4.4 Review

Human biomonitoring (HBM)-II values for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)-Description, derivation and discussion

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2021.104868

关键词

PFOA; PFOS; PFAS; Human Biomonitoring; HBM-II-value

资金

  1. Umweltbundesamt (German Environmental Agency), Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Human Biomonitoring Commission of the German Environment Agency develops toxicologically justified assessment values (HBM-I and HBM-II) to evaluate internal exposure to harmful substances, with HBM-I corresponding to no adverse health effects expected and HBM-II indicating potential health impairments. Different HBM-II values are established for various population groups.
For evaluation of internal exposure to harmful substances, the Human Biomonitoring Commission of the German Environment Agency (HBM Commission) develops toxicologically justified assessment values (HBM-I and HBMII). The HBM-I value corresponds to the concentration of a compound in human biological material below which no adverse health effects are expected to occur. Consequently, no action is required when the HBM-I value is not exceeded (HBM-Commission, 1996). In 2016, the HBM Commission developed HBM-I values of 2 ng PFOA/mL and 5 ng PFOS/mL in blood serum or plasma, respectively. A detailed delineation of supporting arguments was published in April 2018 (HBM-Commission, 2018). In contrast to the HBM-I, the HBM-II value corresponds to the concentration in human biological material which, when exceeded, may lead to health impairment which is considered as relevant to exposed individuals (HBM-Commission, 1996, HBM-Commission, 2014). HBM-II values for PFOA and PFOS: On September 17, 2019, the HBM Commission of the German Environment Agency established the following HBM-II values: Women at child-bearing age: 5 ng PFOA/mL blood plasma; 10 ng PFOS/mL blood plasma; All other population groups: 10 ng PFOA/mL blood plasma; 20 ng PFOS/mL blood plasma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据