Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Pollution Indices as Useful Tools for Comparative Potential Health Risks of Nickel in Water-Soil-Fodder-Animals Food Chain in Relation to Spatial and Temporal Fluctuations.

Created on 24 Jul 2026

Authors

Hamid Raza, Mukkram Ali Tahir, Noor Us Sabah, Muhammad Imran, Rameez Hussain, Muhammad Tariq

Published in

Biological trace element research. Jul 24, 2026. Epub Jul 24, 2026.

Abstract

Contamination of fodder species with metallic compounds is a major pathway for their entry into the food chain. The present investigation was directed to ascertain the ecological and health hazard of nickel contamination through various indices in food chain resulting from the dietary consumption of commonly ingested fodder crops cultivated on contaminated sites in the proximity of Sahiwal (Sargodha) and Soon Valley (Khushab), Punjab, Pakistan. Samples of water, soil, forages, ruminant's blood, feces, and milk were collected from two sites; Soon Valley (site_1) and Sahiwal (site_2) in summer (season_1) and winter (season_2) during 2022-2023, and were analyzed for nickel concentrations employing atomic absorption spectrophotometer. The analyzed fodder species included Z. mays, C. dactylon, M. sativa, P. glaucum, S. bicolor, S. rostrata, C. album, B. juncea, T. alexandrinum, C. intybus, T. aestivum, A. sativa, and H. vulgare. This study provides a novel integrated assessment of nickel transfer across the complete water-soil-fodder-animal continuum under contrasting agro-ecological and seasonal conditions, combining multi-matrix monitoring with ecological, biological, and human health risk indices. Highly significant negative correlation was observed among the soil vs. fodder of site_1 and site_2 during both seasons, indicating that nickel uptake was influenced more by bioavailability and soil-plant interactions than by total soil nickel concentrations alone. In animals, the highest nickel concentration was detected in blood of buffaloes at site_1, while lowest in milk of cows at site_2. Animal health risk was evaluated indirectly through biological monitoring and exposure-based health risk indices. Nickel concentrations were detected under standard permissible limits described by FAO/WHO. Except for BCF and EF (> 1), all computed indices were < 1, indicating low ecological and health risk; the higher BCF and EF values reflect relative nickel enrichment in fodder, but exposure based indices remained below thresholds because absolute concentrations and intake rates were within safe limits, suggesting that bioaccumulation has not translated into significant health risk under the studied conditions. Multivariate statistical analyses further demonstrated clear spatial and seasonal variations in nickel distribution, reflecting the influence of irrigation practices, environmental conditions, and anthropogenic activities on metal mobility within the agroecosystem. Overall, the findings indicate that the investigated regions are presently under low nickel pollution stress; however, continuous environmental monitoring is essential because long-term agricultural activities and wastewater-related inputs may progressively enhance nickel transfer through the food chain. Regular monitoring of nickel and other heavy metals in soil, water, and fodder, along with strict enforcement of regulations on industrial waste disposal and wastewater irrigation, is essential to minimize environmental and health risks. Farmers should be guided to use clean water, adopt low metal accumulating forages, and avoid grazing livestock on contaminated pastures. Promoting soil remediation practices and collaboration among agencies, researchers, and farmers will help reduce metal transfer through the food chain and protect both animal and human health.

PMID:
42496839
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 24 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 9
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement