| Literature DB >> 35448436 |
Salma Sultana1, Mohammad Belal Hossain1,2, Tasrina R Choudhury3, Jimmy Yu2, Md Sohel Rana1, Mohammad Abu Noman4, M Mozammal Hosen3, Bilal Ahamad Paray5, Takaomi Arai6.
Abstract
Shrimp is one of the major export products in South Asian countries and also an eminent source of nutrition for humans. Hence, any negative effect of this industry may affect not only the country's economy but also human health. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to assess heavy metal contamination and associated human health risks in cultured shrimp (Penaeus monodon) and aquaculture sludge collected from three shrimp farms of the Cox's Bazar district, Bangladesh. The results showed that among the eight metals studied, Pb (17.75 ± 1.5 mg/kg) and Cu (9.43 ± 2.8 mg/kg) levels in all shrimp samples were higher than the recommended limit, whereas the concentrations of Cd (0.09 ± 0.03 mg/kg), Mn (4.83 ± 2.2 mg/kg), As (0.04 ± 0.02 mg/kg), Hg (0.02 ± 0.006 mg/kg), Zn (18.89 ± 2.9 mg/kg) and Cr (0.69 ± 0.6 mg/kg) were within the permissible level. The concentrations of Mn (1043.37 ± 59.8 mg/kg), Cr (30.38 ± 2.1 mg/kg), Zn (74.72 ± 1.13 mg/kg) and Cu (31.14 ± 1.4 mg/kg) in the sludge of all farms were higher than the recommended limit, whereas the concentrations of Pb (20.23 ± 1.9 mg/kg), Cd (0.09 ± 0.2 mg/kg), As (0.44 ± 0.34 mg/kg) and Hg (0.08 ± 0.02 mg/kg) in all sludge samples were lower than the threshold limits. However, the estimated daily intake (EDI), targeted hazard quotient (THQ) and hazard index (HI) assessed for potential human health risk implications suggested that Pb and Cr may pose non-carcinogenic health effects, although carcinogenic risks (CR) values were acceptable for consumers. However, the pollution load index (PLI) of the studied area was below 1, which indicates low deterioration of the area. Geoaccumulation index (Igeo) and contamination factor (CF) analyses revealed that study area is unpolluted and sludge is enriched with metals in the following order: Mn > Zn > Cu > Cr > Cd > Hg > Pb > As.Entities:
Keywords: aquaculture sludge; heavy metals; human health risks; shrimp culture
Year: 2022 PMID: 35448436 PMCID: PMC9025133 DOI: 10.3390/toxics10040175
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxics ISSN: 2305-6304
Figure 1Sampling locations of shrimp and aquaculture sludge from Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. ((A)—Map of Bangladesh, (B)—the Cox’s Bazar district, (C)—Maheshkhali Upazilla, (D)—Sampling points near the Kohelia River).
Comparison of heavy metals (Mean ± SD) in the shrimp muscle tissue samples with various standard levels and relevant study (mg/kg wet weight).
| Standard/Study Area | Pb | Cd | Cr | Mn | Cu | As | Hg | Zn | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shrimp | 17.75 ± 1.5 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.69 ± 0.6 | 4.83 ± 2.2 | 9.43 ± 2.8 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | 0.02 ± 0.006 | 18.89 ± 2.9 | Present study |
| Tolerance level in crustacean | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 5 | 5 | 0.5 | 50 | [ | |
| New Zealand | 2 | 1 | 30 | 1 | 40 | [ | |||
| Turkish | 1 | 0.1 | 20 | 20 | 50 | [ | |||
| Institute of Medicine | 40 | [ | |||||||
| Bangladesh (crustacean) | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 0.5 | 50 | [ | |
| River Buriganga, Bangladesh | 0.51 ± 0.01 | 1.51 ± 0.04 | 1.59 ± 0.9 | 35.25 ± 1.48 | 575.34 ± 61.8 | 1.19 ± 0.04 | 187.04 ± 9.79 | [ | |
| Saint Martin Island, Bangladesh | 0.690 ± 1.56 | 0.713 ± 0.06 | <0.08 | <0.2 | 5.049 ± 0.07 | <0.1 | <0.03 | 13.5 ± 0.43 | [ |
| Sabah, North Borneo | 0.38–0.44 | 0.05 | 0.04–0.05 | 0.08–0.11 | [ | ||||
| Gangetic Delta | 9.2 | 7.7 | 11.1–48.1 | 16.1–447.5 | [ | ||||
| Saudi Arabian Gulf and Jazan, Red Sea, Saudi Arabia | 2.33 ± 0.57 | 1.57 ± 0.066 | 5.33 ± 0.58 | 17.33 ± 2.08 | [ |
(mg/kg ww) milligrams/kilogram wet weight basis. a California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control. b Turkish Food Codes.
Comparison of heavy metals (Mean ± SD) in shrimp aquaculture sludge samples with various standard levels and relevant study (mg/kg wet weight).
| Standard/Study Area | Pb | Cd | Cr | Mn | Cu | As | Hg | Zn | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sludge | 20.23 ± 1.9 | 0.09 ± 0.2 | 30.38 ± 2.1 | 1043.37 ± 59.8 | 31.14 ± 1.4 | 0.44 ± 0.34 | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 74.72 ± 1.13 | Present study |
| TRV (Toxicity Reference Value) | 31 | 0.6 | 26 | 16 | 6 | [ | |||
| LEL (lowest effect level) | 31 | 0.6 | 26 | 16 | 6 | [ | |||
| SQG (Sediment Quality Guideline) | 6 | 25 | 123 | [ | |||||
| SQG (Sediment Quality Guideline) | 40 | 0.6 | 25 | 30 | 123 | [ | |||
| SQG (Sediment Quality Guideline) | 35 | 0.6 | 37.3 | 5 | [ | ||||
| SQG (Sediment Quality Guideline) | 0.05 | 0.5 | 10 | [ | |||||
| Tolerance level | 123 | 123 | 5 | 10 | 2 | [ | |||
| Halda River | 8.80 | 0.04 | 8.84 | 139.5 | 5.9 | 0.001 | 79.58 | [ | |
| Meghna River | 6.98 | 0.53 | 1.27–6.81 | [ | |||||
| Sangu River estuary | 19.576 | 25.149 | 29.235 | 2.58 | 261.8 | [ | |||
| Korotoa River | 36–83 | 0.26–2.8 | 55–183 | 35–118 | 2.6–52 | [ | |||
| Feni River estuary | 0.67–17.03 | 17.77–46.09 | 23.46–48.73 | 0.13–2.79 | 0.87–1.57 | [ | |||
| Paira River | 25 | 0.72 | 45 | 30 | 12 | [ |
Figure 2Comparison of metal concentration in examined shrimp muscles and aquaculture sludge in the present study.
Figure 3Public-health-related hazard indices ((A)-EDA, (B)-THQ & HI) for metal concentrations in shrimp.
Environmental health-related hazard indices for metal concentration in sludge.
| Metal | Metal Concentration (mg/kg) | Igeo | CF | PLI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pb | 20.23 | −0.56 | 0.1115 | 0.288 |
| Cd | 0.09 | −2.32 | 0.2967 | |
| Cr | 30.38 | −2.15 | 0.3376 | |
| Mn | 1043.37 | −0.371 | 1.1593 | |
| Cu | 31.14 | −1.12 | 0.6920 | |
| As | 0.44 | −5.44 | 0.0338 | |
| Hg | 0.08 | −2.94 | 0.2000 | |
| Zn | 74.72 | −0.93 | 0.7865 |
Pearson correlation analysis of heavy metals in shrimp tissue and farm sludge (p values less than 0.05 are indicated as **).
| Pb | Cd | Cr | Mn | Cu | As | Hg | Zn | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shrimp (n = 15, | ||||||||
| Pb | 1 | |||||||
| Cd | 0.088578 | 1 | ||||||
| Cr | −0.48679 | −0.9132 | 1 | |||||
| Mn | −0.3571 | 0.89876 | −0.64209 | 1 | ||||
| Cu | 0.89825 | 0.51732 | −0.82115 | 0.089732 | 1 | |||
| As | −0.6872 | −0.78448 | 0.96911 | −0.43316 | −0.93655 | 1 | ||
| Hg | −0.747 | 0.59604 | −0.2171 | 0.88774 | −0.37882 | 0.030373 | 1 | |
| Zn | 0.25559 | −0.94035 | 0.72009 | −0.99431 | −0.1953 | 0.5267 | −0.83366 | 1 |
| Sludge (n = 15, | ||||||||
| Pb | 1 | |||||||
| Cd | 0.10928 | 1 | ||||||
| Cr | −0.06683 | 0.98448 | 1 | |||||
| Mn | −0.08035 | 0.98202 | 0.99991 | 1 | ||||
| Cu | 0.77784 | −0.5397 | −0.67904 ** | −0.68893 | 1 | |||
| As | −0.1105 | −1 ** | −0.98427 | −0.98178 | 0.53867 | 1 | ||
| Hg | −0.24948 | 0.93531 | 0.98289 | 0.98529 | −0.80265 | −0.93488 | 1 | |
| Zn | −0.90218 | 0.33019 | 0.49069 | 0.50246 | −0.97285 | −0.32904 | 0.6428 | 1 |
Figure 4Principal component analysis (PCA) biplot of log-transformed metal concentration in shrimp tissue (A) and farm sludge (B).
Figure 5Hierarchical cluster dendrogram (Ward–Linkage method) of metal concentrations obtained from shrimp tissue (A) and farm sludge (B).