Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury exposures are ubiquitous. These toxic elements have no physiological benefits, engendering interest in minimizing body burden. The physiological process of sweating has long been regarded as “cleansing” and of low risk. Reports of toxicant levels in sweat were sought in Medline, Embase, Toxline, Biosis, and AMED as well as reference lists and grey literature, from inception to March 22, 2011. Of 122 records identified, 24 were included in evidence synthesis. Populations, and sweat collection methods and concentrations varied widely. In individuals with higher exposure or body burden, sweat generally exceeded plasma or urine concentrations, and dermal could match or surpass urinary daily excretion. Arsenic dermal excretion was severalfold higher in arsenic-exposed individuals than in unexposed controls. Cadmium was more concentrated in sweat than in blood plasma. Sweat lead was associated with high-molecular-weight molecules, and in an interventional study, levels were higher with endurance compared with intensive exercise. Mercury levels normalized with repeated saunas in a case report. Sweating deserves consideration for toxic element detoxification. Research including appropriately sized trials is needed to establish safe, effective therapeutic protocols.

AbstractIntroduction:During or very soon after the 1990–1991 Persian Gulf War, veterans of the conflict began to report symptoms of illness. Common complaints included combinations of cognitive difficulties, fatigue, myalgia, rashes, dyspnea, insomnia, gastrointestinal symptoms and sensitivity to odors. Gradually in the USA, and later in the UK, France, Canada, Denmark and Australia, governments implemented medical assessment programs and epidemiologic studies to determine the scope of what was popularly referred to as “the Gulf War syndrome”. Attention was drawn to numerous potentially toxic deployment-related exposures that appeared to vary by country of deployment, by location within the theater, by unit, and by personal job types. Identifying a single toxicant cause was considered unlikely and it was recognized that outcomes were influenced by genetic variability in xenobiotic metabolism.Methods:Derived from primary papers and key reports by the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses and the Institute of Medicine, a brief overview is presented of war related events, symptoms and diagnostic criteria for Gulf War illness (GWV), some international differences, the various war-related exposures and key epidemiologic studies. Possible exposure interactions and pathophysiologic mechanisms are discussed.Results:Exposures to pyridostigmine bromide, pesticides, sarin and mustard gas or combinations thereof were most associated with GWI, especially in some genotype subgroups. The resultant oxidant stress and background exposome must be assumed to have played a role.Conclusion:Gulf War (GW) exposures and their potential toxic effects should be considered in the context of the human genome, the human exposome and resultant oxidant stress to better characterize this unique environmentally-linked illness and, ultimately, provide a rationale for more effective interventions and future prevention efforts.

No abstract

Analysis of U.S. Custom Service records for 2001-2003 indicates that nearly 1.7 billion pounds of pesticide products were exported from U.S. ports, a rate >32 tons/hour. Exports included >27 million pounds of pesticides whose use is forbidden in the United States. WHO Class 1a and 1b pesticides were exported at an average rate of >16 tons/day. Pesticide exports included >500,000 pounds of known or suspected carcinogens, with most going to developing countries; pesticides associated with endocrine disruption were exported at an average rate of >100 tons/day. Although the rate of export of banned products declined, as did exports of pesticides included in global conventions on Prior Informed Consent and Persistent Organic Pollutions, substantial quantities of hazardous products remain in trade. These products pose unacceptable risks in countries where unsafe use and storage practices are prevalent. Policy makers, growers, and scientists must undertake more aggressive efforts to foster sustainable agricultural practices globally.