Abstract
Objectives: To investigate chromium-induced renal dysfunction in electroplating workers. Methods: A cross-sectional study was used to evaluate four biochemical markers of renal function. A total of 178 workers were divided into 3 comparable groups consisting of 34 hard-chrome plating workers, 98 nickel-chrome electroplating workers, and 46 aluminum anode-oxidation workers, who represented the reference group. Ambient and biological monitoring of urinary chromium were performed to measure exposure concentrations. Results: Overall, urinary chromium concentrations were highest among hard-chrome plating workers (geometric mean 2.44 μg/g creatinine), followed by nickel-chrome electroplating workers (0.31 μg/g creatinine) and aluminum workers (0.09 μg/g creatinine). Airborne chromium concentrations were also highest in the hard-chrome plating area (geometric mean 4.20 μg/m3), followed by the nickel-chrome electroplating area (0.58 μg/m3) and the aluminum area (0.43 μg/m3). A positive correlation was found between urinary chromium and airborne concentrations (r = 0.54, P < 0.01). Urinary concentrations of N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase (NAG) were also highest among hard-chrome plating workers (geometric mean 4.9 IU/g creatinine), followed by nickel-chrome workers (3.4 IU/g creatinine) and aluminum workers (2.9 IU/g creatinine). The prevalence of “elevated” NAG (>7 IU/g creatinine) was significantly highest among hard-chrome plating workers (23.5%), then among nickel-chrome workers (7.1%) and aluminum workers (8.7%). Differences in β2-microglobulin, total protein, and microalbumin were not significant. Conclusion: The author's evidence indicates that NAG is an early indicator of renal dysfunction in hard-chrome plating workers.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, CS., Kuo, HW., Lai, JS. et al. Urinary N -acetyl-β-glucosaminidase as an indicator of renal dysfunction in electroplating workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 71, 348–352 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004200050291
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004200050291