| Literature DB >> 32316605 |
Mansour A Alghamdi1, Salwa K Hassan2, Noura A Alzahrani3, Marwan Y Al Sharif1, Mamdouh I Khoder1.
Abstract
Data concerning polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Jeddah's schools, Saudi Arabia, and their implications for health risks to children, is scarce. Classroom air conditioner filter dusts were collected from primary schools in urban, suburban and residential areas of Jeddah. This study aimed to assess the characteristics of classroom-dust-bound PAHs and the health risks to children of PAH exposure. Average PAH concentrations were higher in urban schools than suburban and residential schools. Benzo (b)fluoranthene (BbF), benzo(ghi)perylene (BGP), chrysene (CRY) and Dibenz[a,h]anthracene (DBA) at urban and suburban schools and BbF, BGP, fluoranthene (FLT) and indeno (1, 2, 3, -cd)pyrene (IND) at residential schools were the dominant compounds in classroom dust. PAHs with five aromatic rings were the most abundant at all schools. The relative contribution of the individual PAH compounds to total PAH concentrations in the classroom dusts of schools indicate that the study areas do share a common source, vehicle emissions. Based on diagnostic ratios of PAHs, they are emitted from local pyrogenic sources, and traffic is the significant PAH source, with more significant contributions from gasoline-fueled than from diesel cars. Based on benzo[a]pyrene equivalent (BaPequi) calculations, total carcinogenic activity (TCA) for total PAHs represent 21.59% (urban schools), 20.99% (suburban schools), and 18.88% (residential schools) of total PAH concentrations. DBA and BaP were the most dominant compounds contributing to the TCA, suggesting the importance of BaP and DBA as surrogate compounds for PAHs in this schools. Based on incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCingestion, ILCRinhalation, ILCRdermal) and total lifetime cancer risk (TLCR)) calculations, the order of cancer risk was: urban schools > suburban schools > residential schools. Both ingestion and dermal contact are major contributors to cancer risk. Among PAHs, DBA, BaP, BbF, benzo(a)anthracene (BaA), benzo(k)fluoranthene (BkF), and IND have the highest ILCR values at all schools. LCR and TLCR values at all schools were lower than 10-6, indicating virtual safety. DBA, BaP and BbF were the predominant contributors to cancer effects in all schools.Entities:
Keywords: Jeddah; PAHs; characteristics; classrooms air conditioner filter dust; health risk; level; primary schools
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32316605 PMCID: PMC7215388 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17082779
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Map of Jeddah showing distribution of primary school sampling sites in the different areas.
Values of exposure parameters and factors used for incremental lifetime cancer risk assessment.
| Exposure Factors | Symbol | Unit | Child | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BaPequi. concentration for PAH compounds | Cs | mg BaPequi/kg | Present study | |
| Ingestion rate | IRingestion | mg/day | 200 | [ |
| Exposed skin area | SA | cm2/day | 2800 | [ |
| Skin adherence factor | SAF | mg/cm2 | 0.2 | [ |
| Exposure frequency | EF | days/year | 167 | [ |
| Exposure duration | ED | year | 6 | [ |
| Body weight | BW | kg | 15 | [ |
| Averaging time (70 years × 365 days/year) | AT | days | 25,550 | [ |
| Dermal adsorption fraction | ABS | unitless | 0.13 | [ |
| Inhalation rate | IRinhalation | m3/day | 10 | [ |
| Particle emission factor | PEF | m3/kg | 1.36 × 109 | [ |
| Carcinogenic slope factor for ingestion | CSFingestion | mg/kg/day | 7.3 | [ |
| Carcinogenic slope factor for inhalation | CSFinhalation | mg/kg/day | 3.85 | [ |
| Carcinogenic slope factor for dermal | CSFdermal | mg/kg/day | 25 | [ |
Figure 2Concentrations of the individual PAH compounds in classroom AC filter dust of all Jeddah schools.
Figure 3The concentrations of the individual PAH compounds in the classroom AC filter dust of different schools.
Figure 4The concentrations of different categories of PAHs based on aromatic ring number in classroom AC filter dust of different schools.
Figure 5Relative contribution of each individual PAH compound and different categories of PAHs based on aromatic ring number to the total PAHs concentrations in classroom AC filter dust of different schools: (a) individual PAH compounds and (b) two to six-ring PAHs.
Diagnostic ratios of classroom dust-bound PAHs at the different schools.
| Ratio | Schools | Value | Source | Reference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urban | Suburban | Residential | ||||
| BaA/CRY | 0.82 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 0.28–1.20 | Gasoline engines | [ |
| 0.17–0.36 | Diesel engine | |||||
| IND/(IND + BGP) | 0.39 | 0.33 | 0.4 | 0.21–0.22 | Gasoline cars | [ |
| 0.35–0.70 | Diesel emissions | |||||
| 0.56 | Coal combustion | |||||
| 0.62 | Wood combustion | |||||
| 0.36 | Road dust | |||||
| BaP/(BaP + CRY) | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.48 | 0.5 | Diesel | [ |
| 0.73 | Gasoline | |||||
| FLU/(FLU + PYR) | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.32 | >0.5 | Diesel | [ |
| <0.5 | Gasoline | |||||
| BaA/(BaA + CRY) | 0.45 | 0.47 | 0.43 | 1.6 | Diesel cars | [ |
| 0.33 | Gasoline cars | |||||
| 2.18 | Wood combustion | |||||
| ∑PAHsLMW/∑PAHsHMW | 0.2 | 0.15 | 0.14 | >1 | Petrogenic | [ |
| <1 | Pyrogenic | |||||
| ∑CPAHs/∑PAHs | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.8 | <1 | Mobile source | [ |
| BGP/BaP | 1.28 | 1.61 | 1.93 | 1.2–2.2 | Diesel cars | [ |
| 2.5–3.3 | Gasoline cars | |||||
| 0.86, 0.91 | Road dust | |||||
| ANT/(ANT + PHE) | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.49 | <0.1 | Petroleum source | [ |
| >0.1 | combustion source | |||||
| PHE/ANT | 1.26 | 1.34 | 1.06 | <10 | Pyrogenic | [ |
| >15 | Petrogenic | |||||
| FLT/PYR | 1.79 | 1.36 | 2.99 | >1 | Pyrogenic | [ |
| <1 | Petrogenic | |||||
| IND/BGP | 0.64 | 0.5 | 0.66 | 0.4 | Gasoline engine | [ |
| ≈1 | Diesel engine | |||||
Concentrations and BaP equivalent concentrations for PAH compounds in classroom AC filter dust at all schools.
| PAHs | TEF | Concentration (Urban Schools) | Concentration (Suburban Schools) | Concentration (Residential Schools) | Concentration (All Schools) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ng/g | ng BaPaquiv/g | ng/g | ng BaPaquiv/g | ng/g | ng BaPaquiv/g | ng/g | ng BaPaquiv/g | ||
| NA | 0.001 | 101.34 | 0.10 | 37.73 | 0.04 | 23.64 | 0.02 | 54.24 | 0.05 |
| ACY | 0.001 | 55.24 | 0.06 | 25.58 | 0.03 | 15.35 | 0.02 | 32.06 | 0.03 |
| ACE | 0.001 | 61.35 | 0.06 | 23.27 | 0.02 | 28.86 | 0.03 | 37.83 | 0.04 |
| FLU | 0.001 | 63.34 | 0.06 | 43.36 | 0.04 | 21.41 | 0.02 | 42.71 | 0.04 |
| PHE | 0.001 | 98.59 | 0.10 | 69.84 | 0.07 | 37.28 | 0.04 | 68.57 | 0.07 |
| ANT | 0.010 | 78.54 | 0.79 | 51.99 | 0.52 | 35.23 | 0.35 | 55.25 | 0.55 |
| FLT | 0.001 | 223.64 | 0.22 | 126.62 | 0.13 | 136.75 | 0.14 | 162.34 | 0.16 |
| PYR | 0.001 | 124.67 | 0.12 | 93.35 | 0.09 | 45.68 | 0.05 | 87.90 | 0.09 |
| BaA | 0.100 | 222.75 | 22.28 | 158.84 | 15.88 | 82.17 | 8.22 | 154.59 | 15.46 |
| CRY | 0.010 | 272.79 | 2.73 | 181.80 | 1.82 | 109.08 | 1.09 | 187.89 | 1.88 |
| BbF | 0.100 | 324.89 | 32.49 | 232.36 | 23.24 | 187.49 | 18.75 | 248.24 | 24.82 |
| BkF | 0.100 | 156.96 | 15.70 | 145.89 | 14.59 | 95.75 | 9.58 | 132.87 | 13.29 |
| BaP | 1.00 | 236.10 | 236.10 | 154.76 | 154.76 | 99.89 | 99.89 | 163.58 | 163.58 |
| IND | 0.100 | 191.95 | 19.20 | 125.35 | 12.54 | 128.24 | 12.82 | 148.51 | 14.85 |
| DBA | 1.00 | 267.54 | 267.54 | 170.69 | 170.69 | 99.97 | 99.97 | 179.40 | 179.40 |
| BGP | 0.010 | 302.02 | 3.02 | 250.00 | 2.50 | 193.16 | 1.93 | 248.39 | 2.48 |
| Total carcinogenic activity (TCA) | 600.6 | 397.0 | 252.9 | 416.8 | |||||
| Contribution of BaA to the TCA (%) | 3.71 | 4.00 | 3.25 | 3.71 | |||||
| Contribution of BbFto the TCA (%) | 5.41 | 5.85 | 7.41 | 5.95 | |||||
| Contribution of BkF to the TCA (%) | 2.61 | 3.67 | 3.79 | 3.19 | |||||
| Contribution of BaP to the TCA (%) | 39.31 | 38.98 | 39.50 | 39.25 | |||||
| Contribution of DBA to the TCA (%) | 44.54 | 42.99 | 39.52 | 43.04 | |||||
| Contribution of CRY to the TCA (%) | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.45 | |||||
| Contribution of IND to the TCA (%) | 3.20 | 3.16 | 5.07 | 3.56 | |||||
Figure 6Incremental lifetime cancer risk (LCR) of the individual PAH compound concentrations for children in different schools of Jeddah.
Figure 7Cancer risk of the individual PAH compound concentrations for children in different schools of Jeddah.
Figure 8Incremental lifetime cancer risk and cancer risk of the∑PAHs concentrations for children of different primary schools.
Figure 9Relative contributions of individual PAH compound cancer risks to total cancer risk in children’s schools.