4.4 Article

Guidelines for the derivation of Biomonitoring Equivalents: Report from the Biomonitoring Equivalents Expert Workshop

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue 3, Pages S4-S15

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.05.004

Keywords

biomonitoring; Biomonitoring Equivalents; BEs; exposure guidance values; risk assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biomonitoring Equivalents (BEs) are defined as the concentration of a chemical (or metabolite) in a biological medium (blood, urine, human milk, etc.) consistent with defined exposure guidance values or toxicity criteria including reference doses and reference concentrations (RfD and RfCs), minimal risk levels (MRLs), or tolerable daily intakes (TDIs) [Hays, S.M., Becker, R.A., Leung, H.W., Aylward, L.L., Pyatt, D.W., 2007. Biomonitoring equivalents: a screening approach for interpreting biomonitoring results from a public health risk perspective. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 47(1), 96-109]. The utility of the BE is to provide a screening tool for placing biomonitoring data into a health risk context. A Panel of experts took part in the Biomonitoring Equivalents Expert Workshop to discuss the various technical issues associated with calculating BEs and developed a set of guidelines for use in the derivation of BEs. Issues addressed included the role of the point of departure (POD) in BE derivation, the appropriate application of human and animal kinetic data and models, consideration of default uncertainty factor components in the context of internal dose-based extrapolations, and relevance of mode of action to technical choices in kinetic modeling and identification of screening values. The findings from this Expert Panel Workshop on BE derivation are presented and provide a set of guidelines and considerations for use in BE derivation. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available