4.7 Article

Lead exposure from households and school settings: influence of diet on blood lead levels

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 25, 期 31, 页码 31535-31542

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-3114-8

关键词

Children's health; Lead exposure; Diet and environments; Blood lead levels

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo FAPESP [2011/23272-0, 2012/21840-4, 2014/20945-2, 2014/22118-6, 2015/01395-4]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico CNPq [441996/2014-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lead is known as a potent toxicant to human health, particularly for children while their central nervous system is developing. The aim of this study was to investigate the associations between blood lead levels (BLLs) and lead exposure in the children's diet, home, and school environments. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 153 children aged 1-4 years, in four day care centers (DCCs), where a high prevalence of lead exposure was previously found. Lead determination by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GF-AAS) was performed for venous blood, drinking water collected in the DCCs, and the 24-h diet (n = 64). Environmental screenings were conducted to evaluate lead concentrations in the tableware, buildings, and playground items in all DCCs and children's homes (n = 18) by using a field-portable X-ray fluorescence analyzer (FP-XRF). The BLL mean was 2.71 mu g dL(-1). Means for 24-h lead concentrations in the diet were 1.61 and 2.24 mu g kg(-1) of body weight (BW) in two DCCs. Lead concentrations in the water supply were lower than 2 mu g L-1. More than 11% of the DCCs' environmental analyses presented lead concentrations higher than or equal to 1 mg cm(-2), as defined by the USEPA. The diet was not found to be a risk factor for lead exposure, but households and DCC settings raised concern. Children's exposure to lead in DCC environments, where they spend the most part of their weekdays, appeared to be relevant.

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