Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of two sorbents applied to mercury-contaminated river sediments on bioaccumulation in and detrital processing by Hyalella azteca

  • Sediments, Sec 5 • Sediment Management • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Soils and Sediments Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Mercury (Hg) released into the environment often accumulates to high concentrations in sediments, creating a potential risk to aquatic wildlife. The in situ application of sorbents such as activated carbon is one promising option for reducing the bioavailability of sediment-bound Hg.

Materials and methods

The present study evaluates the influence of contact time of two sorbents (Sedimite® and Cowboy® biochar) applied to sediment taken downstream and upstream of a historic Hg discharge into the South River (Virginia, USA) on bioaccumulation in and detrital processing by Hyalella azteca.

Results and discussion

Hg bioaccumulation decreased when sediments were mixed with both sorbents, but their respective efficiency depended on their initial particle size and contact time. Hyalella showed a slight increase in detrital processing and substantial increase in Hg bioaccumulation when exposed to contaminated relative to uncontaminated sediment. Sedimite® adversely affected detrital processing but reduced Hg bioaccumulation. In contrast, Cowboy® biochar did not impact detrital processing but appeared to decrease bioaccumulation less effectively than Sedimite®. This difference in sorbent efficacy lessened with duration. It remains unclear whether the Sedimite®-induced reduction in detrital processing is substantially worse than that associated with natural fines settling on detritus in depositional reaches of rivers.

Conclusions

The differences in efficacy of the two materials in reducing bioavailability suggest the need for further studies addressing both the mechanisms causing the reduction in Hg bioavailability as well as associated ecological risks prior to field application of these materials at the larger scale.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acosta R, Prat N (2011) Trophic ecology of Hyalella sp (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in a high Andes headwater river with travertine deposits. Int Rev Hydrobiol 96:274–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allard B, Arsenie I (1991) Abiotic reduction of mercury by humic substances in aquatic systems—an important process for the mercury cycle. Water Air Soil Pollut 56:457–464

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ (ed) (2000) Statistics with confidence, 2nd edn. BMJ Books, London

  • Baird DJ, Brown SS, Lagadic L, Liess M, Maltby L, Moreira-Santos M, Schulz R, Scott GI (2007) In situ-based effects measures: determining the ecological relevance of measured responses. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:259–267

  • Bergeron CM, Husak JF, Unrine JM, Romanek CS, Hopkins WA (2007) Influence of feeding ecology on blood mercury concentrations in four species of turtles. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:1733–1741

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley, West Sussex

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bousfield EI (1958) Fresh-water amphipod crustaceans of glaciated North America. Can Field Nat 72:55–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundschuh M, Zubrod JP, Seitz F, Newman MC, Schulz R (2011a) Mercury-contaminated sediments affect amphipod feeding. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 60:437–443

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bundschuh M, Zubrod JP, Seitz F, Stang C, Schulz R (2011b) Ecotoxicological evaluation of three tertiary wastewater treatment methods. J Hazard Mater 192:772–778

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bundschuh M, Zubrod JP, Schulz R (2011c) The functional and physiological status of Gammarus fossarum (Crustacea; Amphipoda) exposed to secondary treated wastewater. Environ Pollut 159:244–249

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carter LJ (1977) Chemical plants leave unexpected legacy for two Virginia Rivers. Science 198:1015–1020

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cheah S, Malone SC, Feik CJ (2014) Speciation of sulfur in biochar produced from pyrolysis and gasification of oak and corn stover. Environ Sci Technol 48:8474–8480

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings G (2012) Understanding the new statistics—effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Routledge/Taylor & Francis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dangles O, Gessner MO, Guerold F, Chauvet E (2004) Impacts of stream acidification on litter breakdown: implications for assessing ecosystem functioning. J Appl Ecol 41:365–378

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Di Stefano J (2004) A confidence interval approach to data analysis. For Ecol Manag 187:173–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher SG, Likens GE (1973) Energy flow in Bear Brook, New Hampshire: an integrative approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecol Monogr 43:421–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald WF, Clarkson TW (1991) Mercury and monomethylmercury—present and future concerns. Environ Health Perspect 96:159–166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmour CC et al (2013) Activated carbon mitigates mercury and methylmercury bioavailability in contaminated sediments. Environ Sci Technol 47:13001–13010

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn T, Schulz R (2007) Indirect effects of antibiotics in the aquatic environment: a laboratory study on detritivore food selection behavior. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 13:535–542

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hargrave BT (1970) The utilization of benthic microflora by Hyalella azteca (Amphipoda). J Anim Ecol 39:427–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hylander LD, Goodsite ME (2006) Environmental costs of mercury pollution. Sci Total Environ 368:352–370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen EML, Beckingham BA (2013) Biological responses to activated carbon amendments in sediment remediation. Environ Sci Technol 47:7595–7607

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kline RB (2004) Beyond significance testing: reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, ISBN: 978-1-59147-118-9, pp 325

  • Kraus JM, Schmidt TS, Walters DM, Wanty RB, Zuellig RE, Wolf RE (2014) Cross-ecosystem impacts of stream pollution reduce resource and contaminant flux to riparian food webs. Ecol Appl 24:235–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupryianchyk D, Reichman EP, Rakowska MI, Peeters ETHM, Grotenhuis JTC, Koelmans AA (2011) Ecotoxicological effects of activated carbon amendments on macroinvertebrates in nonpolluted and polluted sediments. Environ Sci Technol 45:8567–8574

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maltby L, Clayton SA, Yu H, McLoughlin N, Wood RM, Yin D (2000) Using single-species toxicity tests, community-level response and toxicity identification evaluations to investigate effluent impacts. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:151–157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maltby L, Clayton SA, Wood RM, McLoughlin N (2002) Evaluation of the Gammarus pulex in situ feeding assay as a biomonitor of water quality: robustness, responsiveness and relevance. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:361–368

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mergler D, Anderson HA, Hing Man Chan L, Mahaffey KR, Murray M, Sakamoto M, Stern AH (2007) Methylmercury exposure and health effects in humans: a worldwide concern. Ambio 36:3–11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moore DW, Farrar JD (1996) Effect of growth on reproduction in the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca (Saussure). Hydrobiologia 328:127–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris JM, Collyard SA, Meyer JS (2003) Effects of chronic copper exposure on the nutritional composition of Hyalella azteca. Aquat Toxicol 63:197–206

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Newman MC (2008) “What exactly are you inferring?” A closer look at hypothesis testing. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1013–1019

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pant D, Singh P (2014) Pollution due to hazardous glass waste. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:2414–2436

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sanpera-Calbet I, Chauvet E, Richardson JS (2012) Fine sediment on leaves: shredder removal of sediment does not enhance fungal colonisation. Aquat Sci 74:527–538

    Article  CAS  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 36:12–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tom KR, Newman MC, Schmerfeld J (2010) Modeling mercury biomagnification (South River, Virginia, USA) to inform river management decision making. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:1013–1020

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • US-EPA (1996) OPPTS 850.1735. Whole sediment acute toxicity invertebrates, freshwater. Ecological effects test guidelines

  • Wallace JB, Eggert SL (1997) Multiple trophic links of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science 277:102–105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Q, Kim D, Dionysiou DD, Sorial GA, Timberlake D (2004) Sources and remediation for mercury contamination in aquatic systems—a literature review. Environ Pollut 131:323–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

MC Newman is currently the A. Marshall Acuff Jr. Professor of Marine Science and received funding by DuPont for this study. The authors thank J Shields (Virginia Institute of Marine Science) who provided control temperature facilities for conducting the assays. L Liang of CEBAM provided excellent methylmercury analyses. R.R. Rosenfeldt commented on an earlier version of this manuscript. JP Zubrod was funded through a scholarship of the German Federal Environmental Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden

    Mirco Bundschuh

  2. Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Koblenz-Landau, 76829, Landau, Germany

    Mirco Bundschuh, Jochen P. Zubrod & Frank Seitz

  3. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, 23062, USA

    Michael C. Newman

Authors
  1. Mirco Bundschuh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jochen P. Zubrod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Seitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael C. Newman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mirco Bundschuh or Michael C. Newman.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Sabine Elisabeth Apitz

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 31 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 139 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 132 kb)

ESM 4

(DOCX 134 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bundschuh, M., Zubrod, J.P., Seitz, F. et al. Effects of two sorbents applied to mercury-contaminated river sediments on bioaccumulation in and detrital processing by Hyalella azteca . J Soils Sediments 15, 1265–1274 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-015-1100-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-015-1100-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation