Mercury Concentrations in Water and Hybrid Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis × M. chrysops) Muscle Tissue Samples Collected from the Ohio River, USA



We report on long-term aqueous mercury (Hg) measurements collected at fixed locations along the Ohio River, offer insights into patterns of water and fish tissue Hg levels, and calculate site-specific bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) along an extensive longitudinal basis. We examined the relationship between total recoverable Hg concentrations in water and fish samples collected from 12 locations on the mainstem Ohio River. Water samples were collected on a bimonthly basis from each location over a 6-year period preceding the collection of fish tissue samples. This abundance of data enabled us to calculate the long-term average aqueous Hg concentrations and approximate the lifetime aqueous Hg exposure experienced by fish, enabling the calculation of appropriate BAFs. Hybrid striped bass (HSB; Morone saxatilis × M. chrysops) were collected from the Ohio River, composited (three fish), and analyzed for Hg in muscle tissue from each location. Concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 0.4 mg/kg and 41.7% of all samples collected were higher than the US Environmental Protection Agency regulatory threshold of 0.3 mg Hg/kg wet weight. Hg levels generally increased with fish weight, length, and age. However, Hg concentration in the water was the strongest predictor of tissue concentrations. We found that both water and tissue concentrations increased with drainage area, albeit at different rates. This discrepancy in spatial patterns revealed that the bioaccumulation rate of methylmercury might not be consistent throughout the Ohio River mainstem. BAFs calculated at each location supported this finding, as values decreased with increasing drainage area. Our study serves to fill critical, previously identified data gaps and provides decision-makers with the information necessary to develop more appropriate BAF development and risk-management strategies.


  1. ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) (2009) Toxicological profile for mercury.
  2. Bloom NS (1992) On the chemical form of mercury in edible fish and marine invertebrate tissue. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:1010–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brumbaugh WG, Krabbenhoft DP, Helsel DR, Wiener JG, Echols KR (2001) A national pilot study of mercury contamination of aquatic ecosystems along multiple gradients: bioaccumulation in fish. US geological survey water resources investigations, USGS/BRD/BSR-2001-0009. US Geological Survey, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  4. Burger J, Gaines KF, Boring CS, Stephens WL Jr, Snodgrass J, Gochfeld M (2001) Mercury and selenium in fish from the Savannah River: species, trophic level, and locational differences. Environ Res 87:108–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cizdziel J, Hinners T, Pollard J (2003) Distribution of mercury in the tissues of five species of freshwater fish from Lake Mead, USA. J Environ Monit 5:802–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarkson TW (1990) Human health risks from methylmercury in fish. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:957–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Driscoll CT, Han Y-J, Chen CY, Evers DC, Lambert KF, Holsen TM, Kamman NC, Munson RK (2007) Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems in the Northeastern United States. Bioscience 57:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Emery EB, Simon TP, McCormick FH, Angermeier PL, Deshon JE, Yoder CO, Sanders RE, Pearson WD, Hickman GD, Reash RJ, Thomas JA (2003) Development of a multimetric index for assessing the biological condition of the Ohio River. Trans Am Fish Soc 132:791–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabriel MC, Kolka R, Wickman T, Nater E, Woodruff L (2009) Evaluating the spatial variation of total mercury in young-of-year yellow perch (Perca flavescens), surface water and upland soil for watershed-lake systems within the southern Boreal Shield. Sci Total Environ 407:4117–4126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilmour CC, Henry EA (1991) Mercury methylation in aquatic systems affected by acid deposition. Environ Pollut 71:131–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilmour CC, Riedel GS (2000) A survey of size-specific mercury concentrations in game fish from Maryland fresh and estuarine waters. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Gutenmann WH, Ebel JG Jr, Kuntz HT, Yourstone KS, Lisk DJ (1992) Residues of p, p′-DDE and mercury in lake trout as a function of age. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 22:452–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hammerschmidt CR, Fitzgerald WF (2006) Methylmercury in freshwater fish linked to atmospheric mercury deposition. Environ Sci Technol 40:7764–7770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hurley JP, Benoit JM, Babiarz CL, Shafer MM, Andren AW, Sullivan JR, Hammond R, Webb DA (1995) Influences of watershed characteristics on mercury levels in Wisconsin rivers. Environ Sci Technol 29:1867–1875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kehrig HA, Palermo EFA, Seixas TG, Santos HSB, Malm O, Akagi H (2009) Methyl and total mercury found in two man-made Amazonian reservoirs. J Brazil Chem Soc 20:1142–1152Google Scholar
  17. Krabbenhoft DP, Wiener JG, Brumbaugh WG, Olson ML, DeWild JF, Sabin TJ (1999) A national pilot study of mercury contamination of aquatic ecosystems along multiple gradients. In: Morganwalp DW, Buxton HT (eds) U.S. geological survey toxic substances hydrology program, proceedings of the technical meeting, Charleston, SC, 8–12 March 1999. Contamination of hydrologic systems and related ecosystems, vol 2. Water resources investigations report 99-4018B. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, pp 147–160Google Scholar
  18. Kuwabra JS, Aria Y, Topping BR, Pickering IJ, George GN (2007) Mercury speciation in piscivorous fish from mining-impacted reservoirs. Environ Sci Technol 41:2745–2749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lepak JM, Shayler HA, Kraft CE, Knuth BA (2009) Mercury contamination in sport fish in the Northeastern United States: considerations for future data collection. Bioscience 59:174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mason RP (2002) The bioaccumulation of mercury, methylmercury and other toxic elements into pelagic and benthic organisms. In: Newman MC, Robert MH, Hale RC (eds) Coastal and estuarine risk assessment. CRC/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp 127–149Google Scholar
  21. Mason RP, Heyes D, Sveinsdottir A (2006) Mercury concentrations in fish from tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 51:425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morel FMM, Kraepiel AML, Amyot M (1998) The chemical cycle and bioaccumulation of mercury. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:543–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ORSANCO (Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission) (2006) Biennial assessment of Ohio River water quality conditions. Technical Report. ORSANCO, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  24. Piraino MN, Taylor DL (2009) Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of mercury in striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and tautog (Tautoga onitis) from the Narragansett Bay (Rhode Island, USA). Marine Environ Res 67:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Qian SS, Warren-Hicks W, Keating J, Moore DRJ, Teed RS (2001) A predictive model of mercury fish tissue concentrations for the southeastern United States. Environ Sci Technol 35:941–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rypel AL, Arrington DA, Findlay RH (2008) Mercury in southeastern U.S. riverine fish populations linked to water body type. Environ Sci Technol 42:5118–5124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schell SA, Bright DJ, Marshall JA, Greenlee MA (1996) Ohio River recreation use survey 1992–1993. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Final Report State Project F4DR03. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Athens, OHGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmitt CJ, Blazer VS, Dethloff GM, Tillitt DE, Gross TS, Bryant WL Jr, DeWeese LR, Smith SB, Goede RW, Parish TM, Kubiak TJ (1999) Biomonitoring of environmental status and trends (BEST) program: field procedures for assessing the exposure of fish to environmental contaminants. US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Columbia, MOGoogle Scholar
  29. Scudder BC, Chasar LC, Wentz DA, Bauch NJ, Brigham ME, Moran PW, Krabbenhoft DP (2009) Mercury in fish, bed sediment, and water from streams across the United States, 1998–2005: US geological survey scientific investigations report 2009-5109Google Scholar
  30. Sellers P, Kelly CA, Rudd JWM, Machutchon AR (1996) Photodegradation of methylmercury in lakes. Nature 380:694–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sorensen JA, Glass GE, Schmidt KW, Huber JK, Rapp GR Jr (1990) Airborne mercury deposition and watershed characteristics in relation to mercury concentrations in water, sediments, plankton, and fish of eighty northern Minnesota Lakes. Environ Sci Technol 24:1716–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stahl LL, Snyder BD, Olsen AR, Pitt JL (2009) Contaminants in fish tissue from US lakes and reservoirs: a national probabilistic study. Environ Monit Assess 150:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. StatSoft, Inc (2009) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), v.9.0. Available from
  34. USEPA (1993) Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish advisories: fish sampling and analysis, vol 1. EPA 823-R-93-002. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. USEPA (1997) Mercury study report to congress. EPA-452/R-97-003. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. USEPA (2001) Water quality criterion for the protection of human health: methylmercury. EPA-823-R-01-001. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. USEPA (2009a) National listing of fish advisories. EPA-823-F-09-007. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. USEPA (2009b) Methodology for deriving ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human health (2000): technical support document. Development of site-specific bioaccumulation factors, vol 3. EPA-822-R-09-008. USEPA,Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Vallazza JM, Deller JW, Lynch WE Jr, Johnson DL (1994) Seasonal behavior, movements, and habitat preferences of hybrid striped bass and sauger in the Ohio River. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Final Report F-69-P. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, OHGoogle Scholar
  40. Walters DM, Blocksom KA, Lazorchak JM, Jicha T, Angradi TR, Bolgrien D (2010) Mercury contamination in fish in mid-continent great rivers of the United States: importance of species traits and environmental factors. Environ Sci Technol 44:2947–2953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. White D, Johnston K, Miller M (2005) Ohio River Basin. In: Benke AC, Cushing CE (eds) Rivers of North America. Elsevier Academic, Burlington, MA, pp 375–424Google Scholar
  42. Wiener JG, Knights BC, Sandheinrich MB, Jeremiason JD, Brigham ME, Engstrom DR, Woodruff LG, Cannon WF, Balogh SJ (2006) Mercury in soils, lakes, and fish in Voyageurs National Park (Minnesota): importance of atmospheric deposition and ecosystem factors. Environ Sci Technol 40:6261–6268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Young SP, Isely IJ (2007) Diel behavior of adult striped bass using tailwater habitat as summer refuge. Trans Am Fish Soc 136:1104–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation CommissionCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations