Advertisement

Investigation of legacy industrial mercury in floodplain soils: South River, Virginia, USA

  • Olesya LazarevaEmail author
  • Donald L. Sparks
  • Richard Landis
  • Carol J. Ptacek
  • Jing Ma
Original Article
  • 90 Downloads

Abstract

Mercury (Hg) was used during 1929–1950 as a catalyst to produce rayon acetate at the former DuPont plant in Waynesboro, Virginia, and released into the South River. Though the use of Hg ceased in the 1970s, the affected ecosystem is still a matter of concern. Here, high total mercury (THg) and total organomercury, stated as methylmercury (MeHg) are reported in historically contaminated floodplain soils and shallow groundwater from five locations sited 5.6 km downstream from the plant of one river edge site. In soils, THg ranged from 0.1 to 1201.5 mg/kg exceeding the health-based screening Hg levels for residential and industrial soils while MeHg varied between 0.1 and 54 µg/kg. Concentrations decreased sharply with depth indicating the stratification of legacy industrial Hg-rich soils underlain by the pre-industrial soils with minor Hg. Strong linear correlation between THg and MeHg was observed. Highest soil MeHg was associated with total carbon, poorly crystalline and amorphous Fe and/or Mn oxyhydroxides. Sequential extraction analyses indicated that Hg was present mostly in relatively recalcitrant forms, as determined with procedures that targeted β-HgS, HgS, HgSe, HgAu, thiol-bound Hg, Hg0, and some organo-complexed Hg, Hg2Cl2 phases. High Cu (≤ 404.3 mg/kg), Zn (≤ 151.3 mg/kg), Cr (≤ 123.9 mg/kg) were also identified. In shallow groundwater, THg ranged from 28 to 538 ng/L and MeHg varied between 1.2 and 137 ng/L. During the intermittent precipitation, the highest MeHg was linked to the highest Fe2+, Mn, SO42−, total alkalinity, and conductivity, which could be due to either the potential leaching and dissolution of soil minerals and/or the saturation of the vadose zone. A sharp increase in the soil moisture at the top 40–70 cm of the Hg-rich soils after rainfall and overbank flooding was followed by redox gradients from oxidizing (≈ + 600 mV) to reducing (≈ − 300 mV) and a reverse response in a transmissive gravel zone at the base of the bank (≈ − 400  to + 200 mV) with a defined lag with depth. These dynamic seasonal fluctuations at the South River might be crucial for solubilization of Hg, Fe, and Mn redox-sensitive minerals triggering the anoxic response for new MeHg production.

Keywords

Floodplain Mercury Methylmercury Redox dynamics Soil Sensors 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company to the University of Delaware and the University of Waterloo, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We thank Steven Hicks and Dave Montgomery from the Stroud Water Research Center for their support and assistance during the preparation of equipment in the laboratory and installation of probes, sensors and dataloggers at the field site. Joshua Collins and Scott Gregory from the URS Corporation are thanked for their help in soil coring. Ariette Schierz from the University of Texas is thanked for helping in water sampling and analysis. Matthias Ohr from the URS Corporation provided help in preparation of manuscript figures. We also thank Nancy Grosso and James Dyer from E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company for valuable discussions and suggestions of this study. Dr. Thomas Pichler from the University of Bremen is thanked for constructive criticism of the draft manuscript.

References

  1. Alpers CN, Hunerlach MP, May JT, Hothem RL, Taylor HE, Antweiler RC, De Wild JF, Lawler DA (2005) Geochemical characterization of water, sediment, and biota affected by mercury contamination and acidic drainage from historical gold mining, Greenhorn Creek, Nevada County, California, 1999–2001. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5251, p 278Google Scholar
  2. Alpers CN, Fleck JA, Marvin-DiPasquale M, Stricker CA, Stephenson M, Taylor HE (2014) Mercury cycling in agricultural and managed wetlands, Yolo Bypass, California: spatial and seasonal variations in water quality. Sci Total Environ 484(1):276–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amirbahman A, Schonenberger R, Johnson CA, Sigg L (1998) Aqueous- and solid- phase biochemistry of a calcareous aquifer system down gradient from a municipal solid waste landfill (Winterthur, Switzerland). Environ Sci Technol 32:1933–1940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett MO, Harris LA, Turner RR, Stevenson RJ, Henson TJ, Melton RC, Hoffman DP (1997) Formation of mercuric sulfide in soil. Environ Sci Technol 31:3037–3043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barringer JL, Riskin ML, Szabo Z, Reilly PA, Rosman R, Bonin JL, Fischer JM, Heckathorn HA (2010) Mercury and methylmercury dynamics in a coastal plain watershed, New Jersey, USA. Water Air Soil Pollut 212:251–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 26:1733–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bermond A, Ghestem J-P, Yousfi I (1998) Kinetic approach to the chemical speciation of trace metals in soils. Analyst 123:785–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bloom NS, Fitzgerald WF (1988) Determination of volatile mercury species at the pictogram level by low temperature gas chromatography with cold-vapor atomic fluorescence detection. Anal Chim Acta 208:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bloom NS, Katon J (2000) Application of selective extractions to the determination of mercury speciation in mine tailings and adjacent soils. In: Proceeding of assessing and managing mercury from historic and current mining activities conference, San Francisco, pp 28–30Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Bolgiano RW (1980) Mercury contamination of the South, South Fork Shenandoah, and Shenandoah Rivers: Richmond, Virginia. Virginia State Water Control Board Basic Data Bulletin, p 47Google Scholar
  12. Bolgiano RW (1981) Mercury contamination of the floodplains of the South River and South Fork Shenandoah River. Basic Data Bulletin 48. Virginia State Water Control Board, Division of Surveillance and Field Studies, Valley Regional OfficeGoogle Scholar
  13. Brasso RL, Cristol DA (2008) Effects of mercury exposure on the reproductive success of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Ecotoxicology 17:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brooks SC, Southworth GR (2011) History of mercury use and environmental contamination at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. Environ Pollut 159(1):219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carter LJ (1977) Chemical plants leave unexpected legacy for two Virginia rivers. Science 198:1015–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christensen TH, Bjerg PL, Banwert RJ, Heron G, Albrechtsen H (2000) Characterization of redox conditions in groundwater contaminant plumes. J Contam Hydrol 45:165–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Covelli S, Acquavita A, Piani R, Predonzani S, De Vittor C (2009) Recent contamination of mercury in an estuarine environment (Marano Lagoon, Northern Adriatic, Italy). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 82:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cristol DA, Brasso RL, Condon AM, Fovargue RE, Friedman SL, Hallinger KK, Monroe AP, White AE (2008) The movement of aquatic mercury through terrestrial food webs. Science 320:335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deonarine A (2011) Sources and biogeochemical transformation of mercury in aquatic ecosystems. Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Deonarine A, Hsu-Kim H (2009) Precipitation of mercuric sulfide nanoparticles in NOM-containing water: implications for the natural environment. Environ Sci Technol 43(7):2368–2373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Desrochers KAN, Ptacek CJ, Gibson BD, Blowes DW, Landis RC, Dyer JA, Grosso NR (2011) Geochemical characterization and assessment of treatment mechanisms for mercury-contaminated riverbank sediments from the South River, VA. In: International conference on mercury as a global pollutant, Halifax, Nova Scotia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  22. Desrochers KAN, Paulson KMA, Ptacek CJ, Blowes DW, Gould WD (2015) Effect of electron donor to sulfate ratio on mercury methylation in floodplain sediments under saturated flow conditions. Geomicrobiol J 32(10):924–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Donovan PM, Blum JD, Demers JD, Gu B, Brooks SC, Peryam J (2014) Identification of multiple mercury sources to stream sediments near Oak Ridge, TN, USA. Environ Sci Technol 48(7):3666–3674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eggleston J (2009) Mercury loads in the South River and simulation of mercury total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the South River, South Fork Shanandoah River and Shenandoah River: Shenandoah Valley, VA. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fitzgerald WF, Lamborg CH (2007) Geochemistry of mercury in the environment. Chapter 9.04 In volume 9 environmental geochemistry. In: Lollar BS, Holland HD, Turekin KK (eds) Treatise on Geochemistry. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 107–148Google Scholar
  26. Flanders JR, Turner RR, Morrison T, Jensen R, Pizzuto J, Skalak K, Stahl R (2010) Distribution, behavior, and transport of inorganic and methylmercury in a high gradient stream. Appl Geochem 25:1756–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 Microbiol 72:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gagnon C, Pelletier E, Mucci A (1997) Behavior of anthropogenic mercury in coastal marine sediments. Mar Chem 59:159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gerbig CA, Kim CS, Stegemeier JP, Ryan JN, Aiken GR (2011) Formation of nanocolloidal metacinnabar in mercury-DOM sulfide systems. Environ Sci Technol 45(21):9180–9187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Gilmour CC, Podar M, Bullock AL, Graham AM, Brown SD, Somenahally AC, Johs A, Hurt RA, Bailey KL, Elias DA (2013) Mercury methylation by novel microorganisms from new environments. Environ Sci Technol 47:11810–11820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gray JE, Crock JG, Fey DL (2002) Environmental geochemistry of abandoned mercury mines in West-Central Nevada, USA. Appl Geochem 17(8):1069–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gustin MS, Chavan PV, Dennett KE, Marchand EA, Donaldson S (2006) Evaluation of wetland methyl mercury export as a function of experimental manipulations. J Environ Qual 35(6):2352–2359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hamelin S, Amyot M, Barkay T, Wang YP, Planas D (2011) Methanogens: principal methylators of mercury in lake periphyton. Environ Sci Technol 45(18):7693–7700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hennessy J (2009) Mercury in the South River, Waynesboro, VA. Ground Water Forum Case Studies, U.S. EPA Region 3, 32Google Scholar
  36. Hintelmann H (2010) Organomercurials. Their formation and pathways in the environment. Met Ions Life Sci 7:365–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Horvat M, Liang L, Bloom NS (1993) Comparison of distillation with other current isolation methods for the determination of methyl mercury compounds in low level environmental samples. Anal Chim Acta 282:153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hsu-Kim H, Kucharzyk KH, Zhang T, Deshusses MA (2013) Mechanisms regulating mercury bioavailability for methylating microorganisms in the aquatic environment: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 47:2441–2456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hu H, Lin H, Zheng W, Tomanicek SJ, Johs A, Feng X, Elias DA, Liang L, Gu B (2013) Oxidation and methylation of dissolved elemental mercury by anaerobic bacteria. Nat Geosci 6:751–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jonsson S, Skyllberg U, Nilsson MB, Westlund P-O, Shchukarev A, Lundberg E, Bjorn E (2012) Mercury methylation rates for geochemically relevant HgII Species in sediments. Environ Sci Technol 46(21):11653–11659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jonsson S, Skyllberg U, Nilsson MB, Lundberg E, Andersson A, Björn E (2014) Differentiated availability of geochemical mercury pools controls methylmercury levels in estuarine sediment and biota. Nat Commun 5:4624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jurk D (2012) Island formation through bar growth and floodplain incision in the bedrock controlled South River, Virginia. M.S. Thesis, University of DelawareGoogle Scholar
  43. Kenwell AM (2013) Spatial distribution of iron and manganese solid phases for a mercury-impacted site. B.S. Thesis, University of WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  44. Kerin EJ, Gilmour CC, Roden E, Suzuki MT, Coates JD, Mason RP (2006) Mercury methylation by dissimilatory iron-reducing bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(12):7919–7921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kostka JE, Gribsholt B, Petrie E, Dalton D, Skelton H, Kristensen E (2002) The rates and pathways of carbon oxidation in bioturbated saltmarsh sediments. Biogeochemistry 47:230–240Google Scholar
  46. Lawler MSE (1981) Engineering feasibility study of rehabilitating the South River and South Fork Shenandoah River. Vol I, Pearl River NY 10965 Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers ReportGoogle Scholar
  47. Lin C-C, Yee N, Barkay T (2012) Microbial transformations in the mercury cycle. In: Liu G, Cai Y, O’Driscoll N (eds) Environmental chemistry and toxicology of mercury. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 155–191Google Scholar
  48. Liu G, Cabrera J, Allen M, Cai Y (2006) Mercury characterization in a soil sample collected nearby the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation utilizing sequential extraction and thermal desorption method. Sci Total Environ 369:384–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Manceau A, Lemouchi C, Enescu M, Gaillot A-C, Lanson M, Magnin V, Glatzel P, Poulin BA, Ryan JN, Aiken GR, Gautier-Luneau I, Nagy KL (2015) Formation of mercury sulfide from Hg(II)—thiolate complexes in natural organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 49:9787–9796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mitchell CPJ, Gilmour CC (2008) Methylmercury production in a Chesapeake Bay salt marsh. J Geophys Res [Biogeosci] 113:1–14Google Scholar
  51. Moore CS, Cristol DA, Maddux SL, Varian-Ramos CW, Bradley EL (2014) Lifelong exposure to methylmercury disrupts stress-induced corticosterone response in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Environ Toxicol Chem 33(5):1072–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parks JM, Johs A, Podar M, Bridou R, Hurt RA Jr, 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
  53. Pham AL-T, Morris A, Zhang T, Ticknor J, Levard C, Hsu-Kim H (2014) Precipitation of nanoscale mercuric sulfides in the presence of natural organic matter: structural properties, aggregation, and biotransformation. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 133:204–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pizzuto JP (2012) Predicting the accumulation of mercury-contaminated sediment on riverbanks-An analytical approach. Water Resour Res 48:W07518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pizzuto JP (2014) Long-term storage and transport length scale of fine sediment: analysis of a mercury release into a river. Geophys Res Lett 41:5875–5882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pizzuto JP, O’Neal M (2009) Increased mid-twentieth century riverbank erosion rates related to the demise of mill dams, South River, Virginia. Geology 37:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Podar M, Gilmour CC, Brandt CC, Soren A, Brown SD, Crable BR, Palumbo AV, Somenahally AC, Elias DA (2015) Global prevalence and distribution of genes and microorganisms involved in mercury methylation. Sci Adv 1(9):e1500675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Poulin BA, Aiken GR, Nagy KL, Manceau A, Krabbenhoft DP, Ryan JN (2016) Mercury transformation and release differs with depth and time in a contaminated riparian soil during simulated flooding. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 176:118–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rhoades EL, O’Neal MA, Pizzuto JE (2009) Quantifying bank erosion on the South River from 1937 to 2005, and its importance in assessing Hg contamination. Appl Geogr 29:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schartup AT, Mason RP, Balcom PH, Hollweg TA, Chen CY (2013) Methylmercury production in estuarine sediments: role of organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 47(2):695–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Skalak K, Pizzuto J (2010) The distribution and residence time of suspended sediment stored within the channel margins of a gravel-bed bedrock river. Earth Surf Process Landf 35(4):435–446Google Scholar
  62. Skalak KJ, Pizzuto J (2014) Reconstructing suspended sediment mercury contamination of a steep, gravel-bed river using reservoir theory. DEG 21(1):17–35Google Scholar
  63. Slowey AJ (2010) Rate of formation and dissolution of mercury sulfide nanoparticles: the dual role of natural organic matter. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 74(16):4693–4708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Southworth GR, Peterson MJ, Bogle MA (2004) Bioaccumulation factors for mercury in stream fish. Environ Pract 6:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stahl RG, Kain D, Bugas P, Grosso NP, Guiseppi-Elie A, Liberati MR (2014) Applying a watershed-level, risk-based approach to addressing legacy mercury contamination in the South River, Virginia: planning and problem formulation. Human Ecol Risk Assess 20(2):316–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stamenkovic J, Gustin MS, Dennett K (2005) Net methyl mercury production and water quality improvement in constructed wetlands at Steamboat Creek, Nevada. Wetlands 25:748–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Turner RR, Southworth GR (1999) Mercury-contaminated industrial and mining sites in North America: an overview with selected case studies. In: Ebinghaus R, Turner RR, de Lacerda LD, Vasiliev O, Salomons W (eds) Mercury contaminated sites—characterization, risk assessment and remediation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 89–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. URS Corp (2012) Final report: Ecological study of the South River and a segment of the South Fork Shenandoah River, Virginia, Fort Washington, PA, p 1804Google Scholar
  69. USEPA (2009a) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Appendix A. Generic SSLs for the residential and commercial/industrial scenariosGoogle Scholar
  70. USEPA (2009b) United States Environmental Protection Agency. National recommended water quality criteriaGoogle Scholar
  71. Warner KA, Roden EE, Bonzongo JC (2003) Microbial mercury transformation in anoxic freshwater sediments under iron-reducing and other electron-accepting conditions. Environ Sci Technol 37:2159–2165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. White AE, Cristol DA (2014) Plumage coloration in Belted Kingfishers (Megaceryle alcyon) at a mercury-contaminated river. Waterbirds 37(2):144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yu R, 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 46:2684–2691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yu RQ, Reinfelder JR, Hines ME, Barkay T (2013) Mercury methylation by the methanogen Methanospirillum hungatei. Appl Environ Microbiol 79(20):6325–6330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zhang T, Kucharzyk KH, Kim B, Deshusses MA, Hsu-Kim H (2014) Net methylation of mercury in estuarine sediment microcosms amended with dissolved, nanoparticulate, and microparticulate mercuric sulfides. Environ Sci Technol 16:9133–9141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olesya Lazareva
    • 1
    Email author
  • Donald L. Sparks
    • 1
  • Richard Landis
    • 2
  • Carol J. Ptacek
    • 3
  • Jing Ma
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Delaware Environmental InstituteNewarkUSA
  2. 2.E.I. du Pont de Nemours and CompanyWilmingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations