Journal List > Ann Occup Environ Med > v.32(1) > 1141586

Heo, Lim, Byun, and Sakong: Mercury concentration in shark meat from traditional markets of Gyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea

Abstract

Background

Although unusually high levels of blood mercury have been reported in the North Gyeongsang Province (Gyeongsangbuk-do), mercury contents from shark meat distributed in this region have not been assessed yet. Thus, this study aims to identify the hazard by evaluating the mercury contents of the shark meat sold in the traditional market of Gyeongsangbuk-do.

Methods

The shark meat in the form of muscle meat was obtained from 15 traditional markets of Gyeongsangbuk-do in the summer and winter of 2013. Out of 105 samples in total, 49 were collected in the summer and 56 in the winter. The total mercury concentration was measured by the combustion-gold amalgamation method using an automatic mercury analyzer (Milestone DMA-80, Milestone).

Results

The average mercury concentration of shark meat was 2.29 ± 1.77 µg/g, ranging between 0.06–8.93 µg/g with a geometric mean of 1.44 µg/g, which is higher than those reported in many countries. The mercury concentration in 77 of 105 shark meat samples exceeded 1 µg/g. Mercury concentration ranged between 0.09–8.93 µg/g (geometric mean: 1.45) in the summer and 0.06–6.73 µg/g (geometric mean: 1.48) in the winter.

Conclusions

Shark meat sold in the market contained a substantial amount of mercury. This suggests that it is difficult to reduce mercury intake by simply strengthening the standard level of mercury concentration in shark meat. Therefore, it is need to communication and awareness programs with consumers about hazardous effects of mercury inherent in shark meat.

References

1. Myers GJ, Davidson PW, Shamlaye CF, Axtell CD, Cernichiari E, Choisy O, et al. Effects of prenatal methylmercury exposure from a high fish diet on developmental milestones in the Seychelles Child Development Study. Neurotoxicology. 1997; 18(3):819–29.
2. Grandjean P, Weihe P, White RF, Debes F, Araki S, Yokoyama K, et al. Cognitive deficit in 7-year-old children with prenatal exposure to methylmercury. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1997; 19(6):417–28.
crossref
3. Harada M. Minamata disease: methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Crit Rev Toxicol. 1995; 25(1):1–24.
crossref
4. Galster WA. Mercury in Alaskan Eskimo mothers and infants. Environ Health Perspect. 1976; 15:135–40.
crossref
5. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). EPA's methylmercury guideline is scientifically justifiable for protecting most Americans, but some may be at risk. 2000. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=9899. Accessed 24 Dec 2018.
6. Salonen JT, Seppänen K, Nyyssönen K, Korpela H, Kauhanen J, Kantola M, et al. Intake of mercury from fish, lipid peroxidation, and the risk of myocardial infarction and coronary, cardiovascular, and any death in eastern Finnish men. Circulation. 1995; 91(3):645–55.
crossref
7. Virtanen JK, Voutilainen S, Rissanen TH, Mursu J, Tuomainen TP, Korhonen MJ, et al. Mercury, fish oils, and risk of acute coronary events and cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and all-cause mortality in men in eastern Finland. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2005; 25(1):228–33.
crossref
8. Adel M, Oliveri Conti G, Dadar M, Mahjoub M, Copat C, Ferrante M. Heavy metal concentrations in edible muscle of whitecheek shark, Carcharhinus dussumieri (elasmobranchii, chondrichthyes) from the Persian Gulf: a food safety issue. Food Chem Toxicol. 2016; 97:135–40.
9. Lopez SA, Abarca NL, Meléndez RC. Heavy metal concentrations of two highly migratory sharks (Prionace glauca and Isurus oxyrinchus) in the southeastern Pacific waters: comments on public health and conservation. Trop Conserv Sci. 2013; 6(1):126–37.
10. Dent F, Clarke S. State of the global market for shark products. FAO Fish Aquac Tech Pap. 2015; 590:1–187.
11. Cho S, Jacobs DR Jr, Park K. Population correlates of circulating mercury levels in Korean adults: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey IV. BMC Public Health. 2014; 14(1):527.
crossref
12. Caldwell KL, Mortensen ME, Jones RL, Caudill SP, Osterloh JD. Total blood mercury concentrations in the U.S. population: 1999–2006. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2009; 212(6):588–98.
crossref
13. Wong SL, Lye EJ. Lead, mercury and cadmium levels in Canadians. Health Rep. 2008; 19(4):31–6.
14. Becker K, Kaus S, Krause C, Lepom P, Schulz C, Seiwert M, et al. German Environmental Survey 1998 (GerES III): environmental pollutants in blood of the German population. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2002; 205(4):297–308.
crossref
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mercury-EPA Archives. Organic mercury: TEACH chemical summary.https://archive.epa.gov/region5/teach/web/pdf/mercury_org_summary.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2019.
16. Umweltbundesamt (UBA). Reference and HBM values. 2015. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/health/commissions-working-groups/human-biomonitoring-commission/reference-hbm-values. Accessed 25 Oct 2019.
17. Umweltbundesamt (UBA). Human-Biomonitoring (HBM) values, derived by the Human Biomonitoring Commission of the German Environment Agency, date February 2017. 2017. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/355/bilder/dateien/hbm-werte_engl_stand_2017_02_06_2.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2019.
18. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). Assessment of mercury exposure and health in Daegu and Gyeongsangbuk-do (I). 2011. http://webbook.me.go.kr/DLi-File/NIER/06/013/5515056.pdf. Accessed 24 Dec 2018.
19. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). A survey on hazardous materials in human biological matrix (II). 2008. http://www.prism.go.kr/homepage/researchCommon/downloadResearchAttachFile.do;jsessionid=203F173A037D3C1CA2764604D453286E.node02?work_key=002&file_type=CPR&seq_no=001&pdf_conv_yn=N&research_id=1480000–200900228. Accessed 24 Dec 2018.
20. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). Research on exposure and health effect of mercury in Young-Nam area (II). 2011. http://webbook.me.go.kr/DLi-File/NIER/06/013/5515049.pdf. Accessed 24 Dec 2018.
21. Kim SC, Jang JW, Kim HA, Lee SH, Jung YJ, Kim JY, et al. Monitoring methylmercury in abyssal fish. Korean J Food Sci Technol. 2010; 42(4):383–9.
22. Kim JA, Yuk DH, Park YA, Choi HJ, Kim YC, Kim MS. A study on total mercury and methylmercury in commercial tuna, billfish, and deep-sea fish in Seoul metropolitan city. Korean J Food Sci Technol. 2013; 45(3):376–81.
crossref
23. Kim SJ, Lee HK, Badejo AC, Lee WC, Moon HB. Species-specific accumulation of methyl and total mercury in sharks from offshore and coastal waters of Korea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016; 102(1):210–5.
crossref
24. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Mercury levels in commercial fish and shellfish (1990–2012). 2017. https://www.fda.gov/food/foodborneillnesscontaminants/metals/ucm115644.htm. Accessed 24 Dec 2018.
26. Endo T, Hisamichi Y, Haraguchi K, Kato Y, Ohta C, Koga N. Hg, Zn and Cu levels in the muscle and liver of tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) from the coast of Ishigaki Island, Japan: relationship between metal concentrations and body length. Mar Pollut Bull. 2008; 56(10):1774–80.
27. de Carvalho GG, Degaspari IA, Branco V, Canário J, de Amorim AF, Kennedy VH, et al. Assessment of total and organic mercury levels in blue sharks (Prionace glauca) from the south and southeastern Brazilian coast. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2014; 159(1–3):128–34.
crossref
28. Biton-Porsmoguer S, Bǎ naru D, Boudouresque CF, Dekeyser I, Bouchoucha M, Marco-Miralles F, et al. Sensitization to airborne allergens among adults and its impact on allergic symptoms: a population survey in northern Vietnam. Clin Transl Allergy 2014;4:6.
29. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Mercury and fish: the facts. 2016. http://mercuryfactsandfish.org/mercury-facts/the-fda-action-level/. Accessed 28 Nov 2019.
32. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological profile for mercury. 1999. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp46.pdf. Accessed 24 Dec 2018.
33. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). Recommendation on fish consumption. 2017. http://www.moth-ersafe.or.kr/wp-content-uploads/2018/03/%EC%83%9D%EC%84%A0%EC%95%88%EC%A0%84%EC%84%AD%EC%B7%A8%EA%B0%80%EC%9D%B4%EB%93%9CMFDS–1.pdf.
34. Park HJ, Park LY, Yoon KS, Lee SH. Quality characteristics of smoked Dombaeki (shark meat). Korean J Food Preserv. 2010; 17(4):471–7.
35. Perelló G, Martí-Cid R, Llobet JM, Domingo JL. Effects of various cooking processes on the concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead in foods. J Agric Food Chem. 2008; 56(23):11262–9.
crossref
36. Al-Shahristani H, Shihab KM. Variation of biological half-life of methylmercury in man. Arch Environ Health. 1974; 28(6):342–4.
crossref
37. Park GI, Byun YS, Joong Jeon M, Sakong J. The associations between blood mercury levels and shark meat intake among workers in Gyeongsangbuk-do. Ann Occup Environ Med. 2017; 29(1):29.
crossref
38. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Summary report of the seventy-second meeting of JECFA. 2010. https://www.who.int/foodsafety/chem/summary72_rev.pdf. Accessed 24 Dec 2018.
39. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain. Scientific opinion on the risk for public health related to the presence of mercury and methylmercury in food. EFSA J. 2012; 10(12):2985.
40. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). Study of the establishment of health-based guidance values for food contaminants (II). 2013. http://www.ndsl.kr/ndsl/commons/util/ndslOriginalView.do?dbt=TRKO&cn=TRKO201400011688&rn=&url=&pageCode=PG18. Accessed 24 Dec 2018.

Fig. 1.
Sample survey area [11].
aoem-32-e3f1.tif
Table 1.
Summary of mercury concentration (µg/g) in shark meat sold in Gyeongsangbuk-do
Region No. of samples Season Mean ± standard deviation Geometric mean Minimum Maximum p-value a
Daegu 3 Summer 2.51 ± 2.76 1.41 0.31 5.60 1.00
  3 Winter 1.38 ± 0.72 1.24 0.68 2.11  
Gyeongsan 3 Summer 1.31 ± 0.74 1.15 0.54 2.02 0.20
  3 Winter 0.35 ± 0.23 0.30 0.17 0.61  
Gyeongju 2 Summer 2.58 ± 0.95 2.48 1.90 3.25 1.00
  3 Winter 3.10 ± 1.92 2.75 1.70 5.28  
Gunwi 3 Summer 3.08 ± 1.98 2.43 0.81 4.45 0.70
  3 Winter 1.53 ± 0.53 1.46 0.94 1.95  
Bonghwa 2 Summer 2.65 ± 0.67 2.58 2.13 3.13 0.80
  3 Winter 2.82 ± 1.73 2.52 1.69 4.81  
Andong 3 Summer 0.34 ± 0.37 0.22 0.09 0.76 0.10
  3 Winter 1.96 ± 0.65 1.89 1.53 2.71  
Yeongdeok 1 Summer 6.00 ± 0.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.40
  4 Winter 2.30 ± 0.42 2.27 1.75 2.77  
Yeongyang 3 Summer 2.09 ± 2.09 1.04 0.14 4.29 0.40
  3 Winter 3.41 ± 1.62 3.16 1.99 5.17  
Yeongju 2 Summer 1.11 ± 0.34 1.08 0.87 1.35 0.20
  3 Winter 4.04 ± 2.34 3.44 1.45 6.01  
Yeongcheon 15 Summer 3.11 ± 2.14 2.53 0.63 8.93 0.713
  15 Winter 2.65 ± 1.64 1.78 0.06 5.63  
Yecheon 1 Summer 3.45 ± 0.00 3.45 3.45 3.45 1.00
  2 Winter 3.94 ± 3.95 2.77 1.14 6.73  
Uiseong 2 Summer 0.76 ± 0.86 0.45 0.15 1.37 0.333
  2 Winter 2.10 ± 0.47 2.07 1.76 2.43  
Cheongdo 3 Summer 0.12 ± 0.05 0.12 0.09 0.18 0.40
  3 Winter 0.23 ± 0.16 0.19 0.09 0.40  
Cheongsong 3 Summer 1.94 ± 1.98 1.23 0.34 4.15 1.00
  3 Winter 1.91 ± 1.79 1.18 0.26 3.82  
Pohang 3 Summer 1.29 ± 1.76 0.53 0.10 3.31 0.40
  3 Winter 2.86 ± 0.55 2.82 2.28 3.37  
Total 49 Summer 2.21 ± 1.94 1.45 0.09 8.93 0.681
  56 Winter 2.35 ± 1.63 1.48 0.06 6.73  
  105   2.29 ± 1.77 1.44 0.06 8.93  

a Mann-Whitney U test or independent-samples t-test.

Table 2.
Distribution of mercury concentration in shark meat sold in Gyeongsangbuk-do
Mercury concentration (µg/g) Summer Winter Total p-value a
< 0.50 11 (22.4) 8 (14.3) 19 (18.1) 0.203
0.50–0.99 6 (12.2) 3 (5.4) 9 (8.6) 0.182
1.00–1.49 4 (8.2) 5 (8.9) 9 (8.6) 0.585
1.50–1.99 7 (14.3) 13 (23.2) 20 (19.0) 0.181
2.00–2.49 4 (8.2) 6 (10.7) 10 (9.5) 0.459
2.50–2.99 1 (2.0) 6 (10.7) 7 (6.7) 0.080
3.00–3.49 5 (10.2) 3 (5.4) 8 (7.6) 0.286
3.50–3.99 2 (4.1) 3 (5.4) 5 (4.8) 0.564
4.00–4.49 3 (6.1) 1 (1.8) 4 (3.8) 0.260
4.50–4.99 2 (4.1) 3 (5.4) 5 (4.8) 0.564
≥ 5.00 4 (8.2) 5 (8.9) 9 (8.6) 0.585
Total 49 (100.0) 56 (100.0) 105 (100.0)  

Data shown are number of samples (%).

a Mann-Whitney U test.

Table 3.
Mercury concentration in shark meat compared to that of other studies
Author Year Country No. of samples Mean ± standard deviation Species t p-value a
U.S. FDA [24] 2017 United States 356 0.98 ± 0.63 Shark b 7.4534 < 0.001
King et al. [25] 2010 United States 5 0.71 ± 0.68 Shark b 4.5415 < 0.05
Endo et al. [26] 2008 Japan 42 0.78 ± 0.29 Tiger shark 8.4624 < 0.001
      8 1.80 ± 0.45 Silvertip shark 2.0865 < 0.05
de Carvalho et al. [27] 2014 Brazil 27 1.12 ± 0.57 Blue shark 5.7178 < 0.001
Biton-Porsmoguer et al. [28] 2018 Spain 40 0.52 ± 0.35 Blue shark 9.7584 < 0.001
      48 0.74 ± 0.56 Shortfin mako 8.1275 < 0.001

Values were compared to 2.29 ± 1.77 µg/g from 105 samples of this study. FDA: Food and Drug Administration.

a Welch modified t-test;

b otherwise unspecified.

TOOLS
Similar articles