» Articles » PMID: 37255122

Is Chemical Exposure Present in Informal Work Associated with Sars-CoV-2 Infection?

Abstract

Objective: To compare the incidence of covid-19 symptoms between informal home-based workers and a control group and to assess the association of these cases with blood elements concentrations and other relevant risk factors for Sars-Cov-2 infection.

Methods: Welders chemically exposed to potentially toxic elements (PTEs) (n = 26) and control participants (n = 25) answered questionnaires on adherence to social distancing and signs and symptoms of the disease for five months during the covid-19 pandemic. After follow-up, covid-19 serology tests were performed on a subsample of 12 chemically exposed workers and 20 control participants. Before the pandemic, PTE concentrations in blood (As, Mn, Ni, Cd, Hg, Sb, Sn, Cu, Zn, and Pb) were measured by ICP-MS.

Results: The chemically exposed group had higher lead and cadmium levels in blood (p < 0.01). The control group presented lower adherence to social distancing (p = 0.016). Although not significant, welders had a 74% greater chance of having at least one covid-19 symptom compared with control participants, but their adherence to social distancing decreased this chance by 20%. The use of taxis for transportation was a risk factor significantly associated with covid-19 symptoms.

Conclusion: The lower adherence to social distancing among the control group greatly influences the development of covid-19. The literature lacks data linking exposure to PTEs and Sars-Cov-2 infection and/or severity. In this study, despite chemical exposure, working from home may have protected welders against covid-19, considering that they maintained greater social distancing than control participants.

References
1.
Weill J, Stigler M, Deschenes O, Springborn M . Social distancing responses to COVID-19 emergency declarations strongly differentiated by income. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117(33):19658-19660. PMC: 7443940. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2009412117. View

2.
Armstrong B . Effect of measurement error on epidemiological studies of environmental and occupational exposures. Occup Environ Med. 1999; 55(10):651-6. PMC: 1757516. DOI: 10.1136/oem.55.10.651. View

3.
Mishra K, Rani R, Yadav V, Naik S . Effect of lead exposure on lymphocyte subsets and activation markers. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 2010; 32(3):446-9. DOI: 10.3109/08923970903503668. View

4.
Fenga C, Gangemi S, Di Salvatore V, Falzone L, Libra M . Immunological effects of occupational exposure to lead (Review). Mol Med Rep. 2017; 15(5):3355-3360. DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2017.6381. View

5.
Teare J, Kootbodien T, Naicker N, Mathee A . The extent, nature and environmental health implications of cottage industries in Johannesburg, South Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015; 12(2):1894-901. PMC: 4344700. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph120201894. View