klinitox.de/index.php?id=3). Chemical incidents warrant a rapid decision whether HBM shall be applied and clear strategies for collection of biological samples, HBM analysis and communication on the outcomes of a HBM study to an individual or group in the aftermath. From a European perspective two alternative approaches are offered: the German “public interest–legal liability approach for the application of chemical incident HBM” (Empfehlungen des Umweltbundesamtes, 2006; this article) and the Dutch “pre-defined

transparent procedure for early decision-making concerning application of HBM following chemical incidents” (Scheepers et al., 2011; click here Scheepers et al., 2014, this issue). Both procedures share important features, nevertheless there are also obvious differences. With respect to the selection of agents the first www.selleckchem.com/products/XL184.html approach covers a list of 50 chemical substances and substance groups (Burbiel et al., 2009). In creating this compilation special emphasis was laid on a civil protection point of view through considering the abuse of chemicals for terrorist attacks. In addition to the toxicity data Burbiel et al. designed a scoring system to evaluate the key parameters “availability”, “application” and “socio–economic

impact” to establish a ranking of importance. The second approach comprises of 15 chemical substances and substance groups from a public health point of view. The selection is partially based on practical toxicological experiences and considerations,

e.g., substances being important Phosphoribosylglycinamide formyltransferase constituents of process emissions and fires or identification as acute exposure threshold level case study substances. Moreover, the key parameter “availability” plays an important role as the relevance of the chemical substances and substance groups was assessed based on the Dutch “Register Risk Situations Hazardous Substances”. The registry highlights nationwide the frequency of occurrence of chemical substances using the format of risk maps (http://www.risicokaart.nl). The use of the identical criterion “availability” in both procedures results in 47% match (7/15 of the Dutch list) of identified hazardous substances, namely acrylonitrile, arsine, benzene, dioxine, ethylene oxide, hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen fluoride. This may form a nucleus for a future European consensus list. The two approaches supply for each chemical substance or substance group CAS-number(s), basic toxicity data, IVERs (especially US EPA AEGL-2 values), occupational air and biological threshold values and HBM procedure data.