OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO NICKEL, CADMIUM AND COPPER AMONG WORKERS IN JEWELRY MANUFACTURINGOCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO NICKEL, CADMIUM AND COPPER AMONG WORKERS IN JEWELRY MANUFACTURING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: working in jewelry exposes workers/technicians to certain heavy metals as either in production process or cleaning processes. Heavy metals include Nickel, Cadmium And Copper. Study objectives: we conducted the present study to satisfy the following objectives: to estimate the prevalence of toxicity for Nickel, cadmium and copper among jewelry workers in Jordan, and to correlate the study variables with the toxicity level and route of exposure. Methodology: study design is cross-sectional. The target population is all jewelry technicians who work in the jewelry shops in Jordan. A convenient sample of 50 jewelry technicians were selected from those available in Amman, the capital of Jordan. A special questionnaire was prepared to collect data from participants. The first set of questions in the questionnaire determined the demographic data of the participants such as age, gender, smoking habits, type and place of occupation, and duration of employment. The second set of questions included working type, job type, use of personal protective equipment such as mask, gloves and lab-coat, diseases such as sensitivity, urinary tract infection, the perception of participants for occupational dangers associated with their job, and the frequency of jewelry melting. Urine samples were taken from participant who agreed to participate in the present study. The concentrations of heavy metals (Cadmium, Copper and Nickel) were analyzed by atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS). Findings: the study included 47 male workers with average age of 31.7 years. The concentrations of Cadmium, Copper and Nickel were higher in study participants compared with control participants. Exposure to Cadmium was significantly higher among workers compared with control (12.65 μg/l, 4.66 μg/l; P 0.001). Exposure to both Nickel and Copper was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusion: workers in jewelry are exposed to heavy metals Cadmium, Copper and Nickel and Cadmium exposure is more apparent. Exposure to Copper and Nickel seems to have other routes as indicated by control group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".