Quantification of Heavy Metals and Pesticide Residues in Widely Consumed Nigerian Food Crops Using Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) and Gas Chromatography (GC)

Abstract

More still needs to be learned regards the relative contamination of heavy metals and pesticide residues, particularly those found in widely consumed Nigerian food crops like cereals, vegetables, and tubers. In this current study, the heavy metals and pesticide residues detectable in widely consumed Nigerian food crops were respectively quantified using atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) and gas chromatography (GC). Specifically, the widely consumed Nigerian food crops included cereals (rice, millet, and maize), legume (soybean), tubers (yam and cassava), as well as leaf (fluted pumpkin, Amaranthus leaf, waterleaf, and scent leaf) and fruit vegetables (okro, cucumber, carrot, and watermelon). Results showed that the detected heavy metals included arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), mercury (Hg), and nickel (Ni), whereas the pesticide residues included Aldrin, Carbofuran, g-chlordane, Chlorpyrifos, DichloroBiphenyl, Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), Dichlorvos, Endosulfan, Heptachlor, Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), Isopropylamine, Lindane, t-nonachlor, and Profenofos. Across the studied food crops, the concentrations of heavy metals and pesticides were varied, with different trends as they largely fell below the established maximum permissible limits, and with some exceptions. Our findings suggest there could be a somewhat gradual decline in the concentration of the heavy metals and pesticide residues of these studied food crops when compared to previously published reports specific to Nigeria. To help substantiate this observation and supplement existing information, further investigations are required into the concentration of these heavy metals and pesticide residues specific to these studied food crops at other parts of the country.

Environmental, Health and Economic Implications of Emerging Contaminants in Nigeria Environment

“…Exposure to herbicides, by populations living in the vicinity of neighbourhoods that control weeds with herbicides, through well water is very high. In a study conducted on cereals, legume, tubers, fruits and vegetables collected from Enugu state [29] aldrin, carbofuran, chlordane, heptachlor, hexacholorobenzene, lindane, dichlorodiphenyltricholoroethane. .…”

A novel electrochemical sensing method based on an amino-functionalized MXene for the rapid and selective detection of Hg2+

“…2,[4][5][6][7][8][9] As such, detecting the presence of Hg 2+ in water is of vital importance to both environmental preservation and human wellbeing. Currently, the most widely employed techniques for detecting Hg 2+ include inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, 10 atomic uorescence spectrometry, 11 atomic absorption spectroscopy, 12 atomic emission spectrometry, 13 uorescence, 14 electrochemical methods, 15 etc. Although effective, these approaches generally require costly instrumentation, intricate sample preparation, and stringent detection parameters.…”

Application of DNA‐fueled molecular machines in food safety testing

“…Consequently, food safety testing is necessary, usually achieved using chromatography, spectroscopy‐based technologies, and biotechnologies. Chromatography includes gas chromatography (Giri et al., 2015; Huertas‐Pérez et al., 2018; Omeje et al., 2021), high‐performance liquid chromatography (Esteki et al., 2019; Guo et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2022), thin‐layer chromatography, and immunoaffinity chromatography (Carvalho et al., 2012; Castegnaro et al., 2006; Santos & Vargas, 2002); spectroscopy‐based technologies include Raman spectroscopy (Kashif et al., 2021; Li & Church, 2014; Neng et al., 2020; Nilghaz et al., 2022), infrared spectroscopy (Jiménez‐Carvelo et al., 2021; Levasseur‐Garcia, 2018; Qu et al., 2015), fluorescence spectroscopy (Ahmad et al., 2017; Bartolic et al., 2022; Fan & Su, 2022); biotechnologies including enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (Lin et al., 2021; Okuma et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2022), PCR technology (Hunt et al., 2018), and biochips. However, the development of the abovementioned food safety testing technologies is largely limited by the dependence on complicated pretreatment of samples, a low limit of detection (LOD), large errors in testing results due to insensitivity to reactions, and a relatively long reaction period.…”