Search

Our study provides the most comprehensive dataset for high-precision radiogenic isotopes of lead (Pb) in blood for the western European population. It investigates their potential for elucidating the contribution of soil Pb to blood Pb using a human biomonitoring survey involving 81 adults and 4 children living in the urban area of Liège (Belgium). Soils in the area show moderate (median of 360 mg/kg) to high (95th percentile of 1000 mg/kg) Pb concentrations, due to former metal processing activities. Blood lead levels (BLL) measured in the study population are, on average, quantitatively consistent with a ∼ 20 % increase due to the exposure to Pb from soils, as estimated by a single-compartment biokinetic model. Consistently, its isotopic composition does not represent an endmember that fully accounts for the variability of Blood lead isotope (BLI) compositions measured in the study population. While some individuals show more thorogenic BLI ratios (relatively more enriched in 208 Pb), which could be consistent with a greater exposure to local soils and/or by their country of birth, the BLI data mostly follow a trend roughly parallel to the European Standard Lead Pollution (ESLP) line, within the European leaded gasoline field, even two decades after the withdrawal of this source. Differences in BLI are probably associated with factors related to the presence of Pb in dwellings (pipes, paint) and drinking water distribution system, suggesting that the anthropogenic Pb in use, relevant to human exposure, may contain ore components of different origins, including the Australian Pb ore signature., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Petit reports financial support was provided by Walloon Public Service. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Recognition of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as widespread environmental pollutants and a consequent risk to human health, has recently made the European Union (EU) adopt several regulatory measures for their management. The coherence of these measures is challenged by the diversity and the ubiquitous occurrence of PFAS, which also complicates the EU's endeavor to advance justified, harmonized, and transparent approaches in the regulatory assessment of chemical risks. Our study critically reviews the European approach for the risk assessment of PFAS, by applying a comparative analysis of the current and pending regulatory thresholds issued for these chemicals in water bodies, drinking water, and certain foodstuffs. Our study shows that the level of health protection embedded in the studied thresholds may differ by three orders of magnitude, even in similar exposure settings. This is likely to confuse the common understanding of the toxicity and health risks of PFAS and undermine reasonable decision-making and the equal treatment of different stakeholders. We also indicate that currently, no consensus exists on the appropriate level of required health protection regarding PFAS and that the recently adopted tolerable intake value in the EU is too cautious. Based on our analysis, we propose some simple solutions on how the studied regulations and their implicit PFAS thresholds or their application could be improved. We further conclude that instead of setting EU-wide PFAS thresholds for all the environmental compartments, providing the member states with the flexibility to consider case-specific factors, such as regional background concentrations or food consumption rates, in their national regulatory procedures would likely result in more sustainable management of environmental PFAS without compromising the scientific foundation of risk assessment, the legitimacy of the EU policy framework and public health., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)