| Literature DB >> 30479373 |
Xiaomin Li1, Shujun Dong1, Xiaoou Su2.
Abstract
In this study, grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) were systematically sampled across the main grape-producing areas in a nationwide survey of China. Grapes from special regions, such as heavy metal polluted areas (e-waste dismantling area) and pesticide free areas (courtyard) were also collected to make a comparison. Grape skins and pulps were separated to evaluate influence of accumulation behavior, environmental transport and water cleaning efficiency to heavy metals. Levels of copper in grape skins (5.02 ± 3.18 μg/g) were higher than in pulps (3.74 ± 1.48 μg/g). Only high level of copper in two grape skins (sampled from an e-waste dismantling area) showed obvious decrease during water clean-up procedure, indicating the influence of air deposition. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in the copper levels of grapes from markets, courtyards and e-waste dismantling areas. Concentrations and sources of chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb) and arsenic (As) were also analyzed. Higher levels of these heavy metals were observed in grape skins than pulps. Finally, we evaluated the risk of ingesting heavy metal through grapes using the estimated daily intake (EDI). No health risk was found by consuming grapes according to the data from this study.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30479373 PMCID: PMC6258723 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34767-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Comparison of copper in paired unwashed and washed grape samples. Data shown below sample name were the total copper concentration in grapes.
Levels of heavy metals in grape skins and pulps from different sampling area in China.
| Grapes (dry weight) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skins (μg/g)a | Pulps (μg/g) | ||||||||||||||
| Cr | Mn | Ni | Cu | As | Cd | Pb | Cr | Mn | Ni | Cu | As | Cd | Pb | ||
| Chinese market (n = 29) | Max | 1.64 | 2013 | 4.00 | 11.6 | 0.95 | 0.20 | 5.11 | 0.46 | 31.0 | 0.16 | 7.72 | 0.67 | 0.04 | 0.37 |
| Min | 0.08 | 2.51 | N.D.b | 1.83 | 0.1 | N.D. | N.D. | 0.04 | 0.97 | N.D. | 1.41 | 0.03 | N.D. | N.D. | |
| Meana | 0.26 | 92.4 | 0.34 | 4.67 | 0.25 | 0.09 | 0.27 | 0.10 | 7.71 | 0.06 | 3.84 | 0.28 | 0.04 | 0.37 | |
| E-waste dismantling area (n = 7) | Max | 0.44 | 104 | 0.56 | 10.8 | 0.43 | 0.02 | 0.43 | 0.12 | 36.1 | 0.25 | 4.29 | 0.35 | 0.004 | N.D. |
| Min | 0.13 | 9.71 | 0.04 | 1.96 | 0.09 | N.D. | 0.05 | 0.05 | 3.07 | N.D. | 1.27 | 0.07 | N.D. | N.D. | |
| Mean | 0.24 | 63.4 | 0.26 | 5.30 | 0.23 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 18.0 | 0.10 | 3.10 | 0.23 | 0.004 | N.D. | |
| Courtyard (n = 4) | Max | 0.71 | 29.7 | 0.52 | 9.96 | 0.36 | N.D. | 0.24 | 0.15 | 6.65 | N.D. | 3.71 | 0.15 | N.D. | N.D. |
| Min | 0.17 | 5.12 | 0.01 | 2.89 | 0.23 | N.D. | 0.03 | 0.11 | 1.70 | N.D. | 2.5 | 0.08 | N.D. | N.D. | |
| Mean | 0.35 | 14.1 | 0.17 | 5.34 | 0.28 | N.D. | 0.15 | 0.12 | 3.58 | N.D. | 3.21 | 0.12 | N.D. | N.D. | |
| Chile (n = 1) | 0.39 | 10.4 | 0.05 | 20.1 | 0.21 | N.D. | N.D. | 0.10 | 2.65 | N.D. | 7.74 | 0.30 | N.D. | N.D. | |
| Average value (n = 41) | 0.27 | 77.8 | 0.30 | 5.22 | 0.25 | 0.07 | 0.24 | 0.10 | 9.22 | 0.07 | 3.75 | 0.26 | 0.02 | 0.37 | |
aOnly the detected values were used to calculate mean values.
bN.D. = not detected.
Figure 2Box-and-whisker plots of Cr, Ni, Mn, As, Cd, Pb and Cu levels in grape (a) skins and (b) pulps. The box upper and under lines represent 25th and 75th percentiles, and three horizontal bars represent 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles, *represent the 1% and 99%, represent mean values. GM, GE and GC represent grapes collected from markets, grapes collected from e-waste dismantling areas and grapes collected from courtyards, respectively.
Concentrations of Copper in grapes around the world.
| Country | Grapes | Cu concentrations | Literature | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| min | max | mean | |||
| Slovenia | red grapes | 1.1 μg/g dw | 10.2 μg/g dw | 4.2 μg/g dw |
[ |
| white grapes | 1.6 μg/g dw | 8.1 μg/g dw | 4.7 μg/g dw | ||
| Spain | red grape | —a | — | 0.49 μg/g ww |
[ |
| white grape | — | — | 0.53 μg/g ww | ||
| Egypt | grapes | 5.07 μg/g dw | 9.15 μg/g dw | 7.75 ± 0.90 μg/g dw |
[ |
| Italy | red grape | — | — | 11.3 ± 8.61 μg/g dw |
[ |
| white grape | — | — | 7.54 ± 7.50 μg/g dw | ||
| France | grapes | — | — | 4.5 μg/g dw |
[ |
| Germany | grape | 6.56 μg/g | 19.9 μg/g | — |
[ |
| Turkey | grapes | — | — | 5.7 ± 0.1 μg/g dw |
[ |
| Ukraine | grapes | 1.47 μg/g dw | 1.72 μg/g dw | — |
[ |
| China | grape | 3.45 μg/g | 9.16 μg/g | 4.80 μg/g |
[ |
| India | grapes | — | — | 84.4 ± 0.68 μg/g dw |
[ |
| China | grape skins | 1.82 μg/g dw | 20.1 μg/g dw | 5.02 ± 3.18 μg/g dw | this study |
| grape pulps | 1.27 μg/g dw | 7.74 μg/g dw | 3.74 ± 1.48 μg/g dw | this study | |
aData not available.
Figure 3Levels of copper in grape skins and pulps.
Figure 4Levels of Cr, Ni, Mn, As, Cd and Pb in grape skins and pulps. The heavy metals under detection limits were left blank.
Statistical comparison of heavy metal distribution between grape skins and pulps.
| Cr | Mn | Ni | Cu | As | Cd | Pb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z | −4.697 | −5.232 | −3.516 | −3.786 | −0.141 | —a | — |
| p value | p < 0.05 | p < 0.05 | p < 0.05 | p < 0.05 | p > 0.05 | — | — |
aDue to most Cd in grape skins and pulps and Pb in grape pulps were under detection limits, so the test values were not given.
Figure 5The sampling sites of grapes in China.