4.7 Article

Serum levels of polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans and PCBs in the general population living near an urban waste treatment plant in Biscay, Basque Country

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 76, 期 6, 页码 784-791

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.04.061

关键词

Serum; Dioxins; Furans; Polychlorinated biphenyls; Incineration; Environmental exposure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Levels of PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs were measured in 16 pooled samples of serum from a total of 322 adults in the general population, to coincide with the start-up of a new municipal solid urban waste treatment plant in Biscay, Basque Country (Spain). Two hundred and eighty-three individual serum samples were also obtained, in which the most common PCBs (28,52,101, 118,138,153 and 180) were quantified. The samples were taken from four geographical zones: two from the metropolitan area of Bilbao, located less than 2 km from the plant and with high traffic density (Zones E1 and E2), a third located 5 km from the plant in an urban area of Bilbao, also with high traffic density (Zone Cl) and the fourth located 20 km from the plant, in a municipality with minimal industrial activity and low traffic density (Zone C2), the latter two being out of the path of the prevailing winds. The median levels of dioxins+furans were similar by zone: E1 = 24.3, E2 = 27.3, Cl = 21.3,C2 = 18.8 pg g(-1) lipid (p = 0.362); by sex: 20.2 vs. 22.6 pg g(-1) lipid in men and women (p = 0.328); and by age: 20.8 vs. 21.3 pg g(-1) lipid in subjects aged 20-44 and 45-69 (p = 0.505). No detectable levels of PCBs 52 and 101 were found. Significant differences by zone were found only for PCB 180 (p = 0.041), with higher values in Zone C2, the zone with the lowest presumed contamination levels. Dioxin-like PCBs (p < 0.001) and the most common PCBs (138, 153, 180) (p < 0.001) were both statistically associated with age, higher values being found in the 45-69 age group. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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