Analysis of monomeric and oligomeric organophosphorus flame retardants in fish muscle tissues using liquid chromatography–electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry: Application to Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) from an e-waste processing area in northern Vietnam

• Main Authors: Hidenori Matsukami, Go Suzuki, Nguyen Minh Tue, Le Huu Tuyen, Pham Hung Viet, Shin Takahashi, Shinsuke Tanabe, Hidetaka Takigami
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: KeAi Communications Co., Ltd. 2016-06-01
• Series: Emerging Contaminants
• Subjects: Monomeric organophosphorus flame retardants; Oligomeric organophosphorus flame retardants; Liquid chromatography–electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry; Fish muscle tissue; e-waste
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405665016300014

Using electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry combined with liquid chromatography (LC), a novel analytical method was developed to quantify eight monomeric organophosphorus flame retardants (m-PFRs) and three oligomeric organophosphorus flame retardants (o-PFRs) in fish muscle samples. The optimization and validation experiments indicate that the developed method can determine accurately the concentrations of analytes in fish muscle samples. The recoveries of analytes in fish muscle samples were in the range of 74–105%. The coefficients of variation of the concentrations of analytes in fish muscle samples were 0.6–8.9%. The concentrations of analytes in procedural blanks were below the limit of quantification (LOQ) values. Furthermore, the developed method was applied to the analysis of m-PFRs and o-PFRs in the muscle samples of tilapias collected from an electronic waste (e-waste) processing area in northern Vietnam. The concentrations of m-PFRs such as tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), tris(2-chloroisopropyl) phosphate (TCIPP), and triphenyl phosphate (TPHP) were dominant among the investigated m-PFRs. The respective concentrations of TCEP, TCIPP, and TPHP were up to 160, 300, and 230 ng g−1 lipid weight, respectively, whereas those of o-PFRs were up to 10 ng g−1 lipid weight. The results of this study indicate lower accumulation potential of o-PFRs compared with m-PFRs for the first time.