4.7 Article

Dietary arsenic exposure in Bangladesh

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
Volume 115, Issue 6, Pages 889-893

Publisher

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.9462

Keywords

Bangladesh; dose; duplicate diet; food; intake; water

Funding

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [P42 ES005947, ES 05947, P30 ES000002, R01 ES011622, ES 00002, ES 011622] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Millions of people in Bangladesh are at risk of chronic arsenic toxicity from drinking contaminated groundwater, but little is known about diet as an additional source ofAs exposure. METHODS: We employed a duplicate diet survey to quantify daily As intake in 47 women residing in Pabna, Bangladesh. All samples were analyzed for total As, and a subset of 35 samples were measured for inorganic arsenic (iAs) using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry equipped with a dynamic reaction cell. RESULTS: Median daily total As intake was 48 mu g As/day [interquartile range (IQR), 33-67) from food and 4 mu g As/day (IQR, 2-152) from drinking water. On average, iAs comprised 82% of the total As detected in dietary samples. After adjusting for the estimated inorganic fraction, 34% [95% confidence interval (CI), 21-49%] of all participants exceeded the World Health Organization's provisional tolerable daily intake (PTDI) of 2.1 mu g As/kg-day. Two of the 33 women who used a well with < 50 mu g As/L exceeded this recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: When drinking water concentrations exceeded the Bangladesh drinking water standard of 50 mu g As/L, ingested water was the dominant source of exposure. However, as drinking water As concentrations decrease, the relative contribution of dietary As sources becomes more important to ingested dose. The combined intake from both diet and drinking water can cause some individuals to exceed the PTDI in spite of using a tube well that contains < 50 mu g As/L.

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