4.7 Article

Exposure to heavy metals and its association with DNA oxidative damage in municipal waste incinerator workers in Shenzhen, China

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 250, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126289

关键词

Waste incineration; Heavy metals; Oxidative stress; Urine

资金

  1. 100 Top Talent Programs of Sun Yat-Sen University
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China [2015A030313869]
  3. Shenzhen Municipal Government Research Projects [JCYJ20160428143348745, JCYJ20170306160146913, JCYJ20170306160932340]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Burning municipal waste produces a great deal of harmful heavy metals, which may lead to elevated exposure in incinerator workers and residents living nearby. However, relevant human exposure studies remain scarce, especially in China. This study aimed to determine the concentrations of ten heavy metals in urine of incinerator workers (n = 119, as the exposed group) and residents living nearby (n = 215, as the control group) from Shenzhen (China), and explore the associations between heavy metal exposure and DNA oxidative stress (indicated by 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine or 8-OHdG) in humans. The median urinary concentrations of manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), arsenic (As), selenium (Se) and 8-OHdG in the exposed group were significantly higher than those in the control group (p < 0.05), suggesting occupational exposure elevated heavy metal intake for the incinerator workers. Nevertheless, there is no correlation statistically significant between the concentrations of any heavy metal and 8-OHdG in urine in the exposed group, indicating heavy metals releasing from waste incineration were not important factors to induce DNA oxidative stress. To our knowledge, this study firstly reported the concentrations of heavy metal in urine and their associations with DNA oxidative damage in waste incinerator workers in Shenzhen, China. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. 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