Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Geophagy practices and the content of chemical elements in the soil eaten by pregnant women in artisanal and small scale gold mining communities in Tanzania

  • Elias C Nyanza1Email author,
  • Mary Joseph2,
  • Shahirose S Premji3, 4,
  • Deborah SK Thomas5 and
  • Cynthia Mannion3
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth201414:144

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-144

Received: 17 June 2013

Accepted: 10 April 2014

Published: 15 April 2014

Abstract

Background

Geophagy, a form of pica, is the deliberate consumption of soil and is relatively common across Sub-Saharan Africa. In Tanzania, pregnant women commonly eat soil sticks sold in the market (pemba), soil from walls of houses, termite mounds, and ground soil (kichuguu). The present study examined geophagy practices of pregnant women in a gold mining area of Geita District in northwestern Tanzania, and also examined the potential for exposure to chemical elements by testing soil samples.

Method

We conducted a cross sectional study using a convenience sample of 340 pregnant women, ranging in age from 15–49 years, who attended six government antenatal clinics in the Geita District, Tanzania. Structured interviews were conducted in June-August, 2012, to understand geophagy practices. In addition, soil samples taken from sources identified by pregnant women practicing geophagy were analysed for mineral element content.

Results

Geophagy was reported by 155 (45.6%) pregnant women with 85 (54.8%) initiating the practice in the first trimester. A total of 101 (65%) pregnant women reported eating soil 2 to 3 times per day while 20 (13%) ate soil more than 3 times per day. Of 155 pregnant women 107 (69%) bought pemba from local shops, while 48 (31%) consumed ground soil kichuguu. The estimated mean quantity of soil consumed from pemba was 62.5 grams/day. Arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, nickel and zinc levels were found in both pemba and kichuguu samples. Cadmium and mercury were found only in the kichuguu samples. Based on daily intake estimates, arsenic, copper and manganese for kichuguu and copper and manganese for pemba samples exceed the oral Minimum Risk Levels designated by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry.

Conclusion

Almost 50% of participants practiced geophagy in Geita District consistent with other reports from Africa. Both pemba and kichuguu contained chemical elements at varying concentration, mostly above MRLs. As such, pregnant women who eat soil in Geita District are exposed to potentially high levels of chemical elements, depending upon frequency of consumption, daily amount consumed and the source location of soil eaten.

Keywords

Geophagy Pica Pregnancy Chemical elements Soil pollution Arsenic Mercury

Background

Geophagy, the deliberate consumption of soil, is prevalent among pregnant women across Sub-Saharan African countries, such as Kenya, Ghana, Rwanda, Nigeria, Tanzania, and South Africa [19]. The prevalence of geophagy varies between and within countries, but is estimated between 10-75% [35, 7]. It is likely that underreporting of geophagy occurs, for a variety of reasons, including embarrassment regarding the behavior, lack of knowledge and sensitive questioning on the part of investigator inquiring about geophagy and differing perceptions, beliefs, and cultural norms [4, 10].

The etiology of geophagy remains elusive. Both physiologic (e.g., mineral deficiency or hunger) and psychological (e.g., craving, obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder) models have been proposed [911]. Cultural and socioeconomic factors have also been identified as influencing the practice of geophagy, thereby highlighting its complex and little understood nature [10].

The health impacts of geophagy remain controversial and inconclusive, as reports in the literature show health benefits, harmful effects, and the absence of effects [13, 10, 1215]. Substances with clay constituents have long been used (e.g., Kaopectate®) for treating gastroenteritis, nausea, diarrhea and vomiting [3, 14, 16]. Helminthes infection that leads to anemia due to blood loss from the intestine can result from geophagy. For example, a cohort study involving 108 pregnant women conducted in Ashanti region of Ghana, reported 54.9% with anemic cases and 17.6% with helminthes infections, of which geophagy, among other factors, was said to be a predisposing factor [17]. In contrast, studies have indicated that geophagy did not increase the risk of helminthes infection, but microbial content was high [2, 18].

Soil consumed by pregnant women contains substances that are micronutrients and toxins [1]. Micronutrients include copper, iron, manganese, zinc and chromium, and are considered essential nutrients for humans [1924]. Arsenic and lead are known toxins to humans and, depending upon exposure, have detrimental effects on human health if ingested. Other constituents commonly found in soil, such as cadmium and nickel, do not have sufficient evidence to support health benefits, but are known to be hazardous to humans given repeated doses over time [25]. Of particular concern is soil contaminated by human activities, such as mining, as this can increase exposure to environmental toxins if ingested.

The risk associated with the ingestion of contaminated soil depends on the element of interest, how much is consumed (dose), how often (frequency) and the bioavailability [26]. Bioavailability is broadly defined as the dose of an unchanged substance that is absorbed and consequently distributed throughout the body [26]. This can depend upon the form or state of a chemical element. Minerals, such as copper, iron, manganese, and zinc, can be in elemental, ionic, or chelated forms or in a colloid, all of which affect the rate of absorption. Some are changed by the contents of the gut, for example, if a meal has been consumed. Meal components can interact with minerals and increase, decrease or delay absorption. Nutrients can also interact with each other for example calcium which decreases iron and zinc absorption [27].

Some chemical elements may affect the gut prior to absorption. Iron is known to irritate the gut lining causing gastrointestinal distress, such as cramping and constipation [27]. Iron containing soil may contribute to gut irritation but not necessarily to increased iron absorption as that is regulated by iron metabolites in the body. Iron overload occurs mainly from hereditary conditions or long term intake of iron rich foods or supplements [27].

Arsenic, mercury, nickel and lead are sometimes referred to as toxic elements and have been linked to adverse reproductive outcomes, neurological disorders, and impaired cognitive development in children [2836]. For example, results of a study done in Bangladesh suggested that maternal arsenic exposure early in pregnancy was associated with low birth weight [36]. Impaired cognitive function has been reported in children even with arsenic concentration in the urine below the established safe limit of 50 μg/L[36]. Maternal exposure from these toxins can concentrate in the fetus given its small size relative to the mother and the inability of the immature liver to detoxify blood. Evidence suggests that even low levels of trace metal exposure, such as cadmium and lead, are linked to numerous negative health outcomes, including cognitive deficits and other delayed developmental milestones [34, 35, 37].

In Tanzania, pregnant women commonly eat soil sticks sold daily in the market (called pemba in Swahili), soil from walls of houses, termite mounds, and ground soil (called kichuguu in Swahili). Tanzania has Africa’s second largest number of people engaged in artisanal and small-scale gold mining activities. The Geita Region, located on the shores of Lake Victoria, Tanzania, is comprised of five districts and has experienced continued significant growth in artisanal and gold mining [38]. Geita District (7,825 km 2), with a total population of more than 807,617 (407,144 being female) [39], has several active artisanal gold mining communities along with large scale gold mining operations.

In 2011, a study carried out in one artisanal gold mine with minimal waste management practices in Geita [40], reported high levels of arsenic and mercury, among other chemical elements in the ground soil. Despite the risk from contaminated soil, the practice of geophagy in the Geita District remains undocumented. This study describes pregnant women’s soil eating practices and awareness of potential risks in communities surrounding mining areas in Geita District and examines the potential for exposure to chemical elements.

Methods

Study design

We conducted a cross-sectional study using structured interviews to document pregnant women’s soil eating practices and to understand their attitudes and beliefs about geophagy. Additionally, soil sampling was undertaken from the various sources of soil consumed by the pregnant women, which were tested for the presences of 10 chemical elements. Kichuguu was obtained from sites identified by the women participating in the study who answered affirmatively that they practiced geophagy, whereas pemba was obtained in local shops using convenience sampling.

Setting

According to the “Annual 2011 Reproductive and Child Health (RCH) Report,” Geita District has an average of 53,803 pregnant women per year [41]. There are 53 government antenatal clinics serving the area that have the ability to receive up to 50 pregnant women per day per clinic [41]. The clinics provide reproductive and child health services, including Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV (PMTCT), family planning, birth preparedness planning, as well as focused antenatal care that includes checking blood pressure and body weight, provision of intermittent presumptive treatment for malaria, deworming and nutrient supplements such as folic acid and iron.

Structured interviews

A convenience sample of 340 women consented to participate in face-to-face structured interviews from June 8, through July 30, 2012. Participants were from six villages; Geita (n = 165, 48.5%), Katolo (n = 652012, 19.1%), Rwamagasa (n = 40, 11.8%), Bukoli (n = 35, 10.3%), Kasamwa (n = 25, 7.4%) and Chikobe (n = 10, 2.9%).

All pregnant women attending the antenatal clinic who were 15 to 49 years, fluent in Swahili, and were not in distress (experiencing pain or discomfort, or demonstrating signs and symptoms of malaria) were considered eligible to participate. Young pregnant women are considered a mature minor in Tanzania, and so 15 years of age was the age lower limit of those recruited. Where the numbers of women attending the antenatal clinics were low (i.e., approximately 30 per day), all pregnant women were invited to participate; however, where the numbers were high (i.e., more than 30 or so per day), a systematic selection was employed whereby every third pregnant woman was invited to participate to limit selection bias. All women who were invited to participate in the study accepted and none withdrew from the study once enrolled.

The interview questionnaire was translated to Swahili by the principal investigator and then back translated to English by a colleague to ensure language equivalency. The questionnaire was pilot tested with 20 pregnant women in one of the antenatal clinics in Mwanza in a nearby district, and subsequently revised. Pregnant women who reported practicing geophagy during pregnancy were also asked to identify their sources of soil. Some pregnant women were willing to show the researcher the exact location of the soil source so that a sample could be obtained. A total of fourteen (n = 14) samples were obtained from different ground sites all within Geita District, mostly termite mounds and a few from house mud walls (treated as kichuguu for this analysis). Using a convenience sample strategy, eight (n = 8) pemba samples were obtained from the local market places, four (n = 4) originating from Musoma (northwestern, Tanzania, near Lake Victoria) and four (n = 4) originating from Kigoma (western, Tanzania, near Lake Tanganyika) (Figure 1).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2393-14-144/MediaObjects/12884_2013_Article_1021_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Pemba samples from (a) Musoma and (b) Kigoma; the difference in color is attributable to the increased levels of iron in those from Kigoma.

Structured interview analysis

Interview data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.0. Frequencies and percentages were reported for categorical and ordinal level data. Descriptive statistics were used to describe socio-demographic characteristics of pregnant women. Comparisons were made between women who indicated that they ate soil and those who indicated that they did not eat soil. Statements were categorized as “agree, uncertain, or disagree”. We also tested for differences across these categories as uncertainty influences decision-making and require an understanding of risk attitudes. Pearson’s Chi-square test or Fischer’s exact test (when expected cell counts were less than 5) was used when comparing categorical data. A p-value of less than .05 was considered statistically significant. We reported 95% confidence intervals. Verbal responses to open ended questions were reviewed and a codebook developed. Key words or phrases were independently coded and evaluated manually by two people in order to derive themes.

Laboratory procedures

Kichuguu samples were air/sun dried, pounded, homogenized, and subsequently packed in a re-sealable plastic bag. Pemba were purchased from the shop and packed in a re-sealable plastic bag. Analyses were carried out at an International Standards Organization accredited laboratory (ISO/IEC 17025:2005) in Tanzania. All samples were sieved to less than 2 mm prior to acid digestion. For arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, nickel, lead and zinc a weight of 2(±0.01) grams for each of the sieved soil samples were weighed using an analytical balance capable of recording up to three decimal place followed by the addition of 2.5(±0.1) ml concentrated Nitric acid (HNO3) and later 2.5(±0.1) ml concentrated Hydrochloric acid (HCl). This was then digested at 110(±2)°C for 40 minutes followed by cooling and then the addition of 10 ml of 18.2Ωm de-ionized water. This was further digested for 20 minutes. The volume was increased to 50(±0.50) ml with 18.2Ωm de-ionized water and filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane filter and analysed using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) [1, 42, 43]. For arsenic, 5(±0.03) ml of concentrated HCl was added to 15(±0.03) ml of the digest followed by an addition of 0.2(±0.02) grams of potassium iodide. This was analysed with the Hydride Generation Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (HGAAS) technique using 0.30% Sodium Borohydrate (NaBH4) and 0.25% Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) as reductant [43, 44].

Determination of total mercury used 1(±0.02) grams of the less than 2 mm sieved sample followed by the addition of 10(±0.05) ml of 18.2Ωm de-ionized water, 2 (±0.05) ml of concentrated Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and 1(±0.05) ml concentration HNO3 with intermittent mixing between each addition. This was followed by an addition of 10(±0.05) ml 5% w / v potassium permanganate and 2(±0.05) ml 5% w / v potassium persulphate and digested at 95°C for 30 minutes. This was then followed by an addition of 5(±0.05) ml of hydroxylamine hydrochloride (10% w / v ) - sodium chloride (12% w / v ) solution to reduce excess potassium permanganate after cooling. The digest was increased to 50(±0.50) ml with 18.2Ωm de-ionized water [43, 45, 46]. Total mercury was determined by Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry (CVAAS) using 25% Tin (II) Chloride as reductant, as documented in the American Public Health Association Standard Methods [43, 44, 47] within 24 hours.

Exposure estimate calculations

The soil ingestion rate (Ig/R) (gram/day) was estimated according to the basic equation documented in the UNEP Basic Environmental Health Handbook (Ig/R = FNW)[48]; where F; frequency of pemba eaten per day, N; number of pemba eaten at one time, W; mean weight of pemba (grams). The Daily Intake (DI) for a specific chemical element was estimated using the soil ingestion rate (Ig/R) of 62.5 g/day (the estimated amount of pemba eaten on average by women in the study) and the concentration of the particular chemical element (DI = Ig/R x concentration of the chemical element)[48].

The daily intake was converted to a dose (mg/kg/day), using a mean weight 80 kg for an adult of 21 or more years [46] because we did not have actual weights for our study participants. These were then compared to the oral Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs)a established by the US Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) [26, 45]. Chemical elements with a dose (mg/kg/day) less than the oral MRLs for intermediate (15 to 364 days) or chronic (≥365 days) exposures [45] were considered normal levels. We have also used the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) developed by the Institute of Medicine as nutrient reference points to discuss risk levels of micronutrients found in soil, although we are aware that they are not intended for non-food substances. Tolerable upper intake levels (UL) were established for many micronutrients by the Institute of Medicine [25], which when consumed in amounts reaching or exceeding the UL can cause adverse effects.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences and Bugando Medical Centre joint Research Ethical Committee. Permission to conduct research in Geita District was obtained from the respective authorities at the regional, district and village levels. Pregnant women were asked individually if they were interested in participating and then written informed consent was obtained.

Results

Geophagy practice, belief and perception among pregnant women

One third of the mothers enrolled (31.2%, n = 106) were between 21 to 26 years, 25% (n = 85) were between 15–20 years, 24.1% (n = 82) were between 27–32 years, 15.3% (n = 52) were between 33–40 years, and a few (4.4%, n = 15) were aged above 40 years. More than half (55.9%, n = 190) completed primary school, 34.7% (n = 118) had no formal education, and 9.4% (n = 32) had secondary education and above. One third (36.5%, n = 124) of the respondents were housewives, while 30.9% (105) were engaged in agriculture, including livestock keeping and cultivation and 15.9% (n = 54) were engaged in mining activities. Some of the respondents (13.5%, n = 46) were involved in business, which included all types of shops, such as tailoring, etc. A small number 3.2% (n = 11) were employed in public services.

Geophagy was practiced by 45.6% (n = 155) of these pregnant women enrolled. Reasons given for eating soil included a persistent desire (60.6%, n = 94), a need to reduce morning sickness (31%, n = 48), attraction by the scent of the soil (5.81%, n = 9), and enjoyment of the soil’s taste (2.6%, n = 4). Among the respondents who reported eating soil, most of them (65.2%, n = 101) ate soil 2–3 times a day, 21.3% (n = 33) ate soil once a day and 13.5% (n = 21) ate soil more than three times a day. Some of the respondents (31%, n = 48) who practiced geophagy consume kichuguu, but the majority (69%, n = 107) purchased pemba from the local shop/market.

Respondents reported initiating geophagy at various times during pregnancy; in the first trimester (i.e., 1st to 3rd month; 54.8%, n = 85), in the second trimester (i.e., 4th to 6th month; 36.1%, n = 56), and in the third trimester (i.e., 7th to 9th month; 9%, n = 14). One quarter of participants (24.5%, n = 38/155) attempted to stop eating soil while the rest (75.5%, n = 117) indicated a persistent desire to eat soil because of the “good smell” of the soil and the need to stop vomiting.

Table 1 summarizes the identification of soil as a non-food substance by participants. More than half (59.7%, n = 203) of the 340 respondents identified soil as a substance that pregnant women consume, but not a “normal” food. Other substances consumed included charcoal (13.2%, n = 45), uncooked rice (1.8%, n = 6) and ice (0.88%, n = 3). A majority of the pregnant women (67.4%, n = 229) indicated that soil does not provide nutrients to mother or unborn baby, while only a few (3.2%, n = 11) indicated that soil provides nutrients to mother and unborn baby. Some of the respondents (29.4%, n = 100) were not sure whether eating soil provides nutrients to mother and unborn baby.
Table 1

Substances eaten by pregnant women which are not typically food

Mentioned substances

N

%

Soil

203

59.7

Charcoal

45

13.2

Uncooked rice

6

1.8

Ice

3

0.88

None*

83

24.4

*Unable to identify substances.

There was a statistically significant difference in beliefs between those who practiced and those who did not practice geophagy summarized in Table 2. For instance, more than half (58.7%, n = 91) of the pregnant women who practiced geophagy believed that eating soil stops/prevents morning sickness. However, a majority of the pregnant women (61.1, n = 113) who do not practice geophagy were uncertain (p < .001). More than half of those in the study practicing geophagy (57.4%, n = 89) did not believe that eating soil ensures healthy pregnancy, while a majority of those not practicing geophagy (54.1%, n = 100) were uncertain (p = .009). Likewise, pregnant women were uncertain whether eating soil is a sign of a woman being pregnant (p = .001) or ensures a beautiful baby (p = .021).
Table 2

Geophagy beliefs and practice *pearson chi-square

  

Geophagy practice

  

Yes

No

Geophagy beliefs

 

n

%

N

%

p-value

Eating soil reduces/stops

Agree

91

58.7

34

18.4

 

morning sickness

Uncertain

48

31.0

113

61.1

< .001*

 

Disagree

16

10.3

38

20.5

 

Eating soil ensures

Agree

-

-

4

2.2

 

healthy pregnancy

Uncertain

66

42.6

100

54.1

.009^

 

Disagree

89

57.4

81

43.8

 

Eating soil prevents

Agree

-

-

-

-

 

prolonged labor

Uncertain

31

20.0

76

40.5

< .001*

 

Disagree

124

80.0

109

58.9

 

Eating soil is a sign of

Agree

11

7.1

16

8.6

 

a woman being pregnant

Uncertain

44

28.4

87

47.0

.001*

 

Disagree

100

64.5

82

44.3

 

Eating soil ensures

Agree

1

0.60

2

1.1

 

a beautiful baby

Uncertain

53

34.2

88

47.6

.021^

 

Disagree

101

65.2

95

51.4

 

*Pearson Chi-Square.

^Fisher’s Exact Test.

Chemical elements in pemba and kichuguu

It was not possible to estimate the quantity of kichuguu eaten by pregnant women because they could not recall the amount eaten each time. However, it was possible to do so for pemba as respondents could indicate the number of sticks eaten each time and how many times per day. The total weight of soil eaten per day was estimated using mean weight of a pemba stick. Samples of pemba were taken to an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory where they were weighed. The mean weight of the pemba was 9.74 grams. Using this weight, it was determined that over half of the pregnant women who ate pemba (52.3%, n = 56) ate more than 50 g/day, 24.3% (n = 26) ate 20 to 50 g/day, and 21.5% (n = 23) ate less than 20 g/day. As such, the mean daily consumption was estimated to be 62.5 g/day for a pregnant woman for both pemba and kichuguu.

The concentration of chemical elements in both pemba and kichuguu are presented in Table 3. The concentration of chemical elements in pemba varied depending on the location sourced. Kigoma sourced pemba were high in chromium, copper, iron, nickel and zinc, while pemba from Musoma were high in manganese and lead. Mercury and cadmium were below the method detection limits for pemba from both sources. For Kichuguu samples, mercury and cadmium ranged from 0.015 to 0.075 mg/kg and <0.001 to 0.220 mg/kg respectively. Similar to pemba, chemical elements in the kichuguu samples varied from one area to another. However, the concentrations were higher overall for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead and zinc as compared to the pemba samples. The concentrations of iron in the kichuguu samples were relatively low compared to the Kigoma pemba samples. The mean chemical element concentrations were used to estimate the Daily Intake (DI) and the dose for pregnant women in Geita District. Table 4 summarizes the estimated DI and daily dose of chemical elements for pregnant women consuming pemba and kichuguu samples.
Table 3

Chemical element content in pemba and kichuguu eaten by pregnant women

 

Location

Sample

Total chemical element in mg/kg

 

Sourced

Identity

As

Cd

Cr

Cu

Fe

Hg

Mn

Ni

Pb

Zn

Pemba

Kigoma

KIG 01

0.290

<0.001

114

58.6

85607

<0.001

289

59.0

<0.01

101

 

KIG 02

0.490

<0.001

146

62.4

88382

<0.001

288

60.7

<0.01

104

 

KIG 03

0.310

<0.001

111

63.1

89756

<0.001

283

63.4

<0.01

78.1

 

KIG 04

0.270

<0.001

119

68.0

87269

<0.001

284

63.9

<0.01

80.4

 

Mean

0.340

-

123

63.0

87754

-

286

61.8

-

90.9

 

SD

0.101

-

16.0

3.9

1756

-

2.9

2.3

-

13.5

Musoma

MSG 01

0.200

<0.001

65.0

27.5

34643

<0.001

1290

4.0

1.9

20.7

 

MSG 02

0.190

<0.001

68.5

27.9

34534

<0.001

1312

4.7

2.8

23.1

 

MSG 03

0.460

<0.001

98.3

58.9

34663

<0.001

1436

42.2

<0.01

68.3

 

MSG 04

0.390

<0.001

94.7

58.9

35491

<0.001

1400

42.4

<0.01

28.1

  

Mean

0.310

-

81.6

43.3

34833

-

1360

23.3

2.4

35.1

  

SD

0.136

-

17.3

18.0

442

-

69.7

21.9

0.636

22.4

Kichuguu

Katolo

KTG 01

4.8

0.025

108

61.5

35878

0.039

861

51.3

7.4

45.5

 

KTG 02

4.6

<0.001

98.5

62.3

57916

0.065

762

53.8

6.4

38.5

Rwamagasa

RWG 01

14.8

0.092

97.3

79.7

55983

0.056

671

45.4

2.9

101

 

RWG 02

19.7

0.220

287

169

68922

0.075

1325

128

3.9

112

Geita

GTG 01

0.790

<0.001

103

46.4

33884

0.020

571

60.8

1.5

24.4

 

GTG 02

3.0

0.044

41.5

67.4

43929

0.037

828

39.4

6.0

27.8

Kasamwa

KSG 01

3.1

0.035

133

53.8

45600

0.039

1303

65.9

6.2

28.7

 

KSG 02

4.5

0.035

68.8

58.7

51649

0.032

1243

43.4

5.8

30.7

Nyankumbu

NYG 01

3.2

0.016

132

50.0

42919

0.015

1343

69.8

5.8

25.6

 

NYG 02

5.3

<0.001

108

52.9

38765

0.041

529

55.9

7.0

26.8

Bukoli

BKG 01

3.3

0.016

73.0

63.4

46401

0.022

761

83.1

9.4

41.8

 

BKG 02

3.6

<0.001

99.9

51.1

45912

0.052

602

56.6

8.3

45.3

Chikobe

CHG 01

5.0

<0.001

246

69.9

72204

0.072

2515

101

11.3

34.5

 

CKG 02

5.9

0.016

216

61.4

56838

0.074

1251

113

8.7

29.2

  

Mean

5.8

0.055

129

67.7

49771

0.046

1040

69.1

6.5

43.7

  

SD

5.1

0.066

70.7

30.5

11501

0.020

522

27.3

2.6

27.6

As=arsenic; Cd=cadmium; Cr=chromium; Cu=copper; Fe=iron; Hg=mercury; Mn=manganese; Ni=nickel; Pb=lead; Zn=zinc.

Table 4

Estimated daily intake and daily dose of chemical elements of the soil eaten by pregnant women

Chemical content

Kigoma Pemba

Musoma Pemba

Kichuguu soil

MRLs* (mg/kg/day)

 

Mean conc. ( mg/kg)

Daily intake (mg/day)

Daily dose (mg/kg/day)

Mean conc. (mg/kg)

Daily intake (mg/day)

Daily dose (mg/kg/day)

Mean conc. ( mg/kg)

Daily intake (mg/day)

Daily dose (mg/kg/day)

 

As

0.340

0.021

0.0003

0.310

0.019

0.0002

5.8

0.36

0.0045

0.0003

Cd

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.036

0.002

0.00003

0.0005

Cr

122

7.6

0.095

81.6

5.1

0.064

129

8.1

0.100

0.0009a

Cu

63.0

3.9

0.049

43.3

2.7

0.034

67.7

4.2

0.053

0.010

Fe

87754

5484

68.6

34833

2177

27.2

49771

3111

38.9

Xx

Hg

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

0.046

0.003

0.00004

0.0003b

Mn

286

17.9

0.220

1360

85.0

1.1

1040

65.0

0.810

0.160c

Ni

61.8

3.9

0.048

23.3

1.4

0.018

69.1

4.3

0.054

xx

Pb

BDL

BDL

BDL

2.4

0.150

0.0019

6.5

0.410

0.005

xx

Zn

90.9

5.7

0.071

35.1

2.2

0.027

43.7

2.7

0.034

0.300

Mean body weight of 80 kg for an adult was used to estimate Daily Dose in women, mg/kg/day[46].

As=arsenic; Cd=cadmium; Cr=chromium; Cu=copper; Fe=iron; Hg=mercury; Mn=manganese; Ni=nickel; Pb=lead; Zn=zinc.

*Oral Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) in mg/kg/day for chronic exposure to chemical element as established by ATSDR [45].

BDL refers to concentration below the method detection limit of the particular mineral element.

aOral MRLs for chromium hexavalent.

bOral MRLs for chronic toxicity for methyl mercury.

cInterim guidance value for manganese (mg/kg/day).

xxNo oral MRLs have been derived for the specific chemical element.

The total chromium dose was found to be higher than the oral MRLs for chronic exposure for chromium hexavalent of 0.001 mg/kg/day[45] irrespective of the source of the sample. The same trend was observed for copper, where the pemba dose was estimated at 0.049 and 0.034 mg/kg/day for Kigoma and Musoma samples respectively and 0.053 mg/kg/day for kichuguu samples; all of these were above the the oral MRLs for intermediate exposure for copper of 0.010 mg/kg/day[21, 45]. The dose for manganese was found to be higher in all the samples as compared to the interim guidance value for chronic exposure for manganese of 0.160 mg/kg/day[22, 45], whereas the dose for zinc was found to be lower than the oral MRLs for chronic exposure of 0.300 mg/kg/day[23, 45] in all of the samples analysed.

The daily intake for iron (5484, 2177 and 3111 mg/day for Kigoma and Musoma pemba, and kichuguu samples respectively) and are higher than the Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (UL) for iron intake of 45.0 mg/day, and above the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) intake for iron of 22.0 mg/day for pregnant women aged from 19 to 50 years [25]. However, even though there have been reports that geophagy alleviates iron deficiency anemia of pregnancy [25], without adequate knowledge of a woman’s dietary intake of iron from food, water and supplements, it is unknown what contribution iron containing soil could make to achieve the EAR or exceed the UL.

Discussion

In the present study, more than half of the respondents (59.7%) identified soil as substance ingested by pregnant women. This is consistent with a study conducted in Nairobi, Kenya, where 61.2% of the respondents reported soil as substance ingested [5]. We found that pregnant women purchase soil from local shops or eat soil taken from the ground. More pregnant women (45.6%) reported practicing geophagy in this study than previously reported in Tanzania, where the prevalence was estimated between 5.2% and 28.5% [6, 9]. This reinforces suspicions of underreporting described in some studies [4, 9].

Most of the pregnant women who ate soil started in the first trimester consistent with a previous study conducted in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania [9]. The authors also noted consumption of soil was used to treat morning sickness, nausea and vomiting [3, 9, 49]. In the current study, 31% of pregnant women who practice geophagy do so to prevent and/or stop morning sickness. However, beliefs vary as those not practicing geophagy did not associate soil eating with a reduction in morning sickness. The majority of all participants practicing geophagy did not believe that eating soil ensures a healthy pregnancy or prevents prolonged labor. This is in contrast with a large study reporting a positive belief towards preventing prolonged labor and ensuring a healthy pregnancy [49]. This may reflect regional differences in belief systems. Some participants mentioned that some women eat soil when they are not pregnant, and that it is also common in children and some men, and so geophagy is not restricted to pregnant women [10]. This indicates wider social and cultural considerations as an explanation for the practice.

The findings that pregnant women ingest soil up to three times per day are consistent with a study in Kenya [5]. We did not take blood samples or include questions regarding adverse symptoms associated with chemical element constituents of pemba and kichuguu. However, those women practicing geophagy potentially increased their exposure to chemical elements found in samples compared to those who did not consume soil. Soil from kichuguu in the Geita District is of particular concern because of potential soil contamination from arsenic among other chemical elements due to gold mining in the area [40, 50]. The present study found total arsenic in the kichuguu samples at doses above the oral MRLs for chronic exposure of 0.0003 mg/kg/day for inorganic arsenic [30, 45]. Establishing the bioavailability of soil constituents and determining - adverse effects calls for further study.

The levels of mercury found in the kichuguu soil in this study is consistent with other soil testing conducted in this area [50], suggesting that pregnant women who practice geophagy may be exposed to high levels of mercury. In addition, pregnant women are generally exposed to arsenic, chromium, copper, manganese and nickel at different levels depending on the type of soil eaten and the source obtained. As such, women who eat kichuguu from areas with minimal waste management practices, such as artisanal and small scale gold mining locations, are potentially at increased risk for exposure to chemical elements as compared to those who eat pemba, which generally comes from other locations.

Exposure to chemical elements has been associated with increased risks of a range of adverse neuro-cognitive developmental effects and increased neonatal and post-natal mortality, lowered birth weight, spontaneous abortion, increased number of still births and congenital malformations [19, 20, 2835, 45]. For instance, modest consumption of 50.0 grams of soil taken from an arsenic contaminated area per day is equivalent to intake of 0.370 mg of arsenic [1]. The presence of lead in some of the pemba and most of the kichuguu presents a risk of lead toxicity, which can severely damage the brain and kidneys in adults or children and may cause miscarriage and can ultimately cause death. [29, 51]. Lead exposures either in utero, during infancy, or during childhood can result in delays or impairment of neurological development, neurobehavioral deficits, low birth weight and low gestational age, growth retardation, and delay maturation in girls [29, 45, 51]. Pregnant women who practice geophagy may expose themselves and their unborn babies to the risk of chemical elements some above the oral MRLs for either intermediate or chronic exposures. Risk to the fetus is even greater as the toxins concentrate from the mother to the fetus [34, 35].

Even though copper, manganese, zinc and iron are essential elements for maintaining good health, high levels of each can have harmful effects [25]. According to the ATSDR, large doses of zinc and copper taken by mouth can cause stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting and even death [21, 23, 45]. Manganese is an essential nutrient involved in bone formation and carbohydrate metabolism but high intake levels of manganese can result in “manganism” [22]. This disease, usually characterized as an occupational hazard for people who inhale manganese dust, results in neurological effects similar to Parkinson’s disease [25]. The Institute of Medicine cautions against taking manganese supplements in individuals who consume plant products high in manganese [25]. The recommended average intake (AI) during pregnancy for manganese is 2.0 mg/day and tolerable upper intake level is 11.0 mg/day[25]. Estimates of samples of Musoma pemba, Kigoma pemba, and kichuguu consumed daily by pregnant women contained 17.9, 85.0 and 65.0 mg/day respectively (Table 4). These levels exceed recommendations. In addition, higher than recommended amounts of zinc consumed for prolonged periods can cause anemia and decrease levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [23]. The amount of zinc found in the soil eaten calls for further monitoring due to potential multiple sources of zinc from food sources.

Overall evidence indicates that those working in public health and health care delivery should discourage geophagy, particularly when the soil sources are from settings such as gold mining where environmental soil contamination is likely. However, because of the complexity underlying soil eating behaviors and a lack of consensus about why women undertake this practice, elimination of geophagy will be challenging. Thus, a range of options could be applied to artisanal mining settings including improved waste management practices, establishing educational programs for health workers and mothers, introducing a surveillance system that focus on exposure and/or outcomes, providing safer alternatives to soil for eating, or even ensuring that the soil eaten by pregnant women is from a safer source free of contaminants.

Conclusions

The findings revealed a higher prevalence of geophagy among pregnant women surveyed in Geita District, a gold mining region, than reported across Tanzania, and in many other studies. Current practices may be explained by women’s need to manage nausea associated with pregnancy. However, the health beliefs and cultural meaning given to the practice requires further exploration. Importantly, potentially harmful exposure to chemical elements in the soil contaminated by mining varies depending upon frequency and amount consumed, but we have shown that most samples exceeded established safety levels. Thus, in artisanal mining settings, culturally appropriate and sensitive policies and programs should be developed that directly address a reduction of exposure to contaminants from geophagy.

Endnote

a mg/kg/day = Concentration of the mineral element in mg/kg x Soil Ingestion rate in kg/day per mean adult body weight in kg.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the School of Public Health at the Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, the University of Calgary, the University of Colorado Denver and Goodneighbours Tanzania, for the collaboration of resources that made this possible. Authors would like to thank all the participants in this study and the African Assay Laboratories (Environmental Lab in Mwanza, Tanzania) for analyzing the samples.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Public Health, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences
(2)
Goodneighbours Tanzania
(3)
Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, University of Calgary
(4)
Department of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary
(5)
Department of Geography & Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Denver

References

  1. Al-Rmalli SW, Jenkins RO, Watts MJ, Haris P: Risk of human exposure to arsenic and other toxic elements from geophagy: trace element analysis of baked clay using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Environ Health. 2010, 9: 79-10.1186/1476-069X-9-79.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Kutalek R, Wewalka G, Gundacker C, Auer H, Wilson J, Haluza D, Huhulescu S, Hillier S, Sager M, Prinz A: Geophagy and potential health implications: geohelminths, microbes and heavy metals. Trans R Soc Trop MedHyg. 2010, 104 (12): 787-795. 10.1016/j.trstmh.2010.09.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Njiru H, Elchalai U, Paltiel O: Geophagy during pregnancy in Africa: a literature review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2011, 66 (7): 452-459. 10.1097/OGX.0b013e318232a034.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Corbett RW, Ryan C, Weinrich SP: Pica in pregnancy: does it affect pregnancy outcomes?. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2003, 28: 183-189. 10.1097/00005721-200305000-00009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ngozi PO: Pica practices of pregnant women in Nairobi, Kenya. East Afr Med J. 2008, 85 (2): 72-79.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Kawai K, Saathoff E, Antelman G, Msamanga G, Fawzi WW: Geophagy (soil-eating) in relation to anemia infection among HIV-infected pregnant women in Tanzania. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009, 80 (1): 36-43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Antelman G, Msamanga GI, Spiegelman D, Urassa EJ, Narh R, Hunter DJ, Fawzi WW: Nutritional factors and infectious disease contribute to anemia among pregnant women with human immunodeficiency virus in Tanzania. J Nutr. 2000, 130: 1950-1957.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Yanai J, Noguchi J, Yamada H, Sugihara S, Kilasara M, Kosaki T: Functions of geophagy as supplementation of micronutrients in Tanzania. Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2009, 55 (1): 215-223. 10.1111/j.1747-0765.2008.00346.x. doi:10.1111/j.1747-0765.2008.00346.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Knudsen JW: Akula udongo (earth eating habit): a soil and cultural practice among Chagga women on the slopes of the Mount Kilimanjaro. Afr J Ind Know Systems. 2001, 1: 19-26.Google Scholar
  10. Young SL: Pica in pregnancy: new ideas about old condition. Annu Rev Nutr. 2010, 30: 403-422. 10.1146/annurev.nutr.012809.104713.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hergüner S, Ozyildirim I, Tanidir C: Is pica an eating disorder or an obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder?. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2008, 32: 2010-2011. 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2008.09.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Khan Y, Tisman G: Pica in iron deficiency: a case series. J Med Case Rep. 2010, 4: 86-10.1186/1752-1947-4-86. doi:10.1186/1752-1947-4-86View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawford L, Bodkin K: Health and social impacts of geophagy in Panama. MSURJ. 2011, 6 (1): 31-37. http://msurj.mcgill.ca/vol6/iss1/crawford2011.pdf,Google Scholar
  14. Vermeer DE, Ferrell RE: Nigerian geophagical clay: a traditional antidiarrheal pharmaceutical. Science. 1985, 227: 634-636. 10.1126/science.3969552.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Habold C, Reichardt F, Le Maho Y, Angel F, Liewig N, Lignot JH, Oudart H: Clay ingestion enhances intestinal triacylglycerol hydrolysis and non-esterified fatty acid absorption. Br J Nutr. 2009, 102: 249-257. 10.1017/S0007114508190274. doi:10.1017/S0007114508190274View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Szajewska H, Dziechciarz P, Mrukowicz J: Meta-analysis: smectite in the treatment of acute infectious diarrhoea in children. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006, 23: 217-227. 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02760.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Baidoo SE, Tay SCK, Obiri-Danso K, Abruquah HH: Intestinal helminth infection and anaemic during pregnancy: a community based study in Ghana. J Bacteriol Res. 2010, 2 (2): 9-13.Google Scholar
  18. Young SL, Goodman D, Farag TH, Ali SM, Khatib MR, Khalfan SS, Tielsch JM, Stoltzfus RJ: Geophagia is not associated with Trichuris or hookworm transmission in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2007, 101: 766-772. 10.1016/j.trstmh.2007.04.016.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc. 2001, Washington DC: Report of the Panel on Micronutrients, Food and Drug Administration. Dietary Supplements. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Korfali SI, Hawi T, Mroueh M: Evaluation of heavy metals content in dietary supplements in Lebanon. Chem Cent J. 2013, 7: 10-10.1186/1752-153X-7-10. doi:10.1186/1752-153X-7-10View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Toxicological profile of copper. 2004, Atlanta, GA: US Department of Public Health and Human Services, Public Health ServicesGoogle Scholar
  22. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Toxicological profile for manganese. 2012, Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Public Health and Human Services, Public Health ServiceGoogle Scholar
  23. Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Toxicological profile of zinc (update). 2005, Atlanta, GA: US Department of Public Health and Human Services, Public Health ServicesGoogle Scholar
  24. Food and Nutrition Board (FNB): Dietary reference intakes: Vitamin A, vitamin K, arsenic, boron, chromium, copper, iodide, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, vanadium and zinc. 2001, Washington D.C: Institute of Medicine, National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Otten JJ, Pitzi Hellwig J, Meyers LD: Dietary DRI Reference Intakes: the essential guide to nutrient requirements; Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. 2006, Washington, DC: The National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Chou CHSJ, Holler J, De Rosa C: Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for hazardous substances. J of Clean Technology, Environmental Toxicology, and Occupational Medicine. 1998, 7 (1): 1-24.Google Scholar
  27. Anderson JJB: Minerals. Krause’s Food, Nutrition, & Diet Therapy. Edited by: Mahan LK, Escott-Stump S. 2004, USA: Saunders, 120-163. 11Google Scholar
  28. Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Toxicological Profile of Nickel (Update). 2005, Atlanta, GA: US Department of Public Health and Human Services, Public Health ServicesGoogle Scholar
  29. Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Toxicological profile of lead (update). 2007, Atlanta, GA: US Department of Public Health and Human Services, Public Health ServicesGoogle Scholar
  30. Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Toxicological profile for arsenic. 2007, Atlanta, GA: US Department of Public Health and Human Services, Public Health ServicesGoogle Scholar
  31. Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Toxicological Profile for Mercury. 1999, Atlanta: US Department of Public Health and Human Services, Public Health ServicesGoogle Scholar
  32. Wasserman GA, Liu X, Parvez F, Ahsan H, Factor-Litvak P, Van Geen A, Slavkovich V, LoIacono NJ, Cheng Z, Hussain I, Momotaj H, Graziano JH: Water arsenic exposure and children’s intellectual function in Araihazar, Bangladesh. Environ Health Perspect. 2004, 112 (17): 1329-1333.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Clifton JC: Mercury exposure and public health. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2007, 54 (2): 237-269.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wigle DT, Arbuckle TE, Turner MC, Bérubé A, Yang Q, Liu S, Krewski D: Epidemiologic evidence of relationships between reproductive and child health outcomes and environmental chemical contaminants. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2008, 11 (5–6): 373-517. doi:10.1080/10937400801921320View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Wigle DT, Arbuckle TE, Walker M, Wade MG, Liu S, Krewski D: Environmental hazards: evidence for effects on child health. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2007, 10 (1–2): 3-39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Huyck KL, Kile ML, Mahiuddin G, Quamruzzaman Q, Rahman M, Breton CV, Dobson CB, Frelich J, Hoffman E, Yousuf J, Afroz S, Islam S, Christiani DC: Maternal exposure associated with low birth weight in Bangladesh. J Occup Environ Med. 2007, 49 (10): 1097-1104. 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181566ba0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosado JL, Ronquillo D, Kordas K, Rojas O, Alatorre J, Lopez P, Garcia-Vargas G, Del Carmen Caamaño M, Cebrián ME, Stoltzfus RJ: Arsenic exposure and cognitive performance in Mexican schoolchildren. Environ Health Perspect. 2007, 115 (9): 1371-1375. 10.1289/ehp.9961.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Spiegel S: Analysis of formalization approaches in the artisanal and small-scale gold mining sector based on experiences in Ecuador, Mongolia, Peru, Tanzania, and Uganda: Tanzania Case Study. 2012, Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), http://www.unep.org/chemicalsandwaste/Portals/9/Mercury/Documents/ASGM/Formalization_ARM/Formalization%20Document%20Final%20June%202012.pdf,Google Scholar
  39. Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics: 2012 Population and Housing Census: Population Distribution by Administrative Areas. 2013, Dar es salaam: United Republic of TanzaniaGoogle Scholar
  40. Charles E, Thomas DSK, Dewey D, Davey M, Ngallaba SE, Konje E: Perception of Health risks associated with Arsenic and Mercury contamination from Artisanal Gold Mining in Tanzania. BMC Public Health. 2013, 13: 74-10.1186/1471-2458-13-74. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-74View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Tanzania Ministry of Health and Social Welfare: Mwanza Region Reproductive and Child Healthcare Report. 2011, Geita District: Annual ReportGoogle Scholar
  42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Test methods for evaluating solid waste; physical/chemical methods. 1999, Washington D.C: Final Update IIIA. EPASW-846.3-3a, http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/index.htm, 3,Google Scholar
  43. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Edited by: Eaton AD, Clesceri LS, Rice EW, Greenberg AE. 2005, Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association: Method 3111B, D, 3112B & 3114B.3:19–34. American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), Water Environmental Federation (WEF), 21Google Scholar
  44. Nobbins WB: Arsenic determination. 2010, USA: Hydride Generation Application Note, Atomic Absorption. Agilent Technologies, Inc, http://www.chem.agilent.com/Library/applications/AA022.pdf,Google Scholar
  45. Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Minimal risk levels for Hazardous Substances (MRLs). 2013, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/mrllist.asp,Google Scholar
  46. U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). 2011, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-09/052F
  47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Test methods for evaluating liquid waste (manual cold-vapor techniques). 1994, Washington D.C: Method 7470A, 1: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/7470a.pdf,Google Scholar
  48. Yassi A, KjellstrÖm T, Kok T, Guidotti TL: Basic Environmental Health. 2001, New York: Oxford University PressView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Nwafor AO: Reasons pregnant women who attend antenatal care in Mecklenburg Hospital eat soil. 2008, University of Limpopo (Medunsa Campus),: PhD dissertationGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor H, Appleton JD, Lister R, Smith B, Chitamweba D, Mkumbo O, Machiwa JF, Tesha AL, Beinhoff C: Environmental assessment of mercury contamination from the Rwamagasa artisanal gold mining centre, Geita District Tanzania. Sci Total Environ. 2005, 343 (1–3): 111-133.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Dooyema CA, Neri A, Lo Y, Durant J, Dargan PI, Swarthout T, Biya O, Gidado SO, Haladu S, Sani-Gwarzo N, Nguku PM, Akpan H, Idris S, Bashir AM, Brown MJ: Outbreak of fatal childhood lead poisoning related to artisanal gold mining in Northwestern Nigeria. Environ Health Perspect. 2012, 120 (4): 601-607. doi:10.1289/ehp.1103965View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/14/144/prepub

Copyright

© Nyanza et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.