2007_6_Nr6_EEMJ

Recommendations

Info

Soceanu et al. /Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 6 (<strong>2007</strong>), 6, 593-596 2.2. Sample preparation The vegetables and fruits samples produced in the area of Constanta (Romania) were collected during one year. These samples were stored in Teflon vessels at the room temperature in a dark place for further analysis. A mineralization step is necessary to obtain a finally solution suitable for introduction in the spectrometer. This step is recommended even for liquid or water-soluble foodstuffs, the destruction of the organic matter preventing both spectral interferences and the accumulation of the residues in the burner head and spray chamber. In this context analyzed samples were submitted to digestion with 8 mL HNO 3 and 10 mL H 2 O 2 at 150 o C in a Digesdhal device provided by Hach Company. After the complete digestion, sample solutions were filtered made up to 50 mL with deionized water. Than Fe, Mn, Mg and Zn were determined by FAAS in air/acetylene flame using an aqueous standard calibration curve. Analyses were made in triplicates and the mean values are reported. A flame atomic absorption spectrometer Shimadzu AA6500 was used for the determination of five essential elements (Fe, Mn, Cd, Zn and Cu). An air-acetylene flame was used for all elements. Monoelement hollow cathode lamps were employed to measure the elements. The acetylene was of 99.999% purity at a flow rate 1.8-2.0 L/min. The characteristics of metal calibration are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of metal calibration curves Metal λ, nm Concentration range (ppm) Correlation coefficient Fe 248.3 0.020-4.000 0.9976 Mn 279.5 0.008-1.600 0.9984 Cd 228.8 0.008–1.600 0.9999 Zn 213.9 0.016-0.510 0.9932 Cu 324.7 0.010–1.200 0.9990 The accuracy (expressed as standard deviation SD and coefficient of variance CV) of the results was determined from three replicates of homogenized samples, giving a good standard and precision for the analytical results of essential elements obtained by FAAS. 3. Result and discussion In Tables 2 and 3 the average values of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cd and Cu concentrations in vegetable samples (mg/kg) are presented. Concentrations of iron found in the bulb of carrot (825.51 mg/kg), in stem (506.03 mg/kg) and in leaves (1207.18 mg/kg) of cucumber were over the allowable maximum limit of iron in vegetables namely 425.5 mg/kg (Food Standards Programme, 2001). It can be observed that iron concentrations are higher in the leaves of bean and pea plant comparative to the others parts of these plants. Also, the content of iron is higher in the bean than in the pea. The plants absorb cadmium through their roots and leaves, which affect the plant metabolism and growth. The highest concentrations of cadmium in polluted plants are always reported for the leaves. The bean and pea leaves studied here indicate that levels of cadmium are lower than those measured by Angelova in bean, respectively pea leaves (6.4 mg/kg, respectively 1.13 mg/kg) (Angelova et al., 2003). They found that the movement and accumulation of the heavy metals (Cu, Cd and Zn) in the vegetative organs of different cultivated plants differed significantly. They also found that the content of heavy metals in the leaves was higher comparative to the root system. This situation is confirmed by the studies of Cobb et al., (2000) about the accumulation of cadmium, lead, zinc and copper in different vegetables, which indicate that each plant can accumulate differently heavy metal. Moraghan studied the accumulation of iron in beans (Moraghan et al, 2002). He determined the influence of lime, Fe chelates and type of soil on accumulation of iron in bean. In this context, he observed that iron chelates could drastically reduce Mn concentration. Table 2. Fe and Cd concentrations in vegetables Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) Sample Concentrations (mg/kg) Fe Cd Green pod 50.48±0.0032 1.97±0.0012 Leaves 217.77±0.0064 3.73±0.0012 Flower 188.93±0.004 10.71±0.0025 Bean 38.52±0.0025 3.3±0.0016 Pod 31.6±0.0011 2.81±0.0006 Leaves 153.55±0.0021 4.13±0.0025 Pea (Pisum sativum L) Pea 41.93±0.003 1.09±0.043 Carrot (Daucus carota L) Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L) Bulb 825.51±0.0278 3.391±0.0024 Leaves 249.3±0.0025 5.73±0.0017 Root 351.23±0.0027 47.03±0.0215 Stem 506.03±0.0001 61.32±0.0025 Leaves 1207.18±0.0022
Comparative study of some essential elements in different types of vegetables and fruits Tables 4 and 5 present the average values of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cd and Cu concentrations in fruit samples (mg/kg). It can be notice that, while Cu concentration was under detection limit in bulb of carrot, in leaves of carrot a high concentration of Cu (157.84 mg/kg) was detected of which is over the recommendable maximum limit (73.3 mg/kg). Peach (Prunus persica) Table 4. Fe and Cd concentrations in fruits Sample Nectarine (Prunus persica var.nucipersica) Concentrations (mg/kg) Fe Cd Stone 46.9565±0.0019 1.0543±0.0026 Green 49,28±0.0009 0.27±0.0042 Almost 73.94±0.0012 2.96±0.002 ripe Ripe 92.02±0.0048 5.43±0.0003 Leaves 193.74±0.0004 31.3±0.0027 Stone 67.0723±0.0043 0.8336±0.0019 Green 19.14±0.0001 2.76±0.0001 Almost 21.09±0.0015 4.72±0.0016 ripe Ripe 38.74±0.0003 5.98±0.0004 Leaves 180.32±0.0005 16.32±0.0009 Table 5. Mn, Zn and Cu concentrations in fruits Sample Concentrations (mg/kg) Mn Zn Cu Peach Stone
Page 1 and 2:
November/December 2007 Vol.6 No. 6
Page 3 and 4:
Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Matei Macove
Page 5 and 6:
“Gheorghe Asachi” Technical Uni
Page 7:
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
Page 10 and 11:
Obtaining and characterization of R
Page 12 and 13:
Iurascu et al. /Environmental Engin
Page 14 and 15:
Iurascu et al. /Environmental Engin
Page 16 and 17:
Caliman et al. /Environmental Engin
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
RIWATECH/Environmental Engineering
Page 24 and 25:
Archambault and Ulibarr/Environment
Page 26 and 27:
Archambault and Ulibarr/Environment
Page 28 and 29:
SIWMANET/Environmental Engineering
Page 30 and 31:
Draghici et al. /Environmental Engi
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
TECHNOPOLIS/Environmental Engineeri
Page 38 and 39:
Mihai et al. /Environmental Enginee
Page 40 and 41:
Mihai et al. /Environmental Enginee
Page 42 and 43:
PLATFORM/Environmental Engineering
Page 44 and 45:
Cocheci et al. /Environmental Engin
Page 46 and 47:
Cocheci et al. /Environmental Engin
Page 48 and 49:
516
Page 50 and 51:
Brinzila et al. /Environmental Engi
Page 52 and 53:
Brinzila et al. /Environmental Engi
Page 54 and 55:
Surpateanu et al. /Environmental En
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
528
Page 62 and 63:
Lazar et al. /Environmental Enginee
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
536
Page 70 and 71:
Donciu et al. /Environmental Engine
Page 72 and 73:
Donciu et al. /Environmental Engine
Page 74 and 75:
Orha et al. /Environmental Engineer
Page 76 and 77: Orha et al. /Environmental Engineer
Page 78 and 79: Trandabat et al. /Environmental Eng
Page 80 and 81: Trandabat et al. /Environmental Eng
Page 82 and 83: Chirila et al /Environmental Engine
Page 84 and 85: Chirila et al /Environmental Engine
Page 86 and 87: 554
Page 88 and 89: Siminiceanu et al. /Environmental E
Page 94 and 95: 562
Page 96 and 97: Donciu et al. /Environmental Engine
Page 98 and 99: Donciu et al. /Environmental Engine
Page 100 and 101: Ivanov Dospinescu et al./Environmen
Page 106 and 107: Robu et al. /Environmental Engineer
Page 128 and 129: Soceanu et al. /Environmental Engin
Page 130 and 131: Book review/Environmental Engineeri
Page 132 and 133: 600
Page 138 and 139: Book review /Environmental Engineer
Page 140 and 141: 608
Page 142: References should be alphabetically
show all

2007_6_Nr6_EEMJ

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?