Evaluation of Elemental Distributions in Wild-Caught and Farmed Pangasius sp. Using Pattern Recognition Techniques

Figures & data

FIGURE 1 Basic Pangasius sp. anatomy. Note: Scale = 5 cm.

TABLE 1 Biometric and water quality information related to farmed and wild-caught Pangasius sp.

		Farmed	Wild-caught
	Origin	Earthen Pond	Selangor River
		N 03° 25.0’ E 101° 21.2’	N 03° 21.9’ E 101° 18.7’
Biometric information	Fish length/cm	68 ± 1	77 ± 6
	Weight/kg	3.3 ± 0.3	3.7 ± 0.7
	Condition factor	1.1 ± 0.2	0.8 ± 0.1
	Hepatosomatic index	1.1 ± 0.2	0.7 ± 0.1
Water quality information	Temperature/°C	30 ± 1	32 ± 1
	Conductivity/μS cm^–1	203 ± 43	524 ± 1
	TDS/g L^–1	0.12 ± 0.02	0.31 ± 0.02
	Salinity	0.10 ± 0.02	0.20 ± 0.02
	DO/%	3.0 ± 0.3	7.7 ± 0.4
	pH	5.5 ± 0.4	6.8 ± 0.1

95% confidence intervals, n = 20.

TABLE 2 Analysis of certified reference materials

	DORM-3			DOLT-4
	Certified /mg kg^–1	Found /mg kg^–1	Recovery /%	Certified /mg kg^–1	Found /mg kg^–1	Recovery /%
Cr	1.9 ± 0.2	1.9 ± 0.2	102 ± 10	–	1.0 ± 0.4	–
Fe	347 ± 20	365 ± 23	105 ± 7	1833 ± 75	1817 ± 43	99 ± 2
Ni	1.3 ± 0.2	1.2 ± 0.1	92 ± 8	1.0 ± 0.1	0.9 ± 0.1	90 ± 10
Cu	15.5 ± 0.6	15.8 ± 0.2	102 ± 1	31 ± 1	32 ± 2	102 ± 6
Zn	53 ± 3	55 ± 3	104 ± 5	116 ± 6	118 ± 7	102 ± 6
As	6.9 ± 0.3	7.3 ± 0.1	106 ± 1	9.7 ± 0.6	9.6 ± 0.3	99 ± 3
Se	–	4.0 ± 0.4	–	8 ± 1	9.2 ± 0.7	115 ± 9
Pb	0.40 ± 0.05	0.44 ± 0.02	110 ± 5	0.16 ± 0.04	0.16 ± 0.04	100 ± 6

95% confidence intervals, n = 7;

– : Not certified.

TABLE 3 Metal concentrations in freeze-dried Pangasius sp.

	Tissue	Na	Mg	K	Ca	Cr	Fe	Ni	Cu	Zn	As	Se	Pb
	/mg kg^–1
Farmed	Muscle	(26 ± 1) × 10^2	(14.6 ± 0.4) × 10^2	(19 ± 1) × 10^3	(3.6 ± 0.1) × 10^2	0.30 ± 0.03	17 ± 1	0.02 ± 0.01	0.7 ± 0.1	23 ± 1	0.05 ± 0.01	1.0 ± 0.1	<LoD
	Liver	(4.3 ± 0.2) × 10^3	(5.9 ± 0.2) × 10^2	(10.0 ± 0.4) × 10^3	(1.8 ± 0.1) × 10^2	0.03 ± 0.04	(3.1 ± 0.3) × 10^4	0.01 ± 0.01	115 ± 4	(3.2 ± 0.3) ×10^2	0.01 ± 0.01	11.3 ± 0.4	3.2 ± 0.1
	Gills	(4.7 ± 0.4) × 10^3	(7.4 ± 0.4) × 10^2	(3.4 ± 0.2) × 10^3	(2.9 ± 0.3) × 10^4	0.40 ± 0.03	(2.6 ± 0.1) × 10^2	0.6 ± 0.1	1.8 ± 0.3	48 ± 3	0.4 ± 0.1	0.5 ± 0.1	0.6 ± 0.1
Wild-caught	Muscle	(5.0 ± 0.3) × 10^3	(13 ± 0.4) × 10^2	(21 ± 0.3) × 10^3	(3.5 ± 0.1) × 10^2	0.40 ± 0.02	15 ± 1	<LoD	<LoD	21.0 ± 0.7	0.10 ± 0.02	2.0 ± 0.1	<LoD
	Liver	(7.9 ± 0.6) × 10^3	(5.8 ± 0.2) × 10^2	(8.3 ± 0.2) × 10^3	(5.8 ± 0.2) × 10^2	0.40 ± 0.02	(4.2 ± 0.2) × 10^4	0.1 ± 0.1	(4.0 ± 0.1) × 10^2	(4.4 ± 0.2) × 10^2	1.0 ± 0.1	26 ± 0.4	3.0 ± 0.1
	Gills	(17.4 ± 0.4) × 10^3	(7.8 ± 0.4) × 10^2	(27.8 ± 0.6) × 10^2	(3.2 ± 0.2) × 10^4	0.60 ± 0.03	(2.6 ± 0.1) × 10^2	0.8 ± 0.1	1.7 ± 0.1	38 ± 2	0.8 ± 0.1	1.1 ± 0.1	0.7 ± 0.1

All reported values are referred to dry base;

95% confidence intervals, n = 20;

LoD: limit of detection (Ni ≤ 0.007 mg kg^–1; Cu ≤ 0.03 mg kg^–1; Pb ≤ 0.03 mg kg^–1).

TABLE 4 Detailed discrimination results from LDA model

	Calibration			Validation
	Liver	Gills	Muscle	Liver	Gills	Muscle
Liver	28	0	0	12	0	0
Gills	0	28	0	0	12	0
Muscle	0	0	28	0	0	12

Actual rows by predicted columns.

FIGURE 2 PC2 versus PC1 score-loading biplot and dendrogram for training set (84 × 12). The letters W and A donate to wild-caught and farmed Pangasius sp.

FIGURE 3 Biplots and dendrograms using subset comprising entirely: A: liver; B: gills; C: muscle samples. The letters W and A donate to wild-caught and farmed Pangasius sp.

TABLE 5 Comparison of metal concentrations in Pangasius sp. on weight wet basis

			Na	Mg	K	Ca	Cr	Fe	Ni	Cu	Zn	As	Se	Pb
		/mg kg^–1
Legal limits			-	-	-	-	-	-	-	30	100	1	-	1	[39]
West M’sia		Farmed	(1.9 ± 0.1) × 10^3	(10.9 ± 0.3) × 10^2	(14.1 ± 0.7) × 10^3	268 ± 7	0.22 ± 0.02	12 ± 1	0.015 ± 0.007	0.52 ± 0.07	17.2 ± 0.7	0.04 ± 0.01	0.74 ± 0.07	<0.02
	(Selangor)	Wild-caught	(3.8 ± 0.2) × 10^3	(9.9 ± 0.3) × 10^2	(16.1 ± 0.2) × 10^3	268 ± 8	0.31 ± 0.02	11 ± 1	<0.005	<0.02	16.1 ± 0.5	0.08 ± 0.02	1.53 ± 0.08	<0.02	This Study
East M’sia(Kuching)		Farmed	–	–	–	–	0.011 ± 0.003	–	–	0.3 ± 0.2	3.2 ± 0.1	0.02 ± 0.02	–	0.29 ± 0.03	[40]
Vietnam		Farmed	(6 ± 4) × 10^3	(1.7 ± 0.2) × 10^2	(1.8 ± 0.6) × 10^3	80 ± 20	–	1.6 ± 1.1	–	0.13 ± 0.02	2.4 ± 0.1	–	–	–	[41]
India(Kolleru Lake)		Farmed	–	–	–	–	0.2 ± 0.1	–	–	0.4 ± 0.1	0.5 ± 0.2	–	–	0.14 ± 0.03	[42]

All reported values are referred to wet base;

–: not reported.

TABLE 6 The HQ values associated with consumption of Pangasius sp.

	RfD /mg kg^–1 day^–1	HQ
		Cultured				Wild
		Mean	%	90th percentile	%	Mean	%	90th percentile	%
^aCr	1.5	4 × 10^–5	0	5 × 10^–5	0	5 × 10^–5	0	6 × 10^–5	0
Fe	7 × 10^–1	5 × 10^–3	7	5 × 10^–3	5	4 × 10^–3	4	5 × 10^–3	2
Ni	2 × 10^–2	2 × 10^–4	0	3 × 10^–4	0	*8 × 10^–5	0	^#2 × 10^–4	0
Cu	4 × 10^–2	4 × 10^–3	5	4 × 10^–3	4	*2 × 10^–4	0	^#3 × 10^–4	0
Zn	3 × 10^–1	2 × 10^–2	22	2 × 10^–2	14	2 × 10^–2	13	2 × 10^–2	8
^bAs	3 × 10^–4	4 × 10^–3	5	4 × 10^–2	35	7 × 10^–3	6	9 × 10^–2	43
Se	5 × 10^–3	4 × 10^–2	58	5 × 10^–2	39	9 × 10^–2	75	9 × 10^–2	45
Pb	^c3.67 × 10^–2	*2 × 10^–3	2	^#4 × 10^–3	3	*2 × 10^–3	2	^#4 × 10^–3	2
	Σ	7 × 10^–2	100	1 × 10^–1	100	1 × 10^–1	100	2 × 10^–1	100

*Estimated based on halve of the LoD value;

^#Estimated based on the LoD value;

^aCr³⁺ (assuming all Cr are Cr³⁺);

^bInorganic As (assuming 10% of the total As are inorganic As);

^cDerived from provisional tolerable weekly intake levels of 25 μg kg^–1 week^–1.

Ministry of Health. Food Act 1983 and Food Regulation 1985; Ministry of Health Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1995.

 Google Scholar

Mok, W.J.; Senoo, S.; Itoh, T.; Tsukamasa, Y.; Kawasaki, K.-i.; Ando, M. Assessment of Concentrations of Toxic Elements in Aquaculture Food Products in Malaysia. Food Chemistry 2012, 133(4), 1326–1332.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ruiz-de-Cenzano, M.; Beser, U.; Cervera, M.L.; de la Guardia, M. Fast Determination of Fish Mineral Profile. Application to Vietnamese Panga Fish. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2013, 95, 195–201.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Adhikari, S.; Ghosh, L.; Giri, B.S.; Ayyappan, S. Distributions of Metals in the Food Web of Fishponds of Kolleru Lake, India. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2009, 72(4), 1242–1248.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar