| Title |
Health risk assessment of heavy metals via dietary intake of wheat grown in Tianjin sewage irrigation area
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ecotoxicology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10646-015-1547-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiangfeng Zeng, Zuwei Wang, Jun Wang, Jinting Guo, Xijuan Chen, Jie Zhuang |
| Abstract |
The possible health risks from heavy metal (Zn, Cu, Cr, Ni, Pb, and Cd) contamination to the local population through the food chain were evaluated in Tianjin, China, a city with a long history of sewage irrigation. Results showed that the continuous application of wastewater has led to an accumulation of heavy metals in the soil, and 54.5 and 18.25 % soil samples accumulated Cd and Zn in concentrations exceeding the permissible limits in China. Concentrations of heavy metals in wheat grain decreased in the order of Zn > Cu > Cr > Ni > Pb > Cd, and transfer factors for the six heavy metals showed the trend as Zn > Cd > Cu > Pb > Cr > Ni. The risk assessment for the six heavy metals through wheat consumption suggests that concentrations of Cr and Cd in some wheat samples exceed their reference oral dose for adults and children. In general, no target hazard quotient value of any individual element was greater than one, which means they are within the safe interval. However, 36.4 and 63.6 % hazard index values for adults and children were greater than one, respectively. The health risk due to the added effects of heavy metals was significant for children and adults, and more attention should be paid tothe potential added threat fromheavy metals to the health of children via dietary intake of wheat in Tianjin. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 22 | 28% |
| Unspecified | 8 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 27 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,428,159
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Ecotoxicology
#834
of 1,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,397
of 275,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecotoxicology
#22
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,475 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.