4.7 Article

Assessing traffic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure in Montreal, Canada

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 470, 期 -, 页码 945-953

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.030

关键词

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); Geographic information system (GIS); 1-OHP; 1-OHPG; PAH biomarker; Traffic density

资金

  1. Cancer Research Society (Montreal)
  2. Terry Fox Foundation Training Program in Transdisciplinary Cancer Research
  3. CIHR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies specific polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as probable carcinogens. This study compares two PAR biomarkers and their relationship with geographic information system (GIS) based traffic density (a proxy of PAR exposure), and explores the determinants of the PAR biomarkers. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Montreal with 200 volunteers (107 females and 93 males) ages 20 to 53 years. Data were collected by questionnaire, urine samples were used for biomarker analysis, and innovative GIS-based time- and distance-weighted traffic densities (TDWTD) were calculated for all locations of participants during the 48 h prior to urine collection. Results: Detection rates of the two biomarkers were greater than 95%. Female participants had higher 1-OHP and 1-OHPG levels than males, and no relationship was detected between TDWTD in 48 h and the two PAH biomarkers. Biomarker levels were related to smoking more than one pack of cigarettes in the previous 48 h, and among nonsmokers, barbecued meat consumption increased the level of urinary 1-OHP (exp beta: 1.45, 95% Cl: 1.07 to 1.98). Conclusions: Both 1-OHP and 1-OHPG can be used to assess the relatively low PAR levels to which the general population is exposed. With the exception of smoking, the impact of PAH exposure factors on the biomarkers is relatively small in this study population. (C) 2013 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