4.7 Article

Health risk assessment of instant noodles commonly consumed in Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 2580-2587

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-0583-0

Keywords

Instant noodles; Heavy metals; PAHs; Health risk; Carcinogenic risk

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The current study investigated the levels of some heavy metals [lead (Pb), arsenic (As), nickel (Ni), mercury (Hg), copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), aluminum (Al), and chromium (Cr)] and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in six brands of instant noodles (CFN, GFC, NGP, GAA, CUN, and FCS) commonly consumed in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Risks of consumption of contaminated noodles were also assessed. Heavy metal content and PAHs were determined using flame atomic absorption spectrophotometer and gas chromatography, respectively. Concentrations of heavy metals as Pb, Ni, Cu, Al, and Cr were detected while As, Hg, and Cd were not detected in noodles. High average concentrations (mean +/- SD mg/kg) of Pb were observed in brands CFN (3.163 +/- 0.21) and GFC (1.022 +/- 0.08) which were significantly higher (P <= 0.05) than in NGP (0.043 +/- 0.15) and GAA (0.276 +/- 0.18), although all were above WHO permissible limits (0.025 mg/kg). Target Hazard Quotient and Hazard Index for Pb were > 1 in brands CFN and GFC indicating unacceptable risk. Results of PAHs showed brands had total PAHs (mg/kg) in the order CFN > CUN > GAA > NGP> FCS > GFC. Although carcinogenic risks associated with these noodles are within permissible range, consumption of CFN and GFC could pose greater health risk to consumers. Long-term consumption of brands CUN, CFN, and GAA may have higher probability of carcinogenesis among consumers. We therefore recommend more diligent regulatory policies and monitoring by relevant government agencies (WHO, NAFDAC, CPC, and SON) to ensure wholesome noodles get to consumers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available