4.7 Article

Exposure to dust-bound PAHs and associated carcinogenic risk in primitive and traditional cooking practices in Pakistan

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 16, 页码 12644-12654

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-4444-4

关键词

Biomass fuel combustion; Pollution; ILCR; Dust-bound PAHs; Pakistan

资金

  1. Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan
  2. Department of Chemistry, University of Florence, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to determine the abundance and distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in dust samples collected from the selected professional cooking workplaces (WCs) and residential household cooking areas (WRs), where traditional and primitive cooking practices are still prevelent. Another aim of this study was to investigate the carcinogenic risk for Pakistani human exposure to dust-bound PAHs via the routes of inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact. Generally, the concentration of individual congeners of PAHs in surface dust samples of WC sites was higher than those measured in WR sites (p<0.05). The benzo(a) pyrene (B(a) P), a very high carcinogenic compound, was present in the dust samples from WC sites in the highest mean concentration (630 ng g(-1) dry weight (d.w.)). The BaP mean concentration in WC workplaces was almost eight times higher than the mean value found in WR exposure sites. Moreover, the average concentration of Sigma PAHs, combustion origin PAHs (Sigma COMB) and sum total of 7-carcinogenic PAHs (Sigma 7-carcinogens) were also significantly higher in WC dusts samples than that in WR workplaces. Principal component analysis (PCA) and diagnostic ratios suggested coal/wood combustion as major PAH emission sources in both exposure sites. The average incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) suggested a moderate to potential high cancer risk for adults and children exposed to dust-bound PAHs in both exposure sites, in particular via both dermal and ingestion contact pathways.

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