Table 2.
Toenail Mn (n = 40)a | Hair Mn (n = 33)b | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristics | GM (GSD) | p-valuec | GM (GSD) | p-valuec |
All | 0.40 (3.52) | 0.24 (3.54) | ||
Aged | 0.02 | 0.64 | ||
18–29 | 0.76 (3.07) | 0.21 (4.32) | ||
30–49 | 0.25 (2.93) | 0.18 (3.08) | ||
≥50 | 0.24 (3.57) | 0.34 (3.35) | ||
Sexe | ||||
Female | 0.33 (1.73) | 0.19 (10.57) | ||
Male | 0.40 (3.63) | 0.24 (3.42) | ||
Education level | 0.62 | 0.13 | ||
≤ 6th grade | 0.36 (3.93) | 0.29 (2.92) | ||
7–11th grade | 0.48 (2.91) | 0.18 (4.51) | ||
Country of birth | 0.03 | 0.06 | ||
Costa Rica | 0.31 (3.44) | 0.21 (3.53) | ||
Nicaragua | 0.85 (2.87) | 0.55 (2.78) | ||
Poverty status | 0.35 | 0.60 | ||
≤ Poverty line | 0.25 (3.55) | 0.35 (6.14) | ||
> Poverty line | 0.48 (3.43) | 0.21 (2.87) | ||
Handednesse | ||||
Right | 0.36 (3.41) | 0.24 (3.61) | ||
Left | 2.20 (1.27) | 0.24 (NA) | ||
Years worked in agricultured | 0.04 | 0.81 | ||
≤14 | 0.77 (3.17) | 0.32 (4.40) | ||
15–29 | 0.25 (3.30) | 0.15 (2.38) | ||
≥30 | 0.26 (3.17) | 0.29 (3.72) | ||
Type of farm | 0.04 | 0.93 | ||
Conventional | 0.24 (3.46) | 0.25 (3.50) | ||
Organic | 0.56 (3.24) | 0.24 (3.69) | ||
Drinking water sourcee | ||||
Aqueduct | 0.40 (3.62) | |||
Spring | 0.26 (NA) | 0.24 (3.61) | ||
Other | 0.70 (NA) | 0.18 (NA) | ||
Days between fNIRS and toenail/hair sample collectiond | 0.12 | 0.71 | ||
< 30 | 0.61 (3.67) | 0.32 (5.40) | ||
≥30 | 0.26 (2.95) | 0.20 (2.45) |
Abbreviations: fNIRS, functional near-infrared spectroscopy; GM, geometric mean; GSD, geometric standard deviation; LOD, limit of detection; NA, not applicable.
37 farmworkers (92.5%) had toenail Mn concentrations above the LOD (0.05 μg/g).
30 farmworkers (90.1%) had hair Mn concentrations above the LOD (0.05 μg/g).
We estimated bivariate associations using Spearman correlation tests for continuous variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for categorical variables.
Bivariate associations assessed using continuous variable.
Bivariate association not assessed due to small sample size.