Next Article in Journal
Effects of Data Aggregation on Time Series Analysis of Seasonal Infections
Next Article in Special Issue
Findings on the Central Auditory Functions of Endemic Disease Control Agents
Previous Article in Journal
Young Nursing Student’s Knowledge and Attitudes about Contraceptive Methods
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Benzene Exposure in Gas Station Workers Using Trans,Trans-Muconic Acid
Commentary

Biomonitoring as an Underused Exposure Assessment Tool in Occupational Safety and Health Context—Challenges and Way Forward

1
NOVA National School of Public Health, Public Health Research Centre, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, 1600–560 Lisbon, Portugal
2
Comprehensive Health Research Center (CHRC), 1169–056 Lisbon, Portugal
3
H&TRC—Health & Technology Research Center, ESTeSL—Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, 1500–310 Lisboa, Portugal
4
Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardio-Thoraco-Vascular Sciences and Public Health, 35100 Padova, Italy
5
Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, 1000 Lausanne, Switzerland
6
VITO—Flemish Institute for Technological Research, BE-2400 Mol, Belgium
7
RIVM—National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 3721 MA Bilthoven, The Netherlands
8
Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), Edinburgh EH14 4AP, UK
9
Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN, UK
10
BAuA—Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, D-10317 Berlin, Germany
11
Unit Environmental Hygiene and Human Biological Monitoring, Department of Health Protection, National Health Laboratory, Dudelange, 3555 Luxembourg, Luxembourg
12
Centre Environment and Health, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 03000 Flanders, Belgium
13
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 43126 Parma, Italy
14
Nutrition Innovation Center for Food and Health (NICHE), University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA, UK
15
FIOH—Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, P.O. Box 40, FI-00032 Työterveyslaitos, Finland
16
State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), Labour Directorate Section Chemicals and Work (ABCH), 3003 Berne, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(16), 5884; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165884
Received: 8 July 2020 / Revised: 7 August 2020 / Accepted: 11 August 2020 / Published: 13 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Occupational and Environmental Toxicology)
Recent advances in analytical chemistry have allowed a greater possibility of using quantitative approaches for measuring human exposure to chemicals. One of these approaches is biomonitoring (BM), which provides unequivocal evidence that both exposure and uptake of a chemical have taken place. BM has been a longstanding practice in occupational health for several reasons. BM integrates exposure from all routes. It can help identify unintentional and unexpected exposures and assess the effectiveness of existing risk-management measures. BM also provides relevant information to support policy development by delivering better evidence of workers’ exposure to chemical substances, even within the framework of the present regulations. Thus, BM can allow for both the evaluation of the impact of regulation and identification of further needs for new or improved regulation. However, despite all these well-recognized advantages, BM is currently an underused exposure assessment tool. This paper provides an overview of the key aspects to be considered when using BM in the context of occupational health interventions. Additionally, this paper describes the potential of BM as an exposure assessment tool, distinguishing the role of BM in exposure assessment and health surveillance and clarifies ethical and communication aspects to guarantee that general data protection regulations are followed. In addition, actions and research needs are identified (particularly with reference to the European situation), which aim to encourage the increased use of BM as an exposure assessment tool. View Full-Text
Keywords: biological monitoring; exposure assessment; risk assessment; occupational health; biological guidance value; biological limit value biological monitoring; exposure assessment; risk assessment; occupational health; biological guidance value; biological limit value
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Viegas, S.; Zare Jeddi, M.; B. Hopf, N.; Bessems, J.; Palmen, N.; S. Galea, K.; Jones, K.; Kujath, P.; Duca, R.-C.; Verhagen, H.; Santonen, T.; Pasanen-Kase, R. Biomonitoring as an Underused Exposure Assessment Tool in Occupational Safety and Health Context—Challenges and Way Forward. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5884. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165884

AMA Style

Viegas S, Zare Jeddi M, B. Hopf N, Bessems J, Palmen N, S. Galea K, Jones K, Kujath P, Duca R-C, Verhagen H, Santonen T, Pasanen-Kase R. Biomonitoring as an Underused Exposure Assessment Tool in Occupational Safety and Health Context—Challenges and Way Forward. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(16):5884. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165884

Chicago/Turabian Style

Viegas, Susana, Maryam Zare Jeddi, Nancy B. Hopf, Jos Bessems, Nicole Palmen, Karen S. Galea, Kate Jones, Peter Kujath, Radu-Corneliu Duca, Hans Verhagen, Tiina Santonen, and Robert Pasanen-Kase. 2020. "Biomonitoring as an Underused Exposure Assessment Tool in Occupational Safety and Health Context—Challenges and Way Forward" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 16: 5884. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165884

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop