Table 1.
Chemical | logKOA | K′da (m3/g) | Kda (dimensionless) | Kpa (m3/g) | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TCEP | 7.6 | 8.5 | 8.0 × 106 | 70.6 | Zhang et al, 2016 (EPI Suite value) |
7.0 | 2.1 | 2.0 × 106 | 17.7 | Zhang et al, 2016 (SPARC value) | |
8.9 | 169.4 | 1.6 × 108 | 1.4 × 103 | Zhang et al, 2016 (Absolv value) | |
8.0b | 22.6 | 2.1 × 107 | 188.3 | EC, 2009 | |
85.5 | 6.3 × 107 | 711.0 | This study - ATD on PIR foam | ||
20.75 | 2.0 × 107 | 172.6 | This study - Average of HD2 on PIR | ||
5.21 | 4.9 × 106 | 43.3 | This study - HD2 on dry alkyl paint | ||
TCPP | 8.5 | 67.4 | 6.3 × 107 | 561.0 | Zhang et al, 2016 (EPI Suite value) |
7.6 | 8.5 | 8.0 × 106 | 70.6 | Zhang et al, 2016 (SPARC value) | |
10.0 | 2.1 × 103 | 2.0 × 109 | 1.8 × 104 | Zhang et al, 2016 (Absolv value) | |
7.2b | 3.6 | 3.4 × 106 | 30.0 | EC, 2008a | |
29 | Liagkouridis et al., 2017 (7-day’s | ||||
224.4 | 1.6 × 108 | 1.9 × 103 | This study- ATD on PIR foam | ||
14.8 | 1.4 × 107 | 122.9 | This study - Average of HD2 on PIR | ||
3.4 | 3.2 × 106 | 28.5 | This study - HD2 on alkyl paint | ||
TDCPP | 10.6 | 8.5 × 103 | 8.0 × 109 | 7.1 × 104 | Zhang et al, 2016 (EPI Suite value) |
10.8 | 1.4 × 104 | 1.3 × 1010 | 1.1 × 105 | Zhang et al, 2016 (SPARC value) | |
13.0 | 2.1 × 106 | 2.0 × 1012 | 1.8 × 107 | Zhang et al, 2016 (Absolv value) | |
7.9b | 15.72 | 1.5 × 107 | 130.8 | EC, 2008b | |
13.7 | 1.0 × 107 | 114.1 | This study- ATD on PIR foam | ||
273.8 | 2.6 × 108 | 2.3 × 103 | This study - Average of HD2 on PIR | ||
42.8 | 4.0 × 107 | 355.8 | This study - HD2 on alkyl paint |
Unless otherwise noted, for all literature data in this table, logKOA data was from the cited literature; K’da was calculated using Equation (4) with HD2 data fom = 0.2, ρ = 0.938 g/m3; Kda was calculated using Equation (2); K pa was calculated using Equation (6).
KOA was calculated using Equation (5) at T = 25°C (298K) with Kow and H data from European Union risk assessment reports.