Next Article in Journal
Associations of Ultra-Processed Food Intake with the Incidence of Cardiometabolic and Mental Health Outcomes Go Beyond Specific Subgroups—The Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health
Next Article in Special Issue
An Evaluation of ChatGPT for Nutrient Content Estimation from Meal Photographs
Previous Article in Journal
Prenatal Breastfeeding Intention Is Consistently Associated with Breastfeeding Duration Among WIC-Participating Women
Previous Article in Special Issue
Acceptance, Needs, and Demands for Nutritional mHealth Support in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 16
Issue 24
10.3390/nu16244290
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Toxic Element Levels and Health Risks in Different Soybean Species (Glycine max, Vigna radiata, Vigna angularis, Vigna mungo)

by
Juan R. Jáudenes-Marrero
1,
Greta Giannantonio
1,2,
Soraya Paz-Montelongo
1,*,
Arturo Hardisson
1,
Javier Darias-Rosales
1,
Dailos González-Weller
1,3,
Ángel J. Gutiérrez
1,
Carmen Rubio
1,* and
Samuel Alejandro-Vega
1
1
Toxicology Area, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, Canary Islands, 38071 La Laguna, Spain
2
School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Health Products, University of Camerino, 62032 Camerino, Italy
3
Health Inspection and Laboratory Service, Canary Health Service, S/C de Tenerife, Tenerife, Canary Islands, 38006 Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2024, 16(24), 4290; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16244290
Submission received: 12 November 2024 / Revised: 6 December 2024 / Accepted: 10 December 2024 / Published: 12 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Advances in Dietary Assessment)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Soybeans are a widely consumed legume, essential in Western diets and especially prominent in vegan and vegetarian nutrition. However, environmental contamination from anthropogenic sources, such as industrial emissions, wastewater, and pesticide use, has led to the accumulation of non-essential and toxic elements in legumes, potentially impacting human health. Method: This study quantified the levels of 11 potential toxic elements (Al, B, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Li, Ni, Pb, Sr, V) in 90 samples of four soybean species (Glycine max, Vigna radiata, Vigna angularis, Vigna mungo) using inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). Results: Results showed that boron had the highest mean content (9.52 mg/kg ww), followed by aluminum (6.73 mg/kg ww). Among the toxic metals, cadmium was most concentrated in green soybeans (0.03 mg/kg ww), and black soybeans had the highest level of lead (0.07 mg/kg ww). Based on an average soybean consumption of 50 g/day, no immediate health risk was detected. However, lithium and nickel were present in substantial amounts, with lithium contributing 31.43–48.57% and nickel 6.81–39.56% of their respective provisional daily intake limits, especially from red soybeans (V. angularis). Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of monitoring toxic elements in soybeans and calls for stricter environmental management practices to minimize contamination, ensuring the safety of soy products as their global consumption rises.

1. Introduction

Legumes are a dietary staple for people around the world. However, the environmental pollution caused by human activities like wastewater, industrial emissions, sewage irrigation, burning of fossil fuels, use of chemical pesticides, etc., could cause an increment in the elements content in these crops [1,2]. This could pose a potential toxicological risk from the consumption of legumes, so a risk assessment of their consumption is necessary [3,4,5].
The soybean is a plant belonging to the family Leguminosae, subfamily Papilionoidea, and it originated in Eastern Asia. Soybeans have been grown as a food crop for thousands of years in China and other countries of East and Southeast Asia and constitute to this day an important component of the traditional popular diet in these regions [6,7].
Nowadays, soybeans are widely used in human nutrition, in animal feed, as a fertilizer, and for biodiesel fuel production, and recently, it has also found use in cosmetics and the pharmaceutical field [8,9]. In human nutrition, soybeans are consumed in both non-fermented and fermented forms [10,11,12,13]. Among the non-fermented soy foods, the most famous are soy milk, meat analogs (for example “veggie burgers”), tofu, soy sprouts, and soy protein. Fermented foods, however, include miso, soy sauce, and tofu (fermented tofu).
Since the 1950s, soy production has increased 15-fold and shifted from Asia to the American continent, which accounts for more than 93 percent of the world’s soybean production. Brazil is the largest soybean producer in both the region and the world. According to the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) data, Brazil produced 160 million tons of soybeans in the 2022/23 season. In global production, the USA (United States of America) follows Brazil with 116 million tons [14]. According to the IGC (International Grains Council) data, the world soybean consumption was 359 million tons in the 2022/23 season. Ranking first with 100.8 million tons in global soybean imports in the 2022/23 season, China is estimated to import 102 million tons in the 2023/24 season. While the imports by the European Union countries will remain around 13 million tons, Mexico will continue to import around 6 million tons [14,15].
While “soybean” seems like a straightforward term, its classification in Chinese popular culture can be misleading. It encompasses four distinct legume species: yellow soybeans (Glycine max), green soybeans (Vigna radiata), red soybeans (Vigna angularis) and black soybeans (Vigna mungo). Though all belong to the legume family, they represent separate botanical species. In fact, in the scientific field, only the botanical species Glycine max is recognized as a soybean [16]. In particular:
  • Yellow soybeans (Glycine max): A powerhouse among crops, yellow soybeans thrive in warm regions from the tropics to temperate zones. These annual, upright plants can grow up to 2 m tall and produce pods 3–8 cm long containing 2–4 seeds, typically yellow in color [17].
  • Green soybeans or mung beans (Vigna radiata): Originally from India but popular across East Asia, the mung bean is a fast-maturing legume suited for warm seasons. As an annual crop often grown in rotation with cereals, it boasts plants around 60–75 cm tall that yield roughly 7.5 cm long pods packed with a dozen or so small, green seeds [17].
  • Red soybeans or azuki beans (Vigna angularis): The runner-up to yellow soybeans in economic importance across Eastern markets, the Azuki bean thrives in warm temperate and subtropical climates. These upright plants reach 30–60 cm in height and produce pods similar to mung beans. The most common seeds are a deep red color, boasting a size two to three times larger than mung beans [17].
  • Black soybeans or mungo beans (Vigna mungo): Hailing from central Asia (India), the black mungo bean prefers temperatures between 25–35 °C for optimal growth. These plants can reach heights of 30–100 cm, sporting large hairy leaves and pods 4–6 cm long. Each pod shelters 4–10 black beans [17].
The differential macronutrient profiles among soybean species result in unique technological and sensory attributes. While flavonoids, anthocyanins, and carotenoids significantly influence color [18,19], variations in other macronutrients also contribute to species-specific characteristics. For example, green and black soybeans exhibit a lower carbohydrate content compared to other varieties. Yellow soybeans serve as a primary source for processed products like soy milk and tofu. Green soybeans have a historical application in soybean flour production. Black soybeans, characterized by a mild flavor, are versatile in culinary applications. Red soybeans, with their inherent sweetness, are frequently used in baked goods [20,21].
As said before, considering the ability of crops to absorb and accumulate different elements from soil, water, and the environment, it is necessary to determine the levels of certain elements that could be toxic to human health [22]. Then, the determination of non-essential and toxic elements (Al, B, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Li, Ni, Pb, Sr, V) in legumes is interesting. Moreover, European legislation, to which the country where this study was conducted belongs, has established in its legislation limits the presence of some of these potentially toxic elements in the legume group. A parametric value is established for lead of 0.20 mg/kg and for cadmium of 0.04 mg/kg at the Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 [23].
Aluminum (Al) is a neurotoxic element that tends to accumulate in the brain, bones, liver, and kidneys. Prolonged exposure to high levels of Al has been related to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s [24,25].
Cadmium (Cd) has toxic effects due to its high half-life and bioaccumulation [26]. It can affect the renal system, causing irreversible damage to the renal tubules, which are involved in nutrient reabsorption mechanisms [27,28,29].
Lead (Pb) is a neurotoxic element that tends to accumulate in the body, causing serious damage to the central nervous system, especially in developing children and fetuses [30]. This can cause kidney disease, gastrointestinal tract disorders, and Alzheimer’s [31].
Boron (B) is an essential element for plant organisms [32] and that is why its concentration in vegetables and legumes is high [33]. Studies on experimental animals have shown that an excessive B intake can lead to intoxication, causing problems in the digestive system, damage to specific kidney cells, and skin peeling [34].
An excessive intake of barium (Ba) can cause tachycardia, hypertension, hypotension, muscle weakness, and paralysis. An excessive intake of cobalt (Co) is unusual; however, it could cause the alteration of calcium homeostasis as it blocks the cellular calcium channels. High chromium (Cr) intake can trigger chronic kidney failure, dermatitis, bronchitis, asthma, etc. [35,36,37].
Excessive intake of lithium (Li) can lead to altered consciousness, tremors, ataxia, apathy, etc. [38,39]. Strontium (Sr) can cause a deficiency of phosphorus and its accumulation in the bones could lead to an increase in bone density [40]. Therefore, gastrointestinal disorders have been observed in humans derived from excessive vanadium (V) intake [35]. Nickel (Ni) is an essential element for plants [41] and individuals with Ni hypersensitivity or kidney problems are susceptible to harm from Ni ingestion [42].
The objectives of this study were (i) to determine the content of non-essential (B, Ba, Co, Cr, Li, Ni, Sr, V) and toxic (Cd, Pb, Al) elements in different soybean species (Glycine max, Vigna radiata, Vigna angularis, Vigna mungo); (ii) to study the existence of significant differences in the content of toxic elements between the different soybean origins (China, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada, Thailand); and (iii) to assess the toxic risk from the consumption of the studied soybeans considering the intake of the potential toxic elements analyzed. This will guarantee the safe consumption of this new food that is on the rise.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Samples

A total of 90 samples of different soybean species were analyzed. The soybean samples were divided into 13 types of green soybeans, 10 types of yellow soybeans, 4 types of red soybeans, and 3 types of black soybeans. The samples were purchased in different places from Spain and Italy. Table 1 shows the characteristics (origin, cultivation, type of packaging, and place of purchase) of the analyzed samples.

2.2. Analytical Procedure

Reagents of analytical-grade quality were used for the treatment of the samples and the analytical procedure.
For each type of soy, 5 g was weighed for each sample and placed in porcelain crucibles (Königliche, Berlin, Germany). Subsequently, they were placed in the stove for 24 h at 70 °C for drying. Then, the samples were subjected to acid digestion with nitric acid (HNO3) at 65% (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) to remove organic matter, until complete acid evaporation has taken place at 100 °C with a heating plate (Nabertherm, Lilienthal, Germany). After digestion, they were introduced into the muffle furnace (Nabertherm, Lilienthal, Germany) set at 420 °C for 48 h (1440 min); in particular, 24 h is needed to reach 450 °C and the temperature is maintained in the remaining 24 h. The goal is to get white ash. Once the desired ashes were obtained, they were diluted with HNO3 at 1.5% to reach 25 mL. Each sample was then transferred to a bottle of polypropylene and kept at room temperature until analysis [10,43,44,45,46,47,48].
The determination of trace elements in the proposed soybeans was carried out by ICP-OES (inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry). The spectrometer used in the trace elements determination was the ICAP 6300 Duo Thermo Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA) with an autosampler CETAX model ASX-520 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) equipped with a CID86 chip (Charge Injection Device, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) with a range of wavelengths from 166 to 847 nm. The following are the wavelengths (nm) of study for each element: Cd (214.4), Pb (220.3), Al (167.0), Cr (267.7), Li (670.7), Ni (221.6), Sr (407.7), Co (228.6), V (292.4), Ba (455.4), and B (249.6).
The ICP-OES instrument was operated with an RF power of 1.2 kW, a gas flow rate of 0.5 L/min, an injection pump speed of 50 rpm, and a 0 s stabilization time. High-purity liquid argon (99.999%) from Air Liquid, Madrid, Spain, was used as the carrier gas.
The analytical procedures used in the determination of elements in soy have been previously validated so as to carry out the analysis. The quality control was based on the recovery percentage obtained after subjecting the reference materials to the same treatment and analysis procedure as the samples. It has been determined that the materials used have the Standard Reference Material (SRM) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); specifically, SRM 1515 Apple Leaves, SRM 1567a Wheat Flour, and SRM 1548a Typical Diet were used [10,49]. The standard additions method was used in the quality control in the case of lithium by adding known Li quantities to dehydrated samples of the analyzed legumes. The recovery percentages obtained were over 95% with no significant differences (p < 0.05) between the results. This is shown in Table 2.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM Statistics SPSS 21.0 program (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) to study the existence of significative differences in the toxic elements’ contents between the samples (soybean type and origin).
The normality of the data was verified by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk test [50]. When there were no normal data, the non-normality of the results was confirmed with a non-parametric study, performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test [51,52]. Since there is no normality, to verify if there are significant differences between groups, a post hoc study using the Mann–Whitney test was conducted [10]. After all of the variables were assessed, the correlation coefficients were determined according to Spearman’s Rho method to determine the extent of the connection between the studied variables and to analyze their behavior against the bilateral distribution.

2.4. Dietary Intake Calculations

To evaluate the dietary intake assessment, estimated daily intake (EDI) of each metal was calculated. The last official consumption survey published by the AECOSAN (Spanish Agency for Consumer Affairs, Food Safety and Nutrition) in relation to the Spanish population [53] shows an average consumption of 12.33 g of soy per day in adults. However, given the increase in consumption of this product, we will assume a consumption of 50 g, which is the consumption recommendation made by the AECOSAN for all legumes in the Spanish population [54].
EDI (mg/day) = mean consumption (kg/day) · trace element concentration (mg/kg)
Once EDI has been calculated, the percentage of contribution to the limit intake values for adults of the analyzed metals, set by the main health organizations, were calculated according to the following formula:
Contribution (%) = [EDI (mg/day)/Limit intake value] · 100
Table 3 shows the guideline values of TWI (tolerable weekly intake), BMDL (Benchmark Dose Level), TDI (Tolerable Daily Intake), UL (tolerable upper intake level), RfD (oral reference dose), p-RfD (subchronic and chronic reference dose), and SLI (Safe Level of Intake) set by the EFSA and WHO (World Health Organization) for the studied elements. Most of the intake limit values are expressed per body weight (bw).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Toxic Element Content by Soybean Type

Table 4 shows the trace element mean content (mg/kg wet weight) and standard deviation (SD) of the analyzed soybeans.
Yellow soybeans (G. max) recorded the highest Cd (0.03 mg/kg ww) and B (13.5 mg/kg ww) contents. Franzaring et al. (2018) [61] recorded Cd levels in German soybeans of 0.025–1.2 mg/kg, which are higher than the levels found in the present study. However, Franzaring et al. (2018) concluded that the reason behind these Cd levels was the relatively high contamination in Germany due to the mining and metal industry near soybean crops.
Meanwhile, the red soybean (V. angularis) is distinguished by its high levels of Co (0.22 mg/kg). Remarkably, they also have the highest values found of Ni (7.21 mg/kg ww), Ba (2.95 mg/kg ww), Li (1.37 mg/kg ww), Cr (0.16 mg/kg ww), and V (0.05 mg/kg ww).
Green soybeans (V. radiata) stand out because of their highest Al (7.27 mg/kg ww) content, and black soybeans (V. mungo) registered the highest Pb (0.07 mg/kg ww) and Sr (4.56 mg/kg ww) contents.
Otaka et al. (2014) [49], in a study conducted on yellow soybeans from Japan, determined higher concentrations of Al (64.0 mg/Kg dry weight) and Ni (5.02 mg/Kg dw), but similar levels of Sr (4.49 mg/Kg dw). Akinyele and Shokunbi (2015) [62], in a study carried out on legumes in Nigeria, determined in soybeans higher concentrations of Cr (0.58 mg/Kg dw) and Cd (0.02 mg/Kg dw), similar concentrations of Pb (<0.08 mg/Kg dw), and lower concentrations of Ni (0.08 mg/Kg dw), which in turn are much lower than other concentrations detected by Onianwa et al. (2001) [63] in the same country (Cd 0.2 mg/Kg dw and Ni 5.07 mg/Kg dw). Studies in Iran have also shown higher concentrations of Cd (0.11 mg/Kg dw), Ni (12.17 mg/Kg dw), and Pb (0.32 mg/Kg dw) [64].
The statistical analysis shows significative differences (p < 0.05) in B and Cd concentrations found in yellow soybeans, which differ significantly from all of the other types analyzed. In green soybeans, significant differences were found in the Cr levels compared to the rest of the legumes, with the lowest content. The Co levels are statistically different among all of the analyzed soybeans. The Ba and Ni concentrations differ statistically between the red soybean and the rest of the analyzed legumes, with the highest contents, and Pb, with the lowest contents. It can be observed that the Sr content of black soybeans differs significantly from all other types. Finally, no significant differences (p < 0.05) were found in the contents of Al, Li, and V.
It should be highlighted that all of the species studied are below the parametric values set by European legislation.

3.2. Trace Element Content by Origin

Table 5 shows the concentrations (mg/kg of wet weight) and the standard deviations (SDs) of the metals studied according to the origin of the soybeans (China, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada, Thailand, and unknown origin). Soybean species were excluded from this comparison. As previously noted, all of the soybean varieties investigated are commonly categorized under the umbrella term “soy” and indistinguishably consumed by the public.
By performing statistical analysis of the data between the content of metals of soybeans from different origins, no significant differences (p < 0.05) were found in the contents of B, Li, Co, Ni, Pb, and V. Nevertheless, the concentrations of Cr and Al of Italian soybeans differ significantly from all soybeans coming from other countries, and Italian and Canadian soybeans present significant differences in the content of Cd. Finally, the contents of Ba and Sr differ considerably in soybeans from Australia compared to the soybeans of other countries.
Several factors can account for these variations in toxic element levels. Regional disparities such as climate, soil composition, potential industrial activities, and temperature can all impact the concentration of these elements [65,66]. Additionally, we must consider that the different agricultural practices that can be carried out in each country can affect the final composition, especially in those countries outside the European Union. Thus, there may be different practices in the use of pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation techniques, etc., with the potential for the use of poorly controlled and contaminated resources [4]. Finally, we must take into account the possibility that different varieties within each soybean species have been developed in each geographical location, which could lead to a different capacity for metal accumulation.

3.3. Dietary Intake Assessment

As described above, the EDI of each metal was calculated using the average consumption of 50 g of soy per day, which is the consumption recommendation made by the AESAN for all legumes in the Spanish population [54]. Furthermore, in accordance with EFSA considerations, for the determination of intake limit values in the adult population, we will consider the standard body weight of 70 kg [67]. Table 6 shows the EDI and percentage contribution of each toxic element for each soybean species.
As a result of the evaluation of the dietary intake of soybeans, assuming that it was the only food consumed within the legume group, the percentage contribution to the intake limit of lithium stands out. Although the amounts of this element are not excessively high, they result in contribution percentages between 31.43–48.57%, with the highest percentage corresponding to red soybeans (V. angularis).
The following element that stands out in its contribution to the intake limit is nickel, with contribution percentages between 6.81–39.56%, followed by lead, with contribution percentages between 7.14–10%. The highest contribution percentages correspond, respectively, to red soybeans (V. angularis) and black soybeans (V. mungo).
Finally, aluminum, with contribution percentages between 2.98–3.6%, and strontium, with contribution percentages between 1.63–2.53%, stand out. The remaining elements have contribution percentages generally below 1%.
Nevertheless, the contribution percentages of each toxic element to the intake limit values do not represent a toxicological risk in any case. Despite this, long-term exposure studies and the evaluation of potential cumulative effects are necessary to determine the food safety of consuming these legumes. This will be especially necessary for those elements with a contribution percentage higher than 10% [68], as is the case with Li and Ni.

4. Conclusions

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of potentially toxic elements (Al, B, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Li, Ni, Pb, Sr, V) in different soybean species (Glycine max, Vigna radiata, Vigna angularis, Vigna mungo) sourced from six countries. Barium and aluminum were generally found at the highest concentrations, with notable differences across countries of origin. These results highlight the influence of environmental and agricultural factors on elemental accumulation in soybeans. Although typical soybean consumption does not appear to pose immediate health risks, the presence of elements like lithium suggests that increased consumption of soy-based foods could elevate exposure to potentially harmful levels. This underscores the need for continued monitoring of toxic elements in soybeans and similar crops, and toxicological studies on the long-term consumption of soybeans containing these levels. Future efforts should focus on implementing stricter agricultural and environmental management practices to limit contamination of crops from industrial and environmental sources. Additionally, further research into safe thresholds for these elements in food products, along with regular updates to regulatory standards, will help mitigate potential health risks associated with long-term exposure to non-essential and toxic elements in soybeans.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.H., C.R., S.P.-M., Á.J.G. and A.H.; methodology: S.P.-M., S.A.-V., J.D.-R. and D.G.-W.; formal analysis: G.G., S.A.-V. and D.G.-W.; investigation: G.G., S.P.-M., J.D.-R. and D.G.-W.; resources: A.H. and S.P.-M.; data curation: Á.J.G. and D.G.-W.; writing—original draft preparation: S.P.-M., S.A.-V. and J.R.J.-M.; writing—review and editing: S.P.-M., J.R.J.-M. and C.R.; supervision: A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No funding received.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the administrative and technical support from the research staff of the Grupo Interuniversitario en Toxicología Ambiental y Seguridad de los Alimentos y Medicamentos de la ULL and UCM-ALIMNOVA Research Group (951505).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Qin, F.; Ji, H.; Li, Q.; Guo, X.; Tang, L.; Feng, J. Evaluation of trace elements and identification of pollution sources in particle size fractions of soil from iron ore areas along the Chao River. J. Geochem. Explor. 2014, 138, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Saadaoui, W.; Mokrani, K.; Mazghani, N.; Tarchoun, N. Accumulation Ability of Three Heavy Metals in Two Legumes (Bean and Faba Bean) in Vegetative Stage at Different Concentrations. Mod. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2017, 3, 54–64. [Google Scholar]
  3. Adam, A.A.; Sackey, L.N.A.; Ofori, L.A. Risk assessment of heavy metals concentration in cereals and legumes sold in the Tamale Aboabo market, Ghana. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hassan, R.O.; Othman, H.O.; Ali, D.S.; Abdullah, F.O.; Darwesh, D.A. Assessment of the health risk posed by toxic metals in commonly consumed legume brands in Erbil, Iraq. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2023, 120, 105282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Takyi, Y.D.; Awewomom, J.; Attu, S.S.; Akoto, O.; Tandoh, M.A. Health risk assessment and comparative study on heavy metal levels in indigenous cereal-legume blends (CLBs) on Ghanaian markets. Cogent Food Agric. 2024, 10, 2404690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Technology of Production of Edible Flours and Protein Products from Soybeans; FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin No. 97; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  7. Mateos-Aparicio, I.; Redondo Cuenca, A.; Villanueva-Suárez, M.J.; Zapata-Revilla, M.A. Soybean, a promising health source. Nutr. Hosp. 2008, 23, 305–312. [Google Scholar]
  8. Goldsmith, P.D. Economics of Soybean Production, Marketing, and Utilization. In Soybeans: Chemistry, Production, Processing, and Utilization; Johnson, L.A., White, P.J., Galloway, R., Eds.; AOCS Press: Urbana, IL, USA, 2008; pp. 117–150. [Google Scholar]
  9. Singh, P.; Krishnaswamy, K. Sustainable zero-waste processing system for soybeans and soy by-product valorization. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 128, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Padrón, P.; Paz, S.; Rubio, C.; Gutiérrez, A.J.; González-Weller, D.; Hardisson, A. Trace Element Levels in Vegetable Sausages and Burgers Determined by ICP-OES. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2020, 194, 616–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rubio, C.; Paz, S.; Gutiérrez, Á.J.; González-Weller, D.; Martín, R.; Hardisson, A. Human Exposure to Potentially Toxic Elements from the Consumption of Soybean Beverages Commercialized in Spain. J. Food Prot. 2021, 84, 932–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Paz, S.; Rubio, C.; Gutiérrez, Á.J.; González-Weller, D.; Hardisson, A. Dietary Intake of Essential Elements (Na, K, Mg, Ca, Mn, Zn, Fe, Cu, Mo, Co) from Tofu Consumption. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2021, 199, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lo Turco, V.; Sgrò, B.; Albergamo, A.; Nava, V.; Rando, R.; Potortì, A.G.; Di Bella, G. Assessment of the Accuracy of Nutrition Label and Chemical Composition of Plant-Based Milks Available on the Italian Market. Foods 2023, 12, 3207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Yildiz, D. Global Soybean Supply and Demand & 2024 Expectations. Feed Addit. Mag. 2024, 36, 66–67. [Google Scholar]
  15. Voora, V.; Bermudez, S.; Le, H.; Larrea, C.; Luna, E. Global Market Report: Soybean Prices and Sustainability. Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 2024. Available online: https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2024-02/2024-global-market-report-soybean.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2024).
  16. Agarwal, D.K.; Billore, S.D.; Sharma, A.N.; Dupare, B.U.; Srivastava, S.K. Soybean: Introduction, Improvement, and Utilization in India—Problems and Prospects. Agric. Res. 2013, 2, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. FAO; Sharasia, P.; Garg, M.; Bhanderi, B.M. Pulses and Their by-Products as Animal Feed; Calles, T., Makkar, H.P.S., Eds.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  18. Malenčić, D.; Cvejić, J.; Miladinović, J. Polyphenol content and antioxidant properties of colored soybean seeds from central Europe. J. Med. Food 2012, 15, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Arifin, H.A.; Hashiguchi, T.; Nagahama, K.; Hashiguchi, M.; Muguerza, M.; Sakakibara, Y.; Tanaka, H.; Akashi, R. Varietal differences in flavonoid and antioxidant activity in Japanese soybean accessions. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2021, 85, 916–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Harouna, D.V.; Venkataramana, P.B.; Ndakidemi, P.A.; Matemu, A.O. Under-exploited wild Vigna species potentials in human and animal nutrition: A review. Glob. Food Secur. 2018, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Illinois Soybean Association. Not All Soybeans Are the Same. 2023. Available online: https://www.ilsoy.org/not-all-soybeans-are-the-same/#:~:text=Soybeans%20come%20in%20different%20colors,%2C%20black%2C%20and%20speckled%20types (accessed on 3 April 2023).
  22. Lo Turco, V.; Nava, V.; Potortì, A.G.; Sgrò, B.; Arrigo, M.A.; Di Bella, G. Total Polyphenol Contents and Mineral Profiles in Commercial Wellness Herbal Infusions: Evaluation of the Differences between Two Preparation Methods. Foods 2024, 13, 2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Europe (2023). Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on Maximum Levels for Certain Contaminants in Food and Repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/915/oj (accessed on 5 June 2024).
  24. Arvand, M.; Kermanian, M. Potentiometric determination of aluminum in foods, pharmaceuticals, and alloys by AlMCM-41-modified carbon paste electrode. Food Anal. Methods 2012, 6, 578–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Martinez, C.S.; Alterman, C.D.; Peçanha, F.M.; Vassallo, D.V.; Mello-Carpes, P.B.; Miguel, M.; Wiggers, G.A. Aluminum Exposure at Human Dietary Levels for 60 Days Reaches a Threshold Sufficient to Promote Memory Impairment in Rats. Neurotox. Res. 2017, 31, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Barbier, O.; Jacquillet, G.; Tauc, M.; Cougnon, M.; Poujeol, P. Effect of heavy metals on, and handling by, the kidney. Nephron Physiol. 2005, 99, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Godt, J.; Scheidig, F.; Grosse-Siestrup, C.; Esche, V.; Brandenburg, P.; Reich, A.; Groneberg, D.A. The toxicity of cadmium and resulting hazards for human health. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2006, 1, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Liu, J.; Qu, W.; Kadiiska, M.B. Role of oxidative stress in cadmium toxicity and carcinogenesis. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2009, 238, 209–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Fowler, B.A. Monitoring of human populations for early markers of cadmium toxicity: A review. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2009, 238, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Rubio, C.; Gutiérrez, A.; Martín Izquierdo, R.; Revert, C.; Lozano, G.; Hardisson, A. El plomo como contaminante alimentario. Rev. Toxicol. 2004, 21, 72–80. [Google Scholar]
  31. Nordberg, G.F.; Nogawa, K.; Nordberg, M.; Friedmann, J.M. Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals; Nordberg, G.F., Fowler, B.A., Nordberg, M., Friberg, L., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  32. Camacho-Cristóbal, J.J.; Rexach, J.; González-Fontes, A. Boron in plants: Deficiency and toxicity. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2008, 50, 1247–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Davis, S.M.; Drake, K.D.; Maier, K.J. Toxicity of boron to the duckweed, Spirodella polyrrhiza. Chemosphere 2022, 48, 615–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic products, nutrition and allergies [NDA] related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Boron (Sodium Borate and Boric Acid). EFSA J. 2004, 2, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc; Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, National Academies: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  36. Krejpcio, Z. Essentiality of chromium for human nutrition and health. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2001, 10, 399–404. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kowalczyk, E.; Givelet, L.; Amlund, H.; Sloth, J.J.; Hansen, M. Risk assessment of rare earth elements, antimony, barium, boron, lithium, tellurium, thallium and vanadium in teas. EFSA J. 2022, 20, e200410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Domínguez Ortega, L.; Medina Ortiz, O.; Cabrera García-Armenter, S. Intoxicación con litio. An. Med. Interna 2006, 23, 441–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. AECOSAN (Agencia Española de Consumo, Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición). Dictamen del Comité Científico de la AESA sobre una cuestión presentada por la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha relativa a la evaluación del riesgo en relación con el empleo del cloruro de litio como marcador en vinos con destino a la destilación. Rev. Commit. Cient. 2006, 4, 55–59. [Google Scholar]
  40. WHO. Strontium and Strontium Compounds. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 77; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rodríguez-Jiménez, T.D.J.; Ojeda-Barrios, D.L.; Blanco-Macías, F.; Valdez-Cepeda, R.D.; Parra-Quezada, R. Urease and nickel in plant physiology. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Hortic. 2016, 22, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Update of the risk assessment of nickel in food and drinking water. EFSA J. 2020, 18, 6268. [Google Scholar]
  43. Paz, S.; Rubio, C.; Frías, I.; Gutiérrez, A.J.; González-Weller, D.; Revert, C.; Hardisson, A. Metal Concentrations in Wild-Harvested Phaeophyta Seaweed from the Atlantic Ocean (Canary Islands, Spain). J. Food Prot. 2018, 81, 1165–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lozano-Bilbao, E.; Alcázar-Treviño, J.; Alduán, M.; Lozano, G.; Hardisson, A.; Rubio, C.; González-Weller, D.; Paz, S.; Carrillo, M.; Gutiérrez, A.J. Metal content in stranded pelagic vs deep-diving cetaceans in the Canary Islands. Chemosphere 2021, 285, 131441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. González-Suárez, S.; Paz-Montelongo, S.; Niebla-Canelo, D.; Alejandro-Vega, S.; González-Weller, D.; Rubio-Armendáriz, C.; Hardisson, A.; Gutiérrez-Fernández, Á.J. Baby Food Jars as a Dietary Source of Essential (K, Na, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn, Cu, Co, Mo, Mn) and Toxic Elements (Al, Cd, Pb, B, Ba, V, Sr, Li, Ni). Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lozano-Bilbao, E.; Delgado-Suárez, I.; Paz-Montelongo, S.; Hardisson, A.; Pascual-Fernández, J.J.; Rubio, C.; Weller, D.G.; Gutiérrez, Á.J. Risk Assessment and Characterization in Tuna Species of the Canary Islands According to Their Metal Content. Foods 2023, 12, 1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. González-Weller, D.; Bethencourt-Barbuzano, E.; Siedzik, K.; Paz-Montelongo, S.; Gutiérrez-Fernández, Á.J.; Hardisson, A.; Alejandro-Vega, S.; Jáudenes-Marrero, J.R.; Rubio, C. Exposure Assessment of Essential and Potentially Toxic Elements (PTEs) from Chia Seeds. J. Xenobiot. 2024, 14, 1836–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jáudenes-Marrero, J.R.; Paz-Montelongo, S.; Darias-Rosales, J.; González-Weller, D.; Gutiérrez, Á.J.; Hardisson, A.; Rubio, C.; Alejandro-Vega, S. Human Exposure to Trace Elements (Al, B, Ba, Cd, Cr, Li, Ni, Pb, Sr, V) from Consumption of Dried Fruits Acquired in Spain. Foods 2024, 13, 2660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Otaka, A.; Hokura, A.; Nakai, I. Determination of trace elements in soybean by X-ray fluorescence analysis and its application to identification of their production areas. Food Chem. 2014, 147, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gutiérrez, Á.J.; Gonzalez-Weller, D.; Gonzalez, T.; Burgos, A.; Lozano, G.; Hardisson, A. Content of trace metals (iron, zinc, manganese, chromium, copper, nickel) in canned variegated scallops (Chlamys varia). Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2008, 59, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Choy, E.H.S.; Scott, D.L.; Kingsley, G.H.; Thomas, A.; Murphy, A.G.U.; Staimos, N.; Panayi, G.S. Control of rheumatoid arthritis by oral tolerance. Arthritis Rheum. 2001, 44, 1993–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Pan, G. Confidence intervals for comparing two scale parameters based on Levene’s statistics. J. Nonparametr. Stat. 2002, 4, 459–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. AECOSAN (Agencia Española de Consumo, Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición). Modelo de Dieta Española Para la Determinación de la Exposición del Consumidor a Sustancias Químicas; Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo: Madrid, Spain, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  54. AECOSAN (Agencia Española de Consumo, Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición). Recomendaciones Dietéticas. 2022. Available online: https://www.aesan.gob.es/AECOSAN/docs/documentos/nutricion/RECOMENDACIONES_DIETETICAS.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  55. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Statement on tolerable weekly intake for cadmium. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  56. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Scientific Opinion on Lead in Food. EFSA J. 2010, 8, 1570. [Google Scholar]
  57. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). On the Evaluation of a new study related to the bioavailability of aluminium in food. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2157. [Google Scholar]
  58. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Scientific Opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of chromium in food and drinking water. EFSA J. 2014, 12, 3595. [Google Scholar]
  59. EFSA. Overview on Tolerable Upper Intake Levels as Derived by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) and the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA); European Food Safety Authority: Parma, Italy, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  60. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Scientific Opinion on the use of cobalt compounds as additives in animal nutrition. EFSA J. 2009, 7, 1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Franzaring, J.; Fangmeier, A.; Chlosser, S.; Hahn, V. Cadmium concentrations in German soybeans are elevated in conurbations and in regions dominated by mining and the metal industry. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 99, 3711–3715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Akinyele, I.O.; Shokunbi, O.S. Concentrations of Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Cr, Cd, Pb, Ni in Selected Nigerian Tubers, Legumes and Cereals and Estimates of the Adult Daily Intakes. Food Chem. 2015, 173, 702–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Onianwa, P.C.; Adeyemo, A.O.; Idowu, O.E.; Ogabiela, E.E. Copper and zinc contents of Nigerian foods and estimates of the adult dietary intakes. Food Chem. 2001, 72, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Khalili Sadrabad, E.; Moshtaghi Boroujeni, H.; Heydari, A. Heavy Metal Accumulation in Soybeans Cultivated in Iran, 2015–2016. J. Nutr. Food Secur. JNFS 2018, 3, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  65. Salazar, M.J.; Rodriguez, J.H.; Nieto, G.L.; Pignata, M.L. Effects of heavy metal concentrations (Cd, Zn and Pb) in agricultural soils near different emission sources on quality, accumulation and food safety in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 233–234, 244–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Michalski, R.; Duda, M.M.; Șerdean, P.N.; Kernert, J.; Grygoyc, K.; Pecyna, P.; Muntean, E. Heavy Metals in Several Soybean Varieties Cultivated in the Transylvanian Plain, Romania. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 77, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. EFSA Scientific Committee. Guidance on selected default values to be used by the EFSA Scientific Committee, Scientific Panels and Units in the absence of actual measured data. EFSA J. 2012, 10, 2579. [Google Scholar]
  68. EFSA Scientific Committee; More, S.J.; Bampidis, V.; Benford, D.; Bragard, C.; Hernandez-Jerez, A.; Bennekou, S.H.; Halldorsson, T.I.; Koutsoumanis, K.P.; Lambré, C.; et al. Guidance Document on Scientific criteria for grouping chemicals into assessment groups for human risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. EFSA J. 2021, 19, 7033. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Characteristics of the analyzed samples.
Table 1. Characteristics of the analyzed samples.
Type of SoybeanSample CodeNumber of SamplesOriginCultivationType of PackagingPlace of Purchase
YellowO13ItalyOrganicPlasticHypermarkets
O23ItalyOrganicPlasticOrganic supermarkets
O33ItalyOrganicPlasticOrganic supermarkets
C13CanadaConventionalPlasticHypermarkets
O43SpainOrganicPlasticHypermarkets
C23ChinaConventionalPlasticChinese supermarket
O53SpainOrganicPlasticHerbalist store
C33UnknownConventionalBulkChinese supermarket
C43ChinaConventionalPlasticChinese supermarket
C53UnknownConventionalBulkPopular markets
GreenO63SpainOrganicPlasticHerbalist store
C63AustraliaConventionalPlasticHypermarkets
O73SpainOrganicPlasticHerbalist store
O83ChinaOrganicPlasticOrganic supermarkets
C73UnknownConventionalBulkChinese supermarket
O93SpainOrganicPlasticHerbalist store
C83UnknownConventionalBulkChinese supermarket
C93ThailandConventionalPlasticChinese supermarket
C103ChinaConventionalPlasticChinese supermarket
C113UnknownConventionalBulkPopular markets
C123UnknownConventionalBulkPopular markets
O103SpainOrganicPlasticHypermarkets
O113SpainOrganicPlasticHypermarkets
BlackC133ThailandConventionalPlasticChinese supermarket
C143ChinaConventionalPlasticChinese supermarket
O123SpainOrganicPlasticPopular markets
RedC153ChinaConventionalPlasticChinese supermarket
C163UnknownConventionalBulkPopular markets
C173UnknownConventionalBulkPopular markets
C183ChinaConventionalPlasticChinese supermarket
Table 2. Recovery (R) percentage study of the reference materials used.
Table 2. Recovery (R) percentage study of the reference materials used.
MetalMaterialConcentration Found (mg/kg)Certified Concentration (mg/kg)R (%)
AlSRM 1515 Apple Leaves286 ± 9285.1 ± 2699.7
B27.0 ± 2.027.0 ± 1.599.9
Sr25.0 ± 2.024.6 ± 4.098.3
BaSRM 1548a Typical Diet1.10 ± 0.101.13 ± 0.09102.5
Ni0.37 ± 0.020.38 ± 0.04102.3
Pb0.044 ± 0.0000.044 ± 0.01398.9
CdSRM 1567a Wheat Flour0.026 ± 0.0020.026 ± 0.00898.4
Co0.006 ± 0.000.006 ± 0.002102.4
V0.011 ± 0.000.011 ± 0.0099.4
LiStandard Addition Method0.2 ± 0.020.19 ± 0.0395.0
The limits of quantification (LOQ) (mg/L) were as follows: Al (0.012), B (0.012), Ba (0.005), Cd (0.001), Co (0.002), Cr (0.008), Li (0.013), Ni (0.003), Pb (0.001), Sr (0.003), and V (0.005).
Table 3. Guideline values of the studied potential toxic elements.
Table 3. Guideline values of the studied potential toxic elements.
MetalParameterIntake Limit ValueOrganizationReference
CdTWI2.5 μg/kg bw/weekEFSA[55]
PbBMDL0.50 μg/kg bw/day 1
0.63 μg/kg bw/day 2
1.50 μg/kg bw/day 3		EFSA[56]
AlTWI1 mg/kg bw/weekEFSA[57]
CrTDI0.3 mg/kg bw/dayEFSA[58]
Lip-RfD2 μg/kg bw/dayEFSA[37]
NiTDI13 μg/kg bw/dayEFSA[42]
SrTDI0.13 mg/kg bw/dayWHO[40]
BUL10 mg/dayEFSA[59]
VRfD7 μg/kg bw/dayEFSA[37]
BaTDI0.2 mg/kg bw/dayEFSA[37]
CoSLI 4600 μg/day 4EFSA[60]
1 For neurotoxicity; 2 for nephrotoxicity; 3 for cardiovascular effects; 4 although an official parameter has not been established, it has been estimated by EFSA as a safe acceptable daily oral intake, with a minimal level of risk.
Table 4. Mean concentration (mg/kg) in the analyzed samples by type.
Table 4. Mean concentration (mg/kg) in the analyzed samples by type.
ElementSoybean Types
Green (V. radiata)Yellow (G. max)Red (V. angularis)Black (V. mungo)
Cr0.09 ± 0.020.15 ± 0.090.16 ± 0.020.14 ± 0.04
Co0.03 ± 0.0070.05 ± 0.020.22 ± 0.100.09 ± 0.01
Al7.27 ± 4.516.31 ± 2.605.96 ± 0.996.55 ± 1.22
Cd0.0003 ± 0.0010.03 ± 0.010.005 ± 0.000030.001 ± 0.002
Pb0.06 ± 0.020.06 ± 0.010.05 ± 0.0050.07 ± 0.009
B7.74 ± 2.1213.5 ± 4.066.88 ± 0.937.62 ± 0.46
Ba1.66 ± 0.741.82 ± 0.342.95 ± 0.741.72 ± 0.50
Li1.23 ± 0.821.05 ± 0.881.37 ± 0.880.88 ± 0.58
Ni1.24 ± 0.351.88 ± 1.437.21 ± 1.572.10 ± 0.98
Sr3.23 ± 1.623.42 ± 1.923.04 ± 0.484.56 ± 1.03
V0.04 ± 0.030.05 ± 0.040.05 ± 0.040.04 ± 0.04
Table 5. The concentrations (mg/kg wet weight) and the standard deviations (SDs) of the metals studied according to the origin of the soybeans across all species.
Table 5. The concentrations (mg/kg wet weight) and the standard deviations (SDs) of the metals studied according to the origin of the soybeans across all species.
ChinaItalySpainAustraliaCanadaUnknownThailand
Cr0.11 ± 0.030.25 ± 0.130.11 ± 0.020.07 ± 0.0050.11 ± 0.020.12 ± 0.0380.13 ± 0.066
Co0.07 ± 0.060.05 ± 0.0060.05 ± 0.030.01 ± 0.000.04 ± 0.0050.1 ± 0.1260.061 ± 0.041
Al5.93 ± 2.078.59 ± 2.687.49 ± 4.737.46 ± 0.445.94 ± 2.516.32 ± 3.334.96 ± 1.02
Cd0.02 ± 0.020.03 ± 0.0040.006 ± 0.01<LOD0.03 ± 0.00050.008 ± 0.0127<LOD
Pb0.06 ± 0.010.07 ± 0.010.06 ± 0.020.06 ± 0.0050.06 ± 0.010.061 ± 0.0140.058 ± 0.0098
B10.2 ± 4.428.79 ± 4.399.07 ± 3.749.52 ± 0.3815.9 ± 1.099.41 ± 3.847.57 ± 0.48
Ba1.98 ± 0.681.82 ± 0.411.59 ± 0.663.23 ± 0.221.47 ± 0.272.01 ± 0.891.88 ± 0.32
Li0.78 ± 0.631.42 ± 0.710.93 ± 0.831.32 ± 0.531.15 ± 2.001.45 ± 0.641.69 ± 1.11
Ni2.63 ± 2.152.03 ± 0.971.77 ± 1.471.62 ± 0.101.34 ± 0.122.95 ± 3.382.44 ± 0.45
Sr2.89 ± 1.543.37 ± 0.373.89 ± 1.76<LOD4.64 ± 0.743.5 ± 1.543.9 ± 0.97
V0.05 ± 0.030.06 ± 0.060.03 ± 0.030.01 ± 0.020.04 ± 0.040.049 ± 0.0290.029 ± 0.033
Table 6. The percentage of contribution and EDI (estimated daily intake) of each trace element given the guideline values for each soybean species.
Table 6. The percentage of contribution and EDI (estimated daily intake) of each trace element given the guideline values for each soybean species.
ElementGuideline ValuesSoybean Types
Green (V. radiata)Yellow (G. max)Red (V. angularis)Black (V. mungo)
EDI (mg/day)% ContributionEDI (mg/day)% ContributionEDI (mg/day)% ContributionEDI (mg/day)% Contribution
Cr21 mg/day0.00450.0210.00750.0360.0080.0380.0070.033
Co0.6 mg/day0.00150.250.00250.420.0111.830.00450.75
Al70 mg/week2.52 *3.62.21 *3.162.09 *2.982.29 *3.27
Cd0.18 mg/week0.0001 *0.0560.01 *5.560.0018 *10.00035 *0.19
Pb0.035 mg/day0.0038.570.0038.570.00257.140.003510
B700 mg/day0.390.0560.680.0970.340.0480.380.054
Ba14 mg/day0.0830.590.0910.650.151.070.0860.61
Li0.14 mg/day0.06244.280.05237.140.06848.570.04431.43
Ni0.91 mg/day0.0626.810.09410.330.3639.560.110.99
Sr9.1 mg/day0.161.760.171.870.151.650.232.53
V0.49 mg/day0.0020.410.00250.510.00250.510.0020.41
* In these cases, the value indicated corresponds to the estimated weekly intake (EWI).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jáudenes-Marrero, J.R.; Giannantonio, G.; Paz-Montelongo, S.; Hardisson, A.; Darias-Rosales, J.; González-Weller, D.; Gutiérrez, Á.J.; Rubio, C.; Alejandro-Vega, S. Analysis of Toxic Element Levels and Health Risks in Different Soybean Species (Glycine max, Vigna radiata, Vigna angularis, Vigna mungo). Nutrients 2024, 16, 4290. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16244290

AMA Style

Jáudenes-Marrero JR, Giannantonio G, Paz-Montelongo S, Hardisson A, Darias-Rosales J, González-Weller D, Gutiérrez ÁJ, Rubio C, Alejandro-Vega S. Analysis of Toxic Element Levels and Health Risks in Different Soybean Species (Glycine max, Vigna radiata, Vigna angularis, Vigna mungo). Nutrients. 2024; 16(24):4290. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16244290

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jáudenes-Marrero, Juan R., Greta Giannantonio, Soraya Paz-Montelongo, Arturo Hardisson, Javier Darias-Rosales, Dailos González-Weller, Ángel J. Gutiérrez, Carmen Rubio, and Samuel Alejandro-Vega. 2024. "Analysis of Toxic Element Levels and Health Risks in Different Soybean Species (Glycine max, Vigna radiata, Vigna angularis, Vigna mungo)" Nutrients 16, no. 24: 4290. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16244290

APA Style

Jáudenes-Marrero, J. R., Giannantonio, G., Paz-Montelongo, S., Hardisson, A., Darias-Rosales, J., González-Weller, D., Gutiérrez, Á. J., Rubio, C., & Alejandro-Vega, S. (2024). Analysis of Toxic Element Levels and Health Risks in Different Soybean Species (Glycine max, Vigna radiata, Vigna angularis, Vigna mungo). Nutrients, 16(24), 4290. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16244290

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop