Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Fortification iron as ferrous sulfate plus ascorbic acid is more rapidly absorbed than as sodium iron EDTA but neither increases serum nontransferrin-bound iron in women.
J Nutr. 2011 May; 141(5):822-7.JN

Abstract

The absorption profile of iron fortificants may be a determinant of their ability to generate nontransferrin-bound iron (NTBI) and, thus, their potential safety. Ferrous iron may be absorbed more rapidly than chelated ferric iron, but differences at the fortification level cannot be distinguished with nonisotopically labeled serum iron curves. Using stable isotope appearance curves (SIAC) in serum, we measured iron absorption profiles from FeSO(4) with ascorbic acid (AA) and from NaFeEDTA, as well as the serum hepcidin and NTBI response following the meals. Healthy women (n = 16) were given 6 mg oral iron as labeled FeSO(4) and NaFeEDTA with a maize porridge using a crossover design. SIAC, NTBI, and serum hepcidin were measured over 8 h after the meal. Iron from FeSO(4) plus AA was more rapidly absorbed, resulting in a 35% greater relative AUC during the first 2 h than for NaFeEDTA (P < 0.001). Median (95% CI) fractional iron absorption from the FeSO(4)- and NaFeEDTA-fortified meals was 15.2% (11.0-19.5) and 6.0% (5.0-9.2), respectively (P < 0.001). In response to the FeSO(4)-fortified meal, there was an ~60% increase in median serum hepcidin (P < 0.05) but no significant change in NTBI. There was no significant change in serum hepcidin or NTBI after the NaFeEDTA-fortified meal. SIAC are a useful new tool to compare iron absorption profiles from different iron compounds in fortified foods. Even with the use of a very well absorbed ferrous iron compound, iron fortification in this population does not increase NTBI, suggesting a low risk for adverse health consequences.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Laboratory for Human Nutrition, Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Controlled Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

21430252

Citation

Troesch, Barbara, et al. "Fortification Iron as Ferrous Sulfate Plus Ascorbic Acid Is More Rapidly Absorbed Than as Sodium Iron EDTA but Neither Increases Serum Nontransferrin-bound Iron in Women." The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 141, no. 5, 2011, pp. 822-7.
Troesch B, Egli I, Zeder C, et al. Fortification iron as ferrous sulfate plus ascorbic acid is more rapidly absorbed than as sodium iron EDTA but neither increases serum nontransferrin-bound iron in women. J Nutr. 2011;141(5):822-7.
Troesch, B., Egli, I., Zeder, C., Hurrell, R. F., & Zimmermann, M. B. (2011). Fortification iron as ferrous sulfate plus ascorbic acid is more rapidly absorbed than as sodium iron EDTA but neither increases serum nontransferrin-bound iron in women. The Journal of Nutrition, 141(5), 822-7. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.110.136127
Troesch B, et al. Fortification Iron as Ferrous Sulfate Plus Ascorbic Acid Is More Rapidly Absorbed Than as Sodium Iron EDTA but Neither Increases Serum Nontransferrin-bound Iron in Women. J Nutr. 2011;141(5):822-7. PubMed PMID: 21430252.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Fortification iron as ferrous sulfate plus ascorbic acid is more rapidly absorbed than as sodium iron EDTA but neither increases serum nontransferrin-bound iron in women. AU - Troesch,Barbara, AU - Egli,Ines, AU - Zeder,Christophe, AU - Hurrell,Richard F, AU - Zimmermann,Michael B, Y1 - 2011/03/23/ PY - 2011/3/25/entrez PY - 2011/3/25/pubmed PY - 2011/7/19/medline SP - 822 EP - 7 JF - The Journal of nutrition JO - J Nutr VL - 141 IS - 5 N2 - The absorption profile of iron fortificants may be a determinant of their ability to generate nontransferrin-bound iron (NTBI) and, thus, their potential safety. Ferrous iron may be absorbed more rapidly than chelated ferric iron, but differences at the fortification level cannot be distinguished with nonisotopically labeled serum iron curves. Using stable isotope appearance curves (SIAC) in serum, we measured iron absorption profiles from FeSO(4) with ascorbic acid (AA) and from NaFeEDTA, as well as the serum hepcidin and NTBI response following the meals. Healthy women (n = 16) were given 6 mg oral iron as labeled FeSO(4) and NaFeEDTA with a maize porridge using a crossover design. SIAC, NTBI, and serum hepcidin were measured over 8 h after the meal. Iron from FeSO(4) plus AA was more rapidly absorbed, resulting in a 35% greater relative AUC during the first 2 h than for NaFeEDTA (P < 0.001). Median (95% CI) fractional iron absorption from the FeSO(4)- and NaFeEDTA-fortified meals was 15.2% (11.0-19.5) and 6.0% (5.0-9.2), respectively (P < 0.001). In response to the FeSO(4)-fortified meal, there was an ~60% increase in median serum hepcidin (P < 0.05) but no significant change in NTBI. There was no significant change in serum hepcidin or NTBI after the NaFeEDTA-fortified meal. SIAC are a useful new tool to compare iron absorption profiles from different iron compounds in fortified foods. Even with the use of a very well absorbed ferrous iron compound, iron fortification in this population does not increase NTBI, suggesting a low risk for adverse health consequences. SN - 1541-6100 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/21430252/Fortification_iron_as_ferrous_sulfate_plus_ascorbic_acid_is_more_rapidly_absorbed_than_as_sodium_iron_EDTA_but_neither_increases_serum_nontransferrin_bound_iron_in_women_ L2 - https://academic.oup.com/jn/article-lookup/doi/10.3945/jn.110.136127 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -