| Literature DB >> 31398852 |
David Romero-Estévez1, Gabriela S Yánez-Jácome2, Karina Simbaña-Farinango2, Hugo Navarrete2.
Abstract
In this study, cadmium (Cd), nickel (Ni), and lead (Pb) contents were analyzed in sixteen banana composite samples from different commercial establishments from eleven Ecuadorian production provinces using graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry. The concentrations (fresh weight) in the samples collected (9.3-47.3 μg·kg-1 for Cd, 16.1-105.6 μg·kg-1 for Ni, and 36.9-538.0 μg·kg-1 for Pb) were used to calculate the estimated daily intake (EDI), target hazard quotient (THQ), and target carcinogenic risk (CR) associated with dietary exposure to these potentially toxic metals. Cd and Ni results showed that every sample had EDIs lower than the oral reference dose and THQ values lower than 1, demonstrating that there was no non-carcinogenic risk related to the exposure to Cd and Ni. In the case of Pb, two EDIs results were higher than the reference dose, also their corresponding THQ values were higher than 1. The lead CR in all samples was less than 1 × 10-4, the upper limit used for acceptable cancer risk. Thus, there is no significant health risk to the consumer associated with bananas with contamination levels of Cd, Ni, but there is Pb risk for toddlers (12 kg of body weight) intake comparable to the one detected in the present study.Entities:
Keywords: Musa sp.; atomic absorption spectrophotometry; exportation product; food contamination; graphite furnace; health risk; heavy metals
Year: 2019 PMID: 31398852 PMCID: PMC6723565 DOI: 10.3390/foods8080330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Results summary of concentrations in original samples (Cc, μg·kg−1), rates of standard deviation (RSD, %), and “in-house” accuracy (%) of cadmium (Cd), nickel (Ni), and lead (Pb) determinations in Ecuadorian banana samples and the threshold values (μg·kg−1).
| Provinces | Samples | Cd | Ni | Pb | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cc | RSD | Accuracy | Cc | RSD | Accuracy | Cc | RSD | Accuracy | ||
| Cotopaxi | Cotopaxi 1 | 9.3 | 5.54% | 95.22% | 105.6 | 1.54% | 107.31% |
| 0.33% | 93.50% |
| Bolívar | Bolívar 1 | 32.5 | 5.38% | 110.34% | 27.7 | 5.93% | 101.29% |
| 1.88% | 114.62% |
| Los Ríos | Los Ríos 1 | 20.1 | 7.73% | 93.50% | 23.2 | 3.61% | 105.90% |
| 3.27% | 93.72% |
| Los Ríos 2 | 19.4 | 5.26% | 95.73% | 29.1 | 6.16% | 83.96% |
| 2.26% | 115.31% | |
| Los Ríos 3 | 30.2 | 5.93% | 96.52% | 21.5 | 6.87% | 112.57% |
| 2.63% | 106.29% | |
| Cañar | Cañar 1 | 33.5 | 6.68% | 119.78% | 21.8 | 6.32% | 80.63% |
| 0.78% | 108.48% |
| Azuay | Azuay 1 | 26.0 | 5.55% | 88.49% | 29.8 | 0.83% | 107.39% | 36.9 | 0.81% | 109.31% |
| El Oro | El Oro 1 | 29.8 | 5.39% | 92.73% | 24.9 | 6.40% | 109.60% |
| 3.47% | 86.55% |
| El Oro 2 | 29.6 | 1.17% | 86.47% | 24.5 | 5.34% | 87.06% |
| 0.56% | 82.68% | |
| Guayas | Guayas 1 | 17.4 | 7.43% | 105.97% | 30.5 | 6.87% | 108.01% |
| 3.74% | 111.64% |
| Guayas 2 | 24.3 | 7.77% | 87.96% | 22.3 | 5.58% | 116.60% |
| 1.18% | 83.36% | |
| Guayas 3 | 17.9 | 5.95% | 101.74% | 21.6 | 5.74% | 116.36% | 40.1 | 3.16% | 88.98% | |
| Santa Elena | Santa Elena 1 | 21.3 | 7.19% | 82.90% | 17.7 | 4.31% | 85.99% |
| 1.81% | 84.27% |
| Manabí | Manabí 1 | 47.3 | 4.07% | 97.19% | 30.8 | 4.84% | 84.89% |
| 2.93% | 81.29% |
| Esmeraldas | Esmeraldas 1 | 13.8 | 6.48% | 86.64% | 16.1 | 5.77% | 96.12% | 67.0 | 3.74% | 81.96% |
| Santo Domingo | Santo Domingo 1 | 14.9 | 4.62% | 107.59% | 19.4 | 4.38% | 95.89% | 72.9 | 0.51% | 109.04% |
| Threshold values | 50.0 a | - | - | 300.0 b | - | - | 100.0 a,c | - | - | |
a European Commission. Commission Regulation No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 [21]. EPA-IRIS. Nickel, soluble salts; CASRN Various. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical Assessment Summary [18]. c FAO/WHO General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed CXS 193-1995 (Revision 2018) [22].
Comparison among similar studies done, a summary of cadmium (Cd), nickel (Ni), and lead (Pb) mean concentrations (μg·kg−1), the estimated daily intakes (EDI, µg·kg−1·day−1), target hazard quotients (THQ, unitless), and carcinogenic risks (CR, unitless).
| Country | Metal | Mean concentrations | EDI | THQ | CR | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bangladesh | Cd | ND | NA | 0 | NA | [ |
| Ni | 37.0 | 2.80 × 10−5 | 1.00 × 10−3 | NA | ||
| Pb | 3.0 | 2.20 × 10−6 | 6.00 × 10−4 | 1.90 × 10−8 | ||
| Serbia | Cd | <0.3 | 0.002 | NA | NA | [ |
| Pb | 60.0 | 1.254 | NA | NA | ||
| Jamaica | Cd | 57.0 | 0.028 | 0.028 | NA | [ |
| Pb | 10.0 | 0.005 | 0.002 | NA | ||
| Nigeria | Cd | ND | NA | NA | NA | [ |
| Pb | 460.0 | 0.0028 | NA | NA | ||
| Ecuador * | Cd | 24.0 | 4.44 × 10−5 | 0.044 | NA | The present study |
| Ni | 29.0 | 5.35 × 10−5 | 0.005 | NA | ||
| Pb | 192.0 | 3.52 × 10−4 | 0.099 | 3.77 × 10−7 |
ND: Not detectable, NA: Not available. * Mean values for 60 kg of body weight (generally used by the WHO for calculation of Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) and adopted in the work of some EFSA Panels [36].
Figure 1Lead exposure values calculated with sample metal concentrations (µg·kg−1·day−1) compared with the oral reference dose (RfD) of each metal that could be safely consumed daily (µg·kg−1·day−1) for different body weights (kg).