Laguna de Bay Health Risk Tilapia

8/20/2019 Laguna de Bay Health Risk Tilapia

1/8

Journal of Environmental Science and Management 14(2): 28-35 (December 2011)

ISSN 0119-1144

Bioaccumulation in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) from Laguna de Bay,

Philippines

Victorio B. Molina1, Ma. Victoria O. Espaldon2, Maxima E. Flavier 3, Enrique P. Pacardo4 and

Carmelita M. Rebancos5

ABSTRACT

This study provides an assessment of the risks to human health associated with the exposure to heavy metals

bioaccumulation in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) from Laguna de Bay. Samples of the sh were collected in

eight sampling stations in three major areas of the lake during the dry and wet seasons. Dry season samples were

collected from May to June 2010 and wet season samples from September to November 2010. Coordinates of sampling

site locations were recorded using Global Positioning System (GPS) and plotted in Geographic Information System

(GIS) digital maps. Heavy metals analyses for cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), arsenic (As), and chromium

(Cr) were conducted using am Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) and a Mercury Analyzer (Mercur-Duo).

Estimates of health risks associated with sh consumption were summarized according to non-carcinogenic and

carcinogenic health effects. Non-carcinogenic Health Quotient (NHQ) values of the ve heavy metals showed that lead

is the most urgent pollutant of concern in terms of adverse health effects from risks associated with sh consumption

from all sampling locations in the lake. Among the ve heavy metals only arsenic is a conrmed human carcinogen

(Class A) through the oral route of exposure.

The highest life time cancer risk for arsenic was computed from sampling station 2B (west bay) during the dry

season with risk value of 8.5x10-4 or an excess of 85 cancer cases per 100,000 population. From the point of view of

human health protection and disease prevention, the Nile tilapia from Laguna de Bay is not t for human consumption

due to arsenic and lead contamination.

Key words: Bioaccumulation, Heavy Metals, Health Risk Assessment

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies in different areas of the world suggest

that the concentrations of toxic metals in many ecosystems

are reaching unprecedented levels (Silva et al. 2004).

The problem of pollution is attracting the attention of people around the world. With increased urbanization

and industrialization, there has been a rapid increase in

domestic and industrial wastewater which has intensied

the environmental pollution in different environmental

compartments. The major sources of contamination in

surface waters can be traced to industrial discharges,

domestic waste disposal and application of agrochemicals

on farmlands. The pollutants like heavy metals after entering

into aquatic environment accumulate in tissues and organs

of aquatic organisms. These metals that accumulate in the

body of aquatic organisms enter the food chain and up to the

highest level of consumers ( Akan et al. 2009).

The Philippine Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Sub-global Assessment for Laguna Lake emphasized that

the Laguna Lake Basin is a classic model of a multiple

resource with multiple users. Its capacity to provide various

ecosystem services to various users is continuously being

challenged mainly by anthropogenic factors. Deforestation

of its watersheds in favor of other uses such as agriculture

industry, and human settlements is expected to cause animbalance in the lake hydraulic processes. Lake water quality

has deteriorated through the years due to various point

sources of pollution from industry, agriculture, and domestic

sources. Detection of traces of heavy metals like copper

cadmium, chromium, and lead in the water and sediment is a

major concern for human health. Traces of heavy metals are

also found in the esh of sh although higher concentration

are found in the inedible parts. ( Ecosystems and People

The Philippine Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Sub-

global Assessment 2005). The main objective of the study

is to assess the risks to human health associated with the

exposure to heavy metals bioaccumulation of Nile tilapia

from Laguna de Bay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sampling Zones and Sites

1 Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, College of Public Health UP Manila, Philippines. E-mail: vicmolina@yahoo

com (corresponding author)2 Professor, School of Environmental Science and Management, UPLB3 Adjunct Professor, School of Environmental Science and Management, UPLB4 Professor Emeritus, School of Environmental Science and Management, UPLB5 Professor, School of Environmental Science and Management, UPLB

28


2/8

Laguna de Bay, the largest inland body of water in

the Philippines, was arbitrarily divided into ve sampling

zones: namely, Northern West Bay, Central West Bay,

Central Bay, South Bay, and East Bay. These zones were

selected to represent different areas of the lake with shing

operations. Five sh samples from the wild and from

sh cage were collected from each of the ve designated

sampling zones in the lake. There were two sampling sites

each for Northern West Bay, Central West Bay, and Central

Bay; and one sampling site each for South Bay, and East

Bay; for a total of eight sampling sites. Allocation of

number of sampling sites in the ve sampling zones was

based on the degree of shing operations in the zone. The

summary of sampling zones and sites is shown in Table 1.

The coordinates of the sampling locations (latitude

and longitude) of the eight stations in the different zones

were recorded using a Global Positioning System (GPS)

instrument and plotted in Geographic Information System

(GIS) digital maps. The locations and coordinates of the

sampling sites are shown in Table 2. This facilitated re-sampling activities and ensured that subsequent samples

for the wet season were collected in the area as that of

the wet season samples. A GIS map of Laguna de Bay

showing the sampling sites is shown in Figure 1.

Sampling Frequency

There were two batches of sh samples collected

The rst batch of sh samples was collected in May

to June 2010 to represent the dry season conditions

in the study area. The second batch of sh samples

was collected during the months of September to

November 2010 to represent wet season conditions

Heavy Metals Included in the Study

The heavy metals included in the study were

cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), arsenic (As)

and chromium (Cr). These non-essential metals from the

point of view of human health are also known to have the

ability to bioaccumulate through the food chain ( Health

and Environment Philippines, The Vital Link 2001)

Sample Packaging and Preservation

Fish samples were individually wrapped in a waterproof plastic sampling bag. The edible portions of the sh samples

were processed on-site to avoid the puncturing of the

packaging material by the sh spines. The individual sh

samples were sealed in the plastic bags and packed in a large

plastic bag. Each sample was provided with an identication

tag and sample code. After packaging, the samples were

kept in an ice chest with ice and brought to the Industria

Technology Development Institute of the Department

of Science and Technology (ITDI-DOST) Laboratory

immediately.

Laboratory Procedures and Analysis

Samples submitted to the laboratory were stored

in the freezer until all the samples had been collected to

ensure uniform sample preparation. Prior to analyses of the

samples, these were thawed then osterized for homogeneity

Replicates were prepared and all quality control parameters

were conducted to ensure integrity of the analyses. Cadmium

chromium and lead were analyzed using the AAS (Atomic

Absorption Spectrometer). The sample solutions were

aspirated into a ame and atomized.

Arsenic analysis involves the generation of arsine gas by

reacting the arsenic in the sample with sodium borohydride

Reaction takes place in a hydride generation assembly that is

attached to an AAS system.

Mercury in the sh samples was analyzed using the

Mercur-Duo Mercury Analyzer, a single-beam instrument

with a mercury low-pressure lamp as a light source for the

excitation of mercury atoms, and a photomultiplier to record

the uorescent or absorption radiation.

Journal of Environmental Science and Management Vol. 14. No. 2 (December 2011) 29

Sampling

zones

Name Number of sampling sites

1 Northern West Bay 2

2 Central West Bay 2

3 Central Bay 2

4 South Bay 1

5 East Bay 1

Total 8

Table 1. Sampling zones and sites.

Fish sampling site Location Coordinates

1A (Binangonan) Northern West Bay N 14o 28’ 57.8’’

E 121o 09’ 22.6’’

1B (Taguig) Northern West Bay N 14o 27’ 50.6’’

E 121o 05’ 19.3’’

2A (Talim Island) Central West Bay N 14o 22’ 34.1’’

E 121o 12’ 03.6’’

2B (Sta Rosa) Central West Bay N 14o 22’ 43.4’’

E 121o 04’ 30.1’’

3A (Jala-Jala) Central Bay N 14o 22’ 43.9’’

E 121o 19’ 25.5’’

3B (Cardona) Central Bay N 14o 28’ 13.5’’

E 121o 13’ 19.4’’

4 (Calamba) South Bay N 14o 11’ 41.4’’

E 121o 11’ 43.5’’

5 (Pakil) East Bay N 14o 22’ 12.9’’

E 121o 25’ 28.8’’

Table 2. Sampling site locations and coordinates.


3/8

30 Bioaccumulation in Nile Tilapia

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results on the heavy metal concentrations in the

edible portions of collected Nile tilapia are divided into:Heavy metal levels in the sh for the dry season, and Heavy

metal levels in the sh for the wet season.

Heavy metals levels in tilapia for the dry season

Table 3 shows the concentrations of heavy metals (Cd,

Cr, Pb, Hg and As) in tilapia from eight sampling stations

during the dry season. Cadmium (Cd) concentration ranged

from 0.00003 mg kg-1 in sampling station 1A to 0.0743 mg

kg-1 in station 3A. Chromium (Cr) ranged from 0.01820 mg

kg-1 in station 2A to 0.2371 mg kg-1 in station 4. Lead (Pb)

ranged from 0.45273 mg kg-1 in station 3A to 2.46283 mg

kg-1 in station 4. Mercury (Hg) ranged from 0.00154 mg kg-1

in station 4 to 0.03973 mg kg-1 in station 2A. Arsenic (As)

ranged from 0.02989 mg kg-1 in station 4 to 0.87292 mg

kg-1 in station 2B. Figure 2 shows the spatial distribution of

heavy metal concentrations in tilapia.

Heavy metals levels in tilapia for the wet season

Table 4 shows the concentrations of heavy metals (Cd,

Cr, Pb, Hg and As) in tilapia from eight sampling stations

Figure 1. Location of sampling sites (GIS map).

Sampling

site

Cd Cr Pb Hg As

1A DS 0.00003 0.11665 1.20427 0.02318 0.35353

1B DS 0.05048 0.05014 1.31277 0.01451 0.55145

2A DS 0.03524 0.01820 0.49466 0.03973 0.09940

2B DS 0.05303 0.07500 1.51190 0.00274 0.87292

3A DS 0.07430 0.03830 0.45273 0.01810 0.76654

3B DS 0.06728 0.18885 1.24800 0.01766 0.14544

4 DS 0.03472 0.23710 2.46283 0.00154 0.02989

5 DS 0.05299 0.12868 0.82563 0.00748 0.27808

Table 3. Heavy metal concentrations (mg kg-1), dry season.

Figure 2. Heavy metal concentrations (mg kg-1), dry season.


4/8


during the wet season. Cadmium (Cd) concentration ranged

from 0.0025 mg kg-1 in sampling station 2B to 0.32713 mg

kg-1 in station 1A. Chromium (Cr) ranged from 0.00197 mg

kg-1 in station 4 to 0.16337 mg kg-1 in station 1B. Lead (Pb)

ranged from 0.00846 mg kg-1 in station 2B to 5.26043 mg

kg-1 in station 1A. Mercury (Hg) ranged from 0.00464 mg

kg-1 in station 4 to 0.04104 mg kg -1 in station 1A. Arsenic

(As) ranged from 0.001 mg kg-1

in stations 1A, 2A and 5, to0.16066 mg kg-1 in station 2B. Figure 3 shows the spatial

distribution of heavy metal concentrations in tilapia.

During the dry season lead and arsenic appeared to

have the highest concentrations in tilapia. The data also

showed that the heavy metals were fairly distributed in the

different areas of the lake.

During the wet season, concentrations of heavy metals

in tilapia were mostly detected in sampling stations 1A, 1B

and 2A. Stations 1A and 1B are located in the Northern West

Bay while 2A is located in the Central West Bay. The lead

concentrations which were highest in sampling stations 1A

and 1B were higher in the dry season than in the wet season

in these two stations.

Laboratory data show that the onset of the rainy

season had both negative and positive effects on the

heavy metal concentrations in tilapia depending on where

the sh was collected in the lake. The positive effect

of the rainy season could be due to the dilution of rainwater

run-off which was apparent in the South bay, Central bay and

East bay. On the other hand, the negative effect of the rainy

season could be due to the “ushing-effect” from tributaries

and run-off from adjoining areas with signicant sources of

heavy metals in the environment. This was observed in the

West Bay where lead was highest during the wet season.

Estimate of Potential Human Exposure to Heavy Metals

in Nile Tilapia (Dry Season)

Non-carcinogenic Health Effects

The basic equation for calculating systemic toxicity (i.e.

non-carcinogenic hazard) is:

Non-carcinogenic Hazard Quotient (NHQ) = CDI

RfD

where:

CDI = chronic daily intake for the toxicant expressed in mg

kg-1

-dayRfD = chronic (oral) reference dose for the toxicant expressed

in mg kg-1-day.

Chronic oral reference dose (RfD). Chronic oral RfD is

dened as an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an

order of magnitude or greater) of a daily oral exposure leve

for the human population, including sensitive subpopulations

that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious

effects during a lifetime. Chronic oral RfDs are specically

developed to be protective for long-term exposure to a

compound. As a guideline, chronic oral RfDs generally

should be used to evaluate the potential non-carcinogenic

effects associated with exposure periods greater than 7 years

(approximately 10 percent of a human lifetime). Chronic

oral reference doses are expressed in units of mg kg-1-day.

Non-Carcinogenic Fish Ingestion Equation: CDI(nc)

CDI (nc) = C x EF x ED x IRF x (kg/1000g)

(365 days/year) x LT x BW

Where:

CDI = chronic daily intake for the toxicant expressed in mg/kg-day

C = Concentration of heavy metal in sh (mg kg-1)

BW = Body Weight

ED = Exposure Duration

EF = Exposure frequency

IRF= Ingestion Rate Fish (sh consumption) = 102.74 g

day-1 (FAO). This is the estimated average daily per

capita consumption of sh in the Philippines from the

FAO Fisheries and Aquatic Department.

LT = Lifetime (average)

Table 4. Heavy metal concentrations (mg kg-1), wet season.

Sampling

site

Cd Cr Pb Hg As

1A WS 0.32713 0.06472 5.26043 0.04104 0.00100

1B WS 0.23751 0.16337 3.46258 0.02007 0.16066

2A WS 0.00932 0.00252 0.49413 0.00865 0.00100

2B WS 0.00250 0.00574 0.00846 0.00624 0.00171

3A WS 0.00417 0.00147 0.00934 0.00811 0.004193B WS 0.00704 0.00274 0.06777 0.03770 0.00295

4 WS 0.00290 0.00197 0.03807 0.00464 0.05409

5 WS 0.00299 0.05659 0.01900 0.00486 0.00100

Figure 3. Heavy metal concentrations (mg kg-1), wet season.


5/8

The Non-carcinogenic Hazard Quotient (NHQ) is one of

the measures of non-carcinogenic health effects of exposure

to chemical contaminants. It is the ratio of an exposure level

by a contaminant to a reference dose or value selected for the

health risk assessment of a particular substance or chemical.

If the exposure level is higher than the toxicity value, then

there is the potential for risk to the receptor. Computed

NHQ value of greater than 1.0 indicates that the exposure to

a single chemical or substance will likely result to adverse

health effects. The potential health effects are dependent on

the type of chemical or substance of concern. NHQ values

of 1.0 or below indicates that daily oral exposure level for

the human population, including sensitive subpopulations, is

likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects

during a lifetime ( Extension Toxicology Network nd ).

Computed values of Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) and

Non-carcinogenic Hazard Quotient (NHQ) of cadmium,

chromium, lead, mercury and arsenic in Nile tilapia for all

sampling stations during the dry season are summarized in

Table 5. NHQ values for cadmium, chromium, mercury andarsenic are less than 1.0 (unit less value) in all sampling

stations (except for lead) which indicate that the daily oral

exposure level for the human population, including sensitive

subpopulations, is likely to be without an appreciable risk of

deleterious effects during a lifetime. However, NHQ values

for lead in all sampling stations are way above 1.0 (ranging

from 6,862 in sampling station 3A to 37,328 in station

4), indicating high risk for adverse human health effects

associated with sh consumption.

For the wet season, computed values of Chronic Daily

Intake (CDI) and Non-carcinogenic Hazard Quotient (NHQ)

of cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and arsenic in Nile

tilapia for all sampling stations during the wet season are

summarized in Table 6. Consistent with the dry season

ndings, the NHQ values for cadmium, chromium, mercury

and arsenic were less than 1.0 in all sampling stations (except

for lead). Similarly, the NHQ values for lead in all sampling

stations were way above 1.0 (unit less) (ranging from 128 in

sampling station 2B to 79,730 in station 1A), indicating the

high risk for adverse human health effects associated with

sh consumption.

Carcinogenic Health Effects

Slope factors and unit risk values are used to assess

cancer risk ( Fact Sheet: Health Effects of Lead 2009). A

slope factor and the accompanying weight-of-evidence

determination are the toxicity data most commonly

used to evaluate potential human carcinogenic risks.

Generally, the slope factor is a plausible upper-bound

estimate of the probability of a response per unit intake

of a chemical over a lifetime. The slope factor is used in

risk assessments to estimate an upper-bound lifetime

probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of

exposure to a particular level of a potential carcinogen.

Oral Slope Factor

The oral slope factor evaluates the probability of

an individual developing cancer from oral exposure to

contaminant levels over a lifetime. Oral slope factors are

expressed in units of (mg kg-1-day)-1

The basic equation for calculating excess lifetime cancer

risk is:

Risk = CDI × SF

Risk = C x EF x ED x IRF x (kg/1000g) x (SF)


Where:

Risk = a unit less probability of an individual developing

cancer over a lifetime;

CDI = chronic daily intake or dose [mg/kg-day]

SF = slope factor, expressed in [(mg/kg-day)-1]

Carcinogenic Fish Ingestion Equation: CDI(c)

CDI(c) = C x EF x ED x IRF x (kg/1000g)



Sampling

station

Non-carcinogenic Hazard Quotient (NHQ)

Cd Cr Pb Hg As

1A DS 0.0455 0.0354 18253 0.3165 0.1786

1B DS 0.0765 0.0152 19898 0.1979 0.2786

2A DS 0.0534 0.0055 7497 0.5420 0.0502

2B DS 0.0804 0.0227 22915 0.0374 0.4410

3A DS 0.1126 0.0116 6862 0.2469 0.38733B DS 0.1020 0.0572 18915 0.2409 0.0735

4 DS 0.0526 0.0719 37328 0.0210 0.0151

5 DS 0.0803 0.0390 12514 0.1020 0.1405

Table 5. Summary of NHQ values for dry season.

Sampling

station

Non-carcinogenic Hazard Quotient (NHQ)

Cd Cr Pb Hg As

1A DS 0.4958 0.0196 79730 0.5598 0.0005

1B DS 0.3600 0.0495 52481 0.2738 0.0812

2A DS 0.0141 0.0008 7489 0.1180 0.0005

2B DS 0.0038 0.0017 128 0.0851 0.0009

3A DS 0.0063 0.0004 142 0.1106 0.0021

3B DS 0.0107 0.0008 1027 0.5143 0.0015

4 DS 0.0044 0.0006 577 0.0633 0.0273

5 DS 0.0045 0.0172 288 0.0663 0.0005

Table 6. Summary of NHQ values for wet season.


6/8


Where:

CDI = chronic daily intake for the toxicant expressed in mg

kg-1-day

C = Concentration of heavy metal in sh (mg kg-1)

BW = Body Weight

ED = Exposure Duration

EF = Exposure frequency

IRF= Ingestion Rate Fish (sh consumption) = 102.74 g

day-1 (FAO). This is the estimated average daily per

capita consumption of sh in the Philippines from the

FAO Fisheries and Aquatic Department.

LT = Lifetime (average) =70 years for carcinogenic

Among the ve heavy metals included in the study

only arsenic is conrmed to be a human carcinogen

(class A) through the oral route of exposure. Chromium

is also carcinogenic through the inhalation route but not

carcinogenic through the oral route of exposure. The other

heavy metals (i.e. cadmium, lead and mercury) are classied

as either possible or probable carcinogens.

Chronic oral exposure to arsenic has been linked to various

types of internal cancers, including those of the liver, bladder,

and respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts (U.S. EPA 1987 ).

The Average life time cancer risks associated with

average daily consumption of Nile tilapia during the dry

season considering the mean arsenic levels in all sampling

stations is 3.8 x 10-4. This indicates that Nile tilapia

consumption will result in an excess of 38 cancer cases per

100,000 populations (within a lifetime of 70 years on the

basis of average daily consumption).

For the wet season, the computed average life time

cancer risks associated with sh consumption is 8.5 x 10-5.

This indicates that tilapia consumption will result in an

excess of 9 cancer cases per 100,000 populations.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Results of the study showed that arsenic, cadmium,

chromium and mercury do not pose signicant non-

carcinogenic health effects associated with the consumption

of Nile tilapia in Laguna de Bay. However, concentrations oflead showed elevated levels that are likely to cause adverse

health effects on sh consumers. Potential carcinogenic

effects of arsenic levels are also signicant (though the

computed risk for non-carcinogenic effects is insignicant).

This study therefore concludes that from the point of view of

human health protection and disease prevention, prolonged

human consumption of Nile tilapia in Laguna de Bay may

not be safe mainly because of the levels of lead that were

found to be above the NHQ values.

In the light of the above ndings, the following

recommendations are made to help policy makers and other

concerned stakeholders in decision-making as well as in

crafting lake management policies and mitigating measures

1. Urgent measures should be done by concerned authorities

to protect health of communities consuming Nile tilapia

from the lake especially the children. The goal should be

to minimize exposure by minimizing the amount of sh

intake and the frequency of consumption.

2. Regular monitoring of heavy metals in shes should be

done at least twice a year (wet and dry seasons) by Laguna

Lake Development Authority (LLDA) in collaboration

with the Department of Health (DOH) and concerned

Local Government Units (LGUs).

3. Issuance of regular health advisories regarding quantitative

health risks associated with sh consumption from the

Laguna Lake Development Authority or the Regional

Ofce of the Department of Health.

4. Involvement of the Local Government Units, especially

the lakeshore communities around the lake in terms

of heavy metals monitoring in sh and in developingand disseminating advisories and other health-related

information to the communities.

5. Inventory and assessment of potential sources of heavy

metals in the lake (e g., industrial) most especially for

lead and mercury.

6. More stringent regulation of efuents from industries

around the lake.

7. Regular monitoring of heavy metals in major rivers and

tributaries draining into the lake.

REFERENCES

Africa, C.R., Pascual, A.E., Santiago, E.C., (2009). Total Mercury

in Three Fish Species Sold in a Metro Manila Public Market

Monitoring and Health Risk Assessment. Science Diliman

21(1):1-6.

Akan, J. C. Abdulrahman, F.I., Sopido, O.A., Akandu, P.I. (2009)

Bioaccumulation of Some Heavy Metals of Six Fresh Water

Fishes Caught From Lake Chad in Doron Buhari, Maiduguri

Borno State, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences and

Sanitation. 4 (2): 103-114.

Annalee, Y, kjellstrom, T, Dekok, T, Guidotti, T (1998). Basicenvironmental Health. Ofce of Global and Integrated

environmental Health. World Health Organization, Geneva

Arshad J., Muhammad J. and Sajid A. (2007). Nickel Bio-

Accumulation in the Bodies of Catla Catla, Labeo Rohita

and Cirrhina Mrigala During 96-Hr Lc50 Exposures

International Journal of Agriculture & Biology. 9 (1): 139-142

Barwick, M, Maher, W (2003). Biotransference and

Biomagnication of Selenium, Copper, Cadmium

Zinc, Arsenic and Lead in a Temperate Seagrass

Ecosystem from Lake Macquarie Estuary, NSW


7/8

Australia. Marine Environmental Research. 56: 471–502.

Cadmium Exposure and Human Health. http://www.cadmium.org/

env_exp.html. Accessed November 23, 2009.

Campbell, LM, Balirwa, JS , Dixon, DG, Hecky, RE, (2004).

Biomagnication of Mercury in Fish from Thruston Bay,

Napoleon Gulf, Lake Victoria (East Africa). African Journal

of Aquatic Science. 29 (1): 91–96.

Castro-Gonzaleza, M.I. and Mendez-Armentab, M. (2008). Heavy

Metals: Implications Associated to Fish Consumption.

Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. 26 (2008):

263–271.

Ecosystems and People: The Philippine Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment (MA) Sub-global Assessment (2005). Edited

by Dr. Rodel D. Lasco, Dr. Ma. Victoria O. Espaldon,

Ms. Maricel A. Tapia. Environmental Forestry Program

College of Forestry and Natural Resources University of

the Philippines Los Baños, Department of Environment and

Natural Resources (DENR), and Laguna Lake Development

Authority (LLDA).

Extension Toxicology Network : Pesticide Information Project of

Cooperative Extension Ofces of Cornell University, Oregon

State University, the University of Idaho, and the University

of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental

Toxicology, Michigan State University.

Fact Sheet: Health Effects of Lead (USEPA). http://www.epa.

gov/dclead/EPA_ Lead_Health_Effects_FINAL208_12.pdf.

Accessed November 19, 2009.

Fei Xue, Claudia Holzman, Mohammad Hossein Rahbar, Kay

Trosko, and Lawrence Fischer (2007), Maternal FishConsumption, Mercury Levels, and Risk of Preterm Delivery.

Environmental Health Perspectives. 15(1): 42-47.

Ghanzafar, M. (2003). Lead and Nickel Concentrations in Fish

and Water of River Ravi. Pakistan Journal of Biological

Sciences. 6 (12): 1027-1029.

Gholam, R.J.K., Inteas, A., Ebrahim, N., Ramin, N. (2005).

Mercury Contamination in Fish and Public Health Aspects:

A Review. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition. 4 (5): 276-281.

Developing Species-Specic Fish Consumption Advice.

Environmental Health Perspectives.117 (2): 267-275.

Hammerschmidt, C R, Fitzgerald, W F ., Bioaccumulation and

Trophic Transfer of Methylmercury in Long Island Sound.

Published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and

Toxicology. 51: 416424.

Haw-Tarn L., Su-wen, C., Chi-jung, S., Chien C. (2008). Arsenic

Speciation in Fish on the Market. Journal of Food and Drug

Analysis (Taiwan).16 (4): 70-75.

Health and Environment in Sustainable Development (HESD): Five


Years After the Summit, (1997) World Health Organization

Geneva.

Health and Environment (Philippines), The Vital Link (2001)

Environmental Health Service, Department of Health

Manila, Philippines.

Health Effects of Lead Exposure. http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph

lead/docs/introhealtheffectsmedicalprovider.pdf. Accessed

October 5, 2009.

Health Risks Associated with Mercury. http://www.doh.wa.gov

ehp/mercury/healthrisks.htm. Accessed October 5, 2009.

Kasper, D., Palermo, E.F.A., Diaz, A.C.M., Ferreria, G.L.

Leitao, R.P., Branco, C.W.C., Malm, O., (2009). Mercury

Distribution In Different Tissues and Trophic Levels of Fish

from a Tropical Reservoir, Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology

(Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia), 7(4):751-758.

Makokha, A.O., Mghweno, R.L., Magoha, H.S., Nakajugo

A., Wekesa, J.M., (2008). Environmental Lead

Pollution and Contamination in Food AroundLake Victoria, Kisumu, Kenya. African Journal of

Environmental Science and Technology. 2 (10): 349-353

Mercury and the Environment. http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY

EH/EN/eh-hc.cfm. Accessed October 27, 2009.

Metwally, M.A.A., Fouad, I.M.(2008). Biochemical Changes

Induced by Heavy Metal Pollution in Marine Fishes a

Khomse Coast, Libya. Global Veterinaria. 2 (6): 308-311.

Muhammad J. (2005). Heavy Metal Contamination of Freshwater

Fish and Bed Sediments in the River Ravi Stretch and

Related Tributaries. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences8 (10): 1337-1341.

Mwakio P.T., and Jenipher M.S. (2003). Concentrations of Heavy

Metals in Water, Fish, and Sediments of the Winam Gulf

Lake Victoria, Kenya. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and

Management Society. School of Environmental Studies Mo

University, Kenya.

National Objectives for Health Philippines (1999-2004)

Department of Health, Manila, Philippines.

Obasohan, E.E., Eguavoen, O.I. (2008). Seasonal Variations of

Bioaccumulation of Heavy Metals in a Freshwater Fish

(Erpetoichthys calabaricus) from Ogba River, Benin City

Nigeria.African Journal of General Agriculture. 4 (3): 153-163

Philippine Environmental Health Assessment (1996). The World

Bank and Department of Health.

Public Health Guidance Note: Cadmium. http://www.health.qld

gov.au/ph/ documents/ehu/2665.pdf. Accessed November

16, 2009.

Ridella, T.J., Solon, O., Quimbo, S.A., Tan, C.M.C., Butrika A, E.


8/8


Peabodya, J.W., (2007). Elevated Blood-lead Levels among

Children living in the Rural Philippines. Bulletin of the

World Health Organization:85 (9).

Sia Su, G, Martilliano, KJ, Alcantara, TP, Ragragio, E, De Jesus,

J, Hallare, A. Ramos, G. (2009). Assessing Heavy Metals

in The Waters, Fish and Macroinvertebrates in Manila Bay,

Philippines. Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental

Sanitation. V (N): 247-255.

Silva E.I.L., Shimizu, A.(2004). Concentrations of Trace Metals

in the Flesh of Nine Fish Species Found in a Hydropower

Reservoir in Sri Lanka. Asian Fisheries Science. 17: 377-

384.

Solidum, Judilyn N. (2008). Distribution of Airborne Lead in Metro

Manila, Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and

Management 11 (2): 1-13.

Tamayo-Zafaralla, M., R. A. V. Santos, R. P. Orozco, G. C. P.

ELEGADO (2002). Ecological Status of Lake Laguna de

Bay Philippines. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management,

5 (2): 127 – 138.

Toxic Substances and Health: Lead. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

tfacts13 .html. Accessed November 27, 2009.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I wish to extend my gratitude and sincere appreciation

to Dr. Lynn Panganiban for her support and profound insights

and guidance.

My sincere gratitude is likewise accorded to Lake

Management and Research Divisions of the Laguna LakeDevelopment Authority (LLDA), headed by Ms. Jacqueline

Davo and Ms. Lennie Borja, respectively, for their invaluable

assistance in organizing a team to support sh sampling in

different areas of Laguna Lake. My thanks to the hardworking

staff of Lake Management Division, Mr. Dong Estoy, Mr. Jess

Futalan, Mr. Noely Sumadia, Mr. Val Ablaza and Mr. Melvin

Martinez, who took their turn to assist me in coordinating

with the shermen and helped in collecting and processing

the sh samples for the wet and dry seasons. My special

thanks to the shermen in lakeshore communities around

the lake who assisted us during the sh sampling activities.

My heartfelt gratitude to the Industrial Technology

Development Institute, Department of Science and

Technology (ITDI-DOST) Laboratory for their support

and patience in analyzing voluminous sh samples

for heavy metals, and for giving me the opportunity

to participate in sample preparation and analysis.

I am grateful to the Department of Environmental and

Occupational Health, College of Public Health UP Manila, the

Philippine Council for Health Research and Development-

DOST, and the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature

Kyoto, Japan, through Dr. Ryohei Kada-Sensei, for the

nancial assistance of this research work. This study will not

be a reality without the nancial support of these institutions

Laguna de Bay Health Risk Tilapia

Documents

Transcript of Laguna de Bay Health Risk Tilapia