Advanced Environmental Sciences

Advanced Environmental Sciences

Determination of Lead Concentration in Barbus grypusfrom Arvand River, With Emphasis on the Accumulation and Assessment of Risks

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors
Hamid Reza Pourkhabbaz 1
Mitra Cheraghi 2
Saeideh Javanmardi 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources, Behbahan Khatam Alanbia University of Technology
2 Instructor, Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources, Behbahan Khatam Alanbia University of Technology
Abstract
Lead (Pb) is an unnecessary element for human body, so existence of a very limited amount of this metal in the body causes very serious disease. One of the main ways that lead can enter to human body is the consumption of contaminated seafood which consequently cause lead accumulation in tissues. Hence, in this study, the human health risk due to consumption of Barbus grypus in Arvand River, was investigated by measuring the concentration of lead in muscle samples. In this case, a total of 30 fresh fishes were collected from six station in Arvand River (located in Khuzestan province, Iran). Samples of tissue were digested with acid, thus concentration of lead was measured using atomic absorption spectrophotometer. Overall, the results indicated that lead level in the muscle of B. grypus was higher than standard level of international organization such as FAO, WHO, NHMRC, and UK (MAFF). Average lead concentration in the muscle of Barbus grypus was 4.82 μg/g wet weight (16.61 μg/g dry weight). According to calculation of lead concentration and determination of limit value of fish consumption, there is cautions about consumption of B.grypus particularly in pregnant women and children. Accordingly, taking the Arvand river fish species, two times a month is recommended. However, the consumption of the B.grypus cannot cause serious threat to the human, if fish consumption occurs on permitted dosage.
 
Keywords
Keywords: Arvand River
Barbus grypus
Lead
risk assessment
  1. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organizations of
  2. United Nations). The state of world fisheries and
  3. aquaculture, Rome, Italy. 2009.
  4. Mortazavi MS, Sharifian S. Mercury
  5. bioaccumulation in some commercially valuable
  6. marine organisms from Mosa Bay, Persian Gulf.
  7. International journal of environmental research.
  8. ; 5(3): 757-762.
  9. Ikem A, Egiebor NO. Assessment of trace
  10. elements in canned fishes (mackerel, tuna,
  11. salmon, sardines and herrings) marketed in
  12. Georgia and Alabama (United States of
  13. America). Food composition and analysis. 2005;
  14. : 771-787.
  15. Mojtahid M, Jorissen F, Pearson T.H.
  16. Comparison of benthic foraminiferal and
  17. macrofaunal responses to organic pollution in the
  18. Firth of Clyde (Scotland). Marine pollution
  19. Bulletin. 2008; 56: 42-76.
  20. Conor R. Metal Contamination of Food, 3
  21. Edition. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Oxford,
  22. UK. 2002; 12-40.
  23. Ahamed M, Kaleem M, Siddiqui J. review
  24. Environmental lead toxicity and nutritional
  25. factors. Clinical nutrition. 2007; 26: 400–408.
  26. Patnalk P. Inorganic compounds-Handbooks,
  27. manual, third edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
  28. ; 365-390.
  29. Pacyna J. Pacyna E. An assessment of global and
  30. regional emissions of trace metals to the
  31. atmosphere from anthropogenic sources
  32. worldwide. Environmental reviews. 2001; 9:
  33. –298.
  34. Maghsudlo T, Mosavi SA, Fakhri A.
  35. Reproductive characteristics of the large scaled
  36. barbin the Shapoor River in Boushehr province.
  37. Journal of Ffisheries. 2010; 4(3): 117-123.
  38. Cheraghi, M, Espergham O, Nooriaee M.H. Risk
  39. Assessment of Cadmium Due To Consumption M00PAM .1983; Manual of Oceanographic and
  40. pollutant analysis methods. Kuwait.
  41. MooPAM. 1989; Manual of oceanographic and
  42. pollutant analysis methods. Kuwait.
  43. Esmaili-sari A. [Pollution, health and
  44. environmental standards]. Naghsh Mehr
  45. publication; 2001. [In Persian]
  46. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
  47. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant
  48. Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume 2. Risk
  49. Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits; 3th
  50. ed. Washington: Publication No. EPA 823-B-00-
  51. ; 2000.
  52. Kojadinovic J, Potier M, Corre M L, Cosson RP.
  53. Mercury content in commercial pelagic fish and
  54. its risk assessment in the Western Indian Ocean.
  55. Science of the total environment. 2006; 366: 688–
  56. Sakamoto M, Kaneoka T, Murata K, Nakai K,
  57. Satoh H, Akagi H. Correlations between mercury
  58. concentrations in umbilical cord tissue and other
  59. biomarkers of fetal exposure to methylmercury in
  60. the Japanese population. Environtal research.
  61. ;103(1):106-11.
  62. Aazami J, Esmaili Sari A, Bahramifar N,
  63. Ghasempouri SM, Jafarinezhad M. The ratio of
  64. organic mercury to total mercury in some organs
  65. of great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) caught
  66. from Gomishan and Anzali International
  67. Wetlands. Arak Medical University Journal.
  68. ; 14(59): 1-9. [In Persian]
  69. Voegborlo RB, Akagi H. Determination of