4.8 Article

Uptake of polychlorodibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorodibenzofurans and coplanar polychlorobiphenyls in chickens

Journal

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
Volume 31, Issue 4, Pages 585-591

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2004.10.008

Keywords

PCDD/Fs; c-PCBs; chickens; absorption; tissue distribution; excreta

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Twelve chickens raised according to commercial standards were fed a diet containing about 30 ng total toxic equivalent (TEQ)/kg for 10 weeks. Persistent pollutants were introduced into the poultry feed via recycled oil to mimic contamination conditions closely resembling those occurring during the Belgian crisis five years ago. Absorption of congeners with the same chlorination degree did not seem to depend on the substitution, demonstrating that unlike for cows, no preferential absorption for 2,3,7,8-substituted compounds could be remarked for chickens. As already observed, absorption decreased with increasing number of chlorines and was not linearly dependent on the octanol/water partition coefficient. On the other hand, no real differences were observed in the absorption of coplanar polychlorinated biphenyls (c-PCBs) with regard to degree of chlorination. When monitored during the course of experiment, concentrations of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and c-PCBs in excreta reached an apparent steady state after 5 weeks. Only 2,3,7,8-substituted dioxins or furans were found in tissues and eggs. All organs showed the same congener profile and similar lipid-normalized concentration, except for the liver. Bioconcentration factors were evaluated, highlighting that the liver preferentially retained highly chlorinated congeners. No depletion of dioxin and PCB concentration was observed after 8 and 14 weeks of control diet, but high inter-individual variation occurs. (c) 2004 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available