Next Article in Journal
Effects of an Advocacy Trial on Food Industry Salt Reduction Efforts—An Interim Process Evaluation
Next Article in Special Issue
The Prevalence and Predictors of Dietary Supplement Use in the Australian Population
Previous Article in Journal
Development and Validation of the Celiac Disease-Children’s Activities Report (CD-Chart) for Promoting Self-Management among Children and Adolescents
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dietary Supplement Use during Preconception: The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health
Article Menu
Issue 10 (October) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Nutrients 2017, 9(10), 1133; doi:10.3390/nu9101133

Stability of Commercially Available Macular Carotenoid Supplements in Oil and Powder Formulations

Nutrition Research Centre Ireland, School of Health Science, Carriganore House, Waterford Institute of Technology, West Campus, Waterford X91 K236, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 8 September 2017 / Revised: 3 October 2017 / Accepted: 13 October 2017 / Published: 17 October 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dietary Supplements)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [3243 KB, uploaded 23 October 2017]   |  

Abstract

We previously identified that the concentration of zeaxanthin in some commercially available carotenoid supplements did not agree with the product’s label claim. The conclusion of this previous work was that more quality assurance was needed to guarantee concordance between actual and declared concentrations of these nutrients i.e., lutein (L) zeaxanthin (Z) and meso-zeaxanthin (MZ) in commercially available supplements. Since this publication, we performed further analyses using different commercially available macular carotenoid supplements. Three capsules from one batch of eight products were analysed at two different time points. The results have been alarming. All of the powder filled products (n = 3) analysed failed to comply with their label claim (L: 19–74%; Z: 57–73%; MZ: 83–97%); however, the oil filled soft gel products (n = 5) met or were above their label claim (L: 98–122%; Z: 117–162%; MZ: 97–319%). We also identified that the carotenoid content of the oil filled capsules were stable over time (e.g., L average percentage change: −1.7%), but the powder filled supplements degraded over time (e.g., L average percentage change: −17.2%). These data are consistent with our previous work, and emphasize the importance of using carotenoid interventions in oil based formulas rather than powder filled formulas. View Full-Text
Keywords: macular carotenoid supplementation; lutein; zeaxanthin; meso-zeaxanthin; macular pigment macular carotenoid supplementation; lutein; zeaxanthin; meso-zeaxanthin; macular pigment
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Phelan, D.; Prado-Cabrero, A.; Nolan, J.M. Stability of Commercially Available Macular Carotenoid Supplements in Oil and Powder Formulations. Nutrients 2017, 9, 1133.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Nutrients EISSN 2072-6643 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top