Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T13:28:27.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dietary intake of fluoride ashed (total fluoride) v. unashed (inorganic fluoride) analysis of individual foods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Donald R. Taves
Donald R. Taves
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacology, University of Rochester School of Medicine, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, New York 14642, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Fluoride content in ninety-three individual food items from a hospital in a fluoridated area was determined by ashing (total fluoride) v. unashing (inorganic fluoride) analysis.

2. No discrepancy between the two methods was found by food group but two dry cereals and black pepper did show significantly more fluoride after ashing. The reason for the unavailability before ashing was not determined.

3. Daily fluoride intake was estimated at 1·783 mg which is midway between the 1·211 and 2·201 mg reported from studies in which composite diets were analysed.

4. Daily intake from food at 0·4 mg was one-quarter of the daily total intake of 1·8 mg; a ratio consistent with those previously reported in serum, urine and bone between residents from a non-fluoridated v. fluoridated community.

Type
Paper of diract relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , May 1983 , pp. 295 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

Carlson, C. H., Singer, L. & Armstrong, W. D. (1960). Proc. Soc. expl. Biol. Med. 103, 418.Google Scholar
Guy, W. S., Taves, D. R. & Brey, W. S. Jr (1976). In Biochemistry Involving Carbon–Fluorine Bonds, p. 117 [Filler, R., editor]. Washington: American Chemical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hein, S. W., Bonner, J. F., Brudevold, F., Smith, F. A. & Hodge, H. C. (1956). Natur., Lond. 128, 1295.Google Scholar
Kintner, R. R. (1971). Fluoride 4, 44.Google Scholar
Kramer, L., Osis, D., Wiatrowski, E. & Spencer, H. (1974). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 27, 590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClure, F. J. & Kinser, C. A. (1944). U.S. Pub. Hlth Rep. 59, 1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SanFilippo, F. A. & Battistone, G. C. (1971). Clinica chim. Acta 31, 453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, L., Ophaug, R. H. & Harland, B. F. (1980). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 33, 328.Google Scholar
Taves, D. R. (1971). J. Dent. Res. 40, 783.Google Scholar
Taves, D. R. (1979). In Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides, p. 149 [Johansen, E., Taves, D. R. and Olsen, T. O., editors]. Boulde., Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Taves, D. R. & Guy, W. S. (1979). In Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides, p. 159 [Johansen, E., Taves, D. R. and Olsen, T. O., editors]. Boulde., Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Wallace-Durbin, P. (1954). J. Dent. Res. 33, 789.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, C., Taves, D. R. & Munzer, A. (1980). Clin. Sci. 58, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipkin, I., McClure, F. J., Leone, N. C. & Lee, W. A. (1958). U.S. Pub. Hlth Rep. 73, 732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar