Mercury concentration in samples of fresh and (processed) canned tuna fish
More details
Hide details
Wydział Farmaceutyczny z Oddziałem Medycyny Laboratoryjnej w Sosnowcu, Śląski Uniwersytet Medyczny, Polska
Corresponding author
Agnieszka Fischer   

Department of Toxicology, School of Pharmacy with the Division of Laboratory Medicine in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia, ul. Jagiellońska 4, 41-200, Sosnowiec, Polska
Med Srod. 2019;22(1-2):24-28
According to the guidelines of the Food and Nutrition Institute in Warsaw, the consumption fish and fish preserves is an essential element of a balanced diet. They are an extremely valuable source of polyunsaturated fatty acids, protein, vitamins and minerals. Unfortunately, due to water pollution organisms living therein, they can be a potential threat to human health. Tuna fish accumulates a significant amount of mercury (Hg) as organic derivatives. Mercury concentration was investigated in fresh and processed (canned) tuna samples. The obtained results were referred to legally binding standards. It was also analyzed whether the Hg concentration in fish samples is affected by the form of the product (fresh/processed in cans) and their region of origin.

Material and methods:
The analysis included 35 samples of fresh and processed (canned) tuna purchased in popular stores in the Silesian Province of southwest Poland. The AAS method (AMA 254 analyzer) for the total Hg concentration in tuna was used.

The concentration of Hg in the examined samples was: 0.1634ppm (arithmetic mean) and 0.1282ppm (median). The Hg concentration was higher in fresh (non-canned) tuna samples than in the canned fish. Fresh tuna fish contained more metal than that from cans. The level of mercury in most of the analyzed samples did not exceed the legal standards of the European Union.

Tuna fish can be a potential source of exposure to mercury, especially for people consuming large amounts of the fish or being more vulnerable to Hg, mainly children

Saini RK, Keum YS. Omega‑3 and omega‑6 polyunsaturated fatty acids: Dietary sources, metabolism, and significance – A review. Life Sci. 2018; 203: 255–267.
Abelsohn A, Vanderlinden LD, Scott F. Archbold JA, Brown TL. Healthy fish consumption and reduced mercury exposure. Can Fam Physician. 2011; 57: 26–30.
Covington MB. Omega‑3 Fatty Acids. Am Fam Physician. 2004; 70(1): 133–140.
Kołodziejczyk M. Consumption of fish and fishery products in Poland – analysis of benefits and risks. Roczn. PZH 2007; 58(1): 287–293.
Abolghait SK, Garbaj AM. Determination of cadmium, lead and mercury residual levels in meat of canned light tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis and Thunnus albacares) and fresh little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus) in Libya. Open Vet J. 2015; 5(2): 130–137.
Silbernagel SM, Carpenter DO, Gilbert SG. Recognizing and Preventing Overexposure to Methylmercury from Fish and Seafood Consumption: Information for Physicians. J Toxicol. 2011; 2011: 1–7.
Laird MJ, Henao JJA, Reyes ES. Stark KD, Low G, Swanson HK, et al. Mercury and omega‑3 fatty acid profiles in freshwater fish of the Dehcho Region, Northwest Territories: Informing risk benefit assessments. Sci Total Environ. 2018; 637–638: 1508–1517.
Nordberg GF, Fowler BA, Nordberg M. Handbook on the toxicology metals. Elsevier, USA; 2007; 675–729.
Sheehan MC, Burke TA, Navas‑Acien A, Breysse PN, McGready J, Fox MA. Global methylmercury exposure from seafood consumption and risk of developmental neurotoxicity: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ 2014; 92 254–269.
Polańska K, Jurewicz J, Hanke W. Review of current evidence on the impact of pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and selected metals on attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children. Int J Occup Med Environ. 2013; 26(1): 16–38.
Genchi G, Sinicropi MS, Carocci A, Lauria G, Catalano A. Mercury Exposure and Heart Diseases. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2017; 14(1): 74.
Takahashi T, Takayoshi Shimohata T. Vascular Dysfunction Induced by Mercury Exposure. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20(10): 2435.
Różycka K, Rolka G. Zastosowanie techniki ASA do oznaczania rtęci na przykładzie badań surowców używanych w przemyśle materiałów budowlanych. Prace ICiMB 2015; 21: 58–66. 16. Report: 2017 Fish and Seafood Market in Poland. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service: Warszawa; 2018.
Kothari S. Kruse D. Karimi R. Silbernagel S, Gursoy N, Jaber R. High mercury seafood consumption associated with fatigue at specialty medical clinics on Long Island, NY. Prev Med Rep. 2015; 2: 798–802.
Jin Y, Zhen YG, Ju W. Yan CH. Hair Mercury Levels and Their Relationship with Seafood Consumption among Preschool Children in Shanghai. Biomed Environ Sci. 2017; 30(3): 220–223.
Gerstenberger SL, Martinson A, Klamer JL. An evaluation of mercury concentrations in three brands of canned tuna. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2009; 29(2): 237–242.
Damsky WE., Duncan E, Flanagan N, Fromhold K, Dung H, Meyer R. Public Awareness of Mercury in Fish: Analysis of Public Awareness and Assessment of Fish Consumption in Vermont. MJM 2009; 12(2):39–41.
https://eur‑ = CELEX:02006R1881–20180319&qid = 1539289414026&from = EN (dostęp: 2.06.2018).
Garcia MA, Nunez R, Alonso J, Melgar MJ. Total mercury in fresh and processed tuna marketed in Galicia (NW Spain) in relation to dietary exposure. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016; 23: 24960–24969.
Gworek B, Bemowska‑Kałabun O, Kijeńska M, Wrzosek‑Jakubowska J. Mercury in Marine and Oceanic Waters – a Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2016; 227(10): 371.
McGuire J, Kaplan J, Lapolla J, Kleiner J. The 2014 FDA assessment of commercial fish: practical considerations for improved dietary guidane. Nutrition J. 2016; 16(66).
Raport: Ocena zanieczyszczenia powietrza rtęcią na stacjach tła regionalnego w Polsce za 2016 rok, Inspekcja Ochrony Środowiska, Warszawa 2017.
Kabata‑Pendias A, Mukherjee AB. Trace Elements from Soil to Human. Springer, 2007.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top