Field evaluation of a portable blood lead analyzer in workers living at a high altitude: A follow‐up investigation

Taylor, Lauralynn; Ashley, Kevin; Jones, Robert L.; Deddens, James A.

doi:10.1002/ajim.20096

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mechanisms responsible for the negative bias associated with ASV‐derived blood Pb concentrations are not clear, but several factors associated with blood chemistry and sample handling–storage may be involved. Thiols (organosulfur compounds—e.g., glutathione, metallothionein) can interfere with the ASV electrode surface because the sulfhydryl groups bind and block active sites on the ASV test sensor electrode, resulting in lower Pb concentration estimates (Taylor et al ). Some thiol‐rich proteins, such as metallothioneins, increase in avian blood when birds are exposed to Pb, resulting in a negative feedback loop that can proportionally increase the bias as Pb exposure increases (Scheuhammer , Vanparys et al , Lucia et al , Pikula et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation

Herring

Eagles‐Smith

Bedrosian³

et al. 2018

Wildl. Soc. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lead (Pb) exposure in wildlife is a widespread management and conservation concern. Quantitative determination of Pb concentrations in wildlife tissues is the foundation for estimating exposure and risk. Development of low-cost, portable instruments has improved access and cost-effectiveness of determining Pb concentrations in blood samples, while also facilitating the ability for wildlife researchers to conduct near real-time Pb testing. However, these instruments, which use anodic stripping voltammetry (ASV) methodology, may produce an analytical bias in wildlife-blood Pb concentrations. Additionally, their simplicity invites use without appropriate quality-assurance-quality-control measures. Together, these factors can reduce data quality and hamper the ability to evaluate it, raising concerns about use of these instruments to inform important conservation issues. We document the extent to which this bias is addressed in the wildlife toxicology literature, develop quantitative approaches for correcting the bias, and provide recommendations to ensure robust data quality when using these instruments. Of the 25 studies we reviewed that referenced ASV use for determining Pb exposure in wildlife, only 32% acknowledged the existence of bias from the instrument. Importantly, another 20% of the studies actually reported ASV and spectroscopic-based results together without acknowledging their lack of equivalence. Using a multispecies data set of avian blood Pb concentrations, we found that ASV-based estimates of paired blood Pb concentrations were 30-38% lower than those from standard spectrometric-based methods. We provide regression equations based on this analysis of 453 blood samples to allow users of ASV instruments to adjust Pb concentrations to spectrometricequivalent values, and propose a series of guidelines to follow when using these instruments to improve data validity. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.KEY WORDS anodic stripping voltammetry, blood lead, graphite-furnace atomic absorption spectrometry, inductively-coupled mass spectrometry, LeadCare 1 , portable lead analyzer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation

Herring

Eagles‐Smith

Bedrosian³

et al. 2018

Wildl. Soc. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12 Some of the differences in results of those studies might be because of differences in the individual LCS analyzers. 12 LCS has been used in veterinary studies that involved waterfowl, California condors, and other raptors. 3,5,9 Results of studies found a good correlation between LCS and GFAAS on avian samples, with 93% agreement between methods on blood samples from waterfowl.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two other studies found that LCS results were consistently lower than GFAAS results. 7,12 This difference was attributed to glutathione interference with the test in one of the studies. 12 Some of the differences in results of those studies might be because of differences in the individual LCS analyzers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7,12 This difference was attributed to glutathione interference with the test in one of the studies. 12 Some of the differences in results of those studies might be because of differences in the individual LCS analyzers. 12 LCS has been used in veterinary studies that involved waterfowl, California condors, and other raptors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…LeadCare has been used for Pb detection in human medicine and to a limited extent in veterinary medicine. [3][4][5]7,12,13,16 The manufacturer recommends that the blood samples be analyzed within 24 hr of collection.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Two Methods for Blood Lead Analysis in Cattle: Graphite-Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry and Leadcare® II System

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The current study compared the LeadCareH II test kit system with graphite-furnace atomic absorption spectrometry for blood lead (Pb) analysis in 56 cattle accidentally exposed to Pb in the field. Blood Pb concentrations were determined by LeadCare II within 4 hr of collection and after 72 hr of refrigeration. Blood Pb concentrations were determined by atomic absorption spectrometry, and samples that were coagulated (n 5 12) were homogenized before analysis. There was strong rank correlation (R 2 5 0.96) between atomic absorption and LeadCare II (within 4 hr of collection), and a conversion formula was determined for values within the observed range (3-91 mcg/dl, although few had values .40 mcg/dl). Median and mean blood pb concentrations for atomic absorption were 7.7 and 15.9 mcg/dl, respectively; for LeadCare II, medians were 5.2 mcg/dl at 4 hr and 4.9 mcg/dl at 72 hr, and means were 12.4 and 11.7, respectively. LeadCare II results at 4 hr strongly correlated with 72 hr results (R 2 5 0.96), but results at 72 hr were lower (P , 0.01). There was no significant difference between coagulated and uncoagulated samples run by atomic absorption. Although there have been several articles that compared LeadCare with other analytical techniques, all were for the original system, not LeadCare II. The present study indicated that LeadCare II results correlated well with atomic absorption over a wide range of blood Pb concentrations and that refrigerating samples for up to 72 hr before LeadCare II analysis was acceptable for clinical purposes.

show abstract

Leadcare® II Comparison with Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry for Blood Lead Measurement in Peruvian Highlands

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peru is one of the countries with the highest lead contamination in the world. Biological monitoring has limitations due to the shortage of laboratories with validated methodologies for the measurement of blood lead, and it is necessary to use alternative methods for its measurement in high-altitude cities. We aimed to compare the blood lead levels (BLL) measured by the LeadCare II (LC) method and Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (GF-AAS). We measured the BLL of 108 children from the city of La Oroya. The mean and median BLL for GF-AAS were 10.77 ± 4.18 and 10.44 µg/dL, respectively; for the LC method, the mean was 11.71 ± 4.28 and the median was 11.60 µg/dL. We found a positive linear correlation (Rho = 0.923) between both methods. Notwithstanding, the Wilcoxon test suggests a significant difference between both methods (ρ = 0.000). In addition, the Bland–Altman analysis indicates that there is a positive bias (0.94) in the LC method, and this method tends to overestimate the BLL. Likewise, we performed a generalized linear model to evaluate the influence of age and hemoglobin on BLL. We found that age and hemoglobin had a significant influence on BLL measured by the LC method. Finally, we used two non-parametric linear regression methods (Deming and Passing-Bablok regression) to compare the LC method with the GF-AAS. We found that these methods differ by at least a constant amount, and there would be a proportional difference between both. Although in general there is a positive linear correlation, the results of both methods differ significantly. Therefore, its use in cities located at high altitudes (higher than 2440 m.a.s.l.) would not be recommended.

show abstract

Field evaluation of a portable blood lead analyzer in workers living at a high altitude: A follow‐up investigation

Cited by 11 publications

References 13 publications

Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation

Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation

Comparison of Two Methods for Blood Lead Analysis in Cattle: Graphite-Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry and Leadcare® II System

Leadcare® II Comparison with Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry for Blood Lead Measurement in Peruvian Highlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About