Total Mercury and Methylmercury Residues in River Otters (Lutra canadensis) from Wisconsin

Article

Abstract

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) collected trapper-caught river otter (Lutra canadensis) from 3 distinct areas of Wisconsin (north, central, and south). Otter carcasses were collected from a total of 12 counties during the trapping seasons of 2003 and 2004. Liver, kidney, muscle, brain, and fur tissue was collected for mercury (Hg) analysis. Analysis of variance identified collection zone as the significant factor for differences in tissue Hg levels, with a pattern of decreasing Hg concentrations from north to south (p < 0.0001). This trend was apparent in all tissue types analyzed. Strong relationships were observed between Hg concentrations in all tissues. Likewise, highly significant (p < 0.0001) relationships were found to exist between Hg concentrations in otter fur and Hg concentrations of internal organs (brain, muscle, kidney, and liver). Although these data suggest that Hg concentrations are related among tissues, they do not suggest uniform distribution of Hg throughout the tissues. The results suggest that Hg accumulates at higher concentrations in fur followed by liver, kidney, muscle, and brain. Analysis of a subset of samples for methylmercury (MeHg) revealed that MeHg made up a greater percentage of total Hg in brain and muscle compared to liver and kidney tissue. Although a gradient in tissue concentrations was observed from north to south, none of the tissue concentrations reached levels known to cause toxicity in either otter or mink.

References

  1. Aulerich RJ, Ringer RK, Iwamoto S (1974) Effects of dietary mercury on mink. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basu N, Scheuhammer A, Grochowina N, Klenavic K, Evans D, O’Brien M, Chan HM (2005) Effects of mercury on neurochemical receptors in wild river otters (Lontra canadensis). Environ Sci Technol 39:3585–3591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloom NS, Fitzgerald WF (1988) Determination of volatile mercury species at picogram levels by low-temperature gas chromatography with atomic fluorescence detection. Anal Chim Acta 208:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang LW, Yamachghi S, Dudley AWJ (1974) Neurological changes in cats following long-term diet of mercury contaminated tuna. Acta Neuropathol 27:171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang LW, Annau Z (1984) Developmental neuropathology and behavioral teratology of methylmercury. In: Yanai J (ed) Neurobehavioral Teratology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 405–432Google Scholar
  6. Eccles CU, Annau Z (1987) Prenatal exposure to methylmercury. In: Eccles CU, Annau Z (eds) The toxicity of methylmercury. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, pp 114–130Google Scholar
  7. Eisler R (1987) Mercury hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.10), 90 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans RJ, Addison EM, Villeneuve JY, MacDonald KS, Joachim DG (1998) An examination of spatial variation in mercury concentrations in otter (Lutra canadensis) in south-central Ontario. Sci Total Environ 213:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evers DC (2005) Mercury connections: The extent and effects of mercury pollution in northeastern North America. BioDiversity Research Institute, Gorham, Maine, 28 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Farris FF, Dedrick RL, Allen PV, Smith JC (1994) Physiological model for the pharmacokinetics of methyl mercury in the growing rat. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 119:74–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fevold BM, Meyer MW, Rasmussen PS, Temple SA (2003) Bioaccumulation patterns and temporal trends of mercury exposure in Wisconsin common loons. Ecotoxicology 12:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzgerald WF, Mason RP, Vandal GM (1991) Atmospheric cycling and air-water exchange of mercury over mid-continental lacustrine regions. Water Air Soil Pollut 56:745–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foley RE, Jackling SJ, Sloan RJ, Brown MK (1988) Organochlorine and mercury residues in wild mink and otter: Comparison with fish. Environ Toxicol Chem 7:363–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fortin C, Beauchamp G, Dansereau M, Lariviere D, Belanger D (2001) Spatial variation in mercury concentrations in wild mink and river otter carcasses from the James Bay Territory, Quebec, Canada. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 40:121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gamberg M, Boila G, Stern G, Roach P (2005) Cadmium, mercury and selenium concentrations in mink (Mustela vison) from Yukon, Canada. Sci Total Environ 351–352:523–529Google Scholar
  16. Grieb TM, Driscoll CT, Gloss SP, Schofield CL, Bowie GL, Porcella DB (1990) Factors affecting mercury accumulation in fish in the upper Michigan peninsula. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:919–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halbrook RS, Jenkins JH, Bush PB, Seabolt ND (1994) Sublethal concentrations of mercury in river otters: Monitoring environmental contamination. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 27:306–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halbrook RS, Woolf A, Hubert GF, Ross S, Braselton WE (1996) Contaminant concentrations in Illinois mink and otter. Ecotoxicology 5:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harding LE, Harris ML, Elliott JE (1998) Heavy and trace metals in wild mink (Mustela vison) and river otter (Lontra canadensis) captured on rivers receiving metals discharges. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 61:600–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khera KS (1979) Teratogenic and genetic effects of mercury toxicity. In: Nriagu JO (ed) The biogeochemistry of mercury in the environment. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 503–518Google Scholar
  21. Kucera E (1983) Mink and otter as indicators of mercury in Manitoba waters. Can J Zool 61:2250–2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lathrop RC, Noonan KC, Guenther PM, Brassino TL, Rasmussen PW (1989) Mercury levels in walleyes from Wisconsin lakes of different water and sediment chemistry characteristics. Technical Bulletin 163. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  23. Madison Declaration on Mercury Pollution (2007) Ambio 36:62–65Google Scholar
  24. Matson GM (1981) Workbook of cementum analysis. Matson’s Laboratory, Milltown, Montana, 30 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer MW, Evers DC, Daulton T, Braselton WE (1995) Common loons (Gavia immer) nesting on low ph lakes in northern Wisconsin have elevated blood mercury content. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:871–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer MW, Evers DC, Hartigan JJ, Rasmussen PS (1998) Patterns of common loon (Gavia immer) mercury exposure, reproduction, and survival in Wisconsin, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mierle G, Addison EM, MacDonald KS, Joachim DG (2000) Mercury levels in tissues of otters from Ontario, Canada: Variation with age, sex, and location. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:3044–3051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Connor DJ, Nielsen SW (1981) Environmental survey of methylmercury levels in wild mink (Mustela vison) and otter (Lutra canadensis) from the northeastern United States and experimental pathology of methylmercurialism in the otter. Proceedings, Worldwide Furbearer Conference, Frostburg, Maryland, USA, August 3–11, pp 1728–1745Google Scholar
  29. Olsen KR, Bergman HL, Fromm PO (1973) Uptake of methyl mercuric chloride and mercuric chloride by trout: A study of uptake pathways into the whole animal and uptake by erythrocytes in vitro. J Fish Res Board Can 30:1293–1299Google Scholar
  30. Organ JF (1989) Mercury and PCB residues in Massachusetts river otters: Comparisons on a watershed basis. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  31. Osowski SL, Brewer LW, Baker OE, Cobb GP (1995) The decline of mink in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina: The role of contaminants. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 29:418–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Phillips GR, Buhler DR (1978) The relative contributions of methylmercury from food or water to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) in a controlled laboratory environment. Trans Am Fish Soc 107:853–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Phillips GR, Gregory RW (1979) Assimilation efficiency of dietary methylmercury by northern pike (Esox lucius). J Fish Res Board Can 36:1516–1519Google Scholar
  34. Rada RG, Wiener JG, Winfrey MR, Powell DE (1989) Recent increases in atmospheric deposition of mercury to north-central Wisconsin lakes inferred from sediment analyses. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 18:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rodgers DW, Watson TA, Langan JS, Wheaton TJ (1987) Effects of pH and feeding regime on methyl mercury accumulation within aquatic microcosms. Environ Pollut 45:261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sheffy TB (1978) An inventory of mercury burdens in Wisconsin furbearers. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water Quality, 49 ppGoogle Scholar
  37. Sheffy TB, St. Amant JR (1982) Mercury burdens in furbearers in Wisconsin. J Wildlife Manage 46:1117–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sullivan JR, Delfino JJ (1982) The determination of mercury in fish. J Environ Sci Health A17:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turner MA, Swick AL (1983) The English Wabigoon river system. IV. Interactions between mercury and selenium accumulated from water borne and dietary sources by northern pike (Esox lucius). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 40:2241–2250Google Scholar
  40. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Mercury study report to Congress, vol. 6. An ecological assessment for anthropogenic mercury emissions in the United States. EPA-452/R-97-008. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2001) Method 1630: Methyl mercury in water by distillation, aqueous ethylation, purge and trap, and CVAFS. EPA-821-R-01-020. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Watras CJ, Bloom NS, Hudson RJM, Gherini S, Munson R, Class SA, Morrison KA, Hurley J, Wiener JG, Fitzgerald WF, Mason RP, Vandal G, Powell D, Rada R, Rislov L, Winfrey M, Elder J, Krabbenhoft D, Andren AW, Babiartz C, Porcella DB, Huckabee JW (1994) Sources and fates of mercury and methylmercury in Wisconsin lakes. In: Watras CJ, Huckabee JW (eds) Mercury pollution—integration and synthesis. Lewis, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, pp 153–180Google Scholar
  43. Wiener JG (1995) Bioaccumulation of mercury in fish. In: Martin M (ed) Proceedings of National forum on mercury in fish. EPA 823-R-95-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, pp 41–51Google Scholar
  44. Wobeser GA, Nielsen NO, Scheifer B (1976) Mercury and mink II. Experimental methyl mercury intoxication. Can J Comparat Med 40:34–45Google Scholar
  45. Wolfe MF, Schwarzbach S, Sulaiman RA (1998) Effects of mercury on wildlife: A comprehensive review. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:146–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wren C, MacCrimmon H, Frank R, Suda P (1980) Total and methyl mercury levels in wild mammals from the Precambrian shield area of south central Ontario, Canada. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 25:100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wren CD, Stokes PM, Fischer KL (1986) Mercury levels in Ontario Canada mink and otter relative to food levels and environmental acidification. Can J Zool 64:2854–2859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wren CD, Hunter DB, Leatherland JF, Stokes PM (1987) The effects of polychlorinated biphenyls and methylmercury, singly and in combination, on mink I: Uptake and toxic responses. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 16:441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wren CD, Fischer KL, Stokes PM (1988) Levels of lead, cadmium and other elements in mink and otter from Ontario, Canada. Environ Pollut 52:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yates DE, Mayack DT, Munney K, Evers DC, Major A, Kaur T, Taylor RJ (2005) Mercury levels in mink (Mustela vison) and river otter (Lontra canadensis) from Northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14:263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations