4.1 Article

Assessment of exposure to cadmium, lead, manganese, and nickel in workers from foundries

Journal

TOXICOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL HEALTH
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages 1784-1790

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0748233715589262

Keywords

Biomakers; cadmium; lead; manganese; nickel; occupational health

Funding

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)
  2. FUNDACENTRO

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: In this study, biological exposure indicators were used to assess the exposure of workers to cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), and nickel (Ni) in nonferrous metal smelters. Methods: A total of 273 male participants (178 exposed and 95 nonexposed control group), working in nonferrous metal foundries located in southern Brazil, were evaluated based on biological indicators, environmental levels, and different types of work performed by the participants. Blood Pb (BPb), urinary Cd (UCd), urinary Mn (UMn), and urinary Ni (UNi) levels were quantified by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry with Zeeman background correction. Results: Significant differences between the exposed and nonexposed groups were observed for all of the analyzed elements. The average levels of BPb were higher than the recommended occupational exposure level. Relatively low concentrations were found for UCd, UMn, and UNi. Conclusions: Although metal production is an important segment of the Brazilian economy, information related to employee health in this sector is scarce. The environmental levels are determinant in occupational exposure in foundries. In companies where air levels of Pb, Cd, and Mn were above the established limits, the different types of activity did not represent an important influence on the biological levels found among workers. In situations with low air levels of these metals, the workers from the melting sector were actually more vulnerable.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available