Shark fin, a symbol of wealth and good fortune may pose health risks: the case of mercury
There is a lack of information concerning human health risks due to exposure to mercury contained in shark fins, through dietary intake. Health risk assessment of shark fins, collected from 5 cities in China: Hong Kong (HK), Beijing, Shanghai (SH), Haikou (HN) and Wenzhou (WZ), was conducted, based on total mercury and methylmercury, and analyzed by a cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry equipped with high-performance liquid chromatography, respectively. The results showed that 16.8 % samples from HK, 8.3 % from SH, 33.3 % from HN, and 16.8 % from WZ were regarded as unsafe for human consumption. Extremely high consumption rates of shark fins for an adult and a child (0.150 and 0.0807 kg/day, respectively), at 95th centile, samples from WZ demonstrated high non-cancer risks (adverse health effects) (Hazard Quotient = 16.0) on adults (aged 25–65), and samples from SH, HN and WZ also showed high non-cancer risks (Hazard Quotient = 12.9, 21.0, and 34.4, respectively) on children (aged 1–7). Consumption of shark fins may be detrimental to human health.
KeywordsMercury Methylmercury Shark fins Non-cancer risk Health risk assessment
- Caffrey, J. M., Landing, W. M., Nolek, S. D., Gosnell, K. J., Bagui, S. S., & Bagui, S. C. (2010). Atmospheric deposition of mercury and major ions to the Pensacola (Florida) watershed: Spatial, seasonal, and inter-annual variability. Atmospheric Chemistry Physics, 10(2), 4593–4616.Google Scholar
- Census and Statistics Department. (2012). HONG KONG: THE FACTS. Published by the Information Services Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.Google Scholar
- Census and Statistics Department. (2009). Hong Kong Census Trade Statistic. Published by the Information Services Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.Google Scholar
- Davis, J. A., May, M. D., Greenfield, B. K., Fairey, R., Roberts, C., Ichikawa, G. et al. (2002). Contaminant concentrations in sport fish from San Francisco Bay, 1997, 44 (10), 1117–1129.Google Scholar
- EC (European Commission) (2001). Commission Regulation (EC) No. 466/2001, Setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs dated 8 March 2001 (as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No. 221/2002 dated 6 February 2002). http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sfp/fcr/fcr02_en.pdf. Accessed 08 October 2012.
- Endo, T., Hisamichi, Y., Haraguchi, K., Kato, Y., Ohta, C., & Koga, N. (2008). Hg, Zn and Cu levels in the muscle and liver of tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) from the coast of Ishigaki Island, Japan: Relationship between metal concentrations and body length. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56(10), 1774–1780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- FSANZ (Food Standards Australia and New Zealand). (2004). Mercury in fish (Australia only).Google Scholar
- Health Canada (2007). Health Canada’s revised assessment of mercury in fish enhances protection while reflecting advice in Canada’s Food Guide.Google Scholar
- Health Canada (2008). Updating the existing risk management strategy for mercury in retail fish.Google Scholar
- JECFA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives). (2004). Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants (Sixty-first report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives).WHO Technical Report Series, No. 922.Google Scholar
- Ko, L. Y. Y., Qin, Y. Y., & Wong, M. H. (2012). Impacts of heavy metals on child health and development. In M. H. Wong (Ed.), Environmental contamination: Health risks, bioavailability and bioremediation. New York: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- MOE (Ministry of the Environment). (2002). Minamata disease the history and measures. Environmental health department, Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan.Google Scholar
- Moore, D. R. J., Sample, B. E., Suter, G. W., Parkhurst, B. R., & Teed, R. S. (1999). Probabilistic risk assessment of the effects of methylmercury and PCBs on mink and kingfishers along east fork poplar creek, oak ridge, Tennessee, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18(12), 2941–2953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mull, C. G., Blasius, M. E., O’Sullivan, J. B., & Lowe, C. G. (2012). Global perspectives on the Biology and life history of the white shark, Chapter 5. California: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- NYSDH (New York State Department of Health). (2007). Information for a Healthy New York. Hopewell Precision Area Contamination. Appendix C—NYS DOH Procedure for Evaluating Potential Health Risks for Contaminants of Concern. http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/investigations/hopewell/appendc.htm Accessed 01 February 2013.
- Sompongchaiyakul, P., Hantow, J., Sornkrut, S., Sumontha, M., Jayasinghe, R. P. P. K. (2007). An assessment of mercury concentration in fish tissues caught from three compartments of the Bay of Bengal. The Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management in the Bay of Bengal, pp 221-232. http://map.seafdec.org/downloads/BIMSTEC/020-Mercury-Penjai.pdf. Accessed 08 October 2012.
- The 8 restaurant. (2009). Grand Lisboa. Macau: Avenida de Lisboa.Google Scholar
- Turoczy, N. J., Laurenson, L. J. B., Allinson, G., Nishikawa, M., Lambert, D. F., & Smith, C. (2000). Observations on metal concentrations in three species of shark (Deania calcea, Centroscymnus crepidater, and Centroscymnus owstoni) from southeastern Australian waters. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 48(9), 4357–4364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (1989). Risk assessment guidance for superfund, Vol. I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. EPA/540/1-89/002. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (1991). Human health evaluation manual, supplemental guidance: “Standard default exposure factors”. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2000). Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant, data for use in fish advisories. Vol. 1: fish sampling and analysis, third ed. EPA 823-R-95-007. Office of Water, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2001a). Method 1630: Methylmercury in water by distillation, aqueous ethylation, purge and trap, and CVAFS US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, pp 1–41.Google Scholar
- US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2001b). Water quality criterion for the protection of human health: Methylmercury. Office of Science and Technology Office of Water, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2005). Method 245.7: Mercury in water by cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2012). Mercury: Methylmercury effects. http://www.epa.gov/hg/effects.htm Accessed 08 November 2012.
- US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2013a). How people are exposed to mercury. Washington, DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/hg/exposure.htm Accessed 22 January 2014.
- US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2013b). Mid Atlantic risk assessment. Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table. http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/ Accessed 08 March 2013.
- US FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration). (2004). What we need to know about mercury in fish and shellfish: Advice for Women Who Might Become Pregnant Women Who are Pregnant Nursing Mothers Young Children.Google Scholar
- US FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration). (2007). CPG Sec. 540.600 Fish, Shellfish, Crustaceans and other Aquatic Animals—Fresh, Frozen or Processed—Methyl Mercury.Google Scholar
- US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2007). Risk assessment for noncancer effects. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- Vannuccini, S. (1999). Shark utilization, marketing and trade. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
- WHO (World health organization). (2013). Mercury and health. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs361/en/ Accessed 22 January 2014.