Literature DB >> 11266328

Diagnostic chelation challenge with DMSA: a biomarker of long-term mercury exposure?

H Frumkin1, C C Manning, P L Williams, A Sanders, B B Taylor, M Pierce, L Elon, V S Hertzberg.   

Abstract

Chelation challenge testing has been used to assess the body burden of various metals. The best-known example is EDTA challenge in lead-exposed individuals. This study assessed diagnostic chelation challenge with dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) as a measure of mercury body burden among mercury-exposed workers. Former employees at a chloralkali plant, for whom detailed exposure histories were available (n = 119), and unexposed controls (n = 101) completed 24-hr urine collections before and after the administration of two doses of DMSA, 10 mg/kg. The urinary response to DMSA was measured as both the absolute change and the relative change in mercury excretion. The average 24-hr mercury excretion was 4.3 microg/24 hr before chelation, and 7.8 microg/24 hr after chelation. There was no association between past occupational mercury exposure and the urinary excretion of mercury either before or after DMSA administration. There was also no association between urinary mercury excretion and the number of dental amalgam surfaces, in contrast to recent published results. We believe the most likely reason that DMSA chelation challenge failed to reflect past mercury exposure was the elapsed time (several years) since the exposure had ended. These results provide normative values for urinary mercury excretion both before and after DMSA challenge, and suggest that DMSA chelation challenge is not useful as a biomarker of past mercury exposure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11266328      PMCID: PMC1240638          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.01109167

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Health Perspect        ISSN: 0091-6765            Impact factor:   9.031


  46 in total

1.  Comparison of enhanced elimination of bismuth in humans after treatment with meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid and D,L-2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonic acid.

Authors:  A Slikkerveer; L A Noach; G N Tytgat; G B Van der Voet; F A De Wolff
Journal:  Analyst       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 4.616

2.  Delayed cerebellar disease and death after accidental exposure to dimethylmercury.

Authors:  D W Nierenberg; R E Nordgren; M B Chang; R W Siegler; M B Blayney; F Hochberg; T Y Toribara; E Cernichiari; T Clarkson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-06-04       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Randomized placebo-controlled trial of 2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid in therapy of chronic arsenicosis due to drinking arsenic-contaminated subsoil water.

Authors:  D N Guha Mazumder; U C Ghoshal; J Saha; A Santra; B K De; A Chatterjee; S Dutta; C R Angle; J A Centeno
Journal:  J Toxicol Clin Toxicol       Date:  1998

4.  Systemic transfer of mercury from amalgam fillings before and after cessation of emission.

Authors:  S Halbach; L Kremers; H Willruth; A Mehl; G Welzl; F X Wack; R Hickel; H Greim
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 6.498

5.  Methylmercury and inorganic mercury in serum--correlation to fish consumption and dental amalgam in a cohort of women born in 1922.

Authors:  I A Bergdahl; A Schütz; M Ahlqwist; C Bengtsson; L Lapidus; L Lissner; B Hulten
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 6.498

6.  Chelated lead in relation to lead in bone and ALAD genotype.

Authors:  L Gerhardsson; J Börjesson; S Mattsson; A Schütz; S Skerfving
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 6.498

7.  Predictors of dimercaptosuccinic acid chelatable lead and tibial lead in former organolead manufacturing workers.

Authors:  B S Schwartz; W F Stewart; A C Todd; J M Links
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.402

8.  Combined oral treatment with racemic and meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid for removal of mercury in rats.

Authors:  K Kostial; N Restek-Samarzija; M Blanusa; M Piasek; M M Jones; P K Singh
Journal:  Pharmacol Toxicol       Date:  1997-11

Review 9.  Bone lead as a biological marker in epidemiologic studies of chronic toxicity: conceptual paradigms.

Authors:  H Hu; M Rabinowitz; D Smith
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  Comparison of the effectiveness of 2,3-dimercaptopropanol (BAL) and meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) as protective agents against mercuric chloride-induced nephrotoxicity in rats.

Authors:  A de la Torre; M Bellés; J M Llobet; E Mayayo; J L Domingo
Journal:  Biol Trace Elem Res       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.738

View more
  8 in total

1.  American College of Medical Toxicology position statement on post-chelator challenge urinary metal testing.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Med Toxicol       Date:  2010-03

Review 2.  Lead and mercury exposures: interpretation and action.

Authors:  Elizabeth Brodkin; Ray Copes; Andre Mattman; James Kennedy; Rakel Kling; Annalee Yassi
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2007-01-02       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Recommendations for provoked challenge urine testing.

Authors:  Anne-Michelle Ruha
Journal:  J Med Toxicol       Date:  2013-12

4.  ACMT Recommends Against Use of Post-Chelator Challenge Urinary Metal Testing.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Med Toxicol       Date:  2017-07-19

5.  Is Challenge Testing Valid for Assessing Body Metal Burden?

Authors:  Joseph Pizzorno
Journal:  Integr Med (Encinitas)       Date:  2015-08

6.  The pitfalls of hair analysis for toxicants in clinical practice: three case reports.

Authors:  Melissa Frisch; Brian S Schwartz
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  Mercury exposure aboard an ore boat.

Authors:  Richard R Roach; Stephanie Busch
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  N-acetylcysteine as a potential antidote and biomonitoring agent of methylmercury exposure.

Authors:  David A Aremu; Michael S Madejczyk; Nazzareno Ballatori
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 9.031

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.