ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022
Investigating fish contamination scenario and community willingness to adopt consumption advice proposing an advisory option.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Consumption advice to ensure the health and safety of fish consumers remains urgent to handle the ever-increasing panic over heavy metal toxicity. Moreover, studies of fish consumption rarely focus on the perceptions and awareness of consumers. Considering this, the present study examines the factors determining the willingness to follow fish consumption advice as well as calculate the risk-benefit ratio and produce the vulnerability map followed by formulating fish consumption advice for consumers of two commercially important fish species, tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and mudfish (Ophiocephalus striatus), in the Laguna de Bay area of the Philippines. Primary data on consumers' perceptions were collected through a questionnaire, whereas heavy metal contamination data were compiled from the best available literature. We concluded that people's willingness to adopt consumption advice is mostly dependent on their existing level of fish consumption (P = 0.000). There was no discernible difference in the mean concentration of heavy metals in fish between the dry and wet seasons, with the exception of As concentrations in the samples (t15.75 = 3.72, p < 0.001). The hazard quotient (risk-benefit ratio) for fish consumption (HQefa) was an order of magnitude higher in the mudfish samples (0.05 and 28.28) compared to tilapia (0.04 to 16.02). Binangonan and Taguig from the Northern West Bay (1A, 1B) were clearly recognised on the vulnerability map as the most vulnerable regions in the lake. In general, it was determined that As and Pb were the elements causing consumption restrictions on tilapia collected from various parts of Laguna Lake. As with tilapia, locations with a high-risk advisory for mudfish were identified as the Northern West Bay and Central Bay, with a consumption limit of five meals per month due to excessive mercury pollution. This empirical study can serve as an option for the future development of fish consumption advice in the region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.