MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288689856 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1890673/v1

Determination of concentration of heavy metals and metalloids in grapes grown in Gonabad vineyards and assessment of associated health risks

2022· preprint· en· W4288689856 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roya Peirovi-Minaee, Ali Alami, Alireza Moghaddam, Ahmad Zarei

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicHeavy Metals in Plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVice Chancellor for Research and Technology, Kerman University of Medical SciencesHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsMetalloidArsenicCadmiumHazard quotientEnvironmental chemistryChromiumChemistryZincHealth risk assessmentManganeseMean valueToxicologyAnimal scienceHealth riskHeavy metalsMetalMedicineEnvironmental healthMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Metals and metalloids are considered as major public health hazards, they are known to accumulate in fruits, which are heavily consumed by humans because of their unique sweet taste and potential health benefits. Therefore, the aim of this study was to measure the concentration of ten heavy metals and metalloids including arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) in grapes samples grown in Gonabad vineyards and to estimate the associated health risks of metals in terms of chronic daily intake (CDI), and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks by hazard quotient (HQ), hazard index (HI) and cancer risk (CR). The overall concentration of in red grapes were in range 0.07–0.5 (mean 0.14), 0.08–0.13 (mean 0.10), 0.07–0.13 (mean 0.09), 0.06–1.49 (mean 0.29), 0.52–4.12 (mean 1.65), 6.43–42.17 (mean 19.01), 0.89–4.04 (mean 1.89), 0.07–9.23 (mean 0.71), 0.07–0.37 (mean 0.18), 0.40–4.13 (mean 1.05) mg/kg dry weight for As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn, respectively. Based on the results, cadmium for all samples and Pb in 64.7 % and As in 35.3% of the samples exceeded the FAO/WHO permissible limits. The estimated non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk indices showed that the results were lower than the critical value (1) and in acceptable range, respectively, therefore red grape is safe for consumption with no impact on the human health. The obtained data can be used in remediation techniques, as well as in implementing control measures of metals contamination in grapes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicHeavy Metals in PlantsFrench-language works237,207