efsa-opinion-chromium-food-drinking-water

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chromium in food and drinking water 4.2.3. Analytical methods used 4.2.3.1. Analytical methods used in food analysis Different analytical methods were reported for the analysis of food samples. However, 45 % of the analytical results did not report information on the analytical method used. Atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) techniques were the most reported representing 33.5 % of the total followed by ICP-MS with 21.7 % of the total. Among the reported methods the highest sensitivity was associated with ICP-MS. Regarding the final food dataset selected for exposure assessments (24 629 samples), 49.1 % of the data were left-censored. Figure 9 shows quantified and left-censored data divided by food categories at FoodEx Level 1. The food groups ‘Snacks, desserts, and other foods’ and ‘Nonalcoholic beverages (excepting milk based beverages)’ reported the highest number of left-censored data (83.5 % and 80.2 %, respectively)¨. In contrast the food groups ‘Legumes, nuts and oilseeds’, ‘Herbs, spices and condiments’ and ‘Composite food (including frozen products)’ reported the lowest number of left-censored data (27.9 %, 26.8 % and 20.3 %, respectively). Non Detected Value (
4.2.4. Occurrence data by food category and by type of drinking water Chromium in food and drinking water The left-censored data were treated by the substitution method as recommended in the ‘Principles and Methods for the Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food’ (WHO/IPCS, 2009b). The same method is indicated in the EFSA scientific report ‘Management of left-censored data in dietary exposure assessment of chemical substances’ (EFSA, 2010d) as an option in the treatment of left-censored data. The guidance suggests that the LB and UB approach should be used for chemicals likely to be present in the food (e.g. naturally occurring contaminants, nutrients and mycotoxins). At the LB, results below the LOQ and LOD were replaced by zero; at the UB the results below the LOD were replaced by the LOD and those below the LOQ were replaced by the value reported as LOQ. 4.2.4.1. Occurrence data in food (excluding drinking water) As explained in Section 4.2.2.1, the reported occurrence data on food was considered as Cr(III). For those foods prepared with water before their consumption (coffee, tea infusions, and dry infant and follow-on food), the occurrence values provided for the dry foods were used either as such or with dilution factors (later described in Section 6.1) depending on how the consumption data were reported. Occurrence values provided for their corresponding prepared foods (e.g. twenty samples of tea beverage) were excluded. Table 6 shows the summary statistics of chromium concentrations in the final dataset of food samples aggregated at FoodEx Level 1. Despite the important number of left-censored data present, no big differences are observed between LB and UB values in most of the food categories. A plausible explanation is that in general sensitive methods were used, and where high LOQs were reported they were linked to quantified samples, therefore, without relevance on the UB. In addition, by applying the LOQ cut-offs described in Section 4.2.2.1, the differences between LB and UB were reduced in several food groups, such as ‘Beer and beer-like beverage’ or ‘Cereal-based food for infants and young children’. At FoodEx level 1 all the food groups were well represented, with a maximum of 4 647 samples in the food group ‘Vegetables and vegetable products (including fungi)’ and a minimum of 80 samples in the food group ‘Eggs and egg products’. Regarding the occurrence values, five food groups at FoodEx Level 1 showed the highest occurrence values: ‘Products for special nutritional use’, ‘Herbs, spices and condiments’, ‘Sugar and confectionery’, ‘Vegetables and vegetable products (including fungi)’, and ‘Animal and vegetable fats and oils’ (see Table 6). In all cases, a detailed evaluation of the occurrence data at different FoodEx levels was indispensable prior to their use to estimate the dietary exposure to chromium. The highest occurrence was reported in the food group ‘Products for special nutritional use’. In this food group, where Cr(III) is in some cases intentionally added, were reported average values of 12 129 g/kg (n =2 131 LB = UB). A great heterogeneity of occurrence values was observed for the different food subgroups at lower FoodEx levels. Some of the highest values were reported for the food subgroup ‘Combination of vitamins and minerals supplements’ with a LB = 23 441 g/kg and UB = 23 514 g/kg (n = 582). The group ‘Herbs, spices and condiments’ was reported on 611 occasions, with mean concentrations of 1627 g/kg and 1665 g/kg at the LB and UB, respectively. The high concentration reported in this food group is clearly driven by the presence of four samples of ‘Cinnamon (Cinnamonum verum syn. C. zeylanicum)’, all quantified and with an average value of 84 250 g/kg. High levels of chromium in cinnamon have been described in the literature (Gul and Safdar, 2009). Other spices are also reported to contain high concentrations of chromium, such as ‘Paprika powder’ (LB = 3200 g/kg and UB = 3271 g/kg, n = 71) and ‘Pepper, black and white (Piper nigrum)’ (LB = 2609 g/kg and UB = 2611 g/kg, n = 105). High concentrations of chromium in spices and aromatic herbs have been reported by different authors (García et al., 2000; Divrikli et al., 2006; Kovacs et al., 2007; Sykula- Zajac and Pawlak, 2012). A total of 1 126 samples were reported for the food group ‘Sugar and confectionery’. Mean occurrence values were 625 g/kg and 639 g/kg at the LB and UB, respectively (Table 6). As EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3595 43
Page 1 and 2: EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3595 SCIENT
Page 3 and 4: Chromium in food and drinking water
Page 37 and 38: 4.2.2.1. Data collection on food (e
Page 39 and 40: Sampling year Number of samples Chr
Page 41: Number of analtycal results Samplin
Page 75 and 76: 7.2.1.4. Genotoxicity Chromium in f
Page 85 and 86: 7.2.2.3. Developmental and reproduc
Page 93 and 94:
Chromium in food and drinking water
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:
7.5. Dose-response assessment Chrom
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:
Human observations Chromium in food
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:
Chromium in food and bottled water
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:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
J.1.2. mice Chromium in food and bo
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
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:
show all

efsa-opinion-chromium-food-drinking-water

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?