DOCSLIB.ORG

Methylmercury Poisoning in High-End Fish Consumers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Methylmercury Poisoning in High-End Fish Consumers MethylmercuryMethylmercury PoisoningPoisoning inin HighHigh--EndEnd FishFish Consumers:Consumers: AA RiskRisk CommunicationCommunication ChallengeChallenge EdwardEdward GrothGroth III,III, PhDPhD GrothGroth ConsultingConsulting ServicesServices Pelham,Pelham, NYNY 1080310803 USAUSA May,May, 20092009 TopicsTopics toto bebe covered:covered: ¾ BackgroundBackground && contextcontext ¾ MercuryMercury inin USUS fishfish andand seafoodseafood ¾ SummarySummary ofof 2424 casecase historieshistories ¾ IsIs itit reallyreally methylmercurymethylmercury poisoning?poisoning? ¾ DoseDose--responseresponse issuesissues ¾ FishFish involvedinvolved inin thesethese casescases ¾ HowHow prevalentprevalent aa problem?problem? ¾ ResearchResearch needsneeds ¾ RiskRisk communicationcommunication aspectsaspects ContextContext ¾ AmericansAmericans areare eatingeating moremore fish,fish, whichwhich benefitsbenefits publicpublic healthhealth significantly,significantly, overalloverall ¾ ButBut itit alsoalso increasesincreases thethe likelihoodlikelihood ofof exposureexposure toto methylmercury,methylmercury, fromfrom eatingeating fishfish ¾ RiskRisk isis greatergreater forfor peoplepeople whowho eateat aa lotlot ofof fishfish ¾ TheThe type(stype(s)) ofof fishfish consumedconsumed alsoalso mattermatter ¾ MethylmercuryMethylmercury exposureexposure inin generalgeneral andand extremeextreme highhigh--endend exposureexposure areare eacheach likelylikely toto increaseincrease ifif moremore AmericansAmericans eateat moremore fishfish ConventionalConventional HgHg Wisdom:Wisdom: ¾¾ CriticalCritical effecteffect == developmentaldevelopmental neurotoxicityneurotoxicity ¾¾ PopulationsPopulations atat riskrisk == fetusesfetuses (i.e.(i.e. womenwomen ofof childbearingchildbearing age)age) andand youngyoung childrenchildren ¾¾ NoNo appreciableappreciable riskrisk toto otherother populationspopulations ¾¾ BenefitsBenefits (lower(lower risksrisks ofof CHDCHD && stroke)stroke) farfar outweighoutweigh HgHg risksrisks forfor generalgeneral populationpopulation ThisThis perspectiveperspective isis reflectedreflected asas recentlyrecently asas inin thethe 20062006 NAS/IOMNAS/IOM reportreport onon benefitsbenefits andand risksrisks ofof fishfish && seafoodseafood consumptionconsumption BasisBasis forfor C.W.:C.W.: ¾¾ EpidemiologyEpidemiology fromfrom incidentsincidents inin JapanJapan andand Iraq,Iraq, mostmost studiesstudies 3030--4040 yearsyears agoago ¾¾ FoundFound clearclear--cutcut neurotoxicneurotoxic effectseffects inin adultsadults onlyonly atat highhigh dosesdoses (blood(blood HgHg >> ~200~200 ppb)ppb) ¾¾ SomeSome effectseffects inin childrenchildren @@ >> 5050 ppbppb ¾¾ AmountsAmounts ofof MeHgMeHg fromfrom fishfish inin ““normalnormal dietdiet”” believedbelieved toto bebe belowbelow thethe levellevel ofof concern,concern, exceptexcept forfor potentialpotential forfor fetalfetal exposureexposure KeyKey questions:questions: ¾¾ DoDo wewe needneed toto revisitrevisit andand updateupdate thisthis riskrisk assessment?assessment? ¾¾ IfIf so,so, howhow mightmight wewe approachapproach thatthat task?task? ¾¾ WhatWhat aboutabout ““abnormalabnormal”” (high(high--fish)fish) diets?diets? ¾¾ OnOn whatwhat issuesissues dodo wewe needneed betterbetter data?data? ¾¾ GivenGiven whatwhat wewe knowknow andand dondon’’tt know,know, whatwhat adviceadvice shouldshould wewe givegive consumers?consumers? AA FewFew BasicBasic PrinciplesPrinciples ofof EnvironmentalEnvironmental HealthHealth RiskRisk isis aa ContinuumContinuum SensitivitySensitivity toto toxictoxic effectseffects variesvaries alongalong aa distributiondistribution Number of individuals affected Dose SensitiveSensitive subpopulationsubpopulation NumberNumber affectedaffected DoseDose FishFish consumptionconsumption andand methylmercurymethylmercury exposureexposure FishFish consumptionconsumption ¾¾ LongLong--termterm trendtrend ofof increasingincreasing perper capitacapita consumptionconsumption inin USUS ¾¾ RecentRecent yearsyears at/nearat/near allall--timetime highhigh ¾¾ PatternsPatterns ofof consumptionconsumption alsoalso changingchanging ¾¾ MoreMore freshfresh andand frozenfrozen steakssteaks andand filletsfillets ¾¾ MoreMore (mostly(mostly imported)imported) shrimpshrimp ¾¾ LessLess cannedcanned andand breaded/processedbreaded/processed fishfish USUS PerPer capitacapita fishfish consumption,consumption, pounds/year,pounds/year, 19901990--20062006 (NMFS)(NMFS) 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 ConsumptionConsumption ofof selectedselected items,items, pounds/person/year,pounds/person/year, 19901990--20062006 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 PerPer capitacapita consumption,consumption, cannedcanned fish,fish, pounds/year,pounds/year, 19901990--20062006 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 TopTop 1010 SeafoodsSeafoods,, 20052005--20072007 USUS consumptionconsumption inin poundspounds perper capitacapita perper yearyear (NFI)(NFI) Rank 2005 2006 2007 . Species Lbs Species Lbs Species Lbs 1 Shrimp 4.10 Shrimp 4.40 Shrimp 4.10 2 Tuna, can 3.10 Tuna, can 2.90 Tuna, can 2.70 3 Salmon 2.43 Salmon 2.03 Salmon 2.36 4 Pollock 1.47 Pollock 1.64 Pollock 1.73 5 Catfish 1.03 Tilapia 1.00 Tilapia 1.14 6 Tilapia 0.85 Catfish 0.97 Catfish 0.88 7 Crab 0.64 Crab 0.66 Crab 0.68 8 Cod 0.57 Cod 0.51 Cod 0.47 9 Clams 0.44 Clams 0.44 Clams 0.45 10 Flatfish 0.37 Scallops 0.31 Flatfish 0.32 Total, Top 10 15.0 14.9 14.8 WhereWhere’’ss thethe mercury?mercury? ¾¾ AmongAmong popularpopular fishfish andand seafoodseafood choices,choices, howhow muchmuch doesdoes eacheach varietyvariety contributecontribute toto potentialpotential methylmercurymethylmercury exposure?exposure? ¾¾ WhichWhich fishfish areare likelylikely toto contributecontribute mostmost toto methylmercurymethylmercury intake,intake, amongamong peoplepeople whowho eateat aa greatgreat dealdeal ofof fish?fish? MethylmercuryMethylmercury Exposure:Exposure: SourceSource StrengthsStrengths ¾¾ ContributionsContributions ofof differentdifferent fishfish andand seafoodseafood itemsitems toto totaltotal amountamount ofof mercurymercury inin thethe USUS fish/seafoodfish/seafood supply,supply, calculatedcalculated using:using: A:A: 20062006 USUS marketmarket datadata fromfrom NMFSNMFS B:B: MercuryMercury contentcontent fromfrom FDAFDA databasedatabase HgHg InputInput == (%(% ofof market)market) xx (Hg(Hg ppm)ppm) RelativeRelative HgHg ContributionsContributions ¾ HgHg inputsinputs calculatedcalculated forfor 5151 typestypes ofof fishfish andand shellfishshellfish forfor whichwhich therethere areare bothboth NMFSNMFS marketmarket datadata andand FDAFDA HgHg datadata ¾ ResultsResults areare notnot preciseprecise indicatorsindicators ofof exposure,exposure, butbut provideprovide relativerelative comparisonscomparisons ¾ ResultsResults cancan bebe rankedranked andand comparedcompared variousvarious waysways (e.g.,(e.g., percentpercent ofof totaltotal Hg)Hg) AA KeyKey Fact:Fact: ¾The weighted average methylmercury concentration in the US seafood supply is 0.086 ppm ColorColor--codingcoding fishfish forfor methylmercurymethylmercury contentcontent ¾ GREENGREEN == veryvery lowlow == << 0.0430.043 ppmppm ¾ BLUEBLUE == belowbelow averageaverage == 0.0440.044 -- 0.0860.086 ppmppm ¾ BLACKBLACK == aboveabove averageaverage == 0.0870.087 -- 0.1720.172 ppmppm ¾ ORANGEORANGE == moderatelymoderately highhigh == 0.1730.173 -- 0.3440.344 ppmppm ¾ REDRED == highhigh == 0.3450.345 -- 0.6880.688 ppmppm ¾ VIOLETVIOLET == veryvery highhigh == >> 0.6880.688 ppmppm Note:Note: DifferentDifferent breakpointsbreakpoints thanthan FDAFDA hashas usedused TopTop 1010 SeafoodsSeafoods,, 20052005--20072007 USUS consumptionconsumption inin poundspounds perper capitacapita perper yearyear (NFI)(NFI) Rank 2005 2006 2007 . Species Lbs Species Lbs Species Lbs 1 Shrimp 4.10 Shrimp 4.40 Shrimp 4.10 2 Tuna, can 3.10 Tuna, can 2.90 Tuna, can 2.70 3 Salmon 2.43 Salmon 2.03 Salmon 2.36 4 Pollock 1.47 Pollock 1.64 Pollock 1.73 5 Catfish 1.03 Tilapia 1.00 Tilapia 1.14 6 Tilapia 0.85 Catfish 0.97 Catfish 0.88 7 Crab 0.64 Crab 0.66 Crab 0.68 8 Cod 0.57 Cod 0.51 Cod 0.47 9 Clams 0.44 Clams 0.44 Clams 0.45 10 Flatfish 0.37 Scallops 0.31 Flatfish 0.32 Total, Top 10 15.0 14.9 14.8 TopTop 1010 HgHg SourcesSources Market Fish Share (%) ppm Hg Percent Hg Tuna, all types 16.44 next slide 37.37 Haddock & Hake 4.86 0.170 9.73 Swordfish 0.44 0.976 5.06 Catfish 5.71 0.068 4.66 Cod 3.36 0.115 4.55 American lobster 1.22 0.310 4.46 Pollock 7.32 0.049 4.23 Shrimp 22.21 0.012 3.14 Salmon 6.83 0.028 2.25 Sea Bass 0.51 0.301 1.81 Total 77.26 Tuna,Tuna, byby typetype Type Market % ppm Hg % Hg Canned albacore 3.81 0.353 15.85 Canned light 11.41 0.118 15.86 Fresh/Frozen 1.22 0.384 5.66 Totals 16.44 37.37 (Insufficient supply data to specify contributions by tuna type to fresh/frozen category, e.g., bluefin, albacore, bigeye, etc.) CommentsComments onon TopTop 1010 ¾ SwordfishSwordfish isis thethe onlyonly VioletViolet (very(very highhigh Hg)Hg) fishfish amongamong thethe TopTop 1010 sourcessources ¾ TwoTwo GreenGreen (very(very lowlow Hg)Hg) andand twotwo BlueBlue (below(below averageaverage Hg)Hg) itemsitems unlikelyunlikely toto bebe hazards;hazards; inin TopTop 1010 duedue toto hugehuge volumevolume consumedconsumed ¾ TwoTwo BlackBlack andand twotwo OrangeOrange itemsitems couldcould leadlead toto excessiveexcessive exposureexposure ifif eateneaten frequentlyfrequently ¾ TunaTuna (two(two RedRed,, oneone BlackBlack)) isis overwhelminglyoverwhelmingly thethe largestlargest sourcesource ¾ TopTop 1010 accountaccount
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Inorganic Mercury, Methyl Mercury, Ethyl Mercury
    Laboratory Procedure Manual Analyte: Inorganic mercury, Methyl mercury, Ethyl mercury Matrix: Blood Method: Blood mercury speciation TSID-GC-ICP-DRC-MS (Triple Spike Isotope Dilution Gas Chromatography- Inductively Coupled Plasma Dynamic Reaction Cell Mass Spectrometry) Method No: DLS-3020.5 Adopted: Revised: As performed by: Inorganic and Radiation Analytical Toxicology Branch Division of Laboratory Sciences National Center for Environmental Health Contact: Dr. Robert L. Jones Phone: 770-488-7991 Fax: 770-488-4097 Email: [email protected] James L. Pirkle, M.D., Ph.D. Director, Division of Laboratory Sciences Important Information for Users CDC periodically refines these laboratory methods. It is the responsibility of the user to contact the person listed on the title page of each write-up before using the analytical method to find out whether any changes have been made and what revisions, if any, have been incorporated. Mercury speciation in whole blood NHANES 2011-2012 Page 2 of 52 This document details the Lab Protocol for testing items in the following table: Data File Name Variable Name SAS Label LBXIHG Mercury, inorganic (µg/L) LBDIHGSI Mercury, inorganic (µmol/L) IHgEM_G LBXBGE Mercury, ethyl (µg/dL) LBXBGM Mercury, methyl (μg/L) Mercury speciation in whole blood NHANES 2011-2012 Page 3 of 52 1. CLINICAL RELEVANCE AND TEST PRINCIPLE A. Clinical Relevance Mercury (Hg) is widespread in the environment and found in its elemental form (Hg0), inorganic forms such as mercurous (Hg+) and mercuric (Hg2+), and various organic forms such as methyl mercury (MeHg), ethyl mercury (EtHg), phenyl mercury (PhHg), and others. The health effects of mercury are diverse and depend on the form of mercury encountered and the severity and length of 0 2+ + exposure.
    [Show full text]
  • Methylmercury Contamination: Impacts on Aquatic Systems and Terrestrial Species, and Insights for Abatement
    Methylmercury Contamination: Impacts on Aquatic Systems and Terrestrial Species, and Insights for Abatement Charles E. Sams USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region Air Quality Program, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Methylmercury (MeHg) is one of the most widespread waterborne contaminants, and through biomagnification processes has commonly been found in prey fish at concentrations toxic to piscivorous birds and mammals. In USEPA’s National Fish Tissue Survey, the Lowest Adverse Effect Concentration of 0.1 g/g wet weight was exceeded in 28% of total samples and 86% of predatory fish samples (USEPA 2002). Evidence suggests that more than a quarter of all mature fish contain methylmercury concentrations above this level. This review focuses on the leading anthropogenic sources of mercury to aquatic systems, through atmospheric deposition and the environmental dynamics of the mercury methylation process in aquatic sediments. The results of extensive mercury monitoring studies are discussed, as well as the reproductive and behavioral impacts on birds and mammals feeding on fish exhibiting realistic contaminant concentrations. Recommendations are provided for continued research and the abatement of methylmercury concentrations in fish through forest management practices. Keywords: mercury deposition, methylmercury, sulfate reducing bacteria, aquatic sediments INTRODUCTION conterminous United States, over 20.2 million ha (50 million acres) were determined to be forested wetlands, Methylmercury (MeHg) is one of the most widespread as well as 10.0 million ha (25 million acres) of emergent waterborne contaminants (USGS 2001a; UNEP 2002; wetlands and 7.3 million ha (18 million acres) of shrub USDHHS and USEPA 2004). Unhealthful levels of MeHg wetlands (Dahl 2000). While National Forest lands in fish have led to the issuance of fish consumption represent only eight percent of the contiguous United advisories by at least 46 states (USEPA 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Dissolved Organic Carbon on Methylmercury Bioavailability in Stream Ecosystems
    Effects of dissolved organic carbon on methylmercury bioavailability in stream ecosystems Effects of dissolved organic carbon on methylmercury bioavailability in stream ecosystems Basic Information Effects of dissolved organic carbon on methylmercury bioavailability in stream Title: ecosystems Project Number: 2016NH205G USGS Grant Number: Start Date: 9/1/2016 End Date: 8/31/2018 Funding Source: 104G Congressional 2nd Congressional district of New Hampshire District: Research Category: Water Quality Focus Categories: Surface Water, Geochemical Processes, Toxic Substances Descriptors: None Principal Kathryn L Cottingham, Celia Y. Chen, James Shanley Investigators: Publications There are no publications. 1 Effects of dissolved organic carbon on methylmercury bioavailability in stream ecosystems (2016NH205G) Problem: Neurotoxic methylmercury bioaccumulates through aquatic food webs and is a primary cause for fish consumption advisories in the Northeast. The mobilization, transport and bioavailability of mercury in aquatic ecosystems is strongly tied to organic matter dissolved in the water, yet levels of methylmercury in fish are difficult to predict. Previous studies have noted that relationships between stream methylmercury and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in streams change over time. There is also a seemingly contradictory effect of DOC on uptake by the biota: at low concentrations of organic carbon, methylmercury bioaccumulation increases, whereas at higher concentrations, uptake into fish is attenuated. This project is testing the hypothesis that differences in the chemical structure of the DOC that is transporting MeHg in streams lead to the temporal changes and non-linearity in bioaccumulation noted in previous studies. Objectives: 1) Identify and characterize fractions of DOC that associate with MeHg and Hg in streams, 2) Determine the effects of DOC quality and quantity on MeHg uptake by primary producers at the base of the stream food web.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury Cycling in Sulfur Rich Sediment from the Brunswick Estuary
    Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of Summer 2017 Mercury Cycling in Sulfur Rich Sediment From The Brunswick Estuary Travis William Nicolette Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd Part of the Environmental Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Nicolette, Travis William, "Mercury Cycling in Sulfur Rich Sediment From The Brunswick Estuary" (2017). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1626. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/1626 This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of at Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MERCURY CYCLING IN SULFUR RICH SEDIMENTS FROM THE BRUNSWICK ESTUARY by TRAVIS NICOLETTE (Under the direction of major professor Franciscan Cubas) ABSTRACT Mercury is potentially toxic to the environment. Mercury is absorbed into anaerobic sediments of surface waters, which may be converted to methylmercury, a toxic form of mercury that bio-accumulates in aquatic biota. Sources of mercury in the environment vary, but the production of methylmercury is common in sulfur-rich sediments containing mercury. In such environments, sulfur reducing bacteria (SRB) produce methylmercury as a by-product. The metabolic process uses energy from the reduction of sulfate to sulfide. This study focuses on determining the methylmercury production and release potential from sulfur-rich sediments extracted from different areas of the Brunswick Estuary. Previous studies note considerable levels of mercury in the Brunswick Estuary due to a local super fund site.
    [Show 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
    [Show full text]
  • Sulfate Addition Increases Methylmercury Production in An
    Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 3800-3806 Our results demonstrate enhanced methylation and Sulfate Addition Increases increased MeHg concentrations within the wetland and in Methylmercury Production in an outflow from the wetland suggesting that decreasing sulfate deposition rates would lower MeHg export from Experimental Wetland wetlands. JEFF D. JEREMIASON,*,² DANIEL R. ENGSTROM,³ Introduction EDWARD B. SWAIN,§ EDWARD A. NATER,| BRIAN M. JOHNSON,⊥ Efforts to reduce mercury (Hg) emissions in Minnesota and JAMES E. ALMENDINGER,³ throughout the rest of the world assume change in atmo- BRUCE A. MONSON,§ AND spheric deposition of Hg will ultimately result in a propor- RANDY K. KOLKA# tional change of methylmercury (MeHg) concentrations in Department of Chemistry, Gustavus Adolphus College, fish, all other things being constant. Accordingly, it is thought - Saint Peter, Minnesota 56082, St. Croix Watershed Research that fish now have mercury concentrations that are 3 4 times Station, Science Museum of Minnesota, greater than natural (preindustrial) levels, because there is Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota 55047, Minnesota Pollution strong evidence that atmospheric Hg deposition is currently Control Agency, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55155, Department of 3-4 times greater than natural rates (1-6). However, the Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, proportion of Hg that is methylated and bioaccumulated in St. Paul, Minnesota, 55108, Department of Ecology, fish may not have been constant in some aquatic systems Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, over that time period. Higher than expected Hg concentra- St. Paul, Minnesota, 55108, and North Central Forest tions in fish may be the result of increased sulfate deposition Experiment Station, United States Forest Service, to sulfate-poor ecosystems, where sulfate availability controls Grand Rapids, Minnesota 55744 the activity of the bacteria that methylate Hg.
    [Show full text]
  • Increase in Nutrients, Mercury, and Methylmercury As a Consequence of Elevated Sulfate Reduction to Sulfide in Experimental Wetland Mesocosms
    PUBLICATIONS Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences RESEARCH ARTICLE Increase in Nutrients, Mercury, and Methylmercury 10.1002/2017JG003788 as a Consequence of Elevated Sulfate Reduction This article is a companion to Myrbo to Sulfide in Experimental Wetland Mesocosms et al. (2017), https://doi.org/ 10.10022017JG003787 and Pollman A. Myrbo1 , E. B. Swain2 , N. W. Johnson3, D. R. Engstrom4, J. Pastor5, B. Dewey5, P. Monson2, et al. (2017), https://doi.org/ 6 2,7 2,8 10.10022017JG003785. J. Brenner , M. Dykhuizen Shore , and E. B. Peters 1LacCore/CSDCO and Department Earth Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2Minnesota Pollution Key Points: Control Agency, St. Paul, MN, USA, 3Department Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, Duluth, MN, USA, 4St.Croix • Sulfate addition increased organic Watershed Research Station, Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA, 5Biology Department, University of matter mineralization in wetland Minnesota, Duluth, MN, USA, 6Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul, MN, USA, 7Now at Biostatistics Division, School of sediment, releasing C, N, P, and Hg to 8 the water column Public Health, University of Minnesota, MN, USA, Now at Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN, USA • Sulfate reduction caused not only higher methylmercury concentrations but higher total mercury Abstract Microbial sulfate reduction (MSR) in both freshwater and marine ecosystems is a pathway concentrations in the surface water for the decomposition of sedimentary organic matter (OM) after oxygen has been consumed. In • Increased sulfate loading to freshwaters can cause deleterious experimental freshwater wetland mesocosms, sulfate additions allowed MSR to mineralize OM that effects separate from direct sulfide would not otherwise have been decomposed.
    [Show full text]
  • 9241571012 Eng.Pdf
    THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA SERIES Acrolein (No. 127, 1991) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid - Acrylamide (No. 49, 1985) environmental aspects (No. 84, 1989) Acrylonitrile (No. 28, 1983) DDT and its derivatives (No.9, 1979) Aldicarb (No. 121, 1991) DDT and its derivatives - environmental Aldrin and dieldrin (No. 91 , 1989) aspects (No. 83, 1989) Allethrins (No. 87, 1989) Deltamethrin (No. 97, 1990) Alpha-cypermethrin (No. 142, 1992) Diaminotoluenes (No. 74, 1987) Ammonia (No. 54, 1986) Dichlorvos (No. 79, 1988) Arsenic (No. 18, 1981) Diethylhexyl phthalate (No. 131, 1992) Asbestos and other natural mineral fibres Dimethoate (No. 90, 1989) (No. 53 , 1986) Dimethylformamide (No. 114, 1991) Barium (No. 107 , 1990) Dimethyl sulfate (No. 48, 1985) Beryllium (No. 106, 1990) Diseases of suspected chemical etiology and Biotoxins, aquatic (marine and freshwater) their prevention, principles of studif,s on (No. 37, 1984) (No. 72 , 1987) Butanols - four isomers (No. 65, 1987) Dithiocarbamate pesticides, ethylenethio­ Cadmium (No. 134, 1992) urea, and propylenethiourea: a general Cadmium- environmental aspects (No. 135, introduction (No. 78 , 1988) 1992) Electromagnetic Fields (No. 137, 1992) Camphechlor (No. 45, 1984) Endosulfan (No. 40, 1984) Carbamate pesticides: a general introduction Endrin (No. 130, 1992) (No. 64, 1986) Environmental epidemiology, guidelines on Carbon disulfide (No. I 0, 1979) studies in (No. 27, 1983) Carbon monoxide (No. 13, 1979) Epichlorohydrin (No. 33, 1984) Carcinogens, summary report on the evalu­ Ethylene oxide (No. 55 , 1985) ation of short-term in vitro tests (No. 47, Extremely low frequency (ELF) fields 1985) (No. 35, 1984) Carcinogens, summary report on the evalu­ Fenitrothion (No. 133, 1992) ation of short-term in vivo tests (No.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEW Toxicity of Mercury
    Journal of Human Hypertension (1999) 13, 651–656 1999 Stockton Press. All rights reserved 0950-9240/99 $15.00 http://www.stockton-press.co.uk/jhh REVIEW Toxicity of mercury NJ Langford and RE Ferner West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting, City Hospital, Dudley Road, Birmingham B18 7QH, UK A ruling by the European Union heralds the demise of poisoning can occur if mercury metal is spilled into those useful clinical instruments, the mercury ther- crevices or cracks in the floorboards. Dentists are mometer and the mercury sphygmomanometer. The occasionally poisoned this way. Mercury easily crosses new laws have been passed because of worries about into the brain, and causes tremor, depression, and mercury poisoning. Yet you can drink metallic mercury behavioural disturbances. A second danger from met- and come to no harm. What does it all mean? There are allic mercury is that it is biotransformed into organic three forms of mercury from a toxicological point of mercury, by bacteria at the bottom of lakes. This can be view: inorganic mercury salts; organic mercury com- passed along the food chain and eventually to man. It pounds; and metallic mercury. Inorganic mercury salts was this process that led to the Japanese tragedy at are water soluble, irritate the gut, and cause severe kid- Minimata Bay in the late 1950s when over 800 people ney damage. Organic mercury compounds, which are were poisoned. It is the need to reduce mercury con- fat soluble, can cross the blood brain barrier and cause tamination of the environment which should encourage neurological damage.
    [Show full text]