4.7 Review

Blood lead levels of children exposed to e-waste: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 24, 页码 64860-64871

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-023-27114-x

关键词

Children; Global estimation; Blood lead levels; Electronic waste

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blood lead levels (BLLs) among children in e-waste recycling areas have been decreasing over time, but are still higher compared to children not exposed to e-waste. The difference in BLLs between exposed and reference groups is gradually decreasing.
Blood lead levels (BLLs) have been decreasing worldwide for decades. However, systematic reviews and quantitative syntheses of BLLs in electronic waste (e-waste)-exposed children are lacking. To summarize temporal trend of BLLs among children in e-waste-recycling areas. Fifty-one studies met the inclusion criteria and included participants from six countries. Meta-analysis was performed using the random- effects model. Results showed that among e-waste-exposed children, the total geometric mean (GM) BLL was 7.54 mu g/dL (95% CI: 6.77, 8.31). Children's BLLs displayed a decreasing temporal trend, from 11.77 mu g/dL in phase I (2004-2006) to 4.63 mu g/dL in phase V (2016-2018). Almost 95% of eligible studies found that children exposed to e-waste had significantly higher BLLs than reference groups. The difference of children's BLLs between the exposure group and the reference group was from 6.60 mu g/dL (95% CI: 6.14, 7.05) in 2004 to 1.99 mu g/dL (95% CI: 1.61, 2.36) in 2018. For subgroup analyses, except for Dhaka and Montevideo, the BLLs of children from Guiyu in the same survey year were higher than those of children from other regions. Our findings indicate that the gap between BLLs of children exposed to e-waste and those of reference group children is closing, and we appeal that the critical value for blood lead poisoning in children should be lowered in key e-waste-dismantling areas of developing countries, such as Guiyu.

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