| Objective To explore the long-term effect of endemic arsenism on oxidative stress and immune function of body, so that providing the evidence for prevention and treatment of resident in the arsenic exposure areas. Methods Using cluster sampling and typical investigation, the subject were divided five groups. Five groups included the slight patient group, the middle patient group, severe patient group, the outer control group and the inner control group. The patient groups and the inner control group were selected in the arsenism areas after 5 years of water mitigation.The Oxidative stress indicators and immunity indicators were measured and analyzed. Oxidative stress indicators included Superoxide dismutase(SOD), Glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) and Mmuuity malondisldohyde (MDA). Immunity indicators included Gimmunoglobulin G (IgG) and lysozyme(LSZ). The data were analyzed by SPSS 13.0 for windows. Results There were altogether 252 people surveyed in five groups. In five groups the distributing situation in female wasn't higher than that in male (χ2=3.14, P>0.05). It has been observed that water arsenic of the arsenism areas were below the national drinking water quality level (0.05mg/L). The median of urine arsenic was 0.0131mg/L. Urine arsenic content weren't significantly different in five groups (H=2.698, P>0.05).The concentrations of SOD were significantly different in five groups(F=52.42, P<0.01). The concentration of SOD in outer control group was significantly higher than the inner control group (q=3.44,P<0.05). The concentration of SOD in inner control group was significantly higher than that in the patient groups (the inner control group and mild arsenism group q=11.19,P<0.01; the inner control group and medium arsenism group q=11.34,P<0.01; the inner control group and severe arsenism group q=11.37,P<0.01). The concentrations of SOD weren't significantly different in patient groups (mild arsenism group and medium arsenism group q=0.46, P>0.05; mild arsenism group and severe arsenism group q=0.35, P>0.05; medium arsenism group and severe arsenism group q=0.11, P>0.05). The concentrations of GSH-Px weren't significantly different in five groups (H=4.209,P>0.05). The concentrations of MDA were significantly different in five groups (F=3.36, P<0.01). The concentration of MDA in outer control group was significantly lower than that in the other groups (the outer group and the inner control group q=3.41,P<0.05; the outer group and mild arsenism group q=4.59,P<0.05; the outer group and medium arsenism group q=4.14,P<0.01; the outer group and severe arsenism group q=2.90,P<0.05). The concentrations of MDA weren't significantly different in the other groups(the inner control group and mild arsenism group q=1.33, P>0.05; the inner control group and medium arsenism group q=0.96, P>0.05; the inner control group and severe arsenism group q=0.32, P>0.05,mild arsenism group and medium arsenism group q=0.31, P>0.05; mild arsenism group and severe arsenism group q=1.57, P>0.05, medium arsenism group and severe arsenism group q=1.22,P>0.05). The concentrations of IgG were significantly different in five groups (H=52.923, P＜0.01). The concentration of IgG in outer control group was significantly higher than that in the other groups (the outer group and the inner control group difference 94.62,ambit 42.23, P<0.05; the outer group and mild arsenism group difference 57.11, ambit 43.90, P＜0.05; the outer group and medium arsenism group difference 52.98, ambit 45.21, P＜0.05; the outer group and severe arsenism group difference 76.90, ambit 44.66, P<0.05). The concentrations of IgG weren't significantly different in the other groups(the inner control group and mild arsenism group difference 37.51, ambit 43.72, P>0.05; the inner control group and medium arsenism group difference 41.64, ambit 45.04, P>0.05; the inner control group and severe arsenism group difference 17.72, ambit 44.48, P>0.05, mild arsenism group and medium arsenism group difference 4.13, ambit 46.61, P>0.05; mild arsenism group and severe arsenism group difference 19.79, ambit 46.07, P>0.05, medium arsenism group and severe arsenism group difference 23.93, ambit 47.33,P>0.05). The concentrations of LSZ were significantly different in five groups (H =34.998, P<0.01).The concentration of LSZ in outer control group was significantly higher than that in the other groups (the outer group and the inner control group difference 46.95, ambit 42.23, P＜0.05; the outer group and mild arsenism groupv65.92, ambit 43.90, P＜0.05; the outer group and medium arsenism group difference 73.87, ambit 45.21, P＜0.05; the outer group and severe arsenism group difference 63.93, ambit 44.66, P＜0.05). The concentrations of LSZ weren't significantly different in the other groups(the inner control group and mild arsenism group difference 18.95, ambit 43.72, P>0.05; the inner control group and medium arsenism group difference 26.91, ambit 45.04, P>0.05; the inner control group and severe arsenism group difference 16.97, ambit 44.48, P>0.05, mild arsenism group and medium arsenism group difference 7.96, ambit 46.61, P>0.05; mild arsenism group and severe arsenism group difference 1.98, ambit 46.07, P>0.05, medium arsenism group and severe arsenism group difference 9.93, ambit 47.33,P>0.05). Conclusions Arsenic could induce the long-term effect of oxidative stress and immune function of body after five-year water mitigation. The sensitive indicator of oxidative stress could be improved after five-year water mitigation. People in arsenism areas after water mitigation must be surveyed while water-improving needs to be strengthened to raise the effect of prevention and control. The oxidative stress and immune indicators are credible to evaluate the prevention and treatment effect of water mitigation in the endemic arsenism areas. |
PDF Full Text Request