Download PDF
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Sustainability & Circularity NOW 2025; 02: a27464089
DOI: 10.1055/a-2746-4089
Original Article

The Concentration of Trace Metals in Locally Sold Garlic (Allium sativum) and Potential Health Risk Assessment

Authors

  • Afrose Sultana Chamon  ‡

    1   Soil, Water and Environment, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh (Ringgold ID: RIN95324)

  • Gulshan Akhter Shimi‡

    1   Soil, Water and Environment, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh (Ringgold ID: RIN95324)

  • Sharnali Akhter 

    1   Soil, Water and Environment, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh (Ringgold ID: RIN95324)
    2   Institute of Energy, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh (Ringgold ID: RIN95324)

  • Md Marshad

    1   Soil, Water and Environment, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh (Ringgold ID: RIN95324)

  • Md Nadiruzzaman Mondol

    1   Soil, Water and Environment, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh (Ringgold ID: RIN95324)
Further Information
  Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category


Graphical Abstract

Abstract

The present study evaluated the trace element’ concentrations in native and foreign garlic specimens obtained from Shyambazar and Karwanbazar retail markets of Dhaka, Bangladesh. The garlic samples were collected randomly, subjected to processing, and subsequently assessed to detect heavy metals via atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS). Lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), and chromium (Cr) concentrations were measured, and they had mean concentrations in the range of 12.00–19.00, 28.62–42.22, 2.67–3.42, and 0.00–3.85 mg kg−1, respectively, in the native garlic samples and 11.00–22.00, 29.34–44.43, 2.99–4.50, and 0.00–3.85 mg kg−1 of dry weight in the analyzed foreign garlic samples, respectively. The average daily intake of Pb, Cu, Zn, and Cr in the native garlic ranged from 0.02–0.03, 0.00–0.01, 0.05–0.07, and 0.00–0.01 mg person−1 day−1 to 0.02–0.03, 0.00–0.01, 0.04–0.06, and 0.00–0.01 mg person−1 day−1 in the foreign garlic samples. The results revealed that the hazard quotient (HQ) values of Pb in all garlic samples were greater than 1 (dimensionless ratio) unlike the other concerned heavy metals. The hazard index (HI), i.e., the summation of HQ values, of both native garlic samples and Chinese garlic samples, exceeded 1, implying an increased potential for adverse health effects, especially through chronic exposure to heavy metals present in the studied garlic samples.

Keywords

Vegetables - Metal concentration - Average daily intake - Health risk - Shyambazar market - Karwanbazar market

Primary Data

    This study is based on primary data collected directly through field sampling, laboratory analyses, and direct measurements. All data were generated by the authors specifically for the purpose of this study and have not been published elsewhere.



Publication History

Received: 20 July 2025

Accepted after revision: 27 October 2025

Article published online:
15 December 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Bibliographical Record
Afrose Sultana Chamon, Gulshan Akhter Shimi, Sharnali Akhter, Md Marshad, Md Nadiruzzaman Mondol. The Concentration of Trace Metals in Locally Sold Garlic (Allium sativum) and Potential Health Risk Assessment. Sustainability & Circularity NOW 2025; 02: a27464089.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2746-4089
 

  • References

  • 1 Mudassir IZ, Asrar A, Mansoor A, Farooqui MA. J Appl Sci 2005; 5 (04) 708-711
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Zheljazkov VD, Craker LE, Xing B. Environ Exp Bot 2006; 58 (01/03) 9-16
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Zhou H, Yang W-T, Zhou X. et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016; 13 (03) 289
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Tüzen M. Microchem J 2003; 74 (03) 289-297
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Goldhaber SB. Toxic Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2003; 38 (02) 232-242
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Radwan MA, Salama AK. Food Chem Toxicol 2006; 44 (08) 1273-1278
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Tuzen M, Soylak M. Food Chem 2007; 102 (04) 1089-1095
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Duran A, Tuzen M, Soylak M. Int J Food Sci Nutr 2008; 59 (07/08) 581-589
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Ghosh AK, Bhatt MA, Agrawal HP. Environ Monit Assess 2012; 184 (02) 1025-1036
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Panghal A, Thakur A, Deore MS, Goyal M, Singh C, Kumar J. J Biochem Mol Toxicol 2024; 38 (06)
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Kerna NA, Holets HM, Anderson II J. et al. Eur J Ecol, Biol Agric 2024; 1 (03) 152-184
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Sanchez-Castillo CP, Dewey PJS, Aguirre A. et al. J Food Compos Anal 1998; 11 (04) 340-356
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Steenland K. Am J Ind Med 2000; 38 (03) 295-299
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Kumar S, Islam R, Akash PB. et al. Water Air Soil Pollut 2022; 233 (07)
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Kaiser R, Henderson AK, Daley WR. et al. Bangladesh Environ Health Perspect 2001; 109 (06) 563-566
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Shin DY, Lee SM, Jang Y. et al. Int J Mol Sci 2023; 24 (04) 3410-3410
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Kitala K, Tanski D, Godlewski J, Krajewska-Włodarczyk M, Gromadziński L, Majewski M. Nutrients 2023; 15 (13) 3040
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Hikon BN, Yebpella GG. Trends Ecol Indoor Environ Eng 2024; 2 (01) 41-49
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Ingole AA, Mukherjee AG, Balgote PJ, Pendse SP, Dhoke SB, Wanjari UR. Int J Eng Res 2021; 10 (03)
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Chamon AS. Open Access J Microbiol Biotechnol 2023; 8 (03) 1-11
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Chamon AS, Romana S, Zubaer MR, Prian WZ, Hossain M, Mondol MN. Int J Adv Multidiscipl Res Stud 2023; 3 (04) 382-389 Accessed December 24, 2024. Available from https://www.multiresearchjournal.com/arclist/list-2023.3.4/id-1436
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Chamon AS, Parash MAH, Fahad JI. et al. Syst Res 2024; 13 (01)
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 World Health Organization (WHO)/Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Codex Alimentarius Commission: Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods. Food CF/5 INF/1. Fifth Session 2011; 3-38
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO). Food Additives and Contaminants: Joint Codex Alimentarius Commission, FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. ALINORM 01/12A 2001; 1-289
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Muchuweti M, Birkett JW, Chinyanga E, Zvauya R, Scrimshaw MD, Lester JN. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2006; 112 (01) 41-48
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Kacholi DS, Sahu M. J Chem 2018; 2018 (01) 1-9
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Carabulea V, Motelica D-M, Vrînceanu NO. et al. J Appl Life Sci Environ 2023; 55 (03) (191) 245-255
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Othman O. Science 2001; (01) 27
  • 29 Singh A, Kumar Sharma R, Agrawal M, Marshall F. India Trop Ecol 2010; 51 2S 375-387
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Bondre SV, Sonkamble AM, Patil SR. Food Sci Res J 2017; 8 (02) 425-431
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 National Research Council. Recommended Dietary Allowances. National Academies Press; 1989: 1-190
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Ahmed MK, Shaheen N, Islam MS. et al. Chemosphere 2015; 128: 284-292
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 33 Zayed AM, Terry N. Plant Soil 2003; 249 (01) 139-156
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Akinyele IO, Osibanjo O. Food Chem 1982; 8 (04) 247-251
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 35 JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives). Food Additives and Contaminants: FAO Procedural Guidelines for the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Rome: 2003
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 36 Arora J, Singal A, Jacob J, Garg S, Aeri R. Environ Contamin Remediat Manage 2024; 51-71
  • 37 Nriagu J. Encycl Environ Health 2011; 801-807
  • 38 Bermudez GMA, Jasan R, Plá R, Pignata ML. J Hazard Mater 2011; 193 (01/03) 264-271
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 39 Alain TK, Luc BT, Ali D, Moumoni D, Zongo I, Zougmoré F. J Environ Prot 2021; 12 (12) 1019-1032
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 40 Blum WEH, Spiegel H, Wenzel WW. Bodenzustandsinventur: Konzeption, Durchführung Und Bewertung, Empfehlungen Zur Vereinheitlichung Der Vorgangsweise in Österreich. Vienna: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; 1996: 1-19
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 41 Samuel PN, Babatunde BB. J Environ Prot 2021; 12 (09) 624-638
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 42 JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives). Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and Contaminants: 41st Report of JECFA. Technical Report Series No. 837 Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1993
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 43 World Health Organization (WHO)/Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). World Health Org Food Agric Org 2013; 2 (01) 988
  • 44 Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed John Wiley & Sons; 1984
    Search in Google Scholar