Health consequences of disinfection against SARS-CoV-2: Exploring oxidative stress damage using a biomonitoring approach

Individuals who get involved in the disinfection of public settings using sodium hypochlorite might suffer adverse health effects. However, scarce information is available on the potential oxidative stress damage caused at low concentrations typically used for disinfection. We aimed to assess whethe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Science of the total environment 2022-03, Vol.814, p.152832-152832, Article 152832
Hauptverfasser: Rafiee, Ata, Delgado-Saborit, Juana Maria, Sly, Peter D., Amiri, Hoda, Mosalaei, Shamim, Hoseini, Mohammad
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Individuals who get involved in the disinfection of public settings using sodium hypochlorite might suffer adverse health effects. However, scarce information is available on the potential oxidative stress damage caused at low concentrations typically used for disinfection. We aimed to assess whether exposure to sodium hypochlorite during the COVID-19 pandemic causes oxidative stress damage in workers engaged in disinfection tasks. 75 operators engaged in the disinfection of public places were recruited as the case group, and 60 individuals who were not exposed to disinfectant were chosen as the control group. Spot urine samples were collected before (BE) and after exposure (AE) to disinfectants in the case group. Likewise, controls provided two spot urine samples in the same way as the case group. Urinary malondialdehyde (MDA) levels were quantified by forming thiobarbituric acid reactive substances in the urine. In addition, the concentration of 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) in the urine was determined using an ELISA kit. Results showed significant differences in the urinary levels of oxidative stress markers, where median 8-OHdG (AE case: 3.84 ± 2.89 μg/g creatinine vs AE control 2.54 ± 1.21 μg/g creatinine) and MDA (AE case: 169 ± 89 μg/g creatinine vs AE control 121 ± 47 μg/g creatinine) levels in case group AE samples were 1.55 and 1.35-times higher than the control group AE samples (P 
ISSN:0048-9697
1879-1026
DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152832