Next Article in Journal
Wind-Induced Resuspension and Net Removal of Particulate Matter (PM1–10) on Urban Shrub and Climbing Species
Previous Article in Journal
Arsenic Environmental Biogeochemistry
Previous Article in Special Issue
OnVeMCS: A Standalone Software for Monte Carlo Simulation and Sensitivity Analysis of Risks from Multi-Pathway Human Exposure via Soil, Sediment, Water, Air, and Food
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Environmental Exposure and Bioaccumulation of Potentially Toxic Elements in Fishery Resources from the Romanian Black Sea and Implications for Seafood Safety

1
Chemical Oceanography and Marine Pollution Department, National Institute for Marine Research and Development (NIMRD) “Grigore Antipa”, 300 Mamaia Blvd., 900581 Constanta, Romania
2
Living Marine Resources Department, National Institute for Marine Research and Development (NIMRD) “Grigore Antipa”, 300 Mamaia Blvd., 900581 Constanta, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Environments 2026, 13(6), 336; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13060336 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 5 May 2026 / Revised: 6 June 2026 / Accepted: 10 June 2026 / Published: 12 June 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Pollution Exposure and Its Human Health Risks)

Abstract

Potentially toxic elements (PTE) are persistent contaminants in coastal systems and may accumulate in marine organisms, with relevance for both environmental monitoring and seafood safety assessment. This study provides an exploratory cross-biota assessment of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Pb in fishery resources from the Romanian Black Sea in 2024. The dataset included 24 composite samples and 120 analyte-level observations across bivalves, gastropods, pelagic fish, and demersal fish. Tissue concentrations were integrated with regulatory maximum levels, bioconcentration factors (BCF), biota–sediment accumulation factors (BSAF), and adult dietary risk indices, including estimated daily intake (EDI), target hazard quotient (THQ), and total target hazard quotient (TTHQ). Within the limits of this single-year dataset, Cd and Pb concentrations were generally higher in bivalves than in fish and gastropods, whereas Cr showed higher values in several fish samples, particularly pelagic fish. Cd was the main element of concern, with regulatory exceedances occurring mainly in bivalves and fewer exceedances in pelagic fish, while Pb exceedance was isolated. BCF and BSAF supported the relevance of Cd as a priority element but were interpreted only as descriptive tissue–water and tissue–sediment ratios, not as evidence of specific uptake pathways. Low abiotic Cd concentrations may have inflated some ratio-based values, and Cr interpretation remains limited by the absence of Cr speciation and dissolved/particulate partitioning data. The adult dietary risk assessment did not indicate substantial non-carcinogenic concern, as all individual THQ values and cumulative TTHQ values remained below 1. Overall, the findings support continued PTE monitoring in the Romanian Black Sea, using sessile bivalves as indicators of local environmental contamination and including gastropods and representative pelagic and demersal fish species of ecological and fisheries relevance to capture contaminant patterns across benthic and mobile fishery resources. Future monitoring should improve species-level replication, integrate metal partitioning in abiotic matrices, and include additional contaminants of seafood safety relevance, particularly Hg and As.

1. Introduction

Potentially toxic elements (PTE) are among the most persistent contaminants in coastal environments because they are not biodegradable, may remain associated with suspended particles and sediments for long periods, and can be translocated into aquatic food webs through multiple exposure pathways [1,2,3]. In coastal areas affected by river discharge, wastewater inputs, industrial activity, harbor operations, maritime transport, tourism, and substrate disturbances, contaminants may circulate repeatedly among seawater, suspended matter, seabed substrate, and aquatic organisms [4,5,6]. Their environmental significance therefore extends beyond their measured amounts in abiotic matrices and includes the efficiency with which they are accumulated by fishery resources and transferred to seafood consumers [7,8].
The Black Sea is a notably relevant basin for this type of assessment. As a semi-enclosed sea with limited water exchange, strong vertical stratification, large riverine inputs, and marked coastal pressure gradients, it is vulnerable to the retention and redistribution of contaminants [9,10,11]. The Romanian sector is influenced especially by the Danube River in the northern area, while the central and southern coastal zones are more directly affected by urban development, wastewater discharge, ports, shipping, tourism, and other shoreline activities [12,13,14,15,16]. These pressures generate heterogeneous environmental conditions that may influence PTE partitioning, bioavailability, uptake, and retention in marine organisms [17,18,19].
Aquatic organisms can provide integrative information on environmental contamination, although the relationship between external pollutant loads, bioavailability, and tissue concentrations is shaped by multiple biological and environmental factors [20]. Different taxa do not record PTE burdens in the same way. Bivalves are relatively sedentary filter feeders and are widely used as bioindicators of local contamination, particularly where waterborne and particle-associated sources are relevant [4,21,22]. However, bivalves should not be treated as a homogeneous ecological group: epifaunal, semi-infaunal, and infaunal species may differ in their contact with suspended matter, porewater, surface sediments, and resuspended particles, as well as in food selection, filtration activity, and physiological regulation [23,24]. Gastropods [25,26,27], pelagic fish, and demersal fish differ in feeding ecology, mobility, habitat use, and trophic position, and may therefore provide complementary information on PTE occurrence in marine biota [28,29,30].
This distinction is important for seafood safety appraisal. Many studies on PTE in marine organisms focus mainly on tissue contents and compare them with regulatory maximum levels. Such information is essential for seafood safety appraisal, especially when accumulated concentrations exceed established limits. In these cases, dietary risk indices such as estimated daily intake (EDI), target hazard quotient (THQ), and total target hazard quotient (TTHQ) provide additional scenario-based exposure context [31,32], but they do not identify the environmental pathways responsible for the observed tissue burdens [33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. The combined use of biological matrix, bioconcentration factors (BCF), biota–sediment accumulation factors (BSAF), and human health hazard indices can therefore provide a more complete picture of both contamination processes and seafood safety implications [40,41,42,43].
Previous studies from the Romanian Black Sea (RoBS) have provided important information on PTE burden in fishery resources, including long-term assessments of mussels and small pelagic fish [19,44,45,46,47]. These studies have indicated that elements such as Cd, Pb, Cu, Ni, and Cr may vary substantially over time and space, and that some elements may occasionally exceed regulatory maximum levels in edible organisms. However, previous studies have focused on individual taxa or single organism groups [48]. As a result, less is known about how different species compare within the same recent monitoring framework and whether shellfish and fish provide complementary information on contaminant occurrence and tissue accumulation patterns. A cross-biota approach can help describe how PTE burdens differ among organism groups within the same monitoring context. Comparing bivalves (BM), gastropods (G), pelagic fish (PF), and demersal fish (DF) within a common dataset allows a descriptive comparison of broad accumulation patterns and may suggest tissue–environment relationships that require confirmation through more detailed replicated studies. This approach is especially useful for coastal monitoring because it links environmental loads with seafood safety and can support more targeted surveillance of both pollution patterns and consumer concern endpoints.
Mollusks are routinely included in the RoBS monitoring activities carried out by the National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa” (NIMRD) in the context of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) implementation. These activities usually combine biota sampling with seawater and sediment analyses, including measurements of PTE and other contaminants. The results are used in annual national assessments prepared for the environmental authority and also contribute to Romania’s six-year MSFD reporting through the European Environment Agency (EEA), WISE Marine platform: https://water.europa.eu/marine (accessed on 3 March 2026), mainly in relation to Descriptor 8, Contaminants, and Descriptor 9, Contaminants in seafood [49]. The mollusk component of such monitoring is ecologically relevant but not homogeneous. Mytilus galloprovincialis is a sessile epifaunal suspension-feeding bivalve attached to hard substrates by byssal threads, whereas Anadara kagoshimensis is an infaunal to semi-infaunal suspension-feeding bivalve associated with soft sediments. In contrast, Rapana venosa is a benthic predatory gastropod that feeds mainly on bivalves and may reflect contaminant patterns linked to benthic habitat use and trophic exposure [50,51,52]. These contrasting lifestyles may influence contact with suspended matter, surface sediments, porewater, resuspended particles, and prey, and therefore may contribute to differences in PTE accumulation patterns.
Fish, however, are not yet systematically integrated into the same monitoring framework, and available data remain comparatively scarce and catch-dependent. This gap is relevant for seafood safety assessment because fish represent important resources and may integrate exposure pathways that differ from those reflected by relatively sedentary benthic organisms. The fish species included in this study represent different ecological traits, habitat use, mobility patterns, and feeding strategies [53]. The selected taxa include small pelagic schooling species, such as Sprattus sprattus, Engraulis encrasicolus, Atherina boyeri, and Trachurus mediterraneus; demersal or benthic-associated species, such as Mullus barbatus and Neogobius melanostomus; and migratory clupeids, such as Alosa tanaica (Table A1). These species differ in their seasonal occurrence in coastal waters, trophic position, and interaction with planktonic, benthic, or nektonic prey, which may influence their exposure to PTE and their relevance for environmental monitoring and seafood safety assessment [54,55,56,57].
Aquatic foods are important components of human diets, particularly in coastal regions, where fish and mollusks contribute both to nutrition and to potential dietary exposure to contaminants [58]. Globally, apparent consumption of aquatic animal foods reached approximately 20.7 kg per capita in 2022, confirming the importance of seafood as a dietary exposure pathway [59]. Although apparent fish and seafood consumption in Romania remains below the global average, recent estimates of approximately 8 kg per capita per year [60] may underestimate intake among coastal residents, frequent seafood consumers, local fishing communities, and tourists during the summer season. Seafood therefore remains a relevant, though generally moderate, dietary exposure route for contaminants in specific consumption scenarios. Among the species analyzed here, sprat, anchovy, and horse mackerel are particularly relevant from a fisheries and seafood consumption perspective, as they recorded the highest catches and are frequently requested on local markets [59,60]. Therefore, the inclusion of fish species strengthens mollusk-based monitoring by extending the assessment to mobile fishery resources, with emphasis on measured tissue accumulation and seafood safety relevance rather than on inferring specific uptake pathways. Additional information on the main ecological and trophic characteristics of the fish species included in the present study, with emphasis on traits relevant to PTE exposure and seafood safety is provided in Table A1, together with catch data for the main commercial taxa in Figure A1.
The present study provides an exploratory and descriptive cross-biota assessment of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Pb in bivalves, gastropods and fish species collected from the RoBS in 2024. The study combines tissue burdens with BCF, BSAF, and dietary risk indices in order to contextualize measured concentrations in relation to local abiotic matrices and seafood safety relevance. Given the limited dataset size, uneven species-level replication, and the presence of several taxa represented by single composite samples, interpretation of ecological pattern is intended as hypothesis-generating rather than mechanistic. Specifically, the study aimed to (i) compare PTE concentrations among bivalves, gastropods, pelagic fish, and demersal fish species at a broad descriptive level; (ii) examine whether BCF and BSAF provide complementary contextual information on tissue–environment relationships; and (iii) evaluate whether measured PTE concentrations in edible tissues indicate potential consumer health risk under the considered exposure scenario. By integrating descriptive tissue–environment indicators with human health risk indices, this work supports a preliminary framework for marine pollution assessment, monitoring prioritization, and seafood safety evaluation in the RoBS.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study was conducted along the RoBS, a coastal zone shaped by pronounced gradients in freshwater influence, human pressure, and water masses circulation (Figure 1). This sector occupies the western margin of the basin and includes areas affected to different degrees by river discharge, coastal urbanization, port activity, maritime transport, tourism, and other shoreline uses. Because these pressures are unevenly distributed, the Romanian coast provides a suitable framework for examining spatial differences in contaminant availability and biological interactions [12,13,14]. A defining feature of the area is the influence of the Danube, which affects especially the northern part of the coast through the delivery of freshwater, suspended solids, nutrients, and associated contaminants [15,61,62,63]. These inputs can alter local salinity, turbidity, sediment dynamics, and the partitioning of PTE between dissolved and particulate phases [5,6]. Farther south, the relative importance of direct coastal pressures increases, including wastewater discharge, harbor-related activities, shipping, and urban development [64,65]. From the perspective of PTE behavior, this coastal system is relevant because contaminants may circulate through several interconnected compartments. Depending on local conditions, they may remain in the water column, bind to suspended matter, accumulate in surface sediments, or become available again through substrate disturbance and other environmental processes [5,6,66]. Organisms are therefore exposed through multiple routes, including direct uptake from water, contact with or ingestion of particle-bound material, benthic interaction, and food web passage [4,18,67]. This environmental complexity is notably important for a comparative study of molluscan and fish taxa. Bivalves, gastropods, pelagic fish, and demersal fish differ in feeding ecology, mobility, and habitat use, and may therefore provide complementary information on PTE occurrence in marine biota.

2.2. Sampling Design

Biological specimens were collected in 2024 from monitoring stations distributed along the RoBS coast. To support the comparative design of the study, stations were ordered geographically from north to south and classified into three station types according to their environmental setting and bathymetric position: transitional (T), corresponding to stations located in front of the Danube-influenced sector; coastal (C), corresponding to shallower stations, situated at depths up to 20 m; and marine (M), corresponding to stations located at depths greater than 20 m [49].
The biological material comprised marine organisms belonging to four major categories: bivalves (BM), gastropods (G), pelagic fish (PF), and demersal fish (DF). The BM group included Mytilus galloprovincialis and Anadara kagoshimensis, and the G group was represented by Rapana venosa. The fish taxa component included pelagic species (PF) (Alosa tanaica, Atherina boyeri, Engraulis encrasicolus, Sprattus sprattus, and Trachurus mediterraneus ponticus) and demersal species (DF) (Mullus barbatus and Neogobius melanostomus). These taxa were selected because they are relevant for environmental and seafood safety assessment and differ in feeding ecology, mobility, habitat use, and association with benthic or pelagic compartments.
Mollusk samples were collected during regular monitoring campaigns, together with seawater and sediment from the corresponding stations. Bivalves and gastropods were sampled using a biological dredge, allowing the collection of benthic organisms directly associated with the seabed substrate. This sampling strategy provided paired biological and abiotic data suitable for evaluating relationships between tissue burdens and local environmental conditions.
Fish samples were obtained from fixed coastal fishing points and from research fishing operations. Specimens collected from fishing points were taken from pound nets, representing passive trap-type fishing gear, whereas other samples were obtained using pelagic and demersal trawls, representing active fishing gears. Fish sampling was performed randomly from the available catch, so that the analyzed material would reflect the structure and composition of the catch as accurately as possible. Because fish were not collected as part of the regular abiotic monitoring design, their sampling locations were assigned to the nearest monitoring station or transect to allow integration with the corresponding seawater and sediment data used for transfer factor calculations. Adult specimens were selected for analysis in order to reduce variability related to ontogenetic stage and to ensure that the material was representative of commercial fish commonly entering the local seafood chain.
In total, 24 samples were included in the analytical dataset. For each of them, a composite of 5–10 adult individuals of the same species were selected to provide sufficient material for analysis while minimizing the effect of individual variability [68]. Sample identity, species composition, station code, station type, sampling date, and bottom depth are summarized in Table 1.

2.3. Sample Processing and Preparation

After collection, all biological material was placed in clean containers, kept under frozen conditions, and transported to the laboratory for preparation and analysis. Once in the laboratory, each composite sample was processed as pooled biological material. Each composite sample represented one biological analytical unit, corresponding to a single species–station combination. Although each composite included 5–10 adult individuals, individuals within a composite were pooled before analysis and were not treated as independent biological replicates. Therefore, the effective biological sample size of the study was n = 24 composite samples. Consequently, individual-level variability was not evaluated. For shellfish, external debris and adhering material were first removed by careful rinsing. The shells were then opened and discarded, and the entire soft body was retained for analysis. For fish specimens, the analytical material consisted of dorsal muscle, which was dissected using clean instruments and separated from non-edible parts prior to further preparation. Prepared biological matrices were stored frozen and later were lyophilized to remove moisture. The dried material was then homogenized thoroughly prior to digestion and metal analysis [68].
To support transfer factor calculations, abiotic data were obtained from the corresponding monitoring stations [69]. Surface seawater was collected from the 0–1 m layer using Niskin bottles and transferred into acid-cleaned polyethylene containers; approximately 1 L of seawater was retained per station for PTE analysis. Sediments were collected with a Van Veen grab, and the upper 0–5 cm layer was subsampled to represent recently deposited surface material; approximately 250 g of wet sediment was retained per station. For each station, one representative seawater sample and one representative surface sediment sample were used as the corresponding abiotic matrices. Seawater samples were acidified with HNO3 (Suprapur, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), whereas sediment samples were lyophilized, homogenized, sieved through a 2 mm mesh to remove the coarse fraction, and digested with HNO3 (Suprapur, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) prior to PTE analysis [65,70,71,72]. When the corresponding water or sediment measurement was below the analytical limit of detection, the respective factors were not calculated.

2.4. PTE Determination

Cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), and lead (Pb) were determined in homogenized material after acid digestion. Approximately 0.5 g of lyophilized material was digested with 10 mL HNO3 (Suprapur, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) in sealed Teflon vessels at 120 °C. After mineralization, the digests were quantitatively transferred and diluted to 100 mL with deionized water (Tracepur, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). Element concentrations were measured by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GF AAS) using a high-resolution continuum-source instrument, HR-CS ContrAA 800 G, Analytik Jena GmbH + Co. KG, Jena, Germany. Final concentrations in biota were expressed as µg/g wet weight after conversion from dry-weight values using the sample-specific wet-to-dry mass ratio determined for each composite sample [70]. Analytical quality assurance and quality control were applied throughout the procedure. External calibration was performed using freshly prepared working standards obtained by serial dilution of certified multi-element standard solution (Certipur, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). The calibration ranges were 0–10 µg/L for Cd, 0–25 µg/L for Pb, and 0–50 µg/L for Cu, Ni, and Cr. Calibration curves included a blank and at least three concentration levels and were accepted when the correlation coefficient was ≥0.995. Procedural blanks were processed together with the samples to check possible contamination during digestion and instrumental analysis. Each final analytical solution was measured through three instrumental readings, and the mean value was used for data interpretation. These repeated readings were treated as analytical/technical replicates only and were not considered independent observations. Replicate readings were accepted when the relative standard deviation (RSD) was ≤10%; otherwise, the solution was remeasured [70].
Instrumental stability was checked during the analytical sequence using a continuing calibration verification standard prepared at a concentration close to the middle of the calibration range. The sequence was accepted when the measured value of this verification standard remained within ±10% of the expected concentration. Instrumental limits of detection (LOD) and limits of quantification/reporting limits (LOQ/RL) were established during routine method/instrument validation procedure. LOD and LOQ were derived from repeated blank measurements using the standard-deviation approach, with LOD estimated as 3σ and LOQ as 10σ of the blank response after conversion through the calibration curve. The validated LODs were 0.001 µg/L for Cd and Pb and 0.01 µg/L for Cu, Ni, and Cr. Values below the LOQ were retained for descriptive screening but were not used as denominator values in transfer factor calculations, because very low abiotic concentrations may artificially inflate estimates. Calibration and analytical performance criteria are provided in Table S1.

2.5. Bioconcentration Factor (BCF)

The BCF was used as a descriptive ratio between tissue concentrations and corresponding seawater concentrations, providing a simplified indicator of tissue–water association [73,74]. For each analyte, BCF was calculated as the ratio between its tissular concentration and its corresponding concentration in seawater:
BCF = Cbiota/Cwater
where Cbiota is the metal concentration in tissue expressed on a wet-weight basis (µg/kg ww), and Cwater is the concentration of the same metal in seawater (µg/L).
This metric was used to support contextual interpretation of relative tissue–water relationships for each element and to complement the sediment-normalized BSAF perspective.

2.6. Biota–Sediment Accumulation Factor (BSAF)

The BSAF was used to evaluate the relationship between metal loads in tissues and those measured in the corresponding seabed substrate, thereby providing a descriptive tissue–sediment ratio [69]. For each analyte, BSAF was calculated as the ratio between its tissular concentration and its concentration in sediment:
BSAF = Cbiota/Csediment
where Cbiota is the metal concentration in tissue expressed on a dry-weight basis (µg/g dw), and Csediment is the concentration of the same metal in sediment (µg/g dw).
This metric was included to complement the water-based perspective provided by BCF and to support contextual interpretation of tissue concentrations relative to seabed substrate concentrations. In the present study, BSAF was used as a comparative indicator of relative tissue–sediment relationships across PTE and broad biota categories, rather than as evidence of direct sediment uptake.

2.7. Human Health Risk Assessment

Potential effects associated with seafood consumption were evaluated using three standard indices: estimated daily intake (EDI), target hazard quotient (THQ), and total target hazard quotient (TTHQ) [32,37,39,75].
Estimated daily intake was calculated as:
EDI = (Cmetal × DIR)/BW
where Cmetal is the concentration of the metal in tissue (mg/kg wet weight), DIR is the daily ingestion rate of seafood (kg/day), calculated from the annual per capita fish and shellfish consumption data for Romania reported by FAOSTAT (the food ingestion rate, FIR, kg/capita/year) [76], and BW is the average adult body weight (70 kg). EDI was used as the basic measure of dietary hazard for each element [75,77].
Non-carcinogenic risk was evaluated through the target hazard quotient:
THQ = EDI/RfD
where RfD is the chronic oral reference dose (mg/kg/day). In the present study, RfD values of 0.0001 for Cd, 0.04 for Cu, 0.02 for Ni, 0.003 mg/kg/day for Cr and 0.004 mg/kg/day for Pb were applied [78,79]. Although a formal USEPA oral RfD is not provided for Pb, the value of 0.004 mg/kg/day has been widely used in previous THQ-based dietary exposure assessments and was therefore adopted here for consistency with comparable seafood risk studies [80,81,82].
To estimate the cumulative non-carcinogenic risk associated with simultaneous exposure to multiple metals, individual THQ estimates were summed:
TTHQ = ΣTHQi
This cumulative index was used to integrate the combined contribution of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Pb to overall non-carcinogenic risk [39,83,84,85,86].

2.8. Data Structure and Grouping Strategy

For interpretation and statistical analysis, specimens were grouped into four broad biota categories: bivalves (BM), gastropods (G), pelagic fish (PF), and demersal fish (DF). This grouping was used as a practical descriptive and statistical framework because species-level replication was limited and uneven, with some taxa represented by only one composite sample. Therefore, these categories should not be interpreted as homogeneous ecological units. Species included within the same broad group may differ in mobility, feeding ecology, habitat use, physiology, uptake efficiency, and detoxification capacity. Accordingly, group-level comparisons were used to identify broad exploratory patterns in the dataset, while species-level observations were retained for descriptive interpretation only. No population level or species-wide inference was intended. Station type was also retained as a secondary grouping variable. Each sample was assigned to one of three station classes: transitional (T), coastal (C), or marine (M), allowing additional examination of broad spatial structure in the dataset. Derived datasets used for BCF, BSAF, and health risk calculations were constructed from the same framework.

2.9. Statistical Analysis

The distribution of each variable was evaluated using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Because tissue concentrations, transfer factors, and most abiotic variables did not meet normality assumptions (Tables S2, S5 and S8), nonparametric methods were used throughout the study. Differences among groups were tested using the Kruskal–Wallis test. This approach was applied primarily to compare major biota categories and, where relevant, station types and species. The Kruskal–Wallis test statistic was reported as H, together with the associated p-value, which indicates the statistical significance of overall differences among groups. The magnitude of group effects was expressed as epsilon-squared (ε2), which provides an estimate of the proportion of variability in ranked data attributable to group membership. When the overall Kruskal–Wallis test was significant at p < 0.05, pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn’s post hoc test with Holm correction for multiple testing. Species-level analyses were treated as exploratory because replication was uneven and limited for several taxa. Species represented by a single sample were excluded from inferential testing but were retained in descriptive summaries and graphical interpretation. Because several independent Kruskal–Wallis tests were performed across elements, station types, transfer factors, dietary risk indices, and exploratory species-level comparisons, the possibility of inflated type I error at the manuscript level should be acknowledged. Holm correction was applied to Dunn’s post hoc pairwise comparisons following significant omnibus tests, but no global correction was applied across all independent Kruskal–Wallis tests. Therefore, statistically significant results were interpreted cautiously, with emphasis on consistency across endpoints, effect sizes, biological plausibility, and descriptive patterns. To further explore the multivariate structure of the dataset, principal component analysis (PCA) was applied as an ordination tool. In addition, a shade plot based on square-root-transformed data and boxplots were used to visualize cross-biota patterns and within-group heterogeneity. Data preparation was carried out in Microsoft Excel 365; univariate and nonparametric analyses were performed in TIBCO Statistica 14.0.1.25 [87]; multivariate analyses, shade plot and boxplots visualization were performed in PRIMER v7 [88]; and the station map was prepared in Ocean Data View (ODV), version 5.1.7 [89].

3. Results

3.1. PTE Concentrations and Environmental Transfer Factors in Marine Biota

3.1.1. Tissue Burdens in Seafood Taxa

To highlight species-level variability, tissue concentrations were examined descriptively by species (Figure 2). This visualization showed that PTE concentrations were not uniform within broad biota categories, reflecting differences in feeding ecology, habitat use, mobility, uptake efficiency, and physiological regulation. Cd and Pb signals were generally higher in bivalve species, particularly Anadara kagoshimensis and Mytilus galloprovincialis. In contrast, Cr was elevated in fish, with the highest individual value recorded in Trachurus mediterraneus ponticus and relatively consistent values also observed in other fish species. Cu showed a broader species-level range, with elevated values in Rapana venosa and selected fish samples, particularly E. encrasicolus, S. sprattus, and T. m. ponticus. Ni variability was influenced mainly by a limited number of elevated observations, especially in E. encrasicolus. Because several taxa were represented by few composite samples, species-level patterns were interpreted descriptively, while formal comparisons focused on broader biota-type groups. These species-level observations illustrate why differences in feeding ecology, habitat use, mobility, and physiological regulation must be considered when contextualizing PTE patterns. For the fish component, relevant ecological and trophic traits are summarized in Table A1.
Because all analytes departed from normality according to the Shapiro–Wilk test (Table S2), nonparametric methods were used for inferential analyses throughout. Within the limits of this exploratory dataset, broad biota category provided the clearest descriptive structure for the observed PTE patterns. Because all analytes departed from normality according to the Shapiro–Wilk test (Table S2), nonparametric methods were used for inferential analyses throughout. Within the limits of this exploratory dataset, broad biota category provided the clearest descriptive structure for the observed PTE patterns.
Significant overall effects were detected for Cd (H = 15.638, p = 0.0013, ε2 = 0.632), Cr (H = 9.490, p = 0.0234, ε2 = 0.324), and Pb (H = 9.898, p = 0.0194, ε2 = 0.345). Cu did not show a statistically significant difference among broad biota categories (H = 7.780, p = 0.0508, ε2 = 0.239), and no pairwise post hoc comparisons were performed. Also Ni did not exhibit a statistically significant difference among groups. For Cd, the highest median was observed in BM (1.046 µg/g ww), and Dunn–Holm post hoc testing indicated that BM loads were more elevated than those in PF (0.048 µg/g ww; pHolm = 0.0031) and DF (0.043 µg/g ww; pHolm = 0.0090). For Cr, median values were higher in the fish categories, although only the PF versus G contrast remained significant after multiple-comparison correction (0.439 vs. 0.006 µg/g ww; pHolm = 0.0220). For Pb, the strongest supported difference was between BM and G, with elevated Pb in BM (0.232 vs. 0.002 µg/g ww; pHolm = 0.0103) (Table 2; Figure 3; Table S3).
Species-level analyses were treated as exploratory because of uneven group sizes, and taxa represented by a single sample were excluded from inferential testing. Significant overall species effects were detected for Cd (H = 14.310, p = 0.0264, ε2 = 0.594) and Pb (H = 12.900, p = 0.0447, ε2 = 0.493), whereas Cr, Cu, and Ni did not present clear species differences (Table S4). Within the replicated subset, the highest median Cd amounts were recorded for A. kagoshimensis and M. galloprovincialis, while greater median Pb concentrations were recorded for A. kagoshimensis and S. sprattus.
To further visualize sample-level multivariate variation in PTE burdens, PCA was applied as an exploratory ordination tool. Given the limited number of composite samples relative to the number of variables and the uneven species-level replication, the ordination was used only as a descriptive visualization. Several bivalve samples were positioned in the direction of the Cd and Pb vectors, whereas several fish samples, particularly PF, extended toward the Ni- and Cr-related direction. Gastropod samples showed comparatively lower Cd and Pb values, while DF occupied an intermediate ordination space. Overall, the PCA should not be interpreted as evidence of stable ecological clustering, robust separation among groups, or homogeneous group-level behavior. (Figure 4).
The shade plot of square-root transformed PTE concentrations provided an additional exploratory visualization of sample-level variation. The heatmap broadly illustrated higher Cd/Pb values in several bivalve samples and higher Cr/Ni values in some fish samples, while also showing variability within broad biota categories. Therefore, the shade plot was used as a descriptive complement to the univariate analyses and PCA, not as evidence of distinct ecological clusters (Figure S1).
When interpreted against the maximum levels established by Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 [90], Cd exceedances were concentrated mainly in BM. Four of seven BM samples exceeded the Cd maximum level of 1.0 mg/kg ww, including three specimens of A. kagoshimensis and one of M. galloprovincialis. Among fish species, exceedances were limited to three pelagic species, namely A. tanaica, S. sprattus, and T. m. ponticus, while no DF exceeded the applicable Cd limit of 0.05 mg/kg ww. Notably, E. encrasicolus remained below its species-specific Cd maximum level of 0.25 mg/kg ww. For Pb, exceedances were much less frequent: no BM sample exceeded the maximum level of 1.50 mg/kg ww, and only one PF, S. sprattus from Portița, exceeded the maximum level of 0.30 mg/kg ww. Rapana venosa remained below these BM-based reference thresholds for both toxic metals; however, because the regulation does not explicitly define corresponding Cd and Pb maximum levels for marine gastropods, this comparison should be regarded as contextual rather than as a formal compliance examination. These regulatory comparisons provide the primary benchmark for seafood compliance. The complementary exposure-based dietary-risk assessment is presented separately in Section 3.2.

3.1.2. Bioconcentration Factors (BCF)

To contextualize tissue concentrations in relation to measured seawater concentrations, BCF values were calculated as descriptive tissue–water ratios. BCF were not calculated in a few cases where water measurements of Cd and Pb were below the analytical limit of detection. Distributions of BCF and seawater values were non-normal (Table S5). Seawater PTE concentrations showed station-level variability (Table 3). Cu was detected at all stations, with the highest value recorded at Cazino Mamaia CM10, while Ni and Cr also showed elevated values at selected stations, particularly Cazino Mamaia CM10 and Costinești COS30. Cd was generally low in seawater, with several measurements below the quantification limit (7 stations) and the highest value recorded at Cazino Mamaia CM30. Pb was also variable, with few values below the detection limit (4 stations) and the highest concentration observed at Cazino Mamaia CM30 (Table 3). No analyte presented a significant station-type effect (T, C, M) in seawater. Kruskal–Wallis tests were non-significant for Cd (H = 0.167, p = 0.6831), Pb (H = 2.464, p = 0.2917), Cu (H = 0.091, p = 0.9556), Ni (H = 0.240, p = 0.8868), and Cr (H = 1.649, p = 0.4384) (Table S6).
BCF values were used as relative indicators of the relationship between tissue concentrations and measured seawater concentrations, rather than as direct evidence of uptake exclusively from seawater. Overall, Cd showed the highest apparent BCF values, particularly in bivalves. However, this pattern should be interpreted with caution because Cd concentrations in seawater were very low and, in several cases, close to the quantification limit. Consequently, elevated Cd BCF values may partly result from the low denominator used in the calculation, rather than indicating direct uptake from seawater alone. At the same time, the pattern is consistent with the capacity of bivalves to retain Cd through combined dissolved and particle-associated exposure pathways. Cu, Ni, Cr, and Pb generally showed lower or more variable BCF patterns.
Significant overall biota-type differences were detected only for Cr (H = 15.638, p = 0.0013, ε2 = 0.6319), whereas Cu, Cd, Ni, and Pb did not differ significantly among groups. For Cr, PF reached the highest median BCF (234.97), followed by BM (55.06), DF (13.96), and G (5.60). Dunn–Holm testing indicated that only the G versus PF contrast remained significant after correction, with elevated Cr BCF estimates in PF (pHolm = 0.0009) (Table 4; Figure 5).
Station type was less informative overall for BCF, although Pb displayed a significant secondary station-type effect (H = 8.346, p = 0.0154, ε2 = 0.4533). Descriptively, Pb BCF increased from coastal (C) stations to marine (M) stations and was maximum in transitional (T) stations, suggesting a possible station-type pattern, although this should be interpreted cautiously because of the limited number of observations and the ratio-based nature of the metric (Table S7).
Species-level BCF analyses were treated as exploratory because taxa represented by a single sample were excluded from inferential testing. Only Cr presented an overall species effect (H = 15.494, p = 0.01675, ε2 = 0.6781). Considered together with the biota-type BCF medians, Cr-related BCF estimates were highest in PF, namely E. encrasicolus, S. sprattus, and T. m. ponticus, with secondary elevation in the BM subset (A. kagoshimensis and M. galloprovincialis). Rapana venosa was characterized by the lowest Cr-related BCF observations, while M. barbatus appeared intermediate.
To further contextualize the observed BCF trends, the data were interpreted against the REACH/ECHA screening thresholds for bioaccumulative potential [73,74]. Within this framework, Cu and Pb remained in the non-bioaccumulative range (BCF < 1000), whereas Cd showed the highest apparent BCF values in the dataset. Cd exceeded the bioaccumulative threshold in non-pelagic biota groups, placing BM in the very bioaccumulative range (BCF > 5000) and G and DF in the bioaccumulative range (BCF > 1000). This was aligned with the broader Cd profile in biological specimens, especially in A. kagoshimensis and M. galloprovincialis.
By contrast, Ni and Cr were generally below the bioaccumulative threshold, although elevated Ni-related BCF patterns were associated mainly with PF and BM, and Cr-related BCF patterns were most evident in PF, namely E. encrasicolus, S. sprattus, and T. m. ponticus, with R. venosa remaining lowest. Across the dataset, these threshold-based comparisons indicate that Cd was the only element consistently exceeding the applied BCF screening thresholds in the analyzable samples (Figure 6).

3.1.3. Biota–Sediment Accumulation Factors (BSAF)

To complement the water-based transfer perspective, tissue burdens were also interpreted relative to sediment amounts using BSAF. Few Cd and Ni BSAF observations were excluded because corresponding measurements were below LOD. Shapiro–Wilk testing showed that all BSAF variables were non-normal, while sediment distributions were non-normal for Cd, Ni, and Cr, with Cu and Pb closer to normality (Table S8); however, nonparametric methods were retained consistently throughout because of the small and uneven group sizes.
Sediment PTE concentrations showed station-level variability (Table 5). Cr generally presented the highest concentrations, with a pronounced maximum at Cazino Mamaia CM30, while Pb and Cd showed their highest values at Cazino Mamaia CM10. Cu and Ni were also variable among stations, with higher values recorded mainly at Portița P30 and Cazino Mamaia CM30. Cd remained low across most sediments, with one value below the detection limit, while Ni was below the detection limit at Costinești COS10.
Despite these descriptive differences, no significant station-type effects were detected for sediment. Kruskal–Wallis tests were non-significant for Cd (H = 2.473, p = 0.2904, ε2 = 0.068), Pb (H = 2.844, p = 0.2412, ε2 = 0.106), Cu (H = 4.558, p = 0.1024, ε2 = 0.320), Ni (H = 5.018, p = 0.0813, ε2 = 0.431), and Cr (H = 5.435, p = 0.0660, ε2 = 0.429) (Table S9).
BSAF values were used as relative indicators of the relationship between tissue and sediment concentrations, rather than as direct evidence of uptake from sediment alone. Overall, Cd showed the highest apparent BSAF values, but this pattern should be interpreted cautiously because Cd concentrations in sediments were low. Consequently, elevated Cd BSAF values may partly reflect the low denominator used in the calculation, rather than indicating direct sediment-derived accumulation. Nevertheless, the higher Cd BSAF values observed mainly in bivalves remain ecologically relevant, as they suggest that Cd can be efficiently retained in biological tissues even when sediment concentrations are low.
A similar descriptive pattern was observed when samples were grouped by broad biota category. Significant overall differences were detected for Cd (H = 13.641, p = 0.0034, ε2 = 0.5912), Cr (H = 13.170, p = 0.0043, ε2 = 0.5085), and Pb (H = 9.562, p = 0.0227, ε2 = 0.3281), whereas Cu and Ni did not differ among groups (Table 6; Figure 7). For Cd, BM displayed by far the highest median BSAF (66.75), and Dunn–Holm testing confirmed greater results in BM than in DF (pHolm = 0.0095) and PF (pHolm = 0.0138). The PF category had the highest median Cr BSAF (0.1145), while G showed the lowest (0.00140); only the G versus PF contrast remained significant after correction (pHolm = 0.0024). For Pb, the only supported pairwise difference was observed between the BM and G categories, with higher BSAF ratios in BM (0.0516 vs. 0.000257; pHolm = 0.0252).
Station type was less informative overall, although Pb indicated a significant secondary station-type effect (H = 10.490, p = 0.0053, ε2 = 0.4043), whereas Cu, Cd, Ni, and Cr did not differ significantly among station types (Table S10). Descriptively, Pb BSAF increased from C stations (median 0.00528) to M stations (0.0516) and was maximum in T stations (0.1026), suggesting a possible spatial gradient that merits cautious explanation.
Species-level BSAF analyses were treated as exploratory because taxa represented by a single sample were excluded from inferential testing. Pb indicated an overall species effect (H = 13.099, p = 0.0415, ε2 = 0.5071), while Cd and Cr were borderline (p = 0.0523 and p = 0.0503, respectively) (Table S11). In exploratory terms, and considered alongside the biota-type BSAF medians, Cd-related BSAF appeared highest in the BM subset, particularly A. kagoshimensis and M. galloprovincialis. For Pb, elevated BSAF ratios appeared to be shared between BM and PF, while R. venosa (G) remained low. For Cr, increased BSAF estimates were associated mainly with fish taxa, especially the pelagic subset, while R. venosa (G) had the lowest levels.
To further contextualize the observed BSAF trends, the data were interpreted against the general USEPA benchmark whereby values > 1 suggest a meaningful sediment contribution, while recognizing that contextualization depends on species traits and local seabed substrate characteristics [69]. Under this framework, Cd indicated the clearest signal in the dataset, with BM and G above the benchmark. This was aligned with the stronger Cd profile observed in A. kagoshimensis and M. galloprovincialis.
Cu BSAF values were not interpreted further at group level because Cu did not show significant broad biota category differentiation. Lead, Ni and Cr generally remained below 1, although Cr still presented a relative increase in fish, especially pelagic taxa, while R. venosa remained lowest (Figure 8). In general, these threshold-based comparisons indicate that Cd produced the clearest apparent tissue–sediment ratio in the present dataset, especially in bivalves. However, this result should be interpreted as a relative BSAF pattern rather than as direct evidence of sediment-derived uptake. Because Cd concentrations in sediments were low, elevated BSAF values may partly reflect the low sediment denominator, together with the efficient biological retention of Cd by bivalves.

3.2. Human Health Risk Indices

To complement the regulatory comparison, dietary exposure was evaluated for the adult consumption scenario using EDI, THQ, and TTHQ. This assessment was not intended to replace regulatory maximum levels, which remain the primary benchmark for seafood compliance, but to provide an exposure-based interpretation that integrates measured PTE concentrations with daily ingestion rate, body weight, and oral reference values.
Within the risk index dataset, broad biota category provided the clearest descriptive structure, although this pattern should be interpreted cautiously given the limited and uneven species-level replication. Significant Kruskal–Wallis effects for all analyzable variables (ε2 = 0.325–0.803) (Table S12).
Overall, Cd-related EDI and THQ were highest in BM relative to G, whereas Cr-, Ni-, and Pb-related indices were generally greater in PF, with DF also contributing to the Cr and Ni patterns. Cu-related EDI and THQ were higher in fish groups than in BM. Cumulative TTHQ also differed significantly by organism group, with higher medians in BM and PF than in G (Figure 9). Together, these outcomes reveal that the dietary risk profile varied by analyte, with BM driving the Cd-related signal and PF contributing more strongly to Cr-, Ni-, and Pb-related hazard profiles, corroborating with the bioaccumulation and transfer factor findings described in previous section.
Risk index evaluation nevertheless indicated generally low health concern in the dataset studied. Estimated daily intake (EDI) for Cd, Pb, and Ni remained below the corresponding health-based guidance thresholds throughout the dataset. For Cd, all EDI estimates were below the EFSA tolerable daily intake of 0.00036 mg/kg/day [91]; Pb-related EDI were likewise below the health-based guidance of 0.00063 mg/kg/day [92]. For Ni, all values also remained below the EFSA tolerable daily intake of 0.01300 mg/kg/day [93]. Thus, although EDI trends differed among groups, none of the evaluated Cd-, Pb-, or Ni-related dietary intake exceeded the corresponding health-based guidance level. None of the individual THQ exceeded 1.0, indicating no evident non-carcinogenic hazard from exposure to any single metal. Among the analyzed elements, Cd contributed most strongly to THQ, although values remained below the critical threshold (Table S13).
Likewise, all cumulative TTHQ estimates were below 1.0, suggesting no detectable chronic non-carcinogenic concern from combined PTE interaction. (Table S14; Figure 10). In general, the dataset supports low current health concern, while showing that Cd-driven cumulative exposure represented the most sensitive part of the hazard profile.

4. Discussion

4.1. Tissue Concentrations and Regulatory Relevance

Despite heterogeneity in species composition, sampling sites, and depths, the 2024 dataset showed a clear descriptive pattern: Cd and Pb concentrations were generally higher in bivalves than in fish and gastropods, whereas Cr values were higher in several fish samples, particularly pelagic fish. Cu and Ni did not show statistically significant differences among broad biota categories and were therefore not interpreted as group-level ecological signals. These patterns should be considered exploratory, because the dataset included 24 composite samples collected during a single year and species-level replication was uneven. The higher Cd and Pb values recorded in bivalves are consistent with their relatively sedentary feeding ecology and their frequent use as indicators of local contamination, particularly where waterborne and particle-associated exposure is relevant [22]. However, this pattern should not be interpreted as evidence of a single uptake pathway. Bivalves differ among themselves in lifestyle, habitat position, feeding behavior, and physiological regulation, and these differences may influence PTE uptake and retention. Therefore, the present bivalve pattern is best understood as a descriptive tissue burden signal rather than as a mechanistic explanation of exposure [94,95,96,97].
Comparable findings have been reported in previous Black Sea studies using Mytilus galloprovincialis as a biomonitor. Romanian investigations have demonstrated the usefulness of mussels for tracing PTE contamination along the Romanian coast [19,44,46,47,98,99], while studies from the Turkish and Bulgarian Black Sea have also reported spatial variability in Cd, Pb, and other metals in mussels, often with elevated values near anthropogenic pressure zones [39,100,101,102,103]. Cd deserves particular attention because elevated Cd in bivalves may occur even when measured Cd concentrations in seawater or bulk sediment are low. This apparent contrast reflects both Cd environmental behavior and biological retention. Unlike more particle-reactive elements such as Pb, Cd may remain relatively mobile in marine systems and can show partly nutrient-like behavior in seawater [104,105,106,107]. A single measurement of dissolved Cd in seawater or total Cd in sediment may therefore not fully represent the labile, particulate, organic-bound, or food-associated Cd fractions available to filter-feeding organisms [108,109,110]. Bivalves integrate exposure over time through continuous filtration of seawater, suspended particles, phytoplankton, and organic detritus; consequently, tissue Cd concentrations may reflect cumulative retention rather than the instantaneous concentration measured in paired abiotic matrices [108,109]. Gastropods displayed generally lower Cd and Pb concentrations than bivalves. This difference may reflect their distinct feeding ecology and habitat use, but the limited replication does not allow firm inference on uptake processes [111]. The gastropod pattern should therefore be interpreted descriptively. Previous observations indicate that Rapana venosa can act as a useful bioindicator, but its assimilation profile differs from that of filter-feeding bivalves because intake is partly mediated through benthic predation and trophic mobilization [25,99,102].
Fish samples, particularly pelagic fish, showed higher Cr values than gastropods and several bivalve samples. This pattern should also be interpreted cautiously. Fish are mobile organisms, and their tissue concentrations may integrate broader environmental and dietary influences rather than local exposure at the nearest monitoring station [112,113,114]. In addition, Cr speciation and dissolved/particulate partitioning were not determined. The relative occurrence of Cr(VI) and Cr(III), as well as dissolved versus particulate Cr partitioning, may strongly influence Cr mobility, bioavailability, toxicity, and biological uptake [114,115,116,117]. Therefore, Cr-related patterns in fish should be treated as descriptive tissue burden signals, not as evidence of a specific water column or trophic pathway.
The comparison with regulatory maximum levels confirmed that the main compliance issue in the 2024 dataset was Cd. Cd exceedances occurred mainly in bivalves, including some Anadara kagoshimensis samples and one M. galloprovincialis sample, while fewer exceedances were observed in pelagic fish. Pb exceedance was isolated and limited to one pelagic fish sample, whereas bivalves remained below the regulatory maximum level for Pb [90]. These results indicate that regulatory screening remains important, particularly for Cd in bivalves. From a seafood safety perspective, regulatory maximum levels remain the primary benchmark for compliance and consumer protection; dietary risk indices provide additional exposure-based context only after measured concentrations are interpreted against these limits [17,118].

4.2. BCF as a Descriptive Tissue–Water Ratio

BCF values provided additional context by relating tissue concentrations to measured seawater concentrations, but they should be interpreted only as descriptive tissue–water ratios [40,119,120]. In this study, BCF was not used to identify direct uptake routes or to demonstrate causal transfer from seawater to biota.
Cd showed the highest apparent tissue–water ratios, especially in bivalves. However, because Cd concentrations in seawater were very low, elevated BCF values may partly reflect low denominator values rather than direct dissolved-phase uptake [104,121,122]. The high Cd BCF values are therefore consistent with the high Cd tissue burdens observed in bivalves, but they should not be interpreted independently from Cd geochemical behavior and bivalve filtration ecology. Similar patterns have been reported in Chinese coastal waters, where bivalves accumulated Cd efficiently despite relatively low dissolved concentrations, and Cd was identified as an important contributor to health hazard in farmed scallops and other bivalves [123,124].
The Cr-related BCF pattern differed from Cd. Pelagic fish showed higher Cr tissue–water ratios than gastropods, but this result should not be interpreted as evidence of a specific water column exposure pathway. As noted above, Cr speciation was not determined, and fish mobility makes station-matched seawater data only an approximate environmental reference. Previous Black Sea studies also indicate that BCF and BSAF patterns in fish are strongly influenced by habitat, mobility, and diet, supporting their cautious use as integrated descriptive indicators rather than proof of uptake from a single compartment [98,125,126].

4.3. BSAF as a Descriptive Tissue–Sediment Ratio

BSAF outcomes contextualized tissue concentrations relative to surface sediment concentrations, but they also require cautious interpretation. Cd showed the highest apparent tissue–sediment ratios, especially in bivalves. However, low sediment Cd concentrations can inflate BSAF values; therefore, these results indicate a descriptive tissue–sediment relationship rather than direct evidence of sediment-derived uptake [127]. The elevated Cd BSAF values observed here are consistent with the high Cd tissue burdens measured in bivalves, but they do not identify the relative contribution of dissolved, particulate, or resuspended material. They are also consistent with previous RoBS studies in which Cd presented high ratio-based values in shellfish and was identified as one of the more bioavailable PTE in benthic-related matrices [65,99]. Broader experimental and modeling evidence also shows that sediment-bound PTE, including Cd, may be assimilated by suspension- and deposit-feeding bivalves, with uptake depending on element identity, sediment properties, and feeding mode [127,128].
For Pb, BSAF values were also greater in bivalves than in gastropods, although the apparent tissue–sediment ratios were lower than those observed for Cd. This pattern agrees with the tissue concentration results, but it should not be interpreted as direct evidence of a specific particle-associated uptake process [129,130].
Previous BCF/BSAF studies support this cautious contextualization. In the RoBS, earlier work on M. galloprovincialis reported bioaccumulative or very bioaccumulative BCF values for Cd, Cu, Cr, and Ni in some cases, especially in port-influenced areas, while BSAF profiles supported Cd and Ni accumulation and indicated seasonal variability [131]. Similar research on M. galloprovincialis, A. inaequivalvis, and R. venosa reported higher ratio-based values for Cd and Ni and interspecific differences in tissue–environment relationships [99]. Comparable evidence from other marine regions also confirms that BCF and BSAF values are strongly influenced by PTE identity, organism physiology, uptake route, and ambient environmental concentrations [132,133,134,135].
For fish, BSAF must be interpreted with particular caution. Fish do not accumulate PTE directly from seabed substrate in the same way as benthic invertebrates. In pelagic and demersal fish, a sediment-related signal may reflect indirect processes such as benthic–pelagic coupling, resuspension, prey contamination, near-bottom contact, mobility, or broader station-level environmental conditions. BSAF is therefore more biologically plausible for relatively sedentary bivalves than for mobile fish [136]. For gastropods, BSAF may reflect benthic contact and trophic exposure, but direct sediment uptake should still not be assumed. For fish, particularly pelagic species, BCF and BSAF should be treated only as exploratory, station-matched contextual indicators, because tissue concentrations may integrate exposure over broader spatial scales than the paired water or sediment sample [137,138]. Similar regional and international studies have shown that transfer factor values vary according to element identity, organism physiology, organ or tissue analyzed, feeding ecology, and ambient environmental levels [125,139,140,141].

4.4. Dietary Exposure and Seafood Safety Interpretation

The dietary risk assessment did not indicate substantial non-carcinogenic concern under the evaluated adult exposure scenario. All individual THQ values remained below 1, and cumulative TTHQ values also remained below 1. This indicates that, although detectable PTE burdens and some regulatory exceedances were observed, the calculated non-carcinogenic risk from combined exposure to Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Pb was below the level of concern for the consumption scenario considered.
This result is consistent with Black Sea and broader marine studies. Studies of commercial fish species from Georgian and Turkish Black Sea waters have generally reported PTE concentrations and dietary risk indices within acceptable limits, while also emphasizing species-specific enrichment, spatial heterogeneity, and the need for continued monitoring, especially for frequent seafood consumers [83,142,143]. Similar hazard assessments from Mediterranean, Baltic, and Asian coastal areas commonly report detectable PTE burdens but THQ values below concern thresholds under average consumption assumptions, while noting that concern may increase for high-consumption groups or polluted local hotspots [31,144,145,146,147,148]. Therefore, the balanced interpretation of the present dataset is that Cd remains relevant for seafood compliance monitoring, especially in bivalves, but the calculated adult dietary risk indices did not indicate substantial non-carcinogenic concern under the evaluated exposure scenario.
The distinction between regulatory exceedance and dietary risk indices is important. Regulatory maximum levels evaluate whether seafood complies with legal safety thresholds, whereas EDI, THQ, and TTHQ estimate exposure under a defined consumption scenario. Thus, regulatory exceedances, particularly for Cd in bivalves, justify continued surveillance even when calculated THQ and TTHQ values remain below 1.

4.5. Monitoring Implications and Study Limitations

The present findings support a focused multi-species monitoring framework for the Romanian Black Sea. Bivalves, particularly M. galloprovincialis and A. kagoshimensis, should remain priority matrices for Cd and Pb surveillance because they captured the clearest Cd/Pb tissue signal in this dataset. Representative pelagic and demersal fish species of ecological and fisheries relevance should also be included because they provide information on mobile fishery resources and broader tissue burden patterns. Monitoring only bivalves could miss patterns in mobile fish, whereas monitoring only fish could miss localized Cd/Pb accumulation in bivalves. Therefore, both organism groups should be regarded as complementary monitoring matrices, while future monitoring should retain species-level resolution rather than relying only on broad pooled categories. Cd should remain a priority analyte in future seafood safety and environmental contamination assessments because it was the most recurrent element of concern across tissue burdens, BCF, BSAF, regulatory comparison, and dietary risk evaluation.
This is particularly relevant for the RoBS, where contaminant availability may be shaped by interacting pressures, including Danube influence, coastal wastewater inputs, port activities, maritime transport, tourism, sediment resuspension, and local hydrodynamics. Under such conditions, no single organism group can fully represent contaminant movement from the environment to seafood. Bivalves are useful for detecting local and particle-associated loads, while fish may integrate broader water column, trophic, and habitat-related influences [7,149]. This interpretation is supported by regional [10,11,65,150,151,152,153] and broader [154,155,156] marine evidence showing that riverine inputs, sediment texture, port activity, atmospheric inputs, and resuspension influence PTE retention and redistribution in coastal systems.
Several limitations should be considered. The study was based on 24 composite samples collected during a single year, and the design does not allow robust temporal, seasonal, population-level, or mechanistic inference. Seasonal variation, interannual variability, and episodic pollution events could not be evaluated. Composite samples also limited the evaluation of individual-level variability; therefore, the results should be interpreted as broad exploratory patterns, not as population-level estimates. Species-level inference was constrained by uneven replication, and some taxa were represented by single observations. Accordingly, broad biota categories should not be interpreted as homogeneous ecological units. In addition, multiple independent Kruskal–Wallis tests were performed across endpoints; although Holm correction was applied to post hoc pairwise comparisons, no global correction was applied across all omnibus tests. Therefore, statistically significant results should be interpreted cautiously and in relation to effect size, consistency among endpoints, and biological plausibility.
BCF and BSAF interpretation was also constrained by <LOD values in some abiotic measurements and by low Cd concentrations in seawater and sediments, which can inflate ratio-based values and reduce the number of analyzable transfer factor observations. These indices cannot separate dissolved, particulate, sediment-associated, and dietary exposure pathways. This limitation is especially relevant for Cr because Cr speciation was not determined [114,115], and for fish because samples were assigned to the nearest monitoring station rather than being spatially paired with abiotic matrices at the same resolution as bivalves. The dietary risk assessment was also based on standard exposure assumptions and available consumption data; individual risk may vary with seafood consumption frequency, portion size, age, body weight, health status, and exposure to contaminants from other dietary sources.
Future assessments should expand spatial and temporal coverage, include repeated seasonal and multiannual sampling, strengthen species-level replication, and better integrate abiotic variables such as sediment texture, particulate matter, salinity, pH, hydrodynamic conditions, and resuspension processes. Additional contaminants of high seafood safety relevance, especially Hg and As, should also be included, together with persistent organic pollutants, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, microplastics, and possible additive or synergistic effects. Such a framework would better support environmental status assessment, seafood safety surveillance, and management decisions in the Romanian Black Sea.

5. Conclusions

This study provides an exploratory cross-biota assessment of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Pb in fishery resources from the Romanian Black Sea, integrating tissue concentrations, regulatory comparison, BCF, BSAF, and adult dietary risk indices. Within the limits of a single-year dataset based on 24 composite samples, bivalves showed the clearest Cd and Pb tissue signal, whereas several fish samples, particularly pelagic fish, showed higher Cr values. Cu and Ni did not support clear group-level interpretation.
Cd was the main element of concern in the dataset. Cd exceedances of regulatory maximum levels occurred mainly in bivalves, while Pb exceedance was isolated. BCF and BSAF results supported the relevance of Cd as a priority element, but these ratio-based metrics should be interpreted as descriptive tissue–environment indicators, not as evidence of specific uptake pathways.
The adult dietary risk assessment did not indicate substantial non-carcinogenic concern under the evaluated exposure scenario, as all individual THQ values and cumulative TTHQ values remained below 1. Nevertheless, regulatory exceedances for Cd justify continued seafood safety surveillance, particularly in bivalves.
Overall, the findings support a cross-biota monitoring approach including bivalves, gastropods, and representative pelagic and demersal fish species, while retaining species-level resolution. Bivalves remain especially useful for Cd and Pb surveillance, while selected pelagic fish can provide additional information on mobile fishery resources. Cd should remain a priority analyte in future seafood safety and environmental contamination assessments, together with improved species-level replication, repeated seasonal and multiannual sampling, and inclusion of additional contaminants such as Hg, As, persistent organic pollutants, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and microplastics.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/environments13060336/s1: Figure S1: Shade plot of square-root-transformed metal concentrations (Cd, Pb, Cr, Cu, and Ni) in marine biota samples; Table S1. Calibration and analytical performance criteria for PTE determination by HR-CS GF-AAS; Table S2: Shapiro–Wilk normality tests for metal concentrations in biota samples; Table S3. Full Dunn post hoc results for significant biota-type Kruskal–Wallis tests for metal concentrations; Table S4. Exploratory species-level Kruskal–Wallis results for metal concentrations; Table S5. Shapiro–Wilk normality results for seawater concentrations and BCF values; Table S6. Seawater concentrations by station type: Kruskal–Wallis results; Table S7. BCF by station type: Kruskal–Wallis results; Table S8. Shapiro–Wilk normality results for sediment concentrations and BSAF; Table S9. Sediment concentrations by station type: Kruskal–Wallis results; Table S10. BSAF by station type: Kruskal–Wallis results; Table S11. Exploratory species-level Kruskal–Wallis results for BSAF; Table S12. Biota-type medians, Kruskal–Wallis results, effect sizes, and significant Dunn–Holm contrasts for human health risk indices; Table S13. Sample-level estimated daily intake (EDI) and target hazard quotient (THQ) values for PTE across species, stations, and biota types; Table S14. Sample-level cumulative non-carcinogenic risk (TTHQ) across species, stations, and biota types.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.O., M.G. and G.Ț.; methodology, A.O.; validation, A.O., M.G. and G.Ț.; formal analysis, A.O., M.G. and G.Ț.; investigation, A.O., M.G. and G.Ț.; resources, A.O., M.G. and G.Ț.; data curation, A.O.; writing—original draft preparation, A.O., M.G. and G.Ț.; writing—review and editing, A.O., M.G. and G.Ț.; visualization, A.O., M.G. and G.Ț.; supervision, A.O.; project administration, A.O.; funding acquisition, G.Ț. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Nucleu Programme SMART-BLUE 2023–2026, funded by the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization (grant No. 33N/2023, PN23230103) and Services for the Development and Implementation of the National Programme for Data Collection in the Romanian Fisheries Sector, funded by the National Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture (NAFA) (contract No. 101/08.10.2025).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were not required for this study in accordance with Romanian legislation, namely Law No. 43/2014 on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes, Art. 1(7)(f), which states that the law does not apply to acts that are not likely to cause pain, suffering, considerable distress, or lasting harm equivalent to or greater than that caused by the introduction of a needle in accordance with good veterinary practice. The present study involved only laboratory analyses of biological tissues and did not include experimental procedures on live animals, animal housing, laboratory exposure, surgical intervention, behavioral testing, or the sacrifice of animals specifically for experimental purposes. Fish specimens were obtained from routine fishery sampling/available catches within the National Programme for Data Collection in the Romanian Fisheries Sector, while mollusk specimens were collected during authorized marine environmental monitoring surveys conducted by trained personnel of the National Institute for Marine Research and Development ‘Grigore Antipa’ (NIMRD), Constanta, Romania. Therefore, approval by an animal research ethics committee was not necessary.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials. The data belong to the National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa” (NIMRD) and can be accessed upon request at http://www.nodc.ro/data_policy_nimrd.php (accessed on 12 March 2026).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BCFBioconcentration factor
BMBivalves
BSAFBiota–sediment accumulation factor
BWBody weight
CCoastal stations, up to 20 m depth
CdCadmium
CrChromium
CuCopper
DFDemersal fish
DIRDaily ingestion rate
d.w.Dry weight
ECHAEuropean Chemicals Agency
EDIEstimated daily intake
EEAEuropean Environment Agency
EFSAEuropean Food Safety Authority
FAOSTATFood and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database
FIRFood ingestion rate
GGastropods
GF-AASGraphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry
HBGVHealth-based guidance value
HR-CS AASHigh-resolution continuum-source atomic absorption spectrometry
IQRInterquartile range
LODLimit of detection
LOQLimit of quantification
MMarine stations, deeper than 20 m
MSFDMarine Strategy Framework Directive
NAFANational Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture
NiNickel
ODVOcean Data View
P2525th percentile
P7575th percentile
PAHsPolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PbLead
PCAPrincipal component analysis
PFPelagic fish
POPsPersistent organic pollutants
PRIMERPlymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research
PTEPotentially toxic elements
RAISRisk Assessment Information System
REACHRegistration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals
RfDReference dose
RLReporting limit
RoBSRomanian Black Sea
RSDRelative standard deviation
SDStandard deviation
TTransitional stations
TDITolerable daily intake
THQTarget hazard quotient
TTHQTotal target hazard quotient
USEPAUnited States Environmental Protection Agency
WISEWater Information System for Europe
wwWet weight

Appendix A

Table A1. Main ecological and trophic characteristics of fish species analyzed in the present study.
Table A1. Main ecological and trophic characteristics of fish species analyzed in the present study.
SpeciesCommon NameEcological GroupHabitat and Seasonal OccurrenceMain Feeding TraitsRelevance for PTE Exposure Context and Seafood-Safety Assessment
Alosa tanaica (Grimm, 1901)Azov shadMigratory clupeid; anadromous/coastal pelagicNative to the Ponto–Caspian basin, including the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and adjacent river systems. Adults spend most of the life cycle in marine coastal waters and migrate toward freshwater or slightly brackish areas during the reproductive period, mainly in spring.Feeds mainly on crustaceans; insect larvae and small fish may also be consumed seasonally.Relevant as a migratory fish linking coastal marine and estuarine/freshwater-influenced habitats. Its trophic position may provide information on contamination in coastal and estuarine/freshwater-influenced habitats from planktonic and small nektonic prey.
Atherina boyeri (Risso, 1810)Big-scale sand smeltSmall pelagic/coastal schooling speciesLives in schools near the shore and may enter coastal lakes in spring for feeding and spawning. It is highly tolerant of salinity variation and can occur in marine, brackish, and freshwater environments.Feeds mainly on small planktonic and benthic organisms, depending on habitat and life stage.Relevant for assessing contamination in shallow coastal and brackish environments, especially because of its tolerance to variable salinity and frequent occurrence near shore.
Engraulis encrasicolus (Linnaeus, 1758)European anchovySmall pelagic schooling speciesCommon in the Black Sea, forming large schools. It approaches coastal waters mainly from April to September. In autumn, adults migrate offshore and descend to deeper waters, approximately 60–70 m, for overwintering. Spawning occurs from June to September, both offshore and near the coast.Feeds mainly on planktonic organisms, especially zooplankton, with diet varying according to season and prey availability.Important commercial small pelagic fish and relevant seafood item. Its plankton-based feeding and seasonal coastal occurrence make it useful for evaluating PTE occurrence in pelagic resources.
Sprattus sprattus (Linnaeus, 1758)European spratSmall pelagic schooling speciesLives in large schools and does not enter rivers or coastal lakes. It approaches the shore when water temperature reaches approximately 7–8 °C and remains nearshore until water warms to about 18 °C. Spawning occurs during the cold season, with peak intensity between December and March.Feeds mainly on zooplankton, especially copepods and cladocerans, but may also consume small larvae, mollusks, and phytoplankton.High economic and dietary relevance, being among the main small pelagic resources in the Black Sea. Its planktonic feeding and schooling behavior make it suitable for assessing pelagic exposure to bioavailable metals.
Trachurus mediterraneus ponticus (Aleev, 1956)Mediterranean/Black Sea horse mackerelPelagic schooling predatorPelagic species forming large schools. It appears along the Romanian coast mainly in April–May, when water temperature reaches approximately 13–16 °C. Its arrival is often associated with the presence of anchovy and sand smelt schools near shore.Feeds mainly on small fish, including anchovy, sand smelt, sprat, and juvenile fish; crustaceans, polychaetes, diatoms, and algae may also occur in the diet.Relevant from both fishery and PTE exposure-context perspective because it occupies a higher trophic position among the small pelagic species analyzed and may integrate dietary exposure from prey fish.
Mullus barbatus (Linnaeus, 1758)Red mulletDemersal/benthic-associated speciesOccurs in small schools, mainly over muddy, clayey, or mussel-associated substrates. It appears near the shore in spring when water temperature reaches approximately 7–8 °C, then retreats to deeper bottom habitats as waters warm. It is commonly fished from May to autumn.Feeds on benthic organisms, including crustaceans, worms, and detritus.Relevant for assessing sediment-associated and near-bottom exposure pathways, because its feeding ecology and demersal habitat use increase interaction with benthic prey and seabed substrate.
Neogobius melanostomus (Pallas, 1814)Round gobyDemersal/benthic-associated Ponto–Caspian gobyPonto–Caspian demersal species adapted to marine and brackish coastal waters. Gobies are common along the Romanian coast, especially in sheltered bays, coastal lakes, and shallow areas with rocky or algae-covered substrates. Spawning generally occurs from late spring to summer, depending on temperature.Feeds on benthic and nektonic prey, including mollusks, crustaceans, shrimps, crabs, insects, small fish, and other gobies.Relevant for benthic food-web exposure because of its close association with substrate and consumption of benthic prey, including mollusks and crustaceans. It can help provide information on PTE occurrence in demersal resources.
Figure A1. Annual catches of the selected fish taxa included in the study along the Romanian Black Sea coast during 2020–2025. Catch data were provided by NIMRD through the National Programme for Data Collection in the Romanian Fisheries Sector.
Figure A1. Annual catches of the selected fish taxa included in the study along the Romanian Black Sea coast during 2020–2025. Catch data were provided by NIMRD through the National Programme for Data Collection in the Romanian Fisheries Sector.
Environments 13 00336 g0a1

References

  1. El-Sharkawy, M.; Alotaibi, M.O.; Li, J.; Du, D.; Mahmoud, E. Heavy Metal Pollution in Coastal Environments: Ecological Implications and Management Strategies: A Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zaynab, M.; Al-Yahyai, R.; Ameen, A.; Sharif, Y.; Ali, L.; Fatima, M.; Khan, K.A.; Li, S. Health and Environmental Effects of Heavy Metals. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2022, 34, 101653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhao, J.; Yang, K.; Chu, F.; Ge, Q.; Xu, D.; Han, X.; Ye, L. Sources and Spatial Variations of Heavy Metals in Offshore Sediments of the Western Pearl River Estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 188, 114599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Rainbow, P.S.; Kriefman, S.; Smith, B.D.; Luoma, S.N. Have the Bioavailabilities of Trace Metals to a Suite of Biomonitors Changed over Three Decades in SW England Estuaries Historically Affected by Mining? Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 1589–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Nawrot, N.; Wojciechowska, E.; Mohsin, M.; Kuittinen, S.; Pappinen, A.; Rezania, S. Trace Metal Contamination of Bottom Sediments: A Review of Assessment Measures and Geochemical Background Determination Methods. Minerals 2021, 11, 872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Birch, G.F. A Review and Critical Assessment of Sedimentary Metal Indices Used in Determining the Magnitude of Anthropogenic Change in Coastal Environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 854, 158129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Dey, S.; Rajak, P.; Sen, K. Bioaccumulation of Metals and Metalloids in Seafood: A Comprehensive Overview of Mobilization, Interactive Effects in Eutrophic Environments, and Implications for Public Health Risks. J. Trace Elem. Miner. 2024, 8, 100141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Phaenark, C.; Phankamolsil, Y.; Sawangproh, W. Ecological and Health Implications of Heavy Metal Bioaccumulation in Thai Fauna: A Systematic Review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2024, 285, 117086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Anatoly, K. (Ed.) State of the Environment of the Black Sea (2009-2014/5); Black Sea Commission: Istanbul, Türkiye, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  10. Lazăr, L.; Boicenco, L.; Moncheva, S.; Denga, Y.; Atabay, H.L.; Abaza, V.; Bişinicu, E.; Coatu, V.; Coatu, V.; Harcotă, G.; et al. ANEMONE Deliverable 2.1. In Impact of the Rivers on the Black Sea Ecosystem; Lazar, L., Ed.; Editura CD Press: Bucharest, Romania, 2021; ISBN 978-606-528-528-6. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lazăr, L.; Boicenco, L.; Moncheva, S.; Denga, Y.; Tolun, L.; Kurt, G.; Bişinicu, E.; Coatu, V.; Coatu, V.; Marin, O.; et al. ANEMONE Deliverable 2.2. In Anthropogenic Pressures and Impacts on the Black Sea Coastal Ecosystem; Lazar, L., Ed.; Editura CD Press: Bucharest, Romania, 2021; ISBN 978-606-528-529-3. [Google Scholar]
  12. Oros, A.; Coatu, V.; Damir, N.; Danilov, D.; Ristea, E. Recent Findings on the Pollution Levels in the Romanian Black Sea Ecosystem: Implications for Achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) Under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC). Sustainability 2024, 16, 9785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lazar, L.; Spanu, A.; Boicenco, L.; Oros, A.; Damir, N.; Bisinicu, E.; Abaza, V.; Filimon, A.; Harcota, G.; Marin, O.; et al. Methodology for Prioritizing Marine Environmental Pressures under Various Management Scenarios in the Black Sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 2024, 11, 1388877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Spinu, A.-D.; Mihailov, M.-E.; Marin, D.; Cindescu, A.-C.; Nenita, R.-D. Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Hydro-Geo-Morphological Factors and Anthropogenic Pressures: A Case Study of the Romanian Black Sea Coast Using a Tailored Coastal Vulnerability Index. Earth 2025, 6, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ene, A.; Teodorof, L.; Chiţescu, C.L.; Burada, A.; Despina, C.; Bahrim, G.E.; Vasile, A.M.; Seceleanu-Odor, D.; Enachi, E. Surface Water Contaminants (Metals, Nutrients, Pharmaceutics, Endocrine Disruptors, Bacteria) in the Danube River and Black Sea Basins, SE Romania. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 5009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Simionov, I.-A.; Cristea, D.S.; Petrea, Ș.-M.; Mogodan, A.; Jijie, R.; Ciornea, E.; Nicoară, M.; Turek Rahoveanu, M.M.; Cristea, V. Predictive Innovative Methods for Aquatic Heavy Metals Pollution Based on Bioindicators in Support of Blue Economy in the Danube River Basin. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xu, H.; Newton, R.; Love, D.C.; Zhao, Y.; Toppe, J.; Zhang, W. Heavy Metal Risks in Aquatic Foods. Environ. Int. 2025, 205, 109831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Abdallah, M.A.M. Bioaccumulation of Heavy Metals in Mollusca Species and Assessment of Potential Risks to Human Health. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2013, 90, 552–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Jitar, O.; Teodosiu, C.; Oros, A.; Plavan, G.; Nicoara, M. Bioaccumulation of Heavy Metals in Marine Organisms from the Romanian Sector of the Black Sea. New Biotechnol. 2015, 32, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Patchaiyappan, A.; Arulkumar, A.; Shynshiang, K.; Anandkumar, A.; Prabakaran, K.; Basu, A.; Sivasankar, R.; Devipriya, S. Bioaccumulation of Heavy Metals in Commercially Important Marine Species from Puducherry Coast, Southeast India. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2023, 65, 103080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Krishnakumar, P.K.; Qurban, M.A.; Sasikumar, G. Biomonitoring of Trace Metals in the Coastal Waters Using Bivalve Molluscs. In Trace Elements-Human Health and Environment; InTech: Silverwater, NSW, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  22. Strehse, J.S.; Maser, E. Marine Bivalves as Bioindicators for Environmental Pollutants with Focus on Dumped Munitions in the Sea: A Review. Mar. Environ. Res. 2020, 158, 105006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Riisgård, H.U.; Kamermans, P. Switching Between Deposit and Suspension Feeding in Coastal Zoobenthos. In Ecological Comparisons of Sedimentary Shores. Ecological Studies; Reise, K., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001; Volume 151, pp. 73–101. [Google Scholar]
  24. Foote, M.; Edie, S.M.; Jablonski, D. Ecological Structure of Diversity-Dependent Diversification in Phanerozoic Marine Bivalves. Biol. Lett. 2024, 20, 20230475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Moncheva, S.; Namiesnik, J.; Apak, R.; Arancibia-Avila, P.; Toledo, F.; Kang, S.-G.; Jung, S.-T.; Gorinstein, S. Rapana Venosa as a Bioindicator of Environmental Pollution. Chem. Ecol. 2011, 27, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Delgado-Suárez, I.; Gutiérrez, Á.J.; Hardisson, A.; Thorne-Bazarra, T.; Paz, S.; Revert, C.; González-Weller, D.; Lozano-Bilbao, E. Metals in Intertidal Gastropods: Relationship between Species and Feeding Habits. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2025, 220, 118366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Longo, P.A.d.S.; Mansur, K.F.R.; Siqueira, S.G.L.; Passos, F.D.; Leite, F.P.P. Sargassum-Associated Gastropod and Amphipod Assemblages in Relation to Metal Pollution in a Semi-Enclosed Bay. Aquat. Ecol. 2021, 55, 623–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Naccari, C.; Cicero, N.; Ferrantelli, V.; Giangrosso, G.; Vella, A.; Macaluso, A.; Naccari, F.; Dugo, G. Toxic Metals in Pelagic, Benthic and Demersal Fish Species from Mediterranean FAO Zone 37. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2015, 95, 567–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Maity, S.; Prabhadevi, L.; Jayanthi, G.; Karthikeyan, K.; Rupak, D. Bioaccumulation Patterns of Heavy Metals in Pelagic and Demersal Fishes of the Gulf of Kachchh. Int. J. Fish. Aquat. Stud. 2025, 13, 01–07. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Visciano, P. Environmental Contaminants in Fish Products: Food Safety Issues and Remediation Strategies. Foods 2024, 13, 3511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Copat, C.; Bella, F.; Castaing, M.; Fallico, R.; Sciacca, S.; Ferrante, M. Heavy Metals Concentrations in Fish from Sicily (Mediterranean Sea) and Evaluation of Possible Health Risks to Consumers. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2012, 88, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Kapranov, S.V.; Karavantseva, N.V.; Bobko, N.I.; Ryabushko, V.I.; Kapranova, L.L. Element Contents in Three Commercially Important Edible Mollusks Harvested off the Southwestern Coast of Crimea (Black Sea) and Assessment of Human Health Risks from Their Consumption. Foods 2021, 10, 2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Singhato, A.; Rueangsri, N.; Thanaratsotornkun, P.; Boonyingsathit, K.; Sridonpai, P.; Laitip, N.; Ornthai, N.; Judprasong, K. Risk Assessment of Toxic Heavy Metal Exposure in Selected Seafood Species from Thailand. Foods 2025, 14, 3725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Khan, M.S.; Rana, S.; Mamun, A.l.; Shimul, S.A.; Sarkar, A.; Ahmad Al Nahid, S.K. Seafood Safety Concerns: Human Health Risks from Heavy Metal Bioaccumulation in Crustaceans from Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2026, 151, 108928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ekiz, Ö.N.; Karabulut, G. Tissue-Specific Accumulation of Heavy Metals and Oxidative Stress in Atlantic Bonito (Sarda sarda, Bloch 1793) Marketed in Kütahya. Biology 2026, 15, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bat, L.; Yardim, Ö.; Öztekin, A. Metal Levels in Trachurus Mediterraneus Ponticus Aleev, 1956 and Their Health Risk Appraisal For Consumers. Sinop Üniversitesi Fen Bilim. Derg. 2023, 8, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bat, L.; Yardım, Ö.; Öztekin, A.; Arıcı, E. Assessing Health Risks from Metal Contamination in Engraulis encrasicolus (Linnaeus, 1758) along the Black Sea. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2024, 132, 106309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bat, L.; Arici, E.; Öztekin, A. Metal Levels in Commercial Pelagic Fishes and Their Contribution to Their Exposure in Turkish People of the Black Sea. J. Fish. Res. 2017, 1, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bat, L.; Öztekin, A.; Arici, E. Mytilus galloprovincialis and Metal Contaminants: Health Risk Assessment from Sinop Coasts. Korean J. Food Health Converg. 2021, 7, 13–21. Available online: https://koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO202128051037726.page (accessed on 11 March 2026).
  40. Melake, B.A.; Endalew, S.M.; Alamirew, T.S.; Temesegen, L.M. Bioaccumulation and Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factor of Metals and Metalloids in Edible Fish: A Systematic Review in Ethiopian Surface Waters. Environ. Health Insights 2023, 17, 11786302231159349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Police, S.; Maity, S.; Chaudhary, D.K.; Dusane, C.K.; Sahu, S.K.; Kumar, A.V. Estimation of Trace and Toxic Metals in Marine Biota and Associated Health Risk Assessment in Thane Creek, Mumbai, India. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol. 2021, 3, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ashong, G.W.; Adu Ababio, B.; Kwaansa-Ansah, E.E.; Appiah-Kubi, J.A. Occurrence, Metallo-Toxicological Interactions, and Health Risks of Selected Potentially Toxic Elements in the River Offin, Ghana. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 42636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Qin, L.; Zhang, R.; Liang, Y.; Wu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Mu, Z.; Deng, P.; Yang, L.; Zhou, Z.; Yu, Z. Concentrations and Health Risks of Heavy Metals in Five Major Marketed Marine Bivalves from Three Coastal Cities in Guangxi, China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 223, 112562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Oros, A.; Pantea, E.-D.; Ristea, E. Heavy Metal Concentrations in Wild Mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis (Lamarck, 1819) during 2001–2023 and Potential Risks for Consumers: A Study on the Romanian Black Sea Coast. Sci 2024, 6, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Oros, A.; Galatchi, M. Long-Term Heavy Metal Bioaccumulation in Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) from the Romanian Black Sea: Ecological and Human Health Risks in the Context of Sustainable Fisheries. Fishes 2025, 10, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bucşe, A.; Pârvulescu, O.C.; Vasiliu, D.; Mureșan, M. The Contents of Some Trace Elements (As, Br, Cu, Hg, Se, and Zn) in Mytilus galloprovincialis Mussels from Agigea Port, Romania. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 899555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bucse, A.; Parvulescu, O.; Vasiliu, D.; Lupascu, N.; Voica, C. Levels of Heavy Metal Concentration in M. Galloprovincialis mollusc Species from NW Black Sea (Romania). UPB Sci. Bull. Ser. B 2021, 83, 51–60. [Google Scholar]
  48. Oros, A.; Galaţchi, M.; Akkuş, G. Long-Term Monitoring and Bioaccumulation of Heavy Metals in European Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus, Linnaeus, 1758) from the Romanian Black Sea Area: A Risk Assessment Perspective. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Chem. 2025, 36, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Boicenco, L.; Abaza, V.; Anton, E.; Bisinicu, E.; Buga, L.; Coatu, V.; Damir, N.; Diaconeasa, D.; Dumitrache, C.; Filimon, A.; et al. Studiu Privind Elaborarea Raportului Privind Starea Ecologică a Ecosistemului Marin Marea Neagră Conform Cerintelor Art. 17 Ale Directivei Cadru Strategia Pentru Mediul Marin (2008/56/EC); Ministerul Mediului, Apelor și Pădurilor: București, România, 2018.
  50. Kolyuchkina, G.A.; Budko, D.F.; Chasovnikov, V.K.; Chzhu, V.P. Influence of the Bottom Sediment Characteristics on the Bivalve Mollusk Anadara kagoshimensis Histopathology’s Variability in the Northeastern Coast of the Black Sea. Oceanology 2017, 57, 828–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dağtekin, M. The Invasive Mollusk Rapana Venosa (Mollusca: Neogastropoda: Muricidae) in the Mid-Southern Black Sea: Distribution, Growth, and Stock Structure. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 2023, 53, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Galimany, E.; Ramón, M.; Ibarrola, I. Feeding Behavior of the Mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis (L.) in a Mediterranean Estuary: A Field Study. Aquaculture 2011, 314, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bișinicu, E.; Harcotă, G.-E.; Lazăr, L.; Niță, V.; Țoțoiu, A.; Țiganov, G. Fish Abundance and Mesozooplankton Resource: A Study on Sprattus sprattus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Actinopterygii: Clupeidae) in the Romanian Black Sea Waters. Acta Zool. Bulg. 2024, 76, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nita, V.; Nenciu, M.; Galatchi, M.; Diaconu, D. Fish Species of the Romanian Coast: Updated Atlas; CD Press: Luxembourg, 2024; ISBN 978-606-528-757-0. [Google Scholar]
  55. Tiganov, G.; Grigoras, D.; Nastase, A.; Paun, C.; Galatchi, M. Assessing of Pontic Shad (Alosa Immaculata, Bennett 1835) Stock Status from Romanian Black Sea Coast. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2023, 23, TRJFAS23217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Păun, C.; Țoțoiu, A.; Țiganov, G.; Galațchi, M.; Nenciu, M.; Niță, V. Overview of a Keystone Small Pelagic Fish in the North-Western Black Sea: Biometry, Age and Stock Status of Horse Mackerel Trachurus mediterraneus (Steindachner, 1868). Fishes 2025, 10, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Galatchi, M.; Radu, G.; Zaharia, T.; Totoiu, A.; Coprean, D. Studies Regarding Biological Aspects of Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus Linnaeus, 1758) from the Romanian Black Sea Coast. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2015, 16, 1041–1048. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kumar, K. Aquatic Foods in Human Health, Nutrition, and Overall Welfare. Clin. Nutr. Open Sci. 2025, 64, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2024; ISBN 978-92-5-138763-4. [Google Scholar]
  60. FAO. The State of Mediterranean and Black Sea Fisheries 2025; General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, Ed.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2025; ISBN 978-92-5-140318-1. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lazar, L.; Vlas, O.; Pantea, E.; Boicenco, L.; Marin, O.; Abaza, V.; Filimon, A.; Bisinicu, E. Black Sea Eutrophication Comparative Analysis of Intensity between Coastal and Offshore Waters. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vasiliu, D.; Bucșe, A.; Rădulescu, F.; Fediuc, F.; Balan, S. Surface and Vertical Nutrient Profiles in the Northwestern Black Sea: Trends, Comparisons, and Sample Preservation Assessment. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 2178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bucşe, A.; Pârvulescu, O.C.; Vasiliu, D.; Rădulescu, F.; Lupaşcu, N.; Ispas, B.A. Spatial Distribution of Trace Elements and Potential Contamination Sources for Surface Sediments of the North-Western Black Sea, Romania. Front. Mar. Sci. 2024, 10, 1310164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tabarcea, C.; Bisinicu, E.; Harcota, G.-E.; Pantea, E.-D.; Totoiu, A.; Filimon, A.; Abaza, V.; Lazar, L. Environmental Drivers and Multi-Trophic Assemblages in the Romanian Black Sea: Insights into Food-Web Structure. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2026, 14, 730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Oros, A.; Marin, D.; Reiz, G.; Nenita, R.D. Tracing Heavy Metal Pollution in the Romanian Black Sea: A Multi-Matrix Study of Contaminant Profiles and Ecological Risk Across the Continental Shelf and Beyond. Water 2025, 17, 2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chen, S.; Chen, S.; Tao, Z.; Li, Y.; Magni, P.; Zhang, L.; Zheng, X.; Pan, K. The Importance of Organic Matter in Controlling the Metal Variability and Mobility in Seagrass Sediments. Environ. Pollut. 2025, 366, 125542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chen, Y.-M.; Gao, J.; Yuan, Y.-Q.; Ma, J.; Yu, S. Relationship between Heavy Metal Contents and Clay Mineral Properties in Surface Sediments: Implications for Metal Pollution Assessment. Cont. Shelf Res. 2016, 124, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. UNEP/FAO/IOC/IAEA. Guidelines for Monitoring Chemical Contaminants in the Sea Using Marine Organisms; References Methods for Marine Pollution Studies No 6; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya; FAO: Rome, Italy; IOC: Lausanne, Switzerland; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  69. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose of Sediment Quality Assessment: Status and Needs; EPA-823-R-00-001; USEPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
  70. IAEA-MEL. Training Manual on the Measurement of Heavy Metals in Environmental Samples; IAEA-MEL: Monaco, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  71. UNEP/IOC/IAEA. Manual for the Geochemical Analysis of Marine Sediments and Suspended Particulate Matter; Reference Methods for Marine Pollution Studies No. 63; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  72. Grasshoff, K.; Kremling, K.; Ehrhardt, M. (Eds.) Methods of Seawater Analysis, 3rd ed.; Willey-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 1999; ISBN 978-3-527-61399-1. [Google Scholar]
  73. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). In Official Journal of the European Union; European Parliament: Strasbourg, France, 2006; Volume L 396, pp. 1–849. [Google Scholar]
  74. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment, Chapter R.11: PBT/VPvB Assessment; Version 4.0, ECHA-23-H-10-EN; ECHA: Helsinki, Finland, 2023.
  75. Pipoyan, D.; Stepanyan, S.; Beglaryan, M.; Stepanyan, S.; Mendelsohn, R.; Deziel, N.C. Health Risks of Heavy Metals in Food and Their Economic Burden in Armenia. Environ. Int. 2023, 172, 107794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. FAOSTAT. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed on 4 March 2026).
  77. Ullah, A.K.M.A.; Maksud, M.A.; Khan, S.R.; Lutfa, L.N.; Quraishi, S.B. Dietary Intake of Heavy Metals from Eight Highly Consumed Species of Cultured Fish and Possible Human Health Risk Implications in Bangladesh. Toxicol. Rep. 2017, 4, 574–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs)-Generic Tables|US EPA. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables (accessed on 28 March 2024).
  79. The Risk Assessment Information System. Available online: https://rais.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tools/TOX_search (accessed on 4 March 2026).
  80. Li, J.; Miao, X.; Hao, Y.; Xie, Z.; Zou, S.; Zhou, C. Health Risk Assessment of Metals (Cu, Pb, Zn, Cr, Cd, As, Hg, Se) in Angling Fish with Different Lengths Collected from Liuzhou, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jiang, Z.; Xu, N.; Liu, B.; Zhou, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, C.; Dai, B.; Xiong, W. Metal Concentrations and Risk Assessment in Water, Sediment and Economic Fish Species with Various Habitat Preferences and Trophic Guilds from Lake Caizi, Southeast China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 157, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Agusa, T.; Kunito, T.; Sudaryanto, A.; Monirith, I.; Kan-Atireklap, S.; Iwata, H.; Ismail, A.; Sanguansin, J.; Muchtar, M.; Tana, T.S.; et al. Exposure Assessment for Trace Elements from Consumption of Marine Fish in Southeast Asia. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 145, 766–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bat, L.; Şahin, F.; Öztekin, A.; Arici, E. Toxic Metals in Seven Commercial Fish from the Southern Black Sea: Toxic Risk Assessment of Eleven-Year Data Between 2009 and 2019. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2022, 200, 832–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Vandenberg, L.N.; Rayasam, S.D.G.; Axelrad, D.A.; Bennett, D.H.; Brown, P.; Carignan, C.C.; Chartres, N.; Diamond, M.L.; Joglekar, R.; Shamasunder, B.; et al. Addressing Systemic Problems with Exposure Assessments to Protect the Public’s Health. Environ. Health 2023, 21, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Nag, R.; Cummins, E. Human Health Risk Assessment of Lead (Pb) through the Environmental-Food Pathway. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 810, 151168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Shetty, B.R.; Pai, B.J.; Salmataj, S.A.; Naik, N. Assessment of Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Risk Indices of Heavy Metal Exposure in Different Age Groups Using Monte Carlo Simulation Approach. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 30319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. TIBCO Software Inc. TIBCO Statistica, version 14.0.1.25; TIBCO Software Inc.: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2023.
  88. Clarke, K.R.; Gorley, R.N. Getting Started with PRIMER V7; PRIMER-E Ltd.: Auckland, New Zealand, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  89. Schlitzer, R. Ocean Data View. Available online: https://odv.awi.de (accessed on 11 March 2026).
  90. European Commission (EC). Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on Maximum Levels for Certain Contaminants in Food and Repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. In Official Journal of the European Union; EC: Luxembourg, 2023; Volume L 119, p. 103. [Google Scholar]
  91. Alexander, J.; Benford, D.; Raymond Boobis, A.; Ceccatelli, S.; Cravedi, J.-P.; Di Domenico, A.; Doerge, D.; Dogliotti, E.; Edler, L.; Farmer, P.; et al. Statement on Tolerable Weekly Intake for Cadmium. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Alexander, J.; Benford, D.; Boobis, A.; Ceccatelli, S.; Cravedi, J.-P.; Di Domenico, A.; Doerge, D.; Dogliotti, E.; Edler, L.; Farmer, P.; et al. Scientific Opinion on Lead in Food. EFSA J. 2010, 8, 1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Schrenk, D.; Bignami, M.; Bodin, L.; Chipman, J.K.; del Mazo, J.; Grasl-Kraupp, B.; Hogstrand, C.; Hoogenboom, L.; Leblanc, J.C.; Nebbia, C.S.; et al. Update of the Risk Assessment of Nickel in Food and Drinking Water. EFSA J. 2020, 18, 6268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Jebali, J.; Chouba, L.; Banni, M.; Boussetta, H. Comparative Study of the Bioaccumulation and Elimination of Trace Metals (Cd, Pb, Zn, Mn and Fe) in the Digestive Gland, Gills and Muscle of Bivalve Pinna Nobilis during a Field Transplant Experiment. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2014, 28, 212–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pan, X.-D.; Han, J.-L. Heavy Metals Accumulation in Bivalve Mollusks Collected from Coastal Areas of Southeast China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 189, 114808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Primost, M.A.; Gil, M.N.; Bigatti, G. High Bioaccumulation of Cadmium and Other Metals in Patagonian Edible Gastropods. Mar. Biol. Res. 2017, 13, 774–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Lee, J.-W.; Jo, A.-H.; Kang, Y.-J.; Lee, D.; Choi, C.-Y.; Kang, J.-C.; Kim, J.-H. Review of Cadmium Bioaccumulation in Fish Exposed to Cadmium. Toxics 2024, 13, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Damir, N.; Coatu, V.; Danilov, D.; Lazăr, L.; Oros, A. From Waters to Fish: A Multi-Faceted Analysis of Contaminants’ Pollution Sources, Distribution Patterns, and Ecological and Human Health Consequences. Fishes 2024, 9, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ristea, E.; Lavric, V.; Oros, A. Inter-Species Variability of Heavy Metals in Marine Mollusks from the Romanian Black Sea: Bioaccumulation and Ecotoxicological Implications. Bull. Ser. B 2025, 87, 148–166. [Google Scholar]
  100. Bat, L.; Öztekin, A.; Şahin, F.; Arıcı, E.; Özsandıkçı, U. An Overview of the Black Sea Pollution in Turkey. MedFAR 2018, 1, 67–86. [Google Scholar]
  101. Çevik, U.; Damla, N.; Kobya, A.I.; Bulut, V.N.; Duran, C.; Dalgıc, G.; Bozacı, R. Assessment of Metal Element Concentrations in Mussel (M. galloprovincialis) in Eastern Black Sea, Turkey. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 160, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Zhelyazkov, G.; Yankovska-Stefanova, T.; Mineva, E.; Stratev, D.; Vashin, I.; Dospatliev, L.; Valkova, E.; Popova, T. Risk Assessment of Some Heavy Metals in Mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) and Veined Rapa Whelks (Rapana venosa) for Human Health. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 128, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Peycheva, K.; Panayotova, V.; Stancheva, R.; Makedonski, L.; Merdzhanova, A.; Cicero, N.; Parrino, V.; Fazio, F. Trace Elements and Omega-3 Fatty Acids of Wild and Farmed Mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) Consumed in Bulgaria: Human Health Risks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Xu, S.; Yu, T. Sources, Determination, and Safety Assessment of Cadmium in Bivalves. Cogent Food Agric. 2024, 10, 2436135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Apeti, D.A.; Lauenstein, G.G.; Riedel, G.F. Cadmium Distribution in Coastal Sediments and Mollusks of the US. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2009, 58, 1016–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Shi, W.; Zhao, X.; Han, Y.; Che, Z.; Chai, X.; Liu, G. Ocean Acidification Increases Cadmium Accumulation in Marine Bivalves: A Potential Threat to Seafood Safety. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 20197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Chen, X.; Liu, H.; Huang, H.; Liber, K.; Jiang, T.; Yang, J. Cadmium Bioaccumulation and Distribution in the Freshwater Bivalve Anodonta Woodiana Exposed to Environmentally Relevant Cd Levels. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 791, 148289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Pan, F.; Wang, B.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Cai, Y.; Liu, H.; Guo, Z.; Wang, X. Bioavailability, (Im)Mobilization Kinetics, and Spatiotemporal Patterns of Arsenic and Cadmium in Surficial Sediments of a River–Estuary–Coast System. J. Hydrol. 2022, 612, 128140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ren, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhang, C.; Liu, J.; Shi, X.; Li, L. The Distribution and Speciation of Dissolved Cd and Pb in the Bohai Sea and Yellow Sea, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 186, 114437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ramteke, D.; Chakraborty, P.; Chennuri, K.; Sarkar, A. Geochemical Fractionation Study in Combination with Equilibrium Based Chemical Speciation Modelling of Cd in Finer Sediments Provide a Better Description of Cd Bioavailability in Tropical Estuarine Systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 764, 143798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bhandari, U.; Arulkumar, A.; Ganeshkumar, A.; Paramasivam, S.; Rajaram, R.; Miranda, J.M. Metal Accumulation and Biomineralisation of Coastal and Mangrove-Associated Molluscs of Palk Bay, Southeastern India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 167, 112259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Wei, L.; Li, Q.; Li, H.; Ye, H.; Han, D.; Guo, Z.; Lek, S. Speciation-Specific Cr Bioaccumulation, Morphologic and Transcriptomic Response in Liver of Plectropomus Leopardus Exposed to Dietary Cr(III) and Cr(VI). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 241, 113744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Önel, E.S.; Turkmen, M.; Kalipci, E. Ecotoxicological Health Risk Analysis of Different Fish Species from the Black Sea Coast of Türkiye. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 30883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Ao, M.; Zhou, R.; Meng, R.; Bonaventure, L.A.; Luo, B.; Qian, X.; Xu, X.; Wang, S.; Wu, P. Chromium Transformations and Biological Impacts in Aquatic Systems: From Sediment-Water Interfaces to Food Web Complexity. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2025, 303, 118850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Kamila, S.; Shaw, P.; Islam, S.; Chattopadhyay, A. Ecotoxicology of Hexavalent Chromium in Fish: An Updated Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 890, 164395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Mountouris, A.; Voutsas, E.; Tassios, D. Bioconcentration of Heavy Metals in Aquatic Environments: The Importance of Bioavailability. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 44, 1136–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. da Silva Acioly, T.M.; Iannacone, J.; da Silva Araújo, K.S.; de Oliveira, J.M.; Ilyas, M.; Orlanda, J.F.F.; Viana, D.C. Bioaccumulation of Toxic and Essential Elements and Enzymatic Responses in Native Fish from the Middle Tocantins River. Sci. Rep. 2026, 16, 12569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Garofalo, L.; Sala, M.; Focardi, C.; Pasqualetti, P.; Delfino, D.; D’Onofrio, F.; Droghei, B.; Pasquali, F.; Nicolini, V.; Galli, F.S.; et al. Monitoring of Cadmium, Lead, and Mercury Levels in Seafood Products: A Ten-Year Analysis. Foods 2025, 14, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Sanou, A.; Coulibaly, S.; Coulibaly, M.; N’Goran N’dri, S.; Célestin Atse, B. Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination of Fish from a Fish Farm by Bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation Factors. Egypt. J. Aquat. Biol. Fish. 2021, 25, 821–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Tan, R.H.; Ng, C.C.; Gu, T.; Tek, P.P.Y. Evaluation of Potentially Toxic Elements (PTEs) Contamination in Seawater, Sediment, and Sea Snails (Nerita articulata and Cerithidea obtusa) from Kukup Fishing Village, Johor, Malaysia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2025, 197, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Chalkiadaki, O.; Dassenakis, M.; Lydakis-Simantiris, N. Bioconcentration of Cd and Ni in Various Tissues of Two Marine Bivalves Living in Different Habitats and Exposed to Heavily Polluted Seawater. Chem. Ecol. 2014, 30, 726–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Yuvka, İ.; Kosker, A.R.; Durmus, M.; Ucar, Y.; Ozogul, Y. Seasonal Changes in the Elemental Composition of Five Valuable Fish Species (Sparidae) from Bozcaada, North Aegean Sea: A Health Risk and Nutritional Benefit Assessment. Foods 2025, 14, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Lin, Y.; Lu, J.; Wu, J. Heavy Metals Pollution and Health Risk Assessment in Farmed Scallops: Low Level of Cd in Coastal Water Could Lead to High Risk of Seafood. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 208, 111768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Yuan, Y.; Sun, T.; Wang, H.; Liu, Y.; Pan, Y.; Xie, Y.; Huang, H.; Fan, Z. Bioaccumulation and Health Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals to Bivalve Species in Daya Bay (South China Sea): Consumption Advisory. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150, 110717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Nenciu, M.; Oros, A.; Roşioru, D.; Galaţchi, M.; Filimon, A.; Ţiganov, G.; Danilov, C.; Roşoiu, N. Heavy Metal Bioaccumulation in Marine Organisms from the Romanian Black Sea Coast. Acad. Rom. Sci. Ann.-Ser. Biol. Sci. 2016, 5, 38–52. [Google Scholar]
  126. Simionov, I.-A.; Cristea, V.; Petrea, S.-M.; Mogodan, A.; Nicoara, M.; Baltag, E.S.; Strungaru, S.-A.; Faggio, C. Bioconcentration of Essential and Nonessential Elements in Black Sea Turbot (Psetta maxima maeotica Linnaeus, 1758) in Relation to Fish Gender. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Thomann, R.V.; Mahony, J.D.; Mueller, R. Steady-State Model of Biota Sediment Accumulation Factor for Metals in Two Marine Bivalves. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1995, 14, 1989–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Griscom, S.B.; Fisher, N.S. Bioavailability of Sediment-Bound Metals to Marine Bivalve Molluscs: An Overview. Estuaries 2004, 27, 826–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Bonnail, E.; Cruz-Hernández, P.; Antón-Martín, R.; Riba, I.; DelValls, T.Á. Contamination Assessment of Sediments and Bivalves in Estuaries of the Southern Iberian Peninsula. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Rzymski, P.; Niedzielski, P.; Klimaszyk, P.; Poniedziałek, B. Bioaccumulation of Selected Metals in Bivalves (Unionidae) and Phragmites Australis Inhabiting a Municipal Water Reservoir. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014, 186, 3199–3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Pantea, E.-D.; Oros, A.; Rosioru, D.M.; Rosoiu, N. Condition Index of Mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis (Lamarck, 1819) as a Physiological Indicator of Heavy Metals Contamination. Ann. Acad. Rom. Sci. Ser. Biol. Sci. 2020, 9, 20–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Nakhlé, K.F.; Cossa, D.; Khalaf, G.; Beliaeff, B. Brachidontes Variabilis and Patella Sp. as Quantitative Biological Indicators for Cadmium, Lead and Mercury in the Lebanese Coastal Waters. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 142, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. McGeer, J.C.; Brix, K.V.; Skeaff, J.M.; DeForest, D.K.; Brigham, S.I.; Adams, W.J.; Green, A. Inverse Relationship between Bioconcentration Factor and Exposure Concentration for Metals: Implications for Hazard Assessment of Metals in the Aquatic Environment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003, 22, 1017–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Gagnon, C.; Fisher, N.S. Bioavailability of Sediment-Bound Methyl and Inorganic Mercury to a Marine Bivalve. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 993–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Zhang, S.; Fu, K.; Gao, S.; Liang, B.; Lu, J.; Fu, G. Bioaccumulation of Heavy Metals in the Water, Sediment, and Organisms from The Sea Ranching Areas of Haizhou Bay in China. Water 2023, 15, 2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Le, S.X.; Van Nguyen, B.; Bui, H.T.M.; Van Le, N.; Van Dinh, H.; Le, K.D.; Cao, S.T.; Nguyen, K. Bioaccumulation of Selected Heavy Metals in Bivalve Molluscs from Northeastern Vietnam: Implications for Safe Seafood Utilization. Res. Ecol. 2025, 7, 115–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Sekar, S.; Perumal, M. Geochemical Variation and Ecological Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals and Their Bioaccumulation in Fish Species from Two Estuaries in Southern India. Geosci. Front. 2026, 17, 102300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Burkhard, L.P.; Cook, P.M.; Lukasewycz, M.T. Direct Application of Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factors. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010, 29, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Zaharieva, Z. Bioaccumulation of Heavy Metals in Cetaceans and Fish from the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2024, 24, TRJFAS25820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Ju, Y.-R.; Chen, C.-W.; Chen, C.-F.; Chuang, X.-Y.; Dong, C.-D. Assessment of Heavy Metals in Aquaculture Fishes Collected from Southwest Coast of Taiwan and Human Consumption Risk. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2017, 124, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Park, D.; Mai, T.T.H.; Choi, J.; Kim, J.; Hong, D.; Kim, H. Distribution and Risk Assessment of Metals in the Aquatic Environment Following the Installation of a Low-Lying Bridge in Yeongrang Lake, Sokcho, Gangwon State, South Korea. Environ. Anal. Health Toxicol. 2024, 39, e2024028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Karsli, B. Determination of Metal Content in Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) from Turkey, Georgia and Abkhazia Coasts of the Black Sea: Evaluation of Potential Risks Associated with Human Consumption. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 165, 112108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Mutlu, T. Heavy Metal Concentrations in the Edible Tissues of Some Commercial Fishes Caught along the Eastern Black Sea Coast of Turkey and the Health Risk Assessment. Spectrosc. Lett. 2021, 54, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Szefer, P. Safety Assessment of Seafood with Respect to Chemical Pollutants in European Seas. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. Stud. 2013, 42, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Tuomisto, J.T.; Asikainen, A.; Meriläinen, P.; Haapasaari, P. Health Effects of Nutrients and Environmental Pollutants in Baltic Herring and Salmon: A Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 64, Correction in BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 389. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08501-2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Tkachenko, H.; Kasiyan, O.; Kamiński, P.; Kurhaluk, N. Assessing the Human Health Risk of Baltic Sea Sea Trout (Salmo trutta L.) Consumption. Fish. Aquat. Life 2022, 30, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Lin, H.; Luo, X.; Yu, D.; He, C.; Cao, W.; He, L.; Liang, Z.; Zhou, J.; Fang, G. Risk Assessment of As, Cd, Cr, and Pb via the Consumption of Seafood in Haikou. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 19549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Zhuzzhassarova, G.; Azarbayjani, F.; Zamaratskaia, G. Fish and Seafood Safety: Human Exposure to Toxic Metals from the Aquatic Environment and Fish in Central Asia. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Radomyski, A.; Lei, K.; Giubilato, E.; Critto, A.; Lin, C.; Marcomini, A. Bioaccumulation of Trace Metals in Aquatic Food Web. A Case Study, Liaodong Bay, NE China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 137, 555–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Vignati, D.A.L.; Secrieru, D.; Bogatova, Y.I.; Dominik, J.; Céréghino, R.; Berlinsky, N.A.; Oaie, G.; Szobotka, S.; Stanica, A. Trace Element Contamination in the Arms of the Danube Delta (Romania/Ukraine): Current State of Knowledge and Future Needs. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 125, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Alkan, N.; Alkan, A.; Akbaş, U.; Fisher, A. Metal Pollution Assessment in Sediments of the Southeastern Black Sea Coast of Turkey. Soil Sediment Contam. Int. J. 2015, 24, 290–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Doncheva, V.; Hristova, O.; Slavova, K. Metal Pollution Assessment in Sediments of the Bulgarian Black Sea Coastal Zone. Ecol. Balk. 2020, 12, 179–189. [Google Scholar]
  153. Atabay, H.; Aslan, E.; Tan, İ.; Tolun, L.; Çağlar Balkıs, N. Spatial and Temporal Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination in the Black Sea Surface Waters. Int. J. Environ. Geoinform. 2024, 11, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Radakovitch, O.; Roussiez, V.; Ollivier, P.; Ludwig, W.; Grenz, C.; Probst, J.-L. Input of Particulate Heavy Metals from Rivers and Associated Sedimentary Deposits on the Gulf of Lion Continental Shelf. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2008, 77, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Preisner, M.; Smol, M.; Szołdrowska, D. A Toxic-Free Environment Ambition in the Light of the Polish Baltic Sea Coastal Zone Pollution by Heavy Metals. Desalin. Water Treat. 2021, 232, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Robledo Ardila, P.A.; Álvarez-Alonso, R.; Árcega-Cabrera, F.; Durán Valsero, J.J.; Morales García, R.; Lamas-Cosío, E.; Oceguera-Vargas, I.; DelValls, A. Assessment and Review of Heavy Metals Pollution in Sediments of the Mediterranean Sea. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Regional setting of the Romanian Black Sea study area and sampling sectors.
Figure 1. Regional setting of the Romanian Black Sea study area and sampling sectors.
Environments 13 00336 g001
Figure 2. Species-level variability of PTE concentrations in marine biota from the Romanian Black Sea. Points represent individual composite samples. Blue boxes indicate the observed range for each species.
Figure 2. Species-level variability of PTE concentrations in marine biota from the Romanian Black Sea. Points represent individual composite samples. Blue boxes indicate the observed range for each species.
Environments 13 00336 g002
Figure 3. Boxplots of PTE concentrations in marine biota from the RoBS, grouped by broad biota category. Boxes represent the interquartile range, horizontal lines indicate medians, whiskers show the data range excluding outliers, and open circles (o) indicate outlying observations. PF, pelagic fish; DF, demersal fish; BM, bivalves; G, gastropods.
Figure 3. Boxplots of PTE concentrations in marine biota from the RoBS, grouped by broad biota category. Boxes represent the interquartile range, horizontal lines indicate medians, whiskers show the data range excluding outliers, and open circles (o) indicate outlying observations. PF, pelagic fish; DF, demersal fish; BM, bivalves; G, gastropods.
Environments 13 00336 g003
Figure 4. PCA ordination of marine biota samples based on tissue metal concentrations (Cd, Pb, Cu, Cr, and Ni). Symbols indicate broad biota category: PF, pelagic fish; DF, demersal fish; BM, bivalves; G, gastropods.
Figure 4. PCA ordination of marine biota samples based on tissue metal concentrations (Cd, Pb, Cu, Cr, and Ni). Symbols indicate broad biota category: PF, pelagic fish; DF, demersal fish; BM, bivalves; G, gastropods.
Environments 13 00336 g004
Figure 5. Distribution of bioconcentration factors (BCF) values for Cu, Cd, Pb, Ni and Cr by biota type. Boxes represent interquartile ranges, median lines, whiskers and outliers (o). PF, pelagic fish (BCF_Cd not calculated); DF, demersal fish; BM, bivalves; G, gastropods.
Figure 5. Distribution of bioconcentration factors (BCF) values for Cu, Cd, Pb, Ni and Cr by biota type. Boxes represent interquartile ranges, median lines, whiskers and outliers (o). PF, pelagic fish (BCF_Cd not calculated); DF, demersal fish; BM, bivalves; G, gastropods.
Environments 13 00336 g005
Figure 6. Sample-level bioconcentration factor (BCF) values for Cd, Ni, and Cr across the studied biota. Samples are ordered by descending BCF Cd values. The y-axis is shown on a logarithmic scale. Horizontal dashed lines indicate the REACH/ECHA screening thresholds for bioaccumulative (B, 1000) and very bioaccumulative (vB, 5000) behavior.
Figure 6. Sample-level bioconcentration factor (BCF) values for Cd, Ni, and Cr across the studied biota. Samples are ordered by descending BCF Cd values. The y-axis is shown on a logarithmic scale. Horizontal dashed lines indicate the REACH/ECHA screening thresholds for bioaccumulative (B, 1000) and very bioaccumulative (vB, 5000) behavior.
Environments 13 00336 g006
Figure 7. Distribution of biota–sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) values for Cu, Cd, Pb, Ni and Cr by biota type. Boxes represent interquartile ranges, median lines, whiskers and outliers (o). PF, pelagic fish; DF, demersal fish; BM, bivalves; G, gastropods.
Figure 7. Distribution of biota–sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) values for Cu, Cd, Pb, Ni and Cr by biota type. Boxes represent interquartile ranges, median lines, whiskers and outliers (o). PF, pelagic fish; DF, demersal fish; BM, bivalves; G, gastropods.
Environments 13 00336 g007
Figure 8. Sample-level biota–sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) values for Cd, Cu, and Cr across the studied biota. Samples are ordered by descending BSAF Cd values. The y-axis is shown on a logarithmic scale. The horizontal dashed line indicates the benchmark value of 1, above which sediment contribution may be considered meaningful.
Figure 8. Sample-level biota–sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) values for Cd, Cu, and Cr across the studied biota. Samples are ordered by descending BSAF Cd values. The y-axis is shown on a logarithmic scale. The horizontal dashed line indicates the benchmark value of 1, above which sediment contribution may be considered meaningful.
Environments 13 00336 g008
Figure 9. Boxplots of total target hazard quotient (TTHQ) values across biota types. TTHQ values represent cumulative non-carcinogenic dietary risk from Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni and Pb. Boxes represent the interquartile range, horizontal lines indicate medians, whiskers show the data range excluding outliers, and open circles indicate outlying observations. PF, pelagic fish; DF, demersal fish; BM, bivalves; G, gastropods.
Figure 9. Boxplots of total target hazard quotient (TTHQ) values across biota types. TTHQ values represent cumulative non-carcinogenic dietary risk from Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni and Pb. Boxes represent the interquartile range, horizontal lines indicate medians, whiskers show the data range excluding outliers, and open circles indicate outlying observations. PF, pelagic fish; DF, demersal fish; BM, bivalves; G, gastropods.
Environments 13 00336 g009
Figure 10. Sample-level total target hazard quotient (TTHQ) across the studied biota. Samples are ordered by descending TTHQ values. The horizontal red line indicates the threshold value of 1, above which combined exposure may suggest potential chronic non-carcinogenic risk.
Figure 10. Sample-level total target hazard quotient (TTHQ) across the studied biota. Samples are ordered by descending TTHQ values. The horizontal red line indicates the threshold value of 1, above which combined exposure may suggest potential chronic non-carcinogenic risk.
Environments 13 00336 g010
Table 1. Sampling design and biological material analyzed from the RoBS in 2024.
Table 1. Sampling design and biological material analyzed from the RoBS in 2024.
No.SpeciesTransectStation CodeStation TypeBiota TypeSampling DateBottom Depth (m)
1Mullus barbatus (Linnaeus, 1758)PortițaP10TDF23/7/202410
2Alosa tanaica (Grimm, 1901)PortițaP10TPF23/7/202410
3Engraulis encrasicolus (Linnaeus, 1758)PortițaP10TPF23/7/202410
4Sprattus sprattus (Linnaeus, 1758)PortițaP10TPF23/7/202410
5Sprattus sprattus (Linnaeus, 1758)PortițaP20TPF22/7/202420
6Trachurus mediterraneus ponticus
(Aleev, 1956)
Gura BuhazGB10CPF8/8/202410
7Trachurus mediterraneus ponticus
(Aleev, 1956)
Gura BuhazGB10CPF27/9/202410
8Mytilus galloprovincialis (Lamarck, 1819)Gura BuhazGB20CBM1/6/202420
9Rapana venosa (Valenciennes, 1846)Gura BuhazGB20CG1/6/202420
10Rapana venosa (Valenciennes, 1846)Gura BuhazGB20CG28/6/202420
11Mullus barbatus (Linnaeus, 1758)Cazino MamaiaCM10CDF10/10/202410
12Neogobius melanostomus (Pallas, 1814)Cazino MamaiaCM10CDF12/7/202410
13Atherina boyeri (Risso, 1810)CostineștiCOS10CPF28/6/202410
14Engraulis encrasicolus (Linnaeus, 1758)CostineștiCOS10CPF7/8/202410
15Mytilus galloprovincialis (Lamarck, 1819)MangaliaMAN10CBM25/7/202410
16Rapana venosa (Valenciennes, 1846)MangaliaMAN20CG1/6/202420
17Anadara kagoshimensis (Tokunaga, 1906)MangaliaMAN20CBM1/6/202420
18Anadara kagoshimensis (Tokunaga, 1906)PortițaP30MBM1/6/202430
19Mytilus galloprovincialis (Lamarck, 1819)PortițaP30MBM24/7/202430
20Rapana venosa (Valenciennes, 1846)PortițaP30MG1/6/202430
21Anadara kagoshimensis (Tokunaga, 1906)Cazino MamaiaCM30MBM1/6/202430
22Rapana venosa (Valenciennes, 1846)Cazino MamaiaCM30MG1/6/202430
23Anadara kagoshimensis (Tokunaga, 1906)CostineștiCOS30MBM1/6/202430
24Rapana venosa (Valenciennes, 1846)CostineștiCOS30MG1/6/202430
Note: T, transitional stations located in front of the Danube-influenced sector; C, coastal stations up to 20 m depth; M, marine stations deeper than 20 m; BM, bivalves; G, gastropods; PF, pelagic fish; DF, demersal fish.
Table 2. Median metal concentrations (µg/g ww) by biota type, Kruskal–Wallis results, effect sizes, and significant Dunn–Holm post hoc comparisons.
Table 2. Median metal concentrations (µg/g ww) by biota type, Kruskal–Wallis results, effect sizes, and significant Dunn–Holm post hoc comparisons.
MetalBMGPFDFHpε2Significant Dunn–Holm Pairs
Cd1.046 [0.655]0.171 [0.252]0.048 [0.028]0.043 [0.014]15.6380.00130.632BM vs. PF (BM higher) (pHolm = 0.0031);
BM vs. DF (BM higher) (pHolm = 0.0090)
Cr0.205 [0.269]0.006 [0.026]0.439 [0.030]0.432 [0.096]9.4900.02340.324PF vs. G (PF higher) (pHolm = 0.0220)
Cu1.619 [0.638]3.645 [0.666]1.394 [2.317]2.276 [1.693]7.7800.05080.239Not performed
(overall p > 0.05)
Ni0.631 [0.332]0.061 [0.139]0.527 [0.790]0.248 [0.628]6.3710.09490.169Not performed
(overall p > 0.05)
Pb0.232 [0.220]0.001 [0.002]0.052 [0.112]0.039 [0.043]9.8980.01940.345BM vs. G (BM higher) (pHolm = 0.0103)
BM, bivalves; G, gastropods; PF, pelagic fish; DF, demersal fish. Group values are presented as median [IQR], where IQR = interquartile range (P25th–P75th). H, Kruskal–Wallis test statistic; p, significance level of the Kruskal–Wallis test; ε2, epsilon-squared effect size. Pairwise Dunn–Holm comparisons were conducted only for analytes with significant overall Kruskal–Wallis results.
Table 3. Seawater PTE concentrations at the monitoring stations used for transfer factor calculations.
Table 3. Seawater PTE concentrations at the monitoring stations used for transfer factor calculations.
TransectStation CodeBottom Depth [m]Cu (µg/L)Cd (µg/L)Pb (µg/L)Ni (µg/L)Cr (µg/L)
PortitaP101013.159<LOQ *2.1352.8732.491
PortitaP202012.498<LOQ *2.0847.4462.303
PortitaP303028.6740.0104.49130.2352.844
Gura BuhazGB101010.305<LOQ *<LOD *5.2020.970
Gura BuhazGB202016.4720.0236.3225.9030.893
Cazino MamaiaCM101046.9080.0100.94227.65837.678
Cazino MamaiaCM30305.3350.24125.0671.9077.955
CostinestiCOS10109.883<LOQ *1.57316.2040.979
CostinestiCOS303027.371<LOQ *<LOD *19.23516.506
MangaliaMAN10109.059<LOQ *<LOD *1.0551.822
MangaliaMAN20207.479<LOD *<LOD *3.0861.138
* For Cd and Pb, LOD = 0.001; LOQ = 0.005.
Table 4. Median BCF values by biota type, Kruskal–Wallis results, and significant Dunn–Holm comparisons.
Table 4. Median BCF values by biota type, Kruskal–Wallis results, and significant Dunn–Holm comparisons.
MetalBMGPFDFHpε2Significant Dunn–Holm Pairs
Cu109.56
[61.52–143.94]
234.27
[196.45–341.01]
121.00
[81.24–248.65]
48.53
[42.02–216.24]
5.3520.14780.118None
Cd *45,166.09
[11,437.89–92,473.50]
2056.52
[1449.15–11,396.09]
3031.25
[2403.12–3659.38]
4.5550.10260.365None
Pb30.02
[6.94–53.63]
0.37
[0.03–1.44]
44.92
[17.40–77.87]
40.95
[24.56–42.54]
7.0710.06970.313None
Ni33.75
[23.68–243.48]
4.51
[1.01–21.61]
78.97
[18.21–132.33]
8.98
[8.54–261.97]
6.4080.09340.170None
Cr55.06
[36.32–145.74]
5.60
[0.19–12.32]
234.97
[188.28–443.14]
13.96
[11.41–93.64]
15.6380.0013450.632G vs. PF (PF higher), pHolm = 0.000879
BM, bivalves; G, gastropods; PF, pelagic fish; DF, demersal fish. Group values are presented as median [(P25th–P75th)]. H, Kruskal–Wallis test statistic; p, significance level of the Kruskal–Wallis test; ε2, epsilon-squared effect size. Pairwise Dunn–Holm comparisons were conducted only for analytes with significant overall Kruskal–Wallis results. * PF had no analyzable Cd BCF values because corresponding seawater concentrations were below LOD.
Table 5. Sediment PTE concentrations at the stations used for transfer factor calculations.
Table 5. Sediment PTE concentrations at the stations used for transfer factor calculations.
TransectStation CodeBottom Depth [m]Cu
(µg/g dw)
Cd
(µg/g dw)
Pb
(µg/g dw)
Ni
(µg/g dw)
Cr
(µg/g dw)
PortitaP10104.4880.0183.67410.66216.699
PortitaP202018.0440.08814.02723.59427.815
PortitaP303029.5870.09322.46346.23242.317
Gura BuhazGB101012.7360.0334.93410.22614.966
Gura BuhazGB202016.4900.05112.02416.45420.973
Cazino MamaiaCM10108.3100.21438.67311.54418.030
Cazino MamaiaCM303026.9960.10022.29642.967163.854
CostinestiCOS10106.7380.0215.273<LOD **13.682
CostinestiCOS30304.066<LOD *2.3213.75011.622
MangaliaMAN10106.4880.0154.39710.15013.773
MangaliaMAN20207.3830.07714.86312.44819.758
* Cd LOD = 0.01 µg/g; ** Ni LOD = 0.06 µg/g.
Table 6. Median BSAF values by biota type, Kruskal–Wallis results, and significant Dunn–Holm contrasts.
Table 6. Median BSAF values by biota type, Kruskal–Wallis results, and significant Dunn–Holm contrasts.
MetalBMGPFDFHpε2Significant Dunn–Holm Pairs
Cu0.5309
[0.3044–0.8512]
1.1788
[0.9812–1.6661]
0.6857
[0.5621–1.3706]
1.0957
[0.9489–2.7994]
5.4460.14190.122None
Cd66.7463
[45.5604–94.5340]
9.1984
[5.4902–10.2474]
8.0252
[7.0689–9.7063]
0.8014
[0.5666–5.3734]
13.6410.00340.591BM vs. DF (BM higher), pHolm = 0.0095;
BM vs. PF (BM higher), pHolm = 0.0138
Pb0.0516
[0.0405–0.0818]
0.000257
[0.000083–0.000642]
0.0545
[0.00927–0.1036]
0.00399
[0.00239–0.0533]
9.5620.02270.328BM vs. G (BM higher), pHolm = 0.0252
Ni0.1104
[0.0560–0.3405]
0.00886
[0.00127–0.0156]
0.1357
[0.0583–0.3021]
0.0860
[0.0818–0.3205]
5.9500.11410.164None
Cr0.0185
[0.0126–0.1114]
0.00140
[0.000059–0.00344]
0.1145
[0.0948–0.1268]
0.1034
[0.0887–0.1100]
13.1700.00430.508G vs. PF (PF higher), pHolm = 0.0024
BM, bivalves; G, gastropods; PF, pelagic fish; DF, demersal fish. Group values are presented as median [(P25th–P75th)]. H, Kruskal–Wallis test statistic; p, significance level of the Kruskal–Wallis test; ε2, epsilon-squared effect size. Pairwise Dunn–Holm comparisons were conducted only for analytes with significant overall Kruskal–Wallis results.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oros, A.; Galațchi, M.; Țiganov, G. Environmental Exposure and Bioaccumulation of Potentially Toxic Elements in Fishery Resources from the Romanian Black Sea and Implications for Seafood Safety. Environments 2026, 13, 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13060336

AMA Style

Oros A, Galațchi M, Țiganov G. Environmental Exposure and Bioaccumulation of Potentially Toxic Elements in Fishery Resources from the Romanian Black Sea and Implications for Seafood Safety. Environments. 2026; 13(6):336. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13060336

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oros, Andra, Mădălina Galațchi, and George Țiganov. 2026. "Environmental Exposure and Bioaccumulation of Potentially Toxic Elements in Fishery Resources from the Romanian Black Sea and Implications for Seafood Safety" Environments 13, no. 6: 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13060336

APA Style

Oros, A., Galațchi, M., & Țiganov, G. (2026). Environmental Exposure and Bioaccumulation of Potentially Toxic Elements in Fishery Resources from the Romanian Black Sea and Implications for Seafood Safety. Environments, 13(6), 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13060336

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop