4.8 Article

Arsenic Relative Bioavailability in Rice Using a Mouse Arsenic Urinary Excretion Bioassay and Its Application to Assess Human Health Risk

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue 8, Pages 4689-4696

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00495

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21507057, 21637002]
  2. Jiangsu Provincial Natural Science Foundation [BK20150573]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [14380048]
  4. Program B for Outstanding PhD Candidate of Nanjing University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A steady-state mouse model was, developed to determine arsenic (As) relative bioavailability (RBA) in rice to refine As exposure in humans. Fifty-five rice samples from 15 provinces of China were analyzed for total As, with 11 cooked for As speciation and bioavailability assessment. Arsenic concentrations were 38-335 mu g kg(-1), averaging 133 mu g kg(-1), with As-III being dominant (36-79%), followed by DMA(V) (18-58%) and As-V (0.5-16%). Following oral doses of individual As species to mice at low As exposure (2.5-15 mu g As per mouse) over a 7-d period, strong linear correlations (R-2 = 0.99) were observed between As urinary excretion and cumulative As intake, suggesting the suitability and sensitivity of the mouse bioassay to measure As-RBA in rice. Urinary excretion factor for DMA(V) (0.46) was less than inorganic As (0.63-0.69). As-RBA in cooked rice ranged from 13.2 +/- 2.2% to 53.6 +/- 11.1% (averaging 27.0 +/- 12.2%) for DMA(V) and 26.2 +/- 7.0% to 49.5 +/- 4.7% (averaging 39.9 +/- 8.3%) for inorganic As. calculation of inorganic As intake based on total inorganic As in rice overestimated As exposure by 2.0-3.7 fold compared to that based on bioavailable inorganic As. For accurate assessment of the health risk associated with rice consumption, it is important to consider As bioavailability especially inorganic As in rice.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available