PURPOSE: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are multiple compounds that include many carcinogens. We conducted a cross-sectional study in steel plant workers in Anshan, China, to identify biomarkers that reflect the carcinogenicity of PAHs. METHODS: Subjects were 57 workers and 20 controls. Level of personal exposure to PAHs was measured using GC-MS. In accordance with the assessment methods defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 15 PAHs were selected for the analysis. For the measurement of urinary metabolites, urine samples were treated with β-glucuronidase and analyzed using HPLC with a fluorescence detector. RESULTS: The mean range of personal exposure to 15 PAHs (total PAHs) was 178.85, 47.08-1,329.45 (geometric mean, 5th and 95th percentile) μg/m(3). Ten known urinary metabolites (1-hydroxynaphthalene, 2-hydroxynaphthalene, 2-hydroxyfluorene, 1-hydroxyphenanthrene, 3-hydroxyphenanthrene, 9-hydroxyphenanthrene, 1-hydroxypyrene, 3-hydroxybenz[a]anthracene, 6-hydroxychrysene, and 3-hydroxybenzo[a]pyrene) and four unknown peaks were detected. The highest correlation was between total PAHs and urinary 2-hydroxynaphthalene (Spearman r = 0.716, P < 0.01). Among the detected urinary metabolites, 2-hydroxyfluorene, 1-hydroxyphenanthrene, 3-hydroxyphenanthrene, and 1-hydroxypyrene were found to correlate significantly with the "Σ carcinogenic potency of PAHs" (sum of seven carcinogenic PAHs calculated from the levels of personal PAHs and relative potency factors), and with the greatest correlation found for 1-hydroxypyrene (Spearman r = 0.630, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of personal exposure to 15 PAHs and 10 urinary metabolites, and calculation of Σ carcinogenic potency, indicated that urinary 1-hydroxypyrene was the most comprehensive carcinogenic biomarker of exposure to PAHs.
PURPOSE:Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are multiple compounds that include many carcinogens. We conducted a cross-sectional study in steel plant workers in Anshan, China, to identify biomarkers that reflect the carcinogenicity of PAHs. METHODS: Subjects were 57 workers and 20 controls. Level of personal exposure to PAHs was measured using GC-MS. In accordance with the assessment methods defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 15 PAHs were selected for the analysis. For the measurement of urinary metabolites, urine samples were treated with β-glucuronidase and analyzed using HPLC with a fluorescence detector. RESULTS: The mean range of personal exposure to 15 PAHs (total PAHs) was 178.85, 47.08-1,329.45 (geometric mean, 5th and 95th percentile) μg/m(3). Ten known urinary metabolites (1-hydroxynaphthalene, 2-hydroxynaphthalene, 2-hydroxyfluorene, 1-hydroxyphenanthrene, 3-hydroxyphenanthrene, 9-hydroxyphenanthrene, 1-hydroxypyrene, 3-hydroxybenz[a]anthracene, 6-hydroxychrysene, and 3-hydroxybenzo[a]pyrene) and four unknown peaks were detected. The highest correlation was between total PAHs and urinary 2-hydroxynaphthalene (Spearman r = 0.716, P < 0.01). Among the detected urinary metabolites, 2-hydroxyfluorene, 1-hydroxyphenanthrene, 3-hydroxyphenanthrene, and 1-hydroxypyrene were found to correlate significantly with the "Σ carcinogenic potency of PAHs" (sum of seven carcinogenicPAHs calculated from the levels of personal PAHs and relative potency factors), and with the greatest correlation found for 1-hydroxypyrene (Spearman r = 0.630, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of personal exposure to 15 PAHs and 10 urinary metabolites, and calculation of Σ carcinogenic potency, indicated that urinary 1-hydroxypyrene was the most comprehensive carcinogenic biomarker of exposure to PAHs.
Authors: G Pan; T Hanaoka; Y Yamano; K Hara; M Ichiba; Y Wang; J Zhang; Y Feng; Z Shujuan; D Guan; G Gao; N Liu; K Takahashi Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: W Popp; C Vahrenholz; C Schell; G Grimmer; G Dettbarn; R Kraus; A Brauksiepe; B Schmeling; T Gutzeit; J von Bülow; K Norpoth Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Hans-Peter Rihs; Beate Pesch; Martin Kappler; Sylvia Rabstein; Bernd Rossbach; Jürgen Angerer; Michael Scherenberg; Ansgar Adams; Michael Wilhelm; Albrecht Seidel; Thomas Brüning Journal: Toxicol Lett Date: 2005-04-08 Impact factor: 4.372
Authors: Jon R Sobus; Michael D McClean; Robert F Herrick; Suramya Waidyanatha; Frank Onyemauwa; Lawrence L Kupper; Stephen M Rappaport Journal: Ann Occup Hyg Date: 2009-07-14
Authors: Nancy Brenna Hopf; Jorunn Kirkeleit; Stacy L Kramer; Bente Moen; Paul Succop; Mary Beth Genter; Tania Carreón; James Mack; Glenn Talaska Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Zheng Li; Courtney D Sandau; Lovisa C Romanoff; Samuel P Caudill; Andreas Sjodin; Larry L Needham; Donald G Patterson Journal: Environ Res Date: 2008-03-03 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Yuesong Wang; Lee-Yang Wong; Lei Meng; Erin N Pittman; Debra A Trinidad; Kendra L Hubbard; Alisha Etheredge; Arseima Y Del Valle-Pinero; Rachel Zamoiski; Dana M van Bemmel; Nicolette Borek; Vyomesh Patel; Heather L Kimmel; Kevin P Conway; Charles Lawrence; Kathryn C Edwards; Andrew Hyland; Maciej L Goniewicz; Dorothy Hatsukami; Stephen S Hecht; Antonia M Calafat Journal: Environ Int Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 9.621