Sata F, Araki S
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Japan.
Arch Environ Health. 1996 Jul-Aug;51(4):329-33; discussion 333-4. doi: 10.1080/00039896.1996.9936034.
Two male lead workers, aged 57 and 51 y, were studied to compare the urinary flow/creatinine-adjusted values published earlier by Araki et al. and by Greenberg and Levine. We collected 24-h urine samples once a month for 31 mo and 16 mo for workers 1 and 2, respectively. The workers' urinary excretions of lead, delta-aminolevulinic acid, and coproporphyrin were measured. No significant correlations between urine flow rate and urinary flow/creatinine-adjusted values published by Araki et al. for the three substances were found for these two workers. However, urinary flow/creatinine-adjusted values presented by Greenberg and Levine for lead and delta-aminolevulinic acid were correlated positively with urine flow rate in the two workers, and their adjusted value for coproporphyrin was correlated positively with urine flow rate in one of the workers. We concluded that use of the urinary flow/creatinine-adjusted value by Greenberg and Levine for biological monitoring poses a problem because of the theoretical fallacy.
对两名男性在职员工(年龄分别为57岁和51岁)进行了研究,以比较荒木等人以及格林伯格和莱文之前公布的尿流/肌酐校正值。我们分别为第1名和第2名员工每月采集一次24小时尿液样本,持续31个月和16个月。测量了员工尿液中铅、δ-氨基乙酰丙酸和粪卟啉的排泄量。对于这两名员工,未发现尿流率与荒木等人公布的三种物质的尿流/肌酐校正值之间存在显著相关性。然而,格林伯格和莱文给出的铅和δ-氨基乙酰丙酸的尿流/肌酐校正值与这两名员工的尿流率呈正相关,他们给出的粪卟啉校正值与其中一名员工的尿流率呈正相关。我们得出结论,由于理论上的谬误,使用格林伯格和莱文的尿流/肌酐校正值进行生物监测存在问题。