Table 18.
Comparison of estimated ZEN exposure levels and NOAELs/LOAELs for different farm and companion animal species
| Estimated exposure (μg ZEN/kg bw per day)a | Estimated exposure, % of NOAEL or LOAEL | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NOAEL (μg ZEN/kg bw) | LOAEL (μg ZEN/kg bw) | P95 (UB) | mean (UB) | P95 (UB) | mean (UB) | |
| Sheep | 28 | 56 | 4.32 | 0.89 | 15.4 | 3.2 |
| Gilts | 40 | 200 | 3.17 | 1.16 | 7.9 | 2.9 |
| Piglets | 10.4 (NOEL) | 17.6 (LOEL) | 2.20 | 0.94 | 21.1 | 9 |
| Chickenb | 7,500 | 30,000 | 16.1 | 4.66 | 0.22 | 0.062 |
| Turkeys (fattening)c | 9,100 | 19,000 | c | 1.24 | c | 0.014 |
| Fish (carp) | 9 | 18 | 2.18 | 0.55 | 24.2 | 6.11 |
| Dogs | – | 25 | 0.70 | 0.25 | 2.8 (LOAEL) | 1 (LOAEL) |
bw: body weight; ZEN: zearalenone; NOAEL: no observed adverse effect level; LOAEL: lowest observed adverse effect level; UB: upper bound.
a
Exposures have been calculated from dietary concentrations expressed on a fresh weight (88% dry matter) basis to make them comparable with the data from which NOAELS/LOAELS have been derived.
b
Exposure have been calculated for chicken of the age as reported by Chi et al. (1980a,b) to allow comparison with the NOAEL
c
Insufficient samples were provided to allow reliable 95th percentile estimates of exposure to be made.