Estuaries

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 1517–1528 | Cite as

Microbial mercury cycling in sediments of the San Francisco Bay-Delta

Article

Abstract

Microbial mercury (Hg) methylation and methylmercury (MeHg) degradation processes were examined using radiolabled model Hg compounds in San Francisco Bay-Delta surface sediments during three seasonal periods: late winter, spring, and fall. Strong seasonal and spatial differences were evident for both processes. MeHg production rates were positively correlated with microbial sulfate reduction rates during late winter only. MeHg production potential was also greatest during this period and decreased during spring and fall. This temporal trend was related both to an increase in gross MeHg degradation, driven by increasing temperature, and to a build-up in pore water sulfide and solid phase reduced sulfur driven by increased sulfate reduction during the warmer seasons. MeHg production decreased sharply with depth at two of three sites, both of which exhibited a corresponding increase in reduced sulfur compounds with depth. One site that was comparatively oxidized and alkaline exhibited little propensity for net MeHg production. These results support the hypothesis that net MeHg production is greatest when and where gross MeHg degradation rates are low and dissolved and solid phase reduced sulfur concentrations are low.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Alpers, C. N. andM. P. Hunerlach. 2000. Mercury contamination from historic mining in California. USGS Fact Sheet, FS-061-00. U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, California.Google Scholar
  2. Arthur, J. F., M. D. Ball, andS. Y. Baughman. 1996. Summary of federal and state water project environmental impacts in the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary, California, p. 445–496.In J. T. Hollibaugh (ed.), San Francisco Bay—The Ecosystem, Further Investigations into the Natural History of San Francisco Bay and Delta with Reference to the Influence of Man. Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  3. Baldi, F., M. Pepi, andM. Filippelli. 1993. Methylmercury resistance inDesulfovibrio desulfuricans strains in relation to methylmercury degradation.Applied and Environmental Microbiology 59:2479–2485.Google Scholar
  4. Benoit, J. M., C. C. Gilmour, andR. P. Mason. 2001a. The influence of sulfide on solid-phase mercury bioavailability for methylation by pure cultures ofDesulfobulbus propionicus (1pr3).Environmental Science and Technology 35:127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoit, J. M., C. C. Gilmour, andR. P. Mason. 2001b. Aspects of bioavailability of mercury for methylation in pure cultures ofDesulfobulbus propionicus (1pr3).Applied and Environmental Microbiology 67:51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benoit, J. M., C. C. Gilmour, R. P. Mason, andA. Heyes. 1999. Sulfide controls on mercury speciation and bioavailability to methylating bacteria in sediment porewaters.Environmental Science and Technology 33:951–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, Y., J. C. Bonzongo, andG. C. Miller. 1996. Levels of methylmercury and controlling factors in surface sediments of the Carson River system, Nevada.Environmental Pollution 92: 281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi, S.-C. andR. Bartha. 1994. Environmental factors affecting mercury methylation in estuarine sediments.Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 53:805–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cline, J. D. 1969. Spectrophotometric determination of hydrogen sulfide in natural waters.Limnology and Oceanography 14: 454–458.Google Scholar
  10. Compeau, G. C. andR. Bartha. 1984. Methylation and demethylation of mercury under controlled redox, pH, and salinity conditions.Applied and Environmental Microbiology 48:1203–1207.Google Scholar
  11. Compeau, G. C. andR. Bartha. 1985. Sulfate-reducing bacteria: Principal methylators of mercury in anoxic estuarine sediment.Applied and Environmental Microbiology 50:498–502.Google Scholar
  12. Devereux, R., M. R. Winfrey, J. Winfrey, andD. A. Stahl. 1996. Depth profile of sulfate-reducing bacterial ribosomal RNA and mercury methylation in an estuarine sediment.FEMS Microbiology Ecology 20:23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dionex. 1992. Installation Instructions and Troubleshooting Guide for the IONPACo AG4A-SC Guard Column/IONPACo AS4A-SC Analytical Column. Document No. 034528. Dionex Corporation, Sunnyvale, California.Google Scholar
  14. Domagalski, J. 1998. Occurrence and transport of total mercury and methyl mercury in the Sacramento River Basin, California.Journal of Geochemical Exploration 64:277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Domagalski, J. 2001 Mercury and methylmercury in water and sediment of the Sacramento River Basin, California.Applied Geochemistry 16:1677–1691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gagnon, C., E. Pelletier, andA. Mucci. 1997. Behavior of anthropogenic mercury in coastal marine sediments.Marine Chemistry 59:159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gagnon, C., E. Pelletier, A. Mucci, andW. F. Fitzgerald. 1996. Diagenetic behavior of methylmercury in organic-rich coastal sediments.Limnology and Oceanography 41:428–434.Google Scholar
  18. Gill, G. A. andK. W. Bruland. 1990. Mercury speciation in surface freshwater systems in California and other areas.Environmental Science and Technology 24:1392–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gill, G., M. Stephenson, K. Coale, C. Foe, andM. Marvin-DiPasquale. 2002. Conceptual model and working hypotheses of mercury cycling and transport in the Bay-Delta ecosystem and its tributaries. CALFED Bay-Delta Program, California Bay-Delta Authority. Sacramento, California. http://loer.tamug.tamu.edu/calfed/DraftReports.htmGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilmour, C. C., E. A. Henry, andR. Mitchell. 1992. Sulfate stimulation of mercury methylation in freshwater sediments.Environmental Science and Technology 26:2281–2287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilmour, C. C. andG. S. Riedel. 1995. Measurement of Hg methylation in sediments using high specific-activity Hg-203 and ambient incubation.Water Air and Soil Pollution 80:747–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilmour, C. C., G. S. Riedel, J. D. Coastes, and D. Lovley. 1996. Mercury methylation by iron (III)-reducing bacteria. Abstracts of the American Society for Microbiology 96th General Meeting, May 19–23, 1996, New Orleans, Louisiana. Abstract: (98) O-15:356.Google Scholar
  23. Gilmour, C. C., G. S. Riedel, M. C. Ederington, J. T. Bell, J. M. Benoit, G. A. Gill, andM. C. Stordal. 1998. Methylmercury concentrations and production rates across a trophic gradient in the northern Everglades.Biogeochemistry 40:327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoffman, D. J., H. M. Ohlendorf, C. M. Marn, andG. W. Pendleton. 1998. Association of mercury and selenium with altered glutathione metabolism and oxidative stress in diving ducks from the San Francisco Bay region, USA.Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17:167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hunerlach, M. P., J. J. Rytuba, andC. N. Alpers. 1999. Mercury contamination from hydraulic placer-gold mining in the Dutch Flat mining district, p. 179–189.In D. W. Morganwalp and H. T. Buxton (eds.), Contamination of Hydrologic Systems and Related Ecosystems, Volume 2; Section B—Mercury Contamination of Aquatic Ecosystems. Toxic Substance Hydrology Program, Water-Resources Investigation Report, 99-4018B. U.S. Geological Survey, West Trenton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  26. Jørgensen, B. B. 1978. A comparison of methods for the quantification of bacterial sulfate reduction in coastal marine sediments. 1. Measurement with radiotracer techniques.Geomicrobiology Journal 1:11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. King, J. K., J. E. Kostka, M. E. Frischer, andF. M. Saunders. 2000. Sulfate-reducing bacteria methylate mercury at variable rates in pure culture and in marine sediments.Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66:2430–2437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. King, J. K., J. E. Kostka, M. E. Frischer, F. M. Saunders, andR. A. Jahnke. 2001. A quantitative relationship that demonstrates mercury methylation rates in marine sediments are based on the community composition and activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria.Environmental Science and Technology 35: 2491–2496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King, J. K., F. M. Saunders, R. F. Lee, andR. A. Jahnke. 1999. Coupling mercury methylation rates to sulfate reduction rates in marine sediments.Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18: 1362–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Korthals, E. T. andM. R. Winfrey. 1987. Seasonal and spatial variations in mercury methylation and demethylation in an oligotrophic lake.Applied and Environmental Microbiology 53: 2397–2404.Google Scholar
  31. Krabbenhoft, D. P., C. C. Gilmour, J. M. Benoit, C. L. Babiarz, A. W. Andren, andJ. P. Hurley. 1998. Methyl mercury dynamics in littoral sediments of a temperate seepage lake.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:835–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Macalady, J. L., E. E. Mack, D. C. Nelson, andK. M. Scow. 2000 Sediment microbial community structure and mercury methylation in mercury-polluted Clear Lake, California.Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66:1479–1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marvin-DiPasquale, M., J. Agee, R. Bouse, andB. Jaffe. 2003. Microbial cycling of mercury in contaminated pelagic and wetland sediments of San Pablo Bay, California.Environmental Geology 43:260–267.Google Scholar
  34. Marvin-DiPasquale, M., J. Agee, C. McGowan, R. S. Oremland, M. Thomas, D. Krabbenhoft, andC. Gilmour. 2000. Methylmercury degradation pathways: A comparison among three mercury-impacted ecosystems.Environmental Science and Technology 34:4908–4916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marvin-DiPasquale, M. C. andD. G. Capone. 1998. Benthic sulfate reduction along the Chesapeake Bay central channel. I. Spatial trends and controls.Marine Ecology Progress Series 168: 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marvin-DiPasquale, M. C. andR. S. Oremland. 1998. Bacterial methylmercury degradation in Florida Everglades peat sediment.Environmental Science and Technology 32:2556–2563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. May, J. T., R. L. Hothem, C. N. Alpers, andM. A. Law. 2000. Mercury bioaccumulation in fish in a region affected by historic gold mining: The South Yuba River, Deer Creek, and Bear River Watersheds, California, 1999. Open-File Report, 00-367. U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, California.Google Scholar
  38. Olson, B. H. andR. C. Cooper. 1976. Comparison of aerobic and anaerobic methylation of mercuric chloride by San Francisco Bay sediments.Water Research 10:113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oremland, R. S., C. W. Culbertson, andM. R. Winfrey. 1991. Methylmercury decomposition in sediments and bacterial cultures: Involvement of methanogens and sulfate reducers in oxidative demethylation.Applied and Environmental Microbiology 57:130–137.Google Scholar
  40. Oremland, R. S., L. G. Miller, P. Dowdle, T. Connell, andT. Barkey. 1995. Methylmercury oxidative degradation potentials in contaminated and pristine sediments of the Carson River, Nevada.Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61:2745–2753.Google Scholar
  41. Pak, K.-R. andR. Bartha. 1998. Mercury methylation by interspecies hydrogen and acetate transfer between sulfidogens and methanogens.Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64: 1987–1990.Google Scholar
  42. Robinson, J. B. andO. H. Tuovinen. 1984. Mechanisms of microbial resistance and detoxification of mercury and organomercury compounds: Physiological, biochemical, and genetic analyses.Microbiology Reviews 48:95–124.Google Scholar
  43. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). 1995. Contaminant levels in fish tissue from San Francisco Bay. Final report. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Resources Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Game Marine Pollution Laboratory, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  44. San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). 1999. San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances, 1997 Annual Report. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, California.Google Scholar
  45. Save San Francisco Bay Association (SSFBA). 1995. Fishing for food in San Francisco Bay. Save San Francisco Bay Association, Oakland, California.Google Scholar
  46. Simenstad, C., J. Toft, H. Higgins, J. Cordell, M. Orr, P. Williams, L. Grimaldo, andZ. Hymanson. 2000. Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Breached Levee Wetland Study (BREACH)—Preliminary Report. University of Washington, School of Fisheries, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  47. Slotton, D. G., T. H. Suchanek, andS. M. Ayers. 2000. Delta wetlands restoration and the mercury question: Year 2 findings of the CALFED UC Davis delta mercury study.IEP Newsletter 13:34–44.Google Scholar
  48. Stordal, M. C. andG. A. Gill. 1995. Determination of mercury methylation rates using a205Hg radiotracer technique.Water Air and Soil Pollution 80:725–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Suchanek, T. H., P. J. Richerson, J. R. Flanders, D. C. Nelson, L. H. Mullen, L. L. Brister, andJ. C. Becker. 2000. Monitoring inter-annual variability reveals sources of mercury contamination in Clear Lake, California.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 64:299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ullrich, S. M., T. W. Tanton, andS. A. Abdrashitova. 2001. Mercury in the aquatic environment: A review of factors affecting methylation.Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 31:241–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ulrich, G. A., L. R. Krumholz, andJ. M. Suflita. 1997. A rapid and simple method for estimating sulfate reduction activity and quantifying inorganic sulfides.Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63:1627–1630.Google Scholar
  52. Watras, C. J., N. S. Bloom, S. A. Claas, K. A. Morrison, C. C. Gilmour, andS. R. Craig. 1995. Methylmercury production in the anoxic hypolimnion of a dimictic seepage lake.Water Air and Soil Pollution 80:735–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Westrich, J. T. andR. A. Berner. 1984. The role of sedimentary organic matter in bacterial sulfate reduction: The G model tested.Limnology and Oceanography 29:236–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Winfrey, M. R. andJ. W. M. Rudd. 1990. Environmental factors affecting the formation of methylmercury in low pH lakes.Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 9:853–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yin, Y. J., H. E. Allen, Y. M. Li, C. P. Huang, andP. F. Sanders. 1996. Adsorption of mercury(II) by soil: Effects of pH, chloride, and organic matter.Journal of Environmental Quality 25:837–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Source of Unpublished Materials

  1. Stevenson, M. Personal Communication. California Department of Fish and Game, Moss Landing, California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyMenlo Park

Personalised recommendations