Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 199

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Perfluorinated Compounds in Human Breast Milk from Several Asian Countries, and in Infant Formula and Dairy Milk from the United States

Tao, Lin, Ma, Jing, Kunisue, Tatsuya, Libelo, E. Laurence, Tanabe, Shinsuke, Kannan, Kurunthachalam·2008·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

The occurrence of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in human blood is known to be widespread; nevertheless, the sources of exposure to humans, including infants, are not well understood. In this study, breast milk collected from seven countries in Asia was analyzed (n=184) for nine PFCs, including perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA). In addition, five brands of infant formula (n=21) and 11 brands of dairy milk (n=12) collected from retail stores in the United States were analyzed, for comparison with PFC concentrations previously reported for breast milk from the U.S. PFOS was the predominant PFC detected in almost all Asian breast milk samples, followed by perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS) and PFOA. Median concentrations of PFOS in breast milk from Asian countries varied significantly;the lowest concentration of 39.4 pg/mL was found in India, and the highest concentration of 196 pg/mL was found in Japan. The measured concentrations were similarto or less than the concentrations previously reported from Sweden, the United States, and Germany (median, 106-166 pg/mL). PFHxS was found in more than 70% of the samples analyzed from Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, and Vietnam, at mean concentrations ranging from 6.45 (Malaysia) to 15.8 (Philippines) pg/mL PFOA was found frequently only in samples from Japan; the mean concentration for that country was 77.7 pg/mL. None of the PFCs were detected in the infant-formula or dairy-milk samples from the U.S. except a few samples that contained concentrations close to the limit of detection. The estimated average daily intake of PFOS by infants from seven Asian countries, via breastfeeding, was 11.8 +/- 10.6 ng/kg bw/ day; this value is 7-12 times higher than the estimated adult dietary intakes previously reported from Germany, Canada, and Spain. The average daily intake of PFOA by Japanese infants was 9.6 +/- 4.9 ng/kg bw/day, a value 3-10 times greater than the estimated adult dietary intakes reported from Germany and Canada. The highest estimated daily intakes of PFOS and PFOA by infants from seven Asian countries studied were 1-2 orders of magnitude below the tolerable daily intake values recommended by the U.K. Food Standards Agency.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es801875v

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 199

Metadata

Authors
Tao, L., Ma, J., Kunisue, T., Libelo, E. L., Tanabe, S., & Kannan, K.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2008-10-11
Volume
42
Issue
22
Pages
8597-8602
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W1990857412
Cited by
199
References
4
FWCI
10.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.