Heavy metals in Lemon juice

Quick read

Lemon juice in the HMI library has 34 reported results for lead, cadmium, total arsenic, inorganic arsenic, total mercury, nickel, chromium and uranium from 7 sources.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Spungen JH, et al. · 2024Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Food Additives & Contaminants: Part ARead source →}^{4U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2018Analytical Results for Lead in Juice Sampled Under the FDA’s Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware, and Radionuclides in Food – Import and Domestic Compliance Program (FY2005-FY2018)FDA analytical results tableRead source →}^{5Al Othman ZA · 2010Lead Contamination in Selected Foods from Riyadh City Market and Estimation of the Daily IntakeMolecules 2010, 15, 7482-7497Read source →}^{6Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives · 2022Cadmium: dietary exposure assessmentWHO Food Additives Series, No. 82 (Safety evaluation of certain contaminants in food, prepared by the 91st meeting of JECFA)Read source →}

Metals measured:
Lead, cadmium, total arsenic, inorganic arsenic, total mercury and nickel and others, in 34 results from 7 sources.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Spungen JH, et al. · 2024Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Food Additives & Contaminants: Part ARead source →}^{4U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2018Analytical Results for Lead in Juice Sampled Under the FDA’s Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware, and Radionuclides in Food – Import and Domestic Compliance Program (FY2005-FY2018)FDA analytical results tableRead source →}
Main drivers:
Form, basis and where the lemon juice was sampled; reporting limits decide how many results are non-detects.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Spungen JH, et al. · 2024Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Food Additives & Contaminants: Part ARead source →}^{4U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2018Analytical Results for Lead in Juice Sampled Under the FDA’s Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware, and Radionuclides in Food – Import and Domestic Compliance Program (FY2005-FY2018)FDA analytical results tableRead source →}
Practical framing:
Ask for lot results with a quantification limit well below the limit that applies in the destination market.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Spungen JH, et al. · 2024Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Food Additives & Contaminants: Part ARead source →}^{4U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2018Analytical Results for Lead in Juice Sampled Under the FDA’s Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware, and Radionuclides in Food – Import and Domestic Compliance Program (FY2005-FY2018)FDA analytical results tableRead source →}

Lemon juice overview

Lemon juice in the HMI library has 34 reported results for lead, cadmium, total arsenic, inorganic arsenic, total mercury, nickel, chromium and uranium from 7 sources.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Spungen JH, et al. · 2024Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Food Additives & Contaminants: Part ARead source →}^{4U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2018Analytical Results for Lead in Juice Sampled Under the FDA’s Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware, and Radionuclides in Food – Import and Domestic Compliance Program (FY2005-FY2018)FDA analytical results tableRead source →}^{5Al Othman ZA · 2010Lead Contamination in Selected Foods from Riyadh City Market and Estimation of the Daily IntakeMolecules 2010, 15, 7482-7497Read source →}^{6Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives · 2022Cadmium: dietary exposure assessmentWHO Food Additives Series, No. 82 (Safety evaluation of certain contaminants in food, prepared by the 91st meeting of JECFA)Read source →} WHO GEMS/Food submissions reported lead in lemon juice, juice from 2 results in 1 reporting region, with a subgroup median of 1.2 µg/kg.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →} In the US Total Diet Study, lemon juice, juice had a median lead result below 1 µg/kg across 3 composites from 2018–2020.^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}

aluminum (Al) 2010 reported lead at 53 µg/kg (mean ± 26 SD) in lemon juice, juice from Beverages, Riyadh city markets, May 2009.^{5Al Othman ZA · 2010Lead Contamination in Selected Foods from Riyadh City Market and Estimation of the Daily IntakeMolecules 2010, 15, 7482-7497Read source →} Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 2022 reported cadmium at 1 µg/kg (mean) in lemon juice, juice from GEMS/Food contaminants database.^{6Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives · 2022Cadmium: dietary exposure assessmentWHO Food Additives Series, No. 82 (Safety evaluation of certain contaminants in food, prepared by the 91st meeting of JECFA)Read source →}

For a buyer the practical points are the form bought, the basis a result is reported on, where the lemon juice came from and the laboratory’s reporting limit. Testing finds contamination but does not remove it.

What counts as lemon juice

This page covers lemon juice, juice (34 results).^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Spungen JH, et al. · 2024Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Food Additives & Contaminants: Part ARead source →}^{4U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2018Analytical Results for Lead in Juice Sampled Under the FDA’s Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware, and Radionuclides in Food – Import and Domestic Compliance Program (FY2005-FY2018)FDA analytical results tableRead source →}^{5Al Othman ZA · 2010Lead Contamination in Selected Foods from Riyadh City Market and Estimation of the Daily IntakeMolecules 2010, 15, 7482-7497Read source →}^{6Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives · 2022Cadmium: dietary exposure assessmentWHO Food Additives Series, No. 82 (Safety evaluation of certain contaminants in food, prepared by the 91st meeting of JECFA)Read source →}

Results stay on the basis each source reports: as sold or fresh weight, dry weight, or unstated. Dry-weight, as-sold and unstated results are never pooled, and no moisture conversion is applied.

Heavy metal contamination profile of lemon juice

The table holds every extracted lemon juice result: one row for each statistic a source reports for a form, group and metal, 34 rows in all, grouped by metal and form; percentiles, ranges and maxima for the same samples as a mean or median are shown on that row.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Spungen JH, et al. · 2024Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Food Additives & Contaminants: Part ARead source →}^{4U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2018Analytical Results for Lead in Juice Sampled Under the FDA’s Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware, and Radionuclides in Food – Import and Domestic Compliance Program (FY2005-FY2018)FDA analytical results tableRead source →}^{5Al Othman ZA · 2010Lead Contamination in Selected Foods from Riyadh City Market and Estimation of the Daily IntakeMolecules 2010, 15, 7482-7497Read source →}^{6Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives · 2022Cadmium: dietary exposure assessmentWHO Food Additives Series, No. 82 (Safety evaluation of certain contaminants in food, prepared by the 91st meeting of JECFA)Read source →} Monitoring medians are HMI calculations from individual submissions; non-detects remain intervals between zero and the reporting limit and are never read as zero.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}

6 rows can be rated against an HMI reference for the same form and basis, 0 rows have a direct same-study comparison, and the rest stay unrated with the reason recorded.

Comparison methods and scope

Each row is one statistic a source reports for one form of lemon juice, group and metal; percentiles, ranges and maxima reported for the same samples as a mean or median are shown on that row. Different forms and preparation states are kept apart, and dry-weight results never share a reference with as-sold or fresh-weight results. Ratings place a result against an HMI reference built from monitoring results and ordinary-setting medians for the same form and basis. Same-study contrasts compare a contaminated or treated site with its control, targeted with random sampling, a prepared form with the unprocessed one, or one group of a study with the median of its other groups. Held rows failed a check against their own source and are shown but not compared.

About this table

Food formCollection scopeFindingComparisonEvidence

Lemon juice findings from monitoring programmes, total diet studies and every extracted field, market and contaminated-site study, in µg/kg with each source’s form, basis, statistic and censoring retained.
Food form	Collection scope	Finding (µg/kg)

23 findings · 5 studies
Lemon juice, juiceWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2016	median.
Lemon juice, juiceWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2016	median.
Lemon juice, juiceFDA Total Diet Study	1 collection regions2018–2020	median.
Lemon juice, juiceSpungen et al. 2024	all samples2018–2020	not detected.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	sample value.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	sample value.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	sample value.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	sample value.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	sample value.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	sample value.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	not detected.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	not detected.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	not detected.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	not detected.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	not detected.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	not detected.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20122005–2018	not detected.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20172005–2018	sample value.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20172005–2018	sample value.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20172005–2018	sample value.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20182005–2018	sample value.
Lemon juice, juiceU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	FY20182005–2018	not detected.
Lemon juice, juiceAl 2010	Beverages, Riyadh city markets, May 20092009Dry weight	mean.

4 findings · 4 studies
Lemon juice, juiceWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2019	median.
Lemon juice, juiceFDA Total Diet Study	1 collection regions2018–2020	median.
Lemon juice, juiceSpungen et al. 2024	all samples2018–2020	not detected.
Lemon juice, juiceJoint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 2022	GEMS/Food contaminants database2011Basis not stated	mean.

1 finding · 1 study
Lemon juice, juiceFDA Total Diet Study	1 collection regions2018–2020	median.

2 findings · 2 studies
Lemon juice, juiceWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2012–2022	median.
Lemon juice, juiceEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2014	European dietary-survey occurrence data2003–2013Basis not stated	mean.

1 finding · 1 study
Lemon juice, juiceFDA Total Diet Study	1 collection regions2018–2020	median.

1 finding · 1 study
Lemon juice, juiceFDA Total Diet Study	1 collection regions2018–2020	median.

1 finding · 1 study
Lemon juice, juiceFDA Total Diet Study	1 collection regions2018–2020	median.

1 finding · 1 study
Lemon juice, juiceFDA Total Diet Study	1 collection regions2018–2020	median.

Shared dataset methods and interpretation

Source summaries retain their original statistic, material, basis and censoring. Each source drawer identifies methods and overlapping samples. No matched reference or pooled distribution is inferred.

HMI lemon juice Pb reference · Lemon juice, juice

Reference and scope

HMI lemon juice Pb reference · Lemon juice, juice. Lemon juice, juice; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤1	≤1	1.2–5.3 (bounded)
Alternative weighting	≤1	≤1	1.2–6 (bounded)

16 reference units; 4 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	2	25%
FDA Total Diet Study	3	25%
Spungen et al. 2024	1	25%
U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018	10	25%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for lemon juice, juice on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

4 sampling families with different designs; none is a probability sample of world supply. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:lemon-juice-48e12df8afbb:bcc8014ffd19

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI lemon juice Cd reference · Lemon juice, juice

Reference and scope

HMI lemon juice Cd reference · Lemon juice, juice. Lemon juice, juice; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤0.3	≤1	≤1
Alternative weighting	≤0.3	≤1	≤1

5 reference units; 3 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	1	33%
FDA Total Diet Study	3	33%
Spungen et al. 2024	1	33%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for lemon juice, juice on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

3 sampling families with different designs; none is a probability sample of world supply. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:lemon-juice-595e8bdc2bff:845815f6f809

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI lemon juice tAs reference · Lemon juice, juice

Reference and scope

HMI lemon juice tAs reference · Lemon juice, juice. Lemon juice, juice; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤1	≤1	≤1
Alternative weighting	≤1	≤1	≤1

3 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
FDA Total Diet Study	3	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for lemon juice, juice on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

FDA Total Diet Study is the only compatible sampling family for lemon juice, juice on this basis in the completed lemon juice ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

FDA Total Diet Study

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:lemon-juice-d7c58c9281ef:c2b67b6a5d6f

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI lemon juice iAs reference · Lemon juice, juice

Reference and scope

HMI lemon juice iAs reference · Lemon juice, juice. Lemon juice, juice; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤0.08	0.59	0.74
Alternative weighting	≤0.08	0.59	0.74

3 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	3	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for lemon juice, juice on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

WHO GEMS/Food is the only compatible sampling family for lemon juice, juice on this basis in the completed lemon juice ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

WHO GEMS/Food

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:lemon-juice-b1e3577aca5e:4c6f1ea84692

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI lemon juice tHg reference · Lemon juice, juice

Reference and scope

HMI lemon juice tHg reference · Lemon juice, juice. Lemon juice, juice; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤1	≤1	≤1
Alternative weighting	≤1	≤1	≤1

3 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
FDA Total Diet Study	3	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for lemon juice, juice on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

FDA Total Diet Study is the only compatible sampling family for lemon juice, juice on this basis in the completed lemon juice ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

FDA Total Diet Study

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:lemon-juice-012c75ea2f77:4a197c8c7673

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI lemon juice Ni reference · Lemon juice, juice

Reference and scope

HMI lemon juice Ni reference · Lemon juice, juice. Lemon juice, juice; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤20	≤20	≤20
Alternative weighting	≤20	≤20	≤20

3 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
FDA Total Diet Study	3	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for lemon juice, juice on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

FDA Total Diet Study is the only compatible sampling family for lemon juice, juice on this basis in the completed lemon juice ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

FDA Total Diet Study

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:lemon-juice-626689bc068e:4a6222730c5f

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI lemon juice Cr reference · Lemon juice, juice

Reference and scope

HMI lemon juice Cr reference · Lemon juice, juice. Lemon juice, juice; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤25	≤25	≤25
Alternative weighting	≤25	≤25	≤25

3 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
FDA Total Diet Study	3	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for lemon juice, juice on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

FDA Total Diet Study is the only compatible sampling family for lemon juice, juice on this basis in the completed lemon juice ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

FDA Total Diet Study

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:lemon-juice-e72b9eb7a53a:867f3b1810f0

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI lemon juice U reference · Lemon juice, juice

Reference and scope

HMI lemon juice U reference · Lemon juice, juice. Lemon juice, juice; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤1	≤1	≤1
Alternative weighting	≤1	≤1	≤1

3 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
FDA Total Diet Study	3	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for lemon juice, juice on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1–Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

FDA Total Diet Study is the only compatible sampling family for lemon juice, juice on this basis in the completed lemon juice ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

FDA Total Diet Study

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:lemon-juice-018ee9fbcebb:6811daf94911

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

How metals reach lemon juice

No study in the library compared lemon juice from contaminated and ordinary settings, so the routes by which metals reach it are not measured here.

Which forms and regions measured lower

The HMI reference for lead in lemon juice, juice pools 16 subgroup units from 4 sampling families, with a median of below 1 µg/kg and a middle half spanning below 1 (lower quartile) and between 1.2 and 5.3 µg/kg (upper quartile).^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Spungen JH, et al. · 2024Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Food Additives & Contaminants: Part ARead source →}^{4U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2018Analytical Results for Lead in Juice Sampled Under the FDA’s Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware, and Radionuclides in Food – Import and Domestic Compliance Program (FY2005-FY2018)FDA analytical results tableRead source →} For cadmium in lemon juice, juice, the reference median was below 1 µg/kg, with a middle half from below 0.3 to below 1 µg/kg across 5 units.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Spungen JH, et al. · 2024Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Food Additives & Contaminants: Part ARead source →}

Processing, cooking and preparation

No study in the library measured the same lemon juice before and after washing, peeling, drying or cooking for metals, so no processing effect can be stated. Heat does not destroy metals; cooking or drying changes a concentration by moving water or metal, not by removing the element.

Mitigation for lemon juice

Controls with evidence for lemon juice act at the stages below. Irrigate with well water rather than treated wastewater (evidence from apple): fruit from trees irrigated with 100% or 50% treated municipal wastewater carried about 2.5–2.8 times the arsenic of well-water fruit in the second year; first-year results did not separate clearly.^{7Nasirpour M, Khoshkam M, Rezaei Z, Mirzaei M · 2026The changes of heavy metals and some necessary elements in leaf, fruit and soil on apple cultivar golden delicious by applying urban treated wastewaterBMC Plant BiologyRead source →} Rootstock choice (MM111, MM106 or EM9) (evidence from apple): rootstock had no significant effect on fruit arsenic; it changed leaf lead and nickel, but fruit lead and nickel were not reported.^{7Nasirpour M, Khoshkam M, Rezaei Z, Mirzaei M · 2026The changes of heavy metals and some necessary elements in leaf, fruit and soil on apple cultivar golden delicious by applying urban treated wastewaterBMC Plant BiologyRead source →} Grow apples rather than root vegetables on lead-contaminated soil (evidence from apple): on allotment soils averaging 327 mg/kg lead, apples had a median of 1 µg/kg lead on a fresh-weight basis, the lowest of every crop group, against 23 µg/kg for root vegetables.^{8Lindsay Bramwell, Jane Entwistle, Jackie Morton, Anne-Helen Harding, Nan Lin · 2022Determinants of blood and saliva lead concentrations in adult gardeners on urban agricultural sitesEnvironmental Geochemistry and HealthRead source →}

Wash apples before analysis or eating (evidence from apple): washed and unwashed apples both had lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury medians below reporting limits of 2.5–5 µg/kg, so any effect of washing could not be measured at these levels.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →} Test the washed edible part against the fruit limits (evidence from apple): eU limits of 0.10 mg/kg lead for fruit and 0.020 mg/kg cadmium for pome fruit apply on a wet-weight basis after washing and separating the edible part.^{9European Commission · 2023Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Official Journal of the European UnionRead source →} Ask for growing origin and lot lead results (evidence from apple): none of 1,222 apples labelled imported exceeded 100 µg/kg lead against 14 of 1,875 labelled domestic; the share above 50 µg/kg was similar.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}

About this table

ControlMaterialEffectsEvidence

Control

Material

Effects

Evidence

Irrigate with well water rather than treated wastewatercultivation · As reported

Apple

tAs · Increased

tAs · Context

1

Nasirpour et al. 2026

HMI source record · Original source

One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies.

Effects and comparators

Total arsenicIncreasedAbout 2.8 times higher with 100% wastewater (year 2)Fruit total arsenic, dry weight100% wastewater versus well water, year 2Whole fruit, dry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (390 − 140) / 140 × 100 = 178.6%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred.

Total arsenicIncreasedAbout 2.7 times higher with 50% wastewater (year 2)Fruit total arsenic, dry weight50% wastewater versus well water, year 2Whole fruit, dry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (380 − 140) / 140 × 100 = 171.4%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred.

Total arsenicNot clearly different in year 1 (about 780 against 690 µg/kg)Fruit total arsenic, dry weight100% wastewater versus well water, year 1Whole fruit, dry weightContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change.

Well-water control against 50% and 100% treated wastewater, same orchard, cultivar and year; three rootstocks pooled.

How magnitude is classified

HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage.

Control in context

Fruit from trees irrigated with 100% or 50% treated municipal wastewater carried about 2.5–2.8 times the arsenic of well-water fruit in the second year; first-year results did not separate clearly.

Context	Selected control
Material	Golden Delicious apples, orchard near Mashhad, Iran, 2021–2022
Stage	cultivation
Audience	Ingredient suppliers · Brands
Period	As reported
Conditions	One orchard and cultivar over two seasons.
Tested scale	Field
Sample units	Source sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offs	Other metals, yield, taste and cost not quantified unless stated.
Verification	Confirm with lot-specific lead and cadmium results on the fresh fruit, using an adequate quantification limit.

Design, applicability and operating conditions

Orchard field experiment. One orchard and cultivar over two seasons.

One study family.

As reported by the source

Reduces metal reaching or remaining on apples, or detects it before release.

Source measurements and linked outcomes

Analyte	Period	Effect	Converted values	Original means (SD)	Basis	Locator
Total arsenic (tAs)	As reported	About 2.8 times higher with 100% wastewater (year 2)	140 → 390 µg/kg	Absolute values unextracted	Whole fruit, dry weight	Fig. 1U p.7; Table 3 p.4
Total arsenic (tAs)	As reported	About 2.7 times higher with 50% wastewater (year 2)	140 → 380 µg/kg	Absolute values unextracted	Whole fruit, dry weight	Fig. 1U p.7
Total arsenic (tAs)	As reported	Not clearly different in year 1 (about 780 against 690 µg/kg)	Numerical baseline not extracted	Absolute values unextracted	Whole fruit, dry weight	Fig. 1U p.7; Duncan letters

No detection limit, reference material or recovery reported; values read from a chart.

Ratios are calculated from the source values shown in outcomes.

Basis as stated in outcomes; no mass balance reported.

Trade-offs and implementation

Pesticide residues are outside this table.

Not assessed.

Not quantified.

Not assessed.

Applicability and verification

One orchard and cultivar over two seasons.

Lot testing.

See source.

Extraction limits and next actions

Unresolved field	Next action
controlled commercial-scale apple intervention effect	No controlled commercial apple intervention study in the library; keep effects unquantified unless measured.

Provenance and assessment

As disclosed by the source.

Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete.

Rootstock choice (MM111, MM106 or EM9)cultivation · As reported

Apple

tAs · Context

1

Nasirpour et al. 2026

HMI source record · Original source

One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies.

Effects and comparators

Total arsenicNo significant rootstock effect on fruit arsenicFruit total arsenic, dry weightRootstock main effectWhole fruit, dry weightContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change.

Three rootstocks under the same irrigation treatments.

How magnitude is classified

HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage.

Control in context

Rootstock had no significant effect on fruit arsenic; it changed leaf lead and nickel, but fruit lead and nickel were not reported.

Context	Selected control
Material	Golden Delicious apples, orchard near Mashhad, Iran
Stage	cultivation
Audience	Ingredient suppliers · Brands
Period	As reported
Conditions	One orchard and cultivar.
Tested scale	Field
Sample units	Source sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offs	Other metals, yield, taste and cost not quantified unless stated.
Verification	Confirm with lot-specific lead and cadmium results on the fresh fruit, using an adequate quantification limit.

Design, applicability and operating conditions

Orchard field experiment. One orchard and cultivar.

One study family.

As reported by the source

Reduces metal reaching or remaining on apples, or detects it before release.

Source measurements and linked outcomes

Analyte	Period	Effect	Converted values	Original means (SD)	Basis	Locator
Total arsenic (tAs)	As reported	No significant rootstock effect on fruit arsenic	Numerical baseline not extracted	Absolute values unextracted	Whole fruit, dry weight	Table 3 p.4

Fruit lead and nickel not reported.

Ratios are calculated from the source values shown in outcomes.

Basis as stated in outcomes; no mass balance reported.

Trade-offs and implementation

Pesticide residues are outside this table.

Not assessed.

Not quantified.

Not assessed.

Applicability and verification

One orchard and cultivar.

Lot testing.

See source.

Extraction limits and next actions

Unresolved field	Next action
controlled commercial-scale apple intervention effect	No controlled commercial apple intervention study in the library; keep effects unquantified unless measured.

Provenance and assessment

As disclosed by the source.

Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete.

Irrigate with groundwater rather than reclaimed watercultivation · As reported

Tomato

Cd · Decreased

Cr · Decreased

Pb · Decreased

1

Lu et al. 2016

HMI source record · Original source

One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies.

Effects and comparators

CadmiumDecreasedLower with groundwaterFruit cadmiumReclaimed versus groundwaterFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedModerate · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (18 − 29) / 29 × 100 = -37.9%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred.

Total chromiumDecreasedLower with groundwater (p = 0.08)Fruit chromiumReclaimed versus groundwaterFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedLow · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (49 − 61) / 61 × 100 = -19.7%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred.

LeadDecreasedLower with groundwater (not significant)Fruit leadReclaimed versus groundwaterFresh tomato fruit, weight basis not statedLow · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (55 − 68) / 68 × 100 = -19.1%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred.

Groundwater versus half reclaimed-water irrigation in the same field trial.

How magnitude is classified

HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage.

Control in context

Fruit irrigated with half reclaimed water held 29 against 18 µg/kg cadmium, 61 against 49 µg/kg chromium and 68 against 55 µg/kg lead; only the chromium difference approached significance.

Context	Selected control
Material	Field tomatoes under groundwater or half reclaimed-water irrigation, China, four seasons
Stage	cultivation
Audience	Ingredient suppliers · Brands
Period	As reported
Conditions	Irrigated field production.
Tested scale	Field trial
Sample units	Source sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offs	Other metals, yield, quality and cost not quantified unless stated.
Verification	Confirm with lot-specific fresh-weight results using an adequate quantification limit.

Design, applicability and operating conditions

Measured comparison. Irrigated field production.

One study family.

As reported by the source

Reduces metal reaching the fruit or the prepared food, or detects it before release.

Source measurements and linked outcomes

Analyte	Period	Effect	Converted values	Original means (SD)	Basis	Locator
Cadmium (Cd)	As reported	Lower with groundwater	29 → 18 µg/kg	Absolute values unextracted	Fresh tomato fruit, weight basis not stated	Table 4, p.7
Total chromium (Cr)	As reported	Lower with groundwater (p = 0.08)	61 → 49 µg/kg	Absolute values unextracted	Fresh tomato fruit, weight basis not stated	Table 4, p.7
Lead (Pb)	As reported	Lower with groundwater (not significant)	68 → 55 µg/kg	Absolute values unextracted	Fresh tomato fruit, weight basis not stated	Table 4, p.7

One trial; third treatment row unlabelled and held.

No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes.

Not applicable.

Trade-offs and implementation

Not assessed.

Not quantified.

Not assessed.

Applicability and verification

Irrigated field production.

Lot testing.

See source.

Extraction limits and next actions

Unresolved field	Next action
controlled intervention effect	Keep effect unquantified unless measured; single-study effects are not transferred to other farms.

Provenance and assessment

As disclosed by the source.

Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete.

Grow apples rather than root vegetables on lead-contaminated soilprimary production · As reported

Apple

Pb · Decreased

1

Bramwell et al. 2022

HMI source record · Original source

One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies.

Effects and comparators

LeadDecreasedLowest crop group on the same soilsMedian fruit or vegetable lead, fresh weightApples versus root vegetables, same sitesFresh weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (1 − 23) / 23 × 100 = -95.7%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred.

Apples against other crop groups grown on the same sites.

How magnitude is classified

HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage.

Control in context

On allotment soils averaging 327 mg/kg lead, apples had a median of 1 µg/kg lead on a fresh-weight basis, the lowest of every crop group, against 23 µg/kg for root vegetables.

Context	Selected control
Material	Apples from urban allotments, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Stage	primary production
Audience	Ingredient suppliers · Brands · Consumers
Period	As reported
Conditions	Urban allotments on lead-enriched soil.
Tested scale	Field survey
Sample units	Source sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offs	Other metals, yield, taste and cost not quantified unless stated.
Verification	Confirm with lot-specific lead and cadmium results on the fresh fruit, using an adequate quantification limit.

Design, applicability and operating conditions

Observational survey. Urban allotments on lead-enriched soil.

One study family.

As reported by the source

Reduces metal reaching or remaining on apples, or detects it before release.

Source measurements and linked outcomes

Analyte	Period	Effect	Converted values	Original means (SD)	Basis	Locator
Lead (Pb)	As reported	Lowest crop group on the same soils	23 → 1 µg/kg	Absolute values unextracted	Fresh weight	Discussion p.3507

Observational; sample numbers not given in this paper.

Ratios are calculated from the source values shown in outcomes.

Basis as stated in outcomes; no mass balance reported.

Trade-offs and implementation

Pesticide residues are outside this table.

Not assessed.

Not quantified.

Not assessed.

Applicability and verification

Urban allotments on lead-enriched soil.

Lot testing.

See source.

Extraction limits and next actions

Unresolved field	Next action
controlled commercial-scale apple intervention effect	No controlled commercial apple intervention study in the library; keep effects unquantified unless measured.

Provenance and assessment

As disclosed by the source.

Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete.

Wash apples before analysis or eatingfood preparation · As reported

Apple

Pb · Context

Cd · Context

1

WHO GEMS/Food

HMI source record · Original source

One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies.

Effects and comparators

LeadBoth below detection (<5 µg/kg)Median leadWashed versus unwashedFresh apple, as analysedContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change.

CadmiumBoth below detection (<2.5 µg/kg)Median cadmiumWashed versus unwashedFresh apple, as analysedContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change.

Washed against unwashed apples in the same survey (24 and 18 results).

How magnitude is classified

HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage.

Control in context

Washed and unwashed apples both had lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury medians below reporting limits of 2.5–5 µg/kg, so any effect of washing could not be measured at these levels.

Context	Selected control
Material	Apples in a 1998 Western Pacific targeted survey
Stage	food preparation
Audience	Ingredient suppliers · Brands · Consumers
Period	As reported
Conditions	One national survey; reporting limits above most apple values.
Tested scale	Monitoring dataset
Sample units	Source sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offs	Other metals, yield, taste and cost not quantified unless stated.
Verification	Confirm with lot-specific lead and cadmium results on the fresh fruit, using an adequate quantification limit.

Design, applicability and operating conditions

Observational survey. One national survey; reporting limits above most apple values.

One study family.

As reported by the source

Reduces metal reaching or remaining on apples, or detects it before release.

Source measurements and linked outcomes

Analyte	Period	Effect	Converted values	Original means (SD)	Basis	Locator
Lead (Pb)	As reported	Both below detection (<5 µg/kg)	Numerical baseline not extracted	Absolute values unextracted	Fresh apple, as analysed	primary/gemsfood-apple-records.csv WPRO 1998 washed/unwashed
Cadmium (Cd)	As reported	Both below detection (<2.5 µg/kg)	Numerical baseline not extracted	Absolute values unextracted	Fresh apple, as analysed	primary/gemsfood-apple-records.csv WPRO 1998 washed/unwashed

Observational; not a controlled washing experiment.

Ratios are calculated from the source values shown in outcomes.

Basis as stated in outcomes; no mass balance reported.

Trade-offs and implementation

Pesticide residues are outside this table.

Not assessed.

Not quantified.

Not assessed.

Applicability and verification

One national survey; reporting limits above most apple values.

Lot testing.

See source.

Extraction limits and next actions

Unresolved field	Next action
controlled commercial-scale apple intervention effect	No controlled commercial apple intervention study in the library; keep effects unquantified unless measured.

Provenance and assessment

As disclosed by the source.

Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete.

Test the washed edible part against the fruit limitslot acceptance and release · As reported

Apple

Pb · Context

Cd · Context

Guidance

Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915

HMI source record · Original source

Official guidance; not an independent experimental dataset. Reused across actions without adding studies.

Effects and comparators

LeadRegulatory definition; effect not measuredLead limit basisWashed edible partFresh fruit, wet weightContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change.

CadmiumRegulatory definition; effect not measuredCadmium limit basisWashed edible partFresh fruit, wet weightContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change.

Regulatory definition; no measured comparison.

How magnitude is classified

HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage.

Control in context

EU limits of 0.10 mg/kg lead for fruit and 0.020 mg/kg cadmium for pome fruit apply on a wet-weight basis after washing and separating the edible part.

Context	Selected control
Material	Fresh fruit including apples, EU market
Stage	lot acceptance and release
Audience	Ingredient suppliers · Brands · Consumers
Period	As reported
Conditions	Apples placed on the EU market.
Tested scale	Regulation
Sample units	Source sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offs	Other metals, yield, taste and cost not quantified unless stated.
Verification	Confirm with lot-specific lead and cadmium results on the fresh fruit, using an adequate quantification limit.

Design, applicability and operating conditions

Regulatory or official guidance. Apples placed on the EU market.

One study family.

As reported by the source

Reduces metal reaching or remaining on apples, or detects it before release.

Source measurements and linked outcomes

Analyte	Period	Effect	Converted values	Original means (SD)	Basis	Locator
Lead (Pb)	As reported	Regulatory definition; effect not measured	Numerical baseline not extracted	Absolute values unextracted	Fresh fruit, wet weight	Annex I 3.1.1.2 and group remark 3.1.1, PDF p.27
Cadmium (Cd)	As reported	Regulatory definition; effect not measured	Numerical baseline not extracted	Absolute values unextracted	Fresh fruit, wet weight	Annex I 3.2.1.2 and group remark 3.2.1, PDF p.31

No measured effect size for washing apples.

Ratios are calculated from the source values shown in outcomes.

Basis as stated in outcomes; no mass balance reported.

Trade-offs and implementation

Pesticide residues are outside this table.

Not assessed.

Not quantified.

Not assessed.

Applicability and verification

Apples placed on the EU market.

Lot testing.

See source.

Extraction limits and next actions

Unresolved field	Next action
controlled commercial-scale apple intervention effect	No controlled commercial apple intervention study in the library; keep effects unquantified unless measured.

Provenance and assessment

As disclosed by the source.

Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete.

Ask for growing origin and lot lead resultssourcing and procurement · As reported

Apple

Pb · Context

1

WHO GEMS/Food

HMI source record · Original source

One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies.

Effects and comparators

LeadFewer high results among imports (observational)Lead results above 100 µg/kgImported versus domestic labelFresh apple, as soldContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change.

Imported against domestic labels within European apple submissions.

How magnitude is classified

HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage.

Control in context

None of 1,222 apples labelled imported exceeded 100 µg/kg lead against 14 of 1,875 labelled domestic; the share above 50 µg/kg was similar.

Context	Selected control
Material	Fresh apples submitted to GEMS/Food from Europe, 2000–2020
Stage	sourcing and procurement
Audience	Ingredient suppliers · Brands
Period	As reported
Conditions	European market submissions; country of growth not identified.
Tested scale	Monitoring dataset
Sample units	Source sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offs	Other metals, yield, taste and cost not quantified unless stated.
Verification	Confirm with lot-specific lead and cadmium results on the fresh fruit, using an adequate quantification limit.

Design, applicability and operating conditions

Observational survey. European market submissions; country of growth not identified.

One study family.

As reported by the source

Reduces metal reaching or remaining on apples, or detects it before release.

Source measurements and linked outcomes

Analyte	Period	Effect	Converted values	Original means (SD)	Basis	Locator
Lead (Pb)	As reported	Fewer high results among imports (observational)	Numerical baseline not extracted	Absolute values unextracted	Fresh apple, as sold	primary/gemsfood-apple-records.csv EURO apple lead by FoodOriginName

Observational; labels describe origin relative to the reporting country only.

Ratios are calculated from the source values shown in outcomes.

Basis as stated in outcomes; no mass balance reported.

Trade-offs and implementation

Pesticide residues are outside this table.

Not assessed.

Not quantified.

Not assessed.

Applicability and verification

European market submissions; country of growth not identified.

Lot testing.

See source.

Extraction limits and next actions

Unresolved field	Next action
controlled commercial-scale apple intervention effect	No controlled commercial apple intervention study in the library; keep effects unquantified unless measured.

Provenance and assessment

As disclosed by the source.

Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete.

Judge dried apple against dried-fruit limitsfood processing · As reported

Apple

Pb · Increased

1

WHO GEMS/Food

HMI source record · Original source

One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies.

Effects and comparators

LeadIncreasedHigher per kilogram after drying (observational)Median leadDried versus fresh apple, EURO random samplingAs soldHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (29 − 10) / 10 × 100 = 190.0%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred.

Dried against fresh apple in the same dataset, region and sampling type.

How magnitude is classified

HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage.

Control in context

Dried apple had a lead median of 26–29 µg/kg under random sampling against below 10 µg/kg for fresh apple, because drying removes water.

Context	Selected control
Material	Dried and fresh apple submitted to GEMS/Food from Europe
Stage	food processing
Audience	Ingredient suppliers · Brands
Period	As reported
Conditions	Dried apple as sold.
Tested scale	Monitoring dataset
Sample units	Source sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offs	Other metals, yield, taste and cost not quantified unless stated.
Verification	Confirm with lot-specific lead and cadmium results on the fresh fruit, using an adequate quantification limit.

Design, applicability and operating conditions

Observational survey. Dried apple as sold.

One study family.

As reported by the source

Reduces metal reaching or remaining on apples, or detects it before release.

Source measurements and linked outcomes

Analyte	Period	Effect	Converted values	Original means (SD)	Basis	Locator
Lead (Pb)	As reported	Higher per kilogram after drying (observational)	10 → 29 µg/kg	Absolute values unextracted	As sold	primary/gemsfood-apple-records.csv EURO dried and fresh lead

Different products and laboratories; not a paired drying experiment.

Ratios are calculated from the source values shown in outcomes.

Basis as stated in outcomes; no mass balance reported.

Trade-offs and implementation

Pesticide residues are outside this table.

Not assessed.

Not quantified.

Not assessed.

Applicability and verification

Dried apple as sold.

Lot testing.

See source.

Extraction limits and next actions

Unresolved field	Next action
controlled commercial-scale apple intervention effect	No controlled commercial apple intervention study in the library; keep effects unquantified unless measured.

Provenance and assessment

As disclosed by the source.

Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete.

Do not wrap cut apples or store apple puree in aluminium foilstorage and handling · As reported

Apple

Al · Context

Guidance

German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR)

HMI source record · Original source

Official guidance; not an independent experimental dataset. Reused across actions without adding studies.

Effects and comparators

AluminiumGuidance; effect not measuredAluminium uptake from foilFoil versus other storageAs storedContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change.

Official guidance; no measured apple comparison.

How magnitude is classified

HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage.

Control in context

Acidic foods such as cut apples take up aluminium from foil and uncoated aluminium containers; the advice is to use other materials.

Context	Selected control
Material	Cut apples and apple puree in household storage
Stage	storage and handling
Audience	Ingredient suppliers · Brands · Consumers
Period	As reported
Conditions	Household and catering storage.
Tested scale	Official guidance
Sample units	Source sampling units; no independent intervention units unless stated.
Trade-offs	Other metals, yield, taste and cost not quantified unless stated.
Verification	Confirm with lot-specific lead and cadmium results on the fresh fruit, using an adequate quantification limit.

Design, applicability and operating conditions

Regulatory or official guidance. Household and catering storage.

One study family.

As reported by the source

Reduces metal reaching or remaining on apples, or detects it before release.

Source measurements and linked outcomes

Analyte	Period	Effect	Converted values	Original means (SD)	Basis	Locator
Aluminium (Al)	As reported	Guidance; effect not measured	Numerical baseline not extracted	Absolute values unextracted	As stored	BfR aluminium FAQ

No apple measurement reported.

Ratios are calculated from the source values shown in outcomes.

Basis as stated in outcomes; no mass balance reported.

Trade-offs and implementation

Pesticide residues are outside this table.

Not assessed.

Not quantified.

Not assessed.

Applicability and verification

Household and catering storage.

Lot testing.

See source.

Extraction limits and next actions

Unresolved field	Next action
controlled commercial-scale apple intervention effect	No controlled commercial apple intervention study in the library; keep effects unquantified unless measured.

Provenance and assessment

As disclosed by the source.

Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete.

Ripen plantain without calcium carbidestorage and handling · As reported

Plantain

tAs · Increased

Cd · Context

1

Mode et al. 2026

HMI source record · Original source

One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies.

Effects and comparators

Total arsenicIncreasedHigher arsenic after carbide ripening (10 g/kg)Mean fruit total arsenicNatural versus 10 g/kg carbideHomogenised ripened fruit, fresh basisHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (5930 − 1640) / 1640 × 100 = 261.6%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred.

Total arsenicIncreasedHigher arsenic after carbide ripening (30 g/kg)Mean fruit total arsenicNatural versus 30 g/kg carbideHomogenised ripened fruit, fresh basisHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (9940 − 1640) / 1640 × 100 = 506.1%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred.

CadmiumNo significant cadmium change (1 to 3 µg/kg)Mean fruit cadmiumNatural versus carbideHomogenised ripened fruit, fresh basisContext · No supported numerical treatment contrast is retained for this finding. A direction, market association, source-selection strategy or guidance statement alone does not establish a percentage change.

Naturally ripened plantain from the same bunch (five fruits per group).

How magnitude is classified

HMI editorial magnitude bands: Low is a change greater than 0% and below 25%; Moderate is 25% to below 50%; High is 50% or more, relative to that control’s own comparator. Direction is shown separately. These are descriptive display bands, not validated efficacy cutoffs, occurrence-baseline positions, statistical significance, evidence certainty, safety or net benefit. A range spanning bands retains both labels; a qualitative label has no implied percentage.

Control in context

Plantain ripened with technical calcium carbide (10 or 30 g/kg of fruit) had significantly more total arsenic than naturally ripened plantain; the carbide contained 21.75 mg/kg arsenic and 0.881 mg/kg lead.

Context	Selected control
Material	Mature green plantain from one bunch, Sokoto, Nigeria
Stage	storage and handling
Audience	Ingredient suppliers · Brands · Consumers
Period	As reported
Conditions	Postharvest ripening with technical-grade carbide at market-typical doses.
Tested scale	Laboratory
Sample units	Source sampling units; processed portions cut from the same raw samples are not independent.
Trade-offs	Moisture, oil uptake, nutrients and cost not quantified.
Verification	Confirm with lot-specific results on the edible pulp, fresh weight, with an adequate quantification limit.

Design, applicability and operating conditions

Paired laboratory processing of farm samples. Postharvest ripening with technical-grade carbide at market-typical doses.

One study family.

As reported by the source

Changes metal concentration in the eaten food, limits metal reaching the fruit, or detects it before release.

Source measurements and linked outcomes

Analyte	Period	Effect	Converted values	Original means (SD)	Basis	Locator
Total arsenic (tAs)	As reported	Higher arsenic after carbide ripening (10 g/kg)	1640 → 5930 µg/kg	Absolute values unextracted	Homogenised ripened fruit, fresh basis	Table 3, p. 12
Total arsenic (tAs)	As reported	Higher arsenic after carbide ripening (30 g/kg)	1640 → 9940 µg/kg	Absolute values unextracted	Homogenised ripened fruit, fresh basis	Table 3, p. 12
Cadmium (Cd)	As reported	No significant cadmium change (1 to 3 µg/kg)	Numerical baseline not extracted	Absolute values unextracted	Homogenised ripened fruit, fresh basis	Table 3, p. 12

One bunch and source; absolute arsenic levels far above other plantain data; plantain control lead printed identically to mango, so lead is not compared.

No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes.

No moisture, yield or mass balance reported.

Trade-offs and implementation

Not assessed.

Cooking water and oil not analysed.

Not quantified.

Not assessed.

Applicability and verification

Postharvest ripening with technical-grade carbide at market-typical doses.

Lot testing.

See source.

Extraction limits and next actions

Unresolved field	Next action
controlled intervention effect	No replicated plantain intervention study in the library; keep effects as reported.

Provenance and assessment

As disclosed by the source.

Source facts and HMI calculations are distinguished above. These selected source findings do not constitute a systematic review; outcome-level appraisal remains incomplete.

Trade-offs and limits of controls

Metals do not move together, so a lot that passes a lead limit says little about cadmium, arsenic or nickel unless those are tested as well.

Testing lemon juice for metals

Results depend on the method and its reporting limit. Reporting limits for lead ranged from 1 µg/kg (WHO GEMS/Food) to 15 µg/kg (WHO GEMS/Food), so a non-detect from a less sensitive method says much less.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →} Reporting limits for cadmium ranged from 1 µg/kg (FDA Total Diet Study) to 5 µg/kg (WHO GEMS/Food), so a non-detect from a less sensitive method says much less.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}

A useful lot result names the form, the basis and a quantification limit well below the limit that applies.

Buying and verifying lemon juice

No maximum level for metals in lemon juice was verified from primary text for this page; buyers should confirm the limit that applies in the destination market.

Exposure from lemon juice

No source in the library converted lemon juice concentrations into a verified estimate of intake for a defined population. Concentrations describe the food, not individual risk.

Evidence review and remaining gaps

Every source record that names lemon juice was decided on its content: 7 occurrence extracted, 7 records in all. The occurrence table renders every extracted result; held values remain visible with their reason.

References identify the sources used in these answers. The Sources index preserves additional discovery links; inclusion there does not mean a source has been reviewed for this assessment. Corrections, completed searches, new direct evidence and changes in requirements should reopen the relevant answer.

Lemon juice FAQs

What heavy metals are found in lemon juice?

The library reports lead, cadmium, total arsenic, inorganic arsenic, total mercury, nickel, chromium and uranium in lemon juice, most often lead, cadmium and total arsenic.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Spungen JH, et al. · 2024Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Food Additives & Contaminants: Part ARead source →}^{4U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2018Analytical Results for Lead in Juice Sampled Under the FDA’s Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware, and Radionuclides in Food – Import and Domestic Compliance Program (FY2005-FY2018)FDA analytical results tableRead source →} WHO GEMS/Food submissions reported lead in lemon juice, juice from 2 results in 1 reporting region, with a subgroup median of 1.2 µg/kg.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}

How much of the arsenic in lemon juice is inorganic?

Inorganic arsenic, the more toxic form, was measured in 2 results from 2 sources, far fewer than total arsenic.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{10European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) · 2014Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source →} European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2014 reported inorganic arsenic at 4.2 µg/kg (mean) in lemon juice, juice from European dietary-survey occurrence data.^{10European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) · 2014Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source →}

References

Works cited on this page, in citation-number order. See Sources for this page’s source inventory. Each title links to a source record with bibliographic details, reported findings, and document provenance.

GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsWorld Health Organization · GEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment Programme · 2026 · extranet.who.intDataset
FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsU.S. Food and Drug Administration · FDA Total Diet Study · 2022 · www.fda.govDataset
Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Spungen JH and et al. · Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A · 2024 · doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2024.2396910Peer-reviewed
Analytical Results for Lead in Juice Sampled Under the FDA’s Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware, and Radionuclides in Food – Import and Domestic Compliance Program (FY2005-FY2018)U.S. Food and Drug Administration · FDA analytical results table · 2018Dataset
Lead Contamination in Selected Foods from Riyadh City Market and Estimation of the Daily IntakeAl Othman ZA · Molecules 2010, 15, 7482-7497 · 2010 · doi.org/10.3390/molecules15107482Peer-reviewed
Cadmium: dietary exposure assessmentJoint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives · WHO Food Additives Series, No. 82 (Safety evaluation of certain contaminants in food, prepared by the 91st meeting of JECFA) · 2022 · www.who.intGovernment
The changes of heavy metals and some necessary elements in leaf, fruit and soil on apple cultivar golden delicious by applying urban treated wastewaterNasirpour M, Khoshkam M, Rezaei Z, and Mirzaei M · BMC Plant Biology · 2026 · doi.org/10.1186/s12870-025-08080-7Peer-reviewed
Determinants of blood and saliva lead concentrations in adult gardeners on urban agricultural sitesLindsay Bramwell, Jane Entwistle, Jackie Morton, Anne-Helen Harding, and Nan Lin · Environmental Geochemistry and Health · 2022 · doi.org/10.1007/s10653-021-01095-7Peer-reviewed
Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006European Commission · Official Journal of the European Union · 2023 · eur-lex.europa.euRegulation
Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA) · EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597 · 2014 · doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3597Government

Sources

Browse Lemon juice Sources for sources cited on this page and additional discovery candidates. The searchable index distinguishes verified citation use from discovery relationships whose relevance has not been established.

Update history

22 October 2026: Rebuilt from every lemon juice record in the library: 7 occurrence sources, references by form and basis, same-study contrasts and stage-led controls.

Graph View

1

GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exports

2

FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical Results

3

Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020

4

Analytical Results for Lead in Juice Sampled Under the FDA’s Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware, and Radionuclides in Food – Import and Domestic Compliance Program (FY2005-FY2018)

5

Lead Contamination in Selected Foods from Riyadh City Market and Estimation of the Daily Intake

6

Cadmium: dietary exposure assessment

Food and Drug Administration

Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives

7

The changes of heavy metals and some necessary elements in leaf, fruit and soil on apple cultivar golden delicious by applying urban treated wastewater

8

Determinants of blood and saliva lead concentrations in adult gardeners on urban agricultural sites

9

European Commission

Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006

10

European Food Safety Authority

Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European population