MARATTO

article · Journal of Experimental and Clinical Anatomy

Cytological assessment of sputum smear and total blood count of workers in wood and timber industries

Abstract

Background and aim: Inhalation of airborne dust at the wood/timber workplace puts the worker at risk of occupational disease. This study was aimed at comparing selected staining methods for the histological assessment of sputum smear from wood and timber workers. Methodology: Fifty timber workers, 25 males and 25 females of eighteen (18) years and above from Abakaliki timber industries were recruited for this study. Four civil servants who do not live close to the wood industries were used as control. Blood and sputum samples were collected from the subjects. Giemsa stain and Papanicolaou stain were used for the histological analysis. Results: Out of 50 participants, 26 of them had normal range of PCV value, 7 have abnormally high range of the PCV and 17 of the workers had abnormally low range of PCV. Forty-four workers had normal range of neutrophils, 6 of the workers had abnormal level of neutrophils of which 3 were within higher range and 3 of lower range. Normal lymphocytes level was seen in 15 participants while abnormal level was seen in 35 subjects, of which twenty (20) are high and fifteen (15) low. Eosinophils level of 18 participants were found to fall within the normal range while 32 were seen to be abnormally low. There are observable histological changes in the test groups when compared with the control group in both staining techniques. Giemsa stain tends to render the cell nuclei thinner and more spread-out than the Papanicolaou stain. Conclusion: The findings suggest that exposure to wood dust especially for a prolonged period of time is highly detrimental to human health.

Research topics

  • Occupational exposure and asthma
  • Chemical Safety and Risk Management
  • Contact Dermatitis and Allergies

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.4314/jeca.v22i1.11

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.