4.7 Article

Levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides in edible shellfish from Xiamen (China) and estimation of human dietary intake

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 50, 期 12, 页码 4285-4291

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.052

关键词

Polychlorinated biphenyls; Organochlorine pesticides; Residual level; Shellfish; Intake estimation; China

资金

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) [KZCX2-EW-QN408]
  2. One Hundred Talents Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences
  3. Xiamen Science and Technology Fund [3502Z20112017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Xiamen is a representative coastal city in China. Shellfish is widely consumed by local people. A broad spectrum of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were measured in representative shellfish from Xiamen. Despite being banned many years ago, these chemicals were still detected at varying levels. The total PCB levels ranged from 0.48 to 3.28 ng/g wet wt. for the shellfish surveyed. The tetra-, penta- and hexa-PCB congeners were found to be predominant. The estimated WHO-TEQ PCB intakes through shellfish consumption ranged from 0.063 to 0.102 pg/kg body wt. for Xiamen adults and children, which were significantly lower than tolerable weekly intake. Among OCPs, DDTs were predominant, followed by aldrin-like chemicals and endosulfans. The increase in aldrin-like chemicals and endosulfans, and the decrease in DDTs were observed in this study when compared to historical data in Xiamen. HCHs, chlordanes, HCB, heptachlors and mirex were detected with low concentrations in the shellfish. The estimated intakes of OCPs were several orders lower than tolerable daily intakes. However, the high carcinogenic risk of aldrin and dieldrin were found in the measured shellfish species. pp-ODD, p'p-DDT, alpha-HCH and beta-HCH in certain species should also be concerned for their potential carcinogenic risks. Crown Copyright (C) 2012 Published by 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