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. 
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
The study assessed whether commonly sold imported Basmati rice in Jordan contains hazardous metal contaminants at levels relevant to food safety certification and regulatory limits. The authors analyzed a defined panel of elements (including As, Pb, Cr, Ni, Zn, Cd, U, and Th) and framed the work as a practical “procedure of control” for markets where routine screening may be inadequate. The analytical strategy combined ICP-AES (for quantitative metal concentrations on a dry matter basis) with SEM-EDS as a complementary characterization step to detect element presence and corroborate the absence of toxic metals in the microstructural scans. The paper also reported method detection limits and core quality controls (blanks, replicates, certified reference material), which is directly relevant to HMTC-style defensibility requirements for “tested and certified” claims.
Who was studied
The “subjects” were commercial Basmati rice products imported into Jordan and purchased at retail. Specifically, the authors collected ten 5-kg samples representing different imported brands (Crop 2023/2024) from major shopping centers in Amman, Jordan, then sub-sampled each brand by randomly selecting three 100-g replicates for analysis under controlled storage conditions until testing. The samples represented key import origins supplying the Jordanian market—India, Pakistan, and Thailand—allowing comparison of metal profiles by source country, which matters for supplier qualification and risk-based surveillance in a certification program.
Most important findings
Overall results were largely compliant with international limits for most regulated toxic metals, but two findings—elevated nickel in specific Indian samples and iron exceeding the stated WHO reference in most samples—stand out for certification program design.
| Critical point | Details |
|---|---|
| Non-detects for key toxic/radiotoxic metals | Cd(II), Co(II), Pb(II), U(VI), and Th(IV) were reported below detection limits in all tested samples, supporting a “not detected” claim only when paired with stated detection limits and methods. |
| Method sensitivity supports certification defensibility | Reported detection limits were 0.05 ppm for Cd/Co/Cr/Cu/Mn/Zn, 0.1 ppm for Ni/Fe/Pb, 0.5 ppm for U, and 1.5 ppm for Th—critical for defining HMTC reporting thresholds and “ND” language. |
| Nickel exceedances were localized but actionable | Although Ni did not differ significantly by origin overall, Indian sample 1 (2.39 ppm) and sample 2 (1.67 ppm) exceeded the cited WHO limit of 1.5 ppm, indicating the need for lot-level controls and supplier corrective actions rather than country-wide rejection. |
| Iron frequently exceeded the stated reference value | The paper reports a WHO reference of 5 ppm for Fe and notes that all samples except Thai origin exceeded it, with the highest value in Indian sample 1 (33.35 ppm); regardless of whether Fe is regulated as a contaminant in a given jurisdiction, this drives labeling/claim risk and underscores the importance of using the correct jurisdictional standard. |
| Source-linked variability informs risk-based sampling | The highest Cr(III,VI) was observed in Pakistan-origin samples, Cu and Fe peaked in India-origin, and Mn and Zn were highest in Thai rice, supporting origin- and supplier-specific surveillance plans rather than uniform testing frequency. |
| SEM-EDS corroboration supports “no toxic metals” claims—carefully | SEM-EDS scans reported only common elemental signals (e.g., C, O, K, P, S, with occasional Mg/Al) and “could not detect any toxic heavy metals,” but HMTC decisions should prioritize quantitative ICP results and detection limits for claim substantiation. |
Key implications
The primary regulatory impact is that “ND” claims for Cd/Pb/U/Th must be tied to method-specific detection limits and QA/QC documentation, while certification requirements should explicitly include nickel as a trigger metal with lot-based acceptance criteria and corrective-action pathways for exceedances. Industry applications include supplier qualification by origin and routine ICP-based surveillance, supplemented by confirmatory methods when disputes arise. Research gaps include limited sample size and lack of arsenic results despite being in scope, so practical recommendations are to require arsenic reporting, mandate replicate testing with certified reference materials, and implement tighter monitoring for high-risk suppliers and lots.
Citation
Al-khamaiseh AM, Al-khamaiseh MM, Khalili FI. Heavy metals content in imported Basmati rice into Jordan.Polish Journal of Environmental Studies. 2025;XX(X):1-7. doi:10.15244/pjoes/201466
