Printer Friendly

A quantitative synthesis of mercury in commercial seafood and implications for exposure in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Mercury (Hg) is a toxic metal that presents public health risks through fish consumption. A major source of uncertainty in evaluating harmful exposure is inadequate knowledge of Hg concentrations in commercially important seafood.

OBJECTIVES: We examined patterns, variability, and knowledge gaps of Hg in common commercial seafood items in the United States and compared seafood Hg concentrations from our database to those used for exposure estimates and consumption advice.

METHODS: We developed a database of Hg concentrations in fish and shellfish common to the U.S. market by aggregating available data from government monitoring programs and the scientific literature. We calculated a grand mean for individual seafood items, based on reported means from individual studies, weighted by sample size. We also compared database results to those of federal programs and human health criteria [U.S. Food and Drug Administration Hg Monitoring Program (FDA-MP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)].

RESULTS: Mean Hg concentrations for each seafood item were highly variable among studies, spanning 0.3-2.4 orders of magnitude. Farmed fish generally had lower grand mean Hg concentrations than their wild counterparts, with wild seafood having 2- to 12-fold higher concentrations, depending on the seafood item. However, farmed fish are relatively understudied, as are specific seafood items and seafood imports from Asia and South America. Finally, we found large discrepancies between mean Hg concentrations estimated from our database and FDA-MP estimates for most seafood items examined.

CONCLUSIONS: The high variability in Hg in common seafood items has considerable ramifications for public health and the formulation of consumption guidelines. Exposure and risk analyses derived from smaller data sets do not reflect our collective, available information on seafood Hg concentrations.

KEY WORDS: aquaculture, consumption advisory, contaminants, fisheries, Seafood Hg Database, seafood safety. Environ Health Perspect 120:1512-1519 (2012). [Online 25 June 2012]

Human mercury (Hg) exposure from seafood consumption and its attendant risks are difficult to estimate and are often the subject of intense debate. However, there is broad recognition of the need for large-scale information on Hg concentrations in marine fish and shellfish in order to better understand and control Hg exposure and risk (National Research Council 2000). Although U.S. seafood consumption has plateaued in recent years, global seafood demand is on the rise [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2010; National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2011a]. Fish and shellfish are important sources of lean protein and other nutrients, including essential omega-3 fatty acids, which confer important health benefits (Albert et al. 2002; Huynh and Kitts 2009; Simopoulos 1991; Siscovick et al. 1995). However, all seafood also contains Hg, primarily in the form of methyl-mercury (MeHg). In sufficient doses, MeHg can cause adverse neurodevelopmental (Myers et al. 2009; Oken et al. 2005; Trasande et al. 2005), cardiovascular (Grandjean et al. 2004), and immunological health effects (Gardner et al. 2010). Because most human exposure to MeHg is through seafood consumption [International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) 1990, 1991; National Research Council 2000; United Nations Environment Programme 2002], it is critical to have reliable estimates of Hg concentrations in seafood items in order to confidently identify those that are low in Hg. Such efforts will better inform estimates of exposure and risk and help consumers make decisions about the types and quantities of seafood that are both safe to eat and nutritionally beneficial.

Seafood Hg concentrations can be highly variable, even within the same species (National Research Council 2000; Sunderland 2007). Although hundreds of individual studies collectively have monitored fish Hg concentrations around the world, we still have an incomplete understanding of general Hg patterns, particularly in commercial fish and shellfish from marine waters (Chen et al. 2008). Moreover, our knowledge of the extent of Hg variability is limited. Aggregating data from individual studies is necessary to obtain a clearer understanding of general patterns in Hg content of commercial fish. To date, the largest, most well-known existing databases on Hg content in U.S. commercial fish were developed by federal government agencies [NMFS, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]. However, the NMFS study from the 1970s (Hall et al. 1978) is relatively outdated, and the FDA Monitoring Program (FDA 2011; FDA-MP 2011) contains smaller sample sizes and fewer species. In contrast, data from intensive, small-scale studies that focus on obtaining large sample sizes of a specific taxon are less susceptible to random sampling error and are likely to yield better estimates of central tendency. Such smaller, intensive studies are common within the scientific literature (e.g., Adams and McMichael 2007; Burger and Gochfeld 2006) but typically are not integrated into larger analyses of exposure and risk. Finally, federal databases, particularly the NMFS study, may not accurately reflect Hg concentrations of imported fish, even though the amount of imported, edible seafood consumed in the United States is increasing (NMFS 2010). Imports now account for > 80% of the seafood eaten in the United States (NMFS 2011a). Thus, the inclusion of Hg data for imported seafood would fill a crucial knowledge gap. Combining data from government and academic sources would allow for more precise estimates of Hg concentrations in U.S. imported and domestic seafood items using the broadest available knowledge base.

We examined patterns of Hg concentrations in U.S. commercial seafood items using, to our knowledge, the largest compilation of available academic and agency data to date. Our overarching goal was to examine long-standing questions about the patterns of seafood Hg concentrations and their variability. Our Seafood Hg Database (Karimi 2012) aggregates Hg measurements of hundreds of seafood items from federal and state agencies, as well as from smaller, more intensive studies in the scientific literature. Our specific goals were to reliably identify low-Hg and high-Hg fish, and to identify the seafood items and geographic regions for which further study is most needed. We also compared Hg concentrations in farmed seafood items relative to concentrations in their wild seafood counterparts. Finally, we compared Hg concentrations for individual seafood items to those summarized from the FDA-MP (2011). FDA-MP data are commonly used for risk assessment and exposure estimates (Ginsberg and Toal 2009; Sunderland 2007; Tran et al. 2004) and in the development of state-level consumption advice for consumers (e.g., State of Maryland 2011; State of Minnesota 2011). At least one previous study has compared FDA-MP data to those from independent studies in order to better estimate Hg intake in the United States (Sunderland 2007). Our study builds on this approach by synthesizing a much larger aggregation of available data to better characterize Hg variability and assess the current state of knowledge of seafood Hg content. Ideally, these improved estimates of Hg concentrations in commercial fish will help enable more accurate assessments of potential exposure and inform both public health programs and the public itself regarding the types and amounts of fish that are safe to eat.


Data gathering and inclusion criteria. Our guiding principle for building the Seafood Hg Database (Karimi 2012) was to focus on fish and shellfish from sources that could reasonably be sold in the United States. Our database was developed to reflect the range of possible Hg levels for seafood items considered the top contributors to human Hg exposure in the United States because they are relatively high in Hg and/or they constitute relatively large shares of the U.S. seafood market (top 51 Hg contributors defined by Groth 2010). Detailed taxonomic and geographic harvest information is often lacking or incorrect in the seafood marketplace (Jacquet and Pauly 2008). Thus, our database does not model the exact composition of the U.S. seafood market. Rather it reflects the range of seafood species and seafood Hg concentrations that are available to U.S. seafood consumers.

Data were gathered from federal and state government reports and from peer-reviewed scientific literature. We obtained data from federal and state government agencies that either made their fish tissue monitoring results publically available online [e.g., State of North Carolina (2011); State of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality (2009); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Coastal Assessment (U.S. EPA 2008); U.S. FDA raw data (FDA 2011)] or provided data upon request (e.g., State of Delaware, State of Hawaii). In addition, we searched for published, peer-reviewed papers indexed in the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY) before 15 December 2010. We conducted literature searches for individual seafood items based on seafood varieties listed as the top 51 Hg contributors to the U.S. population (Groth 2010). Search terms included "mercury" and the common names of these fish or shellfish (e.g., "mercury AND salmon") [see Supplemental Material, Search Terms for Table S2 (].

From the data gathering and search results, we included select studies or select data from studies on fish and shellfish from sources that were likely to enter the U.S. seafood market. We included data on edible portions (fillet or whole fish) of any fish or shellfish species likely to be included in the top 51 seafood varieties (e.g., "redfish" were included with "ocean perch") based on federal commercial fisheries landings (fisheries landed and sold in the United States) and seafood import statistics (NMFS 2007b). Hg concentrations in whole fish can be lower than concentrations in fillets (Goldstein et al. 1996), probably because Hg is primarily associated with muscle tissue. Thus, the inclusion of data based on fillets as well as whole fish, which are common in the market particularly for smaller fish such as anchovies, may underestimate fish Hg content relative to those based on fillets only. We classified seafood items as being from domestic or imported sources based on geographic locations specified in the original study. We assumed that all marine fish caught commercially from domestic waters were relevant to the U.S. market. Data for a given fish or shellfish species collected from market basket studies or direct harvest from countries outside of the United States were included only if at least 5% of all imports of that species into the U.S. fisheries market (by volume) were from that country according to NMFS import statistics as of 2010 (NMFS 2011b). In addition, imported seafood items that did not meet this criterion were included if the samples were collected from water bodies connected to other countries that meet this criterion. Highly migratory fish caught from major ocean basins (tuna, shark, and swordfish) were included regardless of country of origin.

Of the top 51 seafood varieties, < 10 are freshwater fish. For most freshwater items collected from domestic waters, we included data from the Great Lakes because the Great Lakes are the main sources of these species to the market (NMFS 2011c). We did not include salmon species from the Great Lakes because the commercial catch of salmon from the Great Lakes has been negligible for at least one decade (Baldwin et al. 2009). For striped bass (Morone saxatilis), we included data for wild fish only from Atlantic states because commercial fisheries do not exist for this species in the Gulf of Mexico or Pacific coast (NMFS 2007a). For catfish, carp, and perch, we included fish collected from Atlantic or Gulf Coast states that report commercial landings of these fish (NMFS 2007a), excluding samples from interior or landlocked freshwater sources. Data for farmed species of commercial freshwater fish were included if the fish were specifically raised for consumption (e.g., farmed catfish), and the fish were of market size (vs. juvenile fish from hatcheries) and were fed conventional feed (e.g., Berntssen et al. 2010).

Exclusion criteria. We screened approximately 1,000 government monitoring programs and peer-reviewed academic studies for inclusion. Upon critically examining each study, we excluded entire data sets--or select data from studies--based on one or more of the following criteria:

* Data resulting from experimental Hg exposures.

* Data on fish or shellfish that are not a primary source of commercial fish to U.S. consumers, based on the geographic location of collection.

* Studies that were not written in the English language.

* Data that were repeated from another source already included the database; for example, data repeated in review papers as well as original papers, or data repeated in aggregate federal government databases (e.g., U.S. EPA National Listing of Fish Advisories) and original state data sources (e.g., State of North Carolina). Duplicate entries were routinely screened for and excluded from all calculations.

* Data for fish from locations with known point source Hg contamination or associated fisheries closures.

* Data for young-of-year fish (born within the past year). However, we included Hg values from other smaller body size fish that may be excluded from the U.S. market because of catch restrictions. Hg concentrations tend to be lower in small fish than in larger fish of the same species, thus may lead to underestimates of the true average of Hg values in U.S. commercial fish.

* Studies conducted by nongovernmental organizations, public interest groups, or news media that were not peer-reviewed or incorporated into government monitoring efforts.

* Studies that did not report the necessary Hg data (raw data, or arithmetic mean Hg or MeHg concentration and sample size). For example, we excluded studies that presented Hg concentrations in a graph or as a range, geometric mean, or median. Geometric means and medians were rarely reported in the literature. Therefore, we included only arithmetic mean Hg concentrations, or we calculated arithmetic means based on raw data when reported.

* Data from areas with no commercial fishing activity, such as no-take marine reserves and national parks (e.g., Rencz et al. 2003; Wyn et al. 2009).

Data extraction. We extracted mean Hg concentrations (parts per million, wet weight), sample size, and geographic location for each seafood item reported in each study. Approximately 40% of the included sources reported SDs or SEs. Thus, analyses requiring SDs or SEs would exclude the bulk of the data set. Therefore, we focused on examining mean Hg concentrations in the interest of including the range of Hg concentrations for each seafood item using the largest possible data set. We extracted total Hg values whenever possible, but we used MeHg values when they were reported instead of total Hg. Approximately 95% of total Hg in fish muscle tissue occurs in the form of MeHg (Bloom 1992). Therefore, we assumed that MeHg concentrations are similar to total Hg concentrations. Nevertheless, because MeHg concentrations are lower than total Hg, our calculated, grand mean Hg concentrations for certain seafood items may be slightly lower than if they were based solely on total Hg concentrations. Hg values reported as dry weight concentrations were converted to wet weight concentrations according to moisture content, if reported, or by assuming 80% water content. When Hg concentrations were reported as nondetects (approximately < 10% of all database entries), we entered values as one-half the detection limit from the study (Clarke 1998); when detection limits were not reported, these values were excluded.

When a study reported multiple mean Hg values for a given seafood item (e.g., Hall et al. 1978), we calculated a weighted mean using sample size for the mean as the weight. When a study reported multiple Hg values for a given seafood item but did not provide sample sizes for individual values (e.g., Cossa et al. 1992; Deshpande et al. 2009; Jackson 1991), we assumed sample sizes were equivalent across values. Thus, overall means calculated from these studies were not weighted.

Data analysis. We calculated an aggregate, grand weighted mean ([[bar.Hg].sub.w]) for each seafood item based on means weighted by sample size across studies

[[bar.Hg].sub.w] = [[SIGMA]([Hg.sub.i] x [w.sub.i])]/[[SIGMA][w.sub.i]]. [1]

where [Hg.sub.i] is the ith reported mean and [w.sub.i] is the weight (reported sample size) of the ith observation. We estimated variability of Hg in seafood items by calculating a weighted grand SD, corresponding to the grand mean. The Seafood Hg Database comprises mean Hg values reported by individual studies as observations, as opposed to raw Hg data values. By definition, the SD of sample means is the SE of the global distribution of Hg values. Therefore we estimated the weighted SE (S[E.sub.w]) of the distribution underlying the grand mean using the formula for the weighted SD,

S[E.sub.w] = [square root of ([N.summation over (i=1)])[w.sub.i][([H[g.sub.i] - [[bar.Hg].sub.w])].sup.2]/(N - 1) [N.summation over (i=1)][w.sub.i]/N], [2]

where N is the number of studies from which mean Hg values were collected. To obtain the weighted SD (S[D.sub.w]) of the global distribution, we multiplied S[E.sub.w] by the square root of average sample size across studies for each seafood item, yielding the formula

S[D.sub.w] = [square root of ([N.summation over (i=1)])[w.sub.i][([H[g.sub.i] - [[bar.Hg].sub.w])].sup.2]/(N - 1) [N.summation over (i=1)][w.sub.i]/(N - 1)], [3]

Monte Carlo simulations tested for potential bias of Equation 3 using hypothetical data approximating the composition of the database. Specifically, we simulated a true standard deviation of the global distribution using random numbers drawn from normal and lognormal distributions, where [w.sub.i] ranged from 2 to 100 and N ranged from 50 to 300. Tests of 10,000 replicates demonstrated that Equation 3 was an unbiased estimator of the true standard deviation of the global distribution and was insensitive to both the type of distribution used and variation in sample size (data not shown).

We calculated the a) grand mean, b) grand SD, c) range (minimum and maximum reported means), d) coefficient of variation (CV), and e) total number of samples across all studies for each seafood item name searched (e.g., salmon), as well as for seafood items with higher taxonomic resolution within the search results (e.g., Atlantic salmon) and for broader taxonomic categories for specific analyses. Thus, results are presented for a larger number of seafood groups than the original top 51 seafood items from the search. We compared our findings with summarized Hg data accessed from the FDA-MP (2011) on 15 September 2011 for seafood items for which direct comparisons were possible given available data (58 seafood items). In some cases, seafood items were grouped together into larger seafood categories, which often included multiple taxa. For example, for direct comparison with Hg concentrations for "crab" reported by the FDA-MP, we grouped together blue crab, king crab, and snow crab data. Formal parametric statistical comparisons, such as analysis of variance, were not possible for our analyses because the database is composed of aggregate mean Hg values instead of raw data. Thus, unknown distributions of the underlying Hg data, together with unequal sample sizes for the comparisons of interest, made statistical comparisons inappropriate for our study. Finally, we calculated the percentage of studies reporting a mean Hg concentration exceeding the FDA action level (1 ppm) and the U.S. EPA human health criterion (0.3 ppm) for seafood items with relatively higher taxonomic resolution when possible in order to yield more detailed results than those from broader seafood categories. The FDA action level for MeHg of 1.0 ppm represents the threshold above which the agency can take legal action (e.g., removing the product from the marketplace) (FDA 2007). The U.S. EPA MeHg criterion of 0.3 ppm represents the fish tissue concentration that should not be exceeded for safe consumption of sport-caught fish in local waters based on average consumption (U.S. EPA 2001).

To compare farmed items to wild-caught items within the same seafood category, we focused on species with established or emerging, rather than nascent, farming or ranching industries. For some seafood categories, the species composition of farmed and wild items was not identical. For example, wild-caught catfish include channel catfish, blue catfish, and brown bullhead, whereas farmed catfish include channel catfish and striped catfish. We designated individual data as farmed or wild according to information from original studies. When farmed or wild status was not reported, as with some market basket studies, we made assumptions based on FAO fisheries statistics for individual species (FAO 2011). Specifically, we assumed that lake trout were wild-caught and rainbow trout were farmed. For eel species from market studies, we assumed that Japanese eel (Anguilla japonica) were farmed and European conger eel were wild caught. Finally, we assumed that Atlantic salmon from market studies in North America and Europe were farmed unless otherwise specified, given the endangered status of wild Atlantic salmon.


Overview of the Seafood Hg database. The Seafood Hg Database contains approximately 300 unique data sources [see Supplemental Material, Table S1 (Summary of Hg concentrations across studies in commonly consumed seafood items in the U.S.) and Table S2 (Seafood Hg Database) (; the Seafood Hg Database and any further updates are also available from Karimi (2012)]. In contrast with other well-known compilations of U.S. seafood Hg data [the FDA-MP (2011), the NMFS report (Hall et al. 1978), and combined U.S. EPA fish monitoring programs from different regions (e.g., Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, National Coastal Assessment)], the Seafood Hg Database includes data from both academic and government data sources (approximately 50% of observations from each source type). In addition, the Seafood Hg Database contains large amounts of data on imported fish and shellfish (43% of observations, 21% excluding market studies outside of the United States for which exact seafood origin is uncertain).

Variability, patterns, and information gaps. We observed relatively high variability in Hg concentrations for individual seafood items. Mean Hg concentrations reported across studies for a given seafood item spanned 0.3 to 2.4 orders of magnitude (for tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico and tuna, fresh/frozen, respectively), with a mean of 1.3 orders of magnitude [see Supplemental Material, Table S1 (]. CVs for individual seafood items ranged from 0.22 (tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico) to 15.42 (softshell clams), with a mean CV of 3.0. We found high variability in Hg content for both broadly defined seafood categories composed of multiple species (e.g., shark, tuna, shrimp), as well as for individual species (e.g., blue crab, Callinectes sapidus).
Table S1. (continues through page 4)
Supplemental Material, Table S1. Summary of Hg concentrations across
studies in commonly consumed seafood items in the U.S.

Seafood Item          Grand Mean  Samples  S[E.sub.w]  S[D.sub.w]
                       Hg (ppm)   (Total)
                          (a)       (b)

Anchovies (All)            0.103      455       0.041       0.197

Bass (Chilean)             0.357      100       0.041       0.185

Bass (Freshwater,          0.170      149       0.059       0.361

Bass (Saltwater,           0.288     1660       0.150       1.004
Black, White,

Bass, Striped (All)        0.285     1367       0.140       1.155

Bass, Striped              0.028       15          NA          NA

Bass, Striped (wild)       0.295     1311       0.134       1.147

Bluefish                   0.351     1019       0.145       0.965

Butterfish                 0.054      109       0.021       0.112

Carp (All)                 0.156      477       0.095       0.521

Catfish (All)              0.118     1757       0.087       0.586

Catfish (wild, all         0.144     1396       0.078       0.513

Catfish, Channel           0.120      521       0.038       0.253

Catfish (farmed, all       0.012      320       0.008       0.073

Clams (All)                0.028     1027       0.032       0.177

Clams, Hard                0.047      181       0.026       0.130

Clams, Geoduck             0.030       11       0.021       0.049

Clams, Cockle              0.054      122       0.073       0.404

Clams, Pacific             0.022       18       0.009       0.022

Clams, Softshell           0.016      471       0.020       0.249

Cod (All)                  0.087     2115       0.038       0.358

Cod, Atlantic              0.034       24          NA          NA

Cod, Atlantic (wild)       0.070     1452       0.017       0.261

Cod, Pacific               0.144      431       0.038       0.260

Crab (All)                 0.098     1564       0.086       0.453

Crab (Blue, King and       0.095     1087       0.098       0.526

Crab, Blue                 0.110      864       0.103       0.594

Crab, Dungeness            0.120      264       0.037       0.225

Crab, King                 0.027      203       0.032       0.154

Crab, Snow                 0.110       20       0.073       0.187

Crawfish (All)             0.034      206       0.019       0.104

Croaker (All)              0.092      856       0.058       0.308

Croaker, Atlantic          0.069      572       0.025       0.135

Croaker, White             0.169      193       0.066       0.344

Cuttlefish                 0.134      156       0.085       0.275

Eel (All)                  0.186      986       0.111       0.608

Eel (wild)                 0.216      659       0.110       0.551

Eel (farmed)               0.066      220       0.027       0.163

Flatfish (Flounder,        0.110     3070       0.079       0.417
Plaice, Sole)

Flounder (All)             0.119     1687       0.075       0.406

Flounder, Summer           0.121      427       0.042       0.216

Flounder, Windowpane       0.152       84       0.037       0.152

Flounder, Winter           0.070      302       0.039       0.228

Freshwater Perch           0.141     1295       0.110       0.745

Grouper (All)              0.417      643       0.196       0.804

Haddock (All)              0.164      226       0.166       0.752

Hake (All)                 0.146      739       0.090       0.489

Halibut (All)              0.254     3532       0.060       0.703

Halibut, Pacific           0.261     3111       0.053       1.127

Halibut, Greenland         0.183      138       0.120       0.630

Herring (All)              0.043     1277       0.026       0.174

Herring, Atlantic          0.037      973       0.015       0.119

Herring, Pacific           0.060      194       0.048       0.300

Lingcod                    0.363      333       0.128       0.952

Lobster (All)              0.153      344       0.070       0.315

Lobster, American          0.200      142       0.075       0.367

Lobster, Spiny             0.100       62       0.035       0.137

Mackerel (All)             0.586     2481       0.450       3.237

Mackerel, Atlantic         0.045      191       0.037       0.192

Mackerel, Chub             0.099      129       0.033       0.166

Mackerel, King             1.101      821       0.383       3.470

Mackerel, Spanish          0.440     1168       0.097       1.105

Marlin (All)               1.517      821       1.654       7.495

Marlin, Blue               2.465      364       2.120       9.532

Marlin, Striped            0.861      179       0.528       2.356

Marlin, White              0.695       56       0.120       0.518

Monkfish                   0.174       92       0.024       0.117

Mullet                     0.050      638       0.027       0.152

Mussels (All)              0.028      755       0.016       0.106

Ocean Perch                0.117      262       0.082       0.421

Orange Roughy              0.513      152       0.103       0.569

Oysters (All)              0.020     5310       0.013       0.178

Oysters, Eastern           0.018     4573       0.009       0.161

Oysters, Pacific           0.039      290       0.025       0.171

Pike                       0.404     1374       0.101       1.328

Plaice                     0.148      282       0.137       0.576

Pollock (All)              0.058      540       0.059       0.342

Pollock, Atlantic          0.160       79       0.053       0.330

Pollock,                   0.050      235       0.027       0.145

Porgy                      0.065      169       0.027       0.143

Sablefish                  0.243      477       0.080       0.620

Salmon (All)               0.048     2818       0.023       0.143

Salmon, Atlantic           0.026      145       0.020       0.077

Salmon, Atlantic           0.058       95       0.015       0.083

Salmon, Chinook,           0.017        4       0.017       0.024

Salmon, Chinook,           0.067      580       0.013       0.106

Salmon, Chum               0.046      456       0.018       0.139

Salmon, Coho               0.044      567       0.007       0.065

Salmon, Pink               0.037      222       0.009       0.064

Salmon, Sockeye            0.039      396       0.004       0.026

Salmon (canned)            0.035       61       0.012       0.042

Sardine (All)              0.079     1007       0.036       0.201

Scallops (All)             0.040      336       0.033       0.148

Seabass, Black             0.120      139       0.032       0.118

Shad (All)                 0.077       93       0.031       0.099

Shad, American             0.067       76       0.019       0.095

Shark (All)                0.882     3722       0.462       2.504

Shark, Blacktip            0.882      250       0.274       1.249

Shark, Blue                0.664       50       0.480       1.516

Shark, Mako                1.259      166       0.464       1.995

Shark, Sandbar             0.869      115       0.301       1.141

Shark, Thresher            0.622      119       0.421       1.874

Sheepshead                 0.166      340       0.038       0.347

Shrimp (All)               0.053      935       0.053       0.212

Shrimp, Brown              0.077       72       0.024       0.083

Shrimp, Pink               0.083       49       0.016       0.079

Shrimp, White              0.057      113       0.036       0.136

Skate (All)                0.138       70       0.027       0.093

Smelt                      0.025      175       0.019       0.086

Snapper (All)              0.230     1244       0.104       0.514

Snapper, Gray              0.233      699       0.068       0.595

Snapper, Red               0.243      279       0.168       0.725

Sole                       0.086     1101       0.056       0.310

Squid                      0.044      728       0.024       0.130

Swordfish                  0.893     1726       0.296       2.052

Tilapia                    0.019      129       0.027       0.097

Tilefish (All)             0.883      109       0.695       2.962

Tilefish, Atlantic         0.171       47       0.049       0.195

Tilefish, Gulf of          1.445       61       0.059       0.324

Trout (freshwater,         0.344     2804       0.087       1.030
wild and unknown

Trout, Lake                0.349     2748       0.080       1.268

Trout (freshwater,         0.029      178       0.015       0.066

Tuna (fresh/frozen,        0.450     3780       0.340       1.619

Tuna, Albacore             0.317      296       0.103       0.475

Tuna, Atlantic             0.499      263       0.359       2.200

Tuna, Bigeye               0.582      376       0.222       1.113

Tuna, Blackfin             0.856      159       0.231       0.972

Tuna, Bluefin              0.455      108       0.156       0.540

Tuna, Bluefin (wild)       0.796      514       0.542       2.408

Tuna, Skipjack             0.198      341       0.083       0.320

Tuna, Yellowfin            0.270     1183       0.125       0.797

Tuna, Albacore             0.328     1362       0.113       0.955

Tuna, Light (canned        0.118      972       0.038       0.300
or packed)

Tuna, Yellowfin            0.143      298       0.098       0.688

Weakfish/Seatrout          0.361     2105       0.193       1.348

Whitefish (All)            0.106     2721       0.051       0.707

Whiting                    0.040       27       0.015       0.056

Seafood Item          Min, Max     CV
                      (ppm) (c)

Anchovies (All)         (0.008,   1.91

Bass (Chilean)          (0.310,   0.52

Bass (Freshwater,       (0.118,   2.12
All)                     0.242)

Bass (Saltwater,        (0.005,   3.49
Black, White,            0.650)

Bass, Striped (All)     (0.028,   4.05

Bass, Striped           (0.028,     NA
(farmed)                 0.028)

Bass, Striped (wild)    (0.094,   3.89

Bluefish                (0.034,   2.75

Butterfish              (0.004,   2.08

Carp (All)              (0.030,   3.35

Catfish (All)           (0.005,   4.97

Catfish (wild, all      (0.005,   3.57
species)                 0.714)

Catfish, Channel        (0.020,   2.10
(wild)                   0.231)

Catfish (farmed, all    (0.008,   6.14
species)                 0.030)

Clams (All)             (0.005,   6.29

Clams, Hard             (0.005,   2.75

Clams, Geoduck          (0.010,   1.66

Clams, Cockle           (0.019,   7.47

Clams, Pacific          (0.011,   0.99
Littleneck               0.028)

Clams, Softshell        (0.008,  15.42

Cod (All)               (0.019,   4.12

Cod, Atlantic           (0.034,     NA
(farmed)                 0.034)

Cod, Atlantic (wild)    (0.035,   3.70

Cod, Pacific            (0.019,   1.81

Crab (All)              (0.005,   4.61

Crab (Blue, King and    (0.005,   5.56
Snow)                    0.302)

Crab, Blue              (0.014,   5.40

Crab, Dungeness         (0.051,   1.88

Crab, King              (0.005,   5.63

Crab, Snow              (0.048,   1.71

Crawfish (All)          (0.021,   3.03

Croaker (All)           (0.011,   3.36

Croaker, Atlantic       (0.011,   1.97

Croaker, White          (0.040,   2.04

Cuttlefish              (0.020,   2.05

Eel (All)               (0.030,   3.28

Eel (wild)              (0.030,   2.55

Eel (farmed)            (0.049,   2.46

Flatfish (Flounder,     (0.005,   3.80
Plaice, Sole)            0.463)

Flounder (All)          (0.005,   3.42

Flounder, Summer        (0.005,   1.79

Flounder, Windowpane    (0.105,   1.00

Flounder, Winter        (0.021,   3.27

Freshwater Perch        (0.014,   5.27
(All)                    0.810)

Grouper (All)           (0.035,   1.93

Haddock (All)           (0.020,   4.59

Hake (All)              (0.015,   3.36

Halibut (All)           (0.036,   2.76

Halibut, Pacific        (0.158,   4.32

Halibut, Greenland      (0.040,   3.44

Herring (All)           (0.010,   4.09

Herring, Atlantic       (0.010,   3.19

Herring, Pacific        (0.017,   4.97

Lingcod                 (0.080,   2.62

Lobster (All)           (0.042,   2.06

Lobster, American       (0.045,   1.84

Lobster, Spiny          (0.064,   1.36

Mackerel (All)          (0.008,   5.53

Mackerel, Atlantic      (0.033,   4.30

Mackerel, Chub          (0.028,   1.68

Mackerel, King          (0.110,   3.15

Mackerel, Spanish       (0.147,   2.51

Marlin (All)            (0.140,   4.94

Marlin, Blue            (0.190,   3.87

Marlin, Striped         (0.140,   2.74

Marlin, White           (0.270,   0.75

Monkfish                (0.083,   0.67

Mullet                  (0.006,   3.05

Mussels (All)           (0.013,   3.84

Ocean Perch             (0.010,   3.59

Orange Roughy           (0.350,   1.11

Oysters (All)           (0.005,   9.00

Oysters, Eastern        (0.006,   8.87

Oysters, Pacific        (0.008,   4.37

Pike                    (0.247,   3.29

Plaice                  (0.015,   3.88

Pollock (All)           (0.005,   5.93

Pollock, Atlantic       (0.030,   2.07

Pollock,                (0.005,   2.89
Pacific/Alaska           0.140)

Porgy                   (0.033,   2.20

Sablefish               (0.151,   2.55

Salmon (All)            (0.005,   3.00

Salmon, Atlantic        (0.005,   2.91
(farmed)                 0.117)

Salmon, Atlantic        (0.047,   1.43
(wild)                   0.073)

Salmon, Chinook,        (0.005,   1.41
farmed                   0.029)

Salmon, Chinook,        (0.041,   1.59
wild                     0.090)

Salmon, Chum            (0.014,   3.00

Salmon, Coho            (0.016,   1.49

Salmon, Pink            (0.005,   1.72

Salmon, Sockeye         (0.005,   0.66

Salmon (canned)         (0.028,   1.20

Sardine (All)           (0.010,   2.56

Scallops (All)          (0.004,   3.65

Seabass, Black          (0.005,   0.98

Shad (All)              (0.040,   1.29

Shad, American          (0.040,   1.42

Shark (All)             (0.080,   2.84

Shark, Blacktip         (0.380,   1.42

Shark, Blue             (0.270,   2.28

Shark, Mako             (0.206,   1.58

Shark, Sandbar          (0.082,   1.31

Shark, Thresher         (0.130,   3.01

Sheepshead              (0.128,   2.09

Shrimp (All)            (0.003,   4.03

Shrimp, Brown           (0.020,   1.07

Shrimp, Pink            (0.005,   0.95

Shrimp, White           (0.006,   2.38

Skate (All)             (0.032,   0.67

Smelt                   (0.008,   4.03

Snapper (All)           (0.031,   2.27

Snapper, Gray           (0.121,   2.55

Snapper, Red            (0.031,   2.98

Sole                    (0.013,   3.62

Squid                   (0.008,   2.99

Swordfish               (0.150,   2.30

Tilapia                 (0.002,   4.99

Tilefish (All)          (0.080,   3.35

Tilefish, Atlantic      (0.131,   1.14

Tilefish, Gulf of       (1.123,   0.22
Mexico                   1.450)

Trout (freshwater,      (0.030,   3.00
wild and unknown         0.440)

Trout, Lake             (0.047,   3.63

Trout (freshwater,      (0.005,   2.30
farmed)                  0.060)

Tuna (fresh/frozen,     (0.007,   3.59
All)                     3.030)

Tuna, Albacore          (0.030,   1.50

Tuna, Atlantic          (0.326,   4.41
bonito                   1.662)

Tuna, Bigeye            (0.114,   1.91

Tuna, Blackfin          (0.200,   1.14

Tuna, Bluefin           (0.190,   1.19
(farmed)                 1.020)

Tuna, Bluefin (wild)    (0.057,   3.03

Tuna, Skipjack          (0.060,   1.62

Tuna, Yellowfin         (0.030,   2.95

Tuna, Albacore          (0.155,   2.92
(canned)                 0.588)

Tuna, Light (canned     (0.047,   2.55
or packed)               0.400)

Tuna, Yellowfin         (0.029,   4.80
(canned)                 0.240)

Weakfish/Seatrout       (0.021,   3.73
(All)                    1.060)

Whitefish (All)         (0.018,   6.70

Whiting                 (0.030,   1.38

S[E.sub.w] = Weighted standard error (see main text for details)
S[D.sub.w] = Weighted standard deviation (see main text for details)
CV = Coefficient of variation
(a) Grand Mean Hg calculated across studies, based on wet weight
(b) Total samples across studies
(c) Minimum and maximum mean reported across studies

Hg concentrations of wild seafood items were higher than those of farmed items in the same seafood category for all eight seafood categories included in this comparison (Figure 1). Grand mean Hg concentrations for wild items were 2-12 times higher than mean concentrations for farmed counterparts. For example, mean Hg for wild catfish was 12 times higher than mean Hg for farmed catfish. Both wild and farmed seafood items can have low minimum mean Hg concentrations [e.g., 0.005 and 0.008 for wild and farmed catfish, respectively; see Supplemental Material, Table S1 (]. However, wild seafood items generally had higher maximum mean Hg concentrations than farmed seafood items within the same seafood category (e.g., 0.714 and 0.030 for wild and farmed catfish, respectively). Finally, we found that except for Atlantic salmon, farmed seafood items are relatively understudied compared with their wild counterparts, based on the total number of samples for each group (see Supplemental Material, Table S1).

Our analysis indicated that seafood Hg is understudied in some of the world's most important fisheries. We compared the percentage of studies in the database conducted in major regions in the world (excluding market basket studies) to the percentage of U.S. imports from those regions (NMFS 2010). Hg in seafood from Asia and South America were understudied, whereas Hg in seafood from North America (excluding the United States) and Europe were well studied, relative to the percent imports from those regions (Figure 2). For example, approximately 60% of seafood imported into the United States is from Asia, but only 16% of non-U.S. studies were conducted in Asia. The most studied seafood items, based on the total number of samples measured across studies, include both high-Hg items (0.6 to [greater than or equal to] 1 ppm) such as shark (grand mean Hg, 0.882 ppm; 3,722 samples) as well as moderate-Hg items (0.3-0.59 ppm) such as tuna (0.450 ppm; 3,780 samples) and low-Hg items (0-0.29 ppm) such as oysters (0.020 ppm; 5,310 samples) [see Supplemental Material, Table S1 (]. The least studied items included monkfish (0.174 ppm; 92 samples) and haddock (0.164 ppm; 226 samples) among items with low to moderate Hg, and tilefish (all, 0.883 ppm; 109 samples) and orange roughy (0.513 ppm; 152 samples) among items with moderate to high Hg. We also found few studies on freshwater bass from locations considered important for commercial harvest of these fish (e.g., Great Lakes, Canada). However, there are many studies not included in our framework that report Hg values for bass and other freshwater taxa from locations with recreational fisheries (e.g., Lange et al. 1993).

Comparison with FDA-MP and federal criteria. Mean Hg concentrations from the summarized FDA-MP data (FDA-MP 2011) differed from the grand means estimated from the Seafood Hg Database by [greater than or equal to] 20% for more than half (33 of 58) of the seafood items listed in the summarized FDA-MP data (Figure 3). Most of these discrepancies were cases in which the FDA-MP estimates for mean Hg content were lower than grand mean estimates from our database (27 of 33 seafood items; Figure 3B). Of these, only marlin, king mackerel, and weakfish/seatrout and freshwater trout were moderate-to high-Hg seafood items. In contrast, FDA-MP estimates of mean Hg content were higher than our grand mean for only 6 seafood items (Figure 3C), all of which were relatively low in Hg. For 30 of the seafood items analyzed and included in the Seafood Hg Database, mean values exceeded the U.S. EPA human health criterion of 0.3 ppm in at least 30% of the observations across studies (Figure 4). In comparison, 6 seafood items exceeded the FDA criterion of 1 ppm in at least 30% of the observations in our database.


Our findings have important implications for estimates of Hg exposure, risk, and the development of seafood consumption advice. First, we found discrepancies in mean Hg content estimated by the FDA-MP (2011) compared with the larger Seafood Hg Database, suggesting that consumption advice and exposure estimates based on the FDA-MP data should be revisited. Most of these discrepancies were cases in which the FDA-MP estimates of seafood Hg content were lower than our estimates. The FDA-MP is a market basket study, whereas our database contains both market basket studies and research studies in which fish were collected directly from their water source. Thus, FDA-MP estimates may be lower than ours because of differences in methodology. However, FDA-MP sampling methods and potential mechanisms resulting in bias relative to the Seafood Hg Database are unclear. Alternatively, FDA-MP estimates may tend to be lower because estimates based on relatively smaller sample sizes are inherently less likely to include rarer high values. In general, although the FDA-MP specifically focuses on Hg concentrations in market seafood that are relevant to typical exposures, Hg estimates based on larger sample sizes are inherently more reliable, particularly given the high degree of Hg variability.

Large discrepancies in estimates of seafood Hg content are likely to result in inaccurate estimates of Hg exposure and risk, particularly for high Hg content seafood items and frequently consumed items. For example, marlin (grand mean Hg, 1.517 ppm; 821 samples) are currently not considered high-Hg fish according to the FDA-MP (mean Hg, 0.485 ppm; 16 samples), even though marlin have Hg concentrations similar to those of shark, swordfish, and tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico, for which consumption limits are recommended to reduce risky Hg exposure. Most of the discrepancies for which the FDA-MP's estimates of Hg content are lower than ours are for low-Hg seafood and are likely to have minor health consequences compared with discrepancies of moderate-to high-Hg seafood. However, many of these low-Hg seafood items (e.g., shrimp, clams, flounder) are among the most popular with U.S. consumers (Groth 2010). Hence, consumption of these items may result in Hg exposures that exceed previous estimates for the U.S. population. In addition, our results suggest that certain seafood items, such as yellowfin tuna (grand mean Hg, 0.270 ppm; 1,183 samples), contain lower Hg concentrations than estimated by the FDA-MP (mean Hg, 0.354 ppm; 231 samples) and that increased consumption of these items may be possible with negligible risk. Our analyses of the percentage of Hg values that exceed federal criteria provide further insight into the seafood items that should be the focus of management and policy development.

Finally, we found higher variability in seafood Hg concentrations than previously observed (Sunderland 2007). This high variability reflects the framework of the Seafood Hg Database, which encompasses variability across geographic regions, time, fish size class, and other factors that vary within the over-all U.S. market but are typically constrained within individual studies. Together, the discrepancies and high variability of seafood Hg concentrations we observed based on a large aggregation of data indicate that smaller data sets are more susceptible to random sampling error and may be inadequate aids to developing public health policy or scientific understanding. Although smaller individual data sets may be more accurate for estimating exposures in specific local populations, they may not reflect the full range of seafood Hg concentrations in the U.S. market.

There is a clear need to identify and compare the key sources of variability in seafood Hg content, and to translate this information into consumption advice and exposure and risk analyses. Many studies of freshwater fish have identified factors that influence Hg variability. These factors, including physicochemical (pH, dissolved organic carbon, nutrient availability) (Chen et al. 2005; Driscoll et al. 1995) and ecophysiological factors (food chain length, body size) (Borgmann and Whittle 1991; Cabana et al. 1994; Chen et al. 2000) are often confounded and vary among ecosystems and over time. Compared with the freshwater literature, fewer studies have examined links between Hg content of seafood and factors such as body size and geographic harvest region (Sunderland 2007). Future efforts should account for and identify the key factors influencing Hg content in commercial seafood (e.g., body size, trophic level) as well as compare differences in Hg content among geographic regions. Progress is more likely if large monitoring studies explicitly report data on these factors together with seafood Hg data. Research efforts examining the influence of these factors in commercial fish and shell-fish are critical to better predict changes in Hg content of commercial seafood.

Our analyses highlight challenges associated with characterizing variability of seafood Hg across studies as well as potential sources of bias. Accurate assessments of exposure and risk are ideally derived using probability distributions based on raw data (Sioen et al. 2007; World Health Organization 2000). However, many of the studies that we reviewed, particularly from the academic literature, did not report raw values and less than half of all studies reported SDs or SEs. To capitalize on the abundance of aggregate data in the literature (e.g., mean values), additional studies should test and validate methods used to generate probability distributions (World Health Organization 2000). Our estimates of variability of seafood Hg content are likely to be influenced by the types of available data. For example, differences in data collection methods among studies, such as analysis of fillet versus whole fish, reporting MeHg instead of total Hg values, including samples with concentrations below detection limits, and noting differences in fish size (often not reported), are likely to introduce variability in overall Hg estimates. Moreover, geographic and temporal factors, both within and between studies, may contribute to our estimates of variability. Standardization or consistent disclosure of measurement methods would greatly facilitate comparison and aggregation of data into larger data sets that can be used to monitor exposure and risk.

Our results demonstrate that lower Hg concentrations in farmed fish compared with wild fish is broadly consistent, despite high variability typical of fish Hg concentrations across studies, for each seafood item analyzed. However, Hg data for farmed fish are relatively scarce. Thus, there is a need for more extensive study of Hg concentration patterns in farmed versus wild fish, as well as for the factors that influence them. Nevertheless, given the increase in global consumption of farm-raised fish (NMFS 2010), their Hg levels should be distinguished from those of wild fish and explicitly incorporated into consumption advice and risk analyses.

Although previous studies have shown lower Hg levels in farmed fish than in wild fish, they have typically focused on individual taxa (Balshaw et al. 2008; Dasgupta et al. 2004), primarily salmon (Easton et al. 2002; Foran et al. 2004), and on fish from only a few sources (Dasgupta et al. 2004; Easton et al. 2002). Moreover, the pattern is not universal. At least three studies found no difference in Hg levels between farmed and wild salmon (Easton et al. 2002; Foran et al. 2004) and farmed and wild cod (Jardine et al. 2009). In contrast, our study found consistently lower mean Hg concentrations in farmed seafood across studies for multiple seafood items. In some cases, differences in Hg content between farmed and wild seafood may partly reflect taxonomic differences. For example, farmed trout (mostly rainbow trout) have Hg concentrations similar to those of wild rainbow trout but lower than in wild lake trout. Lower Hg in farmed fish also may be due to ecological characteristics unique to aquaculture settings, such as lower Hg levels in feed, shorter food chain lengths, or a growth dilution effect via higher growth effciency (Karimi et al. 2010). More broadly, our findings contrast with studies that have found higher concentrations of persistent organic pollutants (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, and pesticides) in certain types of farmed fish (Hites et al. 2004; Kelly et al. 2011), possibly reflecting the content of the diet provided in aquaculture operations. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms behind differences in contaminant content in farmed and wild seafood is a necessary step toward effectively managing production of farmed seafood.

Our analyses support the need to revise monitoring efforts of both seafood Hg content and characteristics of the U.S. seafood market in order to better track human exposure and potential health risk. In general, to better understand seafood Hg concentrations, monitoring efforts should focus on seafood items that tend to exceed federal criteria (e.g., the U.S. EPA criterion of 0.3 ppm), that are relatively understudied, or that have highly variable Hg content. Specifically, our results suggest a need to increase monitoring of imported seafood from Asia and South America, farmed seafood, and specific seafood items that have been understudied. Increased monitoring efforts may be particularly important for understudied high-Hg seafood items. For example, tilefish is thought to pose a high risk of MeHg exposure (FDA 2004) because of estimates of Hg content for tilefish collected from the Gulf of Mexico in the 1970s (FDA-MP 2011; Hall et al. 1978). Current estimates of tilefish collected from a more geographically extensive region are needed to test whether tilefish continue to pose a health risk. In addition, improved traceability and transparency of the U.S. seafood market is critical to control Hg exposure and risk by providing information about seafood sources (e.g., country of origin) and taxonomic identity. Complex market linkages, including reexports of imported fish, change over time and are largely unaccounted for in market data (e.g., NMFS 2010), yet are necessary to track exposure from geographic origin of fish to consumers. Increasing imports, together with a lack of market traceability (Jacquet and Pauly 2008) and seafood identification practices (Lowenstein et al. 2009), challenge our ability to estimate exposure, because both geographic origin (Sunderland 2007) and species identity are important determinants of seafood Hg content. Ideal monitoring efforts will need to consider changes in market sources, species composition and size, along with human consumption patterns.


Our findings suggest that seafood consumption advice and exposure estimates based on smaller data sets, such as the FDA-MP, should be revisited using larger data sets that are more likely to capture accurate estimates of mean Hg values and their variability in U.S. commercial seafood. Priorities for new research should include increased monitoring of farmed seafood and imported seafood from Asia and South America, as well as studies examining the processes underlying lower Hg concentrations in farmed seafood. Finally, additional studies should compare the relative influence of different environmental and ecological factors on the variability of seafood Hg content.

Search Terms for Supplemental Material, Table S2: Seafood Hg Database

mercury and anchovies

mercury and anchovy

mercury and bass

mercury and bluefish

mercury and buffalofish

mercury and butterfish

mercury and carp

mercury and catfish

mercury and clam

mercury and cod

mercury and crab

mercury and crayfish

mercury and croaker

mercury and flounder

mercury and grouper

mercury and haddock

mercury and hake

mercury and halibut

mercury and herring

mercury and lincod

mercury and lobster

mercury and mackerel

mercury and marlin

mercury and monkfish

mercury and mullet

mercury and mussel

mercury and orange roughy

mercury and oyster

mercury and perch

mercury and pike

mercury and plaice

mercury and pollock

mercury and porgy

mercury and sablefish

mercury and salmon

mercury and sardine

mercury and scallop

mercury and scorpionfish

mercury and sea trout

mercury and seatrout

mercury and shad

mercury and shark

mercury and sheepshead

mercury and shrimp

mercury and skate

mercury and smelt

mercury and snapper

mercury and sole

mercury and squid

mercury and swordfish

mercury and tilapia

mercury and tilefish

mercury and trout

mercury and tuna

mercury and whitefish


Adams DH, McMichael RH. 2007. Mercury in king mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla, and Spanish mackerel, S. maculatus, from waters of the southeastern USA: regional and historical trends. Mar Freshw Res 58(2):187-193.

Albert CM, Campos H, Stampfer MJ, Ridker PM, Manson JE, Willett WC, et al. 2002. Blood levels of long-chain n-3 fatty acids and the risk of sudden death. New Engl J Med 346(15):1113-1118.

Baldwin NA, Saalfeld RW, Dochoda MR, Buettner HJ, Eshenroder RL. 2009. Commercial Fish Production in the Great Lakes 1867-2006. Available: [accessed 1 August 2011].

Balshaw S, Edwards JW, Ross KE, Ellis D, Padula DJ, Daughtry BJ. 2008. Empirical models to identify mechanisms driving reductions in tissue mercury concentration during culture of farmed southern bluefin tuna Thunnnus maccoyii. Mar Pollut Bull 56(12):2009-2017.

Berntssen MHG, Julshamn K, Lundebye AK. 2010. Chemical contaminants in aquafeeds and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) following the use of traditional-versus alternative feed ingredients. Chemosphere 78(6):637-646.

Bloom NS. 1992. On the chemical form of mercury in edible fish and marine invertebrate tissue. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49(5):1010-1017.

Borgmann U, Whittle DM. 1991. Contaminant concentration trends in Lake Ontario lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)-1977 to 1988. J Great Lakes Res 17(3):368-381.

Burger J, Gochfeld M. 2006. Locational differences in heavy metals and metalloids in Pacific blue mussels Mytilus [edulis] trossulus from Adak Island in the Aleutian Chain, Alaska. Sci Total Environ 368(2-3):937-950.

Cabana G, Tremblay A, Kalff J, Rasmussen JB. 1994. Pelagic food-chain structure in Ontario lakes-a determinant of mercury levels in lake trout (Salvelinus-Namaycush). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51(2):381-389.

Chen CY, Serrell N, Evers DC, Fleishman BJ, Lambert KF, Weiss J, et al. 2008. Meeting Report: methylmercury in marine eco-systems-from sources to seafood consumers. Environ Health Perspect 116:1706-1712.

Chen CY, Stemberger RS, Kamman NC, Mayes BM, Folt CL. 2005. Patterns of Hg bioaccumulation and transfer in aquatic food webs across multi-lake studies in the northeast US. Ecotoxicology 14(1-2):135-147.

Chen CY, Stemberger RS, Klaue B, Blum JD, Pickhardt PC, Folt CL. 2000. Accumulation of heavy metals in food web components across a gradient of lakes. Limnol Oceanogr 45(7):1525-1536.

Clarke JU. 1998. Evaluation of censored data methods to allow statistical comparisons among very small samples with below detection limit observations. Environ Sci Technol 32(1):177-183.

Cossa D, Auger D, Averty B, Lucon M, Masselin P, Noel J. 1992. Flounder (Platichthys flesus) muscle as an indicator of metal and organochlorine contamination of French Atlantic coastal waters. Ambio 21(2):176-182.

Dasgupta S, Onders RJ, Gunderson DT, Mims SD. 2004. Methylmercury concentrations found in wild and farm-raised paddlefish. J Food Sci 69(2):C122-C125.

Deshpande A, Bhendigeri S, Shirsekar T, Dhaware D, Khandekar RN. 2009. Analysis of heavy metals in marine fish from Mumbai docks. Environ Monit Assess 159(1-4):493-500.

Driscoll CT, Blette V, Yan C, Schofield CL, Munson R, Holsapple J. 1995. The role of dissolved organic-carbon in the chemistry and bioavailability of mercury in remote Adirondack lakes. Water Air Soil Pollut 80(1-4):499-508.

Easton MDL, Luszniak D, Von der Geest E. 2002. Preliminary examination of contaminant loadings in farmed salmon, wild salmon and commercial salmon feed. Chemosphere 46(7):1053-1074.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2010. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Available: [accessed 15 September 2011].

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2011. FAO Fish Finder. Available: [accessed 5 June 2011].

FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2004. What You Need to Know about Mercury in Fish and Shellfish: EPA and FDA Advice for Women Who Might Become Pregnant, Women Who Are Pregnant, Nursing Mothers, Young Children. Available: [accessed 15 January 2011].

FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2007. Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 540.600, Fish, Shellfish, Crustaceans and other Aquatic Animals-Fresh, Frozen or Processed-Methyl Mercury. Available: [accessed 25 April 2012].

FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2011. Mercury Concentrations in Fish: FDA Monitoring Program 1990-2010. Available: [accessed 15 September 2011].

FDA-MP (Food and Drug Administration Monitoring Program). 2011. Mercury Levels in Commercial Fish and Shellfish (1990-2010). Available: [accessed 15 September 2011].

Foran JA, Hites RA, Carpenter DO, Hamilton MC, Mathews-Amos A, Schwager SJ. 2004. A survey of metals in tissues of farmed Atlantic and wild Pacific salmon. Environ Toxicol Chem 23(9):2108-2110.

Gardner RM, Nyland JF, Silva IA, Ventura AM, de Souza JM, Silbergeld EK. 2010. Mercury exposure, serum antinuclear/antinucleolar antibodies, and serum cytokine levels in mining populations in Amazonian Brazil: a cross-sectional study. Environ Res 110(4):345-354.

Ginsberg G, Toal B. 2009. Quantitative approach for incorporating methylmercury risks and omega-3 fatty acid benefits in developing species-specific consumption advice. Environ Health Perspect 117:267-275.

Goldstein RM, Brigham ME, Stauffer JC. 1996. Comparison of mercury concentrations in liver, muscle, whole bodies, and composites of fish from the Red River of the North. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53(2):244-252.

Grandjean P, Murata K, Budtz-Jorgensen E, Weihe P. 2004. Cardiac autonomic activity in methylmercury neurotoxicity: 14-year follow-up of a Faroese birth cohort. J Pediatr 144(2):169-176.

Groth E. 2010. Ranking the contributions of commercial fish and shellfish varieties to mercury exposure in the United States: implications for risk communication. Environ Res 110(3):226-236.

Hall RA, Zook EG, Meaburn GM. 1978. National Marine Fisheries Service Survey of Trace Elements in the Fishery Resources. NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-721. TR 721. Rockville, MD:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Hites RA, Foran JA, Carpenter DO, Hamilton MC, Knuth BA, Schwager SJ. 2004. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science 303(5655):226-229.

Huynh MD, Kitts DD. 2009. Evaluating nutritional quality of Pacific fish species from fatty acid signatures. Food Chem 114(3):912-918.

IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety). 1990. Methylmercury. Environmental Health Criteria Document 101.Available: [accessed 8 September 2009].

IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety). 1991. Inorganic Mercury. Environmental Health Criteria Document 118. Available: [accessed 8 September 2009].

Jackson TA. 1991. Biological and environmental control of mercury accumulation by fish in lakes and reservoirs of northern Manitoba, Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48(12):2449-2470.

Jacquet JL, Pauly D. 2008. Trade secrets: renaming and mislabeling of seafood. Mar Policy 32(3):309-318.

Jardine LB, Burt MDB, Arp PA, Diamond AW. 2009. Mercury comparisons between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.). Aquac Res 40(10):1148-1159.

Karimi R. 2012. Seafood Hg Database: Mercury Concentrations in U.S. Commercial Seafood Items. Available: [accessed 14 September 2012].

Karimi R, Fisher N, Folt CL. 2010. Multielement stoichiometry in aquatic invertebrates: when growth dilution matters. Am Nat 176(6):699-709.

Kelly BC, Ikonomou MG, Higgs DA, Oakes J, Dubetz C. 2011. Flesh residue concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in farmed and wild salmon from British Columbia, Canada. Environ Toxicol Chem 30(11):2456-2464.

Lange TR, Royals HE, Connor LL. 1993. Influence of water chemistry on mercury concentration in largemouth bass from Florida lakes. Trans Am Fish Soc 122(1):74-84.

Lowenstein JH, Amato G, Kolokotronis SO. 2009. The real maccoyii: identifying tuna sushi with DNA barcodes--contrasting characteristic attributes and genetic distances. Plos One 4(11):e7866; doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007866 [Online 18 November 2009].

Myers GJ, Thurston SW, Pearson AT, Davidson PW, Cox C, Shamlaye CF, et al. 2009. Postnatal exposure to methyl mercury from fish consumption: a review and new data from the Seychelles Child Development Study. Neurotoxicology 30(3):338-349.

National Research Council. 2000. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007a. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics. Available: [accessed 5 June 2011].

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007b. Statistical Highlights. Fisheries of the United States, 2005. Silver Spring, MD:NMFS. Available: [accessed 14 September 2012].

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010. Fisheries of the United States 2009. Silver Spring, MD:NMFS. Available: [accessed 14 September 2012].

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011a. Fisheries of the United States 2010. Silver Spring, MD:NMFS. Available: [accessed 12 September 2012].

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011b. U.S. Foreign Trade. Available: [accessed 10 August 2011].

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011c. Great Lakes Commercial Fishery Landings. Available: [accessed 10 August 2011].

Oken E, Wright RO, Kleinman KP, Bellinger D, Amarasiriwardena CJ, Hu H, et al. 2005. Maternal fish consumption, hair mercury, and infant cognition in a U.S. cohort. Environ Health Perspect 113:1376-1380.

Rencz AN, O'Driscoll NJ, Hall GEM, Peron T, Telmer K, Burgess NM. 2003. Spatial variation and correlations of mercury levels in the terrestrial and aquatic components of a wetland dominated ecosystem: Kejimkujik Park, Nova Scotia, Canada. Water Air Soil Pollut 143(1-4):271-288.

Simopoulos AP. 1991. Omega-3 fatty acids in health and disease and in growth and development. Am J Clin Nutr 54(3):438-463.

Sioen I, Van Camp J, Verdonck FAM, Van Thuyne N, Willems JL, De Henauw SWJ. 2007. How to use secondary data on seafood contamination for probabilistic exposure assessment purposes? Main problems and potential solutions. Hum Ecolog Risk Assess 13:632-657.

Siscovick DS, Raghunathan TE, King I, Weinmann S, Wicklund KG, Albright J, et al. 1995. Dietary intake and cell membrane levels of long chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and the risk of primary cardiac arrest. JAMA 274(17):1363-1367.

State of Maryland. 2011. MDE Fish Consumption Advisory--Guidelines for Recreationally Caught Fish Species in Maryland. Available: [accessed 15 September 2011].

State of Minnesota. 2011. Commercial Fish Consumption Advice. Available: [accessed 15 September 2011].

State of North Carolina. 2011. Statewide Fish Tissue Metals Results: for 1990-2010. Available: [accessed 26 January 2011].

State of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Fish

Tissue Results Summary. Available: [accessed 21 July 2009].

Sunderland EM. 2007. Mercury exposure from domestic and imported estuarine and marine fish in the U.S. seafood market. Environ Health Perspect 115:235-242.

Tran NL, Barraj L, Smith K, Javier A, Burke TA. 2004. Combining food frequency and survey data to quantify long-term dietary exposure: a methyl mercury case study. Risk Anal 24(1):19-30.

Trasande L, Landrigan PJ, Schechter C. 2005. Public health and economic consequences of methyl mercury toxicity to the developing brain. Environ Health Perspect 113:590-596.

United Nations Environment Programme. 2002. Global Mercury Assessment. Available: [accessed 12 September 2012].

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Human Health Criteria-Methylmercury Fish Tissue Criterion. EPA-823-R-01-001. Available: [accessed 25 April 2012].

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. National Coastal Assessment. Available: [accessed 3 October 2008].

World Health Organization. 2000. Methodology for Exposure Assessment of Contaminants and Toxins in Food. Available: [accessed 14 September 2012].

Wyn B, Kidd KA, Burgess NM, Curry RA. 2009. Mercury bio-magnification in the food webs of acidic lakes in Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site, Nova Scotia. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66(9):1532-1545.

References for Supplemental Material, Table 2: Seafood Hg Database

Adams D, Sonneb C, Basuc N, Dietzb R, Namc D, Leifssond P, et al. 2010. Mercury contamination in spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus: An assessment of liver, kidney, blood, and nervous system health. Sci Total Environ 408(23):5808-5816.

Adams DH. 2004. Total mercury levels in tunas from offshore waters of the Florida Atlantic coast. Mar Pollut Bull 49(7-8):659-663.

Adams DH, McMichael RH. 1999. Mercury levels in four species of sharks from the Atlantic coast of Florida. Fishery Bulletin 97(2):372-379.

Adams DH, McMichael RH. 2007. Mercury in king mackerel, Scomberomorus cavalla, and Spanish mackerel, S-maculatus, from waters of the southeastern USA: regional and historical trends. Mar Freshw Res 58(2):187-193.

Adams DH, McMichael RH, Henderson GE. 2003. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-9, Mercury Levels in Marine and Estuarine Fishes of Florida 1989-2001.

Africa CR, Pascual AE, Santiago EC. 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.

Amlund H, Lundebye AK, Berntssen MHG. 2007. Accumulation and elimination of methylmercury in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.) following dietary exposure. Aquat Toxicol 83(4):323-330.

Andersen JL, Depledge MH. 1997. A survey of total mercury and methylmercury in edible fish and invertebrates from Azorean waters. Mar Environ Res 44(3):331-350.

Arcos JM, Ruiz X, Bearhop S, Furness RW. 2002. Mercury levels in seabirds and their fish prey at the Ebro Delta (NW Mediterranean): the role of trawler discards as a source of contamination. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 232:281-290.

Ashraf W. 2006. Levels of selected heavy metals in tuna fish. Arab J Sci Eng 31(1A):89-92.

Augelli MA, Munoz RAA, Richter EM, Cantagallo MI, Angnes L. 2007. Analytical procedure for total mercury determination in fishes and shrimps by chronopotentiometric stripping analysis at gold film electrodes after microwave digestion. Food Chem 101(2):579-584.

Baeyens W, Leermakers M, Papina T, Saprykin A, Brion N, Noyen J, et al. 2003. Bioconcentration and biomagnification of mercury and methylmercury in North Sea and Scheldt estuary fish. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 45(4):498-508.

Bahnick D, Sauer C, Butterworth B, Kuehl DW. 1994. A National Study of Mercury Contamination of Fish. 4. Analytical Methods and Results. Chemosphere 29(3):537-546.

Balshaw S, Edwards JW, Ross KE, Ellis D, Padula DJ, Daughtry BJ. 2008. Empirical models to identify mechanisms driving reductions in tissue mercury concentration during culture of farmed southern bluefin tuna Thunnnus maccoyii. Mar Pollut Bull 56(12):2009-2017.

Bank MS, Chesney E, Shine JP, Maage A, Senn DB. 2007. Mercury bioaccumulation and trophic transfer in sympatric snapper species from the Gulf of Mexico. Ecological Applications 17:2100-2110.

Barska I, Skrzynski I. 2003. Contents of methylmercury and total mercury in Baltic Sea fish and fish products. Bulletin of the Sea Fisheries Institute 3(160):3-15.

Berntssen MHG, Julshamn K, Lundebye AK. 2010. Chemical contaminants in aquafeeds and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) following the use of traditional-versus alternative feed ingredients. Chemosphere 78(6):637-646.

Bethune C, Seierstad SL, Seljeflot I, Johansen O, Arnesen H, Meltzer HM, et al. 2006. Dietary intake of differently fed salmon: a preliminary study on contaminants. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 36(3):193-201.

Blanco S, Gonzalez JC, Vieites JM. 2008. Mercury, cadmium and lead levels in samples of the main traded fish and shellfish species in Galicia, Spain. Food Addit Contam Part B-Surveill 1(1):15-21.

Bloom NS. 1992. On the chemical form of mercury in edible fish and marine invertebrate tissue Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49(5):1010-1017.

Bordajandi LR, Gomez G, Abad E, Rivera J, Fernandez-Baston MD, Blasco J, et al. 2004. Survey of persistent organochlorine contaminants (PCBs, PCDD/Fs, and PAHs), heavy metals (Cu, Cd, Zn, Pb, and Hg), and arsenic in food samples from Huelva (Spain): Levels and health implications. J Agric Food Chem 52(4):992-1001.

Boscher A, Gobert S, Guignard C, Ziebel J, L'Hoste L, Gutleb AC, et al. 2010. Chemical contaminants in fish species from rivers in the North of Luxembourg: Potential impact on the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra). Chemosphere 78(7):785-792.

Braune B, Muir D, DeMarch B, Gamberg M, Poole K, Currie R, et al. 1999. Spatial and temporal trends of contaminants in Canadian Arctic freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems: a review. Sci Total Environ 230(1-3):145-207.

Braune BM. 1987. Mercury accumulation in relation to size and age of atlantic herring (Clupea harengus harengus) from the southwestern Bay of Fundy, Canada. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 16(3):311-320.

Brinkmann L, Rasmussen JB. 2010. High levels of mercury in biota of a new Prairie irrigation reservoir with a simplified food web in Southern Alberta, Canada. Hydrobiologia 641(1):11-21.

Brockman JD, Sharp N, Ngwenyama RA, Shelnutt LD, McElroy JA. 2009. The concentration and variability of selenium and mercury measured in vacuum-packed tuna fish. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 282(1):45-48.

Burger J. 2009. Risk to consumers from mercury in bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) from New Jersey: Size, season and geographical effects. Environ Res 109(7):803-811.

Burger J, Gochfeld M. 2004. Mercury in canned tuna: white versus light and temporal variation. Environ Res 96(3):239-249.

Burger J, Gochfeld M. 2005. Heavy metals in commercial fish in New Jersey. Environ Res 99(3):403-412.

Burger J, Gochfeld M. 2006. Mercury in fish available in supermarkets in Illinois: Are there regional differences. Sci Total Environ 367(2-3):1010-1016.

Burger J, Gochfeld M, Jeitner C, Burke S, Stamm T. 2007c. Metal levels in flathead sole (Hippoglossoides elassodon) and great sculpin (Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus) from Adak Island, Alaska: Potential risk to predators and fishermen. Environ Res 103(1):62-69.

Burger J, Jeitner C, Donio M, Shukla S, Gochfeld M. 2009. Factors Affecting Mercury and Selenium Levels in New Jersey Flatfish: Low Risk to Human Consumers. J Toxicol Env Health Part A 72(14):853-860.

Burger J, Gaines KF, Boring CS, Stephens WL, Snodgrass J, Gochfeld M. 2001. Mercury and selenium in fish from the Savannah River: Species, trophic level, and locational differences. Environ Res 87(2):108-118.

Burger J, Gochfeld M, Jeitner C, Burke S, Stamm T, Snigaroff R, et al. 2007b. Mercury levels and potential risk from subsistence foods from the Aleutians. Sci Total Environ 384(1-3):93-105.

Burger J, Gaines KF, Boring CS, Stephens WL, Snodgrass J, Dixon C, et al. 2002. Metal levels in fish from the Savannah River: Potential hazards to fish and other receptors. Environ Res 89(1):85-97.

Burger J, Gochfeld M, Shukla T, Jeitner C, Burke S, Donio M, et al. 2007a. Heavy metals in Pacific Cod (Gadus macrocephalus) from the Aleutians: Location, age, size, and risk. J Toxicol Env Health Part A 70(22):1897-1911.

Bustamante P, Lahaye V, Durnez C, Churlaud C, Caurant F. 2006. Total and organic Hg concentrations in cephalopods from the North Eastern Atlantic waters: Influence of geographical origin and feeding ecology. Sci Total Environ 368(2-3):585-596.

Butala SJM, Scanlan LP, Chaudhur SN, Perry DD, Taylor R. 2007. Interlaboratory bias in the determination of mercury concentrations in commercially available fish utilizing thermal decomposition/amalgamation atomic absorption spectrophotometry. J Food Prot 70(10):2422-2425.

Cabanero AI, Madrid Y, Camara C. 2004. Selenium and mercury bioaccessibility in fish samples: an in vitro digestion method. Anal Chim Acta 526(1):51-61.

Cabanero AI, Madrid Y, Camara C. 2007. Mercury-selenium species ratio in representative fish samples and their bioaccessibility by an in vitro digestion method. Biol Trace Elem Res 119(3):195-211.

Cabanero AI, Carvalho C, Madrid Y, Batoreu C, Camara C. 2005. Quantification and speciation of mercury and selenium in fish samples of high consumption in Spain and Portugal. Biol Trace Elem Res 103(1):17-35.

Cai Y, Rooker JR, Gill GA, Turner JP. 2007. Bioaccumulation of mercury in pelagic fishes from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 64(3):458-469.

Caldwell RS, Buhler DR. 1983. Heavy metals in estuarine shellfish from Oregon Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 12(1):15-23.

Campbell L, Hecky RE, Dixon DG, Chapman LJ. 2006. Food web structure and mercury transfer in two contrasting Ugandan highland crater lakes (East Africa). Afr J Ecol 44(3):337-346.

Campbell LM, Osano O, Hecky RE, Dixon DG. 2003b. Mercury in fish from three rift valley lakes (Turkana, Naivasha and Baringo), Kenya, East Africa. Environ Pollut 125(2):281-286.

Campbell LM, Hecky RE, Nyaundi J, Muggide R, Dixon DG. 2003a. Distribution and food-web transfer of mercury in Napoleon and Winam Gulfs, Lake Victoria, East Africa. J Gt Lakes Res 29:267-282.

Capelli R, Minganti V, Bernhard M. 1987. Total mercury, organic mercury, copper, manganese, selenium, and zinc in Sarda sarda from the Guld of Genoa. Sci Total Environ 63:83-99.

Capelli R, Contardi V, Cosma B, Minganti V, Zanicchi G. 1983. A 4-year study on the distribution of some heavy metals in 5 marine organisms of the Ligurian Sea. Mar Chem 12(4):281-293.

Capelli R, Drava G, Siccardi C, De Pellegrini R, Minganti V. 2004. Study of the distribution of trace elements in six species of marine organisms of the Ligurian Sea (North-Western Mediterranean) - Comparison with previous findings. Ann Chim 94(7-8):533-546.

Cappon CJ. 1984. Content and chemical form of mercury and selenium in Lake Ontario salmon and trout. J Gt Lakes Res 10(4):429-434.

Carbonell G, Bravo JC, Fernandez C, Tarazona JV. 2009. A New Method for Total Mercury and Methyl Mercury Analysis in Muscle of Seawater Fish. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 83(2):210-213.

Carvalho ML, Santiago S, Nunes ML. 2005. Assessment of the essential element and heavy metal content of edible fish muscle. Anal Bioanal Chem 382(2):426-432.

Chen CY, Chen MH. 2003. Investigation of Zn, Cu, Cd and Hg concentrations in the oyster of Chi-ku, Tai-shi and Tapeng Bay, southwestern Taiwan. J Food Drug Anal 11(1):32-38.

Chen MH, Chen CY, Chang SK, Huang SW. 2007. Total and organic mercury concentrations in the white muscles of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) from the Indian and Atlantic oceans. Food Addit Contam 24(9):969-975.

Cheung KC, Leung HM, Wong MH. 2008. Metal concentrations of common freshwater and marine fish from the Pearl River Delta, South China. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 54(4):705-715.

Chou CL. 2007. A time series of mercury accumulation and improvement of dietary feed in net caged Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Mar Pollut Bull 54(6):720-725.

Chung SWC, Kwong KP, Tang ASP, Xiao Y, Ho PYY. 2008. Mercury and methylmercury levels in the main traded fish species in Hong Kong. Food Addit Contam Part B-Surveill 1(2):106-113.

Ciardullo S, Aureli F, Coni E, Guandalini E, Lost F, Raggi A, et al. 2008. Bioaccumulation potential of dietary arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium in organs and tissues of rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss) as a function of fish growth. J Agric Food Chem 56(7):2442-2451.

Cizdziel JV, Hinners TA, Heithmar EM. 2002. Determination of total mercury in fish tissues using combustion atomic absorption spectrometry with gold amalgamation. Water Air Soil Pollut 135(1-4):355-370.

Collings SE, Johnson MS, Leah RT. 1996. Metal contamination of angler-caught fish from the Mersey Estuary. Mar Environ Res 41(3):281-297.

Cross FA, Hardy LH, Jones NY, Barber RT. 1973. Relation between Total-Body Weight and Concentrations of Manganese, Iron, Copper, Zinc, and Mercury in White Muscle of Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) and a Bathyl-Demersal Fish Antimora rostrata. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30(9):1287-1291.

Cutshall NH, Naidu JR, Pearcy WG. 1978. Mercury concentrations in pacific hake, Merluccius productus (ayres), as a function of length and latitude. Science 200(4349):1489-1491.

Dabeka R, McKenzie AD, Forsyth DS, Conacher HBS. 2004. Survey of total mercury in some edible fish and shellfish species collected in Canada in 2002. Food Addit Contam 21(5):434-440.

Das YK, Aksoy A, Baskaya R, Duyar HA, Guvenc D, Boz V. 2009. Heavy Metal Levels of Some Marine Organisms Collected in Samsun and Sinop Coasts of Black Sea, in Turkey. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 8(3):496-499.

Davies IM. 2012. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (DAFS), Fish and Shellfish Landed at Scottish Ports (1975-1976). Aberdeen, Scotland.

De Marco SG, Botte SE, Marcovecchio JE. 2006. Mercury distribution in abiotic and biological compartments within several estuarine systems from Argentina: 1980-2005 period. Chemosphere 65(2):213-223.

Del Gobbo LC, Archbold JA, Vanderlinden LD, Eckley CS, Diamond ML, Robson M. 2010. Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption For Childbearing Women. Can J Diet Pract Res 71(1):41-45.

Delaware River Basin Commission. 2011. Fish and Shellfish Tissue Data, DRBC EPA Coastal 2000. Available: [accessed 3 February 2011].

Della Torre C, Petochi T, Corsi I, Dinardo MM, Baroni D, Alcaro L, et al. 2010. DNA damage, severe organ lesions and high muscle levels of As and Hg in two benthic fish species from a chemical warfare agent dumping site in the Mediterranean Sea. Sci Total Environ 408(9):2136-2145.

Dellinger JA, Meyers RM, Gebhardt KJ, Hansen LK. 1996. The Ojibwa Health Study: Fish residue comparisons for Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron. Toxicol Ind Health 12(3-4):393-402.

Deshpande A, Bhendigeri S, Shirsekar T, Dhaware D, Khandekar RN. 2009. Analysis of heavy metals in marine fish from Mumbai Docks. Environ Monit Assess 159(1-4):493-500.

Deshpande AD, Draxler AFJ, Zdanowicz VS, Schrock ME, Paulson AJ. 2000. Contaminant Levels in Muscle of Four Species of Recreational Fish from the New York Bight Apex. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-157. NMFS-NE-157. Available: [accessed 24 February 2009].

Dewailly E, Ayotte P, Lucas M, Blanchet C. 2007. Risk and benefits from consuming salmon and trout: A Canadian perspective. Food Chem Toxicol 45(8):1343-1348.

Dewailly E, Rouja P, Dallaire R, Pereg D, Tucker T, Ward J, et al. 2008. Balancing the risks and the benefits of local fish consumption in Bermuda. Food Addit Contam Part A-Chem 25(11):1328-1338.

Domingo JL, Bocio A, Falco G, Llobet JM. 2007. Benefits and risks of fish consumption Part I. A quantitative analysis of the intake of omega-3 fatty acids and chemical contaminants. Toxicology 230(2-3):219-226.

Doyon JF, Schetagne R, Verdon R. 1998. Different mercury bioaccumulation rates between sympatric populations of dwarf and normal lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) in the La Grande complex watershed, James Bay, Quebec. Biogeochemistry 40(2-3):203-216.

Duarte FA, Bizzi CA, Antes FG, Dressler VL, Flores EMD. 2009. Organic, inorganic and total mercury determination in fish by chemical vapor generation with collection on a gold gauze and electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry. Spectroc Acta Pt B-Atom Spectr 64(6):513-519.

Easton MDL, Luszniak D, Von der Geest E. 2002. Preliminary examination of contaminant loadings in farmed salmon, wild salmon and commercial salmon feed. Chemosphere 46(7):1053-1074.

Elhamri H, Idrissi L, Coquery M, Azemard S, El Abidi A, Benlemlih M, et al. 2007. Hair mercury levels in relation to fish consumption in a community of the Moroccan Mediterranean coast. Food Addit Contam 24(11):1236-1246.

Elston R, Cake EW, Humphrey K, Isphording WC, Rensel JE. 2005. Dioxin and heavy-metal contamination of shellfish and sediments in St. Louis Bay, Mississippi and adjacent marine waters. J Shellfish Res 24(1):227-241.

Endo T, Haraguchi K. 2010. High mercury levels in hair samples from residents of Taiji, a Japanese whaling town. Mar Pollut Bull 60(5):743-747.

Escobar-Sanchez O, Galvan-Magana F, Rosiles-Martinez R. 2010. Mercury and Selenium Bioaccumulation in the Smooth Hammerhead Shark, Sphyrna zygaena Linnaeus, from the Mexican Pacific Ocean. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 84(4):488-491.

Ethier ALM, Scheuhammer AM, Bond DE. 2008. Correlates of mercury in fish from lakes near Clyde Forks, Ontario, Canada. Environ Pollut 154(1):89-97.

Evans DW, Crumley PH. 2005. Mercury in Florida Bay fish: Spatial distribution of elevated concentrations and possible linkages to Everglades restoration. Bull Mar Sci 77(3):321-345.

Fabris G, Turoczy NJ, Stagnitti F. 2006. Trace metal concentrations in edible tissue of snapper, flathead, lobster, and abalone from coastal waters of Victoria, Australia. Ecotox Environ Safe 63(2):286-292.

Fairey R, Taberski K, Lamerdin S, Johnson E, Clark RP, Downing JW, et al. 1997. Organochlorines and other environmental contaminants in muscle tissues of sportfish collected from San Francisco Bay. Mar Pollut Bull 34(12):1058-1071.

Falandysz J. 1990. Mercury content of squid Loligo opalescens. Food Chem 38(3):171-177.

Ferreira AG, Faria VV, de Carvalho CEV, Lessa RPT, da Silva FMS. 2004. Total mercury in the night shark, Carcharhinus signatus in the western equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Braz Arch Biol Technol 47(4):629-634.

Fisher WS, Oliver LM, Winstead JT, Long ER. 2000. A survey of oysters Crassostrea virginica from Tampa Bay, Florida: associations of internal defense measurements with contaminant burdens. Aquat Toxicol 51(1):115-138.

Food Standards Agency. 2003. Methylmercury in imported Fish and Shellfish and Their Products, UK Farmed Fish and Their Products. London. Available: [accessed 14 October 2003].

Food Standards Agency. 2006. Survey of Metals and Other Elements in Processed Fish and Shellfish. London. Available: [accessed May 3 2008].

Forsyth DS, Casey V, Dabeka RW, McKenzie A. 2004. Methylmercury levels in predatory fish species marketed in Canada. Food Addit Contam 21(9):849-856.

Freeman HC, Horne DA. 1973. Sampling edible muscle of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) for total mercury analysis. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30(8):1251-1252.

Freeman HC, Shum G, Uthe JF. 1978. Selenium content in swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in relation to total mercury content. J Environ Sci Health Part A-Environ Sci Eng Toxic Hazard Subst Control 13(3):235-240.

Garcia-Hernandez J, Cadena-Cardenas L, Betancourt-Lozano M, Garcia-De-La-Parra LM, Garcia-Rico L, Marquez-Farias F. 2007. Total Mercury Content Found in Edible Tissues of Top Predator Fish From the Gulf of California, Mexico. Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry 89(3):507-522.

Garcia E, Carignan R. 2000. Mercury concentrations in northern pike (Esox lucius) from boreal lakes with logged, burned, or undisturbed catchments. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:129-135.

Gawlik B, Druges M, Bianchi M, Bortoli A, Kettrup A, Muntau H. 1997. TUNA FISH (T-30) - A new proficiency testing material for the determination of As and Hg in seafood. Fresenius J Anal Chem 358(3):441-445.

Gerhart EH. 1977. Concentrations of total mercury in several fishes from Delaware Bay, 1975. Pesticides Monitoring Journal 11(3):132-133.

Gerstenberger SL, Martinson A, Kramer JL. 2010. An evaluation of mercury concentrations in three brands of canned tuna. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(2):237-242.

Gilmartin M, Revelante N. 1975. Concentration of Mercury, Copper, Nickel, Silver, Cadmium, and Lead in Northern Adriatic Anchovy, Engraulis encrasicholus, and Sardine, Sardina pilchardus. Fishery Bulletin 73(1):193-201.

Green-Ruiz C, Ruelas-Inzunza J, Paez-Osuna F. 2005. Mercury in surface sediments and benthic organisms from Guaymas Bay, east coast of the Gulf of California. Environ Geochem Health 27(4):321-329.

Green NW, Knutzen J. 2003. Organohalogens and metals in marine fish and mussels and some relationships to biological variables at reference localities in Norway. Mar Pollut Bull 46(3):362-374.

Greenfield BK, Jahn A. 2010. Mercury in San Francisco Bay forage fish. Environ Pollut 158(8):2716-2724.

Greig RA, Wenzloff DR, Mackenzie CL, Merrill AS, Zdanowicz VS. 1978. Trace metals in sea scallops, Placopecten magellanicus, from eastern United States. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 19(3):326-334.

Gunsen U. 2004. The residue levels of some toxic metals in different fish species. Indian Veterinary Journal 81(12):1339-1341.

Gutierrez AJ, Lozano G, Gonzalez T, Reguera JI, Hardisson A. 2006. Mercury content in tinned molluscs (mussel, cockle, variegated scallop, and razor shell) normally consumed in Spain, 2005. J Food Prot 69(9):2237-2240.

Haines TA, Komov V, Jagoe CH. 1992. Lake acidity and mercury content of fish in Darwin National Reserve, Russia. Environ Pollut 78(1-3):107-112.

Hajeb P, Jinap S, Fatimah AB, Jamilah B. 2010. Methylmercury in marine fish from Malaysian waters and its relationship to total mercury content. Int J Environ Anal Chem 90(10):812-820.

Hajeb P, Jinap S, Ismail A, Fatimah AB, Jamilah B, Rahim MA. 2009. Assessment of mercury level in commonly consumed marine fishes in Malaysia. Food Control 20(1):79-84.

Hall AS, Teeny FM, Lewis LG, Hardman WH, Gauglitz EJ. 1976. Mercury in fish and shellfish of northeast pacific. 1. Pacific Halibut, Hippoglossus stenolepis. Fishery Bulletin 74(4):783-789.

Hall RA, Zook EG, Meaburn GM. 1978. National Marine Fisheries Service Survey of Trace Elements in the Fishery Resources. NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-721. TR 721. Rockville, MD:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Hammerschmidt CR, Fitzgerald WF. 2006. Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of methylmercury in Long Island Sound. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 51(3):416-424.

Harding G, Dalziel J, Vass P. 2005. Prevalence and bioaccumulation of methylmercury in the food web of the Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine. In: The Changing Bay of Fundy - Beyond 400 Years Proceedings of the 6th Bay of Fundy Workshop (Percy JA, Evans AJ, Wells PG, Rolston SJ, eds). Cornwalis, Nova Scotia. September 29 - October 2, 2004. Environment Canada, Atlantic Region, 76-77.

Hardisson A, Padron AG, de Bonis A, Sierra A. 1999. Determination of mercury in fish by cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry. Atom Spectrosc 20(5):191-193.

Health Canada. 2007. Human Health Risk Assessment of Mercury in Fish and Health Benefits of Fish Consumption. Ottawa, Ontario. Available: [accessed 31 October 2011].

Hellou J, Fancey LL, Payne JF. 1992a. Concentrations of 24 elements in bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus from the northwest Atlantic. Chemosphere 24(2):211-218.

Hellou J, Warren WG, Payne JF, Belkhode S, Lobel P. 1992b. Heavy metals and other elements in 3 tissues of cod, Gadus morhua from the northwest. Atlantic Mar Pollut Bull 24(9):452-458.

Herreros MA, Inigo-Nunez S, Sanchez-Perez E, Encinas T, Gonzalez-Bulnes A. 2008. Contribution of fish consumption to heavy metals exposure in women of childbearing age from a Mediterranean country (Spain). Food Chem Toxicol 46(5):1591-1595.

Horwitz R, Ashley J, Overbeck P, Velinsky D. 2005. Final Report: Routine Monitoring Program for Toxics in Fish. Trenton, NJ. Available: [accessed 24 October 2007].

Hueter RE, Fong WG, Henderson G, French MF, Manire CA. 1995. Methylmercury concentration in shark muscle by species, size and distribution of sharks in Florida coastal waters. Water Air Soil Pollut 80(1-4):893-899.

Ikem A, Egiebor NO. 2005. Assessment of trace elements in canned fishes (mackerel, tuna, salmon, sardines and herrings) marketed in Georgia and Alabama (United States of America). Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 18(8):771-787.

International Pacific Halibut Commission. 2003. Methylmercury and Heavy Metal Contaminant Levels in Alaskan Halibut. Available: [accessed 19 July 2004].

Jackson TA. 1991. Biological and environmental control of mercury accumulation by fish in lakes and reservoirs of Northern Manitoba, Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48(12):2449-2470.

Jackson TA, Whittle DM, Evans MS, Muir DCG. 2008. Evidence for mass-independent and mass-dependent fractionation of the stable isotopes of mercury by natural processes in aquatic ecosystems. Appl Geochem 23(3):547-571.

Jaeger I, Hop H, Gabrielsen GW. 2009. Biomagnification of mercury in selected species from an Arctic marine food web in Svalbard. Sci Total Environ 407(16):4744-4751.

Japanese Ministry of Health. 2003. Results of Mercury/Methylmercury in Fishes (Provisional Translation). Available: [accessed 28 January 2011].

Jardine LB, Burt MDB, Arp PA, Diamond AW. 2009. Mercury comparisons between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.). Aquac Res 40(10):1148-1159.

Jasmine GI, Rajagopalsamy CBT, Jeyachandran P. 1989. Total mercury content of Indian Squid Loligo duvauceli orbigny from Tuticorin waters, south east coast of India. Indian J Mar Sci 18(3):219-220.

Jewett SC, Naidu AS. 2000. Assessment of heavy metals in red king crabs following offshore placer gold mining. Mar Pollut Bull 40(6):478-490.

Jokai Z, Abranko L, Fodor P. 2005. SPME-GC-pyrolysis-AFS determination of methylmercury in marine fish products by alkaline sample preparation and aqueous phase phenylation derivatization. J Agric Food Chem 53(14):5499-5505.

Julshamn K, Brenna J. 2002. Determination of mercury in seafood by flow injection-cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry after microwave digestion: NMKL Interlaboratory Study. J AOAC Int 85(3):626-631.

Julshamn K, Grosvik BE, Nedreaas K, Maage A. 2006. Mercury concentration in fillets of Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) caught in the Barents Sea in January 2006. Sci Total Environ 372(1):345-349.

Julshamn K, Lundebye AK, Heggstad K, Berntssen MHG, Boe B. 2004. Norwegian monitoring programme on the inorganic and organic contaminants in fish caught in the Barents Sea, Norwegian Sea and North Sea, 1994-2001. Food Addit Contam 21(4):365-376.

Juresa D, Blanusa M. 2003. Mercury, arsenic, lead and cadmium in fish and shellfish from the Adriatic Sea. Food Addit Contam 20(3):241-246.

Kai N, Ueda T, Takeda Y, Kataoka A. 1987. Accumulation of mercury and selenium in blue marlin. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 53(9):1697-1697.

Kamps LR, Carr R, Miller H. 1972. Total mercury - monomethylmercury content of several species of fish. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 8(5):273-279.

Kaneko JJ, Ralston NVC. 2007. Selenium and mercury in pelagic fish in the central north pacific near Hawaii. Biol Trace Elem Res 119:242-254.

Kannan K, Smith RG, Lee RF, Windom HL, Heitmuller PT, Macauley JM, et al. 1998. Distribution of total mercury and methyl mercury in water, sediment, and fish from south Florida estuaries. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 34(2):109-118.

Karouna-Renier NK, Snyder RA, Allison JG, Wagner MG, Rao KR. 2007. Accumulation of organic and inorganic contaminants in shellfish collected in estuarine waters near Pensacola, Florida: Contamination profiles and risks to human consumers. Environ Pollut 145(2):474-488.

Kawaguchi T, Porter D, Bushek D, Jones B. 1999. Mercury in the American oyster Crassostrea virginica in South Carolina, USA, and public health concerns. Mar Pollut Bull 38(4):324-327.

Kehrig HDA, Costa M, Moreira I, Malm O. 2001. Methylmercury and total mercury in estuarine organisms from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 8(4):275-279.

Kelso JRM, Frank R. 1974. Organochlorine residues, mercury, copper and cadmium in yellow perch, white bass and smallmouth bass, Long Point Bay, Lake Erie. Trans Am Fish Soc 103(3):577-581.

Khansari FE, Ghazi-Khansari M, Abdollahi M. 2005. Heavy metals content of canned tuna fish. Food Chem 93(2):293-296.

Kidd KA, Hesslein RH, Fudge RJP, Hallard KA. 1995. The influence of trophic level as measured by delta N-15 on mercury concentrations in freshwater organisms. Water Air Soil Pollut 80(1-4):1011-1015.

Knight HT, Olson LJ. 1974. Mercury distribution in american smelt from Lake Michigan. Am Midl Nat 91(2):451-452.

Knobeloch LM, Ziarnik M, Anderson HA, Dodson VN. 1995. Imported sea bass as a source of mercury exposure - a Wisconsin case study. Environ Health Perspect 103(6):604-606.

Knowles TG, Farrington D, Kestin SC. 2003. Mercury in UK imported fish and shellfish and UK-farmed fish and their products. Food Addit Contam 20(9):813-818.

Kojadinovic J, Potier M, Le Corre M, Cosson RP, Bustamante P. 2006. Mercury content in commercial pelagic fish and its risk assessment in the Western Indian Ocean. Sci Total Environ 366(2-3):688-700.

Kojadinovic J, Potier M, Le Corre M, Cosson RP, Bustamante P. 2007. Bioaccumulation of trace elements in pelagic fish from the Western Indian Ocean. Environ Pollut 146(2):548-566.

Koli AK, Williams WR, McClary EB, Wright EL, Burrell TM. 1977. Mercury Levels in Freshwater Fish of State of South-Carolina. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 17(1):82-89.

Kraepiel AML, Keller K, Chin HB, Malcolm EG, Morel FMM. 2003. Sources and variations of mercury in tuna. Environ Sci Technol 37(24):5551-5558.

Krystek P, Ritsema R. 2004. Determination of methylmercury and inorganic mercury in shark fillets. Appl Organomet Chem 18(12):640-645.

Kumar M, Aalbersberg B, Mosley L. 2004. IAS Technical Report Number: 2004/03, Mercury Levels in Fijian Seafoods and Potential Health Implications, Report for World Health Organization.

Kutter VT, Mirlean N, Baisch PRM, Kutter MT, Silva E. 2009. Mercury in freshwater, estuarine, and marine fishes from Southern Brazil and its ecological implication. Environ Monit Assess 159(1-4):35-42.

Kwoczek M, Szefer P, Hac E. 2006. Essential and toxic elements in seafood available in Poland from different geographical regions. J Agric Food Chem 54(8):3015-3024.

Laperdina TG, Askarova OB, Papina TS, Eirikh SS, Sorokovikova LM. 1997. Methodological features of the determination of mercury in fish samples (Using fish from the Kureiskoe Reservoir as an example). J Anal Chem 52(6):584-589.

Legrand M, Arp P, Ritchie C, Chan HM. 2005. Mercury exposure in two coastal communities of the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Environ Res 98(1):14-21.

Levine KE, Levine MA, Weber FX, Henderson JP, Grohse PM. 2005. Mercury in an assortment of processed and unprocessed seafood samples. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 74(5):973-979.

Lewis MA, Quarles RL, Dantin DD, Moore JC. 2004. Evaluation of a Florida coastal golf complex as a local and watershed source of bioavailable contaminants. Mar Pollut Bull 48(3-4):254-262.

Licata P, Trombetta D, Cristani M, Naccari C, Martino D, Calo M, et al. 2005. Heavy metals in liver and muscle of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) caught in the straits of Messina (Sicily, Italy). Environ Monit Assess 107(1-3):239-248.

Linko RR, Terho K. 1977. Occurrence of methyl mercury in pike and baltic herring from Turku Archipelago. Environ Pollut 14(3):227-235.

Locascio JV, Rudershausen PJ. 2000. An Evaluation of Mercury Levels in Spotted Seatrout in Torpon Bay, J.N. "Ding" Darling Wildlife Rufuge, Sanibel, Florida, With Reference to Previous Studies. Biological Sciences 63(4):256-260.

Lockhart WL, Stern GA, Low G, Hendzel M, Boila G, Roach P, et al. 2005. A history of total mercury in edible muscle of fish from lakes in northern Canada. Sci Total Environ 351:427-463.

Lourenco HM, Anacleto P, Afonso C, Ferraria V, Martins MF, Carvalho ML, et al. 2009. Elemental composition of cephalopods from Portuguese continental waters. Food Chem 113(4):1146-1153.

Lowenstein J, Burger J, Jeitner C, Amato G, Kolokotronis S, Gochfeld M. 2010. DNA Barcodes Reveal Species-specific Mercury Levels in Tuna Sushi That Pose a Health Risk to Consumers. Biology Letters 6(5):692-695.

Lower Duwamish Waterway Group. 2005. Lower Duwamish Waterway Cleanup: Fish and Crab Tissue Data Report. Available: [accessed 2 December 2010].

Luckhurst BE, Prince ED, Llopiz JK, Snodgrass D, Brothers EB. 2006. Evidence of blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) spawning in Bermuda waters and elevated mercury levels in large specimens. Bull Mar Sci 79(3):691-704.

Madany IM, Wahab AAA, AlAlawi Z. 1996. Trace metals concentrations in marine organisms from the coastal areas of Bahrain, Arabian Gulf. Water Air Soil Pollut 91(3-4):233-248.

Madenjian C, O'Connor D. 2008. Trophic Transfer Efficiency of Mercury to Lake Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis from its Prey. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 81(6):566-570.

Magalhaes MC, Costa V, Menezes GM, Pinho MR, Santos RS, Monteiro LR. 2007. Intra- and inter-specific variability in total and methylmercury bioaccumulation by eight marine fish species from the Azores. Mar Pollut Bull 54(10):1654-1662.

Marcovecchio JE, Moreno VJ, Perez A. 1986. Bio-magnification of total mercury in Bahia Blanca Estuary shark. Mar Pollut Bull 17(6):276-278.

Marcovecchio JE, Moreno VJ, Perez A. 1991. Metal accumulation in tissues of sharks from the Bahia Blanca Estuary, Argentina. Mar Environ Res 31(4):263-274.

Marsico ET, Machado MES, Knoff M, Clemente SCS. 2007. Total mercury in sharks along the southern Brazilian Coast. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec 59(6):1593-1596.

Mason RP, Heyes D, Sveinsdottir A. 2006. Methylmercury concentrations in fish from tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 51(3):425-437.

McArthur T, Butler ECV, Jackson GD. 2003. Mercury in the marine food chain in the Southern Ocean at Macquarie Island: an analysis of a top predator, Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) and a mid-trophic species, the warty squid (Moroteuthis ingens). Polar Biol 27(1):1-5.

McKelvey W, Chang M, Arnason J, Jeffery N, Kricheff J, Kass D. 2010. Mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls in Asian market fish: A response to results from mercury biomonitoring in New York City. Environ Res 110(7):650-657.

Meador JP, Ernest DW, Kagley AN. 2005. A comparison of the non-essential elements cadmium, mercury, and lead found in fish and sediment from Alaska and California. Sci Total Environ 339(1-3):189-205.

Menasveta P, Siriyong R. 1977. Mercury content of severeal predacious fish in Andaman Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 8(9):200-204.

Mendez E, Giudice H, Pereira A, Inocente G, Medina D. 2001. Total mercury content - Fish weight relationship in swordfish (Xiphias gladius) caught in the southwest Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 14(5):453-460.

Miller GE, Rowland FS, Steinkru.Fj, Grant PM, Guinn VP, Kishore R. 1972. Mercury concentration in museum specimens of tuna and swordfish. Science 175(4026):1121-1122.

Miller TJ, Jude DJ. 1984. Organochlorine pesticides, PBBs, and mercury in round whitefish fillets from Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, 1977-1978. J Gt Lakes Res 10(2):215-220.

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. 1998. Concentrations of Metals and Other Elements in Marine fish and Shellfish. Available: [accessed 18 March 2011].

Mol JH, Ramlal JS, Lietar C, Verloo M. 2001. Mercury contamination in freshwater, estuarine, and marine fishes in relation to small-scale gold mining in Suriname, South America. Environ Res 86(2):183-197.

Monteiro LR, Lopes HD. 1990. Merucy content of swordfish, Xiphias gladius, in relation to length, weight, age, and sex. Mar Pollut Bull 21(6):293-296.

Mueller CS, Ramelow GJ, Beck JN. 1989. Mercury in the Calcasieu River Lake Complex, Louisiana. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 42(1):71-80.

Nadal M, Ferre-Huguet N, Marti-Cid R, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL. 2008. Exposure to metals through the consumption of fish and seafood by the population living near the Ebro River in Catalonia, Spain: Health risks. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14(4):780-795.

Nakagawa R, Yumita Y, Hiromoto M. 1997. Total mercury intake from fish and shellfish by Japanese people. Chemosphere 35(12):2909-2913.

Nakao M, Seoka M, Tsukamasa Y, Kawasaki K, Ando M. 2007. Possibility for decreasing of mercury content in bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis by fish culture. Fisheries Science 73(3):724-731.

Nakao M, Seoka M, Nakatani M, Okada T, Miyashita S, Tsukamasa Y, et al. 2009. Reduction of mercury levels in cultured bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis, using feed with relatively low mercury levels. Aquaculture 288(3-4):226-232.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1975. Southwest Fisheries Center Administrative Report No. 2H, 1975, Mercury in the Pacific Blue Marlin.

Nfon E, Cousins IT, Jarvinen O, Mukherjee AB, Verta M, Broman D. 2009. Trophodynamics of mercury and other trace elements in a pelagic food chain from the Baltic Sea. Sci Total Environ 407(24):6267-6274.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2008. National Status and Trends Mussel Watch Program. Available: [accessed 9 September 2008].

Oh KS, Suh J, Park S, Paek OA, Yoon HJ, Kim HY, et al. 2008. Mercury and methylmercury levels in marine fish species from Korean retail markets. Food Sci Biotechnol 17(4):819-823.

Orban E, Nevigato T, Di Lena G, Masci M, Casini I, Garnbelli L, et al. 2008. New trends in the seafood market. Sutchi catfish (Pangasius hypophthalmus) fillets from Vietnam: Nutritional quality and safety aspects. Food Chem 110(2):383-389.

Ozden O. 2010. Seasonal differences in the trace metal and macrominerals in shrimp (Parapenaus longirostris) from Marmara Sea. Environ Monit Assess 162(1-4):191-199.

Padula DJ, Daughtry BJ, Nowak BF. 2008. Dioxins, PCBs, metals, metalloids, pesticides and antimicrobial residues in wild and farmed Australian southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii). Chemosphere 72(1):34-44.

Panutrakul S, Khamdech S, Kerdthong P, Senanan W, Tangkrock-Olan N, Alcivar-Warren A. 2007. Heavy metals in wild banana prawn (Fenneropenaeus merguiensis de Man, 1888) from Chantaburi and Trat provinces, Thailand. J Shellfish Res 26(4):1193-1202.

Papetti P, Rossi G. 2009. Heavy metals in the fishery products of low Lazio and the use of metallothionein as a biomarker of contamination. Environ Monit Assess 159(1-4):589-598.

Park J, Presley BJ. 1997. Trace metals contamination of sediments and organisms from the Swan Lake area of Galveston Bay. Environ Pollut 98(2):209-221.

Pastor A, Hernandez F, Peris MA, Beltran J, Sancho JV, Castillo MT. 1994. Levels of heavy metals in some marine organisms from the western Mediterranean area (Spain). Mar Pollut Bull 28(1):50-53.

Paul MC, Toia RF, von Nagy-Felsobuki EI. 2003. A novel method for the determination of mercury and selenium in shark tissue using high-resolution inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. Spectroc Acta Pt B-Atom Spectr 58(9):1687-1697.

Payne EJ, Taylor DL. 2010. Effects of Diet Composition and Trophic Structure on Mercury Bioaccumulation in Temperate Flatfishes. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 58(2):431-443.

Penedo de Pinho A, Davee Guimaraes JR, Martins AS, Costa PAS, Olavo G, Valentin J. 2002. Total mercury in muscle tissue of five shark species from Brazilian offshore waters: effects of feeding habit, sex, and length. Environ Res 89(3):250-258.

Perello G, Marti-Cid R, Llobet JM, Domingo JL. 2008. Effects of Various Cooking Processes on the Concentrations of Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury, and Lead in Foods. J Agric Food Chem 56(23):11262-11269.

Petersen A, Mortensen GK. 1994. Trace elements in shellfish on the Danish market. Food Addit Contam 11(3):365-373.

Piraino MN, Taylor DL. 2009. Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of mercury in striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and tautog (Tautoga onitis) from the Narragansett Bay (Rhode Island, USA). Mar Environ Res 67(3):117-128.

Plessi M, Bertelli D, Monzani A. 2001. Mercury and selenium content in selected seafood. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 14(5):461-467.

Polak-Juszczak L. 2009. Temporal trends in the bioaccumulation of trace metals in herring, sprat, and cod from the southern Baltic Sea in the 1994-2003 period. Chemosphere 76(10):1334-1339.

Poperechna N, Heumann KG. 2005. Simultaneous multi-species determination of trimethyllead, monomethylmercury and three butyltin compounds by species-specific isotope dilution GC-ICP-MS in biological samples. Anal Bioanal Chem 383(2):153-159.

Rahman SA, Wood AK, Sarmani S, Majid AA. 1997. Determination of mercury and organic mercury contents in Malaysian seafood. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 217(1):53-56.

Ramlal PS, Bugenyi FWB, Kling GW, Nriagu JO, Rudd JWM, Campbell LM. 2003. Mercury concentrations in water, sediment, and biota from Lake Victoria, East Africa. J Gt Lakes Res 29:283-291.

Rasmussen RS, Morrissey MT. 2007. Effects of canning on total mercury, protein, lipid, and moisture content in troll-caught albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga). Food Chem 101(3):1130-1135.

Ray S, Jessop BM, Coffin J, Swetnam DA. 1984. Mercury and Polychlorinated-Biphenyls in Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) from 2 Nova-Scotia Rivers. Water Air Soil Pollut 21(1-4):15-23.

Raymond B, Rossmann R. 2009. Total and methyl mercury accumulation in 1994-1995 Lake Michigan lake trout and forage fish. J Gt Lakes Res 35(3):438-446.

Rider S, Adams D. 2000. Mercury Concentrations in Spotted Seatrout from Northwest Florida. Gulf of Mexico Science 2:97-103.

Riget F, Moller P, Dietz R, Nielsen TG, Asmund G, Strand J, et al. 2007. Transfer of mercury in the marine food web of West Greenland. J Environ Monit 9(8):877-883.

Rivers JB, Pearson JE, Shultz CD. 1972. Total and organic mercury in marine fish. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 8(5):257-265.

Rolfhus KR, Sandheinrich MB, Wiener JG, Bailey SW, Thoreson KA, Hammerschmidt CR. 2008. Analysis of fin clips as a nonlethal method for monitoring mercury in fish. Environ Sci Technol 42(3):871-877.

Romeo M, Siau Y, Sidoumou Z, Gnassia-Barelli M. 1999. Heavy metal distribution in different fish species from the Mauritania coast. Sci Total Environ 232(3):169-175.

Ruelas-Inzunza J, Paez-Osuna F. 2005. Mercury in fish and shark tissues from two coastal lagoons in the gulf of California, Mexico. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 74(2):294-300.

Ruelas-Inzunza J, Garcia-Rosales SB, Paez-Osuna F. 2004. Distribution of mercury in adult penaeid shrimps from Altata-Ensenada del Pabellon lagoon (SE Gulf of California). Chemosphere 57(11):1657-1661.

Ruelas-Inzunza J, Meza-Lopez G, Paez-Osuna F. 2008. Mercury in fish that are of dietary importance from the coasts of Sinaloa (SE Gulf of California). Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 21(3):211-218.

Sahuquillo I, Lagarda MJ, Silvestre MD, Farre R. 2007. Methylmercury determination in fish and seafood products and estimated daily intake for the Spanish population. Food Addit Contam 24(8):869-876.

Sajwan KS, Kumar KS, Paramasivam S, Compton SS, Richardson JP. 2008. Elemental status in sediment and American oyster collected from Savannah marsh/estuarine ecosystem: A preliminary assessment. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 54(2):245-258.

San Francisco Estuary Institute. 2007. California Bay - Delta Authority Fish Mercury Project: Year 2 Annual Report (Sport Fish Sampling and Analysis). Contribution no. 535. Available: [accessed 10 April 2008].

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2006. Southwest Ocean Outfall Regional Monitoring Program, Eight Year Summary Report, 1997-2004 San Francisco. Available: [accessed 27 January 2011].

Santerre CR, Bush PB, Xu DH, Lewis GW, Davis JT, Grodner RM, et al. 2001. Metal residues in farm-raised channel catfish, rainbow trout, and red swamp crayfish from the southern US. J Food Sci 66(2):270-273.

Santoyo MM, Figueroa JAL, Wrobel K. 2009. Analytical speciation of mercury in fish tissues by reversed phase liquid chromatography-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry with Bi3+ as internal standard. Talanta 79(3):706-711.

Schetagne R, Doyon JF, Fournier JJ. 2000. Export of mercury downstream from reservoirs. Sci Total Environ 260(1-3):135-145.

Scheuhammer AM, Graham JE. 1999. The bioaccumulation of mercury in aquatic organisms from two similar lakes with differing pH. Ecotoxicology 8(1):49-56.

Schuler LJ, Howell JP, Heagler MG. 2000. Mercury concentrations in Louisiana and Chinese crayfish. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 64(1):27-32.

Senn DB, Chesney EJ, Blum JD, Bank MS, Maage A, Shine JP. 2010. Stable Isotope (N, C, Hg) Study of Methylmercury Sources and Trophic Transfer in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Environ Sci Technol 44(5):1630-1637.

Shim SM, Dorworth LE, Lasrado JA, Santerre CR. 2004. Mercury and fatty acids in canned tuna, salmon, and mackerel. J Food Sci 69(9):C681-C684.

Shim SM, Lasrado JA, Dorworth LE, Santerre CR. 2005. Mercury and Omega-3 fatty acids in retail fish sandwiches. J Food Prot 68(3):633-635.

Shomura R, Craig W. 1974. Mercury in Several Species of Billfishes Taken Off Hawaii and Southern California Kailua-Kona, Hawaii:Proceedings of the International Billfish Symposium.

Shultz CD, Crear D. 1976. Distribution of total and organic mercury in 7 tissues of Pacific blue marlin, Makaira nigricans. Pacific Science 30(2):101-107.

Shultz CD, Ito BM. 1979. Mercury and selenium in blue marlin, Makaira nigricans, from the Hawaiian Islands. Fishery Bulletin 76(4):872-879.

Soegianto A, Moehammadi N, Irawan B, Affandi M, Hamami. 2010. Mercury concentrations in edible species harvested from Gresik coast, Indonesia and its health risk assessment. Cah Biol Mar 51(1):1-8.

Soto-Jimenez MF, Amezcua F, Gonzalez-Ledesma R. 2010. Nonessential Metals in Striped Marlin and Indo-Pacific Sailfish in the Southeast Gulf of California, Mexico: Concentration and Assessment of Human Health Risk. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 58(3):810-818.

State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 2009. Total Mercury Concentrations in Alaskan Fishes. Available: [accessed 26 January 2011].

State of Delaware. 2010. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Open Files. Available: [accessed 29 November 2010].

State of Louisiana. 2011. Department of Environmental Quality Mercury Fish Tissue Data 2005-2010 (Data file). Available: [accessed 4 February 2011].

State of Maryland. 2007. Toxics Data Sets. Available: [accessed 24 October 2007].

State of Michigan. 2011. Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program Online Database. Available: [accessed 25 February 2011].

State of New Jersey. 2004. Routine Monitoring For Toxics in Fish Program Available: (Task I-Appendix I. Draft Summary of Chemical Contaminant Concentrations) and (Task 2) [accessed 29 November 2011].

State of New Jersey. 2008. Routine Monitoring Program for Toxics in Fish: Year 3 Raritan River Region. Available: [accessed 29 November 2011].

State of North Carolina. 2011. Statewide Fish Tissue Metals Results Available:, for 1990-2010 [accessed 26 January 2011].

State of Virginia. 2009. Department of Environmental Quality Fish Tissue Results Summary. Available: [accessed 21 July 2009].

Storelli MM, Marcotrigiano GO. 2001. Total mercury levels in muscle tissue of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) from the Mediterranean Sea (Italy). J Food Prot 64(7):1058-1061.

Storelli MM, Stuffler RG, Marcotrigiano GO. 1998. Total mercury in muscle of benthic and pelagic fish from the South Adriatic Sea (Italy). Food Addit Contam 15(8):876-883.

Storelli MM, Stuffler RG, Marcotrigiano GO. 2002. Total and methylmercury residues in tuna-fish from the Mediterranean sea. Food Addit Contam 19(8):715-720.

Storelli MM, Giacominelli-Stuffler R, Storelli A, Marcotrigiano GO. 2005. Accumulation of mercury, cadmium, lead and arsenic in swordfish and bluefin tuna from the Mediterranean Sea: A comparative study. Mar Pollut Bull 50(9):1004-1007.

Storelli MM, Giacominelli-Stuffler R, Storelli A, Marcotrigiano GO. 2006. Cadmium and mercury in cephalopod molluscs: Estimated weekly intake. Food Addit Contam 23(1):25-30.

Storelli MM, Barone G, Piscitelli G, Marcotrigiano GO. 2007. Mercury in fish: Concentration vs. fish size and estimates of mercury intake. Food Addit Contam 24(12):1353-1357.

Storelli MM, Garofalo R, Giungato D, Giacominelli-Stuffler R. 2010. Intake of essential and non-essential elements from consumption of octopus, cuttlefish and squid. Food Addit Contam Part B-Surveill 3(1):14-18.

Storelli MM, Giacominelli-Stuffler R, Storelli A, D'Addabbo R, Palermo C, Marcotrigiano GO. 2003. Survey of total mercury and methylmercury levels in edible fish from the Adriatic Sea. Food Addit Contam 20(12):1114-1119.

Strom DG, Graves GA. 2001. A comparison of mercury in estuarine fish between Florida Bay and the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, USA. Estuaries 24(4):597-609.

Suk SH, Smith SE, Ramon DA. 2009. Bioaccumulation of mercury in pelagic sharks from the northeast Pacific Ocean. CalCOFI Rep., Vol. 50, 2009. La Jolla, CA. Available: [accessed 3 May 2011].

Tahan JE, Sanchez JM, Granadillo VA, Cubillan HS, Romero RA. 1995. Concentrations of total Al, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Na, Pb, and Zn in commercial canned seafood determined by atomic spectrometric means after mineralization by microwave heating. J Agric Food Chem 43(4):910-915.

Tam SYK, Mok CS. 1991. Metallic contamination in oyster and other seafood in Hong Kong. Food Addit Contam 8(3):333-342.

Teeny FM, Hall AS, Gauglitz EJ. 1974. Reduction of mercury in sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) and use of treated flesh in smoked products. Marine Fisheries Review 36(5):15-17.

Thieleke J. 1973. Mercury Levels in five Species of Commercially Important Pelagic fish Taken From the Pacific Ocean Near Hawaii [PhD Dissertation]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Thomson B, Lee L. 2009. Mercury content in imported fin fish. Available: [accessed 2 December 2010].

Torres-Escribano S, Velez D, Montoro R. 2010. Mercury and methylmercury bioaccessibility in swordfish. Food Addit Contam Part A-Chem 27(3):327-337.

Tyrell L, McHugh B, Glynn D, Twomey M, Joyce E, Costello J, et al. 2005. Trace Metal Concentrations in Various Fish Species Landed at Selected Irish Ports, 2003. Abbotstown, Dublin:Marine Environment and Health Series.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). Available: (EPA West) [accessed 26 April 2004].

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Proceedings of the 2005 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish, Analysis of Chemical Contaminant Levels in Store-Bought Fish from Washington State. Available: [accessed 3 November 2011].

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006a. Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA). Available: [accessed 22 February 2006].

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006b. Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP). Available: (Texas, 1993-1994) [accessed 21 June 2006].

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). Available: (Carolinian Province 1994-1997) [accessed 24 October 2007].

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. National Coastal Assessment. Available: [accessed 3 October 2008].

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011a. National Listing of Fish Advisories. Available: [accessed 14 September 2011].

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011b. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). Available: (Virginian Province 1991-1993) [accessed 3 February 2011].

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011c. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). Available: (Louisianian Province 1991-1994) [accessed 3 February 2011].

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Region 9 and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2007. 2002-2004 Southern California Coastal Marine Fish Contaminants Survey. Available: [accessed 14 August 2007].

USFDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2011. Mercury Concentrations in Fish: FDA Monitoring Program. Available: [accessed September 15, 2011].

USFDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2008. Total Diet Study 1991-2005. Available: [accessed 9 September 2008].

Usydus Z, Szlinder-Richert J, Polak-Juszczak L, Komar K, Adamczyk M, Malesa-Ciecwierz M, et al. 2009. Fish products available in Polish market - Assessment of the nutritive value and human exposure to dioxins and other contaminants. Chemosphere 74(11):1420-1428.

Vandenbroek WLF. 1981. Concentration and distribution of mercury in flesh of orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus). N Z J Mar Freshw Res 15(3):255-260.

Vedrina-Dragojevic I, Dragojevic D, Bujan M. 2002. Total mercury content in fish und molluscs from Adriatic Sea. Dtsch Lebensm-Rundsch 98(1):10-13.

Viana F, Huertas R, Danulat E. 2005. Heavy metal levels in fish from coastal waters of Uruguay. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 48(4):530-537.

Voegborlo RB, El-Methnani AM, Abedin MZ. 1999. Mercury, cadmium and lead content of canned tuna fish. Food Chem 67(4):341-345.

Voegborlo RB, Matsuyama A, Akagi H, Adimado AA, Ephraim JH. 2006. Total mercury and methylmercury accumulation in the muscle tissue of frigate (Auxis thazard thazard) and yellow fin (Thunnus albacares) tuna from the Gulf of Guinea, Ghana. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 76(5):840-847.

Wang YW, Liang LN, Shi JB, Jiang GB. 2005. Chemometrics methods for the investigation of methylmercury and total mercury contamination in mollusks samples collected from coastal sites along the Chinese Bohai Sea. Environ Pollut 135(3):457-467.

Watling RJ, McClurg TP, Stanton RC. 1981. Relation between mercury concentration and size in the mako shark. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 26(3):352-358.

Whyte ALH, Hook GR, Greening GE, Gibbs-Smith E, Gardner JPA. 2009. Human dietary exposure to heavy metals via the consumption of greenshell mussels (Perna canaliculus Gmelin 1791) from the Bay of Islands, northern New Zealand. Sci Total Environ 407(14):4348-4355.

Wren CD, Scheider WA, Wales DL, Muncaster BW, Gray IM. 1991. Relation between Mercury Concentrations in Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) and Northern Pike (Esox lucius) in Ontario Lakes and Influence of Environmental-Factors. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48(1):132-139.

Yamashita Y, Omura Y, Okazaki E. 2005. Total mercury and methylmercury levels in commercially important fishes in Japan. Fisheries Science 71(5):1029-1035.

Yamashita Y, Omura Y, Okazaki E. 2006. Distinct regional profiles of trace element content in muscle of Japanese eel Anguilla japonica from Japan, Taiwan, and China. Fisheries Science 72(5):1109-1113.

Zauke GP, Savinov VM, Ritterhoff J, Savinova T. 1999. Heavy metals in fish from the Barents Sea in (summer 1994). Sci Total Environ 227(2-3):161-173.

Zhang XM, Naidu AS, Kelley JJ, Jewett SC, Dasher D, Duffy LK. 2001. Baseline concentrations of total mercury and methylmercury in salmon returning via the Bering Sea (1999-2000). Mar Pollut Bull 42(10):993-997.
Table of Contents

Supplemental Material, Table S1: Summary of Hg   2
concentrations across studies in commonly
consumed seafood items in the U.S

Supplemental Material, Table S2: Seafood Hg      (provided as a
Database                                         separate excel

Search Terms for Supplemental Material, Table    5
S2: Seafood  Hg Database

References for Supplemental Material, Table S2:  6
Seafood  Hg Database

Roxanne Karimi, (1) Timothy P. Fitzgerald, (2) and Nicholas S. Fisher (1)

(1) School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA; (2) Environmental Defense Fund Oceans Program, Washington, DC, USA

Address correspondence to R. Karimi, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000 USA. Telephone: (631) 632-3128. Fax: (631) 632-3770. E-mail:

Supplemental Material is available online (

We thank S. Ferson and N. Friedenberg for input on analytical approaches; C. Chen, E. Sunderland, and two anonymous reviewers for comments; and P. Nooyi and A. Gruber for data extraction and database quality assurance/quality control.

Support for this work was provided in part by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (Los Altos, CA), the Gelfond Fund for Mercury Research and Outreach (Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY), and NY Sea Grant #R/SHH-17.

T.P.F. is employed by Environmental Defense Fund, a national nonprofit organization. The authors declare they have no other actual or potential competing financial interests.

Received 21 February 2012; accepted 25 June 2012.
COPYRIGHT 2012 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Review
Author:Karimi, Roxanne; Fitzgerald, Timothy P.; Fisher, Nicholas S.
Publication:Environmental Health Perspectives
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Nov 1, 2012
Previous Article:Systematic review and meta-analysis of circulatory disease from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation and estimates of potential population...
Next Article:Climate change and food security: health impacts in developed countries.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters