Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:12:28.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Letter to the Editor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

José G Dórea
José G Dórea*
Affiliation:
CP 04322, Department of NutritionUniversidade de BrasíliaBrasília DF 70919-970, Brazil
*
Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Letter to the Editor
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 12 , Issue 12 , December 2009 , pp. 2536 - 2537
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2009

Fish

Biomarkers: blood or hair?

Madam

The timely paper by Brantsæter et al.(Reference Brantsæter, Haugen and Thomassen1) on blood biomarkers of fish intake was based on the rationale for a strong, direct and independent relationship between the biomarker with the fish food group. The results confirm that blood DHA reflects both fatty fish intake and n-3 PUFA supplementation. However, blood arsenic was the measured marker that appeared useful to indicate total fish and seafood consumption. Indeed the paper recognised that methylmercury presence in other human tissues is directly related to fish consumption.

I would like to raise the convenience of a specific tissue, Hg levels in hair, as a biomarker with several advantageous characteristics. Hair grows 1 cm a month, and integrates blood concentrations at a time point of at least 1 month (for 1 cm long samples). Therefore transient changes in fish consumption are likely to affect blood arsenic, but not hair-Hg concentrations.

Unlike blood assays, which need experienced personnel for proper venepuncture, hair is much more easily collected, handled, stored, processed and analysed(Reference Peplow and Augustine2). Unlike any of the blood markers used by Brantsæter et al., integration of hair-Hg levels is superior because of its bio-accumulative properties. Fish-derived methylmercury binds specifically to hair, while Hg from other sources is excreted in urine(Reference Barbosa, Boischio and East3); this is a unique specificity not shared by other blood biomarkers(Reference Brantsæter, Haugen and Thomassen1).

Compared with blood-Hg, concentration of Hg levels in the hair is almost 300 times higher(Reference Kershaw, Clarkson and Dhahir4). Due to rate of hair growth, hair-Hg will always reflect a delayed average dependent on the sample size and proximity to the scalp. Indeed, Brantsæter et al.’s cited values of fish consumption for the Danish, Finnish and Mexican mothers are much lower than those recorded in Amazon subsistence women who, using calculations based on hair-Hg concentrations, consume an average of 170·5 g of fish a day(Reference Dórea, Barbosa and Ferrari5).

My group has used hair-Hg as a biomarker of fish intake to survey cardiovascular health in adults(Reference Dórea, de Souza and Rodrigues6), and linear growth and neurodevelopment in children(Reference Dórea, Barbosa and Ferrari7–Reference Fonseca, Dórea and Bastos9). Hair-Hg also has been used to trace dietary predominance of fish in spatial studies(Reference Alves, Fraiji and Barbosa10, Reference Dunlap, Reynolds and Bowers11) of isolated subsistence communities and to study prehistoric diets in mummies(Reference Egeland, Ponce and Bloom12). As a surrogate of fish intake, Arakawa et al.(Reference Arakawa, Yoshinaga and Okamura13) used hair-Hg concentrations to study fecundity among Japanese women. Because direct fish consumption can be estimated by hair-Hg(Reference Dórea, Barbosa and Ferrari5, Reference Richardson and Currie14, Reference Holsbeek, Das and Joiris15), breast-fed babies have hair-Hg well correlated with maternal hair-Hg(Reference Barbosa, Silva and Dórea16). It may not be ethically acceptable to draw blood to measure a biomarker in a small baby, but hair-Hg testing is not invasive and within its limits has been used in association with maternal fish intake.

I hope this discussion revives interest in useful biomarkers of fish consumption in order to improve the quality of studies of this unique food group.

References

1.Brantsæter, AL, Haugen, M, Thomassen, Y et al. (2009) Exploration of biomarkers for total fish intake in pregnant Norwegian women. Public Health Nutr (Epublication ahead of print version).Google ScholarPubMed
2.Peplow, D & Augustine, S (2007) Community-directed risk assessment of mercury exposure from gold mining in Suriname. Rev Panam Salud Publica 22, 202–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Barbosa, AC, Boischio, AA, East, GA et al. (1995) Mercury contamination in the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental and occupational aspects. Water Air Soil Pollut 80, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Kershaw, TG, Clarkson, TW & Dhahir, PH (1980) The relationship between blood levels and dose of methylmercury in man. Arch Environ Health 35, 28–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Dórea, J, Barbosa, AC, Ferrari, I et al. (2003) Mercury in hair and in fish consumed by Riparian women of the Rio Negro, Amazon, Brazil. Int J Environ Health Res 13, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Dórea, JG, de Souza, JR, Rodrigues, P et al. (2005) Hair mercury (signature of fish consumption) and cardiovascular risk in Munduruku and Kayabi Indians of Amazonia. Environ Res 97, 209–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Dórea, JG, Barbosa, AC, Ferrari, I et al. JR (2005) Fish consumption (hair mercury) and nutritional status of Amazonian Amer-Indian children. Am J Hum Biol 17, 507–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Marques, RC, Dórea, JG, Bernardi, JV et al. (2008) Maternal fish consumption in the nutrition transition of the Amazon Basin: growth of exclusively breastfed infants during the first 5 years. Ann Hum Biol 35, 363–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Fonseca, MF, Dórea, JG, Bastos, WR et al. (2008) Poor psychometric scores of children living in isolated riverine and agrarian communities and fish-methylmercury exposure. Neurotoxicology 29, 1008–1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Alves, MF, Fraiji, NA, Barbosa, AC et al. (2006) Fish consumption, mercury exposure and serum antinuclear antibody in Amazonians. Int J Environ Health Res 16, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Dunlap, KL, Reynolds, AJ, Bowers, PM et al. (2007) Hair analysis in sled dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) illustrates a linkage of mercury exposure along the Yukon River with human subsistence food systems. Sci Total Environ 385, 80–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Egeland, GM, Ponce, R, Bloom, NS et al. (2009) Hair methylmercury levels of mummies of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Environ Res 109, 281–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Arakawa, C, Yoshinaga, J, Okamura, K et al. (2006) Fish consumption and time to pregnancy in Japanese women. Int J Hyg Environ Health 209, 337–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Richardson, GM & Currie, DJ (1993) Estimating fish consumption rates for Ontario Amerindians. J Exp Anal Environ Epidemiol 3, 23–37.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Holsbeek, L, Das, HK & Joiris, CR (1996) Mercury in human hair and relation to fish consumption in Bangladesh. Sci Total Environ 186, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Barbosa, AC, Silva, SR & Dórea, JG (1998) Concentration of mercury in hair of indigenous mothers and infants from the Amazon basin. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 34, 100–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed