4.7 Article

Persistent organic pollutants in matched breast milk and infant faeces samples

Journal

CHEMOSPHERE
Volume 118, Issue -, Pages 309-314

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.09.076

Keywords

Infant; POPs; Blood concentration; Breast milk concentration; Faeces concentration

Funding

  1. Queensland Health
  2. ARC Future Fellowship [FF120100546]
  3. ARC DECRA [DE120100161]
  4. Australian Research Council [DE120100161] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Assessing blood concentration of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in infants is difficult due to the ethical and practical difficulties in obtaining sufficient quantities of blood. To determine whether measuring POPs in faeces might reflect blood concentration during infancy, we measured the concentrations of a range of POPs (i.e. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs)) in a pilot study using matched breast milk and infant faecal samples obtained from ten mother-child pairs. All infants were breast fed, with 8 of them also receiving solid food at the time of faecal sampling. In this small dataset faecal concentrations (range 0.01-41 ng g(-1) lipid) are strongly associated with milk concentrations (range 0.02-230 ng g(-1) lipid). Associations with other factors generally could not be detected in this dataset, with the exception of a small effect of age or growth. Different sources (external or internal) of exposure appeared to directly influence faecal concentrations of different chemicals based on different inter-individual variability in the faeces-to-milk concentration ratio R-fm. Overall, the matrix of faeces as an external measure of internal exposure in infants looks promising for some chemicals and is worth assessing further in larger datasets. (c) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available