| Literature DB >> 29701658 |
Lian-Xian Guo1, Gui-Wei Zhang2, Jia-Ting Wang3, Yue-Ping Zhong4, Zhi-Gang Huang5.
Abstract
This study sought to determine the concentration and distribution of arsenic (As) species in Ophiocordyceps sinensis (O. sinensis), and to assess its edible hazard for long term consumption. The total arsenic concentrations, measured through inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), ranged from 4.00 mg/kg to 5.25 mg/kg. As determined by HPLC-ICP-MS, the most concerning arsenic species—AsB, MMAV, DMAV, AsV, and AsШ—were either not detected (MMAV and DMAV) or were detected as minor As species (AsB: 1.4⁻2.9%; AsV: 1.3⁻3.2%, and AsШ: 4.1⁻6.0%). The major components were a cluster of unknown organic As (uAs) compounds with AsШ, which accounted for 91.7⁻94.0% of the As content. Based on the H₂O₂ test and the chromatography behavior, it can be inferred that, the uAs might not be toxic organic As. Estimated daily intake (EDI), hazard quotient (HQ), and cancer risk (CR) caused by the total As content; the sum of inorganic As (iAs) and uAs, namely i+uAs; and iAs exposure from long term O. sinensis consumption were calculated and evaluated through equations from the US Environmental Protection Agency and the uncertainties were analyzed by Monte-Carlo Simulation (MCS). EDItotal As and EDIi+uAs are approximately ten times more than EDIiAs; HQtotalAs and HQi+uAs > 1 while HQiAs < 1; and CRtotal As and CRi+uAs > 1 × 10−4 while CRiAs < 1 × 10−4. Thus, if the uAs is non-toxic, there is no particular risk to local consumers and the carcinogenic risk is acceptable for consumption of O. sinensis because the concentration of toxic iAs is very low.Entities:
Keywords: HPLC-ICP-MS; Ophiocordyceps sinensis; arsenic speciation; risk assessment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29701658 PMCID: PMC6100492 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23051012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Life history of Ophiocordyceps sinensis (O. sinensis). (a) The eggs of the host Thitarodes insect, which are scattered on the grassland, incubate; (b) The host larvae safely reside in the soil throughout the long-lasting larval stage; (c) The ascospores erupt from mature fruiting bodies of O. sinensis; (d) The 4–5th instar larvae may be infected by the infective conidia of the O. sinensis fungus in the soil; (e) The caterpillar-shaped sclerotium (winter-worm) is formed; (f) The stroma germinates out of the head capsule and the mature O. sinensis (summer-grass-winter-worm) is formed.
Figure 2The producing area of Ophiocordyceps sinensis in China and sampling details of this study. (A) Schematic map illustrating the sampling sites in the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau and its adjacent high-altitude areas. Litang (LT), Naqu (NQ), and Yushu (YS) were chosen as the sampling sites. (B) The grassland of the O. sinensis habitat. Pastoralists are encamped there to collect it. (C) The stroma (a) of O. sinensis emerged out of the ground. (D) O. sinensis in the soil, the yellow arrows pointing out its sclerotium (b) and stroma (c).
Analytical performance of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) for total arsenic content and HPLC-ICP-MS for arsenic species.
| Analytes | Linear Range (μg/L) | Linear Equation |
| LOD (μg/kg) | LOQ (μg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total As | 0.5–500 | y = 2731.03x + 5.5567 | 0.9998 | 2.3 | 6.9 |
| AsB | 0.2–300 | y = 18,867.9x + 2319.6 | 0.9999 | 1.1 | 3.3 |
| DMAV | 0.2–300 | y = 19,212.4x + 4065.2 | 0.9999 | 1.3 | 4.0 |
| AsШ | 0.2–300 | y = 17,090.6x + 3289.1 | 0.9997 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
| MMAV | 0.5–300 | y = 18,373.6x + 196.8 | 1.0000 | 2.2 | 6.6 |
| AsV | 0.2–300 | y = 18,504.6x + 8247.2 | 1.0000 | 1.1 | 3.3 |
Recovery and precision of the methods.
| Analytes | Background Value (mg/kg) | Added (μg/L) | Measured Value (μg/L) | Recovery (%) | RSD (%, |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total As | 0.51 | 5.00 | 14.8~15.3 | 92.3~99.4 | 4.6 |
| 10.0 | 20.4~21.5 | 94.7~102.3 | 3.8 | ||
| 50.0 | 60.7~64.3 | 95.8~106.6 | 2.4 | ||
| AsB | 0.010 | 2.00 | 2.09~2.26 | 91.7~100.1 | 4.2 |
| 10.0 | 9.45~9.87 | 91.9~96.2 | 1.9 | ||
| 50.0 | 42.0~47.0 | 83.6~93.4 | 5.0 | ||
| DMAV | ND | 2.00 | 1.73~1.98 | 86.5~99.0 | 5.7 |
| 10.0 | 9.20~9.55 | 92.0~95.5 | 1.5 | ||
| 50.0 | 50.4~52.6 | 100.9~105.2 | 1.7 | ||
| AsШ | 1.70 | 2.00 | 45.3~45.6 | 86.3~99.2 | 5.5 |
| 10.0 | 52.8~53.7 | 88.8~98.0 | 4.3 | ||
| 50.0 | 96.8~99.2 | 106.9~111.7 | 2.0 | ||
| MMAV | 0.0031 | 2.00 | 2.07~2.19 | 99.4~105.7 | 2.7 |
| 10.0 | 10.6~10.8 | 105.0~107.2 | 0.85 | ||
| 50.0 | 47.2~48.6 | 94.2~97.1 | 1.2 | ||
| AsV | 0.12 | 2.00 | 4.81~5.08 | 86.6~100.0 | 6.6 |
| 10.0 | 12.8~13.0 | 97.4~99.4 | 0.80 | ||
| 50.0 | 49.0~50.2 | 91.9~94.4 | 1.1 |
National standard reference materials values (mg/kg, mean ± standard deviation) and determined values for total As and inorganic arsenic (iAs) content (n = 5).
| Sample Type | Reference Materials | Certified Value (mg/kg) | Determined Value (mg/kg) | Recovery (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green Chinese onion | GBW10049 | 0.52 ± 0.11 | 0.507 ± 0.08 | 97.5 |
| Pork liver | GBW10051 | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 1.42 ± 0.15 | 101.4 |
| Yellow-fin tuna | GBW08573 | 5.08 ± 0.39 | 4.98 ± 0.11 | 98.0 |
| Rice | GBW100358 | 0.16 ± 0.02 (total As) | 0.165 ± 0.012 | 103.1 |
| 0.13 ± 0.02 (iAs) | 0.144 ± 0.006 | 110.8 |
Concentration a of total arsenic and arsenic species in Ophiocordyceps sinensis.
| Sample Name | AsB b mg/kg (%) | DMAV | MMAV | uAs mg/kg (%) | AsШ mg/kg (%) | AsV mg/kg (%) | iAs mg/kg (%) | oAs mg/kg (%) | Total As mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NQ1 | 0.10 (2.1%) | nd c | nd | 4.34 (91.2%) | 0.22 (4.6%) | 0.10 (2.1%) | 0.32 (6.7%) | 4.44 (93.3%) | 4.76 |
| NQ2 | 0.09 (1.8%) | nd | nd | 4.59 (91.8%) | 0.21 (4.2%) | 0.11 (2.2%) | 0.32 (6.4%) | 4.68 (93.6%) | 5.00 |
| NQ3 | 0.12 (2.3%) | nd | nd | 4.81(91.6%) | 0.25 (4.8%) | 0.07 (1.3%) | 0.32 (6.1%) | 4.93 (93.9%) | 5.25 |
| NQ4 | 0.08 (2.0%) | nd | nd | 3.69 (90.0%) | 0.23 (5.6%) | 0.10 (2.4%) | 0.33 (8.0%) | 3.77 (92.0%) | 4.10 |
| LT1 | 0.07 (1.7%) | nd | nd | 3.69 (90.2%) | 0.20 (4.9%) | 0.13 (3.2%) | 0.33 (8.1%) | 3.76 (91.9%) | 4.09 |
| LT2 | 0.09 (2.2%) | nd | nd | 3.72 (89.6%) | 0.22 (5.3%) | 0.12 (2.9%) | 0.34 (8.2%) | 3.81 (91.8%) | 4.15 |
| LT3 | 0.11 (2.8%) | nd | nd | 3.56 (89.0%) | 0.24 (6.0%) | 0.09 (2.3%) | 0.33 (8.3%) | 3.67 (91.7%) | 4.00 |
| LT4 | 0.09 (1.7%) | nd | nd | 4.75 (92.2%) | 0.21 (4.1%) | 0.10 (1.9%) | 0.31 (6.0%) | 4.84 (94.0%) | 5.15 |
| YS1 | 0.12 (2.6%) | nd | nd | 4.19 (89.3%) | 0.27 (5.8%) | 0.11 (2.3%) | 0.38 (8.1%) | 4.31 (91.9%) | 4.69 |
| YS2 | 0.08 (1.9%) | nd | nd | 3.80 (90.5%) | 0.24 (5.7%) | 0.08 (1.9%) | 0.32 (7.6%) | 3.88 (92.4%) | 4.20 |
| YS3 | 0.07 (1.4%) | nd | nd | 4.69 (92.3%) | 0.25 (4.9%) | 0.07 (1.4%) | 0.32 (6.3%) | 4.76 (93.7%) | 5.08 |
| YS4 | 0.15 (2.9%) | nd | nd | 4.65 (90.5%) | 0.22 (4.3%) | 0.12 (2.3%) | 0.34 (6.6%) | 4.8 (93.4%) | 5.14 |
| AVR d | 0.09 (1.9%) | nd | nd | 4.21 (90.9%) | 0.23 (5.0%) | 0.10 (2.2%) | 0.33 (7.1%) | 4.3 (92.9%) | 4.63 |
a Concentrations are presented as the average value of three measurements with a relative standard deviation (RSD) of less than 8% (the ranges of RSD values were as follows, RSDAsB: 2.1~5.6%, RSDDMAV: 1.8~6.1%, RSDAsШ: 2.0~6.7%, RSDMMAV: 1.4~5.2%, and RSDAsV: 1.1~7.3%; b AsB, MMA, DMA, uAs, AsⅢ, AsⅤ, iAs, oAs, and Total As were the abbreviation of arsenobetaine, monomethylarsonic acid, dimethylarsenic acid, unknown organic arsenic, arsenite, and arsenate, inorganic arsenic (total), organic arsenic (total), and total arsenic, respectively. c not detected; d average value among all the samples.
Figure 3The concentration (mg/kg dry weight) of total As and As speciation detected in O. sinensis. Inorganic As ( AsШ and AsV) are shown in red and yellow sections, and organic As ( AsB and uAs) is shown in dark and light gray sections.
Figure 4Chromatograms obtained in quantification by HPLC-ICP-MS. (A) A mix of standard samples of AsB, DMAV, AsШ, MMA, and AsV, at 10 ppb of each arsenic species. (B) The extracts of sample NQ1. The AsШ and unknown organic As peaks overlap. (C) Oxidation products of the extracts of NQ1. Any AsШ is transformed into AsV when H2O2 is added to the extracts.
Figure 5Inference on the toxicity of the unknown As detected in O. sinensis. (a) 1 mL of H2O2 was added to the extracts, and the unknown As could not be oxidized (Figure 4C). Thus, the unknown As cannot be the toxic MMAШ, DMAШ, or DMMTAV which can be oxidized under treatment with H2O2. (b) The unknown peak presents a similar retention time with AsШ, indicating that it is not a low retention component, such as an As hydrocarbon (AsHC).
Figure 6Estimated distribution patterns and descriptive statistics of (A,D,G) estimated daily intake (EDI), (B,E,H) hazard quotient (HQ), and (C,F,I) cancer risk (CR). Where in (A–C) values were derived according to the total As concentration in O. sinensis; in (D–F) values were derived according to the i+uAs concentration (the sum of iAs and uAs) in O. sinensis; and in (G–I) values were derived according to the iAs concentration in O. sinensis.
Input parameters for Monte-Carlo simulation.
| Parameters | Units | Distribution |
|---|---|---|
| Adult Body weight, BW | BW kg | Lognormal (Mean = 58.7, SD = 12.0) |
| Daily ingestion rate, | kg/day | Lognormal (Mean = 0.01, SD = 0.0143) |
| Total As concentration, | μg/kg | Lognormal (Mean = 4.63, SD = 0.42) |
| i+uAs concentration, | μg/kg | Lognormal (Mean = 4.53, SD = 0.41) |
| iAs concentration, | μg/kg | Lognormal (Mean = 0.34, SD = 0.03) |