4.3 Article

Occupational exposure of foundry workers assessed by the urinary concentrations of 18 elements and arsenic species

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2020.126593

关键词

Biomonitoring; HPLC-ICP-MS; Arsenic speciation; Toxicological risk; Iron casting

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2014/05151-0, 2016/10060-9, 2017/20914-8]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Some raw materials applied in Fe foundry industries may contain potentially toxic elements. Thus, foundry worker's occupational exposure is a constant health concern. Method: In this study, 194 urine samples from foundry workers were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry for biomonitoring of Al, As, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Fe, I, Mn, Ni, Pb, Sb, Sn, Se, U and Zn. Moreover, arsenic speciation was performed in representative samples of production sector workers (group A) and administration sector workers (group B). Results: Concentrations of As, Pb, Cd, Cu, Cs, I, Sb in urines from group A were higher than those found for group B. Samples of group A presented Cs, Ni, Mn, Pb, U and Zn concentrations higher than values reported for exposed workers assessed by other studies. Forty-four samples from group A exceed As-reference limits. Group A had approximately seven times more inorganic As (as arsenite) and 14 times more organic As (as dimethyl As) than group B. A statistically significant difference was observed in the elemental concentration in the workers' urine by the time in the function. Moreover, alcohol consumption is probably influencing the urine concentration of As, Ba, Cd, Co, Cu, Fe, I, Se and Zn. Conclusion: The monitored foundry workers are exposed to potentially toxic elements and more attention must be given to their health. Therefore, workplace safety conditions must be improved, and constant biomonitoring is necessary to ensure workers' health.

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

4.3
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