Appendix D Food Codes for NHANES - OEHHA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 2012 Table H.13-2 Nickel field studies on exposed crops soil conc bckd (mg/kg) soil conc contam (mg/kg) Crop Name 112 peach 117 peach 122 peach 53 blackberry 53 pear 53 plum 119.32 eggplant 119.32 tomato tissue conc bckg dry wt (mg/kg) tissue conc contam dry wt (mg/kg) H-44 Uptake factor (contam) dry wt dry-to-wet wt conver-sion factor Uptake factor (contam) wet wt plant/dw soil Uptake factor (contam) ww plant/wet w soil Reference Study Type field 1.5 0.0133929 0.131 0.0017545 0.0021931 Basar and Aydmalp 2005 field 1.6 0.0136752 0.131 0.0017915 0.0022393 Basar and Aydmalp 2005 field 2 0.0163934 0.131 0.0021475 0.0026844 Basar and Aydmalp 2005 highly contam area 0.0021 0.002625 Samsoe-Petersen et al., 2002 highly contam area 0.0013 0.001625 Samsoe-Petersen et al., 2002 highly contam area 0.0007 0.000875 Samsoe-Petersen et al., 2002 indust. Poll. Depo. - field 7.92 0.066 0.073 0.0048 0.006 Pandey and Pandey, 2009 indust. Poll. Depo. - field 9.85 0.083 0.059 0.0049 0.006125 Pandey and Pandey, 2009 indust. sewage-field-Egypt ND 106 bell pepper 0.7 0.007 0.074 0.0005 0.000625 Gorbunov et al., 2003 indust. sewage-field-Egypt ND 106 cucumber 0.43 0.004 0.039 0.0002 0.00025 Gorbunov et al., 2003 indust. sewage-field-Egypt ND 106 fig 1.6 0.02 0.225 0.0045 0.005625 Gorbunov et al., 2003 indust. sewage-field-Egypt ND 106 olive 0.41 0.004 0.2 0.0008 0.001 Gorbunov et al., 2003 sewage sludge-field 28.1 34.6 Indian squash 1.3 2.1 0.06 0.082 0.005 0.00625 Jamali et al., 2007 Average nickel uptake factor in exposed crops (fresh weight conc. in plant / wet weight conc. in soil) = 0.00293±0.00226
SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 2012 Table H.13-3 Nickel field studies on protected crops Study Type soil conc bckd (mg/kg) soil conc contam (mg/kg) Crop Name tissue conc bckg dry wt (mg/kg) tissue conc contam dry wt (mg/kg) H-45 Uptake factor (contam) dry wt dry-towet wt conversion factor Uptake factor (contam) wet wt plant/dw soil Uptake factor (contam) ww plant/wet w soil Reference Lokeshwari and Chandrappa (2006) field (sewage-fed lake irrigation) Beans 0.1 0.111 0.0111 0.013875 highly contam area 53 hazelnut 0.033 0.04125 Samsoe-Petersen et al., 2002 indust. sewage-field-Egypt ND 106 bean (spot) 6.9 0.07 0.894 0.06 0.075 Gorbunov et al., 2003 indust. sewage-field-Egypt ND 106 bean (white) 1.9 0.02 0.894 0.02 0.025 Gorbunov et al., 2003 landfill-field 49 green bean 6.37 0.13 0.076 0.0099 0.012375 Samsoe-Petersen et al., 2002 sewage sludge-field 28.1 34.6 cluster beans 1.21 2.1 0.06 0.111 0.007 0.00875 Jamali et al., 2007 sewage sludge-field 28.1 34.6 peas 1.12 1.18 0.03 0.257 0.009 0.01125 Jamali et al., 2007 sewage sludge-pot-field 25 beans 0.3 0.099 0.03 0.0375 Sauerbeck, 1991 sewage sludge-pot-field 25 peas 0.2 0.257 0.04 0.05 Sauerbeck, 1991 Average nickel uptake factor in protected crops (fresh weight conc. in plant / wet weight conc. in soil) = 0.0306±0.0224
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:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176: SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 20
Page 225: SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 20
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?