4.0 Article

Air concentrations and urinary metabolites of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons among paving and remixing workers

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages 739-746

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b304096h

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The exposure of paving workers to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) during stone mastic asphalt (SMA) paving and remixing was evaluated. The effects on the workers' PAH exposure were also evaluated during the use of an industrial by-product, coal fly ash (CFA), instead of limestone as the filler in the SMA. The PAH exposure was measured by personal air sampling and by analysing the levels of urinary naphthols, phenanthrols and 1-hydroxypyrene (1-OHP) in the workers' pre- and post-shift urine samples. The respiratory PAH exposure of the paving workers (geometric mean (GM) 5.7 mug m(-3)) was about ten-fold that of the traffic controllers (GM 0.43 mug m(-3)). The levels of PAH metabolites were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the post-shift urine samples than in the pre- shift urine samples, and the levels of metabolites in the post-shift urine of paving workers were significantly higher than in that of the controls (p < 0.01). Urinary 1-naphthol correlated well with the airborne concentrations of the two- to three-ring PAHs (r = 0.544, p = 0.003) and naphthalene (r = 0.655, p < 0.001), when non-smoking paving workers were tested. A good correlation was observed between urinary 1-OHP and the airborne concentrations of the four- to six-ring PAHs (r = 0.524, p = 0.003) as well as total PAHs (r = 0.575, p = 0.001). The concentrations of 1-OHP and phenanthrols in the urine of the pavers were significantly higher (p < 0.01) during remixing than during SMA paving. The CFA in the asphalt had no effect on the airborne PAH exposure or on the concentrations of the PAH metabolites in the paving workers' urine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available