Cent Eur J Public Health 2019, 27(1):68-72 | DOI: 10.21101/cejph.a5348

Added value of human biomonitoring in assessment of general population exposure to xenobiotics

Katarína Kromerová1,2, Vladimír Bencko2
1 Public Health Authority of the Slovak Republic, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
2 Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

Human biomonitoring (HBM) has a wide range of applications and long tradition both in health care and the field of public health. Its major advantage is the integration of all exposure routes and sources. Since HBM information is an integrated exposure finding it offers the opportunity to trace and mimic a realistic exposure scenario. It reduces the number of assumptions that need to be made when estimating exposure and thus helps to reduce the uncertainties in exposure science. In spite of some challenges, such as further harmonization in the area of HBM, necessity of deriving equivalents of markers of external exposure and addressing the ethical and political aspects of its application, HBM is an efficient and cost-effective way to measure exposure levels of the human body to xenobiotics.

Keywords: xenobiotics, exposure, mercury, human biomonitoring

Received: March 20, 2018; Revised: August 3, 2018; Published: March 30, 2019  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kromerová K, Bencko V. Added value of human biomonitoring in assessment of general population exposure to xenobiotics. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2019;27(1):68-72. doi: 10.21101/cejph.a5348. PubMed PMID: 30927401.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Kromerová K, Bencko V. Current trends in the process of risk assessment of exposure to xenobiotics including dietary intake. Hygiena. 2017;62(2):54-61. (In Slovak). Go to original source...
    2. Dorne JL, Fink-Gremmels J. Human and animal health risk assessments of chemicals in the food chain: comparative aspects and future perspectives. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2013 Aug 1;270(3):187-95. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    3. IPCS- International Programme on Chemical Safety. IPCS risk assessment terminology. Harmonization project document, no. 1 [Internet].Geneva: WHO; 2004 [cited 2017 Sep 26]. Available from: http://www.who.int/ipcs/methods/harmonization/areas/ipcsterminologyparts1and2.pdf?ua1/41.
    4. Černá M, Puklová V, Hanzlíková L, Sochorová L, Kubínová R. 25 years of HBM in the Czech Republic. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017;220(2 PT A):3-5. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    5. Egeghy PP, Judson R, Gangwal S, Mosher S, Smith D, Vail J, et al. The exposure data landscape for manufactured chemicals. Sci Total Environ. 2012;414:159-66. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Biomonitoring data definition of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2017 Sep 26]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/statistics/bio/.
    7. Choi J, Aaroe Morck T, Polcher A, Knudsen LE, Joas A. A review of the state of the art of human biomonitoring for chemical substances and its application to human exposure assessment for food safety. External scientific report [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2017 Sep 26]. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2015.EN-724/pdf. Go to original source...
    8. Fowler BA. Computational toxicology: methods and applications for risk assessment. London: Elsevier; 2013.
    9. Dong Z, Liu Y, Duan L, Bekele D, Naidu R. Uncertainties in human health risk assessment of environmental contaminants: a review and perspective. Environ Int. 2015;85:120-32. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. National Research Centre for the Working Environment. HBM definition of the Danish National Institute of Occupational Health [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2017 Sep 26]. Available from: http://www.arbejdsmiljoforskning.dk/. (In Danish.)
    11. Hrnčířová D, Batáriová A, Černá M, Procházka B, Dlouhý P, Anděl M. Exposure of Prague's homeless population to lead and cadmium, compared to Prague's general population. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2008;211(5-6):580-6. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Croes K, De Coster S, De Galan S, Morrens B, Loots I, Van de Mieroop E, et al. Health effects in the Flemish population in relation to low levels of mercury exposure: from organ to transcriptome level. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2014;217(2-3):239-47. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. Vejrup K, Brantsaeter AL, Knutsen HK, Magnus P, Alexander J, Kvalem HE, et al. Prenatal mercury exposure and infant birth weight in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study. Public Health Nutr. 2014;17(9):2071-80. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    14. Suzuki K, Nakai K, Sugawara T, Nakamura T, Ohba T, Shimada M, et al. Neurobehavioral effects of prenatal exposure to methylmercury and PCBs, and seafood intake: Neonatal behavioral assessment scale results of Tohoku study of child development. Environ Res. 2010;110(7):699-704. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Parajuli RP, Goodrich JM, Chou HN, Gruninger SE, Dolinoy DC, Franzblau A, et al. Genetic polymorphisms are associated with hair, blood and urine mercury levels in the American Dental Association (ADA) study. Environ Res. 2016;149:247-58. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    16. Vrijheid M, Slama R, Robinson O, Chatzi L, Coen M, van den Hazel P, et al. The human early-life exposome (HELIX): project rationale and design. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(6):535-44. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    17. Manno M, Viau C, Cocker J, Colosio C, Lowry L, Mutti A, et al. Biomonitoring for occupational health risk assessment (BOHRA). Toxicol Lett. 2010;192(1):3-16. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    18. Péry ARR, Brochot C, Zeman FA, Mombelli E, Desmots S, Pavan M, et al. Prediction of dose-hepatotoxic response in humans based on toxicokinetic/toxicodynamic modelling with or without in vivo data: a case study with acetaminophen. Toxicol Lett. 2013;220(1):26-34. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    19. Ciffroy P, Péry ARR, Roth N. Perspectives for integrating human and environmental exposure assessments. Sci Total Environ. 2016;568:512-21. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    20. Bernillon P, Bois FY. Statistical issues in toxicokinetic modeling: a Bayesian perspective. Environ Health Perspect. 2000 Oct;108 Suppl 5:883-93. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    21. Redding LE, Sohn MD, McKone TE, Chen JW, Wang SL, Hsieh DPH, et al. Population physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling for the human lactational transfer of PCB-153 with consideration of worldwide human biomonitoring results. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116:1629-35. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    22. Ulazewska MM, Ciffroy P, Tahraoui F, Zeman FA, Capri E, Brochot C. Interpreting PCB levels in breast milk using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model to reconstruct the dynamic exposure of Italian women. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2012;22(6):601-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    23. Dong Z, Hu J. Development of lead source-specific exposure standards based on aggregate exposure assessment: Bayesian inversion from biomonitoring information to multi pathway exposure. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;46(2):1144-52. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    24. Pacyna JM, Sundseth K, Pacyna EG, Munthe J, Åstrom S, Panasiuk D; Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Socio-economic costs of continuing the status-quo of mercury pollution [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2015 Aug 20]. Available from: http://www.norden.org/ sv/publikationer/publikationer/2008-580/at_download/publicationfile.
    25. Trasande L, DiGangi J, Evers DC, Petrlik J, Buck DG, Šamánek J, et al. Economic implications of mercury exposure in the context of the global mercury treaty: Hair mercury levels and estimated lost economic productivity in selected developing countries. J Environ Manage. 2016;183:229-35. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    26. Bellanger M, Pichery C, Aerts D, Berglund M, Castano A, Cejchanova M, et al.; Demo/Cophes. Economic benefits of methylmercury exposure control in Europe: monetary value of neurotoxicity prevention. Environ Health. 2013 Jan 7;12:3. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-12-3. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    27. Černá M, Spěváčková V, Batáriová A, Šmíd J, Čejchanová M, Očadlíková D, et al. Human biomonitoring system in the Czech Republic. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2007;210(3-4):495-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    28. Mikeš O, Čupr P, Kohút L, Krsková A, Černá M. Fifteen years of monitoring of POPs in the breast milk, Czech Republic, 1994-2009: trends and factors. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2012 Jul;19(6):1936-43. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    29. Ayward LL, Hays SM, Smolders R, Koch HM, Cocker J, Jones K, et al. Sources of variability in biomarker concentrations. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2014;17(1):45-61. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    30. Pausternbach D, Galbraith D. Biomonitoring and biomarkers: exposure assessment will never be the same. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(8):1143-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    31. Casteleyn L, Dumez B, Becker K, Kolossa-Gehring M, en Hond E, Schoeters G, et al. A pilot study on the feasibility of European harmonized human biomonitoring: strategies towards a common approach, challenges and opportunities. Environ Res. 2015;141:3-14. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

    Return to the content