Project Results for East Bay Diesel Exposure Project (EBDEP)

You may use, distribute or copy the information in these data tables, with attribution to Biomonitoring California.
For more information, visit our researchers page or contact us.
Results on page last updated:

Project: East Bay Diesel Exposure Project (EBDEP)

Chemical Group: Diesel Exhaust

  • Measured in: Urine
  • Study Group Subset: Children

Unweighted Results

Chemical measured Indicates Exposure to Adjusted for Units Number of people tested Number of Samples Geometric mean 95% Confidence Interval Selected Percentiles Detection Frequency Limit of Detection (LOD), wet-weight Notes
Lower Upper 25th 50th 75th 95th
6-OHNP 1-Nitropyrene Specific-gravity pg/L^ 40 155 150 110 200 63 170 330 1100 94.2% 15.5 pg/L
8-OHNP 1-Nitropyrene Specific-gravity pg/L^ 40 168 130 100 170 61 130 260 740 95.2% 21.2 pg/L
Footnotes
  • ^Concentrations were adjusted for specific gravity using a reference value of 1.017 from NHANES 2007-2008.
  • ♢SAPEP collected multiple urine samples from study participants. The geometric means were estimated using random effects models to account for multiple samples per participant. Percentiles and detection frequencies were not adjusted for multiple samples per participant.

Chemical Group: Diesel Exhaust

  • Measured in: Urine
  • Study Group Subset: Adults

Unweighted Results

Chemical measured Indicates Exposure to Adjusted for Units Number of people tested Number of Samples Geometric mean 95% Confidence Interval Selected Percentiles Detection Frequency Limit of Detection (LOD), wet-weight Notes
Lower Upper 25th 50th 75th 95th
6-OHNP 1-Nitropyrene Specific-gravity pg/L^ 38 138 240 180 310 130 240 540 1500 97.8% 15.5 pg/L ♢ Δ
8-OHNP 1-Nitropyrene Specific-gravity pg/L^ 40 150 150 120 190 82 160 290 730 94.7% 21.2 pg/L
Footnotes
  • ^Concentrations were adjusted for specific gravity using a reference value of 1.017 from NHANES 2007-2008.
  • ♢SAPEP collected multiple urine samples from study participants. The geometric means were estimated using random effects models to account for multiple samples per participant. Percentiles and detection frequencies were not adjusted for multiple samples per participant.
  • ΔTwo samples were damaged during processing and could not be tested.