Characterization of organic arsenic residues in livestock and poultry meat and offal and consumption risks

Xiao-qiong Wu; Min-yi Cao; Lin-lin Yin; Yang-nan Ou; Feng Dong; Miao-hua Ge

doi:10.1515/chem-2025-0218

Artikel Open Access

Characterization of organic arsenic residues in livestock and poultry meat and offal and consumption risks

Xiao-qiong Wu , Min-yi Cao , Lin-lin Yin , Yang-nan Ou , Feng Dong und Miao-hua Ge

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 18. Dezember 2025

Veröffentlicht von

Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Manuskript einreichen Informationen für Autor*innen Erkunden Sie dieses Fachgebiet

Aus der Zeitschrift Open Chemistry Band 23 Heft 1

Abstract

This study analyzed arsenic speciation in livestock meat and viscera from Jiaxing and assessed the health risks associated with inorganic arsenic (iAs) exposure. Total arsenic and ten arsenic species, including organoarsenicals and their degradation products, were determined in chicken and pork tissues. Results showed total arsenic levels complied with standards, with chicken liver having the highest concentrations (105.65 μg/kg total arsenic; 41.78 μg/kg iAs). DMA and As(III) dominated, DMA comprised 62.59 % in chicken kidney and 50.94 % in pork kidney, As(III) accounted for over 36 % in both chicken liver and pork liver. ASA (31.33 μg/kg) in chicken muscle suggested potential illegal or historical use; ROX, NPAA, and CBAs were undetected in any of the samples. Margin of exposure (MOE) values all exceeded 1, indicating a low health risk. Dietary iAs exposure from meat and viscera in Jiaxing poses minimal risk, but cumulative multi-source effects require attention. Strengthened regulation of arsenic-containing feed additives is advised to prevent banned substance misuse.

Keywords: total arsenic; arsenic speciation; margin of exposure (MOE); livestock and poultry meat; health risk

1 Introduction

Arsenic (As) is an element with notable toxicity and potential physiological functions. Its organoarsenic compounds – nitarsone (NPAA), arsanilic acid (ASA), carbarsone (CBAs), and roxarsone (ROX) – were once widely used as feed additives in the livestock and poultry industry. They helped control pathogenic microorganisms and promote growth, thereby providing significant economic benefits [1], [2], [3], [4]. However, organoarsenicals can be transformed into highly toxic inorganic arsenic in the environment and bioaccumulate through the food chain, posing potential threats to both ecosystems and human health [5], [6], [7]. The European Union was the first to ban the use of arsenic-containing feed additives. In China, the Ministry of Agriculture has prohibited the use of raw materials and formulations containing ROX and ASA since May 1, 2019 [8].

The toxicity of arsenic is highly dependent on its chemical form: inorganic arsenic [As(Ⅲ), As(V)] is strongly carcinogenic, while organic arsenic compounds (e.g., arsenobetaine) are relatively less toxic. Residual arsenic-based antibiotics may accelerate the spread of bacterial resistance genes (such as ars genes), posing a risk to public health [9]. During metabolism in animals, organoarsenic compounds or their transformation products may accumulate in tissues such as muscle, kidney, and liver [10], leading to potential health risks in humans. Therefore, investigating the residue characteristics of arsenic species in various edible tissues of livestock and poultry is of great practical significance.

High-performance liquid chromatography coupled with atomic fluorescence spectrometry (HPLC-AFS) [11] and high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (HPLC-ICP-MS) are currently the most widely used techniques for arsenic speciation analysis [12], [13], [14]. Due to its high sensitivity and excellent separation capability, HPLC-ICP-MS has become the mainstream method for arsenic speciation. When combined with microwave-assisted extraction, the efficiency of analysis can be further improved.

Accordingly, this study aims to develop an HPLC-ICP-MS method based on microwave extraction using 1 % nitric acid and 10 % methanol for detecting residual levels of ROX, other organoarsenicals, and their degradation products in commercially available livestock and poultry products. In addition, the margin of exposure (MOE) model is employed to assess the dietary health risks associated with these residues [15]. The findings will provide technical support for food safety regulation and offer scientific evidence for developing public health protection strategies.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Instruments and Reagents

AltusTM A-10, NEXION 350D liquid chromatography - inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (PerkinElmer, USA); Hamilton PRP-x100 column (4 mm × 250 mm, 5 m); MARS6 microwave digestion instrument (CEM, USA); arsenic standards: arsenite (As Ⅲ, GBW08666, 1.011 µmol/g), arsenate (As V, GBW08667, 0.233 μmol/g), monomethylarsenic (MMA, GBW08668, 0.335 μmol/g), dimethylarsenic (DMA, GBW08669, 0.706 μmol/g), arsenocholine (AsC, GBW08671, 0.374 μmol/g), arsenic (AsB, GBW08671, 0.374 μmol/g), arsenic (AsB, GBW08671, 0.374 μmol/g), and arsenic (AsC), betaine (AsB, GBW08670, 0.518 μmol/g), all purchased from the China Academy of Metrology; carbaryl arsine (CBAs, Cato), roxarsine (ROX, TMstandard), niphenylarsinic acid (NPAA, TMstandard), and asphaltenesic acid (ASA, Mannhagen); and an ultrapure water system (Milli-Q, American Millipore).

2.2 Sample collection and preservation

Chicken muscle, chicken liver, chicken kidney, pork muscle, pig liver and pig kidney samples were randomly collected from major farmers’ markets and supermarkets in Jiaxing City, with 12 samples of each type. Muscle samples of chicken and pork were taken from boneless and skinless portions (non-visceral). After collection, the samples were cut into pieces, thoroughly homogenized by type, and stored in separate packages at −20 °C for further analysis.

2.3 Experimental methods

2.3.1 Determination of total arsenic content

Referring to [16], accurately weigh 0.300 g of the homogenized sample (to 0.001 g), add 5 mL of nitric acid, and cover the tube to stand overnight. The next day, subject the sample to microwave digestion at 190 °C for 30 min, followed by ultrasonic degassing for 5 min. After digestion, rinse the residues in the tube several times with small amounts of deionized water and transfer all rinses into a 25 mL volumetric flask. Dilute to the mark with deionized water, mix thoroughly, and use the solution for the determination of total arsenic content by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS).

2.3.2 Sample pretreatment and chromatographic separation of arsenic species

1.00 g of chicken sample was weighed and mixed with 5 mL of extraction solvent (0.15 mol/L HNO₃, 0.15 mol/L HNO₃ – 10 % MeOH, or 0.15 mol/L HNO₃ – 20 % MeOH). Extraction was performed using three methods – hot water (80 °C, 120 min), ultrasound-assisted (80 °C, 60 min), and microwave-assisted (80 °C, 30 min) – which were compared to select the optimal method suitable for our laboratory conditions. After extraction, 2 mL of n-hexane was added, mixed thoroughly by vortexing for 2 min, and centrifuged at 10,000 r/min for 5 min. The upper n-hexane layer was discarded, and the lower aqueous layer was filtered through a 0.22 µm membrane prior to HPLC-ICP-MS analysis. Ten As species – including As(Ⅲ), As(V), AsC, AsB, DMA, MMA, ROX, CBAs, NPAA, and ASA – were determined. Inorganic As content was calculated as the sum of As(Ⅲ) and As(V). Meanwhile, the mobile phase and gradient program shown in Table 1 were applied, and three columns – PRP-X100, AS19, and AS11 – were compared to optimize the separation of As species.

Table 1:

Gradient elution conditions.

Time/min	Flow rates/(mL/min)	Composition of mobile phase/%
Time/min	Flow rates/(mL/min)	A	B	C
0.00	1	5	87	8
1.50	1	5	87	8
2.50	1	92	0	8
17.0	1	92	0	8
18.0	1	5	87	8
20.0	1	5	87	8

Mobile phase A: ammonium phosphate–ammonium nitrate buffer solution (pH 8.5); mobile phase B: ammonium carbonate (1 mmol/L); mobile phase C: methanol.

2.3.3 HPLC-ICP-MS instrument parameters

The HPLC-ICP-MS analysis was performed under the following conditions: radiofrequency power of 1,400 W, plasma argon flow rate of 16 L/min, auxiliary gas flow rate of 0.6 L/min, carrier gas flow rate of 0.93 L/min, RPQ 0.40, and the mass-to-charge ratio monitored was m/z = 75 (As). High-purity liquid argon was used. Chromatographic analysis was conducted on a Hamilton PRP-x100 column (4 mm × 250 mm, 5 µm) at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The mobile phases were as follows: A, ammonia phosphate-ammonia nitrate buffer solution (pH 8.5); B, 1 mmol/L ammonium carbonate; C, methanol. The injection volume was 20 µL, and the gradient elution conditions are shown in Table 1.

2.4 Evaluation criteria for total arsenic exceedance rate

In this study, the evaluation of total arsenic content in livestock and poultry meat was based directly on [17], which sets the maximum allowable limit for total arsenic in meat and meat products at 500 μg/kg.

2.5 Health risk assessment of inorganic arsenic from livestock and poultry meat consumption

The health risk assessment for consumers of livestock and poultry products was conducted using the margin of exposure (MOE) approach proposed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2005. This study assessed the risk of inorganic arsenic exposure by analyzing its contamination levels in livestock and poultry products and combining them with local consumption data. The MOE was calculated using the following formula. An MOE value ≤ 1 indicates a health risk that warrants concern, whereas a value > 1 suggests a lower health risk. A higher MOE value reflects a lower potential risk [18], [19], [20].

(1) CDI = C × M BW

(2) MOE = BMDL 0.5 CDI

where: BMDL_0.5 refers to the benchmark dose lower confidence limit for a 0.5 % response rate in test animals. According to the reference value set by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), the recommended BMDL_0.5 for inorganic arsenic is 3 μg/kg body weight per day [21]; CDI represents the actual daily intake of inorganic arsenic by the population, expressed as mg/kg body weight per day; C is the average concentration of inorganic arsenic in livestock and poultry products, expressed in µg/kg; M denotes the average daily consumption of livestock and poultry products by local residents, in kg/day; BW is the average body weight of the population, in kg.

2.6 Data processing

Data were managed and analyzed using Microsoft Office 2019 (Excel), and data visualization and scientific plotting were performed using Origin 2021.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Optimization of chromatographic conditions

To meet the separation requirements for ten arsenic species in livestock and poultry samples, the separation performance of three chromatographic columns – Hamilton PRP-X100, Dionex AS 19, and Dionex AS 11 – was systematically compared. The results showed that neither the Dionex AS 19 nor the Dionex AS 11 columns could achieve complete separation of the target compounds under various optimized conditions, including adjustments to mobile phase composition, pH regulation, and flow rate optimization. In contrast, the Hamilton PRP-X100 column demonstrated excellent separation performance under pH 8.5 conditions when using a gradient elution with an ammonium carbonate/ammonium phosphate–ammonium nitrate buffer system. This setup successfully achieved baseline separation of all ten arsenic species, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1:

Chromatographic separation of 10 mixed standard solutions of arsenic forms (50 μg/L).

During the mobile phase optimization process, methanol content was found to significantly affect the separation of arsenic species. An appropriate amount of methanol enhanced separation sensitivity and improved peak shape, while excessive methanol raised the baseline and deteriorated both peak shape and separation quality. Taking into account analytical time, separation efficiency, peak shape, and sensitivity, the optimal methanol content was determined to be 8 % through experimental validation. The optimized gradient elution conditions are presented in Table 1.

3.2 Optimization of sample pretreatment conditions

This study systematically compared the effects of different extraction methods – including hot water bath extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, and ultrasound-assisted extraction – and various extraction solvents (0.15 mol/L nitric acid, 0.15 mol/L nitric acid with 10 % methanol, and 0.15 mol/L nitric acid with 20 % methanol) on the recovery of arsenic species from spiked chicken samples. The results indicated that methanol concentration in the extraction solvent had no significant effect on the extraction efficiency of As(III) and As(V),but it significantly improved the recovery of organic arsenic species. Although the 20 % methanol solution yielded slightly higher extraction efficiency than the 10 % methanol solution, the difference was not appreciable. Taking into account reagent consumption and environmental considerations, the 0.15 mol/L nitric acid – 10 % methanol solution was selected as the optimal extraction solvent. Considering reagent consumption and environmental factors, the 0.15 mol/L nitric acid – 10 % methanol solution was selected as the optimal extraction solvent. The results are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2:

Effect of different extraction reagents on the extraction efficiency of arsenic form compounds in chicken muscle.

Furthermore, the study evaluated the effects of different extraction methods on the extraction efficiency of arsenic species using the optimized solvent. A comparison was made between hot water extraction, ultrasound-assisted extraction, and microwave-assisted extraction. The results showed that microwave-assisted extraction (80 °C, 30 min) provided significantly higher extraction efficiency than the other two methods. Compared with traditional hot water extraction (80 °C, 120 min) and ultrasound-assisted extraction (80 °C, 60 min), microwave-assisted extraction not only significantly reduced the extraction time but also achieved higher recovery rates of target analytes. These findings demonstrate that microwave-assisted extraction is an efficient and rapid sample pretreatment technique suitable for the extraction of arsenic species from chicken samples, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3:

Effect of different extraction methods on the extraction efficiency of arsenic form compounds in chicken muscle.

3.3 Calibration curves and detection limits

Under optimized instrumental conditions, mixed standard solutions at concentrations of 1.0 μg/L, 5.0 μg/L, 10.0 μg/L, 25.0 μg/L, and 50.0 μg/L were analyzed, Calibration curves were constructed by performing linear regression of peak area against the corresponding mass concentration, with correlation coefficients (R ²) ranging from 0.9982 to 0.9998. The limit of detection (LOD) was determined as the concentration corresponding to a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N ) of 3. With an injection volume of 20 µL and a sample mass of 1.0 g, the LODs for the eight arsenic species ranged from 0.22 μg/kg to 0.91 μg/kg, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2:

Linear parameters and detection limits of 10 arsenic species.

Component	Regression equation	Correlation coefficient, R ²	Linearity range (μg/L)	LOD (μg/kg)
AsC	y = 45,248x + 2,862	0.9996	0–50	0.22
AsB	y = 50,156x + 2,984	0.9994	0–50	0.37
As(III)	y = 37,101x + 5,564	0.9990	0–50	0.49
DMA	y = 45,650x + 7,904	0.9998	0–50	0.43
MMA	y = 42,129x + 1,838	0.9998	0–50	0.39
ASA	y = 20,124x + 5,431	0.9990	0–50	0.78
As(V)	y = 43,063x + 2,609	0.9996	0–50	0.39
CBAs	y = 66,027x + 1,640	0.9990	0–50	0.91
NPAA	y = 19,108x + 3,775	0.9984	0–50	0.49
ROX	y = 24,394x + 2,943	0.9982	0–50	0.89

3.4 Method precision and recovery

Chicken muscle was used as the spiked sample, with standard solutions added at three concentration levels: 20.00 μg/kg, 100.00 μg/kg, and 400.00 μg/kg. Under the optimized conditions, the samples were extracted and subsequently analyzed by HPLC-ICP-MS. Each concentration level was measured six times. The method’s recovery rates and relative standard deviations (RSDs) were calculated. The recoveries of the ten arsenic species ranged from 84.3 % to 99.4 %, with precision (RSD) ranging from 1.87 % to 8.33 %. Detailed results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3:

Results of spiked recoveries and precision in chicken samples.

Component	Background value (µg/kg)	Spiked value (µg/kg)	Average recovery %	RSD %
AsC	ND	20	84.3	6.91
		100	93.7	4.71
		400	92.9	3.32
AsB	ND	20	84.3	8.33
		100	95.6	6.51
		400	96.8	3.23
As(III)	13.11	20	87.2	8.23
		100	93.2	4.39
		400	95.1	3.32
DMA	43.58	20	84.3	7.67
		100	92.2	4.45
		400	99.4	3.71
MMA	ND	20	93.3	4.83
		100	96.2	3.01
		400	97.1	2.44
ASA	26.32	20	86.1	6.45
		100	91.3	4.87
		400	94.2	3.32
As(V)	3.21	20	85.3	7.23
		100	93.9	5.25
		400	96.8	2.48
CBAs	ND	20	84.7	8.19
		100	91.4	4.12
		400	95.6	3.81
NPAA	ND	20	84.9	6.31
		100	89.2	3.82
		400	93.1	2.77
ROX	ND	40	87.2	6.25
		100	93.5	4.83
		500	96.2	1.87

ND indicates “not detected”.

3.5 Sample testing, data analysis, and contamination assessment

3.5.1 Investigation of arsenic contamination in commercially available pork and its major organs

The analysis of different arsenic species in pork and its organs revealed that arsenic levels in pig liver were significantly higher than those in pork muscle and kidney, though none of the samples exceeded the national maximum limit of 500 μg/kg. The average total arsenic content in pig liver was 44.70 μg/kg, which is 2.57 times and 1.44 times higher than that in pork muscle (17.38 μg/kg) and pig kidney (31.12 μg/kg), respectively.

In terms of arsenic speciation, inorganic arsenic was the predominant contributor. The inorganic arsenic content in pig liver was 21.52 μg/kg, significantly higher than in pig kidney (13.72 μg/kg) and pork muscle(7.41 μg/kg), accounting for 48.1 %, 44.1 %, and 42.6 % of total arsenic content, respectively. Among the organic arsenic species, dimethylarsinic acid (DMA) was the most abundant, with notably higher concentrations in pig liver (18.89 μg/kg) and kidney (13.39 μg/kg) compared to pork muscle (7.69 μg/kg).

In addition, six arsenic compounds – arsenobetaine (AsB), arsenocholine (AsC), arsenic acid (ASA), nitrophenylarsonic acid (NPAA), carbarsone (CBAs), and roxarsone (ROX) – were not detected in any of the pork muscle, liver, or kidney samples. This absence may be attributed to a lack of exposure sources for these compounds in the pigs’ rearing environment, or to the pigs’ metabolic pathways not favoring the formation of species like AsB and AsC. Furthermore, the detection limits of the analytical method may have restricted the identification of trace-level arsenic species. The results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4:

Detection results of arsenic and its compounds in pork and swine viscera.

Component	Pork muscle (µg/kg) mean ± SD	Pig liver (µg/kg) mean ± SD	Pig kidney (µg/kg) mean ± SD
AsC	ND	ND	ND
AsB	ND	ND	ND
As(III)	6.97 ± 4.98	18.98 ± 7.44	12.34 ± 7.97
DMA	7.69 ± 5.44	18.89 ± 8.03	13.39 ± 7.09
MMA	ND	0.57 ± 0.55	ND
ASA	ND	ND	ND
As(V)	0.44 ± 0.32	2.54 ± 2.78	1.39 ± 1.28
CBAs	ND	ND	ND
NPAA	ND	ND	ND
ROX	ND	ND	ND
Total arsenic species	15.10 ± 7.03	40.98 ± 14.27	27.11 ± 14.89
Inorganic arsenic content	7.41 ± 5.18	21.52 ± 8.54	13.72 ± 8.69
Total arsenic	17.38 ± 8.02	44.70 ± 13.89	31.12 ± 14.87

ND indicates “not detected”.

3.5.2 Investigation of arsenic contamination in commercially available chicken and its major organs

The total arsenic content in chicken liver was 105.65 μg/kg (all values below the national maximum limit of 500 μg/kg), significantly higher than that in chicken kidney (90.57 μg/kg) and chicken muscle (83.83 μg/kg). This distribution pattern (liver > kidney > muscle) is consistent with the findings for pork and its organs and reflects the central role of the liver in arsenic metabolism and methylation [22]. However, the overall arsenic levels in chicken and its organs were notably higher than those in pork, which may be related to differences in metabolic rate, feed composition, or environmental exposure. Previous studies have demonstrated a significant correlation between arsenic levels in poultry feed and those in chicken tissues (e.g., liver, muscle, and heart), suggesting that feed is a primary source of arsenic accumulation in chickens and may contribute to the observed interspecies differences in arsenic levels [23].

Among the arsenic species detected in chicken and its organs, dimethylarsinic acid (DMA) was the predominant form. The concentrations of DMA in chicken liver, kidney, and muscle were 55.18 μg/kg, 51.21 μg/kg, and 32.08 μg/kg, respectively, accounting for 52.2 %, 56.5 %, and 38.3 % of total arsenic content. The high proportion of DMA may be associated with the use of arsenic-based feed additives in poultry farming, which tend to accumulate in the liver and are metabolized into the less toxic DMA. Chicken liver also had the highest concentration of inorganic arsenic at 41.78 μg/kg, followed by chicken kidney (30.61 μg/kg) and chicken muscle (13.38 μg/kg). This suggests that the liver, as a detoxification organ, may accumulate inorganic arsenic during the methylation process [24].

The results also showed the presence of arsanilic acid (ASA) in chicken muscle, while the other five arsenic species – arsenobetaine (AsB), arsenocholine (AsC), nitrophenylarsonic acid (NPAA), carbarsone (CBAs), and roxarsone (ROX) – were not detected in any of the chicken samples. The absence of NPAA, CBAs, and ROX is likely due to their prohibition by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2018 [8], leading to their minimal use. ASA, previously used as a feed additive for growth promotion and antimicrobial purposes, may still be detected due to historical usage or environmental contamination during poultry farming. Although ASA is less toxic than inorganic arsenic, its metabolites (e.g., inorganic arsenic) may pose potential health risks.

3.5.3 Arsenic speciation distribution in livestock and poultry meat and organs

The distribution characteristics of arsenic species in livestock and poultry meat and organs were analyzed using chicken and pig as representative samples. As shown in Figure 4a–c, arsenic speciation exhibited distinct tissue-specific patterns in chicken muscle, liver, and kidney. In chicken muscle, arsenic was predominantly present in organic forms, with DMA and ASA being the major species, accounting for 41.78 % and 40.80 % of the total arsenic content, respectively. Inorganic arsenic species were relatively low, with As(Ⅲ) and As(V) accounting for 13.89 % and 3.53 %, respectively. Notably, ASA was detected only in chicken muscle, while it was not found in the liver or kidney. This may be related to tissue-specific distribution and metabolic excretion characteristics, ASA could accumulate in muscle, whereas in the liver and kidney it is rapidly metabolized into DMA or excreted via the kidneys, resulting in concentrations below the detection limit, This observation is also consistent with existing research findings [10]. DMA remained the dominant species at 56.62 %, followed by As(Ⅲ) (36.73 %) and As(V) (6.15 %). Notably, MMA, an intermediate product of arsenic methylation, was present in chicken liver at a very low level (0.50 %), suggesting a relatively high arsenic methylation capacity in the liver [24]. Chicken kidney had the simplest arsenic profile, with only three species detected: DMA, As(Ⅲ), and As(V). Among them, DMA was the dominant species (62.59 %), followed by As(Ⅲ) (34.43 %), and As(V) was present at the lowest level (3.08 %). This pattern may be closely related to the kidney’s primary function in excretion. These results demonstrate significant differences in arsenic speciation among different tissues, which likely stem from the distinct metabolic and detoxification roles of each organ. The consistent predominance of DMA across all tissues suggests that it may be the principal end product of arsenic metabolism in chickens [25].

Figure 4:

Morphological distribution of arsenic in chicken, pork and their livers and kidneys.

Figure 4d–f shows the arsenic speciation distribution in pork muscle, pig liver, and pig kidney. Compared with chickens, pigs exhibited more uniform arsenic distribution patterns across tissues. Except for a trace amount of MMA detected in pig liver (1.39 %), only DMA, As(Ⅲ), and As(V) were found in all tissues, with DMA and As(Ⅲ) as the dominant forms. Specifically, in pork muscle, DMA and As(Ⅲ) accounted for 50.94 % and 46.17 %, respectively, while As(V) was the least abundant at 2.89 %. In pig liver, the proportions of DMA and As(Ⅲ) were nearly equal (46.10 % and 46.31 %, respectively), with a slightly higher As(V) content (6.20 %) than in muscle. In pig kidney, DMA remained the dominant species (49.39 %), followed by As(Ⅲ) (45.51 %), and As(V) accounted for 5.11 %. This distribution pattern is generally consistent with previous studies. Relevant research has indicated that when pigs ingest arsenic through feed or are exposed to environmental arsenic, the element tends to accumulate more in the liver and kidneys rather than in muscle tissue. In terms of speciation, inorganic arsenic and its methylated products are the predominant forms, with DMA often serving as the principal metabolic end product [26].

3.5.4 Risk assessment of inorganic arsenic intake

According to the China Statistical Yearbook (2024) [27], the average daily consumption of livestock meat in urban areas of Zhejiang Province is 0.107 kg/person, and that of poultry is 0.036 kg/person. In rural areas, the average daily consumption is 0.129 kg/person for livestock meat and 0.037 kg/person for poultry. Based on the inorganic arsenic concentrations determined in the samples (Tables 4 and 5), the average levels of inorganic arsenic in pork muscle, pig liver, and pig kidney were 7.41 μg/kg, 21.52 μg/kg, and 13.71 μg/kg, respectively; while in chicken, chicken liver, and chicken kidney, the average concentrations were 13.38 μg/kg, 41.78 μg/kg, and 30.61 μg/kg, respectively. The average body weights of males and females in Zhejiang Province were reported as 71.6 kg and 58.3 kg, respectively, according to the “Body Weight Management Year” report released by the Zhejiang Center for Disease Control and Prevention on October 18, 2024 [28]. Following the benchmark dose lower confidence limit (BMDL_0.5) for inorganic arsenic set by JECFA, which is 3 μg/kg BW/day, the margin of exposure (MOE) values were calculated using Formulas (1) and (2) to evaluate the health risk from inorganic arsenic intake via consumption of livestock and poultry meat, liver, and kidney.

Table 5:

Detection results of arsenic and its compounds in chicken muscle and viscera.

Component	Chicken muscle (µg/kg) mean ± SD	Chicken liver (µg/kg) mean ± SD	Chicken kidney (µg/kg) mean ± SD
AsC	ND	ND	ND
AsB	ND	ND	ND
As(Ⅲ)	10.67 ± 6.04	35.79 ± 13.51	28.09 ± 9.61
DMA	32.08 ± 13.66	55.18 ± 17.26	51.21 ± 9.71
MMA	ND	0.49 ± 0.55	ND
ASA	31.33 ± 12.75	ND	ND
As(V)	2.71 ± 2.96	5.99 ± 3.86	2.52 ± 4.51
CBAs	ND	ND	ND
NPAA	ND	ND	ND
ROX	ND	ND	ND
Total arsenic species	76.79 ± 13.63	97.44 ± 28.27	81.82 ± 17.15
Inorganic arsenic content	13.38 ± 7.67	41.78 ± 14.68	30.61 ± 11.39
Total arsenic	83.83 ± 14.24	105.65 ± 32.50	90.57 ± 20.6

ND indicates “not detected”.

The results showed that all calculated MOE values were much greater than 1, indicating a low health risk. However, considering that livestock and poultry products are only one of many dietary sources of inorganic arsenic, the actual intake risk may be higher. Specifically, the estimated risk was slightly higher in rural populations compared to urban ones, in females compared to males, for livestock products compared to poultry products, and among different tissues, the order of risk was: liver > kidney > muscle.

Detailed data are presented in Tables 6 and 7. Although current MOE values suggest low risk, attention should still be paid to the cumulative effects of multi-source exposure – particularly for high-risk groups such as pregnant women and young children, and for high-risk food items such as animal offal. It is recommended to strengthen food safety supervision, optimize dietary patterns, and promote scientific food processing and cooking methods to further reduce the exposure risk of inorganic arsenic.

Table 6:

Results of MOE risk analysis for urban residents in Jiaxing city.

Sample type	C (µg/kg)	M (kg/day)	BW (kg)	BMDL_0.5 (µg/kg BW/day)	MOE (male)	MOE (female)
Livestock		0.107	71.6 (male)58.3 (female)	3
Pork muscle	7.41				271	221
Pig liver	21.52				93	76
Pig kidney	13.71				146	119
Poultry		0.036
Chicken muscle	13.38				446	363
Chicken liver	41.78				143	116
Chicken kidney	30.61				195	159

Table 7:

Results of MOE risk analysis for rural residents in Jiaxing City.

Sample type	C (µg/kg)	M (kg/day)	BW (kg)	BMDL_0.5 (µg/kg BW/day)	MOE (male)	MOE (female)
Livestock		0.127	71.6 (male)58.3 (female)	3
Pork muscle	7.41				225	183
Pig liver	21.52				77	63
Pig kidney	13.71				121	99
Poultry		0.037
Chicken muscle	13.38				434	353
Chicken liver	41.78				139	113
Chicken kidney	30.61				190	154

4 Discussion

This study conducted a comprehensive analysis of arsenic species in livestock and poultry meat and organs sold in Jiaxing City. The results showed that total arsenic levels complied with national standards, and the overall dietary risk was relatively low. However, the distribution patterns of arsenic species, along with the detection of specific organic arsenicals such as ASA indicate potential sources of risk and highlight the need for strengthened regulation. These findings align with domestic and international research trends concerning the use and residue of arsenic-based feed additives [10].

Organic arsenic compounds, such as ROX and ASA, were once widely used as feed additives in animal husbandry to promote growth and prevent disease. Although their toxicity is lower than that of inorganic arsenic, several intermediate products generated during methylation may be more toxic than the parent inorganic compounds [29], and have been associated with hematotoxicity, including anemia. Studies have shown that the use of ROX-containing feed can increase arsenic exposure, subsequently elevating the incidence of bladder and lung cancers [30]. The detection of ASA in chicken muscle in this study is inconsistent with the ban issued by China’s Ministry of Agriculture, which prohibited the use of ROX and ASA from January 12, 2018 [8]. This may suggest the presence of historical residues or ongoing illegal use, warranting further regulatory scrutiny and traceability investigations.

The results indicated that DMA and As(Ⅲ) were the predominant arsenic species in meat and organs. DMA is the main product of organic arsenic methylation in animals [31] and is relatively less toxic. In contrast, As(Ⅲ), a highly toxic inorganic form, was found in higher proportions in chicken and pig liver, reflecting the liver’s central role in arsenic metabolism and detoxification. Although MOE-based risk assessments suggest low current dietary risk, the cumulative effects of inorganic arsenic and the complexity of multi-source exposure remain a concern. Research has indicated that banning arsanilic acid-type feed additives in China is expected to significantly reduce human cancer incidence [32].

Furthermore, the study found that total arsenic concentrations in chicken muscle and organs were significantly higher than those in pork, with inorganic arsenic levels highest in chicken and pig livers. This may be attributed to differences in feed composition, metabolic pathways, and the propensity for arsenic accumulation in specific organs across animal species [33]. Future studies could explore the biological mechanisms underlying these differences and evaluate the impact of various cooking methods on arsenic species transformation and bioavailability, to provide consumers with more precise dietary guidance [34].

In conclusion, although the arsenic residue risk in livestock and poultry products sold in Jiaxing is generally controllable, continued attention should be paid to the banned use of organic arsenicals, species transformation of arsenic, and the cumulative effects of multi-source exposure [35]. Strengthening the regulation of arsenic-containing drugs in feed and promoting scientific breeding and dietary practices are essential measures to safeguard public health.

Corresponding author: Miao-hua Ge, Jiaxing Center for Disease Control and Prevention, No. 486 Wenqiao Road, Nanhu District, Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, China, E-mail: gmhxxj0301@gmail.com

Xiao-qiong Wu and Min-yi Cao are Co-first authors and contributed equally to this work.

Funding source: Zhejiang Provincial Medical and Health Science and Technology Program

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2025KY1629

Funding source: Science and Technology Program of Jiaxing City

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2024AD30122，2024AD11061

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Jiaxing Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Jiaxing Science and Technology Bureau for their financial support of this research project. Their assistance was crucial to the successful execution of this study. We also gratefully acknowledge the Zhejiang Provincial Health Commission for its guidance and support through the Zhejiang Provincial Medical and Health Science and Technology Program. Furthermore, we extend our thanks to the participants who generously contributed their time to this research. Without their involvement, this study would not have been possible. We are thankful for the support and contributions of all individuals and organizations involved in this research endeavor.

Funding information: Zhejiang Provincial Medical and Health Science and Technology Program (2025KY1629); Special Science and Technology Program of Jiaxing City (2024AD30122, 2024AD11061).
Author contributions: Xiao-qiong WU – conceptualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; Min-yi CAO – review and editing; Miao-hua GE – funding acquisition; project administration; reviewed and revised the manuscript; communicated and coordinated with journal editors, reviewers, and other authors; Nan OUYANG – formal analysis; data analysis; Lin-lin YIN – data curation; validation; visualization; Feng DONG – formal analysis; data analysis.
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Ethical approval: The conducted research is not related to either human or animal use.
Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Access to the raw data is restricted due to privacy or ethical restrictions, but summary data can be provided to interested researchers to replicate the study findings or for further analysis. Please contact [76485685@qq.com] for inquiries regarding data availability.

References

1. Chapman, HD, Marsler, P, LaVorgna, MW. The effects of salinomycin and roxarsone on the performance of broilers when included in the feed for four, five, or six weeks and infected with Eimeria species during the starter or grower phase of production. Poult Sci 2004;83:761–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.5.761.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Zhang, JF. Impact of feed additives on the safety of livestock products. China Anim Husb 2022;13:68.Suche in Google Scholar

3. Ren, A, Zhang, B. Effects and hazards of organic arsenic additives in feed. Feed Rev 2015;07:36–40.Suche in Google Scholar

4. Wang, JJ. Study on the anti-inflammatory effects and mechanisms of arsenic preparations on avian leukosis. Guiyang: Guizhou University; 2022:1–75 pp.Suche in Google Scholar

5. Yang, H, Dai, SH, Wang, FH, Huang, YD, Chen, Y, Liao, RX, et al.. Arsenic speciation in seafood and its toxicological metabolism. Qual Saf Agro-prod 2017;1:21–6.Suche in Google Scholar

6. Zhang, W, Qi, LJ, Ning, JY, Gao, S, Li, GJ. Health risk assessment of arsenic. J Toxicol 2021;35:367–72, 378. https://doi.org/10.16421/j.cnki.1002-3127.2021.05.002.Suche in Google Scholar

7. An, YL, Zhao, YP, Liu, N, Ban, R. Simultaneous determination of arsanilic acid, roxarsone and their degradation products in soil by high performance liquid chromatography-inductively coupled plasma tandem mass spectrometry. J Instrum Anal 2019;38:1353–7. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-4957.2019.11.011.Suche in Google Scholar

8. The Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China. Discontinue the use of quinolines, aminophenylarsone acid and roxarsone in food animals. 2018-01-12. http://www.moa.gov.cn/gk/tzgg_1/gg/201801/t20180112_6134888.htm.Suche in Google Scholar

9. Medgyesi, DN, Bangia, K, Spielfogel, ES, Fisher, JA, Madrigal, JM, Jones, RR, et al.. Long-term exposure to arsenic in community water supplies and risk of cardiovascular disease among women in the California teachers study. Environ Health Perspect 2024;10:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14410.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

10. Zheng, CY, Tang, J, Han, JL, Tan, Y, Ma, BJ, Wu, PG. Determination of ten arsenic species in livestock and poultry foods by high performance liquid chromatography-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Chin J Food Hygiene 2022;34:546–51. https://doi.org/10.13590/j.cjfh.2022.03.023.Suche in Google Scholar

11. Wang, Y. Application of HPLC-AFS technology in arsenic speciation analysis in foods. Food Saf Guide 2022;02:181–3. https://doi.org/10.16043/j.cnki.cfs.2022.02.044.Suche in Google Scholar

12. Nawrocka, A, Durkalec, M, Michalski, M, Posyniak, A. Simple and reliable determination of total arsenic and its species in seafood by ICP-MS and HPLC-ICP-MS. Food Chem 2022;379:132045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.132045.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Qin, YY. Determination of six arsenic species compounds in plant samples by HPLC-ICP-MS. Anal Lab 2021;40:190–7. https://doi.org/10.13595/j.cnki.issn1000-0720.2020.061603.Suche in Google Scholar

14. El, Himri M, Errasfa, M, El Kassimi, A, Naboulsi, A, El Himri, A, El Haddad, M. Method validation for arsenic speciation in contaminated soil by HPLC-ICP-MS coupling method. J Indian Chem Soc 2022;99:100684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jics.2022.100684.Suche in Google Scholar

15. Ge, MH, Zhou, Y, Zhang, X, Wu, XQ. Speciation distribution and dietary exposure risk assessment of arsenic in seafood in Jiaxing City. Chin J Food Hygiene 2023;35:1468–74. https://doi.org/10.13590/j.cjfh.2023.10.010.Suche in Google Scholar

16. National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. National food safety standard-determination of total arsenic and inorganic arsenic in foods: GB 5009.11-2024. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2024.Suche in Google Scholar

17. National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. National food safety standard-maximum levels of contaminants in foods: GB 5762-2022. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2022.Suche in Google Scholar

18. Alim, G, Yang, XL, Tian, JL, Li, F. Contamination status and dietary exposure risk of aflatoxin B1 in peanuts sold in Urumqi City in 2023. Occup Health 2025;41:1041–4. https://doi.org/10.13329/j.cnki.zyyjk.2025.0190. 08.Suche in Google Scholar

19. Song, SF, Li, Y, Zhang, WW, Zeng, JH, Li, CJ. Lead contamination status and health risk assessment in foods sold in Guangzhou in 2023. J Food Saf Qual 2025;16:76–82. https://doi.org/10.19812/j.cnki.jfsq11-5956/ts.20240918001.Suche in Google Scholar

20. EFSA Scientific Committee. Statement on the applicability of the margin of exposure approach for the safety assessment of impurities which are both genotoxic and carcinogenic in substances added to food/feed. EFSA J 2012;10:2578. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2578.Suche in Google Scholar

21. Qin, Z, Li, YL, Liu, JL, Wangyi, BN, Wei, S. Exposure assessment and health risk evaluation of inorganic arsenic intake through rice consumption among Chinese residents. Chin J Food Hygiene 2021;33:721–8. https://doi.org/10.13590/j.cjfh.2021.06.015.Suche in Google Scholar

22. Hu, YN, Zhang, WF, Cheng, HF, Tao, S. Public health risk of arsenic species in chicken tissues from live poultry markets of Guangdong Province, China. Environ Sci Technol 2017;51:3508–17. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b06258.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Kazi, TG, Shah, AQ, Afridi, HI, Shah, NA, Arain, MB. Hazardous impact of organic arsenical compounds in chicken feed on different tissues of broiler chicken and manure. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2013;87:120–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2012.10.012.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

24. EL-Ghiaty, MA, El-Kadi, AOS. The duality of arsenic metabolism: impact on human health. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2023;63:341–58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-051921-020936.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Patel, KS, Pandey, PK, Martín-Ramos, P, Corns, WT, Varol, S, Bhattacharya, P, et al.. A review on arsenic in the environment: bio-accumulation, remediation, and disposal. RSC Adv 2023;13:14914–29. https://doi.org/10.1039/d3ra02018e.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

26. Liao, SF, Hasan, MS, Yang, ZY, Stevens, AW, Brett, J, Peng, ZH. Feeding arsenic-containing rice bran to growing pigs: growth performance, arsenic tissue distribution, and arsenic excretion. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 2020;17:8530. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228530.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

27. National Bureau of Statistics of China. China statistical yearbook-2024. Beijing: China Statistics Press; 2024.Suche in Google Scholar

28. Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Press release for the launch ceremony of Zhejiang Weight Management Year. Hangzhou Net [Internet]; 2024. https://hznews.hangzhou.com.cn/shehui/content/2024-10/19/content_8802177.htm [Accessed Aug 2025].Suche in Google Scholar

29. Medina, S, Zhang, HK, Santos-Medina, LV, Yee, ZA, Martin, KJ, Wan, GH, et al.. As3MT-dependent biotransformation mediates hematotoxicity of arsenite in mice. Water 2023;15:448. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030448.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

30. Nachman, KE, Baron, PA, Raber, G, Francesconi, KA, Navas-Acien, A, Love, DC. Roxarsone, inorganic arsenic, and other arsenic species in chicken: a U.S.-based market basket sample. Environ Health Perspect 2013;121:818–24. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1206245.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

31. Mersaoui, SY, Guilbert, C, Chou, H, Douillet, C, Bohle, DS, Stýblo, M, et al.. Arsenic 3 methyltransferase (AS3MT) automethylates on cysteine residues in vitro. Arch Toxicol 2022;96:1483–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-022-03248-8.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

32. Hu, YA, Cheng, HF, Tao, S, Schnoor, JL. China’s ban on phenylarsonic feed additives: a major step toward reducing the human and ecosystem health risk from arsenic. Environ Sci Technol 2019;53:12177–87. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04296.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

33. Zhang, TY, Zhang, LY, Liu, JL, Liao, ZY, Lu, L, Liao, XD, et al.. A survey on distribution of arsenic contents in feedstuffs for livestock and poultry in China. Sci Agric Sin 2020;53:4507–15. https://doi.org/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.21.018.Suche in Google Scholar

34. Clemente, MJ, Serrano, S, Devesa, V, Vélez, D. Arsenic speciation in cooked food and its bioaccessible fraction using X-ray absorption spectroscopy. Food Chem 2021;336:127587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127587.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

35. Liu, YC, Wen, MT, Wu, L, Sheng, WCM, Li, YS. Environmental behavior and remediation methods of roxarsone. Appl Sci 2022;12:7591. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12157591.Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2025-07-27

Accepted: 2025-11-12

Published Online: 2025-12-18

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Artikel in diesem Heft

https://doi.org/10.1515/chem-2025-0218

Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel

total arsenic; arsenic speciation; margin of exposure (MOE); livestock and poultry meat; health risk

Creative Commons

BY 4.0