Literature DB >> 17030369

Biomonitoring equivalents: a screening approach for interpreting biomonitoring results from a public health risk perspective.

S M Hays1, R A Becker, H W Leung, L L Aylward, D W Pyatt.   

Abstract

Advances in both sensitivity and specificity of analytical chemistry have made it possible to quantify substances in human biological specimens, such as blood, urine, and breast milk, in specimen volumes that are practical for collection from individuals. Research laboratories led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in its series National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2005. Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570.] are dedicating substantial resources to designing and conducting human biomonitoring studies and compiling biomonitoring data for the general population. However, the ability to quantitatively interpret the results of human biomonitoring in the context of a health risk assessment currently lags behind the analytical chemist's ability to make such measurements. The traditional paradigm for human health risk assessment of environmental chemicals involves comparing estimated daily doses to health-based criteria for acceptable, safe, or tolerable daily intakes (for example, reference doses [RfDs], tolerable daily intakes [TDIs], or minimal risk levels [MRLs]) to assess whether estimated doses exceed such health screening levels. However, biomonitoring efforts result in measured chemical concentrations in biological specimens (the result of absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of administered doses) rather than estimated intake doses. Quantitative benchmarks of acceptable or safe concentrations in biological specimens (analogous to RfDs, TDIs, or MRLs) needed to interpret these levels exist for very few chemicals of environmental interest. This paper discusses issues inherent in converting existing health screening benchmarks based on intake doses to screening levels for evaluating biomonitoring data, and presents methods and approaches that can be used to derive such screening levels (termed "Biomonitoring Equivalents," or BEs) for a range of chemicals and biological media.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17030369     DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.08.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol        ISSN: 0273-2300            Impact factor:   3.271


  28 in total

Review 1.  Pooled biological specimens for human biomonitoring of environmental chemicals: opportunities and limitations.

Authors:  Amy L Heffernan; Lesa L Aylward; Leisa-Maree L Toms; Peter D Sly; Matthew Macleod; Jochen F Mueller
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 5.563

2.  Reconstructing population exposures to environmental chemicals from biomarkers: challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Panos G Georgopoulos; Alan F Sasso; Sastry S Isukapalli; Paul J Lioy; Daniel A Vallero; Miles Okino; Larry Reiter
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2008-03-26       Impact factor: 5.563

3.  Litigating Toxic Risks Ahead of Regulation: Biomonitoring Science in the Courtroom.

Authors:  Laura Hall; Alastair Iles; Rachel Morello-Frosch
Journal:  Stanf Environ Law J       Date:  2012-03

4.  Consensus Modeling of Median Chemical Intake for the U.S. Population Based on Predictions of Exposure Pathways.

Authors:  Caroline L Ring; Jon A Arnot; Deborah H Bennett; Peter P Egeghy; Peter Fantke; Lei Huang; Kristin K Isaacs; Olivier Jolliet; Katherine A Phillips; Paul S Price; Hyeong-Moo Shin; John N Westgate; R Woodrow Setzer; John F Wambaugh
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2018-12-24       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  Recommendations for biomonitoring of emergency responders: focus on occupational health investigations and occupational health research.

Authors:  John A Decker; D Gayle DeBord; Bruce Bernard; G Scott Dotson; John Halpin; Cynthia J Hines; Max Kiefer; Kyle Myers; Elena Page; Paul Schulte; John Snawder
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.437

6.  Incorporating regulatory guideline values in analysis of epidemiology data.

Authors:  Chris Gennings; Huan Shu; Christina Rudén; Mattias Öberg; Christian Lindh; Hannu Kiviranta; Carl-Gustaf Bornehag
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 9.621

Review 7.  Biomonitoring data for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in the United States and Canada: interpretation in a public health risk assessment context using Biomonitoring Equivalents.

Authors:  Lesa L Aylward; Marsha K Morgan; Tye E Arbuckle; Dana B Barr; Carol J Burns; Bruce H Alexander; Sean M Hays
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Factors and Trends Affecting the Identification of a Reliable Biomarker for Diesel Exhaust Exposure.

Authors:  David A Morgott
Journal:  Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 12.561

Review 9.  Nanotechnology-based electrochemical sensors for biomonitoring chemical exposures.

Authors:  Richard C Barry; Yuehe Lin; Jun Wang; Guodong Liu; Charles A Timchalk
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2008-11-19       Impact factor: 5.563

10.  Exposure as part of a systems approach for assessing risk.

Authors:  Linda S Sheldon; Elaine A Cohen Hubal
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2009-04-08       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.