论文部分内容阅读
目的:了解饮水型地方性砷中毒病区人群在改水后10 ~ 16年全死因与恶性肿瘤死亡情况，探讨改水对防治砷中毒远期危害的效果。方法:2020年4月，在山西省应县和山阴县的饮水型地方性砷中毒病区，选择在2003年实施改水的病区村作为调查点，以调查点的常住居民作为砷暴露组，并选取非病区村居民作为对照组，调查分析两组人群在2013 - 2019年全死因与恶性肿瘤死亡情况。结果:砷暴露组改水前水砷含量范围为0.060 ~ 0.345 mg/L，改水后水砷含量范围为0.000 17 ~ 0.003 60 mg/L。7年间，砷暴露组累计调查94 128人年，对照组累计调查102 086人年。砷暴露组累计全死因死亡828例，全死因粗死亡率为8.80‰，标准化死亡率为9.16‰；对照组累计全死因死亡637例，全死因粗死亡率为6.24‰，标准化死亡率为6.91‰，砷暴露组全死因粗死亡率高于对照组（χn 2 = 43.20，n P < 0.01）。恶性肿瘤死亡情况，砷暴露组218例死于恶性肿瘤，恶性肿瘤粗死亡率为231.60/10万，标准化死亡率为231.67/10万；对照组164例死于恶性肿瘤，恶性肿瘤粗死亡率为160.65/10万，标准化死亡率为175.97/10万，砷暴露组恶性肿瘤粗死亡率高于对照组（χ n 2 = 12.69，n P 0.05）。砷暴露组男性恶性肿瘤粗死亡率为317.16/10万，高于对照组男性（198.91/10万，χ n 2 = 14.21，n P 0.05）。砷暴露组和对照组恶性肿瘤粗死亡率最高的均是肺癌，分别为115.80/10万、69.55/10万，砷暴露组肺癌、胃癌、膀胱癌的粗死亡率均高于对照组（χ n 2 = 11.43、4.33、5.05，n P < 0.01或 0.05）。n 结论:单纯采取改水措施不能阻断砷的远期健康损害，尤其是砷的致癌效应，终止砷暴露后数十年的健康随访以及疾病预防是非常必要的。“,”Objective:To understand all causes mortality and cancer mortality of residents in drinking-water-borne endemic arsenism areas 10 to 16 years after water-improvement, and to evaluate the effects of water-improvement on prevention and treatment of the long-term harm of arsenic poisoning.Methods:In April 2020, in drinking-water-borne endemic arsenism areas of Ying County and Shanyin County, Shanxi Province, the diseased villages where water-improvement was carried out in 2003 were selected, and the permanent residents of the survey sites were selected as arsenic-exposure group. The residents in non-diseased villages were selected as control group. All causes and cancer deaths from 2013 to 2019 of the two groups were investigated and analyzed.Results:In arsenic-exposure group, the range of arsenic concentration in drinking water before water-improvement was 0.060 to 0.345 mg/L, and that after water-improvement was 0.000 17 to 0.003 60 mg/L. During the 7 years, a total of 94 128 person years were investigated in arsenic-exposure group and 102 086 person years in control group. There were 828 deaths from all causes in arsenic-exposure group, with a crude mortality rate of all causes of 8.80‰ and a standardized mortality rate of 9.16‰. There were 637 deaths from all causes in control group, with a crude mortality rate of all causes of 6.24‰ and a standardized mortality rate of 6.91‰. The crude mortality rate of all causes in arsenic-exposure group was higher than that in control group (χn 2 = 43.20, n P < 0.01). Totally 218 deaths from cancer were reported in arsenic-exposure group, with a cancer crude mortality rate of 231.60/100 000 and a standardized mortality rate of 231.67/100 000. Totally 164 deaths from cancer were reported in control group, with a cancer crude mortality rate of 160.65/100 000 and a standardized mortality rate of 175.97/100 000. The cancer crude mortality rate in arsenic-exposure group was higher than that in control group (χ n 2 = 12.69, n P 0.05). The cancer crude mortality rate among males in arsenic-exposure group was 317.16/100 000, which was higher than that of males in control group (198.91/100 000, χ n 2 = 14.21, n P 0.05). The highest cancer crude mortality rate in arsenic-exposure group and control group was lung cancer, which were 115.80/100 000 and 69.55/100 000, respectively. The crude mortality rates of lung cancer, stomach cancer and bladder cancer in arsenic-exposure group were higher than those in control group (χ n 2 = 11.43, 4.33, 5.05, n P < 0.01 or 0.05).n Conclusions:Simply taking water-improvement measure can\'t block the long-term health burdens of arsenic exposure, especially for carcinogenic effect. Health follow-up management and disease prevention measures in arsenic-exposed areas will be needed for decades after exposure cessation.