Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A

Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering

ISSN: 1093-4529 (Print) 1532-4117 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lesa20

Health risks for human intake of aquacultural fish:

Arsenic bioaccumulation and contamination

Sandeep Kar , Jyoti Prakash Maity , Jiin-Shuh Jean , Chia-Chuan Liu , Chen-
Wuing Liu , Jochen Bundschuh & Hsueh-Yu Lu

To cite this article: Sandeep Kar , Jyoti Prakash Maity , Jiin-Shuh Jean , Chia-Chuan Liu , Chen-
Wuing Liu , Jochen Bundschuh & Hsueh-Yu Lu (2011) Health risks for human intake of aquacultural
fish: Arsenic bioaccumulation and contamination, Journal of Environmental Science and Health,
Part A, 46:11, 1266-1273, DOI: 10.1080/10934529.2011.598814

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2011.598814

Published online: 31 Aug 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 342

View related articles

Citing articles: 29 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lesa20

Download by: [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] Date: 07 September 2017, At: 09:59
 Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A (2011) 46, 12661273
Copyright
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1093-4529 (Print); 1532-4117 (Online)

DOI: 10.1080/10934529.2011.598814

Health risks for human intake of aquacultural fish: Arsenic

bioaccumulation and contamination
SANDEEP KAR1, JYOTI PRAKASH MAITY2, JIIN-SHUH JEAN1, CHIA-CHUAN LIU1,
CHEN-WUING LIU3, JOCHEN BUNDSCHUH1,4,5 and HSUEH-YU LU2
1
Department of Earth Sciences, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
2
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, National Chung Cheng University, Ming-Shung, Chiayi County,
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 09:59 07 September 2017

Taiwan
3
Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
4
Institute for Applied Research, Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, Karlsruhe, Germany
5
KTH-International Groundwater Arsenic Research Group, Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering,
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden

Aquacultural tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus L.) and shrimp (Penaeus monodon L.) from groundwater-cultured ponds in south-
western Taiwan were analyzed to estimate arsenic (As) bioaccumulation and the potential health risk to human intake. Most of
aquacultural ponds exhibited higher arsenic than maximum allowed concentrations (50 g L1) in pond water of Taiwan. Arsenic
levels in tilapia in Budai, Yichu and Beimen were 0.92 0.52 g g1, 0.93 0.19 g g1 and 0.76 0.03 g g1, respectively and in
shrimp was 0.36 0.01 g g1 in Beimen. Total arsenic in tilapia is highly correlated (R2 = 0.80) with total arsenic concentration
of pond water. Total arsenic in fish showed high correlation with that in bone (R2 = 0.98), head (R2 = 0.97) and tissue (R2 = 0.96).
Organic arsenic species (DMA) was found higher relative to inorganic species of As(III) and As(V). The average percent contribution
of inorganic arsenic to total arsenic in fish samples was 12.5% and ranged between 11.7 to 14.2%. Bioaccumulation factors (BAFs)
for total arsenic in fish ranged from 10.3 to 22.1, whereas BAF for inorganic arsenic ranged from 1.33 to 2.82. The mean human
health cancer risk associated with the ingestion of inorganic arsenic in the fish was estimated at 2.36 104 0.99 104, which is
over 200 times greater than a de Minimus cancer risk of 1 106. The mean human health hazard quotient associated with ingesting
inorganic arsenic in the fish was 1.22 0.52, indicating that expected human exposure exceeds the reference dose for non-cancer
health effects by 22%. These results suggest that the inhabitants in this region are being subjected to moderately elevated arsenic
exposure through the consumption of tilapia and shrimp raised in aquaculture ponds.
Keywords: Groundwater arsenic, tilapia, shrimp, bioaccumulation, health risk.

Introduction arsenic, even at low levels, increases the risk of contracting

The distribution of arsenic (As) in environmental samples
is very heterogeneous, with the element being present in di-
verse chemical forms. As a toxic and carcinogenic element,
arsenic poses a significant human health concern.[1] Among
the different sources of arsenic in the environment, water-
borne arsenic probably poses the greatest threat to human
health. Naturally high dissolved-As concentrations are pri-
marily associated with groundwater.[23] Large populations
around the world are at risk for toxic As-exposure from
drinking water[4] and through the consumption of As-rich
seafood.[5] It has been well recognized that consumption of
Address correspondence to Jiin-Shuh Jean, Department of Earth
Science, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan;
E-mail: jiinshuh@mail.ncku.edu.tw
cancer.[67]
Epidemiological studies have demonstrated the carcino-
genic effect of As on humans[8] and have associated the
element with numerous other skin diseases.[9] Populations
exposed to arsenic-contaminated water in Taiwan, Japan,
Bangladesh, West Bengal-India, Chile and Argentina have
higher cancer risks for skin and other organs, including
lung, bladder, kidney and liver.[1011] A significant exposure-
response between arsenic concentration and the mortality
from cancers has also been reported.[78]
In southwestern Taiwan, As has been well documented as
one of the major risk factors for blackfoot disease (BFD),
a peripheral vascular disease that causes severe gangrene in
the extremities and cancer. This disease is considered to be
correlated with the consumption of arsenic-contaminated
groundwater by local inhabitants of this region.[7,12]
Though groundwater is no longer used these days for
 Health risks for human intake of As-contaminated fish
drinking or cooking, the groundwater in the region
is still used in commercial fish-ponds for large-scale
aquaculture.[12] Since arsenic can be bio-accumulated in
aquatic organisms[13], use of high arsenic concentration
of groundwater for aquaculture has resulted in an accu-
mulation of arsenic in cultured animals, such as fish and
shrimp. Previous studies have noted high concentrations
(>329 g g1) of total arsenic in cultured fish from the
arsenic-contaminated area.[12,14]
Tilapia and shrimp are the most commonly consumed
fish in Taiwan and are high in nutritional protein values.
Most of the commercially important tilapia and shrimp
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 09:59 07 September 2017
aquacultural centers in the country are located in the
coastal region of southwestern Taiwan. Several studies have
reported that the use of arsenic-contaminated groundwa-
ter for aquaculture that may cause an accumulation of
arsenic in fish.[1213,1516] Arsenic-contaminated fish con-
sumption could result in arsenic exposure to humans and
lead to adverse health effects.[17] Ling et al. have esti-
mated the risk of the intake of aquacultural milkfish from
the ponds that use arsenic-contaminated groundwater.[13]
However, there is limited research on the cancer risk and
non-cancer health risk associated with consuming arsenic-
contaminated tilapia and shrimp.
In the present investigation, we assess the cancer and
non-cancer risk of consuming aquacultural tilapia and
shrimp contaminated with arsenic in southwestern Taiwan.
Also, the study quantifies the bioaccumulation of arsenic
within different parts of the fish along with the distribu-
tion of organic and inorganic arsenic species. These results
will be valuable to physiologically based pharmacokinetic
(PBPK) model in assessing various internal cancers caused
by ingestion of arsenic-affected tilapia.
Materials and methods
Sample collection and preparation
We investigated several aquaculture ponds from three dif-
ferent areas including Budai (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and B-
5), Yichu (Y-6 and Y-7) and Beimen (Be-8 and Be-9) of
Southwest Taiwan (Fig. 1a). Tilapia (Oreochromis mossam-
bicus L.) and shrimp (Penaeus monodon L.) samples were
collected along with pond water from selected cultivation
ponds where arsenic-contaminated groundwater has been
used. The fish samples (kept frozen during transportation)
were washed thoroughly with tap water to remove soil and
other particles and finally washed with de-ionized water
with continuous shaking. The samples were then stored at
20 C until further analysis. Length and weight of each
fish were recorded before dissection. Part of the fish tissues
were minced and blended to get a homogenous sample and
prepared for analysis of arsenic speciation. Fish bone and
head also separated for digestion to estimate total arsenic.
1267
After dissection, the samples were dried in a hot air oven
at 70 C for about 72 h. Dry samples were converted to fine
powder by grinding with pestle and mortar, then sieved and
stored in polyethylene bags at room temperature prior to
microwave digestion.
About 0.5 g of dry, powdered tilapia or shrimp samples
were placed in a Teflon bomb and 20 mL of concentrated
HNO3 (67%) was added drop by drop, mixed thoroughly,
and allowed to stand for a few minutes at room tempera-
ture with agitation to avoid bubbling. The sample was then
microwave digested in the Teflon bomb at specific condi-
tions (at 200220 C at 40 psi for 20 min). After complete
digestion, the acid-mixed sample was allowed to cool and
the volume made up to 50 mL after repeated washing with
de-ionized water. The liquid was then filtered through a
Millipore acetate cellulose membrane (0.45 m pore size)
filtering apparatus. Extracted sample was kept in a refrig-
erator at 4 C prior to total final arsenic quantification.
Analytical
Total arsenic content was analyzed using the Millenium Ex-
callibur Fluorecence Atomic Analyzer (PS Analytical Ltd,
Kent, UK). Analytical accuracy was checked with reference
material with precision ensured through repeated measure-
ments. For total arsenic, standard reference solution SRM
3103a (NIST, USA) was used. The standard solutions for
arsenic speciation of arsenite [As(III)], arsenate [As(V)] and
dimethyl arsenic (DMA) were prepared by dissolving in wa-
ter from the commercially available salts: arsenite (sodium
arsenite), arsenate (sodium arsenate), DMA (dimethyl ar-
senic acid sodium salt, trihydrate). Chemicals including
As(V) and As(III) and DMA salts were purchased from
Sigma Aldrich (USA). De-ionized water used for all so-
lutions was prepared with an Auto Pure WQ500 system
(Millipore, Bedford, MA).
Nitric acid (containing 67% HNO3 ) and hydrochloric
acid (containing 36% HCl) used for wet-digestion were of
super special grade. All other chemicals were of analytical
grade. The detection limit of arsenic species was 1 g L1
for all three species and was 0.1 g L1 for total arsenic.
The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated to test the
reliability and was found <5% in all the replicates. Quality
assurance was confirmed with standard reference material
(DORM-2, dogfish tissues) with same digestion method
and analytical procedure. Recovery rates ranged from 97%
to 102% (Certified mean value: 18.0 1.1 g g1; Measured
mean value: 17.6 0.68 g g1 to 18.3 0.82 g g1).
For speciation of arsenic (As(III), As(V) and DMA),
a coupled high performance liquid chromatography
hydride generation atomic fluorescence spectrometry
(HPLC-HG-AFS) system was used with a PSA analyzer
(Kent, UK). A P.S. Analytical model Excalibur atomic flu-
orescence spectrometer (AFS) equipped with an As hollow
cathode lamp (current intensities primary = 27.5; boost
= 35.0) and a Perma pure drying membrane for drying
 1268
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 09:59 07 September 2017
Fig. 1. (a) Map showing locations of sampling sites in the southwestern part of Taiwan. (b) Schematic diagram of investigation process
to assess potential risk (CR: Cancer Risk; HQ: Hazard Quotient).
the generated hydride were utilized. Speciation of arsenic
was measured at 193.7 nm wavelength. Data acquisition
was performed with computer software (SISC). Peak sig-
nals were recorded using a computer linked to PSA that is
capable of both peak height and peak area measurement.
The peak height signals were measured and the concentra-
tions of arsenic of the samples were measured against the
standard curve.
Separation of the species was performed using the GBC
LC 1120 HPLC system which includes an autosampler,
column oven and mobile phase degasser in addition to the
chromatography pump. A 200 L aliquot of the sample so-
lution was injected into the LC system (Injector: Rheodyne
7725i, USA), equipped with a Hamilton PRP X100 anionic
column. Phosphate buffer solution at pH 6.0 was pumped
at 1 mL min1. The eluent from the chromatographic col-
umn reached the hydride generation system, where HCl
(2 mol L1 at 8 mL min1) and 1.5% (m/v) NaBH4 in
0.4% NaOH at 3 mL min1 were introduced. The elute
reached the gas-liquid separator and was then transferred
to an Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometer (AFS) detector
with the help of argon flow of 300 mL min1 through an
air-based Perma pure drying membrane (air flow: 2.5 L
min1).
Extraction of arsenic for speciation
Each sample was extracted by using mortar and pestle. A
3 g-portion of the sample was extracted with 30 mL of
chloroform and methanol (2:1). Because the use of only
organic solvents is suggested to be insufficient to extract
water-soluble arsenic compounds, especially inorganic ar-
senicals, the residue was further extracted with 30 mL of
de-ionized water.[18] Both chloroform-methanol and water
extracts were combined, shaken vigorously and allowed to
Kar et al.
stand overnight for the separation of chloroform and wa-
ter/methanol layers. The water/methanol layer was evapo-
rated to dryness and dissolved in 5 mL of de-ionized water.
After filtering the filtrate was made up to 10 mL with de-
ionized water and used as a water-soluble arsenic fraction.
Calculation of bioaccumulation factor (BAF)
The bioaccumulation factor (BAF), relating the concentra-
tion of arsenic in water to its level in fish[12], was used to
estimate the propensity of arsenic accumulation in tilapia
and shrimp: BAF = Cf /Cw , where Cf (g g1) is the arsenic
level in fish and Cw (g L1) is the arsenic concentration in
water.
Estimation of potential health risks
The human health risk associated with the ingestion of
inorganic arsenic in aquacultural tilapia and shrimp was
estimated following U.S. EPA guidelines.[1920] A schematic
diagram has been shown to understand the accumulation
process which raises the potential risk (Fig. 1b). Cancer
risk (CR) and hazard quotients (HQ) were used to indicate
the magnitude of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic hu-
man health risks, respectively. The method to estimate CR
and HQ is provided in the USEPA Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories,
Volume 2, Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Lim-
its, Third edition.[1920] The equations for estimating CR
and HQ are shown as follows:


CR = Cb IRF 103 CPSo EFr ED tot
/ (BWa ATc) and


HQ = Cb IRF 103 EFr EDtot
/ (RfD BWa ATn)
 Health risks for human intake of As-contaminated fish
where CR is the calculated cancer risk; Cb is the inorganic
arsenic level in fish (mg kg1); IRF is the fish ingestion rate
(g d1); CPSo is the oral carcinogenic potency slope (kg d
mg1); EFr is the exposure frequency (350 d yr1); EDtot
is the total exposure duration (30 yr); BWa is the body
weight of an adult (70 kg); ATc is the averaging time for
carcinogens (25,550 d); HQ is the hazard quotient; RfD is
the reference dose (mg kg1d1); and ATn is the averaging
time for non-carcinogens (EDtot 365 d yr1). The calcu-
lated cancer risk and hazard quotient were compared to a
de Minimus lifetime cancer risk of 1 106 and a target
hazard quotient of 1.0, respectively. Values of CPSo and
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 09:59 07 September 2017
1269
in feedstuffs used to feed the fish at a detection limit of 0.1
g L1. Earlier studies of Huang et al. also supported this
finding of arsenic contamination in farmed fish and pond
water from the arsenic-contaminated region.[14]
Bioaccumulation of arsenic in fish
The bioaccumulation of arsenic in freshwater-cultured fish
(tilapia and shrimp) was measured to assess the risks to
human health (see section Potential health risk). Table 1
represents the bioaccumulation factor (BAF) of total ar-
senic in tilapia from pond water. BAF for total arsenic was

RfD for arsenic (1.5 kg1 d mg1 and 3 104 mg kg1 found in the range from 10.3 to 22 in tilapia from the Budai
d1, respectively) were taken from USEPAs Integrated Risk aquacultural pond, whereas 15.1 to18.4 and 12.5 to 15.7 in
Information System (IRIS) database (www.epa.gov/IRIS). Yichu and Beimen, respectively. Estimated BAF for inor-
We evaluated potential human health risks on the basis of ganic arsenic (assuming total arsenic as inorganic arsenic
inorganic arsenic in fish since the CPSo and RfD for arsenic in pond water) was found in the range of 1.33 to 2.82.
apply to inorganic arsenic, not total arsenic. The bioaccumulation of total arsenic in fish is highly
correlated with total arsenic level of pond water (n = 10;
Statistical analysis R2 = 0.80; p < 0.05) (Fig. 2a). This relationship was found
to be in good agreement with Lin.[21] Therefore fish can
Data were presented as minimum-maximum values and be used as a bioassay indicator for surface water pollution
mean standard deviation (SD), correlation statistics, level by high concentrations of arsenic. Arsenic contents were
of significance were analyzed using the SPSS statistical soft- also analyzed in three major consumable parts of fish
ware version 13.0 (SPSS Inc.). A p-value less than 0.05 was body, namely the head, tissue and bone. Fish tissue was
considered to indicate statistical significance. Linear regres- characterized by a higher content of arsenic than fish bone
sion was used to find correlation between the arsenic level and head (Table 2).
in pond water and that in the fish body. The mean arsenic levels in fish tissue were found in the
range from 0.43 0.01 to 1.91 0.05 g g1. The mean
Results and discussion arsenic contents in fish bone and head were found in the
range from 0.33 0.01 to 1.42 0.04 g g1 and 0.21
Arsenic levels in fish, pond water and sediment 0.01 to 1.31 0.04 g g1, respectively. Arsenic content
in total fish is highly correlated with the arsenic content of
The study investigated the relationship between As levels in bone (n = 10; R2 = 0.98) compared to head (n = 10; R2 =
aquaculture pond water, sediment and cultured fish. Mean 0.97) and tissue (n = 10; R2 = 0.96) of tilapia (Fig. 2b). The
concentrations of total arsenic in the aquacultural pond variation of arsenic concentrations in different parts of the
water (n = 10) in Budai were found in the range from 29.5 tilapia body was shown in Figure 2c. Table 3 indicates that
1.10 to 75.7 1.90 g L1 in contrast to 52.3 1.60 to
58.6 1.70 g L1 and 64.6 1.80 to 71.3 1.90 g L1
for Yichu (n = 10) and Beimen (n = 10), respectively (per- Table 1. Bioaccumulation Factor (BAF) of total arsenic in tilapia
missible limit 50 g L1 for aquacultural water in Taiwan) (Units of BAF in L g1).
(Table 1). Average total arsenic in pond water was higher Total arsenic content (n = 10)
in Budai, followed by Beimen and Yichu, indicating not
much variation among the ponds. Total arsenic contents Sampling Tilapia Pond water BAF =
of 0.791.12 mg g1 were observed in pond sediments (not pond (g g1) (Cf ) (Cw )(g L1) Cf /Cw
shown in table). B-1 0.70 0.04 56.9 1.6 12.3
These findings reveal that As in pond water and sediment B-2 1.34 0.09 68.3 1.8 19.6
are important exposure media for the bioaccumulation of B-3 1.58 0.09 75.7 1.9 20.9
As in fish. The mean length of sampled tilapia (n = 10) was B-4 0.33 0.02 32.2 1.2 10.3
16.6 2.14 cm, and the mean weight was 204 25.5 g (fresh B-5 0.65 0.02 29.5 1.1 22
weight). The arsenic contents in tilapia in Budai were found Y-6 0.79 0.04 52.3 1.6 15.1
to be at an alarming level (n = 10) in the range from 0.33 to Y-7 1.07 0.08 58.6 1.7 18.3
1.58 g g1 (mean 0.92 0.52 g g1), whereas 0.79 to 1.7 Be-8 0.78 0.04 71.3 1.9 10.9
g g1 (mean 0.93 0.19 g g1) and 0.73 to 0.78 g g1 Be-9 0.73 0.02 64.6 1.8 11.3
(mean 0.76 0.03 g g1) were the concentration ranges in
BAF = Bioaccumulation Factor; Cf = Concentration in fish; Cw =
Yichu and Beimen, respectively. Arsenic was not detected Concentration in water.
 1270 Kar et al.
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 09:59 07 September 2017

Fig. 2. (a) Relation between total arsenic levels in fish and pond water samples in Budai, Yichu and Beimen in Taiwan. (b) Relation
between total arsenic levels in head, tissue and bone of aquacultural tilapia fish. (c) Box and Whisker plot representing the variation
of total arsenic levels in head, tissue and bone of tilapia.

large tilapia fish contains more total arsenic than smaller
ones.
Arsenic content in different parts of the fish body has
been studied by various researchers and we can compare
Table 2. Total arsenic content in head, muscle and bone of tilapia
cultured using contaminated groundwater (n = 10).
our results with these published data. Arsenic in different
fish tissues were analyzed by Shah et al.[22] and showed
significant higher level in fish muscle (2.1215.2 g g1)
compared to gills (1.0110.4 g g1), mouth pieces
(1.0118.6 g g1), intestine (1.0111.2 g g1), and liver
(3.5110.9 g g1). Jankong et al. reported that the As level
in contaminated areas of Thailand as high as 0.050.81 g

Arsenic in tilapia (g g1) Table 3. Total arsenic content in different parts of large and small
tilapia and shrimp cultured using contaminated groundwater (n
Sampling pond Head Muscle Bone
= 10).
B-1 0.54 0.02 0.92 0.03 0.65 0.02
Arsenic in different parts of fish (g g1)
B-2 1.13 0.03 1.72 0.05 1.21 0.04
B-3 1.31 0.04 1.91 0.05 1.42 0.04 Fish Head Tissue Bone
B-4 0.21 0.01 0.43 0.01 0.33 0.01
B-5 0.48 0.01 0.78 0.02 0.69 0.02 Tilapia(large): Body 0.63 0.01 1.03 0.01 0.76 0.01
Y-6 0.59 0.02 1.12 0.03 0.66 0.02 weight > 200 g
Y-7 0.81 0.02 1.31 0.04 1.05 0.03 Tilapia (small): Body 0.58 0.01
Be-8 0.69 0.02 0.84 0.02 0.72 0.02 weight < 100 g
Be-9 0.57 0.02 0.93 0.03 0.68 0.02 Shrimp 0.36 0.01
 Health risks for human intake of As-contaminated fish 1271

g1 in edible fish muscle.[23] In comparison to our results,
it was observed that the arsenic level in fish tissues were
significantly lower in contaminated areas of Taiwan. An
arsenic level in fish muscle was higher than other parts
like bone and head, which is in agreement with Chan and
Huff.[24] The accumulation and distribution of As in the
fish body are probably controlled by methylation capacity
(which likely changes with exposure), period of metabolism
and As-excretion.[22]
Arsenic species in fish
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 09:59 07 September 2017
compounds being more toxic than their organic counter-
parts[5,28].
Potential human health risk
Our data show that tilapia and shrimp bioaccumulate ar-
senic while being cultured in ponds in southwestern Taiwan.
Local inhabitants are known to consume these species and
hence are exposed to arsenic through ingestion. This expo-
sure, in turn, represents a health risk to these inhabitants
based upon the toxicity of arsenic. A conceptual diagram
shows the mechanism of arsenic contamination and accu-

mulation in aquacultural fish and the associated risk to

Table 4 shows concentrations of the three major arsenic
species in tilapia tissue, As(III), As(V), and DMA. Results
showed that DMA was present in a higher amount than
both the inorganic species As(III) and As(V). DMA rages
from 0.134 0.009 to 0.663 0.024 mg kg1, whereas
As(III) and As(V) ranged from 0.012 0.001 to 0.053
0.002 mg kg1 and 0.031 0.001 to 0.142 0.006 mg
kg1, respectively. The fish from Budai showed higher lev-
els (mean 0.5 0.03 g g1) of all As species compared
to Yichu (mean 0.48 0.02 g g1) and Beimen samples
(mean 0.41 0.02 g g1). DMA was found the major
species (4045%) among the three species, whereas inor-
ganic As(III) and As(V) were found in the range of 11.7 to
14.2%, which is higher than reported in the previous study
of Huang et al.[14]
The inorganic arsenic level (44.1 10.2%) in milkfish
is much higher than that in the seafood and tilapia.[25] It
demonstrates that tilapia might have a higher ability to
covert the inorganic arsenic into organic forms, and arsenic
in ambient water is often in an inorganic form. The previ-
ous studies also reported that among the arsenic species in
fish, organic species like arsenobetaine and DMA predom-
inate [2627], though they were supposed to be less harmful
as they are quickly excreted from human body. Normally,
the toxicity of arsenic species varies according to their
oxidation state and organic form, with inorganic arsenic
people who then consume the fish (Fig. 3). Cancer risk and
non-cancer risk (expressed as a hazard quotient HQ) were
calculated following the approach described in the meth-
ods section, where local consumption rates of tilapia were
considered.
Based on a field survey, the consumption of tilapia (fish
ingestion rate: IRF) of 56 local residences of the three stud-
ied areas was estimated to range between 182 26.3 and
315 52.1 g d1. The mean value, which was used for the
risk calculations, was 242 11.6 g d1. The CR for con-
suming tilapia from the different ponds ranges from 0.92
105 to 4.16 104 (Table 5), with a mean of 2.36
104 0.99 104. This average increase in cancer risk is
over 200 times greater than a de Minimus lifetime risk of
1 106. In a similar way, the non-cancer health risk for
intake of the tilapia (expressed as HQ) ranged from 0.48 to
2.15, with a mean of 1.22 0.52 (Table 5). The CR values
in Budai were found to range between 0.92 105 to 4.16
104 (mean 2.47 104 1.34 104); 2.09 104 to
2.83 104 (mean 2.46 104 0.52 104) for Yichu;
and 1.89 104 to 2.07 104 (mean 1.98 104 0.13

Table 4. Major arsenic species in tissue of tilapia (Oreochromis

mossambicus L.) where n = 10.

Arsenic species in tissue (g g1)

Sampling pond As(III) As(V) DMA

B-1 0.025 0.001 0.063 0.003 0.298 0.013

B-2 0.046 0.002 0.121 0.008 0.563 0.021
B-3 0.053 0.002 0.142 0.006 0.663 0.024
B-4 0.012 0.001 0.031 0.001 0.134 0.009
B-5 0.023 0.001 0.062 0.002 0.274 0.012
Y-6 0.027 0.002 0.071 0.003 0.332 0.015
Y-7 0.037 0.002 0.096 0.005 0.447 0.019 Fig. 3. Conceptual diagram of arsenic contamination and ac-
Be-8 0.027 0.001 0.070 0.003 0.325 0.013 cumulation in aquacultural fish and associated health risk to
Be-9 0.024 0.002 0.065 0.003 0.302 0.011 humans who ingest the fish (color figure available online).
 1272 Kar et al.
Table 5. CR (Cancer Risk) and HQ (Hazard Quotient) associ- the full extent and magnitude of arsenic contamination in
ated with the ingestion of inorganic arsenic in tilapia raised in aquacultural fishes in areas where contaminated ground-
aquaculture ponds feed with contaminated groundwater. water is used in the aquaculture ponds. In addition, ways
Inorganic arsenic in of eliminating or at least reducing the exposure and risk
Pond tilapia (g g1) CR HQ should be considered.

B-1 0.088 1.88 104 0.97

B-2 0.167 3.56 104 1.86 Conclusion
B-3 0.195 4.16 104 2.15
B-4 0.043 0.92 105 0.48 Aquacultural fish (tilapia and shrimp) from groundwater-
B-5 0.085 1.81 104 0.94 cultured ponds in southwestern Taiwan (Budai, Yichu and
Y-6 0.098 2.09 104 1.08 Beimen) represents a potential health risk for human As ex-
2.83 104
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 09:59 07 September 2017

Y-7 0.133 1.47

Be-8 0.097 2.07 104 1.07
Be-9 0.089 1.89 104 0.98
104) for Beimen. HQ values in Budai were found in the
range from 0.48 to 2.15 (mean 1.28 0.69); 1.08 to 1.47
(mean 1.28 0.27) for Yichu; and 0.98 to 1.07 (mean 1.03
0.063) for Beimen.
The CR and HQ values indicate that consumption of
arsenic contaminated tilapia grown in groundwater fed
aquacultural ponds increases both cancer and non-cancer
risks to people who consume these fish. In case of shrimp
the health risk was not assessed due to lack of informa-
tion on regular consumption. We suggest that government
regulatory agencies consider limitations on the use of As-
contaminated groundwater in the aquaculture of fish, or
alternatively, to require a high level of treatment of the
groundwater prior to its use in aquaculture.
Taiwanese population exposed to arsenic show an in-
crease in fatal internal organ cancers as well as an increase
in skin cancer.[7] These cancers, as well as the BFD epidemic
of the 1950s and 1960s, were correlated with high levels of
arsenic in drinking water. Several studies have been carried
out on the doseresponse relationship between the arsenic
level in drinking water[6], and most of these studies involve
the relations between arsenic in water and human health.
However, there has been relatively little attention given to
As exposure from a food safety perspective. Some recently
published reports on farmed fish have involved analyses
of total arsenic accumulation in cultured fish,[16,29] but few
of them have examined the risk based on arsenic expo-
sure. Liao and Ling carried out a risk analysis to quantify
the inorganic arsenic bioaccumulation in cultured tilapia
and mullet from the arsenic-contaminated area in Taiwan,
as well as the risk associated with consumption of these
fish.[14]
They reported that the ninety-fifth percentile of poten-
tial health risk associated with consuming these fish ranged
from 1.92 104 5.25 104 for Taipei city residents eat-
ing tilapia harvested from Hsuehchia fish farms, whereas
for subsistence fishers the risk was 7.36 1041.12
103. That study, incorporating our study, suggests that an
environmental monitoring program is needed to estimate
posure. Water samples from all of the aquacultural ponds
had arsenic concentrations greater than 10 g L1, which is
the USEPA mandated safe drinking-water limit. The can-
cer and non-cancer health risks associated with consuming
aquacultural fish were moderate to high compared to de
Minimus risks. The inhabitants in the arsenic-contaminated
area, who consume arsenic-contaminated tilapia, are ex-
posed chronically to arsenic pollution with carcinogenic
and non-carcinogenic risks. It is of concern that As-rich
groundwater is commonly used for aquaculture in the As-
contaminated area in Taiwan. Many other cultured fish
from this area may also be contaminated by arsenic; how-
ever few potential risk assessments have been done. A
greater understanding of the extent and magnitude of this
problem is warranted.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the National Science Council
of Taiwan for partial financial support. The authors also
thank Prof. Subhas Chandra Santra (Department of En-
vironmental Science, University of Kalyani, West Bengal,
India) and Prof. Arabinda Das (Former Vice-Chancellor
of University of Kalyani, West Bengal, India) for their
valuable suggestions. Finally, the authors thank Dr. Tomas
Kulp at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Menlo Park,
CA 94025, USA for language editing and his scientific com-
ments.
References
[1] Tsai, S.Y.; Chou, H.Y.; The, H.W.; Chen, C.M.; Chen, C.J. The
effects of chronic arsenic exposure from drinking water on the neu-
robehavioral development in adolescence. Neurotoxicol. 2003, 24,
747753.
[2] Smedley, P.L.; Kinniburgh, D.G. A review of the source, behavior
and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Appl. Geochem. 2002,
17, 517568.
[3] Kar, S.; Maity, J.P.; Jean, J.-S.; Liu, C.-C.; Nath, B.; Yang, H.-J.;
Bundschuh, J. Arsenic-enriched aquifers: Occurrences and mobi-
lization of arsenic in groundwater of Ganges Delta Plain, Barasat,
West Bengal, India. Appl. Geochem. 2010, 25, 18051814.
[4] Liu, C.W.; Jang, C.S.; Liao, C.M. Evaluation of arsenic contam-
ination potential using indicator kriging in the Yun-Lin aquifer
(Taiwan). Sci. Tot. Environ. 2004, 321, 173188.
 Health risks for human intake of As-contaminated fish
[5] Donohue, J.M.; Abernathy, C.O. Exposure to inorganic arsenic
from fish and shellfish. In Arsenic exposure and health effects; Chap-
pell, W.R.; Abernathy, C.O.; Calderon, R.L.; Eds.; Elsevier, BV,
1999; 8998.
[6] Yu, W.H.; Harvey, C.M.; Harvey, C.F. Arsenic in groundwater in
Bangladesh: A geostatistical and epidemiological framework for
evaluating health effects and potential remedies. Water Resour. Res.
2003, 39, 1146.
[7] Chen, C.L.; Hsu, L.I.; Chiou, H.Y.; Hsueh, Y.M.; Chen, S.Y.; Wu,
M.M. Ingested arsenic, cigarette smoking, and lung cancer risk: a
follow-up study in arseniasis-endemic areas in Taiwan. JAMA 2004,
292, 29842990.
[8] Chiou, H.Y.; Hsueh, Y.M.; Liaw, K.F.; Horng, S.F.; Chiang, M.H.;
Pu, Y.S.; Lin, J.S.N.; Huang, C.H.; Chen, C.J. Incidence of internal
Downloaded by [IIT Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai] at 09:59 07 September 2017
cancers and ingested inorganic As: a seven-year follow-up study in
Taiwan. Cancer Res. 1995, 55, 12961300.
[9] IPCS. Environmental health criteria on arsenic and arsenic com-
pounds. In Environmental Health Criteria Series, No. 224: Arsenic
and arsenic compounds, WHO, Geneva, 2001; 521.
[10] Mandal, B.K.; Suzuki, K.T. Arsenic round the world: A review.
Talanta 2002, 58, 201235.
[11] Lee, J.J.; Jang, C.S.; Wang, S.W.; Liu, C.W. Evaluation of poten-
tial health risk of arsenicaffected groundwater using indicator
kriging and dose-response model. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2007, 384,
151162.
[12] Lin, M.C.; Cheng, H.H.; Lin, H.Y.; Chen, Y.C.; Chen, Y.P.; Liao,
C.M.; Chang-Chien, G.P.; Dai, C.F.; Han, B.C.; Liu, C.W. Arsenic
accumulation and acute toxicity in milkfish (Chanos chanos) from
blackfoot disease area in Taiwan. Bull Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
2004, 72, 248254.
[13] Ling, M.P.; Liao, C.M.; Tsai, J.W.; Chen, B.C. A PBPK/PD
modeling-based approach can assess arsenic bioaccumulation in
farmed tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) and human health risks.
Integr. Env. Assess. Manag. 2005, 1, 4054.
[14] Huang, Y.K.; Lin, K.H.; Chen, H.W.; Chang, C.C.; Liu, C.W.; Yang,
M.H.; Hsueh, Y.M. Arsenic species contents at aquaculture farm
and in farmed mouthbreeder (Oreochromis mossambicus) in black-
foot disease hyperendemic areas. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2003, 41,
14911500.
[15] Liao, C.M.; Ling, M.P. Assessment of human health risks for
arsenic bioaccumulation in tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus)
and large-scale mullet (Liza macrolepis) from blackfoot disease
area in Taiwan. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2003, 45,
264272.
[16] Ling, M.P.; Liao, C.M. Risk characterization and exposure assess-
ment in arseniasis-endemic areas of Taiwan. Environ. Int. 2007, 33,
98107.
1273
[17] Falco, G.; Llobet, J.M.; Bocio, A.; Domingo, J.L. Daily intake of ar-
senic, cadmium, mercury, and lead by consumption of edible marine
species. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 2006, 54, 61066112.
[18] Francesconi, K.A.; Kuehnelt, D. Determination of arsenic species:
A critical review of methods and applications, 20002003. Analyst
2004, 129, 373395.
[19] USEPA. Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use
in fish advisories. Vol. 2-Risk assessment and fish consumption limits.
3rd ed. Washington DC: USEPA. EPA 823-B-00-008, 2000.
[20] Greene, R; Crecelius, E. Total and inorganic arsenic in Mid-Atlantic
marine fish and shellfish and implications for fish Advisories. Integ.
Environ. Asses. Manage. 2006, 2, 344354.
[21] Lin, M.C. Risk assessment on mixture toxicity of arsenic, zinc
and copper intake from consumption of milkfish, Chanos chanos
(Forsskal), cultured using contaminated groundwater in southwest
Taiwan. Bull. Environ. Cont. Toxicol. 2009, 83, 125129.
[22] Shah, A.Q.; Kazi, T.G.; Arain, M.B.; Jamali, M.K.; Afridi, H.I.;
Jalbani, N.; Baig, J.A.; Kandhro, A. Accumulation of arsenic in
different fresh water fish species potential contribution to high
arsenic intakes. Food Chem. 2009, 112, 520524.
[23] Jankong, P.; Chalhoub, C.; Kienzl, N.B.; Goessler, W.; Francescon,
K.A.; Visoottiviseth, P. Arsenic accumulation and speciation in
freshwater fish living in arsenic-contaminated waters. Environ.
Chem. 2007, 4, 1117.
[24] Chan, P.C.; Huff, J. Arsenic carcinogenesis in animals and in hu-
mans: mechanistic, experimental, and epidemiological evidence. J.
Environ. Sci. Health 1997, 15, 83122.
[25] Lin, M.C.; Liao, C.M. Assessing the risks on human health as-
sociated with inorganic arsenic intake from groundwater-cultured
milkfish in southwestern Taiwan. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46,
701709.
[26] Liu, C.W.; Liang, C.P.; Lin, K.H.; Jang, C.S., Wang, S.W.; Huang,
Y.K.; Hsueh, Y.M. Bioaccumulation of arsenic compounds in aqua-
cultural clams (Meretrix lusoria) and assessment of potential car-
cinogenic risks to human health by ingestion. Chemosphere 2007,
69, 128134.
[27] Maher, W.; Goesler, W.; Kirby, J.; Raber, G. Arsenic concentrations
and speciation in the tissues and blood of sea mullet (Mugil cephalus)
from Lake Maxquarie NSW, Australia. Marine Chem. 1999, 68,
169182.
[28] Phillips, D.J.H. Arsenic in aquatic organisms: A review, emphasizing
chemical speciation. Aquat. Toxicol. 1990, 16, 151186.
[29] Jang, C.S.; Liu, C.W.; Lin, K.H.; Huang, F.M.; Wang, S.W. Spatial
analysis of potential carcinogenic risks associated with ingesting
arsenic in aquacultural tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) in black-
food disease hyperendemic areas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40,
17071713.