Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 319

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Inter-individual variations of human mercury exposure biomarkers: a cross-sectional assessment

Open access
Berglund, Marika, Lind, Birger, Björnberg, Karolin Ask, Palm, Brita, Einarsson, Östen, Vahter, Marie·2005·Environmental Health

Abstract

Background: Biomarkers for mercury (Hg) exposure have frequently been used to assess exposure and risk in various groups of the general population. We have evaluated the most frequently used biomarkers and the physiology on which they are based, to explore the inter-individual variations and their suitability for exposure assessment. Methods: Concentrations of total Hg (THg), inorganic Hg (IHg) and organic Hg (OHg, assumed to be methylmercury; MeHg) were determined in whole blood, red blood cells, plasma, hair and urine from Swedish men and women. An automated multiple injection cold vapour atomic fluorescence spectrophotometry analytical system for Hg analysis was developed, which provided high sensitivity, accuracy, and precision. The distribution of the various mercury forms in the different biological media was explored. Results: About 90% of the mercury found in the red blood cells was in the form of MeHg with small inter-individual variations, and part of the IHg found in the red blood cells could be attributed to demethylated MeHg. THg in plasma was associated with both IHg and MeHg, with large inter-individual variations in the distribution between red blood cells and plasma. THg in hair reflects MeHg exposure at all exposure levels, and not IHg exposure. The small fraction of IHg in hair is most probably emanating from demethylated MeHg. The inter-individual variation in the blood to hair ratio was very large. The variability seemed to decrease with increasing OHg in blood, most probably due to more frequent fish consumption and thereby blood concentrations approaching steady state. THg in urine reflected IHg exposure, also at very low IHg exposure levels. Conclusion: The use of THg concentration in whole blood as a proxy for MeHg exposure will give rise to an overestimation of the MeHg exposure depending on the degree of IHg exposure, why speciation of mercury forms is needed. THg in RBC and hair are suitable proxies for MeHg exposure. Using THg concentration in plasma as a measure of IHg exposure can lead to significant exposure misclassification. THg in urine is a suitable proxy for IHg exposure.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1476-069x-4-20

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 319

Metadata

Authors
Berglund, M., Lind, B., Björnberg, K. A., Palm, B., Einarsson, Ö., & Vahter, M.
Venue
Environmental Health
Published
2005-10-03
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
20-20
ISSN
1476-069X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1785518762
Cited by
319
References
0
FWCI
8.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inter-individual variations of human mercury exposure biomarkers: a cross-sectional assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1476-069x-4-20
The paper
Berglund, M., Lind, B., Björnberg, K. A., Palm, B., Einarsson, Ö., & Vahter, M. (2005). Inter-individual variations of human mercury exposure biomarkers: a cross-sectional assessment. Environmental Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069x-4-20

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.