4.8 Article

Mercury contents in rice and potential health risks across China

Journal

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
Volume 126, Issue -, Pages 406-412

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.02.055

Keywords

Rice; Mercury; Methylmercury; Probable daily intake; Health risk

Funding

  1. Bureau of Frontier Sciences and Education, Chinese Academy of Sciences [QYZDJ-SSW-DQC005-03]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41622208, 41573132]
  3. CAS Light of West China Program
  4. Youth Innovation Promotion Association, Chinese Academy of Sciences [2017442]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rice samples were collected at 560 sites in 15 provinces across China in areas without known point mercury (Hg) sources. Total mercury (THg) and methylmercury (MeHg) concentrations were analyzed in these rice samples for risk assessment. Relatively low THg and MeHg concentrations were found in the majority of the white rice samples with an overall mean of 4.74 (1.06-22.7) mu g kg(-1) and 0.682 (0.03-8.71) mu g kg(-1), respectively. The means (range of) THg concentration of rice in each geographical region were 5.23 (1.07-19.5) mu g kg(-1), 5.14 (1.06-17.2) mu g kg(-1), 4.45 (1.41-17.2) mu g kg(-1), 4.20 (1.48-19.4) mu g kg(-1), 3.49 (1.49-10.7) mu g kg(-1), and 4.53 (1.30-19.4) mu g kg(-1) in east, centre, south, southwest, northwest and northeast, China, respectively, and the corresponding values for MeHg concentrations were 0.898 (0.127-8.35) mu g kg(-1), 0.603 (0.207-2.48) mu g kg(-1), 0.516 (0.032-1.50) mu g kg(-1), 0.615 (0.050-5.03) mu g kg(-1), 0.704 (0.148-2.41) mu g kg(-1) and 0.565 (0.035-8.71) mu g kg(-1), respectively. Hg contents in rice across China were found to be at background levels. Both the probable daily intakes (PDIs) of inorganic Hg (IHg) and MeHg from rice consumption showed low risks for general population in the investigated regions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available