Next Article in Journal
Research Progress on Flavor Differences and the Formation Mechanism of Traditional Chinese Cereal Vinegar
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Fruit Powders as Natural Alternatives to Sodium Nitrite on Lipid Oxidation in Clean-Label Salami
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Concentration and Potential Non-Carcinogenic and Carcinogenic Health Risk Assessment of Metals in Locally Grown Vegetables

1
Department of Pathology, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA
2
Department of Chemistry, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2025, 14(13), 2264; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14132264
Submission received: 21 May 2025 / Revised: 15 June 2025 / Accepted: 24 June 2025 / Published: 26 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Food Toxicology)

Abstract

Heavy metal contamination in food has become a significant global food safety concern. This study assessed the concentrations of As, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, K, Mg, Na, Ni, Se, Pb, and Zn in 13 locally grown vegetables using microwave-assisted acid digestion and ICP-MS. The potential human health risks associated with their consumption were also evaluated. Vegetable samples were collected from the local farmer’s market in Grand Forks, North Dakota. The mean levels (μg/g) of Na, Mg, K, Ca, Fe, Se, Mn, Cu, Zn, Co, Hg, Cr, Ni, As, Cd, and Pb were 1001, 2935, 30474, 686.0, 52.90, 0.171, 37.63, 4.936, 21.33, 0.069, 0.0030, 0.049, 0.736, 0.083, 0.298, and 0.019, respectively, having the following decreasing trend: K > Mg > Na > Ca > Fe > Mn > Zn > Cu > Ni > Cd > Se > As > Co > Cr > Pb > Hg. The highest total metals level was found in spinach, with the following decreasing order: spinach > tomato > sugar beet > white eggplant > cucumber ~ kale > green chili > green bean > dill ~ potato > capsicum > onion > corn. Spinach exhibited the highest concentrations of Cd, Cr, Pb, and Hg, which suggests a higher risk of metal exposure from its consumption. Toxic metals except Cd were found to be lower than the maximum allowable concentrations set by international agencies among the analyzed vegetables, while Cd levels were higher than maximum allowable levels in most of the vegetables. Health risks associated with metal intake by vegetable consumption were evaluated in terms of estimated daily intake (EDI), non-carcinogenic risks were evaluated by the target hazard quotient (THQ) and Hazard Index (HI), and carcinogenic risks were evaluated by target cancer risk (TCR). The EDI values of all the metals were found to be below the maximum tolerable daily intake (MTDI). The highest EDI value for Mn, Zn, Hg, Cr, Cd, and Pb was noted in spinach. THQ values for Cd, Co, and As were higher than 1 in most of the vegetable species analyzed, indicating non-carcinogenic health effects to consumers. HI results also posed a non-carcinogenic health risk associated with the intake of these vegetables. Mean TCR values of Cr, Ni, As, and Cd indicated carcinogenic risk for consumers. This study showed that there are potential health risks with consumption of these vegetables. Lastly, regular monitoring of metal levels in vegetables is suggested/recommended to minimize health risks and support pollution control efforts.

1. Introduction

Heavy metal pollution significantly impacts environmental quality and food safety and poses serious health risks to consumers [1,2,3]. Food contamination by toxic substances has gained increasing global attention due to its public health implications, and contaminated food consumption represents the non-occupational pathways to heavy metals exposure [4,5,6,7]. Over the past decade, people have been well aware of the health benefits of vegetables. This has led to a rise in vegetable consumption worldwide. However, beyond quantity, the quality and safety of vegetables have become major concerns among consumers [8,9]. One of the most important components of food quality is the toxic metal contamination level in food products [10,11]. Due to a better understanding of the possibility of food chain contamination, international and national food quality regulations have lowered the maximum permissible levels of toxic metals in food products [11,12]. Vegetables and fruits are major components of the human diet, as they are the source of essential nutrients such as calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), antioxidants, and vitamins. Vegetables are an important component of the daily diets of most people around the world [13,14]; thus, toxic metal-contaminated vegetables can cause detrimental effects on human health [15]. Heavy metals such as Cu and Zn are essential trace metals which are involved in various biochemical processes in plants, including photosynthesis, electron transport, and lignin synthesis [16,17]. However, heavy metals such as Hg, Cd, As and Pb are toxic even in low quantities and may cause toxicity leading to cancer and eventual death [8,9,18,19,20].
Toxic metals accumulate in living organisms for long periods due to their persistent and non-biodegradable nature. The primary cause of metal bioaccumulation in plants is soil heavy metal contamination [15,21,22]. Industrialization, urbanization, and modern trends in agricultural activities enhance the chance of farmland being polluted. Heavy metal accumulation in different tissues depends upon different factors like temperature, moisture, organic compounds, pH, the availability of nutritional components, and plant types [23,24,25]. Heavy metals enter the environment from natural sources through weathering, erosion, and geological processes and from anthropogenic sources such as industrial activities, urban runoffs, agriculture activities, vehicular emissions, the incineration of solid urban waste, etc. [4,5,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. Heavy metals contaminate vegetables through accumulation from water, soil, and polluted air [1,38,39,40]. There are three routes of heavy metal exposure in humans: ingestion, dermal, and inhalation. Approximately 90% of human heavy metal exposure occurs through ingestion, most significantly from the consumption of contaminated fruits and vegetables, while the rest of it is from inhalation and dermal routes [21]. Since food is an important source of nutrients and necessary elements, it is significant to measure the risks and benefits of eating different foods. Therefore, the estimation of heavy metal levels in vegetables is used to measure the possible health risk to the consumer [41].
Heavy metal contamination in vegetables was conducted globally, and a similar type of research was also conducted in the USA [42,43]; our study uniquely focuses on vegetables produced locally in Grand Forks, North Dakota. To the best of our knowledge, no published studies have reported heavy metal concentrations in vegetables grown locally in Grand Forks, North Dakota. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is initiating a pilot program to determine the potential contaminants in school meals (A Research Study of Contaminants in School Meals, RFA—FD-25-06). One of the areas of concern is the possible contamination of heavy metals in foods used in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). This program requires school lunches to include five meal components: fruit, vegetables, grains, meats or meal alternates, and milk. The USDA sets a basic meal pattern that specifies minimum amounts for each component based on age group. Students must select at least three components, including at least ½ cup of fruit or vegetables, and cannot decline more than two components. The variety that can exist within each of these categories, except for milk, forms a very complex matrix to define the possible presence of heavy metals in a school lunch program. Examples of different components with each category could include the following: for fruit, half of the fruits offered can be 100% juice, but whole and cut-up fruits have more fiber, and a quarter-cup of dried fruit counts as much fiber as ½ cup of fruit; for vegetables, leafy greens count for ½ cup of vegetables; for grains, at least 80% of grains offered weekly must be whole grain-rich, and the remaining grains must be enriched; meat and/or meat alternatives could include meat, poultry, fish, cheese, beans, peanut butter or eggs; for milk, 8 ounces of fluid milk with the minimum fat content. Further increasing the complexity of such an analysis is the farm-to-school program that allows school programs to buy fresh fruits and vegetables from local producers to serve in their lunchrooms. The availability of these produces is seasonal in ND, with corn available in September, which can be served as corn on the cob, canned sweet corn, cornbread, corn tortillas, or corn chips; apples in October; leafy greens such as kale, broccoli, collard greens, lettuce, spinach, cabbage, bok choy, or arugula in November; and potatoes in December. Since these ingredients are seasonal, they add increased complexity to analyzing student lunches, since resources may be acquired from different sources between the fall and summer seasons. The current study analyzed vegetables from a farmer’s market to determine if there was any reason for concern before a very complex and expensive analysis would be initiated to cover the wide spectrum of foods in the school lunch programs. Therefore, the main objectives of the study were (1) to assess the selected heavy metal accumulation in locally grown vegetables in the study area, (2) to compare heavy metal accumulation in different vegetable groups, and (3) to estimate the possible non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk assessment caused by the consumption of these vegetables.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling

A total of 82 samples (n) of all 13 locally grown vegetables (Table 1) were collected from the local farmer’s market in Grand Forks, North Dakota. The local farmer’s market known as Town Square Farmer’s Market is held every Saturday from mid-June through September each year. The local farmer’s market provides fresh produce that is grown locally. Grand Forks County, an agricultural county in North Dakota, United States, is located in the Red River Valley region, and the area is approximately 1438 square miles (920,320 acres) with an estimated population of over 70,000 individuals. It is known for its rich and fertile soil. Farming is the major industry in this area, and corn, soybeans, sunflowers, and wheat are among the most common crops [44,45]. For a representative vegetable sample, 2–3 sub-samples (~0.2–0.5 kg) of each vegetable species were collected from different vendors at the farmer’s market and stored in a single bag. Samples were transferred to the lab immediately after collection.

2.2. Sample Processing

In the laboratory, samples were washed with deionized water to remove the external adherent materials. Samples were then placed at room temperature in open air for 24 h to dry. The samples were homogenized, ground, and oven-dried at 70–80 °C for constant weight. Dried samples were stored in desiccators until further analysis [46,47]. For metal analysis using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP MS), 0.5 g dried-ground vegetable was weighed in a digestion vessel, and 5 mL concentrated HNO3 was added to the sample, contained in the vessel. Samples were digested using a Milestone UltraWAVE digestion unit (Shelton, CT, USA) following EPA method 3051A (Revision 1) and instructions supplied by the manufacturer. The optimal operating conditions were as follows: ramp to 175 °C for 5.5 min, then hold at 175 °C for 4.5 min and N2 pressure at 35 bar. After digestion, a clear solution was obtained. The solution was transferred to tubes with plug seal caps, and a final volume of 50 mL was constituted with deionized water. Blanks were also prepared in each batch of samples [48,49].

2.3. Quantification of Heavy Metals

The quantitative determination of Na, Mg, K, Ca, Fe, Se, Mn, Cu, Zn, Co, Cr, Ni, As, Cd, and Pb in vegetable samples was performed using a Thermo Scientific iCAP Qc ICP MS in kinetic energy discrimination mode (KED). All operating parameters were in accordance with EPA method 200.8 (Revision 5.4) and the manufacturer’s instructions to meet calibration and analysis requirements. The optimal operating conditions were as follows: RF power of 1550 W, plasma gas flow rate of 14.0 L/min, auxiliary gas flow rate of 0.8 L/min, carrier gas flow rate of 0.8 L/min, nebulizer gas flow of 1.06 L/min, make up gas flow of 0.25 L/min, dwell time of 0.05 sec, spray chamber temperature of 2.7 °C, sampler/skimmer cone of nickel. Sc, Rh and Bi were used as internal standards. Mercury was analyzed by direct determination of the homogenized, ground, and oven-dried solid samples using a Milestone DMA-80 Tri Cell direct mercury analyzer (Shelton, CT, USA). All operating parameters were in accord with EPA method 7473 (Feb. 2007 Revision D) and the manufacturer’s instructions to meet calibration and analysis requirements. The optimal operating conditions were as follows: oxygen carrier gas at 60 psig, dry 70 s at 250 °C, decompose 180 s at 250 °C, catalyst 565 °C, cells 120 °C, purge time 60 s, amalgamator heater time 12 s, recording time 30 s. Liquid calibration standards and solid samples (including standard reference materials) were weighed to 0.1 mg in quartz sample boats before placing them in the autosampler spindle. Calibration acceptance required a minimum three-point curve and regression coefficient ≥ 0.995 based on either linear or quadratic fit. All measurements were done in triplicate.

2.4. Quality Control and Quality Assurance

To obtain reliable data, quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) were measured by blanks, duplicate samples, and standard reference material (NIST 1567b) in vegetable analyses. One SRM sample, one reagent blank, and one blank spike were included in each analytical batch. The relative percentage difference (RPD, %) of heavy metal levels in the duplicate samples was less than 20%. The recoveries of most of the elements in the reference material were greater than 85% for SRM 1567b. The details of LOD, LOQ, methods blanks, blank spike recovery, and RPD for each metal are given in Supplementary Table S1. All reagents (acids, stock solutions, and multi-element solutions) used in this study were of an analytical grade. The glassware was soaked with a 10% HNO3 solution overnight, then washed with deionized distilled water and dried prior to use in this study to reduce cross-contamination [45,50].

2.5. Health Risk Assessment of Vegetable Consumption

Heavy metal contamination in vegetables can pose acute and chronic health effects in humans [47,51]. To assess the health risk of heavy metals (Se, Mn, Cu, Zn, Co, Cr, Ni, As, Cd, Pb and Hg) in humans by ingestion of these vegetables, the estimated daily intake of heavy metals (EDI) was found, and non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk assessments were conducted in this study.

2.5.1. Estimated Daily Intake (EDI)

The estimated daily intake (EDI) (mg/kg body weight/day) of a heavy metal was assessed as vegetable consumption per day by a person, the mean level of that metal, and the body weight of a consumer. EDI was calculated by the following equation [38,52,53]:
E D I = C × D I B W
where C: average heavy metal concentration in the vegetable measured in this study (µg/g), DI: vegetable consumption per day (kg/day), and BW: average body weight of the consumer (kg). The average daily food intake and body weight for adults used in this study were 0.34 kg/person/day and 70 kg, respectively [46,54,55].

2.5.2. Non-Carcinogenic and Carcinogenic Risk Assessment

The non-carcinogenic health risks assessment related to vegetable intake was determined by the target hazard quotient (THQ) and Hazard Index (HI). Target hazard quotient (THQ) is the non-carcinogenic risk assessment of a heavy metal for its long-term exposure from vegetables and fruits; it was calculated as [38,52]
T H Q = E D I R f D
The reference dose (RfD) values used for Se, Mn, Cu, Zn, Co, Hg, Cr, Ni, As, Cd, and Pb in this study were taken from ATSDR, USEPA-IRIS and other published articles [56,57,58,59], shown in Supplementary Table S2. If the THQ value > 1, then there is a possibility for a non-carcinogenic effect, and if THQ < 1, it is be considered to be safe for non-carcinogenic effects [60,61].
To measure the overall non-carcinogenic risk to human consumers, the Hazard Index (HI) was calculated. The Hazard Index (HI) can be expressed as the sum of the hazard quotients for all studied metals:
H I = n = 1 i T H Q
I = 1, 2, 3…, n. There is no risk if the HI < 1, and if the HI ≥ 1, individuals will experience harmful health effects [52,62].
For carcinogenic risk assessment, target cancer risk (TCR) is calculated as [47,63]:
T C R = E D I × C S F o
EDI: estimated daily intake; CSFo: oral cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)−1, and the value for Cr, As, Pb, Cd, and Ni are given in Supplementary Table S2. The acceptable threshold value of the target cancer risk is 1.0 × 10−4, whilst the tolerable/permissible cancer risk value is in the range of 1.0 × 10−6–1.0 × 10−4 [64,65].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Metal Concentrations of Vegetables

Mean metal levels (mg/kg dry weight) in the selected vegetables studied are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 with the following ranges: sodium 4.357–6434, magnesium 1067–13,517, potassium 10,795–69,105, calcium 9.531–3092, iron 13.36–199.3, selenium 0.056–0.481, manganese 5.388–216.6, copper 1.592–8.928, zinc 11.51–78.76, cobalt 0.015–0.218, mercury 0.0008–0.0113, chromium 0.014–0.179, nickel 0.342–2.139, arsenic 0.009–0.436, cadmium 0.006–0.985, lead 0.007–0.081. The highest total metal concentration was found in spinach, and the lowest level was noted in corn, with the following decreasing order: spinach > tomato > sugar beet > white eggplant > cucumber ~ kale > green chili > green bean > dill ~ potato > capsicum > onion > corn. Similarly to our findings, other studies have also reported that spinach contains the highest metal concentrations [66,67]. K, Mg, Na, and Ca macro elements were the most abundant elements in the vegetables studied. Overall, spinach was a prominent source of these macro elements, followed by tomato, sugar beet, and white eggplant, while onion and corn had the lowest levels. The highest levels of K and Mg were noted in spinach, while high Na and Ca levels were observed in sugar beet and kale, respectively, and the lowest levels of K, Ca, and Na were found in corn. Iron, Zn, Cu, Mn, Se, and Co are essential micro elements that play an important role in humans, and the mean metal levels of the vegetables studied showed the following trend: Fe > Mn > Zn > Cu > Se > Co. The highest levels of Fe, Mn, and Zn were noted in spinach, while the highest levels of Cu, Se, and Co were found in tomato, dill, and green chili, respectively. Similarly, the lowest levels of Fe, Mn, and Se were noted in potato, while Zn, Cu, and Co were observed in capsicum, corn, and onion, respectively. The maximum concentrations of Cd, Cr, Pb, and Hg were noted in spinach, while the highest levels of Ni and As were found in green bean and cucumber, respectively. Moreover, the lowest contents of Ni, Cd, Cr, As, and Hg were observed in spinach, corn, potato, green bean, and green chili, respectively. The lowest concentration of Pb was noted in corn, tomato, and green chili. Overall, based on total mean level of metals in studied vegetables, metals showed the following decreasing trend: K > Mg > Na > Ca > Fe > Mn > Zn > Cu > Ni > Cd > Se > As > Co > Cr > Pb >Hg.
Table 1. Average concentration of essential macro metals and essential micro metals (μg/g) in vegetables (n = 82).
Table 1. Average concentration of essential macro metals and essential micro metals (μg/g) in vegetables (n = 82).
n NaMgKCaFeZnMnCu
Potato8Mean44.51113823,88032.7313.3611.735.3885.463
SD33.22311.455778.8804.5392.8511.3891.285
Onion7Mean129.6106718,311321.723.6712.509.0462.854
SD48.2190.66198350.286.2893.2781.9601.047
Tomato7Mean273.5242544,547338.845.4014.3820.298.928
SD127.9382.813,050152.412.454.1165.0352.906
Sugar Beet7Mean6434211834,222211.925.6113.0426.055.224
SD1869385.512,80698.7420.285.82110.842.495
Green Chili7Mean56.58173725,561225.044.4911.5015.195.162
SD39.27100.6410157.809.5344.2793.3551.198
Dill5Mean252.9272820,3631619.971.7838.3887.786.313
SD104.4769.25691440.023.678.72822.531.477
Corn7Mean4.357138410,7959.53117.5917.398.4411.592
SD4.294571.940697.0516.7246.4804.5511.167
Spinach5Mean434813,51769,1051683.9199.378.76216.63.140
SD3279342622,705351.841.218.61837.730.856
White Eggplant5Mean59.40273839,199305.027.9815.3415.468.313
SD24.65368.3958561.254.8722.0211.6051.472
Kale5Mean1071293929,971309273.1716.6445.241.838
SD658.7692.75908420.512.263.02413.230.439
Green Bean7Mean15.75224023,911427.958.8920.9316.076.199
SD5.789116.05305112.28.5483.4998.4791.776
Capsicum6Mean84.96143122,557184.249.0811.5113.044.435
SD43.53179.5569944.1210.922.8313.5461.240
Cucumber6Mean243.8269533,742465.737.2815.2310.704.706
SD63.09376.59934116.77.6783.2092.3050.855

3.2. Metal Concentration Comparison Among Different Vegetable Groups

Based on their characteristics, vegetables can be classified into different groups: leafy vegetables (dill, kale, spinach), fruit vegetables (tomato, green chili, corn, white eggplant, green bean, capsicum, cucumber), root vegetables (sugar beet), bulb vegetables (onion), and stem vegetables (potato). A comparison of metal concentrations was made between fruit vegetables and leafy vegetables (Figure 1). The results showed that leafy vegetables had significantly higher metal concentrations (one-way ANOVA: F ratio > F critical; p value < 0.05) than fruit vegetables. Similarly, by comparing the root (sugar beet) vegetable with the stem (potato) vegetable in this study, it was found that most metals showed higher levels in sugar beet samples than potato samples. Various studies have shown that legumes accumulate low amounts, root vegetables moderate amounts, and leafy vegetables high amounts of trace metals [68,69,70]. Leafy vegetables have high heavy metal accumulation, as they have large surface areas and more metals tend to accumulate than in fruits [48,55,71,72,73]. The growth of leafy vegetables is generally faster with higher transpiration rates than non-leafy vegetables, which increases the metal uptake by plant roots in leafy vegetables. Likewise, leafy vegetables are more sensitive to pollutant accumulation in the atmosphere [74,75]. However, heavy metal concentration in different types of vegetables depends on many factors like soil properties, nutrient type, countless environmental and human factors, the nature of the plants, and other soil conditions like pH, organic carbon, etc. [73,76,77,78,79]. Heavy metal accumulation differs among different parts of the plant and varies among cultivars in the same plant species [55,68,69,70,80,81]. The metal concentration in vegetables can vary depending on whether they are consumed raw or cooked. Vegetables are used in both ways. Cooking or peeling vegetables can significantly affect their metal concentration by decreasing or increasing the metal concentration depending upon cooking methods [82,83].
Depending upon their biological role, metals are categorized as essential macro metals (Na, Mg, K, Ca), essential micro metals (Fe, Se, Mn, Cu, Zn, Co, Cr, Ni) and non-essential toxic metals (As, Cd, Hg, Pb) [84,85]. In vegetables, the concentrations of trace metals (As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb) that are included in the priority pollutant list by USEPA were compared with the maximum allowable metal concentrations in vegetables set by NHC/FAS [86] and FAO/WHO [87]. Chromium and Hg levels were below the limit set by NHC/FAS: 0.5 mg/kg for Cr and 0.01mg/kg for Hg. Arsenic levels in all vegetables were also noted to be below 0.5 mg/kg, except cucumber, which had a value close to or slightly higher than the limit set by NHC/FAS. Cd and Pb were compared with FAO/WHO standards. Pb levels in leafy vegetables, root/tuber vegetables, and fruit vegetables were lower than the set limits (0.1–0.3 mg/kg) in different vegetables. The maximum levels (mg/kg) of Cd in fruit vegetables, root/tuber vegetables, bulb vegetables, and leafy vegetables are 0.05, 0.1, 0.05, and 0.2, respectively. Cd levels were higher in 100% of tomato, green chili, white eggplant, capsicum, and spinach samples, 86% of onion, sugar beet and potato samples, and 20% of cucumber and green bean samples. Thus, attention and regular monitoring for metals is required in locally grown vegetables. In comparing our data with national research data, there are marked differences where our findings exhibited elevated levels compared to nationally published research data. Lupolt et al. 2021 [42] reported the mean levels of Cr, Pb, Ni, As, and Cd in all vegetables including cucumber, kale, bean, eggplant, tomato, onion, etc. as being 0.042, 0.068, 0.082, 0.005, and 0.042 μg/g, respectively, which are lower than our findings, except for Pb, which is higher than our results. Hadayat et al. 2018 [55] reported the mean concentrations of metals (μg/kg) in five vegetables (lettuce, potato, carrot, tomato, and white onion) as As (7.29), Cd (15.3), Pb (17.9), Cr (46.3), and Ni (58.5), which are also lower than our metal values. Our mean values of Cd, Mn, Cu, Ni, and Zn were also higher than the reported values by Chinnannan et al., 2024 [43]. Leafy green vegetables showed significant levels of Cd and Pb compared to other vegetables as reported by McBride et al., 2014 [88], which is similar to our findings. Thus, attention and regular monitoring for metals is required in locally grown vegetables.

3.3. Health Risk Assessment of Metals via Food Consumption

3.3.1. Estimated Daily Intakes (EDIs)

The EDIs of all studied metals except K, Mg, Ca, Na, and Fe were evaluated by the average concentration of each metal in each food, consumption rate, and consumer body weight [89,90] and are shown in Table 3. The EDIs of heavy metals in 13 vegetable samples were as follows: 2.7 × 10−4–2.3 × 10−3 for Se, 2.6 × 10−2–1.1 for Mn, 7.7 × 10−3–4.3 × 10−2 for Cu, 5.6 × 10−2–3.8 × 10−1 for Zn, 7.4 × 10−5–1.1 × 10−3 for Co, 3.7 × 10−6–5.5 × 10−5 for Hg, 6.8 × 10−5–8.7 × 10−4 for Cr, 1.7 × 10−3–1.0 × 10−2 for Ni, 4.1 × 10−5–2.1 × 10−3 for As, 3.1 × 10−5–4.8 × 10−3 for Cd, and 3.5 × 10−5–3.9 × 10−4 for Pb (Table 2). The highest EDI values for Mn, Zn, Hg, Cr, Cd, and Pb were noted in spinach, while the highest EDI values for Se, Cu, Co, Ni, and As were found in dill, tomato, green chili, green bean, and cucumber, respectively. On a mean basis of all vegetables, the EDI showed the following decreasing order: Mn > Zn > Cu > Ni > Cd > Se > As > Co > Cr > Pb > Hg. The EDI values of heavy metals in the studied vegetables were noted to be lower than the maximum tolerable daily intake (MTDI) for individual metals [56], shown in Table 3, indicating that there is no possible human risk associated with daily vegetable consumption from the study area.

3.3.2. Non-Carcinogenic and Carcinogenic Health Risk Assessment

There might be harmful health effects on humans caused by long exposure to toxic metals; thus, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic parameters are used to assess health risks related to long exposure to toxic metals [47,91]. Non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic health risks were measured by THQ, HI, and TCR. THQ and HI, measuring noncarcinogenic health risk, are acceptable if their values are ≤1 [61,92]. THQ values for Se, Hg, Cr, Ni, and Pb were lower than the critical value (=1.0) in all studied vegetables, indicating no potential harmful effects on consumers. The THQ values were above 1 for Mn in spinach and kale, Zn in spinach, and Cu in white eggplant and tomato. The THQ values for Cd, Co, and As were higher than 1 in most of vegetable species. Cadmium (THQ: 0.03–4.79), Co (THQ: 0.25–3.54), and As (THQ: 0.14–7.05) are the major sources of potential non-carcinogenic risk associated with consumption of the studied vegetables, as shown in Table 4. THQ results differ from EDI results because EDI measures the amount of a substance consumed daily, while THQ assesses the potential non-carcinogenic health risks of long-term exposure by comparing EDI to a reference dose (RfD); usually, doses less than the RfD are unlikely to cause adverse health effects. Thus, THQ includes both EDI and RfD, leading to different results even for the same EDI values. HI exhibits the cumulative effect of heavy metal intake from vegetable consumption. The HI results (Table 4) were higher than 1, ranging from 1.59–18.3, which indicates non-carcinogenic health risks associated with the intake of these vegetables. The highest HI value was noted for spinach, which had higher levels of THQs for Cd, Pb, Cr, Hg, Zn, and Mn.
The target cancer risk (TCR) values were calculated for Pb, Cr, Cd, and As (Table 5). TCR < 1.0 × 10−6 is considered negligible, while TCR > 1.0 × 10−4 is unacceptable, and TCR ranging from 1.0 × 10−6–1.0 × 10−4 is considered acceptable/permissible [64,65]. The TCR values of Pb for adults were lower than 1.0 × 10−6, indicating no carcinogenic risk; the TCR values of As and Cd for onion, tomato, sugar beet, green chili, dill, spinach, white eggplant, kale, and capsicum were higher than 1.0 × 10−4; the TCR values for Ni for all vegetables were found to be higher than the permissible limit, which indicates carcinogenic risk for consumers. The TCR values for Cr ranged from permissible to unacceptable risk. Overall, the mean TCR values of Cr, Ni, As, and Cd (Figure 2) were higher than 1.0 × 10−4, indicating carcinogenic risk for consumers, indicating that these vegetables may be unsafe for consumption.

4. Conclusions

The present study was conducted to assess the metal levels in locally grown vegetables and the potential risk associated with their consumption. The present study results indicate that the highest total metals levels were found in spinach with the following decreasing order: spinach > tomato > sugar beet > white eggplant > cucumber ~ kale > green chili > green bean > dill ~ potato > capsicum > onion > corn. The maximum concentration of toxic metals (Cd, Cr, Pb, and Hg) was noted in spinach, while the highest level of As was found in cucumber. Based on vegetable characteristics, leafy vegetables have higher levels of metal contents than fruit vegetables. Considering the results obtained in terms of the allowable limits of heavy metals in vegetables as set by NHC/FAS and FAO/WHO, Cr, Hg, As, and Pb were below the limit, while Cd levels were higher in 100% of samples of tomato, green chili, white eggplant, capsicum, and spinach. The risk assessment was calculated by EDI, THQ, and TCR. The highest EDI values for Mn, Zn, Hg, Cr, Cd, and Pb were noted in spinach. The THQ values for Cd, Co, and As were higher than 1 in most of the studied vegetable species, indicating potential harmful effects to consumers. HI results indicated non-carcinogenic health risk associated with these vegetables. The highest HI value was noted for spinach, which had higher levels of Cd, Pb, Cr, Hg, Zn, and Mn. TCR results indicated no carcinogenic risk for Pb; TCR values of As and Cd for most of the studied vegetables, while TCR values for Ni for all vegetables were higher than 1.0 × 10−4, which indicates carcinogenic risk for consumers. TCR values for Cr ranged from permissible to unacceptable risk. The mean TCR values of Cr, Ni, As, and Cd indicated carcinogenic risk for consumers. Overall, the consumption of vegetables that contain Cd, Ni, As, or Cr can lead to serious health issues such as kidney and liver problems, respiratory disorders, and increased cancer risk for the local community. Thus, there is a need for regular monitoring for toxic metals in locally grown food in the future.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods14132264/s1, Table S1: Limit of Detection (µg/kg), Limit of Quantitation (µg/kg), Method Blank (μg/L), SRM (NIST 1567b) recovery (%) and relative percent difference (RPD, %) of duplicate sample analysis for the selected metals analysis; Table S2: Parameters and variables used in the calculations of THQ and TCR.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data analysis, writing—original draft preparation, M.S.; Supervision (metal analysis), data validation, writing—review and editing, D.P.; Formal analysis, investigation, data analysis, validation, writing—review and editing, Y.W.; Conceptualization, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition, writing—review and editing, D.A.S. and S.H.G.; Writing—review and editing, S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research funding to carry out this project was awarded as part of the IDeA Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) program (P20 GM103442) by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within article/Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the National Institute of General Medical Sciences for providing the funds through the IDeA Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) program and to the worthy reviewers for giving valuable comments to improve this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Chauhan, G.; Chauhan, U.K. 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. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhao, D.; Wang, P.; Zhao, F.J. Toxic metals and metalloids in food: Current status, health risks, and mitigation strategies. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2024, 11, 468–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Noli, F.; Tsamos, P. 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, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Alfaro, M.R.; Ugarte, O.M.; Lima, L.H.V.; Silva, J.R.; da Silva, F.B.V.; da Silva Lins, S.A.; do Nascimento, C.W.A. Risk assessment of heavy metals in soils and edible parts of vegetables grown on sites contaminated by an abandoned steel plant in Havana. Environ. Geochem. Health 2022, 44, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Antoniadis, V.; Golia, E.E.; Liu, Y.T.; Wang, S.L.; Shaheen, S.M.; Rinklebe, J. Soil and maize contamination by trace elements and associated health risk assessment in the industrial area of Volos, Greece. Environ. Int. 2019, 124, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aslam, M.A.; Abbas, M.S.; Mustaqeem, M.; Bashir, M.; Shabbir, A.; Saeed, M.T.; Irfan, R.M. Comprehensive assessment of heavy metal contamination in soil-plant systems and health risks from wastewater-irrigated vegetables. Colloids Surf. C Environ. Asp. 2024, 2, 100044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sharma, A.; Nagpal, A.K. Contamination of vegetables with heavy metals across the globe: Hampering food security goal. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dias, J.S. Nutritional quality and health benefits of vegetables: A review. Food Nutr. Sci. 2012, 3, 1354–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alegbe, P.J.; Appiah-Brempong, M.; Awuah, E. Heavy metal contamination in vegetables and associated health risks. Sci. Afr. 2025, 27, e02603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Khan, S.; Cao, Q.; Zheng, Y.M.; Huang, Y.Z.; Zhu, Y.G. Health risks of heavy metals in contaminated soils and food crops irrigated with wastewater in Beijing, China. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 152, 686–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bambhaneeya, S.M.; Garaniya, N.H.; Surve, V.H.; Deshmukh, S.P. Assessment of heavy metal contamination and accumulation in soil and leafy vegetables collected from industrial belt in Bharuch district, Gujarat. Vegetos 2025, 38, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Radwan, M.A.; Salama, A.K. Market basket survey for some heavy metals in Egyptian fruits and vegetables. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2006, 44, 1273–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Sinha, S.; Gupta, A.K.; Bhatt, K.; Pandey, K.; Rai, U.N.; Singh, K.P. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yusuf, A.A.; Arowolo, T.A.; Bamgbose, O. Cadmium, copper and nickel levels in vegetables from industrial and residential areas of Lagos City, Nigeria. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2003, 41, 375–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ding, Z.; Li, Y.; Sun, Q.; Zhang, H. Trace elements in soils and selected agricultural plants in the Tongling mining area of China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nagajyoti, P.C.; Lee, K.D.; Sreekanth, T.V.M. Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2010, 8, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dogan, I.; Ozyigit, I.I.; Demir, G. Influence of aluminum on mineral nutrient uptake and accumulation in Urtica pilulifera L. J. Plant Nutr. 2014, 37, 469–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jomova, K.; Alomar, S.Y.; Nepovimova, E.; Kuca, K.; Valko, M. Heavy metals: Toxicity and human health effects. Arch. Toxicol. 2025, 99, 153–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Foulkes, M.E.; Sadee, B.A.; Hill, S.J. Arsenic speciation and its DNA fractionation in the rice plant Oryza sativa. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 2020, 35, 1989–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rusin, M.; Domagalska, J.; Rogala, D.; Razzaghi, M.; Szymala, I. Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruits. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 11913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mawari, G.; Kumar, N.; Sarkar, S.; Daga, M.K.; Singh, M.M.; Joshi, T.K.; Khan, N.A. Heavy metal accumulation in fruits and vegetables and human health risk assessment: Findings from Maharashtra, India. Environ. Health Insights 2022, 16, 11786302221119151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tang, M.; Lu, G.; Fan, B.; Xiang, W.; Bao, Z. Bioaccumulation and risk assessment of heavy metals in soil-crop systems in Liujiang karst area, Southwestern China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 9657–9669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ma, L.; Liu, Y.; Sahito, Z.A.; Liu, C.; Li, Z.; Yu, C.; Feng, Y.; Guo, W. Intraspecific variation in tomato: Impact on production quality and cadmium phytoremediation efficiency in intercropping systems with hyperaccumulating plant. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2024, 282, 116715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bani, A.; Echevarria, G.; Zhang, X.; Benizri, E.; Laubie, B.; Morel, J.L.; Simonnot, M.O. The effect of plant density in nickel-phytomining field experiments with Alyssum murale in Albania. Aust. J. Bot. 2015, 63, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Radulescu, C.; Stihi, C.; Popescu, I.V.; Dulama, I.D.; Chelarescu, E.D.; Chilian, A. Heavy metal accumulation and translocation in different parts of Brassica oleracea L. Rom. J. Phys. 2013, 58, 1337–1354. [Google Scholar]
  26. Nowar, A.; Islam, M.H.; Islam, S.; Jubayer, A.; Nayan, M.M. A systematic review on heavy metals contamination in Bangladeshi vegetables and their associated health risks. Front. Environ. Sci. 2024, 12, 1425286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kasemodel, M.C.; Sakamoto, I.K.; Varesche, M.B.A.; Rodrigues, V.G.S. Potentially toxic metal contamination and microbial community analysis in an abandoned Pb and Zn mining waste deposit. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 675, 367–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rai, P.K.; Lee, S.S.; Zhang, M.; Tsang, Y.F.; Kim, K.H. Heavy metals in food crops: Health risks, fate, mechanisms, and management. Environ. Int. 2019, 125, 365–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, Z.; Cai, Y. Heavy metal pollution in reservoirs in the hilly area of southern China: Distribution, source apportionment and health risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 634, 158–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Silva, F.B.V.; Do Nascimento, C.W.A.; Araújo, P.R.M.; da Silva, F.L.; Lima, L.H.V. Soil contamination by metals with high ecological risk in urban and rural areas. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 14, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shi, J.; Zhao, D.; Ren, F.; Huang, L. Spatiotemporal variation of soil heavy metals in China: The pollution status and risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 871, 161768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Boahen, E. Heavy metal contamination in urban roadside vegetables: Origins, exposure pathways, and health implications. Discov. Environ. 2024, 2, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sidhu, G.P.S.; Bali, A.S.; Singh, H.P.; Batish, D.R.; Kohli, R.K. Insights into the tolerance and phytoremediation potential of Coronopus didymus L.(Sm) grown under zinc stress. Chemosphere 2020, 244, 125350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Shaheen, S.M.; Kwon, E.E.; Biswas, J.K.; Tack, F.M.; Ok, Y.S.; Rinklebe, J. Arsenic, chromium, molybdenum, and selenium: Geochemical fractions and potential mobilization in riverine soil profiles originating from Germany and Egypt. Chemosphere 2017, 180, 553–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. White, K.B.; Liber, K. Early chemical and toxicological risk characterization of inorganic constituents in surface water from the Canadian oil sands first large-scale end pit lake. Chemosphere 2018, 211, 745–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Saleem, M.; Iqbal, J.; Shah, M.H. Seasonal variations, risk assessment and multivariate analysis of trace metals in the freshwater reservoirs of Pakistan. Chemosphere 2019, 216, 715–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, X.; Wei, S.; Sun, Q.; Wadood, S.A.; Guo, B. Source identification and spatial distribution of arsenic and heavy metals in agricultural soil around Hunan industrial estate by positive matrix factorization model, principle components analysis and geo statistical analysis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 159, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sadee, B.A.; Ali, R.J. Determination of heavy metals in edible vegetables and a human health risk assessment. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2023, 19, 100761. [Google Scholar]
  39. Singh, A.; Sharma, R.K.; Agrawal, M.; Marshall, F.M. Risk assessment of heavy metal toxicity through contaminated vegetables from waste water irrigated area of Varanasi, India. Trop. Ecol. 2010, 51, 375–387. [Google Scholar]
  40. Shahriar, S.M.S.; Hossain, M.S.; Dipti, S.; Salam, S.M.A. Heavy metal contamination in soil and vegetables: A review with health risk assessments. J. Sci. Eng. Pap. 2024, 1, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. González-Muñoz, M.J.; Peña, A.; Meseguer, I. Monitoring heavy metal contents in food and hair in a sample of young Spanish subjects. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46, 3048–3052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Lupolt, S.N.; Santo, R.E.; Kim, B.F.; Green, C.; Codling, E.; Rule, A.M.; Chen, R.; Scheckel, K.G.; Strauss, M.; Cocke, A.; et al. The safe urban harvests study: A community-driven cross-sectional assessment of metals in soil, irrigation water, and produce from urban farms and gardens in Baltimore, Maryland. Environ. Health Perspect. 2021, 129, 117004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chinnannan, K.; Somagattu, P.; Yammanuru, H.; Reddy, U.K.; Nimmakayala, P. Health risk assessment of heavy metals in soil and vegetables from major agricultural sites of Ohio and West Virginia. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2024, 57, 103108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Burke, M.W.; Rundquist, B.C.; Zheng, H. Detection of Shelterbelt Density Change Using Historic APFO and NAIP Aerial Imagery. Remote. Sens. 2019, 11, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Saleem, M.; Pierce, D.; Wang, Y.; Sens, D.A.; Somji, S.; Garrett, S.H. Heavy metal (oid)s contamination and potential ecological risk assessment in agricultural soils. J. Xenobiot. 2024, 14, 634–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Abbasi, A.M.; Iqbal, J.; Khan, M.A.; Shah, M.H. Health risk assessment and multivariate apportionment of trace metals in wild leafy vegetables from Lesser Himalayas, Pakistan. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2013, 92, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sharafi, K.; Mansouri, B.; Omer, A.K.; Bashardoust, P.; Ebrahimzadeh, G.; Sharifi, S.; Massahi, T.; Soleimani, H. Investigation of health risk assessment and the effect of various irrigation water on the accumulation of toxic metals in the most widely consumed vegetables in Iran. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 20806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hu, J.; Wu, F.; Wu, S.; Cao, Z.; Lin, X.; Wong, M.H. Bioaccessibility, dietary exposure and human risk assessment of heavy metals from market vegetables in Hong Kong revealed with an in vitro gastrointestinal model. Chemosphere 2013, 91, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Voica, C.; Nechita, C.; Iordache, A.M.; Roba, C.; Zgavarogea, R.; Ionete, R.E. ICP-MS assessment of essential and toxic trace elements in foodstuffs with different geographic origins available in Romanian supermarkets. Molecules 2021, 26, 7081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Islam, M.N.; Das, B.K.; Huque, M.E. Risk assessment for Bangladesh is due to arsenic exposure from consumption of vegetables grown with natural arsenic contaminated groundwater. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2018, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shamsollahi, H.R.; Alimohammadi, M.; Momeni, S.; Naddafi, K.; Nabizadeh, R.; Khorasgani, F.C.; Masinaei, M.; Yousefi, M. Assessment of the health risk induced by accumulated heavy metals from anaerobic digestion of biological sludge of the lettuce. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2019, 188, 514–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Adefa, T.; Tefera, M. Heavy metal accumulation and health risk assessment in Moringa oleifera from Awi zone, Ethiopia. Chem. Afr. 2020, 3, 1073–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zakaria, Z.; Zulkafflee, N.S.; Mohd Redzuan, N.A.; Selamat, J.; Ismail, M.R.; Praveena, S.M.; Tóth, G.; Abdull Razis, A.F. Understanding potential heavy metal contamination, absorption, translocation and accumulation in rice and human health risks. Plants 2021, 10, 1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Kimmons, J.; Gillespie, C.; Seymour, J.; Serdula, M.; Blanck, H.M. Fruit and vegetable intake among adolescents and adults in the United States: Percentage meeting individualized recommendations. Medscape J. Med. 2009, 11, 26. [Google Scholar]
  55. Hadayat, N.; De Oliveira, L.M.; Da Silva, E.; Han, L.; Hussain, M.; Liu, X.; Ma, L.Q. Assessment of trace metals in five most-consumed vegetables in the US: Conventional vs. organic. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 243, 292–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bayissa, L.D.; Gebeyehu, H.R. Vegetables contamination by heavy metals and associated health risk to the population in Koka area of central Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, 0254236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lučić, M.; Miletić, A.; Savić, A.; Lević, S.; Ignjatović, I.S.; Onjia, A. Dietary intake and health risk assessment of essential and toxic elements in pepper (Capsicum annuum). J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 111, 104598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxic Substances Portal. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/index.aspx (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  59. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available online: https://www.epa.gov/iris (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  60. Antoine, J.M.; Fung, L.A.H.; Grant, C.N. Assessment of the potential health risks associated with the aluminium, arsenic, cadmium and lead content in selected fruits and vegetables grown in Jamaica. Toxicol. Rep. 2017, 4, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ashraf, I.; Ahmad, F.; Sharif, A.; Altaf, A.R.; Teng, H. Heavy metals assessment in water, soil, vegetables and their associated health risks via consumption of vegetables, District Kasur, Pakistan. SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kamunda, C.; Mathuthu, M.; Madhuku, M. Health risk assessment of heavy metals in soils from witwatersrand gold mining basin, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res Public Health 2016, 13, 663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pirsaheb, M.; Hadei, M.; Sharafi, K. Human health risk assessment by Monte Carlo simulation method for heavy metals of commonly consumed cereals in Iran-Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2021, 96, 103697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kusin, F.M.; Azani, N.N.M.; Hasan, S.N.M.S.; Sulong, N.A. Distribution of heavy metals and metalloid in surface sediments of heavily-mined area for bauxite ore in Pengerang, Malaysia and associated risk assessment. Catena 2018, 165, 454–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Demissie, S.; Mekonen, S.; Awoke, T.; Teshome, B.; Mengistie, B. Examining carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health risks related to arsenic exposure in Ethiopia: A longitudinal study. Toxicol. Rep. 2024, 12, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Pajević, S.; Arsenov, D.; Nikolić, N.; Borišev, M.; Orčić, D.; Župunski, M.; Mimica-Dukić, N. Heavy metal accumulation in vegetable species and health risk assessment in Serbia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ahmed, S.; Mahdi, M.M.; Nurnabi, M.; Alam, M.Z.; Choudhury, T.R. Health risk assessment for heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown on tannery effluent contaminated soil. Toxicol. Rep. 2022, 9, 346–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Alexander, P.D.; Alloway, B.J.; Dourado, A.M. Genotypic variations in the accumulation of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn exhibited by six commonly grown vegetables. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 144, 736–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Finster, M.E.; Gray, K.A.; Binns, H.J. Lead levels of edibles grown in contaminated residential soils: A field survey. Sci. Total Environ. 2004, 320, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Säumel, I.; Kotsyuk, I.; Hölscher, M.; Lenkereit, C.; Weber, F.; Kowarik, I. How healthy is urban horticulture in high traffic areas? Trace metal concentrations in vegetable crops from plantings within inner city neighbourhoods in Berlin, Germany. Environ. Pollut. 2012, 165, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Douay, F.; Pelfrêne, A.; Planque, J.; Fourrier, H.; Richard, A.; Roussel, H.; Girondelot, B. Assessment of potential health risk for inhabitants living near a former lead smelter. Part 1: Metal concentrations in soils, agricultural crops, and homegrown vegetables. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 3665–3680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mapanda, F.; Mangwayana, E.; Nyamangara, J.; Giller, K. The effect of long-term irrigation using wastewater on heavy metal contents of soils under vegetables in Harare, Zimbabwe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005, 107, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chowdhury, A.I.; Shill, L.C.; Raihan, M.M.; Rashid, R.; Bhuiyan, M.N.H.; Reza, S.; Alam, M.R. Human health risk assessment of heavy metals in vegetables of Bangladesh. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 15616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Luo, C.L.; Liu, C.P.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Li, F.B.; Zhang, C.; Li, X.D. Heavy metal contamination in soils and vegetables near an e-waste processing site, south China. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 186, 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Chang, C.Y.; Yu, H.Y.; Chen, J.J.; Li, F.B.; Zhang, H.H.; Liu, C.P. Accumulation of heavy metals in leaf vegetables from agricultural soils and associated potential health risks in the Pearl River Delta, South China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014, 186, 1547–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Sheet, N.N.F. Joint Report of Food Planning and Nutrition Unit (FMPU) of the Ministry of Food of Government of Bangladesh and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation (FAO); National Food Policy Plan of Action and Country Investment Plan; Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2011; pp. 1–2.
  77. Khan, S.; Reid, B.J.; Li, G.; Zhu, Y.G. Application of biochar to soil reduces cancer risk via rice consumption: A case study in Miaoqian village, Longyan, China. Environ. Int. 2014, 68, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sharma, R.K.; Agrawal, M.; Marshall, F. Heavy metal contamination of soil and vegetables in suburban areas of Varanasi, India. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2007, 66, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhong, T.; Xue, D.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, X. Concentration of heavy metals in vegetables and potential health risk assessment in China. Environ. Geochem. Health 2018, 40, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhou, H.; Yang, W.T.; Zhou, X.; Liu, L.; Gu, J.F.; Wang, W.L.; Zou, J.L.; Tian, T.; Peng, P.Q.; Liao, B.H. Accumulation of heavy metals in vegetable species planted in contaminated soils and the health risk assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cherfi, A.; Cherfi, M.; Maache-Rezzoug, Z.; Rezzoug, S.A. Risk assessment of heavy metals via consumption of vegetables collected from different supermarkets in La Rochelle, France. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Razzak, A.; Mahjabin, T.; Khan, M.R.M.; Hossain, M.; Sadia, U.; Zzaman, W. Effect of cooking methods on the nutritional quality of selected vegetables at Sylhet City. Heliyon 2023, 9, e21709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lee, J.G.; Hwang, J.Y.; Lee, H.E.; Choi, J.D.; Kang, G.J. Comparative analysis of lead content during food processing. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 29, 1063–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Prashanth, L.; Kattapagari, K.K.; Chitturi, R.T.; Baddam, V.R.R.; Prasad, L.K. A review on role of essential trace elements in health and disease. J. Dr. YSR Univ. Health Sci. 2015, 4, 75–85. [Google Scholar]
  85. Esposito, M.; De Roma, A.; Sansone, D.; Capozzo, D.; Iaccarino, D.; di Nocera, F.; Gallo, P. Non-essential toxic element (Cd, As, Hg and Pb) levels in muscle, liver and kidney of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) stranded along the southwestern coasts of Tyrrhenian sea. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2020, 231, 108725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Adam Branson, 2023, China Releases the Standard for Maximum Levels of Contaminants in Foods. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=China%20Releases%20the%20Standard%20for%20Maximum%20Levels%20of%20Contaminants%20in%20Foods_Beijing_China%20-%20People%27s%20Republic%20of_CH2023-0040 (accessed on 12 March 2025).
  87. FAO/WHO, 2023, General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed, CXS 193-1995, Codex Alimentariu, International Food Standards. Available online: 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 (accessed on 12 March 2025).
  88. McBride, M.B.; Shayler, H.A.; Spliethoff, H.M.; Mitchell, R.G.; Marquez-Bravo, L.G.; Ferenz, G.S.; Russell-Anelli, J.M.; Casey, L.; Bachman, S. Concentrations of lead, cadmium and barium in urban garden-grown vegetables: The impact of soil variables. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 194, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Santos, E.E.; Lauri, D.C.; Silveira, P.C.L. Assessment of daily intake of trace elements due to consumption of foodstuffs by adult inhabitants of Rio de Janeiro city. Sci Total Environ. 2004, 327, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Islam, M.S.; Ahmed, M.K.; Habibullah-Al-Mamun, M.; Raknuzzaman, M.; Ali, M.M.; Eaton, D.W. Health risk assessment due to heavy metal exposure from commonly consumed fish and vegetables. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2016, 36, 253–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. USEPA. In Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 3—Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessment Chapter l, Part A; USEPA: Washington, IX, USA, 2001.
  92. Zeng, F.; Wei, W.; Li, M.; Huang, R.; Yang, F.; Duan, Y. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Comparison of metal levels (μg/g ± SE) in leafy vegetables and fruit vegetables.
Figure 1. Comparison of metal levels (μg/g ± SE) in leafy vegetables and fruit vegetables.
Foods 14 02264 g001
Figure 2. Mean target cancer risk (TCR) of Cr, As, Pb, Cd, and Ni through the consumption of studied vegetables. negligible: TCR < 1.0 × 10−6; permissible: 1.0 × 10−6 < TCR < 1.0 × 10−4; unacceptable: TCR > 1.0 × 10−4.
Figure 2. Mean target cancer risk (TCR) of Cr, As, Pb, Cd, and Ni through the consumption of studied vegetables. negligible: TCR < 1.0 × 10−6; permissible: 1.0 × 10−6 < TCR < 1.0 × 10−4; unacceptable: TCR > 1.0 × 10−4.
Foods 14 02264 g002
Table 2. Average concentration of essential micro metals and non-essential toxic metals (μg/g) in vegetables.
Table 2. Average concentration of essential micro metals and non-essential toxic metals (μg/g) in vegetables.
SeCoCrNiHgAsCdPb
Potato Mean0.0560.0470.0140.5350.00170.0100.2180.009
SD0.0360.0240.0050.2060.00090.0020.0870.003
Onion Mean0.3120.0150.0320.4000.00100.0580.0800.014
SD0.3610.0050.0210.2450.00020.0550.0330.007
TomatoMean0.0650.0700.0300.4840.00290.0220.3690.007
SD0.0460.0310.0200.2230.00170.0110.1010.003
Sugar BeetMean0.0820.0730.0420.3490.00090.0900.2450.018
SD0.0780.0480.0430.1280.00020.0870.1530.016
Green ChiliMean0.0980.2180.0330.9750.00080.0480.6570.007
SD0.0620.1350.0250.2840.00010.0250.4420.003
Dill Mean0.4810.0300.0611.2700.00470.0790.2860.040
SD0.1720.0110.0190.6850.00020.0240.0750.035
CornMean0.0750.0200.0190.3660.00120.0130.0060.007
SD0.0450.0140.0090.1720.00040.0090.0040.000
SpinachMean0.2250.1250.1790.3420.01130.0640.9850.081
SD0.0550.0290.0630.0700.00350.0160.2230.013
White EggplantMean0.0700.0340.0210.9220.00090.1900.4530.010
SD0.0130.0070.0130.2640.00020.0750.0610.013
KaleMean0.3270.0280.1140.3650.00770.0390.1050.021
SD0.1200.0060.0880.0580.00090.0100.0210.003
Green BeanMean0.1160.0670.0242.1390.00200.0090.0140.009
SD0.0550.0260.0080.7740.00130.0010.0250.004
CapsicumMean0.1090.1000.0280.7120.00170.0270.4110.008
SD0.0360.0900.0110.3330.00010.0230.3040.007
CucumberMean0.2080.0680.0340.7130.00230.4360.0450.021
SD0.0830.0220.0130.2740.00130.1450.0250.013
Table 3. Estimated daily intake of heavy metals through the consumption of vegetables in this study.
Table 3. Estimated daily intake of heavy metals through the consumption of vegetables in this study.
SeMnCuZnCoHgCrNiAsCdPb
Potato2.7 × 10−42.6 × 10−22.7 × 10−25.7 × 10−22.3 × 10−48.5 × 10−66.8 × 10−52.6 × 10−34.9 × 10−51.1 × 10−34.4 × 10−5
Onion1.5 × 10−34.4 × 10−21.4 × 10−26.1 × 10−27.4 × 10−54.8 × 10−61.5 × 10−41.9 × 10−32.8 × 10−43.9 × 10−46.8 × 10−5
Tomato3.2 × 10−49.9 × 10−24.3 × 10−27.0 × 10−23.4 × 10−41.4 × 10−51.4 × 10−42.4 × 10−31.1 × 10−41.8 × 10−33.6 × 10−5
Sugar Beet4.0 × 10−41.3 × 10−12.5 × 10−26.3 × 10−23.6 × 10−44.4 × 10−62.1 × 10−41.7 × 10−34.4 × 10−41.2 × 10−39.0 × 10−5
Green Chili4.7 × 10−47.4 × 10−22.5 × 10−25.6 × 10−21.1 × 10−33.7 × 10−61.6 × 10−44.7 × 10−32.3 × 10−43.2 × 10−33.5 × 10−5
Dill2.3 × 10−34.3 × 10−13.1 × 10−21.9 × 10−11.5 × 10−42.3 × 10−53.0 × 10−46.2 × 10−33.8 × 10−41.4 × 10−31.9 × 10−4
Corn3.7 × 10−44.1 × 10−27.7 × 10−38.4 × 10−29.8 × 10−55.7 × 10−69.1 × 10−51.8 × 10−36.1 × 10−53.1 × 10−53.5 × 10−5
Spinach1.1 × 10−31.1 × 1001.5 × 10−23.8 × 10−16.1 × 10−45.5 × 10−58.7 × 10−41.7 × 10−33.1 × 10−44.8 × 10−33.9 × 10−4
White Eggplant3.4 × 10−47.5 × 10−24.0 × 10−27.5 × 10−21.6 × 10−44.2 × 10−61.0 × 10−44.5 × 10−39.2 × 10−42.2 × 10−35.0 × 10−5
Kale1.6 × 10−32.2 × 10−18.9 × 10−38.1 × 10−21.4 × 10−43.7 × 10−55.6 × 10−41.8 × 10−31.9 × 10−45.1 × 10−41.0 × 10−4
Green Bean5.6 × 10−47.8 × 10−23.0 × 10−21.0 × 10−13.2 × 10−49.5 × 10−61.1 × 10−41.0 × 10−24.1 × 10−56.9 × 10−54.5 × 10−5
Capsicum5.3 × 10−46.3 × 10−22.2 × 10−25.6 × 10−24.9 × 10−48.0 × 10−61.3 × 10−43.5 × 10−31.3 × 10−42.0 × 10−33.8 × 10−5
Cucumber1.0 × 10−35.2 × 10−22.3 × 10−27.4 × 10−23.3 × 10−41.1 × 10−51.7 × 10−43.5 × 10−32.1 × 10−32.2 × 10−41.0 × 10−4
Min2.7 × 10−42.6 × 10−27.7 × 10−35.6 × 10−27.4 × 10−53.7 × 10−66.8 × 10−51.7 × 10−34.1 × 10−53.1 × 10−53.5 × 10−5
Max2.3 × 10−31.1 × 1004.3 × 10−23.8 × 10−11.1 × 10−35.5 × 10−58.7 × 10−41.0 × 10−22.1 × 10−34.8 × 10−33.9 × 10−4
MTDI *- 2.5–360–655.0 × 10−24.0 × 10−20.035–0.20.1–0.31.3 × 10−10.02–0.072.1 × 10−1
* MTDI: Maximum tolerable daily intake.
Table 4. Target Hazard Quotient (THQ) and Hazard Index (HI) for non-carcinogenic risk assessment associated with vegetable consumption.
Table 4. Target Hazard Quotient (THQ) and Hazard Index (HI) for non-carcinogenic risk assessment associated with vegetable consumption.
SeMnCuZnCoHgCrNiAsCdPbHI
Potato0.050.190.660.190.770.080.020.130.161.060.013.33
Onion0.300.310.350.200.250.050.050.100.950.390.022.96
Tomato0.060.701.080.231.140.140.050.120.351.790.015.69
Sugar Beet0.080.900.630.211.180.040.070.081.461.190.035.88
Green Chili0.090.530.630.193.540.040.050.240.773.190.019.27
Dill0.473.050.770.620.480.230.100.311.281.390.058.74
Corn0.070.290.190.280.330.060.030.090.200.030.011.59
Spinach0.227.510.381.282.030.550.290.081.044.790.1118.3
White Eggplant0.070.541.010.250.550.040.030.223.072.200.018.00
Kale0.321.570.220.270.450.370.190.090.630.510.034.65
Green Bean0.110.560.750.341.080.100.040.520.140.070.013.71
Capsicum0.110.450.540.191.620.080.040.170.431.990.015.64
Cucumber0.200.370.570.251.110.110.060.177.050.220.0310.1
Table 5. Target cancer risk (TCR) of heavy metals for the vegetables studied.
Table 5. Target cancer risk (TCR) of heavy metals for the vegetables studied.
CrAsPbCdNi
Potato3.4 × 10−57.3 × 10−53.7 × 10−74.0 × 10−44.4 × 10−3
Onion7.7 × 10−54.3 × 10−45.8 × 10−71.5 × 10−43.3 × 10−3
Tomato7.2 × 10−51.6 × 10−43.0 × 10−76.8 × 10−44.0 × 10−3
Sugar Beet1.0 × 10−46.6 × 10−47.6 × 10−74.5 × 10−42.9 × 10−3
Green Chili8.1 × 10−53.5 × 10−43.0 × 10−71.2 × 10−38.0 × 10−3
Dill1.5 × 10−45.8 × 10−41.6 × 10−65.3 × 10−41.0 × 10−2
Corn4.5 × 10−59.2 × 10−52.9 × 10−71.2 × 10−53.0 × 10−3
Spinach4.3 × 10−44.7 × 10−43.3 × 10−61.8 × 10−32.8 × 10−3
White Eggplant5.0 × 10−51.4 × 10−34.3 × 10−78.4 × 10−47.6 × 10−3
Kale2.8 × 10−42.8 × 10−48.7 × 10−71.9 × 10−43.0 × 10−3
Green Bean5.7 × 10−56.2 × 10−53.8 × 10−72.6 × 10−51.8 × 10−2
Capsicum6.7 × 10−51.9 × 10−43.2 × 10−77.6 × 10−45.9 × 10−3
Cucumber8.3 × 10−53.2 × 10−38.8 × 10−78.4 × 10−55.9 × 10−3
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Saleem, M.; Wang, Y.; Pierce, D.; Sens, D.A.; Somji, S.; Garrett, S.H. Concentration and Potential Non-Carcinogenic and Carcinogenic Health Risk Assessment of Metals in Locally Grown Vegetables. Foods 2025, 14, 2264. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14132264

AMA Style

Saleem M, Wang Y, Pierce D, Sens DA, Somji S, Garrett SH. Concentration and Potential Non-Carcinogenic and Carcinogenic Health Risk Assessment of Metals in Locally Grown Vegetables. Foods. 2025; 14(13):2264. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14132264

Chicago/Turabian Style

Saleem, Muhammad, Yuqiang Wang, David Pierce, Donald A. Sens, Seema Somji, and Scott H. Garrett. 2025. "Concentration and Potential Non-Carcinogenic and Carcinogenic Health Risk Assessment of Metals in Locally Grown Vegetables" Foods 14, no. 13: 2264. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14132264

APA Style

Saleem, M., Wang, Y., Pierce, D., Sens, D. A., Somji, S., & Garrett, S. H. (2025). Concentration and Potential Non-Carcinogenic and Carcinogenic Health Risk Assessment of Metals in Locally Grown Vegetables. Foods, 14(13), 2264. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14132264

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop