Appendix D Food Codes for NHANES - OEHHA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 2012 document, the overall Hg concentration in crops grown in Hg-polluted soils was about 0.2 mg/kg. Table H.6: Percentile distribution for mercury fresh weight soil-to-plant uptake factors Leafy Exposed Protected Root n 33 23 15 18 minimum 0.00021 0.000248 0.000106 0.00111 maximum 0.0813 0.0938 0.0363 0.0588 mean 0.0163 0.00855 0.00804 0.0119 median 0.00875 0.00225 0.00514 0.00553 90th percentile 0.0478 0.0175 0.016 0.0274 95th percentile 0.06 0.0198 0.0223 0.0545 H.8 Nickel Nickel (Ni) is considered to be one of the more mobile heavy metals in soils (Sauerbeck and Hein, 1991). However, in contrast to Cd, the toxicity of Ni in mammals is lower and phytotoxicity occurs at lower concentrations. Similar to other divalent, cationic metals, acidification of soil increases bioavailability, and liming of soil decreases bioavailability, of Ni to plants. The UF data presented in Table H.7 are based on field-contaminated studies. One study that added Ni salts to soil can be found in the database, but appeared to result in increased plant uptake compared to the field data and was, thus, not included for the UF calculations. The mean concentration of Ni in uncontaminated U.S. agricultural soils is 23.9 mg/kg, with 5 th and 95 th percentiles of 4.1 and 56.8 mg/kg, respectively (Holmgren et al., 1993). The mean concentration of Ni for field-contaminated soils reviewed in this document was about 70 mg/kg d.w., with a range of 13 to 122 mg/kg d.w. Typical Ni levels in plants are expected to be in the range of 0.1 to 5 mg/kg dry weight (Vecera et al., 1999). In this report, the overall mean dry weight concentration of Ni in crops was about 9 mg/kg. Table H.7: Percentile distribution for nickel fresh weight soil-to-plant uptake factors Leafy Exposed Protected Root n 11 13 9 11 minimum 0.00135 0.00025 0.00875 0.00163 maximum 0.0375 0.00625 0.075 0.0175 mean 0.0145 0.00293 0.0305 0.00638 median 0.00888 0.00224 0.025 0.00463 90 th percentile 0.0250 0.00610 0.055 0.0125 95 th percentile 0.0313 0.00618 0.065 0.0150 H-12
SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 2012 H.9 Selenium The major inorganic species of selenium (Se) in plant sources is selenate, which is translocated directly from the soil and is less readily bound to soil components than selenite (McLaughlin et al., 1999; Rayman, 2008) .The more reduced forms, selenide and elemental Se, are virtually insoluble and do not contribute directly to plant uptake. Other major Se species in plants are biosynthesized, including selenomethionine, smaller amounts of selenocysteine, and Se-containing proteins. At pH values around 7.0 or greater, oxidation to the more soluble selenate ion is favored. Thus, endemic vegetation in alkaline, seleniferous soil of the western U.S. has evolved that is highly tolerant and can hyperaccumulate Se (McLaughlin et al., 1999). However, potential Se-accumulators that are food sources for humans are largely limited to Brazil nuts, a tree crop that is not grown in California (Rayman et al., 2008). Crops of the Brassica (e.g., broccoli, cabbage) and Allium (e.g., onions, garlic, leeks, chives) families appear to more readily accumulate Se than other crops, and form the Se detoxification products Se-methyl-selenocysteine and gamma-glutamyl-Se-methylselenocysteine. Se-enriched plants have been shown in animals to have potent antitumor effects that are attributed to these Se detoxification products. Though there is no direct evidence in humans, it is generally accepted on the basis of animal studies that inorganic forms of Se are more acutely toxic than organic species, selenite being slightly more toxic than selenate (Rayman et al., 2008). In chronic studies of humans, lower toxicity is seen with organically bound Se, although there are limited data on the toxicity of individual compounds. Selenomethionine is known to be the main Se species present in the diet of Chinese who developed chronic selenosis from consumption of high-Se-containing maize and rice. Based on these Chinese studies, 1540 and 819 µg/day were established as the LOAEL and NOAEL, respectively, for total daily Se intake (Rayman, 2008). However, the levels found in crops rarely accumulate greater than 25-30 µg/g even in seleniferous areas suggesting other sources of Se are also contributors to chronic Se toxicity. Although the UF data for Se were limited, an overall mean dry weight crop Se concentration of about 4 mg/kg was calculated from the reviewed studies, with a maximum crop concentration of 19 mg/kg. Kloke et al. (1984) observed a general dry weight UF for Se in plants would be 0.1 to 10. Based on the studies examined in this document, an overall dry weight uptake factor of 0.9 was calculated for crops grown in Se-polluted soils, which was within the range predicted. Field contamination studies were the primary source of the UF distribution data in Table H.8. The Se pollution sources included mainly fly ash, smelters and compost. H-13
Page 1 and 2:
SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 20
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
SRPcientific Review Panel Draft Ver
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Scientific Review Panel Draft Febru
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144: Scientific Review Panel Draft Febru
Page 163 and 164: SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 20
Page 193: SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 20
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Scientific Review PanelSRP Draft Ve
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
show all

Appendix D Food Codes for NHANES - OEHHA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?