Archive | 2019

Fish consumption frequency and lipid peroxidation in the riverside population of Lower Tocantins, Pará

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Abstract


Introduction: Several studies report the benefits of fish \nconsumption to the prevention of cardiovascular diseases \nsuch as atherosclerosis, thrombosis and arrhythmia. On the \nother hand, regular consumption of fish can induce the accumulation \nof methylmercury in the body. \nObjective: To evaluate the relationship between frequency \nof fish consumption, mercury concentrations and intensity of \nlipid peroxidation. \nMethods: A cross - sectional, observational study. It was \nevaluated riverside in Limoeiro do Ajuru, Para. Variables were \nsociodemographic variables, frequency of weekly fish consumption, \nconcentration of total mercury in hair and the dose \nof malondialdehyde in plasma. The concentrations of total \nmercury (μg/g) and malondialdehyde (nmol / ml) were respectively \n0.63 μg/g and 0.54 nmol/ml for weekly fish consumption \nless than two meals, 0.51 μg/g 0.42 nmol/ml for \nconsumption in two to four meals and 0.88 μg/g and 0.31 \nnmol/ml for consumption major than four fish meals. There \nwas a significant difference between groups of two to four \nand major than four meals, only for the total mercury variable \n(p = 0.008). \nDiscussion: In this study, low levels exposure and high \nfish consumption can influencing the bioaccumulation of mercury \nin this population. Santos et al, found the total mercury \nconcentration (0.09 to 3.79 μg/g) in the rivers and compared \nthe levels according to the intake categories of fish, did not \nobtain significant statistical difference. This divergent result \nsuggests that deforestation in the Amazon has been increased \nand is an important vehicle for mercury exposure \nwhich affects local survival and subsistence. \nConclusion: Riparians in the studied region have high fish \nconsumption and low concentrations of mercury. Although the \ngroup with low fish consumption had higher levels of MDA \nthere was no significant difference when compared with other \ngroups.

Volume 39
Pages 64-68
DOI 10.12873/391BARRETO
Language English
Journal None

Full Text