Table 5.
Estimation of dietary exposure to total PAHs
| Type | Teas | Estimated exposure (ng kg−1 b.w. day−1) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole population | Drinker only | ||||||||
| Mean | P95a | mean | P95 | ||||||
| LBb | UBc | LB | UB | LB | UB | LB | UB | ||
| Leached tea | Green | 7.74 × 10−3 | 7.74 × 10−3 | – | – | 5.42 × 10−1 | 5.42 × 10−1 | 1.45 | 1.45 |
| Solomon’s seal | 5.99 × 10−3 | 5.99 × 10−3 | – | – | 2.28 | 2.28 | 7.19 | 7.19 | |
| Chrysanthemum | 0.88 × 10−4 | 0.88 × 10−4 | – | – | 3.32 × 10−1 | 3.32 × 10−1 | 6.63 × 10−1 | 6.63 × 10−1 | |
| Mate | 2.30 × 10−2 | 2.30 × 10−2 | – | – | 1.61 | 1.61 | 4.30 | 4.30 | |
| Liquid tea | Green | 2.23 × 10−2 | 2.44 × 10−2 | – | – | 6.74 × 10−1 | 7.36 × 10−1 | 1.81 | 1.98 |
| Barley | 2.09 × 10−3 | 2.24 × 10−3 | – | – | 8.55 × 10−1 | 9.16 × 10−1 | 1.92 | 2.06 | |
| Black | 1.47 × 10−3 | 1.59 × 10−3 | – | – | 6.13 × 10−1 | 6.60 × 10−1 | 1.34 | 1.44 | |
| Preserved fruit | 1.38 × 10−3 | 1.96 × 10−3 | – | – | 4.71 × 10−1 | 6.68 × 10−1 | 8.45 × 10−1 | 1.20 | |
| Solid tea | Adlay | 1.73 × 10−3 | 1.73 × 10−3 | – | – | 3.84 × 10−1 | 3.84 × 10−1 | 7.68 × 10−1 | 7.68 × 10−1 |
| Black | 3.14 × 10−4 | 4.27 × 10−4 | – | – | 1.81 × 10−1 | 2.46 × 10−1 | 4.39 × 10−1 | 5.98 × 10−1 | |
| Ginger | 3.22 × 10−4 | 4.01 × 10−4 | – | – | 1.63 × 10−1 | 2.03 × 10−1 | 3.56 × 10−1 | 4.44 × 10−1 | |
| Herbal | 7.96 × 10−4 | 9.13 × 10−4 | – | – | 4.58 × 10−1 | 5.25 × 10−1 | 6.21 × 10−1 | 7.12 × 10−1 | |
| Green | 6.29 × 10−3 | 6.29 × 10−3 | – | – | 4.40 × 10−1 | 4.40 × 10−1 | 1.18 | 1.18 | |
| Total | 7.35 × 10−3 | 7.68 × 10−2 | 9.00 | 9.54 | 22.9 | 24.0 | |||
aDaily intake of teas at the 95th percentile
bLower bound: the left censored data are regarded as zero
cUpper bound: the left censored data are regarded as LOD