cwdjrxyz wrote:

> I don't know the reputation of the journal in which this paper was
> published.

Neither do I, and that's a bit worrisome given our profession.

> Before I retired and sometimes peer reviewed some papers
> for a few top tier journals, I likely would have suggested to the
> journal editor that the article not be published in the present form,
> because it offers no useful results other than a very crude index,
> only an indication that there might be concern for metals content in
> some wines.

It certainly is a bit shy on data. Perhaps that's why it ended up in
the journal that it did.

>
> Analytical chemistry has improved to the point that one often can
> measure concentrations of metals far below the parts per million
> level. Taken to the extreme, nearly everything contains a bit of many
> metals. The important thing from the health viewpoint is in what form
> the metal exists and what is the concentration level at which there
> are harmful effects. It is of interest to note that several of the
> metals are absolutely necessary for human life in very minute amounts,
> although sometimes rather toxic at higher levels. Many vitamin-mineral
> supplements contain added trace amounts of several metals in compounds
> that can be used by the human body.

This was my reaction, too. Copper, zinc and manganese all are needed in
small quantities for proper enzymatic function. And the term "heavy
metal" is ill-defined and overly alarmist. None of the metals cited in
the paper is nearly as toxic as those most commonly associated with the
term "heavy metal" (lead, mercury and cadmium).

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net