4.7 Article

Impact of vehicular traffic emissions on particulate-bound PAHs: Levels and associated health risks

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
卷 127, 期 -, 页码 141-147

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.06.009

关键词

Air pollution; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); PM2.5; PM2.5-10; Health risks; Vehicular traffic

资金

  1. Fundacao para Ciencia e Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/65722/2009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Considering vehicular transport as one of the most health-relevant emission sources of urban air, and with aim to further understand its negative impact on human health, the objective of this work was to study its influence on levels of particulate-bound PAHs and to evaluate associated health risks. The 16 PAHs considered by USEPA as priority pollutants, and dibenzo[a, I]pyrene associated with fine (PM2.5) and coarse (PM2.5-10) particles were determined. The samples were collected at one urban site, as well as at a reference place for comparison. The results showed that the air of the urban site was more seriously polluted than at the reference one, with total concentrations of 17 PAHs being 2240% and 640% higher for PM2.5 and PM2.5-10, respectively; vehicular traffic was the major emission source at the urban site. PAHs were predominantly associated with PM2.5 (83% to 94% of Sigma(PAHs) at urban and reference site, respectively) with 5 rings PAHs being the most abundant groups of compounds at both sites. The risks associated with exposure to particulate PAHs were evaluated using the TEF approach. The estimated value of lifetime lung cancer risks exceeded the health-based guideline levels, thus demonstrating that exposure to PM2.5-bound PAHs at levels found at urban site might cause potential health risks. Furthermore, the results showed that evaluation of benzo[a] pyrene (regarded as a marker of the genotoxic and carcinogenic PAHs) alone would probably underestimate the carcinogenic potential of the studied PAH mixtures. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. 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