4.5 Article

DNA damage in outdoor workers occupationally exposed to environmental air pollutants

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 63, 期 4, 页码 230-236

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oem.2005.019802

关键词

-

资金

  1. FIC NIH HHS [D43 TW000644, 5 D43TW00644] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [T42/CCT610417] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Health concerns about the exposure to genotoxic and carcinogenic agents in the air are particularly significant for outdoor workers in less developed countries. Aims: To investigate the association between personal exposure to a group of air pollutants and severity of DNA damage in outdoor workers from two Mexican cities. Methods: DNA damage ( Comet assay) and personal exposure to volatile organic compounds, PM2.5, and ozone were investigated in 55 outdoor and indoor workers from Mexico City and Puebla. Results: In Mexico City, outdoor workers had greater DNA damage, reflected by a longer tail length, than indoor workers ( median 46.8 v 30.1 mu m), and a greater percentage of highly damaged cells ( cells with tail length >= 41 mu m); in Puebla, outdoor and indoor workers had similar DNA damage. There were more alkali labile sites in outdoor than indoor workers. The DNA damage magnitude was positively correlated with PM2.5 and ozone exposure. Outdoor and indoor workers with >= 60% of highly damaged cells ( highly damaged workers) had significantly higher exposures to PM2.5, ozone, and some volatile organic compounds. The main factors associated with the highly damaged workers were ozone, PM2.5, and 1- ethyl- 2- methyl benzene exposure. Conclusions: With this approach, the effects of some air pollutants could be correlated with biological endpoints from the Comet assay. It is suggested that the use of personal exposure assessment and biological endpoints evaluation could be an important tool to generate a more precise assessment of the associated potential 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

4.5
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