4.6 Article

Fortification Iron as Ferrous Sulfate Plus Ascorbic Acid Is More Rapidly Absorbed Than as Sodium Iron EDTA but Neither Increases Serum Nontransferrin-Bound Iron in Women

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 141, 期 5, 页码 822-827

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/jn.110.136127

关键词

-

资金

  1. Foundation Nutrition Industry (Basel, Switzerland)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The absorption profile of iron fortificants may be a determinant of their ability to generate nontransferrin-bound iron (NTBI) and, thus, their potential safety. Ferrous iron may be absorbed more rapidly than chelated ferric iron, but differences at the fortification level cannot be distinguished with nonisotopically labeled serum iron curves. Using stable isotope appearance curves (SIAC) in serum, we measured iron absorption profiles from FeSO4 with ascorbic acid (AA) and from NaFeEDTA, as well as the serum hepcidin and NTBI response following the meals. Healthy women (n = 16) were given 6 mg oral iron as labeled FeSO4 and NaFeEDTA with a maize porridge using a crossover design. SIAC, NTBI, and serum hepcidin were measured over 8 h after the meal. Iron from FeSO4 plus AA was more rapidly absorbed, resulting in a 35% greater relative AUC during the first 2 h than for NaFeEDTA (P < 0.001). Median (95% CI) fractional iron absorption from the FeSO4- and NaFeEDTA-fortified meals was 15.2% (11.0-19.5) and 6.0% (5.0-9.2), respectively (P < 0.001). In response to the FeSO4-fortified meal, here was an similar to 60% increase in median serum hepcidin (P < 0.05) but no significant change in NTBI. There was no significant change in serum hepcidin or NTBI after the NaFeEDTA-fortified meal. SIAC are a useful new tool to compare iron absorption profiles from different iron compounds in fortified foods. Even with the use of a very well absorbed ferrous iron compound, iron fortification in this population does not increase NTBI, suggesting a low risk for adverse health consequences. J. Nutr. 141: 822-827, 2011.

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