Higher bisphenol analogues exposure levels in e-waste workers and their associations with DNA oxidative damage in Hong Kong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bisphenol analogues (BPs) are widely used as additives in a variety of products, including the components of electronic waste (e-waste). However, limited research has been conducted to evaluate the health burden of BPs exposure from e-waste recycling, particularly among frontline workers in developed regions. This study aimed to address this gap by analyzing urinary BPs and 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), a marker of oxidative DNA damage, from 101 e-waste workers and 100 office workers in Hong Kong collected from 06/2021 to 09/2022. E-waste workers had significantly higher overall BPs concentrations than office workers (3.476 vs. 1.816 μg/L), with notable elevations in BPA, BPP, and BPZ. Male participants (3.118 μg/L) and e-waste workers involved in dismantling or repairing e-waste (4.245 μg/L) exhibited higher BPs burdens than the females (1.849 μg/L) and workers with other job designations (1.822 μg/L), respectively. Although the estimated daily intake (EDI) for BPA was below the recommended safety threshold, e-waste workers had higher EDIs for almost all BPs than office workers. BPA was the predominant analogue in e-waste and office workers (80.74 % and 75.94 %), and correlated with other BPs in e-waste workers, indicating its pervasive use in e-waste products. Exposure to BPs, both individually and as a mixture, was significantly associated with increased 8-OHdG levels, with stronger associations among female participants and the e-waste workers. The above findings suggest that e-waste workers in Hong Kong had higher BPs exposure from e-waste recycling and carried the associated health risks, with females showing greater sensitivity to BPs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".