4.8 Article

Predictors of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Concentrations in Adipose Tissue in a General Danish Population

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 45, 期 2, 页码 679-685

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es102489c

关键词

-

资金

  1. Danish Medical Research Council
  2. Danish Cancer Society
  3. Aase and Ejnar Danielsens
  4. King Christian the 10th, A. P. Moller
  5. Hartmann Brothers
  6. Foundation of 1870
  7. Snedker and Astrid Jacobsens
  8. Architect Holger Hjortenberg
  9. Civil Engineer Erode V. Nyegaard
  10. Simon Spies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are ubiquitously present in the environment and suspected of carcinogenic, neurological, and immunological effects. Our purpose was to identify predictors of adipose tissue levels of mono-, di-, and tri-ortho-substituted PCBs experienced by a general population and to establish whether predictors vary according to substitution group. In this study of 245 randomly selected persons from a prospective Danish cohort of 57 053 persons, we examined geographical area, age, lactation, BMI, and intake of eight major dietary groups as potential determinants of adipose concentrations of mono-, di-, and tri-ortho-substituted PCBs by linear regression analyses. Lactation, BMI, and intake of fruit, vegetables, and dairy products showed negative associations with PCB concentrations in adipose tissue in all models, and living in Copenhagen city, age, and consumption of fish (particularly fatty fish) were positively associated. The associations between several of the predictors and mono-ortho-substituted PCBs tended to differ from the associations found for di- and tri-ortho-substituted PCBs. In conclusion, geography, age, lactation, BMI, and consumption of fatty fish consistently predicted the concentration of PCBs in adipose tissue. Our results indicate that predictors of PCBs varied according to substitution group, suggesting that ortho-substituted groups should be analyzed separately.

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

4.8
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