Human health risk assessment of edible body parts of chicken through heavy metals and trace elements quantitative analysis Original paper

Researched by:

  • Dr. Umar Aitsaam ID
    Dr. Umar Aitsaam

    User avatarClinical Pharmacist and Master’s student in Clinical Pharmacy with research interests in pharmacovigilance, behavioral interventions in mental health, and AI applications in clinical decision support. Experience includes digital health research with Bloomsbury Health (London) and pharmacovigilance practice in patient support programs. Published work covers drug awareness among healthcare providers, postpartum depression management, and patient safety reporting.

    Read More

January 19, 2026

Researched by:

  • Dr. Umar Aitsaam ID
    Dr. Umar Aitsaam

    User avatarClinical Pharmacist and Master’s student in Clinical Pharmacy with research interests in pharmacovigilance, behavioral interventions in mental health, and AI applications in clinical decision support. Experience includes digital health research with Bloomsbury Health (London) and pharmacovigilance practice in patient support programs. Published work covers drug awareness among healthcare providers, postpartum depression management, and patient safety reporting.

    Read More

Last Updated: 2026-01-19

Our team of researchers are constantly monitoring and summarizing the latest research,
and we continue to update our pages to ensure you have the most accurate information.

Note on the last update: One new meta analysis added

Dr. Umar Aitsaam

Clinical Pharmacist and Master’s student in Clinical Pharmacy with research interests in pharmacovigilance, behavioral interventions in mental health, and AI applications in clinical decision support. Experience includes digital health research with Bloomsbury Health (London) and pharmacovigilance practice in patient support programs. Published work covers drug awareness among healthcare providers, postpartum depression management, and patient safety reporting.

What was studied

This original study quantified lead and cadmium in chicken alongside chromium, iron, copper, and zinc across multiple edible broiler body parts sold in Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) markets, then translated those measurements into human health risk metrics relevant to food certification. Using flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS), the authors analyzed breast muscle, liver, gizzard, heart, kidney, and brain tissue to compare concentrations (mg/kg fresh weight) against maximum allowable concentrations (MACs) cited from FAO/WHO and other regulators, and to estimate exposure and risk for adults versus children via estimated daily intake (EDI), target hazard quotient (THQ), total THQ (TTHQ/HI-style aggregation), and target carcinogenic risk (TCR).

Who was studied

No living human participants or live animals were enrolled; the “subjects” were market-purchased broiler chickens and the modeled consumers used for risk assessment assumptions. Specifically, 18 broiler chickens were collected from six DNCC market locations (three birds per market), and six edible body parts per bird produced 108 tissue samples for laboratory analysis. Consumer risk calculations used Bangladesh-specific intake and body-weight assumptions (adults: 17.4 g/day and 60 kg; children: 8.3 g/day and 27 kg) to compare vulnerability, making the “who” effectively the general Bangladeshi population—especially children—who regularly consume chicken meat and offal.

Most important findings

For an HMTC-style certification program, the punchline is that contamination is tissue-specific: lead and cadmium in chicken were generally low enough to keep modeled non-cancer risk below common thresholds, yet several tissues exceeded cited MACs for lead (and copper), signaling that pass/fail decisions will depend heavily on which body parts are included and how limits are applied.

Critical pointDetails
Lead concentrates strongly in brain tissueMean Pb in brain was ~3.454 mg/kg FW (overall), with a reported range up to 13.851 mg/kg FW; the paper notes this is about six times higher than the MAC used for comparison, making “whole-bird” compliance misleading if brain is included.
Routine “meat-only” testing can miss high-Pb offal patternsPb followed brain > kidney > gizzard > heart > muscle > liver, meaning muscle-only certification could underestimate risk where consumers eat offal or regionally preferred parts.
Cadmium is highest in liver, often near offal limitsCd means were highest in liver (~0.082 mg/kg FW overall) with lower levels in muscle (~0.021 mg/kg FW); this distribution supports offal-focused monitoring, since liver is a known accumulation organ.
Chromium exceedance risk is localized to specific tissues/areasBrain chromium reached ~0.899 mg/kg FW on average with a maximum reported around 1.412 mg/kg FW, and the authors highlight at least one brain sample exceeding the 1.0 mg/kg benchmark they cite, consistent with potential tannery-waste feed pathways discussed in the text.
Non-cancer risk metrics stayed below 1, but children were higherTHQs for individual metals remained <1 and total tthq was ~0.527 (adults) ~0.561 (children), implying acceptable non-carcinogenic risk under the study’s intake assumptions while still showing children’s consistently higher relative burden. < td>
Cancer-risk estimates were “acceptable,” but driven by Cr and CuMean TCR values were reported around 9.7E-06 (Pb), 1.4E-05 (Cd), 1.6E-04 (Cr), and 4.8E-04 (Cu) for adults, with children slightly higher; the study frames these as within acceptable/tolerable ranges, but values at or above ~1E-04 trigger closer scrutiny in many risk frameworks.
Copper exceeded the cited MAC in multiple organsCu averages were far above 0.4 mg/kg FW in liver, heart, kidney, and brain (e.g., liver ~2.384 mg/kg; brain ~2.876 mg/kg), which matters for certification even when Cu is essential, because excess Cu can still be a safety and quality concern.

Key implications

For HMTC, the results argue that certification should specify tissue scope: a muscle-only claim may be defensible while offal-inclusive claims require stricter screening because lead and cadmium in chicken vary sharply by organ. Regulatory impacts include aligning limits to product type (meat vs offal) and adding brain/liver as sentinel matrices. Certification requirements should mandate AAS/ICP-style validated methods and organ-specific pass criteria, plus market- or region-stratified sampling. Industry applications include feed and water auditing as upstream controls. Research gaps include identifying contamination sources and updating intake assumptions. Practical recommendations emphasize routine offal monitoring, child-protective thresholds, and transparent labeling of tested parts.

Citation

Hossain E, Nesha M, Chowdhury MAZ, Rahman SH. Human health risk assessment of edible body parts of chicken through heavy metals and trace elements quantitative analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(3):e0279043. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279043

Lead (Pb)

Lead is a neurotoxic heavy metal with no safe exposure level. It contaminates food, consumer goods and drinking water, causing cognitive deficits, birth defects and cardiovascular disease. HMTC’s rigorous lead testing applies ALARA principles to protect infants and consumers and to prepare brands for tightening regulations.

Cadmium (Cd)

Cadmium is a persistent heavy metal that accumulates in kidneys and bones. Dietary sources include cereals, cocoa, shellfish and vegetables, while smokers and industrial workers receive higher exposures. Studies link cadmium to kidney dysfunction, bone fractures and cancer.

Chromium (Cr)

Chromium (Cr) is a widely used metal with significant public health implications, especially in its toxic hexavalent form. The HMTC program’s stricter regulations ensure that chromium exposure is minimized, safeguarding consumer health, particularly for vulnerable populations.