Magnus Akerstrom1, Thomas Lundh, Lars Barregard, Gerd Sallsten. 1. Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital and Academy, University of Gothenburg, PO Box 414, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden. magnus.akerstrom@amm.gu.se
Abstract
PURPOSE: Urinary cadmium (U-Cd) sampling can be done either by 24-h urine or spot urine sampling, and adjustment for dilution is usually needed. The choice of sampling period and adjustment technique could, however, potentially induce bias. The aim of the study was to compare 24-h urine and spot urine sampling and two dilution adjustment techniques, when assessing U-Cd. METHODS: Separate 24-h urine (U24) and timed overnight spot urine (UON) samples were collected from 152 healthy kidney donors. U-Cd, creatinine concentration (U-Crea) and specific gravity (SG) were analysed. Differences between U24 and UON samples were tested using paired t test, and the effect of urinary flow rate (UF) was assessed by linear regression. RESULTS: The cadmium excretion rate (U-Cd/h) was lower in the UON than in U24 samples (mean 0.017 μg/h vs. 0.021 μg/h; p < 0.001). This decrease was found also for the creatinine-adjusted U-Cd (U-CdCrea) (mean 0.36 μg/gC and 0.41 μg/gC; p < 0.001). For U-Cd adjusted for specific gravity (U-CdSG), the difference was reversed, but not statistically significant. The creatinine excretion rate (U-Crea/h) decreased at low UF, especially in the UON. CONCLUSIONS: Since U-Cd/h was lower in UON than in U24 samples, the former will underestimate the true Cd excretion. This was seen for U-CdCrea but not for U-CdSG. However, it may be an advantage that the U-CdSG is similar, irrespective of sampling strategy. At low UF, U-CdCrea will be biased upwards. Whether U24 or UON samples adjusted for U-Crea or SG best reflect kidney-Cd is still unknown.
PURPOSE: Urinary cadmium (U-Cd) sampling can be done either by 24-h urine or spot urine sampling, and adjustment for dilution is usually needed. The choice of sampling period and adjustment technique could, however, potentially induce bias. The aim of the study was to compare 24-h urine and spot urine sampling and two dilution adjustment techniques, when assessing U-Cd. METHODS: Separate 24-h urine (U24) and timed overnight spot urine (UON) samples were collected from 152 healthy kidney donors. U-Cd, creatinine concentration (U-Crea) and specific gravity (SG) were analysed. Differences between U24 and UON samples were tested using paired t test, and the effect of urinary flow rate (UF) was assessed by linear regression. RESULTS: The cadmium excretion rate (U-Cd/h) was lower in the UON than in U24 samples (mean 0.017 μg/h vs. 0.021 μg/h; p < 0.001). This decrease was found also for the creatinine-adjusted U-Cd (U-CdCrea) (mean 0.36 μg/gC and 0.41 μg/gC; p < 0.001). For U-Cd adjusted for specific gravity (U-CdSG), the difference was reversed, but not statistically significant. The creatinine excretion rate (U-Crea/h) decreased at low UF, especially in the UON. CONCLUSIONS: Since U-Cd/h was lower in UON than in U24 samples, the former will underestimate the true Cd excretion. This was seen for U-CdCrea but not for U-CdSG. However, it may be an advantage that the U-CdSG is similar, irrespective of sampling strategy. At low UF, U-CdCrea will be biased upwards. Whether U24 or UON samples adjusted for U-Crea or SG best reflect kidney-Cd is still unknown.
Authors: Lars Barregard; Elisabeth Fabricius-Lagging; Thomas Lundh; Johan Mölne; Maria Wallin; Michael Olausson; Cecilia Modigh; Gerd Sallsten Journal: Environ Res Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Melanie A Pearson; Chensheng Lu; Brian J Schmotzer; Lance A Waller; Anne M Riederer Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Darcy Weidemann; Chin-Chi Kuo; Ana Navas-Acien; Alison G Abraham; Virginia Weaver; Jeffrey Fadrowski Journal: Environ Res Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Virginia M Weaver; Dennis J Kotchmar; Jeffrey J Fadrowski; Ellen K Silbergeld Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Mohammad Bakhtiar Hossain; Lars Barregard; Gerd Sallsten; Karin Broberg Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Rebecca Shelley; Nam-Soo Kim; Patrick J Parsons; Byung-Kook Lee; Jacqueline Agnew; Bernard G Jaar; Amy J Steuerwald; Genevieve Matanoski; Jeffrey Fadrowski; Brian S Schwartz; Andrew C Todd; David Simon; Virginia M Weaver Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Robert B Gunier; Pamela L Horn-Ross; Alison J Canchola; Christine N Duffy; Peggy Reynolds; Andrew Hertz; Erika Garcia; Rudolph P Rull Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Peggy Reynolds; Alison J Canchola; Christine N Duffy; Susan Hurley; Susan L Neuhausen; Pamela L Horn-Ross; Rudolph P Rull Journal: Environ Res Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 6.498