an ISES Europe statement

publishersversioninpres

Human biomonitoring in health risk assessment in Europe: Current practices and recommendations for the future.

Human biomonitoring (HBM) is an important tool to survey the internal exposure of humans which represents the real life chemical body burden to chemicals and/or their metabolites. It results from total exposure to chemical substances from different sources and via different routes. These substances may be regulated under different legislative frameworks on chemicals (e.g., environmental, occupational, food safety etc). In occupational health, HBM has long traditions to control the exposures at workplaces. By providing accurate data on internal exposure, HBM data can improve human health risk assessment (RA) for both the general population and workers. Although the past few years have shown good examples on the use of HBM in the RA of chemicals, there is still quite some work to be done to improve its use in a regulatory RA. Under the scope of the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (project HBM4EU, 2017-2021), the current study reviews the state-of-the-art of HBM use in chemicals RA with a special focus in Europe, and attempts to identify hurdles and challenges faced by regulators. To gather information on the use of HBM, including the availability of guidance on how to use it in RA, the RA schemes applied by different European or international organizations were analysed. Examples of such use were identified for a few selected groups of chemicals of concern for human health. In addition, we present the results of a survey, aimed at collecting information from national regulatory risk assessors on their day-to-day RA practices, the use of HBM data, and the obstacles and challenges related to their use. The results evidenced and explained some of the current obstacles of using HBM data in RA. These included the lack of HBM guidance values or biomonitoring equivalents (BEs), limited toxicokinetic information to support the interpretation of HBM data and, in the occupational health and safety (OSH) field, the lack of legal enforcement. Therefore, to support the integration of HBM in regulatory RA, we recommend, on one hand, the elaboration of a EU level guidance on the use of HBM in RA and, on the other hand, the continuation of research efforts to integrate HBM with new RA approaches using in vitro/in silico data and Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs).This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 733032 HBM4EU, and received co-funding from the author's organizations. The authors thank to all other participants that contributed to this work.S

Occupational exposure to Cr(VI) in Finland in 1980–2016 and related lung cancer risk assessment

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)], a known lung carcinogen, remains a relevant concern. When performing exposure assessment for risk assessment, biomonitoring is an important tool, reflecting actual internal exposure of workers. Here, we present total urinary chromium (U-Cr) biomonitoring data from several occupational sectors, spanning 1980-2016 (n > 42,000). Based on this data, we estimated lifelong (40-year) occupational lung cancer risks in the Cr-plating and welding sectors. We used published regression formulas to relate internal (U-Cr) and external Cr(VI) inhalation exposures, allowing risk assessment based on a published lung cancer dose response. Generally, measured U-Cr levels decreased considerably over the study period. The highest U-Cr P95 levels (representing realistic worst-case) were measured in 1980-1989 in casters, maintenance workers, and welders (40-45 μg/L). By 2010-2016, the U-Cr P95 had decreased to ≤9.5 μg/L in all studied sectors. Lifelong external Cr(VI) exposure estimation for 1980-2019 was 0.16-0.32 mg/m3 x year for platers and 1.03 mg/m3 x year for welders. Worst-case lifelong lung cancer relative risk (RR) estimates were 1.28-1.56 for platers and 2.80 for welders; attributable risks (AR) were 22-36% for platers and 64% for welders. Uncertainties that may have impacted the risk assessment are discussed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Occupational exposure to Cr(VI) in Finland in 1980-2016 and related lung cancer risk assessment.

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)], a known lung carcinogen, remains a relevant concern. When performing exposure assessment for risk assessment, biomonitoring is an important tool, reflecting actual internal exposure of workers. Here, we present total urinary chromium (U-Cr) biomonitoring data from several occupational sectors, spanning 1980-2016 (n > 42,000). Based on this data, we estimated lifelong (40-year) occupational lung cancer risks in the Cr-plating and welding sectors. We used published regression formulas to relate internal (U-Cr) and external Cr(VI) inhalation exposures, allowing risk assessment based on a published lung cancer dose-response. Generally, measured U-Cr levels decreased considerably over the study period. The overall highest U-Cr P95 levels (representing realistic worst-case) were measured in the interval 1980-1989 in casters, maintenance workers and welders (40-45 μg/L). By the interval 2010-2016, the U-Cr P95 had decreased to ≤9.5 μg/L in all studied sectors. Lifelong external Cr(VI) exposure estimation for 1980-2019 was 0.16-0.32 mg/m3 x year for platers and 1.03 mg/m3 x year for welders. Worst-case lifelong lung cancer relative risk (RR) estimates were 1.28-1.56 for platers and 2.80 for welders; attributable risks (AR) were 22-36% for platers and 64% for welders. Uncertainties that may have impacted the risk assessment are discussed

Occupational exposure to Cr(VI) in Finland in 1980-2016 and related lung cancer risk assessment.

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)], a known lung carcinogen, remains a relevant concern. When performing exposure assessment for risk assessment, biomonitoring is an important tool, reflecting actual internal exposure of workers. Here, we present total urinary chromium (U-Cr) biomonitoring data from several occupational sectors, spanning 1980-2016 (n > 42,000). Based on this data, we estimated lifelong (40-year) occupational lung cancer risks in the Cr-plating and welding sectors. We used published regression formulas to relate internal (U-Cr) and external Cr(VI) inhalation exposures, allowing risk assessment based on a published lung cancer dose-response. Generally, measured U-Cr levels decreased considerably over the study period. The overall highest U-Cr P95 levels (representing realistic worst-case) were measured in the interval 1980-1989 in casters, maintenance workers and welders (40-45 μg/L). By the interval 2010-2016, the U-Cr P95 had decreased to ≤9.5 μg/L in all studied sectors. Lifelong external Cr(VI) exposure estimation for 1980-2019 was 0.16-0.32 mg/m3 x year for platers and 1.03 mg/m3 x year for welders. Worst-case lifelong lung cancer relative risk (RR) estimates were 1.28-1.56 for platers and 2.80 for welders; attributable risks (AR) were 22-36% for platers and 64% for welders. Uncertainties that may have impacted the risk assessment are discussed

Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective

Why do countries regulate, or prefer to regulate, environmental health risks such as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and endocrine disruptors differently? A wide variety of theories, models, and frameworks can be used to help answer this question, though the resulting answer will strongly depend on the theoretical perspective that is applied. In this theoretical review, we will explore eight conceptual frameworks, from different areas of science, which will offer eight different potential explanations as to why international differences occur in environmental health risk management. We are particularly interested in frameworks that could shed light on the role of scientific expertise within risk management processes. The frameworks included in this review are the Risk Assessment Paradigm, research into the roles of experts as policy advisors, the Psychometric Paradigm, the Cultural Theory of Risk, participatory approaches to risk assessment and risk management, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Social Amplification of Risk Framework, and Hofstede’s Model of National Cultures. We drew from our knowledge and experiences regarding a diverse set of academic disciplines to pragmatically assemble a multidisciplinary set of frameworks. From the ideas and concepts offered by the eight frameworks, we derive pertinent questions to be used in further empirical work and we present an overarching framework to depict the various links that could be drawn between the frameworks

Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective

Why do countries regulate, or prefer to regulate, environmental health risks such as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and endocrine disruptors differently? A wide variety of theories, models, and frameworks can be used to help answer this question, though the resulting answer will strongly depend on the theoretical perspective that is applied. In this theoretical review, we will explore eight conceptual frameworks, from different areas of science, which will offer eight different potential explanations as to why international differences occur in environmental health risk management. We are particularly interested in frameworks that could shed light on the role of scientific expertise within risk management processes. The frameworks included in this review are the Risk Assessment Paradigm, research into the roles of experts as policy advisors, the Psychometric Paradigm, the Cultural Theory of Risk, participatory approaches to risk assessment and risk management, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Social Amplification of Risk Framework, and Hofstede’s Model of National Cultures. We drew from our knowledge and experiences regarding a diverse set of academic disciplines to pragmatically assemble a multidisciplinary set of frameworks. From the ideas and concepts offered by the eight frameworks, we derive pertinent questions to be used in further empirical work and we present an overarching framework to depict the various links that could be drawn between the frameworks