The concentration of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) in apple fruit: a global systematic review, meta-analysis, and health risk assessment

Nayera Naimi, Zahra Pilevar, Vahid Ranaei, Trias Mahmudiono, Yadolah Fakhri, Ali Paseban, Ali Atamaleki, Firoozeh Janghorban, Amin Mousavi Khaneghah

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The presence of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) in crops can directly/indirectly affect consumers’ health. The contamination of apple as one of the most consumed fruits with PTEs such as lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), arsenic (As), and nickel (Ni) leads to carcinogenic risk (CR) and non-carcinogenic risk (n-CR). In this regard, a systematic review, meta-analysis, and health risk assessment regarding the concentration of the PTEs in apples was conducted using international databases such as Scopus and PubMed. According to the results, the rank order of PTEs in apple fruits was Pb (427.45 µg/kg-wet weight) > Ni (228.74 µg/kg-wet weight) > Cr (212.43 µg/kg-wet weight) > As (123.93 µg/kg-wet weight) > Cd (15.28 µg/kg-wet weight). n-CR was higher than 1 for the USA, Serbia for adults, and Poland for children. CR for adults in Serbia, Spain, Greece, China, Bangladesh, and Pakistan and children in Serbia, Spain, Greece, China, and Bangladesh were not acceptable (CR > 1.00E − 06 value). In this regard, the pooled PTEs of apples can cause CR and n-CR issues. Therefore, constant monitoring and reduction of pesticide application are strongly recommended for controlling PTEs in apple fruits.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)54013-54024
Number of pages12
JournalEnvironmental Science and Pollution Research
Volume29
Issue number36
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2022

Keywords

  • Apple
  • Contamination
  • Food safety
  • Health risk assessment
  • Meta-analysis
  • Potentially toxic element

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The concentration of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) in apple fruit: a global systematic review, meta-analysis, and health risk assessment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this