Southeast Asia > Press Room > Environmental Health News >

Mercury Exposure among Garbage Workers in Southern Thailand

Department of Industrial Hygiene and Health Science, Faculty of Health and Sport Science, Thaksin University, Phattalung, Thailand.

Correspondence to: Somsiri DECHARAT. Department of Industrial Hygiene and Health Science, Faculty of Health and Sport Science, Thaksin University, 222 Papayom District, Phattalong Province 93110, Thailand. Tel: +66 (0)74-693997 ext. 4304, Fax: +66 (0)74-693997, Email: somsiri_9@hotmail.com
Received April 25, 2012; Revised November 13, 2012; Accepted November 13, 2012.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ABSTRACT
Objectives
1) To determine mercury levels in urine samples from garbage workers in Southern Thailand, and 2) to describe the association between work characteristics, work positions, behavioral factors, and acute symptoms; and levels of mercury in urine samples.

Methods
A case-control study was conducted by interviewing 60 workers in 5 hazardous-waste-management factories, and 60 matched non-exposed persons living in the same area of Southern Thailand. Urine samples were collected to determine mercury levels by cold-vapor atomic absorption spectrometer mercury analyzer.

Results
The hazardous-waste workers' urinary mercury levels (10.07 µg/g creatinine) were significantly higher than the control group (1.33 µg/g creatinine) (p < 0.001). Work position, duration of work, personal protective equipment (PPE), and personal hygiene, were significantly associated with urinary mercury level (p < 0.001). The workers developed acute symptoms - of headaches, nausea, chest tightness, fatigue, and loss of consciousness at least once a week - and those who developed symptoms had significantly higher urinary mercury levels than those who did not, at p < 0.05. A multiple regression model was constructed. Significant predictors of urinary mercury levels included hours worked per day, days worked per week, duration of work (years), work position, use of PPE (mask, trousers, and gloves), and personal hygiene behavior (ate snacks or drank water at work, washed hands before lunch, and washed hands after work).

Conclusion
Changing garbage workers' hygiene habits can reduce urinary mercury levels. Personal hygiene is important, and should be stressed in education programs. Employers should institute engineering controls to reduce urinary mercury levels among garbage workers.

References
1. Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions. Waste strategy 2000-England and Wales (Part 1). London (UK): Stationery Office; 2000. pp. 54.
2. Pollution Control Department. Thailand pollution report, 2010. Bangkok (Thailand): Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment; 2010.
Thai
3. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public Health Service. Toxicological profile for mercury. Atlanta (GA): Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; 1999.
4. Zeitz P, Orr MF, Kaye WE. Public health consequences of mercury spills: hazardous substances emergency events surveillance systems, 1993-1998. Environ Health Perspect 2002;110:129–132.

5. Tarras-Wahlberg NH. Environmental management of small-scale and artisanal mining: the Portovelo-Zaruma goldmining area, southern Ecuador. J Environ Manage 2002;65:165–179.

6. Rattanaoudom R. Investigation on toxicity and hazardous nature of a municipal solid waste dumpsite [master's thesis]. Bangkok (Thailand): Asian Institute of Technology, Chulabhorn Research Institute and Mahidol University; 2005.
7. Decharats S, Kongtip P, Phakthongsuk P, Worakhunpiset S, Thetkathuek A, Tharnpoophasiam P. Biomonitoring of heavy metals among nielloware workers in Nakhon Sri Thammarat Province. J Med Assoc Thai 2011;94:1521–1532.

8. Johnson BL. Impact of hazardous waste on human health: hazard, health effects, equity, and communication issues. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 1999.
9. LeFauconnier JM, Bouchaud C. Neurotoxicology. In: Ballantyne B, Marrs TC, Syversin TGeneral and applied toxicology. Volume 1. Basingstoke (UK): Macmillan Publishers; 1997. pp. 469.
10. Friberg L. United Nations Environment Programme. International Labour Organisation. World Health Organization. International Program on Chemical Safety. Environmental health criteria. Inorganic mercury. Geneva (Swiss): World Health Organization; 1991.
11. Brune D, Gerhardsson G, Crockford GW, D'Auria D. Volume 1: Fundamentals of health, safety and welfare. Geneva (Switzerland): International Labour Office; 1997. The workplace.
12. Malmros P, Sigsgaard T, Bach B. Occupational health problems due to garbage sorting. Waste Manage Res 1992;10:227–234.
13. Sigsgaard T, Abel A, Donbaek L, Malmros P. Lung function changes among recycling workers exposed to organic dust. Am J Ind Med 1994;25:69–72.

14. Ham GA. Determination of mercury in blood and urine by cold vapor AAS: using the VGA-77 [Internet]. Palo Alto (CA): Varian Medical Systems; 1997 [cited 2010 Feb 5].
Available from: http://www.chem.agilent.com/Library/applications/aa126.pdf
15. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygiene (ACGIH). Biological monitoring guideline. Cincinnati (OH): ACGIH; 2003.
16. Hansen JC, Danscher G. Organic mercury: an environmental threat to the health of dietary-exposed societies?. Rev Environ Health 1997;12:107–116.

17. Abe T, Ohtsuka R, Hongo T, Suzuki T, Tohyama C, Nakano A, Akagi H, Akimichi T. High hair and urinary mercury levels of fish eaters in the nonpolluted environment of Papua New Guinea. Arch Environ Health 1995;50:367–373.

18. Suzuki T, Hongo T, Abe T, Matsuo N, Inoue N. Urinary mercury level in Japanese school children: influence of dental amalgam fillings and fish eating habits. Sci Total Environ 1993;136:213–227.

19. Padilla Millán MA, Granados Correa F. Determination of mercury in urine of Mexican dentists by neutron activation analysis. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 2002;254:305–309.

20. Järup L. Hazards of heavy metal contamination. Br Med Bull 2003;68:167–182.

21. Rogers RW. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo JT, Petty RESocial psychophysiology. New York (NY): Guilford Press; 1983.
22. Piacitelli GM, Whelan EA. Keeping lead at work. J Prot Coat Lining 1996;13:15–21.
23. Whelan EA, Piacitelli GM, Gerwel B, Schnorr TM, Mueller CA, Gittleman J, Matte TD. Elevated blood lead levels in children of construction workers. Am J Public Health 1997;87:1352–1355.

24. Poulsen OM, Breum NO, Ebbehøj N, Hansen ÅM, Ivens UI, van Lelieveld D, Malmros P, Matthiasen L, Nielsen BH, Nielsen EM, Schibye B, Skov T, Stenbaek EI, Wilkins KC. Sorting and recycling of domestic waste. Review of occupational health problems and their possible causes. Sci Total Environ 1995;168:33–56.

25. Kurttio P, Pekkanen J, Alfthan G, Paunio M, Jaakkola JJ, Heinonen OP. Increased mercury exposure in inhabitants living in the vicinity of a hazardous waste incinerator: a 10-year follow-up. Arch Environ Health 1998;53:129–137.