| Literature DB >> 36231252 |
Huijuan Yang1, Yan Chen2, Jennifer M Shido3, Randall T Hamasaki4, Wayne T Iwaoka3, Stuart T Nakamoto3, Haiyan Wang2, Qing X Li5.
Abstract
Tea plants can accumulate aluminum (Al) in their leaves to a greater extent than most other edible plants. Few studies, however, address the Al concentration in leaves at different positions, which is important information for tea quality control. Leaves from four different cultivars of Camellia sinensis L. grown in Hawaii were analyzed for Al concentrations at 10 different leaf positions. Each cultivar was harvested in the winter and summer to determine seasonal variations of Al concentrations in the leaves. The results showed that Al concentrations in the winter leaves were an average of 1.2-fold higher than those in the summer leaves, although the seasonal variations were not statistically significant. The total Al concentration of successively lower leaves showed an exponential increase (R2 ≥ 0.900) for all four cultivars in the summer season, whereas those of the winter leaves fit a bi-phase linear regression (R2 ≥ 0.968). The regression of the Al concentrations against the top-5 leaf positions in the winter season fit one linear regression, while that against leaf positions 6-11 fit another linear regression. The average Al concentrations between the third leaf and the shoot plus first two leaves increased approximately 2.7-fold and 1.9-fold for all cultivars in the winter and summer months, respectively. The Al concentrations in the rest of the leaves increased approximately 1.5-fold in a sequential order. The target hazard quotient being between 1.69 × 10-2 and 5.06 × 10-1 in the tea leaf samples of the four cultivars in Hawaii were all less than 1, suggesting negligible health risks for consumers. The results of this study may be useful for directing harvest practices and estimating tea quality.Entities:
Keywords: Camellia sinensis; aluminum; health risk; leaf position; tea
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231252 PMCID: PMC9564882 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191911952
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Relationship between the leaf positions and the mean concentrations of Al. Leaf positions 7 and 9 were not part of the original sampling scheme since they were known to be older than the leaves typically harvested (see Sample Collections).
Figure 2Seasonal comparison and correlation of average Al concentrations and tea leaf positions. Leaf positions 7 and 9 were not part of the original sampling scheme since they were known to be older than the leaves typically harvested (see Sample Collections).
Comparison of Al Content in food products and C. sinensis.
| Al Concentration (μg/g) | Al (µg) per Serving | |
|---|---|---|
| Food Item 1 | ||
| Processed American Cheese Slices | 14–470 | 270–8900 per slice (19 g) |
| Pancake Mixes | 19–1200 | 770–57,000 per 1/3 cup (40 g) |
| Baking Powder | 18,000–28,000 | 72,000–112,000 per tsp. (4 g) |
| Non-dairy Creamer | 110–590 | 260–1500 per individual packet (2 g) |
|
| ||
| Dry Tea Leaves 2 | 22.9–3260 3,4 | |
| Powdered Tea | 478–1229 5 | 1434–3687 per 240 mL 6 |
| Yutaka Midori Infusion 7 | 0.13 μg/mL | 31.2 per 240 mL |
| Prepared Tea Infusion 8 | 0.4–13 µg/mL | 96–3120 per 240 mL |
1 [11]. 2 Data from both unprocessed and processed tea leaves. 3 [18]. 4 [6]. 5,7 Data from the present study. 6 Values calculated from suggested preparation of traditional powdered tea (1 g/80 mL) [19]. 8 [20].
Figure 3Comparison of Al concentration in winter (A) and summer (B) tea leaves among four cultivars at specific leaf positions. Different lower letters indicate statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Estimated daily intakes (EDI) (μg/g body weight/day) of Al for consumers due to tea leaves.
| Leaf Position | Estimated Daily Intakes (EDI) 1 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yabukita | Yutaka Midori | Mealani | Ohiwase | |||||
| Winter | Summer | Winter | Summer | Winter | Summer | Winter | Summer | |
| Shoot + 2 Leaves | 1.69 × 10−2 | 2.08 × 10−2 | 2.04 × 10−2 | 2.00 × 10−2 | 2.21 × 10−2 | 2.71 × 10−2 | 1.85 × 10−2 | 2.53 × 10−2 |
| Leaf 3 | 4.23 × 10−2 | 3.57 × 10−2 | 4.17 × 10−2 | 3.45 × 10−2 | 6.43 × 10−2 | 4.96 × 10−2 | 5.84 × 10−2 | 5.77 × 10−2 |
| Leaf 4 | 6.59 × 10−2 | 6.19 × 10−2 | 7.21 × 10−2 | 5.53 × 10−2 | 9.64 × 10−2 | 6.52 × 10−2 | 8.72 × 10−2 | 8.33 × 10−2 |
| Leaf 5 | 9.53 × 10−2 | 8.13 × 10−2 | 1.02 × 10−1 | 7.47 × 10−2 | 1.37 × 10−1 | 8.31 × 10−2 | 1.33 × 10−1 | 1.16 × 10−1 |
| Leaf 6 | 1.29 × 10−1 | 1.14 × 10−1 | 1.66 × 10−1 | 9.76 × 10−2 | 2.08 × 10−1 | 1.27 × 10−1 | 1.76 × 10−1 | 1.55 × 10−1 |
| Leaf 7 | 1.69 × 10−1 | nc 2 | 2.36 × 10−1 | nc 2 | 2.19 × 10−1 | nc 2 | 2.31 × 10−1 | nc 2 |
| Leaf 8 | 2.44 × 10−1 | 2.08 × 10−1 | 3.09 × 10−1 | 1.97 × 10−1 | 2.76 × 10−1 | 1.37 × 10−1 | 3.00 × 10−1 | 2.94 × 10−1 |
| Leaf 9 | 2.92 × 10−1 | nc 2 | 3.89 × 10−1 | nc 2 | 3.15 × 10−1 | nc 2 | 3.72 × 10−1 | nc 2 |
| Leaf 10 | 3.54 × 10−1 | 2.69 × 10−1 | 4.30 × 10−1 | 2.98 × 10−1 | 3.30 × 10−1 | 2.04 × 10−1 | 4.21 × 10−1 | 4.17 × 10−1 |
| Leaf 11 | 4.15 × 10−1 | 4.23 × 10−1 | 5.06 × 10−1 | 4.69 × 10−1 | 3.60 × 10−1 | 4.26 × 10−1 | 4.91 × 10−1 | nc 2 |
1 Note: Since the Al RfD is 1 μg/g body weight per day, the EDI values are the same as THQ. 2 nc, not calculated.