Assessment of metals in down feathers of female common eiders and their eggs from the Aleutians: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, and selenium

  • Joanna BurgerEmail author
  • Michael Gochfeld
  • Christian Jeitner
  • Daniel Snigaroff
  • Ronald Snigaroff
  • Timothy Stamm
  • Conrad Volz


Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury and selenium were examined in the down feathers and eggs of female common eiders (Somateria mollissima) from Amchitka and Kiska Islands in the Aleutian Chain of Alaska to determine whether there were (1) differences between levels in feathers and eggs, (2) differences between the two islands, (3) positive correlations between metal levels in females and their eggs, and (4) whether there was more variation within or among clutches. Mean levels in eggs (dry weight) were as follows: arsenic (769 ppb, ng/g), cadmium (1.49 ppb), chromium (414 ppb), lead (306 ppb), manganese (1,470 ppb), mercury (431 ppb) and selenium (1,730 ppb). Levels of arsenic were higher in eggs, while chromium, lead, manganese, and mercury were higher in feathers; there were no differences for selenium. There were no significant interisland differences in female feather levels, except for manganese (eider feathers from Amchitka were four times higher than feathers from Kiska). Levels of manganese in eggs were also higher from Amchitka than Kiska, and eider eggs from Kiska had significantly higher levels of arsenic, but lower levels of selenium. There were no significant correlations between the levels of any metals in down feathers of females and in their eggs. The levels of mercury in eggs were below ecological benchmark levels, and were below human health risk levels. However, Aleuts can seasonally consume several meals of bird eggs a week, suggesting cause for concern for sensitive (pregnant) women.


Birds Eiders Pollutants Heavy metals Mercury Feathers Aleutian Islands Arsenic Lead Cadmium Chromium Selenium Manganese 


  1. ATSDR (AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY). (2004). Public health assessment: Naval Air Facility, Adak. http://www.atsdr.cdc.vog/HAC/PHA/adak/ada_p1.html (accessed January 1, 2006).
  2. Barrett, R. T., Skaare, J. U., & Gabrielsen, G. W. (1996). Recent changes in levels of persistent organochlorines and mercury in eggs of seabirds from the Barents Sea. Environmental Pollution, 92, 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braune, B. W. (1987). Comparison of total mercury levels in relation to diet and molt for nine species of marine birds. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 16, 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braune, B. W., Donaldson, G. M., & Hobson, K. A. (2002). Contaminant residues in seabird eggs from the Canadian Arctic. II. Spatial trends and evidence from stable isotopes for intercolony differences. Environmental Pollution, 117, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braune, B. W., & Gaskin, D. E. (1987). Mercury levels in Bonaparte’s gull (Larus philadelphia) during autumn molt in the Quoddy region, New Brunswick, Canada. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 16, 539–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burger, J. (1993). Metals in avian feathers: Bioindicators of environmental pollution. Reviews in Environmental Toxicology, 5, 203–311.Google Scholar
  7. Burger, J. (1994). Heavy metals in avian eggshells: Another excretion method. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 41, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burger, J. (2002). Food chain differences affect heavy metals in bird eggs in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey’. Environmental Research, 90, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (1991). Cadmium and lead in common terns (Aves: Sterna hirundo): Relationship between levels in parents and eggs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 16, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (1996). Heavy metal and selenium levels in Franklin’s Gull (Larus pipixcan) parents and their eggs. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 30, 487–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (1997). Risk, mercury levels, and birds: Relating adverse laboratory effects to field biomonitoring. Environmental Research, 75, 160–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (2002). Effects of Chemicals and Pollution on Seabirds. In E. A. Schreiber, & J. Burger (Eds.) Biology of Marine Birds (pp. 485–525). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  13. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (2004). Metal levels in eggs of common terns (Sterna hirundo) in New Jersey: Temporal trends from 1971 to 2002. Environmental Research, 94, 336–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (2007). Metals and radionuclides in birds and eggs from Amchitka and Kiska Islands in the Bering Sea/Pacific Ocean ecosystem. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 127, 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Kosson, D. S., & Powers, C. W. (2006a). Biomonitoring for ecosystem and human health protection at Amchitka Island. Piscataway, New Jersey: CRESP.Google Scholar
  16. Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Kosson, D., Powers, C. W., Friedlander, B., Eichelberger, J., Barnes, D., Duffy, L. K., Jewett, S. C., & Volz, C. D. (2005). Science, policy, and stakeholders: Developing a consensus science plan for Amchitka Island, Aleutians, Alaska. Environmental Management, 35, 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burger, J., Jewett, S., Gochfeld, M., Hoberg, M., Harper, S., Chenelot, H., Jeitner, C., & Burke, S. (2006b). Can biota sampling for environmental monitoring be used to characterize benthic communities in the Aleutians. Science of the Total Environment, 369, 393–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeCampo, M., Sarkis, J. E. S., Muller, R. S. S., Brabo, E. D. S., & Santos, E. D. O. (2002). Correlation between mercury and selenium concentrations in Indian hair from Rond ia state, Amazon Region, Brazil. Science of the Total Environment, 287, 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisler, R. (1987). Mercury hazards to fish, wildlife and invertebrates: A synoptic review. Washington DC: U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (1.10).Google Scholar
  20. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2001). Environmental water quality standard: Freshwater. 217.html.
  21. FDA (Food & Drug Administration). (2005). Answers.
  22. Fimreite, N., Brevik, F., & Trop, R. (1982). Mercury and organochlorine in eggs from a Norwegian gannet colony. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 28, 58–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fimreite, N., Brun, E., Froslie, A., Fredrickson, P., & Gundersen, N. (1974). Mercury in eggs of Norwegian seabirds. Astarte, 1, 71–75.Google Scholar
  24. Fisk, A. T., deWit, C. A., Wayland, M., Kuzyk, Z. Z., Burgess, N., Letcher, R., Braune, B., Norstrom, R., Blum, S. P., Sandau, C., Lie, E., Larsen, H. J. S., Skaare, J. U., & Muir, D. C. G. (2005). An assessment of the toxicological significance of anthropogenic contaminants in Canadian arctic wildlife. Science of the Total Environment, 351–352, 57–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fitzgerald, W. F. (1989). Atmospheric and oceanic cycling of mercury. In J. P. Riley, & R. Chester (Eds.) Chemical oceanography, Vol. 10 (pp. 151–186). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Franson, J. C., Hollmen, T., Poppenga, R. H., Hario, M., Kilpi, M., & Smith, M. R. (2000). Selected trace elements and organochlorines: Some findings in blood and eggs of nesting common eiders (Somateria mollissima) from Finland. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 19, 1340–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Furness, R. W. (1993). Birds as monitors of pollutants. In R. W. Furness, & J. J. D. Greenwood (Eds.) Birds as monitors of environmental change (pp. 86–143). London, UK: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Furness, R. W., & Camphuysen, K. C. J. (1997). Seabirds as monitors of the marine environment. Journal of Marine Science, 54, 726–737.Google Scholar
  29. Furness, R. W., Muirhead, S. J., & Woodburn, M. (1986). Using bird feathers to measure mercury in the environment: Relationship between mercury content and moult. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 17, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Furness, R. W., & Rainbow, P. S. (Eds.) (1990). Heavy metals in the marine environment. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gochfeld, M. (1980). Mercury levels in some seabirds of the Humboldt Current, Peru. Environmental Pollution, A 22, 197–205.Google Scholar
  32. Goede, A. A., & deBruin, M. (1986). The use of feathers for indicating heavy metal pollution. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 7, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goudie, R. I., Robertson, G. J., & Reed, A. (2000). Common eider. Birds of North America, 546, 1–32.Google Scholar
  34. Kenyon, K. W. (1961). Birds of Amchitka Island, Alaska. Auk, 78, 305–326.Google Scholar
  35. Lewis, S. A., & Furness, R. W. (1991). Mercury accumulation and excretion by laboratory reared black-headed Gulls (Larus ridibundus) chicks. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 21, 316–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mallory, M. L., Braune, B. M., Wayland, M., Gilchrist, H. G., & Dickson, D. L. (2004). Contaminants in common eiders (Somateria mollissima) of the Canadian Arctic. Environmental Research, 12, 197–218.Google Scholar
  37. Merritt, M. L., & Fuller, R. G. (Eds.) (1977). The environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska. U.S. Washington DC; Report NVO-79, Technical Information Center, Energy Research and Development Administration.Google Scholar
  38. Mierzykowski, S. E., Welch, L. J., Goodale, W., Evers, D. C., Hall, C. S., Kress, S. W., & Allen, R. B. (2005). Mercury in bird eggs from coastal Maine. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; project report FY05-MEFO-1-EC.Google Scholar
  39. Monteiro, L. R. (1996). Seabirds as monitors of mercury in the marine environment. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 80, 851–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Monteiro, L. R., & Furness, R. W. (1995). Seabirds as monitors of mercury in the marine environment. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 80, 831–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nygard, T., Lie, E., Roy, N., & Steinnes, E. (2001). Metal dynamics in an Antarctic food chain. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42, 598–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ohlendorf, H. M., Risebrough, R. W., & Vermeer, K. (1978). Exposure of marine birds to environmental pollutants. US Fish.& Wildl. Serv. Wildl. Res. Rep., 9.Google Scholar
  43. Peakall, D. B. (1992). Animal biomarkers as pollution indicators. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  44. Pearce, P. A., Peakall, D. B., & Reynolds, L. M. (1979). Shell thinning and residues of organochlorines and mercury in seabird eggs, Eastern Canada, 1970–1076. Pesticides Monitoring Journal, 13, 61–58.Google Scholar
  45. Powers, C. W., Burger, J., Kosson, D., Gochfeld, M., & Barnes, D. (Eds.) (2005). Biological and geophysical aspects of potential radionuclide exposure in the Amchitka marine environment. Piscataway, New Jersey: CRESP.Google Scholar
  46. SAS (1995). SAS users’ guide. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, D. R., & Furness, R. W. (1989). Comparison of the levels of total and organic mercury in seabird feathers. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 20, 577–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thompson, D. R., & Furness, R. W. (1998). Seabirds as biomonitors of mercury inputs to epipelagic and mesopelagic marine food chains. Science of the Total Environment, 213, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walsh, P. M. (1990). The use of seabirds as monitors of heavy metals in the marine environment. In R. W. Furness, & P. S. Rainbow (Eds.) Heavy metals in the marine environment (pp. 183–204). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wayland, M., Gilchrist, H. G., & Neugebauer, E. (2005). Concentrations of cadmium, mercury and selenium in common eider ducks in the eastern Canadian arctic: Influence of reproductive stage. Science of the Total Environment, 351, 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. World Health Organization (WHO). (1990). IPCS-Methylmercury. Environmental Health Criteria, 101. Geneva.Google Scholar
  52. World Health Organization (WHO). (1991). IPCS-Inorganicmercury. Environmental Health Criteria, 118. Geneva.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanna Burger
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Michael Gochfeld
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Christian Jeitner
    • 2
    • 3
  • Daniel Snigaroff
    • 5
    • 6
  • Ronald Snigaroff
    • 5
  • Timothy Stamm
    • 6
  • Conrad Volz
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Division of Life SciencesRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  2. 2.Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI)Rutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  3. 3.Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP)Rutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  4. 4.Environmental and Occupational MedicineUniversity of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical SchoolPiscatawayUSA
  5. 5.Village of Atka, Aleutian Chain of AlaskaUSA
  6. 6.Village of Nikolski, Aleutian Chain of AlaskaUSA
  7. 7.Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Graduate School of Public Health, Forbes Allies CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  8. 8.PittsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations