| Literature DB >> 24386622 |
Alpana Kulhari1, Arun Sheorayan1, Somvir Bajar2, Susheel Sarkar3, Ashok Chaudhury1, Rajwant K Kalia1.
Abstract
The increasing prevalence of environmental pollution, especially soil contamination with heavy metals has led to their uptake in the human food chains through plant parts. Accumulation and magnification of heavy metals in human tissues through consumption of herbal remedies can cause hazardous impacts on health. Therefore, chemical profiling of nine heavy metals (Mn, Cr, Pb, Fe, Cd, Co, Zn, Ni and Hg) was undertaken in stem and leaf samples of ten medicinal plants (Acacia nilotica, Bacopa monnieri, Commiphora wightii, Ficus religiosa, Glycyrrhiza glabra, Hemidesmus indicus, Salvadora oleoides, Terminalia bellirica, Terminalia chebula and Withania somnifera) collected from environmentally diverse regions of Haryana and Rajasthan states in North-Western India. Concentration of all heavy metals, except Cr, was within permissible limits in the tested stem and leaf samples. Leaf samples had consistently more Cr compared to respective stem samples with highest concentration in leaf samples of Bacopa monnieri (13.19 ± 0.0480 ppm) and stem samples of Withania somnifera (4.93 ± 0.0185 ppm) both collected from Bahadurgarh (heavy industrial area), Haryana. This amount was beyond the permissible limit of 2.0 ppm defined by WHO for raw herbal material. Other two most perilous metals Pb (2.64 ± 0.0260) and Cd (0.04 ± 0.0274) were also recorded in Bahadurgarh region, although below permissible limits. Concentration of Hg remained below detectable levels in all the leaf and stem samples tested. These results suggested that cultivation of medicinal plants and other dietary herbs should be curtailed near environmentally polluted especially industrial areas for avoidance of health hazards.Entities:
Keywords: AAS; Heavy metals; Herbal plants; Soil pollution; Toxicity
Year: 2013 PMID: 24386622 PMCID: PMC3877414 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-676
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
General description and economic importance of medicinal plants used in the study
| Scientific name | Common name | Family | Habit | Part used | Medicinal properties | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Babul, kikar | Mimosaceae | Medium sized tree | Bark, roots, seeds, gum, pods | Used to cure diarrhea, Aphrodisiac, dressing of ulcers, Alzheimer’s diseases, wound ulcers, leprosy, leucoderma, small pox, skin diseases, biliousness, burning sensation and toothache. | Ali et al. ( |
|
| Brahmi | Plantaginaceae | Perennial herb | Leaves | Improve memory capacity, intellectual activity and enhance the immune function by increasing immunoglobulin production. | Morgan and Stevens ( |
|
| Guggul | Burseraceae | Balsamiferous woody shrub | Bark, stem | Active ingredients E and Z guggulsterone in oleoresin gum have lipid and cholesterol lowering activities along with acting as anti- cancerous compound. | Kulhari et al. ( |
|
| Peepal | Moraceae | Large deciduous tree | Bark, leaves, seeds, fruits, | Used to cure asthma, cough, sexual disorders, gonorrhea, skin diseases, scabies, hiccup, tuberculosis, fever and paralysis. | Makhija et al. ( |
|
| Mulethi | Fabaceae | Perennial herb | Roots | Popularly used to treat ileitis, lung inflammation, peptic ulcers, leaky gut syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome. | Krausse et al. ( |
|
| Anantmul | Apocynaceae | Perennial climber | Leaves, stem | Used in inflammation, cuts, wounds, burns, skin and blood diseases, ulcers and immunological disorders. | Saravanan and Nalini ( |
|
| Jaal, Pilu | Salvadoraceae | Small tree | Leaves, roots | The leaves have anti-inflammatory, analgesic and antiulcer activities. | Yadav et al. ( |
|
| Bahera | Combretaceae | Long tree | Leaves, bark, seed, roots, flower | Used in the treatment of gastric ulcer, constipation, general debility and piles. | Motamarri et al. ( |
|
| Harītak, Harad | Combretaceae | Medium to large deciduous tree | Leaves, bark, fruits | Used to cure anemia, anorexia, leprosy, diarrhoea, bleeding piles, gout, arthritis, epilepsy abdominal pain and asthma. | Rao and Srinivas ( |
|
| Ashwagandha | Solanaceae | Erect branched shrub | Leaves, stem, roots, seed | Used to promote health and longevity along with revitalizing of body in debilitated conditions and increasing the capability of the individual to resist adverse environmental factors. | Weiner and Weiner ( |
Collection of medicinal plants from Rajasthan and Haryana states
| Plant name | State | District | Latitude | Longitude | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Rajasthan | Jhunjhunu | 28.13° N | 75.40° E | Wild |
|
| Haryana | Bahadurgarh | 28.68° N | 76.92° E | Wild |
|
| Haryana | Mahendergarh | 28.27° N | 76.15° E | Wild |
|
| Rajasthan | Jhunjhunu | 28.13° N | 75.40° E | Wild |
|
| Haryana | Bahadurgarh | 28.68° N | 76.92° E | Wild |
|
| Haryana | Fathebad | 29.52° N | 75.45° E | Wild |
|
| Rajasthan | Churu | 26.60° N | 75.45° E | Wild |
|
| Haryana | Fathebad | 29.52° N | 75.45° E | Wild |
|
| Haryana | Fathebad | 29.52° N | 75.45° E | Wild |
|
| Haryana | Bahadurgarh | 28.68° N | 76.92° E | Wild |
Operating parameters for FAAS of heavy metals
| Parameters | Heavy metals | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mn | Cr | Pb | Fe | Cd | Ni | Co | Zn | Hg | |
| Wavelength (nm) | 279.5 | 357.9 | 283.3 | 248.3 | 228.8 | 232.0 | 240.7 | 213.9 | 253.7 |
| Slit (nm) | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| Acetylene flow rate (l/min) | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| HCL current (mA) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Air flow rate ( l/min) | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
Concentration of heavy metals in stem samples of medicinal plants
| Mean heavy metal concentration in stem samples (ppm) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S/N | Plant species | Mn | Cr | Pb | Fe | Cd | Ni | Co | Zn | Hg |
| 1 |
| 5.22 ± 0.1040 | 1.87 ± 0.0202 | 0.25 ± 0.0088 | 25.30 ± 0.1464 | BDL | 0.45 ± 0.0240 | 0.04 ± 0.0088 | 2.42 ± 0.2173 | BDL |
| 2 |
| 4.23 ± 0.0744 | 2.62 ± 0.0240* | 2.34 ± 0.0173 | 17.16 ± 0.1763 | 0.02 ± 0.0033 | 0.26 ± 0.0284 | 0.05 ± 0.0033 | 6.75 ± 0.1223 | BDL |
| 3 |
| 2.51 ± 0.0176 | 2.87 ± 0.0202* | 0.63 ± 0.0088 | 19.45 ± 0.2334 | BDL | 0.55 ± 0.0173 | 0.02 ± 0.0088 | 7.74 ± 0.0802 | BDL |
| 4 |
| 4.52 ± 0.0176 | 2.67 ± 0.0371* | 0.36 ± 0.0317 | 24.35 ± 0.1808 | 0.02 ± 0.0010 | 0.64 ± 0.0145 | 0.12 ± 0.01201 | 4.17 ± 0.0736 | BDL |
| 5 |
| 4.78 ± 0.0240 | 3.56 ± 0.0305* | 0.41 ± 0.0185 | 21.21 ± 0.0173 | 0.03 ± 0.0120 | 0.06 ± 0.0120 | 0.20 ± 0.0185 | 5.52 ± 0.0202 | BDL |
| 6 |
| 5.43 ± 0.0173 | 4.89 ± 0.0202* | 0.66 ± 0.0352 | 15.42 ± 0.0176 | 0.03 ± 0.0145 | 1.07 ± 0.0057 | 0.23 ± 0.0881 | 7.13 ± 0.0115 | BDL |
| 7 |
| 2.85 ± 0.0218 | 3.68 ± 0.0202* | 0.83 ± 0.0088 | 11.89 ± 0.0317 | BDL | 0.47 ± 0.0115 | 0.13 ± 0.0173 | 5.59 ± 0.0317 | BDL |
| 8 |
| 6.13 ± 0.0176 | 3.80 ± 0.0450* | 0.63 ± 0.0115 | 16.34 ± 0.0392 | 0.03 ± 0.0088 | 0.43 ± 0.0173 | 0.21 ± 0.0290 | 5.46 ± 0.0545 | BDL |
| 9 |
| 5.67 ± 0.0384 | 2.92 ± 0.0202* | 0.62 ± 0.0384 | 16.19 ± 0.0633 | 0.03 ± 0.0152 | 0.64 ± 0.0750 | 0.20 ± 0.0589 | 6.32 ± 0.0202 | BDL |
| 10 |
| 2.39 ± 0.0218 | 4.93 ± 0.0185* | 2.64 ± 0.0260 | 19.13 ± 0.0176 | 0.04 ± 0.0088 | 0.53 ± 0.0296 | 0.14 ± 0.0152 | 8.93 ± 0.0264 | BDL |
*Beyond permissible limit defined by WHO.
Concentration of heavy metals in leaf samples of medicinal plants
| Mean heavy metal concentration in leaf samples (ppm) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S/N | Plant species | Mn | Cr | Pb | Fe | Cd | Ni | Co | Zn | Hg |
| 1 |
| 3.16 ± 0.0371 | 8.73 ± 0.0260* | 0.21 ± 0.0208 | 16.01 ± 0.0642 | BDL | 0.59 ± 0.0202 | 0.19 ± 0.0284 | 3.09 ± 0.0305 | BDL |
| 2 |
| 1.67 ± 0.0425 | 13.19 ± 0.0480* | 0.54 ± 0.0417 | 14.19 ± 0.0633 | 0.03 ± 0.0088 | 0.23 ± 0.0317 | 0.15 ± 0.0115 | 4.80 ± 0.0907 | BDL |
| 3 |
| 2.84 ± 0.0688 | 8.53 ± 0.0317* | 0.21 ± 0.0145 | 13.30 ± 0.0264 | BDL | 0.26 ± 0.0348 | 0.20 ± 0.0200 | 2.10 ± 0.0173 | BDL |
| 4 |
| 2.60 ± 0.0392 | 9.54 ± 0.0202* | 0.32 ± 0.0240 | 12.42 ± 0.0272 | 0.03 ± 0.0057 | 0.30 ± 0.0296 | 0.14 ± 0.0120 | 3.25 ± 0.0240 | BDL |
| 5 |
| 2.23 ± 0.0305 | 9.17 ± 0.0173* | 0.32 ± 0.0233 | 11.33 ± 0.0296 | 0.03 ± 0.01660 | 0.38 ± 0.0233 | 0.40 ± 0.0251 | 3.89 ± 0.0348 | BDL |
| 6 |
| 2.26 ± 0.0260 | 11.68 ± 0.0480* | 0.25 ± 0.0088 | 13.64 ± 0.0115 | 0.16 ± 0.0260 | 0.32 ± 0.0173 | 0.16 ± 0.0251 | 4.18 ± 0.0212 | BDL |
| 7 |
| 0.89 ± 0.0458 | 10.48 ± 0.0440* | 0.52 ± 0.0202 | 11.03 ± 0.0497 | BDL | 0.48 ± 0.0193 | 0.15 ± 0.0208 | 4.40 ± 0.0240 | BDL |
| 8 |
| 2.60 ± 0.0348 | 11.02 ± 0.0808* | 0.25 ± 0.0120 | 13.21 ± 0.0202 | 0.21 ± 0.0176 | 0.26 ± 0.0257 | 0.18 ± 0.0145 | 3.28 ± 0.0145 | BDL |
| 9 |
| 2.04 ± 0.0264 | 11.23 ± 0.0887* | 0.48 ± 0.0290 | 14.59 ± 0.0352 | 0.02 ± 0.0120 | 0.57 ± 0.0264 | 0.17 ± 0.0264 | 2.58 ± 0.0237 | BDL |
| 10 |
| 0.34 ± 0.0152 | 12.34 ± 0.0458* | 0.81 ± 0.0360 | 17.44 ± 0.0202 | 0.04 ± 0.0274 | 0.19 ± 0.0371 | 0.14 ± 0.0135 | 4.10 ± 0.0360 | BDL |
*Beyond permissible limit defined by WHO.
Figure 1Heavy metal concentration in leaf samples of ten medicinal plants collected from different geographical regions.
Figure 2Heavy metal concentration in stem samples of ten medicinal plants collected from different geographical regions.
Figure 3Fold difference in concentration of heavy metals in stem samples compared to respective leaf samples (conc. in stem sample/conc. in leaf sample).