Aug 14, 2015 - Since the introduction of iodized salt in 1960s many control programs have been implemented judging the effectiveness at community level.
European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety 5(5): 873-874, 2015, Article no.EJNFS.2015.332 ISSN: 2347-5641
SCIENCEDOMAIN international www.sciencedomain.org
Evaluation of Salt Iodization at Consumption Level in North-Eastern Thailand Ina M. Ott1*, Benja Muktabhant2, Katrin Kühn1, Nadja Lehmann1, Pattara Sanchaisuriya2 and Florian J. Schweigert1 1
Institute of Nutritional Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany. 2 Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/EJNFS/2015/21139 Special Editors: Lucie Bohac, Micronutrient Forum Secretariat, Canada. Klaus Kraemer, Director, Sight and Life, Basel, Switzerland. Chief Editor Prof. Hans Verhagen, Senior Scientific Advisor ‘Nutrition and Food Safety’, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O.Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
th
Conference Abstract
Received 5 February 2015 Accepted 1st March 2015 th Published 14 August 2015
ABSTRACT Objectives: Iodine deficiency disorder (IDD) is an important health problem in Thailand, especially in northern and north-eastern regions. Since the introduction of iodized salt in 1960s many control programs have been implemented judging the effectiveness at community level. Concerns have been expressed regarding public health information and quality control of manufactured iodinefortified salt (mandatory: 20- 40 ppm). This study assessed the iodine content in Thai table salts. Methods: Salt samples (n=438) from endemic areas in north-eastern Thailand including eleven districts from three different provinces were collected either by asking school children to bring salt used for home cooking or with the help of local health volunteers during home visits. Salt analysis TM was conducted by using a portable photometer for quantitative iodine determination (iCheck TM iEx IODINE). Results: Median iodine concentration was 7.0 ppm (IQR 0.0-32.9) being highest in district 2 and district 6 (51.9 ppm, IQR 24.4-82.7 and 36.6 ppm, IQR 32.0-49.1, respectively). Samples from province A (5.4 ppm, IQR 0.0-31.2) contained significantly less iodine than from province B and province C (20.6 ppm, IQR 5.7-34.4 and 26.3 ppm, IQR 5.9-34.7, respectively; p
