4.7 Article

Four-week repeated oral dose toxicity study of zinc maltol in rats

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 175, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2023.113755

关键词

Zinc; Zinc maltol; General toxicity; Zinc complex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zinc deficiency has adverse effects, and zinc complexes are commonly used as supplements but with few toxicity reports. In this study, zinc maltol (ZM) was administered orally to male rats for 4 weeks to evaluate its toxicity. Toxicities were observed at a dose of 1000 mg/kg, including pancreatitis, anemia, and decreased bone density, while no toxicities were observed in the ligand group. These findings provide helpful insights for the development of new zinc complexes and supplements.
Zinc (Zn) is one of the trace elements, and Zn deficiency causes many adverse effects. Zn complexes are used for Zn supplementation, but there are few toxicity reports. Zn maltol (ZM) was orally administered for 4 weeks to male rats at a dose of 0, 200, 600, or 1000 mg/kg to assess its toxicity. As a ligand group, maltol was admin-istered at a dose of 800 mg/kg/day. General conditions, ophthalmology, hematology, blood biochemistry, uri-nalysis, organ weights, necropsy, histopathology, and plasma Zn concentration were investigated. Plasma Zn concentration increased with dose levels of ZM. The following toxicities were observed at 1000 mg/kg. Pancreatitis was observed with histopathological lesions and increases in white blood cell parameters and cre-atine kinase. Anemia was observed with changes in red blood cell parameters and extramedullary hematopoiesis in the spleen. Decreases in the trabecula and growth plate in the femur were observed. On the other hand, no toxicities were observed in the ligand group. In conclusion, these toxicities induced by ZM have been reported as Zn-related toxicities. It was considered that these results will be helpful for a creation and development of new Zn complexes as well as supplements.

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