Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Davis, B. J.
Right arrow Articles by Morgan, D. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Davis, B. J.
Right arrow Articles by Morgan, D. L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Toxicological Sciences 59, 291-296 (2001)
Copyright © 2001 by the Society of Toxicology


REPRODUCTIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICOLOGY

Mercury Vapor and Female Reproductive Toxicity

B. J. Davis*,1, H. C. Price{dagger}, R. W. O'Connor{dagger}, R. Fernando{ddagger}, A. S. Rowland* and D. L. Morgan*

* National Institute of Environmental Sciences, MD A2-01, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709; {dagger} ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709; and {ddagger} Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709

Epidemiological studies finding menstrual cycle abnormalities among women occupationally exposed to Hg° prompted us to investigate the mechanisms of reproductive toxicity of Hg° in the female rat. Nose-only Hg° vapor inhalation exposures were conducted on regularly cycling rats 80–90 days of age in dose-response and acute time-course studies, which have previously proven useful as a model to identify ovarian toxicants. Vaginal smears were evaluated daily and serum hormone levels were correlated with cycle and with ovarian morphology at necropsy. Exposure concentration–related effects of Hg° were evaluated by exposing rats to 0, 1, 2, or 4 mg/m3 Hg° vapor 2 h/day for 11 consecutive days. Tissue Hg levels correlated with exposure concentration and duration. Exposure of rats to 4 mg/m3 (but not 1 or 2 mg/m3) Hg vapor for 11 days resulted in significant decreases in body weights relative to controls. Estrous cycles were slightly prolonged in the 2 and 4 mg/m3 dose groups, and serum estradiol and progesterone levels were significantly different in the 4 mg/m3 group compared to controls. The alterations in cycle and hormones at the 4 mg/m3 exposure concentration were attributed to body weight loss and generalized toxicity. In the time-course study, rats were exposed to 2 mg/m3 Hg° or air beginning in metestrus and evaluated daily for 8 days. A lengthening of the cycle was detected and morphological changes were observed in the corpora lutea (CL) after exposure for 6 days. To determine if changes in the CL and cyclicity correlated with a functional defect, rats were exposed to Hg° vapor and evaluated for pregnancy outcome. There were no significant effects on pregnancy rate or numbers of implantation sites when rats were exposed to 1 or 2 mg/m3 Hg° for 8 days prior to breeding, or when exposed for 8 days after breeding. These studies indicate that exposure to Hg° vapor altered estrous cyclicity, but had no significant effect on ovulation, implantation, or maintenance of first pregnancy during exposure of short duration in female rats.

Key Words: mercury vapor; menstrual cycle; female reproductive toxicity..


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum Exp ToxicolHome page
L. Jones, J. Bunnell, and J. Stillman
A 30-year follow-up of residual effects on New Zealand School Dental Nurses, from occupational mercury exposure
Human and Experimental Toxicology, April 1, 2007; 26(4): 367 - 375.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.