Document M9dnKmbMxNrg85DmwJ9D35oV

"N o r w o o d " BRAND TO DUPLICATE THIS FOLDER ORDER OlobcAvcrmclio NO. 91-1,'3 MADE IN U. S, A, KE 001850G Dr. G. V. Mitchell, Medical Supervisor, Rgffiington Arr&3 Company, Inc., Bridgeport, Connecticut. Dear Dr. Mitchell*. .......... I am sending you herewith the analytical results on four sets of samples recently sent to- u s . A word of comment is Justified in each instance In the case of there has been a satisfactory drop in the concentralxo^^^^Had in both the blood and urine. The urinary lead concentration 13 still high, how ever, and evidently this employee had a rather severe exposure to lead. In the case of the low lead concentration in the urine suggests that the present symptoms are not due to lead. Unfortunately, the blood sample was lost, but it 13 probable that the blood is not high in it3 lead concentration. (There has been some tendency among these women to have disproportionately low urinary concentrations, and consequently I cannot be too certain in my interpretation of the urinary values. This is certainly an unusual feature in the case of adults, and therefore I suggest the advisability of obtaining blood samples in every instance where possible.; The history of this patient, and especially the fact that she has persistent symptoms, despite her lack of exposure since May 1, leads me to suspect that her symptoms were never due to lead absorption. The other laboratory findings rather strengthen this opinion, and I strongly suspect that It will be found that she has some other Illness unrelated to lead absorption. ' ^ H H H H H P h a s a significantly high blood lead, and one which could be associated with symptoms of Intoxication. Again in this instance the lead concentration in the urine 13 low, thereby justifying what I said above. I wonder if It could be that these women are drinking an unusual quantity of some beverage in pre paration for the collection of the sample. If not, we shall cer tainly have to give some additional consideration to the variable response of women with respect t ^ i g i n a m j e a d excretion. The results obtained in the case of fl||^|H||0h?ather suggest that she is still having some lead exposur^^rne blood concentration is but little lower than that previously obtained, whereas the urinary concentration Is higher than It has been previously. The two sets of results are in good agreement at present, thereby indicating that this patient has no renal injury that I3 inter fering with her lead excretion. It Would certinly be worth while I enclose herewith an invoice to cover the cost of these analyses. Cordially yours, RAK ef enc. ^Ee r'n ",wm e , W. B.---- 0018508