efsa-opinion-chromium-food-drinking-water

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.2.2.2. Data collection on drinking water Chromium in food and drinking water In the FoodEx classification system (EFSA, 2011a) the different types of water (bottled water, tap water, water ice and well water) are grouped under the generic name ‘Drinking water’. Therefore, the generic term ‘Drinking water’ as used in this opinion includes both water intended for human consumption (Council Directive 98/83/EC) and natural mineral waters (Commission Directive 2003/40/EC). Bottled water as used in this opinion includes natural mineral water, but also spring water and other bottled drinking water, products that must comply with Council Directive 98/83/EC. Before applying any data quality criteria 52 735 analytical results on drinking water were present in the database. Since 88 samples reported data for both total chromium and Cr(VI), results for 52 647 different drinking water samples were available. The same procedure followed for the food samples was applied to water, eliminating the samples reported as ‘suspect samples’ and those without neither LOD nor LOQ. In this step, a total of 5 211 were excluded of the dataset (4 929 without neither LOD nor LOQ and 282 as suspect samples). Legislation establishes performance characteristics for the methods used to analyse the presence of chromium in water intended for human consumption (Council Directive 98/83/EC) and in natural mineral waters (Commission Directive 2003/40/EC). Based on the concentration limits described in both pieces of legislation (50 µg/L) a maximum LOD of 5 g/L is established for the analytical methods in use. As all the samples reported LOQs but only 40 % LODs, it was decided that the cut-off value should be applied to the LOQ. A cut-off value of 10 g/L for total chromium was selected taking into account legislation and the available literature on chromium analysis in water. A total of 1292 samples were eliminated (136 quantified). No cut-off value was applied to the analytical data on Cr(VI). After applying the selected cut-off of 10 g/L a total of 46 234 analytical results (46 146 on total chromium and 88 on Cr(VI)) on drinking water were included in the final dataset. Information on the country of sampling and the sampling year is provided in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. As for food, most of the samples were collected in Germany ( 82 %) followed by Cyprus ( 11 %). Water samples adequately representing the years between 2000 and 2012 were collected (a minimum of 1 000 analytical data/year). For all the different types of drinking water samples reported, i.e., bottled water, tap water, water ice, and well water, it was difficult to predict the amount of Cr(VI) present. The CONTAM Panel decided to consider all chromium present in drinking water as Cr(VI) (worst case scenario) based on two facts. First, the samples where both Cr(VI) and total chromium were quantified (71 out of 88 samples) showed an average ratio Cr(VI)/total chromium of 0.97. In addition, as previously mentioned in this scientific opinion, tap water is usually treated with different oxidizing agents to make it potable, and this would promote the presence of Cr(VI) instead of Cr(III). EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3595 40
Number of analtycal results Sampling year Chromium in food and drinking water 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Austria Belgium Cyprus France Germany Greece Ireland Portugal Slovakia United Kingdom Figure 7: Distribution of drinking water samples analysed for chromium across different European countries. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Number of analytical results Figure 8: Distribution of analytical results for chromium in drinking water over the sampling years. EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3595 41
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: Sampling year Number of samples Chr
Page 43 and 44: 4.2.4. Occurrence data by food cate
Page 75 and 76: 7.2.1.4. Genotoxicity Chromium in f
Page 85 and 86: 7.2.2.3. Developmental and reproduc
Page 91 and 92:
Chromium in food and drinking water
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:
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?