A pilot study on the feasibility of European harmonized human biomonitoring: Strategies towards a common approach, challenges and opportunities
Introduction
Estimates of the impact of environmental exposures on health are limited and contradictory. Part of the uncertainty lies in the high level of misclassification of exposures that hampers environmental health risk assessment (Weuve and Yonasky, 2012; Willett, 2002; Blair et al., 2009). Scientists, policy-makers and the general public have long focused mainly on external exposure assessments for regulation and control. In analogy with practices in occupational health and as technologies evolved, focus has now increasingly turned to pollution in the body, seized by the notion of body burden: the presence of chemicals in the body. Such body burdens can be assessed through Human Biomonitoring (HBM), which integrates information on exposure to potentially toxic chemical elements and substances from all sources (soil, water, air, food, packaging and consumer products) as well as bioavailability, toxicokinetics and metabolism (Angerer et al., 2007). HBM and other biomarker studies have shown their use in research, in surveys and in advocacy efforts. Whilst research projects are typically hypothesis driven and geared at the collection of data to link health outcomes causally to exposures, the objective of surveys typically is to support and evaluate public health policy by producing information on the prevalence of exposure to environmental toxicants based on periodic monitoring (European Commission, 2004; ECETOC, 2005; National Research Council of the National Academies, 2006).
HBM is a powerful tool in the democratization of knowledge of exposure. Personal exposure information in particular might have a strong impact on societal perception of environmental pollution. Human biomarkers data make pollution ‘personal’ and can raise awareness, support preventive actions at individual and collective level, and contribute to policy making (Stokstad, 2004). The full exploitation of the potential benefits of HBM surveys in environmental health requires accurate knowledge transfer and integration. Findings of HBM efforts however, often fail to find their way into policy and practice, resulting in a limited impact on public health policies and programs. Often single teams have proprietary control of their data and specimens; the inner workings of protocols and analyzes are invisible to outsiders and raw data do not become available (Khoury et al., 2013). HBM surveys increasingly obtain a legal embedding at national or regional level, permitting repeated cycles of measurement (Viso et al., 2009). In 2004, the European Commission started discussions on a harmonized approach throughout Europe (European Commission, 2003; European Commission, 2004; Casteleyn et al., 2007) so to improve comparability. A European pilot study was proposed to “test the hypothesis that human biomonitoring in the field of environment and health can be performed in a coherent and harmonized approach throughout Europe by means of commonly developed protocols, strategies and scientific tools ensuring reliable and comparable data, whilst also leading to a more effective use of resources”. In an interdisciplinary context, epidemiologists, chemists, toxicologists, geneticists, exposure scientists, medical professionals, social scientists and environmental health experts and policy makers, working in the fields of environmental health, public health, research and policy evaluation and support, worked closely together to develop the framework. A stakeholders group set up by the European Commission (European Commission, 2003)2 was involved in this process. Study population, exposures and outcomes, as well as parameters to be estimated, were partly defined during a broad negotiation process from 2004 until 2010. Finally a consortium of scientists from 27 European countries completed the decisions during the final negotiation process from September 2010 until March 2011 and developed a common European HBM study protocol, despite dissimilarities in approaches, technical jargon, understanding of concepts and national priorities. An extensive exchange system was set up to take into account national particularities, existing experience, expertize and infrastructure. Organizations from 17 countries, all member of the consortium, implemented the pilot study DEMOCOPHES.3 This article reports on the opportunities and the challenges for a European harmonization of HBM surveys in environmental health. It addresses the set-up of a pilot feasibility study and related discussions on data sharing, prioritization, linking with health examination, research and policy. Finally, it also discusses ethics and privacy issues as the transboundary nature of the study in a legal framework with diverse transpositions of EU regulations or of international guidelines into national laws was thought to be an additional obstacle for harmonization of methodologies and comparability of results.
Section snippets
A common study protocol
The common European study protocol was built in line with STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology: Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE ME) guidelines (Gallo et al., 2011) developed to facilitate reporting of biomarker-based studies. Specific additions from STROBE ME to the STROBE guidelines relate to the collection, handling and storage of biological samples; laboratory methods, validity and reliability of biomarkers; specificities of study design; and ethical
Reference values
One of the aims of setting up HBM surveys is to gain knowledge of the background exposure of the population under study and establish reference values. These are required by policymakers and researchers to support their work. Together with information on health based guidance values, which are totally different in scope and use, such reference values are deemed essential for interpretation and communication of results and for translation into preventive policies. Although definitions may differ
Ethics and privacy: an obstacle?
The donation of tissues or fluids by healthy volunteers implies sensitive ethical and privacy questions. To ensure the protection of the rights and dignity of study participants a complex legal and ethical framework exists in Europe. One of the most important international references to define and safeguard fundamental human rights in the field of biomedical research, in particular of those participating in research, is the Oviedo Convention30
Conclusion
Overall the pilot study allowed (i) the development of a common study protocol, that was translated, with minor adaptations to national situations, in 17 European countries and (ii) the generation of comparable HBM data. Through a process of extensive communication and a tailor made QC system, a balance was found between flexibility and capacity building on the one hand and a rigid structure with strict criteria on the other hand. Although a limited number of biomarkers were measured and the
Financial support
COPHES (COnsortium to Perform Human Biomonitoring on a European Scale) was funded by the Seventh EU Framework Programme 2007–2011 under grant agreement no [244237].
DEMOCOPHES (DEMOnstration of a study to COordinate and Perform Human Biomonitoring on a European Scale) was co-funded (50%:50%) by the European Commission LIFE+ Programme (LIFE09/ENV/BE/000410) and the partners.
For information on both projects as well as on the national co-funding institutions: see http://www.eu-hbm.info/.
Acknowledgements
Many people contributed to the success of this project. We would in particular like to thank the mothers and children that participated in the study, the people involved in the fieldwork and laboratory work, and all our partners in COPHES and DEMOCOPHES.
References (54)
- et al.
Human biomonitoring: state of the art
Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health
(2007) - et al.
A systematic approach for designing a HBM Pilot Study for Europe
Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health
(2014) - et al.
Highlights of recent studies and future plans for the French human biomonitoring (HBM) programme
Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health
(2012) - et al.
Views of midwives about ethical aspects of participation in placental perfusion studies
Midwifery
(2012) - et al.
Communicating results in post-Belmont era biomonitoring studies: Lessons from genetics and neuroimaging research
Environmental Research
(2015) - et al.
Economic benefits of methylmercury exposure control in Europe: monetary value of neurotoxicity prevention
Environ. Health
(2013) - et al.
Epidemiology, public health, and the rhetoric of false positives
Environ. Health Perspect.
(2009) - Casteleyn, L., Dumez, B., Jamers, A., Van Damme, K., 2010. Ethics and data protection in human biomarker studies in...
- Casteleyn, L., Van Tongelen, B., Reis, MF., Polcher, A., Joas, R., 2007. Human biomonitoring: towards more integrated...
- Calafat, A., 2012. The U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and human exposure to environmental...
Reference values and human biological monitoring values for environmental toxins. Report on the work and recommendations of the Commission on Human Biological Monitoring of the German Federal Environmental Agency
Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health
Lessons learnt on recruitment and fieldwork from a pilot European human biomonitoring survey
Environ. Res.
Prioritization of the biomarkers to be analyzed in the French biomonitoring program
Biomonitoring
STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology – Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE Statement.
PLoS Med
Cited by (24)
Implementation and coordination of an ethics framework in HBM4EU – Experiences and reflections
2023, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental HealthCitation Excerpt :Biobanked samples and previously published data from some of the 17 countries participating in the previous European DEMOCOPHES project were re-used. The DEMOCOPHES samples were originally collected in 2011–2012 using common protocols including an obligation to store samples for 10 years from 2011 on (Fiddicke et al., 2015; Schwedler et al., 2017; Casteleyn et al., 2015). New analysis of the biobanked samples required renewed ethical approval in some countries.
Chemical prioritisation strategy in the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (HBM4EU) – Development and results
2021, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental HealthCitation Excerpt :In the first instance, a review of the literature was performed to collect criteria used for chemical prioritisation in HBM programmes worldwide. Prioritisation criteria used in the following HBM programmes were identified: the United States (US) National Health And Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS), the German Environmental Survey (GerES), the French Longitudinal Study of Children (ELFE), the French cross-sectional health survey (Esteban) and the Flemish Environment and Health Study (FLEHS) (Casteleyn et al., 2015; CDC 2002; 2003; 2006; Fillol et al., 2014; Fréry et al., 2012; Haines et al., 2017; Health Canada 2010; 2013; 2015; Kolossa-Gehring et al., 2012a; Schoeters et al., 2017). The prioritisation criteria were assessed in relation to their relevance to the objectives and specificities of the HBM4EU project (Ganzleben et al., 2017).
A Phased Approach for preparation and organization of human biomonitoring studies
2021, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental HealthMonitoring dioxins and furans in plasma of individuals living near a hazardous waste incinerator: Temporal trend after 20 years
2019, Environmental ResearchCitation Excerpt :With respect to the human health risks derived from the emissions of PCDD/Fs, in order to determine baseline concentrations, samples of plasma, milk, and adipose tissue were obtained from subjects who were living in zones under potential influence of the HWI (Schuhmacher et al., 1999a,b,c). It is well established that human biomonitoring (HBM) is a good method to protect human health and to prevent health risks due to potential exposure to chemicals -such as PCDD/Fs-by controlling the quantities taken up (Becker et al., 2002; Casteleyn et al., 2015; Domingo et al., 2017; Fiddicke et al., 2015; Zubero et al., 2017). Blood/plasma are widely used in HBM, while by obvious reasons the number of studies using human milk and, especially autopsy tissues, are much more limited (Domingo et al., 2017; Nadal et al., 2009; Schuhmacher et al., 2014).
Human Biomonitoring of food contaminants in Spanish children: Design, sampling and lessons learned
2017, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental HealthHuman biomonitoring pilot study DEMOCOPHES in Germany: Contribution to a harmonized European approach
2017, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
- 1
http://www.eu-hbm.info/democophes (last accessed October 15 2014).