4.7 Article

Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in the indoor air of waterpipe cafes: Measuring exposures and assessing health effects

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 165, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106392

关键词

Acetaldehyde; Formaldehyde; Indoor air; Risk assessment; Waterpipe cafes

资金

  1. Social Determinants of Health Research Center [ARUMS.SDHRC.1397.09]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aims of this study were to investigate the exposure to formaldehyde (FA) and acetaldehyde (AA) concentrations in the indoor air of waterpipe (WP) cafes and to assess their health risk for smokers and employees. In this work, a number of 40 cafes were selected; the samples were taken from standing breathing zone of smokers and employees, and were analyzed using GC-MS. The results showed that the mean (+/- SD) concentrations of indoor air FA were 151.1 +/- 67 and 60 +/- 21.4 mu g/m(3) in cafes with fruit flavored tobacco and regular tobacco, respectively. This value for AA was 281.9 +/- 141.1 and 108.4 +/- 43.8 mu g/m(3) for cafes with fruit flavored tobacco and regular tobacco, respectively. The mean of inhalation lifetime cancer risk (LTCRs) for FA in smokers and employees were calculated 3.9x10(-5) and 19.3x10(-5), respectively. Also, the mean of estimated LTCRs for AA in smokers and employees were 1.3x10(-5) and 6.3x10(-5), respectively. The mean of Hazard quotients (HQ) for FA in Cafes with fruit flavored and regular tobacco in smokers and employees were calculated to be 0.4 and 3.4, and 0.1 and 1.3, respectively, indicating an unacceptable and high risk for employees. Also, the mean of HQ for AA in cafes with fruit flavored and regular tobacco for smokers and employees were calculated 0.8 and 7.1, and 0.3 and 2.7, respectively, indicating an unacceptably high risk for employees. Therefore, WP cafes can be a potential source for exposure to FA and AA that can cause health problems for exposed people, especially employees working in these places.

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