Advertisement

Soil Mercury Accumulation and Emissions in a Bamboo Forest in a Compact Fluorescent Lamp Manufacturing Area

  • Chan Zhang
  • Shengchun Wu
  • Jin Zhang
  • Peter Christie
  • Minghung Wong
  • Peng LiangEmail author
Article

Abstract

The role of bamboo forest in soil Hg accumulation and emissions was evaluated by analyzing Hg concentration in soil and plant samples as well as Hg flux between soil and air. THg concentrations in soil samples ranged widely from 28.5 to 860 ng g−1 with a mean value of 153 ± 17.3 ng g−1. Methylmercury concentrations in soil samples from forest soil (FS, 0.94 ± 0.20 ng g−1) were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than from bare soil (BS, 0.54 ± 0.07 ng g−1). The mean foliar THg concentration (178 ± 16.8 ng g−1) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than those in branches (63.1 ± 7.27 ng g−1) and roots (73.1 ± 16.9 ng g−1), indicating that the major source of Hg in bamboo might be from air deposition. Hg flux from FS (25.6 ng m−2 h−1) was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than that from BS (32.2 ng m−2 h−1). The annual decline in Hg emissions due to the presence of the bamboo forest may reach 6.94 kg.

Keywords

Bamboo forest Plant Hg Soil Hg flux Soil methylmercury Soil total Hg 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 21577130, 21677131), and National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (Grant No. 2015BAC05B05-03) are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Bash JO, Miller DR (2009) Growing season total gaseous mercury (TGM) flux measurements over an Acer rubrum L. stand. Atmos Environ 43:5953–5961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloom N, Fitzgerald WF (1988) Determination of volatile mercury species at the picogram level by low-temperature gas chromatography with cold-vapour atomic fluorescence detection. Anal Chim Acta 208:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. FAO (The Food and Agriculture Organization) (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United NationsGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferrara R, Mazzolai B (1998) A dynamic flux chamber to measure mercury emission from aquatic systems. Sci Total Environ 215:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitzgerald WF, Engstrom DR, Mason RP, Nater EA (1998) The case for atmospheric mercury contamination in remote areas. Environ Sci Technol 32:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fu X, Feng XB, Zhu W, Rothenberg S, Yao H, Zhang H (2010) Elevated atmospheric deposition and dynamics of mercury in a remote upland forest of southwestern China. Environ Pollut 158:2324–2333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gillis A, Miller DR (2000) Some potential errors in the measurement of mercury gas exchange at the soil surface using a dynamic flux chamber. Sci Total Environ 260:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gustin MS, Taylor GE, Maxey RA (1997) Effect of temperature and air movement on the flux of elemental mercury from substrate to the atmosphere. J Geophys Res Atmos 102:3891–3898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jung R, Ahn YS (2017) Distribution of mercury concentrations in tree rings and surface soils adjacent to a phosphate fertilizer plant in Southern Korea. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 99:253–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klapstein SJ, O’Driscoll NJ (2018) Methylmercury biogeochemistry in freshwater ecosystems: a review focusing on DOM and photodemethylation. Bull Environ Contam Toxiocol 100:14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Laacouri A, Nater EA, Kolka RK (2013) Distribution and uptake dynamics of mercury in leaves of common deciduous tree species in Minnesota, USA. Environ Sci Technol 47:10462–10470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li P, Zhou G, Du H, Lu D, Mo L, Xu X, Shi Y, Zhou Y (2015) Current and potential carbon stocks in Moso bamboo forests in China. J Environ Manage 156:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liang P, Feng XB, Zhang C, Zhang J, Cao YC, You QZ, Leung AOW, Wong MH, Wu SC (2015) Human exposure to mercury in a compact fluorescent lamp manufacturing area: by food (rice and fish) consumption and occupational exposure. Environ Pollut 198:126–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liang P, Feng XB, You QZ, Zhang J, Cao YC, Leung AOW, Wu SC (2016) Mercury speciation, distribution, and bioaccumulation in a river catchment impacted by compact fluorescent lamp manufactures. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:10903–10910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lindberg SE, Price JL (1999) Airborne emissions of mercury from municipal landfill operations: a short-term measurement study in Florida. J Air Waste Manage 49:520–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lindberg S, Bullock R, Ebinghaus R, Engstrom D, Feng XB, Fitzgerald W, Pirrone N, Prestbo E, Seigneur C (2007) A synthesis of progress and uncertainties in attributing the sources of mercury in deposition. Ambio 36:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. López-Blanco C, Collahuazo L, Torres S, Chinchay L, Ayala D, Benítez P (2015) Mercury pollution in soils from the Yacuambi River (Ecuadorian Amazon) as a result of gold placer mining. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 95:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ma M, Wang DY, Sun RG, Huang LX (2013) Gaseous mercury emissions from subtropical forested and open field soils in a national nature reserve, southwest China. Atmos Environ 64:116–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meng B, Feng XB, Qiu GL, Liang P, Li P, Chen CX, Shang LH (2011) The process of methylmercury accumulation in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Environ Sci Technol 45:2711–2717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morton-Bermea O, Garza-Galindo R, Hernández-Álvarez E, Ordoñez-Godínez SL, Amador-Muñoz O, Beramendi-Orosco L, Miranda J, Rosas-Pérez I (2018) Atmospheric PM2.5 mercury in the metropolitan area of Mexico city. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 100:588–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Musilova J, Arvay J. Vollmannova A, Toth T, Tomas J (2016) Environmental contamination by heavy metals in region with previous mining activity. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 97:569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Obrist D (2007) Atmospheric mercury pollution due to losses of terrestrial carbon pools? Biogeochemistry 85:119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pokharel AK, Obrist D (2011) Fate of mercury in tree litter during decomposition. Biogeosciences 8:2507–2521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. SBZP (2011) Statistical Bureau of Zhejiang ProvinceGoogle Scholar
  25. Schlüter K (2000) Review: evaporation of mercury from soils. an integration and synthesis of current knowledge. Environ Geol 39:249–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Siwik EIH, Campbell LM, Mierle G (2009) Fine-scale mercury trends in temperate deciduous tree leaves from Ontario, Canada. Sci Total Environ 407:6275–6279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Song Z, Liu H, Li B, Yang X (2013) The production of phytolith-occluded carbon in China’s forests: implications to biogeochemical carbon sequestration. Glob Change Biol 19:2907–2915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. St. Louis VL, Rudd JWM, Kelly CA, Hall BD, Rolfhus KR, Scott KJ, Lindberg SE, Dong W (2001) Importance of the forest canopy to fluxes of methyl mercury and total mercury to boreal ecosystems. Environ Sci Technol 35:3089–3098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stamenkovic J, Gustin MS (2009) Nonstomatal versus stomatal uptake of atmospheric mercury. Environ Sci Technol 43:1367–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ullrich SM, Tanton TW, Abdrashitova SA (2001) Mercury in the aquatic environment: a review of factors affecting methylation. Crit Rev Env Sci Technol 31:241–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. USEPA (2001) Method 1630: methylmercury in water by distillation, aqueous ethylation, purge and trap, and CVAFS. USEPA, Washington, DC, pp 1–41Google Scholar
  32. USEPA (2002) Mercury in water by oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry (Method 1631, Revision E). USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang D, He L, Shi X, Wei S, Feng X (2006) Release flux of mercury from different environmental surfaces in Chongqing, China. Chemosphere 64:1845–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Xu J, Zhang M, Fan LZ (2007) Alleviation of occupational mercury hazards after technical modification in an energy-saving lamps plant. Occup Health Emerg Rescue 25:127–128 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  35. Zhang H, Lindberg SE, Marsik FJ, Keeler GJ (2001) Mercury air/surface exchange kinetics of background soils of the Tahquamenon river watershed in the Michigan Upper Peninsula. Water Air Soil Pollut 126:151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhou G, Meng C, Jiang P, Xu Q (2011) Review of carbon fixation in bamboo forests in China. Bot Rev 77:262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Humanities and LawZhejiang Agriculture and Forestry UniversityLin’anChina
  2. 2.School of Environmental and Resource SciencesZhejiang Agriculture and Forestry UniversityLin’anChina
  3. 3.Zhejiang Province Key Laboratory of Soil Contamination and BioremediationHangzhouChina
  4. 4.Guandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Soil and Groundwater Pollution ControlSouthern University of Science and TechnologyShenzhenChina
  5. 5.Consortium on Health, Environment, Education and Research (CHEER)The Education University of Hong KongTai PoChina

Personalised recommendations