Review of the Terminology, Approaches, and Formulations Used in the Guidelines on Quantitative Risk Assessment of Chemical Hazards in Food

被引:3
|
作者
Domenech, Eva [1 ]
Martorell, Sebastian [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Politecn Valencia, Inst Univ Ingn Alimentos Food UPV, Camino Vera S-N, Valencia 46022, Spain
[2] Univ Politecn Valencia, Dept Chem & Nucl Engn, MEDASEGI Res Grp, Camino Vera S-N, Valencia 46022, Spain
关键词
health risk; safety margin; cancer risk; margin of exposure; hazard index; hazard quotient; POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC-HYDROCARBONS; HUMAN HEALTH-RISK; HEAVY-METAL CONTAMINATION; EDIBLE VEGETABLE-OILS; DIETARY EXPOSURE; PESTICIDE-RESIDUES; MEAT-PRODUCTS; NONCARCINOGENIC RISK; COMPLEMENTARY FOODS; SEASONAL-VARIATION;
D O I
10.3390/foods13050714
中图分类号
TS2 [食品工业];
学科分类号
0832 ;
摘要
This paper reviews the published terminology, mathematical models, and the possible approaches used to characterise the risk of foodborne chemical hazards, particularly pesticides, metals, mycotoxins, acrylamide, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The results confirmed the wide variability of the nomenclature used, e.g., 28 different ways of referencing exposure, 13 of cancer risk, or 9 of slope factor. On the other hand, a total of 16 equations were identified to formulate all the risk characterisation parameters of interest. Therefore, the present study proposes a terminology and formulation for some risk characterisation parameters based on the guidelines of international organisations and the literature review. The mathematical model used for non-genotoxic hazards is a ratio in all cases. However, the authors used the probability of cancer or different ratios, such as the margin of exposure (MOE) for genotoxic hazards. For each effect studied per hazard, the non-genotoxic effect was mostly studied in pesticides (79.73%), the genotoxic effect was mostly studied in PAHs (71.15%), and both effects were mainly studied in metals (59.4%). The authors of the works reviewed generally opted for a deterministic approach, although most of those who assessed the risk for mycotoxins or the ratio and risk for acrylamide used the probabilistic approach.
引用
收藏
页数:43
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Quantitative tools in microbial and chemical risk assessment
    Zabulione, Aelita
    Valdramidis, Vasilis P.
    EFSA JOURNAL, 2023, 21
  • [32] Quantitative Risk Assessment for Chemical Process Industries
    Li Qiujin
    Xia Xin
    Li Zhuxia
    Zhang Shengzhu
    PROCEEDINGS OF 2010 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RISK AND RELIABILITY MANAGEMENT, 2010, : 91 - +
  • [33] Quantitative tools in microbial and chemical risk assessment
    Zabulione, Aelita
    Valdramidis, Vasilis P.
    EFSA JOURNAL, 2023, 21
  • [34] A Systematic Proactive Risk Assessment of Hazards in Surgical Wards A Quantitative Study
    Anderson, Oliver
    Brodie, Andrea
    Vincent, Charles A.
    Hanna, George B.
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2012, 255 (06) : 1086 - 1092
  • [35] NEW APPROACHES AND TOOLS FOR QUANTITATIVE CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT
    SIELKEN, RL
    ANALYSIS, COMMUNICATION, AND PERCEPTION OF RISK, 1991, 9 : 677 - 692
  • [36] Mitigating physical hazards in food processing: Risk assessment and preventive strategies
    Onyeaka, Helen
    Jalata, Dassalegn Daraje
    Mekonnen, Solomon Abate
    FOOD SCIENCE & NUTRITION, 2023, 11 (12): : 7515 - 7522
  • [37] Current risk assessment approaches for environmental and food and feed safety assessment
    Wolt, Jeffrey D.
    TRANSGENIC RESEARCH, 2019, 28 (Suppl 2) : 111 - 117
  • [38] Assessment Criteria and Approaches for Rapid Detection Methods To Be Used in the Food Industry
    Wiedmann, Martin
    Wang, Siyun
    Post, Laurie
    Nightingale, Kendra
    JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION, 2014, 77 (04) : 670 - 690
  • [39] Current risk assessment approaches for environmental and food and feed safety assessment
    Jeffrey D. Wolt
    Transgenic Research, 2019, 28 : 111 - 117
  • [40] Guidelines to Evaluate Human Observational Studies for Quantitative Risk Assessment
    Vlaanderen, Jelle
    Vermeulen, Roel
    Heederik, Dick
    Kromhout, Hans
    ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, 2008, 116 (12) : 1700 - 1705