| Literature DB >> 15345342 |
Matteo Goldoni1, Simona Catalani, Giuseppe De Palma, Paola Manini, Olga Acampa, Massimo Corradi, Roberto Bergonzi, Pietro Apostoli, Antonio Mutti.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate whether exhaled breath condensate (EBC), a fluid formed by cooling exhaled air, can be used as a suitable matrix to assess target tissue dose and effects of inhaled cobalt and tungsten, using EBC malondialdehyde (MDA) as a biomarker of pulmonary oxidative stress. Thirty-three workers exposed to Co and W in workshops producing either diamond tools or hard-metal mechanical parts participated in this study. Two EBC and urinary samples were collected: one before and one at the end of the work shift. Controls were selected among nonexposed workers. Co, W, and MDA in EBC were analyzed with analytical methods based on mass spectrometric reference techniques. In the EBC from controls, Co was detectable at ultratrace levels, whereas W was undetectable. In exposed workers, EBC Co ranged from a few to several hundred nanomoles per liter. Corresponding W levels ranged from undetectable to several tens of nanomoles per liter. A parallel trend was observed for much higher urinary levels. Both Co and W in biological media were higher at the end of the work shift in comparison with preexposure values. In EBC, MDA levels were increased depending on Co concentration and were enhanced by coexposure to W. Such a correlation between EBC MDA and both Co and W levels was not observed with urinary concentration of either element. These results suggest the potential usefulness of EBC to complete and integrate biomonitoring and health surveillance procedures among workers exposed to mixtures of transition elements and hard metals. Key words: cobalt, exhaled breath condensate, hard metals, lung, malondialdehyde, oxidative stress, tungsten.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2004 PMID: 15345342 PMCID: PMC1247519 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.7108
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Perspect ISSN: 0091-6765 Impact factor: 9.031
Demographic and clinical characteristics of study groups.
| Characteristic | Controls | Group A | Group B | Group C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of subjects | 16 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Age (years) | 34.8 ± 2.1 | 39.1 ± 3.9 | 33.2 ± 2.0 | 37.9 ± 3.2 |
| Sex (male/female) | 11/5 | 10/0 | 10/1 | 8/4 |
| No. of current/ex-/never-smokers | 6/1/9 | 4/5/1 | 8/0/3 | 6/0/6 |
| Pack-years of current/ex-smokers (mean ± SEM) | 10.2 ± 1.5/20 | 13.1 ± 5.9/10.2 ± 2.9 | 12.6 ± 4.5/0 | 7.8 ± 1.5/0 |
| FVC, percent of predicted (mean ± SEM) | 104.3 ± 4.3 | 114.7 ± 11.0 | 98.5 ± 2.8 | 117 ± 3.4 |
| FEV1, percent of predicted (mean ± SEM) | 102.5 ± 0.1 | 116.5 ± 8.4 | 96.3 ± 3.4 | 110 ± 3.5 |
| FVC/FEV1, percent (mean ± SEM) | 83.1 ± 0.01 | 84.5 ± 1.0 | 81.9 ± 2.09 | 98 ± 1.5 |
Airborne concentrations (mg/m3) of Co and W [median (range)] measured in the three working environments.
| Group | Co | W |
|---|---|---|
| A | 8.25 (0.1–16.4) | < 0.01 |
| B | 8.45 (0.9–16.0) | 0.10 (0.01–0.2) |
| C | 26 (14.6–37.4) | 3 (1.1–4.9) |
Figure 1Correlation (A) and Bland-Altman graph (B) of the comparison between ETAAS-Z and FI ICP-MS techniques for the measurements in 12 EBC samples. In (A), the solid line represents the best fit of experimental values, and the dashed line shows the theoretical identity line. In (B), the solid line shows the mean deviation between the two methods; dashed lines indicate the mean ± 2 SD. A = –3.08381 ± 2.28647; B = 1.14266 ± 0.01921; R = 0.99817; p < 0.0001.
End-of-shift values [median (interquartile range)] of biomarkers in the three factories.
| Variables | Controls ( | Group A ( | Group B ( | Group C ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co-EBC (nmol/L) | 0.7 (0.5–1.0) | 40.7 (11.9–54.3) | 126 (44.1–628) | 163 (37.3–741) |
| Co-U (μmol/mol creatinine) | 0.09 (0.06–0.4) | 2.9 (1.7–5.3) | 50.0 (16.2–366) | 18.9 (7.2–49.2) |
| W-EBC (nmol/L) | < 0.5 | < 0.5 | 1.1 (0.5–4.9) | 25.6 (15.2–76.1) |
| W-U (μmol/mol creatinine) | < 0.06 (< 0.06 – 1.5) | < 0.06 (< 0.06 – 1.0) | 1.2 (0.6–4.9) | 8.2 (3.2–16.1) |
| MDA-EBC (nmol/L) | 7.6 (7.0–8.5) | 11.5 (6.3–14.6) | 14.2 (12.4–16.6) | 26.5 (6.5–44.0) |
Co, 1 nmol/L = 58.9 ng/L, 1 μmol/mol creatinine = 0.52 μg/g creatinine; W, 1 nmol/L = 185 ng/L, 1 μmol/mol creatinine = 1.64 μg/g creatinine.
p < 0.05 versus controls (Mann-Whitney test).
p < 0.01.
Figure 2Correlation (A) between Co-EBC and W-EBC levels and (B) between Co-U and W-U levels. In (A), group B log(W-EBC) = 2.44 + log(Co-EBC1.12)and Group C log(W-EBC) = 0.15 + log(Co-EBC0.51). In (B), group B log(W-U) = 1.47 + log(Co-EBC0.97) and Group C log(W-U = 0.35 + log(Co-EBC0.86).
Figure 3Correlation between (A) Co-U and Co-EBC levels and (B) between W-U and W-EBC levels. In (A), log(Co-EBC) = 0.99 + log(Co-U0.79); in (B), log(W-EBC) = 0.65 + log(W-U0.59).
Figure 4Correlation between Co-EBC and MDA-EBC levels. Group 1, workers with W-EBC < 16.3 nmol/L [log(MDA-EBC) = 0.66 + log(Co-EBC0.21)]; group 2, workers with W-EBC > 16.3 nmol/L [log(MDA-EBC) = 0.44 + log(Co-EBC0.37)].