4.6 Article

Dietary intake of mercury by children and adults in Jinhu area of China

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2011.03.002

关键词

Duplicate diet study; Dietary exposure; Risk assessment; Mercury; PTWI

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30671763]
  2. National Science and Technology Support Program [2006BAK02A01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dietary intakes of mercury by children and adults in Jinhu area of China were determined using a duplicate diet approach. A total of 176 duplicate diet portions were collected from 60 individuals in November and December of 2007. Mercury levels in duplicate samples were measured by atomic fluorescence spectrometry. The daily mercury intakes (median and range) from consumption days without fish or shellfish for children and adults were 0.13 (0.05-0.78) mu g(kg(bw))(-1) day(-1) and 0.07 (0.04-0.18) mu g(kg(bw))(-1) day(-1), respectively, which were significantly lower than those from consumption days with fish or shellfish for both children and adults whose daily intakes (median and range) were 0.16(0.11-0.84) mu g(kg(bw))(-1) day(-1) and 0.09(0.05-0.46) mu g(kg(bw))(-1) day(-1), respectively. The exposure level of children was significantly higher than that of adults. The 50th and 99th percentile of the usual mercury intake from all consumption days for children were 0.14 and 0.22 mu g(kg(bw))(-1) day(-1) and for adults were 0.09 and 0.14 mu g(kg(bw))(-1) day(-1), where the between-person variance in dietary mercury intake for children and adults were 0.038 and 0.036, respectively. Comparing with the provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) divided into daily intake (PTDI) of 0.57 mu g(kg(bw))(-1) day(-1), it is concluded that the average daily intakes and the usual intakes to mercury can be considered safe for both children and adults in Jinhu area by the duplicate diet study. But the maximum daily intakes for children exceeding the PTDI deserve a close attention. (C) 2011 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