↓ Skip to main content

Lead exposure at firing ranges—a review

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 1,617)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
71 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
117 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lead exposure at firing ranges—a review
Published in
Environmental Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12940-017-0246-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark A. S. Laidlaw, Gabriel Filippelli, Howard Mielke, Brian Gulson, Andrew S. Ball

Abstract

Lead (Pb) is a toxic substance with well-known, multiple, long-term, adverse health outcomes. Shooting guns at firing ranges is an occupational necessity for security personnel, police officers, members of the military, and increasingly a recreational activity by the public. In the United States alone, an estimated 16,000-18,000 firing ranges exist. Discharge of Pb dust and gases is a consequence of shooting guns. The objectives of this study are to review the literature on blood lead levels (BLLs) and potential adverse health effects associated with the shooting population. The search terms "blood lead", "lead poisoning", "lead exposure", "marksmen", "firearms", "shooting", "guns", "rifles" and "firing ranges" were used in the search engines Google Scholar, PubMed and Science Direct to identify studies that described BLLs in association with firearm use and health effects associated with shooting activities. Thirty-six articles were reviewed that included BLLs from shooters at firing ranges. In 31 studies BLLs > 10 μg/dL were reported in some shooters, 18 studies reported BLLs > 20 μg/dL, 17 studies > 30 μg/d, and 15 studies BLLs > 40 μg/dL. The literature indicates that BLLs in shooters are associated with Pb aerosol discharge from guns and air Pb at firing ranges, number of bullets discharged, and the caliber of weapon fired. Shooting at firing ranges results in the discharge of Pb dust, elevated BLLs, and exposures that are associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. Women and children are among recreational shooters at special risk and they do not receive the same health protections as occupational users of firing ranges. Nearly all BLL measurements compiled in the reviewed studies exceed the current reference level of 5 μg/dL recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH). Thus firing ranges, regardless of type and user classification, currently constitute a significant and unmanaged public health problem. Prevention includes clothing changed after shooting, behavioural modifications such as banning of smoking and eating at firing ranges, improved ventilation systems and oversight of indoor ranges, and development of airflow systems at outdoor ranges. Eliminating lead dust risk at firing ranges requires primary prevention and using lead-free primers and lead-free bullets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 117 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 171 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Researcher 14 8%
Other 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 32 19%
Unknown 63 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 15 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 9%
Engineering 11 6%
Chemistry 9 5%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 47 27%
Unknown 70 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 686. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2023.
All research outputs
#31,100
of 25,744,802 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#14
of 1,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#577
of 324,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#1
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,744,802 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.