4.7 Article

Dietary intake estimations of organohalogen contaminants (dioxins, PCB, PBDE and chlorinated pesticides, e.g. DDT) based on Swedish market basket data

Journal

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 9, Pages 1597-1606

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2006.03.011

Keywords

food consumption; persistent organic pollutants (POPs); intake estimation; Sweden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By use of a Swedish Market basket study from 1999, in which foods were sampled from four regions, the dietary intake of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) was assessed. Based on earlier data, six food groups (fish, meat, dairy products, egg, fats/oils, and pastries; comprising 52 food items) were selected for POP analyses. Homogenates from these six groups were subjected to POP analyses and levels presented on dioxins (PCDD/PCDFs), dioxin-like PCBs, PCB-153, Sigma PCBs, BDE-47, Sigma PBDEs, DDE, Sigma DDTs, HCB, Sigma HCHs, and Sigma chlordanes, after adjusting non-quantified levels to 1/2 LOQ. For all compounds, the fish homogenate contained the comparatively highest levels, on a fresh weight basis. Intake calculations based on the six food groups showed that Sigma PCBs and Sigma DDTs gave per capita intakes of 615 and 523 ng/day, respectively, that the estimated Sigma PBDE intake was 51 ng/day and that of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs was 96 pg WHO-TEQ/day. The estimated mean intakes were below (total-TEQ: 1.3 pg/kgbw/day) or well below (Sigma DDTs: 8.9 ng/ kgbw/day) internationally agreed intake limits (total-TEQ: 2 pg/kgbw/day; Sigma DDTs: 10 000 ng/kgbw/day). A number of uncertainty factors, including analytical limitations due to low POP levels in food, give reason for caution in the use of the presented intake data. However, the intake estimations of dioxins, Sigma PCBs and Sigma PBDEs are well in accordance to calculations of POP intakes in Sweden made by alternate methods. (c) 2006 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