1. Comparative Assessment of Heavy Metals between
Brand and Non-brand Cow Milk with Validated
Method and Possible Human Health Risks
Presented by
Md. Iftakharul Muhib
M. Sc. Roll: 1297
M. Sc. Session: 2013-2014
Course no.: Env. 5011
Department of Environmental Sciences,
Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka-1342

2. Layout
 Problem Statement
 Research Purpose Statement
 Research Questions
 Hypothesis
 Methodologies
>Validation Test
>Estimated Daily Index (EDI) Calculation
>Hazardous Quotients (HQs) Calculation
>Carcinogenic Risk (CR) Calculation
 Competition of the Study
 Time Frame of the Study
 Acknowledgement

3. Problem Statement
• Cow Milk is the main constituents of daily diet especially for
vulnerable groups such as infants, school age children and old age
people that serves as a source of essential nutrients required for
the biological functions and growth of the bodies. (Tassew et al.,
2014 and Leotsinidis et al., 2005).
• Preliminary studies in different parts of Bangladesh indicate that
the food chain is exposed to contamination by heavy metals and
cow milk is one of this source (Shahriar et al., 2014, Saiful et al.,
2015).
• The toxic and accumulative effect of the heavy metals in human
body causes often irreversible damage like kidney disease, damage
to the nerve system, diminished intellectual capacity, heart disease,
gastrointestinal disease, bone fracture, cancer and death (Jarup,
2003; Paulo et al., 2015).

4. Research Purpose Statement
The objective of this study is to determine a
comparative view on heavy metal concentrations in
both brand and non-brand cow milk samples
collected from different areas of Savar Upozila and to
analyze the possible future human health risks due
to consumption of cow milk associated with heavy
metals collected from the study areas.

5. Research Questions
• What is the present concentration scenarios of heavy
metal in brand and non-brand cow milk?
• What could be the possible sources of heavy metal
contamination in cow milk?
• Why would we select the most validated procedure for
assessing heavy metal concentrations in our study by
trial and error method?
• How human health risks significantly related to daily
exposure of heavy metal contaminated cow milk?
• How this study does agree, satisfy or disagree with the
previous study?

6. Hypothesis
Despite the essential benefits derived from consuming
cow milk, the prevalent cases of heavy metal
contamination in milk in Bangladesh arising from modern
agricultural practices, industrial pollutants in the
environment, cattle feeds, brand milk manufacturing and
packaging processes had been found by different
Authors. As the consequences, both hazardous and
carcinogenic human health risks could be generated.
Since different methods were used for analyzing heavy
metal concentration in milk by Authors according to their
suitability, we will perform a validity test to identify the
most suitable methods for our study relevance.

7. Methodologies
Table: Method Validation tests for our study
Method Id Acids used for milk digestion References
M-1 HNO3 + HCLO4 (10 ml + 5 ml) Nnadozie et al., 2014
M-2 HNO3 + H2O2 (10 ml + 3 ml) Elatrash and Atoweir,
2014
M-3 Sample + HNO3 (1 gm + 5 ml) Rubina et al., 2013
M-4 HNO3 + HCLO4 (7 ml + 4 ml) Dawd et al., 2012
M-5 Supernatant Sample + HNO3
(15 ml + 5 ml)
Syed and Ebrahim,
2012
M-6 HNO3 + HNO3 + HCLO4 + H2O2
(15 ml + 5 ml + 5 ml + drop
wise)
Jolanta et al., 1996
M-7 HNO3 + H2O2 (6 ml + 1 ml) Tassew et al., 2014
M-8 HNO3 + HCl + HF (2 ml + 6 ml
+ 2 ml)
European Committee
for Standardization,
2002
100
The recovery percentages will be
calculated by the following
equation:
Where, CE= Experimental
concentration (ppm) and CM=
Spiked Concentration (ppm)

8. Methodologies continued…
Estimated daily intake (EDI) Calculation :
Hazard quotients (HQs) Calculation :
Here, FIR = Daily milk consumption rate (39.2 ml/day for Bangladesh) (HIES, 2011)
C= metal concentrations (mg/l) in milk and BW= body weight of an adult resident, 60 kg was considered for our study
(Islam et al., 2014).
Here, EDI= estimated daily intake of metal (mg/day)
Carcinogenic Risk (CR) Calculation:
10-3
10-3
Here, EFr= exposure frequency (350 days/year), ED= exposure duration (30 years) (USEPA, 2006). AT= averaging time for
carcinogens (365 days/year 70 years). CSFo stands for oral carcinogenic slope factor (USEPA, 2010).
RfD= oral reference dose (mg/kg/day). For Cr, Cd, Cu and Pb it is. 0.003, 0.001, 0.04 and 0.004 respectively (USEPA, 2010;
Islam et al., 2014). HQs indicate potential health risk when it is equal or higher than 1 (Islam et al., 2014).

9. Methodologies continued…

10. Competition of the Study
Focuses Previous works Our work
Validation Test for heavy metal
analysis in milk
Validity test didn’t get
emphasized in Bangladesh
perspective
Validity tests will be done
Sample Comparison So far No significant
comparative study of heavy
metal analysis had found in the
literatures between brand milk
and non-brand milk in
Bangladesh Perspective .
A comparative study between
brand milk and non-brand milk
will be analyzed.

11. Time Frame of the Study (December, 2014-November, 2015)
December January February March April May June July August September October November
Research
Planning
Literature
Reviews
Method
Validation
Tests
Sample
Collection
Sample
Digestion
AAS
Analysis
Report
Writing

12. I feel immense pride in expressing my profound gratitude to
my honorable guide, supervisor and teacher:
1. Professor Dr. Md Khabir Uddin, Department of
Environmental Sciences, JU.
2. Dr. Muhammed Alamgir Zaman Chowdhury, Principal
Scientific Officer, AERD, IFRB, AERE.
3. Dr. Md. Latiful Bari, Principal Scientist, Head, Food Analysis
and Research Laboratory, Center for Advanced Research in
Science, D.U.
Acknowledgements

13. Thank You…….