ArticleJournal of AOAC International2024
Determination of Toxic Elements in Botanical Dietary Supplement Ingredient Reference Materials.
Article in Journal of AOAC International, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A new database to guide reference material selection for dietary supplement and nutrition science.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has produced over 40 botanical dietary supplement Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) and reference materials (RMs) with values assigned for chemical markers and/or active compounds. Although environmental accumulation or inadvertent introduction of toxic elements (arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury) is a potential source of exposure in botanical dietary supplement products, the majority of the dietary supplement SRMs/RMs do not have values assigned for the four major toxic elements.
objectiveTo determine As, Cd, Pb, and Hg content in the current inventory of NIST botanical dietary supplement SRMs/RMs.
methodsFifteen SRMs/RMs suites of plant part, extract, and finished products (i.e., solid oral dosage form [SODF]) were analyzed for As, Cd, Pb, and Hg using nitric acid microwave-assisted digestion followed by quantification using inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry.
resultsResults for control samples were in good agreement with certified values indicating that the analyses of 38 individual botanical SRMs/RMs were in control. Characterization of linked plant/extract SRMs/RMs derived from the same source materials demonstrated that while extraction processes can often yield extracts with lower toxic element content for Hg or As, it is also possible for mass fraction levels to remain unchanged or even to increase after extraction.
conclusionsThe results fill significant knowledge gaps in toxic element content ranges for SRMs/RMs where no NIST assigned values existed, in particular for Hg content and for extract and SODF matrixes. With comprehensive toxic element content now available, researchers can better select appropriate dietary supplement SRMs/RMs for use as controls in the analysis of dietary supplement ingredients and products. HIGHLIGHTS: Results for As, Cd, Pb, and Hg are reported for 38 dietary supplement SRMs/RMs including six suites of plant, extract, and SODF and nine pairs of plant and extract from the same batch of plant material.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.