ArticleBiological trace element research2025
Honey Bee Products as Bio Indicator of Heavy Metals Pollution and Health Risk Assessment Through the Consumption of Multifloral Honey Collected in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan.
Article in Biological trace element research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study assessed the health risks associated with heavy metal ingestion and explored the use of honey bee products as a bio-indicator for heavy metal pollution. All honey bee products tested showed heavy metals, but some honey samples had concentrations exceeding permissible limits for Cd, Pb, Ni, and Cr. The mean concentrations of heavy metals (mg/kg) in the honey, propolis, bee wax, and bee pollen were Fe (1.32) > Zn (1.31) > Pb (0.46) > Ni (0.18) > Cr (0.16) > Cu (0.14) > Co (0.12) > Mn (0.05) > Cd (0.03), Fe (8) > Zn (1.13) > Mn (0.59) > Pb (0.13) > Ni (0.07) > Cu (0.06) > Co (0.05) > Cr (0.03) > Cd (0.02), Fe (1.31) > Pb (0.41) > Ni (0.407) > Zn(0.25) > Mn (0.12) > Co(0.10) > Cu (0.07) > Cr (0.05) > Cd (0.002), and Fe (2.2) > Zn (0.75) > Ni (0.25) > Pb (0.16) > Cu (0.05) > Mn (0.045) > Co (0.04) > Cr (0.01) > Cd(0.002), respectively. Similarly, the mean concentration of heavy metals (mg/kg) in the soil, flowers and pine pollen was Fe (539.08) > Zn (89.53) > Mn (66.91) > Ni (58.5) > Co (19.2) > Cr (11.42) > Pb (6.58) > Cu (5.71) > Cd (0.19), Fe (3.12) > Zn (0.95) > Mn (0.72) > Ni (0.29) > Cu (0.16) > Cr (0.14) > Pb (0.059) > Co (0.057) > Cd (0.003) and Fe (2.59) > Zn (1.75) > Mn (0.43) > Pb (0.34) > Co (0.1) > Cr (0.07) > Cu (0.06) > Cd (0.039) > Ni (0.03), respectively. The atomic absorption spectrophotometry procedure was validated through a recovery study and achieved accuracy through the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ). The mean Bio concentration factor (BCF) indicated that the transfer from soil to honey was higher than from soil to flower. The metal pollution index (MPI) of the selected indicators was in descending order: soil > honey > flowers > propolis > pine pollen > beeswax > bee pollen. The hazard quotient (HQ) and hazard index (HI) were below one, showing no chronic health risk. The carcinogenic risk (CR) of Cd, Cr, and Ni in honey for children, male and female adults for the consumers exceeds the acceptable level, making Cd, Cr, and Ni the most concerning heavy metals in honey. The study suggests that regular monitoring of heavy metal pollution is essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39066963What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.