ESST3103 Lab #3

Question 1
For Caraharinus porosus
Assuming unequal variances, the t-test will be one tailed since the directionality of the test states
if mercury concentration is significantly higher in the epaxial or hypaxial muscles.
Hypotheses;
Ho: Mercury concentration in the epaxial muscles is not significantly higher in the hypaxial
muscles
H1: Mercury concentration in the epaxial muscles is significantly higher in the hypaxial muscles.
p-value = 0.399202
Level of significance at 95% confidence interval = 0.05
Since the p-value is more than the level of significance 0.05, then we fail to reject the null
hypothesis.
Conclusion: The mercury levels in the hypaxial muscles is significantly higher than the epaxial
muscles.
For Sphyrna Lewini:
Hypotheses;
Ho: Mercury concentration in the epaxial muscles is not significantly higher in the hypaxial
muscles.
H1: Mercury concentration in the epaxial muscles is significantly higher in the hypaxial muscles.
p-value = 0.423984
Since the p-value is more than level of significance 0.05, then fail to reject the null hypothesis.
Conclusion: Mercury levels in the hypaxial muscles is significantly higher than epaxial muscles
in Sphyrna Lewini.

Question 2
Assuming unequal variances, the t-test will be one tailed since the directionality of the test states
if arsenic concentration is significantly higher in the epaxial or hypaxial muscles.
Level of significance at 95% confidence interval = 0.05
For Caraharinus porosus
Hypotheses;
Ho: Arsenic concentration in the epaxial muscles is not significantly higher in the hypaxial
muscles.
H1: Arsenic concentration in the epaxial muscles is significantly higher in the hypaxial muscles.
p-value = 0.270343
Since the p-value is more than the level of significance 0.05, then we fail to reject the null
hypothesis.
Conclusion: Arsenic levels in the hypaxial muscles is significantly higher than epaxial muscles
for Caraharinus porosus.
For Sphyrna Lewini
Hypotheses;
Ho: Arsenic concentration in the epaxial muscles is not significantly higher in the hypaxial
muscles.
H1: Arsenic concentration in the epaxial muscles is significantly higher in the hypaxial muscles.
p-value = 0.221526
Since the p-value is more than the level of significance 0.05, then we fail to reject the null
hypothesis.
Conclusion: Arsenic levels in the hypaxial muscles is significantly higher than epaxial muscles
for Sphyrna Lewini.
Question 3
Assuming unequal variances, the t-test will be one tailed since the directionality of the test states
if mercury concentration is significantly higher than arsenic in the epaxial muscles.
Level of significance at 95% confidence interval = 0.05
For the epaxial muscles in Caraharinus porosus
Hypotheses:
Ho: Mercury concentration is not significantly higher than arsenic levels.
H1: Mercury concentration is significantly higher than arsenic levels.
p-value = 0.051713
Since the p-value is more than the level of significance 0.05, then we fail to reject the null
hypothesis.
Conclusion: Mercury levels is not significantly higher than arsenic levels in the epaxial muscles
of Caraharinus porosus.
For the epaxial muscles of Sphyrna Lewini;
Hypotheses:
Ho: Mercury concentration is not significantly higher than arsenic levels.
H1: Mercury concentration is significantly higher than arsenic levels.
p-value = 0.001291
Since the p-value is less than the level of significance of 0.05, then we reject the null hypothesis.
Conclusion: Mercury levels is significantly higher than arsenic levels in the epaxial muscles of
Sphyrna Lewini.
Question 4
Assuming unequal variances, the t-test will be one tailed since the directionality of the test states
if mercury concentration is significantly higher than arsenic in the hypaxial muscles.
Level of significance at 95% confidence interval = 0.05
For the hypaxial muscles in Caraharinus porosus
Hypotheses:
Ho: Mercury concentration is not significantly higher than arsenic levels in the hypaxial muscles.
H1: Mercury concentration is significantly higher than arsenic levels in the hypaxial muscles.
p-value: 0.0985
Since the p-value is less than the level of significance of 0.05, then we fail to reject the null
hypothesis.
Conclusion: Mercury levels is not significantly higher than arsenic levels in the hypaxial muscles
of Caraharinus porosus.
For Sphyrna Lewini:
Hypotheses:
Ho: Mercury concentration is not significantly higher than arsenic levels in the hypaxial muscles.
H1: Mercury concentration is significantly higher than arsenic levels in the hypaxial muscles.
p-value = 0.000833
Since the p-value is less than the level of significance of 0.05, then we reject the null hypothesis.
Conclusion: Mercury levels is significantly higher than arsenic levels in the hypaxial muscles of
Sphyrna Lewini.
Question 5
Assuming unequal variances, the t-test will be one tailed since the directionality of the test states
if mercury concentration in Sphyrna Lewini is significantly higher than Caraharinus porosus in
the epaxial and hypaxial muscles.
Level of significance at 95% confidence interval = 0.05
For the epaxial muscles;
Ho: Mercury concentration in the epaxial muscles of Sphyrna Lewini is not significantly higher
than that Caraharinus porosus.
H1: Mercury concentration in the epaxial muscles of Sphyrna Lewini is significantly higher than
that Caraharinus porosus.
p-value = 0.16726
Since the p-value is more than the level of significance of 0.05, then we fail to reject the null
hypothesis.
Conclusion: Mercury levels in the epaxial muscles of of Sphyrna Lewini is not significantly
higher than that Caraharinus porosus.
For the hypaxial muscles;
Ho: Mercury concentration in the hypaxial muscles of Sphyrna Lewini is not significantly higher
than that Caraharinus porosus.
H1: Mercury concentration in the hypaxial muscles of Sphyrna Lewini is significantly higher than
that Caraharinus porosus.
p-value=0.095755
Since the p-value is less than the level of significance 0.05, then we fail to reject the null
hypothesis.
Conclusion: The mercury levels in the hypaxial muscles of Sphyrna Lewini is not significantly
higher than that Caraharinus porosus.

Question 6
For epaxial muscles
Ho: Arsenic concentration in the epaxial muscles of Sphyrna Lewini is not significantly higher
than that Caraharinus porosus.
H1: Arsenic concentration in the epaxial muscles of Sphyrna Lewini is significantly higher than
that Caraharinus porosus.
p-value = 0.106031
Since the p-value is more than the level of significance 0.05, the we fail to reject the null
hypothesis.
Conclusion: The arsenic level in the epaxial muscles Sphyrna Lewini is not significantly higher
than that Caraharinus porosus.
For the hypaxial muscles:
Ho: Arsenic concentration in the hypaxial muscles of Sphyrna Lewini is not significantly higher
than that Caraharinus porosus.
H1: Arsenic concentration in the hypaxial muscles of Sphyrna Lewini is significantly higher than
that Caraharinus porosus.
p-value = 0.27497
Since the p-value is more than the level of significance, then we reject the null hypothesis.
Conclusion: The arsenic level in the epaxial muscles Sphyrna Lewini is not significantly higher
than that Caraharinus porosus.

Question 7
PTWI = (Amount of fish consumed per week (kg/week) x metal concentration in fish
ingested(µg/kg)) / kg body weight
Where amount of fish consumed per week = 0.3 kg/week and kg body weight = 60 kg.
To calculate the provisional tolerable weekly intake of mercury in Caraharinus porosus:
PTWI = (0.3 kg/week x 2464.4 µg/kg) / 60 kg
PTWI = 12.32 µg/kg
To calculate the provisional tolerable weekly intake of arsenic in Caraharinus porosus:
PTWI = (0.3 kg/week x 4669.82 µg/kg) / 60 kg
PTWI = 23.3 µg/kg
To calculate the provisional tolerable weekly intake of mercury in Sphyrna Lewini:
PTWI = (0.3 kg/week x 1424.69 µg/kg) / 60 kg
PTWI = 7.12 µg/kg
To calculate the provisional tolerable weekly intake of arsenic in Sphyrna Lewini:
PTWI = (0.3 kg/week x 3474.37 µg/kg) / 60kg
PTWI = 17.37 µg/kg
In comparing mercury levels in Caraharinus porosus (12.32 µg/kg) and Sphyrna Lewini (7.12
µg/kg) to the recommended PTWI value of 1.6 µg/kg body weight (Kuras et al 2017), it is seen
that the values for both species exceeded the recommended value. Similarly, the same was seen
for arsenic levels with 23.3 µg/kg in Caraharinus porosus and 17.37 µg/kg in Sphyrna Lewini.
The PTWI values for both species were larger than the recommended value of 15 µg/kg (WHO
2010).
Question 8
To calculate the target hazard quotient (THQ) for mercury in Caraharinus porosus:
THQ = [ (52 days/year x 70 years x 300 g/person/day x 2.4644 µg/g) / (5.0 x 10-4 µg/g/ day x
60000 g x (52 days/year x 60 years) ] x 10-3
THQ = 0.02875
To calculate the target hazard quotient (THQ) for mercury in Sphyrna Lewini;
THQ = [ (52 days/year x 70 years x 300 g/person/day x 1.42469 µg/g) / (5.0 x 10-4 µg/g/ day x
60000 g x (52 days/year x 60 years) ] x 10-3
THQ = 0.01662
To calculate the target hazard quotient (THQ) for arsenic in Caraharinus porosus;
THQ = [ (52 days/year x 70 years x 300 g/person/day x 4.66982 µg/g) / (3.0 x 10-4 µg/g/ day x
60000 g x (52 days/year x 60 years) ] x 10-3
THQ = 0.091
To calculate the target hazard quotient (THQ) for arsenic in Sphyrna Lewini:
THQ = [(52 days/year x 70 years x 300 g/person/day x 3.47437 µg/g) / (3.0 x 10-4 µg/g/ day x
60000 g x (52 days/year x 60 years)] x 10-3
THQ = 0.06756
Question 9
A target hazard quotient (THQ) of less than one indicates that there is no obvious risk and there
is no cause of concern while more than one is an indicator of higher risk which is of concern.
From the THQ values calculated in question eight, a value for mercury of 0.02875 was obtained
for Caraharinus porosus and 0.01662 for Sphyrna Lewini. Both values were less than the THQ
value of 1, which tells us that mercury concentrations in both species are not a cause of concern
as there are no health risks associated with the consumption of these species. For arsenic, a THQ
value of 0.091 was obtained for Caraharinus porosus and 0.0676 for Sphyrna Lewini. Both
species had a THQ value less than 1 for arsenic as well therefore, this metal is not a cause of
concern for human health.
Question 10
Methylmercury can cause disrupted brain function and abnormal behavior due to impairments in
the central and peripheral nervous systems. It is also toxic to the cardiovascular system, resulting
in changes in blood pressures causing hypertension and abnormal functions of the cardiac
system. It can also cause reproductive effects, especially during pregnancy as the fetus can
develop abnormally and birth defects. It is also carcinogenic, especially in adults known to cause
leukemia. (National Research Council (US) Committee on the Toxicological Effects of
Methylmercury 1970).
Question 11
In order to reduce mercury levels is that the government can enforce legislations to phase out all
products that may contain mercury in factories and industries. Encouraging the use of energy that
does not rely on coal can also significantly reduce the amount of mercury being released to the
environment. Educating the population about proper handling and disposal of products
containing mercury such as batteries can also prevent large quantities of mercury entering soils
and water. (WHO 2017).
Question 12
The enterohepatic circulation of methylmercury begins with the reduced glutathione combining
and forming a methylmercury complex which is then secreted into the bile duct. The glutathione
then undergoes hydrolysis to form amino acid which frees the methylmercury complex which is
then reabsorbed into the gall bladder. It then enters the bloodstream where is secreted into the
intestines together with glutathione that can be excreted as faces as well as being distributed to
the kidneys, hair, brain and the fetus. (Kade 2012).

References
1. Kade, Ige Joseph. 2012. “Mercury Toxicity on Sodium Pump and Organoseleniums
Intervention: A Paradox.” Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2012: 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/924549. Kade, Ige Joseph. 2012. “Mercury Toxicity on
Sodium Pump and Organoseleniums Intervention: A Paradox.” Journal of Biomedicine
and Biotechnology 2012: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/924549.
2. Kuras, Renata, Beata Janasik, Magdalena Stanislawska, Lucyna Kozlowska, and
Wojciech Wasowicz. 2017. “Assessment of Mercury Intake from Fish Meals Based on
Intervention Research in the Polish Subpopulation.” Biological Trace Element Research.
Springer US. September 2017.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5550534/#:~:text=In%20order%20to
%20evaluate%20ingestion,in%20the%20individual%20food%20exposure.
3. National Research Council (US) Committee on the Toxicological Effects of
Methylmercury. 1970. “HEALTH EFFECTS OF METHYLMERCURY.” Toxicological
Effects of Methylmercury. U.S. National Library of Medicine. January 1, 1970.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225765/.
4. World Health Organization. 2017. “Mercury and Health.” World Health Organization.
March 31, 2017. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-
health#:~:text=The%20primary%20health%20effect%20of,exposed%20to
%20methylmercury%20as%20foetuses.