4.7 Article

Quantitation of Aristolochic Acids in Corn, Wheat Grain, and Soil Samples Collected in Serbia: Identifying a Novel Exposure Pathway in the Etiology of Balkan Endemic Nephropathy

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 64, 期 29, 页码 5928-5934

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b02203

关键词

Balkan endemic nephropathy; upper urothelial cancer; aristolochic acid nephropathy; aristolochic acids; exposure pathways; root uptake

资金

  1. Research Grant Council of Hong Kong [ECS 609913]
  2. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology [R9310]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While to date investigations provided convincing evidence on the role of aristolochic acids (AAs) in the etiology of Balkan endemic nephropathy (BEN) and upper urothelial cancer (UUC), the exposure pathways by which AAs enter human bodies to cause BEN and UUC remain obscure. The goal of this study is to test the hypothesis that environmental pollution by AAs and root uptake of AAs in the polluted soil may be one of the pathways by which AAs enter the human food chain. The hypothesis driving this study was that the decay of Aristolochia clematitis L., a AA-containing herbaceous plant that is found growing widespread in the endemic regions, could release free AAs to the soil, which could be taken up by food crops growing nearby, thereby transferring this potent human nephrotoxin and carcinogen into their edible parts. Using the highly sensitive and selective high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with fluorescence detection method, we identified and quantitated in this study for the first time AAs in corn, wheat grain, and soil samples collected from the endemic village Kutles in Serbia. Our results provide the first direct evidence that food crops and soil in the Balkans are contaminated with AAs. It is possible that the presence of AAs in edible parts of crops originating from the AA-contaminated soil could be one of the major pathways by which humans become exposed to AAs.

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