↓ Skip to main content

Risk–Benefit Assessment of Monomethylmercury and Omega-3 Fatty Acid Intake for Ringed Seal Consumption with Particular Emphasis on Vulnerable Populations in the Western Canadian Arctic

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Nutrition, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Risk–Benefit Assessment of Monomethylmercury and Omega-3 Fatty Acid Intake for Ringed Seal Consumption with Particular Emphasis on Vulnerable Populations in the Western Canadian Arctic
Published in
Frontiers in Nutrition, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnut.2017.00030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lena Gmelch, Holger Hintelmann, Brendan Hickie, Hermine Kienberger, Gary Stern, Michael Rychlik

Abstract

Many northern Inuit communities rely on traditional food as major source of nourishment. An essential part of the traditional Arctic diet is marine mammals such as ringed seals or beluga. Being top predators, these animals are often highly contaminated with various toxins. In contrast, some tissues of marine mammals are also characterized by high amounts of n3-PUFAs (omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids). Here, we try to balance the risks associated with the consumption of different tissue types of ringed seals in terms of the neurotoxin monomethylmercury (MMHg) with the benefits of consumption due to high n3-PUFA concentrations. Fetuses are at the highest risk of neurological impairments because MMHg can easily cross the placental barrier. Therefore, women of childbearing age served as an indicator population for especially susceptible subpopulations. We calculated maximal weekly maternal portions sizes if mutual consumption of muscle and blubber tissue or liver and blubber tissue was assumed. Those weekly portion sizes resulted in an estimated overall IQ point gain of infants of 0, whereas the consumption of liver or muscle tissue without blubber could lead to an IQ loss. In contrast to former studies, our data do not generally prohibit the consumption of liver tissue. Instead, our results suggest that a maximal weekly consumption of 125 g liver tissue together with 1 g of blubber tissue is acceptable and does not lead to neurological damages in the long term. Similarly, the consumption of maximal 172 g muscle tissue can be balanced by the mutual consumption of 1 g blubber tissue.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 24%
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Student > Master 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Environmental Science 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 12 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,411,398
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Nutrition
#413
of 4,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,459
of 316,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Nutrition
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.