4.8 Article

A Model of Mercury Distribution in Tuna from the Western and Central Pacific Ocean: Influence of Physiology, Ecology and Environmental Factors

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 1422-1431

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06058

关键词

-

资金

  1. Government of New Caledonia
  2. GOPS
  3. Pacific Fund VACOPA project
  4. IRD internal funding
  5. MERTOX from the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-17-CE34-0010]
  6. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-17-CE34-0010] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Information on ocean scale drivers of methylmercury levels and variability in tuna is scarce, yet crucial in the context of anthropogenic mercury (Hg) inputs and potential threats to human health. Here we assess Hg concentrations in three commercial tuna species (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore, n = 1000) from the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). Models were developed to map regional Hg variance and understand the main drivers. Mercury concentrations are enriched in southern latitudes (10 degrees S-20 degrees S) relative to the equator (0 degrees-10 degrees S) for each species, with bigeye exhibiting the strongest spatial gradients. Fish size is the primary factor explaining Hg variance but physical oceanography also contributes, with higher Hg concentrations in regions exhibiting deeper thermoclines. Tuna trophic position and oceanic primary productivity were of weaker importance. Predictive models perform well in the Central Equatorial Pacific and Hawaii, but underestimate Hg concentrations in the Eastern Pacific. A literature review from the global ocean indicates that size tends to govern tuna Hg concentrations, however regional information on vertical habitats, methylmercury production, and/or Hg inputs are needed to understand Hg distribution at a broader scale. Finally, this study establishes a geographical context of Hg levels to weigh the risks and benefits of tuna consumption in the WCPO.

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

4.8
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