-
Toxins Jul 2021In this review, an analysis focusing on mycotoxin determination in infant breast milk and infant food has been summarised for the last fifteen years of research focused...
In this review, an analysis focusing on mycotoxin determination in infant breast milk and infant food has been summarised for the last fifteen years of research focused on the intended population group of 1-9 months. The objective was to know the level of exposure of the child population to an estimated daily intake (EDI) of mycotoxins from the consumption of habitual foods. The EDI was compared with the tolerable daily intake (TDI) established by EFSA to estimate risk. In breast milk, the high prevalence and levels were for samples from Africa (Egypt and Tanzania) with aflatoxin M1 (1.9 μg/L and 10%), and Asia (Iran) with ochratoxin-A (7.3 μg/L and 100%). In infant formulas, high incidences and values were for samples with aflatoxin M1 from Burkina Faso (167 samples, 84%, 87 μg/kg). In cereal products, the highest incidence was for DON from the United States (96 samples), and the highest value was an Italian sample (0.83 μg/kg of enniatin B). In fruit products, patulin was the most detected in Italian (78) and Spanish (24) samples. The highest risk was observed in breast milk during the first month of age, the highest EDI for aflatoxin M1 was reported for Egypt (344-595 ng/kg bw/day) and ochratoxin-A for Iran (97-167ng/kg bw/day), representing a public health problem.
Topics: Dietary Exposure; Edible Grain; Fruit; Humans; Infant; Infant Food; Milk, Human; Mycotoxins; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 34437408
DOI: 10.3390/toxins13080535 -
BMC Pediatrics Dec 2023Aflatoxins are regarded as the most potent genotoxic and carcinogenic type of mycotoxins. This meta-analysis was performed to investigate a the relation of aflatoxin B1... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Aflatoxins are regarded as the most potent genotoxic and carcinogenic type of mycotoxins. This meta-analysis was performed to investigate a the relation of aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) to growth measurements of infants/children, including wasting, underweight, stunting, as well as weight-for-age (WAZ), height-for-age (HAZ), and weight-for-height (WHZ) z-scores.
METHODS
Electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched to identify related publications. Effect sizes for associations were pooled using the random effects analysis. Subgroup analysis by study design, method used to assess AFB1, and adjustment for covariateswas performed to detect possible sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Pooled analysis of available data showed that AFB1 exposure was negatively associated growth z-scores, including WHZ (β = -0.02, 95%CI = -0.07 to 0.03), with WAZ (β = -0.18, 95%CI = -0.33 to -0.02), and HAZ (β = -0.17, 95%CI = -0.30 to -0.03) in infants/children. There was a remarkable heterogeneity among studies on WAZ and HAZ (P ≤ 0.001). In prospective cohort studies, AFB1 exposure was found to be significantly associated with the elevated risk of underweight (OR = 1.20, 95%CI = 1.03 to 1.40) and stunting (OR = 1.21, 95%CI = 1.11 to 1.33).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis highlighted the importance of AFB1 exposure as a potential risk factor for growth impairment in infants/children.
Topics: Infant; Humans; Child; Aflatoxin B1; Thinness; Prospective Studies; Aflatoxins; Growth Disorders
PubMed: 38053136
DOI: 10.1186/s12887-023-04275-9 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jul 2020The risk of liver injury associated with the use of herbal medicinal products (HMPs) is well known among physicians caring for patients under a HMP therapy, as...
The risk of liver injury associated with the use of herbal medicinal products (HMPs) is well known among physicians caring for patients under a HMP therapy, as documented in case reports or case series and evidenced by using the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) to verify a causal relationship. In many cases, however, the quality of HMPs has rarely been considered regarding potential culprits such as contaminants and toxins possibly incriminated as causes for the liver injury. This review aims to comprehensively assemble details of tentative hepatotoxic contaminants and toxins found in HMPs. Based on the origin, harmful agents may be divided according two main sources, namely the phyto-hepatotoxin and the nonphyto-hepatotoxin groups. More specifically, phyto-hepatotoxins are phytochemicals or their metabolites naturally produced by plants or internally in response to plant stress conditions. In contrast, nonphyto-hepatotoxic elements may include contaminants or adulterants occurring during collection, processing and production, are the result of accumulation of toxic heavy metals by the plant itself due to soil pollutions, or represent mycotoxins, herbicidal and pesticidal residues. The phyto-hepatotoxins detected in HMPs are classified into eight major groups consisting of volatile compounds, phytotoxic proteins, glycosides, terpenoid lactones, terpenoids, alkaloids, anthraquinones, and phenolic acids. Nonphyto-hepatotoxins including metals, mycotoxins, and pesticidal and herbicidal residues and tentative mechanisms of toxicity are discussed. In conclusion, although a variety of potential toxic substances may enter the human body through HMP use, the ability of these toxins to trigger human liver injury remains largely unclear.
Topics: Animals; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Humans; Liver; Phytochemicals; Plant Preparations; Plants, Medicinal
PubMed: 32708570
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21145011 -
Environment International Dec 2019Bees are exposed to a wide range of multiple chemicals "chemical mixtures" from anthropogenic (e.g. plant protection products or veterinary products) or natural origin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Bees are exposed to a wide range of multiple chemicals "chemical mixtures" from anthropogenic (e.g. plant protection products or veterinary products) or natural origin (e.g. mycotoxins, plant toxins). Quantifying the relative impact of multiple chemicals on bee health compared with other environmental stressors (e.g. varroa, viruses, and nutrition) has been identified as a priority to support the development of holistic risk assessment methods. Here, extensive literature searches and data collection of available laboratory studies on combined toxicity data for binary mixtures of pesticides and non-chemical stressors has been performed for honey bees (Apis mellifera), wild bees (Bombus spp.) and solitary bee species (Osmia spp.). From 957 screened publications, 14 publications provided 218 binary mixture toxicity data mostly for acute mortality (lethal dose: LD) after contact exposure (61%), with fewer studies reporting chronic oral toxicity (20%) and acute oral LC values (19%). From the data collection, available dose response data for 92 binary mixtures were modelled using a Toxic Unit (TU) approach and the MIXTOX modelling tool to test assumptions of combined toxicity i.e. concentration addition (CA), and interactions (i.e. synergism, antagonism). The magnitude of interactions was quantified as the Model Deviation Ratio (MDR). The CA model applied to 17% of cases while synergism and antagonism were observed for 72% (MDR > 1.25) and 11% (MDR < 0.83) respectively. Most synergistic effects (55%) were observed as interactions between sterol-biosynthesis-inhibiting (SBI) fungicides and insecticide/acaricide. The mechanisms behind such synergistic effects of binary mixtures in bees are known to involve direct cytochrome P450 (CYP) inhibition, resulting in an increase in internal dose and toxicity of the binary mixture. Moreover, bees are known to have the lowest number of CYP copies and other detoxification enzymes in the insect kingdom. In the light of these findings, occurrence of these binary mixtures in relevant crops (frequency and concentrations) would need to be investigated. Addressing this exposure dimension remains critical to characterise the likelihood and plausibility of such interactions to occur under field realistic conditions. Finally, data gaps and further work for the development of risk assessment methods to assess multiple stressors in bees including chemicals and non-chemical stressors in bees are discussed.
Topics: Animals; Bees; Fungicides, Industrial; Lethal Dose 50; Pesticides; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 31683157
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105256