4.0 Article

Environmental pollutants in blood donors: The multicentre Norwegian donor study

期刊

TRANSFUSION MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 201-209

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tme.12662

关键词

cadmium; donor blood; lead; mercury; PFAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The aim of this study was to measure blood concentrations of environmental pollutants in Norwegian donors and evaluate the risk of pollutant exposure through blood transfusions. Background Transfused blood may be a potential source of exposure to heavy metals and organic pollutants and presents a risk to vulnerable patient groups such as premature infants. Methods/Materials Donors were randomly recruited from three Norwegian blood banks: in Bergen, Tromso and Kirkenes. Selected heavy metals were measured in whole blood using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were measured in serum by ultrahigh-pressure liquid chromatography coupled with a triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer (UHPLC-MS/MS). Results Almost 18% of blood donors had lead concentrations over the limit suggested for transfusions in premature infants (0.09 mu mol/L). About 11% of all donors had mercury concentrations over the suggested limit of 23.7 nmol/L. Cadmium was higher than the limit, 16 nmol/L, in 4% of donors. Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) concentrations were over the suggested limit of 0.91 ng/mL in 68% and 100% of the donors, respectively. PFAS concentrations and heavy metal concentrations increased with donor's age. Conclusion A considerable percentage of donors had lead, PFOS and PFOA concentrations over the suggested limits. In addition, at each study site, there were donors with high mercury and cadmium concentrations. Selecting young donors for transfusions or measurements of pollutants in donor blood may be a feasible approach to avoid exposure through blood transfusions to vulnerable groups of patients such as premature infants.

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

4.0
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