The Journal of Science of Labour
Online ISSN : 2187-2570
Print ISSN : 0022-443X
Topics and Opinions
The Studies of Lead Encephalopathy in Infants in Acta Paediatrica Japonica from 1931 to 1935 When the Ministerial Ordinance Came into Force (the fourth part)
Shun’ichi HORIGUCHIKeiko TERAMOTOHisahide NISHIOChiyo HAYASHI
Author information
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

2018 Volume 94 Issue 2 Pages 39-50

Details
Abstract

An infant disorder, so-called meningitis in infancy (SCMI), was reported by Sukehiko Itoh et al. in the 28th year of the Meiji Era (1895) in Japan. Twenty-eight years later, Ikutaro Hirai, a professor at the Kyoto University, reported in the 12th year of the Taisho Era (1923) that SCMI was a chronic lead-poisoning disease caused by white lead included in the mothers’ cosmetic powder. Then, a ministerial ordinance about regulation of white lead was declared in the 5th year of the Showa Era (1930) and implemented in the 10th year of the Showa Era (1935). In this review, we have provided a sketch of SCMI researches during this period from the perspective of experimental studies. There were 19 publications including four original articles, nine presentations, three proceedings and three Japanese abstracts. We summarized the four original articles here. (1) Suma suggested that sodium thiosulfate would be an effective medi cine for lead-poisoning disease based on his clinical experiences and animal experiments. (2) Tatsumi found no significant difference in the transfer of fuchsine from blood to cerebral spinal fluid between control and lead-poisoned rabbits, (3) Yasu reported that several factors (age, type of the bones) were related to lead concentrations in the bones of the animals affected by experimental lead poisoning, (4) Yasu also reported that different routes of lead administration (oral ingestion or subcutaneous injection) caused differential lead concentrations in the blood and liver of the lead-poisoned animals. The findings of the two studies reported by Yasu are still valuable now.

Content from these authors
© 2018 The Institute for Science of Labour
Previous article
feedback
Top