ArticleScientific reports2025
Dietary intake and risk assessment of nitrosamine in processed meat products among medical staff during their night shift.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Probe-Ultrasonicated Thyme Essential Oil Nanoemulsions: Physicochemical Characterization and Application in Chicken Burgers.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Dietary exposure to N-nitrosamines and their precursors: an age-stratified assessment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Characterization and Evolutionary Study of Fungal Nitrate Reductase Through Bioinformatics and Partial Gene Amplification from Aspergillus niger PKA16 employing Degenerate Primers.The protein journal · 2025Article
- Colorimetric Detection of Nitrosamines in Human Serum Albumin Using Cysteine-Capped Gold Nanoparticles.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Carbon Nanodots-Based Sensors: A Promising Tool for Detecting and Monitoring Toxic Compounds.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aims to evaluate the levels of nitrosamine, a known carcinogenic compound, in processed meat products and to assess its dietary intake and margin of exposure among medical staff, including physicians, pharmacists, and nurses working night shifts at Alexandria University Hospitals. Additionally, the study seeks to evaluate the participants' knowledge of dietary sources and regulatory limits of carcinogens. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 420 participants. Results showed that hotdogs contained the highest nitrosamine levels (159.24 ± 87.99 µg/g) with a consumption pattern of 0.02126 µg/kg BW/day. In contrast, sausages and burgers had the lowest nitrosamine content (2.36 µg/g and 2.37 µg/g, respectively). Luncheon meat also exhibited low nitrosamine levels and consumption patterns, at 18.53 µg/g and 0.00141 µg/kg BW/day, respectively. The Margin of Exposure (MOE) was calculated to assess risk, with a Benchmark Dose Lower Confidence Limit (BMDL)10 value of 29 µg/kg BW/day as the reference point. MOE values ≥ 17,000, derived for nitrosamine exposure in this study, indicate a low level of concern for carcinogenic risk. A statistically significant difference in dietary nitrosamine intake was observed across different professions among the medical staff (p < 0.001).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.