4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

PCDD/F levels in plasma of a Belgian population before and after the 1999 Belgian PCB/DIOXIN incident

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 67, 期 9, 页码 S217-S223

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.05.101

关键词

polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins; polychlorinated dibenzofurans; blood plasma; Belgian food contamination; blood donors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated the impact of the 1999 Belgian dioxin incident on the blood plasma polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDF) levels among 232 Belgian blood donors (74% men, mean age 47 years). The Red Cross made plasma samples from before the incident of these donors available. A second plasma sample was collected during the second half of 2000. The sum of the 17 PCDD/F congeners was significantly lower in 2000 compared to 1998 (417 pg/g fat versus 445 pg/g fat, respectively). This could be completely attributed to the significant decrease of OctaCDD (301 pg/g fat in 2000 versus 277 pg/g fat in 1998). Moreover a slight but significant decrease was observed for 2,3,7,8-TetraCDF and for 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptaCDF. l,2,3,7,8-PentaCDF and 2,3,4,7,8-PentaCDF however showed a slight but significant increase (respective levels in 1998 were 0.004 and 14.5 pg/g fat compared to 0.006 and 17.9 pg/g fat in 2000). Given their significantly higher presence in incident related food samples this increase can be attributed to the food contamination episode. However, the total toxicity remained unchanged (22.9 in 1998 versus 23.1 pg WHO-TEQ/g fat, p > 0.05). Moreover the observed congener profiles and the total PCDD/F levels were similar to those of other European non-occupationally exposed populations. In conclusion, the 1999 PCB/dioxin incident was traceable in the plasma profiles (rise of the two specific PCDF congeners), but comparison of the results for both years indicates that the changes were too small to cause an adverse public health effect. (c) 2006 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