Sportsfish Consumption Surveys: A Risk Assessment Practitioner's Wish List

ABSTRACT

In the United States, risk assessments that include sportsfish consumption often rely on default values derived by the USEPA. However, local, regional, and cultural differences can result in substantial differences in consumption rates, species of fish caught, parts of fish consumed, and fish preparation methods—all of which contribute to the extent of contaminant exposure. Because of these differences, site-specific data are important for the reliable prediction of exposure. This article reviews the types of information important to a risk assessor to enhance the applicability of the exposure assessment to the population being evaluated. It provides a method for setting priorities based on the sensitivity of the exposure assessment to each type of information. Consumption rate and parts of fish consumed are the most important information to obtain. This information should be obtained for each fish species consumed, and should be obtained for both children and adults. Body weight and exposure duration have the next level of priority, and cooking method has the lowest level of priority. Results from surveys should be presented in a manner that allows the reader to understand the variability observed in the data and the survey questions that were asked. Correlations between variables should be evaluated and presented.

Keywords:

• fish consumption
• ingestion rate
• adult
• children
• exposure assessment.

Notes

*Consumption rate can be calculated by multiplying meal size and meal frequency. The full range of these parameters does not apply to every population, as evidenced by the lower range of consumption rates than meal size × meal frequency. In addition, these parameters may not be independent of each other.

1 Meal size ranged from 0–625 g in a study conducted by Burger et al. (1999) in South Carolina. Meal size (caught fish) ranged from 3 g to 2.4 kg in a population based study of all fish consumption in Connecticut (Balcom et al. 1999). Balcom et al. (1999) questioned the high end numbers as too high, and attempted telephone follow up. The additional follow up did not discredit the values.