4.7 Article

Children and elders exposure assessment to particle-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the city of Rome, Italy

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 23, 页码 13152-13159

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-013-2442-y

关键词

Air pollution; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Particulate matter; Children's health risks; Personal monitoring; GC-MS

资金

  1. EU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been amply demonstrated that exposure to fine particulate matter, containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), may have adverse effects on human health, affecting especially the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. Among population, school-age children and elders present particular susceptibilities and unique exposures to environmental factors. The study presented in this paper belongs to the Project EXPAH, founded by the European (EU) LIFE+ instrument, and consists of the personal monitoring of five elementary school children and four elders during the spring and the summer/autumn of the year 2012 in the city of Rome, Italy. The average exposure, expressed as the sum of eight high-molecular-weight PAHs, resulted equal to 0.70 ng/m(3) (SD=0.37) for children and 0.59 ng/m(3) (SD=0.23) for the elderly people. The mean levels of gravimetric PM2.5 were equal to 23 mu g/m(3) (SD=10) and 15 mu g/m(3) (SD= 4) for children and elders, respectively. During spring and summer seasons, personal BaPeq resulted well below the EU Air Quality reference value of 1 ng/m(3). The personal monitoring average values were in the same order of magnitude with available indoor and outdoor environmental data in Rome during the same periods, for both PAHs and PM2.5. The results suggest that, during non-heating seasons, the personal exposure to PAHs in the city of Rome can be mainly ascribed to the urban background, especially traffic emissions and road dust resuspension; secondhand cigarette smoke can be also considered another possible source of PAHs personal exposure.

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