Analyses reveal that VOC exposure patterns impact white blood cell count in smokers, suggesting health implications.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are ubiquitous environmental pollutants, and mixed VOC exposure has been linked to systemic inflammation. However, evidence remains limited regarding source-oriented VOC exposure patterns and their associations with inflammatory biomarkers in the general population. Using data from 1812 Korean adults participating in the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) from July 2020 to August 2021, we identified source-oriented urinary VOC exposure patterns through factor analysis, yielding combustion-dominant and solvent-dominant indices. Environmental relevance was evaluated using an airborne VOC index, and associations with white blood cell (WBC) count were examined using generalized linear models, including interaction analyses by smoking status (defined specifically as conventional cigarette users). Both urinary indices were significantly associated with the airborne VOC index (p < 0.05), supporting their environmental validity. In models without interaction terms, the solvent-dominant index was positively associated with WBC count (β = 0.091, p = 0.030), while the combustion-dominant index did not reach statistical significance (β = 0.107, p = 0.081). However, significant interactions by smoking were observed for both indices (p for interaction < 0.001). Among conventional smokers, higher exposure to both combustion-dominant β = 0.614, p < 0.001) and solvent-dominant β = 0.571, p < 0.001) patterns was significantly associated with increased WBC counts, whereas no such associations were found among non-smokers. These findings indicate that while VOC patterns impact systemic inflammation, the associations are significantly modified by cigarette smoking. Our results underscore the importance of source-oriented approaches and the explicit evaluation of effect modification when assessing the health impacts of mixed VOC exposure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hae-Won Choi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: