Comparison of the potential risk from arsenic exposure when eating fish grown in natural and artificial conditions, using the example of rainbow trout

Introduction. Due to the increasing share of fish and fish products in the human diet, hygienic problems are also increasing, especially with the growing of aquaculture sector. The task of determining the level of arsenic toxicity is becoming extremely important. Although the toxicity mechanisms of inorganic arsenic are generally well understood, the impact of speciation of its other (organic) compounds on the likelihood of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects has been largely unexplored.

Material and methods. The objects of study were samples of fillet and caviar of salmon fish — rainbow trout (wild and aquaculture). The quantitative determination of arsenic-containing substances was carried out using high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry with inductively coupled plasma. The samples were prepared using microwave methods. The risk level was calculated based on recommendations R 2.1.10.3968–23.

Results. As the result of this work the information about concentration of arsenic (organic and inorganic compounds) in fillets and caviar of fish from the salmon family — rainbow trout was shown. It has been established that the content of inorganic and organic arsenic compounds practically does not differ, depending of the habitat of trout. The levels of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk of inorganic arsenic were calculated.

Limitations. Determination of arsenic concentration was carried out in rainbow trout, which had been grown in natural and artificial conditions.

Conclusion. It has been established that inorganic arsenic makes the greatest contribution to the health risk. However, the magnitude of the risk does not exceed the acceptable sanitary and hygienic standards, while the conditions for growing fish have practically no effect on these values.

Compliance with ethical standards. The study does not need the approval of the biomedical ethics committee or other documents.

Author contribution: Bondareva L.G. — concept and design of the study, collecting and processing of material, approval of the final version of the article, responsibility for the integrity of all parts of the article;
Fedorova N.E. — concept and design of the study, editing, approval of the final version of the article, responsibility for the integrity of all parts of the article;
Rodionov A.S. — collecting and processing of material, statistical processing, writing the text, collecting of literary data.

Conflict of interests. Authors declare no conflict of interests.

Funding. The study had no sponsorship.

Accepted: Jule 22, 2024 / Revised: September 7, 2024 / Received: September 20, 2024 / Published: 30 October, 2024