4.7 Article

Detection of carcinogenic aromatic amines in the urine of non-smokers

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 247, Issue 1, Pages 81-90

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00471-4

Keywords

aromatic amines; bladder cancer; gas chromatography; mass spectrometry; non-smokers; smokers; tobacco smoking

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Smoking is thought to be one of the most important anthropogenic risk factors involved in the development of urinary bladder cancer in humans. Tobacco smoke contains a complex mixture of chemicals including potent carcinogens such as aromatic amines. In the present study the amounts of several freebase aromatic amines including the potent carcinogens 2-aminonaphthalene and 4-aminobiphenyl have been analyzed in the urine of 48 German urban living smokers and non-smokers. The results indicate that (i) both groups excrete the identical set of four aromatic amines; (ii) smokers excrete approximately twice the total amount of these amines, but similar amounts of 2-aminonaphthalene and 4-aminobiphenyl are found in non-smokers; and (iii) the excreted aromatic amines are decomposed in the urine within a few hours thus, explaining why aromatic amines are difficult to detect in this matrix. Their decomposition could be prevented by adding small amounts of p-toluidine to the freshly collected urine. Unlike smokers the origin of aromatic amines detected in the urine of non-smokers is at present unknown. Based on the cotinine levels found in the urine of non-smokers environmental tobacco smoke can be excluded as a major source of aromatic amines. In addition, neither diesel exhaust-related nitroarenes nor the corresponding amino-derivatives, to which they may be metabolically converted, were found. The detected urinary levels of aromatic amines arising from sources other than tobacco smoke or diesel exhaust may play a role in the bladder cancer etiology of non-smokers. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available