Proceedings of the International Cyanide Detection Testing Workshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Working Group 2 Participants Kristine JOHNSON, Kingfi sher Foundation (chair) Aquilino ALVAREZ, Philippines Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Thomas CABAGAY, East Asian Seas and Terrestrial Initiatives Ferdinand CRUZ, East Asian Seas and Terrestrial Initiatives Patricia DEBENHAM, SeaWeb Agus DERMAWAN, Directorate General of Coastal and Small Islands Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Indonesia Roy TORRES, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Thu Ho Thi YEN, Center for Marinelife Conservation 32
Report from Working Group 3 The Participants in the Import Working Group discussed the possibility of implementing a cyanide testing scheme at points of import, with an emphasis on the United States. Cyanide testing for this sector of the live reef trade would primarily address imports of marine aquarium fi sh (MAF), because the United States currently imports 50 to 60% of all MAF, whereas live reef food fi sh (LRFF) represent a small component of U.S. imports. While the trade in LRFF is substantial (up to 30,000 metric tons per year), most imports are destined for Hong Kong and other Asian markets. Testing options could differ between these two types of trade as well, as LRFF consist of much larger and differing, selective species than MAF. Hence, testing of imports of LRFF could focus on detection of cyanide in blood, while MAF testing relies on whole digested fi sh. The cytokinetics of cyanide may also differ among LRFF and MAF, in terms of rates of breakdown and removal, as cyanide can be removed from the blood much faster than from tissues. Larger, more active mobile predatory fi sh may have different rates of metabolism. Most MAF are small, site-attached species, whereas larger groupers and other species are likely to have a higher metabolism because they are faster swimmers. In addition, the background levels may vary considerably among taxa, and could be higher in larger LRFF as these are top predators that may be consuming smaller fi shes containing cyanide. Goal 1: Outline what to include in a robust scheme for monitoring imports to determine whether a fi sh was caught using cyanide. The group suggested that implementation of cyanide testing at points of import would be much more diffi cult, costly, and time-consuming than at points of export. They identifi ed numerous challenges that need to be addressed before an effective import cyanide testing scheme is possible. These include, but are not limited to, the following central issues: Infrastructure and facilities Defi ciencies in staffi ng, funding, equipment, and facility resources remain key issues in developing a U.S. import cyanide monitoring system. At present, lead ports for fi sh shipments include Los Angeles and Miami, with some support from non-designated ports such as Charleston and Tampa. Hundreds of boxes of invertebrates, fi sh, and corals pass through U.S. ports daily (Table 1, and Figures 1-2). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Law Enforcement staff largely focus on species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), due to specifi c legislative mandates for these taxa. In addition, there are no adequate facilities to maintain large shipments of fi sh while testing is undertaken, and seizures of live fi sh imports would be impractical and likely to result in high levels of mortality. 33
Page 1 and 2: Proceedings of the International Cy
Page 3 and 4: Proceedings of the Cyanide Detectio
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Proceedings of
Page 7: PREFACE The International Cyanide D
Page 11 and 12: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The International
Page 13 and 14: ATCA) in homogenized fi sh tissue m
Page 15 and 16: Validation of the ISE method applie
Page 17 and 18: Importing countries should also req
Page 19 and 20: INTRODUCTION Cyanide fi shing is a
Page 21 and 22: through the implementation of a net
Page 23 and 24: Working Group 2 The Export Working
Page 25 and 26: o o o o Can the U.S. require verifi
Page 27 and 28: Polymeric membrane based ion select
Page 29 and 30: Goal 2: Provide recommendations on
Page 31 and 32: hands-on training that develops a d
Page 33 and 34: Goal 3: Identify research needs to
Page 35 and 36: Working Group 1 Participants Bob KO
Page 37 and 38: estimated at roughly 3 to 5 days. H
Page 39 and 40: Goal 2 : Identify steps, agreements
Page 41: 3) certifi cate, but tests positive
Page 45 and 46: No. of Shipments 6,000 5,000 4,000
Page 47 and 48: Goal 3: Provide a recommendation wi
Page 49: Working Group 3 Participants Eric P
Page 53 and 54: Introduction Since the early 1960
Page 55 and 56: ainbow trout exposed to 40 mg SCN -
Page 57 and 58: Blennies, which were net-caught and
Page 59 and 60: electrical potential (similar to an
Page 61 and 62: in the Philippines under contract w
Page 63 and 64: endorsing the IMA’s use of the IS
Page 65 and 66: The intended products from the rese
Page 67 and 68: WPCF 1992, 1998). Both of these stu
Page 69 and 70: ASTM (1997) Standard test methods f
Page 71 and 72: Kuegsen, M., Kloock, J.P., Knobbe,
Page 73 and 74: Philippines. In Proceedings from th
Page 75 and 76: 3) 4) 5) 6) the metabolism of cyani
Page 77 and 78: or new matrices. 5.2.3 Modifi catio
Page 79 and 80: Level Two: The method should be val
Page 81 and 82: of cyanide exposure and to identify
Page 83 and 84: Special considerations for the anal
Page 85 and 86: tissue samples indispensable. Altho
Page 87 and 88: y reduction and subsequent separati
Page 89 and 90: can also be used for analysis of cy
Page 91 and 92: thiocyanate in saliva and serum bas
Page 93 and 94:
are many discrepancies in the liter
Page 95 and 96:
Table 3. Analytical Methods to dete
Page 97 and 98:
Poisoning, In Textbook of military
Page 99 and 100:
(70) Odoul, M., Fouillet, B., Nouri
Page 101 and 102:
V. (1975) Stable reagents for the c
Page 103 and 104:
(159) Felscher, D. and Wulfmeyer, M
Page 105 and 106:
Purpose of this Document The purpos
Page 107 and 108:
day. One cyanide tablet (2 g) is mi
Page 109 and 110:
10-90% following exposure to cyanid
Page 111 and 112:
existing cyanide detection methods
Page 113 and 114:
- Plasma lactate — elevated plasm
Page 115 and 116:
Method Advantages Disadvantages Hig
Page 117 and 118:
Paper Method Matrix Detection Limit
Page 119 and 120:
Table 4 lists experts identifi ed t
Page 121 and 122:
X Jerry Thomas CDC Em Steve Borron
Page 123 and 124:
References Barber, C. and Pratt, V.
Page 125 and 126:
Rates of Recovery. Environmental Ma
Page 127:
COUNTRY REPORTS
Page 130 and 131:
The first three of these destructiv
Page 132 and 133:
enforcement is minimal. There is an
Page 134 and 135:
1. Management/guidance to the Minis
Page 136 and 137:
in Vietnam now and requires more ef
Page 138 and 139:
Figure 2: Administrative structure
Page 140 and 141:
References Baquero, J. (1999) Marin
Page 142 and 143:
Acronyms • CDT • Cyanide Detect
Page 144 and 145:
Law/Ordinance/Decree /Decision 52/2
Page 146 and 147:
of samples required for analysis. U
Page 148 and 149:
Field test kit. BFAR recognizes the
Page 150 and 151:
Political Will Having planted the s
Page 152 and 153:
gravely by fi shing communities. Th
Page 154 and 155:
ecome the partner and counterpart o
Page 157 and 158:
Ion-Selective Electrodes for Cyanid
Page 159 and 160:
References Alban, J., Manipula, B.E
Page 161 and 162:
levels with mV readings recorded as
Page 163 and 164:
Trends Determined by Cyanide Testin
Page 165 and 166:
Implementing agencies: • Quaranti
Page 167:
APPENDIX
Page 170 and 171:
1:30 Overview of and Potential Cyan
Page 172 and 173:
Kristine Johnson Director Kingfi sh
Page 174:
Assessment of U.S. Role in Trade: U
show all

Proceedings of the International Cyanide Detection Testing Workshop

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?