4.6 Article

Critical exposure level of cadmium for elevated urinary metallothionein - An occupational population study in China

期刊

TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY
卷 215, 期 1, 页码 93-99

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2006.01.013

关键词

cadmium; benchmark dose; biomarkers; metallothionein; renal dysfunction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cadmium is a well-known nephrotoxic agent with extremely long biological half-time of 15-30 years in humans. To prevent nephrotoxicity induced by cadmium, it is necessary to identify specific and sensitive biomarkers of cadmium exposure and renal damage, and to define critical exposure levels related to minimal nephrotoxicity in humans. In this study, urinary cadmium (UCd) and blood cadmium (BCd) were used as cadmium exposure indicators, urinary beta(2)-microglobulin (UB2M), N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (UNAG) and albumin (UALB) were applied as the effect biomarkers of tubular and glomerular dysfunction. The relationship between urinary metallothionein (UNIT) and cadmium exposure biomarkers as well as effect biomarkers was examined. Significant correlations were found between the UNIT and BCd, and UCd. At the same time, UB2M, UALB and UNAG showed positive correlation with UNIT as well. According to this result, cadmium-exposed individuals with renal dysfunction excreted more metallothionein than those without. Dose-response relationships between UCd and urinary indicators of renal dysfunction were studied. The critical concentration of UCd was quantitatively estimated by the benchmark dose (BMD) method. The lower confidence limit of the BMD-10 (BMDL) of UCd (3.1 mu g/g Cr) related to increased excretion of urinary metallothionein was slightly higher than that for UNAG (2.7 mu/g Cr), but lower than those of UB2M (3.4 mu g/g Cr) and UALB (4.2 mu g/g Cr). The results demonstrate that UNIT may be used as a sensitive biomarker of renal tubular dysfunction in cadmium-exposed populations. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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