Biomarkers · Electrolytes & Minerals

Blood Lead

Lower values go with lower risk of death. Not measured in our NHANES panel. The curve is drawn from the published study (source below).

Blood Lead and risk of death

Published curve higher than the NHANES fitNHANES fit higher

Risk of death relative to the curve's reference value, drawn from the published study (source below).

Published risk of death1.37×blood lead 6.7 vs 1.0 ug/dL (90th vs 10th percentile) (95% CI 1.17–1.60) · NHANES III adults aged 20 years or older (1988-1994), followed to 2011, USA

Blood Lead by age and sex

Each bar runs from the 5th to the 95th percentile, the darker part from the 25th to the 75th, and the tick is the median. Not a reference range or a target.

The percentiles as a table

Each row is one sex and age band: the values below which 5%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 95% of people fall (ug/dL), from the survey named in the row. Not a reference range or a target.
Sex	Age	5th	25th	Median	75th	95th	n	Cycle / source
All	20-39	0.24	0.42	0.57	0.92	1.86	1,452	NHANES 2017-2018
All	40-59	0.32	0.56	0.86	1.37	2.76	1,585	NHANES 2017-2018
All	60+	0.48	0.85	1.18	1.71	3.15	1,937	NHANES 2017-2018
All	all	0.29	0.53	0.85	1.35	2.64	4,974	NHANES 2017-2018
Men	20-39	0.31	0.50	0.72	1.13	2.21	697	NHANES 2017-2018
Men	40-59	0.40	0.63	0.97	1.46	2.99	741	NHANES 2017-2018
Men	60+	0.54	0.93	1.33	2.03	3.71	979	NHANES 2017-2018
Men	all	0.38	0.62	0.98	1.48	3.06	2,417	NHANES 2017-2018
Women	20-39	0.21	0.34	0.48	0.71	1.30	755	NHANES 2017-2018
Women	40-59	0.28	0.51	0.76	1.27	2.38	844	NHANES 2017-2018
Women	60+	0.43	0.78	1.09	1.59	2.48	958	NHANES 2017-2018
Women	all	0.26	0.47	0.74	1.19	2.22	2,557	NHANES 2017-2018

What studies found when this marker was changed

They describe what happened in those study groups, not a recommendation. See all catalogued interventions.

Measured changes in Blood Lead, study by study

2 effects with a numeric size, each from one study arm: the dot is the reported change, the line its 95% interval where one was given. Green points move the marker the way lower risk of death lies; amber the other way. Study results in the groups studied, not predictions for a person.

Each row is one study: what was changed, the effect it reported on this marker, and the source.
Type	Intervention	Reported effect	Evidence	Source
behavioral	Educational programmes on lead hygiene for workers with high baseline blood lead, long-term follow-up	Blood lead fell 8.08 ug/dL (95% CI 3.67 to 12.49) from before to after education at long-term follow-up; 2 studies, n=69; duration not stated	systematic review	Allaouat S, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;8(8):CD013097.
supplement	Dietary calcium 1,200 mg daily vs placebo from the first trimester in pregnant women in Mexico City	Blood lead 0.4 ug/dL (11%) lower with calcium vs placebo through pregnancy (p = 0.004), duration not stated; n=557 analysed	RCT	Ettinger AS, et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(1):26-31.

What else moves this marker

They describe those study groups, not an individual, and an association is not a cause.

Diseases and conditions

Each row is one study: what it compared and the change it reported in this marker.
What	Effect on the marker	Comparison · population	Source
↑ Spontaneous abortion / recurrent pregnancy loss · Blood lead in women with abortion (SA or RPL) vs normal pregnant women	SMD +1.47 (95% CI 0.89 to 2.05)	Women with abortion vs normal pregnant women · Women with spontaneous abortion or recurrent pregnancy loss vs normal pregnancy	meta analysis · PMID 37711903

Environmental and occupational exposures

Each row is one study: what it compared and the change it reported in this marker.
What	Effect on the marker	Comparison · population	Source
↑ Lead exposure (occupational/environmental), exposed vs non-exposed · Blood lead level, lead-exposed vs non-exposed adults (pooled WMD, 17 studies)	+25.5 ug/dL (95% CI 18.59 to 32.45)	Lead-exposed vs non-exposed participants · Middle-aged adults in lead-related occupations or environmentally exposed; 17 studies for BLL	meta analysis · PMID 33920861
↑ Rural residence in Mexico (lead-glazed pottery use) vs urban · Geometric-mean blood lead, rural vs urban Mexican populations (literature 1978-2010)	ratio 2.51	Rural GM 22.24 ug/dL vs urban GM 8.85 ug/dL; ratio of geometric means · 83 articles, 150 data points, >50,000 Mexican study participants	meta analysis · PMID 25459328

Sources

Risk curve: Lanphear 2018 (PMID 29544878): all-cause HR 1.37 (1.17-1.6) blood lead 6.7 vs 1.0 ug/dL (90th vs 10th percentile). Scaled to US values (NHANES).
Lanphear et al. Low-level lead exposure and mortality in US adults: a population-based cohort study. The Lancet. Public health. 2018;3:e177-e184.

Map Blood Lead against another biomarker.

Map Blood Lead against another marker