The effects of arsenic contaminated drinking water of livestock on its total levels in milk samples of different cattle: Risk assessment in children

• The arsenic contaminated drinking water of livestock enhance its levels in cattle’s milk.
• Small cattle have significantly higher levels of As in their milk than bigger cattle.
• The high bio-transfer factor of As was occurred in the milk samples of sheep and goat.
• The carcinogenic risk values of As for children drink contaminated milk found >1.
• As in scalp hair of children consumed milk of sheep was higher than those drink cow milk.

This work was carried out to evaluate the arsenic (As) levels in milk samples of different milch animals, sheep, goats, cows, buffaloes and camels in Tharparkar, Pakistan. The concentration of As in the milk samples of cows, buffalos, sheep, goats and camels were observed in the range of 15.1–18.4, 2.6–7.7, 25.7–33.2, 10.5–37.3 and 6.6–13.7 μg/L, respectively. The levels of As in livestock drinking water of each farms/flocks was found in the range of 238–2000 μg L−1. A positive correlation with Pearson correlation coefficients, ranged as, 0.926–0.974 (p = 0.001–0.011) was observed between the As concentration in milk samples of cattle and in corresponding drinking water of farms/flocks. The high bio-transfer factor of As was occurred in the milk samples of sheep. The content of As in scalp hair of children was observed to be elevated, who consumed milk of lower cattle (sheep and goat) than cow and camel. The As content in scalp hair directly proportional to the age of children. The hazardous quotient value of As due to consumption of milk was observed in decreasing order as, sheep > goats > camels > cows. The total hazardous quotient or noncarcinogenic risk values for children consuming the milk of sheep, goat, cow and camels were found >1 of reference dose for As, creates adverse effects on health in childhood stage. The children of all three age group have higher carcinogenic risk factor who are consuming milk of goat and sheep than larger cattle.

Figure optionsDownload as PowerPoint slide