ArticleEnvironmental health and preventive medicine2019
Oral exposure to lead for Japanese children and pregnant women, estimated using duplicate food portions and house dust analyses.
Article in Environmental health and preventive medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing lead exposure in U.S. pregnant women using biological and residential measurements.The Science of the total environment · 2023Article
- Determinants of Exposure to Potentially Toxic Metals in Pregnant Women of the DSAN-12M Cohort in the Recôncavo Baiano, Brazil.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- 'As safe as houses; the risk of childhood lead exposure from housing in England and implications for public health'.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Commentary on the Risk Assessment of Lead by the Food Safety Commission of Japan.Food safety (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Article
- Health Safety Assessment of Ready-to-Eat Products Consumed by Children Aged 0.5-3 Years on the Polish Market.Nutrients · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLead is a toxic metal abundant in the environment. Consumption of food contaminated at low levels of lead, especially by small children and pregnant women, raises a health concern.
methodsDuplicated food portions and drinking water were collected over 3 days from 88 children and 87 pregnant women in Shimotsuke, Tochigi, Japan. Participants were recruited in this study between January 2014 and October 2015. Dust was also collected from their homes. Lead concentrations were measured and consequent oral lead exposure levels were estimated for this population at high risk to environmental toxicants. Lead concentrations of peripheral and cord blood, taken from children and pregnant women, and were also analyzed.
resultsLead concentrations in food, drinking water, and house dust were low in general. Oral lead exposure to lead was higher for children (Mean ± SEM; 5.21 ± 0.30 μg/kg BW/week) than in pregnant women (1.47 ± 0.13 μg/kg BW/week). Food and house dust were main sources of lead contamination, but the contribution of house dust widely varied. Means ± SEM of peripheral and cord blood lead concentrations were 0.69 ± 0.04 μg/dL and 0.54 ± 0.05 μg/dL, respectively for pregnant women and 1.30 ± 0.07 μg/dL (peripheral only) in children. We detect no correlation between smoking situations and blood lead concentration in pregnant women.
conclusionWe conclude that oral lead exposure levels for Japanese children and pregnant women were generally low, with higher concentrations and exposure for children than for pregnant women. More efforts are necessary to clarify the sources of lead contamination and reduce lead exposure of the population at high risk even in Japan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.