Expanding perceptions of subsistence fish consumption: evidence of high commercial fish consumption and dietary mercury exposure in an urban coastal community.

Through collaborative partnerships established between current researchers and The Moton Community House (a local community center), African American women (ages 16-49yrs) from the Southeast Community of Newport News, Virginia, USA were surveyed to assess the reproducibility and consistency of fish consumption patterns (ingestion rates, exposure frequencies, weight, and fish consumption rates) derived from a community-specific fish consumption survey. Women were also surveyed to assess the reliability of the survey responses, and to estimate daily mercury intake. Fish consumption patterns were reproducible and the survey responses were reliable. Comparison between years revealed that fish consumption patterns remained consistent over time. In addition, the high fish consumption rate estimated in 2008 (147.8g/day; 95% CI: 117.6-185.8g/day) was confirmed with a rate (134.9g/day; 95% CI: 88-207g/day) not materially different and still considerably higher than mean fish consumption rates reported for U.S. women. Daily mercury intake rates were estimated using consumption data from 2008 and three consumption scenarios (canned white, canned light, and no tuna) due to confirmed differences in mercury concentration between canned white and light tuna. Arithmetic mean daily mercury intake rates were 0.284μg/kg bw/day (95% CI: 0.229-0.340μg/kg bw/day) using canned white tuna, 0.212μg/kg bw/day (95% CI: 0.165-0.259μg/kg bw/day) using light tuna, and 0.197μg/kg bw/day (95% CI: 0.151-0.243μg/kg bw/day) using no tuna. Approximately 58%-73% of the daily mercury intake rates for African American women in the Southeast Community exceeded US EPA's oral reference dose (RfD) of 0.10μg/kg bw/day for mercury. In addition, 2% of the rates exceeded a level (1.00μg/kg bw/day) documented to produce adverse health effects. Past and current investigations confirmed that even though women in this community were not subsistence fishers, they are subsistence fish consumers.