MONITORING OF THE BACKGROUND CONTENT OF MERCURY IN THE BIOSYSTEM AND THE BODY OF THE CHILD POPULATION OF THE AMUR RIVER DOWNSTREAM
https://doi.org/10.25587/SVFU.2023.31.2.004
Abstract
Study Objective: to determine the mercury content in the body of children as well as in soil and river fish to assess the level of risk of adverse effects on a human body.
Study Design: analytical observational, cross-sectional study.
Materials and Methods. A quantitative analysis of mercury in hair of conditionally healthy children (n=62), the upper layer of soil (n=15) taken on the territory of the former cellulose and cardboard manufacturing plant (CCMP) located in one of the cities of the Khabarovsk region and in fish (n=27) living in the Amur river downstream was performed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. The relationship between the level of mercury and cognitive abilities of adolescents was studied.
Study Results. An average content of mercury in the upper layer of the soil was 0.85 mg/kg; with the maximum value of the mass fraction of mercury 1.25 mg/kg, the mercury concentration was 8.5-12.5 times higher than the Russian background value. When determining the concentration of mercury in the fish muscle tissue – the main source of organic mercury for children, it was revealed that the content of mercury in the tissues of predatory fish ranged from 0.47-0.52 mg/kg, while the mercury level in non-predatory fish was 0.24 mg/kg. The average mercury content in hair of adolescence was 0.47±0.05 mg/kg and 0.19±0.02 mg/kg in 6-7-year-old children, and it did not exceed the critical level.
Conclusion. It was found out that the content of mercury in the soil had significantly decreased compared to 2009, but the level remains above the Russian background value. Mercury content in part of the fish muscle living in the Amur River downstream was higher in predatory species. The concentration of mercury in the children organism permanently living on the territory of anthropogenic pollution did not exceed the threshold level, but the detected background values may have contributed to concentration decrease.
Keywords
anthropogenic pollution,
ecosystem,
heavy metals,
Hg,
mercury,
soil,
fish,
children,
hair,
neurotoxicity
About the Authors
О. А. Senkevich
Neonatology and Perinatology with a course of emergency medicine; Far Eastern State Medical University, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
SENKEVICH Olga Alexandrovna – Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Pediatrics
680000, Khabarovsk, ul. Muravyova-Amurskogo, 35
Y. G. Kovalsky
Far Eastern State Medical University, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
KOVALSKY Yuri Grigoryevich – Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Biological Chemistry and Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics
680000, Khabarovsk, ul. Muravyova-Amurskogo, 35
М. А. Chebargina
Far Eastern State Medical University, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
CHEBARGINA Maria Alexandrovna – Assistant Lecturer, Department of Pediatrics, Neonatology and Perinatology with a course of emergency medicine
680000, Russia, Khabarovsk, ul. Muravyova-Amurskogo, 35
References
1. UNEP Geneva. Minamata Convention on Mercury, 2017. Available online: http://www.mercuryconvention.org/Portals/11/documents/Awareness %20raising/FACT %20SHEETS/Minamata %20Convention %20on %20Mercury %20at %20a %20glance_COP1 %202017.pdf [accessed on 16 August 2019].
2. WHO (World Health Organization). Mercury and health, 2017. Available online: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs361/en/ [accessed on 16 August 2019].
3. Scientific Opinion on the risk for public health related to the presence of mercury and methylmercury in food. EFSA Journal. 2012. Vol. 10 (12). 2985 p.
4. Evaluation of certain contaminants in food: seventy-second report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. WHO technical report series. 2011. № . 959. P. 55-64.
5. UNEP/WHO. 2008. Guidance for Identifying Populations at Risk from Mercury Exposure. Available online: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/chem/mercuryexposure.pdf [accessed 09 November 2019].
6. Poleshchuk A. E., Tselev E. D., Akhtyamov M. H. The problem of mercury pollution as a result of the lack of work on dismantling and demercurization on the territory of the Central Committee of Amursk / / Scientific, technical and economic cooperation of the APR countries in the XXI century. 2019. Vol. 2. P. 195-199.
7. Kot F.S., Matyushkina L.A., Bakanov K.G., et al. Mercury in the urban environment of industrial centers of the Far East. Mercury in the biosphere: ecological and geochemical aspects. Proceedings of the International. SIMP. M., 2010. P. 124-127.
8. Yearbook “soil Pollution of the Russian Federation by toxicants of industrial origin” 2018 [Electronic resource] – URL: https://www.rpatyphoon.ru/upload/medialibrary/fb8/ezheg_tpp_2017.pdf (accessed 02.11.2019).
9. Yearbook “soil Pollution of the Russian Federation by toxicants of industrial origin” 2019 [Electronic resource] – URL: http://www.rpatyphoon.ru/upload/medialibrary/d74/ezheg_tpp_2018.pdf (accessed 02.11.2019).
10. Rybalko A. E., Frumin G. T. Heavy metals as one of the main pollutants of bottom sediments. 2004. [Electronic resource] – URL: http://esimo.oceanography.ru/esp2/index/index/esp_id/1/section_id/8/menu_id/3891 (accessed 14.11.2019).
11. Moiseenko T. I. Mercury in the hydrosphere. Mercury in the biosphere: ecological and geochemical aspects: Proceedings of the international conference. SIMP. M., 2010. P. 19-24.
12. Mania M., Wojciechowska-Mazurek M., Starska K. et al. Fish and seafood as a source of human exposure to methylmercury // Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig. 2012. Vol. 63. № 3. P. 257-264.
13. Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants: sixty-seventh report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. WHO technical report series. 2007. № 940. P.53-59.
14. Andreeva D. V. Indicative role of sulfate-reducing bacteria in the assessment of the ecological state of the Amur river: abstract. Diss… Cand. Biol. sciences. Vladivostok, 2019. 22 p.
15. Papadopoulou E., Haug L. S., Sakhi A. K. et al. Diet as a Source of Exposure to Environmental Contaminants for Pregnant Women and Children from Six European Countries // Environ Health Perspect. 2019. Vol. 127. № 10. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5324.
16. TR TS 021/2011 Technical Regulation of the Customs Union “On Food Safety” dated 9.12.2011.
17. Larionova T. K. Human biosubstrates in ecological and analytical monitoring of heavy metals // labor Medicine and industrial ecology. 2000. № 4. P. 30-33.
18. Lobanova Yu. N. // Bulletin of Orenburg state University. Appendix “Bioelementology”. 2002. № 4. P. 51-52.
19. Onishchenko G. G., Novikov S. M., Rakhmanin Yu. А. et al. Bases of risk assessment for public health under the influence of chemicals that pollute the environment / / ed. Rakhmanin Yu. А., Onishchenko G. G. M.: research Institute of ECHI-STATE, 2002. 408 p.
20. National Research Council, NRC. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. National Academy Press; Washington, DC, USA: 2000. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225778/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK225778.pdf [accessed on 3 November 2019].
21. Bellanger M., Pichery C., Aerts D. et al. Economic benefits of methylmercury exposure control in Europe: Monetary value of neurotoxicity prevention // Environ. Health. – 2013. – Vol. 12, № 3. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-12-3.
22. Kleschevsky O. N., Nikolaeva M. A., Ryazanova O. A. Current status and development prospects of the fish and fish products market in Russia // Bulletin of the Kemerovo State University. Series: Political, Sociological, and Economic Sciences. 2017. № . 3. P. 34–42.
23. Interstate standard GOST 34141-2017 Food products, feed, food raw materials. Determination of arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry dated 01.07.2018.
24. Methodical instructions MUK 4.1.1483-03 Determination of content of chemical elements in diagnosed biosubstrates, preparations and biologically active additives by method of mass spectrometry with inductively bound argon plasma dated 30.06.2003.
25. Environmental regulatory document of federal level IPA F 16.1:2.3:3.11-98 Quantitative chemical analysis of soils. Procedure for measurement of metal content in solid objects by inductively coupled plasma spectrometry dated 25.06.1998.
26. Interstate standard GOST 17.4.4.02-2017 Nature protection (SSOP). The soil. Methods of sampling and sample preparation for chemical, bacteriological, helminthological analysis dated 01.01.2019.
27. Karelin A. Big Encyclopedia of Psychological Tests. – M: Eksmo, 2007. 416 p.
28. Hygienic standards 2.1.7.2041-06 «Maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of chemicals in the soil» dated 21.01.2006.
29. Kasimov N.S., Vlasov D.V. Clarke of chemical elements as standards of comparison in ecogeochemistry // Bulletin of Moscow University. 2015. Series 5: Geography. № 2. P. 7-17.
30. Letter of the Ministry of natural resources of the Russian Federation of 27.12.1993 N 04-25/61-5678 «about the order of determination of the sizes of damage from pollution of lands by chemical substances» dated 27.12.1993.
Review
For citations:
Senkevich О.А., Kovalsky Y.G., Chebargina М.А. MONITORING OF THE BACKGROUND CONTENT OF MERCURY IN THE BIOSYSTEM AND THE BODY OF THE CHILD POPULATION OF THE AMUR RIVER DOWNSTREAM. Vestnik of North-Eastern Federal University. Medical Sciences. 2023;(2):31-41. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25587/SVFU.2023.31.2.004
Views:
183
Email this article 