- Full (HTML) - Full (PDF) - Related EHP Articles - PubMed:Related Articles - PubMed:Citation - Cited in PMC - Purchase This Issue

Tye E. Arbuckle,¹ Steve E. Hrudey,² Stuart W. Krasner,³ Jay R. Nuckols,⁴ Susan D. Richardson,⁵ Philip Singer,⁶ Pauline Mendola,⁷ Linda Dodds,⁸ Clifford Weisel,⁹ David L. Ashley,¹⁰ Kenneth L. Froese,² Rex A. Pegram,⁷ Irvin R. Schultz,¹¹ John Reif,⁴ Annette M. Bachand,⁴ Frank M. Benoit,¹² Michele Lynberg,¹³ Charles Poole,¹⁴ and Kirsten Waller¹⁵

¹Bureau of Reproductive and Child Health, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; ²Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; ³Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, La Verne, California, USA; ⁴Department of Environmental Health, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA; ⁵National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia, USA; ⁶Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; ⁷National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA; ⁸Departments of Obstetrics, and Gynecology and Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; ⁹Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Department of Pediatrics, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA; ¹⁰Air Toxicants Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; ¹¹Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA; ¹²Environmental Health Sciences Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; ¹³Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; ¹⁴Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; ¹⁵Sequoia Foundation, Frederick, Maryland, USA

Abstract

The inability to accurately assess exposure has been one of the major shortcomings of epidemiologic studies of disinfection by-products (DBPs) in drinking water. A number of contributing factors include a) limited information on the identity, occurrence, toxicity, and pharmacokinetics of the many DBPs that can be formed from chlorine, chloramine, ozone, and chlorine dioxide disinfection ; b) the complex chemical interrelationships between DBPs and other parameters within a municipal water distribution system ; and c) difficulties obtaining accurate and reliable information on personal activity and water consumption patterns. In May 2000, an international workshop was held to bring together various disciplines to develop better approaches for measuring DBP exposure for epidemiologic studies. The workshop reached consensus about the clear need to involve relevant disciplines (e.g., chemists, engineers, toxicologists, biostatisticians and epidemiologists) as partners in developing epidemiologic studies of DBPs in drinking water. The workshop concluded that greater collaboration of epidemiologists with water utilities and regulators should be encouraged in order to make regulatory monitoring data more useful for epidemiologic studies. Similarly, exposure classification categories in epidemiologic studies should be chosen to make results useful for regulatory or policy decision making. Key words: disinfection by-products, epidemiologic methods, exposure assessment, haloacetic acids, trihalomethanes. Environ Health Perspect 110(suppl 1) :53-60 (2002) .

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2002/suppl-1/53-60arbuckle/abstract.html