4.7 Article

Effect of hemoglobin adjustment on the precision of mercury concentrations in maternal and cord blood

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 132, 期 -, 页码 407-412

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.04.030

关键词

Blood analysis; Hemoglobin; Methylmercury; Prenatal exposure; Selenium

资金

  1. U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [ES09797, ES012199]
  2. National Institute of Environmental Research and National Research Foundation of Korea, Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cord-blood mercury concentration is usually considered the best biomarker in regard to developmental methylmercury neurotoxicity. However, the mercury concentration may be affected by the binding of methylmercury to hemoglobin and perhaps also selenium. As cord-blood mercury analyses appear to be less precise than suggested by laboratory quality data, we studied the interrelationships of mercury concentrations with hemoglobin in paired maternal and cord blood samples from a Faroese birth cohort (N=514) and the Mothers and Children's Environmental Health study in Korea (n=797). Linear regression and structural equation model (SEM) analyses were used to ascertain interrelationships between the exposure biomarkers and the possible impact of hemoglobin as well as selenium. Both methods showed a significant dependence of the cord-blood concentration on hemoglobin, also after adjustment for other exposure biomarkers. In the SEM, the cord blood measurement was a less imprecise indicator of the latent methylmercury exposure variable than other exposure biomarkers available, and the maternal hair concentration had the largest imprecision. Adjustment of mercury concentrations both in maternal and cord blood for hemoglobin improved their precision, while no significant effect of the selenium concentration in maternal blood was found. Adjustment of bloodmercury concentrations for hemoglobin is therefore recommended. (C) 2014 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

4.7
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