AIM: This study investigated the concentration of heavy metal (Arsenic), taken up by waterleaf plant cultivated in three contaminated soil type namely; sandy, loamy and clay. The health risk associated in exposing the waterleaf plants was accessed from the different soil types at different treatment levels of 40mg/kg (low) and 80mg/kg (high) of arsenic. Methods: Three soil types namely; sandy, loamy and clay were spiked with 40 mg/kg and 80 mg/kg of arsenic.  The waterleaf plant was grown on the spiked soil samples for the period of 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks. Each soil sample was taken before the spiking of the soil to serve as the basal control soil sample. This will determine the content of arsenic in the soil. After the stipulated growth period, the soil sample was collected into a clean sample bottle likewise the waterleaf plant which was harvested, washed, oven dried and ground into a powdered form which was acid digested. The heavy metal content in both the plant and soils were determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Results: The results of arsenic concentration in waterleaf from loamy soil at 40 mg/kg were 0.118 mg/kg, 0.189 mg/kg, 0.295 mg/kg, and 0.332 mg/kg at weeks 2, 4, 6, and 8 respectively. At 80 mg/kg, arsenic concentrations in loamy soil were 0.200 mg/kg, 0.388 mg/kg, 0.612 mg/kg and 0.693 mg/kg respectively. For sandy soil, the concentration of arsenic in the waterleaf plant treated at 40 mg/kg were 0.083 mg/kg, 0.219 mg/kg, 0.279 mg/kg, and 0.310 mg/kg for weeks 2, 4, 6 and 8 respectively and  0.159 mg/kg, 0.400mg/kg, 0.572 mg/kg, 0.632 mg/kg at 80 mg/kg respectively while in clay soil, the arsenic concentration was 0.079 mg/kg and 0.167 mg/kg for  weeks 2 and 4 at 40 mg/kg and 0.190 mg/kg and 0.320mg/kg for 80 mg/kg for weeks 2 and 4 respectively. No growth was recorded in weeks 6 and 8. The mean values of the arsenic concentration in the plant spiked with 40 mg/kg and 80 mg/kg respectively were significantly different (p<0.05)from each other but that for the loamy soil at 40 mg/kg was not significantly different (p>0.05).The Estimated Daily Intake for arsenic was <1, Target Hazard Quotient was < 1 and the Health Risk Index for adults that would be exposed to arsenic was <1 except for the loamy soil which was ≥ 1 at week 4 and 6 for treatment level 80 mg/kg. Conclusion: Arsenic concentration increases in the plant with increasing period of growth, while in the soil, the reverse occurs. The result shows that the waterleaf plant absorbed heavy metal (Arsenic) from the contaminated soils but at concentrations that do not pose any health risk within the experimental period of exposure. However, it is possible that with extended duration of exposure, consumption of plants exposed to contaminated soils with heavy metals could be hazardous.

Aim: Assess  the levels of heavy metals: arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn) in three different sites of the major rice growing soils and determine  its accumulation in the rice grown on the same site in Nnatu St Azuuiyi Udene, Abakiliki, Ebonyi State. Study Design: Soil and rice samples were collected from three different farm locations into properly labeled plastic bags respectively using a 9mm soil Augerin Nnatu St AzuuiyiUdene, Abakiliki, Ebonyi State. Methodology: The collected samples were air-dried, ground, sieved and acid digested. The heavy metals in the samples were measured by atomic absorption spectrophotometer PG instrument AA500 FPC model. Results: The Mean ± SD (mg/kg) of heavy metals in rice were; As: 0.0013, Cd: 0.001, Pb: 0.002, Zn: 0.3620. Cu: 0.001 in site 1 whereas in Site 2; As: 0.0013, Cd:0.001, Pb:0.002, Zn:0.5040, Cu:0. 001. In site 3, the metals in rice were; As: 0.0013, Cd: 0.001, Pb: 0.002, Zn: 0.1950, and Cu: 0.040 respectively. The levels in the soil samples in site 1 were; As: 0.0013, Cd: 0.001, Pb: 0.002, Zn: 1.932. Cu: 0. 0267. In site 2, As: 0.0013, Cd: 0.001, Pb: 0.002, Zn: 1.597, Cu: 0.1550 and in site 3. As: 0.0013, Cd: 0.001, Pb: 0.002, Zn: 3.383, Cu: 0.0730 respectively. The mean values for arsenic, cadmium and lead in the soil and rice samples, respectively, were not significantly different (P > 0.05) in the three different sites whereas, for copper and zinc, the mean values were significantly different (P < 0.05) from each other at the different spots with an elevated concentration of copper and zinc in the soil samples than in the rice samples. However, these values were far lower than the values indicated by the World Health Organization as hazardous. Conclusion: The rice samples grown in Nnatu St AzuuiyiUdene, Abakiliki is safe for consumption.

Background: Homocysteine is an important non-protein amino acid, very useful in all methylation reactions occurring in the body as the precursor of the sole methyl group donor S-Adenosyl-methionine (SAM). However, elevated plasma homocysteine levels have been reported to contribute to epithelial damage leading to coronary artery disease and other metabolic syndromes. This study was aimed at evaluating the concentration of plasma homocysteine in diabetics and hypertensive patients in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Methods: The study population included 60 Type II diabetes mellitus and Hypertensivesubjectsas group (I), 60 Type II diabetes mellitus and Normotensive subjects as group (II), 60 Hypertensive subjects as group (III), and 60 healthy subjects as control group within the age range of 30 -70 years. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method was used to quantitatively measure homocysteine in the serum sample, glycated haemoglobin were determined quantitatively using sandwich immunodetection and blood pressure was determined using mercury sphygnanometer. Statistics: The statistical analysis was done using GraphPad Prism version 9.4.1, and statistical significance was determined by a P < 0.05. Results: The results showed significantly higher plasma homocysteine levels in diabetics and hypertensive comorbidity patients when compared to healthy controls, P < 0.013. There was also a significant increase in plasma homocysteine levels in the comorbidity and hypertensives single morbidity, P < 0.0001 and also diabetes single morbidity, but there was no significant difference from the levels in the diabetics and hypertensives single morbidity. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between groups in terms of age range or duration of diagnosis. Conclusion: