4.7 Article

Contribution of tap water to chlorate and perchlorate intake: A market basket study

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 463, Issue -, Pages 199-208

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.097

Keywords

Chlorate; Perchlorate; Total diet; Water; Tolerable daily intake; Baby formula

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan [H19-kenlci-ippan-012(2007-09), H22-kenld-ippan-006(2010-12)]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The contributions of water to total levels of chlorate and perchlorate intake were determined using food and water samples from a market basket study from 10 locations in Japan between 2008 and 2009. Foods were categorized into 13 groups and analyzed along with tap water. The average total chlorate intake was 333 (min. 193-max. 486) mu g/day for samples cooked with tap water. The contribution of tap water to total chlorate intake was as high as 47%-58%, although total chlorate intake was less than 32% of the tolerable daily intake, 1500 mu g/day for body weight of 50 kg. For perchlorate, daily intake from water was 0.7 (0.1-4.4) mu g/day, which is not high compared to the average total intake of 14 (2.5-84) mu g/day, while the reference dose (RfD) is 35 mu g/day and the provisional maximum tolerable daily intake (PMTDI) is 500 mu g/day for body weight of 50 kg. The highest intake of perchlorate was 84 mu g/day, where concentrations in foods were high, but not in water. The contribution of water to total perchlorate intake ranged from 0.5% to 22%, while the ratio of highest daily intake to RfD was 240% and that to PMTDI was 17%. Eight baby formulas were also tested - total chlorate and perchlorate intakes were 147 (42-332) mu g/day and 1.11 (0.05-4.5) mu g/day, respectively, for an ingestion volume of 1 L/day if prepared with tap water. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available