Microbial Ecology

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 191–218 | Cite as

The ecology of mercury-resistant bacteria in Chesapeake Bay

  • J. D. NelsonJr.
  • R. R. Colwell


Total ambient mercury concentrations and numbers of mercury resistant, aerobic heterotrophic bacteria at six locations in Chesapeake Bay were monitored over a 17 month period. Mercury resistance expressed as the proportion of the total, viable, aerobic, heterotrophic bacterial population reached a reproducible maximum in spring and was positively correlated with dissolved oxygen concentration and sediment mercury concentration and negatively correlated with water turbidity. A relationship between mercury resistance and metabolic capability for reduction of mercuric ion to the metallic state was established by surveying a number of HgCl2-resistant cultures. The reaction was also observed in microrganisms isolated by differential centrifugation of water and sediment samples. Mercuric ion exhibited an average half-life of 12.5 days in the presence of approximately 105 organisms/ml. Cultures resistant to 6 ppm of mercuric chloride and 3 ppm of phenylmercuric acetate (PMA) were classified into eight generic categories.Pseudomonas spp. were the most numerous of those bacteria capable of metabolizing both compounds; however, PMA was more toxic and was more selective forPseudomonas. The mercury-resistant generic distribution was distinct from that of the total bacterial generic distribution and differed significantly between water and sediment, positionally and seasonally. The proportion of nonglucose-utilizing mercury-resistantPsuedomonas spp. was found to be positively correlated with total bacterial mercury resistance. It is concluded from this study that numbers of mercury-resistant bacteria as established by plate count can serve as a valid index ofin situ Hg2+ metabolism.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Balkwill, D. L., and Casida, Jr. L. E. 1973. Microflora of soil as viewed by freezeetching.J. Bacteriol. 114: 1319–1327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biggs, R. B. 1970. Geology and Hydrography, pp. 7–15. Natural Resources Institute of the University of Maryland, Contribution No. 397. Gross physical and biological effects of overboard spoil disposal in upper Chesapeake Bay.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bongers, L. H., and Khattak, M. N. 1972. Sand and Gravel Overlay for Control of Mercury in Sediments, pp. 29–35. Final report, Project No. 16080 HVA, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bothner, M. H., and Carpenter, R. 1973. The Rate of Mercury Loss from Contaminated Estuarine Sediments in Bellingham Bay, Washington. Proceedings First Annual National Science Foundation Trace Contaminants Conference, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brasfield, H. 1972. Environmental factors correlated with size of bacterial populations in a polluted stream.Appl. Microbiol. 24: 349–352.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown, H. G., Hensley, C. P., McKinney, G. L., and Robinson, J. L. 1973. Efficiency of heavy metals removal in municipal sewage treatment plants.Environ. Letters 5: 103–114.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colwell, R. R., and Wiebe, W. J. 1970. “Core” characteristics for use in classifying aerobic, heterotrophic bacteria by numerical taxonomy.Bull. Georgia Acad. Sci. 28: 165–185.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flemer, D. A. 1970. Phytoplankton, pp. 16–25. Natural Resources Institute of the University of Maryland, Contribution No. 397. Gross physical and biological effects of overboard spoil disposal in upper Chesapeake Bay.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Furukawa, K., and Tonomura, K. 1972. Induction of metallic mercury-releasing enzyme in mercury-resistantPseudomonas Agr Biol. Chem. 36: 2441–2448.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaby, W., and Hadley, C. 1957. Analytical laboratory test for the identification ofPseudomonas aeruginosa.J. Bacteriol. 74: 356–358.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gilmour, J. T., and Miller, M. S. 1973. Fate of a mercuric-mercurous chloride fungicide added to turf grass.J. Environ. Qual. 2: 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodwyn, F. 1970. Zooplankton, pp. 39–41. Natural Resources Institute of the University of Maryland. Contribution No. 397. Gross physical and biological effects of overboard spoil disposal in upper Chesapeake Bay.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hatch, W. R., and Ott, W. L. 1968. Determination of sub-microgram quantities of mercury by atomic absorption spectrophotometry.Anal. Chem. 40: 2085–2087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holm, H. W., and Cox, M. F. 1974. Mercury transformations in aquatic sediments. Abstract Annual Meeting American Society of Microbiology, p. 25.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jernelov, A. 1972. Factors in the transformation of mercury to methylmercury, pp. 167–172.In: Environmental Mercury Contamination. R. Hartung and B. D. Dinan, editors. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jernelov, A. 1972. Mercury and food chains, pp. 174–177.In: Environmental Mercury Contamination. R. Hartung and B. D. Dinan, editors. Ånn Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jernelov, A. 1973. Studies in Sweden on feasibility of some methods for restoration of mercury-contaminated bodies of water.Environ. Sci. and Technol.,7: 712–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaneko, T., and Colwell, R. R. 1973. Ecology ofVibrio parahaemoly ticus in Chesapeake Bay.J. Bacteriol. 113: 24–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kimura, Y., and Miller, V. L. 1964. The degradation of organomercury fungicides in soil.J. Agr. Food Chem. 12: 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Komura, I., Funaba, T., and Izaki, K. 1971. Mechanism of mercuric chloride resistance in microorganisms. II. NADPH-dependent reduction of mercuric chloride and vaporization of mercury from mercuric chloride by a multiple drug resistant strain ofEscherichia coli.J. Biochem. 70: 895–901.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Komura, I., and Izaki, K. 1971. Mechanisms of mercuric chloride resistance by multiple drug resistant strains ofEscherichia coli.J. Biochem. 70: 885–893.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Landner, L. 1971. Biochemical model for the biological methylation of mercury suggested from methylation studiesin vivo withNeurospora crassa.Nature (London) 230: 452–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lockwood, R. A., and Chen, K. Y. 1972. Chemical transformation of mercury in the aquatic environment. 35th Annual Convention of the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Tallahassee, Florida.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Logsdon, G. S., and Symons, J. M. 1972. Mercury removal by conventional water treatment methods. Proceedings 92nd Annual Conference, American Water Works Association, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lovelace, T. E., Tubiash, H., and Colwell, R. R. 1968. Quantitative and qualitative commensal bacterial flora ofCrassostrea virginica in Chesapeake Bay.Proc. Natl. Shellfish Assoc 58: 82–87.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Magos, L., Tuffrey, A. A., and Clarkson, T. W. 1964. Volatilization of mercury by bacteria.Brit. J. Ind. Med. 21: 294–298.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murchelano, R. A., and Brown, C. 1970. Heterotrophic bacteria in Long Island Sound.Mar. Biol. 7: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nelson, J. D., Blair, W., Brinckman, F. E., Colwell, R. R., and Iverson, W. P. 1973. Biodegradation of phenylmercuric acetate by mercury resistant bacteria.Appl. Microbiol. 26: 321–326.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nelson, J. D., and Colwell, R. R. 1973. Metabolism of mercury compounds by bacteria in Chesapeake Bay. Third International Congress on Marine Corrosion and Fouling, pp. 767–777. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nelson, J. D., and Colwell, R. R. 1974. Effects of tropical storm Agnes upon the bacterial flora of Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Research Consortium Pub. No. 27, p. 20.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nelson, J. D., McClam, H. L., and Colwell, R. R. 1972. The ecology of mercury resistant bacteria in Chesapeake Bay. Preprints 8th Annual Conference Marine Technology Society, pp. 303–312.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nuzzi, R. 1972. Toxicity of mercury to phytoplankton.Nature (London) 237: 38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Olson, B. H., and Cooper, R. C. 1973. Methylation of mercury by estuarine sediments. Abstracts Annual Meeting of American Society for Microbiology, p. 48.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ross, I. S., and Old, K. M. 1973. Thiol compounds and resistance ofPyrenophora avenae to mercury.Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 60: 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schubel, J. R. 1972. The physical and chemical conditions of the Chesapeake Bay.J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 62: 56–87.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shewan, J. M., Hobbs, G., and Hodgkiss, W. 1960. A determinative scheme for the identification of certain genera of gram-negative bacteria, with special reference to thePseudomonadaceae.J. Appl. Bacteriol. 23: 379–390.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smith, J. D., Nicholson, R. A., and Moore, P. J. 1971. Mercury in water of the tidal Thames.Nature (London) 232: 393–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Spangler, W. J., Spigarell, J. L., Rose, J. M., Flippin, R. S., and Miller, H. H. 1973. Degradation of methylmercury by bacteria isolated from environmental samples.Appl. Microbiol. 25: 488–493.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Spangler, W. J., Spigarelli, J. L., Rose, J. M., and Miller, H. H. 1973. Methylmercury: Bacterial degradation in lake sediments.Science 180: 192–193.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Steel, R. G. D., and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 158.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Steel, R. G. D., and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 284.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stutzenberger, F. J., and Bennett, E. O. 1965. Sensitivity of mixed populations ofStaphylococcus aureus andEscherichia coli to mercurials.Appl. Microbiol. 13: 570–574.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Summers, A. O., and Lewis, E. 1973. Volatilization of mercuric chloride by mercury-resistant plasmid-bearing strains ofEscherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, andPseudomonas aeruginosa.J. Bacteriol. 113: 1070–1072.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tonomura, K., Maeda, K., and Futai, F. 1968. Studies on the action of mercury-resistant microorganisms on mercurials. II. The vaporization of mercurials stimulated by mercury-resistant bacterium.J. Ferment. Technol. 46: 685–692.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vostal, J. 1972. Transport and transformation of mercury in nature and possible routes of exposure, pp. 15–27.In Mercury in the Environment. L. T. Friberg, and J. Vostal, editors, CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Walker, J. D., and Colwell, R. R. 1973. Mercury-resistant bacteria and petroleum degradation.Appl. Microbiol. 27: 285–287.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Westoo, G. 1966. Determination of methyl mercury compounds in food stuffs. I. Methyl mercury compounds in fish, identification and determination.Acta Chem. Scand. 20: 2131–2137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. D. NelsonJr.
    • 1
  • R. R. Colwell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MicrobiologyUniversity of MarylandCollege Park

Personalised recommendations