Advertisement

Biogeochemistry

, Volume 137, Issue 1–2, pp 181–195 | Cite as

Methylmercury and methane production potentials in North Carolina Piedmont stream sediments

  • P. W. BlumEmail author
  • A. E. Hershey
  • M. T.-K. Tsui
  • C. R. Hammerschmidt
  • A. M. Agather
Article

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.

Keywords

Methanogenesis Methanogens Methylmercury Microbial ecology Streams Sulfate-reducing bacteria 

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

Notes

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.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10533_2017_408_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)

References

  1. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker MA, Dahm CN, Valett HM (1999) Acetate retention and metabolism in the hyporheic zone of a mountain stream. Limnol Oceanogr 44(6):1530–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 DiegoGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastviken D, Tranvik LJ, Downing JA, Crill PM, Enrich-Prast A (2011) Freshwater methane emissions offset the continental carbon sink. Science 331(6013):50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biswas K, Woodards N, Xu H, Barton L (2009) Reduction of molybdate by sulfate-reducing bacteria. Biometals 22:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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):371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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):044007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):1408–1410Google Scholar
  9. 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):337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Celo V, Lean DRS, Scott SL (2006) Abiotic methylation of mercury in the aquatic environment. The Sci Total Environ 368(1):126–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):2733–2739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cleckner LB, Gilmour CC, Hurley JP, Krabbenhoft DP (1999) Mercury methylation in periphyton of the Florida Everglades. Limnol Oceanogr 44(7):1815–1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Compeau G, Bartha R (1985) Sulfate-reducing bacteria: principal methylators of mercury in anoxic estuarine sediment. Appl Environ Microb 50(2):498–502Google Scholar
  14. Conover WJ, Iman RL (1981) Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am Stat 35(3):124–129Google Scholar
  15. 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 96:124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cypionka H (2000) Oxygen respiration by Desulfovibrio species 1. Ann Rev Microbiol 54(1):827–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Desrosiers M, Planas D, Mucci A (2006) Mercury methylation in the epilithon of boreal shield aquatic ecosystems. Environ Sci Technol 40:1540–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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):951–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fenchel T, Finlay BJ (1995) Ecology and evolution in anoxic worlds. Microbial mats. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 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):457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilmour CC, Henry EA, Mitchell R (1992) Sulfate stimulation of mercury methylation in freshwater sediments. Environ Sci Technol 26(11):2281–2287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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):3938–3951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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):11810–11820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grimm NB, Fisher SG (1984) Exchange between interstitial and surface water: implications for stream metabolism and nutrient cycling. Hydrobiologia 111(3):219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 152:419–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamelin S, Amyot M, Barkay T, Wang Y, Planas D (2011) Methanogens: principal methylators of mercury in lake periphyton. Environ Sci Technol 45(18):7693–7700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hammerschmidt C, Fitzgerald W (2004) Geochemical controls on the production and distribution of methylmercury in near-shore marine sediments. Environ Sci Technol 38(5):1487–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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):326–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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):378–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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):2204–2211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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):1003–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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):7919–7921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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):2491–2496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu Y, Whitman WB (2008) Metabolic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of the methanogenic archaea. Ann NY Acad Sci 1125:171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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):209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lovley DR, Klug M (1983) Sulfate reducers can outcompete methanogens at freshwater sulfate concentrations. Appl Environ Microb 45(1):187–197Google Scholar
  37. Lovley DR, Klug MJ (1986) Model for the distribution of sulfate reduction and methanogenesis in freshwater sediments. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 50:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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):751–757Google Scholar
  39. 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):428–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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):443–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muyzer G, Stams AJM (2008) The ecology and biotechnology of sulphate-reducing bacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol 6(6):441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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):1288–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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):1332–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 125:30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roden EE, Wetzel RG (2003) Competition between Fe(III)-reducing and methanogenic bacteria for acetate in iron-rich freshwater sediments. Microb Ecol 45(3):252–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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):4304–4311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scheuhammer AM, Meyer MW, Sandheinrich MB, Murray MW (2007) Effects of environmental methylmercury on the health of wild birds, mammals, and fish. Ambio 36:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 509:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 6:7477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52(3):591–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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. 48–53Google Scholar
  52. 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 31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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):146–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Takii S, Fukui M (1991) relative importance of methanogenesis, in sediments sulfate reduction and denitrification of the Lowe Tama River. Microb Ecol 6(1):9–17Google Scholar
  55. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  56. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  58. Whalen SC (2005) Natural wetlands and the atmosphere. Environ Eng Sci 22(1):73–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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 165–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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):2684–2691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yu R-Q, Reinfelder JR, Hines ME, Barkay T (2013) Mercury methylation by the methanogen Methanospirillum hungatei. Appl Environ Microb 79(20):6325–6330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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):6950–6958CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA
  2. 2.Earth & Environmental SciencesWright State UniversityDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations