Lei Huang1, Linli Liu1, Ting Zhang2, Di Zhao1, Hongbo Li1, Hong Sun3, Patrick L Kinney4, Masha Pitiranggon5, Steven Chillrud5, Lena Qiying Ma1, Ana Navas-Acien6, Jun Bi7, Beizhan Yan8. 1. State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Xianlin Campus, 163 Xianlin Avenue, Nanjing 210023, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Surficial Geochemistry, Ministry of Education, Nanjing University, Xianlin Campus, 163 Xianlin Avenue, Nanjing 210023, China. 3. Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Jiangsu, Road 172, 210009 Nanjing, PR China. 4. Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, 02118, United States. 5. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, 61 Rt. 9W. Palisades, New York 10964, United States. 6. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 61 Rt. 9W. Palisades, New York 10964, United States. 7. State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Xianlin Campus, 163 Xianlin Avenue, Nanjing 210023, China. Electronic address: jbi@nju.edu.cn. 8. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, 61 Rt. 9W. Palisades, New York 10964, United States. Electronic address: yanbz@ldeo.columbia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reducing cadmium (Cd) exposure in Cd-polluted areas in Asia is urgently needed given the toxic effects of Cd. The short-term and long-term benefits of lowering Cd exposure are unknown because of its long half-life in the body. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate whether an intervention with low-Cd rice in a contaminated area of China reduced urinary Cd (UCd) levels and improved blood pressure and kidney function outcomes compared to no-intervention in consumers of high-Cd rice in the same region. METHODS: 106 non-smoking subjects were divided into three treatment groups: the intervention group (replacing homegrown high-Cd rice with market low-Cd rice, n = 34), the non-intervention group (continue eating high-Cd rice, n = 36) and the control group (continued eating low-Cd rice they have been eating for years, n = 36). The intervention period lasted for almost 8 months, during which participants were visited on up to 4 occasions and UCd, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), kidney function biomarkers (β2-microglobulin and N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase) were measured. RESULTS: After 3 months, the geometric mean UCd in the intervention (Int) group decreased significantly by 0.32 μg/g (p = 0.007), while changes were not significant in the non-intervention (non-Int) group (0.13 μg/g, p = 0.95) or the control group (-0.01 μg/g, p = 0.52). UCd in the Int group remained lower than in the non-Int group but higher than in the Control group through the end of follow up. DBP in the Int group decreased significantly from 80 mm Hg at month three (p = 0.03) and stayed around 74 mm Hg for the remainder of the study. SBP also decreased in the Int group but with variations similar to those observed in the other two groups. The two kidney biomarkers showed variations without a clear pattern. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that UCd reflected both short-term (<3 months) and long-term Cd exposure. In addition, the low-Cd rice intervention showed initial benefits in lowering blood pressure levels, especially DBP, but not kidney biomarkers.
BACKGROUND: Reducing cadmium (Cd) exposure in Cd-polluted areas in Asia is urgently needed given the toxic effects of Cd. The short-term and long-term benefits of lowering Cd exposure are unknown because of its long half-life in the body. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate whether an intervention with low-Cdrice in a contaminated area of China reduced urinary Cd (UCd) levels and improved blood pressure and kidney function outcomes compared to no-intervention in consumers of high-Cdrice in the same region. METHODS: 106 non-smoking subjects were divided into three treatment groups: the intervention group (replacing homegrown high-Cdrice with market low-Cdrice, n = 34), the non-intervention group (continue eating high-Cdrice, n = 36) and the control group (continued eating low-Cdrice they have been eating for years, n = 36). The intervention period lasted for almost 8 months, during which participants were visited on up to 4 occasions and UCd, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), kidney function biomarkers (β2-microglobulin and N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase) were measured. RESULTS: After 3 months, the geometric mean UCd in the intervention (Int) group decreased significantly by 0.32 μg/g (p = 0.007), while changes were not significant in the non-intervention (non-Int) group (0.13 μg/g, p = 0.95) or the control group (-0.01 μg/g, p = 0.52). UCd in the Int group remained lower than in the non-Int group but higher than in the Control group through the end of follow up. DBP in the Int group decreased significantly from 80 mm Hg at month three (p = 0.03) and stayed around 74 mm Hg for the remainder of the study. SBP also decreased in the Int group but with variations similar to those observed in the other two groups. The two kidney biomarkers showed variations without a clear pattern. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that UCd reflected both short-term (<3 months) and long-term Cd exposure. In addition, the low-Cdrice intervention showed initial benefits in lowering blood pressure levels, especially DBP, but not kidney biomarkers.
Authors: F A Sartor; D J Rondia; F D Claeys; J A Staessen; R R Lauwerys; A M Bernard; J P Buchet; H A Roels; P J Bruaux; G M Ducoffre Journal: Arch Environ Health Date: 1992 Sep-Oct
Authors: Q Lin Liao; Cong Liu; H Yun Wu; Yang Jin; Ming Hua; B Wan Zhu; Kai Chen; Lei Huang Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Yihuai Liang; Lijian Lei; Johan Nilsson; Huiqi Li; Monica Nordberg; Alfred Bernard; Gunnar F Nordberg; Ingvar A Bergdahl; Taiyi Jin Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2011-10-25 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Agneta Åkesson; Lars Barregard; Ingvar A Bergdahl; Gunnar F Nordberg; Monica Nordberg; Staffan Skerfving Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Arce Domingo-Relloso; Maria Grau-Perez; Laisa Briongos-Figuero; Jose L Gomez-Ariza; Tamara Garcia-Barrera; Antonio Dueñas-Laita; Jennifer F Bobb; F Javier Chaves; Marianthi-Anna Kioumourtzoglou; Ana Navas-Acien; Josep Redon-Mas; Juan C Martin-Escudero; Maria Tellez-Plaza Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Airton C Martins; Ana Carolina B Almeida Lopes; Mariana R Urbano; Maria de Fatima H Carvalho; Ana Maria R Silva; Alexey A Tinkov; Michael Aschner; Arthur E Mesas; Ellen K Silbergeld; Monica M B Paoliello Journal: Ecotoxicol Environ Saf Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 6.291