Difference between revisions of "Talk:Exposure"
(Air pollution?) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| − | | | + | |Statements= Exposure is mainly related to air pollution |
| − | | | + | |Resolution= |
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
| − | {{attack| | + | {{attack|1|Exposure is a general term meaning contact between an agent and target in all media, not only air.|[[User:Jgrellier|Jgrellier]] 12:26, 14 November 2007 (EET), --[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko]] 13:18, 14 November 2007 (EET)}} |
| − | {{comment| | + | {{comment|2|Technically, exposure does refer to the contact between agent and target organism's "outer boundary" for any media. Probably the reason for why the statement says exposure is mainly for air pollution is that for air pollution, it is reasonable to have the "exposure concentration" as a meaningful outcome. For other exposure pathways such as ingestion or dermal contact, then the calculation of an intake (e.g. how much is eaten, what crosses the skin barrier) is more relevant. I guess we have broadly been using the term "exposure" to also include intake. It is important to note that sometimes (in US EPA, at least) this is referred to as potential dose...but it is not dose in the sense of what is taken up by the body and biologically active, therefore we use intake instead.|--[[User:Miranda|Miranda]] 17:55, 28 November 2007 (EET)}} |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:20, 16 November 2009
Air pollution?
| Statements: Exposure is mainly related to air pollution
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤1: Exposure is a general term meaning contact between an agent and target in all media, not only air. Jgrellier 12:26, 14 November 2007 (EET), --Mikko 13:18, 14 November 2007 (EET) --2: Technically, exposure does refer to the contact between agent and target organism's "outer boundary" for any media. Probably the reason for why the statement says exposure is mainly for air pollution is that for air pollution, it is reasonable to have the "exposure concentration" as a meaningful outcome. For other exposure pathways such as ingestion or dermal contact, then the calculation of an intake (e.g. how much is eaten, what crosses the skin barrier) is more relevant. I guess we have broadly been using the term "exposure" to also include intake. It is important to note that sometimes (in US EPA, at least) this is referred to as potential dose...but it is not dose in the sense of what is taken up by the body and biologically active, therefore we use intake instead. --Miranda 17:55, 28 November 2007 (EET) |
