Dietary exposure to methylmercury from fish consumption by Indigenous communities along the Napo River, Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently in the Peruvian Amazon, there has been increased concern regarding exposure to the neurotoxin methylmercury (MeHg) through fish consumption. Objective: To measure local Indigenous communities’ methylmercury exposure secondary to consumption of the most commonly eaten fish species, and assess if weekly methylmercury exposure by women of reproductive age (15 – 49 years) surpassed established tolerable weekly intake values for this vulnerable population. Methods: The team surveyed households, by means of a convenience sample, to establish the five most commonly consumed fish, the fishes’ average household feeding capacity, as well as the average total fish length. We sampled fish in the region sourced from local fishermen, and analysed these tissue samples for methylmercury levels to calculate risk exposure. A limitation was using a convenience sample for the dietary survey, which could introduce the risk of low generalizability to the population. Such a risk is low in this situation, however, as household characteristics are homogenous. Results: A total of 205 fish representing 19 different species were sampled. The median mercury concentration in the 9 most commonly–consumed fish species was < 0.073 mg/kg ww. The highly carnivorous chambira (H. scomberoides) was the only exception, with a median mercury concentration of 0.30 mg/kg ww. Total weekly methylmercury exposure weighted by species–specific consumption frequencies for local women of reproductive age (15 – 49 years) was 0.635 g/kg bw/week. This is less than the most conservative tolerable weekly intake value of 0.70 g/kg bw/week, as established by international health agencies. Conclusions: Given low exposure to MeHg and the reliance of fish as a primary protein source, it was concluded that it is reasonably plausible the benefits of fish consumption at the observed rates outweigh the risks of methylmercury poisoning in this population. We do caution however, that young children and women of child–bearing age might benefit from choosing fish other than chambira wherever possible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".