Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 3138–3144 | Cite as

Mercury species accumulation and distribution in Typha domingensis under real field conditions (Almadén, Spain)

  • Miguel Ángel LomincharEmail author
  • María José SierraEmail author
  • María Jiménez-Moreno
  • María Guirado
  • Rosa Carmen Rodríguez Martín-Doimeadios
  • Rocío Millán
Contaminated sites, waste management and green chemistry: New challenges from monitoring to remediation


Monomethylmercury (MeHg) is one of the most toxic and the most commonly occurring organomercury compound and the wetlands are one of the main areas of generation of this Hg form. Concretely, it is in the macrophyte root system where better conditions are given for its generation. However, the knowledge of absorption and subsequent distribution of mercury (Hg) and monomethylmercury in aquatic plants is still limited. Mercury mining district such as Almadén (Ciudad Real, Spain) is a natural laboratory where different rivers flow and the species Typha domingensis Pers. is a common macrophyte which grows in their riverbanks. The aim of the present work is to apply a recently developed method specially designed to analyze Hg species in plant tissues to the different fractions of T. domingensis under real field conditions and to study the accumulation and distribution of Hg species (inorganic Hg and MeHg) within the plant. The results proved that whatever Hg species has preference to be accumulated in the belowground fractions and demonstrated a high efficiency in the accumulation of MeHg.


Mercury species Sediment Typha domingensis Bioaccumulation factors Distribution Field conditions 


Funding information

This work was supported by the Spanish Science R&D Program for the MERCURIO (CGL2009-13171-C03-02) Project. The authors thank Minas de Almadén y Arrayanes S.A. (MAYASA) for their support during this work.


  1. Adriano DC (2001) Trace elements in terrestrial environments. 2nd ed. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anning AK, Korsah PE, Addo-Fordjour P (2013) Phytoremediation of wastewater with Limnocharis Flava, Thalia Geniculata and Typha Latifolia in constructed wetlands. Int J Phytoremediation 15:452–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker AJM (1981) Accumulators and excluders—strategies in the response of plants to heavy metals. J Plant Nutr 3:643–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barkay T, Gillman M, Turner RR et al (1997) Effects of dissolved organic carbon and salinity on bioavailability of mercury. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4267–4271Google Scholar
  5. Bernier M, Popovic R, Carpentier R (1993) Mercury inhibition at the donor side of photosystem II is reversed by chloride. FEBS Lett 321:19–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berzas Nevado JJ, Rodríguez Martín-Doimeadios RC, Moreno MJ (2009) Mercury speciation in the Valdeazogues River-La Serena reservoir system: influence of Almadén (Spain) historic mining activities. Sci Total Environ 407:2372–2382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braza MCB, Shaw G, Lester JN (2000) Mercury modeling to predict contamination and bioaccumulation in aquatic ecosystems. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 164:69–69Google Scholar
  8. Canário J, Caetano M, Vale C, Cesário R (2007) Evidence for elevated production of methylmercury in salt marshes. Environ Sci Technol 41:7376–7382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canário J, Vale C, Poissant L, Nogueira M, Pilote M, Branco V (2010) Mercury in sediments and vegetation in a moderately contaminated salt marsh (Tagus Estuary, Portugal). J Environ Sci 22:1151–1157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi S-C, Bartha R (1994) Environmental factors affecting mercury methylation in estuarine sediments. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 53:805–812. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cosio C, Flück R, Regier N, Slaveykova VI (2014) Effects of macrophytes on the fate of mercury in aquatic systems. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:1225–1237.
  12. Garcia-Ordiales E, Loredo J, Esbrí JM, Lominchar MA, Millan R, Higueras P (2014) Stream bottom sediments as a means to assess metal contamination in the historic mining district of Almadén (Spain). Int J Min Reclam Environ 28:1–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gentès S, Monperrus M, Legeay A, Maury-Brachet R, Davail S, André JM, Guyoneaud R (2013) Incidence of invasive macrophytes on methylmercury budget in temperate lakes: central role of bacterial periphytic communities. Environ Pollut 172:116–123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gothberg A, Greger M (2006) Formation of methyl mercury in an aquatic macrophyte. Chemosphere 65:2096–2105.
  15. Gray JE, Theodorakos PM, Bailey EA, Turner RR (2000) Distribution, speciation, and transport of mercury in stream-sediment, stream-water, and fish collected near abandoned mercury mines in southwestern Alaska, USA. Sci Total Environ 260:21–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greger M, Dabrowska B (2010) Influence of nutrient level on methyl mercury content in water spinach. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:1735–1739.
  17. Horvat M, Nolde N, Fajon V, Jereb V, Logar M, Lojen S, Jacimovic R, Falnoga I, Liya Q, Faganeli J, Drobne D (2003) Total mercury, methylmercury and selenium in mercury polluted areas in the province Guizhou, China. Sci Total Environ 304:231–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jiménez-Moreno M, Lominchar MA, Sierra MJ, et al (2018) Fast method for the simultaneous determination of monomethylmercury and inorganic mercury in rice and aquatic plants. Talanta 176:102–107.
  19. Kabata-Pendias A (2011) Trace elements in soils and plants, fourth edi. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  20. Kupper H, Kupper F, Spiller M (1996) Environmental relevance of heavy metal-substituted chlorophylls using the example of water plants. J Exp Bot 47:259–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lasat MM (2003) Phytoextraction of metals from contaminated soil: a review of plant/soil/ metal interaction and assessment of pertinent agronomic issues. J Hazard Subst Res 2:5–25. Google Scholar
  22. Lominchar MA, Sierra MJ, Millán R (2015) Accumulation of mercury in Typha domingensis under field conditions. Chemosphere 119C:994–999. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meng B, Feng X, Qiu G, Cai Y, Wang D, Li P, Shang L, Sommar J (2010) Distribution patterns of inorganic mercury and methylmercury in tissues of rice (Oryza sativa L.) plants and possible bioaccumulation pathways. J Agric Food Chem 58(8):4951–4958. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meng M, Li B, Shao J, Wang T, He B, Shi JB, Ye ZH, Jiang GB (2014) Accumulation of total mercury and methylmercury in rice plants collected from different mining areas in China. Environ Pollut 184:179–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mergler D, Anderson HA, Man Chan LH et al (2007) Methylmercury exposure and health effects in humans: a worldwide concern. Ambio 36:3–11.[3,MEAHEI]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  26. Millán R, Lominchar MA, Rodríguez-Alonso J, Schmid T, Sierra MJ (2014). Riparian vegetation role in mercury uptake (Valdeazogues River, Almadén, Spain). J Geochem Explor 104:104–110.
  27. Miretzky P, Saralegui A, Cirelli AF (2004) Aquatic macrophytes potential for the simultaneous removal of heavy metals (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Chemosphere 57:997–1005.
  28. O’Driscoll NJ, Rencz AN, Lean DRS (2005) Mercury cycling in a wetland-dominated ecosystem: a multidisciplinary study. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  29. Rai PK (2009) Heavy metal phytoremediation from aquatic ecosystems with special reference to macrophytes. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 39:697–753.
  30. Regier N, Larras F, Bravo AG, Ungureanu VG, Amouroux D, Cosio C (2013) Mercury bioaccumulation in the aquatic plant Elodea nuttallii in the field and in microcosm: accumulation in shoots from the water might involve copper transporters. Chemosphere 90:595–602. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rimondi V, Gray JE, Costagliola P, Vaselli O, Lattanzi P (2012) Concentration, distribution, and translocation of mercury and methylmercury in mine-waste, sediment, soil, water, and fish collected near the Abbadia San Salvatore mercury mine, Monte Amiata district, Italy. Sci Total Environ 414:318–327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwesig D, Krebs O (2003) The role of ground vegetation in the uptake of mercury and methylmercury in a forest ecosystem. Plant Soil 253:445–455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Simon O, Boudou A (2001) Direct and trophic contamination of the herbivorous carp Ctenophatyngodon idella by inorganic mercury and methylmercury. Ecotox Environ Safe 50:48–59.
  34. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Willis JM, Gambrell RP, Hester MW (2010) Growth response and tissue accumulation trends of herbaceous wetland plant species exposed to elevated aqueous mercury levels. Int J Phytoremediation 12:586–598. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Windham-Myers L, Marvin-Dipasquale M, Krabbenhoft DP, Agee JL, Cox MH, Heredia-Middleton P, Coates C, Kakouros E (2009) Experimental removal of wetland emergent vegetation leads to decreased methylmercury production in surface sediment. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 114:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yoon J, Cao X, Zhou Q, Ma LQ (2006) Accumulation of Pb, Cu, and Zn in native plants growing on a contaminated Florida site. Sci Total Environ 368:456–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang H, Feng X, Larssen T (2010) Bioaccumulation of methylmercury versus inorganic mercury in rice (Oryza sativa L.) grain. Environ Sci 44:4499–4504CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIEMAT – Environmental DepartmentMadridSpain
  2. 2.Environmental Sciences Institute (ICAM), Department of Analytical Chemistry and Food TechnologyUniversity of Castilla-La ManchaToledoSpain

Personalised recommendations