Evaluation of two in vitro protocols for determination of mercury bioaccessibility: Influence of mercury fractionation and soil properties

Journal of Environmental Quality

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 2237-2244

  Welfringer, Bruno ^a   Zagury, Gerald J ^a  

^a ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOACCESSIBILITY; EXPOSURE PATHWAYS; HG CONCENTRATIONS; HIGHLY-CORRELATED; IN-VITRO; IN-VIVO; MERCURY FRACTIONATION; REFERENCE MATERIAL; SEDIMENT SAMPLES; SOIL PROPERTY;

BIOCHEMISTRY; CONTINUUM DAMAGE MECHANICS; SOILS;

MERCURY (METAL);

DISSOLVED ORGANIC MATTER; MERCURY;

ARTICLE; BIOAVAILABILITY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EXTRACTION; FRACTIONATION; GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS; IN VITRO STUDY; PARTICLE SIZE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; SEDIMENT; SOIL PROPERTY;

BIOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY; MERCURY; MERCURY COMPOUNDS; SOIL; SOIL POLLUTANTS;

EID: 70350743280     PISSN: 00472425     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2008.0478     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Akagi, H., and H. Nishimura. 1991. Speciation of mercury in the environment. p. 53-76. In N.I. Susuki and T.W. Clarkson (ed.) Advances in mercury toxicology. Plenum Press, New York.
2. Andersson, A. 1979. Mercury in soils. In J.O. Nriagu (ed.) The biogeochemistry of mercury in the environment. Elsevier, North-Holland Biomedical Press.
3. Barnett, M.O., and R.R. Turner. 2001. Bioaccessibility of mercury in soils. Soil Sed. Contam. 10:301-316.
4. Basta, N.T., S.W. Casteel, and R.R. Rodriguez. 2001. Development of chemical methods to assess the bioavailability of arsenic in contaminated media. p. 1-40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Research, Washington, DC.
5. Benoit, J.M., C.C. Gilmour, R.P. Mason, and A. Heyes. 1999. Sulfide controls on mercury speciation and bioavailability to methylating bacteria in sediment pore waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33:951-957.
6. Bernaus, A., X. Gaona, D. Van Ree, and M. Valiente. 2006. Determination of mercury in polluted soils surrounding a chlor-alkali plant-Direct speciation by X-ray absorption spectroscopy techniques and preliminary geochemical characterisation of the area. Anal. Chim. Acta 565:73-80.
7. Bloom, N.S., E. Preus, J. Katon, and M. Hiltner. 2003. Selective extractions to assess the biogeochemically relevant fractionation of inorganic mercury in sediments and soils. Anal. Chim. Acta 479:233-248.
8. Canady, R.A., J.E. Hanley, and A.S. Susten. 1997. ATSDR science panel on the bioavailability of mercury in soils: Lessons learned. Risk Anal. 17:527-532.
9. Carter, M.R. 1993. Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Lewis Publishers, Ottawa, ON.
10. CEAEQ. 2006. CENTRE D'EXPERTISE EN ANALYSE ENVIRONNEMENTALE DU QUÉBEC. Détermination du mercure: méthode par spectrophotométrie d'absorption atomique, formation de vapeur, MA. 200 - Hg 1.0, Rév. 4, Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs du Québec, 14 p.Détermination du mercure: Dosage par spectrophotométrie d'absorption atomique, formation de vapeur. p. 1-14.
11. Counter, S.A., and L.H. Buchanan. 2004. Mercury exposure in children: A review. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 198:209-230.
12. Di Giulio, R.T., and E.A. Ryan. 1987. Mercury in soils, sediments, and clams from a North Carolina peatland. Water Air Soil Pollut. 33:205-219.
13. ERM. 2005. Certificate of analysis- ERM(R)-CC580. Geel, Belgium.
14. Gabriel, M.C., and D.G. Williamson. 2004. Principal biogeochemical factors affecting the speciation and transport of mercury through the terrestrial environment. Environ. Geochem. Health 26:421-434.
15. Goldman, L.R., and M.W. Shannon. 2001. Technical report: Mercury in the environment: Implications for pediatricians. Pediatrics 108:197-205.
16. Gustafsson, J.P. 2006. Visual MINTEQ. Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering, Stockholm.
17. Gustafsson, J.P., and D.B. Kleja. 2005. Modeling salt-dependent proton binding by organic soils with the NICA-Donnan and Stockholm humic models. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:5372-5377.
18. Hesterberg, D., J.W. Chou, K.J. Hutchison, and D.E. Sayers. 2001. Bonding of Hg(II) to reduced organic sulfur in humic acid as affected by S/Hg ratio. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35:2741-2745.
19. Karam, A. 1993. Chemical properties of organic soils. In M.R. Carter (ed.) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
20. Kelley, M.E., S.E. Brauning, R.A. Schoof, and M.V. Ruby. 2002. Assessing oral bioavailability of metals in soil. Battelle Press, Columbus.
21. Neculita, C.-M., G.J. Zagury, and L. Deschênes. 2005. Mercury speciation in highly contaminated soils from chlor-alkali plants using chemical extractions. J. Environ. Qual. 34:255-262.
22. Nusslein, F., E.A. Feicht, S. Schulte-Hostede, U. Seltmann, and A. Kettrup. 1995. Exposure analysis of the inhabitants living in the neighbourhood of a mercury-contaminated industrial site. Chemosphere 30:2241-2248.
23. Paustenbach, D.J., G.M. Bruce, and P. Chrostowski. 1997. Current views on the oral bioavailability of inorganic mercury in soil: Implications for health risk assessments. Risk Anal. 17:533-544.
24. Pouschat, P., and G.J. Zagury. 2006. In vitro gastrointestinal bioavailability of arsenic in soils collected near CCA-treated utility poles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:4317-4323.
25. Pouschat, P., and G.J. Zagury. 2008. Bioaccessibility of chromium and copper in soils collected near CCA-treated wood poles. Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management. ASCE 12:216-223. (Pubitemid 351865562)
26. Ravichandran, M. 2004. Interactions between mercury and dissolved organic matter-A review. Chemosphere 55:319-331. (Pubitemid 38252935)
27. Ravichandran, M., J.N. Ryan, G.R. Aiken, and M.M. Reddy. 1998. Enhanced dissolution of cinnabar (mercuric sulfide) by dissolved organic matter isolated from the Florida Everglades. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:3305-3311.
28. Revis, N.W., T.R. Osborne, G. Holdsworth, and C. Hadden. 1990. Mercury in soil-A method for assessing acceptable limits. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19:221-226.
29. Rodriguez, R.R., N.T. Basta, S.W. Casteel, and L.W. Pace. 1999. An in vitro gastrointestinal method to estimate bioavailable arsenic in contaminated soils and solid media. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33:642-649.
30. RTC. 2006. Loamy sand-Trace metals. RTC, Laramie, WY. Available at http:// www.rt-corp.com/products/n1064.aspx (verified 3 Aug. 2009).
31. Ruby, M.V., A. Davis, R. Schoof, S. Eberle, and C.M. Sellstone. 1996. Estimation of lead and arsenic bioavailability using a physiologically based extraction test. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30:422-430.
32. Ruby, M.V., R. Schoof, W. Brattin, M. Goldade, G. Post, M. Harnois, D.E. Mosby, S.W. Casteel, W. Berti, M. Carpenter, D. Edwards, D. Cragin, and W. Chappell. 1999. Advances in evaluating the oral bioavailability of inorganics in soil for use in human health risk assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33:3697-3705.
33. Sakamoto, H., T. Tomiyasu, and N. Yonehara. 1995. The content and chemical forms of mercury in sediments from Kagoshima Bay, in comparison with Minamata Bay and Yatsushiro Sea, southwestern Japan. Geochem. J. 29:97-105.
34. Schroder, J.L., N.T. Basta, S.W. Casteel, T.J. Evans, M.E. Payton, and J. Si. 2004. Validation of the In Vitro Gastrointestinal (IVG) Method to estimate relative bioavailable lead in contaminated soils. J. Environ. Qual. 33:513-521.
35. Schroeder, W.H., J. Munthe, and O. Lindqvist. 1989. Cycling of mercury between water, air, and soil compartments of the environment. Water Air Soil Pollut. 48:337-347.
36. Schuster, E. 1991. The behavior of mercury in the soil with special emphasis on complexation and adsorption processes- a review of the literature. Water Air Soil Pollut. 56:667-680.
37. Sheppard, S.C., W.G. Evenden, and W.J. Schwatz. 1995. Ingested soil- Bioavailability of sorbed lead, cadmium, cesium, iodine, and mercury. J. Environ. Qual. 24:498-505.
38. Sladek, C., and M.S. Gustin. 2003. Evaluation of sequential and selective extraction methods for determination of mercury speciation and mobility in mine waste. Appl. Geochem. 18:567-576.
39. Sobek, A.A., W.A. Schuller, J.R. Freeman, and R.M. Smith. 1978. Field and laboratory methods applicable to overburdens and mine soils. p. 60-62. USEPA, Washington, DC.
40. Soil Survey Division Staff . 1993. Chapter Th ree: Examination and description of soils. Soil Survey Manual. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
41. Stevenson, F.J. 1982. Humus chemistry. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
42. U.S. Department of Energy. 1994. East Fork Poplar Creek Sewer Line Beltway remedial investigation report. U.S. Dep. of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN.
43. USEPA. 1997. Volume V: Health effects of mercury and mercury compounds, mercury study report to congress. USEPA, Washington, DC.
44. Wallschlager, D., M.V.M. Desai, M. Spengler, and R.D. Wilken. 1998a. Mercury speciation in fl oodplain soils and sediments along a contaminated river transect. J. Environ. Qual. 27:1034-1044.
45. Wallschlager, D., M.V.M. Desai, M. Spengler, C.C. Windmoller, and R.D. Wilken. 1998b. How humic substances dominate mercury geochemistry in contaminated fl oodplain soils and sediments. J. Environ. Qual. 27:1044-1054.
46. Waples, J.S., K.L. Nagy, G.R. Aiken, and J.N. Ryan. 2005. Dissolution of cinnabar (HgS) in the presence of natural organic matter. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 69:1575-1588.
47. Zagury, G.J. 2007. Comments on "Effect of soil properties on arsenic fractionation and bioaccessibility in cattle and sheep dipping vat sites" by D. Sarkar et al. (2007) Environment International 33 (2007) 164-169. Environ. Int. 33:712-713.