Effect of two different rice dehusking procedures on total arsenic concentration in rice
- 285 Downloads
Pollution of subterranean water by arsenic (As) in Asia has resulted in the worst chemical disaster in human history. For populations living on subsistence rice diets, As contamination of rice grain contributes greatly to dietary As exposure. The main objectives of this study were to compare two dehusking processes: (a) wet process (soaking of rice, boiling and mechanical hulling) and (b) dry process (mechanical hulling), and recommend the method leading to a lower As content in commercial rice. In general, hulling of paddy rice (373 μg As kg−1) significantly decreased As content in rice grain (311 μg As kg−1). The final As concentrations in boiled rice (final product of the wet process) and atab rice (dry process) were 332 and 290 μg kg−1. Thus, the dry method is recommended for dehusking paddy rice if not As-free water is available. However, villagers can reduce the As content in the wet system by discarding the soaking water and using new water for the light boiling. Finally, it is not recommended to use rice husk for feeding animals because the As concentration is very high, approximately 1,000 μg As kg−1.
KeywordsAnimal feed Hulling Husk Paddy rice West Bengal
This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union (Development of a low cost technology for in situ treatment of groundwater for potable and irrigation purposes, TIPOT, ASI/B7-301/2598/24-2004/79013) and Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo (CAM-2006). The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of UMH and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union and/or CAM.
- 2.Chowdhury TR, Basu GK, Mandal DK, Samanta G, Chowdhury UK, Chanda CR, Lodh D, Lal Roy S, Saha KC, Roy S, Quamruzzaman Q, Charaborti D (1999) Nature 401:545–546Google Scholar
- 4.Liangfang W, Jianghong H (1994) Chronic arsenism form drinking water in some areas of Xinjiang, China. In: Nriagu JO (ed) Human health and ecosystem effects. Wiley, New York, pp 159–172Google Scholar
- 5.Chen SL, Yeh SJ, Yang MH, Lin TH (1995) Biol Trace Elem Res 48:263–274Google Scholar
- 6.Kapaj S, Peterson H, Liber K, Bhattacharya P (2006) J Environ Sci Health. 41:2399–2428Google Scholar
- 13.TIPOT (2006) Development of a low cost technology for in-situ treatment of groundwater for potable and irrigation purposes http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TIPOT
- 17.Hironaka H, Ahmad SA (2003) Arsenic concentration of rice in Bangladesh. In: Ahmed MF, Ali MA, Adeel Z (eds) Fate of arsenic in the environment. International Training Network Centre and Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, pp 123–130Google Scholar
- 19.Alam MZ, Rahman MM (2003) Accumulation of arsenic in rice plant from arsenic contaminated irrigation water and effect on nutrient content. In: Ahmed MF, Ali MA, Adeel Z (eds) Fate of arsenic in the environment. International Training Network Centre and Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, pp 131–135Google Scholar
- 20.Ali MA, Badruzzaman ABM, Jalil MA, Hossain MD, Ahmed MF, Al Masud AA, Kamruzzaman Md, Rahman MA (2003) Arsenic in plant-soil environment in Bangladesh. In: Ahmed MF, Ali MA, Adeel Z (eds) Fate of arsenic in the environment. International Training Network Centre and Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, pp 85–112Google Scholar
- 21.WHO (1989) Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants. In: 33rd Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on food Additives. WHO Technical Report Series 749; WHO, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar