Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Calculating Mercury Loading to The Tidal Hudson River, New York, Using Rating Curve and Surrogate Methodologies

Abstract

Total mercury (THg) load in rivers is often calculated from a site-specific “rating-curve” based on the relation between THg concentration and river discharge along with a continuous record of river discharge. However, there is no physical explanation as to why river discharge should consistently predict THg or any other suspended analyte. THg loads calculated by the rating-curve method were compared with those calculated by a “continuous surrogate concentration” (CSC) method in which a relation between THg concentration and suspended-sediment concentration (SSC) is constructed; THg loads then can be calculated from the continuous record of SSC and river discharge.

The rating-curve and CSC methods, respectively, indicated annual THg loads of 46.4 and 75.1 kg for the Mohawk River, and 52.9 and 33.1 kg for the upper Hudson River. Differences between the results of the two methods are attributed to the inability of the rating-curve method to adequately characterize atypical high flows such as an ice-dam release, or to account for hysteresis, which typically degrades the strength of the relation between stream discharge and concentration of material in suspension.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Balogh, S. J., Meyer, M. L. and Johnson, D. K.: 1997, ‘Mercury and suspended sediment loadings in the lower Minnesota River’Environ. Sci. Technol. 31, 198–202.

  2. Balogh, S. J., Meyer, M. L. and Johnson, D. K.: 1998, ‘Transport of Mercury in Three Contrasting River Basins’Environ. Sci. Technol. 32, 456–462.

  3. Bloom, N. S. and Fitzgerald, W. F.: 1988, ‘Determination of volatile Mercury Species at the Picogram Level by Low-Temperature Gas Chromatography with Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Detection’Anal. Chim. Acta 208, 151–161.

  4. Butch, G. K., Murray, P. M., Suro, T. P. and Weigel, J. F.: 2001, Water Resources Data New York – Water Year 2000, Volume 1 – Eastern New York Excluding Long Island, 509 pp.

  5. Butch, G. K., Murray, P. M., Suro, T. P. and Weigel, J. F.: 2000, Water Resources Data New York – Water Year 1999, Volume 1 – Eastern New York Excluding Long Island, 474 pp.

  6. Cohn, T. A., Gilroy, E. J. and Baier, W. G.: 1992, ‘Estimating Fluvial Transport of Trace Constituents Using a Regression Model with Data Subject to Censoring’American Statistical Association Proceedings on Statistics and the Environment 1–9.

  7. Cohn, T. A.: 1995, ‘Recent Advances in Statistical Methods for the Estimation of Sediment and Nutrient Transport in Rivers’Reviews of Geophysics Supplement 1117–1123.

  8. Ferguson, R. I.: 1986, ‘River Loads Underestimated by Rating Curves’Water Resourc. Res. 22, 74–76.

  9. Gauthier, M.: 2000, ‘Quality Assurance Plan for Frontier Geosciences Inc.’Frontier Geosciences Inc, Seattle, WA, USA, 109 pp.

  10. Grosheva, E. I.: 1993, ‘Mercury Transport, Transformation, and Bioaccumulation in the Ecosystem of Mercury – Stibium Geochemical Province’Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 66, 381–388.

  11. Guy, H. P.: 1969, ‘Laboratory Theory and Methods for Sediment Analysis: U.S. Geological Survey’ Techniques of Water- Resources Investigations, Book 5 Chapter C1, 58 p.

  12. Helsel, D. R. and Hirsch, R. M.: 1992, Statistical Methods in Water Resources, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 529 pp.

  13. Hurley, J. P., Cowell, S. E., Shafer, M. M. and Hughes, P. E.: 1998, ‘Partitioning and Transport of Total and Methyl Mercury in the Lower Fox River, Wisconsin’Environ. Sci. Technol. 32, 1424–1432.

  14. Kolka, R. K., Grigal, D. F., Nater, E. A. and Verry, E. S.: 2001, ‘Hydrologic Cycling of Mercury and Organic Carbon in a Forested Upland-Bog Watershed’Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65, 897–905.

  15. Lawson, N. M., Mason, R. P. and Laporte, J.-M.: 2001, ‘The Fate and Transport of Mercury, Methylmercury, and Other Trace Metals in Chesapeake Bay Tributaries’Water Res. 35, 501–515.

  16. Mason, R. P., Lawson, N. M., Lawrence, A. L., Leaner, J. J., Lee, J. G. and Sheu, G. R.: 1999, ‘Mercury in Chesapeake Bay’Marine Chemistry 65, 77–96.

  17. Mason, R. P. and Sullivan, K. A.: 1998, ‘Mercury and Methylmercury Transport Through an Urban Watershed’Water Res. 32, 321–330.

  18. Mierle, G. and Ingram, R.: 1991, ‘The Role of Humic Substances in the Mobilization of Mercury from Watersheds’Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 56, 349–357.

  19. Phillips, P. J. and Hanchar, D. W.: 1996, ‘Water-Quality Assessment of the Hudson River Basin In New York and Adjacent States – Analysis of Available Nutrient, Pesticide, Volatile Organic Compound, and Suspended-Sediment Data, 1970–1990’U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4065, 76 pp.

  20. Potterfield, G.: 1972, ‘Computation of Fluvial Sediment Discharge’ Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey,Book 3 Chapter C3, 66 pp.

  21. Scherbatskoy, T., Shanley, J. B. and Keeler, G. J.: 1998, ‘Factors Controlling Mercury Transport in an Upland Forested Catchment’Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 105, 427–438.

  22. Scholar, C. J. and Shreve, E. A.: 1998, ‘Quality Assurance Plan for the Analysis of Fluvial Sediment by the Northeast Region, Kentucky District Sediment Laboratory’United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-384, 20 pp.

  23. Shanley, J. B., Schuster, P. F., Reddy, M. M., Roth, D. A., Taylor, H. E. and Aiken, G. R.: 2002, ‘Mercury on the Move During Snowmelt in Vermont’EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 83.

  24. Williams, G. P.: 1989, ‘Sediment Concentration Versus Water Discharge During Single Hydrologic Events in Rivers’J. Hydrol 111, 89–106.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Gary R. Wall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wall, G.R., Ingleston, H.H. & Litten, S. Calculating Mercury Loading to The Tidal Hudson River, New York, Using Rating Curve and Surrogate Methodologies. Water Air Soil Pollut 165, 233–248 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-005-5146-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Hudson River
  • load
  • mercury
  • Mohawk River
  • rating curve
  • surrogate
  • suspended-sediment concentration
  • yield