The values (mean +/- SD) of scores on the Stress and Arousal Check Lists (s-SACL and a-SACL), Social Adaptation Self-evaluation Scale (SASS), plasma MHPG click here levels and plasma BDNF levels were 6.0 +/- 3.4, 5.7 +/- 23, 33.7 +/- 6.8, 5.8 +/- 4.3 and 4.6 +/- 3.1 ng ml(-1), respectively. A positive correlation was found between plasma MHPG levels and scores on the s-SACL, but not the a-SACL. A positive correlation was also found between SASS scores and plasma MHPG levels and between SASS scores and plasma BDNF levels. A negative correlation was found between

plasma BDNF levels and s-SACL scores. Furthermore, a positive correlation between NEO-Five factor Inventory (Openness) scores and plasma MHPG levels was observed, as well as between NEO-Five factor Inventory (Extroversion) scores and plasma BDNF levels. These results suggest that levels of plasma BDNF and plasma MHPG might be associated with psychological job stress and certain personality traits among employees in the publishing industry in Japan. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.”
“In the risk assessment process, the reference dose, tolerable intake, or acceptable daily intake (RfD,

TDI, ADI) is apportioned to specific exposure 4SC-202 research buy sources on the basis of a source allocation factor (AF) or relative source contribution (RSC). The U.S. Environmental Protection selleck Agency (EPA) published an exposure decision tree framework in 2000 to guide the determination of AF (or RSC) of drinking-water contaminants (DWC). Besides that, there has not been any systematic

analysis of the basis of the use of AF in DWC risk assessments. This article therefore critically reviews and integrates current knowledge and approaches for the development of AF, while focusing on its consistent use in DWC risk assessments based on consideration of (i) risk assessment endpoint, (ii) existing guidelines, (iii) exposure estimates, (iv) usage pattern and environmental fate information, (v) physicochemical properties, (vi) bounds of AF, (vii) multiroute exposures, and (viii) target population characteristics. Accordingly, for a DWC for which drinking water is not a major source of exposure and for which there is documented evidence of widespread presence in one or more of the other media (i.e., air, food, soil, or consumer products), the use of an AF value of 0.2 is suggested. For DWC for which drinking water represents nearly the single major source of exposure, a ceiling AF value of 0.8 is suggested. For other situations, chemical- and context-specific AF values can be developed based on exposure data or models, which should in turn be bounded by the floor and ceiling AF values as originally described by the U.S. EPA (i.e., 0.20.8).