4.7 Article

Prevalence of low chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/dibenzofurans in human serum

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 90, 期 5, 页码 1658-1663

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.08.062

关键词

Human serum; PCDD/Fs; Incinerator; Indicator congener; Korea

资金

  1. Korea Food & Drug Administration [12162KFDA015]
  2. NRF grant of the Korea Government (MEST) [2011-0028723]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mono- to tri-chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/dibenzofurans (DD/Fs) have not been studied as extensively as the 17 toxic 2,3,7,8-substituted congeners. In this study for the first time, mono- to octa-chlorinated DD/Fs were analyzed for seventy one human serum samples collected from incinerator workers as well as residents living near and far from the facility. The mean concentrations of Sigma Cl1-8DD/Fs and 17-toxic congeners were 1890 and 398 pg g(-1) lipid (11.9 TEQ pg g(-1) lipid), respectively. 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF, 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD, and 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD were predominant congeners that accounted for more than 78% of the TEQ concentrations. The profile for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) was dominated by the most chlorinated congener, OCDD (>58%), while decreasing concentrations with increasing degree of chlorination were seen for polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs); MoCDFs (>83%) and DiCDFs (>6%). Sigma CI1-3DD/Fs accounted for 77% of the serum concentrations of Sigma Cl1-8DD/Fs. These findings confirm that human beings are exposed to a large amount of ECl1-3DD/Fs. Moreover, MoCDFs contributed more than 60% of the ECl1-8DD/Fs and was highly correlated with ECl1-8DD/Fs. Thus, 2-MoCDF could be a predictive indicator for ECl(1-3)DDiFs (r s= 0.96), and the combination of 2-MoCDF and OCDD could explain the 95.9% variation in the serum of ECl1-8DD/Fs. These results suggest that low chlorinated DD/Fs should be studied extensively until these low chlorinated congeners will have been elucidated for their toxicities. (C) 2012 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