Biomonitoring in the Era of the Exposome.

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Kristine K. Dennis, Emory University; Elizabeth Marder, Emory University; David M. Balshaw, National Institutes of Health; Yuxia Cui, National Institutes of Health; Michael A. Lynes, University of Connecticut; Gary J. Patti, Washington University; Stephen M. Rappaport, University of California Berkeley; Daniel T. Shaughnessy, National Institutes of Health; Martine Vrijheid, Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology; Dana Barr, Emory University
• Language: English
• Date: 2017-04
• Publisher: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP474
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: Environmental Health Perspectives
• ISSN: 0091-6765
• Volume: 125
• Issue: 4
• Start Page: 502
• End Page: 510
• Grant/Funding Information: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and NIH grant P30 ES019776.
• Research Categories: Biology, Cell; Environmental Sciences

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The term "exposome" was coined in 2005 to underscore the importance of the environment to human health and to bring research efforts in line with those on the human genome. The ability to characterize environmental exposures through biomonitoring is key to exposome research efforts. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to describe why traditional and nontraditional (exposomic) biomonitoring are both critical in studies aiming to capture the exposome and to make recommendations on how to transition exposure research toward exposomic approaches. We describe the biomonitoring needs of exposome research and approaches and recommendations that will help fill the gaps in the current science. DISCUSSION: Traditional and exposomic biomonitoring approaches have key advantages and disadvantages for assessing exposure. Exposomic approaches differ from traditional biomonitoring methods in that they can include all exposures of potential health significance, whether from endogenous or exogenous sources. Issues of sample availability and quality, identification of unknown analytes, capture of nonpersistent chemicals, integration of methods, and statistical assessment of increasingly complex data sets remain challenges that must continue to be addressed. CONCLUSIONS: To understand the complexity of exposures faced throughout the lifespan, both traditional and nontraditional biomonitoring methods should be used. Through hybrid approaches and the integration of emerging techniques, biomonitoring strategies can be maximized in research to define the exposome.