Volume 8 Supplement 1

Proceedings of the Joint Environment and Human Health Programme: Annual Science Day Conference and Workshop

Open Access

Shellfish toxicity in UK waters: a threat to human health?

Environmental Health20098(Suppl 1):S12

https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-8-S1-S12

Published: 21 December 2009

Abstract

The potential for poisoning of humans through their consumption of shellfish which have themselves consumed biotoxin producing marine phytoplankton exists in the UK. Toxins are bio-accumulated within the shellfish flesh allowing them to reach harmful concentrations. This threat is in most part mitigated by monitoring programmes that assess both the presence of potentially harmful phytoplankton and shellfish flesh toxicity. However, the medical profession in the UK remains relatively ignorant of the potential for biotoxin derived shellfish toxicity, preventing quantification of magnitude, frequency, and severity of health effects in the community or the medical significance of more recently discovered toxins. While the current causative species and their toxins are relatively well characterised there remains a lack of understanding of the factors governing the temporal and spatial appearance of harmful phytoplankton. Expansion of shellfish aquaculture is likely both worldwide and in the UK. Better understanding of how harmful phytoplankton interact with their environment to promote the sporadic harmful blooms that we observe is required to underpin risk assessments.

Introduction

A variety of phytoplankton species in UK waters are responsible for the production of biotoxins. Filter feeding shellfish accumulate these toxins within their flesh, posing a risk to human health if they are consumed. Shellfish harvesting areas in UK waters are subject to closure due to the detection of high concentrations of toxins responsible for three shellfish poisoning syndromes: paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) and amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP). Toxins associated with lipophilic shellfish toxins (LSTs) and spirolides have also been detected but pose less of a problem. In this short paper, based on the proceedings of a science/industry workshop "Relating Harmful Phytoplankton to Shellfish Poisoning and Human Health" held in October 2007, we summarise the status of shellfish toxins and human health in UK waters. Further information and references can be found in the full workshop report [1].

Causative organisms & toxins

PSP toxins are produced by the dinoflagellate genus Alexandrium with A. tamarense (Group I) identified as a potent PSP producer in Scottish waters [2, 3] and A. minutum has been identified as a PSP producer in England [4]. A. ostenfeldii from both Scottish and English waters has been observed to produce trace amounts of PSP as well as spirolides [4, 5]. PSP intoxication of shellfish is regional in nature with particular hotspots including the Orkney and Shetland Islands. In these regions relatively low cell densities of Alexandrium (< 2,000 cells L-1) have been associated with closures of blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) harvesting areas following shellfish toxicity above the regulatory limit (Figure 1). In contrast, PSP does not cause major problems in other areas of the UK.
Figure 1

Alexandrium cell numbers and PSP toxicity in the blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis ) from the Orkney Islands during 1997.

DSP toxins are associated with the dinoflagellate genus Dinophysis. The main species observed are D. acuminata and D. acuta. Considerable inter-annual variation has been observed with D. acuta dominating in Scottish waters in 2001. Since then, numbers have subsequently declined with D. acuminata becoming more dominant. DSP toxins are recorded on an annual basis in Scotland (Figure 2) but tend to be less frequently detected in other UK regions. The dinoflagellate Prorocentrum lima, also associated with DSP, has been detected at selected sites around the UK [6, 7]. Due to its epiphytic nature, this species may be under represented in sampling programmes.
Figure 2

Dinophysis cells numbers and DSP results (positive/negative bioassays) in the blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis ) from a sea loch on the west coast, Scotland during 2001.

ASP is associated with diatoms of the genus Pseudo-nitzschia. Thirteen Pseudo-nitzschia species are present in UK waters [8, 9] but only P. australis and P. seriata are confirmed as toxin producers in Scottish waters [10] along with P. multiseries from English waters [4]. ASP toxins accumulate in King Scallops resulting in extensive closures [11]. However toxicity of wild scallops has effectively been mitigated by separation of the shellfish tissue and end product testing which allows non toxic parts of the scallop flesh to be marketed. Monitoring of other shellfish continues in the UK however closures due to high concentrations of ASP are rare in these shellfish.

LSTs are produced by a range of dinoflagellates. Dinophysis spp. are linked to pectenotoxins (PTX), while Lingulodinium polyedrum, Protoceratium reticulatum and Gonyaulax grindleyii implicated in yessotoxin (YTX) production. Recently a small dinoflagellate, Azadinium spinosum, has been implicated in azaspiracid (AZA) production [12]. Analysis of shellfish using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) methodology demonstrated the presence of multiple LSTs at low concentrations within Scottish shellfish [13].

A final species of interest is Prorocentrum minimum, which can occasionally form dense blooms. The toxicity of this species in UK waters has yet to be investigated.

Health risk and causative factors

Both PSP and ASP are potent neurotoxins, both of which have been responsible for human fatalities in other countries [14]. PSP is a sodium channel blocker that can cause paralysis which, in severe form, can lead to death. ASP destroys the brain cells that release the neurotransmitter glutamic acid and can have a severe impact on the elderly [14]. DSP, while less dangerous, is characterised by severe gastrointestinal symptoms which can impact on the frail or elderly. Prevention of shellfish poisoning is therefore important for public health and also to ensure the sustainable development of the shellfish industry which is often of considerable importance to the economy of rural areas.

Shellfish toxin contamination is usually acute, sporadic and difficult to predict, as the factors governing the proliferation of harmful phytoplankton are poorly understood. However, at least in UK waters, harmful blooms are most probably part of the variability of marine flora with the evidence for anthropogenic nutrient enrichment as the causative factor being limited. Rather, hydrographic, meteorological, and chemical factors interact to promote blooms [15].

Monitoring

Monitoring of shellfish flesh for the presence of toxins began in response to a PSP event in the North East of England in 1968 [16]. However, during the 1990s, with the implementation of the EU Shellfish Hygiene Directive, monitoring expanded geographically also including phytoplankton cell counts. Phytoplankton analysis is performed weekly using the Utermöhl technique [9, 16] while toxicity analysis is performed on a weekly or monthly basis on a risk assessed basis [17]. While toxicity is still detected in shellfish, regulatory monitoring has been generally successful in preventing contaminated product reaching the marketplace.

Discussion

Worldwide, consumption of marine products continues to expand; having now surpassed other animal protein sources [18]. Landings of bivalves in the UK are estimated by the Shellfish Association to be ~€67 million in 2006, much of which is exported [19]. Aquaculture is rapidly growing in importance, now contributing ~25% of fish/shellfish for consumption. With the global decline in wild fish stocks, it is inevitable that increased aquaculture production will continue, thus it is critical to ensure the safety of the product without undermining public confidence in it.

Monitoring in UK waters has been generally successful in safeguarding humans from shellfish poisoning. However, while the threat posed by cyanobacterial toxins from inland waters has been recognised by medical practitioners, the risk associated with marine biotoxins is less well appreciated. While this may have led to under-reporting and recording of shellfish poisoning events, it may equally have contributed to an unjustified but common public perception of shellfish consumption being "risky". Quantitative evidence of human intoxication levels and understanding of the magnitude of any health risk set against the health benefits of shellfish consumption is therefore a challenging but important research priority. Furthermore, while increasing ability to detect and quantify toxins is reassuring, it is important that research to quantify the concentrations of these toxins at which they are medically significant to humans keeps pace, preventing "scaremongering" or unnecessary harvesting closures.

As harmful blooms typically develop rapidly, risk assessment methodologies are required to allow the industry to better plan harvesting operations at times of lower risk. While it is clear that some general patterns exist, harmful phytoplankton exhibit spatial and temporal variability. Such heterogeneity suggests that local risk assessments based on detailed knowledge of the physiology of the causative species and hydrography and meteorology of the local environment are most likely to be successful.

Finally, there remains a need to be vigilant for invasive species. Species such as the PSP producer Gymnodinium catenatum, that affect the Galician coast, are currently not detected in UK waters. Given the increase in sea surface temperatures in the region as well as the potential for the introduction of new species via ship's ballast, it will be important for monitoring agencies to familiarise themselves with the identification of potential invasive species.

Note

The peer review of this article can be found in Additional file 1.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The workshop was funded by the Joint Environment & Human Health Programme (NERC, EA, Defra, MOD, MRC, The Wellcome Trust, ESRC, BBSRC, EPSRC and HPA). We thank all the participants who contributed to stimulating and useful discussion. During paper preparation KD was in receipt of funding from the NERC Oceans 2025 programme and the EU Interreg IV Northern Periphery programme WATER.

This article has been published as part of Environmental Health Volume 8 Supplement 1, 2009: Proceedings of the Joint Environment and Human Health Programme: Annual Science Day Conference and Workshop. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.ehjournal.net/supplements/8/S1.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Scottish Association for Marine Science, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory
(2)
Marine Scotland – Science

References

  1. Davidson K, Bresnan E, (Ed): Relating harmful phytoplankton to shellfish poisoning and human health, 15th-16th October. 2007, [http://www.sams.ac.uk/research/departments/microbial-molecular/news/hab-workshop-report-published/] , Oban, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  2. Higman WA, Stone DM, Lewis JM: Sequence comparisons of toxic and non-toxic Alexandrium tamarense (Dinophyceae) isolates from UK waters. Phycologia. 2001, 40: 256-262.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins C, Graham J, Brown L, Bresnan E, Lacaze J-P, Turrell EA: Identification and toxicity of Alexandrium tamarense (Dinophyceae) in Scottish waters. J Phycol.Google Scholar
  4. Percy LA: An investigation of the phytoplankton of the Fal Estuary, UK and the relationship between the occurrence of potentially toxic species and associated algal toxins in shellfish. PhD Thesis. 2006, University of Westminster, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown L, Bresnan E, Graham J, Lacaze J-P, Turrell EA, Collins C: Distribution, diversity and toxin composition of the genus Alexandrium (Dinophyceae) in Scottish waters. Eur. J. Phycol.Google Scholar
  6. Bresnan E: Monitoring programme for toxic phytoplankton in Scottish waters: 1st April 2002 - 31st March 2003. Fisheries Research Services Contract Report 14/03. 2003, 45: 692-703. [http://www.frs-scotland.gov.uk/FRS.Web/Uploads/Documents/1403.pdf]Google Scholar
  7. Foden J, Purdie DA, Morris A, Naschmento S: Epiphytic abundance and toxicity of Prorocentrum lima populations in the Fleet Lagoon, UK. Harmful Algae. 2005, 4 (6): 1063-1074. 10.1016/j.hal.2005.03.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Fehling J, Davidson K, Bolch CJ, Tett P: Seasonality of Pseudo-nitzschia spp. (Bacillariophyceae) in western Scottish waters. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2006, 323: 91-105. 10.3354/meps323091.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Bresnan E, Davidson K, Gowen R, Higman W, Lawton L, Lewis J, Percy L, McKinney A, Milligan S, Shammon T, Swan S: Harmful phytoplankton in UK waters: current and future organisms for concern. Relating harmful phytoplankton to shellfish poisoning and human health, 15th-16th October, 2007, Oban, Scotland. Edited by: Davidson K, Bresnan E. 2008, 11-15. [http://www.sams.ac.uk/research/departments/microbial-molecular/news/hab-workshop-report-published/]Google Scholar
  10. Fehling J, Green DH, Davidson K, Bolch CJ, Bates SS: Domoic acid production by Pseudo-nitzschia seriata (Bacillariophyceae) in Scottish waters. J Phycol. 2004, 40 (4): 622-630. 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2004.03200.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallacher S, Howard FG, Hess P, Macdonald EM, Kelly MC, Bates LA, Brown N, MacKenzie M, Gillibrand PA, Turrell WR: The occurrence of Amnesic Shellfish Poisons in shellfish from Scottish waters. Harmful Algal Blooms 2000. Edited by: Hallegraeff GM, Blackburn SI, Bolch CJ, Lewis RJ. 2001, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, Paris, 30-33.Google Scholar
  12. Tillmann U, Elbrachter M, Krock B, John U, Cembella AD: Azadinium spinosum gen. et sp. nov. (Dinophyceae) identified as a primary producer of azaspiracid toxins. Eur. J. Phycol. 2009, 44: 63-79. 10.1016/j.hal.2008.06.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Stobo LA, Lacaze J-P, Scott AC, Petrie J, Turrell EA: Surveillance of algal toxins in shellfish from Scottish waters. Toxicon. 2008, 51: 635-648. 10.1016/j.toxicon.2007.11.020.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Wekell JC, Hurst J, Lefevre KA: The origin of the regulatory limits for PSP and ASP toxins in shellfish. Journal of Shellfish Research. 2004, 23 (3): 927-935.Google Scholar
  15. Smayda T: Harmful Algal Bloom Communities in Scottish Coastal Waters: Relationship to Fish Farming and Regional Comparisons - A Review, Scottish Executive Environment Group Paper 2006/3. 2005, [http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/92174/0022031.pdf]Google Scholar
  16. Turrell E, McKie J, Higgens C, Shammon T, Holland K: Algal toxins from Scottish, Northern Irish and Isle of Man waters. Relating harmful phytoplankton to shellfish poisoning and human health, 15th-16th October 2007, Oban, Scotland. Edited by: Davidson K, Bresnan E. 2008, 18-22. [http://www.sams.ac.uk/research/departments/microbial-molecular/news/hab-workshop-report-published/]Google Scholar
  17. CEFAS: Biotoxin Monitoring Programme for Scotland. April 08 to March 09. CEFAS Contract Report C3161, ref: PAU 225 - S02007. 2009, 139-[http://www.cefas.co.uk]Google Scholar
  18. Anderson HA, Wolff MS: Introductory commentary, Special fish contaminants issue. Environmental Research. 2005, 97: 125-126. 10.1016/j.envres.2004.08.006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Shellfish Association. 2008, [http://www.shellfish.org.uk/shellfish_information/facts_&_figures/facts_&_figures.html]

Copyright

© Davidson and Bresnan; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.