| Literature DB >> 28376117 |
Yoshinori Uekusa1, Satoshi Takatsuki1, Tomoaki Tsutsumi1, Hiroshi Akiyama1, Rieko Matsuda1, Reiko Teshima1, Akiko Hachisuka1, Takahiro Watanabe1.
Abstract
We determined the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners in 101 marine fish obtained from tsunami-stricken areas following the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. In particular, to determine the degree of PCB contamination in the fish, we investigated the concentration of total PCB (∑PCB) and the proportions of 209 individual PCB congeners by high-resolution gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry. The ∑PCB concentration was 1.7-33 ng/g in fat greenling (n = 29), 0.44-25 ng/g in flounder (n = 36), and 1.6-86 ng/g in mackerel (n = 36), all values being much lower than the provisional regulatory limit in Japan. In the congener analysis, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, and hepta-chlorinated PCB congeners dominated in all samples (comprising over 86% of the ∑PCB). The proportions of the chlorinated PCB congeners were similar to the contamination patterns derived from Kanechlor in the environment, implying that the marine fish were not contaminated with fresh PCBs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28376117 PMCID: PMC5380342 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174961
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Histograms of the ∑PCB concentrations (ng/g) in fish samples.
Bars show fat greenling (black bars, n = 29), flounder (white bars, n = 36), and mackerel (gray bars, n = 36).
Statistical data on each chlorinated congener concentration (ng/g) in fat greenling, flounder, and mackerel.
| Concentration (ng/g) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fish group | Mean | SD | Maximum | Median | Minimum | |
| fat greenling ( | ||||||
| MoCBs | 0.0011 | 0.0014 | 0.0061 | 0.00045 | 0.00016 | |
| DiCBs | 0.026 | 0.045 | 0.25 | 0.016 | 0.0015 | |
| TrCBs | 0.22 | 0.19 | 0.68 | 0.13 | 0.031 | |
| TeCBs | 1.1 | 0.90 | 3.5 | 0.78 | 0.20 | |
| PeCBs | 2.4 | 2.3 | 13 | 1.7 | 0.53 | |
| HxCBs | 2.9 | 2.4 | 12 | 2.1 | 0.63 | |
| HpCBs | 1.2 | 1.1 | 4.8 | 0.75 | 0.24 | |
| OcCBs | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.77 | 0.098 | 0.030 | |
| NoCBs | 0.017 | 0.014 | 0.050 | 0.011 | 0.0026 | |
| DeCB | 0.013 | 0.014 | 0.053 | 0.0070 | 0.0026 | |
| ∑PCBs | 8.1 | 6.8 | 33 | 5.9 | 1.7 | |
| flounder ( | ||||||
| MoCBs | 0.00056 | 0.00061 | 0.0024 | 0.00028 | 0.00012 | |
| DiCBs | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.075 | 0.0085 | 0.00097 | |
| TrCBs | 0.15 | 0.37 | 2.2 | 0.050 | 0.013 | |
| TeCBs | 0.52 | 1.2 | 6.9 | 0.20 | 0.059 | |
| PeCBs | 0.85 | 1.5 | 8.6 | 0.40 | 0.11 | |
| HxCBs | 0.85 | 1.0 | 5.7 | 0.52 | 0.16 | |
| HpCBs | 0.33 | 0.34 | 1.5 | 0.21 | 0.054 | |
| OcCBs | 0.048 | 0.051 | 0.23 | 0.028 | 0.0046 | |
| NoCBs | 0.011 | 0.014 | 0.062 | 0.0065 | 0.0024 | |
| DeCB | 0.0097 | 0.013 | 0.054 | 0.0038 | 0.0011 | |
| ∑PCBs | 2.8 | 4.4 | 25 | 1.5 | 0.44 | |
| mackerel ( | ||||||
| MoCBs | 0.0036 | 0.0037 | 0.022 | 0.0031 | 0.00028 | |
| DiCBs | 0.062 | 0.068 | 0.43 | 0.051 | 0.0015 | |
| TrCBs | 0.38 | 0.52 | 3.3 | 0.32 | 0.026 | |
| TeCBs | 1.8 | 2.7 | 16 | 1.3 | 0.17 | |
| PeCBs | 3.7 | 5.1 | 27 | 2.3 | 0.41 | |
| HxCBs | 4.0 | 5.2 | 28 | 2.6 | 0.60 | |
| HpCBs | 1.3 | 1.6 | 9.1 | 0.88 | 0.19 | |
| OcCBs | 0.17 | 0.23 | 1.3 | 0.11 | 0.020 | |
| NoCBs | 0.031 | 0.024 | 0.11 | 0.024 | 0.0031 | |
| DeCB | 0.031 | 0.018 | 0.094 | 0.030 | 0.0072 | |
| ∑PCBs | 11 | 15 | 86 | 7.8 | 1.6 | |
1) Significantly different (p = 0.05) results are distinguished by indices a and b.
Fig 2Box plots of the ∑PCB concentrations (ng/g) in Fat Greenling (FG), Flounder (F), and Mackerel (MA).
Significantly different (p = 0.05) results are distinguished by indices a and b.
Fig 3Log–log plots of chlorinated congener concentration versus ∑PCB concentration (ng/g).
The statistical significance of all regressions is α < 0.005.
Fig 4The concentrations of each chlorinated congener expressed as a percentage of the ∑PCB concentration in Fat Greenling (FG), Flounder (F), and Mackerel (MA).
A–D in the sample codes represent the areas from which the samples were obtained.
Statistical data on the concentrations (ng/g) of ∑PCB, ∑NDL-PCB, and the summed concentrations of six and seven PCB indicators in fat greenling, flounder, and mackerel.
| Concentration (ng/g) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fish group | Mean | SD | Maximum | Median | Minimum | |
| fat greenling ( | ||||||
| ∑PCBs | 8.1 | 6.8 | 33 | 5.9 | 1.7 | |
| ∑NDL-PCB | 7.1 | 5.9 | 27 | 5.2 | 1.4 | |
| ∑6 indicators | 2.8 | 2.4 | 11 | 2.0 | 0.57 | |
| ∑7 indicators | 3.4 | 2.9 | 15 | 2.5 | 0.72 | |
| flounder ( | ||||||
| ∑PCBs | 2.8 | 4.4 | 25 | 1.5 | 0.44 | |
| ∑NDL-PCB | 2.5 | 4.1 | 23 | 1.4 | 0.41 | |
| ∑6 indicators | 0.86 | 1.3 | 7.1 | 0.50 | 0.16 | |
| ∑7 indicators | 1.0 | 1.5 | 8.4 | 0.58 | 0.18 | |
| mackerel ( | ||||||
| ∑PCBs | 11 | 15 | 86 | 7.8 | 1.6 | |
| ∑NDL-PCB | 10 | 14 | 79 | 7.2 | 1.4 | |
| ∑6 indicators | 3.7 | 5.0 | 28 | 2.3 | 0.54 | |
| ∑7 indicators | 4.4 | 6.0 | 33 | 2.7 | 0.64 | |
1) Significantly different (p = 0.05) results are distinguished by indices a and b.
2) #28, #52, #101, #138, #153, and #180
3) #28, #52, #101, #118, #138, #153, and #180
Fig 5Log–log plots of the summed concentrations of (A) six PCB indicators (#28, #52, #101, #138, #153, and #180) versus the ∑NDL-PCB concentration and (B) seven PCB indicators (the previous six indicators plus #118) versus the ∑PCB concentration.
All concentrations are in ng/g. The statistical significance of all regressions is α < 0.005.