4.7 Article

Relationship between ambient PM2.5 exposure and blood cadmium level in children under 14 years in Beijing, China

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 403, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123871

关键词

Air pollution; Cadmium; PM2.5; Blood Cd level; Children

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81673118, 91743114]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a significant association between PM2.5 exposure and blood Cd level in children, with younger children being more sensitive to Cd from PM2.5 exposure. There was no significant difference in PM2.5 concentration between heating and non-heating seasons in winter, and gender did not have a significant impact on children's blood Cd level.
Ambient PM2.5 pollution is a global environmental problem. PM2.5 can act as a carrier of heavy metals. However, the relationship between PM2.5 exposure and blood cadmium (Cd) level in children was less understood. Based on the data of hourly collected PM2.5 and blood Cd level of 13,626 children aged 0-14 years from Apr. 2008 to Feb. 2013 in Beijing of China, we investigated the short-term effects of PM2.5 exposure on blood Cd level. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) were utilized to explore the potential association between PM2.5 exposure and blood Cd level of children. The results showed that the mean blood Cd level was 0.64 mu g/L. There was a significant association between PM2.5 exposure and blood Cd level (P < 0.05). Age was negatively associated with blood Cd level (P < 0.05), and the younger children were more sensitive to Cd from PM2.5 exposure. There wasn't a significant difference in PM2.5 concentration between heating and non-heating seasons in winter (P > 0.05); there was also no gender difference of children on blood Cd level (P > 0.05). The present study demonstrates the importance of controlling the PM2.5 bound Cd exposure, and environmental countermeasures should be implemented stringently to reduce their impact on children's health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据