4.5 Article

Effects on Chinese Restaurant Workers of Exposure to Cooking Oil Fumes: A Cautionary Note on Urinary 8-Hydroxy-2′-Deoxyguanosine

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 17, 期 12, 页码 3351-3357

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0075

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
  2. Council of Labor Affairs of the Republic of China, Taiwan [IOSH94-M304]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates oxidative DNA damage in workers who are exposed to cooking oil fumes (COFs) in Chinese restaurants. The study participants were 387 nonsmoking Chinese restaurant workers, 202 kitchen staff, and 185 service staff at 23 Chinese restaurants in Taiwan. Airborne particulate matter and particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon levels were monitored in kitchens and dining areas. Urinary 1-hydroxypyrene (1-OHP) was used as an internal dose of exposure to COFs, and urinary 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) was used as an oxidative DNA damage marker. The relationship between workers' 8-OHdG and 1-OHP levels was estimated using linear mixed-effects models. Airborne particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons levels in kitchens significantly exceeded those in dining areas. The kitchen staff's geometric mean levels of urinary 8-OHdG (7.9 mu g/g creatinine) and 1-OHP (4.5 mu g/g creatinine) were significantly higher than those of the service staff, which were 5.4 and 2.7 mu g/g creatinine, respectively. Urinary 1-OHP level, work in kitchens, gender, and work hours per day were four significant predictors of urinary 8-OHdG levels after adjustments are made for covariates. Oxidative DNA damage was associated with exposure of Chinese restaurant workers to COFs. Female restaurant workers had a greater oxidative stress response to COFs than male restaurant workers, providing additional evidence of the link between lung cancer in Chinese women and exposure to COFs. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(12):3351-7)

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