[Assessment of occupational exposure to aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbons determining urinary levels of 1-pyrenol]

In conformity with Italian law 626/94, occupational exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in several types of work environments was assessed by analysing urinary levels of 1-pyrenol. A total of 231 non-smokers exposed to PAH (82 workers, employed in two different thermoelectric power plants using combustible oil (30 subjects from plant A and 52 from plant B), 18 subjects working for a company recovering exhausted oils, 12 working on rubber production, 10 on road surface asphalting operations, 22 working in the anodizing section of an aluminium plant, 27 chimney-sweeps, and 60 coke-oven workers (30 topside workers, and 30 doing other jobs)) were enrolled. There were also 53 non-smoker control subjects, not occupationally exposed to PAH. Current smokers were excluded, since smoking is an important confounding factor when occupational exposure to low PAH concentrations are monitored. Confounding factors, i.e., diet and passive smoking, were checked by means of a questionnaire which, in addition to personal data and habits, also requested specific details about the type of diet followed and possible exposure to passive smoking during the 24-hour period preceding urine collection. In controls, exposure to PAH in the diet significantly increased 1-pyrenol levels in urine: in subjects introducing > or = 1 microgram of pyrene with the diet, the mean urinary level of 1-pyrenol was significantly higher than that introduced with < 1 microgram (high versus low dietary intake, mean +/- SD, 0.08 +/- 0.13 and 0.04 +/- 0.06 1-pyrenol mumoles/mole of creatinine, respectively; Mann-Whitney U-test Z = 2.67, p < 0.01). Conversely, passive smoking did not influence 1-pyrenol levels. In the overall population (controls and exposed), multiple linear regression analysis showed that levels of urinary 1-pyrenol were significantly influenced by occupational exposure to PAH in asphalt workers, anodizing plant workers, chimney-sweeps, and coke-oven workers, both those working at the top side of the oven and those doing other jobs (t = 2.19, p = 0.02; t = 2.56, p = 0.01; t = 5.25, p = 0.001; t = 3.34, p = 0.001; t = 7.82, p = 0.001, respectively; F = 9.7, p < 0.01), but not in power plant workers in contact with combustible oils, workers recovering exhausted oils, or rubber production workers. Diet and passive smoking did not influence urinary 1-pyrenol levels in the entire sample population. This biomarker also allowed an assessment of exposure levels among certainly exposed subjects. The percentage of subjects with urinary 1-pyrenol values higher than the 99th percentile of the reference population (0.67 mumoles 1-pyrenol/mole of creatinine) was significantly higher than that of controls in asphalt workers (20%), anodizing plant workers (14%), chimney-sweeps (13%) and coke-oven workers (33%) (chi-square test: asphalt workers = 6.1, p = 0.01; anodizing plant workers = 4.3, p = 0.04; chimney-sweeps = 7.1, p = 0.008; coke-oven workers with other duties = 4.4, p = 0.04; top side workers = 16.5, p < 0.001). In chimney sweeps and top side workers, respectively 2 and 4 subjects (7% and 13%) exceeded the precautionary level of 1.4 mumoles 1-pyrenol/mole of creatinine; of these, 1 chimney sweep and 3 top side workers (4% and 10%) exceeded the recommended biological threshold of 2.3 mumoles 1-pyrenol/mole of creatinine