4.7 Article

Inorganic arsenic in food products on the Swedish market and a risk-based intake assessment

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 672, 期 -, 页码 525-535

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.289

关键词

Inorganic arsenic; Rice; Shellfish; Fish; Intake; Risk assessment

资金

  1. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
  2. Sahlgrenska University Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inorganic arsenic (iAs) and total arsenic (tAs) were determined in common food from the Swedish market. Special focus was on rice, fish and shellfish products. For the speciation of iAs the European standard EN:16802 based on anion exchange chromatography coupled to ICP-MS was used. The two market basket food groups cereals (including rice), and sweets and condiments (a mixed group of sugar, sweets, tomato ketchup and dressings), contained the highest iAs levels (means 9 and 7 mu g iAs/kg), whereas other food groups, including fish, did not exceed 2 mu g iAs/kg. Varying levels of iAs were found in separate samples of tomato ketchup, 2.4-26 mu g/kg, and is suggested to be one reason of the rather high average level of iAs in the food group sweets and condiments. Some specific food products revealed iAs levels much higher, i.e. lice crackers 152 and Norway lobster 89 mu g iAs/kg. The intake of iAs via food was estimated by data from two national consumption surveys, performed in 2010-11 (1797 adults) and 2003 (2259 children). The estimated median iAs intakes in adults and children were 0.047 and 0.095 mu g/kg body weight and day, respectively. The iAs intake for rice eaters was about 1.4 times higher than for non-rice eaters. Validation of the consumption survey-based iAs intake, using food purchase and market basket data mainly from 2015, resulted in a per capita intake of a similar magnitude, i.e. 0.056 mu g/kg body weight and day. The estimated cancer risk for adults using low-dose linear extrapolation is <1 per 100,000 per year. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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