3.1 Characteristics of the participants
As shown in Table 1, among the 540 participants, the mean age was 39.1 years and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 24.8 kg/m². The majority of participants were cohabiting (86.3%) and belonged to ethnic minority groups (63.9%). Regarding educational attainment, 71.3% had completed secondary education or higher. In terms of household monthly income, 63.5% of participants earned between ¥3,000 and ¥5,000. More than half of the participants were current smokers (54.4%) and reported alcohol consumption (60.4%).
Table 1 Baseline Characteristics of Study Population(n = 540)
Characteristic
|
Mean ± SD or n (%)
|
Age (years)
|
39.09±6.69
|
BMI
|
24.82±3.54
|
Marital status
|
|
Living without a spouse
|
74 (13.7)
|
Living with a spouse
|
466 (86.3)
|
Ethnicity
|
|
Han
|
195 (36.1)
|
National minority
|
345(63.9)
|
Education level
|
|
Junior high school and below
|
155 (28.7)
|
High school and above
|
385 (71.3)
|
Income
|
|
<3000(CNY)
|
128 (23.7)
|
3000-5000(CNY)
|
343 (63.5)
|
>5000(CNY)
|
69 (12.8)
|
Smoking
|
|
No
|
246 (45.6)
|
Yes
|
394 (54.4)
|
Drinking
|
|
No
|
213 (39.4)
|
Yes
|
326 (60.4)
|
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index is measured and defined as weight (kg)/height (m)2; Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± SD; Categorical variables were presented as n (%); CNY, Chinese yuan.
3.2 Correlation Among Metal Concentrations
As shown in Figure. S1, significant correlations were observed among most serum metals, with correlation coefficients (r) ranging from −0.27 to 0.62 (all P < 0.05). Strong positive correlations were noted between Zn and Se (r = 0.53), Zn and Cr (r = 0.47), Se and Cr (r = 0.52), V and Ti (r = 0.62), and Cr and Ti (r = 0.55). Cu exhibited significant positive correlations with Se (r = 0.37) and Cr (r = 0.36). Mo showed a positive correlation with Hg (r = 0.18) and a negative correlation with Fe (r = −0.14). Sr demonstrated positive correlations with Ba (r = 0.53) and Sb (r = 0.41). In contrast, Tl displayed negative correlations with Ba (r = −0.27), Sb (r = −0.18), and Sr (r = −0.13).
3.3 LASSO Regression Screening for Primary Metals Associated with Blood Pressure
To optimise model performance and identify metals significantly associated with blood pressure, LASSO regression was applied for variable selection. As shown in Figure. S2, the left panel displays the coefficient paths, and the right panel presents the cross-validation curve used to determine the optimal λ value for predicting SBP(a–b) and DBP(c–d). With increasing λ, most variable coefficients gradually approached zero. Ultimately, Cu, Mo, and Sr were selected as the key variables in both SBP and DBP models.
3.4 Association between Major Metal Concentrations and Blood Pressure (GLM)
Table 2 summarises the associations between Cu, Mo, and Sr concentrations and blood pressure based on the GLM analysis. In both the single-metal (Model 1) and multi-metal (Model 2) analyses, Cu showed a significant positive association with SBP (Model 2: β = 21.83, 95% CI: 5.74–38.19, P = 0.009). In contrast, Mo demonstrated significant negative associations with both SBP (Model 2: β = −8.97, 95% CI: −16.90 to −1.03, P = 0.027) and DBP (Model 2: β = −6.75, 95% CI: −12.45 to −1.06, P = 0.020). Although Sr was significantly associated with blood pressure in the single-metal analysis, this relationship was no longer significant after adjustment for other metals in the multi-metal model.
Table 2 Associations between Cu, Mo, and Sr Concentrations and Blood Pressure
Metals
|
SBP
|
DBP
|
β (95% CI)
|
P value
|
β (95% CI)
|
P value
|
Model1
|
|
|
|
|
Cu
|
23.48 (7.66, 39.30)
|
0.004
|
8.54 (-2.81, 19.89)
|
0.140
|
Mo
|
-8.02 (-16.01, -0.23)
|
0.049
|
-6.39 (-12.09, -0.69)
|
0.028
|
Sr
|
10.91 (0.53, 21.28)
|
0.039
|
5.28 (-2.13, 12.70)
|
0.163
|
Model 2
|
|
|
|
|
Cu
|
21.83 (5.47, 38.19)
|
0.009
|
7.89 (-3.85, 19.62)
|
0.188
|
Mo
|
-8.97 (-16.90, -1.03)
|
0.027
|
-6.75 (-12.45, -1.06)
|
0.020
|
Sr
|
7.38 (-3.29, 18.01)
|
0.176
|
4.10 (-3.55, 11.74
|
0.294
|
Note: Model 1 represents the single-metal GLM analysis; Model 2 represents the multi-metal GLM analysis. Both models were adjusted for age, BMI, marital status, ethnicity, education level, income, smoking and drinking. All metal concentrations were log₁₀-transformed prior to analysis.
3.5 BKMR Analysis
The BKMR model was applied to further assess the combined effects of Cu, Mo, and Sr on blood pressure, with all covariates adjusted. Figure. S3 displays the exposure–response functions for individual metals in relation to SBP and DBP. Cu and Sr showed positive linear associations with both SBP and DBP, whereas Mo exhibited negative linear associations with both outcomes. Figure. 1 illustrates the component effects of the three metals. Cu was positively associated with SBP, while Mo showed a negative association with SBP (Figure. 1a). Similarly, Mo was negatively associated with DBP, particularly when concentrations of other metals were fixed at low or median quantiles (Figure. 1b).
Analysis of the overall mixture effects revealed no significant association between combined metal exposure and blood pressure (Figure. 2), and no evident interactions among metals (Figure. S4). Within the mixture, Cu and Mo were identified as the primary contributors to SBP (PIP = 0.390 and 0.221, respectively), whereas Mo was the major contributor to DBP (PIP = 0.365) (Table S1). Overall, the BKMR results were consistent with those from the GLM analysis, supporting the robustness of the observed associations.
3.6 RCS Analysis
Figure. S5 illustrates the dose–response relationships between Cu and Mo exposure levels and blood pressure, modelled using the RCS method. The number of spline knots was automatically determined based on the minimum Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) to achieve optimal model fit. Figures. S5 (a, c, e, g) present single-metal models adjusted for all covariates, while Figures. S5 (b, d, f, h) depict multi-metal models further adjusted for Cu, Mo, and Sr after covariate adjustment. Results showed that Cu levels exhibited a significant linear positive association with SBP (P for overall = 0.012 and 0.026) (Figures. S5-a,b), whereas associations with DBP were not statistically significant (P for overall = 0.150 and 0.181) (Figures. S5-c,d). Conversely, elevated Mo levels demonstrated linear negative associations with both SBP (P for overall = 0.080 and 0.064) and DBP (P for overall = 0.051 and 0.047) (Figures. S5-e, f, g, h). Although some individual associations did not reach statistical significance, the overall negative trends for Mo approached or achieved significance.
3.7 Association between Major Metal Concentrations and GGT (GLM)
Table 3 summarises the associations between Cu, Mo and Sr concentrations and GGT. In the single-metal model (Model 1), Cu exhibited a significant positive correlation with GGT (β = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.96, P < 0.001), Mo showed a significant negative correlation (β = −0.19, 95% CI: −0.32 to −0.07, P = 0.003), and Sr displayed a significant positive correlation (β = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.42, P = 0.002). In the multi-metal model (Model 2), the positive association between Cu and GGT remained significant (β = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.94, P < 0.001), as did the negative association between Mo and GGT (β = −0.22, 95% CI: −0.34 to −0.10, P < 0.001), whereas the association between Sr and GGT lost statistical significance. Furthermore, in the multivariate GLM including all 17 metals, only Cu and Mo maintained statistically significant associations with GGT, whereas Sr continued to show no significant relationship ( Table S2).
Table 3 Correlation between Cu, Mo and Sr Concentrations and GGT
Metals
|
GGT
|
β (95% CI)
|
P value
|
Model1
|
|
|
Cu
|
0.71 (0.46, 0.96)
|
<0.001
|
Mo
|
-0.19 (-0.32, -0.07)
|
0.003
|
Sr
|
0.26 (0.09, 0.42)
|
0.002
|
Model 2
|
|
|
Cu
|
0.69 (0.43, 0.94)
|
<0.001
|
Mo
|
-0.22 (-0.34, -0.10)
|
<0.001
|
Sr
|
0.14 (-0.02, 0.31)
|
0.090
|
Note: Model 1 represents the single-metal GLM analysis; Model 2 represents the multi-metal GLM analysis. Both models were adjusted for age, BMI, marital status, ethnicity, education level, income, smoking and drinking. All metal and GGT concentrations were log₁₀-transformed prior to analysis.
3.8 Association between GGT and Blood Pressure (GLM)
Table 4 presents the associations between GGT concentrations and blood pressure levels. After adjusting for all covariates, GGT concentrations showed significant positive associations with both SBP (β= 12.21, 95% CI: 6.93 to17.30, P < 0.001) and DBP (β = 10.88, 95% CI: 7.23 to14.54, P < 0.001).
Table 4 Correlation between GGT Concentration and Blood Pressure Levels
Variables
|
SBP
|
DBP
|
β (95% CI)
|
P value
|
β (95% CI)
|
P value
|
GGT
|
12.12 (6.93, 17.30)
|
<0.001
|
10.88 (7.23, 14.54)
|
<0.001
|
Note: The models were adjusted for age, BMI, marital status, ethnicity, education level, income, smoking and drinking. GGT concentrations were log₁₀-transformed prior to analysis.
3.9 Mediational Analysis
Based on the linear regression results, mediation analysis was performed to evaluate the potential mediating role of GGT in the associations of Cu and Mo with blood pressure outcomes (Figure. 3). Figure. 3(a-c) show the results of the single-metal models after adjusting for all covariates. In these models, Cu demonstrated a significant indirect effect on SBP (β= 7.721, 95% CI: 3.271 to12.891, P < 0.001) with a mediation proportion of 32.7%. Similarly, Mo exhibited a significant indirect effect on SBP via GGT (β= −2.236, 95% CI: −4.155 to −0.684, P = 0.002) with a mediation proportion of 27.56%, and an indirect effect on DBP with a mediation proportion of 31.56%. Figure. 3(d-f) display the results from the multi-metal model, which additionally adjusted for Cu, Mo, and Sr after controlling for all covariates. In this model, Cu’s indirect effect on SBP through GGT remained significant (β= 6.831, 95% CI: 2.717 to 12.116, P < 0.001), corresponding to a mediation proportion of 30.96%. Meanwhile, the mediation proportions of Mo via GGT for SBP and DBP were 24.28% and 33.40%, respectively.