| Literature DB >> 30071058 |
Jiao Huo1, Zhenzhen Huang1, Renjia Li1, Yang Song2, Zhen Lan2, Sijia Ma1, Yongning Wu3, Jinyao Chen1, Lishi Zhang1.
Abstract
Dietary exposure of cadmium (Cd) has not been studied in Southwest China. The objective of the study was to determine the pollution characteristics and contamination levels in various agriculture products in Southwest China and to conduct a comparison of dietary exposure assessment of Cd in polluted and non-polluted areas. Results showed that the mean Cd contents in rice were 0.53 and 0.52 mg/kg in the high-polluted and low-polluted areas, respectively, with the average value was 0.03 mg/kg in the control area. The mean dietary Cd exposure from rice and vegetables of the selected non-occupational residents in Southwest China was 113.10 μg/kg bodyweight (bw)/month, 88.80 μg/kg bw/month, and 16.50 μg/kg bw/month in the high-polluted, low-polluted, and control areas, respectively, which correspond to 4.5 times, 3.6 times, and 0.66 times of the provisional tolerable monthly intake (25 μg/kg bw/month) established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. The findings indicated that the risk for Cd exposure of residents was high due to home-grown food (most especially rice) being near polluted areas and is of great concern.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30071058 PMCID: PMC6072016 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic characteristics of the participants.
| Age groups | High-polluted area | Low-polluted area | Control area | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | F | M | F | M | F | |
| 40–44 | 6 | 21 | 4 | 9 | 6 | 17 |
| 45–49 | 22 | 30 | 6 | 12 | 9 | 23 |
| 50–54 | 33 | 51 | 16 | 25 | 8 | 18 |
| 55–59 | 22 | 32 | 19 | 23 | 14 | 13 |
| 60–64 | 45 | 44 | 23 | 25 | 33 | 30 |
| 65–69 | 42 | 47 | 18 | 23 | 27 | 33 |
| 70–75 | 18 | 23 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 6 |
| Total | 188 | 248 | 96 | 129 | 109 | 140 |
Cd levels in major home-grown food samples from the polluted and control areas.
| Food group | Area | Sample number | Maximum | Mean | SD | Median | Detection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cereals | |||||||
| Rice | High-polluted | 153 | 1.73 | 0.53 | 0.30 | 0.49 | 100.00 |
| Low-polluted | 51 | 1.12 | 0.51 | 0.22 | 0.52 | 100.00 | |
| Control | 96 | 0.46 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 88.54 | |
| Roots | |||||||
| Radish | High-polluted | 21 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 100.00 |
| Low-polluted | 18 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 100.00 | |
| Control | 14 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 85.71 | |
| Stems | |||||||
| Potato | High-polluted | 10 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 100.00 |
| Low-polluted | 13 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 100.00 | |
| Control | 17 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 70.59 | |
| Asparagus lettuce | High-polluted | 11 | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 100.00 |
| Low-polluted | 12 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 100.00 | |
| Control | 14 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 100.00 | |
| Celery | High-polluted | 9 | 0.36 | 0.19 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 100.00 |
| Low-polluted | 10 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 100.00 | |
| Control | 13 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 100.00 | |
| Leafy | |||||||
| Garlic sprout | High-polluted | 20 | 0.19 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 100.00 |
| Low-polluted | 15 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 100.00 | |
| Control | 15 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 80.00 | |
| Edible rape | High-polluted | 12 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 100.00 |
| Low-polluted | 14 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 100.00 | |
| Control | 12 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 100.00 | |
| Cabbage | High-polluted | 17 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 100.00 |
| Low-polluted | 18 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 100.00 | |
| Control | 15 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 100.00 |
a The vegetable concentrations were expressed on a fresh weight basis.
b Significant difference of p<0.05 is observed compared with that in the control area.
c Significant difference of p<0.05 is observed compared with that in the low-polluted area.
d “Detection rate” was defined as the sample number of Cd concentrations above LODs per total number of samples.
Dietary Cd exposures of the polluted and control areas.
| Age group | Area | Monthly exposure | Monthly exposure/PTMI |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40–44 | High-polluted | 135.60 | 5.42 |
| Low-polluted | 90.90 | 3.64 | |
| Control | 15.00 | 0.60 | |
| 45–49 | High-polluted | 95.70 | 3.83 |
| Low-polluted | 67.20 | 2.69 | |
| Control | 14.40 | 0.58 | |
| 50–54 | High-polluted | 111.00 | 4.44 |
| Low-polluted | 111.60 | 4.46 | |
| Control | 13.80 | 0.55 | |
| 55–59 | High-polluted | 99.30 | 3.97 |
| Low-polluted | 63.90 | 2.56 | |
| Control | 16.50 | 0.66 | |
| 60–64 | High-polluted | 108.00 | 4.32 |
| Low-polluted | 94.50 | 3.78 | |
| Control | 17.40 | 0.70 | |
| 65–69 | High-polluted | 118.80 | 4.75 |
| Low-polluted | 100.80 | 4.03 | |
| Control | 18.60 | 0.74 | |
| 70–75 | High-polluted | 123.90 | 4.96 |
| Low-polluted | 93.90 | 3.76 | |
| Control | 17.10 | 0.68 |
The ratio of the calculated Cd exposure to the PTMI of 25 μg/kg bw/month recommended by the JECFA.
Fig 1Monthly dietary Cd exposures of 40–75-year-old residents in the polluted and control areas in Southwest China.
Fig 2Contributions of different rice and vegetable groups to Cd exposure.
(A) control area, (B) low-polluted area, (C) high-polluted area.