Development of an empirical nonlinear model for mercury bioaccumulation in the South and South Fork Shenandoah rivers of Virginia

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

Volumn 61, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 614-623

  Brent, Robert N ^a   Kain, Donald G ^b  

^a JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Virginia Department of Environmental Quality   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MERCURY; METHYLMERCURY;

BIOACCUMULATION; CONCENTRATION (COMPOSITION); EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; FISH; FOOD CONSUMPTION; FOOD WEB; MERCURY (ELEMENT); METHYLMERCURY; NONLINEARITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RIVER POLLUTION; WATER COLUMN; WATER QUALITY;

ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BIOACCUMULATION; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CONTROLLED STUDY; FISH; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MERCURIALISM; MICHAELIS CONSTANT; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIVER; TISSUE LEVEL; TOXICITY TESTING; UNITED STATES; WATER CONTAMINATION; WATER QUALITY;

ANIMALS; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FISHES; FOOD CHAIN; FOOD CONTAMINATION; MERCURY COMPOUNDS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; RIVERS; VIRGINIA; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL;

SHENANDOAH RIVER; UNITED STATES; VIRGINIA;

EID: 81755184403     PISSN: 00904341     EISSN: 14320703     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00244-011-9664-0     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, and Tetra Tech, Inc. (1999) Total maximum daily load and implementation plan for mercury, Arivaca Lake, AZ. USEPA, Washington, DC
2. Atkeson TD, Axelrad DM, Pollman CD, Keeler GJ (2003) Integrating atmospheric mercury deposition with aquatic cycling in the Florida Everglades: an approach for conducting a total maximum daily load analysis for an atmospherically derived pollutant. Integrated Summary, Final Report. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, University of Michigan Air Quality Laboratory, and Tetra Tech Inc., Tallahassee, FL
3. Brumbaugh WG, Krabbenhoft DP, Helsel DR, Wiener JG, Echols KR (2001) A national pilot study of mercury contamination of aquatic ecosystems along multiple gradients: bioaccumulation in fish. Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2001-0009. United States Geological Survey, Columbia, MO
4. LJ Carter 1977 Chemical plants leave unexpected legacy for two Virginia Rivers Science 198 1015 1020 10.1126/science.198.4321.1015 1:STN:280: DC%2BC3cvgslCktw%3D%3D
5. SC Choi T Chase R Bartha 1994 Metabolic pathways leading to mercury methylation in Desulfovibrio desulfuricans LS Appl Environ Microbiol 60 11 4072 4077 1:CAS:528:DyaK2cXmslKntLg%3D
6. SC Choi T Chase R Bartha 1994 Enzymatic catalysis of mercury methylation in Desulfovibrio desulfiricans LS App Environ Microbiol 60 4 1342 1346 1:CAS:528:DyaK2cXis1Gmtr0%3D
7. TW Clarkson 2002 The three modern faces of mercury Environ Health Perspect 110 11 23 10.1289/ehp.02110s111 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD38Xnt1Srt78%3D
8. Colorado Department of Public Health, Environment (2003) Total maximum daily load for mercury in McPhee and Narraguinnep Reservoirs, Colorado. Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO
9. Darnell J, Lodish H, Baltimore D (1990) Molecular cell biology. Scientific American Books, New York, NY
10. DK DeForest K Brix W Adams 2007 Assessing metal bioaccumulation in aquatic environments: the inverse relationship between bioaccumulation factors, trophic transfer factors and exposure concentration Aquat Toxicol 84 236 246 10.1016/j.aquatox.2007.02.022 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXpt1Cjtr0%3D
11. Eggleston J (2009) Mercury loads in the South River and simulation of mercury total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the South River, South Fork Shenandoah River, and Shenandoah River-Shenandoah Valley, Virginia. United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5076. United States Geological Survey, Richmond, VA
12. C Facemire T Augspurger D Bateman M Brim P Conzelmann S Delchamps, et al. 1995 Impacts of mercury contamination in the southeastern United States Water Air Soil Pollut 80 923 926 10.1007/BF01189745 1:CAS:528:DyaK2MXnsVCgsrg%3D
13. JR Flanders RR Turner T Morrison R Jensen J Pizzuto K Skalak, et al. 2010 Distribution, behavior, and transport of inorganic and methylmercury in a high gradient stream Appl Geochem 25 1756 1769 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2010.09.004 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXhtlehtL3J
14. CC Gilmour EA Henry 1991 Mercury methylation in aquatic systems affected by acid deposition Environ Pollut 71 131 169 10.1016/0269-7491(91)90031-Q 1:CAS:528:DyaK3MXksFKnurc%3D
15. M Harada 1995 Minamata disease: methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution Crit Rev Toxicol 25 1 24 10.3109/10408449509089885 1:STN:280:DyaK2M3ltFOktA%3D%3D
16. RC Harris RA Bodaly 1998 Temperature, growth and dietary effects on fish mercury dynamics in two Ontario lakes Biogeochemistry 40 175 187 10.1023/A:1005986505407 1:CAS:528:DyaK1cXitlakuro%3D
17. B Hope 2003 A basin-specific aquatic food web biomagnification model for estimation of mercury target levels Environ Toxicol Chem 22 2525 2537 10.1897/02-395 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXnslKisL0%3D
18. NC Kamman NM Burgess CT Driscoll HA Simonin W Goodale J Linehan, et al. 2005 Mercury in freshwater fish of northeast North America - a geographic perspective based on fish tissue monitoring databases Ecotoxicology 14 163 180 10.1007/s10646-004-6267-9 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXitlOjtb8%3D
19. CD Knightes RB Ambrose 2007 Evaluating regional predictive capacity of a process-based mercury exposure model, regional-mercury cycling model, applied to 91 Vermont and New Hampshire lakes and ponds, USA Environ Toxicol Chem 26 807 815 10.1897/06-317R.1 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXkt1Cmsrk%3D
20. CD Knightes EM Sunderland MC Barber JM Johnston RB Ambrose 2009 Application of ecosystem-scale fate and bioaccumulation models to predict fish mercury response times to changes in atmospheric deposition Environ Toxicol Chem 28 881 893 10.1897/08-242R.1 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXjvFaitrY%3D
21. Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS) (1982) Engineering feasibility study of rehabilitating the South River and South Fork Shenandoah River, Volume II of II, Final Report. LMS, Pearl River, NY
22. Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS) (1989) Reassessment of mercury in the South River and South Fork Shenandoah River. LMS, Pearl River, NY
23. H Lineweaver D Burk 1934 The determination of enzyme dissociation constants J Am Chem Soc 56 658 666 10.1021/ja01318a036 1:CAS:528: DyaA2cXisF2ltg%3D%3D
24. SN Luoma PS Rainbow 2005 Why is metal bioaccumulation so variable? Biodynamics as a unifying concept Environ Sci Technol 39 1921 1931 10.1021/es048947e 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXhsF2ntLY%3D
25. RP Mason JR Reinfelder FMM Morel 1995 Bioaccumulation of mercury and methylmercury Water Air Soil Pollut 80 915 921 10.1007/BF01189744 1:CAS:528:DyaK2MXnsVCgsrs%3D
26. JC McGreer KV Brix JM Skeaff DK DeForest SI Brigham WJ Adams, et al. 2003 Inverse relationship between bioconcentration factor and exposure concentration for metals: implications for hazard assessment of metals in the aquatic environment Environ Toxicol Chem 22 1017 1037 10.1002/etc.5620220509
27. FMM Morel AML Kraepiel M Amyot 1998 The chemical cycle and bioaccumulation of mercury Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29 543 566 10.1146/annurev. ecolsys.29.1.543
28. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (2006) Willamette basin mercury TMDL, Chap. 3. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR
29. KR Pak R Bartha 1998 Mercury methylation and demethylation in anoxic lake sediments and by strictly anaerobic bacteria Appl Environ Microbiol 64 1013 1017 1:CAS:528:DyaK1cXhs1art7k%3D
30. Parsons (2005) TMDLs for mercury in fish tissue for coastal bays and gulf waters of Louisiana. Parsons, Austin, TX
31. J Sorensen G Glass K Schmidt J Huber G Rapp 1990 Airborne mercury deposition and watershed characteristics in relation to mercury concentrations in water, sediment, plankton and fish of eighty northern Minnesota lakes Environ Sci Technol 24 1716 1727 10.1021/es00081a015 1:CAS:528:DyaK3cXlsFyhtLk%3D
32. GR Southworth MJ Peterson MA Bogle 2004 Bioaccumulation factors for mercury in stream fish Environ Practice 6 135 143
33. State Water Control Board (1980) Mercury contamination of the South, South Fork Shenandoah, and Shenandoah Rivers, Basic Data Bulletin 47. State Water Control Board, Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, VA
34. State Water Control Board (2010) 9 VAC 25-260 Virginia water quality standards. State Water Control Board, Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, VA
35. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1991) Guidance for water quality-based decisions: The TMDL process. EPA 440/4-91-001. USEPA, Washington, DC
36. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Mercury study report to Congress. Volume III: fate and transport of mercury in the environment. EPA-452/R-97-005. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Washington, DC
37. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001a) Water quality criterion for the protection of human health: methylmercury. EPA-823-R-01-001. Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, USEPA, Washington, DC
38. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001b) Total maximum daily load for total mercury in fish tissue residue in the middle and lower Savannah River watershed. Region 4, USEPA, Athens, GA
39. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Method 1631, revision E: mercury in water by oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry. EPA-821-R-02-019. Office of Water, USEPA, Washington, DC
40. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Total maximum daily load for total mercury in fish tissue residue in Chattahoochee River. Region 4, USEPA, Athens, GA
41. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Total maximum daily load for total mercury in fish tissue residue in the Canoochee River. Region 4, USEPA, Athens, GA
42. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010a) National summary of impaired waters and TMDL information. Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results (WATERS) Information System. USEPA, Washington, DC. http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains-nation-cy.control?p-report-type=T. Accessed: December 21, 2010
43. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010b) Guidance for implementing the January 2001 methylmercury water quality criterion. EPA 823-R-10-001. Office of Water, USEPA, Washington, DC
44. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2005) Standard operating procedures manual for the Department of Environmental Quality water quality monitoring and assessment program. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA
45. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2008a) 305(b)/303(d) Water quality assessment/integrated report. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA
46. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2008b) Fish tissue mercury in 2007: South River, South Fork Shenandoah River, and Shenandoah River. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA
47. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2009) Total maximum daily load development for mercury in the South River, South Fork Shenandoah River, and Shenandoah River. Virginia. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA
48. CJ Watras NS Bloom 1992 Mercury and methylmercury in individual zooplankton: Implications for bioaccumulation Limnol Oceanogr 37 1313 1318 10.4319/lo.1992.37.6.1313
49. CJ Watras RC Back S Halvorsen RJM Hudson KA Morrison SP Wente 1998 Bioaccumulation of mercury in pelagic freshwater food webs Sci Total Environ 219 183 208 10.1016/S0048-9697(98)00228-9 1:CAS:528:DyaK1cXlslWltrk%3D
50. MR Winfrey JWM Rudd 1990 Environmental factors affecting the formation of methylmercury in low pH lakes Environ Toxicol Chem 9 853 869 10.1002/etc.5620090705 1:CAS:528:DyaK3cXltVaqsrg%3D