Moreover, if HBM will be executed additional healthcare personnel will be required. Finally, availability and allocation of resources may be compared. The first approach asks for a high level of availability and allocation of resources. An HBM campaign with a high number

of samples can only be conducted successfully with an appropriate number of trained persons, well organized logistics and a competent laboratory network. The second approach can already avoid the waste of resources by a science-based decision process not to apply HBM. In the case of HBM application, the approach can help to identify the likely affected persons and to restrict HBM sample collection to these individuals. The compendium PFT�� described in this article and the procedure of Scheepers et al., 2011; Scheepers et al., 2014, this issue) form a good starting point for the routine application of HBM in the case of a chemical incident from a European perspective. Additional initiatives are on the way in Flanders (Smolders et al., 2014, this issue) and in the UK (http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1287146816461). Recently, a first paper describing the framework for HBM of emergency responders

following disasters in the U.S.A. selleck products has been published (Decker et al., 2013). As discussed both approaches have advantages and limitations which need to be further explored in the future. Therefore, the dissemination of the methods among disaster relief forces and healthcare professionals

and their training on the procedures need to be promoted. Thus, experiences may be generated, which can be evaluated to optimize the approaches and ultimately harmonize them in a single guideline. In addition, Tolmetin recent technical developments, e.g., the determination of the cholinesterase status (http://www.securetec.net), allowing “field”-HBM on the disaster site and enabling subsequent therapeutic treatment if necessary, may be incorporated. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This research project was funded by the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) (Förderkennzeichen: III. 1-623-10-350), Germany. The authors thank Dr. Paul Scheepers for reading an early version of the manuscript and for his very helpful comments on it. “
“Workers in a wide range of industries are at risk of occupational exposure to lead. Although the adverse effects of acute lead poisoning are well-known, most incidences of lead toxicity occur through the accumulation of lead in the body by repeated exposures to small amounts (Thaweboon et al., 2005). Toxic effects of repeated low-level lead exposures include hypertension, alteration of bone cell function and reduction in semen quality (Goyer, 1993).