Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 207–216 | Cite as

Estimation of dynamic load of mercury in a river with BASINS-HSPF model

  • Ying Ouyang
  • John Higman
  • Jeff Hatten



Mercury (Hg) is a naturally occurring element and a pervasive toxic pollutant. This study investigated the dynamic loads of Hg from the Cedar–Ortega Rivers watershed into the Lower St. Johns River (LSJR), Florida, USA, using the better assessment science integrating point and nonpoint sources (BASINS)-hydrologic simulation program—FORTRAN (HSPF) model.

Materials and methods

The site-specific BASINS-HSPF model was developed for dynamic loads of Hg based on watershed, meteorological, and hydrological conditions. The model was calibrated and validated with existing field data. It was then applied to predict the daily and annual loads of Hg from the watershed outlet into the LSJR in response to rainfall events and water fluxes.

Results and discussion

In general, the predicted average daily total Hg flux during the 10-year simulation period was about 0.69 g ha−1 year−1. This finding was within the range of 0.22–1.41 g ha−1 year−1 reported in the Florida Everglades area. Simulations further revealed that the effects of rainfall events on Hg loading were significant, particularly in a very wet period. A maximum total Hg flux was predicted during this wet period at a rate of 122.59 g ha−1 year−1.


Results from this study provide a useful case study on estimating Hg contamination in watersheds. The approaches used in this study could be transferred to estimate the dynamic loads of Hg in watersheds from other regions.


BASINS HSPF Mercury load Watershed modeling 


  1. Babiarz CL, Andren AW (1995) Total concentrations of mercury in Wisconsin (USA) lakes and rivers. Water Air Soil Pollut 83:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balogh SJ, Meyer ML, Johnson DK (1998) Mercury and suspended sediment loadings in the lower Minnisota River. Environ Sci Technol 31:198–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bicknell BR, Imhoff JC, Kittle JL, Donigian AS, Johanson RC (1993) Hydrological Simulation Program—FORTRAN (HSPF): user’s manual for release 10. EPA-600/R-93/174. US EPA, AthensGoogle Scholar
  4. Bicknell BR, Imhoff JC, Kittle JL Jr, Jobes TH, Donigian AS Jr (2001) Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran, HSPF, version 12, user’s manual. National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, March 2001Google Scholar
  5. Bishop KH, Lee YH (1997) In: Sigel A, Sigel H (eds) Metal ions in biological systems, vol 34. Mercury and its effects on environment and biology. Marcel Dekker, New York, p 113Google Scholar
  6. Chen YD, Carsel RF, Mccutcheon SC, Nutter WL (1998) Stream temperature simulation of forested riparian areas: I. Watershed model development. J Environ Eng—ASCE 124:304–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clement International Corporation (1994) Toxicological profile for mercury. US Dept. of Health & Human Services, NTIS, Atlanta, p 366Google Scholar
  8. Donigian AS Jr, Crawford NH (1976) Modeling pesticides and nutrients on agricultural lands. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, EPA 600/2-7-76-043, 317 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Donogian AS, Imhoff JC, Bicknell BR, Kittle JI (1984) Application guide for hydrological simulation program-FORTRAN (HSPF). EPA, Athens. EPA-600/3-84-065Google Scholar
  10. Driscoll CT, Yan C, Schofield CL, Munson R, Holsapple J (1994) The mercury cycle and fish in the Adirondack Lakes. Environ Sci Technol 28:137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Durell GS, Seavey JA, Higman J (2004) Sediment quality in the Lower St. Johns River and Cedar–Ortega River Basin: chemical contaminant characteristics. March 2001. Battelle, Duxbury, MA, 02332Google Scholar
  12. Dvonch JT, Graney JR, Marsik FJ, Keeler GJ, Stevens TK (1998) An investigation of source-receptor relationships for mercury in south Florida using event precipitation data. Sci Total Environ 213:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisler R (2004) Mercury hazards to living organisms. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, p 312Google Scholar
  14. Fitzgeral WF, Gill GA (1979) Subnanogram determination of mercury by two-stage gold amalgamation and gas phase detection applied to atmospheric analysis. Anal Chem 51:1714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleck JA, Alpers CN, Marvin-DiPasquale M, Hothem RL, Wright SA, Ellett K, Beaulieu E, Agee JL, Kakouros E, Kieu LH, Eberl DD, Blum AE, May JT (2011) The effects of sediment and mercury mobilization in the South Yuba River and Humbug Creek Confluence Area, Nevada County, California: Concentrations, speciation, and environmental fate—Part 1: Field characterization. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 2010-1325A, 104 pGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman RJ (2001) Simulation of total suspended solids loads into the Cedar/Ortega River, Duval County, Florida Using SWMM. Department of Water Resources, St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida. Technical Memorandum No. 46Google Scholar
  17. Gill GA, Bruland KW (1990) Mercury speciation in surface freshwater systems in Califronia and toher areas. Environ Sci Technol 24:1392–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glass GE, Sorenson JA, Schmidt KW, Rapp GR (1990) New source identification of mercury contamination in the Great Lakes. Environ Sci Technol 24:1059–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guentzel JL, Landing WM, Gill GA, Pollman CD (2001) Processes influencing rainfall deposition of mercury in Florida. Environ Sci Technol 35:863–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamasaki T, Nasamitsu H, Yoshitada Y, Sato T (1995) Formation, distribution, and ecotoxicity of methylmetals of Tin, mercury, and arsenic in the environment. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 25:45–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hultberg H, Munthe J, Iverfeldt A (1995) Cycling of methyl mercury and mercury—responses in the forest roof catchment to three years of decreased atmospheric deposition. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hurley JP, Shafer MM, Cowell SE, Overdier JT, Hughes PE, Armstrong DE (1995) Trace metal assessment of Lake Michigan tributaries using low-level techniques. Environ Sci Technol 30:2093–2098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hurley JP, Cowell SE, Shafer MM, Hughes PE (1998) Tributary loading of mercury to Lake Michigan: importance of seasonal events and phase partitioning. Sci Total Environ 213:129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keeler GJ, Marsik FJ, Al-Walli KI, Dvonch JT (2001) Modeled deposition of speciated mercury to the SFWMD Water Conservation Area 3A: 22 June 1995 to 21 June 1996. Project description and results. The University of Michigan Air Quality Laboratory, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  25. Krabbenhoft DP, Benoit JM, Babiarz CL, Hurley JP, Andren AW (1995) Mercury cycling in the Allequash Creek watershed, northern Wisconsin. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lange TR, Royals HE, Connor LL (1993) Influence of water chemistry on mercury concentration in largemouth bass from Florida lakes. T Am Fish Soc 122:74–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lathrop RC, Rasmussen PW, Knauer DR (1991) Mercury concentrations in walleyes from Wisconsin (USA) Lakes. Water Air Soil Pollut 56:295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee KE, Chon HT, Jung MC (2008) Contamination level and distribution patterns of Hg in soil, sediment, dust and sludge from various anthropogenic sources in Korea. Mineral Mag 72:445–7449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morel FMM, Kraepiel AML, Amyot M (1998) The chemical cycle and bioaccumulation of mercury. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:543–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ouyang YJ, Higman J, Campbell D, Davis J (2003) Three-dimensional kriging analysis of sediment mercury distribution: a case study. J Am Water Resour As 39:689–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Plouffe A (1995) Glacial dispersal of mercury from bedrock mineralization along Pinchi Fault, north central British Columbia. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rasmussen PE (1994) Current methods of estimating atmospheric mercury fluxes in remote areas. Environ Sci Technol 28:2233–2241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rood BE, Gottgens JF, Delfino JJ, Earle CD, Crisman TL (1995) Mercury accumulation trends in Florida Everglades and Savannas Marsh flooded soils. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Serpone N, BorgarelloE PE (1988) Photoreduction and photodegradation of inorganic pollutants: II. Selective reduction and recovery of Au, Pt, Pb, Rh, Hg, and Pb. In: Schiavello M (ed) Photocatalysis and environment. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 527–565Google Scholar
  35. Sim DB, Francis AW (2008) Mercury and cyanide used as indicators of sediment transport in ephemeral washes at the techatticup mine and mill site, nelson, Nevada (USA). Int J Soil Sediment Water 1:1–9Google Scholar
  36. Stein ED, Cohen Y, Winer AM (1996) Environmental distribution and transformation of mercury compounds. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 26:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ullrich SM, Tanton TW, Abdrashitova SA (2001) Mercury in the aquatic environment: a review of factors affecting methylation. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 31:241–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. US EPA (2010) BASINS 4.0 ((Better Assessment Science Integrating point & Non-point Sources) Description. Accessed 16 September 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag (outside the USA)  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA Forest ServiceMississippi StateUSA
  2. 2.Department of Water ResourcesSt. Johns River Water Management DistrictPalatkaUSA
  3. 3.Department of ForestryMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA

Personalised recommendations