Abstract
A total of 81 roach (Rutilus rutilus) collected from 13 southern English river sites between 2007 and 2012, were analysed for organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, PBDEs and some metals. Unexpectedly high concentrations of the banned insecticide DDT and its degradation products DDE and DDD (∑DDTs) were found in the 10 fish from the river Lee (or Lea) which averaged 88 ± 70 (standard deviation) μg/kg ww, almost 20 times higher than the average for the remaining sites (4.8 ± 3.1 μg/kg). All fish from that site exceeded the Canadian Tissue Residue Guideline (environmental quality standard) of 14 μg/kg ∑DDTs. Concentrations of the insecticides chlordane and lindane as well as copper, which is often used as a fungicide, were also elevated in fish from the Lee, though not as much as those of DDTs. A likely explanation for these observations was found in a nearby former pesticide factory, which had stopped production about three decades earlier.An extensive review of recent literature data on DDT in wild European fish found that, while levels are now generally low, there were several other hotspots with ∑DDTs levels that may still be of concern.
Highlights
Humans based on effects on pelicans with food intake for kingfisher and factor NOEL=LOEL/3 risk based threshold for cancer calculation uses effects on rats and food intake rate for minkc dietary effects concentration dietary effects concentration reduced fledgling rate when declining conc. in fish were still 0.15 μg/g no effects hazard concentration calculation uses effects on rats and food intake rate for mink with factor 10 for interspecies difference calculation uses effects on rats and food intake rate for otter with factor 10 for interspecies difference food standard for meat d
A Quoted in Beckvar et al (2005) b Most sensitive endpoint and highest food intake rate for fish eating birds (Wilson’s storm petrel), includes uncertainty factor 10 to account for other species and a factor 2.4 to extrapolate from LOEC to threshold level. c Experimental data was for pp’DDT in food but results are applied to ∑DDTs d To our knowledge no standard has been set for fish
Pink shaded cells indicate that the difference between these groups was statistically significant at α=0.05
Summary
(Macek 1968b)a (Johnson 1996)a (Johnson 1996)a (Smith 1973)a (Cuerrier 1967)a (Hopkins 1969)a (Butler 1972)a (Burdick 1964)a (Burdick 1972)a (Jarvinen 1976,1977)a (Mills et al 2001). (Berlin et al 1981)a (Butler 1969)a (Allison et al 1963,1964) a (Buhler 1969)a (Buhler 1969)a (Jarvinen 1976,1977)a (Davy et al 1972)a (Macek 1968b)a (Macek 1968a)a (Mills et al 2001)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
