Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Applying the maximum cumulative ratio methodology to biomonitoring data on dioxin-like compounds in the general public and two occupationally exposed populations

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology volume 23, pages 343–349 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Maximum cumulative ratio (MCR) is a person's cumulative exposure to multiple chemicals divided by the maximum chemical-specific exposure where exposure is expressed on a toxicologically equivalent basis. It is a tool for assessing the need for performing cumulative exposure assessments. In this paper, MCR values were calculated for the three groups of individuals with biomonitoring data of 26 dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) based on the World Health Organization toxic equivalent factors (TEFs). Although the two occupational groups have higher total toxicity equivalence (TEQ) levels than the NHANES group, average MCR values of the three groups are similar (3.5, 3.6, and 3.2). These MCR values are higher than those seen in our earlier studies, supporting the practice of performing cumulative assessments for DLCs. The MCR values also indicate that only 2–5 of the 26 chemicals make significant contributions to total TEQ values. Interestingly, MCR is negatively correlated with total TEQ (in all the three groups) and age (in the NHANES group). Additionally, MCR is lower in workers where occupational exposures are larger than background exposures. Although overall exposure is the first factor to consider in any mixtures assessment, this paper confirms the usefulness of MCR as a tool for analyzing the pattern of chemical-specific contributions to the total exposure levels of mixtures based on biomonitoring data when TEFs or similar approaches are available.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NRC. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC, 2009.

  2. NRC. (1994) Science and judgment in risk assessment. Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Commission on Life Sciences, NRC. In: Research Management. National Research Council (NRC), Washington, DC.

  3. Callahan M.A., and Sexton K. If cumulative risk assessment is the answer, what is the question? Environ Health Perspect 2007: 115 (5): 799–806.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. EPA. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. PA/630/P-02//001A. Washington, DC, 2003.

  5. EPA. Concepts, methods, and data sources for cumulative health risk assessment of multiple chemicals, exposures and effects: A resource document, (EPA/600/R-06/013F). Cincinnati, OH, 2007.

  6. IGHRC. Interdepartmental Group on Health Risks from Chemicals (IGHRC). Chemical mixtures: A framework for assessing risks (Version 6), April 2007. Retrieved September 5, 2011, from http://ieh.cranfield.ac.uk/IGHRC/mixtures_document.pdf, 2007.

  7. Meek M.E., Boobis A.R., Crofton K.M., Heinemeyer G., Van Raaij M., and Vickers C. Risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals: A WHO/IPCS framework. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2011: 60 (2): S1–S14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Han X.L., and Price P.S. Determining the maximum cumulative ratios for mixtures observed in ground water wells used as drinking water supplies in the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2011: 8 (12): 4729–4745.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Price P.S., and Han X.L. Maximum cumulative Ratio (MCR) as a tool for assessing the value of performing a cumulative risk assessment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2011: 8 (6): 2212–2225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. OME. (1984). Scientific criteria document for standard development, No. 484. Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). Ontario Ministry of Environment, Ontario, Canada.

  11. Van den Berg M., Birnbaum L.S., Denison M., De Vito M., Farland W., and Feeley M., et al. The 2005 World Health Organization reevaluation of human and mammalian toxic equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol Sci 2006: 93 (2): 223–241.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. CDC. (2005) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NHANES 2003-2004 Laboratory Files. Retrieved September 5, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/lab03_04.htm.

  13. Collins J.J., Bodner K.M., Wilken M., Haidar S., Burns C.J., and Budinsky R.A., et al. Serum concentrations of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans among former Michigan trichlorophenol and pentachlorophenol workers. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2007: 17 (6): 541–548.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Collins J.J., Wilken M., McBride D., Humphry N.F., Herbison P., and Burns C.J., et al. Serum concentrations of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans among former New Zealand trichlorophenol workers. Chemosphere 2009: 76 (11): 1550–1556.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Haws L.C., Su S.H., Harris M., DeVito M.J., Walker N.J., and Farland W.H., et al. Development of a refined database of mammalian relative potency estimates for dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol Sci 2006: 89 (1): 4–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hedgeman E., Chen Q.X., Hong B.L., Chang C.W., Olson K., and LaDronka K., et al. The University of Michigan Dioxin Exposure Study: population survey results and serum concentrations for polychlorinated dioxins, furans, and biphenyls. Environ Health Perspect 2009: 117 (5): 811–817.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hays S.M., and Aylward L.L. Dioxin risks in perspective: past, present, and future. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2003: 37 (2): 202–217.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lorber M. A pharmacokinetic model for estimating exposure of Americans to dioxin-like compounds in the past, present, and future. Sci Total Environ 2002: 288 (1–2): 81–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Aylward L.L., and Hays S.M. Temporal trends in human TCDD body burden: decreases over three decades and implications for exposure levels. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2002: 12 (5): 319–328.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lorber M., Patterson D., Huwe J., and Kahn H. Evaluation of background exposures of Americans to dioxin-like compounds in the 1990s and the 2000s. Chemosphere 2009: 77 (5): 640–651.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Edward Carney and Dr. Robert Budinsky from The Dow Chemical for their inputs to and review of the work. This work was funded by The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Toxicology and Environmental Research and Consulting, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan, USA

    Xianglu Han & Paul S Price

Authors
  1. Xianglu Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul S Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xianglu Han.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors work for The Dow Chemical Company in Midland, Michigan, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Han, X., Price, P. Applying the maximum cumulative ratio methodology to biomonitoring data on dioxin-like compounds in the general public and two occupationally exposed populations. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 23, 343–349 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2012.74

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2012.74

Keywords

Search

Advanced search

Quick links