| Literature DB >> 17185270 |
Albert L Juhasz1, Euan Smith, John Weber, Matthew Rees, Allan Rofe, Tim Kuchel, Lloyd Sansom, Ravi Naidu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Millions of people worldwide consume arsenic-contaminated rice; however, little is known about the uptake and bioavailability of arsenic species after arsenic-contaminated rice ingestion.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2006 PMID: 17185270 PMCID: PMC1764129 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.9322
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Perspect ISSN: 0091-6765 Impact factor: 9.031
Arsenic concentration and speciation in cooked and uncooked rice from market surveys and greenhouse studies (mean ± SD).
| Rice variety | Source | Total As (μg As/kg) | Organic As (%) | Inorganic As (%) | As extraction efficiency (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uncooked rice–market bought | ||||||
| Parija | Bangladesh | 210 ± 20 | 24 ± 0 | 59 ± 1 | 83 ± 1 | |
| Miniket | Bangladesh | 220 ± 10 | 16 ± 0 | 86 ± 4 | 103 ± 4 | |
| BRRIdhan29 | Bangladesh | 300 ± 10 | 11 ± 2 | 71 ± 0 | 82 ± 2 | |
| White | Taiwan | 760 | 14 | 67 | 81 | |
| Long White | USA | 400 ± 10 | 65 ± 1 | 20 ± 1 | 85 ± 0 | |
| Long Brown | USA | 340 ± 20 | 45 ± 11 | 41 ± 5 | 86 ± 16 | |
| Basmati White | India | 50 ± 0 | 23 ± 4 | 65 ± 1 | 88 ± 5 | |
| Basmati White | India | 32 ± 3 | 0 | 100 | 81 | This study |
| Basmati Brown | India | 70 ± 10 | 6 ± 3 | 61 ± 4 | 67 ± 8 | |
| Medium Risotto | Italy | 220 ± 10 | 38 ± 1 | 65 ± 1 | 103 ± 2 | |
| Arborio | Italy | 211 ± 7 | 31 ± 3 | 66 ± 5 | ||
| Paella | Spain | 170 ± 10 | 30 ± 5 | 48 ± 2 | 78 ± 3 | |
| Long Jasmine | Thailand | 110 ± 10 | 24 ± 6 | 74 ± 1 | 98 ± 7 | |
| Ground | Europe | 200 ± 10 | 28 ± 2 | 51 ± 3 | 79 ± 4 | |
| Long Wild Rice | Canada | 110 | 8 | 76 | 84 | |
| Long White | Australia | 189 ± 18 | ND | ND | ND | This study |
| Not specified | 410 | 6 | 88 | 94 | ||
| Uncooked rice–greenhouse grown | ||||||
| Quest | Australia | 1,250 ± 230 | 86 ± 2 | 14 ± 2 | 100 ± 4 | This study |
| Cooked rice–market bought | ||||||
| Instant White | USA | 305 | 89 ± 4 | 10 ± 1 | 99 ± 4 | |
| Instant White | USA | 345 | 78 ± 2 | 17 ± 1 | 95 ± 3 | |
| Long White | USA | 236 | 62 ± 1 | 35 ± 3 | 97 ± 4 | |
| Long White | USA | 310 | 50 ± 3 | 46 ± 2 | 96 ± 4 | |
| Not specified | 150 | 29 | 75 | 104 | ||
| Basmati White | India | 1,000 | 0 | 100 | 100 | This study |
| Cooked rice–greenhouse grown | ||||||
| Quest | Australia | 480 | 86 ± 2 | 14 ± 2 | 100 ± 4 | This study |
ND, not determined.
Cooked rice prepared with water:rice ratios of 1:1 to 4:1 (v/v) depending on variety.
Rice cooked with water containing 21.9 μg AsV/L.
Rice cooked with water containing 1,000 μg AsV/L.
Figure 1Arsenic concentration in blood plasma after oral or intravenous administration of (A) MMA, (B) DMA, (C) AsIII, or (D) AsV. Each swine received a single administration of 20 μg As/kg or 80–100 μg As/kg for intravenous and oral doses, respectively. Data points represent the mean ± SD of three separate in vivo assays.
Absolute bioavailability of organic, inorganic, and rice-bound arsenic after in vivo assessment using the swine animal model (n = 3).
| Treatment | Dose (μg As/kg) | AUC | Absolute bioavailability (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intravenous | |||
| MMA | 20 | 122.7 ± 13.6 | 100 |
| DMA | 20 | 84.9 ± 3.6 | 100 |
| AsIII | 20 | 87.6 ± 14.6 | 100 |
| AsV | 20 | 115.2 ± 40.6 | 100 |
| Oral gavage | |||
| MMA | 100 | 92.8 ± 26.3 | 16.7 ± 5.0 |
| DMA | 100 | 138.2 ± 1.1 | 33.3 ± 1.7 |
| AsIII | 80 | 483.7 ± 172.9 | 103.9 ± 25.8 |
| AsV | 100 | 463.8 ± 45.7 | 92.5 ± 22.3 |
| Rice | |||
| Quest | 3.3–5.2 | 3.6–6.6 | 33.1 ± 3.2 |
| Basmati | 16.5–20.2 | 71.8–87.2 | 89.4 ± 9.4 |
Area under the curve data represents the mean ± SD of triplicate analyses.
Absolute bioavailability was calculated using the Equation 1 (see “Materials and Methods”).
As-contaminated rice was cooked in As-free water.
The bioavail-ability of As in Quest and Basmati White rice was calculated using speciation data outlined in Table 1 using Equation 2 (see “Materials and Methods”).
Supermarket-bought rice was cooked in water containing 1,000 μg AsV/L.
Contribution of rice consumption to maximum tolerable daily intake calculations using total rice-bound As, inorganic As, and bioavailable As.
| Contribution to MTDI (%) based on:
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice Variety | Total As (μg/kg) | Organic As | Inorganic As | Total As | Inorganic As | As bioavailability |
| Parija | 210 | 50 | 124 | 74 | 43 | 49 |
| Miniket | 220 | 35 | 189 | 77 | 66 | 70 |
| BRRIdhan29 | 300 | 33 | 213 | 105 | 75 | 78 |
| White | 760 | 106 | 509 | 266 | 178 | 190 |
| Long White | 400 | 260 | 80 | 140 | 28 | 58 |
| Long Brown | 340 | 153 | 139 | 119 | 49 | 66 |
| Basmati White | 50 | 12 | 33 | 18 | 12 | 13 |
| Basmati White | 32 | 0 | 32 | 11 | 11 | 11 |
| Basmati Brown | 70 | 4 | 43 | 25 | 15 | 16 |
| Medium Risotto | 220 | 84 | 143 | 77 | 50 | 60 |
| Arborio | 210 | 65 | 139 | 74 | 49 | 56 |
| Paella | 170 | 51 | 82 | 60 | 29 | 35 |
| Long Jasmine | 110 | 26 | 81 | 39 | 28 | 31 |
| Ground | 200 | 56 | 102 | 70 | 36 | 42 |
| Long Wild | 110 | 9 | 84 | 39 | 29 | 30 |
| Not specified | 410 | 25 | 361 | 144 | 126 | 129 |
| Quest | 1,250 | 1,075 | 175 | 438 | 61 | 185 |
| Instant White | 305 | 271 | 31 | 107 | 11 | 42 |
| Long White | 236 | 146 | 83 | 83 | 29 | 46 |
| Not specified | 150 | 44 | 113 | 53 | 40 | 45 |
Organic and inorganic As concentrations were calculated from percentage values presented in Table 1.
The contribution to MTDI As values (%) was calculated using consumption of 0.42 g rice dry weight/day for a 60-kg person and the total As concentration for each rice variety.
The contribution to MTDI As values (%) was calculated using consumption of 0.42 g rice dry weight/day for a 60-kg person and the concentration of inorganic As for each rice variety.
The contribution to MTDI As values (%) was calculated using consumption of 0.42 g rice dry weight/day for a 60-kg person, the concentration of organic and inorganic As and bioavailability factors of 0.33 and 1.0 for organic and inorganic As respectively. DMA was assumed to represent the organic As fraction.
Williams et al. 2005.
Schoof et al. 1998.
This study.
D’Amato et al. 2004.
Heitkemper et al. 2001.
Kohlmeyer et al. 2003.
Ackerman et al. 2005.