4.7 Article

Human health risk assessment of heavy metals in tropical fish and shellfish collected from the river Buriganga, Bangladesh

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue 20, Pages 15880-15890

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-4813-z

Keywords

Fish; Heavy metal; Bioaccumulation; Target hazard quotient; Target cancer risk

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although fish, crustacean, and shellfish are significant sources of protein, they are currently affected by rapid industrialization, resulting in increased concentrations of heavy metals. Accumulation of heavy metals (V, Cr, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Se, Mo, Ag, Cd, Sb, Ba, and Pb) and associated human health risk were investigated in three fish species, namely Ailia coila, Gagata youssoufi, and Mastacembelus pancalus; one crustacean (prawn), Macrobrachium rosenbergii; and one Gastropoda, Indoplanorbis exustus, collected from the Buriganga River, Bangladesh. Samples were collected from the professional fishermen. Cu was the most accumulated metal in M. rosenbergii. Ni, As, Ag, and Sb were in relatively lower concentrations, whereas relatively higher accumulation of Cr, Mn, Zn, and Se were recorded. Mn, Zn, and Pb were present in higher concentrations than the guidelines of various authorities. There were significant differences in metal accumulation among different fish, prawn, or shellfish species. Target hazard quotient (THQ) and target cancer risk (TR) were calculated to estimate the non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic health risks, respectively. The THQ for individual heavy metals were below 1 suggesting no potential health risk. But combined impact, estimated by hazard index (HI), suggested health risk for M. pancalus consumption. Although consumption of fish at current accumulation level is safe but continuous and excess consumption for a life time of more than 70 years has probability of target cancer risk.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available