4.7 Article

Exposure risk assessment to ochratoxin A through consumption of juice and wine considering the effect of steam extraction time and vinification stages

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 109, 期 -, 页码 237-244

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.09.013

关键词

Mycotoxins; Risk assessment; Exposure risk; Toxic compounds; Processing effect

资金

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, CAPES) [472691/2013-9]
  2. Research Support Foundation of Rio Grande do Sul (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, FAPERGS) [1995-2551/13-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goals of this study were (i) to verify the effect of steam extraction used in juice production and the stages of vinification on the ochratoxin A (OTA) levels found in grapes naturally contaminated, and (ii) evaluate the risk of exposure to this toxin when the daily consumption of juice and wine is followed to prevent cardiovascular disease. OTA-producing fungi were isolated from Cabernet Sauvignon, Moscato Italico) and Concord grapes harvested from the same vineyard and intended to produce red wine, white wine and juice, respectively. The highest levels of this toxin were found in the Concord grapes used for juice production. Although greater reduction in OTA levels occurred during juice production (73%) compared to winemaking (66 and 44%, for red and white, respectively), the estimated OTA exposure through juice was higher than the tolerable intake established for this toxin by JECFA. The risk associated with juice consumption, rather than wine, can be explained by (i) higher OTA levels found in Concord must than those of Cabernet and Moscato, indicating that Concord grapes appear to be more susceptible to OTA production by toxigenic fungi; and (ii) the daily recommended juice consumption is higher than those proposed to red wine. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. 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