4.3 Article

Environmental epidemiological study and estimation of benchmark dose for renal dysfunction in a cadmium-polluted area in China

期刊

BIOMETALS
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 525-530

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/B:BIOM.0000045732.91261.e2

关键词

benchmark dose; cadmium; general population; renal dysfunction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have performed a study aimed at investigating the critical concentration of urinary cadmium (UCd) required for the development of renal dysfunction. We studied population groups (totally 790 persons) living in two cadmium exposed areas and one control area in China. UCd, was determined as an indicator of cadmium exposure and accumulation, while the concentrations of N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (NAG), its iso-form B (NAG-B), beta2-microglobulin (B2M), retinol binding protein (RBP), and albumin (ALB) in urine were measured as indicators of the renal effects caused by cadmium. There was a significantly increased prevalence of hyperNAGuria, hyperNAGBuria, hyperB2Muria, hyperRBPuria and hyperALBuria with increasing levels of Cd excretion in urine. We used the benchmark dose (BMD) procedure to estimate the critical concentration of urinary cadmium in this general population. The lower confidence limit of the BMD (LBMD-05) of urinary cadmium for a 5% level of risk above the background level was estimated for each of the renal effect indicators. The BMD-05/LBMD-05 were estimated to be 4.46/3.99, 6.70/5.87, 8.36/7.31, 7.98/6.98 and 15.06/12.18 mug/g creatinine for urinary NAG-B, NAG, B2M, RBP and ALB, respectively. Our findings suggest, based on the present study, that the Lower Confidence Limit of the Population Critical Concentration of UCd (LPCCUCd-05) of tubular dysfunction for 5% excess risk level above the background may be ca. 3-4 mug/g creatinine, and that cadmium concentration in urine should be kept below this level to prevent renal tubular damage. This report is the first to use the BMD method in this field and to define the concept of critical concentration in urine.

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

4.3
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