Response to "Comment on 'Impact of air manganese on child neurodevelopment in East Liverpool, Ohio' by Haynes et al. (2018)".
Response to "Comment on 'Impact of air manganese on child neurodevelopment in East Liverpool, Ohio' by Haynes et al. (2018)".
复制标题
回应“Haynes 等人关于‘空气锰对俄亥俄州东利物浦儿童神经发育的影响’的评论 (2018)”。
DOI：
10.1016/j.neuro.2018.07.016
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Dietrich,KimN
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haynes,ErinN;Hilbert,Tim;Sucharew,Heidi;Dietrich,KimN
Bailey等人（2018）声称我们的研究使用头发锰作为空气锰的替代品;然而，这是完全没有根据的。我们的研究并没有声称头发锰是空气锰的替代品。在环境卫生研究中，一个公认的公理是，与间接评估环境介质中的有毒物质相比，可靠的有毒物质生物标志物是更好的暴露衡量标准。我们的研究调查了儿童身体（头发）中的锰与儿童智商测量之间的关系。（2018）指出，生物标志物水平“......不表明对健康有潜在的不良影响”。他们为这一说法提供的支持是试图误导读者，暗示头发中的锰含量很低。事实上，我们引用了其他三（3）项研究，这些研究涉及头发Mn含量超过东利物浦队列的重度暴露队列;但是，这并不意味着东利物浦儿童头发中测量的值较低，因为没有全国儿科人群头发Mn比较值。
Bailey et al.(2018) claim that our research used hair Mn as a surrogate for air Mn; however, this is entirely unfounded. Our research did not claim that hair Mn was a surrogate for air Mn. It is a well-recognized axiom in environmental health research that reliable bio-markers of a toxicant are by far a better measure of exposure than indirect assessment of the toxicant in environmental media. Our study investigated the association between Mn in children’s bodies (hair) and a measure of child IQ.Bailey et al.(2018) stated that the biomarker levels “… do not suggest a potential for adverse health effects.” The support they offer for this claim is an attempt to mislead the reader by implying that the levels of Mn in hair were low. Indeed, we cited three (3) other studies of very heavily exposed cohorts with hair Mn that exceeded the East Liverpool cohort; however, this does not imply that the values measured in the hair of East Liverpool children were low as there are no national pediatric population comparison values for hair Mn.