See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256293067

INVESTIGATION OF ALUMINUM TOXICITY AMONG WORKERS IN

ALUMINUM INDUSTRY SECTOR

Article  in  European Journal of Scientific Research · August 2013

CITATIONS READS
10 937

5 authors, including:

Ahmad Boran Adnan Massadeh

Jordan University of Science and Technology Jordan University of Science and Technology
16 PUBLICATIONS   296 CITATIONS    78 PUBLICATIONS   1,609 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

contamination of medicinal plants by heavy metals View project

Towards Change View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adnan Massadeh on 02 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.24 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

INVESTIGATION OF ALUMINUM TOXICITY

AMONG WORKERS IN ALUMINUM INDUSTRY
SECTOR

Ahmad M. Boran
Ahed J. Al-Khatib
Bader S. Alanazi
Adnan M Massadeh
Jordan University of Science and Technology

Abstract
The study was conducted to evaluate urine aluminum concentration
among a total of 150 participants (80 aluminum technicians and 70 non-
aluminum technicians as a control). Data were collected through a previously
prepared questionnaire which consists of two parts. The first part concerned
with demographic data such as age and nationality. The second part
concerned with occupational data such as working hours, working years,
smoking, and diseases. The mean concentration of aluminum is 51.62+ 29.59
µg/l and the mean concentration of group control 16.32 + 12.49 µg/l. The
following variables were associated significantly with aluminum
concentration: age, weekly working hours, smoking and daily smoking
packets.
According to our study, aluminum workers have high concentrations of urine
aluminum compared with other studies, in addition to that the incidence of
diseases in relation to exposure is low, simply because: 1-Self reported
questionnaires may be not a proper way to collect data about diseases. 2-
Traditional surveillance approaches used in public health practice are
difficult to apply to metals poisoning because adverse health effects related
to metal exposure may not be clinically diagnosed, except at very high
exposure levels, and are not usually listed as reportable diseases.
Finally Special safety precautions and educational programs are also needed
to limit the aluminum exposure in this industrial group.

Keywords: Aluminum, heavy metal toxicity

440
 European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.24 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Introduction
Aluminum and its compounds are major constituents of the Earth's
crust, comprising up to about 7- 8% of the Earth's crust (Emmanuel and
Ryan, 1995). It has been reported to be the third most abundant element
(after oxygen and silicon) and the most abundant metallic element, and is
found in combination with oxygen, fluorine, silicon, sulphur and other
species; it does not occur naturally in the elemental state (ATSDR, 1999;
Wagner, 1999).
No known useful biological function was identified for aluminum
(Greger JL, 1992). It has been noted that toxic effect of aluminum on living
organisms has become clear only recently even though the element is present
in small amounts in mammalian tissues. Aluminum is now being implicated
as interfering with a variety of cellular and metabolic processes in the
nervous system and in other tissues (Greger JL, 1992).
According to the requirements of the U.S. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), employers have to reduce exposures to
aluminum to or below an 8-hr time-weighted average (TWA) of 15 mg/m3
for total aluminum dust or 5 mg/m3 for the respirable fractions (NIOSH,
2005).
Humans are exposed to aluminum from a variety of environmental
sources. Due to the fact that aluminum sulfate (alum) is used as a
flocculating agent in the purification of municipal water supplies, drinking
water may contain high levels of aluminum. Other important sources of
exposure include aluminum cans, containers, and cooking utensils, as well as
medications that contain aluminum (Greger, 1992). Aluminum inhaled from
dust has been found to be retained in pulmonary tissue and peribronchial
lymph nodes but is largely excluded from other tissues. The average dietary
intake of aluminum by adults is probably 3 to 5 mg/d (Alfrey, 1984). It has
been found that most of the aluminum absorbed from the intestinal tract is
excreted in urine, leaving total body aluminum stores of less than 30 to 40
mg. Individuals with normal glomerular filtration rates who increase their
aluminum intake by ingesting aluminum-containing antacids increase their
absorption and urinary excretion of the metal (Kaehny et al., 1977).
Environmental Aluminum Exposure
The Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) / World Health
Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives and Food
Contaminants recommended a provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of
7.0 mg/kg b.w.; this value includes the intake of aluminum from its use as a
food additive (FAO/WHO, 1989; IPCS, 1997). In 2006, the PTWI was
further lowered to 1.0 mg/kg b.w. citing that aluminum compounds may
exert effects on reproductive and developing nervous systems at lower doses
than were used in setting the previous guideline (FAO/WHO, 2006).

441
 European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.24 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Toxicity of Aluminum in Humans

Toxicity of Al in humans has been investigated and found to occur in
at least two specific situations. Dementia in dialysis patients is related to Al
exposure (Mazzaferrso, 1997; Suarez-Fernandez et al., 1999).
Chronic renal failure is thought to decrease Al excretion and
enhances Al toxicity (Flaten et al., 1996). The pathogenesis of Al toxicity is
complex because it may depend on other factors such as impaired
parathyroid function which affects Al absorption and/or distribution
(National Library of Medicine, 2000). Osteomalacia or metabolic bone
disease is another important aspect in relation with aluminum toxicity
(Ogborn et al, 1991).
Al inhalation, especially in workers, may be associated with
increased incidence of asthma (Sorgdrager et al., 1998; Vandenplas et al,
1998; Kausz et al, 1999).
Study Hypothesis
The main hypothesis for the present study implies that workers in
aluminum industry are exposed to aluminum during their work. This
exposure is occupational in nature and is being associated with health risk
factors.
It is postulated that duration of exposure expressed in terms of
exposure years is associated significantly with aluminum level. Furthermore,
aluminum level is associated significantly with the practice attitudes,
perception and knowledge of occupational risks.
Study Objectives
1. To study elevated urine aluminum levels and its association to work
place exposure in Jordan.
2. Develop and provide information and educational materials to
persons at risk and aluminum industries.
Methods and Subjects
Study Design: experimental cross-sectional design.
Study Setting
The present study was conducted in Arabic company for aluminum
manufacturing in Albaqua.
Sampling Frame
One hundred and fifty participants were chosen to participate in the
present study among them 80 aluminum technicians and 70 non-aluminum
technicians.
Sampling Technique:
Occupational Data
Occupational and demographic data for participants were obtained
through prepared questionnaire.

442
 European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.24 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

The first set of questions in the questionnaire determine the

demographic data of the participants under this study includes age, gender,
smoking habits, type and place of occupation, and duration of employment.
The second set the questions include working type, job type, use of personal
protective equipment such as mask, gloves and lab-coat, diseases such as
sensitivity, urinary tract infection and the perception of participants for
occupational dangers associated with their job.
Aluminum Measurement
The concentration of Aluminum was analyzed by atomic absorption
spectrophotometer (AAS) which allow for the measurement of a wide range
of concentrations of metals in biological samples. The atomic absorption
spectrophotometer consist of a Flam Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (F-
AAS) (Shimadzu, AA-6300, Tokyo, JAPAN) fully equipped for flame (air
acetylene), and a Graphite furnace atomization (GFA-AAS) (Shimadzu,
EX7, Tokyo, JAPAN).
The samples were analyzed using the spectrophotometer placed at the
Princess Haya Center for Biotechnology.
Statistical Analysis
The data obtained from analysis of the urine of the subject
investigated in this study regarding the concentration of the heavy metals and
the associated factors demographically and environment of work were
presented as: frequency, percentage and T test using statistical package for
the social sciences SPSS (version 16, SPSS, an IBM Company, Chicago,
USA). P value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant in the results
presented of the study.
Results
Demographic Results
As shown in table 1, about 96% of participants in study and control
groups are Jordanians. All study participants are aluminum technicians and
all control group participants are non- aluminum technicians.
About 66% of participants in study group are married and about 54%
in control group are also married.
Table 1: Demographic data of participants
VARIABLE STUDY GROUP CONTROL GROUP

Frequency Percentage (%) Frequency Percentage (%)

(N) (N)
Nationality
Jordanian 77 96.25 67 95.71
Non-Jordanian 3 3.75 3 4.29

443
 European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.24 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Job
Technicians 80 100 0 0
Non technicians 0 0 70 100
Social Status
-Married 53 66.25 38 54.28
- Single 27 33.75 32 45.72

Using of Protective Tools

Hearing protective tools was reported by about 83% in study group
and about 24% in control group. Protective coat was used by all participants
in study group and about 3% in control group. Gloves were shown to be
reported by all study group participants and 90% in control group
participants. Eye glasses using was reported by about 94% of participants in
study group versus 66% in control group. Protective Shoes were used by all
study group participants and about 91% of control group participants. About
98% of study groups used head cap while it is used by about 77% of control
group participants. Welding glasses were reported by about 83% of
aluminum technicians while its use was reported by about 44% in control
group participants. About 84% of study group participants used face mask
versus about 36% of control group participants (table 2).
Table 2: Using protective tools and their statistical significance
VARIABLE STUDY GROUP CONTROL GROUP P
VALUE
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage (%)
(N) (%) (N)
Hearing 0.052
tools:
-Yes 66 82.5 17 24.29
-No 14 17.5 53 75.71

Protective -
coat:
-Yes 80 100 2 2.86
-No 0 0 68 97.14
Gloves: -
-Yes 80 100 63 90
-NO 0 0 7 10
Glasses: 0.730
-Yes 75 93.75 46 65.71
-No 5 6.25 24 34.29

444
 European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.24 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Shoes -
(protective):
-Yes 80 100 64 91.43
-No 0 0 6 8.57

Head cap: 0.646

-Yes 78 97.5 54 77.15
-No 2 2.5 16 22.85
Welding 0.05
glass:
-Yes 66 82.5 31 44.29
-No 14 17.5 39 55.71

Face mask: 0.441

-Yes 67 83.75 25 35.71
-NO 13 16.25 45 64.29

Exposure to Work Risk Factors among Study and Control Groups

In this part of the study, we investigated work related risk factors
between study and control groups. Exposure to gases was reported by all
study group participants and by about 96 % of control group participants.
welding gases were exposed by about 98% of aluminum technicians and
about 91% of control group participants. Cold/heat stress was reported by
99% of participants who are involved in aluminum and 90% of control
groups. About one third of aluminum technicians reported their living closed
to factories versus 10% of participants in control group. Smoking was
reported by 60% in control group and this was more than that reported by
study group (about 49%) (table 3).
Table 3: Exposure to work risk factors among study and control groups
Variable STUDY GROUP CONTROL GROUP p value
Frequency Percentage (%) Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
(N)
Gases and -
vapors:
-Yes 80 100 67 95.71
-No 0 0 3 4.29
Metal gases: 0.694
-Yes 78 97.5 64 91.43
-No 2 2.5 6 8.57

Cold/ heat: 0.826

-Yes 79 98.75 63 90
-No 1 1.25 7 10

Living closed to 0.074

factory:

445
 European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.24 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

-Yes
-No 25 31.25 7 10
55 69.75 63 90
Smoking: 1.00
-Yes 39 48.75 42 60
-No 28 40
41 51.25

Diseases Shared among Study and Control Groups

About 3% of study and control group participants reported suffering
from epilepsy. About 1% of participants in both groups reported being
diabetics and having contact sensitivity. Asthma was reported by about 3%
of control group participants and about 1% of study group participants.
Bronchitis was reported by about 6% of study group participants and this is
the double of control group participants (about 3%). Tuberculosis was about
3% in control group and about 1% in study group (table 4).
Table 4: Diseases shared among study and control groups
Disease STUDY GROUP CONTROL GROUP p value
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
(N) (%) (N) (%)
Epilepsy: -
-Yes 2 2.5 2 2.86
-No 78 97.5 68 97.14

Diabetes : -
-Yes 1 1.27 1 1.43
-No 79 98.73 69 98.57

Sensitivity -
(contact):
-Yes 1 1.27 1 1.43
-NO 79 98.73 69 98.57
Asthma: 0.902
-Yes 1 1.27 2 2.86
-No 79 98.73 68 97.14

Bronchitis 0.720
Yes - 5 6.25 2 2.86
No - 75 93.75 68 97.14

Aluminum Concentrations in Study and Control Groups

The mean of aluminum concentration in study group is 51.62+ 29.59
µg/l and this was higher than the mean concentration of group control 16.32
+ 12.49 µg/l. The variations between study and control groups are
statistically significant (p value 0.000) (table 5).

446
 European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.24 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Table 5: Aluminum concentrations in study and control groups

Heavy metal Mean (µg/dl) Standard deviation P value
Aluminum-Study 51.62 29.59 0.00
group
Aluminum-Control- 16.32 12.49
group

The Relationship between Aluminum Concentration And Other

Variables
The results did not show statistical difference between age among
study and control groups (p value 0.065). the results showed significance
correlation between aluminum concentration and age (p value 0.000).
smoking years and aluminum concentrations are correlated significantly (p
value 0.000). Weekly working hours and aluminum concentration are also
correlated significantly (p value 0.042) (table 6).
Table 6: The relationship between aluminum concentration and other variables
Paired variables Mean (µg/dl) Standard deviation P value
Age Urine Aluminum 32.6 9.70 0.000
concentration 51.47 29.68
Smoking years Urine 11.99 8.09 0.000
Aluminum concentration 57.15 29.87
Weekly working hours 44 10.89 0.042
Urine Aluminum 51.63 29.46
concentration

Discussion
The present study is concerned with the occupational approach to
investigate the harmful effects of aluminum on workers in aluminum
industry. Naturally, people are exposed to aluminum because of its high
availability in nature.
The present study was conducted to achieve the following objectives:
to determine the prevalence of aluminum toxicity among workers in
aluminum industry and to correlate the occupational exposure for aluminum
with diseases such as respiratory diseases and hypersensitivity.
The data of the present study showed that the mean concentration of
aluminum among aluminum workers is 7.0 ug/l with standard deviation 5.2
ug/l. Compared with other studies, the aluminum workers are considered at
lower exposure level. Rollin et al. (1996) reported in his study that prior to
employment in the potroom, workers’ mean urine aluminium level before
employment was 24.2 μg/L; after 36 months of employment it was 49.1
μg/L. In another study conducted by Drabløs et al. (1992), the mean urine
aluminum level of 15 workers in an aluminum fluoride plant exposed to a
mean of 0.12 mg Al/m3 was 12 μg/L, of 12 potroom workers in an
aluminum smelter exposed to a mean of 0.49 mg Al/m3 was 54 μg/L and of

447
 European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.24 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

7 foundry workers in the aluminum smelter exposed to a mean of 0.06 mg

Al/m3 was 32 μg/L; that for the 230 controls was 5 μg/L.
The data showed that using the following protective tools hearing
tools, eye glasses, head cap, welding glass and face mask, was shown to
retain the aluminum concentration below the average (p value <0.05 for all).
It is required to reduce the exposure to aluminum. According to the
requirements of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), employers have to reduce exposures to aluminum (NIOSH, 2005).
The data of the present study showed that exposure to gases has
similar distribution among participants with various aluminum
concentrations and this is not statistically significant (p value 0.439). Other
studies across the literature showed that the pot emissions contained various
chemicals among which are aluminum oxide, carbon dusts, particulate
polycyclic organics, gaseous and particulate fluorides, carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. These chemicals
reflects increased exposure to aluminum (Söyseth et al., 1994).
The other variables in this section such as welding gases, organic
solvents, metals, metals, noise contamination, cold/heat stress and hobbies
follow the same pattern of discussion. In these cases, we think that
participants are still having high exposure even below the average and that is
why no significant differences have been observed. In the opposite side, two
variables were associated significantly with aluminum concentration. These
variables are stress at work environment and waste management, they
showed significant correlation with aluminum (p value 0.000). The previous
two variables were shown to lead to relatively less exposure to aluminum.
These findings do not agree with other studies conducted in animals in which
it has been suggested that maternal stress during pregnancy could enhance
aluminum induced developmental toxicity in mouse and rat offspring
(Colomina et al., 1998; 1999; 2005; Roig et al., 2006).
The study data showed that there is a trend that more aluminum
concentration is shown among 55.6% of smokers which is more than that for
less aluminum exposure (44.4%). These findings are consistent with findings
reported by Chan-Yeung et al. (1983) who reported that participants with
groups exposed to aluminum are more likely to be smokers.
The data of the present study showed low incidence of diseases
among participants. Furthermore, they were not correlated with aluminum
concentration.
The data showed that aluminum concentration is positively correlated
with age (p value 0.000). The data of the present study agree with other
reported studies in literature in which a greater increase in blood aluminum
was seen in subjects aged > 77 than in those aged < 77 (serum aluminum 101
vs. 38 μg/L at 1 hr), who consumed ~ 4.5 mg/kg aluminum hydroxide and

448
 European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.24 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

3.3 to 6.5 g citrate (citrate: aluminum, 1.6:1 to 3.2:1) after an overnight fast
(Taylor et al., 1992). Comparing oral aluminum bioavailability in the
subjects < 59 with those >59 years of age failed to reveal a difference
(Stauber et al., 1999). The results of the present study showed that aluminum
concentration to be correlated significantly with weekly working hours (p
value 0.000). It has been realized by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) that employers have to reduce exposures to
aluminum to or below an 8-hr time-weighted average (TWA) of 15 mg/m3
for total aluminum dust or 5 mg/m3 for the respirable fractions (NIOSH,
2005).
Finally, aluminum concentration was shown to correlate significantly
with daily smoking packets. The relation between aluminum and smoking
was discussed previously and it was reported that smokers have more
aluminum concentrations in their blood compared with other population
Rollin et al., 1996.
Conclusions
1- The mean concentration of aluminum in study group is 51.62+ 29.59
ug/lit and this is higher than the mean concentration of group control
16.32 + 12.49 ug/lit.
2- Using protective tools during work reduces the exposure to aluminum.
3- Aluminum concentration is correlated significantly with age, weekly
working hours and smoking years.

References:
Alfrey AC (1984). Aluminum intoxication. N EnglJ Med, 310:1113-1115.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) (1999). A
Toxicological Profile for Aluminum. Atlanta, GA.: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
Chan-Yeung, M., Wong, R., MacLean, L., Tan, F., Dorken, E., Schulzer, M.,
Dennis, R., and Grzybowski, S. (1983). Epidemiologic health study of
workers in an aluminum smelter in British Columbia, Canada: Effects on
respiratory system. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 127:465-469.
Colomina, M.T., Sanchez, D.J., Domingo, J.L., and Sanchez-Turet, M.
(1999). Exposure of pregnant mice to aluminum and restraint stress: Effects
on postnatal development and behaviour of the offspring. Psychobiol.
27:521-529.
Colomina, M.T., Roig, J.L., Torrente, M., Vicens, P., and Domingo, J.L.
(2005). Concurrent exposure to aluminum and stress during pregnancy in
rats: Effects on postnatal development and behavior of the offspring.
Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 27:565-574.

449
 European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.24 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Colomina, M.T., Esparza, J.L., Corbella, J., and Domingo, J.L. (1998). The
effect of maternal stress on developmental toxicity of aluminum in mice.
Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 20:651-656.
Drabløs, P.A., Hetland, S. Schmidt, F., and Thomassen, Y. (1992). Uptake
and Excretion of Aluminum in Workers Exposed to Aluminum Fluoride and
Aluminum Oxide. Aluminum Association. Aluminum and Health, 2nd
International Conference. Tampa, Florida. pp. 157-160.
Emmanuel Delhaize, Peter R. Ryan (1995). Aluminum Toxicity and
Tolerance in Plants. Plant Physiol, 107: 31 5-321.
FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization)
(1989). Aluminum. In: Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and
Contaminants. Thirty-third report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee
on Food Additives. pp. 28-31 (WHO Technical Report Series No. 776)
Geneva: World Health Organization.
FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization)
(2006). Summary and conclusions of the sixty-seventh meeting of the Joint
FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).
Flaten, T. P., Alfrey, A. C., Birchall, J., Savory, J., Yokel, R. A. (1996).
Status and future concerns of clinical and environmental aluminum
toxicology. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 48(6): 527-541.
Greger JL (1992). Dietary and other sources of aluminum intake. In:
Aluminum in Biology and Medicine. Ciba Foundation Siiı;iposi:iin 169. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 26-49.
IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety) (1997). Aluminum.
Environmental Health Criteria 194. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Kausz, A. T., Antonsen, J. E., Hercz, G., Pei, Y., Weiss, N. S., Emerson, S.,
Sherrard, D. J. (1999). Screnning plasma aluminum levels in relation to
aluminum bone disease among asymptomatic dialysis patients. Am. J.
Kidney Disease 34(4): 688-693.
Kaehny WD, Hegg AP, Alfrey AC (1977). Gastrointestinal absorption of
aluminum from aluminum-containing antacids. N Engi / Med., 296: 1389-1
390.
Mazzaferro, S., Perruzza, I., Constantini, S., Pasquali, M., Onorato, L.,
Sardella, D., Giordano, R., Ciaralli, L., Ballanti, P., BGonucci, E., Cinotti, G.
A. &Coen, G. (1997). Relative roles of intestinal absorption and
dialysisfluid- related exposure of aluminum in haemodialysis patients.
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 12(12): 2679-2682.
National Library of Medicine (2000). Aluminum fluoride, Hazardous
Substances Data Base. Washington, DC, National Library of MEdicine.
NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). (2005).
Pocket guide to chemical hazards, aluminum.

450
 European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.24 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431

Ogborn, M. R., Dorcas, V. C., Crocker, J. F. (1991). Deferoxamine and

aluminum clearance in pediatric hemodialysis patients. Pediatr. Nephrol.
5(1): 62-64.
Roig, J.L., Fuentes, S., Colomina, M.T., Vicens, P., and Domingo, J.L.
(2006). Aluminum, restraint stress and aging: behavioral effects in rats after
1 and 2 years of aluminum exposure. Toxicology 218:112-124.
Rollin, H.B., Theodorou, P., and Cantrell, A.C (1996). Biological indicators
of exposure to total and respirable aluminum dust fractions in a primary
aluminum smelter. Occup. Environ. Med. 53:417-421.
Sorgdrager, B., de Looff, A. J., de Monchy, J. G., Pal, T. M., Dubois, A. E.,
Rijcken, B. (1998). Occurrence of occupational asthma in aluminum
potroom workers in relation to preventative measures. Int. Arch. Occup.
Environ. Health 71(1): 53-59.
Søyseth, V., Kongerud, J., Kjuus, H., and Boe, J. (1994). Bronchial
responsiveness and decline in FEV in aluminum potroom workers. Eur.
Resp. J. 7:888-894.
Stauber, J.L., Florence, T.M., Davies, C.M., Adams, M.S., and Buchanan,
S.J. (1999). Bioavailability of Al in alum-treated drinking water. J. Am.
Water Works Assoc. 91:84-93.
Suarez-Fernandez, M. B., Soldado, A. B., Sanz-Medel, A., Vaga, J. A.,
Novelli, A., Fernandez-Sanchez, M. T. (1999). Aluminum-induced
degeneration of astrocytes occurs via apoptosis and results in neuronal death.
Brain Res. 835(2): 125-136.
Taylor, G.A., Ferrier, I.N., McLoughlin, I.J., Fairbairn, A.F., McKeith, I.G.,
Lett, D., and Edwardson, J.A. (1992). Gastrointestinal absorption of
aluminum in Alzheimer's disease: Response to aluminium citrate. Age Aging
21:81-90.
Vandenplas, O., Delwiche, J. P., Vanbilsen, M. L., Joly, J., Roosels, D.
(1998). Occupational asthma caused by aluminum welding. Eur. Respir. J.
11(5): 1182-1184.
Wagner, W. (1999). Canadian Minerals Yearbook. Ottawa: Natural
Resources Canada.

451

View publication stats