Advertisement

Inhalation cancer risk estimation of source-specific personal exposure for particulate matter–bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons based on positive matrix factorization

  • Bin HanEmail author
  • Yan You
  • Yating Liu
  • Jia Xu
  • Jian Zhou
  • Jiefeng Zhang
  • Can Niu
  • Nan Zhang
  • Fei He
  • Xiao Ding
  • Zhipeng Bai
Research Article
First Online:

Abstract

In previous studies, inhalation cancer risk was estimated using conventional risk assessment method, which was normally based on compound-specific analysis, and cannot provide substantial data for source-specific particulate matter concentrations and pollution control. In the present study, we applied an integrated risk analysis method, which was a synthetic combination of source apportionment receptor model and risk assessment method, to estimate cancer risks associated to individual PAHs coming from specific sources. Personal exposure particulate matter samples referring to an elderly panel were collected in a community of Tianjin, Northern China, in 2009, and 12 PAH compounds were measured using GC-MS. Positive matrix factorization (PMF) was used to extract the potential sources and quantify the source contributions to the PAH mixture. Then, the lung cancer risk of each modeled source was estimated by summing up the cancer risks of all measured PAH species according to the extracted source profile. The final results indicated that the overall cancer risk was 1.12 × 10−5, with the largest contribution from gasoline vehicle emission (44.1%). Unlike other risk estimation studies, this study was successful in combining risk analysis and source apportionment approaches, which allow estimating the potential risk of all source types and provided suitable information to select prior control strategies and mitigate the main air pollution sources that contributing to health risks.

Keywords

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Lung cancer risk assessment Source apportionment Positive matrix factorization 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We appreciate Prof. Sverre Vedal from the University of Washington for his suggestions and comments on this article.

Funding information

This study was funded by the “National Basic Research Program of China” (Grant No. 2011CB503801).

Supplementary material

11356_2019_4198_MOESM1_ESM.docx (40 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 39 kb)

References

  1. Amador-Munoz O et al (2010) Solvent extracted organic matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons distributed in size-segregated airborne particles in a zone of Mexico City: seasonal behavior and human exposure. Atmos Environ 44:122–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreou G, Rapsomanikis S (2009) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their oxygenated derivatives in the urban atmosphere of Athens. J Hazard Mater 172:363–373.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.07.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aydin YM, Kara M, Dumanoglu Y, Odabasi M, Elbir T (2014) Source apportionment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in ambient air of an industrial region in Turkey. Atmos Environ 97:271–285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.08.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boström C-E et al (2002) Cancer risk assessment, indicators, and guidelines for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the ambient air. Environ Health Perspect 110:451Google Scholar
  5. Brinkman G, Vance G, Hannigan MP, Milford JB (2006) Use of synthetic data to evaluate positive matrix factorization as a source apportionment tool for PM2.5 exposure data. Environ Sci Technol 40:1892–1901.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es051712y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callen MS, Lopez JM, Mastral AM (2012) Apportionment of the airborne PM10 in Spain. Episodes of potential negative impact for human health. J Environ Monit 14:1210–1219.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c2em10802j CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cao Q, Wang H, Chen G (2011) Source apportionment of PAHs using two mathematical models for mangrove sediments in Shantou coastal zone, China. Estuar Coasts 34:950–960.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-011-9397-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crilley LR et al (2017) Source apportionment of fine and coarse particles at a roadside and urban background site in London during the 2012 summer ClearfLo campaign. Environ Pollut 220(Part B):766–778.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cristale J, Silva FS, Zocolo GJ, Marchi MRR (2012) Influence of sugarcane burning on indoor/outdoor PAH air pollution in Brazil. Environ Pollut 169:210–216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.03.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Du X, Dong S (2013) Tianjin Statistical Yearbook. China Statistics Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  11. Duval M, Friedlander S (1981) Source resolution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the LosAngeles atmosphere application of a CMB with first-order decay US EPA Report EPA-600/2-81-161. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Feng Y et al (2014) A community study of the effect of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metabolites on heart rate variability based on the Framingham risk score. Occup Environ Med 71:338–345.  https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101884 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gu Y-G, Li H-B, Lu H-B (2017) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in surface sediments from the largest deep plateau lake in China: occurrence, sources and biological risk. Ecol Eng 101:179–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Han B et al. (2014) Characterizations, relationship, and potential sources of outdoor and indoor particulate matter bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in a community of Tianjin, Northern China Indoor Air Accepted  https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12145
  15. Hopke PK, Ramadan Z, Paatero P, Norris GA, Landis MS, Williams RW, Lewis CW (2003) Receptor modeling of ambient and personal exposure samples: 1998 Baltimore Particulate Matter Epidemiology-Exposure Study. Atmos Environ 37:3289–3302.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(03)00331-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu Y, Bai Z, Zhang L, Wang X, Zhang L, Yu Q, Zhu T (2007) Health risk assessment for traffic policemen exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Tianjin, China. Sci Total Environ 382:240–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.04.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jang E, Alam MS, Harrison RM (2013) Source apportionment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban air using positive matrix factorization and spatial distribution analysis. Atmos Environ 79:271–285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jia Y, Stone D, Wang W, Schrlau J, Tao S, Simonich SLM (2011) Estimated reduction in cancer risk due to PAH exposures if source control measures during the 2008 Beijing Olympics were sustained. Environ Health Perspect 119:815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khalili NR, Scheff PA, Holsen TM (1995) PAH source fingerprints for coke ovens, diesel and, gasoline engines, highway tunnels, and wood combustion emissions. Atmos Environ 29:533–542.  https://doi.org/10.1016/1352-2310(94)00275-P CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuo C-Y, Yang Y-H, Chao M-R, Hu C-W (2008) The exposure of temple workers to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Sci Total Environ 401:44–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.04.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larson T, Gould T, Simpson C, Liu LJS, Claiborn C, Lewtas J (2004) Source apportionment of indoor, outdoor, and personal PM2.5 in Seattle, Washington, using positive matrix factorization. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 54:1175–1187.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2004.10470976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li PH et al (2013) Health risk assessment for vehicle inspection workers exposed to airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in their work place. Environ Sci: Processes Impacts 15:623–632.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c2em30708a Google Scholar
  23. Li WF, Peng Y, Shi JW, Qiu WG, Wang J, Bai ZP (2011) Particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the urban Northeast Region of China: profiles, distributions and sources. Atmos Environ 45:7664–7671.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu M, Feng J, Hu P, Tan L, Zhang X, Sun J (2016) Spatial-temporal distributions, sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in surface water and suspended particular matter from the upper reach of Huaihe River, China. Ecol Eng 95:143–151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.06.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manoli E, Kouras A, Samara C (2004) Profile analysis of ambient and source emitted particle-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from three sites in northern Greece. Chemosphere 56:867–878.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marr LC et al (2006) Sources and transformations of particle-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Mexico City. Atmos Chem Phys 6:1733–1745.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-1733-2006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Minguillón MC et al (2012) Source apportionment of indoor, outdoor and personal PM2.5 exposure of pregnant women in Barcelona, Spain. Atmos Environ 59:426–436.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.04.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mukerjee S, Biswas P (1992) A concept of risk apportionment of air emission sources for risk reduction considerations. Environ Technol 13:635–646.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09593339209385193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nisbet IC, LaGoy PK (1992) Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 16:290–300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2300(92)90009-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norris G, Duvall R, Brown S, Bai S (2014) EPA positive matrix factorization (pmf) 5.0 fundamentals and user guide prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC Inc, PetalumaGoogle Scholar
  31. Norris G, Vedantham R, Duvall R, Brown S, Prouty J, Prouty J (2011) EPA positive matrix factorization 4.2 fundamentals and user guide. USEPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Norris G et al (2009) Guidance document for PMF applications with the Multilinear Engine. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Paatero P (1997) Least squares formulation of robust non-negative factor analysis. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 37:23–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7439(96)00044-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paatero P, Hopke PK, Song X-H, Ramadan Z (2002) Understanding and controlling rotations in factor analytic models. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 60:253–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7439(01)00200-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paatero P, Tapper U (1994) Positive matrix factorization: a non-negative factor model with optimal utilization of error estimates of data values. Environmetrics 5:111–126.  https://doi.org/10.1002/env.3170050203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Park D, Oh M, Yoon Y, Park E, Lee K (2012) Source identification of PM10 pollution in subway passenger cabins using positive matrix factorization. Atmos Environ 49:180–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.11.064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rajput N, Lakhani A (2010) Measurements of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in an urban atmosphere of Agra, India. Atmosfera 23:165–183Google Scholar
  38. Ramirez N, Cuadras A, Rovira E, Marce RM, Borrull F (2011) Risk assessment related to atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in gas and particle phases near industrial sites. Environ Health Perspect 119:1110–1116.  https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1002855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ravindra K et al (2006) Seasonal and site-specific variation in vapour and aerosol phase PAHs over Flanders (Belgium) and their relation with anthropogenic activities. Atmos Environ 40:771–785.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ravindra K, Sokhi R, Van Grieken R (2008) Atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: source attribution, emission factors and regulation. Atmos Environ 42:2895–2921.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reche C et al (2012) A multidisciplinary approach to characterise exposure risk and toxicological effects of PM10 and PM2.5 samples in urban environments. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 78:327–335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2011.11.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sarria-Villa R, Ocampo-Duque W, Paez M, Schuhmacher M (2016) Presence of PAHs in water and sediments of the Colombian Cauca River during heavy rain episodes, and implications for risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 540:455–465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tian F, Chen J, Qiao X, Wang Z, Yang P, Wang D, Ge L (2009) Sources and seasonal variation of atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Dalian, China: factor analysis with non-negative constraints combined with local source fingerprints. Atmos Environ 43:2747–2753.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.02.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Umbuzeiro GA et al (2008) Mutagenicity and DNA adduct formation of PAH, nitro-PAH, and oxy-PAH fractions of atmospheric particulate matter from São Paulo, Brazil. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 652:72–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2007.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang Z, Duan X, Ping L, Jing N, Huang N, Zhang J (2009) Human exposure factors of Chinese people in environmental health risk assessment. Res Environ Sci 22:1164–1170Google Scholar
  46. World Health Organization (2010) WHO Guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants. WHO Regional Office for Europe, KøbenhavnGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams R, Croghan C, Ryan PB (2013) Human exposures to PAHs: an eastern United States pilot study. Environ Monit Assess 185:1011–1023.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2610-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams RW et al (2001) Preliminary particulate matter mass concentrations associated with longitudinalpanel studies: assessing human exposures of high risk subpopulations to particulate matter. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-01/086 (NTIS PB2002-100444)Google Scholar
  49. Wu C-f, Wu S-y, Wu Y-H, Cullen AC, Larson TV, Williamson J, Liu LJS (2009) Cancer risk assessment of selected hazardous air pollutants in Seattle. Environ Int 35:516–522.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xue X, You Y, Wu J, Han B, Bai Z, Tang N, Zhang L (2014) Exposure measurement, risk assessment and source identification for exposure of traffic assistants to particle-bound PAHs in Tianjin, China. J Environ Sci 26:448–457.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(13)60427-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yakovleva E, Hopke PK, Wallace L (1999) Receptor modeling assessment of particle total exposure assessment methodology data. Environ Sci Technol 33:3645–3652.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es981122i CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang N et al (2015) Characterization, health risk of heavy metals, and source apportionment of atmospheric PM2.5 to children in summer and winter: an exposure panel study in Tianjin, China. Air Qual Atmos Health 8:347–357.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-014-0289-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang Y et al (2016) Atmospheric PAHs in North China: spatial distribution and sources. Sci Total Environ 565:994–1000.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang Y, Tao S (2009) Global atmospheric emission inventory of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) for 2004. Atmos Environ 43:812–819.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.10.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang Y, Tao S, Shen H, Ma J (2009) Inhalation exposure to ambient polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and lung cancer risk of Chinese population. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:21063–21067.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905756106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhao PS et al (2013) Characteristics of concentrations and chemical compositions for PM2.5 in the region of Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei, China. Atmos Chem Phys 13:4631–4644.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-4631-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhao W, Hopke PK, Gelfand EW, Rabinovitch N (2007) Use of an expanded receptor model for personal exposure analysis in schoolchildren with asthma. Atmos Environ 41:4084–4096.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.01.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zheng X et al (2017) Characterizing particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions from diesel vehicles using a portable emissions measurement system. Sci Rep 7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09822-w
  59. Zhou J et al (2012) Particle Exposure Assessment for Community Elderly (PEACE) in Tianjin, China: mass concentration relationships. Atmos Environ 49:77–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.12.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhou Y et al (2016) Urinary polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metabolites and altered lung function in Wuhan, China. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 193:835–846.  https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201412-2279OC CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk AssessmentChinese Research Academy of Environmental SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public HealthUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Research Center for Eco-Environmental ScienceChinese Academy of ScienceBeijingChina
  4. 4.College of Environmental Science and EngineeringNankai UniversityTianjinChina
  5. 5.Energy Research InstituteNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  6. 6.Division of Environmental and Water Resources, School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  7. 7.School of Public HealthHebei UniversityBaodingChina
  8. 8.Hubei Provincial Meteorological Service CenterWuhanChina
  9. 9.Department of Building, School of Design and EnvironmentNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options