ArticleBiological trace element research2026
Elemental Profiling and Health Risk Assessment of Aromatic Oils Used for Oral and Topical Applications.
Article in Biological trace element research, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aromatic oils (AOs) are widely used in cosmetics, therapeutics, and culinary purposes but their safety can be compromised by environmental contamination with trace/toxic metals. Present study was intended to quantify essential trace (Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn) and toxic (Cd, Cr, Pb) metals in natural AOs extracted from Himalayan aromatic plants (n = 15) and commercial AOs using atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS), and to evaluate associated health risk through their oral and topical applications. The elemental profiling and health risk evaluation of AOs extracted from Himalayan plants revealed noticeable disparities between natural and commercial products. Among essential elements, Fe exhibited the highest average concentration in both natural (0.173 ± 0.073 mg/L) and commercial AOs (0.633 ± 0.527 mg/L), followed by Zn, Cu and Mn. Whereas Cd was the most predominant toxic metal with average levels of 0.233 ± 0.186 mg/L in natural and 0.351 ± 0.231 mg/L in commercial AOs. Health risk indices (HRI), target hazard quotient (THQ), and health index (HI) for most metals were below 1, indicating minimal non-carcinogenic risks due from oral exposure of AOs; but Cd depicted HRI > 1, signifying potential toxicity upon chronic intake. For dermal applications, margin of safety (MoS) values for Cd, Cr, and Pb were < 100, demonstrating possible dermal risks due to topical application of AOs. The target cancer risk (TCR) and lifetime cancer risk (LCR) values for Cd, Cr, and Pb fell within USEPA’s safe range (1 × 10⁻4 to 1 × 10⁻⁶). However, continual and cumulative exposure even at low doses may contribute to bioaccumulation and long-term hazards. Overall, commercial AOs exhibited higher metal loads, likely due to industrial processing, blending, packaging, storage and transportation. This study provides valuable insights to toxicologists, environmental chemists and regulatory authorities for establishing rigorous quality control and safety standards for AOs used in food, cosmetics, and therapeutic applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41772344What 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.