how we get dayli poisend from the one dark wather and from Mining

 

Thammasat Int. J. Sc. Tech., Vol.5, No.2, May -August 2000

Amplification of Mercury Concentrationsin

the Marine Food Chain of the East Coast of

1. Introduction

Mercury coumpounds are utilized on a

wide scale both in industry and agriculture

Mercury from industrial and agricultural wastes

accumulatein soil and water, and is partially

transportetdo the aquatice nvironmentw, hich in

turn becomesa sourceo f contaminationo f fish

and other organisms. The ability of some

microorganismsto methylatein organicm ercury

to the moreb iologicals tablea lkyl formsa ndt he

more toxic forms further increasesth e dangero l

contamination[1 ]. The concerna boutm ercury

pollutioni n the marinee nvironments tartedi n

the 1950s with the case of Minamata in Japan

where severapl eopled iedo r became.terminally

sick after consuming fish and

’strett

fish

containing relatively high concentrationso f

methyl mercury [2]. High levels of mercury

were also found in fish from Swedish lakes and

streamsT. he principalm ercuryc ontaminatioonf

these fish was reported to be an organic form of

methyl mercury [3].

Thailand

Voravit CheevaPorn

Departmento f Aquatic ScienceB, uraphaU niversity,B angsaen,

Chonburi 20 13 1, Thailand

Imelda Velasquez

MarineS cienceIn stituteU, niversityo f theP hilippines,

Diliman,Q uezonI l0l, PhiliPPines

Piamsak Menasveta

Aquatic ResourcesR esearchIn stitute,C hulalongkornU niversify,

Bangkok I 0330, Thailand

Abstract

Threeh undreda nd ninetys ampleso f marineo rganismsw erec ollectedf rom the EastC oasto f

Thailandf or total mercurya nalysis.T he resultsi ndicatedt hat mercuryl evelso f fish and other marine

organisms from the East Coast of Thailand are within the safety limit. However, biological

ma’gnificationo f mercuryr esiduei n the marinef ood chainw as observedO. rganismso f highert rophic

levelsh ave higher mercuryr esiduet han thosei n the lower trophic levels.S tatisticaal nalysiss howed

positive linear iegression between the size of the marine organisms and mercury contents of some

specieosf marineo rganisms.

Many studies on a wide range of marine

fish have reportedp ositivec orrelationsb etween

mercury concentration and a measure of age,

weight,o r lengtho f fish [4,5,6,7,8,9]T. his may’

however, reflect the increased interest in

mercury as a potential threat to human health’

Despitet his tendencyf or mercuryt o increasein

concentrationw ith increasings izelageo f some

fish, muscle mercury levels tend to be less than

I ppm with kidney and liver levels slightly

higheIr l 0 . l l . l 2 . l 3 l .

In 1975, the total mercury contents ot

fish in the Gulf of Thailand ranged from 0 to

0.58 ppm [4]. In the same year, traces of total

mercury were found in the marine food chain of

Bang Prac oastaal reao f Chonburip rovinceI l]

which tend to increasea t highert rophic levels

and accordingto the sizeo f organisms. Since

Thailand is one of the countries where the

nationwide fish consumption is comparatively

high, further study on the contamination of

mercuryi n fish and other marineo rganismsis

essential.

A A

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Sample collection and treatment

Samples for mercury analysis were

collected from Station A (Angsila) Station B

(Laem Chabang) subdivision of Chonburi

province and Station C (Ban Pae) subdivision of

Rayong province(Fig. l). Fish samples were

collected from the catch by otter trawl in

January 1999. The species of fish and other

organisms from which samples were taken

ranged from the lower trophic level to the higher

trophic levels. Plankton samples were collected

by a plankton net. All of the samples were

preservedin a freezera t approximately-2 0 oC.

For fish assay the samples were thawed and

dissected with a stainless steel knife, and a

portion of muscle under the dorsal fin, kidney,

liver, gill, and stomach were dried in the freeze

dryer and used for mercury determination.

2.2 Mercury analysis

Total mercury levels in fish and other

organismsw ere determinedb y meanso f Colc

Vapor analysist echniquesO. ne gram of tissue

was digested in 20 ml of I :1 conaentratecr

redistilled HNO3 and concentratedH zSOq, and

further oxidized with 10 mL of saturated

KzSzOs solution. Excess oxidizing agents and

mercury ions were reduced by l0 mL of

reducing solution (3%NaBHa in l% NaOH) in

hydride generatora pparatus,a nd then mercury

was vaporized and measured in the flamelesss

atomic absorption spectrophotometer.

A Perkin-Elmer 3300 atomic absorption

spectrophotometer (The Perkin-Elmer

Corporation, Norwalk, CT) equipped with a

MHS-I0 mercury hydride system was used to

determine the total mercury concentration of

each sample. The accuracy of these

determination was verified with a standard

reference material DOLT-1 (dogfish liver :

0.225 + 0.057 ppm Hg) of the National Research

Council of Canada. Results of analysis are

within the range of + 10 %.

ThammasaInt t.J . Sc.T ech.V, ol.5,N o.2,M ay- August2 000

3. Results and Discussion

One hundred and seventy samples of 5

species of fish, one hundred and eight samples

of2 specieso fcrustacean,f ifty-four sampleso f

I species of shellfish, fifty-four samples of I

species of squid and four samples of plankton

from the East Coast of Thailand were analysed

for total mercury. Results showed that total

mercury concentrations ranged from 0.002 -

0.714 ppm (dry weight) with the mean value of

0.118 ppm. While those found in 1975 in the

adjacent area ranged from 0-0.58 ppm [4]. Of

the total of 390 samples analysed, 20 %

contained less than 0.05 ppm of total mercury,

79 %o had a total mercury content between 0.05 -

0.5 ppm and I o/o contained over 0.5 ppm.

According to Menasveta t 1] , these

concentration can be regarded as a natural

background of mercury for fish in general. It

should be noted that only 3 samples were found

having total mercury levels above the United

States Food and Drug Administration tolerance

limit of 0.5 ppm.

Table 1 gives the mean and standard

deviationo f total mercury concentrationsin the

four trophic levels. The mean values of total

mercury for the first and second trophic levels

( compositeds pecieso f plankton) from station

A (Angsila) and B (Laem Chabang) were 0.004

and 0.007 ppm, respectively. The mercury

residue concentration in the third trophic level

was higher than the first and second trophic

levels.T he meanv aluesw ere0 .068.0 .1 12,a nd

0.053 ppm for station A, B, and C respectively.

The mean values of the fourth trophic level

have higherm ercuryr esidueth ant hosei n third

trophic level as shown in Tablel. Student’t'test

showed significant difference in total mercury

concentrationbse tweentr ophicl evelsI + ll and

trophic level III and between trophic levels III

and IV ( p < 0.5 ). The lowest mercury residue

( 0.002 ppm ) was detected in the composite

specieso f planktonw hile the highestm eroury

residue (0.714 ppm) was detected in Loligo

formosana (Splendid squid). This species was

categorized in trophic level IV

25

ThammasaItn t..J.S c.T ech.,V ol.5,N o.2, May August2 000

Table l: Total mercury contents (ppm) in different trophic levels from three sampling stations

( Angsila, Laem Chabang, and Rayong )

A) Angsila station

Trophic levels No. of samples standardd eviation

I

B) Laem Chabang station

Trophicl evels No. of samples standardd eviation

C) Rayong station

Trophicl evels No. of samples standardd eviation

Based on the above analysis, it can be

concluded that there is a biological

magnification of mercury residue in the marine

food chain of the East Coast of Thailand’ Fish of

higher trophic levels contain higher mercury

residue than those in the lower trophic levels

(Fig. 2). This suggests that mercury may be

concentratedin the same mannera s an organic

compounds uch as organochlorinec ompounds,

i.e., passed through and amplified by the food

chain. The concept also conforms to the the

datap resentedb y Johnelse t al. [3], Scott[ 15] ‘

andM enasveta[l ].

Statisticala nalysiss howed positivel inear

resression between the size of the marine

organisms (weight) and mercury contents of

some species of marine organisms. Figure 3

gives the exampleo f the linear regressionin

Peneausm erguiensis( White shrimp), Portunus

pelagicus (Blue swimming crab), Mytilus edulis

( Green mussel), Sillago maculata (Trumpeter

sillago), and Atule mate (Banded crevalle)

collected from stationB. (Laem Chabang)’

However, the results showed different

correlation between size and mercury contents

in different sampling stations for other

organisms. The positive linear regression

between agelor weight and mercury contents of

fish is welldocumentedb y Scott[ 15].

26

Figure 4. showed the mean values of

mercury content in various marine organisms

collected from 3 sampling stations. The results

indicated that Portunus pelagicus ( Blue

swimming crab)(0.240 ppm), Loligo formosana

(Splendids quid)(0.325p pm) and Atule mate

(Bandedc revalle)( 0.387p pm) havet heh ighest

mercury content among other marine organisms

colfected from Angsila, Laem Chabang, and

Rayong respectively. However, the average

mercuryc ontento f thesem arine’organismfsr om

the East Coast of Thailand were lower than the

United States Food and Drug Administration

tolerance limit of 0.5 ppm.

The mercury contents in various tissues

such as kidney, stomach, gill, muscle, and liver

of Epinephelus corallicola (Grouper) collected

from station b. ( Laem Chabang) were analysed.

Highest mercury residues were found in kidney

and liver respectivel(y Fig. 5 ). This is probably

due to their high affinity for sulphur containing

ligands such as sulhydryl (-SH) group in

metallothionine in fish’s kidney and liver as

described by De [6]. Similar results were

reported by Thongra-ar [7] in 1988.

The resultso f this studyi ndicatedth att he

average mercury content of fish and other

marine organisms from the Eastern Coast of

Thailand was lower than the United States Food

and Drug Administraton tolerance limit of 0.5

ppm. The mean value of 0.118 ppm for total

mercury is only one-fourth of this tolerance

limit. However it is probably not practical to

consider this recommended level without

correlatingi t to the frequencyo f consumptionI.t

was estimated that the fish/sea food

consumption rate among Thai people is 20

kg/person/year[8 ]. This level is equal to 55

g/person/dayI.f the mean total mercury content

of fish and other marine organisms is 0.118

ppm, it can be calculated that the daily intake of

mercury through fish/seafood consumption is

6.49 pglperson/day for Thai people. This value

is greater than 4 pglperson/day as reported from

Sweden [19]. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert

Committee on Food Additives proposed that the

provisional tolerate-weekly intake (PTWI) of

mercury for man be set at 0.0033 mg/kg bodyweight

for methyl mercury. This value is equato

to PTWI of 0.2 mg. mercury as methyl

mercury, for an average body-weight of 60 kg

The daily mercury intake of 6.49 pglpersonlday

ThammasaItn t. J. Sc.T ech.,V ol.5,N o.2, May -August 2000

which we derived from this study, would

contribute to weekly intake of 0.045 mg/person.

This level is only one-fourth of PTWI of

mercury ( assuming that all mercury contributed

by fish and other marine organisms is in the

form of methyl mercury). It is therefore, the

mercury levels of fish and other marine

organisms from the East Coast of Thailand are

within the safety limit for consumption.

4. Conclusions

The resulto f this study indicatest hat the

mercury levels .of fish and other marine

organisms from the East Coast of Thailand are

within the safety limit. However, the situation

may changei n the future,b ecausea t presento ur

country is still at developing stage. Modern

agriculturatle chniquesi,n cludinge xtensiveu se

of pesticides, coupled with industrial

developmentw, ill probably increaset he amount

of mercury in the environment in the future.

Hence, the plan for monitoring, proper

protection and control of mercury residue in

Thailand’s environment should be formulated

andi mplementewd ithoutd elay.

5. Acknowledgements

This investigationis financiallys upported

by The Thailand Research Fund (TRF). The

authors thank Mrs. Rattana Cheevaporn, Ms.

WannaK osillawatf or theirt echnicaal ssistance.

6. References

tl] MenasvetaP, ., Total Mercury in the Food

Chain of Bang Pra Coastal Area Cholburi,

J. Sci.Soc. Thailand, Yol. 2, pp.1l7-126,

1976.

l2l Kurland,L., The Outbreak of Neurological

Disorder in Minamata, Japan, and Its

Relationshipto the Ingestiono f Seafood

Contaminated by Mercuric Compounds,

WorldN eurol,V ol. 1,pp.3703- 95, 1960.

t3l Johnels,A .G., WestermarkT, ., Berg, W.,

PerssonP, .I.,a nd SjostrandB, ., Pike( Esox

lucius L.) and Some other Aquatic

Organisms in Sweden as Indicators of

Mercury Contamination in the

Environment, Oikos, Vol.18, pp.323-333,

1967.

2′7

t4l Menasveta, P. and Siriyong, R., Mercury

Content of SeveralP redaciousF ish in the

Andaman Sea. Man Pollut. Bull., Vol.l9,

pp.80,1977.

t5] Rivers, J.B., Pearson, J.E., and Shultz,

C.D., Total and Organic Mercury in Marine

Fish, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.,

Vol.8,p p.2571, 972.

t6l Shultz, C.D. and Ito, B.M., Mercury and

Selenium in Blue Marlin Makaira

Nigricans from the Hawaiian Islands, Fisft.

Bull, Y ol.1 6, pp.872, 197 9.

Ul Thomson,J .D., Mercury Concentrationso f

the Axial Muscle Tissues of Some Marine

Fishes of the Continental Shelf Adjacent to

Tasmania, Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res.,

Vol. 36, pp.509,1979.

t8l Walker, T.1., Effects of Species, Sex,

Length and Locality on the Mercury

Content of School Shark Galeorhinus

Australis (Macleay) and Gummy Shark

Mustelus antarticus Guenther from South-

Eastern Australian Waters, Aust. J. Mar.

FreshwateRr es.,V ol. 27, pp.603,1 979.

t9l Watling, R.J., McClurg, T.P., and Stanton,

R.C., Relation between MercurY

Concentrationa nd Size in the Mako Shark,

Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., Yol. 26′

pp.352, 1979.

[10] Chvojka, R. and Williams R’J., Mercury

Levels in Six Species of Australian

Commercial Fish, Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater

Res.V, ol.3l, pp.4691, 980.

[11] Greig, R.A. and Krzynonek. J., Mercury

Concentrationsin Three Specieso f Tunas

Collected from Various Oceanic Waters’

Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., Yol. 22,

pp.120,1979.

ThammasaItn t. J. Sc.T ech.,V ol.5, No.2, May -August 2000

[12] Kai, N., Ueda, T., Takeda, M., and

Kataoka, A.., On Mercury and Selenium in

Tuna Fish Tissues. VIII. Thelevels of

Mercury and Selenium in Albacore from

the Indian Ocean, J. Shimonoseki Univ.

FisheriesV, ol.3l, pp.69,1 983.

[3] Lyle, J.M., Mercury and Selenium

Concentrations in Sharks from Northern

Australian Waters, Aust. J. Mar.

FreshwateRr es,V ol.37, pp.309,1 983.

[4] National Marine Science Committee, Third

Pollution Survey ( GuU of Thailand), The

National Research Board of Thailand,

19′76.

[15] Scott, D.M., Mercury Concentration of

White Muscle in Relation to Age, Growth

and Condition in four Species of Fishes

from Cfay Lake, Ontario, J. Fish. Res.

Board.C an,Y ol.3l, pp.1723-l’ 729,1 976.

[6] De,A.K., Environmental Chemistry, Wiley

EasternL imited,N ew Delhi, 1994.

[17] Thongra-ar,W ., Mercury Contentsi n Some

Economic Fish from the Eastern Coast of

Thailand, Research Report No. 3412531,

Marine Science Institute, Burapha

UniversityT, hailand,1 994.

[18] Man, J.C.,C omplemenC, . and Murdoch,

W.R., Thailand;F isheryD evelopmenat nd

Management Policies, Programmes and

Institutional Anangements TINDP/FAO,

South China Sea Fisheries Development

and Coordinating Programme, Manila,

Philippines1, 994.

[9] Nilsson, T., Skerfving, S. and Svensson,

P.G.,C onsumptiono f Fisha ndE xposureto

Methylmercury Through Fish in Swedish

Males.P ollutionA bst,Y o1.5,p p.90,1 972.

28

Thammasaltn t. J. Sc. Tech.,V ol.S, No.2, May -August 2000

Figure5 Averagem ercuryc ontenitn variousti ssueso f Epinephelucso rallicola

( Grouper)

Epinephelus corallicola

 

 

 

A sampel with ddt mercury is follow

Biomagnification: how DDT becomes concentrated as it passes through a food chain

The figure shows how DDT becomes concentrated in the tissues of organisms representing four successive trophic levels in a food chain.

The concentration effect occurs because DDT is metabolized and excreted much more slowly than the nutrients that are passed from one trophic level to the next. So DDT accumulates in the bodies (especially in fat). Thus most of the DDT ingested as part of gross production is still present in the net production that remains at that trophic level.

This is why the hazard of DDT to nontarget animals is particularly acute for those species living at the top of food chains.

For example,

• spraying a marsh to control mosquitoes will cause trace amounts of DDT to accumulate in the cells of microscopic aquatic organisms, the plankton, in the marsh.
• In feeding on the plankton, filter-feeders, like clams and some fish, harvest DDT as well as food. (Concentrations of DDT 10 times greater than those in the plankton have been measured in clams.)
• The process of concentration goes right on up the food chain from one trophic level to the next. Gulls, which feed on clams, may accumulate DDT to 40 or more times the concentration in their prey. This represents a 400-fold increase in concentration along the length of this short food chain.

There is abundant evidence that some carnivores at the ends of longer food chains (e.g. ospreys, pelicans, falcons, and eagles) suffered serious declines in fecundity and hence in population size because of this phenomenon in the years before use of DDT was banned (1972) in the United States.

Link to more on DDT and its effects on wildlife.

A lot of this poisen coms with the dark wather in the see and with the food back, bon appetit!

Information over the Daytona Mining

The Owner is a Gold Mining Company PACIFIC RIM

This is a txt out of the Pacific RIM Website:

“In the pursuit of its goals, Pacific Rim merged with Dayton Mining Corporation in April, 2002. Pacific Rim is the surviving corporate entity. Dayton Mining was an international mineral resource company with two significant assets, including the El Dorado gold project in El Salvador — a project that Pacific Rim believes has the potential to meet its strategic criteria. Dayton additionally brought to the merger its 49% interest in the Denton-Rawhide gold mine in Nevada, the Andacollo gold mine in Chile, which has ceased operating and is currently undergoing reclamation, and approximately US $2 million in cash. In addition to its management and exploration expertise, Pacific Rim contributed to the merged company the US $3.4 million generated from its sale of the Diablillos project.”

The Risk for the Coastline from Bayawan to Dauin and the Fischer is big then to get Gold out of Sand you must use Mercury  and how danger this is we must not expain.

But we have to explain, that this Mercury goes in the Food Chain over every step up to 10 high 2 concentrated  and the Food Chain starts by the algin to the zooplankton to the shrimps to the smallest Fish to the bigger Fish to the Fish we eat!!!!!!!!

This are in the Minimum 5 Steps this mean 10 high 10 concentrated Poison!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where are this, they poison us? For Gold can you eat this?