4.8 Article

Mineral Dietary Supplement To Decrease Cadmium Relative Bioavailability in Rice Based on a Mouse Bioassay

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 51, 期 21, 页码 12123-12130

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02993

关键词

-

资金

  1. Jiangsu Provincial Natural Science Foundation [BK20150573]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21507057, 21637002, 41673101]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [0211-14380048, 0211-14380052]
  4. Graduate Student Innovation Project of Jiangsu Province [KYZZ16_0055]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To determine the effectiveness of mineral dietary supplements to modulate cadmium (Cd) exposure, an in vivo mouse bioassay was conducted to determine Cd relative bioavailability (Cd-RBA) in Cd-contaminated rice (0.80 mg Cd kg(-1)) with and without Zn, Fe, or Ca supplements as nitrate or chloride salts. Without mineral supplements, Cd-RBA was 43 +/- 5.3% based on average Cd accumulation in the liver plus kidneys as the end point. Among Ca(NO3)(2), Zn(NO3)(2), and Fe(NO3)(2) supplements, 150-5000 mg kg(-1) Ca was the most effective in reducing rice Cd-RBA by 31-80% to 8.5-29%, while 30-200 mg kg(-1) Zn supplements was ineffective, with Cd-RBA being 33-57%. Low Fe at <40 mg kg(-1) had little impact on rice Cd-RBA (39-47%), while high Fe at 80-200 mg kg(-1) decreased Cd-RBA by 37% to 26-27%. The ineffectiveness of Zn supplements in reducing Cd-RBA was probably due to coinciding 8.3- and 3.1-fold increases in Zn accumulation in mouse kidneys and liver with Zn supplements, while Ca and Fe supplements led to much-smaller increases in Ca and Fe accumulation in mouse tissues (1.3-1.6 fold). In addition, compared to Ca(NO3)(2) supplements, Cd-RBA values determined with. CaCl2 supplements were significantly higher (25-67% versus 8.5-29%), suggesting that chloride enhanced Cd-RBA. Results of this study have important implications for developing effective dietary strategies to reduce dietary Cd exposure and the associated health risks in humans.

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

4.8
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