ESBIO Workpackage 2: Deliverables and status quo

1
ESBIO Workpackage 2Deliverables and status quo

• M. Kolossa-Gehring,
• N. Kirsch
• and
• K. Becker
• Paris, 07 Sept. 2006

2
(No Transcript)
3
Deliverable 2.1
Proposal for Objectives of EU HBM Approach and
of the EU Pilot Project Prepared and sent by
Nils Kirsch on August 18
Comments were received from - One person only-
4
Crux of the Matter

• Numerous potential objectives of HBM known
  but
• Mutual agreement about feasible objective(s) of
  Pilot Project ( pre-test) necessary.
• If reached facilitates common elaboration of IG
  Recommendations and Deliverables, as well as
  communication to stakeholders.

5
Deliverable 2.2

• Proposal for pollutants /biomarkers in regard to
  EU Human Biomonitoring Project
• Prepared and sent by Nils Kirsch on March 28
• and presented at the Lòdz-Meeting on March 31

Comments were received from - One person only-
6
Current status

• Covers Biomarkers in Matrices of Scenario 1
  (except Meth-Hg in hair) and PAHs and DEHP of
  Scenario 2.
• Awaits alignment with D 6.1-3 of WP 6
• Incorporating additional Biomarkers of Scenario 2
  after Consultative Forum Meeting in November??
• Ultimately, needs sound justifications for the
  recommended Biomarkers of exposure.

7
Deliverable 2.3.2

• Questionnaire for the Pilot Project
• Prepared and sent by Nils Kirsch on June 23
  and presented at the Berlin-Meeting on May 19

Comments/in-puts were received from Maryse,
Nadine, Marika, Lisbeth, BiPro, VITO, Fatima,
Eleonara and Stella
8
Current status I

• Consideration of ESBIO/IG-comments received,
  inter alia
• Sociodemo - Education- and Income-Level
• - Inclusion of the Father
• EnvFFQ - ETS/Smoking
• - Residential Environment
• - Amalgam and Hg related Qs
• - Locally produced food/vegetables

9
Current status II

• In/Exclusion- Consent for future invitations
• - Up-date of contacts
  (relocation)
• General comments
• numerical instead of ordinal answers
• auto-questionnaire vs. interview-guided (??)
• questions directed towards comprehension

10
Way forward

• Stepwise refinement of Qs As
• Adjustment to other field-tested questionnaires
  (e.g. EU HIS, BIOMONECS, Flemish HBM, etc.)
• Preparation of explanatory material
• Distribution of 2nd Draft

11
Deliverable 2.5
Protocol for inter-laboratory comparison and
proposal for organisation of laboratory
work Prepared and sent by Kerstin Becker on
July 3 and presented at the Berlin-Meeting on May
19
Comments were received from Greet, Phillip,
Marek, Aleksandra, BiPro, Milena, Fatima and
Stella
12
Option III Reference laboratory
13
Quality control measures
The fundamental idea is that a QC/QM system is
established in the participating laboratories and
that the labs have successfully participated in
previous (commercial) round robin tests.
Options for additional measures for the Pilot
Study are
14
Options, additional quality control measures
15
Tasks of the players
16
Accreditation
Accreditation (DIN EN 45001, ISO/IEC 17025) is
commonly required from commercial laboratories.
Governmental institutions and universities often
perform on high level without necessarily being
accredited. ? Therefore it does not appear to
be reasonable to exclude such laboratories a
priori from participating.
17
Additional improvements

• Summary and Conclusions
• PAH and Phthalates

• Still pending
• Overview of existing capacities (input from WP1)
• Special descriptions for special analytes
  (to be completed)

18
Thank your for your attention and your
valuable contributions !