Publications
1 - 3 of 3
rss atomLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
  • Widenfalk, Anneli
    et al.
    Executive, Myndigheter, Livsmedelsverket, SLV.
    Mie, Axel
    Executive, Universitet, Karolinska institutet.
    Jämförelse mellan beräknad exponering för resthalter av bekämpningsmedel bland svenska konsumenter – baserat på konsumtionsdata och uppmätta halter i livsmedel eller omräknat från halter av metaboliter i urin2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    To perform consumer risk assessments of pesticide residues in food, EFSA and other organizations use information on residue levels in food and consumption data from dietary surveys. It can sometimes be questioned if exposure calculated by this method reflects the actual exposure, or if it over- or underestimates the intakes. In this project the National Food Agency, in cooperation with KI, has estimated the exposure of pesticide residues, by using two different methods to be able to compare the results. Firstly, the more traditional exposure assessment based on data of the mean residue levels in foods from the Swedish monitoring program 2008-2012 and mean consumption data for 197 women in the age 50-60 years who participated in the Swedish dietary survey Riksmaten 2010. In the other method, mean levels of metabolites of pesticides in urine from a group of 128 women in the same age range, were used to convert to an estimated intake. The pesticides included in the study were 2,4-D, chlormequat, mepiquat, chlorpyrifos and the groups dithiocarbamates and pyrethroids. None of the estimated intakes exceeded the respective ADI of the substances (0.01-18% of the ADI). It was shown that for chlormequat and the sum of pyrethroids, the estimated mean intakes were similar for both calculation methods. However, for 2,4-D and dithiocarbamates the estimated intakes based on residue levels in food and consumption data were approximately 3-4 times higher than estimates based on urine metabolites, whereas the estimated intakes of mepiquat and chlorpyrifos were higher when based on urine metabolites. Possible explanations for these deviances are that residues are present in the peel or other non-edible parts of fruits (2,4-D and dithiocarbamates) or that there is an exposure of the metabolite directly from the food (chlorpyrifos) or that the exposure comes from other sources, as mepiquat which is formed during the roasting of coffee beans. The study shows that both methods can be used to estimate the intake of pesticide residues, and they have their strengths and weaknesses. Based on the estimated average intakes among this group of the population which has a relatively high consumption of fruits and vegetables that contribute much to the exposure of pesticide residues, there is no concern for negative health effects.

  • Björkblom, Carina
    et al.
    Sweco Environment AB.
    Wallberg, Petra
    Sweco Environment AB.
    Johansson, Åse
    Sweco Environment AB.
    Sundberg, Elisabet
    Sweco Environment AB.
    Nilsson, Sandra
    Sweco Environment AB.
    Ericson, Mats
    Lysmask Innovation AB.
    Substitutes for regulated plasticizers2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    A literature and database review was conducted with the aim of identifying substitute substances for

    regulated plasticizers that are of relevance within Sweden. Based on this survey substitute substances

    were prioritized and suggested for national screening studies.

    Information sources used were lists/databases, scientific literature, reports, interviews with business

    organizations (within or connected to the plasticizers industry), manufacturers, importers and users.

    Plasticizers that are already regulated or on their way to be have been listed, as well as a list of possible

    substitute substances for these regulated plasticizers.

    The first list of potential candidates for screening constituted 152 substances. To be able to prioritize

    between identified plasticizers, a multicriteria model was developed based on usage, presence of

    substance on different lists, and classification. In total 40 substances were selected for further evaluation.

    As volume is a critical parameter for exposure, 15 substances were thereafter selected. This prioritization

    was crosschecked with the information obtained from interviews with selected representatives from the

    industry, which added one more substance to the priority list. Since the Swedish Environmental Protection

    Agency requested that substances previously included in various screenings should be excluded, the final

    list consisted of eleven selected plasticizers.

    From the developed multicriteria model, the following plasticizers were identified: Dipropylene glycol

    dibenzoate (DGD); Alkanes, C14-17, chloro; Dioctyl adipate (DOA); Benzyl 3-isobutyryloxy-1-isopropyl-

    2,2-dimethylpropyl phthalate; 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3 pentanediol di-isobutyrate (TXIB); Diisononyl adipate

    (DINA); Diethylene glycol dibenzoate (DEGD; DEGDB); Hexanedioic acid, polymer with 1,4-butanediol

    and 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediol, isononyl ester (Palamoll 654; Palamoll 656); Epoxidised soybean oil

    (ESBO); (second DINP line) 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich

    (DINP); and Tris-2-ethylhexyl trimellitate (TOTM).

    These plasticizers are suggested to be prioritized in future screening studies.

  • Gustavsson, Jakob
    et al.
    Executive, Universitet, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
    Karlsson, Henrik
    Executive, Universitet, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
    Ahrens, Lutz
    Executive, Universitet, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
    Wiberg, Karin
    Executive, Universitet, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
    Screening of replacement substances for the brominated flame retardants PBDE, HBCDD and TBBPA2018Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The aim of this study was to identify aquatic point sources of flame retardants (FRs) to the Swedish environment. This was done by measuring FR levels in different types of water flows and by estimating daily fluxes of FRs using water flow data. The sampled sites included wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs, n = 5), waste treatment facilities (WTFs, n = 4), airports (n = 5), industries (n = 2), storm water from urban/industrial areas (n = 6), and agriculture (n = 2). Water (n = 42) and particulate (n = 42) samples were collected during February-April 2018 and analyzed for in total 62 target FRs from three different classes: halogenated FRs (HFRs), organophosphorus FRs (OPFRs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).

    In total, 34 different FRs were detected in at least one sample. The highest number of FRs were detected in a sample from a WTF (Högbytorp, n = 23), followed by Skavsta airport (n = 17), Ärna airport (n = 16), and Ryaverket WWTP (n = 16). The highest average number of detected FRs (± standard deviation) were found for WTFs (n = 15 ± 5), followed by WWTPs (n = 13 ± 3), storm water (n = 11 ± 2), airport (n = 9 ± 6), and industry (n = 5 ± 1). The most frequently detected FR was TDCIPP (78% of all samples), followed by BDE66 (68%), TEHP (57%), TCIPP (57%), and TBOEP (57%).

    Total bulk FR concentrations ranged between <MQL to 130 000 ng L-1. The highest total bulk concentrations were found in the samples from Skavsta airport (130 000 ng L-1), Vivsta …. (11 000 ng L-1), Högbytorp WTF (6 900 ng L-1) and Henriksdal WWTP (4 300-6 600ng L-1). In general, OPFRs contributed the most to the total concentrations with on average 76% of the total bulk concentration followed by HFRs (7%), and PBDEs (6%).

    FR fluxes ranged between <MQL and 1.8 kg day-1. Four sites showed considerably higher total fluxes than the other sites. Out of those, three sites were WWTPs (Henriksdal: 1.2-1.8 kg day-1; Ryaverket: 0.67 kg day-1; Skebäcksverket: 0.18 kg day-1), indicating WWTPs as important pathways of FRs to the Swedish environment. Considering the screening design of this study, all reported concentrations and fluxes should be interpreted with care.