4.7 Article

Blood lead concentrations and iron deficiency in Canadian aboriginal infants

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 289, 期 1-3, 页码 255-260

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0048-9697(01)01052-X

关键词

Aboriginal; anemia; blood leads; Canada; infants; iron deficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aboriginal Cree infants living in northern Quebec who were 9 months of age were screened for anemia, iron deficiency and elevated blood lead concentrations. Of the 314 infants who were eligible to participate. 274 (87.3%) were screened for anemia, 186 had blood lead concentration measured and 141 of the latter group had iron status determined. The median blood lead concentration was 0.08 mumol/l (range 0.01-1.00 mumol/l). The 25, 50 and 75 percentiles for blood lead concentration were 0.05, 0.08 and 0.12 mumol/l, respectively. The prevalence of elevated blood lead concentrations (>0.48 mumol/l) was 2.7% (95% Cl 0.36-5.0). Among infants who had blood lead measured, the prevalence of anemia (hemoglobin < 110 g/l) was 25.0% and 7.9% of infants had iron-deficiency anemia (hemoglobin < 110 g/l and serum ferritin < 10 mug/l). Anemic infants had a higher mean geometric blood lead concentration than did babies without anemia (0.11 mumol/l vs. 0.07 mumol/l. P=0.003). Likewise, infants with iron-deficiency anemia had a significantly higher mean geometric blood lead concentration than infants without iron deficiency anemia (0.16 mumol/l vs. 0.07 mumol/l, P=0.001). There was a significant negative correlation between blood lead and hemoglobin concentrations (r=-0.203, P=0.006) and between blood lead and serum ferritin concentrations (r=-0.245, P=0.003). Infants who were fed traditional food (fish, fowl and game) did not have a significantly different mean geometric blood lead concentration, hemoglobin concentration or serum ferritin concentration than infants who did not eat traditional food. Few infants (5.3%) ate traditional food daily. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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