (Background) Locations in 2018
Table 1-24. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured BCEP (ng/g) Levels in the
isted Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Urine
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Wane et al.
(2019)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2018
213 (0.87)
2.7
High
Page 38 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
1.17.2 Human Biomonitoring - Urine (ng/L) - Unadjusted Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Urine with unit of ng/L, extracted from
three sources, are summarized in Figure 1-25 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-25.
Overall, concentrations ranged from not detected to 24500 ng/L from 594 samples collected between
2010 and 2015 in two countries, AU and BE. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.11 to 0.55.
NonUS Unadjusted
General Population (Background)
5469782 - He et al., 2018 - AU
5562397 - Bastiaensen et al., 2019 - BE
3020426 - Van Den Eede et al., 2015 - AU
0.1
10
100 1000 10A4
Concentration (ng/L)
10A5
Figure 1-25. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Unadjusted Fraction of Human Biomonitoring
- Urine in General Population (Background) Locations from 2010 to 2015
Table 1-25. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the
Unadjusted Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Urine
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
He et al.
(2018a)
AU
General
Population
(Background)
2014-2015
400 (0.45)
22.0
High
Bastiaensen
et al. (2019b)
BE
General
Population
(Background)
2015
99 (0.55)
32.0
Medium
Van Den
Eede et al.
(2015)
AU
General
Population
(Background)
2010-2013
95 (0.11)
350.0
Medium
1.17.3 Human Biomonitoring - Urine (ng/L) - All Fractions
Measured concentrations of BCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Urine with unit of ng/L, extracted from
four sources, are summarized in Figure 1-26 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-26.
More than one weight fraction was reported and summarized separately below:
Overall, concentrations for Creatinine Adjusted ranged from not detected to 13.5 ng/L from 213 samples
collected in 2018 in one country, US. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background). Reported detection frequency was 0.87.
Overall, concentrations for Unadjusted ranged from not detected to 13100.0 ng/L from 728 samples
collected between 2011 and 2015 in three countries, AU, DE and US. Location types were categorized
as General Population (Background). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.15 to 0.75.
Page 39 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
US Creatinine Adjusted
5164613 - Wang et al., 2019 - US
General Population (Background)
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
US Unadjusted
2533847 - Dodson et al., 2014 - US
NonUS Unadjusted
5469782 - He et al., 2018 - AU
2537005 - Fromme et al., 2014 - DE
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10"4
Concentration (ng/L)
10A5
Figure 1-26. Concentrations of BCEP (ng/L) in Human Biomonitoring - Urine in General
Population (Background) Locations from 2011 to 2018
Table 1-26. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured BCEP (ng/L) Levels in Human
Biomonitoring - Urine
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Creatinine Adjusted
Wane et al.
(2019)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2018
213 (0.87)
2.7
High
Unadjusted
Dodson et al.
(2014)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2011
16 (0.75)
100.0
High
He et al.
(2018a)
AU
General
Population
(Background)
2014-2015
400 (0.15)
14.0
High
Fromme et
al. (2014)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2011-2012
312(0.65)
200.0
Medium
1.18 Human Biomonitoring - Silicone Wristbands
1.18.1 Human Biomonitoring - Silicone Wristbands (ng/g) - Not Specified Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Human Biomonitoring - Silicone Wristbands with unit of ng/g,
extracted from two sources, are summarized in Figure 1-27 and supplemental information is provided in
Table 1-27. Overall, concentrations ranged from not detected to 719.0 ng/g from 140 samples collected
between 2012 and 2015 in one country, US. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.83 to 0.89.
Page 40 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
us
5165046 - Gibson et al., 2019 - US
| General Population (Background)
gj Non-Detect
3361031 -Kilect al., 2016-US
*
0.1
1
10 100
Concentration (ng/g)
1000
Figure 1-27. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Not Specified Fraction of Human
Biomonitoring - Silicone Wristbands in General Population (Background) Locations from 2012 to
2015
Table 1-27. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Not
Specified Fraction of Human Biomonitoring - Silicone Wristbands
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Gibson et al.
(2019)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2015
76 (0.83)
3.27
High
Kile et al.
(2016)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2012-2013
64 (0.89)
3.4
Medium
1.19 Indoor Air
1.19.1 Indoor Air (ng/m3) - All Fractions
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Indoor Air with unit of ng/m3, extracted from 27 sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-28 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-28. More than one
weight fraction was reported and summarized separately below:
Overall, concentrations for Combined Vapor/Gas and Particulate ranged from not detected to 6,000.0
ng/m3 from 440 samples collected between 2000 and 2016 in seven countries, AU, BE, CA, DE, FI, JP
and US. Location types were categorized as Public Space and Residential. Reported detection frequency
ranged from 0.32 to 1.0.
Overall, concentrations for Particulate ranged from not detected to 136.0 ng/m3 from 133 samples
collected between 2002 and 2016 in four countries, CN, JP, SE and US. Location types were categorized
as Public Space and Residential. Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 1.0.
Overall, concentrations for Vapor/Gas ranged from not detected to 7,100.0 ng/m3 from 677 samples
collected between 2000 and 2016 in six countries, CH, DE, JP, NO, SE and US. Location types were
categorized as Vehicle, Public Space and Residential. Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to
1.0.
Page 41 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
US Combined Vapor/Gas and Particulate
5432871 - Dodson ct al., 2019 - US
NonUS Combined Vapor/Gas and Particulate
4659643 - Okeme et al., 2018 - CA
4285929-He et al., 2018 -AU
4285929 - He et al., 2018 - AU
4659643 - Okeme et al., 2018 - CA
5165777 - Lazarov et al., 2015 - BE
3005686 - Takeuchi et al., 2015 - JP
2560628 - Makinen et al., 2009 - FI
2560628 - Makinen et al., 2009 - Fl
697390 - Kanazawa et al., 2010 - JP
632484 - Ohura et al., 2006 - JP
4731349 - Ingerowski et al., 2001 - DE
3012534 - La Guardia and Hale, 2015 - US
3012534 - La Guardia and Hale, 2015 - US
2539068 - Bradman et al., 2014 - US
4292129 - Deng et al., 2018 - CN
5163827 - Wong et al., 2018 - SE
1927779 - Saito et al., 2007 - JP
1927779 - Saito et al., 2007 - JP
5755270 - Dodson et al., 2017 - US
US Particulate
NonUS Particulate
US Vapor/Gas
NonUS Vapor/Gas
4292133 - Persson et al., 2018 - SE
5083520 - Sha et al., 2018 - SE
5083520-Sha et al., 2018-SE
3357642 - Xu el al., 2016 - NO
3604490 - Tokumura et al., 2017 - JP
10**4
| Public Space
I Residential
Vehicle
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
gs Non-Detecl
7 V
V
m
I v v
l_5X-5zi
I v v
0.1 1 10
Concentration (ng/m3) (pt I)
Page 42 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
NonUS Vapor/Gas
2537005 - Fromme et al., 2014 - DE
788335 - Bergh et al., 2011 - SE
788335 - Bergh et al., 2011 - SE
5469670 - Luongo and Oestman, 2016 - SE
1249459 - Bergh et al., 2011 - SE
779503 - Hartmann et al., 2004 - CH
779503 - Hartmann et al., 2004 - CH
1949033 - Yoshida et al., 2006 - JP
789515 - Otake et al., 2004 - JP
1598712 - Otake et al., 2001 - JP
10A-4
| Public Space
¦M Residential
Vehicle
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
I v v
V V
V V
97
0.1 1 10
Concentration (ng/m3) (pt 2)
Figure 1-28. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/m3) in Indoor Air from 2000 to 2016
Table 1-28. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/m3) Levels in Indoor
Air
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/m3)
Overall
Quality
Level
Combined Vapor/Gas and Particulate
Dodson et al.
(2019)
US
Public Space
2013-2015
37 (0.32)
5.6
High
Okeme et al.
(2018b)
CA
Public Space
2016
51 (0.80)
N/R
Medium
He et al.
(2018c)
AU
Public Space
2015
40 (1.00)
0.06
High
He et al.
(2018c)
AU
Residential
2015
40 (1.00)
0.06
High
Okeme et al.
(2018b)
CA
Residential
2015
102 (0.77)
N/R
Medium
Lazarov et al.
(2015)
BE
Residential
2015
6 (N/R)
0.171
Medium
Takeuchi et
al. (2015)
JP
Residential
2013-2014
21 (0.90)
0.07
High
Makinen et
al. (2009)
FI
Public Space
2008
3 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Makinen et
al. (2009)
FI
Public Space
2008
4(0.50)
3.0
Medium
Page 43 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/m3)
Overall
Quality
Level
Kanazawa et
al. (2010)
JP
Residential
2006
40 (0.60)
12.6
Medium
Ohuraet al.
(2006)
JP
Residential
2000-2001
46 (0.89)
N/R
Medium
Inserowski et
al. (2001)
DE
Residential
2001
50 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Particulate
La Guardia
and Hale
(2015)
US
Public Space
2013
8 (0.00)
0.1
Medium
La Guardia
and Hale
(2015)
US
Residential
2013
8 (0.00)
0.1
Medium
Bradman et
al. (2014)
us
Public Space
2010-2011
40 (0.65)
0.3
High
Dens et al.
(2018)
CN
Public Space
2015-2016
22 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Wong et al.
(2018)
SE
Public Space
2014-2015
23 (1.00)
0.022
Medium
Saito et al.
(2007)
JP
Residential
2002
18 (N/R)
0.67
Medium
Saito et al.
(2007)
JP
Public Space
2002
14 (N/R)
0.67
Medium
Vapor/Gas
Dodson et al.
(2017)
US
Residential
2013-2014
35 (0.17)
7.3
High
Persson et al.
(2018)
SE
Public Space
2015-2016
56 (0.00)
2.2
High
Sha et al.
(2018)
SE
Public Space
2016
36 (N/R)
0.0094
Low
Sha et al.
(2018)
SE
Residential
2016
9 (N/R)
0.0094
Low
Xu et al.
(2016)
NO
Residential
2013-2014
58 (0.93)
0.9
Medium
Page 44 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/m3)
Overall
Quality
Level
Tokumura et
al. (2017)
JP
Vehicle
2013
9 (0.00)
0.68
High
Fromme et
al. (2014)
DE
Public Space
2011-2012
63 (0.17)
4.0
Medium
Bersh et al.
(2011b)
SE
Public Space
2010
20 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Bersh et al.
(2011b)
SE
Residential
2010
10 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Luoneo and
Oestman
(2016)
SE
Residential
2008
62 (0.65)
N/R
Medium
Bersh et al.
(2011a)
SE
Residential
2006-2007
169 (N/R)
1.0
Medium
Hartmann et
al. (2004)
CH
Public Space
2004
12 (1.00)
0.15
Medium
Hartmann et
al. (2004)
CH
Vehicle
2004
4(0.75)
0.15
Medium
Yoshida et
al. (2006)
JP
Vehicle
2004
101 (0.80)
N/R
Medium
Otake et al.
(2004)
JP
Residential
2000
27 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Otake et al.
(2001)
JP
Residential
2000
6(1.00)
N/R
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.20 Leachate
1.20.1 Leachate (ng/L) - Not Specified Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in leachate with unit of ng/L, extracted from three sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-29 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-29. Overall,
concentrations ranged from 6 to 5,430,000,000,000.0 ng/L from 20 samples collected between 1994 and
1995 in one country, JP. Location types were categorized as Unknown/Not Specified and Near Facility
(Highly Exposed). Reported detection frequency was 1.0.
Page 45 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
NonUS
659131 - Yasuhara et al., 1999 - JP
¦ Unknown/Not Specified
Near Facility (Highly Exposed)
5469470 - Yasuhara, 1995 - JP
5469582 - Yasuhara, 1994 - JP
0.1
10
1000
10*5 10*7 10A9
Concentration (ng/L)
10A11
10A13
Figure 1-29. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Not Specified Fraction of Leachate from 1994
to 1995
Table 1-29. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Not
Specified Fraction of Leachate
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Yasuhara et
al. (1999)
JP
Unknown/Not
Specified
1995
11 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Yasuhara
(1995)
JP
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
1995
5 (1.00)
N/R
Low
Yasuhara
(1994)
JP
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
1994
4(1.00)
67.5
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.21 Other
1.21.1 Other (ng/g) - Dry Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Other with unit of ng/g, extracted from one source, are
summarized in Figure 1-30 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-30. Overall,
concentrations ranged from 0.007 to 0.039 ng/g from six samples collected in 2003 in one country, SE.
Location types were categorized as Unknown/Not Specified. Reported detection frequency was 1.0.
NonUS Drv
5176506 - Marklund et al., 2005 - SE
Unknown/Not Specified
10A-4
0.001
0.01 0.1 1
Concentration (ng/g)
Figure 1-30. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Other in Unknown/Not
Specified Locations in 2003
Page 46 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Table 1-30. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Other
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Marklund et
al. (2005b)
SE
Unknown/Not
Specified
2003
6(1.00)
N/R
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.21.2 Other (ng/g) - All Fractions
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Other with unit of ng/g, extracted from three sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-31 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-31. More than one
weight fraction was reported and summarized separately below:
Overall, concentrations for Particulate ranged from 0.007 to 68,000,000.0 ng/g from 12 samples
collected between 2001 and 2003 in two countries, DE and SE. Location types were categorized as
General Population (Background) and Unknown/Not Specified. Reported detection frequency was 1.0.
Overall, concentrations for Wet ranged from not detected to 0.55 ng/g from three samples collected in
2008 in one country, NL. Location types were categorized as Near Facility (Highly Exposed). Reported
detection frequency was 0.67.
NonUS Particulate
4731349 - Ingerowski et al., 2001 - DE
NonUS Wet
2935128 - Brandsma et al., 2015 - NL
NonUS Particulate
5176506 - Marklund et al., 2005 - SE
BIB General Population (Background)
Near Facility (Highly Exposed)
I Unknown/Not Specified
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
—
w
0.01
100 10A4 10A6 10A8
Concentration (ng/g)
Figure 1-31. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in Other from 2001 to 2008
Table 1-31. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that IV
easured TCE
' (ng/g) Levels in Other
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Particulate
Ingerowski et
al. (2001)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2001
6(1.00)
400.0
Medium
Marklund et
al. (2005b)
SE
Unknown/Not
Specified
2003
6(1.00)
N/R
Medium
Page 47 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Wet
Brandsma et
al. (2015)
NL
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2008
3 (0.67)
0.2
High
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.21.3 Other (ng/L) - Not Specified Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Other with unit of ng/L, extracted from one source, are
summarized in Figure 1-32 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-32. Overall,
concentrations ranged from 2.5 to 293 ng/L from 42 samples collected in 2016 in one country, AU.
Location types were categorized as General Population (Background). Reported detection frequency was
not reported.
NonUS
3464010 - Teo et al., 2016 - AU
B General Population (Background)
0.1
1 10 100
Concentration (ng/L)
1000
Figure 1-32. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Not Specified Fraction of Other in General
Population (Background) Locations in 2016
Table 1-32. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Not
Specified Fraction of Other
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Teo et al.
(2016)
AU
General
Population
(Background)
2016
42 (N/R)
5
High
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.22 Personal Inhalation
1.22.1 Personal Inhalation (ng/m3) - All Fractions
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Personal Inhalation with unit of ng/m3, extracted from three
sources, are summarized in Figure 1-33 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-33. More
than one weight fraction was reported and summarized separately below:
Overall, concentrations for Particulate ranged from not detected to 77.8 ng/m3 from 21 samples collected
between 2015 and 2016 in two countries, CA and US. Location types were categorized as General
Population (Background). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.44 to 1.0.
Page 48 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Overall, concentrations for Vapor/Gas ranged from 0.5 to 8.1 ng/m3 from 31 samples collected between
2013 and 2014 in one country, NO. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background). Reported detection frequency was 0.77.
US Particulate
3222316 - Schreder et al., 2016 - US
NonUS Particulate
5017615 - Okeme et al., 2018 - CA
NonUS Vapor/Gas
3357642 - Xu et al., 2016 - NO
| General Population (Background)
¦
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Concentration (ng/m3)
Figure 1-33. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/m3) in Personal Inhalation in General Population
(Background) Locations from 2013 to 2016
Table 1-33. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/m3) Levels in
Personal Inha ation
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/m3)
Overall
Quality
Level
Particulate
Schreder et
al. (2016)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2015
18 (0.44)
1.5
High
Okeme et al.
(2018a)
CA
General
Population
(Background)
2016
3 (1.00)
0.012
Medium
Vapor/Gas
Xu et al.
(2016)
NO
General
Population
(Background)
2013-2014
31 (0.77)
1.0
Medium
1.23 Precipitation
1.23.1 Precipitation (ng/L) - Wet Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Precipitation with unit of ng/L, extracted from six sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-34 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-34. Overall,
concentrations ranged from not detected to 488.0 ng/L from 313 samples collected between 1994 and
2014 in three countries, AQ, DE and US. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background) and Remote (Not Near Source). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.6 to 1.0.
Page 49 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
General Population (Background)
US
| Remote (Not Near Source)
4530235 - Scott et al., 1996 - US
NonUS
3862723 - Li et al., 2017 - AQ
2662833 - Mihajlovic and Fries, 2012 - DE
2662833 - Mihajlovic and Fries, 2012 - DE
¦
2588430 - Regnery and Puttmann, 2010 - DE
2588430 - Regnery and Puttmann, 2010 - DE
2598725 - Regnery and Puettmann, 2009 - DE
2598725 - Regnery and Puettmann, 2009 - DE
¦
2598725 - Regnery and Puettmann, 2009 - DE
¦
2598725 - Regnery and Puettmann, 2009 - DE
5469313 - Fries and Puttmann, 2003 - DE
m
0.01 0.1
10 100 1000
Concentration (ng/L)
Figure 1-34. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Wet Fraction of Precipitation from 1994 to
2014
Table 1-34. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Precipitation
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Scott et al.
(1996)
US
General
Population
(Background)
1994
5 (0.60)
N/R
Low
Li et al.
(2017)
AQ
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2014
6(1.00)
0.21
High
Mihailovic
and Fries
(2012)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2011
4 (N/R)
N/R
High
Mihailovic
and Fries
(2012)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2010
4 (N/R)
N/R
High
Reanerv and
Puttmann
(2010b)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2007-2009
167 (N/R)
2.0
High
Reanerv and
Puttmann
(2010b)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2007-2009
29 (1.00)
2.0
High
Reanerv and
Puettmann
(2009)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2007-2008
30 (N/R)
2.0
High
Page 50 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Reanerv and
Puettmann
(2009)
DE
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2007-2008
23 (N/R)
2.0
High
Reanerv and
Puettmann
(2009)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2007-2008
8 (N/R)
2.0
High
Reanerv and
Puettmann
(2009)
DE
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2007-2008
34 (N/R)
2.0
High
Fries and
Puttmann
(2003)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2001
3 (1.00)
1.0
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.24 Sediment
1.24.1 Sediment (ng/g) - All Fractions
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Sediment with unit of ng/g, extracted from seven sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-35 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-35. More than one
weight fraction was reported and summarized separately below:
Overall, concentrations for Dry ranged from not detected to 41.0 ng/g from 91 samples collected
between 1980 and 2017 in seven countries, CZ, DE, JP, KR, PT, US and ZA. Location types were
categorized as General Population (Background), Near Facility (Highly Exposed) and Unknown/Not
Specified. Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.75 to 1.0.
Overall, concentrations for Wet ranged from not detected to 0.35 ng/g from three samples collected in
2008 in one country, NL. Location types were categorized as Near Facility (Highly Exposed). Reported
detection frequency was 0.67.
Page 51 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
US Drv
4182703 - Maruya et al., 2016 - US
General Population (Background)
Near Facility (Highly Exposed)
I Unknown/Not Specified
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
NonUS Drv
5305891 - Gadelha et al., 2019 - PT
5470119 - Chokwe and Okonkwo, 2019 - ZA
E vm\
5469301 - Choo et al., 2018 - KR
AA
5740077 - Stachel et al., 2005 - CZ,DE
2919504 - Ishikawa et al., 1985 - JP
NonUS Wet
2935128 - Brandsma et al., 2015 - NL
v
0.001
0.01
0.1 1 10
Concentration (ng/g)
100
Figure 1-35. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in Sediment from 1980 to 2017
Table 1-35. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in
Sediment
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Dry
Maruva et al.
(2016)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2013
16 (0.75)
N/R
High
Gadelha et
al. (2019)
PT
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2016-2017
12 (N/R)
0.07
High
Chokwe and
Okonkwo
(2019)
ZA
Unknown/Not
Specified
2017
16 (0.88)
0.24
High
Choo et al.
(2018)
KR
General
Population
(Background)
2015
4(1.00)
0.01
High
Stachel et al.
(2005)
CZ,DE
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2002
37 (N/R)
1.0
Medium
Ishikawa et
al. (1985)
JP
General
Population
(Background)
1980
6(0.83)
5.0
Medium
Wet
Page 52 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Brandsma et
al. (2015)
NL
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2008
3 (0.67)
0.2
High
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.25 Soil
1.25.1 Soil (ng/g) - Dry Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Soil with unit of ng/g, extracted from three sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-36 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-36. Overall,
concentrations ranged from not detected to 23.48 ng/g from 18 samples collected between 2010 and
2014 in two countries, DE and TR. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background). Reported detection frequency was not reported.
NonUS Drv
5017070 - Kurt-Karakus et al., 2018 - TR
1051336 - Mihajlovi et al., 2011 - DE
m General Population (Background)
1
2662833 - Mihajlovic and Fries, 2012 - DE
0.1
1 10
Concentration (ng/g)
100
Figure 1-36. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Dry Fraction of Soil in General Population
(Background) Locations from 2010 to 2014
Table 1-36. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Dry
Fraction of Soil
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Kurt-Karakus
et al. (2018)
TR
General
Population
(Background)
2014
8 (N/R)
3.4
High
Mihailovic et
al. (2011)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2011
6 (N/R)
0.2
Medium
Mihailovic
and Fries
(2012)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2010-2011
4 (N/R)
0.2
High
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
Page 53 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
1.26 Surface Water
1.26.1 Surface Water (ng/L) - Not Specified Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Surface Water with unit of ng/L, extracted from 29 sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-37 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-37. Overall,
concentrations ranged from not detected to 2,019.0 ng/L from 3,283 samples collected between 1980
and 2017 in 14 countries, AQ, AU, CA, DE, DK, ES, FR, GB, GL, JP, KR, PT, SE and US. Location
types were categorized as General Population (Background), Near Facility (Highly Exposed) and
Remote (Not Near Source). Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 1.0.
US Not Specified
Mix Not Specified
NonUS Not Specified
4182703 - Maruya ct al2016 - US
4181598 - Sengupta et al2014 - US
4253347 - Padhyc et al., 2014 - US
5469762 - Giorgino et al., 2007 - US
3353787 - Kolpin et al., 2002 - US
4530235 - Scott et al., 1996 - CA.US
5305891 - Gadelha et al., 2019 - PT
5428453 - Gao et al., 2019 - SE
5469295 - McDonough et al., 2018 - CA,GL
4829919 - Blum et al., 2018 - SE
5428638 - Blum et al., 2018 - SE
5469301 - Choo et al., 2018 - KR
3862723-Li et al.,2017-AQ
3860951 - Loos et al., 2017 - DE
5499542 - Gustavsson et al., 2018 - SE
5469274 - Scott et al., 2014 - AU
1788425 - Cristale et al., 2013 - GB
4330586 - Matamoros et al., 2012 - DK
2588430 - Regnery arid Piittmann, 2010 - DE
2919589 - Calderon-Preciado et al., 2011 - ES
5469263 - Regnery and Piittmann, 2010 - DE
5469315 - Gourmelon et al., 2010 - FR
1250860 - Rodil et al., 2012 - ES
2593950 - Quednow and Piittmann, 2009 - DE
1619118 - Andresen et al., 2007 - DE
4832200 - Andresen et al., 2004 - DE
5469313 - Fries and Puttmann, 2003 - DE
5469312 - Fries and Puttmann, 2001 - DE
10A-4
¦ General Population (Background)
¦HI Near Facility (Highly Exposed)
| Remote (Not Near Source)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
5SJ Non-Detect
t A
VlV
S7V
S7 V
ZJ3Z
V
V
CV
0.001
0.1 1 10
Concentration (ng/L) (pt 1)
100
1000
10A4
Page 54 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
NonUS Not Specified
2919504 - Ishikawa et al., 1985 - JP
General Population (Background)
\7 Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
vv
2919504 - Ishikawa et al, 1985 - JP
vv
10A-4
0.001
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Concentration (ng/L) (pt 2)
10A4
Figure 1-37. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Not Specified Fraction of Surface Water from
1980 to 2017
Table 1-37. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Not
Specified Fraction of Surface Water
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Maruva et al.
(2016)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2013
17 (0.65)
5.0
High
Sensupta et
al. (2014)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2011
30 (1.00)
N/R
Medium
Padhve et al.
(2014)
us
General
Population
(Background)
2009-2010
8 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Gioraino et
al. (2007)
us
General
Population
(Background)
2002-2005
14 (0.36)
500.0
High
Kolpin et al.
(2002)
us
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
1999-2000
85 (0.58)
40.0
High
Scott et al.
(1996)
CA, US
General
Population
(Background)
1994
43 (1.00)
N/R
Low
Gadelha et
al. (2019)
PT
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2016-2017
12 (N/R)
0.13
High
Gao et al.
(2019)
SE
General
Population
(Background)
2016-2017
8 (0.25)
7.2
High
McDonouah
et al. (2018)
CA,GL
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2014-2016
13 (0.46)
0.22
High
Blum et al.
(2018a)
SE
General
Population
(Background)
2014-2015
16 (0.88)
0.15
High
Page 55 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Blum et al.
(2018b)
SE
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2014-2015
20 (0.60)
N/R
High
Choo et al.
(2018)
KR
General
Population
(Background)
2015
4(1.00)
0.24
High
Li et al.
(2017)
AQ
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2014
25 (0.88)
0.21
High
Loos et al.
(2017)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2013
71 (1.00)
0.29
High
Gustavsson
et al. (2018)
SE
General
Population
(Background)
2013
28 (0.57)
0.68
High
Scott et al.
(2014)
AU
General
Population
(Background)
2011-2012
285 (0.44)
10.0
High
Cristale et al.
(2013)
GB
General
Population
(Background)
2011
13 (1.00)
2.4
Medium
Matamoros
et al. (2012)
DK
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2010
29 (1.00)
N/R
High
Reenerv and
Piittmann
(2010b)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2008-2009
52 (1.00)
2.0
High
Calderon-
Preciado et
al. (2011)
ES
General
Population
(Background)
2008-2009
8 (0.00)
55.0
Medium
Reenerv and
Piittmann
(2010a)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2007-2009
151 (N/R)
1.0
High
Gourmelon
et al. (2010)
FR
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2009
20 (0.25)
40.0
Medium
Rodil et al.
(2012)
ES
General
Population
(Background)
2007-2008
28 (0.64)
0.004
Medium
Page 56 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Ouednow
and
Puttmann
(2009)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2003-2006
1,650(0.91)
5.0
High
Andresen et
al. (2007)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2005
14 (N/R)
0.3
High
Andresen et
al. (2004)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2002
44 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Fries and
Puttmann
(2003)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2000-2001
9(0.89)
1.0
Medium
Fries and
Puttmann
(2001)
DE
General
Population
(Background)
2000
561 (N/R)
1.0
Medium
Ishikawa et
al. (1985)
JP
General
Population
(Background)
1980
9(1.00)
10.0
Medium
Ishikawa et
al. (1985)
JP
General
Population
(Background)
1980
16 (0.88)
10.0
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.27 Terrestrial Organisms - Bird
1.27.1 Terrestrial Organisms - Bird (ng/g) - All Fractions
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Terrestrial Organisms - Bird with unit of ng/g, extracted from
seven sources, are summarized in Figure 1-38 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-38.
More than one weight fraction was reported and summarized separately below:
Overall, concentrations for Wet ranged from not detected to 39.0 ng/g from 160 samples collected
between 2000 and 2012 in four countries, CA, NL, NO and US. Location types were categorized as
General Population (Background), Near Facility (Highly Exposed) and Remote (Not Near Source).
Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 1.0.
Overall, concentrations for Dry ranged from not detected to 3,000.0 ng/g from 40 samples collected
between 2008 and 2016 in three countries, ES, NL and NO. Location types were categorized as General
Population (Background), Near Facility (Highly Exposed) and Remote (Not Near Source). Reported
detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 1.0.
Page 57 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
US Wet
5166846 - Guo et al., 2018 - US - Bloodg
5166846 - Guo et al., 2018 - US - Egg (whole)
NonUS Wet
2823276 - Huber et al., 2015 - NO - Egg (whole)
4181327 - Chen et al., 2012 - CA - Egg (whole)
4931691 - Greaves and Letcher, 2014 - CA - Blood
4931691 - Greaves and Letcher, 2014 - CA - Liver
4931691 - Greaves and Letcher, 2014 - CA - Other
4931691 - Greaves and Letcher, 2014 - CA - Adipose Tissue
4931691 - Greaves and Letcher, 2014 - CA - Egg (yolk)
4931691 - Greaves and Letcher, 2014 - CA - Muscle/Filet
NonUS Dry
5017003 - Monclus et al., 2018 - ES - Feathers
2542346 - Eulaers et al., 2014 - NO - Feathers
2935128 - Brandsma et al., 2015 - NL - Egg (whole)
10A-6
| General Population (Background)
¦ Remote (Not Near Source)
Near Facility (Highly Exposed)
B5 Non-Detect
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
Btv
S7
w
10A-4
0.01 1
Concentration (ng/g)
I vv
I0"4
Figure 1-38. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in Terrestrial Organisms - Bird from 2000 to 2016
Table 1-38. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in
Terrestrial Organisms - Bird
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Wet
Guo et al.
(2018)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2000-2012
24 (0.00)
N/R
High
Guo et al.
(2018)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2000-2012
22 (0.55)
1.74
High
Huber et al.
(2015)
NO
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2012
16 (1.00)
N/R
High
Chen et al.
(2012)
CA
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2010
13 (0.77)
0.1
Medium
Greaves and
Letcher
(2014)
CA
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2010
16 (0.00)
0.03
Medium
Page 58 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Greaves and
Letcher
(2014)
CA
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2010
8 (0.00)
0.03
Medium
Greaves and
Letcher
(2014)
CA
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2010
24 (N/R)
0.03
Medium
Greaves and
Letcher
(2014)
CA
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2010
8 (N/R)
0.03
Medium
Greaves and
Letcher
(2014)
CA
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2010
16 (N/R)
0.03
Medium
Greaves and
Letcher
(2014)
CA
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2010
8 (0.38)
0.03
Medium
Brandsma et
al. (2015)
NL
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2008
5 (N/R)
0.26
High
Dry
Monclus et
al. (2018)
ES
General
Population
(Background)
2016
14 (0.43)
1.0
High
Eulaers et al.
(2014)
NO
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2011
21 (1.00)
1.0
High
Brandsma et
al. (2015)
NL
Near Facility
(Highly '
Exposed)
2008
5 (0.00)
0.26
High
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.27.2 Terrestrial Organisms - Bird (ng/g) - Wet Fraction
Measured concentrations of BCEP in Terrestrial Organisms - Bird with unit of ng/g, extracted from one
source, are summarized in Figure 1-39 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-39. Overall,
concentrations ranged from 0.38 to 26 ng/g from 21 samples collected between 2000 and 2012 in one
country, US. Location types were categorized as General Population (Background). Reported detection
frequency was 1.0.
US Wet
5167023 - Stubbings et al., 2018 - US _ Egg (whole)
General Population (Background)
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000
Concentration (ng/g)
10A4
Page 59 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Figure 1-39. Concentrations of BCEP (ng/g) in the Wet Fraction of Terrestrial Organisms - Bird
in General Population (Background) Locations from 2000 to 2012
Table 1-39. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured BCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Terrestrial Organisms - Bird
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Stubbinas et
al. (2018)
US
General
Population
(Background)
2000-2012
21 (1.00)
N/R
High
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.28 Terrestrial Organisms - Mammal
1.28.1 Terrestrial Organisms - Mammal (ng/g) - All Fractions
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Terrestrial Organisms - Mammal with unit of ng/g, extracted from
two sources, are summarized in Figure 1-40 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-40.
More than one weight fraction was reported and summarized separately below:
Overall, concentrations for Lipid ranged from 1.91 to 52.5 ng/g from 20 samples collected between 2008
and 2010 in one country, NO. Location types were categorized as Remote (Not Near Source). Reported
detection frequency was 0.1.
Overall, concentrations for Wet ranged from not detected to 0.115 ng/g from 21 samples collected
between 2017 and 2018 in one country, NO. Location types were categorized as General Population
(Background). Reported detection frequency was 0.0.
| Remote (Not Near Source)
General Population (Background)
NonUS Lipid
5162922 - Hallanger et al., 2015 - NO - Blood
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
NonUS Wet
7002451 - Heimstad et al., 2019 - NO - Liver
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000
Concentration (ng/g)
10^4
Figure 1-40. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in Terrestrial Organisms - Mammal from 2008 to
2018
Table 1-40. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in
Terrestrial Organisms - Mammal
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Lipid
Page 60 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Hallanser et
al. (2015)
NO
Remote (Not
Near Source)
2008-2010
20 (0.10)
N/R
High
Wet
Heimstad et
al. (2019)
NO
General
Population
(Background)
2017-2018
21 (0.00)
0.23
High
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.29 Terrestrial Organisms - Plant
1.29.1 Terrestrial Organisms - Plant (ng/g) - Wet Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Terrestrial Organisms - Plant with unit of ng/g, extracted from one
source, are summarized in Figure 1-41 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-41. Overall,
concentrations ranged from 1.25 to 1950 ng/g from nine samples collected between 1993 and 1994 in
one country, US. Location types were categorized as Remote (Not Near Source). Reported detection
frequency was 0.67.
US Wet
5469881 - Aston et al., 1996 - US - Foliage
| Remote (Not Near Source)
y Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000
Concentration (ng/g)
10A4
Figure 1-41. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Wet Fraction of Terrestrial Organisms - Plant
in Remote (Not Near Source) Locations from 1993 to 1994
Table 1-41. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Terrestrial Organisms - Plant
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Aston et al.
(1996)
US
Remote (Not
Near Source)
1993-1994
9 (0.67)
2.5
Medium
1.30 Wastewater
1.30.1 Wastewater (ng/g) - Wet Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Wastewater with unit of ng/g, extracted from three sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-42 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-42. Overall,
concentrations ranged from 0.5 to 198.0 ng/g from 74 samples collected between 2013 and 2018 in three
countries, CA, NO and US. Location types were categorized as Raw Influent and Treated Effluent.
Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.5 to 1.0.
Page 61 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
US
3862000 - Kim et al., 2017 - US
3862000 - Kim et al., 2017 - US
3862000 - Kim et al., 2017 - US
Raw Influent
I Treated Effluent
V Lognormal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
^ vl V I
v ka
vlv
NonUS
7002475 - Norwegian Environment, 2019 - NO
3035593 - Woudneh et al, 2015 - CA
3035593 - Woudneh et al, 2015 - CA
1
1
1
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Concentration (ng/g)
1000
Figure 1-42. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/g) in the Wet Fraction of Wastewater from 2013 to 2018
Table 1-42. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/g) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Wastewater
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/g)
Overall
Quality
Level
Kim et al.
(2017)
US
Raw Influent
2013-2015
16 (1.00)
1.0
High
Kim et al.
(2017)
US
Treated Effluent
2013-2015
38 (0.50)
1.0
High
Kim et al.
(2017)
us
Treated Effluent
2013-2015
16 (1.00)
1.0
High
Norwegian
Environment
(2019a)
NO
Treated Effluent
2018
2 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Woudneh et
al. (2015)
CA
Raw Influent
2015
1 (1.00)
0.1
Medium
Woudneh et
al. (2015)
CA
Treated Effluent
2015
1 (1.00)
0.1
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
1.30.2 Wastewater (ng/L) - Wet Fraction
Measured concentrations of TCEP in Wastewater with unit of ng/L, extracted from 16 sources, are
summarized in Figure 1-43 and supplemental information is provided in Table 1-43. Overall,
concentrations ranged from not detected to 42800.0 ng/L from 305 samples collected between 2001 and
2018 in eight countries, AU, BE, DE, ES, FR, NO, SE and US. Location types were categorized as
Untreated Combined Sewer Overflow, Raw Influent, Treated Effluent and Untreated Effluent at
Discharge Origin. Reported detection frequency ranged from 0.0 to 1.0.
Page 62 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
us
NonUS
3862000 Kim ct al., 2017-US
3862000 - Kim et al., 2017 - US
2528320 - Schreder and La Guardia, 2014 - US
2528320 - vSchredcr and La Guardia, 2014 - US
5469289 - Laws et al., 2011 - US
1408465 - Jackson and Sutton, 2008 - US
1408465 - Jackson and Sutton, 2008 - US
5743010 - Lorainc and Pettigrov, 2006 - US
7002475 - Norwegian Environment, 2019 - NO
5428453 - Gao et al., 2019 - SE
5428453 - Gao et al., 2019 - SE
4457234 - Been et al., 2017 - BE
5664394 - Launay et al., 2016 - DE
5664394 - Launay et al., 2016 - DE
4143122-Blum et al., 2017-SE
3035438 - O'Brien et al., 2015 - AU
5469315 - Gourmelon et al., 2010 - FR
1250860 - Rodil et al., 2012 - ES
1250860 - Rodil et al., 2012 - ES
5162720 - Meyer and Bester, 2004 - DE
5162720 - Meyer and Bester, 2004 - DE
8683710 - Marklund et al, 2005 - SE
8683710 - Marklund et al, 2005 - SE
8683710 - Marklund et al, 2005 - SE
8683710 - Marklund et al, 2005 - SE
8683710 - Marklund et al, 2005 - SE
8683710 - Marklund et al, 2005 - SE
5469313 - Fries and Puttmann, 2003 - DE
5469313 - Fries and Puttmann, 2003 - DE
0.01
¦¦I Raw Influent
¦ Treated Effluent
Untreated Effluent at Discharge Origin
Untreated Combined Sewer Overflow
V Lognorrnal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
A Normal Distribution (CT and 90th percentile)
S3 Non-Detect
Aa
AA
4A
*
¦v
K7V
w
w
33
KS?
W
EA-
&
£A
Ov
^7
^37
10 100
Concentration (ng/L)
Figure 1-43. Concentrations of TCEP (ng/L) in the Wet Fraction of Wastewater from 2001 to 2018
Table 1-43. Summary of Peer-Reviewed Literature that Measured TCEP (ng/L) Levels in the Wet
Fraction of Wastewater
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Kim et al.
(2017)
US
Raw Influent
2013-2015
16 (1.00)
50.0
High
Page 63 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
Kim et al.
(2017)
US
Treated Effluent
2013-2015
16 (1.00)
50.0
High
Schreder and
La Guardia
(2014)
US
Treated Effluent
2011-2012
2(1.00)
1.0
High
Schreder and
La Guardia
(2014)
us
Untreated
Effluent at
Discharge
Origin
2011-2012
21 (1.00)
1.0
High
Laws et al.
(2011)
us
Treated Effluent
2009
1 (1.00)
200.0
Medium
Jackson and
Sutton
(2008)
us
Raw Influent
2006
10 (0.20)
6250.0
Medium
Jackson and
Sutton
(2008)
us
Treated Effluent
2006
3 (0.67)
N/R
Medium
Loraine and
Pettiarov
(2006)
us
Treated Effluent
2001-2002
6(0.50)
760.0
Medium
Norwegian
Environment
(2019a)
NO
Treated Effluent
2018
2 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Gao et al.
(2019)
SE
Raw Influent
2017
4(1.00)
7.2
High
Gao et al.
(2019)
SE
Treated Effluent
2016-2017
8 (0.88)
7.2
High
Been et al.
(2017)
BE
Raw Influent
2015-2016
8 (1.00)
1.1
Medium
Launav et al.
(2016)
DE
Untreated
Combined
Sewer Overflow
2014
9 (N/R)
50.0
High
Launav et al.
(2016)
DE
Untreated
Effluent at
Discharge
Origin
2014
7 (N/R)
50.0
High
Blum et al.
(2017)
SE
Treated Effluent
2013
10 (0.80)
N/R
Medium
Page 64 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Citation
Country
Location Type
Sampling
Year
Sample Size
(Frequency
of Detection)
Detection
Limit
(ng/L)
Overall
Quality
Level
O'Brien et al.
(2015)
AU
Raw Influent
2011
15 (0.93)
200.0
High
Gourmelon
et al. (2010)
FR
Treated Effluent
2009
14 (1.00)
40.0
Medium
Rodil et al.
(2012)
ES
Raw Influent
2007-2008
11 (1.00)
10.0
Medium
Rodil et al.
(2012)
ES
Treated Effluent
2007-2008
11 (1.00)
10.0
Medium
Mever and
Bester (2004)
DE
Raw Influent
2003
0 (N/R)
6.1
Medium
Mever and
Bester (2004)
DE
Treated Effluent
2003
18 (0.00)
6.1
Medium
Marklund et
al. (2005a)
SE
Raw Influent
2002-2003
18 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Marklund et
al. (2005a)
SE
Treated Effluent
2002-2003
17 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Marklund et
al. (2005a)
SE
Raw Influent
2002-2003
9 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Marklund et
al. (2005a)
SE
Treated Effluent
2002-2003
34 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Marklund et
al. (2005a)
SE
Treated Effluent
2002-2003
18 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Marklund et
al. (2005a)
SE
Treated Effluent
2002-2003
9 (N/R)
N/R
Medium
Fries and
Puttmann
(2003)
DE
Raw Influent
2001
4(1.00)
1.0
Medium
Fries and
Puttmann
(2003)
DE
Treated Effluent
2001
4(0.75)
1.0
Medium
Abbreviations: N/R, Not reported
Page 65 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
2 METHODS AND APPROACH
2.1 Data Integration Methods and Approach
Extracted study data required further processing to allow for the standardization and integration of
TCEP data across all studies. Where studies reported data values for metabolites of TCEP, including
BCEP (bis(2-chloroethyl) phosphate, CAS No. 4050-56-0, these values were extracted separately in
DistillerSR and data summaries are reported separately in this report for TCEP and its individual
metabolites.
To enable comparison of data across studies, all extracted environmental monitoring and biomonitoring
concentrations were converted to common unit by medium (i.e., ng/L for aqueous media, ng/g for solid
phase media, ng/m3 for air media). Study-reported summary statistics were used, as available, to
characterize the concentrations for all unique scenarios including minimums and maximum
concentrations, measures of central tendency, percentiles, measures of variance, frequencies of
detection, and reported limits of detection (LOD) and/or limits of quantitation (LOQ). In cases where
point data were available, summary statistics were calculated for each unique scenario depending on the
number of point values. If only one point value was reported per unique scenario, it was treated as an
arithmetic mean. For unique scenarios with 2-9 point values, arithmetic means, medians, standard
deviations, and minimum and maximums were calculated. For unique scenarios with 10 or more point
values, the 25th, 50th, and 90th percentiles also were calculated.
A left-censoring protocol was applied to impute the lower bound of concentration ranges in cases where
the reported frequency of detection (FOD) was less than 100 percent, meaning that TCEP, or metabolite,
was not detected in at least one sample. Specifically, a value of one-half the highest reported LOD or
LOQ (if no LOD available) was imputed as the minimum value for each unique scenario. In cases where
authors reported values as "not detected" (e.g., "ND", "
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Section Error! Reference source not found, of this supplement provides a data summary plot for each m
edia by unit. Each plot presents summary statistics for each study aggregated by pollution source
receptor type and setting or microenvironment {i.e., General Population (Background), Near Facility
(Highly Exposed), Remote (Not Near Point Source)). Because individual studies often present multiple
unique scenarios that can be grouped into a single representative aggregate for the study, available
statistics were combined and the ranges observations {e.g., minimum, maximum, and percentiles) and
central tendencies {e.g. arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and median), and overall FOD where possible
were calculated.
Within each plot, data are separated by unit basis of sampling fraction, then monitoring data from the
U.S. are presented first, followed by studies with data from mixed locations {i.e., U.S. and other
countries), finally by studies with data from non-U.S. sources. For each grouping, data are presented
from newest to oldest, based on latest year of sampling. Differentiation by tissue type for ecological
monitoring media is indicated in the tick label. The lighter region of each bar represents the overall
range of data and the darker region represents the range of central tendency reported in each study.
Triangles indicate the arithmetic mean and 90th percentile estimates are plotted over the bars for study
aggregates that reported enough statistical results to reconstruct a lognormal or normal distribution. The
statistical methods used to calculate the central and high-end estimates are described in the following
section. The tables that follow each plot provide summary information for each study aggregate such as
the sampling location and dates, sample size and FOD, maximum LOD or LOQ (if no LOD was
reported), and overall study quality judgement from data evaluation.
2.2 Statistical Approach of Exposure Estimates Derived from Measured
Concentrations
Following the aggregation and standardization of reported study data from DistillerSR, the statistical
methods described were applied to enhance the comparability and informative value of the available
information. All statistical calculations were performed with Python scripts included as steps within the
computational pipeline of the methodology.
Page 67 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
2.2,1 Aggregation of Statistical Estimates
Studies were aggregated as described in the previous section. Based on this aggregation and study-
reported statistics, normal and lognormal distributions were estimated based on available data. In cases
where more than one statistic type {i.e., mean, median, minimum, maximum, percentile, and variability
measures) each type was handled as described in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2-1. Statistics ant
Methods for Data Aggregation
Statistic Type
Description of Calculation Method for Aggregate Estimate
Arithmetic means
l!j= \ WjXj, where Xj = */,;
Medians
Ylj=1 Wj ¦ medj, where medj is the median of dataset J
Percentiles
Ey=i wj ' percj, where percj is the percentile of dataset J
Minimums
minfmi,, mK}, where rrij = min {xj 1;..., xJ Nj}
Maximums
max {M1; —,Mn} , where My = max {xj 1; ...,XjNj]
Geometric means
exp (If=i wj • In (GMf)). where GMj = exp (xy ;))
Geometric standard
deviations
2
exP
• Equation for estimating 90th percentile from lognormal distribution: e(P+er*1-282))
If arithmetic means and standard deviations (SDs) or variance were provided and no other statistics
indicate that the data are not normally distributed, then a normal distribution was derived using the
available statistics. If arithmetic means, medians, and SDs were provided and means and medians were
within 5 percent relative percent difference, then a normal distribution was assumed and derived using
the provided arithmetic mean and measure of variation. When a normal distribution was assumed the
arithmetic mean (assumed to be median) and 90th percentile was calculated using the equations below.
• Equation for arithmetic mean for normal distribution: /1
• Equation for 90th percentile from normal distribution: /1 + 1.282
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Table 2-2. Distri
jutions Preferred Depending on Available Reported Statistics
Case Type
Description of Available Statistics Per
Study Aggregate
Distribution Type
Preferred
Case OA
Geometric mean and GSD
lognormal
Case OB
Median and GSD
lognormal
Case 1A
(Mean == Median) and SD
normal
Case IB
Mean and SD (no Median provided)
normal
Case 2A
Median and (min or max or percentile)
lognormal
Case 2B
Median and (F0D<1 and LOD/LOQ)
lognormal
Case 3A
Mean only and (min or max or percentile)
lognormal
Case 3B
Mean only and (F0D<1 and LOD/LOQ)
lognormal
Case 4
Median and mean only
lognormal
All other cases
Not enough data to build distribution
n/a
GSD = geometric standard deviation; SD = standard deviation; FOD = frequency of detection; LOD =
limit of detection; LOQ = limit of quantitation
2.2.2 Fitting Lognormal Distributions
In cases where the study data provided median values, the average median was substituted for geometric
mean, and the remaining statistics were used to estimate the GSD by minimizing the sum of squared
errors for all provided statistical estimates. Sum of squared errors was calculated by comparing the mean
of the residual statistic to the estimated value produced by the fitted distribution, based on the
assumptions in Table 2-3 that defined the percentiles assumed for each statistic type.
Table 2-3. Assumed Percentile for Calculating Error by Statistical Estimate Type
Mean of Statistical Estimate by Type
Assumed Percentile for Calculating Error
Maximum
0.99
Minimum
0.01
nth percentile (eg. 25th percentile)
n/100 (e.g., 0.25)
Half limit of quantitation substituted minimum
0.005
Half limit of detection substituted minimum
0.0025
This methodology requires a central tendency estimate and at least one data point on the distribution in
order to fit a lognormal distribution. Thus, lognormal distributions were fitted for studies that provided
an arithmetic mean and at least one data point on the curve. In these cases, both the geometric mean and
the GSD were derived by minimizing the sum of the squared errors for all estimates.
2.2.3 Fitting Normal Distributions
Normal distributions also were constructed for all study aggregates using an approach similar to the
approach for geometric distributions described in Section 2.2.1. Study-reported means were assumed to
be medians, and standard deviations were calculated by minimizing the sum of squares error of all
available estimates.
Page 69 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
2.2.4 Quality Control of Derived Exposure Estimates
As a quality control measure, the estimated medians and arithmetic means were evaluated to verify that
the estimated values fell within the range of the reported data. Estimates were not used if they fell
outside of the range of the reported data, typically an indicator of anomalous data. In addition, derived
GSDs were not used if they exceeded 10 for the lognormal distributions, mean estimates were not used
if they exceeded 100% relative percent difference from residual means. In these cases, the estimates
from the normal distributions were used when normal distributions could be derived.
2.2.5 Final Exposure Estimates by Media and Pollution Source Receptor Type
Central tendency exposure values that carried forward to risk evaluation after passing the QC process
were summarized for each media aggregate by taking the sample weighted mean of the arithmetic mean
estimates from the selected distribution (i.e., lognormal or normal). Similarly, the 90th percentile
estimates carried forward to risk evaluation were calculated as the sample weighted mean of 90th
percentile estimates.
Page 70 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
3 REFERENCES
Abdollahi. A; Eng. A; J an tun en. LM; Ahrens. L; Shoeib. M; Parnis. J.M; Hairier. T. (2017).
Characterization of polyurethane foam (PUF) and sorbent impregnated PUF (SIP) disk passive
air samplers for measuring organophosphate flame retardants. Chemosphere 167: 212-219.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .chemosphere..01 0° i i i
AitBamai. Y; Araki. A; Nomura. T; Kawai. T; Tsuboi. T; Kobavashi. S: Miyashita. C; Takeda. M;
Shimizu. H; Kishi. R (2018). Association of filaggrin gene mutations and childhood eczema and
wheeze with phthalates and phosphorus flame retardants in house dust: The Hokkaido study on
Environment and Children's Health. Environ Int 121: 102-110.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .envint.2018.08.046
AU x U .H 1 Mi Eede. N: Goosey. E: Harrad. S: Neels. I \ 1' Mannetie \ i oakln i
Douwes. aci. A. (2012). Occurrence of alternative flame retardants in indoor dust from
New Zealand: Indoor sources and human exposure assessment. Chemosphere 88: 1276-1282.
http://dx.doi.off .chemosphere.2012.03.100
Andreses < * H»idmann \ -'ster. K. (2004). Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticisers in
surface waters. Sci Total Environ 332: 155-166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .scitotenv.2004.04.021
Andresen J Vluii ]>, Teito 1 Killing. C; Theokil*! 'x ' ster. K. (2007). Emerging pollutants in the
North Sea in comparison to Lake Ontario, Canada, data. Environ Toxicol Chem 26: 1081-1089.
http://dx.doi.off 97/06-416R.1
Aston. LS; Noda. J: Seiber. IN; Reece. CA. (1996). Organophosphate flame retardants in needles of
Pinus ponderosa in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 57: 859-866.
http://dx.doi.off .001289900269
Barnes. KK; Christenson. SC; Kolpin. DW; Focazio. M; Furloi^ * I .tigg. SD; Meyer. "K[ 1 *' a'ber.
(2004). Pharmaceuticals and other organic waste water contaminants within a leachate
plume downgradient of a municipal landfill. Ground Water Monit Remediat 24: 119-126.
http://dx.doi.off Q4.tb00720.x
.Barnes. .K..K... .KLolpm. 1). Furlong. ET; Zaugg. SD; Meyer. M < < 'arbei <<-! (2008). A national
reconnaissance of pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants in the United
States—I) groundwater. Sci Total Environ 402: 192-200.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .scitotenv.2008.04.028
Bastiaensen. M; Ait Bamai \ \ ui 11. \ \ .in Den Eede. N: Kawai. T; Tsuboi I' lashi. R; Covaci. A.
(2019a). Biomonitoring of organophosphate flame retardants and plasticizers in children:
Associations with house dust and housing characteristics in Japan. Environ Res 172: 543-551.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .envres.2019.02.045
Bastiaensen. M; Malarvannan. ;n. F; Yin. S: Yao. Y; Huygh. J; Clotman. K; Schepens. T: Jorens.
PG: Covaci. A. (2019b). Metabolites of phosphate flame retardants and alternative plasticizers in
urine from intensive care patients. Chemosphere 233: 590-596.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .chemosphere.. ^ I ^ _ 10
Been. >tiaensen. M; Lai. FY; van Nuiis. ALN; Covaci. A. (2017). Liquid chromatography-tandem
mass spectrometry analysis of biomarkers of exposure to phosphorus flame retardants in
wastewater to monitor community-wide exposure. Ind Eng Chem Anal Ed 89: 10045-10053.
http://dx.doi.org/10.102 l/acs.analchem.7b02705
Bergh. C; Aberg. KM; Svartengren. M; Emeniug ;stman. C. (201 la). Organophosphate and
phthalate esters in indoor air: a comparison between multi-storey buildings with high and low
prevalence of sick building symptoms. J Environ Monit 13: 2001-2009.
http://dx.doi.off 10 10 -'Jem 101 ^h
Page 71 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Bergh. C; Torgrip. R; Emeniu; stman. C. (201 lb). Organophosphate and phthalate esters in air and
settled dust - a multi-location indoor study. Indoor Air 21: 67-76.
http://dx.doi.on 3.2010.00684.x
Blum. KM; Anders son. PL; Ahrens. L; Wiberg. K; Haglund. P. (2018a). Persistence, mobility and
bioavailability of emerging organic contaminants discharged from sewage treatment plants. Sci
Total Environ 612: 1532-1542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .scitotenv.201 0,).006
Blum. K lersson. PL; Renman. G; Ahrens. L; Gros. M; Wiberg. K; Haglund. P. (2017). Non-
target screening and prioritization of potentially persistent, bioaccumulating and toxic domestic
wastewater contaminants and their removal in on-site and large-scale sewage treatment plants.
Sci Total Environ 575: 265-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .scitotenv.. 01 0° l'<
Blum. KM; Haglund. P; G»x» < * \ in ens. L; Gros. M; Wibei^ t \mlersson. PL. (2018b). Mass fluxes
per capita of organic contaminants from on-site sewage treatment facilities. Chemosphere 201:
864-873. http://dx.doi.< S/i.chemosphere.2018.03.058
Bohlin-Nizzetto. P; Aas. W; Nikiforov. V. (2019). Monitoring of Environmental Contaminants in Air
and Precipitation, 2018. (Report M-1419). Norwegian Environment Agency.
https://www.mili odirektoratet.no/ globalassets/publikasi oner/m 1419/rr df
Bradman \ i astorina. R; Caspar {•', Niishioka. M; Colon. M; Weathers. W \ ^ eghy. PP; Maddalena.
R; Williams. J; Jenkins. PL; McKone. TE. (2014). Flame retardant exposures in California early
childhood education environments. Chemosphere 116: 61-66.
http://dx.doi.off 10 101 i.chemosphere. JO I i 02.072
Brandsma. SH; de Boei i Velzen. Ml; Leonards. PE. (2014). Organophosphorus flame retardants
(PFRs) and plasticizers in house and car dust and the influence of electronic equipment.
Chemosphere 116: 3-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i chemosphere.201 I 02.036
Brandsma. S wards. P; Leslie. HA; de Boer. J. (2015). Tracing organophosphorus and brominated
flame retardants and plasticizers in an estuarine food web. Sci Total Environ 505: 22-31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .scitotenv.201 i 08.072
Brommer. S; Harrad. S; Van den Eede. N; Covai (2012). Concentrations of organophosphate esters
and brominated flame retardants in German indoor dust samples. J Environ Monit 14: 2482-
2487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c2em30303e
Buszka. PM; Yesku 1 *< i 1 m >1 i .tugg. SD; Meyer. MT. (2009). Waste-indicator
and pharmaceutical compounds in landfill-leachate-affected ground water near Elkhart, Indiana,
2000-2002. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 82: 653-659. http://dx.doi.c 0128-009-
9702-z
Calderon-Preciado. D; Matamoros tvona. JM. (2011). Occurrence and potential crop uptake of
emerging contaminants and related compounds in an agricultural irrigation network. Sci Total
Environ 412-413: 14-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .scitotenv.2 01 I 0° 0 ^
Castorina. R; Butt. C; Stapleton. HM; Avery. D; Harlev. KG; Holland. N; Eskenazi. B; Bradman. A.
(2017). Flame retardants and their metabolites in the homes and urine of pregnant women
residing in California (the CHAMACOS cohort). Chemosphere 179: 159-166.
http://dx.doi.off 10 101 i.chemosphere..01 0 '< 0
Chen tcher. RJ; Chu. S. (2012). Determination of non-halogenated, chlorinated and brominated
organophosphate flame retardants in herring gull eggs based on liquid chromatography-tandem
quadrupole mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1220: 169-174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.chroma.2011.11.046
Chokwe. TB; Okonkwo. JO. (2019). Occurrence, distribution and ecological risk assessment of
organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in sediment samples along the Vaal River
catchment, South Africa. Emerging Contaminants 5: 173-178.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i. em con.2019.05.003
Page 72 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Choc 10. H.S; Park. K; Lee. JW: Kim. P; Oh. IE. (2018). Tissue-specific distribution and
bioaccumulation potential of organophosphate flame retardants in crucian carp. Environ Pollut
239: 161-168. http://dx.doi.Org/10.lQ16/i.envpol „0is 0 > 10 I
Christia. C; Poma. G; Besis. A; Samara. C; Covaci. A. (2018). Legacy and emerging organophosphorus
flame retardants in car dust from Greece: Implications for human exposure. Chemosphere 196:
231-239. http://dx.doi.ci y 10 1016/i .chemosphere.201 i J i '<2
Clark \< \ c. '¦Uieeslev. RJ; Usenko. S. (2017). Spatial and Temporal Distributions of
Organophosphate Ester Concentrations from Atmospheric Particulate Matter Samples Collected
across Houston, TX. Environ Sci Technol 51: 4239-4247.
http://dx.doi.ore/10J02 i/acs.estJb00115
Coelho. SD; Sot* . U i obe. T; Kim. JW; Kunisir l' x ogiriu \ 1 anabe. S. (2016). Brominated,
chlorinated and phosphate organic contaminants in house dust from Portugal. Sci Total Environ
569-570: 442-449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.scitotenv .01 0 I '<
Cristale. J; Katsoviannis. A; Sweetmaii ^ 1 .oorte. S. (2013). Occurrence and risk
assessment of organophosphorus and brominated flame retardants in the River Aire (UK).
Environ Pollut 179: 194-200. http://dx.doi.oi^ 10 101 /j.envpol.20I > 0 I 001
Dene. WJ; Li. N: Wu. R; Richard. WKS; We (2018). Phosphorus flame retardants and
Bisphenol A in indoor dust and PM2.5 in kindergartens and primary schools in Hong Kong.
Environ Pollut 235: 365-371. http://dx.doi.oi^ 10 101 /j.envpol.201 I _ 0° >
Dodson. KJHossonneau. V: tide [ \ N ^ K ishioka. M; McCaulev. M; Rudel. RA. (2019). Passive
indoor air sampling for consumer product chemicals: A field evaluation study. J Expo Sci
Environ Epidemiol 29: 95-108. http://dx.doi. !8/s41370-018-0070-9
Dodson. lesk ton. MP; McCauti lant nkiewii tudel.
RA. (2017). Chemical exposures in recently renovated low-income housing: Influence of
building materials and occupant activities. Environ Int 109: 114-127.
http://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i .envint. 20 I 0 00
Dodson. RE; Van den Eede. N; Covat i \ Perovich 1 1 * V* >y. JG; Rudel. RA. (2014). Urinary
Biomonitoring of Phosphate Flame Retardants: Levels in California Adults and
Recommendations for Future Studies. Environ Sci Technol 48: 13625-13633.
http://dx.doi.ore/10.102 l/es503445c
Eulaers. I; Jaspers. VL; Hallev epoint. G; Nvs ixten. R; Covai lens. M. (2014).
Brominated and phosphorus flame retardants in White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla nestlings:
bioaccumulation and associations with dietary proxies (S13C, S15N and S34S). Sci Total Environ
478: 48-57. http://dx.doi.ore 10 101 t.scitotenv.201 I 01 OM
Even set. nes. H; Christensen. GN; Warner. N; Rembereer. M; Gabrielsen. GW. (2009).
Screening of new contaminants in samples from the Norwegian Arctic: Silver, platinum,
sucralose, bisphenol A, tetrabrombisphenol A, siloxanes, phtalates (DEHP), phosphororganic
flame retardants. In Akvaplan-niva rapport, no 4351-1. (TA report no. 2510/2009; SPFO report
no. 1049/2009). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Pollution Control Authority.
https://braee.npolar.no/npolar-
xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/173176/ScreenineContaminants Arctic.pdf
Fabian ska. MJ; Kozielska. B; Konieczyn: aczyc. P. (2019). Occurrence of organic phosphates
in particulate matter of the vehicle exhausts and outdoor environment - A case study. Environ
Pollut 244: 351-360. http ://dx.doi.ore/10 101 | envpol..0 i s 10 0 jO
Fan. X; Kubwabo. C; Rasmussen. PE: Wu. F. (2014). Simultaneous determination of thirteen
organophosphate esters in settled indoor house dust and a comparison between two sampling
techniques. Sci Total Environ 491-492: 80-86. http://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i .scitotenv. 201'< i J i J
Page 73 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Fane. M; Webst oden. D; Cooper. EM; McClean. MP; Carignan. C; Makev. C; Stapleton.
HM. (2013). Investigating a novel flame retardant known as V6: measurements in baby products,
house dust, and car dust. Environ Sci Technol 47: 4449-4454.
http://dx.doi.oo ;s400032v
FDA. (1995). Accumulated pesticide and industrial chemical findings from a ten-year study of ready-to-
eat foods. J AOAC Int 78: 614-630. http://dx.doi.ore/10.1093/iaog
Focazio. MI; Kolpin DU . Heroes. KK; Furl one. ET; Meyer. A n \ t iiee. SD; Barber. LB; Thurman.
ME. (2008). A national reconnaissance for pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater
contaminants in the United States—II) untreated drinking water sources. Sci Total Environ 402:
201-216. http://dx.doij >citotenv.2008.02.021
. E; Puttmann. W. (2001). Occurrence of organophosphate esters in surface water and ground water
in Germany. J Environ Monit 3: 621-626. http://dx.doi.ore/ 9/b 105072a
. E; Puttmann. 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.
http://dx.doi.ore/10.1039/b210342e
I H; Lain < t uii VI; Fembacher. L; Mach. C; Dietrich. S, i-Uirkardt. R; Volkel. W; Goen. T.
(2014). Organophosphate flame retardants and plasticizers in the air and dust in German daycare
centers and human biomonitoring in visiting children (LUPE 3). Environ Int 71: 158-163.
http://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i .envint. _01 I 0 01
Gadelha. JR; Rocha. AC; Camacho. C; Eliarrat. E; Peris. A; Aminot. Y; Readma i. V;
Nannou. C; Kapsi. M; Albania « Koch a. F; Machado. A; Bop lilt» \ \ ,tj^iite. LMP; Nunes.
ML; Marques. A; Almeida. CMR. (2019). Persistent and emerging pollutants assessment on
aquaculture oysters (Crassostrea gigas) from NW Portuguese coast (Ria De Aveiro). Sci Total
Environ 666: 731-742. http://dx.doi.ore/' )/i.scitotenv.2019.02.280
Gao. O; Blum. KM; Gaeo-Ferrero. P; Wibere. K; Ahrens. L; Anders son. PL. (2019). Impact of on-site
wastewater infiltration systems on organic contaminants in groundwater and recipient waters. Sci
Total Environ 651: 1670-1679. http://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i .scitotenv.20 i s 10 01
Gibson. EA; Stapleton. HM; Catero. L; Holmes. 1 * Kwke. K; Martinez. R; €ortcv r% Nematollahi. A;
Evans. D; Anderson. KA; Herbstman (2019). Differential exposure to organophosphate
flame retardants in mother-child pairs. Chemosphere 219: 567-573.
http://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i .chemosphere.2018.12.008
Gioreino. Ml; Rasmussen. RB; Pfeifle. CM. (2007). Occurrence of organic wastewater compounds in
selected surface-water supplies, Triangle Area of North Carolina, 2002-2005 (pp. 29). (Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5054). U.S. Geological Survey.
http://dx.doi.oo >ir20075054
Giovanoulis. G; Nguyen, h widsson. M; Langer. S; Vestereren. R; Laeerqvist. A. (2019).
Reduction of hazardous chemicals in Swedish preschool dust through article substitution actions.
Environ Int 130: 104921. http://dx.doi.orv 10 101 | ^itviro „0rs 10 I
Gourmelon. M; Caprais. MP; Mieszkin. S; Marti. R; Werv. N; Jarde. E; Derrien. M; Jadas~H.ec
Commm ffrezic. A; Pourcher. AM. (2010). Development of microbial and chemical
MST tools to identify the origin of the faecal pollution in bathing and shellfish harvesting waters
in France. Water Res 44: 4812-4824. http://dx.doi.oi \ 10 101 >/i .watres.2010 0 .061
Greaves. A.K; Letcher. RJ. (2014). Comparative body compartment composition and in ovo transfer of
organophosphate flame retardants in North American Great Lakes herring gulls. Environ Sci
Technol 48: 7942-7950. http://dx.doi.ore/10.102 l/es501334w
G ier. M; Sal am ova. A; Hites. RA. (2017). Bioaccumulation of Dechloranes, organophosphate
esters, and other flame retardants in Great Lakes fish. Sci Total Environ 583: 1-9.
http://dx.doi.oo 10 101 i.scitotenv.l01 110 3.
Page 74 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Guo. JH; Simon. K; Roma: werman. W; Venier. M. (2018). Accumulation of flame retardants
in paired eggs and plasma of bald eagles. Environ Pollut 237: 499-507.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .envpol.2018.02.056
Gustavsson. J; Wiberg. K; Ribeli. E; Nguyen. M rfsson. S; Ahrens. L. (2018). Screening of
organic flame retardants in Swedish river water. Sci Total Environ 625: 1046-1055.
http://dx.doi.on 10 101 t.scitotenv.201 I J
Ballanger. IG: Sagerup. K; Evens* ics. KM; Leonards. P; Fugtei. E; Routti. H; Aars. J; Stem.
H; Lyderser tbrielsen. GW. (2015). Organophosphorous flame retardants in biota from
Svalbard, Norway. Mar Pollut Bull 101: 442-447.
http://dx.doi.oo .marpolbul .2015.09.049
Hartmann. PC; Btirgi. D; Giger. W. (2004). Organophosphate flame retardants and plasticizers in indoor
air. Chemosphere 57: 781-787. http://dx.doi.org. chemosphere.2004.08.051
He. C; Covaci. A; Heffernon \1 . Undue!. C; Harden ^ \ \ loellei U 1 'x ele Van Den. E;
Hobson. P; Thai. P; Wang. X; Li. Y. (2018a). Urinary metabolites of organophosphate esters:
Concentrations and age trends in Australian children. Environ Int 111: 124-130.
http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/i. envint.
He. C; Wang. X; Tang. S; Phoin i It r»adt>H t _ Vlueller. IF. (2018b). Concentrations of
Organophosphate Esters and Their Specific Metabolites in Food in Southeast Queensland,
Australia: Is Dietary Exposure an Important Pathway of Organophosphate Esters and Their
Metabolites? Environ Sci Technol 52: 12765-12773. http://dx.doi. Il/acs.est.8b03043
He. C; Warn \ 1'hai. P; Baduel. C; Gallen. C; Banks. A; Baintori P { iiglish. K; Mueller. IF. (2018c).
Organophosphate and brominated flame retardants in Australian indoor environments: Levels,
sources, and preliminary assessment of human exposure. Environ Pollut 235: 670-679.
http://dx.doi.on 10 101 i ^iivpol JO I IJ 01
Heimstad. ES; Nygjrd 1 . Kcrzke 1 * - OJ i
Hopp^' < \ 1 K'lzer. GC; Kingsbur, <\ (2009). Anthropogenic organic compounds in source water of
selected community water systems that use groundwater, 2002-05 (pp. 76). (SIR 2009-5200).
Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, http://dx.doi.( '20095200
Huber. S; Warner. NA; Nvgard. T; Remberger. M; Hariu. f erud. HT; Kai. L; Hanssen. L. (2015).
A broad cocktail of environmental pollutants found in eggs of three seabird species from remote
colonies in Norway. Environ Toxicol Chem 34: 1296-1308. http://dx.doi.org, >2/etc.2956
Hutchins. SR; Tomson. MB; Wilson. IT; Ward. CH. (1984). Fate of trace organics during rapid
infiltration of primary waste water at Fort Devens, Massachusetts (USA). Water Res 18: 1025-
1036. http://dx.doi.org/10 101 00 I > I '<: IV>0255-0
Ingerow; jmulla. J. (2001). Chlorinated ethyl and isopropyl phosphoric acid triesters
in the indoor environment—an inter-laboratory exposure study. Indoor Air 11: 145-149.
http://dx.doi.on 10 1034/i. 1600-0668.2001 01 100.'. I S \x
Page 75 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Ishikawa. S; Taketomi. M; Shinohara. R. (1985). Determination of trialkyl phosphates and triaryl
phosphates in environmental samples. Water Res 19: 119-126. http://dx.doi.c 5/0043-
iks-02Q; - n
Jackson. J; Sutton. R. (2008). Sources of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in urban wastewater, Oakland,
CA. Sci Total Environ 405: 153-160. http://dx.doix )/i.scitotenv.20Q8.Q6.033
Kademoglou. K; Xu I >\idilla-Sanch ' 1 \ ^ \ ovaci \ i ollins. CD. (2017). Legacy and
alternative flame retardants in Norwegian and UK indoor environment: Implications of human
exposure via dust ingestion. Environ Int 102: 48-56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .envint. l
Kamazawa. A; Saitc tki. A; Takeda. M; Ma. M; Saiio. Y; Kishi. R. (2010). Association between
indoor exposure to semi-volatile organic compounds and building-related symptoms among the
occupants of residential dwellings. Indoor Air 20: 72-84. http://dx.doi.on 30-
0668.2009.00629.x
Kile. ML; Scott. RP; O'Connell. SG; Lipscomb. S: Macdonald. M; McClelland. J lerson. KA.
(2016). Using silicone wristbands to evaluate preschool children's exposure to flame retardants.
Environ Res 147: 365-372. http://dx.doi.org/10 101 t envres.101 02.034
Kim. labe. SI. (2017). Measuring Degree of Contamination by Semi-volatile Organic Compounds
(SVOC) in Interiors of Korean Homes and Kindergartens. Journal of Asian Architecture and
Building Engineering 16: 661-668. http://dx.doi.org/10.3130/iaabt
Kim. J; Isobe. T; Muto. M; Nguyen Mini itsura. K; Malarvannan. G; Sudarvanto. A; Chang. KH;
Pmdente. M; Pham Hu :ahashi. S: Tanabe. S. (2014). Organophosphorus flame
retardants (PFRs) in human breast milk from several Asian countries. Chemosphere 116: 91-97.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .chemosphere. .01 I 0. 0 '< '<
Kim. Ill; Oh. IK; Kannan. K. (2017). Occurrence, removal, and environmental emission of
organophosphate flame retardants/plasticizers in a wastewater treatment plant in New York
State. Environ Sci Technol 51: 7872-7880. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02035
Kingsbury. J A; Delzer. GC; Hopple. JA. (2008). Anthropogenic organic compounds in source water of
nine community water systems that withdraw from streams, 2002-05 (pp. 68). (Scientific
Investigations Report 2008-5208). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
http://piibs.iisgs.gov/sir/2008/52Q8/
Kolpin. DW; Furlong. ET; Meyer. MT; Thurman. EM; Zaugg. SD; Barber. LB; Buxton. H.T. (2002).
Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in US streams, 1999-
2000: A national reconnaissance. Environ Sci Technol 36: 1202-1211.
http://dx.doi.oo ;sQl1055_i
Kurt-Karakir P da. H; Birgut \ jungormus. E; Jan tun en. L. (2018). Organophosphate ester
(OPEs) flame retardants and plasticizers in air and soil from a highly industrialized city in
Turkey. Sci Total Environ 625: 555-565. http://dx.doi.oi ^ 10 101 5/i. sci totem l_ 307
La Guardia. MI; Hale. RC. (2015). Halogenated flame-retardant concentrations in settled dust,
respirable and inhalable particulates and polyurethane foam at gymnastic training facilities and
residences. Environ Int 79: 106-114. http://dx.doi.oi /i.envint.2015.02.014
Lang^i c- I h'
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Laumay. \I \ rnnmet _ r, Steinmetz. H. (2016). Organic micropollutants discharged by combined sewer
overflows - Characterisation of pollutant sources and storm water-related processes. Water Res
104: 82-92. http://dx.doi.oi ^ 10 101 /i.watres.201 0 0 s
Laws 0 i ken son. ER; Johnson i Snyder. SA; Drewes. IE. (2011). Attenuation of contaminants
of emerging concern during surface-spreading aquifer recharge. Sci Total Environ 409: 1087-
1094. http://dx.doi.org 10 101 i.scitotenv.2010 I I OJ I
Lazarov. B; Swinnen. R; Spruvt. M; Mae an Campenhout. K; Goelen. E; Covaci. A; Stranger. M.
(2015). Air sampling of flame retardants based on the use of mixed-bed sorption tubes-a
validation study. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22: 18221-18229. http://dx.doi.o
015-5028-z
Lebel. GL; Williams. DT: Benoit. FM. (1987). Use of large-volume resin cartridges for the
determination of organic contaminants in drinking water derived from the great lakes. In IH
Suffet; M Malaiyandi (Eds.), Advances in Chemistry (pp. 309-326). Washington, DC: American
Chemical Society, http://dx.doi.ore/10.1021 /ba-1987-0214.ch014
Lee. S: Jeong. W; Kantian. K; Moon. (2016). Occurrence and exposure assessment of
organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) through the consumption of drinking water in Korea.
Water Res 103: 182-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .watres.2016.07.034
i i \ \ie. Z; Mi. W; Lai. S: Tian. C; Envv t t I binghaus. R (2017). Organophosphate esters in air,
snow, and seawater in the North Atlantic and the arctic. Environ Sci Technol 51: 6887-6896.
http://dx.doi.ore/10J02 l/acs.est.?b01289
Lil! 1 "S , Uc K . Kites. K \ * alamova. A. (2016). Hair and nails as noninvasive biomarkers of human
exposure to brominated and organophosphate flame retardants. Environ Sci Technol 50: 3065-
3073. http://dx.doi.ore/ :s.est.5b05073
Liu. LY; Sal am ova. A; He. K; Hites. RA. (2015). Analysis of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and
emerging halogenated and organophosphate flame retardants in human hair and nails. J
Chromatogr A 1406: 251-257. http://dx.doi.Hv 10 1016/i.chroma..01 0 003
Liu. R; Maburv. SA. (2019). Organophosphite antioxidants in indoor dust represent an indirect source of
organophosphate esters. Environ Sci Technol 53: 1805-1811.
http://dx.doi.oo ics.est.8b05545
Loos. R; Tavazzi. S: Mariani. G; Suurkuusk. G; Paracchini ilauf. G. (2017). Analysis of emerging
organic contaminants in water, fish and suspended particulate matter (SPM) in the Joint Danube
Survey using solid-phase extraction followed by UHPLC-MS-MS and GC-MS analysis. Sci
Total Environ 607-608: 1201-1212. http://dx.doi.ore/10 J 016/i.scitotenv.201 0 0 °
Lorai sttigrov. ME. (2006). Seasonal Variations in Concentrations of Pharmaceuticals and
Personal Care Products in Drinking Water and Reclaimed Wastewater in Southern California.
Environ Sci Technol 40: 687-695. http://dx.doi.cn^ hL l ^sO^ I 'A Ox
Luoneo. G; Oestma (2016). Organophosphate and phthalate esters in settled dust from apartment
buildings in Stockholm. Indoor Air 26: 414-425. http://dx.doij .a. 12217
Maceiu \ i^vika j i. \ [arce. RM; Borrull. F. (2020). Multi-residue analysis of several high-
production-volume chemicals present in the particulate matter from outdoor air. A preliminary
human exposure estimation. Chemosphere 252: 126514.
http://dx.doi.on 10 101 i.chemosphere.202^« I _ I I
Makinen. MSE; Makinen. MRA; Koistinen. JTB; Pasanen. A.L; Pasanen. PO; Kattiokoski. PI; Korpi.
AM. (2009). Respiratory and dermal exposure to organophosphorus flame retardants and
tetrabromobisphenol A at five work environments. Environ Sci Technol 43: 941-947.
http://dx.doi.oo ;s802593t
Page 77 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Marklund. A; Anderssc unci P. (2003). Screening of organophosphorus compounds and their
distribution in various indoor environments. Chemosphere 53: 1137-1146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/80045-6535(03)00666-0
Marklund. A; Anderssc laglund. P. (2005a). Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers
in Swedish sewage treatment plants. Environ Sci Technol 39: 7423-7429.
http://dx.doi.ore/10J021 /es0510131
Marklunt! \ Voders son nl \ I' rirewes. JE. (2016).
Multimedia screening of contaminants of emerging concern (CECS) in coastal urban watersheds
in southern California (USA). Environ Toxicol Chem 35: 1986-1994.
http://dx.doi.on 02/etc.3348
Matamoros. V: Am uven. LX; Salvado. V: Brix. H. (2012). Occurrence and behavior of
emerging contaminants in surface water and a restored wetland. Chemosphere 88: 1083-1089.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .cheMosphere.2012.04.048
McDonough. CA; De Silva. AO; Sun. C". C";ibrerizo. \ \ \ >aspo 1 <' (2018). First evaluation of the
use of down feathers for monitoring persistent organic pollutants and organophosphate ester
flame retardants: A pilot study using nestlings of the endangered cinereous vulture (Aegypius
monachus). Environ Pollut 238: 413-420. http://dx.dou ^ 10 101 | envpoL-O! \ 0 '< 0 <5
Norwegian Environment. A. (2019a). Environmental contaminants in an urban fjord, 2018. (M-1441).
Trondheim, Norway, https://www.miliodirektoratet.no/publikasioner/2019/september-
2019/envir-onmental-contaminants-in-an-urban-fi ord-2018/
Norwegian Environment. A. (2019b). Monitoring of environmental contaminants in freshwater
ecosystems 2018 - Occurrence and biomagniflcation. (Report M-1411).
https://www.mili odirektoratet.no/publikasi oner/2019/iuni-2019/monitoring-of-environmental-
contaminants-in-freshwater-ecosvstems-2018—occurrence-and-biomagnification/
Page 78 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
O'Brien. JW: Thai. PK; Brandsma. SH; Leonards. P> < Hi i Muellei JT (2015). Wastewater analysis
of Census day samples to investigate per capita input of organophosphorus flame retardants and
plasticizers into wastewater. Chemosphere 138: 328-334.
http://dx.doi.on 10 101 t.chemosphere..0I 0 Oil
Ohuoi i \magai. T; Senga . Fusaya. M. (2006). Organic air pollutants inside and outside residences
in Shimizu, Japan: Levels, sources and risks. Sci Total Environ 366: 485-499.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.scitotenv!00 ^ 10 00
Oken * N ^ ls y uven 1\ 1 oienzo. M; Dlul c. Vi.n< \iun mI 1 h -0169-6
Rantakokko. P; Kunui «l r%>aber. J; Huain < H iranta. H; Cequier. E; Thomsen. C. (2019).
Concentrations of brominated and phosphorous flame retardants in Finnish house dust and
Page 79 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
insights into children's exposure. Chemosphere 223: 99-107.
http://dx.doi.on 10 101 i.chemosphere. JO I*> 02.027
Rauert. €; Hamer. T; Schuster. IK; Em \ i illmann v 'astillo. LE; Fentanes. O; Villa Ibarra. MY;
Miglioranza. KSB; Rivadeneira. IM; Pozo. K; Zuluaga. BHA. (2018). Atmospheric
Concentrations of New Persistent Organic Pollutants and Emerging Chemicals of Concern in the
Group of Latin America and Caribbean (GRULAC) Region. Environ Sci Technol 52: 7240-
7249. http://dx.doi.ore/10.1021/acs.est.8b00995
Regn ttmann. W. (2009). Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in rain and snow
from middle Germany. CLEAN - Soil, Air, Water 37: 334-342.
http://dx.doi.ore/10.1002/clen.200900050
Re enery tmann. W. (2010a). Occurrence and fate of organophosphorus flame retardants and
plasticizers in urban and remote surface waters in Germany. Water Res 44: 4097-4104.
http://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i .watres.2010.05.024
Re enery tmann. W. (2010b). Seasonal fluctuations of organophosphate concentrations in
precipitation and storm water runoff. Chemosphere 78: 958-964.
http://dx.doi.oo .chemosphere.2009.12.027
Re enery < Puitmann. W; Merz. C; Berthold (2011). Occurrence and distribution of
organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in anthropogenically affected groundwater. J
Environ Monit 13: 347-354. http://dx.doi.on ;0em00419e
Rodil. R; Ouintana. ?ncha-Grana. E; Lopez-Mahia. P; Muniategui-Lorenzo. S: Prada-Rodrieuez.
12. (2012). Emerging pollutants in sewage, surface and drinking water in Galicia (NW Spain).
Chemosphere 86: 1040-1049. http://dx.doi.o '/i.chemosphere.2011.11.053
S iki. A; Seto. H. (2007). Indoor organophosphate and polybrominated flame retardants in
Tokyo. Indoor Air 17: 28-36. http://dx.doi.oi 58.2006.00442.x
S lenez. J; de Stephanis. R; Barcelo. D; Eliarrat. E. (2019). First determination of high levels
of organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in dolphins from Southern European
waters. Environ Res 172: 289-295. http://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i .envres. JO I'" OJ OJ
Sal am ova. A; Ma. Y; Venier. M; Hites. RA. (2014). High levels of organophosphate flame retardants in
the great lakes atmosphere. Environ Sci Technol Lett 1: 8-14.
http://dx.doi.oo ;z400034n
Salamov anier. M; Hites. RA. (2016). Spatial and temporal trends of particle phase
organophosphate ester concentrations in the atmosphere of the great lakes. Environ Sci Technol
50: 13249-13255. http://dx.doi.ore/10.1021/acs.est.6b04789
Santi liarrat. E; Barcelo. 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. http://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i .chroma.2016.02.058
Schreder. ED; La Guardia. MJ. (2014). Flame retardant transfers from U.S. households (dust and
laundry wastewater) to the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol 48: 11575-11583.
http://dx.doi.ore/10.102 i/es502227h
Schreder. ED; Udine. N; La Guardia. MJ. (2016). Inhalation a significant exposure route for chlorinated
organophosphate flame retardants. Chemosphere 150: 499-504.
http://dx.doi.oo 10 101 i.chemosphere. JO (Ml 084
Scott verko. E; Maeuire. RJ. (1996). Determination of benzothiazole and alkylphosphates in water
samples from the Great Lakes drainage basin by gas chromatography/atomic emission detection.
Water Qual Res J Can 31: 341-360. http://dx.doi.ore/10.2166/wqij. 1996.021
Scott. PD; Bartkow. M; Blockwell. SJ; Coleman. HM; Khan. SI; Lim. R; McDonald ice. H;
Nueeeoda. D; Pettiero\ c ,\ u i icinblav. LA; Warne. MS; Leus» li 1 I' (2014). A national survey
Page 80 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
of trace organic contaminants in Australian rivers. J Environ Qual 43: 1702-1712.
http: //dx. doi. or g/10.213 4/i eq 2
Sengupta \ 1 \ mil JM; Smith Mi 1 H^'wes. IE; Snyder. SA; Heil Nlaruva. KA. (2014). The
occurrence and fate of chemicals of emerging concern in coastal urban rivers receiving discharge
of treated municipal wastewater effluent. Environ Toxicol Chem 33: 350-358.
http: //dx. doi. or g/10.1002/etc.245 7
K )ahlberg. AK; Wiberg. K; Ahrens. L. (2018). Fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs), brominated
flame retardants (BFRs), organophosphorus flame retardants (OPFRs) and cyclic volatile
methylsiloxanes (cVMSs) in indoor air from occupational and home environments. Environ
Pollut 241: 319-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .envpol.2018.04.032
Shin. H; Moschei (*, \ oung. TM; Bennett. DH. (2019). Measured concentrations of consumer product
chemicals in California house dust: Implications for sources, exposure, and toxicity potential.
Indoor Air 30: 60-75. http://dx.doi.or ina. 12607
Shin. HM; McKone. TE; Nishioka U ^ iHin. ,\U 1 n»^n. LA; Hertz-Picciotto. I; Newschaffer. CI;
Benr L (2014). Determining source strength of semi volatile organic compounds using
measured concentrations in indoor dust. Indoor Air 24: 260-271.
http://dx.doi.on na. 12070
Stachel. B; Jantzen. E; Knoth. W; Krugei oom. P; Oetken. M; Reincke. H; Sawal. G; Schwartz. R;
Uhlig. S. (2005). The Elbe Flood in August 2002—Organic Contaminants in Sediment Samples
Taken After the Flood Event. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 40: 265-
287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ESE-200Q
Stapleton. HM; Misenheimer. J; Hoffman. K; Webster. TF. (2014). Flame retardant associations
between children's handwipes and house dust. Chemosphere 116: 54-60.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.chemosphere.JO I ; i J 100
Stubbings. WA; Guo. J.H; Simon. K; Romanak. K; Bowerman. W; Venier. M. (2018). Flame retardant
metabolites in addled bald eagle eggs from the Great Lakes region. Environ Sci Technol Lett 5:
354-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.102 l/acs.estlett.8b00163
Suge: ?nards. PEG; van de Bor. M. (2017). Brominated and organophosphorus flame retardants
in body wipes and house dust, and an estimation of house dust hand-loadings in Dutch toddlers.
Environ Res 158: 789-797. http://dx.doi.in ^ 10 101 t envres.101 0 0^
Slihriiiy t* < *umond. ML; Scheringer. M; Won^ t Pticko. M; St'u* \. Hung. H; Fellin. P;
Li. H; J an tun en. LM. (2016). Organophosphate esters in Canadian Arctic air: Occurrence, levels
and trends. Environ Sci Technol 50: 7409. http://dx.doi.org/10.102 i/acs.est.6b00365
Sundkvist. AM; Olofsson. II; Haglund. P. (2010). Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in
marine and fresh water biota and in human milk. J Environ Monit 12: 943-951.
http: //dx. doi. or g/10.103 9/b 921910b
Taiiroa. S; Arab \ i awat i i suboi i \ii<'amai \ \ ohbiolat « Uqnazawa \ 1 ong. S; Kishi. R
(2014). Detection and intake assessment of organophosphate flame retardants in house dust in
Japanese dwellings. Sci Total Environ 478: 190-199.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .scitotenv.20 i « i J I J I
Takeuchi. S; Tanaka-Kagawa. T; Sait )iima. H; Jin. K; Satoh. M; Kobavashi. S; Jinno. H. (2015).
Differential determination of plasticizers and organophosphorus flame retardants in residential
indoor air in Japan. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 25: 7113-7120. http://dx.doi.o
4858-z
T,m H N .tug. L; Yu. Y; Guan. O; Lin \ < i 1 . ('lien. D. (2019). Co-existence of organophosphate di-
and tri-esters in house dust from South China and Midwestern United States: Implications for
human exposure. Environ Sci Technol 53: 4784-4793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b00229
Page 81 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
Teo. TL; Coleman. HM; Khan. SI. (2016). Presence and select determinants of organophosphate flame
retardants in public swimming pools. Sci Total Environ 569-570: 469-475.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.scitotenv.lO I 0 0\5
Tokumura. M; Hatavama. R; Tatsu. K; Naito. T; Takeda. T; Raknuzzaman. "Ki, \i-Mamun. MH;
Masunaga. S. (2017). Organophosphate flame retardants in the indoor air and dust in cars in
Japan. EnvironMonit Assess 189: 48. http://dx.doi.ore/10 100 v 10 ; mm 25-1
Valcarcei \ \ jblohita \ * 'ecerra. E; Lopez de Alda. M; Gil \ orga. M; Petrovic. M; Barcelo. D;
Navas. J.M. (2018). Determining the presence of chemicals with suspected endocrine activity in
drinking water from the Madrid region (Spain) and assessment of their estrogenic, androgenic
and thyroidal activities. Chemosphere 201: 388-398.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .chemosphere.2018.02.099
Van den Eede. N: Dirtu. AC: Ali. N: Neets. H; Covaci. A. (2012). Multi-residue method for the
determination of brominated and organophosphate flame retardants in indoor dust. Talanta 89:
292-300. http://dx.doij »|y lOlOl t uUnta.1'01 I l.'O'-l
Van Den Eede. N: Heffern.tii \ \\ Iward. LL: Hobson. P: Neels. H: Mueller .11', ('ova-1 \ (2015).
Age as a determinant of phosphate flame retardant exposure of the Australian population and
identification of novel urinary PFR metabolites. Environ Int 74: 1-8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .envint. JO I i 09.005
Velazquez-Gomez. M: Hurtado-Fernandez. E: Lacorte. S. (2019). Differential occurrence, profiles and
uptake of dust contaminants in the Barcelona urban area. Sci Total Environ 648: 1354-1370.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.scitotenv.101 \ OS.058
Wallner. P: Kundi. M: Moshammer. H: Piegler. K: Hohenblum. P: Scharf. ilich. M: Damberger.
Ts P ' • "iter. [ H' (2012). Indoor air in schools and lung function of Austrian school
children. J Environ Monit 14: 1976-1982. http://dx.doi.org, 9/c2em30059a
Wang \ , 1 i. W: Martinez-Moral. MP: Sun. H: Kannan. K. (2019). Metabolites of organophosphate
esters in urine from the United States: Concentrations, temporal variability, and exposure
assessment. Environ Int 122: 213-221. http://dx.doi.org 10 101 t envint.20 IS I I 00
Won: it. CA: Newton. SR. (2018). Concentrations and variability of organophosphate esters,
halogenated flame retardants, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers in indoor and outdoor air in
Stockholm, Sweden. Environ Pollut 240: 514-522.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i .envpol.2018.04.086
Woudneli r^mskin. IP: Warn t. e. R: Hamilton. MC: Cosgrove. JR. (2015). Quantitative
determination of 13 organophosphorous flame retardants and plasticizers in a wastewater
treatment system by high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. J
Chromatogr A 1400: 149-155. http://dx.doi.10 1016/i.chroma. JO I ^ 0 I 026
Xu. F: Giovanoulis. G: van Waes. S: Padilla-Sancht adopoulou. E: Magner. J: Haug. LS:
Neels. H: Covaci. A. (2016). Comprehensive study of human external exposure to
organophosphate flame retardants via air, dust, and hand wipes: The importance of sampling and
assessment strategy. Environ Sci Technol 50: 7752-7760.
http://dx.doi.org/10,102 l/acs.est.6b00. I
Yasuhara. A. (1994). DETERMINATION OF TRIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) PHOSPHATE IN
LEACHATES FROM LANDFILLS BY CAPILLARY GAS-CHROMATOGRAPHY USING
FLAME PHOTOMETRIC DETECTION. J Chromatogr A 684: 366-369.
http://dx.doi.on )021-9673(94)00643-1
Yasuhara. A. (1995). Chemical components in leachates from hazardous wastes landfills in Japan.
Toxicol Environ Chem 51: 113-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/027722495Q9358229
Yasuhara \ c.hiraishi. H x ishikawa. M: Yamamoto. T: Nakasugi. O: Okumura. T: Kenmotsu. K:
Fukui. H: Nagase. M: Kawagoshi. Y. (1999). Organic components in leachates from hazardous
Page 82 of 83
-------
PUBLIC RELEASE DRAFT — DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
December 2023
waste disposal sites. Waste Manag Res 17: 186-197. http://dx.doi.ore/ 4/i.l399-
3070.1999.00038.x
Yoshida. T; Matsunaga. I; Tomioka. K; Kumaeai. S. (2006). Interior air pollution in automotive cabins
by volatile organic compounds diffusing from interior materials: I. Survey of 101 types of
Japanese domestically produced cars for private use. Indoor Built Environ 15: 425-444.
http://dx.doi.on 33 26X060693 95
Zhao I 1 lien. M; Gao. F; Shen. H; Hu. J. (2017). Organophosphorus flame retardants in pregnant
women and their transfer to chorionic villi. Environ Sci Technol 51: 6489-6497.
http://dx.doi.oo ics.est.7b01122
Zhou. L; Hiltscher. M; Puttmann. W. (2017). Occurrence and human exposure assessment of
organophosphate flame retardants in indoor dust from various microenvironments of the
Rhine/Main region, Germany. Indoor Air 27: 1113-1127. http://dx.doi.of! ina. 12397
Page 83 of 83
------- |