4.7 Article

Health risk assessment on dietary exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Taiyuan, China

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 408, 期 22, 页码 5331-5337

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.08.008

关键词

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); Health risk assessment; Dietary exposure; Food; Taiyuan (China)

资金

  1. China Ministry of Environmental Protection [200809101]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40730737, 140710019001]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20090460128]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Twenty-five kinds of seven categories of foods were sampled in December 2008 and the concentrations of 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were determined. The highest level of total PAHs was detected in pork (195.30 ng/g) whereas the lowest concentration was found in milk (8.73 ng/g). The median values of B [a]P equivalent (B[a]P(eq)) daily exposure doses for children, adolescents, adults and seniors of male were estimated to be 392.42, 511.01, 571.56 and 532.56 ng/d, respectively, whereas those for the above population groups of female were found to be 355.16, 440.51, 487.64 and 444.85 ng/d, respectively. The incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) values at the 22.1th, 26.1th, 12.7th, 24.9th, 22.7th, 27.0th, 12.9th, and 25.5th percentiles for male children, male adolescents, male adults, male seniors, female children, female adolescents, female adults and female seniors, respectively, were larger than 10(-6), indicating high potential carcinogenic risk, and were larger than 10(-4) at the 74.5th, 78.7th, 60.6th, 77.4th, 75.3th, 79.5th, 60.8th and 77.9th percentiles for the above groups, respectively, which implied significant cancer risk. Sensitivity analysis found that the two variables of oral cancer slope factor of benzo(a) pyrene (SF) and the daily dietary PAH exposure level (ED) had the greater impact than that of body weight (BW) on the ILCR. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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