4.0 Article

Exposure to metals in the adult population living in industrial areas: a systematic review of the literature

Journal

CIENCIA & SAUDE COLETIVA
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 2253-2270

Publisher

ABRASCO - Brazilian Association of Collective Health
DOI: 10.1590/1413-81232021266.07612019

Keywords

Human biomonitoring; Trace elements; Industrial pollution

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reviewed human biomonitoring studies evaluating exposure to toxic metals in adults living close to industrial areas. Results showed higher metal concentrations in populations exposed to toxic metals, particularly in developing countries.
This study aimed to review studies of human biomonitoring (HBM) that evaluated exposure to lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), arsenic (As) and manganese (Mn) in adults living close to industrial areas. A systematic review of studies was selected, without initial date limit through to December 2017, from the MEDLINE and BVS databases. Original studies in English, Portuguese or Spanish conducted among the adult population using blood and/or urine as biomarkers were included. The articles were evaluated according to methodological criteria, including studies with comparison groups and/or probabilistic sampling. Of the 28 studies selected, 54% were conducted in Europe, 36% in Asia, 7% in North America and 4% in Africa. Foundries, metal works and steel mills were the most frequently studied. Urine and blood were used in 82% and 50% of studies, respectively. The elements most investigated were Cd, Pb and As. Despite using heterogeneous methodologies, the results revealed higher metal concentrations, especially from As and Hg in general, than in the comparison group. This review highlights the need for more rigorous methodological studies of HBM, stressing the importance of public health vigilance among populations exposed to toxic metals, especially in developing countries.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available