Joint Usage / Research Center “Leading Academia in Marine andEnvironment Pollution Research (LaMer)”
Center for Marine and Environmental Studies (CMES), Ehime University

Annual Report for 2017

Submitted by
K. Vimalkumar
Department of Environmental Biotechnology
School of Environmental Sciences
Bharathidasasn University
Tiruchirappalli 620 024

March 2018

Determination and Quantification of PBDEs and PCBs in Indian fish, their Human
exposure and Health Risk Assessment using GC-MS
K.Vimalkumar, UGC Project Fellow, Department of Environmental Biotechnology, School of Environmental
Sciences, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India

1. AimPersistent organic pollutants (POPs) are of great environmental and health concern. Several
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDEs) have been targeted for
restricted use or ultimate elimination by the Stockholm Convention on POPs which went into effect in2004. Other groups of organic and emerging pollutants, including PBDEs and PCBs are considered thenext generation of POPs to be included into the treaty due to their similarities to the banned chemicals inregard to health effects as well as their ubiquitous presence in the environment. Due to their performanceand cost-effectiveness, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been used for many years as flame
retardants in various commercial products, such as furniture, textiles, plastics, paints, and electronic
appliances. The potential of these two groups of compounds (PBDEs and PCBs) to bioaccumulate has
been detected in various environmental matrices. Recent studies noticed that concentrations of PBDES
and PCBs have increased in the environment due to manmade activities. Hydroxylated polybrominateddiphenyl ethers (HO-PBDEs) and methoxylatedpolybrominated diphenyl ethers (MeO-PBDEs), thebiotransformation products of PBDEs have also been observed in tissues of fish and humans. Likewise
PCBs metabolites were also found in several environmental and biotic samples. In this study, has beenreported the levels of PBDEs and PCBs in fish samples from metro cities in south Indian rivers. Many
POPs are persistent or pseudo-persistent (due to continuous emission) in the environment and toxic to
non-target organisms. They also have the potential for bioaccumulation in organisms of different tropic
levels.
1.1 Objective
 To collect the samples with background data and determine the quantification of PBDEs and
PCBs flame retardants in fish samples which was already collected by the PI in Bangalore andChennai cities of southern India, have been stored in es-bank until analysis.
 To find the hotspot of PBDEs and PCBs concentration in two cities Bangalore and Chennai.
Calculate the human dietary risk level of PBDEs and PCBs using by fish concentration is basedon the consumption of fish per day and daily intake of fish.
 Comparison of present data with globally who are all reported concentration levels of PBDEs and
PCBs in fish samples and assessment of androgen and estrogen levels that are induced by organic
pollutants such as PBDEs and PCBs, in fresh water fish collected from and near the samplingsites.

2. Extraction procedure for PBDEs and PCBs in fish sample:
Number fishes were collected in Bangalore and Chennai, in a Bangalore 2 types of fishes one was catfish(n=2) and tilapia (7). Likewise, Chennai city also 2 varieties of fishes mullet fish (n=13) and tilapia (n=8).
Following extraction both PBDEs and PCBs has represents in Fig.1.

Fig.1. shows the extraction and analysis of PBDEs and PCBs in fish tissue
3. Result and discussion:
3.1 Levels of PBDEs in fish samples
PBDEs were quantified in the fresh water fish samples which are collected from the Chennai and
Bangalore cities. In Chennai mullet and tilapia fishes were collected, it depends upon the sources andavailability of fish species also. Levels of PBDEs, percentage and mean concentration have been
represent in the Fig.2. Mean concentration of BDE 49, 47,155 and 154 are 0.62, 9.19, 6.44 and 2.26 (ng/gdw) respectively. In the levels of mean value was detected in the both mullet and tilapia varieties.
Percentage wise both species were observed mullet 59 and tilapia 4. Among 43 congeners of PBDEs,
detection of PBDEs only 4 congeners such as BDE 49, 47,155 and 154 comparing the 4 BDE 47 levels
was high. In Bangalore based on the availability, have been collected 2 types of fish species (Cat fish andTilapia). Same as above of Chennai, data are represents the concentration range, mean and percentage of
PBDEs in fig.3.

20

Tilapia (n=8)

18Mullet (n=13)

16

Tilapia (n=8)
41%

Mean

ng/g dw

14

Mullet (n=13)
59%

12
10

8
6
4

2
0
BDE 49

BDE 47

BDE 155

BDE 154

Fig.2 shows fish concentration range, mean and percentage of PBDEs in Chennai city

Among the 43 congeners of PBDEs, 14 congeners were detected in cat fish especially BDE 209
concentration 12.4 ng/g dw comparing others. Same way in tilapia species 4 congeners only observed it
may because of the accumulation of species and nature of lipid content.
14

Tilapia(n=7)
Catfish(n=2)

12

Tilapia(n=7)
42%

mean

ng/g dw

10

Catfish(n=2)
58%

8

6
4
2

BDE209

BDE206

BDE207

BDE208

BDE196

BDE203

BDE197

BDE201

BDE139BDE153

BDE154

BDE155

BDE99

BDE100

BDE77

BDE47

BDE49

0

Fig.3 shows fish concentration range, mean and percentage of PBDEs in Bangalore city
PBDEs range observed in catfish and tilapia 0.1-12.4 ng/g dw and 0.2-2.8, respectively. Mean
concentration of both species BDE 209 was higher than the other congeners and percentage wise catfish(58%) has observed high when comparing with tilapia (42%). Bangalore and Chennai both a cities

population wise are very high, but depends upon the PBDEs data Bangalore has been detected slightly
higher than Chennai city. In the case still need to do more sampling in both cities fish samples in thespecies. Here interesting point noted tilapia fish levels have observed in same level in Bangalore andChennai cities it may useful data for future studies.
3.2 Levels of PCBs in fish samples
PCBs levels are higher than the PBDEs; it was high in two cities of India such as Bangalore and Chennai.
Concentration of fish ranged MDL – 1738 ng/g dw in Chennai included both mullet and cat fish. Among
61 congeners of PCBs, 41 congeners have been detected in all mullet fish and concentration was ranged
0.6-1738 ng/g dw and high concentration was observed in PCB 153 (1738 ng/g dw). In tilapia species,
concentration ranged MDL – 354 ng/g dw high concentration was observed PCB 153 (354/g dw),
respectively. High Mean and Percentage of PCBs were observed PCB 153 and Total percentage Mullet
has been shows high comparing with tilapia species. (Fig.3).

10000

Tilapia (n=8)

Mullet (n=13)

Mean

Tilapia(n=8)
24%

Mullet(n=13)
76%

ng/g dw

1000

100

10

CB10+4
CB8
CB15
CB28
CB33
CB22
CB52
CB49
CB44
CB74
CB70
CB95
CB101
CB99
CB119
CB87
CB110
CB118
CB114
CB105
CB155
CB151
CB149
CB153
CB138
CB158
CB128
CB167
CB156
CB157
CB169
CB178
CB187
CB183
CB177
CB171
CB180
CB170
CB202
CB199
CB194

1

Fig.3 shows fish concentration range, mean and percentage of PCBs in Chennai city
Likewise, one more metro politician city Bangalore, concentration range for cat fish MDL-485 and tilapia
MDL – 376 ng/g dw, respectively. Detection of PCBs among 61 congeners, 41 congeners detected in cat
fish and 22 are tilapia. Even in mean level between all PCBs, PCB 28 was showed high concentrationcomparing with others (Fig.4). In percentage wise, Catfish (88%) shows higher than the tilapia (12%).
Comparatively a Chennai and Bangalore city shows same levels as Concentration, mean and Percentage
aspects. It may due to their low water solubility and high octanole-water partition coefficient; PCBs havestrong potential to accumulate into the food chain and can be stored in fatty tissues.

Tilapia(n=7)
12%1000.0Tilapia (n=7)

Catfish (n=2)

Mean

Cat fish (n=2)
88%

ng/g dw

100.0

10.0

CB8
CB18
CB28
CB33
CB22
CB52
CB49
CB44
CB74
CB70
CB77
CB95
CB101
CB99
CB119
CB87
CB110
CB123
CB118
CB114
CB105
CB155
CB151
CB149
CB153
CB138
CB158
CB128
CB167
CB156
CB157
CB178
CB187
CB183
CB177
CB171
CB180
CB191
CB170
CB189
CB202
CB199
CB194

1.0

Fig.4 shows fish concentration range, mean and percentage of PCBs in Bangalore city
4. Human dietary health risk
Human risk levels were expressed followed by this formula; where, AE-Adult exposure (μg/kg bw); Cfconcentration of target compounds (CPBDEs & PCBs) in fish; FC per diem- fish consumption by Indian
population (27 g per diem); BW-body weight (60 kg); and ADI acceptable daily intake (PBDEs 1671
μg/kg
bw
PCBs
49
μg/kg
bw).
HQ
indicates
thenegligible/norisk at <1 and feasible risk at >1.
AE= (Cf * FC)/BW
HQhuman = AE/ADI
Fish is an important protein for human and also supplies in rich protein. PBDEs and PCBs are highly
liphophic nature and harmful chemical to human it will cause so many hormone kind of problem tohuman. In this study sites, according to PBDEs level in Bangalore and Chennai shows very low risk basedon the consumption of catfish and tilapia (Fig.5). Likewise, PCBs are shows maximum risk based on the
consumption of mullet fish but in tilapia there is no risk.
10.0000
PBDEs

PCBs

HQs

Chennai

Tilapia

CatfishTilapia0.1000

Mullet1.0000Bangalore

0.01000.00100.0001

Fig.5 shows human dietary risk on PBDEs and PCBs in fishTable 1. Comparison of PBDEs and PCBs in other country data
Location
Chennai River,
India
Bangalore River,
India
Gironde Estuary,FranceEastern China
Coastline
Northwestern
Arabian Gulf
Sydney Harbour,
Australia

Tokyo Bay, Japan
Georgia coast,USA

Anoia and
Cardenner River,
Spain
Hardley Lake,
USA
Virginia
watershed, USA
Yakima River,USA
Chennai River,
India
Bangalore River,
India
Campania Region,
Italy
Marche rivers,
Italy
Taihu Lake, China
Danube River,
SerbiaTiber River, Italy
Slovak Republic,
Various sites
Catalonia River
Basin area, Spain
Sava River,
Croatia

Organism
Mullet and Tilapia fish
Cat fish and Tilapia

PBDEs (ng/gww)
BDL – 7.29

PCBs (µg/kg
ww)

Reference
Present study

0.32-51.4
Eel

24-237

Tapie et al. (2011)

Yellow croaker andsilver pomfretMullet, tonguesole andyellowfin seaberam
Flounder, tailor,yellowfin bream,
luderick, fanbelly
leatherjacket and sea
mullerJapanese sea bass
Ureogenic goby
Anchovy, Flounder,
Rock sea bass, Silver
Perch, Spot and Spade
fish
Carp

1.11-5.28

Xia et al. (2011)2.80-190

Gevao et al. (2010)24-115

Losada et al.(2009)

ND-177

Mizukawa et al. (2009)

9.9-337

Sajwan et al.(2008)

29-744

Labandeira et al.(2007)

Carp

760-2500

Dodder et al.(2002)

Carp

5-47900

Hale et al. (2001)

Carp

960

Johnson and Olson(2001)
Present study

Mullet and Tilapia fish

119-1584

Cat fish and Tilapia

71-1784

Fish muscle

25.4±39.6

Pacini et al.(2013)

Fish muscle

4.1±0.4

Piersanti et al. (2012)

Fish muscle
Fish muscle

0.16-2.13
0.45-16.08

Zhang et al.(2012)
Jankovic et al. (2011)

Fish muscle
Fish muscle

34.5-335
0.008-4.415

Fish muscle

94.96±220.91

Miniero et al. (2011)
Salovicova andZmetakova 2006
Pere-Trepat et al. (2006)

Fish muscle

8-177

Bosnir et al.(2005)

5. List of publication and Conference presentation
5.1 Publications:
1.

R. Babu Rajendran, G. Preethi, R.K. Poopal, Nishikant Patil Nikhil, K. Vimalkumar, A.
Subramanian, S. Krishna Kumar (2018). GC-MS determination of phthalate esters in humanurine: a potential biomarker for phthalate bio-monitoring. Journal of Chromatography B 1079
(2018) 15–24 (IF 2.603).

2. Vimalkumar K, Arun E, Krishna Kumar S, Poopal R, N. N. Patil, Subramanian A, Babu
Rajendran R. Occurrence of triclocarban and benzotriazole ultraviolet stabilizers in water,
sediment, and fish from Indian rivers. Science of the Total Environment 625 (2018) 1351–1360(IF 4.900).
3. Srimurali S, Krishna Kumar S, Govindaraj S, Vimalkumar K, Paromita C, Babu Rajendran R(2016). Evaluating Spatial Distribution and Seasonal Variation of Phthalates Using Passive Air
Sampling in Southern India. Environmental Pollution 221 (2017) 407-417. (IF 5.099).
5.2 Book Chapter:
1. Nikhil Nishikant Patil, S. Krishna Kumar, K. Vimalkumar, E.Arun, BabuRajendran, R.
Organochlorine pesticide contamination in the Kaveri (Cauvery) river, India: A review on
distribution profile, status, and trends. In: Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale (Ed.
Satinder Ahuja), ACS Books, Washington, DC, 2015: 447p.
5.3 Conference presentation:a) Vimalkumar K*, E. Arun, S. Krishna Kumar, Nikhil Nishikant Patil, Rk. Poopal and R.
BabuRajendran. Determination of Triclocarban (TCC) and Benzotriazole UV stabilizers (BUVSs)
in surface water from South Indian Rivers. 19th International Conference Symposium on “Pollutant
Responses in Marine Organisms” (PRIMO 19). (30th July – 3rd June, 2017) at Ehime University,
Matsuyama, Japan.
b) Vimalkumar K*, Govindaraj, S. Krishna Kumar, S. Srimurali, Nikhil NishikantPatil, E. Arun and
R. BabuRajendran. Non steroidalanti inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in major rivers of Tamilnadu,
India. International Conference on “Recent Trends in Bioscience”. (07th – 09th February, 2016) at
Alagappa University, Karaikudi, Tamilnadu, India.
c) Vimalkumar K*, Bhuvaneswari R, Govindraj S, Arun E and Babu Rajendran R. Human andEnvironmental Risk Assessment of Organochlorine pesticides in Water and Fish from River
Cauvery, Tamilnadu. Two days workshop on “Micro pollutants in water and their hazards” (12 th –13th January, 2015) at IIT, Madras, Tamil Nadu, India.
d) Vimalkumar K*, Srimurali S, Krishna Kumar S, Govindaraj S, Babu Rajendran R. Determinationof PCDDs, PCDFs and dioxin like PCBs in bovine milks and ash samples by using CALUX Assayin Tamilnadu, India. International Symposium on Halogenated Persistant Organic Pollutants(IEEP-2014) (January 16-17 2014) at CSIR-NEERI, Nehru Marg, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.