4.7 Article

Bone as a possible target of chemical toxicity of natural uranium in drinking water

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
卷 113, 期 1, 页码 68-72

出版社

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.7475

关键词

bone; bone turnover markers; CTx; drinking water; osteocalcin; P1NP; uranium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Uranium accumulates in bone, affects bone metabolism in laboratory animals, and when ingested in drinking water increases urinary excretion of calcium and phosphate, important components in the bone structure. However, little is known about bone effects of ingested natural uranium in humans. We studied 146 men and 142 women 26-83 years of age who for an average of 13 years had used drinking water originating from wells drilled in bedrock, in areas with naturally high uranium content. Biochemical indicators of bone formation were serum osteocalcin and amino-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen, and a marker for bone resorption was serum type I collagen carboxy-terminal telopeptide (CTx). The primary measure of uranium exposure was uranium concentration in drinking water, with additional information on uranium intake and uranium concentration in urine. The data were analyzed separately for men and women with robust regression (which suppresses contributions of potential influential observations) models with adjustment for age, smoking, and estrogen use. The median uranium concentration in drinking water was 27 mug/L (interquartile range, 6-116 mug/L). The median of daily titanium intake was 36 mug (7-207 mug) and of cumulative intake 0.12 g (0.02-0.66 g). There was some suggestion that elevation of CTx (p = 0.05) as well as osteocalcin (p = 0.19) could be associated with increased uranium exposure (uranium in water and intakes) in men, but no similar relationship was found in women. Accordingly, bone may be a target of chemical toxicity of uranium in humans, and more detailed evaluation of bone effects of natural uranium is warranted.

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

4.7
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