4.7 Review

Aconitum Alkaloid Poisoning Related to the Culinary Uses of Aconite Roots

期刊

TOXINS
卷 6, 期 9, 页码 2605-2611

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/toxins6092605

关键词

aconite poisoning; aconite roots; Aconitum alkaloids; food supplements

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aconite roots (roots or root tubers of the Aconitum species) are eaten as root vegetables and used to prepare herbal soups and meals, mainly for their purported health benefits. Aconite roots contain aconitine and other Aconitum alkaloids, which are well known cardiotoxins and neurotoxins. To better understand why Aconitum alkaloid poisoning related to the culinary uses of aconite roots can occur and characterize the risks posed by these food supplements, relevant published reports were reviewed. From 1995 to 2013, there were eight reports of aconite poisoning after consumption of these herbal soups and meals, including two reports of large clusters of cases (n = 19-45) and two reports of cases (n = 15-156) managed by two hospitals over a period of 4.5 to 5 years. The herbal formulae used did not adhere to the suggested guidelines, with regarding to the doses (50-500 g instead of 3-30 g per person) and types (raw instead of processed) of aconite roots used. The quantities of Aconitum alkaloids involved were huge, taking into consideration the doses of aconite roots used to prepare herbal soups/meals and the amounts of aconite roots and herbal soups/meals consumed. In a large cluster of cases, despite simmering raw caowu (the root tuber of A. kusnezoffii) in pork broth for 24 h, all 19 family members who consumed this soup and boiled caowu developed poisoning. Severe or even fatal aconite poisoning can occur after consumption of herbal soups and foods prepared from aconite roots. Even prolonged boiling may not be protective if raw preparations and large quantities of aconite roots are used. The public should be warned of the risk of severe poisoning related to the culinary and traditional medicinal uses of aconite roots.

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

4.7
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