Biomarkers of Exposure in Community Settings

Biomonitoring is a valuable tool for assessing human exposures to chemical contaminants in the environment. Biomonitoring tests can be divided into biomarkers of exposure, effect, and susceptibility. In studies of community exposure to an environmental contaminant, biomarkers of exposure are most often used. The ideal biomarker should be sensitive, specific, biologically relevant, practical, inexpensive, and available. Seldom does a biomarker meet all of these criteria— most biomarkers represent a compromise of these criteria. In designing a community exposure study, consideration should also be given to the selection of the test population, the practicality of collecting biological samples, temporal or seasonal variations in exposure, the availability of background comparison ranges, and interpretation of the test results. Biomonitoring tests provide unequivocal evidence of exposure, but they do not typically identify the source of exposure. Furthermore, rarely do the test results predict a health outcome. For many chemicals, testing must be conducted soon after exposure has occurred. In spite of these limitations, the use of biomonitoring is finding wider application in many scientific disciplines. Recent advances in analytical techniques are expanding the utility of biomarker testing in public health investigations.

[1]  S. Hays,et al.  Dioxin risks in perspective: past, present, and future. , 2003, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[2]  D. Harkins,et al.  Hair analysis: exploring the state of the science. , 2003, Environmental health perspectives.

[3]  D. Barr,et al.  Urinary p-nitrophenol as a biomarker of household exposure to methyl parathion. , 2002, Environmental health perspectives.

[4]  J. Y. Kuwada,et al.  Developmental toxicology of cadmium in living embryos of a stable transgenic zebrafish line. , 2002, Environmental health perspectives.

[5]  B. Schwartz,et al.  The pitfalls of hair analysis for toxicants in clinical practice: three case reports. , 2002, Environmental health perspectives.

[6]  Marilyn J Aardema,et al.  Toxicology and genetic toxicology in the new era of "toxicogenomics": impact of "-omics" technologies. , 2002, Mutation research.

[7]  R. Tennant,et al.  The National Center for Toxicogenomics: using new technologies to inform mechanistic toxicology. , 2002, Environmental health perspectives.

[8]  Dioxin exposure in a residential community , 2001, Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.

[9]  R. Kreutzer,et al.  Assessment of commercial laboratories performing hair mineral analysis. , 2001, JAMA.

[10]  D. Smith,et al.  Lead isotopes as a supplementary tool in the routine evaluation of household lead hazards. , 2000, Environmental health perspectives.

[11]  E Holmes,et al.  Chemometric models for toxicity classification based on NMR spectra of biofluids. , 2000, Chemical research in toxicology.

[12]  J. Trent,et al.  Microarrays and toxicology: The advent of toxicogenomics , 1999, Molecular carcinogenesis.

[13]  M. Cooper,et al.  Antibodies to toluene diisocyanate in an environmentally exposed population. , 1998, Environmental health perspectives.

[14]  P. Mueller,et al.  Urinary biomarkers to detect significant effects of environmental and occupational exposure to nephrotoxins. IV. Current information on interpreting the health implications of tests. , 1997, Renal failure.

[15]  P. Mueller,et al.  Urinary biomarkers to detect significant effects of environmental and occupational exposure to nephrotoxins. I. Categories of tests for detecting effects of nephrotoxins. , 1997, Renal failure.

[16]  G. Eknoyan,et al.  Urinary biomarkers to detect significant effects of environmental and occupational exposure to nephrotoxins. II. Nephrotoxins of significant frequency and economic impact. , 1997, Renal failure.

[17]  A. DeCaprio,et al.  Biomarkers : Coming of age for environmental health and risk assessment , 1997 .

[18]  L. Wilder,et al.  Human exposure to elemental mercury in a contaminated residential building. , 1997, Archives of environmental health.

[19]  Steven D. Cohen,et al.  Selective protein covalent binding and target organ toxicity. , 1997, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[20]  H. Idel,et al.  Biological monitoring of mercury vapour exposure by scalp hair analysis in comparison to blood and urine. , 1996, Toxicology letters.

[21]  R. Santella,et al.  A sensitive color ELISA for detecting polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-DNA adducts in human tissues. , 1996, Mutation research.

[22]  K J Rothman,et al.  Methodologic frontiers in environmental epidemiology. , 1993, Environmental health perspectives.

[23]  A. Weston.  Physical methods for the detection of carcinogen-DNA adducts in humans. , 1993, Mutation research.

[24]  A. C. Beach,et al.  Human biomonitoring and the 32P-postlabeling assay. , 1992, Carcinogenesis.

[25]  P. Lioy,et al.  Human exposure assessment for airborne pollutants: advances and opportunities , 1991 .

[26]  B. Seifert,et al.  Environmental carcinogens. Methods of analysis and exposure measurement. Volume 10--Benzene and alkylated benzenes. , 1991, IARC scientific publications.

[27]  Philip J. Landrigan,et al.  Biological markers in environmental health research , 1987 .

[28]  H. Notopuro,et al.  Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. , 1972, Paediatrica Indonesiana.