Concentrations and accumulation profiles of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in aquatic tissues, and ambient air from South Korea

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDDs/DFs), including 2378-substituted isomers were present in samples of shellfish and fish, and ambient air collected from Masan Bay, and Masan City, South Korea. Total concentrations of PCDDs/DFs in mussel and clam were 750 pg g(-1), lipid weight (lw), and 3418 pg g(-1), lw, respectively. Total concentrations of PCDDs/DFs in mullet, gizzard and flounder were 52, 82, and 122 pg g(-1), lw, respectively. Shellfish tissues contained a greater number of PCDD/DF isomers, contributing greater total concentrations of PCDDs/DFs compared to fish collected from the same locations. The predominance of 2378-substituted PCDDs/DFs in fish is represented in greater total concentrations of 2378-TeCDD equivalents (TEQs), whereas there was very limited occurrence of 2378-substituted isomers in shellfish. TEQ concentrations in samples of mussel and clam were 0.97 and 12 pg g(-1), lw, respectively. Total TEQs in mullet, gizzard and flounder were 12, 22 and 18 pg g(-1), lw, respectively. In fish 2378-substituted PCDDs accounted for 100% of the total concentrations of PCDDs, and 2378-substituted PCDFs accounted from 59% to 73% of the total PCDFs. The 2378-substituted isomers accounted for only 3% of the total PCDDs/DFs in shellfish. Ambient air collected from two sites contained a wide range of isomers of tetra-through heptachlorinated PCDDs/DFs. Even though the total concentration of PCDDs/DFs in ambient air (12.8 pg m(-3)) collected from an industrial area was 2-fold greater than that in air samples (6.3 pg m(-3)) collected from an urban/rural area, total TEQs (0.07 and 0.08 pg m(-3)) there was no statistical difference between the two samples. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.X1118sciescopu

An application of partial least squares for identifying dietary patterns in bone health

Financial support This work was supported by the Foods Standards Agency and the UK Department of Health (grant number N05086) and the Scottish Funding Council. We are grateful for funding from the Scottish Government’s Rural and Environmental Science and Analytical Services (RESAS) Food, Land and People Programme. Any views expressed are the authors’ own; none of the funders had a role in design, analysis or writing of the present study.Peer reviewedPublisher PD