exposure among conventional and organic farmers structured interviews and biological sampling (hair

Overview

This source page is a mechanical bulk-ingest record for a PDF in the research-pulls corpus. It preserves source-level identity, routeable product/analyte scope, and exact extracted numeric lines for later human or fresh-context audit. It does not derive HMTc thresholds, percentiles, or brand-by-brand comparisons.

Key numbers

The worker extracted the full PDF text with layout preservation twice and compared extraction hashes before commit. The following lines are copied from numeric/table-bearing regions of the PDF and retain the source units and wording where legible:

the benefits of organic farming (Smith et al., 2019). & Mikulewicz, 2018). This makes them suitable bio-
material. On the day of collection, each partici- 2.5, 5.0, and 20.0 μg/L for all trace elements. Matrix
Before commencing data collection, ethical approval in Table 1 (socio-demographic characteristics) and
clearance was diligently secured from the Eth- Table 2 (occupational background) were analyzed using
identities were treated with the utmost confidenti- nal data such as the duration of farming (Table 2), the
ily participated in the study, with informed consent and nail (Table 4) samples between conventional and
Table 1 Socio- Sociodemographic Characteristics Frequency (n) Percent- p-value
Table 2 Occupational background among farmers at Cameron Highland (N = 62)
Conventional (n = 47) Organic (n = 15) p-value
Conventional Farmer (n = 48) Organic Farmer (n = 14)
male (79%), with most participants aged 41–50 years) (p = 0.0335, Mann–Whitney U test). No sig-
(35.5%), followed by those in the 31–40 and 51–60 nificant differences were observed in PPE usage or
age groups (27.4% each). Half of the farmers had a symptoms after pesticide handling.
normal BMI, while 38.7% were overweight. Edu- In contrast, pesticide-related practices showed
cationally, 53.2% completed secondary school, and clear and significant differences. All organic farmers
80.6% did not smoke. The majority were low alcohol reported no involvement in pesticide purchase, wash-
consumers, with 48.4% drinking monthly and 38.7% ing, storage, or disposal, while conventional farmers
abstaining. Most farmers (75.8%) worked on con- commonly engaged in these activities. These differ-
ventional farms, with over half (58.1%) having more ences were statistically significant (p < 0.05), indi-
Occupational characteristics of farmers in Cameron Table 3 presents the comparison of trace element
Table 2 compares the occupational background ney U test. Overall, conventional farmers exhibited
Conventional Farmer (n = 48) Organic Farmer (n = 14)
in the conventional group (0.11 (0.71–0.57) mg/kg) forcing the role of agrochemical use in trace element
mg/kg, p = 0.008), suggesting greater exposure likely both groups showed overlapping exposure profiles,
ventional farmers (0.66 (0.29–0.86) mg/kg) than in region.
organic farmers (0.39 (0.12–0.47) mg/kg), with a
between the two groups, although median levels were Table 4 compares the concentrations of trace ele-
organic farmers, though none reached statistical sig- organic farmers (81.10 (73.22–90.99) mg/kg), with a
Table 5 The Association of trace elements in hair sample among farmers (N = 62), Cameron Highland
Table 6 The Association of Trace Elements in Nail Sample among Farmers (N = 62), Cameron Highland
Overall, the key finding in nail samples was the Table 6 presents the associations between trace ele-
Table 5 presents the associations between trace ele- increased levels of these elements in the body. Nickel
Elekdag-Turk, S., Almuzian, M., Turk, T. et al. (2019). Big toe- and other chemical elements of the periodic table. Journal
K. (2017). Contamination of agricultural soils by toxic vegetables: screening health risks involved in cultivation

Methods (brief)

Evaluation of trace element in the hair and nail samples
Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) NexION® 350S was to synthetic agrochemicals. Mercury (Hg) levels were
and nail samples, it investigates differences in expo-
needed to have experience in organic farming without of nail clippings collected per individual. The
using synthetic agrochemicals for the past year, while samples were then placed in sterile, labeled, zip-
conventional farmers engaged in routine farming with locked plastic bags. Nail samples were stored at
I) Face-to-face interview. ment analysis from the hair and nail sample
demographic and occupational information from (ICP-MS; Perkin-Elmer, USA) in the Environ-
nants. mulation, all hair and nail samples underwent a stand-
II) Hair Sampling and Storage. ardized washing procedure prior to digestion and
The hair sample collection protocol is based analysis. Samples were first rinsed with ultrapure
ent was provided with a new set of stainless- deionized water. The cleaned samples were then dried
collection day. Approximately 20–30 strands of ers until digestion and analysis.
hairs were collected from the occipital region,
of about 3 cm. The required hair sample weight
was 0.01 – 0.05 g. The hair samples were placed Validation procedures were conducted to ensure that
The nail sample collection protocol is based elements (Na, Mg, NH3, Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, CO, Cu, As,
sample collection to ensure sufficient sample in 1% (v/v) HNO3 acid with concentrations in 1.25,

Implications

This page makes the source discoverable for category-level evidence routing. Values remain source-native and should be used only with the stated matrix, species, basis, geography, and censoring context from the paper. The page does not convert total mercury to methylmercury or use total arsenic as inorganic arsenic.

Wiki pages this source may touch

Verification notes

Identity check: DOI, raw handle, candidate cite-key, and SHA-256 were compared against existing wiki/sources/ pages before creation.
Full-PDF read: pdftotext -layout was run on the full PDF twice; extracted text hashes matched before the page was written.
Numeric verification: numeric/table-bearing lines were selected mechanically from the verified extraction and preserved without unit conversion or rounding.
Brand firewall: the worker skips PDFs when extracted numeric lines appear brand/manufacturer-sensitive; this page contains category-level or species-level evidence only.
HMTc firewall: no threshold, percentile, pass/fail, clean/dirty, or certification math is stated.

Update history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git. When DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.

Commit	Date	Change	Description
b01ec52c	2026-08-04	major	2 sections added
d49e450f	2026-08-03	major	5 sections added; narrative text revised