Huawei Duan1, Xiaowei Jia1, Qingfeng Zhai2, Lu Ma3, Shan Wang3, Chuanfeng Huang1, Haisheng Wang4, Yong Niu1, Xue Li1, Yufei Dai1, Shanfa Yu5, Weimin Gao6, Wen Chen3, Yuxin Zheng1. 1. Key Laboratory of Chemical Safety and Health, National Institute for Occupational Health and Poison Control, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China. 2. Faculty of Public Health, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, China. 3. Faculty of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 4. Luoyang Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Luoyang, China. 5. Henan Institute of Occupational Medicine, Zhengzhou, Henan, China. 6. Department of Environmental Toxicology, The Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Diesel engine exhaust (DEE) is a ubiquitous environmental pollutant and is carcinogenic to humans. To seek early and sensitive biomarkers for prediction of adverse health effects, we analysed the components of DEE particles, and examined the genetic and oxidative damages in DEE-exposed workers. METHODS: 101 male diesel engine testing workers who were constantly exposed to DEE and 106 matched controls were enrolled in the present study. The components of DEE were analysed, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5), element carbon (EC), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Postshift urine samples were collected and analysed for 1-hydroxypyrene (1-OHP), an internal exposure marker for DEE. Levels of DNA strand breaks and oxidised purines, defined as formamidopyrimidine-DNA glycosylase (FPG) sites in leucocytes, were measured by medium throughput Comet assay. Urinary 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) was also used to determine the level of oxidative stress. RESULTS: We found higher levels of PM2.5, EC, NO2, SO2 and PAHs in the diesel engine testing workshop and significantly higher urinary 1-OHP concentrations in exposed subjects (p<0.001). Compared with controls, the levels of parameters in normal Comet and FPG-Comet assay were all significantly higher in DEE-exposed workers (p<0.001), and in a dose-dependent and time-dependent manner. There were no significant differences between DEE-exposed workers and controls in regard to leucocyte FPG sensitive sites and urinary 8-OHdG levels. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that DEE exposure mainly induces DNA damage, which might be used as an early biomarker for risk assessment of DEE exposure. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
OBJECTIVES: Diesel engine exhaust (DEE) is a ubiquitous environmental pollutant and is carcinogenic to humans. To seek early and sensitive biomarkers for prediction of adverse health effects, we analysed the components of DEE particles, and examined the genetic and oxidative damages in DEE-exposed workers. METHODS: 101 male diesel engine testing workers who were constantly exposed to DEE and 106 matched controls were enrolled in the present study. The components of DEE were analysed, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5), element carbon (EC), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Postshift urine samples were collected and analysed for 1-hydroxypyrene (1-OHP), an internal exposure marker for DEE. Levels of DNA strand breaks and oxidised purines, defined as formamidopyrimidine-DNA glycosylase (FPG) sites in leucocytes, were measured by medium throughput Comet assay. Urinary 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) was also used to determine the level of oxidative stress. RESULTS: We found higher levels of PM2.5, EC, NO2, SO2 and PAHs in the diesel engine testing workshop and significantly higher urinary 1-OHP concentrations in exposed subjects (p<0.001). Compared with controls, the levels of parameters in normal Comet and FPG-Comet assay were all significantly higher in DEE-exposed workers (p<0.001), and in a dose-dependent and time-dependent manner. There were no significant differences between DEE-exposed workers and controls in regard to leucocyte FPG sensitive sites and urinary 8-OHdG levels. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that DEE exposure mainly induces DNA damage, which might be used as an early biomarker for risk assessment of DEE exposure. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Jin Yang; Hongjie Zhang; Huitao Zhang; Wubin Wang; Yanli Liu; Yanfeng Fan Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Jason Y Y Wong; Helene G Margolis; Mitchell Machiela; Weiyin Zhou; Michelle C Odden; Bruce M Psaty; John Robbins; Rena R Jones; Jerome I Rotter; Stephen J Chanock; Nathaniel Rothman; Qing Lan; Jennifer S Lee Journal: Environ Int Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Iselin Rynning; Volker M Arlt; Kristyna Vrbova; Jiří Neča; Pavel Rossner; Jiri Klema; Bente Ulvestad; Elisabeth Petersen; Øivind Skare; Aage Haugen; David H Phillips; Miroslav Machala; Jan Topinka; Steen Mollerup Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Michelle C Turner; Daniel Krewski; W Ryan Diver; C Arden Pope; Richard T Burnett; Michael Jerrett; Julian D Marshall; Susan M Gapstur Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 9.031