4.7 Article

Using biologic markers in blood to assess exposure to multiple environmental chemicals for inner-city children 3-6 years of age

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
卷 114, 期 3, 页码 453-459

出版社

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.8324

关键词

chemical mixtures; children; cumulative exposure; environmental justice; metals; PCBs; pesticides; volatile organic compounds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We assessed concurrent exposure to a mixture of >50 environmental chemicals by measuring the chemicals or their metabolites in the blood of 43 ethnically diverse children (3-6 years of age) from a socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhood in Minneapolis. Over a 2-year period, additional samples were collected every 6-12 months from as many children as possible. We analyzed blood samples for 11 volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 2 heavy metals (lead and mercury, 11 organochlorine (OC) pesticides or related compounds, and 30 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners. The evidence suggests that numerous VOCs originated from common sources, as did many PCBs. Longitudinal measurements indicate that between-child variance was greater than within-child variance for two VOCs (benzene, toluene), for both heavy metals (Pb, Hg), for all detectable OC pesticides, and for 15 of the measured PCB congeners (74, 99, 101, 118, 138-158, 146, 153, 156, 170, 178, 180, 187, 189, 194, 195). Despite the relatively small sample size, highest measured blood levels of 1,4-dichlorobenzene, styrene, m-/p-xylene, Pb, Hg, heptachlor epoxide, oxychlordane, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene (p,p'-DDE), trans-nonachlor, and PCB congeners 74, 99, 105, 118, 138, 146, 153, 156, 170, and 180 were comparable with or higher than 95th percentile measurements of older children and adults from national surveys. Results demonstrate that cumulative exposures to multiple environmental carcinogens and neurotoxins can be comparatively high for children from a poor inner-city neighborhood.

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