~----
-
°
This paper not to be cited without prior reference to the authors
C. M. 1971/E:33
International Council for
the Exploration of the Sea
Fisheries Improvement Committee
Mercury in marine Hsh.
o
A preliminary report.
by
G. Berge and K. H. Palmork x)
The following report has been prepared in response to the relevant
•
recommendation past by ICES Fisheries Improvement Committee at
the Council meeting 1970.
AnalyuL on mercury content in marine organisms from Norwegian
waters were first made by Raeder and Snekvik (1941,
1949
Cl
and 1949 b).
The levels in several specics of marine fish, crustaceans and molluscs
were recorded, and rangcd mostly betwcen 0.05 - O. 15 ppm total Hg
(wet weight).
As a consequence of the world wide problem of mercury contaminated
fish,
some analyses were performed on commercial Norwegian cod (sampies)
in 1965.
•
The recorded values were below 0.1 ppm in musc1e.
Over the
last years a more intensive study of the mercury problem in the wholc '
biota has been performed.
Different laboratorles, identified by their initials in the text of the figures
1 to 8, have performed the analyses, the result of which are presented
here.
These laboratories are:
Institutt for Naeringsmiddelhygiene, Norges
Veterinaerhpyskole, Oslo, (NVH), Veterinrerinstituttet, Oslo, (VI), Sentralinstituttct for Industriell Forskning. Os10, (SI), Hermetikkindustriens
Kontrollinstitutt, Stavangcr, (Hk).
x) Institute of Marine Research,
Directorate of Fisheries.
Bergen, Norway.
The values are given in ppm, wet weight.
r
- 2 -
The results of a gradient study of mercury in thc Trondheimsfjord waters
are presented in Fig. 9.
This fjord is an example of a ijord system
shown to be conto.min3.ted by mcrcury !rom the pulp mill industry situated
in the inner part of the fjord (Berge,
Ljpen and Palmork 1970).
DISCUSSION
The commcrcial fishcries of Norway are based on coasta1 waters and high
•
~prat
sea .fiz hing, Qxccpt Eo:-
which are aloe caught in the fjords.
The
results Comfl1.!.()C dcm.onr:tro.tc thai; the resotlrces on which these fisheries are
based are
10"1,'," ic. ruc1"cury.
VCT-y
For the different species of the offshore
fish, thcrc 3.re no noticcal11e increasc in t11.c mcan mercury levels since
t11.c time cf thc analyse!; rcported by Raeder and Snekvik (1941,
1949 a
and 1949 b).
Much of the analytical work has been conducted in areas of suspected
contamination from. inciuntrial pl::::.ntr> using mercury in their production.
Figures 1 to ü ehow that fivc <lrcas dcmonstrate a raised level of mercury
in fic7:1.
T~o::"';
7".!"C::'C
().;:c:
Thc inner Tromlhc::'msfjord, the Sprfjorden
brC'.nch cf tri;:: E::t::-C:2nr;..~::fjor(~,
•
thc
)~):.:';:::n~djc::(L
zin(' r.toduction.
Du::~
'Co tu·:;
u:JL'1g
1'ho
rn(,;~'r;u:tjr
<:O"J:':CG3
th;~
:2irlangcrfjord area
an~
cf inputs are identiiic;d as pulp mill factories,
::-)::."or.h:ction and PVC production.
';:llr;·d1".('
p:)ll·~..tio.n
thc Fcdafjord,
:-;.:"ct.lcms, the pulp null factories voluntarily
fll...,-,;;k~d.cG
in their production by Janun.:ry 1970.
fac~()1:i~G :r.l.':j,u3SÜO:l. :1a?C
stoppe~
Thc other
started research programme:; to minimize their
mc r.::'i.".'.:'Y pollution.
Comp;),rL~.;;:
thc levels
0:
!T..'=1'C':1:.}
in the different fish from the polluted
areas, it io noticcable tb2.t lcvdo are highest in eod, intermediate in
flatfish and haddock and lcwcRt in nprat.
attributablc to their fccding habits.
These differences are probably
Even in the most 8uspected arcas, no
sprat han been found to havc 2.ny notcworthy levels of mercury, the maximum being 0.3 ppm and thc
OVG:."n.ll
mean O.Oß ppm.
Cod, howcver, has
in the Sprfjord been recorded with maximum 4 ppm mercury.
- 3 -
No commercia1 fisheries take p1ace in these fjords, but some sports
fishing and fishing for private consumption occur.
The fact that thc
products of this fishing are not marketed and that they are of 1ittle
overall importance in the household explains why it has not been found
necessary to introduce restrietions.
Programmes have been carried out and others are under way to investigate the physical and biological transport from the input sourees.
report by Berge,
Lj~en
The
and Palmork (1970) on the sediment and sea
water analysis on mercury from the Trondheimfjord, showed that in spite
•
of the input being stopped half a year ear1ier t great amounts of mercury
were still present in the sediments outside a pulp mill factory.
Thio
contributed continously to the fjord water t and raioed levels were recorded
in the surface water within this basin.
The impression from these results,
as well as from other observations are that there is a retardcd transport
of mercury out of the fjord system.
REFERENCES
BERGE, G.
t
LJ~EN,
R., PALMORK t
K. H. 1970.
A pollution study of the Trondheim Fjord:
A fjord Gystem
infiuenced b'l sewage and pulp mill industry.
F AO Technical Conference on Marine Pollution and its
•
Effects on Living Resourceo and Fishing.
Rome t ltaly
9-16 December 1970, FIR:MP/70/E-72 18 November 1970.
RAEDER. M.G., SNEKVIK t
E. 1941.
Quecksilbergehalt mariner Organismen.
Det Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskab.
Forhandlinger BD XIII, nr. 42.
- 4 -
P..AEDER, M. G., SNEKVll-<, E. 1949.
Mercury Determinations in Fish and other Aquatic Organisms.
Det Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskab.
Forhandlinger BD XXI, nr.' 25.
RAEDER, M. G., SNEKVIK. E. 1949.
Mercury Content of Fish and other Aquatic Organisms.
Det Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskab.
Forhandlinger BD XXI, nr. 26•
•
•
I,
MERCURY
I'
in
i !.
ANALYSEn BY
•
0,360
0,249
10
0,36
0,24
4
0, .130
0, 067
12
0,050
0,045
2
NVH
VI
NVH
NVH
0,040
0,040
2
SI
0,087'
0,707 x
0,081
5
r; . ,::J - 1
VI
0,06
0, 06
1
1,63
0, 71
8
0,14
0,'12
5
1,,27
1, 27 .
1
VI
NVH
NVH
NVH
,
,I
6~
!l
I
•
,
Coalfish
1. Fjordgärd'
2. And~ya
3. Tr~nde1ag
4. Tautra
5. S~rfjorden
6. Frierfjord,
Eidangerfjord
. 7. Fredri~stad-Hvaler
I
1
·1
~I
II
,
J ,
,
MERCURY
in
'''''"
ppm
Fig. 2
)
~!
HEAN
n
ANALYSDD
0, 110
0,080
2
0, 04
0,04
2
NVH
SI ~-
:: 0 130
): 0,05
'.
0, 150
0,13
2
0,06
0, 055
2
"
0,040
0, 110
0,072
6·
"; 0,050
0. 150
0,085
12
NVH
0,078
0,086
0,084
4
0, 043
0,084
0,059
6
VI
VI .
0, 24
0,24
0,24
1
VI
:;,0,17
'.e:;~H+,I+f,4-!-~~, O. 08
2, 05
0,53
14
0,26
O,16~·
0,220
0, 099
9
4,70
I, 25
7
3,27
1 ,'87
,
4
. 4,66
3,52
7
3, .11
I, 27
56
0,55
0,24
10
0,22
0, 14
5
11
: HIN
HAX
~
j:
'I
i
I1
I
I
I
!' ..
\ 0, 050
,..:
0,04
l'
i
:-l.".
;..
I
,
.
'
"
NVH
SI
NVH
"
.~
.,
I
,t
':
öl
,I
•
•
It.~
.(
~!
I....
,~
"
I,
,,
0,052
· 0,45
~
:.:(1' 01
: 1,95
i 0,22
~,..O, 04
·'.. 0, 11
',..
5
NVH
NVH
NVH
NVH
1
<0,2
.... 0,10
! 0,31
VI
VI
VI
VI
NVH
0,60
O,25>l13
NVH
3,60
0,84
47
NVH
.
Il
Cod
1. 0st-Finnmark
2. Ytre Troms
3. L~ksfjord
4. Mis'tfjord
5. Steinkj<Er
,6. Follafoss
. 7. Hennefjord
8. Tautra
9. S~rfjorden
10: Dra~ensfjord
~1 .. Frierfjord,Eidangerfjord
12. Frcdrikstad-Hva1cr "I
13. Midtre Fjord
l
._.l..-
..L-._.
L_'L-
l
.
~--
..
~.
.....
,."
........ - . ..
.
...
.,- _._"
.
MERCURY
..
in
ppm
Fig. 3
i\
.I.
I!.,
11'
/·1
HAX
MIN
n
MEA~.
ANALYSED BY
.
/'.
d
'"I .
/:,
l!
..
..
!l
/ll
.'i"~
iH
.'j:;..
'
~
li'
l'
'.
'.i
..
.r
.
,.;
'I"
f,~
I:t.'
"
'J
"'\
)t
Jl
/.
"
'i"i
.
"
·H! t
\' .
'
jl
-\
..,••
J\
f
I
"
I
k
h
6~~
I
;
i
,! .
'li
{
i,
.
"i;
f~
"
')'
I
d
"
):
,"
1;
I'
'I
\.
I
I,.
)
0,38
0,50
0,26
0,46
5
2
VI
VI
0,32
1,20
1,90
,1,20
'1,02
"1,20
6
1
VI
VI
0,38
0,29
1,08
1,37
10
10
NVH
NVH
21' ,
0,17
3
4
NVH
NVH
.~ i
!
i
i
'.
0,10
0,41
.i
•
j
,'$
~!l
I
0,13
0,09
-
0,24
0,21
0,65
0,.73 .
°,
0,63
1,16
0,96
3
NVH
0,11
0,34
0,20
8
NVH
0,54
0,54
0,54
1
VI
I
n
·1
Ii
I'I
-
!:
..: t
Flatfish
1
;
1. Trondheimsfjord
2.
S~rfjorden
I
3. Drammensfjord
I
4. Fredrikstad-Hvaler
5. 'Sandefjord
6. Frierfjord, Eitlanger jord
7. Fedafjord
--
,
.
MERCURY
.
•
in
0,070
0, 050
2
NVH
0,040
0,030
2
SI
0,04
0,04
2
SI
0,05
0, 045
2
NVH
0, 14
0, 14
°
VI
0,093
0, 064
4
VI
0,50
0,22
5
VI
0, 51
0,46
3
VI
0,22
0, 11
9
NVH
!.
I
Haddock
1.
Vest Finmnark
2.
Senja
3.
Mistfjorden
4.
Follafoss
5.
S~rfjor den
6.
Hvaler
I
j
-/
,
7.
I
Nord-Norge
'----_-1.
L
1
_
....-----------------
-
MERCURY
in
".
Herring
0, 03
0,04
0,04
5
VI
0,05
0,09
0,07
4
NVH
0,06
0,76
0, 14
13
NVH
I·
1. Borgenfjord
2. Dramrnensfjord
3. Fredrikstad-Hvaler
.j
I
I
I
---->---'----------,
•
. MERCURY
-,
•
in
ppm,
Fig. 6
c
'B
fij\
MAX
MIN
,'1
HEAN
n
ANALy~r.l)
BY
.
,
/J:.
l'
/,1
...d
..
fl
j;;
"
/1\
. "
Ii!
'/H
i"1,,.}r:.
/.:
'it ~
/1 '
.~
I
/:
••
'I:~"
/:~
I;:
/:f
Ij;
j:~
fJ
,l',
/j~
/~
'1
.I.
A~/'
i' 0,012
;.:
0,11
0,05
5
:f;
0, 05
0, 15
0, 11
16
HL
"i
0,04
0,04
0,04
12
HL
,..;". ~ 0,02
'.j! 0 02
0, 06
0,04
:'4\
HL
0, 09
0,'.04
28
HL
0,08
0,06 ,
6
HL
0,05
0, 04
·4
HL
0, 06
0,05
A
HL
0, 02
0, 30
0, 11
42
HL
,!'l 0, 10
0, 23
0, 16
1<1
HL
i~ 0 11
0, 15
0, 12
6
HL
W'
0,08
0, 05
26
HL
0,07
0,05
8
HL
.'11 ,.
I
f~
fit
;
/1Jl".
.
'
~r 0,04
)~ 0, 02
?;1{ 0 04
'I'
!:i
'
·H
'.
ll't
'
0, 03
Ii~ ~ 0,03
~,YI
I
I
t:
':..:
..
Sprat
1.
I
Trondheirnsfjorden
I
2 •.... M~re og Rornsdal.
,.
1
3. Nordfj'ord
1
4. Sogncfjord -
I
5. Ytre Hardanger
6. Ryfy'1kc
.
7. Os1ofjorden
S~rl<:l ndet
8. Borgenfjord
I
-_ _. l . - -_ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _
,
•
MERCURY
'I
-1,
I·.e
HAX
MIN
in
ppm
Fig. 7
n'
NEAN
',li
t ANALYSBD
.
If',
I:"
I'
,I
-,
I.i!
11
1;\
/H
1::
-,.
Ij:
.
~ ~
li~
f.~ ~
t't
.;
'd
,..,
;:~
.:
~i
jl..
"
' ,,;
,;:I.t
~
.1
!\\.
j'
i
1!'
;i
II
"i
0,12
0,22
0,16
9
VI
0,30
0,32
0,31
2
VI
0,20
0,98
0,46
19
VI
0,08
0,12
0,10
1
VI
"
'li
!!
g
.~ ;
I"
I•
'J:I
"
.
11
.;;'
I'
~ lt
..
ij:'
H
J"
~
~1
'i
.•;.~
i
·e
,h
J.!
H
11
11
·ili
,
I'
t:
,
.:}
1~
Ogna / ~yaelva
2.
S~rfjorden
-
-"
BY
.
°0
•
MERCURY
'.
i.
in
Fig. 8
ppm
0,99
0,68
7
VI
I, 88
I, 52·
9
NVH
0,30
0,22
2
NVH
I
j
1
I
I
i
iI
I
.
i
j
11
'I
1\
1
Whiting
I,
I,
I;
1. S~rfjorden
2. Drammensfjord
3. Fredrikstad-Hvaler
••
-
1.6·
MERCURY
o----oOM
><
xlO M
...J
t J'
:r: 1.2
'[71
:1.. 0•8
o
OUTER FJORD
Fig. 9.
20
40
60
80
100
KM
INNER "FJORD
Mercury content of the Trondheim fjord water May 1970.
From Berge et el.
(1970).