SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

HBM4EU E-waste study - An untargeted metabolomics approach to characterize metabolic changes during E-waste recycling.

Environ Int · 2025-01-16

DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2025.109281PMID: 39842165

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

E-waste contains hazardous chemicals that may be a direct health risk for workers involved in recycling. We conducted an untargeted metabolomics analysis of urine samples collected from male e-waste processing workers to explore metabolic changes associated with chemical exposures in e-waste recycling in Belgium, Finland, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, and Portugal. Questionnaire data and urine samples were obtained from workers involved in the processing of e-waste (sorting, dismantling, shredding, pre-processing, metal, and non-metal processing), as well as from controls with no known occupational exposure. Pre- and post-shift urine samples were collected and analysed using ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS). A total of 32 endogenous urinary metabolites were annotated with a Variable Importance in Projection (VIP) above 2, indicating that e-waste recycling is mainly associated with changes in steroid hormone and neurotransmitter metabolism, energy metabolism, bile acid biosynthesis, and inflammation. The highest VIP was observed for dopamine-o-quinone, which is linked to Parkinson's disease. These and other changes in metabolism in workers employed in the processing of e-waste need further verification in targeted studies.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.