4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) exposure and oxidative stress for a rural population from the North China Plain

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 1760-1769

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-3284-y

关键词

PAH exposure; Hydroxy-PAHs; Oxidative stress; MDA; 8-OHdG; Rural population; North China Plain

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21322705, 21190051, 41121004]
  2. Collaborative Innovation Center for Regional Environmental Quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) belong to a class of ubiquitous pollutants and are possibly associated with adverse health effects. In this study, we aimed to assess PAH exposure by measuring the hydroxylated metabolites (hydroxy-PAHs) in urine samples of a rural population from the North China Plain and to explore the possible associations between PAH exposure and oxidative stress indicated by urinary malondialdehyde (MDA) and 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG). High levels of urinary hydroxy-PAHs were observed, with the geometric mean concentrations of 0.57, 2.2, 5.0, 7.0, and 16.6 mu g g(-1) creatinine for 1-hydroxypyrene, hydroxyphenanthrenes, hydroxyfluorenes, hydroxybiphenyls, and hydroxynaphthalenes, respectively. Particularly in the winter season, the exposures were 2.3-6.0-fold of those in the spring. Corresponding to PAH exposure, levels of urinary MDA were positively associated with hydroxy-PAHs after controlling for confounders in the linear regression models (p < 0.05). An estimation indicated 21.3-39.3 % increment of urinary MDA per one-fold increase of hydroxy-PAHs. In contrast, no significant correlation was found between urinary 8-OHdG and hydroxy-PAHs; alternatively, living at the e-waste recycling site was found a significant factor on this oxidative DNA damage. These results provide evidence on high PAH exposure and the induction of oxidative stress on lipid peroxidation for this rural population.

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