We measured mercury (Hg) isotope ratios in sediments and various estuarine organisms (green crab, blue mussel, killifish, eider) to investigate methylmercury (MMHg) sources and exposure pathways in five Northeast coast (U.S.) estuaries. The mass independent Hg isotopic compositions (MIF; Δ(199)Hg) of the sediments were linearly correlated with the sediment 1/Hg concentrations (Δ(199)Hg: r(2) = 0.77, p < 0.05), but the mass dependent isotope compositions (MDF; δ(202)Hg) were not (r(2) = 0.26, p = 0.16), reflecting inputs of anthropogenic Hg sources with varying δ(202)Hg. The estuarine organisms all display positive Δ(199)Hg values (0.21 to 0.98 ‰) indicating that MMHg is photodegraded to varying degrees (5-12%) prior to entry into the food web. The δ(202)Hg and Δ(199)Hg values of most organisms can be explained by a mixture of MMHg and inorganic Hg from sediments. At one contaminated site mussels have anomalously high δ(202)Hg, indicating exposure to a second pool of MMHg, compared to sediment, crabs and fish. Eiders have similar Δ(199)Hg as killifish but much higher δ(202)Hg, suggesting that there is an internal fractionation of δ(202)Hg in birds. Our study shows that Hg isotopes can be used to identify multiple anthropogenic inorganic Hg and MMHg sources and determine the degree of photodegradation of MMHg in estuarine food webs.
We measured mercury (Hg) isotope ratios in sediments and various estuarine organisms (green crab, blue mussel, killifish, eider) to investigate methylmercury (MMHg) sources and exposure pathways in five Northeast coast (U.S.) estuaries. The mass independent Hg isotopic compositions (MIF; Δ(199)Hg) of the sediments were linearly correlated with the sediment 1/Hg concentrations (Δ(199)Hg: r(2) = 0.77, p < 0.05), but the mass dependent isotope compositions (MDF; δ(202)Hg) were not (r(2) = 0.26, p = 0.16), reflecting inputs of anthropogenic Hg sources with varying δ(202)Hg. The estuarine organisms all display positive Δ(199)Hg values (0.21 to 0.98 ‰) indicating that MMHg is photodegraded to varying degrees (5-12%) prior to entry into the food web. The δ(202)Hg and Δ(199)Hg values of most organisms can be explained by a mixture of MMHg and inorganic Hg from sediments. At one contaminated site mussels have anomalously high δ(202)Hg, indicating exposure to a second pool of MMHg, compared to sediment, crabs and fish. Eiders have similar Δ(199)Hg as killifish but much higher δ(202)Hg, suggesting that there is an internal fractionation of δ(202)Hg in birds. Our study shows that Hg isotopes can be used to identify multiple anthropogenic inorganic Hg and MMHg sources and determine the degree of photodegradation of MMHg in estuarine food webs.
Monomethylmercury (MMHg) is a toxic and
bioaccumulative organometallic
compound that poses serious health risks to both humans and wildlife.[1] Humans are primarily exposed to MMHg via the
consumption of marine fish and shellfish, with over 90% of marine
fisheries products originating from estuarine and open ocean areas.[2,3] Many estuarine organisms currently contain elevated MMHg levels,
which can cause health problems in humans,[4,5] but
there is considerable uncertainty concerning the relative importance
of the sources and exposure pathways of MMHg to estuarine food webs.Sediments have long been suggested as the dominant MMHg source
to estuarine food webs. Estuarine sediments act as an important sink
for Hg, receiving Hg via atmospheric deposition,[6] industrial runoff[7] and riverine
input,[8] and provide geochemical conditions
that promote biotic methylation.[9] Past
studies have also reported strong linkages between total Hg (THg)
concentrations in sediments and THg in estuarine forage fish in San
Francisco Bay.[10,11] In contrast, Chen et al.[12,13] recently documented a strong positive association between pelagic
forage fish (Fundulus heteroclittus and Menidia
menidia) MMHg concentrations and water column particulate
MMHg concentrations, but not with sediments, across multiple estuaries
on the Northeast coast, U.S. Based on this observation, the authors
suggested that the MMHg accumulated into water column particulates
may be a more dominant MMHg source to pelagic organisms than sediment
MMHg. Monomethylmercury can enter the water column via diffusion,
advection and resuspension from sediments.[14] Inflowing fluvial and tidal waters have been suggested as important
external MMHg sources to pelagic food webs in the Bay of Fundy[15] and the Hudson River estuary,[16] with coastal sediments being a less important source. At
Chesapeake Bay[17] and Long Island Sound,[8] both sediments and external sources were found
to be important MMHg sources to these systems. Given these diverse
sources, tools that can differentiate MMHg sources and exposure pathways
are expected to help highlight the most important biogeochemical processes
affecting MMHg in estuarine food webs.Studies of the natural
abundance of Hg isotopes have enhanced understanding
of the sources and biogeochemical processing of Hg in natural environments.
Mercury isotopes undergo mass-dependent fractionation (MDF, reported
as δ202Hg) and mass-independent fractionation (MIF,
reported as Δ199Hg and Δ201Hg).[18] While MDF has been documented in various environmentally
relevant reactions such as biotic methylation,[19] demethylation,[20] thiol–ligand
exchange[21] and photochemical reactions,[22] MIF in natural systems is thought to occur primarily
in odd-mass number isotopes via photochemical reduction and degradation
of inorganic Hg (IHg) and MMHg. Recently, Δ199Hg
has been applied as a biological and ecological tracer for understanding
processes such as bioaccumulation and trophic transfer[23,24] as well as transfers of MMHg between ecosystems.[25] The ratio of Δ199Hg/Δ201Hg has also become a valuable tool for distinguishing between photochemical
reduction of IHg (Δ199Hg/Δ201Hg
= 1.00) and degradation of MMHg (Δ199Hg/Δ201Hg = 1.2–1.4).[22]Mercury isotope ratios have recently been used to provide insight
into the sources and exposure pathways of MMHg to diverse marine food
webs.[10,24,26,27] Based on these studies, we can make predictions as
to how Hg isotope ratios might be useful for understanding the sources
and biogeochemical processing of MMHg in estuaries. For instance,
high positive Δ199Hg values have been documented
in pelagic fish (>1‰) compared to coastal fish (<1‰),
indicating that MMHg that has been subjected to extensive photochemical
degradation in the open ocean water column is the dominant MMHg source
to pelagic food webs.[26,27] In shallow coastal environments
it has been suggested that MMHg produced in the sediment, that has
undergone relatively little photochemical degradation, enters the
base of the food web.[27] In another relevant
study, Gehrke et al.[10] documented relatively
low Δ199Hg values (<1‰) in intertidal forage
fish (i.e., topsmelt and silverside) that feed on epibenthic invertebrates
across the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Fish δ202Hg
values were found to be consistently higher by 0.6 ‰ compared
to nearby sediments at multiple sites, which led to the conclusion
that the fractionation imparted during production and degradation
pathways of MMHg in the sediment or during trophic transfer was responsible
for these δ202Hg offsets. Fish feeding experiments,[23,24] have now documented an absence of Hg isotope fractionation during
trophic transfer of MMHg to fish, and therefore the isotopic offset
is thought to provide insight into the biogeochemical pathways of
MMHg prior to introduction to the food web. We also expect that the
isotopic offset between fish and sediments may differ between sites
that vary in Hg biogeochemical cycling, as well as between different
feeding guilds among estuarine organisms.In this study, we
investigated the sources and exposure pathways
of MMHg in food webs from five estuaries located across the northeastern
coast of the U.S. Sediments and organisms from these sites have been
previously studied for IHg and MMHg concentrations by Chen et al.[12,13] The Northeast coast of the U.S. is one of the most productive marine
ecosystems in the world and supports valuable commercial and recreational
fisheries. In the last century, this area has become severely impacted
by an increase in population, industrial activity, and emission of
anthropogenic pollutants including Hg.[28] Here we characterize the Hg isotopic compositions of estuarine sediments
across sites on the Northeast coast to identify Hg sources in these
regions. The sources and exposure pathways of MMHg were evaluated
across food webs consisting of epibenthose (green crab; Carcinus
maenas, killifish; Fundulus heteroclittus), filter feeders (blue mussel; Mytilus edulis, ribbed
mussels; Geukensia demissa), and consumers (common
eider; Somateria mollissima). We determined the Hg
isotopic composition of the estuarine organisms and estimated the
isotopic composition of MMHg to identify the dominant MMHg source
and exposure pathway to the estuarine food webs. The MMHg isotopic
compositions were compared across sites and between feeding guilds
(i.e., groups of species that exploit the same resources) to assess
potential spatial and ecological variability in MMHg sources. To our
knowledge, this is the first attempt to use Hg isotope ratios to compare
MMHg sources to varying marine feeding guilds across multiple ecosystems.
Materials
and Methods
Site Description
We sampled five estuarine sites along
the northeastern coast of the U.S. (Maine; ME, Massachusetts; MA,
Rhode Island, RI; Connecticut, CT, New Jersey; NJ) in the summers
of 2008 and 2010 (Supporting Information (SI) Figure S1). All sites were adjacent to coastal marsh habitats except
for Bold Point, RI (BOLD), which was located in an unvegetated area
of the Providence River Estuary. The Webhannet Estuary in Wells, ME
(WELLS) and Buzzards Bay, MA (BUZZ) are characterized by sandy beaches
and are sparsely populated. Both sites receive primarily atmospherically
deposited Hg from nonpoint sources and the inputs are relatively small
compared to the other Northeast coast sites.[29] BOLD is situated in urbanized Providence, RI, and receives some
atmospheric point source Hg from local waste incinerators (10% of
the total Hg budget).[29] BOLD is impacted
by local wastewater treatment facilities (21% of Hg input) and industrially
impacted rivers (69% of Hg input).[30] Barn
Island, CT (BARN) is located in the southeastern tip of Connecticut
and also receives Hg via local wastewater treatment facilities and
industrially impacted rivers—the Connecticut River (59% of
Hg input) and the East River (25% of Hg input).[8] Mill Creek, NJ (MILL) is impacted by the Hackensack River,
which has been heavily contaminated by landfills, and a Hg recovery
plant that discharged 30–400 tons of Hg including elemental
Hg, mercuric oxide, and other forms of oxidized Hg byproducts during
its operation between 1929 and 1974.[31]
Sampling and Analysis
The estuarine sediments were
measured for THg and MMHg concentrations at the University of Connecticut
Department of Marine Sciences and were reported previously[13] (n = 9). Four types of biota
were analyzed for this study: green crabs (Carcinus maenas) (n = 6), blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) (n = 5) or ribbed mussels (Geukensia demissa) (n = 2), killifish (Fundulus heteroclittus) (n = 9), and eider (Somateria mollissima) (n = 5) (referred to as crab, mussel, fish, and
bird hereafter). The methods for sampling and processing of the sediments
and aquatic biota are described in Chen et al.[13] The aquatic biota were measured for stable nitrogen and
carbon isotopic composition at the Stable Isotope Laboratory, Dartmouth
College to characterize the trophic positions and feeding guilds.
THg and MMHg analyses were conducted for most samples at the Trace
Element Analysis Laboratory, Dartmouth College. These results were
previously reported in Chen et al.[13] Additional
samples of mussels (n = 4) and crabs (n = 3) were measured for THg concentrations at the University of Michigan.
These samples were freeze-dried prior to removing the shells, and
homogenized in a zirconium grinding mill (Retsch, Mixer Mill MM 301).
The mussels and crabs were measured for THg using Atomic Absorption
Spectroscopy (AAS) following combustion of samples at 800 °C
using a Nippon Instruments MA-2000 Hg analyzer. Standard reference
material NIST-3133 was used to generate calibration curves and for
quality control. Standard reference material TORT-3 (n = 4) was analyzed as an external standard and agreed within 5% of
certified values.Samples of bird blood were collected near
WELLS and BUZZ between January and April 2010 (SI Figure S1). The birds were captured using floating mist
nets and the blood samples were collected by following the standard
tissue collection protocol described in Evers et al.[32] The blood samples were drawn nonlethally by venipuncture
from either the cutaneous ulnar or tarsal vein using needles and syringes.
The blood samples were stored in either clean heparinized capillary
tubes or microtainers. The samples were sealed on both ends with Critocaps,
placed in 10 cc plastic vacutainers, and frozen at −25 °C
prior to the analyses for THg concentrations at the Wildlife Mercury
Research Lab at the Biodiversity Research Institute, Maine, U.S. The
THg concentrations were determined using a direct Hg analyzer (DMA
80, Milestone Incorporated). The standard reference materials DOLT-4
and DORM-4 were used to generate calibration curves and for quality
control. DOLT-4 (n = 5) and DORM-3 (n = 5) were analyzed with samples and agreed within 10% of certified
values. The relative standard deviations of duplicate analyses of
samples were within 5%. The THg concentrations of sediments and aquatic
biota are reported in dry weight and the aquatic biota represent whole
body tissues. The bird blood analyses are reported in wet weight.[32]
Hg Isotope Analysis
The sediment
and biota samples
were measured for stable Hg isotopic composition at the University
of Michigan. Blood samples were thawed and oven-dried at 50–60
°C in acid washed ceramic boats. Samples of aquatic biota were
weighed and loaded into ceramic boats with sodium carbonate and aluminum
oxide powders. Offline two-stage combustion furnace systems were used
to release Hg (as Hg0) from the samples. The ceramic boats
were loaded into the first combustion compartment and heated to 750
°C over a 6-h period. Released Hg0 was directed to
the second combustion compartment (1000 °C) via a stream of Hg-free
oxygen and subsequently oxidized in a trap solution (1% KMnO4 in 10% trace metal grade H2SO4). The solutions
containing Hg2+ were neutralized with hydroxylamine, reduced
back to Hg0 with SnCl2 and purged into a new
trap solution to remove combustion product matrix components from
the sample.Procedural blanks were prepared in the same manner
as the samples (but with no sample placed in the ceramic boat) and
measured for THg before and after the transfer steps. The procedural
blanks had an average THg of 0.2 ± 0.1 ng (n = 6). The THg concentrations of the samples as well as the standard
reference materials ERM CE 464 (n = 3), TORT-2 (n = 1), and MESS-3 (n = 2) were measured
before and after the transfer step to monitor the recoveries of THg
during the combustion and transfer processes. The recoveries of the
combustion and transfer steps of the samples and standard reference
materials ranged between 89–100%, and 92–106%, respectively.Stable Hg isotope ratios were measured using a Nu Instruments multicollector
inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (MC-ICP-MS). The trap
solutions were neutralized using hydroxylamine. To match the THg concentration
of the sample to the standard, the trap solutions containing the sample
were diluted to between 1 and 5 ng/g using the same neutralized trap
solution matrix. Mercury was introduced to the MC-ICP-MS as Hg0 by reducing Hg2+ in solution with SnCl2, and separating Hg0 using a frosted glass tip phase separator.
On-peak zero corrections were applied. Instrumental mass bias was
corrected using an internal Tl standard (NIST SRM 997) and by bracketing
each sample with NIST SRM 3133 matched to sample THg concentrations
and matrix composition. MDF is reported as δ202Hg
in permil (‰) referenced to NIST SRM 3133:[18]MIF represents the
difference between the measured δxxxHg value and
the value predicted based on MDF and the δ202Hg value.[18] MIF is reported as
Δ199Hg and Δ201Hg in permil (‰).
The calculation is based on an approximation valid for δ <10‰:Analytical uncertainty at 2 SD is estimated based on either replicate
analysis of a standard solution (UM-Almáden) or replicate analyses
of standard reference materials. We used ERM CE 464 to report analytical
uncertainty since it had a larger uncertainty. UM-Almáden (n = 30) had mean values (±2 SD) of δ202Hg = −0.57 ± 0.06 ‰, Δ201Hg =
−0.04 ± 0.04 ‰, and Δ199Hg = −0.02
± 0.05 ‰. Standard reference material ERM CE 464 (n = 3) had mean values of δ202Hg = 0.66
± 0.08 ‰, Δ201Hg = 1.91 ± 0.06 ‰,
and Δ199Hg = 2.31 ± 0.09 ‰; TORT-2 (n = 1) had values of δ202Hg = 0.10 ‰,
Δ201Hg = 0.57 ‰, and Δ199Hg = 0.79 ‰; and MESS-3 (n = 2) had mean
values of δ202Hg = −1.81 ± 0.08 ‰,
Δ201Hg = −0.05 ± 0.05 ‰, and Δ199Hg = 0.01 ± 0.03 ‰.
Results and Discussion
Hg Concentrations
and Isotopic Compositions in the Sediments
The THg concentrations
of the Northeast coast sediments are quite
low at BUZZ (5.70 ng/g) and WELLS (9.43 ng/g) and higher at the other
three sites (BARN, BOLD, MILL) (42.0 to 2961 ng/g) (SI Table S1). Due to the low THg values at the BUZZ and WELLS
sites (typical of uncontaminated sites),[33,34] we designate WELLS and BUZZ as “background sites”
and due to the relatively higher values at BOLD, BARN, and MILL we
designate them as “contaminated sites.” The contaminated
sites are associated with Hg point sources (see site description)
and have at least 6 times higher THg concentration compared to the
background sites.Overall, the sediments displayed ranges of
δ202Hg values between −0.89 ‰ and −0.38
‰, and Δ199Hg values between −0.04
‰ and 0.19 ‰, and were within the range of values reported
previously in other coastal marine sediments.[7,27,35,36] We plotted
1/THg concentration against δ202Hg and Δ199Hg to linearize mixing relationships and to characterize
the Hg isotopic compositions of the sediments in relation to the Hg
contamination. We observed a weak negative (r2 = 0.26, p = 0.16) and significant positive
(r2 = 0.77, p < 0.05)
relationship between 1/THg concentration and δ202Hg and Δ199Hg, respectively (Figure 1). The Δ199Hg values of the sediments were
distinct between the background and contaminated sites with the contaminated
sediments exhibiting uniform Δ199Hg ≈ 0 ‰,
and slightly elevated Δ199Hg in the background sediments.
The sediments displayed ranges of negative δ202Hg
values and were less well correlated with the sediment THg concentrations.
Figure 1
Plot of
1/THg concentration (ng/g) versus δ202Hg and Δ199Hg values of the Northeast coast estuary
sediments. Each site is represented with different colors; BUZZ (black),
WELLS (blue), BARN (green), BOLD (orange), and MILL (red). The solid
lines represent linear regressions. Analytical uncertainty is indicated
by the error bar (2 SD).
Plot of
1/THg concentration (ng/g) versus δ202Hg and Δ199Hg values of the Northeast coast estuary
sediments. Each site is represented with different colors; BUZZ (black),
WELLS (blue), BARN (green), BOLD (orange), and MILL (red). The solid
lines represent linear regressions. Analytical uncertainty is indicated
by the error bar (2 SD).The fact that the Δ199Hg values of the Northeast
coast sediments are correlated with the THg concentrations suggests
that these sediments reflect inputs from multiple Hg sources associated
with the Northeast coast estuaries. When we compared the background
sediments to the contaminated sediments, the sites designated as “background”
displayed negative δ202Hg values with Δ199Hg values that were distinctly positive compared to the
contaminated sediments. Coastal and marine sediments from other studies
that were characterized as background, or those that are preanthropogenic
in age, display low THg concentrations, negative δ202Hg and slightly elevated Δ199Hg.[7,35,36] The background sediments
from this study are consistent with the δ202Hg and
Δ199Hg values reported in those previous studies.
The positive Δ199Hg values in the background sediments
are likely the result of fractionation caused during partial photochemical
reduction of IHg, which may occur either through deposition of photochemically
reduced IHg from surface water,[27] periodic
exposure of surface sediments to sunlight during tidal fluctuation
of water levels (1–2 m),[7,37] or deposition of photochemically
reduced IHg from rainwater.[38] Photochemical
reduction of IHg has been used to explain the positive Δ199Hg values documented in shallow and relatively undisturbed
marshes (∼0.66 ‰)[37] and coastal
and intertidal sediments (∼0.08 ‰)[7,27] and
we suggest that positive Δ199Hg values may be imparted
in background sediments that lack significant inputs from anthropogenic
Hg sources.In the contaminated sediments, we observed similar
ranges of negative
δ202Hg values but uniform Δ199Hg
≈ 0 ‰, reflecting the dominance of anthropogenic Hg
sources in these sediments.[7,35,36,39] Various industrial Hg sources
have been characterized by wide ranges of negative δ202Hg and zero Δ199Hg values,[22,39,40] and the input of industrial Hg sources likely
explains the low Δ199Hg values, high THg concentrations,
and wide ranges in δ202Hg values observed in the
contaminated sediments. The range of δ202Hg values
for the contaminated sites that are impacted by local industrial Hg
sources (BARN, BOLD; −0.60 to −0.82 ‰) were also
consistent with values for Hg0 used in gold mining in the
San Francisco Bay Estuary (−0.59 to −0.78 ‰)7. Thus, the Hg isotopic compositions and the THg concentrations
of the sediments appear to be consistent with the presence of multiple
anthropogenic Hg sources in these regions.
Hg Concentrations and Isotopic
Compositions in Biota
The THg concentrations of the estuarinebiota increase in the order:
crabs (55.3 ± 24 ng/g) < fish (138 ± 188 ng/g) < mussels
(145 ± 52 ng/g) < bird blood (863 ± 724 ng/g) (SI Table S1). The fraction of THg that is in
the form of MMHg (referred to as % MMHg hereafter) for the aquatic
biota increases in the order: mussels (57.9 ± 4.5%) < crabs
(83.7 ± 3.0%) < fish (91.4 ± 5.9%) and these values follow
the same order as δ15N values (7.4 ± 1.0‰,
10.3 ± 3.0‰, 11.3 ± 3.2‰; SI Table S1), representing the approximate trophic position.
The % MMHg values of the birds were estimated from Wayland et al.,[42] who reported over 98% MMHg in blood. The increasing
% MMHg with trophic position (δ15N) is consistent
with the pattern of MMHg biomagnification documented in many aquatic
food webs.[43,44] We designate the feeding guilds
of the estuarinebiota based on the δ13C values and
the detailed feeding behaviors are shown in SI Table S1 and Chen et al.[12,13] The δ15N (13.2 ‰) and δ13C (−17.4 ‰)
values for the birds (SI Table S1) were
estimated from Hobson et al.[45] who measured
the same species in the Arctic. This estimate was adequate for approximating
the relative trophic position and feeding guild of these birds, which
suggests a slightly higher trophic position compared to the fish measured
in this study.Across the Northeast coast estuarine study sites,
we observed wide ranges of δ202Hg values but relatively
narrow ranges of Δ199Hg values in the estuarinebiota
(SI Table S1). At each study site the δ202Hg and Δ199Hg values of the estuarinebiota
displayed an increasing trend with trophic position—following
the order mussels, crabs, fish, and birds (Figure 2a,b). Similar trends have previously been attributed to the
varying extent of MMHg bioaccumulation with trophic position.[23,24] We plotted % MMHg against δ202Hg and Δ199Hg of the sediment and aquatic biota (without the birds)
and observed significant positive relationships with Δ199Hg (p < 0.05) across all sites; (WELLS; r2 = 0.86, BUZZ; r2 = 0.70, BOLD; r2 = 0.72, BARN; r2 = 0.89) and of δ202Hg at
all sites except BOLD; (WELLS; r2 = 0.68, p < 0.05, BUZZ; r2 = 0.71, p < 0.05, BOLD; r2 = 0.52, p = 0.08, BARN; r2 = 0.80, p < 0.05). Due to the significant positive relationships
observed at most sites, the Hg isotopic composition reflecting the
bioaccumulated MMHg was estimated using a linear regression of % MMHg
against δ202Hg and Δ199Hg. The δ202Hg and Δ199Hg values estimated for MMHg
demonstrated relatively narrow ranges across the Northeast coast estuarine
food webs; −0.22 to 0.28 ‰ and 0.39 to 1.00 ‰,
respectively (Figure 2a,b). At sites where
birds were measured (in close proximity to WELLS and BUZZ), the birds
(containing >98% MMHg) had similar Δ199Hg but
much
higher δ202Hg compared to the fish (containing >90%
MMHg) measured at the same locations (bird δ202Hg;
0.59 to 1.39 ‰, fish δ202Hg; −0.34
to 0.23 ‰). At BOLD, the mussels displayed significantly higher
δ202Hg values compared to other aquatic biota.
Figure 2
Plot of % MMHg
versus δ202Hg (a) and Δ199Hg values
(b) of estuarine sediments and biota. Each site
is represented by a different color; BUZZ (black), WELLS (blue), BARN
(green), BOLD (orange), and MILL (red). The solid lines represent
the range of estimated MMHg isotopic composition needed to explain
sediments, crabs, and fish. The dotted lines represent the range of
estimated MMHg isotopic composition needed to explain mussels from
BOLD and birds from BUZZ and WELLS. The “estimated MMHg”
and “estimated IHg” represent the ranges of Hg isotopic
composition extrapolated for 100% MMHg and 100% IHg, respectively,
based on the linear regression of % MMHg vs δ202Hg
and Δ199Hg. Analytical uncertainty is indicated by
the error bar (2 SD).
Plot of % MMHg
versus δ202Hg (a) and Δ199Hg values
(b) of estuarine sediments and biota. Each site
is represented by a different color; BUZZ (black), WELLS (blue), BARN
(green), BOLD (orange), and MILL (red). The solid lines represent
the range of estimated MMHg isotopic composition needed to explain
sediments, crabs, and fish. The dotted lines represent the range of
estimated MMHg isotopic composition needed to explain mussels from
BOLD and birds from BUZZ and WELLS. The “estimated MMHg”
and “estimated IHg” represent the ranges of Hg isotopic
composition extrapolated for 100% MMHg and 100% IHg, respectively,
based on the linear regression of % MMHg vs δ202Hg
and Δ199Hg. Analytical uncertainty is indicated by
the error bar (2 SD).Overall, we find strong evidence for an increasing trend
in the
δ202Hg and Δ199Hg values of estuarinebiota with % MMHg (trophic position) in the Northeast coast estuarine
food webs. This trend has also been documented in other aquatic food
webs.[27,46−48] While metabolic fractionation
was previously proposed as a potential mechanism,[46] recent fish feeding experiments showed that metabolic fractionation
does not occur during trophic transfer to fish.[23,24] Instead, the differences in Hg isotopic composition between MMHg
and IHg and the varying extent of MMHg versus IHg bioaccumulation
with trophic position provide a consistent explanation for the Hg
isotopic composition variability in food webs. Thus, the absence of
MDF and MIF during MMHg trophic transfer implies that the estuarinebiota mainly reflect the isotopic composition of MMHg incorporated
at the base of the food web. The anomalously high δ202Hg values observed in the WELLS and BUZZ birds and the BOLD mussels
suggest that these organisms may be accumulating MMHg from an additional
source. Below we assess the dominant MMHg source and exposure pathways
in the Northeast coast estuarine food webs using the Hg isotopic composition
estimated for MMHg and provide an explanation for the δ202Hg values found in the birds and the BOLD mussels.
Sources
and Biogeochemical Pathways of MMHg
The Northeast
coast estuarinebiota analyzed in this study collectively displayed
moderately positive Δ199Hg values (0.2–1.0
‰) (SI Table S1). This suggests
that the bioaccumulated MMHg was subjected to photochemical degradation
prior to incorporation into the estuarine food web. In fish, which
have consistently high % MMHg and for which we have isotope data at
each site, we found lower Δ199Hg in the contaminated
sites (0.56 ± 0.15 ‰) compared to the uncontaminated sites
(0.90 ± 0.06 ‰). This indicates that the fish at the contaminated
sites are either exposed to MMHg that was subjected to a lesser degree
of photochemical degradation compared to those found at the uncontaminated
sites or MMHg originated from anthropogenic IHg sources which have
low Δ199Hg (≈0 ‰). The slope of Δ199Hg/ Δ201Hg has been used to distinguish
between photochemical degradation and reduction of MMHg versus IHg
in natural aquatic ecosystems.[22] We plotted
Δ199Hg against Δ201Hg for all estuarinebiota, and used a York regression to estimate the slope of Δ199Hg/ Δ201Hg, which is 1.22 ± 0.07 (r2 = 0.90, p < 0.05). This
slope is consistent with the slopes reported in other marine fish
(∼1.2) exposed to photochemically degraded MMHg from their
respective environments.[10,26,27,41,49,50] On a Δ199Hg versus δ202Hg diagram we plot values for sediments and biota and the
experimentally derived slopes representing the expected changes in
the MMHg isotopic composition caused by photochemical degradation
of MMHg (Δ199Hg = 4.79 ± 0.33 × δ202Hg at 10 mg/L DOC)[22] (Figure 3; dotted lines). These slopes are derived from previously
published MMHg photochemical degradation experiments that employed
aquatic solutions spiked with MMHg and DOC, and natural sunlight,[22] and are only rough estimates since experimental
conditions were different from those in the natural setting we studied.
Based on values for fish, we estimate that MMHg is photochemically
degraded to varying degrees ranging from 5 to 12% across the Northeast
coast sites prior to entering the food webs.
Figure 3
Plot of δ202Hg and Δ199Hg values
of all sediments and aquatic biota. Each site is represented with
different colors; BUZZ (black), WELLS (blue), BARN (green), BOLD (orange),
and MILL (red). Symbols are the same as Figure 2. The arrows represent the experimentally derived photochemical degradation
slope for MMHg. Analytical uncertainty is indicated by the error bar
(2 SD).
Plot of δ202Hg and Δ199Hg values
of all sediments and aquatic biota. Each site is represented with
different colors; BUZZ (black), WELLS (blue), BARN (green), BOLD (orange),
and MILL (red). Symbols are the same as Figure 2. The arrows represent the experimentally derived photochemical degradation
slope for MMHg. Analytical uncertainty is indicated by the error bar
(2 SD).The δ202Hg values
for MMHg prior to photochemical
degradation were estimated following the approach of Gehrke et al.[10] and Sherman and Blum[51] and were all higher than the corresponding δ202Hg values of THg measured in the sediments (Figure 3). Given that the sediment is mainly composed of IHg, we suggest
that MMHg that is bioaccumulated is mass dependently fractionated
compared to the IHg in the sediment. This has been observed in previous
studies[10,51] and has been attributed to the net effect
of microbial Hg methylation and demethylation, which has increased
δ202Hg values prior to photochemical degradation.
The degree of the offset in δ202Hg between the MMHg
(before photodegradation) and IHg are somewhat variable across the
sites but generally consistent with previous studies. An alternate
explanation for this offset in δ202Hg between IHg
and MMHg is that it is caused by introduction of MMHg from a different
source than the local sediment, which has higher δ202Hg (e.g., methylation in upstream marshes).The proportion
of MMHg photochemical degradation estimated here
is comparable with many shallow coastal regions[10,27] and high turbidity lakes,[51] but much
lower than open ocean environments.[26,27] The simplest
explanation for the source of the MMHg to which estuarinebiota are
exposed is that it is derived from the IHg in sediments and has subsequently
undergone small amounts of photochemical degradation in the water
column, perhaps becoming attached to particles and subsequently redeposited
to the sediment. In a study of fish and sediment in the Gulf of Mexico
it was observed that the Hg isotopic composition of coastal fish was
consistent with exposure to sediment-derived MMHg that had undergone
small amounts of photochemical degradation, whereas open ocean fish
had much higher Δ199Hg values indicative of much
higher degrees of photodegradation.[27] Day
et al.[49] also found ranges of Δ199Hg values in the eggs of epipelagic seabirds with the individuals
feeding near shallow coastal embayments displaying significantly lower
Δ199Hg values compared to those feeding on open ocean
species.The positive offsets in δ202Hg between
IHg (in
sediment) and MMHg (in biota) are consistent with previous studies
suggesting that the local sediments may be the primary site for MMHg
production prior to photochemical degradation in the water column
and bioaccumulation in the food webs. It has been shown that microbial
methylation causes the fractionation of δ202Hg, leading
to lower δ202Hg in the product-MMHg compared to the
reactant.[19] A portion of Hg that has been
methylated could subsequently be microbially demethylated, resulting
in higher δ202Hg values in the remaining MMHg,[20] and the net effect of these processes provides
an explanation for the δ202Hg values in the sediments.
Large positive offsets in δ202Hg have been documented
in estuarine sediments,[10] and to a lesser
extent in rocky streambeds[25] where MMHg
production in sediments is less likely to occur. The site-specific
variation in the offsets in δ202Hg suggests that
the relative degree of fractionation due to microbial methylation
versus demethylation differs across the Northeast coast study sites.
The demethylation activities in these regions are poorly understood
but Schartup et al.[52] recently documented
variable methylation rates in sediment across the Northeast coast
estuarine sites.While our results are consistent with the previous
findings that
suggested sediments as the primary site for MMHg production, it is
possible that MMHg derived from various external sources may also
play an important role in the Northeast coast estuarine food webs.
Methylmercury produced within wetlands and river watersheds have been
shown to supply significant amounts of MMHg to aquatic ecosystems
in the Northeast U.S.[15,17,29,53] Chen et al.[13] recently documented a lack of relationship between MMHg concentrations
in sediments and in the water column across the same sites of the
Northeast coast estuaries that we studied and suggested that sediments
may be a minor contributor to MMHg found in water column. Given that
the MMHg flux via sedimentation exceeds that due to resuspension at
our study sites,[13] it is possible that
external MMHg sources deposited in the sediment via settling particles
may provide a viable alternative explanation for the observed offsets
in δ202Hg between IHg (sediment) and the bioaccumulated
MMHg. It is difficult to make a clear differentiation between in situ
mass dependent fractionation of sediment-produced MMHg versus mixing
of external MMHg sources in this study. Further investigation will
be required to characterize the isotopic composition of various external
MMHg sources and biogeochemical processes affecting MMHg production
in sediments.In summary, our results are consistent with either
the production
of MMHg from IHg in sediments or derivation of MMHg externally with
deposition to the sediments. This MMHg is then subjected to a small
amount of photodegradation in the water column before entering the
food web and being passed to the various organisms at the study sites
(with one exception described below). The use of Hg isotope ratios
in this study provides additional insight into the sources and exposure
pathways of MMHg studied by Chen et al.[12,13] in the same Northeast coast estuarine food webs. Chen et al.[12,13] documented a strong positive association between pelagic fish (silverside,
killifish) MMHg concentrations and water column particulate MMHg concentrations,
but not with sediment MMHg concentrations. Mussels and crabs did not
show significant correlations with sediment and water column concentrations
of MMHg. Based on these observations, it was suggested that while
sediments may be the main repository for Hg, sediment MMHg concentrations
are not an accurate predictor for MMHg bioaccumulation in estuarinebiota. The authors also argued that the MMHg exposure via the water
column may be the result of either complex interactions between water
and sediment MMHg or input of external MMHg sources from offshore.
Given that the estuarinebiota studied demonstrate different feeding
behaviors and variable MMHg uptake routes, the consistent MMHg isotopic
composition observed in various feeding guilds from each study location
suggest that there may be extensive MMHg cycling between the sediment
and water column via deposition and resuspension cycles without significant
changes in the Hg isotopic compositions of the MMHg. In other words,
even if the fish derive MMHg primarily from the water column, the
MMHg in the water column may be isotopically similar to the small
proportion of MMHg in the sediments.
Ecological Variability
in MMHg Sources
While it appears
that most aquatic organisms in this study acquire sediment-associated
MMHg via trophic transfer, the high positive δ202Hg values found in the WELLS and BUZZ birds and the BOLD mussels
suggest that these organisms are exposed to a different (or additional)
MMHg source that has considerably higher δ202Hg values
(Figure 2). Considering the mussels first,
the main difference between the BOLD mussels and the mussels sampled
in the other Northeast coast estuaries is that while the other mussels
have a Hg isotopic composition consistent with a mixture of IHg and
MMHg from the sediment, this pattern was observed only for Δ199Hg, but not δ202Hg in the BOLD mussels
(Figure 2). Thus, we infer that the BOLD mussels
may be exposed to an additional MMHg source, possibly from the water
column, due to their active filter feeding mechanism. The δ13C values confirm that they feed on both pelagic and benthic
resources,[12,13] which is clearly different from
the crabs and fish that depend dominantly on benthic and epibenthic
resources closely associated with the sediments.We have identified
two different scenarios that might explain how the BOLD mussels are
exposed to Hg with anomalously high positive δ202Hg values. First, to achieve high positive δ202Hg
values, the sediment-associated MMHg would have to be subjected to
additional nonphotochemical degradation and accompanying fractionation,
causing the remaining MMHg to shift to higher δ202Hg values. We speculate that resuspension of sediment-associated
MMHg followed by microbial demethylation[20] in the water column could produce MMHg with high positive δ202Hg that is available for uptake by the mussels. BOLD is
characterized by the highest TSS and particulate MMHg concentrations,[13] and this region may be particularly susceptible
to additional biogeochemical processing of Hg in the water column.
Second, it is also possible that the BOLD mussels were exposed to
a second, and possibly unrelated external MMHg source that either
has high δ202Hg values inherited from an anthropogenic
source or has undergone extensive microbial demethylation prior to
being released into the estuary. BOLD is surrounded by an unvegetated
area and diverse point sources of Hg, which may expose this site to
extensive runoff of industrial Hg sources.[29,53] Moreover, based on recent evidence that suggests inflowing fluvial
MMHg can serve as an important external MMHg source to pelagic food
webs,[15] we presume that exposure to an
externally derived MMHg source may be a viable alternate explanation
for the high δ202Hg in the BOLD mussels.In
the birds, we documented similar Δ199Hg but
much higher δ202Hg compared to fish from the same
sites, which are the highest trophic level aquatic organisms measured
in this study (Figure 2). It is possible that
the high δ202Hg MMHg is caused by the differences
in food sources obtained from their respective sampling habitats compared
to those of WELLS and BUZZ (SI Figure S1)
or by their selective feeding behavior given that they feed dominantly
on benthic invertebrates including mussels.[54] Thus, if we assume that the birds analyzed in this study feed primarily
on mussels, we might expect a significant positive relationship between
% MMHg and δ202Hg, and between % MMHg and Δ199Hg of the sediments, mussels, and birds due to the trophic
transfer of MMHg. We plotted % MMHg against the δ202Hg and Δ199Hg values of the sediments, mussels,
and birds and observed significant positive relationships at WELLS
(δ202Hg; r2 = 0.87, p < 0.05, Δ199Hg = 0.93, p < 0.05) and BUZZ (δ202Hg; r2 = 0.99, p < 0.05, Δ199Hg; r2 = 0.97, p <
0.05). However, the trophic transfer of MMHg from the sediment, to
mussels, to birds would indicate that the crabs and fish are exposed
to a different MMHg source than the mussels, and this is not what
we observed, except at the BOLD site. Moreover, given that the species
of bird analyzed in this study have a relatively large feeding habitat
(∼60 km2),[55] the small
difference in the feeding habitat probably cannot account for the
high δ202Hg in the birds. Instead, we attribute the
high δ202Hg values in the birds to an internal metabolic
fractionation of δ202Hg. While metabolic fractionation
of δ202Hg has not been observed in fish,[23,24] internal demethylation has been proposed to occur in the liver of
many species of bird[56,57] and this may lead to the fractionation
of δ202Hg in birds. Previous studies have documented
1–2 ‰ higher δ202Hg values in birds
(egg contents), and in mammals including seals, whales, and human
hair compared to their respective diets[41,48,49,58,59] and attributed this pattern to the kinetic fractionation of δ202Hg via internal demethylation.Our study demonstrates
that the measurement of Hg isotope ratios
provides new insight into sources and exposure pathways of MMHg in
estuarine food webs. Past studies that utilized Hg isotope ratios
to decipher MMHg sources and exposure pathways in coastal food webs
have only examined fish, and over smaller coastal regions.[10,27] We found evidence for multiple Hg sources across the Northeast coast
sediments, and the MMHg associated with the sediments appears to serve
as the dominant MMHg source to the estuarine food webs. There has
been a long-standing debate over the relative importance of MMHg derived
from sediment or from the water column as a source to estuarine organisms.
Complex biogeochemical processes affecting Hg bioavailability between
sediment and water column however make it difficult to trace the dominant
MMHg sources in the estuarine food webs based on Hg concentration
alone. This study suggests that MMHg associated with sediments probably
acts as the dominant source to many estuarine organisms, but that
certain feeding guilds and certain localities are more susceptible
to accumulating additional external MMHg sources. While further investigation
is necessary to characterize various external MMHg sources, our study
demonstrates that the measurement of Hg isotope ratios can be a valuable
tool for deciphering MMHg sources and exposure pathways in diverse
aquatic food webs and assessing the ecological variability of MMHg
sources.
Authors: Vincent Perrot; Mikhail V Pastukhov; Vladimir N Epov; Søren Husted; Olivier F X Donard; David Amouroux Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: David B Senn; Edward J Chesney; Joel D Blum; Michael S Bank; Amund Maage; James P Shine Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Pablo Rodríguez-González; Vladimir N Epov; Romain Bridou; Emmanuel Tessier; Remy Guyoneaud; Mathilde Monperrus; David Amouroux Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Elsie M Sunderland; John Dalziel; Andrew Heyes; Brian A Branfireun; David P Krabbenhoft; Frank A P C Gobas Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Celia Y Chen; Mark E Borsuk; Deenie M Bugge; Terill Hollweg; Prentiss H Balcom; Darren M Ward; Jason Williams; Robert P Mason Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mi-Ling Li; Sae Yun Kwon; Brett A Poulin; Martin Tsz-Ki Tsui; Laura C Motta; Moonkyoung Cho Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2022-06-19 Impact factor: 11.357
Authors: Sarah E Janssen; Kathleen A Patnode; Bruce R Pluta; David P Krabbenhoft Journal: Integr Environ Assess Manag Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Joel D Blum; Jeffrey C Drazen; Marcus W Johnson; Brian N Popp; Laura C Motta; Alan J Jamieson Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 11.205