ArticlePloS one2026
The quality and safety of Rhodiola rosea supplements on the U.S. market: An analysis of biomarkers, heavy metals, and pesticide residues.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rhodiola rosea supplements have become popular in the U.S., with a $3.4 billion market and an annual growth of about 10% in sales in the past few years. While the health benefits of this plant have been evaluated in many scientific studies, the potential differences in quality of these botanical products on the U.S. market have not been studied in detail. Using reversed-phase ultra-performance liquid chromatography, we determined the concentrations of the biomarker molecules, rosavins and salidroside, in a small but representative sample of R. rosea dietary supplement products commercially available in the U.S. Concentrations of rosavins and salidroside ranged from 0.01% to 3.08% and 0.07% to 2.91%, respectively, including substantial aberrations from advertised biomarker amounts. One product showed an undisclosed likely addition of synthetic salidroside. We also assessed heavy metal contaminations via inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and pesticide contents by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry or liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry in these botanical products. While pesticide levels were below detection limits, all seven tested capsular products had trace amounts of arsenic, cobalt, and lead. Two of these contained notably elevated levels of cobalt and arsenic, where follow-up arsenic speciation would be required to verify whether they remain within minimal risk levels established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Overall, these results underscore the need for more stringent quality control in herbal supplements containing R. rosea available in the U.S.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.