4.6 Article

Benefit-risk assessment of commonly consumed fish species from South China Sea based on methyl mercury and DHA

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL GEOCHEMISTRY AND HEALTH
Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages 2055-2066

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10653-019-00254-1

Keywords

Benefit-risk assessment; Fish consumption; Methyl mercury; DHA

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China [2018A030323230, 2018A030313913]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Even though a growing number of reports indicated favorable health effects with fish consumption, kinds of hazardous substances in fish were detected in fish and to be exceeded advisory limitation. Benefit-risk assessment of commonly consumed fish is urgently needed. We conducted fish consumption survey and fish sampling in the coast of South China Sea to assess benefit-risk effect of commonly consumed fish species. For local residents, weekly methyl mercury (MeHg) exposures from commonly consumed fish species ranged from 0.12 to 2.11 mu g/kg bw. Apart from Muraenesox cinereus and Acanthopagrus latus, the rest of 92% (23/25) fish species were at low risk of MeHg exposure. Daily docosahexaenoic acid intakes via consuming specific fish were between 42.18 and 1687.04 mg/day. A total of 72% (18/25) fish species could provide 200 mg/day of DNA for local residents. Benefit-risk assessment assuming intelligence quotient (IQ) score model showed net IQ point gains between 1.53 and 5.65 points with consuming various fish species, indicative of large distinction of health benefit from various fish species. This study suggests commonly consumed fish species from China South Sea could bring much more positive effect than negative effect. Species-specific fish should be considered when providing recommendations of fish consumption. Muraenesox cinereus and Acanthopagrus latus should be minded with risk of MeHg exposure in taking large amounts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available