Abstract
Arsenic is a well-known natural environmental contaminant distributed in food, water, air, and soil. The developmental toxicity of arsenic exposure is a significant concern in large parts of the world. Unlike acute toxic exposure, the classical dose–response relationship is not adequate for estimating the possible impact of chronic low-level arsenic exposure. The real-life risk and impact assessments require the consideration of the co-exposure to multiple toxins, individual genetic and nutritional predisposition, and the particularly vulnerable stages of the neurodevelopment. This context shifts the assessment model away from the ‘one-exposure-for-one-health-effect.’ We underscore the need for a comprehensive risk assessment that takes into account all relevant determinants. We aim to elaborate a model that can serve as a basis for an understanding of complex interacting factors in a long-lasting and ongoing low-level arsenic exposure, to identify, protect, and support the children at risk.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Arsenic is a trace element that occurs in many minerals in the Earth’s crust, often together with other metals and sulfur. As a result of leaching and runoff, arsenic can leak into the soil and groundwater, and anthropogenic activities can also bring arsenic into soil and groundwater (Li et al. 2011; Singh 2006). Arsenic is on the top rank of the Substance Priority List of the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, followed by lead, mercury, and cadmium (ATSDR 2017). The highest rank indicates its significant potential for human exposure, toxicity, and the occurring frequency at the facilities around the U.S National Priorities Sites. Human arsenic exposure is predominantly through the contaminated drinking water and food, whereas the inhalation and absorption through the skin are the minor routes (Shi et al. 2004; Tippairote et al. 2019). Reports of arsenic water contamination have come from many countries such as Bangladesh, Canada, China, India, America, Taiwan, Mexico, Poland, Japan, Nepal (Jain and Ali 2000; Smith et al. 2000), and Iran (Mosaferi et al. 2003). While the WHO standards of the maximum permissible arsenic value in drinking water was 10 μg/L (WHO 2018), a review reported that the arsenic levels in Argentina, Mexico, Taiwan, and Indo-Bangladesh exceeded such limit, at 200, 400, 50–1988, and 888 μg/L, respectively (Flora 2011). However, despite the acceptable arsenic level in local water resources, the exposure of arsenic from dietary sources was still the constitutional concern in young children (EFSA 2009). With its inherited prevalence and human toxicity potential, arsenic is a current global concern.
The main form of arsenic in water, soil, and foods is the inorganic form (Chung et al. 2014). Inorganic arsenic is a human carcinogen group 1, according to the classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer or IARC (Straif et al. 2009). Acute toxic arsenic exposure leads to various dose-dependent responses ranging from mild, moderate, to lethal reactions. These symptoms include mouth dryness, diffuse skin rashes, Mee’s lines in fingernails, garlicky odor breathing, weakness, muscular cramps, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, psychosis, hallucinations, delusions, delirium, seizures, neuropathy, encephalopathy, generalized vasodilation, cardiovascular collapse, hypovolemic shock, pulmonary edema, kidney failure, respiratory failure, toxic cardiomyopathy, coma, and death (Mitra et al. 2019). The exposure dosage assessment generally considers the proportions of arsenic contamination levels in the environment, exposure rate, and the individual characteristics of the victim (Gerba 2004). Taiwanese adults, who were exposed to the arsenic-contaminated well water, were at risk for increased occurrence of lung cancers for a period of at least the next 15 years. Arsenic exposure during pregnancy and childhood was linked to the increased incidence and severity of lung, cardiovascular diseases, and cancers later in life with some reports of decade-long latency periods for these conditions (Liaw et al. 2008; Marshall et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2011; Yuan et al. 2010). This cancer risk increased when their detoxification ability through methylation was low. Individuals with high methylation capacity did not suffer for the same was despite their comparable exposure dosage (Hsu et al. 2017). Various nutrients and bioactive food components influence the methylation status. The role of methylation in the arsenic detoxification and DNA methylation processes can partly explain the different cancer outcomes (Mahmoud and Ali 2019; Mondal et al. 2011). At least for the carcinogenic endpoint, the classical toxicological concept of the dose–response relationship was inadequate to appreciate the impacts of chronic, low-dose arsenic exposure (Tsatsakis et al. 2018).
In the context of chronic low-level arsenic exposure, growing children are more vulnerable to the toxic impacts than adults. Children who lived with their cigarette-smoking parents showed high urine arsenic levels and were considered at risk, although their parents were quite healthy (Chiba and Masironi 1992). Growing children have low body mass, large skin surface area, immature hepatic biotransformation enzyme activity, and a high tendency of hand-to-mouth behavior. These differences compromised their tolerance to toxic exposure even at low dosage (ATSDR 2007).
The prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders, such as attention deficit and hyperactive disorders, autistic spectrum disorders, and learning disorders, is increasing worldwide and becoming the critical concern of growing children (Carballal Mariño et al. 2018). Cumulative pieces of evidence indicated that prenatal or early-life arsenic exposure, even at levels below the safety guideline, could potentially have impacts on their physiological neurodevelopmental processes (Tolins et al. 2014). Arsenic exposure during early pregnancy could alter the genome-wide DNA methylation in the offspring boys (Broberg et al. 2014). Other possible toxicological mechanisms were including the disrupted endocrine effects, immunologic suppression, neurotoxicity, and possible interactions with the enzymes that were critical for fetal development and programming (Vahter 2008). The impacts on children’s intelligence and memory might become manifest later in life, and the symptoms could span from minor disruptions of functional performance to severe intellectual impairment and profounded developmental retardation.
Numerous studies and reviews are available on acute arsenic toxicity and its potential impacts on the physiology of adult humans (Abdul et al. 2015). However, comprehensive reviews on the context of neurodevelopmental impacts from chronic low-level arsenic exposure are limited.
Mechanisms of arsenic toxicity
The mechanisms of arsenic toxicity vary with respect to its chemical form (Molin et al. 2015). Arsenic primarily induces oxidative stress by oxidation–reduction reactions and induction of mitochondrial dysfunction (Prakash et al. 2016). Arsenic also interferes with the enzymatic activities of superoxide dismutase, nitric oxide synthase, and NADPH oxidase. It can bind to the sulfhydryl groups of proteins. Its inhibition of glutathione synthase and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase leads to the reduction of glutathione and the NADPH pools. These combined actions compromise the free radical scavenging and worsen the oxidative stress, which further drives the damage of organelles, DNA, protein, and lipids (Kim et al. 2019; Susan et al. 2019).
The trivalent arsenicals, or arsenite, inhibit the enzymatic pathways of lipoamide regeneration that act as a vital cofactor for the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex, which converts pyruvate to acetyl-coenzyme A (acetyl-CoA) (Kurzius-Spencer et al. 2017). The reduction of the acetyl-CoA pool decreases the activity of the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation. Furthermore, the reduction of succinyl-CoA, another citric acid cycle metabolite, undermines the maturation of red blood cells. Arsenite inhibits the thiolase enzyme activity, thereby impairing fatty acid oxidation (Aposhian and Aposhian 1989). Arsenite may also block potassium channels within the heart muscles resulting in prolonged QT intervals (Mumford et al. 2007). It might also impair physiological methylation reaction and the acid–base balance (Florea and Busselberg 2008; Kim et al. 2019; Laparra et al. 2008; Paul et al. 2008; Susan et al. 2019).
Pentavalent arsenicals, or arsenate, generate toxicity through a different mechanism. The arsenate reduction reaction yields arsenite. Arsenate may compete with the phosphate groups during the conversion of adenosine diphosphate to adenosine triphosphate, thus impairs cellular bioenergetics (Baysan et al. 2007; Kim et al. 2019).
Methylated arsenic metabolites, as well as inorganic arsenic species, can cross the blood–brain barrier and enter the brain cells (Samuel et al. 2005). These compounds also appear to enhance extracellular plaque formation (Zarazua et al. 2011) and enter the substantia nigra with the impacts on dopaminergic neuron functions (Chandravanshi et al. 2014). Such effects of arsenicals have been suggested to contribute to the pathogenesis of several neurological diseases, including neurobehavioral disorders, and also Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease (Chen 2014; Susan et al. 2019). Figure 1 summarizes all these mentioned mechanisms of arsenic toxicity.
Chronic arsenic toxicity and concurrent exposure to multiple toxins
While arsenic is ranked at the top of the ATSDR’s Substance Priority list, co-exposure of this agent with other toxins is common in the real-life situation (Bora et al. 2019; Freire et al. 2018). Thus, a recent study of hair bio-element levels in Thai well-nourished children reported the frequency of high hair arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum levels at 36, 25, 14, 13, and 12 percent of the participants, respectively (Tippairote et al. 2018). The co-existing of these toxins shifts the exposure outcomes and evaluations away from the ‘one-exposure-for-one-health-effect’ paradigm.
Among several potential toxicodynamic mechanisms, oxidative stress promotion is a primary machinery by which several heavy metals produce toxic and in some cases, neurodevelopmental consequences (Engwa et al. 2019). Co-exposure to multiple free radical-generating toxins can aggravate the underlying pathophysiologic processes and amplify the adverse outcomes (Andrade et al. 2015). A study reported the association of declined global, verbal, executive, and motor functions and skills in preschool children to their prenatal arsenic and mercury exposure, as determined by the placental levels (Neeti and Prakash 2013). There also seemed to be synergistic toxic effects between arsenic and lead (Freire et al. 2018). The presence of one element may influence the effects of others, either synergistically or antagonistically (Tippairote et al. 2017). Growing evidence suggests that early life co-exposure to metals, including lead, methylmercury, and arsenic, increases the risk for neurodevelopmental toxicity compared to single metal exposure (Sanders et al. 2015). Consequently, to comprehensively understand the neurodevelopmental impacts of chronic low-level exposure of arsenic, the independent assessment of arsenic is not sufficient. The consideration of concurrent exposure to other toxins is then essential.
The genetic predisposition and individual nutritional status
A prospective case–control arsenic exposure study reported the close association of arsenic methylation capacity, children’s health status, and developmental outcomes (Hsueh et al. 2016). There was a strong association between arsenic methylation ability and developmental delay (Hsueh et al. 2016), and low plasma selenium and folate levels may increase the risk (Chiba and Masironi 1992; Pilsner et al. 2011). The interactions between toxic element exposure with low levels of essential elements, as measured in blood and urine samples, significantly influenced the cognitive assessment scores in a study of 95 children from the Democratic Republic of Congo (Bora et al. 2019). Individual nutritional status is a critical determinant of chronic arsenic exposure outcome.
There are complex interactions between genetic variations, gene expression pathways, and micronutrient status (Schomburg and Schweizer 2009; van Ommen et al. 2008, 2010). Several studies reported the association between low selenoenzyme activity and many variations in the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of selenoprotein genes (Ferguson and Karunasinghe 2011). Several of the selenoprotein ameliorate cells from the free radical-induced oxidative damage through their enzymatic actions, such as glutathione peroxidase, thioredoxin reductase, and selenoprotein P (Ferguson et al. 2006; Hawkes and Alkan 2010). Many SNP variations also influence the methylation status (Alam et al. 2019; Farhud et al. 2010). Both selenoproteins and methylation status were vital defenses against arsenic toxicity (Vahter and Concha 2001).
The complex interactions of diet, nutrients, toxins, genetic variations, and gene expression patterns regulate the individual responses and determine long-term effects. Studies in both animal models and human subjects reported the arsenic-induced changes of the DNA methylation patterns, histone posttranslational modifications, and microRNAs (Bjorklund et al. 2018a; Pelch et al. 2015; Rager et al. 2015). Altered gene expression patterns can direct the cellular pathways toward the carcinogenesis or disrupted neurodevelopmental processes (Bjorklund et al. 2018b).
Improvement of dietary patterns and nutritional status alleviated the chronic arsenic exposure aftermath (Sharma and Flora 2018). The specific nutrients essential in one-carbon metabolism, methylation cycles, and antioxidants showed protective effects on arsenic toxicity (Kurzius-Spencer et al. 2017). The individual nutritional status appraisal, in addition to toxic exposure assessment, is then beneficial for the comprehensive understanding of chronic arsenic exposure impacts.
The neurodevelopmental continuum
The spectrum of early-life neurotoxicant-exposure consequences appears to range from autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, intellectual disability, learning disorder, behavioral disorders, to cognitive dysfunction (Grandjean and Landrigan 2014). Whereas substantial declines of intelligence quotient (IQ) scores are associated with significantly increased blood lead level (Reuben et al. 2017), the lesser extent of lead exposure is associated with ADHD (Tippairote et al. 2016). Different exposure levels of toxicants may lead to different impacts across this continuum. It may be inaccurate to attribute one single endpoint to the estimated developmental exposure. For example, a study presumed the protectiveness of existing arsenic reference value for developmental neurotoxicity based on the negative association between the decrements of IQ score and the arsenic levels in tap water or toenails (Tsuji et al. 2015). Without considering other possible neurodevelopmental impacts, this assumption was probably premature. The suitable approach to assess the toxic effects of low doses of chemicals should simultaneously follow the different developmental endpoints across the continuum, as in the novel model proposed by Tsatsakis et al. (2017). The ‘one-exposure-for-one-health-effect’ concept is consequently not valid for the continuum of neurodevelopmental outcomes of arsenic exposure.
The comprehensive risk assessment approach
The comprehensive approach to assessing chronic low-level arsenic exposure should include the appraisal of concurrent exposure to multiple toxins, individual nutritional status, together with available information of genetic predisposition to the increased individual susceptibility. The impact assessment should also extend across the neurodevelopmental continuum as much as possible. While there are many available biomarkers, the comprehensive assessment should encompass a broad spectrum of biomarkers of exposure, susceptibility, and disease (Das and Sengupta 2008; Mayeux 2004). The inclusion of intermediate or surrogate biomarkers for underlying pathophysiology of oxidative stress, inflammation, autoimmunity, mitochondriopathy, and cellular damage, is of importance. Figure 2 demonstrates this conceptual framework.
The biomarkers of exposure can be the arsenic and other element levels in the blood or urine, hair, or nail samples. Various arsenic contamination sources, such as a recent or habitual consumption of seafood or air pollution, can represent confounders as regard to a specific source. Accurate interpretation of the levels in the collected samples needs an extensive understanding of this uniqueness of an exposed individual (Tippairote et al. 2019).
In general, the blood level is not an ideal biomarker for chronic arsenic exposure due to the rapid blood clearance during the first few hours after oral ingestion (Vahter and Concha 2001). Urine arsenic levels, either total, inorganic arsenic, or methylated forms, can represent the exposure for a couple of days. Despite its relatively limited reliability, most epidemiologic studies used urine arsenic levels, preferable the 24-h collection, as the arsenic exposure indicator for arsenic-polluted area inhabitants (Minichilli et al. 2018).
Assessment of arsenic level, together with other element levels, in hair and nail samples, can represent the long-term arsenic exposure for a period of 1–12 months (Agahian et al. 1990; ATSDR 2007; Tippairote et al. 2019; Yamauchi et al. 1989). The significant hindrances of these methods are the potential incorporation of external arsenic into these samples and the inter- and intra-laboratory variation of sample collection, handling, processing, and determination of the element levels (Puchyr et al. 1998). Despite these limitations, hair arsenic level above 1 µg/g of dry hair weight indicate the acute or high-level exposure, while the levels above 0.1 or 0.2 µg/g warrant the investigation for chronic low-level exposure (Carneiro et al. 2011; Hashim et al. 2013; Park et al. 2007; Ratnaike 2003). For the nail sample, the ATSDR’s upper limit of the arsenic level is 1 µg/g (ATSDR 2007).
Reports from the arsenic-polluted area suggested that the skin lesions, such as skin hyperpigmentation, or palmoplantar hyperkeratosis, are the frequent and early signs of chronic low-level arsenic exposure (Khan et al. 2003; Mandal and Biswas 2004; Puchyr et al. 1998). The clinical diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders required the recognition of the signs and symptoms of the specific conditions as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) (APA 2013).
A proposed risk management plan
A new paradigm of risk management will depend on the findings from a comprehensive assessment of concurrent exposure levels, susceptibility, and potential developmental impacts. At the public level, there should be a program to raise the awareness of potential adverse neurodevelopmental consequences of chronic low-level arsenic exposure (Das and Sengupta 2008; Hanchett et al. 2002). The parents’ participation is critical for initiating the exposure control measures of potential arsenic and other toxic metal contamination sources (Caldwell et al. 2006). The practical knowledge of the potential exposure sources, preventive strategies, and monitoring procedures is essential (Chowdhury et al. 2006; Hassan et al. 2005; Khan et al. 2006).
Following the exposure control arrangements, the immediate priority should be a correction of all existing nutritional deficiencies, promotion of healthy arsenic biotransformation, and, when possible, enhancing physiologic excretion pathways. However, there has been documented co-occurrence of high exposure to arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, and aluminum, together with low hair levels of selenium, zinc, molybdenum, sulfur, and phosphate, also in well-nourished children (Tippairote et al., 2018). Such micronutrient deficiency compromises the toxin biotransformation processes. The support of methylation and antioxidant capacity are vital to mitigate the arsenic toxicity (Bhattacharya 2017; Flora 2011; Mondal et al. 2011; Ratnaike 2003; Tippairote et al. 2019). Encouraging healthy modifiable lifestyle interventions, such as healthy eating, adequate hydration, avoid constipation, regular exercise, ensure good sleep quality, is also beneficial for improving nutrient assimilation, enhancing the excretion through urine, skin, and bile routes, and preventing the reabsorption of toxins (Jones and Quinn 2010; Skröder Löveborn et al. 2016; Vahter 2002).
Following the processes as mentioned above, the justification of whether to do chelation therapy depends on the documented evidence of the degree of ongoing oxidative damages and the amount of toxic retention in tissues. There is still no established consensus on the clinical usefulness of the chelating agents such as dimercaptosuccinic acid, 2,3-dimercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid (DMPS), or d-penicillamine on chronic low-level arsenic exposure (Guha Mazumder 2015; Mazumder 2008; Sun et al. 2006), although DMPS, which can be given orally, has been recommended in poisoned cases, by some researchers (Aaseth et al. 2015; Guha Mazumder et al. 2001).
Concluding remarks
The developmental toxicity from arsenic exposure is the prioritized concern for the growing children worldwide due to its inherited toxicity and high prevalence. Unlike the acute arsenic toxicity, the classical dose–response relationship is not adequate for risk assessment in chronic low-level arsenic exposure. The real-life exposure and impact assessments require the consideration of the co-exposure to multiple toxins, individual genetic and nutritional predisposition, and the continuum of neurodevelopmental outcomes. This context shifts the assessment model away from the ‘one-exposure-for-one-health-effect’. This proposed risk assessment and management model should serve as a basis for an understanding of these complex interacting factors in ongoing low-level arsenic exposure. The overview perspective should help to formulate actionable plans to identify, prevent, protect, and support the children at risk.
References
Aaseth J, Skaug MA, Cao Y, Andersen O (2015) Chelation in metal intoxication—principles and paradigms. J Trace Elem Med Biol 31:260–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2014.10.001
Abdul KS, Jayasinghe SS, Chandana EP, Jayasumana C, De Silva PM (2015) Arsenic and human health effects: a review. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 40(3):828–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2015.09.016
Agahian B, Lee JS, Nelson JH, Johns RE (1990) Arsenic levels in fingernails as a biological indicator of exposure to arsenic. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 51(12):646–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298669091370293
Alam I, Ali F, Zeb F, Almajwal A, Fatima S, Wu X (2019) Relationship of nutrigenomics and aging: involvement of DNA methylation. J Nutr Intermed Metab 16:100098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnim.2019.100098
Andrade VM, Mateus ML, Batoreu MC, Aschner M, Marreilha dos Santos AP (2015) Lead, arsenic, and manganese metal mixture exposures: focus on biomarkers of effect. Biol Trace Elem Res 166(1):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-015-0267-x
APA (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association, Arlington
Aposhian HV, Aposhian MM (2016) Newer developments in arsenic toxicity. J Am Coll Toxicol 8(7):1297–1305
ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2007) Toxicological profile for arsenic. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp2.pdf. Accessed 2 Dec 2019
ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2017) Priority list of hazardous substances. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/spl. Accessed 1 Dec 2019
Baysan A, Yel L, Gollapudi S, Su H, Gupta S (2007) Arsenic trioxide induces apoptosis via the mitochondrial pathway by upregulating the expression of Bax and Bim in human B cells. Int J Oncol 30(2):313–318
Bhattacharya S (2017) Medicinal plants and natural products in amelioration of arsenic toxicity: a short review. Pharm Biol 55(1):349–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880209.2016.1235207
Bjorklund G, Aaseth J, Chirumbolo S, Urbina MA, Uddin R (2018a) Effects of arsenic toxicity beyond epigenetic modifications. Environ Geochem Health 40(3):955–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-017-9967-9
Bjorklund G, Skalny AV, Rahman MM et al (2018b) Toxic metal(loid)-based pollutants and their possible role in autism spectrum disorder. Environ Res 166:234–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.020
Bora BK, Ramos-Crawford AL, Sikorskii A et al (2019) Concurrent exposure to heavy metals and cognition in school-age children in Congo-Kinshasa: a complex overdue research agenda. Brain Res Bull 145:81–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2018.06.013
Broberg K, Ahmed S, Engstrom K et al (2014) Arsenic exposure in early pregnancy alters genome-wide DNA methylation in cord blood, particularly in boys. J Dev Origins Health Dis 5(4):288–298. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2040174414000221
Caldwell BK, Smith WT, Lokuge K et al (2006) Access to drinking-water and arsenicosis in Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr 24(3):336–345
Carballal Mariño M, Gago Ageitos A, Ares Alvarez J et al (2018) Prevalence of neurodevelopmental, behavioural and learning disorders in paediatric primary care. Anales de Pediatría (English Edition). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpede.2017.10.005
Carneiro MF, Moresco MB, Chagas GR, de Oliveira Souza VC, Rhoden CR, Barbosa F Jr (2011) Assessment of trace elements in scalp hair of a young urban population in Brazil. Biol Trace Elem Res 143(2):815–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-010-8947-z
Chandravanshi LP, Shukla RK, Sultana S, Pant AB, Khanna VK (2014) Early life arsenic exposure and brain dopaminergic alterations in rats. Int J Dev Neurosci 38:91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2014.08.009
Chen CJ (2014) Health hazards and mitigation of chronic poisoning from arsenic in drinking water: Taiwan experiences. Rev Environ Health 29(1–2):13–19. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2014-0007
Chiba M, Masironi R (1992) Toxic and trace elements in tobacco and tobacco smoke. Bull World Health Organ 70(2):269–275
Chowdhury MAI, Uddin MT, Ahmed MF et al (2006) Collapse of Socio-economic Base of Bangladesh by Arsenic Contamination in Groundwater. Pak J Biol Sci. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2006.1617.1627
Chung J-Y, Yu S-D, Hong Y-S (2014) Environmental source of arsenic exposure. J Prev Med Public Health 47(5):253–257. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.14.036
Das NK, Sengupta SR (2008) Arsenicosis: diagnosis and treatment. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 74(6):571–581
EFSA (2009) Scientific opinion on arsenic in food. EFSA J 7(10):1351. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1351
Engwa GA, Ferdinand PU, Nwalo FN, Unachukwu MN (2019) Mechanism and health effects of heavy metal toxicity in humans. In: Karcioglu O, Arslan B (eds) Poisoning in the modern world: new tricks for an old dog? IntechOpen, London. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82511. Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/books/poisoning-in-the-modern-world-new-tricks-for-an-old-dog-/mechanism-and-health-effects-of-heavy-metal-toxicity-in-humans. Accessed 2 Dec 2019
Farhud D, Zarif Yeganeh M, Zarif Yeganeh M (2010) Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics. Iran J Public Health 39(4):1–14
Ferguson LR, Karunasinghe N (2011) Nutrigenetics, nutrigenomics, and selenium. Front Genet 2:15–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2011.00015
Ferguson LR, Philpott M, Karunasinghe N (2687s) Oxidative DNA damage and repair: significance and biomarkers. J Nutr 136(10):2687s–s2689. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/136.10.2687S
Flora SJ (2011) Arsenic-induced oxidative stress and its reversibility. Free Radical Biol Med 51(2):257–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2011.04.008
Florea AM, Busselberg D (2008) Arsenic trioxide in environmentally and clinically relevant concentrations interacts with calcium homeostasis and induces cell type specific cell death in tumor and non-tumor cells. Toxicol Lett 179(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2008.03.019
Freire C, Amaya E, Gil F et al (2018) Prenatal co-exposure to neurotoxic metals and neurodevelopment in preschool children: the Environment and Childhood (INMA) Project. Sci Total Environ 621:340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.273
Gerba CP (2004) 20—risk assessment and environmental regulations. In: Artiola JF, Pepper IL, Brusseau ML (eds) Environmental monitoring and characterization. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 377–392
Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ (2014) Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurol 13(3):330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70278-3
Guha Mazumder DN (2015) 6—health effects chronic arsenic toxicity. In: Flora SJS (ed) Handbook of arsenic toxicology. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 137–177
Guha Mazumder DN, De BK, Santra A et al (2001) Randomized placebo-controlled trial of 2,3-dimercapto-1-propanesulfonate (DMPS) in therapy of chronic arsenicosis due to drinking arsenic-contaminated water. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 39(7):665–674. https://doi.org/10.1081/clt-100108507
Hanchett S, Nahar Q, Van Agthoven A, Geers C, Rezvi MFJ (2002) Increasing awareness of arsenic in Bangladesh: lessons from a public education programme. Health Policy Plan 17(4):393–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/17.4.393
Hashim JH, Radzi RS, Aljunid SM et al (2013) Hair arsenic levels and prevalence of arsenicosis in three Cambodian provinces. Sci Total Environ 463–464:1210–1216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.084
Hassan MM, Atkins PJ, Dunn CE (2005) Social implications of arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh. Soc Sci Med 61(10):2201–2211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.021
Hawkes WC, Alkan Z (2010) Regulation of redox signaling by selenoproteins. Biol Trace Elem Res 134(3):235–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-010-8656-7
Hsu K-H, Tsui K-H, Hsu L-I, Chiou H-Y, Chen C-J (2017) Dose–response relationship between inorganic arsenic exposure and lung cancer among arseniasis residents with low methylation capacity. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 26(5):756–761. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-16-0281
Hsueh YM, Chen WJ, Lee CY et al (2016) Association of arsenic methylation capacity with developmental delays and health status in children: a prospective case–control trial. Scientific reports 6:37287. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37287
Jain CK, Ali I (2000) Arsenic: occurrence, toxicity and speciation techniques. Water Res 34(17):4304–4312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00182-2
Jones DS, Quinn S (2010) Textbook of functional medicine. Institute for Functional Medicine, Gig Harbor
Khan MM, Sakauchi F, Sonoda T, Washio M, Mori M (2003) Magnitude of arsenic toxicity in tube-well drinking water in Bangladesh and its adverse effects on human health including cancer: evidence from a review of the literature. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 4(1):7–14
Khan M, Khandoker A, Ahsan N, Kabir M, Mori M (2006) Case-control study of arsenicosis in some arsenic contaminated villages of Bangladesh. Sapporo Med J 75:51–61
Kim JJ, Kim YS, Kumar V (2019) Heavy metal toxicity: an update of chelating therapeutic strategies. J Trace Elements Med Biol 54:226–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2019.05.003
Kurzius-Spencer M, da Silva V, Thomson CA et al (2017) Nutrients in one-carbon metabolism and urinary arsenic methylation in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003–2004. Sci Total Environ 607–608:381–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.019
Laparra JM, Velez D, Barbera R, Farre R, Montoro R (2008) As2O3-induced oxidative stress and cycle progression in a human intestinal epithelial cell line (Caco-2). Toxicol In Vitro 22(2):444–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2007.11.004
Li C, Kang S, Zhang Q, Gao S, Sharma CM (2011) Heavy metals in sediments of the Yarlung Tsangbo and its connection with the arsenic problem in the Ganges-Brahmaputra Basin. Environ Geochem Health 33(1):23–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-010-9311-0
Liaw J, Marshall G, Yuan Y, Ferreccio C, Steinmaus C, Smith AH (2008) Increased childhood liver cancer mortality and arsenic in drinking water in northern Chile. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 17(8):1982–1987. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-07-2816
Mahmoud AM, Ali MM (2019) Methyl donor micronutrients that modify DNA methylation and cancer outcome. Nutrients 11(3):608
Mandal NK, Biswas R (2004) A study on arsenical dermatosis in rural community of West Bengal. Indian J Public Health 48(1):30–33
Marshall G, Ferreccio C, Yuan Y et al (2007) Fifty-year study of lung and bladder cancer mortality in Chile related to arsenic in drinking water. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(12):920–928. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm004
Mayeux R (2004) Biomarkers: potential uses and limitations. NeuroRx 1(2):182–188. https://doi.org/10.1602/neurorx.1.2.182
Mazumder D (2008) Chronic arsenic toxicity and human health. Indian J Med Res 128:436–447
Minichilli F, Bianchi F, Ronchi AM, Gorini F, Bustaffa E (2018) Urinary arsenic in human samples from areas characterized by natural or anthropogenic pollution in Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020299
Mitra A, Chatterjee S, Gupta D (2019) Environmental arsenic exposure and human health risk. In: Fares A, Singh SK (eds) Arsenic water resources contamination: challenges and solutions. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 103–129
Molin M, Ulven SM, Meltzer HM, Alexander J (2015) Arsenic in the human food chain, biotransformation and toxicology—review focusing on seafood arsenic. J Trace Elements Med Biol 31:249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2015.01.010
Mondal N, Roy P, Das B, Datta J (2011) Chronic arsenic toxicity and it's relation with nutritional status: a case study in Purabasthali-II, Burdwan, West Bengal. Int J Environ Sci 2:1103–1118
Mosaferi M, Mesdaghinia A, Yunesian M (2003) Arsenic occurrence in drinking water of I.R of Iran: the case of Kurdistan Province. In: Proceeding of conference on fate of arsenic in the environment 2003. BUET
Mumford JL, Wu K, Xia Y et al (2007) Chronic arsenic exposure and cardiac repolarization abnormalities with QT interval prolongation in a population-based study. Environ Health Perspect 115(5):690–694. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9686
Neeti K, Prakash T (2013) Effects of heavy metal poisoning during pregnancy. Int Res J Environ Sci 2(1):88–92
Park H-S, Shin K-O, Kim J-S (2007) Assessment of reference values for hair minerals of Korean preschool children. Biol Trace Elem Res 116(2):119–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02685925
Paul MK, Kumar R, Mukhopadhyay AK (2008) Dithiothreitol abrogates the effect of arsenic trioxide on normal rat liver mitochondria and human hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 226(2):140–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2007.09.020
Pelch KE, Tokar EJ, Merrick BA, Waalkes MP (2015) Differential DNA methylation profile of key genes in malignant prostate epithelial cells transformed by inorganic arsenic or cadmium. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 286(3):159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2015.04.011
Pilsner JR, Hall MN, Liu X et al (2011) Associations of plasma selenium with arsenic and genomic methylation of leukocyte DNA in Bangladesh. Environ Health Perspect 119(1):113–118. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1001937
Prakash C, Soni M, Kumar V (2016) Mitochondrial oxidative stress and dysfunction in arsenic neurotoxicity: a review. J Appl Toxicol 36(2):179–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3256
Puchyr RF, Bass DA, Gajewski R et al (1998) Preparation of hair for measurement of elements by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Biol Trace Elem Res 62(3):167–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02783969
Rager JE, Tilley SK, Tulenko SE et al (2015) Identification of novel gene targets and putative regulators of arsenic-associated DNA methylation in human urothelial cells and bladder cancer. Chem Res Toxicol 28(6):1144–1155. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx500393y
Ratnaike RN (2003) Acute and chronic arsenic toxicity. Postgrad Med J 79(933):391–396. https://doi.org/10.1136/pmj.79.933.391
Reuben A, Caspi A, Belsky DW et al (2017) Association of childhood blood lead levels with cognitive function and socioeconomic status at age 38 years and with IQ change and socioeconomic mobility between childhood and adulthoodchildhood blood lead levels, cognitive function, and socioeconomic status in adulthoodchildhood blood lead levels, cognitive function, and socioeconomic status in adulthood. JAMA 317(12):1244–1251. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.1712
Samuel S, Kathirvel R, Jayavelu T, Chinnakkannu P (2005) Protein oxidative damage in arsenic induced rat brain: influence of DL-alpha-lipoic acid. Toxicol Lett 155(1):27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2004.08.001
Sanders AP, Claus Henn B, Wright RO (2015) Perinatal and childhood exposure to cadmium, manganese, and metal mixtures and effects on cognition and behavior: a review of recent literature. Curr Environ Health Rep 2(3):284–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-015-0058-8
Schomburg L, Schweizer U (2009) Hierarchical regulation of selenoprotein expression and sex-specific effects of selenium. Biochem Biophys Acta 1790(11):1453–1462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2009.03.015
Sharma A, Flora SJS (2018) Nutritional management can assist a significant role in alleviation of arsenicosis. J Trace Elem Med Biol 45:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2017.09.010
Shi H, Shi X, Liu KJ (2004) Oxidative mechanism of arsenic toxicity and carcinogenesis. Mol Cell Biochem 255(1–2):67–78. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:mcbi.0000007262.26044.e8
Singh AK (2006) Chemistry of arsenic in groundwater of Ganges-Brahmaputra river basin. Curr Sci 91:599–606
Skröder Löveborn H, Kippler M, Lu Y et al (2016) Arsenic metabolism in children differs from that in adults. Toxicol Sci 152(1):29–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfw060
Smith AH, Lingas EO, Rahman M (2000) Contamination of drinking-water by arsenic in Bangladesh: a public health emergency. Bull World Health Organ 78(9):1093–1103
Smith AH, Marshall G, Yuan Y, Liaw J, Ferreccio C, Steinmaus C (2011) Evidence from Chile that arsenic in drinking water may increase mortality from pulmonary tuberculosis. Am J Epidemiol 173(4):414–420. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwq383
Straif K, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Baan R et al (2009) A review of human carcinogens—part C: metals, arsenic, dusts, and fibres. Lancet Oncol 10(5):453–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70134-2
Sun G, Li X, Pi J et al (2006) Current research problems of chronic arsenicosis in China. J Health Popul Nutr 24(2):176–181
Susan A, Rajendran K, Sathyasivam K, Krishnan UM (2019) An overview of plant-based interventions to ameliorate arsenic toxicity. Biomed Pharmacother 109:838–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2018.10.099
Tippairote T, Temviriyanukul P, Benjapong W, Trachootham D (2016) A pilot case-control study of lead and other hazardous elements in hair samples and risk of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders in Thai children. In: Thai J Toxicology special issue: proceedings of the 7th National Conference in Toxicology (NCT7)
Tippairote T, Temviriyanukul P, Benjapong W, Trachootham D (2017) Hair zinc and severity of symptoms are increased in children with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder: a hair multi-element profile study. Biol Trace Elem Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-0978-2
Tippairote T, Temviriyanukul P, Benjapong W, Trachootham D (2018) Prevalence and factors associated with high levels of aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury in hair samples of well-nourished Thai children in Bangkok and perimeters. Biol Trace Elem Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-018-1435-6
Tippairote T, Karnpanit W, Trachootham D (2019) Sources of arsenic exposure in well-nourished children. In: Fares A, Singh SK (eds) Arsenic water resources contamination: challenges and solutions. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 73–101
Tolins M, Ruchirawat M, Landrigan P (2014) The developmental neurotoxicity of arsenic: cognitive and behavioral consequences of early life exposure. Ann Glob Health 80(4):303–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aogh.2014.09.005
Tsatsakis A, Kouretas D, Tzatzarakis M et al (2017) Simulating real-life exposures to uncover possible risks to human health: a proposed consensus for a novel methodological approach. Hum Exp Toxicol 36(6):554–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0960327116681652
Tsatsakis AM, Vassilopoulou L, Kovatsi L et al (2018) The dose response principle from philosophy to modern toxicology: the impact of ancient philosophy and medicine in modern toxicology science. Toxicol Rep 5:1107–1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2018.10.001
Tsuji JS, Garry MR, Perez V, Chang ET (2015) Low-level arsenic exposure and developmental neurotoxicity in children: a systematic review and risk assessment. Toxicology 337:91–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2015.09.002
Vahter M (2002) Mechanism of arsenic biotransformation. Toxicology 27:181–182
Vahter M (2008) Health effects of early life exposure to arsenic. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 102(2):204–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2007.00168.x
Vahter M, Concha G (2001) Role of metabolism in arsenic toxicity. Pharmacol Toxicol 89(1):1–5
van Ommen B, Cavallieri D, Roche HM, Klein UI, Daniel H (2008) The challenges for molecular nutrition research 4: the "nutritional systems biology level". Genes Nutr 3(3–4):107–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12263-008-0090-5
van Ommen B, El-Sohemy A, Hesketh J et al (2010) The Micronutrient Genomics Project: a community-driven knowledge base for micronutrient research. Genes Nutr 5(4):285–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12263-010-0192-8
WHO (2018) Arsenic. In: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/arsenic Accessed 19 Jul 2018
Yamauchi H, Takahashi K, Mashiko M, Yamamura Y (1989) Biological monitoring of arsenic exposure of gallium arsenide- and inorganic arsenic-exposed workers by determination of inorganic arsenic and its metabolites in urine and hair. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 50(11):606–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668991375236
Yuan Y, Marshall G, Ferreccio C et al (2010) Kidney cancer mortality: fifty-year latency patterns related to arsenic exposure. Epidemiology 21(1):103–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c21e46
Zarazua S, Burger S, Delgado JM, Jimenez-Capdeville ME, Schliebs R (2011) Arsenic affects expression and processing of amyloid precursor protein (APP) in primary neuronal cells overexpressing the Swedish mutation of human APP. Int J Dev Neurosci 29(4):389–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2011.03.004
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bjørklund, G., Tippairote, T., Rahaman, M.S. et al. Developmental toxicity of arsenic: a drift from the classical dose–response relationship. Arch Toxicol 94, 67–75 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02628-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02628-x