Contamination of trace, non-essential/heavy metals in nutraceuticals/dietary supplements: A chemometric modelling approach and evaluation of human health risk upon dietary exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across the world, nutraceuticals/dietary supplements are commonly consumed without medical supervision, and believing these products are harmless to health. However, these products may contain trace (TMs) and non-essential/heavy metals (nHMs) as contaminants at levels higher than the recommended daily allowance (RDA), which can be hazardous to human health. Consequently, it is crucial to assess the levels of these metals to ensure the safety of these products. This study aimed to analyze the concentration of TMs (Mn, Cu and Zn) and nHMs (Al, Cr, Ni, Cd and Pb) in nutraceuticals/dietary supplements. Metal analysis was conducted using inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). Multivariate and bivariate analysis including principle component analysis (PCA), hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) were applied to understand inter-metal association and sources of these metals. Concentration ranges for TMs were found as, Mn (0.2–4.3 mg/kg), Cu (0.11–2.54 mg/kg), and Zn (0.1–22.66 mg/kg) while the nHMs concentration ranges were: Al (0.046–3.336 mg/kg), Cr (0.11–1.63 mg/kg), Ni (0.18–0.72 mg/kg), Cd (0.04–0.92 mg/kg), and Pb (0.18–1.08 mg/kg). The levels of tolerable dietary intake (TDI) for Cr and Ni, and the provisional tolerable monthly intake (PTMI) limit for Cd, exceeded the values set by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The estimation of the target hazard quotient (THQ <1), hazard index (HI < 1) and cumulative cancer risk (CCR <1 ✕ 10 −3 ) indicated no significant non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic health risks associated with consuming these products. Therefore, the primary recommendation from this study is to use the nutraceuticals/dietary supplements should be under the supervision of dietitian .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".