4.7 Article

Determination of PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs in fish oils for feed ingredients by congener-specific chemical analysis and CALUX bioassay

Journal

CHEMOSPHERE
Volume 69, Issue 8, Pages 1188-1194

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.06.021

Keywords

fish oil; PCDD/Fs; dioxin-like PCBs; WHO-TEQ; CALUX assay

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present research was intended to determine the suitability of the CALUX assay as a screening method for dioxins in fish oil used as a feed ingredient in Japan. Alteration of TEQ in fish oil according to newly proposed toxic equivalency factors (TEF) is also discussed. In the analysis, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (DL-PCBs) in 41 fish oil samples were determined by using high-resolution gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) and CALUX bioassay. The mean TEQ values derived from 1998 WHO-TEF of PCDD/Fs and DL-PCBs were 2.6 and 9.9 pg g(-1) (ww), respectively. The levels of TEQ derived from the recently re-evaluated 2005 WHO-TEF were slightly lower than those of the former in both groups. Notably, the contribution of mono-ortho DL-PCBs to total 2005 WHO-TFQ was considerably decreased compared to the case of 1998 WHO-TEQ, resulting from the reduction in its TEF values, while the non-ortho DL-PCBs contribution was increased. The mean TEQ determined by CALUX assay for PCDD/Fs was approximately three times higher, whereas DL-PCBs was approximately two times lower than WHO-TEQ determined by HRGC/HRMS; the sum of PCDD/Fs and DL-PCBs was very similar by both methods. The correlation coefficients of TEQ between the CALUX assay and HRGC/HRMS analysis were 0.84, 0.89, and 0.90 for PCDD/Fs,' DL-PCBs, and the sum, respectively. These results suggest that the CALUX assay is a very useful method for the screening of dioxin-related compounds in fish oils. (C) 2007 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