Biomagnification of PBDEs and alternative brominated flame retardants in a predatory fish: Using fatty acid signature as a primer.

Information on biomagnification of alternative brominated flame retardants (ABFRs) is limited and results are inconclusive, due in part to uncertainty in the understanding of predator/prey relationships. In the present study, a predatory fish, Channa argus , and several forage fish species were obtained from an ABFR contaminated site. The predator/prey relationships were identified based on fatty acid (FA) signatures in the predator and prey. Biomagnification factors (BMFs) for several ABFRs including decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE), 1,2‑bis(2,4,6‑tribromophenoxy) ethane (BTBPE), hexabromobenzene (HBB), pentabromotoluene (PBT), and pentabromoethylbenzene (PBEB) were estimated based on the identified predator/prey relationships. The results showed that crucian carp was the main prey of C. argus , contributing to 71%–100% to its total diet. The mean BMFs for DBDPE, BTBPE, and HBB were 0.06, 0.40, and 0.91, respectively, indicating trophic dilution of these ABFRs. However, biomagnification of PBT and PBEB, with BMFs of 2.09 and 2.13, respectively, was observed. The BMFs for PBT, PBEB and HBB were comparable to or even higher than those for some polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) congeners estimated in the same individual predator, indicating that these emerging pollutants may pose significant environmental risks. The BMFs for ABFRs and PBDEs were significantly and negatively correlated to the log K OW s of these chemicals, suggesting that the biomagnification of these chemicals was depressed due to their superhydrophobic nature. • BMFs for ABFRs were estimated based on diet composition of the predator. • PBT and PBEB magnified while DBDPE, BTBPE, and HBB diluted in the predator. • BMFs for ABFRs are comparable to or even higher than those for PBDEs. • One of the few reports on the biomagnification potential of ABFRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]