4.6 Article

Solubility and Bioavailability of Stabilized Amorphous Calcium Carbonate

期刊

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 364-372

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.196

关键词

ABSORPTION; AMORPHOUS CALCIUM CARBONATE; BIOAVAILABILITY; RATS; SOLUBILITY

资金

  1. Amorphical, Ltd., through B. G. Negev, Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since its role in the prevention of osteoporosis in humans was proven some 30 years ago, calcium bioavailability has been the subject of numerous scientific studies. Recent technology allowing the production of a stable amorphous calcium carbonate (ACC) now enables a bioavailability analysis of this unique form of calcium. This study thus compares the solubility and fractional absorption of ACC, ACC with chitosan (ACC-C), and crystalline calcium carbonate (CCC). Solubility was evaluated by dissolving these preparations in dilute phosphoric acid. The results demonstrated that both ACC and ACC-C are more soluble than CCC. Fractional absorption was evaluated by intrinsically labeling calcium carbonate preparations with Ca-45, orally administrated to rats using gelatin capsules. Fractional absorption was determined by evaluating the percentage of the administrated radioactive dose per milliliter that was measured in the serum, calcium absorption in the femur, and whole-body retention over a 34-hour period. Calcium serum analysis revealed that calcium absorption from ACC and ACC-C preparations was up to 40% higher than from CCC, whereas retention of ACC and ACC-C was up to 26.5% higher than CCC. Absorbed calcium in the femurs of ACC-administrated rats was 30% higher than in CCC-treated animals, whereas 15% more calcium was absorbed following ACC-C treatment than following CCC treatment. This study demonstrates the enhanced solubility and bioavailability of ACC over CCC. The use of stable ACC as a highly bioavailable dietary source for calcium is proposed based on the findings of this study. (C) 2011 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据