4.7 Article

Assessment of the risks from dietary lead exposure in China

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 418, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126134

关键词

Dietary lead; Margin of exposure; China

资金

  1. National Key Research and Develop-ment Program of China [2019YFC0214800]
  2. National Natural Sci-ence Foundation of China [41471343, 41101315]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study assessed the dietary lead risk in China and found that despite Pb concentrations in food within regulatory limits, cumulative intake poses high health risks, especially in southern, southwestern, eastern, central, and northern regions. Adjusting dietary structure can lower Pb risk, with selecting local cereals or vegetables with the lowest Pb concentrations helping reduce the proportion of high-risk individuals.
The dietary lead (Pb) risk across China was assessed based on the margin of exposure (MOE) approach by comparing the level (1.5 mu g/kg/d) based on the Pb concentrations in foodstuffs from1386 published articles. The Pb averages of the 18 foods were lower than their corresponding limits enacted by the Chinese government, ranging from 0.09 to 0.30 mg/kg. Food from plants had a much higher contribution to dietary Pb intake than that from animals (86% vs. 14%), and cereals and vegetables contributed 79% of the Pb intake from plant-based food. Although each category of food contained a relatively low Pb concentration, the accumulated Pb from the total diet posed a high risk to human health. The MOE risk from dietary Pb averaged 1.57 and ranged from 0.13 to 6.18, with high risks in southern, southwestern, eastern, central, and northern China. The MOE risk from Pb could be decreased by adjusting the dietary structure, and the ratio of people categorized as high risk (MOE < 1) would decrease from 56% to 37%, 41%, or 24% if the category of cereal or vegetable or both cereals and vegetables with the lowest Pb concentration in their local areas were selected, respectively.

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