Physics Unit, School of Natural Sciences, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway City H91 CF50, Ireland.
School of Geography, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, West Midlands B15 2TT, United Kingdom; Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences (QAEHS), University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, QLD 4103, Australia.
Sci Total Environ. 2022 Dec 20;853:158614. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158614. Epub 2022 Sep 8.
In 2015-16, a study of approximately 500 waste plastic articles showed that portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) was up to 95 % effective in screening for compliance with low persistent organic pollutant (POP) concentration limits (LPCLs) on brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in waste. The present study conducted in 2019-20 mirrors that conducted five years prior on a similar number and range of articles, testing the hypothesis that increased use of alternative BFRs as replacements for POP-BFRs will reduce the effectiveness of XRF as a tool for monitoring compliance with LPCLs. In comparing the results, the overall screening efficacy for LPCL compliance reduced from ~95 % to ~88 %, due in part to decreased prevalence of POP-BFRs and potentially increased presence of alternative flame retardants, particularly in goods with shorter lifecycles such as electronics. We additionally examined the impacts of a number of modifications to the XRF measurement protocol on its efficacy, including: using elemental Sb as a qualifier in detecting POP-BFRs in hard plastics; reduced XRF analysis time; and the elimination of background interference using a test stand. The rate at which hard plastics from electronic waste may be analysed by XRF can be substantially improved by reducing analysis time to 5 s, with minimal increase in false exceedances of the LPCL. Monitoring Sb does not appear an effective qualifier for the presence of POP-BFRs, as Sb seems to be used with a range of BFRs. Use of the test stand, while reducing interference, appeared to reduce accuracy when screening low density and thin samples. Despite a seeming increased use of alternative BFRs, screening of waste for compliance with LPCLs using rapid and low-cost screening methods such as portable XRF is still necessary as methods such as GC-MS cannot be scaled up to match the quantities of waste requiring screening.
2015-16 年，一项对约 500 件废塑料制品的研究表明，便携式 X 射线荧光（XRF）在筛选溴化阻燃剂（BFR）中低持久性有机污染物（POP）浓度限值（LPCL）的合规性方面高达 95%有效。本研究于 2019-20 年进行，与五年前对类似数量和范围的制品进行的研究相呼应，检验了这样一个假设，即越来越多地使用替代 BFR 来替代 POP-BFR，将降低 XRF 作为监测 LPCL 合规性的工具的有效性。在比较结果时，由于 POP-BFR 的流行率降低，以及可能增加了替代阻燃剂的存在，尤其是在电子产品等生命周期较短的物品中，整体 LPCL 合规性的筛选效果从95%降低到88%。我们还研究了 XRF 测量协议的一些修改对其有效性的影响，包括：在硬塑料中使用元素 Sb 作为检测 POP-BFR 的定性剂；减少 XRF 分析时间；以及使用测试台消除背景干扰。通过将分析时间减少到 5 秒，可以大大提高从电子废物中分析硬塑料的速度，而对 LPCL 的误报增加最小。监测 Sb 似乎不是检测 POP-BFR 存在的有效定性剂，因为 Sb 似乎与一系列 BFR 一起使用。虽然使用测试台减少了干扰，但在筛选低密度和薄样品时，似乎降低了准确性。尽管似乎越来越多地使用替代 BFR，但仍需要使用便携式 XRF 等快速且低成本的筛选方法来监测废物是否符合 LPCL，因为 GC-MS 等方法无法扩大规模以匹配需要筛选的废物数量。
