PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
Journal
2014 | 1 | 1 |
Article title

Prioritization of the biomarkers to be analyzed in
the French biomonitoring program

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
The aim of this work was to develop a
comprehensive prioritization method to select the
biomarkers to be monitored in the French national
biomonitoring program. The first step consisted in
building an exhaustive list of biomarkers. The next step
involved prioritizing the initial list of biomarkers according
to specific scientific questions about human exposure
to chemicals in the environment, and meet logistical,
feasibility and budgetary constraints. The Delphi
consensus method was used to prioritize biomarkers and
was developed in three phases: i) the definition of relevant
criteria for selecting biomarkers; ii) the prioritization of the
biomarker list based on these criteria and iii) the validation
of the list by the stakeholders. Among the eight relevant
criteria for selecting biomarkers, hazard identification
and social perception were the highest-rated and lowestrated
criteria, respectively. After scoring each criterion
for each group of biomarkers, and discussing the relative
ranking of each group during a round table meeting, the final prioritized list obtained contained both historic (e.g.
dioxins or lead) and emerging substances (e.g. phthalates,
bisphenol A). Combining rigor and flexibility, our method
has clearly helped to build a prioritized list shared and
supported by many international actors.
Publisher
Journal
Year
Volume
1
Issue
1
Physical description
Dates
received
13 - 8 - 2014
accepted
16 - 10 - 2014
online
29 - 10 - 2014
References
  • [1] Toniolo P, Boffeta P, Shuker D, Rothman, Hulka, Pearce et al..Application of Biomarkers in Cancer Epidemiology - WorkshopReport. Lyon (France): IARC Scientific Publications, N°. 142;1997: p.1.
  • [2] Paustenbach D, Galbraith D: Biomonitoring and biomarkers:exposure assessment will never be the same. Environ HealthPerspect 2006, 114: 1143-1149.
  • [3] Pirkle JL, Needham LL, Sexton K: Improving exposureassessment by monitoring human tissues for toxic chemicals. JExpo Anal Environ Epidemiol 1995, 5: 405-424.
  • [4] Calafat AM: The U.S. National Health and Nutrition ExaminationSurvey and human exposure to environmental chemicals. Int JHyg Environ Health 2012, 215: 99-101.
  • [5] Needham LL, Calafat AM, Barr DB: Uses and issues ofbiomonitoring. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2007, 210: 229-238.
  • [6] Becker K, Conrad A, Kirsch N, Kolossa-Gehring M, Schulz C,Seiwert M et al.: German Environmental Survey (GerES): humanbiomonitoring as a tool to identify exposure pathways. Int J HygEnviron Health 2007, 210: 267-269.[WoS]
  • [7] Seifert B, Becker K, Hoffmann K, Krause C, Schulz C: TheGerman Environmental Survey 1990/1992 (GerES II): arepresentative population study. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol2000, 10: 103-114.
  • [8] Verner MA, Sonneborn D, Lancz K, Muckle G, Ayotte P, DewaillyE et al.: Toxicokinetic modeling of persistent organic pollutantlevels in blood from birth to 45 months of age in longitudinalbirth cohort studies. Environ Health Perspect 2013, 121:131-137.[WoS]
  • [9] Cerna M, Krskova A, Cejchanova M, Spevackova V: Humanbiomonitoring in the Czech Republic: an overview. Int J HygEnviron Health 2012, 215: 109-119.[WoS]
  • [10] Schoeters G, Den HE, Colles A, Loots I, Morrens B, Keune H etal.: Concept of the Flemish human biomonitoring programme.Int J Hyg Environ Health 2012, 215: 102-108.[WoS]
  • [11] Haines DA, Murray J: Human biomonitoring of environmentalchemicals--early results of the 2007-2009 Canadian HealthMeasures Survey for males and females. Int J Hyg EnvironHealth 2012, 215: 133-137.
  • [12] Haines DA, Arbuckle TE, Lye E, Legrand M, Fisher M, LangloisR et al.: Reporting results of human biomonitoring ofenvironmental chemicals to study participants: a comparisonof approaches followed in two Canadian studies. J EpidemiolCommunity Health 2011, 65: 191-198.[WoS]
  • [13] Fillol C, Dor F, Clozel B, Goria S, Seta N: Does arsenic in soilcontribute to arsenic urinary concentrations in a Frenchpopulation living in a naturally arsenic contaminated area? SciTotal Environ 2010, 408: 6011-6016.[WoS]
  • [14] Frery N, Maury-Brachet R, Maillot E, Deheeger M, de MB,Boudou A: Gold-mining activities and mercury contaminationof native amerindian communities in French Guiana: key roleof fish in dietary uptake. Environ Health Perspect 2001, 109:449-456.
  • [15] Frery N, Vandentorren S, Etchevers A, Fillol C: Highlightsof recent studies and future plans for the French humanbiomonitoring (HBM) programme. Int J Hyg Environ Health2012, 215: 127-132.[WoS]
  • [16] Dor F, Haguenoer JM, Zmirou D, Empereur-Bissonnet P,Jongeneelen FJ, Nedellec V et al.: Urinary 1-hydroxypyrene asa biomarker of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons exposureof workers on a contaminated site: influence of exposureconditions. J Occup Environ Med 2000, 42: 391-397.
  • [17] Falq G, Zeghnoun A, Pascal M, Vernay M, Le SY, Garnier R et al.:Blood lead levels in the adult population living in France theFrench Nutrition and Health Survey (ENNS 2006-2007). EnvironInt 2011, 37: 565-571.
  • [18] Saoudi A, Zeghnoun A, Bidondo ML, Garnier R, Cirimele V,Persoons R et al.: Urinary arsenic levels in the French adultpopulation: the French National Nutrition and Health Study,2006-2007. Sci Total Environ 2012, 433: 206-215.[WoS]
  • [19] Vandentorren S, Bois C, Pirus C, Sarter H, Salines G, LeridonH: Rationales, design and recruitment for the Elfe longitudinalstudy. BMC Pediatr 2009, 9: 58.[WoS]
  • [20] Inserm. Reproduction et environnement, Editions Inserm, juin2011, 735 p, Collection Expertise collective.
  • [21] Brockhoff K. The performance of forecasting groups incomputer dialogue and face-to-face discussion. In: LinstoneHA, Turoff M, editors. The Delphi Method: Techniques andApplications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley PublishingCompany; 2002. pp. 285-311.
  • [22] Campbell SM, Braspenning J, Hutchinson A, Marshall M:Research methods used in developing and applying qualityindicators in primary care. Qual Saf Health Care 2002, 11:358-364.
  • [23] Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH: Consensus methods:characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 1984,74: 979-983.
  • [24] Hsu C-C, Sandford B. The Delphi technique: making sense ofconsensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12(10):1-8.
  • [25] Jones J, Hunter D: Consensus methods for medical and healthservices research. BMJ 1995, 311: 376-380.
  • [26] Streiner DL, orman G. Health measurement scales. A practicalguide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2003.
  • [27] Baker J, Lovell K, Harris N. How experts are the experts? Anexploration of the concept of ‘exper’ within Delphi paneltechniques. Nurse Researcher; 2006; 14, 1 ;59.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.-psjd-doi-10_2478_bimo-2014-0010
Identifiers
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.