| Literature DB >> 21575207 |
Mao Wang1, Hong Song, Wei-Qing Chen, Ciyong Lu, Qianshen Hu, Zefang Ren, Yan Yang, Yanjun Xu, Aiming Zhong, Wenhua Ling.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Dabaoshan mine in the southeast of Guangdong Province, China, is at high risk of multi-metal pollutant discharge into a local river (Hengshihe) and the surrounding area. Following approximately 30 years of exposure to these metals, little is known regarding the subsequent health effects and risks for the local residents. In our present study, we have estimated the relationships between long-term environmental exposure to multiple heavy metals and the risk of cancer mortality in a Chinese population in the vicinity of Dabaoshan.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21575207 PMCID: PMC3112132 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Figure 1Geographic map of the region encompassing the Dabaoshan Mine (▲), the surrounding area, the HEA [Shangba Village (I), Xiaozhen Village (II) and Dongfang Village (III)] and LEA [Zhongxin Village (IV), Shaping Village (V), Shuikou Village (VI), Fengshan Village (VII), Mashan Village (VIII) and Madun Village (IX)].
Figure 2Geographic map of the third retrospective investigation of causes of death in the RAGDP of China spanning 2004-2005 conducted by the provincial health department and the School of Public Health of Sun Yat-Sen University (Notes: These areas were classified as type I or type II rural areas according to the socioeconomic status (SES). Type I rural areas had a high SES and included Shunde district, Sihui city, Wuhua county, Doumen district, Taishan city and Yingde city. The type II rural areas had a low SES and included Wengyuan county and Nanxiong county.
Heavy Metal Concentrations in Environmental Samples near a Multi-metals Sulphide Mine in Guangdong, China
| High-Exposure Area | Low-Exposure Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shangba | Xiaozhen | Dongfang | Six villages | ||
| N (excluding water source) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |
| pH | |||||
| Water source | 3.35 (Wastewater) b | 7.10 (Huangzhuping) 7.12 (Guizhu) c | 6.0-9.0 | ||
| Irrigation water | 4.92 | 7.75 | 7.76 | 7.02 - 7.35 | 5.50-8.50 |
| Well water | 4.77 | 7.06 | 6.88 | 7.04 - 7.56 | 6.5-8.5 |
| Cadmium | |||||
| Water source (mg/L,×10-3) | 7.09 (Wastewater) b | 0.09 (Huangzhuping) 0.10 (Guizhu) c | 5 | ||
| Irrigation water (mg/L,×10-3) | 8.31 | 4.25 | 0.66 | <0.001 | 5 |
| Well water (mg/L, ×10-3) | 8.88 | 0.13 | 0.07 | <0.001 | 5 |
| Soil (mg/kg) | 0.528 | 0.422 | 0.043 | 0.032 - 0.18 | 0.30 |
| Rice (mg/kg) | 0.47 | 0.36 | 0.02 | 0.006 - 0.075 | 0.20 |
| Avena nula (mg/kg) | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.004 - 0.060 | 0.20 |
| Lead | |||||
| Water source (mg/L) | 0.043 (Waste water) b | 0.01 (Huangzhuping) 0.01 (Guizhu) c | 0.010 | ||
| Irrigation water (mg/L) | 0.045 | 0.035 | 0.013 | <0.01 | 0.200 |
| Well water (mg/L) | 0.012 | 0.017 | 0.016 | <0.01 - 0.02 | 0.01 |
| Soil (mg/kg) | 600 | 770 | 68 | 7.13 - 19.93 | 300 |
| Rice (mg/kg) | 830 | 520 | 280 | <0.05 | 300 |
| Avena nula (mg/kg) | 820 | 1690 | 1050 | 0.030 - 0.145 | 300 |
| Copper | |||||
| Water source (mg/L) | 0.196 (Wastewater) b | 0.01 (Huangzhuping) 0.01 (Guizhu) c | 1.000 | ||
| Irrigation water (mg/L) | 0.631 | 0.020 | 0.020 | <0.01 | 0.500 |
| Well water (mg/L) | 1.570 | 0.020 | 0.045 | <0.01 | 1.00 |
| Soil (mg/kg) | 1261 | 147 | 20 | 2.85 - 8.19 | 100 |
| Rice (mg/kg) | 5.38 | 3.08 | 2.03 | 0.43 - 0.69 | 10 |
| Avena nula (mg/kg) | 1.31 | 0.82 | 0.42 | 0.23 - 1.09 | - d |
| Zinc | |||||
| Water source (mg/L) | 13.700 (Wastewater) b | 0.01 (Huangzhuping) 0.01 (Guizhu) c | 1.000 | ||
| Irrigation water (mg/L) | 25.200 | 0.048 | 0.005 | <0.01 - 0.84 | 2.00 |
| Well water (mg/L) | 4.89 | 0.024 | 0.011 | <0.01 - 0.49 | 1.00 |
| Soil (mg/kg) | 680 | 227 | 68 | 2.85 - 8.19 | 250 |
| Rice (mg/kg) | 29.40 | 20.70 | 13.80 | 7.50 - 10.90 | 50 |
| Avena nula (mg/kg) | 20.80 | 5.12 | 3.73 | 2.89 - 7.94 | - d |
a Government standard.
b Sampling point of wastewater [01] in the high-exposure area (see Figure 1).
c Sampling points of water source [02] and [03] in the low-exposure area (see Figure 1).
d No government standard.
Blood Levels of Cadmium, Lead, Copper and Zinc by Participant Characteristics
| Geometric mean (SD) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | n | Cadmium, ug/L | Lead, μg/dL | Copper, mg/L | Zinc, mg/L |
| The high-exposure area (H) (I-III) | 563 | 24.10 (3.52) a | 38.91 (0.39) a | 0.82 (1.49) | 8.38 (1.96) a |
| Shangba (I) | 198 | 34.80 (2.96) | 67.36 (0.24) | 0.84 (1.42) | 11.23 (1.75) |
| Xiaozhen(II) | 177 | 10.33 (4.16) | 10.35 (0.40) | 0.73 (1.26) | 5.52 (1.45) |
| Dongfang (III) | 188 | 21.37 (3.11) | 62.55 (0.28) | 0.86 (1.71) | 8.94 (2.09) |
| The low-exposure area (L) (IV-IX) | 589 | 1.87 (2.48) a | 4.46 (0.18) a | 0.81 (1.24) | 7.96 (1.32) a |
| Zhongxin (IV) | 172 | 1.69 (2.34) | 5.81 (0.17) | 0.86 (1.27) | 8.47 (1.34) |
| Shaping (V) | 72 | 2.06 (2.57) | 4.70 (0.18) | 0.81 (1.16) | 7.80 (1.30) |
| Shuikou (VI) | 72 | 1.90 (2.51) | 3.79 (0.15) | 0.85 (1.29) | 8.34 (1.19) |
| Fengshan (VII) | 104 | 1.23 (2.45) | 4.34 (0.18) | 0.79 (1.14) | 8.17 (1.24) |
| Mashan (VIII) | 86 | 2.15 (2.12) | 2.97 (0.19) | 0.72 (1.19) | 7.51 (1.27) |
| Madun (IX) | 83 | 3.03 (2.40) | 4.47 (0.15) | 0.76 (1.25) | 7.01 (1.45) |
| Age, yrs | |||||
| 18-39 | |||||
| H | 106 | 24.47 (3.15) | 39.98 (0.42) | 0.78 (1.34) | 8.10 (1.95) |
| L | 73 | 1.64 (2.37) | 4.37 (0.17) | 0.83 (1.38) | 7.93 (1.27) |
| 40-59 | |||||
| H | 328 | 25.44 (3.50) | 36.96 (0.40) | 0.82 (1.57) | 8.16 (1.93) |
| L | 373 | 1.83 (2.47) | 4.41 (0.18) | 0.81 (1.21) | 7.98 (1.33) |
| 60-74 | |||||
| H | 99 | 23.09 (3.93) | 44.08 (0.40) | 0.85 (1.36) | 9.80 (2.13) |
| L | 97 | 2.12 (2.66) | 4.55 (0.17) | 0.79 (1.22) | 7.99 (1.33) |
| ≥75 | |||||
| H | 30 | 27.03 (3.96) | 41.12 (0.24) | 0.81 (1.50) | 7.56 (1.64) |
| L | 46 | 2.11 (2.24) | 4.73 (0.20) | 0.82 (1.25) | 7.79 (1.29) |
| Smoking | |||||
| Never | |||||
| H | 436 | 24.40 (3.58) | 37.72 (0.40) | 0.80 (1.40) | 8.15 (1.92) |
| L | 392 | 1.43 (2.11) | 4.15 (0.18) | 0.82 (1.22) | 7.89 (1.28) |
| Former | |||||
| H | 29 | 28.46 (2.31) | 45.92 (0.29) | 0.87(1.36) | 10.19 (1.97) |
| L | 43 | 1.76 (2.52) | 4.50 (0.19) | 0.86 (1.32) | 7.22 (1.58) |
| Current | |||||
| H | 98 | 26.27 (3.63) | 42.56 (0.40) | 0.85 (1.88) | 9.00 (2.11) |
| L | 154 | 3.79 (2.46) | 5.31 (0.17) | 0.77 (1.24) | 8.34 (1.33) |
| Alcohol | |||||
| Never | |||||
| H | 364 | 23.55 (3.57) | 39.71 (0.39) | 0.82 (1.52) | 8.27 (1.99) |
| L | 332 | 1.77 (2.37) | 4.24 (0.18) | 0.82 (1.24) | 7.95 (1.29) |
| Former | |||||
| H | 44 | 31.05 (2.90) | 45.44 (0.28) | 0.84 (1.33) | 8.36(1.70) |
| L | 46 | 1.91 (2.55) | 4.24 (0.15) | 0.86 (1.32) | 7.16 (1.56) |
| Current | |||||
| H | 155 | 26.70 (3.58) | 35.50 (0.43) | 0.81 (1.47) | 8.67 (1.97) |
| L | 211 | 2.03 (2.63) | 4.86 (0.17) | 0.78 (1.20) | 8.15 (1.30) |
a P < 0.001
Comparison of the cancer mortality rates (per 100,000) in high-exposure area (HEA) to those in low-exposure area (LEA), Wengyuan county and the rural areas of Guangdong Province (RAGDP)
| Population | All cancers | Esophagus cancer | Stomach cancer | Lung cancer | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Years) | Statistic | Both | Men | Women | Both | Men | Women | Both | Men | Women | Both | Men | Women |
| The HEA | Ea | 194 | 125 | 68 | 30 | 17 | 13 | 60 | 34 | 26 | 36 | 24 | 12 |
| (2000-2007) | Rateb | 265.1 | 332.5 | 191.1 | 41.0 | 45.2 | 36.5 | 82.0 | 90.4 | 73.1 | 49.2 | 63.9 | 33.7 |
| Comparison: | Ea | 138 | 99 | 39 | 22 | 14 | 8 | 19 | 17 | 2 | 27 | 22 | 5 |
| The LEA (2000-2007) | Rateb | 5 114.1 | 156.3 | 67.7 | 18.2 | 22.1 | 13.9 | 15.7 | 26.9 | 3.5 | 22.3 | 34.7 | 8.7 |
| Rate ratioc | 2.32 | 2.13 | 2.83 | 2.25 | 2.05 | 2.63 | 5.28 | 3.37 | 21.06 | 2.20 | 1.84 | 3.89 | |
| 95% CId | 1.87-2.89 | 1.63-2.77 | 1.91-4.19 | 1.30-3.91 | 1.01-4.15 | 1.09-6.35 | 3.12-8.74 | 1.88-6.03 | 5.00-88.71 | 1.34-3.63 | 1.03-3.28 | 1.37-11.03 | |
| Pd | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.003 | 0.043 | 0.025 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.036 | 0.006 | |
| Comparison: Wengyuan County (2004-2005) | Rate† | 138.3 | 183.5 | 98.0 | 17.0 | 16.1 | 17.6 | 37.0 | 48.6 | 26.4 | 22.2 | 38.0 | 10.3 |
| Rate ratioc | 1.92 | 1.81 | 1.95 | 2.41 | 2.81 | 2.08 | 2.22 | 1.86 | 2.77 | 2.22 | 1.68 | 3.27 | |
| 95% CIe | 1.66-2.20 | 1.51-2.14 | 1.53-2.46 | 1.66-3.40 | 1.69-4.41 | 1.16-3.46 | 1.71-2.83 | 1.31-2.57 | 1.85-4.00 | 1.58-3.04 | 1.10-2.46 | 1.77-5.56 | |
| Pe | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.017 | <0.001 | 0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.018 | 0.001 | |
| Comparison: the RAGDP (2004-2005) | Rate† | 131.8 | 167.3 | 90.3 | 11.8 | 16.7 | 7.1 | 15.0 | 20.4 | 9.9 | 26.6 | 39.8 | 14.6 |
| Rate ratioc | 2.01 | 1.99 | 2.12 | 3.48 | 2.71 | 5.14 | 5.46 | 4.43 | 7.73 | 1.85 | 1.61 | 2.31 | |
| 95% CIe | 1.74-2.30 | 1.65-2.35 | 1.66-2.67 | 2.39-4.90 | 1.63-4.25 | 2.86-8.57 | 4.21-6.99 | 3.12-6.12 | 4.91-10.64 | 1.32-2.53 | 1.05-2.35 | 1.25-3.92 | |
| Pe | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.030 | 0.010 | |
aExpected deaths; round to nearest whole number for statistical calculations based on the binomial distribution.
b Calculated by the expected deaths in study regions by the total populations of men or women or both in Additional file 6table s2.
c Calculated by dividing the rate in the exposed regions by the rate in the comparison populations.
d Exact mid-P 95% CIs and two-side hypothesis test probabilities (P) were calculated with PEPI Compare2 program.
e The exact CI and P were calculated using PEPI Describe for the Poisson statistical distribution.
Comparison of the cancer mortality rates (per 100,000) in high-exposure area (HEA) to those in low-exposure area (LEA), Wengyuan county and the rural areas of Guangdong Province (RAGDP)
| Population | Liver cancer | Leukocythemia | Non-Hodgin disease | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Years) | Statistic | Both | Men | Women | Both | Men | Women | Both | Men | Women | Both | Men | Women |
| The HEA | Ea | 38 | 27 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 21 | 14 | 7 |
| (2000-2007) | Rateb | 51.9 | 71.8 | 30.9 | 10.9 | 18.6 | 2.8 | 5.5 | 8.0 | 2.8 | 28.7 | 37.2 | 19.7 |
| Comparison: | Ea | 39 | 28 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 13 | 10 |
| The LEA | Rateb | 32.2 | 44.3 | 19.1 | 5.8 | 6.3 | 6.9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19.0 | 20.5 | 17.4 |
| (2000-2007) | Rate ratioc | 1.61 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.89 | 2.95 | 0.41 | - | - | - | 1.51 | 1.81 | 1.13 |
| 95% CId | 1.03-2.52 | 0.96-2.75 | 0.70-3.74 | 0.69-5.21 | 0.86-10.1 | 0.05-3.62 | - | - | - | 0.84-2.73 | 0.85-3.86 | 0.43-2.98 | |
| Pd | 0.035 | 0.070 | 0.254 | 0.211 | 0.070 | 0.403 | - | - | - | 0.170 | 0.117 | 0.799 | |
| Comparison: Wengyuan County (2004-2005) | Rate† | 42.3 | 64.0 | 21.5 | 4.5 | 5.2 | 3.8 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 16.1 | 10.3 | 17.3 |
| Rate ratioc | 1.23 | 1.12 | 1.44 | 2.43 | 3.58 | 0.74 | 4.58 | 6.15 | 2.55 | 1.78 | 3.61 | 1.14 | |
| 95% CIe | 0.88-1.67 | 0.75-1.61 | 0.76-2.50 | 1.13-4.62 | 1.57-7.10 | 0.04-3.65 | 1.44-11.0 | 1.56-16.7 | 0.13-12.64 | 1.11-2.63 | 1.99-5.73 | 0.51-2.31 | |
| Pe | 0.209 | 0.526 | 0.239 | 0.026 | 0.005 | 0.868 | 0.002 | 0.015 | 0.382 | 0.018 | <0.001 | 0.650 | |
| Comparison: the RAGDP (2004-2005) | Rate† | 39.8 | 63.1 | 16.7 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 32.8 | 20.8 | 36.9 |
| Rate ratioc | 1.30 | 1.14 | 1.85 | 2.73 | 4.41 | 0.74 | 3.06 | 3.48 | 2.15 | 0.88 | 1.79 | 0.53 | |
| 95% CIe | 0.94-1.77 | 0.77-1.63 | 0.97-3.22 | 1.27-5.18 | 1.94-8.76 | 0.04-3.65 | 0.95-7.20 | 0.89-9.49 | 0.11-10.72 | 0.56-1.31 | 1.00-2.87 | 0.24-1.07 | |
| Pe | 0.110 | 0.483 | 0.059 | 0.014 | 0.001 | 0.868 | 0.059 | 0.068 | 0.447 | 0.557 | 0.051 | 0.080 | |
a Expected deaths; round to nearest whole number for statistical calculations based on the binomial distribution.
b Calculated by the expected deaths in study regions by the total populations of men or women or both in Additional file 6table s2.
c Calculated by dividing the rate in the exposed regions by the rate in the comparison populations.
d Exact mid-P 95% CIs and two-side hypothesis test probabilities (P) were calculated with PEPI Compare2 program.
e The exact CI and P were calculated using PEPI Describe for the Poisson statistical distribution.
f Excluding the cases of leukocythemia and non-Hodgin disease.
Estimation of the age-adjusted mortality risk for the selected specific cause associated with blood heavy metals levels for both sexes using simple, multiple linear and ridge regression in the nine villages evaluated in this study
| All cancer | Esophageal cancer | Stomach cancer | Lung cancer | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | P | P | P | |||||||
| Cd | 0.301 | 0.002c | 0.082 | 0.770 | 0.584 | 0.012c | 0.279 | 0.062 | ||
| Pb | 0.260 | 0.039c | -0.045 | 0.881 | 0.559 | 0.046c | 0.263 | 0.117 | ||
| Zn | -0.119 | 0.900 | 0.134 | 0.944 | 0.102 | 0.963 | 0.107 | 0.929 | ||
| Cd | 0.483 | 0.018c | 0.172 | 5.826 | 0.376616 | 0.723 | 0.156 | 0.168 | 5.964 | 0.303854 |
| Pb | -0.216 | 0.228 | 0.172 | 5.826 | 0.188513 | -0.168 | 0.739 | 0.168 | 5.964 | 0.440660 |
a using simple linear regression.
b Estimate of the regression coefficient of log-transformed for blood cadmium, lead and zinc levels by using simple linear regression.
c P < 0.05.
d Estimate of the regression coefficient of the relationships between log-transformed for blood cadmium and lead levels and log-transformed for age-adjusted mortality rates from all-cancer and stomach cancer using multiple linear regression and estimate of the regression coefficient of the relationships log-transformed for blood cadmium, lead and zinc levels and the original age-adjusted mortality rates from all-cancer and stomach cancer using ridge regression.
e A tolerance <0.10 indicates that collinearity must be considered.
f Variance inflation factor; If >10, collinearity must be considered.
j Ridge regression coefficients; a Ridge k of 0.85 and RSQ of 0.60815 were caiculated using ridge regression.
h Ridge regression coefficients; a Ridge k of 0.40 and RSQ of 0.66049 were caiculated using ridge regression.
Estimation of the age-adjusted mortality risk for the selected specific cause associated with blood heavy metals levels for women and men separately using simple, multiple linear and ridge regression in the nine villages evaluated in this study
| All cancer | Esophageal cancer | Stomach cancer | Lung cancer | All cancers | Esophageal cancer | Stomach cancer | Lung cancer | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | |||||||||
| Cd | 0.365 | 0.001c | 0.204 | 0.286 | 0.549 | 0.037c | 0.324 | 0.067 | 0.276 | 0.062 | 0.472 | 0.071 | 0.558 | 0.070 | 0.163 | 0.493 |
| Pb | 0.374 | 0.026c | 0.175 | 0.476 | 0.684 | 0.020c | 0.275 | 0.272 | 0.221 | 0.101 | 0.411 | 0.624 | 0.424 | 0.151 | 0.194 | 0.350 |
| Zn | -0.034 | 0.977 | 1.361 | 0.323 | 0.943 | 0.691 | 0.444 | 0.759 | -0.366 | 0.718 | 0.235 | 0.893 | -0.280 | 0.898 | -0.312 | 0.831 |
| Cd | 0.491 | 0.024c | 0.197 | 5.073 | 0.469722 | 0.221 | 0.491 | 0.245 | 4.075 | 0.454158 | ||||||
| Pb | -0.175 | 0.424 | 0.197 | 5.073 | 0.205384 | 0.453 | 0.291 | 0.245 | 4.075 | 0.342160 | ||||||
a using simple linear regression.
b Estimate of the regression coefficient of log-transformed for blood cadmium, lead and zinc levels by using simple linear regression.
c P < 0.05.
d Estimate of the regression coefficient of the relationships between log-transformed for blood cadmium and lead levels and log-transformed for age-adjusted mortality rates from all-cancer and stomach cancer using multiple linear regression and estimate of the regression coefficient of the relationships between log-transformed for blood cadmium, lead and zinc levels and the original age-adjusted mortality rates from all-cancer and stomach cancer using ridge regression.
e A tolerance <0.10 indicates that collinearity must be considered.
f Variance inflation factor; If >10, collinearity must be considered.
j Ridge regression coefficients; a Ridge k of 0.50 and RSQ of 0.69853 were calculated using ridge regression.
h Ridge regression coefficients; a Ridge k of 0.10 and RSQ of 0.66647 were calculated using ridge regression.