4.6 Article

Determination of essential and toxic elements in Cordyceps kyushuensis Kawam by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2012.08.007

关键词

Cordyceps kyushuensis Kawam; ICP-MS; Microwave digestion; Multi-element analysis; Food composition

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30770041, 30970012]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
  3. Shandong Provincial Foundation for Science [2007GG2NS02056]
  4. Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Microbial Technology [M2010-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a total of 20 elements (essential, non-essential and toxic): lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), gallium (Ga), magnesium (Mg), zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), molybdenum (Mo), selenium (Se), barium (Ba), tin (Sn), arsenic (As), lead (Pb) cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg) in natural and cultured Cordyceps kyushuensis have been determined by means of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Cultured stroma, natural stroma and natural worm were digested by microwave-assisted method before analysis. The proposed ICP-MS method was validated by analyzing a certified reference material (CRM) GBW10015 (spinach). The results of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that the element concentrations in the three kinds of samples were significantly different (p < 0.05). Except for Mg, Zn, Cu, the values of other elemental contents were the highest in the stroma of natural C kyushuensis. In comparison with the worm, the concentrations of determined elements in wild stroma were higher. The remarkable difference of elemental contents between cultured and natural stroma may be caused by distinct growing environment. This finding highlighted the usefulness of ICP-MS elemental analysis and enhanced the value of C kyushuensis as a candidate for nourishing food based on its composition. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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