Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction

The consumption of vegetables is a key route for increasing the content of potentially toxic heavy metals in the food chain. This article aimed to quantify the concentrations of As, Se, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, and Pb in different parts of vegetables harvested from Erbil city.

Methodology

The total concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, and Pb in various vegetable parts were pursued by ICP-MS analysis.

Results

The values of heavy metals in different parts of the analyzed vegetables ranged from 0.052 to 2.106 mg/kg for As, 0.024 to 5.899 mg/kg for Se, 0.014 to 0.753 mg/kg for Cd, 0.441 to 89.400 mg/kg for Cr, 0.052 to 2.693 mg/kg for Co, 0.737 to 39.120 mg/kg for Cu, 0.301 to 63.880 mg/kg for Ni, and 0.032 to 1.782 mg/kg for Pb. The Hazard Quotient (HQ) values for As, Cr, Cu, and Ni in the edible parts of most vegetables exceeded one, while those for Se, Co, Cd, and Pb were below one.

Discussion

In contrast to Se, Co, Cd, and Pb, the HQ values for As, Cr, and Pb indicate a potential health risk when consuming these edible parts of the vegetables. The Hazard Index (HI) for all edible parts of the analyzed vegetable samples exceeded one. The cancer risk (CR) of As, Cd, Cr and Ni were higher than 1.0 × 10^-4 which indicating carcinogenic risk. As a result, regular consumption of these vegetables is regarded as unsafe and not advisable.

Keywords

Cancer risk Non-carcinogenic ICP-MS Hazard Quotient Hazard Index

Introduction

Vegetables form a major part of the daily diet for the majority of the global population.¹ Although the consumption of leaved vegetation has increased in public areas,² these vegetables are often contaminated by heavy metals including As, Se, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, and Pb.^3–9 The environmental exposure to trace elements induces risks to human well-being. It is widely acknowledged that the presence of heavy metals significantly affects mankind’s diet chain, especially vegetation.^10–12,13

The movement of pollutant metals through soil and water raises significant concerns regarding public health, agricultural productivity, and ecological stability.^14,15,10 The movement of heavy metals from soil to plants is largely influenced by many parameters, such as the types of sources, seasonal variations, application rates, soil pH, temperature, moisture, redox potential, texture, organic content, different forms of available metals, nutritional content, various plant species and the total concentration of metals present.^16–19

As is one of many carcinogens that cause serious diseases, compromising the structure of human cells and genetic components after being exposed. A wide range of health issues, including cancers, cardiovascular problems, pulmonary, immune, and endocrine dysfunctions, reproductive system concerns, nervous system disorder, hepatic dysfunction, digestive tract issues, genetic toxicity, chronic As toxicity, and skin diseases, have been linked to inorganic As poisoning.^20–22 Excessive Cd levels can lead to complications in the respiratory system, as well as cardiac and kidney issues. High exposure to Cr can result in various health problems, including kidney tubular damage, skin irritation, lung carcinoma, and nasal septum hole. However, Cr also plays a role in certain biochemical processes, including insulin secretion control and animal lipid metabolism.²³ Co is used to treat anemia in women in pregnancy by promoting erythropoiesis. A deficiency in Co can lead to severe anemia, extreme tiredness, breathlessness, and underactive thyroid. However, excessive cobalt Co exposure may cause adverse effects such as congestive heart failure, respiratory conditions, cardiovascular muscle disorder, erythrocytosis, and skin inflammation.²⁴ Excessive bioaccumulation of Pb can lead to high blood pressure and chronic damage to the cerebrum and renal organs^25,26,27,28 This work aimed to evaluate the levels of heavy metals in different parts of vegetables and assess the potential health risks associated with their everyday consumption.

Material and Methods

Sample collection

Thirteen different vegetable samples, including roots, stems, leaves, pods, and more, were collected from local agricultural farms in Erbil city between March-April 2024 which is a suitable season of the year for farming vegetables. Supplemental Table 1 shows the specifics of the analyzed vegetables. Vegetable samples were collected from different farms in Erbil city, Northern Iraq, and categorized into two groups: wild vegetables and cultivated ones. The wild vegetables were gathered from four distinct remote areas where they grew naturally. In contrast, seven cultivated vegetables (Raphanus sativus, Solanum tuberosum, spinach, Lepidium sativum , Allium kurrat. schweinf, Apium graveolens, Allium fistulosum, Beta vulgaris subsp, Mentha longifolia) were collected from a single farm near the municipal area of Erbil city, while the Vicia Faba sample was obtained from an individual farm. Milli-Q water was used to rinse the vegetable specimens and kept in a plastic container. After harvesting, the vegetable samples were divided into roots and leaves then they were frozen in freezer set at −20°C for 12 hours, then transferred to freeze-drying equipment for 48 hours at −40°C. The dehydrated compartments of vegetable specimens were milled into a fine powder with a particle size of 180 µm. The grounded products were then kept in sealable plastic bags at ambient temperature until examined.

Digestion procedure for dry vegetable samples

The vegetable samples were subjected to acid digestion using a Mars Xpress microwave lab station (CEM, Matthews, NC, USA) using 100 mL Teflon vessels with Teflon covers. 0.25 g of dried vegetable compartments (root, stem, leaf, pod, etc.) were weighted in triplicate and transferred into individual Teflon tubes. Next, 5 mL of HNO₃ (70%, Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) and 2 mL of H₂O₂ (30%, Sigma Chemicals, UK) were introduced, and the containers were closed. The samples were subsequently digested for a total duration of 43 minutes at 1600 W. In the first step of digestion, the temperature was gradually raised to 160°C over 15 minutes and maintained at that temperature for an additional 5 minutes. During the second step, the temperature was raised from 160°C to 200°C in 8 minutes and held at 200°C for 15 minutes. The Teflon reaction vessels were allowed to cool to room temperature following digesting. Following digestion, the samples were gently moved into pre-rinsed 25 mL volumetric flasks and diluted to 25 mL with 2% (v/v) HNO₃, prepared with Milli-Q water. In and Ir (final content of 10 μgl^-1) were added to the solution as internal reference materials.^21,29,30 Blank samples were prepared following the same procedure as the sample preparation, but without the inclusion of the target analytes.

Stock solutions, concentration range of calibration curves

Standardized calibration solutions of As, Se, Cd, Cr, Cu, Co, Ni, and Pb were denoted using a stock solution of a multi-element which is purchased from CPI Internationals (USA) using 2% HNO₃. The calibration curve values were selected to align with the expected contents of all metals in the different compartments of the vegetable specimens analyzed using ICP-MS. The calibration standards were made by diluting the stock solution of multi-elements to the following concentrations: 5, 10, 20, 50, and 200 µg L^-1.

Instrumentation

The ICP-MS analysis was performed using an Agilent 7500 instrument (USA) for measuring the total content of As, Se, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni and Pb in various dried parts of edible vegetables, with the operating conditions provided in Supplemental Table 2. The mass spectrometer was configured to measure the counts per second using the Peak transition setting for the analyzed masses: ⁷⁵As, ⁷⁸Se, ¹¹²Cd, ⁵²Cr, ⁵⁹Co, ⁶⁵Cu, ⁶⁰Ni, and ²⁰⁸Pb.

Limit of detection

The Limit of Detection (LOD) of the instrument was evaluated using equation (1), by dividing the three times standard deviation (SD) of six blank (b) absorbance replicates by the slope (m) of the calibration curve. The LOD values for ICP-MS (in mg/kg) were: As (0.01), Se (0.002), Cd (0.002), Co (0.01), Cr (0.01), Cu (0.001), Ni (0.02), and Pb (0.01), all of which are appropriate for measuring minor minerals in various parts of the vegetable.

LOD = 3 x SDb / m

(1)

Statistical analysis

Using the SPSS program, a one-way ANOVA analysis was performed on the data.³¹ The results include means and standard error, using descriptive statistics. Duncan’s test was performed to identify significant differences between the various parts of analysed vegetables at 0.05 levels.³² The two certified reference materials (CRMs) including GBW10015-spinach and Pine Needles 1575a were analysed using One-sample T-test comparison and the Allium kurrat. Schweinf was analysed using Independent-samples T-test.

Quality control of method

The ICP-MS instrument was calibrated with standard solutions while the analysis was being conducted to ensure procedure quality control used for determining heavy metals in vegetables. A triplicate of each sample were analysed. In and Ir (10 µg L^-1) accounted for instrument deviation (due to factors like sample viscosity, mass transport, etc.) during the measurement process using ICP-MS. The method’s accuracy for detecting As, Se, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Pb in various parts of vegetable species was validated using CRMs: GBW10015-spinach (Institute of Geophysical and Geochemical Exploration, Langfang, China) and Pine Needles 1575a (National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, USA). Supplemental Table 3 presents the digestion results of the total levels of As, Se, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Pb in the analyzed CRMs. The digestion efficacy ranged between 90 and 111 % and 89 and 111 for GBW10015-spinach and Pine Needles 1575a, respectively. The mineral values acquired from the trial were in good agreements with the certified values for both CRMs namely GBW10015 spinach and Pine Needle 1575a.

Health risk assessment

To assess the health risks of heavy metals in individuals from the consumption of different compartments of various vegetables in Erbil city, this study evaluated the EDI, HQ, and HI.

EDI

EDI is a measure of the quantity of a specific heavy metal that a person ingests daily through food, water, or other environmental sources. It is usually expressed in mg/kg body weight/day. The amount of EDI was determined using the subsequent formula^33,34

E D I = \frac{C_{{µ g g}^{- 1}} x I n t a k e (k g / d a y)}{B M (K g)}

(2)

In this formula, C represents the mean heavy metal content in the vegetables from this work (mg/kg), Intake refers to the amount of vegetables eaten per day (kg/day), and BM is the mean mass of the body of the user (kg). For the exposure assessment, there were no available databases that offered dietary intake values specific to the particular spices examined in the study. Therefore, the data selected for the health risk assessment are derived from WHO guidelines ( a daily intake of 300 to 350 g of vegetables per person). For this study, a mean consumption of 0.325 kg/person/day was applied to calculate EDI, with the average body weight of individuals recorded at 79.1 kg.³⁵

HQ

HQ is the quantitative assessment of the possible non-cancerous impacts of specific toxic metals.³⁶ HQ is used to measure the promise impacts of individual heavy metals on humans due to prolonged exposure through vegetable consumption and estimated as the ratio of EDI to the reference dose (RfD) using the subsequent formula³⁷:

H Q = \frac{E D I}{R f D}

(3)

The RfD for As, Se, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, and Pb are 0.0003, 0.005, 0.001, 0.003, 0.02, 0.0371, 0.02, and 0.004 mg/kg body weight/day, sequentially.^38–41

HI

The HI is computed based on the daily mean vegetable ingestion for individuals (adults) to assess the possible harmful or negative health impacts due to the combined presence of chemical metals in the vegetables. HI is computed as the summation of HQ of each individual metal in vegetables utilizing the subsequent relationship^42,34:-

H I = \sum_{i = 1}^{n} H Q

(4)

HI = {HQ}_{As} + {HQ}_{Se} + {HQ}_{Cd} + {HQ}_{Cr} + {HQ}_{Co} + {HQ}_{Cu} + {HQ}_{Ni} + {HQ}_{Pb}

If the HI value is below 1, the exposure dose is considered lower than the level that could trigger harmful effects; however, if the HI exceeds 1, there is a potential risk that toxic metals may adversely impact human health.³⁶

CR

The CR associated with the ingestion of each heavy metal can be estimated using the following formula⁴:

CR = (Efr X ED X FIR X C X SF) / BM X AT

(5)

where Efr represents the exposure frequency (365 days per year), ED denotes the exposure duration (70 years), FIR is the daily food ingestion rate (kg/person/day), and C indicates the concentration of metals in food (mg/kg). AT refers to the averaging time for carcinogenic effects, calculated as 365 days/year multiplied by ED. The oral carcinogenic slope factors (SF), sourced from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), are 1.5, 6.1, 0.5, 0.91 and 0.0085 (mg/kg/day)^-1 for As, Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb, respectively. CR values ranging from 1 × 10^-6 to 1 × 10^-4 are generally regarded as acceptable. A CR below 1 × 10^-6is considered negligible, whereas a value exceeding 1 × 10^-4indicates a potentially significant risk of cancer.^43,44

Results and discussion

Heavy metals in different organs of studied vegetable

The concentrations of As, Se, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Pb in the various compartments of Raphanus sativus, Solanum tuberosum, Malva parviflora, Arum spp, spinach, Gundelia tournefortii., Lepidium sativum , Allium kurrat. schweinf, Apium graveolens, Allium fistulosum, Beta vulgaris subsp, Vicia Faba and Mentha longifolia computed on a dry mass scale, are shown in Table 1. It is quite intriguing that the levels of these heavy metals do not follow a consistent pattern or distribution across various compartments of the vegetables, throughout the plant, from root to leaf because this compartment of heavy metals mainly depends on the vegetable’s species itself, media characteristics, root zone, environmental conditions, chelating agent, chemical properties of the metal, and bioavailability of the metal.⁴² Overall, Ni, Cu, and Cr were the most prevalent metals in various parts of the vegetables, while As, Se, Co, Cd, and Pb were the least abundant.

Table 1.

Concentrations of As, Se, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, and Pb on dry mass scale (mg/kg) in different parts of Raphanus sativus, Solanum tuberosum, Malva parviflora, Arum spp, Spinacia oleracea, Gundelia tournefortii, Lepidium sativum, Allium kurrat. Schweinf, Apium graveolens, Allium fistulosum, Beta vulgaris subsp, Vicia Faba and Mentha longifolia using ICP-MS.

Vegetable		Edibility	Project	As (mg/kg ± SD)	Se (mg/kg ± SD)	Cd (mg/kg ± SD)	Cr (mg/kg ± SD)	Co (mg/kg ± SD)	Cu (mg/kg ± SD)	Ni (mg/kg ± SD)	Pb (mg/kg ± SD)
			Min	0.706	0.185	0.192	2.790	8.216	3.398	4.43	0.173
			Max	0.772	0.206	0.214	2.812	8.637	3.439	4.53	0.184
Raphanus sativus	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.746 ± 0.35a	0.192 ± 0.12a	0.200 0.01a	2.802 ± 0.011c	0.841 ± 0.213a	3.413 ± 0.023b	4.488 ± 0.047d	0.179 ± 0.005a
			Min	0.392	0.158	0.109	2.794	0.846	2.855	6.337	0.133
			Max	0.412	0.174	0.132	2.841	0.903	3.053	6.525	0.145
	Skin	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.404 ± 0.011c	0.167 ± 0.008a	0.118 ± 0.0 12c	2.811 ± 0.026c	0.868 ± 0.031a	2.962 ± 0.100c	6.442 ± 0.096a	0.139 ± 0.006c
			Min	0.662	0.152	0.149	2.791	0.788	3.492	4.539	0.140
			Max	0.700	0.213	0.154	2.816	0.797	3.647	4.633	0.146
	Core	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.678 ± 0.019d	0.181 ± 0.03b	0.151 ± 0.003c	2.807 ± 0.014a	0.793 ± 0.005c	3.574 ± 0.077d	4.578 ± 0.049b	0.143 ± 0.003b
			Min	0.306	0.081	0.107	6.055	0.671	2.788	5.49	0.161
			Max	0.371	0.118	0.123	6.239	0.685	2.862	5.661	0.164
	Stem	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.346 ± 0.035b	0.102 ± 0.01a	0.116 ± 0.008b	6.139 ± 0.093c	0.678 ± 0.007b	2.836 ± 0.041a	5.598 ± 0.094 cd	0.163 ± 0.002c
			Min	0.251	0.071	0.092	5.459	0.541	2.193	4.614	0.142
			Max	0.267	0.093	0.101	5.539	0.559	2.213	4.716	0.145
	Leaf	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.260 ± 0.008e	0.085 ± 0.012b	0.095 ± 0.005d	5.505 ± 0.041b	0.549 ± 0.009d	2.203 ± 0.011e	4.652 ± 0.056c	0.143 ± 0.002c
P. Value				<0.001	0.009	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
			Min	0.147	0.076	0.098	3.071	1.306	4.935	5.347	0.125
			Max	0.155	0.081	0.101	3.133	1.330	5.008	5.434	0.128
Solanum tuberosum	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.152 ± 0.004d	0.079b ± 0.002c	0.100 ± 0.002b	3.111 ± 0.035b	1.318 ± 0.012b	4.965 ± 0.038b	5.392 ± 0.044b	0.126 ± 0.001d
			Min	0.170	0.049	0.084	1.352	0.173	2.044	1.229	0.130
			Max	0.187	0.055	0.087	1.399	0.183	2.118	1.254	0.131
	Skin	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.178 ± 0.008c	0.052 ± 0.003 cd	0.085c ± 0.002	1.369 ± 0.027d	0.179 ± 0.005d	2.093 ± 0.043d	1.242 ± 0.013c	0.131 ± 0.001c
			Min	0.048	0.016	0.044	0.432	0.051	0.736	0.433	0.031
			Max	0.055	0.029	0.049	0.446	0.053	0.738	0.438	0.032
	Core	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.052 ± 0.004e	0.024 ± 0.007d	0.047 ± 0.002d	0.441 ± 0.008e	0.052 ± 0.001e	0.737 ± 0.001e	0.428 ± 0.009d	0.032 ± 0.001e
			Min	0.298	0.092	0.088	2.544	0.750	2.35	5.397	0.138
			Max	0.310	0.110	0.101	2.560	0.782	2.441	5.639	0.140
	Stem	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.303 ± 0.007a	0.102 ± 0.009ab	0.095 ± 0.007c	2.552 ± 0.001c	0.764 ± 0.016c	2.403 ± 0.047c	5.502 ± 0.125b	0.138 ± 0.002b
			Min	0.200	0.096	0.121	3.836	1.819	6.932	7.461	0.159
			Max	0.248	0.141	0.126	3.912	1.849	7.028	7.581	0.162
	Leaf	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.223 ± 0.024b	0.122 ± 0.02a	0.123 ± 0.003a	3.866 ± 0.040a	1.831 ± 0.016a	6.986 ± 0.049a	7.515 ± 0.061a	0.160 ± 0.001a
P. Value				<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
			Min	0.139	0.023	0.028	1.799	0.191	3.957	1.703	0.224
			Max	0.147	0.029	0.031	1.886	0.201	3.999	1.741	0.228
Malva parviflora	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.144 ± 0.002c	0.026 ± 0.003b	0.029 ± 0.002c	1.854 ± 0.048a	0.194 ± 0.006b	3.971 ± 0.024b	1.726 ± 0.020b	0.226 ± 0.002b
			Min	0.247	0.028	0.037	1.419	0.139	2.623	1.222	0.174
			Max	0.277	0.032	0.041	1.470	0.148	2.764	1.254	0.175
	Stem	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.265 ± 0.016b	0.030 ± 0.001b	0.038 ± 0.002b	1.449 ± 0.027b	0.144 ± 0.005c	2.694 ± 0.007c	1.242 ± 0.017c	0.174 ± 0.001c
			Min	0.520	0.071	0.748	1.896	0.221	10.13	1.828	1.406
			Max	0.556	0.074	0.758	1.920	0.225	10.2	1.866	1.411
	Leaf	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.540 ± 0.018a	0.073 ± 0.001a	0.753 ± 0.005a	1.906 ± 0.013a	0.223 ± 0.002a	10.170 ± 0.037a	1.845 ± 0.020a	1.408 ± 0.003a
P. Value				<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
			Min	0.260	0.051	0.019	3.562	0.408	3.647	3.538	0.161
			Max	0.276	0.069	0.025	3.640	0.417	3.771	3.726	0.165
Arum spp	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.269 ± 0.009b	0.057 ± 0.010c	0.022 ± 0.003ab	3.603 ± 0.039b	0.413 ± 0.005b	3.689 ± 0.071b	3.605 ± 0.105c	0.162 ± 0.002b
			Min	0.358	0.032	0.024	22.730	0.829	37.97	11.82	0.376
			Max	0.371	0.046	0.027	23.840	0.865	40.45	12.44	0.381
	Stem	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.365 ± 0.007a	0.039 ± 0.001a	0.026 ± 0.002a	23.210 ± 0.567a	0.846 ± 0.019a	39.120 ± 0.125c	12.070 ± 0.328a	0.379 ± 0.030a
			Min	0.189	0.094	0.019	5.407	0.405	7.963	4.313	0.379
			Max	0.199	0.102	0.022	5.519	0.408	8.043	4.364	0.387
	Leaf	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.194 ± 0.005c	0.098 ± 0.004b	0.021 ± 0.002b	5.454 ± 0.058c	0.406 ± 0.001b	7.997 ± 0.042a	4.338 ± 0.025b	0.382 ± 0.004a
P. Value				<0.001	0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
			Min	0.283	0.174	0.158	5.695	0.403	7.392	0.300	0.260
			Max	0.295	0.215	0.164	5.757	0.409	7.465	0.302	0.264
Spinach	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.288 ± 0.006b	0.192 ± 0.021c	0.160 ± 0.003b	5.735 ± 0.035b	0.405 ± 0.003b	7.421 ± 0.039b	0.301 ± 0.010c	0.263 ± 0.003b
			Min	0.570	0.291	0.123	18.310	1.431	6.95	13.03	0.697
			Max	0.595	0.343	0.129	18.870	1.497	7.119	13.37	0.709
	Stem	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.581 ± 0.013a	0.312 ± 0.028a	0.126 ± 0.003c	18.660 ± 0.308a	1.472 ± 0.037a	7.024 ± 0.009c	13.170 ± 0.180a	0.704 ± 0.006a
			Min	0.162	0.231	0.234	2.453	0.420	8.199	2.752	0.252
			Max	0.185	0.246	0.239	2.524	0.429	8.313	2.755	0.266
	Leaf	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.175 ± 0.012c	0.240 ± 0.008b	0.237 ± 0.003a	2.489 ± 0.036c	0.423 ± 0.005b	8.258 ± 0.056a	2.754 ± 0.002b	0.258 ± 0.007b
P. Value				<0.001	0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
			Min	0.492	0.168	0.082	9.105	1.302	16.87	9.722	0.634
			Max	0.510	0.180	0.089	9.305	1.321	17.09	9.896	0.645
Gundelia tournefortii.	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.500 ± 0.009a	0.172 ± 0.006a	0.085 ± 0.004a	9.180 ± 0.109a	1.313 ± 0.010a	17.010 ± 0.124a	9.793 ± 0.092a	0.640 ± 0.005a
			Min	0.252	0.175	0.046	4.157	0.499	7.942	4.257	0.355
			Max	0.287	0.219	0.056	4.262	0.513	8.106	4.297	0.360
	Stem	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.267 ± 0.018b	0.193 ± 0.024a	0.053 ± 0.006b	4.220 ± 0.056b	0.503 ± 0.008b	8.002 ± 0.090b	4.272 ± 0.022b	0.357 ± 0.003b
			Min	0.089	0.110	0.013	3.358	0.175	5.595	2.205	0.166
			Max	0.095	0.144	0.014	3.531	0.179	5.783	2.28	0.167
	Leaf	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.093 ± 0.003c	0.125 ± 0.018b	0.014 ± 0.001c	3.431 ± 0.090c	0.177 ± 0.002c	5.701 ± 0.094c	2.234 ± 0.040c	0.167 ± 0.001c
P. Value				<0.001	0.019	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
			Min	0.391	0.106	0.244	3.770	0.316	4.773	5.259	0.287
			Max	0.409	0.125	0.251	3.791	0.323	4.853	5.306	0.289
Lepidium sativum	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.399 ± 0.001a	0.116 ± 0.010b	0.248 ± 0.003a	3.780 ± 0.010b	0.319 ± 0.004a	4.804 ± 0.043a	5.281 ± 0.024a	0.288 ± 0.001b
			Min	0.266	0.144	0.222	4.532	0.248	3.431	4.267	0.193
			Max	0.288	0.157	0.236	4.553	0.254	3.476	4.352	0.199
	Stem	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.278 ± 0.011b	0.149 ± 0.007a	0.228 ± 0.070b	4.544 ± 0.011a	0.251 ± 0.003c	3.458 ± 0.024c	4.302 ± 0.044b	0.195 ± 0.003c
			Min	0.225	0.095	0.213	1.928	0.306	4.575	4.222	0.377
			Max	0.232	0.111	0.225	1.966	0.315	4.616	4.255	0.381
	Leaf	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.229 ± 0.004c	0.103 ± 0.008b	0.218 ± 0.006b	1.944 ± 0.019c	0.310 ± 0.005b	4.589 ± 0.023b	4.236 ± 0.017c	0.80 ± 0.003a
P. Value				<0.001	0.020	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.121	<0.001	<0.001
			Min	0.265	0.092	0.036	2.910	0.405	9.855	2.826	0.329
			Max	0.303	0.107	0.041	2.919	0.407	9.944	2.852	0.333
Allium kurrat. schweinf	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.286 ± 0.019	0.100 ± 0.008	0.038 ± 0.002	2.915 ± 0.005	0.406 ± 0.001	9.892 ± 0.046	2.836 ± 0.014	0.331 ± 0.002
			Min	1.749	0.048	0.078	10.810	1.621	9.669	9.927	0.362
			Max	1.757	0.061	0.080	10.920	1.652	9.872	10.15	0.373
	Leaf	Edible	Mean ± SD	1.753 ± 0.040	0.057 ± 0.007	0.079 ± 0.001	10.870 ± 0.054	1.641 ± 0.017	9.766 ± 0.101	10.030 ± 0.111	0.368 ± 0.006
P. Value				<0.001	0.002	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.121	<0.001	<0.001
			Min	0.318	0.041	0.296	10.520	0.641	13.88	6.712	0.498
			Max	0.325	0.094	0.304	10.610	0.662	14.03	6.958	0.504
Apium graveolens	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.322 ± 0.003a	0.068 ± 0.026b	0.300 ± 0.004a	10.580 ± 0.047a	0.651 ± 0.011a	13.930 ± 0.086a	6.837 ± 0.123a	0.502 ± 0.003b
			Min	0.212	0.146	0.189	5.917	0.647	9.439	5.413	1.773
			Max	0.228	0.167	0.199	6.080	0.667	9.584	5.496	1.790
	Stem	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.220 ± 0.008b	0.157 ± 0.011a	0.196 ± 0.006b	5.986 ± 0.084b	0.656 ± 0.010a	9.501 ± 0.075b	5.464 ± 0.054b	1.782 ± 0.009a
			Min	0.098	0.084	0.107	1.787	0.254	9.169	4.463	0.274
			Max	0.115	0.093	0.110	1.824	0.285	9.251	4.560	0.276
	Leaf	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.108 ± 0.009c	0.089 ± 0.005b	0.108 ± 0.002c	1.807 ± 0.09c	0.266 ± 0.017b	9.210 ± 0.041c	4.499 ± 0.053c	0.275 ± 0.010c
P. Value				<0.001	0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
			Min	2.057	1.540	0.122	9.420	1.566	6.642	9.229	0.605
			Max	2.075	1.587	0.128	9.723	1.617	6.958	9.532	0.616
Allium fistulosum	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	2.064 ± 0.009a	1.564 ± 0.023a	0.126 ± 0.003a	9.584 ± 0.153c	1.593 ± 0.026b	6.822 ± 0.162c	9.349 ± 0.161c	0.610 ± 0.006b
			Min	0.136	0.265	0.040	1.717	0.175	5.945	2.526	0.315
			Max	0.160	0.282	0.045	1.761	0.184	6.05	2.54	0.322
	Bulb	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.151 ± 0.009d	0.273 ± 0.009c	0.042 ± 0.003c	1.736 ± 0.023d	0.180 ± 0.004d	5.992 ± 0.054d	2.532 ± 0.007d	0.319 ± 0.004d
			Min	0.687	0.943	0.052	25.290	2.671	12.07	62.95	0.438
			Max	0.700	0.959	0.058	25.570	2.7	12.2	64.78	0.450
	Stem	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.693 ± 0.007c	0.951 ± 0.008b	0.056 ± 0.003b	25.460 ± 0.015a	2.693 ± 0.019a	12.160 ± 0.073a	63.880 ± 0.916a	0.443 ± 0.006c
			Min	0.743	0.102	0.049	89.130	1.493	7.491	23.98	1.424
			Max	0.801	0.107	0.055	89.870	1.532	7.644	24.44	1.460
	Leaf	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.770 ± 0.029b	0.105 ± 0.002d	0.053 ± 0.003b	89.400 ± 0.409b	1.513 ± 0.019c	7.586 ± 0.083b	24.160 ± 0.249b	1.440 ± 0.018a
P. Value				<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
			Min	0.555	5.808	0.056	7.270	1.002	8.304	5.849	0.620
			Max	0.591	5.991	0.065	7.393	1.028	8.538	6.059	0.631
Beta vulgaris subsp	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.575 ± 0.018a	5.899 ± 0.092a	0.060 ± 0.005a	7.324 ± 0.063a	1.011 ± 0.015a	8.399 ± 0.123b	5.987 ± 0.119a	0.624 ± 0.006a
			Min	0.380	2.621	0.047	6.510	0.827	8.917	4.080	0.531
			Max	0.397	2.854	0.054	6.528	0.843	9.066	4.084	0.535
	Stem	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.388 ± 0.009b	0.274 ± 0.117b	0.051 ± 0.004b	6.517 ± 0.009b	0.833 ± 0.008b	8.992 ± 0.075a	4.083 ± 0.003b	0.533 ± 0.002c
			Min	0.188	2.605	0.054	2.315	0.631	7.971	2.600	0.581
			Max	0.201	2.840	0.062	2.384	0.640	8.24	2.724	0.596
	Leaf	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.192 ± 0.007c	2.754 ± 0.130b	0.057 ± 0.005ab	2.360 ± 0.004c	0.637 ± 0.005c	8.074 ± 0.145c	2.654 ± 0.063c	0.587 ± 0.008b
P. Value				<0.001	<0.001	0.105	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
			Min	2.096	0.026	0.071	9.893	1.525	9.215	9.943	0.339
			Max	2.124	0.078	0.080	10.330	1.534	9.405	10.18	0.343
Vicia Faba	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	2.106 ± 0.016a	0.056 ± 0.026a	0.076 ± 0.005a	10.090 ± 0.220a	1.530 ± 0.005a	9.280 ± 0.109d	10.040 ± 0.103a	0.341 ± 0.002b
			Min	0.413	0.035	0.021	4.174	0.672	6.364	5.132	0.297
			Max	0.439	0.041	0.023	4.211	0.690	6.683	5.431	0.304
	Stem	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.427 ± 0.013b	0.037 ± 0.003a	0.022 ± 0.001bc	4.191 ± 0.018c	0.679 ± 0.010c	6.494 ± 0.167e	5.251 ± 0.159d	0.300 ± 0.004c
			Min	0.252	0.057	0.015	1.798	0.567	13.74	8.373	0.146
			Max	0.279	0.062	0.020	1.830	0.600	13.97	8.662	0.147
	Pods	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.266 ± 0.014c	0.060 ± 0.002a	0.017 ± 0.003c	1.809 ± 0.018d	0.588 ± 0.018d	13.820 ± 0.126b	8.561 ± 0.163b	0.146 ± 0.001d
			Min	0.136	0.069	0.013	0.770	0.520	26.83	9.786	0.061
			Max	0.157	0.074	0.019	0.801	0.534	27.34	9.938	0.063
	Bean	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.145 ± 0.011d	0.072 ± 0.002a	0.016 ± 0.003c	0.787 ± 0.016e	0.527 ± 0.007e	27.050 ± 0.263a	9.851 ± 0.079a	0.062 ± 0.001e
			Min	0.374	0.083	0.022	4.432	1.009	11.91	6.864	0.474
			Max	0.438	0.088	0.027	4.689	1.023	12.22	7.15	0.486
	Leaf	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.397 ± 0.036b	0.085 ± 0.003a	0.025 ± 0.003b	4.567 ± 0.129b	1.015 ± 0.007b	12.080 ± 0.161c	7.015 ± 0.143c	0.479 ± 0.007a
P. Value				<0.001	0.326	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
			Min	0.842	0.087	0.057	20.300	1.735	14.72	14.09	0.909
			Max	0.897	0.093	0.061	20.870	1.792	14.9	14.16	0.929
Mentha longifolia	Root	Non-edible	Mean ± SD	0.867 ± 0.028a	0.091 ± 0.003a	0.059 ± 0.002a	20.620 ± 0.288a	1.757 ± 0.031a	14.780 ± 0.101a	14.120 ± 0.035a	0.921 ± 0.010a
			Min	0.275	0.041	0.020	9.066	0.760	11.51	6.532	0.615
			Max	0.313	0.055	0.023	9.755	0.814	11.82	6.712	0.623
	Stem	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.299 ± 0.020c	0.046 ± 0.008b	0.021 ± 0.002b	9.297 ± 0.396b	0.782 ± 0.028b	11.660 ± 0.156c	6.617 ± 0.090c	0.620 ± 0.004c
			Min	0.351	0.059	0.018	7.451	0.677	12.56	6.964	0.828
			Max	0.404	0.089	0.022	7.652	0.705	13.1	7.135	0.840
	Leaf	Edible	Mean ± SD	0.378 ± 0.027b	0.077 ± 0.01ab	0.020 ± 0.002b	7.552 ± 0.100c	0.688 ± 0.015c	12.750 ± 0.303b	7.041 ± 0.087b	0.833 ± 0.006b
P. Value				<0.001	0.066	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
WHO/FAO				0.3⁶³	0.4⁶⁴	0.2⁶⁵	2.3⁶⁶	50⁶⁶	73.3⁶⁷	67.9⁶⁷	0.3⁶⁸

Raphanus sativus

The concentrations of As, Se, and Cr in the Raphanus sativus followed similar descending trends: root > core > skin > stem > leaf (Table 1). Specifically, the concentrations were as follows: for As, root (0.746 mg/kg) > core (0.678 mg/kg) > skin (0.404 mg/kg) > stem (0.346 mg/kg) > leaf (0.260 mg/kg); for Se, root (0.192 mg/kg) > core (0.181 mg/kg) > skin (0.167 mg/kg) > stem (0.102 mg/kg) > leaf (0.085 mg/kg); and for Cr, root (0.147 mg/kg) > core (0.151 mg/kg) > skin (0.118 mg/kg) > stem (0.116 mg/kg) > leaf (0.095 mg/kg), respectively. The concentration of Cr in various compartments of Raphanus sativus was: stem (6.139 mg/kg) > leaf (5.505 mg/kg) > skin (2.811 mg/kg) > core (2.807 mg/kg) > root (2.802 mg/kg). For Co, the levels were: skin (0.868 mg/kg) > root (0.841 mg/kg) > core (0.793 mg/kg) > stem (0.678 mg/kg) > leaf (0.549 mg/kg). The Cu contents were: core (3.547 mg/kg) > root (3.413 mg/kg) > skin (2.962 mg/kg) > stem (2.836 mg/kg) > leaf (2.203 mg/kg). For Ni, the order was: skin (6.442 mg/kg) > stem (5.598 mg/kg) > leaf (4.652 mg/kg) > core (4.578 mg/kg) > root (4.652 mg/kg). Lastly, Pb concentrations were: root (0.179 mg/kg) > stem (0.163 mg/kg) > leaf (0.143 mg/kg) = core (0.143 mg/kg) > skin (0.139 mg/kg).

The contents of Cd (0.147 mg/kg), Cr (2.802 mg/kg), Cu (3.413 mg/kg), Ni (4.448 mg/kg), and Pb (0.179 mg/kg) in Raphanus sativus roots were lower than those reported in literature, which found levels of 0.45, 5.73, 35.8, 8.25 and 19.4 mg/kg, respectively. On the other hand, the concentrations of Cd and Pb in the stem of Raphanus sativus were lower than the values obtained by the work which were 0.19 mg/kg for Cd and 1.88 mg/kg for Pb. However, the values of Cr (6.139 mg/kg), Cu (2.836 mg/kg) and Ni (5.598 mg/kg) in the root of Raphanus sativus of this study were higher compared to the same heavy metals which were 0.28 mg/kg for Cr, 1.91 mg/kg for Cu, and 0.84 mg/kg for Ni.⁴⁵

Solanum tuberosum

The concentration of As in different parts of the Solanum tuberosum in the following manner: stem (0.303 mg/kg) > leaf (0.223 mg/kg) > skin (0.178 mg/kg) > root (0.152 mg/kg) > core (0.052 mg/kg) (Table 1). The concentrations of Se and Ni in the Solanum tuberosum followed similar descending patterns: leaf > stem > root > skin > core. Specifically, the concentrations were Se: leaf (0.122 mg/kg) > stem (0.102 mg/kg) > root (0.079 mg/kg) > skin (0.052 mg/kg) > core (0.024 mg/kg), and Ni: leaf (7.515 mg/kg) > stem (5.502 mg/kg) > root (5.392 mg/kg) > skin (1.242 mg/kg) > core (0.428 mg/kg). The concentrations of Cd, Cr, Co, and Pb in the Solanum tuberosum followed a corresponding descending arrangement: leaf > root > stem > skin > core. The values were as follows: Cd: 0.123 mg/kg, 0.100 mg/kg, 0.095 mg/kg, 0.085 mg/kg, and 0.047 mg/kg; Cr: 3.866 mg/kg, 3.111 mg/kg, 2.552 mg/kg, 1.369 mg/kg, and 0.441 mg/kg; Co: 1.831 mg/kg, 1.318 mg/kg, 0.764 mg/kg, 0.179 mg/kg, and 0.052 mg/kg; Cu: 6.986 mg/kg, 4.965 mg/kg, 2.403 mg/kg, 2.093 mg/kg, and 0.737 mg/kg, sequentially. Finally, the levels of Pb were as the following arrangement: leaf (0.160 mg/kg) > stem (0.138 mg/kg) > skin (0.131 mg/kg) > root (0.126 mg/kg) > core (0.032 mg/kg). The contents of As (0.052 mg/kg), Cd (0.047 mg/kg), Cr (0.441 mg/kg), Cu (0.737 mg/kg) and Pb (0.032 mg/kg) in this study are within the range of literature values which are 0.01–0.25, 0.001–0.048, 0.008–0.802, 0.022–29.894 and 0.006 to 0.215 mg/kg, respectively and the Ni concentration (0.428 mg/kg) also exceeded the reported value of 0.006–0.419 mg/kg.⁴⁶

Malva parviflora

The quantities of As, Se, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, and Pb in Malva parviflora were compartmentalized into two distinct patterns across various organs of the plant (Table 1). The first descending pattern was leaf > stem > root, with the following values: As: 0.540 mg/kg, 0.265 mg/kg, and 0.144 mg/kg; Se: 0.073 mg/kg, 0.030 mg/kg, and 0.026 mg/kg; Cd: 0.753 mg/kg, 0.038 mg/kg, and 0.029 mg/kg, respectively. The second descending pattern followed leaf > root > stem with the following values: Cr: 1.906 mg/kg, 1.854 mg/kg, and 1.449 mg/kg; Co: 0.223 mg/kg, 0.194 mg/kg, and 0.144 mg/kg; Cu: 10.170 mg/kg, 3.971 mg/kg, and 2.694 mg/kg; Ni: 1.845 mg/kg, 1.726 mg/kg, and 1.242 mg/kg; Pb: 1.408 mg/kg, 0.226 mg/kg, and 0.174 mg/kg, sequentially.

The concentrations of As (0.144 mg/kg), Cr (1.854 mg/kg), and Ni (1.726 mg/kg) in Malva parviflora root from this study fell within the ranges reported in the literature, which were 0.05-0.38 mg/kg, 0.58-2.17 mg/kg, and 0.75-2.67 mg/kg, respectively. Additionally, the levels of Cd, Co, and Pb in the Malva parviflora root from this study were lower than the values documented in the literature, which ranged from 40.83-123.33 mg/kg, 1.25-4.17 mg/kg, and 257.5-681.67 mg/kg, respectively. In contrast, the Cu concentration was higher than the reported range of 0.42-1.83 mg/kg. The concentration of As (0.540 mg/kg) in the Malva parviflora leaves from this study exceeded the reported range of 0.03-0.43 mg/kg found in the literature. Conversely, the levels of Cd (0.753 mg/kg), Co (0.223 mg/kg), and Pb (1.408 mg/kg) in the Malva parviflora leaves from this study were lower than the documented values, which ranged from 5.42-91.67 mg/kg, 0.83-2.67 mg/kg, and 11.67-583.33 mg/kg, respectively. On the other hand, the Cu content was higher than the reported range of 0.5-3 mg/kg.

Arum spp

The concentrations of heavy metals are presented in Table 1. As, Cd, and Co in the Arum spp followed a similar descending trend: stem > root > leaf, with the values: As: 0.365 mg/kg, 0.269 mg/kg, and 0.194 mg/kg; Cd: 0.026 mg/kg, 0.022 mg/kg, and 0.021 mg/kg; Co: 0.846 mg/kg, 0.413 mg/kg, and 0.406 mg/kg, respectively. The Se concentration in different parts of Arum spp followed leaf > root > stem with values of 0.098 mg/kg, 0.057 mg/kg, and 0.039 mg/kg, respectively. The quantities of Cr, Cu, and Ni in Arum spp followed a similar descending trend: stem > leaf > root, with the values as follows: Cr: 23.210 mg/kg, 5.545 mg/kg, and 3.603 mg/kg; Cu: 39.120 mg/kg, 7.997 mg/kg, and 3.689 mg/kg; Ni: 12.070 mg/kg, 4.338 mg/kg, and 3.605 mg/kg, respectively. Lastly, the order of Pb was: leaf (0.382 mg/kg) > stem (0.379 mg/kg) > root (0.162 mg/kg).

The concentration of As in the stem of Arum spp from this study was lower than the documented range of 0.048-0.201 mg/kg, while the levels of Cd and Pb fell within the ranges reported in the literature, which were 0.023-1.458 mg/kg and 0.0003-0.919 mg/kg, respectively. The average concentrations of As and Pb in the leaf and root of Arum spp from this study were within the ranges reported in the literature, specifically 0.053-0.373 mg/kg and 0.039-0.357 mg/kg for As, and 0.181-1.234 mg/kg and 0.042-2.992 mg/kg for Pb, respectively. However, the concentrations of Cd in the leaf and root of Arum spp from this study were lower than the reported ranges of 0.024-0.733 mg/kg and 0.023-1.011 mg/kg, respectively.⁴⁷ Furthermore, the concentration of Cu in the leaves of Arum spp from this study fell within the reported range of 6.10-25.04 mg/kg, while the level of Cr was lower than the documented range of 0.78-1.12 mg/kg found in the literature.⁴⁸

Spinach

As, Cr, and Pb in spinach exhibited a similar descending trend: stem > root > leaf, with the following values: As: 0.581 mg/kg, 0.288 mg/kg, and 0.175 mg/kg; Cr: 18.660 mg/kg, 5.735 mg/kg, and 2.489 mg/kg; Pb: 0.704 mg/kg, 0.263 mg/kg, and 0.258 mg/kg, sequentially. The concentrations of Se, Co, and Ni in spinach followed a similar descending pattern: stem > leaf > root, with the values as follows: Se: 0.312 mg/kg, 0.240 mg/kg, and 0.192 mg/kg; Co: 1.472 mg/kg, 0.423 mg/kg, and 0.405 mg/kg; Ni: 13.170 mg/kg, 2.754 mg/kg, and 0.301 mg/kg, sequentially. Lastly, the quantities of Cd and Cu in spinach followed a similar pattern across compartments, with levels decreasing in the order of leaf > root > stem. The values were as follows: Cd: 0.237 mg/kg, 0.160 mg/kg, 0.126 mg/kg; Cu: 8.258 mg/kg, 7.421 mg/kg, 7.024 mg/kg, respectively.

The levels of Cd (0.160 mg/kg), Cr (5.735 mg/kg), Co (0.405 mg/kg), Cu (7.421 mg/kg), Ni (0.301 mg/kg), and Pb (0.263 mg/kg) in the roots of spinach from this study were lower than the values reported in the literature, which were 0.3, 10, 3, 15, 4, and 3 mg/kg, respectively. Additionally, the concentrations of Cd (0.273 mg/kg), Cu (8.258 mg/kg), and Ni (2.754 mg/kg) in the spinach leaves from this study were higher than the documented values of 0.2, 7, and 2 mg/kg, respectively. On the other hand, the Cr (2.489 mg/kg), Co (0.423 mg/kg), and Pb (0.258 mg/kg) contents in the spinach leaves were lower than the reported values in the literature, which were 4, 1, and 0.5 mg/kg, respectively.⁴⁹

Gundelia tournefortii

As, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, and Pb in Gundelia tournefortii. displayed a similar decreasing trend: root > stem > leaf, with the following concentrations: As: 0.500 mg/kg, 0.267 mg/kg, and 0.093 mg/kg; Cd: 0.085 mg/kg, 0.053 mg/kg, and 0.014 mg/kg; Cr: 9.180 mg/kg, 4.220 mg/kg, and 3.431 mg/kg; Co: 1.313 mg/kg, 0.503 mg/kg, and 0.177 mg/kg; Cu: 17.010 mg/kg, 8.002 mg/kg, and 5.701 mg/kg; Ni: 9.793 mg/kg, 4.272 mg/kg, and 2.234 mg/kg; Pb: 0.640 mg/kg, 0.357 mg/kg, and 0.167 mg/kg, respectively. However, Se followed a different pattern: stem (0.193 mg/kg) > root (0.172 mg/kg) > leaf (0.125 mg/kg).

Lepidium sativum

As, Cd, and Ni in Lepidium sativum exhibited a similar decreasing trend: root > stem > leaf, with the following concentrations: As: 0.399 mg/kg, 0.278 mg/kg, and 0.229 mg/kg; Cd: 0.248 mg/kg, 0.228 mg/kg, and 0.218 mg/kg; Ni: 5.281 mg/kg, 4.302 mg/kg, and 4.236 mg/kg, respectively. The concentrations of Se and Cr in Lepidium sativum followed a similar descending pattern: stem > root > leaf, with values of Se: 0.149 mg/kg, 0.116 mg/kg, and 0.103 mg/kg; Cr: 4.544 mg/kg, 3.780 mg/kg, and 1.944 mg/kg, respectively. The concentrations of Co and Cu in Lepidium sativum followed a similar descending pattern: root > leaf > stem, with values of Co: 0.319 mg/kg, 0.310 mg/kg, and 0.251 mg/kg; Cu: 4.804 mg/kg, 4.589 mg/kg, and 3.458 mg/kg, respectively. Finally, Pb followed a different trend: leaf (0.8 mg/kg) > root (0.288 mg/kg) > stem (0.195 mg/kg).

The levels of As, Cd, Pb, Co, and Ni in the edible parts of Lepidium sativum from this study exceeded the reported values in the literature, which were 0.165 mg/kg, below the limit of quantification to 0.041 mg/kg, 0.154 mg/kg,⁵⁰ 0.13 mg/kg and 0.22 mg/kg,⁵¹ respectively. On the other hand, the concentrations of Cd, Cr, Cu, and Pb in the edible parts of these vegetables from this study were lower than the documented values in the literature, which were 0.65 mg/kg, 7.50 mg/kg, 8.51 mg/kg, and 13.11 mg/kg, respectively.⁵²

Allium kurrat. schweinf

The concentrations of As (1.753 mg/kg), Cd (0.079 mg/kg), Cr (10.870 mg/kg), Co (1.641 mg/kg), Ni (10.030 mg/kg), and Pb (0.368 mg/kg) in the leaf of Allium kurrat. schweinf were higher than those in the root for the same metals (As: 0.286 mg/kg, Cd: 0.038 mg/kg, Cr: 2.915 mg/kg, Co: 0.406 mg/kg, Ni: 2.836 mg/kg, and Pb: 0.331 mg/kg). However, the levels of Se (0.1 mg/kg) and Cu (9.892 mg/kg) were higher in the root compared to the leaf (Se: 0.057 mg/kg and Cu: 9.766 mg/kg).

The levels of Cu and Pb in the root and leaf of Allium kurrat. schweinf from this study exceeded the values reported in other studies, which were 0.34 mg/kg and 0.71 mg/kg for Cu, and 0.03 mg/kg and 0.16 mg/kg for Pb, respectively.⁵³ On the other hand, the concentrations of Cd and Cu in the edible parts of Allium kurrat. schweinf from this study were higher than the values reported by other researchers, which were 0.54 mg/kg and 2.82 mg/kg, respectively. Similarly, the levels of Cu and Ni were also higher, with reported values of 39.21 mg/kg and 6.25 mg/kg, respectively.⁵⁴

Apium graveolens

The distribution of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, and Ni in Apium graveolens followed a similar decreasing trend: root > stem > leaf, with the concentrations as follows: As: 0.322 mg/kg, 0.220 mg/kg, and 0.108 mg/kg; Cd: 0.300 mg/kg, 0.196 mg/kg, and 0.108 mg/kg; Cr: 10.580 mg/kg, 5.986 mg/kg, and 1.807 mg/kg; Cu: 13.930 mg/kg, 9.501 mg/kg, and 9.210 mg/kg; Ni: 6.837 mg/kg, 5.464 mg/kg, and 4.499 mg/kg, sequentially. Se in Apium graveolens followed a different order: stem (0.157 mg/kg) > leaf (0.089 mg/kg) > root (0.068 mg/kg). Finally, Co and Pb exhibited a similar descending pattern: stem > root > leaf, with Co concentrations of 0.656 mg/kg, 0.651 mg/kg, and 0.266 mg/kg, and Pb concentrations of 1.782 mg/kg, 0.502 mg/kg, and 0.275 mg/kg, sequentially.

The concentrations of As and Cu in the edible parts of Apium graveolens in this study were lower than the values reported in other studies, which were 0.300-0.307 mg/kg⁵⁵ and 14 mg/kg,⁵⁶ respectively. However, the levels of Cd, Cr, Pb, and Ni were higher than those found in the literature, which ranged from 0.003-0.007 mg/kg, 0.027-0.033 mg/kg, 0.153-0.167 mg/kg⁵⁵ and 4.075 mg/kg,⁵⁶ respectively.

Allium fistulosum

The order of distribution for As, Se, Cd, Cr, Co, and Pb in Allium fistulosum was as follows: As: root (2.064 mg/kg) > leaf (0.770 mg/kg) > stem (0.693 mg/kg) > bulb (0.151 mg/kg); Se: root (1.564 mg/kg) > stem (0.951 mg/kg) > bulb (0.273 mg/kg) > leaf (0.105 mg/kg); Cd: root (0.126 mg/kg) > stem (0.056 mg/kg) > leaf (0.053 mg/kg) > bulb (0.042 mg/kg); Cr: leaf (89.4 mg/kg) > stem (25.460 mg/kg) > root (9.584 mg/kg) > bulb (1.736 mg/kg); Co: stem (2.693 mg/kg) > root (1.593 mg/kg) > leaf (1.513 mg/kg) > bulb (0.180 mg/kg); Pb: leaf (1.440 mg/kg) > root (0.610 mg/kg) > stem (0.443 mg/kg) > bulb (0.319 mg/kg). Finally, Cu and Ni followed a similar decreasing pattern: stem > leaf > root > bulb. The concentrations of Cu were 12.160 mg/kg, 7.586 mg/kg, 6.822 mg/kg, and 5.992 mg/kg, and for Ni, the concentrations were 63.880 mg/kg, 24.160 mg/kg, 9.349 mg/kg, and 2.532 mg/kg, respectively.

The concentrations of As, Se, Cu, Ni, and Pb in the bulb of Allium fistulosum exceeded those reported in a previous study, which ranged between 3.07 and 3.88, 0.44-0.62, 10.66-15.64, 7.38-7.98, and 5.00-5.95 mg/kg, respectively, for the same part.⁵⁷ In comparison, the Co level was lower than the documented value of 0.92 mg/kg.⁵⁸ The levels of Cd (0.053 mg/kg) and Pb (1.440 mg/kg) in the leaves of Allium fistulosum from this study were lower than those reported in another study, where Cd was 0.824 mg/kg and Pb was 6.599 mg/kg However, the Cr content was higher, measuring 6.058 mg/kg compared to the value in the previous study.⁵⁹

Beta vulgaris subsp

The distribution of As, Cr, Co, and Ni in Beta vulgaris subsp followed a similar decreasing trend: root > stem > leaf, with the concentrations of As at 0.575 mg/kg, 0.388 mg/kg, and 0.192 mg/kg; Cr at 7.324 mg/kg, 6.517 mg/kg, and 2.360 mg/kg; Co at 1.011 mg/kg, 0.833 mg/kg, and 0.637 mg/kg; and Ni at 5.987 mg/kg, 4.083 mg/kg, and 2.654 mg/kg. The concentrations of Se, Cd, and Pb followed a different decreasing trend: root > leaf > stem, with Se at 5.899 mg/kg, 2.754 mg/kg, and 0.274 mg/kg; Cd at 0.060 mg/kg, 0.057 mg/kg, and 0.051 mg/kg; and Pb at 0.624 mg/kg, 0.587 mg/kg, and 0.533 mg/kg, respectively. However, Cu showed a different pattern, with similar concentrations across the Beta vulgaris subsp: stem (8.992 mg/kg) > root (8.399 mg/kg) > leaf (8.074 mg/kg).

The concentrations of Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb in the edible portions of Beta vulgaris subsp in this study were higher than those reported in previous literature, which were 0.8, 12.38, 10.7, and 87.00 mg/kg, respectively. However, the values of Co and Cu were lower than the reported values which were 0.21⁶⁰ and 5.19 mg/kg respectively.⁶¹

Vicia Faba

The level of As in various parts of the Vicia Faba was as follows: root (2.106 mg/kg) > stem (0.427 mg/kg) > leaf (0.397 mg/kg) > pods (0.266 mg/kg) > beans (0.145 mg/kg). The Se content in different parts of the Vicia Faba was: leaf (0.085 mg/kg) > bean (0.072 mg/kg) > pods (0.060 mg/kg) > root (0.056 mg/kg) > stem (0.037 mg/kg). The quantities of Cd, Cr, and Co in different parts of the Vicia Fabas followed similar descending patterns: root > leaf > stem > pods > beans. The specific concentrations were as follows: Cd: 0.076 mg/kg, 0.025 mg/kg, 0.022 mg/kg, 0.017 mg/kg, and 0.016 mg/kg; Cr: 10.090 mg/kg, 4.567 mg/kg, 4.191 mg/kg, 1.809 mg/kg, and 0.787 mg/kg; Co: 1.530 mg/kg, 1.015 mg/kg, 0.679 mg/kg, 0.588 mg/kg, and 0.527 mg/kg, respectively. The content of Cu showed a reverse trend compared to the previous heavy metals across all parts of the Vicia Faba, with the following values: beans (27.05 mg/kg) > pods (13.820 mg/kg) > leaf (12.080 mg/kg) > root (9.280 mg/kg) > stem (6.494 mg/kg). The Ni quantities in different organs of the Vicia Faba followed this descending order: root (10.040 mg/kg), beans (9.851 mg/kg), pods (8.561 mg/kg), leaf (7.015 mg/kg), and stem (5.251 mg/kg). Finally, the Pb concentrations across the Vicia Faba parts (leaf, root, stem, pods, and beans) were: leaf (0.479 mg/kg) > root (0.341 mg/kg) > stem (0.300 mg/kg) > pods (0.146 mg/kg) > beans (0.062 mg/kg).

The concentrations of Cd and Pb in the pods and beans from this study were lower than the reported values, which ranged from 0.18-6 mg/kg and 5-7 mg/kg in the pods, and 1.5-5 mg/kg and 9-9.32 mg/kg in the beans for both heavy metals, respectively. The concentration of As in the Vicia Faba from this study (0.145 mg/kg) was lower than the reported values, which ranged between 26 and 112 mg/kg.⁶²

Mentha longifolia

When compared to other compartments, it is astounding that the majority of the heavy metals under investigation were deposited in the root of Mentha longifolias. As, Se, Cu, Ni, and Pb in Mentha longifolia displayed a similar decreasing trend: root > leaf >stem, with the following concentrations: As: 0.867 mg/kg, 0.378 mg/kg, and 0.299 mg/kg; Se: 0.091 mg/kg, 0.077 mg/kg, and 0.046 mg/kg; Cu: 14.780 mg/kg, 12.750 mg/kg, and 11.660 mg/kg; Ni: 14.120 mg/kg, 7.041 mg/kg, and 6.617 mg/kg; Pb: 0.921 mg/kg, 0.833 mg/kg, and 0.620 mg/kg, respectively. As, Se, Cu, Ni, and Pb in Mentha longifolia followed a similar descending trend: root > leaf > stem, with the following concentrations: As: 0.867 mg/kg, 0.378 mg/kg, and 0.299 mg/kg; Se: 0.091 mg/kg, 0.077 mg/kg, and 0.046 mg/kg; Cu: 14.780 mg/kg, 12.750 mg/kg, and 11.660 mg/kg; Ni: 14.120 mg/kg, 7.041 mg/kg, and 6.617 mg/kg; Pb: 0.921 mg/kg, 0.833 mg/kg, and 0.620 mg/kg, respectively. However, Cd, Cr and Co followed a different descending pattern, root > stem > leaf with the following levels: Cd: 0.059 mg/kg, 0.021 mg/kg, and 0.020 mg/kg; Cr: 20.620 mg/kg, 9.297 mg/kg, and 7.552 mg/kg; Co: 1.757 mg/kg, 0.782 mg/kg, and 0.688 mg/kg, sequentially. The concentrations of Cd, Co, and Pb in the edible parts of Mentha longifolia from this study surpassed the previously recorded levels of 0.2, 0.89, and 1.80, respectively. Additionally, the Cu content in this study was higher than the previously reported value of 6.22 mg/kg.⁵⁸

This study had several limitations. Firstly, the concentrations of the selected heavy metals were not analyzed in the soils and water used for cultivation, making it difficult to fully understand how these metals are distributed within different parts of the vegetables. This challenge was partly due to the fact that some of the vegetables grow naturally, making it hard to collect irrigation water samples. Secondly, the article focused on only eight heavy metals: As, Se, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, and Pb. The potential presence of other toxic heavy metals, which were not measured, could also influence the study’s results.

Health risk assessment

The EDIs of eight metals (As, Se, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, and Pb) were computed using equation (2) and summarized in Table 2. At present, there is no established maximum tolerable daily intake value for Co. In the consumable parts of the vegetable samples from this study, the average EDI values followed this descending order: Cr (0.0367 mg/kg BW/day) > Cu (0.0364 mg/kg BW/day) > Ni (0.0327 mg/kg BW/day) > Co (0.0028 mg/kg BW/day) > Pb (0.0019 mg/kg BW/day) > As (0.0015 mg/kg BW/day) > Se (0.0010 mg/kg BW/day) > Cd (0.0004 mg/kg BW/day). The EDI results for heavy metals across all parts of the studied vegetables ranged in the subsequent pattern: 0.0002-0.0087 for As, 0.0001-0.0242 for Se, 0.0001-0.0031 for Cd, 0.0018- 0.3673 for Cr, 0.0002-0.0111 for Co, 0.0030-0.1111 for Cu, 0.0012-0.2625 for Ni, and 0.0001-0.0073 mg/kg BW/day for Pb. The EDIs of Cr and Cu from various edible parts of vegetables were below the maximum tolerable daily intake levels set by international regulatory bodies, indicating that these vegetables do not pose health risks to consumers concerning these two metals. However, the EDIs of As, Se, Ni, and Pb were generally below recommended limits except for specific parts of certain vegetables. Elevated levels of As were found in the core of Raphanus sativus (0.0028 mg/kg BW/day), spinach stem (0.0024 mg/kg BW/day), leaf of Allium kurrat. schweinf (0.0072 mg/kg BW/day), Allium fistulosum stem (0.0028 mg/kg BW/day), and leaf of Allium fistulosum (0.0032 mg/kg BW/day). For Se, higher value was detected in the leaf of Beta vulgaris subsp (0.0113 mg/kg BW/day). Cd levels exceeded in the leaf of spinach (0.0010 mg/kg BW/day), Lepidium sativum stem and leaf (0.0009 mg/kg BW/day), and Apium graveolens stem (0.0008 mg/kg BW/day). Ni levels were elevated in the skin (0.0265 mg/kg BW/day) and core (0.0188 mg/kg BW/day) of Raphanus sativus, Solanum tuberosum core (0.0018 mg/kg BW/day), and spinach stem (0.0541 mg/kg BW/day). Finally, high Pb levels were found in Malva parviflora leaf (0.0058 mg/kg BW/day), spinach stem (0.0029 mg/kg BW/day), Lepidium sativum leaf (0.0033 mg/kg BW/day), Apium graveolens stem (0.0073 mg/kg BW/day), and Mentha longifolia leaf (0.0034 mg/kg BW/day).

Table 2.

EDI (mg/kg body weight/day) of As, Se, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, and Pb in consumers via the ingestion of different parts of Raphanus sativus, Solanum tuberosum, Malva parviflora, Arum spp, Spinacia oleracea, Gundelia tournefortii, Lepidium sativum, Allium kurrat. Schweinf, Apium graveolens, Allium fistulosum, Beta vulgaris subsp, Vicia Faba and Mentha longifolia.

Sample	Edibility	As	Se	Cd	Cr	Co	Cu	Ni	Pb	Combined EDI
Raphanus sativus-root	Non-edible	0.0031	0.0008	0.0006	0.0115	0.0035	0.0140	0.0184	0.0007	0.0526
Raphanus sativus-skin	Edible	0.0017	0.0007	0.0005	0.0115	0.0036	0.0122	0.0265	0.0006	0.0572
Raphanus sativus-Core	Edible	0.0028	0.0007	0.0006	0.0115	0.0033	0.0147	0.0188	0.0006	0.0530
Raphanus sativus-stem	Edible	0.0014	0.0004	0.0005	0.0252	0.0028	0.0117	0.0230	0.0007	0.0656
Raphanus sativus-leaf	Edible	0.0011	0.0003	0.0004	0.0226	0.0023	0.0091	0.0191	0.0006	0.0554
Solanum tuberosum-root	Non-edible	0.0006	0.0003	0.0004	0.0128	0.0054	0.0204	0.0222	0.0005	0.0626
Solanum tuberosum-skin	Edible	0.0007	0.0002	0.0003	0.0056	0.0007	0.0086	0.0051	0.0005	0.0219
Solanum tuberosum-core	Edible	0.0002	0.0001	0.0002	0.0018	0.0002	0.0030	0.0018	0.0001	0.0075
Solanum tuberosum-stem	Non-edible	0.0012	0.0004	0.0004	0.0105	0.0031	0.0099	0.0226	0.0006	0.0487
Solanum tuberosum-leaf	Non-edible	0.0009	0.0005	0.0005	0.0159	0.0075	0.0287	0.0309	0.0007	0.0856
Malva parviflora -root	Non-edible	0.0006	0.0001	0.0001	0.0076	0.0008	0.0163	0.0071	0.0009	0.0336
Malva parviflora -stem	Edible	0.0011	0.0001	0.0002	0.0060	0.0006	0.0111	0.0051	0.0007	0.0248
Malva parviflora -leaf	Edible	0.0022	0.0003	0.0031	0.0078	0.0009	0.0418	0.0076	0.0058	0.0695
Arum spp-root	Non-edible	0.0011	0.0002	0.0001	0.0148	0.0017	0.0152	0.0148	0.0007	0.0486
Arum spp -stem	Edible	0.0015	0.0002	0.0001	0.0954	0.0035	0.1607	0.0496	0.0016	0.3125
Arum spp -leaf	Edible	0.0008	0.0004	0.0001	0.0224	0.0017	0.0329	0.0178	0.0016	0.0776
Spinach-root	Non-edible	0.0012	0.0008	0.0007	0.0236	0.0017	0.0305	0.0012	0.0011	0.0607
Spinach-stem	Edible	0.0024	0.0013	0.0005	0.0767	0.0060	0.0289	0.0541	0.0029	0.1728
Spinach-leaf	Edible	0.0007	0.0010	0.0010	0.0102	0.0017	0.0339	0.0113	0.0011	0.0609
Gundelia tournefortii.-root	Non-edible	0.0021	0.0007	0.0003	0.0377	0.0054	0.0699	0.0402	0.0026	0.1590
Gundelia tournefortii.-stem	Edible	0.0011	0.0008	0.0002	0.0173	0.0021	0.0329	0.0176	0.0015	0.0734
Gundelia tournefortii. -leaf	Edible	0.0004	0.0005	0.0001	0.0141	0.0007	0.0234	0.0092	0.0007	0.0491
Lepidium sativum -root	Non-edible	0.0016	0.0005	0.0010	0.0155	0.0013	0.0197	0.0217	0.0012	0.0626
Lepidium sativum -stem	Edible	0.0011	0.0006	0.0009	0.0187	0.0010	0.0142	0.0177	0.0008	0.0551
Lepidium sativum -leaf	Edible	0.0009	0.0004	0.0009	0.0080	0.0013	0.0189	0.0174	0.0033	0.0511
Allium kurrat. schweinf - root	Non-edible	0.0012	0.0004	0.0002	0.0120	0.0017	0.0406	0.0117	0.0014	0.0690
Allium kurrat. schweinf - leaf	Edible	0.0072	0.0002	0.0003	0.0447	0.0067	0.0401	0.0412	0.0015	0.1420
Apium graveolens-root	Non-edible	0.0013	0.0003	0.0012	0.0435	0.0027	0.0572	0.0281	0.0021	0.1364
Apium graveolens -stem	Edible	0.0009	0.0006	0.0008	0.0246	0.0027	0.0390	0.0225	0.0073	0.0985
Apium graveolens -leaf	Edible	0.0004	0.0004	0.0004	0.0074	0.0011	0.0378	0.0185	0.0011	0.0672
Allium fistulosum-root	Non-edible	0.0085	0.0064	0.0005	0.0394	0.0065	0.0280	0.0384	0.0025	0.1303
Allium fistulosum-bulb	Edible	0.0006	0.0011	0.0002	0.0071	0.0007	0.0246	0.0104	0.0013	0.0461
Allium fistulosum-stem	Edible	0.0028	0.0039	0.0002	0.1046	0.0111	0.0500	0.2625	0.0018	0.4369
Allium fistulosum-leaf	Edible	0.0032	0.0004	0.0002	0.3673	0.0062	0.0312	0.0993	0.0059	0.5137
Beta vulgaris subsp-root	Non-edible	0.0024	0.0242	0.0002	0.0301	0.0042	0.0345	0.0246	0.0026	0.1228
Beta vulgaris subsp-stem	Edible	0.0016	0.0011	0.0002	0.0268	0.0034	0.0369	0.0168	0.0022	0.0890
Beta vulgaris subsp-leaf	Edible	0.0008	0.0113	0.0002	0.0097	0.0026	0.0332	0.0109	0.0024	0.0711
Vicia Faba-root	Non-edible	0.0087	0.0002	0.0003	0.0415	0.0063	0.0381	0.0413	0.0014	0.1377
Vicia Faba-stem	Non-edible	0.0018	0.0002	0.0001	0.0172	0.0028	0.0267	0.0216	0.0012	0.0715
Vicia Faba-pods	Edible	0.0011	0.0002	0.0001	0.0074	0.0024	0.0568	0.0352	0.0006	0.1038
Vicia Faba-bean	Edible	0.0006	0.0003	0.0001	0.0032	0.0022	0.1111	0.0405	0.0003	0.1582
Vicia Faba-leaf	Non-edible	0.0016	0.0003	0.0001	0.0188	0.0042	0.0496	0.0288	0.0020	0.1054
Mentha longifolia-root	Non-edible	0.0036	0.0004	0.0002	0.0847	0.0072	0.0607	0.0580	0.0038	0.2186
Mentha longifolia-stem	Edible	0.0012	0.0002	0.0001	0.0382	0.0032	0.0479	0.0272	0.0025	0.1206
Mentha longifolia-leaf	Edible	0.0016	0.0003	0.0001	0.0310	0.0028	0.0524	0.0289	0.0034	0.1205
PTDI		0.0030^a,63	0.055^b,72	0.0008⁷³	0.3⁷³	N E	3⁷⁴	0.0028⁷³	0.0036⁷⁵

PTDI: Provisional Tolerable Daily Intake.

^aBMDL0.5.

^bDietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) for essential elements represent the latest set of dietary guidelines established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine. NE: Not established.

The HQs for non-carcinogenic danger of the tested heavy metals from eaten different compartments of vegetables for adults using equation (3) are presented in Table 3. The HQ for in edible compartments varied from 0.02 to 24.01 for As, 0.02 to 2.26 for Se, 0.07 to 3.09 for Cd, 0.61 to 122.4 for Cr, 0.01 to 0.55 for Co, 0.08 to 4.02 for Cu, 0.09 to 13.12 for Ni and 0.03 to 1.83 for Pb for adults. The results indicated that, the HQ values for As in the different parts of the vegetables examined in this study except Solanum tuberosum-core (0.71) and Gundelia tournefortii.-leaf (0.02) were greater than one. The results revealed that the HQ results of Se in different parts of vegetables except Beta vulgaris subsp-leaf (2.26) were smaller than one suggesting that consumption of these vegetables is unlikely to result in negative health impacts due to Se. The HQ results for Co, Cd, and Pb in various parts of all vegetables, except for Malva parviflora leaf, spinach leaf, Lepidium sativum stem and leaf, and Apium graveolens stem for Cd, as well as Malva parviflora leaf, Apium graveolens stem, and Allium fistulosum leaf for Pb, were below one. However, the HQ values for Cr in most parts of the vegetables, except for the core of the Solanum tuberosum, were greater than one. Finally, the HQ results for Cu and Ni in the majority of various vegetable parts exceeded one. If the HQ is below one, no significant health risks are anticipated, whereas if HQ equals one, the likelihood of potential non-carcinogenic effects is low.⁶⁹ Non-carcinogenic risk assessment that the HQ values for As, Cr, Cu, and Ni in different parts of anlayzed vegetables of this study were higher than Se, Cd, Co, and Pb. The HQ values for As, Cr, Cu, and Ni in most edible parts of the vegetables analyzed in this study exceeded one, indicating potential adverse health effects from exposure. Children face greater risk because of their behaviors, such as frequent hand-to-mouth actions and play activities. Additionally, since their bodies and systems are still developing, they are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of metals. In addition, children are particularly susceptible to the cognitive and neurological dangers associated with exposure to Pb, Cd, and As.⁷⁰ Because HQ values indicate elevated levels of heavy metals in the analyzed samples, exposure to these metals during pregnancy can cause various health issues in pregnant women, such as fever, nausea, and diarrhea. These conditions may negatively affect fetal development by worsening the mother’s nutritional status and increasing uterine contractions, which can ultimately lead to preterm birth.⁷¹

Table 3.

HQ results for non-cancer risk assessment of As, Se, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Ni, and Pb through consuming various parts of Raphanus sativus, Solanum tuberosum, Malva parviflora, Arum spp, Spinacia oleracea, Gundelia tournefortii, Lepidium sativum, Allium kurrat. Schweinf, Apium graveolens, Allium fistulosum, Beta vulgaris subsp, Vicia Faba and Mentha longifolia.

Sample	Edibility	As	Se	Cd	Cr	Co	Cu	Ni	Pb	HI
Raphanus sativus-root	Non-edible	10.22	0.16	0.60	3.84	0.17	0.35	0.92	0.18	16.45
Raphanus sativus-skin	Edible	5.53	0.14	0.48	3.85	0.18	0.30	1.32	0.14	11.95
Raphanus sativus-Core	Edible	9.29	0.15	0.62	3.84	0.16	0.37	0.94	0.15	15.52
Raphanus sativus-stem	Edible	4.74	0.08	0.48	8.41	0.14	0.29	1.15	0.17	15.46
Raphanus sativus-leaf	Edible	3.56	0.07	0.39	7.54	0.11	0.23	0.96	0.15	13.00
Solanum tuberosum-root	Non-edible	2.08	0.06	0.41	4.26	0.27	0.51	1.11	0.13	8.84
Solanum tuberosum-skin	Edible	2.44	0.04	0.35	1.87	0.04	0.21	0.26	0.13	5.35
Solanum tuberosum-core	Edible	0.71	0.02	0.19	0.61	0.01	0.08	0.09	0.03	1.74
Solanum tuberosum-stem	Non-edible	4.15	0.08	0.39	3.50	0.16	0.25	1.13	0.14	9.79
Solanum tuberosum-leaf	Non-edible	3.05	0.10	0.51	5.29	0.38	0.72	1.54	0.16	11.76
Malva parviflora -root	Non-edible	1.97	0.02	0.12	2.54	0.04	0.41	0.35	0.23	5.69
Malva parviflora -stem	Edible	3.63	0.02	0.16	1.98	0.03	0.28	0.26	0.18	6.53
Malva parviflora -leaf	Edible	7.40	0.06	3.09	2.61	0.05	1.04	0.38	1.45	16.08
Arum spp-root	Non-edible	3.68	0.05	0.09	4.93	0.08	0.38	0.74	0.17	10.13
Arum spp -stem	Edible	5.00	0.03	0.11	31.79	0.17	4.02	2.48	0.39	43.99
Arum spp -leaf	Edible	2.66	0.08	0.09	7.47	0.08	0.82	0.89	0.39	12.48
Spinach-root	Non-edible	3.94	0.16	0.66	7.85	0.08	0.76	0.06	0.27	13.79
Spinach-stem	Edible	7.96	0.26	0.52	25.56	0.30	0.72	2.71	0.72	38.74
Spinach-leaf	Edible	2.40	0.20	0.97	3.41	0.09	0.85	0.57	0.27	8.74
Gundelia tournefortii.-root	Non-edible	6.85	0.14	0.35	12.57	0.27	1.75	2.01	0.66	24.60
Gundelia tournefortii.-stem	Edible	3.66	0.16	0.22	5.78	0.10	0.82	0.88	0.37	11.98
Gundelia tournefortii.-leaf	Edible	0.02	0.10	0.06	4.70	0.04	0.59	0.46	0.17	6.13
Lepidium sativum -root	Non-edible	5.46	0.10	1.02	5.18	0.07	0.49	1.08	0.30	13.70
Lepidium sativum -stem	Edible	3.81	0.12	0.94	6.22	0.05	0.36	0.88	0.20	12.58
Lepidium sativum -leaf	Edible	3.14	0.08	0.90	2.66	0.06	0.47	0.87	0.82	9.01
Allium kurrat. schweinf - root	Non-edible	3.92	0.08	0.16	3.99	0.08	1.02	0.58	0.34	10.17
Allium kurrat. schweinf - leaf	Edible	24.01	0.05	0.32	14.89	0.34	1.00	2.06	0.38	43.05
Apium graveolens-root	Non-edible	4.41	0.06	1.23	14.49	0.13	1.43	1.40	0.52	23.67
Apium graveolens -stem	Edible	3.01	0.13	0.81	8.20	0.13	0.98	1.12	1.83	16.21
Apium graveolens -leaf	Edible	1.48	0.07	0.44	2.47	0.05	0.95	0.92	0.28	6.68
Allium fistulosum-root	Non-edible	28.27	1.29	0.52	13.13	0.33	0.70	1.92	0.63	46.77
Allium fistulosum-bulb	Edible	2.07	0.22	0.17	2.38	0.04	0.62	0.52	0.33	6.34
Allium fistulosum-stem	Edible	9.49	0.78	0.23	34.87	0.55	1.25	13.12	0.46	60.75
Allium fistulosum-leaf	Edible	10.55	0.09	0.22	122.44	0.31	0.78	4.96	1.48	140.82
Beta vulgaris subsp-root	Non-edible	7.88	4.85	0.25	10.03	0.21	0.86	1.23	0.64	25.94
Beta vulgaris subsp-stem	Edible	5.31	0.23	0.21	8.93	0.17	0.92	0.84	0.55	17.16
Beta vulgaris subsp-leaf	Edible	2.63	2.26	0.23	3.23	0.13	0.83	0.55	0.60	10.47
Vicia Faba-root	Non-edible	28.84	0.05	0.31	13.82	0.31	0.95	2.06	0.35	46.70
Vicia Faba-stem	Non-edible	5.85	0.03	0.09	5.74	0.14	0.67	1.08	0.31	13.90
Vicia Faba-pods	Edible	3.64	0.05	0.07	2.48	0.12	1.42	1.76	0.15	9.69
Vicia Faba-bean	Edible	1.99	0.06	0.07	1.08	0.11	2.78	2.02	0.06	8.16
Vicia Faba-leaf	Non-edible	5.44	0.07	0.10	6.25	0.21	1.24	1.44	0.49	15.25
Mentha longifolia-root	Non-edible	11.87	0.07	0.24	28.24	0.36	1.52	2.90	0.95	46.16
Mentha longifolia-stem	Edible	4.10	0.04	0.09	12.73	0.16	1.20	1.36	0.64	20.31
Mentha longifolia-leaf	Edible	5.18	0.06	0.08	10.34	0.14	1.31	1.45	0.86	19.42

The HI was calculated to evaluate the combined effects of multiple metals using equation (4), as presented in Table 3. The high HI values for heavy metals under study in different parts of the analysed vegetables of this study mainly due to high concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Pb. The potential health risk may be amplified when considering the cumulative impacts of all the metals. In this study, the HI for all analyzed edible parts of the vegetable samples exceeded one (5.35-140.82), indicating potential non-cancer health impact risks from consuming the tested vegetables for adults. As a result, frequent consumption of these vegetables may pose a health risk, and it is not recommended. Therefore, consumers are at significant risk from these metals, which may cause non-carcinogenic effects.

Because of lack of cancer slop factor for Se, Cu, and Co, CR were only estimated for As, Cd, Cr, Ni and Pb using equation (5) and the results are presented in Table 4. The CR values for Pb in various parts of the vegetables analyzed in this study ranged from 1.1 × 10^-6 to 6.2 × 10^-5, falling within the range considered acceptable. The CR values for As ranged between 3.2 × 10^-4 and 1.3 × 10^-2; for Cd, between 3.5 × 10^-4 and 1.9 × 10^-2; for Cr, from 9.1 × 10^-4 to 1.8 × 10^-1; and for Ni, from 1.6 × 10^-3 to 2.4 × 10^-1 in the edible parts of vegetables. The CR values for As, Cd, Cr, and Ni in all vegetable parts (both edible and non-edible) under investigation exceeded 1.0 × 10^-4, indicating that consumers of these vegetables in Erbil city may face a potential lifetime cancer risk from exposure to these metals. The CR values for As, Cd, Cr, and Ni surpassed the acceptable threshold of 1 × 10^-4, highlighting a critical need to address contamination. Prioritizing reduction of these heavy metals in soil and subsequently in the edible portions of vegetables is essential. Implementing targeted mitigation strategies is urgent to protect vulnerable groups-particularly children and pregnant women-from elevated cancer risks, especially As, Cd, Cr, and Ni exposure through eating edible parts of these vegetables. Prolonged consumption of these contaminated common vegetables may lead to adverse health effects, including cancer, in the exposed population. The result of this study is a reminder for the regulatory authorities to make more efforts to investigate the elevated levels of these heavy metals especially As, Cr and Ni by analyzing the irrigation water and soil, in order to protect the affected communities of Erbil city.

Table 4.

CR results for cancer risk assessment of As, Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb through consuming various parts of Raphanus sativus, Solanum tuberosum, Malva parviflora, Arum spp, Spinacia oleracea, Gundelia tournefortii, Lepidium sativum, Allium kurrat. Schweinf, Apium graveolens, Allium fistulosum, Beta vulgaris subsp, Vicia Faba and Mentha longifolia.

Sample	Edibility	As	Cd	Cr	Ni	Pb
Raphanus sativus-root	Non-edible	4.6 × 10^-3	3.7 × 10^-3	5.8 × 10^-3	1.7 × 10^-2	6.3 × 10^-6
Raphanus sativus-skin	Edible	2.5 × 10^-3	3.0 × 10^-3	5.8 × 10^-3	2.4 × 10^-2	4.9 × 10^-6
Raphanus sativus-core	Edible	4.2 × 10^-3	3.8 × 10^-3	5.8 × 10^-3	1.7 × 10^-2	5.0 × 10^-6
Raphanus sativus-stem	Edible	2.1 × 10^-3	2.9 × 10^-3	1.3 × 10^-2	2.1 × 10^-2	5.7 × 10^-6
Raphanus sativus-leaf	Edible	1.6 × 10^-3	2.4 × 10^-3	1.1 × 10^-2	1.7 × 10^-2	5.0 × 10^-6
Solanum tuberosum-root	Non-edible	9.4 × 10^-4	2.5 × 10^-3	6.4 × 10^-3	2.0 × 10^-2	4.4 × 10^-6
Solanum tuberosum-skin	Edible	1.1 × 10^-3	2.1 × 10^-3	2.8 × 10^-3	4.6 × 10^-3	4.6 × 10^-6
Solanum tuberosum-core	Edible	3.2 × 10^-4	1.2 × 10^-3	9.1 × 10^-4	1.6 × 10^-3	1.1 × 10^-6
Solanum tuberosum-stem	Non-edible	1.9 × 10^-3	2.4 × 10^-3	5.2 × 10^-3	2.1 × 10^-2	4.8 × 10^-6
Solanum tuberosum-leaf	Non-edible	1.4 × 10^-3	3.1 × 10^-3	7.9 × 10^-3	2.8 × 10^-2	5.6 × 10^-6
Malva parviflora-root	Non-edible	8.9 × 10^-4	7.3 × 10^-4	3.8 × 10^-3	6.5 × 10^-3	7.9 × 10^-6
Malva parviflora-stem	Edible	1.6 × 10^-3	9.5 × 10^-4	3.0 × 10^-3	4.6 × 10^-3	6.1 × 10^-6
Malva parviflora-leaf	Edible	3.3 × 10^-3	1.9 × 10^-2	3.9 × 10^-3	6.9 × 10^-3	4.9 × 10^-5
Arum spp-root	Non-edible	1.7 × 10^-3	5.5 × 10^-4	7.4 × 10^-3	1.3 × 10^-2	5.7 × 10^-6
Arum spp-stem	Edible	2.2 × 10^-3	6.5 × 10^-4	4.8 × 10^-2	4.5 × 10^-2	1.3 × 10^-5
Arum spp-leaf	Edible	1.2 × 10^-3	5.3 × 10^-4	1.1 × 10^-2	1.6 × 10^-2	1.3 × 10^-5
Spinach-root	Non-edible	1.8 × 10^-3	4.0 × 10^-3	1.2 × 10^-2	1.1 × 10^-3	9.2 × 10^-6
Spinach-stem	Edible	3.6 × 10^-3	3.2 × 10^-3	3.8 × 10^-2	4.9 × 10^-2	2.5 × 10^-5
Spinach-leaf	Edible	1.1 × 10^-3	5.9 × 10^-3	5.1 × 10^-3	1.0 × 10^-2	9.0 × 10^-6
Gundelia tournefortii.-root	Non-edible	3.1 × 10^-3	2.1 × 10^-3	1.9 × 10^-2	3.7 × 10^-2	2.2 × 10^-5
Gundelia tournefortii.-stem	Edible	1.6 × 10^-3	1.3 × 10^-3	8.7 × 10^-3	1.6 × 10^-2	1.2 × 10^-5
Gundelia tournefortii.-leaf	Edible	5.7 × 10^-4	3.5 × 10^-4	7.0 × 10^-3	8.4 × 10^-3	5.8 × 10^-6
Lepidium sativum -root	Non-edible	2.5 × 10^-3	6.2 × 10^-3	7.8 × 10^-3	2.0 × 10^-2	1.0 × 10^-5
Lepidium sativum -stem	Edible	1.7 × 10^-3	5.7 × 10^-3	9.3 × 10^-3	1.6 × 10^-2	6.8 × 10^-6
Lepidium sativum -leaf	Edible	1.4 × 10^-3	5.5 × 10^-3	4.0 × 10^-3	1.6 × 10^-2	2.8 × 10^-5
Allium kurrat. schweinf-root	Non-edible	1.8 × 10^-3	9.5 × 10^-4	6.0 × 10^-3	1.1 × 10^-2	1.2 × 10^-5
Allium kurrat. schweinf-leaf	Edible	1.1 × 10^-2	2.0 × 10^-3	2.2 × 10^-2	3.8 × 10^-2	1.3 × 10^-5
Apium graveolens-root	Non-edible	2.0 × 10^-3	7.5 × 10^-3	2.2 × 10^-2	2.6 × 10^-2	1.8 × 10^-5
Apium graveolens-stem	Edible	1.4 × 10^-3	4.9 × 10^-3	1.2 × 10^-2	2.0 × 10^-2	6.2 × 10^-5
Apium graveolens-leaf	Edible	6.7 × 10^-4	2.7 × 10^-3	3.7 × 10^-3	1.7 × 10^-2	9.6 × 10^-6
Allium fistulosum-root	Non-edible	1.3 × 10^-2	3.2 × 10^-3	2.0 × 10^-2	3.5 × 10^-2	2.1 × 10^-5
Allium fistulosum-bulb	Edible	9.3 × 10^-4	1.1 × 10^-3	3.6 × 10^-3	9.5 × 10^-3	1.1 × 10^-5
Allium fistulosum-stem	Edible	4.3 × 10^-3	1.4 × 10^-3	5.2 × 10^-2	2.4 × 10^-1	1.5 × 10^-5
Allium fistulosum-leaf	Edible	4.7 × 10^-3	1.3 × 10^-3	1.8 × 10^-1	9.0 × 10^-2	5.0 × 10^-5
Beta vulgaris subsp-root	Non-edible	3.5 × 10^-3	1.5 × 10^-3	1.5 × 10^-2	2.2 × 10^-2	2.2 × 10^-5
Beta vulgaris subsp-stem	Edible	2.4 × 10^-3	1.3 × 10^-3	1.3 × 10^-2	1.5 × 10^-2	1.9 × 10^-5
Beta vulgaris subsp-leaf	Edible	1.2 × 10^-3	1.4 × 10^-3	4.8 × 10^-3	9.9 × 10^-3	2.1 × 10^-5
Vicia Faba-root	Non-edible	1.3 × 10^-2	1.9 × 10^-3	2.1 × 10^-2	3.8 × 10^-2	1.2 × 10^-5
Vicia Faba-stem	Non-edible	2.6 × 10^-3	5.5 × 10^-4	8.6 × 10^-3	2.0 × 10^-2	1.0 × 10^-5
Vicia Faba-pods	Edible	1.6 × 10^-3	4.3 × 10^-4	3.7 × 10^-3	3.2 × 10^-2	5.1 × 10^-6
Vicia Faba-bean	Edible	8.9 × 10^-4	4.0 × 10^-4	1.6 × 10^-3	3.7 × 10^-2	2.2 × 10^-6
Vicia Faba-leaf	Non-edible	2.4 × 10^-3	6.3 × 10^-4	9.4 × 10^-3	2.6 × 10^-2	1.7 × 10^-5
Mentha longifolia-root	Non-edible	5.3 × 10^-3	1.5 × 10^-3	4.2 × 10^-2	5.3 × 10^-2	3.2 × 10^-5
Mentha longifolia-stem	Edible	1.8 × 10^-3	5.3 × 10^-4	1.9 × 10^-2	2.5 × 10^-2	2.2 × 10^-5
Mentha longifolia-leaf	Edible	2.3 × 10^-3	5.0 × 10^-4	1.6 × 10^-2	2.6 × 10^-2	2.9 × 10^-5

Conclusions

In this work, the quantities of heavy metals in various parts of commonly consumed vegetables grown in Erbil city, northern Iraq, were measured, and the related health hazards to the local population were evaluated. The concentrations of heavy metals like As, Cr, and Pb in most edible parts of various vegetables exceed the maximum limits set by the WHO and European agencies. In contrast, the levels of Se, Cd, Co, Cu, and Ni were found to be below the recommended thresholds established by these organizations.

From the health point of view, the HQ results of As, Cr, Cu and Ni in majority various parts of vegetables were greater than one. However, the outcomes revealed that the HQ values of Se, Co, Cd, and Pb in majority of different parts of vegetables were smaller than one, this suggests that consumption of these vegetables is unlikely to pose any negative health consequence. In this study, the HI for all analyzed edible parts of the vegetable samples exceeded one, suggesting the possibility of non-tumorigenic health risks from consuming the tested vegetables for adults. Based on the total CR values, the carcinogenic risk from As, Cd, Cr, and Ni exceeded 1.0 × 10^-4, indicating a potential health risk associated with consuming these vegetables. Therefore, consumers are at significant risk from these metals, which may cause non-carcinogenic effects. The results suggest that vegetables produced in the south Erbil city using municipal water for agriculture practice are unsuitable for fresh consumption. Policymakers, and agricultural regulators in Erbil city have to address the risks associated with vegetable production in the area. This should also include implementing risk mitigation strategies such as applying improved farming practices to reduce contamination, enhancing monitoring of environmental pollutants especially risks associated with high levels of As, Cr and Ni.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Human health risk assessment of heavy metals in different compartments of vegetables from Erbil City-Iraq

Supplemental Material for Human health risk assessment of heavy metals in different compartments of vegetables from Erbil City-Iraq by Bashdar Abuzed Sadee in Human & Experimental Toxicology

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The author gratefully acknowledges Salahaddin University, Erbil-Iraq for financial support.

ORCID iD

Bashdar Abuzed Sadee

Ethical statement

This study did not involve human participants or animals. Vegetables were collected from local farms and wild areas with landowners’ or authorities’ knowledge and verbal permission. Therefore, no ethical approval was required. The research complied with national and institutional guidelines for environmental sample collection

Author contributions

Bashdar Abuzed Sadee contributed substantially to the conception and design of the study, as well as to data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation. He also contributed in drafting the work, critically reviewing it for important intellectual content, and providing final approval for the version to be published.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Raw data available upon request. *

Explicitly state

No AI-generated content was used in writing or analysis.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Sinha

Gupta

Bhatt

, et al. Distribution of metals in the edible plants grown at Jajmau, Kanpur (India) receiving treated tannery wastewater: relation with physico-chemical properties of the soil. Environ Monit Assess 2006; 115: 1–22.

Yusuf

Arowolo

Bamgbose

. Cadmium, copper and nickel levels in vegetables from industrial and residential areas of Lagos City, Nigeria. Food Chem Toxicol 2003; 41: 375–378.

Sadee

Galali

Zebari

SMS

. Toxicity, arsenic speciation and characteristics of hyphenated techniques used for arsenic determination in vegetables. A review. RSC Adv 2023; 13: 30959–30977.

Sadee

. Determination of trace metals in vegetables using ICP-MS. Zanco J Pure Appl Sci 2022; 34: 73–83.

Guadie

Yesigat

Gatew

, et al. Evaluating the health risks of heavy metals from vegetables grown on soil irrigated with untreated and treated wastewater in Arba Minch, Ethiopia. Sci Total Environ 2021; 761: 143302.

Chauhan

. Human health risk assessment of heavy metals via dietary intake of vegetables grown in wastewater irrigated area of Rewa, India. Int J Sci Res Publ 2014; 4: 1–9.

Sekeroglu

Ozkutlu

Kara

, et al. Determination of cadmium and selected micronutrients in commonly used and traded medicinal plants in Turkey. J Sci Food Agric 2008; 88: 86–90.

Sharma

Agrawal

Marshall

. Atmospheric deposition of heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Cd and Pb) in Varanasi City, India. Environ Monit Assess 2008; 142: 269–278.

Singh

Kumar

. Heavy metal load of soil, water and vegetables in peri-urban Delhi. Environ Monit Assess 2006; 120: 79–91.

10.

Sadee

Ali

. Determination of heavy metals in edible vegetables and a human health risk assessment. Environ Nanotechnology, Monit Manag 2023; 19: 100761.

11.

Noli

Tsamos

. Concentration of heavy metals and trace elements in soils, waters and vegetables and assessment of health risk in the vicinity of a lignite-fired power plant. Sci Total Environ 2016; 563–564: 377–385.

12.

Sadee

Galali

Zebari

SMS

. Recent developments in speciation and determination of arsenic in marine organisms using different analytical techniques. A review. RSC Adv 2024; 14: 21563–21589.

13.

Sadee

. Determination of elements in indigenous vegetables using ICP-MS. Cihan Univ Sci J 2022; 6: 26–31.

14.

Ashraf

Ahmad

Sharif

, et al. Heavy metals assessment in water, soil, vegetables and their associated health risks via consumption of vegetables, District Kasur, Pakistan. SN Appl Sci 2021; 3: 1–16.

15.

Wang

Chen

, et al. Sources and health risks of heavy metals in soils and vegetables from intensive human intervention areas in South China. Sci Total Environ 2023; 857: 159389.

16.

Singh

Yadav

Kumar

, et al. Risk assessment of heavy metal contaminated vegetables and cereal crops from carpet industrial effluents irrigated areas of northern India.

17.

Bani

Echevarria

Zhang

, et al. The effect of plant density in nickel-phytomining field experiments with Alyssum murale in Albania. Aust J Bot 2015; 63: 72–77.

18.

Osmani

Bani

Hoxha

. Heavy metals and Ni phytoextractionin in the metallurgical area soils in Elbasan. Albanian J Agric Sci 2015; 14: 414.

19.

Radulescu

Stihi

Popescu

, et al. Heavy metal accumulation and translocation in different parts of Brassica oleracea L. Rom J Phys 2013; 58: 1337–1354.

20.

Sadee

Foulkes

Hill

. Coupled techniques for arsenic speciation in food and drinking water: a review. J Anal At Spectrom 2015; 30: 102–118.

21.

Sadee

Foulkes

Hill

. An evaluation of extraction techniques for arsenic in staple diets (fish and rice) utilising both classical and enzymatic extraction methods. Food Addit Contam Part A 2016; 33: 433–441.

22.

Sadee

Zebari

SMS

Galali

, et al. A review on arsenic contamination in drinking water: sources, health impacts, and remediation approaches. RSC Adv 2025; 15: 2684–2703.

23.

Kfle

Asgedom

Goje

, et al. The level of heavy metal contamination in selected vegetables and animal feed grasses grown in wastewater irrigated area, around Asmara, Eritrea. J Chem 2020; 2020: 1359710.

24.

Muhammad

Sreebas Chandra

. Assessment of heavy metals concentration in some selected medicinal plants Collected from BCSIR. Chittagong cultivation area in Bangladesh.

25.

Jaishankar

Tseten

Anbalagan

, et al. Toxicity, mechanism and health effects of some heavy metals. Interdiscip Toxicol 2014; 7: 60–72.

26.

Mustapha

Kubmarawa

Shagal

, et al. Heavy metal profiles of medicinal plants found within the vicinity of quarry site in Demsa, Adamawa State, Nigeria. Br J Appl Sci Technol 2016; 13: 1–6.

27.

Nkansah

Hayford

Borquaye

, et al. Heavy metal contents of some medicinal herbs from Kumasi, Ghana. Cogent Environ Sci 2016; 2: 1234660.

28.

Hussa

ARA

Begum

Zaman

, et al. Heavy metal analysis in frequently consumable medicinal plants of Khyber Paktunkhwa, Pakistan. Pak J Bot 2017; 49: 1155–1160.

29.

Foulkes

Sadee

Hill

. Arsenic speciation and its DNA fractionation in the rice plant Oryza sativa. J Anal At Spectrom 2020; 35: 1989–2001.

30.

Sadee

Foulkes

Hill

. A study of arsenic speciation in soil, irrigation water and plant tissue: a case study of the broad bean plant, Vicia faba. Food Chem 2016; 210: 362–370.

31.

SPSS 27 I . IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 27.0. New York IBM Corp, 2020, vol 440, p. 394.

32.

Duncan

. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 1955; 11: 1–42.

33.

Qadr

Ibrahim

Hassan

. Determination of potentially toxic heavy metals in milk powder marketed in Kurdistan of Iraq. J Trace Elem Miner, 2025; 100219.

34.

Shahzad

Ashraf

Ehsan

, et al. Assessment of hazardous trace metals and associated health risk as affected by feed intake in buffalo milk. Sci Rep 2025; 15: 1–16.

35.

Rahim

Hoseini

, et al. Health-related factors of the Iraqi adult population during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: physical activity, eating behavior, quality of life, general health, and mood states cross-talk. BMC Public Health 2023; 23: 1046.

36.

Kandić

Kragović

Petrović

, et al. Heavy metals content in selected medicinal plants produced and consumed in Serbia and their daily intake in herbal infusions. Toxics 2023; 11: 198.

37.

Cocca

Lasagna

Destefanis

, et al. Human health risk assessment of heavy metals and nitrates associated with oral and dermal groundwater exposure: the Poirino Plateau case study (NW Italy). Sustainability (Basel) 2023; 16: 222.

38.

de Souza

Melo

ESP

Nascimento

, et al. Potential health risks of macro‐and microelements in commercial medicinal plants used to treatment of diabetes. BioMed Res Int 2021; 2021: 6678931.

39.

Kusin

Azani

NNM

Hasan

SNMS

, et al. Distribution of heavy metals and metalloid in surface sediments of heavily-mined area for bauxite ore in Pengerang, Malaysia and associated risk assessment. Catena (Cremling) 2018; 165: 454–464.

40.

Likuku

Obuseng

. Health risk assessment of heavy metals via dietary intake of vegetables irrigated with treated wastewater around Gaborone, Botswana. International Conference on Plant. Marine and Environmental Sciences 2015.

41.

Obinduka

Ndubuisi

Uchechukwu

, et al. Investigation of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic human health risk of heavy metals in spent synthetic-based drilling mud. Discov Environ 2025; 3: 25.

42.

Zakaria

Zulkafflee

Mohd Redzuan

, et al. Understanding potential heavy metal contamination, absorption, translocation and accumulation in rice and human health risks. Plants 2021; 10: 1070.

43.

Alawadhi

Abass

Khaled

, et al. Heavy metals in spices and herbs from worldwide markets: a systematic review and health risk assessment. Environ Pollut 2024: 124999.

44.

Saah

Boadi

Sakyi

, et al. Human health risks of lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals in lipsticks. Heliyon; 10.

45.

Marchiol

Assolari

Sacco

, et al. Phytoextraction of heavy metals by canola (Brassica napus) and radish (Raphanus sativus) grown on multicontaminated soil. Environ Pollut 2004; 132: 21–27.

46.

Bedoya-Perales

Maus

Neimaier

, et al. Assessment of the variation of heavy metals and pesticide residues in native and modern potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars grown at different altitudes in a typical mining region in Peru. Toxicol Reports 2023; 11: 23–34.

47.

Shahriar

Haque

Naidu

, et al. Concentrations of toxic elements and health risk assessment in arum grown in arsenic-contaminated areas of Bangladesh. Food Control 2021; 129: 108240.

48.

Parvin

Sultana

Zahid

. Detection of heavy metals in vegetables cultivated in different locations in Chittagong, Bangladesh. JESTFT 2014; 8: 58–63.

49.

Eid

Alrumman

Galal

, et al. Prediction models for evaluating the heavy metal uptake by spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) from soil amended with sewage sludge. Int J Phytoremediation 2018; 20: 1418–1426.

50.

Tajdar-Oranj

Javanmardi

Parastouei

, et al. Health risk assessment of lead, cadmium, and arsenic in leafy vegetables in tehran, Iran: the concentration data study. Biol Trace Elem Res 2024; 202: 800–810.

51.

` Babaakbari

Shakori

Hasani

. Assessing heavy metals risk indices caused by vegetable consumption in Varamin city. J Soil Manag Sustain Prod 2019; 9: 119–133.

52.

Maleki

Zarasvand

. Heavy metals in selected edible vegetables and estimation of their daily intake in Sanandaj, Iran. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 2008; 39: 335.

53.

Jahangard

Ghobadi

Sohrabi

, et al. Determination and evaluation of copper, lead and zinc in leek vegetable from some olericulture farms of hamedan, Iran. Arch Hyg Sci 2016; 5: 64–68.

54.

Taghipour

Mosaferi

. Heavy metals in the vegetables collected from production sites. Heal Promot Perspect 2013; 3: 185–193.

55.

Grández

Oliva

Morales

, et al. Evaluation of heavy metals in vegetables from two origins marketed in northern Peru. Nat Environ Pollut Technol; 21.

56.

Sulaivany

ROH

Al-Mezori

HAM

. Heavy metals concentration in selected vegetables grown in Dohuk City, Kurdistan region, Iraq. WIT Trans Built Environ; 94.

57.

Ahmad

Khan

Ashfaq

, et al. Uptake of hazardous elements by spring onion (Allium fistulosum L.) from soil irrigated with different types of water and possible health risk. Environ Earth Sci 2017; 76: 322.

58.

Naghipour

Chenari

Taheri

, et al. The concentration data of heavy metals in vegetables of Guilan province, Iran. Data Br 2018; 21: 1704–1708.

59.

Abdullahi

Uzairu

Okunola

. Quantitative determination of heavy metal concentrations in onion leaves. Int J Environ Res 2009; 3: 271–274.

60.

Gebrekidan

Weldegebriel

Hadera

, et al. Toxicological assessment of heavy metals accumulated in vegetables and fruits grown in Ginfel river near Sheba Tannery, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2013; 95: 171–178.

61.

Osma

Serin

Leblebici

, et al. Heavy metals accumulation in some vegetables and soils in Istanbul.

62.

Queirolo

Stegen

Restovic

, et al. Total arsenic, lead, and cadmium levels in vegetables cultivated at the Andean villages of northern Chile. Sci Total Environ 2000; 255: 75–84.

63.

Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme CAC . General standard for contaminants and toxins in food and feed, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/fr/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXS%2B193-1995%252FCXS_193e.pdf. 2023.

64.

World Health Organization . Chemical fact sheets-selenium, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/wash-documents/wash-chemicals/silver-chemical-fact-sheet.pdf. 1993.

65.

Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme CAC . Report of the 33rd session of the codex committee on food additives and contaminants. 2001.

66.

Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme CAC . Working document for information and use in discussions related to contaminants and toxins in the GSCTFF. CODEX.

67.

World Health Organisation (WHO) . Report of 33rd meeting, joint FAO/WHO joint expert committee on food additives, toxicological evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants No. 24, international programme on chemical safety. 1989.

68.

FAO/WHO . Food additives and contaminants. Codex alimentarius commission. Joint FAO/WHO food standards program, ALI-NORM 01/12A, 2001.

69.

Zeng

Wei

, et al. Heavy metal contamination in rice-producing soils of Hunan province, China and potential health risks. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015; 12: 15584–15593.

70.

Shetty

Pai

Salmataj

, et al. Assessment of Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk indices of heavy metal exposure in different age groups using Monte Carlo Simulation Approach. Sci Rep 2024; 14: 1–20.

71.

Bustami

Tan

Lee

, et al. Health risk assessment of heavy metals in Malay herbal medicine (MHM) consumed by pregnant and postpartum mothers. Discov Public Heal 2024; 21: 87.

72.

Adedire

Adeyemi

Paulelli

, et al. Toxic and essential elements in Nigerian rice and estimation of dietary intake through rice consumption. Food Addit Contam Part B 2015; 8: 271–276.

73.

Bargellini

Venturelli

Casali

, et al. Trace elements in starter infant formula: dietary intake and safety assessment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2018; 25: 2035–2044.

74.

Akinyele

Shokunbi

. Concentrations of Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Cr, Cd, Pb, Ni in selected Nigerian tubers, legumes and cereals and estimates of the adult daily intakes. Food Chem 2015; 173: 702–708.

75.

Zokaei

Sepehri

Rezvani

, et al. Comparison of the concentration of heavy metals in some vegetables (celery, broccoli and lettuce). Amaz Investig 2018; 7: 324–334.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB