Elemental analysis of Maerua subcordata (Gilg) DeWolf using ICP-MS


Abstract

Elemental analysis of botanicals is performed to characterize the amounts of essential metals or to ensure that the levels of unavoidable metals will not exceed maximum permissible limits (MLs). Since mineral elements are considered micronutrients, no official MLs are set. Instead, tolerable upper intake levels (ULs) are used to regulate adverse health effects related to possible excess intake. This study determined the levels of four toxic elements ( As, Cd, Hg, and Pb ) and eight essential elements ( Co, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, P, and Zn ) in dried powders of the fruit, leaf, root tuber, and seeds of Maerua subcordata using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). In all analyzed samples, the concentrations of toxic metals were low enough not to raise safety concerns, and there were no safety concerns related to potential intake above ULs of the essential elements. While the concentrations of Co, Cu, and Zn were low enough not to raise safety concerns or provide significant nutritional contribution, significant concentrations of Fe, Mg, Mn, and Mo in the leaf part and Mg and Fe in the root part were identified. In conclusion, this study revealed for the first time that the concentrations of toxic metals in different parts of M. subcordata do not raise safety concerns, while significant concentrations of some elements were detected mainly in the leaf part, showing possible health and/or nutritional implications. Yet, further studies to characterize the actual bioavailability and potential health impact of each element in the respective matrices may be recommended.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].