Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 9955–9965 | Cite as

Comparison of different sequential extraction procedures for mercury fractionation in polluted soils

  • Haochen Dong
  • Liu FengEmail author
  • Yu Qin
  • Muxinjian Luo
Research Article


Three sequential extraction procedures (SEPs), modified Tessier, modified BCR, and CIEMAT, were compared for mercury fractionation in polluted soils. With satisfactory total mercury recovery, the modified Tessier and modified BCR SEPs were comparable with each other in terms of extraction efficiency in equivalent mercury fractions, whereas both SEPs were not as efficient as the CIEMAT SEP. However, the CIEMAT SEP might underestimate the oxidizable mercury fractions due to the humic and fulvic complexes instead of the organic matter of the other two SEPs. For mercury bioavailability identification, based on Pearson correlation analysis, all fractions in each SEP were significantly correlated with mercury uptake in Ipomoea aquatica, causing difficulty in comparison. Partial correlation analysis indicated that the mobile mercury fractions extracted by the first step in all three SEPs had a positive correlation with mercury uptake by plant, while mercury bound to organic matter extracted by both modified Tessier and modified BCR SEPs presented negative correlation with mercury uptake by plant which was in contrast to CIEMAT SEP. Meanwhile, clearly positive correlations between mercury fractions extracted by the former three steps of CIEMAT SEP and mercury uptake in Ipomoea aquatica were observed, demonstrating that CIEMAT SEP provided more accurate results related to Hg bioavailability than did the other two SEPs.


Mercury fraction Mercury bioavailability Sequential extraction procedure Soil pollution Modified Tessier Modified BCR CIEMAT 


Funding information

The authors received financial support for this work from the Ministry of Land and Resources of P. R. China (Grant No. 201411089).

Supplementary material

11356_2019_4433_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 16 kb)


  1. Alborés AF, Cid BP, Gómez EF, López EF (2000) Comparison between sequential extraction procedures and single extractions for metal partitioning in sewage sludge samples. Analyst 125:1353–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacon JR, Davidson CM (2008) Is there a future for sequential chemical extraction? Analyst 133:25–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckett PH (1989) The use of extractants in studies on trace metals in soils, sewage sludges, and sludge-treated soils, advances in soil science. Springer, pp. 143–176Google Scholar
  4. Biester H, Scholz C (1996) Determination of mercury binding forms in contaminated soils: mercury pyrolysis versus sequential extractions. Environ Sci Technol 31:233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biester H, Gosar M, Müller G (1999) Mercury speciation in tailings of the Idrija mercury mine. J Geochem Explor 65:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloom NS, Preus E, Katon J, Hiltner M (2003) Selective extractions to assess the biogeochemically relevant fractionation of inorganic mercury in sediments and soils. Anal Chim Acta 479:233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chakraborty P, Babu PR, Vudamala K, Ramteke D, Chennuri K (2014) Mercury speciation in coastal sediments from the central east coast of India by modified BCR method. Mar Pollut Bull 81:282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chanu LB, Gupta A (2016) Phytoremediation of lead using Ipomoea aquatica Forsk. In hydroponic solution. Chemosphere 156:407–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cui L, Feng X, Lin CJ, Wang X, Meng B, Wang X, Wang H (2014) Accumulation and translocation of 198Hg in four crop species. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson CM, Thomas RP, McVey SE, Perala R, Littlejohn D, Ure AM (1994) Evaluation of a sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of heavy metals in sediments. Anal Chim Acta 291:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson CM, Duncan AL, Littlejohn D, Ure AM, Garden LM (1998) A critical evaluation of the three-stage BCR sequential extraction procedure to assess the potential mobility and toxicity of heavy metals in industrially-contaminated land. Anal Chim Acta 363:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dong H, Lin Z, Wan X, Feng L (2017) Risk assessment for the mercury polluted site near a pesticide plant in Changsha, Hunan, China. Chemosphere 169:333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EPA U (2007): Mercury in sediment and tissue samples by atomic fluorescence spectrometry. United States Environmental Protection Agency pp 1–19Google Scholar
  14. Feng X, Li P, Qiu G, Wang S, Li G, Shang L, Meng B, Jiang H, Bai W, Li Z (2007) Human exposure to methylmercury through rice intake in mercury mining areas, Guizhou Province. China Environ Sci Technol 42:326–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernández-Martínez R, Rucandio MI (2003) Study of extraction conditions for the quantitative determination of Hg bound to sulfide in soils from Almaden (Spain). Anal Bioanal Chem 375:1089–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernández-Martínez R, Rucandio MI (2005) Study of the suitability of HNO3 and HCl as extracting agents of mercury species in soils from cinnabar mines. Anal Bioanal Chem 381:1499–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fernández-Martínez R, Rucandio I (2013) Assessment of a sequential extraction method to evaluate mercury mobility and geochemistry in solid environmental samples. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 97:196–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fernández-Martínez R, Loredo J, Ordóñez A, Rucandio I (2014) Mercury availability by operationally defined fractionation in granulometric distributions of soils and mine wastes from an abandoned cinnabar mine. Environ Sci: Processes & Impacts 16:1069–1075Google Scholar
  19. Fernández-Martínez R, Rucandio I (2014) Total mercury, organic mercury and mercury fractionation in soil profiles from the Almadén mercury mine area. Environ Sci: Proc Impacts 16:333–340Google Scholar
  20. Filgueiras AV, Lavilla I, Bendicho C (2002) Chemical sequential extraction for metal partitioning in environmental solid samples. J Environ Monit 4:823–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gleyzes C, Tellier S, Astruc M (2002) Fractionation studies of trace elements in contaminated soils and sediments: a review of sequential extraction procedures. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 21:451–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halim M, Conte P, Piccolo A (2003) Potential availability of heavy metals to phytoextraction from contaminated soils induced by exogenous humic substances. Chemosphere 52:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hu J, Chan PT, Wu F, Wu S, Zhang J, Lin X, Wong MH (2013) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi induce differential Cd and P acquisition by Alfred stonecrop (Sedum alfredii Hance) and upland kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica Forsk.) in an intercropping system. Appl Soil Ecol 63:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Issaro N, Abi-Ghanem C, Bermond A (2009) Fractionation studies of mercury in soils and sediments: a review of the chemical reagents used for mercury extraction. Anal Chim Acta 631:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelling KA, Peterson AE, Walsh LM, JAR KDR et al (1977) A field study of the agricultural use of sewage sludge: I. Effect on crop yield and uptake of N and P. J Environ Qual 6:339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim CS, Bloom NS, Rytuba JJ, Brown GE (2003) Mercury speciation by X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy and sequential chemical extractions: a comparison of speciation methods. Environ Sci Technol 37:5102–5108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leopold K, Foulkes M, Worsfold P (2010) Methods for the determination and speciation of mercury in natural waters—a review. Anal Chim Acta 663:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li J, Lu Y, Shim H, Deng X, Lian J, Jia Z, Li J (2010) Use of the BCR sequential extraction procedure for the study of metal availability to plants. J Environ Monit 12:466–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mäkelä M, Pöykiö R, Watkins G, Nurmesniemi H, Dahl O (2011) Application of a modified BCR approach to investigate the mobility and availability of trace elements (As, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Mo, Ni, Pb, Zn, and Hg) from a solid residue matrix designed for soil amendment. World Academy of Science. Eng Technol 79:502–507Google Scholar
  30. Manara A (2012): Plant responses to heavy metal toxicity, plants and heavy metals. Springer, pp. 27–53Google Scholar
  31. Mihaljevič M, Poňavič M, Ettler V, Šebek O (2003) A comparison of sequential extraction techniques for determining arsenic fractionation in synthetic mineral mixtures. Anal Bioanal Chem 377:723–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Millán R, Gamarra R, Schmid T, Sierra M, Quejido A, Sánchez D, Cardona A, Fernández M, Vera R (2006) Mercury content in vegetation and soils of the Almadén mining area (Spain). Sci Total Environ 368:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mizanur Rahman G, Skip’Kingston H, Kern JC, Hartwell SW, Anderson RF, Yang SY (2005) Inter-laboratory validation of EPA method 3200 for mercury speciation analysis using prepared soil reference materials. Appl Organomet Chem 19:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mohamed A, Rashed M, Mofty A (2003) Assessment of essential and toxic elements in some kinds of vegetables. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 55:251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nasrabadi M, Omid M, Mazdeh AM (2017) Cadmium adsorption characteristics for Karaj riverbed sands. J Mater Environ Sci 8:1729–1736Google Scholar
  36. Nelson D, Sommers LE (1982): Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 539–579Google Scholar
  37. Ordóñez A, Álvarez R, Loredo J (2013) Asturian mercury mining district (Spain) and the environment: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:7490–7508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paz-Ferreiro J, Lu H, Fu S, Méndez A, Gascó G (2014) Use of phytoremediation and biochar to remediate heavy metal polluted soils: a review. Solid Earth 5:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pickering W (1986) Metal ion speciation—soils and sediments (a review). Ore Geol Rev 1:83–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Quevauviller P, Rauret G, López-Sánchez J-F, Rubio R, Ure A, Muntau H (1997) Certification of trace metal extractable contents in a sediment reference material (CRM 601) following a three-step sequential extraction procedure. Sci Total Environ 205:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ravichandran M, Aiken GR, Ryan JN, Reddy MM (1999) Inhibition of precipitation and aggregation of metacinnabar (mercuric sulfide) by dissolved organic matter isolated from the Florida Everglades. Environ Sci Technol 33:1418–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reis AT, Rodrigues SM, Davidson CM, Pereira E, Duarte AC (2010) Extractability and mobility of mercury from agricultural soils surrounding industrial and mining contaminated areas. Chemosphere 81:1369–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reis AT, Coelho JP, Rucandio I, Davidson CM, Duarte AC, Pereira E (2015) Thermo-desorption: a valid tool for mercury speciation in soils and sediments? Geoderma 237:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reis AT, Davidson CM, Vale C, Pereira E (2016) Overview and challenges of mercury fractionation and speciation in soils. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 82:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Remon E, Bouchardon JL, Cornier B, Guy B, Leclerc JC, Faure O (2005) Soil characteristics, heavy metal availability and vegetation recovery at a former metallurgical landfill: implications in risk assessment and site restoration. Environ Pollut 137:316–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rodushkin I, Ruth T, Aring H s (1999) Comparison of two digestion methods for elemental determinations in plant material by ICP techniques. Anal Chim Acta 378:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sahuquillo A, Rauret G, Bianchi M, Rehnert A, Muntau H (2003) Mercury determination in solid phases from application of the modified BCR-sequential extraction procedure: a valuable tool for assessing its mobility in sediments. Anal Bioanal Chem 375:578–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sánchez D, Quejido A, Fernández M, Hernández C, Schmid T, Millán R, González M, Aldea M, Martín R, Morante R (2005) Mercury and trace element fractionation in Almaden soils by application of different sequential extraction procedures. Anal Bioanal Chem 381:1507–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Silveira M, Alleoni L, O’connor G, Chang A (2006) Heavy metal sequential extraction methods—a modification for tropical soils. Chemosphere 64:1929–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sundaray SK, Nayak BB, Lin S, Bhatta D (2011) Geochemical speciation and risk assessment of heavy metals in the river estuarine sediments—a case study: Mahanadi basin, India. J Hazard Mater 186:1837–1846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sungur A, Soylak M, Ozcan H (2014) Investigation of heavy metal mobility and availability by the BCR sequential extraction procedure: relationship between soil properties and heavy metals availability. Chem Speciat Bioavailab 26:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tessier A, Campbell PG, Bisson M (1979) Sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of particulate trace metals. Anal Chem 51:844–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wallschläger D, Desai MV, Spengler M, Wilken R-D (1998) Mercury speciation in floodplain soils and sediments along a contaminated river transect. J Environ Qual 27:1034–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wan X, Dong H, Feng L, Lin Z, Luo Q (2017) Comparison of three sequential extraction procedures for arsenic fractionation in highly polluted sites. Chemosphere 178:402–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang S, Zhao Y, Guo J, Zhou L (2016) Effects of Cd, Cu and Zn on Ricinus communis L. growth in single element or co-contaminated soils: pot experiments. Ecol Eng 90:347–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Xiao Q, Wong MH, Huang L, Ye Z (2015) Effects of cultivars and water management on cadmium accumulation in water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica Forsk.). Plant Soil 391:33–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yu S, He ZL, Huang CY, Chen GC, Calvert DV (2004) Copper fractionation and extractability in two contaminated variable charge soils. Geoderma 123:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zheng M, Feng L, He J, Chen M, Zhang J, Zhang M, Wang J (2015) Delayed geochemical hazard: a tool for risk assessment of heavy metal polluted sites and case study. J Hazard Mater 287:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhong H, Wang W-X (2008) Effects of sediment composition on inorganic mercury partitioning, speciation and bioavailability in oxic surficial sediments. Environ Pollut 151:222–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haochen Dong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Liu Feng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yu Qin
    • 1
  • Muxinjian Luo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences and EngineeringBeijing University of Chemical TechnologyBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Division of Environmental Engineering, Graduate School of EngineeringKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations