An evaluation of renal function in workers occupationally exposed to mercury vapour

  • M. D. Stonard
  • B. V. Chater
  • D. P. Duffield
  • A. L. Nevitt
  • J. J. O'Sullivan
  • G. T. Steel
Original Papers

Summary

The renal function of a population of workers occupationally exposed to mercury in the chlor-alkali industry has been examined and compared to that of a population of workers with no occupational exposure to mercury. Measurement of specific urinary proteins and enzymes have been carried out on each individual on three separate occasions and have been complemented by blood plasma measurements at the final visit. Under the conditions of exposure to mercury sustained in this study, there is no evidence of an increased prevalence of renal dysfunction as indicated by enzyme and protein measurements. The urinary concentration of the low molecular weight protein, β2-microglobulin, is significantly lower in the mercury-exposed group than in the control group. In contrast to recently published literature, no relationship is seen between urinary mercury concentration and the appearance of high molecular weight protein in urine. A small increase in the prevalence of higher activities of the urinary enzyme N-acetyl -β-glucosaminidase and gamma glutamyl transferase is observed when the urinary mercury concentration exceeds 100 μg/g creatinine. A small increase in the prevalence of raised urinary N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase activity is observed when the duration of exposure to mercury exceeds ten years. The pattern of proteinuria has been characterised in a total of sixteen individuals from both populations; a low molecular weight proteinuria is seen in three individuals from the control group whilst a high molecular weight proteinuria is seen in the remainder (seven in the control and six in the mercury group).

Key words

Kidney Mercury Proteinuria Enzymuria Biological monitoring 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agner E, Jans H (1978) Mercury poisoning and nephrotic syndrome in two young siblings. Lancet 2:951Google Scholar
  2. Bernard A, Roels HA, Buchet JP, Lauwerys RR (1980) Comparison, by sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of urinary proteins excreted by workers exposed to cadmium, mercury or lead. Toxicol Lett 5:219–222Google Scholar
  3. Bidstrup PM (1964) Toxicity of mercury and its compounds. New York American Elsevier Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  4. Buchet JP, Roels H, Bernard A, Lauwerys RR (1980) Assessment of renal function of workers exposed to inorganic lead, cadmium or mercury vapour. J Occup Med 22:741–750Google Scholar
  5. Clarkson TW (1972) The Pharmacology of mercury compounds. Elliott HW (ed) Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 12:375–406Google Scholar
  6. Davies GE (1971) The use of a sensitive micronephelometer in the estimation of antigens and precipitating antibodies. Immunology 20:779–787Google Scholar
  7. Elkins HB, Pagnotto LD, Smith HL (1974) Concentration adjustments in urinalysis. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 35:559–565Google Scholar
  8. Gaultier M, Fournier E, Gervais P, Morel-Maroger L, Bismuth C, Rain JD (1968) Deux cas de syndrome nephrotique dans une fabrique de thermometres. Soc Méd Hôpitaux de Paris 119:47–61Google Scholar
  9. Henry RJ (1965) Clinical chemistry—principles and technics. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Jackson S (1966) Creatinine in urine as an index of urinary excretion rate. Health Phys 12:843–850Google Scholar
  11. Kazantzis G, Schiller FR, Asscher AW, Drew RG (1962) Albuminuria and the nephrotic syndrome following exposure to mercury and its compounds. Quart J Med 31:403–418Google Scholar
  12. Lauwerys RR, Buchet JP (1973) Occupational exposure to mercury vapours and biological action. Arch Environ Health 27:65–68Google Scholar
  13. Leaback DH, Walker PG (1961) Studies on glucosaminidase, vol 4. The fluorimetric assay of N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase. Biochem J 78:151–156Google Scholar
  14. Lindstedt G, Gottberg I, Holmgren G, Jonsson T, Karlsson G (1979) Individual mercury exposure of chloralkali workers and its relation to blood and urinary mercury levels. Scand J Work Environ Health 5:59–69Google Scholar
  15. Peterson PA, Evrin PE, Berggard I (1969) Differentiation of glomerular, tubular and normal proteinuria: determinations of urinary excretion of β 2-microglobulin, albumin and total protein. J Clin Invest 48:1189–1197Google Scholar
  16. Piscator M, Pettersson B (1977) Chronic cadmium poisoning-diagnosis and prevention. In: Brown SS (ed) Clinical chemistry and chemical toxicology of metals. Bio Press, Elsevier/ North Holland, pp 143–155Google Scholar
  17. Raab WP (1972) Diagnostic value of urinary enzyme determinations. Clin Chem 18:5–24Google Scholar
  18. Rathje AO (1969) A rapid ultraviolet absorption method for the determination of mercury in urine. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 30:126–132Google Scholar
  19. Roels H, Lauwerys R, Buchet JP, Barthels A, Oversteyns M, Gaussin J (1982) Comparison of renal function and psychomotor performance in workers exposed to elemental mercury. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 50:77–93Google Scholar
  20. Smith JC, Wells AR (1960) A biochemical study of the urinary protein of men exposed to metallic mercury. Br J Indust Med 17:205–208Google Scholar
  21. Szasz G (1969) A kinetic photometric method for serum gamma glutamyl transpeptidase. Clin Chem 15:124–136Google Scholar
  22. Thorp JM, Horsfall GB, Stone MC (1967) A new red-sensitive micronephelometer. Med Biol Comput 5:51–56Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. D. Stonard
    • 1
  • B. V. Chater
    • 1
  • D. P. Duffield
    • 2
  • A. L. Nevitt
    • 3
  • J. J. O'Sullivan
    • 2
  • G. T. Steel
    • 1
  1. 1.Central Toxicology LaboratoryImperial Chemical Industries PLCCheshireGreat Britain
  2. 2.Medical Department, Mond DivisionImperial Chemical Industries PLCCheshireGreat Britain
  3. 3.Central Medical GroupImperial Chemical Industries PLCCheshireGreat Britain

Personalised recommendations