Industrial (commercial, caged) egg production has turned the egg into a carrier of dioxins, PCBs, PFAS and heavy metals.
Original statement
فأعلاف الدواجن، وقربها من مصادر التلوث الصناعي، والاكتظاظ في الأقفاص، حوّلته إلى ناقل صامت للديوكسينات وثنائيات الفينيل متعدد الكلور ومركّبات PFAS الأبدية والمعادن الثقيلة
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Industrial (commercial, caged) egg production has turned the egg into a carrier of dioxins, PCBs, PFAS and heavy metals.
Origin
- Source status
- Archive editors
- Attribution
- Archive editors (not Elawady)
- Origin
- https://eltayebat.com/rule/industrial-eggs/
- Attribution uncertainty
- Narrative and study selection written by the archive operators; the archive states the forbidden section is documented independently of Dr. Diaa's words.
- Claimed mechanism
Contaminated feed, nearby industrial pollution and caged housing.
- Claimed health effect
Cancer (dioxin/PCB), immune and developmental effects (PFAS), heavy-metal toxicity.
- Population concerned
general population (not specified)
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Scientific assessment
Mostly false – Essential parts of the statement are not supported by the evidence or are strongly exaggerated.
Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.
1. What was claimed?
Commercial industrial eggs are a 'silent carrier' of persistent pollutants and heavy metals because of feed, pollution and cages.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Eggs can concentrate fat-soluble pollutants from feed and soil. The 1999 Belgian feed incident caused very high dioxin/PCB levels in eggs (max 713 pg TEQ/g fat). Hotspot studies found exceedances of EU limits. EFSA (2020) named 'eggs and egg products' among the main contributors to dietary PFAS exposure and concluded that parts of the European population exceed the PFAS tolerable weekly intake.
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
Most cited studies blame outdoor/free-range or backyard hens with soil access, not cages: the Vietnamese study found higher dioxins in free-range eggs; the German review (A-EGG-05) states that outdoor laying hens are especially sensitive to soil contamination; the Tanzanian and Chinese studies concern backyard/free-range eggs; the Danish PFAS problem concerned organic eggs (free-range and barn eggs had absent or low PFAS) and stopped after fishmeal was removed. The Indian study found metal levels below Indian standards except some metals in chicken meat. Incident and hotspot data are presented as typical of commercial eggs.
4. What remains unclear?
Current background levels of PFAS and dioxins in routine EU/Egyptian eggs were not systematically reviewed here.
5. Which studies support it?
A-EGG-01 (incident), A-EGG-06 (PFAS via fishmeal, organic), I-EGG-16 (EFSA PFAS: eggs one of main contributors).
6. Which studies contradict it?
A-EGG-03, A-EGG-04, A-EGG-02, A-EGG-05 (higher burden in free-range/backyard/outdoor hens); A-EGG-08 (levels below national standards); A-EGG-06 itself (free-range and barn eggs low/absent).
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
EU maximum levels for dioxins and dl-PCBs in eggs apply (e.g., 5 pg WHO-TEQ/g fat cited in A-EGG-04 from Regulation (EU) 1259/2011). Germany's Environment Agency work (A-EGG-05) concerns soil-related contamination of outdoor hens.
8. What is known about Egypt?
No Egyptian monitoring data on dioxins/PFAS in eggs were reviewed; hotspot-type risks (waste burning, industrial soils) for backyard hens are plausible but not quantified here.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Contamination of eggs is real but tied to specific incidents, polluted locations and feed ingredients; it is not a general property of caged or commercial eggs.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
The cited contamination studies are real, but they document a single feed-contamination incident (Belgium 1999), local pollution hotspots (e-waste site China, airbase Vietnam, gold/copper mines Thailand/India, backyard burning Tanzania) and an organic-feed fishmeal problem (Denmark). Several show HIGHER levels in free-range/backyard eggs, i.e. the opposite of the 'industrial/caged' attribution. EFSA identifies eggs as one of several contributors to PFAS exposure, which supports a limited, non-production-specific concern.
- Source quality
Archive editorial; numbers are taken correctly from abstracts, but the selection and framing (industrial cages) are not supported by the studies themselves.
- Regional transferability
Hotspot results (China, Vietnam, Tanzania, Thailand, India) do not transfer to routine EU supply; the Belgian incident led to stricter EU feed controls; the Danish PFAS case was resolved by removing fishmeal from feed.
- Individual exceptions
Households keeping hens on contaminated soil (old industrial sites, near burning of waste) can have high exposure; this concerns backyard/free-range hens rather than caged hens.
- Regional scope of the claim
- depends on production conditions
- Last reviewed
- 25 October 2026 provisional
In plain language
The archive lists studies that found toxic pollutants in eggs. These studies are real, but most of them come from one feed scandal in Belgium in 1999 or from heavily polluted places such as former e-waste sites or mines. Several studies found more pollutants in eggs from free-range or backyard hens, because these hens pick up polluted soil. A Danish problem with PFAS in organic eggs disappeared after fishmeal was removed from feed. So the studies do not show that ordinary commercial eggs are generally contaminated.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (4)
-
Belgian 1999 feed scandal: dioxins and PCBs in food
van Larebeke N et al.. Environ Health Perspect 2001 · PMID 11333188 · DOI 10.1289/ehp.01109265Measurement / residue studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked★ key studyAfter contaminated feed was distributed, some eggs reached very high dioxin and PCB levels; modelled extra cancers ranged from 40 to 8,000.
Industrial (commercial, caged) egg production has turned the egg into a carrier of dioxins, PCBs, PFAS and heavy metals.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
What were PCB and dioxin levels in food after the 1999 Belgian feed incident, and what health impact can be expected?
- How was the study done?
Exposure assessment and risk estimate based on 20,491 food/feed samples from the Belgian federal database after a feed contamination incident
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
20,491 samples; Belgian food chain (feed, cattle, pork, poultry, eggs, milk, fat-containing foods); population of 10 million
- What was actually found?
Eggs: dioxin mean 32.0 +/- 104.4 pg TEQ/g fat, max 713.3 pg; PCBs mean 392.7 +/- 2883.5 ng/g fat, max 46,000 ng. Chicken: dioxin max 2613.4 pg TEQ/g fat, PCBs max 51,059 ng/g fat. Estimated total excess cancers 40-8,000.
- How large was the observed effect?
Descriptive (means, SD, maxima); intake and cancer estimates by modelling
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Shows what happens when feed is contaminated, not what is in eggs normally.
- What are the study's limitations?
Incident-specific; maxima are not representative of normal supply; Cancer estimate is a model with a 200-fold range; Sampling targeted suspected farms
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports that eggs can carry pollutants after feed incidents; not that commercial eggs generally do.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Historical EU incident; directly relevant to the EU feed-safety history but not to current routine exposure.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show current contamination levels or actual cancer cases.
-
PFAS in Danish organic eggs from fishmeal feed
Granby K et al.. Chemosphere 2024 · PMID 37944762 · DOI 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.140553Measurement / residue studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked★ key studyOrganic eggs had PFAS from fishmeal; ordinary free-range and barn eggs had little or none; removing fishmeal solved the problem.
Industrial (commercial, caged) egg production has turned the egg into a carrier of dioxins, PCBs, PFAS and heavy metals.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
What PFAS levels occur in Danish commercial eggs and where do they come from?
- How was the study done?
Survey of PFAS in commercial eggs plus fishmeal analysis and exposure assessment
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Eggs from eight organic farms; two fishmeal samples; ten follow-up organic samples (total survey size not in abstract); Commercial eggs from larger Danish farms (free-range, barn, organic)
- What was actually found?
Free-range and barn eggs: absent or low PFAS. Organic eggs: nine PFAS, e.g. PFOS 2.62 +/- 0.11 ng/g yolk (farm 11-13). 95th percentile exposure of sum4PFAS from 311 g (~5-6) organic eggs/week for children 4-9 y: 10.4 ng/kg bw, exceeding TWI 4.4. After fishmeal removal, 8/10 samples had no PFAS.
- How large was the observed effect?
Descriptive; ANOVA-type comparison (p = 1.4E-25)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Feed ingredients can bring pollutants into eggs; controls can fix it.
- What are the study's limitations?
Exposure at 95th percentile and solely from eggs; Small number of farms
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports egg PFAS risk via feed; contradicts the industrial framing.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High (EU country, EFSA TWI), but a specific feed issue.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot show that eggs in general exceed PFAS limits.
-
Heavy metals in eggs near a Thai gold mine
Aendo P et al.. Foods 2022 · PMID 36140919 · DOI 10.3390/foods11182791Measurement / residue studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedEggs from free-grazing ducks near the mine had more mercury and lead.
Industrial (commercial, caged) egg production has turned the egg into a carrier of dioxins, PCBs, PFAS and heavy metals.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Are eggs from farms near a closed gold mine contaminated with heavy metals, and what is the cancer risk?
- How was the study done?
Cross-sectional measurement of heavy metals in eggs, blood, feed, soil and water with cancer risk estimation
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not stated in abstract; Chicken farms, duck farms and free-grazing duck farms <25 km and >25 km from a gold mine
- What was actually found?
Hg, Pb, Mn in free-grazing duck eggs significantly higher <25 km; ILCR for Pb and Cd exceeded 10^-4 for all age groups in both areas, highest for chicken eggs <25 km.
- How large was the observed effect?
Group comparisons (p<0.05); correlation
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Mining pollution can enter local eggs.
- What are the study's limitations?
Mining hotspot; ILCR model assumptions (Pb carcinogenicity slope); Sample sizes not in abstract
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Shows hotspot contamination only.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Very low.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot describe commercial eggs elsewhere.
-
EFSA on PFAS in food
EFSA CONTAM Panel. EFSA J 2020 · PMID 32994824 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkabstract only checkedEFSA set a safe weekly intake for PFAS and named fish, fruit and eggs as main dietary sources.
Industrial (commercial, caged) egg production has turned the egg into a carrier of dioxins, PCBs, PFAS and heavy metals.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Risks from PFASs in food
- How was the study done?
EFSA risk assessment
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; European population
- What was actually found?
TWI 4.4 ng/kg bw/week. Fish meat, fruit and fruit products, and eggs and egg products contributed most to exposure. Parts of the population exceed the TWI.
- How large was the observed effect?
BMDL; PBPK
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
PFAS come from many foods, eggs among them.
- What are the study's limitations?
Lower-bound vs upper-bound uncertainty
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Directly EU.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Does not single out industrial eggs.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (3)
-
Dioxins in eggs near a former airbase in Vietnam
Nghiem TX et al.. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2022 · PMID 35037074 · DOI 10.1007/s00128-021-03419-wMeasurement / residue studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked★ key studySome eggs, especially from free-range hens, had dioxin levels well above EU limits; the typical (median) egg was much lower.
Industrial (commercial, caged) egg production has turned the egg into a carrier of dioxins, PCBs, PFAS and heavy metals.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
What are dioxin levels in eggs and soils in Dong Nai Province, and how do raising methods and nearby pollution sources affect them?
- How was the study done?
Cross-sectional measurement of PCDD/Fs and dl-PCBs in paired egg and soil samples
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not stated in abstract; Chicken eggs and soils near Bien Hoa Airbase and industrial areas
- What was actually found?
PCDD/F 5.74-1320 (median 350) pg/g lw; dl-PCB 120-51,200 (median 1470) pg/g lw; TEQ 0.817-245 (median 10.8) pg TEQ/g lw. Higher dioxin levels in free-range than non-free-range eggs. Egg-soil TEQ correlation rho = 0.671 (p<0.05).
- How large was the observed effect?
Ranges, medians; Spearman correlation
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Hens with access to polluted soil can lay contaminated eggs.
- What are the study's limitations?
Hotspot area (former Agent Orange airbase); Sample size not in abstract; No health outcome
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports egg contamination at hotspots; contradicts the industrial framing.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low; hotspot in Vietnam. Similar soil-egg pathway is described for Germany (A-EGG-05).
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot describe eggs sold in other countries.
-
Where dioxins in German eggs and meat come from
Weber R et al.. Environ Sci Eur 2018 · PMID 30464877 · DOI 10.1186/s12302-018-0166-9Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedIn Germany, contaminated soils and old PCB materials are the main sources; outdoor hens can exceed EU limits even at low soil levels.
Industrial (commercial, caged) egg production has turned the egg into a carrier of dioxins, PCBs, PFAS and heavy metals.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Which sources cause PCDD/F and PCB contamination of food of animal origin, and how should they be managed?
- How was the study done?
Narrative review summarising a German Environment Agency project on PCDD/F and PCB sources for food of animal origin
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; Food-producing animals (laying hens outdoors, suckler calves, beef)
- What was actually found?
Outdoor laying hens can exceed EU egg limits at soil PCDD/F-PCB-TEQ below 5 ng/kg dm; soil-chicken-egg pathway is probably the most sensitive route for human exposure; exceedances in free-range chicken, sheep and beef often occur without a known source. Major German sources: contaminated soils, PCBs from buildings, PCBs present at farms.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Free-range hens on contaminated soil are a particular risk.
- What are the study's limitations?
Narrative, not systematic; Abstract only
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts the claim that industrial production is the problem.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High for Germany.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Gives no prevalence data for German eggs.
-
Metals in chicken and eggs near Indian copper mines
Giri S et al.. Arch Environ Occup Health 2019 · PMID 29236582 · DOI 10.1080/19338244.2017.1407284Measurement / residue studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedMost metal levels were below national standards; combined risk index was slightly above 1 at some sites.
Industrial (commercial, caged) egg production has turned the egg into a carrier of dioxins, PCBs, PFAS and heavy metals.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
What metal levels occur in local chicken and eggs around copper mines and what is the health risk?
- How was the study done?
Cross-sectional measurement of metals in locally reared chicken and eggs with hazard index calculation
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not stated in abstract; Locally reared chicken and eggs
- What was actually found?
Concentrations below Indian standards except Cu, Ni and Zn in chicken at some locations; THQ suggested no individual metal risk; HI 0.62-1.66 across locations.
- How large was the observed effect?
Risk indices
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Only relevant to mining areas.
- What are the study's limitations?
Hotspot; HI above 1 only at some locations; Abstract-only
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Does not support general egg contamination.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Very low.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot be generalised.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (2)
-
Flame retardants in backyard eggs at a Chinese e-waste site
Huang CC et al.. Sci Total Environ 2018 · PMID 29631140 · DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.386Measurement / residue studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedPollutant levels fell after regulation; in the worst case, exposure margins indicated possible concern.
Industrial (commercial, caged) egg production has turned the egg into a carrier of dioxins, PCBs, PFAS and heavy metals.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Did e-waste regulations reduce flame retardant levels in home-produced eggs at a former e-waste recycling site?
- How was the study done?
Repeated cross-sectional measurement of halogenated flame retardants in free-range eggs with dietary exposure assessment
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not stated in abstract; Free-range chicken eggs from Baihe village
- What was actually found?
Significant decrease of PBDEs, PBBs, HBCDs, DBDPE from 2010 to 2013/2016. Worst case BDE99 MOE adults/children 1.5 and 0.3 (2013) and 1.1 and 0.2 (2016), below 2.5 (CONTAM threshold).
- How large was the observed effect?
Time comparison (p<0.05); MOE
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Backyard hens on polluted ground can produce contaminated eggs.
- What are the study's limitations?
Single highly polluted site; Worst-case scenario (highly polluted eggs); Free-range/home eggs, not industrial
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts the focus on industrial eggs.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Very low transferability to EU routine supply.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot be generalised to commercial eggs elsewhere.
-
Pollutants in backyard eggs in Tanzania
Polder A et al.. Sci Total Environ 2016 · PMID 26897409 · DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.021Measurement / residue studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checkedSome backyard eggs exceeded EU limits for dieldrin and dioxins; backyard fires were a likely source.
Industrial (commercial, caged) egg production has turned the egg into a carrier of dioxins, PCBs, PFAS and heavy metals.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
What POP levels occur in free-range backyard eggs in peri-urban Arusha and what are the health implications?
- How was the study done?
Cross-sectional measurement of POPs in pooled backyard eggs with intake and risk characterisation
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
159 eggs pooled into 28 composite samples; 159 eggs from households in five locations
- What was actually found?
Dieldrin 2-98,791 ng/g lw; EU dieldrin MRL exceeded in 4/28 samples; dioxins <LOQ-20 pg bio-TEQ/g lw; 4 samples (13%) exceeded the EU max level of 5 pg WHO-TEQ/g; dieldrin exceeded the PTDI in one sample.
- How large was the observed effect?
Descriptive; exceedance counts
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Burning waste near hens can contaminate eggs.
- What are the study's limitations?
Pooled samples; Backyard free-range eggs only; Single city
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Does not support the claim about industrial eggs.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Low.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot describe commercial eggs.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
EU maximum levels for dioxins and dl-PCBs in eggs apply (e.g., 5 pg WHO-TEQ/g fat cited in A-EGG-04 from Regulation (EU) 1259/2011). Germany's Environment Agency work (A-EGG-05) concerns soil-related contamination of outdoor hens.
Egypt
No Egyptian monitoring data on dioxins/PFAS in eggs were reviewed; hotspot-type risks (waste burning, industrial soils) for backyard hens are plausible but not quantified here.
- Food-safety governance and official controls
- Pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables on the EU/German market (incl. imports from Egypt)
- Pesticide residues in produce sold on the Egyptian domestic market
- Antibiotic (veterinary drug) residues in poultry meat and eggs
- Antimicrobial use in food animals and antibiotic growth promoters
- Hormones in poultry, meat, milk and farmed fish
- Salmonella in laying hens, eggs and broiler chicken
- Dioxins, PCBs and PFAS in eggs and other animal foods
- Aflatoxin M1 in milk and dairy products
- Aflatoxins in groundnuts (peanuts)
- Heavy metals in fish
- Farmed fish (aquaculture): drugs, water source and controls
- Import controls and the meaning of RASFF notifications for Egyptian products
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Mostly false Egg contamination occurs in incidents and polluted areas, often more in free-range than caged hens; it is not a general feature of industrial eggs.
The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:
- Pesticides and pesticide residues
- Veterinary medicines and antibiotics
- Hormonal growth promoters
- Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)
- Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.)
- Animal husbandry and feed
- Controls, imports, recalls, labelling
Eggs · Poultry · Dairy · Fish and seafood · Red meat · Fruit and vegetables
Choose a country to see the checked information for it.
Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.
Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country
References
- The Belgian PCB and dioxin incident of January-June 1999: exposure data and potential impact on health.. van Larebeke N et al.. Environ Health Perspect 2001 · PMID 11333188 · DOI 10.1289/ehp.01109265
- Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances in commercial organic eggs via fishmeal in feed.. Granby K et al.. Chemosphere 2024 · PMID 37944762 · DOI 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.140553
- Potential Health Effects of Heavy Metals and Carcinogenic Health Risk Estimation of Pb and Cd Contaminated Eggs from a Closed Gold Mine Area in Northern Thailand.. Aendo P et al.. Foods 2022 · PMID 36140919 · DOI 10.3390/foods11182791
- Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food.. EFSA CONTAM Panel. EFSA J 2020 · PMID 32994824 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223
- PCDD/Fs and Dioxin-like PCBs in Chicken Eggs and Soils in Dong Nai Province, Southern Vietnam: Impacts of Raising Methods and Nearby Pollution Sources.. Nghiem TX et al.. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2022 · PMID 35037074 · DOI 10.1007/s00128-021-03419-w
- Reviewing the relevance of dioxin and PCB sources for food from animal origin and the need for their inventory, control and management.. Weber R et al.. Environ Sci Eur 2018 · PMID 30464877 · DOI 10.1186/s12302-018-0166-9
- Heavy metals in eggs and chicken and the associated human health risk assessment in the mining areas of Singhbhum copper belt, India.. Giri S et al.. Arch Environ Occup Health 2019 · PMID 29236582 · DOI 10.1080/19338244.2017.1407284
- Level changes and human dietary exposure assessment of halogenated flame retardant levels in free-range chicken eggs: A case study of a former e-waste recycling site, South China.. Huang CC et al.. Sci Total Environ 2018 · PMID 29631140 · DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.386
- Dioxins, PCBs, chlorinated pesticides and brominated flame retardants in free-range chicken eggs from peri-urban areas in Arusha, Tanzania: Levels and implications for human health.. Polder A et al.. Sci Total Environ 2016 · PMID 26897409 · DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.021