4.5 Article

Comparison of CALUX-TEQ values with PCB and PCDD/F measurements in human serum of the Flanders Environmental and Health Study (FLEHS)

Journal

TOXICOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 123, Issue 1, Pages 59-67

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-4274(01)00378-2

Keywords

CALUX (R); polychlorinated biphenyls; polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans; GC-MS; TEQ; human serum; Belgium

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In 1999, a campaign of the Flemish Ministry of Health, Belgium was set up to assess pollutant concentrations and related health effect biomarkers in humans living in two regions of Flanders. The study was called the 'Flemish Environment and Health Study' (FLEHS). Concentrations of selected organochiorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) and flirans (PCDF) were measured by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in 47 pooled human serum samples originating from 200 individual women between 50 and 65 years living in two Flemish regions. The CALUX((R)) (Chemical-Activated Luciferase gene expression) bioassay was assessed on the same pools. The correlation between CALUX-TEQ and total TEQ (sum of PCDD/ PCDF, non- and mono-ortho PCBs) varied from 0.43 to 0.73 for the rural and urban region, respectively. The mean value for the total TBQ (75 pg WHO-TEQ/g fat) was two times higher than the mean TEQ value determined with the CALUX bioassay (36 pg TEQ/g fat). This shows that the assessment of dioxin-like exposure by these two measurements was different, However, regional differences in concentrations were observed for neither total TEQS, nor CALUX-TEQs. It was concluded that the CALUX((R)) can be an alternative screening tool for biomonitoring purposes,. especially when the objective is to compare different groups of people (e.g. living in different regions). (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available