3.8 Article

Contribution of locally grown foods in cumulative exposure assessments

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500306

关键词

CalTOX; characteristic travel distance (CTD); intake fraction (iF); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both laboratory and field studies confirm the importance of vegetation for scavenging semivolatile organic chemicals (SVOCs) from the atmosphere and a number of exposure studies have found that the dietary pathway is often a significant contributor to cumulative exposure for these chemicals. However, little information exists on the atmospheric source-to-dietary intake linkage for SVOCs. Because of higher SVOC emissions to urban regions, this linkage is particularly important for foods that are grown, distributed and consumed in or near urban regions. The food pathway can also contribute to dietary exposure for populations that are remote from a pollutant source if the pollutants can migrate to agricultural regions and subsequently to the agricultural commodities distributed to that population. We use available data, the characteristic travel distance, and the CalTOX multimedia model framework to assess the contribution of local sources of food to cumulative SVOC intake. Based on published concentration data for foods, our exposure calculations indicate that the potential intake through ingestion can be up to 1000 times that of inhalation for certain persistent SVOCs. We use the population-based intake fraction (iF) to determine how SVOC intake can vary among food commodities and exposure pathways, and to determine the contribution of airborne emitted SVOCs to the diet in the Northern Hemisphere. We focus on three representative multimedia SVOCs-benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. The approach presented here provides a useful framework and starting point for source-to-intake assessments for the ambient air-to-dietary exposure pathway.

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

3.8
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