Correction to: Biological Trace Element Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-021-02714-1

The original version of this article unfortunately contained mistakes.

  • Below is the missing second paragraph under the Discussion section

    Although the Hg levels in whole blood were lower than what has been found in other ASGM studies, they were still considerably higher than what can be expected in the general population [17,18, 19, 20]. In fact, one third of the participants were above the HBM-I value, which we used as threshold value. However, Hg levels in erythrocytes, plasma, globin, and albumin have never been analyzed thus far in individuals living and working in ASGM areas. Therefore, comparison of these values with other studies was not possible. Hg levels in globin and albumin were primarily analyzed to evaluate, if these proteins can be used for further investigations, e.g., for proteomic analysis. Although artifacts and loss of Hg during the isolation process cannot be excluded, we found a very strong linear relationship for erythrocytes and globin as well as for plasma and albumin. This indicates that the isolated proteins indeed resemble the Hg levels in erythrocytes and plasma, respectively.

  • Below is the correct layout for Table 1

    Table 1 Demographic details of the study population

    Age

    N

    198

    		 

    Median (Min. – Max.

    38 (18-77)

    		 
      

    N

    %

    Gender

    Males

    162

    (81.8)

    Females

    36

    (18.2)

    Living Area

    Kadoma

    128

    (64.6)

    Shurugwi

    70

    (35.4)

    Last time Hg

    1-2 days

    33

    (16.7)

    3 days - 4 weeks

    38

    (19.2)

    > 4 weeks

    16

    (8.1)

    Missing

    111

    (56.1)

    Exposure Risk Score (Exposure risk factors: Retort use (yes/no). Work clothes at home (no/yes). Hg storage [no (at work/yes (at home)])

    0

    20

    (10.1)

    1

    63

    (31.8)

    2

    59

    (29.8)

    3

    28

    (14.1)

    Missing

    28

    (14.1)

    Fish Consumption

    < once a week

    41

    (20.7)

    > once a week

    157

    (79.3)

The original article has been corrected.