2 results
Marination increases the bioavailability of lead in game meat shot with lead ammunition
- Kirsten Schulz, Franziska Brenneis, Richard Winterhalter, Markus Spolders, Hermann Fromme, Silvio Dietrich, Petra Wolf, Carl Gremse, Helmut Schafft, Robert Pieper, Monika Lahrssen-Wiederholt
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Nutritional Science / Volume 10 / 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 06 April 2021, e24
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
As a consequence of the toxicological lead characteristics, a reduction of its exposure should consider all sources. Game meat might contain elevated levels of lead due to the use of lead ammunition. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of acidic marination on the bioavailability of ammunition-derived lead in game meat (Roe deer), using the growing pig as an animal model. Furthermore, the study should provide evidence that the large-area scattering of lead particles leads to noticeable differences in the individual lead intake per game meat portion. Pigs of group A (n 7) received lead-shot game meat, which was cooked in water. Pigs of group B (n 7) received lead-shot game meat, which was first marinated (wine and vinegar) and then cooked. The lead content of both game meat preparations was equal with 0⋅77–0⋅79 mg Pb/portion. Pigs of group C (n 4) received lead-free game meat, which was also marinated and cooked. Additionally, lead acetate was administered intravenously to group D pigs (n 4). Blood samples were taken on elevated time points before and after game meat intake/i.v.-application. The acidic marination increased the bioavailability of orally ingested lead, resulting in significantly higher blood lead concentrations. The bioavailability of lead was 2⋅7 % when game meat was just cooked and 15 % when the meat was marinated before. The considerable variation of the individual blood lead concentrations suggests that an inhomogeneous distribution of ammunition-derived lead particles (in terms of size and number) causes individually non-comparable lead intakes from the consumption of game meat.
16 - Fern classification
-
- By Alan R. Smith, University Herbarium, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA, Kathleen M. Pryer, Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA, Eric Schuettpelz, Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA, Petra Korall, Department of Phanerogamic Botany, Swedish Museum of Natural History, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden, Harald Schneider, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK, Paul G. Wolf, Department of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
- Edited by Tom A. Ranker, University of Colorado, Boulder, Christopher H. Haufler, University of Kansas
-
- Book:
- Biology and Evolution of Ferns and Lycophytes
- Published online:
- 11 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 19 June 2008, pp 417-467
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction and historical summary
Over the past 70 years, many fern classifications, nearly all based on morphology, most explicitly or implicitly phylogenetic, have been proposed. The most complete and commonly used classifications, some intended primarily as herbarium (filing) schemes, are summarized in Table 16.1, and include: Christensen (1938), Copeland (1947), Holttum (1947, 1949), Nayar (1970), Bierhorst (1971), Crabbe et al. (1975), Pichi Sermolli (1977), Ching (1978), Tryon and Tryon (1982), Kramer (in Kubitzki, 1990), Hennipman (1996), and Stevenson and Loconte (1996). Other classifications or trees implying relationships, some with a regional focus, include Bower (1926), Ching (1940), Dickason (1946), Wagner (1969), Tagawa and Iwatsuki (1972), Holttum (1973), and Mickel (1974). Tryon (1952) and Pichi Sermolli (1973) reviewed and reproduced many of these and still earlier classifications, and Pichi Sermolli (1970, 1981, 1982, 1986) also summarized information on family names of ferns. Smith (1996) provided a summary and discussion of recent classifications.
With the advent of cladistic methods and molecular sequencing techniques, there has been an increased interest in classifications reflecting evolutionary relationships. Phylogenetic studies robustly support a basal dichotomy within vascular plants, separating the lycophytes (less than 1% of extant vascular plants) from the euphyllophytes (Figure 16.1; Raubeson and Jansen, 1992, Kenrick and Crane, 1997; Pryer et al., 2001a, 2004a, 2004b; Qiu et al., 2006). Living euphyllophytes, in turn, comprise two major clades: spermatophytes (seed plants), which are in excess of 260000 species (Thorne, 2002; Scotland and Wortley, 2003), and ferns (sensu Pryer et al. 2004b), with about 9000 species, including horsetails, whisk ferns, and all eusporangiate and leptosporangiate ferns.