The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mercury levels in high-end consumers of fish.
Open accessAbstract
Consumption of food containing mercury has been identified as a health risk. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the National Academy of Sciences recommend keeping the whole blood mercury level < 5.0 microg/L or the hair level < 1.0 microg/g. This corresponds to a reference dose (RfD) of 0.1 microg/kg body weight per day. All patients in a 1-year period (n = 720) who came for an office visit in a private internal medicine practice in San Francisco, California, were evaluated for mercury excess using the current RfD. One hundred twenty-three patients were tested (93 females, 30 males). Of these, data were statistically analyzed for 89 subjects. Mercury levels ranged from 2.0 to 89.5 microg/L for the 89 subjects. The mean for 66 women was 15 microg/L [standard deviation (SD) = 15], and for 23 men was 13 microg/L (SD = 5); 89% had levels exceeding the RfD. Subjects consumed 30 different forms or types of fish. Swordfish had the highest correlation with mercury level. Sixty-seven patients with serial blood levels over time after stopping fish showed a decline in mercury levels; reduction was significant (p < 0.0001). A substantial fraction of patients had diets high in fish consumption; of these, a high proportion had blood mercury levels exceeding the maximum level recommended by the U.S. EPA and National Academy of Sciences. The mean level for women in this survey was 10 times that of mercury levels found in a recent population survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some children were > 40 times the national mean.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Salonen, J. T., Seppänen, K., Nyyssönen, K., Korpela, H., Kauhanen, J., Kantola, M., Tuomilehto, J., Esterbauer, H., Tatzber, F., & Salonen, R. (1995) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.91.3.645 · Cited by 578
Cited by
Aquaculture practices and potential human health risks: Current knowledge and future priorities
Sapkota, A., Sapkota, A. R., Kucharski, M., Burke, J., McKenzie, S., Walker, P., & Lawrence, R. (2008) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2008.04.009 · Cited by 852
Environmental mercury contamination in China: Sources and impacts
Zhang, L., & Wong, M. H. (2007) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.022 · Cited by 437
Detection and Spatial Mapping of Mercury Contamination in Water Samples Using a Smart-Phone
Wei, Q., Nagi, R., Sadeghi, K., Feng, S., Yan, E., Ki, S. J., Caire, R., Tseng, D., & Ozcan, A. (2014) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/nn406571t · Cited by 400
Heavy metals in commercial fish in New Jersey
Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (2005) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2005.02.001 · Cited by 384
McDowell, M. A., Dillon, C. F., Osterloh, J., Bolger, P. M., Pellizzari, E., Fernando, R., de Oca, R. M., Schober, S. E., Sinks, T., Jones, R. L., et al. (2004) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.7046 · Cited by 364
Metadata
- Authors
- Hightower, J. M., & Moore, D.
- Venue
- Environmental Health Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2003-04
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 604-608
- ISSN
- 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-9924
- OpenAlex
- W2070569308
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mercury levels in high-end consumers of fish. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.5837
- The paper
- Hightower, J. M., & Moore, D. (2003). Mercury levels in high-end consumers of fish. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.5837
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.