4.0 Article

Bioaccessibility testing of cobalt compounds

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 675-680

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/b302257a

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Testing of metal compounds for solubility in artificial fluids has been used for many years to assist determining human health risk from exposure to specific compounds of concern. In lieu of obtaining bioavailability data from samples of urine, blood, or other tissues, these studies measured solubility of compounds in various artificial fluids as a surrogate for bioavailability. In this context, the measurement of metal bioaccessibility can be used as an in vitro substitute for measuring metal bioavailability. Bioaccessibility can be defined as a value representing the availability of metal for absorption when dissolved in in vitro surrogates of body fluids or juices. The aim of this study was to measure and compare the bioaccessibility of selected cobalt compounds in artificial human tissue fluids and human serum. A second aim was to initiate studies to experimentally validate an in vitro methodology that would provide a conservative estimate of cobalt bioavailability in the assessment of dose from human exposure to various species of cobalt compounds. This study evaluated the bioaccessibility of cobalt(II) from 11 selected cobalt compounds and an alloy in 2 physical forms in 5 surrogate human tissue fluids and human serum. Four (4) separate extraction times were used up to 72 hours. The effect or variables such as pH, dissolution time, and mass-ion effect on cobalt bioaccessibility were assessed as well. We found that the species of cobalt compound as well as the physico-chemical properties of the surrogate fluids, especially pH, had a major impact on cobalt Solubility. Cobalt salts such as cobalt(II) sulfate heptahydrate were highly soluble, whereas cobalt alloys used in medical implants and cobalt aluminate spinels used as pigments, showed minimal dissolution over the period of the assay.

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

4.0
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