Biological monitoring versus air monitoring strategies in assessing environmental–occupational exposure

Abstract

Assessment of environmental and occupational exposure to chemicals can be performed with environmental monitoring (EM) and biological monitoring (BM). Biological monitoring was for a long time considered as a method complementary to environmental monitoring. At present this attitude is changing and in certain areas biological monitoring is applied as the method of choice for exposure and health-risk assessment. This paper examines advantages and disadvantages of those two approaches. In occupational settings environmental monitoring of exposure to VOCs seems to be superior to biological monitoring (possibility of simultaneous determination of components of mixtures, simple interpretation, possibility of evaluation of short-term exposure to local irritants). In the case of this group of compounds BM can be useful in selected cases such as evaluation of dermal absorption or efficiency of protective measures. In the case of metals both forms of monitoring can be used depending on the available methods for interpretation of results. BM of exposure may be considered as superior for evaluating the effects of exposure to lead, cadmium and mercury. However, quantitative evaluation of cancer risk after exposure to arsenic or chromium is possible only on the basis of determination in the air and the use of unit risk values. Both environmental and biological monitoring are useful for evaluation of occupational and environmental exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In certain areas such as evaluation of exposure to external tobacco smoking, cytostatic drugs, and pesticides, biological monitoring is the method of choice used for individual exposure assessment or tracing the trends of environmental exposure.