Filed in archive
Studies
, Treatment
by Gloria Gamat on May 29, 2007

Whatever ratio we mixed the nutrients in, the form of iron used have always been critical. Ferric Chloride (FeCl3) just precipitates out of the solution when the pH becomes alkaline - making iron unavailable for plant absorption, turning the plants chlorotic or anaemic. But once we use the sodium salt-edta-chelate form, iron dissolves better in the solution, doesn't easily precipitate out and thus gets more absorbed by the plants.

The study published in this week's issue of The Lancet (entitled: Fortification of cereals could boost iron concentrations among children in less-developed countries) was conducted by Pauline Andang'o, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Centre for Public Health Research, Nairobi, Kenya and Netherlands-based colleagues, who studied 516 children aged three to eight years from four schools in Marafa, Kenya, some 10% of whom were suffering from anaemia.
The researchers found that, compared to the placebo group, the prevalence of iron-deficiency anaemia dropped by 89% for the high-dose NaFeEDTA group, and by 48% for the low-dose NaFeEDTA group, but there was no evidence for any reduction in the electrolytic iron group.
High-dose NaFeEDTA fortified flour also improved three major iron status indicators in the children taking flour fortified with it - haemoglobin and plasma ferritin concentrations, and amounts of plasma soluble transferrin receptor. Low-dose NaFeEDTA also improved these iron status indicators but to a lesser extent. Electrolytic iron had little effect on these indicators.
I guess NaFeEDTA can be more absorbed by the human body in the same way that it is more absorbed by the rice plants we used to grow.
Erm, medical researchers should learn more from plant physiologists/nutritionists!
Currently, the electrolytic form of iron is the frequently used iron supplement in flours; maybe in the future they'll use NaFeEDTA instead in fortification of food products.
Trackback: http://publish.creative-weblogging.com/publish/mt-tb.pl/72600
Mr Wong
Vote for Sodium Iron EDTA: Better than Electrolytic Iron in Boosting Iron Levels:
|
Rating: 5.33 out of 9 vote(s) cast.
|
Response from:
mahesh
(06/11/07 3:46am)
Response from:
Gloria
(06/11/07 10:43pm)
iron-EDTA is really too expensive. thanks for pointing that out mahesh.
Response from:
Trusted.MD Network
In my previous job, I used to grow rice plants hydrophonically (in nutrient solution and not in soil) - wherein we had to prepare water solutions of the various macro and miconutrients necessary for plant growth, mix them in appropriate...
Continue.
Subscribe
Use the search to look for other interesting posts
| RSS | See all blog subscribe options |
|
What is RSS? | |
| Yahoo! |
|
| Addthis |
|
| Bloglines |
|
| Newsletter | |
| Follow us on Twitter! |










IRON EDTA HAS ONLY 13% IRON CONTENT , SO EVEN IF IT 100% MORE BIOAVAILABLE , THE IRON CONTENT IS JUST 13%.
ELECTROLYTIC IRON HAS 99.6% IRON.
COST WISE EDTA AS WE PRESUME IS ATLEAST 3/4 TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ELECTRLYTIC IRON SO WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO ENRICH FLOUR IN COUNTRIES WHERE THEY ARE NOT GETTING BASIC BREAD TO EAT.
WELL WE ALL HAVE FOOD FOR THOUGHT HERE.