China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Benefits of Trivalent Chromium in Human Nutrition?
Published in Debasis Bagchi, Manashi Bagchi, Metal Toxicology Handbook, 2020
As no adverse effects have been convincingly associated with excess intake of chromium from food or supplements, no Upper Tolerable Limit was established for chromium as the trivalent ion in 2001 by the Institutes of Medicine of the National Research Council (US) (41). Other agencies have taken similar positions. In 2005, the US FDA found that the use of chromium supplements was safe up to 1 mg chromium/day, the highest amount used in clinical trials (32). In 2003, the Scientific Committee on Food (European Union, now replaced by EFSA) found insignificant evidence to set a Tolerable Upper Intake Level. From the limited number of studies, no evidence of adverse effects was found to be associated with supplemental chromium intake up to a dose of 1 mg/day; this recommendation was specifically for sources of chromium(III) other than chromium picolinate (51). In 2014, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) derived a Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) of 300 µg chromium/kg body mass daily from the lowest No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) identified in a chromic oral toxicity study in rats (52). In 2003, the Food Standard Agency’s Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals (United Kingdom) determined that doses up to 10 mg of chromium daily should be safe for humans (53). This does not mean that no toxic effects might be associated with high intakes of trivalent chromium. No significant health concerns have been found for current commercial chromium supplements at current doses, although questions about the use of chromium picolinate have been raised.
Evaluation of Food and Food Contaminants
Published in William J. Rea, Kalpana D. Patel, Reversibility of Chronic Disease and Hypersensitivity, Volume 5, 2017
William J. Rea, Kalpana D. Patel
Of the reproductive/developmental effects documented in the literature, spermatogenesis is considered the most sensitive adverse effect of TCDD exposure, as shown by the use of this end point by the WHO in setting its tolerable daily intake for TCDD (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 2001). Sperm counts are decreased by up to 36% compared with controls,422 with the lowest effective dose of 0.064 μg TCDD/kg body weight (BW) reported for Holtzman rats.437 GD15 is the most sensitive time point for the adverse effects of TCDD exposure because effects on spermatogenesis in rats with lactational exposure were less pronounced.422 Furthermore, the effects are thought to be AhR mediated because severity of the TCDD effect on epididymal sperm count is modified in rats bearing different resistance alleles.447,448
Cyanobacterial toxins
Published in Ingrid Chorus, Martin Welker, Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water, 2021
where TDIMC,chronic = tolerable daily intake for chronic exposureNOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect level (40 μg/kg bw per day, based on Fawell et al., 1999)UF = uncertainty factor (1000 = 10 for interspecies variation × 10 for intraspecies variation × 10 for database deficiencies, including use of a subchronic study)
Preliminary survey of the occurrence of mycotoxins in cereals and estimated exposure in a northwestern region of Mexico
Published in International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 2022
I. B. Molina-Pintor, M. A. Ruíz-Arias, M. C. Guerrero-Flores, A. E. Rojas-García, B. S. Barrón-Vivanco, I. M. Medina-Díaz, Y. Y. Bernal-Hernández, L. Ortega-Cervantes, C. H. Rodríguez-Cervantes, A. J. Ramos, V. Sanchis, S. Marín, C. A. González-Arias
Despite worldwide regulation, exposure to various mycotoxins in foods has been documented (Adetunji et al. 2017; Al Jabira et al. 2019; Foerster et al. 2020). Estimated exposure to mycotoxins can therefore be assessed by both the detection of the toxin in potentially contaminated foodstuffs, as well as by the evaluation of the dietary habits of a population. In this sense, the probable daily intake (PDI) expressed as ng/kg of body weight (bw) per day is a widely used tool for evaluating the dietary risk of mycotoxin intake ([WHO] World Health Organization 2002; [JECFA] Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 2016). For toxic but non-carcinogenic effects caused by an agent, the PDI is compared with the tolerable daily intake (TDI) or provisional maximum tolerable daily intake (PMTDI) ([IARC] International Agency for Research on Cancer 2012). For genotoxic carcinogens such as AFs, the margin of exposure (MoE) method is used in which the estimated exposure is calculated by dividing the MoE and the calculated PDI; an MoE below 10,000 may indicate a public health concern ([EFSA] European Food Safety Authority 2013).
Exposure assessment of potentially toxic trace elements via consumption of fruits and vegetables grown under the impact of Alaverdi's mining complex
Published in Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 2019
Davit Pipoyan, Meline Beglaryan, Liana Sireyan, Nicolò Merendino
According to the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF 2006), in the absence of adequate dose-response data for adverse health effects it is not possible to establish a tolerable upper intake level for Ni. Meanwhile, according to EFSA scientific opinion (EFSA 2015a) on the risks to human health from Ni in food, the tolerable daily intake (TDI) is 0.0028 mg/kg/BW/d (2.80E-03 mg/kg/BW/d). Besides, European Food Safety Authority also stated that the mentioned value may not be sufficiently protective of individuals sensitized to Ni (EFSA 2015a). According to data presented in Table 6, the EDI of Ni obtained for some investigated fruits and vegetables showed a decreasing order of raspberry > fig > peach > apple > cherry > potato > maize and was higher than the TDI (0.0028 mg/kg/BW/d). The obtained results (Table 6) also suggested that in case of combined consumption of the investigated fruits and vegetables, the estimated cumulative daily intake (4.90E-02 mg/kg/BW/d) exceeded the TDI (EFSA 2015a).
Interactions of microplastics with contaminants in freshwater systems: a review of characteristics, bioaccessibility, and environmental factors affecting sorption
Published in Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 2023
Farhad Avazzadeh Samani, Louise Meunier
Among the several exposure pathways, oral intake of contaminated water or food is often the most prevalent route of MPs uptake by humans.[9] However, not all contaminants associated with ingested MPs reach systemic circulation in the human body. Indeed, only a certain amount of contaminant is leached/released from ingested MPs into the GIT system, and only this fraction (soluble in digestive fluids) may be harmful to human health. This fraction of contaminant soluble in the GIT is called the bioaccessible fraction.[30] In general, bioaccessibility is defined as the proportion of an inhaled, dermally absorbed, or ingested dose of a substance that is accessible for absorption in the body. Bioaccessibility tests are carried out in vitro using simulated media that mimic physiological conditions. Once solubilized, a contaminant may cross epithelial barriers to reach blood and organs. In contrast, the bioavailable fraction is the part of the dose that enters systemic circulation, and is normally measured in vivo.[31] Thus, the bioavailable fraction cannot be greater than the bioaccessible fraction. These measurements can be applied to the estimation of risks by comparing the bioaccessible dose with a toxicity reference value (TRV) or tolerable daily intake (TDI).[32] Applying bioaccessibility estimates allows for a more accurate yet conservative assessment, without overestimating the risks, especially for cases where a bioaccessible dose is considerably lower than the total dose.[32]