- Full (HTML) - Full (PDF) - PubMed:Related Articles - PubMed:Citation - Cited in PMC - Purchase This Issue

Richard Albertini,¹ Michael Bird,² Nancy Doerrer,³ Larry Needham,⁴ Steven Robison,⁵ Linda Sheldon,⁶ and Harold Zenick

¹University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont, USA; ²ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences Inc., Annandale, New Jersey, USA; ³International Life Sciences Institute, Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, USA; ⁴Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; ⁵The Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; ⁶National Exposure Research Laboratory, and ⁷National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA

Abstract
Biomonitoring uses analytic methods that permit the accurate measurement of low levels of environmental chemicals in human tissues. However, depending on the intended use, biomonitoring, like all exposure tools, may not be a stand-alone exposure assessment tool for some of its environmental public health uses. Although biomonitoring data demonstrate that many environmental chemicals are absorbed in human tissues, uncertainty exists regarding if and at what concentrations many of these chemicals cause adverse health outcomes. Moreover, without exposure pathway information, it is difficult to relate biomonitoring results to sources and routes of exposure and develop effective health risk management strategies. In September 2004, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and International Council of Chemical Associations co-sponsored the International Biomonitoring Workshop, which explored the processes and information needed for placing biomonitoring data into perspective for risk assessment purposes, with special emphasis on integrating biomarker measurements of exposure, internal dose, and potential health outcome. Scientists from international governments, academia, and industry recommended criteria for applying biomonitoring data for various uses. Six case studies, which are part of this mini-monograph, were examined: inorganic arsenic, methyl eugenol, organophosphorus pesticides, perfluorooctanesulfonate, phthalates, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Based on the workshop and follow-up discussions, this overview article summarizes lessons learned, identifies data gaps, outlines research needs, and offers guidance for designing and conducting biomonitoring studies, as well as interpreting biomonitoring data in the context of risk assessment and risk management. Key words: arsenic, biomarkers, biomonitoring, exposure, methyl eugenol, organophosphorus, PBDE, PFOS, phthalates, risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 114:1755–1762 (2006) . doi:10.1289/ehp.9056 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 12 June 2006]

This article is part of the mini-monograph "Use of Biomonitoring Data in Exposure and Human Health Risk Assessments."

Address correspondence to N. Doerrer, ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, One Thomas Circle NW, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Telephone: (202) 659-3306. Fax: (202) 659-3617. E-mail: ndoerrer@hesiglobal.org

The International Life Sciences Institute Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) extends its appreciation to S.M. Cohen (University of Nebraska Medical Center) and R.N. Hines (Medical College of Wisconsin) for organizing and conducting a scientific peer review of the articles in this mini-monograph before submission for publication. We extend special thanks to E. Moore (HESI) for providing excellent administrative support to the HESI Biomonitoring Technical Committee.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the federal agencies or other institutions represented by the authors.

M.B. is employed by ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc. S.R. is employed by The Procter & Gamble Company. All other authors declare they have no competing financial interests.