This study is conducted for the determination of heavy metals concentration like Fe, Ni, Mn, Co, Cd, Cu and Pb in five edible vegetables (Cauliflower, Cabbage, Cucumber, Lady finger and Tomato), five edible Fruits (Water melon, peach, Banana, Mango (Sindhri & Langra) and apple) and peel of all these Fruits and endocarp of apple. Samples were purchased from the Local Market of Quetta city (Capital of Balochistan). Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer ((FAAS, Thermo-Electron Corporation, S4 AA System, Ser. No, GE711544, China) double beam and deuterium background hollow cathode lamps of Fe, Pb, Cd, Co, Cu, Ni and Mn were used at specific wavelengths for the determination of heavy metals concentration. Samples were run three times and at least three or four standards are used for each metal analysis. Concentration of Fe, Mn, and copper were very much below the permissible limits defined by WHO/FAO. Concentration of Ni was found at toxic level in cucumber. Concentration of Cd was above the safe value in all samples except banana fruit given by WHO/FAO. Concentration of Co was found above the limit defined by ASTDR 1994 in all the samples. Concentration of Pb with respect to the (China food hygiene standards 1994) 0.2mg/kg and WHO/FAO 0.3mg/kg is above the limit in all samples but it found very high in Tomato, Cabbage, Cucumber, Peach and Watermelon. The overall result of this study reveals that the samples of vegetable and fruits are highly contaminated with heavy metals Co, Pb, Ni and Cd due to the usage of drainage water for watering them and their consumption can cause hazardous effect on human health.

A novel flow injection‐chemiluminescence (FI–CL) approach is proposed for the assay of pioglitazone hydrochloride (PG‐HCl) based on its enhancing influence on the tris(2,2′‐bipyridyl)ruthenium(II)–silver(III) complex (Ru(bipy)32+‐DPA) CL system in sulfuric acid medium. The possible CL reaction mechanism is discussed with CL and ultraviolet (UV) spectra. The optimum experimental conditions were found as: Ru(bipy)32+, 5.0 × 10−5 M; sulfuric acid, 1.0 × 10−3 M; diperiodatoargentate(III) (DPA), 1.0 × 10−4 M; potassium hydroxide, 1.0 × 10−3 M; flow rate 4.0 ml min−1 for each flow stream and sample loop volume, 180 μl. The CL intensity of PG‐HCl was linear in the range of 1.0 × 10−3 to 5.0 mg L−1 (R2 = 0.9998, n = 10) with limit of detection [LOD, signal‐to‐noise ratio (S/N) = 3] of 2.2 × 10−4 mg L−1, limit of quantification (LOQ, S/N = 10) of 6.7 × 10−4 mg L−1, relative standard deviation (RSD) of 1.0 to 3.3% and sampling rate of 106 h−1. The methodology was satisfactorily used to quantify PG‐HCl in pharmaceutical tablets with recoveries ranging from 93.17 to 102.77 and RSD from 1.9 to 2.8%.

A flow injection (FI) methodology using the acidic potassium permanganate (KMnO4)–rhodamine‐B (Rh‐B) reaction with chemiluminescence (CL) detection was established to determine acetochlor and cartap‐HCl pesticides in freshwater samples. Experimental parameters were optimized, and Chelex‐100 cationic exchanger mini column and solid‐phase extraction (SPE) were used as phase separation techniques. Linear calibration curves were observed for the standard solutions of acetochlor and cartap‐HCl over the ranges 0.005–2.0 mg L−1 [y = 1155.8x + 57.551, R2 = 0.9999 (n = 8)] and 0.005–1.0 mg L−1 [y = 979.76x + 14.491, R2 = 0.9998 (n = 8)] with LODs and LOQs of 7.5 × 10−4 and 8.0 × 10−4 mg L−1 (3σ blank) and 2.5 × 10−3 and 2.7 × 10−3 mg L−1 (10σ blank), respectively, with an injection throughput of 140 h−1. These methods were used to estimate acetochlor and cartap‐HCl with or without the SPE procedure, respectively, in spiked freshwater samples. Results obtained were not significantly different at a 95% confidence level to those of other reported methods. Recoveries for acetochlor and cartap‐HCl were obtained over the ranges 93–112% (RSD = 1.9–3.6%) and 98–109% (RSD = 1.7–3.8%), respectively. The most probable CL reaction mechanism was explored.

Introduction: External cephalic version (ECV) is a procedure to manipulate a fetus with breech presentation to cephalic presentation through maternal abdomen under ultrasound guidance. It is done to reduce the number of assisted breech deliveries and caesarean sections for breech presentation. Talcum powder or aqueous gel is frequently used to facilitate ECV. We compared powder with gel in attaining a successful version and level of practitioner satisfaction with powder versus gel use.Materials and Methods: This retrospective descriptive study was conducted by Wah Medical College in POF hospital (affiliated with WMC) , Wah Cantt from 10th Oct 2015- 10th Oct 2019. Total of 56 low risk gravid women underwent ECV after selection on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. By using convenient consecutive sampling, powder or gel during ECV was allocated accordingly. ECV was performed by the single experienced practitioner in labour room with cardiotocograph and emergency caesarean facilities . Powder and gel use was compared in attaining a successful version. ECV was declared successful on confirming head of fetus in lower uterine segment on ultrasound. Unsuccessful ECVs were reattempted with crossover use to the other aid. Practitioner satisfaction was defined as, ease experienced by the practitioner in performing ECV. It was graded as high, medium and low on the base of ease or difficulty experienced by the practitioner while using powder or gel during ECV. The data was recorded & analysed using SPSS software. Descriptive statistics with Chi-square test is applied to find out the association between successful version & practitioner satisfaction level with powder versus gel use.Results: In the powder use group, 9 ECVs were successful and 19 ECV’s were unsuccessful. In gel use group, 12 ECVs were successful and 16 were unsuccessful. There were more successful ECV’s in gel group but the association was not significant (P-value .408). Practitioner satisfaction was significantly high with gel than the powder use(P-value .<.001).Conclusion: Powder or gel is not superior over the other as an aid for achieving successful ECV though gel use is more satisfying for the provider than powder use in performing ECV. More studies are required regarding aids used in performing ECV for recommendations in clinical practice.

No abstract