4.4 Article

Probabilistic pharmacokinetic modeling of airborne lead corresponding to toxicologically relevant blood lead levels in workers

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2021.104894

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Department of Defense commissioned the National Research Council to assess the health effects of DOD personnel exposed to lead at firing ranges. The report concluded that current exposure limits and blood lead levels were not adequately protective. The relationship between airborne lead levels and blood lead levels is of interest to the DOD for future exposure limit selection.
The Department of Defense (DOD) commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) to assess the potential health effects associated with exposure of DOD personnel to lead (Pb) at firing ranges. In that report, NRC concluded that the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure limit and the blood lead levels (BLLs) on which it was based were not sufficiently protective of worker populations covered under the general industry standard. In support of future selection of an occupational exposure limit, the relationship of airborne Pb levels to BLLs is of interest to the DOD. A subset of the BLLs identified as relevant to the management of health risks of exposed workers was selected as targets for extrapolation to equivalent airborne Pb values. The existing O'Flaherty physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for Pb in humans was modified to facilitate probabilistic predictions of DOD worker population BLLs, including 95th percentile values, based on current worker characteristics. Workplace airborne Pb 8-h time-weighted average concentrations of 1.1, 4.0, 6.8, or 9.8 mu g/m(3) are anticipated to maintain BLLs below 5, 10, 15, or 20 mu g/dl, respectively, in the vast majority of DOD workers exposed to Pb under full-time working lifetime occupational exposure.

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