Mercury methylation by sulphate-reducing bacteria from sediments of an acid stressed lake
- 102 Downloads
- 18 Citations
Abstract
The role of freshwater sulphate-reducing bacteria in McHg production was examined by adding specific microbial inhibitors to anoxic lake sediments spiked with 203HgCl2 and measuring net methylation. The effect of increased sulphate (such as would arise from acid deposition in the area) on the activity of sulphate-reducing bacteria both in terms of sulphate reduction rate and methylation of Hg was examined by adding sulphate to 203HgCl2 spiked sediments. Sodium molybdate (10 mM), a specific inhibitor for sulphate-reducing bacteria, reduced the amount of MeHg produced from anoxic lake sediments by 75% compared with controls over a 7 d period. In contrast, 2-bromoethane sulfonic acid (15 mM), a specific inhibitor for methanogenic bacteria, did not alter the amount of McHg produced. Additions of sulphate that were “realistic” in terms of the normal range of the area (5 to 30 mg.L−), increased the sulphate reduction rate of sediment slurries. However, in the experimental system, these additions did not stimulate McHg production. In our study, methylation of Hg in sediments was primarily due to the activity of sulphate-reducing bacteria. However, the methylation rate does not appear to be sensitive to the concentration of sulphate over the range typical of softwater, Precambrian Shield lakes. This could be due to reduced availability of Hg due to the formation of insoluble HgS or to the fact that the overall activity of sulphate reducers not being stimulated even if sulphate reduction rate is, or both.
Keywords
Sulphate Reduction Methanogenic Bacterium Sodium Molybdate Sulphate Reduction Rate Mercury MethylationPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Beijer, K. and Jernelov, A.: 1979, Methylation of mercury in aquatic environments, p. 203–210. In J.O. Nriagu (ed.), The biogeochemistry of mercury in the environment. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Bjorkland, I., Borg, H. and Johansson, K.: 1984, Ambio.13, 118.Google Scholar
- Bodaly, R.A., Hecky, R.E. and Fudge, R.J.P.: 1984, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.41, 682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bryant, M.P., Campbell, L.L., Reddy, C.A. and Crabill, M.R.: 1977, Appl. Environ. Microbiol.33, 1162.Google Scholar
- Compeau, G.C. and Bartha, R.: 1985, Appl. Environ. Microbiol.50, 498.Google Scholar
- Furutani, A. and Rudd, J.W.M.: 1980, Appl. Environ. Microbiol.40, 770.Google Scholar
- Hakanson, L., Nilsson, A. and Andersson, T.: 1988, Environ. Pollut.49, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hecky, R.E., Bodaly, R.A., Ramsay, D.J., Ramlal, P.S. and Strange, N.E.: 1987, Evolution of limnological conditions, microbial methylation of mercury and mercury concentrations in fish in reservoirs of Northern Manitoba. In Report for the Canada-Manitoba agreement of the study and monitoring of mercury in the Churchill River Diversion.Google Scholar
- Huckabee, J.S., Elwood, J.W. and Hildebrand, S.G.: 1979, Accumulation of mercury in freshwater biota, p. 277–231. In J.O. Nriagu (ed.), The biogeochemistry of mercury in the environment. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Kelly, C.A. and Rudd, J.W.M.: 1984, Biogeochem.1, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jackson, T.A.: 1988, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.45, 97.Google Scholar
- Jensen, S. and Jernelov, A.: 1969, Nature (London) 223, 753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jones, J.G., Simon, B.M. and Gardener, S.: 1982, J. Gen. Microbiol.128, 1.Google Scholar
- Mannio, J., Verta, M., Kortelainen, P. and Rekolainen, S.: 1986, Water Research Institute, National Board of Waters, Finland. 65, 32.Google Scholar
- Ontario Ministry of the Environment: 1988, Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish. Communications Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
- Postgate, J.R.: 1984, Cultivation and growth, p. 30–50. The sulphate-reducing bacteria, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Richman, L.A., Wren, C.D. and Stokes, P.M.: 1988, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut.37, 465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Robinson, J.B. and Tuovinen, O.H.: 1984, Microbiol. Rev.48, 95.Google Scholar
- Rudd, J.W.M. and Turner, M.A.: 1983, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.40, 2206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schindler, D.W. and Turner, M.A.: 1982, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut.18:259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sloan, R. and Schofield, C.: 1983, N. East. Environ. Sci.2, 165.Google Scholar
- Stokes, P.M. and Bailey, R.C.: 1983, Mercury accumulation by filamentous algae: evaluation of a proposed biological monitoring system in acid-stressed lakes. National Research Council of Canada, Report # 03SU.31048-2-0624.Google Scholar
- Summers, A.O. and Silver, S.: 1978, Ann. Rev. Microbiol.32, 637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Suns, K., Hitchin, G., Loescher, B., Pastorek, E. and Pearce, R.: 1987, Metal accumulations in fishes from Muskoka-Haliburton lakes in Ontario (1978–1984). Water Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.Google Scholar
- Surma-Aho, K., Paasivirta, J., Rekolainen, S. and Verta, M.: 1986, Chemosphere.15, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wehr, J.D. and Brown, L.M.: 1985, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.42, 1783. or]Wiener, J.G.: 1983, Comparative analyses of fish populations in naturally acidic and circumneutral lakes in northern Wisconsin. FWS/OBS-80/40.16, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Eastern Energy and Land Use Team.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wood, J.M., Kennedy, F.S. and Rosen, C.G.: 1968, Nature (London) 220, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wren, C. and MacCrimmon, H.: 1983, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.40,Google Scholar