OBJECTIVES: Blood-lead levels (B-Pb), and to some extent urinary lead (U-Pb), are the most employed measures of lead exposure and risk. However, the small fraction of lead present in plasma (usually below 1% of that in blood) is probably more relevant to lead exposure and toxicity. Nevertheless, the lead content of plasma lead (P-Pb) has only seldom been used, mainly due to analytical limitations, which have now been overcome. We examined P-Pb in occupationally exposed subjects, as well as its relationship with B-Pb and U-Pb. METHODS: Blood samples were obtained from 145 male workers, 110 of whom were employed in lead work. After a simple dilution of plasma, P-Pb was determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. The detection limit was 0.04 microg/l, and the imprecision was 5%. RESULTS: The lead concentration ranges were 0.20-37 microg/l for P-Pb, 0.9-176 microg/l (density adjusted) for U-Pb, and 9-930 microg/l for B-Pb. A close exponential relation was obtained between B-Pb and P-Pb. When B-Pb was plotted versus log P-Pb, a straight line (log P-Pb = 0.00225 x B-Pb - 0.58; r = 0.97) was obtained. Both the relation between U-Pb and P-Pb and that between U-Pb and B-Pb showed a large scattering (r = 0.78 in both cases). The relation to B-Pb appeared to be exponential, while that to P-Pb appeared to be linear. CONCLUSIONS: The low detection limit and good precision of P-Pb determinations make it possible to use P-Pb in assessments of lead exposure and risk. Furthermore, in relative terms, P-Pb is a more sensitive measure than B-Pb, especially at high lead levels. This development is of importance for studies of exposure, possibly also for studies of risks.
OBJECTIVES: Blood-lead levels (B-Pb), and to some extent urinary lead (U-Pb), are the most employed measures of lead exposure and risk. However, the small fraction of lead present in plasma (usually below 1% of that in blood) is probably more relevant to lead exposure and toxicity. Nevertheless, the lead content of plasma lead (P-Pb) has only seldom been used, mainly due to analytical limitations, which have now been overcome. We examined P-Pb in occupationally exposed subjects, as well as its relationship with B-Pb and U-Pb. METHODS: Blood samples were obtained from 145 male workers, 110 of whom were employed in lead work. After a simple dilution of plasma, P-Pb was determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. The detection limit was 0.04 microg/l, and the imprecision was 5%. RESULTS: The lead concentration ranges were 0.20-37 microg/l for P-Pb, 0.9-176 microg/l (density adjusted) for U-Pb, and 9-930 microg/l for B-Pb. A close exponential relation was obtained between B-Pb and P-Pb. When B-Pb was plotted versus log P-Pb, a straight line (log P-Pb = 0.00225 x B-Pb - 0.58; r = 0.97) was obtained. Both the relation between U-Pb and P-Pb and that between U-Pb and B-Pb showed a large scattering (r = 0.78 in both cases). The relation to B-Pb appeared to be exponential, while that to P-Pb appeared to be linear. CONCLUSIONS: The low detection limit and good precision of P-Pb determinations make it possible to use P-Pb in assessments of lead exposure and risk. Furthermore, in relative terms, P-Pb is a more sensitive measure than B-Pb, especially at high lead levels. This development is of importance for studies of exposure, possibly also for studies of risks.
Authors: Andrejs Schütz; Martin Olsson; Anker Jensen; Lars Gerhardsson; Jimmy Börjesson; Sören Mattsson; Staffan Skerfving Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2005-01-26 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Jane A McElroy; Martin M Shafer; Ronald E Gangnon; Luis A Crouch; Polly A Newcomb Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Maria Kippler; Fahmida Tofail; Jena D Hamadani; Renee M Gardner; Sally M Grantham-McGregor; Matteo Bottai; Marie Vahter Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: S W Tsaih; S Korrick; J Schwartz; M L Lee; C Amarasiriwardena; A Aro; D Sparrow; H Hu Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: H Y Chuang; J Schwartz; T Gonzales-Cossio; M C Lugo; E Palazuelos; A Aro; H Hu; M Hernandez-Avila Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 9.031