4.1 Article

Occupational Exposure Levels of Bisphenol A among Chinese Workers

期刊

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
卷 51, 期 5, 页码 432-436

出版社

JAPAN SOC OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
DOI: 10.1539/joh.O9006

关键词

Bisphenol A; Exposure level; TWA; Urine; Worker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Occupational Exposure Levels of Bisphenol A among Chinese Workers: Yonghua HE, et al. School of Public Health/WHO Collaborating Center for Occupational Health, Fudan University, PR China-Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess ambient Bisphenol A (BPA) levels in workplaces and urine BPA levels of workers. Methods: Workers in epoxy resin and BPA manufacturing factories were recruited. Personal samples for airborne BPA were taken in the workshops and spot urine samples were collected from workers before and after their shifts. The samples were assayed with high-performance liquid chromatography with a fluorescence detector. TWA(8) of airborne PBA in the workplaces and biological BPA burden of the workers were calculated. Correlations between the external and the internal exposure levels were sought. Results: Workers from the factories were occupationally exposed to BPA at median personal airborne levels of 6.67 mu g/m(3) (or at the mean of 450 mu g/m(3)). More than 90% of the workers who were occupationally exposed to BPA had detectable BPA levels in their blood samples. The medians of creatinine-adjusted urinary BPA levels were 84.6 mu g/g Cr and 111 mu g/g Cr pre- and post-shift (means of 4,630 mu g/g Cr and 5,400 mu g/g Cr), respectively. The urinary BPA concentration post-shift was significantly associated with the urinary BPA level pre-shift and personal airborne BPA levels. Conclusions: It was indicated that workers in epoxy resin and BPA manufacturing factories are occupationally exposed to BPA at high levels. There is an urgent need to create occupational standards and take effective preventive measures to protect workers from the potential adverse effects of BPA. (J Occup Health 2009; 51: 432-436)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据