| Literature DB >> 35543784 |
Zeynab Tabatabaei1, Narges Shamsedini1,2, Amin Mohammadpour1, Mohammad Ali Baghapour3, Mohammad Hoseini4.
Abstract
Children are extremely liable to indoor air pollutants as their physiology and a few metabolic pathways are different from those of adults. The present cross-sectional study aimed to assess exposure of children living with parents who use hookah tobacco smoke to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using a biomonitoring approach. The study was conducted on 25 children (7-13 years of age) exposed to hookah smoke at home and 25 unexposed age-matched children. Urinary levels of five metabolites of PAHs were quantified via headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Urinary malondialdehyde (MDA) was measured, as well. Information regarding the sociodemographic and lifestyle conditions was collected through interviews using managed questionnaires. The urinary 1-OH-NaP and 9-OH-Phe concentrations were respectively 1.7- and 4.6-folds higher in the case samples compared to the control group (p < 0.05). In addition, urinary MDA levels were 1.4 times higher in the exposed children than in the unexposed group, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Increasing the consumption of grilled and meat food in the diet increased the participants' urinary 2-OH-Flu and 1-OH-Pyr levels, respectively. Moreover, sleeping in the living room instead of the bedroom at night was a significant predictor of high 1-OH-NaP and 2-OH-NaP concentrations in the children's urine. Overall, the findings confirmed that children living in their homes with hookah-smoking parents were significantly exposed to naphthalene and phenanthrene. Hence, implementing protective measures is critical to reduce the exposure of this group of children.Entities:
Keywords: Children; Hookah smoke; Oxidative stress; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Risk assessment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35543784 PMCID: PMC9091547 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-20589-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
The selected characteristics of the studied population
| Characteristics | Exposed group | Non-exposed group |
|---|---|---|
| No | 25 | 25 |
| Geo-mean ± SD | Geo-mean ± SD | |
| Age (years) | 10.79 ± 1.2 | 9.49 ± 1.2 |
| Height (cm) | 142.4 ± 1.2 | 134.4 ± 1.06 |
| Weight (kg) | 35.52 ± 1.28 | 30.94 ± 1.26 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 17.51 ± 1.24 | 17.14 ± 1.16 |
| Gender (%) | ||
Girl Boy | 36 64 | 48 52 |
| Eating fast food (%) | ||
Once per week 2–3 times per week More than 3 times | 76 24 - | 64 24 12 |
| Eating grilled food (%) | ||
Once per week 2–3 times per week More than 3 times | 68 12 20 | 76 24 - |
| Eating meat (%) | ||
Once per week 2–3 times per week More than 3 times | 28 40 32 | 24 16 60 |
| Eating fruits and vegetables (%) | ||
Once per day 2–3 times per day More than 3 times a day | 40 60 - | 44 16 40 |
| Eating seafood (%) | ||
Once per week 2–3 times per week More than 3 times | 12 72 16 | 14 66 20 |
| Frequency of cooking at home (%) | ||
Once per day 2–3 times per day More than 3 times per day | - 88 12 | - 84 16 |
| Age of the house (%) | ||
< 5 5–10 10–15 > 15 | 20 56 8 16 | 32 56 8 4 |
| Baby’s sleeping place (%) | ||
Bedroom Living room | 76 24 | 76 24 |
| Home floor (%) | ||
1st 1 < | 80 20 | 76 24 |
| Using kitchen hoods (%) | ||
Yes No | 64 36 | 68 32 |
| Number of hookah smokers in the house (%) | ||
0 1 2 3 | - 72 28 - | 100 - - - |
| Number of times of hookah smoking (%) | ||
None Once per day 2–3 times per day More than 3 times a day | _ 12 72 16 | 100 - - - |
| Type of tobacco (%) | ||
None Fruity Regular | - 20 80 | 100 - - |
Statistical analysis of the urinary OH-PAHs in the studied groups (µg/l)
| Exposure type | Exposed group | Unexposed group | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistical analysis | Mean ± SD | Geo-mean | SE | Median | Mean ± SD | Geo-mean | SE | Median | Comparison |
| 1-OH-NaP | 1.01 ± 0.96 (0.31–3.86) | 0.73 | 0.19 | 0.55 | 0.57 ± 0.38 (0.25–1.98) | 0.49 | 0.07 | 0.45 | |
| 2-OH-NaP | 0.83 ± 0.55 (0.3–2.26) | 0.69 | 0.11 | 0.62 | 0.61 ± 0.27 (0.15–1.28) | 0.54 | 0.05 | 0.53 | |
| 2-OH-Flu | 1.34 ± 0.76 (0.35–3.2) | 1.2 | 0.15 | 1.36 | 1.03 ± 0.51 (0.29–1.95) | 0.86 | 0.1 | 1.27 | |
| 1-OH-Pyr | 0.46 ± 0.5 (0.16–2.46) | 0.33 | 0.1 | 0.29 | 0.34 ± 0.37 (0.16–1.6) | 0.26 | 0.07 | 0.23 | |
| 9-OH-Phe | 6.34 ± 8.14 (0.17–26.41) | 1.67 | 1.62 | 2.65 | 1.36 ± 2.35 (0.17–8.7) | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.27 | |
| OH-PAHs | 9.94 ± 8.1 (2.18–29.62) | 7.53 | 1.6 | 6.1 | 3.92 ± 2.6 (1.2–10.69) | 3.23 | 0.52 | 3.1 | |
Fig. 1The urinary levels of OH-PAHs in the study groups
Fig. 2Composition profiles of OH-PAHs in the study groups’ urine samples
The urinary levels of MDA in the study groups
| Exposed group | Unexposed group | ||||||||
| Statistical analysis | Mean ± SD (min–max) | Geo-mean | SE | Median | Mean ± SD (min–max) | Geo-mean | SE | Median | Comparison |
| MDA (µg/g creatinine) | 6.82 ± 4.24 (1.3–17.75) | 5.61 | 0.84 | 6.52 | 5.05 ± 3.1 (0.43–10.17) | 3.94 | 0.6 | 4.06 | |
| Correlation coefficient | |||||||||
| Weight | Height | BMI | |||||||
| MDA (μg/g creatinine) | 0.291 | 0.282 | 0.279 | ||||||
| 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | |||||||
Multivariate linear regression analysis of the urinary OH-PAHs (µg/l) with the factors affecting OH-PAHs in the study participants (β coefficient (p-value))
| Factors | 1-OH-NaP | 2-OH-NaP | 2-OH-Flu | 1-OHP-yr | 9-OH-Phe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grilled food | 0.02 (0.6) | 0.042 (0.54) | 0.23 (0.00)* | 0.015 (0.13) | 0.31 (0.53) |
| Eating meat | 0.47 (0.9) | 0.034 (0.81) | 0.53 (0.15) | 2.4 (0.03)* | 0.11 (0.59) |
| Sleeping place | 0.73 (0.02)* | 0.62 (0.04)* | 1.3 (0.78) | 0.07 (0.53) | 0.18 (0.73) |
Multivariate linear regression analysis of urinary MDA (µg/g creatinine) with the factors affecting the urinary MDA in the study participants
| Factors | β coefficient | |
|---|---|---|
| Grilled food | − 0.03 | 0.95 |
| Fast food | 0.27 | 0.71 |
| BMI | 0.16 | 0.03* |
| Gender | 1.6 | 0.12 |
| 1-OH-NaP | 1.1 | 0.16 |
| 2-OH-NaP | 3.01 | 0.01* |
| 2-OH-Flu | 0.67 | 0.32 |
| 1-OH-Pyr | − 0.77 | 0.44 |
| 9-OH-Phe | 0.04 | 0.61 |
Hazard Index in the case and control groups
| HI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min | Mean | Max | SD | |
| Case | 0.004 | 0.073 | 0.276 | 0.09 |
| Control | 0.003 | 0.021 | 0.119 | 0.03 |
Fig. 3Monte Carlo simulation histogram for a the case group and b the control group
The measured urinary concentrations of OH-PAHs in other papers
| 1-OH-NaP | 2-OH-NaP | 2-OH-Flu | 1-OH-Pyr | 9-OH-Phe | Ref | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed | 0.73 | 0.69 | 1.2 | 0.33 | 1.67 | Present study |
| Unexposed | 0.49 | 0.54 | 0.86 | 0.26 | 0.47 | Present study |
| Germany (7–13 years) | 0.78 | 0.23 | 0.38 | 0.09 | 0.05 | (Murawski et al. |
| USA (6–11 years) | 1.43 | 1.69 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 0.02 | (Li et al. |
| India (30 to 51 years) | 3.39 | 8.71 | 1.1 | 0.69 | 0.28 | (Guo et al. |
| China (7–13 years) | - | 0.25 | 0.83 | 0.18 | 2.54 | (Liu et al. |
| USA (6–19 years) | 1.6 | 2.53 | 0.24 | 0.09 | - | (Scinicariello and Buser |