Literature DB >> 18579271

Guidelines for the communication of Biomonitoring Equivalents: report from the Biomonitoring Equivalents Expert Workshop.

Judy S LaKind1, Lesa L Aylward, Conrad Brunk, Stephen DiZio, Michael Dourson, Daniel A Goldstein, Michael E Kilpatrick, Daniel Krewski, Michael J Bartels, Hugh A Barton, Peter J Boogaard, John Lipscomb, Kannan Krishnan, Monica Nordberg, Miles Okino, Yu-Mei Tan, Claude Viau, Janice W Yager, Sean M Hays.   

Abstract

Biomonitoring Equivalents (BEs) are screening tools for interpreting biomonitoring data. However, the development of BEs brings to the public a relatively novel concept in the field of health risk assessment and presents new challenges for environmental risk communication. This paper provides guidance on methods for conveying information to the general public, the health care community, regulators and other interested parties regarding how chemical-specific BEs are derived, what they mean in terms of health, and the challenges and questions related to interpretation and communication of biomonitoring data. Key communication issues include: (i) developing a definition of the BE that accurately captures the BE concept in lay terms, (ii) how to compare population biomonitoring data to BEs, (iii) interpreting biomonitoring data that exceed BEs for a specific chemical, (iv) how to best describe the confidence in chemical-specific BEs, and (v) key requirements for effective communication with health care professionals. While the risk communication literature specific to biomonitoring is sparse, many of the concepts developed for traditional risk assessments apply, including transparency and discussions of confidence and uncertainty. Communication of BEs will require outreach, education, and development of communication materials specific to several audiences including the lay public and health care providers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18579271     DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.05.007

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


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  Maternal perspectives on the return of genetic results: context matters.

Authors:  Kimberley D Lakes; Elaine Vaughan; Amy Lemke; Marissa Jones; Timothy Wigal; Dean Baker; James M Swanson; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2012-12-13       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Comprehension and perceptions of study participants upon receiving perfluoroalkyl substance exposure biomarker results.

Authors:  Courtney M Giannini; Robert L Herrick; Jeanette M Buckholz; Alex R Daniels; Frank M Biro; Susan M Pinney
Journal:  Int J Hyg Environ Health       Date:  2018-07-17       Impact factor: 5.840

4.  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 5.  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

6.  Evaluation of biomonitoring data from the CDC National Exposure Report in a risk assessment context: perspectives across chemicals.

Authors:  Lesa L Aylward; Christopher R Kirman; Rita Schoeny; Christopher J Portier; Sean M Hays
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2012-12-11       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  Development of screening tools for the interpretation of chemical biomonitoring data.

Authors:  Richard A Becker; Sean M Hays; Steven Robison; Lesa L Aylward
Journal:  J Toxicol       Date:  2012-02-16

Review 8.  Uses of NHANES Biomarker Data for Chemical Risk Assessment: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities.

Authors:  Jon R Sobus; Robert S DeWoskin; Yu-Mei Tan; Joachim D Pleil; Martin Blake Phillips; Barbara Jane George; Krista Christensen; Dina M Schreinemachers; Marc A Williams; Elaine A Cohen Hubal; Stephen W Edwards
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Biomonitoring Human Albumin Adducts: The Past, the Present, and the Future.

Authors:  Gabriele Sabbioni; Robert J Turesky
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2016-12-18       Impact factor: 3.739

Review 10.  Advancing human health risk assessment: integrating recent advisory committee recommendations.

Authors:  Michael Dourson; Richard A Becker; Lynne T Haber; Lynn H Pottenger; Tiffany Bredfeldt; Penelope A Fenner-Crisp
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 5.635

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.