Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Estimating Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: A Comparison of Survey, Biological Monitoring, and Geographic Information System–Based Methods

2006; American Association for Cancer Research; Volume: 15; Issue: 7 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1158/1055-9965.epi-05-0799

1538-7755

Robert B. Gunier, Peggy Reynolds, Susan Hurley, Sauda Yerabati, Andrew Hertz, Paul T. Strickland, Pamela L. Horn‐Ross,

Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment

Abstract Our objective was to compare polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) exposure estimates based on survey, biological monitoring, and geographic information system (GIS) methods. The 304 participants in this study supplied a urine sample and completed questionnaires about exposure to potential PAH sources. We assayed urine samples for 1-hydroxypyrene-O-glucuronide (1-OHPG), the major metabolite of pyrene, a common PAH. We used a GIS to estimate traffic exhaust exposure using vehicle count data at the residence and workplace. The five subjects who reported smoking during the 48-hour period had median 1-OHPG concentrations 10-fold that of nonsmokers (1.6 versus 0.16 pmol/mL; P = 0.01). Among nonsmokers, those who reported eating grilled, roasted, or broiled meat had significantly higher 1-OHPG concentrations than those who did not reported eating meat prepared by these methods (0.25 versus 0.06 pmol/mL; P = 0.02). Nonsmokers who reported traveling on roads for ≥3 hours during the 48-hour period also had significantly higher 1-OHPG levels than those who traveled <3 hours (0.23 versus 0.11 pmol/mL; P = 0.03). 1-OHPG levels were also correlated with hours of secondhand smoke exposure among nonsmokers (P = 0.04). In this study, 1-OHPG urine concentrations were not associated with self-reported exposures to cooking smoke, wood burning, or traffic levels near the home or to traffic density or urban/rural status determined using a GIS. Self-reported indicators of residential proximity to high traffic volume were, however, associated with GIS traffic density measures. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(7):1376–81)