Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Environ Int. 2018 May 29;118:86–91. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.05.030

Urine and toenail cadmium levels in pregnant women: a reliability study

Alexandra J White 1, Katie M O’Brien 2, Brian P Jackson 3, Margaret R Karagas 4
PMCID: PMC6045451  NIHMSID: NIHMS971494  PMID: 29857281

Abstract

Background

Cadmium, as measured in human tissue, has been associated with numerous health outcomes. However, few studies have evaluated the reliability of cadmium measurements across different biologic samples. We evaluated toenail cadmium levels over time and compared toenail cadmium to urinary cadmium. We also evaluate the relationship between biomarker concentrations and cigarette smoking, a known source of cadmium exposure.

Methods

Cadmium was assessed in urine and toenail samples collected from 1,338 pregnant women participating in the New Hampshire Birth Cohort Study. Each participant was asked to provide a urine and a toenail sample at enrollment (between 24–28 weeks gestation) and another toenail sample 2–8 weeks postpartum. Cadmium concentrations were determined using inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Spearman correlations were assessed for cadmium in the toenails across the two-time points and comparing toenail and urine levels. Smoking status was evaluated as a predictor of cadmium levels.

Results

Toenail cadmium assessed during pregnancy and postpartum were modestly correlated (R=0.3, p<0.0001). However, urine and toenail cadmium levels were unrelated (R=−0.03, p=0.46). Both toenail and urinary cadmium levels were associated with women’s smoking status.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that both toenail and urinary cadmium concentrations reflect the major source of exposure – cigarette smoking. Toenail cadmium concentrations are modestly reproducible pre- and postpartum; but do not appear to be related to urinary cadmium and thus likely represent different windows and chronicity of exposure among pregnant women.

Keywords: cadmium, pregnancy, urine, toenail, reliability, biomarker

Introduction

Cadmium is a toxic and persistent heavy metal and is ubiquitous in the environment due to both industrial and agricultural activities 1. The general population is exposed to cadmium predominately through the use of tobacco products and contamination in their diet 2. Dietary cadmium intake has been recently estimated to exceed recommended thresholds for kidney damage 3. Women may be particularly susceptible to cadmium exposure, as they are more likely to be iron deficient 4 and lower iron body store levels may result in increased cadmium absorption 5,6. Higher cadmium exposure has been associated with a number of health outcomes including elevated blood pressure 7,8, cardiovascular disease 9, diabetes 8,10, chronic kidney disease 8, osteoporosis 11 and possibly breast cancer 12. In pregnant women, cadmium levels have been related to risk of preeclampsia 13 and reduced offspring birth weight 14.

Cadmium sources (e.g. dietary intake, smoking, air pollution) 1 are varied and difficult to quantify, and thus representative biomarkers are critical to studying this exposure. Epidemiologic studies of the health effects of cadmium often rely on urinary cadmium levels as biomarkers of individual exposure 15. Cadmium is known to accumulate in the kidney with a long half-life (10–30 years) 1, meaning that urinary levels are hypothesized to reflect long-term exposure 16. Urinary measures of cadmium have been highly correlated with cadmium measured in the kidney cortex 17 and are hypothesized to reflect cadmium body burden better than estimated dietary intake, a major exposure source 18. On the other hand, cadmium is potentially nephrotoxic and may affect kidney function (including creatinine production and specific gravity), and thereby could impact the relationship between measured levels and true exposure 19. Thus, even urine cadmium measures that are standardized for urine dilution are difficult to define and compare. It has also recently been noted that urinary cadmium levels may vary depending on urinary flow, urine collection protocol and recent exposure 20. Additionally, situations may arise where recent exposure levels are more relevant for the health outcome of interest or when other biologic samples are too difficult or expensive to obtain. Toenail cadmium levels have been used as an alternative biomarker. They are relatively simple and inexpensive to obtain and easy to store. Toenails have been estimated to grow about 2mm/month 21. By measuring toenail cadmium levels in all five digits, the measurement is estimated to integrate exposure from a 4–6 month window of time that occurred approximately 6–12 months prior to nail collection 2123. Samples are standardized by weight and are therefore easy to compare across individuals.

In light of the paucity of data on the reliability of cadmium biomarkers, we assessed the reproducibility of toenail cadmium among pregnancy women measured both pre- and postpartum, and tested the reliability of toenail versus urinary cadmium concentrations. We also examined whether smoking, a major source of cadmium exposure, was associated with toenail and urinary cadmium in this population.

Methods

We examined urine and toenail cadmium levels in samples collected from 1732 pregnant women participating in the New Hampshire Birth Cohort Study (2009–2016). Each participant was asked to provide a spot urine sample at enrollment (between approximately 24–28 weeks gestation) and two toenail samples – one at enrollment and the other from about 2 to 8 weeks postpartum 24,25. Participants provided informed consent, and the study was approved of by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at Dartmouth College.

As described previously, study participants were provided with a prelabeled, acid-washed, screw-top 120-mL urine specimen container that contained 30ul of 10mM diammonium diethyldithiocarbamate 26. Spot urine samples were stored upright in a Styrofoam container at 4°C and within 24 hours were sent via courier to Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center for processing. Samples were aliquoted and stored at −80°C.

As described previously 25, toenails were washed with acetone and deionized water and then dried and acid-digested. They were then analyzed using inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS, Santa Clara, CA). Urinary cadmium levels were also analyzed using ICP-MS, after 10-fold dilution with 1% HNO3. Samples below the limit of detection (LOD) were given values of LOD/√2. Urine sample LODs were batch-specific (range: 0.001–0.02 μg/g). The average nail sample weight available for digestion was 40 mg with a minimum of about 5 mg needed. Using this sample mass and the ICP-MS instrument detection limit (0.005 μl/l) we calculated a method detection limit of 0.0012 ng/g. Quality control included continuing calibration verification, using analytic duplicates and spikes (1 quality control sample per 20 samples), and digestion of fortified blanks and certified reference materials (NIES#13, hair). Average recovery of the hair CRM was 91 ±7% and average recovery of the analysis spikes was 100 ±6%. We adjusted for batch effects for each group of samples separately using a random effects model to estimate the batch-specific intercept and then standardizing across batches by subtracting that estimate from each value in the batch. We adjusted urine samples for specific gravity using covariate-adjusted standardization 27. All values were log-transformed so that the distributions appeared normal.

We first examined correlations between cadmium levels measured in toenails collected at the two time points using Spearman correlation coefficients. We also estimated the correlations between cadmium levels measured in urine and toenails collected at enrollment and as a secondary analysis considered the correlation between urine at enrollment and toenails collected postpartum. When comparing the urine and toenail correlations, we also considered multivariable-adjusted analyses by including age, BMI, race/ethnicity and smoking status as covariates. If needed, we assessed non-linearity by predicting model fit using restricted cubic splines (knots at the 5th, 35th, 65th, and 95th percentiles). We also examined whether the samples collected during gestation were associated with self-reported cigarette smoking when not pregnant (categorized as never, sometimes, everyday) or with cigarette smoking specifically during second trimester when the urine sample was collected (categorized as yes, no). This was done using either analysis of variance (ANOVA; >2 categories) or a t-test (2 smoking categories) to compare differences in cadmium levels across categories. An alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance. The statistical software used for these analyses was R 28.

Results

Of the initial 1732 participants, 1,338 provided at least one cadmium measure (Table 1). A total of 1,125 women had toenail cadmium measured at ~24–28 weeks gestation, and 1,049 women had toenail cadmium measured at ~2–8 weeks postpartum. A total of 639 women had urinary cadmium measured at ~24–28 weeks gestation available at the time of this analysis. Study participants were 31 years of age at enrollment, on average, and the majority were non-Hispanic white (97%). Average pre-pregnancy BMI was 25.9 kg/m2. Overall, 13% of women reported ever smoking cigarettes, with a smaller proportion reporting smoking just before or during pregnancy (11%, 6% and 4% for the 3 months prior to pregnancy, first trimester, and second trimester, respectively). Women who provided biospecimens were slightly less likely to be smokers, but were otherwise similar to the original cohort (Supplementary Table).

Table 1.

Descriptive characteristics of 1338 mothers from the New Hampshire Birth Cohort Study (2009–2016) with at least one cadmium measurement

Participant Characteristics
Age at enrollment (years); mean (std) 31.3 (4.9)
Non-Hispanic, White; n (%) 1295 (97)
Gestational age at delivery (weeks); mean (std) 39.3 (1.8)
Pregnancy Number; n (%)
 1 1241 (94)
 2 78 (6)
 3 6 (0)
 missing 13
Pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2); mean (std) 25.9 (5.6)
 missing 38
Smoking when not pregnant; n (%)
 Never 1077 (87)
 Sometimes 62 (5)
 Every Day 96 (8)
 missing 103
Smoking
 Smoked in three months before pregnancy; n (%) 141 (11)
 missing 106
 Smoked first trimester; n (%) 76 (6)
 missing 107
 Smoked second trimester; n (%) 54 (4)
 missing 106
Toenail cadmium levela, 24–28 weeks gestation; geometric mean (IQR) 0.005 (0.002–0.01)c
 Not available 213
Toenail cadmium levela, 2–8 weeks post- partum; geometric mean (IQR) 0.005 (0.002–0.01)d
 Not available 289
Urinary cadmium level 24–28 weeks gestationa,b; geometric mean (IQR) 0.07 (0.03–0.15)e
 Not available 699
a

Adjusted for batch using a random effects model

b

Adjusted for specific gravity using covariate-adjusted standardization

c

182 women (16%) had values below limit of detection (LOD; 0.0012 μg/g); imputed as 0.0012/√2 = 0.00849 μg/g.

d

132 women (13%) had values below LOD; imputed as 0.0012/√2 = 0.00849 μg/g.

e

26 women (4%) had values below the batch-specific LOD; imputed as LOD/√2

Cadmium levels were below the LOD for 182 (16%), 132 (13%) and 26 (4%) women for prenatal toenails, postnatal toenails and urinary cadmium, respectively. Information on both pre- and postpartum toenail cadmium was available for 915 women. Mean cadmium levels were nearly identical (geometric mean = 0.005 μg/g for both sets of samples), and moderately correlated (Spearman R=0.3, p<0.0001; Figure 1). Pre-natal toenail and urine enrollment cadmium measurements were available from 489 women. Overall, cadmium concentrations in the urine and pre-natal toenails were unrelated (Spearman R= −0.03, p=0.46; Figure 2). Higher toenail cadmium levels were associated with a slight decrease in urinary cadmium levels (β= −0.03 in log urinary cadmium per 1 unit increase in log toenail cadmium; 95% confidence interval: −0.12, 0.06), with similar results seen after adjustment for age, BMI, race/ethnicity and smoking status or with restriction to never smokers. Results of the spline model showed minimal deviation from linearity with no evidence that the correlation changed for different values of urine or toenail cadmium (Supplementary Figure). Likewise, we observed no correlation between prenatal urinary cadmium and postpartum toenail cadmium (R=0.002, p=0.96).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Comparison of toenail cadmium levels: 24–28 weeks gestation versus 2–8 weeks postpartum (n=915 with both measured)

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Comparison of toenail cadmium levels (24–28 weeks gestation) versus specific gravity-adjusted urinary cadmium levels (24–28 weeks gestation); n=489 with both measured

Both baseline toenail and urinary cadmium levels were associated with self-reported, usual cigarette smoking while not pregnant (ANOVA p=0.01 for toenail and p=0.001 for urine), with statistically significant differences seen between never-smokers and everyday-smokers in post-hoc comparisons (Tukey’s method). Baseline toenail and urine cadmium levels were also both associated with self-reported smoking in the second trimester (p=0.009 for toenail and p=0.002 for urine). Results were similar when comparing postnatal toenail levels and cigarette smoking status. In the multivariate models, both BMI and age were associated with urinary cadmium whereas only age was associated with toenail cadmium.

Discussion

In this population of pregnant women, we observed a modest correlation between toenail cadmium levels measured in samples collected at 28 weeks of pregnancy and those measured in samples collected at approximately 6 weeks postpartum in the same woman. When we compared these levels to cadmium measured in urine collected at 28 weeks of pregnancy, we found little to no evidence of a correlation. However, both urine and toenail cadmium were associated with self-reported smoking status when not pregnant and self-reported smoking status during the second trimester.

While other research studies have included multiple types cadmium biomarkers 2935, we only identified one study comparing urine and toenail cadmium levels directly, and this was within an occupationally-exposed population of 239 farm workers in Qatar 35. Here, no associations were observed between urine and toenail metal concentrations for a panel of metals, including cadmium.35

In our study, both toenails and urinary cadmium were associated with smoking exposure, the primary source of cadmium in the general population 36. Cadmium concentrations in the urine have been previously associated with lifetime pack-years of smoking and long-term exposure to environmental tobacco smoke3639, and our findings here confirm that association. While urinary cadmium is considered a long-term biomarker of exposure, toenails are thought to reflect exposure in the previous 6–12 months 22,23. Thus, the lack of correlation between toenail and urine despite the association with smoking status measures is likely because these biomarkers are capturing different timing and accumulation of exposure. Alternatively, they could be measuring different sources of cadmium exposure; however, evidence of this lacking and hence will need to be determined in future work.

The relationship between toenail and urinary measures of other trace metals varies by metal. Previous studies have reported that toenail arsenic is well correlated with urine arsenic 4043. Studies of other trace metals in toenails compared to urinary levels are limited; mercury levels in urine and toenails have also been shown to be strongly correlated (r=0.79; p<0.01) 44 while manganese concentrations were not in a prior study of 46 occupationally-exposed welders 45.

Consistent with our findings here, other studies have suggested that toenail metal levels are moderately correlated when considering samples taken years apart, although these studies have not included cadmium 42,46,47. In a study of adult women (n=221) with a family history of breast cancer within the Sister Study cohort, cadmium levels in toenails were similarly moderately correlated (R=0.38) in two toenail samples taken 4–10 years apart 48. It is conceivable that the correlation observed in women during and after pregnancy could be influenced by metabolic or dietary changes during pregnancy or varying cadmium accumulation in the placenta during gestation 24. It would be useful to compare our results with future studies of toenail samples collected pre- and postpartum.

Although many studies have utilized toenails as biomarkers of trace metal exposure 4955, the reliability has not yet been well established for many metals 35,51. The strengths of this study include the ability to compare two toenail cadmium samples (pre- and postpartum), as well as to consider the correlation between toenail and urinary cadmium levels. We cannot rule out the possibility that these findings are not influenced by pregnancy and thus not generalizable to studies of non-pregnant populations. As mentioned, it is possible that the altered metabolism of pregnancy may have influenced cadmium uptake and storage in the body 56. There were also very few smokers in this population, which is to be expected given they were all pregnant. This made it difficult to consider time since quitting or other more detailed smoking variables in relation to cadmium biomarkers. Cadmium exposure occurs from multiple sources, including diet, which are challenging to adequately capture 18. Thus, it is difficult to determine the validity of biomarkers of cadmium and crucial to consider the reliability of alternative biomarkers. Further research is needed to evaluate the reliability of toenail cadmium levels in other populations

We did not consider blood cadmium levels as these measurements were not available in this study population, but it would be of interest to consider correlations across all three biomarkers. Another limitation of this study of note is the number of values below the detection limit for our toenail samples (13–16%). This may be due to a low level of cadmium exposure in the population and low nail sample masses that made it difficult to detect cadmium.

In conclusion, maternal toenail and urinary cadmium concentrations appear to reflect exposure via tobacco smoke, although these matrices represent different exposure windows and exposure accumulation. Other epidemiologic investigations of cadmium in relation to health outcomes can use these results to guide the determination of the optimal biomarker of exposure for their study population and research question of interest.

Supplementary Material

supplement

Highlights.

  • Cadmium is a toxic metal that has been associated with several health outcomes

  • Cadmium can be measured in the toenails, which are easily collected and stored

  • Toenail cadmium assessed during pregnancy and postpartum were modestly correlated.

  • Toenail and urinary cadmium were not correlated

  • Toenail and urine cadmium may represent different windows or chronicity of exposure

Acknowledgments

Source of Funding: This work was supported the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and P42ES007373, P01ES022832, NIH National Institute of General Medical Sciences grants P20GM104416, Environmental Protection Agency RD83544201.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare they have no conflicts of interests.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  • 1.Järup L, Åkesson A. Current status of cadmium as an environmental health problem. Toxicology and applied pharmacology. 2009;238(3):201–208. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2009.04.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Benavides MP, Gallego SM, Tomaro ML. Cadmium toxicity in plants. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2005;17(1):21–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Satarug S, Vesey DA, Gobe GC. Health Risk Assessment of Dietary Cadmium Intake: Do Current Guidelines Indicate How Much is Safe? Environ Health Perspect. 2017;125(3):284–288. doi: 10.1289/EHP108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Looker AC, Dallman PR, Carroll MD, Gunter EW, Johnson CL. Prevalence of iron deficiency in the United States. Jama. 1997;277(12):973–976. doi: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540360041028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gallagher CM, Chen JJ, Kovach JS. The relationship between body iron stores and blood and urine cadmium concentrations in US never-smoking, non-pregnant women aged 20–49 years. Environmental Research. 2011;111(5):702–707. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2011.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Julin B, Vahter M, Amzal B, Wolk A, Berglund M, Akesson A. Relation between dietary cadmium intake and biomarkers of cadmium exposure in premenopausal women accounting for body iron stores. Environ Health. 2011;10:105. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gallagher CM, Meliker JR. Blood and urine cadmium, blood pressure, and hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118(12):1676–84. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Satarug S, Vesey DA, Gobe GC. Kidney Cadmium Toxicity, Diabetes and High Blood Pressure: The Perfect Storm. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2017;241(1):65–87. doi: 10.1620/tjem.241.65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tellez-Plaza M, Jones MR, Dominguez-Lucas A, Guallar E, Navas-Acien A. Cadmium exposure and clinical cardiovascular disease: a systematic review. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2013;15(10):013–0356. doi: 10.1007/s11883-013-0356-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tinkov AA, Filippini T, Ajsuvakova OP, Aaseth J, Gluhcheva YG, Ivanova JM, Bjorklund G, Skalnaya MG, Gatiatulina ER, Popova EV, Nemereshina ON, Vinceti M, Skalny AV. The role of cadmium in obesity and diabetes. Sci Total Environ. 2017;601–602:741–755. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.James KA, Meliker JR. Environmental cadmium exposure and osteoporosis: a review. Int J Public Health. 2013;58(5):737–45. doi: 10.1007/s00038-013-0488-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Larsson SC, Orsini N, Wolk A. Urinary cadmium concentration and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182(5):375–80. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwv085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Laine JE, Ray P, Bodnar W, Cable PH, Boggess K, Offenbacher S, Fry RC. Placental Cadmium Levels Are Associated with Increased Preeclampsia Risk. PLoS One. 2015;10(9) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Vidal AC, Semenova V, Darrah T, Vengosh A, Huang Z, King K, Nye MD, Fry R, Skaar D, Maguire R, Murtha A, Schildkraut J, Murphy S, Hoyo C. Maternal cadmium, iron and zinc levels, DNA methylation and birth weight. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2015;16(20):015–0020. doi: 10.1186/s40360-015-0020-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Adams SV, Newcomb PA. Urinary cadmium as a marker of exposure in epidemiological studies. Environmental health perspectives. 2013;121(10):A296. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nawrot TS, Staessen JA, Roels HA, Munters E, Cuypers A, Richart T, Ruttens A, Smeets K, Clijsters H, Vangronsveld J. Cadmium exposure in the population: from health risks to strategies of prevention. Biometals. 2010;23(5):769–782. doi: 10.1007/s10534-010-9343-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Akerstrom M, Barregard L, Lundh T, Sallsten G. The relationship between cadmium in kidney and cadmium in urine and blood in an environmentally exposed population. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2013;268(3):286–93. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2013.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Satarug S, Vesey DA, Gobe GC. Current health risk assessment practice for dietary cadmium: Data from different countries. Food Chem Toxicol. 2017;106(Pt A):430–445. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.06.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Madden EF, Fowler BA. Mechanisms of nephrotoxicity from metal combinations: a review. Drug Chem Toxicol. 2000;23(1):1–12. doi: 10.1081/dct-100100098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bernard A. Confusion about cadmium risks: the unrecognized limitations of an extrapolated paradigm. Environmental health perspectives. 2016;124(1):1. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1509691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yaemsiri S, Hou N, Slining MM, He K. Growth rate of human fingernails and toenails in healthy American young adults. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010;24(4):420–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2009.03426.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Slotnick MJ, Nriagu JO. Validity of human nails as a biomarker of arsenic and selenium exposure: A review. Environ Res. 2006;102(1):125–39. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2005.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Grashow R, Zhang J, Fang SC, Weisskopf MG, Christiani DC, Cavallari JM. Toenail metal concentration as a biomarker of occupational welding fume exposure. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;11(6):397–405. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2013.875182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Punshon T, Davis MA, Marsit CJ, Theiler SK, Baker ER, Jackson BP, Conway DC, Karagas MR. Placental arsenic concentrations in relation to both maternal and infant biomarkers of exposure in a US cohort. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2015;25(6):599–603. doi: 10.1038/jes.2015.16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Davis MA, Li Z, Gilbert-Diamond D, Mackenzie TA, Cottingham KL, Jackson BP, Lee JS, Baker ER, Marsit CJ, Karagas MR. Infant toenails as a biomarker of in utero arsenic exposure. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2014;24(5):467–73. doi: 10.1038/jes.2014.38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gilbert-Diamond D, Cottingham KL, Gruber JF, Punshon T, Sayarath V, Gandolfi AJ, Baker ER, Jackson BP, Folt CL, Karagas MR. Rice consumption contributes to arsenic exposure in US women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011;108(51):20656–20660. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1109127108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.O’Brien KM, Upson K, Cook NR, Weinberg CR. Environmental Chemicals in Urine and Blood: Improving Methods for Creatinine and Lipid Adjustment. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124(2):220–7. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1509693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sherief LM, Abdelkhalek ER, Gharieb AF, Sherbiny HS, Usef DM, Almalky MA, Kamal NM, Salama MA, Gohar W. Cadmium status among pediatric cancer patients in Egypt. Medicine. 2015;94(20):0000000000000740. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bibi M, Hashmi MZ, Malik RN. The level and distribution of heavy metals and changes in oxidative stress indices in humans from Lahore district, Pakistan. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2016;35(1):78–90. doi: 10.1177/0960327115578063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Coelho P, Costa S, Silva S, Walter A, Ranville J, Sousa AC, Costa C, Coelho M, Garcia-Leston J, Pastorinho MR, Laffon B, Pasaro E, Harrington C, Taylor A, Teixeira JP. Metal(loid) levels in biological matrices from human populations exposed to mining contamination--Panasqueira Mine (Portugal) J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2012;75(13–15):893–908. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2012.690705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mortada WI, Sobh MA, el-Defrawy MM, Farahat SE. Reference intervals of cadmium, lead, and mercury in blood, urine, hair, and nails among residents in Mansoura city, Nile delta, Egypt. Environ Res. 2002;90(2):104–10. doi: 10.1006/enrs.2002.4396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ahlskog JE, Waring SC, Kurland LT, Petersen RC, Moyer TP, Harmsen WS, Maraganore DM, O’Brien PC, Esteban-Santillan C, Bush V. Guamanian neurodegenerative disease: investigation of the calcium metabolism/heavy metal hypothesis. Neurology. 1995;45(7):1340–4. doi: 10.1212/wnl.45.7.1340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Adams SV, Newcomb PA. Cadmium blood and urine concentrations as measures of exposure: NHANES 1999–2010. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2014;24(2):163–70. doi: 10.1038/jes.2013.55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kuiper N, Rowell C, Nriagu J, Shomar B. What do the trace metal contents of urine and toenail samples from Qatars farm workers bioindicate? Environ Res. 2014;131:86–94. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.McElroy JA, Shafer MM, Hampton JM, Newcomb PA. Predictors of urinary cadmium levels in adult females. Sci Total Environ. 2007;382(2–3):214–23. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gunier RB, Horn-Ross PL, Canchola AJ, Duffy CN, Reynolds P, Hertz A, Garcia E, Rull RP. Determinants and within-person variability of urinary cadmium concentrations among women in northern California. Environmental health perspectives. 2013;121(6):643–649. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1205524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Adams SV, Newcomb PA, Shafer MM, Atkinson C, Bowles EJA, Newton KM, Lampe JW. Sources of cadmium exposure among healthy premenopausal women. Science of the total environment. 2011;409(9):1632–1637. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.01.037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ikeda M, Ezaki T, Tsukahara T, Moriguchi J, Furuki K, Fukui Y, Ukai H, Okamoto S, Sakurai H. Reproducibility of urinary cadmium, alpha1-microglobulin, and beta2-microglobulin levels in health screening of the general population. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2005;48(1):135–40. doi: 10.1007/s00244-004-3034-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Farzan SF, Gossai A, Chen Y, Chasan-Taber L, Baker E, Karagas M. Maternal arsenic exposure and gestational diabetes and glucose intolerance in the New Hampshire birth cohort study. Environ Health. 2016;15(1):016–0194. doi: 10.1186/s12940-016-0194-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rivera-Nunez Z, Meliker JR, Meeker JD, Slotnick MJ, Nriagu JO. Urinary arsenic species, toenail arsenic, and arsenic intake estimates in a Michigan population with low levels of arsenic in drinking water. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2012;22(2):182–90. doi: 10.1038/jes.2011.27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Karagas MR, Le CX, Morris S, Blum J, Lu X, Spate V, Carey M, Stannard V, Klaue B, Tosteson TD. Markers of low level arsenic exposure for evaluating human cancer risks in a US population. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2001;14(2):171–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Marchiset-Ferlay N, Savanovitch C, Sauvant-Rochat M-P. What is the best biomarker to assess arsenic exposure via drinking water? Environment International. 2012;39(1):150–171. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2011.07.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ohno T, Sakamoto M, Kurosawa T, Dakeishi M, Iwata T, Murata K. Total mercury levels in hair, toenail, and urine among women free from occupational exposure and their relations to renal tubular function. Environmental Research. 2007;103(2):191–197. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2006.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Laohaudomchok W, Lin X, Herrick RF, Fang SC, Cavallari JM, Christiani DC, Weisskopf MG. Toenail, blood and urine as biomarkers of manganese exposure. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine/American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2011;53(5):506. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31821854da. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Garland M, Morris JS, Rosner BA, Stampfer MJ, Spate VL, Baskett CJ, Willett WC, Hunter DJ. Toenail trace element levels as biomarkers: reproducibility over a 6-year period. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1993;2(5):493–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Krogh V, Pala V, Vinceti M, Berrino F, Ganzi A, Micheli A, Muti P, Vescovi L, Ferrari A, Fortini K, Sieri S, Vivoli G. Toenail selenium as biomarker: reproducibility over a one-year period and factors influencing reproducibility. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2003;1:31–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.O’Brien KM, White AJ, Sandler DP, Jackson BP, Karagas M, Weinberg C. Do post-breast cacner diagnosis toenail trace element concentrations reflect pre-diagnostic concentrations? Epidemiology. 2018 doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000927. In press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Garland M, Morris JS, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Spate VL, Baskett CK, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Willett WC, Hunter DJ. Toenail trace element levels and breast cancer: a prospective study. American journal of epidemiology. 1996;144(7):653–660. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Grashow R, Zhang J, Fang SC, Weisskopf MG, Christiani DC, Kile ML, Cavallari JM. Inverse association between toenail arsenic and body mass index in a population of welders. Environ Res. 2014;131:131–3. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.03.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mordukhovich I, Wright RO, Hu H, Amarasiriwardena C, Baccarelli A, Litonjua A, Sparrow D, Vokonas P, Schwartz J. Associations of toenail arsenic, cadmium, mercury, manganese, and lead with blood pressure in the normative aging study. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(1):98–104. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.O’Rorke MA, Cantwell MM, Abnet CC, Brockman AJ, Murray LJ. Toenail trace element status and risk of Barrett’s oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma: results from the FINBAR study. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(8):1882–91. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Punshon T, Li Z, Marsit CJ, Jackson BP, Baker ER, Karagas MR. Placental Metal Concentrations in Relation to Maternal and Infant Toenails in a U.S. Cohort. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(3):1587–94. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Sanders AP, Burris HH, Just AC, Motta V, Amarasiriwardena C, Svensson K, Oken E, Solano-Gonzalez M, Mercado-Garcia A, Pantic I, Schwartz J, Tellez-Rojo MM, Baccarelli AA, Wright RO. Altered miRNA expression in the cervix during pregnancy associated with lead and mercury exposure. Epigenomics. 2015;7(6):885–96. doi: 10.2217/epi.15.54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Sanders AP, Miller SK, Nguyen V, Kotch JB, Fry RC. Toxic metal levels in children residing in a smelting craft village in Vietnam: a pilot biomonitoring study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(114):1471–2458. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Goyer RA. Toxic and essential metal interactions. Annual review of nutrition. 1997;17(1):37–50. doi: 10.1146/annurev.nutr.17.1.37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

supplement

RESOURCES