Showing posts with label pet care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pet care. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Heavy Metal Bioaccumulation by Cestode Parasites of Mustelus Schmitti (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhiniformes), from the Bahía Blanca Estuary, Argentina-Juniper Publishers

Journal of Dairy & Veterinary Sciences

 

The environment of the Bahía Blanca estuary is considered a hot spot in terms of pollution. Bioindicators should have the ability to react relatively fast to certain pollutants and environmental disturbances. Therefore, an exploratory study was carried out determining and quantifying the concentrations of cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) in the muscle and liver of Mustelus schmitti narrownose smooth-hound and were compared with the values obtained from their respective helminth assemblies. In most of the fishes analyzed, the concentration of heavy metals was higher in the infra communities of cestodes compared to the host. Our results position the cestodes as efficient sentinel species of pollution by bioaccumulating higher concentrations of heavy metals than the host tissues, thus behaving in excellent early warnings of environmental pollution, more real than quantifications in sediments, in water and fish
Keywords: Heavy metals; Bioaccumulation; Sentinels parasites

Introduction

The estuary of Bahía Blanca (39° 03′44 ″ S 62° 04′00 ″ W) is an adequate environment to develop pollution studies, considering that it is an area that includes urban centers, several industrial parks and deep-water ports. All the effluents are discharged with different degrees of pretreatment, so they generate different impacts on the ecosystem. In environmental monitoring to detect heavy metals, organisms are often used as bioindicators, which have the ability to react relatively fast to certain toxic products and environmental disturbances. Some of these organisms, such as parasites, may be highly sensitive to brief exposures, poorly detected in water, sediment or fish [1-5]. Our previous studies in the estuary have focused on evaluating the parasitism of fish in the time scale to be able to compare and analyze them as effect indicators altering some parasites population parameter such as prevalence and abundance or causing symptoms in their hosts in response to environmental disturbances [6-10]. The narrownose smooth-hound Mustelus schmitti Springer, 1939 is a resident fish of the estuary of Bahía Blanca and third in importance as a fishing resource. Based on the fact that some parasites, such as cestodes, have the ability to absorb and accumulate more chemicals than their host tissues [11].
The objective of the present study was to analyze whether a higher concentration of metals in the parasites respect to their host was applicable in the cestodes- narrownose smooth-hound model and to evaluate if these helminths possess ecotoxicological value and could be used in the study area as early bioindicators of anthropic impact. Therefore, an exploratory study was carried out in order to determine and quantify the cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) concentrations in the muscle and liver of the narrownose smooth-hound and compared with the values obtained from their respective cestode assemblages (Dollfusiella sp., Orygmatobothrium schmittii, Calliobothrium australis and Symcallio sp.) The samples were analyzed by Inductive Coupling Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometer (ICP-AES, LANAQUI-CERZOS-CONICET-UNS). The values were compared with the limit values allowed by the European Union for fish meat.

Results and Discussion

In most of the fishes analyzed, the concentration of heavy metals was higher in the infra communities of cestodes compared to each host. The parasites concentrated 270 times more Cadmium than the fish muscle. For this metal, the standards established in the liver and those of the parasites were exceeding the limits established by the European Union for muscle or liver. Chromium was bioconcentrated in the cestodes two times more than the muscle and six times more than the liver. Copper was accumulated with values 65 times more than muscle and up to four times more than in the liver. Lead had values 48 times more in helminths than both muscle and liver of fishes. For this metal in most dosages, the concentration measured in parasites exceeded the limit value established by the European Union. Zinc bioaccumulated in parasites seven times more than muscle and four times more than liver. Only in one case the Zinc concentration was three times higher in the liver than in parasites.
The environment of the Bahía Blanca estuary is considered a hot spot in terms of pollution and is included among the most eutrophic coastal ecosystems known [12]. Also, since many years it have been reported high concentrations of heavy metals and pesticides in water and sediments [13,14]. The combined effect of these pollutants, plus the sewage discharge, the industrial effluents of petrochemical origins, and the overheated water from a thermoelectric power station (620MW) all of them represent a growing threat to the environment. These increase in anthropogenic activity around estuaries, coupled with the persistence of heavy metals, their high toxicity, strong tendency to bioaccumulate, and non-degradability [15], usually affect water. As negative effects it could change the trofic web in the aquatic fauna, eliminate the spawning and larval recruitment sites and a potential decrease in diversity, affecting all the ecosystem [16,17]. That is why the need to choose of efficient bioindicators in the evaluation of the quality of the environment [18].

Conclusion

The estuary of Bahía Blanca is one of the most important in Argentina, having the main deep-water port system in the country. Although fish species can be used as efficient and useful bioindicators, our results position cestodes parasites as sentinel species of contamination for the fact that reported higher concentrations of heavy metals than their hosts. This would avoid possible underestimations in pollution levels by being quantified only in sediments, in water and in fish. 

To Know More About Journal of Dairy & Veterinary sciences  Please click on: juniperpublishers.com/jdvs/index.php 

To Know More About Open Access Journals Please click on: ttps://juniperpublishers.com/index.php

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

Biological Efficient Dairy Cows in Grazing Systems-Juniper Publishers

Journal of Dairy & Veterinary sciences

The availability of indicators that would help to avoid the overvaluation of one of the characteristics involved in the assessment of a good dairy cow over others that are important as well would also allow identifying the most adapted biotypes to the different environments existing at the place of the evaluation This article aims to discuss the need to use several productive and reproductive indicators when measuring the biological efficiency of a dairy cow in grazing systems. It was used retrospective data corresponding to the lactations of 300 primiparous and multiparous cows of the Holstein breed - American-Canadian biotype, along with records of their entire productive life, from their incorporation into the system until their sale or death. The animals were divided into two categories: pure cows (PC, n = 120) and cows in the breeding record (CBR, n = 180). It is observed that there are two different strategies in some variables that achieve the same biological efficiency, where the CBRs live longer, produce less and have smaller first delivery intervals. There are no significant differences in the milk index but in the fat index. It is concluded that the greater individual production does not guarantee a greater production at the end of the productive life of the cow, nor a greater productive efficiency when considering the time involved to produce a certain amount of liters. In grazing systems, the contribution of other variables included in the milk index - longevity, rearing efficiency and reproductive behavior - should be considered while searching for an aggregate indicator that tends to achieve greater productive efficiency.
Keywords: Dairy cows; Indicators; Efficiency; Grazing Systems

Introduction

The notable increase in the productive performance and size of these modern high-production cows has been made possible by the repeated and asymmetric use of a selection based exclusively on milk production. Although this process has been accompanied by changes in the nutritional area, these have not been sufficient to prevent vital function deterioration such as reproduction and survival. It becomes increasingly difficult to provide a non-limiting environment, being almost impossible during the initial phase of lactation [1]. The efficiency of a productive system is one of the most important factors from an economic and social point of view. And the most used modality to evaluate it is assessing indicators of biological and economic productivity. However, when producing in conditions where resources are scarce and expensive (grazing systems), not only products or outputs but also inputs should be considered when evaluating efficiency. In the particular case of high production dairy cows, the traits associated with biological efficiency or fitness (reproduction and longevity) have deteriorated despite their importance for the viability of the company [2,3].
Suggest that the sustainability of dairy systems depends, to a large extent, on the availability of a biotype adapted to the handling conditions and that it is capable of efficiently transforming food into good quality milk. This biotype must have a good reproductive performance, being the main goal of the system to maximize an efficient productive response per unit area [4]. The search for the maximization of the value of a single productive variable disregarding the remaining variables can alter the equilibrium and deteriorate the overall efficiency of productive systems [5]. Every open system processes the inputs received and generates outputs. In productive systems, the concept of efficiency refers to the most appropriate way to use resources with existing technology and products.
As a result of this positioning, it is considered that a production process is efficient if the maximum output is obtained with the lowest possible inputs [6]. In dairy production, the expression “maximize outputs” may have different connotations: maximize individual production during lactation or maximize production considering the entire life of the cow, reproductive success should be considered in the analysis. The amount of milk produced by a cow can be considered the most important indicator in intensive systems, even though, this indicator alone is not the most appropriate to make operational a complex variable like productive efficiency, when the goal is to make the most out of grazing systems. In these cases, it should be complemented, or even replaced, by other more aggregated indicators that constitute alternatives as a more comprehensive measure to assess the behavior of production in those systems in which pasture is the basic component of the diet.
The availability of indicators of this nature would help to avoid the overvaluation of one of the characteristics involved in the assessment of a good dairy cow over others that are important as well. It would also allow identifying the most adapted biotypes to the different environments existing at the place of the evaluation [7]. This article aims to discuss the need to use several productive and reproductive indicators when measuring the biological efficiency of a dairy cow in grazing systems.

What Is Efficiency

Efficiency is the relationship between an income and an expense, between an input and an output or between a resource and a product [8]. When measuring efficiency, it is necessary to specify exactly which elements are used to evaluate the result through a relation of its values. And to define the units used to measure the values of these elements. The concept of efficiency refers to a relationship between elements and that the circumstances in which the relationship is established have a high specificity. As a consequence, the term itself is very relative, and any value that can be considered as good or low is even more so [8].

How to Measure Efficiency

The advantages of grazing systems are sought within the framework of this approach, in which the cow is provided directly with the necessary input to meet its food requirements, without the need for transportation, processing or distribution of rations [9]. Although it is the most widespread modality, the amount of milk produced by a cow does not represent the most appropriate indicator to make operational a complex variable as productive efficiency. As such, it should be complemented or replaced by other more aggregated indicators creating alternatives for a more comprehensive production measurement to assess their performance in grazing systems. The availability of indicators of this nature would help to avoid the overvaluation of one of the characteristics involved in the assessment of a good dairy cow over others that are important as well. It would also allow identifying the most adapted biotypes to the different environments existing at the place of the evaluation [10].
It was used retrospective data corresponding to the lactations of 300 primiparous and multiparous cows of the Holstein breed - American-Canadian biotype, along with records of their entire productive life, from their incorporation into the system until their sale or death. The animals were divided into two categories: pure cows (PC, n = 120) and cows in the breeding record (CBR, n = 180). The existence of significant differences in the assessed time between groups was studied by applying variance analysis to a classification criterion. JMP 5.0 for Windows (JMP®, SAS Institute, 2003) was used for statistical analysis Table 1.
The following variables were analyzed: a. Number of births b. Milk production (PL by its initials in Spanish): liters produced per cow adjusted to 305 days c. Age at first birth (PPE by its initials in Spanish) in days d. Total Butyrose Fat production in kg: GB, ΣGBi where “i” are the kilograms produced in the j-th lactation e. Total milk production (liters) = pl, Σpli, where “i” are the liters produced in the j-th lactation f. Milk index (milk production per day of life) in liters = IL, by its initials in Spanish, (il: LT / e e: age in days at the end of the last lactation): il = pl / age [11] g. Fat Index (production of Butyrose fat per day of life) in kg = IG by its initials in Spanish, (ig: Total GB / e e: age in days at the end of the last lactation): ig = kg GB / age [10] h. First delivery interval - delivery in days (IPP by its initials in Spanish): Σipp, where “i” are the days between deliveries / number of deliveries [12].
Pure cows are pregnant at an age closer to optimal, showing a difference of 60 days with cows in the breeding record. They produce in their five lactations 6516 liters on average against the 5933 liters in six lactations of cows in the breeding record, achieving a total of 41767 liters in its life against the 39653 liters of pure cows. Additionally, the pure cow takes for each new delivery 51 days (total 306 days (6 deliveries * 51 days)) more than the cow in the breeding record. In conclusion, the advantage in days they have because of its first birth during its life is lost in a single IPP, as well as producing almost for a year in the less efficient part of the lactation curve.
It is observed that there are two different strategies in some variables that achieve the same biological efficiency, where the CBRs live longer, produce less and have smaller IPP. There are no significant differences in the milk index but in the fat index. Although considering each variable separately is relevant, when reference values are available and allow these cows to be positioned in particular in the framework for milk production of the Holstein breed, the characterization of the efficiency of a productive system requires a joint analysis of all of them instead of individual consideration [5].

Conclusion

It is concluded that the greater individual production does not guarantee a greater production at the end of the productive life of the cow (LT) nor a greater productive efficiency when considering the time involved to produce a certain amount of liters (il). In grazing systems, the contribution of other variables included in the milk index - longevity, rearing efficiency and reproductive behavior - should be considered while searching for an aggregate indicator that tends to achieve greater productive efficiency.

 
To Know More About Open Access Journals Please click on: ttps://juniperpublishers.com/index.php

 

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

Heavy Metal Bioaccumulation by Cestode Parasites of Mustelus Schmitti (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhiniformes), from the Bahía Blanca Estuary, Argentina-Juniper Publishers

Journal of Dairy & Veterinary sciences

The environment of the Bahía Blanca estuary is considered a hot spot in terms of pollution. Bioindicators should have the ability to react relatively fast to certain pollutants and environmental disturbances. Therefore, an exploratory study was carried out determining and quantifying the concentrations of cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) in the muscle and liver of Mustelus schmitti narrownose smooth-hound and were compared with the values obtained from their respective helminth assemblies. In most of the fishes analyzed, the concentration of heavy metals was higher in the infra communities of cestodes compared to the host. Our results position the cestodes as efficient sentinel species of pollution by bioaccumulating higher concentrations of heavy metals than the host tissues, thus behaving in excellent early warnings of environmental pollution, more real than quantifications in sediments, in water and fish
Keywords: Heavy metals; Bioaccumulation; Sentinels parasites

Introduction

The estuary of Bahía Blanca (39° 03′44 ″ S 62° 04′00 ″ W) is an adequate environment to develop pollution studies, considering that it is an area that includes urban centers, several industrial parks and deep-water ports. All the effluents are discharged with different degrees of pretreatment, so they generate different impacts on the ecosystem. In environmental monitoring to detect heavy metals, organisms are often used as bioindicators, which have the ability to react relatively fast to certain toxic products and environmental disturbances. Some of these organisms, such as parasites, may be highly sensitive to brief exposures, poorly detected in water, sediment or fish [1-5]. Our previous studies in the estuary have focused on evaluating the parasitism of fish in the time scale to be able to compare and analyze them as effect indicators altering some parasites population parameter such as prevalence and abundance or causing symptoms in their hosts in response to environmental disturbances [6-10]. The narrownose smooth-hound Mustelus schmitti Springer, 1939 is a resident fish of the estuary of Bahía Blanca and third in importance as a fishing resource. Based on the fact that some parasites, such as cestodes, have the ability to absorb and accumulate more chemicals than their host tissues [11].
The objective of the present study was to analyze whether a higher concentration of metals in the parasites respect to their host was applicable in the cestodes- narrownose smooth-hound model and to evaluate if these helminths possess ecotoxicological value and could be used in the study area as early bioindicators of anthropic impact. Therefore, an exploratory study was carried out in order to determine and quantify the cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) concentrations in the muscle and liver of the narrownose smooth-hound and compared with the values obtained from their respective cestode assemblages (Dollfusiella sp., Orygmatobothrium schmittii, Calliobothrium australis and Symcallio sp.) The samples were analyzed by Inductive Coupling Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometer (ICP-AES, LANAQUI-CERZOS-CONICET-UNS). The values were compared with the limit values allowed by the European Union for fish meat.

Results and Discussion

In most of the fishes analyzed, the concentration of heavy metals was higher in the infra communities of cestodes compared to each host. The parasites concentrated 270 times more Cadmium than the fish muscle. For this metal, the standards established in the liver and those of the parasites were exceeding the limits established by the European Union for muscle or liver. Chromium was bioconcentrated in the cestodes two times more than the muscle and six times more than the liver. Copper was accumulated with values 65 times more than muscle and up to four times more than in the liver. Lead had values 48 times more in helminths than both muscle and liver of fishes. For this metal in most dosages, the concentration measured in parasites exceeded the limit value established by the European Union. Zinc bioaccumulated in parasites seven times more than muscle and four times more than liver. Only in one case the Zinc concentration was three times higher in the liver than in parasites.
The environment of the Bahía Blanca estuary is considered a hot spot in terms of pollution and is included among the most eutrophic coastal ecosystems known [12]. Also, since many years it have been reported high concentrations of heavy metals and pesticides in water and sediments [13,14]. The combined effect of these pollutants, plus the sewage discharge, the industrial effluents of petrochemical origins, and the overheated water from a thermoelectric power station (620MW) all of them represent a growing threat to the environment. These increase in anthropogenic activity around estuaries, coupled with the persistence of heavy metals, their high toxicity, strong tendency to bioaccumulate, and non-degradability [15], usually affect water. As negative effects it could change the trofic web in the aquatic fauna, eliminate the spawning and larval recruitment sites and a potential decrease in diversity, affecting all the ecosystem [16,17]. That is why the need to choose of efficient bioindicators in the evaluation of the quality of the environment [18].

Conclusion

The estuary of Bahía Blanca is one of the most important in Argentina, having the main deep-water port system in the country. Although fish species can be used as efficient and useful bioindicators, our results position cestodes parasites as sentinel species of contamination for the fact that reported higher concentrations of heavy metals than their hosts. This would avoid possible underestimations in pollution levels by being quantified only in sediments, in water and in fish. 

To Know More About Journal of Dairy & Veterinary sciences Please click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/jdvs/
 
To Know More About Open Access Journals Please click on: ttps://juniperpublishers.com/index.php
 

Friday, October 11, 2019

Comparative Assessment of Arsenic Contamination in Raw Milk, Infant Formulas and Breast Milk-Juniper Publishers

Journal of Dairy & Veterinary sciences


 


Abstract

Rapidly growing urbanization and increased industrialization has led to introduction of numerous detrimental toxicants into the environment. Such toxicants which are hazardous to human health, ultimately become a part of our food chain and accumulate in human body, in levels exceeding permissible limits. One of the most common food toxicants is heavy metals out of which Arsenic ranks 1st in the list of top 20 hazardous substances. Arsenic intake has been found to induce skin, liver, bladder and lung cancers, disturb GIT, cause fatigue, arrhythmia, bruising, nerve impairment, hyperkeratosis, hyperpigmentation of skin, gangrene, cyanosis and black foot disease. Milk and milk-based products from different milch animals that make up one of the most nutritious categories of food are reported for being contaminated with Arsenic, worldwide. Arsenic is introduced in milk from human and other milk producing animals by the intake of arsenic contaminated water or through their feed. On the other hand, breast feeding is reducing day by day due to a false verdict that it is unsafe for infants whereas infant formula milk is safer, as heavy metals like arsenic become a part of human milk in areas with high arsenic content in drinking waters. Therefore, this review highlights various studies determining arsenic contamination in raw milk, infant milk formulas as well as breast milk, in an attempt to create awareness regarding which mode of infant nutrition is safest to choose
Keywords: Arsenic; Heavy Metals; Milk Contamination; Infant formulas; Breast feeding

Introduction

From farm to fork, food is subjected to numerous potential hazards of physical, chemical and microbiological nature, making it quite a challenge to ensure that the food is not at all toxic for human consumption [1,2].Toxicity is a condition when a micronutrient or additive or any toxic compound exceeds its safety limit and causes adverse health effects. The trace elements in different foods are of significant interest because of their essential (as micronutrients) or toxic nature. Although there are many potential toxins related to foodstuff but heavy metals are quite common and abundant. Heavy metals are the metals which have high density (more than 5 g/cm3) and are dangerous for human consumption if exceeding their safety limits. According to the list of “Top 20 Hazardous Substances” compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), heavy metals including Arsenic (As), Lead (Pb), Mercury (Hg), and Cadmium (Cd) stand on 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th position, respectively. Arsenic is of prime importance as it is a common yet potent water contaminant and from there it transfers to different food by coming in contact directly or indirectly. This heavy metal has been reported to pose multiple adverse effects on human health as well.
Milk and milk-based products make up one of the most nutritious category of foods rich in protein and minerals, a great source of calcium and magnesium, as well as trace amounts of essential elements such as iron, copper and zinc. Since, the primary form of feed at infant level to almost all ages is milk, therefore milk and milk-based products have always been valued for their significant role in body growth and development. Unfortunately, the rapidly increasing urbanization and growing industrialization have immensely polluted the environment and consequently milk and milk-based products have been highly contaminated with several toxic substances particularly heavy metals that may pose detrimental effects to human health [3]. Milk is also being contaminated with arsenic. Arsenic is introduced in milk from human and other milk producing animals by the intake of arsenic contaminated water or through their feed. This is known to exceed the safety limits i.e. 0.1 mg/ml. Breast feeding is reducing day by day due to false consideration that it is not safe for infants whereas infant formula milk is safer, as heavy metals like arsenic becomes a part of human milk in areas with high arsenic content in drinking waters. This review paper is written to shed some light on this issue and highlight the studies that indicate the arsenic contamination in milk.

Heavy Metals

Heavy metals are the metals whose specific gravity exceeds 5g/cm3 in their standard state. The most toxic heavy metals are namely Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, and Cadmium ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in the list, respectively. Presence of these heavy metals is to be measured in parts per million (ppm), and the obtained values are to be compared to the Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake (PTWI) for toxic metals as set by the FAO. Heavy metals that contaminate milk might originate from the milking utensils, milking personnel, milk processing, contaminated water used for agricultural purposes and animal fodder, as well as the immediate surroundings of milch animal [2].

Heavy Metals Toxicity

The toxicity of heavy metals results due to the longterm exposure to low contamination sources in our environment, including in the air we breathe, water and food we consume. Lead, chromium, nickel, cadmium and cobalt are the common heavy metals that might contaminate cows and other environments, disrupt milk at different levels and cause numerous problems. The contamination of milk products with heavy metals might be a consequence of the contamination of the basic cow milk that has been exposed to contaminated atmosphere including feed or poor water source. Moreover, contamination of raw milk might occur during its production. Cadmium, mercury and lead are quite hazardous to human health therefore they are referred to as a major menace to humans when consumed along with food [2]. Another study named as “Lead and Mercury in Breast Milk”, has reported the presence of Mercury in breast milk as well as bovine milk in substantially higher amounts as compared to those observed in common infant formulas. Whereas the Levels of lead in breast milk are relatively lesser than that found in milk-based infant formulas [4].

Health Risks Associated with Heavy Metals

Heavy metals belong to a class of pervasive toxicants that prevail everywhere in land, air and water. Among all the toxicants, arsenic (As) and mercury (Hg) were considered to be unusual, since they exist in a series of different chemical species with diverse toxicities to human beings [5]. Heavy metals when accumulate in the body might cause various diseases including nervous system disorders, renal failure, genetic mutations, types of cancers, neurological disorders, respiratory disorders, cardiovascular diseases, immune system weakening and infertility. Lead causes onset and development of various cancers, central nervous system disorders, anemia, renal, hepatic and cardiac damage, compromised immune system as well as weakened GIT tract. Lead can also cause encephalitis and hepatitis. Whereas Cadmium deposits in body tissues just like the liver and kidneys, causing anemia, as well as elevated blood pressure. Cadmium is also a potent carcinogen that can readily induce tumor development particularly in the prostrate and lungs.

Health Risks Linked with Arsenic

Arsenic toxicity has emerged as a worldwide health issue that has affected masses of people because of its high prevalence in land, air and water resources, as well as absorption in food crops. The maximum permissible limit for arsenic in milk established by European Union Commission is about 0.1 mg/ ml (European Union 2006). The organic forms of arsenic such as monomethylarsenic (MMA), dimethylarsenic (DMA), arsenobetaine and arsenocholinehave been observed to be relatively nontoxic in comparison to its inorganic formsarsenite (AsIII) and arsenate (AsV) that have been categorized as Type 1 carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [6]. Comprehensive data is present to validate the oraltoxicity of inorganic arsenic along with its various carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. Its intake has been reported to cause generalized body fatigue, disturbed GIT, arrhythmia, bruising and nerve impairment. The most distinctive effects that are observed as a result of prolonged oral exposure of arsenic are hyperpigmentation of the skin and hyperkeratosis. Other noncarcinogenic effects might include peripheral vascular effects such as gangrene, cyanosis, blackfoot disease and various other cardiovascular effects including circulatory problems as well as increased blood pressure. Oral exposure to inorganic arsenic has also been observed to increase the risk of cancer in the skin, liver, bladder and lungs [7]. Previous century witnessed a massive, endemic disease just due to contamination of drinking water with arsenic, called Hydroarsenism Chronic Regional Endemic that is associated with a specific type of skin cancer.
A number of factors are responsible for severity of toxicity of arsenic in humans. These factors include age, sex, nutritional status, concentration, dose and duration of exposure to arsenic. Arsenic exposure during gestation period has been observed to pose detrimental effects on development of fetus through irreversible faltering of thioredoxinreductase, methyltransferases and DNA repair enzymes. Human arsenic toxicity has also been associated with epigenetic changes like DNA methylation, histone modification and RNA interference whereas chronic arsenic exposure might result in an increased risk of diabetes mellitus. Arsenic is the first metalloid which is directly associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes (APO) and even induces lungs, skin and urinary bladder cancers [8,9]. Long-term exposure to As might result in arsenicosis-a term that refers to arsenic related health effects including internal cancers (lung, kidney, bladder), skin problems, skin cancers, diseases of the blood vessels of the legs and feet, hyperkeratosis, hyperpigmentation, hair hypomelanosis and mee’s lines [10]. The actual mechanism behind how arsenic induces cancers is yet not completely understood. While certain studies declare arsenic toxicity to be affective on child intelligence (e.g., perceptual reasoning, verbal comprehension and working memory) as well [11].

Arsenic in Breast Milk

Mothers’ milk is the basic source of nutrition of the offspring; therefore, it is indispensable to ensure that the composition of human milk is safe enough for the infant. Lately, the presence of lead, cadmium and mercury in human milk, has been reported as well. Due to prevalence of arsenic rich bedrock in widespread areas of the world, ground water is often detected with high concentration of arsenic and travels through the entire food chain to ultimately become a part of mother’s milk as well. Native Andeans living in a village at the northwest of Argentina have been reported with high concentrations of arsenic (200μg/l) in the drinking water. Whereas, low concentrations of arsenic were detected in the breast milk and urine of the nursing babies in relation to the high level of maternal exposure. This shows that inorganic arsenic is not found in breast milk to a significant extent. Therefore, there is a quite valid reason for long breast-feeding periods for newborns [12].
A study revealed that in Izmir, breast milk was observed to be considered toxic for suckling infants, but still less than the cow’s milk. Therefore, the point to ponder is that arsenic contamination through breast or cow’s milk is relatively higher in babies living in areas with higher thermal activity or in regions where ground water has higher arsenic concentration (Ulman, C. et al.,1998). In another study atomic absorption spectrometry was used to measure level of arsenic in 64 samples of breast milk collected from Ankara, Turkey and the arsenic level appeared to be below the limit of quantification (LOQ, 7.6μg/l) in all samples [13]. The probable effects of arsenic contamination for nursing new-borns and infants, were also analyzed by Sternowsky & Moser [14] with a Perkin-Elmer Type 403 hydride-generation atomic absorption spectrometer, equipped with an arsenic EDL-lamp using 36 breast milk samples obtained from three different regions of Germany. Arsenic was not detectable, i.e. below 0.3μg/l, in majority of samples whereas the greatest concentration of 2.8μg/l was obtained in a sample from the rural area. It was revealed that Arsenic concentrations did not vary in samples obtained before and after nursing nor with the age of the infant.
Khan & Ismail [15] also determined arsenic concentration in breast milk samples collected from all over Pakistan. The results of the study indicated the presence of arsenic in the mother milk samples within the range of 0.092-1.240mg/L, while the mean as level was 0.504 ppb. The concentration of arsenic in the mother milk was found to be within the safe limits. Although, Breastfeeding is the primary preventive measure that can be given to the child at birth, the ratio of exclusively breast milk fed babies for their first six months has dropped from about 20% in 1998 to 16% in 2003 [12].

Arsenic in Milk and Milk Products

Arsenic is considered as one of the inevitable contaminants for human beings and is well known as a toxic element since ancient times. Humans are exposed to many chemical forms of both inorganic and organic arsenic but the highly stable organic forms are apparently nontoxic. Arsenic content of foods is generally less than 1 mg/kg, with the exception of seafood in which arsenic is predominantly in the organic form [16]. Prolonged, chronic exposure to inorganic arsenic through breathing, drinking or ingestion has been linked to, skin, lungs and urinary bladder cancer [17]. In past decade, almost 13,000 Japanese infants have been afflicted with contaminated milk powder, majorly in the western part of the country where industrialization was considerable. Affected infants reported diarrhea, fever, skin pigmentation, whereas more than 100 died from acute poisoning [4].
Carrera et al, 2004 also determined the concentration of arsenic in cow milk samples collected from Cordoba. The arsenic was found to be in the range of 0.3-10.5 ng/g. Dakeisi et al, 2006 analyzed the concentration of arsenic in milk powder as well. The level of arsenic contamination in milk powder was found to be in the range of 4-7mg/l. In 2005, ANTUNOVIĆ et al, used a hybrid technique on an atomic absorption spectrophotometerto determine the arsenic content of milk and the results revealed that arsenic concentrations in ewe milk varied depending on the lactation stage. Concentration of arsenic was lower in colostrum at 2nd lactation day (As0.011mg/kg) as compared with milk on the 10th (As: 0.025 mg/kg), 30th (As: 0.028 mg/kg) and 60th (As: 0.029mg/kg) lactation day. Licata & Trombetta [18] assessed the milk from 40 cows bred on various farms in Calabria to determine the load of heavy metal contamination in them. Quantitative analyses performed using an atomic absorption spectrophotometer with graphite furnace; followed by hot vapor generation technique showed the mean concentration of as in samples was about (37.90μg/kg). In 1999 arsenic levels were determined in cow milk samples collected at the most important dairy farms of the Comarca Lagunera in Coahuila and Durango, Mexico, a region naturally rich in Arsenic. Arsenic concentrations found in milk ranged from <0.9 to 27.4 ng g-1. Using a pharmacokinetic approach, it was found that the cow’s milk biotransfer factor for arsenic was up to 6 × 10-4 [19].
The concentration of Arsenic in Philippine’s infant formula milk for 6-12 months old was also analyzed by Cruz, Din [20] using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry and results were compared with an existing standard for permissible quantities of arsenic in food products as set by the World Health Organization. All the infant formulas tested showed up to be negative for Arsenic. Another study was conducted to determine arsenic concentration in 32 raw cow milk samples collected from traditional and industrial sites of Arak City, Markazi Province, Iran using an atomic absorption spectrometer. The residual amounts of as were found out to be lower than permissible limits established by Codex Alimentarius [2].
Therefore, considering the stated previous studies, we cannot conclude that all the infant formula milk available in markets worldwide, contains toxic heavy metals or not. However, this study can be further utilized as a reference or a foundation for future in-depth analysis of heavy metal contamination in various foods. This review can also help create awareness among consumers, manufacturers, and the professionals in the health care system because of its cumulative display of important statistics regarding heavy metal contamination in foodstuff.

Conclusion

Milk is no doubt affected by the heavy metal contaminated water sources, yet the above discussed studies showed that human milk is still the safest of all, as arsenic levels do not vary significantly even if one is taking arsenic contaminated water in daily routine, however it may be a potent risk on a long term basis. Furthermore, safety of milk obtained from different animals with respect to arsenic contamination showed that if it is taken from a sheep, it is least susceptible to Arsenic toxicity even from a place with higher Arsenic content in water, but the cow milk is most susceptible. In a nutshell the misconception of breast milk being unsafe and infant formulas being safer is under question and the studies show that breast milk is the safest among all other milk sources. 

To Know More About Journal of Dairy & Veterinary Sciences  Please click on:
 
To Know More About Open Access Journals Please click on: ttps://juniperpublishers.com/index.php

Artificial Intelligence System for Value Added Tax Collection via Self Organizing Map (SOM)- Juniper Publishers

  Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation - Juniper Publishers Abstract Findings:  Based on our experiments, our approach is an effec...