Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 22, Issue 22, pp 18278–18287 | Cite as

Emission factor and balance of mercury in fish farms in an artificial reservoir in NE Brazil

  • Karen Figueiredo Oliveira
  • Luiz Drude Lacerda
  • Tiago Farias Peres
  • Moises Fernandes Bezerra
  • Francisco José da Silva Dias
Research Article

Abstract

This paper estimated the mercury (Hg), emission factor, and mass balance from caged fish farming in the Castanhão Reservoir, NE Brazil, based on monitoring of a typical farm of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). The total Hg input to the farm reached 1.45 gHg ha−1 year−1, from which 0.21 gHg ha−1 year−1 was exported out as fish biomass, ultimately resulting in an emission factor of 1.24 gHg ha−1 year−1 for the reservoir or approximately 8.27 mgHg ton fish−1 year−1 produced. Most of the input came from aquafeeds with concentrations varying from 1.4 to 31.1 ng g−1, depending on the type of aquafeed. The Hg concentrations in fish were very low and varied from 1.0 to 2.9 ng g−1. These values are two orders of magnitude lower than the legal limit for human consumption. The estimated total annual discharge of Hg from farming into the reservoir is 174 g for 18,000 tons of fish produced and may reach 387 g when the reservoir reaches its total capacity (40,000 tons), which is expected to occur in 2020. The mass balance, considering the deposition and accumulation rates, showed that approximately 40 % of the total Hg input accumulate in farm sediments (0.72 g ha−1 year−1), which is approximately 60 % of the deposition rate estimated through the sediment traps and suggests that 0.54 gHg ha−1 year−1 could eventually be transported out of the farm to the reservoir. Notwithstanding these facts, the total annual input of Hg from fish farming to the Castanhão Reservoir is less than 1.0 % of the total input from anthropogenic sources.

Keywords

Oreochromis niloticus Fish farming Mercury Emission factor Sedimentation Hydrodynamics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by research grants FUNCAP-CAPES (Proc. No. AE1-0052-000120100/11) e CNPq-MPA (404.716/2012-1). It also received a contribution from the CNPq–INCT-TMCOcean, (Proc. No. 573.601/2008-9) research network. Our deep gratitude goes to an anonymous reviewer whose detailed and careful work has greatly improved earlier versions of the manuscript.

References

  1. Andren AW, Harris RC (1975) Observations on the association between mercury and organic matter dissolved in natural waters. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 39:1253–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ANVISA (1998) Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Portaria N° 685, de 27 de agosto de 1998, Brasília. http://www.anvisa.gov.br/legis/portarias/685_98.htm Accessed in November 2013
  3. Barcellos C, Lacerda LD, Ceradini S (1997) Sediment origin and budget in Sepetiba Bay (Brazil)—an approach based on multi-element analysis. Environ Geol 32:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezerra MF, Lacerda LD, Costa BGB, Lima EHSM (2012) Mercury in sea turtles, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1958), from the coast of Ceará, NE Brazil. An Acad Bras Cienc 84:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi MH, Cech JJ (1998) Unexpectedly high mercury level in pelleted commercial fish feed. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:1979–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CONPAM (2011) Conselho de Políticas e Gestão do Meio Ambiente Fortaleza, CE. http://www.conpam.ce.gov.br/noticias/licenciamento-da-pesca-no-castanhao-pode-ser/?searchterm=a%C3%A7udes. Accessed in November 2013
  7. Copeland DD, Facer M, Newton R, Walker PJ (1996) Use of poly(ethylene terephthalate) plastic bottles for the sampling, transportation and storage of potable water prior to mercury determination. Analyst 121:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa BGB, Soares TM, Torres RF, Lacerda LD (2013) Mercury distribution in a mangrove tidal creek affected by intensive shrimp farming. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 90:537–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costa SM, Appel E, Macedo CF, Huszar VLM (2014) Low water quality in tropical fishponds in southeastern Brazil. An Acad Bras Cienc 86:1181–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DNOCS (2013) Departamento Nacional de Obras Contra as Secas, Recife. http://www.dnocs.gov.br. Accessed in November 2013
  11. Emery WJ, Thomsom RE (1998) Data analysis methods in physical oceanography. Pergamon, New York, p 634Google Scholar
  12. FAO (2007) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Aquaculture: new opportunities and a cause for hope. http://www.fao.org/focus/e/fisheries/aqua.htms. Accessed in November 2013
  13. Fisher SW (1995) Mechanisms of bioaccumulation in aquatic systems. Environ Contam Toxicol 42:87–118Google Scholar
  14. Francioni E, Wagener ALR, Calixto RC, Bastos GC (2004) Evaluation of Perna perna (Linné, 1758) as a tool to monitoring trace metals contamination in estuarine and coastal waters of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J Braz Chem Soc 15:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goes Filho A (2013) Risk analysis in the spillway of dam Orós by excess of influent flow. An Acad Bras Cienc 85:405–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hurley J, Binkowski F (2006) Fish, mercury, and aquaculture. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute: http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/Aquaculture/Default. aspx?tabid=242. Accessed in March 2013
  17. Johnston JN, Savage GP (1991) Mercury consumption and toxicity with reference to fish and fishmeal. Nutr Abstr Rev Ser A 61:74–116Google Scholar
  18. Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE (1989) The flood pulse concept in river—floodplain systems. Can Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci 106:110–127Google Scholar
  19. Kitahara SE, Okada IA, Sakuma AM, Zenebon O, Jesus RS, Tenuta-Filho A (2000) Mercúrio total em pescado de água-doce. Ciênc Tecnol Aliment 20:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lacerda LD (2003) Updating global Hg emissions from small-scale gold mining and assessing its environmental impacts. Environ Geol 43:308–314Google Scholar
  21. Lacerda LD, Marins RV (1997) Anthropogenic mercury emissions to the atmosphere in Brazil: the impact of gold mining. J Geochem Explor 58:223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lacerda LD, Santos JA, Lopes DV (2009) Fate of copper in intensive shrimp farms: bioaccumulation and deposition in pond sediments. Braz J Biol 69:851–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lacerda LD, Soares TM, Costa BGB, Godoy MDP (2011) Mercury emission factors from intensive shrimp aquaculture and their relative importance to the Jaguaribe River Estuary, NE Brazil. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 87:657–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lacerda LD, Dias FJS, Marins RV, Soares TM, Godoy JM, Godoy MLDP (2013) Pluriannual watershed discharges of Hg into a tropical semi-arid estuary of the Jaguaribe River, NE Brazil. J Brazil Chem Soc 24:1719–1731Google Scholar
  25. Li S, Zhou L, Wang H, Xiong M, Yang Z, Hu J, Liang Y, Chang J (2013) Short-term impact of reservoir impoundment on the patterns of mercury distribution in a subtropical aquatic ecosystem, Wujiang River, southwest China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:4396–4404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Limaverde Filho AM, Campos RC (1999) Redução seletiva aplicada à especiação de mercúrio em peixes: uma adaptação do método de Magos. Quim Nov. 22:477–482Google Scholar
  27. Loring DH, Rantala RTT (1992) Manual for the geochemical analyses of marine sediments and suspended particulate matter. Earth Sci Rev 32:235–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marins RV, Lacerda LD, Villas Boas RC (1998) Mercury emissions into Sepetiba Bay basin, SE Brazil. Ciênc Cult 50:293–297Google Scholar
  29. Marins RV, Paraquetti HH, Ayres GA (2002) Analytical alternative for the physical-chemical speciation of mercury in tropical coastal waters. Quim Nov. 25:372–378Google Scholar
  30. Maurice-Bourgoin L, Quiroga I, Chincheros J, Courau P (2000) Mercury distribution in waters and fishes of the upper Madeira rivers and mercury exposure in riparian Amazonian populations. Sci Total Environ 260:73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mountouris A, Voutsas E, Tassios D (2002) Bioconcentration of heavy metals in aquatic environments: the importance of bioavailability. Mar Pollut Bull 44:1136–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nriagu JO, Pacyna JM (1988) Quantitative assessment of worldwide contamination of air, water and soil by trace metals. Nature 333:134–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oliveira RCB, Marins RV (2011) Dinâmica de metais-traço em solo e ambiente sedimentar estuarino como um fator determinante no aporte desses contaminantes para o ambiente aquático: Revisão. Rev Virtual Quim 3:88–102Google Scholar
  34. Pereira E, Baptista-Neto JA, Smith BJ, Mcallister JJ (2007) The contribution of heavy metal pollution derived from highway runoff to Guanabara Bay sediments: Rio de Janeiro/Brazil. An Acad Bras Cienc 79:739–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pourreza N, Ghanem K (2009) Determination of mercury in water and fish samples by cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry after solid phase extraction on agar modified with 2-mercaptobenzimidazole. J Hazard Mater 161:982–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salomons W, Föstner U (1984) Metals in the hydrocycle. Springer, Berlin, p 349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SEDETA (2013) Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Econômico, Turismo, Aquicultura e Pesca. Relatório Potencialidades Aquícolas do Açude Castanhão. Prefeitura Municipal de Jaguaribara, p 18Google Scholar
  38. Tacon AGJ, Forster IP (2003) Aquafeeds and the environment: policy implications. Aquaculture 226:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tacon AGJ, Hasan MR (2007) Global synthesis of feeds and nutrients for sustainable aquaculture development. In: Hasan MR, Hecht T, De Silva SS, Tacon AGJ (eds) Study and analysis of feeds and fertilizers for sustainable aquaculture development. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 497. FAO, Rome. p 3-17, 504pGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas M, Lazartigues A, Banas D, Brun-Bellut J, Feidt C (2012) Organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls in sediments and fish from freshwater cultured fish ponds in different agricultural contexts in northeastern France. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 77:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. UNEP (2013) Global mercury assessment 2013: sources, emissions, releases and environmental transport. UNEP Chemicals Branch, Geneva, p 44Google Scholar
  42. USEPA (2000) Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish advisories. Vol. 1: fish sampling and analysis. EPA 823-B-00-007. Office of Science and Technology Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, p 144Google Scholar
  43. Vaisman AG, Lacerda LD (2003) Estimated heavy metal emissions to the atmosphere due to projected changes in the Brazilian energy generation matrix. Reg Environ Chang 3:140–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vaisman AG, Marins RV, Lacerda LD (2005) Characterization of the mangrove oyster Crassostraea rhizophora, as a biomonitor for mercury in tropical estuarine systems. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 73:582–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Figueiredo Oliveira
    • 1
  • Luiz Drude Lacerda
    • 1
  • Tiago Farias Peres
    • 1
  • Moises Fernandes Bezerra
    • 1
  • Francisco José da Silva Dias
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto de Ciências do MarUniversidade Federal do CearáFortalezaBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de OceanografiaUniversidade Federal do MaranhãoSão LuísBrazil

Personalised recommendations