Abstract
Methods commonly used for soil sample preparation may be unsuitable for measuring Hg concentrations due to the possible loss of volatile Hg species when drying at higher temperatures. Here, the effects of freeze-drying, air drying at 25°C and oven-drying at 105°C on Hg concentrations in two soil types and three standard reference materials were tested. Two soils with different levels of Hg contamination and three reference materials were examined. A systematic decrease of Hg concentrations was observed in air-dried (24 %) and oven-dried (3 %) contaminated upland soils in comparison to freeze-dried control samples. The 105°C oven drying also led to loss of Hg from reference materials (5 %–8 % in comparison with the certified Hg concentration). Different results from the drying of sterilized reference materials and natural soils were probably related to the extent of microbiological activity, demonstrating the importance of this parameter in sample preparation for Hg analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baeyens W, Monteny F, Leermakers M, Bouillon S (2003) Evalution of sequential extractions on dry and wet sediments. Anal Bioanal Chem 376(6):890–901
Barkay T, Miller SM, Summers AO (2003) Bacterial mercury resistance from atoms to ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol Rev 27:355–384
Biester H, Nehrke G (1997) Quantification of mercury in soils and sediments—acid digestion versus pyrolysis. J Anal Chem 358:446–452
Brauer G (1996) Handbuch der Präparativen Anorganischen Chemie BAND 1–3. F. Enke Verlag, Berlin
Cragin JH, Foley BT (1985) Sample digestion and drying techniques for optimal recovery of mercury from soils and sediments. Special Report 85-16 submitted to US Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
de Groot AJ, Zschuppe KH (1981) Contribution to the standardization of the methods of analysis for heavy metals in sediments. Rapp P-v Reun Cons Int Explor Mer 181:111–122
Ericksen JA, Gustin MS, Xin M, Weisberg PJ, Fernandez GCJ (2006) Air-soil exchange of mercury from background soils in the United States. Sci Total Environ 366:851–863
Ettler V, Rohovec J, Navrátil T, Mihaljevič M (2007) Mercury distribution in soil profiles polluted by lead smelting. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 78:12–16
Fernández-Martínez R, Loredo J, Ordóñez A, Rucandio MI (2005) Distribution and mobility of mercury in soils from an old mining area in Mieres, Asturias (Spain). Sci Total Environ 346:200–212
Fritsche J, Obrist D, Alewell C (2008) Evidence of microbial control of Hg0 emissions from uncontaminated terrestrial soils. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:200–209
Grigal D (2003) Mercury sequestration in forests and peatlands: a review. J Environ Qual 32:393–405
Gustin MS, Rasmussen P, Edwards G, Schroeder W, Kemp K (1999) Application of a laboratory gas exchange chamber for assessment of in situ mercury emissions. J Geophys Res Atmos 104:21873–21878
Gustin MS, Biester H, Kim SC (2002) Investigation of the light-enhanced emission of mercury from naturally enriched substrates. Atmos Environ 36:3241–3254
Higueras P, Oyarzun R, Biester H, Lillo J, Lorenzo S (2003) A first insight into mercury distribution and speciation in soils from the Almadén mining district, Spain. J Geochem Explor 80:95–104
Hojdová M, Navrátil T, Rohovec J, Penížek V, Grygar T (2009) Mercury distribution and speciation in soils affected by historic mercury mining. Water Air Soil Pollut 200:89–99
Huang JH, Ilgen G (2006) Factors affecting arsenic speciation in environmental samples: sample drying and storage. Int J Environ Anal Chem 86(5):347–358
Landa ER (1978) Microbial aspects of the volatile loss of applied mercury (II) from soils. J Environ Qual 7:84–86
Lasorsa BK, Gill GA, Horvat M (2012) Analytical methods for measuring mercury in water, sediment, and biota. In: Bank M (ed) Mercury in the environment: pattern and process. University of California, Berkeley Press, Berkeley, pp 27–54
Morita M, Yoshinage J, Edmonds JS (1998) The determination of mercury species in environmental and biological samples. Pure Appl Chem 70:1585–1615
Murdoch A, Bourbonniere RA (1991) Sediment preservation, processing, and storage. In: Mudroch A, MacKnight SA (eds) Handbook of techniques for aquatic sediments sampling. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 131–169
Navrátil T, Shanley J, Rohovec J, Hojdová M, Penížek V, Buchtová J (2014) Distribution and pools of mercury in czech forest soils. Water Air Soil Pollut 225:1829
Pannu R (2012) Quantifying mercury reduction kinetics in soils. Dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon
Roos-Barraclough F, Givelet N, Martinez-Cortizas A, Goodsite ME, Biester H, Shotyk W (2002) An analytical protocol for the determination of total mercury concentrations in solid peat samples. Sci Total Environ 292:129–139
Schlüter K (2000) Review: evaporation of mercury from soils. An integration and synthesis of current knowledge. Environ Geol 39:249–271
Schuster E (1991) The behavior of mercury in the soil with special emphasis on complexation and adsorption processes—a review of the literature. Water Air Soil Pollut 56:667–680
Schwesig D, Ilgen G, Matzner E (1999) Mercury and methylmercury in upland and wetland acid forest soils of a watershed in NE-Bavaria, Germany. Water Air Soil Pollut 113:141–153
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the grant of the Czech Science Foundation GAČR, Nos. 526/09/P404, P210/11/1369 and by the Institute of Geology of ASCR, Project No. RVO 67958531. We thank Dr. Pavel Krám, Czech Geological Survey, for help with sampling. Dr. David Hardekopf for careful reading and corrections of the manuscript final version.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hojdová, M., Rohovec, J., Chrastný, V. et al. The Influence of Sample Drying Procedures on Mercury Concentrations Analyzed in Soils. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 94, 570–576 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-015-1521-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-015-1521-9