Special Issue on Urban Environmental Toxins: Public Exposure and Health Risk Management

Journal of International Medical Research

Heavy metal contamination 0(0) 1–14

! The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
in soils and vegetables and sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0300060518758585
health risk assessment of journals.sagepub.com/home/imr

inhabitants in Daye, China

Jun Yang1,2,*, Silu Ma1,2,*, Jingcheng Zhou1,2,

Yongwei Song1,2 and Fei Li1,2

Abstract
Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the state of heavy metal contamination in soil
and vegetables and assess the health risk of inhabitants in the mine-affected area and area far from
the mine (reference area) in Daye, China.
Methods: The heavy metal concentrations in soil and vegetable samples were detected by
inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Residents’ exposure parameters were obtained
through a questionnaire survey. A health risk assessment model recommended by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency was used to evaluate the residents’ risk of oral exposure.
Results: The copper, lead, cadmium, and arsenic concentrations in soil and in vegetables were
higher in the mine-affected area than in the reference area. The health risk of residents in the
reference area was within the acceptable range (hazard index < 1, carcinogen risk < 10
4). In the
contaminated area, however, the mean hazard index was 2.25 for children and 3.00 for adults, and
the mean carcinogen risk was 4.749  10
4 for children and 0.587  10
4 for adults.
Conclusions: Potential health risks exist for inhabitants near the mine area. Cadmium and
arsenic should be paid more attention as risk sources.

Keywords
Heavy metal, health risk assessment, soil, vegetable, Daye, hazard index, carcinogen risk
Date received: 31 October 2017; accepted: 15 January 2018

*These authors contributed equally to this work.

Corresponding author:
1
Research Center for Environment and Health, Zhongnan Jingcheng Zhou, Zhongnan University of Economics and
University of Economics and Law Law, No. 182 Nanhu Avenue, East Lake High-tech
2
School of Information and Safety Engineering, Zhongnan Development Zone, Wuhan 430073, China.
University of Economics and Law Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original
work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Journal of International Medical Research 0(0)

Introduction China is one of few countries with a wide

range of mineral resources and a high
The smelting process in metal mines can
degree of self-sufficiency in minerals.
produce large amounts of waste, resulting
Mining activities alone have generated
in high accumulation of heavy metals in the about 1,500,000 hectare (ha) of wasteland
soil and in the river and underground water in China,20 and this figure is increasing at
surrounding the mining area.1 Similarly, the a rate of 46,700 ha per year.21 Daye is one
levels of heavy metal contamination in the of the most important metal ore-
soil, air, river, and crops from mining- concentrating areas in China and has a
affected areas are reportedly higher than 3000-year metallurgical mining history
those in non-mining areas in many coun- since the Shang Dynasty. Heavy metal con-
tries including China,2,3 the United tamination of soil, surface water, and
States,4 and South Korea.5 In addition to underground water in Daye caused by
causing environmental damage, heavy long-term mining activities has attracted
metals in soil, air, and other media in extensive attention;22,23 however, research
mining-affected areas enter plants by of the health risks to residents is still in
absorption through the vegetable roots the initial stage. Previous research of such
and dust on leaves.6,7 Ingestion of heavy health risks focused more on the contami-
metals can upset the body chemistry, espe- nation level of environmental media than
cially because these metals do not undergo on the risk of heavy metal exposure. This
decomposition within the body and have a is because such studies more commonly
high affinity for many body systems.8 used the exposure parameters from
Increasing evidence indicates that oral guidelines published by the United
exposure is the most important way for States Environmental Protection Agency
heavy metals in the environment to enter (USEPA) or data from literature references
the body; contaminated soil can result in for residents,24 which might not have been
heavy metal translocation into the food completely in line with the actual situation
chain, and high consumption of contami- of the local population.
The aim of the present study was to esti-
nated vegetables can pose a serious risk to
mate the environmental impact of heavy
the human body.9,10
metals in farmland soil and vegetables sam-
Studies of the accumulation and origin
pled both from the mine-affected area and
of heavy metals in soil11 and the potential
area away from mining activities (reference
ecological hazards associated with this pro-
area) in Daye, China. The transformation
cess12,13 have revealed an increasing trend. characteristics of heavy metals from soil to
This intensive research has attracted atten- vegetables in the reference and contaminat-
tion to the effects of heavy metals on ed areas were studied in detail. At the initial
human health, especially in infants and chil- stage, a questionnaire survey was adminis-
dren.14–17 Among many toxic elements, tered to the residents in Daye to explore the
lead, arsenic, and cadmium are considered exposure parameters of the local population
to be potential carcinogens and are associ- specifically associated with vegetable con-
ated with the development of several dis- sumption. The overriding concern was
eases, especially cardiovascular, kidney, that the health risk of local inhabitants
nervous system, blood, and bone diseases.18 from the reference and contaminated areas
Although copper is an essential element for are based on the actual inhabitant exposure
humans, a high concentration in soil and parameters and heavy metal concentra-
vegetables leads to human toxicity.19 tions. The research techniques and results
Yang et al. 3

of this study can provide a reference for study included two areas, namely the
mining pollution control and health risk mine-affected area (i.e., contaminated
assessment in similar area around area) in the northeast of Daye city and an
the world. area away from the mining activities (i.e.,
reference area) in the west of Daye city.
Materials and methods (Figure 1). In total, 32 sampling sites are
randomly distributed in farmland in the
Ethical approval selected villages, with 2 sampling sites in
every village. The reference area includes
This study protocol was approved by a pro- 14 sampling sites in 7 villages: Shangwang
fessional expert group (Expert Group on (sampling sites 1 and 2), Zhushan (sampling
the Special Investigation Project of sites 3 and 4), Fandao (sampling sites 5 and
Environment and Health in Daye, Hubei 8), Wuduan (sampling sites 6 and 7),
Province) that was designated by the Mingshan (sampling sites 9 and 10),
Hubei Provincial Center for Disease
Shangzhuang (sampling sites 11 and 12),
Control and Prevention and the Hubei
and Yangqiao (sampling sites 13 and 14)
Academy of Environmental Sciences.
(Figure 1). The contaminated area includes
18 sampling sites in 9 villages: Guantang
Study site description (sampling sites 15 and 16), Changle (sam-
Daye city lies to the southeast of Hubei pling sites 17 and 18), Chunguang (sampling
province in central China. The present sites 19 and 20), Huajing (sampling sites 21

Figure 1. Distribution of sampling points.

4 Journal of International Medical Research 0(0)

and 22), Wangjiazhuang (sampling sites 23 leaves, 6 tomato, 15 eggplant, and 15

and 24), Luoqiao (sampling sites 25 and 28), pepper samples in the reference area.
Tuannao (sampling sites 26 and 27), Jinqiao
(sampling sites 29 and 30), and Weiwang Sample pretreatment and analysis. The soil
(sampling sites 31 and 32). The villages samples were air-dried at room tempera-
and sampling sites in the two study areas ture, then pulverized and sieved through a
were selected with consideration of the 1-mm stainless steel mesh to obtain a fine
inhabitants’ settlement and distribution. homogenous powder. The samples were
The reference area has socioeconomic char- stored in polyethylene bags at 4 C prior to
acteristics similar to those of the contami- analysis. The edible portions of the vegeta-
nated area. The geographical locations of bles were thoroughly washed with tap water
the sampling points are shown in Figure 1. and deionized. After being primarily air-
dried at room temperature and milled by a
Sampling and pretreatment ceramic-coated grinder, the vegetable sam-
ples were frozen at 18 C until chemi-
Sample collection. In total, 32 surface soil cal analysis.
samples (1 kg each) were collected from The soil pH was measured in ultrapure
the top 0- to 20-cm layer at the sampling water (1.0:2.5 soil:solution ratio, dry w/v).
sites with reference to HJ/166-2004 The soil samples were digested according to
(China, 2004).25 This is because most “Acid Digestion of Sediments, Sludges and
crops’ roots are present in the top 20 cm Soils” (USEPA Method 3050b).27 The veg-
of soil,26 which is regularly turned over by etable samples were digested according to
local farmers. At each sampling site, one “Determination of Lead in Food, Arsenic,
subsample was collected within a distance Iron, Calcium, Zinc, Aluminium, Sodium,
of 5 m surrounding the site to form a com- Magnesium, Boron, Manganese, Copper,
posite sample. A total of 1 kg of soil was Barium, Strontium, Titanium, Tin,
selected from the mixed samples by the Cadmium, Chromium and Vanadium
quartile method, stored in a polyethylene Content by Inductively Coupled Plasma
zip-bag, and immediately transported to Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
the laboratory. In total, 204 vegetable sam- Method” (DB53/T 288-2009).28
ples were collected directly from the land The concentrations of copper (Cu), lead
from which the soil samples were collected, (Pb), arsenic (As), and cadmium (Cd) in
including 7 kinds of vegetables: cowpea vegetables and soil were measured by induc-
(Vigna unguiculata (Linn.) Walp), water tively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
spinach (Ipomoea aquatica Forsk), ama- (NexION 350x; PerkinElmer, Waltham,
ranth (Amaranthus tricolor L), sweet MA, USA). Each batch of testing blank
potato leaves (Ipomoea batatas Lam), and parallel samples were analyzed simulta-
tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Miller), neously. The relative deviation between the
eggplant (Solanum melongena Linn), and parallel samples was controlled within 10%.
pepper (Capsicum annuum Linn. var. gros-
sum (L.) Sendt). The specific sampling Population survey
quantities were 21 cowpea, 21 water spin- The exposure parameters from the
ach, 6 amaranth, 24 sweet potato leaves, 18 Exposure Factors Handbook,29 such as
tomato, 15 eggplant, and 18 pepper samples the inhabitants’ weight and vegetable
in the contaminated area and 15 cowpea, 12 intake, are not suitable for calculation of
water spinach, 6 amaranth, 12 sweet potato the residents’ health risk. Thus, the
Yang et al. 5

questionnaire regarding the exposure where C (mg/kg on a fresh weight basis) is

parameters of the Daye area mainly cov- the food contaminant concentration, IR
ered the problems related to calculation of (kg/person/d) is the daily vegetable con-
dietary route exposure, including sex, age, sumption, EF (365 days/year) is the expo-
height, weight, and other individual charac- sure frequency, ED is the exposure
teristics as well as food types, consumption, duration, BW (kg) is the body weight, and
frequency, time, and other dietary exposure AT is the mean exposure time for
parameters. Four hundred questionnaires noncarcinogens.
were issued, and 389 valid responses The hazard index (HI) for the noncarci-
were obtained. After data input, PASW nogen risk of a variety of heavy metals was
Statistics, version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., calculated using Equation (3):32
Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statisti-
cal analysis. X
n
HI ¼ ðADDi  RfDi Þ (3)
i¼1
Data analysis
Transfer factor. The transfer factor (TF) of where i is the heavy metal species and n is
heavy metals was calculated by Equation the type of heavy metal. Cu is a noncarci-
(1), which represents the potential capabili-
nogen and As, Cd, and Pb are carcinogens.
ty of heavy metal transmission from soil to
The carcinogen risk (CR) of heavy metal
the edible parts of a vegetable:30
intake through vegetable consumption was
Cveg calculated using Equation (4):
TF ¼ (1)
Csoil X
n
CR ¼ ðADDi  SFi Þ (4)
where Cveg is the heavy metal concentration i¼1

(on a fresh weight basis) in the edible parts

of the vegetable, and Csoil is the total heavy The IR was obtained through the ques-
metal concentration (on a dry weight basis) tionnaire investigation and statistics pre-
in the corresponding soil where the vegeta- sented in “China dietary and nutrition
ble was grown. survey and tracking research.”33 The IR
for children and adults was 153.84 and
Health risk assessment and exposure 373.98 g/d, respectively. The BW for chil-
parameters. The health risk assessment dren and adults was 18.77 and 61.00 kg,
model was provided by USEPA (2007) respectively. For the noncarcinogen risk,
and allowed for quantitative assessment of AT is the product of EF and ED; ED for
the human health risks of Cu, Pb, As, and children and adults was 4.54 and 42.61
Cd. The mean daily dose (ADD) was used years, respectively, which are the mean
to measure the amount of daily heavy metal ages according to a local population
intake associated with local inhabitants’ survey. For the CR, AT is the whole life
vegetable consumption. The formula for expectancy (74.80 years for children and
calculating ADD for a single heavy metal 64.95 years for adults).
through the diet is shown in Equation (2):31 According to the USEPA Integrated
Risk Information System statistics, the rec-
C  IR  EF  ED ommended reference dose values for oral
ADDðmg=kg  dÞ ¼
BW  AT intake of As, Cd, Pb, and Cu are 0.0003,
(2) 0.001, 0.004, and 0.04 mg/kg per day,
6 Journal of International Medical Research 0(0)

respectively. The carcinogen slope factor slightly higher than the soil background
for As, Cd, and Pb are 1.5, 0.38, and value, which may be related to the abun-
0.0085 mg/kg per day, respectively.34,35 dance of Cu ore and the increasingly inten-
The HI was used to characterize inhab- sive mining activities. Thus, the soil from
itants’ noncarcinogen risk of consuming the reference area has not been contaminat-
vegetables. If the HI is <1, the exposed ed but may still be affected by
population is unlikely to experience obvious mining activities.
adverse effects. The acceptable risk range All measured heavy metal concentra-
for CR is 10
4 according to the USEPA. tions in the surface soil samples from the
contaminated area were significantly
higher than those in the reference area
Results and Discussion
(p < 0.05) and in the background soil of
Heavy metal concentrations in Daye. The mean Cu, Pb, As, and Cd con-
centrations in soil from the contaminated
farmland soil
area were 4.53, 2.57, 2.50, and 10.16 times
Table 1 summarizes the heavy metal con- higher than those in the reference area,
centrations in farmland soil in the study respectively (p ¼ 0.001, 0.001, 0.000, and
area. The soil from the contaminated area 0.000, respectively). In addition, the mean
and reference area was slightly acidic, with concentration of Cu and Cd in soil from the
a pH of <7. There were significant varia- contaminated area reached 128.48 and
tions of the heavy metals in the soil samples 55.16 mg/kg, respectively, which was
from both the contaminated and reference found to exceed the MAL. However, the
areas in the following order: Cu > Pb > concentrations of As and Cu were within
As > Cd (p < 0.05 for all). the safe limits set by the EPAC. These
In the reference area, the maximum results suggest that the soil in the contami-
values of all heavy metals in soil were nated area has been greatly affected, even
below the maximum allowable level contaminated, by mining and smelting
(MAL) according to the Environment activities and may not be suitable for crop
Quality Standard for Soils regulated production. Additionally, Cd was found to
by the Environmental Protecting be the primary contaminant.
Administration of China (EPAC).36 The Moreover, the level of heavy metal con-
concentrations of Pb, As, and Cd were all tamination differed in all soil sample types,
below those in the natural background soil which was reflected by the maximum value,
in Daye.37 However, the concentration of minimum value, and standard deviation of
Cu in soil from the reference area was each element. This shows that there are

Table 1. Heavy metal concentrations in soil (mg/kg)

Contaminated soils (n ¼ 18) Reference soils (n ¼ 14)

Background
Heavy metal Range Mean Range Mean MAL value

Cu 32.35–321.99 128.48  101.36 17.33–47.04 28.33  11.31 50 25.63

As 10.16–56.42 20.09  11.60 4.74–10.48 8.01  2.14 30 16.58
Cd 0.20–2.45 1.38  0.81 0.03–0.22 0.13  0.05 0.3 0.175
Pb 19.54–87.56 55.16  22.40 17.88–24.83 21.41  2.26 250 43.35
Concentrations are presented in mg/kg. The mean is presented with the standard deviation.
Cu, copper; As, arsenic; Cd, cadmium; Pb, lead; MAL, maximum allowable level.
Yang et al. 7

differences in the degree of soil contamina- concentrations of Cu, Pb, Cd, and As in
tion in different villages even within the vegetables from the reference area ranged
same region, which may be mainly related from 0.618 to 1.548, 0.006 to 0.153, 0.000
to the specific terrain, soil types, and farm- to 0.048, and 0.000 to 0.095 mg/kg, respec-
ing activities. tively, which were significantly lower than
those in vegetables from the contaminated
Assessment of heavy metal contamination area (p < 0.05 for all) (Figure 2). This result
in vegetables is in agreement with the findings that
plants grown in topsoil contaminated
The heavy metal concentrations in the
with heavy metals are more likely to be
edible portions of vegetables grown in con-
taminated soils were compared with those contaminated.38
grown in soil from the reference area. The As shown in Figure 2, the heavy metal
seven vegetables examined were cowpea, concentrations in different vegetables are
water spinach, amaranth, sweet potato quite different. Overall, leafy vegetables
leaves, tomato, eggplant, and pepper. such as spinach, amaranth, and potato
The mean heavy metal concentrations in leaf seemed to accumulate more heavy
vegetables from both the contaminated and metals in their edible parts than other
reference areas decreased in the order of types of vegetables such as cowpeas and
Cu > Pb > Cd > As, which is not completely pepper. This is consistent with the conclu-
consistent with the above-mentioned order sions of Yang et al.39 A study by Yana
of heavy metal concentrations in soil (i.e., et al.40 showed that heavy metals in the
Cu > Pb > As > Cd). The concentrations of leaves of vegetables do not only come
Cu, Pb, Cd, and As in vegetables from the from the soil but are also greatly affected
contaminated area ranged from 0.463 to by contamination from smelting waste
6.672, 0.000 to 1.474, 0.000 to 0.711, and gases, whereas heavy metals in the fruits
0.000 to 0.942 mg/kg, respectively. The and roots of vegetables mainly come from

Figure 2. Heavy metal concentrations in the edible parts of vegetables. The error bars indicate the
standard deviation, and the asterisks indicate significant differences in heavy metal concentrations between
vegetable grown in mine-affected and reference soils. *P < 0.1, **P < 0.05, and ***P < 0.001.
8 Journal of International Medical Research 0(0)

soil. In addition, the heavy metal concen- set by China,44 the FAO, and the EC.
trations in vegetables are related to the dif- Additionally, the concentrations of Cd in
ferent growth stages of vegetables in the pepper and eggplant were 5.0 and 1.6
same season because the ability of vegeta- times higher, respectively, than the MAL.
bles to enrich heavy metals varies with the The concentrations of Cu, Pb, and As for
growth stages.41 This may be the reason both pepper and eggplant did not exceed
why heavy metals in the edible portions of the MAL. However, all four heavy metals
leaf vegetables is much higher. in cowpeas, spinach, and sweet potato
To evaluate the heavy metal contamina- leaves were below the MAL.
tion of vegetables grown in soil, the heavy
metal concentrations in this study were Transfer of heavy metals from soil
compared with the MAL set by China, the to vegetables
Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO),42 and the European Communities The TF can be used to assess the potential
(EC)43 (Table 2). Cu is an essential element ability of heavy metals to move from soil to
for the human body and is therefore not plant tissues. The TF of heavy metals from
regulated by Chinese food standards. soil to vegetables in the contaminated and
However, the FAO (2011) regulates the reference areas is shown in Figure 3. The
maximum Cu level at 40 mg/kg (based on mean TF value for Cu, As, Cd, and Pb
fresh weight), while the EC (2006) limits the from soil to vegetables in the contaminated
Cu level at 20 mg/kg (based on area reached 0.021, 0.007, 0.095, and 0.003,
fresh weight). respectively. The mean TF value for Cu,
The mean concentrations of Cu, Pb, Cd, As, Cd, and Pb from soil to vegetables in
and As in vegetables from contaminated the reference area reached 0.043, 0.003,
soil in this study were lower than the 0.139, and 0.003, respectively. The TF of
MAL set by China, the FAO, and the EC. Cu and Cd from soil to vegetables was obvi-
However, not all vegetables are safe to enter ously lower in the contaminated than refer-
the food chain; the degree of contamination ence area. The TF of the four heavy metals
greatly differs among different kinds of veg- in the two regions both showed an order of
etables. Contamination in amaranth species Cd > Cu > As > Pb, which is consistent
was the most severe among the sampled with the conclusions reported by Liu
vegetables. Only the concentrations of Cd et al.45 and Cai et al.46 In addition, the
and Pb in amaranth species were 2.6 and 1.1 order was not the same as in the report by
times higher, respectively, than the MAL Choudhury,47 which is more likely related

Table 2. Recommended maximum levels and heavy metal concentrations for vegetables

Standard Cu As Cd Pb

FAO, 2011 40 0.05 (Inorganic) 0.2 leafy; 0.05 others 0.3

EC, 2006 20 NR 0.2 leafy; 0.05 others 0.3
CMH, 2012 NR 0.5 (Total) 0.2 leafy; 0.05 others 0.3 leafy; 0.1 others
Contaminated area mean 1.930  0.494 0.123  0.087 0.143  0.079 0.145  0.148
Reference area mean 1.087  0.151 0.022  0.022 0.020  0.011 0.055  0.029
Levels are presented in (mg/kg, fresh weight). Data are presented as mean  standard deviation.
Cu, copper; As, arsenic; Cd, cadmium; Pb, lead; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization; EC, European Union Standards;
CMH, Chinese Ministry of Health; NR, Not recommended.
Yang et al. 9

Figure 3. Transfer factor of heavy metals from soil to vegetables in contaminated area and reference area.

to the physical and chemical properties of in the contaminated area, including both
the soil and the type of plant sampled. adults and children, were higher than
The TF of the different vegetables varied those the reference area. The total HI cal-
greatly, showing an order of amaranth > culated in the reference area was <1 if the
spinach > eggplant > pepper > tomato > local residents consumed each vegetable at
sweet potato leaf > cowpea. The TF of the same frequency, suggesting that the
leafy vegetables such as spinach and ama- noncarcinogen risk of heavy metal exposure
ranth was higher than that of other vegeta- through vegetables was generally safe.
bles such as eggplant, pepper, and tomato, Remarkably, residents in the contaminated
which is in agreement with the findings of area were exposed to a serious noncarcino-
Xu et al.48 genic health risk.
Additionally, the contamination of soil In the contaminated area, the HI values
by Cd was the most severe, so the accumu- for Cu and Pb in both children and adults
lation of Cd from soil to vegetables should were <1, indicating that the noncarcinogen
be paid more attention (although the mean risk caused by only oral Cu or Pb was not
concentration of Cd in vegetables was lower obvious. Notably, the total noncarcinogen
than the MAL recommended by Chinese risk had a mean of 77% for As and Cd in
Ministry of Health). both children and adults in the contaminat-
ed area. Similarly, Lim et al.49 reported a
Health risk of local inhabitants by high risk for Cd and As.
The mean noncarcinogen risk contribu-
contaminated vegetables
tion rate of Cu, As, Cd, and Pb for residents
The noncarcinogen risk values of children in the reference area was 30%, 27%, 22%,
and adults in the contaminated and refer- and 15%, respectively. The situation in the
ence areas were calculated according to the reference area was greatly different from
consumption of vegetables and the heavy that in the contaminated area, mainly due
metal concentrations in vegetables to the different heavy metal concentrations
(Table 3). The total HI of the four heavy in vegetables between the two differ-
metals for children and adults in the con- ent regions.
taminated area ranged from 0.72 to 7.70 The CR values of adults and children in
and 0.54 to 5.76, respectively. The total the contaminated area ranged from 5.49 
HI of children and adults in the reference 10
5 to 1.25  10
3 and from 6.80  10
6 to
area ranged from 0.28 to 1.66 and 0.19 to 1.55  10
4, respectively, and those of
1.20, respectively. The total HI of residents adults and children in the reference area
10 Journal of International Medical Research 0(0)

Table 3. Hazard risk index of vegetable intake

Contaminated area Reference area

Vegetable Age Cu As Cd Pb Total Cu As Cd Pb Total

VW Children 0.33 0.18 0.07 0.14 0.72 0.23 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.72
Adults 0.25 0.13 0.05 0.11 0.54 0.17 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.19
IF Children 0.45 2.96 0.63 0.21 4.26 0.32 0.88 0.26 0.21 1.66
Adults 0.34 2.22 0.47 0.16 3.18 0.24 0.66 0.19 0.16 1.24
AL Children 0.74 2.06 4.22 0.67 7.70 0.21 0.26 0.39 0.31 1.17
Adults 0.56 1.54 3.16 0.50 5.76 0.15 0.19 0.30 0.24 0.88
IL Children 0.48 2.12 0.22 0.26 3.09 0.26 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.44
Adults 0.36 1.59 0.17 0.19 2.31 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.33
LM Children 0.16 0.25 0.35 0.61 1.37 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.28
Adults 0.12 0.19 0.26 0.46 1.03 0.09 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.21
SL Children 0.27 0.27 2.07 0.05 2.66 0.20 0.10 0.29 0.04 0.63
Adults 0.20 0.20 1.55 0.04 1.99 0.15 0.08 0.22 0.03 0.47
CS Children 0.33 0.11 0.65 0.13 1.22 0.22 0.04 0.13 0.09 0.48
Adults 0.25 0.09 0.49 0.10 0.91 0.17 0.03 0.10 0.07 0.36
Mean Children 0.40 1.14 1.17 0.30 3.00 0.22 0.20 0.16 0.11 0.77
Adults 0.30 0.85 0.88 0.22 2.25 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.53
Cu, copper; As, arsenic; Cd, cadmium; Pb, lead; VW, Vigna unguiculata (Linn.) Walp (cowpea); IF, Ipomoea aquatica Forsk
(water spinach); AL, Amaranthus tricolor L (amaranth); IL, Ipomoea batatas Lam (sweet potato leaves); LM, Lycopersicon
esculentum Miller (tomato); SL, Solanum melongena Linn (eggplant); CS, Capsicum annuum Linn. var. grossum (L.)
Sendt (pepper).

Table 4. Carcinogen risk value of vegetable intake (10
4)

Contaminated area Reference area

Vegetable Age As Cd Pb Total As Cd Pb Total

VW Children 0.049 0.016 0.003 0.068 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.005

Adults 0.396 0.129 0.024 0.549 0.035 0.000 0.002 0.037
IF Children 0.809 0.146 0.004 0.960 0.239 0.060 0.004 0.304
Adults 6.542 1.183 0.035 7.761 1.936 0.484 0.035 2.455
AL Children 0.563 0.974 0.014 1.551 0.070 0.091 0.006 0.167
Adults 4.553 7.875 0.112 12.54 0.563 0.736 0.052 1.351
IL Children 0.580 0.051 0.005 0.636 0.035 0.000 0.001 0.037
Adults 4.688 0.413 0.043 5.144 0.287 0.002 0.007 0.296
LM Children 0.069 0.080 0.013 0.162 0.000 0.017 0.002 0.019
Adults 0.561 0.644 0.102 1.307 0.000 0.139 0.014 0.152
SL Children 0.073 0.477 0.001 0.551 0.028 0.067 0.001 0.096
Adults 0.593 3.856 0.008 4.457 0.229 0.541 0.007 0.776
CS Children 0.031 0.150 0.003 0.183 0.010 0.030 0.002 0.042
Adults 0.251 1.209 0.022 1.482 0.082 0.240 0.015 0.337
Mean Children 0.311 0.271 0.006 0.587 0.055 0.038 0.002 0.096
Adults 2.512 2.187 0.049 4.749 0.447 0.306 0.019 0.772
Cu, copper; As, arsenic; Cd, cadmium; Pb, lead; VW, Vigna unguiculata (Linn.) Walp (cowpea); IF, Ipomoea aquatica Forsk
(water spinach); AL, Amaranthus tricolor L (amaranth); IL, Ipomoea batatas Lam (sweet potato leaves); LM, Lycopersicon
esculentum Miller (tomato); SL, Solanum melongena Linn (eggplant); CS, Capsicum annuum Linn. var. grossum (L.)
Sendt (pepper).
Yang et al. 11

ranged from 3.70  10
6 to 2.45  10
4 and but the Cd and Pb concentrations in some
from 5.00  10
7 to 1.67  10
6, respective- vegetables exceeded the MAL. The heavy
ly. The CR for residents in the contaminat- metal concentrations in vegetables are
ed area was significantly higher than that largely dependent on the ability to accumu-
in the reference region (p ¼ 0.03). late heavy metals. The TF of the four heavy
Additionally, the CR of heavy metals for metals showed the order of Cd > Cu >
children was significantly higher than that As > Pb. From the viewpoint of the soil
for adults (p ¼ 0.03), which is consistent concentration and enrichment ability, Cd
with previous studies.50 Please click here should be paid more attention. Residents
to enter your response.However, the result in the reference area seem to be safe.
that the CR was higher for adults than chil- However, residents in the contaminated
dren differed from the findings reported by area are exposed to a serious health risk
Lanhua et al.,51 who may have artificially with an mean of a 77% contribution from
expanded the continuous exposure time of As and Cd. The total HI of the four heavy
children. The exposure time was defined as metals in children and adults in the contam-
the mean age of the residents, mainly taking inated area ranged from 0.72 to 7.70 and
into account the changes in the future resi- 0.54 to 5.76, respectively. The CR values
dence and living environment of residents for adults and children in the contaminated
with different ages. area ranged from 5.49  10
5 to 1.25  10
3
The CR contribution rate of different and from 6.80  10
6 to 1.55  10
4,
heavy metals for residents in both the con- respectively. Similarly, both Cd and As
taminated and reference areas showed the were the main source of CR.
order of As > Cd > Pb (Table 4). The CR From a health risk perspective, the envi-
for As was close to that of Cd, and both ronmental quality standards and food
were the main source of the CR. As had a safety standards of some heavy metals,
low contamination level in vegetables but a such as As, may need to be improved. The
high CR for residents; this was mainly due concentration of As meets the MAL in veg-
to the high carcinogen slope factor of As etables but appears to largely contribute to
determined by the biological toxicity and the human health risk because of the higher
carcinogenicity. toxicity to cells or organisms. The sources
and transformation of heavy metal contam-
ination require further study to provide a
Conclusion basis for health risk management from the
The concentrations of four heavy metals perspective of an entire mining area.
near the mine were significantly higher
than those in the reference area, indicating Acknowledgments
that the soil in the contaminated area is The authors thank the Research Center for
greatly affected by mining and smelting Environment and Health, Zhongnan University
activities. Contamination of soil with Cd of Economics and Law in Wuhan, China. We
was the most serious, with a mean concen- are also very grateful for the opinions of the
tration of 4.6 times higher than the maxi- peer reviewers, who have helped to improve the
mum permitted level set by the China quality of our manuscript and inspired us to con-
Ministry of Environmental Protection. tinue our research in this field of study.
The mean concentrations of Cu, Pb, Cd,
and As in different parts of vegetables in Declaration of conflicting interests
contaminated soils were lower than the The authors declare that there is no conflict
MAL set by China, the FAO, and the EC, of interest.
12 Journal of International Medical Research 0(0)

Funding Geochem Hlth 2017; 39: 923–934.

DOI:10.1007/s10653-016-9864-7
This research was supported by the Humanities
8. Duruibe JO, Ogwuegbu MOC and
and Social Sciences Foundation of the Ministry Egwurugwu JN. Heavy metal pollution
of Education of China (17YJAZH105, and human biotoxic effects. Int J Phys Sci
17YJCZH081) and the 58th China Postdoctoral 2007; 2: 112–118. DOI: 10.1016/j.
Science Foundation (2015M582316). proenv.2011.09.146
9. Hough RL, Breward N, Young SD, et al.
Assessing potential risk of heavy metal expo-
References
sure from consumption of home-produced
1. Itoh H, Iwasaki M, Sawada N, et al. Dietary vegetables by urban populations. Environ
cadmium intake and breast cancer risk in Health Persp 2004; 112: 215–221. DOI:
Japanese women: A case-control study. Int 10.1289/ehp.5589
J Hyg Envir Heal 2014; 217: 70–77. 10. Yeganeh M, Afyuni M, Khoshgoftarmanesh
DOI:10.1016/j.ijheh.2013.03.010 AH, et al. Health risks of metals in soil,
2. Luo CL, Liu CP, Wang Y, et al. Heavy water, and major food crops in Hamedan
metal contamination in soils and vegetables Province, Iran. Hum Ecol Risk Assess
near an e-waste processing site, south China. 2012; 18: 547–568. DOI:10.1080/
J Hazard Mater 2011; 186: 481–490. 10807039.2012.672886
DOI:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.11.024 11. Ha H, Olson JR, Bian L, et al. Analysis of
3. Li F, Qiu ZZ, Zhang JD, et al. Investigation, heavy metal sources in soil using kriging
pollution mapping and simulative leakage interpolation on principal components.
health risk assessment for heavy metals and Environ Sci & Technol 2014; 48: 4999–5007.
metalloids in groundwater from a typical DOI: 10.1021/es405083f
brownfield, middle China. Int J Env Res 12. Li F, Huang JH, Zeng GM, et al. Spatial
Pub He 2017; 14. DOI:10.3390/ risk assessment and sources identification
ijerph14070768 of heavy metals in surface sediments from
4. Ramirez-Andreotta MD, Brusseau ML, the Dongting Lake, Middle China.
Artiola JF and Maier RM. A greenhouse J Geochem Explor 2013; 132: 75–83. DOI:
and field-based study to determine the accu- 10.1016/j.gexplo.2013.05.007
mulation of arsenic in common homegrown 13. Huang JH, Li F, Zeng GM, et al.
Integrating hierarchical bioavailability and
vegetables grown in mining-affected soils.
population distribution into potential eco-
Sci Total Environ 2013; 443: 299–306.
risk assessment of heavy metals in road
DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.095
dust: A case study in Xiandao District,
5. Ji K, Kim J, Lee M, et al. Assessment of
Changsha city, China. Sci Total Environ
exposure to heavy metals and health risks
2016; 541: 969–976. DOI:10.1016/j.
among residents near abandoned metal
scitotenv.2015.09.139.
mines in Goseong, Korea. Environ Pollut 14. Krishna AK and Mohan KR. Distribution,
2013; 178: 322–328. DOI:10.1016/j. correlation, ecological and health risk assess-
envpol.2013.03.031 ment of heavy metal contamination in sur-
6. Harrison, RM and Chirgawi, MB The face soils around an industrial area,
assessment of air and soil as contributors Hyderabad, India. Environ Earth Sci 2016;
of some trace metals to vegetable plants I. 75. DOI:10.1007/s12665-015-5151-7
Use of a filtered air growth cabinet. Sci Total 15. Noli F and Tsamos P. Concentration of
Environ 1989; 83: 13–34; DOI:10.1016/0048- heavy metals and trace elements in soils,
9697(89)90003-X waters and vegetables and assessment of
7. Li F, Zhang JD, Jiang W, et al. Spatial health risk in the vicinity of a lignite-
health risk assessment and hierarchical risk fired power plant. Sci Total Environ
management for mercury in soils from a typ- 2016; 563: 377–385. DOI:10.1016/j.scitot
ical contaminated site, China. Environ env.2016.04.098
Yang et al. 13

16. Izhar S, Goel A, Chakraborty A, et al. Environmental Monitoring; Ministry of

Annual trends in occurrence of submicron Environmental Protection of the People’s
particles in ambient air and health risk Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2004.
posed by particle bound metals. 26. Evans PS. Plant root distribution and water
Chemosphere 2016; 146: 582–590. use patterns of some pasture and crop spe-
DOI:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.12.039 cies. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural
17. Cao SZ, Duan XL, Zhao XG, et al. Health Research 1978; 21: 261–265. DOI:10.1080/
risks of children’s cumulative and aggregative 00288233.1978.10427408
exposure to metals and metalloids in a typical 27. United States Environmental Protection
urban environment in China. Chemosphere Agency, Method 3050B. Acid digestion of
2016; 147: 404–411. DOI:10.1016/j sediments, sludges, and soils; United States
18. J€arup L. Hazards of heavy metal contami- Environmental Protection Agency: United
nation. Brit Med Bull 2003; 68: 167. States, 1996.
DOI:10.1093/bmb/ldg032 28. Yunnan Bureau of quality and
19. Kabatapendias A. Trace Elements in Soils technical supervision, DB53/T 288-2009.
and Plants, 3rd ed. Crc Press, London: Determination of Lead in food, Arsenic,
Washington, D.C, 2000, p.114. Iron, Calcium, Zinc, Aluminium, Sodium,
20. MEPPRC (Ministry of Environmental Magnesium, Boron, Manganese, Copper,
Protection of the People’s Republic of Barium, Strontium, Titanium, Tin,
China), 2006. Report on the state of the envi- Cadmium, Chromium and Vanadium content
ronment in China, MEPPRC, Beijing, China. by inductively coupled plasma atomic emis-
21. Zhuang P, McBride MB, Xia HP, et al. sion spectrometry (ICP-AES) method;
Health risk from heavy metals via consump- Yunnan Bureau of quality and technical
tion of food crops in the vicinity of supervision: Yunnan, China, 2009.
Dabaoshan mine, South China. Sci Total 29. United States Environmental Protection
Environ 2009; 407: 1551–1561. Agency. Exposure Factors Handbook:
DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.10.061 2011 Edition. Washington, DC, USA:
22. Huang K, Xie S and Bao, Z. Environmental United States Environmental Protection
geochemistry of heavy metal and trace ele- Agency, 2011.
ments in tailings of Tongliishan Copper and 30. Hu WY, Huang B, Tian K, et al. Heavy
Iron Mine, Daye, Hubei Province. metals in intensive greenhouse vegetable
Geochimica 2008; 37: 213–222. http://en. production systems along Yellow Sea of
cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL- China: Levels, transfer and health risk.
DQHX200803005.htm Chemosphere 2017; 167: 82–90.
23. Yaping W, Zhengyu B and Suming W. DOI:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.09.122
Advances in environmental effects of mine 31. USEPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for
solid waste and environmental effects of Superfund Volume 1. Human Health
the tailings in Daye. Bulletin of mineralogy, Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental
petrol and geochem 1998; 17: 97–101. http:// Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment);
kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filena EPA/540/R/99/005 Office of Superfund
me¼kydh802.005&dbname¼CJF Remediation and Technology Innovation;
D&dbcode¼CJFQ Environmental Protection Agency:
24. Lihua X, Jun Y, Zhenzhen Q, et al. Survey of Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
occupation exposure to PM10 and health risk 32. USEPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for
assessment for tunnel workers. Environ Sci Superfund Volume 1. Human Health
2015; 8: 2768–74. http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/ Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental
detail/detail.aspx?filename¼hjkz Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment);
201508009&dbname¼CJFD&dbcode¼ CJFQ EPA/540/R/99/005 Office of Superfund
25. Ministry of Environmental Protection of the Remediation and Technology Innovation;
People’s Republic of China, HJ/166-2004. Environmental Protection Agency:
Technical Specification for Soil Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
14 Journal of International Medical Research 0(0)

33. Fengying Zhai, China dietary and nutrition Committee on Contaminants in Foods,
survey and tracking research (in Chinese), Fifth Session, pp 64–89.
Science Press, Beijing, China: 2008, 43. European Union. Commission regulation
pp.1–90. ISBN: 9787030210951. http://cpfd. (EC) No. 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006
cnki.com.cn/Article/CPFDTOTAL- setting maximum levels for certain contami-
EGYN200507001004.htm nants in foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union L
34. USEPA. Integrated Risk Information 2006; 364, 5–24.
System [M] 2000. 44. Chinese Ministry of Health, CMH, GB
35. Budroe JD and Fowles JR. Technical 2762-2012. Maximum Levels of
Supper Document for Describing Available Contaminants in Foods. Chinese Ministry
Cancer Potency Factors [M]. Califonia of Health, CMH: Beijing, China, 2012.
Environmental Protention Agency Office of 45. Liu HY, Probst A and Liao BH. Metal con-
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment tamination of soils and crops affected by the
Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Chenzhou lead/zinc mine spill (Hunan,
Section 2002. China). Sci Total Environ 2005; 339:
36. Environmental Protecting Administration of 153–166. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.07.030
China, EPAC, GB 15618-1995. Environment 46. Cai LM, Xu ZC, Qi JY, et al. Assessment
Quality Standard for Soils; Environmental of exposure to heavy metals and health
Protecting Administration of China, risks among residents near Tonglushan
EPAC, Beijing, China, 1995. mine in Hubei, China. Chemosphere
37. Wang D, Zhu Y, Zeng L, et al. Study on 2015; 127: 127–135. DOI:10.1016/j.
background value of soil heavy metals in
chemosphere.2015.01.027
Daye. J Huazhong Normal Univers 1982; 1:
47. Choudhury TR. Heavy metals contamina-
96–107. http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/
tion in vegetables and its growing soil. Int
detail.aspx?filename¼hzsz198201012
J Environ An Ch 2015; 2: 6. DOI:/10.4172/
&dbname¼CJFD&dbcode¼CJFQ
jreac.1000142
38. Muchuweti A, Birkett JW, Chinyanga E, et al.
48. Xu L, Lu AX, Wang JH, et al.
Heavy metal content of vegetables irrigated
Accumulation status, sources and phytoa-
with mixtures of wastewater and sewage
vailability of metals in greenhouse vegetable
sludge in Zimbabwe: Implications for human
production systems in Beijing, China.
health. Agr Ecosyst Environ 2006; 112: 41–8.
DOI:10.1016/j.agee.2005.04.028 Ecotox Environ Safe 2015; 122: 214–220.
39. Yang Y, Zhang FS, Li HF, et al. DOI:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.07.025
Accumulation of cadmium in the edible 49. Lim HS, Lee JS, Chon HT, et al. Heavy
parts of six vegetable species grown in metal contamination and health risk assess-
Cd-contaminated soils. J Environ Manage ment in the vicinity of the abandoned
2009; 90: 1117–1122. DOI:10.1016/j. Songcheon Au-Ag mine in Korea.
jenvman.2008.05.004 J Geochem Explor 2008; 96: 223–230.
40. Yana C, Kelin L, Jian Z, et al. Analysis of DOI:10.1016/j.gexplo.2007.04.008
heavy metal pollution in soil-vegetables at 50. Sun Q, Ying C, Deng J, et al. Heavy metal
mining area in Hunan. Chinese Agricult Sci pollution characteristics and health risk
bulletin 2012; 28: 226–232. http://en.cnki. assessment of soil-vegetables in Daye
com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL- mining area. Chemic Environ 2013; 32:
ZNTB201235047.htm 671–677. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/
41. Tani FH, Barrington S. Zinc and copper CJFDTOTAL-HJHX201304023.htm
uptake by plants under two transpiration 51. Lanhua W, Mingming L, Ying Z, et al.
ratios Part I. Wheat (Triticumaestivum L.). Characteristics and health risk assessment
Environ Pollut 2005; 138: 538–547. of heavy metal pollution in soil of a vegeta-
DOI:10.1016/j.envpol.2004.06.004 ble base in North China. J Earth 2014; 35:
42. FAO/WHO, 2011. FAO/WHO. Joint FAO/ 191–196. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/
WHO Food Standards Programme Codex CJFDTOTAL-DQXB201402012.htm