Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0033-0131
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-04-14T04:00Z

TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page
No.

10.
INTAKE
OF
FISH
AND
SHELLFISH
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
10.1.
BACKGROUND
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
10.2.
KEY
GENERAL
POPULATION
STUDIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
10.3.
RELEVANT
GENERAL
POPULATION
STUDIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
10.4.
KEY
RECREATIONAL
(
MARINE
FISH
STUDIES)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
10.5.
RELEVANT
RECREATIONAL
MARINE
STUDIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
10.6.
KEY
FRESHWATER
RECREATIONAL
STUDIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
10.7.
RELEVANT
FRESHWATER
RECREATIONAL
STUDIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
10.8.
NATIVE
AMERICAN
FRESHWATER
STUDIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
10.9.
OTHER
FACTORS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
10.10.
RECOMMENDATIONS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
10.10.1.
Recommendations
­
General
Population
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
10.10.2.
Recommendations
­
Recreational
Marine
Anglers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
10.10.3.
Recommendations
­
Recreational
Freshwater
Anglers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
10.10.4.
Recommendations
­
Native
American
Subsistence
Populations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
10.11.
REFERENCES
FOR
CHAPTER
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
1
10.
INTAKE
OF
FISH
AND
SHELLFISH
10.1.
BACKGROUND
Contaminated
finfish
and
shellfish
are
potential
survey.
In
order
to
generalize
from
the
sample
to
the
target
sources
of
human
exposure
to
toxic
chemicals.
Pollutants
population,
the
probability
of
being
sampled
must
be
known
are
carried
in
the
surface
waters,
but
also
may
be
stored
and
for
each
member
of
the
target
population.
This
probability
accumulated
in
the
sediments
as
a
result
of
complex
is
reflected
in
weights
assigned
to
each
survey
respondent,
physical
and
chemical
processes.
Consequently,
finfish
and
with
weights
being
inversely
proportional
to
sampling
shellfish
are
exposed
to
these
pollutants
and
may
become
probability.
When
all
members
of
the
target
population
sources
of
contaminated
food.
have
the
same
probability
of
being
sampled,
all
weights
can
Accurately
estimating
exposure
to
a
toxic
chemical
be
set
to
one
and
essentially
ignored.
among
a
population
that
consumes
fish
from
a
polluted
In
a
mail
or
phone
study
of
licensed
anglers,
the
water
body
requires
an
estimation
of
intake
rates
of
the
target
population
is
generally
all
licensed
anglers
in
a
caught
fish
by
both
fishermen
and
their
families.
particular
area,
and
in
the
studies
presented,
the
sampling
Commercially
caught
fish
are
marketed
widely,
making
the
probability
is
essentially
equal
for
all
target
population
prediction
of
an
individual's
consumption
from
a
particular
members.
In
a
creel
study,
the
target
population
is
anyone
commercial
source
difficult.
Since
the
catch
of
recreational
who
fishes
at
the
locations
being
studied;
generally,
in
a
and
subsistence
fishermen
is
not
"
diluted"
in
this
way,
these
creel
study,
the
probability
of
being
sampled
is
not
the
same
individuals
and
their
families
represent
the
population
that
for
all
members
of
the
target
population.
For
instance,
if
the
is
most
vulnerable
to
exposure
by
intake
of
contaminated
survey
is
conducted
for
one
day
at
a
site,
then
it
will
include
fish
from
a
specific
location.
all
persons
who
fish
there
daily
but
only
about
1/
7
of
the
This
section
focuses
on
intake
rates
of
fish.
Note
that
people
who
fish
there
weekly,
1/
30th
of
the
people
who
fish
in
this
section
the
term
fish
refers
to
both
finfish
and
there
monthly,
etc.
In
this
example,
the
probability
of
being
shellfish.
The
following
subsections
address
intake
rates
for
sampled
(
or
inverse
weight)
is
seen
to
be
proportional
to
the
the
general
population,
and
recreational
and
subsistence
frequency
of
fishing.
However,
if
the
survey
involves
fishermen.
Data
are
presented
for
intake
rates
for
both
interviewers
revisiting
the
same
site
on
multiple
days,
and
marine
and
freshwater
fish,
when
available.
The
available
persons
are
only
interviewed
once
for
the
survey,
then
the
studies
have
been
classified
as
either
key
or
relevant
based
probability
of
being
in
the
survey
is
not
proportional
to
on
the
guidelines
given
in
Volume
I,
Section
1.3.
frequency;
in
fact,
it
increases
less
than
proportionally
with
Recommended
intake
rates
are
based
on
the
results
of
key
frequency.
At
the
extreme
of
surveying
the
same
site
every
studies,
but
other
relevant
studies
are
also
presented
to
day
over
the
survey
period
with
no
re­
interviewing,
all
provide
the
reader
with
added
perspective
on
the
current
members
of
the
target
population
would
have
the
same
state­
of­
knowledge
pertaining
to
fish
intake.
probability
of
being
sampled
regardless
of
fishing
Survey
data
on
fish
consumption
have
been
collected
frequency,
implying
that
the
survey
weights
should
all
equal
using
a
number
of
different
approaches
which
need
to
be
one.
considered
in
interpreting
the
survey
results.
Generally,
On
the
other
hand,
if
the
survey
protocol
calls
for
surveys
are
either
"
creel"
studies
in
which
fishermen
are
individuals
to
be
interviewed
each
time
an
interviewer
interviewed
while
fishing,
or
broader
population
surveys
encounters
them
(
i.
e.,
without
regard
to
whether
they
were
using
either
mailed
questionnaires
or
phone
interviews.
previously
interviewed),
then
the
inverse
weights
will
again
Both
types
of
data
can
be
useful
for
exposure
assessment
be
proportional
to
fishing
frequency,
no
matter
how
many
purposes,
but
somewhat
different
applications
and
times
interviewers
revisit
the
same
site.
Note
that
when
interpretations
are
needed.
In
fact,
results
from
creel
studies
individuals
can
be
interviewed
multiple
times,
the
results
of
have
often
been
misinterpreted,
due
to
inadequate
each
interview
are
included
as
separate
records
in
the
data
knowledge
of
survey
principles.
Below,
some
basic
facts
base
and
the
survey
weights
should
be
inversely
about
survey
design
are
presented,
followed
by
an
analysis
proportional
to
the
expected
number
of
times
that
an
of
the
differences
between
creel
and
population
based
individual's
interviews
are
included
in
the
data
base.
studies.
In
the
published
analyses
of
most
creel
studies,
there
The
typical
survey
seeks
to
draw
inferences
about
a
is
no
mention
of
sampling
weights;
by
default
all
larger
population
from
a
smaller
sample
of
that
population.
This
larger
population,
from
which
the
survey
sample
is
to
be
taken
and
to
which
the
results
of
the
survey
are
to
be
generalized,
is
denoted
the
target
population
of
the
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
2
August
1997
weights
are
set
to
1,
implying
equal
probability
of
sampling.
this
alternative
approach,
based
on
resource
utilization,
will
However,
since
the
sampling
probabilities
in
a
creel
study,
be
presented,
where
possible,
in
addition
to
the
primary
even
with
repeated
interviewing
at
a
site,
are
highly
approach
of
presenting
the
standard
percentiles
of
the
fish
dependent
on
fishing
frequency,
the
fish
intake
distributions
intake
distribution.
reported
for
these
surveys
are
not
reflective
of
the
It
has
been
determined
that
the
resource
utilization
corresponding
target
populations.
Instead,
those
individuals
approach
to
characterizing
distributions
has
relevance
to
the
with
high
fishing
frequencies
are
given
too
big
a
weight
interpretation
of
creel
survey
data.
As
mentioned
above,
and
the
distribution
is
skewed
to
the
right,
i.
e.,
it
most
published
analyses
of
creel
surveys
do
not
employ
overestimates
the
target
population
distribution.
weights
reflective
of
sampling
probability,
but
instead
give
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
explained
this
problem
and
set
out
each
respondent
equal
weight.
For
mathematical
reasons
to
rectify
it
by
adding
weights
to
creel
survey
data;
he
used
that
are
explained
in
Appendix
10A,
when
creel
analyses
data
from
two
creel
studies
(
Puffer
et
al.,
1981
and
Pierce
are
performed
in
this
(
equal
weighting)
manner,
the
et
al.,
1981)
as
examples.
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
used
inverse
calculated
percentiles
of
the
fish
intake
distribution
do
not
fishing
frequency
as
survey
weights
and
produced
revised
reflect
the
percentiles
of
the
target
population
fish
intake
estimates
of
median
and
95th
percentile
intake
for
the
above
distribution
but
instead
reflect
(
approximately)
the
two
studies.
These
revised
estimates
were
dramatically
percentiles
of
the
"
resource
utilization
distribution".
Thus,
lower
than
the
original
estimates.
The
approach
of
Price
et
one
would
not
expect
50
percent
of
the
target
population
to
al.
(
1994)
is
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Section
10.5
where
be
consuming
above
the
median
intake
level
as
reported
the
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
and
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981)
studies
are
from
such
a
creel
survey,
but
instead
would
expect
that
50
summarized.
percent
of
the
total
recreational
fish
consumption
would
be
When
the
correct
weights
are
applied
to
survey
data,
individuals
consuming
above
this
level.
As
with
the
the
resulting
percentiles
reflect,
on
average,
the
distribution
example
above,
and
in
accordance
with
the
statement
above
in
the
target
population;
thus,
for
example,
an
estimated
90
that
creel
surveys
analyzed
in
this
manner
overestimate
percent
of
the
target
population
will
have
intake
levels
intake
distributions,
the
actual
median
level
of
intake
in
the
below
the
90th
percentile
of
the
survey
fish
intake
target
population
will
be
less
(
probably
considerably
so)
distribution.
There
is
another
way,
however,
of
than
this
level
and,
accordingly,
(
considerably)
less
than
50
characterizing
distributions
in
addition
to
the
standard
percent
of
the
target
population
will
be
consuming
at
or
percentile
approach;
this
approach
is
reflected
in
statements
above
this
level.
These
considerations
are
discussed
when
of
the
form
"
50
percent
of
the
income
is
received
by,
for
the
results
of
individual
creel
surveys
are
presented
in
later
example,
the
top
10
percent
of
the
population,
which
sections
and
should
be
kept
in
mind
whenever
estimates
consists
of
individuals
making
more
than
$
100,000",
for
based
on
creel
survey
data
are
utilized.
example.
Note
that
the
50th
percentile
(
median)
of
the
The
U.
S.
EPA
has
prepared
a
review
of
and
an
income
distribution
is
well
below
$
100,000.
Here
the
evaluation
of
five
different
survey
methods
used
for
$
100,000
level
can
be
thought
of
as,
not
the
50th
percentile
obtaining
fish
consumption
data.
They
are:
of
the
population
income
distribution,
but
as
the
50th
percentile
of
the
"
resource
utilization
distribution"
(
see
°
Recall­
Telephone
Survey;
Appendix
10A
for
technical
discussion
of
this
distribution).
°
Recall­
Mail
Survey;
Other
percentiles
of
the
resource
utilization
distribution
°
Recall­
Personal
Interview;
have
similar
interpreta­
tions;
e.
g.,
the
90th
percentile
of
the
°
Diary;
and
resource
utilization
distribution
(
for
income)
would
be
that
°
Creel
Census.
level
of
income
such
that
90
percent
of
total
income
is
received
by
individuals
with
incomes
below
this
level
and
10
percent
by
individuals
with
income
above
this
level.
This
alternative
approach
to
characterizing
distributions
is
of
particular
interest
when
a
relatively
small
fraction
of
individuals
consumes
a
relatively
large
fraction
of
a
resource,
which
is
the
case
with
regards
to
recreational
fish
consumption.
In
the
studies
of
recreational
anglers,
The
reader
is
referred
to
U.
S.
EPA
1992­
Consumption
Surveys
for
Fish
and
Shellfish
for
more
detail
on
these
survey
methods
and
their
advantages
and
limitations.

10.2.
KEY
GENERAL
POPULATION
STUDIES
Tuna
Research
Institute
Survey
­
The
Tuna
Research
Institute
(
TRI)
funded
a
study
of
fish
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
3
consumption
which
was
performed
by
the
National
NPD
indicated
that
these
fish
consumers
represented
94
Purchase
Diary
(
NPD)
during
the
period
of
September,
percent
of
the
U.
S.
population.
For
this
population
of
"
fish
1973
to
August,
1974.
The
data
tapes
from
this
survey
were
consumers",
Javitz
(
1980)
calculated
means
and
obtained
by
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS),
percentiles
of
fish
consumption
by
demographic
variables
which
later,
along
with
the
FDA,
USDA
and
TRI,
(
age,
sex,
race,
census
region
and
community
type)
and
conducted
an
intensive
effort
to
identify
and
correct
errors
overall
(
Tables
10­
1
through
10­
4).
The
overall
mean
fish
in
the
data
base.
Javitz
(
1980)
summarized
the
TRI
survey
intake
rate
among
fish
consumers
was
calculated
at
14.3
methodology
and
used
the
corrected
tape
to
generate
fish
g/
day
and
the
95th
percentile
at
41.7
g/
day.
intake
distributions
for
various
sub­
populations.
As
seen
in
Table
10­
1,
the
mean
and
95th
percentile
The
TRI
survey
sample
included
6,980
families
who
of
fish
consumption
were
higher
for
Asian­
Americans
as
were
currently
participating
in
a
syndicated
national
compared
to
the
other
racial
groups.
Other
differences
in
purchase
diary
panel,
2,400
additional
families
where
the
intake
rates
are
those
between
gender
and
age
groups.
head
of
household
was
female
and
under
35
years
old;
and
While
males
(
15.6
g/
d)
eat
slightly
more
fish
than
females
210
additional
black
families
(
Javitz,
1980).
Of
the
9,590
(
13.2
g/
d),
and
adults
eat
more
fish
than
children,
the
families
in
the
total
sample,
7,662
families
(
25,162
corresponding
differences
in
body
weight
would
probably
individuals)
completed
the
questionnaire,
a
response
rate
of
compensate
for
the
different
intake
rates
in
exposure
80
percent.
The
survey
was
weighted
to
represent
the
U.
S.
calculations
(
Javitz,
1980).
There
appeared
to
be
no
large
population
based
on
a
number
of
census­
defined
controls
differences
in
regional
intake
rates,
although
higher
rates
(
i.
e.,
census
region,
household
size,
income,
presence
of
are
shown
in
the
New
England
and
Middle
Atlantic
census
children,
race
and
age).
The
calculations
of
means,
regions.
percentiles,
etc.
were
performed
on
a
weighted
basis
with
The
mean
and
95th
percentile
intake
rates
by
ageeach
person
contributing
in
proportion
to
his/
her
assigned
gender
groups
are
presented
in
Table
10­
2.
Tables
10­
3
survey
weight.
and
10­
4
present
the
distribution
of
fish
consumption
for
The
survey
population
was
divided
into
12
different
females
and
males,
respectively,
by
age;
these
tables
give
sample
segments
and,
for
each
of
the
12
survey
months,
the
percentages
of
females/
males
in
a
given
age
bracket
data
were
collected
from
a
different
segment.
Each
survey
with
intake
rates
within
various
ranges.
Table
10­
5
household
was
given
a
diary
in
which
they
recorded,
over
a
presents
mean
total
fish
consumption
by
fish
species.
one
month
period,
the
date
of
any
fish
meals
consumed
and
The
TRI
survey
data
were
also
utilized
by
Rupp
et
al.
the
following
accompanying
information:
the
species
of
fish
(
1980)
to
generate
fish
intake
distributions
for
three
age
consumed,
whether
the
fish
was
commercially
or
groups
(<
11,
12­
18,
and
19+
years)
within
each
of
the
9
recreationally
caught,
the
way
the
fish
was
packaged
census
regions
and
for
the
entire
United
States.
Separate
(
canned,
frozen
fresh,
dried,
smoked),
the
amount
of
fish
distributions
were
derived
for
freshwater
finfish,
saltwater
prepared
and
consumed,
and
the
number
of
servings
finfish
and
shellfish;
thus,
a
total
of
90
(
3*
3*
10)
different
consumed
by
household
members
and
guests.
Both
meals
distributions
were
derived,
each
corresponding
to
intake
of
eaten
at
home
and
away
from
home
were
recorded.
The
a
specific
category
of
fish
for
a
given
age
group
within
a
amount
of
fish
prepared
was
determined
as
follows
(
Javitz,
given
region.
The
analysis
of
Rupp
et
al.
(
1980)
included
1980):
"
For
fresh
fish,
the
weight
was
recorded
in
ounces
only
those
respondents
with
known
age.
This
amounted
to
and
may
have
included
the
weight
of
the
head
and
tail.
For
23,213
respondents.
frozen
fish,
the
weight
was
recorded
in
packaged
ounces,
Ruffle
et
al.
(
1994)
used
the
percentiles
data
of
Rupp
and
it
was
noted
whether
the
fish
was
breaded
or
combined
et
al.
(
1980)
to
estimate
the
best
fitting
lognormal
with
other
ingredients
(
e.
g.,
TV
dinners).
For
canned
fish,
parameters
for
each
distribution.
Three
methods
(
non­
linear
the
weight
was
recorded
in
packaged
ounces
and
it
was
optimization,
first
probability
plot
and
second
probability
noted
whether
the
fish
was
canned
in
water,
oil,
or
with
plot)
were
used
to
estimate
optimal
parameters.
Ruffle
et
other
ingredients
(
e.
g.,
soups)".
al.
(
1994)
determined
that,
of
the
three
methods,
the
non­
Javitz
(
1980)
reported
that
the
corrected
survey
linear
optimization
method
(
NLO)
generally
gave
the
best
tapes
contained
data
on
24,652
individuals
who
consumed
results.
For
some
of
the
distributions
fitted
by
the
NLO
fish
in
the
survey
month
and
that
tabulations
performed
by
method,
however,
it
was
determined
that
the
lognormal
model
did
not
adequately
fit
the
empirical
fish
intake
distribution.
Ruffle
et
al.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
4
August
1997
(
1994)
used
a
criterion
of
minimum
sum
of
squares
(
min
other
consumption
studies,
including
the
USDA
National
SS)
less
than
30
to
identify
which
distributions
provided
Food
Consumption
Surveys,
which
report
consumption
over
adequate
fits.
Of
the
90
distributions
studied,
77
were
seen
a
3
day
to
one
week
period.
to
have
min
SS
<
30;
for
these,
Ruffle
et
al.
(
1994)
Another
obvious
limitation
of
this
data
base
is
that
it
concluded
that
the
NLO
modeled
lognormal
distributions
is
now
over
twenty
years
out
of
date.
Ruffle
et
al.
(
1994)
are
"
well
suited
for
risk
assessment".
Of
the
remaining
13
considered
this
shortcoming
and
suggested
that
one
may
distributions,
12
had
min
SS
>
30;
for
these
Ruffle
et
al.
wish
to
shift
the
distribution
upward
to
account
for
the
(
1994)
concluded
that
modeled
lognormal
distributions
recent
increase
in
fish
consumption.
Adding
ln(
1+
x/
100)
to
"
may
also
be
appropriate
for
use
when
exercised
with
due
the
log
mean
F
will
shift
the
distribution
upward
by
x
care
and
with
sensitivity
analyses".
One
distribution,
that
of
percent
(
e.
g.,
adding
0.22
=
ln(
1.25)
increases
the
freshwater
finfish
intake
for
children
<
11
years
of
age
in
distribution
by
25
percent).
Although
the
TRI
survey
New
England,
could
not
be
modeled
due
to
the
absence
of
distinguished
between
recreationally
and
commercially
any
reported
consumption.
caught
fish,
Javitz
(
1980),
Rupp
et
al.
(
1980),
and
Ruffle
et
Table
10­
6
presents
the
optimal
lognormal
al.
(
1994)
(
which
was
based
on
Rupp
et
al.,
1980)
did
not
parameters,
the
mean
(
F
)
,
standard
deviation
(
s),
and
min
present
analyses
by
this
variable.
SS,
for
all
89
modeled
distributions.
These
parameters
can
be
used
to
determine
percentiles
of
the
corresponding
distribution
of
average
daily
fish
consumption
rates
through
the
relation
DFC(
p)=
exp[
F
+
z(
p)
s]
where
DFC(
p)
is
the
pth
percentile
of
the
distribution
of
average
daily
fish
consumption
rates
and
z(
p)
is
the
z­
score
associated
with
the
pth
percentile
(
e.
g.,
z(
50)=
0
).
The
mean
average
daily
fish
consumption
rate
is
given
by
exp[
F
+
0.5s
].
2
The
analyses
of
Javitz
(
1980)
and
Ruffle
et
al.
(
1994)
were
based
on
consumers
only,
who
are
estimated
to
represent
94.0
percent
of
the
U.
S.
population.
U.
S.
EPA
estimated
the
mean
intake
in
the
general
population
by
multiplying
the
fraction
consuming,
0.94,
by
the
mean
among
consumers
reported
by
Javitz
(
1980)
of
14.3
g/
day;
the
resulting
estimate
is
13.4
g/
day.
The
95th
percentile
estimate
of
Javitz
(
1980)
of
41.7
g/
day
among
consumers
would
be
essentially
unchanged
when
applied
to
the
general
population;
41.7
g/
day
would
represent
the
95.3
percentile
(
i.
e.,
100*[
0.95*
0.94+
0.06])
among
the
general
population.
Advantages
of
the
TRI
data
survey
are
that
it
was
a
large,
nationally
representative
survey
with
a
high
response
rate
(
80
percent)
and
was
conducted
over
an
entire
year.
In
addition,
consumption
was
recorded
in
a
daily
diary
over
a
one
month
period;
this
format
should
be
more
reliable
than
one
based
on
one­
month
recall.
The
upper
percentiles
presented
are
derived
from
one
month
of
data,
and
are
likely
to
overestimate
the
corresponding
upper
percentiles
of
the
long­
term
(
i.
e.,
one
year
or
more)
average
daily
fish
intake
distribution.
Similarly,
the
standard
deviation
of
the
fitted
lognormal
distribution
probably
overestimates
the
standard
deviation
of
the
long­
term
distribution.
However,
the
period
of
this
survey
(
one
month)
is
considerably
longer
than
those
of
many
U.
S.
EPA
(
1996a)
­
Daily
Average
Per
Capita
Fish
Consumption
Estimates
Based
on
the
Combined
USDA
1989,
1990,
and
1991
Continuing
Survey
of
Food
Intakes
by
Individuals
(
CSFII)
 
The
USDA
conducts
the
CSFII
on
an
ongoing
basis.
U.
S.
EPA
used
the
1989,
1990,
and
1991
CSFII
data
to
generate
fish
intake
estimates.
Participants
in
the
CSFII
provided
3
consecutive
days
of
dietary
data.
For
the
first
day's
data,
participants
supplied
dietary
recall
information
to
an
in­
home
interviewer.
Second
and
third
day
dietary
intakes
were
recorded
by
participants.
Data
collection
for
the
CSFII
started
in
April
of
the
given
year
and
was
completed
in
March
of
the
following
year.
The
CSFII
contains
469
fish­
related
food
codes;
survey
respondents
reported
consumption
across
284
of
these
codes.
Respondents
estimated
the
weight
of
each
food
that
they
consumed.
The
fish
component
(
by
weight)
of
these
foods
was
calculated
using
data
from
the
recipe
file
for
release
7
of
the
USDA's
Nutrient
Data
Base
for
Individual
Food
Intake
Surveys.
The
amount
of
fish
consumed
by
each
individual
was
then
calculated
by
summing,
over
all
fish
containing
foods,
the
product
of
the
weight
of
food
consumed
and
the
fish
component
(
i.
e.,
the
percentage
fish
by
weight)
of
the
food.
The
recipe
file
also
contains
cooking
loss
factors
associated
with
each
food.
These
were
utilized
to
convert,
for
each
fish
containing
food,
the
as­
eaten
fish
weight
consumed
into
an
uncooked
equivalent
weight
of
fish.
Analyses
of
fish
intake
were
performed
on
both
an
as­
eaten
and
uncooked
basis.
Each
(
fish­
related)
food
code
was
assigned
by
EPA
a
habitat
type
of
either
freshwater/
estuarine
or
marine.
Food
codes
were
also
designated
as
finfish
or
shellfish.
Average
daily
individual
consumption
(
g/
day)
for
a
given
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
5
fish
type­
by­
habitat
category
(
e.
g.,
marine
finfish)
was
under,
15­
44,
45
and
older,
all
ages)
and
gender.
Tables
calculated
by
summing
the
amount
of
fish
consumed
by
the
10­
13
through
10­
20
present
fish
intake
data
(
g/
day
and
individual
across
the
three
reporting
days
for
all
fish­
related
mg/
kg­
day)
on
an
as
consumed
basis
for
the
general
food
codes
in
the
given
fish­
by­
habitat
category
and
then
population
and
Tables
10­
21
through
10­
28
for
consumers
dividing
by
3.
Individual
consumption
per
day
consuming
only.
Tables
10­
29
through
10­
44
provide
intake
data
fish
(
g/
day)
was
calculated
similarly
except
that
total
fish
(
g/
day
and
mg/
kg­
day)
on
an
uncooked
equivalent
basis
for
consumption
was
divided
by
the
specific
number
of
survey
the
same
population
groups
described
above.
days
the
individual
reported
consuming
fish;
this
was
The
advantages
of
this
study
are
its
large
size,
its
calculated
for
fish
consumers
only
(
i.
e.,
those
consuming
relative
currency
and
its
representativeness.
In
addition,
fish
on
at
least
one
of
the
three
survey
days).
The
reported
through
use
of
the
USDA
recipe
files,
the
analysis
identified
body­
weight
of
the
individual
was
used
to
convert
all
fish­
related
food
codes
and
estimated
the
percent
fish
consumption
in
g/
day
to
consumption
in
g/
kg­
day.
content
of
each
of
these
codes.
By
contrast,
some
analyses
There
were
a
total
of
11,912
respondents
in
the
of
the
USDA
National
Food
Consumption
Surveys
combined
data
set
who
had
three­
day
dietary
intake
data.
(
NFCSs)
which
reported
per
capita
fish
intake
rates
(
e.
g.,
Survey
weights
were
assigned
to
this
data
set
to
make
it
Pao
et
al.,
1982;
USDA,
1992a),
excluded
certain
fish
representative
of
the
U.
S.
population
with
respect
to
various
containing
foods
(
e.
g.,
fish
mixtures,
frozen
plate
meals)
in
demographic
characteristics
related
to
food
intake.
their
calculations.
U.
S.
EPA
(
1996a)
reported
means,
medians,
upper
Results
from
the
1977­
1978
NFCS
survey
(
Pao
et
percentiles,
and
90­
percent
interval
estimates
for
the
90th,
al.,
1982)
showed
that
only
a
small
percentage
of
95th,
and
99th
percentiles.
The
90­
percent
interval
consumers
ate
fish
on
more
than
one
occasion
per
day.
This
estimates
are
nonparametric
estimates
from
bootstrap
implies
that
the
distribution
presented
for
fish
intake
per
day
techniques.
The
bootstrap
estimates
result
from
the
consuming
fish
can
be
used
as
a
surrogate
for
the
percentile
method
which
estimates
the
lower
and
upper
distribution
of
fish
intake
per
(
fish)
eating
occasion
(
Table
bounds
for
the
interval
estimate
by
the
100
"
percentile
and
10­
8).
100
(
1­
"
)
percentile
estimates
from
the
non­
parametric
Also,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
1989­
91
CSFII
data
distribution
of
the
given
point
estimate
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a).
are
not
the
most
recent
intake
survey
data.
USDA
has
Analyses
of
fish
intake
were
performed
on
an
as­
recently
made
available
data
from
its
1994
and
1995
CSFII.
eaten
as
well
as
on
an
uncooked
equivalent
basis
and
on
a
Over
5,500
people
nationwide
participated
in
both
of
these
g/
day
and
g/
kg­
day
basis.
Table
10­
7
gives
the
mean
and
surveys,
providing
recalled
food
intake
information
for
two
various
percentiles
of
the
distribution
of
per­
capita
fish
separate
days.
Although
the
2­
day
data
analysis
has
not
intake
rates
(
g/
day)
based
on
uncooked
equivalent
weight
been
conducted,
USDA
published
results
for
the
by
habitat
and
fish
type,
for
the
general
population.
The
respondents'
intakes
on
the
first
day
surveyed
(
USDA,
mean
per
capita
intake
rate
of
finfish
and
shellfish
from
all
1996a;
USDA,
1996b).
USDA
1996
survey
data
will
be
habitats
was
20.1
g/
day.
Per­
capita
consumption
estimates
made
available
later
in
1997.
As
soon
as
1996
data
are
by
species
are
shown
in
Appendix
10C.
Table
10­
8
available,
EPA
will
take
steps
to
get
the
3­
year
data
(
1994,
displays
the
mean
and
various
percentiles
of
the
distribution
1995,
1996)
analyzed
and
the
food
ingestion
factors
of
total
fish
intake
per
day
consuming
fish,
by
habitat
for
updated.
Meanwhile,
comparisons
between
the
mean
daily
consumers
only.
Also
displayed
is
the
percentage
of
the
fish
intake
per
individual
in
a
day
from
the
USDA
survey
population
consuming
fish
of
the
specified
habitat
during
data
from
years
1977­
78,
1987­
88,
1989­
91,
1994,
and
the
three
day
survey
period.
Tables
10­
9
and
10­
10
present
1995
indicate
that
fish
intake
has
been
relatively
constant
similar
results
as
above
but
on
a
mg/
kg­
day
basis;
Tables
over
time.
The
1­
day
fish
intake
rates
were
11
g/
day,
11
10­
11
and
10­
12
present
results
in
the
same
format
for
fish
g/
day,
13
g/
day,
9
g/
day,
and
11
g/
day
for
survey
years
intake
(
g/
day)
on
an
as­
eaten
(
cooked)
basis.
1977­
78,
1987­
88,
1989­
91,
1994,
and
1995,
respectively.
Tables
10­
13
through
10­
44
present
data
for
daily
This
indicates
that
the
1989­
91
CSFII
data
presented
in
this
average
per
capita
fish
consumption
by
age
and
gender.
handbook
are
probably
adequate
for
assessing
fish
ingestion
These
data
are
presented
by
selected
age
grouping
(
4
and
exposure
for
current
populations.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
6
August
1997
10.3.
RELEVANT
GENERAL
POPULATION
STUDIES
Pao
et
al.
(
1982)
­
Foods
Commonly
Eaten
by
Individuals:
Amount
Per
Day
and
Per
Eating
Occasion
­
The
USDA
1977­
78
Nationwide
Food
Consumption
Survey
(
NFCS)
was
described
in
Chapter
9.
The
survey
consisted
of
a
household
and
individual
component.
For
the
individual
component,
all
members
of
surveyed
households
were
asked
to
provide
3
consecutive
days
of
dietary
data.
For
the
first
day's
data,
participants
supplied
dietary
recall
information
to
an
in­
home
interviewer.
Second
and
third
day
dietary
intakes
were
recorded
by
participants.
A
total
of
15,000
households
were
included
in
the
1977­
78
NFCS
and
about
38,000
individuals
completed
the
3­
day
diet
records.
Fish
intake
was
estimated
based
on
consumption
of
fish
products
identified
in
the
NFCS
data
base
according
to
NFCS­
defined
food
codes.
These
products
included
fresh,
breaded,
floured,
canned,
raw
and
dried
fish,
but
not
fish
mixtures
or
frozen
plate
meals.
Pao
et
al.
(
1982)
used
the
1977­
78
NFCS
to
examine
the
quantity
of
fish
consumed
per
eating
occasion.
For
each
individual
consuming
fish
in
the
3
day
survey
period,
the
quantity
of
fish
consumed
per
eating
occasion
was
derived
by
dividing
the
total
reported
fish
intake
over
the
3
day
period
by
the
number
of
occasions
the
individual
reported
eating
fish.
The
distributions,
by
age
and
sex,
for
the
quantity
of
fish
consumed
per
eating
occasion
are
displayed
in
Table
10­
13
(
Pao
et
al.,
1982).
For
the
general
population,
the
average
quantity
of
fish
consumed
per
fish
meal
was
117
g,
with
a
95th
percentile
of
284
g.
Males
in
the
age
groups
19­
34,
35­
64
and
65­
74
years
had
the
highest
average
and
95th
percentile
quantities
among
the
age­
sex
groups
presented.
Pao
et
al.
(
1982)
also
used
the
data
from
this
survey
set
to
calculate
per
capita
fish
intake
rates.
However,
because
these
data
are
now
almost
20
years
out
of
date,
this
analysis
is
not
considered
key
with
respect
to
assessing
per
capita
intake
(
the
average
quantity
of
fish
consumed
per
fish
meal
should
be
less
subject
to
change
over
time
than
is
per
capita
intake).
In
addition,
fish
mixtures
and
frozen
plate
meals
were
not
included
in
the
calculation
of
fish
intake.
The
per
capita
fish
intake
rate
reported
by
Pao
et
al.
(
1982)
was
11.8
g/
day.
The
1977­
1978
NFCS
was
a
large
and
well
designed
survey
and
the
data
are
representative
of
the
U.
S.
population.
USDA
Nationwide
Food
Consumption
Survey
1987­
88
­
The
USDA
1987­
88
Nationwide
Food
Consumption
Survey
(
NFCS)
was
described
in
Chapter
9.
Briefly,
the
survey
consisted
of
a
household
and
individual
component.
The
household
component
asked
about
household
food
consumption
over
the
past
one
week
period.
For
the
individual
component,
each
member
of
a
surveyed
household
was
interviewed
(
in
person)
and
asked
to
recall
all
foods
eaten
the
previous
day;
the
information
from
this
interview
made
up
the
"
one
day
data"
for
the
survey.
In
addition,
members
were
instructed
to
fill
out
a
detailed
dietary
record
for
the
day
of
the
interview
and
the
following
day.
The
data
for
this
entire
3­
day
period
made
up
the
"
3­
day
diet
records".
A
statistical
sampling
design
was
used
to
ensure
that
all
seasons,
geographic
regions
of
the
U.
S.,
demographic,
and
socioeconomic
groups
were
represented.
Sampling
weights
were
used
to
match
the
population
distribution
of
13
demographic
characteristics
related
to
food
intake
(
USDA,
1992a).
Total
fish
intake
was
estimated
based
on
consumption
of
fish
products
identified
in
the
NFCS
data
base
according
to
NFCS­
defined
food
codes.
These
products
included
fresh,
breaded,
floured,
canned,
raw
and
dried
fish,
but
not
fish
mixtures
or
frozen
plate
meals.
A
total
of
4,500
households
participated
in
the
1987­
88
survey;
the
household
response
rate
was
38
percent.
One
day
data
were
obtained
for
10,172
(
81
percent)
of
the
12,522
individuals
in
participating
households;
8,468
(
68
percent)
individuals
completed
3­
day
diet
records.
USDA
(
1992b)
used
the
one
day
data
to
derive
per
capita
fish
intake
rate
and
intake
rates
for
consumers
of
total
fish.
These
rates,
calculated
by
sex
and
age
group,
are
shown
in
Table
10­
14.
Intake
rates
for
consumers­
only
were
calculated
by
dividing
the
per
capita
intake
rates
by
the
fractions
of
the
population
consuming
fish
in
one
day.
The
1987­
1988
NFCS
was
also
utilized
to
estimate
consumption
of
home
produced
fish
(
as
well
as
home
produced
fruits,
vegetables,
meats
and
dairy
products)
in
the
general
U.
S.
population.
The
methodology
for
estimating
home­
produced
intake
rates
was
rather
complex
and
involved
combining
the
household
and
individual
components
of
the
NFCS;
the
methodology,
as
well
as
the
estimated
intake
rates,
are
described
in
detail
in
Chapter
12.
However,
since
much
of
the
rest
of
this
chapter
is
concerned
with
estimating
consumption
of
recreationally
caught,
i.
e.,
home
produced
fish,
the
methods
and
results
of
Chapter
12,
as
they
pertain
to
fish
consumption,
are
summarized
briefly
here.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
7
A
total
of
2.1
percent
of
the
survey
population
but
some
studies
used
an
average
value;
these
average
reported
home
produced
fish
consumption
during
the
survey
values
ranged
from
0.3
to
0.5.
Using
a
factor
of
0.5
would
week.
Among
consumers,
the
mean
intake
rate
was
2.07
convert
the
above
11.8
g/
day
rate
to
5.9
g/
day.
This
g/
kg­
day
and
the
95th
percentile
was
7.83
g/
kg­
day;
the
estimate,
5.9
g/
day,
of
the
per­
capita
fish
intake
rate
among
per­
capita
intake
rate
was
0.04
g/
kg­
day.
Note
that
intake
members
of
fishing
households
is
within
the
range
of
the
rates
for
home­
produced
foods
were
indexed
to
the
weight
per­
capita
intake
rates
among
recreational
anglers
of
the
survey
respondent
and
reported
in
g/
kg­
day.
addressed
in
sections
to
follow.
It
is
possible
to
compare
the
estimates
of
home­
An
advantage
of
analyses
based
on
the
1987­
1988
produced
fish
consumption
derived
in
this
analyses
with
USDA
NFCS
is
that
the
data
set
is
a
large,
geographically
estimates
derived
from
studies
of
recreational
anglers
and
seasonally
balanced
survey
of
a
representative
sample
(
described
in
Sections
10.4­
10.8);
however,
the
intake
rates
of
the
U.
S.
population.
The
survey
response
rate,
however,
must
be
put
into
a
similar
context.
The
home­
produced
was
low
and
an
expert
panel
concluded
that
it
was
not
intake
rates
described
refer
to
average
daily
intake
rates
possible
to
establish
the
presence
or
absence
of
nonamong
individuals
consuming
home­
produced
fish
in
a
response
bias
(
USDA,
1992b).
Limitations
of
the
homeweek
results
from
recreational
angler
studies,
however,
produced
analysis
are
given
in
Chapter
12
of
this
volume.
usually
report
average
daily
rates
for
those
eating
homeproduced
fish
(
or
for
those
who
recreationally
fish)
at
least
some
time
during
the
year.
Since
many
of
these
latter
individuals
eat
home­
produced
fish
at
a
frequency
of
less
than
once
per
week,
the
average
daily
intake
in
this
group
would
be
expected
to
be
less
than
that
reported.
The
NFCS
household
component
contains
the
question
"
Does
anyone
in
your
household
fish?".
For
the
population
answering
yes
to
this
question
(
21
percent
of
households),
the
NFCS
data
show
that
9
percent
consumed
home­
produced
fish
in
the
week
of
the
survey;
the
mean
intake
rate
for
these
consumers
from
fishing
households
was
2.2
g/
kg­
day.
(
Note
that
91
percent
of
individuals
reporting
home
grown
fish
consumption
for
the
week
of
the
survey
indicated
that
a
household
member
fishes;
the
overall
mean
intake
rate
among
home­
produced
fish
consumers,
regardless
of
fishing
status,
was
the
above
reported
2.07
g/
kg­
day).
The
per
capita
intake
rate
among
those
living
in
a
fishing
household
is
then
calculated
as
0.2
g/
kg­
day
(
2.2
*
0.09).
Using
the
estimated
average
weight
of
survey
participants
of
59
kg,
this
translates
into
11.8
g/
day.
Among
members
of
fishing
households,
home­
produced
fish
consumption
accounted
for
32.5
percent
of
total
fish
consumption.
As
discussed
in
Chapter
12
of
this
volume,
intake
rates
for
home­
produced
foods,
including
fish,
are
based
on
the
results
of
the
household
survey,
and
as
such,
reflect
the
weight
of
fish
taken
into
the
household.
In
most
of
the
recreational
fish
surveys
discussed
later
in
this
section,
the
weight
of
the
fish
catch
(
which
generally
corresponds
to
the
weight
taken
into
the
household)
is
multiplied
by
an
edible
fraction
to
convert
to
an
uncooked
equivalent
of
the
amount
consumed.
This
fraction
may
be
species
specific,
Tsang
and
Klepeis
(
1996)
­
National
Human
Activity
Pattern
Survey
(
NHAPS)
­
The
U.
S.
EPA
collected
information
for
the
general
population
on
the
duration
and
frequency
of
time
spent
in
selected
activities
and
time
spent
in
selected
microenvironments
via
24­
hour
diaries.
Over
9,000
individuals
from
48
contiguous
states
participated
in
NHAPS.
Approximately
4,700
participants
also
provided
information
on
seafood
consumption.
The
survey
was
conducted
between
October
1992
and
September
1994.
Data
were
collected
on
the
(
1)
number
of
people
that
ate
seafood
in
the
last
month,
(
2)
the
number
of
servings
of
seafood
consumed,
and
(
3)
whether
the
seafood
consumed
was
caught
or
purchased
(
Tsang
and
Klepeis,
1996).
The
participant
responses
were
weighted
according
to
selected
demographics
such
as
age,
gender,
and
race
to
ensure
that
results
were
representative
of
the
U.
S.
population.
Of
those
4,700
respondents,
2,980
(
59.6
percent)
ate
seafood
(
including
shellfish,
eels,
or
squid)
in
the
last
month
(
Table
10­
15).
The
number
of
servings
per
month
were
categorized
in
ranges
of
1­
2,
3­
5,
6­
10,
11­
19,
and
20+
servings
per
month
(
Table
10­
16).
The
highest
percentage
(
35
percent)
of
respondent
population
had
an
intake
of
3­
5
servings
per
month.
Most
(
92
percent)
of
the
respondents
purchased
the
seafood
they
ate
(
Table
10­
17).
Intake
data
were
not
provided
in
the
survey.
However,
intake
of
fish
can
be
estimated
using
the
information
on
the
number
of
servings
of
fish
eaten
from
this
study
and
serving
size
data
from
other
studies.
The
recommended
mean
value
in
this
handbook
for
fish
serving
size
is
129
g/
serving
(
Table
10­
8).
Using
this
mean
value
for
serving
size
and
assuming
that
the
average
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
8
August
1997
individual
eats
3­
5
servings
per
month,
the
amount
of
in
marine
recreational
fishing
(
for
finfish)
within
the
state,
seafood
eaten
per
month
would
range
from
387
to
645
as
well
as
the
total
number
of
(
within
state)
fishing
trips
grams/
month
or
12.9
to
21.5
g/
day
for
the
highest
these
residents
take.
To
estimate
the
total
number
of
percentage
of
the
population.
These
values
are
within
the
participants
and
fishing
trips
in
the
state,
by
coastal
range
of
mean
intake
values
for
total
fish
(
20.1
g/
day)
residents
and
others,
a
ratio
approach,
based
on
the
field
calculated
in
the
U.
S.
EPA
analysis
of
the
USDA
CSFII
interview
data,
was
used.
Thus,
if
the
field
survey
data
data.
It
should
be
noted
that
an
all
inclusive
description
for
found
that
there
was
a
4:
1
ratio
of
fishing
trips
taken
by
seafood
was
not
presented
in
Tsang
and
Klepeis
(
1996).
It
coastal
residents
as
compared
to
trips
taken
by
non­
coastal
is
not
known
if
processed
or
canned
seafood
and
seafood
and
out
of
state
residents,
then
an
additional
25
percent
mixtures
are
included
in
the
seafood
category.
would
be
added
to
the
number
of
trips
taken
by
coastal
The
advantages
of
NHAPS
is
that
the
data
were
residents
to
generate
an
estimate
of
the
total
number
of
collected
for
a
large
number
of
individuals
and
are
within
state
trips.
representative
of
the
U.
S.
general
population.
However,
The
field
intercept
survey
is
essentially
a
creel
type
evaluation
of
seafood
intake
was
not
the
primary
purpose
of
survey.
The
survey
utilizes
a
national
site
register
which
the
study
and
the
data
do
not
reflect
the
actual
amount
of
details
marine
fishing
locations
in
each
state.
Sites
for
field
seafood
that
was
eaten.
However,
using
the
assumption
interviews
are
chosen
in
proportion
to
fishing
frequency
at
described
above,
the
estimated
seafood
intake
from
this
the
site.
Anglers
fishing
on
shore,
private
boat,
and
study
are
comparable
to
those
observed
in
the
EPA
CSFII
charter/
party
boat
modes
who
had
completed
their
fishing
analysis.
were
interviewed.
The
field
survey
included
questions
10.4.
KEY
RECREATIONAL
(
MARINE
FISH
STUDIES)
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
1986a,
b,
c;
1993)
­
The
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
conducts
systematic
surveys,
on
a
continuing
basis,
of
marine
recreational
fishing.
These
surveys
are
designed
to
estimate
the
size
of
the
recreational
marine
finfish
catch
by
location,
species
and
fishing
mode.
In
addition,
the
surveys
provide
estimates
for
the
total
number
of
participants
in
marine
recreational
finfishing
and
the
total
number
of
fishing
trips.
The
surveys
are
not
designed
to
estimate
individual
consumption
of
fish
from
marine
recreational
sources,
primarily
because
they
do
not
attempt
to
estimate
the
number
of
individuals
consuming
the
recreational
catch.
Intake
rates
for
marine
recreational
anglers
can
be
estimated,
however,
by
employing
assumptions
derived
from
other
data
sources
about
the
number
of
consumers.
The
NMFS
surveys
involve
two
components,
telephone
surveys
and
direct
interviewing
of
fishermen
in
the
field.
The
telephone
survey
randomly
samples
residents
of
coastal
regions,
defined
generally
as
counties
within
25
miles
of
the
nearest
seacoast,
and
inquires
about
participation
in
marine
recreational
fishing
in
the
resident's
home
state
in
the
past
year,
and
more
specifically,
in
the
past
two
months.
This
component
of
the
survey
is
used
to
estimate,
for
each
coastal
state,
the
total
number
of
coastal
region
residents
who
participate
about
frequency
of
fishing,
area
of
fishing,
age,
and
place
of
residence.
The
fish
catch
was
classified
by
the
interviewer
as
either
type
A,
type
B1
or
type
B2
catch.
The
type
A
catch
denoted
fish
that
were
taken
whole
from
the
fishing
site
and
were
available
for
inspection.
The
type
B1
and
B2
catch
were
not
available
for
inspection;
the
former
consisted
of
fish
used
as
bait,
filleted,
or
discarded
dead
while
the
latter
was
fish
released
alive.
The
type
A
catch
was
identified
by
species
and
weighed,
with
the
weight
reflecting
total
fish
weight,
including
inedible
parts.
The
type
B1
catch
was
not
weighed,
but
weights
were
estimated
using
the
average
weight
derived
from
the
type
A
catch
for
the
given
species,
state,
fishing
mode
and
season
of
the
year.
For
both
the
A
and
B1
catch,
the
intended
disposition
of
the
catch
(
e.
g.,
plan
to
eat,
plan
to
throw
away,
etc.)
was
ascertained.
EPA
obtained
the
raw
data
tapes
from
NMFS
in
order
to
generate
intake
distributions
and
other
specialized
analyses.
Fish
intake
distributions
were
generated
using
the
field
survey
tapes.
Weights
proportional
to
the
inverse
of
the
angler's
reported
fishing
frequency
were
employed
to
correct
for
the
unequal
probabilities
of
sampling;
this
was
the
same
approach
used
by
NMFS
in
deriving
their
estimates.
Note
that
in
the
field
survey,
anglers
were
interviewed
regardless
of
past
interviewing
experience;
thus,
the
use
of
inverse
fishing
frequency
as
weights
was
justified
(
see
Section
10.1).
For
each
angler
interviewed
in
the
field
survey,
the
yearly
amount
of
fish
caught
that
was
intended
to
be
eaten
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
9
Y
=
[(
wt
of
A
catch)
*
I
+
(
wt
of
B1
catch)
*
I
]
*
[
Fishing
frequency]
(
Eqn.
10­
1)
A
B
ADI
=
Y
*
(
0.5)/[
2.5
*
365]
(
Eqn.
10­
2)
by
the
angler
and
his/
her
family
or
friends
was
estimated
by
number
of
coastal
residents
who
participated
in
marine
EPA
as
follows:
finfishing
in
their
home
state
was
8
million;
an
additional
where
I
(
I
)
are
indicator
variables
equal
to
1
if
the
type
A
total
weight
of
the
A
and
B1
catch
by
region
and
time
of
A
B
(
B1)
catch
was
intended
to
be
eaten
and
equal
to
0
year.
For
each
region,
the
greatest
catches
were
during
the
otherwise.
To
convert
Y
to
a
daily
fish
intake
rate
by
the
six­
month
period
from
May
through
October.
This
period
angler,
it
was
necessary
to
convert
amount
of
fish
caught
to
accounted
for
about
90
percent
of
the
North
and
edible
amount
of
fish,
divide
by
the
number
of
intended
Mid­
Atlantic
catch,
about
80
percent
of
the
Northern
consumers,
and
convert
from
yearly
to
daily
rate.
Although
California
and
Oregon
catch,
about
70
percent
of
the
theoretically
possible,
EPA
chose
not
to
use
species
specific
Southern
Atlantic
and
Southern
California
catch
and
62
edible
fractions
to
convert
overall
weight
to
edible
fish
percent
of
the
Gulf
catch.
Note
that
in
the
North
and
weight
since
edible
fraction
estimates
were
not
readily
Mid­
Atlantic
regions,
field
surveys
were
not
done
in
available
for
many
marine
species.
Instead,
an
average
January
and
February
due
to
very
low
fishing
activity.
For
value
of
0.5
was
employed.
For
the
number
of
intended
all
regions,
over
half
the
catch
occurred
within
3
miles
of
consumers,
EPA
used
an
average
value
of
2.5
which
was
an
the
shore
or
in
inland
waterways.
average
derived
from
the
results
of
several
studies
of
Table
10­
20
presents
the
mean
and
95th
percentile
recreational
fish
consumption
(
Chemrisk,
1991;
Puffer
et
of
average
daily
intake
of
recreationally
caught
marine
al.,
1981;
West
et
al.,
1989).
Thus,
the
average
daily
intake
finfish
among
anglers
by
region.
The
mean
ADI
among
all
rate
(
ADI)
for
each
angler
was
calculated
as
anglers
was
5.6,
7.2,
and
2.0
g/
day
for
the
Atlantic,
Gulf,

Note
that
ADI
will
be
0
for
those
anglers
who
either
did
not
catch
by
species
for
the
Atlantic
and
Gulf
regions
and
Table
intend
to
eat
their
catch
or
who
did
not
catch
any
fish.
The
10­
22
for
Pacific
regions.
distribution
of
ADI
among
anglers
was
calculated
by
region
The
NMFS
surveys
provide
a
large,
up­
to­
date,
and
and
coastal
status
(
i.
e.,
coastal
versus
non­
coastal
counties).
geographically
representative
sample
of
marine
angler
A
mean
ADI
for
the
overall
population
of
a
given
area
was
activity
in
the
U.
S.
The
major
limitation
of
this
data
base
in
calculated
as
follows:
first
the
estimated
number
of
anglers
terms
of
estimating
fish
intake
is
the
lack
of
information
in
the
area
was
multiplied
by
the
average
number
of
regarding
the
intended
number
of
consumers
of
each
intended
fish
consumers
(
2.5)
to
get
a
total
number
of
angler's
catch.
In
this
analysis,
it
was
assumed
that
every
recreational
marine
finfish
consumers.
This
number
was
angler's
catch
was
consumed
by
the
same
number
(
2.5)
of
then
multiplied
by
the
mean
ADI
among
anglers
to
get
the
people;
this
number
was
derived
from
averaging
the
results
total
recreational
marine
finfish
consumption
in
the
area.
of
other
studies.
This
assumption
introduces
a
relatively
Finally,
the
mean
ADI
in
the
population
was
calculated
by
low
level
of
uncertainty
in
the
estimated
mean
intake
rates
dividing
total
fish
consumption
by
the
total
population
in
the
among
anglers,
but
a
somewhat
higher
level
of
uncertainty
area.
in
the
estimated
intake
distributions.
It
should
be
noted
that
The
results
presented
below
are
based
on
the
results
under
the
above
assumption,
the
distributions
shown
here
of
the
1993
survey.
Samples
sizes
were
200,000
for
the
pertain
not
only
to
the
population
of
anglers,
but
also
to
the
telephone
survey
and
120,000
for
the
field
surveys.
All
entire
population
of
recreational
fish
consumers,
which
is
coastal
states
in
the
continental
U.
S.
were
included
in
the
2.5
times
the
number
of
anglers.
If
the
number
of
survey
except
Texas
and
Washington.
consumers
was
changed,
to,
for
instance,
2.0,
then
the
Table
10­
18
presents
the
estimated
number
of
distribution
would
be
increased
by
a
factor
of
1.25
coastal,
non­
coastal,
and
out­
of­
state
fishing
participants
(
2.5/
2.0),
but
the
estimated
population
of
recreational
fish
by
state
and
region
of
fishing.
Florida
had
the
greatest
consumers
to
which
the
distribution
would
apply
would
number
of
both
Atlantic
and
Gulf
participants.
The
total
decrease
by
a
factor
of
0.8
(
2.0/
2.5).
Note
that
the
mean
750,000
non­
coastal
residents
participated
in
marine
finfishing
in
their
home
state.
Table
10­
19
presents
the
estimated
and
Pacific
regions,
respectively.
Also
given
is
the
percapita
ADI
in
the
overall
population
(
anglers
and
nonanglers
of
the
region
and
in
the
overall
coastal
population
of
the
region.
Table
10­
21
gives
the
distribution
of
the
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
10
August
1997
(
K
x
N
x
W
x
F)/[
E
x
365]
(
Eqn.
10­
3)

where:
K
=
edible
fraction
of
fish
(
0.25
to
0.5
depending
on
species);
N
=
number
of
fish
in
catch;
W
=
average
weight
of
(
grams)
fish
in
catch;
F
=
frequency
of
fishing/
year;
and
E
=
number
of
fish
eaters
in
family/
living
group.
intake
rate
of
marine
finfish
in
the
overall
population
is
No
explicit
survey
weights
were
used
in
analyzing
this
independent
of
the
assumption
of
number
of
intended
fish
survey;
thus,
each
respondent's
data
was
given
equal
consumers.
weight.
Another
uncertainty
involves
the
use
of
0.5
as
an
A
total
of
1,059
anglers
were
interviewed
for
the
(
average)
edible
fraction.
This
figure
is
somewhat
survey.
The
ethnic
and
age
distribution
of
respondents
is
conservative
(
i.
e.,
the
true
average
edible
fraction
is
shown
in
Table
10­
23;
88
percent
of
respondents
were
probably
lower);
thus,
the
intake
rates
calculated
here
may
male.
The
median
intake
rate
was
higher
for
be
biased
upward
somewhat.
Oriental/
Samoan
anglers
(
median
70.6
g/
day)
than
for
other
It
should
be
noted
again
that
the
recreational
fish
ethnic
groups
and
higher
for
those
ages
over
65
years
intake
distributions
given
refer
only
to
marine
finfish.
In
(
median
113.0
g/
day)
than
for
other
age
groups.
Puffer
et
addition,
the
intake
rates
calculated
are
based
only
on
the
al.
(
1981)
found
similar
median
intake
rates
for
seasons;
catch
of
anglers
in
their
home
state.
Marine
fishing
36.3
g/
day
for
November
through
March
and
37.7
g/
day
for
performed
out­
of­
state
would
not
be
included
in
these
April
through
October.
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
also
evaluated
distributions.
Therefore,
these
distributions
give
an
fish
preparation
methods;
these
data
are
presented
in
estimate
of
consumption
of
locally
caught
fish.
Appendix
10B.
The
cumulative
distribution
of
recreational
10.5.
RELEVANT
RECREATIONAL
MARINE
STUDIES
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
­
Intake
Rates
of
Potentially
Hazardous
Marine
Fish
Caught
in
the
Metropolitan
Los
Angeles
Area
­
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
conducted
a
creel
survey
with
sport
fishermen
in
the
Los
Angeles
area
in
1980.
The
survey
was
conducted
at
12
sites
in
the
harbor
and
coastal
areas
to
evaluate
intake
rates
of
potentially
hazardous
marine
fish
and
shellfish
by
local,
non­
professional
fishermen.
It
was
conducted
for
the
full
1980
calendar
year,
although
inclement
weather
in
January,
February,
and
March
limited
the
interview
days.
Each
site
was
surveyed
an
average
of
three
times
per
month,
on
different
days,
and
at
a
different
time
of
the
day.
The
survey
questionnaire
was
designed
to
collect
information
on
demographic
characteristics,
fishing
patterns,
species,
number
of
fish
caught,
and
fish
consumption
patterns.
Scales
were
used
to
obtain
fish
weights.
Interviews
were
conducted
only
with
anglers
who
had
caught
fish,
and
the
anglers
were
interviewed
only
once
during
the
entire
survey
period.
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
estimated
daily
consumption
rates
(
grams/
day)
for
each
angler
using
the
following
equation:
fish
(
finfish
and
shellfish)
consumption
by
survey
respondents
is
presented
in
Table
10­
24;
this
distribution
was
calculated
only
for
those
fishermen
who
indicated
they
eat
the
fish
they
catch.
The
median
fish
consumption
rate
was
37
g/
day
and
the
90th
percentile
rate
was
225
g/
day
(
Puffer
et
al.,
1981).
A
description
of
catch
patterns
for
primary
fish
species
kept
is
presented
in
Table
10­
25.
As
mentioned
in
the
Background
to
this
Chapter,
intake
distributions
derived
from
analyses
of
creel
surveys
which
did
not
employ
weights
reflective
of
sampling
probabilities
will
overestimate
the
target
population
intake
distribution
and
will,
in
fact,
be
more
reflective
of
the
"
resource
utilization
distribution".
Therefore,
the
reported
median
level
of
37.3
g/
day
does
not
reflect
the
fact
that
50
percent
of
the
target
population
has
intake
above
this
level;
instead
50
percent
of
recreational
fish
consumption
is
by
individuals
consuming
at
or
above
37.3
g/
day.
In
order
to
generate
an
intake
distribution
reflective
of
that
in
the
target
population,
weights
inversely
proportional
to
sampling
probability
need
to
be
employed.
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
made
this
attempt
with
the
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
survey
data,
using
inverse
fishing
frequencies
as
the
sampling
weights.
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
was
unable
to
get
the
raw
data
for
this
survey,
but
using
frequency
tables
and
the
average
level
of
fish
consumption
per
fishing
trip
provided
in
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981),
generated
an
approximate
revised
intake
distribution.
This
distribution
was
dramatically
lower
than
that
obtained
by
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981);
the
median
was
estimated
at
2.9
g/
day
(
compared
with
37.3
from
Puffer
et
al.,
1981)
and
the
90th
percentile
at
35
g/
day
(
compared
to
225
g/
day
from
Puffer
et
al.,
1981).
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
11
There
are
several
limitations
to
the
interpretation
of
conducted
from
early
July
to
mid­
September,
1980
and
the
the
percentiles
presented
by
both
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
and
second
half
from
mid­
September
through
most
of
Price
et
al.
(
1994).
As
described
in
Appendix
10A,
the
November.
During
the
summer
months,
interviewers
interpretation
of
percentiles
reported
from
creel
surveys
in
visited
each
of
4
sub­
areas
of
Commencement
Bay
on
five
terms
of
percentiles
of
the
"
resource
utilization
distribution"
mornings
and
five
evenings;
in
the
fall
the
areas
were
is
approximate
and
depends
on
several
assumptions.
One
sampled
4
complete
survey
days.
Interviews
were
of
these
assumptions
is
that
sampling
probability
is
conducted
only
with
persons
who
had
caught
fish.
The
proportional
to
inverse
fishing
frequency.
In
this
survey,
anglers
were
interviewed
only
once
during
the
survey
where
interviewers
revisited
sites
numerous
times
and
period.
Data
were
recorded
for
species,
wet
weight,
size
of
anglers
were
not
interviewed
more
than
once,
this
the
living
group
(
family,
place
of
residence,
fishing
assumption
is
not
valid,
though
it
is
likely
that
the
sampling
frequency,
planned
uses
of
the
fish,
age,
sex,
and
race
probability
is
still
highly
dependant
on
fishing
frequency
so
(
Pierce
et
al.,
1981).
The
analysis
of
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981)
that
the
assumption
does
hold
in
an
approximate
sense.
The
did
not
employ
explicit
sampling
weights
(
i.
e.,
all
weights
validity
of
this
assumption
also
impacts
the
interpretation
of
were
set
to
1).
percentiles
reported
by
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
since
inverse
There
were
304
interviews
in
the
summer
and
204
frequency
was
used
as
sampling
weights.
It
is
likely
that
the
in
the
fall.
About
60
percent
of
anglers
were
white,
20
value
(
2.9
g/
day)
of
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
underestimates
percent
black,
19
percent
Oriental
and
the
rest
Hispanic
or
somewhat
the
median
intake
in
the
target
population,
but
is
Native
American.
Table
10­
26
gives
the
distribution
of
much
closer
to
the
actual
value
than
the
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
fishing
frequency
calculated
by
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981);
for
both
estimate
of
37.3
g/
day.
Similar
statements
would
apply
the
summer
and
fall,
more
than
half
of
the
fishermen
caught
about
the
90th
percentile.
Similarly,
the
37.3
g/
day
median
and
consumed
fish
weekly.
The
dominant
(
by
weight)
value,
if
interpreted
as
the
50th
percentile
of
the
"
resource
species
caught
were
Pacific
Hake
and
Walleye
Pollock.
utilization
distribution",
is
also
somewhat
of
an
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981)
did
not
present
a
distribution
of
fish
underestimate.
intake
or
a
mean
fish
intake
rate.
It
should
be
noted
again
that
the
fish
intake
The
U.
S.
EPA
(
1989a)
used
the
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981)
distribution
generated
by
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
(
and
by
Price
fishing
frequency
distribution
and
an
estimate
of
the
average
et
al.,
1994)
was
based
only
on
fishermen
who
caught
fish
amount
of
fish
consumed
per
angling
trip
to
create
an
and
ate
the
fish
they
caught.
If
all
anglers
were
included,
approximate
intake
distribution
for
the
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981)
intake
estimates
would
be
somewhat
lower.
In
contrast,
the
survey.
The
estimate
of
the
amount
of
fish
consumed
per
survey
assumed
that
the
number
of
fish
caught
at
the
time
of
angling
trip
(
380
g/
person­
trip)
was
based
on
data
on
mean
the
interview
was
all
that
would
be
caught
that
day.
If
it
fish
catch
weight
and
mean
number
of
consumers
reported
were
possible
to
interview
fishermen
at
the
conclusion
of
in
Pierce
et.
al.
(
1981)
and
on
an
edible
fraction
of
0.5.
their
fishing
day,
intake
estimates
could
be
potentially
U.
S.
EPA
(
1989a)
reported
a
median
intake
rate
of
23
higher.
An
additional
factor
potentially
affecting
intake
rates
g/
day.
is
that
fishing
quarantines
were
imposed
in
early
spring
due
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
obtained
the
raw
data
from
this
to
heavy
sewage
overflow
(
Puffer
et
al.,
1981).
survey
and
performed
a
re­
analysis
using
sampling
weights
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981)
­
Commencement
Bay
Seafood
Consumption
Study
­
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981)
performed
a
local
creel
survey
to
examine
seafood
consumption
patterns
and
demographics
of
sport
fishermen
in
Commencement
Bay,
Washington.
The
objectives
of
this
survey
included
determining
(
1)
seafood
consumption
habits
and
demographics
of
non­
commercial
anglers
catching
seafood;
(
2)
the
extent
to
which
resident
fish
were
used
as
food;
and
(
3)
the
method
of
preparation
of
the
fish
to
be
consumed.
Salmon
were
excluded
from
the
survey
since
it
was
believed
that
they
had
little
potential
for
contamination.
The
first
half
of
this
survey
was
proportional
to
inverse
fishing
frequency.
The
rationale
for
these
weights
is
explained
in
Section
10.1
and
in
the
discussion
above
of
the
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
study.
In
the
reanalysis
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
found
a
median
intake
rate
of
1.0
g/
day
and
a
90th
percentile
rate
of
13
g/
day.
The
distribution
of
fishing
frequency
generated
by
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
is
shown
in
Table
10­
27.
Note
that
when
equal
weights
were
used,
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
found
a
median
rate
of
19
g/
day,
which
was
close
to
the
approximate
U.
S.
EPA
(
1989a)
value
reported
above
of
23
g/
day.
The
same
limitations
apply
to
interpreting
the
results
presented
here
to
those
presented
above
in
the
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
12
August
1997
discussion
of
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981).
The
median
intake
rate
because
they
had
consumed
fish
or
wildlife
from
the
found
by
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
(
using
inverse
frequency
Everglades
at
least
once
per
month
in
the
last
3
months
of
weights)
is
more
reflective
of
median
intake
in
the
target
the
study
period.
The
majority
of
the
eligible
participants
(>
population
than
is
the
value
of
19
g/
day
(
or
23
g/
day);
the
93
percent)
were
either
subsistence
fishermen,
Everglade
latter
value
reflects
more
the
50th
percentile
of
the
resource
residents,
or
both.
Of
the
total
eligible
participants,
55
utilization
distribution,
(
i.
e.,
that
anglers
with
intakes
above
individuals
refused
to
participate
in
the
survey.
Useable
19
g/
day
consume
50
percent
of
the
recreational
fish
catch).
data
were
obtained
from
330
respondents
ranging
in
age
Similarly,
the
fishing
frequency
distribution
generated
by
from
10­
81
years
of
age
(
mean
age
39
years
±
18.8)
(
U.
S.
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
is
more
reflective
of
the
fishing
DHHS,
1995).
Respondents
were
administered
a
three
frequency
distribution
in
the
target
population
than
is
the
page
questionnaire
from
which
demographic
information,
distribution
presented
in
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981).
Note
the
fishing
and
eating
habits,
and
other
variables
were
obtained
target
population
is
those
anglers
who
fished
at
(
U.
S.
DHHS,
1995).
Commencement
Bay
during
the
time
period
of
the
survey.
Table
10­
28
shows
the
ranges,
means,
and
standard
As
with
the
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
data,
these
values
deviations
of
selected
characteristics
by
subgroups
of
the
(
1.0
g/
day
and
19
g/
day)
are
both
probably
underestimates
survey
population.
Sixty­
two
percent
of
the
respondents
since
the
sampling
probabilities
are
less
than
proportional
were
male
with
a
slight
preponderance
of
black
individuals
to
fishing
frequency;
thus,
the
true
target
population
median
(
43
percent
white,
46
percent
black
non­
Hispanic,
and
11
is
probably
somewhat
above
1.0
g/
day
and
the
true
50th
percent
Hispanic)
(
Table
10­
28).
Most
of
the
respondents
percentile
of
the
resource
utilization
distribution
is
probably
reported
earning
an
annual
income
of
$
15,000
or
less
per
somewhat
higher
than
19
g/
day.
The
data
from
this
survey
family
before
taxes
(
U.
S.
DHHS,
1995).
The
mean
number
provide
an
indication
of
consumption
patterns
for
the
time
of
years
fished
along
the
canals
by
the
respondents
was
15.8
period
around
1980
in
the
Commencement
Bay
area.
years
with
a
standard
deviation
of
15.8.
The
mean
number
However,
the
data
may
not
reflect
current
consumption
of
times
per
week
fish
consumers
reported
eating
fish
over
patterns
because
fishing
advisories
were
instituted
due
to
the
last
6
months
and
last
month
of
the
survey
period
was
local
contamination.
1.8
and
1.5
per
week
with
a
standard
deviation
of
2.5
and
U.
S.
DHHS
(
1995)
­
Health
Study
to
Assess
the
Human
Health
Effects
of
Mercury
Exposure
to
Fish
Consumed
from
the
Everglades
­
A
health
study
was
conducted
in
two
phases
in
the
Everglades,
Florida
for
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
(
U.
S.
DHHS,
1995).
The
objectives
of
the
first
phase
were
to:
(
a)
describe
the
human
populations
at
risk
for
mercury
exposure
through
their
consumption
of
fish
and
other
contaminated
animals
from
the
Everglades
and
(
b)
evaluate
the
extent
of
mercury
exposure
in
those
persons
consuming
contaminated
food
and
their
compliance
with
the
voluntary
health
advisory.
The
second
phase
of
the
study
involved
neurologic
testing
of
all
study
participants
who
had
total
mercury
levels
in
hair
greater
than
7.5
F
g/
g.
Study
participants
were
identified
by
using
special
targeted
screenings,
mailings
to
residents,
postings
and
multi­
media
advertisements
of
the
study
throughout
the
Everglades
region,
and
direct
discussions
with
people
fishing
along
the
canals
and
waterways
in
the
contaminated
areas.
The
contaminated
areas
were
identified
by
the
interviewers
and
long­
term
Everglade
residents.
Of
a
total
of
1,794
individuals
sampled,
405
individuals
were
eligible
to
participate
in
the
study
1.4,
respectively
(
Table
10­
28).
Table
10­
28
also
indicates
that
71
percent
of
the
respondents
reported
knowing
about
the
mercury
health
advisories.
Of
those
who
were
aware,
26
percent
reported
that
they
had
lowered
their
consumption
of
fish
caught
in
the
Everglades
while
the
rest
(
74
percent)
reported
no
change
in
consumption
patterns
(
U.
S.
DHHS,
1995).
A
limitation
of
this
study
is
that
fish
intake
rates
(
g/
day)
were
not
reported.
Another
limitation
is
that
the
survey
was
site
limited,
and,
therefore,
not
representative
of
the
U.
S.
population.
An
advantage
of
this
study
is
that
it
is
one
of
the
few
studies
targeting
subsistence
fishermen.

10.6.
KEY
FRESHWATER
RECREATIONAL
STUDIES
West
et
al.
(
1989)
­
Michigan
Sport
Anglers
Fish
Consumption
Survey,
1989
­
surveyed
a
stratified
random
sample
of
Michigan
residents
with
fishing
licences.
The
sample
was
divided
into
18
cohorts,
with
one
cohort
receiving
a
mail
questionnaire
each
week
between
January
and
May
1989.
The
survey
included
both
a
short
term
recall
component
recording
respondents'
fish
intake
over
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
13
a
seven
day
period
and
a
usual
frequency
component.
For
the
percentile
data.
Using
this
lognormal
distribution,
the
the
short­
term
component,
respondents
were
asked
to
mean
values
for
serving
sizes
greater
than
8
oz.
and
for
identify
all
household
members
and
list
all
fish
meals
serving
sizes
at
least
10
percent
greater
than
8
oz.
were
consumed
by
each
household
member
during
the
past
seven
determined.
In
both
cases
a
serving
size
of
12
oz.
was
days.
The
source
of
the
fish
for
each
meal
was
requested
consistent
with
the
Pao
et
al.
(
1982)
distribution.
The
(
self­
caught,
gift,
market,
or
restaurant).
Respondents
were
weights
used
in
the
EPA
analysis
then
were
5,
8,
and
12
oz.
asked
to
categorize
serving
size
by
comparison
with
for
fish
meals
described
as
less,
about
the
same,
and
more
pictures
of
8
oz.
fish
portions;
serving
sizes
could
be
than
the
8
oz.
picture,
respectively.
It
should
be
noted
that
designated
as
either
"
about
the
same
size",
"
less",
or
the
mean
serving
size
from
Pao
et
al.
(
1982)
was
about
5
"
more"
than
the
8
oz.
picture.
Data
on
fish
species,
oz.,
well
below
the
value
of
8
oz.
most
commonly
reported
locations
of
self­
caught
fish
and
methods
of
preparation
and
by
respondents
in
the
West
et
al.
(
1989)
survey.
cooking
were
also
obtained.
Table
10­
29
displays
the
mean
number
of
total
and
The
usual
frequency
component
of
the
survey
asked
recreational
fish
meals
for
each
household
member
based
about
the
frequency
of
fish
meals
during
each
of
the
four
on
the
seven
day
recall
data.
Also
shown
are
mean
fish
seasons
and
requested
respondents
to
give
the
overall
intake
rates
derived
by
applying
the
weights
described
percentage
of
household
fish
meals
that
come
from
above
to
each
fish
meal.
Intake
was
calculated
on
both
a
recreational
sources.
A
sample
of
2,600
individuals
were
grams/
day
and
grams/
kg
body
weight/
day
basis.
This
selected
from
state
records
to
receive
survey
questionnaires.
analysis
was
restricted
to
individuals
who
eat
fish
and
who
A
total
of
2,334
survey
questionnaires
were
deliverable
and
reside
in
households
reporting
some
recreational
fish
1,104
were
completed
and
returned,
giving
a
response
rate
consumption
during
the
previous
year.
About
75
percent
of
of
47.3
percent
among
individuals
receiving
questionnaires.
survey
respondents
(
i.
e.,
licensed
anglers)
and
about
84
In
the
analysis
of
the
survey
data
by
West
et.
al.
percent
of
respondents
who
fished
in
the
prior
year
reported
(
1989),
the
authors
did
not
attempt
to
generate
the
some
household
recreational
fish
consumption.
distribution
of
recreationally
caught
fish
intake
in
the
survey
The
EPA
analysis
next
attempted
to
use
the
short
population.
EPA
obtained
the
raw
data
of
this
survey
for
term
data
to
validate
the
usual
intake
data.
West
et
al.
the
purpose
of
generating
fish
intake
distributions
and
other
(
1989)
asked
the
main
respondent
in
each
household
to
specialized
analyses.
provide
estimates
of
their
usual
frequency
of
fishing
and
As
described
elsewhere
in
this
handbook,
percentiles
eating
fish,
by
season,
during
the
previous
year.
The
survey
of
the
distribution
of
average
daily
intake
reflective
of
long­
provides
a
series
of
frequency
categories
for
each
season
term
consumption
patterns
can
not
in
general
be
estimated
and
the
respondent
was
asked
to
check
the
appropriate
using
short­
term
(
e.
g.,
one
week)
data.
Such
data
can
be
range.
The
ranges
used
for
all
questions
were:
almost
daily,
used
to
estimate
mean
average
daily
intake
rates
(
reflective
2­
4
times
a
week,
once
a
week,
2­
3
times
a
month,
once
a
of
short
or
long
term
consumption);
in
addition,
short
term
month,
less
often,
none,
and
don't
know.
For
quantitative
data
can
serve
to
validate
estimates
of
usual
intake
based
on
analysis
of
the
data
it
is
necessary
to
convert
this
categorical
longer
recall.
information
into
numerical
frequency
values.
As
some
of
EPA
first
analyzed
the
short
term
data
with
the
intent
the
ranges
are
relatively
broad,
the
choice
of
conversion
of
estimating
mean
fish
intake
rates.
In
order
to
compare
values
can
have
some
effect
on
intake
estimates.
In
order
to
these
results
with
those
based
on
usual
intake,
only
obtain
optimal
values,
the
usual
fish
eating
frequency
respondents
with
information
on
both
short
term
and
usual
reported
by
respondents
for
the
season
during
which
the
intake
were
included
in
this
analysis.
For
the
analysis
of
the
questionnaire
was
completed
was
compared
to
the
number
short
term
data,
EPA
modified
the
serving
size
weights
used
of
fish
meals
reportedly
consumed
by
respondents
over
the
by
West
et
al.
(
1989),
which
were
5,
8
and
10
oz.,
seven
day
short­
term
recall
period.
The
results
of
these
respectively,
for
portions
that
were
less,
about
the
same,
and
comparisons
are
displayed
in
Table
10­
30;
it
shows
that,
on
more
than
the
8
oz.
picture.
EPA
examined
the
percentiles
average,
there
is
general
agreement
between
estimates
made
of
the
distribution
of
fish
meal
sizes
reported
in
Pao
et
al.
using
one
year
recall
and
estimates
based
on
seven
day
(
1982)
derived
from
the
1977­
1978
USDA
National
Food
recall.
The
average
number
of
meals
(
1.96/
week)
was
at
the
Consumption
Survey
and
observed
that
a
lognormal
bottom
of
the
range
for
the
most
frequent
consumption
distribution
provided
a
good
visual
fit
to
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
14
August
1997
group
with
data
(
2­
4
meals/
week).
In
contrast,
for
the
term
and
usual
intake
data.
The
presence
of
short
term
data
lower
usual
frequency
categories,
the
average
number
of
allowed
validation
of
the
usual
intake
data
which
was
based
meals
was
at
the
top,
or
exceeded
the
top
of
category
range.
on
long
term
recall;
thus,
some
of
the
problems
associated
This
suggests
some
tendency
for
relatively
infrequent
fish
with
surveys
relying
on
long
term
recall
are
mitigated
here.
eaters
to
underestimate
their
usual
frequency
of
fish
The
response
rate
of
this
survey,
47
percent,
was
consumption.
The
last
column
of
the
table
shows
the
relatively
low.
In
addition,
the
usual
fish
intake
distribution
estimated
fish
eating
frequency
per
week
that
was
selected
generated
here
employed
a
constant
fish
meal
size,
8
oz..
for
use
in
making
quantitative
estimates
of
usual
fish
intake.
Although
use
of
this
value
as
an
average
meal
size
was
These
values
were
guided
by
the
values
in
the
second
validated
by
the
short­
term
recall
results,
the
use
of
a
column,
except
that
frequency
values
that
were
inconsistent
constant
meal
size,
even
if
correct
on
average,
may
seriously
with
the
ranges
provided
to
respondents
in
the
survey
were
reduce
the
variation
in
the
estimated
fish
intake
distribution.
avoided.
This
study
was
conducted
in
the
winter
and
spring
Using
the
four
seasonal
fish
eating
frequencies
months
of
1988.
This
period
does
not
include
the
summer
provided
by
respondents
and
the
above
conversions
for
months
when
peak
fishing
activity
can
be
anticipated,
reported
intake
frequency,
EPA
estimated
the
average
leading
to
the
possibility
that
intake
results
based
on
the
7
number
of
fish
meals
per
week
for
each
respondent.
This
day
recall
data
may
understate
individuals'
usual
(
annual
estimate,
as
well
as
the
analysis
above,
pertain
to
the
total
average)
fish
consumption.
A
second
survey
by
West
et
al.
number
of
fish
meals
eaten
(
in
Michigan)
regardless
of
the
(
1993)
gathered
diary
data
on
fish
intake
for
respondents
source
of
the
fish.
Respondents
were
not
asked
to
provide
spaced
over
a
full
year.
However,
this
later
survey
did
not
a
seasonal
breakdown
for
eating
frequency
of
recreationally
include
questions
about
usual
fish
intake
and
has
not
been
caught
fish;
rather,
they
provided
an
overall
estimate
for
reanalyzed
here.
The
mean
recreational
fish
intake
rates
the
past
year
of
the
percent
of
fish
they
ate
that
was
obtained
derived
from
the
short
term
and
usual
components
were
from
different
sources.
EPA
estimated
the
annual
quite
similar,
however,
14.0
versus
14.4
g/
day.
frequency
of
recreationally
caught
fish
meals
by
multiplying
the
estimated
total
number
of
fish
meals
by
the
reported
percent
of
fish
meals
obtained
from
recreational
sources;
recreational
sources
were
defined
as
either
self
caught
or
a
gift
from
family
or
friends.
The
usual
intake
component
of
the
survey
did
not
include
questions
about
the
usual
portion
size
for
fish
meals.
In
order
to
estimate
usual
fish
intake,
a
portion
size
of
8
oz.
was
applied
(
the
majority
of
respondents
reported
this
meal
size
in
the
7
day
recall
data).
Individual
body
weight
data
were
used
to
estimate
intake
on
a
g/
kg­
day
basis.
The
fish
intake
distribution
estimated
by
EPA
is
displayed
in
Table
10­
31.
The
distribution
shown
in
Table
10­
31
is
based
on
respondents
who
consumed
recreational
caught
fish.
As
mentioned
above,
these
represent
75
percent
of
all
respondents
and
84
percent
of
respondents
who
reported
having
fished
in
the
prior
year.
Among
this
latter
population,
the
mean
recreational
fish
intake
rate
is
14.4*
0.84=
12.1
g/
day;
the
value
of
38.7
g/
day
(
95th
percentile
among
consumers)
corresponds
to
the
95.8th
percentile
of
the
fish
intake
distribution
in
this
(
fishing)
population.
The
advantages
of
this
data
set
and
analysis
are
that
the
survey
was
relatively
large
and
contained
both
short­
Chemrisk
(
1991)
­
Consumption
of
Freshwater
Fish
by
Maine
Anglers
­
Chemrisk
conducted
a
study
to
characterize
the
rates
of
freshwater
fish
consumption
among
Maine
residents
(
Chemrisk,
1991;
Ebert
et
al.,
1993).
Since
the
only
dietary
source
of
local
freshwater
fish
is
recreational
fish,
the
anglers
in
Maine
were
chosen
as
the
survey
population.
The
survey
was
designed
to
gather
information
on
the
consumption
of
fish
caught
by
anglers
from
flowing
(
rivers
and
streams)
and
standing
(
lakes
and
ponds)
water
bodies.
Respondents
were
asked
to
recall
the
frequency
of
fishing
trips
during
the
1989­
1990
ice­
fishing
season
and
the
1990
open
water
season,
the
number
of
fish
species
caught
during
both
seasons,
and
estimate
the
number
of
fish
consumed
from
15
fish
species.
The
respondents
were
also
asked
to
describe
the
number,
species,
and
average
length
of
each
sport­
caught
fish
consumed
that
had
been
gifts
from
other
members
of
their
households
or
other
household.
The
weight
of
fish
consumed
by
anglers
was
calculated
by
first
multiplying
the
estimated
weight
of
the
fish
by
the
edible
fraction,
and
then
dividing
this
product
by
the
number
of
intended
consumers.
Species
specific
regression
equations
were
utilized
to
estimate
weight
from
the
reported
fish
length.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
15
The
edible
fractions
used
were
0.4
for
salmon,
0.78
for
grams);
white
perch
(
380,000
grams)
for
lakes
and
ponds;
Atlantic
smelt,
and
0.3
for
all
other
species
(
Ebert
et
al.,
and
Brooktrout
(
420,000
grams)
for
rivers
and
streams
1993).
(
Chemrisk,
1991).
A
total
of
2,500
prospective
survey
participants
were
EPA
obtained
the
raw
data
tapes
from
the
marine
randomly
selected
from
a
list
of
anglers
licensed
in
Maine.
anglers
survey
and
performed
some
specialized
analyses.
The
surveys
were
mailed
in
during
October,
1990.
Since
One
analysis
involved
examining
the
percentiles
of
the
this
was
before
the
end
of
the
open
fishing
season,
"
resource
utilization
distribution"
(
this
distribution
was
respondents
were
also
asked
to
predict
how
many
more
defined
in
Section
10.1).
The
50th,
or
more
generally
the
open
water
fishing
trips
they
would
undertake
in
1990.
pth
percentile
of
the
resource
utilization
distribution,
is
Chemrisk
(
1991)
and
Ebert
et
al.
(
1993)
calculated
defined
as
the
consumption
level
such
that
p
percent
of
the
distributions
of
freshwater
fish
intake
for
two
populations,
resource
is
consumed
by
individuals
with
consumptions
"
all
anglers"
and
"
consuming
anglers".
All
anglers
were
below
this
level
and
100­
p
percent
by
individuals
with
defined
as
licensed
anglers
who
fished
during
either
the
consumptions
above
this
level.
EPA
found
that
90
percent
1989­
1990
ice­
fishing
season
or
the
1990
open­
water
of
recreational
fish
consumption
was
by
individuals
with
season
(
consumers
and
non­
consumers)
and
licensed
intake
rates
above
3.1
g/
day
and
50
percent
was
by
anglers
who
did
not
fish
but
consumed
freshwater
fish
individuals
with
intakes
above
20
g/
day.
Those
above
3.1
caught
in
Maine
during
these
seasons.
"
Consuming
g/
day
make
up
about
30
percent
of
the
"
all
angler"
anglers"
were
defined
as
those
anglers
who
consumed
population
and
those
above
20
g/
day
make
up
about
5
freshwater
fish
obtained
from
Maine
sources
during
the
percent
of
this
population;
thus,
the
top
5
percent
of
the
1989­
1990
ice
fishing
or
1990
open
water
fishing
season.
angler
population
consumed
50
percent
of
the
recreational
In
addition,
the
distribution
of
fish
intake
from
rivers
and
fish
catch.
streams
was
also
calculated
for
two
populations,
those
EPA
also
performed
an
analysis
of
fish
consumption
fishing
on
rivers
and
streams
("
river
anglers")
and
those
among
anglers
and
their
families.
This
analysis
was
possible
consuming
fish
from
rivers
and
streams
("
consuming
river
because
the
survey
included
questions
on
the
number,
sex,
anglers").
and
age
of
each
individual
in
the
household
and
whether
the
A
total
of
1,612
surveys
were
returned,
giving
a
individual
consumed
recreationally
caught
fish.
The
total
response
rate
of
64
percent;
1,369
(
85
percent)
of
the
1,612
population
of
licensed
anglers
in
this
survey
and
their
respondents
were
included
in
the
"
all
angler"
population
household
members
was
4,872;
the
average
household
size
and
1,053
(
65
percent)
were
included
in
the
"
consuming
for
the
1,612
anglers
in
the
survey
was
thus
3.0
persons.
angler"
population.
Freshwater
fish
intake
distributions
for
Fifty­
six
percent
of
the
population
was
male
and
30
percent
these
populations
are
presented
in
Table
10­
32.
The
mean
was
18
or
under.
and
95th
percentile
was
5.0
g/
day
and
21.0
g/
day,
A
total
of
55
percent
of
this
population
was
reported
respectively,
for
"
all
anglers,"
and
6.4
g/
day
and
26.0
to
consume
freshwater
recreationally
caught
fish
in
the
year
g/
day,
respectively,
for
"
consuming
anglers."
Table
10­
32
of
the
survey.
The
sex
and
ethnic
distribution
of
the
also
presents
intake
distributions
for
fish
caught
from
rivers
consumers
was
similar
to
that
of
the
overall
population.
The
and
streams.
Among
"
river
anglers"
the
mean
and
95th
distribution
of
fish
intake
among
the
overall
household
percentiles
were
1.9
g/
day
and
6.2
g/
day,
respectively,
while
population,
or
among
consumers
in
the
household,
can
be
among
"
consuming
river
anglers"
the
mean
was
3.7
g/
day
calculated
under
the
assumption
that
recreationally
caught
and
the
95th
percentile
was
12.0
g/
day.
Table
10­
33
fish
was
shared
equally
among
all
members
of
the
presents
fish
intake
distributions
by
ethnic
group
for
household
reporting
consumption
of
such
fish
(
note
this
consuming
anglers.
The
highest
mean
intake
rates
reported
assumption
was
used
above
to
calculate
intake
rates
for
are
for
Native
Americans
(
10
g/
day)
and
French
Canadians
anglers).
With
this
assumption,
the
mean
intake
rate
among
(
7.4
g/
day).
Because
there
was
a
low
number
of
consumers
was
5.9
g/
day
with
a
median
of
1.8
g/
day
and
a
respondents
for
Hispanics,
Asian/
Pacific
Islanders,
and
95th
percentile
of
23.1
g/
day;
for
the
overall
population
the
African
Americans,
intake
rates
within
these
subgroups
mean
was
3.2
g/
day
and
the
95th
percentile
was
14.1
g/
day.
were
not
calculated
(
Chemrisk,
1991).
The
results
of
this
survey
can
be
put
into
the
context
The
consumption,
by
species,
of
freshwater
fish
of
the
overall
Maine
population.
The
1,612
caught
is
presented
in
Table
10­
34.
The
largest
specie
consumption
was
salmon
from
ice
fishing
(~
292,000
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
16
August
1997
anglers
surveyed
represent
about
0.7
percent
of
the
up
to
the
earlier
1989
Michigan
survey
described
estimated
225,000
licensed
anglers
in
Maine.
It
is
previously.
The
major
purpose
of
1991­
1992
survey
was
reasonable
to
assume
that
licensed
anglers
and
their
families
to
provide
short­
term
recall
data
of
recreational
fish
will
have
the
highest
exposure
to
recreationally
caught
consumption
over
a
full
year
period;
the
1989
survey,
in
freshwater
fish.
Thus,
to
estimate
the
number
of
persons
in
contrast,
was
conducted
over
only
a
half
year
period
(
West
Maine
with
recreationally
caught
freshwater
fish
intake
et
al.,
1993).
above,
for
instance,
6.5
g/
day
(
the
80th
percentile
among
This
survey
was
similar
in
design
to
the
1989
household
consumers
in
this
survey),
one
can
assume
that
Michigan
survey.
A
sample
of
7,000
persons
with
virtually
all
persons
came
from
the
population
of
licensed
Michigan
fishing
licenses
was
drawn
and
surveys
were
anglers
and
their
families.
The
number
of
persons
above
6.5
mailed
in
2­
week
cohorts
over
the
period
January,
1991
to
g/
day
in
the
household
survey
population
is
calculated
by
January,
1992.
Respondents
were
asked
to
report
detailed
taking
20
percent
(
i.
e.,
100
percent
­
80
percent)
of
the
fish
consumption
patterns
during
the
preceding
seven
days,
consuming
population
in
the
survey;
this
number
then
is
as
well
as
demographic
information;
they
were
also
asked
0.2*(
0.55*
4872)=
536.
Dividing
this
number
by
the
if
they
currently
eat
fish.
Enclosed
with
the
survey
were
sampling
fraction
of
0.007
(
0.7
percent)
gives
about
77,000
pictures
of
about
a
half
pound
of
fish.
Respondents
were
persons
above
6.5
g/
day
of
recreational
freshwater
fish
asked
to
indicate
whether
reported
consumption
at
each
consumption
statewide.
The
1990
census
showed
the
meal
was
more,
less
or
about
the
same
as
the
picture.
population
of
Maine
to
be
1.2
million
people;
thus
the
Based
on
responses
to
this
question,
respondents
were
77,000
persons
above
6.5
g/
day
represent
about
6
percent
assumed
to
have
consumed
10,
5
or
8
ounces
of
fish,
of
the
state's
population.
respectively.
Chemrisk
(
1991)
reported
that
the
fish
consumption
A
total
of
2,681
surveys
were
returned.
West
et
al.
estimates
obtained
from
the
survey
were
conservative
(
1993)
calculated
a
response
rate
for
the
survey
of
46.8
because
of
assumptions
made
in
the
analysis.
The
percent;
this
was
derived
by
removing
from
the
sample
assumptions
included:
a
40
percent
estimate
as
the
edible
those
respondents
who
could
not
be
located
or
who
did
not
portion
of
landlocked
and
Atlantic
salmon;
inclusion
of
the
reside
in
Michigan
for
at
least
six
months.
intended
number
of
future
fishing
trips
and
an
assumption
Of
these
2,681
respondents,
2,475
(
93
percent)
that
the
average
success
and
consumption
rates
for
the
reported
that
they
currently
eat
fish;
all
subsequent
analyses
individual
angler
during
the
trips
already
taken
would
were
restricted
to
the
current
fish
eaters.
The
mean
fish
continue
through
future
trips.
The
data
collected
for
this
consumption
rates
were
found
to
be
16.7
g/
day
for
sport
fish
study
were
based
on
recall
and
self­
reporting
which
may
and
26.5
g/
day
for
total
fish
(
West
et
al.,
1993).
Table
10­
have
resulted
in
a
biased
estimate.
The
social
desirability
35
shows
mean
sport­
fish
consumption
rates
by
of
the
sport
and
frequency
of
fishing
are
also
bias
demographic
categories.
Rates
were
higher
among
contributing
factors;
successful
anglers
are
among
the
minorities,
people
with
low
income,
and
people
residing
in
highest
consumers
of
freshwater
fish
(
Chemrisk,
1991).
smaller
communities.
Consumption
rates
in
g/
day
were
also
Over
reporting
appears
to
be
correlated
with
skill
level
and
higher
in
males
than
in
females;
however,
this
difference
the
importance
of
the
activity
to
the
individual;
it
is
likely
would
likely
disappear
if
rates
were
computed
on
a
g/
kg­
day
that
the
higher
consumption
rates
may
be
substantially
basis.
overstated
(
Chemrisk,
1991).
Additionally,
fish
advisories
West
et
al.
(
1993)
estimated
the
80th
percentile
of
are
in
place
in
these
areas
and
may
affect
the
rate
of
fish
the
survey
fish
consumption
distribution.
More
extensive
consumption
among
anglers.
The
survey
results
showed
percentile
calculations
were
performed
by
U.
S.
EPA
(
1995)
that
in
1990,
23
percent
of
all
anglers
consumed
no
using
the
raw
data
from
the
West
et
al.
(
1993)
survey
and
freshwater
fish,
and
55
percent
of
the
river
anglers
ate
no
calculated
50th,
90th,
and
95th
percentiles.
However,
since
freshwater
fish.
An
advantage
of
this
study
is
that
it
this
survey
only
measured
fish
consumption
over
a
short
presents
area­
specific
consumption
patterns
and
the
sample
(
one
week)
interval,
the
resulting
distribution
will
not
be
size
is
rather
large.
indicative
of
the
long­
term
fish
consumption
distribution
West
et
al.
(
1993)
­
Michigan
Sport
Anglers
Fish
Consumption
Study,
1991­
1992
­
This
survey,
financed
by
the
Michigan
Great
Lakes
Protection
Fund,
was
a
followand
the
upper
percentiles
reported
from
the
EPA
analysis
will
likely
considerably
overestimate
the
corresponding
long
term
percentiles.
The
overall
95th
percentile
calculated
by
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
17
U.
S.
EPA
(
1995)
was
77.9;
this
is
about
double
the
95th
diary
or
provided
diary
information
by
telephone.
Due
to
percentile
estimated
using
year
long
consumption
data
from
changes
in
health
advisories
for
Lake
Ontario
which
the
1989
Michigan
survey.
resulted
in
less
Lake
Ontario
fishing
in
1992,
only
43
The
limitations
of
this
survey
are
the
relatively
low
percent,
or
366
of
these
853
persons
indicated
that
they
response
rate
and
the
fact
that
only
three
categories
were
fished
Lake
Ontario
during
1992.
The
study
analyses
used
to
assign
fish
portion
size.
The
main
study
strengths
summarized
below
concerning
fish
consumption
and
Lake
were
its
relatively
large
size
and
its
reliance
on
short­
term
Ontario
fishing
participation
are
based
on
these
366
recall.
persons.
Connelly
et
al.
(
1996)
­
Sportfish
Consumption
Patterns
of
Lake
Ontario
Anglers
and
the
Relationship
to
Health
Advisories,
1992
­
The
objectives
of
this
study
were
to
provide
accurate
estimates
of
fish
consumption
(
overall
and
sport
caught)
among
Lake
Ontario
anglers
and
to
evaluate
the
effect
of
Lake
Ontario
health
advisory
recommendations
(
Connelly
et
al.,
1996).
To
target
Lake
Ontario
anglers,
a
sample
of
2,500
names
was
randomly
drawn
from
1990­
1991
New
York
fishing
license
records
for
licenses
purchased
in
six
counties
bordering
Lake
Ontario.
Participation
in
the
study
was
solicited
by
mail
with
potential
participants
encouraged
to
enroll
in
the
study
even
if
they
fished
infrequently
or
consumed
little
or
no
sport
caught
fish.
The
survey
design
involved
three
survey
techniques
including
a
mail
questionnaire
asking
for
12
month
recall
of
1991
fishing
trips
and
fish
consumption,
self­
recording
information
in
a
diary
for
1992
fishing
trips
and
fish
consumption,
periodic
telephone
interviews
to
gather
information
recorded
in
the
diary
and
a
final
telephone
interview
to
determine
awareness
of
health
advisories
(
Connelly
et
al.,
1996).
Participants
were
instructed
to
record
in
the
diary
the
species
of
fish
eaten,
meal
size,
method
by
which
fish
was
acquired
(
sport­
caught
or
other),
fish
preparation
and
cooking
techniques
used
and
the
number
of
household
members
eating
the
meal.
Fish
meals
were
defined
as
finfish
only.
Meal
size
was
estimated
by
participants
by
comparing
their
meal
size
to
pictures
of
8
oz.
fish
steaks
and
fillets
on
dinner
plates.
An
8
oz.
size
was
assumed
unless
participants
noted
their
meal
size
was
smaller
than
8
oz.,
in
which
case
a
4
oz.
size
was
assumed,
or
they
noted
it
was
larger
than
8
oz.,
in
which
case
a
12
oz.
size
was
assumed.
Participants
were
also
asked
to
record
information
on
fishing
trips
to
Lake
Ontario
and
species
and
length
of
any
fish
caught.
From
the
initial
sample
of
2,500
license
buyers,
1,993
(
80
percent)
were
reachable
by
phone
or
mail
and
1,410
of
these
were
eligible
for
the
study,
in
that
they
intended
to
fish
Lake
Ontario
in
1992.
A
total
of
1,202
of
these
1,410,
or
85
percent,
agreed
to
participate
in
the
study.
Of
the
1,202
participants,
853
either
returned
the
Anglers
who
fished
Lake
Ontario
reported
an
average
of
30.3
(
S.
E.
=
2.3)
fish
meals
per
person
from
all
sources
in
1992;
of
these
meals
28
percent
were
sport
caught
(
Connelly
et
al.,
1996).
Less
than
1
percent
ate
no
fish
for
the
year
and
16
percent
ate
no
sport
caught
fish.
The
mean
fish
intake
rate
from
all
sources
was
17.9
g/
day
and
from
sport
caught
sources
was
4.9
g/
day.
Table
10­
36
gives
the
distribution
of
fish
intake
rates
from
all
sources
and
from
sport
caught
fish.
The
median
rates
were
14.1
g/
day
for
all
sources
and
2.2
g/
day
for
sport
caught;
the
95th
percentiles
were
42.3
g/
day
and
17.9
g/
day
for
all
sources
and
sport
caught,
respectively.
As
seen
in
Table
10­
37,
statistically
significant
differences
in
intake
rates
were
seen
across
age
and
residence
groups,
with
residents
of
large
cities
and
younger
people
having
lower
intake
rates
on
average.
The
main
advantage
of
this
study
is
the
diary
format.
This
format
provides
more
accurate
information
on
fishing
participation
and
fish
consumption,
than
studies
based
on
1
year
recall
(
Ebert
et
al.,
1993).
However,
a
considerable
portion
of
diary
respondents
participated
in
the
study
for
only
a
portion
of
the
year
and
some
errors
may
have
been
generated
in
extrapolating
these
respondents'
results
to
the
entire
year
(
Connelly
et
al.,
1996).
In
addition,
the
response
rate
for
this
study
was
relatively
low,
853
of
1,410
eligible
respondents,
or
60
percent,
which
may
have
engendered
some
non­
response
bias.
The
presence
of
health
advisories
should
be
taken
into
account
when
evaluating
the
intake
rates
observed
in
this
study.
Nearly
all
respondents
(>
95
percent)
were
aware
of
the
Lake
Ontario
health
advisory.
This
advisory
counseled
to
eat
none
of
9
fish
species
from
Lake
Ontario
and
to
eat
no
more
than
one
meal
per
month
of
another
4
species.
In
addition,
New
York
State
issues
a
general
advisory
to
eat
no
more
than
52
sport
caught
fish
meals
per
year.
Among
participants
who
fished
Lake
Ontario
in
1992,
32
percent
said
they
would
eat
more
fish
if
health
advisories
did
not
exist.
A
significant
fraction
of
respondents
did
not
totally
adhere
to
the
fish
advisory;
however,
36
percent
of
respondents,
and
72
percent
of
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
18
August
1997
respondents
reporting
Lake
Ontario
fish
consumption,
ate
Fiore
et
al.
(
1989)
assumed
a
(
constant)
meal
size
of
at
least
one
species
of
fish
over
the
advisory
limit.
8
ounces
(
227
grams)
of
fish
which
may
over­
estimate
Interestingly,
90
percent
of
those
violating
the
advisory
average
meal
size.
Pao
et
al.
(
1982),
using
data
from
the
reported
that
they
believed
they
were
eating
within
advisory
1977­
78
USDA
NFCS,
reported
an
average
fish
meal
size
limits.
of
slightly
less
than
150
grams
for
adult
males.
EPA
10.7.
RELEVANT
FRESHWATER
RECREATIONAL
STUDIES
Fiore
et
al.
(
1989)
­
Sport
Fish
Consumption
and
Body
Burden
Levels
of
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons:
A
Study
of
Wisconsin
Anglers.
This
survey,
reported
by
Fiore
et
al.
(
1989),
was
conducted
to
assess
sociodemographic
factors
and
sport
fishing
habits
of
anglers,
to
evaluate
anglers'
comprehension
of
and
compliance
with
the
Wisconsin
Fish
Consumption
Advisory,
to
measure
body
burden
levels
of
PCBs
and
DDE
through
analysis
of
blood
serum
samples
and
to
examine
the
relationship
between
body
burden
levels
and
consumption
of
sport­
caught
fish.
The
survey
targeted
all
Wisconsin
residents
who
had
purchased
fishing
or
sporting
licenses
in
1984
in
any
of
10
Consumption
in
New
York
Sport
Fisheries
­
Connelly
et
al.
pre­
selected
study
counties.
These
counties
were
chosen
in
(
1992)
conducted
a
study
to
assess
the
awareness
and
part
based
on
their
proximity
to
water
bodies
identified
in
knowledge
of
New
York
anglers
about
fishing
advisories
Wisconsin
fish
advisories.
A
total
of
1,600
anglers
were
and
contaminants
found
in
fish
and
their
fishing
and
fish
sent
survey
questionnaires
during
the
summer
of
1985.
consuming
behaviors.
The
survey
sample
consisted
of
The
survey
questionnaire
included
questions
about
2,000
anglers
with
New
York
State
fishing
licenses
for
the
fishing
history,
locations
fished,
species
targeted,
kilograms
year
beginning
October
1,
1990
through
September
30,
caught
for
consumption,
overall
fish
consumption
1991.
A
questionnaire
was
mailed
to
the
survey
sample
in
(
including
commercially
caught)
and
knowledge
of
fish
January,
1992.
The
questionnaire
was
designed
to
measure
advisories.
The
recall
period
was
one
year.
catch
and
consumption
of
fish,
as
well
as
methods
of
fish
A
total
of
801
surveys
were
returned
(
50
percent
preparation
and
knowledge
of
and
attitudes
towards
health
response
rate).
Of
these,
601
(
75
percent)
were
from
males
advisories
(
Connelly
et
al.,
1992).
The
survey
adjusted
and
200
from
females;
the
mean
age
was
37
years.
Fiore
et
response
rate
was
52.8
percent
(
1,030
questionnaires
were
al.
(
1989)
reported
that
the
mean
number
of
fish
meals
for
completed
and
51
were
not
deliverable).
1984
for
all
respondents
was
18
for
sport­
caught
meals
and
The
average
and
median
number
of
fishing
days
per
24
for
non­
sport
caught
meals.
Fiore
et
al.
(
1989)
assumed
year
were
27
and
15
days
respectively
(
Connelly
et
al.
that
each
fish
meal
consisted
of
8
ounces
(
227
grams)
of
1992).
The
mean
number
of
sport­
caught
fish
meals
was
fish
to
generate
means
and
percentiles
of
fish
intake.
The
11.
About
25
percent
of
anglers
reported
that
they
did
not
reported
per­
capita
intake
rate
of
sport­
caught
fish
was
11.2
consume
sport­
caught
fish.
g/
day;
among
consumers,
who
comprised
91
percent
of
all
Connelly
et
al.
(
1992)
found
that
80
percent
of
respondents,
the
mean
sport­
caught
fish
intake
rate
was
anglers
statewide
did
not
eat
listed
species
or
ate
them
12.3
g/
day
and
the
95th
percentile
was
37.3
g/
day.
The
within
advisory
limits
and
followed
the
1
sport­
caught
fish
mean
daily
fish
intake
from
all
sources
(
both
sport
caught
meal
per
week
recommended
maximum.
The
other
20
and
commercial)
was
26.1
g/
day
with
a
95th
percentile
of
percent
of
anglers
exceeded
the
advisory
recommendations
63.4
g/
day.
The
95th
percentile
of
37.3
g/
day
of
sport
in
some
way;
15
percent
ate
listed
species
above
the
limit
caught
fish
represents
60
fish
meals
per
year;
63.4
g/
day
and
5
percent
ate
more
than
one
sport
caught
meal
per
(
the
95th
percentile
of
total
fish
intake)
represents
102
fish
week.
meals
per
year.
obtained
the
raw
data
from
this
study
and
calculated
the
distribution
of
the
number
of
sport­
caught
fish
meals
and
the
distribution
of
fish
intake
rates
(
using
150
grams/
meal);
these
distributions
are
presented
in
Table
10­
38.
With
this
average
meal
size,
the
per­
capita
estimate
is
7.4
g/
day.
This
study
is
limited
in
its
ability
to
accurately
estimate
intake
rates
because
of
the
absence
of
data
on
weight
of
fish
consumed.
Another
limitation
of
this
study
is
that
the
results
are
based
on
one
year
recall,
which
may
tend
to
over­
estimate
the
number
of
fishing
trips
(
Ebert
et
al.,
1993).
In
addition,
the
response
rate
was
rather
low
(
50
percent).
Connelly
et
al.
(
1992)
­
Effects
of
Health
Advisory
and
Advisory
Changes
on
Fishing
Habits
and
Fish
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
19
Connelly
et
al.
(
1992)
found
that
respondents
eating
settings.
The
interviews
were
conducted
on
weekends
and
more
than
one
sport­
caught
meal
per
week
were
just
as
weekdays
during
morning,
midday,
and
evening
periods.
likely
as
those
eating
less
than
one
meal
per
week
to
know
The
anglers
were
asked
specific
questions
concerning:
the
recommended
level
of
sport­
caught
fish
consumption,
fishing
and
fish
consumption
habits;
perceptions
of
although
less
than
1/
3
in
each
group
knew
the
level.
An
presence
of
contaminants
in
fish;
perceptions
of
risks
estimated
85
percent
of
anglers
were
aware
of
the
health
associated
with
consumption
of
recreationally
caught
fish;
advisory.
Over
50
percent
of
respondents
said
that
they
and
awareness
of,
attitude
toward,
and
response
to
fish
made
changes
in
their
fishing
or
fish
consumption
behaviors
consumption
advisories
or
fishing
bans.
in
response
to
health
advisories.
Approximately
92
percent
of
the
survey
respondents
The
advisory
included
a
section
on
methods
that
can
were
male.
The
following
statistics
were
provided
by
be
used
to
reduce
contaminant
exposure.
Respondents
were
Hudson
River
Sloop
Clearwater,
Inc.
(
1993).
The
most
asked
what
methods
they
used
for
fish
cleaning
and
common
reason
given
for
fishing
was
for
recreation
or
cooking.
Summary
results
on
preparation
and
cooking
enjoyment.
Over
58
percent
of
those
surveyed
indicated
methods
are
presented
in
Section
10.9
and
in
Appendix
that
they
eat
their
catch.
Of
those
anglers
who
eat
their
10B.
catch,
48
percent
reported
being
aware
of
advisories.
A
limitation
of
this
study
with
respect
to
estimating
Approximately
24
percent
of
those
who
said
they
currently
fish
intake
rates
is
that
only
the
number
of
sport­
caught
do
not
eat
their
catch,
have
done
so
in
the
past.
Anglers
meals
was
ascertained,
not
the
weight
of
fish
consumed.
were
more
likely
to
eat
their
catch
from
the
lower
Hudson
The
fish
meal
data
can
be
converted
to
an
intake
rate
(
g/
day)
areas
where
health
advisories,
rather
than
fishing
bans,
have
by
assuming
a
value
for
a
fish
meal
such
as
that
from
Pao
et
been
issued.
Approximately
94
percent
of
Hispanic
al.
(
1982)
(
about
150
grams
as
the
average
amount
of
fish
Americans
were
likely
to
eat
their
catch,
while
77
percent
consumed
per
eating
occasion
for
adult
males
­
males
of
African
Americans
and
47
percent
of
Caucasian
comprised
88
percent
of
respondents
in
the
current
study).
Americans
intended
to
eat
their
catch.
Of
those
who
eat
Using
150
grams/
meal
the
mean
intake
rate
among
the
their
catch,
87
percent
were
likely
to
share
their
meal
with
angler
population
would
be
4.5
g/
day;
note
that
about
25
others
(
including
women
of
childbearing
age,
and
children
percent
of
this
population
reported
no
sport­
caught
fish
under
the
age
of
fifteen).
consumption.
For
subsistence
anglers,
more
low­
income
than
The
major
focus
of
this
study
was
not
on
upper
income
anglers
eat
their
catch
(
Hudson
River
Sloop
consumption,
per
se,
but
on
the
knowledge
of
and
impact
of
Clearwater,
Inc.,
1993).
Approximately
10
percent
of
the
fish
health
advisories;
Connelly
et
al.
(
1992)
provides
respondents
stated
that
food
was
their
primary
reason
for
important
information
on
these
issues.
fishing;
this
group
is
more
likely
to
be
in
the
lowest
per
Hudson
River
Sloop
Clearwater,
Inc.
(
1993)
­
Hudson
River
Angler
Survey
­
Hudson
River
Sloop
Clearwater,
Inc.
(
1993)
conducted
a
survey
of
adherence
to
fish
consumption
health
advisories
among
Hudson
River
anglers.
All
fishing
has
been
banned
on
the
upper
Hudson
River
where
high
levels
of
PCB
contamination
are
well
documented;
while
voluntary
recreational
fish
consumption
advisories
have
been
issued
for
areas
south
of
the
Troy
Dam
(
Hudson
River
Sloop
Clearwater,
Inc.,
1993).
The
survey
consisted
of
direct
interviews
with
336
shore­
based
anglers
between
the
months
of
June
and
November
1991,
and
April
and
July
1992.
Sociodemographic
characteristics
of
the
respondents
are
presented
in
Table
10­
39.
The
survey
sites
were
selected
based
on
observations
of
use
by
anglers,
and
legal
accessibility.
The
selected
sites
included
upper,
mid­,
and
lower
Hudson
River
sites
located
in
both
rural
and
urban
capita
income
group
(
Hudson
River
Sloop
Clearwater,
Inc.,
1993).
The
average
frequency
of
fish
consumption
reported
was
just
under
one
(
0.9)
meal
over
the
previous
week,
and
three
meals
over
the
previous
month.
Approximately
35
percent
of
all
anglers
who
eat
their
catch
exceeded
the
amounts
recommended
by
the
New
York
State
health
advisories.
Less
than
half
(
48
percent)
of
all
the
anglers
interviewed
were
aware
of
the
State
health
advisories
or
fishing
bans.
Only
42
percent
of
those
anglers
aware
of
the
advisories
have
changed
their
fishing
habits
as
a
result.
The
advantages
of
this
study
include:
in­
person
interviews
with
95
percent
of
all
anglers
approached;
fieldtested
questions
designed
to
minimize
interviewer
bias;
and
candid
responses
concerning
consumption
of
fish
from
contaminated
waters.
The
limitations
of
this
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
20
August
1997
study
are
that
specific
intake
amounts
are
not
indicated,
and
For
the
overall
analysis,
each
of
the
98
communities
that
only
shore­
based
anglers
were
interviewed.
was
treated
as
a
single
unit
of
analysis
and
the
entire
group
10.8.
NATIVE
AMERICAN
FRESHWATER
STUDIES
Wolfe
and
Walker
(
1987)
­
Subsistence
Economies
in
Alaska:
Productivity,
Geography,
and
Development
Impacts
­
Wolfe
and
Walker
(
1987)
analyzed
a
dataset
from
98
communities
for
harvests
of
fish,
land
mammals,
marine
mammals,
and
other
wild
resources.
The
analysis
was
performed
to
evaluate
the
distribution
and
productivity
of
subsistence
harvests
in
Alaska
during
the
1980s.
Harvest
levels
were
used
as
a
measure
of
productivity.
Wolfe
and
Walker
(
1987)
defined
harvest
to
represent
a
single
year's
production
from
a
complete
seasonal
round.
The
harvest
levels
were
derived
primarily
from
a
compilation
of
data
from
subsistence
studies
conducted
between
1980
to
1985
by
various
researchers
in
the
Alaska
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
Division
of
Subsistence.
Of
the
98
communities
studied,
four
were
large
urban
population
centers
and
94
were
small
communities.
The
harvests
for
these
latter
94
communities
were
documented
through
detailed
retrospective
interviews
with
harvesters
from
a
sample
of
households
(
Wolfe
and
Walker,
1987).
Harvesters
were
asked
to
estimate
the
quantities
of
a
particular
species
that
were
harvested
and
used
by
members
of
that
household
during
the
previous
12­
month
period.
Wolfe
and
Walker
(
1987)
converted
harvests
to
a
common
unit
for
comparison,
pounds
dressed
weight
per
capita
per
year,
by
multiplying
the
harvests
of
households
within
each
community
by
standard
factors
converting
total
pounds
to
dressed
weight,
summing
across
households,
and
then
dividing
by
the
total
number
of
household
members
in
the
household
sample.
Dressed
weight
varied
by
species
and
community
but
in
general
was
70
to
75
percent
of
total
fish
weight;
dressed
weight
for
fish
represents
that
portion
brought
into
the
kitchen
for
use
(
Wolfe
and
Walker,
1987).
Harvests
for
the
four
urban
populations
were
developed
from
a
statewide
data
set
gathered
by
the
Alaska
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
Divisions
of
Game
and
Sports
Fish.
Urban
sport
fish
harvest
estimates
were
derived
from
a
survey
that
was
mailed
to
a
randomly
selected
statewide
sample
of
anglers
(
Wolfe
and
Walker,
1987).
Sport
fish
harvests
were
disaggregated
by
urban
residency
and
the
dataset
was
analyzed
by
converting
the
harvests
into
pounds
and
dividing
by
the
1983
urban
population.
of
communities
was
assumed
to
be
a
sample
of
all
communities
in
Alaska
(
Wolfe
and
Walker,
1987).
Each
community
was
given
equal
weight,
regardless
of
population
size.
Annual
per
capita
harvests
were
calculated
for
each
community.
For
the
four
urban
centers,
fish
harvests
ranged
from
5
to
21
pounds
per
capita
per
year
(
6.2
g/
day
to
26.2
g/
day).
The
range
for
the
94
small
communities
was
25
to
1,239
pounds
per
capita
per
year
(
31
g/
day
to
1,541
g/
day).
For
these
94
communities,
the
median
per
capita
fish
harvest
was
130
pounds
per
year
(
162
g/
day).
In
most
(
68
percent)
of
the
98
communities
analyzed,
resource
harvests
for
fish
were
greater
than
the
harvests
of
the
other
wildlife
categories
(
land
mammal,
marine
mammal,
and
other)
combined.
The
communities
in
this
study
were
not
made
up
entirely
of
Alaska
Natives.
For
roughly
half
the
communities,
Alaska
Natives
comprised
80
percent
or
more
of
the
population,
but
for
about
40
percent
of
the
communities
they
comprised
less
than
50
percent
of
the
population.
Wolfe
and
Walker
(
1987)
performed
a
regression
analysis
which
showed
that
the
per
capita
harvest
of
a
community
tended
to
increase
as
a
function
of
the
percentage
of
Alaska
Natives
in
the
community.
Although
this
analysis
was
done
for
total
harvest
(
i.
e.,
fish,
land
mammal,
marine
mammal
and
others)
the
same
result
should
hold
for
fish
harvest
since
fish
harvest
is
highly
correlated
with
total
harvest.
A
limitation
of
this
report
is
that
it
presents
(
percapita
harvest
rates
as
opposed
to
individual
intake
rates.
Wolfe
and
Walker
(
1987)
compared
the
per
capita
harvest
rates
reported
to
the
results
for
the
household
component
of
the
1977­
1978
USDA
National
Food
Consumption
Survey
(
NFCS).
The
NFCS
showed
that
about
222
pounds
of
meat,
fish,
and
poultry
were
purchased
and
brought
into
the
household
kitchen
for
each
person
each
year
in
the
western
region
of
the
United
States.
This
contrasts
with
a
median
total
resource
harvest
of
260
lbs/
yr
in
the
94
communities
studied.
This
comparison,
and
the
fact
that
Wolfe
and
Walker
(
1987)
state
that
"
harvests
represent
that
portion
brought
into
the
kitchen
for
use,"
suggest
that
the
same
factors
used
to
convert
household
consumption
rates
in
the
NFCS
to
individual
intake
rates
can
be
used
to
convert
per
capita
harvest
rates
to
individual
intake
rates.
In
Section
10.3,
a
factor
of
0.5
was
used
to
convert
fish
consumption
from
household
to
individual
intake
rates.
Applying
this
factor,
the
median
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
21
per
capita
individual
fish
intake
in
the
94
communities
was
based
on
a
stratified
random
sampling
design
where
would
be
81
g/
day
and
the
range
15.5
to
770
g/
day.
respondents
were
selected
from
patient
registration
files
at
A
limitation
of
this
study
is
that
the
data
were
based
the
Indian
Health
Service.
Interviews
were
performed
in
on
1­
year
recall
from
a
mailed
survey.
An
advantage
of
the
person
at
a
central
location
on
the
member's
reservation.
study
is
that
it
is
one
of
the
few
studies
that
present
fish
Information
requested
included
annual
and
seasonal
harvest
patterns
for
subsistence
populations.
numbers
of
fish
meals,
average
serving
size
per
fish
meal,
AIHC
(
1994)
­
Exposure
Factors
Sourcebook
­
The
Exposure
Factors
Sourcebook
(
AIHC,
1994)
provides
data
for
non­
marine
fish
intake
consistent
with
this
document.
However,
the
total
fish
intake
rate
recommended
in
AIHC
(
1994)
is
approximately
40
percent
lower
than
that
in
this
document.
The
fish
intake
rates
presented
in
this
handbook
are
based
on
more
recent
data
from
USDA
CSFII
(
1989­
1991).
AIHC
(
1994)
presents
probability
distributions
in
grams
fish
per
kilogram
of
body
weight
for
fish
consumption
based
on
data
from
U.
S.
EPA
Guidance
Manual,
Assessing
Human
Health
Risks
from
Chemically
Contaminated
Fish
and
Shellfish
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1989b).
The
@
Risk
formula
is
provided
for
direct
use
in
the
@
Risk
simulation
software.
The
@
Risk
formula
was
provided
for
the
distributions
that
were
provided
for
the
ingestion
of
freshwater
finfish,
saltwater
finfish,
and
fish
(
unspecified)
in
the
U.
S.
general
population,
children
ages
1
to
6
years,
and
males
ages
13
years
and
above.
Distributions
were
also
provided
for
saltwater
finfish
ingestion
in
the
general
population
and
for
females
and
for
males
13
years
of
age
and
older.
Distributions
for
shellfish
ingestion
were
provided
for
the
general
population,
children
ages
1
to
6
years,
and
for
males
and
females
13
years
of
age
and
above.
Additionally,
distributions
for
"
unspecified"
fish
ingestion
were
presented
for
the
above
mentioned
populations.
The
Sourcebook
has
been
classified
as
a
relevant
rather
than
key
study
because
it
was
not
the
primary
source
for
the
data
used
to
make
recommendations
in
this
document.
The
Sourcebook
is
very
similar
to
this
document
in
the
sense
that
it
summarizes
exposure
factor
data
and
recommends
values.
Therefore,
it
can
be
used
as
an
alternative
information
source
on
fish
intake.
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
(
CRITFC)
(
1994)
­
A
Fish
Consumption
Survey
of
the
Umatilla,
Nez
Perce,
Yakama,
and
Warm
Springs
Tribes
of
the
Columbia
River
Basin
­
CRITFC
(
1994)
conducted
a
fish
consumption
survey
among
four
Columbia
River
Basin
Indian
tribes
during
the
fall
and
winter
of
1991­
1992.
The
target
population
included
all
adult
tribal
members
who
lived
on
or
near
the
Yakama,
Warm
Springs,
Umatilla
or
Nez
Perce
reservations.
The
survey
species
and
part(
s)
of
fish
consumed,
preparation
methods,
changes
in
patterns
of
consumption
over
the
last
20
years
and
during
ceremonies
and
festivals,
breast
feeding
practices
and
24
hour
dietary
recall
(
CRITFC,
1994).
Foam
sponge
food
models
approximating
four,
eight,
and
twelve
ounce
fish
fillets
were
provided
to
help
respondents
estimate
average
fish
meal
size.
Fish
intake
rates
were
calculated
by
multiplying
the
annual
frequency
of
fish
meals
by
the
average
serving
size
per
fish
meal.
The
study
was
designed
to
give
essentially
equal
sample
sizes
for
each
tribe.
However,
since
the
population
sizes
of
the
tribes
were
highly
unequal,
it
was
necessary
to
weight
the
data
(
in
proportion
to
tribal
population
size)
in
order
that
the
survey
results
represent
the
overall
population
of
the
four
tribes.
Such
weights
were
applied
to
the
analysis
of
adults;
however,
because
the
sample
size
for
children
was
considered
small,
only
an
unweighted
analysis
was
performed
for
this
population
(
CRITFC,
1994).
The
survey
respondents
consisted
of
513
tribal
members,
18
years
old
and
above.
Of
these,
58
percent
were
female
and
59
percent
were
under
40
years
old.
In
addition,
information
for
204
children
5
years
old
and
less
was
provided
by
the
participating
adult
respondent.
The
overall
response
rate
was
69
percent.
The
results
of
the
survey
showed
that
adults
consumed
an
average
of
1.71
fish
meals/
week
and
had
an
average
intake
of
58.7
grams/
day
(
CRITFC,
1994).
Table
10­
40
shows
the
adult
fish
intake
distribution;
the
median
was
between
29
and
32
g/
day
and
the
95th
percentile
about
170
g/
day.
A
small
percentage
(
7
percent)
of
respondents
indicated
that
they
were
not
fish
consumers.
Table
10­
41
shows
that
mean
intake
was
slightly
higher
in
males
than
females
(
63
g/
d
versus
56
g/
d)
and
was
higher
in
the
over
60
years
age
group
(
74.4
g/
d)
than
in
the
18­
39
years
(
57.6
g/
d)
or
40­
59
years
(
55.8
g/
d)
age
groups.
Intake
also
tended
to
be
higher
among
those
living
on
the
reservation.
The
mean
intake
for
nursing
mothers,
59.1
g/
d,
was
similar
to
the
overall
mean
intake.
A
total
of
49
percent
of
respondents
reported
that
they
caught
fish
from
the
Columbia
River
basin
and
its
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
22
August
1997
tributaries
for
personal
use
or
for
tribal
ceremonies
and
a
Northern
Wisconsin
reservation
who
consume
fish
caught
distributions
to
other
tribe
members
and
88
percent
in
northern
Wisconsin
lakes.
The
lakes
in
northern
reported
that
they
obtained
fish
from
either
self­
harvesting,
Wisconsin
are
known
to
be
contaminated
with
mercury
and
family
or
friends,
at
tribal
ceremonies
or
from
tribal
the
Chippewa
have
a
reputation
for
high
fish
consumption
distributions.
Of
all
fish
consumed,
41
percent
came
from
(
Peterson
et
al.,
1994).
The
Chippewa
Indians
fish
by
the
self
or
family
harvesting,
11
percent
from
the
harvest
of
traditional
method
of
spearfishing.
Spearfishing
(
for
friends,
35
percent
from
tribal
ceremonies
or
distribution,
walleye)
occurs
for
about
two
weeks
each
spring
after
the
9
percent
from
stores
and
4
percent
from
other
sources
ice
breaks,
and
although
only
a
small
number
of
tribal
(
CRITFC,
1994).
members
participate
in
it,
the
spearfishing
harvest
is
The
analysis
of
seasonal
intake
showed
that
May
and
distributed
widely
within
the
tribe
by
an
informal
June
tended
to
be
high
consumption
months
and
December
distribution
network
of
family
and
friends
and
through
and
January
low
consumption
months.
The
mean
adult
traditional
tribal
feasts
(
Peterson
et
al.,
1994).
intake
rate
for
May
and
June
was
108
g/
d
while
the
mean
Potential
survey
participants,
465
adults,
18
years
of
intake
rate
for
December
and
January
was
30.7
g/
d.
age
and
older,
were
randomly
selected
from
the
tribal
Salmon
was
the
species
eaten
by
the
highest
number
of
registries
(
Peterson
et
al.,
1994).
Participants
were
asked
respondents
(
92
percent)
followed
by
trout
(
70
percent),
to
complete
a
questionnaire
describing
their
routine
fish
lamprey
(
54
percent),
and
smelt
(
52
percent).
Table
10­
42
consumption
and,
more
extensively,
their
fish
consumption
gives
the
fish
intake
distribution
for
children
under
5
years
during
the
two
previous
months.
They
were
also
asked
to
of
age.
The
mean
intake
rate
was
19.6
g/
d
and
the
95th
give
a
blood
sample
that
would
be
tested
for
mercury
percentile
was
approximately
70
g/
d.
content.
The
survey
was
carried
out
in
May
1990.
A
The
authors
noted
that
some
non­
response
bias
may
follow­
up
survey
was
conducted
for
a
random
sample
of
75
have
occurred
in
the
survey
since
respondents
were
more
non­
respondents
(
80
percent
were
reachable),
and
their
likely
to
live
near
the
reservation
and
were
more
likely
to
be
demographic
and
fish
consumption
patterns
were
obtained.
female
than
non­
respondents.
In
addition,
they
Peterson
et
al.
(
1994)
reported
that
the
non­
respondents'
hypothesized
that
non
fish
consumers
may
have
been
more
socioeconomic
and
fish
consumption
were
similar
to
the
likely
to
be
non­
respondents
than
fish
consumers
since
non
respondents.
consumers
may
have
thought
their
contribution
to
the
A
total
of
175
of
the
original
random
sample
(
38
survey
would
be
meaningless;
if
such
were
the
case,
this
percent)
participated
in
the
study.
In
addition,
152
study
would
overestimate
the
mean
intake
rate.
It
was
also
nonrandomly
selected
participants
were
surveyed
and
noted
that
the
timing
of
the
survey,
which
was
conducted
included
in
the
data
analysis;
these
participants
were
during
low
fish
consumption
months,
may
have
led
to
reported
by
Peterson
et
al.
(
1994)
to
have
fish
consumption
underestimation
of
actual
fish
consumption;
the
authors
rates
similar
to
those
of
the
randomly
selected
participants.
conjectured
that
an
individual
may
report
higher
annual
Results
from
the
survey
showed
that
fish
consumption
consumption
if
interviewed
during
a
relatively
high
varied
seasonally,
with
50
percent
of
the
respondents
consumption
month
and
lower
annual
consumption
if
reporting
April
and
May
(
spearfishing
season)
as
the
interviewed
during
a
relatively
low
consumption
month.
highest
fish
consumption
months
(
Peterson
et
al.,
1994).
Finally,
with
respect
to
children's
intake,
it
was
observed
Table
10­
43
shows
the
number
of
fish
meals
consumed
per
that
some
of
the
respondents
provided
the
same
information
week
during
the
last
2
months
(
recent
consumption)
before
for
their
children
as
for
themselves,
thereby
the
reliability
of
the
survey
was
conducted
and
during
the
respondents'
peak
some
of
these
data
is
questioned.
consumption
months
grouped
by
gender,
age,
education,
Although
the
authors
have
noted
these
limitations,
and
employment
level.
During
peak
consumption
months,
this
study
does
present
information
on
fish
consumption
males
consumed
more
fish
(
1.9
meals
per
week)
than
patterns
and
habits
for
a
Native
American
subpopulation.
females
(
1.5
meals
per
week),
respondents
under
35
years
It
should
be
noted
that
the
number
of
surveys
that
address
of
age
consumed
more
fish
(
1.8
meals
per
week)
than
subsistence
subpopulations
is
very
limited.
respondents
35
years
of
age
and
over
(
1.6
meals
per
week),
Peterson
et
al.
(
1994)
­
Fish
Consumption
Patterns
and
Blood
Mercury
Levels
in
Wisconsin
Chippewa
Indians
­
Peterson
et
al.
(
1994)
investigated
the
extent
of
exposure
of
methylmercury
to
Chippewa
Indians
living
on
and
the
unemployed
consumed
more
fish
(
1.9
meals
per
week)
than
the
employed
(
1.6
meals
per
week).
During
the
highest
fish
consumption
season
(
April
and
May),
50
percent
of
respondents
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
23
reported
eating
one
or
less
fish
meals
per
week
and
only
2
behavioral
patterns
(
cigarette
smoking
and
alcohol
percent
reported
daily
fish
consumption
(
Figures
10­
consumption),
drinking
water
source,
diet,
and
fish
1
and
10­
2).
A
total
of
72
percent
of
respondents
reported
preparation
methods
(
Fitzgerald
et
al.,
1995).
The
dietary
Walleye
consumption
in
the
previous
two
months.
Peterson
data
collected
were
based
on
recall
for
food
intake
during
et
al.
(
1994)
also
reported
that
the
mean
number
of
fish
the
index
pregnancy,
the
year
before
the
pregnancy,
and
meals
usually
consumed
per
week
by
the
respondents
was
more
than
one
year
before
the
pregnancy.
1.2.
The
dietary
assessment
involved
the
report
by
each
The
mean
fish
consumption
rate
reported
(
1.2
fish
participant
on
the
consumption
of
various
foods
with
meals
per
week,
or
62.4
meals
per
year)
in
this
survey
was
emphasis
on
local
species
of
fish
and
game
(
Fitzgerald
et
compared
with
the
rate
reported
in
a
previous
survey
of
al.,
1995).
This
method
combined
food
frequency
and
Wisconsin
anglers
(
Fiore
et
al.,
1989)
of
42
fish
meals
per
dietary
histories
to
estimate
usual
intake.
Food
frequency
year.
These
results
indicate
that
the
Chippewa
Indians
do
was
evaluated
with
a
checklist
of
foods
for
indicating
the
not
consume
much
more
fish
than
the
general
Wisconsin
amount
of
consumption
of
a
participant
per
week,
month
or
angler
population
(
Peterson
et
al.,
1994).
The
differences
year.
Information
gathered
for
the
dietary
history
included
in
the
two
values
may
be
attributed
to
differences
in
study
duration
of
consumption,
changes
in
the
diet,
and
food
methodology
(
Peterson
et
al.,
1994).
Note
that
this
number
preparation
method.
(
1.2
fish
meals
per
week)
includes
fish
from
all
sources.
Table
10­
44
presents
the
number
of
local
fish
meals
Peterson
et
al.
(
1994)
noted
that
subsistence
fishing,
defined
per
year
for
both
the
Mohawk
and
control
participants.
The
as
fishing
as
a
major
food
source,
appears
rare
among
the
highest
percentage
of
participants
reported
consuming
Chippewa.
Using
the
recommended
rate
in
this
handbook
between
1
and
9
local
fish
meals
per
year.
Table
10­
44
of
129
g/
meal
as
the
average
weight
of
fish
consumed
per
indicates
that
Mohawk
respondents
consumed
statistically
fish
meal
in
the
general
population,
the
rate
reported
here
of
significantly
more
local
fish
than
did
control
respondents
1.2
fish
meals
per
week
translates
into
a
mean
fish
intake
during
the
two
time
periods
prior
to
pregnancy;
for
the
time
rate
of
22
g/
day
in
this
population.
period
during
pregnancy
there
was
no
significant
difference
Fitzgerald
et
al.
(
1995)
­
Fish
PCB
Concentrations
and
Consumption
Patterns
Among
Mohawk
Women
at
Akwesasne
­
Akwesasne
is
a
native
American
community
of
ten
thousand
plus
persons
located
along
the
St.
Lawrence
River
(
Fitzgerald
et
al.,
1995).
The
local
food
chain
has
been
contaminated
with
PCBs
and
some
species
have
levels
that
exceed
the
U.
S.
FDA
tolerance
limits
for
human
consumption
(
Fitzgerald
et
al.,
1995).
Fitzgerald
et
al.
(
1995)
conducted
a
recall
study
from
1986
to
1992
to
determine
the
fish
consumption
patterns
among
nursing
Mohawk
women
residing
near
three
industrial
sites.
The
study
sample
consisted
of
97
Mohawk
women
and
154
nursing
Caucasian
controls.
The
Mohawk
mothers
were
significantly
younger
(
mean
age
24.9)
than
the
controls
(
mean
age
26.4)
and
had
significantly
more
years
of
education
(
mean
13.1
for
Mohawks
versus
12.4
for
controls).
A
total
of
97
out
of
119
Mohawk
nursing
women
responded,
a
response
rate
of
78
percent;
154
out
of
287
control
nursing
Caucasian
women
responded,
a
response
rate
of
54
percent.
Potential
participants
were
identified
prior
to,
or
shortly
after,
delivery.
The
interviews
were
conducted
at
home
within
one
month
postpartum
and
were
structured
to
collect
information
for
sociodemographics,
vital
statistics,
use
of
medications,
occupational
and
residential
histories,
in
fish
consumption
between
the
two
groups.
Table
10­
45
presents
the
mean
number
of
local
fish
meals
consumed
per
year
by
time
period
for
all
respondents
and
for
those
ever
consuming
(
consumers
only).
A
total
of
82
(
85
percent)
Mohawk
mothers
and
72
(
47
percent)
control
mothers
reported
ever
consuming
local
fish.
The
mean
number
of
local
fish
meals
consumed
per
year
by
Mohawk
respondents
declined
over
time,
from
23.4
(
over
one
year
before
pregnancy)
to
9.2
(
less
than
one
year
before
pregnancy)
to
3.9
(
during
pregnancy);
a
similar
decline
was
seen
among
consuming
Mohawks
only.
There
was
also
a
decreasing
trend
over
time
in
consumption
among
controls,
though
it
was
much
less
pronounced.
Table
10­
46
presents
the
mean
number
of
fish
meals
consumed
per
year
for
all
participants
by
time
period
and
selected
characteristics
(
age,
education,
cigarette
smoking,
and
alcohol
consumption).
Pairwise
contrasts
indicated
that
control
participants
over
34
years
of
age
had
the
highest
fish
consumption
of
local
fish
meals
(
22.1)
(
Table
10­
46).
However,
neither
the
overall
nor
pairwise
differences
by
age
among
the
Mohawk
women
over
34
years
old
were
statistically
significant,
and
may
be
due
to
the
small
sample
size
(
N=
6)
(
Fitzgerald
et
al.,
1995).
The
most
common
fish
consumed
by
Mohawk
residue
level/
g
product
=
residue
level
g
&
fat
x
g
&
fat
g
&
product
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
24
August
1997
(
Eqn.
10­
4)

IR
=
IR
*
[(
100­
W)/
100]
(
Eqn.
10­
5)
dw
ac
mothers
was
yellow
perch;
for
controls
the
most
common
contaminants
in
cooked
fish
when
compared
with
raw
fish
fish
consumed
was
trout.
(
San
Diego
County,
1990).
Several
studies
cited
in
this
An
advantage
of
this
study
is
that
it
presents
data
for
section
have
addressed
fish
preparation
methods
and
parts
fish
consumption
patterns
for
Native
Americans
as
of
fish
consumed.
Table
10­
47
provides
summary
results
compared
to
a
demographically
similar
group
of
from
these
studies
on
fish
preparation
methods;
further
Caucasians.
Although
the
data
are
based
on
nursing
details
on
preparation
methods,
as
well
as
results
from
some
mothers
as
participants,
the
study
also
captures
studies
on
parts
of
fish
consumed,
are
presented
in
consumption
patterns
prior
to
pregnancy
(
up
to
1
year
Appendix
10B.
before
and
more
than
1
year
before).
Fitzgerald
et
al.
The
moisture
content
(
percent)
and
total
fat
content
(
1995)
noted
that
dietary
recall
for
a
period
more
than
one
(
percent)
measured
and/
or
calculated
in
various
fish
forms
year
before
pregnancy
may
be
inaccurate,
but
these
data
(
i.
e.,
raw,
cooked,
smoked,
etc.)
for
selected
fish
species
are
were
the
best
available
measure
of
the
more
distant
past.
presented
in
Table
10­
48,
based
on
data
from
USDA
They
also
noted
that
the
observed
decrease
in
fish
(
1979­
1984).
The
total
percent
fat
content
is
based
on
the
consumption
among
Mohawks
from
the
period
one
year
sum
of
saturated,
monounsaturated,
and
polyunsaturated
fat.
before
pregnancy
to
the
period
of
pregnancy
is
due
to
a
The
moisture
content
is
based
on
the
percent
of
water
secular
trend
of
declining
fish
consumption
over
time
in
present.
Mohawks.
This
decrease,
which
was
more
pronounced
In
some
cases,
the
residue
levels
of
contaminants
in
than
that
seen
in
controls,
may
be
due
to
health
advisories
fish
are
reported
as
the
concentration
of
contaminant
per
promulgated
by
tribal,
as
well
as
state,
officials.
The
gram
of
fat.
These
contaminants
are
lipophilic
compounds.
authors
note
that
this
decreasing
secular
trend
in
Mohawks
When
using
residue
levels,
the
assessor
should
ensure
is
consistent
with
a
survey
from
1979­
1980
that
found
an
consistency
in
the
exposure
assessment
calculations
by
overall
mean
of
40
fish
meals
per
year
among
male
and
using
consumption
rates
that
are
based
on
the
amount
of
fat
female
Mohawk
adults.
consumed
for
the
fish
species
of
interest.
Alternately,
The
data
are
presented
as
number
of
fish
meals
per
residue
levels
for
the
"
as
consumed"
portions
of
fish
may
be
year;
the
authors
did
not
assign
an
average
weight
to
fish
estimated
by
multiplying
the
levels
based
on
fat
by
the
meals.
If
assessors
wanted
to
estimate
the
weight
of
fish
fraction
of
fat
(
Table
10­
48)
per
product
as
follows:
consumed,
some
average
value
of
weight
per
fish
meal
The
resulting
residue
levels
may
then
be
used
in
conjunction
would
have
to
be
assumed.
Pao
et
al.
(
1982)
reported
104
grams
as
the
average
weight
of
fish
consumed
per
eating
occasion
for
females
19­
34
years
old.

10.9.
OTHER
FACTORS
Other
factors
to
consider
when
using
the
available
with
"
as
consumed"
consumption
rates.
survey
data
include
location,
climate,
season,
and
ethnicity
Additionally,
intake
rates
may
be
reported
in
terms
of
the
angler
or
consumer
population,
as
well
as
the
parts
of
of
units
as
consumed
or
units
of
dry
weight.
It
is
essential
fish
consumed
and
the
methods
of
preparation.
Some
that
exposure
assessors
be
aware
of
this
difference
so
that
contaminants
(
for
example,
some
dioxin
compounds)
have
they
may
ensure
consistency
between
the
units
used
for
the
affinity
to
accumulate
more
in
certain
tissues,
such
as
intake
rates
and
those
used
for
concentration
data
(
i.
e.,
if
the
the
fatty
tissue,
as
well
as
in
certain
internal
organs.
The
unit
of
food
consumption
is
grams
dry
weight/
day,
then
the
effects
of
cooking
methods
for
various
food
products
on
the
unit
for
the
amount
of
pollutant
in
the
food
should
be
grams
levels
of
dioxin­
like
compounds
have
been
addressed
by
dry
weight).
If
necessary,
as
consumed
intake
rates
may
be
evaluating
a
number
of
studies
in
U.
S.
EPA
(
1996b).
These
converted
to
dry
weight
intake
rates
using
the
moisture
studies
showed
various
results
for
contamination
losses
content
percentages
of
fish
presented
in
Table
10­
48
and
based
on
the
methodology
of
the
study
and
the
method
of
the
following
equation:
food
preparation.
The
reader
is
referred
to
U.
S.
EPA
(
1996b)
for
a
detailed
review
of
these
studies.
In
addition,
some
studies
suggest
that
there
is
a
significant
decrease
of
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
25
IR
=
IR
/[(
100­
W)/
100]
(
Eqn.
10­
6)
ac
dw
where:
IR
=
dry
weight
intake
rate;
dw
IR
=
as
consumed
intake
rate;
and
ac
W
=
percent
water
content.
"
Dry
weight"
intake
rates
may
be
converted
to
"
as
It
should
be
noted
that
the
recommended
rates
are
consumed"
rates
by
using:
based
on
mean
(
or
median)
values
which
represent
a
typical
10.10.
RECOMMENDATIONS
10.10.1.
Recommendations
­
General
Population
Fish
consumption
rates
are
recommended
based
on
The
key
study
for
estimating
mean
fish
intake
the
survey
results
presented
in
the
key
studies
described
in
(
reflective
of
both
short­
term
and
long­
term
consumption)
the
preceding
sections.
Considerable
variation
exists
in
the
is
U.
S.
EPA
(
1996a)
analysis
of
USDA
CSFII
1989­
1991.
mean
and
upper
percentile
fish
consumption
rates
obtained
The
recommended
values
for
mean
intake
by
habitat
and
from
these
studies.
This
can
be
attributed
largely
to
the
fish
type
are
shown
in
Table
10­
49.
characteristics
of
the
survey
population
(
i.
e.,
general
For
all
fish
(
finfish
and
shellfish),
the
recommended
population,
recreational
anglers)
and
the
type
of
water
body
values
are
6.6
g/
day
for
freshwater/
estuarine
fish,
13.5
(
i.
e.,
marine,
estuarine,
freshwater),
but
other
factors
such
g/
day
for
marine
fish,
and
20.1
g/
day
for
all
fish.
Note
that
as
study
design,
method
of
data
collection
and
geographic
these
values
are
reported
as
uncooked
fish
weight.
This
is
location
also
play
a
role.
Based
on
these
study
variations,
important
because
the
concentration
of
the
contaminants
in
recommendations
for
consumption
rates
were
classified
into
fish
are
generally
measured
in
the
uncooked
samples.
the
following
categories:
Assuming
that
cooking
results
in
some
reductions
in
weight
°
General
Population;
the
fish
tissue
remains
constant,
then
the
contaminant
°
Recreational
Marine
Anglers;
concentration
in
the
cooked
fish
tissue
will
increase.
°
Recreational
Freshwater
Anglers;
and
Although
actual
consumption
may
be
overestimated
when
°
Native
American
Subsistence
Fishing
intake
is
expressed
in
an
uncooked
basis,
the
net
effect
on
Populations
the
dose
may
be
canceled
out
since
the
actual
concentration
The
recommendations
for
each
of
these
categories
sample.
On
the
other
hand,
if
the
"
as
consumed"
intake
rate
were
rated
according
to
the
level
of
confidence
the
Agency
and
the
uncooked
concentration
are
used
in
the
dose
has
in
the
recommended
values.
These
ratings
were
derived
equation,
dose
may
be
underestimated
since
the
according
to
the
principles
outlined
in
Volume
I,
Section
concentration
in
the
cooked
fish
is
likely
to
be
higher,
if
the
1.3;
the
ratings
and
a
summary
of
the
rationale
behind
them
mass
of
the
contaminant
remains
constant
after
cooking.
are
presented
in
tables
which
follow
the
discussion
of
each
Therefore,
it
is
more
conservative
and
appropriate
to
use
category.
uncooked
fish
intake
rates.
If
concentration
data
can
be
For
exposure
assessment
purposes,
the
selection
of
adjusted
to
account
for
changes
after
cooking,
then
the
"
as
the
appropriate
category
(
or
categories)
from
above
will
consumed"
intake
rates
are
appropriate.
For
example,
depend
on
the
exposure
scenario
being
evaluated.
concentration
may
be
expressed
on
a
dry
weight
basis
and,
Assessors
should
use
the
recommended
values
(
or
range
of
if
data
are
available,
loss
of
contaminant
mass
after
cooking
values)
unless
specific
studies
are
felt
to
be
particularly
may
be
accounted
for
in
the
concentration.
However,
data
relevant
to
their
needs,
in
which
case
results
from
a
specific
on
the
effects
of
cooking
in
contaminant
concentrations
are
study
or
studies
may
be
used.
This
is
particularly
true
for
limited
and
assessors
generally
make
the
conservative
the
last
two
categories
where
no
nationwide
key
studies
assumption
that
cooking
has
no
effect
on
the
contaminant
exist.
Even
where
national
data
exist,
it
may
be
mass.
Both
"
as
consumed"
and
uncooked
fish
intake
values
advantageous
to
use
regional
estimates
if
the
assessment
have
been
targets
a
particular
region.
In
addition,
seasonal,
age,
and
gender
variations
should
be
considered
when
appropriate.
intake
or
central
tendency
for
the
population
studied,
and
on
upper
estimates
(
i.
e.,
90th­
99th
percentiles)
which
represent
the
high­
end
fish
consumption
of
the
population
studied.
For
the
recreational
angler
populations,
the
recommended
means
and
percentiles
are
based
on
all
persons
engaged
in
recreational
fishing,
not
just
those
consuming
recreationally
caught
fish.

(
e.
g.,
loss
of
moisture),
and
the
mass
of
the
contaminant
in
may
be
underestimated
when
it
is
based
on
the
uncooked
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
26
August
1997
presented
in
this
handbook
so
that
the
assessor
can
choose
the
95th
percentile
serving
size
based
on
the
CSFII
analyses
the
intake
data
that
best
matches
the
concentration
data
that
(
Table
10­
50).
is
being
used.
CSFII
data
were
based
on
a
short­
term
survey
and
could
not
be
used
to
estimate
the
distribution
over
the
long
The
recommended
values
presented
in
Table
10­
51
term
of
the
average
daily
fish
intake.
The
long­
term
average
are
based
on
the
surveys
of
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
daily
fish
intake
distribution
can
be
estimated
using
the
TRI
Service
(
NMFS,
1993).
The
intake
values
are
based
on
study
which
provided
dietary
data
for
a
one
month
period.
finfish
consumption
only.
However,
because
the
data
from
the
TRI
study
are
now
over
20
years
old,
the
value
presented
in
Table
10­
49
(
56
g/
day)
has
been
adjusted
by
upward
25
percent
based
on
Ruffle
et
al.
(
1994)
to
reflect
the
increase
in
fish
The
data
presented
in
Table
10­
52
are
based
on
consumption
since
the
TRI
survey
was
conducted.
In
mailed
questionnaire
surveys
(
Ebert
et
al.,
1993
and
West
addition
to
the
arguments
provided
by
Ruffle
et
al.
(
1994)
et
al.,
1989;
1993)
and
a
diary
study
(
Connelly
et
al.,
1992;
for
adjusting
the
data
upward,
recent
data
from
CSFII
1989­
1996).
The
mean
intakes
ranged
from
5­
17
g/
day.
The
91
indicate
an
increase
of
fish
intake
of
33
percent
when
recommended
mean
and
95th
percentile
values
for
compared
to
USDA
NFCS
data
from
1977­
78.
Therefore,
recreational
freshwater
anglers
are
8
g/
day
and
25
g/
day,
the
adjustment
recommended
by
Ruffle
et
al.
(
1994)
of
25
respectively;
these
were
derived
by
averaging
the
values
percent
seems
appropriate.
Then,
as
suggested
by
Ruffle
et
from
the
three
populations
surveyed
in
the
key
studies.
al.
(
1994)
the
distributions
generated
from
TRI
should
be
Since
the
two
West
et
al.
surveys
studied
the
same
shifted
upward
by
25
percent
to
estimate
the
current
fish
population,
the
average
of
the
means
from
the
two
studies
intake
distribution.
Thus,
the
recommended
percentiles
of
was
used
to
represent
the
mean
for
this
population.
The
long­
term
average
daily
fish
intake
are
those
of
Javitz
estimate
from
the
West
et
al.
(
1989)
survey
was
used
to
(
1980)
adjusted
25
percent
upward
(
see
Tables
10­
3,
10­
4).
represent
the
95th
percentile
for
this
population
since
the
Alternatively,
the
log­
normal
distribution
of
Ruffle
et
al.
long
term
consumption
percentiles
could
not
be
estimated
(
1994)
(
Table
10­
6)
may
be
used
to
approximate
the
long
from
the
West
et
al.
(
1993)
study.
term
fish
intake
distribution;
adjusting
the
log
mean
F
by
adding
log(
1.5)=
0.4,
will
shift
the
distribution
upward
by
25
percent.
It
is
important
to
note
that
a
limitation
with
these
Fish
consumption
data
for
Native
American
data
is
that
the
total
amount
of
fish
reported
by
respondents
subsistence
populations
are
very
limited.
The
CRITFC
included
fish
from
all
sources
(
e.
g.,
fresh,
frozen,
canned,
(
1994)
study
gives
a
per­
capita
fish
intake
rate
of
59
g/
day
domestic,
international
origin).
Neither
the
TRI
nor
the
and
a
95th
percentile
of
170
g/
day.
The
report
by
Wolfe
CSFII
surveys
identified
the
source
of
the
fish
consumed.
and
Walker
(
1987)
presents
harvest
rates
for
94
small
This
type
of
information
may
be
relevant
for
some
communities
engaged
in
subsistence
harvests
of
natural
assessments.
It
should
be
noted
that
because
these
resources.
A
factor
of
0.5
was
employed
to
convert
the
perrecommendations
are
based
on
1989­
91
CSFII
data,
they
capita
harvest
rates
presented
in
Wolfe
and
Walker
(
1987)
may
not
reflect
the
most
recent
changes
that
may
have
to
per
capita
individual
consumption
rates;
this
is
the
same
occurred
in
consumption
patterns.
However,
as
indicated
factor
used
to
convert
from
per
capita
household
in
Section
10.2,
the
1989­
91
CSFII
data
are
believed
to
be
consumption
rates
to
per
capita
individual
consumption
appropriate
for
assessing
ingestion
exposure
for
current
rates
in
the
analysis
of
homegrown
fish
consumption
from
populations
because
the
rate
of
fish
ingestion
did
not
change
the
1987­
1988
NFCS.
Based
on
this
factor,
the
median
dramatically
between
1977­
78
and
1995.
per­
capita
harvest
in
the
94
communities
of
162
g/
day
(
and
The
distribution
of
serving
sizes
may
be
useful
for
the
range
of
31­
1,540
g/
day)
is
converted
to
the
median
per
acute
exposure
assessments.
The
recommended
values
are
capita
intake
rate
of
81
g/
day
(
range
16­
770
g/
day)
shown
129
grams
for
mean
serving
size
and
326
grams
for
in
Table
10­
53.
The
recommended
value
for
mean
intake
10.10.2.
Recommendations
­
Recreational
Marine
Anglers
10.10.3.
Recommendations
­
Recreational
Freshwater
Anglers
10.10.4.
Recommendations
­
Native
American
Subsistence
Populations
is
70
g/
day
and
the
recommended
95th
percentile
is
170
g/
day.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
27
It
should
be
emphasized
that
the
above
Report
for
the
New
York
Sea
Grant
Institute
Project
No.
recommendations
refer
only
to
Native
American
subsistence
R/
FHD­
2­
PD.
September.
fishing
populations,
not
the
Native
American
general
Connelly,
N.
A.;
Knuth,
B.
A.;
Brown,
T.
L.
(
1996)
population.
Several
studies
show
that
intake
rates
of
Sportfish
consumption
patterns
of
Lake
Ontario
recreationally
caught
fish
among
Native
Americans
with
anglers
and
the
relationship
to
health
advisories.
N.
state
fishing
licenses
(
West
et
al.,
1989;
Ebert
et
al.,
1993)
Am.
J.
Fisheries
Management,
16:
90­
101.
are
somewhat
higher
(
50­
100
percent)
than
intake
rates
Ebert,
E.;
Harrington,
N.;
Boyle,
K.;
Knight,
J.;
Keenan,
among
other
anglers,
but
far
lower
than
the
rates
shown
R.
(
1993)
Estimating
consumption
of
freshwater
above
for
Native
American
subsistence
populations.
fish
among
Maine
anglers.
N.
Am.
J.
Fisheries
In
addition,
the
studies
of
Peterson
et
al.
(
1994)
and
Management
13:
737­
745.
Fiore
et
al.
(
1989)
show
that
total
fish
intake
among
a
Fiore,
B.
J.;
Anderson,
H.
A.;
Hanrahan,
L.
P.;
Olsen,
L.
J.;
Native
American
population
on
a
reservation
(
Chippewa
in
Sonzogni,
W.
C.
(
1989)
Sport
fish
consumption
and
Wisconsin)
is
roughly
comparable
(
50
percent
higher)
to
body
burden
levels
of
chlorinated
hydrocarbons:
A
total
fish
intake
among
licensed
anglers
in
the
same
state.
study
of
Wisconsin
anglers.
Arch.
Environ.
Health
Also,
the
study
of
Fitzgerald
et
al.
(
1995)
showed
that
44:
82­
88.
pregnant
women
on
a
reservation
(
Mohawk
in
New
York)
Fitzgerald,
E.;
Hwang,
S.
A.;
Briz,
K.
A.;
Bush,
B.;
Cook,
have
sport­
caught
fish
intake
rates
comparable
to
those
of
K.;
Worswick,
P.
(
1995)
Fish
PCB
concentrations
a
local
white
control
population.
and
consumption
patterns
among
Mohawk
women
at
The
survey
designs,
data
generated,
and
Akwesasne.
J.
Exp.
Anal.
Environ.
Epid.
5(
1):
1­
19.
limitations/
advantages
of
the
studies
described
in
this
report
Hudson
River
Sloop
Clearwater,
Inc.
(
1993)
Hudson
are
summarized
and
presented
in
Table
10­
54.
The
River
angler
survey.
Hudson
River
Sloop
confidence
in
recommendations
is
presented
in
Table
10­
Clearwater,
Inc.,
Poughkeepsie,
NY.
55.
The
confidence
rating
for
recreational
marine
anglers
Javitz,
H.
(
1980)
Seafood
consumption
data
analysis.
is
presented
in
Table
10­
56.
Confidence
in
fish
intake
SRI
International.
Final
report
prepared
for
EPA
recommendations
for
recreational
freshwater
fish
Office
of
Water
Regulations
and
Standards.
EPA
consumption
is
presented
in
Table
10­
57.
The
confidence
Contract
68­
01­
3887.
in
intake
recommendations
for
Native
American
subsistence
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
(
1986a)
populations
is
presented
in
Table
10­
58.
Fisheries
of
the
United
States,
1985.
Current
10.11.
REFERENCES
FOR
CHAPTER
10
American
Industrial
Hygiene
Council
(
AIHC)
(
1994)
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
(
1986b)
Exposure
factors
sourcebook.
AIHC,
Washington,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service.
Marine
DC.
Recreational
Fishery
Statistics
Survey,
Atlantic
and
ChemRisk
(
1991)
Consumption
of
freshwater
fish
by
Gulf
Coasts,
1985.
Current
Fisheries
Statistics
No.
maine
anglers.
Portland,
ME:
ChemRisk.
8327.
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce,
National
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration.
(
CRITFC).
(
1994)
A
fish
consumption
survey
of
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
(
1986c)
the
Umatilla,
Nez
Perce,
Yakama
and
Warm
Springs
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service.
Marine
tribes
of
the
Columbia
River
Basin.
Technical
Recreational
Fishery
Statistics
Survey,
Pacific
Coast.
Report
94­
3.
Portland,
OR:
CRIFTC.
Current
Fisheries
Statistics
No.
8328.
U.
S.
Connelly,
N.
A.;
Knuth,
B.
A.;
Bisogni,
C.
A.
(
1992)
Department
of
Commerce,
National
Oceanic
and
Effects
of
the
health
advisory
and
advisory
changes
Atmospheric
Administration.
on
fishing
habits
and
fish
consumption
in
New
York
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
(
1993)
Data
sport
fisheries.
Human
Dimension
Research
Unit,
tapes
for
the
1993
NMFS
provided
to
U.
S.
EPA,
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
New
York
State
National
Center
for
Environmental
Assessments.
College
of
Agriculture
and
Life
Sciences,
Fernow
Hall,
Cornell
University,
Ithaca,
NY.
Fisheries
Statistics
No.
8368.
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce.
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
28
August
1997
Pao,
E.
M.;
Fleming,
K.
H.;
Guenther,
P.
M.;
Mickle,
S.
J.
day,
1987­
88:
Nationwide
Food
Consumption
(
1982)
Foods
commonly
eaten
by
individuals:
Survey
1987­
88,
NFCS
Rpt.
No.
87­
I­
1,
in
amount
per
day
and
per
eating
occasion.
U.
S.
preparation.
Department
of
Agriculture.
Home
Economics
USDA.
(
1996a)
Data
tables:
results
from
USDA's
1994
Report
No.
44.
Continuing
Survey
of
Food
Intakes
by
Individuals
Peterson,
D.;
Kanarek,
M.;
Kuykendall,
M.;
Diedrich,
J.;
and
1994
Diet
and
Health
Knowledge
Survey.
U.
S.
Anderson,
H.;
Remington,
P.;
Sheffy,
T.
(
1994)
Department
of
Agriculture,
Agricultural
Research
Fish
consumption
patterns
and
blood
mercury
levels
Service,
Riverdale,
MD.
in
Wisconsin
Chippewa
Indians.
Archives.
Environ.
USDA.
(
1996b)
Data
tables:
results
from
USDA's
1995
Health,
49:
53­
58.
Continuing
Survey
of
Food
Intakes
by
Individuals
Pierce,
R.
S.;
Noviello,
D.
T.;
Rogers,
S.
H.
(
1981)
and
1995
Diet
and
Health
Knowledge
Survey.
U.
S.
Commencement
Bay
seafood
consumption
report.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Agricultural
Research
Preliminary
report.
Tacoma,
WA:
Tacoma­
Pierce
Service,
Riverdale,
MD.
County
Health
Department.
U.
S.
DHHS.
(
1995)
Final
Report:
Health
study
to
Price,
P.;
Su,
S.;
Gray,
M.
(
1994)
The
effects
of
assess
the
human
health
effects
of
mercury
exposure
sampling
bias
on
estimates
of
angler
consumption
to
fish
consumed
from
the
Everglades.
Prepared
by
rates
in
creel
surveys.
Portland,
ME:
ChemRisk.
the
Florida
Department
of
Health
and
Rehabilitative
Puffer,
H.
W.,
Azen,
S.
P.;
Duda,
M.
J.;
Young,
D.
R.
Services
for
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Health
and
(
1981)
Consumption
rates
of
potentially
hazardous
Human
Services,
Atlanta,
Georgia.
PB95­
167276.
marine
fish
caught
in
the
metropolitan
Los
Angeles
U.
S.
EPA.
(
1984)
Ambient
water
quality
criteria
for
area.
EPA
Grant
#
R807
120010.
2,3,7,8­
tetrachloro­
dibenzo­
p­
dioxin.
Washington,
Ruffle,
B.;
Burmaster,
D.;
Anderson,
P.;
Gordon,
D.
DC:
Office
of
Water
Regulations
and
Standards.
(
1994)
Lognormal
distributions
for
fish
EPA
440/
5­
84­
007.
consumption
by
the
general
U.
S.
population.
Risk
U.
S.
EPA.
(
1989a)
Exposure
factors
handbook.
Analysis
14(
4):
395­
404.
Washington,
DC:
Office
of
Health
and
Rupp,
E.;
Miler,
F.
L.;
Baes,
C.
F.
III.
(
1980)
Some
Environmental
Assessment,
results
of
recent
surveys
of
fish
and
shellfish
U.
S.
EPA.
(
1989b)
Assessing
human
health
risks
from
consumption
by
age
and
region
of
U.
S.
residents.
chemically
contaminated
fish
and
shellfish:
a
Health
Physics
39:
165­
175.
guidance
manual.
Washington,
DC:
Office
of
San
Diego
County.
(
1990)
San
Diego
Bay
health
risk
Marine
and
Estuarine
Protection.
EPA
503/
8­
89­
study.
San
Diego,
CA.
San
Diego
County
002.
Department
of
Health
Services.
U.
S.
EPA.
(
1992)
Consumption
surveys
for
fish
and
Tsang,
A.
M.;
Klepeis,
N.
E.
(
1996)
Results
tables
from
a
shellfish;
a
review
and
analysis
of
survey
methods.
detailed
analysis
of
the
National
Human
Activity
Washington,
DC:
Office
of
Water.
EPA
822/
R­
92­
Pattern
Survey
(
NHAPS)
response.
Draft
Report
001.
prepared
for
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
U.
S.
EPA.
(
1995)
Fish
consumption
estimates
based
on
Agency
by
Lockheed
Martin,
Contract
No.
68­
W6­
the
1991­
92
Michigan
sport
anglers
fish
001,
Delivery
Order
No.
13.
consumption
study.
Final
Report.
Prepared
by
USDA.
(
1979­
1984)
Agricultural
Handbook
No.
8.
SAIC
for
the
Office
of
Science
and
Technology.
USDA.
(
1989­
1991)
Continuing
Survey
of
Food
Intakes
U.
S.
EPA.
(
1996a)
Daily
average
per
capita
fish
by
Individuals
(
CSFII).
U.
S.
Department
of
consumption
estimates
based
on
the
combined
Agriculture.
USDA
1989,
1990
and
1991
continuing
survey
of
USDA.
(
1992a)
Changes
in
food
consumption
and
food
intakes
by
individuals
(
CSFII)
1989­
91
data.
expenditures
in
American
households
during
the
Volumes
I
and
II.
Preliminary
Draft
Report.
1980'
s.
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
Washington,
DC:
Office
of
Water.
Washington,
D.
C.
Statistical
Bulletin
No.
849.
U.
S.
EPA.
(
1996b)
Estimating
exposure
to
dioxin­
like
USDA.
(
1992b)
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
compounds.
(
Draft).
Washington,
DC:
Office
of
Human
Nutrition
Information
Service.
Food
and
Research
and
Development,
National
Center
for
nutrient
intakes
by
individuals
in
the
United
States,
1
Environmental
Assessment.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
29
West,
P.
C.;
Fly,
M.
J.;
Marans,
R.;
Larkin,
F.
(
1989)
Wolfe,
R.
J.;
Walker,
R.
J.
(
1987)
Subsistence
economics
Michigan
sport
anglers
fish
consumption
survey.
A
in
Alaska:
productivity,
geography,
and
report
to
the
Michigan
Toxic
Substance
Control
development
impacts.
Arctic
Anthropology
Commission.
Michigan
Department
of
Management
24(
2):
56­
81.
and
Budget
Contract
No.
87­
20141.
West,
P.
C.;
Fly,
J.
M.;
Marans,
R.;
Larkin,
F.;
Rosenblatt,
D.
(
1993)
1991­
92
Michigan
sport
anglers
fish
consumption
study.
Prepared
by
the
University
of
Michigan,
School
of
Natural
Resources
for
the
Michigan
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
Ann
Arbor,
MI.
Technical
Report
No.
6.
May.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
30
August
1997
Table
10­
1.
Total
Fish
Consumption
by
Demographic
Variablesa
Demographic
Category
Intake
(
g/
person/
day)

Mean
95th
Percentile
Race
Caucasian
14.2
41.2
Black
16.0
45.2
Oriental
21.0
67.3
Other
13.2
29.4
Sex
Female
13.2
38.4
Male
15.6
44.8
Age
(
years)
0­
9
6.2
16.5
10­
19
10.1
26.8
20­
29
14.5
38.3
30­
39
15.8
42.9
40­
49
17.4
48.1
50­
59
20.9
53.4
60­
69
21.7
55.4
70+
13.3
39.8
Census
Region
New
England
16.3
46.5
Middle
Atlantic
16.2
47.8
East
North
Central
12.9
36.9
West
North
Central
12.0
35.2
South
Atlantic
15.2
44.1
East
South
Central
13.0
38.4
West
South
Central
14.4
43.6
Mountain
12.1
32.1
Pacific
14.2
39.6
Community
Type
Rural,
non­
SMSA
13.0
38.3
Central
city,
2M
or
more
19.0
55.6
Outside
central
city,
2M
or
more
15.9
47.3
Central
city,
1M
­
2M
15.4
41.7
Outside
central
city,
1M
­
2M
14.5
41.5
Central
city,
500K
­
1M
14.2
41.0
Outside
central
city,
500K
­
1M
14.0
39.7
Outside
central
city,
250K
­
500K
12.2
32.1
Central
city,
250K
­
500K
14.1
40.5
Central
city,
50K
­
250K
13.8
43.4
Outside
central
city,
50K
­
250K
11.3
31.7
Other
urban
13.5
39.2
The
calculations
in
this
table
are
based
on
respondents
who
consumed
fish
during
the
survey
month.
These
respondents
are
a
estimated
to
represent
94
percent
of
the
U.
S.
population.
Source:
Javitz,
1980.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
31
Table
10­
2.
Mean
and
95th
Percentile
of
Fish
Consumption
(
g/
day)
by
Sex
and
Agea
Total
Fish
Age
(
years)
Mean
95th
Percentile
Female
0
­
9
6.1
17.3
10
­
19
9.0
25.0
20
­
19
13.4
34.5
30
­
39
14.9
41.8
40
­
49
16.7
49.6
50
­
59
19.5
50.1
60
­
69
19.0
46.3
70+
10.7
31.7
Male
0
­
9
6.3
15.8
10
­
19
11.2
29.1
20
­
19
16.1
43.7
30
­
39
17.0
45.6
40
­
49
18.2
47.7
50
­
59
22.8
57.5
60
­
69
24.4
61.1
70+
15.8
45.7
Overall
14.3
41.7
The
calculations
in
this
table
are
based
upon
respondents
who
consumed
fish
in
the
month
of
the
survey.
These
respondents
a
are
estimated
to
represent
94.0%
of
the
U.
S.
population.
Source:
Javitz,
1980.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
32
August
1997
Table
10­
3.
Percent
Distribution
of
Total
Fish
Consumption
for
Females
by
Age
a
Consumption
Category
(
g/
day)

0.0­
5.0
5.1­
10.0
10.1­
15.0
15.1­
20.0
20.1­
25.0
25.1­
30.0
30.1­
37.5
37.6­
47.5
47.6­
60.0
60.1­
122.5
over
122.5
Age
(
yrs)
Percentage
0­
9
10­
19
20­
29
30­
39
40­
49
50­
59
60­
69
70+
Overall
55.5
17.8
28.1
22.4
17.5
17.0
11.5
41.9
28.9
26.8
31.4
26.1
23.6
21.9
17.4
16.9
22.1
24.0
11.0
15.4
20.4
18.0
20.7
16.8
20.6
12.3
16.8
3.7
6.9
11.8
12.7
13.2
15.5
15.9
9.7
10.7
1.0
3.5
6.7
8.3
9.3
10.5
9.1
5.2
6.4
1.1
2.4
3.5
4.8
4.5
8.5
9.2
2.9
4.3
0.7
1.2
4.4
3.8
4.6
6.8
6.0
2.6
3.5
0.3
0.7
2.2
2.8
2.8
5.2
6.1
1.2
2.4
0.0
0.2
0.9
1.9
3.4
4.2
2.4
0.8
1.6
0.0
0.4
0.9
1.7
2.1
2.0
2.1
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
The
percentage
of
females
in
an
age
bracket
whose
average
daily
fish
consumption
is
within
the
specified
range.

a
The
calculations
in
this
table
are
based
upon
the
respondents
who
consumed
fish
during
the
month
of
the
survey.
These
respondents
are
estimated
to
represent
94%
of
the
U.
S.
population.

Source:
Javitz,
1980.
Table
10­
4.
Percent
Distribution
of
Total
Fish
Consumption
for
Males
by
Age
a
Consumption
Category
(
g/
day)

0.0­
5.0
5.1­
10.0
10.1­
15.0
15.1­
20.0
20.1­
25.0
25.1­
30.0
30.1­
37.5
37.6­
47.5
47.6­
60.0
60.1­
122.5
over
122.5
Age
(
yrs)
Percentage
0­
9
10­
19
20­
29
30­
39
40­
49
50­
59
60­
69
70+
Overall
52.1
27.8
16.7
16.6
11.9
9.9
7.4
24.5
22.6
30.1
29.3
22.9
21.2
22.3
15.2
15.0
21.7
23.1
11.9
19.0
19.6
19.2
18.6
15.4
15.6
15.7
17.0
3.1
10.4
14.5
13.2
14.7
14.4
12.8
9.9
11.3
1.2
6.0
8.8
9.5
8.4
10.4
11.4
9.8
7.7
0.6
3.2
6.2
7.3
8.5
9.7
8.5
5.3
5.7
0.7
1.7
4.4
5.2
5.3
8.7
9.9
5.4
4.6
0.1
1.7
3.1
3.2
5.2
7.6
8.3
3.1
3.6
0.2
0.4
1.9
1.3
3.3
4.3
5.5
1.7
2.2
0.1
0.5
1.9
2.2
1.7
4.1
5.5
2.8
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
The
percentage
of
males
in
an
age
bracket
whose
average
daily
fish
consumption
is
within
the
specified
range.

a
The
calculations
in
this
table
are
based
upon
respondents
who
consumed
fish
during
the
month
of
the
survey.
These
respondents
are
estimated
to
represent
94%
of
the
U.
S.
population.

Source:
Javitz,
1980.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
33
Table
10­
5.
Mean
Total
Fish
Consumption
by
Speciesa
Species
(
g/
day)
Species
(
g/
day)
Mean
consumption
Mean
consumption
Not
reported
1.173
Mullet
0.029
Abalone
0.014
Oysters
0.291
Anchovies
0.010
Perch
(
Freshwater)
0.062
Bass
0.258
Perch
(
Marine)
0.773
b
Bluefish
0.070
Pike
(
Marine)
0.154
Bluegills
0.089
Pollock
0.266
b
Bonito
0.035
Pompano
0.004
b
Buffalofish
0.022
Rockfish
0.027
Butterfish
0.010
Sablefish
0.002
Carp
0.016
Salmon
0.533
b
Catfish
(
Freshwater)
0.292
Scallops
0.127
b
Catfish
(
Marine)
0.014
Scup
0.014
b
Clams
0.442
Sharks
0.001
b
Cod
0.407
Shrimp
1.464
Crab,
King
0.030
Smelt
0.057
Crab,
other
than
King
0.254
Snapper
0.146
b
Crappie
0.076
Snook
0.005
b
Croaker
0.028
Spot
0.046
b
Dolphin
0.012
Squid
and
Octopi
0.016
b
Drums
0.019
Sunfish
0.020
Flounders
1.179
Swordfish
0.012
b
Groupers
0.026
Tilefish
0.003
Haddock
0.399
Trout
(
Freshwater)
0.294
Hake
0.117
Trout
(
Marine)
0.070
Halibut
0.170
Tuna,
light
3.491
b
Herring
0.224
Tuna,
White
Albacore
0.008
Kingfish
0.009
Whitefish
0.141
Lobster
(
Northern)
0.162
Other
finfish
0.403
b
Lobster
(
Spiny)
0.074
Other
shellfish
0.013
Mackerel,
Jack
0.002
Mackerel,
other
than
Jack
0.172
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
The
calculations
in
this
table
are
based
upon
respondents
who
consumed
fish
during
the
month
of
the
survey.
These
respondents
are
a
estimated
to
represent
94%
percent
of
the
U.
S.
population.
Designated
as
freshwater
or
estuarine
species
by
Stephan
(
1980).
b
Source:
Javitz,
1980.

Table
10­
6.
Best
Fits
of
Lognormal
Distributions
Using
the
NonLinear
Optimization
(
NLO)
Method
Adults
Teenagers
Children
Shellfish
F
1.370
­
0.183
0.854
F
0.858
1.092
0.730
(
min
SS)
27.57
1.19
16.06
Finfish
(
freshwater)
F
0.334
0.578
­
0.559
F
1.183
0.822
1.141
(
min
SS)
6.45
23.51
2.19
Finfish
(
saltwater)
F
2.311
1.691
0.881
F
0.72
0.830
0.970
(
min
SS)
30.13
0.33
4.31
The
following
equations
may
be
used
with
the
appropriate
F
and
F
values
to
obtain
an
average
Daily
Consumption
Rate
(
DCR),
in
grams,
and
percentiles
of
the
DCR
distribution.
DCR50
=
exp
(
F
)
DCR90
=
exp
[
F
+
z(
0.90)
@
F
]
DCR99
=
exp
[
F
+
z(
0.99)
@
F
]
DCR
=
exp
[
F
+
0.5
@
F
]
avg
2
Source:
Ruffle
et
al.,
1994.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
34
August
1997
Table
10­
7.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
Intake
(
g/
day)
by
Habitat
and
Fish
Type
for
the
U.
S.
Population
(
Uncooked
Fish
Weight)

Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
(
90%
Interval)

Finfish
Shellfish
Total
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
3.6
(
3.0
­
4.1)
2.4
(
2.0
­
2.8)
6.0
(
5.3
­
6.7)

50th%
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)

90th%
0.4
(
0.00
­
0.7)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.3)
15.9
(
14.4
­
17.8)

95th%
21.7
(
14.8
­
25.8)
13.3
(
11.7
­
17.8)
40.0
(
37.9
­
44.8)

99th%
87.3
(
80.1
­
98.0)
63.6
(
60.4
­
68.5)
107.6
(
98.3
­
109.1)

Marine
Mean
12.5
(
11.5
­
13.5)
1.6
(
1.3
­
1.9)
14.1
(
13.1
­
15.1)

50th%
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)

90th%
47.5
(
43.6
­
49.8)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
52.1
(
47.8
­
55.9)

95th%
74.6
(
70.3
­
76.3)
0.0
(
0.0
­
6.8)
76.5
(
74.6
­
80.9)

99th%
133.0
(
127.8
­
143.2)
50.3
(
44.5
­
59.0)
138.2
(
133.0
­
155.1)

All
Fish
Mean
16.1
(
15.0
­
17.2)
4.0
(
3.4
­
4.6)
20.1
(
18.8
­
21.4)

50th%
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)

90th%
59.1
(
54.6
­
62.3)
0.0
(
0.0
­
3.5)
70.1
(
65.4
­
74.2)

95th%
84.4
(
81.3
­
89.6)
22.7
(
21.8
­
26.6)
102.0
(
99.3
­
106.7)

99th%
156.7
(
148.7
­
168.1)
99.0
(
87.8
­
109.6)
173.2
(
162.8
­
176.5)

Note:
Percentile
confidence
intervals
estimated
using
the
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
replications;
percent
consuming
gives
the
percentage
of
individuals
consuming
the
specified
category
of
fish
during
the
3­
day
survey
period.
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
11,912
individuals
to
the
U.
S.
population.

Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
35
Table
10­
8.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
by
Habitat
for
Consumers
Only
(
Uncooked
Fish
Weight)

Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
90%
Interval
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
86.2
78.4
­
94.0
a
50th%
48.8
45.6
­
54.9
90th%
217.9
205.3
­
237.3
95th%
290.0
267.1
­
325.6
99th%
489.3
424.9
­
534.2
Percent
Consuming
18.5
Marine
Mean
113.1
107.8
­
118.4
b
50th%
93.3
92.0
­
94.9
90th%
222.7
216.5
­
225.6
95th%
271.7
260.6
­
279.9
99th%
415.9
367.3
­
440.5
Percent
Consuming
30.1
All
Fish
Mean
129.0
123.7
­
134.3
c
50th%
101.9
98.9
­
103.9
90th%
249.1
241.0
­
264.1
95th%
326.0
306.1
­
335.6
99th%
497.5
469.2
­
519.7
Percent
Consuming
36.9
Note:
Percentile
confidence
intervals
estimated
using
the
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
replications;
percent
consuming
gives
the
percentage
of
individuals
consuming
the
specified
category
of
fish
during
the
3­
day
survey
period.

a
Sample
size
=
1,892;
population
size
=
44,946,000
b
Sample
size
=
3,184;
population
size
=
73,100,000
c
Sample
size
=
3,927;
population
size
=
89,800,000
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
36
August
1997
Table
10­
9.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
by
Habitat
and
Fish
Type
for
U.
S.
Population
(
Uncooked
Fish
Weight)

Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
(
90%
Interval)

Finfish
Shellfish
Total
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
58.1
(
48.4
­
67.7)
35.9
(
30.2
­
41.6)
94.0
(
83.4
­
104.6)

50th%
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)

90th%
5.9
(
0.0
­
12.3)
0.0
(
0.0
­
3.8)
251.8
(
222.5
­
282.6)

95th%
340.5
(
252.9
­
410.1)
190.0
(
155.7
­
268.3)
677.7
(
631.9
­
729.1)

99th%
1,401.9
(
1,283.9
­
1,511.8)
953.5
(
871.3
­
1,007.4)
1,593.3
(
1,511.8
­
1,659.2)

Marine
Mean
215.8
(
195.9
­
235.6)
24.3
(
20.6
­
28.0)
240.1
(
220.1
­
260.0)

50th%
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)

90th%
783.4
(
752.5
­
842.2)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
855.6
(
809.7
­
909.8)

95th%
1,208.1
(
1,149.5
­
1,264.9)
0.0
(
0.0
­
88.8
1,271.5
(
1,227.2
­
1,371.2)

99th%
2,400.0
(
2,284.2
­
2,660.1)
701.3
(
636.2
­
944.7)
2,575.3
(
2,393.2
­
2,708.6)

All
Fish
Mean
273.9
(
252.0
­
295.7)
60.2
(
52.3
­
68.2)
334.1
(
311.3
­
356.9)

50th%
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)

90th%
966.1
(
893.3
­
1,039.5)
0.0
(
0.0
­
47.4)
1,123.1
(
1,090.8
­
1,179.0)

95th%
1,434.3
(
1,371.2
­
1,526.8)
372.5
(
324.1
­
460.5)
1,684.2
(
1,620.5
­
1,718.5)

99th%
2,857.5
(
2,649.6
­
3,003.6)
1,412.4
(
1,296.0
­
1,552.1)
3,092.8
(
2,973.7
­
3,250.2)

Note:
Percentile
intervals
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
11,912
individuals
to
the
U.
S.
population.

Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
37
Table
10­
10.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
by
Habitat
for
Consumers
Only
(
Uncooked
Fish
Weight)

Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
90%
Interval
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
1,363.4
1,242.2
­
1,484.7
a
50th%
819.7
736.9
­
895.7
90th%
3,325.1
3,232.6
­
3,677.0
95th%
4,408.2
4,085.6
­
4,781.3
99th%
7,957.5
6,979.2
­
8,921.0
Percent
Consuming
18.5
Marine
Mean
1,927.0
1,829.5
­
2,024.4
b
50th%
1,507.7
1,470.7
­
1,538.8
90th%
3,752.9
3,632.0
­
4,001.2
95th%
5,018.7
4,852.1
­
5,267.3
99th%
8,448.3
7,215.7
­
9,136.9
Percent
Consuming
30.1
All
Fish
Mean
2,145.3
2,055.9
­
2,234.6
c
50th%
1,662.8
1,610.7
­
1,720.1
90th%
4,223.9
4,085.8
­
4,454.2
95th%
5,477.9
5,163.3
­
5,686.0
99th%
9,171.5
8,605.4
­
9,796.6
Percent
Consuming
36.9
Note:
Percentile
confidence
intervals
estimated
using
the
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
replications;
percent
consuming
gives
the
percentage
of
individuals
consuming
the
specified
category
of
fish
during
the
3­
day
survey
period.

a
Sample
size
=
1,892;
population
size
=
44,946,000
b
Sample
size
=
3,184;
population
size
=
73,100,000
c
Sample
size
=
3,927;
population
size
=
89,800,000
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
38
August
1997
Table
10­
11.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
Intake
(
g/
day)
by
Habitat
and
Fish
Type
for
the
U.
S.
Population
(
Cooked
Fish
Weight
­
As
Consumed)

Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
(
90%
Interval)

Finfish
Shellfish
Total
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
2.8
(
2.4
­
3.3)
1.9
(
1.6
­
2.2)
4.7
(
4.2
­
5.3)

50th%
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)

90th%
0.3
(
0.0
­
0.7)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.2)
12.6
(
10.9
­
14.0)

95th%
17.2
(
12.9
­
20.8)
10.1
(
7.9
­
13.8)
32.2
(
29.8
­
35.2)

99th%
70.9
(
60.3
­
75.7)
49.9
(
45.6
­
56.4)
82.5
(
77.2
­
86.4)

Marine
Mean
9.7
(
9.0
­
10.5)
1.2
(
1.0
­
1.4)
10.9
(
10.1
­
11.7)

50th%
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)

90th%
37.3
(
33.7
­
37.4)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
39.5
(
37.3
­
42.9)

95th%
56.2
(
55.6
­
58.2)
0.0
(
0.0
­
5.3)
59.6
(
57.0
­
61.8)

99th%
103.1
(
98.5
­
112.0)
37.0
(
35.4
­
44.5)
106.8
(
104.6
­
114.6)

All
Fish
Mean
12.6
(
11.7
­
13.4)
3.1
(
2.7
­
3.5)
15.7
(
14.7
­
16.6)

50th%
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
0.­
0)

90th%
46.0
(
43.6
­
49.0)
0.0
(
0.0
­
2.6)
55.0
(
51.4
­
56.0)

95th%
67.0
(
63.0
­
70.7)
18.9
(
16.7
­
22.1)
78.3
(
75.2
­
80.6)

99th%
119.1
(
113.9
­
125.9)
74.3
(
68.7
­
82.0)
133.5
(
125.3
­
140.2)

Percentile
intervals
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
11,912
individuals
to
the
U.
S.
population.

Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
39
Table
10­
12.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
Intake
(
g/
day)
by
Habitat
for
Consumers
Only
(
Cooked
Fish
Weight
­
As
Consumed)

Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
90%
Interval
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
68.0
61.9
­
74.1
a
50th%
39.5
36.2
­
44.7
90th%
170.8
158.7
­
181.8
95th%
224.8
212.9
­
246.0
99th%
374.7
336.5
­
341.3
Percent
Consuming
18.5
Marine
Mean
87.8
83.7
­
91.8
b
50th%
71.8
69.7
­
74.2
90th%
169.4
167.0
­
173.7
95th%
208.5
198.1
­
221.7
99th%
320.4
292.8
­
341.9
Percent
Consuming
30.1
All
Fish
Mean
100.6
96.7
­
104.6
c
50th%
80.8
79.3
­
83.9
90th%
197.4
188.7
­
205.1
95th%
253.4
231.5
­
264.5
99th%
371.6
359.3
­
401.6
Percent
Consuming
36.9
Note:
Percentile
confidence
intervals
estimated
using
the
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
replications;
percent
consuming
gives
the
percentage
of
individuals
consuming
the
specified
category
of
fish
during
the
3­
day
survey
period.

a
Sample
size
=
1,892;
population
size
=
44,946,000
b
Sample
size
=
3,184;
population
size
=
73,100,000
c
Sample
size
=
3,927;
population
size
=
89,800,000
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
40
August
1997
Table
10­
13.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
by
Age
and
Gender
­
As
Consumed
(
Freshwater
and
Estuarine)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
1431
1.58
(
1.06­
2.10)
1.44
(
0.00­
4.07)
12.51
(
6.00­
14.20)
36.09
(
28.53­
43.20)
15
­
44
2891
4.28
(
3.55­
5.02)
10.90
(
8.79­
13.84)
28.80
(
26.26­
33.53)
70.87
(
64.74­
90.56)
45
or
older
2340
5.27
(
4.21­
6.32)
18.72
(
15.19­
22.12)
34.67
(
29.17­
39.38)
85.35
(
71.71­
100.50)
All
ages
6662
4.02
(
3.43­
4.61)
10.66
(
8.11­
13.19)
28.11
(
23.14­
31.27)
71.98
(
60.38­
86.40)

Males
14
or
under
1546
2.17
(
1.32­
3.02)
0.99
(
0.21­
6.67)
14.94
(
11.88­
22.33)
48.72
(
37.48­
52.29)
15
­
44
2151
6.14
(
5.08­
7.19)
18.19
(
10.21­
24.20)
48.61
(
35.42­
54.65)
96.32
(
85.60­
115.75)
45
or
older
1553
7.12
(
5.87­
8.38)
22.67
(
19.28­
27.83)
46.62
(
41.27­
58.01)
103.07
(
86.41­
125.11)
All
ages
5250
5.46
(
4.81­
6.11)
16.05
(
12.41­
19.30)
40.29
(
35.92­
43.73)
86.40
(
78.37­
103.07)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
2977
1.88
(
1.36­
2.40)
1.31
(
0.00­
4.33)
13.90
(
9.32­
15.05)
40.77
(
35.15­
44.82)
15
­
44
5042
5.17
(
4.46­
5.87)
13.88
(
12.05­
17.21)
36.21
(
28.64­
47.31)
86.14
(
74.67­
96.67)
45
or
older
3893
6.11
(
5.20­
7.02)
21.48
(
16.69­
23.33)
40.55
(
35.80­
47.31)
88.18
(
85.33­
103.07)
All
ages
11912
4.71
(
4.17­
5.25)
12.62
(
10.91­
13.98)
32.16
(
29.81­
35.15)
82.45
(
77.17­
86.40)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
14.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
by
Age
and
Gender
­
As
Consumed
(
Marine)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
1431
6.60
(
5.16­
8.05)
24.84
(
18.67­
31.20)
37.32
(
32.27­
42.05)
87.05
(
63.26­
112.06)
15
­
44
2891
9.97
(
8.94­
11.01)
36.83
(
31.42­
41.99)
55.53
(
47.67­
59.59)
105.32
(
96.98­
112.00)
45
or
older
2340
12.59
(
11.36­
13.82)
42.92
(
38.92­
47.66)
63.85
(
57.27­
72.36)
103.08
(
91.61­
121.52)
All
ages
6662
10.10
(
9.27­
10.93)
36.97
(
34.86­
37.33)
55.54
(
51.67­
56.98)
102.01
(
97.67­
110.69)

Males
14
or
under
1546
7.25
(
5.72­
8.79)
24.85
(
19.92­
33.85)
49.89
(
42.09­
56.45)
92.64
(
65.87­
132.39)
15
­
44
2151
13.33
(
11.89­
14.77)
52.73
(
48.34­
55.80)
71.49
(
63.99­
80.00)
116.51
(
106.06­
143.31)
45
or
older
1553
13.32
(
11.73­
14.92)
50.39
(
47.13­
53.33)
64.51
(
61.64­
74.58)
116.86
(
106.93­
144.94)
All
ages
5250
11.85
(
10.75­
12.95)
47.13
(
44.52­
49.80)
64.50
(
62.46­
67.53)
113.94
(
103.47­
130.00)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
2977
6.93
(
5.63­
8.23)
24.88
(
22.64­
28.08)
42.07
(
38.15­
48.96)
91.64
(
68.59­
112.06)
15
­
44
5042
11.58
(
10.55­
12.60)
44.24
(
39.84­
46.70)
62.18
(
57.88­
69.72)
110.07
(
103.50­
120.49)
45
or
older
3893
12.92
(
11.86­
13.98)
46.51
(
38.98­
50.97)
64.19
(
60.67­
72.00)
113.33
(
104.59­
119.53)
All
ages
11912
10.94
(
10.14­
11.73)
39.51
(
37.29­
42.91)
59.62
(
57.03­
61.84)
106.84
(
104.59­
114.55)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
41
Table
10­
15.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
by
Age
and
Gender
­
As
Consumed
(
All
Fish)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
1431
8.19
(
6.53­
9.84)
32.28
(
26.78­
37.33)
43.09
(
37.99­
51.55)
95.19
(
63.26­
113.96)
15
­
44
2891
14.25
(
12.96­
15.55)
47.13
(
41.95­
55.83)
71.58
(
64.74­
82.11)
120.84
(
110.69­
132.79)
45
or
older
2340
17.86
(
16.19­
19.52)
56.70
(
54.13­
62.99)
81.94
(
74.63­
88.23)
130.51
(
122.02­
140.21)
All
ages
6662
14.13
(
13.07­
15.18)
46.44
(
43.63­
49.67)
70.23
(
67.27­
73.91)
120.22
(
112.06­
126.07)

Males
14
or
under
1546
9.42
(
7.60­
11.25)
34.85
(
27.77­
42.09)
52.85
(
49.93­
62.50)
98.36
(
71.74­
132.39)
15
­
44
2151
19.46
(
17.75­
21.18)
68.60
(
65.74­
74.70)
93.65
(
85.60­
96.96)
149.07
(
142.73­
154.41)
45
or
older
1553
20.45
(
18.41­
22.49)
64.44
(
61.33­
69.27)
87.21
(
85.33­
100.19)
168.49
(
143.78­
174.55)
All
ages
5250
17.31
(
16.04­
18.59)
60.23
(
56.91­
62.99)
85.69
(
80.61­
93.32)
143.91
(
135.35­
154.15)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
2977
8.82
(
7.39­
10.24)
32.88
(
27.97­
37.11)
50.95
(
44.64­
53.86)
98.33
(
86.40­
113.96)
15
­
44
5042
16.74
(
15.54­
17.94)
57.88
(
56.00­
60.85)
84.59
(
79.91­
90.83)
138.21
(
122.84­
149.15)
45
or
older
3893
19.03
(
17.54­
20.52)
61.32
(
56.00­
65.74)
86.21
(
77.42­
94.70)
143.91
(
131.12­
171.37)
All
ages
11912
15.65
(
14.67­
16.63)
55.02
(
51.38­
56.00)
78.34
(
75.21­
80.56)
133.46
(
125.27­
140.21)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
16.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
Aged
18
Years
and
Older
by
Habitat
­
As
Consumed
Grams/
day
90%
Interval
Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
5.59
4.91
6.28
50th
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
%
17.80
14.89
20.63
95th
%
39.04
36.13
42.16
99th
%
86.30
81.99
96.67
Marine
Mean
12.42
11.55
13.29
50th
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
%
45.98
44.48
48.34
95th
%
64.08
61.61
68.05
99th
%
111.38
101.94
120.49
All
Fish
Mean
18.01
16.85
19.17
50th
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
%
60.64
57.06
64.63
95th
%
86.25
80.29
91.00
99th
%
142.96
134.23
154.15
Percentile
intervals
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Note:
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
8,478
individuals
of
age
18
and
older
to
the
U.
S.
population
of
177,807,000
individuals
of
age
18
and
older
using
3­
year
combined
survey
weights.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
42
August
1997
Table
10­
17.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
by
Age
and
Gender
­
As
Consumed
(
Freshwater
and
Estuarine)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
1431
67.12
(
46.16­
88.09)
57.30
(
0.00­
128.52)
460.16
(
218.56­
559.86)
1356.54
(
1295.24­
2118.93)
15
­
44
2891
66.22
(
55.35­
77.08)
174.96
(
115.11­
205.05)
451.04
(
421.65­
505.49)
1188.16
(
977.85­
1278.63)
45
or
older
2340
78.29
(
63.27­
93.30)
273.63
(
209.63­
300.11)
548.66
(
466.18­
633.87)
1251.00
(
1038.97­
1324.90)
All
ages
6662
70.32
(
60.09­
80.55)
177.91
(
132.69­
212.30)
497.30
(
442.20­
558.85)
1269.76
(
1093.19­
1328.24)

Males
14
or
under
1546
73.93
(
44.89­
102.96)
28.10
(
8.86­
231.33)
723.93
(
423.52­
785.58)
1290.10
(
1279.82­
1355.11)
15
­
44
2151
75.35
(
62.00­
88.70)
230.13
(
132.30­
309.85)
577.84
(
410.09­
706.31)
1132.23
(
1028.61­
1416.47)
45
or
older
1553
86.75
(
70.91­
102.58)
291.50
(
230.15­
364.24)
584.96
(
512.66­
630.77)
1231.60
(
1115.58­
1566.68)
All
ages
5250
78.36
(
69.10­
87.61)
231.57
(
186.27­
276.04)
589.22
(
549.64­
630.09)
1265.10
(
1133.18­
1355.11)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
2977
70.59
(
53.29­
87.89)
53.24
(
0.00­
118.48)
556.34
(
417.11­
683.80)
1347.67
(
1279.82­
1390.82)
15
­
44
5042
70.58
(
61.27­
79.89)
197.11
(
154.78­
229.29)
502.26
(
410.09­
604.29)
1167.57
(
1021.96­
1279.82)
45
or
older
3893
82.12
(
70.19­
94.05)
286.93
(
228.49­
332.88)
566.30
(
505.10­
625.21)
1251.55
(
1115.58­
1324.90)
All
ages
11912
74.16
(
65.74­
82.57)
204.00
(
177.97­
225.16)
547.64
(
505.10­
565.37)
1274.55
(
1197.29­
1324.90)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
18.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
by
Age
and
Gender
­
As
Consumed
(
Marine)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
1431
256.90
(
207.04­
306.76)
936.94
(
723.73­
1055.43)
1545.15
(
1260.24­
1760.26)
3060.22
(
2403.50­
4354.46)
15
­
44
2891
159.79
(
142.76­
176.82)
573.49
(
493.39­
663.16)
873.73
(
780.56­
929.55)
1700.21
(
1578.65­
1815.48)
45
or
older
2340
191.08
(
171.33­
210.83)
644.33
(
608.39­
725.83)
978.84
(
881.06­
1103.01)
1694.58
(
1488.32­
1791.84)
All
ages
6662
190.61
(
172.89­
208.33)
658.64
(
627.61­
700.33)
1024.76
(
958.94­
1096.14)
1979.45
(
1793.40­
2137.78)

Males
14
or
under
1546
230.25
(
188.33­
272.17)
846.57
(
734.83­
987.18)
1504.37
(
1320.60­
1749.26)
2885.08
(
2631.87­
3430.60)
15
­
44
2151
165.92
(
147.73­
184.12)
626.85
(
593.90­
680.90)
933.05
(
833.43­
982.30)
1472.98
(
1411.97­
1525.47)
45
or
older
1553
164.37
(
144.87­
183.87)
621.00
(
562.90­
691.03)
839.06
(
800.23­
946.97)
1422.94
(
1293.89­
1791.31)
All
ages
5250
181.08
(
163.00­
199.15)
670.19
(
622.62­
714.53)
981.87
(
934.45­
1071.54)
1923.63
(
1802.17­
1972.86)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
2977
243.31
(
202.43­
284.18)
873.87
(
741.53­
1093.69)
1522.52
(
1371.10­
1587.20)
3059.93
(
2732.63­
3430.60)
15
­
44
5042
162.72
(
148.13­
177.31)
602.58
(
564.88­
648.54)
893.82
(
856.58­
940.85)
1576.09
(
1503.11­
1697.71)
45
or
older
3893
178.99
(
164.13­
193.84)
628.06
(
555.84­
700.65)
914.67
(
825.21­
1040.75)
1568.85
(
1483.71­
1760.74)
All
ages
11912
186.06
(
170.81­
201.31)
663.00
(
627.39­
717.18)
991.96
(
960.40­
1044.69)
1942.17
(
1815.48­
2042.99)

Percentile
intervals
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
43
Table
10­
19.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
by
Age
and
Gender
­
As
Consumed
(
All
Fish)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
1431
324.02
(
264.25­
383.80)
1091.52
(
929.29­
1407.54)
1690.99
(
1513.97­
2072.35)
3982.60
(
3219.32­
4568.45)
15
­
44
2891
226.01
(
205.01­
247.01)
755.51
(
641.02­
879.29)
1126.02
(
975.49­
1269.56)
2195.86
(
1762.90­
2310.54)
45
or
older
2340
269.37
(
243.36­
295.38)
862.18
(
796.63­
955.82)
1296.64
(
1186.00­
1344.85)
2147.32
(
1791.84­
2354.25)
All
ages
6662
260.93
(
239.15­
282.72)
873.61
(
796.63­
911.89)
1323.29
(
1269.56­
1418.85)
2361.12
(
2272.41­
2598.14)

Males
14
or
under
1546
304.17
(
251.91­
356.43)
1172.17
1575.43
(
1496.19­
1943.82)
3393.84
(
2731.95­
3733.22)
15
­
44
2151
241.27
(
219.25­
263.29)
(
1085.62­
1320.60)
1208.43
(
1101.68­
1266.32)
1760.48
(
1611.45­
1851.26)
45
or
older
1553
251.12
(
225.48­
276.76)
867.70
(
814.06­
919.25)
1122.80
(
1041.28­
1266.18)
1922.33
(
1786.53­
2275.93)
All
ages
5250
259.43
(
239.81­
279.06)
797.83
(
762.30­
858.52)
1298.95
(
1224.82­
1366.86)
2346.64
(
1972.86­
2631.87)
894.96
(
842.29­
938.16)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
2977
313.90
(
268.42­
359.38)
1128.26
1679.91
(
1546.20­
1848.43)
3419.49
(
3184.04­
3733.22)
15
­
44
5042
233.30
(
216.16­
250.44)
(
1005.58­
1320.60)
1155.30
(
1102.57­
1212.19)
2003.46
(
1787.65­
2182.19)
45
or
older
3893
261.10
(
240.34­
281.87)
828.12
(
771.73­
868.89)
1249.97
(
1101.32­
1323.53)
1967.01
(
1796.52­
2257.50)
All
ages
11912
260.22
(
242.60­
277.83)
818.10
(
771.23­
882.53)
1308.54
(
1267.15­
1346.71)
2356.54
(
2224.54­
2556.68)
880.47
(
844.35­
918.79)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
20.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
Aged
18
Years
and
Older
by
Habitat
­
As
Consumed
90%
Interval
Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
75.56
66.37
84.75
50th
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
%
242.49
205.05
277.26
95th
%
547.61
493.47
587.37
99th
%
1,171.84
1,123.52
1,252.78
Marine
Mean
172.86
160.73
184.99
50th
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
%
624.83
598.84
670.34
95th
%
911.05
877.29
952.66
99th
%
1,573.20
1,468.43
1,713.17
All
Fish
Mean
248.42
232.19
264.64
50th
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
%
829.02
791.06
872.61
95th
%
1,197.36
1,133.18
1,264.74
99th
%
2,014.67
1,839.55
2,180.87
Percentile
intervals
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Note:
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
8,478
individuals
of
age
18
and
older
to
the
population
of
177,807,000
individuals
of
age
18
and
older
using
3­
year
combined
survey
weights.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
44
August
1997
Table
10­
21.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
Consumers
Only
by
Age
and
Gender
­
As
Consumed
(
Freshwater
and
Estuarine)

Age
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
Sample
Females
14
or
under
138
38.44
91.30
128.97
182.66
15
­
44
445
61.40
148.83
185.44
363.56
45
or
older
453
62.49
150.67
214.91
296.69
All
ages
1036
58.82
(
51.57­
66.06)
145.65
(
130.73­
152.24)
190.28
(
173.88­
219.03)
330.41
(
259.20­
526.69)

Males
14
or
under
157
52.44
112.05
154.44
230.74
15
­
44
356
81.56
224.01
275.02
371.53
45
or
older
343
82.23
192.31
255.68
449.09
All
ages
856
77.50
(
70.21­
84.80)
197.93
(
169.51­
224.85)
253.48
(
216.54­
290.00)
404.65
(
371.63­
421.60)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
295
45.73
108.36
136.24
214.62
15
­
44
801
71.44
180.67
230.95
371.52
45
or
older
796
71.81
174.54
231.38
427.73
All
ages
1892
68.00
(
61.92­
74.07)
170.84
(
158.74­
181.79)
224.78
(
212.91­
245.98)
374.74
(
336.50­
431.34)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Acute
Consumers
only
are
individuals
with
reported
fish
consumption
at
least
once
during
the
three
day
reporting
period.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
22.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
Consumers
Only
by
Age
and
Gender
­
As
Consumed
(
Marine)

Age
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
Sample
Females
14
or
under
315
69.04
114.23
162.37
336.59
15
­
44
774
76.53
149.78
178.74
271.06
45
or
older
715
85.24
167.11
218.35
264.8
All
ages
1804
78.47
(
74.43­
82.51)
155.38
(
147.00­
166.64)
195.15
(
179.12­
212.07)
279.79
(
263.48­
336.17)

Males
14
or
under
348
78.44
160.97
190.68
336.98
15
­
44
565
104.57
191.29
227.56
316.69
45
or
older
467
101.46
188.77
259.85
333.18
All
ages
1380
98.59
(
93.16­
104.03)
184.53
(
173.46­
194.13)
224.89
(
210.00­
250.28)
328.18
(
310.42­
348.49)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
663
73.62
153.2
176.9
337.24
15
­
44
1339
89.93
171.88
209.17
308.06
45
or
older
1182
92.19
178.33
223.82
314.44
All
ages
3184
87.77
(
83.74­
91.80)
169.39
(
167.00­
173.65)
209.50
(
198.11­
221.73)
320.41
(
292.80­
341.88)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Acute
Consumers
only
are
individuals
with
reported
fish
consumption
at
least
once
during
the
three
day
reporting
period.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
45
Table
10­
23.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
Consumers
Only
by
Age
and
Gender
­
As
Consumed
(
All
Fish)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
378
69.54
126.22
165.27
338.04
15
­
44
952
88.8
170.01
212.56
361.04
45
or
older
879
96.47
184.42
226.25
310.12
All
ages
2209
88.47
(
83.98­
92.97)
170.10
(
166.63­
173.88)
220.56
(
201.97­
236.00)
340.71
(
289.17­
368.51)

Males
14
or
under
429
79.72
161.62
190
308.59
15
­
44
702
124.78
230.77
296.66
397.7
45
or
older
587
119.44
224.82
262.43
434.28
All
ages
1718
114.18
(
108.79­
119.56)
219.96
(
209.17­
229.91)
272.49
(
254.99­
301.51)
411.68
(
371.43­
447.85)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
807
74.8
153.7
178.08
337.46
15
­
44
1654
106.06
203.33
271.66
372.77
45
or
older
1466
106.62
209.34
254.69
407.14
All
ages
3927
100.63
(
96.66­
104.60)
197.44
(
188.74­
205.12)
253.38
(
231.51­
264.45)
371.59
(
359.29­
401.61)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Acute
Consumers
only
are
individuals
with
reported
fish
consumption
at
least
once
during
the
three
day
reporting
period.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
24.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
Consumers
Only
Aged
18
Years
and
Older
by
Habitat
­
As
Consumed
90%
Interval
Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
70.91
64.16
77.65
n
=
1,541
50th
%
42.45
37.24
46.91
N
=
37,166,000
90th
%
176.58
165.08
193.26
95th
%
230.41
224.00
255.55
99th
%
402.56
358.58
518.41
Marine
Mean
91.49
87.35
95.64
n
=
2,432
50th
%
77.56
74.89
78.52
N
=
57,830,000
90th
%
172.29
168.00
182.00
95th
%
215.62
201.99
225.63
99th
%
313.05
292.80
324.81
All
Fish
Mean
106.39
102.37
110.41
n
=
3,007
50th
%
85.36
84.00
87.36
N
=
70,949,000
90th
%
206.76
197.84
213.00
95th
%
258.22
241.00
266.86
99th
%
399.26
336.50
423.56
Percentile
intervals
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Note:
Consumers
only
are
individuals
who
consumed
fish
at
least
once
during
the
3­
day
reporting
period;
n
=
sample
size;
N
=
population
size.
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
consumers
only
18
years
of
age
and
older
to
the
population
of
consumers
only
18
years
of
age
and
older
using
3­
year
combined
survey
weights.
The
population
for
this
survey
consisted
of
individuals
in
the
48
conterminous
states.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
46
August
1997
Table
10­
25.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
Consumers
Only
by
Age
and
Gender
­
As
Consumed
(
Freshwater
and
Estuarine)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
138
1639.20
3915.56
6271.09
10113.24
15
­
44
445
961.58
2578.81
3403.75
6167.24
45
or
older
453
927.85
2229.97
2894.18
4338.36
All
ages
1036
1037.29
(
905.50­
1169.09)
2582.5
(
2248.8­
2734.5)
3434.16
(
2927.72­
3979.82)
6923.5
(
4757.8­
9134.9)
0
0
0
0
0
Males
14
or
under
157
1798.24
3759.29
3952.99
7907.38
15
­
44
356
1004.96
2744.61
3348.86
4569.62
45
or
older
343
992.11
2448.54
3281.38
5716.41
All
ages
856
1117.74
2789.95
3399.26
(
3256.87­
3907.77)
5259.97
(
4834.34­
6593.97)
0
0
0
0
0
(
1011.55­
1223.94)
(
2526.87­
3132.65)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
295
1721.99
3760.67
4208.18
9789.49
15
­
44
801
983.19
2616.63
3360.85
5089.78
45
or
older
796
958.20
2394.21
3121.09
5157.95
All
ages
1892
1076.80
(
980.00­
1173.61)
2695.81
3399.46
(
3132.65­
3839.47)
6526.10
(
5270.61­
6931.61)
0
0
0
0
0
(
2546.77­
2819.33)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Consumers
only
are
individuals
with
reported
fish
consumption
at
least
once
during
the
three
day
reporting
period.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
26.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
Consumers
Only
by
Age
and
Gender
­
As
Consumed
(
Marine)

Age
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
Sample
Females
14
or
under
315
2591.57
5074.80
6504.67
9970.44
15
­
44
774
1227.41
2469.67
3007.98
4800.68
45
or
older
715
1293.99
2642.60
3565.34
4237.73
All
ages
1804
1486.90
(
1400.58­
1573.23)
2992.38
(
2841.13­
3303.96)
3961.24
(
3768.48­
4192.13)
6521.73
(
5792.54­
7794.41)

Males
14
or
under
348
2471.15
4852.33
5860.72
8495.57
15
­
44
565
1302.62
2390.20
2882.91
3887.23
45
or
older
467
1242.49
2251.43
2877.73
4016.80
All
ages
1380
1505.19
(
1411.84­
1598.55)
2899.23
(
2797.30­
3199.05)
3836.02
(
3563.32­
4581.61)
5859.85
(
5247.79­
7895.62)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
663
2532.95
5068.69
6376.47
8749.02
15
­
44
1339
1263.35
2464.80
2961.92
4251.47
45
or
older
1182
1271.92
2461.37
3383.46
4220.78
All
ages
3184
1495.37
(
1422.63­
1568.12)
2956.38
(
2838.46­
3083.70)
3887.52
(
3770.65­
4113.22)
6510.73
(
5772.57­
6852.01)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Consumers
only
are
individuals
with
reported
fish
consumption
at
least
once
during
the
three
day
reporting
period.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
47
Table
10­
27.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
Consumer
Only
by
Age
and
Gender
­
As
Consumed
(
All
Fish)

Age
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
Sample
Females
14
or
under
378
2683.51
5299.68
7160.73
12473.65
15
­
44
952
1414.54
2726.46
3740.83
6703.25
45
or
older
879
1449.43
2838.76
3736.61
4693.94
All
ages
2209
1637.08
(
1546.08­
1728.08)
3122.82
(
2992.63­
3308.93)
4312.16
(
3969.22­
4710.75)
7163.38
(
6852.67­
7794.41)

Males
14
or
under
429
2568.93
4714.97
5818.08
9350.89
15
­
44
702
1545.93
2854.49
3773.51
5254.04
45
or
older
587
1451.06
2841.35
3366.84
5091.31
All
ages
1718
1715.79
(
1636.68­
1794.90)
3399.26
(
3290.97­
3766.18)
4244.32
(
4015.03­
4581.61)
6818.35
(
5792.54­
7588.15)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
807
2624.35
5020.14
6904.83
10384.82
15
­
44
1654
1477.57
2798.37
3747.88
5386.43
45
or
older
1466
1450.15
2839.04
3515.81
4922.99
All
ages
3927
1674.31
(
1606.79­
1741.83)
3299.54
(
3133.69­
3462.35)
4258.69
(
4065.32­
4483.83)
7126.90
(
6644.11­
7794.41)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Consumers
only
are
individuals
with
reported
fish
consumption
at
least
once
during
the
three
day
reporting
period.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
28.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
Consumers
Only
Aged
18
Years
and
Older
by
Habitat
­
As
Consumed
Milligrams/
kilogram/
person/
day
90%
Interval
Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
959.15
867.58
1,050.72
n
=
1,541
50th
%
601.88
532.31
656.86
N
=
37,166,000
90th
%
2,442.97
2,233.16
2,606.66
95th
%
3,116.28
2,839.90
3,303.96
99th
%
5,151.98
4,432.30
6,931.61
Marine
Mean
1,270.78
1,214.65
1,326.90
n
=
2,432
50th
%
1,062.93
1,019.60
1,087.06
N
=
57,830,000
90th
%
2,467.68
2,331.88
2,585.09
95th
%
3,116.74
2,906.16
3,264.98
99th
%
4,250.22
4,037.74
4,387.96
All
Fish
Mean
1,461.71
1,406.34
1,517.09
n
=
3,007
50th
%
1,189.29
1,156.77
1,225.43
N
=
70,949,000
90th
%
2,802.28
2,685.81
2,868.73
95th
%
3,588.11
3,308.93
3,798.54
99th
%
5,355.90
5,095.58
5,766.99
Percentile
intervals
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Note:
Consumers
only
are
individuals
who
consumed
fish
at
least
once
during
the
3­
day
reporting
period;
n
=
sample
size;
N
=
population
size
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
consumers
only
18
years
of
age
and
older
to
the
population
of
consumers
only
18
years
of
age
and
older
using
3­
year
combined
survey
weights.
The
population
for
this
survey
consisted
of
individuals
in
the
48
conterminous
states.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
48
August
1997
Table
10­
29.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
by
Age
and
Gender
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
(
Freshwater
and
Estuarine)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
1431
1.99
(
1.34­
2.64)
1.81
(
0.00­
4.63)
15.88
(
7.89­
18.38)
46.82
(
36.72­
54.55)
15
­
44
2891
5.50
(
4.53­
6.48)
13.62
(
9.99­
18.11)
36.68
(
32.53­
40.31)
94.93
(
75.74­
114.34)
45
or
older
2340
6.65
(
5.30­
8.00)
24.18
(
18.11­
27.41)
46.91
(
37.94­
52.92)
108.90
(
92.06­
123.72)
All
ages
6662
5.13
(
4.37­
5.88)
13.31
(
10.48­
16.67)
35.63
(
28.92­
40.07)
94.61
(
77.70­
109.09)

Males
14
or
under
1546
2.69
(
1.62­
3.76)
1.07
(
0.33­
8.67)
18.47
(
14.39­
25.91)
57.07
(
47.32­
65.37)
15
­
44
2151
7.87
(
6.46­
9.29)
22.10
(
13.43­
31.80)
63.26
(
50.62­
70.12)
126.61
(
108.54­
162.80)
45
or
older
1553
8.87
(
7.32­
10.43)
28.74
(
24.23­
33.07)
61.15
(
52.57­
71.59)
125.90
(
112.28­
147.62)
All
ages
5250
6.91
(
6.07­
7.75)
19.00
(
14.99­
23.69)
51.43
(
47.32­
54.82)
112.11
(
108.54­
127.19)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
2977
2.35
(
1.70­
3.00)
1.72
(
0.00­
5.00)
17.46
(
12.78­
18.68)
50.14
(
43.58­
55.00)
15
­
44
5042
6.64
(
5.71­
7.56)
18.30
(
14.99­
21.14)
47.31
(
36.22­
59.65)
109.66
(
94.43­
127.19)
45
or
older
3893
7.66
(
6.50­
8.81)
26.11
(
21.95­
28.85)
52.92
(
45.73­
61.51)
113.10
(
107.18­
133.74)
All
ages
11912
5.98(
5.29­
6.67)
15.89(
14.39­
17.76)
40.03(
37.94­
44.75)
107.63(
98.25­
109.09)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
30.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
by
Age
and
Gender
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
(
Marine)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
1431
8.61
(
6.67­
10.56)
31.23
(
26.85­
37.29)
49.75
(
41.46­
57.49)
104.26
(
83.35­
140.07)
15
­
44
2891
12.84
(
11.51­
14.18)
46.66
(
38.35­
54.30)
72.16
(
63.12­
77.18)
133.69
(
121.33­
142.82)
45
or
older
2340
16.26
(
14.68­
17.84)
56.01
(
50.00­
61.97)
84.71
(
75.05­
93.29)
131.43
(
112.07­
156.01)
All
ages
6662
13.05
(
11.97­
14.12)
46.70
(
44.49­
49.72)
72.22
(
65.55­
75.47)
130.73
(
121.33­
137.18)

Males
14
or
under
1546
9.40
(
7.36­
11.45)
31.32
(
25.20­
44.12)
65.37
(
54.60­
73.39)
118.42
(
82.34­
176.52)
15
­
44
2151
17.11
(
15.31­
18.90)
66.06
(
62.21­
73.20)
93.32
(
81.26­
106.67)
155.16
(
136.77­
181.18)
45
or
older
1553
17.22
(
15.19­
19.25)
62.64
(
59.39­
68.44)
84.96
(
79.93­
99.44)
146.78
(
142.58­
185.44)
All
ages
5250
15.27
(
13.86­
16.68)
61.12
(
56.59­
63.09)
81.89
(
77.91­
87.16)
147.09
(
134.55­
174.31)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
2977
9.02
(
7.28­
10.75)
31.52
(
30.19­
35.75)
56.35
(
50.22­
62.25)
117.75
(
91.82­
140.07)
15
­
44
5042
14.88
(
13.57­
16.19)
55.99
(
53.04­
61.33)
80.70
(
75.19­
87.16)
138.23
(
128.40­
157.23)
45
or
older
3893
16.69
(
15.34­
18.04)
59.12
(
52.84­
64.53)
84.92
(
76.67­
93.32)
142.92
(
134.55­
155.13)
All
ages
11912
14.11(
13.07­
15.14)
52.10(
47.83­
55.93)
76.51(
74.58­
80.89)
138.22(
132.98­
155.13)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
49
Table
10­
31.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
by
Age
and
Gender
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
(
All
Fish)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
1431
10.60
(
8.40­
12.81)
41.10
(
35.80­
47.57)
56.16
(
49.78­
65.55)
130.78
(
83.35­
160.66)
15
­
44
2891
18.35
(
16.67­
20.02)
62.21
(
54.47­
73.56)
93.13
(
82.29­
108.03)
155.75
(
137.18­
174.31)
45
or
older
2340
22.91
(
20.78­
25.04)
74.56
(
65.37­
79.67)
107.66
(
97.64­
111.71)
159.97
(
157.17­
173.74)
All
ages
6662
18.17
(
16.82­
19.53)
61.08
(
56.94­
63.12)
92.03
(
86.94­
96.11)
157.08
(
147.34­
168.83)

Males
14
or
under
1546
12.09
(
9.70­
14.49)
45.59
(
34.69­
53.11)
68.18
(
64.28­
79.90)
127.20
(
87.29­
176.52)
15
­
44
2151
24.98
(
22.79­
27.17)
87.15
(
80.89­
94.63)
122.29
(
111.05­
124.83)
197.15
(
179.86­
198.87)
45
or
older
1553
26.09
(
23.52­
28.67)
81.76
(
76.67­
88.03)
112.33
(
109.65­
130.36)
211.20
(
190.74­
223.72)
All
ages
5250
22.18
(
20.52­
23.83)
76.13
(
74.22­
79.92)
110.88
(
108.54­
118.56)
180.90
(
174.39­
198.87)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
2977
11.36
(
9.49­
13.24)
43.00
(
34.69­
47.32)
65.34
(
56.28­
68.51)
130.41
(
107.12­
160.66)
15
­
44
5042
21.51
(
19.97­
23.06)
75.15
(
73.56­
79.71)
109.57
(
106.72­
117.47)
175.73
(
162.80­
198.63)
45
or
older
3893
24.35
(
22.46­
26.24)
77.57
(
72.07­
84.02)
110.13
(
100.42­
119.87)
180.74
(
164.76­
210.75)
All
ages
11912
20.08(
18.82­
21.35)
70.11
(
65.37­
74.20)
102.01
(
99.26­
106.67)
173.18
(
162.80­
176.52)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
32.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
Aged
18
Years
and
Older
by
Habitat
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
90%
Interval
Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
7.09
6.22
7.96
50th
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
%
21.72
18.52
25.82
95th
%
49.89
47.32
54.67
99th
%
111.13
107.18
116.38
Marine
Mean
16.01
14.89
17.12
50th
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
%
59.35
56.59
61.49
95th
%
82.95
80.37
88.36
99th
%
142.78
131.02
156.89
All
Fish
Mean
23.10
21.62
24.58
50th
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
%
76.84
74.37
80.13
95th
%
110.28
106.67
115.32
99th
%
177.44
171.73
198.63
Percentile
intervals
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
NOTE:
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
8,478
individuals
of
age
18
and
older
to
the
U.
S.
population
of
177,807,000
individuals
of
age
18
and
older
using
3­
year
combined
survey
weights.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
50
August
1997
Table
10­
33.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
by
Age
and
Gender
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
(
Freshwater
and
Estuarine)

Age
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
Sample
Size
Females
14
or
under
1431
84.78
(
58.06­
111.50)
70.75
(
0.00­
143.13)
599.06
(
266.71­
722.58)
1713.06
(
1511.78­
2313.50)
15
­
44
2891
85.15
(
70.68­
99.62)
202.83
(
153.48­
259.97)
584.79
(
538.05­
631.86)
1411.42
(
1236.72­
1659.15)
45
or
older
2340
98.97
(
79.89­
118.04)
333.38
(
269.96­
379.98)
733.74
(
606.36­
820.68)
1561.40
(
1331.46­
1667.88)
All
ages
6662
89.54
(
76.51­
102.58)
225.51
(
176.38­
280.11)
625.30
(
552.99­
713.85)
1558.08
(
1394.99­
1659.15)

Males
14
or
under
1546
91.62
(
55.18­
128.05)
38.98
(
12.26­
281.50)
868.97
(
485.33­
1063.50)
1642.60
(
1599.78­
1693.88)
15
­
44
2151
96.91
(
78.91­
114.90)
281.17
(
165.37­
387.46)
740.91
(
546.79­
850.52)
1589.97
(
1353.43­
1992.23)
45
or
older
1553
107.87
(
88.47­
127.28)
361.99
(
304.96­
455.29)
702.35
(
628.25­
810.62)
1612.49
(
1344.07­
1848.39)
All
ages
5250
98.86
(
87.19­
110.52)
292.58
(
217.42­
342.11)
755.53
(
677.47­
790.85)
1596.61
(
1538.89­
1711.41)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
2977
88.26
(
66.69­
109.83)
66.00
(
0.00­
143.13)
717.37
(
485.60­
880.64)
1688.55
(
1511.78­
1824.44)
15
­
44
5042
90.77
(
78.37­
103.16)
250.26
(
194.04­
289.19)
631.31
(
538.05­
773.91)
1529.94
(
1352.50­
1659.15)
45
or
older
3893
103.00
(
87.86­
118.15)
345.69
(
291.80­
423.39)
719.81
(
637.94­
790.85)
1590.13
(
1373.97­
1668.93)
All
ages
11912
93.99
(
83.41­
104.57)
251.82
(
222.54­
282.58)
677.66
(
631.86­
729.11)
1593.28
(
1511.78­
1659.15)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
34.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
by
Age
and
Gender
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
(
Marine)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
1431
333.99
(
267.25­
400.72)
1132.99
(
864.83­
1407.24)
1959.91
(
1780.61­
2347.02)
3776.60
(
3173.86­
5736.90)
15
­
44
2891
206.03
(
183.95­
228.11)
762.54
(
617.86­
857.55)
1137.58
(
1036.38­
1211.86)
2174.21
(
2014.41­
2393.16)
45
or
older
2340
246.73
(
221.45­
272.00)
829.52
(
777.87­
944.26)
1236.00
(
1174.14­
1413.34)
2161.65
(
1952.51­
2303.80)
All
ages
6662
246.47
(
223.28­
269.66)
847.60
(
811.19­
893.29)
1305.49
(
1215.53­
1385.66)
2615.85
(
2365.65­
2857.62)

Males
14
or
under
1546
296.99
(
241.85­
352.13)
1089.46
(
1003.46­
1256.97)
1907.65
(
1685.30­
2186.58)
3723.81
(
3274.93­
4574.13)
15
­
44
2151
212.88
(
190.31­
235.44)
800.79
(
741.29­
859.61)
1191.75
(
1096.61­
1245.94)
1890.42
(
1685.30­
1969.63)
45
or
older
1553
212.15
(
187.25­
237.04)
792.86
(
747.56­
890.31)
1100.20
(
1039.02­
1210.66)
1842.38
(
1749.67­
2219.32)
All
ages
5250
233.07
(
209.65­
256.49)
859.01
(
798.27­
907.76)
1255.35
(
1204.46­
1382.05)
2520.94
(
2263.58­
2733.15)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
2977
315.12
(
260.95­
369.29)
1123.28
(
993.12­
1371.24)
1909.37
(
1785.09­
2062.64)
3820.21
(
3370.59­
4574.13)
15
­
44
5042
209.30
(
190.68­
227.92)
780.16
(
722.86­
843.41)
1174.69
(
1104.42­
1215.53)
2019.59
(
1918.45­
2237.22)
45
or
older
3893
231.06
(
212.18­
249.95)
813.12
(
747.56­
907.76)
1193.22
(
1076.85­
1333.72)
2029.16
(
1863.17­
2219.32)
All
ages
11912
240.07
(
220.14­
260.01)
855.63
(
809.67­
909.76)
1271.54
(
1227.16­
1371.24)
2575.29
(
2393.16­
2708.59)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
51
Table
10­
35.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
by
Age
and
Gender
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
(
All
Fish)

Age
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
Sample
Females
14
or
under
1431
418.76
(
339.58­
497.95)
1389.10
(
1150.77­
1785.09)
2341.90
(
2062.64­
2860.52)
4985.96
(
3971.54­
5736.90)
15
­
44
2891
291.18
(
263.86­
318.50)
993.92
(
854.63­
1127.32)
1436.00
(
1234.66­
1631.25)
2726.50
(
2406.11­
3044.81)
45
or
older
2340
345.69
(
312.49­
378.90)
1122.26
(
1050.15­
1230.68)
1669.72
(
1556.83­
1784.37)
2684.71
(
2303.80­
3064.38)
All
ages
6662
336.01
(
307.83­
364.20)
1120.91
(
1054.05­
1172.38)
1720.84
(
1642.63­
1855.69)
3093.76
(
2973.66­
3265.54)

Males
14
or
under
1546
388.61
(
320.66­
456.56)
1476.31
(
1371.24­
1632.55)
2038.58
(
1909.00­
2631.42)
4294.12
(
3556.31­
4574.13)
15
­
44
2151
309.78
(
281.55­
338.02)
1096.57
(
1044.57­
1194.06)
1566.39
(
1410.20­
1609.35)
2275.15
(
2047.18­
2465.77)
45
or
older
1553
320.02
(
287.79­
352.25)
1013.05
(
955.37­
1096.43)
1459.73
(
1340.97­
1601.79)
2392.05
(
2233.16­
2806.51)
All
ages
5250
331.93
(
306.46­
357.40)
1126.66
(
1081.06­
1225.66)
1621.80
(
1599.78­
1696.20)
3031.31
(
2806.51­
3274.93)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
2977
403.38
(
343.65­
463.12)
1442.72
(
1279.82­
1672.75)
2191.90
(
2021.16­
2536.75)
4425.27
(
4000.27­
4669.59)
15
­
44
5042
300.06
(
277.94­
322.19)
1040.98
(
1003.55­
1097.08)
1514.82
(
1421.34­
1572.40)
2481.23
(
2383.54­
2773.15)
45
or
older
3893
334.07
(
307.87­
360.26)
1069.14
(
978.95­
1140.98)
1579.43
(
1373.97­
1696.20)
2653.45
(
2292.45­
2806.51)
All
ages
11912
334.06
(
311.25­
356.88)
1123.14
(
1090.76­
1178.95)
1684.23
(
1620.48­
1718.51)
3092.77
(
2973.66­
3250.20)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
36.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
the
U.
S.
Population
Aged
18
Years
and
Older
by
Habitat
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
90%
Interval
Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
95.99
84.30
107.69
50th
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
%
306.74
259.97
334.58
95th
%
677.39
626.01
734.34
99th
%
1,547.81
1,411.56
1,599.78
Marine
Mean
222.86
207.34
238.37
50th
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
%
810.43
778.50
859.61
95th
%
1,190.45
1,145.61
1,219.60
99th
%
2,033.92
1,870.09
2,263.58
All
Fish
Mean
318.85
298.20
339.49
50th
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
%
1,061.14
1,016.87
1,105.01
95th
%
1,548.77
1,464.72
1,609.14
99th
%
2,559.07
2,444.24
2,764.50
Percentile
intervals
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
NOTE:
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
8,478
individuals
of
age
18
and
older
to
the
population
of
177,807,000
individuals
of
age
18
and
older
using
3­
year
combined
survey
weights.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
52
August
1997
Table
10­
37.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
Consumers
Only
by
Age
and
Gender
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
(
Freshwater
and
Estuarine)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
138
48.3
117.27
161.44
230.63
15
­
44
445
78.56
191.95
242.76
472.21
45
or
older
453
78.77
192.32
258.56
368.84
All
ages
1036
74.67
(
65.46­
83.88)
181.08
(
171.19­
197.59)
239.59
(
220.69­
284.70)
409.00
(
345.96­
671.54)

Males
14
or
under
157
64.91
141.35
193.79
287.28
15
­
44
356
104.86
269.96
343.66
494.38
45
or
older
343
102.56
234.28
326.96
539.77
All
ages
856
98.12
(
88.60­
107.64)
246.93
(
212.93­
283.90)
324.53
(
283.28­
381.58)
499.19
(
488.41­
532.32)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
295
56.95
134.89
166.32
262.87
15
­
44
801
91.66
237.27
322.06
494.64
45
or
older
796
90
220.76
295.41
523.94
All
ages
1892
86.19
(
78.41­
93.97)
217.92
(
205.28­
237.27)
290.04
(
267.10­
325.61)
489.29
(
424.87­
534.20)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Consumers
only
are
individuals
reported
fish
consumption
at
least
once
during
the
three
day
reporting
period.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
38.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
Consumers
Only
by
Age
and
Gender
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
(
Marine)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
315
89.92
169.23
198.62
432.51
15
­
44
774
98.53
194.59
231.22
317.42
45
or
older
715
110
214.73
279.67
345.37
All
ages
1804
101.30
(
95.90­
106.69)
195.37
(
186.67­
213.33)
252.43
(
231.53­
278.16)
372.17
(
314.67­
428.00)

Males
14
or
under
348
101.5
205.49
242.28
408.68
15
­
44
565
133.86
244.46
297.67
393.14
45
or
older
467
131.2
243.33
327.14
428.72
All
ages
1380
126.85
(
119.75­
133.94)
238.64
(
225.57­
247.01)
296.68
(
279.95­
316.81)
425.98
(
403.66­
481.95)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
663
95.56
189.32
231.72
442.87
15
­
44
1339
115.41
223.99
263.76
383.16
45
or
older
1182
119.08
226.55
288.16
418.23
All
ages
3184
113.11
(
107.79­
118.43)
222.67
(
216.50­
225.56)
271.70
(
260.62­
279.95)
415.88
(
367.26­
440.45)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Consumers
only
are
individuals
with
reported
fish
consumption
at
least
once
during
the
three
day
reporting
period.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
53
Table
10­
39.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
Consumers
Only
by
Age
and
Gender
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
(
All
Fish)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
378
89.73
163.47
204.14
476.56
15
­
44
952
114.04
220.63
277.69
461.54
45
or
older
879
123.61
236.3
298.66
397.43
All
ages
2209
113.58
(
107.69­
119.47)
220.44
(
206.27­
226.80)
287.08
(
257.09­
312.42)
448.57
(
393.68­
531.63)

Males
14
or
under
429
102.01
205.25
244.46
386.47
15
­
44
702
160.06
305.61
379.38
495.51
45
or
older
587
152.52
292.95
350.26
555.11
All
ages
1718
146.18
(
138.99­
153.38)
283.46
(
261.72­
297.95)
350.99
(
328.70­
382.33)
520.51
(
488.41­
591.47)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
807
96.07
195.35
232.85
466.09
15
­
44
1654
136.12
262.15
343.86
488.9
45
or
older
1466
136.38
263.95
326.94
510.25
All
ages
3927
129.00
(
123.74­
134.27)
249.09
(
240.99­
264.10)
326.00
(
306.02­
335.58)
497.54
(
469.23­
519.67)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Consumers
only
are
individuals
reported
fish
consumption
at
least
once
during
the
three
day
reporting
period.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
40.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
g/
day)
for
Consumers
Only
Aged
18
Years
and
Older
by
Habitat
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
90%
Interval
Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
89.88
81.41
98.35
n
=
1,541
50th
%
53.64
46.44
57.81
N
=
37,166,000
90th
%
223.11
206.58
237.27
95th
%
296.89
283.90
325.61
99th
%
502.93
448.23
654.55
Marine
Mean
117.83
112.47
123.20
n
=
2,432
50th
%
98.79
95.69
100.76
N
=
57,830,000
90th
%
225.51
222.67
234.00
95th
%
279.50
261.47
289.44
99th
%
403.48
369.10
427.73
All
Fish
Mean
136.33
131.11
141.55
n
=
3,007
50th
%
111.50
108.53
112.00
N
=
70,949,000
90th
%
262.03
253.24
272.71
95th
%
328.66
323.61
340.52
99th
%
506.02
435.44
531.63
Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Note:
Consumers
only
are
individuals
who
consumed
fish
at
least
once
during
the
3­
day
reporting
period;
n
=
sample
size;
and
N
=
population
size.
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
consumers
only
18
years
of
age
and
older
to
the
population
of
consumers
only
18
years
of
age
and
older
using
3­
year
combined
survey
weights.
The
population
for
this
survey
consisted
of
individuals
in
the
48
conterminous
states.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
54
August
1997
Table
10­
41.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
Consumers
Only
by
Age
and
Gender
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
(
Freshwater
and
Estuarine)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
138
2070.41
4450.54
6915.31
13269.61
15
­
44
445
1229.97
3045.41
4191.25
7711.43
45
or
older
453
1171.17
2886.48
3519.87
5577.34
All
ages
1036
1317.18
3250.31
4240.89
(
3710.16­
5025.02)
8912.52
(
6385.55­
11533.98)
(
1150.10­
1484.26)
(
2988.81­
3491.38)

Males
14
or
under
157
2229.31
4638.34
5071.41
9622.15
15
­
44
356
1294.27
3318.89
4275.83
5974.96
45
or
older
343
1235.55
2898.00
4097.24
7217.68
All
ages
856
1411.35
3579.06
4615.66
(
4121.91­
5081.65)
6594.61
(
5980.19­
7944.55)
(
1278.61­
1544.08)
(
3225.84­
4060.30)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
295
2153.11
4634.82
5756.93
12388.27
15
­
44
801
1261.99
3276.06
4246.63
6625.15
45
or
older
796
1201.57
2892.52
3981.84
6378.11
All
ages
1892
1363.44
3325.14
4408.18
(
4085.55­
4781.34)
7957.50
(
6979.20­
8920.99)
(
1242.24­
1484.65)
(
3232.58­
3676.99)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Consumers
only
are
individuals
with
reported
fish
consumption
at
least
once
during
the
three
day
reporting
period.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
42.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
Consumers
Only
by
Age
and
Gender
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
(
Marine)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
315
3359.10
6058.97
8573.62
13050.09
15
­
44
774
1582.77
3129.41
3854.14
5961.80
45
or
older
715
1669.73
3429.24
4397.07
5476.02
All
ages
1804
1920.77
3793.20
5083.63
8576.60
(
7527.83­
9743.01)
0
0
0
0
0
(
1804.28­
2037.26)
(
3618.55­
4328.00)
(
4953.40­
5552.65)

Males
14
or
under
348
3180.45
6434.20
8089.26
10764.01
15
­
44
565
1666.42
3102.24
3651.10
4998.14
45
or
older
467
1604.71
2931.17
3725.63
5373.82
All
ages
1380
1934.12
3736.16
4884.60
8066.96
(
6852.67­
9869.52)
0
0
0
0
0
(
1812.97­
2055.28)
(
3548.08­
4072.42)
(
4454.15­
5710.83)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
663
3272.13
6278.74
8424.77
11838.54
15
­
44
1339
1622.75
3120.60
3682.17
5517.95
45
or
older
1182
1641.87
3320.87
4328.34
5406.76
All
ages
3184
1926.95
3752.89
5018.74
8448.28
(
7215.72­
9136.89)
0
0
0
0
0
(
1829.50­
2024.39)
(
3631.98­
4001.16)
(
4852.08­
5267.31)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Consumers
only
are
individuals
with
reported
fish
consumption
at
least
once
during
the
three
day
reporting
period.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
55
Table
10­
43.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
Consumer
Only
by
Age
and
Gender
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
(
All
Fish)

Age
Sample
Size
Mean
(
90%
C.
I.)
90th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
95th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)
99th
%
(
90%
B.
I.)

Females
14
or
under
378
3448.73
7100.43
9012.18
15381.13
15
­
44
952
1818.32
3506.20
4661.96
8789.33
45
or
older
879
1857.64
3520.90
4740.11
6561.13
All
ages
2209
2102.20
4092.51
5545.07
9630.23
(
8166.44­
9796.61)
(
1982.89­
2221.51)
(
3842.15­
4282.08)
(
5080.72­
6007.28)

Males
14
or
under
429
3273.63
5734.46
7570.83
11891.85
15
­
44
702
1983.16
3720.05
4769.44
6121.56
45
or
older
587
1850.69
3534.61
4311.83
6374.34
All
ages
1718
2193.24
4385.06
5351.38
8596.82
(
7816.70­
10199.24)
(
2089.20­
2297.28)
(
4121.91­
4776.34)
(
5055.10­
5727.01)

Both
Sexes
14
or
under
807
3358.33
6333.46
8611.73
12406.35
15
­
44
1654
1897.40
3674.88
4709.78
7276.18
45
or
older
1466
1854.57
3522.43
4615.22
6440.17
All
ages
3927
2145.26
4223.91
5477.86
9171.52
(
8605.35­
9796.61)
(
2055.92­
2234.61)
(
4085.76­
4454.15)
(
5163.33­
5686.04)

Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Consumers
only
are
individuals
with
reported
fish
consumption
at
least
once
during
the
three
day
reporting
period.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.

Table
10­
44.
Per
Capita
Distribution
of
Fish
(
Finfish
and
Shellfish)
Intake
(
mg/
kg­
day)
for
Consumers
Only
Aged
18
Years
and
Older
by
Habitat
­
Uncooked
Fish
Weight
90%
Interval
Habitat
Statistic
Estimate
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Fresh/
Estuarine
Mean
1,216.82
1,101.74
1,331.90
n
=
1,541
50th
%
740.93
639.11
822.65
N
=
37,166,000
90th
%
3,050.95
2,931.26
3,270.80
95th
%
4,025.44
3,639.76
4,121.91
99th
%
6,638.62
6,007.28
8,920.99
Marine
Mean
1,637.10
1,564.27
1,709.92
n
=
2,432
50th
%
1,370.42
1,302.29
1,422.69
N
=
57,830,000
90th
%
3,169.02
3,006.55
3,328.98
95th
%
3,926.74
3,632.70
4,156.98
99th
%
5,452.75
5,353.12
5,596.31
All
Fish
Mean
1,873.84
1,801.93
1,945.75
n
=
3,007
50th
%
1,515.91
1,477.99
1,570.40
N
=
70,949,000
90th
%
3,599.04
3,443.64
3,676.99
95th
%
4,665.15
4,264.03
4,812.97
99th
%
7,022.47
6,459.64
7,294.80
Percentile
intervals
(
B.
I.)
were
estimated
using
the
percentile
bootstrap
method
with
1,000
bootstrap
replications.
Note:
Consumers
only
are
individuals
who
consumed
fish
at
least
once
during
the
3­
day
reporting
period;
n
=
sample
size;
and
N
=
population
size.
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
consumers
only
18
years
of
age
and
older
to
the
population
of
consumers
only
18
years
of
age
and
older
using
3­
year
combined
survey
weights.
The
population
for
this
survey
consisted
of
individuals
in
the
48
conterminous
states.
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
56
August
1997
Table
10­
45.
Distribution
of
Quantity
of
Fish
Consumed
(
in
grams)
Per
Eating
Occasion,
by
Age
and
Sex
Percentiles
Age
(
years)­
Sex
Group
Mean
SD
5th
25th
50th
75th
90th
95th
99th
1­
2
Male­
Female
52
38
8
28
43
58
112
125
168
3­
5
Male­
Female
70
51
12
36
57
85
113
170
240
6­
8
Male­
Female
81
58
19
40
72
112
160
170
288
9­
14
Male
101
78
28
56
84
113
170
255
425
9­
14
Female
86
62
19
45
79
112
168
206
288
15­
18
Male
117
115
20
57
85
142
200
252
454
15­
18
Female
111
102
24
56
85
130
225
270
568
19­
34
Male
149
125
28
64
113
196
284
362
643
19­
34
Female
104
74
20
57
85
135
184
227
394
35­
64
Male
147
116
28
80
113
180
258
360
577
35­
64
Female
119
98
20
57
85
152
227
280
480
65­
74
Male
145
109
35
75
113
180
270
392
480
65­
74
Female
123
87
24
61
103
168
227
304
448
75+
Male
124
68
36
80
106
170
227
227
336
75+
Female
112
69
20
61
112
151
196
225
360
Overall
117
98
20
57
85
152
227
284
456
Source:
Pao
et
al.,
1982.

Table
10­
46.
Mean
Fish
Intake
in
a
Day,
by
Sex
and
Agea
Sex
Per
capita
intake
Percent
of
population
consuming
Mean
intake
(
g/
day)
for
consumers
Age
(
year)
(
g/
day)
fish
in
1
day
onlyb
Males
or
Females
4
6.0
67
5
and
under
Males
3
3.7
79
6­
11
3
2.2
136
12­
19
15
10.9
138
20
and
over
Females
7
7.1
99
6­
11
9
9.0
100
12­
19
12
10.9
110
20
and
over
All
individuals
11
9.4
117
Based
on
USDA
Nationwide
Food
Consumption
Survey
1987­
88
data
for
one
day.
a
Intake
for
users
only
was
calculated
by
dividing
the
per
capita
consumption
rate
by
the
fraction
of
the
population
consuming
fish
in
one
day.
b
Source:
USDA,
1992b.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
57
Table
10­
47.
Percent
of
Respondents
That
Responded
Yes,
No,
or
Don't
Know
to
Eating
Seafood
in
1
Month
(
including
shellfish,
eels,
or
squid)

Response
Population
Group
Total
N
No
Yes
DK
N
%
N
%
N
%

Overall
4663
1811
38.8
2780
59.6
72
1.5
Gender
*
2
1
50.0
1
50.0
*
*
Male
2163
821
38.0
1311
60.6
31
1.4
Female
2498
989
39.6
1468
58.8
41
1.6
Age
(
years)
*
84
25
29.8
42
50.0
17
20.2
1­
4
263
160
60.8
102
38.8
1
0.4
5­
11
348
177
50.9
166
47.7
5
1.4
12­
17
326
179
54.9
137
42.0
10
3.1
18­
64
2972
997
33.5
1946
65.5
29
1.0
>
64
670
273
40.7
387
57.8
10
1.5
Race
*
60
20
33.3
22
36.7
18
30.0
White
3774
1475
39.1
2249
59.6
50
1.3
Black
463
156
33.7
304
65.7
3
0.6
Asian
77
21
27.3
56
72.7
*
*
Some
Others
96
39
40.6
56
58.3
1
1.0
Hispanic
193
100
51.8
93
48.2
*
*

Hispanic
*
46
10
21.7
412
43.0
28
41.3
No
4243
1625
31.2
1366
67.7
21
1.2
Yes
348
165
35.4
236
62.3
9
*
DK
26
11
40.4
766
58.5
14
*

Employment
*
958
518
54.1
412
43.0
28
2.9
Full
Time
2017
630
31.2
1366
67.7
21
1.0
Part
Time
379
134
35.4
236
62.3
9
2.4
Not
Employed
1309
529
40.4
766
58.5
14
1.1
Education
*
1021
550
53.9
434
42.5
37
3.6
<
High
School
399
196
49.1
198
49.6
45
1.3
High
School
Graduate
1253
501
40.0
739
59.0
13
1.0
<
College
895
304
34.0
584
65.3
7
0.8
College
Graduate
650
159
24.5
484
74.5
7
1.1
Post
Graduate
445
101
22.7
341
76.6
3
0.7
Census
Region
Northeast
1048
370
35.3
655
62.5
23
2.2
Midwest
1036
449
43.3
575
55.5
12
1.2
South
1601
590
36.9
989
61.8
22
1.4
West
978
402
41.1
561
57.4
15
1.5
Day
of
Week
Weekday
3156
1254
39.7
1848
58.6
54
1.7
Weekend
1507
557
37.0
932
61.8
18
1.2
Season
Winter
1264
462
36.6
780
61.7
22
1.7
Spring
1181
469
39.7
691
58.5
21
1.8
Summer
1275
506
39.7
745
58.4
24
1.9
Fall
943
374
39.7
564
59.8
5
0.5
Asthma
No
4287
1674
39.0
2563
59.8
50
1.2
Yes
341
131
38.4
207
60.7
3
0.9
DK
35
6
17.7
10
28.6
19
54.3
Angina
No
4500
1750
38.9
2698
60.0
52
1.2
Yes
125
56
44.8
68
54.4
1
0.8
DK
38
50
13.2
14
36.8
19
50.0
Bronchitis/
Emphysema
No
4424
1726
9.0
2648
59.6
50
1.1
Yes
203
80
39.4
121
59.6
2
1.0
DK
36
5
13.9
11
30.6
20
55.6
Note:
*
=
Missing
data;
DK
=
Don't
know;
%
=
Row
percentage;
N
=
Sample
size
Source:
Tsang
and
Klepeis,
1996.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
58
August
1997
Table
10­
48.
Number
of
Respondents
Reporting
Consumption
of
a
Specified
Number
of
Servings
of
Seafood
in
1
Month
Population
Group
Total
N
Number
of
Servings
in
a
Month
1­
2
3­
5
6­
10
11­
19
20+
DK
Overall
2780
918
990
519
191
98
64
Gender
*
1311
405
458
261
101
57
29
Male
1468
512
532
258
90
41
35
Female
1
1
*
*
*
*
*

Age
(
years)
*
42
13
16
5
4
1
3
1­
4
102
55
29
12
2
*
4
5­
11
166
72
57
21
6
4
6
12­
17
137
68
54
9
2
1
3
18­
64
1946
603
679
408
145
79
32
>
64
387
107
155
64
32
13
16
Race
*
2249
731
818
428
155
76
41
White
304
105
103
56
16
10
14
Black
56
15
17
11
5
5
3
Asian
56
22
18
6
5
3
2
Some
Others
93
41
25
14
9
2
2
Hispanic
22
4
9
4
1
2
2
Hispanic
*
2566
844
922
480
175
88
57
No
182
68
52
34
15
8
5
Yes
15
5
8
2
*
*
*
DK
17
1
8
3
1
2
2
Employment
*
399
190
140
40
11
5
13
Full
Time
1366
407
466
307
107
57
22
Part
Time
236
70
95
46
14
8
3
Not
Employed
766
249
285
124
57
26
25
Refused
13
2
4
2
2
2
1
Education
*
434
205
149
47
12
7
14
<
High
School
198
88
62
20
6
10
12
High
School
Graduate
739
267
266
119
46
21
20
<
College
584
161
219
122
48
26
8
College
Graduate
484
115
183
121
43
17
5
Post
Graduate
341
82
111
90
36
17
5
Census
Region
Northeast
655
191
241
137
62
12
12
Midwest
575
199
221
102
17
22
14
South
989
336
339
175
70
41
28
West
561
192
189
105
42
23
10
Day
of
Week
Weekday
1848
602
661
346
129
70
40
Weekend
932
316
329
173
62
28
24
Season
Winter
780
262
284
131
60
28
15
Spring
691
240
244
123
45
25
14
Summer
745
220
249
160
59
31
26
Fall
564
196
213
105
27
14
9
Asthma
No
2563
846
917
475
180
88
57
Yes
207
69
71
42
11
9
5
DK
10
3
2
2
*
1
2
Angina
No
2698
896
960
509
183
95
55
Yes
68
19
27
8
7
1
6
DK
14
3
3
2
1
2
3
Bronchitis/
Emphysema
No
2648
877
940
495
185
91
60
Yes
121
37
47
23
6
6
2
DK
11
4
3
1
*
1
2
Note:
*
=
Missing
data;
DK
=
Don't
know;
%
=
Row
percentage;
N
=
Sample
size;
Refused
=
Respondent
refused
to
answer.
Source:
Tsang
and
Klepeis,
1996.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
59
Table
10­
49.
Numer
of
Respondents
Reporting
Monthly
Consumption
of
Seafood
That
Was
Purchased
or
Caught
by
Someone
They
Knew
Population
Group
Total
N
*
Mostly
Purchased
Mostly
Caught
DK
Overall
2780
3
2584
154
39
Gender
*
1311
1
1206
85
19
Male
1468
2
1377
69
20
Female
1
*
1
*
*

Age
(
years)
*
42
*
39
3
*
1­
4
102
*
94
8
*
5­
11
166
*
153
9
4
12­
17
137
*
129
6
2
18­
64
1946
3
1810
106
27
>
64
387
*
359
22
6
Race
*
2249
1
2092
124
32
White
304
1
280
19
4
Black
56
*
50
4
2
Asian
56
*
55
*
1
Some
Others
93
*
86
7
*
Hispanic
22
1
21
*
*

Hispanic
*
2566
2
2387
140
37
No
182
*
169
13
*
Yes
15
*
12
1
2
DK
17
1
16
*
*

Employment
*
399
*
368
25
6
Full
Time
1366
2
1285
64
15
Part
Time
236
1
217
15
3
Not
Employed
766
*
701
50
15
Refused
13
*
13
*
*

Education
*
434
*
401
26
7
<
High
School
198
*
174
20
4
High
School
Graduate
739
*
680
48
11
<
College
584
2
547
28
7
College
Graduate
484
*
460
19
5
Post
Graduate
341
1
322
13
5
Census
Region
Northeast
655
2
627
21
5
Midwest
575
*
547
20
8
South
989
1
897
73
18
West
561
*
513
40
8
Day
of
Week
Weekday
1848
2
1724
100
22
Weekend
932
1
860
54
17
Season
Winter
780
*
741
35
4
Spring
691
*
655
27
9
Summer
745
2
674
54
15
Fall
564
1
514
38
11
Asthma
No
2563
2
2384
142
35
Yes
207
1
190
12
4
DK
10
*
10
*
*

Angina
37
No
2698
3
2507
151
2
Yes
68
*
63
3
*
DK
14
*
14
*

Bronchitis/
Emphysema
No
2648
3
2457
149
39
Yes
121
*
116
5
*
DK
11
*
11
*
*

Note:
*
=
Missing
data;
DK
=
Don't
know;
N
=
Sample
size;
Refused
=
Respondent
refused
to
answer.
Source:
Tsang
and
Klepeis,
1996.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
60
August
1997
Table
10­
50.
Estimated
Number
of
Participants
in
Marine
Recreational
Fishing
by
State
and
Subregion
Subregion
State
Coastal
Participants
Non
Coastal
Participants
Out
of
State
Total
Participants
a
a
Pacific
So.
California
902
8
159
910
N.
California
534
99
63
633
Oregon
265
19
78
284
TOTAL
1,701
126
North
Atlantic
Connecticut
186
*
47
186
Maine
93
9
100
102
Massachusetts
377
69
273
446
New
Hampshire
34
10
32
44
Rhode
Island
97
*
157
97
TOTAL
787
88
b
Mid­
Atlantic
Delaware
90
*
159
90
Maryland
540
32
268
572
New
Jersey
583
9
433
592
New
York
539
13
70
552
Virginia
294
29
131
323
TOTAL
1,046
83
South
Atlantic
Florida
1,201
*
741
1,201
Georgia
89
61
29
150
N.
Carolina
398
224
745
622
S.
Carolina
131
77
304
208
TOTAL
1,819
362
Gulf
of
Mexico
Alabama
95
9
101
104
Florida
1,053
*
1,349
1,053
Louisiana
394
48
63
442
Mississippi
157
42
51
200
TOTAL
1,699
99
GRAND
TOTAL
8,053
760
Not
additive
across
states.
One
person
can
be
counted
as
"
OUT
OF
STATE"
for
more
than
one
state.
a
An
asterisk
(*)
denotes
no
non­
coastal
counties
in
state.
b
Source:
NMFS,
1993.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
61
Table
10­
51.
Estimated
Weight
of
Fish
Caught
(
Catch
Type
A
and
B1)
by
Marine
Recreational
Fishermen,
by
Wave
and
Subregion
Atlantic
and
Gulf
Pacific
Region
Weight
(
1000
kg)
Region
Weight
(
1000
kg)

Jan/
Feb
South
Atlantic
1,060
So.
California
418
Mar/
Apr
North
Atlantic
310
So.
California
590
May/
Jun
North
Atlantic
3,272
N.
California
563
Jul/
Aug
North
Atlantic
4,003
Oregon
39
Sep/
Oct
North
Atlantic
2,980
TOTAL
2,615
Nov/
Dec
North
Atlantic
456
Gulf
3,683
N.
California
101
TOTAL
4,743
TOTAL
684
Mid
Atlantic
1,030
N.
California
346
South
Atlantic
1,913
Oregon
144
Gulf
3,703
TOTAL
1,080
TOTAL
6,956
Mid
Atlantic
4,815
Oregon
581
South
Atlantic
4,234
TOTAL
2,339
Gulf
5,936
TOTAL
18,257
So.
California
1,566
Mid
Atlantic
9,693
TOTAL
2,706
South
Atlantic
4,032
Gulf
5,964
So.
California
859
TOTAL
23,692
N.
California
1,032
Mid
Atlantic
7,798
South
Atlantic
3,296
So.
California
447
Gulf
7,516
N.
California
417
TOTAL
21,590
Oregon
65
Mid
Atlantic
1,649
GRAND
TOTAL
10,353
South
Atlantic
2,404
Gulf
4,278
TOTAL
8,787
GRAND
TOTAL
84,025
Oregon
165
So.
California
1,195
N.
California
1,101
Oregon
724
TOTAL
929
Source:
NMFS,
1993.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
62
August
1997
Table
10­
52.
Average
Daily
Intake
(
g/
day)
of
Marine
Finfish,
by
Region
and
Coastal
Status
Intake
Among
Anglers
Region
Mean
95th
Percentile
(
Coastal)
(
Coastal
&
Non­
Coastal)
Population
Coastal
a
Per­
Capita
Per­
Capita
Proportion
of
b
c
N.
Atlantic
6.2
20.1
1.2
1.1
0.82
Mid­
Atlantic
6.3
18.9
1.2
0.9
0.70
S.
Atlantic
4.7
15.9
1.5
1.0
0.51
All
Atlantic
5.6
18.0
1.3
0.9
0.66
Gulf
7.2
26.1
3.0
1.9
0.60
S.
California
2.0
5.5
0.2
0.2
0.96
N.
California
2.0
5.7
0.3
0.3
0.70
Oregon
2.2
8.9
0.5
0.5
0.87
All
Pacific
2.0
6.8
0.3
0.3
0.86
N.
Atlantic
­
ME,
NH,
MA,
RI,
and
CT;
Mid­
Atlantic
­
NY,
NJ,
MD,
DE,
and
VA;
S.
Atlantic
­
NC,
SC,
GA,
and
FL
(
Atlantic
Coast);
Gulf
­
AL,
MS,
LA,
and
FL
a
(
Gulf
Coast).

Mean
intake
rate
among
entire
coastal
population
of
region.
b
Mean
intake
rate
among
entire
population
of
region.
c
Source:
NMFS,
1993.

Table
10­
53.
Estimated
Weight
of
Fish
Caught
(
Catch
Type
A
and
B1)
by
Marine
Recreational
Fishermen
a
by
Species
Group
and
Subregion,
Atlantic
and
Gulf
North
Atlantic
Mid
Atlantic
South
Atlantic
Gulf
All
Regions
(
1,000
kg)
(
1,000
kg)
(
1,000
kg)
(
1,000
kg)
(
1,000
kg)

Cartilaginous
fishes
66
1,673
162
318
2,219
Eels
14
9
*
0
23
Herrings
118
69
1
89
177
Catfishes
0
306
138
535
979
Toadfishes
0
7
0
*
7
Cods
and
Hakes
2,404
988
4
0
1,396
Searobins
2
68
*
*
70
Sculpins
1
*
0
0
1
Temperate
Basses
837
2,166
22
4
2,229
Sea
Basses
22
2,166
644
2,477
5,309
Bluefish
4,177
3,962
1,065
158
5,362
Jacks
0
138
760
2,477
3,375
Dolphins
65
809
2,435
1,599
4,908
Snappers
0
*
508
3,219
3,727
Grunts
0
9
239
816
1,064
Porgies
132
417
1,082
2,629
4,160
Drums
3
2,458
2,953
9,866
15,280
Mullets
1
43
382
658
1,084
Barracudas
0
*
356
244
600
Wrasses
783
1,953
46
113
2,895
Mackerels
and
Tunas
878
3,348
4,738
4,036
13,000
Flounders
512
4,259
532
377
5,680
Triggerfishes/
Filefishes
0
48
109
544
701
Puffers
*
16
56
4
76
Other
fishes
105
72
709
915
1,801
b
c
For
Catch
Type
A
and
B1,
the
fish
were
not
thrown
back.
a
An
asterisk
(*)
denotes
data
not
reported.
b
Zero
(
0)
=
<
1000
kg.
c
Source:
NMFS,
1993.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
63
Table
10­
54.
Estimated
Weight
of
Fish
Caught
(
Catch
Type
A
and
B1)
by
Marine
Recreational
a
Fishermen
by
Species
Group
and
Subregion,
Pacific
Species
Group
(
1,000
kg)
(
1,000
kg)
(
1,000
kg)
Total
Southern
California
Northern
California
Oregon
Cartilaginous
fish
35
162
1
198
Sturgeons
0
89
13
102
Herrings
10
15
40
65
Anchovies
*
7
0
7
Smelts
0
71
0
71
Cods
and
Hakes
0
0
0
0
Silversides
58
148
0
206
Striped
Bass
0
51
0
51
Sea
Basses
1,319
17
0
1,336
Jacks
469
17
1
487
Croakers
141
136
0
277
Sea
Chubs
53
1
0
54
Surfperches
74
221
47
342
Pacific
Barracuda
866
10
0
876
Wrasses
73
5
0
78
Tunas
and
Mackerels
1,260
36
1
1,297
Rockfishes
409
1,713
890
3,012
California
Scorpionfish
86
0
0
86
Sablefishes
0
0
5
5
Greenlings
22
492
363
877
Sculpins
6
81
44
131
Flatfishes
106
251
5
362
Other
fishes
89
36
307
432
b
c
For
Catch
Type
A
and
B1,
the
fish
were
not
thrown
back.
a
Zero
(
0)
=
<
1000
kg.
b
An
asterisk
(*)
denotes
data
not
reported.
c
Source:
NMFS,
1993.

Table
10­
55.
Median
Intake
Rates
Based
on
Demographic
Data
of
Sport
Fishermen
and
Their
Family/
Living
Group
Percent
of
total
interviewed
Median
intake
rates
(
g/
person­
day)

Ethnic
Group
Caucasian
42
46.0
Black
24
24.2
Mexican­
American
16
33.0
Oriental/
Samoan
13
70.6
Other
5
­­
Age
(
years)
<
17
11
27.2
18
­
40
52
32.5
41
­
65
28
39.0
>
65
9
113.0
a
Not
reported.
a
Source:
Puffer
et
al.,
1981.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
64
August
1997
Table
10­
56.
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Total
Fish/
Shellfish
Consumption
by
Surveyed
Sport
Fishermen
in
the
Metropolitan
Los
Angeles
Area
Percentile
Intake
rate
(
g/
person­
day)

5
2.3
10
4.0
20
8.3
30
15.5
40
23.9
50
36.9
60
53.2
70
79.8
80
120.8
90
224.8
95
338.8
Source:
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981).

Table
10­
57.
Catch
Information
for
Primary
Fish
Species
Kept
by
Sport
Fishermen
(
n
=
1059)

Species
Average
Weight
(
Grams)
Percent
of
Fishermen
who
Caught
White
Croaker
153
34
Pacific
Mackerel
334
25
Pacific
Bonito
717
18
Queenfish
143
17
Jacksmelt
223
13
Walleye
Perch
115
10
Shiner
Perch
54
7
Opaleye
307
6
Black
Perch
196
5
Kelp
Bass
440
5
California
Halibut
1752
4
Shellfish
421
3
a
Crab,
mussels,
lobster,
abalone.
a
Source:
Modified
from
Puffer
et
al.,
1981.

Table
10­
58.
Percent
of
Fishing
Frequency
During
the
Summer
and
Fall
Seasons
in
Commencement
Bay,
Washington
Fishing
Frequency
in
the
Summer
in
the
Fall
in
the
Fall
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
a
b
c
Daily
10.4
8.3
5.8
Weekly
50.3
52.3
51.0
Monthly
20.1
15.9
21.1
Bimonthly
6.7
3.8
4.2
Biyearly
4.4
6.1
6.3
Yearly
8.1
13.6
11.6
Summer
­
July
through
September,
includes
5
survey
days
and
4
survey
areas
(
i.
e.,
area
#
1,
#
2,
#
3
and
#
4)
a
Fall
­
September
through
November,
includes
4
survey
days
and
4
survey
areas
(
i.
e.,
area
#
1,
#
2,
#
3
and
#
4)
b
Fall
­
September
through
November,
includes
4
survey
days
described
in
footnote
plus
an
additional
survey
area
(
5
survey
areas)
(
i.
e.,
area
c
b
#
1,
#
2,
#
3,
#
4
and
#
5)
Source:
Pierce
et
al.,
1981.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
65
Table
10­
59.
Selected
Percentile
Consumption
Estimates
(
g/
day)
for
the
Survey
and
Total
Angler
Populations
Based
on
the
Reanalysis
of
the
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
and
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981)
Data
50th
Percentile
90th
Percentile
Survey
Population
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
37
225
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981)
19
155
Average
28
190
Total
Angler
Population
Puffer
et
al.
(
1981)
2.9
35
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981)
1.0
13
a
b
Average
2.0
24
Estimated
based
on
the
average
intake
for
the
0
­
90th
percentile
anglers.
a
Estimated
based
on
the
average
intake
for
the
91st
­
96th
percentile
anglers.
b
Source:
Price
et
al.,
1994.

Table
10­
60.
Means
and
Standard
Deviations
of
Selected
Characteristics
by
Subpopulation
Groups
in
Everglades,
Florida
Variables
Mean
±
Std.
Dev.
(
N
=
330)
Range
a
b
Age
(
years)
38.6
±
18.8
2
­
81
Sex
Female
38%
­­
Male
62%
­­

Race/
ethnicity
Black
46%
­­
White
43%
­­
Hispanic
11%
­­

Number
of
Years
Fished
15.8
±
15.8
0
­
70
Number
Per
Week
Fished
in
Past
6
Months
of
Survey
Period
1.8
±
2.5
0
­
20
Number
Per
Week
Fished
in
Last
Month
of
Survey
Period
1.5
±
1.4
0
­
12
Aware
of
Health
Advisories
71%
­­

Number
of
respondents
who
reported
consuming
fish
a
Std.
Dev.
=
standard
deviation
b
Source:
U.
S.
DHHS,
1995
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
66
August
1997
Table
10­
61.
Mean
Fish
Intake
Among
Individuals
Who
Eat
Fish
and
Reside
in
Households
With
Recreational
Fish
Consumption
Group
meals/
week
n
grams/
day
grams/
day
kg/
day
All
Fish
meals/
week
Total
Fish
Fish
grams/
kg/
day
Fish
grams/
Recreational
Fish
Recreational
Total
Fish
Recreational
All
household
0.686
0.332
2196
21.9
11.0
0.356
0.178
members
Respondents
(
i.
e.,
0.873
0.398
748
29.4
14.0
0.364
0.168
licensed
anglers)

Age
Groups
(
years)
1­
5
0.463
0.223
121
11.4
5.63
0.737
0.369
6
to
10
0.49
0.278
151
13.6
7.94
0.481
0.276
1
to
20
0.407
0.229
349
12.3
7.27
0.219
0.123
21
to
40
0.651
0.291
793
22
10.2
0.306
0.139
40
to
60
0.923
0.42
547
29.3
14.2
0.387
0.186
60
to
70
0.856
0.431
160
28.2
14.5
0.377
0.193
71
to
80
1.0
0.622
45
32.3
20.1
0.441
0.271
80+
0.8
0.6
10
26.5
20
0.437
0.345
Source:
U.
S.
EPA
analysis
using
data
from
West
et
al.,
1989.

Table
10­
62.
Comparison
of
Seven­
Day
Recall
and
Estimated
Seasonal
Frequency
for
Fish
Consumption
Usual
Fish
Consumption
Mean
Fish
Meals/
Week
Usual
frequency
Value
Selected
Frequency
Category
7­
day
Recall
Data
for
Data
Analysis
(
times/
week)

Almost
daily
no
data
4
[
if
needed]
2­
4
times
a
week
1.96
2
Once
a
week
1.19
1.2
2­
3
times
a
month
0.840
(
3.6
times/
month)
0.7
(
3
times/
month)
Once
a
month
0.459
(
1.9
times/
month)
0.4
(
1.7
times/
month)
Less
often
0.306
(
1.3
times/
month)
0.2
(
0.9
times/
month)

Source:
U.
S.
EPA
analysis
using
data
from
West
et
al.,
1989.

Table
10­
63.
Distribution
of
Usual
Fish
Intake
Among
Survey
Main
Respondents
Who
Fished
and
Consumed
Recreationally
Caught
Fish
All
Fish
Recreational
Fish
All
Fish
Intake
Fish
Intake
All
Fish
Intake
Fish
Intake
Meals/
Week
Meals/
Week
grams/
day
grams/
day
grams/
kg/
day
grams/
kg/
day
Recreational
Recreational
n
738
738
738
738
726
726
mean
0.859
0.447
27.74
14.42
0.353
0.1806
10%
0.300
0.040
9.69
1.29
0.119
0.0159
25%
0.475
0.125
15.34
4.04
0.187
0.0504
50%
0.750
0.338
24.21
10.90
0.315
0.1357
75%
1.200
0.672
38.74
21.71
0.478
0.2676
90%
1.400
1.050
45.20
33.90
0.634
0.4146
95%
1.800
1.200
58.11
38.74
0.747
0.4920
Source:
U.
S.
EPA
analysis
using
data
from
West
et
al.,
1989.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
67
Table
10­
64.
Estimates
of
Fish
Intake
Rates
of
Licensed
Sport
Anglers
in
Maine
During
the
1989­
1990
Ice
Fishing
or
1990
Open­
Water
Seasonsa
Intake
Rates
(
grams/
day)

Percentile
Rankings
All
Waters
Rivers
and
Streams
b
All
Anglers
Consuming
Anglers
River
Anglers
Consuming
Anglers
c
(
N
=
1,369)
(
N
=
1,053)
(
N
=
741)
(
N
=
464)
d
e
d
50th
(
median)
1.1
2.0
0.19
0.99
66th
2.6
4.0
0.71
1.8
75th
4.2
5.8
1.3
2.5
90th
11.0
13.0
3.7
6.1
95th
21.0
26.0
6.2
12.0
Arithmetic
Mean
5.0
6.4
1.9
3.7
f
[
79]
[
77]
[
82]
[
81]

Estimates
are
based
on
rank
except
for
those
of
arithmetic
mean.
a
All
waters
based
on
fish
obtained
from
all
lakes,
ponds,
streams
and
rivers
in
Maine,
from
other
household
sources
and
from
other
non­
b
household
sources.
Licensed
anglers
who
fished
during
the
seasons
studied
and
did
or
did
not
consume
freshwater
fish,
and
licensed
anglers
who
did
not
fish
but
c
ate
freshwater
fish
caught
in
Maine
during
those
seasons.
Licensed
anglers
who
consumed
freshwater
fish
caught
in
Maine
during
the
seasons
studied.
d
Those
of
the
"
all
anglers"
who
fished
on
rivers
or
streams
(
consumers
and
nonconsumers).
e
Values
in
brackets
[
]
are
percentiles
at
the
mean
consumption
rates.
f
Source:
Chemrisk,
1991;
Ebert
et
al.,
1993.

Table
10­
65.
Analysis
of
Fish
Consumption
by
Ethnic
Groups
for
"
All
Waters"
(
g/
day)
a
Consuming
Anglersb
French
Native
Other
White
Canadian
Irish
Italian
American
Non­
Hispanic
Scandinavian
Heritage
Heritage
Heritage
Heritage
Heritage
Heritage
N
of
Cases
201
138
27
96
533
37
Median
(
50th
percentile)
2.3
2.4
1.8
2.3
1.9
1.3
c,
d
66th
percentile
4.1
4.4
2.6
4.7
3.8
2.6
c,
d
75th
percentile
6.2
6.0
5.0
6.2
5.7
4.9
c,
d
Arithmetic
Mean
7.4
5.2
4.5
10
6.0
5.3
c
Percentile
at
the
Mean
80
70
74
83
76
78
d
90th
percentile
15
12
12
16
13
9.4
c,
d
95th
percentile
27
20
21
51
24
25
c,
d
Percentile
at
6.5
g/
day
77
75
81
77
77
84
d,
e
"
All
Waters"
based
on
fish
obtained
from
all
lakes,
ponds,
streams
and
rivers
in
Maine,
from
other
household
sources
and
from
other
non­
a
household
sources.
"
Consuming
Anglers"
refers
to
only
those
anglers
who
consumed
freshwater
fish
obtained
from
Maine
sources
during
the
1989­
1990
ice
b
fishing
or
1990
open
water
fishing
season.
The
average
consumption
per
day
by
freshwater
fish
consumers
in
the
household.
c
Calculated
by
rank
without
any
assumption
of
statistical
distribution.
d
Fish
consumption
rate
recommended
by
U.
S.
EPA
(
1984)
for
use
in
establishing
ambient
water
quality
standards.
e
Source:
Chemrisk,
1991.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
68
August
1997
Table
10­
66.
Total
Consumption
of
Freshwater
Fish
Caught
by
All
Survey
Respondents
During
the
1990
Season
Species
Ice
Fishing
Lakes
and
Ponds
Rivers
and
Streams
Quantity
Grams
Quantity
Grams
Quantity
Grams
Consumed
(
x10
)
Consumed
(
x10
)
Consumed
(
x10
)
(#)
Consumed
(#)
Consumed
(#)
Consumed
3
3
3
Landlocked
salmon
832
290
928
340
305
120
Atlantic
salmon
3
1.1
33
9.9
17
11
Togue
(
Lake
trout)
483
200
459
160
33
2.7
Brook
trout
1,309
100
3,294
210
10,185
420
Brown
trout
275
54
375
56
338
23
Yellow
perch
235
9.1
1,649
52
188
7.4
White
perch
2,544
160
6,540
380
3,013
180
Bass
(
smallmouth
and
largemouth)
474
120
73
5.9
787
130
Pickerel
1,091
180
553
91
303
45
Lake
whitefish
111
20
558
13
55
2.7
Hornpout
(
Catfish
and
bullheads)
47
8.2
1,291
100
180
7.8
Bottom
fish
(
Suckers,
carp
and
sturgeon)
50
81
62
22
100
6.7
Chub
0
0
252
35
219
130
Smelt
7,808
150
428
4.9
4,269
37
Other
201
210
90
110
54
45
TOTALS
15,463
1,583.4
16,587
1,590
20,046
1,168
Source:
Chemrisk,
1991.

Table
10­
67.
Mean
Sport­
Fish
Consumption
by
Demographic
Variables,
Michigan
Sport
Anglers
Fish
Consumption
Study,
1991­
1992
N
Mean
(
g/
day)
95%
C.
I.

Incomea
<$
15,000
290
21.0
16.3
­
25.8
$
15,000
­
$
24,999
369
20.6
15.5
­
25.7
$
25,000
­
$
39,999
662
17.5
15.0
­
20.1
>$
40,000
871
14.7
12.8
­
16.7
Education
Some
High
School
299
16.5
12.9
­
20.1
High
School
Degree
1,074
17.0
14.9
­
19.1
Some
College­
College
Degree
825
17.6
14.9
­
20.2
Post
Graduate
231
14.5
10.5
­
18.6
Residence
Sizeb
Large
City/
Suburb
(>
100,000)
487
14.6
11.8
­
17.3
Small
City
(
20,000­
100,000)
464
12.9
10.7
­
15.0
Town
(
2,000­
20,000)
475
19.4
15.5
­
23.3
Small
Town
(
100­
2,000)
272
22.8
16.8
­
28.8
Rural,
Non
Farm
598
17.7
15.1
­
20.3
Farm
140
15.1
10.3
­
20.0
Age
(
years)
16­
29
266
18.9
13.9
­
23.9
30­
39
583
16.6
13.5
­
19.7
40­
49
556
16.5
13.4
­
19.6
50­
59
419
16.5
13.6
­
19.4
60+
596
16.2
13.8
­
18.6
Sexa
Male
299
17.5
15.8
­
19.1
Female
1,074
13.7
11.2
­
16.3
Race/
Ethnicityb
Minority
160
23.2
13.4
­
33.1
White
2,289
16.3
14.9
­
17.6
P
<
.01,
F
test
a
P
<
.05,
F
test
b
Source:
West
et
al.,
1993
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
69
Table
10­
68.
Distribution
of
Fish
Intake
Rates
(
from
all
sources
and
from
sport­
caught
sources)
For
1992
Lake
Ontario
Anglers
Percentile
of
Lake
Ontario
Anglers
Fish
from
All
Sources
(
g/
day)
Sport­
Caught
Fish
(
g/
day)

25%
8.8
0.6
50%
14.1
2.2
75%
23.2
6.6
90%
34.2
13.2
95%
42.3
17.9
99%
56.6
39.8
Source.
Connelly
et
al.,
1996.

Table
10­
69.
Mean
Annual
Fish
Consumption
(
g/
day)
for
Lake
Ontario
Anglers,
1992,
by
Sociodemographic
Characteristics
Mean
Consumption
Demographic
Group
Fish
from
all
Sources
Sport­
Caught
Fish
Overall
17.9
4.9
Residence
Rural
17.6
5.1
Small
City
20.8
6.3
City
(
25­
100,000)
19.8
5.8
City
(>
100,000)
13.1
2.2
Income
<
$
20,000
20.5
4.9
$
21,000­
34,000
17.5
4.7
$
34,000­
50,000
16.5
4.8
>$
50,000
20.7
6.1
Age
(
years)
<
30
13.0
4.1
30­
39
16.6
4.3
40­
49
18.6
5.1
50+
21.9
6.4
Education
<
High
School
17.3
7.1
High
School
Graduate
17.8
4.7
Some
College
18.8
5.5
College
Graduate
17.4
4.2
Some
Post
Grad.
20.5
5.9
Note
­
Scheffe's
test
showed
statistically
significant
differences
between
residence
types
(
for
all
sources
and
sport
caught)
and
age
groups
(
all
sources).
Source:
Connelly
et
al.,
1996.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
70
August
1997
Table
10­
70.
Percentile
and
Mean
Intake
Rates
for
Wisconsin
Sport
Anglers
Percentile
Annual
Number
of
Sport
Caught
Meals
Intake
Rate
of
Sport­
Caught
Meals
(
g/
day)

25th
4
1.7
50th
10
4.1
75th
25
10.2
90th
50
20.6
95th
60
24.6
98th
100
41.1
100th
365
150
Mean
18
7.4
Source:
Raw
data
on
sport­
caught
meals
from
Fiore
et
al.,
1989.
EPA
calculated
intake
rates
using
a
value
of
150
grams
per
fish
meal;
this
value
is
dervied
from
Pao
et
al.,
1982.

Table
10­
71.
Sociodemographic
Characteristics
of
Respondents
Category
Subcategory
Percent
of
Totala
Geographic
Distribution
Upper
Hudson
18
%
Mid
Hudson
35
%
Lower
Hudson
48
%

Age
Distribution
(
years)
<
14
3
%
15
­
29
26
%
30
­
44
35
%
45
­
59
23
%
>
60
12
%

Annual
Household
Income
<
$
10,000
16
%
$
10
­
29,999
41
%
$
30
­
49,999
29
%
$
50
­
69,999
10
%
$
70
­
89,999
2
%
>
$
90,000
3
%

Ethnic
Background
Caucasian
American
67
%
African
American
21
%
Hispanic
American
10
%
Asian
American
1
%
Native
American
1
%

A
total
of
336
shore­
based
anglers
were
interviewed
a
Source:
Hudson
River
Sloop
Clearwater,
Inc.,
1993
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
71
Table
10­
72.
Number
of
Grams
Per
Day
of
Fish
Consumed
by
All
Adult
Respondents
(
Consumers
and
Non­
consumers
Combined)
­
Throughout
the
Year
Number
of
Grams/
Day
Cumulative
Percent
Number
of
Grams/
Day
Cumulative
Percent
0.00
8.9%
64.8
80.6%
1.6
9.0%
72.9
81.2%
3.2
10.4%
77.0
81.4%
4.0
10.8%
81.0
83.3%
4.9
10.9%
97.2
89.3%
6.5
12.8%
130
92.2%
7.3
12.9%
146
93.7%
8.1
13.7%
162
94.4%
9.7
14.4%
170
94.8%
12.2
14.9%
194
97.2%
13.0
16.3%
243
97.3%
16.2
22.8%
259
97.4%
19.4
24.0%
292
97.6%
20.2
24.1%
324
98.3%
24.3
27.9%
340
98.7%
29.2
28.1%
389
99.0%
32.4
52.5%
486
99.6%
38.9
52.9%
648
99.7%
40.5
56.5%
778
99.9%
48.6
67.6%
972
100%

N
=
500
Weighted
Mean
=
58.7
grams/
day
(
g/
d)
Weighted
SE
=
3.64
90th
Percentile:
97.2
g/
d
<
(
90th)
<
130
g/
d
95th
Percentile
.
170
g/
d
99th
Percentile
=
389
g/
d
Source:
CRITFC,
1994
Table
10­
73.
Fish
Intake
Throughout
the
Year
by
Sex,
Age,
and
Location
by
All
Adult
Respondents
N
(
grams/
day)
Weighted
SE
Weighted
Mean
Sex
Female
278
55.8
4.78
Male
222
62.6
5.60
Total
500
58.7
3.64
Age
(
years)
18­
39
287
57.6
4.87
40­
59
155
55.8
4.88
60
&
Older
58
74.4
15.3
Total
500
58.7
3.64
Location
On
Reservation
440
60.2
3.98
Off
Reservation
60
47.9
8.25
Total
500
58.7
3.64
Source:
CRITFC,
1994.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
72
August
1997
Table
10­
74.
Children's
Fish
Consumption
Rates
­
Throughout
Year
Number
of
Grams/
Day
Unweighted
Cumulative
Percent
0.0
21.1%
0.4
21.6%
0.8
22.2%
1.6
24.7%
2.4
25.3%
3.2
28.4%
4.1
32.0%
4.9
33.5%
6.5
35.6%
8.1
47.4%
9.7
48.5%
12.2
51.0%
13.0
51.5%
16.2
72.7%
19.4
73.2%
20.3
74.2%
24.3
76.3%
32.4
87.1%
48.6
91.2%
64.8
94.3%
72.9
96.4%
81.0
97.4%
97.2
98.5%
162.0
100%

N
=
194
Unweighted
Mean
=
19.6
grams/
day
Unweighted
SE
=
1.94
Source:
CRITFC,
1994.

Table
10­
75.
Sociodemographic
Factors
and
Recent
Fish
Consumption
Peak
Consumption
Recent
Consumption
a
b
Average
$
3
(%)
Walleye
N.
Pike
Muskellunge
Bass
c
d
All
participants
(
N­
323)
1.7
20
4.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
Gender
Male
(
n­
148)
1.9
26
5.1
0.5
0.5
0.7
Female
(
n­
175)
1.5
15
3.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
Age
(
y)
<
35
(
n­
150)
1.8
23
5.3
0.3
0.2
0.7
$
35
(
n­
173)
1.6
17
3.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
High
School
Graduate
No
(
n­
105)
1.6
18
3.6
0.2
0.4
0.7
Yes
(
n­
218)
1.7
21
4.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
Unemployed
Yes
(
n­
78)
1.9
27
4.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
No
(
n­
245)
1.6
18
4.0
0.3
0.2
0.3
a
a
a
Highest
number
of
fish
meals
consumed/
week.
a
Number
of
meals
of
each
species
in
the
previous
2
months.
b
Average
peak
fish
consumption.
c
Percentage
of
population
reporting
peak
fish
consumption
of
$
3
fish
meals/
week.
d
Source:
Peterson
et
al.,
1994.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
74
August
1997
Table
10­
76.
Number
of
Local
Fish
Meals
Consumed
Per
Year
by
Time
Period
for
All
Respondents
Number
of
Local
Fish
Meals
Consumed
Per
Year
Time
Period
During
Pregnancy
#
1
Yr.
Before
Pregnancy
>
Yr.
Before
Pregnancy
a
b
Mohawk
Control
Mohawk
Control
Mohawk
Control
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
c
c
c
c
c
c
None
63
64.9
109
70.8
42
43.3
99
64.3
20
20.6
93
60.4
1
­
9
24
24.7
24
15.6
40
41.2
31
20.1
42
43.3
35
22.7
10
­
19
5
5.2
7
4.5
4
4.1
6
3.9
6
6.2
8
5.2
20
­
29
1
1.0
5
3.3
3
3.1
3
1.9
9
9.3
5
3.3
30
­
39
0
0.0
2
1.3
0
0.0
3
1.9
1
1.0
1
0.6
40
­
49
0
0.0
1
0.6
1
1.0
1
0.6
1
1.0
1
0.6
50+
4
4.1
6
3.9
7
7.2
11
7.1
18
18.6
11
7.1
Total
97
100.0
154
100.
97
100.
154
100.
97
100.
154
100.0
0
0
0
0
p
<
0.05
for
Mohawk
vs.
Control.
a
p
<
0.001
for
Mohawk
vs.
Control.
b
N
=
number
of
respondents.
c
Source:
Fitzgerald
et
al.,
1995.

Table
10­
77.
Mean
Number
of
Local
Fish
Meals
Consumed
Per
Year
by
Time
Period
for
All
Respondents
and
Consumers
Only
All
Respondents
Consumers
Only
(
N=
97
Mohawks
and
154
Controls)
(
N=
82
Mohawks
and
72
Controls)

During
#
1
Yr.
Before
>
1
Yr.
Before
During
#
1
Yr.
Before
>
1
Yr.
Before
Pregnancy
Pregnancy
Pregnancy
Pregnancy
Pregnancy
Pregnancy
Mohawk
3.9
(
1.2)
9.2
(
2.3)
23.4
(
4.3)
4.6
(
1.3)
10.9
(
2.7)
27.6
(
4.9)
Control
7.3
(
2.1)
10.7
(
2.6)
10.9
(
2.7)
15.5
(
4.2)
23.0
(
5.1)
23.0
(
5.5)
a
a
b
p
<
0.001
for
Mohawk
vs.
Control.
a
p<
0.05
for
Mohawk
vs.
Control
b
(
)
=
standard
error.
Test
for
linear
trend:
p<
0.001
for
Mohawk
(
All
participants
and
consumers
only);
p=
0.07
for
Controls
(
All
participants
and
consumers
only).
Source:
Fitzgerald
et
al.,
1995.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
75
Table
10­
78.
Mean
Number
of
Local
Fish
Meals
Consumed
Per
Year
by
Time
Period
and
Selected
Characteristics
for
All
Respondents
(
Mohawk,
N=
97;
Control,
N=
154)

Time
Period
During
Pregnancy
#
1
Year
Before
Pregnancy
>
1
Year
Before
Pregnancy
Background
Variable
Mohawk
Control
Mohawk
Control
Mohawk
Control
Age
(
Yrs)
<
20
7.7
0.8
13.5
13.9
27.4
10.4
20
­
24
1.3
5.9
5.7
14.5
20.4
15.9
25
­
29
3.9
9.9
15.5
6.2
25.1
5.4
30
­
34
12.0
7.6
9.5
2.9
12.0
5.6
>
34
1.8
11.2
1.8
26.2
52.3
22.1
Education
(
Yrs)
<
12
6.3
7.9
14.8
12.4
24.7
8.6
12
7.3
5.4
8.1
8.4
15.3
11.4
13
­
15
1.7
10.1
8.0
15.4
29.2
13.3
>
15
0.9
6.8
10.7
0.8
18.7
2.1
Cigarette
Smoking
Yes
3.8
8.8
10.4
13.0
31.6
10.9
No
3.9
6.4
8.4
8.3
18.1
10.8
Alcohol
Consumption
Yes
4.2
9.9
6.8
13.8
18.0
14.8
No
3.8
6.3
12.1
4.7
29.8
2.9
b
c
a
d
F
(
4,149)
=
2.66,
p=
0.035
for
Age
Among
Controls.
a
F
(
1,152)
=
3.77,
p=
0.054
for
Alcohol
Among
Controls.
b
F
(
1,152)
=
5.20,
p=
0.024
for
Alcohol
Among
Controls.
c
F
(
1,152)
=
6.42,
p=
0.012
for
Alcohol
Among
Controls.
d
Source:
Fitzgerald
et
al.,
1995.

Table
10­
79.
Percentage
of
Individuals
Using
Various
Cooking
Methods
at
Specified
Frequencies
Study
Frequency
Bake
Grill
Poach
Boil
Smoke
Raw
Other
Use
Pan
Fry
Deep
Fry
Broil
or
Connelly
et
al.,
Always
24(
a)
51
13
24(
a)
1992
Ever
75(
a)
88
59
75(
a)

Connelly
et
al.,
Always
13
4
4
1996
Ever
84
72
42
CRITFC,
1994
At
least
79
51
14
27
11
46
31
1
34(
b)
monthly
29(
c)
49(
d)

Ever
98
80
25
39
17
73
66
3
67(
b)
71(
c)
75(
d)

Fitzgerald
et
al.,
Not
94(
e)(
f)
71(
e)(
g)
1995
Specified
Puffer
et
al.,
As
Primary
16.3
52.5
12
0.25
19(
h)
1981
Method
24
and
75
listed
as
bake,
BBQ,
or
poach
a
Dried
b
Roasted
c
Canned
d
Not
specified
whether
deep
or
pan
fried
e
Mohawk
women
f
Control
population
g
boil,
stew,
soup,
or
steam
h
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
76
August
1997
Table
10­
80.
Percent
Moisture
and
Fat
Content
for
Selected
Speciesa
Species
(%)
(%)
Comments
Moisture
Content
Total
Fat
Content
b
FINFISH
Anchovy,
European
73.37
4.101
Raw
Bass
75.66
3.273
Freshwater,
mixed
species,
raw
Bass,
Striped
79.22
1.951
Raw
Bluefish
70.86
3.768
Raw
Butterfish
74.13
NA
Raw
Carp
76.31
4.842
Raw
Catfish
76.39
3.597
Channel,
raw
Cod,
Atlantic
81.22
0.456
Atlantic,
raw
Cod,
Pacific
81.28
0.407
Raw
Croaker,
Atlantic
78.03
2.701
Raw
Dolphinfish,
Mahimahi
77.55
0.474
Raw
Drum,
Freshwater
77.33
4.463
Raw
Flatfish,
Flounder
and
Sole
79.06
0.845
Raw
Grouper
79.22
0.756
Raw,
mixed
species
Haddock
79.92
0.489
Raw
Halibut,
Atlantic
&
Pacific
77.92
1.812
Raw
Halibut,
Greenland
70.27
12.164
Raw
Herring,
Atlantic
&
Turbot,
domestic
species
72.05
7.909
Raw
Herring,
Pacific
71.52
12.552
Raw
Mackerel,
Atlantic
63.55
9.076
Raw
Mackerel,
Jack
69.17
4.587
Canned,
drained
solids
Mackerel,
King
75.85
1.587
Raw
Mackerel,
Pacific
&
Jack
70.15
6.816
Canned,
drained
solids
Mackerel,
Spanish
71.67
5.097
Raw
Monkfish
83.24
NA
Raw
Mullet,
Striped
77.01
2.909
Raw
Ocean
Perch,
Atlantic
78.70
1.296
Raw
Perch,
Mixed
species
79.13
0.705
Raw
Pike,
Northern
78.92
0.477
Raw
Pike,
Walleye
79.31
0.990
Raw
50.30
8.535
Canned
in
oil,
drained
solids
69.63
6.208
Cooked,
dry
heat
58.81
12.224
Channel,
cooked,
breaded
and
fried
75.61
0.582
Canned,
solids
and
liquids
75.92
0.584
Cooked,
dry
heat
16.14
1.608
Dried
and
salted
59.76
11.713
Cooked,
breaded
and
fried
73.16
1.084
Cooked,
dry
heat
73.36
0.970
Cooked,
dry
heat
74.25
0.627
Cooked,
dry
heat
71.48
0.651
Smoked
71.69
2.324
Cooked,
dry
heat
64.16
10.140
Cooked,
dry
heat
59.70
10.822
Kippered
55.22
16.007
Pickled
53.27
15.482
Cooked,
dry
heat
68.46
5.745
Cooked,
dry
heat
70.52
3.730
Cooked,
dry
heat
72.69
1.661
Cooked,
dry
heat
73.25
0.904
Cooked,
dry
heat
72.97
0.611
Cooked,
dry
heat
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
77
Table
10­
80.
Percent
Moisture
and
Fat
Content
for
Selected
Species
(
continued)
a
Species
(%)
(%)
Comments
Moisture
Total
Fat
Content
Content
b
Pollock,
Alaska
&
Walleye
81.56
0.701
Raw
Pollock,
Atlantic
78.18
0.730
Raw
Rockfish,
Pacific,
mixed
species
79.26
1.182
Raw
(
Mixed
species)

Roughy,
Orange
75.90
3.630
Raw
Salmon,
Atlantic
68.50
5.625
Raw
Salmon,
Chinook
73.17
9.061
Raw
Salmon,
Chum
75.38
3.279
Raw
Salmon,
Coho
72.63
4.908
Raw
Salmon,
Pink
76.35
2.845
Raw
Salmon,
Red
&
Sockeye
70.24
4.560
Raw
Sardine,
Atlantic
59.61
10.545
Canned
in
oil,
drained
solids
with
bone
Sardine,
Pacific
68.30
11.054
Canned
in
tomato
sauce,
drained
solids
with
bone
Sea
Bass,
mixed
species
78.27
1.678
Cooked,
dry
heat
Seatrout,
mixed
species
78.09
2.618
Raw
Shad,
American
68.19
NA
Raw
Shark,
mixed
species
73.58
3.941
Raw
Snapper,
mixed
species
76.87
0.995
Raw
Sole,
Spot
75.95
3.870
Raw
Sturgeon,
mixed
species
76.55
3.544
Raw
Sucker,
white
79.71
1.965
Raw
Sunfish,
Pumpkinseed
79.50
0.502
Raw
Swordfish
75.62
3.564
Raw
Trout,
mixed
species
71.42
5.901
Raw
Trout,
Rainbow
71.48
2.883
Raw
Tuna,
light
meat
59.83
7.368
Canned
in
oil,
drained
solids
Tuna,
white
meat
64.02
NA
Canned
in
oil
Tuna,
Bluefish,
fresh
68.09
4.296
Raw
Turbot,
European
76.95
NA
Raw
Whitefish,
mixed
species
72.77
5.051
Raw
Whiting,
mixed
species
80.27
0.948
Raw
Yellowtail,
mixed
species
74.52
NA
Raw
74.06
0.929
Cooked,
dry
heat
73.41
1.515
Cooked,
dry
heat
(
mixed
species)

72.00
3.947
Smoked
70.77
4.922
Canned,
drained
solids
with
bone
65.35
6.213
Cooked,
moist
heat
68.81
5.391
Canned,
solids
with
bone
and
liquid
68.72
6.697
Canned,
drained
solids
with
bone
61.84
9.616
Cooked,
dry
heat
72.14
2.152
Raw
60.09
12.841
Cooked,
batter­
dipped
and
fried
70.35
1.275
Cooked,
dry
heat
69.94
4.544
Cooked,
dry
heat
62.50
3.829
Smoked
68.75
4.569
Cooked,
dry
heat
63.43
3.696
Cooked,
dry
heat
74.51
0.730
Canned
in
water,
drained
solids
69.48
2.220
Canned
in
water,
drained
solids
59.09
5.509
Cooked,
dry
heat
70.83
0.799
Smoked
74.71
1.216
Cooked,
dry
heat
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
78
August
1997
Table
10­
80.
Percent
Moisture
and
Fat
Content
for
Selected
Species
(
continued)
a
Species
(%)
(%)
Comments
Moisture
Total
Fat
Content
Content
b
SHELLFISH
Crab,
Alaska
King
79.57
NA
Raw
Crab,
Blue
79.02
0.801
Raw
Crab,
Dungeness
79.18
0.616
Raw
Crab,
Queen
80.58
0.821
Raw
Crayfish,
mixed
species
80.79
0.732
Raw
Lobster,
Northern
76.76
NA
Raw
Shrimp,
mixed
species
75.86
1.250
Raw
Spiny
Lobster,
mixed
species
74.07
1.102
Imitation
made
from
surimi,
raw
Clam,
mixed
species
81.82
0.456
Raw
Mussel,
Blue
80.58
1.538
Raw
Octopus,
common
80.25
0.628
Raw
Oyster,
Eastern
85.14
1.620
Raw
Oyster,
Pacific
82.06
1.752
Raw
Scallop,
mixed
species
78.57
0.377
Raw
Squid
78.55
0.989
Raw
77.55
0.854
Cooked,
moist
heat
79.16
0.910
Canned
(
dry
pack
or
drained
solids
of
wet
pack)
77.43
1.188
Cooked,
moist
heat
71.00
6.571
Crab
cakes
75.37
0.939
Cooked,
moist
heat
76.03
0.358
Cooked,
moist
heat
72.56
1.421
Canned
(
dry
pack
or
drained
solids
of
wet
pack)
52.86
10.984
Cooked,
breaded
and
fried
77.28
0.926
Cooked,
moist
heat
63.64
0.912
Canned,
drained
solids
97.70
NA
Canned,
liquid
61.55
10.098
Cooked,
breaded
and
fried
63.64
0.912
Cooked,
moist
heat
61.15
3.076
Cooked,
moist
heat
85.14
1.620
Canned
(
solids
and
liquid
based)
raw
64.72
11.212
Cooked,
breaded
and
fried
70.28
3.240
Cooked,
moist
heat
58.44
10.023
Cooked,
breaded
and
fried
73.82
NA
Imitation,
made
from
Surimi
64.54
6.763
Cooked,
fried
Imitation,
made
from
surimi
Data
are
reported
as
in
the
Handbook
a
Total
Fat
Content
­
saturated,
monosaturated
and
polyunsaturated
b
NA
=
Not
available
Source:
USDA,
1979­
1984
­
U.
S.
Agricultural
Handbook
No.
8
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
79
Table
10­
81.
Recommendations
­
General
Population
Mean
Intake
95th
Percentile
of
Long­
term
(
g/
day)
Intake
Distribution
(
g/
day)
Study
(
Reference)

20.1
(
Total
Fish)
U.
S.
EPA
Analysis
of
CSFII,
1989­
91
14.1
(
Marine
Fish)
6.0
(
Freshwater/
Estuarine
Fish)
63
(
Value
of
42
from
Javitz
was
adjusted
TRI
(
Javitz,
1980;
Ruffle
et
al.,
1994)
upward
by
50
percent
to
account
for
recent
increase
in
fish
consumption)

Table
10­
82.
Recommendations
­
General
Population
­
Fish
Serving
Size
Mean
Intake
(
grams)
95th
Percentile
(
grams)
Study
(
Reference)

129
326
1989­
1991
CSFII
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1996)

Table
10­
83.
Recommendations
­
Recreational
Marine
Anglers
Mean
Intake
(
g/
day)
95th
Percentile
(
g/
day)
Study
Location
Study
5.6
18.0
Atlantic
NMFS,
1993
7.2
26.0
Gulf
2.0
6.8
Pacific
Table
10­
84.
Recommendations
­
Freshwater
Anglers
Mean
Intake
(
g/
day)
Upper
Percentile
(
g/
day)
Study
Location
Reference
5
13
(
95th
percentile)
Maine
Ebert
et
al.,
1992
5
18
(
95th
percentile)
New
York
Connelly
et
al.,
1996
12
39
(
96th
percentile)
Michigan
West
et
al,
1989
17
­­­
Michigan
West
et
al,
1993
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
80
August
1997
Table
10­
85.
Recommendations
­
Native
American
Subsistence
Populations
Per­
Capita
(
or
Mean)
Intake
Upper
Percentile
(
g/
day)
(
g/
day)
Study
Population
Reference
59
170
(
95th)
4
Columbia
River
Tribes
CRITFC,
1994
16
­­­
94
Alaska
Communities
Wolfe
and
Walker,
1989
(
Lowest
of
94)

81
­­­
94
Alaska
Communities
Wolfe
and
Walker,
1989
(
Median
of
94)

770
­­­
94
Alaska
Communities
Wolfe
and
Walker,
1989
(
Highest
of
94)
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
81
Table
10­
86.
Summary
of
Fish
Intake
Studies
Source
of
Data
(
Reference)
Population
Surveyed
Survey
Time
Period/
Type
Analyses
Performed
(
References)
Limitations/
Advantages
General
Population
Key
Studies
Javitz,
1980
­
TRI
Survey
25,162
individuals
­

general
population;

the
TRI
Survey
sample
Sept.
1973­
Aug.
1974
(
1
year
survey).

Completed
diary
over
1
month
period
on
date
of
meal
consumption,
species
of
fish,
packaging
type,
amount
of
fish
prepared,
number
of
servings
consumed,
etc.
Mean
and
distribution
of
fish
consumption
rates
grouped
by
race,
age,
gender,
census
region,
fish
species,
community
type,
and
religion.
Lognormal
distribution
fit
to
fish
intake
distribution
by
age
and
region
by
Ruffle
et
al.
(
1994).
High
response
rate
(
80%);
population
was
large
and
geographically
and
seasonally
representative;
consumption
rates
based
on
one
month
of
diary
data;
survey
data
is
over
20
years
out
of
date
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a
11,912
individuals
­

general
population
Participants
provided
3
consecutive
days
of
dietary
data.
Three
survey
years
(
1989­
1991)
combined
into
one
data
set.
Analysis
of
CSFII
1989­
91.
Fish
grouped
by
habitat
(
freshwater
vs.
marine)
and
type
(
finfish
vs.
shellfish).
Per
capita
fish
intake
rates
calculated
using
cooked
and
uncooked
equivalent
weight
and
reported
in
g/
day
and
g/
kg­
day;
also
intake
distribution
per
day
eating
fish.
Large,
geographically
representative
study;

relatively
recent.
Based
on
short­
term
(
3
day)
data
so
long­
term
percentiles
of
fish
intake
distribution
could
not
be
estimated.

Relevant
Studies
AIHC,
1994
­­
­­
Distributions
using
@
Risk
simulation
software.
Limited
reviews
of
supporting
studies;
good
alternative
source
of
information.

Pao
et
al.,
1982
37,874
individuals
­

general
population
Participants
provided
3
consecutive
days
of
dietary
data.
Survey
conducted
between
April
1977
and
March
1978.
Mean
and
distribution
of
average
daily
fish
intake
and
average
fish
intake
per
eating
occasion;
by
age­
sex
groups
and
overall.
Population
was
large
and
geographically
representative;
data
were
based
on
shortterm
dietary
recall;
data
are
almost
20
years
out
of
date.

Tsang
and
Klepeis,
1996
9,386
individuals
­

general
population
Participants
provided
24­
hour
diary
data.
Follow­
up
questionnaires,
survey
conducted
between
October
1992
and
September
1994.
Frequency
of
eating
fish
and
number
of
servings
per
month
provided.
Population
large
and
geographically
and
seasonally
balanced;
data
based
on
recall;

intake
data
not
provided.

USDA,
1992
10,000
individualsgeneral
population
Participants
provided
3
consecutive
days
of
dietary
data.
Survey
conducted
between
April
1987
and
March
1988.
Per
capita
fish
intake
rates
and
percent
of
population
consuming
fish
in
one
day;
by
age
and
sex.
Population
was
large
and
geographically
and
seasonally
balanced;
data
based
on
shortterm
dietary
recall.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
82
August
1997
Table
10­
86.
Summary
of
Fish
Intake
Studies
(
continued)

Source
of
Data
(
Reference)
Population
Surveyed
Survey
Time
Period/
Type
Analyses
Performed
(
References)
Limitations/
Advantages
Recreational­
Marine
Fish
Key
Study
NMFS
1986a,
b,
c;
1993
Atlantic
and
Gulf
Coasts
­

41,000
field
interviews
and
58,000
telephone
interviews;

Pacific
Coast
­
38,000
field
interviews
and
73,000
telephone
interviews.
Telephone
interviews
with
residents
of
coastal
counties;
information
on
fishing
frequency
and
mode
of
fishing
trips.
Field
interviews
with
marine
anglers;

information
on
area
and
mode
fished,

fishing
frequency,
species
caught,
weight
of
fish,
and
whether
fish
were
intended
to
be
consumed.
Intake
rates
were
not
calculated;
total
catch
size
grouped
by
marine
species,

seasons,
and
number
of
fishermen
for
each
coastal
region
were
presented.
Population
was
large
geographically
and
seasonally
balanced;
fish
caught
were
weighed
in
the
field.
No
information
on
number
of
potential
consumers
of
catch.

Relevant
Studies
Pierce
et
al.,
1981
~
500
anglers
in
Commencement
Bay,

Washington
July­
November
1980;
creel
survey
interviews
conducted
consisting
of
5
summer
days
and
4
fall
days.
Distribution
of
fishing
frequency;
total
weight
of
catch
grouped
by
species.

Re­
analysis
by
Price
et
al.
(
1994)

using
inverse
fishing
frequency
as
sample
weights.
Local
survey.
Original
analysis
by
Pierce
et
al.
(
1981)
did
not
calculate
intake
rates;

analysis
over­
estimated
fishing
frequency
distribution
by
oversampling
frequent
anglers.
Re­
analysis
by
Price
et.
al.
(
1994)

involved
several
assumptions;
thus
results
are
questionable.

Puffer
et
al.,
1981
1,067
anglers
in
the
Los
Angeles,
California
area.
Creel
survey
conducted
for
the
full
1980
calendar
year.
Distribution
of
sport
fish
intake
rates.

Median
rates
by
age,
ethnicity
and
fish
species.
Re­
analysis
by
Price
et
al.

(
1994)
using
inverse
fishing
frequency
as
sample
weights.
Local
survey.
Original
(
unweighted)

analysis
over­
estimated
fish
intake
by
oversampling
frequent
anglers.
Re­
analysis
by
Price
et
al.
(
1994)
involves
several
assumptions;
thus
results
are
questionable.

U.
S.
DHHS,
1995
330
everglade
residents/

subsistence
fishermen
or
both
1992­
1993;
questionnaire
with
demographic
information
and
fishing
and
eating
habits.
Provides
data
for
fishing
frequency
by
sex,
age,
and
ethnicity.
Intake
rates
were
not
reported,
study
not
representative
of
the
U.
S.
population;
one
of
few
studies
that
target
subsistence
fishermen.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
83
Table
10­
86.
Summary
of
Fish
Intake
Studies
(
continued)

Source
of
Data
(
Reference)
Population
Surveyed
Survey
Time
Period/
Type
Analyses
Performed
(
References)
Limitations/
Advantages
Recreational
Fresh
Water
Fish
Key
Studies
Chemrisk,
1991;
Ebert
et
al.,
1993
1,612
licensed
Maine
anglers
1989­
1990
ice
fishing
season
and
1990
open
water
season;
mailed
survey;
one
year
recall
of
frequency
of
fishing
trips,

number
and
length
of
fish
species
caught.
Mean
and
distribution
of
fish
consumption
rates
by
ethnic
groups
and
overall.
Mean
and
distribution
of
fish
consumption
rates
for
fish
from
rivers
and
streams.
EPA
analysis
of
fish
intake
for
household
members.
Data
based
on
one
year
recall;
high
response
rate;
area­
specific
consumption
patterns.

Connelly
et
al.,
1996
825
anglers
with
NY
State
fishing
licenses
intending
to
fish
Lake
Ontario.
Survey
consisted
of
self­
recording
information
in
a
diary
for
1992
fishing
trips
and
fish
consumption.
Distribution
of
intake
rates
of
sport
caught
fish.
Meal
size
estimated
by
comparison
with
pictures
of
8
oz.
fish
meals.

West
et
al.,
1993
2,681
persons
with
Michigan
fishing
licenses
January
1991
through
January
1992;

mailed
survey;
7­
day
recall;

demographics
information
requested,
and
quantity
of
fish
eaten,
if
any,
at
each
meal
based
on
a
photograph
of
1/
2
lb
of
fish
(
more
about
same,
or
less).
Mean
consumption
rate
for
sport
and
total
fish
by
demographic
category
(
West
et
al.,
1993)
and
50th,
90th,
and
95th
percentile
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1995).
Relatively
low
response
made
and
only
three
categories
were
used
to
assign
fish
portion
size.
Relatively
large­
scale
study
and
reliance
on
short­
term
recall.

West
et
al.,
1989
1,171
Michigan
residents
with
fishing
licenses
January­
May
1988;
anglers
completed
questionnaires
based
on
7­
day
and
1­
year
recall.
Mean
intake
rates
of
self­
caught
fish
based
on
7­
day
recall
period
and
mean
and
percentiles
of
self­
caught
fish
intake
based
on
one
year
recall.
Weight
of
fish
consumed
was
estimated
using
a
picture
of
an
8
oz.
fish
meal;

smaller
meals
were
judged
to
be
5
oz.,

larger
ones
10
oz.

Relevant
Studies
Connelly
et
al.,
1992
1,030
anglers
licensed
in
New
York
Survey
mailed
out
in
Jan.
1992;
one
year
recall
of
the
period
Oct.
1990­
Sept.
1991
Knowledge
and
effects
of
fish
health
advisories.
Mean
number
of
sport­
caught
fish
meals.
Response
rate
of
52.8%;
only
number
of
fish
mealsreported.

Fiore
et
al.,
1989
801
individuals
with
Wisconsin
fish
or
sporting
licenses
1985
summer;
mailed
survey;
one
year
recall
of
sport
fish
consumption.
Mean
number
of
sport
caught
fish
meals
of
Wisconsin
anglers.
Constant
meal
size
assumed.

Hudson
River
Sloop
Clearwater,
Inc.
(
1993)
336
shore­
based
anglers
Survey
conducted
June­
November
1991;

April­
July
1992.
Onsite
interview
with
anglers
Knowledge
and
adherance
to
health
advsisories
Data
collected
from
personal
interviews;

intake
data
not
provided;
fish
meal
data
provided.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
84
August
1997
Table
10­
86.
Summary
of
Fish
Intake
Studies
(
continued)

Source
of
Data
(
Reference)
Population
Surveyed
Survey
Time
Period/
Type
Analyses
Performed
(
References)
Limitations/
Advantages
Native
American
Key
Studies
CRITFC,
1994
Four
tribes
in
Washington
state;
total
of
513
adults
and
204
children
under
five
Fall
and
Winter
of
1991­
1992;
stratified
random
sampling
approach;
in­
person
interviews;
information
requested
included
24­
hour
dietary
recall,
seasonal
and
annual
number
of
fish
meals,
average
weight
of
fish
meals
and
species
consumed.
Mean
and
distribution
of
fish
intake
rates
for
adults
and
for
children.
Mean
intake
rates
by
age
and
gender.

Frequency
of
cooking
and
preparation
methods.
Survey
was
done
at
only
one
time
of
the
year
and
involved
one
year
recall;
fish
intake
rates
were
based
on
all
fish
sources
but
great
majority
was
locally
caught;
study
provides
consumption
and
habits
for
subsistence
subpopulation
group.

Fitzgerald
et
al.
1995
97
Mohawk
women
in
New
York;
154
Caucasian
women;

nursing
mothers
1988­
1992,
up
to
3­
year
recall
Mean
number
of
sport­
caught
fish
meals
per
year.
Survey
for
nursing
mothers
only,
recall
for
up
to
3
years;
small
sample
size;
may
be
representative
of
Mohawk
women;
measured
in
fish
meals.

Petersen
et
al.,
1994
327
residents
of
Chippewa
reservation,
Wisconsin
Self­
administered
questionaire
completed
in
May,
1990.
Mean
number
of
fish
meals
per
year.
Did
not
distinguish
between
commercial
and
sport­
caught
meals.

Wolfe
and
Walker,

1987
Ninety­
eight
communities
in
Alaska
surveyed
by
various
researchers
Surveys
conducted
between
1980
and
1985;

data
based
on
1­
year
recall
period.
Annual
per
capita
harvest
of
fish,
land
mammals,

marine
mammals
and
other
resources
estimated
for
each
community.
Distribution
among
communities
of
annual
per­
capita
harvests
for
each
resource
category.
Data
based
on
1­
year
recall;
data
provided
are
harvest
data
that
must
be
converted
to
individual
intake
rates;
surveyed
communities
are
only
a
sample
of
all
Alaska
communities.

NFMS
­
National
Marine
Fisheries
Services.

a
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
85
Table
10­
87.
Confidence
in
Fish
Intake
Recommendations
for
General
Population
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study
Elements
C
Level
of
peer
review
Peer
reviewed
by
USDA
and
EPA.
High
C
Accessibility
CSFII
data
are
publicly
available.
Javitz
is
a
High
(
CSFII)
contractor
report
to
EPA.
Medium
(
Javitz)

C
Reproducibility
Enough
information
is
available
to
reproduce
High
results.

C
Focus
on
factor
of
interest
The
studies
focused
on
fish
ingestion.
High
C
Data
pertinent
to
U.
S.
The
studies
were
conducted
for
U.
S.
population.
High
C
Primary
data
The
studies
are
primary
studies.
High
C
Currency
Studies
were
conducted
from
1973­
1974
to
1989­
Medium
(
mean)
1991.
Low
(
Long­
Term
Distribution)

C
Adequacy
of
data
collection
period
Long­
term
distribution
are
based
on
one
month
data
High
(
Mean)
collection
period.
Medium
(
Long­
term
distribution)

C
Validity
of
approach
Data
are
collected
using
diaries
and
one­
day
recall.
Medium
However,
data
adjusted
to
account
for
changes
in
eating
pattern.

C
Study
size
The
Range
of
samples
was
10,000
­
37,000.
High
C
Representativeness
of
the
population
The
data
are
representative
of
overall
U.
S.
High
population.

C
Characterization
of
variability
Long­
term
distribution
(
generated
from
1973­
1974
Medium
data)
was
shifted
upward
based
on
recent
increase
in
mean
consumption.

C
Lack
of
bias
in
study
design
(
high
Response
rates
were
fairly
high;
there
was
no
High
rating
is
desirable)
obvious
source
of
bias.

C
Measurement
error
Estimates
of
intake
amounts
were
imprecise.
Medium
Other
Elements
C
Number
of
studies
There
was
1
study
for
the
mean,
the
results
of
2
Low
studies
were
utilized
for
long­
term
distribution.

C
Agreement
between
researchers
Medium
Overall
Rating
Medium
(
Mean)
Low
(
Long­
term
distribution)
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
86
August
1997
Table
10­
88.
Confidence
in
Fish
Intake
Recommendations
for
Recreational
Marine
Anglers
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study
Elements
C
Level
of
peer
review
Data
were
reviewed
by
NMFS
and
EPA.
High
C
Accessibility
The
analysis
of
the
NMFS
data
is
presented
in
the
Handbook
and
High
NMFS
data
can
be
found
in
NMFS
publications.

C
Reproducibility
Enough
information
is
available
to
reproduce
results.
High
C
Focus
on
factor
of
interest
Studies
focused
on
fish
catch
rather
than
fish
consumption
per
se.
Medium
C
Data
pertinent
to
U.
S.
The
studies
were
conducted
in
the
U.
S.
High
C
Primary
data
Data
are
from
primary
studies.
High
C
Currency
The
data
were
based
on
1993
studies.
High
C
Adequacy
of
data
collection
period
Data
were
collected
once
for
each
angler.
The
yearly
catch
of
Medium
anglers
were
estimated
from
catch
on
intercepted
trip
and
reported
fishing
frequency.

C
Validity
of
approach
The
creel
survey
provided
data
on
fishing
frequency
and
fish
Medium
weight;
telephone
survey
data
provided
number
of
anglers.
An
average
value
was
used
for
the
number
of
intended
fish
consumers
and
edible
fraction.

C
Study
size
Studies
encompassed
a
population
of
over
100,000.
High
C
Representativeness
of
the
population
Data
were
representative
of
overall
U.
S.
coastal
state
population.
High
C
Characterization
of
variability
Distributions
were
generated.
High
C
Lack
of
bias
in
study
design
(
high
Response
rates
were
fairly
high;
There
was
no
obvious
source
of
High
rating
is
desirable)
bias.

C
Measurement
error
Fish
were
weighed
in
the
field.
High
Other
Elements
C
Number
of
studies
There
was
1
study.
Low
C
Agreement
between
researchers
N/
A
Overall
Rating
Medium
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10­
87
Table
10­
89.
Confidence
in
Recommendations
for
Fish
Consumption
­
Recreational
Freshwater
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study
Elements
C
Level
of
peer
review
Studies
can
be
found
in
peer
reviewed
journals
and
has
been
High
reviewed
by
the
EPA.

C
Accessibility
The
original
study
analyses
are
reported
in
accessible
journals.
High
Subsequent
EPA
analyses
are
detailed
in
Handbook.

C
Reproducibility
Enough
information
is
available
to
reproduce
results.
High
C
Focus
on
factor
of
interest
Studies
focused
on
ingestion
of
fish
by
the
recreational
freshwater
High
angler.

C
Data
pertinent
to
U.
S.
The
studies
were
conducted
in
the
U.
S.
High
C
Primary
data
Data
are
from
primary
references.
High
C
Currency
Studies
were
conducted
between
1988­
1992.
High
C
Adequacy
of
data
collection
period
Data
were
collected
for
one
year
period
for
3
studies;
and
a
one
High
week
period
for
one
study.

C
Validity
of
approach
Data
presented
are
as
follows:
one
year
recall
of
fishing
trips
(
2
Medium
studies),
one
week
recall
of
fish
consumption
(
1
study),
and
one
year
diary
survey
(
1
study).
Weight
of
fish
consumed
was
estimated
using
approximate
weight
of
fish
catch
and
edible
fraction
or
approximate
weight
of
fish
meal.

C
Study
size
Study
population
ranged
from
800­
2600.
High
C
Representativeness
of
the
population
Each
study
was
localized
to
a
single
state
or
area.
Low
C
Characterization
of
variability
Distributions
were
generated.
High
C
Lack
of
bias
in
study
design
(
high
Response
rates
were
fairly
high.
One
year
recall
of
fishing
trips
Medium
rating
is
desirable)
may
result
in
overestimate.

C
Measurement
error
Weight
of
fish
portions
were
estimated
in
one
study,
fish
weight
Medium
was
estimated
from
reported
fish
length
in
another
study.

Other
Elements
C
Number
of
studies
There
are
4
key
studies.
High
C
Agreement
between
researchers
Intake
rates
in
different
parts
of
country
may
be
expected
to
show
Medium
some
variation.

Overall
Rating
The
main
drawback
is
that
studies
are
not
nationally
Medium
representative
and
not
representative
of
long­
term
consumption.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Chapter
10
­
Intake
of
Fish
and
Shellfish
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10­
88
August
1997
Table
10­
90.
Confidence
in
Recommendations
for
Native
American
Subsistence
Fish
Consumption
Considerations
Rationale
Rating
Study
Elements
C
Level
of
peer
review
Studies
are
from
peer
reviewed
journal
(
1
study),
and
Medium
technical
reports
(
1study).

C
Accessibility
Journal
articles
are
publicly
available.
CRITFC
is
a
Medium
technical
report.

C
Reproducibility
The
studies
were
adequately
detailed.
High
C
Focus
on
factor
of
interest
Studies
focused
on
fish
ingestion
and
fish
harvest.
High
C
Data
pertinent
to
U.
S.
All
studies
were
specific
to
area
in
the
U.
S.
High
C
Primary
data
One
study
used
primary
data,
the
other
used
secondary
Medium
data.

C
Currency
Data
were
from
early
1980'
s
to
1992.
Medium
C
Adequacy
of
data
collection
period
Data
collected
for
one
year
period.
High
C
Validity
of
approach
One
study
used
fish
harvest
data;
EPA
used
a
factor
to
Medium
convert
to
individual
intake.
Other
study
measured
individual
intake
directly.

C
Study
size
The
sample
population
was
500
for
the
study
with
primary
Medium
data.

C
Representativeness
of
the
population
Only
two
states
were
represented.
Low
C
Characterization
of
variability
Individual
variation
were
not
described
in
summary
study.
Medium
C
Lack
of
bias
in
study
design
(
high
The
response
rate
was
69%
in
study
with
primary
data.
Medium
rating
is
desirable)
Bias
was
hard
to
evaluate
in
summary
study.

C
Measurement
error
The
weight
of
the
fish
was
estimated.
Medium
Other
Elements
C
Number
of
studies
There
were
two
studies;
only
one
study
described
Medium
individual
variation
in
intake.

C
Agreement
between
researchers
Range
of
per­
capita
rates
from
summary
study
includes
High
per­
capita
rate
from
study
with
primary
data.

Overall
Rating
Studies
are
not
nationally
representative.
Upper
percentiles
Medium
(
per
capita
intake)
are
based
on
only
one
study.
Low
(
upper
percentiles)
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10A
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10A­
1
APPENDIX
10A
RESOURCE
UTILIZATION
DISTRIBUTION
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10A
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10A­
3
Appendix
10A.
Resource
Utilization
Distribution
The
percentiles
of
the
resource
utilization
distribution
of
Y
are
to
be
distinguished
from
the
percentiles
of
the
(
standard)
distribution
of
Y.
The
latter
percentiles
show
what
percentage
of
individuals
in
the
population
are
consuming
below
a
given
level.
Thus,
the
50th
percentile
of
the
distribution
of
Y
is
that
level
such
that
50
percent
of
individuals
consume
below
it;
on
the
other
hand,
the
50th
percentile
of
the
resource
utilization
distribution
is
that
level
such
that
50
percent
of
the
overall
consumption
in
the
population
is
done
by
individuals
consuming
below
it.

The
percentiles
of
the
resource
utilization
distribution
of
Y
will
always
be
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
corresponding
percentiles
of
the
(
standard)
distribution
of
Y,
and,
in
the
case
of
recreational
fish
consumption,
usually
considerably
exceed
the
standard
percentiles.

To
generate
the
resource
utilization
distribution,
one
simply
weights
each
observation
in
the
data
set
by
the
Y
level
for
that
observation
and
performs
a
standard
percentile
analysis
of
weighted
data.
If
the
data
already
have
weights,
then
one
multiplies
the
original
weights
by
the
Y
level
for
that
observation,
and
then
performs
the
percentile
analysis.

Under
certain
assumptions,
the
resource
utilization
percentiles
of
fish
consumption
may
be
related
(
approximately)
to
the
(
standard)
percentiles
of
fish
consumption
derived
from
the
analysis
of
creel
studies.
In
this
instance,
it
is
assumed
that
the
creel
survey
data
analysis
did
not
employ
sampling
weights
(
i.
e.,
weights
were
implicitly
set
to
one);
this
is
the
case
for
many
of
the
published
analyses
of
creel
survey
data.
In
creel
studies
the
fish
consumption
rate
for
the
ith
individual
is
usually
derived
by
multiplying
the
amount
of
fish
consumption
per
fishing
trip
(
say
C
)
by
the
frequency
of
fishing
(
say
f
).
i
i
If
it
is
assumed
that
the
probability
of
sampling
of
an
angler
is
proportional
to
fishing
frequency,
then
sampling
weights
of
inverse
fishing
frequency
(
1/
f
)
should
be
employed
in
the
analysis
of
the
survey
data.
Above
it
was
stated
that
for
data
that
i
are
already
weighted
the
resource
utilization
distribution
is
generated
by
multiplying
the
original
weights
by
the
individual's
fish
consumption
level
to
create
new
weights.
Thus,
to
generate
the
resource
utilization
distribution
from
the
data
with
weights
of
(
1/
f
),
one
multiplies
(
1/
f
)
by
the
fish
consumption
level
of
f
C
to
get
new
weights
of
C
.
i
i
i
i
i
Now
if
C
(
amount
of
consumption
per
fishing
trip)
is
constant
over
the
population,
then
these
new
weights
are
constant
i
and
can
be
taken
to
be
one.
But
weights
of
one
is
what
(
it
is
assumed)
were
used
in
the
original
creel
survey
data
analysis.
Hence,
the
resource
utilization
distribution
is
exactly
the
same
as
the
original
(
standard)
distribution
derived
from
the
creel
survey
using
constant
weights.

The
accuracy
of
this
approximation
of
the
resource
utilization
distribution
of
fish
by
the
(
standard)
distribution
of
fish
consumption
derived
from
an
unweighted
analysis
of
creel
survey
data
depends
then
on
two
factors,
how
approximately
constant
the
C
`
s
are
in
the
population
and
how
approximately
proportional
the
relationship
between
sampling
probability
i
and
fishing
frequency
is.
Sampling
probability
will
be
roughly
proportional
to
frequency
if
repeated
sampling
at
the
same
site
is
limited
or
if
re­
interviewing
is
performed
independent
of
past
interviewing
status.

Note:
For
any
quantity
Y
that
is
consumed
by
individuals
in
a
population,
the
percentiles
of
the
"
resource
utilization
distribution"
of
Y
can
be
formally
defined
as
follows:
Y
(
R)
is
the
pth
percentile
of
the
resource
utilization
p
distribution
if
p
percent
of
the
overall
consumption
of
Y
in
the
population
is
done
by
individuals
with
consumption
below
Y
(
R)
and
100­
p
percent
is
done
by
individuals
with
consumption
above
Y
(
R).
p
p
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10B
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10B­
1
APPENDIX
10B
FISH
PREPARATION
AND
COOKING
METHODS
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10B
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10B­
3
Table
10B­
1.
Percent
of
Fish
Meals
Prepared
Using
Various
Cooking
Methods
by
Residence
Sizea
Residence
Size
City/
Suburb
Small
City
Town
Small
Town
Farm
Farm
Large
Rural
Non­

Total
Fish
Cooking
Method
Pan
Fried
32.7
31.0
36.0
32.4
38.6
51.6
Deep
Fried
19.6
24.0
23.3
24.7
26.2
15.7
Boiled
6.0
3.0
3.4
3.7
3.4
3.5
Grilled/
Broiled
23.6
20.8
13.8
21.4
13.7
13.1
Baked
12.4
12.4
10.0
10.3
12.7
6.4
Combination
2.5
6.0
8.3
5.0
2.3
7.0
Other
(
Smoked,
etc.)
3.2
2.8
5.2
1.9
2.9
1.8
Don't
Know
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.5
0.2
­­
Total
(
N)
393
317
388
256
483
94
b
Sport
Fish
Pan
Fried
45.8
45.7
47.6
41.4
51.2
63.3
Deep
Fried
12.2
14.5
17.5
15.2
21.9
7.3
Boiled
2.8
2.3
2.9
0.5
3.6
0
Grilled/
Broiled
20.2
17.6
10.6
25.3
8.2
10.4
Baked
11.8
8.8
6.3
8.7
9.7
6.9
Combination
2.7
8.5
10.4
6.7
1.9
9.3
Other
(
smoked,
etc.)
4.5
2.7
4.9
1.5
3.5
2.8
Don't
Know
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
Total
(
N)
205
171
257
176
314
62
Large
City
=
over
100,000;
Small
City
=
20,000­
100,000;
Town
=
2,000­
20,000;
Small
Town
=
100­
2,000.
a
N
=
Total
number
of
respondents
b
Source:
West
et
al.,
1993.

Table
10B­
2.
Percent
of
Fish
Meals
Prepared
Using
Various
Cooking
Methods
by
Age
Age
(
years)
17­
30
31­
40
41­
50
51­
64
>
64
Overall
Total
Fish
Cooking
Method
Pan
Fried
45.9
31.7
30.5
33.9
40.7
35.3
Deep
Fried
23.0
24.7
26.9
23.7
14.0
23.5
Boiled
0.0000
6.0
3.6
3.9
4.3
3.9
Grilled
or
Boiled
15.6
15.2
24.3
16.1
18.8
17.8
Baked
10.8
13.0
8.7
12.8
11.5
11.4
Combination
3.1
5.2
2.2
6.5
6.8
4.7
Other
(
Smoked,
etc.)
1.6
4.2
3.5
2.7
4.0
3.2
Don't
Know
0.0000
0.0000
0.3
0.4
0.0000
0.2
Total
(
N)
246
448
417
502
287
1946
a
Sport
Fish
Pan
Fried
57.6
42.6
43.4
46.6
54.1
47.9
Deep
Fried
18.2
21.0
17.3
14.8
7.7
16.5
Boiled
0.0000
4.4
0.8
3.2
3.1
2.4
Grilled/
Broiled
15.0
10.1
25.9
12.2
12.2
14.8
Baked
3.6
10.4
6.4
11.7
9.9
8.9
Combination
3.8
7.2
3.0
7.5
8.2
5.9
Other
(
Smoked,
etc.)
1.7
4.3
3.2
3.5
4.8
3.5
Don't
Know
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4
0.0000
0.1
Total
(
N)
174
287
246
294
163
1187
N
=
Total
number
of
respondents.
a
Source:
West
et
al.,
1993.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10C
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10B­
4
August
1997
Table
10B­
3.
Percent
of
Fish
Meals
Prepared
Using
Various
Cooking
Methods
by
Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Black
Native
American
Hispanic
White
Other
Total
Fish
Cooking
Method
Pan
Fried
40.5
37.5
16.1
35.8
18.5
Deep
Fried
27.0
22.0
83.9
22.7
18.4
Boiled
0
1.1
0
4.3
0
Grilled/
Broiled
19.4
9.8
0
17.7
57.6
Baked
1.9
16.3
0
11.7
5.4
Combination
9.5
6.2
0
4.5
0
Other
(
Smoked,
etc.)
1.6
4.2
3.5
2.7
4.0
Don't
Know
0
0
0.3
0.4
0
Total
(
N)
52
84
12
1,744
33
a
Sport
Fish
Pan
Fried
44.9
47.9
52.1
48.8
22.0
Deep
Fried
36.2
20.2
47.9
15.7
9.6
Boiled
0
0
0
2.7
0
Grilled/
Broiled
0
1.5
0
14.7
61.9
Baked
5.3
18.2
0
8.6
6.4
Combination
13.6
8.6
0
5.6
0
Other
(
Smoked,
etc.)
0
3.6
0
3.7
0
Total
(
N)
19
60
4
39
0
N
=
Total
number
of
respondents.
a
Source:
West
et
al.,
1993.

Table
10B­
4.
Percent
of
Fish
Meals
Prepared
Using
Various
Cooking
Methods
by
Education
Education
Through
Some
H.
S.
H.
S.
Degree
College
Degree
Education
Post
Graduate
Total
Fish
Cooking
Method
Pan
Fried
44.7
41.8
28.8
22.9
Deep
Fried
23.6
23.6
23.8
19.4
Boiled
2.2
2.8
5.1
5.8
Grilled/
Broiled
8.9
10.9
23.8
34.1
Baked
8.1
12.1
11.6
12.8
Combination
10.0
5.1
3.0
3.8
Other
(
Smoked,
etc.)
2.1
3.4
4.0
1.3
Don't
Know
0.5
0.3
0
0
Total
(
N)
236
775
704
211
a
Sport
Fish
Pan
Fried
56.1
52.4
41.8
36.3
Deep
Fried
13.6
15.8
18.6
12.9
Boiled
2.8
2.4
3.0
0
Grilled/
Baked
6.3
9.4
21.7
28.3
Baked
7.4
10.6
6.1
14.9
Combination
10.1
6.3
3.9
6.5
Other
(
Smoked,
etc.)
2.8
3.3
4.6
1.0
Don't
Know
0.8
0
0
0
Total
(
N)
146
524
421
91
N
=
Total
number
of
respondents.
a
Source:
West
et
al.,
1993.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10B
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10B­
5
Table
10B­
5.
Percent
of
Fish
Meals
Prepared
Using
Various
Cooking
Methods
by
Income
Income
0
­
$
24,999
$
25,000
­
$
39,999
$
40,000
­
or
more
Total
Fish
Cooking
Method
Pan
Fried
44.8
39.1
26.5
Deep
Fried
21.7
22.2
23.4
Boiled
2.1
3.5
5.6
Grilled/
Broiled
11.3
15.8
25.0
Baked
9.1
12.3
13.3
Combination
8.7
2.9
2.5
Other
(
Smoked,
etc.)
2.4
4.0
3.5
Don't
Know
0
0.2
0.3
Total
(
N)
544
518
714
a
Sport
Fish
Pan
Fried
51.5
51.4
42.0
Deep
Fried
15.8
15.8
17.2
Boiled
1.8
2.1
3.7
Grilled/
Broiled
12.0
12.2
19.4
Baked
7.2
10.0
10.0
Combination
9.1
3.8
3.5
Other
(
Smoked,
etc.)
2.7
4.6
3.8
Don't
Know
0
0
0.3
Total
(
N)
387
344
369
N
=
Total
number
of
respondents.
a
Source:
West
et
al.,
1993.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10C
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10B­
6
August
1997
Table
10B­
6.
Percent
of
Fish
Meals
Where
Fat
was
Trimmed
or
Skin
was
Removed,
by
Demographic
Variables
Total
Fish
Sport
Fish
Population
Trimmed
Fat
(%)
Skin
Off
(%)
Trimmed
Fat
(%)
Skin
Off
(%)

Residence
Size
Large
City/
Suburb
51.7
31.6
56.7
28.9
Small
City
56.9
34.1
59.3
36.2
Town
50.3
33.4
51.7
33.7
Small
Town
52.6
45.2
55.8
51.3
Rural
Non­
Farm
42.4
32.4
46.2
34.6
Farm
37.3
38.1
39.4
42.1
Age
(
years)
17­
30
50.6
36.5
53.9
39.3
31­
40
49.7
29.7
51.6
29.9
41­
50
53.0
32.2
58.8
37.0
51­
65
48.1
35.6
48.8
37.2
Over
65
41.6
43.1
43.0
42.9
Ethnicity
Black
25.8
37.1
16.0
40.1
Native
American
50.0
41.4
56.3
36.7
Hispanic
59.5
7.1
50.0
23.0
White
49.3
34.0
51.8
35.6
Other
77.1
61.6
75.7
65.5
Education
Some
High
School
50.8
43.9
49.7
47.1
High
School
Degree
47.2
37.1
49.5
37.6
College
Degree
51.9
31.9
55.9
33.8
Post­
Graduate
47.6
26.6
53.4
38.7
Income
<$
25,000
50.5
43.8
50.6
47.3
$
25­
39,999
47.8
34.0
54.9
34.6
$
40,000
or
more
50.2
28.6
51.7
27.7
Overall
49.0
34.7
52.1
36.5
Source:
Modified
from
West
et.
al.,
1993.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10B
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10B­
7
Table
10B­
7.
Method
of
Cooking
of
Most
Common
Species
Kept
by
Sportfishermen
Species
Percent
of
Anglers
Use
as
Primary
Cooking
Method
(
Percent)
Catching
Species
Deep
Fry
Pan
Fry
Bake
and
Charcoal
Broil
Raw
Otherb
White
Croaker
34%
19%
64%
12%
0%
5%
Pacific
Mackerel
25%
10%
41%
28%
0%
21%
Pacific
Bonito
18%
5%
33%
43%
2%
17%
Queenfish
17%
15%
70%
6%
1%
8%
Jacksmelt
13%
17%
57%
19%
0%
7%
Walleye
Perch
10%
12%
69%
6%
0%
13%
Shiner
Perch
7%
11%
72%
8%
0%
11%
Opaleye
6%
16%
56%
14%
0%
14%
Black
Perch
5%
18%
53%
14%
0%
15%
Kelp
Bass
5%
12%
55%
21%
0%
12%
California
Halibut
4%
13%
60%
24%
0%
3%
Shellfish
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
a
(
n
=
1059)
Crab,
mussels,
lobster,
abalone
a
Boil,
soup,
steam,
stew
b
Source:
Modified
from
Puffer
et
al.,
1981.

Table
10B­
8.
Adult
Consumption
of
Fish
Parts
Species
Consuming
Fillet
Skin
Head
Eggs
Bones
Organs
Number
Weighted
Percent
Consuming
Specific
Parts
Salmon
473
95.1%
55.8%
42.7%
42.8%
12.1%
3.7%
Lamprey
249
86.4%
89.3%
18.1%
4.6%
5.2%
3.2%
Trout
365
89.4%
68.5%
13.7%
8.7%
7.1%
2.3%
Smelt
209
78.8%
88.9%
37.4%
46.4%
28.4%
27.9%
Whitefish
125
93.8%
53.8%
15.4%
20.6%
6.0%
0.0%
Sturgeon
121
94.6%
18.2%
6.2%
11.9%
2.6%
0.3%
Walleye
46
100%
20.7%
6.2%
9.8%
2.4%
0.9%
Squawfish
15
89.7%
34.1%
8.1%
11.1%
5.9%
0.0%
Sucker
42
89.3%
50.0%
19.4%
30.4%
9.8%
2.1%
Shad
16
93.5%
15.7%
0.0%
0.0%
3.3%
0.0%

Source:
CRITFC,
1994.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10C
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10C­
1
APPENDIX
10C
PER
CAPITA
ESTIMATES
BY
SPECIES
BASED
ON
THE
USDA
CSFII
DATA
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10C
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10C­
3
Table
10C­
1.
Daily
Average
Per
Capita
Estimates
of
Fish
Consumption
U.
S.
Population
­
Mean
Consumption
by
Species
Within
Habitat
­
As
Consumed
Fish
Habitat
Species
Estimated
Mean
Grams/
Person/
Day
Habitat
Species
Estimated
Mean
Grams/
Person/
Day
Habitat
Species
Estimated
Mean
Grams/
Person/
Day
Estuarine
Freshwater
Marine
Shrimp
Perch
Flatfish
(
Estuarine)

Crab
(
Estuarine)

Flounder
Oyster
Clam
(
Estuarine)

Mullet
Croaker
Herring
Smelts
Scallop
(
Estuarine)

Anchovy
Scup
Sturgeon
Catfish
Trout
Carp
Pike
Salmon
(
Freshwater)

Tuna
Clam
(
Marine)

Cod
Flatfish
(
Marine)

Salmon
(
Marine)

Haddock
Pollock
Crab
(
Marine)

Ocean
Perch
Porgy
Scallop
(
Marine)

Sea
Bass
Lobster
1.37241
0.52580
0.43485
0.29086
0.24590
0.17840
0.14605
0.07089
0.05021
0.02937
0.02768
0.00247
0.00228
0.00050
0.00040
1.06776
0.43050
0.04846
0.01978
0.00881
4.19998
1.66153
1.22627
1.06307
0.73778
0.51533
0.44970
0.33870
0.31878
0.29844
0.21805
0.20794
0.20001
Marine
(
Cont)
Unknown
All
Species
Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pompano
Sole
Mackerel
Whiting
Halibut
Mussels
Shark
Whitefish
Seafood
Snapper
Octopus
Barracuda
Abalone
Fish
Tuna
Clam
(
Marine)

Shrimp
Cod
Catfish
Faltfish
(
Marine)

Salmon
(
Marine)

Perch
Haddock
Pollock
Flatfish
(
Estuarine)

Trout
Crab
(
Marine)

Ocean
Perch
Porgy
Crab
(
Estuarine)
0.13879
0.12196
0.10013
0.09131
0.07396
0.06379
0.05498
0.02463
0.02217
0.01901
0.00916
0.00574
0.00539
0.00375
0.00111
0.00075
0.00186
4.19998
1.66153
1.38883
1.22827
1.06776
1.06307
0.73778
0.52580
0.51533
0.44970
0.43485
0.43050
0.33870
0.31878
0.29844
0.29088
All
Species
(
Cont)
Flounder
Scallop
(
Marine)

Sea
Bass
Lobster
Oyster
Clam
(
Estuarine)

Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pompano
Sole
Mullet
Mackarel
Whiting
Croaker
Carp
Herring
Smelts
Halibut
Mussels
Pike
Shark
Whitefish
Salmon
(
Freshwater)

Seafood
Snapper
Octopus
Scallop
(
Estuarine)

Anchovy
Fish
Barracuda
Abalone
Scup
Sturgeon
0.24590
0.21805
0.20794
0.20001
0.17840
0.14605
0.13879
0.12196
0.10313
0.09131
0.07396
0.07089
0.06379
0.05498
0.05021
0.04846
0.02937
0.02768
0.02463
0.02217
0.01978
0.01901
0.00916
0.00881
0.00574
0.00539
0.00375
0.00247
0.00228
0.00166
0.00111
0.00075
0.00050
0.00040
Notes:
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
11,912
individuals
to
the
U.
S.
population
of
242,707,000
using
3­
year
combined
survey
weights.
The
population
for
this
survey
consisted
of
individuals
in
the
48
conteminous
states.

Source
of
individual
consumption
data:
USDA
Combined
1989,
1990,
and
1991
Continuing
Survey
of
Food
Intakes
by
Individuals
(
CSFII).

The
fish
component
of
foods
containing
fish
was
calculated
using
data
from
the
recipe
file
for
release
7
of
the
USDA's
Nutrient
Data
Base
for
Individual
Food
Intake
Surveys.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10C
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10C­
4
August
1997
Table
10C­
2.
Daily
Average
Per
Capita
Estimates
of
Fish
Consumption
U.
S.
Population
­
Mean
Consumption
by
Species
Within
Habitat
­
Uncooked
Fish
Habitat
Species
Estimated
Mean
Grams/
Person/
Day
Habitat
Species
Estimated
Mean
Grams/
Person/
Day
Habitat
Species
Estimated
Mean
Grams/
Person/
Day
Estuarine
Freshwater
Marine
Shrimp
Perch
Flatfish
(
Estuarine)

Crab
(
Estuarine)

Flounder
Oyster
Mullet
Croaker
Smelts
Herring
Clam
(
Estuarine)

Anchovy
Scallop
(
Estuarine)

Scup
Sturgeon
Catfish
Trout
Carp
Pike
Salmon
(
Freshwater)

Tuna
Cod
Flatfish
(
Marine)

Salmon
(
Marine)

Haddock
Pollock
Crab
(
Marine)

Porgy
Ocean
Perch
Clam
(
Marine)

Lobster
Sea
Bass
Scallop
(
Marine)
1.78619
0.66494
0.50832
0.40848
0.28559
0.18827
0.08959
0.06539
0.03470
0.03408
0.03339
0.00304
0.00297
0.00050
0.00040
1.38715
0.53777
0.06012
0.02244
0.01183
5.67438
1.47609
1.24268
0.99093
0.62219
0.52906
0.47567
0.42587
0.39327
0.37982
0.27583
0.26661
0.26199
Marine
(
Cont)
Unknown
All
Species
Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pompano
Mackerel
Sole
Whiting
Mussels
Halibut
Shark
Whitefish
Snapper
Octopus
Barracuda
Abalone
Seafood
Fish
Tuna
Shrimp
Cod
Catfish
Flatfish
(
Marine)

Salmon
(
Marine)

Perch
Haddock
Trout
Pollock
Flatfish
(
Estuarine)

Crab
(
Marine)

Porgy
Crab
(
Estuarine)

Ocean
Perch
Clam
(
Marine)
0.17903
0.14420
0.13750
0.12160
0.09866
0.08339
0.06514
0.03718
0.03030
0.02385
0.00916
0.00551
0.00457
0.00130
0.00094
0.00043
0.00248
5.67438
1.78619
1.47609
1.38715
1.24268
0.99093
0.66494
0.62219
0.53777
0.52906
0.50832
0.47567
0.42587
0.40848
0.39327
0.37982
All
Species
(
Cont)
Flounder
Lobster
Sea
Bass
Scallop
(
Marine)

Oyster
Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pompano
Mackarel
Mullet
Sole
Croaker
Whiting
Carp
Mussels
Smelts
Herring
Clam
(
Estuarine)

Halibut
Shark
Pike
Salmon
(
Freshwater)

Whitefish
Snapper
Octopus
Anchovy
Scallop
(
Estuarine)

Fish
Barracuda
Abalone
Scup
Seafood
Sturgeon
0.28559
0.27563
0.26661
0.26199
0.18827
0.17903
0.14420
0.13750
0.12160
0.09866
0.08958
0.08339
0.06539
0.06514
0.06012
0.03718
0.03470
0.03406
0.03339
0.03030
0.02385
0.02244
0.01183
0.00916
0.00551
0.00457
0.00304
0.00297
0.00248
0.00130
0.00094
0.00050
0.00043
0.00040
Notes:
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
11,912
individuals
to
the
U.
S.
population
of
242,707,000
using
3­
year
combined
survey
weights.
The
population
for
this
survey
consisted
of
individuals
in
the
48
conteminous
states.

Source
of
individual
consumption
data:
USDA
Combined
1989,
1990,
and
1991
Continuing
Survey
of
Food
Intakes
by
Individuals
(
CSFII).

Amount
of
consumed
fish
recorded
by
survey
respondents
was
converted
to
uncooked
fish
quantities
using
data
from
the
recipe
file
for
release
7
of
USDA's
Nutrient
Data
Base
for
Individual
Food
Intake
Surveys.
The
fish
component
of
foods
containing
fish
was
calculated
using
data
from
the
recipe
file
for
release
7
of
the
USDA's
Nutrient
Data
Base
for
Individual
Food
Intake
Surveys.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10C
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
Page
August
1997
10C­
5
Table
10C­
3.
Daily
Average
Per
Capita
Estimates
Of
Fish
Consumption
As
Consumed
Fish
­
Mean
Consumption
by
Species
Within
Habitat
U.
S.
Population
Habitat
Species
Estimated
Mean
Grams/
person/
day
Habitat
Species
Estimated
Mean
Grams/
person/
day
Habitat
Species
Estimated
Mean
Grams/
person/
day
Estuarine
Freshwater
Marine
Shrimp
Perch
Flatfish
Crab
Flounder
Oyster
Mullet
Croaker
Herring
Smelts
Clam
Scallop
Anchovy
Scup
Sturgeon
Catfish
Trout
Carp
Pike
Salmon
Tuna
Cod
Flatfish
Salmon
Haddock
Pollock
Crab
Ocean
Perch
Clam
Porgy
Scallop
Sea
Bass
Lobster
1.37241
0.52580
0.43485
0.29086
0.24590
0.17419
0.07089
0.05021
0.02937
0.02768
0.02691
0.00247
0.00228
0.00050
0.00040
1.06776
0.43050
0.04846
0.01978
0.00881
4.19998
1.22827
1.06307
0.73778
0.51533
0.44970
0.33870
0.31878
0.30617
0.29844
0.21805
0.20794
0.20001
Marine
(
Con't.)

Unknown
All
Species
Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pompano
Sole
Mackerel
Whiting
Halibut
Mussels
Shark
Whitefish
Snapper
Octopus
Barracuda
Abalone
Seafood
Fish
Tuna
Shrimp
Cod
Catfish
Flatfish
(
Marine)

Salmon
(
Marine)

Perch
Haddock
Pollock
Flatfish
(
Estuarine)

Trout
Crab
(
Marine)

Ocean
Perch
Clam
(
Marine)

Porgy
Crab
(
Estuarine)
0.13879
0.12196
0.10313
0.09131
0.07396
0.06379
0.05498
0.02463
0.02217
0.01901
0.00916
0.00539
0.00375
0.00111
0.00075
0.00043
0.00186
4.19998
1.37241
1.22827
1.06776
1.06307
0.73778
0.52580
0.51533
0.44970
0.43485
0.43050
0.33870
0.31878
0.30617
0.29844
0.29086
All
Species
(
Con't.)
Flounder
Scallop
(
Marine)

Sea
Bass
Lobster
Oyster
Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pompano
Sole
Mullet
Mackerel
Whiting
Croaker
Carp
Herring
Smelts
Clam
(
Estuarine)

Halibut
Mussels
Pike
Shark
Whitefish
Salmon
(
Freshwater)

Snapper
Octopus
Scallop
(
Estuarine)

Anchovy
Fish
Barracuda
Abalone
Scup
Seafood
Sturgeon
0.24590
0.21805
0.20794
0.20001
0.17419
0.13879
0.12196
0.10313
0.09131
0.07396
0.07089
0.06379
0.05498
0.05021
0.04846
0.02937
0.02768
0.02691
0.02463
0.02217
0.01978
0.01901
0.00916
0.00881
0.00539
0.00375
0.00247
0.00228
0.00186
0.00111
0.00075
0.00050
0.00043
0.00040
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
11,912
individuals
to
the
U.
S.
population
of
242,707,000
using
3­
year
combined
survey
weights.

Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.
Volume
II
­
Food
Ingestion
Factors
Appendix
10C
Page
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
10C­
6
August
1997
Table
10C­
4.
Daily
Average
Per
Capita
Estimates
Of
Fish
Consumption
Uncooked
Fish**
­
Mean
Consumption
by
Species
Within
Habitat
U.
S.
Population
Habitat
Species
Estimated
Mean
Grams/
person/
day
Habitat
Species
Estimated
Mean
Grams/
person/
day
Habitat
Species
Estimated
Mean
Grams/
person/
day
Estuarine
Freshwater
Marine
Shrimp
Perch
Flatfish
Crab
Flounder
Oyster
Mullet
Croaker
Smelts
Herring
Clam
Anchovy
Scallop
Scup
Sturgeon
Catfish
Trout
Carp
Pike
Salmon
Tuna
Cod
Flatfish
Salmon
Haddock
Pollock
Crab
Porgy
Ocean
Perch
Clam
Lobster
Sea
Bass
Scallop
1.78619
0.66494
0.50832
0.40848
0.28559
0.18827
0.08958
0.06539
0.03470
0.03408
0.03339
0.00304
0.00297
0.00050
0.00040
1.38715
0.53777
0.06012
0.02244
0.01183
5.67438
1.47609
1.24268
0.99093
0.62219
0.52906
0.47567
0.42587
0.39327
0.37982
0.27563
0.26661
0.26199
Marine
(
Con't.)

Unknown
All
Species
Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pompano
Mackerel
Sole
Whiting
Mussels
Halibut
Shark
Whitefish
Snapper
Octopus
Barracuda
Abalone
Seafood
Fish
Tuna
Shrimp
Cod
Catfish
Flatfish
(
Marine)

Salmon
(
Marine)

Perch
Haddock
Trout
Pollock
Flatfish
(
Estuarine)

Crab
(
Marine)

Porgy
Crab
(
Estuarine)

Ocean
Perch
Clam
(
Marine)
0.17903
0.14420
0.13750
0.12160
0.09866
0.08339
0.06514
0.03718
0.03030
0.02385
0.00916
0.00551
0.00457
0.00130
0.00094
0.00043
0.00248
5.67438
1.78619
1.47609
1.38715
1.24268
0.99093
0.66494
0.62219
0.53777
0.52906
0.50832
0.47567
0.42587
0.40848
0.39327
0.37982
All
Species
(
Con't.)
Flounder
Lobster
Sea
Bass
Scallop
(
Marine)

Oyster
Swordfish
Squid
Sardine
Pompano
Mackerel
Mullet
Sole
Croaker
Whiting
Carp
Mussels
Smelts
Herring
Clam
(
Estuarine)

Halibut
Shark
Pike
Salmon
(
Freshwater)

Whitefish
Snapper
Octopus
Anchovy
Scallop
(
Estuarine)

Fish
Barracuda
Abalone
Scup
Seafood
Sturgeon
0.28559
0.27563
0.26661
0.26199
0.18827
0.17903
0.14420
0.13750
0.12160
0.09866
0.08958
0.08339
0.06539
0.06514
0.06012
0.03718
0.03470
0.03408
0.03339
0.03030
0.02385
0.02244
0.01183
0.00916
0.00551
0.00457
0.00304
0.00297
0.00248
0.00130
0.00094
0.00050
0.00043
0.00040
Estimates
are
projected
from
a
sample
of
11,912
individuals
to
the
U.
S.
population
of
242,707,000
using
3­
year
combined
survey
weights.

Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1996a.