4.7 Article

Risk of Poisoning from Garden Plants: Misidentification between Laurel and Cherry Laurel

期刊

TOXINS
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/toxins14110726

关键词

Laurus nobilis; Prunus laurocerasus; toxic plants; edible plants; microscopy; phytochemistry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted an in-depth evaluation of laurel and cherry laurel leaves to distinguish their distinguishing features. This multidisciplinary approach can be useful in plant identification, quality control tests, intoxications, and criminal cases.
The misidentification between edible and poisonous plants is an increasing problem because of the new trend to collect wild plants, especially by amateur collectors who do not have the botanical skills to distinguish between edible and toxic species. Moreover, morphologically similar species are sometimes responsible for accidental contamination or used in the intentional adulteration of products for human and animal consumption. Laurus nobilis L. (laurel) and Prunus laurocerasus L. (cherry laurel) are typical ornamental shrubs of the Mediterranean region. Laurel is considered a non-toxic plant, widely used as flavorings. Conversely, cherry laurel leaves, morphologically similar to those of laurel, contain toxic cyanogenic glycosides. Considering this, the aim of this study was to carry out an in-depth evaluation of laurel and cherry laurel leaves by using light and scanning electron microscopy coupled with three step phytochemical analyses (qualitative and quantitative colorimetric assays and liquid chromatography). This allowed to highlight the distinguishing features of plant species investigated features such as the venation pattern, presence/absence of nectaries, calcium oxalate crystals, secretory idioblasts, and cyanogenic glycosides. Concluding, this multidisciplinary approach can be useful for the identification of plants but also fragments or pruning residues containing cyanogenic glycosides, in quality control tests, intoxications, and criminal cases.

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