4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Determination of heavy metals in selected black sea fish species

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 72, 期 -, 页码 313-318

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.08.024

关键词

Heavy metals; Fish; Black sea; Bulgaria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heavy metals can be accumulated by marine organisms thought a variety of pathways, including respiration, adsorption and ingestion. The levels of heavy metals are known to increase drastically in marine environment through mainly anthropogenic activities. Fish are good indicators for the long term monitoring of metal accumulation in the marine environment. The aim of this study was to determine the levels of Cd, As Hg, Pb, Zn and Cu in edible part and gill of seven most consumed Bulgarian fish species collected from north-east coast of Black Sea. These fish species are sprat (Sprattus sprattus sulinus), Mediterranean horse mackerel (Trachurus mediterraneus ponticus), Black sea gobies (Neogobius melanostromus), shad (Alosa pontica), Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) and grey mullet (Mugil cephalus). The fish samples were collected during 2010. The analytical determination of As, Cd, Pb, Zn and Cu were performed by using flame and graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry after microwave digestion procedure. The total mercury determination was determined using a direct mercury analyzer (DMA-80). The metal concentration of analyzed elements was highest in the gill for all fish species. The maximum metal concentration was measured for Cu (1.40 mg kg(-1) w.w), Zn (11 mg kg(-1) w.w) and Pb (0.08 mg kg(-1) w.w) in muscle tissues of shad and sprat. The edible part of horse mackerel has the maximum value for Hg (0.12 mg kg(-1) w.w) while Atlantic bonito predominantly accumulates As (1.10 mg kg(-1) w.w). The analytical results obtained from this study were compared within acceptable limits for human consumption set by various health institutions. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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