4.6 Article

Heavy Metals Contaminants in Watercress (Nasturtium officinale R. BR.): Toxicity and Risk Assessment for Humans along the Swat River Basin, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 14, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14084690

Keywords

heavy metals; leafy vegetables; Nasturtium officinale; mineral nutrient; atomic absorption spectrophotometer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study investigated the bioaccumulation and health risk associated with the absorption of heavy metals in Nasturtium officinale along the Swat River. The findings revealed potential health risks and nutritional deficiencies in the population.
This research aimed to investigate the bioaccumulation and health risk associated with absorption of the selected heavy metals (HMs) i.e., lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), zinc (Zn), and copper (Cu) in a wild leafy vegetable Nasturtium officinale that grows along the Swat River in swampy areas. The areas were categorized using the ecological risk index (RI), which indicates how heavy metal concentrations in soil and plants change over time. The bioaccumulation factor was greater than that at the 400 <= RI sites, indicating a probable health risk of these metals from N. officinale consumption. Furthermore, the health risk index for Cd and Pb was more significant, i.e., greater than one in the majority of the samples, indicating health concerns associated with consuming N. officinale from the study site. However, Zn and Cu levels were lower than the nutritionally needed levels, raising the risk of deficiency in the population. Plants cultivated in Pb and Cd-polluted sites were nutrient deficient in Cu and Zn. Intake of such plants can expose people to HM contamination and nutritional deficiencies. The results concluded that the plants accumulated significant HM contents and may have health concerns but are safe for consumption in children and adults.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available