Study on speciation of aluminum in human serum using zwitterionic bile acid derivative dynamically coated C18 column HPLC separation with UV and on-line ICP-MS detection

Chen, Beibei; Zeng, Yan; Hu, Bin

doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2009.11.057

Cited by 46 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Citrate is important not only because it increases gastrointestinal Al bioavailability (Krewski et al 2007, Priest 2004, 2010a, 2010b, Wu et al 2012b) and 7–8% of the Al in plasma is bound to citrate (Chen et al 2010b, Krewski et al 2007), but it has been suggested that Al-citrate is also taken up by the monocarbonate transporter (MCT) and that it might serve as a substrate for the organic anion-transporting polypeptide (OATP) enabling brain brain influx (Crisponi et al 2012, Yokel 2006), where it constitutes approximately 90% of the Al in cerebrospinal fluid (Yokel and McNamara 2001). Based on Al citrate uptake into immortalized rat cells in the presence of ligands for the sodium-independent L-glutamate/L-cysteine exchanger system Xc − , Nagasawa et al (2005) suggested that system may also mediate Al citrate uptake into the brain.…”

Section: Absorption Distribution and Eliminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of potential health risks posed by pharmaceutical, occupational and consumer exposures to metallic and nanoscale aluminum, aluminum oxides, aluminum hydroxide and its soluble salts

Willhite¹,

Karyakina²,

Yokel³

et al. 2014

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

339

201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aluminum (Al) is a ubiquitous substance encountered both naturally (as the third most abundant element) and intentionally (used in water, foods, pharmaceuticals, and vaccines); it is also present in ambient and occupational airborne particulates. Existing data underscore the importance of Al physical and chemical forms in relation to its uptake, accumulation, and systemic bioavailability.Address for correspondence: Calvin C. Willhite, Risk Sciences International, 55 Metcalfe Street, Suite 700, Ottawa, ON, Canada. calvinwillhite@hotmail.com. Declaration of interestPartial funding for this work was provided by a contract to review the recent scientific literature on health effects of aluminum between the International Aluminium Institute (IAI, www.world-aluminium.org), the Aluminium Reach Consortium (ARC, www.aluminium-reach-consortium.eu), and Risk Sciences International (RSI, www.risksciences.com), a Canadian company established in 2006 in partnership with the University of Ottawa. Additional financial support was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) to D. Krewski, who holds the NSERC Chair in Risk Science at the University of Ottawa. C.C. Willhite, N.A. Karyakina, F. Momoli, and N. Yenugadhati were compensated by RSI for their contributions to the review. I. Arnold, T. Wisniewski and R. Yokel received no compensation from RSI for their contributions to this work. The authors, whose affiliations are shown on the title page, had sole responsibility for preparation of this paper, including determining the strategy for reviewing the scientific literature summarized in this article, synthesizing the findings, and drawing conclusions. Scientists associated with IAI/ARC were given the opportunity to review and offer technical comments on the paper, prior to submission to Critical Reviews in Toxicology. I. Arnold serves as a consultant to the International Aluminium Institute. None of the authors have appeared before regulatory agencies on behalf of the sponsors, or appeared as experts in legal proceedings concerning matters reviewed in this paper. The scientific opinions and conclusions expressed in the paper are exclusively those of the authors, and are independent of the sources of financial support. HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptThe present review represents a systematic examination of the peer-reviewed literature on the adverse health effects of Al materials published since a previous critical evaluation compiled by Krewski et al. (2007). The scientific literature on the adverse health effects of Al is extensive. Health risk assessments for Al must take into account individual co-factors (e.g., age, renal function, diet, gastric pH). Conclusions from the current review point to the need for refinement of the PTWI, reduction of Al contamination in PN solutions, justification for routine addition of Al to vaccines, and harmonization of OELs for Al substances.

show abstract

Section: Absorption Distribution and Eliminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of potential health risks posed by pharmaceutical, occupational and consumer exposures to metallic and nanoscale aluminum, aluminum oxides, aluminum hydroxide and its soluble salts

Willhite¹,

Karyakina²,

Yokel³

et al. 2014

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

339

201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The total body burden of aluminium in healthy human subjects has been reported to be approximately 30-50 mg/kg bw. However, values that were ten-fold higher were reported in haemodialysis patients (Chen et al, 2010). For example, the mean serum aluminium level in 44 non-exposed persons who did not use antacids was found to be 0.06 μM (1.6 μg/L) (Valkonen and Aitio, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Statement of EFSA on the Evaluation of a new study related to the bioavailability of aluminium in food

2011

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was asked to evaluate a new study provided by industry that reports on the bioavailability of aluminium from several aluminium compounds in the rat. EFSA was asked whether the scientific data provided by the study could trigger the revision of the safety evaluation performed by EFSA in 2008, for the different aluminium based food additives investigated in this report (in particular SALP acidic, also known as sodium aluminium phosphate, acidic form or E 541). In the new study, the oral bioavailability of aluminium was determined as the ratio of the fraction of radioactivity left in the carcass seven days after oral administration of the 26 Al-labelled compound of interest over the fraction of radioactivity left in the carcass seven days after intravenous administration of 26 Al-labelled aluminium citrate using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). The results from the study show that the oral bioavailability of aluminium from twelve different aluminium-containing compounds, including the food additives aluminium sulphate, Allura Red AC aluminium lake (FD&C red 40 aluminium lake) and sodium aluminium silicate, ranges from 0.02 to 0.21%, and therefore falls within the overall 10-fold range of previously reported oral bioavailability values for aluminium from aluminium containing compounds. In the case of the two sodium aluminium phosphates, SALP acidic and SALP basic (KASAL), and aluminium metal, the measurements were below the limit of detection by AMS. In conclusion, the new study does not provide any additional information on the bioavailability of aluminium from aluminium-containing compounds that could modify the conclusions reached in 2008 by the Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Food Contact Materials. Therefore, EFSA concludes that this study does not give reason to reconsider the previous safety evaluation of aluminium-based food additives authorised in the European Union performed by EFSA in 2008.

show abstract

“…195 This procedure saves analytical time because the derivatives, being formed in the extraction cell, are ready for analysis by GC techniques. 205 . Again, a better method seems to be one of pre-derivatization, prior to sampling, which may circumvent the above limitations with these specific derivatization reagents.…”

Section: Nab Phmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analytical Derivatization Techniques ☆

Parkinson¹

2014

Reference Module in Chemistry, Molecular Sciences and Chemical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the last 40 years or so, analytical chemists have borrowed well-known reaction techniques from organic and organometallic fields to perform derivatization reactions so as to enhance detection of the elusive analytes they seek. The derivatization mantra has been that, for the technique to be worthwhile, it should be simple to perform, fast (usually less than 15 min), selective, and that the derivatizing reagent should react quantitatively with the analyte and only give one final product. So where are we now? Some derivatization reactions are indeed fast and some are not; some are very selective and some are more universal. However, with a certain care and careful control of optimized conditions, quantitative enhancement outcomes and increased separative power and detection can be very worthwhile. The number of derivatization reagents commercially available itself suggests that there must be some merit to derivatization, that overcomes the associated extra costs: in time (to incorporate the extra reaction step), and in the expense of acquiring, handling, and storing derivatizing reagents. This chapter attempts to show that with proper consideration, it has been feasible to push a chosen analytical technique to give increased selective detection and signal enhancement by derivatization. In many cases, this has made possible the detection of trace components from difficult matrices in a number of scenarios, including on-site analysis, in quality control/continuous analysis methods, or through some remote-sensing platforms. Further, the incorporation of derivatization in an extraction method can be simple and friendly to automated throughput for multiple sample analysis.The fundamental idea of derivatization is that the basic chemical or physical structure of the analytical moiety is changed through a suitable reaction. For example, by labeling compounds for a specific detection purpose, or by changing a functional group to enhance certain chromatographic characteristics, better detection and separation (respectively) can be achieved via the ensuing instrumental techniques. The type of derivatization is highly dependent upon the analytical method and upon the nature of the compound analyzed. There are a variety of good review articles, technical reports, 1 text chapters, 2 and full texts 3-6 that address in detail many specific applications used in analytical derivatization. There are several extraction methods available that are compatible with derivatization. For many analyses, the choice of the best extraction technique is not clear, as many techniques can extract analytes equally well, based on simplicity, applicability, solvent use, expense, detection limit, precision, and time taken to perform the operation. 7 Derivatization techniques have been incorporated into many sample preparation and extractions schemes, to include, but not limited to, total sample headspace, single-drop microextraction (SDME), 8 solid-phase microextraction (SPME), needle trap device (NTD), purge and trap, solid-phase extraction (SPE)...

show abstract

Study on speciation of aluminum in human serum using zwitterionic bile acid derivative dynamically coated C18 column HPLC separation with UV and on-line ICP-MS detection

Cited by 46 publications

References 25 publications

Systematic review of potential health risks posed by pharmaceutical, occupational and consumer exposures to metallic and nanoscale aluminum, aluminum oxides, aluminum hydroxide and its soluble salts

Systematic review of potential health risks posed by pharmaceutical, occupational and consumer exposures to metallic and nanoscale aluminum, aluminum oxides, aluminum hydroxide and its soluble salts

Statement of EFSA on the Evaluation of a new study related to the bioavailability of aluminium in food

Analytical Derivatization Techniques ☆

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About