4.6 Article

Human biomonitoring reference values derived for persistent organic pollutants in blood plasma from the Canadian Health Measures Survey 2007-2011

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.03.004

关键词

Reference values; Persistent organic pollutants; Human biomonitoring; Canadian Health Measures Survey; Canada

资金

  1. Monitoring and Surveillance component of the Government of Canada's Chemicals Management Plan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nationally representative human biomonitoring data on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) including organochlorine pesticides (OCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are available through the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS). We have used a systematic approach building on the reference interval concept proposed by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine and the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry to derive human biomonitoring reference values (RV(95)s) for selected POPs in blood plasma in the general Canadian population. Biomarkers were chosen based on specific selection criteria including their detection in most Canadians (> 66% detection rate). Age and sex were evaluated as possible partitioning criteria and separate RV(95)s were derived for the sub-populations in cases where partitioning was deemed necessary. RV(95)s for OCs, PCBs, and BFRs were derived both on a whole weight of blood plasma and on a lipid weight adjusted basis whereas they were derived only on a whole weight basis for PFASs. RV(95)s ranged from 0.018 mu g/L (PCB 201) to 21 mu g/L (perfluorooctane sulfonate) and from 3.1 mu g/kg lipid (PCB 201) to 1400 mu g/kg lipid (p,p'-DDE). The 22 RV(95)s reported in this paper represent the first set of reference values for POPs in the Canadian general population against which individual and population human biomonitoring data may be compared. Crown Copyright (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier GmbH.

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

4.6
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