4.7 Article

Biological monitoring of mercury exposure in individuals referred to a toxicological center in Venezuela

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 354, 期 2-3, 页码 278-285

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.01.023

关键词

biological monitoring; mercury exposure; gold miners; inorganic mercury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

People in developing countries are often considered at greater risk of mercury (Hg) poisoning due to a variety of factors including a lack of awareness regarding their occupational risks. Individuals requiring urine mercury (U-Hg) analysis at the Center for Toxicological Investigations of the University of Carabobo (CITUC), between 1998 and 2002 were studied to identify demographic characteristics associated to U-Hg levels. The studied population included individuals with a history of exposure (or related exposures) to Hg processes, and was comprised of 1159 individuals (65 children, 1094 adults) ages 0.58-79 years old, mean 36.63 +/- 12.4. Children's geometric mean U-Hg levels were 2.73 mu g/g Creatinine (Ct) and in adults 2.55 mu g/g Ct. The highest frequency of adults' occupations were shipyard workers (35.47%), dentists (23.5%), lab technicians (11.43%), dental employees 10.42% and miners (10.2%). Chemical laboratory technicians had the highest mean U-Hg (4.46 mu g/g Ct). Mean U-Hg levels in female adults (3.45 mu g/g Ct) were statistically superior to levels in male adults (2.15 mu g/g Ct). Two of the 172 women in reproductive age, had U-Hg levels higher than 78 mu g/g Ct. Individuals from Falcon State were found to have the highest mean U-Hg (4.53 mu g/g Ct). U-Hg levels higher than permissible limits were found in only 2 states (Carabobo and Bolivar) with a total of 24 cases. Although the results of this investigation were highly variable, the findings can be used to examine circumstances which influence mercury toxicity trends, and possibly used in future studies working to identify Hg exposures. (c) 2005 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