| Literature DB >> 29971115 |
Olusola Olabisi Ogunseye1, Godson R E E Ana1, Daniel C Uhiara2,3, Derek G Shendell2,4,5.
Abstract
Carbon monoxide (CO) remains a leading cause of work-related chemical poisoning. Vehicular emissions are the primary daily ambient source of CO in urban Nigerian motor parks, where there have been few human exposure studies. Using a cross-sectional comparative design, we assessed carboxyhaemoglobin levels (% COHb), a biomarker of CO exposure, among traders at three motor parks (AMP, IMP, and NMP) and other traders (nonmotor park workers) in Ibadan, Nigeria, using a noninvasive pulse CO-dosimeter (Rad 57). Ninety-three traders were proportionally allocated between motor parks; 93 other traders were selected based on specific study inclusion criteria. Mean ages of motor park traders and other traders were comparable, 37.8 ± 11.1 and 38.7 ± 9.6, respectively. Mean % COHb for traders (range 3-22) at AMP, IMP, and NMP was 11.2 ± 3.8, 11.6 ± 3.1, and 12.2 ± 3.3, respectively, while mean % COHb for other traders was about three times lower, 4.1 ± 1.7 (range 2-8). Overall, mean % COHb for motor park traders, 11.7 ± 3.3, was also significantly higher than for other traders (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, mean % COHb for both groups exceeded the current World Health Organization guideline, 2.5%. This study suggested that motor park traders have higher % COHb and thus are highly susceptible to exposure and more vulnerable to known risks of adverse health effects from exposure to CO.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29971115 PMCID: PMC6008779 DOI: 10.1155/2018/9174868
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Population of traders and proportional allocation.
| Motor park | Number of traders | Proportional allocation in study sample |
|---|---|---|
| AMP, Ojoo | 30 | 17 |
| IMP, Iwo road | 77 | 45 |
| NMP, Apata | 54 | 31 |
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
Figure 1Example of noninvasive pulse CO-dosimeter (Rad 57).
Figure 2Carboxyhaemoglobin assessment of a motor park trader (photo by Olasunkanmi Williams, September, 2014).
Sociodemographic characteristics of study respondents.
| Sociodemographic characteristics | Subgroups | AMP, Ojoo traders | IMP, Iwo road traders | NMP, Apata traders | Nonmotor park traders |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 18–20 | 2 (11.8%) | 1 (2.2%) | 3 (9.7%) | 3 (3.2%) |
| 21–30 | 1 (5.9%) | 10 (22.2%) | 7 (22.6%) | 16 (17.2%) | |
| 31–40 | 5 (29.4%) | 14 (31.1%) | 11 (35.5%) | 33 (35.5%) | |
| 41–50 | 9 (52.9%) | 12 (26.7%) | 6 (19.4%) | 30 (32.3%) | |
| 51–60 | - | 8 (17.8%) | 2 (6.5%) | 11 (11.8%) | |
| 61–70 | - | - | 2 (6.5%) | - | |
|
| |||||
| Gender | Male | 17 (100%) | 35 (77.8%) | 21 (67.7%) | 23 (24.7%) |
| Female | - | 10 (22.2%) | 10 (32.3%) | 70 (75.3%) | |
|
| |||||
| Educational status | No education | 1 (5.9%) | 2 (4.4%) | 1 (3.2%) | 6 (6.5%) |
| Primary education | 3 (17.6%) | 14 (31.1%) | 6 (19.4%) | 35 (37.6%) | |
| Secondary education | 10 (58.8%) | 19 (42.2%) | 12 (38.7%) | 44 (47.3%) | |
| Tertiary education | 3 (17.6%) | 10 (22.2%) | 12 (38.7%) | 8 (8.6%) | |
|
| |||||
| Marital status | Single | 6 (35.3%) | 7 (15.6%) | 12 (38.7%) | 11 (11.8%) |
| Married | 11 (64.7%) | 37 (82.2%) | 21 (67.7%) | 82 (88.2%) | |
| Widow/widower | - | 1 (2.2%) | - | - | |
|
| |||||
| Religion | Christianity | 3 (17.6%) | 21 (46.7%) | 15 (48.4%) | 55 (59.1%) |
| Islam | 14 (82.4%) | 24 (53.3%) | 13 (41.9%) | 38 (40.9%) | |
| Traditional | - | - | 2 (6.4%) | - | |
| No religion | - | - | 1 (3.2%) | - | |
|
| |||||
| State of origin | Abia | - | - | 1 (3.2%) | 1 (1.1%) |
| Benue | - | 1 (2.2%) | - | - | |
| Cross Rivers | - | 1 (2.2%) | - | - | |
| Delta | - | 1 (2.2%) | - | 1 (1.1%) | |
| Edo | 1 (5.9%) | - | - | 3 (3.2%) | |
| Ekiti | - | - | 2 (6.5%) | 4 (4.3%) | |
| Kogi | - | - | - | 1 (1.1%) | |
| Kwara | 1 (5.9%) | 1 (2.2%) | 1 (3.2%) | - | |
| Lagos | - | 1 (2.2%) | - | - | |
| Ogun | - | 3 (6.7%) | 8 (25.8%) | 15 (16.1%) | |
| Ondo | - | 2 (4.4%) | - | 7 (7.5%) | |
| Osun | 4 (23.5%) | 9 (20.0%) | 3 (9.7%) | 10 (10.8%) | |
| Oyo | 11 (64.7%) | 26 (57.8%) | 16 (51.6%) | 51 (54.8%) | |
Mean and range of % COHb among study participants.
| AMP traders | IMP traders | NMP traders | Nonmotor park traders |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11.2 ± 3.8 | 11.6 ± 3.1 | 12.2 ± 3.3 | 4.1 ± 1.7 |
| 6–19 | 5–22 | 3–18 | 2–8 |
Figure 3Carboxyhaemoglobin levels among study participants.
Comparison of % COHb among study participants within and between groups.
| AMP traders | IMP traders | NMP traders | Nonmotor park traders |
|
| |
|
| ||||||
| % COHb | 11.2 ± 3.8 | 11.6 ± 3.1 | 12.2 ± 3.3 | 0.573 | 0.566 | |
| % COHb (group mean) | 11.7 ± 3.3 | 4.1 ± 1.7 | 24.153 | < | ||