Home | About this site / SAC |About EHRF |Contact Us
 

 

Studies

International Journal of Toxicology, February 2007, The “Low Dose” Hypothesis: Validity and Implications for Human Risk. An article by BiomonitoringInfo.org Science Advisory Council member Michael A. Kamrin addresses a hypothesis that has been used to suggest that the low levels of environmental chemicals typically observed in biomonitoring studies may be having an effect on human health. The review examines both recent and older studies that have been cited to support the hypothesis and concludes that “these ‘low dose’ effects have yet to be established, that the studies purported to support these cannot be validly extrapolated to humans, and the doses at which the studies have been performed are significantly higher than the levels to which humans are exposed.” (Full text available online to subscribers or for a fee.) EMAIL THIS

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, February 2007, Biomonitoring equivalents: screening approach for interpreting biomonitoring results from a public health risk perspective. An article by S.M. Hays, R.A. Becker, H.W. Leung, L.L. Aylward and D. W. Pyatt discusses how the ability to make health risk assessments lags behind the analytic chemist's ability to quantify minute substances in human biological specimens, such as blood, urine and breast milk. The paper discusses the issues in converting existing safe exposure levels, which are based on intake doses from laboratory animal studies, to the exposure levels, such as parts per billion in blood, provided by biomonitoring studies. The paper 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). (Full text available online to subscribers or for a fee.)  EMAIL THIS

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, January 2007, Reporting results of biomonitoring studies. Feature article by W.G. Foster (Biomonitoringinfo.org Science Advisory Council member) and John Agzarian reviews communications strategies used in biomonitoring studies and presents an approach for communication of results to study participants. The authors conclude that "the information communicated must inform the recipient about their exposure and contain sufficient evidence-based information to appropriately guide decisions about changes in behavior or the need to seek medical intervention, if warranted. For most chemicals, however, data is incomplete making determination of health risks an uncertain process." (Full text available online to subscribers or for a fee.) EMAIL THIS

Environmental Health Perspectives, November 2006, Spheres of Influence: Setting a Baseline for Biomonitoring. The cover art, a FOCUS section on "Signs of the Times: Biomarkers in Perspective," and seven research papers highlight the findings of the 2004 International Biomonitoring Workshop. Of these, the paper by Albertini et al. summarizes the lessons learned while the other papers present case studies of biomonitoring results on six chemical classes. EMAIL THIS

McLaughlin Centre for Population Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa, October 17, 2006, Workshop Proceedings on Understanding Human Biomonitoring. Report on an Oct. 5 workshop at the University of Ottawa's McLaughlin Centre at which representatives of academic institutions, government agencies, industry and NGOs discussed ways "to increase the understanding of human biomonitoring and the importance of robust study designs, scientifically sound interpretations of results and effective communication of new results." Presentation topics included Health Canada's biomonitoring program, the information resources on Biomonitoringinfo.org, and the challenges of interpreting biomonitoring data. EMAIL THIS

Toxicological Sciences, September 2006, Strategic Biomonitoring Initiatives: Moving the Science Forward. Paper by eight academic, government and industry scientists (Jürgen Angerer, Michael G. Bird, Thomas A. Burke, Nancy G. Doerrer, Larry Needham, Steven H. Robison, Linda Sheldon and Hal Zenick) presenting perspectives from speakers at a session on "Integration of Biomonitoring Exposure Data into the Risk Assessment Process" at the January 2006 annual meeting of the International Life Sciences Institute's (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute. Acknowledging the vast array of data now available from biomonitoring programs in the U.S. and Europe, the session speakers noted that "better estimates of biological concentrations of substances in the tissues of human populations can be combined with other exposure indices, as well as epidemiological and toxicologic data, to improve risk estimates. With this type of combined data, the potential exists to define exposure levels at which hazard and risk are of minimal concern." Other topics discussed include limitations in interpreting biomonitoring data and the importance of communicating the significance of the data to the public. (Full text available online for a fee.) EMAIL THIS

Environmental Health Perspectives, August 2006, Biomonitoring and Biomarkers: Exposure Assessment Will Never Be the Same. Journal article by Dennis Paustenbach and David Galbraith discusses the implications for biomonitoring and exposure assessment of modern analytic technology that now makes it possible to measure almost any chemical present in the human body. The authors note that "biomonitoring data, by themselves, are not informative in helping consumers understand their individual health risk." In addressing the challenge of how scientists can best communicate the results of studies to the public, they recommend that "these data be carefully interpreted, with the goal of establishing baseline exposure information, rather than creating surrogates for conclusions about human health risk." EMAIL THIS

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, July 24, 2006, Human Biomonitoring for Environmental Chemicals. A committee of the National Academy of Sciences reviews current practices on biomonitoring and recommends ways to improve the interpretation and uses of human biomonitoring data. The report may be read online for free, a prepublication copy (pdf) can be downloaded for a fee, or the report purchased for later delivery. Reporters seeking further information and perspective may contact Biomonitoringinfo.org by clicking on "Biomonitoring Experts for Journalists." EMAIL THIS

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, April 2006, Biomonitoring: Is body burden relevant to public health? Journal article by Dennis Paustenbach and David Galbraith reviews the history of biomonitoring and the limitations and potential benefits of these studies. The authors conclude that: "Overall, we recommend an approach of careful interpretation, understanding that the data obtained are useful for establishing baseline information about exposure, rather than equating detection with risk. We present suggestions for contextualizing biomonitoring results in order to provide the public with the tools to distinguish genuine health risks from trivial ones." (Full text available online to subscribers or for a fee.) EMAIL THIS

International Journal of Andrology, February 2006, Human exposure assessment to environmental chemicals using biomonitoring. Five U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientists (Antonio M. Calafat, Xiaoyun Ye, Manori J. Silva, Zsuzsanna Kuklenyik, and Larry L. Needham) provide an overview on the use of biomonitoring in human exposure assessment. The authors discuss "factors relevant for interpreting and understanding biomonitoring data, including selection of both biomarkers of exposure and human matrices, and toxicokinetic information." (Full text available online to subscribers or for a fee.) EMAIL THIS

Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, October 22, 2005. Overview: Technical Workshop on Human Milk Surveillance and Biomonitoring for Environmental Chemicals in the United States. Report on a panel of experts led by Cheston M. Berlin, Jr., MD, and Judy S. LaKind, Ph.D., that "explored issues related to the use of human milk biomonitoring for environmental chemicals (including a wide range of chemicals to which women may be exposed -- industrial chemicals, chemicals in personal care and home/yard products, pharmaceuticals, and recreational and illicit drugs) for understanding human exposure and health, and evaluating and communicating possible health risk." Following up a 2002 workshop on the same subject, the expert panel at this second workshop in September 2004 concluded that the mere presence of environmental chemicals in human milk does not necessarily indicate health risks for infants, emphasized the positive value of breast-feeding for infants and identified a number of recommendations for future research. (See also Washington Post, October 11, 2005, Infant Nutrition: Breast Is (Still) Best; after two weeks, full text available online only for a fee.) EMAIL THIS

Environmental Health Perspectives, forthcoming article, Biomonitoring Workshop Report: Biomonitoring Study Design, Interpretation, and Communication - Lessons learned and path forward. Article by Michael N. Bates, Joshua W. Hamilton, Judy S. LaKind, Patricia Langenberg, Michael O'Malley and Wayne Snodgrass that describes the recommendations of an interdisciplinary panel that convened for a one-day workshop in November 2004 to focus on "three specific aspects of biomonitoring: characteristics of scientifically robust biomonitoring studies; interpretation of human biomonitoring data for potential risks to human health; and communication of results, uncertainties, and the limitations of biomonitoring studies." EMAIL THIS

International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, June 16, 2005, ISRTP Workshop: Understanding Human Biomonitoring. A collection of speakers' presentation notes and slides from this biomonitoring conference in Sacramento, CA, addressing the "importance of building into a biomonitoring program processes that assure robust study designs, scientifically sound interpretation methods and high quality public communications." Includes overview of workshop prepared by ISRTP. (See also "Workshop Report: Understanding Human Biomonitoring," by Christopher J. Borgert in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, November 2005; full text available online to subscribers or for a fee.) EMAIL THIS

International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, April 8, 2005, National exposure measurements for decisions to protect public health from environmental exposures. An article by Dr. James L. Pirkle and three other Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientists explains how exposure data such as the biomonitoring assessments released by CDC every two years as the "National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals" help public health officials and physicians protect public health. The authors state: "This exposure information identifies which chemicals get into Americans in measurable quantities; determines whether exposure levels are higher among population subgroups; determines how many Americans have levels of chemicals above recognized health threshold levels (for chemicals with such threshold levels); establishes reference ranges that define general population exposure so unusual exposures can be recognized; assesses the effectiveness of public health efforts to reduce population exposure to selected chemicals; and tracks over time trends in US population exposure." (Full text available online to subscribers or for a fee.) EMAIL THIS