Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 22, Issue 15, pp 11255–11264 | Cite as

Human exposure and risk assessment associated with mercury contamination in artisanal gold mining areas in the Brazilian Amazon

  • Zuleica Castilhos
  • Saulo Rodrigues-Filho
  • Ricardo Cesar
  • Ana Paula Rodrigues
  • Roberto Villas-Bôas
  • Iracina de Jesus
  • Marcelo Lima
  • Kleber Faial
  • Antônio Miranda
  • Edilson Brabo
  • Christian Beinhoff
  • Elisabeth Santos
Research Article

Abstract

Mercury (Hg) contamination is an issue of concern in the Amazon region due to potential health effects associated with Hg exposure in artisanal gold mining areas. The study presents a human health risk assessment associated with Hg vapor inhalation and MeHg-contaminated fish ingestion, as well as Hg determination in urine, blood, and hair, of human populations (about 325 miners and 321 non-miners) from two gold mining areas in the Brazilian Amazon (São Chico and Creporizinho, Pará State). In São Chico and Creporizinho, 73 fish specimens of 13 freshwater species, and 161 specimens of 11 species, were collected for total Hg determination, respectively. The hazard quotient (HQ) is a risk indicator which defines the ratio of the exposure level and the toxicological reference dose and was applied to determine the threat of MeHg exposure. The mean Hg concentrations in fish from São Chico and Creporizinho were 0.83 ± 0.43 and 0.36 ± 0.33 μg/g, respectively. More than 60 and 22 % of fish collected in São Chico and Creporizinho, respectively, were above the Hg limit (0.5 μg/g) recommended by WHO for human consumption. For all sampling sites, HQ resulted from 1.5 to 28.5, except for the reference area. In Creporizinho, the values of HQ are close to 2 for most sites, whereas in São Chico, there is a hot spot of MeHg contamination in fish (A2—São Chico Reservoir) with the highest risk level (HQ = 28) associated with its human consumption. Mean Hg concentrations in urine, blood, and hair samples indicated that the miners group (in São Chico: urine = 17.37 μg/L; blood = 27.74 μg/L; hair = 4.50 μg/g and in Creporizinho: urine = 13.75 μg/L; blood = 25.23 μg/L; hair: 4.58 μg/g) was more exposed to mercury compared to non-miners (in São Chico: urine = 5.73 μg/L; blood = 16.50 μg/L; hair = 3.16 μg/g and in Creporizinho: urine = 3.91 μg/L; blood = 21.04 μg/L, hair = 1.88 μg/g). These high Hg levels (found not only in miners but also in non-miners who live near the mining areas) are likely to be related to a potential hazard due to exposure to both Hg vapor by inhalation and to MeHg-contaminated fish ingestion.

Keywords

Mercury Gold mining Fish Human health Amazon 

References

  1. Akagi H (1998) Studies on mercury pollution in the Amazon, Brazil. Glob Environ Res 2:193–202Google Scholar
  2. Akagi H, Nishimura H (1991) Speciation of mercury in the environment toxicology. In: Suzuki T, Imura N (eds) Advances in Mercury. Plenum Press, New York, pp 53–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akagi H, Kinjo Y, Branches F, Malm O, Harada M, Pfeiffer WC, Kato H (1994) Methylmercury pollution in Tapajos river basin, Amazon. Environ Sci 3:25–32Google Scholar
  4. Bell ZG, Lovejoy HB, Vizena TR (1973) Mercury exposure evaluations and their correlation with urine mercury excretions. 3. Time-weighted average (TWA) mercury exposures and urine mercury levels. J Occup Med 15(6):501–508Google Scholar
  5. Bidone ED, Castilhos ZC, Cid de Souza TM, Lacerda DL (1997) Fish contamination and human exposure to mercury in the Tapajós River Basin, Pará State, Amazon, Brazil: a screening approach. Bull Environ Cont Toxicol 59:194–201. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-3975-5_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruggeman WA (1982) Hidrophobic interactions in the aquatic environment. In: Hutzinger O (ed) The handbook of environmental chemistry, vol 2. Spring-Verlag, Germany, p 205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castilhos ZC, Bidone ED, Lacerda LD (1998) Increase of the reference human exposure to mercury through fish consumption due to gold mining at the Tapajos river region, Amazon. Bull Environ Cont Toxicol 6:202–209. doi:10.1007/s001289900749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castilhos ZC, Rodrigues-Filho S, Rodrigues APC, Viilas-Bôas RCV, Siegel S, Veiga M, Beinhoff C (2004) Mercury contamination in fish from gold mining areas in the Brazilian Amazon and human health risk assessment. In: 7th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant, Book of Abstracts (CD-Room), Ljubliana (Eslovênia)Google Scholar
  9. Castilhos ZC, Rodrigues-Filho S, Rodrigues APC, Viilas-Bôas RCV, Siegel S, Veiga M, Beinhoff C (2006) Mercury contamination in fish from gold mining areas in Indonesia and human health risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 368:320–325. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.01.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cesar RG, Egler S, Polivanov H, Castilhos Z, Rodrigues AP (2011) Mercury, copper and zinc contamination in soils and fluvial sediments from an abandoned gold mining area in southern Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Environ Earth Sci 64:211–222Google Scholar
  11. Correia J, Cesar RG, Marsico E, Diniz GTN, Zorro MC, Castilhos ZC (2014) Mercury contamination in alligators (Melanosuchus niger) from Mamirauá Reservoir (Brazilian Amazon) and human health risk assessment. Environ Sci Poll Res 21:13522–13527. doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3282-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engström K, Ameer S, Bernaudat L, Drasch G, Baeuml J, Bose-O’Reilly S, Broberg K (2013) Polymorphisms in genes encoding potential mercury transporters and urine mercury concentrations in populations exposed to mercury vapor from gold mining. Environ Health Perspect 121(1):85–91. doi:10.1289/ehp.1204951 Google Scholar
  13. Freire C, Ramos R, Lopez-Espinosa MJ, Díez S, Vioque J, Ballester F, Fernández MF (2010) Hair mercury levels, fish consumption, and cognitive development in preschool children from Granada, Spain. Environ Res 110(1):96–104. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2009.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hacon S, Yokoo E, Valente J, Campos RC, Silva VA, Menezes ACC (2000) Exposure to mercury in pregnant women from Alta Floresta—Amazon Basin, Brazil. Environ Res 84(3):204–210. doi:10.1006/enrs.2000.4115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harari R, Harari F, Gerhardsson L, Lundh T, Skerfving S, Strömberg U, Broberg K (2012) Exposure and toxic effects of elemental mercury in gold-mining activities in Ecuador. Toxicol Lett 213(1):75–82. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2011.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krenkel P (1971) Report on international conference on environmental mercury contamination. Water Res 5:1121–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rodrigues-Filho S, Maddock JEL (1997) Mercury pollution in two gold mining areas of the Brazilian Amazon. J Geoch Expl 58:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rodrigues-Filho S, Castilhos, ZC, Santos RLC, Yallouz AV, Nascimento FMF, Egler SG (2004) Environmental and health assessment in two small scale gold mining areas—Indonesia—Sulawesi and Kalimantan. CETEM's Technical Final Report to UNIDO-Reserved. 211 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Santos EOS, Jesus IM, Brabo ES, Loureiro ECB, Mascarenhas AFS, Weirich J, Câmara VM, Cleary D (2000) Mercury exposures in riverside Amazon communities in Pará, Brazil. Environ Res 84(2):100–107. doi:10.1006/enrs.2000.4088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schulz C, Angerer J, Ewers U, Kolossa-Ghering M (2007) The German Human Biomonitoring Commission. Int J Hyg Environ Health 210:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Skerfving S (1973) Mercury in fish—some ecological considerations. Food Cosmet Toxicol 10:543–556Google Scholar
  22. Slot C (1965) Plasma creatinine determination. A new and specific Jaffe reaction method. Scand J Clin Lab Inv 17:381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steckling N, Boese-O'Reilly S, Gradel C, Gutschmidt K, Shinee E, Altangerel E, Badrakh B, Bonduush I, Surenjav U, Roider R, Sakamoto M, Sepai O, Drasch G, Lettmeier B, Morton J, Jones K, Siebert U, Hornberg C (2011) Mercury exposure in female artisanal small-scale gold miners (ASGM) in Mongolia: an analysis of human biomonitoring (HBM) data from 2008. Sci Total Environ 409(5):994–1000. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.11.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tsuji JS, Williams PRD, Edwards MR, Allamneni KP, Kelsh MA, Paustenbach DJ, Sheehan PJ (2003) Evaluation of mercury in urine as an indicator of exposure to low levels of mercury vapor. Environ Health Perspect 111(4):623–630. doi:10.1289/ehp.5717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ullrich SM, Tanton TW, Abdrashitova SA (2001) Mercury in the aquatic environment: a review of factors affecting methylation. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 31(3):241–293Google Scholar
  26. U.S.EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency (1989) United States Environmental Protection Agency: risk assessment guidance for Superfund. Vol I: human health evaluation Manual, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  27. US EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). IRIS—Integrated Risk Information System. http://www.usepa.gov/iris. Accessed 10 May 2014
  28. WHO – World Health Organization (1990) Environmental health criteria 101: methylmercury. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  29. WHO – World Health Organization (1991) Environmental health criteria 118. Inorganic mercury. International Program on Chemical Safety. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  30. Yagev Y (2002). Eating fish during pregnancy: risk of exposure to toxic levels of methylmercury. http://www.motherisk.org/prof/updatesDetail.jsp?content_id=934. Accessed 10 May 2014

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zuleica Castilhos
    • 1
    • 4
  • Saulo Rodrigues-Filho
    • 2
  • Ricardo Cesar
    • 3
  • Ana Paula Rodrigues
    • 4
  • Roberto Villas-Bôas
    • 1
  • Iracina de Jesus
    • 5
  • Marcelo Lima
    • 5
  • Kleber Faial
    • 5
  • Antônio Miranda
    • 5
  • Edilson Brabo
    • 5
  • Christian Beinhoff
    • 6
  • Elisabeth Santos
    • 5
  1. 1.Centre for Mineral Technology, CETEM/MCTIRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentável (CDS)University of Brasilia, UnBBrasíliaBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Geography, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, UFRJRio de JaneiroBrazil
  4. 4.Department of GeochemistryFluminense Federal University, UFFNiteróiBrazil
  5. 5.Evandro Chagas InstituteBelémBrazil
  6. 6.United Nations Industrial Development Organization, UNIDOViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations