Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 311

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 114 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Strategies for Safe and Effective Therapeutic Measures for Chronic Arsenic and Lead Poisoning

Kalia, Kiran, Flora, Swaran J.S.·2005·Journal of Occupational Health

Abstract

Strategies for Safe and Effective Therapeutic Measures for Arsenic and Lead Poisoning: Kiran Kalia, et al. Department of Biosciences, Sardar Patel University, India— Exposure to toxic metals remains a widespread occupational and environmental problem in world. There have been a number of reports in the recent past suggesting an incidence of childhood lead poisoning and chronic arsenic poisoning due to contaminated drinking water in many areas of West Bengal in India and Bangladesh has become a national calamity. Low level metal exposure in humans is caused by air, food and water intake. Lead and arsenic generally interferes with a number of body functions such as the central nervous system (CNS), the haematopoietic system, liver and kidneys. Over the past few decades there has been growing awareness and concern that the toxic biochemical and functional effects are occurring at a lower level of metal exposure than those that produce overt clinical and pathological signs and symptoms. Despite many years of research, we are still far from an effective treatment of chronic plumbism and arsenicosis. Medical treatment of acute and chronic lead and arsenic toxicity is furnished by chelating agents. Chelating agents are organic compounds capable of linking together metal ions to form complex ring‐like structures called chelates. They have been used clinically as antidotes for acute and chronic poisoning. 2, 3‐dimercaprol (BAL) has long been the mainstay of chelation therapy for lead or arsenic poisoning. Meso 2, 3, ‐dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) has been tried successfully in animals as well as in a few cases of human lead and arsenic poisoning. DMSA could be a safe and effective method for treating lead or arsenic poisoning, but one of the major disadvantages of chelation with DMSA has been its inability to remove lead from the intracellular sites because of its lipophobic nature. Further, it does not provide protection in terms of clinical/ biochemical recovery. A new trend in chelation therapy is to use combined treatment. This includes the use of structurally different chelators or a combination of an adjuvant and a chelator to provide better clinical/ biochemical recovery in addition to lead mobilization. The present review article attempts to provide update information about the current strategies being adopted for a safe, effective and specific treatment for two major toxic metals or metalloid.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1539/joh.47.1

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 114 references

Cited by

See all 311

Metadata

Authors
Kalia, K., & Flora, S. J. S.
Venue
Journal of Occupational Health
Published
2005-01
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
1-21
ISSN
  • 1341-9145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1348-9585
OpenAlex
W2068437280
Cited by
311
References
114
FWCI
7.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Strategies for Safe and Effective Therapeutic Measures for Chronic Arsenic and Lead Poisoning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1539/joh.47.1
The paper
Kalia, K., & Flora, S. J. S. (2005). Strategies for Safe and Effective Therapeutic Measures for Chronic Arsenic and Lead Poisoning. Journal of Occupational Health. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.47.1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.