4.7 Article

Lead and cadmium levels of commonly administered pediatric syrups in Nigeria: A public health concern?

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 407, 期 23, 页码 5993-5996

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.08.033

关键词

Lead; Cadmium; Pediatric syrups; Pollution; Public health; Nigeria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fifty different pediatric syrups were randomly sampled from patent medicine stores and pharmaceutical shops within Awka, in Anambra State between November 2007 and May 2008. Syrups were ashed before digestion using conc. aqua regia, HCl:HNO3 (3:1) and lead and cadmium were assayed with AAS 205A. Results revealed that 60 and 98% of the sample size had lead and cadmium respectively. The lead levels ranged from 0.01 in chloroquine to 1.08 mg/l in magcid suspension. The highest level of cadmium was seen in magcid suspension with concentration of 2.45 mg/l while lowest concentration of 0.01 in emzolyn and colipan. About 41.2% of the locally made syrup had none detectable levels of lead while all the syrup had detectable levels of cadmium. Lead levels ranged from 0.01 mg/l in cadiphen manufactured in Dholka, India to 0.09 in maxiquine made in England. About 68.8% of the imported syrups of the imported syrups had non detectable levels of lead. Chloramphenicol and zentel albendazole syrups had 0.60 and 0.88 mg/l of cadmium respectively. Bellis cough syrup showed the lowest level (0.01 mg/l) of cadmium. Only erythromycin suspension representing 6.3% had non detectable level of cadmium of the imported syrups. Due to the Cd and Pb levels found, we suggest that the behaviour scenario (here, self administration without medical assistance) should be properly taken under control. Along with this, contamination sources or vulnerable practices during syrups preparation should be also assessed in a tiered approach, towards the minimization of noxious presence in syrups and the promotion of quality of Nigerian-made products. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据