• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>Annual conference of the International Society of Exposure Science >Comparative Analysis of Human Biomonitoring Values and Health-Based Guidance Values Used in Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food: An Update
【24h】

Comparative Analysis of Human Biomonitoring Values and Health-Based Guidance Values Used in Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food: An Update

机译：用于食品中化学物质风险评估的人体生物监测值与基于健康的指导值的比较分析：更新

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Aim: In risk assessment, authorities generally use toxicological/epidemiological data to derive health-based guidance values (HBGVs), such as acceptable/tolerable daily intake and reference doses, to control potential risks from dietary intake, but there is uncertainty on the reliability of these exposure estimates. Human biomonitoring (HBM) is an ideal tool to measure human body burden, which reflects internal exposure in an individual or a population group. HBM allows the establishment of reference values (RVs), defined as the 95th population percentile along with the 95% confidence interval of a substance's concentration, which provide valuable information about body burden at a certain point of time but do not inform directly about potential health risks or exceedance of HBGVs. In order to translate measured body burdens into HBGVs and allow interpretation of HBM data in a risk context, the German HBM Commission and experts from the USA develop health-relevant biomonitoring values such as HBM-values and biomonitoring equivalents (BEs), respectively. The aim of this work is to provide the most current analysis on the overlaps and non-overlaps among HBGVs, RVs, HBM-values and BEs of chemicals with potential dietary sources. Method: National HBM programmes were reviewed for RVs for the general population of environmental chemicals potentially taken up by humans via the food chain. Next, HBGVs established by the World Health Organisation (WHO), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and US s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), HBM-values and BEs for these chemicals were identified. The collected data were then compiled to determine the degree of overlaps and non-overlaps among the four values. Results: We identified a total of 168 RVs, 12 HBM-values, 21 BEs and 191 HBGVs for environmental chemicals related to the food chain (see Figure). Metals such as cadmium and mercury, some phthalates and bisphenol A are some of the few chemicals that have RVs, HBM-values/BEs and HBGVs. Otherwise, there remain significant non-overlaps among these values, especially between RVs and HBGVs. This primary reason behind these non-overlaps is due to lack of HBM data on several classes of pesticides and mycotoxins or insufficient toxicological/epidemiological data to derive HBGVs. Conclusions: This work demonstrates a current obstacle in the efficient use of HBM in risk assessment. Priorities for future method development to improve the applicability of HBM in food risk assessment are warranted.
机译：目的：在风险评估中，主管部门通常使用毒理学/流行病学数据来得出基于健康的指导值（HBGV），例如可接受/可耐受的每日摄入量和参考剂量，以控制饮食摄入的潜在风险，但其可靠性尚不确定这些接触估计。人体生物监测（HBM）是测量人体负担的理想工具，该负担反映了个人或人群的内部暴露。 HBM可以建立参考值（RVs），定义为第95个总体百分位数以及一种物质浓度的95％置信区间，这些参考值可以在某个时间点提供有关身体负担的有价值的信息，但不直接告知潜在的健康状况HBGV的风险或超标。为了将测得的身体负担转化为HBGV并允许在风险背景下解释HBM数据，德国HBM委员会和美国专家分别开发了与健康相关的生物监测值，例如HBM值和生物监测当量（BEs）。这项工作的目的是提供具有潜在饮食来源的化学物质的HBGV，RV，HBM值和BE的重叠和非重叠的最新分析。方法：对国家HBM计划的RV进行了审查，以了解人类可能通过食物链摄入的一般环境化学药品的数量。接下来，确定了由世界卫生组织（WHO），欧洲食品安全局（EFSA）和美国环境保护署（EPA）建立的HBGV，这些化学品的HBM值和BE。然后对收集的数据进行编译，以确定四个值之间的重叠和不重叠的程度。结果：我们共鉴定了与食物链相关的环境化学品的RV RV，12 HBM值，21 BE和191 HBGV（见图）。镉，汞，某些邻苯二甲酸盐和双酚A等金属是少数具有RV，HBM / BE和HBGV的化学品。否则，这些值之间仍然存在明显的非重叠现象，尤其是在RV和HBGV之间。这些不重叠的主要原因是由于缺乏几类农药和霉菌毒素的HBM数据，或者毒理学/流行病学数据不足以得出HBGV。结论：这项工作证明了在风险评估中有效使用HBM的当前障碍。必须优先考虑未来方法的开发，以提高HBM在食品风险评估中的适用性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号