4.7 Review

Metals and women's health

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 88, 期 3, 页码 145-155

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/enrs.2002.4338

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a lack of information concerning whether environmental-related health effects are more or less prevalent or manifested differently in women compared to men. Previously, most research in the area of toxicology and environmental and occupational health involved male subjects. The present work aims at reviewing exposure and health effects of cadmium, nickel, lead, mercury, and arsenic manifested differently in women than in men. The gender difference in exposure to nickel results in a much higher prevalence of nickel allergy and hand eczema in women than in men. The internal cadmium dose is generally higher in women than in men, due to a higher gastrointestinal absorption at low iron stores. This was probably one major reason why Itai-itai disease was mainly a woman's disease. Yet, data are sparse regarding the risk for women relative to men to develop cadmium-induced kidney damage in populations exposed to low levels of cadmium. Lead is accumulated mainly in bone and increased endogenous lead exposure has been demonstrated in women during periods of increased bone turnover, e.g., menopause. Both lead and mercury exposure in pregnant women has to be kept low in order to prevent neurodevelopment effects in the developing fetus and child. Limited data indicate that women are more affected than men following exposure to methylmercury at adult age, while males seem to be more sensitive to exposure during early development. Regarding arsenic, some data indicate gender differences in the biotransformation by methylation, possibly also in susceptibility to certain arsenic-related cancers. Obviously, gender-related differences in exposure and health effects caused by metals are highly neglected research areas, which need considerable focus in the future. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA).

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