Corbett McDonald1, Rezaul Hoque, Nazmul Huda, Nicola Cherry. 1. Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK. c.mcdonald@imperial.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Arsenic concentrations in 25% of tube wells in Bangladesh exceed 50 microg/L, a level known to be hazardous. Levels in individual wells vary widely. We gathered data on arsenic exposure levels and skin lesion prevalence to address the lack of knowledge about risks where the average arsenic concentrations was lower. METHODS: The nongovernmental organization Gonoshasthaya Kendra did three related studies of keratotic skin lesions since 2004: (1) an ecological prevalence survey among 13 705 women aged > 18 in a random sample of 53 villages; (2) a case-control study of 176 cases and age- and village-matched referents; and (3) a prevalence survey of the entire population of 11,670 in two additional villages. We calculated prevalence as a function of average arsenic concentrations as reported in the National Hydrochemical Survey, and measured arsenic concentrations in wells used by subjects in the case-control study. FINDINGS: The prevalence of skin lesions was 0.37% in people exposed to arsenic concentrations below 5 microg/L, 0.63% at 6-50 microg/L, and 6.84% at 81 microg/L. In the case-control analysis, relative risk of skin lesions increased threefold at concentrations above 50 microg/L (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Little serious skin disease is likely to occur if the arsenic concentration in drinking water is kept below 50 microg/L, but ensuring this water quality will require systematic surveillance and reliable testing of all wells, which may be impractical. More research is needed on feasible prevention of toxic effects from arsenic exposure in Bangladesh.
OBJECTIVE:Arsenic concentrations in 25% of tube wells in Bangladesh exceed 50 microg/L, a level known to be hazardous. Levels in individual wells vary widely. We gathered data on arsenic exposure levels and skin lesion prevalence to address the lack of knowledge about risks where the average arsenic concentrations was lower. METHODS: The nongovernmental organization Gonoshasthaya Kendra did three related studies of keratotic skin lesions since 2004: (1) an ecological prevalence survey among 13 705 women aged > 18 in a random sample of 53 villages; (2) a case-control study of 176 cases and age- and village-matched referents; and (3) a prevalence survey of the entire population of 11,670 in two additional villages. We calculated prevalence as a function of average arsenic concentrations as reported in the National Hydrochemical Survey, and measured arsenic concentrations in wells used by subjects in the case-control study. FINDINGS: The prevalence of skin lesions was 0.37% in people exposed to arsenic concentrations below 5 microg/L, 0.63% at 6-50 microg/L, and 6.84% at 81 microg/L. In the case-control analysis, relative risk of skin lesions increased threefold at concentrations above 50 microg/L (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Little serious skin disease is likely to occur if the arsenic concentration in drinking water is kept below 50 microg/L, but ensuring this water quality will require systematic surveillance and reliable testing of all wells, which may be impractical. More research is needed on feasible prevention of toxic effects from arsenic exposure in Bangladesh.
Authors: Reina Haque; D N Guha Mazumder; Sambit Samanta; Nilima Ghosh; David Kalman; Meera M Smith; Soma Mitra; Amal Santra; Sarbari Lahiri; Subhankar Das; Binay K De; Allan H Smith Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Mahfuzar Rahman; Marie Vahter; Mohammad Abdul Wahed; Nazmul Sohel; Mohammad Yunus; Peter Kim Streatfield; Shams El Arifeen; Abbas Bhuiya; Khalequz Zaman; A Mushtaq R Chowdhury; Eva-Charlotte Ekström; Lars Ake Persson Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: U K Chowdhury; B K Biswas; T R Chowdhury; G Samanta; B K Mandal; G C Basu; C R Chanda; D Lodh; K C Saha; S K Mukherjee; S Roy; S Kabir; Q Quamruzzaman; D Chakraborti Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Asaad Ahmed Nafees; Ambreen Kazi; Zafar Fatmi; Muhammad Irfan; Arif Ali; Fujio Kayama Journal: Environ Geochem Health Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 4.609
Authors: M Amir Hossain; Mohammad Mahmudur Rahman; Matthew Murrill; Bhaskar Das; Bimol Roy; Shankar Dey; Debasish Maity; Dipankar Chakraborti Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Reginald Quansah; Frederick Ato Armah; David Kofi Essumang; Isaac Luginaah; Edith Clarke; Kissinger Marfoh; Samuel Jerry Cobbina; Edward Nketiah-Amponsah; Proscovia Bazanya Namujju; Samuel Obiri; Mawuli Dzodzomenyo Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Yajuan Xia; Timothy J Wade; Kegong Wu; Yanhong Li; Zhixiong Ning; X Chris Le; Xingzhou He; Binfei Chen; Yong Feng; Judy L Mumford Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 3.390