4.5 Article

Arsenic Metabolites and Methylation Capacity Among Individuals Living in a Rural Area with Endemic Arseniasis in Inner Mongolia, China

期刊

BIOLOGICAL TRACE ELEMENT RESEARCH
卷 170, 期 2, 页码 300-308

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12011-015-0490-5

关键词

Arsenic; Methylation capacity; Arsenic metabolites; Drinking water

资金

  1. State Key Program of National Natural Science of China [41230749]
  2. National Public Welfare Sectors (Agriculture) special research fund [201203012-6]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

More than 0.3 million individuals are subject to chronic exposure to arsenic via their drinking water in Inner Mongolia, China. To determine arsenic methylation capacity profiles for such individuals, concentrations of urinary arsenic metabolites were measured for 548 subjects using high-performance liquid chromatography and a hydride generator combined with inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. Mean urinary concentrations of dimethylarsonic acid (DMA), monomethylarsonic acid (MMA), inorganic arsenic (iAs), and total arsenic (TAs) were 200.50, 46.71, 52.96, and 300.17 mu g/L, respectively. The %iAs, %DMA, and %MMA were 15.98, 69.72, and 14.29 %. Mean urinary %iAs and %MMA were higher in males, while urinary %DMA was higher in females. There was a strong positive correlation between %iAs and %MMA, with negative correlations between %iAs and %DMA, and %iAs and %MMA. In addition, %iAs and %MMA were positively associated with total arsenic in drinking water (WAs), while %DMA was negatively related with WAs. Regression analysis indicated that the primary methylation index (PMI) and secondary methylation index (SMI) generally decreased with increasing WAs. Females had a higher arsenic methylation capacity compared to males. Younger subjects had lower primary arsenic methylation capacity. However, the secondary arsenic methylation capacity was hardly affected by age. Moreover, both primary and secondary arsenic methylation capacities were negatively related to WAs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据