RESUMO
Background: Studies on the risk of mercury (Hg) in Korean fishery products focus primarily on total Hg levels as opposed to methylmercury (MeHg) levels. None of the few studies on MeHg in tuna investigated tuna from Japanese restaurants. Few have evaluated lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and arsenic (As) in tuna. Thus, this study aimed to conduct a risk assessment by evaluating heavy metal concentrations in tuna from Japanese restaurants. Methods: Thirty-one tuna samples were collected from Japanese restaurants in the Republic of Korea. They were classified according to region and species. The concentration of heavy metals in the samples was analyzed using the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety Food Code method. The rate of exceedance of maximum residue levels (MRLs) and the risk compared to the provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) set by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (%PTWI) were evaluated for risk assessment. Results: The mean of MeHg, Pb, Cd and As concentrations were 0.56 ± 1.47 mg/kg, 33.95 ± 3.74 µg/kg, 14.25 ± 2.19 µg/kg and 1.46 ± 1.89 mg/kg, respectively. No sample exceeded the MRLs of Pb and Cd, but 9.7% of the samples exceeded the MRL of MeHg. The %PTWIs of MeHg, Pb, Cd and As were 4.2037, 0.0162, 0.0244 and 1.1627, respectively. The %PTWI of MeHg by age group and sex was highest among men aged 19-29 years (10.6494), followed by men aged 30-49 years (7.2458) and women aged 19-29 years (4.8307). Conclusions: We found that 3 out of 31 samples exceeded the MRL of MeHg. The %PTWI of MeHg showed significant differences based on age and sex, and the value was likely to exceed a safe level depending on individuals' eating behaviors. Therefore, improved risk management for MeHg is required.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has exposed healthcare workers to extreme physical workloads and psychological challenges. Thus, we aimed to assess the immediate correlates of emotional stress and to identify which specific jobs, departments, and exposure types are risk factors for emotional stress in healthcare workers. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study conducted from April 2 to 10, 2020, university hospital workers were administered self-reported questionnaires that covered general characteristics and included the Patient Health Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, and a visual analog scale. At-risk groups for depression and anxiety were identified, and the odds ratios for depression and anxiety were analyzed after adjusting for age, gender, education, marital status, and duration of employment. RESULTS: The data of 1,003 participants were analyzed. Of these, 14.2% worked in wards for confirmed COVID-19 cases and 15.2% had had direct contact with these patients. Treating patients with COVID-19 was associated with depression and anxiety, while dealing with COVID-19 test samples was associated with depression. Exposure to random or unspecified patients was also associated with depression. Lastly, social rejection and other negative experiences were associated with depression and anxiety. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 outbreak is correlated with healthcare workers' emotional stress, and specific types of jobs and duties involving close contact with these patients can be risk factors. Interestingly, even low-exposure groups reported significant depression and anxiety as a result of social stigma and uncertainty. Adequate and timely management measures for emotional stress are required for vulnerable and at-risk groups.
