Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T12:37:27.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative selenium metabolism in normal New Zealand women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. D. H. Stewart ,
Nora M. Griffiths ,
Christine D. Thomson  and
Marion F. Robinson
R. D. H. Stewart
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Nora M. Griffiths
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Christine D. Thomson
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Marion F. Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
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. Quantitative selenium metabolism has been studied in normal young New Zealand women by measuring total Se intake and urinary and faecal Se output, and by using values for absorption, excretion and turnover of 75Se determined after administration of [75Se]selenomethionine or [75Se]selenite.

2. In a period of 14 d when a normal ad lib. diet was being consumed, mean dietary Se for four women was 24.2 μg/d, mean urinary Se was 13.1 μg/d and mean faecal Se was 10.8 μg/d; mean Se balance during this time was +0.3 μg/d.

3. Intestinal absorption of food Se was 0.76−0.83 of intake (mean 0.79).

4. Whole-body Se was calculated in three different ways; (a) using the specific activity of urinary Se and retained whole-body 75Se; (b) using plasma Se and the occupancy of 75Se in whole-body and plasma; (c) using absorbed food Se and the occupancy of absorbed 75Se in whole-body.

5. Whole-body Se calculated from measurements obtained following the administration of [75Se]seleno-methionine was 4.7−10.0 mg (mean 6.9) using method (a), 4.1−7.2 mg (mean 5.2) using method (b) and 4.3−8.9 mg (mean 6.2) using method (c).

6. Whole-body Se calculated from results obtained after giving [75Se]selenite was 2.7−3.4 mg (mean 2.9) using method (a), 2.3−5.0 mg (mean 3.5) using method (b) and 2.1−3.0 mg (mean 2.6) using method (c).

7. The results of this study indicate that the minimum dietary requirement of Se for the maintenance of normal human health is probably not more than 20 μg/d.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , July 1978 , pp. 45 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

Andrews, E. D., Hartley, W. J. & Grant, A. B. (1968). N.Z. vet. J. 16, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, N. M. (1973). Proc. Univ. Otago med. Sch. 51, 8.Google Scholar
Griffiths, N. M., Stewart, R. D. H. & Robinson, M. F. (1976). Br. J. Nutr. 35, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, N. M. & Thomson, C. D. (1974). N.Z. med. J. 80, 199.Google Scholar
Hickey, F. (1968). N.Z. Agriculturalist 18 (3), 1.Google Scholar
ICRP -International Commission on Radiological Protection, (1966). Report no. 9, p. 14. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
ICRP-International Commission on Radiological Protection. (1971). Report no. 17, p. 69. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, K. J. (1968). Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 46, 1417.Google Scholar
Olson, O. E., Novacek, E. J., Whitehead, E. I. & Palmer, I. S. (1970). Phytochem. 9, 1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, O. E. & Palmer, I. S. (1976). Metabolism 25, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, J. S. & Gillespie, F. C. (1968). Science, N.Y. 162, 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, P. J. & Butler, G. W. (1962). Aust. J. biol. Sci. 15, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richold, M., Robinson, M. F. & Stewart, R. D. H. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riviere, R., Comar, D., Kellershohn, C., Orr, J. S., Gillespie, F. C. & Lenihan, J. M. A. (1969). Lancet i, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M. F. (1976). J. human Nutr. 30, 79.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. F., McKenzie, J. M., Thomson, C. D. & van Rij, A. L. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakurai, H. & Tsuchiya, K. (1975). Environ. Physiol. Biochem. 5, 107.Google Scholar
Schroeder, H. A., Frost, D. V. & Balassa, J. J. (1970). J. chron. Dis. 23, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. N., Erdody, P. & Smith, D. C. (1975). J. Nutr. 105, 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, C. D. (1972). Proc. Univ. Otago med. Sch. 50, 31.Google Scholar
Thomson, C. D., Robinson, B. A., Stewart, R. D. H. & Robinson, M. F. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 34, 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, C. D. & Stewart, R. D. H. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, C. D. & Stewart, R. D. H. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, C. D., Stewart, R. D. H. & Robinson, M. F. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 33, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, E. J. (1971). Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition, 3rd ed.New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Watkinson, J. H. (1974). N.Z. med. J. 80, 202.Google Scholar
Wells, N. (1967). N.Z. Soil Bureau Atlas, maps 89, 90. Wellington: Government Printer.Google Scholar