Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/BRCA-RA-25-37

Evaluation of Some Haematological Parameters and Some Heavy Metals Among Smokers and Individuals Exposed to Generator Fumes in Abia State

Mbah Promise Ukamaka , Okoroiwu L. I , Aloy-Amadi Oluchi C , Nnodim Johnkennedy *

Department of Medical Laboratory Science, Imo State University, Owerri, Nigeria

Abstract

Cigarette smoking and exposure to toxic generator fumes deliver a number of heavy metals to the blood. Bioaccumulation of these toxic metals result in an increase in pathological consequences over time. The aim of this study is to assess some haematological parameters and some heavy metals among smokers and individuals exposed to generator fumes in Abia State. The study was a cross-sectional and analytical study of 210 participants including 70 smokers, 70 subjects exposed to toxic generator fumes, 35 non-smokers and 35 non exposed control subjects. A multistage sampling was used to select participants. Blood lead, cadmium levels and haematological parameters were analyzed using Atomic Absorption Spectrometer at 238.3nm wavelength and Mindray Auto Haematology Analyzer respectively. Obtained data was subjected to Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) and analyzed using One-way ANOVA. The study revealed that the mean age of smokers and non-smokers were 34.20±0.83 and 35.11±1.25 years respectively, while the mean ages of subjects exposed and non exposed to generator fumes were 34.50±0.80 and 35.11±1.25 years. The study showed the significant mean difference of haematological parameters of smokers versus non-smokers as follows: Lymphocytes % (43.21±13.93b versus 30.95±14.91a), HCT (PCV)% (40.85±5.55b versus 37.82±4.18a), Hb g/dL (13.52±1.89b versus12.28±1.37a) and MCH pg (28.02±2.11b versus 26.79±2.77a), were significantly high (p<0.05). WBC x109/L (5.62±1.70a versus 8.43±6.47b), and Neutrophil % (48.32±15.16b versus 60.79±15.92a) were significantly low in smokers as compared to non-smokers (p<0.05). The changes in haematological parameters of generator fume exposure versus non exposed subjects: Lymphocytes% (41.58±13.18b   versus 30.95±14.91a), MCV fl (85.07±4.80b versus 37.82±4.18a), were statistically significant; WBC x109 (5.57±2.48a versus 8.43±6.47b), and Neutrophil % (49.58±14.22b versus 60.79±15.92a), were significantly low in subjects exposed to generator fumes as compared to non exposed subjects (p<0.05). The study also revealed the significant mean difference of blood Lead (µg/dL) level among the controls, smokers and generator fume exposure as follows: Smokers versus Controls (7.66±3.71b versus 5.98±2.81a) was significantly high in smokers as compared to controls, and generator fume exposure versus controls (3.00±0.89c versus 5.98±2.81a) was significantly low in generator fume exposure compared to controls. The presence of Cadmium (µg/dL) among the smokers, individual exposed to generator fumes and controls were not statistically significant. There was a significant positive and negative correlation of haematological parameters among smokers and individuals exposed to generator fumes. The findings showed that continuous cigarette smoking and exposure to generator fumes have severe adverse effects on haematological parameters such as haemoglobin, haematocrit, WBC count, and platelet count, lymphocytes as well as significant increase in blood lead level among the groups, and these alterations could be associated with a greater risk for developing hypertension, atherosclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and/or cardiovascular diseases in future. 

References

img

Harry Brooks

journal of Clinical Case Studies and Review Reports. I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office.the reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding anu modifications for my manuscript,and the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help.it was my pleasure to contribute with your promising journal and i am looking forward for more collaboration.

img

Mark

My testimonial covering : the peer review process is qucick and effective,the support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly, quality of the Clinical Case Studies and Review Reports is scientific and publishers research.

img

Sinisa franjic

i would like to thank the editorial team for their timely responses and consideration in the publication of my paper . I would encourage to publish there research in ScienceFrontier.

img

Ritu Tiwari

I am pleased to submit my testimonials regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. As a peer reviewer for the manuscript titled “A Novel Dissolution Method for Simultaneous Estimation of sennoside A and Sennoside B in Senna Tablet,” I was consistently impressed by the reviewers’ thorough analysis, insightful feedback, and unwavering commitment to enhancing the quality of the work. Their reviews were comprehensive and characterized by a respectful and collaborative approach, providing valuable suggestions that significantly improved the paper's outcome. Their dedication to the peer review process demonstrated their expertise and steadfast pursuit of excellence.

img

Qader Bawerdi

With all due respect, I would like to express my opinion on the peer review, editorial support, and the quality of the journal as follows: The peer review was conducted quickly and with great care, and my article was accepted for publication in less than a week. The editorial support regarding the status of the article process was excellent, and they informed me every day until the acceptance of the current status of the article version, and regarding how to answer questions, the editorial support was excellent, timely, and friendly, and they answered questions as soon as possible and did not hesitate. The quality of the journal was excellent and it made me proud to be acquainted with the journal, and I sincerely look forward to extensive scientific collaborations in any field. I hope for increasing success and pride for the International Journal of Social Science Research and Review and all scientific and knowledge-based communities. Thank you

img

Bhuvanagiri Sathya Sindhuja

"I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to contribute to this esteemed journal. The publication process was smooth, well-coordinated, and the peer reviewers deemed highly professional. The editorial team demonstrated exceptional diligence and support at every stage, ensuring a seamless experience from submission to final publication. I am truly honored to be featured in such a reputable platform and look forward to future collaborations."

img

Safana Abdullah Algutaini

Testimonial for the Journal of Biomedical Research and Clinical Advancements It was a truly rewarding experience publishing our study, "Single-Surgeon Outcomes of Left Ventricular Aneurysm Repair in Wartime Syria: A 10-Year Retrospective Study at Damascus University Cardiac Surgery Hospital," with the Journal of Biomedical Research and Clinical Advancements. The editorial and peer-review process was both rigorous and efficient, demonstrating a high standard of academic integrity and scientific scrutiny. The journal’s commitment to open access and global health equity is evident in its support of research emerging from conflict-affected and resource-limited settings—making our work not only visible but impactful. The professionalism of the editorial team, the speed of communication, and the clarity of submission guidelines all contributed to a smooth publication process. We were particularly impressed by the quality of the publication layout and the prompt indexing of our article, which enhances its accessibility to clinicians, researchers, and policymakers worldwide. We are proud to have contributed to this journal and highly recommend it to fellow researchers seeking a reputable platform to disseminate clinically significant and globally relevant findings.