From science to policy: How European HBM indicators help to answer policy questions related to phthalates and DINCH exposure.
DINCH
HBM4EU
Human biomonitoring (HBM)
Phthalates
Science-policy uptake
indicator
Journal
International journal of hygiene and environmental health
ISSN: 1618-131X
Titre abrégé: Int J Hyg Environ Health
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 100898843
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2023
01 2023
Historique:
received:
08
07
2022
revised:
19
10
2022
accepted:
07
11
2022
pubmed:
27
11
2022
medline:
7
12
2022
entrez:
26
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Within the European Human Biomonitoring (HBM) Initiative HBM4EU we derived HBM indicators that were designed to help answering key policy questions and support chemical policies. The result indicators convey information on chemicals exposure of different age groups, sexes, geographical regions and time points by comparing median exposure values. If differences are observed for one group or the other, policy measures or risk management options can be implemented. Impact indicators support health risk assessment by comparing exposure values with health-based guidance values, such as human biomonitoring guidance values (HBM-GVs). In general, the indicators should be designed to translate complex scientific information into short and clear messages and make it accessible to policy makers but also to a broader audience such as stakeholders (e.g. NGO's), other scientists and the general public. Based on harmonized data from the HBM4EU Aligned Studies (2014-2021), the usefulness of our indicators was demonstrated for the age group children (6-11 years), using two case examples: one phthalate (Diisobutyl phthalate: DiBP) and one non-phthalate substitute (Di-isononyl cyclohexane-1,2- dicarboxylate: DINCH). For the comparison of age groups, these were compared to data for teenagers (12-18 years), and time periods were compared using data from the DEMOCOPHES project (2011-2012). Our result indicators proved to be suitable for demonstrating the effectiveness of policy measures for DiBP and the need of continuous monitoring for DINCH. They showed similar exposure for boys and girls, indicating that there is no need for gender focused interventions and/or no indication of sex-specific exposure patterns. They created a basis for a targeted approach by highlighting relevant geographical differences in internal exposure. An adequate data basis is essential for revealing differences for all indicators. This was particularly evident in our studies on the indicators on age differences. The impact indicator revealed that health risks based on exposure to DiBP cannot be excluded. This is an indication or flag for risk managers and policy makers that exposure to DiBP still is a relevant health issue. HBM indicators derived within HBM4EU are a valuable and important complement to existing indicator lists in the context of environment and health. Their applicability, current shortcomings and solution strategies are outlined.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36434900
pii: S1438-4639(22)00156-0
doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2022.114073
pmc: PMC9758616
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
phthalic acid
6O7F7IX66E
Phthalic Acids
0
Carboxylic Acids
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
114073Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2022 Sep;246:114052
pubmed: 36323174
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2020 Jan;223(1):93-105
pubmed: 31669154
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 18;19(10):
pubmed: 35627658
EFSA J. 2019 Dec 11;17(12):e05838
pubmed: 32626195
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2021 May;234:113740
pubmed: 33774419
Environ Int. 2019 Nov;132:105103
pubmed: 31470218
Environ Health Perspect. 2015 Mar;123(3):255-63
pubmed: 25493439
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017 Mar;220(2 Pt A):179-188
pubmed: 27923611
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2020 Apr;225:113444
pubmed: 32058939
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2019 Sep;222(8):1084-1092
pubmed: 31378638
Arch Toxicol. 2005 Jul;79(7):367-76
pubmed: 15700144
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Sep 21;15(10):
pubmed: 30248963
Environ Pollut. 2021 May 1;276:116724
pubmed: 33631684
EFSA J. 2020 Sep 17;18(9):e06223
pubmed: 32994824
Chemosphere. 2022 Jan;286(Pt 3):131858
pubmed: 34399256
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2021 Jul;236:113780
pubmed: 34126298
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2021 May;234:113722
pubmed: 33711757
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2021 Jul;236:113778
pubmed: 34089975
Environ Int. 2020 Apr;137:105467
pubmed: 32036120
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2014 Jul;217(6):653-61
pubmed: 24405937
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jun 01;19(11):
pubmed: 35682369
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017 Mar;220(2 Pt A):94-97
pubmed: 28284775
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2007 Jan;210(1):9-19
pubmed: 17182279
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2020 Sep;230:113622
pubmed: 33045523
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2020 Mar;224:113428
pubmed: 31978726
Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Mar;112(3):331-8
pubmed: 14998749
Environ Int. 2018 Nov;120:544-562
pubmed: 30170309
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2021 Aug;237:113809
pubmed: 34455198
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017 Mar;220(2 Pt A):282-298
pubmed: 28159478
Environ Res. 2022 Jun;209:112885
pubmed: 35131323
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2020 Aug;229:113397
pubmed: 31585790
Risk Anal. 2006 Jun;26(3):803-24
pubmed: 16834635
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017 Mar;220(2 Pt A):130-141
pubmed: 27863804
Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2020 Jan 1;499:110581
pubmed: 31525431
Environ Sci Technol. 2013 Jan 15;47(2):958-67
pubmed: 23234290
Toxics. 2022 Jan 26;10(2):
pubmed: 35202244
Endocr Dev. 2009;14:167-73
pubmed: 19293583