A framework of “Common Criteria” (i.e. a series of questions) has been developed to inform the use and evaluation of biomonitoring data in the context of human exposure and risk assessment. The data-rich chemical benzene was selected for use in a case study to assess whether refinement of the Common Criteria framework was necessary, and to gain additional perspective on approaches for integrating biomonitoring data into a risk-based context. The available data for benzene satisfied most of the Common Criteria and allowed for a risk-based evaluation of the benzene biomonitoring data. In general, biomarker (blood benzene, urinary benzene and urinary S-phenylmercapturic acid) central tendency (i.e. mean, median and geometric mean) concentrations for non-smokers are at or below the predicted blood or urine concentrations that would correspond to exposure at the US Environmental Protection Agency reference concentration (30 µg/m3), but greater than blood or urine concentrations relating to the air concentration at the 1 × 10−5 excess cancer risk (2.9 µg/m3). Smokers clearly have higher levels of benzene exposure, and biomarker levels of benzene for non-smokers are generally consistent with ambient air monitoring results. While some biomarkers of benzene are specific indicators of exposure, the interpretation of benzene biomonitoring levels in a health-risk context are complicated by issues associated with short half-lives and gaps in knowledge regarding the relationship between the biomarkers and subsequent toxic effects.

No abstract

Biomonitoring uses analytic methods that permit the accurate measurement of low levels of environmental chemicals in human tissues. However, depending on the intended use, biomonitoring, like all exposure tools, may not be a stand-alone exposure assessment tool for some of its environmental public health uses. Although biomonitoring data demonstrate that many environmental chemicals are absorbed in human tissues, uncertainty exists regarding if and at what concentrations many of these chemicals cause adverse health outcomes. Moreover, without exposure pathway information, it is difficult to relate biomonitoring results to sources and routes of exposure and develop effective health risk management strategies. In September 2004, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and International Council of Chemical Associations co-sponsored the International Biomonitoring Workshop, which explored the processes and information needed for placing biomonitoring data into perspective for risk assessment purposes, with special emphasis on integrating biomarker measurements of exposure, internal dose, and potential health outcome. Scientists from international governments, academia, and industry recommended criteria for applying biomonitoring data for various uses. Six case studies, which are part of this mini-monograph, were examined: inorganic arsenic, methyl eugenol, organophosphorus pesticides, perfluorooctanesulfonate, phthalates, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Based on the workshop and follow-up discussions, this overview article summarizes lessons learned, identifies data gaps, outlines research needs, and offers guidance for designing and conducting biomonitoring studies, as well as interpreting biomonitoring data in the context of risk assessment and risk management.

No abstract

No abstract