Table 2.
Geometric mean (95% CI) of arsenic concentrations (in µg/kg) in cooked chicken meat by sample characteristics.
| Chicken sample classification | Total arsenic | Speciated arsenic | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Total arsenic[GM(95%CI)] | n | iAs[GM(95%CI)] | DMA[GM(95%CI)] | Roxarsone+n (%) | Roxarsone[GM(95%CI)] | Unknown species+n (%) | Unknown species[GM(95%CI)] | |
| All | 140 | 3.0 (2.5, 3.6) | 78 | 1.1 (0.9, 1.3) | 3.5 (3.1, 4.0) | 19 (24.3) | 0.6 (0.5, 0.7) | 13 (16.7) | 0.3 (0.2, 0.3) |
| Package label | |||||||||
| Conventional | 69 | 3.4 (2.5, 4.5) | 40 | 1.8 (1.4, 2.3) | 2.6 (2.1, 3.1) | 18 (45.0) | 0.7 (0.6, 0.9) | 13 (32.5) | 0.3 (0.2, 0.3) |
| Antibiotic-free | 34 | 2.0 (1.2, 3.0) | 13 | 0.7 (0.5, 1.0) | 4.2 (3.1, 5.6) | 1 (7.7) | 0.5 (0.4, 0.6) | 0 (0) | — |
| Organic | 37 | 3.4 (2.6, 4.5) | 25 | 0.6 (0.5, 0.8) | 4.9 (4.1, 5.9) | 0 (0) | —a | 0 (0) | — |
| Producer arsenical policyb | |||||||||
| No known policy | 46 | 5.6 (4.3, 7.4) | 34 | 2.0 (1.6, 2.5) | 3.8 (3.0, 4.9) | 18 (52.9) | 0.7 (0.6, 1.0) | 13 (38.2) | 0.4 (0.3, 0.5) |
| Conventional with prohibitory policy | 57 | 1.6 (1.2, 2.3) | 19 | 0.7 (0.5, 0.9) | 2.6 (2.1, 3.2) | 1 (6.3) | 0.5 (0.4, 0.6) | 0 (0) | — |
| Roxarsone detection | |||||||||
| Negative | 121 | 2.4 (2.0, 2.9) | 59 | 0.8 (0.7, 1.0) | 3.6 (3.1, 4.2) | 0 (0) | — | 0 (0) | — |
| Positive | 19 | 10.2 (7.8, 13.4) | 19 | 2.3 (1.7, 3.1) | 3.2 (2.5, 4.0) | 19 (100) | 1.3 (1.0, 1.7) | 13 (68.4) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.0) |
| Metropolitan area | |||||||||
| Atlanta, GA | 13 | 2.2 (1.0, 5.0) | 9 | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) | 3.2 (2.4, 4.3) | 2 (25.0) | 0.6 (0.3, 1.0) | 2 (25.0) | 0.3 (0.2, 0.8) |
| Austin, TX | 17 | 3.3 (2.0, 5.6) | 9 | 1.0 (0.5, 1.9) | 2.9 (2.0, 4.4) | 5 (55.6) | 0.6 (0.4, 1.2) | 4 (44.4) | 0.4 (0.2, 0.7) |
| Baltimore, MD | 13 | 4.1 (2.1, 7.9) | 9 | 1.9 (1.2, 3.0) | 3.0 (1.5, 6.0) | 3 (33.3) | 0.6 (0.4, 1.0) | 2 (22.2) | 0.3 (0.2, 0.5) |
| Denver, CO | 17 | 3.9 (2.2, 6.8) | 11 | 1.4 (0.8, 2.6) | 3.5 (2.5, 4.8) | 3 (27.3) | 0.6 (0.5, 0.8) | 0 (0) | — |
| Fayetteville, AR | 14 | 3.1 (1.8, 5.5) | 9 | 0.9 (0.4, 2.1) | 2.3 (1.5, 3.7) | 1 (12.5) | 0.5 (0.4, 0.6) | 0 (0) | — |
| Flagstaff, AZ | 12 | 5.8 (3.6, 9.5) | 9 | 1.4 (0.8, 1.8) | 4.7 (3.2, 6.7) | 3 (33.3) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) | 3 (33.3) | 0.4 (0.2, 0.8) |
| Los Angeles, CA | 12 | 3.9 (2.2, 7.0) | 7 | 1.3 (0.6, 2.8) | 4.4 (2.8, 6.8) | 2 (28.6) | 0.7 (0.3, 1.4) | 2 (47.1) | 0.4 (0.2, 0.9) |
| New York, NY | 16 | 1.0 (0.4, 2.4) | 5 | 0.8 (0.5, 1.4) | 7.7 (4.1, 14.5) | 0 (0) | — | 0 (0) | — |
| San Francisco, CA | 13 | 2.7 (1.9, 3.8) | 6 | 0.8 (0.5, 1.2) | 3.4 (2.7, 4.3) | 0 (0) | — | 0 (0) | — |
| Seattle, WA | 13 | 2.6 (2.0, 3.4) | 4 | 0.6 (0.5, 0.8) | 3.2 (2.1, 6.7) | 0 (0) | — | 0 (0) | — |
| +, positive for arsenic species. The LODs were 1µg/kg DW for total arsenic, iAs, and DMA, and 2µg/kg DW for roxarsone; values <LOD were imputed as the corresponding LOD divided by the square root of two. aThe GMs for roxarsone and the unknown species were not calculated when concentrations for all samples were <LOD. bOrganic samples are not listed because arsenical drugs are not permitted for use in USDA Organic-certified chicken. | |||||||||