Environmental Geology

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 527–536 | Cite as

Assessment of mercury mobility and bioavailability by fractionation method in sediments from coastal zone inundated by the 26 December 2004 tsunami in Thailand

  • Leonard Boszke
  • Artur Kowalski
  • Witold Szczuciński
  • Grzegorz Rachlewicz
  • Stanisław Lorenc
  • Jerzy Siepak
Original Article


The 26 December 2004 tsunami covered significant portion of a coastal zone with a blanket of potentially contaminated sediments. In this report are presented results on mercury concentrations in sediments deposited by the tsunami in a coastal zone of Thailand. Since the total mercury concentrations are insufficient to assess mercury mobility and bioavailability in sediment, its fractionation was applied. Sediments were sampled within 50 days after the event and analyzed by sequential extraction method. The procedure of sequential extraction involved five subsequent stages performed with solutions of chloroform, deionized water, 0.5 M HCl, 0.2 M NaOH, and aqua regia. The mean concentration of total mercury in sediments was 119 ± 50 ng g−1 dry mass (range 66–230). The fractionation revealed that mercury is mainly bound to the least bioavailable sulphides 75 ± 6% (range 62–86), organomercury compounds 14 ± 7% (range 4–26), and humic matter 9 ± 7% (range 1–27). The lowest contributions bring fractions of water-soluble mercury 0.8 ± 1.0% (range 0.1–3.6) and acid soluble mercury 0.9 ± 0.5% (range 0.2–2.1). Although, the total mercury content is similar in a reference sample and in the tsunami sediments, the highly toxic organomercury fraction contribution is higher in the latter. The results were compared with chemical and sedimentological properties of the sediments but no significant correlations were obtained between them.


Mercury Fractionation Sequential extraction Tsunami sediments Thailand 



The field and laboratory work was supported by Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland. We appreciate logistical support provided by Department of Mineral Resources of Kingdom of Thailand and Embassy of Poland in Thailand. We would like to thank Darunee Saisuttichai, Tinnakorn Tatong, and Thawatchai Tepsuwan for field assistance.


  1. Altaff K, Sugumaran J, Naveed MS (2005) Impact of tsunami on meiofauna of Marina beach, Chennai, India. Curr Sci 89:34–38Google Scholar
  2. Barnett MO, Turner RR (2001) Bioaccessibility of mercury in soils. Soil Sediment Contam 10:301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bełdowski J, Pempkowiak J (2003) Horizontal and vertical variabilities of mercury concentration and speciation in sediments of Gdańsk Basin, Southern Baltic Sea. Chemosphere 52:645–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biester H, Scholz C (1997) Determination of mercury phase in contaminated soils. Mercury pyrolysis versus sequential extractions. Environ Sci Technol 31:233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biester H, Muller G, Schöler HF (2002) Binding and mobility of mercury in soils contaminated by emissions from chlor-alkali plants. Sci Total Environ 284:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloom NS, Preus E, Katon J, Hilter M (2003) Selective extractions to assess the biogeochemically relevant fractionation of inorganic mercury in sediment and soils. Anal Chim Acta 479:233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boszke L, Głosińska G, Siepak J (2002) Some aspects of speciation of mercury in a water environment. Pol J Environ Stud 11:285–298Google Scholar
  8. Boszke L, Kowalski A, Głosińska G, Szarek R, Siepak J (2003) Selected factors affecting the speciation of mercury in the bottom sediments: an overview. Pol J Environ Stud 12:5–13 Google Scholar
  9. Boszke L, Kowalski A, Siepak J (2004) Grain size partitioning of mercury in sediments of the middle Odra river (Germany/Poland). Water Air Soil Pollut 159:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boszke L, Kowalski A, Siepak J (2006) Fractionation of mercury in sediments of the Warta river (Poland). In: Pawłowski L, Dudzińska M, Pawłowski A (eds) Environmental engineering science in Poland. CRC Press, Boca Raton (in press)Google Scholar
  11. Calmano W (1983) Chemical extraction of heavy metals in polluted river sediments in central Europe. Sci Total Environ 28:77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ching IL, Hongxiao T (1985) Chemical studies of aquatic pollution by heavy metals in China. In: Irgolic KJ, Martel AE (eds) Environmental inorganic chemistry. VCH Publishers, pp 359–371Google Scholar
  13. Chongprasith P, Utoomprurkporn W, Wilairatanadilok W (2006) Mercury situation in Thailand. Available from:
  14. Danielsen F, Sørensen MK, Olwig MF, Selvam V, Parish F, Burgess ND, Hirashi T, Karunagaran VM, Rasmussen MS, Hansen LB, Quarto A, Suryadiptura N (2005) The Asian tsunami: a protective role for coastal vegetation. Science 310:643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eguchi T, Tomiyasu T (2002) The speciation of mercury in sediments from Kagoshima Bay and Minamata Bay, Southern Kyusyu, Japan, by fractional extraction/cold-vapor AAS (in Japan). Bunseki Kagaku 51:859–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fabbri D, Gabbianelli G, Locatelli C, Lubrano D, Trombini C, Vassura I (2001) Distribution of mercury and other heavy metals in core sediments of the northern Adriatic Sea. Water Air Soil Pollut 129:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fergusson JE (1990) The heavy elements—chemistry, environmental impact and health effects. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Förstner U, Wittman GT (1979) Metal pollution in the aquatic environment. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Gustin MS, Biester H, Kim CS (2002) Investigation of the light-enhanced emission of mercury from naturally enriched substrates. Atmos Environ 36:3241–3254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall GEM, Vaive JE, Beer R, Hoashi M (1996) Selective leaches revisited, with emphasis on the amorphous Fe oxyhydroxide phase extraction. J Geochem Explor 56:59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hesterberg D, Chou JW, Hutchison KJ, Sayers DE (2001) Bonding of Hg(II) to reduced organic sulfur in humic acid as affected by S/Hg ratio. Environ Sci Technol 35:2741–2745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson TA (1998a) Mercury in aquatic ecosystems. In: Langston WJ, Bebianno MJ (eds) Metal metabolism in aquatic environments. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 77–158Google Scholar
  23. Jackson TA (1998b) The biogeochemical and ecological significance of interactions between colloidal minerals and trace elements. In: Parker A, Rae JE (eds) Environmental interactions of clays. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 93–205Google Scholar
  24. Kabata-Pendias A, Pendias H (1999) Biogeochemistry of trace elements. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Warszawa (in Polish)Google Scholar
  25. Kannan K, Falandysz J (1998) Speciation and concentrations of mercury in certain coastal marine sediments. Water Air Soil Pollut 103:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kathiresan K, Rajendran N (2005) Coastal mangrove forests mitigated tsunami. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 65:601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Konieczka P, Namieśnik J, Zygmunt B, Bulska E, Świtaj-Zawadka A, Naganowska A, Kremer E, Rompa M (2004) Quality assessment and quality control of analytical results—QA/QC. Centre of Excellence in Environment Analysis and Monitoring, Gdańsk (in Polish)Google Scholar
  28. Kot FS, Matyushkina LA (2002) Distribution of mercury in chemical fraction of contaminated urban soils of Middle Amur, Russia. J Environ Monit 4:803–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kot FS, Matyushkina LA, Nikorych VN, Polivichenko VG (2002) Mercury in chemical and thermal fraction of soils of Eastern Ukrainian Polissya. Soil Sci 3:94–101Google Scholar
  30. Kotwicki L, Szczuciński W (2006) Meiofauna assemblages, sediment characteristic of the Thailand sandy beaches after the 2004 tsunami event. Phuket Marine Biological Center Bulletin (in press)Google Scholar
  31. Kowalski A (2006) Determination of the total mercury and its species in the environmental samples. Doctoral thesis. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan (in Polish)Google Scholar
  32. Lechler PJ, Miller JR, Hsu LC, Desilets MO (1997) Mercury mobility at the Carson River superfund site, west-central Nevada, USA—interpretation of mercury speciation data in mill tailing, soils, and sediments. J Geochem Explor 58:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu PLF, Lynett P, Fernando H, Jaffe BE, Fritz H, Higman B, Morton R, Goff J, Synolakis C (2005) Observations by the International Tsunami Survey Team in Sri Lanka. Science 308:1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meili M (1997) Mercury in lakes and rivers. In: Sigel A, Sigel H (eds) Mercury and its effects on environment and biology. Metal ions in biological systems. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 21–51Google Scholar
  35. Peng A, Wang Z (1985) Mercury in river sediment. In: Irgolic KJ, Martel AE (eds) Environmental inorganic chemistry. VCH Publishers, pp 393–400Google Scholar
  36. Renneberg AJ, Dudas MJ (2001) Transformations of elemental mercury to inorganic and organic forms in mercury and hydrocarbon co-contaminated soils. Chemosphere 45:1103–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sakamoto H, Tomiyasu T, Yonehara N (1995) The content and chemical forms of mercury in sediments from Kagoshima Bay, in comparison with Minamata Bay and Yatsushiro Sea, Southwestern Japan. Geochem J 29:97–105Google Scholar
  38. Shi JB, Liang LN, Jiang GB, Jin XL (2005) The speciation and bioavailability of mercury in sediments of Haihe River, China. Environ Int 31:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh AK, Hasnain SI, Banerjee DK (1999) Grain size and geochemical partitioning of heavy metals in sediments of the Damoder River—a tributary of the lower Ganga, India. Environ Geol 39:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sladek C, Gustin MS, Kim CS, Biester H (2002) Application of three methods for determining mercury speciation in mine waste. Geochem Explor Environ Anal 2:369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stein ED, Cohen Y, Winer AM (1996) Environmental distribution and transformation of mercury compounds. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 26:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Szczuciński W, Niedzielski P, Rachlewicz G, Sobczyński T, Zioła A, Kowalski A, Lorenc S, Siepak J (2005) Contamination of tsunami sediments in a coastal zone inundated by the 26 December 2004 tsunami in Thailand. Environ Geol 49:321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tessier A, Campbell P, Bisson M (1979) Sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of particulate trace metals. Anal Chem 51:844–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tomiyasu T, Nagano A, Yonehara N, Sakamoto H, Rifardi, Oki K, Akagi H (2000) Mercury contamination in the Yatsushiro Sea, south-western Japan: spatial variations of mercury in sediment. Sci Total Environ 257:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ullrich SM, Tanton TW, Abdrashitowa SA (2001) Mercury in the aquatic environment: a review of factors affecting methylation. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 31:241–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. United Nations Environment Protection—UNEP (2005) After the tsunami. Rapid environmental assessment. United Nations Environment ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  47. Young S, Balluz L, Malilay J (2004) Natural and technologic hazardous material releases during and after natural disasters: a review. Sci Total Environ 322:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wallschlager D, Desai MVM, Wilken R-D (1996) The role of humic substances in the aqueous mobilization of mercury from contaminated floodplain soils. Water Air Soil Pollut 90:507–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wallschlager D, Desai MVM, Spengler M, Windmöler CC, Wilken R-D (1998a) Mercury speciation in floodplain soils and sediments along a contaminated river transect. J Environ Qual 27:1034–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wallschlager D, Desai MVM, Spengler M, Windmöler CC, Wilken R-D (1998b) How humic substances dominate mercury geochemistry in contaminated floodplain soils and sediments. J Environ Qual 27:1044–1054Google Scholar
  51. Weber JH (1993) Review of possible paths for abiotic methylation of mercury(II) in aquatic environment. Chemosphere 51:2063–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilken RD, Hintelmann H (1991) Mercury and methylmercury in sediments and suspended particles from the river Elbe, North Germany. Water Air Soil Pollut 56:427–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xia K, Skyllberg UL, Bleam WF, Bloom RP, Nater EA, Helmke PA (1999) X-ray absorption spectroscopic evidence for the complexation of Hg(II) by reduced sulfur in soil humic substances. Environ Sci Technol 33:257–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonard Boszke
    • 1
  • Artur Kowalski
    • 2
  • Witold Szczuciński
    • 3
  • Grzegorz Rachlewicz
    • 4
  • Stanisław Lorenc
    • 3
  • Jerzy Siepak
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Protection, Collegium PolonicumAdam Mickiewicz UniversitySłubicePoland
  2. 2.Department of Water and Soil Analysis, Faculty of ChemistryAdam Mickiewicz UniversityPoznańPoland
  3. 3.Institute of GeologyAdam Mickiewicz UniversityPoznańPoland
  4. 4.Institute of Paleogeography and GeoecologyAdam Mickiewicz UniversityPoznańPoland

Personalised recommendations