HEAVY METAL MONITORING AROUND THE ... - Springer Link

2 downloads 2 Views 372KB Size Report
Abstract. The concentrations of Cd, Pb, Fe, Cr, Ni, Se, Sb, As and Cu were investigated in the nesting environment of green turtles in Mediterranean Sea near ...

HEAVY METAL MONITORING AROUND THE NESTING ENVIRONMENT OF GREEN SEA TURTLES IN TURKEY ¨ ˙IN BAG ˘ 2 , MONICA AUREGGI3 , AL˙I C ¸ EL˙IK1,∗ , YAKUP KASKA1 , HUSEY ¨ GURKAN SEM˙IZ1 , ASLIHAN ARSLAN KARTAL4 and LAT˙IF ELC¸˙I4 1

Pamukkale University, Faculty of Science and Arts, Department of Biology, Denizli-Turkey; Pamukkale University, Faculty of Education, Department of Science Teaching, Denizli-Turkey; 3 Naucrates, Onlus-Friends of Sea Turtles Via Corbetta, 11-22063 Cantu’ (CO), Italy; 4 Pamukkale University, Faculty of Science and Arts, Department of Chemistry, Denizli-Turkey. (∗ author for correspondence, e-mail: [email protected], Tel: +90-258-213-4030, Fax: +90-258-212-5546) 2

(Received 11 August 2003; accepted 26 July 2005)

Abstract. The concentrations of Cd, Pb, Fe, Cr, Ni, Se, Sb, As and Cu were investigated in the nesting environment of green turtles in Mediterranean Sea near Kazanlı, Mersin-Turkey. Tissues of plants growing on the beach and the adjacent environment, beach sand, sea ground sediment, sea grass as well as the egg shells from the nests were analyzed and the results showed no significant high levels of heavy metals detected. The higher levels of metals (Cr, Cu, Pb, Cd and As) were found in the samples from ground sea sediments. Ni and Sb were found at higher levels in river waters and Fe was at the highest in field soil. The high levels of Pb, Fe and Cd were also detected in sea grass, and the Cr, Cu and Ni in sea lily when comparison made with other plants. The levels of essential elements such as Fe and Cu were detected as the highest in most of the specimens. The herbivorous green turtles might be affected from the heavy metal concentrations in the future, since they feed on mainly sea grass. The accumulation of heavy metals via rivers into the sea might cause some pollution problems. Keywords: green turtle, nesting environment, sea lily, sea grass, egg shells, heavy metals, Turkey

1. Introduction Two species of marine turtles nest regularly on the Mediterranean beaches: the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta L.) and the green turtle (Chelonia mydas L.) (Groombridge, 1990). Both the loggerhead and green turtle are globally endangered; Mediterranean subpopulation of green turtles has been recently classed as “critically endangered”. According to investigations made so far, there may be on average some 2000 female C. caretta and 300–500 female C. mydas nesting annually in the Mediterranean (Groombridge, 1990). A more recent approximate estimation reported 115–580 C. mydas nesting females per season (Kasparek et al., 2001). Genetic studies have shown that green and loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean were most probably originated from Florida and colonized in the Mediterranean Sea about 10.000–12.000 years ago (Bowen et al., 1993). The distribution of nesting of C. mydas was found to be localized mostly in the eastern Mediterranean region, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution (2006) 169: 67–79

C 

Springer 2006

68

A. C ¸ EL˙IK ET AL.

Figure 1. The nesting beaches of sea turtles in Turkey.

the only substantial nesting areas being Turkey (Figure 1) and Cyprus, with a few nests also recorded in Israel, Lebanon and Egypt. Majority (up to 70%) of the green turtles in the Mediterranean probably nest on the beaches of Turkey (Kasparek et al., 2001). One of the potential threats to the life span and survival of marine turtles is pollution (i.e., Lutcavage et al., 1997). One of the major categories of potential pollutants that have impact upon marine turtles is solid debris, oil and tar (Gramentz, 1988). The heavy metal contaminants in eggshells, yolk and embryonic livers of loggerhead turtles from Turkey have also been investigated (Kaska and Furness, 2001). Other reports of pollution in the Mediterranean have also been published (Godley et al., 1999; Kaska et al., 2004). Mediterranean region is of interest to conservation biologist due to heavy population in the region. Competing demands on land use from urbanization, agriculture, forestry and recreation have produced new and complex landscapes in the Mediterranean climates (Cody, 1986). The treasures from thousands of years of history have served as an attractive force for population increase in the Mediterranean region during the pre-industrial period. Population increase has shown a great enhancement in the post-industrial period. The reasons for this have been an increase in industrial establishments, in particular tourism, better working facilities and favor¨ urk et al., 2002). Coastal environments are subjected able climatic conditions (Ozt¨ to trace element contamination via inputs from point sources (industry and urban), and diffuse sources (natural run-off and atmospheric deposition) that are transported via river discharge, oceanic dumping and Aeolian processes (Olsen et al., 1982). Trace elements deposited in coastal system can become incorporated into the biota and may be influenced by chemical and biological processes in the water column, sediments and biota (Kraal et al., 1995). The rapid growth of human population, increased urbanization, and expansion of industrial activities caused more heavy

METALS IN GREEN TURTLE NESTING ENVIRONMENT

69

metals to be released to soil, water and air in increasing amounts. For example, a recent report has confirmed that automobiles are the dominant source of air pol¨ urk and T¨urkan, 1993), due to Pb contents of lution in many cities of Turkey (Ozt¨ gasoline sold in Turkey are rather high. Moreover, in Turkey, the rapid industrial expansion and the large concentration of people in major cities, together with an unfortunate lack of environmental policies, are forecasting serious environmental problems. A total of 65 stranded turtles were found only during the summer of 2001 on the beaches of Turkey, although the majority of (n = 42) these stranded turtles were loggerhead turtles and the remaining (n = 23) were green sea turtles (Kaska et al., 2004). The main causes of these stranding are speculated to be due to heavy metal pollution on the region where the majority of stranding occurred but the actual metal levels in the tissues were not high (Kaska et al., 2004). The nesting grounds of C. mydas were Kazanlı, Akyatan and Samanda˘g beaches in the southeastern part of Turkey (Figure 1). Although there were many studies dealing with the heavy metals in the tissues of turtles, there was not any dealing with the nesting environment. The purposes of this study were to document heavy metal concentrations in the nesting beach (beach sand, egg shells, plants, fresh and sea waters) of green turtles in Kazanlı and to address the question of possible heavy metal contaminations to the nesting environments of green sea turtles. Since, botanical materials such as fungi, lichens, tree bark, tree rings and leaves of higher and lower plants are probably the organisms most frequently used for monitoring metal pollution in urban environments (Garty et al., 1977; Market, 1993). We, therefore, collected some plant samples to monitor the heavy metal levels around Kazanlı beach.

2. Materials and Methods A green turtle monitoring program was conducted on a daily basis from 15th of June until 9th of September 2001 on Kazanlı beach (Aureggi, 2001). Kazanlı beach is located near an industrialized city of Mersin (Figure 1). All the samples were collected in the vicinity of Kazanlı beach. The tissues from dead animals (Kaska et al., 2004) and the gut contents of the green turtles were collected. During the hatching season a sample of 3 eggshells per nest were removed from 12 nests after hatching and air dried for about 10 days and then dried in oven at 50 ◦ C for 4–7 days to a constant weight. Eggshells, sand and soil samples, ground sea sediments and water samples were prepared for the analysis according to the procedures recommended by Cantle (1986). The ground sea sediments were obtained at about 5 meters depth with the help of divers. The method used for plant digestion was described by Perkin Elmer Corporation (Perkin Elmer Corporation, 1996). Concentrations of elements in the samples were determined by flame atomic absorption spectrophotometer (FAAS) (Perkin Elmer AA Analyst 700 Model Flame

70

A. C ¸ EL˙IK ET AL.

Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer). Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Fe, Se, Cd, Sb, and As were determined by using FAAS. The absorption measurements of the elements were performed under the conditions recommended by the manufacturer. The samples were spiked with the analytes to test the accuracy of the analysis (Ba˘g et al., 1999, 2000; Tun¸celi et al., 2001). All chemicals used were of analytical reagent grade unless otherwise specified. Triply distilled water was used throughout the experiments. Working metal standard solutions were prepared just before use by diluting the stock standard solution with water. After calibration of the instrument using standards, several standards were repeated throughout each set (∼5 samples) of analyses. The concentration of the metal is calculated from the reading from the spectrophotometer by multiplying by 10 which is the dilution factor and dividing by the dry weight of the tissue.

3. Results and Discussion The metal concentrations in the sand, soil, plant, sea turtle eggshells and water samples are presented in Table I and data from related literature are given in Table II. As shown in Table I, the accuracy of the results was quite satisfactory. The relative errors were lower that 5% in all measurements. As an essential element, Fe was the highest concentrations in all specimens and reached the maximum level in beach sand and field soil samples. Most of the elements measured were almost the highest in ground sea sediments. Ni and Sb were higher in river waters than the others. Cr and Ni were most variable concentrations in all specimens. Cr, Cu and Ni were higher concentrations in the Pancratium maritimum L. (Sea Lily) which is abundantly grow on the beaches of Kazanlı. The other plants growing around the beach and field farms had lower concentrations of the metals. Pb, Fe and Cd were higher in the sea grass (Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile) (Sea grass) and gut content which was mainly P. oceanica. In the eggshells, the concentrations of the essential elements such as Fe, Cu and Ni were higher than those of the other heavy metals. Their concentrations were generally low and similar to those found in the literature (Table II). Some of the elements were found below the detection limits. The Se concentrations were not detected in all specimens. Although the comparisons of these metals in different organisms and different habitats were possible via ANOVA (P < 0.001 in all comparisons), the deep sea sediments were containing higher values of As, Cd, Pb, Cu, and Cr. Ni and Sb were higher in the river water and Fe was higher in the field soil may be due to fertilizers. The plants on the beach, especially P. maritimum, were containing higher values of Cr, Cu, Ni, and As may be due to perennial plant on the beach around year as a green plant or bulb. The main gut content of the green turtles is sea grass and the transfer of these heavy metals especially Pb and Cd is possible via food chain to the herbivorous green turtles. The higher Cd values were reported in the tissues of green turtles (Kaska et al., 2004) as seen in comparative values in Table II.

As (0.19)

Sb (0.06)

Cd (0.07)

Fe (0.32)

Pb (0.03)

Ni (0.09)

Cu (0.01)

Cr (0.10)

Element/detection limits (µg mL−1 )

ND





















-







2

1









2



2.18 ± 0.06 −3.53

ND

2



1



0.26 ± 0.16 – 1.21 ± 0.11 −3.96

1

10

188.45 ± 0.08 −0.30

10



5



179.20 ± 2.34 –

184.01 ± 0.01 −0.10

2.18 ± 0.07 −1.38 3.07 ± 0.15 −4.36

1

2

5

5 10

1.21 ± 0.12 –



10 –

37,09 ± 0.03 −0.59

10



5

32.18 ± 0.07 −0.40

5

10 –

−1.15

27.31 ± 0.15 –



27.45 ± 0.7

22.63 ± 0.02 −0.61

5

5

10 –

47.09 ± 0.12 −1.67 17.77 ± 1.16

10



5



37.89 ± 0.09 – 41.99 ± 0.04 −2.09

5

10

Field sand (N = 10)

81.75 ± 0.09

54.11 ± 0.06

49.08 ± 0.13

44.4 ± 0.07

42.23 ± 0.02

37.21 ± 0.05

32.99 ± 0.24

36.61 ± 0.08

31.63 ± 0.01

27.37 ± 1.16



−3.23

3.29 ± 0.11









−3.25

−3.42



−0.18

−0.21



−0.53

−0.65



−1.77

−2.05



−2.03

−2,29

−3.33

1.4 ± 1.30

−1.44 –

2.32 ± 0.16

ND

2.38 ± 0.04

1.41 ± 0.12

0.46 ± 0.26

243.19 ± 0.01

238.13 ± 0.03

233.63 ± 19.8



– 5

5

4

2

2

1

2

1

2

1







10

5



2

1



10





10





−3.17

−3.52



−3.88

−3.95



−1.35

−1.45



−3.93

−3.79 −3.56

2.28 ± 0.08 3.25 ± 0.02

3.09 ± 0.07

2.11 ± 0.15

−2.52

−2.76





1.17 ± 0.38

−3.20 1.37 ± 0.48

−3.28



−3.73

−3.14

3.62 ± 0.29

2.65 ± 0.21

1.74 ± 0.42

54.12 ± 0.17

49.61 ± 0.09

46.22 ± 34.48 –

4.39 ± 0.04

3.43 ± 0.011 −3.92

2.57 ± 0.07

24.09 ± 0.03

19.18 ± 0.01

14.88 ± 2.89

12.85 ± 0.15

11.82 ± 0.18

9.37 ± 4.58

32.81 ± 0.06

27.85 ± 0.16

23.26 ± 0.53 5

5

5

5

2

1

4

2

2

1







10



2 4



10



10



10





−2.16

−2.19



−1.74

−1.73



−1.39

−1.66



−2.05

−2.08

−1.44

−3.17

−2.68



−3.92

−3.88



−3.31

−2.86



−1.49

(Continued on next page)

5.35 ± 0.5

3.26 ± 0.11

3.35 ± 1.30

5.14 ± 0.03

3.22 ± 0.07

2.35 ± 1.30

9.03 ± 0.24

7.13 ± 0.35

5.34 ± 0.42

147.56 ± 0.20

142.71 ± 0.23

139.8 ± 15.38 –

12.23 ± 0.04

10.27 ± 0.09

8.50 ± 0.33

45.02 ± .07

40.11 ± 0.03

35.82 ± 2.48

41.08 ± 0.01

36.05 ± 0.05

31.66 ± 3.25

89.05 ± 0.12

84.13 ± 0.15

80.92 ± 0.21

Relative error (%)

Ground sea sediment (N= 5)

Relative Added Found error (%) (µg mL−1 ) (µg mL−1 )

Well water (N = 10) Relative Added Found error (%) (µg mL−1 ) (µg mL−1 )

76.11 ± 0.024 −1.84

72.54 ± 0.65

Relative Added Found error (%) (µg mL−1 ) (µg mL−1 )



Added Found (µg mL−1 ) (µg mL−1 )

Beach sand (N = 15)

TABLE I The mean heavy metal concentrations (µg g−1 dry weight) of sand, soil and water (µg mL−1 ) around nesting environment of Kazanlı beach and the detection limits (µ mL−1 ) in our measurements

METALS IN GREEN TURTLE NESTING ENVIRONMENT

71



Ni −3.12 – −3.81 −3.86 – −2.31 −2.13

3.81 ± 0.06

1.62 ± 0.27

2.52 ± 0.53

3.48 ± 0.05

45.19 ± 29.1

49.03 ± 3.04

54.01 ± 0.87

10

1

2

5

10 −3.52 −3.94 – −3.03 −3.44 – −3.03 −3.01

2.46 ± 0.15

3.41 ± 0.07

0.32 ± 0.38

1.28 ± 0.21

2.24 ± 0.03

0.32 ± 0.38

1.28 ± 0.45

2.25 ± 0.32

1

2

1

2

2



1



As

Sb





Cd

1.55 ± 0.20



−3.91

28.23 ± 1.24

5

Fe



24.9 ± 5.69



−3.29

8.85 ± 1.04

4

Pb

−3,66

6.89 ± 1.07



5.152 ± 2.80

2

−3.40

13.89 ± 0.01

4



−3.71

11.92 ± 0.08

Cu



10.38 ± 0.42

Cr

2



Element

Relative error (%)

Found (µg mL−1 )

Surface sea water (N = 15)

Added (µg mL−1 )

5

5

5

2

1

2

1



2

1





10

5

4

2 –



10



10



10



Added (µg mL−1 )

4.05 ± 0.63

3.09 ± 0.51

2.21 ± 0.36

4.06 ± 0.34

3.09 ± 0.81

2.21 ± 0.36

4.91 ± 0.23

3.95 ± 0.08

3.08 ± 0.01

114.08 ± 2.68

109.13 ± 3.06

105.66 ± 14.7

10,01 ± 0.20

8.01 ± 0.06

6.16 ± 0.08

48.17 ± 0.16

43.36 ± 0.01

39.86 ± 0.29

34.11 ± 0.01

29.27 ± 0.04

25.45 ± 0.45

67.54 ± 0.06

62.73 ± 0.13

58.54 ± 0.49

Found (µg mL−1 )

−3.80

−3.73



−3.56

−3.73



−3.34

−3.18



−1.36

−1.38



−1.47

−1.83



−3.38

−3.34



−3.77

−3.87



−1.45

−1.27



Relative error (%)

River water-inland (N = 15)

TABLE I (Continued)

5

5

5

2

1

2

1



2

1





10

5

4

2 –



10



10



10



4.80 ± 1.61

3.83 ± 1.25

2.98 ± 1.13

4.79 ± 0.71

3.85 ± 0.98

2.98 ± 1.13

5.81 ± 0.18

4.88 ± 0.026

4.05 ± 0.87

101.38 ± 3.72

97.04 ± 4.09

95.06 ± 14.04

8.99 ± 0.02

7.08 ± 0.06

5.36 ± 0.00

40.09 ± 2.61

35.13 ± 3.39

31.16 ± 7.27

29.72 ± 0.54

24.88 ± 0.32

20.89 ± 0.09

58.01 ± 0.09

53.02 ± 0.11

49.21 ± 0.19

Found (µg mL−1 )

−3.61

−3.76



−3.81

−3.26



−3.96

−3.36



−3.50

−3.01



−3.95

−3.80



−2.59

−2.84



−3.78

−3.90



−2.02

−2.19



Relative error (%)

River water-seaside (N = 15) Added (µg mL−1 )

5

2

1















10

5

4

2 –



10

5

2

1 –



10















−3.52

−3.75



−0.74

−0.83



−3.86

−3.84



−2.22

−2.43



−3.68

−3.44



−2.25

−2.22



Relative error (%)

(Continued on next page)





ND







3.28 ± 0.43

2.31 ± 0.21

1.40 ± 0.09

138.14 ± 1.62

133.05 ± 2.04

129.17 ± 26.2

12.18 ± 0.37

10.26 ± 0.51

8.67 ± 0.64

33.01 ± 0.03

28.06 ± 0.14

23.76 ± 0.22

6.28 ± 0.35

5.33 ± 0.92

4.52 ± 1.01

32.13 ± 0.06

27.25 ± 0.01

22.87 ± 0.14

Found (µg g−1 )

Posidonia oceanica (N = 10) Added (µg g−1 )

72 A. C ¸ EL˙IK ET AL.

As

Cd















−2.11

3.24 ± 0.08

2

ND

−2.59

2.25 ± 0.01

1





−1.04

121.32 ± 2.65

1.31 ± 0.07

−1.73

115.56 ± 2.04

5

10





112.60 ± 17.20



Fe

−3.02

9.95 ± 0.61

4

– −2.66

−2.23

31.05 ± 0.07

8.04 ± 0.34

−2.16

26.18 ± 0.04

5

10

2



21.76 ± 0.12



−2.74

6.73 ± 0.34

2

6.26 ± 0.68

−2.70

5.76 ± 0.17

1





4.92 ± 0.25

−1.90

29.86 ± 0.16

10



−1.57

Pb

Ni

Cu



20.44 ± 0.11

25.04 ± 0.32

Relative error (%)

5

Cr

Found (µg g−1 )



Added (µg g−1 )

Element

Ulva lactuca (N = 10)

5

2

1









10

5

4

2 –



10

5

2

1 –



10



Added (µg g−1 )





ND

2.93 ± 0.06

1.98 ± 0.02

1.02 ± 0.25

90.02 ± 4.01

85.13 ± 5.21

80.76 ± 68.02

10.81 ± 0.34

8.88 ± 0.18

7.20 ± 0.65

31.98 ± 0.41

27.09 ± 0.54

22.38 ± 0.28

6.14 ± 0.93

5.19 ± 1.02

4.34 ± 1.61

30.10 ± 0.10

25.22 ± 0.04

20.48 ± 0.16

Found (µg g−1 )







−2.98

−1.98



−0.81

−0.73



−3.48

−3.47



−1.23

−1.05



−3.15

−2.80



−1.24

−1.02



Relative error (%)

Gut content-P. oceanica (N = 10)

2

1

– 4

2

2

1



10

5





10

5



10

5



10

5



Added (µg g−1 )

−3.04 – −0.93 −1.11

7.63 ± 1.36 9.54 ± 0.86 11.50 ± 1.07

−3.06



−3.77

−3.86



−2.59

−2.29



−3.24

−2.91



−2.21

−1.87



−2.27

−2.00



Relative error (%)

2.55 ± 0.54

1.58 ± 0.04

0.63 ± 0.27

23.47 ± 1.09

18.64 ± 1.65

14.39 ± 2.12

2.25 ± 0.04

1.28 ± 0.07

0.31 ± 0.01

36.66 ± 2.41

31.93 ± 1.86

27.89 ± 3.23

30.51 ± 0.87

25.71 ± 0.41

21.20 ± 1.36

36.07 ± 0.16

31.27 ± 0.09

26.91 ± 0.31

Found (µg g−1 )

Pancratium maritimum-whole plant (N = 30)

TABLE I (Continued)

5

5

5

4

2

2

1 –



10

5

2

1 –



10



10



10



10.09 ± 0.11

8.13 ± 0.09

6.19 ± 0.01

2.41 ± 0.04

1.42 ± 0.15

0.43 ± 0.36

44.15 ± 0.02

39.37 ± 0.05

34.84 ± 0.27

2.46 ± 0.35

1.48 ± 0.54

0.50 ± 0.12

36.09 ± 0.01

31.17 ± 0.07

26.87 ± 0.02

24.08 ± 3.01

19.18 ± 2.21

14.32 ± 5.26

35.09 ± 0.17

30.23 ± 0.51

25.70 ± 0.65

Found (µg g−1 )

−0.98

−0.73



−0.82

−0.69



−1.53

−1.17



−1.60

−1.33

−2.11

−2.19





−0.98

−0.72



−1.70

−1.53



Relative error (%)

(Continued on next page)

Added (µg g−1 )

Convolvulus lanatus-leaves (N = 15)

METALS IN GREEN TURTLE NESTING ENVIRONMENT

73

– −1.59 −1.90 – −0.58 −0.59 – −2.41 −2.67 – −0.29 −0.42 – −1.02 −1.01 – −0.56 −0.95

12.55 ± 9.80

17.27 ± 5.01

22.12 ± 3.08

22.20 ± 0.52

27.04 ± 0.45

32.01 ± 0.36

0.24 ± 0.02

1.021 ± 0.05

2.18 ± 0.07

41.85 ± 2.02

46.71 ± 1.04

51.63 ± 0.98

0.96 ± 0.41

1.94 ± 0.26

2.93 ± 0.31

4.30 ± 2.34

5.27 ± 1.56

6.24 ± 1.23

5

10

5

10

1

2

5

10

2

2



1



1









−2.43

32.02 ± 0.09

10

ND: not detected.

As

Cd

Fe

Pb

Ni

Cu

– −2.49

23.82 ± 0.04

28.10 ± 0.10

5

Cr

Relative error (%)

Found (µg g−1 )



Added (µg g−1 )

Element

Gleditschia triacanthos-leaves (N = 15)

5

5

5

5

2

1





4

2

2

1

10





10



10



10



Added (µg g−1 )

10.39 ± 1.25

8.43 ± 1.07

6.50 ± 1.18

2.32 ± 0.16

1.34 ± 0.09

0.36 ± 0.31

32.97 ± 0.38

28.02 ± 0.51

23.15 ± 0.60

2.20 ± 0.34

1.051 ± 0.21

0.53 ± 0.09

32.75 ± 0.04

27.84 ± 0.09

23.10 ± 0.16

30.56 ± 0.07

25.61 ± 0.01

20.78 ± 0.03

32.37 ± 0.05

27.48 ± 0.14

22.53 ± 0.09

Found (µg g−1 )

−1.04

−0.82



−1.69

−1.47



−0.54

−0.46



−1.18

−1.30



−1.05

−0.92



−0.71

−0.65



−0.49

−0.18



Relative error (%)

Solanum melongena-fruit (N = 10)

5

5

5

5

2

1





4

2

2

1

10





10



10



10



Added (µg g−1 )

8.99 ± 0.56

7.01 ± 0.84

5.11 ± 2.15

2.62 ± 0.63

1.65 ± 0.51

0.64 ± 0.31

33.01 ± 2.65

28.04 ± 3.06

23.22 ± 8.65

2.06 ± 0.04

1.07 ± 0.11

0.08 ± 0.09

31.07 ± 0.86

26.16 ± 1.08

21.89 ± 2.04

24.76 ± 1.46

19.85 ± 2.71

15.57 ± 3.86

30.01 ± 0,90

25.06 ± 0.84

20.70 ± 0.70

Found (µg g−1 )

−1.31

−1.40



−0.75

−0.60



−0.63

−0.63



−0.96

−0.92



−2.57

−2.71



−3.16

−3.50



−2.24

−2.49



Relative error (%)

Eucalyptus camaldulensis-leaves (N = 10)

TABLE I (Continued)







2

1



10

5



2

1



2

1



10

5



2

1



Added (µg g−1 )





ND

2.56 ± 0.37

1.57 ± 0.23

0.58 ± 0.410

58.641 ± 2.95

53.846 ± 3.46

49.155 ± 12.6

2.01 ± 0.04

1.02 ± 0.06

0.04 ± 0.01

5.534 ± 3.25

4.574 ± 2.61

3.645 ± 0.558

28.107 ± 2.08

23.218 ± 2.54

18.435 ± 2.69

2.539 ± 0.9

1.548 ± 0.07

0.555 ± 0.02

Found (µg g−1 )

Eggshells (N = 12)







−0.77

−0.63



−0.86

−0.57

−1.47

−1.92





−1.96

−1.52



−1.15

−0.92



−0.62

−0.45



Relative error (%)

74 A. C ¸ EL˙IK ET AL.

– –

22 13

20.81–5.28 –

0.02–0.32



– –

Suggest Documents