Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 320

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risks for human health related to the presence of 3‐ and 2‐monochloropropanediol (MCPD), and their fatty acid esters, and glycidyl fatty acid esters in food

Open access
EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM)·2016·EFSA Journal

Abstract

Abstract EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on free and esterified 3‐ and 2‐monochloropropane‐1,2‐diol (MCPD) and glycidyl esters in food. Esters of 3‐ and 2‐MCPD and glycidol are contaminants of processed vegetable oils; free MCPDs are formed in some processed foods. The Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) evaluated 7,175 occurrence data. Esters of 3‐ and 2‐MCPD and glycidyl esters were found at the highest levels in palm oil/fat, but most vegetable oil/fats contain substantial quantities. Mean middle bound (MB) dietary exposure values to total 3‐MCPD, 2‐MCPD and glycidol, respectively, across surveys and age groups in µg/kg body weight (bw) per day were 0.2–1.5, 0.1–0.7 and 0.1–0.9; high exposure (P95) values were 0.3–2.6, 0.2–1.2 and 0.2–2.1. Animal studies show extensive hydrolysis of esterified 3‐MCPD and glycidol following oral administration; esterified and free forms were assumed to contribute equally to internal exposures. Nephrotoxicity was consistently observed in rats treated with 3‐MCPD. Data on 2‐MCPD toxicity were insufficient for dose–response assessments. Chronic treatment with glycidol increased the incidence of tumours in several tissues of rats and mice, likely via a genotoxic mode of action. The Panel selected a BMDL10 value for 3‐MCPD of 0.077 mg/kg bw per day for induction of renal tubular hyperplasia in rats and derived a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0.8 µg/kg bw per day. The mean exposure to 3‐MCPD was above the TDI for ‘Infants’, ‘Toddlers’ and ‘Other children’. For glycidol, the Panel selected a T25 value of 10.2 mg/kg bw per day for neoplastic effects in rats. The margins of exposure (MoEs) were 11,300–102,000 and 4,900–51,000 across surveys and age groups at mean and P95 exposures, respectively. An exposure scenario for infants receiving formula only resulted in MoEs of 5,500 (mean) and 2,100 (P95). MoEs of 25,000 or higher were considered of low health concern.

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 · 10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4426

Cites

56 of 56 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

Show all 56 references

Cited by

See all 320

Metadata

Authors
(CONTAM), E. P. O. C. I. T. F. C.
Venue
EFSA Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-05
Volume
14
Issue
5
ISSN
1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2557257116
Cited by
320
References
56
FWCI
32.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risks for human health related to the presence of 3‐ and 2‐monochloropropanediol (MCPD), and their fatty acid esters, and glycidyl fatty acid esters in food. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4426
The paper
(CONTAM), E. P. O. C. I. T. F. C. (2016). Risks for human health related to the presence of 3‐ and 2‐monochloropropanediol (MCPD), and their fatty acid esters, and glycidyl fatty acid esters in food. EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4426

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.