Literature DB >> 23472606

Use of plants for biomonitoring of airborne mercury in contaminated areas.

Martin Lodenius1.   

Abstract

Biological methods provide a wide variety of possibilities to monitor mercury pollution in the environment. E.g., mosses and lichens give a good picture of the spatial distribution of mercury around pollution sources. On regional or global scale the accuracy is smaller and interpretation of the results more difficult. One reason for this is the long life-time and low reactivity of gaseous elemental mercury (Hg(0)). At least temperature, light, concentration in air, speciation and biological factors affect the net deposition to or emission from vegetation. Different methods for estimating mercury fluxes between atmosphere and vegetation give different results. At contaminated sites the reaction types and fluxes most probably differ from those at uncontaminated sites. There are many pathways for mercury fluxes as well as physicochemical and biochemical reactions between different mercury species which makes it difficult to assess the fluxes in detail. Environmental conditions like temperature, light and humidity affect these fluxes. Compared to mechanical collectors biological monitors most probably give a more realistic picture of especially dry deposition but a lot of work has still to be done before we have accurate and reliable quantitative estimates of the deposition.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomonitoring; Flux; Lichen; Mercury; Moss; Vegetation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23472606     DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2012.10.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Res        ISSN: 0013-9351            Impact factor:   6.498


  7 in total

1.  Analysis of mercury and other heavy metals accumulated in lichen Usnea antarctica from James Ross Island, Antarctica.

Authors:  Ondřej Zvěřina; Kamil Láska; Rostislav Cervenka; Jan Kuta; Pavel Coufalík; Josef Komárek
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Atmospheric mercury pollution around a chlor-alkali plant in Flix (NE Spain): an integrated analysis.

Authors:  José M Esbrí; Miguel Angel López-Berdonces; Sergio Fernández-Calderón; Pablo Higueras; Sergi Díez
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-07-19       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Potential biomonitoring of atmospheric carbon dioxide in Coffea arabica leaves using near-infrared spectroscopy and partial least squares discriminant analysis.

Authors:  Cláudia Domiciano Tormena; Gustavo Galo Marcheafave; Elis Daiane Pauli; Roy Edward Bruns; Ieda Spacino Scarminio
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2019-08-21       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 4.  Mercury Pollution from Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining in Myanmar and Other Southeast Asian Countries.

Authors:  Pyae Sone Soe; Win Thiri Kyaw; Koji Arizono; Yasuhiro Ishibashi; Tetsuro Agusa
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-05-22       Impact factor: 4.614

5.  Biomonitoring of Hg0, Hg2 and Particulate Hg in a Mining Context Using Tree Barks.

Authors:  Sandra Viso; Sofía Rivera; Alba Martinez-Coronado; José María Esbrí; Marta M Moreno; Pablo Higueras
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Seasonal variability of mercury concentration in soils, buds and leaves of Acer platanoides and Tilia platyphyllos in central Poland.

Authors:  Artur Kowalski; Marcin Frankowski
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 4.223

7.  Monitoring of Airborne Mercury: Comparison of Different Techniques in the Monte Amiata District, Southern Tuscany, Italy.

Authors:  Valentina Rimondi; Renato Benesperi; Marc W Beutel; Laura Chiarantini; Pilario Costagliola; Pierfranco Lattanzi; Daniela Medas; Guia Morelli
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 3.390

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.