Next Article in Journal
Linoleic Acid and Linolenic Acid May Alleviate Heart Failure Through Aquaporin (AQP1) and Gut Microbiota
Previous Article in Journal
Development of Spirulina-Enriched Fruit and Vegetable Juices: Nutritional Enhancement, Antioxidant Potential, and Sensory Challenges
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of the Impact of Metals in Wild Edible Mushrooms from Dambovita County, Romania, on Human Health

by
Claudia Stihi
1,2,* and
Crinela Dumitrescu
1,*
1
Faculty of Sciences and Arts, Valahia University of Targoviste, 13 Aleea Sinaia St., 130004 Targoviste, Romania
2
Academy of Romanian Scientists, 3 Ilfov St., 050044 Bucharest, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2025, 14(20), 3540; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14203540
Submission received: 22 September 2025 / Revised: 14 October 2025 / Accepted: 15 October 2025 / Published: 17 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Food Microbiology)

Abstract

Edible wild mushrooms have considerable nutritional value, being widely used in Romania as a traditional food. Mushrooms are an important source of essential minerals for the optimal functioning of the body and can accumulate some toxic metals that affect human health, this being the reason to investigate their metal content, and the possible risks to human health associated with consuming mushrooms. Eighteen wild edible mushroom species from the forestry areas of Dâmbovița County, Romania, were analyzed for metal content using Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence with fundamental parameter methods (EDXRF-FP). The detected concentrations varied among species as follows: 6.309–88.745 mg/kg for Fe; 0.679–3.480 mg/kg for Cu; 5.115–25.942 mg/kg for Zn; 0.236–32.025 mg/kg for Mn; 0.033–4.507 mg/kg for Ni and 0.003–0.760 mg/kg for Cr. Pb and Cd were observed at low levels, with maximum concentrations of 0.886 mg/kg and 0.850 mg/kg, respectively, highlighting significant interspecific differences in metal content. The consumption of the studied mushroom species presents variable health risks associated with metal content. Adults were generally exposed to acceptable non-carcinogenic risks, although certain species possessed elevated carcinogenic risks due to Cu, Cr, and Cd. For children, non-carcinogenic risks were significant in cases of multiple species, indicating heightened vulnerability.

1. Introduction

Micronutrients, including both vitamins and minerals, are indispensable for maintaining the optimal physiological performance of the human body [1]. Unlike macronutrients, which can be synthesized endogenously, these essential compounds must be supplied through dietary intake [2].
Edible mushrooms not only enrich the sensory qualities of food but also represent significant dietary sources of vitamin C, B-complex vitamins (such as folates, thiamine, riboflavin, and niacin), as well as key minerals, including potassium, iron, copper, selenium, zinc, phosphorus, and magnesium [2,3,4]. Moreover, mushrooms provide an abundance of bioactive compounds and antioxidants, including proteins, β-glucan, and ergothioneine [1,5,6,7,8].
Minerals play a critical role in sustaining cognitive processes, immune function, circulatory health, and skeletal integrity [1]. Evidence from studies investigating the links between dietary patterns and cognitive decline [5,9,10,11,12,13] indicates that higher mushroom consumption is associated with beneficial effects for sustaining brain health.
In the human body, Fe, Ca, Mg, and certain trace elements (e.g., Cu, Zn, Ni) are essential minerals, yet they may become toxic when present above specific thresholds. The body is unable to store Fe efficiently and exhibits limited absorption capacity [14,15].
For adults, gastrointestinal symptoms may appear when Fe intake exceeds 20 mg/kg of body weight, with symptom severity increasing in direct relation with the ingested dose [16].
As integral components of metalloenzymes, Cu and Zn are indispensable in trace amounts for sustaining cellular physiological activity [17,18]. However, in excessive concentrations, both elements may have toxic effects in humans and animals. Acute exposure to copper salts via ingestion may induce nausea, vomiting, and ulceration of the gastrointestinal tract, while acute inhalation exposure can lead to pulmonary injury [18]. Furthermore, recent studies suggest that elevated serum copper levels may represent a risk factor for ischemic stroke and may contribute to the initiation of atherosclerotic processes [19,20].
Heavy metal contamination poses a significant global health risk. Certain metals disrupt biological functions and growth, while others accumulate in organs, contributing to serious diseases such as cancer [21]. The physiological and biochemical effects of bioaccumulation, alongside disease severity, have been characterized in [21].
Humans are exposed to heavy metals through multiple pathways: ingestion of contaminated food, inhalation of polluted air, drinking contaminated water, and dermal contact in agricultural, industrial, pharmaceutical, and residential settings [22,23]. Non-biodegradable and persistent, these metals accumulate in the body over time. While some are essential for key biochemical and physiological processes, elevated levels can exert toxic effects [24,25,26,27].
Heavy metals such as Pb, Cd, Hg, and Cr persist in the environment, and their long-term presence leads to bioaccumulation in ecosystems and represents a serious threat to said ecosystems and living organisms including humans [28,29,30].
The accumulation of metals in wild mushrooms is influenced by both environmental and biological factors. Soil composition, pH, moisture, organic matter, climate, and anthropogenic activities interact with species-specific morphology and tissue type, resulting in variable and context-dependent metal uptake [31]. Nutrient and metal content varies by species and may differ for the same species collected in different regions [32], highlighting the need for comprehensive compositional data in metals of mushrooms growing in different areas. Consequently, assessing the concentrations of both essential and potentially toxic metals in mushrooms, as well as evaluating their implications for human health, is imperative [33,34].
Wild edible mushrooms grow seasonally in areas where humidity and temperature are optimal, especially forested areas. Their unique flavor and accessibility lead to frequent worldwide consumption [35], particularly among Romania’s rural populations [36,37,38,39]. The consequences of this dietary practice for community nutrition and health remain largely unexplored.
Romania has maintained a rich heritage of wild mushroom gathering. Across the Carpathian region and nearby areas, local communities continue to engage in the collection, processing, and trade of these fungi [39].
Research studies conducted in Romania have shown that certain frequently consumed mushrooms bioaccumulate minerals from their substrate [40,41,42,43,44]. Certain studies have been conducted in the southern areas of Romania such as the counties Dâmbovița and Prahova [43,45], northwestern areas of Romania such as Sălaj County [43,46], and in Romania’s northeastern areas including the counties Iași and Suceava [32]. The effects that the consumption of wild mushrooms with accumulated metals has on human health in Romania have not yet been sufficiently studied.
A study conducted in Romania [43] investigated the accumulation of Fe, Zn, and Cu in four species (Russula virescens, Russula cyanoxantha, Russula foetens, and Russula nigrescens) from Dâmbovița County. Concentrations in dried fruiting bodies ranged from 58.8 to 340.3 mg/kg for Fe, 19.7 to 99.6 mg/kg for Zn, and 5.0 to 9.4 mg/kg for Cu, indicating a limited ability of these species to accumulate metals from the soil [43]. The study did not evaluate potential health effects [43].
The metal content (in dried fruiting bodies) of wild edible mushroom species (Agaricus campestris, Boletus edulis, Lepiota Procera, and Russula cyanoxantha) collected from Salaj County, northwestern Romania, varied as follows: 69.3 ± 17.0–148 ± 26.5 (mg/kg) for Fe; 36.1 ± 8.–76.9 ± 9.1 (mg/kg) for Cu; 67.4 ± 26.0–157 ± 24.6 (mg/kg) for Zn; 9.21 ± 2.10–15.1 ± 2.1 (mg/kg) for Mn; 0.87 ± 0.44–1.39 ± 0.39 for Ni; 1.79 ± 0.53–2.68 ± 1.36 for Cr; 0.27 ± 0.08–0.45 ± 0.18 for Pb; 0.17 ± 0.06–0.23 ± 0.04 for Cd [36]. Zavastin et al. (2018) conducted studies on the accumulation of metals in wild edible mushrooms of the species Armillaria mellea (collected from the Dobrovat forest area, Iasi County, Romania), Boletus edulis and Cantharellus cibarius (collected from the Poiana Stampei area, Suceava County, Romania) [32]. The detected metal concentrations (in dried fruiting bodies) were as follows: Cu (with values ranging from 15.8 ± 0.3 mg/kg to 64.1 ± 0.7 mg/kg); Fe (with values ranging from 118 ± 2 mg/kg to 222 ± 5 mg/kg); Mn (with values ranging from 26.8 ± 0.4 mg/kg to 35.8 ± 0.5 mg/kg) and Zn (with values ranging from 77.3 ± 2.4 mg/kg to 188 ± 1 mg/kg) [32].
The metal content (in dried fruiting bodies) of wild edible mushroom species (Agaricus bisporus, Agaricus campestris, Armillaria mellea, Boletus edulis, Macrolepiota excoriate, Macrolepiota procera) collected from Prahova County, Romania, varied as follows: 0.422–0.963 (mg/kg) for Cd; 0.450–1.218 (mg/kg) for Cr; 2.745 – 3.387 (mg/kg) for Cu; 0.954–1.452 (mg/kg) for Ni and 0.796–1.972 (mg/kg) for Pb [45].
This study aims to evaluate the potential human health risks associated with consuming wild mushrooms containing metals such as Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn, Ni, Cr, Pb, and Cd. We focused on species from Dâmbovița County, Romania, which are abundant and widely consumed by local communities. This approach provides a strong foundation for generating highly relevant data on potential health impacts.
Eighteen wild edible mushroom species (Russula virescens, Russula cyanoxantha, Russula alutacea, Pleurotus ostreatus, Amanita caesarea, Boletus edulis, Macrolepiota procera, Cantharellus cibarius, Marasmius oreades, Russula vesca, Russula lutea, Russula aeruginea, Amanita rubescens, Hydnum repandum, Armillaria mellea, Lactarius volemus, Boletus chrysenteron, Boletus griseus) were analyzed using Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence with fundamental parameter methods (EDXRF-FP) to quantify concentrations of essential and potentially toxic metals in fresh weight. The study addresses interspecific variation in metal content and contributes to our understanding of the implications of mushroom consumption for human health, particularly in terms of non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Located in the southern part of Romania, Dâmbovița County exhibits a varied landscape, from the forested northern Carpathians to the low-lying plains of the south. Dâmbovița County ranges in altitude from approximately 100 m in the southern plains to over 1800 m in the northern Carpathian highlands. This altitudinal gradient shapes variations in temperature, humidity, and vegetation, directly influencing the seasonal growth and availability of wild mushrooms.
Dâmbovița County hosts potential metal sources, including geogenic inputs from the regional lithology, industrial emissions, agricultural activities, vehicular traffic, and waste disposal sites, collectively contributing to the accumulation of metals in local wild mushroom species.
Against this general background, the mean population density (118 inhabitants/km2) exceeds the national average, with lower values in the southern part and higher values in the northern part. Except for major urban centers such as Târgoviște, Moreni, Pucioasa and Gaesti, cities the population is predominantly concentrated in villages across the county. For many inhabitants of Dâmbovița’s villages, gathering wild mushrooms is both a cultural habit and a means of supplementing their diet.

2.2. Sampling and Samples Preparation

Wild mushroom samples, corresponding to 18 edible species, with 3–5 samples for each species, were collected from 15 distinct forest ecosystems across Dâmbovița County (Figure 1) between May and October of the same year, based on their edibility, with particular attention to species traditionally harvested by local communities in the surveyed rural areas.
The Figure 1 was created using ArcGIS 10.8 software, and the Digital Terrain Model (DTM) was generated from the Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) data available at: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/.
Healthy and mature wild mushroom samples were collected, and a preliminary cleaning step was performed to remove soil, leaf litter, and other debris without compromising the tissue structure. Each sample was assigned a unique identification code and accompanied by documentation of the sampling site, habitat and topography.
The sampled wild mushrooms were classified into three edibility categories, highly edible, generally edible, and moderately edible, reflecting both culinary value and local harvesting practices [47].
Table 1 summarizes details about the sampled wild mushrooms, including their taxonomic family, species designation, associated habitat/topography, vernacular name, and typical growth period.
The mushroom samples were transported to a laboratory in clear paper bags to minimize moisture accumulation and preserve integrity.
In the laboratory, the mushroom samples were gently rinsed with ultrapure deionized water (Millipore, Carlsbad, CA, USA), briefly air-dried to eliminate surface moisture, weighed to determine their initial fresh mass, and subsequently oven-dried at 60 °C for 48 h under controlled conditions to ensure complete dehydration.
The dried material was weighed and then finely ground using an agate mortar (Sartorius, Göttingen, Germany) and sieved to obtain a homogeneous powder. The obtained powder was pressed on Myler thin film (PREMIER Lab Supply, Port St. Lucie, FL, USA) without any chemical treatment on a Teflon sample holder and placed directly in the X-ray beam for the determination of metal content.

2.3. Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Quantitative Analysis with Fundamental Parameters Method (EDXRF-FP)

The EDXRF-FP measurements were carried out using a benchtop ElvaX Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence spectrometer (Elvatech, Kyiv, Ukraine) with an air-cooled X-ray tube featuring a rhodium cathode, a high-voltage power supply of up to 50 kV, a Si-PIN X-ray detector thermoelectrically cooled with a 165 eV energy resolution at Mn Ka and a multichannel analyzer. The system was fully controlled by a computer using the ElvaXTM 2.8 software analysis package with a data library and X-ray mathematical models.
Quantitative analysis was conducted using the fundamental parameter method [48]. Standard reference materials, NIST 1573a (tomato leaves) and NIST 1515 (apple leaves), were used to calibrate the system and to obtain the experimental parameters. A duration of 1200 s was used for X-ray spectrum acquisition in three replicates for each sample. All spectra obtained were processed to quantify the concentrations of Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn, Ni, Cr, Pb, and Cd in the wild edible mushrooms samples.
Based on instrument calibration and background signal measurements, the detection limit values for the analyzed metals in the dried mushroom samples were as follows: 2.0 mg/kg for Fe, 0.5 mg/kg for Cu, 1.0 mg/kg for Zn, 0.8 mg/kg for Mn, 0.3 mg/kg for Ni, 0.2 mg/kg for Cr, 0.1 mg/kg for Pb, and 0.05 mg/kg for Cd.
The accuracy of the method was checked by analyzing the standard reference material NIST 1575 (pine needles), and the Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Cd concentrations were in good agreement, with a recovery between 87.3% and 108.2% (Table 2).
The accuracy for Cr determination was evaluated using high-purity chromium powder (≥99%, Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) as a matrix-approximated reference material. Analyses conducted under identical instrumental conditions to those used for the mushroom samples yielded a recovery of 90.2%. No recovery-based correction was applied to the reported concentration values.
Statistical analysis based on metal concentrations and mushroom species was performed using Python 3.10.9.

2.4. Human Health Risk Assessment

The human health risk associated with the consumption of edible wild mushrooms containing metals in different concentrations was assessed for two age groups, children and adults, following the methodology of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [49,50,51,52]. Non-carcinogenic risks were quantified via hazard quotients (HQs) and cumulative hazard indices (HIs), while carcinogenic risks were evaluated through incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) calculations.
The Estimated Daily Intake (EDI) of Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn, Ni, Cr, Pb and Cd through wild mushroom consumption was calculated using Equation (1) [53]:
EDI = CM × IR × ED × EF/BW × AT,
where EDI is the Estimated Daily Intake (mg kg−1day−1); CM is the metal concentration in wild edible mushroom samples (mg/kg fresh weight); IR is the metal intake rate (kg/day); ED is the exposure duration (years); EF is the exposure frequency (days/year); BW is the body weight (kg); AT is the average time exposure to a metal during the lifespan time (days).
The IR was assumed to be 0.3 kg/day per individual [31,54,55] while the EDI was set at 26 years for adults [56,57,58,59] and 11 years for children [52]. The EF was considered 90 days/year, reflecting the typical growth period of mushrooms and the BW was considered 70 kg for adults and 20 kg for children [60]. The AT value, in case of non-carcinogenic risk, was considered 9100 days for adults, respectively, as 4015 days for children [56,57,58,59,60].
Following USEPA guidelines, the potential health risk from metal ingestion was evaluated using HQ values and determined using Equation (2):
HQ = EDI/RfD,
where RfD represents the reference dose for each metal, expressed in mg kg−1day−1 [61,62].
The HI values were determined based on the EPA guidelines for health risk assessment as the sum of the resulting HQs for each metal [61,62,63,64,65,66].
HQ and HI values below 1 denote negligible non-carcinogenic risk, while values ≥1 indicate potential for significant non-carcinogenic effects [61,65,66].
ILCR represents the estimated probability of developing cancer over a lifetime from chronic exposure to a carcinogenic substance. ILCR values in the case of metal exposure were determined using Equation (3) [62,67,68]:
ILCR = ADI × CSF,
where ADI denotes the average daily intake (kg/day) of metal; CSF represents the cancer slope factor, defined as the estimated risk of developing cancer associated with a lifetime exposure to 1 mg of the metal per kilogram of body weight per day.
The total ILCR for wild mushrooms with different concentrations of metals was determined by summing the ILCR contributions of each metal. An ILCR within the range of 10−7 to 10−8 is considered minimal, values from 10−6 to 1 × 10−4 represent an acceptable level of risk, while an ILCR value exceeding 10−4 is indicative of a significant potential carcinogenic hazard [62,67,68].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Metal Content of Studied Wild Mushroom Samples

The mean concentrations of Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn, Ni, Cr, Pb, and Cd in the analyzed wild mushroom samples, determined via EDXRF-FP, are summarized in Table 3, reported on a fresh weight (fw) basis. Metal concentrations were calculated for fresh mushroom samples, reflecting typical consumption, by adjusting dry-matter EDXRF-FP measurements according to sample masses before and after drying.
The Fe concentration varied from 6.309 ± 0.525 mg/kg in Boletus griseus to 88.745 ± 4.337 mg/kg in Boletus chrysenteron; the Cu concentration ranged from 0.679 ± 0.040 in Boletus griseus to 3.480 ± 0.150 in Russula lutea; the Zn concentration ranged from 5.115 ± 0.245 mg/kg in Lactarius volemus to 25.942 ± 1.127 mg/kg in Hydnum repandum; the Mn concentration ranged from 0.236 ± 0.010 mg/kg in Lactarius volemus to 32.025 ± 1.800 mg/kg in Russula alutacea, being undetectable in Boletus edulis, Russula lutea, and Boletus griseus; the Ni concentration varied between 0.033 ± 0.002 mg/kg in Russula lutea and 4.507 ± 0.200 mg/kg in Russula cyanoxantha; the Cr concentration ranged from 0.003 ± 0.001 mg/kg in Cantharellus cibarius to 0.760 ± 0.041 mg/kg in Boletus edulis, being undetectable in Macrolepiota procera and Russula lutea; the Pb concentrations ranged from 0.017 ± 0.001 mg/kg in Russula virescens to 0.886 ± 0.040 mg/kg in Pleurotus ostreatus, with non-detectable levels in Macrolepiota procera and Russula lutea; and the Cd concentrations ranged from 0.012 ± 0.001 mg/kg in Pleurotus ostreatus to 0.850 ± 0.020 mg/kg in Boletus chrysenteron, being undetectable in Russula alutacea, Boletus edulis, Macrolepiota procera, Cantharellus cibarius, Marasmius oreades, Russula lutea, Russula aeruginea and Russula aeruginea.
According to the European Commission Regulation No. 915/2023, which sets maximum permissible levels of contaminants in foodstuffs, threshold values are specified only for Cd (0.5 mg/kg fw) and Pb (0.8 mg/kg fw) in mushrooms, including wild species [69]. The analytical data obtained from the studied wild mushrooms revealed that the regulatory limit was exceeded for Cd only in Boletus chrysenteron.
To assess the relationships between metals determined in the wild mushroom samples studied, Pearson correlation analysis was performed using Python 3.10.9, and the obtained correlation matrix is presented in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4.
For highly edible mushrooms, the correlation matrix indicates strong positive associations between Fe and Mn (r = 0.91) and between Ni and Cd (r = 0.69). These strong associations suggest that the respective metal pairs may originate from comparable environmental sources or follow similar biochemical pathways during uptake. Moderate positive relationships, such as Fe–Cu (r = 0.45) and Cu–Zn (r = 0.21), indicate partial co-occurrence tendencies rather than the previously mentioned associations. In contrast, notable negative correlations, such as Cr–Cu (r = –0.59) and Cr–Zn (r = –0.57), indicate divergent accumulation routes or distinct environmental factors influencing metal bioavailability. Elements showing weak or negligible correlations, such as Pb with most other metals, likely reflect independent accumulation mechanisms or different geochemical behavior.
For generally edible mushrooms, the correlation matrix reveals several prominent patterns. Strong positive associations are observed between Cr and Zn (r = 0.95) and between Cr and Mn (r = 0.92), suggesting shared environmental sources or tightly linked uptake processes. Also, Fe demonstrates substantial correlations with Mn (r = 0.65) and Cr (r = 0.72), reflecting a tendency for co-accumulation. Conversely, Cu exhibits strong negative relationships with Ni (r = –0.91) and Cr (r = –0.79), suggesting an antagonistic interaction or contrasting geochemical behaviors. Weak or statistically insignificant correlations, such as those between Cd and most other elements, point toward independent accumulation dynamics.
The moderate edible mushroom group displays a distinct correlation pattern characterized by extremely strong positive associations among several metals. Fe shows nearly perfect correlations with Cu (r = 0.96), Pb (r = 0.98) and Cd (r = 0.94), suggesting co-mobilization and shared environmental or biological pathways of accumulation. Pb also demonstrates strong positive correlations with Cu (r = 0.88) and Cd (r = 0.99), supporting the hypothesis of a common origin or geochemical behavior. Conversely, Zn and Mn exhibit an almost perfect negative correlation (r = –0.99), while Cr–Zn (r = –0.85) shows a similar inverse trend, indicating distinct or competitive uptake mechanisms. Ni presents weak or negative correlations with most other elements, in particularly with Mn (r = –1.0), further supporting the idea of an independent accumulation pathway.
The hierarchical cluster map presented in Figure 5 illustrates the grouping of mushroom species according to the similarity of their standardized metal concentrations [70]. Color gradients represent standardized values, where red shades denote above-mean concentrations and blue shades indicate below-mean values, while black horizontal lines delineate the distinct clusters.
Four distinct clusters of mushroom species were identified. Cluster 1, including Russula alutacea, Pleurotus ostreatus, Macrolepiota procera, Cantharellus cibarius, Marasmius oreades, Russula lutea, Russula aeruginea, and Amanita rubescens, is characterized by moderate to high Zn and Mn levels, reflecting a relatively balanced yet metal-enriched profile.
Cluster 2, comprising Russula virescens, Russula cyanoxantha, Amanita caesarea, Russula vesca, Armillaria mellea, and Boletus griseus, presents lower Fe and Pb levels alongside elevated Cu and Cd levels, suggesting species-specific differences in metal uptake or environmental sources.
Cluster 3, represented by Boletus edulis, is characterized by distinctly high Cr and Pb concentrations, identifying it as a specialized accumulator.
Cluster 4, consisting exclusively of Boletus chrysenteron, displays pronounced Fe and Mn accumulation, indicating a strong accumulation capacity for these elements. Overall, the clustering emphasizes species-specific metal accumulation patterns: Russula species cluster together, reflecting relatively homogeneous trace-metal profiles.

3.2. The Daily Metal Intake Estimated

Within the framework of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (USA NIH), the concept of Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) denotes a set of benchmark values developed to support both the evaluation and planning of nutrient intake in healthy individuals. These benchmarks, which differ with age and sex, incorporate four categories: the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), Adequate Intake (AI), Estimated Average Requirement (EAR), and the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) [71]. The DRIs for essential minerals such as Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn and Cr are presented in Table 4.
Daily metal intake (DMI) (mg/day) was calculated by considering the metal concentrations in studied fresh wild mushrooms samples and a consumption scenario of 300 g of fresh mushrooms per day [31,54,55]. The DMIs are summarized in Table 5 and compared with the DRIs listed in Table 4. An exceedance was observed for Fe, Cu, Mn, and Cr in certain samples.
For Fe, the DMIs for children exceeded the DRIs in the case of Russula alutacea, Armillaria mellea, and Boletus chrysenteron; the DMIs for male adults exceeded the DRIs in the case of Russula cyanoxantha, Russula alutacea, Pleurotus ostreatus, Macrolepiota procera, Marasmius oreades, Russula lutea, Russula aeruginea, Amanita rubescens, Armillaria mellea and Boletus chrysenteron; and the DMIs for female adults exceeded the DRIs in the case of Russula alutacea and Boletus chrysenteron. For Cu, the DMIs for children and adults (both male and female) exceeded the DRIs in the case of Boletus edulis, Russula lutea and Amanita rubescens. For Mn, the DMIs for male adults exceeded the DRIs in the case of Russula alutacea, Macrolepiota procera, Marasmius oreades, Russula aeruginea, Amanita rubescens, Armillaria mellea, Boletus chrysenteron; the DMIs for children exceeded the DRIs in the case of Russula alutacea, Macrolepiota procera, Marasmius oreades, Russula aeruginea, Amanita rubescens, Hydnum repandum, Armillaria mellea and Boletus chrysenteron; and the DMIs for female adults exceeded the DRIs in the case of Russula alutacea, Pleurotus ostreatus, Macrolepiota procera, Marasmius oreades, Russula vesca, Russula aeruginea, Amanita rubescens, Hydnum repandum, Armillaria mellea and Boletus chrysenteron. For Cr, the DMIs for men and children exceeded the DRIs in the case of Amanita caesarea, Amanita rubescens, Armillaria mellea, Lactarius volemus, Boletus chrysenteron and the DMIs for women exceeded the DRIs in the case of Russula virescens, Russula Cyanoxantha, Russula alutacea, Amanita caesarea, Amanita rubescens, Armillaria mellea, Lactarius volemus, Boletus chrysenteron.
For Zn, the DMIs remained consistently below the DRI thresholds, representing no more than 70.75% of the DRIs for children and male adults and up to 97.28% for female adults, indicating that Zn does not induce a nutritional excess risk according to the studied samples.

3.3. Non-Carcinogenic Risk Assessment

Most culinary preparations involving mushrooms require cooking, yet it remains uncertain whether thermal treatment and pH fluctuations can drive the interconversion of metal species, as this aspect has received limited scientific attention to date [73,74]. For this reason, such effects were not considered in the present study.
In this study, the EDI values were determined using Equation (1). The mean concentrations of metals obtained in the studied fresh wild mushrooms samples, assuming a daily consumption of 300 g of fresh mushrooms, like in other studies [31,54,55], were used. Also, the EF of 90 days per year was used, reflecting the typical growth season of the wild mushrooms in Romania.
The EDI values estimated for adults are reported in Table 6, whereas those for children are present in Table 7.
According to USEPA guidelines and the relevant literature [31,56,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82], the RfD and CSF values for Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn, Ni, Cr, Pb and Cd, presented in Table 8, were used for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk assessment.
The exceedances of the DRIs for Fe, Cu, Mn, and Cr, in multiple cases, among the studied wild mushrooms, indicate a potential toxicological risk for both children and adults. To evaluate this risk, HQ and HI values were determined, and they are summarized for adults in Table 9 and for children in Table 10.
For adults, all calculated HQ and HI values were below the threshold of 1, indicating the absence of significant non-carcinogenic risks associated with the consumption of wild mushrooms contaminated with metals.
For children, the HQ values consistently below 1, except for Cd in the sample of Boletus chrysenteron; however, the calculated HI values exceeded the safety threshold of 1 in several samples, including Russula cyanoxantha, Russula alutacea, Pleurotus ostreatus, Amanita caesarea, Boletus edulis, Russula aeruginea, Amanita rubescens, Armillaria mellea and Boletus chrysenteron.
These results suggest that the consumption of the analyzed wild mushroom species presents significant non-carcinogenic risks for children. The higher HI values estimated for children primarily reflect their lower body weight and higher food intake per unit of body mass, which lead to proportionally greater exposure to metals compared to adults.
The relative magnitude of risk among the species was in the following order: Russula aeruginea < Amanita caesarea < Amanita rubescens < Pleurotus ostreatus < Armillaria mellea < Boletus edulis < Russula alutacea < Russula cyanoxantha < Boletus chrysenteron.

3.4. Carcinogenic Risk Assessment

Table 11 summarizes the ILCR values calculated for adults and children based on the ADI values (Supplementary Material, Tables S1 and S2) on a fresh weight basis for the studied wild mushrooms containing Cu, Cr Pb, and Cd.
Data analysis showed that the ILCR for Cu exceeded 10−4 across all samples, while ILCR values for Cr surpassed this threshold for the samples of Russula virescens, Russula cyanoxantha, Russula alutacea, Pleurotus ostreatus, Amanita caesarea, Boletus edulis, Russula vesca, Amanita rubescens, Lactarius volemus, Boletus chrysenteron and Boletus griseus. For Cd, ILCR values above 10−4 were observed for the samples of Russula virescens, Russula cyanoxantha, Pleurotus ostreatus, Amanita caesarea, Russula vesca, Hydnum repandum, Armillaria mellea, Lactarius volemus, Boletus chrysenteron and Boletus griseus.
These results highlight a notable carcinogenic risk for adults consuming the studied wild mushrooms species (as indicated by the sample IDs), attributable to their Cu, Cr, and Cd content and slope factor variability.
An acceptable carcinogenic risk was suggested by the ILCR values for adults consuming wild mushrooms species corresponding to the Cantharellus cibarius, Marasmius oreades, Russula aeruginea and Hydnum repandum samples, due to the Cr content.
ILCR values for Pb, ranging from 9.06 × 10−6 to 1.12 × 10−5, indicated an acceptable carcinogenic risk for adults consuming all the studied wild mushrooms species, with the exception of the species corresponding to the Russula virescens sample, for which the ILCR (6.2 × 10−7) showed a negligible risk.
The ILCR values for Cu, Cr, Pb, and Cd associated with children’s intake exceeded 10−4 in the majority of the analyzed wild mushroom samples. In detail, the ILCR for Cu ranged from 3.14 × 10−2 (Boletus griseus) to 16.13 × 10−2 (Russula lutea); for Cd, it ranged from 12.03 × 10−4 (Pleurotus ostreatus) to 14.60 × 10−2 (Boletus chrysenteron); for Cr, it ranged from 5.45 × 10−4 (Hydnum repandum) to 1.03 × 10−2 (Boletus edulis); and for Pb, it varied from 2.05 × 10−4 (Pleurotus ostreatus) to 1.18 × 10−4 (Boletus edulis), and 1.07 × 10−4 (Russula aeruginea).
These results demonstrate that the ingestion of the studied edible wild mushroom species represents a substantial carcinogenic risk for children.
However, most of the ILCR values for Pb (excepting Pleurotus ostreatus, Boletus edulis and Russula aeruginea samples) and the ILCR for Cr in Cantharellus cibarius and Marasmius oreades remained within the 10−6–10−4 range, indicating an acceptable level of carcinogenic risk for children.
Regarding the total ILCR, values exceeded 10−4 for both adults and children (Table 11), indicating a substantial carcinogenic risk. Consequently, there is a clear need to implement awareness campaigns targeting rural populations to inform them of the potential health risks associated with the consumption of edible wild mushrooms, as well as to conduct surveys on consumption frequency and the specific mushroom species that can be commonly consumed.
The consumption of the studied mushroom species presents variable health risks associated with metal content. Adults were generally exposed to acceptable non-carcinogenic risks, although certain species possessed elevated carcinogenic risks due to Cu, Cr, and Cd. For children, non-carcinogenic risks were significant in multiple species, indicating heightened vulnerability.
The obtained results of this study support several recommendations aimed at preventing the accumulation of metals in wild mushrooms and minimizing the associated health risks for consumers. These include identifying and characterizing the main sources of metal pollution within the investigated area; systematically monitoring metal concentrations in soils; implementing public awareness campaigns to inform local communities about the potential health hazards linked to the consumption of wild mushrooms; and discouraging the consumption of wild edible mushrooms, particularly among children.

4. Conclusions

Certain metals are indispensable micronutrients for the human body, yet only when present at trace levels. Once their intake exceeds physiological requirements, they may become toxic and pose significant risks to human health.
The present study revealed that several species (Russula virescens, Russula cyanoxantha, Russula alutacea, Pleurotus ostreatus, Amanita caesarea, Boletus edulis, Macrolepiota procera, Cantharellus cibarius, Marasmius oreades, Russula vesca, Russula lutea, Russula aeruginea, Amanita rubescens, Hydnum repandum, Armillaria mellea, Lactarius volemus, Boletus chrysenteron, Boletus griseus) of wild mushrooms collected in Dâmbovița County contain metal concentrations capable of exceeding dietary safety thresholds, particularly regarding children’s exposure. Although certain metals such as Fe, Cu, and Mn are essential in trace amounts, their elevated intake through mushroom consumption may translate into significant non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks. While adults generally remain within safe thresholds for non-carcinogenic exposure, the elevated hazard indices and ILCR values observed in multiple species indicate that some wild mushrooms could represent a serious health concern if consumed frequently.
The obtained results highlight the necessity of incorporating wild mushroom consumption into risk–benefit dietary evaluations and reinforce the importance of continuous monitoring to safeguard public health.
Adults were generally exposed to acceptable non-carcinogenic risks, although certain species possessed elevated carcinogenic risks due to Cu, Cr, and Cd. For children, non-carcinogenic risks were significant in cases of multiple species, indicating heightened vulnerability. The results emphasize the need for the careful monitoring of metal accumulation and content in wild mushrooms to reduce both non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic health hazards. In this regard, we recommend systematically monitoring metal concentrations in soils; the implementation of public awareness campaigns to inform local communities about the potential health hazards linked to the consumption of wild mushrooms; and discouragement of the consumption of wild edible mushrooms, particularly among children.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods14203540/s1: Table S1. The ADI (mg kg−1 day−1) values determined for adults; Table S2. The ADI (mg kg−1 day−1) values determined for children.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.S. and C.D.; methodology, C.S. and C.D.; formal analysis, C.S.; investigation, C.S. and C.D.; software, C.S.; validation, C.S. and C.D.; data curation, C.S.; writing—original draft, C.S. and C.D.; writing—review and editing, C.S. and C.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding; the article has its starting point in the project UEFISCDI PNII-IDEI 624/2008.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

Table following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
EDXRF-FPEnergy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Quantitative Analysis with Fundamental Parameters
NISTNational Institute of Standards and Technology
USEPAUnited States Environmental Protection Agency
EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency
HQ Hazard quotients
HIHazard indices
EDIEstimated daily intake
RfDReference dose
ILCRIncremental lifetime cancer risk
ADIAverage daily intake
CSFCancer slope factor
DRIDietary reference intake
DMIDaily metal intake

References

  1. Losoya-Sifuentes, C.; Loredo-Treviño, A.; Belmares, R.; Cruz, M.; Refugio Rocha-Pizaña, M. Edible Mushrooms: A Nutrient-Rich Ingredient for Healthier Food Products—A Review. Curr. Nutr. Rep. 2025, 14, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Krishnamoorthi, R.; Srinivash, M.; Mahalingam, P.U.; Malaikozhundan, B. Dietary nutrients in edible mushroom, Agaricus Bisporus and their radical scavenging, antibacterial, and antifungal efects. Process Biochem. 2022, 121, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gernand, A.D.; Schulze, K.J.; Stewart, C.P.; West, K.P.; Christian, P. Micronutrient deficiencies in pregnancy worldwide: Health efects and prevention. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2016, 12, 274–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mattila, P.; Könkö, K.; Eurola, M.; Pihlava, J.M.; Astola, J.; Vahteristo, L.; Hietaniemi, V.; Kumpulainen, J.; Valtonen, M.; Piironen, V. Contents of vitamins, mineral elements, and some phenolic compounds in cultivated mushrooms. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 2343–2348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yang, Y.; Zhu, D.; Qi, R.; Chen, Y.; Sheng, B.; Zhang, X. Association between Intake of Edible Mushrooms and Algae and the Risk of Cognitive Impairment in Chinese Older Adults. Nutrients 2024, 16, 637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Jo Feeney, M.; Miller, A.M.; Roupas, P. Mushrooms-Biologically Distinct and Nutritionally Unique: Exploring a “Third Food Kingdom”. Nutr. Today 2014, 49, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fulgoni, V.L.; Agarwal, S. Nutritional impact of adding a serving of mushrooms on usual intakes and nutrient adequacy using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011–2016 data. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 1504–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cha, S.; Bell, L.; Williams, C.M. The Relationship between Mushroom Intake and Cognitive Performance: An Epidemiological Study in the European Investigation of Cancer-Norfolk Cohort (EPIC-Norfolk). Nutrients 2024, 16, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, X.; Huang, F.; Zhang, J.; Wei, Y.; Bai, J.; Wang, H.; Jia, X. Association between Micronutrient-Related Dietary Pattern and Cognitive Function among Persons 55 Years and Older in China: A Longitudinal Study. Nutrients 2023, 15, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gou, R.; Qin, J.; Pang, W.; Cai, J.; Luo, T.; He, K.; Xiao, S.; Tang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Li, Y. Correlation between dietary patterns and cognitive function in older Chinese adults: A representative cross-sectional study. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1093456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Solfrizzi, V.; Custodero, C.; Lozupone, M.; Imbimbo, B.P.; Valiani, V.; Agosti, P.; Schilardi, A.; D’Introno, A.; La Montagna, M.; Calvani, M.; et al. Relationships of Dietary Patterns, Foods, and Micro- and Macronutrients with Alzheimer’s Disease and Late-Life Cognitive Disorders: A Systematic Review. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2017, 59, 815–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yao, Y.; Chen, H.; Chen, L.; Ju, S.-Y.; Yang, H.; Zeng, Y.; Gu, D.; Ng, T.P. Type of tea consumption and depressive symptoms in Chinese older adults. BMC Geriatr. 2021, 21, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Aoki, S.; Yamagishi, K.; Maruyama, K. Mushroom intake and risk of incident disabling dementia: The Circulatory Risk in Communities Study (CIRCS). Br. J. Nutr. 2024, 131, 1641–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Silvestri, L.; Pettinato, M.; Furiosi, V.; Bavuso Volpe, L.; Nai, A.; Pagani, A. Managing the dual nature of iron to preserve health. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 3995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rolić, T.; Yazdani, M.; Mandić, S.; Distante, S. Iron Metabolism, Calcium, Magnesium and Trace Elements: A Review. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2025, 203, 2216–2225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Weiland, J.L.; Sherrow, L.K.; Jayant, D.A.; Katz, K.D. Chemical Hand Warmer Packet Ingestion: A Case of Elemental Iron Exposure. Wilderness Environ. Med. 2017, 28, 246–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sousa, C.; Vinha, A.F.; Moutinho, C.; Matos, C. Trace minerals in human health: Iron, zinc, copper, manganese and fluorine. IJSRM Human. 2019, 13, 57–80. [Google Scholar]
  18. Oros, V. Contribuții la Protecția și Ingineria Mediului cu Aplicații în Zonele Miniere Afectate de Scurgeri Acide. Teza de abilitare, Universitatea Tehnica din Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 2015. Available online: https://www.utcluj.ro/media/documents/2015/Teza_abilitare_Vasile_Oros.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  19. Nezami, H.; Kooshki, A.; Esmaily, H.; Sanjari, M.; Ahmadi, Z.; Sadeghi, M.; Mirzaei, S.M.M. Cerebrovascular accident and essential and toxic metals: Cluster analysis and principal component analysis. BMC Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2025, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Zhang, M.; Li, W.; Wang, Y.; Wang, T.; Ma, M.; Tian, C. Association between the change of serum copper and ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Mol. Neurosci. 2020, 70, 475–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Briffa, J.; Sinagra, E.; Blundell, R. Heavy metal pollution in the environment and their toxicological effects on humans. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Masindi, V.; Muedi, K.L. Environmental contamination by heavy metals. In Heavy Metals; InTech: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  23. Walker, C.H.; Sibly, R.M.; Hopkin, S.P.; Peakal, D.B. Principles of Ecotoxicology, 4th ed.; Taylor&Francis Group, Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gautam, P.K.; Gautam, R.K.; Chattopadhyaya, M.C.; Banerjee, S.; Pandey, J.D. Heavy metals in the environment: Fate, transport, toxicity and remediation technologies. Nova Sci. Publ. 2016, 60, 101–130. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tchounwou, P.B.; Yedjou, C.G.; Patlolla, A.K.; Sutton, D.J. Heavy metal toxicity and the environment. EXS 2012, 101, 133–164. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Duffus, J.H. Heavy metals a meaningless term? Pure Appl. Chem. 2002, 74, 793–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, L.K. Heavy Metals in the Environment; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  28. Jat Baloch, M.Y.; Su, C.; Talpur, S.A.; Iqbal, J.; Bajwa, K. Arsenic removal from groundwater using Iron pyrite: Influence factors and removal mechanism. J. Earth Sci. 2023, 34, 857–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Talpur, S.A.; Baloch, M.Y.J.; Su, C.; Iqbal, J.; Ahmed, A.; Talpur, H.A. Application of synthetic Iron Oxyhydroxide with influencing factors for removal of As(V) and As(III) from groundwater. J. Earth Sci. 2024, 35, 998–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Talpur, S.A.; Cinosi, A.; Stoppa, F.; Talpur, H.A.; Novembre, D.; Rosatelli, G. Heavy metals pollution of Pescara River (southern Italy): Risk assessment based on total reflection X-ray fluorescence analyses. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2025, 211, 117397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Lopez, A.R.; Elena Ortega-Caneda, E.; Espada-Bellido, E.; Spanu, D.; Zava, M.; Monticelli, D. Decoding trace element speciation in mushrooms: Analytical techniques, comprehensive data review, and health implications. Food Chem. 2025, 463, 141460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zavastin, D.E.; Biliuta, G.; Dodi, G.; Macsim, A.M.; Lisa, G.; Gherman, S.P.; Breaban, I.G.; Miron, A.; Coseri, S. Metal content and crude polysaccharide characterization of selected mushrooms growing in Romania. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2018, 67, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sun, L.; Chang, W.; Bao, C.; Zhuang, Y. Metal Contents, Bioaccumulation, and Health Risk Assessment in Wild Edible Boletaceae Mushrooms. J. Food Sci. 2017, 82, 1500–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, S.; Fu, Y.; Shi, M.; Wan, H.; Guo, J. Pollution level and risk assessment of lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic in edible mushrooms from Jilin Province, China. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 3374–3383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kalač, P. Trace element contents in European species of wild growing edible mushrooms: A review for the period 2000–2009. Food Chem. 2010, 122, 2–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Senila, M.; Senila, L.; Resz, M.A. Chemical composition and nutritional characteristics of popular wild edible mushroom species collected from North-Western Romania. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2024, 134, 106504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vamanu, E. Bioactive capacity of some Romanian wild edible mushrooms consumed mainly by local communities. Nat. Prod. Res. 2017, 32, 440–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Vasile, D.; Dinca, L.; Enescu, C.M. Impact of collecting mushrooms from the spontaneous flora on forest ecosystems in Romania. AgroLife Sci. J. 2017, 6, 268–275. Available online: https://agrolifejournal.usamv.ro/index.php/agrolife/article/view/180 (accessed on 13 August 2025).
  39. Enescu, C.M. What is the potential for collecting and marketing of non-timber forest products in Horezu (Valcea County)? Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agruculture Rural. Dev. 2022, 22, 217–222. Available online: https://managementjournal.usamv.ro/index.php/scientific-papers/2767-what-is-the-potential-for-collecting-and-marketing-of-non-timber-forest-products-in-horezu-valcea-county (accessed on 13 August 2025).
  40. Radulescu, C.; Stihi, C.; Busuioc, G.; Gheboianu, A.I.; Popescu, I.V. Studies concerning heavy metals bioaccumulation of wild edible mushrooms from industrial area by using spectrometric techniques. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2010, 84, 641–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Buruleanu, L.; Radulescu, C.; Georgescu, A.A.; Nicolescu, M.C.; Olteanu, R.L.; Dulama, I.D.; Stanescu, G.S. Chemometric Assessment of the Interactions between the Metal Contents, Antioxidant Activity, Total Phenolics, and Flavonoids in Mushrooms. Anal. Lett. 2019, 52, 1195–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Stihi, C.; Radulescu, C.; Busuioc, G.; Popescu, I.V.; Gheboianu, A.; Ene, A. Studies on Accumulation of Heavy Metals from Substrate to Edible Wild Mushrooms. Rom. J. Phys. 2011, 56, 257–264. [Google Scholar]
  43. Busuioc, G.; Elkes, C.C.; Stihi, C.; Iordache, S.; Ciulei, S.C. The bioaccumulation and translocation of Fe, Zn, and Cu in species of mushrooms from Russula genus. Environ. Pollut. Res. 2011, 18, 890–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Senila, M. Metal and metalloid monitoring in water by passive sampling—A review. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2023, 42, 20230065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bucurica, I.A.; Dulama, I.D.; Radulescu, C.; Banica, A.L.; Stanescu, S.G. Heavy Metals and Associated Risks of Wild Edible Mushrooms Consumption: Transfer Factor, Carcinogenic Risk, and Health Risk Index. J. Fungi 2024, 10, 844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fogarasi, M.; Diaconeasa, Z.M.; Pop, C.R.; Fogarasi, S.; Semeniuc, C.A.; Fărcaş, A.C.; Țibulcă, D.; Sălăgean, C.-D.; Tofană, M.; Socaci, S.A. Elemental Composition, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Properties of Some Wild Edible Mushrooms from Romania. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bielli, E. Ciuperci: Cunoaşterea, Recunoaşterea şi Căutarea Celor Mai Cunoscute Specii de Ciuperci; All Educational: Bucuresti, Romania, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jenkins, R. X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  49. USEPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A); USEPA: Washington, DC, USA, 1989. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/rags_a.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  50. Ravanipour, M.; Nabipour, I.; Yunesian, M.; Rastkari, N.; Mahvi, A.H. Exposure sources of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and health risk assessment: A systematic review in Iran. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 55437–55456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Wu, B.; Zhao, D.Y.; Jia, H.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.X.; Cheng, S.P. Preliminary risk assessment of trace metal pollution in surface water from Yangtze River in Nanjing Section, China. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2009, 82, 405–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Hubal, E.A.C.; de Wet, T.; Du Toit, L.; Firestone, M.P.; Ruchirawat, M.; van Engelen, J.; Vickers, C. Identifying important life stages for monitoring and assessing risks from exposures to environmental contaminants: Results of a World Health Organization review. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2014, 69, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Okumuş, E.; Canbolat, F.; Acar, I. Evaluation of antioxidant activity, anti-lipid peroxidation effect and elemental impurity risk of some wild Agaricus species mushrooms. BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 25, 476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sarikurkcu, C.; Tepe, B.; Kocak, M.S.; Uren, M.C. Metal concentration and antioxidant activity of edible mushrooms from Turkey. Food Chem. 2015, 175, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sarikurkcu, C.; Popovic-Djordjevi, J.; Solak, M.H. Wild edible mushrooms from Mediterranean region: Metal concentrations and health risk assessment. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 190, 110058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fu, Z.; Liu, G.; Wang, L. Assessment of potential human health risk of trace element in wild edible mushroom species collected from Yunnan Province, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 29218–29227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Canbolat, F. Analysis of non-carcinogenic health risk assessment of elemental impurities in vitamin C supplements. Iran. J. Basic Med. Sci. 2023, 26, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hashempour-Baltork, F.; Jannat, B.; Tajdar-Oranj, B.; Aminzare, M.; Sahebi, H. A comprehensive systematic review and health risk assessment of potentially toxic element intakes via fish consumption in Iran. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 249, 114349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Haj Heidary, R.; Golzan, S.A.; Mirza Alizadeh, A.; Hamedi, H.; Ataee, M. Probabilistic health risk assessment of potentially toxic elements in the traditional and industrial Olive products. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 10213–10225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ebrahimzadeh, G.; Alimohammadi, M.; Rezaei Kahkha, M.R.; Mahvi, A.H. Contamination level and human non-carcinogenic risk assessment of diazinon pesticide residue in drinking water resources—A case study, IRAN. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2020, 102, 4726–4737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. USEPA. Chapter 7: Characterizing Risk and Hazard; U.S. EPA Region 6: Dallas, TX, USA, 2005. Available online: https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/td/web/pdf/05hhrap7.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  62. Dumitrescu, C.; Stihi, C.; Costinel, D.; Geana, E.I.; Ciucure, C.T.; Popescu, D.I.; Tanislav, D.; Bretcan, P. Assessment of Pesticide Contamination of Groundwater from Titu-Sarata Plain, Romania. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 5880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bamuwamye, M.; Ogwok, P.; Tumuhairwe, V. Cancer and non-cancer risks associated with heavy metal exposures from street foods: Evaluation of roasted meats in an urban setting. J. Environ. Pollut. Hum. Health 2015, 3, 24–30. [Google Scholar]
  64. Huang, M.; Zhou, S.; Sun, B.; Zhao, Q. Heavy metals in wheat grain: Assessment of potential health risk for inhabitants in Kunshan. China. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 405, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Meftaul, I.M.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Annamalai, P.; Parven, A.; Megharaj, M. Degradation of four pesticides in five urban landscape soils: Human and environmental health risk assessment. Environ. Geochem. Health 2022, 45, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  66. Guerra, F.; Trevizam, A.R.; Muraoka, T.; Marcante, N.C.; Canniatti-Brazaca, S.G. Heavy metals in vegetables and potential risk for human health. Sci. Agric. 2012, 69, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kalantary, R.R.; Barzegar, G.; Jorfi, S. Monitoring of pesticides in surface water, pesticides removal efficiency in drinking water treatment plant and potential health risk to consumers using Monte Carlo simulation in Behbahan City. Iran. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sultana, M.S.; Rana, S.; Yamazaki, S.; Aono, T.; Yoshida, S. Health risk assessment for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic heavy metal exposures from vegetables and fruits of Bangladesh. Cogent Environ. Sci. 2017, 3, 1291107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Official Journal of the European Union. Commission Regulation (EU) No. 915/2023; Official Journal of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2023; Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R0915 (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  70. Murtagh, F.; Legendre, P. Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: Which algorithms implement Ward’s criterion? J. Classif. 2014, 31, 274–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. National Institutes of Health. Office of Dietary Supplements. Nutrient Recommendations and Databases. Available online: https://ods.od.nih.gov/HealthInformation/nutrientrecommendations.aspx (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  72. Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs): Recommended Dietary Allowances and Adequate Intakes, Elements. Food and Nutrition Board, National Academies. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545442/table/appJ_tab3/?report=objectonly (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  73. Falandysz, J.; Saba, M.; Rutkowska, M.; Konieczka, P. Total mercury and methylmercury (MeHg) in braised and crude boletus edulis carpophores during various developmental stages. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 3107–3115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Liu, Y.; Chen, S.; Li, Q.; Liu, L. Changes in arsenic speciation in wild edible Fungi after different cooking processes and gastrointestinal digestion. Molecules 2023, 28, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Atique Ullah, A.K.M.; Maksud, M.A.; Khan, S.R.; Lutfa, L.N.; Quraishi, S.B. Dietary intake of heavy metals from eight highly consumed species of cultured fish and possible human health risk implications in Bangladesh. Toxicol. Rep. 2017, 4, 574–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Likuku, A.S.; Obuseng, G. Health Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals via Dietary Intake of Vegetables Irrigated with Treated Wastewater around Gaborone, Botswana. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Plant, Marine and Environmental Sciences (PMES-2015), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1–2 January 2015. [Google Scholar]
  77. US Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Manganese; CASRN 7439-96-5|DTXSID2024169. Available online: https://iris.epa.gov/ChemicalLanding/&substance_nmbr=373 (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  78. US Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Nickel, Soluble Salts; CASRN Various. Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0271_summary.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  79. US Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Chromium (VI); CASRN 18540-29-9. Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0144_summary.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  80. US Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Chromium (III), Insoluble Salts; CASRN 16065-83-1. Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0028_summary.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  81. US Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Lead and Compounds (Inorganic); CASRN 7439-92-1. Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0277_summary.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2025).
  82. Nowakowski, P.; Markiewicz-Żukowska, R.; Soroczyńska, J.; Puścion-Jakubik, A.; Mielcarek, K. Evaluation of toxic element content and health risk assessment of edible wild mushrooms. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2021, 96, 103698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Sampling sites of wild mushrooms across Dâmbovița County, Romania.
Figure 1. Sampling sites of wild mushrooms across Dâmbovița County, Romania.
Foods 14 03540 g001
Figure 2. Pearson correlation matrix of metals in highly edible mushrooms, p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Pearson correlation matrix of metals in highly edible mushrooms, p < 0.05.
Foods 14 03540 g002
Figure 3. Pearson correlation matrix of metals in generally edible mushrooms, p < 0.05.
Figure 3. Pearson correlation matrix of metals in generally edible mushrooms, p < 0.05.
Foods 14 03540 g003
Figure 4. Pearson correlation matrix of metals in moderate edible mushrooms, p < 0.05.
Figure 4. Pearson correlation matrix of metals in moderate edible mushrooms, p < 0.05.
Foods 14 03540 g004
Figure 5. Hierarchical cluster map of studied mushrooms species.
Figure 5. Hierarchical cluster map of studied mushrooms species.
Foods 14 03540 g005
Table 1. Characteristics of wild mushrooms sampled in Dâmbovița County.
Table 1. Characteristics of wild mushrooms sampled in Dâmbovița County.
Sample IDTaxonomic FamilySpeciesAssociated Habitat/TopographyVernacular Name
(Romanian/
English)
Growth Period
Highly Edible
WM1RussulaceaeRussula
virescens
Beech and mixed forests/hills, mountainsHulubite/
Dove Mushroom
Summer–Autumn
WM2RussulaceaeRussula
cyanoxantha
Mixed deciduous and coniferous forests, clearings/hills, mountains, meadows, and gardens in plainsVinetica porumbeilor/
Pigeon Mushroom
Summer–Autumn
WM3RussulaceaeRussula
alutacea
Deciduous forests, calcareous soils/hills, mountainsPainisoara/
Fairy Ring Mushroom
Summer–Autumn
WM4PleurotaceaePleurotus
ostreatus
On deciduous trunks/plains, hills, mountainsPastrav de fag/Beech Salmon MushroomAutumn–Winter
WM5AmanitaceaeAmanita
caesarea
Deciduous forests, sandy or gravelly soils/plains, mountainsBuretele domnesc/Royal BoleteSummer–Autumn
WM6BoletaceaeBoletus edulisDeciduous forests from sunny areas/hills, mountainsManatarca pietroasa/Boletes/Stone MushroomSummer–Autumn
WM7LepiotaceaeMacrolepiota proceraDeciduous forest clearings; sandy or gravelly soils/plains, hills, mountainsPalaria sarpelui/Snake’s CapSummer–Early Autumn
WM8CantharellaceaeCantharellus cibariusConiferous and deciduous forests; among moss or leaf litter/mostly in mountainsBureti galbeni/ChanterelleLate Spring–
Autumn
WM9MarasmiaceaeMarasmius oreadesMeadows, clearings; sandy soils/along roadsGhebe de lunca/Meadow MushroomSpring–
Autumn
Generally Edible
WM10RussulaceaeRussula vescaDeciduous and coniferous forests/hills and mountainsPainea pamantului/Earth BreadSummer
WM11RussulaceaeRussula luteaDeciduous and coniferous forests/hills and mountainsBurete galben/Yellow MushroomSummer–Early Autumn
WM12RussulaceaeRussula aerugineaConiferous and deciduous forests, especially under birch/plains, hills, mountainsVinetica porcului/Piglet MushroomSummer–Autumn
WM13AmanitaceaeAmanita rubescensDeciduous and coniferous forests/plains, hills, mountainsBuretele rosu brobonat/Red-staining MushroomSpring–Autumn
WM14HydnaceaeHydnum repandumDeciduous and coniferous forests; hills, mountainsFlocoșel/Hedgehog MushroomLate Summer–Autumn
WM15PhysalacriaceaeArmillaria melleaDecaying deciduous and coniferous trunks/hills, mountainsGhebe/Honey FungusAutumn–Late Autumn
Moderately Edible
WM16RussulaceaeLactarius volemusDeciduous and coniferous forests/mountainsLaptuca dulce/Sweet MilkcapSummer
WM17BoletaceaeBoletus
chrysenteron
Deciduous forests/mossy areasHribul de muschi/Moss BoleteSummer–Autumn
WM18BoletaceaeBoletus griseusDeciduous forests/plains, hills, mountainsBuretele cenusiu/Gray BoleteSummer–Early Autumn
Table 2. EDXRF-FP accuracy assessment based on recovery analysis.
Table 2. EDXRF-FP accuracy assessment based on recovery analysis.
MetalsSRM *
Concentration
(mg/kg dw **)
Measured
Concentration
(mg/kg dw **)
Recovery
(%)
Fe46.00 ± 2.0040.15 ± 1.8087.3
Cu2.80 ± 0.202.89 ± 0.35103.5
Zn38.00 ± 2.0034.99 ± 2.5092.1
Mn488.00 ± 12.00466.04 ± 17.4095.5
Ni1.47 ± 0.101.46 ± 0.2599.7
Cr***6.20 ± 0.72Nd ****
Pb0.167 ± 0.0150.179 ± 0.021105.3
Cd0.233 ± 0.0040.252 ± 0.035108.2
* Standard reference material; ** dry weight; *** Cr concentration value is not included in the certificate of analysis; **** not determined.
Table 3. Mean concentrations of metals in studied wild mushrooms (in mg/kg fw).
Table 3. Mean concentrations of metals in studied wild mushrooms (in mg/kg fw).
Sample IDFe Cu Zn MnNi Cr Pb Cd
WM16.503 ± 0.0550.718 ± 0.0528.728 ± 0.0702.219 ± 0.0200.061 ± 0.0080.094 ± 0.0070.017 ± 0.0010.017 ± 0.001
WM228.289 ± 1.8152.385 ± 0.1518.004 ± 0.3504.507 ± 0.3354.507 ± 0.2000.115 ± 0.0060.214 ± 0.0200.187 ± 0.007
WM368.996 ± 4.4502.805 ± 0.12014.675 ± 0.52032.025 ± 1.8000.163 ± 0.0070.095 ± 0.0060.310 ± 0.010nd **
WM427.160 ± 2.3181.252 ± 0.05217.128 ± 0.7616.137 ± 0.2900.187 ± 0.0070.066 ± 0.0040.886 ± 0.0400.012 ± 0.001
WM56.946 ± 0.4471.731 ± 0.0778.446 ± 0.3824.146 ± 0.2000.069 ± 0.0020.155 ± 0.0090.167 ± 0.0070.167 ± 0.005
WM616.245 ± 1.7223.205 ± 0.2406.311 ± 0.300nd **0.182 ± 0.0080.760 ± 0.0410.507 ± 0.020nd **
WM729.975 ± 2.5002.088 ± 0.10414.183 ± 0.95014.549 ± 0.6200.196 ± 0.009nd **nd **nd **
WM822.497 ± 2.1001.968 ± 0.08524.281 ± 1.1402.018 ± 0.1000.151 ± 0.0070.003 ± 0.0010.249 ± 0.010nd **
WM933.661 ± 1.9681.691 ± 0.08225.114 ± 1.05110.737 ± 0.6500.141 ± 0.0060.006 ± 0.0020.216 ± 0.009nd **
WM1020.340 ± 1.7321.656 ± 0.0718.086 ± 0.3706.207 ± 0.2200.139 ± 0.0060.053 ± 0.0020.077 ± 0.0050.090 ± 0.006
WM1131.624 ± 1.5003.480 ± 0.1505.296 ± 0.200nd **0.033 ± 0.002nd **nd **nd **
WM1227.536 ± 1.7002.075 ± 0.1205.423 ± 0.30012.587 ± 0.5500.158 ± 0.0070.045 ± 0.0020.461 ± 0.015nd **
WM1330.891 ± 1.9403.245 ± 0.15011.529 ± 0.46020.595 ± 1.1200.092 ± 0.0060.166 ± 0.0080.113 ± 0.008nd **
WM1416.742 ± 1.2701.567 ± 0.08525.942 ± 1.1277.609 ± 0.3400.157 ± 0.0070.040 ± 0.0010.089 ± 0.0050.033 ± 0.001
WM1554.573 ± 2.2900.979 ± 0.05011.442 ± 0.62023.954 ± 2.1000.165 ± 0.0070.202 ± 0.0150.247 ± 0.0180.038 ± 0.001
WM168.871 ± 0.3500.942 ± 0.0325.115 ± 0.2450.236 ± 0.0100.700 ± 0.0300.134 ± 0.0080.050 ± 0.0020.048 ± 0.002
WM1788.745 ± 4.3371.539 ± 0.0808.405 ± 0.40018.511 ± 0.8700.200 ± 0.0090.119 ± 0.0050.344 ± 0.0120.850 ± 0.020
WM186.309 ± 0.5250.679 ± 0.0409.914 ± 0.520nd **0.071 ± 0.0050.053 ± 0.0040.108 ± 0.0030.088 ± 0.002
** not detected.
Table 4. DRIs for essential minerals [72].
Table 4. DRIs for essential minerals [72].
ElementsChildren
≥ 4 Years
MaleFemalePregnant Women
Fe (mg/day)10–1181827
Cu (mg/day)0.440–0.8900.9000.9001
Zn (mg/day)5–1111811
Mn (mg/day)1.5–2.22.31.82
Cr (mg/day)0.015–0.0350.0350.0250.030
Table 5. The DMI (mg/day) calculated for the consumption of 300 g of fresh wild mushrooms per day.
Table 5. The DMI (mg/day) calculated for the consumption of 300 g of fresh wild mushrooms per day.
Sample IDFe
(mg/day)
Cu
(mg/day)
Zn
(mg/day)
Mn (mg/day)Ni
(mg/day)
Cr
(mg/day)
Pb
(mg/day)
Cd
(mg/day)
WM11.9500.2152.6180.6650.0180.0280.0050.005
WM28.4860.7152.4011.3521.3520.0340.0640.056
WM320.6980.8414.4029.6070.0480.0280.093na *
WM48.1480.3755.1381.8410.0560.0190.2650.002
WM52.0830.5192.5331.2430.0200.0460.0500.050
WM64.8730.9611.893na *0.0540.2280.152na *
WM78.9920.6264.2544.3640.058na *na *na *
WM86.7490.5907.2840.6050.0450.0000.074na *
WM910.0980.5077.5343.2210.0420.0010.064na *
WM106.1020.4962.4251.8620.0410.0150.0230.027
WM119.4871.0441.588na *0.009na *na *na *
WM128.2600.6221.6263.7760.0470.0130.138na *
WM139.2670.9733.4586.1780.0270.0490.033na *
WM145.0220.4707.7822.2820.0470.0120.0260.009
WM1516.3710.2933.4327.1860.0490.0600.0740.011
WM162.6610.2821.5340.0700.2100.0400.0150.014
WM1726.6230.4612.5215.5530.0600.0350.1030.255
WM181.8920.2032.974na *0.0210.0150.0320.026
* not applicable.
Table 6. The estimated daily intake (mg kg−1day−1) values for adults.
Table 6. The estimated daily intake (mg kg−1day−1) values for adults.
SampleEDI (mg kg−1day−1)
FeCuZnMnNiCrPbCd
Russula virescens0.002<10−30.003<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Russula cyanoxantha0.011<10−30.0030.0010.001<10−3<10−3<10−3
Russula alutacea0.0260.0010.0050.012<10−3<10−3<10−3na *
Pleurotus ostreatus0.010<10−30.0060.002<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Amanita caesarea0.002<10−30.0030.001<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Boletus edulis0.0060.0010.002na *<10−3<10−3<10−3na *
Macrolepiota procera0.011<10−30.0050.005<10−3na *na *na *
Cantharellus cibarius0.008<10−30.009<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3na *
Marasmius oreades0.013<10−30.0090.004<10−3<10−3<10−3na *
Russula vesca0.007<10−30.0030.002<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Russula lutea0.0120.0010.002na *<10−3na *na *na *
Russula aeruginea0.010<10−30.0020.004<10−3<10−3<10−3na *
Amanita rubescens0.0120.0010.0040.008<10−3<10−3<10−3na *
Hydnum repandum0.006<10−30.0100.002<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Armillaria mellea0.021<10−30.0040.009<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Lactarius volemus0.003<10−30.001<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Boletus chrysenteron0.034<10−30.0030.007<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Boletus griseus0.002<10−30.003na *<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
* not applicable.
Table 7. The estimated daily intake (mg kg−1day−1) values for children.
Table 7. The estimated daily intake (mg kg−1day−1) values for children.
SampleEDI (mg kg−1day−1)
FeCuZnMnNiCrPbCd
Russula virescens0.0240.0020.0320.008<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Russula cyanoxantha0.1040.0080.0290.016<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Russula alutacea0.2550.0100.0540.118<10−3<10−30.001
Pleurotus ostreatus0.1000.0040.0630.022<10−3<10−30.003
Amanita caesarea0.0250.0060.0310.015<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Boletus edulis0.0600.0110.023na *<10−30.0020.001na * 
Macrolepiota procera0.1100.0070.0520.053<10−3na * na * na * 
Cantharellus cibarius0.0830.0070.0890.007<10−3na * <10−3na * 
Marasmius oreades0.1240.0060.0920.039<10−3na * <10−3na * 
Russula vesca0.0750.0060.0290.022<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Russula lutea0.1160.0120.019na *<10−3na * na * na * 
Russula aeruginea0.1010.0070.0200.046<10−3<10−30.001na * 
Amanita rubescens0.1140.0120.0420.076<10−3<10−3<10−3na * 
Hydnum repandum0.0610.0050.0950.028<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Armillaria mellea0.2010.0030.0420.088<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
Lactarius volemus0.0320.0030.018<10−30.002<10−3<10−3<10−3
Boletus chrysenteron0.3280.0050.0310.068<10−3<10−30.0010.003 
Boletus griseus0.0230.0020.036na *<10−3<10−3<10−3<10−3
* not applicable.
Table 8. RfD and CSF used values for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk assessment [31,56,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82].
Table 8. RfD and CSF used values for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk assessment [31,56,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82].
FeCuZnMnNiCrPbCd
RfD (mg kg−1day−1)0.70.040.30.140.020.0030.00350.001
CSF (mg kg−1day−1)-1.7--not established *0.50.00856.3
* US Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Nickel, Soluble Salts [78].
Table 9. The HQ and HI values determined for adults.
Table 9. The HQ and HI values determined for adults.
Sample IDHQHI
FeCuMnNiCrPbCd
WM10.000.010.010.000.010.000.010.04
WM20.020.020.010.090.010.020.070.24
WM30.040.030.090.000.010.03na *0.20
WM40.020.010.020.000.010.100.000.16
WM50.000.020.010.000.020.020.070.14
WM60.010.03na *0.000.100.06na *0.20
WM70.020.020.040.00na *na *na *0.08
WM80.010.020.010.000.000.03na *0.07
WM90.020.020.030.000.000.02na *0.09
WM100.010.020.020.000.010.010.040.11
WM110.020.03na *0.00na *na *na *0.05
WM120.020.020.040.000.010.05na *0.14
WM130.020.030.060.000.020.01na *0.14
WM140.010.020.020.000.010.010.010.08
WM150.030.010.070.000.030.030.010.18
WM160.000.010.000.010.020.010.020.07
WM170.050.020.05<10−20.020.040.330.51
WM18<10−20.01na *<10−20.010.010.030.06
* not applicable.
Table 10. The HQ and HI values determined for children.
Table 10. The HQ and HI values determined for children.
Sample IDHQHI
FeCuMnNiCrPbCd
WM10.030.070.060.010.120.020.060.37
WM20.150.220.120.830.140.230.692.38
WM30.360.260.850.030.120.33na *1.95
WM40.140.120.160.030.080.940.031.5
WM50.040.160.110.010.190.180.621.31
WM60.090.30na *0.030.940.54na *1.9
WM70.160.190.380.04na *na *na *0.77
WM80.120.180.050.030.000.26na *0.64
WM90.180.160.280.030.010.23na *0.89
WM100.110.150.160.030.070.080.330.93
WM110.170.32na *0.01na *na *na *0.5
WM120.150.190.330.030.060.49na *1.25
WM130.160.300.540.020.200.12na *1.34
WM140.090.140.200.030.050.090.120.72
WM150.290.090.630.030.250.260.141.69
WM160.050.090.010.130.170.050.180.68
WM170.470.140.490.040.150.363.144.79
WM180.030.06na *0.010.070.110.330.61
* not applicable.
Table 11. ILCR values determined for adults and children.
Table 11. ILCR values determined for adults and children.
Sample IDILCR AdultsTotal ILCR AdultsILCR ChildrenTotal ILCR Children
CuCrPbCdCuCrPbCd
WM15.22 × 10−32.01 × 10−46.2 × 10−74.58 × 10−45.88 × 10−33.32 × 10−212.82 × 10−44 × 10−629.21 × 10−43.74 × 10−2
WM21.73 × 10−22.46 × 10−47.79 × 10−65.04 × 10−32.26 × 10−211.05 × 10−215.68 × 10−45.0 × 10−53.21 × 10−214.43 × 10−2
WM32.04 × 10−22.03 × 10−41.12 × 10−5na *2.06 × 10−213.00 × 10−212.95 × 10−47.2 × 10−5na *13.14 × 10−2
WM49.10 × 10−31.41 × 10−43.22 × 10−51.88 × 10−49.47 × 10−35.80 × 10−29.00 × 10−42.05 × 10−412.03 × 10−46.03 × 10−2
WM51.25 × 10−23.31 × 10−46.08 × 10−64.50 × 10−31.74 × 10−28.02 × 10−221.13 × 10−43.9 × 10−52.86 × 10−211.10 × 10−2
WM62.33 × 10−21.62 × 10−31.84 × 10−5na *2.49 × 10−214.85 × 10−21.03 × 10−21.18 × 10−4na *15.90 × 10−2
WM71.51 × 10−2na *na *na *1.51 × 10−29.67 × 10−2na *na *na *9.67 × 10−2
WM81.43 × 10−26.42 × 10−69.06 × 10−6na *1.43 × 10−29.12 × 10−24.1 × 10−55.8 × 10−5na *9.13 × 10−2
WM91.23 × 10−21.28 × 10−57.86 × 10−6na *1.23 × 10−27.83 × 10−28.2 × 10−55.0 × 10−5na *7.85 × 10−2
WM101.20 × 10−21.13 × 10−42.80 × 10−62.42 × 10−31.45 × 10−27.67 × 10−27.23 × 10−41.8 × 10−51.54 × 10−29.29 × 10−2
WM112.53 × 10−2na *na *na *2.53 × 10−216.13 × 10−2na *na *na *16.13 × 10−2
WM121.50 × 10−29.63 × 10−51.67 × 10−5na *1.52 × 10−29.61 × 10−26.14 × 10−41.07 × 10−4na *9.69 × 10−2
WM132.36 × 10−23.55 × 10−44.11 × 10−6na *2.39 × 10−215.04 × 10−222.63 × 10−42.6 × 10−5na *15.27 × 10−2
WM141.14 × 10−28.56 × 10−53.24 × 10−68.89 × 10−41.23 × 10−27.26 × 10−25.45 × 10−42.1 × 10−556.69 × 10−47.88 × 10−2
WM157.12 × 10−34.32 × 10−48.99 × 10−61.02 × 10−38.58 × 10−34.53 × 10−227.54 × 10−45.7 × 10−565.28 × 10−45.47 × 10−2
WM166.85 × 10−32.86 × 10−41.82 × 10−61.29 × 10−38.43 × 10−34.36 × 10−218.27 × 10−41.2 × 10−582.46 × 10−45.37 × 10−2
WM171.11 × 10−22.54 × 10−41.25 × 10−52.29 × 10−23.43 × 10−27.13 × 10−216.23 × 10−48.0 × 10−514.60 × 10−221.90 × 10−2
WM184.94 × 10−31.13 × 10−43.93 × 10−62.37 × 10−37.43 × 10−33.14 × 10−27.23 × 10−42.5 × 10−51.51 × 10−24.73 × 10−2
* na is “not applicable”.
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

Stihi, C.; Dumitrescu, C. Assessment of the Impact of Metals in Wild Edible Mushrooms from Dambovita County, Romania, on Human Health. Foods 2025, 14, 3540. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14203540

AMA Style

Stihi C, Dumitrescu C. Assessment of the Impact of Metals in Wild Edible Mushrooms from Dambovita County, Romania, on Human Health. Foods. 2025; 14(20):3540. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14203540

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stihi, Claudia, and Crinela Dumitrescu. 2025. "Assessment of the Impact of Metals in Wild Edible Mushrooms from Dambovita County, Romania, on Human Health" Foods 14, no. 20: 3540. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14203540

APA Style

Stihi, C., & Dumitrescu, C. (2025). Assessment of the Impact of Metals in Wild Edible Mushrooms from Dambovita County, Romania, on Human Health. Foods, 14(20), 3540. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14203540

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