Experiments were completed to assess the effectiveness of Biochar, ThiolSAMMS®, SediMite™, and Organoclay-199 to decrease methylmercury (MeHg) production by the known mercury methylator, Desulfovibrio desulfuricans ND132 (ND132), and to decrease aqueous (i.e., 0.2 μM filter passing) MeHg concentrations. Mercury (Hg) was introduced as Hg(II) or a preequilibrated Hg-DOM (dissolved organic matter) complex. Individual experiments tested the effect of sulfate concentration and Hg-sorbent equilibration time (up to 1 year). The sorbents provided little, if any, inhibition of total MeHg production, but decreased the percentage of MeHg that passed a 0.2 μm filter. Total MeHg produced was substantially greater than the calculated equilibrium aqueous inorganic Hg (Hgi), based on sorption isotherms, implying mercury assumed to be sorbed at the start of the assay was bioaccessible over the 24-h methylation timeframe. MeHg production increased when Hgi was introduced as an Hg:DOM complex, compared to Hg(II). Some of the increased MeHg production may be attributed to lower Hgi sorption with DOM present, but a substantial amount of sorbed Hg must have been accessible also. DOM also increased the filter-passing MeHg fraction, stressing the importance of Hg-DOM and MeHg-DOM interactions in experimental investigations. Sulfate concentrations did not affect Hg(II) methylation and could not explain the increased methylation seen with the Hg:DOM complex. Extended equilibration of Hg-sorbent mixtures for up to 1 year before the methylation assays did not affect the amount of MeHg produced for Biochar or SediMite treatments, but significantly lowered MeHg production for ThiolSAMMS. Inclusion of DOM in these experiments presented the sorbents with a more environmentally relevant form of Hg and lowered sorbent effectiveness to decrease MeHg production and sorb produced MeHg.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallW.P., and RobertsP.V. (1991). Long-term sorption of halogenated organic chemicals by aquifer material. 2. Intraparticle diffusion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25, 1237.
2.
BenoitJ.M., GilmourC.C., and MasonR.P. (2001). The influence of sulfide on solid-phase mercury bioavailability for methylation by pure cultures of desulfobulbus propionicus (1pr3). Environ. Sci. Technol. 35, 127.
3.
BenoitJ.M., GilmourC.C., MasonR.P., and HeyesA. (1999). Sulfide controls on mercury speciation and bioavailability to methylating bacteria in sediment pore waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33, 951.
4.
BloomN.S., ColmanJ.A., and BarberL. (1997). Artifact formation of methyl mercury during aqueous distillation and alternative techniques for the extraction of methyl mercury from environmental samples. Fresenius J. Anal. Chem. 358, 371.
5.
BravoA.G., BouchetS., ToluJ., BjörnE., Mateos-RiveraA., and BertilssonS. (2017). Molecular composition of organic matter controls methylmercury formation in boreal lakes. Nat. Commun. 8, 14255.
6.
BussanD.D., SessumsR.F., and CizdzielJ.V. (2016). Activated carbon and biochar reduce mercury methylation potentials in aquatic sediments. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 96, 536.
7.
ChasarL.C., ScudderB.C., StewartA.R., BellA.H., and AikenG.R. (2009). Mercury cycling in stream ecosystems. 3. Trophic dynamics and methylmercury bioaccumulation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 2733.
8.
Chiasson-GouldS.A., BlaisJ.M., and PoulainA.J. (2014). Dissolved organic matter kinetically controls mercury bioavailability to bacteria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 3153.
9.
CornelissenG., GustafssonÖ., BucheliT.D., JonkerM.T.O., KoelmansA.A., van and NoortP.C.M. (2005). Extensive sorption of organic compounds to black carbon, coal, and kerogen in sediments and soils: Mechanisms and consequences for distribution, bioaccumulation, and biodegradation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 6881.
10.
EPA. (2001). Method 1630: Methyl Mercury in Water by Distillation, Aqueous Ethylation, Purge and Trap, and CVAFS. Washington, D.C.: USEP.
11.
GilmourC.C., EliasD.A., KuckenA.M., BrownS.D., PalumboA.V., SchadtC.W., and WallJ.D. (2011). Sulfate-reducing bacterium Desulfovibrio desulfuricans ND132 as a model for understanding bacterial mercury methylation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 3938.
12.
GilmourC.C., HenryE.A., and MitchellR. (1992). Sulfate stimulation of mercury methylation in freshwater sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26, 2281.
13.
GilmourC.C., PodarM., BullockA.L., GrahamA.M., BrownS.D., SomenahallyA.C., JohsA., HurtR.A.Jr., BaileyK.L., and EliasD.A. (2013a). Mercury methylation by novel microorganisms from new environments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 11810.
14.
GilmourC.C., RiedelG.S., RiedelG., KwonS., LandisR., BrownS.S., MenzieC.A., and GhoshU. (2013b). Activated carbon mitigates mercury and methylmercury bioavailability in contaminated sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 13001.
15.
Gomez-EylesJ.L., YupanquiC., BeckinghamB., RiedelG., GilmourC., and GhoshU. (2013). Evaluation of biochars and activated carbons for in situ remediation of sediments impacted with organics, mercury, and methylmercury. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 13721.
16.
GrahamA.M., AikenG.R., and GilmourC.C. (2012). Dissolved organic matter enhances microbial mercury methylation under sulfidic conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 2715.
17.
GrahamA.M., Cameron-BurrK.T., HajicH.A., LeeC., MsekelaD., and GilmourC.C. (2017). Sulfurization of dissolved organic matter increases Hg–sulfide–dissolved organic matter bioavailability to a Hg-methylating bacterium. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 9080.
18.
HaitzerM., AikenG.R., and RyanJ.N. (2002). Binding of mercury(II) to dissolved organic matter: The role of the mercury-to-DOM concentration ratio. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36, 3564.
19.
HintelmannH., Keppel-JonesK., and EvansR.D. (2000). Constants of mercury methylation and demethylation rates in sediments and comparison of tracer and ambient mercury availability. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19, 2204.
20.
Hsu-KimH., KucharzykK.H., ZhangT., and DeshussesM.A. (2013). Mechanisms regulating mercury bioavailability for methylating microorganisms in the aquatic environment: A critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 2441.
21.
JeremiasonJ.D., EngstromD.R., SwainE.B., NaterE.A., JohnsonB.M., AlmendingerJ.E., MonsonB.A., and KolkaR.K. (2006). Sulfate addition increases methylmercury production in an experimental wetland. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 3800.
22.
LamichhaneS., Bal KrishnaK.C., and SarukkaligeR. (2016). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) removal by sorption: A review. Chemosphere, 148, 336.
23.
LewisA.S., HuntingtonT.G., Marvin-DiPasqualeM.C., and AmirbahmanA. (2016). Mercury remediation in wetland sediment using zero-valent iron and granular activated carbon. Environ. Pollut. 212, 366.
24.
LinH., LuX., LiangL., and GuB. (2015). Thiol-facilitated cell export and desorption of methylmercury by anaerobic bacteria. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2, 292.
25.
LiuP., PtacekC.J., BlowesD.W., FinfrockY.Z., and GordonR.A. (2017). Stabilization of mercury in sediment by using biochars under reducing conditions. J. Hazard. Mater. 325, 120.
26.
LiuY.R., LuX., ZhaoL., AnJ., HeJ.Z., PierceE.M., JohsA., and GuB. (2016). Effects of cellular sorption on mercury bioavailability and methylmercury production by Desulfovibrio desulfuricans ND132. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 13335.
MerglerD., AndersonH.A., ChanL.H.M., MahaffeyK.R., MurrayM., SakamotoM., and SternA.H. (2007). Methylmercury exposure and health effects in humans: A worldwide concern. Ambio, 36, 3.
29.
MihelcicJ.R., and LuthyR.G. (1991). Sorption and microbial degradation of napthalene in soil-water suspensions under denitrificiation conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 169.
30.
MoreauJ.W., GionfriddoC.M., KrabbenhoftD.P., OgorekJ.M., DeWildJ.F., AikenG.R., and RodenE.E. (2015). The effect of natural organic matter on mercury methylation by desulfobulbus propionicus 1pr3. Front. Microbiol. 6, 1389.
31.
MuntheJ., BodalyR.A., BranfireunB.A., DriscollC.T., GilmourC.C., HarrisR., HorvatM., LucotteM., and MalmO. (2007). Recovery of mercury-contaminated fisheries. Ambio, 36, 33.
32.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.R-project.org (accessed April15, 2018).
33.
SchaeferJ.K., and MorelF.M.M. (2009). High methylation rates of mercury bound to cysteine by Geobacter sulfurreducens. Nat. Geosci. 2, 123.
34.
ShaoD., KangY., WuS., and WongM.H. (2012). Effects of sulfate reducing bacteria and sulfate concentrations on mercury methylation in freshwater sediments. Sci. Total Environ. 424, 331.
35.
ShuR., WangY., and ZhongH. (2016). Biochar amendment reduced methylmercury accumulation in rice plants. J. Hazard. Mater. 313, 1.
36.
TanG., SunW., XuY., WangH., and XuN. (2016). Sorption of mercury (II) and atrazine by biochar, modified biochars and biochar based activated carbon in aqueous solution. Bioresour. Technol. 211, 727.
37.
TaylorJ.R. (1997). An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements. Mill Valley, CA: University Science Books.
38.
UNEP. (2013). Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, Emissions, Releases and Environmental Transport. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment Programme.
39.
ValderramaC., GamisansX., de las HerasX., FarránA., and CortinaJ.L. (2008). Sorption kinetics of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons removal using granular activated carbon: Intraparticle diffusion coefficients. J. Hazard. Mater. 157, 386.
40.
WatrasC.J., BackR.C., HalvorsenS., HudsonR.J.M., MorrisonK.A., and WenteS.P. (1998). Bioaccumulation of mercury in pelagic freshwater food webs. Sci. Total Environ. 219, 183.
41.
WuF.-C., TsengR.-L., and JuangR.-S. (2009). Initial behavior of intraparticle diffusion model used in the description of adsorption kinetics. Chem. Eng. J. 153, 1.
42.
ZaneG.M., YenH.-c.B., and WallJ.D. (2010). Effect of the deletion of qmoABC and the promoter-distal gene encoding a hypothetical protein on sulfate reduction in Desulfovibrio vulgaris Hildenborough. J. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76, 5500.
43.
ZhangT., KimB., LevardC., ReinschB.C., LowryG.V., DeshussesM.A., and Hsu-KimH. (2012). Methylation of mercury by bacteria exposed to dissolved, nanoparticulate, and microparticulate mercuric sulfides. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 6950.
44.
ZhangT., KucharzykK.H., KimB., DeshussesM.A., and Hsu-KimH. (2014). Net methylation of mercury in estuarine sediment microcosms amended with dissolved, nanoparticulate, and microparticulate mercuric sulfides. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 9133.
45.
ZhangY., LiuY.-R., LeiP., WangY.-J., and ZhongH. (2018). Biochar and nitrate reduce risk of methylmercury in soils under straw amendment. Sci. Total Environ. 619–620, 384.
46.
ZhaoL., ChenH., LuX., LinH., ChristensenG.A., PierceE.M., and GuB. (2017). Contrasting effects of dissolved organic matter on mercury methylation by Geobacter sulfurreducens PCA and Desulfovibrio desulfuricans ND132. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 10468.
47.
ZhongH., and WangW.-X. (2009). The role of sorption and bacteria in mercury partitioning and bioavailability in artificial sediments. Environ. Pollut. 157, 981.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
