| Literature DB >> 35966922 |
Ammar Amsyar Abdul Haddi1,2, Mohd Hasni Ja'afar1, Halim Ismail1.
Abstract
Lung function status can be directly or indirectly affected by exposure to pollutants in the environment. Urinary heavy metals may be an indirect indicator of lung function impairment that leads to various diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to explore the prevalence of lung function impairment as well as its association with urinary heavy metal levels and other influencing factors among the community in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Urinary sampling was done during various community events in the housing areas of Klang Valley between March and October 2019. Only respondents who consented would undergo a lung function test. Urine samples were obtained and sent for Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) analysis for heavy metal cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb) concentration. Of the 200 recruited respondents, 52% were male and their ages ranged from 18 years old to 74 years old with a mean age of 38.4 ± 14.05 years. Urinary samples show high urinary Cd level in 12% of the respondents (n = 24) whereas none recorded a high urinary Pb level. There was a positive correlation between the levels of urinary Cd and urinary Pb (r = 0.303; p = 0.001). Furthermore, a negative correlation was detected between urinary Cd level and forced vital capacity (FVC) (r = - 0.202, p = 0.004), force expiratory volume at the first second (FEV1) (r = - 0.225, p = 0.001), and also force expiratory flow between 25-75% of FVC (FEF 25-75%) (r = - 0.187, p = 0.008). However, urinary Pb did not show any correlation with lung function parameters. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that urinary Cd had a significant negative effect on FVC (p = 0.025) and FEV1 (p = 0.004) based on the predicted value. Additionally, other factors such as education level (p = 0.013) also influenced lung function. However, no interaction was detected between heavy metals or other factors. In short, there was a significant negative linear relationship between urinary Cd and lung function, whereas urinary Pb was not associated with lung function. Beside acting as a biomarker for cadmium exposure level, urinary Cd may also be applied as indirect biomarker for asymptomatic chronic lung function deterioration among the healthy population. ©2022 Abdul Haddi et al.Entities:
Keywords: Community; Heavy metals; Lung function
Year: 2022 PMID: 35966922 PMCID: PMC9373978 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13845
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 3.061
Baseline characteristics of participants.
| Variables | Mean ± SD | Median (IQR) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 38.4 ± 14.05) | ||
|
| |||
| Male | 104 (52.0) | ||
| Female | 96 (48.0) | ||
|
| |||
| Malay | 174 (87.0) | ||
| Non-Malay | 26 (13.0) | ||
|
| |||
| Employed | 132 (66.0) | ||
| Unemployed | 68 (34.0) | ||
|
| 3000 (1750–3500) | ||
|
| |||
| Primary | 12 (6.0) | ||
| Secondary | 69 (34.5) | ||
| Tertiary | 119 (59.5) | ||
|
| 23.5 (±13.16) | ||
|
| |||
| Yes | 14 (7.0) | ||
| No | 186 (93.0) | ||
|
| |||
| Yes | 58 (29.0) | ||
| No | 142 (71.0) | ||
|
| |||
| Yes | 50 (25.0) | ||
| No | 150 (75.0) | ||
|
| 20.4 (±13.09) | ||
|
| 10.0 (±5.94) | ||
|
| 26.8 (±5.95) | ||
| 32.6 (±5.16) | |||
| 23.7 (±2.69) |
Level of urinary heavy metals and lung function among participants (n = 200).
| Parameter | Median (IQR) | Mean ± SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cd | Pb | |||
|
| 0.90 (0.06–0.14) | 1.20 ± 1.04 | 24 (12.0) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| 5.90 (4.64–7.36) | 6.90 ± 5.14 | ||
| FVC (L) | 3.00 ± 0.82 | |||
| FEV1 (L) | 2.50 ± 0.72 | |||
| FEV1/ FVC | 0.80 (0.79–0.87) | |||
| % FVC (%) | 78.40 ± 11.84 | |||
| % FEV1 (%) | 79.80 ± 13.04 | |||
| FEF 25–75% (L/hour) | 2.80 ± 1.12 | |||
| PEF (L/ hour) | 6.50 ± 2.41 | |||
Correlation analysis between urinary heavy metals and lung function (n = 198) using Pearson’s correlation.
| Variable | R value | r2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| FVC | 0.004 | −0.202 | 0.041 |
| FEV1 | 0.001 | −0.225 | 0.051 |
| FEV1/FVC | 0.061 | −0.133 | 0.018 |
| % FVC | 0.001 | −0.227 | 0.052 |
| % FEV1 | 0.007 | −0.141 | 0.020 |
| FEF 25–75% | 0.008 | −0.187 | 0.035 |
| PEF | 0.186 | −0.094 | 0.009 |
|
| |||
| FVC | 0.368 | 0.064 | 0.004 |
| FEV1 | 0.277 | 0.078 | 0.006 |
| FEV1/FVC | 0.802 | 0.016 | <0.001 |
| % FVC | 0.502 | −0.048 | 0.002 |
| % FEV1 | 0.958 | 0.004 | <0.001 |
| FEF 25–75% | 0.400 | 0.060 | 0.004 |
| PEF | 0.030 | 0.154 | 0.024 |
|
| |||
| Square root Urinary Pb | 0.001 | 0.303 | 0.092 |
Notes.
r value indicates strength of correlation, negative (-) value indicates negative correlation.
FEV1/FVC was analyzed using Spearman’s correlation due to non-normal distribution.
Correlation analysis between lung function and sociodemographic data, air quality, body mass index, and smoking behavior using Pearson’s correlation.
| Variable | r value | r2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| FVC | <0.001 | −.385 | 0.148 |
| FEV1 | <0.001 | −.498 | 0.248 |
| FEV1/FVC | <0.001 | −.432 | 0.187 |
| %FVC | 0.002 | −.223 | 0.050 |
| %FEV1 | 0.099 | −.192 | 0.037 |
| FEF25–75% | <0.001 | −.481 | 0.231 |
| PEF | 0.092 | −.137 | 0.019 |
|
| |||
| FVC | <0.001 | .287 | 0.082 |
| FEV1 | 0.001 | .269 | 0.072 |
| FEV1/FVC | 0.422 | −.057 | 0.003 |
| %FVC | 0.023 | .185 | 0.034 |
| %FEV1 | 0.043 | .166 | 0.028 |
| FEF25–75% | 0.021 | .188 | 0.035 |
| PEF | <0.001 | .305 | 0.093 |
|
| ( | ||
| FVC | <0.001 | −.301 | 0.091 |
| FEV1 | <0.001 | −.362 | 0.131 |
| FEV1/FVC | 0.011 | −.231 | 0.053 |
| %FVC | 0.509 | −.048 | 0.002 |
| %FEV1 | 0.566 | −.042 | 0.002 |
| FEF25–75% | <0.001 | −.344 | 0.118 |
| PEF | 0.039 | −.149 | 0.022 |
|
| |||
| FVC | 0.067 | −.130 | 0.017 |
| FEV1 | 0.142 | −.105 | 0.011 |
| FEV1/FVC | 0.027 | −.158 | 0.025 |
| % FVC | 0.839 | .025 | 0.001 |
| % FEV1 | 0.559 | .038 | 0.001 |
| FEF 25–75% | 0.956 | .011 | <0.001 |
| PEF | 0.012 | −.177 | 0.031 |
|
| |||
| FVC | 0.022 | −.163 | 0.027 |
| FEV1 | 0.298 | −.131 | 0.017 |
| FEV1/FVC | 0.207 | .090 | 0.008 |
| % FVC | 0.673 | .030 | 0.001 |
| % FEV1 | 0.548 | .043 | 0.002 |
| FEF 25–75% | 0.978 | .002 | <0.001 |
| PEF | 0.037 | −.148 | 0.022 |
|
| |||
| FVC | 0.237 | .085 | 0.007 |
| FEV1 | 0.652 | .032 | 0.001 |
| FEV1/FVC | 0.020 | −.165 | 0.027 |
| % FVC | 0.257 | .081 | 0.007 |
| % FEV1 | 0.443 | .055 | 0.003 |
| FEF 25–75% | 1.000 | <.001 | <0.001 |
| PEF | 0.012 | .179 | 0.032 |
|
| |||
| FVC | 0.001 | −.447 | 0.200 |
| FEV1 | <0.001 | −.584 | 0.341 |
| FEV1/FVC | <0.001 | −.530 | 0.281 |
| %FVC | 0.097 | −.237 | 0.067 |
| %FEV1 | 0.025 | −.317 | 0.101 |
| FEF25–75% | <0.001 | −.618 | 0.425 |
| PEF | 0.068 | −.260 | 0.068 |
|
| |||
| FVC | 0.873 | −.023 | 0.005 |
| FEV1 | 0.329 | −.141 | 0.020 |
| FEV1/FVC | 0.208 | −.181 | 0.033 |
| % FVC | 0.841 | −.029 | 0.001 |
| % FEV1 | 0.526 | −.092 | 0.009 |
| FEF 25–75% | 0.117 | −.225 | 0.051 |
| PEF | 0.519 | −.093 | 0.009 |
Notes.
FEV1/FVC was analyzed using Spearman’s correlation due to non-normal distribution.
Mean differences in lung function by education level using one-way ANOVA test.
| Variable |
| Mean (SD) | df | F | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|
|
| 12 | 2.5 (0.817) | |||
| Secondary | 69 | 2.8 (0.762) | ||||
| Tertiary | 117 | 3.2 (0.809) | ||||
| 2,195 | 7.733 | 0.001 | ||||
|
|
| 12 | 2.0 (0.684) | |||
| Secondary | 69 | 2.2 (0.653) | ||||
| Tertiary | 117 | 2.7 (0.692) | ||||
| 2,195 | 12.60 | <0.001 | ||||
|
|
| 12 | 0.8 (0.736) | |||
| Secondary | 69 | 0.9 (0.986) | ||||
| Tertiary | 117 | 0.9 (0.616) | ||||
| 2 | 12.73 | 0.002 | ||||
|
|
| 12 | 74.4 (11.02) | |||
| Secondary | 69 | 75.4 (11.72) | ||||
| Tertiary | 117 | 80.6 (11.58) | ||||
| 2,195 | 5.132 | 0.007 | ||||
|
|
| 12 | 74.3 (11.11) | |||
| Secondary | 69 | 76.5 (13.96) | ||||
| Tertiary | 117 | 82.2 (12.13) | ||||
| 2,195 | 5.609 | 0.004 | ||||
|
|
| 12 | 2.2 (1.04) | |||
| Secondary | 69 | 2.4 (1.05) | ||||
| Tertiary | 117 | 3.1 (1.08) | ||||
| 2,195 | 13.10 | <0.000 | ||||
|
|
| 12 | 5.2 (2.69) | |||
| Secondary | 69 | 6.4 (2.37) | ||||
| Tertiary | 117 | 6.7 (2.37) | ||||
| 2,195 | 2.205 | 0.113 |
Notes.
df = degree of freedom; (within group, between group).
FEV1/FVC was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test due to non-normal distribution.
Mean differences in lung function by gender, ethnicity, and employment using independent t-test.
| Variables |
| Mean (SD) | df | T-statistic | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Male | 104 | 3.5 (0.73) | 196 | 12.477 | <0.001 |
| Female | 94 | 2.4 (0.45) | |||
|
| |||||
| Male | 104 | 2.9 (0.77) | 196 | 10.398 | <0.001 |
| Female | 94 | 2.0 (0.40) | |||
|
| |||||
| Male | 104 | 0.8 (0.09) | 1.542 | <0.123 | |
| Female | 94 | 0.8 (0.07) | |||
|
| |||||
| Male | 104 | 80.2 (12.29) | 196 | 2.224 | 0.027 |
| Female | 94 | 76.5 (11.06) | |||
|
| |||||
| Male | 104 | 81.6 (13.97) | 196 | 2.074 | 0.039 |
| Female | 94 | 77.7 (11.67) | |||
|
| |||||
| Male | 104 | 3.2 (1.22) | 196 | 5.613 | <0.001 |
| Female | 94 | 2.4 (0.80) | |||
|
| |||||
| Male | 104 | 7.8 (2.29) | 196 | 10.756 | <0.001 |
| Female | 94 | 4.9 (1.42) | |||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Malay | 172 | 3.0 (0.83) | 196 | 1.739 | 0.084 |
| Non-Malay | 26 | 2.7 (0.74) | |||
|
| |||||
| Malay | 172 | 2.5(0.72) | 196 | 1.704 | 0.090 |
| Non-Malay | 26 | 2.4 (0.69) | |||
|
| |||||
| Malay | 172 | 0.8 (0.08) | 0.154 | 0.877 | |
| Non-Malay | 26 | 0.8 (0.10) | |||
|
| |||||
| Malay | 172 | 79.1 (11.91) | 196 | 2.155 | 0.032 |
| Non-Malay | 26 | 73.8 (10.42) | |||
|
| |||||
| Malay | 172 | 80.7 (13.00) | 196 | 2.801 | 0.006 |
| Non-Malay | 26 | 73.2 (11.48) | |||
|
| |||||
| Malay | 72 | 2.9 (1.12) | 196 | 2.435 | <0.016 |
| Non-Malay | 26 | 2.3 (0.97) | |||
|
| |||||
| Malay | 172 | 6.6 (2.42) | 196 | 1.608 | 0.109 |
| Non-Malay | 94 | 5.8 (2.23) | |||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Employed | 130 | 3.1 (0.84) | 196 | 4.25 | <0.001 |
| Unemployed | 68 | 2.6 (0.66) | |||
|
| |||||
| Employed | 130 | 2.6 (0.73) | 196 | 3.997 | <0.001 |
| Unemployed | 68 | 2.2 (0.61) | |||
|
| |||||
| Employed | 130 | 0.8 (0.07) | 0.637 | 0.524 | |
| Unemployed | 68 | 0.8 (0.09) | |||
|
| |||||
| Employed | 130 | 79.4 (12.03) | 196 | 1.633 | 0.104 |
| Unemployed | 68 | 76.5 (11.31) | |||
|
| |||||
| Employed | 130 | 80.8 (12.76) | 196 | 1.593 | 0.113 |
| Unemployed | 68 | 77.7 (13.43) | |||
|
| |||||
| Employed | 130 | 2.9 (1.10) | 196 | 2.525 | 0.012 |
| Unemployed | 68 | 2.53 (1.10) | |||
|
| |||||
| Employed | 130 | 6.9 (2.52) | 196 | 3.974 | <0.001 |
| Unemployed | 68 | 5.6 (1.93 | |||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Smoker | 50 | 3.4 (0.72) | 196 | 4.707 | <0.001 |
| Non-smoker | 148 | 2.8 (0.80) | |||
|
| |||||
| Smoker | 50 | 2.7 (0.70) | 196 | 3.361 | 0.001 |
| Non-smoker | 148 | 2.4 (0.70) | |||
|
| |||||
| Smoker | 50 | 0.8 (1.03) | 2.775 | 0.006 | |
| Non-smoker | 148 | 0.8 (0.67) | |||
|
| |||||
| Smoker | 50 | 80.2 (12.91) | 196 | 1.254 | 0.211 |
| Non-smoker | 148 | 77.8 (11.44) | |||
|
| |||||
| Smoker | 50 | 79.6 (15.45) | 196 | −0.96 | 0.923 |
| Non-smoker | 148 | 79.8 (12.18) | |||
|
| |||||
| Smoker | 50 | 2.9 (1.17) | 196 | 0.936 | 0.350 |
| Non-smoker | 148 | 2.8 (1.10) | |||
|
| |||||
| Smoker | 50 | 7.1 (2.45) | 196 | 2.260 | 0.025 |
| Non-smoker | 148 | 6.2 (2.36) |
Notes.
df = degree of freedom.
FEV1/FVC was analyzed using Mann–Whitney U test due to non-normal distribution, hence standardized test statistic was shown instead of t-statistics.
Correlation analysis between urinary heavy metal and other covariates using Pearson’s correlation.
| Log urinary Cd | Sqrt urinary Pb | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable |
| r | p | r2 | r | p | r2 |
| Smoke duration | 50 | .431 | 0.030 | 0.1858 | .263 | 0.780 | 0.0692 |
Association between urinary heavy metal and sociodemographic factors using compare mean analysis (independent t-test and one-way ANOVA).
| Variables | Mean (SD) | df | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Male | 104 (52.0) | −2.4 (0.62) | 196 | −1.55 | 0.123 |
| Female | 96 (48.0) | −2.3 (0.70) | |||
|
| |||||
| Malay | 174 (87.0) | −2.4 (0.66) | 196 | −0.348 | 0.728 |
| Non-Malay | 26 (13.0) | −2.3 (0.68) | |||
|
| |||||
| Employed | 132 (66.0) | −2.4 (0.69) | 196 | 0.565 | 0.960 |
| Unemployed | 68 (34.0) | −2.4 (0.60) | |||
|
| |||||
| Primary | 12 (6.0) | −2.1 (0.45) | 2,195 | 0.001 | |
| Secondary | 69 (34.5) | −2.2 (0.74) | |||
| Tertiary | 119 (59.5) | −2.5 (0.59) | |||
|
| |||||
| Yes | 14 (7.0) | −.2.5 (0.59) | 196 | −0.524 | 0.601 |
| No | 186 (93.0) | −2.4 (0.67) | |||
|
| |||||
| Yes | 58 (29.0) | −2.2 (0.67) | 196 | 2.875 | 0.004 |
| No | 142 (71.0) | −2.5 (0.64) | |||
|
| |||||
| Yes | 50 (25.0) | −2.3 (0.72) | 196 | 0.481 | 0.631 |
| No | 148 (75.0) | −2.4 (0.63) | |||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Male | 104 (52.0) | 0.8 (0.35) | 196 | 0.909 | 0.364 |
| Female | 96 (48.0) | 0.8 (0.27) | |||
|
| |||||
| Malay | 174 (87.0) | 0.8 (0.30) | 196 | −2.300 | 0.023 |
| Non-Malay | 26 (13.0) | 0.9 (0.40) | |||
|
| |||||
| Employed | 132 (66.0) | 0.7 (0.32) | 196 | −2592 | 0.010 |
| Unemployed | 68 (34.0) | 0.9 (0.30) | |||
|
| |||||
| Primary | 12 (6.0) | 0.8 (0.28) | 2,195 | 0.516 | |
| Secondary | 69 (34.5) | 0.8 (0.31) | |||
| Tertiary | 119 (59.5) | 0.8 (0.32) | |||
|
| |||||
| Yes | 14 (7.0) | 0.7 (0.32) | 196 | −1.320 | 0.188 |
| No | 186 (93.0) | 0.8 (0.31) | |||
|
| |||||
| Yes | 58 (29.0) | 0.8 (0.26) | 196 | 1.539 | 0.125 |
| No | 142 (71.0) | 0.8 (0.35) | |||
|
| |||||
| Yes | 50 (25.0) | 0.8 (0.34) | 196 | −0.005 | 0.996 |
| No | 150 (75.0) | 0.8 (0.31) |
Notes.
Analysis of “highest education level” variable use one-way ANOVA test and yielded F-statistics.
Predictors of FEV1% and FVC% based on multivariate analysis.
| SLR | MLR | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | b | (95% CI) | Adj. b | (95% CI) | t-stat | ||
|
| |||||||
| Log Urinary Cd | −3.76 | (−6.48, −1.03) | 0.007 | −3.21 | (−6.29, −0.14) | −2.07 | 0.040 |
|
| |||||||
| Log Urinary Cd | −4.07 | (−6.52,-1.61) | 0.001 | −3.28 | (−6.14, −0.41) | −2.26 | 0.025 |
Notes.
SLR, simple linear regression; MLR, multiple linear regression.
Predictors of log Urinary Cd and Urinary Pb based on multivariate analysis (Multiple Linear Regression).
| SLR | MLR | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | b | (95% CI) | Adjb | (95% CI) | t-stat | ||
|
| |||||||
| Age | 0.01 | (0.007, 0.020) | <0.001 | 0.023 | (0.006, 0.04) | 2.825 | 0.007 |
Notes.
SLR, simple linear regression; MLR, multiple linear regression.