4.3 Article

Food Poisoning Caused by Deoxynivalenol at a School in Zhuhai, Guangdong, China, in 2019

期刊

FOODBORNE PATHOGENS AND DISEASE
卷 17, 期 7, 页码 429-433

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2019.2710

关键词

deoxynivalenol (DON); food poisoning; epidemiological investigation

资金

  1. Zhuhai Center for Disease Control and Prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deoxynivalenol (DON) or vomitoxin is a mycotoxin produced by Fusarium species. Few food poisoning cases caused by DON have been reported since the 1990s in China. However, on May 16, 2019, the Zhuhai Center for Disease Control and Prevention received a case report from primary school S that many students began vomiting after eating breakfast. To discern the cause and control the outbreak effectively, an epidemiological investigation was carried out. This retrospective cohort study defined both suspected and probable cases of food poisoning using ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with triple quadrupole mass spectrometry to detect 16 mycotoxins simultaneously. A total of 101 cases (14 suspected and 87 probable) were identified, with an overall attack rate of 8.1%. All cases were in grades 1-3. The main symptoms of probable cases were vomiting (100%) and nausea (63%). The average incubation time was 25 min after eating. Comparison of students who ate breakfast provided by the school with those who did not revealed the relative risk was 6.0 (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 2.2-16) among students in grades 1-3. The concentration of DON in the leftover raw breakfast noodles ranged from 6856 to 11,982 mu g/kg and 878.3 to 1074.2 mu g/kg in leftover cooked noodles. DON exposure was 1.3-1.6 mu g/kg body weight for grades 1-2 and 1.7-2.1 mu g/kg body weight for grade 3. The attack rate of grade 3 was 4.3 times higher than that for grades 1-2 (95% CI = 3.0-6.3). The food poisoning outbreak on May 16, 2019 in primary school S in China, was determined to be caused by DON-contaminated commercial raw noodles.

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

4.3
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