# Hg Content in EU and Non-EU Processed Meat and Fish Foods
## 3 Results
### Results  
Table 2 and Figure 1 report the variable mean mercury concentrations (expressed in \(\mu\)g/Kg), determined in meat, fish, and shellfish processed by DMA-80. In general, processed fish and shellfish products showed a higher amount of Hg than meat. Theresults were variable: the mercury concentration range in fish varied from 9.25 \(\mu\)g/Kg to 290.21 \(\mu\)g/Kg--minimum and maximum levels obtained for _T. thymus_ species. Among the aquatic species tested, the mean mercury content decreased in the following order: tuna > sardines > mackerel > salmon > shrimps > crab (Table 2). The processed meat samples, instead, showed a mercury content between <LOQ and 3.73 \(\mu\)g/Kg. Only nine of thirty samples reported a Hg concentration exceeding the limit of quantification (3.00 \(\mu\)g/Kg). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Mean Hg Concentration (\(\mu\)g/Kg)** \\ \hline F1 & 250.92 \(\pm\) 3.68 \\ F2 & 290.21 \(\pm\) 4.64 \\ F3 & 9.25 \(\pm\) 0.85 \\ F4 & 70.11 \(\pm\) 4.22 \\ F5 & 50.82 \(\pm\) 3.58 \\ F6 & 11.90 \(\pm\) 0.88 \\ F7 & 25.71 \(\pm\) 1.40 \\ F8 & 14.00 \(\pm\) 0.18 \\ F9 & 10.05 \(\pm\) 1.74 \\ F10 & 12.89 \(\pm\) 2.55 \\ F11 & 20.65 \(\pm\) 3.52 \\ F12 & 32.45 \(\pm\) 5.68 \\ F13 & 9.45 \(\pm\) 0.30 \\ F14 & 99.93 \(\pm\) 1.43 \\ M1 & 3.17 \(\pm\) 0.12 \\ M2 & <LOQ \\ M3 & <LOQ \\ M4 & <LOQ \\ M5 & <LOQ \\ M6 & <LOQ \\ M7 & <LOQ \\ M8 & 3.17 \(\pm\) 0.11 \\ M9 & 3.73 \(\pm\) 0.18 \\ M10 & <LOQ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mean concentration levels of mercury expressed as \(\mu\)g/Kg. Figure 1: Box plot reporting the variable mercury content in relation to different types of matrices. The “\(\times\)” indicates the average value of mercury. The TWI values calculated in this study were reported in Tables 3 and 4. In accordance with the EFSA guidelines, the Tolerable Weekly Intake (TWI) percentage values were calculated considering an average consumption of an amount of 200 g, considering FAOSTAT data [36] for both fish and meat products, of the processed products by 70 Kg adult body weight. To calculate the TWI percentage, the Formula (1) was used:  
\[\text{TWI}\%=\left[\frac{\left\{\left[\left(\text{C}\times 0.2\text{ Kg}\right)/70\text{ Kg}\right]\times 7\right\}}{\text{TWI}}\right]\times 100 \tag{1}\]  
where C is the concentration of mercury (\(\text{\mu g}/\text{Kg}\)), 0.2 Kg is the food portion, 70 Kg is the body weight of an adult, TWI is the Tolerable Weekly Intake indicated by EFSA. Table 3 reports the TWI values obtained for processed fish and shellfish. Only two samples of cannot tuna (F1 and F2) exceeded TWI levels among the aquatic species tested. For the remainder, no risk was observed (Table 3). TWI values reported were lower for meat samples (Table 4), showing the security of these samples in terms of mercury content for the consumer. In Table 5, tolerable weekly intakes in relation to different dietary habits were shown. TWI percentage values were calculated considering several average weekly consumptions correlated to the different world countries (Africa, America, Asia, Europe, and Oceania), considering FAOSTAT data [36] for both fish and meat products, by a 70 Kg adult body weight. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Hg**} \\ \hline
**Species** & **No Samples** & \(\text{\mu g}/\text{Kg}\) & **TWI\%** \\ \hline  & & **Range Min–Max** & **Range Min–Max** \\ \hline Canned beef and pork gate & 4 & \textless{}LOQ–3.27 & n.d.–1.63 \\ Canned beef & 8 & \textless{}LOQ & n.d. \\ Canned chicken & 13 & \textless{}LOQ–3.28 & n.d.–1.64 \\ Canned pork & 5 & \textless{}LOQ–3.92 & n.d.–1.96 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Tolerable weekly intake (TWI) % values for Hg contents in analyzed processed meat.