4.6 Article

Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in Basmati Rice: Implications for Public Health

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13158513

关键词

Basmati; daily intake of metals; contamination factor; Oryza sativa; trace element

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC0504704]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51669034, 41761068, 51809224]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the heavy metal content in locally grown basmati rice in Pakistan and its risk to human health, finding that all metals were within permissible limits except for cadmium, with a health risk index below one at all examined sites. Continuous monitoring is recommended to prevent health hazards from rice polluted with high concentrations of cadmium.
Basmati rice is increasingly recognized and consumed in different parts of the world due to its different tastes and nutritional properties. This research focused on determining the cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni) and zinc (Zn) content in locally grown basmati rice in Pakistan and assessing the risks of these values to human health. Root, shoot and grain samples of basmati rice were taken, along with soil samples from the five regions studied. Metal mean concentrations (mg/kg) in grains fluctuated from 2.70 to 9.80 for Cd, 4.80 to 9.85 for Zn, 1.16 to 1.46 for Cu, 1.84 to 10.86 for Co, 2.05 to 13.07 for Fe, 5.03 to 11.11 for Mn and 3.24 to 13.28 for Ni, respectively. All metal values were within permissible limits except for Cd. The enrichment factor for Cd was highest among all sites. Cobalt and zinc had the highest bioaccumulation factor and translocation factor. The highest enrichment factor was noticed for Cd and the lowest for Cu. The health risk index at all examined sites was less than one. Consistent examination is recommended to limit health hazards instigated by the use of rice polluted with a greater concentration of Cd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据