feature
Biomonitoring is not just about measuring samples, you have to go out
and get them, and the measurements have to be meaningful.”
in digital electronics, scientists expect
to measure more and more exposome
analytes in ever tinier specimens.
But it’s not just scientists who are
concerned with biomonitoring these
days. Doug Farquhar, JD, who monitors
environmental health legislation
at the National Conference of State
Legislatures, said the topic increasingly
arises in state law: “[Historically] if I
saw a couple [biomonitoring-related]
bills it would stand out. This year, it’s
like wham! We had four states include
a biomonitoring effort in their state’s
appropriation [MA, MN, NH, NJ,] and
another six with legislation including
a biomonitoring component.”
Back in New York, Aldous cited one
reason biomonitoring should be of
interest to policymakers: program
evaluation. For example, since a new
water-treatment plant filtration system
was installed in Hoosick Falls, water
going out through the public distribution
system has measured less than 2 ppt
PFOA. Given the compound’s three-year
half-life in the human body, residents’
body burden should be dropping.
A biomonitoring study to confirm
that assumption, Aldous said, “would
show the value of the remediation,
the effort put in and the money
spent to reduce the exposure.”
Biomonitoring may not yet be a household
word, but the concept is gaining currency,
with consumers seeking out products like
paraben-free make-up, BPA-free water
bottles and phthalate-free pacifiers.
“People want to know more about
what’s in their bodies, “ said Kristin
Dortch, MS, CDC’s biomonitoring project
officer. “If they know another state
tested for [a high-profile chemical],
they want to know, Why not us?” ■
APHL On–Demand Webinars
Quality continuing education anywhere, any time!
Webinars are avail