4.6 Article

Breast-milk levels of polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants in relation to women's age and pre-pregnant body mass index

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2009.09.004

关键词

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs); Breast milk; Breastfeeding; Body mass index (BMI); Lipid content; Age

资金

  1. National Science Council [NSC96-2628-E-020-001 MY3]
  2. Department of Health in Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to determine associations between the occurrence of PBDFs in breast milk of women and their demographic parameters. Participants were randomly recruited from the general Population in southern Taiwan. Thirty two breast milk samples were collected and subsequently 30 congeners of PBDEs were analyzed using a high resolution gas chromatograph with a high resolution mass spectrometer. The mean and median of Sigma PBDEs were 3.54 and 3.31 ng/g lipid, respectively. Sigma PBDE levels in breast milk were not significantly correlated with age and pi e-pregnant BMI of Taiwanese mothers. We (lid find, however, that the higher hexaBDE level was significantly related to older age (> 29 years). Higher levels of Sigma PBDEs and higher brominated PBDEs, such as nonaBDEs and decaBDE, had Slightly but not significantly negative correlations with lower pre-pregnant BMI (<= 21 kg/m(2)). There were no significant differences in PBDE levels among parity and ethnic groups. Sigma PBDE levels in Taiwanese breast milk were lower than those reported from the United States or Canada. Sigma PBDE levels of the present study (2007-2008) are significantly lower than those found ill our previous report (2000-2001). although Our results were limited by the sampling size, preliminary results Suggest file exploratory relations to show positive associations of PBDE homologues (e.g. triBDEs and hexaBDEs) with maternal age. PBDEs pattern of breast milk may have changed after pentaBDEs were stopped to Use in Taiwan. (C) 2009 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据