4.7 Article

Acute and subacute toxicity of Schinus terebinthifolius bark extract

Journal

JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY
Volume 126, Issue 3, Pages 468-473

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2009.09.013

Keywords

Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi; Anacardiaceae; Acute toxicity; Subacute toxicity

Funding

  1. CAPES
  2. CNPq

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ethnopharmacological relevance: Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi (Anacardiaceae) has long been used in traditional Brazilian medicine, especially to treat inflammatory and haemostatic diseases. Aim of the study: The objective of this study was to evaluate the acute and subacute toxicity (45 days) of Schinus terebinthifolius via the oral route in Wistar rats of both sexes. Materials and methods: For the acute toxicity test, the dried extract of Schinus terebinthifolius bark was administered in doses from 0.625 to 5.0g/kg (n=5/group/sex) and in the subacute toxicity test the following doses were used: 0.25, 0.625 and 1.5625 g/kg/day (n = 13/group/sex), for 45 consecutive days. Results: In the acute toxicity test, Schinus terebinthifolius did not produce any toxic signs or deaths, The subacute treatment with Schinus terebinthifolius did not alter either the body weight gain or the food and water consumption. The hematological and biochemical analysis did not show significant differences in any of the parameters examined in female or male groups, except in two male groups, in which the treatment with Schinus terebinthifolius (0.25 and 0.625 g/kg) induced an increase of mean corpuscular volume values (2.9 and 2.6%, respectively). These variations are within the physiological limits described for the specie and does not have clinical relevance. Conclusion: The acute and subacute administration of the dried extract of Schinus terebinthifolius bark did not produced toxic effects in Wistar rats. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available