Talk:Biomonitoring
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biomonitoring article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text or other creative content from this version of Biomonitoring was copied or moved into Life sciences with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Biomonitoring restructuring project
[edit]I spent a good deal of time working to improve an article that was once called Biomonitoring (chemistry) and the result is the page you see now. The article that resided in this space previously is now at Aquatic biomonitoring. This decision was arrived upon after some discussion with User:Shootbamboo. See the (full discussion here). As a note of disclosure for anyone who reviews these articles, the subject matter of this article is of interest to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which is a client of my employer. ACC was a valuable source of academic research, however all editorial decisions are mine alone. And I look forward to continuing to improve Wikipedia's articles in this subject area. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Biomonitoring's "successes"
[edit]I remember seeing a story in Science, I believe, published a few years back, that also highlights some of biomonitoring's "successes". The whole decrease in leaded gasoline leading to lower blood levels, and the documentation of that is the only one I remember. This "highlight" should be incorporated into the article. Right now only biomonitoring limitations and interpretations appear to be highlighted. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Proposed Biomonitoring Equivalents section
[edit]Hi, I have drafted a short section dedicated to the subject of biomonitoring equivalents in the dropbox below. I have done my best to adhere to Wikipedia's content and style guidelines, but as I am a new user, and have a WP:COI, as disclosed on my user page, I am hoping other editors would be willing to review the content and provide any feedback they may have. Please also feel free to make any recommended revisions to the draft in the drop box below.
Thanks for your time! - Unbachar23 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Proposed Biomonitoring Equivalents section draft |
|---|
|
Scientists performing biomonitoring testing are able to detect and measure concentrations of natural and manmade chemicals in human blood and urine samples at parts-per-billion to parts-per-quadrillion levels. A 2006 U.S. National Research Council report found that while scientists were capable of detecting the chemicals at these levels, methods for interpreting and communicating what their presence meant regarding potential health risks to an individual or population were still lacking.[1] The report recommended that scientific research be done to improve the interpretation and communication of biomonitoring results through the use of existing risk assessments of specific chemicals.[1] To address this situation, several groups recognized that exposure guidance values, such as reference dose and tolerable daily intake, could, with sufficient data, be translated into corresponding estimates of biomarker concentrations for use in the interpretation of biomonitoring data.[2][3] In 2007, the initial methodology for the systematic translation of exposure guidance values into corresponding screening values for biomonitoring data, dubbed Biomonitoring Equivalents, was published by scientists from Summit Toxicology.[4] Subsequently, an expert panel from government, industry and academia, convened to develop detailed guidelines for deriving and communicating these Biomonitoring Equivalents.[5] Biomonitoring Equivalents can be used for evaluation of biomonitoring data in a risk assessment context. Comparing biomonitoring data for a chemical with its Biomonitoring Equivalent provides a means for assessing whether population exposures to chemicals are within or above the levels considered safe by regulatory agencies.[6] Biomonitoring Equivalents can thus assist scientists and risk managers in the prioritization of chemicals for follow-up or risk management activities.[7] Since 2007, scientists have derived and published Biomonitoring Equivalents for more than 110 chemicals, including cadmium, benzene, chloroform, arsenic, toluene, methylene chloride, triclosan, dioxins, volatile organic compounds, and others.[8][9] Several have been developed through collaborations of scientists from EPA, CDC and Health Canada.[10] Researchers from the German Human Biomonitoring Commission[11] have also proposed a concept for deriving screening values similar to Biomonitoring Equivalents.[12]
|
- I have gone ahead and implemented the revisions proposed above after receiving positive feedback concerning the draft from an experienced editor on my user talk page. Recognizing that Wikipedia is a work in progress, I welcome any further feedback or suggested changes to the biomonitoring equivalents material. Thanks for your time. Unbachar23 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Revisions to interpretation section
[edit]I've drafted some updated material for the interpretation section providing additional context to the material in the current article, as reflected in the draft below. While I do not consider these revisions to be controversial, I wanted to propose them on this talk page before moving forward with the edits in case there are any suggested changes or feedback from other editors. - Unbachar23 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Proposed draft of Interpretaion section |
|---|
|
The presence of an environmental chemical in the body does not necessarily indicate harm.[1] The analytical chemistry of detecting chemicals has advanced more rapidly than the ability to interpret the potential health consequences.[2] Health risks are usually established from toxicity studies in laboratory animals and epidemiological evidence in humans. Lead is a well studied chemical with a CDC action level level of concern, currently at 10 µg/dL, or 100 parts per billion, in blood; however, neurobehavioral impairment has been noted below this level.[3] Because this approach requires establishment of cause and effect in epidemiological studies and a thorough understanding of human dose response, data to support these types of action levels exist for only a few environmental chemicals. The concept of Biomonitoring Equivalents (BEs) has been developed as an alternative approach to aid in interpreting and communicating biomonitoring results in the context of potential risks to health.[4]
|
- Not having received any feedback over the past several days, I've gone ahead and implemented the revisions discussed above. As always, I welcome any suggestions or thoughts on this material. Thanks! - Unbachar23 (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Whole body burden in a radiological sense
[edit]Whole body burden is often used in the radiological context of a person or animal's total amount of a radioactive element. For example, Cs-137, Co-60, Iodine-131 are common environmental contaminants which can be easily absorbed by animals, plants, and humans after a radiological accident or nuclear weapon has exploded. This term needs to be discussed accordingly. In that context, the activity is used rather than the mass of the contaminant, especially because it is a lot easier to detect that way. I like to saw logs! (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biomonitoring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120224115706/http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1901&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=d3db2ed2-5853-4b7f-932b-fe46125e26b6 to http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1901&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=d3db2ed2-5853-4b7f-932b-fe46125e26b6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)