4.6 Article

Lead exposure and urinary N-acetyl beta D glucosaminidase activity in adolescent workers in auto repair workshops

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 213-216

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00307-X

关键词

auto repair workers; adolescents; lead exposure; nephrotoxicity; urinary N-acetyl -beta D glucosaminidase; Turkey

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate levels of lead (Pb) exposure and renal tubular damage among adolescent workers in auto repair workshops in Turkey. Methods: The study was conducted on 39 adolescent workers (mean age: 16.18+/-3.19 years) in auto repair workshops (8 autoelectrician, 10 motor repairman, 8 auto painter, 5 turner, 8 bonnet straighter). Thirteen adult employees of battery production in the workshops (mean age: 32.08+/-10.94 years) and 29 healthy rural adolescent (mean age: 14.78+/-2.68 years) constituted the control groups. The level of blood Pb was investigated by an atomic absorption spectrophotometer and urinary N-acetyl beta- D glucosaminidase (NAG) activity was measured by a colorimetric method. Mann-Whitney U test was performed to examine group differences. Results: All subjects and controls had normal blood urea, creatinine, uric acid, sodium, potassium levels, normal routine urine examination and tubular phosphorus reabsorption. Blood Pb levels in auto repair workers (8.13+/-7.41mug/dL) were significantly higher than the rural control group (3.49+/-1.39mug/dL) but lower than the battery workers (25.27+/-9.82mug/dL). Urinary NAG (U/gr creatinine) (4.71+/-2.11) was lower than the battery workers (7.39+/-4.37), however significantly higher than the normal control group (3.07+/-1.20). In addition, auto painters had higher levels of Pb exposure and urinary NAG activity than the other workers (p < .05). Conclusion: Chronic low dose Pb exposure was found to cause renal tubular injury in children workers of auto repair workshops. (C) Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2002.

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

4.6
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