1.

Introduction
Metals found in surface soil derive from rock and
precipitation. Urban areas contain more anthropogenic
metals due to higher population density, traffc intensity,
and proximity to industry. Their long-term deposition
may reduce soil buffering capacity and cause soil and
groundwater contamination [1].
Fruits accumulate soil metals during growth and
processing. As metals are not biodegradable they may
accumulate up the food chain. Although some are
micronutrients, in high concentrations they are toxic [2].
Increased environmental heavy metal concentrations
may lead to increased human intake, causing serious
illness [3-7].
Zinc, copper, iron, chromium and cobalt are essential
and become toxic only in high concentrations, while lead
and cadmium are highly toxic [8-11]. It is thus important
to monitor metals in soil, fruit and fruit products. Many
species of wild fruit used in nutrition and folk medicine
grow in southeast Serbia. Crataegus laevigata L., Cornus
mas L. and Prunus spinosa L. are widely used fresh
and as fruit juices, jams and teas. Their metal contents
must be controlled so they can be used for nutrition and
pharmaceuticals [12].
Fruit and leaves of wild Crataegus laevigata L.,
Cornus mas L. and Prunus spinosa L. from rural
southeast Serbia were analyzed (Table 1). Metals uptake
from soil to leaves and fruit was determined.
Relations among the data were examined by
principal component analysis (PCA) The health risk
index estimates the risk due to exposure.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Reagents
All chemicals were of analytical grade. High purity
deionized water (conductivity 0.05 S cm
-1
) was used
in solution preparation. Stock Cu, Mn, Zn, Fe, Pb, Ni
and Cd solutions (1 g L
-1
) were purchased from Merck
(Darmstadt, Germany).
2.2. Sample preparation
Sampling points were selected by a standard procedure
[16]. Points were at least 300 m from a main road,
100 m from a local road, and 5 m from a forest road
to avoid pollution from vehicle exhaust. Samples were
collected from wild-growing Crataegus laevigata L.,
Cornus mas L. and Prunus spinosa L. in southeast
Central European Journal of Chemistry
Metals content of soil, leaves
and wild fruit from Serbia
* E-mail: ba432@ymail.com
Received 1 November 2013; Accepted 8 February 2014
Abstract:
Versita Sp. z o.o.
Keywords: Wild fruit Soil metal Plant metal
Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, University of Nis, 18000 Nis, Serbia
Sasa S. Randjelovic, Danijela A. Kostic,
Gordana S. Stojanovic, Snezana S. Mitic,
Milan N. Mitic, Biljana B. Arsic
*
, Aleksandra N. Pavlovic
Research Article
The concentrations of Zn, Mn, Fe, Pb, Ni, Cu and Cd in soil, leaves and edible wild fruit (Crataegus laevigata L., Cornus mas L. and
Prunus spinosa L.) from southeast Serbia were determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Metal translocations from soil to fruit
were calculated as well as their oral intake and health risk indices. Positive correlations were found among metal concentrations in soil,
leaves and fruit.
1144
Cent. Eur. J. Chem. 12(11) 2014 1144-1151
DOI: 10.2478/s11532-014-0566-7
S. S. Randjelovic et al.
Serbia (locations in Table 3) during September 2010.
Fruit and leaves were collected from the same plants.
Soil sampling followed a zigzag principle at a depth of
0-30 cm.
2.2.1. Soil analysis
Air-dried soil samples were oven dried at 105C for two
hours, then ground to pass through 2 mm sieves. Ten
grams of sample was suspended in deionized water in a
100 mL volumetric fask then fltered through Whatman
No. 42 flter paper. The pH of the frst 25 mL of fltrate
was measured. The remaining 75 mL was evaporated
to dryness on a water bath, dissolved in 5 mL of
1:1 HNO
3
:H
2
O plus 5 mL of 1:1 HCl:H
2
O, then diluted to
25 mL [16].
2.2.2. Fruit and leaves analysis
The fruit and leaves were washed with distilled water
to remove dust and parasites, dried at 105C for
24 h, and homogenized [16]. Standard AOAC (2000)
sample preparation was followed [16]. Accurately
weighed (1 g) sample in a silica crucible was ashed
in a muffe furnace at 450
o
C for 2 h and then 5 mL of
6 M HCl was added. Care was taken to ensure that all
ash came into contact with the acid. The sample was
digested on a hot plate to obtain a clear solution. The
residue was dissolved in 0.1 M HNO
3
and made up to
25 mL. Working standards were prepared by diluting
stock solutions with 0.1 M nitric acid. The blank was
deionized water.
2.3. Apparatus
Air-acetylene fame atomic absorption measurements
were made using a Varian SpectrAA 20
spectrophotometer. Working conditions and limits of
detection (3s criterion [17]) are shown in Table 2.
A Hanna Instruments pH meter was used to measure
pH. Sigma pH 7.00 0.01 and 4.00 0.01 calibration
buffers, were used. Milli-Q apparatus prepared high
purity deionized water.
2.4. Data analysis
2.4.1. Calculation of oral intake of metals from soil
through fruits
The daily intake of metals (DIM) from fruit was estimated
following Jolly et al. [18].
DIM = daily fruit consumption mean fruit metal
concentrations (mg day
-1
, fresh weight).
The daily fruit consumption was assumed to be
300 g per person [19].
Table 1. Therapeutic uses of plants.
Plant Binomial name Therapeutic signifcance Ref.
Hawthorn Crataegus laevigata L.
Treatment of atherosclerosis, relieves symptoms of angina pectoris and cardiac
arrhythmias, heart and menopausal problems.
[13]
Cornelian
cherry
Cornus mas L.
Astringent effect on the intestinal lining, treatment of diarrhea and other diseases of
the digestive tract
[14]
Blackthorn Prunus spinosa L. Treatment of skin problems, soothes stomach cramps [15]
Table 2. Working conditions and limits of detection.
Metal Calibration range
(mg L
-1
)
Limit of detection
(LOD) (mg L
-1
)
Wavelength
(nm )
Slit
(nm)
Acetylene fow
(L min
-1
)
Iron (Fe) 0.00-10.00 0.015 248.3 0.2 2.0
Copper (Cu) 0.00-1.00 0.007 324.8 1.0 1.8
Zinc (Zn) 0.00-5.00 0.021 213.9 0.5 2.0
Lead ( Pb) 0.00-1.00 0.002 217.0 1.0 1.6
Cadmium (Cd) 0.00-1.00 0.003 228.8 0.5 2.0
Manganese (Mn) 0.00-2.00 0.005 279.5 0.2 1.8
Nickel (Ni) 0.00-1.00 0.002 232.0 0.2 2.0
1145
Metals content of soil, leaves
and wild fruit from Serbia
2.4.2. Calculation of health risk index of metal
contamination of fruits
Health risk was characterized by a Hazard Quotient
(HQ) [20], the ratio between exposure and the reference
oral dose (R
f
D).
HQ = DIM / R
f
D,
Where R
f
D is the oral reference dose for the metal (mg
day
-1
), assuming 70 kg body weight. If HQ is less than 1
there will be no obvious risk. Although the HQ does not
quantitatively estimate the probability of negative health
effects, it provides an indication of health risk [18].
2.4.3. Statistical analysis
Principal component analysis was used to reduce
the dataset dimension and extract the statistical
relationships. It was performed using software for
Microsoft Excel

(XLSTAT 2014.2.03., Addinsoft SARL,

Paris, France).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Metal concentrations in soil, leaves and
fruit
Results of of Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu, Pb, Ni, Cu and Cd
determinations in soil, leaves and fruit are shown in
Table 3.
There were strong Pearson correlations between
iron and manganese (0.914), nickel and manganese
(0.934), nickel and iron (0.935); and good correlations
between manganese and zinc (0.665), iron and zinc
(0.705), nickel and zinc (0.649), lead and manganese
(0.624), cadmium and manganese (0.730), cadmium
and iron (0.791), copper and nickel (0.653), cadmium
and nickel (0.729), and cadmium and copper (0.714).
The iron content was several times higher than
that of the other metals, ranging from 20995.5 to
30007.6 mg kg
-1
in soil, 173.3 to 745.57 mg kg
-1
in leaves,
and 123.8 to 292.1 mg kg
-1
in fruit. The maximum Fe set
by FAO/WHO (1984) [21] in edible plants is 20 mg kg
-1
.
However, for medicinal plants WHO limits have not been
established [22].
Zinc is important in protein synthesis enzymes,
energy production, and in maintaining membranes.
Zn concentrations ranged 19.5468.89 mg kg
-1
in soil,
9.4328.63 mg kg
-1
in leaves, and 2.8218.48 mg kg
-1
in
fruit. According to the literature [23], soil Zn levels should
be not greater than 200300 mg kg
-1
. For a majority of
species, symptoms of zinc defciency appear with leaf
concentrations of 2030 mg kg
-1
. However, all Zn levels
we found were below those in the literature. The FAO/
WHO limit (1984) is 27.4 mg kg
-1
Zn [21] in edible plants.
Mn in soil varies from 114.71 to 410.52 mg kg
-1
,
in leaves from 10.96 to 107.89 mg kg
-1
, and in fruit
from 2.22 mg kg
-1
(Cornus mas L., Soko Banja) to
25.21 mg kg
-1
(Crataegus laevigata L., Svrljig)). The
FAO/WHO [21] Mn limit in edible plants is 2 mg kg
-1
.
Copper ranges 9.4821.46 mg kg
-1
in soil, 3.49
16.27 mg kg
-1
in leaves, and 2.5710.38 mg kg
-1
in fruit.
According to Allaway [24] Cu in agricultural products
should be between 4 and 15 mg kg
-1
, and FAO/WHO
(1984) [21] recommends 3.00 mg kg
-1
or less.
Cadmium was 0.361.41 mg kg
-1
in soil, 0.60
1.85 mg kg
-1
in leaves and 0.280.52 mg kg
-1
in fruit.
Maobe et al. [25] report FAO/WHO [25] cadmium limits
of 0.21 mg kg
-1
in edible plants. However, for medicinal
herbs WHO, Canada, China and Thailand allow
0.3 mg kg
-1
cadmium. Canadian cadmium limits in
fnished herbal products are 0.006 mg day
-1
[26].
Nickel was detected in soil (8.2525.22 mg kg
-1
),
and low soil lead concentrations were found at Svrljig
and Soko Banja. Neither was detected in leaves or
fruit. Maobe et al. [25] report FAO/WHO [21] Pb limits in
edible plants of 1.63 mg kg
-1
.
Other authors have presented similar fndings. In
unpolluted Indian soil the average zinc concentration
was 89.65 mg kg
-1
, copper was 27.41 mg kg
-1
and Cd
was 1.28. In one location the average zinc concentration
in plants was about 25.30 mg kg
-1
, copper about
16.72 mg kg
-1
and cadmium about 0.20 mg kg
-1
[7].
Soil metals in northwestern Romania vary from 66.3 to
238.1 mg kg
-1
(Cu), 108397 mg kg
-1
(Pb), and 0.48 to
3.12 mg kg
-1
(Cd). Plant metal concentrations from this
area are 2.64 to 19.55 mg kg
-1
(Cu), 0.26 to 3.24 mg kg
-1

(Pb) and 0.09 to 4.21 mg kg
-1
(Cd) [24].
Reiman et al. determined metals in birch, ash, and
fern leaves. Their results were higher than ours: iron was
20400 mg kg
-1
, zinc was 15.3864 mg kg
-1
, manganese
was 2055.91 mg kg
-1
, and cadmium was 0.02
1.47 mg kg
-1
[16].
We have recently reported correlations among
phenols content, metals and antioxidant activity of
plant extracts used in traditional Serbian medicine [27].
However, since the metals content of fowers were
determined, comparisons cannot be made.
3.2. Soil metals uptake to leaves and fruit
Plant uptake of trace metals depends on soil pH, soil
organics, and soil type, but the metals concentration in
the soil is the dominant factor [28]. The relationships
among metals concentrations in soil, foliage, and fruit
may be summarized by species-specifc plant uptake
1146
S. S. Randjelovic et al.
Table 3. Mean metal concentrations in soil, leaves and wild fruit.
Location Fruit Sample Zn
(XU)
mg kg
-1
Mn
(XU)
mg kg
-1
Fe
(XU)
mg kg
-1
Pb
(XU)
mg kg
-1
Ni
(XU)
mg kg
-1
Cu
(XU)
mg kg
-1
Cd
(XU)
mg kg
-1
Pukovac
Crataegus
laevigata L.
Soil
25.310.76 249.37.48 21184.5423.7 - 20.030.60 21.460.43 0.400.008
Leaves
23.600.47 40.550.81 189.763.79 - - 16.010.32 0.130.023
Fruit
11.500.35 5.470.16 145.62.91 - - 4.970.09 0.100.008
Prunus
spinosa L.
Soil
28.920.87 298.18.94 20995.5419.9 - 25.220.76 18.470.37 0.540.011
Leaves
27.800.56 48.190.96 216.994.34 - - 14.750.29 0.350.037
Fruit
14.780.44 6.940.21 162.83.26 - - 6.620.13 0.220.006
Cornus mas L.
Soil
20.430.61 213.896.42 22592.3451.8 - 21.630.65 17.220.34 0.500.010
Leaves
20.400.60 36.440.73 173.33.47 - - 13.210.26 0.220.024
Fruit
9.680.29 5.230.16 138.92.78 - - 5.010.10 0.080.009
Mokra
Crataegus
laevigata L.
Soil
24.650.74 246.787.40 21604.6432.1 - 12.250.37 11.930.24 0.530.011
Leaves
9.430.19 25.780.51 219.054.38 - - 10.160.20 0.230.019
Fruit
6.060.18 4.690.14 182.73.65 - - 7.960.16 0.090.007
Prunus
spinosa L.
Soil
65.741.97 300.689.02 26934.3538.7 - 19.400.58 18.160.36 0.690.014
Leaves
14.280.28 60.181.20 745.5714.91 - - 11.920.24 0.310.021
Fruit
4.260.13 2.670.08 164.53.29 - - 9.730.19 0.200.006
Cornus mas L.
Soil
19.540.59 139.574.19 21882.5437.6 - 8.250.25 16.930.34 0.940.019
Leaves
6.890.14 10.960.22 229.704.59 - - 12.990.26 0.540.028
Fruit
2.820.08 2.250.07 123.82.48 - - 10.380.21 0.380.007
Svrljig
Crataegus
laevigata L.
Soil
39.521.18 257.467.72 21681.3433.6 1.210.02 18.000.54 11.700.23 0.460.009
Leaves
18.700.37 97.081.94 181.753.63 - - 10.190.20 0.260.012
Fruit
16.490.49 25.210.76 176.53.53 - - 6.620.13 0.160.007
Prunus
spinosa L.
Soil
40.361.21 284.578.54 25318.1506.4 1.080.02 16.120.32 9.480.19 0.460.009
Leaves
21.510.43 107.892.15 316.116.32 - - 6.780.14 0.230.017
Fruit
15.620.47 8.340.25 251.35.03 - - 5.640.11 0.130.006
Cornus mas L.
Soil
36.111.08 2326.96 22556.4451.1 1.120.02 13.010.39 12.500.25 0.400.008
Leaves
19.120.38 85.91.72 294.755.89 - - 9.170.18 0.240.015
Fruit
16.540.49 7.990.24 205.54.11 - - 7.210.14 0.140.007
Aleksinac
Crataegus
laevigata L.
Soil
22.160.66 224.736.74 28307.4566.1 - 13.600.41 10.290.21 0.520.010
Leaves
17.350.35 26.710.53 336.376.73 - - 8.690.17 0.240.016
Fruit
13.590.41 10.630.32 256.55.13 - - 7.250.14 0.120.007
Prunus
spinosa L.
Soil
20.480.61 249.287.48 28226.5564.5 - 15.350.46 13.270.26 0.470.009
Leaves
19.290.39 49.730.99 346.086.92 - - 6.300.13 0.250.023
Fruit
13.670.41 5.050.15 222.74.45 - - 4.850.09 0.130.007
Cornus mas L.
Soil
68.892.07 114.713.44 30007.6600.1 - 13.700.41 16.950.34 0.530.011
Leaves
23.850.48 30.170.60 283.555.67 - - 16.270.32 0.270.031
Fruit
13.050.39 2.850.08 177.83.56 - - 7.470.15 0.140.009
Soko
Banja
Crataegus
laevigata L.
Soil
39.691.19 258.937.77 27993.3559.9 1.280.02 16.050.48 11.320.23 0.410.008
Leaves
28.630.57 48.200.96 348.966.98 - - 7.810.16 0.210.022
Fruit
17.250.52 10.780.32 272.85.46 - - 6.520.13 0.090.008
Prunus
spinosa L.
Soil
42.641.28 410.5212.32 29501.6590.0 1.260.02 20.650.62 14.560.29 0.550.011
Leaves
23.560.47 59.151.18 358.077.16 - - 9.920.19 0.240.013
Fruit
18.480.55 5.990.17 292.15.84 - - 6.840.14 0.130.007
Cornus mas L.
Soil
33.871.02 253.657.61 24352.6487.1 1.460.03 11.950.36 10.940.22 0.440.009
Leaves
26.350.53 27.600.55 549.610.99 - - 3.490.07 0.190.014
Fruit
14.460.43 2.220.07 221.74.43 - - 2.570.05 0.120.007
1147
Metals content of soil, leaves
and wild fruit from Serbia
Table 4. PUF values.
Location PUF Zn Mn Fe Pb Ni Cu Cd
Pukovac
Crataegus
laevigata L.
Soil-leaves 0.933 0.163 0.009 - - 0.45 0.65
Soil -fruit 0.4544 0.0219 0.0069 - - 0.23 0.25
Leaves-fruit 0.4873 0.1349 0.7673 - - 0.3104 0.77
Prunus spinosa L.
Soil-leaves 0.93 0.16 0.01 - - 0.45 0.65
Soil -fruit 0.51 0.02 0.75 - - 0.36 0.40
Leaves-fruit 0.53 0.14 0.75 - - 0.45 0.63
Cornus mas L.
Soil-leaves 0.51 0.17 0.008 - - 0.76 0.57
Soil -fruit 0.47 0.025 0.006 - - 0.29 0.16
Leaves-fruit 0.47 0.14 0.8 - - 0.38 0.36
Mokra
Crataegus
laevigata L.
Soil-leaves 0.383 0.104 0.01 - - 0.85 0.43
Soil -fruit 0.2458 0.0190 0.0085 - - 0.6672 0.17
Leaves-fruit 0.6426 0.1819 0.8340 - - 0.7834 0.39
Prunus spinosa L.
Soil-leaves 0.22 0.2 0.03 - - 0.81 0.45
Soil -fruit 0.07 0.009 0.006 - - 0.53 0.29
Leaves-fruit 0.30 0.044 0.22 - - 0.781 0.645
Cornus mas L.
Soil-leaves 0.35 0.078 0.01 - - 0.61 0.57
Soil -fruit 0.14 0.016 0.006 - - 0.61 0.40
Leaves-fruit 0.40 0.20 0.54 - - 0.79 0.71
Svrljig
Crataegus
laevigata L.
Soil-leaves 0.473 0.3760 0.01 - - 0.65 0.56
Soil -fruit 0.4170 0.0979 0.0081 - - 0.5658 0.35
Leaves-fruit 0.8818 0.2598 0.9697 - - 0.6490 0.62
Prunus spinosa L.
Soil-leaves 0.53 0.37 0.012 - - 0.83 0.50
Soil -fruit 0.38 0.03 0.01 - - 0.59 0.28
Leaves-fruit 0.72 0.08 0.79 - - 0.82 0.56
Aleksinac
Cornus mas L.
Soil-leaves 0.53 0.37 0.013 - - 0.73 0.60
Soil -fruit 0.45 0.03 0.009 - - 0.58 0.35
Leaves-fruit 0.86 0.093 0.69 - - 0.78 0.58
Crataegus
laevigata L.
Soil-leaves 0.61 0.12 0.012 - - 0.81 0.52
Soil -fruit 0.6133 0.0473 0.0090 - - 0.7046 0.23
Leaves-fruit 0.7833 0.3978 0.7625 - - 0.8343 0.50
Prunus spinosa L.
Soil-leaves 0.94 0.20 0.012 - - 0.475 0.53
Soil -fruit 0.66 0.02 0.008 - - 0.36 0.27
Leaves-fruit 0.71 0.10 0.64 - - 0.76 0.52
Cornus mas L.
Soil-leaves 0.35 0.26 0.01 - - 0.60 0.51
Soil -fruit 0.18 0.025 0.006 - - 0.44 0.51
Leaves-fruit 0.54 0.094 0.62 - - 0.46 0.29
Soko
Banja
Crataegus
laevigata L.
Soil-leaves 0.72 0.19 0.012 - - 0.69 0.51
Soil -fruit 0.4347 0.0416 0.0097 - - 0.5759 0.22
Leaves-fruit 0.6025 0.2236 0.7819 - - 0.8322 0.43
Prunus spinosa L.
Soil-leaves 0.55 0.144 0.012 - - 0.69 0.36
Soil -fruit 0.43 0.015 0.01 - - 0.47 0.24
Leaves-fruit 0.78 0.10 0.81 - - 0.69 0.65
Cornus mas L.
Soil-leaves 0.77 0.11 0.023 - - 0.32 0.43
Soil -fruit 0.43 0.009 0.009 - - 0.24 0.27
Leaves-fruit 0.55 0.08 0.40 - - 0.73 0.632
1148
S. S. Randjelovic et al.
factors (PUF), which measure the effciency of metal
accumulation [29]. They are defned by:
PUF
sf
= fruit concentration / soil concentration
PUF
sl
= leaf concentration / soil concentration
PUF
lf
= fruit concentration / leaf concentration
These factors are shown in Table 4.
Cd, Cu and Zn are more effciently concentrated in
leaves, while Mn and Fe are less so. Cu, Fe and Zn
accumulate more in fruit than leaves, Mn and Cd much
less so. Fe is deposited mostly in the fruit.
3.3. Principal components analysis
Principal components analysis extracted the principal
relationships among the data [30,31]. Samples may
then be classifed by their metal distribution. The data
matrix contained 45 rows (soil, leaves and fruit of three
species from fve areas) and seven columns (metal
concentrations). Seven principal components were
obtained to characterize the data. Their eigenvalues
(4.871, 0.995, 0.462, 0.305, 0.258, 0.074, and 0.035)
measure their relative contributions. As F1 and F2
together capture more than 80% of the variation, F3-F7
may be ignored (Fig. 1).
Some eigenvectors for factors (F1, F2, F3 and F4)
are positive and some are negative. All data points
make a positive contribution to F1. Fig. 2 shows the F1
F2 plot.
Zinc content increases from left to right and
manganese increases from bottom to top.
3.4. Daily metals intake from mixed fruit
Table 5 shows the approximate daily metals intake from
mixed fruit. These were calculated from average of the
fruit metals contents (Table 3), assuming a daily fruit
consumption of 300 g [19]. As fruit is mostly water, and
the analyses are reported on a dry weight basis, these
estimates of metal intake tend to be high. The metals
intake is thus within various agencies recommended
limits [32-36].
3.5. Potential health hazards (HQ)
The hazard quotients (HQ) for Zn, Mn, Fe, Pb, Ni, Cu
and Cd were 0.251, 0.425, 0.998, 0, 0, 0.664 and 0.639,
decreasing Fe>Cu>Cd>Mn>Zn>Pb=Ni. The HQ value
Figure 1. Factors and cumulative variability (%).
Table 5. Estimated daily intake of metal (DIM) from fruit.
Metal Average fruit
concentration (mg kg
-1
)
Daily Intake
(mg)
R
f
D
(mg day
-1
)
References
Zn 12.55 3.765 15.00 [18]
Mn 7.087 2.126 0.5-5.0 [18]
Fe 199.68 59.90 10.0-60.0 [18]
Pb 0 0 0.245 [35]
Ni 0 0 1.400 [34]
Cu 6.64 1.992 2.0-3.0 [18]
Cd 0.149 0.045 0.070 [34]

1149
Metals content of soil, leaves
and wild fruit from Serbia
for all the elements were below 1, suggesting that fruit
consumption is safe.
4. Conclusion
Zn, Mn, Cu and Cd were determined in soil and wild
fruits from southeast Serbia. Pb and Ni were found in
soil but not in leaves or fruit. The ratios among metals
concentrations in soil, leaf and fruit were calculated.
Strong correlations among concentrations in soil, leaves
and fruit were found. Principal component analysis
proved useful in classifying samples.
The metal contents of Crataegus laevigata L.,
Cornus mas L. and Prunus spinosa L. pose no hazard
to human health.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Ministry of Education
and Science of the Republic of Serbia (Project No.
172047). Biljana Arsic thanks the Ministry of Science and
Education, Republic of Serbia (Project No. 174007) for
fnancial support.
M. Arora, B. Kiran, S. Rani, A. Rani, B. Kaur,
N. Mittal, Food Chem. 111, 811 (2008)
A.O. Isiaka, O.A. Al Moaruf, O.B. Muibat,
O.I. Asiata, O.O. Nureni, Food Chem. 85, 67 (2004)
S. Jabeen, M. Tahir Shah, S. Khan, M. Qasim
Hayat, J. Med. Fruits Research 4(7), 559 (2010)
S.A. Khan, L. Khan, I. Hussain, K.B. Marwat,
N. Akhtar, Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 14(1-2), 101
(2008)
K.R Sharma, M. Agrawal, M.F. Marshall, Food
Chem. Toxicol. 47, 83 (2009)
Quality Control Methods for Medicinal Fruit
Materials (World Health Organization, Geneva,
2011), apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/
h1791e/h1791e.pdf
R. Singh, D.P. Singh, N. Kumar, S.K. Bhargava,
S.C. Barman, J. Environ. Biol. 421 (2010)
M. Radivojevic, V.N. Bashkin, Practical
Environmental Analysis (Royal Society of
Chemistry, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1999)
Observations (axes F1 and F2: 83,79 %)
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F1 (69,58 %)
F
2

(
1
4
,
2
1

%
)
Figure 2. Principal component F1-F2 plot. Labeling: 1 means that it is the frst sample from Table 3.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

1150
S. S. Randjelovic et al.
G.L. Echhorn, Mech. Ageing Dev. 9, 291 (1979)
S. Takacs, A. Tatar. Environ. Res. 42, 312 (1987)
Quality Control Methods for Medicinal Fruit Materials
(World Health Organization, Geneva, 1998),
whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/1998/9241545100.
pdf
S. Nookabkaew, N. Rangkadilok, J. Satayavivad, J.
Agric. Food Chem. 54, 6939 (2006)
WHO monographs on selected medicinal
plants, Folium cum Flore Crataegi (World Health
Organization Geneva, Switzerland, 2010), apps.
who.i nt/medi ci nedocs/documents/s17534en/
s17534en.pdf
N. Mamedov, L.E. Craker, In: L.E. Craker et al.
(Eds.), Cornelian cherry: A prospective source
for phytomedicine, Proc. XXVI IHC-Future for
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Acta Hort. 629,
ISHS (2004), Publication supported by Can. Int.
Dev. Agency (CIDA)
K. Browics, In: P.H. Davis, (Ed.), Flora of Turkey
and East Aegean Islands, Prunus, (University
Press, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 1972)
C. Reimann, A. Arnoldussen, R. Boyd, T.E. Finne,
F. Koller, O. Nordgulen, P. Englmaier, Sci. Total
Environ. 377, 416 (2007)
D. Perez-Bendito, S. Silva, Kinetic methods in
analytical chemistry (Ellis Harwood Limited, New
York, USA, 1988) 256
Y. Nahar Jolly, A. Islam, S. Akbar, SpringerPlus 2,
385 (2013)
P.M. Guenther, K.W. Dodd, J. Reedy,
S.M. Krebs-Smith, J. Am. Diet Assoc. 106(9), 1371
(2006)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human
Health Evaluation Manual [part A]: Interim Final (U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, USA 1989) [EPA/540/1-89/002]
FAO/WHO, Contaminants. In Codex Alimentarius,
vol. XVII, Edition 1. FAO/WHO. (Codex Alimentarius
Commision, Rome, 1984)
Quality Control Methods for Medicinal Plant
Materials (World Health Organization, Geneva,
1998), http://books.google.rs/books?id=4LazhtB
Dub0C&pg=PP11&lpg=PP11&dq=Quality+Contr
ol+Methods+for+Medicinal+Plant+Materials+(Wo
rld+Health+Organization,+Geneva,+1998)&sour
ce=bl&ots=3v_SKQexdT&sig=wAWfUolujulMMy
eRJJw8ul8CqKo&hl=sr&sa=X&ei=1LBHU6C_O-
j8ygO8hIDIDw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw
A. Kabata-Pendias, H. Pendias, Trace Elements
in Soils and Plants, 3rd edition (CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 2001)
M. Miclean, C. Roman, E. Levei, M. Senila,
B. Abraham, E. Cordos, Heavy metals availability
for plants in a mining area from North-Western
Romania, Research Report, INCDO-INOE 2000
(Research Institute for Analytical Instrumentation,
Romania, 2000)
M. A. G. Maobe, E. Gatebe, L. Gitu, H. Rotich,
Global J. Pharmacol. 6(3), 245 (2012)
Quality Control Methods for Medicinal Plant
Materials (World Health Organization, Geneva,
2005)
D.A. Kostic, J.M. Velickovic, S.S. Mitic, M.N. Mitic,
S.S. Randjelovic, B.B. Arsic, A.N. Pavlovic, Bull.
Chem. Soc. Ethiop. 27(2), 169 (2013)
M.C. Jung, Sensors. 8, 2413 (2008)
W.P. Gardiner, Statistical analysis methods for
chemists: a software-based approach (Royal
Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK, 1997)
J.D. Horel, Mon. Weather Rev. 109, 2080 (1981)
J.D. Horel, J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol. 23, 1660 (1984)
L. Friberg, G.F. Nordberg, B. Vpuk, Handbook on
the Toxicity of Metals (Elsevier, Bio Medical Press,
North Holland, Amsterdam, 1984)
Food and Nutritional Board, Recommended Intake
for Individuals, Dietary Reference Intakes [DRis]
(National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC,
USA, 2004)
Integrated Risk Information System (U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency [US EPA], 2010)
Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and
Contaminants. In: Forty-First Report of the joint
FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.
WHO Technical Series, 837 (World Health
Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1993)
Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and
Contaminants. In: Sixty-First Report of the joint FAO/
WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. WHO
Technical Series, 922 (World Health Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland, 2004)
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
1151