Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Methylmercury and methane production potentials in North Carolina Piedmont stream sediments

  • Published:
Biogeochemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Methylated mercury (MeHg) can be produced by all microbes possessing the genes hgcA and hgcB, which can include sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB), iron-reducing bacteria (FeRB), methane-producing archaea (MPA), and other anaerobic microbes. These microbial groups compete for substrates, including hydrogen and acetate. When sulfate is in excess, SRB can outcompete other anaerobic microbes. However, low concentrations of sulfate, which often occur in stream sediments, are thought to reduce the relative importance of SRB. Although SRB are regarded as the primary contributors of MeHg in many aquatic environments, their significance may not be universal, and stream sediments are poorly studied with respect to microbial Hg methylation. We evaluated suppression of methanogenesis by SRB and the potential contributions from SRB, MPA and other MeHg producing microbes (including FeRB) to the production of MeHg in stream sediments from the North Carolina Piedmont region. Lower methanogenesis rates were observed when SRB were not inhibited, however, application of a sulfate-reduction inhibitor stimulated methanogenesis. Greater MeHg production occurred when SRB were active. Other MeHg producing microbes (i.e., FeRB) contributed significantly less MeHg production than SRB. MPA produced MeHg in negligible amounts. Our results suggest that SRB are responsible for the majority of MeHg production and suppress methanogenesis in mid-order stream sediments, similar to other freshwater sediments. Further investigation is needed to evaluate the generality of these findings to streams in other regions, and to determine the mechanisms regulating sulfate and electron acceptor availability and other potential factors governing Hg methylation and methane production in stream sediments.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AFDM:

Ash free dry mass

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

BESA:

2-Bromoethanesulfonic acid

FeRB:

Iron-reducing bacteria

GC-FID:

Gas chromatography flame ionization detection

GC-ICP-MS:

Gas chromatography inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry

ICP-AES:

Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry

ICP-MS:

Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry

MeHg:

Methylmercury

MPA:

Methane-producing archaea

SRB:

Sulfate-reducing bacteria

References

  • Avramescu M-L, Yumvihoze E, Hintelmann H, Ridal J, Fortin D, Lean DRS (2011) Biogeochemical factors influencing net mercury methylation in contaminated freshwater sediments from the St. Lawrence River in Cornwall, Ontario, Canada. Sci Total Environ 409(5):968–978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.11.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker MA, Dahm CN, Valett HM (1999) Acetate retention and metabolism in the hyporheic zone of a mountain stream. Limnol Oceanogr 44(6):1530–1539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker MA, Dahm CN, Valett HM (2000) Anoxia, anaerobic metabolism biogeochemistry of the stream water–ground water interface. In: Jones JB, Muholland PJ (eds) Streams and ground waters, 1st edn. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastviken D, Tranvik LJ, Downing JA, Crill PM, Enrich-Prast A (2011) Freshwater methane emissions offset the continental carbon sink. Science 331(6013):50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biswas K, Woodards N, Xu H, Barton L (2009) Reduction of molybdate by sulfate-reducing bacteria. Biometals 22:131–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom NS, Colman JA, Barber L (1997) Artifact formation of methyl mercury during aqueous distillation and alternative techniques for the extraction of methyl mercury from environmental samples. Fresen J Anal Chem 358(3):371–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boucher O, Friedlingstein P, Collins B, Shine KP (2009) The indirect global warming potential and global temperature change potential due to methane oxidation. Environ Res Lett 4(4):044007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouwer EJ, McCarty PL (1983) Effects of 2-bromoethanesulfonic acid and 2-chloroethanesulfonic acid on acetate utilization in a continuous-flow methanogenic fixed-film column. Appl Environ Microb 45(4):1408–1410

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridou R, Monperrus M, Gonzalez PR, Guyoneaud R, Amouroux D (2011) Simultaneous determination of mercury methylation and demethylation capacities of various sulfate-reducing bacteria using species-specific isotopic tracers. Environ Toxicol Chem 30(2):337–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celo V, Lean DRS, Scott SL (2006) Abiotic methylation of mercury in the aquatic environment. The Sci Total Environ 368(1):126–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chasar LC, Scudder BC, Stewart AR, Bell AH, Aiken GR (2009) Mercury cycling in stream ecosystems. 3. Trophic dynamics and methylmercury bioaccumulation. Environ Sci Technol 43(8):2733–2739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleckner LB, Gilmour CC, Hurley JP, Krabbenhoft DP (1999) Mercury methylation in periphyton of the Florida Everglades. Limnol Oceanogr 44(7):1815–1825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compeau G, Bartha R (1985) Sulfate-reducing bacteria: principal methylators of mercury in anoxic estuarine sediment. Appl Environ Microb 50(2):498–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Conover WJ, Iman RL (1981) Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am Stat 35(3):124–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Correia RRS, de Oliveira DCM, Guimarães JRD (2013) Mercury methylation in mesocosms with and without the aquatic macrophyte Eichhornia crassipes (mart.) Solms. Ecotoxicol Envrion Safe 96:124–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cypionka H (2000) Oxygen respiration by Desulfovibrio species 1. Ann Rev Microbiol 54(1):827–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desrosiers M, Planas D, Mucci A (2006) Mercury methylation in the epilithon of boreal shield aquatic ecosystems. Environ Sci Technol 40:1540–1546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran R, Ranchou-Peyruse M, Menuet V, Monperrus M, Bareille G, Goñi MS, do Salva JC, Amouroux D, Guyoneaud R, Donard OFX, Caumette P (2008) Mercury methylation by a microbial community from sediments of the Adour Estuary (Bay of Biscay, France). Environ Pollut 156(3):951–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenchel T, Finlay BJ (1995) Ecology and evolution in anoxic worlds. Microbial mats. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming EJ, Mack EE, Green PG, Nelson DC (2006) Mercury methylation from unexpected sources: molybdate-inhibited freshwater sediments and an iron-reducing bacterium. Appl Environ Microb 72(1):457–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmour CC, Henry EA, Mitchell R (1992) Sulfate stimulation of mercury methylation in freshwater sediments. Environ Sci Technol 26(11):2281–2287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmour CC, Elias DA, Kucken AM, Brown SD, Palumbo AV, Schadt CW, Wall JD (2011) Sulfate-reducing bacterium desulfovibrio desulfuricans ND132 as a model for understanding bacterial mercury methylation. Appl Environ Microbiol 77(12):3938–3951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmour CC, Podar M, Bullock AL, Graham AM, Brown SD, Somenahally AC, Elias D (2013) Mercury methylation by novel microorganisms from new environments. Environ Sci Technol 47(20):11810–11820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm NB, Fisher SG (1984) Exchange between interstitial and surface water: implications for stream metabolism and nutrient cycling. Hydrobiologia 111(3):219–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha E, Basu N, Bose-O’Reilly S, Dórea JG, McSorley E, Sakamoto M, Chan HM (2017) Current progress on understanding the impact of mercury on human health. Environ Res 152:419–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamelin S, Amyot M, Barkay T, Wang Y, Planas D (2011) Methanogens: principal methylators of mercury in lake periphyton. Environ Sci Technol 45(18):7693–7700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammerschmidt C, Fitzgerald W (2004) Geochemical controls on the production and distribution of methylmercury in near-shore marine sediments. Environ Sci Technol 38(5):1487–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon SM, King JK, Gladden JB, Newman LA (2007) Using sulfate-amended sediment slurry batch reactors to evaluate mercury methylation. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52(3):326–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintelmann H, Evans RD (1997) Application of stable isotopes in environmental tracer studies: measurement of monomethylmercury (CH3Hg+) by isotope dilution ICP-MS and detection of species transformation. Fresen J Anal Chem 358(3):378–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintelmann H, Keppel-Jones K, Evans D (2000) Constants of mercury methylation and demethylation rates in sediments and comparison of tracer and ambient mercury availability. Environ Toxicol Chem 19(9):2204–2211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hlaváčová E, Rulík M, Čáp L (2005) Anaerobic microbial metabolism in hyporheic sediment of a gravel bar in a small lowland stream. River Res Appl 21(9):1003–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerin EJ, Gilmour CC, Roden E, Suzuki MT, Coates JD, Mason RP (2006) Mercury methylation by dissimilatory iron-reducing bacteria. Appl Environ Microb 72(12):7919–7921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King JK, Kostka JE, Frischer ME, Saunders FM, Jahnke RA (2001) A quantitative relationship that remonstrates mercury methylation rates in marine sediments are based on the community composition and activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Environ Sci Technol 35(12):2491–2496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Whitman WB (2008) Metabolic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of the methanogenic archaea. Ann NY Acad Sci 1125:171–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lofton DD, Whalen SC, Hershey AE (2014) Effect of temperature on methane dynamics and evaluation of methane oxidation kinetics in shallow Arctic Alaskan lakes. Hydrobiologia 721(1):209–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovley DR, Klug M (1983) Sulfate reducers can outcompete methanogens at freshwater sulfate concentrations. Appl Environ Microb 45(1):187–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovley DR, Klug MJ (1986) Model for the distribution of sulfate reduction and methanogenesis in freshwater sediments. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 50:11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovley DR, Phillips EJP (1986) Availability of ferric iron for microbial reduction in bottom sediments of the freshwater tidal Potomac River. Appl Environ Microb 52(4):751–757

    Google Scholar 

  • Maerki M, Müller B, Dinkel C, Wehrli B (2009) Mineralization pathways in lake sediments with different oxygen and organic carbon supply. Limnol Oceanogr 54(2):428–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland PJ, Marzolf ER, Webster JR, Hart DR, Hendricks SP (1997) Evidence that hyporheic zones increase heterotrophic metabolism and phosphorus uptake in forest streams. Limnol Oceanogr 42(3):443–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muyzer G, Stams AJM (2008) The ecology and biotechnology of sulphate-reducing bacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol 6(6):441–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nogaro G, Datry T, Mermillod-Blondin F, Descloux S, Montuelle B (2010) Influence of streambed sediment clogging on microbial processes in the hyporheic zone. Freshw Biol 55(6):1288–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks JM, Johs A, Podar M, Bridou R, Hurt RA, Smith SD, Tomanicek SJ, Qian Y, Brown SD, Brandt CC, Palumbo AV, Smith JC, Wall JD, Elias DA, Liang L (2013) The genetic basis for bacterial mercury methylation. Science 339(6125):1332–1335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall PM, Fimmen R, Lal V, Darlington R (2013) In-situ subaqueous capping of mercury-contaminated sediments in a fresh-water aquatic system, part I-Bench-scale microcosm study to assess methylmercury production. Environ Res 125:30–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roden EE, Wetzel RG (2003) Competition between Fe(III)-reducing and methanogenic bacteria for acetate in iron-rich freshwater sediments. Microb Ecol 45(3):252–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer JK, Yagi J, Reinfelder JR, Cardona T, Ellickson KM, Tel-Or S, Barkay T (2004) Role of the bacterial organomercury lyase (MerB) in controlling methylmercury accumulation in mercury-contaminated natural waters. Environ Sci Technol 38(16):4304–4311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuhammer AM, Meyer MW, Sandheinrich MB, Murray MW (2007) Effects of environmental methylmercury on the health of wild birds, mammals, and fish. Ambio 36:12–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuhammer A, Braune B, Chan HM, Frouin H, Krey A, Letcher R, Loseto L, Noël M, Ostertag S, Ross P, Wayland M (2015) Recent progress on our understanding of the biological effects of mercury in fish and wildlife in the Canadian Arctic. Sci Total Eviron 509:91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segarra KEA, Schubotz F, Samarkin V, Yoshinaga MY, Hinrichs K-U, Joye SB (2015) High rates of anaerobic methane oxidation in freshwater wetlands reduce potential atmospheric methane emissions. Nat Commun 6:7477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52(3):591–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikora FJ, Kissel DE (2014) Soil pH. In: Sikora FJ, Moore KP (ed) Soil test methods from the Southeastern United States. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin, no. 419, pp. 48–53

  • Stams AJM, OudeElferink SJWH, Westermann P (2003) Metabolic interactions between methanogenic consortia and anaerobic respiring bacteria. In: Scheper T (ed) Biomethanation, vol 2B. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–56

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley EH, Casson NJ, Christel ST, Crawford JT, Loken LC, Oliver SK (2016) The ecology of methane in streams and rivers: patterns, controls, and global significance. Ecol Monogr 86(2):146–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takii S, Fukui M (1991) relative importance of methanogenesis, in sediments sulfate reduction and denitrification of the Lowe Tama River. Microb Ecol 6(1):9–17

    Google Scholar 

  • US-EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (1998) Method 1630, methyl mercury in water by distillation, aqueous ethylation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry. US-EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • US-EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2002a) Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater and marine organisms, 5th edn. US-EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • US-EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2002b) Method 1631, Revision E: mercury in water by oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry. US-EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Whalen SC (2005) Natural wetlands and the atmosphere. Environ Eng Sci 22(1):73–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman WB, Bowen TL, Boone DR (2006) The methanogenic bacteria. In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer K-H, Stackebrandt E (eds) The Prokaryotes, vol 3, 3rd edn. Springer, New York, pp 165–207

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yu R-Q, Flanders JR, Mack EE, Turner R, Mirza MB, Barkay T (2012) Contribution of coexisting sulfate and iron reducing bacteria to methylmercury production in freshwater river sediments. Environ Sci Technol 46(5):2684–2691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu R-Q, Reinfelder JR, Hines ME, Barkay T (2013) Mercury methylation by the methanogen Methanospirillum hungatei. Appl Environ Microb 79(20):6325–6330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang T, Kim B, Levard C, Reinsch BC, Lowry GV, Deshusses MA, Hsu-Kim H (2012) Methylation of mercury by bacteria exposed to dissolved, nanoparticulate, and microparticulate mercuric sulfides. Environ Sci Technol 46(13):6950–6958

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by the UNCG Biology department, the Water Resources Research Institute of the UNC System, the Julia Morton Taylor Endowment, the Southeastern Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, the John O’Brien memorial award, and the North Carolina Wildlife Federation. Thanks to Stephen Whalen and Katy Broadwater at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for the expertise and guidance with methane analysis. Also, special thanks to Angela Larsen at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro for statistical advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 321 McIver Street, Greensboro, NC, 27402, USA

    P. W. Blum, A. E. Hershey & M. T.-K. Tsui

  2. Earth & Environmental Sciences, Wright State University, 3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy, Dayton, OH, 45435-0001, USA

    C. R. Hammerschmidt & A. M. Agather

Authors
  1. P. W. Blum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. E. Hershey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. T.-K. Tsui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. R. Hammerschmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. M. Agather
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. W. Blum.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: James Sickman

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blum, P.W., Hershey, A.E., Tsui, M.TK. et al. Methylmercury and methane production potentials in North Carolina Piedmont stream sediments. Biogeochemistry 137, 181–195 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-017-0408-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-017-0408-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation