Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Drought Severity and Their Spatio-Temporal Variations in the Hyper Arid Regions of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Case Study from Al-Lith and Khafji Watersheds
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Methods for Sampling Particulate Emissions from Tires under Different Test Environments
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimization of the Efficient Extraction of Organic Components in Atmospheric Particulate Matter by Accelerated Solvent Extraction Technique and Its Application
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Atmosphere
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/atmos13081263
atmosphere-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Health Exposure Assessment of Firefighters Caused by PAHs in PM4 and TSP after Firefighting Operations

by
Joanna Rakowska
*,
Marzena Rachwał
and
Agata Walczak
The Main School of Fire Service, 52/54 Słowackiego St., 01-629 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2022, 13(8), 1263; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13081263
Submission received: 19 July 2022 / Revised: 5 August 2022 / Accepted: 8 August 2022 / Published: 10 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): Sources, Detection and Health Effects)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Among the many different chemicals in the air, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) pose a serious threat to human health. Firefighters are exposed to them both during fire suppression and in fire vehicles and fire stations due to inhalation of the fumes from contaminated clothing and personal protective equipment. This study aimed to estimate the exposure and cancer risk caused by suspended particulate matter and PAHs present in these particles. Air samples were collected for 4 months in a garage of the fire station in a small town, located in an urban–rural area. PAH concentrations were measured using the gas chromatography method with mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The concentration of PM4 (particulate matter with a diameter below 4µm) and TSP (total suspended particulate) in the fire station garage was 7 and 9 times higher than outside, respectively. The calculated values of health hazard risks associated with the exposure to PAHs in PM4 and TSP are: a toxic equivalent (TEQ) up to 10.36 and 23.3, incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) up to 3.45 and 4.65 and hazard quotient (HQ) up to 0.42 and 0.57, respectively. A significantly increased risk of cancers in the professional group of firefighters was found.

1. Introduction

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are organic compounds containing only hydrogen and carbon that are composed of two or more fused aromatic rings [1]. They are abundant in soils and marine sediments, fresh water, and in the atmosphere, where they are predominantly bound to fine particles [2]. PAHs are persistent compounds, having a wide range of toxicity with all environmental elements. In 1983, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) declared 16 PAHs as priority pollutants due to their high concentration, long persistence and toxicity [3]. Several PAHs exhibit carcinogenic activity: benzo[a]pyrene is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1); cyclopenta[c,d]pyrene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene and dibenzo[a,l]pyrene are probably carcinogenic (Group 2A); and naphthalene, benz[j]aceanthrylene, benz[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[j]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[c]phenanthrene, chrysene, dibenzo[a,h]pyrene, dibenzo[a,i]-pyrene, indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene and 5-methylchrysene are possibly carcinogenic (Group 2B) [4]. The carcinogenicity of PAHs in humans has been evidenced in cases of colon, skin, lung, bladder and kidney cancer [5]. Studies have shown that the risk of developing multiple myeloma and prostate, colon, rectum, bladder, skin, lung and testicular cancer is higher in firefighters than in other professional groups [6,7,8,9,10,11]. PAHs are also considered to be mutagenic, teratogenic, genotoxic and endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and they have important cardiovascular implications [4,12,13,14].
The sources of PAH pollution are anthropogenic and natural emissions [15,16,17], mainly combined with incomplete combustion [17,18,19,20,21]. The phenomenon of incomplete combustion occurs during all fires and can release significant quantities of harmful substances such as trace gases and particulate matter into the atmosphere [20,22,23]. Large fires, both those resulting from industrial accidents and natural fires, especially wildfires, often deteriorate air quality in large areas leading to noticeable health and environmental effects [24,25,26,27]. Depending on the type of materials burned (e.g., wood, grass, cars, buildings with all equipment incl. flooring, upholstery, paints and coatings, bedding, draperies, etc.), and the conditions and phase of the fire, the type and amount of the produced substances may differ significantly [7]. Additionally, the smoke produced during a fire is a mixture of many compounds, and its toxicity is very diverse because each combustion condition and type of material burnt generate a unique composition [7,20,24].
Toxic and carcinogenic substances such as heavy metals or organic compounds, including both gaseous-phase and PM-bound PAHs, are released during combustion [24]; thus, firefighters are at risk of inhaling them during fire suppression. These compounds also deposit on firefighters’ clothing and personal protective equipment (PPE) and are then released into the air in fire vehicles, and later, in fire brigade buildings. Firefighters inhale these hazardous compounds long after the end of firefighting activities while on duty at the fire station [6,12,13,22,28,29,30,31,32]. Moreover, in fire stations, diesel exhaust fumes may occur [33,34], especially when garages do not have appropriate ventilation systems and contaminants are deposited on equipment used during rescue operations, e.g., rescue spreaders, saws, and cutters. Thus, firefighting is considered a very high-risk profession and carcinogenic PAHs are an occupational health hazard for firefighters [4,31,35,36,37,38,39,40,41].
Unfortunately, firefighters’ risk of exposure to PAHs is likely to increase, as new compounds such as modern synthetic materials produce PAHs when burned. Moreover, firefighters are not only exposed to PAHs through inhalation, but also through dermal contact with PAHs from a build-up of soot and debris [42]. However, there is little research on the types and sources of PAHs in fire stations and it is insufficient for a comprehensive risk assessment.
The PAH pollution level has become a significant issue due to health concerns, particularly in fire stations, where the risk of human exposure to atmospheric PAHs appears to be higher. PAHs in the particulate phase pose the greatest threat to health in fire brigades’ garages [41]. Studies indicated that PAHs with the highest toxicity equivalent factor (TEF), containing 5–6 rings, are mainly in the solid phase [15,43,44,45]. Therefore, this study aimed to: (1) measure concentrations of different PM fractions in a fire station unit garage, (2) characterize PAH air pollution in PM4 and TSP and (3) evaluate the associated firefighters’ carcinogenic risks. Identification of possible emission sources of PAHs using statistical analyses is an additional goal of the research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling Site

The fire station is located in southwest Poland (51.520044; 17.286005) beyond the central zones of a small town with a population of 11,500 and was considered an urban–rural community. The atmospheric air quality in the studied municipality is better than the average in Poland and is mainly shaped by emissions from households and individual conventional heating sources. Outdoor air quality around the nearest firehouse is influenced by traffic emissions from the national road passing through the town. The expressway is about 25 km away.
The firefighting and rescue unit (FRU) is located in a building with two aboveground stories. On the first floor, there are FRU garages, a hall, a control station, a police station and utility rooms. The social rooms of the FRU are located on the upper floor above the garages. The garage hall is about 45 m in area. The height of this room is about 5 m. There are 8 vehicles in the garage and hangers for the firefighters’ special clothes.
The fire station is ventilated by a compulsory mechanical system that opens doors on departure/arrival and, if needed, opens windows. Smoking is prohibited in the entire area of the fire station. During the sampling, records of potential emission sources were recorded (vehicle arrivals/departures, vehicle and equipment maintenance, exercises, etc.).

2.2. PM Sampling

Optical and gravimetric measurements were performed simultaneously. Measurements were carried out in the fire station garages from August to December 2021, 10 times every month. Each 24 h long air test started in the morning at shift change and finished the next morning. For optical tests (PM1, PM2.5, PM4, PM7, PM10 and TSP), the particulate matter monitor Met One Aerocet LS 531 was used. The device was programmed to repeat 1 min measurements every 15 min. In the methods based on optical detection, aerosol particles are illuminated by a light beam, which scatter this light in all directions. Some of this light is absorbed at the same time. The difference between the incident and the transmitted light is converted into an electrical signal and recorded in the meter’s memory.
In the gravimetric method, all PM samples were collected within 24 h in the garage of the fire station after the day the firefighters had participated in a firefighting operation. PM sampling was carried out simultaneously using two GilAir-3 personal aspirators: one with a respirable fraction (PM4) collection head, and the other with an inhalable fraction (TSP) collection head. The airflow was 2 L/min for TSPs and 2.2 L/min for PM4. Glass filters with a diameter of 25 mm were placed in the heads, on which PM4 or TSP particulate matter was deposited, depending on the mounted head. Before the measurements, the filters were conditioned for 48 h at 22 °C and 38% humidity and weighted. After PM collecting, filters were again conditioned and weighted.
PM gravimetric sampling in the garage was performed at the same time as the optical measurement method.
Health legislation does not include demands for particles above 10µm, whereas the exposure to PM in the occupational environment is based on the concentration of particles not larger than 4 µm [46,47,48,49]. For this reason, our studies took into account PM4. TSP are not considered a health risk factor as they are filtered out through the nose and throat. However, TSP cover the full range of particle sizes including PM10, PM7, PM4, PM2.5 and smaller, which pose hazards such as severe respiratory and circulation problems; therefore, they were also included in our research.

2.3. Chemical Analysis

The PAH fractions were extracted from 88 filters by ultrasonification with dichloromethane three times for a total of 45 min. The obtained extract was cleaned up using a column with sodium sulfate, activated silica and activated alumina. The final extracts were concentrated under a helium stream.
Chemical characterization of the collected PM samples was performed to determine the concentration of PAHs by the GC/MS method. The apparatuses used for gas chromatography with mass spectrometry analysis were the Agilent GC 6890A and MS 5973. For the separation of the compounds, an HP–5ms (5%-phenyl)-methylpolysiloxane column that is 30 m × 0.25 mm and 0.15 μm was used. The injection volume was 2.0 µL and the injector temperature was 275 °C. The GC oven temperature program started from 50 °C (hold 1 min) and went to 150 °C at 25 °C/min; next, it went from 150 °C to 280 °C at 5 °C/min (hold 9 min). The carrier gas was helium with a flow of 1.4 mL/min.
For the analysis, selective ion monitoring (SIM) mode was used. An external standard (M–610A, AccuStandard Inc., New Haven, USA) was used in every analysis. The external standard mixture also included the compounds in the internal standard. Possible sample losses that occurred in the evaporation or the other phases of the sample handling were managed by using the relation of the response factors of a native compound and a deuterated compound analyzed in the external standard mixture in the quantitative analysis. Recoveries of PAH internal standards were 78 ÷ 92%. Limits of detection (LOD) and limits of quantification (LOQ), calculated as three times the standard deviation for the blanks, were 0.005 ppb and 0.015 ppb, respectively. PAH concentration in blanks was below the detection limit for all targeted compounds.

2.4. Health Risk Analysis

Health risk assessment was performed based on the 15 PAHs listed as priority by the US EPA [50]. Their carcinogenic potency was estimated as toxic equivalency factors (TEFs), of which the values are specified in Table 1. To evaluate the toxicity and assess the risks of a mixture of structurally related chemicals, the toxicity or toxic equivalent (TEQ) of the carcinogenic PAHs can be determined for each day by multiplying the concentration of the individual PAH (CPAHn) with its toxic equivalent factor (TEFPAHn); values given by the US EPA were chosen for calculations [3]:
TEQ = Σ CPAHn × TEFPAHn
The obtained TEQ values depend not only on the concentration of pollutants but also on the adopted TEF coefficients, which may have the values presented in Table 1. The toxicity equivalent (TEQ) was calculated by adding together the TEQ values obtained for the individual PAHs.
Additionally, the incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) and the non-cancerogenic hazard quotient index (HQ) from PAH inhalation over the period of professional activity (Equations (2) and (4), respectively) were calculated [54,55].
ILCR = EC × UR
EC = (C × ED × EF)/AT
HQ = EDI/RfD
EDI = (C × IR × ED × EF)/(AT × BW)
EC is the exposure concentration, UR is the cancer inhalation unit risk (8.7 × 10−2 µg/m3 [56]), C is the PAH concentration, ED is exposure duration in years, EF is exposure frequency in days/year, AT is the number of days over which the exposure is averaged, EDI is the estimated daily intake of PAHs, IR is the inhalation rate (16 m3/day), RfD is the reference and BW is body weight (75 kg). Due to the fact that occupational exposure is investigated, a 4 h period of exposure to PAHs lasting 3 days a week (EF—26 days) for 20 years of work (ED) was assumed (a firefighter spends only part of the working day in a garage). For the calculations, life expectancy was assumed to be 70 years (AT).

2.5. Calculations and Data Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed. For data evaluation and presentation, the basic statistical functions of mean, minimum and maximum values of obtained results were used. Additionally, factor analysis was applied to interpret results and explain variations in the data. Median values of individual and Σ-PAHs were compared to calibration curves including standards of analyzed PAHs. The correlation coefficients for the concentration range ranged from 0.98 to 0.99. Statistical significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. PM Concentrations

The use of an optical detection method in the research made it possible to measure the particle concentration in the air in real time and to determine the size distribution of particles present in the tested rooms. Gravimetric tests made it possible to verify the results of photometric tests, and next, the submission to chemical analysis of the collected aerosols made it possible to determine the concentrations of compounds, i.e., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons adsorbed on fine particles [57].
The average hourly concentrations of PM in the air in the investigated fire station in Poland during the considered periods (VIII, X, XI and XII, 2021) are presented in Figure 1.
On observed days, the concentration of all PM fractions was higher when the traffic in the garage was the greatest because, during this period, cleanup work, sports exercises and checking the equipment of vehicles are carried out. In addition, an increase in the concentration of particulate matter in the indoor air was observed, related to the departure of rescue vehicles to the incidents and then the return to the garage. The statistics for the mean, minimum and maximum values for the hourly concentrations of PM fractions of each month are presented in Table 2. For example, the maximum recorded concentration of PM4 in the garage of the fire brigade unit on the days of the investigation ranged from 138.3 μg/m3 to 324.7 μg/m3 in December and August, respectively. The mean value of PM4 concentration on the individual days was 65.7; 55.3; 85.8 and 34.9 μg/m3 for each of the months (August–December 2021). The maximum recorded concentration of PM10 in the garage at the same time ranged from 169.8 μg/m3 to 384.7 μg/m3 in October and August, respectively. The mean value of PM10 concentration was 121.3; 40.5; 61.2 and 89.6 μg/m3 for each of the months (August–December 2021). Every day between 6.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. an increase in PM concentration was observed due to the increased activity of firefighters caused by the work shift. In turn, from 9:00 p.m., the concentration of PM in the garage started to decline until 5:00 a.m. due to the very low activity of firefighters in the garage during this time. Moreover, periodic increases in PM concentrations occurred during the times of intervention departures and return after the actions, e.g., at 1 p.m. (the sixth hour of measurement) there was a departure from the garage, and then a return at 2 p.m. (Figure 1XII).
It is difficult to compare our results with findings from previous studies as only a few studies regarding air pollution at fire station garages have been conducted [5,12,34,41]. The available research relating to PM in the fire station confirms the problem of air contamination in various fire station rooms, especially in garages [12,23,41,58].
It is assumed that the source of contamination of high concentrations of PM occurring in fire brigade garages and changing rooms is primarily PM from firefighting activities lasting on uniforms and other equipment that are stored in changing rooms and garages between rescue operations. An additional factor is the burning of fuels by fire trucks and other devices powered by liquid fuel.
The harmfulness of particulate matter to human health was proven. PM is included in the group of non-threshold harmful substances, i.e., it has not been found that they do not cause diseases below a certain value (threshold). To protect human health, the WHO has established permissible dust concentrations in the air, both outside and inside. According to WHO guidelines, the daily concentration of PM2.5 should not exceed 15 µg/m3, whereas the daily concentration of PM10 should not exceed 45 µg/m3 [56].
During the research on the concentration of suspended particulate matter in the garage of the fire service unit, the level of air pollution recorded at the environmental monitoring station 1 km away from the fire station was much lower. Detailed data are presented in Table 3. A comparison of the data from Table 2 and Table 3 allows us to conclude that the contamination in the firehouse garage comes from fires and other firefighter rescue activities and service works.

3.2. PAH Concentration

The concentrations of 15 PAHs in PM4 and TSP vary widely, from 1.74 to 130.56 ng/m3 and from 1.58 to 45.77 ng/m3 in the case of TSP and PM4, respectively (Table 4). Benzo[k]fluoranthene, chrysene, acenaphthylene, naphthalene and benzo[g,h,i]perylene were at the lowest concentration in the investigated samples. The most toxic, benzo[a]pyrene, was found in almost all samples. The most abundant were PAHs with the highest toxic equivalent factor (0.1–1.0; Table 1): dibenzo[a,h]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene and anthracene, which occurred mainly in TSP fractions. The highest amount of organic pollutants was absorbed on the third day of measurements and the least on the second day. It was probably influenced by the activity of firefighters and their participation in fire suppression, as well as the outdoor air quality and weather conditions. However, the relationship between temperature and PAH concentrations was not found, because on the second and third day an equal temperature was noticed (4.7 °C and 4.6 °C, respectively). At the same time, no clear correlation was found between the concentration of PAH in the garage and the amount of PM outdoors. Comparing obtained data with the study on Portuguese firehouses, the sum of PAHs is a little bit higher in the fire station garage in Poland. The differences exist only in the case of participating PAHs with different amounts of aromatic rings. In Portugal, PAHs with 2–3 rings had the largest share, and in the Polish samples, 4-ring PAHs dominated [36].
Many studies have focused on the distinction and identification of sources of PAHs based on the molecular weight, and the number of benzene rings or ratios between amounts of different PAHs. Differences in PAH concentration in TSP and PM4 depend on the number of benzene rings (Figure 2). In TSP samples, the contribution of PAHs with two to six rings is observed, with a predominance of compounds with four rings, whereas in the case of PM4 there are PAHs with four and fewer rings in significantly higher amounts. This distribution of PAHs indicates that the heaviest PAH fractions are associated with the coarser PM fractions. In finer PM there are lighter PAHs, similar to ambient air [5,43,44,45].
The source analysis was performed using diagnostic ratios computed on the basis of specific PAH concentrations [41,60]. The relatively high ratio PAH(3 + 4)/PAHs(5 + 6) indicates long-distance transportation of pollutants, which in this case may suggest their translocation from the place of fire into the garage (Table 5). Another ratio, anthracene/(anthracene + phenanthrene), ranged from 0.03 to 0.92, fluoranthene/(fluoranthene + pyrene) varied from 0.05 to 0.97 and benzo[a] anthracene/(benzo[a] anthracene + chrysene) in the range of 0.50–0.99, indicating both pyrogenic and petrogenic sources. This means that besides incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and organic matter (grass, wood, coal), vehicular emissions from diesel engines are the significant sources of PAHs in the garage. Only in December 2021 was the contribution of petroleum combustion sources suggested by the ratio anthracene/(anthracene + phenanthrene) below 0.1 [41].

3.3. Health Risk Assessment

The toxicity equivalent (TEQ) of the carcinogenic PAHs varies from 4.38 to 23.33 ng/m3 when taking into account PM fractions, but when comparing these values for days, the highest TEQ was obtained for the measurement day in October, whereas the highest values of the incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) and the non-cancerogenic hazard quotient index (HQ) were obtained for TSP samples collected in December 2021 (Table 6). Results indicated that the smallest health risk caused by exposure to PAHs occurred in November 2021. TEQs in the studied fire station were much higher than in selected public bars from the southern part of Nigeria due to tobacco smoke [54], and simultaneously, significantly lower than values obtained from the Portuguese fire stations (several thousand) [12]. The difference may result from the different functions of the rooms in the fire stations and the number of departures to fires and other rescue actions. Moreover, the authors used different TEF values for their calculations [1,12]. Values of carcinogenic risk, where the ILCR ranged from 1.01 × 10−4 to 4.65 × 10−4, are much higher than the permissible limit of 10−5 set by the WHO [58]. The HQ varied from 0.12 to 0.57 and it indicated a quite high non-carcinogenic risk for firefighters. Generally, the occupational exposure of firefighters is in fact much higher; however, this study concerned only air pollutants in the garage, and the calculated indices assumed the firefighters stayed in it for only a few hours for an average of 3 days a week and only studied the related risk of the absorption of pollutants through the respiratory tract; dermal contact and ingestion was not taken into account. The health of firefighters is also at risk when staying in other rooms of fire brigades, which, as studies show, are also heavily contaminated [12,41]. However, the greatest risk of inhaling carcinogenic compounds contained in fumes, dust and soot is associated with participation in firefighting operations.
To summarize, the investigation showed that staying in the garage and inhaling the air polluted with dust emitted by protective clothing and firefighting equipment poses a high risk to the health of firefighters, both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic, which increases even more when they come into contact with the skin of exposed parts of the body. The results are similar or even higher than the results obtained by several studies on the harmful effects of inhaling poor air quality caused by enhanced PAH concentrations [31,32,36,41,42,43,54,55].

4. Conclusions

Our study presents the results of occupational exposure to PM and PM-bound PAHs for firefighters in the workplace when performing tasks other than firefighting or rescue operations. The obtained data on the PM fractions and PAH concentrations indicate the existing occupational exposure of firefighters due to bad air quality in fire stations. The occupational exposure of firefighters was assessed in an urban–rural commune, where outdoor air pollution is relatively low and the number of departures was small compared to large cities and highly urbanized areas. The conducted research allows identifying several problems impacting the air quality in garages of fire brigades. One of them is the introduction to a firehouse of contamination deposited on vehicles, equipment and clothes of firefighters. Particles present on the surface of vehicles, equipment, clothes and flooring could be resuspended as a result of the movement of people during the maintenance of PPE or technical rescue equipment. This phenomenon is related, among others, to the number of departures and arrivals of the crew while on duty, which causes a temporary increase in the PM concentrations. Air pollution in the fire brigade unit influenced the occupational exposure of firefighters. Health hazard indices such as the total toxicity equivalent concentration (TEQ), the incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) and the non-cancerogenic hazard quotient (HQ) indicated that firefighters are a group with very high health risk exposure, especially to neoplastic diseases caused by inhalation of carcinogenic PAHs.
Taking into account the significantly increased risk of certain cancers in the professional group of firefighters, research should be continued on the determination of the sources of harmful pollutants, the effectiveness of the methods used to eliminate them, and more accurate and in-depth exposure assessments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.R. and M.R.; methodology, J.R. and M.R.; validation, J.R., M.R. and A.W.; formal analysis, M.R.; investigation, J.R.; resources, A.W.; data curation, A.W.; writing—original draft preparation, J.R. and M.R.; writing—review and editing, J.R., M.R. and A.W.; visualization, J.R. and M.R.; supervision, J.R. and M.R.; funding acquisition, J.R. and M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Polish Ministry of the Interior and Administration, grant numbers UPB/22/000220, UPB/21/000900 and UPB/21/000970.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nisbet, I.C.T.; LaGoy, P.K. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1992, 16, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Slezakova, K.; Pires, J.C.M.; Castro, D.; Alvim-Ferraz, M.C.M.; Delerue-Matos, C.; Morais, S.; Pereira, M.C. PAH Air Pollution at a Portuguese Urban Area: Carcinogenic Risks and Sources Identification. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 3932–3945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. USEPA. Health Effects Assessement Summary Tables; Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  4. IARC. IARC Monographs on Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans; IARC: Lyon, Fance, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hwang, J.; Xu, C.; Agnew, R.J.; Clifton, S.; Malone, T.R. Health Risks of Structural Firefighters from Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Daniels, R.D.; Bertke, S.; Dahm, M.M.; Yiin, J.H.; Kubale, T.L.; Hales, T.R.; Baris, D.; Zahm, S.H.; Beaumont, J.J.; Waters, K.M.; et al. Exposure-Response Relationships for Select Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Outcomes in a Cohort of Us Firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia (1950–2009). Occup. Environ. Med. 2015, 72, 699–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Casjens, S.; Brüning, T.; Taeger, D. Cancer Risks of Firefighters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Secular Trends and Region-Specific Differences. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2020, 93, 839–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. LeMasters, G.K.; Genaidy, A.M.; Succop, P.; Deddensy, J.; Sobeih, T.; Barriera-Viruet, H.; Dunning, K.; Lockey, J.; Deddens, J.; Sobeih, T.; et al. Cancer Risk among Firefighters: A Review and Meta-Analysis of 32 Studies. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2006, 48, 1189–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Soteriades, E.S.; Kim, J.; Christophi, C.A.; Kales, S.N. Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Firefighters: A State-of-the-Art Review and Meta-Analysis. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2019, 20, 3221–3231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Jalilian, H.; Ziaei, M.; Weiderpass, E.; Rueegg, C.S.; Khosravi, Y.; Kjaerheim, K. Cancer Incidence and Mortality among Firefighters. Int. J. Cancer 2019, 145, 2639–2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Fent, K.W.; Mayer, A.; Bertke, S.; Kerber, S.; Smith, D.; Horn, G.P. Understanding Airborne Contaminants Produced by Different Fuel Packages during Training Fires. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2019, 16, 532–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Oliveira, M.; Slezakova, K.; Fernandes, A.; Teixeira, J.P.; Delerue-Matos, C.; do Carmo Pereira, M.; Morais, S. Occupational Exposure of Firefighters to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Non-Fire Work Environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 592, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Oliveira, M.; Slezakova, K.; Magalhães, C.P.; Fernandes, A.; Teixeira, J.P.; Delerue-Matos, C.; do Carmo Pereira, M.; Morais, S. Individual and Cumulative Impacts of Fire Emissions and Tobacco Consumption on Wildland Firefighters’ Total Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 334, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Keir, J.L.A.; Akhtar, U.S.; Matschke, D.M.J.; White, P.A.; Kirkham, T.L.; Chan, H.M.; Blais, J.M. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) and Metal Contamination of Air and Surfaces Exposed to Combustion Emissions during Emergency Fire Suppression: Implications for Firefighters’ Exposures. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 698, 134211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dat, N.D.; Chang, M.B. Review on Characteristics of PAHs in Atmosphere, Anthropogenic Sources and Control Technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 609, 682–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Mojiri, A.; Zhou, J.L.; Ohashi, A.; Ozaki, N.; Kindaichi, T. Comprehensive Review of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Water Sources, Their Effects and Treatments. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 696, 133971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Patel, A.B.; Shaikh, S.; Jain, K.R.; Desai, C.; Madamwar, D. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Sources, Toxicity, and Remediation Approaches. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sarkar, S.; Khillare, P.S. Profile of PAHs in the Inhalable Particulate Fraction: Source Apportionment and Associated Health Risks in a Tropical Megacity. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 1199–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Samburova, V.; Zielinska, B.; Khlystov, A.; Harrison, R.M. Toxics Do 16 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Represent PAH Air Toxicity? Toxics 2017, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bralewska, K.; Rakowska, J. Concentrations of Particulate Matter and Pm-Bound Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Released during Combustion of Various Types of Materials and Possible Toxicological Potential of the Emissions: The Results of Preliminary Studies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Du, W.; Wang, J.; Zhuo, S.; Zhong, Q.; Wang, W.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Z.; Mao, K.; Huang, Y.; Shen, G.; et al. Emissions of Particulate PAHs from Solid Fuel Combustion in Indoor Cookstoves. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 771, 145411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Rakowska, J.; Kuskowska, K.; Rogula-Kozłowska, W. Inhalation Exposure to Particulate Matter in a Work Environment of Firefighters. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 247, 00039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Bralewska, K.; Jureczko, I. BTEXS Concentrations and Exposure Assessment in a Fire Station. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wentworth, G.R.; Aklilu, Y.A.; Landis, M.S.; Hsu, Y.M. Impacts of a Large Boreal Wildfire on Ground Level Atmospheric Concentrations of PAHs, VOCs and Ozone. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 178, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shon, Z.H.; Kang, M.; Park, G.; Bae, M. Impact of Temporary Emission Reduction from a Large-Scale Coal-Fired Power Plant on Air Quality. Atmos. Environ. X 2020, 5, 100056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Roberts, G.; Wooster, M.J. Global Impact of Landscape Fire Emissions on Surface Level PM2.5 Concentrations, Air Quality Exposure and Population Mortality. Atmos. Environ. 2021, 252, 118210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Świt, P.; Orzeł, J.; Maślanka, S. Monitoring of PAHs in Simulated Natural and Artificial Fires by HPLC-DAD-FLD with the Application of Multi-Component Integrated Calibration Method to Improve Quality of Analytical Results. Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed. 2022, 196, 111242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fent, K.W.; Eisenberg, J.; Snawder, J.; Sammons, D.; Pleil, J.D.; Stiegel, M.A.; Mueller, C.; Horn, G.P.; Dalton, J. Systemic Exposure to PAHs and Benzene in Firefighters Suppressing Controlled Structure Fires. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2014, 58, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alexander, B.M.; Baxter, C.S. Flame-Retardant Contamination of Firefighter Personal Protective Clothing—A Potential Health Risk for Firefighters. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2016, 13, D148–D155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Banks, A.P.W.; Wang, X.; Engelsman, M.; He, C.; Osorio, A.F.; Mueller, J.F. Assessing Decontamination and Laundering Processes for the Removal of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Flame Retardants from Firefighting Uniforms. Environ. Res. 2021, 194, 110616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Banks, A.P.W.; Thai, P.; Engelsman, M.; Wang, X.; Osorio, A.F.; Mueller, J.F. Characterising the Exposure of Australian Firefighters to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Generated in Simulated Compartment Fires. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2021, 231, 113637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Baxter, C.S.; Hoffman, J.D.; Knipp, M.J.; Reponen, T.; Haynes, E.N. Exposure of Firefighters to Particulates and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2014, 11, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vuković, G.; Aničić Uroševic, M.; Razumenić, I.; Kuzmanoski, M.; Pergal, M.; Škrivanj, S.; Popović, A. Air Quality in Urban Parking Garages (PM10, Major and Trace Elements, PAHs): Instrumental Measurements vs. Active Moss Biomonitoring. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 85, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Payne, R.L.; Alaves, V.M.; Larson, R.R.; Sleeth, D.K. An Evaluation of Diesel Particulate Matter in Fire Station Vehicle Garages and Living Quarters. J. Chem. Health Saf. 2016, 23, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dubocq, F.; Bjurlid, F.; Ydstål, D.; Titaley, I.A.; Reiner, E.; Wang, T.; Almirall, X.O.; Kärrman, A. Organic Contaminants Formed during Fire Extinguishing Using Different Firefighting Methods Assessed by Nontarget Analysis. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rossbach, B.; Wollschläger, D.; Letzel, S.; Gottschalk, W.; Muttray, A. Internal Exposure of Firefighting Instructors to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) during Live Fire Training. Toxicol. Lett. 2020, 331, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Pukkala, E.; Martinsen, J.I.; Weiderpass, E.; Kjaerheim, K.; Lynge, E.; Tryggvadottir, L.; Sparén, P.; Demers, P.A. Cancer Incidence among Firefighters: 45 Years of Follow-up in Five Nordic Countries. Occup. Environ. Med. 2014, 71, 398–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Navarro, K.M.; Kleinman, M.T.; Mackay, C.E.; Reinhardt, T.E.; Balmes, J.R.; Broyles, G.A.; Ottmar, R.D.; Naher, L.P.; Domitrovich, J.W. Wildland Firefighter Smoke Exposure and Risk of Lung Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality. Environ. Res. 2019, 173, 462–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sparer, E.H.; Prendergast, D.P.; Apell, J.N.; Bartzak, M.R.; Wagner, G.R.; Adamkiewicz, G.; Hart, J.E.; Sorensen, G. Assessment of Ambient Exposures Firefighters Encounter While at the Fire Station. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2017, 59, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Majder-Łopatka, M.; Jureczko, I.; Ciuka-Witrylak, M.; Łukaszek-Chmielewska, A.; Majder-Lopatka, M.; Jureczko, I.; Ciuka-Witrylak, M.; Lukaszek-Chmielewska, A.; Majder-Łopatka, M.; et al. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Firefighter Workplace: The Results from the First in Poland Short-Term Measuring Campaign. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 45, 00075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Bralewska, K.; Rogula-Kopiec, P.; Makowski, R.; Majder-Łopatka, M.; Łukawski, A.; Brandyk, A.; Majewski, G. Respirable Particles and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons at Two Polish Fire Stations. Build. Environ. 2020, 184, 107255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fent, K.W.; Toennis, C.; Sammons, D.; Robertson, S.; Bertke, S.; Calafat, A.M.; Pleil, J.D.; Geer Wallace, M.A.; Kerber, S.; Smith, D.L.; et al. Firefighters’ and Instructors’ Absorption of PAHs and Benzene during Training Exercises. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2019, 222, 991–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, W.; Simonich, S.L.M.; Wang, W.; Giri, B.; Zhao, J.; Xue, M.; Cao, J.; Lu, X.; Tao, S. Atmospheric Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations and Gas/Particle Partitioning at Background, Rural Village and Urban Sites in the North China Plain. Atmos. Res. 2011, 99, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Maharaj Kumari, K.; Lakhani, A. PAHs in Gas and Particulate Phases: Measurement and Control; Springer: Singapore, 2018; ISBN 9789811073328. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhang, B.; Sun, J.; Jiang, N.; Zeng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; He, K.; Xu, H.; Liu, S.; Hang Ho, S.S.; Qu, L.; et al. Emission Factors, Characteristics, and Gas-Particle Partitioning of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in PM2.5 Emitted for the Typical Solid Fuel Combustions in Rural Guanzhong Plain, China. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 286, 117573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. ACGIH. Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs); American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kim, K.-H.; Kabir, E.; Kabir, S. A Review on the Human Health Impact of Airborne Particulate Matter. Environ. Int. 2015, 74, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Brown, J.S.; Gordon, T.; Price, O.; Asgharian, B. Thoracic and Respirable Particle Definitions for Human Health Risk Assessment. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2013, 10, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. EN 481; Workplace Atmospheres. Size Fraction Definitions for Measurement of Airborne Particles. Comite Europeen de Normalisation: Brussels, Belgium, 1993.
  50. Keith, L.H. The Source of U.S. EPA’s Sixteen PAH Priority Pollutants. Polycycl. Aromat. Compd. 2015, 35, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Clement Associates, I. Comparative Potency Approach for Estimating the Cancer Risk Associated with Exposure to Mixtures of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Interim Final Report); Prep. EPA under Contract 68-02-4403; ICF-Clement Associate for US Environmental Protection Agency: Fairfax, VA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  52. Krewski, D.; Thorslund, T.; Withey, J. Carcinogenic Risk Assessment of Complex Mixtures. Toxicol. Ind. Health 1989, 5, 851–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, W.; Han, J.; Qin, L.; Furuuchi, M.; Mitsuhiko, H. The Emission Characteristics of PAHs during Coal and Sewage Sludge Co-Combustion in a Drop Tube Furnace. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2014, 14, 1160–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Adesina, O.A.; Nwogu, A.S.; Sonibare, J.A. Indoor Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) from Environment Tobacco Smoke of Public Bars. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 208, 111604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhao, T.; Yang, L.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, W.; Duan, S.; Gao, H.; Wang, W. PM2.5-Bound Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Nitrated-PAHs (NPAHs) Emitted by Gasoline Vehicles: Characterization and Health Risk Assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 727, 138631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. World Health Organization. WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  57. Amaral, S.S.; de Carvalho, J.A.; Costa, M.A.M.; Pinheiro, C. An Overview of Particulate Matter Measurement Instruments. Atmosphere 2015, 6, 1327–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fent, K.W.; Evans, D.E.; Booher, D.; Pleil, J.D.; Stiegel, M.A.; Horn, G.P.; Dalton, J. Volatile Organic Compounds Off-Gassing from Firefighters Personal Protective Equipment Ensembles after Use. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2015, 12, 404–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. GIOŚ. Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. Measurement Data Archives; GIOŚ: Warsaw, Poland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  60. Li, X.; Kong, S.; Yin, Y.; Li, L.; Yuan, L.; Li, Q.; Xiao, H.; Chen, K. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in atmospheric PM2.5 around 2013 Asian Youth Games period in Nanjing. Atmos Res. 2016, 174–175, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Atmosphere 13 01263 g001 550
Figure 1. The hourly average concentrations of particulate matter in the air of the fire brigade unit in Poland in the analyzed periods: August, October, November and December (VIII, X, XI, XII) 2021.
Figure 1. The hourly average concentrations of particulate matter in the air of the fire brigade unit in Poland in the analyzed periods: August, October, November and December (VIII, X, XI, XII) 2021.
Atmosphere 13 01263 g001
Atmosphere 13 01263 g002 550
Figure 2. The PAH concentration dependent on the number of the benzene rings in: (a) TSP samples and (b) PM4 samples. The red lines are the borders between the PAH groups with different number of rings.
Figure 2. The PAH concentration dependent on the number of the benzene rings in: (a) TSP samples and (b) PM4 samples. The red lines are the borders between the PAH groups with different number of rings.
Atmosphere 13 01263 g002
Table
Table 1. The toxic equivalent factor (TEF) for individual PAHs.
Table 1. The toxic equivalent factor (TEF) for individual PAHs.
PAHNisbet & LaGoy [1]EPA [3]Clement Associates [51,52]Chen et al. [53]
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene511.110.69
Benzo[a]pyrene1111
Benzo[a]anthracene0.10.10.1450.013
Benzo[b]fluoranthene0.10.10.1400.08
Benzo[k]fluoranthene0.10.10.0660.004
Indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene0.10.10.2320.017
Anthracene0.010.01
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene0.010.010.022
Chrysene0.010.010.00440.001
Acenaphthene0.0010.001
Acenaphthylene0.0010.001
Fluoranthene0.0010.001
Fluorene0.0010.001
Naphthalene0.0010.001
Phenanthrene0.0010.001
Pyrene0.0010.0010.081
Table
Table 2. The statistics for the mean, minimum and maximum values (μg/m3) for the hourly concentrations of PM fractions in the selected months in the garage of the tested fire station.
Table 2. The statistics for the mean, minimum and maximum values (μg/m3) for the hourly concentrations of PM fractions in the selected months in the garage of the tested fire station.
MonthPM1PM2.5PM4PM7PM10TSP
Mean value
August 41.5 65.7 104.6 112.0 121.3 136.2
October 52.4 81.3 85.8 88.9 90.5 93.9
November 36.1 51.9 55.3 58.2 61.2 64.1
December 22.1 31.4 34.9 37.9 40.5 44.7
Minimum value
August 10.4 14.6 28.8 32.7 37.2 46.4
October 18.4 25.7 27.2 29.0 29.3 29.9
November 16.6 18.3 19.4 20.2 20.2 20.2
December 2.1 5.0 6.8 7.4 8.1 8.6
Maximum value
August 71.0 139.7 324.7 344.6 384.7 420.7
October 76.5 145.3 158.6 163.4 169.8 240.8
November 89.1 280.2 308.5 310.7 311.0 313.2
December 61.9 123.3 138.3 153.6 176.8 246.1
Table
Table 3. The statistics for the PM concentration values (μg/m3) for the months August–December 2021 at the air monitoring station [59].
Table 3. The statistics for the PM concentration values (μg/m3) for the months August–December 2021 at the air monitoring station [59].
MonthValue of PM2.5 Concentration, µg/m3Value of PM10 Concentration, µg/m3
MinimumMaximumMeanMinimumMaximumMean
August3.527.59.24.927.713.2
October3.236.318.28.84023.4
November3.863.625.96.973.328.3
December6.357.19.07.568.731.4
Table
Table 4. The concentration of individual PAHs (ng/m3) in TSP and PM4 samples collected in the garage of the fire station unit.
Table 4. The concentration of individual PAHs (ng/m3) in TSP and PM4 samples collected in the garage of the fire station unit.
28/29.10.2110/11.11.211/2.12.21
PAHTSPPM4TSPPM4TSPPM4
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene5.211.581.741.584.171.58
Benzo[a]pyrene2.081.581.742.214.517.89
Benzo[a]anthracene130.561.581.741.58108.331.58
Benzo[b]fluoranthene2.081.581.742.214.511.58
Benzo[k]fluoranthene1.741.581.741.581.741.58
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene21.531.581.741.5815.281.58
Anthracene20.4920.5224.654.101.741.58
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene1.741.581.741.581.741.58
Chrysene1.741.581.741.581.741.58
Acenaphthylene1.741.581.741.581.741.58
Fluoranthene1.7439.7758.681.5835.4245.77
Fluorene1.7441.671.741.5843.061.58
Naphthalene1.741.581.741.581.741.58
Phenanthrene1.7439.7758.681.5835.4245.77
Pyrene1.7437.561.7430.931.741.58
Sum of PAHs197.57195.08162.8556.82262.85118.37
Table
Table 5. The PAH diagnostic ratios in TSP and PM4 samples collected in the garage of the fire station unit.
Table 5. The PAH diagnostic ratios in TSP and PM4 samples collected in the garage of the fire station unit.
Diagnostic Ratios *28/29.10.2110/11.11.211/2.12.21
TSPPM4TSPPM4TSPPM4
PAHs(3 + 4)/PAHs(5 + 6)4.7019.4314.474.157.176.40
Ant/(Ant + Phe)0.920.340.300.720.050.03
Flt/(Flt + Pyr)0.500.510.970.050.950.97
BaA/(BaA + Chr)0.990.500.500.500.980.50
* PAH abbreviations are as follows: PAHs(3 + 4) means sum of PAHs with 3 and 4 rings, PAHs(5 + 6) means sum of PAHs with 5 and 6 rings, phenanthrene (Phe), anthracene (Ant), fluoranthene (Flt), pyrene (Pyr), benzo[a]anthracene (BaA) and chrysene (Chr).
Table
Table 6. The toxicity indices: the toxic equivalent (TEQ, ng/m3), the incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) and the non-cancerogenic hazard quotient index (HQ) calculated based on individual dust fractions and measurement days.
Table 6. The toxicity indices: the toxic equivalent (TEQ, ng/m3), the incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) and the non-cancerogenic hazard quotient index (HQ) calculated based on individual dust fractions and measurement days.
28/29.10.2110/11.11.211/2.12.21
PAHTSPPM4TSPPM4TSPPM4
TEQ23.334.384.744.6522.1010.36
ILCR (×10−4)3.503.452.881.014.652.10
HQ0.430.420.350.120.570.26
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rakowska, J.; Rachwał, M.; Walczak, A. Health Exposure Assessment of Firefighters Caused by PAHs in PM4 and TSP after Firefighting Operations. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 1263. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13081263

AMA Style

Rakowska J, Rachwał M, Walczak A. Health Exposure Assessment of Firefighters Caused by PAHs in PM4 and TSP after Firefighting Operations. Atmosphere. 2022; 13(8):1263. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13081263

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rakowska, Joanna, Marzena Rachwał, and Agata Walczak. 2022. "Health Exposure Assessment of Firefighters Caused by PAHs in PM4 and TSP after Firefighting Operations" Atmosphere 13, no. 8: 1263. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13081263

APA Style

Rakowska, J., Rachwał, M., & Walczak, A. (2022). Health Exposure Assessment of Firefighters Caused by PAHs in PM4 and TSP after Firefighting Operations. Atmosphere, 13(8), 1263. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13081263

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop