4.7 Article

Ochratoxin A and its metabolite ochratoxin alpha in urine and assessment of the exposure of inhabitants of Lleida, Spain

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 1436-1442

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.03.039

关键词

Ochratoxin A; Ochratoxin alpha; Human urine; Daily intake; Exposure assessment

资金

  1. Spanish Government (CICYT, Comision Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologia) [AGL 2008-05030-C02-01]
  2. Catalonian Food Safety Agency of Generalitat de Catalunya Health Department
  3. Comissionat per a Universitats i Recerca del Departament dInnovacio
  4. Universitats i Empresa of the Generalitat de Catalunya (Spain)
  5. European Social Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ochratoxin A (OTA) as well as its metabolite ochratoxin alpha (OT alpha) were detected in human urine in order to assess the exposure to OTA of a group of 72 adult inhabitants of the city of Lleida (Spain). Urine samples were enzymatically treated: OTA and OT alpha were separated by liquid-liquid extraction, and detected by HPLC-fluorescence. Exposure to OTA was also evaluated by the estimation of its daily intake from food contamination data from the literature and from food consumption data provided by the participants, who filled in a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and a three-day food consumption record (3DR). OTA occurrence (12.5%, limit of detection = 0.034 ng/mL) was lower than OT alpha occurrence (61.1%, limit of detection = 0.023 ng/mL). The range of concentrations was 0.057-0.562 ng/mL and 0.056-2.894 ng/mL for OTA and for OT alpha, respectively. It could be observed for positive samples that the FFQ data were related to the OTA concentration in urine, whereas the 3DR data were related to the OT alpha levels in urine. The OTA estimated daily intake of the participants was lower than 30% of the latest provisional tolerable daily intake of 14 ng/kg body weight/day in the worst cases of exposure. (C) 2011 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