4.5 Article

Do Cadmium, Lead, and Aluminum in Drinking Water Increase the Risk of Hip Fractures? A NOREPOS Study

Journal

BIOLOGICAL TRACE ELEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 157, Issue 1, Pages 14-23

Publisher

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12011-013-9862-x

Keywords

Cadmium; lead; aluminum; water supply; hip fracture risk

Funding

  1. Research Council of Norway

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate relations between cadmium, lead, and aluminum in municipality drinking water and the incidence of hip fractures in the Norwegian population. A trace metals survey in 566 waterworks was linked geographically to hip fractures from hospitals throughout the country (1994-2000). In all those supplied from these waterworks, 5,438 men and 13,629 women aged 50-85 years suffered a hip fracture. Poisson regression models were fitted, adjusting for age, region of residence, urbanization, and type of water source as well as other possibly bone-related water quality factors. Effect modification by background variables and interactions between water quality factors were examined (correcting for false discovery rate). Men exposed to a relatively high concentration of cadmium (IRR= 1.10; 95 % CI 1.01, 1.20) had an increased risk of fracture. The association between relatively high lead and hip fracture risk was significant in the oldest age group (66-85 years) for both men (IRR= 1.11; 95 % CI 1.02, 1.21) and women (IRR= 1.10; 95 % CI 1.04, 1.16). Effect modification by degree of urbanization on hip fracture risk in men was also found for all three metals: cadmium, lead, and aluminum. In summary, a relatively high concentration of cadmium, lead, and aluminum measured in drinking water increased the risk of hip fractures, but the associations depended on gender, age, and urbanization degree. This study could help in elucidating the complex effects on bone health by risk factors found in the environment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available