4.2 Article

Biomarkers of Mn exposure in humans

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE
Volume 50, Issue 11, Pages 801-811

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20506

Keywords

manganese; blood; plasma; blood cells; biomarkers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Studies have reported associations between manganese (Mn) exposures and Mn levels in blood and urine, though the suitability of these biological measures as biomarkers of exposure is not well known. Methods We evaluated whether whole blood, plasma, and urine Mn levels reflect exposures in occupationally exposed humans. Results In active ferroalloy workers, blood Mn was associated with total air Mn levels in subjects currently exposed to low (median = 0.42 mu g/m(3), P = 0.009) and moderate (median = 4.2 mu g/m(3), P = 0.007) air Mn levels, but not in workers exposed to the highest Mn levels (median = 292 mu g/m(3), P = 0.31). In bridge welders blood Mn (P < 0.01), but not plasma or urine Mn was significantly associated with their cumulative respiratory exposure index. In welders, similar to 6% (range similar to 3-9%) of whole blood Mn was contained in the plasma fraction, though there was no association between whole blood and plasma Mn levels (Pearson's R = 0.258, P = 0.12). In contrast, in fresh whole blood samples spiked with Mn ex vivo similar to 80% or more of added Mn partitioned in the plasma, while only similar to 20% or less partitioned in the cellular fraction. Conclusions These data suggest a complex and limited relationship between exposure and blood Mn levels that may depend upon exposure attributes and the latency of blood sampling relative to exposure; plasma and urine Mn appear to be of little utility as exposure biomarkers. This underscores the need to fully characterize and validate these or other biomarkers for use in constructing appropriate exposure metrics and determining exposure-effect relationships.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available