4.7 Article

Arsenic speciation in Brazilian rice grains organically and traditionally cultivated: Is there any difference in arsenic content?

Journal

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 89, Issue -, Pages 169-176

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2016.07.011

Keywords

Arsenic; Organic rice; Speciation analysis; HPLC-ICP-MS; Codex Alimentarius; Inorganic arsenic

Funding

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2014/05151-0, 2015/06674-9]
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [444280/2014-6]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Inorganic arsenic contamination in rice is a global public concern due to the risks associated. In spite of being an important issue, few studies concerning differences between inorganic arsenic in rice grains under organic and conventional methods of cultivation are available in Brazil, which is an important producer and consumer. In the present work, samples of polished and husked rice (organic and conventional) and gastronomic rice (Arborio, Carnaroli and red/black rice) were analyzed and the results compared to FAO/Codex maximum limits. The total determination and speciation analysis of arsenic were carried out by ICP-MS and HPLC-ICP-MS, respectively. The results showed no significant statistical differences in total As concentration in organic rice (157.7 +/- 56.1 ng g(-1)) vs. conventional rice (137.4 +/- 46.6 ng g(-1)) and also in organic husked rice (227.7 +/- 95.5 ng g(-1)) vs. conventional husked (217.7 +/- 60.9 ng g(-1)). However, inorganic As was 45% higher in organic polished rice than in conventional polished rice and 41% higher in organic husked rice than in conventional husked rice. Gastronomic rice presented total arsenic ranging from 65.4 to 348 ng g(-1) for black and Arborio rice, respectively. Regarding the maximum levels adopted by Codex for i-As (200 ng g(-1)), no violation was found. (C) 2016 Elsevier 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