Linking Cellulose Fiber Sediment Methyl Mercury Levels to Organic Matter Decay and Major Element Composition

Ambio

Volumn 43, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 878-890

  Regnell, Olof ^a   Elert, Mark ^b   Höglund, Lars Olof ^b   Falk, Anna Helena ^c   Svensson, Anders ^d  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b Kemakta Konsult AB   (Sweden)

^c NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR WATER RESEARCH   (Norway)

^d Kalmar County Administration   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Cellulose fiber; Decomposition; Major element cycles; Mercury; Methylation

Indexed keywords

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM; CELLULOSE; FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM; LACUSTRINE DEPOSIT; LAGOON; METHYLMERCURY; SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY; SEDIMENT-WATER INTERFACE; SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS; TOXIC SUBSTANCE;

SWEDEN;

CELLULOSE; FRESH WATER; METHYLMERCURY DERIVATIVE;

ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; SEASON; SWEDEN; TIME; WATER POLLUTANT;

CELLULOSE; FRESH WATER; METHYLMERCURY COMPOUNDS; SEASONS; SWEDEN; TIME FACTORS; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL;

EID: 84910107426     PISSN: 00447447     EISSN: 16547209     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13280-013-0487-2     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Benoit, J.M., C.C. Gilmour, R.P. Mason, G.S. Riedel, and G.F. Riedel. 1998. Behavior of mercury in the Patuxent River estuary. Biogeochemistry 40: 249–265. doi:10.1023/A:1005905700864.
2. Berg, I.A., D. Kockelkorn, W.H. Ramos-Vera, R.F. Say, J. Zarzycki, M. Hügler, B.E. Alber, and G. Fuchs. 2010. Autotrophic carbon fixation in archaea. Nature Reviews/Microbiology 8: 447–460. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2365.
3. Bertics, V.J., J.A. Sohm, T. Treude, C.-E.T. Chow, D.G. Capone, J.A. Fuhrman, and W. Ziebis. 2010. Burrowing deeper into benthic nitrogen cycling: The impact of bioturbation on nitrogen fixation coupled to sulfate reduction. Marine Ecology Progress Series 409: 1–15. doi:10.3354/meps08639.
4. Bloom, N.S. 1992. On the chemical form of mercury in edible fish and marine invertebrate tissue. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 1010–1017. doi:10.1139/f92-113.
5. Cleveland, C.C., and D. Liptzin. 2007. C:N: P stoichiometry in soil: Is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass? Biogeochemistry 85: 235–252. doi:10.1007/s10533-007-9132-0.
6. Compeau, G.C., and R. Bartha. 1985. Sulfate-reducing bacteria: Principal methylators of mercury in anoxic estuarine sediment. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 50: 498–502.
7. Elser, J.J., W.F. Fagan, R.F. Denno, D.R. Dobberfuhl, A. Folarin, A. Huberty, S. Interlandl, S.S. Kilham, et al. 2000. Nutritional constraints in terrestrial and freshwater food webs. Nature 408: 578–580. doi:10.1038/35046058.
8. Fathi, M., J.J. Ridal, D.R.S. Lean, and J.M. Blais. 2013. Do wood fibers from pulp mill affect the distribution of total and methyl mercury in river sediments? Journal of Great Lakes Research 39: 66–73. doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2012.12.018.
9. Fenchel, T., and B.J. Finlay. 1995. Ecology and evolution in anoxic worlds. New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Fleming, E.J., E.E. Mack, P.G. Green, and D.C. Nelson. 2006. Mercury methylation from unexpected sources: Molybdate-inhibited freshwater sediments and an iron-reducing bacterium. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72: 457–464. doi:10.1128/AEM.72.1.457-464.2006.
11. Fontaine, S., S. Barot, P. Barré, N. Bdioui, B. Mary, and C. Rumpel. 2007. Stability of organic carbon in deep soil layers controlled by fresh carbon supply. Nature 450: 277–280. doi:10.1038/nature06275.
12. Gavis, J., and J.F. Ferguson. 1972. The cycling of mercury through the environment. Water Research 6: 989–1008.
13. Handley, K.M., N.C. VerBerkmoes, C.I. Steefel, K.H. Williams, I. Sharon, C.S. Miller, K.R. Frischkorn, K. Chourey, et al. 2013. Biostimulation induces syntrophic interactions that impact C, S and N cycling in a sediment microbial community. The ISME Journal 7: 800–816. doi:10.1038/ismej.2012.148.
14. Hofsten, B.v., and N. Edberg. 1972. Estimating the rate of degradation of cellulose fibers in water. Oikos 23: 29–34.
15. Hultgren, P. 2000. Maringeologisk undersökning av Nötöfjärden, Oskarshamns kommun. Department of Marine Geology. Göteborg University (in Swedish).
16. Jonsson, P., J. Eckhéll, and P. Larsson. 2000. PCB and DDT in laminated sediments from offshore and archipelago areas of the NW Baltic Sea. AMBIO 29: 268–276. doi:10.1579/044-7447-29.4.268.
17. Naturvårdsverket. 1995. Branschkartläggningen: en översiktlig kartläggning av efterbehandlingsbehovet i Sverige. Rapport 4393. Naturvårdsverkets förlag. ISBN 91-620-4393-5 (in Swedish).
18. Olsson, S., J. Regnéll, A. Persson, and P. Sandgren. 1997. Sediment-chemistry response to land-use change and pollutant loading in a hypertrophic lake, southern Sweden. Journal of Paleolimnology 17: 275–294. doi:10.1023/A:1007967832177.
19. Pan-Hou, H.S., and N. Imura. 1982. Involvement of mercury methylation in microbial mercury detoxification. Archives of Microbiology 131: 176–177.
20. Pak, K.-R., and R. Bartha. 1998. Mercury methylation by interspecies hydrogen and acetate transfer between sulfidogens and methanogens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64: 1987–1990.
21. Parks, J.M., A. Johs, M. Podar, R. Bridou, R.A. Hurt, S.D. Smith, S.J. Tomanicek, Y. Qian, et al. 2013. The genetic basis for bacterial mercury methylation. Science 339: 1332–1335. doi:10.1126/science.1230667.
22. Ramlal, P.S., C.A. Kelly, J.W.M. Rudd, and A. Furutani. 1993. Sites of methyl mercury production in remote Canadian Shield lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 972–979. doi:10.1139/f93-112.
23. Regnell, O., and T. Hammar. 2004. Coupling of methyl and total mercury in a minerotrophic peat bog in southeastern Sweden. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 2014–2023. doi:10.1139/F04-143.
24. Rozan, T.F., M. Taillefert, R.E. Trouwborst, B.T. Glazer, S. Ma, J. Herszage, L.M. Valdes, K.S. Price, et al. 2002. Iron–sulfur–phosphorus cycling in the sediment of a shallow coastal bay: Implications for sediment nutrient release and benthic macroalgal blooms. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 1346–1354. doi:10.4319/lo.2002.47.5.1346.
25. Skyllberg, U. 2008. Competition among thiols and inorganic sulfides and polysulfides for Hg and MeHg in wetlands soils and sediments under suboxic conditions: Illumination of controversies and implications for MeHg net production. Journal of Geophysical Research 113: G00C03. doi:10.1029/2008JG000745.
26. Sunderland, E.M., and G.L. Chmura. 2000. An inventory of historical mercury emissions in Maritime Canada: Implications for present and future contamination. The Science of the Total Environment 256: 39–57.
27. Travnikov, O., I. Ilyin, O. Rozovskaya, M. Varygina, W. Aas, H.T. Uggerud, K. Mareckova, and R. Wankmueller. 2012. Long-term changes of heavy metal transboundary pollution of the environment (1990–2010). EMEP contribution to the revision of the heavy metal protocol. EMEP Status Report 2/2012.
28. Ullrich, S.M., T.W. Tanton, and S.A. Abdrashitova. 2001. Mercury in the environment: A review of factors affecting methylation. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 31: 241–293. doi:10.1080/20016491089226.
29. Watras, C.J., and N.S. Bloom. 1992. Mercury and methylmercury in individual zooplankton: Implications for bioaccumulation. Limnology and Oceanography 37: 1313–1318. doi:10.4319/lo.1992.37.6.1313.
30. Woyke, T., H. Teeling, N.N. Ivanova, M. Huntemann, M. Richter, F.O. Gloeckner, D. Boffelli, I.J. Anderson, et al. 2006. Symbiosis insights through metagenomic analysis of a microbial consortium. Nature 443: 950–955. doi:10.1038/nature05192.
31. Yu, R.-Q., J.R. Reinfelder, M.E. Hines, and T. Barkay. 2013. Mercury methylation by the methanogen Methanospirillum hungatei. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 79: 6325–6330. doi:10.1128/AEM.01556-13.