4.7 Article

Mercury and stable isotope signatures in caged marine fish and fish feeds

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 203, 期 -, 页码 13-21

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.11.021

关键词

Caged fish; Total mercury; Methylmercury; Biomagnification; Stable isotope; Risk assessment

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council
  2. Thailand's International Development Cooperation Agency
  3. program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in university (PCSIRT) [IRT0941]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Total mercury (THg) and methylmercury (MeHg) concentrations were determined in four species of marine caged carnivorous fish, one species of herbivorous fish and three types of fish feeds (dried pellet feed, forage fish and fish viscera), collected from five cage sites in the rural areas along Fujian coastline, China. For the carnivorous fish, the concentrations of THg and MeHg ranged from 0.03 to 0.31 mu g/g and from 0.02 to 0.30 mu g/g on wet weight basis, respectively. The concentrations were lower for the herbivorous fish with both within the range of 0.01-0.03 mu g/g. Out of the three tested fish feeds, tuna viscera contained the highest level of mercury (0.20 mu g/g THg and 0.13 mu g/g MeHg), with pellet feed containing the lowest level (0.05 mu g/g THg and 0.01 mu g/g MeHg). The calculated trophic transfer factor of MeHg was the highest (12-64) for fish fed on pellet feeds, and was the lowest for fish fed on tuna viscera. A significant relationship was found between Hg concentrations in caged fish and in fish feeds, thus Hg was primarily accumulated from the diet. Furthermore, the stable isotope delta N-15 was positively correlated with the Hg concentration in two caged sites, indicating that delta N-15 may be a suitable tool for tracking mercury in caged fish. We conclude that fish farming may be a good way of reducing the human exposure to Hg because mercury levels can be carefully controlled in such farming systems. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据