Spinach accumulates more cadmium than most vegetables, with retail medians from about 20 to 200 µg/kg fresh weight and some lots above the EU limit of 0.20 mg/kg; lead and arsenic are usually low in retail spinach but rise sharply on wastewater-irrigated and industrial sites.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →3Commission 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 →4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →
-
Metals of concern:
Cadmium in ordinary spinach; lead and nickel where fields are polluted; aluminium is naturally high.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source →
-
Main drivers:
Soil cadmium and chloride, irrigation water and industrial sites; freezing, cooking and washing do not reliably lower cadmium.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →
-
Practical framing:
Ask for fresh-weight cadmium and lead results by lot with the growing site and irrigation source.2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →3Commission 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 →
Spinach overview
Cadmium is the metal that decides most spinach questions.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →7Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source → Spinach takes cadmium up from soil and moves it into the leaf, and the large monitoring datasets agree that ordinary retail spinach carries tens to a few hundred micrograms per kilogram on a fresh-weight basis: a median of 40 µg/kg across 2,077 randomly sampled European submissions to WHO GEMS/Food, 125 µg/kg in submissions from the Americas and 200 µg/kg in US Total Diet Study composites from 2018 to 2020.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source → EU monitoring from 2003 to 2007 summarised by EFSA gave a median of 50 µg/kg and a mean of 61.5 µg/kg, against 23.1 µg/kg for other leafy vegetables.7Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source → Against the EU maximum of 0.20 mg/kg for spinach, 105 of 2,262 raw spinach results in GEMS/Food and 10 of 27 US market composites were above the limit.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →3Commission 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 →
Lead, arsenic and mercury are usually low in monitored retail spinach.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source → US composites had a lead median of 6.2 µg/kg and a total-arsenic median of 5.9 µg/kg, and mercury was detected in 3 of 27; European and Canary Islands supermarket spinach showed the same picture, with lead medians of 13–22 µg/kg and mercury mostly below detection.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source → Spinach is, however, rich in aluminium, around 41,000 µg/kg in Canary Islands and Malaysian market samples.5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source →8Heavy Metals Assessment in Selected Leafy Vegetables from Selangor, MalaysiaPertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural ScienceRead source →
The highest values in the library come from fields irrigated with sewage or industrial wastewater and from sites near a battery factory or industrial zones, where spinach carried several milligrams of cadmium, lead or nickel per kilogram.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →9Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaEnvironmental Science: Processes & ImpactsRead source →10Effects of sewage water irrigation on heavy metals accumulation in vegetables in peri-urban areas of Faisalabad, PakistanAgricultural Research Reports 3(1):46–57Read source → Many of those studies report dry weight or do not state the basis, so they cannot be ranked against fresh-weight market data, but within single studies the polluted fields were consistently higher than cleaner comparison fields.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →11BIO-ACCUMULATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SOME NORTHPeer-reviewed articleRead source → For a buyer the supported priorities are the growing site and its irrigation water, then lot results for cadmium and lead on a fresh-weight basis; packaging form (fresh, frozen or canned) does not reliably change cadmium.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →3Commission 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 →4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →
Spinach and its preparations
This page covers spinach, Spinacia oleracea: raw leaves, baby spinach, cooked, frozen and canned spinach and spinach purée used as an ingredient, each kept as its own material.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →12Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and MercuryStaff ReportRead source → Several plants are also sold as spinach but are different species: amaranth (African, red or Chinese spinach), water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica) and Malabar or Indian spinach (Basella).13The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Metallic ContaminantsCentre for Food Safety, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionRead source →14Levels of heavy metals and their health risk assessment from wastewater irrigated spinach in railway quarters, Bauchi, Bauchi state, NigeriaInternational Journal of Advanced Chemistry ResearchRead source →15Environmental surveillance of commonly-grown vegetables for investigating potential lead and chromium contamination intensification in BangladeshSpringerPlusRead source → Results for those plants, including the GEMS/Food submissions filed under the spinach code whose local names show water spinach, Chinese spinach or a mustard-green dish, are not counted here.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →
The basis of a result matters as much as the form. Fresh spinach is about 93% water, so a dry-weight concentration is roughly 14 times the fresh-weight value for the same leaves; the page never converts between the two, and results whose basis is not stated stay separate.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source → Some field studies from Nigeria and South Asia name the crop only as spinach; where a paper identifies the plant as an amaranth it is excluded, and the remaining reports are taken at their word.14Levels of heavy metals and their health risk assessment from wastewater irrigated spinach in railway quarters, Bauchi, Bauchi state, NigeriaInternational Journal of Advanced Chemistry ResearchRead source →16Concentration and Health Risk Assessment of Selected Heavy Metals (HMs) in African spinach (Amaranthus hybridus) and Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Grown around Ashaka Community, Gombe State, NigeriaJournal of Chemistry and Nutritional BiochemistryRead source →17Heavy metals in vegetables: screening health risks involved in cultivation along wastewater drain and irrigating with wastewaterSpringerPlusRead source → Mixed baby foods, creamed spinach, spinach tortillas and snacks that contain spinach are outside this scope, because their results cannot be attributed to the leaf.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →18Toxic elements in baby and young children’s foods in the US and correlation to ingredientsFood Additives & Contaminants: Part BRead source →
Heavy metal contamination profile of spinach
The table holds every spinach result extracted from 37 sampling families: WHO GEMS/Food submissions summarised by WHO region, form and sampling type, the US and Hong Kong total diet studies, EU monitoring summarised by EFSA, and every market, farm, wastewater-site and field-trial study in the library.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source →7Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source →13The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Metallic ContaminantsCentre for Food Safety, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionRead source → Each row is one statistic for one form, group and metal on its stated basis; ratings place a mean, median or sample value against a pooled reference for the same form and basis built from retail, monitoring and ordinary farm samples.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →19Heavy Metals in Commonly Consumed Root and Leafy Vegetables in Dhaka City, Bangladesh, and Assessment of Associated Public Health RisksEnvironmental Systems ResearchRead source →
Retail cadmium spans about one order of magnitude.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source → In GEMS/Food the middle half of randomly sampled European raw spinach lay between about 10 and 79 µg/kg, against 65–281 µg/kg for the Americas; US composites ranged from 100 to 400 µg/kg, and Gran Canaria supermarket spinach had a median of 21.5 µg/kg.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source → Lead was below reporting limits in about a third of European results, and the US composites ranged from below 4 to 18 µg/kg.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →
Non-detects stay as intervals from zero to the reporting limit and are never read as zero.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source → Fourteen rows that fail a check against their own paper, for example lead values below the paper’s own detection limit in a Dhaka market study and a cadmium standard deviation eleven times its mean in an Iranian field study, are shown with the reason and not compared.19Heavy Metals in Commonly Consumed Root and Leafy Vegetables in Dhaka City, Bangladesh, and Assessment of Associated Public Health RisksEnvironmental Systems ResearchRead source →20The health risk assessment of heavy metals in vegetables grown in Babol city, IranInternational Archives of Health SciencesRead source →21Ultra-Sensitive Determination of Cadmium in Food and Water by Flame-AAS after a New Polyvinyl Benzyl Xanthate as an Adsorbent Based Vortex Assisted Dispersive Solid-Phase Microextraction: Multivariate OptimizationFoods 2023, 12, 3620Read source → Values read from a figure rather than printed are labelled and not compared.17Heavy metals in vegetables: screening health risks involved in cultivation along wastewater drain and irrigating with wastewaterSpringerPlusRead source →22Heavy Metals in Soil and Vegetables and their Effect on HealthInternational Journal of Engineering Science TechnologiesRead source →23Heavy metals in vegetables and the health risk to population in Zhejiang, ChinaFood ControlRead source →
Comparison methods and scope
Each row is one statistic a source reports for one spinach form, subgroup and metal; a mean, median and range from the same samples are separate rows. Ratings place a reported mean, median or sample result against a pooled HMI reference for the same spinach form and basis (fresh or dry weight), built from retail, monitoring and ordinary farm samples. Results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites are positioned against that reference but never set it. Same-study comparisons set a site, irrigation source or fertiliser treatment against its own control or study total. Held rows failed a check against their own paper and are shown but not compared.
First displayed analyte: Lead: 62 findings from 29 sources. Each row retains its statistic and measurement basis.
Filter findings
268 of 268 findings · 10 analytes
About this table
| Food form | Collection scope | Finding | Comparison | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
54 findings · 28 studies · 1 spread figure folded in | ||||
| Baby spinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2003–2019Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2000Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2003–2018Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2005–2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region SEARO; random sampling2012Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2003–2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachFDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | United States national collections2018–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachAbdolahpour et al. 2023 | Babol2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachAbubakar et al. 2025 | Site ICollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachCherfi et al. 2014 | Two wholesale markets supplying2012Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachElbagermi et al. 2012 | Misurata City local suppliers and2010Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachEmmanuel 2025 | Nomans-Land2025Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachGhasemidehkordi et al. 2018 | Five agricultural sites2014Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 870–8,170 µg/kg (range) | ||
| SpinachGhasemidehkordi et al. 2018 | Five agricultural sites2014Dry weight | range. | ||
| SpinachHabu et al. 2025 | Tamburawa wastewater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | not detected. | ||
| SpinachHabu et al. 2025 | Tamburawa wastewater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | not detected. | ||
| SpinachHuang et al. 2014 | Zhejiang province2012Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachJiang et al. 2020 | SZD village near a battery factory2018Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachJoseph et al. 2025 | Gobbiya Dam irrigated farmlandCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachKulshrestha 2022 | Local venders2015–2016Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachKulshrestha 2022 | Walled garden2015–2016Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachMartin-Leon et al. 2023 | Large supermarkets2016–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachMohod 2015 | Grown near Amba NallaCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachNaser et al. 2018 | High-level pollution: KalakoirCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachNaser et al. 2018 | Low-level pollution: BARICollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachNaser et al. 2018 | Medium-level pollution: ZorunCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachPal et al. 2017 | Domestic-wastewater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachPan et al. 2016 | Zhejiang province marketed2014Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSadee 2022 | Local markets2021Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSalawu et al. 2015 | Samaru irrigation area2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachSaleem et al. 2025 | Town Square Farmer's MarketYear not reportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSalhotra et al. 2017 | Jagdalpur market supply2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSee et al. 2025 | Pasar Borong Selangor wholesale2022Fresh weight | not detected. | ||
| SpinachSharma et al. 2016 | Site 1: groundwater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSharma et al. 2016 | Site 1: groundwater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedDry weight | max. | ||
| SpinachSharma et al. 2016 | Site 2: groundwater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSharma et al. 2016 | Site 2: groundwater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedDry weight | max. | ||
| SpinachSharma et al. 2016 | Site 3:Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSharma et al. 2016 | Site 3:Collection date unreportedDry weight | max. | ||
| SpinachSuleiman and Ibrahim 2025 | Three irrigation farmsCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 1st phase (early harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | not detected. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 2nd phase (mid-time harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | sample value. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 3rd phase (mid-time harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | sample value. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 4th phase (late harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | not detected. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | All four harvesting phasesYear not reportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | All four harvesting phasesYear not reportedDry weight | range. | ||
| SpinachWu 2024 | Jiaozuo marketsCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Cattle manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chemical fertilizer (NPK)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chicken manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Control (no fertilizer)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Sheep manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Turkey manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Vermicompost2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Spinach (canned)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2009–2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
4 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2007–2019Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2000–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2010–2011Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (cooked)Hong Kong TDS 2013 | Hong Kong retail purchases2010–2011Basis not stated | mean. | ||
2 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Spinach (frozen)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2003–2018Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (frozen)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2006–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
55 findings · 28 studies · 4 spread figures folded in | ||||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EMRO; unknown2014–2019Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2003–2019Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2000–2004Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2003–2018Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2005–2018Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2003Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachFDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | United States national collections2018–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachAbdolahpour et al. 2023 | Babol2021Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachAbubakar et al. 2025 | Site ICollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachAltunay et al. 2023 | Greengrocer, Sivas, TurkeyCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachCantoral et al. 2024 | Retail outlets2022–2023Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachEFSA 2009 | EU Member State monitoring2003–2007Basis not stated | 5th percentile. | ||
| SpinachEFSA 2009 | EU Member State monitoring2003–2007Basis not stated | 95th percentile. | ||
| SpinachEFSA 2009 | EU Member State monitoring2003–2007Basis not stated | mean.Same samples: 0.5 µg/kg (5th percentile); 186 µg/kg (95th percentile); 325 µg/kg (maximum) | ||
| SpinachEFSA 2009 | EU Member State monitoring2003–2007Basis not stated | median. | ||
| SpinachEFSA 2009 | EU Member State monitoring2003–2007Basis not stated | max. | ||
| SpinachElbagermi et al. 2012 | Misurata City local suppliers and2010Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachEmmanuel 2025 | Nomans-Land2025Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachHuang et al. 2014 | Zhejiang province2012Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachJiang et al. 2020 | SZD village near a battery factory2018Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachJoseph et al. 2025 | Gobbiya Dam irrigated farmlandCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachKulshrestha 2022 | Local venders2015–2016Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachKulshrestha 2022 | Walled garden2015–2016Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachMartin-Leon et al. 2023 | Large supermarkets2016–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachMohod 2015 | Grown near Amba NallaCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachNaser et al. 2018 | High-level pollution: KalakoirCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachNaser et al. 2018 | Low-level pollution: BARICollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachNaser et al. 2018 | Medium-level pollution: ZorunCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachPal et al. 2017 | Domestic-wastewater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachSadee 2022 | Local markets2021Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSalawu et al. 2015 | Samaru irrigation area2014Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachSaleem et al. 2025 | Town Square Farmer's MarketYear not reportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSalhotra et al. 2017 | Jagdalpur market supply2017Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSee et al. 2025 | Pasar Borong Selangor wholesale2022Fresh weight | not detected. | ||
| SpinachSharma et al. 2016 | Site 1: groundwater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSharma et al. 2016 | Site 1: groundwater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedDry weight | max. | ||
| SpinachSharma et al. 2016 | Site 2: groundwater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSharma et al. 2016 | Site 2: groundwater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedDry weight | max. | ||
| SpinachSharma et al. 2016 | Site 3:Collection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSharma et al. 2016 | Site 3:Collection date unreportedDry weight | max. | ||
| SpinachSuleiman and Ibrahim 2025 | Three irrigation farmsCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 1st phase (early harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | sample value. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 2nd phase (mid-time harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | sample value. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 3rd phase (mid-time harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | sample value. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 4th phase (late harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | not detected. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | All four harvesting phasesYear not reportedDry weight | mean.Same samples: up to 900 µg/kg (range maximum) | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | All four harvesting phasesYear not reportedDry weight | range. | ||
| SpinachUS House Subcommittee 2021 | US baby-food manufacturer2018–2019Basis not stated | sample value. | ||
| SpinachUS House Subcommittee 2021 | US baby-food manufacturer2018–2019Basis not stated | sample value. | ||
| SpinachUS House Subcommittee 2021 | US baby-food manufacturer2018–2019Basis not stated | sample value. | ||
| SpinachUS House Subcommittee 2021 | US baby-food manufacturer2018–2019Basis not stated | sample value. | ||
| SpinachWu 2024 | Jiaozuo marketsCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Cattle manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chemical fertilizer (NPK)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chicken manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Control (no fertilizer)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Sheep manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Turkey manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Vermicompost2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Spinach (canned)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2007Fresh weight | median. | ||
4 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2007–2019Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region PAHO; random sampling2003–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2010–2011Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (cooked)Hong Kong TDS 2013 | Hong Kong retail purchases2010–2011Basis not stated | mean. | ||
2 findings · 1 study | ||||
| Spinach (frozen)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2003–2018Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (frozen)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Spinach (purée)US House Subcommittee 2021 | US baby-food manufacturer2018–2019Basis not stated | sample value. | ||
22 findings · 10 studies | ||||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2008Dry weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2009–2023Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2007–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region European Union2003–2014Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region European Union2000Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region European Union; unknown2003–2012Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2013–2014Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachFDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | United States national collections2018–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachHuang et al. 2014 | Zhejiang province2012Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachJiang et al. 2020 | SZD village near a battery factory2018Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachJoseph et al. 2025 | Gobbiya Dam irrigated farmlandCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachMartin-Leon et al. 2023 | Large supermarkets2016–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachSadee 2022 | Local markets2021Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSaleem et al. 2025 | Town Square Farmer's MarketYear not reportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachWu 2024 | Jiaozuo marketsCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Cattle manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chemical fertilizer (NPK)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chicken manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Control (no fertilizer)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Sheep manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Turkey manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Vermicompost2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
3 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2008–2023Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region European Union2007–2014Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (cooked)Clair-Caliot et al. 2021 | Market spinach leaves from market2017–2018Fresh weight | mean. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Spinach (frozen)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2009–2022Fresh weight | median. | ||
4 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2010Dry weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2010–2019Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachHong Kong TDS 2012 | 1st HKTDS2010–2011Basis not stated | mean. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2010–2022Fresh weight | median. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Spinach (frozen)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2019Fresh weight | median. | ||
19 findings · 11 studies · 1 spread figure folded in | ||||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2005–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2000Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; unknown2011–2016Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachFDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | United States national collections2018–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachAbubakar et al. 2025 | Site ICollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachGhasemidehkordi et al. 2018 | Five agricultural sites2014Dry weight | mean.Same samples: 10–69.3 µg/kg (range) | ||
| SpinachGhasemidehkordi et al. 2018 | Five agricultural sites2014Dry weight | range. | ||
| SpinachHuang et al. 2014 | Zhejiang province2012Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachJiang et al. 2020 | SZD village near a battery factory2018Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachKurniawati et al. 2021 | Five traditional markets inCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachMartin-Leon et al. 2023 | Large supermarkets2016–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachSaleem et al. 2025 | Town Square Farmer's MarketYear not reportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachWu 2024 | Jiaozuo marketsCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Cattle manure2017Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chemical fertilizer (NPK)2017Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chicken manure2017Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Control (no fertilizer)2017Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Sheep manure2017Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Turkey manure2017Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Vermicompost2017Basis not stated | not detected. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2007–2009Fresh weight | median. | ||
30 findings · 17 studies · 2 spread figures folded in | ||||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2000Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachFDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | United States national collections2018–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachAbubakar et al. 2025 | Site ICollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachElbagermi et al. 2012 | Misurata City local suppliers and2010Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachEmmanuel 2025 | Nomans-Land2025Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachImongben et al. 2026 | Five Kaduna Metropolis marketsCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachJiang et al. 2020 | SZD village near a battery factory2018Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachJoseph et al. 2025 | Gobbiya Dam irrigated farmlandCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachKulshrestha 2022 | Local venders2015–2016Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachKulshrestha 2022 | Walled garden2015–2016Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachMartin-Leon et al. 2023 | Large supermarkets2016–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachNaser et al. 2018 | High-level pollution: KalakoirCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachNaser et al. 2018 | Low-level pollution: BARICollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachNaser et al. 2018 | Medium-level pollution: ZorunCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachPal et al. 2017 | Domestic-wastewater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean.Same samples: 10–3,800 µg/kg (range) | ||
| SpinachPal et al. 2017 | Domestic-wastewater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | range. | ||
| SpinachSaleem et al. 2025 | Town Square Farmer's MarketYear not reportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSuleiman and Ibrahim 2025 | Three irrigation farmsCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 1st phase (early harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | sample value. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 2nd phase (mid-time harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | not detected. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 3rd phase (mid-time harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | sample value. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 4th phase (late harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | sample value. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | All four harvesting phasesYear not reportedDry weight | mean.Same samples: up to 1,700 µg/kg (range maximum) | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | All four harvesting phasesYear not reportedDry weight | range. | ||
| SpinachWu 2024 | Jiaozuo marketsCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Cattle manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chemical fertilizer (NPK)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chicken manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Control (no fertilizer)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Sheep manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Turkey manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Vermicompost2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
1 finding · 1 study | ||||
| Spinach (cooked)Hong Kong TDS 2013 | Hong Kong retail purchases2010–2011Basis not stated | mean. | ||
36 findings · 22 studies · 1 spread figure folded in | ||||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2000Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachFDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | United States national collections2018–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachAbubakar et al. 2025 | Site ICollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachCherfi et al. 2014 | Two wholesale markets supplying2012Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachEmmanuel 2025 | Nomans-Land2025Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachHabu et al. 2025 | Tamburawa wastewater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachHabu et al. 2025 | Tamburawa wastewater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachImongben et al. 2026 | Five Kaduna Metropolis marketsCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachJiang et al. 2020 | SZD village near a battery factory2018Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachJoseph et al. 2025 | Gobbiya Dam irrigated farmlandCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachKulshrestha 2022 | Local venders2015–2016Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachKulshrestha 2022 | Walled garden2015–2016Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachKurniawati et al. 2021 | Five traditional markets inCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachMartin-Leon et al. 2023 | Large supermarkets2016–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachNaser et al. 2018 | High-level pollution: KalakoirCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachNaser et al. 2018 | Low-level pollution: BARICollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachNaser et al. 2018 | Medium-level pollution: ZorunCollection date unreportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachPal et al. 2017 | Domestic-wastewater-irrigatedCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachPan et al. 2016 | Zhejiang province marketed2014Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSadee 2022 | Local markets2021Dry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSaleem et al. 2025 | Town Square Farmer's MarketYear not reportedDry weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachSee et al. 2025 | Pasar Borong Selangor wholesale2022Fresh weight | not detected. | ||
| SpinachSuleiman and Ibrahim 2025 | Three irrigation farmsCollection date unreportedBasis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 1st phase (early harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | sample value. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 2nd phase (mid-time harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | sample value. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 3rd phase (mid-time harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | sample value. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | 4th phase (late harvest)Year not reportedDry weight | sample value. | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | All four harvesting phasesYear not reportedDry weight | mean.Same samples: 1,400–3,300 µg/kg (range) | ||
| SpinachSultana et al. 2022 | All four harvesting phasesYear not reportedDry weight | range. | ||
| SpinachWu 2024 | Jiaozuo marketsCollection date unreportedFresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Cattle manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chemical fertilizer (NPK)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chicken manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Control (no fertilizer)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Sheep manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Turkey manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Vermicompost2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
10 findings · 4 studies | ||||
| SpinachWHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; targeted sampling2000Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachMartin-Leon et al. 2023 | Large supermarkets2016–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachSee et al. 2025 | Pasar Borong Selangor wholesale2022Fresh weight | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Cattle manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chemical fertilizer (NPK)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chicken manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Control (no fertilizer)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Sheep manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Turkey manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Vermicompost2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
2 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2007–2009Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (cooked)Hong Kong TDS 2013 | Hong Kong retail purchases2010–2011Basis not stated | mean. | ||
3 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region EURO; random sampling2007–2009Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (cooked)WHO GEMS/Food | WHO region WPRO; random sampling2010–2011Fresh weight | median. | ||
| Spinach (cooked)Hong Kong TDS 2013 | Hong Kong retail purchases2010–2011Basis not stated | mean. | ||
8 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| SpinachMartin-Leon et al. 2023 | Large supermarkets2016–2017Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Cattle manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chemical fertilizer (NPK)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Chicken manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Control (no fertilizer)2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Sheep manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Turkey manure2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
| SpinachYaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 | Vermicompost2017Basis not stated | mean. | ||
2 findings · 2 studies | ||||
| SpinachFDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | United States national collections2018–2020Fresh weight | median. | ||
| SpinachMartin-Leon et al. 2023 | Large supermarkets2016–2017Fresh weight | 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 baby spinach Pb reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI baby spinach Pb reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Baby spinach; Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤5 | ≤5 | ≤5 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤5 | ≤5 | ≤5 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for baby spinach on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-pb-baby-spinach-fresh-weight:90a181a9caad
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 spinach Pb reference (fresh weight) · 3 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI spinach Pb reference (fresh weight) · 3 sampling families. Spinach; Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 6.2 | 12–12.8 (bounded) | 12.8 |
| Alternative weighting | 6.2 | 12–12.8 (bounded) | 12.8 |
41 reference units; 3 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 39 | 33% |
| FDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | 1 | 33% |
| Martin-Leon et al. 2023 | 1 | 33% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-pb-spinach-fresh-weight:9ce3f14873e7
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 spinach (canned) Pb reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (canned) Pb reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (canned); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 7.35 | 8.5 | 10.2 |
| Alternative weighting | 7.35 | 8.5 | 10.2 |
5 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 5 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach (canned) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-pb-spinach-canned-fresh-weight:b3899493ad8d
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 spinach (cooked) Pb reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (cooked) Pb reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (cooked); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 5.25–7.5 (bounded) | 13.7 | 18.7 |
| Alternative weighting | 5.25–7.5 (bounded) | 13.7 | 18.7 |
32 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 32 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach (cooked) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-pb-spinach-cooked-fresh-weight:0c580ca119aa
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 spinach (frozen) Pb reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (frozen) Pb reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (frozen); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤14.5 | 0.0298–18.8 (bounded) | 12–26.3 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤14.5 | 0.0298–18.8 (bounded) | 12–26.3 (bounded) |
16 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 16 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach (frozen) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-pb-spinach-frozen-fresh-weight:53ac62ba3519
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 spinach Pb reference (dry weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach Pb reference (dry weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach; Dry weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 16700 | 16700 | 16700 |
| Alternative weighting | 16700 | 16700 | 16700 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Cherfi et al. 2014 | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a dry weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-pb-spinach-dry-weight:571d86fedc5c
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 spinach Cd reference (fresh weight) · 3 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI spinach Cd reference (fresh weight) · 3 sampling families. Spinach; Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 21.5 | 51 | 200 |
| Alternative weighting | 21.5 | 51 | 200 |
32 reference units; 3 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 30 | 33% |
| FDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | 1 | 33% |
| Martin-Leon et al. 2023 | 1 | 33% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-cd-spinach-fresh-weight:8912c53ccba9
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 spinach (canned) Cd reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (canned) Cd reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (canned); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 130 | 130 | 130 |
| Alternative weighting | 130 | 130 | 130 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach (canned) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-cd-spinach-canned-fresh-weight:738fba9d4f9c
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 spinach (cooked) Cd reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (cooked) Cd reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (cooked); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 65.9 | 81.7 | 131 |
| Alternative weighting | 65.9 | 81.7 | 131 |
30 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 30 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach (cooked) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-cd-spinach-cooked-fresh-weight:cfe240f5cef8
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 spinach (frozen) Cd reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (frozen) Cd reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (frozen); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 60.3 | 72.3 | 83 |
| Alternative weighting | 60.3 | 72.3 | 83 |
16 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 16 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach (frozen) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-cd-spinach-frozen-fresh-weight:6311e85c3b09
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 spinach Cd reference (dry weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach Cd reference (dry weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach; Dry weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 250–260 (bounded) | 550 | 750 |
| Alternative weighting | 250–260 (bounded) | 550 | 750 |
4 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Sultana et al. 2022 | 4 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a dry weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-cd-spinach-dry-weight:f80e1a4d5f98
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 spinach tAs reference (fresh weight) · 3 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI spinach tAs reference (fresh weight) · 3 sampling families. Spinach; Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 5–5.9 (bounded) | 5.9–8 (bounded) | 8–10 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | 5–5.9 (bounded) | 5.9–8 (bounded) | 8–10 (bounded) |
28 reference units; 3 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 26 | 33% |
| FDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | 1 | 33% |
| Martin-Leon et al. 2023 | 1 | 33% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-tas-spinach-fresh-weight:bd315ebaa1cf
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 spinach (cooked) tAs reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (cooked) tAs reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (cooked); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 6.37 | 8.19 | 9.26 |
| Alternative weighting | 6.37 | 8.19 | 9.26 |
22 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 22 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach (cooked) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-tas-spinach-cooked-fresh-weight:34823862ef0d
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 spinach (frozen) tAs reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (frozen) tAs reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (frozen); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤6 | ≤10 | ≤20 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤6 | ≤10 | ≤20 |
9 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 9 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach (frozen) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-tas-spinach-frozen-fresh-weight:915e3554dbb0
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 spinach iAs reference (dry weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach iAs reference (dry weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach; Dry weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 291 | 291 | 291 |
| Alternative weighting | 291 | 291 | 291 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a dry weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-ias-spinach-dry-weight:0f471139a8c4
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 spinach iAs reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach iAs reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach; Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤13 | 20–30 (bounded) | 165 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤13 | 20–30 (bounded) | 165 |
4 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 4 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-ias-spinach-fresh-weight:09b3bcf2e451
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 spinach (cooked) iAs reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (cooked) iAs reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (cooked); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤5 | 5 | 5–20 (bounded) |
| Alternative weighting | ≤5 | 5 | 5–20 (bounded) |
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 spinach (cooked) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-ias-spinach-cooked-fresh-weight:597d224bbd7d
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 spinach (frozen) iAs reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (frozen) iAs reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (frozen); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤6 | ≤6 | ≤6 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤6 | ≤6 | ≤6 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach (frozen) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-ias-spinach-frozen-fresh-weight:b222aa606373
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 spinach tHg reference (fresh weight) · 3 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI spinach tHg reference (fresh weight) · 3 sampling families. Spinach; Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤1 | 0.217–1.5 (bounded) | 1.7 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤1 | 0.217–1.5 (bounded) | 1.7 |
18 reference units; 3 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 16 | 33% |
| FDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | 1 | 33% |
| Martin-Leon et al. 2023 | 1 | 33% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-thg-spinach-fresh-weight:a69635b518cb
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 spinach (cooked) tHg reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (cooked) tHg reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (cooked); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤5 | ≤5 | ≤5 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤5 | ≤5 | ≤5 |
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 spinach (cooked) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-thg-spinach-cooked-fresh-weight:9c604a856018
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 spinach Ni reference (fresh weight) · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI spinach Ni reference (fresh weight) · 2 sampling families. Spinach; Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 72 | 78.8 | 85.7 |
| Alternative weighting | 72 | 78.8 | 85.7 |
2 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| FDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | 1 | 50% |
| Martin-Leon et al. 2023 | 1 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-ni-spinach-fresh-weight:d19d0b89a033
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 spinach Ni reference (dry weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach Ni reference (dry weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach; Dry weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 150–327 (bounded) | 600–627 (bounded) | 1300 |
| Alternative weighting | 150–327 (bounded) | 600–627 (bounded) | 1300 |
4 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Sultana et al. 2022 | 4 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a dry weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-ni-spinach-dry-weight:e76e3e82dd9b
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 spinach Cr reference (fresh weight) · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI spinach Cr reference (fresh weight) · 2 sampling families. Spinach; Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 72.4 | 86.2 | 100 |
| Alternative weighting | 72.4 | 86.2 | 100 |
2 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| FDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | 1 | 50% |
| Martin-Leon et al. 2023 | 1 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-cr-spinach-fresh-weight:ad4d6f238131
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 spinach Cr reference (dry weight) · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI spinach Cr reference (dry weight) · 2 sampling families. Spinach; Dry weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 2100 | 5820 | 8330 |
| Alternative weighting | 2100 | 5820 | 8330 |
5 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Cherfi et al. 2014 | 1 | 50% |
| Sultana et al. 2022 | 4 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a dry weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-cr-spinach-dry-weight:8a8c4f7bcec9
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 spinach Al reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach Al reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach; Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 41900 | 41900 | 41900 |
| Alternative weighting | 41900 | 41900 | 41900 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Martin-Leon et al. 2023 | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-al-spinach-fresh-weight:8c1a0ef61875
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 spinach (cooked) Al reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (cooked) Al reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (cooked); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 10500 | 13900 | 52100 |
| Alternative weighting | 10500 | 13900 | 52100 |
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 spinach (cooked) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-al-spinach-cooked-fresh-weight:888613c5f953
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 spinach (cooked) Sn reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach (cooked) Sn reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach (cooked); Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | ≤10 | 12.3 | 33.3 |
| Alternative weighting | ≤10 | 12.3 | 33.3 |
5 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| WHO GEMS/Food | 5 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach (cooked) on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-sn-spinach-cooked-fresh-weight:dcacca433cbc
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 spinach Sn reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family
Reference and scope
HMI spinach Sn reference (fresh weight) · 1 sampling family. Spinach; Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 13.1 | 13.1 | 13.1 |
| Alternative weighting | 13.1 | 13.1 | 13.1 |
1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Martin-Leon et al. 2023 | 1 | 100% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. This is the only compatible family in the completed spinach ledger for this form, analyte and basis; it cannot represent other markets. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-sn-spinach-fresh-weight:61ac47a35a0c
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 spinach U reference (fresh weight) · 2 sampling families
Reference and scope
HMI spinach U reference (fresh weight) · 2 sampling families. Spinach; Fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture or cooking conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.
| Reference (µg/kg) | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary HMI reference | 2.1 | 3 | 3.9 |
| Alternative weighting | 2.1 | 3 | 3.9 |
2 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.
| Contributing family | Reference units | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| FDA TDS FY2018–FY2020 | 1 | 50% |
| Martin-Leon et al. 2023 | 1 | 50% |
Methods
HMI pools subgroup medians for spinach on a fresh weight basis from every compatible retail, monitoring or ordinary-farm sampling family in the spinach evidence ledger: WHO GEMS/Food region-by-year medians (random sampling only), FDA Total Diet Study composites, per-sample results printed by individual surveys and published subgroup medians. Each 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, fresh-weight and dry-weight results are never converted into each other, and results from wastewater-irrigated, industrial or polluted sites, fertiliser trials and manufacturer tests are compared against the reference but never set it.
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
An evidence-library reference for one spinach form and basis, not a probability sample of any market. GEMS/Food regions are reporting regions, not growing origins. 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:spinach-u-spinach-fresh-weight:a1d1a1b9371c
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.
The source reports only a percentile, range or maximum for these samples, with no mean or median to place against the reference. Spread figures that do have a mean or median are shown on that row instead.
The value could not be reconciled with its own paper, so it is shown but not compared.
The result is below a reporting limit, and the range from zero to that limit crosses more than one band.
No medians or sample values exist for this form and metal, so no HMI reference could be built.
The HMI reference for this form has fewer than four units or no measurable spread, below the display minimum.
The result is on a basis (dry weight, or not stated) that no HMI reference for this form uses, so it cannot be placed.
Reporting limits overlap the study comparison, so no direction can be shown.
No findings match these filters. Change the selection or reset to show all source findings.
How contamination reaches spinach
Spinach takes cadmium up through its roots and moves it readily to the leaves, while lead binds strongly in soil and moves little into leaves, so leaf lead mostly reflects soil or dust on the surface.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source → Chloride in soil or irrigation water makes cadmium more mobile and available to the plant, and older leaves accumulate more cadmium than young leaves because uptake follows transpiration.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →
Irrigation water and industrial pollution raise every metal.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →24Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source → In Gazipur, Bangladesh, spinach from a field irrigated with heavily polluted river water carried 1,020 µg/kg cadmium, 5,970 µg/kg lead and 31,900 µg/kg nickel dry weight, against 430, 1,160 and 5,480 µg/kg on a non-industrial research field.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source → In a greenhouse trial, irrigating with water containing 500 µg/L arsenic raised spinach leaf arsenic from 1.05 to 6.57 µg/g dry matter.24Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source → Near a battery factory in Henan, village spinach carried 5,040 µg/kg cadmium and 1,930 µg/kg lead, and sewage-irrigated spinach in Faisalabad 3,580 and 6,130 µg/kg (basis not stated in either).9Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaEnvironmental Science: Processes & ImpactsRead source →10Effects of sewage water irrigation on heavy metals accumulation in vegetables in peri-urban areas of Faisalabad, PakistanAgricultural Research Reports 3(1):46–57Read source →
Fertiliser and manure choices change lead and arsenic more than cadmium.25compared to the chemical fertilizer. In organic fertilizer applications, heavy metal contents such as arsenic, chrome, cobalt, and nickel were found toPeer-reviewed articleRead source → In a Turkish open-field trial, chicken, sheep and cattle manure and vermicompost raised spinach lead from 110 to 500–750 µg/kg, while cadmium stayed between 400 and 530 µg/kg in every treatment and arsenic, nickel and chromium fell below the unfertilised control.25compared to the chemical fertilizer. In organic fertilizer applications, heavy metal contents such as arsenic, chrome, cobalt, and nickel were found toPeer-reviewed articleRead source → Spiking pot soil with 3 mg/kg cadmium raised spinach leaf cadmium from 0.01 to 3.29 mg/kg dry weight, showing how directly soil cadmium transfers to the leaf.26The Cd:Zn ratio in a soil affects Cd toxicity in spinach (Spinacea oleracea L.)Pakistan Journal of Agricultural SciencesRead source →
Lower measured levels by site, region and type
For cadmium, the clearest lower-contamination choice is a growing site away from polluted irrigation water and industry, because that is the only difference measured within the same studies.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →11BIO-ACCUMULATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SOME NORTHPeer-reviewed articleRead source → A non-industrial field in Gazipur gave 430 µg/kg dry weight against 1,020 µg/kg beside a polluted river, and a walled garden in Dehradun watered from a tube well and rain gave 260 µg/kg against 470 µg/kg in market spinach grown with mixed and partly wastewater irrigation.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →11BIO-ACCUMULATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SOME NORTHPeer-reviewed articleRead source → Across monitoring datasets, the lowest observed retail cadmium was in Europe and the Canary Islands (GEMS/Food European median 40 µg/kg, Gran Canaria 21.5 µg/kg, a single Malaysian wholesale lot below 4 µg/kg), with the Americas (125 µg/kg) and US composites (200 µg/kg) higher.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source →8Heavy Metals Assessment in Selected Leafy Vegetables from Selangor, MalaysiaPertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural ScienceRead source → These are purchase markets, not growing origins, and the periods differ, so they are tentative regional patterns rather than a supported country ranking.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →
A 2024 review of US data supports part of that pattern: spinach sampled in the 1980s, mostly from lower-cadmium soils, would all have met a 0.20 mg/kg limit, while 40–50% of recent California and Arizona samples would not.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source → Within GEMS/Food, domestic and imported spinach had the same cadmium median (50 and 49 µg/kg), so the domestic-or-imported label alone does not identify lower-cadmium supply.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → The review also reports that baby spinach had lower cadmium than the later bunching crop in a New Zealand field study; the library holds that comparison only as reported in the review, and GEMS/Food holds a single baby-spinach result, a lead non-detect below 5 µg/kg.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →
For lead, nickel and chromium the same site contrast holds, and the size of the gap is larger than for cadmium.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →11BIO-ACCUMULATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SOME NORTHPeer-reviewed articleRead source → Lead fell from 5,970 to 1,160 µg/kg and nickel from 31,900 to 5,480 µg/kg between the polluted and non-industrial Gazipur fields, and lead from 2,740 to 1,260 µg/kg and chromium from 2,710 to 1,090 µg/kg between Dehradun market spinach and the walled garden.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →11BIO-ACCUMULATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SOME NORTHPeer-reviewed articleRead source → In retail data lead was lowest, apart from one Malaysian lot below 4 µg/kg, in US composites (median 6.2 µg/kg) and Americas submissions (10 µg/kg), with Europe at 14–22 µg/kg; total arsenic was low everywhere it was measured (US 5.9, Gran Canaria 8 and Western Pacific 7.45 µg/kg).1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source → No study in the library compares field-grown with greenhouse or hydroponic spinach for any metal, so no growing-system preference can be stated; organic spinach appears in only two GEMS/Food cadmium results, too few to compare.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →
Which spinach had the lowest measured lead and arsenic?
Retail spinach was low in both: lead medians of 6.2 µg/kg in US composites, 10 µg/kg in Americas submissions and 12.8 µg/kg in Gran Canaria, and total arsenic 5.9–8 µg/kg.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source → Inorganic arsenic averaged 5 µg/kg in Hong Kong spinach, and five of seven European GEMS/Food results were below a 6 µg/kg reporting limit.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →27The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Inorganic ArsenicCentre for Food Safety, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionRead source → The highest lead values came from wastewater-irrigated and industrial sites in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and China.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →9Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaEnvironmental Science: Processes & ImpactsRead source →10Effects of sewage water irrigation on heavy metals accumulation in vegetables in peri-urban areas of Faisalabad, PakistanAgricultural Research Reports 3(1):46–57Read source →28A review on the concentration of the heavy metals in vegetable samples like spinach and tomato grown near the area of Amba Nalla of Amravati CityInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and TechnologyRead source →
Is frozen or canned spinach lower in cadmium than fresh?
Not in the monitoring data.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → European frozen spinach had a higher cadmium median (71 µg/kg) than raw spinach (40 µg/kg), and the single canned European result was 130 µg/kg; these are different samples, so the comparison does not show what processing does to a given lot.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →
Freezing, cooking, washing and purée
Freezing, cooking and canning did not lower cadmium in the monitoring data.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → In randomly sampled European GEMS/Food submissions, frozen spinach had a cadmium median of 71 µg/kg and cooked spinach 66 µg/kg, against 40 µg/kg for raw; in the Americas cooked spinach (116 µg/kg) was close to raw (125 µg/kg).1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → These are different samples, not paired before-and-after measurements, so the differences cannot be read as an effect of processing; cooking does drive off water, which concentrates cadmium per kilogram of cooked leaf.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →
Washing removes soil and dust but little of the cadmium inside the leaf.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source → The 2024 review estimates that leaf washing lowers spinach cadmium by only about 8–15%, compared with 20–80% for zinc amendment of soil.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source → Boiling in clean water removed 3–31% of the arsenic from greenhouse spinach, but boiling market spinach in water containing 1,000 µg/L arsenic raised it from 0.01 to 0.75 µg/g fresh mass, so the cooking water itself can add arsenic.24Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source →
Spinach purée and canned spinach behave as concentrated or prepared forms.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →12Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and MercuryStaff ReportRead source → Cadmium in spinach purée tested by a US baby-food manufacturer before use (143 µg/kg) was in the same range as its fresh spinach lots (101–142 µg/kg), and canned spinach in the Americas had a lead median of 8.5 µg/kg.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →12Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and MercuryStaff ReportRead source → The library holds no paired measurement of a spinach purée or canned product and the leaves that went into it.
Controls for spinach
Controls for spinach act mainly where it grows: choosing the field, the irrigation water and the soil inputs.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →24Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source → In pot trials, zinc added to cadmium-spiked soil at 300 mg/kg lowered spinach leaf cadmium from 3.29 to 1.96 mg/kg dry weight, while 30 mg/kg had no effect, and acidified biochar at 1.2% lowered shoot cadmium by 33–59%.26The Cd:Zn ratio in a soil affects Cd toxicity in spinach (Spinacea oleracea L.)Pakistan Journal of Agricultural SciencesRead source →29Minimization of cadmium toxicity and improvement in growth and biochemical attributes of spinach by using acidified biocharScientific ReportsRead source → The 2024 review rates lime with zinc and limiting chloride inputs as the most effective field measures, at about 60% and 40% cadmium reduction, and cultivar choice at 0–50%.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →
For lead and arsenic the controls are site and water rather than amendments.25compared to the chemical fertilizer. In organic fertilizer applications, heavy metal contents such as arsenic, chrome, cobalt, and nickel were found toPeer-reviewed articleRead source →24Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source → Avoiding lead-bearing manures matters, because manures raised spinach lead four- to sevenfold in an open-field trial, and arsenic-free irrigation and cooking water are the controls the Burkina Faso trials support for arsenic.25compared to the chemical fertilizer. In organic fertilizer applications, heavy metal contents such as arsenic, chrome, cobalt, and nickel were found toPeer-reviewed articleRead source →24Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source → After harvest, lot testing against the spinach limits detects high lots but does not lower contamination.3Commission 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 →
Filter findings
9 control comparisons
About this table
| Control | Material | Effects | Evidence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irrigate with arsenic-free watercultivation · As reported | Spinach | tAs · Increased | 1Clair-Caliot et al. 2021 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators Total arsenicIncreasedHigher arsenic with contaminated irrigation waterSpinach leaf total arsenic0 versus 500 µg/L irrigation arsenicDry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (6570 − 1050) / 1050 × 100 = 525.7%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Arsenic-free irrigation versus water spiked to 500 µg/L arsenic(V), same soil. 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 Spinach leaf arsenic rose with irrigation-water arsenic; at 500 µg/L it reached 6.57 µg/g dry matter against 1.05 µg/g with arsenic-free water.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured paired comparison or trial. Areas with arsenic-bearing groundwater. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or remaining in the edible leaf, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Greenhouse experiment. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Basis as stated in each outcome; no conversion. Trade-offs and implementation As reported in outcomes. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Areas with arsenic-bearing groundwater. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Check manures and composts for lead before usecultivation · As reported | Spinach | Pb · Increased Cd · Decreased tAs · Decreased | 1Yaman Türkkan and Kibar 2022 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators LeadIncreasedHigher lead with chicken manureSpinach leadControl versus chicken manureBasis not statedHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (750 − 110) / 110 × 100 = 581.8%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. CadmiumDecreasedSlightly lower cadmium with vermicompostSpinach cadmiumControl versus vermicompostBasis not statedLow · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (400 − 430) / 430 × 100 = -7.0%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Total arsenicDecreasedLower arsenic with chicken manureSpinach arsenicControl versus chicken manureBasis not statedLow · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (350 − 410) / 410 × 100 = -14.6%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Unfertilised control plots versus each fertiliser. 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 Chicken, sheep and cattle manure and vermicompost raised spinach lead four- to sevenfold while lowering arsenic and nickel slightly; cadmium changed little.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured paired comparison or trial. Manure-fertilised spinach. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or remaining in the edible leaf, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
One season; basis not stated; no detection limits reported. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Basis as stated in each outcome; no conversion. Trade-offs and implementation As reported in outcomes. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Manure-fertilised spinach. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Raise soil zinc on cadmium-affected landsoil remediation · As reported | Spinach | Cd · Decreased Cd · Increased | 1Hussain 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 cadmium with zinc at 300 mg/kgSpinach leaf cadmiumNo zinc versus Cd:Zn 1:100Dry weightModerate · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (1960 − 3290) / 3290 × 100 = -40.4%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. CadmiumIncreasedNo reduction at the lower zinc rateSpinach leaf cadmiumNo zinc versus Cd:Zn 1:10Dry weightLow · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (3670 − 3290) / 3290 × 100 = 11.6%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Cadmium-spiked soil without zinc versus with zinc. 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 Zinc at 300 mg/kg soil lowered spinach leaf cadmium from 3.29 to 1.96 mg/kg dry weight; 30 mg/kg zinc did not, and the effective rate reduced shoot growth by about 17%.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured paired comparison or trial. Cadmium-affected soils. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or remaining in the edible leaf, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Pot experiment with spiked soil. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Basis as stated in each outcome; no conversion. Trade-offs and implementation As reported in outcomes. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Cadmium-affected soils. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Amend soil with acidified biocharsoil remediation · As reported | Spinach | Cd · Decreased | 1Sheikh et al. 2025 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreasedLower cadmium (33–59% at 1.2% biochar)Spinach shoot cadmiumNo biochar versus 1.20% biocharBasis not statedNot quantified · 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. No biochar versus 0.45, 0.90 and 1.20% biochar. 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 Acidified cotton-stick biochar lowered spinach shoot cadmium by 17–59% in unspiked soil and 17–33% in soil spiked with 20 mg/kg cadmium, increasing with dose.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured paired comparison or trial. Cadmium-affected soils. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or remaining in the edible leaf, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Pot experiment; values shown only in a figure, percentages from the text. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Basis as stated in each outcome; no conversion. Trade-offs and implementation As reported in outcomes. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Cadmium-affected soils. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Limit chloride inputs and use lime with zinc on cadmium-prone soilscultivation · As reported | Spinach | Cd · Decreased Cd · Decreased | GuidanceSeyfferth et al. 2024 HMI source record · Original source Official guidance; not an independent experimental dataset. Reused across actions without adding studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreasedEstimated 40–60% lower cadmiumSpinach cadmiumLime plus zinc; low-chloride irrigation and fertiliserBasis not statedNot quantified · 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. CadmiumDecreasedEstimated 8–15% lower cadmiumSpinach cadmiumLeaf washingBasis not statedNot quantified · 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. Review estimates from the literature it cites; not a single 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 A review of the literature and grower interviews rates lime with zinc (about 60%) and limiting chloride inputs (about 40%) as the most effective cadmium reductions, cultivar choice at 0–50% and leaf washing at 8–15%.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Regulatory or review guidance. Commercial spinach growing. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or remaining in the edible leaf, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Review estimates; effects depend on soil and source. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Basis as stated in each outcome; no conversion. Trade-offs and implementation As reported in outcomes. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Commercial spinach growing. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Source spinach from fields away from polluted irrigation water and industrysourcing and procurement · As reported | Spinach | Cd · Decreased Pb · Decreased Ni · Decreased | 1Naser et al. 2018 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreasedLower cadmium on the non-industrial field (observational)Spinach leaf cadmiumHigh- versus low-pollution fieldDry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (430 − 1020) / 1020 × 100 = -57.8%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. LeadDecreasedLower lead on the non-industrial field (observational)Spinach leaf leadHigh- versus low-pollution fieldDry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (1160 − 5970) / 5970 × 100 = -80.6%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. NickelDecreasedLower nickel on the non-industrial field (observational)Spinach leaf nickelHigh- versus low-pollution fieldDry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (5480 − 31900) / 31900 × 100 = -82.8%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. High-pollution versus low-pollution fields in the same district, same analysis. 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 Spinach from a field irrigated with heavily polluted river water carried far more cadmium, lead and nickel than spinach from a non-industrial research field.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Observational field or market comparison. Areas with industrial effluent in irrigation water. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or remaining in the edible leaf, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Observational; sample counts per field not stated; dry weight. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Basis as stated in each outcome; no conversion. Trade-offs and implementation As reported in outcomes. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Areas with industrial effluent in irrigation water. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Prefer spinach grown with clean water and no street runoffsourcing and procurement · As reported | Spinach | Cd · Decreased Pb · Decreased Cr · Decreased | 1Kulshrestha 2022 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumDecreasedLower cadmium in walled-garden spinach (observational)Spinach cadmiumMarket versus walled gardenDry weightModerate · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (260 − 470) / 470 × 100 = -44.7%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. LeadDecreasedLower lead in walled-garden spinach (observational)Spinach leadMarket versus walled gardenDry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (1260 − 2740) / 2740 × 100 = -54.0%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Total chromiumDecreasedLower chromium in walled-garden spinach (observational)Spinach chromiumMarket versus walled gardenDry weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (1090 − 2710) / 2710 × 100 = -59.8%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Market spinach versus walled-garden spinach, same laboratory. 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 Spinach from a walled garden watered from a tube well and rain carried less cadmium, lead, nickel and chromium than market spinach grown with mixed and partly wastewater irrigation.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Observational field or market comparison. Urban and peri-urban supply with mixed irrigation sources. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or remaining in the edible leaf, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Observational; five samples per group. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Basis as stated in each outcome; no conversion. Trade-offs and implementation As reported in outcomes. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Urban and peri-urban supply with mixed irrigation sources. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
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 lots against spinach-specific limitslot acceptance and release · As reported | Spinach | Cd · Context Pb · Context | GuidanceRegulation (EU) 2023/915 HMI source record · Original source Official guidance; not an independent experimental dataset. Reused across actions without adding studies. Effects and comparators CadmiumLimit 0.20 mg/kgCadmium maximum levelSpinachFresh 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. LeadLimit 0.30 mg/kgLead maximum levelLeaf vegetablesFresh 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 maximum levels. 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 Cadmium 0.20 mg/kg for spinach and similar leaves and lead 0.30 mg/kg for leaf vegetables, wet weight, after washing and separating the edible part.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Regulatory or review guidance. Spinach placed on the EU market. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or remaining in the edible leaf, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
A limit detects non-compliant lots; it does not lower contamination. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Basis as stated in each outcome; no conversion. Trade-offs and implementation As reported in outcomes. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Spinach placed on the EU market. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cook in arsenic-free waterhome preparation · As reported | Spinach | tAs · Increased | 1Clair-Caliot et al. 2021 HMI source record · Original source One dataset family. Linked analytes, repeated seasons and reports are not independent studies. Effects and comparators Total arsenicIncreasedHigher arsenic with contaminated cooking waterMarket spinach total arsenicClean versus 1,000 µg/L cooking waterFresh weightHigh · HMI calculates the relative change from the retained source means: (750 − 10) / 10 × 100 = 7400.0%. This is a descriptive contrast of means; no confidence interval or significance test is inferred. Clean versus arsenic-contaminated cooking water. 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 Boiling market spinach in water containing arsenic raised its arsenic from 0.01 to 0.75 µg/g fresh mass; boiling in clean water removed 3–31% of arsenic from greenhouse spinach.
Design, applicability and operating conditions Measured paired comparison or trial. Arsenic-affected areas. One study family. As reported by the source Reduces metal reaching or remaining in the edible leaf, or detects it before release. Source measurements and linked outcomes
Laboratory cooking test. No percentage calculated unless shown in outcomes. Basis as stated in each outcome; no conversion. Trade-offs and implementation As reported in outcomes. Not assessed unless stated. Not assessed. Not quantified. Not assessed. Applicability and verification Arsenic-affected areas. Lot testing. See source. Extraction limits and next actions
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No matching controls in this selected evidence. This is a coverage boundary, not proof that no control exists. Change or reset the filters.
Trade-offs and failure modes
Measures that lower one metal can raise another.25compared to the chemical fertilizer. In organic fertilizer applications, heavy metal contents such as arsenic, chrome, cobalt, and nickel were found toPeer-reviewed articleRead source → The manures that lowered arsenic, nickel and chromium in Turkish spinach raised its lead, and vermicompost, the only treatment that lowered cadmium slightly (400 against 430 µg/kg), raised lead to 540 µg/kg.25compared to the chemical fertilizer. In organic fertilizer applications, heavy metal contents such as arsenic, chrome, cobalt, and nickel were found toPeer-reviewed articleRead source → Zinc at the effective rate also cut spinach shoot growth by about 17% in the pot trial.26The Cd:Zn ratio in a soil affects Cd toxicity in spinach (Spinacea oleracea L.)Pakistan Journal of Agricultural SciencesRead source →
Pot-trial effects do not transfer directly to commercial fields.26The Cd:Zn ratio in a soil affects Cd toxicity in spinach (Spinacea oleracea L.)Pakistan Journal of Agricultural SciencesRead source →29Minimization of cadmium toxicity and improvement in growth and biochemical attributes of spinach by using acidified biocharScientific ReportsRead source →30chromium through Cr-stressed Life Sciences, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, University of Agricultural Sciences andPeer-reviewed articleRead source → The zinc, biochar and chromium-stress trials used spiked or contaminated soils in pots, and several read their spinach results only from charts, so their percentage effects describe those conditions.26The Cd:Zn ratio in a soil affects Cd toxicity in spinach (Spinacea oleracea L.)Pakistan Journal of Agricultural SciencesRead source →29Minimization of cadmium toxicity and improvement in growth and biochemical attributes of spinach by using acidified biocharScientific ReportsRead source →30chromium through Cr-stressed Life Sciences, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, University of Agricultural Sciences andPeer-reviewed articleRead source →31Muhammad Shoaib Rana, gel alleviates chromiumPeer-reviewed articleRead source → Spinach also contains oxalate, which the 2024 review notes may bind cadmium in the leaf and affect how much is absorbed when eaten; that effect on exposure has not been measured.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →
Sampling and testing spinach
A spinach result is only comparable when the basis is stated. Many field studies report dry weight, which is about 14 times the fresh-weight value, and then compare it with fresh-weight limits, overstating exceedance; the EU limits apply to wet weight after washing and separating the edible part.3Commission 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 →6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source → A useful report gives the form (raw, baby, frozen, cooked or purée), fresh-weight basis, whether it was washed, the growing site and the quantification limit for each metal.2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →3Commission 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 →
Reporting limits must sit well below the decision level.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source → US composites reported lead down to 4 µg/kg and cadmium to 1 µg/kg, while several surveys print values below their own detection limits, and one Pakistani study reports mercury after open digestion at 200 °C, conditions that lose mercury; those rows are held.2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →10Effects of sewage water irrigation on heavy metals accumulation in vegetables in peri-urban areas of Faisalabad, PakistanAgricultural Research Reports 3(1):46–57Read source →19Heavy Metals in Commonly Consumed Root and Leafy Vegetables in Dhaka City, Bangladesh, and Assessment of Associated Public Health RisksEnvironmental Systems ResearchRead source → Total arsenic is not inorganic arsenic, and inorganic mercury submitted to GEMS/Food is not total mercury; the page keeps each species separate.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →27The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Inorganic ArsenicCentre for Food Safety, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionRead source →
Why do some studies report extreme values?
Some extreme values do not survive a check against their own papers. In a Dhaka market study every detected lead value was below the method’s own detection limit, and in an Iranian field study the cadmium standard deviation was eleven times the mean.19Heavy Metals in Commonly Consumed Root and Leafy Vegetables in Dhaka City, Bangladesh, and Assessment of Associated Public Health RisksEnvironmental Systems ResearchRead source →20The health risk assessment of heavy metals in vegetables grown in Babol city, IranInternational Archives of Health SciencesRead source → Other high values are real but come from wastewater-irrigated or industrial sites and from dry-weight measurements, which are about 14 times fresh-weight values.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →9Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaEnvironmental Science: Processes & ImpactsRead source →
Sourcing and supplier evidence
Spinach has its own cadmium limit in several markets.3Commission 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 →32Article 2. Common Standards and Specifications for General FoodsKorean Food CodeRead source →33Guidelines on the Food Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) (Amendment) Regulation 2018USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report HK1922, relaying the Hong Kong Centre for Food Safety Guidelines for the Food Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) (Amendment) Regulation 2018 (Cap. 132V sub. leg.)Read source → The EU sets 0.20 mg/kg cadmium for spinach and similar leaves, double the 0.10 mg/kg for other leaf vegetables, 0.30 mg/kg lead for leaf vegetables and, from 1 July 2025, 0.50 mg/kg nickel for leafy vegetables, all on wet weight.3Commission 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 →34Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 of 30 July 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of nickel in certain foodstuffsOfficial Journal of the European Union, L series, 2024/1987 (31.7.2024)Read source → Korea sets 0.3 mg/kg lead and 0.2 mg/kg cadmium for spinach, China 0.3 mg/kg lead and 0.2 mg/kg cadmium for leafy vegetables, and Hong Kong 0.2 mg/kg cadmium for leafy vegetables; the Codex 0.3 mg/kg lead level for leafy vegetables in the edition held in the library excludes spinach.32Article 2. Common Standards and Specifications for General FoodsKorean Food CodeRead source →35China Releases the Standard for Maximum Levels of Contaminants in Foods (USDA FAS GAIN Report CH2023-0040, unofficial translation of GB 2762-2022)USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN), Report Number CH2023-0040Read source →33Guidelines on the Food Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) (Amendment) Regulation 2018USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report HK1922, relaying the Hong Kong Centre for Food Safety Guidelines for the Food Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) (Amendment) Regulation 2018 (Cap. 132V sub. leg.)Read source →36General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Codex Alimentarius (Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme)Read source →
Cadmium is the result most likely to approach a limit.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →7Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source → In GEMS/Food, 105 of 2,262 raw, 48 of 773 frozen and 11 of 105 cooked spinach results were above 0.20 mg/kg cadmium, against 23 of 2,111 raw results above 0.30 mg/kg lead; EFSA counted 34 of 867 (3.9%) EU spinach samples above the cadmium limit.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →7Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source → Ask for lot cadmium and lead on a fresh-weight basis with the growing region and irrigation source, because most datasets identify only the market and the clearest high-contamination cases are site-specific.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →
Spinach in foods and dietary exposure
Spinach is a measurable contributor to cadmium and nickel intake for people who eat it often.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →37Nickel Content of Food and Estimation of Dietary IntakeZeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und -Forschung 179(6):427-431Read source → In a Danish average-diet estimate spinach supplied about 1.04 µg of nickel a day from a literature mean of 0.52 mg/kg, with the highest nickel load factor of the vegetables listed.37Nickel Content of Food and Estimation of Dietary IntakeZeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und -Forschung 179(6):427-431Read source → The 2024 review cites baby-food testing in which products containing leafy greens such as kale and spinach tended to contain more cadmium, and an FDA survey of baby foods found that 18 of 20 purées and mixtures above its cadmium 95th percentile listed tomato, spinach or carrot among their ingredients.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →18Toxic elements in baby and young children’s foods in the US and correlation to ingredientsFood Additives & Contaminants: Part BRead source →
Exposure depends on how much is eaten and in what form.2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source → Raw spinach is mostly water, so a cooked portion that has lost water carries more cadmium per gram than the same leaves raw.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source → No source in the library measured metals in a finished spinach product together with the spinach that went into it, so finished-product concentrations cannot be inferred from the leaf values here.
Evidence review and remaining questions
This assessment covers every source record in the library tagged to spinach or naming it, and every spinach row in WHO GEMS/Food, the FDA Total Diet Study and the other indexed datasets; each item has a recorded decision based on its content.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source → Studies of amaranth, water spinach and Malabar spinach, papers that print spinach values only in charts and pooled vegetable groups are recorded but not used as spinach results.14Levels of heavy metals and their health risk assessment from wastewater irrigated spinach in railway quarters, Bauchi, Bauchi state, NigeriaInternational Journal of Advanced Chemistry ResearchRead source →38Heavy Metal Contamination of Irrigation Water, Soil, and Vegetables and the Difference between Dry and Wet Seasons Near a Multi-Industry Zone in BangladeshWaterRead source →39Health Risk Assessment and Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Heavy Metals in Vegetables of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Region, PakistanBiological Trace Element ResearchRead source →
Remaining gaps are specific. The Peruvian mining-region dataset with spinach results is held in an external repository not in the library, the New Zealand comparison of baby and bunching spinach is available only through a review, and no study compares field-grown with greenhouse or hydroponic spinach.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →40Dataset of metals and metalloids in food crops and soils sampled across the mining region of Moquegua in PeruScientific DataRead source → Inorganic arsenic was measured directly only in GEMS/Food submissions and the Hong Kong total diet study.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →27The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Inorganic ArsenicCentre for Food Safety, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionRead source →
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.
Spinach FAQs
What heavy metals are found in spinach?
Cadmium is found in almost every spinach sample and is the one most often at levels that matter.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source → Lead, total and inorganic arsenic, mercury, nickel, chromium, aluminium, tin and uranium have also been measured; in monitored retail spinach lead and arsenic are usually low and mercury mostly below detection.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source →
Why does spinach contain cadmium?
Spinach roots take cadmium up from soil and the plant moves it into the leaves, more readily than lead; chloride in soil or water increases its uptake.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source → Spiking pot soil with 3 mg/kg cadmium raised leaf cadmium from 0.01 to 3.29 mg/kg dry weight.26The Cd:Zn ratio in a soil affects Cd toxicity in spinach (Spinacea oleracea L.)Pakistan Journal of Agricultural SciencesRead source →
Is there a legal limit for cadmium in spinach?
Yes, in several markets.3Commission 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 →32Article 2. Common Standards and Specifications for General FoodsKorean Food CodeRead source → The EU maximum is 0.20 mg/kg wet weight for spinach and similar leaves, and Korea, China and Hong Kong set 0.2 mg/kg for spinach or leafy vegetables; lead limits are 0.3 mg/kg.3Commission 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 →32Article 2. Common Standards and Specifications for General FoodsKorean Food CodeRead source →35China Releases the Standard for Maximum Levels of Contaminants in Foods (USDA FAS GAIN Report CH2023-0040, unofficial translation of GB 2762-2022)USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN), Report Number CH2023-0040Read source →33Guidelines on the Food Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) (Amendment) Regulation 2018USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report HK1922, relaying the Hong Kong Centre for Food Safety Guidelines for the Food Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) (Amendment) Regulation 2018 (Cap. 132V sub. leg.)Read source → No US cadmium limit for spinach appears in the sources held; the 2024 US review evaluates US data against the EU value.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →
How often does spinach exceed the cadmium limit?
In GEMS/Food, 105 of 2,262 raw spinach results (about 5%) were above 0.20 mg/kg, and EFSA counted 3.9% of EU samples above the limit.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →7Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodThe EFSA JournalRead source → US market composites from 2018 to 2020 exceeded 0.20 mg/kg in 10 of 27 cases.2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →
Which growing regions produce spinach with the least cadmium?
The supported answer is a site rather than a country: fields away from polluted irrigation water and industry.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →11BIO-ACCUMULATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SOME NORTHPeer-reviewed articleRead source → Retail monitoring found lower medians in Europe (40 µg/kg) and Gran Canaria (21.5 µg/kg) than in the Americas (125 µg/kg) and US composites (200 µg/kg), but these record where spinach was bought, not where it grew.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source → A US review reports higher cadmium in recent California and Arizona spinach than in 1980s samples from lower-cadmium soils.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →
Does baby spinach have less cadmium than mature spinach?
Probably, but the library holds only indirect evidence.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source → A 2024 review explains that older leaves accumulate more cadmium and cites a New Zealand field study in which baby spinach had lower cadmium than the later bunching crop; the only direct baby-spinach result in the library is one lead non-detect.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →
Is organic spinach lower in heavy metals?
The library cannot say.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → Only two organic spinach cadmium results are in GEMS/Food, and the one fertiliser trial found that organic manures raised spinach lead four- to sevenfold while leaving cadmium almost unchanged.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →25compared to the chemical fertilizer. In organic fertilizer applications, heavy metal contents such as arsenic, chrome, cobalt, and nickel were found toPeer-reviewed articleRead source →
Does washing spinach remove heavy metals?
Only the part on the surface.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source → Washing removes soil and dust, which carry most surface lead, but the 2024 review estimates only an 8–15% cadmium reduction, because cadmium is inside the leaf.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →
Does cooking spinach reduce cadmium or arsenic?
Cooking does not destroy metals.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →24Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source → Boiling in clean water removed 3–31% of arsenic from spinach, but boiling in water with 1,000 µg/L arsenic raised spinach arsenic about 75-fold, and the water lost in cooking concentrates cadmium per gram.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →24Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead source → Cooked spinach in monitoring data had cadmium medians similar to or above raw spinach.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →
Is frozen spinach different from fresh?
Not lower in cadmium.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source → European frozen spinach had a cadmium median of 71 µg/kg against 40 µg/kg for raw, and a lead median below 20 µg/kg, similar to raw; these are different samples, not the same lots before and after freezing.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →
Why do some studies report very high metal levels in spinach?
Most come from spinach grown on wastewater-irrigated or industrial sites, and many are on a dry-weight basis, about 14 times fresh-weight values.4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source →6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →9Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaEnvironmental Science: Processes & ImpactsRead source →10Effects of sewage water irrigation on heavy metals accumulation in vegetables in peri-urban areas of Faisalabad, PakistanAgricultural Research Reports 3(1):46–57Read source → Some extreme values fail checks against their own papers and are held on this page.19Heavy Metals in Commonly Consumed Root and Leafy Vegetables in Dhaka City, Bangladesh, and Assessment of Associated Public Health RisksEnvironmental Systems ResearchRead source →20The health risk assessment of heavy metals in vegetables grown in Babol city, IranInternational Archives of Health SciencesRead source →
Is spinach a concern for babies and young children?
Spinach is one of the cadmium sources identified for infant foods.6Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachGeoHealthRead source →18Toxic elements in baby and young children’s foods in the US and correlation to ingredientsFood Additives & Contaminants: Part BRead source → An FDA survey found that 18 of 20 purées and mixtures with the highest cadmium listed tomato, spinach or carrot, and spinach and purée tested by a manufacturer before use carried 101–143 µg/kg cadmium.18Toxic elements in baby and young children’s foods in the US and correlation to ingredientsFood Additives & Contaminants: Part BRead source →12Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and MercuryStaff ReportRead source → No authoritative serving guidance for spinach and metals is in the library.
How much aluminium is in spinach?
A lot compared with other leaves.5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source →8Heavy Metals Assessment in Selected Leafy Vegetables from Selangor, MalaysiaPertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural ScienceRead source → Gran Canaria supermarket spinach had a median of 41,900 µg/kg and Malaysian market spinach averaged 41,400 µg/kg, and cooked spinach in Hong Kong 13,000 µg/kg, the highest of the leaves in the Gran Canaria survey.5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source →8Heavy Metals Assessment in Selected Leafy Vegetables from Selangor, MalaysiaPertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural ScienceRead source →13The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Metallic ContaminantsCentre for Food Safety, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionRead source →
Is the arsenic in spinach inorganic?
Mostly it is measured only as total arsenic, which was low in retail spinach (medians 5.9–8 µg/kg).2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →5Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsToxicsRead source → Where inorganic arsenic was measured directly it averaged 5 µg/kg in Hong Kong, and five of seven European submissions were below a 6 µg/kg reporting limit.1GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →27The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Inorganic ArsenicCentre for Food Safety, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionRead source →
What should a buyer ask a spinach supplier for?
Lot results for cadmium and lead on a fresh-weight basis with quantification limits well below 0.20 and 0.30 mg/kg, the growing region and field, and the irrigation water source.2FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →3Commission 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 →4Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionBangladesh Journal of Agricultural ResearchRead source → For arsenic-affected regions, the arsenic content of irrigation water.24Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoFrontiers in WaterRead 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 exportsDataset
- FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsDataset
- Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006Regulation
- Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables grown in industrial areas under varying levels of pollutionPeer-reviewed
- Evaluation of essential, toxic and potentially toxic elements in leafy vegetables grown in the Canary IslandsPeer-reviewed
- Mitigating Toxic Metal Exposure Through Leafy Greens: A Comprehensive Review Contrasting Cadmium and Lead in SpinachPeer-reviewed
- Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on cadmium in foodGovernment
- Heavy Metals Assessment in Selected Leafy Vegetables from Selangor, MalaysiaPeer-reviewed
- Compound health risk assessment of cumulative heavy metal exposure: A case study of a village near a battery factory in Henan Province, ChinaPeer-reviewed
- Effects of sewage water irrigation on heavy metals accumulation in vegetables in peri-urban areas of Faisalabad, PakistanPeer-reviewed
- BIO-ACCUMULATION OF HEAVY METALS IN SOME NORTHPeer-reviewed
- Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and MercuryGray literature
- The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Metallic ContaminantsGovernment
- Levels of heavy metals and their health risk assessment from wastewater irrigated spinach in railway quarters, Bauchi, Bauchi state, NigeriaPeer-reviewed
- Environmental surveillance of commonly-grown vegetables for investigating potential lead and chromium contamination intensification in BangladeshPeer-reviewed
- Concentration and Health Risk Assessment of Selected Heavy Metals (HMs) in African spinach (Amaranthus hybridus) and Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Grown around Ashaka Community, Gombe State, NigeriaPeer-reviewed
- Heavy metals in vegetables: screening health risks involved in cultivation along wastewater drain and irrigating with wastewaterPeer-reviewed
- Toxic elements in baby and young children’s foods in the US and correlation to ingredientsPeer-reviewed
- Heavy Metals in Commonly Consumed Root and Leafy Vegetables in Dhaka City, Bangladesh, and Assessment of Associated Public Health RisksPeer-reviewed
- The health risk assessment of heavy metals in vegetables grown in Babol city, IranPeer-reviewed
- Ultra-Sensitive Determination of Cadmium in Food and Water by Flame-AAS after a New Polyvinyl Benzyl Xanthate as an Adsorbent Based Vortex Assisted Dispersive Solid-Phase Microextraction: Multivariate OptimizationPeer-reviewed
- Heavy Metals in Soil and Vegetables and their Effect on HealthPeer-reviewed
- Heavy metals in vegetables and the health risk to population in Zhejiang, ChinaPeer-reviewed
- Uptake of Arsenic by Irrigated Vegetables and Cooked Food Products in Burkina FasoPeer-reviewed
- compared to the chemical fertilizer. In organic fertilizer applications, heavy metal contents such as arsenic, chrome, cobalt, and nickel were found toPeer-reviewed
- The cadmium:zinc ratio in a soil affects cadmium toxicity in spinach (Spinacea oleracea L.)Peer-reviewed
- The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Inorganic ArsenicGovernment
- A review on the concentration of the heavy metals in vegetable samples like spinach and tomato grown near the area of Amba Nalla of Amravati CityPeer-reviewed
- Minimization of cadmium toxicity and improvement in growth and biochemical attributes of spinach by using acidified biocharPeer-reviewed
- chromium through chromium-stressed Life Sciences, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, University of Agricultural Sciences andPeer-reviewed
- Muhammad Shoaib Rana, gel alleviates chromiumPeer-reviewed
- Article 2. Common Standards and Specifications for General FoodsRegulation
- Guidelines on the Food Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) (Amendment) Regulation 2018Government
- Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1987 of 30 July 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/915 as regards maximum levels of nickel in certain foodstuffsRegulation
- China Releases the Standard for Maximum Levels of Contaminants in Foods (USDA FAS GAIN Report CH2023-0040, unofficial translation of GB 2762-2022)Regulation
- General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995)Government
- Nickel Content of Food and Estimation of Dietary IntakePeer-reviewed
- Heavy Metal Contamination of Irrigation Water, Soil, and Vegetables and the Difference between Dry and Wet Seasons Near a Multi-Industry Zone in BangladeshPeer-reviewed
- Health Risk Assessment and Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Heavy Metals in Vegetables of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Region, PakistanPeer-reviewed
- Dataset of metals and metalloids in food crops and soils sampled across the mining region of Moquegua in PeruPeer-reviewed
Sources
Browse Spinach 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 spinach record in the library: WHO GEMS/Food and FDA monitoring results by form, total diet studies, market, farm and wastewater-site surveys, pooled spinach references, verified limits and stage-led controls.
