Appendix D Food Codes for NHANES - OEHHA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 2012 Table I-2. Percent Muscle Lipid Content and/or Mean Trophic Level for some Freshwater Sport-Fish Found in California Common Name Mean % Muscle Lipid I-5 Mean Trophic Level Carp (Cypinus carpio) 4.45 3 (10-23 cm) 2.4 (>23 cm) Catfish Black bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish White catfish Yellow catfish Blue catfish Flathead catfish Perch Yellow perch Trout Rainbow trout Brook trout Brown trout Cutthroat trout Lake trout Bass Smallmouth Largemouth 1.12 2.79 5.00 2.15 0.75 0.66 4.00 1.51 3.81 1.23 10.90 1.1 1.03 (35-48 cm) 3.1 (54 cm) 3 3 3.1 (5-30 cm) 2.8-4 (36-54 cm) 3 3.8 3.4 3 (50 cm) 3.2 3 (40 cm) 3.7 (20-30 cm) 3.9 (30-40 cm) 4.2 (>40 cm) Black crappie 0.57 (14-23 cm) Sources: U.S. EPA (1998); OEHHA (1999); SFBRWQCB (2005); Morrison et al. (1997) I.1.1 Uptake and Accumulation of Semi- or Non-Volatile Organic Chemicals in Fish Tissues Much of the field data for BAFs of organic chemicals comes from studies in the Great Lakes region (Eisenreich et al., 1981). The large surface area of the lakes, long hydraulic residence times, and major pollution sources near and upwind of the lakes have a significant impact on airborne deposited trace organic inputs. For lipophilic, bioaccumulative organic chemicals, U.S. EPA (1998) recommends calculating a BAF based on the concentration of freely dissolved chemical in the ambient water and the lipid-normalized concentration in tissue. Regarding lipid
SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 2012 normalization, the BAF of lipophilic organic chemicals is usually directly proportional to the percent lipid content in the tissue of interest (U.S. EPA, 1998). For example, a fish with four percent lipid content would accumulate twice the amount of a chemical as a fish with two percent lipid content, all else being equal. Normalizing BAFs or BCFs to lipid content allows comparison between different fish species on the basis of factors other than percent lipid content. The lipid-normalized concentration is expressed as: C = Ct / f Eq. I.2 where: Ct = Concentration of chemical in wet tissue (either whole fish or specified tissue) f = Fraction lipid content in the organism The lipid fraction of the edible muscle tissue is generally estimated because this is where the lipophilic chemicals will reside. However, the lipid content of muscle tissue can vary considerably among freshwater sport fish species (see Table I-1) as well as among the same species of different sizes and in different habitats. For this document, the rainbow trout lipid muscle content (4%) is used as the basis for point estimate BAFs for lipophilic organic chemicals. The rainbow trout is a common freshwater sport fish species caught and consumed in California and represents a reasonable “average’ lipid content value among California sport fish. However, muscle lipid content can increase well above 10% in some fish species (carp, lake trout, and certain catfish) as they reach maximum size and age. The BAFs determined in this document may underestimate chemical intake if proportionally high consumption rates of such fish occur. The tendency of an organic compound to bioconcentrate has been shown to be related to its lipophilicity and inversely related to the chemical’s water solubility. However, correlations between bioconcentration and physical properties are poor for very large molecules of high molecular weight and for chemicals metabolized by fish (Oliver and Niimi, 1985). Large molecules (about 300 to 500 MW) appear to be less efficiently transferred from water and food to fish tissues, but can have very long half lives in lentic/lotic environments (U.S. EPA, 2003a). Comparison of laboratory and field bioaccumulation studies in fish show that use of laboratory BCFs (kinetic and steady state studies), in which water was the only media for bioconcentration, would severely underestimate the field residue levels of large organic molecules in fish, particularly if they are poor substrates for metabolic enzymes. This is a clear indication that water is not the primary route of fish exposure for these chemicals; consumption of contaminated food is likely the major chemical source. U.S. EPA (1998) derived some BAFs from field measured biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs) for very hydrophobic, organic compounds such as PCDD/Fs. The BSAF is the ratio of the lipid-normalized concentration of a chemical in tissue to its organic carbon-normalized concentration in surface sediment. Water concentrations of highly hydrophobic compounds can be difficult to measure accurately for field-measured BAFs, so U.S. EPA (2003a) recommends the BSAF as the only field-based method that can be used to estimate the concentration of certain organic compounds in ambient I-6
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:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196: SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 20
Page 245: SRP Review Draft Version 2 June, 20
Page 279 and 280: Scientific Review PanelSRP Draft Ve
Page 297 and 298:
Scientific Review PanelSRP Draft Ve
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?