4.8 Article

Discovery of firefighter chemical exposures using military-style silicone dog tags

期刊

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105818

关键词

Passive sampling; Firefighter; Occupational exposure; Personal monitoring; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Phthalates

资金

  1. Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program [EMW-2016-FP-000754]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Occupational chemical hazards in the fire service are hypothesized to play a role in increased cancer risk, and reliable sampling technologies are necessary for conducing firefighter chemical exposure assessments. This study presents the military-style dog tag as a new configuration of silicone passive sampling device to sample individual firefighters' exposures at one high and one low fire call volume department in the Kansas City, Missouri metropolitan area. The recruited firefighters (n = 56) wore separate dog tags to assess on- and off-duty exposures (n(dogtags) = 110), for a total of 30 24 h shifts. Using a 63 PAH method (GC-MS/MS), the tags detected 45 unique PAHs, of which 18 have not been previously reported as firefighting exposures. PAH concentrations were higher for on- compared to off-duty tags (0.25 < Cohen's d <= 0.80) and for the high compared to the low fire call volume department (0.25 <= d < 0.70). Using a 1530 analyze screening method (GC-MS), di-n-butyl phthalate, diisobutyl phthalate, guaiacol, and DEET were commonly detected analyzes. The number of fire attacks a firefighter participated in was more strongly correlated with PAH concentrations than firefighter rank or years in the fire service. This suggested that quantitative data should be employed for firefighter exposure assessments, rather than surrogate measures. Because several detected analyzes are listed as possible carcinogens, future firefighter exposure studies should consider evaluating complex mixtures to assess individual health risks.

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

4.8
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