Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Uncovering global-scale risks from commercial chemicals in air

Nature volume 600, pages 456–461 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Commercial chemicals are used extensively across urban centres worldwide1, posing a potential exposure risk to 4.2 billion people2. Harmful chemicals are often assessed on the basis of their environmental persistence, accumulation in biological organisms and toxic properties, under international and national initiatives such as the Stockholm Convention3. However, existing regulatory frameworks rely largely upon knowledge of the properties of the parent chemicals, with minimal consideration given to the products of their transformation in the atmosphere. This is mainly due to a dearth of experimental data, as identifying transformation products in complex mixtures of airborne chemicals is an immense analytical challenge4. Here we develop a new framework—combining laboratory and field experiments, advanced techniques for screening suspect chemicals, and in silico modelling—to assess the risks of airborne chemicals, while accounting for atmospheric chemical reactions. By applying this framework to organophosphate flame retardants, as representative chemicals of emerging concern5, we find that their transformation products are globally distributed across 18 megacities, representing a previously unrecognized exposure risk for the world’s urban populations. More importantly, individual transformation products can be more toxic and up to an order-of-magnitude more persistent than the parent chemicals, such that the overall risks associated with the mixture of transformation products are also higher than those of the parent flame retardants. Together our results highlight the need to consider atmospheric transformations when assessing the risks of commercial chemicals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Proposed framework for the improved risk assessment of CECs, including their atmospheric transformations.
Fig. 2: Global distribution of atmospheric OPFR transformation products.
Fig. 3: Sum of concentrations of OPFR transformation products found in 18 megacities.
Fig. 4: Persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity and risks of individual OPFR transformation products and their mixture relative to the parent compounds.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The full data set shown in the figures and tables is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5251825. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The RAIDAR model is implemented in a user-friendly online platform named the Exposure and Safety Estimation (EAS-E) Suite, which is free for online use at www.eas-e-suite.com.

References

  1. Johnson, A. C., Jin, X., Nakada, N. & Sumpter, J. P. Learning from the past and considering the future of chemicals in the environment. Science 367, 384–387 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects. https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf (UN, 2018).

  3. United Nations. Stockholm Convention. http://www.pops.int/ (UN, 2004).

  4. Escher, B. I., Stapleton, H. M. & Schymanski, E. L. Tracking complex mixtures of chemicals in our changing environment. Science 367, 388–392 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. De Boer, J. & Stapleton, H. M. Toward fire safety without chemical risk. Science 364, 231–232 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang, Z. et al. We need a global science-policy body on chemicals and waste. Science 371, 774–776 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. United States. Toxic Substances Control Act. https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory (US, 1976).

  8. European Union. Registration Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals. https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach (EU, 2007).

  9. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Science Approach Document: Ecological Risk Classification of Organic Substances. https://www.ec.gc.ca/ese-ees/A96E2E98-2A04-40C8-9EDC-08A6DFF235F7/CMP3%20ERC_EN.pdf (ECCC, 2016).

  10. Jones, K. C. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and related chemicals in the global environment: some personal reflections. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 9400–9412 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Saini, A. et al. GAPS-megacities: a new global platform for investigating persistent organic pollutants and chemicals of emerging concern in urban air. Environ. Pollut. 267, 115416 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Salamova, A., Ma, Y., Venier, M. & Hites, R. A. High levels of organophosphate flame retardants in the Great Lakes atmosphere. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 1, 8–14 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Molina, M. J. & Rowland, F. S. Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: chlorine atom-catalysed destruction of ozone. Nature 249, 810–812 (1974).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Washington, J. W. et al. Nontargeted mass-spectral detection of chloroperfluoropolyether carboxylates in New Jersey soils. Science 368, 1103–1107 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Hollender, J., Schymanski, E. L., Singer, H. P. & Ferguson, P. L. Nontarget screening with high resolution mass spectrometry in the environment: ready to go? Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 11505–11512 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hites, R. A. & Jobst, K. J. Is nontargeted screening reproducible? Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 11975–11976 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Blum, A. et al. Organophosphate ester flame retardants: are they a regrettable substitution for polybrominated diphenyl ethers? Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 6, 638–649 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Fenner, K., Kooijman, C., Scheringer, M. & Hungerbühler, K. Including transformation products into the risk assessment for chemicals: the case of nonylphenol ethoxylate usage in Switzerland. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36, 1147–1154 (2002).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lienert, J., Güdel, K. & Escher, B. I. Screening method for ecotoxicological hazard assessment of 42 pharmaceuticals considering human metabolism and excretory routes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 4471–4478 (2007).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Peng, Z. & Jimenez, J. L. Radical chemistry in oxidation flow reactors for atmospheric chemistry research. Chem. Soc. Rev. 49, 2570–2616 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lopez-Hilfiker, F. D. et al. An extractive electrospray ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometer (EESI-TOF) for online measurement of atmospheric aerosol particles. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 12, 4867–4886 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zheng, Z., Peters, G. M., Arp, H. P. H. & Andersson, P. L. Combining in silico tools with multicriteria analysis for alternatives assessment of hazardous chemicals: a case study of decabromodiphenyl ether alternatives. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 6341–6351 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Harrison, R. M. Urban atmospheric chemistry: a very special case for study. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 1, 1–5 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jimenez, J. L. et al. Evolution of organic aerosols in the atmosphere. Science 326, 1525–1529 (2009).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Saini, A. et al. Flame retardants in urban air: a case study in Toronto targeting distinct source sectors. Environ. Pollut. 247, 89–97 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kelly, B. C., Ikonomou, M. G., Blair, J. D., Morin, A. E. & Gobas, F. A. Food web-specific biomagnification of persistent organic pollutants. Science 317, 236–239 (2007).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Neumann, M. & Schliebner, I. Protecting the Sources of our Drinking Water: the Criteria for Identifying Persistent, Mobile and Toxic (PMT) Substances and Very Persistent and Very Mobile (vPvM) Substances under EU Regulation REACH (EC) No 1907/2006 (German Environment Agency, 2019).

  28. Kalgutkar, A. S. et al. A comprehensive listing of bioactivation pathways of organic functional groups. Curr. Drug Metab. 6, 161–225 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang, Q., Yu, C., Fu, L., Gu, S. & Wang, C. New insights in the endocrine disrupting effects of three primary metabolites of organophosphate flame retardants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 4465–4474 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tian, Z. et al. A ubiquitous tire rubber-derived chemical induces acute mortality in coho salmon. Science 371, 185–189 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vasiljevic, T. & Harner, T. Bisphenol A and its analogues in outdoor and indoor air: properties, sources and global levels. Sci. Total Environ. 789, 148013 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Vethaak, A. D. & Legler, J. Microplastics and human health. Science 371, 672–674 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Su, H. et al. Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic properties of liquid crystal monomers and their detection in indoor residential dust. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 26450–26458 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Liu, Q. et al. Experimental study of OH-initiated heterogeneous oxidation of organophosphate flame retardants: kinetics, mechanism, and toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 14398–14408 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Liu, Q., Liggio, J., Li, K., Lee, P. & Li, S. M. Understanding the impact of relative humidity and coexisting soluble iron on the OH-initiated heterogeneous oxidation of organophosphate flame retardants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 6794–6803 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Liu, Q. et al. Atmospheric OH oxidation chemistry of particulate liquid crystal monomers: an emerging persistent organic pollutant in air. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 7, 646–652 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Liu, Y. & Sander, S. P. Rate constant for the OH + CO reaction at low temperatures. J. Phys. Chem. A 119, 10060–10066 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Qi, L. et al. Organic aerosol source apportionment in Zurich using an extractive electrospray ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometer (EESI-TOF-MS)–part 2: biomass burning influences in winter. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19, 8037–8062 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang, X., Saini, A., Hao, C. & Harner, T. Passive air sampling and nontargeted analysis for screening POP-like chemicals in the atmosphere: opportunities and challenges. TrAC. Trends Analyt. Chem. 132, 116052 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Krapf, M. et al. Labile peroxides in secondary organic aerosol. Chem 1, 603–616 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Buchholz, A. et al. Deconvolution of FIGAERO–CIMS thermal desorption profiles using positive matrix factorisation to identify chemical and physical processes during particle evaporation. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 20, 7693–7716 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Arnot, J. A., Mackay, D., Webster, E. & Southwood, J. M. Screening level risk assessment model for chemical fate and effects in the environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 2316–2323 (2006).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Arnot, J. A. & Mackay, D. Policies for chemical hazard and risk priority setting: can persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and quantity information be combined? Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 4648–4654 (2008).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Arnot, J. A., Brown, T. N., Wania, F., Breivik, K. & McLachlan, M. S. Prioritizing chemicals and data requirements for screening-level exposure and risk assessment. Environ. Health Perspect. 120, 1565–1570 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Ring, C. L. et al. Consensus modeling of median chemical intake for the US population based on predictions of exposure pathways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 719–732 (2018).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Arnot, J. A., Toose, L. & Armitage, J. Generation of Physical-Chemical Property Data and the Application of Models for Estimating Fate and Transport and Exposure and Risk Potential for Organic Substances on the Canadian DSL (Technical Report for Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018).

  47. Arnot, J. A. & Armitage, J. M. Parameterization and Application of the RAIDAR Model to Aid in the Prioritization and Assessment of Chemical Substances (Technical Report for Health Canada, 2013).

  48. Arnot, J. A. & Mackay, D. Risk Prioritization for a Subset of Domestic Substances List Chemicals using the RAIDAR model (CEMC Report No. 200703) (Technical Report for Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2007).

  49. Klasmeier, et al. Application of multimedia models for screening assessment of long-range transport potential and overall persistence. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 53–60 (2006).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Webster, E., Mackay, D. & Wania, F. Evaluating environmental persistence. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17, 2148–2158 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Tang, B. et al. Bioconcentration and biotransformation of organophosphorus flame retardants (PFRs) in common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Environ. Int. 126, 512–522 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Bekele, T. G., Zhao, H., Wang, Y., Jiang, J. & Tan, F. Measurement and prediction of bioconcentration factors of organophosphate flame retardants in common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 166, 270–276 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wang, G. et al. Bioaccumulation mechanism of organophosphate esters in adult zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ. Pollut. 229, 177–187 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Muir, D., Yarechewski, A. & Grift, N. Environmental dynamics of phosphate esters. III. comparison of the bioconcentration of four triaryl phosphates by fish. Chemosphere 12, 155–166 (1983).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Mansouri, K., Grulke, C. M., Judson, R. S. & Williams, A. J. OPERA models for predicting physicochemical properties and environmental fate endpoints. J. Cheminform. 10, 1–19 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Trapp, S. & Horobin, R. W. A predictive model for the selective accumulation of chemicals in tumor cells. Eur. Biophys. J. 34, 959–966 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Mansouri, K. et al. Open-source QSAR models for pKa prediction using multiple machine learning approaches. J. Cheminform. 11, 1–20 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Brown, T. N., Arnot, J. A. & Wania, F. Iterative fragment selection: a group contribution approach to predicting fish biotransformation half-lives. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 8253–8260 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Arnot JA, Gouin T, Mackay D. Practical Methods for Estimating Environmental Biodegradation Rates (Report for Environment Canada, Canadian Environmental Modelling Network, 2005).

  60. Martin, T. User’s Guide for T.E.S.T. (version 5.1) Toxicity Estimation Software Tool: A Program to Estimate Toxicity from Molecular Structure (Sustainable Technology Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 2020).

  61. van Leeuwen, C. J. & Vermeire, T. G. Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Introduction (Springer, 2007).

  62. Escher, B. I. et al. Environmental toxicology and risk assessment of pharmaceuticals from hospital wastewater. Water Res. 45, 75–92 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Escher, B. I. & Fenner, K. Recent advances in environmental risk assessment of transformation products. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 3835–3847 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. A. Arnot for providing the codes for the latest version of the RAIDAR model. We acknowledge funding support from the Air Pollution programme of Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). This work was also partially funded by the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP). It does not reflect any regulatory conclusions for any substances mentioned.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Qifan Liu, Li Li

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Air Quality Processes Research Section, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Qifan Liu, Xianming Zhang, Amandeep Saini, Wenlong Li, Hayley Hung, Kun Li, Patrick Lee, Jeremy J. B. Wentzell, Chunyan Huo, Tom Harner & John Liggio

  2. Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

    Qifan Liu

  3. School of Public Health, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV, USA

    Li Li

  4. Laboratory Services Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Xianming Zhang & Chunyan Hao

  5. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Xianming Zhang

  6. International Joint Research Center for Persistent Toxic Substances (IJRC-PTS), State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China

    Wenlong Li & Chunyan Huo

  7. Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), Villigen, Switzerland

    Kun Li

  8. State Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control, Beijing Innovation Center for Engineering Science and Advanced Technology, College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Shao-Meng Li

Authors
  1. Qifan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Li Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xianming Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amandeep Saini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wenlong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hayley Hung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chunyan Hao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kun Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Patrick Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jeremy J. B. Wentzell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Chunyan Huo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Shao-Meng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Tom Harner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. John Liggio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Q.L., J.L. and T.H. designed the research. A.S. and T.H. led the GAPS–MC programme. A.S. carried out the target analysis experiments for parent OPFRs. X.Z. and Chunyan Hao carried out the NTA experiments for GAPS–MC samples. Q.L., X.Z. and W.L. analysed the non-target mass spectra data. Q.L. carried out the OFR experiments. L.L. performed the in silico modelling. Q.L., L.L., J.L., X.Z., A.S., T.H., H.H., Chunyan Hao, W.L., K.L., P.L., J.J.B.W., Chunyan Huo and S.-M.L. contributed to the scientific discussions. Q.L., L.L., J.L., A.S. and X.Z. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tom Harner or John Liggio.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Kevin Jones and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer review reports are available.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Chemical structures of OPFR parent compounds and transformation products studied here.

a, Nine OPFR parent compounds. b, Ten OPFR transformation products identified in GAPS–MC field samples. TCEP-1 and TCPP-25 (see Supplementary Table 1) are difficult to distinguish from each other as they have identical chemical formulae. However, given that TCEP-1 and TCPP-25 are formed through one-step and two-step photooxidation reactions, respectively, and given that the oxidation timescales associated with urban regions are short23, TCEP-1 is likely to be the dominant product.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Generalized mechanism for the photooxidation of atmospheric OPFRs.

Photooxidation reactions proceed predominantly through three main channels. a, OH addition to the substituents attached to the phosphate centre (channel 1). b, OH addition to the phosphate centre (channel 2). c, Photodecomposition of early-generation products (channel 3). Generalized examples for chlorinated and non-chlorinated OPFRs are shown here. Detailed mechanisms for TCPP (a chlorinated OPFR) and EHDP (a non-chlorinated OPFR) are shown in Supplementary Figs. 1, 2.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Mass chromatograms and spectra for six OPFR transformation products in OFR laboratory samples and GAPS–MC field samples.

This information is used in the identification of: a, TCEP-1; b, TCEP-10; c, TCEP-21; d, TCPP-9; e, TCPP-21; and f, TCPP-38. Detailed product information—including chemical formulae, retention times, measured m/z values, isotopic ratios, detection frequencies and concentrations—is summarized in Supplementary Tables 2, 4.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 4 Mass chromatograms and spectra of four OPFR transformation products in OFR laboratory samples and GAPS–MC field samples.

This information is used in the identification of: a, TDCPP-14; b, TBEP-36; c, TPhP-6; and d, TPhP-8. Detailed product information—including chemical formulae, retention times, measured m/z values, isotopic ratios, detection frequencies and concentrations—is summarized in Supplementary Tables 2, 4.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 Seasonal variation in Rsignal in Toronto, Canada, as a measure of photochemical production of OPFR products.

Rsignal is the ratio of the signal intensity of an OPFR product to the signal intensity of the corresponding parent OPFR. A higher Rsignal is indicative of increased photooxidation in the summer months. Samples were collected during summer (August to September 2016) and winter (December 2016 to January 2017).

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 6 Persistence results for OPFRs and their transformation products.

a, Modelled overall persistence for three chlorinated OPFRs (TCEP, TCPP and TDCPP) and their products. b, Modelled overall persistence for six non-chlorinated OPFRs (TBEP, TPhP, EHDP, TCP, TEHP and DPhP) and their products. c, Relative persistence for three chlorinated OPFRs and their transformation products (parent compound = 1). d, Relative persistence for six non-chlorinated OPFRs and their transformation products. Dark red, light red, dark blue and light blue represent chlorinated parent OPFRs, chlorinated OPFR products, non-chlorinated parent OPFRs, and non-chlorinated OPFR products, respectively. Note that a higher overall persistence indicates a higher persistence in the multimedia environment. Compounds marked with asterisks are those identified in megacity field samples.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 7 Octanol–air (log KOA) and octanol–water (log KOW) partition coefficients for OPFRs and their transformation products at a pH of 7.

Dark red, light red, dark blue and light blue represent chlorinated parent OPFRs, chlorinated OPFR products, non-chlorinated parent OPFRs and non-chlorinated OPFR products, respectively.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 8 Bioaccumulation of OPFRs and their transformation products in aquatic organisms.

a, Modelled bioconcentration factor (BCF) for three chlorinated OPFRs (TCEP, TCPP and TDCPP) and their products. b, Modelled bioconcentration factor for six non-chlorinated OPFRs (TBEP, TPhP, EHDP, TCP, TEHP and DPhP) and their products. c, Relative bioaccumulation for three chlorinated OPFRs and their transformation products (parent compound = 1). d, Relative bioaccumulation for six non-chlorinated OPFRs and their transformation products. Dark red, light red, dark blue and light blue represent chlorinated parent OPFRs, chlorinated OPFR products, non-chlorinated parent OPFRs and non-chlorinated OPFR products, respectively. Note that a higher bioconcentration factor indicates a higher potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms. Compounds marked with asterisks are those identified in megacity field samples.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 9 Toxicity of OPFRs and their transformation products towards aquatic organisms.

a, Modelled fathead minnow LC50 values for three chlorinated OPFRs (TCEP, TCPP and TDCPP) and their products. b, Modelled fathead minnow LC50 values for six non-chlorinated OPFRs (TBEP, TPhP, EHDP, TCP, TEHP and DPhP) and their products. c, Relative toxicity for three chlorinated OPFRs and their transformation products (parent compound = 1). d, Relative toxicity for six non-chlorinated OPFRs and their transformation products. Dark red, light red, dark blue and light blue represent chlorinated parent OPFRs, chlorinated OPFR products, non-chlorinated parent OPFRs and non-chlorinated OPFR products, respectively. Note that a lower fathead minnow LC50 indicates a higher toxicity. Compounds marked with asterisks are those identified in megacity field samples.

Source data

Extended Data Table 1 Passive air-sampling details for the 18 megacities
Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Discussion

Peer Review File

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Q., Li, L., Zhang, X. et al. Uncovering global-scale risks from commercial chemicals in air. Nature 600, 456–461 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04134-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04134-6

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene