# Assessment of Dietary Exposure and Risk of DDT Concerning Freshwater Fish Aquaculture
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Classical and Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Food Category**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Serving Size (g) \({}^{*}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cluster 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cluster 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cluster 4**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **Size (g) \({}^{*}\)** & **Frequency** & **Quantity** & **Frequency** & **Quantity** & **Frequency** & **Quantity** \\  & **(Occasion/Year)** & **(kg/Year)** & **(Occasion/Year)** & **(kg/Year)** & **(Occasion/Year)** & **(Occasion/Year)** & **(kg/Year)** \\ \hline
**Fruits (fresh, frozen, canned)** & 80 & 296.95 & 23.756 & 342.74 & 27,4192 & 398 & 31.84 \\ Vegetables (fresh, frozen, canned) & 80 & 295.37 & 23.63 & 314.29 & 25.14 & 316.92 & 25.35 \\  & 80 & 62.73 & 5.02 & 56.14 & 4.49 & 61.16 & 4.89 \\  & 50 & 438.94 & 21.95 & 422.26 & 21.11 & 439.69 & 21.98 \\  & 40 & 137.39 & 5.49 & 147.52 & 5.90 & 183.63 & 7.35 \\  & 100 & 486.47 & 48.65 & 517.88 & 51.79 & 465.68 & 46.57 \\  & 100 & 150.24 & 15.02 & 173.57 & 17.36 & 161.22 & 16.12 \\  & 100 & 134.27 & 13.43 & 138.09 & 13.81 & 85.83 & 8.58 \\  & 100 & 51.03 & 5.10 & 54.22 & 5.42 & 52.97 & 5.29 \\  & 100 & 26.09 & 2.61 & 17.25 & 1.73 & 19.26 & 1.93 \\  & 100 & 36.24 & 3.62 & 33.15 & 3.32 & 16.92 & 1.69 \\  & 150 & 44.87 & 6.73 & 34.35 & 5.15 & 44.47 & 6.67 \\ Freshwater fish and fish products & 150 & 55.28 & 8.29 & 51.23 & 7.68 & 130.96 & 19.64 \\  & 200 & 242.73 & 48.55 & 251.33 & 50.27 & 321.04 & 64.21 \\  & 200 & 243.65 & 20.13 & 295.07 & 22.13 & 343.24 & 25.74 \\  & 200 & 246.29 & 2.46 & 264.74 & 2.65 & 298.28 & 2.98 \\  & 10 & 19.86 & 1.92 & 203.42 & 2.03 & 243.31 & 2.34 \\  & 130 & 170.85 & 22.21 & 171.06 & 22.24 & 198.09 & 25.75 \\  & 20 & 140.95 & 2.82 & 152.31 & 3.05 & 159.07 & 3.18 \\  & 25 & 165.26 & 4.13 & 146.18 & 3.65 & 184.61 & 4.62 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\)Serving size [27,28].  
\end{table} 
Table 5: The consumption patterns and DDT contamination of the food categories. The risk assessment carried out for the dietary intake of DDT indicates that no risk can be observed for all three clusters, as the ratio of the estimated and the tolerable dietary intake (HQ) for DDT is below 1 (Table 6). To gain a comprehensive view regarding DDT contamination in freshwater fish, risk evaluation was also performed considering the carcinogenic effect of chronic DDT dietary intake. Based on the respondents' total dietary intake, the chronic daily DDT intake (CDI) is \(1.93\times 10^{-11}\)mg/kg bw/day for Cluster 1, \(1.85\times 10^{-11}\) mg/kg bw/day for Cluster 2 and \(2.08\times 10^{-11}\)mg/kg bw/day for Cluster 4. Considering the relevant slope factor for ingestion DDT intake (0.34), the risk of the carcinogenic effect caused by DDT is \(6.55\times 10^{-12}\) for Cluster 1, \(6.28\times 10^{-12}\) for Cluster 2, and \(7.08\times 10^{-12}\) for Cluster 4. As the carcinogenic risk value for all three clusters is below \(10^{-6}\) mg/kg bw/day, the risk of the carcinogenic effect of DDT does not reach the threshold level for either clusters. Based on the results of the dietary exposure evaluation, it can be concluded that the amount of DDT that can be ingested with food does not pose a carcinogenic risk to either extreme consumer clusters and other health risks linked to DDT and its metabolites are also not likely to be increased by the dietary intake. It should be noted that the used formulas for the evaluation of risks do not take the cluster members' age into consideration. However, the risk is probably higher for older clusters, as studies find that age is in positive correlation with the concentration of DDT metabolites in human tissues [20]. The potential risk can be reduced by avoiding the consumption of fatty fish parts and skin, given that, according to literature data, these contaminants and their degradation products can be enriched to a greater extent in adipose tissue [59].