Assessing Quality and Safety: Mineral and Metal Content in Local and Imported Honey From Dhaka City

Abstract

Honey is a natural sweetener valued for its nutritional and potential health benefits. However, honey’s essential minerals and toxic metals can significantly impact its quality and safety. A total of 12 (n = 12) honey samples, including both local and imported, were assessed for concentrations of essential minerals (iron, zinc, and manganese) and toxic heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, and lead) using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry (AAS). The findings revealed significant variability in mineral content, with imported honey generally containing higher levels of iron and manganese. Zinc concentrations were similar between local and imported honey. Concerning toxic metals, cadmium levels in 4 local samples out of 6 and all imported (6) honey samples exceeded the maximum allowable limit. Health risk assessment using Target Hazard Quotient (THQ) and Hazard Index (HI) indicated no immediate non-carcinogenic risk (HI <1), though cadmium contributed the highest proportion to the HI, particularly in local honey. Chromium and lead levels were within safe limits for all samples. The study emphasizes the importance of regular monitoring and stringent quality control to ensure the safety of honey. Further research should investigate the sources of cadmium in local honey and develop mitigation strategies.

Keywords

honey minerals heavy metals quality safety health risk assessment

Introduction

Honey, a natural sweetener produced by bees from flower nectar, is globally valued for its unique flavor, nutritional properties, and potential health benefits. It is a complex mixture of sugars, enzymes, organic acids, vitamins, minerals, and other bioactive compounds.^1,2 The mineral and metal content of honey is an essential aspect of its quality and safety. These elements are naturally present in honey and derive from the soil, water, and plants in the area where the bees forage. Consequently, beekeeping products, including honey, can serve as bioindicators of environmental contamination, reflecting the presence of heavy metals in the ecosystem.^3
-5 Honey produced in different regions can exhibit distinct mineral profiles, reflecting the unique environmental characteristics of their production areas.⁶

Conversely, the presence of toxic metals, such as lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and Chromium (Cr), can pose severe health hazards, including neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, kidney damage, and other chronic conditions.^7
-9 These toxic elements can enter honey through environmental contamination, primarily from industrial activities, vehicular emissions, and agricultural practices.^8,10 A study conducted in Poland found variations in the levels of essential and toxic elements in honey from different regions, highlighting the impact of environmental factors on honey composition.¹¹ Similarly, research in Turkey revealed that honey samples contained trace amounts of heavy metals, with some exceeding permissible limits, indicating potential health risks.¹² These findings underscore the necessity of regular monitoring and stringent quality control measures to prevent contamination.

In Bangladesh, honey is a popular natural product, valued for its perceived medicinal and nutritional benefits. Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, is a rapidly growing megacity with a dense population and a significant demand for honey.^13,14 Additionally, the Dhaka market is flooded with both locally produced and imported honey, raising concerns about the comparative quality and safety of these products.^15,16 Previous studies on food contamination in Bangladesh have primarily focused on vegetables, fruits, grains, and animal products, with limited research on honey.^17
-19 Moreover, some studies have investigated the mineral content of honey from different regions of Bangladesh. However, there is a lack of comprehensive data on the levels of essential minerals and heavy metals in local and imported honey from Dhaka, particularly with quantitative health risk assessment.^20,21

Several analytical methods are used to determine the chemical composition of honey, primarily spectroscopic and spectrometric techniques. These include atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS), inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES).²² This low-temperature, wet-acid digestion-based AAS method ensures accurate detection and quantification of both beneficial minerals and potentially harmful heavy metals in honey. This study aims to evaluate the quality and safety of honey available in Dhaka by analyzing the mineral and metal content of both local and imported honey samples. By determining the concentrations of essential minerals (iron, zinc, and manganese) and potentially toxic metals (cadmium, chromium, and lead), and by conducting a quantitative health risk assessment, this research provides valuable insights into the safety of consuming honey in Dhaka. Additionally, the study highlights the need for regular monitoring and stringent quality control measures to ensure the safety of honey on the market.

Materials and Methods

Reagents

High-concentration (1000 mg/l) standards of Fe, Zn, Mn, Cd, Cr, and Pb were obtained from Scharlau Chemie, S.A. (Barcelona, Spain) through Labtex Bangladesh. Trace analytical-grade nitric acid (65% pure) and hydrogen peroxide (30% pure) were purchased from Merck Darmstadt, Germany, through Kuri & Company (Pvt.) Limited, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Ultrapure-grade distilled water was produced using the Biobase Ultrapure Water Purification System (BK-UP-20, China).

Sample Collection

A total of 12 (n = 12) honey samples were systematically collected between January and February 2024 for comprehensive analysis. The sampling strategy employed a stratified convenience approach to ensure representation of both local and imported honey categories available to Dhaka consumers.

Local honey samples: Six local honey samples were collected in duplicate (two 500 g jars per source) to ensure analytical reproducibility. Three unprocessed samples (LH1-LH3) were obtained directly from beekeepers affiliated with the Department of Entomology, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University. Three commercially processed local samples (LH4-LH6) were purchased from 3 different local brands available in the neighborhood markets of Mohammadpur, with 1 replicate jar collected per brand.

Imported honey samples: Six imported honey samples (IH1-IH6) were collected from 6 different international brands to capture product diversity in the markets of Mohammadpur, Dhaka. For each brand, 2 replicate jars (500 g each) were purchased from 2 separate retail outlets to account for batch variability.

This diverse collection facilitated comparisons between imported and locally produced honey, as well as between processed and unprocessed varieties, within Bangladesh.

Sample Preparation

Honey samples were processed using the existing method, with modifications.²³ Honey samples were placed in petri dishes and dried in a laboratory oven at 60°C to 70°C for 72 hours to achieve a constant dry weight. Approximately 10 g of each oven-dried honey sample was weighed and transferred into digestion tubes. A 15 ml diacid mixture (HNO₃: H₂O₂ in a 2:1 ratio) was added to each tube. The tubes were placed in a hot water bath at around 90°C until the production of red NO2 fumes ceased. The remaining liquid evaporated to approximately 3 to 5 ml. After cooling, the tube contents were diluted with deionized water, filtered through Whatman No. 1 filter paper into a 100 ml volumetric flask, and then adjusted to volume with additional deionized water. Finally, the digested samples were transferred to clean plastic bottles for storage until further analysis by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS). The chemical analysis of these samples was conducted at the food safety laboratory of the Department of Agricultural Chemistry at Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh. This low-temperature, wet-acid digestion method was chosen for its simplicity, effectiveness in decomposing the high sugar content of honey, and suitability for the available laboratory infrastructure.

Instrumental Analysis

An Analytik Jena NovAA 400P Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer was used to determine the total content of chromium, lead, cadmium, manganese, iron, and zinc in the honey samples (Analytik Jena NovAA 400P, 2012, country of origin: Germany). The hollow cathode lamps (HCL) in AAS were used for estimations in various situations, depending on the element being analyzed. The Aspect LS software was used to manage the AAS instrument and generate the absorbance readout for each element in each honey digest sample. The instrumental operating conditions of AAS are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Instrumental Conditions of AAS.

Element	Fe	Zn	Mn	Cd	Cr	Pb
Wavelength (nm)	248.3	213.9	279.5	228.8	357.9	217
Slit (nm)	0.2	0.5	0.2	1.2	0.2	1.2
Lamp current (mA)	4	2.5	5	2	4	2
Photomultiplier (V)	300	564	300	300	300	300
Flame	C₂H₂/air	C₂H₂/air	C₂H₂/air	C₂H₂/air	C₂H₂/air	C₂H₂/air
Flame flow (L/Min)	65	50	60	50	100	65
Burner head (mm)	100	100	100	100	100	100
Burner height (mm)	6	6	6	6	8	8

Quality Control (QC) of the Analytical Method

Specific wavelengths were selected for each metal to minimize interference from other elements under study. Glassware and plastic containers were cleaned by soaking them in 10% extra-pure nitric acid (HNO₃) for at least 24 hours, followed by a thorough rinse with ultra-pure water. The purity of the reagents and laboratory equipment was further assessed by analyzing reagent blanks containing ultra-pure water. As with honey samples, we handled standards and blanks. The calibration curves were obtained using at least 5 diluted solutions at concentrations ranging from 0 to 1.00 mg/l, prepared from single-elemental stock solutions at 1000.00 mg/l. This sample was appropriately diluted with deionized water prior to AAS analysis to bring the concentration within the calibration range. The linearity and determination coefficients (R²) were derived using the calibration curves of each element. The method’s accuracy and precision were determined by calculating the mean recovery (%) and relative standard deviation (RSD) of the quality control (QC) sample. The limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) were calculated using the following equations:

L O D = \frac{3.3 \times s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n (b l a n k s a m p l e s)}{s l o p e o f c a l i b r a t i o n c u r v e}

(1)

L O Q = \frac{10 \times s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n (b l a n k s a m p l e s)}{s l o p e o f c a l i b r a t i o n c u r v e}

(2)

Statistical Data Analysis

All analytical analyses were carried out in triplicate, and results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Statistical analyses were performed using RStudio IDE and Microsoft Office Excel 2019. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean concentrations of minerals and metals between local and imported honey samples. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed to assess relationships between mineral and metal concentrations within each honey category. The reliability of correlation results was interpreted with caution given the limited sample size.

Human Health Risk Assessment

To quantitatively assess potential health risks associated with heavy metal exposure through honey consumption, the Estimated Daily Intake (EDI), Target Hazard Quotient (THQ), and Hazard Index (HI) were calculated following USEPA methodology.²⁴

Estimated Daily Intake (EDI): The EDI (mg/kg/day) was calculated using the equation:

E D I = \frac{C \times I R}{B W}

(3)

where C is the metal concentration in honey (mg/kg, fresh weight), IR is the daily honey ingestion rate (assumed as 20 g/person/day for the Bangladeshi population based on national consumption patterns), and BW is the average body weight (70 kg for adults).

Target Hazard Quotient (THQ): The THQ, representing non-carcinogenic risk from individual metals, was calculated as:

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

(4)

where RfD is the oral reference dose (mg/kg/day). The RfD values used were: Cd = 0.001, Cr = 1.5, and Pb = 0.0035.²⁴ THQ values <1 indicate no significant health risk, while THQ >1 suggests potential non-carcinogenic effects.

Hazard Index (HI): The HI, representing cumulative non-carcinogenic risk from multiple metals, was calculated as:

H I = \sum T H Q = T H Q_{C d} + T H Q_{C r} + T H Q_{P b}

(5)

HI <1 indicates no significant risk, while HI >1 suggests potential cumulative non-carcinogenic effects.

Results and Discussion

Quality Control of the Instrumental Method

The linearity of the analytical method was evaluated using standard solutions of known concentrations, yielding excellent linearity, with R² values ranging from .995 to .997 for all elements analyzed (Table 2). This demonstrates a strong correlation between analyte concentration and instrument response, ensuring accurate quantification of elements in honey samples. The LODs and LOQs are sufficiently low to detect trace levels of these elements in honey, ensuring the instrumental method’s sensitivity. The average recovery percentages for the analyzed minerals and metals are 95.80% for Fe, 104.30% for Zn, 101.70% for Mn, 95.60% for Cd, 104.90% for Cr, and 96.40% for Pb, confirming the accuracy of instrumental quantification. Precision, measured as the relative standard deviation (RSD), ranged from 1.20% for Zn to 6.80% for Cr and Pb. The low RSD values for most elements indicate that the method yields consistent and reproducible results, which are essential for reliable analytical performance (Table 2).

Table 2.

Quality Control Parameters of the Analytical Method.

Element	Linear equation	R ²	LOD (mg/kg)	LOQ (mg/kg)	Mean recovery (%)	Precision (%)
Fe	y = 0.0549x−0.0055	.996	0.65	1.97	95.80	6.40
Zn	y = 0.682x + 0.0257	.996	0.06	0.18	104.30	1.20
Mn	y = 0.2093x−0.004	.997	0.10	0.30	101.70	1.90
Cd	y = 0.4107x−0.0117	.997	0.09	0.29	95.60	1.60
Cr	y = 0.0605x−0.002	.995	0.40	0.12	104.90	6.80
Pb	y = 0.106x + 0.0005	.995	0.25	0.76	96.40	6.80

LOQ values were converted from mg/l to mg/kg using a dilution factor of 10 (10 g sample digested to 100 ml final volume).

Essential Mineral Contents of Honey Samples

The concentrations of essential minerals, specifically iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), and manganese (Mn), were measured in various local and imported honey samples collected from Dhaka City. The results are detailed in Table 3, presenting the mean concentrations and standard deviations (SD) for each mineral in both local and imported honey samples. The Fe content in local honey samples ranged from 5.789 (LH6) to 16.654 mg/kg (LH1), with notable variability. LH1 had the highest Fe concentration, indicating potential differences in environmental or botanical sources. Imported honey samples showed a broader and higher range of Fe concentrations, from 3.995 (IH1) to 30.650 mg/kg (IH6). IH6 had a significantly higher Fe content than other samples, suggesting considerable variation in the source regions of imported honey. Statistical analysis using independent sample t-tests revealed that the difference in mean Fe concentrations between local (9.08 ± 4.33 mg/kg) and imported (15.59 ± 9.28 mg/kg) honey was not statistically significant (P = .148). Zn concentrations in local honey samples varied from 1.350 (LH4) to 4.346 mg/kg (LH3). LH3 exhibited the highest Zn content, reflecting differences in soil composition and botanical sources. Imported honey samples had Zn concentrations ranging from 1.276 (IH4) to 3.532 mg/kg (IH6). IH6 showed the highest Zn content, indicating variability among different imported sources. No significant difference was observed between local and imported honey for Zn (P = .887). Mn levels in local honey samples ranged from 0.241 (LH5) to 1.638 mg/kg (LH2). The imported honey samples had Mn concentrations ranging from 0.871 (IH4) to 1.794 mg/kg (IH6). Like Fe and Zn, IH6 had the highest Mn content among imported samples. Like Fe and Zn, the difference in Mn concentrations between local and imported honey was not statistically significant (P = .369). The significant variability in mineral concentrations, particularly the high Fe content in IH6 and high Zn in LH3, may reflect differences in botanical origin as well as environmental factors. Previous studies have demonstrated that unifloral honeys (eg, heather, manuka) can have distinctly different mineral profiles compared to multifloral varieties.^6,25

Table 3.

Essential Mineral Contents in the Studied Honey Samples.

Source	Sample ID	Mean concentrations (mg/kg) ± SD (dry weight basis)
Source	Sample ID	Fe	Zn	Mn
Local	LH1	16.654 ± 0.341	1.688 ± 0.0192	1.440 ± 0.0082
	LH2	7.294 ± 0.014	1.474 ± 0.0026	1.638 ± 0.003
	LH3	7.760 ± 0.0282	4.346 ± 0.0095	1.371 ± 0.0013
	LH4	6.258 ± 0.0171	1.350 ± 0.0089	0.617 ± 0.0027
	LH5	10.699 ± 0.0205	1.864 ± 0.0025	0.241 ± 0.0061
	LH6	5.789 ± 0.0035	1.914 ± 0.0083	0.247 ± 0.0023
	Mean ± SD	9.08 ± 4.33	2.86 ± 1.42	0.93 ± 0.66
Imported	IH1	3.995 ± 0.016	1.813 ± 0.0057	1.197 ± 0.0024
	IH2	8.533 ± 0.0301	1.656 ± 0.006	1.081 ± 0.0034
	IH3	15.204 ± 0.028	1.809 ± 0.0091	1.014 ± 0.0055
	IH4	17.281 ± 0.0373	1.276 ± 0.0072	0.871 ± 0.0037
	IH5	17.870 ± 0.0309	1.941 ± 0.0165	1.270 ± 0.0057
	IH6	30.650 ± 0.129	3.532 ± 0.0131	1.794 ± 0.0062
	Mean ± SD	15.59 ± 9.28	2.76 ± 0.85	1.21 ± 0.33
P-value (t-test)		.148	.887	.369

Toxic Metal Contents of the Honey Sample

The concentrations of toxic metals, specifically cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), and lead (Pb), were measured in 6 local honey (LH) samples and 6 imported honey (IH) samples collected from Dhaka City. The results are detailed in Table 4, presenting the mean concentrations and standard deviations (SD) for each metal in both local and imported honey samples. All samples had detectable levels of Cd and Cr, but Pb was below the LOQ (0.076 mg/kg) in all samples. The mean Cd concentrations in local honey samples range from 0.169 (LH5) to 1.608 mg/kg (LH1). The highest concentration observed in LH1 indicates potential localized sources of contamination. Four out of 6 local samples (LH1, LH2, LH3, LH4) exceeded the maximum allowable limit (MAL) of 0.20 mg/kg.²⁶ In imported honey samples, Cd concentrations are more uniform, ranging from 0.230 (IH3) to 0.295 mg/kg (IH2), and all 6 samples exceed the MAL. The difference in Cd concentrations between local (0.47 ± 0.57 mg/kg) and imported (0.252 ± 0.023 mg/kg) honey approached but did not reach statistical significance (P = .068), likely due to the high variability in local samples and the limited sample size.

Table 4.

Toxic Metal Contents in the Studied Local and Imported Honey Samples.

Source	Sample ID	Mean concentrations (mg/kg) ± SD (dry weight basis)
Source	Sample ID	Cd	Cr	Pb
Local	LH1	1.608 ± 0.09	1.132 ± 0.0235	<LOQ (0.076)
	LH2	0.339 ± 0.0049	0.683 ± 0.0325	<LOQ (0.076)
	LH3	0.276 ± 0.0027	0.478 ± 0.0025	<LOQ (0.076)
	LH4	0.235 ± 0.0047	0.780 ± 0.0111	<LOQ (0.076)
	LH5	0.169 ± 0.0047	0.798 ± 0.0086	<LOQ (0.076)
	LH6	0.195 ± 0.0032	0.721 ± 0.0137	<LOQ (0.076)
	Mean ± SD	0.47 ± 0.57	0.77 ± 0.22	<LOQ
Imported	IH1	0.253 ± 0.0024	0.516 ± 0.008	<LOQ (0.076)
	IH2	0.295 ± 0.0061	0.420 ± 0.0072	<LOQ (0.076)
	IH3	0.230 ± 0.0012	0.529 ± 0.0097	<LOQ (0.076)
	IH4	0.246 ± 0.0021	0.740 ± 0.0063	<LOQ (0.076)
	IH5	0.239 ± 0.0007	0.617 ± 0.0176	<LOQ (0.076)
	IH6	0.251 ± 0.0064	0.694 ± 0.0108	<LOQ (0.076)
	Mean ± SD	0.47 ± 0.57	0.77 ± 0.22	<LOQ
P-value (t-test)		.068	.116	-
MAL (mg/kg)²⁶		0.20	10.0	0.10

Cr levels in local honey range from 0.478 (LH3) to 1.132 mg/kg (LH1), with LH1 again showing the highest contamination level. Imported honey samples exhibit Cr concentrations from 0.420 (IH2) to 0.740 mg/kg (IH4). All samples were well below the MAL of 10.0 mg/kg².⁶ No significant difference was observed between local and imported honey for Cr (P = .116). The Pb concentrations in all honey samples were below the LOQ (0.076 mg/kg), which is below the MAL of 0.10 mg/kg.²⁷ This suggests that Pb contamination is not a significant concern in these honey samples. The higher and more variable concentrations of Cd and Cr in local honey samples suggest localized environmental or anthropogenic contamination sources. The higher and more variable concentrations of Cd in local honey samples suggest localized environmental or anthropogenic contamination sources. The elevated Cd levels observed, particularly in LH1 (1.608 mg/kg), warrant detailed consideration of potential contamination sources. Cadmium can enter the beekeeping environment through multiple pathways: industrial emissions,^28,29 traffic density,^10,30 agricultural inputs, industrial activities, and atmospheric deposition. In contrast, the more uniform Cd levels in imported honey (range: 0.230-0.295 mg/kg) and the absence of strong correlations between Cd and other elements suggest different contamination pathways, possibly related to soil background levels in the countries of origin rather than point-source contamination. The foraging range of Apis mellifera (typically 3-5 km) means that honey composition reflects the integrated environmental quality of a substantial area around the apiary, making honey a useful bioindicator of environmental contamination.³¹

Correlation of the Coefficient of Minerals and Metals in Local and Imported Samples

The Pearson correlation coefficients (r) for various minerals and metals in local and imported honey samples are presented in Figure 1. The correlation analysis helps understand the relationships among elements within honey samples and assess potential patterns of contamination or enrichment. It should be noted that the correlation analysis is based on a relatively small sample size (n = 6 per group), which increases the risk of Type II errors and may affect the stability of correlation coefficients. Therefore, these correlation patterns should be interpreted with caution and considered as preliminary indicators of elemental associations that warrant confirmation in larger-scale studies. In local honey, the strongest positive correlations were observed among Fe-Cd (r = .89), Cd-Cr (r = .81), and Fe-Cr (r = .79), indicating that these 3 elements tended to increase or decrease together across samples. Moderate positive associations were also found for Mn-Cd (r = .49) and Fe-Mn (r = .31). In contrast, Zn showed weak-to-moderate negative relationships, particularly with Cr (r = −.63), while its correlations with Fe (r = −.11) and Cd (r = −.17) were weak. Notably, Mn-Cr was essentially uncorrelated (r ≈ .008), suggesting independent variation between these 2 elements in local honey.

Figure 1.

Correlation coefficient (r) of mineral and metal for honey samples.

Imported honey displayed a different correlation structure dominated by strong positive interrelationships among Zn, Mn, and Fe. The highest correlation in the imported dataset occurred between Zn-Mn (r = .97), followed by Fe-Zn (r = .74), Fe-Cr (r = .72), and Fe-Mn (r = .65). Correlations involving Cd were predominantly negative or near zero: Cd-Cr showed a moderate negative association (r = −.55) and Cd-Fe a weaker negative association (r = −.35), while Cd-Zn (r = −.081) and Cd-Mn (r = −.016) were negligible. Associations between Cr and Zn (r = .28) or Mn (r = .24) were weakly positive.

Taken together, the matrices indicate that local honey is characterized by a Fe-Cd-Cr cluster of strong positive correlations, whereas imported honey is characterized by a Zn-Mn-Fe cluster, with Cd tending to vary independently or inversely, particularly relative to Cr. These contrasting correlation patterns suggest that elements co-vary differently depending on honey origin, which may reflect differences in underlying co-occurrence patterns across the 2 groups. The strong positive correlations among certain elements in local honey (Fe, Cd, Cr) may indicate a common source or pathway of contamination, likely related to industrial emissions or urban pollution. The distinct patterns between local and imported honey underscore the influence of geographical factors, environmental conditions, and production practices on elemental composition.

Quality and Safety of Local and Imported Honey

Across the 12 honeys analyzed and calculated as fresh weight basis (Supplemental Table 1; 6 local, 6 imported), Fe, Zn, Mn and Cr were quantifiable in all samples, while Pb was below the method reporting limit (MRL) in every case; Cd was measurable in all samples (Table 5). The nutritional value of honey can be evaluated using essential minerals as criteria, whereas the toxic metal content is used to address safety concerns. To enable meaningful comparison between honey mineral concentrations (mg/kg) and Recommended Daily Allowances (mg/day), we assumed an average daily honey intake of 20 g (0.020 kg) per person based on national consumption patterns in Bangladesh. Using this consumption rate, the actual daily mineral intake from honey was calculated and compared to RDA values.

Table 5.

Central Tendency and Range of Elements in Honey (mg/kg, fresh weight).

Analyte	Local honey, mean (min-max)	Imported honey, mean (min-max)	RDA (mg/day)^27,32,34/MAL (mg/kg)^26,27
Fe	7.33 (4.86-12.99)	14.28 (3.64-28.20)	18 (F), 8 (M; RDA)
Zn	2.32 (1.75-4.08)	2.52 (1.87-3.94)	11.00 (RDA)
Mn	0.74 (0.20-1.29)	1.10 (0.80-1.65)	2.30 (RDA)
Cr	0.62 (0.38-0.88)	0.54 (0.38-0.68)	10.00 (MAL)
Cd	0.374 (0.142-1.254)	0.230 (0.209-0.266)	0.20 (MAL)
Pb	<LOQ	<LOQ	0.10 (MAL)

Abbreviations: F, female; M, male; MAL, maximum allowable limit.

Note. Mean concentrations are presented on fresh weight basis (converted from dry weight using moisture content correction). For comparison with RDA values (mg/day), daily intake from honey can be calculated assuming an average consumption of 20 g/day (eg, metal intake = concentration × 0.020 kg). For Pb, values below LOQ (0.076 mg/kg) are reported as <LOQ.

Iron: The average iron levels in both imported (14.28 mg/kg) and local (7.33 mg/kg) honey were below the RDAs of 18 mg/day for adult females and 8 mg/day for adult males.³² Using the assumed consumption rate of 20 g/day, the maximum Fe intake from local honey (12.99 mg/kg × 0.020 kg = 0.26 mg/day) represents only 1.4% of the RDA for adult females and 3.3% for adult males. Although the average iron content in imported honey is higher than in local honey, this difference could be beneficial from a nutritional perspective and poses no immediate safety concerns (Figure 2).

Zinc: Zinc is essential for immune system function and protein synthesis, but excessive amounts can be toxic.³³ The average Zn levels in both imported (2.52 mg/kg) and local (2.32 mg/kg) honey are much lower than the RDA of 11 mg/day for adults,³⁴ indicating no safety concerns. The maximum Zn intake from honey (4.08 mg/kg × 0.020 kg = 0.082 mg/day) represents only 0.7% of the RDA. The Zn levels obtained in this study were comparable to or higher than those reported in other countries.^12,35,36

Manganese: The average manganese levels in both honey types are significantly below the RDA of 2.3 mg/day for adults.²⁷ Imported honey had higher manganese content (1.10 mg/kg) than local honey (0.74 mg/kg). The maximum Mn intake from honey (1.65 mg/kg × 0.020 kg = 0.033 mg/day) represents only 1.4% of the RDA. These concentrations are considered safe and contribute beneficially to manganese dietary intake, which is essential for bone formation and blood clotting.³⁷

Chromium: The average Cr levels in both imported (0.54 mg/kg) and local (0.62 mg/kg) honey are significantly below the MAL of 10.0 mg/kg,²⁶ indicating no safety concerns. Chromium is required in trace amounts for glucose metabolism and insulin regulation.³⁸ The levels detected are safe from a nutritional standpoint.

Cadmium: Figure 2 shows that the mean Cd levels exceed the MAL of 0.20 mg/kg²⁶ in both imported (0.230 mg/kg) and local (0.374 mg/kg) honey samples. Local honey has a higher Cd concentration than imported honey. Four out of 6 local samples (67%) and all 6 imported samples (100%) exceeded the MAL. This suggests a potential health risk from Cd exposure, particularly if honey is consumed in large quantities or if there are multiple dietary sources of Cd. The Cd levels in imported honey in the current study were higher than those reported in previous studies from other countries.^12,35,39 The higher Cd content in local honey is particularly alarming and indicates a need for stringent quality control and investigation into the sources of contamination.

Lead: The average lead content in both imported and local honey samples (<LOQ = 0.076 mg/kg) is below the MAL of 0.10 mg/kg set by the European Commission,²⁷ indicating that the honey does not exceed the MRL related to lead contamination. Compared with honey from other countries, the lead level in this study was significantly lower.^12,36,40,41

Figure 2.

Comparison of the average mineral and metal content of the studied samples with the regulatory limit.

The differences in essential mineral and toxic metal content between local and imported honey highlight the influence of regional environmental factors, soil composition, and agricultural practices on honey’s nutritional quality.⁴² The significant variability in mineral and metal content between local and imported honey underscores the importance of quality control and standardization in honey production to ensure consistent nutritional benefits and safety.

Human Health Risk Assessment

To quantitatively assess the potential health risks associated with heavy metal exposure through honey consumption, we calculated Estimated Daily Intake (EDI), Target Hazard Quotient (THQ), and Hazard Index (HI) following established methodologies.²⁴ Table 6 presents the EDI, THQ, and HI values for toxic metals in local and imported honey samples.

Table 6.

Health Risk Assessment Parameters For Toxic Metals in Honey Samples.

Health risk indicator	Analyte	Local honey	Imported honey
EDI (mg/kg/day)	Cd	1.07 × 10⁻⁴	6.57 × 10⁻⁵
	Cr	1.77 × 10⁻⁴	1.54 × 10⁻⁴
	Pb	2.17 × 10⁻^5a	2.17 × 10⁻^5a
THQ	Cd	0.107	0.066
	Cr	1.18 × 10⁻⁴	1.03 × 10⁻⁴
	Pb	0.0062	0.0062
HI		0.113	0.072

EDI calculations assume average daily honey consumption of 20 g/person and body weight of 70 kg. For Pb, concentrations below LOQ (0.076 mg/kg) were conservatively estimated as LOQ/2 = 0.038 mg/kg for EDI calculation.²⁴

The health risk assessment revealed that all THQ and HI values were below 1, indicating no significant non-carcinogenic health risk from honey consumption at current contamination levels and typical consumption rates. However, the THQ for Cd in local honey (0.107) was approximately 1.6 times higher than that of imported honey (0.066), reflecting the elevated Cd concentrations in local samples. While these values remain below the threshold of concern, they suggest that cumulative exposure from multiple dietary sources could potentially approach risk levels, particularly for individuals with high honey consumption or those living in areas with elevated environmental Cd levels.

The Hazard Index (HI) values of 0.113 for local honey and 0.072 for imported honey indicate that the cumulative non-carcinogenic risk from combined metal exposure through honey consumption is well below the acceptable limit. Cadmium contributed the largest proportion to the HI (95% for local honey; 92% for imported honey), highlighting that Cd is the primary metal of concern in these honey samples.

It should be noted that this risk assessment considers only honey consumption and does not account for other dietary sources of these metals. For individuals with additional exposure routes (eg, contaminated rice, vegetables, or drinking water), the cumulative risk could be higher. Furthermore, the assessment assumes average consumption rates; individuals with higher-than-average honey intake may face greater risks.

Conclusion

This study evaluated the quality and safety of honey available in Dhaka City by analyzing the mineral and heavy metal content of both local and imported honey samples. The results revealed variability in the concentrations of essential minerals (Fe, Zn, and Mn) and toxic heavy metals (Cd, Cr, and Pb) in both local and imported honey. While all honey samples met safety standards for Pb and Cr. Cd levels exceeded the maximum allowable limit in 67% of local samples and 100% of imported samples. This finding raises concerns about potential health risks from Cd exposure through honey consumption, particularly given that Cd contributed 92% to 95% of the cumulative hazard index. Health risk assessment using Target Hazard Quotients and Hazard Index indicated no immediate non-carcinogenic risk at current consumption levels (HI <1). However, the elevated Cd concentrations warrant attention, especially for local honey, as cumulative exposure from multiple dietary sources could approach risk thresholds. The strong positive correlations among Fe, Cd, and Cr in local honey suggest common anthropogenic contamination sources, likely related to industrial emissions, traffic density, or agricultural practices in Dhaka city. The study highlights the importance of regular monitoring and stringent quality control measures in honey production and importation to ensure consumer safety. Furthermore, additional research is warranted to investigate the sources of Cadmium contamination in local honey and implement effective mitigation strategies. Overall, this study offers valuable insights into the mineral and metal content of honey in Dhaka City, contributing to a deeper understanding of the quality and safety of local and imported honey samples.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the sample size (n = 12) is relatively small, which restricts the statistical power and generalizability of the findings. The results should therefore be considered preliminary, and further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to confirm and extend these observations. Second, the sampling was limited to honey available in the Mohammadpur area of Dhaka city, while the specific botanical origins of the honey samples were not determined, which may contribute to the observed variability in mineral content. Future studies should incorporate melissopalynological analysis to correlate elemental profiles with floral sources. Third, while we identified elevated cadmium levels in some samples, the specific sources of contamination could not be definitively determined within the scope of this study. Fourth, the study relied on a single analytical technique (AAS) without cross-validation using CRMs or alternative methods such as ICP-MS. While spike recovery data demonstrate acceptable accuracy, future studies should incorporate CRM analysis and multi-technique validation to further strengthen analytical reliability. Fifth, the health risk assessment considered only honey consumption and did not account for other dietary sources or potential synergistic effects of mixed contaminant exposure. Future research should address these limitations through larger-scale studies, source apportionment analysis, and comprehensive dietary exposure assessments.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ehi-10.1177_11786302261449341 – Supplemental material for Assessing Quality and Safety: Mineral and Metal Content in Local and Imported Honey From Dhaka City

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ehi-10.1177_11786302261449341 for Assessing Quality and Safety: Mineral and Metal Content in Local and Imported Honey From Dhaka City by Munjuri Akter, Simana Akhter Bhuiya, Mehedi Amin, Mohammed Ariful Islam, Tazul Islam Chowdhury, Mohammed Sakhawat Hossain and Abdul Kaium in Environmental Health Insights

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge all the laboratory and office staff of the Agricultural Chemistry Department, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka-1207, for their assistance in preparing and digesting the honey samples. We acknowledge that the AI-assisted technologies ChatGPT and Co-Pilot were used in the writing process to improve the language and readability of the manuscript.

ORCID iDs

Tazul Islam Chowdhury

Abdul Kaium

Author Contributions

MA and AK conceived and designed the study, participated in sample extraction, instrumental analysis, and data analysis, and wrote the manuscript. SAB and MA collected the and prepared the sample for analysis. MAI, TIC, and MSH participated in data analysis, data interpretation, and editing and reviewing the manuscript. All the authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Bogdanov

Jurendic

Sieber

Gallmann

Honey for nutrition and health: a review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2008;27(6):677-689.

Ashagrie Tafere

. Chemical composition and uses of honey: a review. J Food Sci Nutr Res. 2021;4(3):194-201.

Terrab

Recamales

Hernanz

Heredia

FJ.

Characterisation of Spanish thyme honeys by their physicochemical characteristics and mineral contents. Food Chem. 2004;88(4):537-542.

Atarshchykova

Zhukorskyi

Postoienko

VO.

Monitoring of the content and migration of heavy metals in the soils–melliferous plants–bees–beekeeping products system in biocenoses of the combat areas. Agric Sci Pract. 2024;10(3):74-87.

Razanov

Postoienko

Razanov

, et al. Yakist bdzholynoho hnizda ta yoho vplyv na intensyvni naskopychennia Zn u medi [Bee nest quality and its influence on the intensity of Zn accumulation in honey]. Fitoterapiia Chasop - Phytother J. 2024;4:100-109.

Purcarea

Dzugan

Wesolowska

, et al. A comparative study of metal content in selected Polish and Romanian honey samples. Rev Chim. 2017;68(6):1163-1169.

ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Lead. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; 2020.

Järup

Hazards of heavy metal contamination. Br Med Bull. 2003;68(1):167-182.

Pohl

Determination of metal content in honey by atomic absorption and emission spectrometries. TrAC Trends Anal Chem. 2009;28(1):117-128.

10.

Šerevičienė

Zigmontienė

Paliulis

Heavy metals in honey collected from contaminated locations: a case of Lithuania. Sustainability. 2022;14(15):9196.

11.

Alzagtat

Alsury

AA.

Bee honey as a bioindicator of environmental pollution with some heavy metals in Zawia and Janzour regions, Libya. Al-Mukhtar J Sci. 2023;38(1):93-103.

12.

Tuzen

Silici

Mendil

Soylak

Trace element levels in honeys from different regions of Turkey. Food Chem. 2007;103(2):325-330.

13.

Rahman

Karmoker

Alam

Quality evaluation of some selected commercial honey products available in the market of Bangladesh. Fundam Appl Agric. 2017;2(3):1-307.

14.

Uddin

Kamal

MZI

Kamruzzaman

Value chain analysis of honey in Bangladesh: production practices and livelihood perspective. SAARC J Agric. 2022;19(2):301-315.

15.

Abdullah

Local and foreign brands race to grab large honey market. Dhaka Tribune. March 4, 2019.

16.

Noyon

AU.

Local honey in a bitter race with foreign brands. The Business Standard. October 28, 2019.

17.

Kabir

Kaium

Chowdhury

MTI

, et al. Environmental pollution, ecological and human health risk assessment of heavy metals in rice farming system near the Buriganga River in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Int J Environ Anal Chem. 2024;104(11):2593-2612.

18.

Laboni

Ahmed

Kaium

, et al. Heavy metals in widely consumed vegetables grown in industrial areas of Bangladesh: a potential human health hazard. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2023;201(2):995-1005.

19.

Hossain

Ahmed

Rabin

Kaium

Razzaque

Zamil

SS.

Heavy metal quantification in chicken meat and egg: an emerging food safety concern. J Food Compost Anal. 2024;126:105876.

20.

Paul

Hossen

Tanvir

, et al. Minerals, toxic heavy metals, and antioxidant properties of honeys from Bangladesh. J Chem. 2017;2017:1-11.

21.

Sarker

Chowdhury

Fakhruddin

Fardous

Moniruzzaman

Gan

SH.

Heavy metal contents and physical parameters of Aegiceras corniculatum, Brassica juncea, and Litchi chinensis honeys from Bangladesh. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:720341.

22.

Solayman

Islam

Paul

, et al. Physicochemical properties, minerals, trace elements, and heavy metals in honey of different origins: a comprehensive review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2016;15(1):219-233.

23.

Nageswara Rao

. Determination of heavy metals in toothpastes containing tin as an active ingredient. Indian J Chem Technol. 2014;21(4):238-243.

24.

USEPA. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) - User’s Guide. United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2020.

25.

Izol

Kaya

Karahan

Investigation of some metals in honey samples produced in different regions of Bingöl province by ICP-MS. Mellifera. 2021;21(1):1-17.

26.

Mititelu

Udeanu

Docea

, et al. New method for risk assessment in environmental health: the paradigm of heavy metals in honey. Environ Res. 2023;236:1-115194.

27.

European Commission. Commission regulation (EU) 2023/915 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Off J Eur Union. 2023;119:103-157.

28.

İzol

Molecular docking-guided in-depth investigation of the biological activities and phytochemical and mineral profiles of endemic Phlomis capitata. J Sci Food Agric. 2025;105(7):3760-3775.

29.

İzol

Turhan

In-depth phytochemical profile by LC-MS/MS, mineral content by ICP-MS, and in-vitro antioxidant, antidiabetic, anti-epilepsy, anticholinergic, and antiglaucoma properties of Bitlis propolis. Life. 2024;14:1389.

30.

Sharma

Bihari

Agarwal

, et al. Groundwater contaminated with hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)): a health survey and clinical examination of community inhabitants (Kanpur, India). PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47877.

31.

Aghamirlou

Khadem

Rahmani

, et al. Heavy metals determination in honey samples using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry. J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2015;13(1):39.

32.

NIH. Iron Fact Sheet for Consumers. National Institutes of Health; 2016.

33.

Foy

Chaney

White

MC.

The physiology of metal toxicity in plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol. 1978;29:511-566.

34.

NIH. Zinc Fact Sheet for Health Professionals. National Institutes of Health; 2020.

35.

Pisani

Protano

Riccobono

Minor and trace elements in different honey types produced in Siena county (Italy). Food Chem. 2008;107(4):1553-1560.

36.

Feng

JZ.

Risk assessment of heavy metals in honey consumed in Zhejiang province, southeastern China. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013;53:256-262.

37.

NIH. Magnesium Fact Sheet for Health Professionals. National Institutes of Health; 2021.

38.

Anderson

RA.

Chromium, glucose tolerance, and diabetes. Biol Trace Elem Res. 1992;32(1):19-24.

39.

Tibebe

Hussen

Mulugeta

, et al. Assessment of selected heavy metals in honey samples using flame atomic absorption spectroscopy (FAAS), Ethiopia. BMC Chem. 2022;16(1):87.

40.

Buldini

Cavalli

Mevoli

Sharma

JL.

Ion chromatographic and voltametric determination of heavy and transition metals in honey. Food Chem. 2001;73(4):487-495.

41.

Golob

Doberšek

Kump

Nečemer

Determination of trace and minor elements in Slovenian honey by total reflection X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy. Food Chem. 2005;91(4):593-600.

42.

Wang

Lin

Bai

Xiao

Liu

Composition, functional properties and safety of honey: a review. J Sci Food Agric. 2023;103(14):6767-6779.

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

0.02 MB