4.7 Article

Dietary exposure of the Chinese population to phthalate esters by a Total Diet Study

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 89, 期 -, 页码 314-321

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.11.019

关键词

Phthalate esters; Total Diet Study; Dietary exposure; Tolerable daily intakes

资金

  1. China Food Safety Talent Competency Development Initiative [CFSA 523]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dietary exposure to phthalate esters (PAEs) was assessed for the general Chinese population in the 5th Chinese Total Diet Study (TDS). Concentrations of 16 PAEs, including bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), butylbenzyl phthalate (BBP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), dimethyl phthalate (DMP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), bis (2-n-butoxyethyl) phthalate (DBEP), bis (2-ethoxyethyl) phthalate (DEEP), bis (2-methoxyethyl) phthalate (DMEP), bis (4-methyl-2-pentyl) phthalate (BMPP), dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP), dipentyl phthalate (DPP), diphenyl phthalate (DPhP), di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHXP), dinonyl phthalate (DNP), di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP) were determined in 192 composite food samples collected from the TDS. The results showed that 76.0% of the samples contained one or more PAEs with concentrations ranging from 0.017 to 7.19 mg/kg. The most frequently detected PAEs were DEHP (43.8%), DBP (35.9%), DMP (26.6%), DNP (25.5%), DIBP (24.5%), and DCHP (18.8%). The major dietary source of PAEs was vegetables, followed by cereals. A dietary exposure of the general population was assessed using lower bound (LB) and upper bound (UB) assumptions for left-censorship management. The average estimated daily intakes of PAEs in the general Chinese population ranged from 0.00 to 6.38 mu g/kg bw per day, which were lower than the respective tolerable daily intakes (TDIs) of PAEs. The results suggested that dietary exposures to all of the PAEs analyzed in this study were unlikely to pose unacceptable health risks to the majority of the population in China. (C) 2018 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