Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 168, Issue 1–4, pp 385–396 | Cite as

Mercury accumulation in caged Corbicula: rate of uptake and seasonal variation

Article

Abstract

The uptake and seasonal fluctuations of total mercury were followed in caged and uncaged Asiatic clams, Corbicula fluminea, over a 1-year period in South River, Virginia. Mercury was rapidly accumulated in clams transplanted from a nominally uncontaminated site into cages on the contaminated South River, reaching 0.99 μg g − 1 dry mass within the first month. Resident clams moved to cages had higher mercury contents after the first month (2.04 μg g − 1 dry mass) and at all subsequent times in the study. Large monthly fluctuations in mercury were noted for both resident caged and transplant caged clams with a notable peak occurring in early spring (4.31 μg g − 1 dry mass in resident caged clams). Tissue mass of caged clams steadily increased through the winter and early spring. Adjustment of mercury concentrations for tissue mass changes indicated that the changes in mercury contents were primarily due to uptake/release rather than changes in tissue mass (concentration/dilution). The present study demonstrates the utility of using caged Corbicula as mercury biomonitors and illustrates the importance of accounting for large, short-term changes of mercury content in Corbicula when designing long-term biomonitoring studies.

Keywords

Corbicula Mercury Biomonitoring Bivalve 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achard, M., Baudrimont, M., Boudou, A., & Bourdineaud, J. P. (2004). Induction of a multixenobiotic resistance protein (MXR) in the Asiatic clam Corbicula fluminea after heavy metals exposure. Aquatic Toxicology, 67, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckvar, N., Field, J., Salazar, S., & Holt, R. (1996). Contaminants in aquatic habitats at hazardous waste sites: Mercury. NOAA technical memorandum NOS ORCA 100. Seattle: Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, p. 74.Google Scholar
  3. Beckvar, N., Salazar, S., Salazar, M., & Finkelstein, K. (2000). An in situ assessment of mercury contamination in the Sudbury River, Massachusetts, using transplanted freshwater mussels (Elliptio complanata). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 47, 1103–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boening, D. W. (2000). Ecological effects, transport and fate of mercury: A general review. Chemosphere, 40, 1335–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter, L. J. (1977). Chemical plants leave unexpected legacy for two Virginia Rivers. Science, 198, 1015–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cataldo, D. H., Boltovskoy, D., Stripkeikis, J., & Pose, M. (2001). Condition index and growth rates of field caged Corbicula fluminea (Bivalvia) as biomarkers of pollution gradients in the Parana river delta (Argentina). Aquatic Ecosystem Health Management, 4, 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chase, M. E., Jones, S. H., Hennigar, P., Sowles, J., Harding, G. C. H., Freeman, K., et al. (2001). Gulfwatch: Monitoring spatial and temporal patterns of trace metal and organic contaminants in the Gulf of Maine (1991–1997) with the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis L. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42, 491–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chin, T.-S., & Chan, H.-C. (1993). Bioaccumulation and distribution of mercury in the hard clam, Meretrix lusoria (Bivalvia: Veneidae). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C, 106, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Claisse, D., Cossa, D., Bretaudeau-Sanjuan, J., Touchard, G., & Bombled, B. (2001). Methylmercury in molluscs along the French coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42, 329–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, R. R. H., Dresler, P. V., Phillips, E. J. P., & Cory, R. L. (1984). The effect of the Asiatic clam on phytoplankton of the Potomac River. Limnology and Oceanography, 29, 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cristol, D. A., Brasso, R. L., Condon, A. M., Fovargue, R. E., Friedman, S. L., Hallinger, K. K., et al. (2007). The movement of aquatic mercury through terrestrial food webs. Science, 320, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham, P. A., & Tripp, M. R. (1975). Factors affecting the accumulation and removal of mercury from tissues of the American oyster Crassotrea virginica. Marine Biology, 31, 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doherty, F. G. (1990). The Asiatic clam, Corbicula spp., as a biological monitor in freshwater environments. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 15, 143–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foe, C., & Knight, A. W. (1985). The effect of phytoplankton and suspended sediment on the growth of Corbicula fluminea (Bivalvia). Hydrobiologia, 127, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fowler, S. W., Heyraud, M., & La Rosa, J. (1978). Factor affecting methyl and inorganic mercury dynamic in mussels and shrimps. Marine Biology, 46, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gagnon, C., & Fisher, N. S. (1997). Bioavailability of sediment-bound methyl and inorganic mercury to a marine bivalve. Environmental Science and Technology, 31, 993–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunther, A. J., Davis, J. A., Hardin, D. D., Gold, J., Bell, D., Crick, J. R., et al. (1999). Long-term bioaccumulation monitoring with transplanted bivalves in the San Francisco estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 38, 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Inza, B., Ribeyre, F., Maury-Brachet, R., & Boudou, A. (1997). Tissue distribution of inorganic mercury, methylmercury and cadmium in the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) in relation to the contamination levels of the water column and sediment. Chemosphere, 35, 2817–2836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inza, B., Ribeyre, F., & Boudou, A. (1998). Dynamics of cadmium and mercury compounds (inorganic mercury and methylmercury): Uptake and depuration in Corbicula fluminea. Effects of temperature and pH. Aquatic Toxicology, 43, 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klerks, P. L., & Weis, J. S. (1987). Genetic adaptation to heavy metals in aquatic organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution, 45, 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Malley, D. F., Stewart, A. R., & Hall, B. D. (1996). Uptake of methyl mercury by the floater mussel, Pyganodon grandis (Bivalvia, Unionidae), caged in a flooded wetland. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 15, 928–936.Google Scholar
  22. Odzak, N., Zvonaric, T., Kljakovic Gaspic, Z., Horvat, M., & Baric, A. (2000). Biomonitoring of mercury in the Kastela Bay using transplanted mussels. Science of the Total Environment, 261, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paller, M. H., Jagoe, C. H., Bennett, H., Brant, H. A., & Bowers, J. A. (2004). Influence of methylmercury from tributary streams on mercury levels in Savannah River Asiatic clams. Science of the Total Environment, 325, 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pan, J.-P., & Wang, W.-X. (2004). Uptake of Hg(II) and methylmercury by the green mussel Perna viridis under different organic carbon conditions. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 276, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Riisgård, H. U., Kiørboe, T., Møhlenberg, F., Drabæk, I., & Pheiffer Madsen, P. (1985). Accumulation, elimination and chemical speciation of mercury in the bivalves Mytilus edulis and Macoma balthica. Marine Biology, 86, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Riisgård, H. U., & Hansen, S. (1990). Biomagnification of mercury in a marine grazing food-chain algal cells Phaeodactylum tricornutum, mussels Mytilus edulis and flounders Platichthys flesus studied by means of a stepwise reduction-CVAA method. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 62, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robinson, W. E., Ryan, D. K., & Wallace, G. T. (1993). Gut contents: A significant contaminant of Mytilus edulis whole body metal concentrations. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 25, 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roditi, H. A., Fisher, N. S., & Sanudo-Wilhelmy, S. A. (2002). Uptake of dissolved organic carbon and trace elements by zebra mussels. Nature, 407, 78–80.Google Scholar
  29. Salazar, M. H., & Salazar, S. M. (1996). Using caged bivalves for environmental effects monitoring at pulp and paper mills: Rationale and historical perspective. In J. S. Goudey, M. D. Treissman, & A. J. Nimmi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd aquatic toxicity workshop: Tools for ecological risk assessment (pp. 129–136).Google Scholar
  30. Salazar, M. H., & Salazar, S. M. (1998). Using caged bivalves as part of an exposure–dose–response triad to support integrated risk assessment strategy. In A. de Peyster, & K. Day (Eds.), Proceedings—ecological risk assessment: A meeting of policy and science (pp. 167–192). Pensacola: SETAC.Google Scholar
  31. Silverman, H., Achberger, E. C., Lynn, J. C., & Dietz, T. H. (1995). Filtration and utilization of laboratory-cultured bacteria by Dreissena polymorpha, Corbicula fluminea, and Carunculina texasensis. Biological Bulletin, 189, 308–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vidal, M.-L., Bassères, A., & Narbonne, J.-F. (2002). Seasonal variations of pollution biomarkers in two populations of Corbicula fluminea (Müller). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C, 131, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) (2003). Department of South River Mercury Project. Retrieved January 24, 2009 from http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/fishtissue/pdf/mercury2002.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyEastern Mennonite UniversityHarrisonburgUSA

Personalised recommendations