八种校正参数对尿毒物浓度影响的研究

本研究采用尿比重（Ｕ＿（ＳＧ））、尿肌肝（Ｕ＿（Ｃｒ））、比重校正的尿肌酐（Ｕ＿（ＳＧ－Ｃｒ））、尿流速校正的肌酐比率（Ｕ＿（ＣＦ）ｂ，ｂ值分别为０．６７、０．３３、０，２７和０．１６）等参数，校正肌酐代谢正常的１７名铅、镉接触者在自由饮水条件下收集的１３２份尿样的测定浓度（Ｕ），以揭示其对尿铅、镉浓度的影响。研究表明，尿肌酐、铅、偏排泄存在明显的个体差异和体内变异。不同参数校正后的变异系数，尿铅以Ｕ＿（ＣＦ）０．６７最大，其次为Ｕ＿（Ｃｒ）、Ｕ＿（ＳＧ－Ｃｒ）、Ｕ＿（ＳＧ），测定浓度（Ｕ）最小，尿镉仍以Ｕ＿（ＣＦ）０．６７最大，Ｕ＿（Ｃｒ）、Ｕ＿（ＳＧ）次之，Ｕ＿（ＳＧ－Ｃｒ）最小。因此，可以认为，Ｕ＿（ＳＧ）、Ｕ＿（Ｃｒ）、Ｕ＿（ＳＧ－Ｃｒ）、Ｕ＿（ＣＦ）ｂ与尿铅的Ｕ相比，并未提供明显优点，而尿镉以Ｕ＿（ＳＧ－Ｃｒ）的校正效果较好。就Ｕ＿（ＣＦ）ｂ而言，变异系数随校正指数减小而缩小，本研究得出的校正指数（０．１６）的校正效果优于０．６７、０．３３和０．２７。

A STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF 8 ADJUSTMENT PARAMETERS ON URINARY TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONCENTRATIONS

n this study the urinary lead and cadmium concentrations of 132spot urine samples from 17 workers exposed occtipationally to lead andcadlnium, who were normal in creatinine metabolism and free in fluidintake,were measured and adjusted by the applications of urinary specificgravity(U_(SG)),creatinine(U_(Cr)), creatinine correted by specific gravity(U_(SG-Cr)),and flow-adjusted creatinine ratio(U_(CF)b,b values are 0.67,0.33,0.27 and 0.16,respectively) in order to reveal the effects of the differentadjustment parameters on urinary lead and cadmium concentrations.Theresults showed that significant inter-and intraindividual variations exis-ted in excretions of creatinine,lead and cadmium of urine,The variationcoefficient of the urinary lead concentration adjusted with U_(CF) 0.67 is thegreatest,followed by U_(Cr)-,U_(SG-Cr)-,and U_(SG-Cr)-adjustment,that of the mea-sured urinary lead concentration is the least. The variation coefficientof the urinary cadmium concentration treated with U_(CF) 0.67 is also thegreatest, followed by U_(Cr)- and U_(SG)-adjustment,tat of the urinary cad-mium concentration adjusted with U_(SG-Cr) is the least.Thus, it could beconcluded that there were no significant advantages for adjustments withUsc,U_(Cr), U_(SG-Cr) and U_(CF)b in comparison with directly measured concen-tration of urinary lead. However,the effect of the adjustment with U_(SG-Cr)for urinary cadmium concentration is good.For the adjustment with U_(CF)b,the variation coefficients are reduced with the decrease of adjusting expo-nents. The effect of the adjusting exponent of 0.16 obtained from thestudy is superior to those of 0.67,0.33 and 0.27.