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

LaKind Associates, LLC, 106 Oakdale Avenue, Catonsville, MD 21228, USA.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (Impact Factor: 2.13). 06/2008; 51(3 Suppl):S16-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.05.007
Source: PubMed

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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Selenium is an essential nutrient for human health with a narrow range between essentiality and toxicity. Selenium is incorporated into several proteins that perform important functions in the body. With insufficient selenium intake, the most notable effect is Keshan disease, an endemic cardiomyopathy in children. Conversely, excessive selenium intake can result in selenosis, manifested as brittle nails and hair and gastro-intestinal disorders. As such, guidance values have been established to protect against both insufficient and excessive selenium exposures. Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) have been established as standard reference values for nutritional adequacy in North America. To protect against selenosis resulting from exposure to excessive amounts of selenium, several government and non-governmental agencies have established a range of guidance values. Exposure to selenium is primarily through the diet, but monitoring selenium intake is difficult. Biomonitoring is a useful means of assessing and monitoring selenium status for both insufficient and excessive exposures. However, to be able to interpret selenium biomonitoring data, levels associated with both DRIs and toxicity guidance values are required. Biomonitoring Equivalents (BEs) were developed for selenium in whole blood, plasma and urine. The BEs associated with assuring adequate selenium intake (Estimated Average Requirements - EAR) are 100, 80 and 10μg/L in whole blood, plasma and urine, respectively. The BEs associated with protection against selenosis range from 400 to 480μg/L in whole blood, 180-230μg/L in plasma, and 90-110μg/L in urine. These BE values can be used by both regulatory agencies and public health officials to interpret selenium biomonitoring data in a health risk context.
    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 07/2014; · 2.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The body burden of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs), dioxin-like (dl-PCBs) and non-dioxin-like (ndl-PCBs) polychlorinated biphenyls, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) was determined in blood samples from 70 subjects between 4 and 76 years old. The participants of the study were recruited in the neighborhood of a reclamation plant located in a rural area in Southern Germany. The median concentrations (95th percentiles in parentheses), expressed as WHO2005-TEQ (toxic equivalents), for PCDD/Fs and dl-PCBs were 4.5 (17.9) pg g−1 l.w. and 2.6 (13.2) pg g−1 l.w., respectively. The dl-PCBs contributed 40% of the total TEQ (median values), and the most abundant congener was PCB 156. Combined, the sum of the 6 non-dioxin-like PCBs had a median of 0.773 μg L−1 and a 95th percentile of 4.895 μg L−1. For the six tetra to hepta PBDE congeners, the median was 1.8 ng g−1 l.w. (95th percentile: 16.2 ng g−1 l.w.). None of our study subjects had a body burden that exceeded the biomonitoring equivalents for dioxins or PBDE congener 99 or the human biomonitoring values for ndl-PCBs. Likewise the study group did not exceed German reference values or values obtained in similar investigations. Overall, our study did not exhibit elevated internal exposures. The results also hint further decreasing tendencies for PCDD/Fs, PCBs, and PBDEs in Germany and demonstrates that people in the vicinity of a reclamation plant with no indication of an environmental contamination did not exhibit elevated internal exposures.
    International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 01/2014; · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article examines recent debates in the USA regarding the communication of personal ‘human biomonitoring’ data to research participants. Biomonitoring is a technique used to measure environmental chemicals, their metabolites, and/or byproducts in human fluids and tissues. Though first used in occupational settings in the early twentieth century, the tools and techniques used in biomonitoring have been substantially refined in recent decades, resulting in the production of a progressively large volume of human exposure data. While the use of biomonitoring has shed new light on human exposures to a wide array of chemicals ranging from pesticides to plasticizers, it has also raised new scientific, social, and ethical questions. Among these is whether or not researchers are obligated to provide research participants with personal data in light of the considerable uncertainties that currently surround the interpretation of these data: health implications are typically unknown and measured chemical concentrations may not reflect average exposures. To date, scientists, environmental health advocates, and health officials remain divided on the best course of action. One explanation for this discord points to differing interpretations of bioethical principles. This article offers an alternate explanation. Based on a qualitative, sociological study of biomonitoring in the USA, this article shows that these debates are also shaped by fundamentally different ways of evaluating and assigning meaning to biomonitoring data. This article describes three different positions on the usefulness of individual-level biomonitoring and the criteria on which these assessments are based.
    Critical Public Health 12/2013; 23(4). · 0.88 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 3, 2014