Skip to main content
Download PDF

Prenatal arsenic and mercury levels among women practicing geophagy in areas with artisanal and small-scale gold mining activities, Northwestern Tanzania

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 23, Article number: 854 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) areas potentially pose increased exposure to arsenic and mercury through community contamination, occupations at gold mines, and/or geophagy when soil is locally sourced. This study examined the effects of geophagy, a deliberate soil eating practice, along with community and occupational exposures in ASGM areas on urinary arsenic and blood mercury levels among pregnant women in the Mining and Health Longitudinal Cohort in northwestern Tanzania.

Methods

Data on maternal arsenic and mercury levels were captured for 1056 pregnant women using an unprovoked morning urine samples and dried blood spots respectively. We used a step-wise generalized linear regression model to retain the most relevant covariates for the model. A generalized linear regression model with identity link function was used to predict the effect of geophagy practices on arsenic and mercury levels separately. The model was adjusted using sociodemographic correlates, including maternal age, education level, whether respondents lived in mining or non-mining area, years of residence, marital status, maternal occupation, individual partner’s education, and occupational, and socioeconomic status.

Results

In the adjusted regression model, eating soil during pregnancy increased arsenic concentration by almost 23% (β = 1.229, 95% CI: 1.094, 1.38, p < 0.001) and living in mining areas had a 21.2% (β = 1.212; 95% CI: 1.039,1.414, p = 0.014) increased risk. Geophagy significantly increased mercury levels by 13.3% (β = 1.133, 95% CI: 1.022, 1.257, p = 0.018). Living in areas with ASGM activities was associated with a 142% (β = 2.422, 95% CI: 2.111, 2.776, p < 0.0001) increase in blood mercury.

Conclusion

Geophagy practices increased urinary arsenic and blood mercury levels in pregnant women, which was especially true for arsenic when living in areas with ASGM activities. Working in mining = increased risk for blood mercury levels. Community-based environmental health policies should address reductions in occupational and community exposures, along with strategic geophagy reduction interventions.

Peer Review reports

Background

Artisanal and small scale gold mining (ASGM) areas potentially pose increased exposure to arsenic and mercury through community contamination, occupations at gold mines, and/or geophagy, deliberately eating soil particularly when soil is locally sourced [1,2,3]. ASGM activities are commonly conducted with minimal environmental, occupational, or community safety precautions [4], resulting in soil contamination from arsenic, a constituent of gold ore in many areas, and mercury, which is commonly used during gold processing.

Pregnant women who practice geophagy, in contaminated areas may be at increased risk of either acute and/or chronic exposure to arsenic and mercury [2, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. In a study in Geita District, Tanzania (an ASGM area), geophagy was reported in 46.5% of pregnant women [2]. In the Mining and Health Longitudinal Cohort Study in the same area, results reported high levels of urinary arsenic (38.2 µg/L) and blood mercury (3.8 µg/L) with more than 24% and 76.5% of pregnant women respectively having levels above the human biomonitoring reference values established by the Germany Environmental Survey (GerESIV) of 15 µg/L [9]. However, geophagy was not included as part of the initial analysis.

Geophagy is common in sub-Saharan Africa, with various studies documenting a consumption of soil by pregnant women ranging between 10 and 75% across this region [1, 2, 12, 13]. The deliberate consumption of soil during pregnancy is influenced by traditional, physiological, psychological, medicinal, cultural and religious beliefs [1, 3,4,5]. Previously, some women reported undertaking geophagy to reduce nausea and morning sickness, to reduce prolonged labor, or to connect the unborn baby with ancestors for protection [1, 2]. In most cases, women reported starting geophagy as a supplement to a meal during the first trimester and early second trimester [1, 2, 5, 13], which is a critical period of gestation with the potential to impair the developing fetus.

While several studies have focused on a variety of health impacts, such as worm infestation, iron defiance anemia, constipation and malabsorption of nutrients [1, 3, 5], fewer have evaluated the exposure to toxic chemical elements from eating soil [2, 5, 14, 15]. Geophagy may introduce toxic chemical elements through ingestion that can endanger the health of the mother and her unborn child. Arsenic and mercury have been linked to adverse reproductive outcomes, neurological disorders, and impaired cognitive development in children [6,7,8, 16]. In fact, arsenic and mercury are toxic chemicals of major public health concern [8, 16]. Such toxic chemicals cross the placenta and penetrate the blood-brain barrier and evidence suggests that the developing fetus is sensitive to their effects even at low doses [17]. Some studies have indicated that exposure to toxic chemicals, such as arsenic and mercury, may cause adverse pregnancy effects including spontaneous abortion, prematurity, prenatal mortality, low birth weight, decreased fetal head circumference, and congenital malformations [4, 7,8,9].

While potential environmental exposure has been explored in ASGM areas, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have tested individual arsenic or mercury levels in women while pregnant along with information specific to geophagy practices. To fill the gap, this study examined the effects of geophagy practices and occupational participation in ASGM mining activities on urinary arsenic and blood mercury levels among pregnant women in the Mining and Health Longitudinal Cohort in northwestern Tanzania. The hypothesis was that pregnancy-related geophagy practices would increase mothers’ arsenic and mercury levels, particularly for those residing in communities with ASGM activities, and would be further intensified by working in mining.

Methods

Study setting, design and participants

The study settings for the Mining and Health Longitudinal Cohort in northwestern Tanzania have been explained in details elsewhere [9, 18]. Briefly, the Mining and Health Longitudinal Cohort involved two districts: Geita District, an area with intensive ASGM activities, and Magu District, an area without ASGM activities. The settings are similar, with the exception of the gold mining. The two districts are 160 km apart by road (or 150 km by radial distance) and separated by Lake Victoria [9]. The comparison group, women from areas with non-ASGM activity in Magu District, was included to ascertain background levels of exposure in areas with non-ASGM activities.

Study design and population

This reanalysis is part of the ongoing Mining and Health Longitudinal Cohort study in northwestern Tanzania, which included 1056 pregnant women who were recruited into the study in 2017. The specifics of the study population, including ethical approval are described elsewhere [18]. While the focus of the original study was not geophagy, the survey incorporated a question about soil eating that offered an opportunity to reanalyze the data in the context of existing literature demonstrating deleterious health effects of geophagy from contamination in soil sources.

Variables measurement

Mercury and arsenic levels

For detailed explanation for blood mercury and urinary arsenic levels measurement in pregnant women, see elsewhere [18]. Briefly, total arsenic levels in urine (T-As) among pregnant women was collected using unprovoked morning urine samples during 16–27 weeks gestation age. Gestation age was determined using the last normal menstrual period, as this information was consistently available for all women. Urine samples were analyzed for total arsenic levels using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) with an ISO 127,025 accredited laboratory method. Polyethylene containers used for collecting urine samples were thoroughly washed with acid to avoid external contamination of the sample. For total mercury blood levels in pregnant women, capillary blood was obtained on a filter paper (Whatman #903) with a finger prick (dried blood spots -DBS). Information on pregnancy and associated behaviors were collected using a modified version of the standardized WHO verbal autopsy algorithm [19], which is available as part of the Mining and Health Longitudinal Cohort Database.

Baseline information and geophagy practices among pregnant women

As part of the Mining and Health Longitudinal Cohort, a face-to-face survey was conducted of pregnant women that included a question asking if whether they had eaten soil in the first and second trimester. Because this was not the focus of the initial study, the survey did not include a comprehensive set of questions about geophagy practices, only whether they had practiced or not. In previous studies in this area, women who practiced geophagy typically ate soil consistently, not just one time; so it is reasonable to use this question as a proxy for broader exposure [2]. Data on age of women, occupation, education level, length of residency, and economic level were also collected. Since it is challenging to determine individuals’ wages and/or income per month or per annum, economic status was determined using eight asset items to classify women’s Social Economic Wealth Quintile (SEWQ) based on the Tanzanian context criteria [18, 20]. The eight items included were: (a) whether the family owns the house they live in, (b) whether the roof of the house they are living in is made of iron sheets/concrete or grass, (c) whether they access a protected water source, (d) whether they access electricity and/or solar power, (e) the number of meals the family consume per day, (f) whether the participant is employed or has a business for income, (g) whether the partner is employed or has a business for income) and whether they own any means of transport such as car, motorcycle, or bicycle as described elsewhere [18].

Statistical analysis

Data were cleaned and analyzed using SPSS IBM statistics version 28 and RStudio version 4.1.3 [21]. Descriptive findings were summarized by mean or median with their measures of dispersions for continuous variables while percentages or proportions were used for summarizing categorical variables. Due to skewed data distribution, the Kruskal-Wallis Test was used to analyze the median differences between groups for mercury and arsenic concentration. Urinary total arsenic (µg/L) and blood total mercury concentration (µg/L) were each included in an analysis as a dependent variable. Due to skewed distribution, total mercury and arsenic concentrations were log transformed to adjust for normality and homogeneity assumption for regression analysis. A forward step-wise linear regression unadjusted analysis was conducted whereby all the variables that were significant in a simple regression (p-value < 0.2) were included in the final model using a generalized linear model (GLM) with identity link function to estimate our parameters of associations. Then, the effect of geophagy practices on arsenic and mercury concentration was adjusted for maternal age, education level, whether respondents lived in mining or non-mining area, years of residence, marital status, maternal occupation, individual partner’s education, and occupational, and socioeconomic wealth quantile (SEWQ). Since response variables were log transformed, results from univariate and multivariable linear regression were exponentiated for appropriate interpretation. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Baseline characteristics of pregnant women

Table 1 presents socio-demographic characteristics of the 1056 pregnant women who participated. The mean age was 25.5 (SD = 6.3) years and 32.2% were between 20 and 24 years. Based on marital status, 82% of them were single. For educational status, 71.6% attended primary school and 8.3%secondary school or higher. For occupation, 6.3% were involved in mining activities, 5.8% were businesswomen, 1.7% were public servants, and 85.7% were farmers and casual laborers. Of the pregnant women, 2.7% were residents of the study district for less than two years, 19% had lived in the district for 2–5 years and 78.3% had been the residents for more than 5 years. 18.9% had high social economic wealth quintile (SEWQ), 50.4% were in a moderate category, while 30.7% were in a low SEWQ category. During the study, the mean age at gestation was 25 years (SD = 1.6 years). Of those who lived near the mine, 36% had a history of eating soil during their pregnancy and about 84% had a history of engaging in ASGM activities.

Table 1 Socio-demographic status among the study participants
Full size table

Maternal prenatal total urinary arsenic and total blood mercury concentrations by geophagy and ASGM activities

Tables 2 and 3 summarizes differences in urinary total arsenic and blood total mercury levels among pregnant women in relation to geophagy practice and ASGM activities. The median difference in arsenic levels between mining and non-mining areas was statistically significant (χ2 = 12.267; p < 0.001). In ASGM areas, there were no significant differences in urinary arsenic levels between women who eat soil during pregnancy and those who did not (χ2 = 2. 779; p = 0.077). For those who lived in non-ASGM areas, there was a significant difference of arsenic levels based on geophagy practices (χ2 = 26.96; p < 0.001).

Table 2 Maternal total Urinary arsenic levels (T-As) by geophagy practices and ASGM activities (N = 1056)
Full size table
Table 3 Maternal total blood mercury levels (T-Hg) by geophagy practices and ASGM activities (N = 1056)
Full size table

For blood mercury levels in ASGM areas, there were significant differences in median levels between women who practiced geophagy during pregnancy and those who did not (χ2 = 12.297; p < 0.0001). There was no median differences in blood mercury levels between those who were involved in ASGM activities and those who were not (χ2 = 4.473; p = 0.107). For those who lived in non-ASGM areas, there was significant difference in median blood mercury levels based on geophagy practices (χ2 = 12.296; p < 0.001).

Predictors of urinary total arsenic and blood total mercury levels among pregnant women by ASGM and geophagy

Table 4 presents predictors of urinary total arsenic and blood total mercury levels for living and working in ASGM communities and geophagy practices. In the bivariate analysis, results indicate that women who practice geophagy during pregnancy had increased arsenic levels by 20.2% (β = 1.202; 95% CI: 1.078, 1.341, p < 0.001). Those who lived in ASGM areas had increased urinary arsenic levels of 31.3% (β = 1.313; 95% CI: 1.118, 542, p < 0.001). Having not gone to school increased arsenic levels by nearly 29% (β = 1.285, 95% CI: 1.125, 1.467; p < 0.001). Furthermore, urinary arsenic levels for women working in mining had an increased risk of 16% (β = 1.159; 95% CI: 0.939, 1.431, p = 0.169) even though association was not statistically significant. Increased socioeconomic wealth quantile was associated with a 3.3% reduction in urinary arsenic levels (β = 0.967, 95% CI: 0.945, 0.99; p = 0.004). However, maternal age (β = 1.004; 95% CI: 0.996, 1.013, p = 0.283) was not statistically associated with urinary arsenic levels.

Table 4 Association between geophagy practices among pregnant women, and arsenic and mercury levels (n = 1056)
Full size table

In the adjusted model, geophagy practices during pregnancy increased arsenic levels by almost 23% (β = 1.229, 95% CI: 1.094, 1.38, p < 0.0001). Increased socioeconomic wealth quantile reduced arsenic levels by 3.2% (β = 0.968, 95% CI: 0.946, 0.991, p = 0.006). Having not gone to school and living in areas with ASGM activities were associated with a 28% (β = 1.278; 95% CI: 1.118, 1.461, p < 0.001) and 21.2% (β = 1.212; 95% CI: 1.039, 1.414, p = 0.014) increase in urinary arsenic levels respectively. However, working in the ASGM (β = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.877, 1.355, p = 0.438) and maternal age (β = 1.003, 95% CI: 0.995, 1.012, p = 0.455) were not statistically associated with increased urinary arsenic levels.

For maternal blood mercury levels in the unadjusted model, women who practiced geophagy had increased levels of 23.3% (β = 1.233; 95% CI: 1.109, 1.371, p < 0.001). There was a significant 141% increase in blood mercury levels among pregnant women who lived in areas with ASGM activities (β = 2.412; 95% CI: 2.112, 2.728, p < 0.0001). Individual pregnant women who had not gone to school were associated with a 16% (β = 1.021,1.321, p = 0.023) increase in blood mercury levels. Having a higher socioeconomic wealth quantile was a protective factor for blood mercury level among pregnant women (β = 0.968, 95% CI: 0.948, 0.988, p = 0.002). Pregnant women who worked in ASGM had an increased blood mercury concentration of 51.8% (β = 1.518, 95% CI: 1.107, 2.083, p = 0.01). Maternal age did not statistically predict blood mercury levels (β = 0.993, 95% CI: 0.985, 1.001, p = 0.076). In the adjusted model, geophagy practices significantly increased blood mercury levels by 13.3% (β = 1.133, 95% CI: 1.022, 1.257, p = 0.018). A high socioeconomic wealth quantile was associated with 2.2% reduction in blood mercury level (β = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.958, 0.998, p = 0.032). Having not gone to school increased blood mercury levels by 12.6% (β = 1.126, 95% CI: 0.999, 1.271, p = 0.05). Living in areas with ASGM activities and working in the mines were associated with a 142% (β = 2.422, 95% CI: 2.111, 2.776), p < 0.0001) and a 31% (β = 1.307, 95% CI: 1.074, 1.59, p = 0.007) increase in mercury levels respectively.

Discussion

Exposure to toxic chemicals through geophagy practices is an alarming and salient public health issue. Several studies have documented the potential risks of geophagy practices in different parts of the world through the analysis of soil content eaten by pregnant women [2, 14, 15, 22,23,24,25]. This study provides a contribution in the ongoing discourse on geophagy and environmental exposure by examining the arsenic and mercury levels in pregnant women.

The substantial percentage (36%) of pregnant women practicing geophagy in the current study is fairly similar to previous studies in Tanzania in the same geographic area that reported around 46% [2]. The 10% decrease may be attributed to the knowledge translation and health promotion campaigns that are ongoing via different media and antenatal care clinic sessions that discourage the practice of soil eating especially during pregnancy or perhaps because of differences in study populations or regions. A study conducted in Ghana where 21.2% of the pregnant women ate white clay as their nutritious food [26] and in South Africa where 22.5% of the pregnant women practiced geophagy [27] illustrate the extent of the practice across sub-Saharan Africa. Social cultural norms and taboos, such as reducing prolonged labor, have been reported as drivers for geophagy practices [2].

Community contamination may contribute significantly to the increased arsenic and mercury levels [28], particularly if women eat soil that they take from the local ground. Pregnant women in ASGM communities who are not directly involved in mining may still be exposed to arsenic and mercury through the soil they eat, water they drink, the food they eat, and the air they breathe [29, 30]. In some ASGM operations, the gold mineral matrix is mostly contained in arsenopyrite (FeAsS), orpiment (As2S3), and realgar (As4S4) where liberation of gold through mechanical and chemical means results in the release of arsenic into the environment [30]. Mercury is used in the amalgamation process to bind gold [29, 30]. For instance, in 2005 up to 243µgAs/L was detected in water sediments in one of the drainage areas in Geita [31]. A follow up study in 2014 reported total arsenic and mercury in soil sediments to range between 183 and 20,298 and 5.8–1751 µg/kg, respectively [30]. Environmental contamination from ASGM activities creates a broader community risk of exposure, compounded by geophagy practices when soil is locally sourced. Simply living in an ASGM community increased the risk of arsenic and mercury blood levels significantly in this current study. This is consistent with studies in Ghana, Iran, and Tanzania where the ASGM tailings were reported to have arsenic and mercury levels above the safety levels for soil [28,29,30].

Increased regulations, educational campaigns, informed choice among consumers, reviewing marketing strategies, and continued research would reduce exposure to mothers and their unborn babies. We also recommend that if soil materials are sold that are used for geophagy, they should be accompanied by special packaging with appropriate health key messages as per the Tanzania Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act 2015 requirements [32, 33]. Sales of soft stone/sticks (popularly known as Pemba) as geophagic materials should be regulated to protect consumer health. Producers should be empowered, and where possible assisted by the respective government authorities, to test the toxicity and/chemical contents of edible soil so as consumers are well informed on their choices. The Tanzania Food Labelling Regulations 2006 [34] and the Tanzania Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act 2015 [32, 33] both require that all pre-prepared packaged foods and drinks manufactured, processed, pre-packed or packed in Tanzania must clearly display labels and content for consumed products on the pack.

Limitation of the study

The study obtained information from pregnant women who managed to reach to the health facility for antenatal care clinics (ANC) service. Thus, some pregnant women may not have attended ANC during the cohort participants recruitment. This could have resulted in an underestimation of the magnitude of exposure levels as some women with higher levels may have not attended the antenatal care clinics. In addition, geophagy practices among pregnant women were self-reported and so may over- or under- report the practices. Because geophagy is common practice in Tanzania the tendency to underreport might have been mitigated because women are not ashamed to talk about it [2, 5]. Further, the survey did not capture the amount or frequency of soil eaten by the pregnant women, though pregnant women have reported eating soil at least three times a day in this area with the soil ingestion rate (amount of soil eaten on average by women per day) estimated at 62.5 g/day, occurring mostly during the first and second trimester of their pregnancy [2]. The study did not consider other medical conditions or nutrition status that could affect the pregnant women maternal prenatal urinary arsenic and blood mercury levels. x.

Conclusion

Geophagy during pregnancy is a public health concern regardless of economic status and level of education because of increased exposures toxic chemicals, such as arsenic and mercury. Pregnancy-related geophagy elevated concentration of urinary arsenic and blood mercury levels in this study. Further, geophagy intensified the risk when living in ASGM area and working in mining, suggesting a compounding effect from occupational, community, and geophagy-associated exposures. Interventions to reduce maternal exposure to toxic heavy metals should consider behavioral, environmental, and occupational factors jointly, including addressing geophagy during pregnancy through reduction campaigns and improved monitoring of soil sold in markets.

Availability of data and materials

All data and materials used are available upon request to the Corresponding author via e-mail: elcnyanza@gmail.com; Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, Wurzburg Road, P.O.BOX 1464, Mwanza, Tanzania.

References

  1. Njiru H, Elchalal U, Paltiel O. Geophagy during pregnancy in Africa: a literature review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2011;66(7):452–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nyanza EC, Joseph M, Premji SS, Thomas DSK, Mannion C. 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. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kutalek R, Wewalka G, Gundacker C, Auer H, Wilson J, Haluza D, et al. Geophagy and potential health implications: Geohelminths, microbes and heavy metals. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2010;104(12):787–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Msoffe CU, Nyanza EC, Thomas DSK, Jahanpour O, Dewey D. The sources and chemical content of edible soil sticks sold in markets in Tanzania: a cross-sectional analytical study. Environ Geochem Health. 2019;41(2):893–906.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Luoba AI, Wenzel Geissler P, Estambale B, Ouma JH, Alusala D, Ayah R, et al. Earth-eating and reinfection with intestinal helminths among pregnant and lactating women in western Kenya. Trop Med Int Heal. 2005;10(3):220–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wigle DT, Arbuckle TE, Turner MC, Bérubé A, Yang Q, Liu S, et al. Epidemiologic evidence of relationships between reproductive and child health outcomes and environmental chemical contaminants. J Toxicol Environ Heal - Part B Crit Rev. 2008;11(5–6):373–517.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Huyck KL, Kile ML, Mahiuddin G, Quamruzzaman Q, Rahman M, Breton CV, et al. Maternal arsenic exposure associated with low birth weight in Bangladesh. J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49(10):1097–104.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ngozi PO. Pica practices of pregnant women in Nairobi, Kenya. East Afr Med J. 2008;85:72–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nyanza EC, Bernier FP, Manyama M, Hatfield J, Martin JW, Dewey D. Maternal exposure to arsenic and mercury in small-scale gold mining areas of Northern Tanzania. Environ Res. 2019;173(February):432–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Concha G, Vogler G, Lezcano D, Nermell B, Vahter M. Exposure to inorganic arsenic metabolites during early human development. Toxicol Sci. 1998;44(2):185–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hooda PS, Henry CJK, Seyoum TA, Armstrong LDM, Fowler MB. The potential impact of soil ingestion on human mineral nutrition. Sci Total Environ. 2004;333(1–3):75–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Geissler PW, Prince RJ, Levene M, Poda C, Beckerleg SE, Mutemi W, et al. Perceptions of soil-eating and anaemia among pregnant women on the Kenyan coast. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(8):1069–79.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Young SL. Pica in pregnancy: new ideas about an old condition. Annu Rev Nutr. 2010;30:403–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Al-Rmalli SW, Jenkins RO, Watts MJ, Haris PI. 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 Heal A Glob Access Sci Source. 2010;9(1):79.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ijeoma K. Assessment of heavy metals in edible clays sold in onitsha metropolis of Anambra State, Nigeria. Br J Appl Sci Technol. 2014;4(14):2114–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nyanza EC, Bernier FP, Martin JW, Manyama M, Hatfield J, Dewey D. Effects of prenatal exposure and co-exposure to metallic or metalloid elements on early infant neurodevelopmental outcomes in areas with small-scale gold mining activities in Northern Tanzania. Environ Int. 2021;149:106104.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Meek MEB, Boobis AR, Crofton KM, Heinemeyer G, Raaij M, Van, Vickers C. Risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals: a WHO/IPCS framework. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011;60(2):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nyanza EC, Dewey D, Manyama M, Martin JW, Hatfield J, Bernier FP. Maternal exposure to arsenic and mercury and associated risk of adverse birth outcomes in small-scale gold mining communities in Northern Tanzania. Environ Int. 2020;137: 105450.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. WHO. Standard verbal autopsy methods for investigating causes of death among infants and children. Geneva. 2012. Available at, http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/surveillance/WHO_CDS_CSR_ISR_99_4/en/.

  20. Huang H, Woodruff TJ, Baer RJ, Bangia K, August LM, Jellife-Palowski LL, et al. Investigation of association between environmental and socioeconomic factors and preterm birth in California. Environ Int. 2018;121(July):1066–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2018. Available from https://www.R-project.org/.

  22. Young SL, Jeffrey Wilson M, Miller D, Hillier S. Toward a comprehensive approach to the collection and analysis of pica substances, with emphasis on geophagic materials. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(9):e3147.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Nnorom IC. Major and minor element contents of calabash clay (nzu) from Abia State, Nigeria: evaluation of potential intake benefits and risks. Toxicol Environ Chem. 2016;98(2):149–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jager LDE, Ngole VM, Ekosse GE. Human health aspects related to the ingestion of geophagic clayey soils from the free state and Limpopo Provinces, South Africa. 2010;11(2):1–18. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC150391.

  25. Mwalongo D, Mohammed NK. Determination of essential and toxic elements in clay soil commonly consumed by pregnant women in Tanzania. Radiat Phys Chem. 2013;91:15–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Diema K, Juliana K, Abdulai A, Dodam K, Mensima R, Doat AA. Practices of pica among pregnant women in a tertiary healthcare facility in Ghana. NursingOpen. 2020;7(3):783–92.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mashao U, Ekosse G, Odiyo J, Bukalo N. Heliyon Geophagic practice in Mashau Village, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Heliyon. 2021;7:e06497.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Abrefah RG, Adotey DK, Mensimah E, Ampomah-Amoako E, Sogbadji RB, mawuko, Opata NS. Biomonitoring of occupational exposure to total arsenic and total mercury in urine of goldmine workers in Southwestern Ghana. Environ Res Eng Manag. 2011;56(2):43–8.

  29. Keshavarzi B, Moore F, Rastmanesh F, Kermani M. Arsenic in the Muteh gold mining district, Isfahan, Iran. Environ Earth Sci. 2012;67(4):959–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Nyanza EC, Dewey D, Thomas DSK, Davey M, Ngallaba SE. Spatial distribution of mercury and arsenic levels in water, soil and cassava plants in a community with long history of gold mining in Tanzania. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2014;93(6):716–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Taylor H, Appleton JD, Lister R, Smith B, Chitamweba D, Mkumbo O, et al. Environmental assessment of mercury contamination from the Rwamagasa artisanal gold mining centre, Geita District, Tanzania. Sci Total Environ. 2005;343(1–3):111–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. WHO. Policy - Tanzania food, drugs and cosmetics act (Food Labelling). 2006. Mutura AW, Wesongah JO, Mkoji GM. Geophagy and parasitic infections in pregnant women attending an ante-natal care clinic in thika hospital, kiambu county, kenya. East Afr Med J. 2015;92(7):354–61.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tanzanian Food and Drug Authority. The Tanzania Food, Drugs and Cosmetics (Fees and Charges) Regulations., 2015. 2015;464(464):1–94. Available from: https://www.tfda.go.tz/uploads/publications/en1554370780-TFDA Fees and charges.pdf.

  34. George G, Ndip E. Prevalence of Geophagia and its possible implications to health – A study in rural South Africa. 2011 2nd Int Conf Environ Sci Dev. 2011;4:166–9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors acknowledge the support from the Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences and Regional Authorities in Geita and Mwanza for their assistance and collaboration which made this study possible. Authors would like to thank all the women and health care workers for participating in this study.

Funding

This study was internally funded by the Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences for Elias Nyanza.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, Wurzburg Road, P.O.BOX 1464, Mwanza, Tanzania

    Jovina Jovine & Elias C. Nyanza

  2. Department of Geography & Earth Sciences, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, USA

    Moses Asori & Deborah SK. Thomas

Authors
  1. Jovina Jovine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elias C. Nyanza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Moses Asori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah SK. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JJ contributed to designing the study, supervising the data collection, and analyzing the data. ECN contributed to designing the study, supervising the data collection, analyzing the data, and drafting and writing of the manuscript. MA contributed to guiding and reviewing the data analysis and writing of the manuscript. DSKT contributed to the study design, provided guidance on data collection protocols and data analysis, interpretation of the results, as well as writing and reviewing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elias C. Nyanza.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical Approval was granted from the joint Catholic University of Health and Allied sciences and Bugando Medical Centre Ethics and Research Review Committee (CREC/488/2021). Permission to conduct the research in Geita and Mwanza was obtained from respective Regional and District Administrative Secretary offices (Ref. No: GTA/M.10/81). This cross-sectional study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki for experiments involving human subjects. Written informed consent was obtained from all the study participants aged 18 years and above prior to data collection. Pregnant women below 18 years of age provided assent, whereby their parents/guardians provided an informed consent as detailed elsewhere [9].

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jovine, J., Nyanza, E.C., Asori, M. et al. Prenatal arsenic and mercury levels among women practicing geophagy in areas with artisanal and small-scale gold mining activities, Northwestern Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 23, 854 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-06174-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-06174-4

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us