| Literature DB >> 32483124 |
Xiumin Chen1,2, Anika Singh1, David D Kitts3.
Abstract
Commercial mineral clays that claim to have healing properties are also known to contain trace amounts of heavy metals, albeit the risk of consuming many of them is not entirely known. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the in vitro bioaccessibility and bioavailability of Arsenic (As), Cadmium (Cd) and Lead (Pb) in mineral clay samples collected from the Sierra Mountains (USA) using the Unified Bioaccessibility Research Group of Europe (UBM) method and the Caco-2 permeability assay, respectively. After UMB-gastric (UBM-G) digestion, As and Pb bioaccessibility were lower compared to Cd and decreased further in the UMB-gastrointestinal (UBM-GI) assay. Bioavailability estimates using the Caco-2 cell showed very low to non-detectable permeability for all 3 heavy metals. Thus, while initial heavy metal ranged from 3.8-17 ppm, 0.024-0.061ppm, and 5.8-20 ppm for As, Cd, and Pb, respectively, the bioavailability for these metals was reduced to very low levels that followed: non-detectable values of As, <0.007ppm of Cd, and <0.1ppm of Pb. Using UBM-digestion to mimic bioaccessibility, followed by Caco-2 cell bioavailability enabled us to conclude that in vitro assessment of heavy metal exposure associated with mineral clay-based natural health products does not pose a potential hazard to consumers.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32483124 PMCID: PMC7264141 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-65449-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Total As, Cd, and Pb content in mineral clay (ppm; mean ± SD).
| Sample | As | Cd | Pb |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15 ± 3.0 | 0.038 ± 0.013 | 20 ± 2.00 |
| 2 | 15 ± 1.0 | 0.040 ± 0.011 | 18 ± 1.00 |
| 3 | 17 ± 2.0 | 0.024 ± 0.005 | 6.1 ± 0.40 |
| 4 | 16 ± 3.0 | 0.034 ± 0.003 | 5.8 ± 0.90 |
| 5 | 16 ± 2.0 | 0.037 ± 0.020 | 6.4 ± 1.00 |
| 6 | 4.1 ± 1.0 | 0.060 ± 0.010 | 8.48 ± 1.09 |
| 7 | 3.8 ± 0.2 | 0.053 ± 0.012 | 8.52 ± 1.21 |
| 8 | 3.8 ± 0.3 | 0.052 ± 0.006 | 8.05 ± 0.19 |
| 9 | 3.8 ± 0.2 | 0.061 ± 0.002 | 8.73 ± 0.56 |
| 10 | 4.1 ± 0.4 | 0.053 ± 0.021 | 8.45 ± 0.28 |
Bioaccessibility (%) of As, Cd, and Pb measured by UBM and USEPA methods.
| Samples | USEPA | UBM Method | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UBM-G | UBM-GI | ||||||||
| As | Cd | Pbd | Asa | Cd | Pbe | Asb | Cdc,g | Pbf | |
| 1 | 6.62 ± 1.20 | 61.53 ± 09.54 | 15.24 ± 01.39 | 9.2 ± 1.2 | 63.1 ± 8.1 | 9.1 ± 0.3 | 9.1 ± 1.4 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.5 |
| 2 | 6.96 ± 0.27 | 80.01 ± 12.98 | 18.51 ± 01.20 | 9.8 ± 1.4 | 67.2 ± 13.1 | 13.3 ± 1.2 | 9.1 ± 1.3 | 1.9 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.3 |
| 3 | 7.89 ± 0.23 | 62.91 ± 10.89 | 1.43 ± 0.21 | 9.0 ± 1.2 | 47.1 ± 13.9 | 0.2 ± 0.2 | 8.8 ± 1.2 | n.a. | n.a. |
| 4 | 7.08 ± 0.39 | 52.92 ± 10.95 | 1.99 ± 0.45 | 7.9 ± 1.2 | 39.3 ± 4.7 | n.a. | 7.9 ± 1.6 | n.a. | n.a. |
| 5 | 5.65 ± 0.05 | 52.63 ± 07.93 | 0.88 ± 0.23 | 9.1 ± 1.5 | 45.3 ± 7.7 | n.a. | 8.5 ± 0.9 | n.a. | n.a. |
| 6 | 8.03 ± 0.17 | 42.52 ± 05.84 | 1.73 ± 0.04 | 11.8 ± 2.4 | 44.2 ± 15.0 | 6.7 ± 1.0 | 9.4 ± 0.5 | 9.0 ± 1.2 | n.a. |
| 7 | 8.33 ± 1.02 | 54.40 ± 11.45 | 2.37 ± 0.08 | 12.2 ± 2.0 | 56.7 ± 11.7 | 3.6 ± 1.1 | 10.2 ± 1.3 | 16.8 ± 1.7 | n.a. |
| 8 | 8.04 ± 0.43 | 53.76 ± 10.12 | 2.23 ± 0.03 | 12.2 ± 2.2 | 55.8 ± 5.5 | 2.4 ± 1.5 | 10.3 ± 1.4 | 6.3 ± 0.2 | n.a. |
| 9 | 7.09 ± 0.58 | 52.65 ± 11.24 | 2.20 ± 0.56 | 11.7 ± 1.7 | 50.9 ± 4.0 | 2.0 ± 0.2 | 9.0 ± 1.2 | 6.2 ± 0.6 | n.a. |
| 10 | 7.25 ± 0.92 | 69.12 ± 05.21 | 2.14 ± 0.08 | 10.9 ± 3.1 | 51.5 ± 13.3 | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 9.4 ± 1.1 | 5.7 ± 1.2 | n.a. |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
*Bioaccessibilities of As, Cd, and Pb extracted with UBM-G method are significantly (P < 0.05) greater than that of UBM-GI methods.
a,bBioaccessibility of As extracted with UBM-G and UBM-GI methods is significantly different (P < 0.05) between samples obtained from site 1 and site 2.
cBioaccessibility of Cd extracted with UBM-GI methods is significantly different between (P < 0.05) samples obtained from site 1 and site 2.
d–fBioaccessibility of Pb extracted with different methods is significantly different (P < 0.05) between site 1 samples obtained from different time periods.
gBioaccessibility of Cd extracted with UBM-GI methods is significantly different (P < 0.05) between site 1 samples obtained from different time periods.
n.aminerals are lower than detection limit, therefore not able to be detected.
Maximum concentration of available heavy metal allowed for absorption as based on the recommended daily dose of mineral clay samples9.
| Samples | Initial total heavy metal contenta (μg/day) | USEPAa(μg/day) | UBMa(μg/day) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| As | Cd | Pb | As | Cd | Pb | UBM-G | UBM-GI | |||||
| As | Cd | Pb | As | Cd | Pb | |||||||
| 1 | 40 | 0.099 | 52 | 2.6 | 0.061 | 8.00 | 3.68 | 0.062 | 4.70 | 3.6 | 0.001 | 0.7 |
| 2 | 40 | 0.105 | 48 | 2.7 | 0.084 | 8.75 | 3.92 | 0.070 | 6.40 | 3.6 | 0.002 | 0.5 |
| 3 | 45 | 0.063 | 16 | 3.6 | 0.040 | 0.23 | 4.05 | 0.030 | 0.03 | 4.0 | n.a. | n.a. |
| 4 | 42 | 0.090 | 15 | 3.0 | 0.047 | 0.30 | 3.32 | 0.035 | n.a. | 3.3 | n.a. | n.a. |
| 5 | 42 | 0.097 | 17 | 2.3 | 0.051 | 0.14 | 3.82 | 0.044 | n.a. | 3.5 | n.a. | n.a. |
| 6 | 11 | 0.157 | 22 | 0.8 | 0.067 | 0.39 | 1.30 | 0.067 | 1.48 | 1.0 | 0.014 | n.a. |
| 7 | 10 | 0.139 | 22 | 0.8 | 0.076 | 0.53 | 1.22 | 0.079 | 0.80 | 1.0 | 0.023 | n.a. |
| 8 | 10 | 0.136 | 21 | 0.8 | 0.073 | 0.47 | 1.22 | 0.076 | 0.50 | 1.0 | 0.009 | n.a. |
| 9 | 10 | 0.160 | 23 | 0.7 | 0.084 | 0.50 | 1.17 | 0.081 | 0.46 | 0.9 | 0.010 | n.a. |
| 10 | 11 | 0.139 | 22 | 0.8 | 0.100 | 0.48 | 1.20 | 0.071 | 0.47 | 1.0 | 0.008 | n.a. |
aHeavy metal available (μg/day) to a to 175 lb person before and after digestion (based on the recommended dose of 11–15 mg mineral clay/ lb body/day).
Figure 1Representation of bioavailability (%) of As, Pb and Cd in reference mineral and mineral clay. Measures of bioavailability are mean values derived in triplicate from a single Caco-2 cell culture. A total of 3 experiments were performed all showing similar trends in terms of individual metal transport characteristics.
Sample information of mineral clay.
| Sample No. | Sample collection Site | Sample Code | Month | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Site -1 | August | 2011 | |
| 2 | August | 2011 | ||
| 3 | February | 2013 | ||
| 4 | February | 2013 | ||
| 5 | February | 2013 | ||
| 6 | Site -2 | October | 2014 | |
| 7 | October | 2014 | ||
| 8 | October | 2014 | ||
| 9 | October | 2014 | ||
| 10 | October | 2014 |