Literature DB >> 30146177

Human biomonitoring reference values: Differences and similarities between approaches for identifying unusually high exposure of pollutants in humans.

Nina Vogel1, André Conrad2, Petra Apel2, Enrico Rucic2, Marike Kolossa-Gehring2.   

Abstract

In exposure and risk assessment, the indication of unusually high exposure levels in humans to chemicals has been considered as an important objective for decades. To realize this objective, reference values (RV) need to be derived. However, while there is a tendency towards using the 95th percentile as a basis for deriving these reference values there is still no consensus. Moreover, side approaches have evolved including deriving RVs based on other percentiles, reporting multiple RVs or only reporting percentiles. The purpose of this article is to give an overview of the current literature, to point out differences and similarities between existing approaches, and to highlight important criteria for the derivation of RVs. We observe the majority of studies to base RVs on the 95th percentile and its 95% confidence interval which can been justified by statistical paradigms, present arguments for a single defined reference value, and discuss characteristics which call for more consistency. To conclude, our overview provides a first step towards a more homogenous and standardized derivation procedure to identify unusually high exposures in exposure science.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Entities:  

Keywords:  High exposure; Human biomonitoring; Pollutants; RV; Reference value

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30146177     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.08.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Hyg Environ Health        ISSN: 1438-4639            Impact factor:   5.840


  7 in total

1.  Health Risk Assessment of Trace Metals Through Breast Milk Consumption in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  Iman Al-Saleh
Journal:  Biol Trace Elem Res       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 3.738

2. 

Authors: 
Journal:  Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 1.595

3.  Concept for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Substances in Population-Based Human Biomonitoring.

Authors:  Klaus-Michael Wollin; Petra Apel; Yvonni Chovolou; Ulrike Pabel; Thomas Schettgen; Marike Kolossa-Gehring; Claudia Röhl; On Behalf Of The Human Biomonitoring Commission Of The German Environment Agency
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 4.614

4.  The reference values in the interpretation of toxicological data.

Authors:  Ivo Iavicoli; Veruscka Leso; Luca Fontana
Journal:  Med Lav       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 1.275

5.  Italian Children Exposure to Bisphenol A: Biomonitoring Data from the LIFE PERSUADED Project.

Authors:  Sabrina Tait; Fabrizia Carli; Luca Busani; Demetrio Ciociaro; Veronica Della Latta; Annalisa Deodati; Enrica Fabbrizi; Anna Paola Pala; Francesca Maranghi; Roberta Tassinari; Giacomo Toffol; Stefano Cianfarani; Amalia Gastaldelli; Cinzia La Rocca
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Using Human Biomonitoring Data to Support Risk Assessment of Cosmetic Ingredients-A Case Study of Benzophenone-3.

Authors:  Christophe Rousselle; Matthieu Meslin; Tamar Berman; Marjolijn Woutersen; Wieneke Bil; Jenna Wildeman; Qasim Chaudhry
Journal:  Toxics       Date:  2022-02-19

7.  Impacts of dietary exposure to pesticides on faecal microbiome metabolism in adult twins.

Authors:  Robin Mesnage; Ruth C E Bowyer; Souleiman El Balkhi; Franck Saint-Marcoux; Arnaud Gardere; Quinten Raymond Ducarmon; Anoecim Robecca Geelen; Romy Daniëlle Zwittink; Dimitris Tsoukalas; Evangelia Sarandi; Efstathia I Paramera; Timothy Spector; Claire J Steves; Michael N Antoniou
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 7.123

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.