efsa-opinion-chromium-food-drinking-water
efsa-opinion-chromium-food-drinking-water
efsa-opinion-chromium-food-drinking-water
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Human observations<br />
Chromium in <strong>food</strong> and <strong>drinking</strong> <strong>water</strong><br />
No well-designed prospective human studies were identified for oral exposure to total<br />
<strong>chromium</strong>, Cr(III) or Cr(VI).<br />
The very limited information from few case studies was not suitable to assess human toxicity<br />
after oral exposure to Cr(III) compounds.<br />
At very high doses Cr(VI) after accidental or intentional intoxication exerted acute health<br />
effects in the respiratory, haematological, hepatic and renal system and in the gastrointestinal<br />
tract where acute effects include abdominal pain, vomiting, ulceration, haemorrhage,<br />
necrosis, and bloody diarrhea.<br />
Cr(VI) was classified by IARC as carcinogenic for humans with respect to the cancer of the<br />
lung and also cancer of the nose and nasal sinuses based on evidence from occupational<br />
studies. The data on oral exposure are limited and provide no convincing evidence of an<br />
association with adverse health effects including cancer.<br />
Available data were insufficient to assess developmental and reproductive toxicity and the<br />
allergenic potential of Cr(VI) after oral exposure from <strong>food</strong> or <strong>water</strong>.<br />
Biomonitoring<br />
Biological monitoring of exposure to Cr(VI) compounds is a common practice in occupational<br />
settings. In principle, an accurate assessment of systemic exposure to Cr(VI) escaping<br />
reduction, can be obtained measuring <strong>chromium</strong> in red blood cells (RBC), since only Cr(VI)<br />
is able to cross RBC membranes and is very slowly released from these cells.<br />
No biomonitoring data are available on <strong>chromium</strong> concentrations in RBCs from the general<br />
population.<br />
Dose response assessment<br />
The available human data did not provide information on dose-response relationships for<br />
Cr(III) or Cr(VI) upon oral exposure.<br />
For Cr(III) no dose-response modelling was possible for data in experimental animals since no<br />
effects were observed even at the highest dose in the relevant studies.<br />
For Cr(VI) dose-responses could be assessed for neoplastic effects and for non-neoplastic<br />
lesions in male and female rats and mice, and for haematotoxic effects in male rats.<br />
Dose-response data on squamous neoplastic lesions on the epithelium of the oral cavity in rats<br />
and on epithelial cell neoplastic lesions in the small intestine in mice were suitable for<br />
applying the BMD approach and calculating the BMDL 10 for neoplastic effects of Cr(VI).<br />
Since there were no statistically significant differences between males and females, the<br />
CONTAM Panel derived for the incidence of adenoma or carcinoma combined a BMDL 10 of<br />
1.0 mg/kg b.w. per day and for the incidence of carcinoma only at all sites a BMDL 10 of<br />
3.8 mg/kg b.w. per day.<br />
From the dose-response data for effects in the liver, pancreas and small intestine in mice, the<br />
CONTAM Panel identified incidences of chronic inflammation of the liver in female rats,<br />
diffuse epithelial hyperplasia in the duodenum in male and female mice, and histiocytic<br />
cellular infiltration in mesenteric lymph nodes in male and female mice as relevant nonneoplastic<br />
endpoints suitable for applying the BMD approach.<br />
When applying the BMD approach most dose response data did not allow identification of a<br />
BMDL 10 value, since the BMD/BMDL ratios and the range of the acceptable BMDL values<br />
were larger than one order of magnitude.<br />
EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3595 125