Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Using Biomonitoring Levels from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to Evaluate Exposures from Hazardous Waste Sites Presented at the.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Using Biomonitoring Levels from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to Evaluate Exposures from Hazardous Waste Sites Presented at the."— Presentation transcript:

1 Using Biomonitoring Levels from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to Evaluate Exposures from Hazardous Waste Sites Presented at the Environment, Energy & Sustainability Symposium May 2010 Greg Zarus and Tonia Burk Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (770) The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry /Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2 The findings and conclusions in this presentation have not been formally disseminated by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

3 ATSDR ATSDR serves the public by using the best science to prevent harmful exposures and diseases related to toxic substances. Being formed by CERCLA, ATSDR has a residential-exposure focus (rather than occupational focus).

4 Outline Overview of biomonitoring Review of NHANES studies
Performing biomonitoring studies Summary

5 Why Use Biomonitoring? To determine if environmental exposures are significant . For example, Health: Are there clinically high exposures? Statistical: Does exposures to chemicals in the environment cause people to have higher than normal levels? Hobbies /occupation: Are there other TCE exposures to worry about?

6 Continuum for Relating Environmental Contamination with Clinical Disease

7 Who Uses Biomonitoring?
ATSDR: To understand community exposure to site-specific chemicals NCEH: To understand the distribution of chemicals across the nation and study some unique exposures

8 NHANES Overview NHANES tests about 2500 people randomly to represent the US population Media sampled: urine, blood, serum, exhaled breath Problematic media: hair, nails Analytics: Speciation of metals Degradation products of VOCs There is NO HEALTH ENDPOINT ASSOCIATION to most biomonitored levels, but ATSDR’s Tox Profiles provide biomonitored levels from other studies

9 VOC Sources Benzene (at defense and other sites) Fuel Household paints and degreasers PCE (at defense and other sites) Recently dry cleaned fabrics Household adhesives, degreasers, stain remover TCE (under most air fields and as decay of PCE) Household products Household solvents, rust remover, sealant

10 VOC Comparisons Air (µg/m3) Blood (ng/mL) Benzene 29 F 9.6 B
Indoor Outdoor 50th% 95th% Benzene 29 F 9.6 B .030* .027** .320* ** TCE 6.5 B 5 C ND* ND** ND* ND** PCE 25.4 B 10.4 B .190* .140** F =fuel oil heated homes * NHANES B=Bldg Assess. Survey Eval ** NHANES CHD –Control home database NYSDOH LOD ~ 0.2 ng/mL Ball park: 100 to 1 for 95th and 1000 to 1 for 50th

11 PCE Comparisons Air (µg/m3) Blood (ng/mL) PCE (all) 25.4 B 10.4 B
Indoor Outdoor 50th% 95th% PCE (all) 25.4 B 10.4 B ND (<0.02)** 0.140** PCE Case study 537000 1408 B=Bldg Assess. Survey Eval * NHANES LOD ~ 0.2 ng/mL ** NHANES Case study suggests similar ratio for high exposures: ~400 to 1 Ref: Peil et al 1998; Gobba et al. 2003

12 Benzene Exposures confounders with assessing defense sites
Ref: Wallace 2010; ETS =Environmental Tobacco Smoke

13 Arsenic Sources at Defense Sites
Chemical weapons Pesticides Herbicides Railways

14 Biomarker Urinary Arsenic in ug/L easy to obtain sample readily available references
Population data 50% (95% CI) 95% (95% CI) Tot As 7.70 ( ) 65.4 ( ) As-Betaine 1.00 ( ) 35.0 ( ) Inorg-As 6.0 ( ) 18.9 ( ) DMA 3.90 ( ) 16.0 ( )

15 Arsenic (recent exposure)

16 Confounding Sources of Arsenic to Consider
Wood preservatives Pesticides Arsenic containing herbal medicines Parental occupational exposure Hobbies Consumption of seafood Pica (soil eating) behavior

17 Problems with Using Biomarkers for Arsenic
Does not identify source of exposure Limited to documenting recent exposures Can not correlate exposure with health effect (as with Hg and Pb)

18 Lead ATSDR often assesses lead levels at shooting ranges on defense sites. However: Primary routes of exposure: ingesting water, dust, paint chips, inhaling dust Primary sources of exposure: lead based paint Analysis: isotopic analysis – 204Pb, 206Pb, 207Pb, 208Pb – geography dependent exclusionary but not real fingerprinting

19 Lead

20 Blood Lead is a Good Biomarker
Requires only small amount of sample Lead remains stable when blood is stored Documented reference range However, blood is more invasive than urine

21 Cadmium ATSDR often assesses cadmium exposures associated with corrosion –treatment at defense sites. However: Common environmental contaminant Higher in smokers

22 Cadmium

23 Mercury However: Naturally occurring and coal power plant emissions
ATSDR had identified that one of the main contributors to mercury exposures at military bases in the past was due to the use of solid waste incinerators (also a problem common at municipal landfills). However: Naturally occurring and coal power plant emissions Methylated in water and bioaccumulates in seafood and shellfish

24 Total Blood Mercury (ug/L)*
50% 95% Mercury 0.800 ( ) 4.76 ( ) * Non-hispanic blacks had the highest levels except in the 70+ age category * NHANES data * Caldwell et al. 2009b

25 Biomonitoring Study Considerations for DoD Sites
Questionnaires Dietary contributors Seafood for arsenic and mercury Household exposures Hobbies, household products (cleaners, drycleaning) Dust (lead based paint) Drinking water (lead containing pipes, naturally occuring arsenic) Occupational exposures Petroleum product exposures Solvent exposures

26 Biological Levels & Confounders
Age Sex Genetics Lifestyle choices Alcohol use Liver enzyme review Smoking Excessive UV exposure

27 Thanks to Tonia Tonia Burk, PhD Environmental Health Scientist

28 References Benjamin C. Blount, Robert J. Kobelski, David O. McElprang, David L. Ashley, John C. Morrow, David M. Chambers and Frederick L. Cardinali. Quantification of 31 volatile organic compounds in whole blood using solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography B Volume 832, Issue 2, 7 March 2006, Pages


Download ppt "Using Biomonitoring Levels from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to Evaluate Exposures from Hazardous Waste Sites Presented at the."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google