DOCSLIB.ORG

Characterization of Human Health and Wildlife Risks from Mercury Exposure in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Characterization of Human Health and Wildlife Risks from Mercury Exposure in the United States United States EPA-452/R-97-009 Environmental Protection December 1997 Agency Air Mercury Study Report to Congress Volume VII: Characterization of Human Health and Wildlife Risks from Mercury Exposure in the United States Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards and Office of Research and Development c7o032-1-1 MERCURY STUDY REPORT TO CONGRESS VOLUME VII: CHARACTERIZATION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND WILDLIFE RISKS FROM MERCURY EXPOSURE IN THE UNITED STATES December 1997 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency TABLE OF CONTENTS Page U.S. EPA AUTHORS ................................................................iii SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWERS ......................................................iv WORK GROUP AND U.S. EPA/ORD REVIEWERS ...................................... vii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................ix LIST OF SYMBOLS, UNITS AND ACRONYMS ......................................... x 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................1-1 2. HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS: HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND DOSE- RESPONSE ................................................................2-1 2.1 Health Hazards Associated with Mercury Exposure ...........................2-1 2.2 Dose-Response to Methylmercury ........................................2-3 2.2.1 Calculation of Methylmercury RfD .................................2-3 2.2.2 Human Dose-Response Issues .....................................2-7 2.3 Uncertainty in the Human Health RfD for Methylmercury ....................2-15 2.3.1 Qualitative Discussion of Uncertainties in the RfD for Methylmercury Alternate Analyses .............................................2-15 2.3.2 Quantitative Analysis of Uncertainty in the Methylmercury RfD ......... 2-18 3. RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR WILDLIFE ...................................3-1 3.1 Scope of the Risk Assessment ............................................3-1 3.2 Exposure of Piscivorous Wildlife to Mercury ................................3-1 3.2.1 Estimation of Current Average Exposure to Piscivorous Wildlife on a Nationwide Basis ...............................................3-2 3.2.2 Estimation of Mercury Deposition on a Regional Scale (40 km grid) and Comparison of These Deposition Data with Species Distribution Information 3-2 3.2.3 Estimation of Mercury Exposure on a Local Scale in Areas Near Emissions Point Sources .......................................................3-4 3.3 Effects Assessment for Mercury ..........................................3-5 3.4 Risk Assessment for Mercury ............................................3-5 3.5 Risk of Mercury from Airborne Emissions to Piscivorous Avian and Mammalian Wildlife ................................3-7 3.5.1 Lines of Evidence ...............................................3-7 3.5.2 Risk Statements ................................................3-7 4. CHARACTERIZATION OF FATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MERCURY .............. 4-1 4.1 The Modeling Analysis .................................................4-1 4.1.1 Study Design of the Modeling Analysis..............................4-1 4.1.2 Long-Range Atmospheric Transport Analysis .........................4-5 4.1.3 Analysis of Local-Scale Fate of Atmospheric Mercury .................. 4-5 4.1.4 Assessment of Watershed and Water Body Fate .......................4-5 4.2 Important Uncertainties Identified in Environmental Fate Modeling .............. 4-6 4.2.1 Emissions Uncertainties ..........................................4-6 4.2.2 Atmospheric Reactions of Emitted Mercury ..........................4-7 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 4.2.3 Deposition of Atmospheric Mercury ................................4-7 4.2.4 Mercury Concentrations in Water and Aquatic Biota ................... 4-9 4.3 Summary ...........................................................4-10 5. CHARACTERIZATION OF EXPOSURE ........................................5-1 5.1 Individual Human Results ...............................................5-2 5.1.1 Predicted Inhalation Exposures ....................................5-2 5.1.2 Predicted Terrestrial Food Chain Results .............................5-2 5.1.3. Predicted Soil Ingestion Results ....................................5-2 5.1.4 Fish Ingestion Scenarios ..........................................5-3 5.2 Other Sources of Human Mercury Exposure ................................5-4 5.3 Characterizing Wildlife Exposures ........................................5-5 5.3.1 Modeled Wildlife Exposures ......................................5-5 5.3.2 Measured Exposures to Methylmercury ..............................5-6 5.3.3 Avian Species Exposure to Methylmercury ...........................5-7 5.4 Human Intake of Methylmercury Estimated through Dietary Surveys and Mercury Residue Data .............................................5-11 5.4.1 Estimates Based on Total Diet Studies ..............................5-11 5.4.2 Estimates Based on Food Consumption Surveys ......................5-12 5.4.3 Mercury Concentrations in Fish and Shellfish ........................5-16 5.4.4 Subpopulations of Concern Based on Physiological Sensitivity to Adverse Developmental Effects of Methylmercury ...........................5-17 5.5 Comparison of Dietary Exposure Estimates with Hair Mercury Concentrations .... 5-26 5.5.1 General Population .............................................5-26 5.5.2 Subpopulations with Higher Exposures to Fish/ Shellfish and Mercury .... 5-27 5.5.3 Comparison with Dietary Intake of Mercury .........................5-27 5.6 Estimates of Sizes of At-Risk Populations .................................5-28 5.6.1 Number of Human Subjects in At-Risk Subpopulation in the United States . 5-28 6. INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS FOR METHYLMERCURY ............................6-1 6.1 Characterization of Risk: Quantitative Integration of Human and Wildlife Exposure and Dose-Response .......................................................6-1 6.1.1 Introduction ....................................................6-1 6.1.2 Description of Critical Terminology for this Section .................... 6-1 6.2 Integration of Modeled Methylmercury Exposure Estimates for Humans and Wildlife with the Dose-Response Assessments ...........................6-2 6.2.1 Methylmercury Intake by Humans and Wildlife Based on the IEM-2M Modeling ..............................................6-3 6.2.2 Comparison of Dose-Response Estimates Across Species ............... 6-8 6.2.3 Integration of Modeled Methylmercury Exposure Through Fish Consumption with Health Criteria ............................................6-11 6.3 Comparison with Other Recommendations .................................6-13 6.3.1 Reference Values for Biological Monitoring .........................6-13 6.3.2 Recommendations Based on Grams of Fish Consumed Per Day .......... 6-22 6.3.2 Population-Based Projections of the Number of Women Consuming Fish/Shellfish in Excess of 100 Grams per Day ......................6-24 ii 6.3.3 Subpopulations of Anglers, Subsistence Fishers ...................... 6-28 6.4. Recommendations Based on Micrograms of Methylmercury Per Day ............ 6-28 6.4.1 Comparison with U.S. EPA's RfD and Benchmark Dose ............... 6-28 6.4.2 Children’s Exposures to Methylmercury ............................6-31 6.4.3 Comparison with Populations Consuming Large Amounts of Fish ........ 6-32 6.4.4 Freshwater Fish Consumption ....................................6-32 6.5 Wildlife Species ......................................................6-38 6.5.1 Comparison with Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Criteria .......... 6-38 6.5.2 Estimates for the Size of the Piscivorous Wildlife Population ............ 6-39 7. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................7-1 8. RESEARCH NEEDS .........................................................8-1 9. REFERENCES ..............................................................9-1 iii U.S. EPA AUTHORS Principal Authors Kathryn Mahaffey, Ph.D. National Center for Environmental Assessment- Washington Office of Research and Development Washington, DC Glenn E. Rice National Center for Environmental Assessment- Cincinnati Office of Research and Development Cincinnati, OH Rita Schoeny, Ph.D. Office of Water Washington, DC Contributing Authors Jeff Swartout National Center for Environmental Assessment- Cincinnati Office of Research and Development Cincinnati, OH Martha H. Keating Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, NC iv SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWERS Dr. William J. Adams* Dr. John A. Dellinger* Kennecott Utah Corporation Medical College of Wisconsin Dr. Brian J. Allee Dr. Kim N. Dietrich* Harza Northwest, Incorporated University of Cincinnati Dr. Thomas D. Atkeson Dr. Tim Eder Florida Department of Environmental Great Lakes Natural Resource Center Protection National Wildlife Federation for the States of Michigan and Ohio Dr. Donald G. Barnes* U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board Dr. Lawrence J. Fischer* Michigan State University Dr. Steven M. Bartell SENES Oak Ridge, Inc. Dr. William F. Fitzgerald University of Connecticut Dr. David Bellinger* Avery Point Children’s Hospital, Boston A. Robert Flaak* Dr. Nicolas Bloom* U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board Frontier Geosciences, Inc. Dr. Katharine Flegal Dr. Mike Bolger National Center for Health Statistics U.S. Food and Drug
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trophic Transfer of Mercury in a Subtropical Coral Reef Food Web
    Trophic Transfer of Mercury in a Subtropical Coral Reef Food Web _______________________________________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences Florida Gulf Coast University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Science ________________________________________________________________________ By Christopher Tyler Lienhardt 2015 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science ____________________________ Christopher Tyler Lienhardt Approved: July 2015 ____________________________ Darren G. Rumbold, Ph.D. Committee Chair / Advisor ____________________________ Michael L. Parsons, Ph.D. ____________________________ Ai Ning Loh, Ph. D. The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. i Acknowledgments This research would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of numerous friends and family. First and foremost I would like to thank my major advisor, Dr. Darren Rumbold, for giving me the opportunity to play a part in some of the great research he is conducting, and add another piece to the puzzle that is mercury biomagnification research. The knowledge, wisdom and skills imparted unto me over the past three years, I cannot thank him enough for. I would also like to thank Dr. Michael Parsons for giving me a shot to be a part of the field team and assist in the conducting of our research. I also owe him thanks for his guidance and the nature of his graduate courses, which helped prepare me to take on such a task.
    [Show full text]
  • 10Neurodevelopmental Effects of Childhood Exposure to Heavy
    Neurodevelopmental E¤ects of Childhood Exposure to Heavy Metals: 10 Lessons from Pediatric Lead Poisoning Theodore I. Lidsky, Agnes T. Heaney, Jay S. Schneider, and John F. Rosen Increasing industrialization has led to increased exposure to neurotoxic metals. By far the most heavily studied of these metals is lead, a neurotoxin that is particularly dangerous to the developing nervous system of children. Awareness that lead poison- ing poses a special risk for children dates back over 100 years, and there has been increasing research on the developmental e¤ects of this poison over the past 60 years. Despite this research and growing public awareness of the dangers of lead to chil- dren, government regulation has lagged scientific knowledge; legislation has been in- e¤ectual in critical areas, and many new cases of poisoning occur each year. Lead, however, is not the only neurotoxic metal that presents a danger to children. Several other heavy metals, such as mercury and manganese, are also neurotoxic, have adverse e¤ects on the developing brain, and can be encountered by children. Al- though these other neurotoxic metals have not been as heavily studied as lead, there has been important research describing their e¤ects on the brain. The purpose of the present chapter is to review the neurotoxicology of lead poisoning as well as what is known concerning the neurtoxicology of mercury and manganese. The purpose of this review is to provide information that might be of some help in avoiding repeti- tion of the mistakes that were made in attempting to protect children from the dan- gers of lead poisoning.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Differences in Risk from Mercury Among Savannah River Fishermen
    Risk Analysis, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2001 Ethnic Differences in Risk from Mercury among Savannah River Fishermen Joanna Burger,1,2* Karen F. Gaines,3 and Michael Gochfeld2,4 Fishing plays an important role in people’s lives and contaminant levels in fish are a public health concern. Many states have issued consumption advisories; South Carolina and Geor- gia have issued them for the Savannah River based on mercury and radionuclide levels. This study examined ethnic differences in risk from mercury exposure among people consuming fish from the Savannah River, based on site-specific consumption patterns and analysis of mercury in fish. Among fish, there were significant interspecies differences in mercury levels, and there were ethnic differences in consumption patterns. Two methods of examining risk are presented: (1) Hazard Index (HI), and (2) estimates of how much and how often people of different body mass can consume different species of fish. Blacks consumed more fish and had higher HIs than Whites. Even at the median consumption, the HI for Blacks exceeded 1.0 for bass and bowfin, and, at the 75th percentile of consumption, the HI exceeded 1.0 for almost all species. At the White male median consumption, noHI exceeded 1, but for the 95th percentile consumer, the HI exceeded 1.0 almost regardless of which species were eaten. Although females consumed about two thirds the quantity of males, HIs exceeded 1 for most Black females and for White females at or above the 75th percentile of consump- tion. Thus, close to half of the Black fishermen were eating enough Savannah River fish to exceed HI 5 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Approach to the Poisoned Patient
    PED-1407 Chocolate to Crystal Methamphetamine to the Cinnamon Challenge - Emergency Approach to the Intoxicated Child BLS 08 / ALS 75 / 1.5 CEU Target Audience: All Pediatric and adolescent ingestions are common reasons for 911 dispatches and emergency department visits. With greater availability of medications and drugs, healthcare professionals need to stay sharp on current trends in medical toxicology. This lecture examines mind altering substances, initial prehospital approach to toxicology and stabilization for transport, poison control center resources, and ultimate emergency department and intensive care management. Pediatric Toxicology Dr. James Burhop Pediatric Emergency Medicine Children’s Hospital of the Kings Daughters Objectives • Epidemiology • History of Poisoning • Review initial assessment of the child with a possible ingestion • General management principles for toxic exposures • Case Based (12 common pediatric cases) • Emerging drugs of abuse • Cathinones, Synthetics, Salvia, Maxy/MCAT, 25I, Kratom Epidemiology • 55 Poison Centers serving 295 million people • 2.3 million exposures in 2011 – 39% are children younger than 3 years – 52% in children younger than 6 years • 1-800-222-1222 2011 Annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System Introduction • 95% decline in the number of pediatric poisoning deaths since 1960 – child resistant packaging – heightened parental awareness – more sophisticated interventions – poison control centers Epidemiology • Unintentional (1-2
    [Show full text]
  • Food Safety Risk Assessment Related to Methylmercury in Seafood August 4
    ※ This report is translated by Food Safety Commission Secretariat, The Cabinet Office, Japan. Food Safety Risk Assessment Related to Methylmercury in Seafood August ４，２００５ The Food Safety Commission, Japan The Contaminant Expert Committee Methylmercury in Seafood 1. Introduction To assure safety against methylmercury in seafood, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare collected opinions of Joint Sub-Committees on Animal Origin Foods and Toxicology under the Food Sanitation Committee (Pharmaceutical Affairs and Food Sanitation Council(1))and published “Advice for Pregnant Women on Fish Consumption concerning Mercury Contamination” for pregnant and potentially pregnant women. Subsequently, after the application of the conventional assessment to a general population was reconfirmed, methylmercury was reassessed in the 61st Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in mid-June 2003 with a concern that fetuses and infants might have greater risks, based upon the results of epidemiological studies conducted in the Seychelles and Faroe Islands on effects of prenatal exposure to methylmercury via seafood on child neurodevelopment(the 61st JECFA (2), WHO (3)). To reassess the above Advice, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare recently requested a food safety risk assessment of “methylmercury in seafood” to the Food Safety Committee in the document No. 07230001 from the Department of Food Safety, Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare under the date of July 23, 2004, in accordance with Article 24, Paragraph 3, Food Safety Basic Law (Law No. 48 2003). The concrete contents of the document requested for not only setting a tolerable intake of methylmercury to reassess the Advice for pregnant women and others concerning intake of methylmercury in seafood, but also discussing a high-risk group that might be subject to the Advice, since the high-risk group is not necessarily the same as those in foreign countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Point Mutation Detection in the Cotton Rat. Christine H
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 2000 Indices of Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in a Bioindicator Species: Point Mutation Detection in the Cotton Rat. Christine H. Lemarchand-carpentier Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Lemarchand-carpentier, Christine H., "Indices of Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in a Bioindicator Species: Point Mutation Detection in the Cotton Rat." (2000). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 7277. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/7277 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Sound Management of Pesticides and Diagnosis and Treatment Of
    * Revision of the“IPCS - Multilevel Course on the Safe Use of Pesticides and on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Presticide Poisoning, 1994” © World Health Organization 2006 All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use. CONTENTS Preface Acknowledgement Part I. Overview 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Objectives 2. Overview of the resource tool 2.1 Moduledescription 2.2 Training levels 2.3 Visual aids 2.4 Informationsources 3. Using the resource tool 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Training trainers 3.2.1 Organizational aspects 3.2.2 Coordinator’s preparation 3.2.3 Selection of participants 3.2.4 Before training trainers 3.2.5 Specimen module 3.3 Trainers 3.3.1 Trainer preparation 3.3.2 Selection of participants 3.3.3 Organizational aspects 3.3.4 Before a course 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Emea Public Statement on Thiomersal in Vaccines for Human Use – Recent Evidence Supports Safety of Thiomersal-Containing Vaccines
    The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products Pre-authorisation evaluation of medicines for human use London, 24 March 2004 Doc. Ref: EMEA/CPMP/VEG/1194/04/Adopted EMEA PUBLIC STATEMENT ON THIOMERSAL IN VACCINES FOR HUMAN USE – RECENT EVIDENCE SUPPORTS SAFETY OF THIOMERSAL-CONTAINING VACCINES The EMEA issued statements on the use of thiomersal in vaccines in 1999 and 2000 (EMEA/20962/99, EMEA/CPMP/1578/00). In light of recent reassuring data on the safety of thiomersal-containing vaccines, this new statement updates previous recommendations. Thiomersal, is an antimicrobial organic mercury compound that continues to be used either in the early stages of manufacturing, or as a preservative, in some vaccines. The antimicrobial action of thiomersal relates to ethylmercury, which is released after breakdown of thiomersal into ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. The Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) previously advised that although there was no evidence of harm from thiomersal in vaccines other than hypersensitivity (allergic) reactions, it would be prudent to promote the general use of vaccines without thiomersal and other mercury containing preservatives, particularly for single dose vaccines. Since then, several vaccines licensed in the European Union have had thiomersal removed or levels reduced and new vaccines without thiomersal have been licensed. CPMP advice was in line with the global goal of reducing environmental exposure to mercury. The previous assessment of risks associated with ethylmercury had been based on data on methylmercury, as the toxicity profile of the two compounds was assumed to be similar. In March 2004, the CPMP reviewed the latest evidence relating to the safety of thiomersal-containing vaccines.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Ouachita Fish Consumption Advisory Q&A
    Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street ● Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-3867 ● Telephone (501) 661-2000 Governor Mike Beebe Nathaniel Smith, MD, MPH, Director and State Health Officer Lake Ouachita Mercury in Fish (MIF) Questions & Answers • How does the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) decide when to issue a fish consumption advisory? ADH issues fish consumption notices when there are enough fish data to indicate that elevated levels of mercury have been reached. ADH works with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC), the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and other state agencies in a Mercury in Fish (MIF) Taskforce. Typically, AGFC collects fish samples, ADEQ performs laboratory analysis of the fish tissue for mercury content, and ADH evaluates the fish data using a risk-based public health assessment method. When a specific fish species exceeds the action level of 1.0 part per million (ppm) mercury, theoretical calculations based on fish ingestion exposure to the mercury contamination are performed to determine potential risk for the public’s health. If a potential hazard is determined, ADH will issue a fish consumption advisory. • Where is this mercury coming from? Mercury comes from both naturally occurring and atmospheric depositions. An increase in mercury concentration in bodies of water is on the rise across the U.S. All 50 states have issued MIF advisories. Mercury is both naturally-occurring and man-made. Mercury contributions to water bodies are thought to be both from air deposition and from geologic formations. Mercury occurs naturally in the environment and is found in varying concentrations in soils and sediments throughout Arkansas.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from an Early-Stage Epidemiological Study of Minamata Disease Takashi Yorifuji
    Journal of Epidemiology Special Article J Epidemiol 2020;30(1):12-14 Lessons From an Early-stage Epidemiological Study of Minamata Disease Takashi Yorifuji Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan Received May 7, 2019; accepted September 17, 2019; released online November 2, 2019 Key words: environment and public health; epidemiology; food contamination; methylmercury compounds; Minamata disease Copyright © 2019 Takashi Yorifuji. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Prefectures,5 but it is reported that several tens of thousands of INTRODUCTION residents have neurological signs related with methylmercury The Revisit series in this issue introduced the article by Kitamura poisoning in the exposed area.2,6 The causative factory, located in and colleagues.1 Dr. Shoji Kitamura, born in 1915, was a medical Minamata City, released effluent, which included methylmercury doctor and a professor of Department of Public Health in the as a byproduct of acetaldehyde production and contaminated local Medical School at Kumamoto University when Minamata disease seafood. The acetaldehyde production started in 1932, and it happened. The article summarized findings from a very-early- increased after the World War II, with a peak in 1960, and stopped phase epidemiological study conducted by researchers from in 1968. Along with the increase in production from around 1950, Kumamoto University immediately after the Minamata disease local residents witnessed strange phenomena.7 For example, large incident was officially recognized on May 1, 1956.
    [Show full text]
  • PROVISIONAL PEER REVIEWED TOXICITY VALUES for DIMETHYLMERCURY (CASRN 593-74-8) Derivation of Subchronic and Chronic Oral Rfds
    EPA/690/R-04/005F l Final 12-01-2004 Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Dimethylmercury (CASRN 593-74-8) Derivation of Subchronic and Chronic Oral RfDs Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 Acronyms and Abbreviations bw body weight cc cubic centimeters CD Caesarean Delivered CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 CNS central nervous system cu.m cubic meter DWEL Drinking Water Equivalent Level FEL frank-effect level FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act g grams GI gastrointestinal HEC human equivalent concentration Hgb hemoglobin i.m. intramuscular i.p. intraperitoneal i.v. intravenous IRIS Integrated Risk Information System IUR inhalation unit risk kg kilogram L liter LEL lowest-effect level LOAEL lowest-observed-adverse-effect level LOAEL(ADJ) LOAEL adjusted to continuous exposure duration LOAEL(HEC) LOAEL adjusted for dosimetric differences across species to a human m meter MCL maximum contaminant level MCLG maximum contaminant level goal MF modifying factor mg milligram mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/L milligrams per liter MRL minimal risk level i MTD maximum tolerated dose MTL median threshold limit NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level NOAEL(ADJ) NOAEL adjusted to continuous exposure duration NOAEL(HEC) NOAEL adjusted for dosimetric differences across species to a
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury in Fish – Background to the Mercury in Fish Advisory Statement
    Mercury in fish – Background to the mercury in fish advisory statement (March 2004) Food regulators regularly assess the potential risks associated with the presence of contaminants in the food supply to ensure that, for all sections of the population, these risks are minimised. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has recently reviewed its risk assessment for mercury in food. The results from this assessment indicate that certain groups, particularly pregnant women, women intending to become pregnant and young children (up to and including 6 years), should limit their consumption of some types of fish in order to control their exposure to mercury. The risk assessment conducted by FSANZ that was published in 2004 used the most recent data and knowledge available at the time. FSANZ intends toreview the advisory statement in the future and will take any new data and scientific evidence into consideration at that time. BENEFITS OF FISH Even though certain types of fish can accumulate higher levels of mercury than others, it is widely recognised that there are considerable nutritional benefits to be derived from the regular consumption of fish. Fish is an excellent source of high biological value protein, is low in saturated fat and contains polyunsaturated fatty acids such as essential omega-3 polyunsaturates. It is also a good source of some vitamins, particularly vitamin D where a 150 g serve of fish will supply around 3 micrograms of vitamin D – about three times the amount of vitamin D in a 10 g serve of margarine. Fish forms a significant component of the Australian diet with approximately 25% of the population consuming fish at least once a week (1995 Australian National Nutrition Survey; McLennan & Podger 1999).
    [Show full text]