13.02.2013 Views

Air Quality Criteria for Lead Volume II of II - (NEPIS)(EPA) - US ...

Air Quality Criteria for Lead Volume II of II - (NEPIS)(EPA) - US ...

Air Quality Criteria for Lead Volume II of II - (NEPIS)(EPA) - US ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

AX5-137<br />

Table AX5-8.4 (cont’d). Bone <strong>Lead</strong> as a Potential Source <strong>of</strong> Toxicity in Altered Metabolic Conditions<br />

Compound<br />

Dose/Concentration<br />

Duration Exposure<br />

Route Species Effects Blood Level Reference<br />

Pb acetate<br />

100 ppm<br />

(A) Exposure <strong>for</strong> 158 ±<br />

2 days from 21 days<br />

through 14 days <strong>of</strong><br />

lactation; (B)<br />

Nonpregnant control<br />

Group A; (C) Exposure<br />

144 ± 2 days from day<br />

21 up to delivery; (D)<br />

Nonpregnant control<br />

Group C; (E) Lactating<br />

rats not exposed to Pb;<br />

(F) Nonpregnant rats<br />

not exposed to Pb.<br />

In drinking water<br />

Pb acetate<br />

250 mg/mL<br />

Beginning at 5 wks <strong>of</strong><br />

age, rats exposed to Pb<br />

<strong>for</strong> 5 wks, followed by<br />

no additional exposure.<br />

In drinking water<br />

Rat When dietary calcium was reduced from the normal 1 to 0.05%, bone calcium<br />

concentration decreased by 15% and bone Pb concentration decreased by 30%<br />

during the first 14 days <strong>of</strong> lactation. In nonlactating rats on the 0.05% calcium<br />

diet, there were also decreases in bone calcium, but no incremental bone<br />

resorption nor Pb efflux from bone, suggesting the efflux from bone during<br />

lactation was related to bone resorption. Enhancement <strong>of</strong> calcium (2.5%) in<br />

the diet <strong>of</strong> lactating rats increased calcium concentration in bone by 21%, but<br />

did not decrease bone resorption, resulting in a 28% decrease in bone Pb<br />

concentration and concomitant rise in systemic toxicity.<br />

Rat Demonstrated adverse effects in rat <strong>of</strong>fspring born to females whose exposure<br />

to Pb ended well be<strong>for</strong>e pregnancy. Five wk-old-female rats given Pb acetate<br />

in drinking water (250 mg/mL) <strong>for</strong> five wks, followed by a one mo period<br />

without Pb exposure be<strong>for</strong>e mating. To test the influence <strong>of</strong> dietary calcium<br />

on Pb absorption and accumulation, some pregnant rats were fed diets<br />

deficient in calcium (0.1%) while others were maintained on a normal calcium<br />

(0.5%) diet. All Pb-exposed dams and pups had elevated blood Pb levels;<br />

however, pups born to dams fed the diet deficient in calcium during pregnancy<br />

had higher blood and organ Pb concentrations compared to pups from dams<br />

fed the normal diet. Pups born to Pb-exposed dams had lower mean birth<br />

weights and birth lengths than pups born to non-Pb-exposed control dams<br />

(p < 0.0001), even after confounders such as litter size, pup sex, and dam<br />

weight gain were taken into account.<br />

Concentration (µg/dL) in<br />

whole blood at day 14 <strong>of</strong><br />

lactation or equivalent:<br />

Group B = 26.1 ± 2.1,<br />

Group A = 32.2 ± 2.7*;<br />

Group D = 23.8 ± 2.1,<br />

Group C = 28.2 ± 2.2*;<br />

Groups E and F = 5.1 ±<br />

0.4.<br />

* p < 0.01, compared to<br />

appropriate control<br />

Blood Pb concentration <strong>of</strong><br />

pups (µM): Low<br />

calcium/no Pb = 0.137 ±<br />

0.030 C ; Low calcium/Pb =<br />

1.160 ± 0.053 A ; Normal<br />

calcium/No Pb = 0.032 ±<br />

0.003 C ; Normal<br />

calcium/Pb = 0.771 ±<br />

0.056 B .<br />

Values that are not<br />

marked by the same letter<br />

are significantly different<br />

(p < 0.05).<br />

Maldonado-Vega<br />

et al. (2002)<br />

Han et al. (2000)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!