# Assessment of Dietary Exposure and Risk of DDT Concerning Freshwater Fish Aquaculture
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Classical and Carcinogenic Risk Assessment  
The bioaccumulation and biomagnification of POPs along the food chain is a considerable food safety risk. DDT and its metabolites can be detected in even more than \(10^{5}\) times larger amounts in the carp samples than in the fish pond water [34]. The high persistence level of DDT and its metabolites is supported by the fact that it is still present in water and fish worldwide. According to [PERSON] et al. (2011) DDT or/and DDE contamination were detected in 95-100% of the laboratory tested fish samples from Amazon, ranging from 0.54 to 15.34 ng DDTs g\({}^{-1}\) quantities [35]. As several research studies indicate that the presence of DDT is still problematic, risk assessment is essential, concentrating on the exposed consumer groups with extreme and/or unvaried diets. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & **Cluster 1** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Cluster 2** \\ **The Hearty Eaters** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Cluster 3** \\ **The Average Carp** \\ **Lovers** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Cluster 4** \\ **The Young Carp** \\ **Lovers** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Size of the cluster (N)** & 401 & 311 & 254 & 38 \\
**Ratio in the sample (\%)** & 39.9\% & 31.0\% & 25.3\% & 3.8\% \\
**Frequency of consumption** & 16.67 & 18.38 & 6.94 & 104.54 \\
**(occasion/year)** & 319.40 & 215.95 & 149.22 & 249.21 \\
**Estimated annual fish** & 5.32 & 3.97 & 1.04 & 26.05 \\
**consumption (kg/year)** & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Carp consumption characteristics of clusters. The accomplished cluster analysis highlighted three clusters that include significantly extreme fish consumers, considering the amount and/or frequency of carp consumption. The chemical risk assessment was performed for the following three clusters: \"the hearty eaters,\" \"the average carp lovers,\" and \"the carp fanatics.\"  
The results of the survey and the cluster analysis such as the characteristics of carp consumption and the average body weight of each cluster served as input information for the risk assessment (Table 3). In the present study, the DDT risk assessment was built on the DDT concentration in carp measured during the laboratory tests (detailed in Supplementary Materials S1). To assess the whole dietary intake of DDT and its metabolites, several international studies were reviewed for collecting total DDT concentrations in the case of other food categories [36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45; 46; 47; 48; 49; 50; 51; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56; 57]. The average DDT levels of the food categories according to the relevant literature and the related Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) in force [58] are presented in Table 4. For exposure assessment, the average consumption quantity of each cluster was used for the studied food categories. Table 5 summarizes the average consumption per cluster based on the quantitative survey results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Food Category**} & **MRL for DDT** & **Average Concentration** & **Research Article/Report** \\  & **(mg/kg) * & **of DDT (mg/kg)** & **for Calculation of** \\  & & & **Average Concentration** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Fruits (fresh, frozen,** **canned)**} & & & [PERSON] et al. (2008), \\  & 0.05 & 0.00414 & [PERSON] et al. (2011), \\  & & & [PERSON] et al. (1999), \\  & & & [PERSON] et al. (2016), \\  & 0.05 & 0.00387 & [PERSON] et al. (1999), \\  & & & [PERSON] et al. (2008), \\  & & & [PERSON] et al. (2012), \\  & 0.05 & 0.67464 & [PERSON] \& \\  & & & [PERSON] (2017) \\  & & & [PERSON] et al. (2016), \\  & 0.05 & 0.09440 & [PERSON] et al. (2008), \\  & & & [PERSON] et al. (1999), \\  & & & [PERSON] et al. (2016) \\  & 0.05 & 0.00876 & [PERSON] \& [PERSON] \\  & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Average DDT levels and maximum residue levels of the food categories.