Distribution of polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides in wild mussels from two different sites in central Croatian Adriatic coast

Abstract

Levels of 24 organochlorine compounds were investigated in wild mussels collected at two locations (Krka estuary and Kaštela Bay) on the Croatian Adriatic coast in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. PCB and OCP ranges found at the two locations overlapped and followed similar profiles despite the differences between the two locations indicating that they share a common pollutants source. Among organochlorine pesticides, the dominant compound was DDT. Among indicator PCBs, the dominant compound was PCB-153, while PCB-118 was dominant among the remaining 11 congeners. Generally, the sum of six indicator PCBs was constantly greater than the sum of 11 congeners at both locations. α-HCH/γ-HCH and DDE/DDT ratios were below 1, indicating recent input of γ-HCH and DDT into the marine environment. In the investigated period, almost all organochlorine compounds reached the highest values in 2006. The levels of PCBs and OCPs in this study were considerably below the Croatian maximum permissible levels, confirming that they do not pose any threat for human health.

Chlorinated and brominated organic pollutants in shellfish from the Yellow Sea and East China Sea

“…Comparing ∑(α-, β-, γ-HCH) levels in shellfish from around the world, it is notable that the present concentrations were in the lower end in relation to data from east Asian waters (Ramu et al 2007b) and also compared to blue mussels from Greenland (Glasius et al 2005) (Table 2). However, comparing ∑(α-, β-, γ-HCH) levels presented herein with the European sampling sites (Kozul et al 2011; Van Ael et al 2012) indicated similar or only slightly higher levels (Table 2). It is reasonable to conclude that the high proportion of β-HCH together with low ratio of α-HCH/γ-HCH indicates that HCHs profile in shellfish was due to contamination of technical HCH together with lindane.…”

“…d n.d.–5.4 d n.d.–0.34 d n.d. d n.d.–31 d n.d.–78 d (Giandomenico et al 2013)Scheldt estuary, Netherlands and Belgium2010Blue musselw.w.2.0–3.70.09–1.210–393.5–160.83–1.80.09–0.7651–360120–7600.28–5.2(Van Ael et al 2012)Adriatic coast, Croatia2003–2008Blue musselw.w.0.56–2.00.15–0.620.02–0.170.28–2.1(Kozul et al 2011)Baltic Sea, Finland2007Clamw.w.0.13–0.471.0–3.00.23–1.00.24–0.490.07–0.150.56–1.61.7–4.3(Pikkarainen 2007)Usuk, Greenland2000Blue mussell.w.2.06.1115.1134.17.1155.1(Christensen et al 2002; Glasius et al 2005) a Sum of 4,4′-DDT, 4,4′-DDE, and 4,4′-DDD b Sum of α-HCH, β-HCH, and γ-HCH c Sum of CB-28, CB-52, CB-101, CB-118, CB-138, CB-153, and CB-180 d n. d. not detected…”

Lysosomal Membrane Stability of Mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamarck, 1819) as a Biomarker of Cellular Stress for Environmental Contamination

“…Our results were very high compared with other findings recorded in the deeper waters of the Black Sea [ 34 , 35 ]. Other studies carried out in different seas have reported lower tissue levels of OCPs and PCBs compared with our results [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]. Heptachlor exceeded the MAC according to European legislation [ 32 ] at all sampling sites.…”

Does zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) represent the freshwater counterpart of Mytilus in ecotoxicological studies? A critical review

“…In particular, different Mytilus species (Mytilus edulis, Mytilus californianus, Mytilus galloprovincialis, Mytilus trossulus) and oysters (Cressostrea virginica) have been used to evaluate the contamination status of the US coasts. On the other hand, specimens from the genus Mytilus are historically used as sentinel organisms worldwide to monitor the contamination of some persistent organic pollutants (Monirith et al, 2003;Carro et al, 2005;Ko zul et al, 2011), heavy metals and organotin compounds (Chase et al, 2001;Furdek et al, 2012;Edwards et al, 2014), radionuclides (Ro zmari c et al, 2013;Kiliç et al, 2014) and more recently also emerging pollutants, such as pharmaceuticals . Mytilus is used also to evaluate the effect of pollutants on biota, which represents the second part of the environmental risk assessment (Forbes and Forbes, 1994).…”