Biologically based markers (biomarkers) are currently used to provide information on exposure, health effects, and individual susceptibility to chemical and radiological wastes. However, the development and validation of biomarkers are expensive and time consuming. To determine whether biomarker development and use offer potential improvements to risk models based on predictive relationships or assumed values, we explore the use of uncertainty analysis applied to exposure models for dietary methyl mercury intake. We compare exposure estimates based on self-reported fish intake and measured fish mercury concentrations with biomarker-based exposure estimates (i.e., hair or blood mercury concentrations) using a published data set covering 1 month of exposure. Such a comparison of exposure model predictions allowed estimation of bias and random error associated with each exposure model. From these analyses, both bias and random error were found to be important components of uncertainty regarding biomarker-based exposure estimates, while the diary-based exposure estimate was susceptible to bias. Application of the proposed methods to a simple case study demonstrates their utility in estimating the contribution of population variability and measurement error in specific applications of biomarkers to environmental exposure and risk assessment. Such analyses can guide risk analysts and managers in the appropriate validation, use, and interpretation of exposure biomarker information.
Copyright 1998 Academic Press.