Synthetic or food-derived vitamin C—Are they equally bioavailable?
Open accessAbstract
Vitamin C (ascorbate) is an essential water-soluble micronutrient in humans and is obtained through the diet, primarily from fruits and vegetables. In vivo, vitamin C acts as a cofactor for numerous biosynthetic enzymes required for the synthesis of amino acid-derived macromolecules, neurotransmitters, and neuropeptide hormones, and is also a cofactor for various hydroxylases involved in the regulation of gene transcription and epigenetics. Vitamin C was first chemically synthesized in the early 1930s and since then researchers have been investigating the comparative bioavailability of synthetic versus natural, food-derived vitamin C. Although synthetic and food-derived vitamin C is chemically identical, fruit and vegetables are rich in numerous nutrients and phytochemicals which may influence its bioavailability. The physiological interactions of vitamin C with various bioflavonoids have been the most intensively studied to date. Here, we review animal and human studies, comprising both pharmacokinetic and steady-state designs, which have been carried out to investigate the comparative bioavailability of synthetic and food-derived vitamin C, or vitamin C in the presence of isolated bioflavonoids. Overall, a majority of animal studies have shown differences in the comparative bioavailability of synthetic versus natural vitamin C, although the results varied depending on the animal model, study design and body compartments measured. In contrast, all steady state comparative bioavailability studies in humans have shown no differences between synthetic and natural vitamin C, regardless of the subject population, study design or intervention used. Some pharmacokinetic studies in humans have shown transient and small comparative differences between synthetic and natural vitamin C, although these differences are likely to have minimal physiological impact. Study design issues and future research directions are discussed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The data on whether synthetic or pure vitamin C has better or lower bioavailability than dietary vitamin C are inconclusive.
“There is a discussion whether synthetic or pure vitamin C has better or lower bioavailability than dietary vitamin C. Some suggestions were coming from experimental studies that diet rich in flavonoids can improve it, but the data are inconclusive [40].”
From Vitamin C-Sources, Physiological Role, Kinetics, Deficiency, Use, Toxicity, and Determination (2021) · cites this paper as [40]
The Introduction (page unavailable) says flavonoids have been suggested to increase vitamin C bioavailability, but whether they affect uptake in vivo is uncertain; the animal findings also vary. The broader claim that comparative bioavailability data are inconclusive overstates the paper’s account of human evidence: Section 3 reports little difference across steady-state studies, and Section 4 says many pharmacokinetic studies found comparable bioavailability. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredVitamin C absorption is relatively slow, as maximal plasma levels are reached after 2-4 h.
“In general, vitamin C absorption is relatively slow, as maximal plasma levels are reached after 2–4 h [6,8,40,58].”
From Vitamin C-Sources, Physiological Role, Kinetics, Deficiency, Use, Toxicity, and Determination (2021) · cites this paper as [40]
The bioavailability of biotechnologically prepared and plant(food)-derived vitamin C seems to be comparable.
“Although the bioavailability of biotechnologically prepared and plant(food)-derived vitamin C seems to be comparable as described in the absorption section, many people prefer vitamin C of natural origin, including both food and food supplements [40].”
From Vitamin C-Sources, Physiological Role, Kinetics, Deficiency, Use, Toxicity, and Determination (2021) · cites this paper as [40]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 124 · Cited by 137
- Authors
- Carr, A., & Vissers, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Otago (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Carr, Anitra
- Venue
- Nutrients
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2013-10-28
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 4284-4304
- ISSN
- 2072-6643 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3847730
- OpenAlex
- W2051815508
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 124
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 5.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nutrients (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Vitamin C and Antioxidants Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Antioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
- Keywords
- vitamin C, bioavailability, flavonoids, pharmacokinetics, epigenetics, transcriptional regulation
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Ascorbic Acid, Biological Availability, Diet, Flavonoids, Food, Humans
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review