4.7 Article

San-Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge welder study

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 69, 期 12, 页码 1278-1284

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000276988.50742.5e

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG17496] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC04278] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The sense of smell can be damaged by airborne xenobiotics, including aerosolized heavy metals, reflecting the direct exposure of its receptors to the outside environment. Objectives: To determine whether professional welders working in confined spaces exhibit olfactory dysfunction. To determine whether such dysfunction, if present, is related to indices of metal exposure associated with welding, as well as measures of neurologic and neuropsychological function. Methods: The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and a battery of neurologic and neuropsychological tests were administered to 43 welders who worked for 1 to 2 years on the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge. Blood levels of Mn, Fe, Cu, and Pb were obtained. Results: Relative to matched controls, the welders had significantly lower UPSIT scores, with a mean (SEM) of 29.51 (0.90) for welders and 36.55 (0.88) for controls. Eighty-eight percent scored below their individually matched controls. As in idiopathic Parkinson disease, the welders' olfactory test scores were unrelated to a broad spectrum of neurologic and neuropsychological test measures, as determined by principal components analysis. Although blood levels of Mn were associated with the time spent working on the bridge, workers with the highest Mn blood levels exhibited better olfactory function than those with the lowest Mn blood levels. The basis of this paradox, which has been observed previously, is unknown. Conclusions: Professional welders may be at risk for loss of smell function, although such loss seems to be unrelated to neurologic and neuropsychological test performance.

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