Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 35, pp 35471–35478 | Cite as

Risk of exposure to total and inorganic arsenic by meat intake among different age groups from Brazil: a probabilistic assessment

  • Lucas Silva AzevedoEmail author
  • Inacio Abreu Pestana
  • Annaliza Carvalho Meneguelli-Souza
  • Bruno Ramos
  • Daniel Ribeiro Pessanha
  • Dayana Caldas
  • Marcelo Gomes Almeida
  • Cristina Maria Magalhaes de Souza
Research Article


Beef and poultry as well as cattle and chicken livers are staple food items for Brazilian population, and previous studies had detected arsenic levels in these foods. This study aims to evaluate the risk of exposure to total and inorganic arsenic by meat intake in three age groups from Brazil (11–16, 16–21, and > 21 years). Our hypotheses are (i) that there is differences in the risk of exposure between age groups and (ii) the older individuals (> 21 years) are under higher risk. To test these hypotheses, we calculated the probabilistic estimated daily intake of total As (TAsEDI) from poultry, beef, cattle liver, and chicken liver, and the probabilistic estimated incremental lifetime skin, bladder, and lung cancer risk (ILCR) associated with inorganic As ingestion from poultry only. TAsEDI and ILCR from poultry differed among groups which confirm the first hypothesis. However, TAsEDI and ILCR results cannot support the second hypothesis. Even though the age groups are under a low risk of exposure to As by meat intake, the results indicate that bladder/lung cancer risk (from poultry intake) slightly exceeds the safe limits in the older population.


Total arsenic Poultry Age groups Cancer Risk assessment Inorganic arsenic 



The authors thank the Laboratório de Ciências Ambientais (LCA), Universidade Estadual do Norte do Rio de Janeiro Darcy Ribeiro, UENF, for the logistic support and analytical structure provided.

Funding information

Cristina M Souza received grants from the Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa, Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) (E- 26/010.001984/2014, Edital “Prioridade Rio”).

Supplementary material

11356_2018_3512_MOESM1_ESM.doc (4.8 mb)
ESM 1 (DOC 4895 kb)


  1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (2017) Summary data for 2015 priority list of hazardous substances, Agency for Toxic Substances and disease registry. U.S. Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed MK, Shaheen N, Islam MS, Habibullah-Al-Mamun M, Islam S, Islam MM, Kundu GK, Bhattacharjee L (2016) A comprehensive assessment of arsenic in commonly consumed foodstuffs to evaluate the potential health risk in Bangladesh. Sci Total Environ 544:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avegliano RP, Maihara VA, Silva FF (2015) Development of the food list for Brazilian total diet study. Food Sci Technol 35:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batista BL, Souza JM, De Souza SS, Barbosa F (2011) Speciation of arsenic in rice and estimation of daily intake of different arsenic species by Brazilians through rice consumption. J Hazard Mater 191:342–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernsmeier C, Weisskopf DM, Pflueger MO, Mosimann J, Campana B, Terracciano L, Beglinger C, Heim MH, Cajochen C (2015) Sleep disruption and daytime sleepiness correlating with disease severity and insulin resistance in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a comparison with healthy controls. PLoS One 10:e0143293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouchoucha M, Akrout M, Bellali H, Bouchoucha R, Tarhouni F, Mansour AB, Zouari B (2016) Development and validation of a food photography manual, as a tool for estimation of food portion size in epidemiological dietary surveys in Tunisia. Lybian J Med 11:32676Google Scholar
  7. Caldas D, Pestana IA, Almeida MG, Henry FC, Salomão MSMB, Souza CMM (2016) Risk of ingesting As, Cd and Pb in animal products in North Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Chemosphere 164:508–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canty A, Ripley B (2016) Boot: bootstrap R (S-Plus) functions. R package version 1:3–18Google Scholar
  9. Carvalho AM, César CLG, Fisberg RM, Marcioni DM (2014) Meat consumption in São Paulo – Brazil: trend in the last decade. PLoS One 9:e96667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciminelli VST, Gasparon M, Ng JC, Silva GC, Caldeira CL (2017) Dietary arsenic exposure in Brazil: the contribution of rice and beans. Chemosphere 168:996–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen Hubal EA, Wet T, Du Toit L, Firestone MP, Ruchirawat M, van Engelen J, Vickers C (2014) Identifying important life stages for monitoring and assessing risks from exposures to environmental contaminants: results of a World Health Organization review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 69:113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing. Austria, Vienna.
  13. Daniel CR, Cross AJ, Koebnick C, Sinha R (2011) Trends in meat consumption in the United States. Public Health Nutr 14:575–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davison AC, Hinkley DV (1997) Bootstrap methods and their applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ISBN 0-521-57391-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diethelm K, Huybrechts I, Moreno L, De Henauw S, Manios Y, Beghin L, Gonzalez-Gross M, Le Donne C, Cuenca-Garcia M, Castillo MJ, Widhalm K, Patterson E, Kersting M (2014) Nutrient intake of European adolescents: results of the HELENA (healthy lifestyle in Europe by nutrition in adolescence) study. Public Health Nutr 17:486–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2009) Scientific opinion on arsenic in food; EFSA panel on contaminants in the food chain. EFSA J 7:1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2014) Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European population. EFSA J 12:3597Google Scholar
  18. Faggiano F, Vineis P, Cravanzola D, Pisani P, Xompero G, Riboli E, Kaaks R (1992) Validation of a method for the estimation of food portion size. Epidemiology 3:379–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferraz JBS, Felício PE (2010) Production systems – an example from Brazil. Meat Sci 84:238–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gao Y, Baisch P, Mirlean N, Júnior FMRS, Larebeke NV, Baeyens W, Leermarkers M (2018) Arsenic speciation in fish and shellfish from the North Sea (Southern bight) and Açu Port area (Brazil) and health risks related to seafood consumption. Chemosphere 191:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hankin JH, Wilkins LR, Kolonel LN, Yoshizawa CN (1991) Validation of quantitative diet history method in Hawaii. Am J Epidemiol 133:616–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu Y, Zhang W, Cheng H, Tao S (2017) Public health risk of arsenic species in chicken tissues from live poultry markets of Guangdong province, China. Environ Sci Technol 51:3508e3517Google Scholar
  23. Hu Y, Zhang W, Chen G, Cheng H, Tao S (2018) Public health risk of trace metals in fresh chicken meat products on the food markets of a major production region in southern China. Environ Pollut 234:667–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ihedioha JN, Okoye COB (2013) Dietary intake and health risk assessment of lead and cadmium via consumption of cow meat for an urban population in Enugu State, Nigeria. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 93:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) (2008). Dietary consumption pattern of Brazilian population (in Portuguese),2008/2009. Accessed 15 August 2017
  26. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) (2016). Synopsis of the demographic census (in Portuguese). Accessed 13 March 2017
  27. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2012) Arsenic and arsenic compounds. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 100C:41–93 Google Scholar
  28. Jiang Y, Zeng X, Fan X, Chao S, Zhu M, Cao H (2015) Levels of arsenic pollution in daily foodstuffs and soils and its associated human health risk in a town in Jiangsu Province, China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 122:198–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) (1989) Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants, 1989. 33rd Report, Tech. Rep. Ser. 776. Geneva: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  30. Li G, Sun GX, Williams PN, Nunes L, Zhu YG (2011) Inorganic arsenic in Chinese food and its cancer risk. Environ Int 37:1219–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu Q, Peng H, Lu X, Zuidhof MJ, Li XF, Le XC (2016) Arsenic species in chicken breast: temporal variation of metabolites, elimination kinetics, and residual concentrations. Environ Health Perspect 124:1174–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lynch HN, Greenberg GI, Pollock MC, Lewis AS (2014) A comprehensive evaluation of inorganic arsenic in food and considerations for dietary intake analyses. Sci Total Environ 496:299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mabuchi K, Lilienfeld AM, Snell LM (1980) Cancer and occupational exposure to arsenic: a study of pesticide workers. Prev Med 9:51–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martí-Cid R, Llobet JM, Castell V, Domingo JL (2008) Dietary intake of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead by the population of Catalonia, Spain. Biol Trace Elem Res 125:120–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mello CS, Barros KV, Morais MB (2016) Brazilian infant and preschool children feeding: literature review. J Pediatr 92:451–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meneguelli-Souza AC (2018) Geoquímica de arsênio na bacia inferior do rio Paraíba do Sul (unpublished PhD thesis), Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense, BrasilGoogle Scholar
  37. Mirlean N, Baisch P, Diniz PBD (2014) Arsenic in groundwater of the Paraíba do Sul delta, Brazil: an atmospheric source? Sci Total Environ 482-283:148–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nachman KE, Baron PA, Raber G, Francesconi KA, Navas-Acien A, Love DC (2013) Roxarsone, inorganic arsenic, and other arsenic species in chicken: a U.S.–based market basket sample. Environ Health Perspect 121:818–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nachman KE, Love DC, Baron PA, Nigra AE, Murko M, Raber G, Francesconi KA, Navas-Acien A (2017) Nitrarsone, inorganic arsenic, and other arsenic species in Turkey meat: exposure and risk assessment based on a 2014 U.S. market based sample. Environ Health Perspect 125:363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nelson M, Atkinson M, Darbyshire S (1996) Food photography II: use of food photographs for estimating portion size and the nutrient content of meals. Br J Nutr 76:31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nigra AE, Nachman KE, Love DC, Grau-Perez M, Navas-Acien A (2017) Poultry consumption and arsenic exposure in the U.S. population. Environ Health Perspect 125:370–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oguri T, Yoshinaga J, Tao H, Nakazato T (2012) Daily intake of inorganic arsenic and some organic arsenic species of Japanese subjects. Food Chem Toxicol 50:2663–2667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Phillips D (2017) Brazil meat scandal is called ‘a Punch in the Stomach’. Accessed 13 May 2017
  44. Rasheed H, Slack R, Kay P, Gong YY (2017) Refinement of arsenic attributable health risks in rural Pakistan using population specific dietary intake values. Environ Int 99:331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Souza AM, Pereira RA, Yokoo EM, Levy RB, Sichieri R (2013) Most consumed food in Brazil: National Dieatary Survey 2008–2009. Revista de Saúde Pública 47: sup 1Google Scholar
  46. Tokar EJ, Qu W, Waalkes MP (2011) Arsenic, stem cells, and the developmental basis of adult cancer. Toxicol Sci 120:192–S203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tseng WP (1989) Blackfoot disease in Taiwan: a 30-year follow-up study. Angiology 40:547–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2001) Risk assessment guidance for superfund, vol. III-Part A. Process for conducting probabilistic risk assessment. EPA/540/R-02/002. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  49. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2010) IRIS toxicological review of inorganic arsenic (cancer) (2010 external review draft), EPA/635/R-10/001. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  50. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2011) Exposure factors handbook: 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-09/052F. September 2011. National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development Washington DC: United States Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucas Silva Azevedo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Inacio Abreu Pestana
    • 1
  • Annaliza Carvalho Meneguelli-Souza
    • 1
  • Bruno Ramos
    • 1
  • Daniel Ribeiro Pessanha
    • 1
  • Dayana Caldas
    • 1
  • Marcelo Gomes Almeida
    • 1
  • Cristina Maria Magalhaes de Souza
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratório de Ciências Ambientais, Centro de Biociências e BiotecnologiaUniversidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy RibeiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations