Ecosystem Responses To Mercury Contamination PDF

8892_C000.
fm Page i Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
Ecosystem
Responses to
Mercury
Contamination
Indicators of Change
8892_C000.fm Page ii Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
7\PMZ<Q\TM[NZWU\PM;WKQM\aWN-V^QZWVUMV\IT<W`QKWTWOaIVL+PMUQ[\Za;-<)+"
=[MWN;MLQUMV\9]ITQ\a/]QLMTQVM[IVL:MTI\ML<WWT[NWZ\PM)[[M[[UMV\WN+WV\IUQVI\ML;MLQUMV\[
?MVVQVO*I\TMa1VOMZ[WTT5WWZMMLQ\WZ[

-KWTWOQKIT)[[M[[UMV\WN)Y]I\QK:M[W]ZKM["4QVSQVO;KQMVKM\W,MKQ[QWV5ISQVO
*IZJW]Z6WZ\WV8ZM[\WV<PWZV\WVMLQ\WZ[

)UXPQJQIV,MKTQVM")V1V\MOZI\ML)VITa[Q[WN5]T\QXTM;\ZM[[WZ-NNMK\[
4QVLMZ3ZM[\;XIZTQVOMLQ\WZ[

5M\IT[QV)Y]I\QK;a[\MU["
):M^QM_WN-`XW[]ZM*QWIKK]U]TI\QWVIVL<W`QKQ\a5WLMT[
8IY]QV.IZTMa;IV\WZM3I^ÎLI[5WWVMa?QVÎMTL?],Q<WZW

;QT^MZ"-V^QZWVUMV\IT<ZIV[XWZ\.I\M-NNMK\[IVL5WLMT["
8IXMZ[NZWU-V^QZWVUMV\IT<W`QKWTWOaIVL+PMUQ[\Za! \W
/WZ][KP3ZIUMZ4I8WQV\MLQ\WZ[

+WV\IUQVI\ML;WQT[".ZWU;WQTv+PMUQKIT1V\MZIK\QWV[\W-KW[a[\MU5IVIOMUMV\
4IVVWMLQ\WZ

-V^QZWVUMV\IT1UXIK\[WN8]TXIVL8IXMZ?I[\M;\ZMIU[
;\]\PZQLOMÎVLMV0M]^MT5IZ^QV;TILM/QNNWZLMLQ\WZ[

8WZM_I\MZ<W`QKQ\a<M[\QVO"*QWTWOQKIT+PMUQKITIVL-KWTWOQKIT+WV[QLMZI\QWV[
+IZZIVL6QXXMZMLQ\WZ[

:MMÎT]I\QWVWN\PM;\I\MWN\PM;KQMVKMNWZ?I\MZ9]ITQ\a+ZQ\MZQI,M^MTWXUMV\
:MQTMa;\]JJTMÎMTL)LIU[,Q<WZW-ZQKS[WV0WL[WV3MI\QVO2ZMLQ\WZ[

.WZQVNWZUI\QWVIJW]\;-<)+X]JTQKI\QWV[QVKT]LQVO;-<)+r[QV\MZVI\QWVITRW]ZVIT[-V^QZWVUMV\IT<W`QKWTWOaIVL+PMUQ[\ZaIVL
1V\MOZI\ML-V^QZWVUMV\IT)[[M[[UMV\IVL5IVIOMUMV\KWV\IK\\PM;-<)+)LUQVQ[\ZI\Q^M7NÎKMVMIZM[\aW]"
;-<)+7NÎKM ;-<)+7NÎKM
6WZ\P\P)^MV]M )^MV]MLMTI<WQ[WVLr7Z
8MV[IKWTI.4=;) **Z][[MT[*MTOQ]U
< ! . !! < .
-[M\IK([M\IKWZO -[M\IK([M\IKM]WZO
___[M\IKWZO
-V^QZWVUMV\IT9]ITQ\a<PZW]OP;KQMVKM
8892_C000.fm Page iii Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
Ecosystem
Responses to
Mercury
Contamination
Indicators of Change
Based on the SETAC North America Workshop on
Mercury Monitoring and Assessment
14-17 September 2003
Pensacola, Florida, USA
Edited by
Reed Harris • David P. Krabbenhoft
Robert Mason • Michael W. Murray
Robin Reash • Tamara Saltman
Coordinating Editor of SETAC Books

Joseph W. Gorsuch
Gorsuch Environmental Management Services, Inc.
Webster, New York, USA
Boca Raton London New York
CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
8892_C000.fm Page iv Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
Published in collaboration with the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
1010 North 12th Avenue, Pensacola, Florida 32501
Telephone: (850) 469-1500 ; Fax: (850) 469-9778; Email: setac@setac.org
Web site: www.setac.org
ISBN-10: 1-880611-86-4 (SETAC Press)
ISBN-13: 978-1-58488-661-7 (SETAC Press)
© 2007 by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
SETAC Press is an imprint of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-8493-8892-9 (Hardcover)

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-8493-8892-7 (Hardcover)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted
with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to
publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of
all materials or for the consequences of their use. Information contained herein does not necessarily reflect the policy or
views of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Mention of commercial or noncommercial
products and services does not imply endorsement or affiliation by the author or SETAC.
The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U.S. government or sponsoring
organizations and an official endorsement should not be inferred.
No part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any informa-
tion storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://
www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC) 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,
(978) 750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For
organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Ecosystem responses to mercury contamination : indicators of change / edited by Reed Harris … [et
al.].
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ).
ISBN 0-8493-8892-9 (alk. paper)
1. Mercury--Environmental aspects. 2. Environmental indicators. 3. Environmental monitoring. I.
Harris, Reed.
QH545.M4E26 2006
577.27’5663--dc22 2006049169
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
and the SETAC Web site at
www.setac.org
8892_C000.fm Page v Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
SETAC Publications
Books published by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC) provide in-depth reviews and critical appraisals on scientific subjects
relevant to understanding the impacts of chemicals and technology on the envi-
ronment. The books explore topics reviewed and recommended by the
Publications Advisory Council and approved by the SETAC North America,
Latin America, or Asia/Pacific Board of Directors; the SETAC Europe Council;
or the SETAC World Council for their importance, timeliness, and contribution
to multidisciplinary approaches to solving environmental problems. The diver-
sity and breadth of subjects covered in the series reflect the wide range of disci-
plines encompassed by environmental toxicology, environmental chemistry, and
hazard and risk assessment, and life-cycle assessment. SETAC books attempt to
present the reader with authoritative coverage of the literature, as well as para-
digms, methodologies, and controversies; research needs; and new develop-
ments specific to the featured topics. The books are generally peer reviewed for
SETAC by acknowledged experts.
SETAC publications, which include Technical Issue Papers (TIPs), workshop
summaries, newsletter (SETAC Globe), and journals (Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management), are
useful to environmental scientists in research, research management, chemical
manufacturing and regulation, risk assessment, and education, as well as to stu-
dents considering or preparing for careers in these areas. The publications pro-
vide information for keeping abreast of recent developments in familiar subject
areas and for rapid introduction to principles and approaches in new subject
areas.
SETAC recognizes and thanks the past coordinating editors of SETAC books:
Andrew Green, International Zinc Association

Durham, North Carolina, USA
C.G. Ingersoll, Columbia Environmental Research Center
US Geological Survey, Columbia, Missouri, USA
T.W. La Point, Institute of Applied Sciences
University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA
B.T. Walton, US Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
C.H. Ward, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering
Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA
8892_C000.fm Page vi Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
8892_C000.fm Page vii Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
Contents
Preface.....................................................................................................................xiii
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................xv
About the Editors...................................................................................................xvii
Chapter 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................1

Reed Harris, David Krabbenhoft, Robert Mason, Michael W. Murray, Robin Reash,
and Tamara Saltman
1.1 Mercury Emissions and Deposition.................................................................3

1.2 Mercury Concentration Trends in Fish............................................................4
1.3 Book Objectives ...............................................................................................7
1.3.1 Establishing Baseline Conditions and Temporal Trends.....................8
1.3.2 Establishing Cause-Effect Relationships .............................................9
1.3.3 Sampling Strategy ................................................................................9
1.3.4 Monitoring Data and Modeling ...........................................................9
References................................................................................................................10
Chapter 2 Airsheds and Watersheds ...................................................................13

Charles T. Driscoll, Michael Abbott, Russell Bullock, John Jansen, Dennis
Leonard, Steven Lindberg, John Munthe, Nicola Pirrone, and Mark Nilles
Abstract ....................................................................................................................13
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................14
2.1.1 Objective.............................................................................................17
2.1.2 Limitations .........................................................................................18
2.1.2.1 Emissions of Mercury ........................................................18
2.1.2.2 Detection of Trends ............................................................18
2.1.3 Attribution of Causality .....................................................................20
2.1.4 Overall Criteria for Selecting Monitoring Sites, Global and
Regional Influence .............................................................................20
2.2 Airsheds..........................................................................................................22
2.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................22
2.2.2 The Chemistry of Atmospheric Mercury ..........................................25
2.2.2.1 Dry Deposition to Terrestrial and Aquatic Receptors........25
2.2.2.2 Wet Scavenging by Precipitation Events ...........................25
2.2.2.3 Atmospheric Residence Time.............................................26
2.2.3 Measurements and Analytical Methods.............................................26
2.2.4 Modeling and the Need for Co-location/Intensive Sites...................27
2.2.5 Existing Atmospheric Mercury Monitoring Networks......................27
8892_C000.fm Page viii Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
2.2.6Air Quality Mercury Intensive Sites..................................................32

2.2.7Total Ecosystem Deposition ..............................................................33
2.2.7.1 Snow Surveys......................................................................35
2.3 Watersheds......................................................................................................35
2.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................35
2.3.2 Intensive Watershed Monitoring ........................................................38
2.3.3 Soil Surveys .......................................................................................41
2.3.3.1 Forest Floor Surveys...........................................................41
2.3.3.2 Surface Water Surveys........................................................41
References................................................................................................................41
Chapter 3 Monitoring and Evaluating Trends in Sediment and Water

Indicators ............................................................................................47
David Krabbenhoft, Daniel Engstrom, Cynthia Gilmour, Reed Harris,
James Hurley, and Robert Mason
Abstract ....................................................................................................................47
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................48
3.1.1 Objectives ...........................................................................................50
3.2 Sediment and Water Indicators ......................................................................50
3.2.1 Criteria for Selecting Sediment and Water Indicators ......................50
3.3 Recommended Indicators...............................................................................52
3.3.1 Sediment-Based Indicators ................................................................55
3.3.1.1 Total Hg Concentration in Sediment..................................55
3.3.1.2 MeHg Concentration in Sediment......................................57
3.3.1.3 Percent MeHg in Sediment ................................................63
3.3.1.4 Instantaneous Methylation Rate .........................................64
3.3.1.5 Sediment Hg Accumulation Rates in Dated Cores............65
3.3.2 Water-Based Indicators ......................................................................69
3.3.2.1 Total Hg in Water ...............................................................70
3.3.2.2 MeHg in Water ...................................................................75
3.4 Monitoring Strategy .......................................................................................78
3.5 Ancillary Data ................................................................................................80
3.6 Anticipated Response Times..........................................................................81
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................82
References................................................................................................................82
Chapter 4 Monitoring and Evaluating Trends in Methylmercury

Accumulation in Aquatic Biota .........................................................87
James G. Wiener, R.A. Bodaly, Steven S. Brown, Marc Lucotte, Michael C.
Newman, Donald B. Porcella, Robin J. Reash, and Edward B. Swain
Abstract ....................................................................................................................87
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................88
4.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................89
8892_C000.fm Page ix Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
4.3 Aquatic Biological Indicators ........................................................................90

4.3.1 Criteria to Select Indicators ...............................................................90
4.3.2 Candidate Aquatic Biological Indicators...........................................91
4.3.2.1 Fish......................................................................................92
4.3.2.2 Benthic Invertebrates ..........................................................95
4.3.2.3 Zooplankton ........................................................................97
4.3.2.4 Phytoplankton .....................................................................98
4.3.2.5 Periphyton ...........................................................................99
4.3.3 Recommended Aquatic Biological Indicators .................................100
4.4 Monitoring and Trend Analysis ...................................................................104
4.5 Ancillary Data ..............................................................................................107
4.6 Interpretation of Trend-Monitoring Data.....................................................108
4.6.1 Sources of Variation and Potential Confounding Factors ...............108
4.6.2 Steps to Constrain Confounding Factors and Enhance
Interpretation ....................................................................................110
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................113
References..............................................................................................................113
Chapter 5 Wildlife Indicators ...........................................................................123

Marti F. Wolfe, Thomas Atkeson, William Bowerman, Joanna Burger,
David C. Evers, Michael W. Murray, and Edward Zillioux
Abstract ..................................................................................................................123
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................124
5.1.1 Objectives .........................................................................................124
5.2 Issues of Concern.........................................................................................127
5.2.1 Geographical and Habitat Differences.............................................127
5.2.2 Methodological Issues......................................................................130
5.3 Host Factors .................................................................................................131
5.3.1 Bioavailability ..................................................................................132
5.3.2 Toxicokinetics and Toxicodynamics ................................................132
5.4 Types of Bioindicators .................................................................................133
5.4.1 Indicators of Exposure .....................................................................133
5.4.2 Indicators of Effect ..........................................................................133
5.5 Candidate Bioindicator Species ...................................................................134
5.5.1 Mammals ..........................................................................................134
5.5.1.1 Mink (Mustela vison) .......................................................134
5.5.1.2 River Otter (Lontra canadensis).......................................134
5.5.1.3 Raccoon (Procyon lotor) ..................................................135
5.5.1.4 Bats ...................................................................................135
5.5.1.5 Marine Mammals..............................................................136
5.5.2 Birds .................................................................................................137
5.5.2.1 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ...........................137
5.5.2.2 Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) ..............................................137
5.5.2.3 Common Loon (Gavia immer).........................................138
8892_C000.fm Page x Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
5.5.2.4 Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) .......................138

5.5.2.5 Seabirds.............................................................................139
5.5.2.6 Insectivorous Birds ...........................................................141
5.5.3 Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................................142
5.5.3.1 Reptiles .............................................................................142
5.5.3.2 Amphibians .......................................................................143
5.5.4 Other Potential Indicators ................................................................146
5.5.4.1 Albatrosses........................................................................146
5.5.4.2 Hawks ...............................................................................146
5.5.5 Identification of Indicators through Development of Water
Quality Criteria for Wildlife ............................................................146
5.6 Tissue and Other Samples ...........................................................................147
5.6.1 Hair...................................................................................................147
5.6.2 Feathers ............................................................................................148
5.6.3 Eggs..................................................................................................149
5.6.4 Organs ..............................................................................................149
5.6.4.1 Blood.................................................................................149
5.6.4.2 Brain..................................................................................149
5.6.4.3 Liver ..................................................................................150
5.6.4.4 Muscle...............................................................................150
5.6.4.5 Kidney...............................................................................151
5.7 Physiological, Cellular, and Molecular Biomarkers....................................151
5.7.1 What Is in the Pipeline? Future and Promising Biomarkers ..........152
5.8 Elements of a Biomonitoring Framework ...................................................158
5.8.1 Monitoring Design Considerations..................................................158
5.8.2 Trend Detection: The Florida Everglades Case Study....................161
5.8.2.1 Retrospective Studies........................................................162
5.8.2.2 Prospective Studies ...........................................................162
5.8.3 Recommended Wildlife Indicators ..................................................163
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................165
References..............................................................................................................166
Chapter 6 An Integrated Framework for Ecological Mercury Assessments ...191

Tamara Saltman, Reed Harris, Michael W. Murray, and Rob Reash
6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................191
6.2 Recurring Themes ........................................................................................192
6.2.1 Design of the Monitoring Network .................................................193
6.2.1.1 Criteria for Selection of Indicators ..................................195
6.2.2 Considerations for Sampling ...........................................................196
6.2.2.1 Sampling Scale .................................................................199
6.2.2.2 Sampling Location............................................................201
6.2.2.3 Sampling Frequency .........................................................202
6.2.2.4 Overall Duration of Sampling ..........................................202
6.2.3 Monitoring for Trends and Monitoring for Causality.....................203
6.2.4 Integration of Monitoring with Modeling Capabilities...................203
8892_C000.fm Page xi Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
6.3 Complexities/Confounding Factors .............................................................205

6.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................205
References..............................................................................................................206
Index ......................................................................................................................209
8892_C000.fm Page xii Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
8892_C000.fm Page xiii Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
Preface
This book proposes a framework for a national-scale program to monitor changes
in mercury concentrations in the environment following the reduction of atmospheric
mercury emissions. The book is the product of efforts initiated at a workshop held
in Pensacola, Florida, in September 2003, involving more than 30 experts in the
fields of atmospheric mercury transport and deposition, mercury cycling in terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems, and mercury bioaccumulation in aquatic food webs and
wildlife. Participants represented government agencies, industry groups, universities,
and nonprofit organizations.
In many parts of North America, mercury concentrations in fish are high enough
to cause concern for people and wildlife that eat fish. As a result, fish consumption
advisories are common, and several states and the U.S. federal government have
passed rules to reduce mercury emissions in the United States. A carefully designed
monitoring program is needed to establish trends in mercury concentrations in the
environment and to identify the influence of changes in mercury emissions on these
trends. The charges assigned to the workshop participants included 1) the develop-
ment of a set of indicators to determine whether mercury concentrations in air, land,
water, and biota are changing systematically with time; 2) guidance regarding a
monitoring strategy to assess these trends; and 3) guidance regarding additional
monitoring needed to determine whether observed changes in mercury concentra-
tions are related to reductions in mercury emissions. The resulting framework
described in this book reflects the consensus of the workshop participants that
monitoring trends in mercury concentrations at a national scale is difficult but
achievable, and monitoring should be started sooner rather than later.
8892_C000.fm Page xiv Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
8892_C000.fm Page xv Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
Acknowledgments
The authors and editors of this book wish to acknowledge the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Electric Power Research Institute, who sponsored a
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) workshop in Sep-
tember 2003 in Pensacola, Florida. More than 30 international experts gathered to
discuss and propose a framework for a national mercury monitoring program to
evaluate the effectiveness of mercury emissions controls on mercury concentrations
in the environment. This book and a companion journal publication (Mason et al.
2005) are the products of the workshop and subsequent efforts.
We also wish to thank the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC), as well as Greg Schiefer, in particular, who did an excellent job in
providing the venue and organizational expertise for this project.
Each of the contributions in this book has been peer-reviewed. The opinions
expressed in this book are those of the participants and may not reflect those of any
of their agencies, the funding agencies, or SETAC.
8892_C000.fm Page xvi Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
8892_C000.fm Page xvii Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
About the Editors

Reed Harris is a principal engineer with Tetra
Tech Inc. and has more than 25 years of experience
in the environmental engineering field. Since
1988, he has focused on studying the behavior of
mercury in the environment. He has developed and
applied simulation models of mercury cycling and
bioaccumulation in lakes, reservoirs, and the Flor-
ida Everglades. Reed is currently managing a
whole ecosystem mercury addition experiment
known as the Mercury Experiment to Assess
Atmospheric Loadings in Canada and the United
States (METAALICUS) in Ontario, Canada, that
is examining the relationship between atmospheric
mercury deposition and fish mercury concentrations.
David Krabbenhoft, PhD, is a research

scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey.
He has general research interests in the
geochemistry and hydrogeology of
aquatic ecosystems. Krabbenhoft began
working on environmental mercury
cycling, transformations, and fluxes in
aquatic ecosystems with the Mercury in
Temperate Lakes project in 1988; since
then, the topic has consumed his profes-
sional life. In 1994, he established the
USGS Mercury Research Laboratory,
which includes a team of multidisciplinary
mercury investigators. The laboratory is
a state-of-the-art analytical facility strictly
dedicated to the analysis of mercury, with low-level speciation. In 1995, he initiated
the multi-agency Aquatic Cycling of Mercury in the Everglades (ACME) project.
More recently, Dave has been a Primary Investigator on the internationally conducted
METAALICUS project, which is a novel effort to examine the ecosystem-level
response to loading an entire watershed with mercury. The Wisconsin Mercury Research
Team is currently active on projects from Alaska to Florida, and from California to
New England. Since 1990, he has authored or co-authored more than 50 papers on
mercury in the environment. In 2006, Krabbenhoft served as the co-host for the 8th
International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant in Madison, Wisconsin.
8892_C000.fm Page xviii Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
Robert P. Mason, PhD, is a professor

in the Department of Marine Sciences at
the University of Connecticut. Prior to
this recent appointment (from Septem-
ber 2005), he was at the Chesapeake
Biological Laboratory, part of the Uni-
versity of Maryland’s Center of Environ-
mental Science, for 11 years. Prior to
this, he received his PhD from the Uni-
versity of Connecticut in 1991, and com-
pleted a postdoctoral program at the
Ralph Parsons Laboratory at MIT. He has been working on various aspects of
mercury biogeochemical cycling and bioaccumulation for the past 15 years and has
published more than 70 papers, including numerous book chapters, on mercury in
the ocean, atmosphere, and in terrestrial ecosystems. He has graduated 11 MS and
PhD students during his career. His work has been widely cited and has been used
to develop global mercury models and as the basis for setting local, regional, and
national mercury regulations.
Michael W. Murray, PhD, has been staff sci-

entist with the Great Lakes office of the National
Wildlife Federation since 1997. His work has
included scientific and policy research on a
number of diverse issues involving toxic chem-
icals and water quality, including mercury
sources, fate and transport, ecological and
human health effects, and control options;
assessments of water quality criteria and total
maximum daily load plans; and assessment of
fish consumption advisory development and
communication protocols. Murray received MS
and PhD degrees in water chemistry from the
University of Wisconsin–Madison, where his
research addressed several aspects of the envi-
ronmental chemistry of polychlorinated biphe-
nyls. He has authored or co-authored 6 peer-reviewed publications as well as numer-
ous reports, and has served on a number of conference planning and technical
committees, including the SETAC North America Technical Committee. He is also
an adjunct lecturer in Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Michigan’s
School of Public Health.
8892_C000.fm Page xix Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
Robin J. (Rob) Reash is a principal environ-

mental scientist for American Electric Power,
Water & Ecological Resource Services Sec-
tion, in Columbus, Ohio. His principal duties
include designing and conducting technical
studies for NPDES compliance issues, evaluat-
ing the development of water quality standards
at the federal and state levels, and conducting
applied research. He has extensive experience
in evaluating the effects of power plant dis-
charges on environmental receptors (thermal
effects, trace metal speciation and effects, bio-
accumulation of mercury and selenium).
Reash has previous work experience with the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board and Ohio
USEPA. He is a member of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
and currently serves as a board member for the Ohio Valley Chapter of SETAC. He
serves on 2 project subcommittees for the Water Environment Research Foundation.
He has served as a peer reviewer for the USEPA proposed water quality criteria and
currently serves on a panel of USEPA’s Science Advisory Board. Reash received his
MS degree from the Ohio State University. He has authored or co-authored 23
technical papers, and has authored 3 book chapters. In 1998, Reash was certified as
a Certified Fisheries Scientist by the American Fisheries Society.
Tamara Saltman has an MS degree in marine studies

(biology and biochemistry) from the University of Del-
aware and a BS degree in natural resource management
from Cornell University. She has been helping to
bridge the science and policy of environmental mer-
cury contamination for 7 years, including facilitating
the development of mercury deposition monitoring
sites and communicating the results of scientific knowl-
edge on the movement of mercury through terrestrial
and aquatic environments. She also has experience
developing and running a volunteer water monitoring
network, setting up a tribal water quality analysis laboratory, and training new
volunteer monitors. She is currently an environmental policy analyst with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
8892_C000.fm Page xx Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM
8892_book.fm Page 1 Monday, January 29, 2007 11:04 AM
1 Introduction
Reed Harris, David Krabbenhoft, Robert Mason,
Michael W. Murray, Robin Reash, and
Tamara Saltman
How will mercury concentrations in air, land, water, and biota respond to changes
in mercury emissions? This book proposes a framework for a carefully designed
national-scale monitoring program, necessary but currently not in place in the United
States, to help answer this question.
Mercury concentrations in many regions of the globe have increased as a result
of industrial activities. Mercury contamination can occur as a localized issue near
points of release and as a longer-range transboundary issue arising from atmospheric
emissions, transport, and deposition. Most of the mercury (Hg) released to the envi-
ronment is inorganic, but a small fraction is converted by bacteria to methylmercury
(MeHg), a toxic organic compound. This is important because methylmercury bio-
accumulates through aquatic food webs so effectively that most of the mercury in
fish is methylmercury and fish consumption is the primary exposure pathway for
methylmercury in humans and many wildlife species.
While methylmercury occurs naturally in the environment, it is reasonable to
expect that methylmercury levels have increased in modern times as a result of
increased inorganic mercury concentrations. Whether methylmercury concentrations
have increased to a similar extent as inorganic mercury is not known. It is clear,
however, that elevated fish mercury concentrations can currently be found in remote
lakes, rivers, reservoirs, estuaries, and marine conditions, typically in predators such
as sportfish at the top of food webs. As of 2003, 45 states had fish consumption
advisories related to mercury, and 76% of all fish consumption advisories in the
United States were at least partly related to mercury (USEPA 2004a). The number
of advisories is increasing with time, although this is due at least partly to more
sites being sampled (Wiener et al. 2003).
Regulations controlling mercury releases have been proposed or put in place for
major sectors of the U.S. economy releasing mercury to the environment, including
a recent rule to control emissions of mercury from coal-fired boilers (the Clean Air
Mercury Rule [CAMR], USEPA 2005). Many scientists and policy makers are
concerned, however, that existing monitoring programs do not provide an adequate
baseline of mercury concentrations in the environment to compare against future
trends or evaluate the effectiveness of emissions controls. There is significant natural
variability in time and space for mercury concentrations in many environmental
media, caused by a range of factors affecting mercury cycling and accumulation in
biota (Figure 1.1). Local watershed and site conditions can exert large influences on
1
2 Ecosystem Responses to Mercury Contamination: Indicators of Change
FIGURE 1.1 Conceptual diagram of mercury cycling and bioaccumulation in the environment.
Introduction 3
mercury concentrations, as can year-to-year, seasonal, and even daily variations in

meteorology. Large-scale environmental changes such as acid deposition, land use,
or climate change also have the potential to enhance methylmercury production and
contribute to higher fish mercury concentrations. Occasional sampling of mercury
levels at a few locations is not adequate to distinguish the benefits of emissions
controls from other confounding factors. There are existing long-term networks in
North America that monitor wet mercury deposition, including the Mercury Depo-
sition Network (MDN), but MDN was not designed specifically to evaluate the
effects of emissions controls. For example, the majority of locations chosen for
MDN sites are intentionally removed from local sources, do not provide a complete
view of anthropogenically related deposition, and do not monitor dry mercury
deposition rates, an important component of overall atmospheric mercury deposition.
The overall result is the current absence of a national mercury monitoring
network needed to evaluate the effectiveness of regulatory actions on mercury levels
in the environment and subsequent risks to humans and wildlife. In response, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) sponsored a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
workshop in Pensacola, Florida, in September 2003 to convene more than 30 experts
on this issue from North America and Europe. The purpose of the workshop was to
begin the process of designing a national mercury monitoring strategy, designed to
help evaluate the effectiveness of mercury emissions controls on mercury concen-
trations in the environment. This book and a companion journal publication by
Mason et al. (2005) are the products of the workshop and subsequent efforts.
1.1 MERCURY EMISSIONS AND DEPOSITION

Anthropogenic mercury emissions to the atmosphere originate from a variety of
sources, including coal combustion, waste incineration, chlor-alkali facilities, and
other industrial and mining processes. Mercury emissions from these sources are
not typically monitored directly. Instead, indirect methods are used, such as com-
bining emission factors with rates of production of goods or consumption of mate-
rials, or using extrapolation methods that scale up from a limited number of sampling
stations to broader national or global fluxes. Anthropogenic and naturally emitted
mercury can be deposited and re-emitted repeatedly, complicating efforts to distin-
guish mercury emitted naturally from anthropogenically mobilized mercury. Recent
estimates of natural mercury emissions, direct anthropogenic emissions, and re-
emitted anthropogenic emissions suggest that these 3 “sources” are comparable (see
review by Seigneur et al. 2004), totaling on the order of 6000 to 6600 metric tons
per year. If these estimates are correct, mercury of anthropogenic origin would
currently contribute roughly two thirds of annual mercury emissions to the atmo-
sphere, either directly or via re-emission (Figure 1.2).
Slemr et al. (2003) attempted to reconstruct the global trend of atmospheric
mercury concentrations from direct measurements since the late 1970s, and sug-
gested that atmospheric mercury concentrations increased in the late 1970s to a peak
in the 1980s, then decreased until the mid-1990s, and have been nearly constant
since then. The authors noted, however, that this trend is not consistent with
Natural Emissions
Human-Caused
Emissions (Direct)
Human-Caused
Emissions (Re-emitted)
FIGURE 1.2 Estimated contributions of natural and human-caused emissions to global mer-
cury emissions. (Source: From USEPA 2004b.)
inventories of anthropogenic emissions that suggest substantial global emissions

reductions in the 1980s. They concluded that there is a need to improve the mercury
emission inventories and to re-evaluate the contribution of natural sources.
While there is uncertainty regarding overall global trends for atmospheric mer-
cury emissions, it is clear that the worldwide distribution of mercury emissions has
been changing as some countries industrialize or invoke measures to reduce mercury
releases (Figure 1.3, Figure 1.4, and Figure 1.5). North American and European
anthropogenic mercury emissions declined between 1990 and 1995 (Pacyna et al.
2003), while emissions were increasing in other regions (e.g., Asia). As of 1995,
approximately 10% of the total anthropogenic global mercury emissions originated in
North America, while slightly more than half originated in Asia (Pacyna et al. 2003).
Other evidence also indicates that atmospheric mercury deposition rates have
increased in modern times. In many remote watersheds in North America, the rate of
mercury accumulation in lake sediments has increased by a factor of 2 to 5 since
the mid-1800s, based on analyses of dated cores of sediment and peat (Swain et al.
1992; Lockhart et al. 1995; Lucotte et al. 1995; Lorey and Driscoll 1999; Lamborg
et al. 2002). Some cores also show evidence of recent declines in mercury deposition,
possibly associated with decreasing regional emissions of anthropogenic mercury
(Engstrom and Swain 1997; Benoit et al. 1998). A similar picture emerged from ice
cores in the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming (Schuster et al. 2002), where
anthropogenic mercury accounted for 70% of the accumulation in the past 100 years,
although accumulation rates have been declining since the mid-1980s. Some loca-
tions are very likely more influenced by local or regional mercury sources than
others. Therefore, some sites in the United States could currently be experiencing
declines in mercury deposition while others are increasing.
1.2 MERCURY CONCENTRATION TRENDS IN FISH

Fish are often the focal point of interest for methylmercury contamination, repre-
senting the main exposure pathway for humans and wildlife. Unfortunately, long-
term data sets with records of both mercury deposition and fish mercury concentra-
tions over time are limited. In Sweden, Johansson et al. (2001) estimated that
Introduction
Countries
1995 Total Hg emissions
0 - 0.25
0.25 - 1.5
1.5 - 3
3-9
9 - 36
FIGURE 1.3 Anthropogenic emissions of total mercury in 1995 (tonnes). (Reprinted with permission from
Pacyna et al. 2003.)
5
1400
1990
1995
1200 2000
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Africa Asia Australia Europe North South
America America
FIGURE 1.4 Change of global anthropogenic emissions of total mercury to the

atmosphere from 1990–2000 (metric tons). (Reprinted from Pacyna et al. 2006,
with permission from Elsevier.)
250
Other
Gold Mines
200
Hazardous Waste
Incineration
Tons Per Year
150 Chlorine Production
Institutional Boilers
100 Medical Waste
Incinerators
Utility Coal Boilers

50
Municipal Waste
Combustors
0
1990 Emissions 1996 Emissions 1999 Emissions
FIGURE 1.5 Anthropogenic mercury emissions in the United States, 1990–1999. Short tons
per year. Emissions shown for gold mines in 1990 and 1996 are assumed to be equal to
emissions for those mines in 1999. (Source: From USEPA 2004c.)
mercury concentrations in standardized 1-kg pike declined by 20% on average

between the periods 1981–1987 and 1991–1995, possibly in association with reduced
emissions from continental Europe. In North America, Hrabik and Watras (2002)
concluded that fish mercury concentrations in Little Rock Lake in northern Wiscon-
sin decreased by roughly 30% between 1994 and 2000 due to decreased atmospheric
Introduction 7
mercury loading. De-acidification was also suggested to account for an additional

5 to 30% reduction (the lake has 2 basins, 1 of which was experimentally acidified).
At some sites in the Florida Everglades (e.g., site WCA 3A-15), mercury concen-
trations in largemouth bass have declined since the mid-1990s, perhaps as much as
60% (Atkeson et al. 2003). The Florida case is particularly relevant to several themes
presented in this book. Even in an area where observations of wet mercury deposition
rates began earlier than in most regions of the country, the record may be missing
an important period circa 1990, when mercury deposition rates may have been higher
(Pollman et al. in preparation). This illustrates the need to start monitoring networks
sooner rather than later. Furthermore, the Everglades constitute a very dynamic
system with many factors changing simultaneously. Sulfate concentrations in surface
waters at some sites have dropped dramatically in recent years. Separating the effects
of mercury deposition and sulfate loading trends is not simple, as both potentially
affect methylmercury production and levels in fish (see Chapter 3 of this volume).
Carefully designed monitoring programs are needed to distinguish the effects of
various factors simultaneously affecting fish and wildlife mercury concentrations.
1.3 BOOK OBJECTIVES

This book is designed with 3 primary objectives:
1) Establish a set of indicators that could be monitored in the United States,

and preferably North America, to determine whether mercury concentra-
tions in air, land, water, and biota are changing systematically with time.
2) Provide guidance regarding a monitoring strategy to achieve the above goal.
3) Provide guidance regarding additional monitoring needed to help deter-
mine whether observed changes in mercury concentrations are related to
regulatory controls on mercury emissions.
Geographically, this book focuses on the continental United States, although a

monitoring program with a North American scope would have advantages. Emphasis
is also given to systems expected to be more sensitive to changes in mercury
deposition, and to freshwater and estuarine/coastal environments rather than the open
oceans. It should also be noted that this book seeks to provide practical guidance,
but is not a finalized detailed sampling program with specific locations, dates,
frequencies, and costs.
There are 4 core chapters, distinguished by the environmental compartments on
which they focus:
Chapter 2: Air/watersheds
Chapter 3: Water/sediments
Chapter 4: Aquatic biota
Chapter 5: Wildlife
Each chapter recommends indicators to monitor as a measure of changing mercury

concentrations in the environment, and describes the process used by the authors to
identify and rank these indicators. The chapters also discuss monitoring strategies
and ancillary data needed to help interpret the extent to which atmospheric mercury
deposition influences mercury concentration trends.
A final chapter (Chapter 6) provides an integrated perspective for a national
mercury monitoring program, based on information from the 4 core chapters. It also
recognizes that costs are a critical consideration, and offers 2 different types of
assessment programs. One program focuses on documenting changes or trends in
mercury concentrations in the environment, while the second is expanded in scope
to also examine the impact of atmospheric mercury deposition rates on any observed
changes in concentrations.
Several common themes emerged during the original Pensacola workshop. These
include:
• Challenges establishing baseline mercury concentrations and temporal trends

• Challenges isolating the influence of changes in atmospheric emissions
on mercury concentrations in the environment
• The benefits of a sampling strategy involving several regions nationally,
each with 2 types of monitoring sites: a) intensive studies for a small set
of sites, at least one in each region monitored; and b) less intensive
sampling at a larger number of clustered sites in each region
• The need for coordinated monitoring studies spanning several environ-
mental compartments through time and space, and the need for common
sampling and analytical protocols; this is particularly important when
striving to establish links between mercury emissions and methylmercury
levels in biota
• Making use of existing datasets and coordinate with ongoing monitoring
programs where possible
• The need to integrate monitoring with model development and testing.
The core chapters of the book treat these issues comprehensively, but they are
introduced here briefly:
1.3.1 ESTABLISHING BASELINE CONDITIONS AND TEMPORAL TRENDS

Temporal and spatial variability impose demands on sampling programs when estab-
lishing baseline concentrations at a given site, or across a range of sites. Existing
monitoring programs have shown that observations from one site cannot be consid-
ered representative nationally, nor even regionally. Even when monitoring a single
site, mercury concentrations in some environmental media can vary widely between
years or over short time periods, for example, in rivers where particulate mercury
loads can increase dramatically during storm events. Similarly, atmospheric mercury
concentrations in the vicinity of point sources may change dramatically depending
on the wind direction. Mercury concentrations can also vary spatially within some
environmental compartments at a given site and time. This can occur, for example,
in sediments sampled only meters apart, due to heterogeneity among samples, or
for a set of individual fish sampled on a given date (same species, similarly sized)
Introduction 9
due to differences in the characteristics and behavior of individual fish that generate
natural variability. The authors concisely explore these obstacles in this book, and
offer strategies to address them.
1.3.2 ESTABLISHING CAUSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS

It is not a simple matter to show a cause-effect relationship between mercury
emissions and methylmercury concentrations in biota. Individual sites are impacted
by different mixes of near-field, mid-range, and long-range mercury emissions
sources. The chapter authors also discuss confounding factors beyond mercury
loading that can influence total and methylmercury concentrations in the environ-
ment, including atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic chemistry; land use and urban-
ization; hydrology; climate change; and trophic conditions. Ecosystems also exhibit
a range of ecosystem sensitivities and response dynamics to changes in mercury
deposition. Some systems may respond faster than others or have variable rates of
response (e.g., relatively quickly at first but slower later). As a result, different
temporal trends may emerge at different locations, thus complicating efforts to isolate
the effects of mercury emissions and deposition on fish mercury concentrations.
These considerations require an expanded scope for a monitoring program,
involving measurements of ancillary environmental conditions in addition to mercury
data if the objective is not just to document changes in mercury concentrations, but
also to gain insight into links between emissions and concentration trends in biota.
These issues are addressed in each chapter.
1.3.3 SAMPLING STRATEGY

Two basic sampling strategies available are to 1) carry out limited sampling at many
sites, or 2) carry out intensive sampling at a smaller set of sites. Both strategies
provide benefits, although they differ. Focusing resources on a small number of sites
provides a more accurate picture of what is happening at those few locations, and
is well-suited to developing a better mechanistic understanding of processes and
links between mercury deposition and mercury concentrations in biota (e.g., the
Mercury in Temperate Lakes (MTL) programs in the late 1980s and early 1990s
(Watras et al. 1994). Distributing resources across a wide range of sites can provide
a more regional or national perspective, but at the price of confidence in what is
being actually being observed at any one location. As a result of these trade-offs,
the authors present a combined strategy involving clusters of sites, some sampled
more intensively, distributed across different regions nationwide.
1.3.4 MONITORING DATA AND MODELING

Policy makers would benefit from a combination of strong field evidence of trends
and well-established models to draw upon when assessing the benefits of past or
future policy decisions. Models of mercury cycling and bioaccumulation are not yet
adequately predictive across a range of conditions and landscapes. Results from a
national mercury monitoring program, if carefully designed, offer the potential to
help develop models of mercury cycling and bioaccumulation. The more intensively
sampled sites in particular could prove useful to advance the capability of models.
Opportunities to link monitoring with models are discussed in the core chapters.
Overall, the behavior of mercury is too complex to easily establish the benefits
of emissions controls. A carefully designed monitoring program is needed, involving
not just mercury data, but also a suite of carefully selected environmental parameters
spanning several environmental compartments. The remainder of this book provides
guidance toward reaching this difficult but achievable goal.
REFERENCES
Atkeson T, Axelrad D, Pollman C, Keeler G. 2003. Recent trends in mercury emissions,
deposition and concentrations in biota. In: Integrating Atmospheric Mercury Depo-
sition and Aquatic Cycling in the Florida Everglades: An Approach for Conducting
a Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis for an Atmospherically Derived Pollutant.
Integrated Summary Final Report. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), Tallahassee, FL. http://www.floridadep.org/labs/mercury/index.htm
Benoit JM, Fitzgerald WF, Damman AWH. 1998. The biogeochemistry of an ombrotrophic
bog: evaluation of use as an archive of atmospheric mercury deposition. Environ Res
(Sect A) 78:118–133.
Engstrom DR, Swain EB. 1997. Recent declines in atmospheric mercury deposition in the
upper Midwest. Environ Sci Technol 31(4):960–967.
Hrabik TR, Watras CJ. 2002. Recent declines in mercury concentration in a freshwater fishery:
isolating the effects of de-acidification and decreased atmospheric mercury deposition
in Little Rock Lake. Sci Total Environ 297:229–237.
Johansson K, Bergbäck B, Tyler G. 2001. Impact of atmospheric long range transport of lead,
mercury and cadmium on the Swedish forest environment. Water, Air Soil Pollut:
Focus 1:279–297.
Lamborg CH, Fitzgerald WF, Damman AWH, Benoit JM, Balcom PH, Engstrom DR. 2002.
Modern and historic atmospheric mercury fluxes in both hemispheres: global and
regional mercury cycling implications. Global Biogeochem Cycles 16(4):1104.
Lockhart WL, Wilkinson P, Billeck BN, Hunt RV, Wagemann R, Brunskill GJ. 1995. Current
and historical inputs of mercury to high-latitude lakes in Canada and to Hudson Bay.
Water, Air Soil Pollut 80(1–4):603–610.
Lorey P, Driscoll CT. 1999. Historical trends of mercury deposition in Adirondack lakes.
Environ Sci Technol 33:718–722.
Lucotte M, Mucci A, Hillaire-Marcel C, Pichet P, Grondin A. 1995. Anthropogenic mercury
enrichment in remote lakes of northern Québec (Canada). Water Air Soil Pollut
80:467–476.
Mason RP, Abbott ML, Bodaly RA, Bullock Jr OR, Driscoll CT, Evers D, Lindberg SE,
Murray M, Swain EB. 2005. Monitoring the response of changing mercury deposition.
Environ Sci Technol 39:14A–22A.
Pacyna EG, Pacyna JM, Steenhuisen F, Wilson D. 2006. Global anthropogenic mercury
emission inventory for 2000. Atmospheric Environment 40:4048–4063.
Pacyna JM, Pacyna EG, Steenhuisen F, Wilson S. 2003. Mapping 1995 global anthropogenic
emissions of mercury. Atmos Environ 37(Suppl. 1):S109–S117.
Introduction 11
Pollman CD, Porcella DB, Engstrom DR. (In preparation). Assessment of trends in mercury-
related data sets and critical assessment of cause and effect for trends in mercury
concentrations in Florida biota: phase II.
Schuster PF, Krabbenhoft DP, Naftz DL, Cecil LD, Olson ML, Dewild JF, Susong DD, Green
JR, Abbott ML. 2002. Atmospheric mercury deposition during the last 270 years: a
glacial ice core record of natural and anthropogenic sources. Env Sci Technol
36:2303–2310.
Seigneur C, Vijayaraghavan K, Lohman K, Karamchandan P, Scott C. 2004. Global source
attribution for mercury deposition in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 38:555–569.
Slemr F, Brunke EG, Ebinghaus R, Temme C, Munthe J, Wangberg I, Schroeder W, Steffen A,
Berg T. 2003. Worldwide trend of atmospheric mercury since 1977. Geophys Res
Lett 30(10):1516.
Swain EB, Engstrom DR, Brigham ME, Henning TA, Brezonik PL. 1992. Increasing rates
of atmospheric mercury deposition in midcontinental North America. Science, New
Series 257:784–787.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Standards of performance for new and
existing stationary sources: electric utility steam generating units; Final Rule. Fed Reg
70, Wednesday, May 18, 2005/Rules and Regulations. 40 CFR Parts 60, 72, and 75.
[OAR-2002-0056; FRL-7888-1]. RIN 2060–AJ65
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004a. Fact Sheet — National Listing of
Fish Advisories. Office of Water EPA-823-F-04-016 August 2004. URL: http://www.
epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/ factsheet.pdf
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004b. URL: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/
control_emissions/global.htm, updated May 2005.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004c. URL: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/
control_emissions/emissions.htm, updated December 2004.
Watras CJ, Bloom NS, Hudson RJM, Gherini SA, Munson R, Klaas SA, Morrison KA, Hurley
J, Wiener JG, Fitzgerald WF, Mason R, Vandal G, Powell D, Rada R, Rislove L,
Winfrey M, Elder J, Krabbenhoft D, Andren AW, Babiarz C, Porcella DB, Huckabee
HW. 1994. Sources and fates of mercury and methylmercury in remote temperate
lakes. In: Watras CJ, Huckabee JW, editors, Mercury pollution — integration and
synthesis. Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers. p. 153–177.
Wiener JG, Krabbenhoft DP, Heinz GH, Scheuhammer AM. 2003. Ecotoxicology of mercury.
In: Hoffman DJ, Rattner BA, Burton Jr GA, Cairns Jr J, editors, Handbook of
ecotoxicology, 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. p 409–463.
2 Airsheds and Watersheds

Charles T. Driscoll, Michael Abbott, Russell
Bullock, John Jansen, Dennis Leonard, Steven
Lindberg, John Munthe, Nicola Pirrone, and
Mark Nilles
ABSTRACT
As a result of controls that have been recently implemented and that are proposed
for atmospheric emissions of mercury (Hg), there is a critical need to design and
implement a program to monitor ecosystem response to these changes. The objective
of this chapter is to review the state of Hg monitoring activities and programs that
are currently being conducted for airsheds and watersheds, and to make recommen-
dations to strengthen and add to these programs in order to quantify future changes
that may occur as a result of changes in atmospheric emissions of Hg and subsequent
deposition. In this regard we identified a series of airshed and watershed indicators
that, when measured over a long period of time, should help to determine the
(response from) changes in the global, continental, and/or regional-scale Hg emis-
sions (or other watershed loads of Hg such as land-use changes or discharges). Note
that an important benefit of improved Hg monitoring programs would be the avail-
ability of high quality data to test and validate models. These data would help support
the development and application of models as research tools to better understand
the dynamics and cycling of Hg in complex environments. Improved and well-
validated models could subsequently be used as management tools to predict the
response of airsheds and watershed ecosystems to changes that might occur in
emissions of Hg or other changes that might alter the transport or bioavailability of
Hg (e.g., changes in atmospheric deposition, climate change, land disturbance). To
achieve this objective we propose an integrated airshed/watershed Hg monitoring
program. We propose that within an ecoregion detailed sampling at intensive study
sites (intensive sites) and less intensive sampling at a larger number of clustered sites
(cluster sites) would be conducted. To evaluate Hg response in airsheds we propose
a series of air quality Hg intensive sites. At these intensive sites detailed measure-
ments of atmospheric Hg speciation and deposition would be made together with
supporting measurements of atmospheric chemistry and meteorology. Several air
quality Hg intensive sites exist and could be used as templates for this approach.
We also propose measurements of total ecosystem deposition at the air quality Hg
intensive sites. Researchers have suggested that throughfall plus litterfall might be
used as a cost-effective surrogate for total Hg deposition to forest ecosystems. While
this approach needs further research, we believe it holds considerable promise and
13
might ultimately be implemented at cluster sites. We strongly endorse that continued

use of the Mercury Deposition Network (MDN). The MDN is a North American
network in which wet Hg deposition is measured using standard protocols. The
MDN is the only national framework that currently exists to monitor changes in Hg
deposition. The MDN needs continued support and should be expanded to improve
spatial coverage. For watersheds, we recommend that an intensive watershed mon-
itoring program be initiated to measure changes in the chemistry and flux of Hg
species in streamwater over the long-term. Rather than implementing a new water-
shed monitoring program, we recommend that a Hg monitoring component be added
to existing watershed networks (i.e., the NSF LTER program, USGS WEBB pro-
gram). Existing programs have the advantage of monitoring infrastructure and exper-
tise that is already in place and a record of ancillary measurements, which would
be critical to the interpretation of ecosystems response to changes in Hg deposition.
At the cluster-level, we recommend that a forest floor or surface soil monitoring
program be implemented to evaluate the response of soil to changes in atmospheric
Hg deposition.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
There is a critical need to establish an integrated, long-term monitoring program to
quantify the inputs, transport, and fate of atmospheric mercury (Hg) deposition
within watershed ecosystems, and the response of Hg indicators to changes in Hg
emissions, atmospheric deposition of Hg and other materials (e.g., acidic deposition),
climate events or change, and/or land disturbance or change. Central to this need is
the integration of approaches and data on Hg monitoring of airsheds and watersheds.
We envision that the response of airsheds and watersheds to changes in Hg emissions
will be variable across time and space (Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2, and Table 2.1;
Engstrom and Swain 1997; Bullock and Brehme 2002). At the local scale, air
chemistry and deposition near local sources should be elevated and respond rapidly
to changes in local emissions of particulate mercury (PHg) and reactive gaseous
mercury (RGHg). At the regional scale, sites that are within a source area but some
distance (~50 km) from sources should respond, albeit to a lesser extent, to changes
in emissions of PHg and RGHg. The lifetime of RGHg is short (hours to days), and
RGHg concentrations observed at remote sites are primarily related to photochemical
oxidation of gaseous elemental Hg (Hg(0)), most likely by reactive halogens and
oxidants. Note that the conversion of Hg(0) to RGHg is enhanced near coastal regions
(Pirrone et al. 2003a). Particulate Hg at remote sites is formed from similar reaction
or from preexisting suspended particulate matter that adsorbs gaseous Hg. Therefore,
remote sites that are far removed from emission sources should largely reflect
changes in global emissions of Hg(0).
Watersheds are sinks for atmospheric Hg deposition (Grigal 2002). However,
they are highly variable in their ability to retain inputs of total Hg (THg), convert ionic
Hg (Hg(II)) to bioavailable methylmercury (MeHg), and supply Hg(II) and MeHg
to downstream aquatic ecosystems, ultimately influencing exposure to sensitive biota
and humans.
Airsheds and Watersheds 15
FIGURE 2.1 A conceptual diagram illustrating the sources and pathways of atmospheric Hg,
and the response of deposition to changes in Hg emissions. Near sources of Hg emissions,
deposition of particulate Hg (PHg) and reactive gaseous Hg (RGHg) is high and probably
responsive to changes in emissions. Areas that are distant from sources but within the source
area will receive lower deposition of PHg and RGHg and will be less responsive to changes
in emissions. Finally, areas that are remote from sources of Hg emissions (and local and
regional sites) will receive Hg deposition that largely originates from oxidation of elemental
Hg (Hg(0)) from global sources. Remote sites will not be responsive to local and regional
changes in emissions.
The pathways of Hg transport and sites of Hg transformations within watershed

ecosystems are complex and poorly understood. Like airsheds, it is envisioned that
different types of watersheds will respond differently to changes in atmospheric Hg
deposition. The response of a watershed to changes in Hg deposition will be a
function of hydrologic flowpaths through the watershed, climate, soils and surficial
geology, vegetation type, and landscape features. For example, watersheds with
urban land cover and considerable runoff from impervious surfaces should receive
elevated inputs of Hg and, in the absence of confounding variables, be responsive
to changes in atmospheric Hg deposition (Figure 2.2). However, urban watersheds
may be influenced by land-use changes, nutrient enrichment, local point Hg sources,
and other factors, which may make it difficult to discern changes solely to emission
controls. Perched seepage lakes derive their waters largely from direct precipitation
and shallow hydrologic flowpaths. These ecosystems should be fairly responsive to
changes in atmospheric Hg deposition. In contrast, surface waters draining water-
sheds with thick deposits of surficial materials that strongly retain Hg might be
expected to respond initially only to direct deposition to the lake surface and respond
slowly or not at all to changes in atmospheric deposition of Hg to the watershed.
FIGURE 2.2 A conceptual diagram illustrating the response of Hg in watersheds to changes

in atmospheric Hg deposition. As an example, shown is an urban ecosystem that would be
responsive to deposition changes due to the short-circuiting of flow associated with impervious
surfaces. Urban watersheds also are complicated by sources of Hg in addition to atmospheric
deposition. A perched seepage lake would be responsive to deposition changes because water
is largely derived from direct deposition to the lake surface and shallow flow paths. A lake
with water derived from deep groundwater would probably not respond rapidly to changes
in deposition.
TABLE 2.1
Response of 4 hypothetical lake ecosystems to changes in national
Hg emissions. (Note that these concepts are also relevant for river
and coastal ecosystems.)
Ecosystem type Urban lake Forest lake Forest lake Forest lake
Hg deposition High Moderate Moderate Low
Hg sources Local, regional, global Regional, global Regional, global Global
Airshed response High, rapid Moderate, rapid Moderate, rapid None
Hydrologic flowpath Short-circuited Shallow Deep N/A
Watershed response Rapid Moderate Slow–none None
Note that these concepts are also relevant to the transport of Hg to river and coastal
ecosystems.
Watershed disturbance may confound the interpretation of Hg response patterns.
Virtually every watershed disturbance alters the supply of THg and/or the conversion
of Hg(II) to MeHg. These disturbances might include changes in atmospheric dep-
osition, land disturbance or change, climatic events or long-term climate change, or
local Hg contamination from industries or wastes. For example, clear-cutting or
other land disturbances have been shown to increase watershed export of THg and
MeHg (Porvari et al. 2003; Munthe and Hultberg 2004). Also, long-term decreases
in sulfate, which have occurred across Europe and eastern North America for
30 years, could alter transformations of Hg(II) and/or MeHg or the bioavailability
of MeHg through changes in surface water pH, net production of dissolved organic
carbon (DOC), and/or sulfate available for reduction and associated production of
MeHg (Hrabik and Watras 2002). Watershed disturbances are widespread and should
be addressed in the design of a watershed Hg monitoring program.
2.1.1 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this chapter is to review the state of Hg monitoring activities and
programs that are currently being conducted for atmospheric Hg chemistry and
deposition and watersheds in North America and Europe, and to make recommen-
dations to strengthen these programs and establish new programs to quantify future
changes that may occur due to changes in atmospheric emissions of Hg and subse-
quent deposition. In this regard we identified a series of airshed and watershed
indicators that, when measured over a long period of time, should help determine
the (response from) changes in the global, continental, and/or regional-scale Hg
emissions (or other watershed loads of Hg such as land-use changes or discharges).
The purview of this chapter is limited to atmospheric and watershed terrestrial
indicators. Indicators associated with the aquatic, wetlands, riverine, sediment, and
biotic compartments of the ecosystem are addressed in subsequent chapters of the
book (see Chapters 3, 4, and 5).
Note that an important benefit of improved Hg monitoring programs would be
the availability of high-quality data to test and validate models. These data would
help support the development and application of models as research tools to better
understand the dynamics and cycling of Hg in complex environments. Improved and
well-validated models could subsequently be used as management tools to predict
the response of airsheds and watershed ecosystems to changes that might occur in
emissions of Hg or other changes that might alter the transport or bioavailability of
Hg (e.g., changes in atmospheric deposition, climate change, land disturbance).
To achieve this objective, we propose an integrated airshed/watershed Hg mon-
itoring program. There are 2 broad approaches that have been used previously in
the design of monitoring programs. The first approach is to obtain data over a large
spatial area. If sites for this spatial program are selected on a statistical basis, then
it is possible to make an estimate of the population of the resource that shows a
characteristic or change. This approach has been widely embraced by policymakers
because it provides a quantitative framework for estimating damages or the extent
of recovery following a mitigation strategy (e.g., Landers et al. 1988; Kamman et al.
2003). The disadvantage of this approach is that for a complex, highly reactive
pollutant such as Hg, it is difficult to detect real changes. Moreover, without sup-
porting data, it is difficult to determine the mechanism responsible for this change.
The second approach utilizes intensive and detailed measurements at a small number
of sites. With this approach it is easier to detect change and attribute this change to
a mechanism, but it is difficult to know how representative this phenomenon is to
the population of resources at risk. Our proposed program would utilize both
approaches. Consistent with the approach discussed elsewhere (Mason et al. 2005)
and this volume (Chapters 3 and 6), we propose that within an ecoregion, detailed
sampling at intensive study sites (intensive sites) and less intensive sampling at a
larger number of clustered sites (cluster sites) would be conducted.
2.1.2 LIMITATIONS
Because much remains to be learned about the complex relationships between
emissions and deposition of Hg, between deposition and terrestrial flux of Hg to the
aquatic environment, and all of the factors that affect and control such relationships,
it is difficult to identify good indicators that completely meet our objective. Further-
more, interpretation of changes in the indicators (i.e., trends) as to causality (i.e.,
from emissions changes or from changes in other controlling factors such as mete-
orology) is difficult and must be performed with caution. In this regard, there are a
series of limitations that must be kept in mind as one designs, implements, and
interprets the results of a program to measure indicators.
2.1.2.1 Emissions of Mercury
Although atmospheric emissions (and other terrestrial loads to watersheds) of Hg

were deemed outside the scope of this chapter, it is important to note that the
reliability of the relationships between emissions changes and environmental indi-
cators of that change can only be as good as the reliability of emission estimates.
Therefore, it is recommended that quantification through research and monitoring
of all Hg emissions sources (e.g., natural, anthropogenic, re-emissions) be aggres-
sively pursued globally.
2.1.2.2 Detection of Trends
Mercury indicators often exhibit strong temporal and spatial variability. The ability
to detect real trends in any of the recommended indicators at a single site will depend
on several factors that can obscure or impart such trends to the data:
1) The consistency of methods used to measure the indicators (see Sections

2.2.3 and 2.3.3 for further discussion and recommendations regarding
methods).
2) The role of meteorological and climatic factors and their variability.
3) Ambient air quality (e.g., oxidant concentrations) and deposition that can
affect the emissions to indicator relationship. Sampling frequency is also
an important attribute of a monitoring program that strongly influences
the ability to detect trends.
4) The strength of the signal to all of the “noise” will be critical in deter-
mining how readily trends can be discerned. The “strength” of the signal
is generally a function of the distance from the source (Figure 2.3).
Understanding spatial variability is critical to detecting real trends across numer-

ous sites. Because every site is affected differently by global, regional, and local
FIGURE 2.3 The ability to detect trends in atmospheric emissions can be strongly affected
by the distance from the source (top) and meteorological factors such as wind direction
(bottom). These measurements were made near a Hg source in southeastern Idaho. (Source:
Abbott 2003, unpublished data, with permission.)
emissions as well as meteorological factors, the detection of trends due to any

particular source will require long-term records. Critical to assessing the changes at
these different scales will be locating monitoring sites in areas that are predominately
impacted by atmospheric deposition originating from local, regional, and global
sources (e.g., downwind from an urban area vs. remote sites).
2.1.3 ATTRIBUTION OF CAUSALITY

As in all statistical analysis, a strong correlation does not necessarily mean cause
and effect. If 1 or more of the Hg indicators changes corresponding with marked
changes in Hg emissions, causality cannot necessarily be assumed. If all controlling
factors are measured over time, it may be possible to infer causality empirically.
However, it is likely that models will be needed to assist in making the causal link.
Models will be a critical tool to determine and quantify if real trends in Hg indicators
are the result of an emissions change or some other factor such as meteorological-
or air–quality related change, or watershed disturbance. Airshed and watershed Hg
models are still in the early stages of development and testing. As a result, it is
important to continue work on understanding the atmospheric chemical and physical
processes, at global to local, and annual to hour scales, that control the emission-
to-deposition relationship. It is also critical to continue process-level and watershed
Hg studies to improve process representation and allow for the testing of watershed Hg
models. To support such an understanding as well as provide the data needed to
evaluate the performance of airshed and watershed models, a limited number of
intensive sites measuring a comprehensive suite of air quality, meteorological water-
shed variables are recommended, worldwide and in a variety of meteorological, air
quality, and emissions and watershed environments (see Section 2.2.6 for further
details). The most powerful approach to detect real trends in Hg indicators would
be comprehensive empirical data that are consistent with well-validated model cal-
culations. To realize this approach, we need high-quality airshed and watershed Hg
models, and high-quality integrated data sets to test these models.
2.1.4 OVERALL CRITERIA FOR SELECTING MONITORING SITES,

GLOBAL AND REGIONAL INFLUENCE
Historically, support for environmental monitoring networks has been sporadic.
Support shifts with the political attention given to a particular environmental issue.
Commonly, a phenomenon is asserted to be a major environmental problem and the
lack of information that would be needed to understand its nature, extent, and impact
is decried. A program of monitoring and research is instituted to gather the knowl-
edge needed to develop an appropriate policy response. A response is fashioned and
implemented and frequently a pledge is given to continue environmental monitoring
to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy actions. However, the monitoring program
associated with the issue in many cases enters into decline as new issues are identified
and limited resources are demanded by other problems. In this phase, budget-driven
changes (such as temporary shutdowns, site moves or closures, changes in sampling
intervals, and reductions in quality assurance and quality control) diminish the value
of the long-term data set due to overall loss of continuity in the historical record.
The start-up and shutdown costs of designing and implementing networks are sig-
nificant. The inefficiencies of such an approach add to the delays in addressing
emerging issues and to the cost of generating the information required to develop
sound policy.
Finally, the value of extensive time-series records extends beyond the identifi-
cation of a specific problem. Long-term time-series permits verification that deci-
sions are effective (or not); solutions are, indeed, working (or not); and the ongoing
costs and benefits of the given control program are assessed accurately. With proper
design of what to measure, it can also assist in understanding the why or why not.
1) Co-location. Extensive synergies can be gained by co-locating Hg indi-

cator monitoring with existing networks for monitoring other important
measures of air quality, deposition, and watershed characteristics. The
existing networks of monitoring sites provide a low-cost infrastructure
that is readily modified to include new chemical species of interest, such
as Hg. The ability of emerging monitoring programs to build on an
established traditional infrastructure (e.g., trained technicians, secured and
well-documented sites, field laboratories) has resulted in lower start-up
costs, quicker implementation schedules, and fewer initial problems for
new measurement objectives. Also important for new initiatives is the
ability to access the substantial knowledge-based infrastructure associated
with a monitoring network, such as trained data management and quality
assurance specialists, sophisticated data and site management tools, and
data dissemination (e.g., interactive Internet-based servers for supplying
environmental data to a worldwide customer base). Finally, the existing
long-term time-series of other environmental indicators at such sites are
more useful when co-located with monitoring for new constituents such
as Hg indicators.
2) Longer-term sites. Response to long-term changes in Hg emissions can
be obscured by the large day-to-day, season-to-season, and year-to-year
variations in winds, temperature, precipitation hydrology, and atmospheric
circulation patterns that, in turn, affect dispersion, transport, and deposi-
tion of Hg, and subsequent retention and/or transport in watersheds. To
see beyond these shorter-term and random variations, it is important to
select sites that have a long-term commitment and site protection to
provide continuity of monitoring for long periods of time, using consistent
procedures and quality assurance practices to observe long-term and sig-
nificant changes in atmospheric Hg contributions to airshed and watershed
response.
3) Representative locations. Important indicators of response to Hg emis-
sions should be measured across a range of climatic, geographic, and
watershed conditions, and encompass a range of Hg deposition regimes
and not only where the greatest impacts in endpoints are expected. Con-
tinental background sites are needed to evaluate and partition global
background from natural and anthropogenic regional emissions, to initial-

ize airshed model boundary conditions, as well as to evaluate changes
primarily attributable to changes in global background levels. Sites are
also needed across a wide range of climatic, depositional, and watershed
characteristic ranges to provide data for development and performance
assessment of continental-scale models of atmospheric Hg concentrations
and deposition, and watershed-scale models of Hg fate and transport.
Sampling of Hg indicators in an urban environment are commonly distinct from

samples collected from sites deemed to be regionally representative. Urban sampling
for Hg indicators should consider the importance of defining an urban, suburban,
rural, and pristine gradient. Given the human health and wildlife endpoints for Hg,
it is important to collect information in locations representative of the environments
where fish capture and consumption is prevalent (see Chapters 4, 5). This occurrence
is common in regions considered neither remote nor strictly urban, and the response
of indicators in these regions should not be neglected. The response of indicators in
urban locations and along an urban to rural gradient is particularly important to
serve as a sensitive measure to changes in significant local emissions sources. Sites
located away from large local sources would be expected to be less responsive to
such local changes.
2.2 AIRSHEDS
2.2.1 INTRODUCTION
The concept of a watershed is easily understood. The path taken by water flowing
on the Earth’s surface is determined largely by topography. However, the “airshed”
is a concept that is not so easily understood due to the 3-dimensional and time-
variant nature of atmospheric flow. The definition of an airshed is based on assump-
tions about wind flow patterns surrounding a location of interest and the length of
time that a substance is transported in the atmosphere. As such, airsheds cannot be
defined rigidly. This is especially true for atmospheric Hg, which exists in a number
of physicochemical forms, each of which has a different atmospheric lifetime. There
are excellent published reviews of the atmospheric chemistry and cycling of Hg to
which the reader is referred to for further details (e.g., Schroeder and Munthe 1998).
Atmospheric Hg is typically described in 3 basic forms: as Hg(0), RGHg, or
PHg. Elemental Hg is a relatively inert substance (although see Sections 2.2.2.3 and
2.2.7), minimally soluble in water, and is believed for the most part to remain in the
atmosphere for months before being deposited to the surface or chemically converted
into the more readily deposited RGHg or PHg forms. Thus, the majority of Hg(0)
emitted to air can be expected to travel globally and be mixed throughout the entire
atmosphere. RGHg and PHg are much more rapidly deposited and thus their atmo-
spheric lifetimes are much shorter (i.e., on the order of a few days or less). Because
PHg is primarily removed by washout and RGHg is removed by both wet and dry
deposition processes, PHg has a slightly longer residence time than RGHg. As a
result, the airshed for atmospheric Hg as a whole is indeed a rather indefinite concept.
Depending on the form of atmospheric Hg, the associated airshed can vary from
global to local scales.
Of the 3 atmospheric Hg species, only Hg(0) has been tentatively identified with
spectroscopic methods (Edner et al. 1989), while RGHg and PHg are operationally
defined (i.e., their chemical and physical structures cannot be exactly identified by
experimental methods but are instead characterized by their properties and capability
to be collected by different sampling equipment). Reactive gaseous Hg (RGHg) is
defined as water-soluble Hg species with sufficiently high vapor pressure to exist in
the gas phase. The most likely candidates for RGHg species are halogen compounds
such as HgCl2 and HgBr2, but possibly other Hg(II) species also exist (e.g.,
Hg(OH)2). Particulate Hg (PHg) consists of Hg bound or adsorbed to atmospheric
particulate matter. Several different components are possible; Hg(0) or RGHg
adsorbed to the particle surface, Hg(II) species chemically bound to the particle or
integrated into the particle itself. Another species of particular interest is methyl-
mercury (MeHg), due to the high capacity of this species to bioaccumulate in aquatic
food chains and its subsequent role in human and wildlife exposure to Hg. MeHg
is found in the atmosphere, and atmospheric deposition may substantially contribute
to the MeHg loading of aquatic ecosystems (Bloom and Watras 1989; Brosset and
Lord 1991; Hultberg et al. 1994; Lee et al. 2003). Because MeHg is only present at
low concentrations (i.e., picogram/m3) in ambient air, it is not an important species
for the overall atmospheric cycling of Hg, but should be included because of its
capacity for bioaccumulation. Gaseous methylated mercury species have recently
been quantified at concentrations in landfill gas of several orders of magnitude above
ambient (Lindberg et al. 2002), suggesting that direct deposition could be important
near such sources. Typical concentrations of atmospheric Hg species are presented
in Table 2.2.
The basic indicators for atmospheric Hg as it pertains to environmental contam-
ination are wet and dry deposition. Concentrations of the various forms of Hg in
outdoor air are rarely high enough to be of health concern via inhalation. However,
air concentrations of each of the 3 basic chemical species of Hg must be obtained
in order to understand their resulting behavior during transport, and rates of dry
deposition to surfaces. In fact, it remains quite difficult to directly measure the dry
deposition rate for Hg in any of its forms. As a substitute for direct measurement,
time-integrated total (wet+dry) deposition fluxes can be determined by measuring
the Hg content of throughfall and litterfall (see Section 2.2.7). However, dry depo-
sition of Hg has been largely ignored in the deposition monitoring programs that
have been initiated to date.
Variations of these indicators over time can occur due to changes in emissions,
but they can also be due to meteorological variability and to changes in the mea-
surement method employed. Signal-to-noise ratio is a critical issue for all of the
indicators identified above due to the global nature of the airshed for atmospheric
Hg and the regional-to-local nature of proposed emission reductions. The develop-
ment and use of numerical model simulations of atmospheric Hg emissions, trans-
port, transformations, and deposition should be used to measure pertinent indicators
and to better understand the fundamental atmospheric processes that affect Hg
dynamics.
TABLE 2.2
Typical concentrations of Hg species in the planetary boundary layer
Concentration
Species range Location Ref.
Hg(0) 0.5–1.2 ng m–3 Atlantic air, southern hemisphere

1.1–1.8 ng m–3 Atlantic air, continental Wängberg et al. (2001);
background, northern hemisphere EC (2001)
0.8–2.2 ng m–3 Mediterranean air* Sprovieri et al. (2003);
Pirrone et al. (2001,
2003a)
1.5–15 ng m–3 Continental air, urbanized,
industrial
0.1–1.4 ng m–3 Arctic* Sprovieri, Pirrone
(2000)
0.1–1.1 ng m–3 Antarctica* Sprovieri et al. (2002);
Ebinghaus et al.
(2002)
1.7–4.1 ng m–3 United States Keeler et al. (1995)
Landis et al. (2002)
RGHg <30 pg m–3 Background air

up to 40 pg m–3 Marine and continental (**) Sprovieri et al. (2003);
2003a)
5>50 pg m–3 Near sources Wängberg et al. (2003)
up to 200 pg m–3 Antarctica and Arctic (**) Sprovieri et al. (2002)
PHg –5 pg m–3 Background air

0.1–25 pg m–3 Marine (Mediterranean air) (**) Sprovieri et al. (2003);
2003a)
5–>50 pg m–3 Continental background, higher Wängberg et al. (2003)
near sources
Antarctica and Arctic (**) Sprovieri et al. (2002)
CH3HgX 0.1–10 pg m–3 Background air Lee et al. (2003)
(CH3)2Hg <5 pg m–3 Background air

–30 pg m–3 Marine polar air
(v.v. and normally
<5 pg m–3)
Hg(II) in 1–20 ng L–1 Wängberg et al. (2001)

precipitation Keeler et al. (1995)
(*) Sampling time of 5 minutes, whereas the average concentrations reported in the table are related to
the whole study period.
(**) Sampling time of 2 hours, whereas the average concentrations reported in the table are related to
the whole study period.
2.2.2 THE CHEMISTRY OF ATMOSPHERIC MERCURY

2.2.2.1 Dry Deposition to Terrestrial and Aquatic Receptors
Dry deposition of Hg can occur via 2 processes: 1) the direct deposition of gas-
phase Hg(0), and 2) the deposition of RGHg and, to a much lesser extent, atmo-
spheric particulate matter to which Hg is reversibly or irreversibly adsorbed. The
first process is extremely difficult to quantify, depending as it does on not only
meteorological phenomena such as temperature and wind speed, but also on the type
and geomorphology of the surface under consideration. Nevertheless, models and
several recent chamber studies indicate that vegetation has the ability to absorb Hg(0)
directly from the atmosphere (Lindberg et al. 1992; Hanson et al. 1995; Frescholtz
2002). However, to simplify the system, most regional scale studies have assumed
that the gaseous flux of Hg(0) over the land/water surface is zero (Pai et al. 1997;
USEPA 1997; Bullock and Brehme 2002). Recently, a number of flux chamber
experiments, especially on water surfaces, have been performed to test the validity
of this assumption and to determine whether it is possible to parameterize net fluxes
as a function of air and sea temperature and solar irradiation (Pirrone et al. 2003).
The second process, that of RGHg deposition together with particulate matter,
has been addressed in various regional scale modeling studies for some time, but
only recently has it been considered for direct measurement. Reactive gaseous Hg
exhibits the characteristics of a so-called “sticky gas” and is commonly modeled in
the same fashion as nitric acid vapor (e.g., USEPA 1997; Bullock and Brehme 2002).
These gases deposit rapidly due to their reactivity with surfaces, and exhibit
elevated dry deposition velocities; rapid dry deposition has been confirmed in recent
field studies in forests and the Arctic (Lindberg and Stratton 1998; Lindberg et al.
2002). At concentrations typical of rural or remote ecosystems, the dry deposition
of RGHg and Hg(0) are far greater than PHg, although this species may be of
importance under dry conditions near sources (Pirrone et al. 2000).
2.2.2.2 Wet Scavenging by Precipitation Events
Wet removal processes concern soluble chemical species (Hg(II)) and its compounds,
and some Hg(0), and also particulate matter scavenged from within and below the
precipitating clouds.
The total wet deposition flux consists of 2 contributory factors. The first derives
from the continuous transfer of Hg to cloud water, described by chemistry models.
There are 2 limiting factors: 1) the uptake of gas phase Hg(0), which is regulated
by the Henry’s constant; and 2) the subsequent oxidation of Hg(0) to Hg(II), which
is governed by reaction rate constants and the initial concentrations of the oxidant
species. The total flux depends on the liquid water content of the cloud and the
percentage of the droplets in the cloud that reach the Earth’s surface.
The second contribution to the total wet Hg flux is the physical removal of
particulate matter and the scavenging of RGHg from the atmosphere during precip-
itation events.
2.2.2.3 Atmospheric Residence Time

Many studies have indicated an atmospheric lifetime of Hg(0) of around 1 year,
based on mass balance considerations. Field measurements in the Arctic and Ant-
arctic during polar spring have, however, shown that under these specific conditions,
Hg(0) can behave as a reactive gas with a lifetime of minutes to hours (e.g., Schroeder
et al. 1998; Ebinghaus et al. 2002) during Hg depletion events. These Hg depletion
events occur only during a limited time of a few weeks and are not representative
of the overall behavior of atmospheric Hg(0). Hedgecock and Pirrone (2004) have
shown in a modeling study that atmospheric Hg(0) has the shortest lifetime when
air temperatures are low, and sunlight and deliquescent aerosol particles are plentiful,
which indicates that Hg(0) may have a shorter lifetime in specific circumstances
other than the polar spring.
2.2.3 MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL METHODS

Sampling and analysis of atmospheric Hg is often made as total gaseous Hg (TGHg),
which is an operationally defined fraction defined as species passing through a
0.45-µm filter or some other simple filtration device such as quartz wool plugs and
collected on gold. Total gaseous Hg (TGHg) is mainly composed of Hg(0) vapor,
with minor fractions of other volatile species such as HgCl2, CH3HgCl, or (CH3)2Hg.
At remote locations, where PHg concentrations are usually low, Hg(0) is the pre-
dominant form (>99%) of the total Hg concentration in air (Table 2.2).
In the past few years, new automated and manual methods have been developed
to measure TGHg (Ebinghaus et al. 1999); RGHg (Stratton et al. 2001; Feng et al.
2000; Landis et al. 2002); and PHg (Keeler et al. 1995; Lu and Schroeder 1999).
These developments make it possible to determine both urban and background
concentrations of RGHg, PHg, and TGHg. Accurate determinations of emissions
and ambient air concentrations of different Hg species will lead to an increased
understanding of the atmospheric behavior of Hg and to more precise determinations
of source-receptor relationships. This information, linked with other data, can be
used to assess the various pathways of human exposure to Hg (EU Commission
2001; USEPA 1997).
Denuders have been used in a variety of air pollution studies to collect reactive
gases for subsequent analysis, such as ammonia, nitric acid, and sulfur oxides (Ferm
1979; Possanzini et al. 1983). Denuders were also used to remove reactive gases to
prevent sampling artifacts associated with aerosol collection (Stevens et al. 1978).
Gold-coated denuders were developed for removal of Hg vapor from air but were
not applied to air sampling (Munthe et al. 1991). Potassium chloride (KCl)-coated
tubular denuders, followed by silver-coated denuders, were used by Larjava et al.
(1992) to collect HgCl2 (RGHg) and Hg(0) emissions from incinerators.
For PHg, a variety of different filter methods have been applied, such as Teflon
or quartz fiber filters. Before analysis, these filters undergo a wet chemical digestion
usually followed by reduction-volatilization of the Hg to Hg(0) and analysis using
cold vapor atomic absorbance spectrometry (CVAAS) or cold vapor atomic fluores-
cence spectrometry (CVAFS). Recently, a collection device based on small quartz
fiber filters mounted in a quartz tube was designed. The Hg collected on the filter
can be released thermally, followed by gold trap amalgamation and CVAFS detection
(Lu et al. 1998; Wängberg et al. 2003).
There is a critical need to develop standard methods that can be widely adopted
at national and international scales; these methods must form the basis of regional
and global scale networks.
2.2.4 MODELING AND THE NEED FOR CO-LOCATION/INTENSIVE SITES

Although significant improvements in speciated measurement methods have occurred
over the past decade, there are still limitations in accuracy and detection. These
limitations reduce the ability to detect changes in atmospheric concentrations of Hg
caused by small changes in emissions. Our understanding of critical atmospheric
processes is also incomplete, and field observations can exhibit characteristics that
are not readily explainable based on current scientific understanding. There remains
a significant degree of uncertainty with regard to the identity and rate of various
reduction/oxidation reactions of Hg in air and atmospheric water that are known to
have a significant effect on its transport and deposition behavior (Arriya et al. 2002;
Feng et al. 2000; Gårdfeldt and Jonsson 2003). Current numerical simulation models
of atmospheric Hg are using chemical and physical reaction definitions that are
almost certainly incomplete and inaccurate to some degree. Thus, great care should
be taken when using models to provide source attribution for observed air concen-
trations and depositions of Hg or incremental changes in those parameters that would
be expected to occur as future emission controls are implemented for Hg and other
pollutants that might interact with it. By monitoring the concentration and deposition
of other constituents at the same time and place as for Hg species, models can be
further developed and tested with fewer degrees of freedom. Moreover, increased
confidence can be placed on observed Hg signals that correlate with the signals for
other pollutants, as expected based on current science.
2.2.5 EXISTING ATMOSPHERIC MERCURY MONITORING NETWORKS

In 1994, the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) Mercury Deposition
Network (MDN) was established in the United States and Canada to develop a North
American database on the weekly concentrations of THg in precipitation and the
seasonal and annual flux of THg in wet deposition. The data are used to develop an
information database on the status and spatial and seasonal trends in wet Hg depo-
sition to surface waters, forested watersheds, and other sensitive receptors. Additional
objectives are to gain a better understanding of the relation between Hg emissions
and wet Hg deposition, to provide ground truth for model development, and collect
baseline data to gauge the effectiveness of proposed future controls on Hg emissions.
The locations of the ~85 National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) Mercury
Deposition Network (MDN) sites operating in 2006 in the United States, Canada, and
Mexico are shown in Figure 2.4. A sub-set of approximately 20 MDN sites is sampled
for MeHg concentration and deposition.
FIGURE 2.4 Location of Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) sites in 2006.
Support for sites is multi-tiered and includes participation by numerous federal,

state, private, academic, and tribal organizations. Network operation includes rigor-
ous field and laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), including an
external quality assurance program and periodic external on-site audits.
Most NADP sites meet stringent siting criteria that ensure the collection of valid
precipitation samples that are regionally representative and not unduly influenced
by individual local sources. A sub-set of sites is located in or near urban areas where
local sources may predominate. More sites are located in regions of the United States
with the most sensitive lakes and highest number of fish advisories for Hg. All sites
are required to use the same sampling equipment, sampling frequency, sampling
protocols, and central network laboratory. Data from all sites in the network, along
with additional information on site descriptions and the overall network, can be
accessed on the NADP Web site (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu). A summary of annual
wet Hg deposition for 2004 from the MDN data is shown in Figure 2.5a. To illustrate
the temporal variability in wet deposition, a time-series of THg in precipitation at
1 of the sites is shown in Figure 2.5b.
Limitations of the NADP/MDN include generally inadequate station coverage
in the western United States, as well as discontinuities in areas of the eastern United
States, including some areas with expected high levels of deposition and ecosystem
sensitivity. NADP/MDN samples are integrated weekly precipitation samples.
Unless only 1 precipitation event occurs in a given week, these integrated samples
are not ideal for back-trajectory modeling and source apportionment of wet deposition.
Total Mercury Wet Deposition, 2004
(a)
600 Site PA90

100
Hg Concentration
80
(ng/L)
60
40
20
(b)
0
6
9
01
02
04
5
97
98
00
03
00
0
9
20
20
20
19
19
20
20
20
19
/2
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
Time
FIGURE 2.5 a) Wet THg deposition at the Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) sites for
2004 and b) temporal patterns in the concentration of THg in precipitation at a MDN site,
based on weekly observations.
The considerably higher costs for operation and sample analysis of an event-based
network currently preclude a higher sampling frequency. In addition, data from the
networks are limited to wet deposition. Methodologies for determining dry deposi-
tion are subject to greater uncertainties, and can be more costly than wet deposition
and entail significant logistical efforts to obtain. Hence, a critical need is the devel-
opment of an integrated scheme for dry deposition measurement in a network mode.
In Europe, measurements of atmospheric Hg have been a voluntary part of the
Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-Range Trans-
missions of Pollutants in Europe (EMEP) since 1998. Existing monitoring stations
are located in Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Norway. Measurement programs are
variable but generally include TGHg (automatic or manual), PHg, and wet Hg
deposition. The coverage of northern Europe is satisfactory, although higher fre-
quency measurements would be more desirable from a model validation perspective.
The observed geographical patterns are consistent with the location of the main
emissions source areas in central Europe. Data from the northernmost station (Fin-
land) represent a global background with no or very little influence of European
emissions. For assessment of the total deposition (wet and dry) of THg in Europe,
as well as for evaluation and testing of atmospheric models of the European domain,
4 or 5 additional stations in southern Europe would be desirable. None of the
European stations have routine measurements of RGHg.
Wet deposition of THg from 4 Swedish and 1 Finnish station is presented in
Figure 2.6. The stations are located in a south-to-north gradient with increasing
distance from the main source regions.
A globally based measurement network for atmospheric Hg does not exist. Long-
term measurements of TGHg have, however, been performed at some land-based
stations. Data from remote marine sites are mainly available from research cruises.
Recently, Slemr et al. (2003) compiled TGHg data from a number of permanent
stations and oceanic cruises for the northern and southern hemispheres (Figure 2.7).
Although the data set is incomplete, a peak in TGHg concentrations seems to have
-1
14
TotHg wet deposition, g m y
1995
-2
12 1996
1997
10 1998
8 1999
2000
6
0
Vavihill Rörvik Aspvreten Bredkälen Pallas
FIGURE 2.6 Wet deposition of THg over a south to north gradient in Sweden and Finland.
Vavihill (southernmost) and Pallas (northernmost). Data are shown for 6 years.
Northern Hemisphere
Ship Wank Rörvik Mace Head
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
TGM [ng/m3]
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Southern Hemisphere
Ship Cape Point
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
TGM [ng/m3]
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
FIGURE 2.7 Time series of concentrations of total gaseous mercury (TGHg) in the northern
and southern hemispheres after Slemr et al. (2003). These data were compiled from permanent
monitoring stations and from oceanic cruises. Note that there may be a peak in TGHg during
the 1980s. Concentrations appear higher in the northern hemisphere than in the southern
hemisphere. (Reproduced with permission from the American Geophysical Union.)
occurred in the mid-1980s in the northern hemisphere. Values appear to have declined
from that period to the mid-1990s. Total gaseous Hg concentrations would seem to
have been constant over the past 10 years. Concentrations in the southern hemisphere
are lower than in the northern hemisphere and are less complete but appear to show
a similar pattern.
2.2.6 AIR QUALITY MERCURY INTENSIVE SITES

We recommend the establishment of several intensive atmospheric measurement
sites (so-called air quality Hg intensive sites). These sites, located with regard to the
criteria outlined above, and co-located with wet deposition stations, would serve 3
primary purposes: 1) to generate atmospheric data in support of regional-, national-,
and global-scale atmospheric modeling efforts; 2) to collect data for local-scale
modeling of atmospheric dry deposition to surfaces of primary interest; and 3) to
improve understanding of the atmospheric chemistry of Hg. A primary objective of
these sites would be collection of continuous speciated atmospheric Hg data using
the standardized methods described above for PHg, Hg(0), and RGHg. These esti-
mates, plus measurements of wet THg deposition, will provide the estimates of total
atmospheric deposition of Hg, which will be critical for quantifying trends in eco-
system loading from the atmosphere. Air quality Hg intensive sites should be co-
located with intensive watershed monitoring sites (see Section 2.3.2) to maximize
our understanding of the linkages between atmospheric Hg deposition and watershed
Hg dynamics.
Estimation of total atmospheric Hg deposition to a given site will require monitoring
of a number of chemical and meteorological parameters, which are now readily mea-
surable through standardized methods (e.g., Meyers et al. 1998; Landis et al. 2002).
While wet deposition measurement is straightforward, dry deposition requires the appli-
cation of existing models to appropriate atmospheric data. Inferential dry deposition
models have been developed to estimate dry deposition velocities for a number of
chemical species, including sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury (Hicks et al. 1991; Lind-
berg et al. 1992). Dry deposition velocity is defined as the ratio of dry deposition
flux to air concentration (Vd = F/C), and carries units of centimeters per second
(cm/s); hence, dry deposition flux (F) can be computed from the product of a modeled
Vd and a measured air concentration (C). Because Vd varies widely among Hg species,
Hg species concentration data must also be collected on a comparable time scale
(generally 2- to 4-hour means). The primary limitation to the application of these
models for dry deposition is a relatively well-defined surface in simple to moderately
complex terrain; mountainous systems are generally beyond the scope of such
models but could be addressed using ecosystem approaches described below. The
models, which simulate air/surface exchange using a resistance analog (Hicks et al.
1987), require measurements of instantaneous wind speed and direction, air and
surface temperature, solar radiation, and relative humidity (Meyers et al. 1989, 1996)
along with measurements of atmospheric Hg speciation. The models require infor-
mation on the surface of interest (e.g., grassland, forest, water, bare soil), including
the plant species if present, the distribution of leaf area with height, and stomatal
characteristics. The output of model calculations includes prediction of Vd and fluxes
of chemical species of interest on the time scale of hours. Such a system is now in
place for sulfur and nitrogen species at the AirMon sites in the United States, where
weekly wet deposition measurements are combined with modeled output to routinely
generate weekly estimates of total atmospheric deposition (http://www.arl.noaa.gov/
research/programs/airmon.html). We feel that the level of confidence developed from
using this approach over the past decade will allow reasonable estimates to be made
of total Hg deposition on weekly, seasonal, and annual time scales.
Several air quality Hg intensive sites exist and could be used as templates to
determine what additional air quality measurements should be included in evaluating
the performance of air quality models. These include the USEPA SuperSite programs
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/supersites.html) and the Southeastern Aerosol Research
and Characterization (SEARCH) project (http://www.atmospheric-research.com/
studies/SEARCH/index.html).
2.2.7 TOTAL ECOSYSTEM DEPOSITION

We also recommend the establishment of a program for “direct” measurement of
total Hg deposition at the ecosystem level. A number of authors have suggested that
total Hg deposition to forests may be considerably higher than wet deposition
(Driscoll et al. 1994; Munthe et al. 1995a, 1995b; Lindberg 1996; Rea et al. 2001;
St. Louis et al. 2001), and modeled estimates of dry Hg deposition appears to be
comparable to, or much larger than wet deposition (Lindberg et al. 1992; Bullock
and Brehme 2002). It is clear that wet deposition is not an accurate reflection of total
atmospheric loading to many surfaces, and, by itself, is probably insufficient to
indicate trends. To improve our ability to estimate total Hg loading, independent
ecosystem-level deposition estimates are necessary. Moreover, these measurements
would provide independent validation of modeled Hg fluxes estimated at the proposed
air quality Hg intensive sites. The recommended program would be most useful if
co-located with the intensive-measurement catchments discussed in the next section.
Each site would include a sub-set of the equipment from the air quality Hg intensive
sites with which weekly wet and dry Hg deposition would be determined (as described
above, but accomplished with a cheaper, less-intensive sampling approach for Hg
species and meteorological variables than needed at the air quality Hg intensive sites).
Several studies of Hg fluxes in forests have indicated that the total atmospheric
deposition of Hg might be estimated from its fluxes in throughfall and litterfall
(Driscoll et al. 1994; Munthe et al. 1995a, 1995b; Lindberg 1996; Rea et al. 2001;
St. Louis et al. 2001; Figure 2.8). Throughfall (TF) is the rain that passes through
the vegetation canopy washing off accumulated dry deposition, and is an excellent
indicator of seasonal total deposition of air pollutants that are relatively inert in the
canopy and for which root uptake and canopy leaching are minor (e.g., Lindberg
and Garten 1988). Mercury fluxes in TF generally exceed those in rain, suggesting
dry deposition washoff (e.g., Driscoll et al. 1994; Lindberg 1996; Rea et al. 2001).
However, at many sites, the most significant flux of Hg to the forest floor occurs in
litterfall (LF), which far exceeds wet deposition (Driscoll et al. 1994; Munthe et al.
1995a, 1995b; Lindberg 1996; Rea et al. 2001; St. Louis et al. 2001; Figure 2.8). If
this Hg represents an atmospheric source, and is not the result of soil uptake, LF
can be used as a component of estimates of total deposition (Johnson and Lindberg
1995). Several recent studies support this interpretation (including temporal trends
of Hg in foliage, controlled gas-exchange studies, and soil Hg-uptake experiments
(e.g., Lindberg 1996; Rea et al. 2001; St. Louis et al. 2001; Erickson et al. 2003;
70
Export (run-off)
60 Open field precipitation
Throughfall
Litterfall
50
Total input (througf. + littf.)
TotHg fluxes, g/km2
40
30
20
10
0
E
SE
SA
A
SE
I
SA
,F
F
,D
C
i,
,U
ni
t,
n,
h,
A,
rv
tz
ge
ra
Y,
jö
ac
jä
EL
TN
eu
ds
er
,N
lis
nb
r
nk
tb
Jy
år
h,
ke
te
ar
nc
G
ei
hs
La
Sv
St
ra
Le
ay
rB
nd
ke
Su
al
W
Location
0.8
Export (run-off)
0.7 Open field precipitation
Throughfall
Litterfall
0.6
Total input (dry + wet)
Flux of MeHg, g/km2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Steinkreutz, Lehstenbach, Urani, FI Jylisjärvi, FI Svartberget, Gårdsjön, SE Sunday Lake,
DE DE SE NY, USA
Location
FIGURE 2.8 Inputs and losses of a) THg and b) MeHg for watersheds in Europe and North
America.
Frescholtz 2002). Although ongoing and new planned field and laboratory studies are
designed to further test this hypothesis, we feel that it is warranted at this time to
develop a pilot-scale network of annual ecosystem fluxes of THg in TF and LF as
indicators of total atmospheric deposition. These fluxes can then be compared with
measured wet plus modeled dry deposition based on both inferential and regional-
scale models to develop independent estimates of total atmospheric deposition for
forested catchments. We also believe that this approach could eventually be applied
to a national network, such as the MDN. Although this method is best aimed at forested
sites, ongoing research will address methods appropriate for other ecosystems.
2.2.7.1 Snow Surveys
In western North America, persistent winter snowpack provides an excellent sampling

medium to detect both spatial and temporal changes in atmospheric Hg deposition.
Snowpack is an efficient integrator of both wet and dry atmospheric Hg deposition
and often provides direct Hg input to streams and lakes with little soil interaction,
which can complicate the link between atmospheric deposition and aquatic end-
points. Widespread persistent snowpacks in North American coastal ranges and
throughout the Rocky Mountains provide a sampling medium for evaluation of both
trans-Pacific inputs of Eurasian pollutants to the continent (Wilkening et al. 2000)
and spatial and temporal trends in local and regional source impacts (Susong et al.
2003; Abbott et al. 2002; Figure 2.9). Because Hg re-emission loss can occur over
time in snowpack (Lalonde et al. 2002), care should be exercised in the evaluation
of snowpack concentrations that have been sampled at different intervals after snow-
fall events. This re-emission loss, however, will likely result in end-of-season snow-
pack data, providing a measure of the net total depositional input to runoff, which
is the primary Hg input to some lakes.
Short-term in-season temporal trends in Hg deposition can be investigated by
coupling 10-cm snowpack interval concentrations with snowfall event dates from
nearby SNOwpack TELemetry (SNOTEL) sites. In addition, potential source direc-
tions during deposition events can be determined by examining wind directions
during the snowfall events or using back-calculated modeling trajectories. Long-
term trends may be investigated by sampling the same sites over several winters.
Estimates of THg loading (µg/m2) can be determined for a dated snowpack
interval by the product of the interval Hg concentration and the snow water equiv-
alent, which is determined from the interval density and thickness. Seasonal and, at
many sites, near annual (∼90%) loadings can then be estimated by summing the
interval loadings (USEPA 2003).
2.3 WATERSHEDS
2.3.1 INTRODUCTION
Watersheds integrate the signal of atmospheric deposition and define the interface
between the atmosphere and many aquatic ecosystems. The primary indicators
Con
tinen
tal D
ivide
MT
ID WY
UT
CO
AZ NM
Minimum = 0.4 ng/L

100 km
Maximum = 11.8 ng/L
FIGURE 2.9 Total Hg concentrations (ng/L) in the 2002 snowpacks at snow-sampling sites
in the Rocky Mountains of the United States (GP Ingersoll and others, U.S. Geological Survey,
written commun., 2003).
reflecting the role of the entire watershed to retain atmospheric Hg deposition and
supply THg and MeHg to downstream aquatic ecosystems are the concentrations
and fluxes of Hg species in surface water. There are other potential indicators that
may be helpful tools in assessing the spatial extent of changes in atmospheric Hg
deposition. Note that concentrations or fluxes of THg and MeHg may be influenced
by other factors in addition to current THg deposition.
Watershed transport and transformations of Hg are poorly studied. Inputs of Hg
are lost by volatilization, soil sequestration, and drainage. Based on a review of the
literature, Grigal (2002) estimated rates of volatilization of ~38 µg/m2-yr, soil seques-
tration ~5 µg/m2-yr, and stream loss of ~2 µg/m2-yr. Although all values are highly
uncertain and variable across ecosystems, soil Hg(0) volatilization is particularly
poorly characterized. Stream concentrations and flux of THg appear to be weakly and
inversely related to watershed size. Particulate matter and DOC are important carriers
of stream Hg; any factors that influence the loss of these materials will affect Hg
transport. Most studies have reported low stream fluxes of MeHg (<0.15 µg/m2-yr).
Watersheds exhibiting elevated MeHg transport are characterized by wetlands.
Reducing conditions and extended hydraulic residence time make wetlands ideal
sites for MeHg production and transport to interconnected lake ecosystems. Grigal
(2002) provides a critical review of Hg transformations and transport in watersheds.
A few studies in which Hg mass balances were developed for watersheds suggest
that there is a lack of a clear linkage between annual Hg deposition and catchment
loss of either THg or MeHg. In fact, recent studies in Sweden and Finland indicate
that the export of THg may be more strongly influenced by catchment disturbance
than by small-scale changes in atmospheric Hg deposition (Munthe and Hultberg
2004; Porvari et al. 2003). Moreover, recent controlled Hg loading studies at the
Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), Canada, suggest that the THg exported in any
given year is probably derived largely from native soil pools of Hg, rather than new
Hg deposition. Therefore, measurements of catchment export of Hg must be regarded
cautiously with respect to the use of this measurement as a reliable indicator of
trends in atmospheric deposition.
In this section, we discuss the concentrations and fluxes of THg and MeHg
exported from watersheds as a result of atmospheric deposition and other sources.
We also recommend a monitoring program to be implemented at a series of intensive
study watersheds to detect changes in these concentrations and fluxes as a result of
changes in atmospheric deposition. Atmospheric Hg not only enters watersheds
through direct deposition, but also through uptake by vegetation. Mercury derived
from atmospheric deposition that is directly deposited to surface waters or is trans-
ported along shallow flowpaths (see Figure 2.2) is expected to be more responsive
to changes in atmospheric deposition than Hg that is taken up by vegetation and is
incorporated into soil organic matter or that infiltrates into deep groundwater. Mer-
cury entering a watershed by different mechanisms (i.e., direct deposition, vegetation
uptake) or that is transported along different flowpaths is likely to have different
potentials for either evasion back to the atmosphere or methylation. These factors
must be considered in the design of a monitoring program to ascertain how water-
sheds respond to changes in atmospheric Hg deposition. We also recommend that
the program of measurements at intensive study watersheds be integrated with a
program or programs to assess the spatial extent of changes in atmospheric Hg
deposition. This spatial assessment might be done with forest floor surveys and
surface water surveys (see Chapter 3) that are population based and conducted at
regular intervals (e.g., every 5 years).
New Hg from recent atmospheric deposition will combine in soil with both
native mineral Hg and Hg associated with historical deposition. This pool of com-
bined Hg may leach into groundwater and surface waters. Depending on the char-
acteristics of the watershed, monitoring studies need to not only evaluate the potential
for leaching of this soil Hg, but also be able to determine the incremental effects
associated with changes in air deposition. Because soils may have large pools of
historically deposited and mineral Hg (relative to the contribution from new depo-
sition), monitoring studies alone may not be able to apportion the THg and MeHg
loads, between historical or native Hg and new Hg deposition. Such studies could
be facilitated by the use of stable isotope tracers (e.g., Hintelmann et al. 2002).
Mercury in soil is not only likely to have a different potential for evasion and
methylation than Hg in runoff, but soil Hg may be perturbed by land disturbance.
Land disturbances that are particularly relevant to Hg cycling include the formation
of wetlands and flooding of reservoirs (Rudd 1995; see Chapter 3). Disturbances
such as clear-cutting can also result in marked increases in the release of THg and
MeHg from soils (Munthe and Hultberg 2003; Porvari et al. 2003). Fire can result
in large Hg losses by volatilization (Grigal 2002).
The response of surface water Hg to changes in atmospheric Hg deposition will
be influenced by the existing Hg pools in soil and by terrestrial processes that modify
the transport of Hg deposition to surface waters (e.g., adsorption, vegetation uptake,
mineralization, reduction, and evasion). To discern any change in loading to water-
sheds, multi-year studies will be necessary to detect real trends in the response of
surface waters. Additionally, watersheds with low pools of native mineral Hg should
be chosen for study. Because the potential for Hg to methylate varies considerably
and can be influenced by a myriad of factors other than Hg loading, studies to
ascertain changes in the formation and mass transfer of MeHg in response to changes
in Hg deposition will be important.
A number of research projects on the dynamics of THg and MeHg in forested
catchments and wetlands have been conducted in Sweden (Iverfeldt 1991; Hultberg
et al. 1994; Munthe et al. 1995a, 1995b; Lee et al. 1994, 2000); North America
(St. Louis et al. 1996; Driscoll et al. 1998); and Germany (Schwesig et al. 1999;
Schwesig and Matzner 2000). Most of these studies have focused on input/output
budgets and relationships between THg and MeHg behavior and hydrology, and
interactions with other solutes (e.g., DOC). A summary of input and output fluxes
of THg in 9 catchments in Europe and the United States and Canada is presented
in Figure 2.8. Although the catchment characteristics are variable, some common
features can be found. For example, THg and MeHg inputs (i.e., throughfall and
litterfall) greatly exceed wet deposition. Also for all sites, inputs of THg greatly exceed
drainage losses.
2.3.2 INTENSIVE WATERSHED MONITORING

We propose that a relatively small number of watershed sites be established for
intensive monitoring. These sites should be selected based on the criteria for site
selection discussed previously (see Section 2.1.3). In particular, these sites should
be located in areas that:
1) Are sensitive to elevated atmospheric deposition of Hg

2) Are expected to experience marked changes in deposition in response to
changes in Hg emissions
3) Represent background conditions (i.e., remote from local and regional
sources of Hg and would represent changes in global emission of Hg(0))
Sensitive sites would include sites that are receiving high inputs of atmospheric Hg
deposition and sites with aquatic ecosystems where top end predators have high
levels of Hg. We also recommend that urban sites with elevated atmospheric Hg
deposition and forest sites with shallow hydrologic flowpaths, wetlands, and unpro-
ductive aquatic ecosystems should strongly be considered as candidate sites.
These sites should be co-located with other Hg monitoring activities, including
intensive air chemistry measurements (see Section 2.2.6), total ecosystem deposition
(see Section 2.2.8), and comprehensive monitoring of adjacent aquatic ecosystems
(e.g., lake, reservoir, estuary; water, and sediment chemistry (see Chapter 3), aquatic
biota (see Chapter 4), and wildlife (see Chapter 5)). For this proposed program, we
do not envision that new sites would be established. Rather, the intensive watershed
Hg monitoring program would partner with existing intensive ecosystem study sites.
Examples of existing intensive watershed networks include the National Science
Foundation (NSF) Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program, the Interna-
tional Cooperative Programme on Integrated Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on
Ecosystems of the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
(http://www.environment.fi/default.asp?contentid=17110&lan=en), the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Watershed Energy and Biogeochemical Budgets (WEBB program,
http://water.usgs.gov/webb/), and the U.S. Park Service watershed program. Sites
within these networks have an established infrastructure to conduct comprehensive
ecosystem research. This infrastructure includes laboratory buildings, a permanent
field staff, gauged watersheds, and long-term records of meteorological, hydrolog-
ical, and ecological data. Relevant data sets that are routinely collected at these sites
are summarized in Table 2.3. This infrastructure and the collection of supporting
data would be invaluable to an intensive watershed Hg monitoring program. Such
intensive study sites have been previously used to document long-term trends in air
pollutants to forest ecosystems and to establish mechanisms responsible for these
changes (e.g., Likens et al. 1996; Driscoll et al. 2001; Palmer et al. 2004) and test
models which simulate the effects of air pollution on complex ecosystems (e.g.,
Aber et al. 2002; Gbondo-Tugbawa et al. 2001, 2002). These facilities would greatly
decrease the cost of an intensive watershed Hg monitoring program, provide critical
data that would help interpret trends, and support the testing of Hg cycling models.
It will be a challenge to select a small number of intensive sites that are
“representative” of a region. Catchments situated in the same region may (and do)
react differently to atmospheric changes (both climatological changes and atmo-
spheric Hg deposition) and watershed disturbance. Thus, understanding the main
causalities, response, and regional impact may be biased if the intensive study
watersheds are not well represented.
At an intensive watershed Hg monitoring site, it is envisioned that THg and
MeHg would be measured in ambient concentrations of atmospheric Hg species (i.e.,
TABLE 2.3
Summary of ecosystem measurements that are routinely made
at intensive watershed study sites
Measurement Sampling interval Measurements made
Meteorology Real-time, with hourly averaging Wind direction and speed, air
temperature, relative humidity,
solar radiation, precipitation
Wet deposition Weekly Major solutes
Throughfall Weekly Major solutes
Litterfall Seasonally Mass, major nutrients
Soils Once for characterization, forest
floor at 5-year intervals
Vegetation 5 years Mass, major nutrients
Soil solutions Quarterly Major solutes
Groundwater Quarterly Major solutes
Hydrology 10 minutes Temperature, discharge
Stream chemistry Weekly Suspended solids, major solutes
TABLE 2.4
Summary of collections and measurements
of THg and MeHg that should be made at
intensive watershed Hg monitoring sites
Measurement Recommended interval of collection
Wet deposition Weekly

Throughfall Weekly
Litterfall Monthly
Soils Once to characterize pools
Soil solutions Quarterly
Groundwater Quarterly
Streamwater Weekly
Hg(0), PHg, RGHg), wet deposition, throughfall, and litterfall, as discussed in the
program to determine total ecosystem deposition (see Section 2.2.8). A summary of
the measurements of Hg species that should be made in an intensive watershed Hg
monitoring program is provided in Table 2.4. We envision that stream water measure-
ments of total and dissolved THg and total and dissolved MeHg would also be made.
In addition to helping determine trends of Hg in ecosystems in response to
changes in emissions of Hg, data from intensive watershed Hg monitoring would
be critical to the interpretation of chemistry and biology data in downstream aquatic
ecosystems (see Chapters 3, 4, and 5). Detailed Hg data from intensive watershed
Hg monitoring sites would be available for the parameterization and testing of
biogeochemical Hg cycling models (e.g., Hudson et al. 1994). These models will be
important tools to help interpret the mechanisms responsible for changes in the
transport, fate, and bioavailability of Hg in response to changes in Hg emissions
and in making future projections on how complex ecosystems might respond to
future changes in Hg emissions.
2.3.3 SOIL SURVEYS

Mercury concentrations in forest organic soils may be good indicators of both current
and long-term atmospheric inputs to catchments across large spatial scales. The
forest floor is a strong sink for atmospheric deposition of trace metals to temperate
and boreal forest ecosystems. A forest floor survey could be a good indicator of
spatial patterns of total Hg deposition to forest ecosystems. Repeated surveys of
forest floor samples could provide a quantitative understanding of changes in Hg
deposition over a period of decades.
2.3.3.1 Forest Floor Surveys
The forest floor (i.e., the organic horizon overlying the mineral soil in forests) is an
accumulator of trace metals. Researchers have conducted forest floor surveys to
examine regional patterns in the deposition of trace metals and changes in the
deposition of trace metals (Andresen et al. 1980; Herrick and Friedland 1990; Fried-
land et al. 1992). It is relatively easy to collect forest floor samples. Typically,
15×15-cm blocks are sampled, digested, and analyzed for trace metal content.
Researchers have demonstrated regional and elevational patterns in trace metal
content, which correspond to metal deposition patterns (Johnson et al. 1982). More-
over, in the case of lead, researchers have effectively documented decreases in
deposition across a region (Friedland et al. 1992).
As inputs of THg appear to be strongly retained in the forest floor, we recommend
a forest floor survey be conducted in areas that are receiving elevated Hg deposition
and where it is expected that deposition will change markedly. In this site, permanent
sampling sites would be established. We envision that forest floor samples would
be resurveyed at appropriate time intervals (e.g., 10 years). A forest floor survey
would help clarify current patterns of total Hg deposition and potentially quantify
the response of forests to decreases in Hg emissions and deposition.
2.3.3.2 Surface Water Surveys
Cluster sites should be established for synoptic surface water surveys. This approach
is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
REFERENCES
Abbott ML, Susong DD, Krabbenhoft DP, Rood AS. 2002. Mercury deposition near an
industrial emission source in the western U.S. and comparison to ISC3 model pre-
dictions. Water Air Soil Pollut 139:95–114.
Aber JD, Ollinger SV, Driscoll CT, Likens GE, Holmes RT, Freuder RJ, Goodale CL. 2002.
Inorganic N losses from a forested ecosystem in response to physical, chemical, biotic
and climatic perturbances. Ecosystems 5:648–658.
Andresen AM, Johnson AH, Siccama TG. 1980. Levels of lead, copper and zinc in the forest
floor in the northeastern U.S. J Environ Qual 9:293–296.
Arriya PA, Khalizov A, Gidas A. 2002. Reactions of gaseous mercury with atomic and
molecular halogens: kinetics, product studies, and atmospheric implications. J Phys
Chem A(106):7310–7320.
Bloom NS, Watras CJ. 1989. Observations of methylmercury in precipitation. Sci Total
Environ 87/88:191–207.
Brosset C, Lord E. 1991. Mercury in precipitation and ambient air: a new scenario. Water
Air Soil Pollut 56:493–506.
Bullock Jr, OR, Brehme KA. 2002. Atmospheric mercury simulation using the CMAQ model:
formulation description and analysis of wet deposition results. Atmos Environ
36:2135–2146.
Driscoll CT, Otton JK, Iverfeldt A. 1994. Trace metals speciation and cycling. In: Moldan B,
Cerny J, editors, Biogeochemistry of small catchments: a tool for environmental
research. Chichester, England: J Wiley & Sons, p. 299–322.
Driscoll CT, Holsapple J, Schofield CL, Munson R. 1998. The chemistry and transport of
mercury in a small wetland in the Adirondack region of New York, USA. Biogeochem-
istry 40:137–146.
Driscoll CT, Lawrence GB, Bulger AJ, Butler TJ, Cronan CS, Eagar C, Lambert KF, Likens
GE, Stoddard JL, Weathers KC. 2001. Acidic deposition in the northeastern U.S.:
sources and inputs, ecosystems effects, and management strategies. BioScience
51:180–198.
Ebinghaus R, Jennings SG, Schroeder WH, Berg T, Donaghy T, Guentzel J, Kenny C, Kock
HH, Kvietkus K, Landing W, Muhleck T, Munthe J, Prestbo EM, Schneeberger D,
Slemr F, Sommar J, Urba A, Wallschlager D, Xiao Z. 1999. International field
intercomparison measurements of atmospheric mercury species at Mace Head, Ire-
land. Atmos Environ 18:3063–3073.
Ebinghaus R, Kock HH, Temme C, Einax JW, Lowe AG, Richter A, Burrows JP, Schroeder
WH. 2002. Antarctic springtime depletion of atmospheric mercury. Environ Sci
Technol 36(6):1238–1244.
Edner H, Faris GW, Sunesson A, Svanberg S. 1989. Atmospheric atomic mercury monitoring
using differential adsorption LIDAR technique. Appl Opt 28:921.
Upper Midwest. Environ Sci Technol 31(4):960–967.
Ericksen J, Gustin MS, Schorran D, Johnson D, Lindberg S, Coleman J. 2003. Accumulation
of atmospheric mercury in forest foliage. Atmos Environ 37:1613–1622.
European Commission. 2001. Ambient Air Pollution by Mercury (Hg) - Position Paper on
Mercury. European Commission Publisher, Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Brussels, ISBN 92-894-2053-7.
Feng X, Sommar J, Gardfeldt K, Lindqvist O. 2000. Improved determination of gaseous
divalent mercury in ambient air using KCl coated denuders. Fresenius’ J Anal Chem
366(5):423–428.
Ferm M. 1979. Method for determination of atmospheric ammonia. Atmos Environ
13:1385–1393.
Frescholtz T. 2002. Assessing the role of vegetation as sources and sinks of atmospheric Hg
using quaking aspen. MS thesis, University of Nevada Reno, 67 p.
Friedland AJ, Craig BW, Miller EK, Herrick GT, Siccama TG, Johnson AH. 1992. Decreasing
lead levels in the forest floor of the northeastern USA. Ambio 21:400–403.
Gårdfeldt K, Jonsson M. 2003. Is bimolecular reduction of Hg (II) complexes possible in
aqueous systems of environmental importance? J Phys Chem A(107):4478–4482.
Gbondo-Tugbawa SS, Driscoll CT, Aber JD, Likens GE. 2001. Evaluation of an integrated
biogeochemical model (PnET-BGC) at a northern hardwood forest ecosystem. Water
Resour Res 37:1057–1070.
Gbondo-Tugbawa SS, Driscoll CT, Mitchell MJ, Aber JD, Likens GE. 2002. A model to
simulate the response of a northern hardwood forest ecosystem to changes in S
deposition. Ecol Appl 12:8–23.
Grigal DF. 2002. Inputs and outputs of mercury from terrestrial watersheds: a review. Environ
Rev 10:1–39.
Hanson PJ, Lindberg SE, Tabberer TA, Owens JG, Kim KH. 1995. Foliar exchange of mercury
vapor: evidence for a compensation point. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:373–382.
Hedgecock IM, Pirrone N. 2004. Chasing quicksilver: modeling the atmospheric lifetime of
0 in the marine boundary layer at various latitudes. Environ Sci Technol 38:69–76.
Hg(g)
Herrick GT, Friedland AJ. 1990. Patterns of trace metal concentrations and acidity in montane
forest soils of the northeastern United States. Water Air Soil Pollut 53:151–157.
Hicks BB, Baldocchi DD, Meyers TP, Hosker Jr RP, Matt DR. 1987. A preliminary multiple
resistance routine for deriving deposition velocities from measured quantities. Water
Hicks BB, Hosker Jr RP, Meyers TP, Womack JD. 1991. Dry deposition inferential measure-
ment techniques. I. Design and tests of a prototype meteorological and chemical
system for determining dry deposition. Atmos Environ 25A:2345–2359.
Hintelmann H, St. Louis V, Scott K, Rudd J, Lindberg SE, Krabbenhoft D, Kelly C, Heyes
A, Harris R, Hurley J. 2002. Reactivity and mobility of newly deposited mercury in
a Boreal catchment. Environ Sci Technol 36:5034–5040.
Hudson RJM, Gherini SA, Watras CJ, Porcella DB. 1994. Modeling the biogeochemical cycle
of mercury in lakes: the Mercury Cycling Model (MCM) and its application to the
MTL study lakes. In: Watras CJ, Huckabee JW, editors, Mercury pollution integration
and synthesis. Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers, CRC Press Inc., p. 473–523.
Hultberg H, Iverfeldt Å, Lee Y-H. 1994. Methylmercury input/output and accumulation in
forested catchments and critical loads for lakes in Southwestern Sweden. In: Watras
CJ, Huckabee. JW, editors, Mercury pollution, integration and synthesis. Boca Raton
(FL): Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Inc.
Iverfeldt A. 1991. Occurrence and turnover of atmospheric mercury over the Nordic countries.
Water Air Soil Pollut 56:251–265.
Johnson AH, Siccama TG, Friedland AJ. 1982. Spatial and temporal patterns of lead accumu-
lation in the forest floor in the northeastern United States. J Environ Qual 11:577–580.
Johnson DW, Lindberg SE. 1995. Sources, sinks, and cycling of mercury in forested ecosys-
tems. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:1069–1077.
Kamman NC, Lorey PM, Driscoll CT, Estabrook R, Major A, Pientka B, Glassford E. 2003.
Assessment of mercury in waters, sediments, and biota of New Hampshire and
Vermont lakes, USA, sampled using a geographically randomized design. Environ
Toxicol Chem 23:1172–1186.
Keeler GJ, Glinsorn G, Pirrone N. 1995. Particulate mercury in the atmosphere: its signifi-
cance, transport, transformation and sources. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:159–168.
Lalonde JD, Poulain AJ, Amyot M. 2002. The role of mercury redox reactions in snow on
snow-to-air mercury transfer. Environ Sci Technol 36:174–178.
Landers DH, Overton WS, Linthurst RA, Brakke DF. 1988. Eastern Lake Survey: regional
estimates of lake chemistry. Environ Sci Technol 22:128–135.
Landis MS, Vette AF, Keeler GJ. 2002. Atmospheric mercury in the Lake Michigan Basin:
influence of the Chicago/Gary urban area. Environ Sci Technol 36(13):3000–3009.
Larjava K, Laitinen T, Vahlman T, Artmann S, Siemens V, Broekaert JAC, Klockow D. 1992.
Measurements and control of mercury species in flue gases from liquid waste incin-
eration. Int J Anal Chem 149:73–85.
Lee Y-H, Borg GCh, Iverfeldt Å, Hultberg H. 1994. Fluxes and turnover of methylmercury:
mercury pools in forest soils. In: Watras CJ, Huckabee JW, editors, Mercury pollution,
integration and synthesis. Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Inc.
Lee YH, Bishop K, Munthe J. 2000. Do concepts about catchment cycling of methylmercury
and mercury in boreal catchments stand the test of time? Six years of atmospheric
inputs and runoff export at Svartberget, northern Sweden. Sci Total Environ
260:11–20.
Lee YH, Wängberg I, Munthe J. 2003. Sampling and analysis of gas-phase methylmercury
in ambient air. Sci Total Environ 304:107–113.
Likens GE, Driscoll CT, Buso DC. 1996. Long-term effects of acid rain: response and recovery
of a forest ecosystem. Science 272:244–246.
Lindberg SE, Garten Jr CT. 1988. Sources of sulfur in forest canopy throughfall. Nature
336:148–151.
Lindberg SE, Meyers TP, Taylor GE, Turner RR, Schroeder WH. 1992. Atmosphere/surface
exchange of mercury in a forest: results of modeling and gradient approaches.
J Geophys Res 97:2519–2528.
Lindberg SE. 1996. Forests and the global biogeochemical cycle of mercury: the importance
of understanding air/vegetation exchange processes. In: Baeyens W, Ebinghaus R,
Vasiliev O, editors, Global and regional mercury cycles: sources, fluxes and mass
balances. NATO ASI Series, Vol. 21. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, p. 359–380.
Lindberg SE, Stratton WJ. 1998. Atmospheric mercury speciation: concentrations and behav-
ior of reactive gaseous mercury in ambient air. Environ Sci Technol 32:49–57.
Lindberg SE, Brooks SB, Lin C-J, Scott KJ, Landis MS, Stevens RK, Goodsite M, Richter
A. 2002. The dynamic oxidation of gaseous mercury in the Arctic atmosphere at
polar sunrise. Environ Sci Technol 36:1245–1256.
Lu JY, Schroeder WH, Berg T, Munthe J, Schneeberger D, Schaedlich F. 1998. A device for
sampling and determination of total particulate mercury in ambient air. Anal Chem
70:2403–2408.
Lu JY, Schroeder WH. 1999. Sampling and determination of particulate mercury in ambient
air: a review. Water Air Soil Pollut 112:279–295.
Mason RP, Abbott ML, Bodaly RA, Bullock Jr OR, Driscoll CT, Evers D, Lindberg SE,
Murray M, Swain EB. 2005. Monitoring the response to changing mercury deposition.
Environ Sci Technol 39:15–22A.
Meyers TP, Huebert BJ, Hicks BB. 1989. HNO3 deposition to a deciduous forest. Boundary-
Layer Meteorol 49:395–410.
Meyers TP, Hall ME, Lindberg SE. 1996. Use of the modified Bowen ratio technique to
measure fluxes of trace gases. Atmos Environ 30:3321–3329.
Meyers TP, Finkelstein P, Clarke J, Ellestad T, Sims PF. 1998. A multilayer model for inferring
dry deposition using standard meteorological measurements. J Geophys Res
103:22645–22661.
Munthe J, Xiao Z, Schroeder WH, Lindqvist O. 1991. Removal of gaseous mercury from air
using a gold coated denuder. Atmos Environ 24A:2271–2274.
Munthe J, Hultberg H, Lee Y-H, Parkman H, Iverfeldt Å, Renberg I. 1995a. Trends of mercury
and methylmercury in deposition, run-off water and sediments in relation to experi-
mental manipulations and acidification. Water Air Soil Pollut 85(2):743–748.
Munthe J, Hultberg H, Iverfeldt Å. 1995b. Mechanisms of deposition of mercury and methyl-
mercury to coniferous forests. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:363–371.
Munthe J, Hultberg H. 2004. Mercury and methylmercury in run-off from a forested
catchment — concentrations, fluxes and their response to manipulations. Water Air
Soil Pollut Focus 4:607–618.
Pai P, Karamchandani P, Seigneur C. 1997. Simulation of the regional atmospheric transport and
fate of mercury using a comprehensive Eulerian model. Atmos Environ 31:2717–2732.
Palmer SM, Driscoll CT, Johnson CE. 2004. Long-term trends in soil solution and stream
water chemistry at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest: relationship with land-
scape position. Biogeochemistry 68(1):51–70.
Pirrone N, Hedgecock I, Forlano L. 2000. The role of the ambient aerosol in the atmospheric
processing of semi-volatile contaminants: a parameterised numerical model
(GASPAR). J Geophys Res 105(D8):9773–9790.
Pirrone N, Costa P, Pacyna JM, Ferrara R. 2001. Atmospheric mercury emissions from
anthropogenic sources in the Mediterranean region. Atmos Environ 35:2997–3006.
Pirrone N, Pacyna JM, Munthe J, Barth H. 2003a. Dynamic processes of mercury and other
trace contaminants in the marine boundary layer of European seas — ELOISE II.
Atmos Environ 37(S1):1–177.
Pirrone N, Ferrara R, Hedgecock IM, Kallos G, Mamane Y, Munthe J, Pacyna JM, Pytharoulis
I, Sprovieri F, Voudouri A, Wangberg I. 2003b. Dynamic processes of mercury over
the Mediterranean region: results from the Mediterranean Atmospheric Mercury
Cycle System (MAMCS) project. Atmos Environ 37(S1):21–39.
Porvari P, Verta M, Munthe J, Haapanen M. 2003. Forestry practices increase mercury and
methylmercury output from boreal forest catchments. Environ Sci Technol
37:2389–2393.
Possanzini M, Febo A, Liberti A. 1983. New design of a high-performance denuder for the
sampling of atmospheric pollutants. Atmos Environ 17:2605–2610.
Rea AW, Lindberg SE, Keeler GJ. 2001. Dry deposition and foliar leaching of mercury and
selected trace elements in deciduous forest throughfall. Atmos Environ 35:1352–2310.
Rudd JWM. 1995. Sources of methyl mercury to freshwater ecosystems: a review. Water Air
Soil Pollut 80:697–713.
St. Louis VL, Rudd JWM, Kelly CA, Beaty KG, Flett RJ, Roulet NT. 1996. Production and
loss of methylmercury and loss of total mercury from boreal forest catchments
containing different types of wetlands. Environ Sci Technol 30:2719–2729.
St. Louis VL, Rudd JW, Kelly CA, Hall BD, Rolfhus KR, Scott KJ, Lindberg SE, Dong W.
2001. The importance of the forest canopy to fluxes of methyl mercury and total
mercury to boreal ecosystems. Environ Sci Technol 35:3089–3098.
Schroeder WH, Anlauf KG, Barrie LA, Lu JY, Steffen A, Schneeberger DR, Berg T. 1998.
Arctic springtime depletion of mercury. Nature 394:331–332.
Schroeder WH, Munthe J. 1998. Atmospheric mercury — an overview. Atmos Environ
32:809–822.
Schwesig D, Ilgen G, Matzner E. 1999. Mercury and methylmercury in upland and wetland acid
forest soils of a watershed in NE-Bavaria, Germany. Water Air Soil Pollut 113:141–154.
Schwesig D, Matzner E. 2000. Pools and fluxes of mercury and methylmercury in two forested
catchments in Germany. Sci Total Environ 260:213–223.
Slemr F, Brunke EG, Ebinghaus R, Temme C, Munthe J, Wängberg I, Schroeder WH, Steffen
A, Berg T. 2003. Worldwide trend of atmospheric mercury since 1977. Geophys Res
Lett 30:1516.
Sprovieri F, Pirrone N. 2000. A preliminary assessment of mercury levels in the Antarctic
and Arctic troposphere. J Aerosol Sci 31:757–758.
Sprovieri F, Pirrone N, Hedgecock IM, Landis M, Stevens BK. 2002. Intensive atmospheric
mercury measurements at Terra Nova Bay in Antarctica during November and Decem-
ber 2000. J Geophys Res 107(D23):4722–4729.
Sprovieri F, Pirrone N, Gårdfeldt K, Sommar J. 2003. Atmospheric mercury speciation in the
marine boundary layer along 6000 km cruise path over the Mediterranean Sea. Atmos
Environ 37(S1):63–72.
Stevens RK, Dzubay TG, Russwurm GM, Rickel D. 1978. Sampling and analysis of atmo-
spheric sulfates and related species. Atmos Environ 12:55–68.
Stratton WJ, Lindberg SE, Perry CJ. 2001. Atmospheric mercury speciation: critical evaluation
of a mist chamber method for measuring reactive gaseous mercury, Environ Sci
Technol 35:170–177.
Susong DD, Abbott ML, Krabbenhoft DP. 2003. Mercury accumulation in snow on the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and surrounding region, south-
east Idaho, USA. Environ Geol 43:357–363.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress.
Fate and Transport of Mercury in the Environment, Vol. III. EPA-452/R-97-005, US
Environmental Protection Agency, US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Western Airborne Contaminants
Assessment Program Research Plan, EPA/600/R-03/035, May 2003.
Wängberg I, Munthe J, Pirrone N, Iverfeldt Å, Bahlman E, Costa P, Ebinghaus R, Feng X,
Ferrara R, Gårdfeldt K, Kock H, Lanzillotta E, Mamane Y, Mas F, Melamed E, Osnat
Y, Prestbo E, Sommar J, Schmolke S, Spain G, Sprovieri F, Tuncel G. 2001. Atmo-
spheric mercury distributions in North Europe and in the Mediterranean Region.
Atmos Environ 35:3019–3025.
Wängberg I, Munthe J, Ebinghaus R, Gårdfeldt K, and Sommar J. 2003. Distribution of TPM
in Northern Europe. Sci Total Environ 304:53–59.
Wilkening KE, Barrie LA, Engle M. 2000. Trans-Pacific air pollution. Science 290:65–67.
8892_book.fm Page 47 Friday, January 5, 2007 3:59 PM
3 Monitoring and
Evaluating Trends
in Sediment and
Water Indicators
David Krabbenhoft, Daniel Engstrom,
Cynthia Gilmour, Reed Harris, James Hurley,
and Robert Mason
ABSTRACT
As recently as a decade ago, a paucity of geographically dispersed and reliable data
on mercury (Hg) and methylmercury (MeHg) in water and sediments would have
made discussions of large-scale monitoring programs difficult to conceive or imple-
ment. Methodological advancements made over this time period, as well as substan-
tial improvements in our overall scientific understanding of mercury sources, cycling
and fate in the environment, have enabled scientists, land managers, and regulators
to consider how environmental responses to changing mercury emissions and dep-
osition could be monitored. A program whose ultimate goal is to assess environ-
mental responses to changes in atmospheric Hg deposition will undoubtedly rely on
sediment and water indicators as critical program components. For both water and
sediment, a well established set of sampling protocols and analytical procedures will
enable reliable data collection across a diverse set of aquatic ecosystems. Water-
based indicators of Hg and MeHg have already been useful for documenting decadal-
scale changes in Hg and MeHg concentrations in the Everglades of Florida and a
seepage lake in northern Wisconsin. At both sites, changes in Hg deposition were
also measured and linked to the environmental response. Unfortunately, there are
very few other long-term records of Hg and MeHg in water and/or sediment, thus
establishing widespread baselines or current trends is presently difficult. With
increasing numbers of studies and monitoring efforts that utilized the collection of
water and sediment samples, however, a growing database on Hg and MeHg is
evolving that would be useful for site selection and establishing general contamina-
tion levels for a more coherent monitoring effort.
Within an aquatic ecosystem, water-based indicators are expected to be the first
environmental compartment to respond to altered mercury loading and where change
can be detected. The response would likely first manifest itself as a change in aqueous
47
total Hg (HgT) concentration, and then later as a change in MeHg concentration.

The MeHg/Hg ratio (also expressed as percent MeHg) is a measure of the efficiency
of ecosystems to convert the load of inorganic Hg(II) into MeHg. Shifts in the value
of this ratio could reflect changes in ecosystem conditions affecting methylmercury
production or elimination other than Hg loading, thus helping to distinguish the
effects of Hg loading from other confounding factors that can affect MeHg concen-
trations. Temporary changes in MeHg/Hg ratios could also reflect the time required
for MeHg concentrations in ecosystems to respond to changes in Hg concentrations
and methylation rates. These types of insights make the MeHg/Hg ratio a very useful
indicator. In addition, a significant advantage to this indicator is that it requires no
additional funding support, assuming Hg and MeHg measurements on sediment and
water will be part of a routine monitoring plan.
Sediment-based indicators are also critically important for monitoring changes
in Hg inputs to aquatic ecosystems, and are often better indicators (compared to
water-based indicators) of changes to Hg loading that occur over several years to
decades. Mercury researchers commonly sample sediments because they are good
indicators of overall contamination levels, but also because near-surface sediments
(<10 cm) are generally the most important site of MeHg formation in most ecosys-
tems. Surficial sediment Hg and MeHg concentrations also drive most of the
exchange with the overlying water column. The greatest challenge for using sediment
as an indicator of change is deciding what depth interval of sediment current depo-
sition is accumulating, as opposed to large relic pools that are deeper within sediments
and likely have little influence on current contamination of aquatic food webs.
Sediment coring efforts have been a key area of research that has led to an
improved understanding of historical changes and spatial gradients in Hg accumu-
lation among lakes, reservoirs and bogs. Lakes are especially valuable for monitoring
programs because they commonly yield the desired sediment accumulating charac-
teristics to record changes, and because of their widespread occurrence. In addition,
sediment accumulation rates of Hg are complimentary to direct monitoring of con-
temporary Hg concentrations in sediment, water, and biota because they provide a
longer-term examination of the loading trend history for the monitoring site. Mercury
accumulation rate studies should be an effective indicator for comparing aquatic
ecosystems from differing geographic regions across the US, and repeat measure-
ments would only have to be conducted about every 10 years.
Although many aspects of a Hg monitoring program can be debated, one aspect
that should not be compromised is that to be effective, such a program will need to
include multi-media sampling (air, water, sediment and biota) to document the causal
factors and possible beneficial changes resulting from future Hg emission reductions.
Highly coordinated sampling for the atmosphere, watersheds, and biota will be
requisite to yield the most interpretable results that can reliably attribute change to
the appropriate driving factors, and quantify environmental improvement.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
It is not clear from existing data sets whether Hg concentrations in water, sediments,
and ultimately fish will respond over months, years, or decades following changes
Monitoring and Evaluating Trends in Sediment and Water Indicators 49
16
14
Rapid initial recovery
ug/g Hg (50 cm fish)
12
10
8 Slower recovery
4
Chlor-alkali releases
2 curtailed
0
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985
Year
FIGURE 3.1 Observed mercury concentrations in standardized 50-cm walleye from Clay
Lake, Ontario (1970–1983) following reductions in mercury releases from an upstream chlor-
alkali facility. (Source: Data from Parks and Hamilton 1987.)
in atmospheric deposition. Based on our current understanding, response times over

this entire range can be expected. Whether a system responds quickly or slowly to
possible reductions in loading, however, will largely depend on its internal ability
to remove Hg from actively cycling pools (i.e., Hg retirement). For example, in the
1960s and 1970s, abatement of point source Hg releases to many aquatic ecosystems
led to rapid reductions in native fish Hg levels. However, as in the case of Clay Lake
(Ontario, Canada), where Hg direct releases from a nearby chlor-alkali plant were
eliminated, a rapid initial reduction in fish Hg levels can be followed by a prolonged
slower recovery trend (Parks and Hamilton 1987, Figure 3.1). Whether the prolonged
response is due to continued low-level releases from local point sources, recycling
of relic contamination from sediments, or recent atmospheric deposition is not clear.
However, lessons learned from some of these older studies will likely be useful for
anticipating the timing and magnitude of responses from future Hg emission reduc-
tions. If the Hg reduction rate is large compared to the inventories of Hg in the
ecosystem of interest, the response will likely be quicker and larger in magnitude.
Thus, to anticipate environmental responses, we first need the ability to relate which
Hg sources, inventories, and sinks are driving current conditions. To provide this
understanding, researchers are presently working on identifying what forms of Hg
are methylated and bioaccumulated, and whether newly deposited Hg behaves sim-
ilarly to relic Hg in sediments (i.e., more or less reactive), and what depths of
sediments (or soils) and water columns (epilimnetic vs. hypolimnetic) are involved
in methylation and interact with other parts of the ecosystem. In the absence of
knowing this information, monitoring efforts to reliably document responses to
change could last years or decades, and the first few years of monitoring may not
provide a good indication of the amount of time ultimately needed for water and
sediment concentrations of Hg (regardless of the specific chemical form) to stabilize.
Furthermore, response dynamics may be different between water, sediments, and

the food web (e.g., observed in new reservoirs by St. Louis et al. 2004). Any program
designed to consider the response dynamics of total and methyl Hg in the environ-
ment should therefore consider the potential for different response dynamics in
different components of the overall ecosystem. Lag times may also be observed
among the various trophic levels of the food web. In new reservoirs, for example,
Hg concentrations in top predatory fish can lag changes in water or sediments by
several years, due to the time required for changing concentrations to cascade
through the food web (Hydro Québec and Genivar 1997). Because compartments
are linked with feedback mechanisms in real ecosystems, it will probably prove
necessary to have information on the HgT and MeHg response trends in several
ecosystem components, including water and sediments, to help understand the
response dynamics observed in fish, which is the societally important endpoint.
3.1.1 OBJECTIVES
The objective of this chapter is to describe the utility of various sediment and water
indicators that could be used for the purposes of quantifying the environmental
benefit of possible future reductions in atmospheric Hg emissions, deposition, and
bioaccumulation. This chapter focuses entirely on the collection, analysis, and inter-
pretation of data derived from the analysis of water and sediment samples from
aquatic ecosystems that are contaminated by atmospheric Hg deposition. Detecting
and quantifying changes at sites previously contaminated by large, point-source
loads will likely be much more challenging. Mercury cycling in the environment is
notoriously complex, and as such it will be critically important to include coordinated
sampling in time and space across all environmental media (air, water, sediments,
biota). In addition, most successful Hg research programs rely heavily on the col-
lection of related ancillary data (e.g., water chemistry, water levels, flow rates), which
will also be critical to the overall success of any Hg monitoring program. Similar
to most interdisciplinary data programs, the sum of the individual components are
of far less value, and provide less insight, than when integrated multimedia data are
presented in context together. In addition, although it is not discussed specifically,
sediment and water Hg concentrations are commonly used as calibration targets for
Hg cycling models, and as such, these data will also serve an important function
should a large-scale modeling program come from this monitoring effort. For exam-
ple, water- and sediment-based indicators were recently used to calibrate Hg cycling
models for a pilot Hg total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessment (Atkeson et al.
2003).
3.2 SEDIMENT AND WATER INDICATORS

3.2.1 CRITERIA FOR SELECTING SEDIMENT AND WATER INDICATORS
Candidate sediment and water indicators were evaluated using criteria that assess
whether the indicators are likely to demonstrate the environmental response to
changes in external loading of Hg to aquatic ecosystems over anticipated time scales
(decadal). The following 7 criteria were identified and used for evaluating the
suitability of candidate indicators:
1) Responsiveness. One of the key considerations of any proposed indicator

is whether it will demonstrate a detectable response to changes in Hg loading
on relatively short time scales (decadal or less). In most atmospheric-Hg
contaminated settings, annual atmospheric Hg mass loading is very small
when compared to intact Hg pools in sediments, thus bringing into ques-
tion whether changes in loading will be discernable above natural vari-
ability in the near to mid term (e.g., within a decade). In addition, Hg
concentrations (any species) are generally low in water (less 10 ng/L;
Weiner et al. 2003) and sediments (less than about 250 ng/g dry weight;
Weiner et al. 2003). Thus, any indicator must be able to distinguish
changes in external loading from recycling of existing pools, but at antic-
ipated low concentrations.
2) Comparability. To assess trends, data for an indicator must allow for
assessments in both time and space domains. Water and sediment samples
can exhibit a high degree of natural variability in Hg species concentrations,
which is due to natural heterogeneity and variations caused by differing
sampling and analytical methodologies. To achieve maximum ability to
detect trends, monitoring efforts must minimize variability caused by sam-
pling methods. The ability to describe and implement strict sampling pro-
tocols will be a critical to the success of the monitoring program.
3) Integration capacity. Aquatic ecosystems will likely exhibit a significant
degree of variability in response times to changing Hg loads. As such, an
effective Hg monitoring program will need indicators that are responsive
to ranges in time scales (months to decades).
4) Understanding and knowledge of confounding factors. Several factors not
necessarily related to total mass loading of atmospheric Hg can affect the
concentration and speciation of Hg in sediment and water. To correctly
attribute trends in any indicator to actual changes in Hg deposition versus
1 of these confounding factors, it is essential to have a good understanding
of what these factors are, and how they affect results from possible
indicators. A more complete discussion of possible confounding factors
of our chosen indicators is presented in Section 3.5.
5) Ease of sampling and analytical reliability. Twenty years ago, scientists
could not reliably collect water samples for any Hg species without
introducing substantial sampling contamination artifacts. Since then, reli-
able sampling and analytical protocols have been developed and widely
accepted by the scientific community. These protocols allow for the col-
lection of reproducible sample results with the ability to discern several
Hg species and phase distributions. Although this area of research con-
tinues to pursue new sampling and analytical methods that expand our
understanding, well-established and published methods that can be
deployed on large geographic scales and under varying ecological condi-
tions should be followed by this program.
6) Availability of existing databases. Many of the procedures for sampling

and analyzing water and sediment samples for Hg and MeHg have been
in place for 10 to 20 years, and as such the existence of databases that
can be extended rather than initiated are now possible. At present, Hg
deposition is variable spatially and temporally; thus, existing databases
that can help describe ongoing trends for specific indicators at multiple
monitoring locations would greatly benefit a Hg monitoring program.
7) Cost concerns. A large-scale, long-term, multifaceted Hg monitoring pro-
gram will be expensive to initiate and sustain, but not out of proportion
with the potential ecological and human health costs. The cost of imple-
mentation for each potential indicator should be carefully considered when
making fiscally limited choices, especially in anticipation of cost limita-
tions that will likely constrain the program and not allow for all the
proposed indicators.
3.3 RECOMMENDED INDICATORS

The scientific understanding of Hg speciation in the environment, although far from
complete, has increased considerably because of steadily improving analytical and
field methods during the past 2 decades. Mercury exists in the environment in 3
oxidation states: Hg(0), Hg(I), and Hg(II). For each valence, many chemical forms
(e.g., elemental Hg, inorganic Hg, monomethyl Hg, dimethyl Hg) and operationally
defined fractions (e.g., reactive Hg, colloidal-bound Hg) can occur in the sediment
and water phases. Operationally defined fractions are presently an active area of
research that is leading to an increased understanding of what specific pools of Hg
are participatory in important processes such as methylation. However, their appli-
cability to a standardized monitoring effort is not clear, and as such they were not
included in our consideration of candidate indicators. Also, some advanced process-
ing methodologies (e.g., colloidal size separations) have greatly added to our overall
understanding of the state of Hg in the environment; but due to significant post-
sampling processing, they are not easily applicable to monitoring efforts. Dimethyl-
mercury, although extremely toxic, has only been observed in the marine environ-
ment at very low concentrations (averaging 0.016 ng/L in the North Atlantic; Mason
et al. 1998), but it has not been confirmed in fresh waters and thus was not considered
as an indicator. Finally, although elemental Hg (Hg0) is the dominant species in the
atmosphere (>95%), in water it is almost always a relatively small fraction of total
Hg in aqueous solution (<5%). In addition, Hg0 can be a very unstable species in
water, with rapid reoxidation potential, and shows strong diel (24-hour) concentra-
tion dependencies (Krabbenhoft et al. 1998b) that make it poor choice as an indicator.
Given the limitations associated with several of the possible Hg species in water
and sediment, it was concluded that the most likely applicable Hg species were HgT
and MeHg. However, 7 indicators were identified that are based on HgT and MeHg
measurements on sediment and water samples (see Table 3.1) and discussed next in
the context of the evaluation criteria.
TABLE 3.1
Recommended criteria for sediment and water indicators for monitoring responses to change in mercury loading
Extent to which the indicator satisfies the criterion:
HgT in MeHg in Percent Instantaneous Sedimentary HgT in MeHg in
sediment sediment MeHg in methylation accumulation surface surface
Criterion Importance of criterion (top 1–2 cm) (top 1–2 cm) sediment rate rate of Hg water water
Response to change To quantify the environmental Low Medium Medium High Low Medium Medium
on annual (top) benefit to Hg load reductions
and decadal High High High Medium High High High

(bottom) time
scales
Comparability To document the utility of the Medium Medium High Medium High Medium Medium
across sites and indicator and its probable to High to High
ecosystems reliability for detecting
change in mercury loading
Integrates To facilitate the defensible High High High Low Medium to High Medium
variability in space interpretation of monitoring High
and time results on mercury
Knowledge of To ensure knowledge of High Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium
Monitoring and Evaluating Trends in Sediment and Water Indicators
confounding organismal attributes that can to High

factors affect mercury concentration
and complicate interpretation
of results
53
54
TABLE 3.1 (continued)

Recommended criteria for sediment and water indicators for monitoring responses to change in mercury loading
Extent to which the indicator satisfies the criterion:
HgT in MeHg in Percent Instantaneous Sedimentary HgT in MeHg in
sediment sediment MeHg in methylation accumulation surface surface
Criterion Importance of criterion (top 1–2 cm) (top 1–2 cm) sediment rate rate of Hg water water
Ease of sample To select biotic indicators that Medium to Medium to Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
acquisition and have broad spatial coverage High High to High to High to High
processing in a regional, national, or
(analysis) multinational monitoring
program
Availability of To select biotic indicators with Medium Low Low Low Medium to Low Medium Medium
existing databases a significant role in the
trophic transfer of MeHg in
aquatic food webs
Cost concerns Spatio-temporal variation in Low Medium Medium Medium to Low, if done Low Medium
(here, High trophic position can High every 5–10
implies there are confound and complicate years
substantial costs interpretation of trends in
associated with mercury concentration in the
the indicator) indicator
Ecosystem Responses to Mercury Contamination: Indicators of Change
3.3.1 SEDIMENT-BASED INDICATORS

As opposed to surface water that can respond quickly to changes in loading, sedi-
ments generally serve as integrative measures (inputs over a few years to decades)
of Hg loading and accumulation for a specific location. In addition, sediment is a
common environmental matrix for assessments of contamination level and potential
toxicity (Long et al. 1995). As such, sediment-based indicators are highly relevant
for monitoring loading changes that occur and are sustained over several years. Net
Hg accumulation in the sediments of water bodies is an integrative indicator of direct
deposition to the water surface, plus Hg transported from the watershed from stream
flow and groundwater discharge, and less what is lost to evasion, seepage to ground-
water, and streamwater outflow (Krabbenhoft et al. 1995). Watershed retention of
atmospherically deposited Hg commonly ranges from 50 to greater than 90%, with
large forested watersheds generally retaining a higher fraction of deposited Hg (e.g.,
Krabbenhoft and Babiarz 1992; Krabbenhoft et al. 1995; Lee et al. 1995; St. Louis
et al. 1996; Babiarz et al. 1998). Because Hg in sediments reflects watershed trans-
port processes, it can be an indicator of land use patterns, as well as patterns of Hg
deposition, through time and space. Because inorganic Hg in bulk sediments is the
substrate for methylation (Benoit et al. 2003), the Hg concentration in these matrices
is also a key parameter linking Hg deposition to MeHg production, and to bioaccu-
mulation in food webs.
3.3.1.1 Total Hg Concentration in Sediment
In many settings that have sediment accumulating basins, total Hg concentration in

sediment has been shown to change in response to changes to external Hg loading.
Dated depth profiles of HgT in sediment cores clearly show changes in Hg accu-
mulation rates over time that correlate well with documented Hg utilization and
environmental releases (Wang and Driscoll 1995; Engstrom and Swain 1997). Thus,
the top few centimeters of sediment in an aquatic ecosystem can be useful for
monitoring recent Hg deposition conditions, or to show Hg deposition gradients
among or within regions.
Total Hg is generally reported as nanograms (ng) of Hg per gram of sediment
on a dry weight basis. A total Hg analysis on sediment includes all forms of Hg
(both inorganic and organic species) that are present in the digestion solution after
strong chemical oxidation and subsequent analyses by cold vapor purge and trap,
and detection with atomic fluorescence (USEPA 1996; Olund et al. 2004). The
inorganic Hg concentration can be calculated by difference if MeHg is measured on
a sample split. However, because MeHg is generally a small fraction (<5%) of HgT
in most aquatic sediments (often within the error of the measurement), HgT con-
centrations, rather than inorganic Hg, are generally reported.
Similar to most Hg sampling methods, sampling sediments and soils require
care in avoiding contamination artifacts due to improper sample handling. However,
because Hg concentrations are much higher in solid matrices than in water, if
commonly accepted trace-metal protocols are used, substantial contamination arti-
facts should be exceedingly rare. Also, because sediment Hg concentration profiles
show strong variability with depth, care must be taken to not mix the sample before
the target sample sediment depth (top 1 to 2 cm) has been acquired. This often
means careful hand sampling in shallow water (e.g., push cores or careful skimming
of the surficial sediment) and deep-water coring procedures that minimize sample
disturbance (e.g., push cores, freeze coring, gravity coring, box coring, piston coring)
and sectioning the core when in a stable setting. Spatial heterogeneity is also a
concern, and composites of multiple replicate samples are generally needed to
account for natural sample heterogeneity. For HgT analysis in sediment, the analyt-
ical relative percent difference (RPD) can be as high as 10 to 20%. Nevertheless,
spatial heterogeneity is generally larger than analytical variability.
One-time sampling of HgT concentration in bottom sediment is marginally useful
as an indicator of Hg deposition to aquatic ecosystems, but can be a useful marker
of changes to loading when sampled repeatedly using the same methodology. Abso-
lute HgT concentrations in bottom sediment are, in part, a function of Hg loading,
but are modified by other possible Hg sources to the water body (transport and
retention processes within watersheds) and the sediment mass accumulation rate. For
example, water bodies with substantial suspended particulate matter (e.g., eutrophic
lakes, reservoirs with high sediment inputs) will often show dilution of Hg concen-
trations in bottom sediments relative to water bodies with relatively low sedimentation
rates (e.g., oligotrophic lakes), although atmospheric deposition rates may be similar.
Thus, care must be taken not to base inferences of Hg loading rates on concentration
profiles alone, but rather sediment accumulation rates (see Section 3.3.6). For this
indicator to be useful in the context of monitoring changes to loading, only the very
top (1 to 2 cm) of sediment should be sampled with the least possible disturbance of
the sediment water interface, and by using the same sampling depth throughout the
monitoring program. In addition, considerations for confounding factors that could
lead to changes in HgT concentration that are not necessarily related to atmospheric
Hg deposition (changes to mass sedimentation rates and other Hg sources in the
basin) are critically important to ensure the proper interpretation of the data.
The ability to detect differences in Hg concentration in sediment through space
and time depends on the degree of natural heterogeneity, and on the number of
samples that can reasonably be obtained. Unlike water, natural sample variability
for sediments is generally much higher than analytical reproducibility. For most
sediment, composites of multiple replicate samples are generally needed to reduce
variability to acceptable levels, along with homogenization of samples prior to
analysis. Analysis of Hg requires care and expertise. It is critical that laboratories
providing analysis for Hg monitoring projects provide method validation prior to
start-up, and participate in inter-laboratory calibrations of sampling, storage, and
analysis techniques during the course of the project.
Although the primary intent of this monitoring program is to assess change at
specific locations, comparisons of HgT concentrations in sediment are commonly
made among sites to infer Hg loading differences. There are several factors to
consider when making comparisons of HgT concentration in sediments across eco-
system types, including grain size and organic matter content. Differences in these
factors among sites can lead to highly skewed HgT data sets, and make direct
comparisons among varying sediment types problematic. Normalization to organic
matter content, or an explicit measure of Hg accumulation rate (see discussion in

Section 3.3.6 below), can aid with interpretations of differences in Hg concentration
among sediment types, if needed. Given the above caveats, Hg concentrations in
sediments of similar texture and chemical composition, and when sampled using
the same technique and at the same interval, will be a useful component of a Hg
monitoring program.
3.3.1.2 MeHg Concentration in Sediment
Although MeHg generally represents only a small fraction (usually less than 5%)
of the HgT pool in sediments, a significant amount of current research focuses on
its formation, cycling, bioaccumulation, and toxicity (Wiener et al. 2003). Increased
attention on this 1 component of the HgT pool in the environment is due to its
toxicity and the observation that greater than 95% of the Hg in edible fish tissues
is MeHg (Bloom 1992), and thus is responsible for most of the exposure to wildlife
and humans. Methylmercury concentration in sediment reflects the balance of MeHg
inputs and outputs in sediments, including de novo methylation and demethylation.
Despite the number of processes that can affect MeHg concentrations, MeHg con-
centration has been reasonably well correlated with measured isotopic tracer esti-
mates of methylation potential in a number of systems, as demonstrated for several
sites across the Florida Everglades (Figure 3.2). These strong correlations suggest
that intact sedimentary MeHg concentrations primarily reflect the rate of recent
MeHg production within sediment. This is an important observation, given the
previously described link between HgT in surficial sediments and atmospheric dep-
osition, which then may link sediment MeHg concentration to changes in Hg loading.
Methylmercury in sediment is a useful indicator to assess the net impact of all
the factors that impact net methylation, including changing Hg load, changes to the
net bioaccessibility of inorganic Hg, and changes in bacterial activity. Although there
are many factors controlling net formation of MeHg in the environment, 2 important
factors are the abundance and availability of inorganic Hg, which in turn is related
to the atmospheric deposition rate. Thus, understanding the role of changing Hg
loads to changes in MeHg concentration in sediment is critical for linking positive
benefits of load reductions to reduced exposure. For example, in ecosystems with
benthic-dominated food webs such as the Everglades, MeHg in surface sediments
is a strong predictor of MeHg in biota (Figure 3.3).
Although MeHg concentration in sediment generally relates positively to HgT
concentration, there is some question whether HgT in sediment is the primary
controlling factor (Rudd et al. 1983; Henry et al. 1995; Hurley et al. 1998; Bloom
et al. 1999), or whether a fraction of the HgT pool (e.g., recently deposited Hg,
labile Hg, net zero charged Hg-ligand pairs) is the causal factor. To test these
observations, some researchers have recently initiated in-field dosing experiments
(Hintelmann et al. 2002; Krabbenhoft et al. 2004). These field experiments employ
traceable stable Hg isotopes so that the possible confounding effects of relic Hg
pools can be isolated from the experimentally applied Hg load. Results from exper-
iments conducted at 4 different sites in the Florida Everglades clearly show a positive
relationship between the amount of inorganic Hg added and the amount of MeHg
300
Summer averages 1995-1998
ng / gdw 200
Hg
100
0
8
6
ng / gdw
MeHg
0
4
3
% MeHg
0
0.08
0.06
k methylation
per day
0.04
0.02
0.00
ENR F1 U3 2BS 3A15 TS-7 TS-9 Lox
FIGURE 3.2 Comparison of HgT, MeHg, %MeHg, and estimated methylation rate for 8 sites
across the Everglades (1995–1998). Each site was sampled 5 times over 4 years. At each time
point, 5 separate cores were taken and analyzed, to assess variability and reduce standard
error. The depth of soil sampling was 4 cm, assessed through prior analysis of depth profiles.
In this wetland, a layer of flocculent material overlays the peat, and it is in this layer that
methylation is strongest. Consideration of the methylation potential of detrital layers is often
important in designing sampling programs for sediments and wetlands.
produced in sediments (Figure 3.4). Although the slope of the response varied by
almost a factor of 100 among the test sites, which may seem surprising given that
all the tests were conducted within the same ecosystem, all the sites showed a positive
1.00
Pearson correlation coefficient

Sediment
0.75
P<0.001
SPM
0.50 P<0.02
Pore Water
(r 2 )
0.25 P<0.3
0.00
-0.25
P<0.15
Surface Water
-0.50
FIGURE 3.3 Pearson correlation coefficients between fish (Gambusia) Hg concentration and
MeHg concentrations in various environmental media: sediment, porewater, surface water,
and suspended particulate matter (SPM) from the Florida Everglades (1995–1998).
2.0 3A15
1.8
Sediment Me202Hg, ng/gdw
2BS
1.6 U3
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
F1
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
202
Hg/ambient dosing ratio
FIGURE 3.4 Results from the May 2000 dose-response experiment conducted in situ within
mesocosms installed at 4 sites in the Florida Everglades and using isotopically labeled 202Hg.
Experimental conditions called for dosing at 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 times the ambient loading rate
of 22 ug/m2/y.
relationship. Results from these mechanistic experiments and previous field research
led us to conclude that we should expect to see positive correlations in sediment
MeHg levels to changes in Hg loads.
Comparisons of MeHg and HgT sediment data from repeated sampling con-
ducted at a specific location or within any single ecosystem appear to be relatively
well-behaved and likely to be useful indicators. Comparisons of these sediment
indicators among widely varying ecological settings, however, are less certain.
Benoit et al. (2003) showed that HgT and MeHg data from a wide variety of aquatic
ecosystems (rivers, estuaries, wetlands, and lakes), and that exhibit a larger range
in HgT concentrations in sediment, result in a more complex (nonlinear) relation
(Figure 3.5a). The large variation in the MeHg/HgT ratio observed from these data
could reflect the real variability in ecological response represented by the far-ranging
ecological settings among these study sites, or possibly the fact that these data are
(a)
R2 = 0.40
adjusted 2
r = 0.402
p < 0.001
100 log MeHg = 0.438 (log Hg) - 0.963
Sediment MeHg (ng g-1)
10
0.1
Rivers
Marine & Estuaries
Freshwater Wetlands
0.01 Lakes
Regression
A. 95% Prediction Interval
0.001
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
-1
Sediment T-Hg (ng g )
(b)
2
adjusted r = 0.189
p < 0.001
100 log MeHg = 0.474 (log Hg) - 0.985
Sediment MeHg (ng g-1)
10
0.1
0.01 Streams
Regression
B. 95% Prediction Interval
0.001
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Sediment T-Hg (ng g-1)
FIGURE 3.5 a) Relationship between HgT and MeHg in surface sediments across 49 eco-
systems (from Benoit et al. 2003); and b) relationship between HgT and MeHg in surface
sediments from 122 streams across the United States. (Source: From Krabbenhoft et al. 1999.)
derived from a variety of published sources that used variable sampling procedures
and differing analytical laboratories. A similar relation is also derived for stream-
bed sediment collected at 122 sites across the United States and using consistent
sampling procedures and a single analytical lab (Figure 3.5b; Krabbenhoft et al.
1999). The striking similarity between these 2 data sets is somewhat surprising and
supports the notion that MeHg will respond positively to changes in Hg loading and
thus is a valuable indicator. It should be noted, however, that both data sets indicate
that at any particular HgT concentration, almost a 2-order of magnitude range in
MeHg concentration can be expected. So, although these data support the conclusion
that reductions in HgT loading will lead to reductions in sediment MeHg concen-
trations, it will be difficult to a priori predict the absolute change in sediment MeHg
concentration across a wide array of ecosystem types.
Heterogeneity of sediments is a major consideration when designing a monitor-
ing program that includes sediment-based indicators. To illustrate the type of results
that could be anticipated from a monitoring program, and to provide information on
expected natural variability and ability to detect change, data on sediment HgT and
MeHg for an extensively monitored ecosystem are shown in Figure 3.6. Lake 658
is the study lake for the METAALICUS project, a whole ecosystem Hg loading
experiment (Hintelmann et al. 2002). Sediment texture and accumulation rates are
relatively consistent throughout the basin. Repeated sampling of the top 2 cm of
sediment at 0.5, 2, 4, and 6 m water depth throughout the ice-free season of 2001
showed obvious trends in measured concentrations of HgT and MeHg. The 0 to
2 cm sampling interval was chosen to represent the zone of maximum MeHg pro-
duction, based on sediment depth profiles examined in 2000, the year before Hg
loading was initiated. Multiple replicate sediment cores (>3) were taken at each time
point, and care was taken to preserve depth gradients and to sample the top 2 cm
accurately. For HgT, the calculated relative percent deviation (RPD) for within site
variability is 16%, while site-to-site variability is about twice this amount. Spatial
variability in MeHg is slightly higher, both within and among sites.
A second example from the Florida Everglades illustrates the importance of
within-ecosystem variations in the natural sediment heterogeneity and the critical
nature of this factor for using sediment indicators for detecting change. It should be
noted that wetlands, with their heterogeneous root structures, probably offer a worst-
case scenario of sediment MeHg variability. For this study, repeat sampling at 5 sites
across the Everglades was conducted in which 5 replicate samples were collected
on 5 separate occasions over the course of 4 years. The results show that sediment
heterogeneity varies markedly among sites, and although it generally scales with
increasing concentration, this is not necessarily a reliable predictor (Figure 3.7). It
appears that patchiness of net MeHg production varies among these sampling sites,
with the greatest variability observed where mean MeHg is the highest, and corre-
spondingly less variability is associated with lower mean MeHg concentration.
Overall, the mean RPD for sediment MeHg among all these sites is 53%.
As with HgT, concentration profiles for MeHg in sediment often show dramatic
changes with depth and considerable spatial variability. Typically, maximum con-
centrations are observed at or near the oxic/anoxic interface, which is generally near
L658
200
4m
0.5 m
2m
6m
-1
150
Hg, ng gdw
100
50
0
140 160 180 200 220 24 60
4m
6
0.5 m
2m
-1
6m
MeHg, ng gdw
0
180 190 200 210 220 230 240 25 60
Julian Date, 2001

FIGURE 3.6 Measured concentrations of Hg and MeHg in the top 2 cm of sediments through
time in 2001, at 4 discrete sediment sampling sites within Lake 658, the study lake of the
METAALICUS project.
(within a few centimeters) the sediment/water interface. In some settings, the MeHg
maxima can be much deeper in the profile (e.g., in emergent wetlands with fluctu-
ating depth to water table and near root rhizomes). Selection of sampling depth is
a critical part of MeHg sampling design. Prior to choosing a sampling depth, the
zone of maximum MeHg production should be checked via depth profiles of MeHg
concentration. Sampling depth should be selected based on the depth of the zone of
high MeHg concentration.
ENR
MeHg in Sediment (ng/g dry weight)
F1
6 U3
2BS
3A15
ENR F1 U3 2BS 3A15

Site
FIGURE 3.7 MeHg concentration (ng/g dry weight) in sediment from 5 sites in the Florida
Everglades. Box plots represent 5 replicate samples taken at 4 different times over 4 years.
3.3.1.3 Percent MeHg in Sediment
Recent reviews on Hg methylation (e.g., Weiner et al. 2003; Benoit et al. 2003)
suggest that MeHg abundance in the environment is enormously complex, and is
affected by a number of factors, including many unrelated to Hg loading (see Section
3.6). In light of this, 1 simple, no added cost (assuming HgT and MeHg concentra-
tions are measured as part of this program) method to help test whether possible
trends in MeHg concentrations are related to changes in Hg loading is to normalize
MeHg concentration to the HgT concentration of the same sample. This value is
sometimes referred to as the percentage of HgT as MeHg (%MeHg), or the MeHg/HgT
ratio.
Results from the Aquatic Cycling of Mercury in the Everglades (ACME) project
provides an example of the use of this indicator, and highlights the importance of
using sediment-based indicators as keys for monitoring net MeHg production over
several years. Figure 3.2 shows data for HgT, MeHg, and %MeHg in shallow
sediments across a north-to-south transect of the Florida Everglades. Total Hg (HgT)
concentrations across these sites vary by only about a factor of 2, while MeHg varies
by almost 2 orders of magnitude. The %MeHg shows an obvious maximum value
in the central Everglades, which can be viewed as the location where the inorganic
pool of Hg in sediment is the most bioavailable to the methylation process. The
strong similarity between the %MeHg and the measured methylation rate constants
supports this conclusion. This data set illustrates the utility of %MeHg in sediments
as an indicator of MeHg production. It also shows how the %MeHg and methylation
rate measurements can be used to factor out (normalize) the effect of HgT abundance
in sediment on MeHg production. Because changes in sediment MeHg concentration
are, in part, driven by HgT concentration, the %MeHg indicator will likely be a good
indicator for linking possible changes in loading to possible changes observed in
the food web. Finally, due to the low (or no) additional cost of utilizing this indicator,
and the potential insights it offers, we recommend its use in monitoring efforts.
3.3.1.4 Instantaneous Methylation Rate
Although correlations between MeHg concentration and estimated methylation rate

potential are generally good (suggesting that intact MeHg pools are generally pro-
duced in situ), this is not necessarily always the case (Benoit et al. 2003). Thus,
instantaneous methylation rate assays on fresh sediments are useful to distinguish
the influence of overall microbial activity (most notably, sulfate reduction) from the
effects of sediment HgT concentration in governing the ambient sediment MeHg
concentration. Direct measurement of methylation and demethylation rates also
provides information about the location of these processes within ecosystems, which
is useful for determining where the focus of monitoring efforts should be.
The measurement of potential Hg methylation and MeHg demethylation is
significantly more complex than the measurement of HgT and MeHg concentrations
in ambient samples. Methodological considerations include the maintenance of redox
and temperature condition of samples during measurement, an understanding of the
time course of both processes, and an understanding of the impact of spike level on
the methylation and demethylation rate constants. Measurement of methylation and
demethylation also requires the use of a tracer, and the ability to measure that trace
analytically.
Estimates for the potential rates of methylation and demethylation are made by
injecting dissolved Hg and MeHg spikes into intact sediment cores (Furutani and
Rudd 1980; Gilmour and Riedel 1995; Hintelmann and Evans 1997), followed by
short incubations (minutes to hours). Radiotracers (e.g., 203Hg, 14CH3Hg) or stable
Hg isotopes (e.g., 200Hg, CH3198Hg) have been used by researchers in the past, and
the spike concentrations can be close to tracer levels. Potential methylation rates are
estimated by measuring the formation of the end-product (MeHg), while demethyl-
ation is measured through the loss of the methylated parent substrate. The rate
estimates for these transformation processes can only be viewed as “potential rates”
because the relative bioaccessibility of these introduced substrates compared to the
natural inventories of inorganic Hg and MeHg is unknown, but both are probably
more available to microbial communities. The demethylation product (inorganic Hg)
is often difficult to measure against the large background of inorganic Hg in sedi-
ments and soils and, as a result, is often less precise.
Interpretation of methylation rate measurements can be complex because of the
need to understand the time course of methylation/demethylation, and the dose-
response to different levels of spiking, which can have a profound effect on the
estimated rate constants. Many environmental factors can also influence estimates of
these processes, and a more detailed discussion of these is provided in Section 3.5.
In addition, although measurements of methylation and demethylation serve as
indicators of microbial activity, they also reflect the kinetics of complexation of the
Hg and MeHg spikes during the time of incubation. A number of studies have shown
that the complexation of Hg spikes within hours of addition to sediments (even when
pre-equilibrated with site water) is not the same as in situ Hg. Mercury spikes appear
to be less strongly partitioned to sediments than are in situ Hg pools and thus
unrealistically low rate estimates generally result from applying rate constants to
porewater pools of Hg, and unrealistically high values come from assuming that the
entire HgT pool in sediments is bioavailable (Krabbenhoft et al. 1998a). Neverthe-
less, MeHg concentrations in sediments and soils are often well correlated with
instantaneous methylation rate estimates made from a relatively bioavailable Hg
spike. This suggests that it is the most labile Hg that undergoes methylation in situ.
In the context of a monitoring program, methylation rate measurements would
be part of a suite of process tools that would aid in the interpretation of whether
changes in Hg loading, or possibly other confounding factors, are responsible for
responses observed in other components of the monitoring program (e.g., aquatic
biota). More specifically, rate measurements offer insights over and above MeHg
concentration or the %MeHg by helping to assess changes in Hg bioaccessibility
and microbial activity within and among aquatic ecosystems.
3.3.1.5 Sediment Hg Accumulation Rates in Dated Cores
Lake sediments, peat bogs, and ice cores have been used successfully for regional
and global studies of modern and historical atmospheric Hg depositional patterns
(e.g., Swain et al. 1992; Engstrom and Swain 1997; Benoit et al. 1998; Bindler et al.
2001; Lamborg et al. 2002; Schuster et al. 2002). Lake sediments are especially
valuable because they occur over broad geographic regions. These natural archives
are particularly well suited to examine the global/regional nature of atmospheric Hg
dispersion and deposition, and are complimentary to direct monitoring of contem-
porary Hg concentrations in sediment, water, and biota. Lake-sediment records are
particularly effective moderate-to-long (several years to centuries) trend indicators
because 1) they smooth short-term variations in Hg deposition, 2) they integrate
spatial variability in Hg flux to lakes and their catchments, 3) there is a large body
of experimental and observational evidence for their reliability, and 4) there are well-
established protocols for the collection, processing, and interpretation of sediment-
core records.
Sediment Hg and MeHg accumulation rates in dated sediment cores are used to
evaluate changes in the delivery of Hg to lakes through time, to compare the
magnitude of change among lakes and regions, and to assess sediment burial rates
for Hg in watershed mass-balance studies. Numerous studies have shown that sed-
iment concentrations of HgT are relatively stable following burial and undergo little
diagenetic remobilization (Fitzgerald et al. 1998), whereas more limited data on
MeHg suggests substantial post-depositional losses through demethylation or diffu-
sion to the overlying water. Additional work is needed to evaluate whether a modified
signal for MeHg production can be retained in more deeply buried (older) sediments.
A variety of studies employing dated sediment cores indicates that at a resolution
of years to decades it is routinely achievable, thus making it possible to observe
changes in sediment accumulation rates that are attributable to atmospheric loading
changes at the same time scales.
The major difficulties in using lake sediments to track trends in Hg deposition
involve the complexity of the sedimentary process. Well-behaved Hg records require
conformable sediment burial that retains Hg in proportion to its load to the lake as
well as the chronological markers used to date the core. Problems can arise when
sediments are severely perturbed by slumping, mixing, or variability in sediment
deposition across the lake bottom. These problems can often be avoided by the
careful selection of study lakes and core sites, although natural variability in sediment
deposition, which occurs in all lakes, can only be accommodated by collection of
multiple cores. This is especially true when the signal strength for temporal change
in Hg inputs is small — as might be the case for projected reductions in Hg deposition
in the United States. For the purposes of a Hg monitoring program and documenting
possible changes to recent Hg deposition, a minimum of 3 cores per lake is recom-
mended. These cores should be collected in widely spaced locations across the
profundal region of the basin and, as far as possible, from steep slopes or other lake-
bottom irregularities. Similarity of timing, direction, and magnitude of change in
Hg accumulation among cores is a robust indicator of temporal changes in Hg flux
to the lake.
A secondary problem in interpreting Hg-sediment records is input of Hg from
the catchment due to erosion (solid phase) and solubilization (aqueous phase) pro-
cesses. Export of Hg from catchment soils to downstream aquatic systems can
account for anywhere from <5% of a lake’s Hg budget (seepage lakes) to >90%
(drainage lakes with large catchments or high runoff yields). If catchment Hg inputs
are substantial, the response of the sedimentary record to reduced direct (to the
surface of the lake) atmospheric Hg deposition could be muted or significantly
delayed by continued export from large inventories of Hg accumulated in soils
(Kamman and Engstrom 2002). Moreover, catchment disturbances, both natural (fire,
drought, beaver impoundment) and anthropogenic (logging, farming, urban devel-
opment), can greatly alter the export of soil Hg to downstream lakes. For these
reasons, it is essential that Hg-core records be obtained from multiple lakes (a
minimum of 5) within a geographic cluster, both to reduce the likelihood of misin-
terpretation of trends not related to changes in Hg deposition and to explore the
influence of catchment characteristics (size, land use) on response times to expected
reductions in Hg deposition.
Detailed protocols for the collection and analysis of lake-sediment Hg records
have already been published (EPRI 1996). The central elements include core col-
lection and handling (sectioning), Hg analysis, and sediment dating. A large array
of coring devices and approaches are documented in the paleo-limnological litera-
ture, and many (but not all) are suitable for recovering the undisturbed, high-
resolution sediment profiles needed for this type of study. Piston coring, gravity
coring, freeze coring, and diver-assisted (hand push) coring are all suitable under
the correct circumstances. The main criteria include 1) the flocculent (high percent-
age of water) surficial sediments are recovered without disturbance; 2) a core of
sufficient length (reaching back to pre-industrial times in most cases) is obtained;
and 3) sediment displacement (compaction) is not appreciable. Core locations should
be recorded precisely by GPS to allow re-coring for detection of subsequent trends
in Hg deposition on a roughly 10-year re-occurring basis.
Cores are best extruded and sectioned on-site to avoid disturbing the flocculent
sediments at the sediment/water interface, although careful transport (in upright,
vertical position) to a laboratory for sectioning may be necessary under some cir-
cumstances. Accepted procedures to avoid sample contamination should be followed
(acid-cleaned containers, gloves, etc.), although the typically high Hg content of lake
sediments does not require the ultra-clean techniques necessary when sampling surface
waters for Hg and MeHg. In all cases, the smeared edge of sediment on the surface
of the core should be removed (trimmed away) during the extrusion/sampling process.
Sediment dating is one of the most critical and problematic aspects of obtaining
reliable Hg-deposition records from lake sediments. Lead-210, the dating method
of choice for obtaining a core chronology, has specialized analytical and interpre-
tational procedures, and is briefly described here (Appleby 2001). The method relies
on obtaining a detailed stratigraphic profile of 210Pb activity (concentration) from
the surface of the core to a depth at which a constant background (supported 210Pb)
is reached — typically 150 to 200 years. Lead-210 is measured by either alpha
counting of 210Po (a daughter isotope of 210Pb) or direct gamma assay of 210Pb. Alpha
spectrometry methods have the advantage of higher precision and lower back-
grounds, while gamma spectrometry provides a direct measure of supported 210Pb
(through 214Pb) as well as 137Cs, an ancillary dating tool. Neither method is inherently
superior to the other.
Chronologies and sediment accumulation rates are derived from 1 of 2 simple
models: 1) the constant rate of supply (c.r.s.) model, which assumes a constant flux
of 210Pb to the core-site but allows sediment input to vary; and 2) the cf:cs (constant
flux:constant sedimentation) model that assumes both constant sedimentation and
210Pb flux. For sites that have been substantially disturbed by human activity, sedi-
ment accumulation rates are almost never constant, and the c.r.s. model is required.
Even remote lakes with little or no human disturbance often exhibit natural changes
in sediment flux that require use of the c.r.s. model. Various modifications of these
models to accommodate mixing (bioturbation) and other sedimentary processes can
be applied, but almost always involve more complex assumptions, ancillary data,
and independent dating markers. For a thorough treatment of dating models and
their limitation, see Appleby (2001).
Finally, additional dating markers should be sought whenever possible to validate
the 210Pb chronology. This is especially critical for sites with disturbed watersheds
and highly variable sedimentation rates, which are more prone to errors in 210Pb
dating. These ancillary dating tools include 137Cs (for the 1964 peak in atmospheric
nuclear testing), pollen indicators of historical land-use change (e.g., local European
settlement), and profiles of other atmospheric contaminants with known input his-
tories (e.g., pollution Pb and Pb isotopic ratios).
FIGURE 3.8 Historical trends in HgT accumulation in 3 sediment cores from Lake Annie,
a seepage lake on the Archbold Biological Station, Highlands County, Florida. The cores
were collected in 2003 and are from widely spaced locations within the profundal region of
the basin. The similarity in trends among the cores reinforces the interpretation that the post-
1850 increase and recent (post-1990) decline in Hg flux represent lake-wide changes in Hg
loading. (Source: From Engstrom et al. 2003.)
The reconstruction of changes in atmospheric Hg deposition to lake sediments

follows 3 general lines of interpretation: 1) temporal trends, 2) magnitude of change,
and 3) whole-lake sedimentation rate. Temporal trends provide a qualitative assess-
ment of the direction and timing of changes in Hg flux at a study site. Typically,
Hg concentrations or accumulation rates are plotted against sediment age to give a
visual sense of when Hg inputs began to rise (or fall), and the rate and magnitude
of change. A typical example of this type of trend is shown in Figure 3.8, which
shows 3 cores from Lake Annie, Florida (Engstrom et al. 2003). In this example,
substantial increases in Hg accumulation over pre-development periods are observed,
as well as more recent declines since the mid-1980s. Studies such as this are useful
for supporting other observations, such as contemporaneous declines in fish and bird
feather concentrations from the Everglades (Atkeson et al. 2003).
In situations where sediment accumulation rates have changed as the result of
watershed disturbance, it is essential that Hg data be expressed as accumulation rates
(rather than Hg concentrations). When multiple cores from multiple lakes all show
the same trends in accumulation rates, it is likely driven by shifts in atmospheric
deposition rather than changes in land use or lake processes, which are unlikely to
be simultaneous among watersheds. The timing of the stratigraphic trends can be
compared to estimates of historic changes in Hg emissions on local, regional, and
global scales. Stratigraphic trends from some systems may not be in agreement with
others in the region, which sometimes reveals within-watershed historical sources

of Hg, such as past wastewater discharge or mining. However, within-watershed
disturbances can often be corroborated from historical information (e.g., Balogh
et al. 1999). Because of natural variability in sedimentation, limitations on strati-
graphic (temporal) resolution, and mixing processes near the sediment/water inter-
face, it is difficult to resolve from sediment records changes in Hg loading on time
scales shorter than about a decade.
A comparison of Hg accumulation in a sediment core between reference (typi-
cally pre-industrial) and modern (or peak) conditions provides a more quantitative
measure of the magnitude of change in atmospheric Hg deposition. This parameter
is usually expressed as the ratio of recent (typically the past decade) to pre-industrial
(pre-1850) Hg accumulation rates, with each time period represented by the average
of several stratigraphic levels (Engstrom and Swain 1997). These flux ratios represent
unit-less measures of changing Hg accumulation that are broadly comparable among
sites and geographic regions. They are independent of individual site conditions that
affect Hg sedimentation or atmospheric Hg loading (e.g., rainfall). These ratios
provide robust measures of atmospheric impact if 1) local sources of Hg (e.g., Hg
from direct discharge or local geologic sources) are minor, and 2) site conditions
remain constant over the period of record.
Lake sediments are generally the primary sink for Hg inputs to lakes, and the
determination of the whole-lake Hg sedimentation rate for mass balance calculations
is a common objective of many lake studies. Because Hg concentrations and accu-
mulation rates are spatially variable within a lake basin, Hg accumulation rates at
a single core site cannot be easily extrapolated to the entire lake bottom. For reliable
mass balance estimates, multiple dated cores (6 to 8 for small, bathymetrically simple
basins) are required, with cores taken from representative areas of the lake bottom
and spatially weighted to provide whole-lake burial rates over time. Core sites should
be distributed in shallow (littoral) as well as profundal regions, and the portions of
the lake bottom that do not accumulate fine-grained sediments (steep slopes, near-
shore areas) also must be delineated. Dating precision and stratigraphic correlation
limit the temporal resolution of whole-basin Hg accumulation to a decade or so for
recent sediments (past half century) and 20 years or greater for older sediments.
3.3.2 WATER-BASED INDICATORS

When compared to sediments, the water column of a lake, reservoir, wetland, or
stream generally represents a shorter-term indicator of Hg loading and processing
relative to sediments or soils. Like sediments, however, the integration time of a
water body can vary widely, depending on the hydrologic nature of the aquatic
ecosystem and the species of Hg in water being considered. In some cases, and for
some Hg species, surface waters may reflect changes in Hg loading and internal
cycling over time periods of hours (e.g., reactions involving photochemical produc-
tion of Hg(0) in shallow wetland systems; Krabbenhoft et al. 1998b) to several
months to years (e.g., HgT in the water column, Great Lakes; Rolfhus et al. 2003).
Although scientists have developed sampling and analytical strategies to quantify
several forms of Hg in water (Gill and Bruland 1990; Krabbenhoft et al. 1998b),
many forms (e.g., Hg(0) and reactive Hg) are short-lived or operationally defined
and are not likely good indicators of changes in atmospheric Hg loading. As such,
we limit our discussion here to HgT and MeHg in water, the forms that would likely
have the most utility for reflecting changes in environmental conditions due to
changes in atmospheric loading. Among surface waters, or within a given lake or
stream, the abundances of MeHg and HgT can vary widely, and accurate measure-
ment of their concentrations requires the steadfast application of trace-metal clean
techniques to minimize sample contamination during collection, handling, and anal-
ysis, coupled with the application of highly sensitive analytical methods. When
proper sample collection and preservation protocols are followed, inter-comparisons
among laboratories that use accepted analytical methods for HgT and MeHg yield
comparable results. When properly applied, water-based indicators are useful indi-
cators of a robust monitoring program.
3.3.2.1 Total Hg in Water
Total Hg (HgT) in water is defined as the BrCl oxidized fraction of Hg (Bloom and
Fitzgerald 1988; USEPA 1996). Over approximately the past 15 years, the research
community has largely adopted this procedure for the analysis of HgT in water and,
as a result, a wider geographic range of intercomparable data is available from the
literature, and the expected range of concentrations in water is relatively well char-
acterized. Unfortunately, long-term data sets of aqueous HgT concentrations from
specific locations, upon which baselines and long-term variability can be ascertained,
are rare. Total Hg in water can be further partitioned into dissolved (filter passing)
and particulate phases (Gill and Bruland 1990), which is often useful for ascertaining
sources within watersheds (Hurley et al. 1998). Even more sophisticated particle-
separation techniques can be applied to surface water samples, such as those designed
to assess the colloidal association of HgT in surface waters (Babiarz et al. 2001).
These techniques can yield important information, such as the observation that a
large portion of HgT draining forested and wetland watersheds is associated with
colloids.
Concentrations of HgT in surface water represent a net integrative measure of
the loading and removal rates for the water column of interest. Total Hg sources
include direct atmospheric deposition, indirect deposition from watershed runoff,
point sources, and internal recycling mechanisms such as sediment resuspension.
Loss mechanisms for HgT in aquatic ecosystems include sedimentation, evasion,
and riverine outflow. It is important to emphasize that the concentration of HgT for
a given water body also depends strongly on other site or basin characteristics, such
as water chemistry, land-use/land-cover characteristics, soil types, and hydrology.
Because all these factors can have a controlling effect on aqueous Hg concentration,
efforts aimed at monitoring and quantifying temporal changes must be attentive to
the potential for the co-variation of these controlling factors. For example, a water
body with rapidly increasing urbanization in its watershed would potentially not be
useful for monitoring temporal changes due to presumed changes in atmospheric
deposition. Carefully executed studies of spatial and temporal variations of HgT
concentrations in surface water generally show well-behaved and predictable differences
Urban Agriculture Forested Wetland
40
38
36
34 Hg T concentration
32
30 Particulate
28 Filtrable
26
24
1st bar = Spring
22
20 2nd bar = Baseflow
18 3rd bar = Event
Hg T (ng L -1)
16 * = No data
14
12
10
0 *
FOX IHC KAL STJ GND SHB PMR MEN MIL M AN MUS
FIGURE 3.9 Mean concentration of HgT (filtered at 0.4 µM and particulate phases) in Lake
Michigan tributaries ranked from highest to lowest, together with land use–land cover char-
acteristics of watersheds. FOX = Fox River; IHC = Indiana Harbor Ship canal; KAL =
Kalamazoo River; STJ = St Joseph River; GND = Grand River; SHB = Sheboygan River;
PMR = Pere Marquette River; MEN = Menomonee River; MIL = Milwaukee River; MAN =
Manistique River; MUS = Muskegon River.
among sites with varying settings. For example, HgT concentrations in tributaries
to Lake Michigan vary both spatially and seasonally (Figure 3.9). Watersheds char-
acterized by urban and agricultural land-use patterns generally have higher total Hg
concentrations and greater portions on suspended particulates. In addition, the rel-
ative difference among these sites generally exceeds the seasonal differences in HgT
concentration observed under high-flow versus low-flow conditions. Data such as
these illustrate the improved likelihood of success for detecting temporal trends in
aqueous HgT concentrations through repeat sampling at specific sites, as opposed
to networks that use randomized site selection.
Because the principle source of Hg to most locations is atmospheric deposition
from distant emission sources, concentrations of HgT in unfiltered water samples
from lakes and streams lacking local anthropogenic or geologic sources are usually
in the range of 0.3 to 8 ng/L (Hurley et al. 1995; Babiarz et al. 1998; Krabbenhoft
et al. 1999). However, natural dissolved organic matter (DOM) readily complexes
Hg(II) and increases in stability and abundance in natural waters (Ravichandran

et al. 1998), and thus surface waters with high DOM concentrations often have
elevated (5 to 20 ng/L) HgT concentrations (Mierle and Ingram 1991; Hurley et al.
1995; Babiarz et al. 2001). For watersheds influenced by Hg mining or industrial
pollution, concentrations of HgT can be significantly elevated over remote settings
(about 10 to 40 ng/L; Wang and Driscoll 1995; Domagalski 1998; Hurley et al. 1998;
Krabbenhoft et al. 1999). Streams draining areas with concentrated geologic sources
of Hg or with large accumulations of Hg-contaminated tailings from Hg or gold
mining can exceed 100 or even 1000 ng/L (Ganguli et al. 2000; Gray et al. 2000).
Thus, mining and Hg-enriched areas would be poor choices for assessing changes
in HgT concentration due to reductions in atmospheric loading.
It is not known how long it takes HgT concentrations in runoff to respond to
changes in atmospheric Hg deposition, but the potential for long response times
(decades or more) exists. In Sweden, researchers have recently concluded a long-
term (exceeding 10 years) atmospheric Hg exclusion (by emplacing a roof) exper-
iment for a 6300-m2 catchment. By monitoring the manipulated catchment before,
during, and after the roof was emplaced, as well as a nearby reference catchment,
the authors concluded there was no observable change in HgT concentrations or
fluxes (Munthe and Hultberg 2004). These results suggest decadal response times
for similar watersheds, or flowing systems are possibly not good monitoring loca-
tions to detect change. A whole-watershed, Hg-loading experiment presently ongoing
at the Experimental Lakes Area of Canada (i.e., the METAALICUS project) suggests
that extended time lags to responses in runoff (Hintelmann et al. 2002) are likely. Thus,
for streams and lakes where the Hg budget is dominated by runoff, it is possible that
HgT concentrations for surface water may respond slowly to changes in atmospheric
loading. Eventually, however, one would expect that HgT concentrations in runoff
would dissipate once the leachable pool in forest soils is reduced. On the other hand,
there are numerous other published reports showing that the HgT mass balance of
some water bodies (e.g., seepage lakes) can be dominated by direct atmospheric
inputs (Krabbenhoft et al. 1995; Watras et al. 1994; St. Louis et al. 1996). Under
these conditions, it is reasonable to assume that HgT concentrations are likely to
respond relatively rapidly to changes in loading, and show demonstrable changes
within 1 to 5 years. With this in mind, monitoring programs should be designed
considering the potential for different response dynamics in different aquatic eco-
system types (see Sections 3.4 and 3.6).
Total Hg concentration in water was the primary measurement in Hg cycling
studies in the 1980s and early 1990s, and as such there is a relatively large body of
data in the published literature that documents HgT concentrations in surface waters
for the past 2 decades. That being said, however, long-term monitoring data at
specific sites are few, and assessments of temporal trends (over many years) are rare.
A water sample collected for a determination of HgT concentration represents a
snapshot of conditions for a single receiving water at a particular time. In some
rivers and reservoirs, HgT can vary annually by more than an order of magnitude
due to flow conditions and variability in suspended particulates; thus, considerable
caution should be exercised when choosing sampling sites and times. For lakes and
wetlands that derive a greater proportion of their annual Hg mass budget from
atmospheric deposition, variations will generally be less (Watras et al. 1994; Hurley
et al. 1998). Thus, we can reasonably expect to see changes in HgT concentrations
of seepage lakes due to changing loads over relatively short periods of time. However,
non-loading related factors can also change the HgT concentration of surface waters,
including pH, sediment loads, DOM, and eutrophication. An effective monitoring
program needs to include these factors to effectively isolate changes in HgT that are
due to loading changes (see Section 3.5 for a more complete discussion of these
factors).
Examples of long-term (many years to decades) monitoring records of HgT
concentration in water for specific locations are few. One such record exists for the
central Everglades of Florida, where an 8-year record (1995 to 2003) HgT and MeHg
in surface water has been assembled by the ACME project (Figure 3.10). The HgT
concentration record shows considerable variation, but at the same time a declining
overall trend is evident. When broken into thirds, the first third of this data string
has a mean value of 1.9 ng/L, whereas the second and third segments have mean
values of 1.3 and 1.2 ng/L, respectively; the 95% confidence intervals for these
means (±0.34, 0.44, and 0.28 ng/L, respectively) support the assertion that there has
been a decline in aqueous HgT concentration for this location. A regression analysis
of the entire HgT data string indicates a negative slope (i.e., declining concentrations
with time); however, the regression is not statistically significant (p = 0.16). This
observation is intriguing because a recent analysis of long-term monitoring of pis-
civorous bird feathers and largemouth bass from the Everglades (Atkeson et al. 2003)
concluded that Hg concentrations in biota have declined substantially in the past
decade, which has been linked to declines in atmospheric deposition.
6 1
0.9
Sulfate
5
0.8
HgT
Sulfate (mg/L), HgT (ng/L)
0.7
4 MeHg
MeHg (ng /L)
0.6
3 0.5
0.4
2
0.3
0.2
1
0.1
0 0
De 01
14 Jul 7
-A - 96
Ja 01
5
Ju 9 6
/ 3
5/ 3
10 -Ju 9 8
9/ 18 3
12 /1 3
03
27 ec 5
1
9
-J -97
25 -J u 0
0
21 ec 6
Fe 0 2
/ 2
19 u n- 8
29 u g 0
- -9
-M -9
11 20 0
-D 9 9
08 20 0
-N -0
-M l -9
D 9
-S l -0
10 -0
-J - 9
15 /0
/1 7 /0
A 0
0
4- o v -
20
4- n -
1- ep -
9- c-
7- ar-
10 ay-
6- n-
11 p r
6/ b
29 an
13 5/1
/
1
3/
FIGURE 3.10 An 8-year record (1995–2003) of filtered HgT, MeHg, and sulfate from site
3A15 in the central Everglades.
Recently, Watras et al. (2000) concluded that a 0.04 ng/L/yr decline occurred in
HgT concentration based on a 10-year monitoring period (1989–1999) for a single
lake in northern Wisconsin, which resulted in an overall 39% decline in HgT.
Although this average annual decline rate is modest and is at or near most reported
analytical detection levels for HgT in water, when extended over several years, the
decline in concentration is substantial. These authors conclude that the decline was
driven by a 50% decline in Hg deposition rate from 1995 to 1999. This study
represents a likely scenario of the magnitude of change in HgT concentration due
to reduced Hg loading that may be realized by further US emission reductions, and
reinforces the idea that many years of careful monitoring will be needed to definitely
detect and quantify change.
Direct indications of how we might expect HgT concentrations in surface water
to respond to changes in loading come from the METAALICUS project. During the
first year of Hg additions during METAALICUS (2001), concentrations of inorganic
Hg in the surface waters of Lake 658 nearly doubled as a result of nearly doubling
the total load of Hg to the lake surface (atmospheric deposition plus runoff;
H. Hintelmann, unpublished data). This trend was repeated in 2002 and 2003, sug-
gesting that inorganic Hg concentrations in surface waters in small remote lakes
respond quickly (within a year) to changes in the overall Hg loading to the lake.
Exceptions would occur, however, in situations where a large component of the Hg
load is on particles that settle quickly and do not release Hg to surface waters. What
is not known, however, is whether the response to reductions will also be proportional
or more complex in nature. Results from the METAALICUS project also illustrate
that HgT concentrations in surface water (and presumably atmospheric deposition
rates) are not static. Therefore, to establish current trends and/or baselines, consid-
erable monitoring periods will be needed to establish true responses to possible
future changes in emissions.
While monitoring HgT may not provide a clear and direct measure of the
potential environmental benefit from reduced loading, it likely would be an important
parameter of a multi-pronged monitoring strategy, the goal of which is to assess
what factors drive changes to more critical monitoring endpoints, such as MeHg in
water and fish tissue concentrations. Taken alone, the HgT concentration in water
has been demonstrated to be an unreliable predictor of MeHg levels in water (Kelly
et al. 1995), an outcome that is probably related to the many factors (beyond HgT
concentration and loading) that control the bioaccessibility of inorganic Hg to food
web uptake. While HgT alone does not give an indication of the bioaccessibility of
Hg in an aquatic ecosystem, it is likely that HgT will be a critical measure that,
when coupled with other environmental data, yields significant insights. For exam-
ple, detailed HgT concentration data (including dissolved, particulate, and colloidal
partitioning information), coupled with other related ancillary data and application
of geochemical speciation modeling, could yield information on Hg speciation
controls of methylation, and the role of aqueous HgT concentrations in regulating
Hg levels in food webs. Thus, a successful monitoring program will likely need to
include HgT concentrations in water from select receiving waters.
3.3.2.2 MeHg in Water
Methylmercury (MeHg) is the most toxic and bioaccumulative form of Hg in food

webs (Wiener and Spry 1996; Wiener et al. 2003), and has been shown to be a good
predictor of game fish Hg concentrations (Brumbaugh et al. 2001) but only comprises
a small fraction of the total Hg pool in most surface waters (about 0.1 to 5%;
Krabbenhoft et al. 1999; Wiener et al. 2003). So, although MeHg represents greater
than 95% of the Hg in consumable game fish tissues (Bloom 1992) and commonly
reaches levels of potential toxicological concern in remote locations (Brumbaugh
et al. 2001; Wiener et al. 2003), most surface waters have MeHg concentrations
ranging between about 0.04 and 0.8 ng/L (St. Louis et al. 1994; Hurley et al. 1995;
Babiarz et al. 1998; Bodaly et al. 1998; Gilmour et al. 1998; Krabbenhoft et al. 1999;
Waldron et al. 2000). Because of these extremely low aqueous concentrations, sur-
face water sampling for MeHg must be executed with great care to avoid sampling
artifacts (e.g., contamination from sample containers or improper handling of the
sample, or accidental disturbance of the sediment/water interface causing sediment
resuspension) and to ensure reliable analytical results (Olson and DeWild 1999;
DeWild et al. 2002). Over the past 10 to 15 years, widespread acceptance of the
need to practice trace-metal-clean protocols when collecting aqueous samples for
HgT and MeHg has led to a much-improved ability to compare data generated by
various research groups from widespread geographic areas, including the ability to
examine for temporal trends. Continued strict adherence to these sampling and
analytical protocols will be essential to any successful monitoring program.
Because MeHg is disproportionately important in driving the bioaccumulation
of Hg, focused attention has been placed on understanding its occurrence, distribu-
tion, and mechanisms of formation. As a result, a much-improved understanding of
MeHg formation in the environment has been realized over approximately the past
15 years (Benoit et al. 2003), and the complex array of factors that control its
occurrence and distribution (e.g., availability of inorganic Hg, water and sediment
biogeochemistry, activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria, microbial MeHg degradation
rates, sulfur cycling, other metals, labile carbon substrates, anaerobic sediments,
sediment-water exchange rates, photodegradation of MeHg, hydrology, and seasonal
and inter-annual differences in all of the above). Thus, although MeHg concentration
in water can be a good indicator of expected contamination levels of food webs,
and is partly controlled by external Hg loading, all the factors influencing MeHg
production need to be considered when the goal is to detect and quantify changes
in environmental conditions directly attributable to reduced deposition rates. Mon-
itoring efforts that include MeHg as an indicator, therefore, will necessarily need to
include a more broad base of ancillary data (e.g., general water chemistry, hydrology,
climate), as well as the indicators described in the accompanying chapters, in order
to reliably ascribe the environmental benefits that are actually related to reductions
in Hg deposition.
Like HgT, MeHg in water has several advantages over sediment-based indicators.
First, MeHg in surface water is generally very dynamic, reflecting conditions over
recent weeks to months, including recent changes to Hg loading. Second, compared
All Species
2.5
ln[Hgfish/len] (mg/kg / m)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
ln[MeHgwater] (ng/L)
FIGURE 3.11 Relationship between aqueous MeHg on unfiltered water samples and fish
(largemouth bass) Hg concentration normalized to length from streams across the United
States. (Source: From Brumbaugh et al. 2001.)
to sediments, horizontal and vertical sample heterogeneity is relatively small in water

columns, particularly filtered water samples; thus, field replication is generally better
achieved with water samples. The dynamic character of MeHg in surface water does
have drawbacks, however, and necessitates detailed attention be placed on recog-
nizing the seasonal and spatial patterns that naturally arise. For example, maximal
MeHg concentrations are commonly observed in hypolimnetic waters at the end of
the summer and winter stratification periods for stratified lakes (Watras et al. 1994).
It is critical for monitoring programs to conduct sampling efforts with these seasonal
and spatial differences in mind. Finally, there is some evidence that aqueous MeHg
concentration is a reliable indicator of fish Hg concentration (Figure 3.11). As such,
state and federal monitoring programs may have interest in using this indicator as
a substitute for much more expensive fish surveys.
Similar to HgT, continuous, long-term records of MeHg in surface water are
rare. The 10-year record of HgT from a single northern Wisconsin lake discussed
above (Watras et al. 2000) also had an accompanying MeHg data series. These
authors suggest that the observed decline in HgT concentration (39%) from 1988
to 1999 was paired with a 53% decline in MeHg. Although the average annual rate
of decline (0.004 ng MeHg/L/year) for this trend was beyond present analytical
method detection limits, when monitored over a 10-year period, the trend was
detectable and significant. Interestingly, the overall decline in MeHg concentration
is more comparable to estimated change in atmospheric loading rate (50%) than the
decline in HgT in surface water. Given the variability in HgT and MeHg concen-
trations in this data set, it is probably not possible to conclude that MeHg concen-
tration is a more sensitive measure of change in atmospheric loading.
Methylmercury concentrations at site 3A-15 in the Florida Everglades have
shown distinct declining trends over the 8-year period from 1995 to 2003. A regression
analysis of this data string shows a statistically significant (p = 0.048) decline rate
of about 0.043 ng/L/year, and an overall decline of about 0.35 ng/L over the 8-year
period (70% decrease). These declines are similar in magnitude to the observed
declines in fish and bird feather Hg concentrations reported by Atkeson et al. (2003)
from the same region of the Everglades. It is interesting to note that in both Wisconsin
and Florida, the observed declines in aqueous MeHg concentration are greater than
the coincident declines in HgT. Whether or not the declines in environmental MeHg
concentrations from the Everglades and Wisconsin can be directly attributable to
commensurate changes in atmospheric deposition rates is not certain due to changes
in other known contributing factors at both locations. Watras et al. (2000) concluded
that surface water MeHg declines were at least partly driven by coincident changes
in other known controlling factors (sulfate and DOM declines, and pH increase). In
the case of the Everglades, atmospheric deposition rates of Hg in South Florida have
been inferred to decline based on dated sediment cores (Engstrom et al. 2003).
However, similar to the Wisconsin study, recent data from the monitoring site in the
Everglades have revealed that substantial declines in sulfate concentration (greater
than 90%) were coincident with MeHg declines (Figure 3.10). Thus, although 20 to
30% declines in Hg deposition appear to have occurred in South Florida from 1990
to 2000, large declines in sulfate to concentrations that are probably limiting sulfate
reduction (less than 1 mg SO4/L) likely played a key synergistic role in MeHg
declines. These 2 cases illustrate the importance of including MeHg as an indicator
of environmental response to changing Hg loads, but also the need to collect ancillary
data to aid interpretations.
As with sediments, the %MeHg in water samples is sometimes used by research-
ers as an integrative measure of “methylation efficiency” or Hg sensitivity of an
ecosystem (Kelly et al. 1997; Krabbenhoft et al. 1999; Benoit et al. 2003). The added
value of using %MeHg over MeHg or HgT concentrations lies in attempts to
normalize the variability in MeHg levels that are attributable to differences in HgT
availability levels across spatial and temporal gradients. For example, in some
aquatic ecosystems, the concentrations of HgT in surface water can show regular
seasonal cycles, whether from changes to external loads (e.g., rainy vs. dry periods)
or internal processes (e.g., resuspension of bed sediments during spring runoff). As
such, the %MeHg tends to dampen the spatial and temporal variability exhibited in
MeHg and HgT data alone, and is potentially a better indicator of changes to
bioaccessibility of inorganic Hg for methylation. Recent research that employs the
use of stable isotope tracers to document the effects of changing Hg loads (e.g., the
METAALICUS project) has indicated that recent Hg additions are more available
to methylating microbes than relic contamination (David Krabbenhoft, USGS,
unpublished data). Therefore, the %MeHg may be an effective indicator of changes
in the net bioaccessibility of the HgT pool that may not be discernable through HgT
measurements alone.
Percent MeHg (%MeHg) is a relatively untested indicator of change in ecosys-
tems. For the proposes of detecting and quantifying environmental change due to
changes in external Hg loading, however, it would appear to be a useful tool. Given
that MeHg and HgT are likely indicators for any Hg monitoring program, and thus
there is little (or no) added cost associated, we recommend including it. For the
previously discussed case of the Florida Everglades (Figure 3.10), a regression
analysis of the %MeHg from 1995 to 2003 shows a decline of approximately 66%,
and the regression is more significant (p = 0.012) than the observed declines in
MeHg or HgT individually. Total Hg and MeHg are positively and significantly
correlated (r2 = 0.42; p = 0.003) at this site, which is not surprising given that
inorganic Hg is 1 of the essential elements for the formation of MeHg. The %MeHg
in surface water of the Everglades does show a generally declining trend. However,
there are obvious spikes that are always timed with the onset of summer, which is
also the high rainfall period and when the majority of “new” Hg deposition occurs.
Based on this analysis, the %MeHg indicator not only appears to be a good indicator
of the efficiency (or ability of an ecosystem to methylate) over both short and long
time intervals.
3.4 MONITORING STRATEGY

The published literature indicates that Hg contamination of the environment occurs
to some degree around the globe. Anticipating the current level of contamination,
especially of indigenous food webs, remains difficult to predict due to the complex
relationship that exists between Hg loading rates and top predator accumulation
levels. Correspondingly, it will be equally difficult to anticipate the environmental
response to possible reductions in Hg loading. Therefore, to quantify the environ-
mental response to a change in Hg deposition at any location, monitoring data to
set baselines and current trends is necessary before the change occurs. In addition,
because sources of Hg in the United States originate both nationally and interna-
tionally, the network should be established to provide an estimate of whether
observed changes are due to domestic or foreign actions. Thus, the network should
be at least national (continental) in scale. Priority should be given to sites with rich
existing databases and would seek to develop ongoing collaborations with other
efforts that meet multiple needs (e.g., global change, urban sprawl, and changing
land-use issues).
An Hg monitoring network that would have the greatest ability to detect change
and quantify improvement in environmental Hg contamination levels would neces-
sarily have good geographic coverage of a broad range of ecosystems (or ecosystem
types). One possible network design employs the use of a series of grouped (geo-
graphically close) monitoring sites (or clusters) that are distributed across a range
of ecoregions, and at which multimedia (water, sediment, and biota) monitoring
would occur on a regular basis. We anticipate that clustered sites would be established
within at least 3 and not more than 10 ecoregions. A limited number of sites within
each cluster (probably 1 or 2) would be chosen as intensive study sites, where more
detailed sampling would be conducted to provide an assessment of the driving factors
behind any observed environmental responses.
Clustered sites would be located within a single ecoregion or at least have similar
ecological characteristics (e.g., southeastern coastal plain streams), and would con-
sist of a series of geographically proximal locations (approximately 10 to 20 water
bodies) where similar atmospheric loads (or load reductions) are anticipated. Cluster
sites would be sampled on a routine basis (e.g., quarterly) for a prolonged period
of time. Individual sites within a cluster would be specifically chosen to represent
a range of site characteristics that are known to affect Hg cycling (e.g., pH, DOC,
ANC, watershed/lake ratio). Site selection criteria for clusters would be based on
multiple factors, including: geographic region, Hg deposition condition, watershed
type, and water body type (e.g., lake, reservoir, river, and estuary). Presently, there
are a number of candidate locations where clustered sites can be found that have
the listed characteristics, including northern New England and the Adirondacks; the
upper Midwest; the southeastern coastal plain; lakes in Ontario and Quebec (Can-
ada); western mountain lakes, streams, and reservoirs, the arctic regions of Alaska;
and several major coastal regions (San Francisco Bay/Delta, Chesapeake Bay, the
Gulf Coast, and the Great Lakes).
The intensive monitoring site network would consist of approximately 20 sites
with representation of each cluster (1 or 2 in each cluster). The intensive monitoring
effort would include multimedia sampling (water, sediment, biota, and ancillary data
such as flows, temperature, and general water chemistry) conducted about annually
with the specific objective of assessing the driving causes for the environmental
response to the change in Hg load. Priority would be placed on sites where maximum
response is expected. These monitoring efforts should be highly coordinated with
the watershed, atmospheric, and aquatic biota monitoring programs to achieve max-
imum interpretation of the data.
For the purposes of prescribing ecosystem-type considerations for a monitoring
network, the goal(s) of the monitoring effort must first be defined. Certainly one
goal of an Hg monitoring network could be to maximize the likelihood of detecting
change. However, optimizing a network design for detecting change can be achieved
by choosing aquatic ecosystem types that yield the least amount of natural variability
in water and sediment characteristics, or by choosing sites where the greatest reduc-
tions in deposition can be expected to occur, or both. One example of this environ-
mental setting would be an atmospherically dominated (mercury budget) seepage
lake in a high-Hg deposition setting. On the other hand, another goal of a monitoring
network could be to detect and quantify general benefits to environmental conditions
that might result across a range of aquatic ecosystem types, or the United States
more generally. In this case, sampling sites would include a variety of aquatic
ecosystem types (e.g., lakes, wetlands, streams), and those where maximum range
in changes might be expected or in areas that represent a maximum range in
anticipated changes to atmospheric deposition. Site selection for a cluster in a
particular ecoregion should involve careful consideration of ecosystem types that
are representative or common to that area and potentially sensitive to Hg inputs
(e.g., lowland streams in the coastal southeastern United States, soft-water lakes in
the glaciated northern United States).
Although a preponderance of the founding research on Hg cycling in freshwater
aquatic ecosystems has been on lakes and wetlands, it is not clear from the literature
whether they are more or less “mercury sensitive” (i.e., prone to produce MeHg)
and yield higher levels of MeHg in indigenous food webs than riverine ecosystems.
Recent reviews do suggest that the density or abundance of wetlands in a basin is
positively related to MeHg abundance (Wiener et al. 2003). It has not been clearly
shown, however, whether this is a result of direct MeHg contributions from wetlands
up-gradient from receiving waters, or secondary effects such greater DOC contri-
butions from wetlands to lakes and streams, which may enhance bioaccessibility of
inorganic Hg for methylation. Streams that have wide ranges in seasonal flow will
likely exhibit wider ranges in unfiltered and filtered HgT and MeHg concentrations
on an annual basis, and thus responses to changing Hg deposition at stream moni-
toring sites may not be as clear. Because no long-term Hg and MeHg records from
streams are known to exist, it is uncertain whether they will respond more slowly
or more quickly than still water bodies to changes in Hg atmospheric deposition;
although it would seem reasonable that stream flow would be likely slower to
respond, given that ties to terrestrial soil pools of Hg are closer compared to seepage
lakes. The experimental watershed results from Sweden would indicate a long
delayed response (Munthe and Hultberg 2004). However, because a substantial
number of streams across the United States have posted fish consumption advisories
for Hg, inclusion of stream sites would seem logical. In addition, streams and rivers
transport MeHg to down-gradient ecosystems, such as coastal margins and estuaries,
where presently very little is known about Hg and MeHg budgets. Obviously, a
network designed to measure the general environmental benefit will be more costly
(more sites with greater geographic distribution and probably longer monitoring
times), but will provide a better overall assessment than a network targeted only at
maximum response sites.
3.5 ANCILLARY DATA

For each of the suggested water and sediment indicators, there are possible confound-
ing environmental factors that are not related to changes in Hg loading, but that could
result in responses in some of the indicators. Several of these confounding factors
have been previously mentioned, but a general discussion of them is provided here.
Of the previously discussed indicators, those that involve MeHg (MeHg and
%MeHg in sediment and water, and instantaneous methylation rate) are the most
suspect to confounding effects. Mercury methylation is driven by a complex set of
factors, but can be generally grouped into those that affect the activity of methylating
and demethylating bacteria, and those that affect the abundance of bioavailable
inorganic Hg. A detailed review of these processes can be found in Benoit et al.
(2003), but are briefly explained here. Sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB) are generally
thought to be the most important methylating agents in the environment; thus, the
sulfate concentration in the water column should be monitored. In addition to sulfate,
which is chemically reduced during sulfate reduction, SRB require a labile carbon
source to serve as the electron donor. In addition, SRB respire sulfide, which has
been suggested to play a direct role in regulating Hg bioaccessibility. Thus, pore
water sulfide levels should be evaluated when sediment MeHg and methylation rate
assays are performed. In most cases, carbon is not limiting at sites of methylation,
but changes to carbon fluxes and/or composition due to disturbances such as eutroph-
ication could affect net MeHg production. As such, nutrient status at monitoring
sites should be measured. Although a definitive relation between temperature and
MeHg abundance is not evident, temperature is a fundamentally important compo-
nent of all environmental studies and should be monitored.
Several water chemistry factors that are thought to affect availability of Hg to
methylating microbes have been shown to relate to MeHg abundance, including:
pH, DOM, alkalinity, major and trace metals, and sulfide. The details of how each
of these constituents affect inorganic Hg bioaccessibility and MeHg production is
not necessarily clear or predictable. For example, DOM appears to increase Hg
bioaccessibility such that we might expect increasing DOM to result in greater
MeHg. However, DOM also strongly limits UV light penetration, which has been
shown to be an effective demethylation (conversion of MeHg to Hg) agent in aquatic
ecosystem. For the purposes of a monitoring program whose purpose is to document
change, we believe it is important to include all these factors in the monitoring plan.
In addition to eutrophication, other catchment disturbances — both natural (fire,
drought, beaver impoundment) and anthropogenic (logging, farming, urban devel-
opment) — can greatly alter the export of soil Hg to downstream lakes. Increased
sediment mobilization can result in greater contributions of relic Hg to downstream
water bodies, and thus the appearance of a greater Hg load, but that is not related
to recent changes in atmospheric emissions. Increased sediment loads also result in
high sediment mass accumulation rates, which would give the appearance of lower
concentrations in recent sediments if the sediment accumulation rate is not accounted
for in monitoring efforts.
3.6 ANTICIPATED RESPONSE TIMES

Monitoring programs should be designed to track HgT and MeHg concentrations
and trends, and help estimate fluxes in terrestrial and aquatic systems following
changes in atmospheric emissions. It will be critical to monitor for time periods that
allow systematic changes in concentrations to be distinguished from year-to-year
variability, and allow the system to approach a new steady-state set of concentrations
in response to different loading conditions. How rapidly Hg and MeHg concentra-
tions and methylation rates will take to respond is not well established, but we can
expect that there will be a large range (a few years to many decades) in recovery
periods among various ecosystem types. Furthermore, the rate of response may
change with time. To illustrate this point, Figure 3.12 shows a simple exponential
decline in concentration that might be predicted for a hypothetical well-mixed
compartment (e.g., lake) following a one-time step decline in loading, where the
removal mechanisms (e.g., outflow or burial) are directly related to the concentration
(first order). Real ecosystems, however, tend to involve series of compartments that
are linked in complex ways and that can include feedback mechanisms. These links
can result in responses that are more complicated. If, for example, a water body
received mercury from both the atmosphere and terrestrial runoff (a very common
situation), and the terrestrial system imposes a time lag on the delivery of atmo-
spheric deposition to a lake, a lake might experience a “2-phase” response to a
change in atmospheric deposition. There would be an initial, more rapid component
of the response due to the change in loading directly to the lake surface, and a second
slower phase due to the slower change in loading from terrestrial runoff (Figure 3.12).
Similarly, contaminated sediments could potentially feed mercury back to overlying
waters for long periods following reductions in external mercury loads to a system.
Two-phase response patterns have been observed — for example, following reduc-
tions in Hg releases from a chor-alkali facility in Ontario, Canada (Figure 3.1). These
1.2
1
Fish Hg (starts at 1)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Years after load reduction
Simple first-order exponential response
2-phase response: Fast initially, then slower
FIGURE 3.12 Simple exponential and 2-phase response dynamics model showing a response
of hypothetical ecosystem to a change in Hg load.
linkages and complexities in natural systems mean that the rate of recovery observed
initially following changes in atmospheric deposition may not represent the long-
term response trajectory. As a result, monitoring programs should be continued long
enough to accommodate complex response dynamics.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This manuscript benefited substantially from the comments provided by 3 anony-
mous reviewers. Funding support from the US Geological Survey’s Toxics and
Priority Ecosystems programs to D. Krabbenhoft, and from NSF grant No. 0451345
to C. Gilmour and R. Mason are greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
Appleby PG. 2001. Chronostratigraphic techniques in recent sediments. In: Last WM, Smol
JP, editors, Tracking environmental change using lake sediments. Vol. 1: Basin anal-
ysis, coring, and chronological techniques. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, p. 171–203.
Atkeson T, Axelrad D, Pollman C, Keeler G. 2003. Integrating atmospheric mercury deposition
and aquatic cycling in the Florida Everglades: an approach for conducting a total
maximum daily load analysis for an atmospherically derived pollutant. Tallahassee
(FL): Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (http://www.
floridadep.org/labs/mercury/index.htm).
Babiarz CL, Hurley JP, Benoit JM, Shafer MM, Andren AW, Webb DA. 1998. Seasonal
influences on partitioning and transport of total and methylmercury in rivers from
contrasting watersheds. Biogeochemistry 41:237–257.
Babiarz CL, Andren AW. 1995. Total concentrations of mercury in Wisconsin (USA) lakes
and rivers. Water Air Soil Pollut 83:173–183.
Babiarz CL, Hurley JP, Hoffmann SR, Andren AW, Shafer MM, Armstrong DE. 2001.
Partitioning of total mercury and methylmercury to the colloidal phase in fresh waters.
Balogh SJ, Engstrom DR, Almendinger JE, Meyer ML, Johnson DK. 1999. A history of
mercury loading in the upper Mississippi River reconstructed from the sediments of
Lake Pepin. Environ Sci Technol 33:3297–3302.
78:118–133.
Benoit J, Gilmour CC, Heyes A, Mason RP, Miller C. 2003. Geochemical and biological controls
over methylmercury production and degradation in aquatic ecosystems. In: Chai Y,
Braids OC, editors, Biogeochemistry of environmentally important trace elements, ACS
Symposium Series #835. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society, p. 262–297.
Bindler R, Renberg I, Appleby PG, Anderson NJ, Rose NL. 2001. Mercury accumulation
rates and spatial patterns in lake sediments from west Greenland: a coast to ice margin
transect. Environ Sci Technol 35:1736–1741.
Bloom NS. 1992. On the chemical form of mercury in edible fish and marine invertebrate
tissue. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:1010–1017.
Bloom NS, Fitzgerald WF. 1988. Determination of volatile mercury species at the picogram
level by low temperature gas chromatography with cold-vapor atomic fluorescence
detection. Anal Chim Acta 208:151–161.
Bloom NS, Gill GA, Cappellino S, Dobbs C, McShea L, Driscoll C, Mason R, Rudd JWM.
1999. Speciation and cycling of mercury in Lavaca Bay, Texas, sediments. Environ
Sci Technol 33:7–13.
Bodaly RA, Rudd JWM, Flett RJ. 1998. Effect of urban sewage treatment on total and
methylmercury concentrations in effluents. Biogeochemistry 40:279–291.
Brumbaugh WG, Krabbenhoft DP, Helsel DR, Wiener JG, Echols K. 2001. A national pilot study
of mercury contamination of aquatic ecosystems along multiple gradients: bioaccumu-
lation in fish, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Biological Science Report BSR-2001-009.
DeWild JF, Olson ML, Olund SD. 2002. Determination of methyl mercury by aqueous phase
ethylation, followed by gas chromatographic separation with cold vapor atomic flu-
orescence detection, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 01-445, 23 p.
Domagalski J. 1998. Occurrence and transport of total mercury and methyl mercury in the
Sacramento River Basin, California. J Geochem Explor 64:277–291.
upper Midwest. Environ Sci Technol 312:960–967.
Engstrom DR, Pollman CD, Fitzgerald WF, Balcom PH. 2003. Evaluation of recent trends
in atmospheric mercury deposition in south florida from lake-sediment records. Tal-
lahassee (FL): Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 27 pp.
[EPRI] Electric Power Research Institute. 1996. Protocol for estimating historic atmospheric
mercury deposition EPRI/TR-106768.
Fitzgerald WF, Engstrom DR, Mason RP, Nater EA. 1998. The case for atmospheric mercury
contamination in remote areas. Environ Sci Technol 32:1–7.
Furutani A, Rudd JWM. 1980. Measurement of mercury methylation in lakewater and sedi-
ment samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 40:770–776.
Ganguli PM, Mason RP, Abu-Saba KE, Anderson RS, Flegal AR. 2000. Mercury speciation
in drainage from the New Idria mercury mine, California. Environ Sci Technol
34:4773–4779.
Gill GA, Bruland KW. 1990. Mercury speciation in surface freshwater systems in California
and other areas. Environ Sci Technol 24:1392–1400.
Gilmour CC, Riedel GS. 1995. Measurement of Hg methylation in sediments using high
specific-activity 203Hg and ambient incubation. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:747–756.
Gilmour CC, Riedel GS, Ederington MC, Bell JT, Benoit JM, Gill GA, and Stordal MC.
1998. Methylmercury concentrations and production rates across a trophic gradient
in the northern Everglades, Biogeochemistry 40:327–345.
Gray JE, Theodorakos PM, Bailey EA, Turner RR. 2000. Distribution, speciation, and trans-
port of mercury in stream-sediment, stream-water, and fish collected near abandoned
mercury mines in southwestern Alaska, USA. Sci Total Environ 260:21–33.
Henry EA, Dodge-Murphy LJ, Bigham GN, Klein SM, Gilmour CC. 1995. Total mercury
and methylmercury mass balance in an alkaline, hypereutrophic urban lake (Onon-
daga Lake, N.Y.). Water Air Soil Pollut 80:489–498.
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. Fresenius J Anal Chem 358:378–385.
Hintelmann H, Harris, R, Heyes A, Hurley J, Kelly C, Krabbenhoft D, Lindberg S, Rudd J,
Scott K, St. Louis V. 2002. Reactivity and mobility of new and old mercury deposition
in a boreal forest ecosystem during the first year of the METAALICUS study. Environ
Sci Technol 36:5034–5040.
Hurley JP, Watras CJ, Bloom NS. 1994. Distribution and flux of particulate mercury in four
stratified seepage lakes. In: Watras CJ, and Huckabee J, editors, Mercury as a global
pollutant: integration and synthesis. Chelsea (MI): Lewis, p. 69–82.
Hurley JP, Benoit, JM, Babiarz CL, Shafer MM, Andren AW, Sulivan JR, Hammond R, Webb
D. 1995. Influences of watershed characteristics on mercury levels in Wisconsin
rivers. Environ Sci Technol 29:1867–1875.
Hurley JP, Cowell SE, Shafer MM, Hughes PE. 1998. Partitioning and transport of total and
methylmercury in the lower Fox River, WI. Environ Sci Technol 32:1424–1432.
Hurley JP, Cowell SE, Shafer MM, Hughes PE. 1998. Tributary loading of mercury to Lake
Michigan: importance of seasonal events and phase partitioning. Sci Total Environ
213:129–137.
Hydro Québec, Genivar. 1997. Summary Report. Evolution of fish mercury levels at the La
Grande complex, Québec. (1978–1994).
Kamman NC, Engstrom DR. 2002. Historical and present fluxes of mercury to Vermont and
New Hampshire lakes inferred from 210Pb dated sediment cores. Atmos Environ
36:1599–1609.
Kelly CA, Rudd JWM, St. Louis VL, Heyes A. 1995. Is total mercury concentration a good
predictor of methylmercury concentration in aquatic systems? Water Air Soil Pollut
80:715–724.
Kelly CA, Rudd JWM, Bodaly RA, Roulet NP, St. Louis VK, Heyes A, Moore TR, Schiff S,
Aravena R, Scott K, Dyck B, Harris R, Warner B, Edwards G. 1997. Increases in
fluxes of greenhouse gases and methylmercury following flooding of an experimental
reservoir. Environ Sci Technol 31:1334–1344.
Krabbenhoft DP, Babiarz CL. 1992. The role of groundwater transport in aquatic mercury
cycling. Water Resources Res 28:3119–3128.
Krabbenhoft DP, Beniot JM, Babiarz CL, Hurley JP, Andren AW. 1995. Mercury cycling in
the Allequash Creek Watershed Water Air Soil Pollut 80:425–433.
Krabbenhoft DP, Gilmour CC, Beniot JM, Babiarz CL, Andren AW, Hurley JP. 1998a.
Methylmercury dynamics in littoral sediments of a temperate seepage lake. C J Fish
Aquat Sci 55:835–844.
Krabbenhoft DP, Hurley JP, Olson ML, Cleckner LB. 1998b. Diel variability of mercury phase
and species distributions in the Florida Everglades. Biogeochemistry 40:311–325.
Krabbenhoft DP, Wiener JG, Brumbaugh WG, Olson ML, DeWild JF, Sabin T. 1999. In:
Morganwalp DW, Buxton HT, editors, A national pilot study of mercury contamination
of aquatic ecosystems along multiple gradients. U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Sub-
stances Hydrology Program — Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Charleston, SC,
March 8–12, 1999. Vol 2: Contamination of hydrologic systems and related ecosystems,
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4018B, p. 147–160.
Krabbenhoft DP, Orem W, Aiken G, Gilmour CG. 2004. Unraveling the complexities of
mercury methylation in the Everglades: the use of mesocosms to test the effects of
“new” mercury, sulfate, and organic carbon. Proc 7th Int Conf Mercury Pollut, RMZ-
MG, 51(1–3):June 2004.
regional mercury cycling implications. Global Biogeochem Cycles 16:1104;
doi:1110.1029/2001GB1847.
Lee YH, Bishop K, Petterson C, Iverfeldt A, Allard B. 1995. Subcatchment output of mercury
and methylmercury at Svartberget in Northern Sweden. Water Air Soil Pollut
80:455–465.
Long ED, MacDonald D, Smith SL, Calder FD. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects
within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ
Manage 19:81–97.
Mason RP, Rolfhus KR, Fitzgerald WF. 1998. Mercury in the North Atlantic. Mar Chem
61:37–53.
Mierle G, Ingram R. 1991. The role of humic substances in the mobilization of mercury from
watersheds. Water Air Soil Pollut 56:349–357.
Munthe J, Hultberg H. 2004. Mercury and methylmercury in runoff from a forested
catchment — concentrations, fluxes, and their response to manipulations. Water, Air
Soil Pollut: Focus 4:607–618.
Olson ML, DeWild JF. 1999. Low-level techniques for the collection and species-specific
analysis of low levels of mercury in water, sediment, and biota. In: Morganwalp, DW,
Buxton HT, editors, U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program —
Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Charleston, SC, March 8–12, 1999, Vol 2 of
3: Contamination of hydrologic systems and related ecosystems: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4018B, p. 191–200.
Olund SD, DeWild JF, Olson ML, Tate MT. 2004. Methods for the preparation and analysis
of solids and suspended solids for total mercury, U.S. Geological Survey Techniques
and Methods Report 5A-8, 23 p.
Parks J, Hamilton A. 1987. Accelerating the recovery of the mercury contaminated Wabigoon
English River system. Hydrobiologia 149:159–188.
Ravichandran M, Aiken GR, Reddy MM, Ryan JN. 1998. Enhanced dissolution of cinnabar
(mercuric sulfide) by organic matter from the Florida Everglades. Environ Sci Technol
32:3305–3311.
Rolfhus KR, Sakamoto HE, Cleckner LB, Stoor RW, Babiarz CL, Back RC, Manolopoulos
H, Hurley JP. 2003. The distribution of mercury in Lake Superior. Environ Sci Technol
37:865–872.
Rudd JWM, Turner MA, Furutani A, Swick AL, Townsend BE. 1983. The English-Wabigoon
River system. I. A synthesis of recent research with a view towards mercury amelio-
ration. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 40:2206–2217.
Schuster PF, Krabbenhoft DP, Naftz DL, Cecil LD, Olson ML, DeWild JF, Susong DD, Green
JR, Abbott ML. 2002. Atmospheric mercury deposition during the last 270 years: a
glacial ice core record of natural and anthropogenic sources. Environ Sci Technol
36:2303–2310.
St. Louis VL, Rudd JWM, Kelly CA, Beaty KG, Bloom NS, and Flett RJ. 1994. Importance
of wetlands as sources of methyl mercury to boreal forest ecosystems, Can J Fish
Aquat Sci 51:1065–1076.
St. Louis VL, Rudd JWM, Kelly CA, Bodaly RA, Paterson MJ, Beaty KG, Hesslein RH,
Heyes A, Majewski AR. 2004. The rise and fall of mercury methylation in an exper-
imental reservoir. Environ Sci Technol 38:1348–1358.
of atmospheric mercury deposition in midcontinental North America. Science
257:784–787.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Method 1631: mercury in water by
oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence (CVAFS). Draft method
EPA 821-R-96-012.
Waldron MC, Colman JA, and Breault RF. 2000. Distribution, hydrologic transport, and cycling
of total mercury and methyl mercury in a contaminated river-reservoir-wetland system
(Sudbury River, eastern Massachusetts), Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:1080–1091.
Wang W, Driscoll CT. 1995. Patterns of total mercury concentrations in Onondaga Lake, New
York. Environ Sci Technol 29:2261–2266.
Watras CJ, Bloom NS, Hudson RJM, Gherini S, Munson R, Claas SA, Morrison KA, Hurley
JP, Wiener JG, Fitzgerald WF, Mason RP, Vandal G, Powell D, Rada R, Rislove L,
Winfrey M, Elder J, Krabbenhoft DP, Andren AW, Babiarz C, Porcella DB, Huckabee
JW. 1994. Sources and fates of mercury and methylmercury in Wisconsin lakes. In:
Watras CJ, Huckabee J, editors, Mercury as a global pollutant: integration and syn-
thesis. Chelsea (MI): Lewis, p. 153–177.
Watras CJ, Morrison KA, Hudson RJM, Frost TM, Kratz TK. 2000. Decreasing mercury in
northern Wisconsin: temporal patterns in bulk precipitation and a precipitation-dom-
inated lake. Environ Sci Technol 34:4051–4057.
Wiener JG, Spry DJ. 1996. Toxicological significance of mercury in freshwater fish. In: Beyer
WN, Heinz GH, Redmon-Norwood AW, editors, Environmental contaminants in
wildlife: interpreting tissue concentrations. Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers, p.
297–339.
In: Hoffman DJ, Rattner BA, Burton GA Jr, Cairns J Jr, editors, Handbook of
ecotoxicology, 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, p. 409–463.
4 Monitoring and
Evaluating Trends
in Methylmercury
Accumulation in
Aquatic Biota
James G. Wiener, R.A. Bodaly, Steven S. Brown,
Marc Lucotte, Michael C. Newman, Donald B.
Porcella, Robin J. Reash, and Edward B. Swain
ABSTRACT
The monitoring of mercury in aquatic food webs supporting the production of fish
and wildlife is directly relevant to concerns about health and ecological risks of
methylmercury (MeHg) exposure. We present a framework for monitoring concen-
trations of mercury in aquatic biota, with emphasis on assessing responses to changes
in loadings of mercury from atmospheric deposition and other sources. In this
chapter, we (1) identify specific attributes (criteria) of indicators that would be useful
for discerning temporal trends and spatial patterns in the concentration of mercury
in aquatic biota, (2) critically evaluate and rank candidate biological indicators useful
for monitoring trends in mercury, (3) outline approaches for sampling and analysis
of recommended biological indicators, (4) identify ancillary data needs and potential
confounding factors that should be considered or documented to ensure the defen-
sible interpretation of data on monitored biological indicators, and (5) consider the
environmental settings (waterbody type and geographic location) that would be most
sensitive for detecting changes in atmospheric deposition of mercury. Criteria were
applied to ensure that the biological indicators selected are useful, relevant, and
sufficiently diagnostic to detect a change in mercury bioaccumulation in response
to altered mercury loadings. Toxicological problems with mercury in aquatic eco-
systems result from biotic exposure to MeHg, a highly toxic compound that readily
accumulates in exposed organisms and can biomagnify to high concentrations in
organisms atop aquatic food webs. Biotic monitoring should, therefore, focus on
assessing trends in bioaccumulation of MeHg; in samples from trophic levels below
fish, this requires the determination of MeHg. We considered six general groups of
87
aquatic biological indicators: piscivorous fish, prey fish, benthic invertebrates, zoop-
lankton, phytoplankton, and periphyton. Piscivorous fish and 1-year-old prey fish,
all analyzed individually, are considered the preferred aquatic biological indicators
for trend monitoring. For piscivorous fish, total-mercury determinations on axial
muscle (preferably without skin), sampled annually, would indicate gradual (multi-
year) trends in MeHg that are directly relevant to humans who eat sport fish. For
prey fish, annual sampling and analysis of either whole fish or axial muscle for total
mercury should indicate annual changes in exposure to MeHg. In North America,
the historical record for MeHg in piscivorous fish (from data on total mercury in
filets or axial muscle) extends about 35 years, much longer than the comparatively
sparse historical record for MeHg in water and aquatic biota of lower trophic levels.
The analytical method (cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometry) that pro-
duced most of the historic data on total mercury in piscivorous fish is valid, and the
potential utility of these existing data for trend analysis merits careful consideration.
Benthic invertebrates have been monitored and analyzed for mercury more extensively
in estuarine systems than in fresh waters. The consumption of estuarine macroinver-
tebrates, such as oysters, clams, shrimp, and crabs, is also a direct pathway for human
exposure to MeHg. Determination of MeHg in shellfish and macrocrustaceans could,
therefore, be useful for trend monitoring in estuaries. The importance of MeHg uptake
and transfer at the base of the food web is recognized. However, the utility of
periphyton, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and freshwater benthic invertebrates for
trend monitoring is diminished by interpretational complexities associated with large
temporal variation in the biotic composition and MeHg content among samples, and
by our limited understanding of the processes and variables that affect concentrations
of MeHg in these groups. Many anthropogenic and natural factors, independent of
the bulk loading of mercury from atmospheric deposition, can strongly influence the
concentrations of MeHg in aquatic biota. Our ability to discern linkages between
MeHg concentrations in aquatic biota and changing external loadings of mercury to
aquatic systems will depend on knowledge of such factors and on the minimization
of their confounding effects in biotic monitoring programs.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Elevated mercury concentrations in fish tissue adversely affect the quality of fishery
resources in many inland, coastal, and marine waters. In the United States, mercury
was responsible for 76% of all fish-consumption advisories in 2004, and 44 states
and 1 territory had advisories attributed to mercury (USEPA 2005). Growing aware-
ness of the mercury problem has prompted increasing efforts to survey mercury in
fish, and the number of statewide fish-consumption advisories issued for coastal
waters, lakes, and rivers in the United States has increased substantially during the
past decade (Wiener et al. 2003; USEPA 2005). In Canada, mercury accounted for
more than 97% (2572) of all fish-consumption advisories listed in 1997 (USEPA
2001). Nearly all of the mercury in fish is methylmercury (MeHg), a highly toxic
compound that readily crosses biological membranes, accumulates in exposed organ-
isms, and can biomagnify to high concentrations in aquatic food webs (Grieb et al.
1990; Bloom 1992; Francesconi and Lenanton 1992; Wiener et al. 2003).
Aquatic Biological Indicators 89
Atmospheric deposition is an important source of total mercury in many surface

waters (Fitzgerald et al. 1998; Bindler et al. 2001; Lin et al. 2001; Lamborg et al.
2002), and it has been widely inferred that a significant portion of the MeHg
bioaccumulated in many aquatic ecosystems is derived from mercury entering the
surface water or its watershed in atmospheric deposition (Johansson et al. 1991;
Watras et al. 1994; Rolfhus and Fitzgerald 1995; Jackson 1997; Monteiro and Fur-
ness 1997; Downs et al. 1998). In many remote and semi-remote areas of the
Northern Hemisphere that lack in-watershed sources of anthropogenic mercury, the
rate of mercury accumulation in lacustrine sediments has increased by a factor of 2
to 5 or more since the mid-1800s or early 1900s, based on analyses of dated cores
of sediment and peat (Swain et al. 1992; Lucotte et al. 1995; Lockhart et al. 1998;
Lorey and Driscoll 1999; Bindler et al. 2001; Lamborg et al. 2002; Shotyk et al.
2005). Some cores from semi-remote sites show evidence of recent declines in
mercury deposition, possibly associated with decreasing emissions of anthropogenic
mercury (Engstrom and Swain 1997; Benoit et al. 1998; Bindler et al. 2001; Shotyk
et al. 2003, 2005).
We present a framework for monitoring concentrations of mercury in aquatic
biota, with emphasis on assessing responses to changes in loadings of mercury from
atmospheric deposition and other sources. The monitoring of mercury in aquatic
food webs supporting the production of fish and wildlife is directly relevant to
societal concerns about this toxic metal. Much of the scientific effort on mercury
contamination of aquatic food webs has been prompted by the human health risks
of MeHg exposure (Myers and Davidson 1998; Mahaffey 2000; Clarkson 2002),
given that the consumption of finfish and shellfish is the primary exposure pathway
in humans (NRC 2000; Mahaffey et al. 2004). Consumption of fish is also an
important pathway of MeHg exposure for wildlife atop aquatic food webs (Heinz
1996; Wolfe et al. 1998; Wiener et al. 2003).
4.2 OBJECTIVES
This chapter focuses on monitoring trends in bioaccumulation in relation to antici-
pated changes in emissions of mercury from anthropogenic sources. Aquatic biota,
however, are exposed to mercury from multiple sources, including historic anthro-
pogenic, current anthropogenic, and natural sources. We identify aquatic biological
indicators that can provide evidence of a temporal change in bioaccumulation of
mercury (estimated from concentrations in tissue or whole organisms) from all
sources. The objectives of this chapter are fivefold:
1) To identify specific attributes (criteria) of indicators that would be useful

for discerning temporal trends and spatial patterns in the concentration of
mercury in aquatic biota
2) To critically evaluate and rank candidate biological indicators useful for
monitoring trends in mercury
3) To outline approaches for sampling and analysis of recommended biolog-
ical indicators
4) To identify ancillary data needs and potential confounding factors that

should be considered or documented to ensure the defensible interpreta-
tion of data on monitored biological indicators
5) To identify the environmental settings (water body type and geographic
location) that would be most sensitive for detecting changes in atmo-
spheric deposition of mercury in a trend-monitoring program
Many factors other than the bulk loading of mercury from atmospheric deposi-
tion can strongly influence the concentrations of MeHg in aquatic biota. Our ability
to discern trends in MeHg concentrations in aquatic biota that are linked to changing
loadings of mercury will depend on knowledge of such factors and on the minimi-
zation of their confounding effects in biotic monitoring programs for mercury.
4.3 AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS

4.3.1 CRITERIA TO SELECT INDICATORS
The selection of biological indicators should be guided by criteria to ensure that the
indicators are relevant, useful, and sufficiently diagnostic to detect a change in the
concentration of mercury in whole organisms or specific tissue(s) over multi-year or
decadal time scales. We identified 9 criteria for the selection of biological indicators:
1) Relevance. A key criterion in the selection of biological indicators is

relevance to human and ecological health and to the development of
policy. Fish are directly relevant, for example, given that consumption of
fish is the primary pathway for exposure to MeHg. The concentration
of MeHg in fish is also a key variable in the issuance of fish-consumption
advisories.
2) Historical data on the indicator. Existing information on the statistical
variation, bias, and other interpretational attributes of potential biological
indicators should be examined and considered in the design of a sampling
program for assessing trends in mercury bioaccumulation.
3) Clear recognition of confounding factors. Many human and natural factors
that are unrelated to bulk loadings of mercury from the atmosphere or
other sources can strongly influence concentrations of mercury in aquatic
biota. A confounding factor is here defined as a variable that interferes
with the isolation of the effects of mercury loading on temporal trends in
mercury concentrations in monitored biota within a water body or group
of waters. Our ability to discern biotic trends in mercury concentrations
linked to changing loadings of mercury to aquatic systems will require
both knowledge of potential confounding factors and the minimization of
their confounding effects in monitoring programs (see Section 4.6.2).
4) Knowledge of intrinsic co-variables. Concentrations of mercury in fish
are typically correlated with age or body size. An understanding of, and
ability to account for, the effects of such intrinsic variables is essential
for evaluating contaminant trends.
5) Broad geographic distribution. When feasible, monitoring should focus

on bioindicator species or taxa having a broad geographic range, to assess
trends and patterns across large geographic areas.
6) Importance in trophic transfer of MeHg. Preference should be given to
bioindicator organisms that have an important role in the trophic transfer
of MeHg within food webs.
7) Constrained feeding ecology and trophic position. Temporal shifts in
feeding habits or trophic position can alter dietary MeHg uptake, compli-
cating the interpretation of trends in mercury concentration. An a priori
knowledge of feeding ecology should facilitate the selection of suitable
candidate bioindicator species during the design of a monitoring program.
If a bioindicator is known to undergo ontogenetic shifts in diet, it would
be advisable to limit sampling and analysis to a given life stage.
8) Temporal response to changes in mercury loadings. Long-lived bioindi-
cators with long response times (several years) to changing mercury
loadings could be more susceptible to the influence of confounding fac-
tors, possibly reducing their utility for detecting effects of altered loadings.
Thus, short-lived (≤1-year old), as well as long-lived, organisms should
be considered when selecting potential bioindicators.
9) Impacts of sampling on the target population. Continued removal of
individuals could eventually affect the concentration of mercury in mem-
bers of the sampled population, creating artifacts in trend data. The poten-
tial effects of sampling on the target population, and potential approaches
for reducing such effects, should be considered. Nonlethal techniques for
sampling of fish tissue (Baker et al. 2004; Peterson et al. 2005) may be
required when sampling protected populations or when sampling in pro-
tected environments, such as national parks.
4.3.2 CANDIDATE AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS

Six general groups of aquatic biological indicators were considered: 1) piscivorous
fish, 2) prey fish, 3) benthic invertebrates, 4) zooplankton, 5) phytoplankton, and
6) periphyton. We begin with a brief summary of our understanding of mercury
bioaccumulation and trophic transfer in aquatic ecosystems, to provide essential
background information for the subsequent sections on aquatic biological indicators.
This summary is based on selected recent reviews (Jackson 1998; Morel et al. 1998;
Benoit et al. 2003; Wiener et al. 2003) and the original reports cited.
In a toxicological sense, the primary problem with mercury in aquatic ecosys-
tems can be defined as biotic exposure to, or bioaccumulation of, MeHg. Trend
monitoring of mercury in aquatic biota should accordingly focus on MeHg, which
readily crosses biological membranes and accumulates to concentrations in aquatic
organisms that vastly exceed those in surface water. In fish, concentrations of MeHg
commonly exceed those in water by a factor of 106 to 107 or more. Most of the
mercury in the aquatic environment is inorganic, yet nearly all (>95%) of the mercury
accumulated in fish is MeHg (Grieb et al. 1990; Bloom 1992; Francesconi and
Lenanton 1992), obtained almost entirely via dietary uptake (Rodgers 1994; Hall
et al. 1997; Harris and Bodaly 1998). Relative to MeHg, inorganic mercury is less
readily transferred through successive trophic levels and does not biomagnify
(Watras et al. 1998).
Methylmercury biomagnifies in aquatic food webs, and patterns in biomagnifi-
cation are similar even among aquatic systems that differ in type of water body,
mercury source, and pollution intensity. The transfer of MeHg in the upper trophic
levels of aquatic food webs is almost entirely via dietary uptake, whereas direct
uptake from water can be important for some lower food-chain organisms, such as
phytoplankton and zooplankton. The concentration of MeHg increases up the food
web from water and lower trophic levels to fish and piscivores, and the fraction of
total mercury present as MeHg also increases with increasing trophic level through
fish. The fraction of total mercury present as MeHg can vary greatly within trophic
levels below fish. In aquatic invertebrates, for example, the MeHg fraction can range
from about 10% to more than 90% of total mercury. It is, therefore, essential to
determine MeHg (rather than total mercury) in biological samples from trophic levels
below fish, including phytoplankton, periphyton, benthic invertebrates, and zoo-
plankton. In fish, determination of total mercury, which requires less analytical effort
and expense than MeHg, provides reliable estimates of MeHg concentration.
The greatest increase in MeHg concentration occurs in the trophic step between
water and algae. Bioaccumulation factors between water and seston, for example,
often range from about 105 to about 106, whereas ratios of MeHg concentrations
between successive trophic levels above algae are generally less than 101. Within an
assemblage of fish, concentrations of MeHg increase with ascending trophic level,
and variation in trophic position accounts for much of the variation in mercury
concentration among species within a given water body. Concentrations of MeHg
in fish also increase with increasing age or size because of the very slow rate of
elimination relative to the rapid rate of uptake and because larger fish can consume
larger prey with higher concentrations of MeHg. Much of the MeHg accumulated
in fish is stored in skeletal muscle, tightly bound to sulfhydryl groups in protein.
Although the entry of MeHg into the base of the food web and its subsequent
transfer in the lowest trophic levels are poorly understood, it is evident that the
concentration of MeHg in all trophic levels is strongly correlated with its supply
from methylating environments. In fish, for example, much of the modern spatial
variation in mercury concentrations (within a given trophic level) can be attributed
to variation in factors and processes that affect the microbial production of MeHg
and its entry into oxic waters.
4.3.2.1 Fish
We consider 2 groups of fish as candidate biological indicators for monitoring trends

in MeHg: 1) piscivorous (fish-eating) fish and 2) small prey fish (often termed “forage
fish”). Analyses of piscivorous fish reflect the concentrations of MeHg near the top
of aquatic food webs, providing a useful measure of potential dietary exposure in
humans who eat fish. Small prey fish are eaten by a variety of piscivorous fish, birds,
and mammals, but are generally not important in the diet of humans. Humans eat
large omnivorous fish; however, the substantial confounding effects of the large
spatial and temporal variation in the diet and trophic position of omnivorous fish
diminish their potential utility for trend analysis.
4.3.2.1.1 Piscivorous Fish
Piscivorous fish can accumulate high concentrations of MeHg, and information on
MeHg in piscivorous fish is directly relevant to the public and the policy community.
Piscivorous fish are present in most surface waters and can be obtained with moderate
sampling effort with a variety of active and passive gear. Sampling would generally
not affect target populations except in very small lakes and streams, where nonlethal
sampling would lessen impacts on target populations.
In the United States, the threshold mercury concentration for commercial sale
of fish is determined by the Food and Drug Administration, whereas consumption
advice for recreational (noncommercial) fish is developed by individual states and
tribes. Mercury data collected for development of fish-consumption advisories are
typically from analyses of filets (axial muscle tissue, with or without skin) for total
mercury, with concentrations expressed on a wet-weight basis. Analysis of filets for
total mercury yields a valid estimate of MeHg concentration (Grieb et al. 1990;
Bloom 1992), whether the analyzed sample consists of a large filet or a small mass
of tissue obtained with a biopsy needle (Cizdziel et al. 2002; Baker et al. 2004).
Many piscivorous fish are important recreationally or commercially. The sam-
pling and analysis of heavily exploited fish stocks are not recommended for trend
monitoring, because intensive fishing pressure — over a period of years to decades —
can substantially reduce mercury concentrations in members of heavily exploited
populations (Section 4.6.1). Interpretation of temporal trends in mercury concentra-
tions in fish, relative to changes in mercury loadings, will be more defensible if
applied to fish populations and water bodies that are not subjected to intensive fishing
pressure. Many commercially and recreationally important marine fish have been
significantly depleted by over-fishing (Pauly et al. 2003; Coleman et al. 2004; Hutch-
ings and Reynolds 2004). The application of trend data on mercury concentrations
in heavily exploited marine fishes, such as yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares
(Kraepiel et al. 2003), has questionable validity as an approach for assessing tem-
poral changes in the abundance of MeHg in the ecosystem.
In summary, piscivorous fish are present in most surface waters, require moderate
sampling effort, and are the primary pathway for dietary exposure of humans to
MeHg. Analyses of filets or axial muscle for total mercury should indicate gradual
(multi-year) trends in the supply of MeHg. Given these attributes, nonmigratory
piscivorous fish are priority candidates for monitoring MeHg. In very small lakes
or streams, nonintrusive sampling methods should be used to reduce impacts on
sampled populations.
4.3.2.1.2 Prey Fish

Prey fish are here defined as small, usually short-lived, finfish. In North American
fresh waters, many are members of the cyprinid (minnow), percid (perch), and
centrarchid (sunfish) families. Prey fish are widely distributed, common, and impor-
tant in the transfer of MeHg to higher trophic levels, such as piscivorous fish and
many fish-eating birds. MeHg concentrations in prey fish of uniform age are less
susceptible to certain, potential confounding factors, such as variation in trophic

position, than are concentrations in long-lived, piscivorous fish.
Mercury concentrations in prey fish are useful indicators of relative MeHg levels
in food webs supporting the production of sport fish and wildlife, information
relevant to the public and the policy community. There is a sizable scientific literature
on MeHg in prey fish, but they have been monitored less extensively than sport fish.
Effects of removal sampling on target populations would be insignificant in all but
the very smallest lakes.
This group of fish includes species that feed on zooplankton, benthic inverte-
brates, and occasionally, periphyton (Roseman et al. 1996; Bodaly and Fudge 1999;
Gorski et al. 1999). The size of young prey fish can vary seasonally because mea-
surable growth occurs throughout much of the year. Small prey fish, such as yearling
yellow perch (Perca flavescens), finescale dace (Phoxinus neogaeus), or mimic shiner
(Notropis volucellus), typically grow rapidly during the summer in temperate lakes,
increasing their biomass by 2- to 5-fold. Mercury concentrations are usually increas-
ing or stable during this period of growth; consequently, the total body burden of
mercury in individual fish increases substantially during summer (Bodaly and Fudge
1999; Gorski et al. 1999). Concentrations of MeHg in prey fish can be expected to
vary seasonally (Figure 4.1), and such variation should be considered when crafting
sampling protocols for trend monitoring. Prey fish require little to moderate sampling
effort, and samples taken in the early spring or fall, when growth is slow and temporal
variation in mercury concentration is less, may provide the best comparisons among
years and surface waters. Analysis of prey fish for total mercury or MeHg would
reveal inter-annual variation in MeHg exposure (Frost et al. 1999; Gorski et al. 1999).
In summary, prey fish are present in most surface waters, require moderate
sampling effort, are important in the trophic transfer of MeHg in aquatic food webs,
and probably indicate annual changes in exposure to MeHg. Given these attributes,
0.28
0.26
Total mercury (µg/g fresh wt)
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12 Lake 979, 1994
Lake 979, 1995
0.10
0.08
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Day of year
FIGURE 4.1 Whole-body concentrations of total mercury (present largely as MeHg) in caged
finescale dace, showing seasonal increases in mercury concentrations during summer in Lake
979, an experimental reservoir in northwestern Ontario that was flooded during the Experi-
mental Lakes Area Reservoir Project. (Source: Modified from Bodaly and Fudge 1999.)
prey fish are appropriate candidates for monitoring of MeHg. Seasonal variation should
be considered carefully in the design of trend-monitoring protocols for prey fish.
4.3.2.1.3 Example of a Prey-Fish Indicator: Yellow Perch
Analyses of total mercury in whole bodies or axial muscle tissue of age-1 yellow
perch have provided a useful measure of MeHg concentrations in food webs of many
North American lakes. This widely distributed species inhabits lakes and reservoirs
across much of the north-central, northeastern, and eastern United States and across
the central and eastern provinces of Canada (Scott and Crossman 1973; Becker
1983). An ecologically similar congeneric species, the Eurasian perch (Perca fluvi-
atilis), is distributed across much of Europe and northern Asia (Thorpe 1977).
During their first year, yellow perch have a small gape (jaw opening), which
limits their diet largely to small zooplankton and small zoobenthos (Roseman et al.
1996; Lyons et al. 2000). Thus, the trophic position of age-1 yellow perch is not
expected to vary substantially among sites. Generally abundant in lakes within much
of its geographic range, the yellow perch is a preferred prey of certain piscivores,
such as walleye (Sander vitreus) and common loons (Gavia immer), and is an
important link in the food-web transfer of MeHg (Colby et al. 1979; Barr 1996).
Concentrations of total mercury in age-1 or age-2 yellow perch are strongly and
positively correlated with concentrations in coexisting piscivorous fish, including
walleye, black bass (Micropterus spp.), and northern pike (Esox lucius) (Suns et al.
1987; Cope et al. 1990; JG Wiener, unpublished data for northern pike). Statistical
analyses have shown strong relations between the total mercury concentration and
burden of age-1 yellow perch and ecosystem characteristics (e.g., lake chemistry,
wetland influence) or whole-lake manipulations (e.g., experimental acidification)
that are known to influence the production of MeHg and its abundance in aquatic
food webs (Grieb et al. 1990; Suns and Hitchin 1990; Wiener et al. 1990; Simonin
et al. 1994; Frost et al. 1999; Wiener et al. 2003). Substantial mercury data are also
available for the Eurasian perch (Metsaelae and Rask 1989; Andersson et al. 1995;
Haines et al. 1995; Porvari 1998; Svobodova et al. 1999; Lindestroem 2001).
One-year-old yellow perch can be readily sampled in spring with small-mesh
trap nets, seines, or small electroshockers fished in littoral habitat without signifi-
cantly affecting their abundance or year-class strength. Age-1 fish obtained in spring
have resided in a sampled lake for about 1 year. A target sample size of 15 to
30 whole, age-1 yellow perch (analyzed individually) from a given lake typically
yields a standard error of the mean in the range of 1 to 6 ng/g wet weight, providing
a precise estimate of mean whole-body concentration (JG Wiener, University of
Wisconsin–La Crosse, data from Wisconsin and Minnesota lakes; corresponding
mean concentrations range from about 20 to 200 ng/g wet weight). At age-1, the
age of yellow perch can be accurately determined by examining scales taken near
the area of insertion of the left pectoral fin.
4.3.2.2 Benthic Invertebrates

Benthic invertebrates are macroscopic animals that live at or near the sediment/water
interface. Some benthic invertebrates, particularly mussels, readily accumulate met-
als, prompting their use as biological indicators of mercury contamination (Smith
and Green 1975). Benthic invertebrates have been widely used in biological moni-
toring of freshwater and marine habitats (Resh and McElvary 1993; Southerland
and Stribling 1995; Weigel et al. 2003), providing a foundation for their use in trend-
monitoring programs.
The dietary importance of benthic invertebrates to many species of fish, birds,
and mammals (Vander Zanden and Vadeboncoeur 2002) signifies their importance
in the trophic transfer of MeHg and their potential relevance as biological indicators.
Some benthic invertebrates (e.g., oysters, clams, shrimp, crabs, and crayfish) are
consumed by humans, providing a direct pathway for exposure to MeHg. In the
United States, shellfish rank below fish as a source of dietary MeHg in the human
population (NRC 2000; Schober et al. 2003).
Many benthic invertebrates have short life spans (≤1 year) but little is known
about how quickly mercury concentrations in such organisms respond to changes
in external loadings of mercury to the aquatic ecosystem. Bed sediment can be an
important sink for mercury in aquatic systems if sediment-associated mercury is
isolated from active biogeochemical cycling (Henry et al. 1995; Wiener and Shields
2000). Sediment can also serve as a source of MeHg in freshwater and estuarine
ecosystems, given that the oxic/anoxic interface in the sediment is an important zone
of mercury methylation (Gilmour et al. 1998; Benoit et al. 2003). Benthic organisms
have physical contact with bed sediment, and the relative contributions of mercury
from in-place sedimentary sources and of mercury from current external sources to
their MeHg burdens will influence their sensitivity as indicators to altered mercury
loadings from external sources. In this regard, sediment-dwelling invertebrates that
feed on particles from the overlying water column — a group including many clams
and aquatic insects — may be more useful than deposit feeders as indicators of
external mercury loadings. The kinetics of MeHg bioaccumulation (ingestion, assim-
ilation, and elimination) in benthic invertebrates have received little study but the
limited available information should nonetheless be applied to the selection of
candidate bioindicator species and to the interpretation of trend data.
The trophic position of benthic invertebrates varies widely among species. The
diet is their primary pathway of contaminant exposure, and the feeding ecology of
a benthic species largely determines its exposure to dissolved and particulate sedi-
mentary contaminants (Brown et al. 2000). The dietary assimilation efficiency for
MeHg (55–70%) in marine invertebrates is much higher than that for inorganic
mercury (2–22%; Wang and Fisher 1999). In marine bivalves, exposure can occur
through multiple pathways, including direct uptake from the overlying water or pore
water and dietary uptake via ingestion of plankton and detritus from water or
sediment (Thomann et al. 1995).
Benthic invertebrate communities are taxonomically and trophically complex,
and their abundance and species composition in a water body often vary seasonally
and among years. Sediment-dwelling invertebrates can be readily sampled but con-
siderable effort is often required to remove benthic organisms from grab samples of
sediment, to determine their taxonomic composition, and to obtain sufficient sample
mass of a target taxon for analysis. Sampling would not substantially affect target
populations.
In summary, benthic invertebrates are important in the trophic transfer of MeHg.

The sensitivity of benthic organisms to altered mercury loadings from external
sources will presumably depend on the relative contributions of mercury from in-
place sediment and external sources to their total MeHg uptake. Moreover, the large
effort required to produce samples that are well-defined taxonomically and trophi-
cally reduces their desirability as biotic indicators for trend monitoring in freshwater
systems. Conversely, in estuarine systems, there has been more extensive monitoring
and analysis of mercury in shellfish and macrocrustaceans, which could be useful
in monitoring of estuaries.
4.3.2.3 Zooplankton
Zooplankton are small, often microscopic crustaceans that live in the water column.
They are widely distributed, common, and important in pelagic food webs. Zoo-
plankton are eaten by many fish and by early life stages of some fish that become
piscivorous as juveniles or adults. Zooplankton are not eaten by humans but are an
appropriate and relevant candidate indicator because of their importance in the
trophic transfer of MeHg to fish. Sampling would not significantly affect populations
or assemblages of zooplankton, even in small lakes.
Zooplankton vary seasonally and annually in abundance (Rusak et al. 2002), and
respond within hours or days to changes in the supply of MeHg to the water column
(Herrin et al. 1998; Paterson et al. 1998; Tsui and Wang 2004). Zooplankton can
accumulate significant quantities of MeHg from food or water (Monson and Brezonik
1999; Peech Cherewyk 2002; Tsui and Wang 2004). Spatio-temporal variation in
the taxonomic composition and abundance of zooplankton is large in temperate lakes
(Rusak et al. 2002). Consequently, the trophic position of bulk zooplankton samples
can vary greatly because these assemblages are composed of trophically diverse taxa
that can eat phytoplankton, bacteria, detritus, and other zooplankton. Species assem-
blages can change rapidly, and a target species or taxon may not be available at
certain times of the year.
The MeHg content of zooplankton varies among taxa (Back and Watras 1995),
a complicating factor that can be eliminated by the determination of MeHg in
individual taxa (Back et al. 1995). Zooplankton are readily sampled but samples
should be checked and processed to remove phytoplankton and detritus. A single
bulk sample from a plankton net can be used to characterize the open-water com-
munity of zooplankton in a lake at a particular time. The processing of samples can
require substantial effort, and bulk samples of zooplankton from some surface waters
contain particles that are extremely difficult to remove, diminishing the integrity of
the sample.
Existing data on MeHg in zooplankton are few, and there has been little long-
term monitoring of MeHg in zooplankton. In northern lakes, the concentrations of
MeHg in zooplankton vary seasonally and annually (Figure 4.2), typically increasing
in summer and declining in autumn (Herrin et al. 1998; Paterson et al. 1998). In
thermally stratified lakes, the concentration of MeHg in zooplankton can increase
markedly after the fall overturn (Figure 4.2), when MeHg in anoxic hypolimnetic
250
200
MeHg(II) (ng/g dry wt)

150
100
50
0
1/1/00 7/1/00 1/1/01 7/1/01 1/1/02 7/1/02 1/1/03
Date (month, day, year)
FIGURE 4.2 Concentrations of MeHg (mean ± 1 standard error) in zooplankton from Lake
240 of the Experimental Lakes Area (northwestern Ontario, Canada), showing seasonal
variation during summer and pronounced rapid increases in mean concentration after the fall
overturn. (Source: Michael J. Paterson, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba,
unpublished data.)
waters becomes mixed throughout the water column (Herrin et al. 1998). Such
seasonal variation merits careful attention in sampling protocols for zooplankton in
a trend program for mercury, regardless of whether bulk samples or specific taxa
are used as a bioindicator, and may require multiple sampling events during the year.
Samples taken in mid-summer would reflect conditions for bioaccumulation of
MeHg during the period of maximal growth of fish but would miss the effect of the
fall overturn in stratified lakes. Given such large intra- and inter-annual variation,
we expect that many years of sampling and analysis would be needed to discern
long-term trends in MeHg concentrations in zooplankton.
In summary, zooplankton are present in all lakes, are readily sampled, are impor-
tant in the trophic transfer of MeHg, and would respond rapidly to changes in the
supply of MeHg to the water column. Seasonal and interannual changes in MeHg
concentration would complicate the timing of sampling and the interpretation of trend
data. Pronounced short-term variability may reduce their suitability for assessing
trends on the multi-year time scales expected for reductions in mercury emissions.
4.3.2.4 Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton are microscopic plants (algae) that live in the water column and are
trophically situated at or near the base of pelagic food webs. Phytoplankton are
taxonomically diverse, and their abundance and species composition vary seasonally,
annually, and spatially. Phytoplankton are present in all aquatic systems and are
considered important in the trophic transfer of MeHg. It has been generally assumed
that zooplankton receive most of their MeHg via consumption of phytoplankton;
however, recent research suggests that direct uptake of MeHg by zooplankton from
water may be more important than previously thought (Monson and Brezonik 1999;
Peech Cherewyk 2002; Tsui and Wang 2004). Phytoplankton have a constrained
trophic position; are not consumed by fish, wildlife, or humans, and are indirectly
relevant to the public or the policy community. They would respond very rapidly —
within minutes or hours — to changes in MeHg concentrations in water. Phytoplank-
ton obtain MeHg directly from water (Mason et al. 1996), and algal density can
influence concentrations of MeHg in phytoplankton via biomass dilution (Pickhardt
et al. 2002).
Phytoplankton are easily sampled with fine-mesh nets. However, samples require
considerable processing before analysis to remove zooplankton, detritus, or other
particulates. Sampling would not measurably affect target populations, even in the
smallest lakes.
Little is known about MeHg in phytoplankton, particularly freshwater phyto-
plankton (Becker and Bigham 1995). Concentrations of MeHg in freshwater
phytoplankton are related to those in water but the partitioning of MeHg between
water and phytoplankton is strongly affected by concentrations of dissolved organic
matter (Watras et al. 1998).
In summary, phytoplankton are present in all lakes, are trophically well defined,
and are a candidate indicator for trend monitoring. They would rapidly respond to
changes in the supply of MeHg. However, discrete samples of phytoplankton are
not easily obtained and phytoplankton are not a recommended indicator for trend
monitoring, largely because of the complexities associated with interpretation of
trend data for phytoplankton. Large intra- and inter-annual variations in the MeHg
content of phytoplankton would complicate the interpretation of trend data and the
identification of long-term trends.
4.3.2.5 Periphyton
Periphyton are microscopic and macroscopic algae that attach to and grow on solid
surfaces, such as lake bottoms, rooted aquatic vegetation, and submerged woody
debris. Periphyton form part of the base of littoral food webs in lakes. Periphyton
communities are taxonomically diverse and the attached communities contain other
organisms, such as bacteria and zooplankton, as well as detrital material. Periphyton
vary seasonally and annually in both abundance and species composition.
Periphyton are widely distributed and common; however, the trophic position
of the overall community is complex and variable. Periphyton have been studied
little with regard to mercury cycling but would be expected to respond rapidly to
changes in the supply of MeHg. Periphyton can be directly eaten by fish, and
periphyton mats may be an important site for mercury methylation in some ecosys-
tems (Cleckner et al. 1999). Methylmercury typically comprises a very small, but
quite variable, fraction of the total mercury in periphyton (Cleckner et al. 1998;
Bowles et al. 2001). Periphyton are relevant neither to the public nor the policy
community, because they are not consumed by people or wildlife, and their impor-
tance in the cycling of mercury is unclear. Periphyton would be relatively easy to
sample but samples would contain a complex mixture of plants, small invertebrates,
and detritus, complicating interpretation of the MeHg concentrations therein. Sam-
pling would not significantly affect target populations.
In summary, periphyton are present in all lakes, easy to sample, and would
respond rapidly to changes in the abundance of MeHg. Periphyton are sometimes
eaten directly by fish. The diverse, complex, and variable nature of the periphyton
community, however, would complicate interpretation of mercury concentrations in
periphyton in a monitoring program.
4.3.3 RECOMMENDED AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS

The criteria listed in Section 4.3.1 were applied to the selection of biological indi-
cators to ensure their relevance and utility for assessing trends in the bioaccumulation
of MeHg associated with altered loadings of mercury to aquatic systems. This eval-
uation, based largely on the discussion in Section 4.3.2, is summarized in Table 4.1.
We consider prey fish, piscivorous fish, and estuarine benthic invertebrates (listed
in order of preference) suitable aquatic biological indicators for trend monitoring.
One-year-old prey fish and piscivorous fish (analyzed individually) are the preferred
biological indicators for freshwater systems. Determination of total mercury in axial
muscle (preferably without skin) from piscivorous fish would indicate gradual (multi-
year) trends in MeHg that are directly relevant to humans who eat sport fish. For
1-year-old prey fish, the annual sampling and analysis of either whole fish or axial
muscle for total mercury would indicate annual changes in MeHg exposure in
freshwater and marine ecosystems. In coastal estuaries, 1-year-old prey fish (ana-
lyzed for total mercury), as well as shellfish and macrocrustaceans (analyzed for
MeHg), are recommended as biological indicators for trend monitoring. Adult pis-
civorous fish from heavily exploited populations or heavily fished water bodies are
not recommended as biological indicators because of the potentially large confound-
ing effects of intensive fish harvest on MeHg concentrations in such populations.
The sampling of aquatic biological indicators of different size, age, and trophic
position can enhance the interpretation and understanding of temporal patterns in
MeHg concentration. Concentrations of MeHg in 1-year-old prey fish will be sen-
sitive to interannual variations in controlling factors and processes (such as mercury
loadings, temperature, and hydrology), whereas older piscivorous fish will integrate
and reflect temporal changes across multi-year time scales. Based on observed
chronologies of mercury concentrations in aquatic biota in reservoirs during the first
30 years after flooding (Bodaly et al. 1997), we anticipate that decreases in MeHg
concentrations in response to decreased atmospheric loadings would first be evident
in 1-year-old prey fish, whereas decreases in concentrations in long-lived piscivores
would lag a few years later.
The importance of MeHg uptake and transfer at the base of the food web is
recognized and should be the subject of focused, intensive research. The utility of
periphyton, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and freshwater benthic invertebrates for
trend monitoring, however, is hampered by procedural and interpretational complex-
ities associated with the large spatio-temporal variation in species assemblages,
sample heterogeneity, and MeHg concentration. The utility of these groups for trend
monitoring is also hampered by our very limited understanding of the processes,
variables, and confounding factors that affect their bioaccumulation of MeHg.
TABLE 4.1
Recommended criteria for selection of aquatic biological indicators for monitoring and assessment of methylmercury (MeHg),
and their application to candidate biological indicators
Extent to which the aquatic biological indicator satisfies the criterion:
Benthic Piscivorous
Criterion Importance of criterion Periphyton Phytoplankton Zooplankton invertebrates Prey fish fish
Aquatic Biological Indicators
Relevance to To ensure relevance to human Low Low Low Low in fresh Medium to High High and direct
the MeHg health, ecological risk, and waters; High
problem development of policy in coastal

estuaries
Availability of To document the utility of the Low Low Low Low to Low to Medium High
historic MeHg indicator and its probable Medium
data reliability for detecting change
in mercury loading
Recognition of To facilitate the defensible Low Low Medium Medium to Medium to High High
extrinsic interpretation of monitoring High
confounding results on MeHg
factors
Knowledge of To ensure knowledge of Low Low Medium Low to Medium High

intrinsic co- organismal attributes that can Medium
variables affect MeHg concentration and
complicate interpretation of
results
101
102

Recommended criteria for selection of aquatic biological indicators for monitoring and assessment of methylmercury (MeHg),
and their application to candidate biological indicators
Extent to which the aquatic biological indicator satisfies the criterion:
Benthic Piscivorous
Criterion Importance of criterion Periphyton Phytoplankton Zooplankton invertebrates Prey fish fish
Broad To select biotic indicators that Widespread, Widespread, Widespread, Several Several Several
geographic have broad spatial coverage in but spatially but spatially but spatially widespread widespread widespread
distribution a regional, national, or multi- and temporally and temporally and temporally species and species and species and
national monitoring program variable variable variable genera genera genera
assemblages assemblages assemblages
Important in To select biotic indicators with Unclear Important Highly Highly Highly important Highly important
trophic a significant role in the trophic important important
transfer of transfer of MeHg in aquatic
MeHg food webs
Constrained Spatio-temporal variation in Highly Variable and Variable and Variable and Constrained Ontogenetic
food habits or trophic position can confound constrained complex complex; complex shifts with
trophic and complicate interpretation constrained in increasing size;
position of trends in MeHg some filter less variable in
concentration in the indicator feeders adults
Temporal A slow rate of response to Hours to days Hours to days Hours to days Days to Annual Multi-annual
response to altered MeHg loading could seasonal in
changes in increase the potential for small
abundance of interference by confounding benthos;
MeHg factors, whereas a rapid annual to
response, coupled with high multi-annual
intraannual variability would in large
hinder identification of multi- benthos
year trends
Aquatic Biological Indicators
Effects of To reduce effects of sampling on Nonintrusive Nonintrusive Nonintrusive Nonintrusive Nonintrusive Generally
sampling on monitored populations and nonintrusive,
target biotic communities, and to except in some

population or limit potential confounding small lakes and
community biotic responses to sampling streams
103
4.4 MONITORING AND TREND ANALYSIS

We recommend that biological indicators be sampled annually to assess responses
of MeHg concentrations to changes in mercury loadings and that such sampling be
limited to nonmigratory species. Although sampling at less frequent intervals (e.g.,
every 2 or 3 years) would decrease effort and cost per monitored water body, it
would substantially reduce statistical power to detect temporal trends and would
delay the detection of changes in mercury concentration (Hebert and Weseloh 2003;
Bignert et al. 2004).
Freshwater piscivorous fish and prey fish should be sampled in several water
bodies because data from multiple sites (i.e., clusters of sites) are needed to describe
trends within a given geographic area. The primary response to decreased mercury
deposition within a given area may be decreased mercury concentrations in fish, yet
concentrations may remain stable or increase in some water bodies because of other
factors that influence mercury cycling, MeHg production, and bioaccumulation. In
Minnesota, for example, analysis of state-wide trend data on total mercury in filets
of standard-sized game fish from 176 lakes showed that 49% of the lakes had
statistically significant (p < 0.05) decreases in fish-mercury concentrations, 25% had
significant increases, and 26% did not change (Bruce A. Monson, Minnesota Pol-
lution Control Agency, St. Paul, Minnesota, personal communication). Significantly
more of the Minnesota lakes exhibited decreasing mercury concentrations in fish
than could be attributed to chance alone (χ2 test, p < 0.05). Concentrations have also
declined significantly in walleyes inhabiting boreal lakes of central Canada in the
last 20 to 30 years (Johnston et al. 2003), and variation among lakes in fish-mercury
trends is also evident in the Canadian data (Figure 4.3).
Concentrations of MeHg in individual fish typically increase with increasing
size and age, and data on the length, weight, and age of individual fish are needed
to interpret trends in mercury concentration. Piscivorous fish should, therefore, be
analyzed individually. Temporal trends in mercury concentrations in piscivorous fish
can be biased by variation in the size or age composition of samples taken at different
times. It is, therefore, useful to estimate mercury concentrations in fish of a given
age or size. In Florida, mercury concentrations in axial muscle of 3-year-old large-
mouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) have been successfully used to examine vari-
ation in fish contamination among lakes (Lange et al. 1993) and to monitor temporal
trends in the Everglades (Atkeson et al. 2003). For piscivorous fish, stratified sam-
pling by predefined length interval could be a useful framework for sampling a target
population.
One widely used approach has been to sample individual fish from a target
population across a range of lengths and to apply linear regression between mercury
concentration and length to estimate the concentration in a fish of some standardized
length; examples include 50-cm walleye and 60-cm northern pike (Parks and Hamil-
ton 1987; Johnston et al. 2003). This procedure yields a concentration adjusted to a
specific length, along with an associated confidence interval around the estimated
value. Statistical power analysis of initial data can be used to estimate the sample
size (number of fish) needed to detect a change of given magnitude (Exponent 2003).
1.2
Concentration circa 2000 (µg/g wet weight)

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Concentration circa 1980 (µg/g wet weight)
FIGURE 4.3 Recent changes in concentrations of total mercury in axial muscle of walleyes
from 13 boreal lakes in northwestern Ontario and Manitoba, Canada. Standardized concen-
trations for 50-cm walleye sampled during 1996–2000 are plotted against standardized con-
centrations for fish sampled during 1977–1983 (data are for reference lakes reported in
Johnston et al. 2003). Each point below the diagonal line, which has a slope of 1.0, represents
a lake where the standardized concentration declined between the 2 sampling intervals.
Polynomial regression with indicator variables is another recommended statistical

method for analysis of fish-mercury data. This procedure, described by Tremblay
et al. (1998), allows rigorous statistical comparison of mercury-to-length relations
among years and is considered superior to simple linear regression and analysis of
covariance for analysis of data on mercury-length relations in fish.
For piscivorous fish, we recommend that axial muscle without skin be sampled
and analyzed to avoid the additional variation that would result from differing
proportions of skin and axial muscle tissue among samples. Concentrations of
mercury are less in skin than in axial muscle, and the inclusion of skin in a filet can
reduce the concentration of total mercury or MeHg in the sample by 5 to 12 percent
(Glass et al. 1998; Serdar et al. 2001).
The historic data on total mercury in piscivorous fish are generally considered
valid, and it could be useful to perform trend monitoring in carefully selected fresh
waters for which historic data are acceptable and sufficient for statistical compari-
sons. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the discovery of mercury-contaminated fish
prompted widespread surveillance and monitoring of mercury in fish. The earliest
surveys focused largely on surface waters that received mercury in polluted waste-
water, but often included fish sampled from presumed “reference sites” that did not
receive mercury from industrial point-source discharges. The surveillance of mercury
in fish was expanded spatially with growing awareness of the importance of atmos-
pheric deposition as a potentially significant source of mercury in surface waters
lacking on-site anthropogenic sources (Wiener et al. 2003). Historic mercury data
for fish from surface waters that did not receive point-source discharges of mercury
may be useful for assessing decadal trends related to atmospheric deposition. Historic
fish-mercury data from analyses of composite samples (containing subsamples from
multiple fish), however, has limited statistical utility for trend analysis (Exponent
2003).
We recommend that prey fish be sampled in early spring or fall, when growth
is slow and temporal variation in mercury concentration is less pronounced, to
facilitate comparisons among years and surface waters. Both axial muscle and whole
fish have been successfully used in research applications, and analysis of either
matrix would be suitable in a monitoring program for mercury. Determination of
total mercury would be appropriate for muscle tissue, given that nearly all (≥95%)
of the mercury in fish muscle is MeHg. Most (>70%) of the mercury in whole prey
fish is MeHg (Francesconi and Lenanton 1992; Hill et al. 1996; Bodaly and Fudge
1999; Hammerschmidt et al. 1999), and we recommend that all whole prey fish be
analyzed for total mercury and that a subset (from 5 to 20% of the fish, selected at
random) be analyzed for MeHg.
If whole prey fish are analyzed, data should be reported as whole-body concen-
tration and burden. Mercury burden, defined as the total mass of mercury accumu-
lated in a whole fish, is calculated as the product of body weight and whole-body
concentration. In prey fish of known age (e.g., age-1), mercury burden is an ecolog-
ically relevant measure of bioaccumulation, representing the mass of mercury accu-
mulated by a fish during its residence in a monitored water body. The burden also
represents the mass of mercury that a predator would ingest when eating the prey
fish. Prey fish should be analyzed individually, and ancillary measurements include
the total length (to nearest millimeter), fresh weight (to 0.01 g), and age of individual
fish. Age can be estimated by examination of scales or other bony structures (DeVries
and Frie 1996).
The trophic position of candidate benthic invertebrates for trend monitoring
should be known or estimated so that samples with equivalent trophic status can be
analyzed and compared. Stable-isotope methods are available for estimating trophic
position (Fry 1991; Broman et al. 1992) and for assessing the influence of trophic
position on mercury concentrations (Cabana and Rasmussen 1994; Kidd et al. 1995).
The application of δ15N and associated metrics in monitoring programs would enhance
our ability to understand trends and strengthen inferences concerning linkages
between trends in biotic concentrations and mercury loadings. The corrections and
enhancements of Phillips (2001) and Phillips and Gregg (2001) should be considered
when using data on stable isotopes to estimate the trophic status of benthic species.
The technique that has been widely applied for analyzing total mercury in aquatic
biota since the late 1960s (cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometry) remains a
valid analytical method. Accordingly, we infer that most of the historical data for total
mercury in fish tissues are valid. Moreover, the historical data on total mercury con-
centrations in fish tissues provide defensible estimates of prior MeHg concentrations.
This is in contrast to most data collected before 1990 on total mercury and MeHg
in water; most of these early data for water are not considered valid because sensitive
analytical methods were not sufficiently developed and samples were typically
contaminated during handling. There are some historical data on total mercury in
aquatic invertebrates, but comparatively few estimates of MeHg in historic samples.
Thus, the historical mercury record for piscivorous fish in North America is now
about 35 years long, whereas the much sparser historical record for MeHg in water
and aquatic biota in lower trophic levels is much shorter, perhaps 10 to 20 years in
most regions. In comparison, the historic record of total-mercury deposition that can
be examined by analyses of dated cores of sediment, peat, and glacial ice spans 2
to several centuries (Engstrom and Swain 1997; Martínez-Cortizas et al. 1999;
Bindler et al. 2001; Schuster et al. 2002; Shotyk et al. 2003).
4.5 ANCILLARY DATA

The defensible interpretation of trend data in a biological monitoring program for
mercury will be enhanced by the concurrent collection of relevant information on
monitored airsheds, watersheds, and surface waters (see Chapters 2 and 3). The
interpretation of fish-mercury data and the identification of factors causing temporal
shifts in MeHg concentrations in aquatic biota would be strengthened by co-locating
trend monitoring for airsheds, watersheds, and biological indicators at intensive
study sites (Driscoll et al. this volume (Chapter 2), Krabbenhoft et al. this volume
(Chapter 3)). Important metrics for monitored airsheds and watersheds include
annual atmospheric deposition of total mercury, MeHg, and sulfate; interannual
variations in rainfall and temperature; watershed area; land cover, abundance of
hydrologically connected wetlands; and annual export of total mercury and MeHg
from catchments to monitored surface waters. For lakes, key limnological data
include lake morphometry (area, maximum depth, mean depth, percent littoral area);
physicochemical characteristics of water (pH, dissolved organic carbon, sulfate, total
suspended solids, chlorophyll, acid neutralizing capacity, color, and phosphorus);
depth profiles of temperature and dissolved oxygen during summer stratification;
hydrologic type (e.g., seepage or drainage lake); and concentrations of total mercury
and MeHg in oxic water (preferably sampled when lakes are mixed). Information
on the depositional chronology of total mercury in dated sediment cores would be
useful for lakes with a multi-decadal, historic record of mercury concentrations in
fish. Ancillary site-specific biological data include harvest of fish and shellfish;
results of biotic and fishery surveys; and the age, growth rate, condition, sex, and
trophic position (inferred from stable-isotope and dietary analyses) of aquatic bio-
logical indicators.
A number of recent experiments have shown that the reproduction and fitness
of fish can be adversely affected by exposure to environmentally realistic concen-
trations of MeHg (Fjeld et al. 1998; Latif et al. 2001; Hammerschmidt et al. 2002;
Drevnick and Sandheinrich 2003). In cases where trend monitoring reveals high
MeHg concentrations in biological indicator organisms, subsequent field and labo-
ratory studies should be considered to assess toxicological effects.
4.6 INTERPRETATION OF TREND-MONITORING DATA

Several biogeochemical processes, environmental factors, and human disturbances
can influence the production of MeHg, its abundance in surface waters, and its
concentrations in aquatic biota (Jackson 1998; Lucotte et al. 1999c; Benoit et al.
2003; Wiener et al. 2003). Thus, MeHg concentrations often vary spatially in aquatic
organisms of the same species and size, even among nearby water bodies that receive
similar atmospheric loadings of mercury (Wiener et al. 2003). The bioaccumulative
responses of aquatic organisms to altered external loadings of mercury can, therefore,
be expected to vary substantially among surface waters. Even within a given water
body, internal ecosystem dynamics, anthropogenic activities unrelated to mercury
loadings, and long-term external factors could confound or obscure responses in
MeHg bioaccumulation to altered mercury loadings (e.g., Sorensen et al. 2005).
Similarity of pertinent biogeochemical, environmental, and human factors affecting
MeHg concentrations in aquatic organisms — among sampling intervals in a trend-
monitoring program — would enhance our ability to detect responses to altered
mercury loadings. Such similarity should not, however, be expected or assumed in
a trend-monitoring program.
4.6.1 SOURCES OF VARIATION AND POTENTIAL CONFOUNDING FACTORS

Here we examine sources of variation and potential confounding factors that could
obscure temporal changes in MeHg concentrations in aquatic biota in response to
altered loadings of mercury. General sources of variation and potential confounding
factors include interannual variations and dynamics of the monitored ecosystems,
direct influences of anthropogenic and natural activities, and long-term external factors.
Knowledge of such factors is prerequisite to discerning trends in MeHg concentrations
in aquatic biota associated with altered loadings of mercury to aquatic systems.
Awareness of potential confounding factors is also essential for minimizing or sta-
tistically accounting for their effects in a trend-monitoring program (see Chapter 3).
1) Methylation and demethylation. The methylation of inorganic mercury

and demethylation of MeHg are key processes influencing the abundance
of MeHg in food webs supporting the production of shellfish and fish
(Benoit et al. 2003; Wiener et al. 2003). Rates of methylation and demeth-
ylation are affected by several variables, including temperature, sulfur
cycling, light penetration, and the amount and quality of available organic
matter (Miskimmin et al. 1992; Allan et al. 2001; Benoit et al. 2003; Kainz
et al. 2003; Rencz et al. 2003). Such controlling variables can vary in
response to natural events or conditions, such as water-level fluctuations
and flooding, atypically cold or warm weather, increased turbidity caused
by resuspension of bottom sediment, or varying abundances of allochtho-
nous and autochthonous organic matter.
2) Food-web and trophic dynamics. Organisms at the base of aquatic food
webs play a key role in the transfer of MeHg to upper trophic levels
(Jackson and Harvey 1993; Plourde et al. 1997; Tremblay and Lucotte
1997; Bodaly and Fudge 1999). Within a given water body, interannual
variations in climatic and environmental conditions can affect the com-

position and abundance of pelagic and benthic invertebrates. Such varia-
tion in invertebrate assemblages can alter MeHg bioaccumulation in small
and large fish at the end of the growing season (Parkman and Meili 1993;
Montgomery et al. 2000; Gorski et al. 2003; Kainz et al. 2003).
Most fish are opportunistic organisms whose diets and trophic position
can vary with food availability and size. Variation in environmental con-
ditions among years (including water levels during spawning, availability
of spawning sites, winter harshness, and summer oxygen depletion) can
alter trophic structure of the fish community and the metabolism of fish,
thereby affecting concentrations of MeHg in fish tissue (Lockhart et al.
1972; Meili 1991; Harris and Bodaly 1998; Scheuhammer and Graham
1999; Stafford and Haines 2001; Gorski et al. 2003). Interannual variation
in growth rates of fish could influence the size-standardized mercury
concentrations that are used to assess temporal trends in MeHg accumu-
lation (Tremblay et al. 1998; Johnston et al. 2003; Sonesten 2003).
3) Landscape disturbance. Forest soils contain large inventories of mercury
(Roulet et al. 1998; Lucotte et al. 1999a; Rencz et al. 2003) that can be
mobilized into aquatic systems by disturbance of the forest landscape.
Logging and fire can expose soil and increase the transport of mercury
from soil to aquatic systems, a situation observed in northern boreal forest
(Garcia and Carignan 1999; Porvari et al. 2003) and in Amazonian rain-
forest (Roulet et al. 1999, 2000). Agricultural practices, urban develop-
ment, and road construction can also contribute to soil erosion and
increased transport of mercury in soil from terrestrial to aquatic environ-
ments. Human disturbances of a watershed could also indirectly affect the
production and bioaccumulation of MeHg in an aquatic system, by altering
hydrologic pathways, water levels, nutrient inputs, primary production,
light penetration, and trophic status.
4) Fishing intensity. Temporal variation in fishing intensity and harvest in a
monitored water body could confound the analysis of trends in mercury
concentrations in adult piscivorous fish. In Finnish and Scandinavian
lakes, mercury concentrations in fish of given length declined notably a
few years after intensive fishing had removed substantial numbers of the
large adult fish (Göthberg 1983; Verta 1990). In experimental boreal lakes
in Canada, the inventories of mercury in the water column and surface
sediment were reduced little by intensive fishing (Surette et al. 2006).
Intensive fishing may have affected the structure of the zooplankton com-
munities (Masson and Tremblay 2002); however, the diets of the studied
fishes did not change significantly after intensive fishing (Doire et al.
2002). Intensive fishing, however, significantly increased the growth rate
of large predatory fish (Simoneau et al. 2005) and markedly decreased
MeHg concentrations in fish (Surette et al. 2003).
5) Exotic species. The voluntary or accidental introduction of exotic species
may influence the trophic structure of aquatic systems (Hrabik et al. 1998),
thereby affecting MeHg concentrations in aquatic organisms in upper
trophic levels. Johnston et al. (2003), however, found that the introduction
of rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) did not significantly affect concen-
trations of mercury in native predatory fish in lakes of central Canada.
6) Reservoir impoundment. The bioaccumulation of MeHg in aquatic organ-
isms is greatly increased by the flooding of vegetated wetland or upland
terrestrial habitats. This has been well documented in newly flooded res-
ervoirs in temperate, boreal, and tropical regions (Bodaly et al. 1984;
Johnston et al. 1991; Porvari 1995; Plourde et al. 1997; Seda and Kubecka
1997; Tremblay and Lucotte 1997; Lucotte et al. 1999b; Verdon and Trem-
blay 1999; Montgomery et al. 2000). Flooding of new reservoirs greatly
increases the rate of mercury methylation, causing rapid increases (days
to a few weeks) in concentrations of MeHg in water, zooplankton, and
prey fish (Paterson et al. 1998; Bodaly and Fudge 1999). Concentrations
of MeHg in the axial muscle of adult piscivorous fish can increase as much
as 10-fold relative to pre-flood or reference values and remain elevated for
decades after initial impoundment (Porvari 1998; Schetagne and Verdon
1999). New reservoirs also export MeHg, greatly increasing the concen-
trations of mercury in aquatic biota and fish inhabiting downstream aquatic
environments (Johnston et al. 1991; Schetagne and Verdon 1999). In older
reservoirs, concentrations of mercury in prey fish can fluctuate substan-
tively in response to water-level fluctuations (Sorensen et al. 2005).
7) Climate change. Climate change can influence an array of environmental
variables that directly and indirectly affect the biogeochemical cycling of
mercury. The microbial methylation of mercury is temperature sensitive,
with increasing production and concentrations of MeHg in temperate
aquatic ecosystems at higher temperature (Bodaly et al. 1993). Climate
change can modify the hydrological cycle, thereby altering mercury trans-
port, transformations, and trophic structure in aquatic systems. Changes
in the intensity of ultraviolet (UV) radiation at the water surface could
influence both the production and photodemethylation (destruction) of
MeHg in surface waters (Sellers et al. 1996, 2001; Lean and Siciliano 2003).
8) Acidity and sulfate content of wet deposition. Temporal variation in the
acidity and sulfate content of wet deposition could modify the accumu-
lation of MeHg in aquatic biota, given that numerous interactions between
mercury transformations, MeHg uptake, sulfate, and aqueous pH have
been reported (Spry and Wiener 1991; Odin et al. 1994; Frost et al. 1999;
Scheuhammer and Graham 1999; Kelly et al. 2003). The biogeochemistry
of mercury in waters with low acid neutralizing capacity and in methylating
wetland environments could be affected by long-term chemical changes
in wet deposition.
4.6.2 STEPS TO CONSTRAIN CONFOUNDING FACTORS

AND ENHANCE INTERPRETATION
Monitoring programs should be designed to limit the effects of confounding factors

that impair our ability to discern both trends in MeHg concentrations in aquatic
biota and their relation to altered atmospheric loadings of mercury. Adherence to

the guidelines below should eliminate some of the pitfalls that can complicate
interpretation of trend data on MeHg in aquatic biota. The application of these
guidelines during the development of a monitoring program requires compilation of
appropriate information on candidate study sites (surface waters and their water-
sheds) and their resident aquatic biota.
1) Exclude very contaminated surface waters during site selection. Concentra-

tions of MeHg in biota inhabiting surface waters historically contaminated
by wastes from industrial point-source discharges or historic mining activ-
ities can remain substantially elevated for decades (Latif et al. 2001;
Wiener et al. 2003). In new reservoirs, the concentrations of MeHg in
piscivorous fish remain elevated for several years after initial flooding,
declining gradually over 2 to 3 decades (Bodaly et al. 1997). A trend-
monitoring program intended to assess responses to changes in atmo-
spheric loading should not include surface waters that are recovering from
prior on-site elevation in abundance of either total mercury or MeHg.
2) Exclude surface waters on disturbed watersheds. Surface waters in water-
sheds that have recently undergone disturbance (e.g., fire or notable human
development) or in watersheds where disturbance is anticipated during
monitoring (e.g., logging or changing land use) should be avoided during
site selection. This requires access to information on prior land use, as
well as land-management plans. Given this, semi-remote surface waters
in protected areas on state, provincial, or federal lands, such as national
parks, would be appropriate sites for trend monitoring.
3) Exclude surface waters subjected to intensive or highly variable fishing
pressure. Surface waters that are subjected to intensive fishing pressure
or that are expected to undergo highly variable commercial or recreational
harvest of fish or shellfish during monitoring should be excluded during
site selection.
4) Employ nonlethal methods when sampling small populations of piscivores.
In very small lakes or streams that support small populations, the appli-
cation of procedures for nonlethal sampling (e.g., Baker et al. 2004; Peter-
son et al. 2005) may be advisable to avoid potential effects of removal
sampling on MeHg concentrations in target populations of piscivorous
fish. This determination requires advance knowledge of bioindicator
organisms present at a candidate monitoring site, the approximate number
(sample size) of an indicator organism to be taken during each sampling
event, and the approximate size of the target population being sampled.
5) Include multiple water bodies (clusters of sites) within each monitored
geographic area. Within a geographic area, the chosen biological indica-
tors should be sampled in several water bodies of a given type (i.e., clusters
of lakes or streams), because data from several sites will probably be
needed to identify the overall trend within the area (Section 4.4). The
direction of temporal trends can differ among individual water bodies
because of spatio-temporal variation in other factors that influence mercury
cycling, net methylation, bioaccumulation, and concentrations in organ-

isms. Statistical analyses should focus first on detecting temporal trends
within individual sites and second on evaluating the overall direction of
change across the cluster of sites within a monitored geographic area.
Descriptive and exploratory statistical analyses should characterize mon-
itored ecosystems that exhibit different trends (e.g., significant decrease,
no change, or significant increase in MeHg concentrations) within a given
area, as an initial step toward identifying potential causes of the observed
differences in trends.
6) Monitor bioaccumulation in some lakes with minimal watershed influence.
Delineating between watershed-derived mercury and atmospherically
derived mercury is problematic in a biological trend-monitoring program.
Wetlands can be particularly important sites of MeHg production and
significant sources of total mercury, MeHg, and organic matter for adjoin-
ing surface waters (Hurley et al. 1995; St. Louis et al. 1996; Curtis 1998;
Sellers et al. 2001). Concentrations of MeHg in aquatic biota should
respond most rapidly to altered mercury deposition in atmospherically
dominated systems, such as perched seepage lakes, which lack streams
and receive little or no inflow of surface or ground water from the sur-
rounding terrestrial environment. The production of MeHg and its bio-
accumulation in such seepage lakes are therefore influenced little by
watershed characteristics and processes (Watras et al. 1994; Hrabik and
Watras 2002; Watras et al. 2002; Wiener et al. 2003).
7) Ensure that contemporary and historic monitoring data are valid and
comparable. Mercury data from different biological monitoring programs
often are not directly comparable because of variation in methods for
sampling, sample preparation, and analyses. Contemporary monitoring
efforts that intend to use historic data on biological indicators should take
steps to ensure that 1) the historic data are valid and statistically useful
and 2) the methods applied in contemporary and historic monitoring
produce comparable data. Quality assurance procedures should be imple-
mented to document the accuracy and ensure the reliability of analytical
measurements. Increased uniformity in methods for sampling, sample
preparation, chemical analyses, database management, and statistical sum-
marization of data would facilitate comparison and synthesis of mercury
data across geopolitical boundaries.
8) Continue monitoring for a sufficient time frame. Temporal records of
mercury concentrations in aquatic biota should be sufficiently long to
detect decade-scale trends that could be obscured by short-term fluctua-
tions caused by interannual variability. This requires a commitment to
sustained allocation of resources at the onset of a trend-monitoring pro-
gram, for a recommended time frame of 20 to 30 years. Existing moni-
toring or research programs may include suitable candidate sites for
monitoring, for which reliable historic data on mercury and pertinent
ancillary variables are available.
Additional detailed guidance concerning the development of monitoring programs

for bioaccumulative contaminants is available from the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (2000) and from other chapters in this book (Chapters 2, 3, and 5).
Provision of statistical guidance relevant to sampling design and data analyses is
beyond the scope of this chapter, but such information is available from other sources
(Gilbert 1987; Jorgensen and Pedersen 1994; Tremblay et al. 1998; Conquest 2000;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2000).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The lead author (JGW) was supported by a Wisconsin Distinguished Professorship
jointly funded by the University of Wisconsin System, the University of Wisconsin–
La Crosse (UW–L) Foundation, and the UW–L College of Science and Health during
the preparation of this chapter. We thank Michael Paterson (Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba) for allowing the use of his unpublished data on
methylmercury in zooplankton; Bruce Monson (Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, St. Paul) for sharing results from his trend analysis of mercury in game
fish from Minnesota lakes; and Thomas Johnston (Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Burlington, Ontario) for providing trend data on mercury in walleyes from lakes in
Ontario and Manitoba. Constructive reviews of a draft chapter were provided by
Robin Stewart, Mark Brigham, Michael Murray, Reed Harris, and Tamara Saltman.
REFERENCES
Allan CJ, Heyes A, Roulet NT, St Louis VL, Rudd JWM. 2001. Spatial and temporal dynamics
of mercury in Precambrian Shield upland runoff. Biogeochemistry 52:13–40.
Andersson P, Borg H, Kaerrhage P. 1995. Mercury in fish muscle in acidified and limed lakes.
Atkeson T, Axelrad D, Pollman C, Keeler G. 2003. Integrating atmospheric mercury deposition
and aquatic cycling in the Florida Everglades: integrated summary. Tallahassee (FL):
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, p. 75–90.
Back RC, Visman V, Watras CJ. 1995. Microhomogenization of individual zooplankton
species improves mercury and methylmercury determinations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci
52:2470–2475.
Back RC, Watras CJ. 1995. Mercury in zooplankton of northern Wisconsin lakes: taxonomic
and site-specific trends. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:931–938.
Baker RF, Blanchfield PJ, Paterson MJ, Flett RJ, Wesson L. 2004. Evaluation of non-lethal
methods for the analysis of mercury in fish tissue. Trans Am Fish Soc 133:568–576.
Barr JF. 1996. Aspects of common loon (Gavia immer) feeding biology on its breeding ground.
Hydrobiologia 321:119–144.
Becker DS, Bigham GN. 1995. Distribution of mercury in the aquatic food web of Onondaga
Lake, New York. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:563–571.
Becker GC. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press. 1052 p.
(Sect A) 78:118–133.
Benoit J, Gilmour C, Heyes A, Mason RP, Miller C. 2003. Geochemical and biological controls
over methylmercury production and degradation in aquatic ecosystems. In: Chai Y,
Braids OC, editors, Biogeochemistry of environmentally important trace elements.
Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, p. 262–297.
Bignert A, Riget F, Braune B, Outridge P, Wilson S. 2004. Recent temporal trend monitoring
of mercury in Arctic biota — how powerful are the existing data sets? J Environ
Monitoring 6:351–355.
Bindler R, Renberg I, Appleby PG, Anderson NJ, Rose NL. 2001. Mercury accumulation
rates and spatial patterns in lake sediments from West Greenland: a coast to ice margin
transect. Environ Sci Technol 35:1736–1741.
Bloom NS. 1992. On the chemical form of mercury in edible fish and marine invertebrate
tissue. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:1010–1017.
Bodaly RA, Fudge RJP. 1999. Uptake of mercury by fish in an experimental boreal reservoir.
Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 37:103–109.
Bodaly RA, Hecky RE, Fudge RJP. 1984. Increases in fish mercury levels in lakes flooded by
the Churchill River diversion, northern Manitoba. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 41:682–691.
Bodaly RA, Rudd JWM, Fudge RJP, Kelly CA. 1993. Mercury concentrations in fish related
to size of remote Canadian shield lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50:980–987.
Bodaly RA, St. Louis VL, Paterson MJ, Fudge RJP, Hall BD, Rosenberg DM, Rudd JWM.
1997. Bioaccumulation of mercury in the aquatic food chain in newly flooded areas.
In: Sigel A, Sigel H, editors, Metal ions in biological systems, Vol. 34: Mercury and
its effects on environment and biology. New York (NY): Marcel Dekker Inc.,
p. 259–287.
Bowles KC, Apte SC, Maher WA, Kawei M, Smith R. 2001. Bioaccumulation and biomag-
nification of mercury in Lake Murray, Papua New Guinea. Can J Fish Aquat Sci
58:888–897.
Broman D, Naf C, Rolff C, Zebuhr Y, Fry B, Hobbie J. 1992. Using ratios of stable nitrogen
isotopes to estimate bioaccumulation and flux of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in two food chains from the northern Baltic.
Environ Toxicol Chem 11:331–345.
Brown SS, Gaston GR, Rakocinski CF, Heard RW. 2000. Effects of sediment contaminants
and environmental gradients on macrobenthic community trophic structure in Gulf
of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries 23:411–424.
Cabana G, Rasmussen JB. 1994. Modelling food chain structure and contaminant bioaccu-
mulation using stable nitrogen isotopes. Nature 372:255–257.
Cizdziel JV, Hinners TA, Pollard JE, Heithmar EM, Cross CL. 2002. Mercury concentrations
in fish from Lake Mead, USA, related to fish size, condition, trophic level, location,
and consumption risk. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 43:309–317.
Clarkson TW. 2002. The three modern faces of mercury. Environ Health Perspect
110(Suppl 1):11–23.
Cleckner LB, Garrison PG, Hurley JP, Olson ML, Krabbenhoft DP. 1998. Trophic transfer
of methyl mercury in the northern Florida Everglades. Biogeochemistry 40:347–361.
Cleckner LB, Gilmour CC, Krabbenhoft DP, Hurley JP. 1999. Mercury methylation in peri-
phyton of the Florida Everglades. Limnol Oceanogr 44:1815–1825.
Colby PJ, McNicol RE, Ryder RA. 1979. Synopsis of biological data on the walleye Stizoste-
dion vitrem vitreum (Mitchill 1818). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No 119. 139 p.
Coleman FC, Figueira WF, Ueland JS, Crowder LB. 2004. The impact of United States
recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305:1958–1960.
Conquest LL. 2000. Environmental monitoring: investigating associations and trends. In:
Sparks T, editor, Statistics in ecotoxicology. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons,
p. 179–210.
Cope WG, Wiener JG, Rada RG. 1990. Mercury accumulation in yellow perch in Wisconsin
seepage lakes: relation to lake characteristics. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:931–940.
Curtis PJ. 1998. Climatic and hydrologic control of DOM concentration and quality in lakes.
In: Hessen DO, Tranvik LJ, editors, Aquatic humic substances: ecology and bio-
geochemistry. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, p. 93–105.
DeVries DR, Frie RV. 1996. Determination of age and growth. In: Murphy BR, Willis DW,
editors, Fisheries techniques, 2nd ed. Bethesda (MD): American Fisheries Society,
p. 483–512.
Doire J, Lucotte M, Fortin R, Verdon R. 2002. Influence of intensive fishing on fish diet in
natural lakes from northern Québec: use of stable nitrogen and carbon isotopes
(abstract). American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Summer Meeting,
Victoria, BC, Canada, June 10–14, 2002. http://www.aslo.org/meetings/victoria2002/
archive/409.html
Downs SG, Macleod CL, Lester JN. 1998. Mercury in precipitation and its relation to
bioaccumulation in fish: a literature review. Water Air Soil Pollut 108:149–187.
Drevnick PE, Sandheinrich MB. 2003. Effects of dietary methylmercury on reproductive
endocrinology of fathead minnows. Environ Sci Technol 37:4390–4396.
Upper Midwest. Environ Sci Technol 31:960–967.
Environmental Council of States and Clean Air Network. 2001. Mercury in the environment:
states respond to the challenge. Washington, DC: Environmental Council of States. 70 p.
http://www.sso.org/ecos/projects/Mercury/ECOS2%20State%20Hg%20Activities.pdf.
Exponent. 2003. Fish contaminant monitoring program: review and recommendations pre-
pared for Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Water Division, Lansing,
MI, Doc. No. 8601969.001 0501 0103 BH29. http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/
deq-wd-fcmp-fcmpfinal.pdf
Fjeld E, Haugen TO, Vøllestad LA. 1998. Permanent impairment in the feeding behavior of
grayling (Thymallus thymallus) exposed to methylmercury during embryogenesis.
Sci Total Environ 213:247–254.
Francesconi KA, Lenanton RCJ. 1992. Mercury contamination in a semi-enclosed marine
embayment: organic and inorganic mercury content of biota, and factors influencing
mercury levels in fish. Mar Environ Res 33:189–212.
Frost TM, Montz PK, Kratz TK, Badillo T, Brezonik PL, Gonzalez MJ, Rada RG, Watras
CJ, Webster KE, Wiener JG, Williamson CE, Morris DP. 1999. Multiple stresses from
a single agent: diverse responses to the experimental acidification of Little Rock Lake,
Wisconsin. Limnol Oceanogr 44(3, part 2):784–794.
Fry B. 1991. Stable isotope diagrams of freshwater food webs. Ecology 72:2293–2297.
Garcia E, Carignan R. 1999. Impact of wildfire and clear-cutting in the boreal forest on
methylmercury in zooplankton. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:339–345.
Gilbert RO. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. New York
(NY): Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 320 p.
Gilmour CC, Riedel GS, Ederington MC, Bell JT, Benoit JM, Gill GA, Stordal MC. 1998.
Methylmercury concentrations and production rates across a trophic gradient in the
northern Everglades. Biogeochemistry 40:327–345.
Glass GE, Sorensen JA, Rapp GR Jr. 1998. Mercury deposition and lake quality trends. Report
to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN.
Gorski PR, Cleckner LB, Hurley JP, Sierzen ME, Armstrong DE. 2003. Factors affecting
enhanced mercury bioaccumulation in inland lakes of Isle Royale National Park,
USA. Sci Total Environ 304:327–348.
Gorski PR, Lathrop RC, Hill SD, Herrin RT. 1999. Temporal mercury dynamics and diet
composition in the mimic shiner. Trans Am Fish Soc 128:701–712.
Göthberg A. 1983. Intensive fishing — a way to reduce the mercury level in fish. Ambio
12:259–261.
Grieb TM, Driscoll CT, Gloss SP, Schofield CL, Bowie GL, Porcella DB. 1990. Factors
affecting mercury accumulation in fish in the upper Michigan peninsula. Environ
Haines TA, Komov VT, Matey VE, Jagoe CH. 1995. Perch mercury content is related to
acidity and color of 26 Russian lakes. Water Air Soil Pollut 85:823–828.
Hall BD, Bodaly RA, Fudge RJP, Rudd JWM, Rosenberg DM. 1997. Food as the dominant
pathway of methylmercury uptake by fish. Water Air Soil Pollut 100:13–24.
Hammerschmidt CR, Sandheinrich MB, Wiener JG, Rada RG. 2002. Effects of dietary
methylmercury on reproduction of fathead minnows. Environ Sci Technol 36:877–883.
Hammerschmidt CR, Wiener JG, Frazier BE, Rada RG. 1999. Methylmercury content of eggs
in yellow perch related to maternal exposure in four Wisconsin lakes. Environ Sci
Technol 33:999–1003.
Harris RC, Bodaly RA. 1998. Temperature, growth and dietary effects on fish mercury
dynamics in two Ontario lakes. Biogeochemistry 40:175–187.
Hebert CE, Weseloh DVC. 2003. Assessing temporal trends in contaminants from long-term
avian monitoring programs: the influence of sampling frequency. Ecotoxicology
12:141–151.
Heinz GH. 1996. Mercury poisoning in wildlife. In: Fairbrother A, Locke LN, Hoff GL,
editors, Noninfectious diseases of wildlife, 2nd ed. Ames (IA): Iowa State University
Press, p. 118–127.
Henry EA, Dodge-Murphy LJ, Bigham GN, Klein SM, Gilmour CC. 1995. Total mercury
and methylmercury mass balance in an alkaline, hypereutrophic urban lake (Onon-
daga Lake, NY). Water Air Soil Pollut 80:509–518.
Herrin RT, Lathrop RC, Gorski PR, Andren AW. 1998. Hypolimnetic methylmercury and its
uptake by plankton during fall destratification: a key entry point of mercury into lake
food chains? Limnol Oceanogr 43:1476–1486.
Hill WR, Stewart AJ, Napolitano GE. 1996. Mercury speciation and bioaccumulation in lotic
primary producers and primary consumers. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:812–819.
Hrabik TR, Magnuson JJ, McLain AS. 1998. Predicting the effects of rainbow smelt on native
fishes in small lakes: evidence from long-term research on two lakes. Can J Fish
Aquat Sci 55:1364–1371.
Hurley JP, Benoit JM, Babiarz CL, Shafer MM, Andren AW, Sullivan JR, Hammond R, Webb
DA. 1995. Influences of watershed characteristics on mercury levels in Wisconsin
waters. Environ Sci Technol 29:1867–1875.
Hutchings JA, Reynolds JD. 2004. Marine fish population collapses: consequences for recov-
ery and extinction risk. BioScience 54:297–309.
Jackson DA, Harvey HH. 1993. Fish and benthic invertebrates: community concordance and
community-environment relationships. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50:2641–2651.
Jackson TA. 1997. Long-range atmospheric transport of mercury to ecosystems, and the
importance of anthropogenic emissions — a critical review and evaluation of the
published evidence. Environ Rev 5:99–120.
Jackson TA. 1998. Mercury in aquatic ecosystems. In: Langston WJ, Bebianno MJ, editors,
Metal metabolism in aquatic environments. London, UK: Chapman & Hall, p. 77–158.
Johansson K, Aastrup M, Andersson A, Bringmark L, Iverfeldt Å. 1991. Mercury in Swedish
forest soils and waters — assessment of critical load. Water Air Soil Pollut 56:267–281.
Johnston TA, Bodaly RA, Matias JA. 1991. Predicting fish mercury levels from physical
characteristics of boreal reservoirs. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:1468–1475.
Johnston TA, Leggett WC, Bodaly RA, Swanson HK. 2003. Temporal changes in mercury
bioaccumulation by predatory fishes of boreal lakes following the invasion of an
exotic forage fish. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:2057–2062.
Jorgensen LA, Pedersen B. 1994. Trace metals in fish used for time trend analysis and as
environmental indicators. Marine Pollut Bull 28:235–243.
Kainz M, Lucotte M, Parrish CC. 2003. Relationships between organic matter composition
and methylmercury content of offshore and carbon-rich littoral sediments in an
oligotrophic lake. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 6:888–896.
Kelly CA, Rudd JWM, Holoka MH. 2003. Effect of pH on mercury uptake by an aquatic
bacterium: implications for Hg cycling. Environ Sci Technol 37:2941–2946.
Kidd KA, Hesslein RH, Fudge RJP, Hallard KA. 1995. The influence of trophic level as
measured by δ15N on mercury concentrations in freshwater organisms. Water Air Soil
Pollut 80:1011–1015.
Kraepiel AML, Keller K, Chin HB, Malcolm EG, Morel FMM. 2003. Sources and variations
of mercury in tuna. Environ Sci Technol 37:5551–5558.
regional mercury cycling implications. Global Biogeochem Cycles 16(4):1104.
Lange TR, Royals HE, Connor LL. 1993. Influence of water chemistry on mercury concen-
tration in largemouth bass from Florida lakes. Trans Am Fish Soc 122:74–84.
Latif MA, Bodaly RA, Johnston TA, Fudge RJP. 2001. Effects of environmental and mater-
nally derived methylmercury on the embryonic and larval stages of walleye (Stizoste-
dion vitreum). Environ Pollut 111:139–148.
Lean DRS, Siciliano SD. 2003. Production of methylmercury by solar radiation. J Phys IV,
Proc 12th Internat Conf on Heavy Metal in the Environment 107:743–747.
Lin CJ, Cheng MD, Schroeder WH. 2001. Transport patterns and potential sources of total gaseous
mercury measured in Canadian high Arctic in 1995. Atmos Environ 35:1141–1154.
Lindestroem L. 2001. Mercury in sediment and fish communities of Lake Vaenern, Sweden:
recovery from contamination. Ambio 30:538–544.
Lockhart WL, Uthe JF, Kenney AR, Mehrle PM. 1972. Methylmercury in northern pike (Esox
lucius): distribution, elimination, and some biochemical characteristics of contami-
nated fish. J Fish Res Board Can 29:1519–1523.
Lockhart WL, Wilkinson P, Billeck BN, Danell RA, Hunt RV, Brunskill GJ, DeLaronde J,
St. Louis V. 1998. Fluxes of mercury to lake sediments in central and northern Canada
inferred from dated sediment cores. Biogeochemistry 40:163–173.
Lorey P, Driscoll CT. 1999. Historical trends of mercury deposition in Adirondack lakes.
Lucotte M, Montgomery S, Bégin M. 1999b. Mercury dynamics at the flooded soil-water
interface in reservoirs of Northern Québec: in situ observations. In: Lucotte M,
Schetagne R, Thérien N, Langlois C, Tremblay A, editors, Mercury in the bio-
geochemical cycle. Berlin, Germany: Springer, p. 193–214.
Lucotte M, Montgomery S, Caron B, Kainz M. 1999a. Mercury in natural lakes and unper-
turbed terrestrial ecosystems of northern Québec. In: Lucotte M, Schetagne R, Thérien
N, Langlois C, Tremblay A, editors. Mercury in the biogeochemical cycle. Berlin,
Germany: Springer, p. 55–88.
Lucotte M, Mucci A, Hillaire-Marcel C, Pichet P, Grondin A. 1995. Anthropogenic mercury
enrichment in remote lakes of northern Québec (Canada). Water Air Soil Pollut
80:467–476.
Lucotte M, Schetagne R, Thérien N, Langlois C, Tremblay A, editors. 1999c. Mercury in the
biogeochemical cycle. Berlin, Germany: Springer. 334 p.
Lyons J, Cochran PA, Fago D. 2000. Wisconsin fishes 2000 — status and distribution. Madison
(WI): University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute. 87 p.
Mahaffey KR. 2000. Recent advances in recognition of low-level methylmercury poisoning.
Current Opinion Neurol 13:699–707.
Mahaffey KR, Clickner RP, Bodurow CC. 2004. Blood organic mercury and dietary mercury
intake: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 and 2000. Environ
Health Perspect 112:562–570.
Martínez-Cortizas A, Pontevedra-Pombal X, Garcia-Rodeja E, Nóvoa-Muñoz JC, Shotyk W.
1999. Mercury in a Spanish peat bog: archive of climate change and atmospheric
metal deposition. Science 284:939–942.
Mason RP, Reinfelder JR, Morel FMM. 1996. Uptake, toxicity, and trophic transfer of mercury
in a coastal diatom. Environ Sci Technol 30:1835–1845.
Masson S, Tremblay A. 2002. Effects of intensive fishing on the structure of zooplankton
communities and mercury levels. Sci Total Environ 304:377–390.
Meili M. 1991. Mercury in boreal forest lake ecosystems. Comprehensive summaries of
Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science, Report No. 336, Uppsala Univer-
sity, Sweden.
Metsaelae T, Rask M. 1989. Mercury concentrations of perch, Perca fluviatilis L., in small
Finnish headwater lakes with different pH and water colour. Aqua Fennica 19:41–46.
Miskimmin BM, Rudd JWM, Kelly CA. 1992. Influence of dissolved organic carbon, pH,
and microbial respiration rates on mercury methylation and demethylation in lake
water. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:17–22.
Monson BA, Brezonik PL. 1999. Influence of food, aquatic humus, and alkalinity on methyl-
mercury uptake by Daphnia magna. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:560–566.
Monteiro LR, Furness RW. 1997. Accelerated increase in mercury contamination in North
Atlantic mesopelagic food chains as indicated by time series of seabird feathers.
Environ Toxicol Chem 16:2489–2493.
Montgomery S, Lucotte M, Cournoyer L. 2000. The use of stable isotopes to evaluate the
importance of fine suspended particulate matter in the transfer of methylmercury to
biota in boreal flooded environments. Sci Total Environ 261:33–41.
Morel FMM, Kraepiel AML, Amyot M. 1998. The chemical cycle and bioaccumulation of
mercury. Annu Rev Ecol Systematics 29:543–566.
Myers GJ, Davidson PW. 1998. Prenatal methylmercury exposure and children: neurologic,
developmental, and behavioral research. Environ Health Perspect 106(Suppl 3):841–847.
NRC 2000. Toxicological effects of methylmercury. National Research Council Committee
on the Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, Washington, DC: National Academies
Press. 344 p.
Odin M, Feurtet-Mazel A, Ribeyre F, Boudou A. 1994. Actions and interactions of tempera-
ture, pH and photoperiod on mercury bioaccumulation by nymphs of the burrowing
mayfly Hexagenia rigida, from the sediment contamination source. Environ Toxicol
Chem 13:1291–1302.
Parkman H, Meili M. 1993. Mercury in macroinvertebrates from Swedish forest lakes: influence
of lake type, habitat, life cycle and food quality. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50:521–534.
Parks JW, Hamilton AL. 1987. Accelerating recovery of the mercury-contaminated Wabi-
goon/English River system. Hydrobiologia 149:159–188.
Paterson MJ, Rudd JWM, St Louis VL. 1998. Increases in total and methylmercury in
zooplankton following flooding of a peatland reservoir. Environ Sci Technol
32:3868–3874.
Pauly D, Alder J, Bennett E, Christensen V, Tyedmers P, Watson R. 2003. The future for
fisheries. Science 302:1359–1361.
Peech Cherewyk K. 2002. Methylmercury bioaccumulation in zooplankton: an assessment
of exposure routes and accumulation in newly flooded reservoirs. MS thesis, Univer-
sity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, 90 p.
Peterson SA, Van Sickle J, Hughes RM, Schacher JA, Echols SF. 2005. A biopsy procedure
for determining filet and predicting whole-fish mercury concentration. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 48:99–107.
Phillips DL. 2001. Mixing models in analyses of diet using multiple stable isotopes: a critique.
Oecologia 127:166–170.
Phillips DL, Gregg JW. 2001. Uncertainty in source partitioning using stable isotopes. Oeco-
logia 127:171–179.
Pickhardt PC, Folt CL, Chen CY, Klaue B, Blum JD. 2002. Algal blooms reduce the uptake
of toxic methylmercury in freshwater food webs. Proc Nat Acad Sci 99:4419–4423.
Plourde Y, Lucotte M, Pichet P. 1997. Contribution of suspended particulate matter and
zooplankton to methylmercury contamination of the food chain in mid-northern
Québec (Canada) reservoirs. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:821–831.
Porvari P. 1995. Mercury levels of fish in Tucurui hydroelectric reservoir and in River Moju
in Amazonia, in the state of Para, Brazil. Sci Total Environ 175:109–117.
Porvari P. 1998. Development of fish mercury concentrations in Finnish reservoirs from 1979
to 1994. Sci Total Environ 213:279–290.
Porvari P, Verta M, Munthe J, Haapanen M. 2003. Forestry practices increase mercury and methyl
mercury output from boreal forest catchments. Environ Sci Technol 37:2389–2393.
Rencz AN, O’Driscoll NJ, Hall GEM, Peron T, Telmer K, Burgess NM. 2003. Spatial variation
and correlations of mercury levels in the terrestrial and aquatic components of a
wetland dominated ecosystem: Kejimkujik Park, Nova Scotia, Canada. Water Air Soil
Pollut 143:271–288.
Resh VH, McElvary EP. 1993. Contemporary quantitative approaches to biomonitoring using
benthic macroinvertebrates. In: Rosenberg DM, Resh VH, editors. Freshwater
biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. New York (NY): Chapman & Hall,
p. 159–194.
Rodgers DW. 1994. You are what you eat and a little bit more: bioenergetics-based models of
methylmercury accumulation in fish revisited. In: Watras CJ, Huckabee JW, editors,
Mercury pollution: integration and synthesis. Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers,
p. 427–439.
Rolfhus KR, Fitzgerald WF. 1995. Linkages between atmospheric mercury deposition and
the methylmercury content of marine fish. Water Air Soil Pollut 80:291–297.
Roseman EF, Mills EL, Forney JL, Rudstam LG. 1996. Evaluation of competition between
age-0 yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) in
Oneida Lake, New York. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:865–874.
Roulet M, Lucotte M, Canuel R, Farella N, Courcelles M, Guimarães J-R, Mergler D, Amorim
M. 2000. Increase in mercury contamination recorded in lacustrine sediments fol-
lowing deforestation in the central Amazon. Chem Geol 165:243–266.
Roulet M, Lucotte M, Farella N, Serique G, Coelho H, Sousa Passos CJ, de Jesus da Silva
E, Scavone de Andrade P, Mergler D, Amorim M. 1999. Effects of recent human
colonization on the presence of mercury in Amazonian ecosystems. Water Air Soil
Pollut 112:297–313.
Roulet M, Lucotte M, Saint-Aubin A, Tran S, Rheault I, Farella N, de Jesus da Silva E,
Dezencourt J, Sousa Passos CJ, Santos Soares G, Guimarães JR, Mergler D, Amorim
M. 1998. The geochemistry of mercury in central Amazonian soils developed on the
Alter-do-Chão formation of the lower Tapajós River valley, Pará state, Brazil. Sci
Total Environ 223:1–24.
Rusak JA, Yan ND, Somers KM, Cottingham KL, Micheli F, Carpenter SR, Frost TM, Paterson
MJ, McQueen DJ. 2002. Temporal, spatial, and taxonomic patterns of crustacean
zooplankton variability in unmanipulated north-temperate lakes. Limnol Oceanogr
47:613–625.
Schetagne R, Verdon R. 1999. Post-impoundment evolution of fish mercury levels at the La
Grande complex, Québec, Canada (from 1978 to 1996). In: Lucotte M, Schetagne
R, Thérien N, Langlois C, Tremblay A, editors, Mercury in the biogeochemical cycle.
Berlin, Germany: Springer, p. 235–258.
Scheuhammer AM, Graham JE. 1999. The bioaccumulation of mercury in aquatic organisms
from two similar lakes with differing pH. Ecotoxicology 8:49–56.
Schober SE, Sinks TH, Jones RL, Bolger, PM, McDowell M, Osterloh J, Garrett ES, Canady
RA, Dillon CF, Sun Y, Joseph CB, Mahaffey KR. 2003. Blood mercury levels in US
children and women of childbearing age, 1999–2000. J Am Med Assoc
289:1667–1674.
Schuster PF, Krabbenhoft DP, Naftz DL, Cecil LD, Olson ML, DeWild JF, Susong DD, Green
JR, Abbott ML. 2002. Atmospheric mercury deposition during the last 270 years: a glacial
ice core record of natural and anthropogenic sources. Environ Sci Technol 36:2303–2310.
Scott WB, Crossman EJ. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Fish Res Board
Can Bull 184. 966 p.
Seda J, Kubecka J. 1997. Long-term biomanipulation of Rimov Reservoir (Czech Republic).
Hydrobiologia 345:95–108.
Sellers P, Kelly CA, Rudd JWM, MacHutchon AR. 1996. Photodegradation of methylmercury
in lakes. Nature 380:694–697.
Sellers P, Kelly CA, Rudd JWM. 2001. Fluxes of methylmercury to the water column of a
drainage lake: the relative importance of internal and external sources. Limnol Ocean-
ogr 46:623–631.
Serdar D, Johnston J, Mueller K, Patrick G. 2001. Mercury concentrations in edible muscle
of Lake Whatcom fish. Olympia (WA): Washington State Department of Ecology.
Pub No 01-03-012. 28 p. + appendices. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0103012.pdf
Shotyk W, Goodsite ME, Roos-Barraclough F, Frei R, Heinemeier J, Asmund G, Lohse C,
Hansen TS. 2003. Anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric Hg, Pb and As accu-
mulation recorded by peat cores from southern Greenland and Denmark dated using
the 14C “bomb pulse curve.” Geochim Cosmochim Acta 67:3991–4011.
Shotyk W, Goodsite ME, Roos-Barraclough F, Givelet N, Le Roux G, Weiss D, Cheburkin
AK, Knudsen K, Heinemeier J, van Der Knaap WO, Norton SA, Lohse C. 2005.
Accumulation rates and predominant atmospheric sources of natural and anthropo-
genic Hg and Pb on the Faroe Islands. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 69:1–17.
Simoneau M, Lucotte M, Garceau S, Laliberté D. 2005. Fish growth rates modulate mercury
concentrations in walleye (Sander vitreus) from eastern Canadian lakes. Environ Res
98:73–82.
Simonin HA, Gloss SP, Driscoll CT, Schofield CL, Kretser WA, Karcher RW, Symula J. 1994.
Mercury in yellow perch from Adirondack drainage lakes (New York, U.S.). In: Watras
CJ, Huckabee JW, editors, Mercury pollution: integration and synthesis. Boca Raton
(FL): Lewis Publishers, p. 457–469.
Smith AL, Green RH. 1975. Uptake of mercury by freshwater clams (family Unionidae).
J Fish Res Board Can 32:1297–1303.
Sonesten L. 2003. Fish mercury levels in lakes — adjusting for Hg and fish-size covariation.
Environ Pollut 125:255–265.
Sorensen JA, Kallemeyn LW, Sydor M. 2005. Relationship between mercury accumulation
in young-of-the-year yellow perch and water-level fluctuations. Environ Sci Technol
39:9237–9243.
Southerland MT, Stribling JB. 1995. Status of biological criteria development and implementa-
tion. In: Davis WS, Simon TP, editors, Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water
resource planning and decision making. Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers, p. 81–96.
Southworth GR, Peterson MJ, Ryon MG. 2000. Long-term increased bioaccumulation of
mercury in largemouth bass follows reduction of waterborne selenium. Chemosphere
41:1101–1105.
Spry DJ, Wiener JG. 1991. Metal bioavailability and toxicity to fish in low-alkalinity lakes:
a critical review. Environ Pollut 71:243–304.
Stafford CP, Haines TA. 2001. Mercury contamination and growth rate in two piscivore
populations. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:2099–2101.
Suns K, Hitchin G. 1990. Interrelationships between mercury levels in yearling yellow perch,
fish condition and water quality. Water Air Soil Pollut 50:255–265.
Suns K, Hitchin G, Loescher B, Pastorek E, Pearce R. 1987. Metal accumulations in fishes
from Muskoka-Haliburton lakes in Ontario (1978–1984). Rexdale, Ontario, Canada:
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Technical Report. 38 p.
Surette C, Lucotte M, Doire J, Tremblay A. 2003. Effects of intensive fishing in three natural
lakes of northern Québec, Canada, J Phys IV, Proc 12th Internat Conf on Heavy
Metals in the Environment 107:1443.
Surette C, Lucotte M, Tremblay A. 2006. Influence of intensive fishing on the partitioning of
mercury and methylmercury in three lakes of Northern Québec. Sci Total Environ
368(1):248–261.
Svobodova Z, Dusek L, Hejtmanek M, Vykusova B, Smid R. 1999. Bioaccumulation of
mercury in various fish species from Orlik and Kamyk Water Reservoirs in the Czech
Republic. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 43:231–240.
of atmospheric mercury deposition in midcontinental North America. Science
257:784–787.
Thomann RV, Mahoney JD, Mueller R. 1995. Steady-state model of biota sediment accumu-
lation factor for metals in two marine bivalves. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:1989–1998.
Thorpe J. 1977. Synopsis of biological data on the perch Perca fluviatilis (Linnaeus, 1758)
and Perca flavescens (Mitchill, 1814). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion of the United Nations. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No 113. 138 p.
Tremblay G, Legendre P, Doyon J-F, Verdon R, Schetagne R. 1998. The use of polynomial
regression analysis with indicator variables for interpretation of mercury in fish data.
Biogeochemistry 40:189–201.
Tremblay A, Lucotte M. 1997. Accumulation of total mercury and methylmercury in insect

larvae of hydroelectric reservoirs. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:832–841.
Tsui MTK, Wang WX. 2004. Uptake and elimination routes of inorganic mercury and
methylmercury in Daphnia magna. Environ Sci Technol 38:808–816.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Guidance for assessing chemical con-
tamination data for use in fish advisories. Vol. 1: Fish sampling and analysis, 3rd ed.
Washington, DC: USEPA Office of Water. EPA 823-B-00-007. http://www.epa.gov/
waterscience/fishadvice/volume1/index.html
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Update: national listing of fish and
wildlife advisories. Washington, DC: USEPA, Office of Water. Fact Sheet EPA-823-
F-01-010.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. 2004 National listing of fish advisories.
Washington, DC: USEPA, Office of Water. Fact Sheet EPA-823-F-05-004.
Vander Zanden MJ, Vadeboncoeur Y. 2002. Fishes as integrators of benthic and pelagic food
webs in lakes. Ecology 83:2152–2161.
Verdon R, Tremblay A. 1999. Mercury accumulation in fish from the La Grande complex:
influence of feeding habits and concentrations of mercury in ingested prey. In: Lucotte
M, Schetagne R, Thérien N, Langlois C, Tremblay A, editors, Mercury in the bio-
geochemical cycle. Berlin, Germany: Springer, p. 215–233.
Verta M. 1990. Changes in fish mercury concentrations in an intensively fished lake. Can J
Fish Aquat Sci 47:1888–1897.
Wang XF, Fisher NS. 1999. Assimilation efficiencies of chemical contaminants in aquatic
invertebrates: a synthesis. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:2034–2045.
Watras CJ, Back RC, Halvorsen S, Hudson RJM, Morrison KA, Wente SP. 1998. Bioaccu-
mulation of mercury in pelagic freshwater food webs. Sci Total Environ 219:183–208.
Watras CJ, Bloom NS, Hudson RJM, Gherini S, Munson R, Claas SA, Morrison KA, Hurley
J, Wiener JG, Fitzgerald WF, Mason R, Vandal G, Powell D, Rada R, Rislove L,
Winfrey M, Elder J, Krabbenhoft D, Andren AW, Babiarz C, Porcella DB, Huckabee
JW. 1994. Sources and fates of mercury and methylmercury in Wisconsin lakes. In:
Watras CJ, Huckabee JW, editors, Mercury pollution: integration and synthesis. Boca
Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers, p. 153–177.
Watras CJ, Morrison KA, Kratz TK. 2002. Seasonal enrichment and depletion of Hg and SO4
in Little Rock Lake: relationship to seasonal changes in atmospheric deposition. Can
J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1660–1667.
Weigel BM, Wang LZ, Rasmussen PW, Butcher JT, Stewart PM, Simon TP, Wiley MJ. 2003.
Relative influence of variables at multiple spatial scales on stream macroinvertebrates
in the Northern Lakes and Forest ecoregion, USA. Freshwat Biol 48:1440–1461.
Wiener JG, Fitzgerald WF, Watras CJ, Rada RG. 1990. Partitioning and bioavailability of
mercury in an experimentally acidified Wisconsin lake. Environ Toxicol Chem
9:909–918.
In: Hoffman DJ, Rattner BA, Burton GA Jr, Cairns J Jr, editors, Handbook of
ecotoxicology, 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, p. 409–463.
Wiener JG, Shields PJ. 2000. Mercury in the Sudbury River (Massachusetts, USA): pollution
history and a synthesis of recent research. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 57:1053–1061.
Wolfe MF, Schwarzbach S, Sulaiman RA. 1998. Effects of mercury on wildlife: a compre-
hensive review. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:146–160.
5 Wildlife Indicators
Marti F. Wolfe, Thomas Atkeson, William
Bowerman, Joanna Burger, David C. Evers,
Michael W. Murray, and Edward Zillioux
ABSTRACT
A number of wildlife species are potentially at greater risk of elevated mercury
exposures, and development of a monitoring network for mercury in wildlife must
take into account numerous variables that can affect exposures (and potentially
effects). Because they are generally at the receiving end of the mercury cycle
(following releases of inorganic mercury, atmospheric and aquatic cycling and bio-
accumulation), numerous factors upstream can affect the amount of mercury avail-
able for uptake. As is the case with aquatic biota, methylmercury is of particular
concern due to its ability to accumulate to greater extents in wildlife. A number of
factors can affect methylmercury uptake in wildlife, including diet (including sea-
sonal or inter-annual variations) and functional niche, location (including consider-
ation of exposure differences for migratory species), age, sex, reproductive status,
nutritive status, and disease incidence. In identifying potentially good indicator
species for mercury exposure, desirable characteristics include a well-described life
history, relatively common and widespread distribution, capacity to accumulate
mercury in a predictable fashion (including sensitive to changes in mercury levels,
and ideally occurring across a gradient of contaminant levels), easily sampled and
adequate population size, and having data on natural physiological variability. Sam-
ple collection for mercury analysis must consider methodological factors such as
live (e.g., feathers, hair/fur, blood) vs. dead (e.g. internal organs) specimens, time
of exposure in relation to tissue sampled (e.g. more recent exposures in blood or
eggs vs. longer-term exposures in kidney, fur, or feathers), site of the collection
within tissue, potential for and extent of detoxification/depuration, differences within
clutches, feathers, or hair locations in birds, and potential for exogenous contami-
nation. In addition to consideration of mercury exposures in developing a monitoring
network, effects of mercury could also be considered, including assessments across
several levels of biological organization. While several endpoints of mercury toxicity
have been identified in wildlife (including growth, reproduction, and neurological),
solid biomarkers of mercury effect meeting desirable criteria have to date not been
identified. Based on research to date on numerous wildlife species and consideration
of indicator criteria identified here, candidate wildlife species for bioindicators of
mercury exposure, by habitat type, include the following:
123
terrestrial — Bicknell’s thrush and raccoon; lake — common loon; freshwater

wetland — tree swallow; lake/coastal — herring gull, bald eagle and common
tern; riverine — mink; estuarine — saltmarsh sharp-tailed and seaside spar-
rows; nearshore marine — harbor porpoise; offshore marine — Leach’s storm
petrel; comparison across aquatic habitats — belted kingfisher. It is recom-
mended that monitoring be done annually, considering time after arrival at
breeding site for migratory species. Several medium- to long-term monitoring
efforts have been conducted for mercury in wildlife (including for egrets and
herring gulls). However, clear consideration of the numerous factors affecting
mercury uptake and mobilization within individuals, intra- and interspecies
variability, and resulting statistical issues must be taken into account in design-
ing a monitoring network that can adequately address questions on spatial
and temporal trends of mercury exposure (and potentially effects) in wildlife.
5.1 INTRODUCTION
A bioindicator can be defined as an organism (biological unit or derivative) that
responds predictably to contamination in ways that are readily observable and
quantifiable (Zillioux and Newman 2003). This response could be at any level of
physiological or ecosystem organization from molecular or cellular at 1 end of the
spectrum to population or community at the other end. Wildlife species are good
indicators of the status of contaminants in the environment because they reflect not
just the presence, but also the bioavailability of the contaminant of interest; integrate
over time and space and among local, regional, and global sources; and respond to
toxic insult in ways that are relevant to human health at both the whole organism
and sub-organismal levels.
The effects of mercury in wildlife species are well established and have been
the subject of several reviews (Scheuhammer 1987; Scheuhammer 1990; Zillioux
et al. 1993; Heinz 1996; Thompson 1996; Burger and Gochfeld 1997; Wolfe et al.
1998; Eisler 2006).
5.1.1 OBJECTIVES
Several candidate wildlife indicators are suggested and discussed in this chapter. In
addition, we recognize that valuable sources of data on residue-effect relationships
are available to assist in the selection of habitat-specific indicators (Jarvinen and
Ankley 1999; USCOE and USEPA 2005). Although this chapter emphasizes animals,
similar considerations and literature exist for plants and microorganisms as bio-
indicators and biomarkers (National Research Council 1989; USEPA 1997; Gawel
et al. 2001; Citterio et al. 2002; Yuska et al. 2003).
In choosing wildlife indicators of mercury contamination, emphasis should go
to 3 key considerations: 1) efficacy in quantifying the probability that mercury in
the environment will produce an adverse effect in exposed organisms or populations;
2) the degree of harm that may be anticipated; 3) and the integration of these data
to characterize environmental health.
Wildlife Indicators 125
external m edia extern al freely b ind ing to

concentration dissolved bioaccessibility environm en tal
concentration m atrices
biouptake
internal effect
T arget site 1 in trinsic
concentration concen tration effect
activity
(total)
Intern al aqu eous bioavailability
concen tration
T arget site 2 in trinsic effect
partitioning/b ind ing concen tration activity
to non -target m acro-
m olecules b iotransform ation etc.
excretion
M odified from E sch er & H erm ens, E S& T , 2002
FIGURE 5.1 Pathways of bioaccessibility, biouptake, and bioavailability leading to exposure.

(Source: Modified from Escher and Hermens 2002.)
An additional consideration is the species’ usefulness as biomonitors of trends

in mercury loading on their ecosystem. In any case, the value of a well-selected
bioindicator lies in its ability to integrate all the complex processes leading to the
adverse consequence. Figure 5.1 traces schematically the process pathways of bio-
accessibility, biouptake, and bioavailability (as defined below) that must be complete
before reaching the target-organ dose at which harm might be caused to humans or
wildlife. Such pathways of exposure are typically habitat- and organism-specific.
The terms “bioaccessibility,” “biouptake ,” and “bioavailability,” as used in this
chapter, are defined below in the context of 2 primary considerations: 1) the major
and best-characterized route of exposure of wildlife to environmental mercury con-
tamination is through the aquatic food web; and 2) mercury incorporated into fish,
piscivorous wildlife and their higher predators is predominately (generally >95%)
in the form of methylmercury (MeHg). Although we are concerned here primarily
with aquatic systems, it must be noted that very recent work has identified an entirely
terrestrial pathway by which vertebrates are exposed to MeHg; this research is in
its infancy but should be followed closely, as the mechanisms by which MeHg is
transferred in nonaquatic systems are poorly understood (Rimmer et al. 2005).
• Bioaccessibility: the conversion of mercuric mercury (Hg (II)) to methyl-

mercury (CH3Hg+ or MeHg) in an environment accessible to organisms
at the base of the aquatic food web. This is the most critical step in the
delivery of environmental mercury to target organs/molecules in fish and
other wildlife species. The formation of MeHg, the principal environmen-
tally toxic species, is necessary for accessibility of Hg to the aquatic food
web and sets the stage for the biological uptake. MeHg is the main product
of the natural biomethylation reaction carried out by sulfate-reducing
bacteria principally at or near the sediment/water interface. Hg (II) is the
primary substrate for the biomethylation reaction. Biomethylation is rate-

dependent upon a variety of biogeochemical conditions conducive for this
transformation to proceed (as discussed in Chapter 3). Once MeHg is
formed, connection of the contaminant with the receptor completes the
bioaccessibility step.
• Biouptake: diffusion of MeHg through a biological membrane into the
internal cellular and plasma environment of an organism. This diffusion
may be through an external cellular membrane (as in single-cell phy-
toplankton or simple multicellular infaunal organisms), or through the gut
or caecum epithelia of prey species. MeHg can also enter an organism
through diffusion across the gill epithelium although, in the case of fish,
this is a minor source of uptake given the comparatively low concentration
of MeHg in the water column. In higher organisms, MeHg ingested from
prey species is readily absorbed through the intestinal mucosa. Embryonic
uptake of MeHg occurs by absorption from stored food in the egg of
oviparous and ovoviviparous species, and by diffusion across the placental
“barrier” in mammals.
• Bioavailability: the delivery of MeHg to a target organ or site of toxic
action. Once taken up, MeHg is highly mobile and distributed throughout
the body. Nevertheless, not all MeHg that enters the body is actually
bioavailable. Several natural elimination and detoxification processes
remove MeHg from the circulatory system before delivery to target
organs/molecules (principally those of the central nervous system). Exam-
ples are removal from the systemic circulatory system through accumu-
lation in hair and feathers, and presystemic elimination by metabolic
transformation to Hg (II) in the liver and subsequent excretion in feces.
MeHg also accumulates in non-target tissues, such as muscle and kidney,
in each of which MeHg has its own biological half-life.
Wildlife indicators can establish baseline conditions, act as early warning signals
of environmental problems, identify the extent of contamination, define critical path-
ways and responses at multiple trophic levels, as well as integrate biological exposure
with the physical and chemical environment (Farrington 1991). Indicator selection
is based on a combination of criteria or characteristics that include (Jenkins 1981):
• Well-characterized life history

• Capable of concentrating and accumulating contaminant(s) of concern
• Common in the environment
• Geographically widespread
• Sensitive and hence indicative of change
• Easily collected and measured
• Adequate size to permit resampling of tissue
• Occurrence in both polluted and unpolluted areas
• Display correlation with environmental levels of contaminants
• Has background data on the natural condition
Burger and Gochfeld (2000c, 2004) list key features of a biomonitoring plan that
fulfill requirements of biological, methodological, or societal relevance. These
attributes are further discussed in Sections 5.4 and 5.8.
Wildlife indicators of mercury exposure and trends are important elements of a
comprehensive approach to assess mercury in the environment and the monitoring
of trends that may assist regulators and the regulated community in long-term
evaluation of the need and usefulness of mercury source controls. It is important to
understand, however, that bioindicator data alone are insufficient to answer such
critical questions as identification of mercury sources, or the relative importance of
local, regional, and global inputs of mercury sources to atmospheric deposition and
environmental loading in specific areas.
5.2 ISSUES OF CONCERN

5.2.1 GEOGRAPHICAL AND HABITAT DIFFERENCES
Geography and habitat variability affect MeHg production, bioaccessibility, and
uptake into wildlife. Interpretation of mercury in wildlife also requires a working
knowledge of sex, age, and tissue differences (Evers et al. 2005). Biogeochemical
differences in aquatic and terrestrial systems are particularly important determinants
of Hg methylation, as discussed in previous chapters for water and fish.
Continental Hg patterns are therefore dictated by large-scale atmospheric dep-
osition patterns, point source emissions (and effluents), and ecosystem processes.
Using a standard indicator species, Evers et al. (1998, 2003) documented an increas-
ing west-east pattern in continental MeHg concentrations in blood and eggs for the
Common Loon (Gavia immer) (Figure 5.2). Although many areas exist throughout
North America where Hg deposition probably poses risk to biota, general west-east
weather patterns do appear to influence overall MeHg bioavailability and contribute
to the well-known “tail-pipe” condition of northeastern North America. Documented
aquatic systems outside of the Northeast where MeHg concentration is elevated and,
at least in part, related to atmospheric deposition are north-central Wisconsin and
the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan (primarily because of high acidic lake
systems) (Meyer et al. 1998; Fevold et al. 2003) and southernmost Florida (Frederick
et al. 2002; Frederick et al. 2004). Vast and highly acidic aquatic systems in eastern
Ontario and western Quebec also remain as troublesome areas for elevated risk of
Hg to high trophic level piscivores because of continued acidic conditions related
to anthropogenic input of sulfur dioxide (Doka et al. 2003). Mercury deposition in the
West presents some unique considerations. Throughout the West as a region, mercury
inputs from legacy mining greatly exceed inputs from atmospheric deposition, but
where coal-fired electric power generation is used, very localized atmospheric Hg
concentrations sometimes exceed even those found in the highly urbanized East. For
the 3 coastal western states, trans-Pacific transport of atmospheric Hg from Asian
sources is a recent and increasing input. The importance of this contribution to total
Hg loading in the coastal states is currently under examination (Fitzgerald and Mason
1997; Weiss-Penzias et al. 2003; Seigneur et al. 2004; Jaffe et al. 2005).
FIGURE 5.2 Continental cross-section of MeHg bioavailability in common loon blood and
eggs. Mercury concentrations are arithmetic means and associated 1 SD in ppm, ww. Sample
size in parentheses are first eggs and then blood. (Source: From Evers et al. 1998, 2003b.)
We have categorized 4 major habitat types: 1) marine, 2) estuarine, 3) freshwater,

and 4) terrestrial. Differences in mercury cycling among the major habitat types are
not well understood, although most studies characterizing biotic uptake of Hg through
complete food chains have focused on freshwater environs. There are more data on
Hg in marine mammals than in freshwater mammals, but the movement of Hg through
all trophic levels in marine food chains is poorly known. Marine systems and their
respective indicators reflect forage guilds that use the shoreline as well as nearshore
and offshore habitats. Some research on Hg exposure in birds foraging in coastal and
pelagic habitats within the Canadian Maritimes indicates spatial variation that may
be related to forage base among other factors (Burgess, N., personal communication).
A handful of studies have compared species Hg levels across different habitat
types. Welch (1994) found juvenile bald eagle blood Hg levels were significantly
higher in freshwater versus marine systems. Studies using belted kingfishers across
all 4 habitats documented similar patterns; blood Hg levels significantly increased
from marine to estuarine to riverine to lakes (Evers et al. 2005). The biogeochemical
factors that influence Hg methylation and bioavailability within each of these major
habitat categories are described in Chapters 2 and 3 and indicate that freshwater
aquatic systems associated with wetlands and acidic environments are at greatest risk.
Regional differences in hydrology such as flow patterns, rates, and periodicity,

as well as dry-down and rewetting in some environments, may occur seasonally or
as a consequence of water management strategies. Watershed drainage and flow rates
affect Hg transport and residence times, and nutrient and sulfate loading which, in
turn, influence Hg methylation and bioaccessibility. Periodic dry-downs and rewet-
ting affect the sulfur cycle through sulfide oxidation and sulfate reduction, respec-
tively. In turn, Hg methylation by sulfate-reducing bacteria is the probable cause of
large spikes in available MeHg in these areas during and immediately following
periods of rewetting (Krabbenhoft et al. 1998). Biota Hg is generally higher in
reservoirs, particularly new reservoirs, than in other areas of contiguous watersheds.
This “new reservoir effect” typically diminishes with time but the rate of change is
strongly influenced by latitudinal factors; elevated biota Hg levels may persist for
many years in higher latitude reservoirs (Bodaly et al. 1984) while the effect may
be fleeting or undetectable in lower latitudes (Abernathy and Cumbie 1977). Older
reservoirs, particularly those with bathymetry that serve as large areas of suitable
habitat for bacteria to methylate Hg, are potential high-risk scenarios. Such reservoirs
in northern New England that have high organic content shorelines and slow water
drawdowns through summer and fall (e.g., water storage reservoirs) are documented
with greatly elevated biotic Hg levels (Evers and Reaman 1997).
Habitat differences also influence trophic structure, with the length of food chains
affecting the degree of bioaccumulation of Hg in top predators. Prey species avail-
ability in different habitats may strongly influence accumulation of Hg in predators.
Porcella et al. (2004) reviewed raccoon dietary composition and showed that, among
food groups dominating raccoon foraging under various conditions, progressively
lower dietary Hg is available when habitat or seasonal foraging opportunities are
restricted to lower levels in the food chain. The Florida Panther (Puma concolor
coryi) has been shown to accumulate high levels of tissue Hg when feeding on
raccoons in the central Everglades, whereas in the nearby Fakahatchee Strand, where
their normal diet of deer and wild hog is available, panthers accumulate much lower
levels of Hg (Roelke et al. 1991). Ecosystem nutrient status also influences the
bioaccessibility of mercury to higher trophic levels. Eutrophication resulting in the
proliferation of lower trophic levels can cause a “biodilution effect” that effectively
limits mercury available to predator species (Chen et al. 2000; Stafford and Haines
2001). On the other hand, poor nutrient status among individual species may com-
promise the ability of affected species to process and detoxify dietary Hg. Differences
in the form and concentration of environmental selenium may also affect Hg detox-
ification mechanisms in some species. In marine mammals, for example, frequently
observed molar ratios of liver Hg to Se of 1:1 suggest that this highly insoluble form
(i.e., mercuric selenide) sequesters Hg and prevents further toxicity (Wagemann
et al. 2000), but also see Caurant et al. (1996) for limits to this process.
In the case of marine mammals, geographic and habitat differences — even for
individuals — can be quite diverse. Some species may have distinctly separated (via
migration routes) foraging and breeding habitats (e.g., for the California gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus) or minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)), while others
are largely nonmigratory (e.g., some pelagic dolphins and harbor seals (Phoca
vitulina)). Even some species that are not migratory move to new foraging locations
based on prey availability (e.g., long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas)), and
others range widely and may switch to different foraging dive depths at different
times of year (e.g., hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) in the North Atlantic) (Bjorge
2001). Mercury loadings to marine systems will vary; in addition to an assumed
more broadly uniform pattern of air deposition across wide areas, recent research
has highlighted the potential for increased deposition in high latitude regions during
polar springtimes (see Chapter 2), as well as the potential for some freshwater
drainages to contribute significant loadings. Some studies have revealed spatial
trends in mercury levels in marine mammals, with for example higher levels in St.
Lawrence beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) than Arctic belugas, and higher
mercury levels in muscle, kidney, and liver tissues in belugas in the Western as
compared to Eastern Arctic (Wagemann et al. 1996).
5.2.2 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

Both the development and application of bioindicators present a number of meth-
odological considerations. One key requirement is to relate dose/effects studies in
the laboratory, and residue levels/effects studies in the field. For many years, these
studies were conducted by different groups of scientists, and the connections were
not made (Eisler 1987). Ideally, we should use bioindicators where there are clear
links between exposure levels, tissue levels, and effects (Burger and Gochfeld 2003).
The most useful bioindicators of those we suggest are those where the connections
have been clearly made.
A knowledge of physiology and pharmacokinetics is needed (Farris et al. 1993;
Monteiro and Furness 2001). Levels of mercury normally vary among internal
tissues, and the time to equilibrate within each tissue varies. For example, blood
mercury levels normally reflect very recent exposure, while brain and liver levels
reflect longer-term exposure. Tissue-specific mechanisms of detoxification and
sequestration, among other processes, must be understood to define the bioactive
moiety in observed tissue burdens before a clear expression of toxicity can be derived
(Wood et al. 1997).
Several factors must be considered when collecting samples, and in reporting
results of residue analysis: sample collection location, whether the samples were taken
from live versus dead specimens, how representative the sample residue is of internal
mercury levels, including consideration of sampling location within organs; possible
differences within and between clutches, locations (on the animal) from which
feathers or hair samples were taken, and potential for exogenous contamination.
For threatened or endangered species, or species of special concern, it is often
necessary to analyze specimens that have died of causes not directly attributable to
mercury. Bird eggs that have been abandoned or flooded out may be used for
analyses. However, if the eggs were pushed out of the nest by parents that are
incubating the rest of the clutch, the reason for rejection of the egg must be consid-
ered in order to properly interpret mercury residue levels. Similarly, birds killed by
predators may be suitable for analysis, but the internal tissues of sick or emaciated
birds should not be used for residue analysis because in some studies, error has
resulted from remobilization of mercury (Ensor et al. 1992; Sundlof et al. 1994).
However, investigations that excluded emaciated birds indicate that comparison of

mercury concentrations between live and dead specimens may be useful. The direction
of error is not always the same, and in some cases, live birds have higher levels
(Burger 1995).
The specific site of tissue collection may affect residue levels significantly. For
example, samples from the anterior portions of fish can have significantly higher
levels of mercury than posterior sections (Cuvin-Aralar and Furness 1990; Furness
et al. 1990; Allen 1994; Yediler and Jacobs 1995). Different parts of the liver can
accumulate different levels of mercury; because liver Hg and MeHg do not concen-
trate at a proportionate rate, care in interpretation of liver Hg levels is needed
(Scheuhammer et al. 1998b). Caution should also be used when examining mercury
levels in eggs because mercury is often higher in the first-laid egg and lowest in the
last-laid egg. Therefore, within-clutch differences in egg mercury levels can be
significant and knowledge of egg-laying order is needed to minimize variation in
interpretation (Becker 1992). Evers et al. (2003b) found an average within-clutch
difference of mercury levels in common loon eggs of 25%. Feather mercury levels
follow a similar pattern. Within a molt, either body or remigial, the first-grown
feathers are higher in mercury than the last-grown feathers (as long as the diet does
not change during the molt) (Burger 1993). In addition, depending on molt patterns,
different feathers may represent mercury uptake in different geographic areas (Fur-
ness et al. 1986; Thompson et al. 1992; Burger 1993; Bowerman et al. 1994). Some
birds, such as loons, have full remigial molts and therefore choice of flight feathers
is not as critical (Evers et al. 1998). Bowerman et al. (1994) found no significant
differences among feather type collected (body, primary, secondary, tail) for Hg
within a bald eagle breeding area, and thus concluded that the feather type is not
critical for eagles because they typically exhibit a full body and remigial molt in
the spring. These variant findings reinforce the importance of carefully considering
species differences, tissue types, and collection methods.
5.3 HOST FACTORS

The ecological constraints of any species that is a candidate for monitoring envi-
ronmental contaminants must be well characterized. Diet, functional niche, migra-
tory status, and home range size influence a species’ suitability as an indicator.
Seasonal changes in these parameters also will be reflected in contaminant concen-
trations. An animal’s age and sex overall body condition and health status also
influence its suitability as indicator (Evers et al. 2005). All of these factors can also
alter the bioavailability, toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics of a contaminant, thereby
altering uptake, distribution, and effects. Whole body retention of mercury was
greater in females than males in 3 mouse strains tested (Nielsen et al. 1994). Lac-
tating pilot whales were less able to demethylate mercury by forming Hg-Se com-
plexes, indicating greater MeHg transference to the nursing calves (Caurant et al.
1996). Possible co-exposure to other environmental contaminants that may modify
the organism’s response to mercury is also important to determine (Batel et al. 1993;
Moore et al. 1999; Mason et al. 2000; Newland and Paletz 2000; Seegal and Bemis
2000; Shipp et al. 2000; Burger 2002; Lee and Yang 2002; Wayland et al. 2002;
Wayland et al. 2003).
5.3.1 BIOAVAILABILITY
Ingested Hg may be either inorganic or organic, although, as noted previously, MeHg
predominates in higher trophic level organisms. Most inorganic mercury in the
environment is in the more thermodynamically stable divalent (mercuric) form.
Methylmercury is readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract (90 to 95%),
whereas inorganic salts of Hg are less readily absorbed (7 to 15%). In the liver, Hg
binds to glutathione, cysteine, and other sulfhydryl-containing ligands. These com-
plexes are secreted in the bile, releasing the Hg for reabsorption from the gut (Doi
1991). Demethylation also occurs in the liver, thus reducing toxicity and reabsorption
potentials (Komsta-Szumska et al. 1983; Farris et al. 1993; Nordenhall et al. 1998).
In blood, MeHg distributes 90% to red blood cells, and 10% to plasma. Inorganic
Hg distributes approximately evenly or with a cell:plasma ratio of ≥2 (Aihara and
Sharma 1986). O’Connor and Nielsen (1981) found that length of exposure was a
better predictor of tissue residue level than dose in otters, but that higher doses
produced an earlier onset of clinical signs.
5.3.2 TOXICOKINETICS AND TOXICODYNAMICS

Methylmercury readily crosses the blood-brain barrier, whereas inorganic Hg does
so poorly. The transport of MeHg into the brain is mediated by its affinity for the
anionic form of sulfhydryl groups. This led Aschner (Aschner and Aschner 1999;
Aschner 1990) to propose a mechanism of “molecular mimicry” in which the carrier
was an amino acid. Transport of MeHg across the blood-brain barrier in the rat as
MeHg–L-cysteine complex has since been described (Kerper et al. 1992). Demeth-
ylation occurs in brain tissue, as evidenced by the observation that the longer the
time period between exposure to MeHg and measurement of brain tissue residue,
the greater the proportion of inorganic mercury (Norseth and Clarkson 1970; Lind
et al. 1988; Davis et al. 1994). MeHg is also converted to mercuric Hg in other
tissues, but the rate of demethylation varies both with tissue (Dock et al. 1994;
Wagemann et al. 1998; Pingree et al. 2001) and among species for a given tissue
(Omata et al. 1986, 1988).
Both inorganic and organic Hg are excreted primarily in feces; 98 days after
administration of a radio-labeled dose of MeHg to rats, 65% of the dose was
recovered in the feces as inorganic mercury, and 15% as organic mercury. Urinary
excretion accounted for less than 5% of the dose, although urinary excretion of
inorganic Hg increased with increasing time after exposure. Fur or hair is also an
important route of excretion for both methyl and inorganic Hg. On an average of
species and tissues, the biological half-life of MeHg in mammals is about 70 days;
for inorganic Hg about 40 days (Farris and Dedrick 1993). The half-life of Hg in non-
molting seabirds has been estimated as 60 days (Monteiro and Furness 1995); in
comparison, the half-life of MeHg in blood of common loon chicks undergoing
feather molt is 3 days (Fournier et al. 2002).
5.4 TYPES OF BIOINDICATORS

5.4.1 INDICATORS OF EXPOSURE
Mercury exposure can be measured in many compartments in an organism. Objec-
tives and logistical considerations dictate compartment choice. Nonlethal choices
include abandoned eggs, blood, feathers, fur, scales; and for lizards and snakes, tails.
With some additional effort muscle and even organ biopsies may be included in this
category. These compartments provide avenues for sampling individuals over time
and can provide short- and long-term insights on mercury bioaccumulation. Avail-
ability of fresh carcasses can also provide information on mercury exposure; empha-
sis is typically on the liver, kidney, spleen, muscle, and brain.
5.4.2 INDICATORS OF EFFECT

Multiple levels of biological organization should be investigated when determining
mercury effects and should include molecular, cellular, individual, population, and
ideally, community levels. These efforts can be further organized into cause-and-
effect, correlative, and weight of evidence. Our ability to use these approaches is
generally related to feasibility of laboratory or mesocosm experiments and in situ
studies. Molecular ecology and epidemiology, particularly the replicability of genetic
analysis, provide increasing ability to examine effects of mercury (see Section 5.7).
Investigations into the impacts of mercury on individuals can be categorized into
physiological/functional, morphological, behavioral, reproductive, and demographic.
Useful endpoints include those that affect growth, viability, reproductive or develop-
mental success, including behavior, immunological effects, neurological impairment
and neurohistological lesions, and teratology.
Compared to organic contaminants and their documented morphological impacts
to individuals in eagles and cormorants (Welch 1994; Grasman et al. 1998) and eggs
(e.g., eggshell thinning) (Fox et al. 1980; Mineau et al. 1984; Risebrough 1986;
Gilbertson et al. 1991; Fox 1992), mercury impacts are primarily based on neuro-
logical damage. Among wildlife species, impaired behavior related to mercury
exposure has been documented in common loons (Nocera and Taylor 1998; Counard
2000; Olsen et al. 2000; Evers et al. 2004), mallards (Heinz 1975), quail (Thaxton
and Parkhurst 1973), fish (Hilmy et al. 1987; Webber and Haines 2003), frogs
(Britson and Threlkeld 1998), as well as in humans and laboratory animals (Finoc-
chio et al. 1980; Bornhausen and Hagen 1984; Grandjean et al. 1997; Houpt et al.
1988; Grandjean et al. 1998; Kim et al. 2000). Reproductive anomalies related to
mercury have been documented in laboratory studies (Fimreite 1971; Fimreite and
Karstad 1971; Heinz 1976; Heinz 1979), as well as in the wild. Field studies represent
areas impacted by waterborne point sources (e.g., industrial sites, chlor-alkali plants
(Fimreite et al. 1970; Fimreite et al. 1971; Gilbertson 1974; Barr 1986), mines
(Wolfe and Norman 1998b; Russell 2003), airborne point sources (Evers and Jodice
2002; Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2003), and more remote
systems largely driven by atmospheric deposition from regional and potentially
global sources (Fitzgerald and Mason 1996; Burgess et al. 1998; Evers et al. 1998).
Studies of effects on common loon populations indicate significant reductions

in reproductive success for some high-risk populations (Burgess et al. 1998; Meyer
et al. 1998; Evers et al. 2004), which are related to smaller egg size (Evers et al.
2003b), reduced incubation effort (thus lower hatchability), and lower chick survival.
Adult survivorship measures of mercury effects are also difficult endpoints to measure
but are important because of the ability for mercury to bioaccumulate (i.e., input is
greater than output that includes demethylation, sequestering, and depuration). Long-
lived, high trophic level species are likely at greatest risk. High-risk common loon
males (i.e., blood mercury levels >3.0 ppm, ww) have mean annual accumulation
rates of more than 9% (Evers et al. 1998).
5.5 CANDIDATE BIOINDICATOR SPECIES

5.5.1 MAMMALS
5.5.1.1 Mink (Mustela vison)
Mink are widely distributed across North America aquatic habitats. Although mink
are prey generalists, they primarily feed on aquatic organisms (depending on geog-
raphy, habitat use, and season). Their home range varies from 8 ha to over 760 ha,
with males moving vastly greater differences than females (Baker 1983). Mink have
been identified as being particularly sensitive to environmental mercury levels and,
because of the availability of trapper-oriented carcasses, exposure levels are rela-
tively well known across large geographic areas of North America (Wobeser et al.
1976; Kucera 1983; Wren 1986; Wren et al. 1986; Foley et al. 1988; Evans et al.
1998; Mierle et al. 2000; Yates et al. 2005). Field efforts generally rely on organ
tissues such as liver, kidney, and brain, but fur and muscle are also collected. The
mink is a strong indicator species because of large existing databases, laboratory
dosing studies (Aulerich et al. 1973; Aulerich et al. 1974; Wobeser et al. 1976; Wren
et al. 1987a, 1987b; Dansereau et al. 1999; Basu et al. 2003b; Major et al. 2005;
Yates et al. 2005), widespread range, and relatively ubiquitous aquatic habitat use
(Yates et al. 2005).
5.5.1.2 River Otter (Lontra canadensis)
River otter are primarily piscivores although crayfish and mussels are also important
prey items. Reintroduction programs have assisted in a recolonization of much of
their former North American range. Because of their large home range (up to
177 km2) and ability for long-distance movements (up to 160 km) (Baker 1983),
body burdens of mercury in otter are generally not reflective of a specific water
body. Adult females without young have the smallest home ranges, whereas young
males have the greatest potential for long-distance dispersal. Otter are commonly
used as an indicator of aquatic mercury levels (Cumbie 1975b; Kucera 1983; Wren
1984; Wren et al. 1986; Foley et al. 1988; Evans 1995; Evans et al. 1998; Mierle
et al. 2000; Wren 1984; Yates et al. 2005). Field measurements of mercury exposure
are generally based on tissues similar to mink. Unlike mink, however, laboratory
information on Hg effects in otter is limited to 1 feeding study (O’Connor and

Nielsen 1981). Although the otter is approximately 10 times the weight of mink,
and therefore will tend to forage on larger prey items, mercury levels in each species
from the same area are generally similar or even higher in mink (Yates et al. 2005).
5.5.1.3 Raccoon (Procyon lotor)
The raccoon is widely distributed across most forested areas of North America. In
raccoon studies where a large number of samples were collected, hair Hg correlated
well with other tissues (e.g., Cumbie 1975a; Wolfe and Norman 1998; Lord et al.
2002). Hair mercury analysis for raccoons, therefore, reflects accumulation levels
in plant and animal food consumed, which varies with seasonal availability. For
example, in the Florida Everglades area of maximum Hg sediment levels, maximum
total Hg concentrations in potential prey species based on wet weight were 57.8
ng/g in aquatic vegetation, 74.4 ng/g in segmented worms, 496 ng/g in aquatic
insects, and 1160 ng/g in fish (Loftus et al. 1998). Apple snails in this area averaged
67 ng/g (Eisemann et al. 1997) and crayfish ranged from 32 ng/g in tissue to 81 ng/g
in exoskeleton (data from DG Rumbold as cited in Porcella et al. 2004). However,
in a review of mercury bioaccumulation in benthic invertebrates, Pennuto et al.
(2005) noted that mercury sorbed to exoskeleton is not likely to be bioavailable to
predators. Raccoons can be particularly valuable to define long-term trends in food-
chain proliferation if sampling is conducted during the same seasonal period every
year that is associated with the maximum mercury incorporation into hair tissue.
Although this may reflect the greatest biouptake from prey species, hair incorporation
of MeHg may lag behind the critical foraging period. The optimum sampling window
also will be constrained by the hair biological half-life (BT1/2), estimated to be about
130 days. Additional approaches to assess mercury uptake in raccoons using biom-
arkers of exposure such as metalothionein (Burger et al. 2000b) and food-web
analysis using stable isotopes (Gaines et al. 2002).
5.5.1.4 Bats
Bats are the second most diverse order of mammals (after rodents) and constitute a
substantial proportion of the mammalian biological diversity in the United States.
Under current taxonomy there are 45 species of bats in the continental United States.
Bats were not considered in the development of criteria for the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative (GLWQI), which regarded upper-trophic-level piscivores as species
most at risk. We believe that potential damage to bats should always be considered
when assessing risk or deriving standards for waterborne contaminants, especially
those that bioaccumulate. Given high throughput of potentially contaminated arthro-
pod prey, combined with the relatively long life of bats, one might expect unusual
bioaccumulation of stable contaminants relative to other small mammals. Their low
reproductive rate (1 to 2 young per year) and long life span make them particularly
vulnerable to bioaccumulative toxicants. Previously published total mercury levels
in bats from the United States are analytically significant, and in bats roosting in
abandoned mines, may be strikingly high. Data from northern California indicate
significant differences between the Myotis species feeding on emerging aquatic

insects from a mercury-polluted reservoir, Antrozous feeding on terrestrial insects
near the reservoir, and Plecotus roosting in a mine nearby. The Antrozous data,
although relatively low compared to the other 2, indicate a significant mercury
exposure from a terrestrial source (Slotton et al. 1995).
Assays on bats in Japan in an area of mercury fungicide use revealed partitioning
of Hg among various tissues with hair emerging as highest (Miura et al. 1978).
Exposed cyanide-charged process water from heap leach gold mining operations has
led to significant local bat mortality, demonstrating that bats will attempt to consume
chemically contaminated water with potentially aversive odor and elevated pH (Clark
et al. 1991; Clark and Hothem 1991). A bat of 10 g body weight, and 1 g/day food
intake rate, if feeding on insects with total Hg concentrations such as those found
in Clear Lake invertebrates, would be ingesting 5 to 20 times the mammalian Hg
NOAEL used in the GLWQI model (Fenton 1992; USEPA 1993a; USEPA 1993b;
USEPA 1995; USEPA 1997; Wolfe and Norman 1998).
5.5.1.5 Marine Mammals

Marine mammals encompass more than 120 living species within the orders Cetacea,
Carnivora, and Sirenia, in addition to the sea otter (Enhydra lutris) and polar bear
(Ursus maritimus) (Martin and Reeves 2002). Based on an assumption that anthro-
pogenic changes to the global mercury cycle have had greater effects in coastal
rather than open ocean waters, this discussion focuses on several species that are
found more in coastal habitats. As with other contaminants in marine mammals,
routes of mercury uptake of greatest concern are transplacental, via milk during
suckling period (generally less significant), and via diet (Law 1996; Das et al. 2003);
as with their terrestrial and freshwater counterparts, most dietary mercury is methyl-
mercury. Once in the body, mercury can be transported to tissues that include the
liver, kidney, muscle, skin, and hair. In general, most mercury in marine mammal
muscle tissue is methylmercury, whereas liver and kidney tissue typically contain
higher proportions of inorganic mercury (O’Hara et al. 2003).
Marine mammal mercury levels have been reported for 4 decades, and tissue
analyses have involved the liver and, to a lesser extent, kidney, muscle, blubber, and
hair (Law 1996; Wolfe et al. 1998; O’Shea 1999; Das et al. 2003; O’Shea and Tanabe
2003). The factors that can influence concentrations of mercury and other metals in
marine mammals include species, age, sex, location, and predominant forage or prey,
and concentrations will also depend on type and portion of tissue sampled, nutritive
condition, and disease incidence (O’Hara et al. 2003). A number of studies have
reported increasing mercury levels — and a decreasing percentage of MeHg in liver
and kidney tissue — with age (Law 1996; Das et al. 2003), although this pattern
has not been seen universally (see, for example, Atwell et al. 1998; Teigen et al.
1999). Species that would be potentially good indicators of changing mercury
loadings to coastal environments include belugas, narwhals (Monodon monoceros),
ringed seals (Phoca hispida), harbor seals, harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena),
and polar bears (Law 1996; Wagemann et al. 1996; Wagemann et al. 1998). A number
of methodological factors (including consideration of stranded animals vs. biopsies
of free-ranging individuals) should also be taken into account in assessing the

potential value as candidate biomonitor species for assessing responses to anthro-
pogenic load changes.
5.5.2 BIRDS
5.5.2.1 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
The bald eagle is distributed across North America. It is one of the most studied
birds and its life history characteristics are well known. It is a tertiary predator and
is indicative of food webs among all habitat types. The eagle’s diet consists mainly
of fish and other vertebrates associated with water bodies (Stalmaster 1987). Con-
centrations of mercury and other environmental contaminants have been measured
since the 1960s across its range (Wiemeyer et al. 1984; Wiemeyer et al. 1993). The
primary reason for using the eagle as a biosentinel species is its well-known life
history, the ability to measure reproductive outcome accurately, the long-term data-
base on both reproductive outcomes and concentrations of environmental contami-
nants, and its high visibility and appeal to humans. Concentrations of mercury have
been reported in eggs (Wiemeyer et al. 1984; Wiemeyer et al. 1993), blood (Welch
1994; Evers et al. 2005), and feathers of both nestlings and adults (Wood 1993;
Bowerman et al. 1994; Welch 1994; Wood et al. 1996; Bowerman et al. 2002).
Archived feathers from museum collections have been used to determine exposure
in the early 1900s (Evans 1993). Eagles have previously been identified as a useful
biosentinel species for water quality and have been proposed as an indicator of Great
Lakes water quality by the International Joint Commission (Bowerman et al. 2002).
5.5.2.2 Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
The osprey is an obligate piscivore with a broad global distribution and a well-
documented natural history (see many references in Poole 1989). The species benefits
from an opportunistic foraging strategy and highly adaptable nesting habits. Ospreys
have been regularly used as an indicator of contaminant exposure in regions such
as the Great Lakes (Hughes et al. 1997), Chesapeake Bay (Rattner et al. 2004),
Delaware Bay and surrounding regions (Clark et al. 2001), James Bay and Hudson
Bay regions of Quebec (DesGranges et al. 1998), the Pacific Northwest (Elliott et al.
1998; Elliott et al. 2000), Oregon (Henny et al. 2003), and elsewhere. Mercury
exposure has been reported for blood, adult and nestling feathers, and eggs (Wie-
meyer et al. 1987; Anderson et al. 1997; Hughes et al. 1997; Cahill et al. 1998; Odsjo
et al. 2004; Toschik et al. 2005). Mercury levels in blood of nestling ospreys have
been found to be highly correlated with levels found in ingested prey, and are often
less variable than other tissue types. Relationships between nestling osprey blood
and feathers (r 2 = 0.75; DesGranges et al. 1998) are similar to those often reported
in bald eagles (Wood 1993; Welch 1994; Weech et al. 2003). Adult feathers, often
collected from the vicinity of nests and thought to reflect accumulation from the
same area the previous year provide a significant excretory route for mercury and
display higher mercury concentrations than nestling feathers (DesGranges et al.
1998). Osprey eggs are useful indicators of spatial and temporal trends in mercury
exposure (Wiemeyer et al. 1984; Wiemeyer et al. 1987; Clark et al. 2001); however,
eggs may not reflect contamination in the local food web in areas where they are
laid before ice-out (DesGranges et al. 1999). Impacts of mercury on reproductive
rates of ospreys have not been documented despite chronic exposure levels in some
populations studied (i.e., impoundments in Quebec). Toxic effects may be greatest
on post-fledge nestlings, because their feather molt no longer provides an excretory
route for mercury.
5.5.2.3 Common Loon (Gavia immer)
This obligate piscivore is long-lived and during the breeding season is generally
limited to a territory on a single lake (multiple lake territories are well known for
lakes less than 60 acres; Piper et al. 1997; Piper et al. 2000). Other loon species,
such as the yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii) and Pacific loon (Gavia pacifica),
also well-represent mercury exposure on breeding territory lakes, whereas the widely
roaming feeding habits of red-throated loons (Gavia stellata) make that species less
useful for lake-specific exposure determinations. Common loon body mass varies
dramatically by sex (average of 25% difference) and geographic area (contrasts of
up to 50%) and therefore impact size of prey fish taken (Evers 2004). Generally,
prey fish range from 10 to 25 cm and forage preferences on breeding lakes are
yellow perch (Perca flavescens) (Barr 1986), centrarchids, and other species with a
zigzag escape mechanism. Considerable efforts have been made to establish exposure
profiles across North America (Evers et al. 1998; Evers et al. 2003b); and certain
geographic high risk areas, such as Wisconsin (Meyer et al. 1998; Fevold et al. 2003),
New England and New York (Evers et al. 1998; Evers et al. 2003a), eastern Ontario
(Scheuhammer et al. 1998a), southern Quebec (Champoux 1996; Champoux et al.
2005), and the Canadian Maritimes (Burgess et al. 1998; Burgess et al. 2005).
Because most lake systems are not connected to waterborne point sources, much of
the mercury contamination represents atmospheric deposition. The use of blood and
eggs has been shown to strongly reflect dietary uptake of fish Hg levels from breeding
lakes (Meyer et al. 1995; Scheuhammer et al. 1998a; Evers et al. 2005). Large
standardized databases (>3000 blood and >800 egg mercury levels (Evers and Clair
2005)), the ability to easily monitor marked individuals and recapture known indi-
viduals, high between-year breeding territory fidelity (Evers 2004), and new hus-
bandry techniques (Kenow et al. 2003) make this species an important indicator for
lakes and reservoirs.
5.5.2.4 Common Merganser (Mergus merganser)
This cavity-nesting duck is an obligate piscivore. It is well distributed across much

of the northern United States and Canada. Breeding habitat includes both rivers and
lakes. Only females incubate the generally 8 to 11 eggs laid. Dump-nesting, multiple
females laying eggs in the same nest, is common and can result in greater than 20
eggs in a single nest. Well-established husbandry practices for waterfowl provide
considerable potential for high-resolution laboratory studies for the common mer-
ganser. These characteristics, tied with the ability to direct nesting locations with
the use of nest-boxes and the merganser’s tendency to forage on fish and other small
aquatic prey within a relatively small territory, make it a valuable indicator species
for lakes, reservoirs, and large rivers (Timken and Anderson 1969; Mallory 1994;
Champoux 1996; Ross et al. 2002; Champoux et al. 2005; Evers et al. 2005).
5.5.2.5 Seabirds
Seabirds have a wide distribution in marine, coastal, and inland aquatic environ-
ments, and many individual species have wide, worldwide, geographical ranges
(common tern, black tern (Chlidonia niger), sooty tern (Sterna fuscata), herring gull,
cormorant (Phalacrocorax sp.)). Seabirds are useful as bioindicators of coastal and
marine pollution (Hays and Risebrough 1972; Gochfeld 1980; Walsh 1990; Furness
and Camphuysen 1997). Seabirds, defined as birds that spend a significant proportion
of their life in coastal or marine environments, are exposed to a wide range of
chemicals because most occupy higher trophic levels, thus making them susceptible
to bioaccumulation of pollutants. Selection of a particular species should depend on
its life history strategy, breeding cycle, behavior and physiology, diet, and habitat
uses (Burger et al. 2001). The relative proportion of time marine birds spend near
shore, compared to pelagic environments, influences their exposure.
Multiple seabird species have been used as bioindicators for mercury, other
metals, pesticides, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and petroleum products, particularly
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (Burger and Gochfeld 2002). Because many species of
seabirds eat mainly fish, indicators can be selected that are abundant locally and are
at the top of their food chains. Eggs and feathers can be collected easily for most
seabirds, and internal tissues can be collected where necessary. Some seabird species,
such as the Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) have pelagic surface-
feeding habits yet breed on offshore islands, thus serving as a potential bioindicator
of trends in long-range atmospheric transport of mercury (Burgess and Braune 2002).
5.5.2.5.1 Common Terns (Sterna hirundo)
Common terns are widely distributed throughout the Northern Hemisphere, and into
the Southern Hemisphere. They breed in a range of habitats from freshwater lakes
to estuarine, coastal, and marine islands (Nisbet et al. 2002). They are long-lived
seabirds (up to 30 years) that show a general fidelity to the same nesting area, and
eat exclusively fish. They can be indicative of mercury exposure to predatory fish,
and for other fish-eating birds. Data on status and trends in mercury and other
contaminants exist for common terns from Europe (Becker and Sommer 1998), the
Great Lakes (Stendell et al. 1976), and eastern North America (Burger and Gochfeld
1988; Burger and Gochfeld 2003). Thus, common terns are useful both on a temporal
and spatial scale. Levels of mercury can be compared in parents and their eggs
(Burger et al. 1999) in individually marked birds at different times, and in terns of
different ages (Burger 1994). Data exist for mercury and other metals, PCBs (Hart
et al. 2003), and DDT (Fox 1976).
Common tern tissues previously used for examining status and trends in mercury
include feathers, eggs, and internal tissues. Common terns are migratory in most
areas, requiring that information on time of arrival on the breeding grounds. Birds
normally arrive 4 to 6 weeks before breeding (Burger and Gochfeld 1991) so levels
in eggs represent local exposure. The feathers of young birds can be used as indi-
cators of local exposure because parents provision chicks with fish from within a
few kilometers.
5.5.2.5.2 Herring Gull (Larus argentatus)
Herring gulls are widely distributed in the Northern Hemisphere. They breed in a
wide range of habitats, from freshwater lakes to estuarine and coastal environments,
from sandy beaches to salt marshes, rocky ledges, cliffs, and trees (Pierotti and Good
1994; Burger and Gochfeld 1996a). They are long-lived seabirds (up to 40 years)
that return to the same nesting colonies for many years. They eat a wide range of
foods, from offal and garbage to carrion, invertebrates, and fish. They are useful as
indicators because they are long-lived, breed on the same islands for many years,
are very abundant and a pest species in many regions (making collection very easy),
are amenable to laboratory experiments, some are nonmigratory, and there is an
extensive literature on mercury levels. They have been used to assess status and
trends for mercury and other metals in the Great Lakes and eastern North America
(Burger and Gochfeld 1995; Gochfeld 1997) and in Europe. Herring gull eggs have
been used to assess chlorinated hydrocarbons, particularly in the Great Lakes
(Mineau et al. 1984; Oxynos et al. 1993; Pekarik and Weseloh 1998). Young herring
gulls have also been used in the laboratory to examine neurobehavioral deficits
(Burger et al. 2002) and to correlate tissue levels with effects for lead (Burger 1990;
Burger and Gochfeld 2000a), making them a useful model for metal effects.
Herring gull tissues used include eggs, feathers and internal tissues. Herring
gulls are migratory in most places, and nonmigratory in others, requiring assessors
to understand the local ecology. Eggs and feathers of young birds are normally
indicative of local exposure because parents arrive a month or 2 before egg-laying,
and obtain all food for their chicks locally. Because parents have high nest site
fidelity, the same individuals could be followed for several years.
5.5.2.5.3 Double-Crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus)
This species is the most widely distributed and abundant cormorant, found both on
inland lakes and along all the coasts of North America. Their natural history is well-
characterized and they are exclusively piscivorous, all features that promote their
use as biosentinel species. Mercury residues and effects have been documented in
cormorants in a number of studies (Henny et al. 1989, 2002; Burger and Gochfeld
1996b; Mason et al. 1997; Cahill et al. 1998; Sepulveda et al. 1998; Wolfe and
Norman 1998a, 1998b; Burger and Gochfeld 2001). Cormorants are abundant and
not a threatened species anywhere in their range, thereby simplifying sampling.
5.5.2.5.4 Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alycon)
This short-lived species (3 years on average) is ubiquitous across much of North
America and feeds exclusively on aquatic organisms. Prey size for adults varies from
5 to 12 cm. Kingfisher breeding territories generally encompass a 1- to 2-km area
along a river, lake, or ocean shoreline from their sandbank burrow, and they occur
across all general aquatic habitat types (marine, estuarine, riverine, and lake).
Kingfishers are used to characterize waterborne mercury point sources (Baron et al.
1997) and in some cases atmospheric deposition sources (Evers et al. 2005). The
strength of the kingfisher as an indicator species is its widespread distribution,
ubiquitous aquatic habitat use, large and consistent clutch size (7 eggs), and ease of
capture. However, multiple aquatic habitat types within a kingfisher territory can
diminish the kingfisher’s utility as an indicator of a target water body.
5.5.2.5.5 Egrets and Herons
Great blue herons (Ardea herodias) are among the upper-trophic-level piscivores at
risk from environmental contaminants that bioconcentrate in aquatic food chains.
Three large heron colonies located on the shore of Clear Lake in 1993 (2 in 1994)
were useful for measuring mercury uptake by nestlings as a function of distance
from the mercury source (Wolfe and Norman 1998). Great blue herons are widely
distributed and often nest near contaminated sites, so there is substantial fund of
comparative data (Quinney and Smith 1978; Hoffman 1980; Elliott et al. 1989;
Fleming et al. 1985; Block 1992; Butler et al. 1995). Heron colonies in the western
coastal states have been useful for monitoring contaminant concentrations in lakes,
rivers, and estuaries. Mercury levels in heron tissue have been measured at a number
of sites in the United States and elsewhere, providing a broad basis for comparison
(Faber et al. 1972; Van Der Molen et al. 1982; Blus et al. 1985; Elliott et al. 1989).
Heron chicks are siblicidal; the first-hatched nestling often kills or ejects from the
nest subsequent hatchlings. These “excess” chicks can be collected for residue
analysis without concern for population impacts.
The closely related great egret (Ardea albus) has a similarly wide distribution
and life history, and has been successfully employed in mercury monitoring in the
Florida Everglades (Hothem et al. 1995; Bouton et al. 1999; Duvall and Barron 2000;
Rumbold et al. 2001; Spalding et al. 2000a, 2000b). Mercury uptake by great egrets
has also been reported in China (Burger and Gochfeld 1993) and San Francisco Bay
(Hothem et al. 1995).
5.5.2.6 Insectivorous Birds
Although piscivorous species are at higher trophic levels than insectivorous species,
there is increasing concern that insectivorous songbirds also are at risk. In some
studies, blood mercury levels in insectivorous songbirds exceed those of associated
piscivores (Evers et al. 2005). Urban estuaries, freshwater wetlands, bogs, and acidic-
montane habitats are among the potentially high-risk areas with increased MeHg
availability (Evers et al. 2004). Species identified as suitable indicators of these
habitats generally are those that are strictly insectivorous, have relatively small
territories, and/or have known impacts. Estuarine species of interest include rails,
especially clapper rails (Rallus longirostris) (Schwarzbach et al. 2000), saltmarsh
sharp-tailed sparrows (Ammodramus caudacutus), and seaside sparrows (Ammodra-
mus maritimus). Montane bird communities in the Northeast appear to have elevated
blood mercury levels (Rimmer et al. 2005), which is of particular concern for the
relatively endemic Bicknell’s thrush (Cathartus bicknelli). This finding also indicates
that strictly terrestrial environments can contain available MeHg at levels that may
put nonaquatic species as risk. Western montane habitats may be best monitored
with the American dipper (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). Use of aquatic habitat generalists
as indicators of MeHg availability is needed. Tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor)

quickly colonize new areas, use nest boxes that provide ease of accessibility, and
are part of recent experimental dosing studies (Echols et al. 2004; Custer et al. 2005;
Mayne et al. 2005), as well as having documented exposure and uptake of metals
(Kraus 1989; Nichols et al. 1990; Barlow 1993; Bishop et al. 1995a). Although other
swallow species are less responsive to artificial structures, experiments designed to
measure environmental mercury levels can opportunistically employ these ubiqui-
tous insectivores as well (Grue et al. 1984; King et al. 1994; Ellegren et al. 1997).
European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) also utilize nestboxes (Wolfe and Kendall
1998), and a protocol exists for the use of starling nestboxes in toxicity studies
(Kendall et al. 1989). At Clear Lake, California, where mercury enters the lake from
a point source (an abandoned mine), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus),
Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and cliff swallow (Hirundo pyrrho-
nota) nestlings were sampled to confirm that these insectivorous birds were exposed
to Hg and MeHg and to see if an effect of distance from the mine was evident in
this lower trophic level. Samples of insect food collected from passerine foraging
areas contained 0.01 to 0.420 ppm total mercury. Total mercury residues in nestlings
were 0.018 to 0.03 ppm in brain; 0.094 to 0.322 ppm in feathers, for all ages of all
3 species (Wolfe and Norman 1998). A similar multi-species approach was com-
pleted at a Superfund site on the Sudbury River (Massachusetts) and was used to
characterize mercury exposure and risk to insectivorous birds (Evers et al. 2005).
Same-site comparisons show blood mercury levels in song and swamp sparrows
(Melospiza melodia) and (M. georgiana) consistently exhibited greater blood mer-
cury levels than yellow warblers (Dendoica petechia) and common yellowthroats
(Geothlypis trichas). Blood mercury levels were highest in red-winged blackbirds
(>1.2 ppm, ww) and northern waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) (>1.6 ppm, ww).
5.5.3 REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

5.5.3.1 Reptiles
5.5.3.1.1 Alligators
Alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) are top-level predators that live at the
water/land interface in the southeastern part of the United States. They are useful
bioindicators because they eat large fish, turtles, and even egrets, and can be indic-
ative of exposure of other top-level carnivores, including wading birds, hawks, and
humans. They have been used as bioindicators of organochlorines and endocrine
disruptors (Heinz et al. 1991; Guillette et al. 1994; Guillette et al. 1996) and heavy
metal contamination, including mercury (Delany et al. 1988; Heaton-Jones et al.
1997; Yanochko et al. 1997). There are studies of mercury in alligators from many
places within the Southeast (Ruckel 1993; Yanochko et al. 1997; Brisbin et al. 1998),
making them useful for this geographical region. As well as internal tissues, tail and
skin have been used as bioindicators of exposure; skin gave the highest correlation
with mercury levels in internal tissues (Burger et al. 2000a).
5.5.3.1.2 Water Snakes

Water snakes (Nerodia sp.) are commonly distributed throughout the United States
east of the Rockies, and occur in rivers, lakes, streams, marshes, and adjacent
uplands. They are carnivorous, foraging on a wide range of invertebrates, amphib-
ians, and fish. They are useful because they are top-level predators, there is a vast
literature on their ecology and behavior, and there is more information on contam-
inants in this snake than any other (Campbell and Campbell 2001). They thus provide
information on the land/water interface. They have been used as bioindicators in
many regions, including the Northeast (Burger et al. 2004), the Southeast (Campbell
et al. 1998), and the Great Lakes Basin (Bishop and Rouse 2000), and in the closely
related diamondback water snakes (Nerodia rhombifer) and blotched water snakes
(Nerodia erythrogaster) in Texas (Clark et al. 2000).
5.5.3.1.3 Turtles
The snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) is distributed across North America east
of the Rockies. It is well studied and many of its life-history characteristics are
known. It is a tertiary predator and scavenger of aquatic systems and is indicative
of food webs among freshwater habitat types. The snapping turtle’s diet consists
mainly of fish and other vertebrates associated with aquatic systems (Bishop et al.
1995b). Concentrations of mercury and other environmental contaminants have been
collected from the 1990s to present across its range (Bishop et al. 1998; Golet and
Haines 2001). The primary reason for the turtle as a biosentinel species is its well-
known life history, the ability to collect eggs from the wild and hatch them in
captivity, the long life span and small home ranges of turtles, and widespread
distribution and relative intolerance to human activities. Concentrations of mercury
have been reported in eggs and in tissues of both nestlings and adults (Meyers-
Schoene and Walton 1990; Meyers-Schone et al. 1993; Bonin et al. 1995; Bishop
et al. 1998; Golet and Haines 2001; Ashpole et al. 2004). Turtles were previously
proposed as a useful biosentinel species for water quality and are continuing in the
development stage (Nisbet 1998).
5.5.3.2 Amphibians
Very little data exist on mercury levels in amphibians. Recent efforts by Bank et al.
(2005) indicate that the northern 2-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata bislineata)
is a top indicator of MeHg in stream ecosystems. Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) are
abundant and widely distributed. In the West, they are pests, making their use in
toxicity studies particularly attractive in that part of the country. They have been
used for mercury studies by several investigators (Birge and Just 1973; Tsuchiya
and Okada 1982; Sillman and Weidner 1993; McCrary and Heagler 1997; Burger
and Snodgrass 1998; Rowe et al. 1998).
Table 5.1 summarizes the species listed above and ranks them as potential
bioindicators of mercury contamination according to the characteristics discussed,
from 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest), based on the assessments above and the best profes-
sional judgement of the authors of this chapter.
TABLE 5.1
Desirable characteristics of candidate biomonitor species and ranking
according to characteristic
Well-developed and usable

Economical/cost effective
Broad distribution with
Suitable for lab studies
to impact populations
Common enough not
Important to humans
Well-known ecology
Easily measured and
Sensitive, indicative
accompanying data
readily observable
with existing data

and life history
of change
Mammals
Mink 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Raccoon 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3
River otter 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
Bats 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2
Beluga whale 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 3 3
Narwhal 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 3
Ringed seal 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3
Harbor seal 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3
Harbor porpoise 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3
Polar bear 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 3 3
Birds
Common loon 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3
Double-crested cormorant 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3
Seabirds 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
Great blue heron 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 3
Great egret 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3
Common and hooded merganser 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3
Bald eagle 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 1
Osprey 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 2
Rail spp. 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2
Willet 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
Herring gull 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3
Common tern 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Belted kingfisher 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3
Insectivorous songbirds
Tree swallow 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2
Bicknell’s and wood thrush 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 3
European starling 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3
Louisiana and northern waterthrush 3 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 3
Red-winged blackbird 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3
Sharp-tailed and seaside sparrow 3 1 3 2 1 2 3 2 2

Desirable characteristics of candidate biomonitor species and ranking
according to characteristic
Well-developed and usable

Economical/cost effective
Broad distribution with
Suitable for lab studies
to impact populations
Common enough not
Important to humans
Well-known ecology
Easily measured and
Sensitive, indicative
accompanying data
readily observable
with existing data

and life history
of change
Reptiles
Crocodile 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1
Alligator 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 2
Snapping turtle (East) 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 3
Red-eared slider (West) 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 3
Water snake 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3
Lizards
Sceloporus 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2
Amphibians
Bullfrog 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 3
Two-lined salamander (East) 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
Slender salamander (West) 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
Based on the scoring in Table 5.1 (summing scores for each species), candidate
bioindicator species can be ranked within a taxonomic group according to suitability
for a mercury monitoring program for North America:
• Terrestrial and aquatic mammals, from highest to lowest: mink, raccoon,

river otter, bats.
• Marine mammals: ringed seal, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, beluga whale,
narwhal, polar bear.
• Birds: common loon, common tern, common merganser, herring gull, tree
swallow, red-winged blackbird, European starling, belted kingfisher, great
egret, great blue heron, bald eagle, double-crested cormorant, other seabirds.
• Reptiles: water snake, alligator, snapping turtle, red-eared slider, Sceloporus
sp.
• Amphibians: bullfrog, 2-lined salamander, slender salamander.
5.5.4 OTHER POTENTIAL INDICATORS

5.5.4.1 Albatrosses
Although not used extensively, albatrosses should prove useful because they are very
long-lived (60 years or more), have high fidelity to their nest sites, and bioaccumulate
contaminants over time. Disadvantages include a wide feeding range (often several
hundred kilometers from the breeding colony), and often variability in feeding
ranges. Nonetheless, they are vulnerable to contamination, and were used as an
indicator of lead poisoning on Midway Island. Baseline data on mercury and other
metals exist from Midway and elsewhere that could be used for future assessment
(Thompson et al. 1993; Kim et al. 1996; Hindell et al. 1999; Burger and Gochfeld
2000b).
5.5.4.2 Hawks
The concentration of mercury in terrestrial ecosystems has been determined through

the use of tissue samples from hawks and other birds of prey. Feathers of the northern
goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) have been used to determine the concentration of
mercury in Sweden (Wallin 1984). Feathers of other hawks, including the red-tailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus), eagle owls (Bubo bubo),
gyrfalcons (Falco rusticolus), and merlin (Falco columbarius), have also been used.
Hawks occupy the tertiary predator role of terrestrial food webs; and as with other
semi-aquatic predatory birds, they are useful indicators of bioaccumulative com-
pounds in the environment. With the lack of any well-developed indicator species
for the terrestrial system, monitoring projects using hawks and other birds of prey
should be developed.
5.5.5 IDENTIFICATION OF INDICATORS THROUGH DEVELOPMENT

OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WILDLIFE
Development of water quality criteria (WQC) in the United States is an additional

process that has involved identifying wildlife indicators for mercury (and other
contaminant) exposure. As part of the development of uniform water quality stan-
dards for the Great Lakes states, the USEPA derived water quality criteria for
protection of wildlife for 4 pollutants, including mercury (U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations, 40 CFR Part 132). The approach involved both an exposure and a
hazard component, and derivation of criteria values for 5 species of concern (eagles,
herring gull, kingfisher, mink, and otter). The criteria were converted to total mercury
concentrations in water, and the geometric mean for avian species yielded a value
of 1.3 ng/L as the wildlife value (reviewed in Nichols et al. (1999)). A similar
approach in the USEPA Mercury Study Report to Congress for 5 species (with
kingfisher replacing osprey in the group above) yielded wildlife values ranging from
0.6 ng/L for kingfisher to 1.8 ng/L for eagles (USEPA 1997). (There is currently no
formal national WQC guideline in the United States explicitly developed for pro-
tection of wildlife from mercury, or any other chemical.)
There have also been efforts in individual states in the United States to develop
WQC for wildlife. For example, Maine is currently developing a mercury wildlife
value, and research on loons in the region has been used in support of that effort.
Based on adult loon blood levels leading to impairments in fledged young, and
default bioaccumulation factors, a wildlife value (expressed on a total mercury
concentration basis) was derived (Evers et al. 2003a). In an additional assessment
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the protectiveness of the USEPA’s MeHg
criterion for protection of human health (USEPA 2001) to also protect wildlife, in
California it was found that under the highest trophic level approach, the criterion
(0.3 µg/g in fish) would not offer protection for 2 federally listed species (California
least tern and Yuma clapper rail) (Russell 2003).
Despite these efforts, there are recognized difficulties in deriving a single water
quality criterion for mercury, given the number of factors impacting MeHg formation
and bioaccumulation. These issues have been raised previously in the literature
(Kelly et al. 1995; Meyer 1998), and are reviewed again in Chapters 3 and 4. Moore
et al. (2003) addressed limitations in this approach by developing a water quality
criteria model that incorporated factors impacting bioavailability, methylation rates,
and bioaccumulation in aquatic systems, based on an analysis of data from 41 lakes.
Based on the use of mink mortality as the endpoint and on a probabilistic model
relating MeHg levels in water to fish levels, a model allowing for site-specific inputs
was developed. This model will need to be evaluated with larger data sets across a
wide variety of watersheds and water-body biogeochemical characteristics to deter-
mine its broader applicability.
5.6 TISSUE AND OTHER SAMPLES

5.6.1 HAIR
Hair has been recognized as a bioaccumulator of heavy metals since before the turn
of the century. It was used in forensic studies before environmental studies because
of the earlier interest in forensic matters. As early as 1908, there were reports of
arsenic in horsehair near a smelter in Montana. The use of hair for determining body
burden of mercury and other metals has been recognized for many years (Aoki 1970;
Eyl 1971; Albanus et al. 1972; Birke et al. 1972; Roberts et al. 1974). The develop-
ment of simpler and more accurate detection methods in the 1960s and 1970s,
coupled with interest in environmental monitoring, led to its widespread use as a
bioindicator. Jenkins (1980), in conducting an USEPA review of biological moni-
toring, concluded that hair is a good bioindicator for certain elements. Huckabee
et al. (1973), working with coyotes and rodents (e.g., mice, voles, chipmunk, por-
cupine), first suggested a strong positive correlation between environmental mercury
and hair mercury. They estimated that wildlife hair levels exceeding a mean of about
0.6 ppm may be evidence of an abnormally high occurrence of mercury in the
environment, and concluded that hair may serve as an effective monitor of environ-
mental mercury. Since then, data on hair mercury in wild populations have been
reported for bobcats, raccoons, opossum, fox, deer, squirrels, mink, otter, bear, wild
boar, mountain goat, elk, muskrat, beaver, and panther. Hair mercury levels are often
higher than levels in other tissues and have been significantly correlated (p < 0.01)
with mercury concentrations in other tissues for a number of species (Cumbie
1975b). Another important advantage of the use of hair as a bioindicator is the
existence of inter-laboratory validation programs for hair analysis such as that
initiated and maintained by Environment Canada, an outgrowth of the use of hair
in human forensic studies. Most investigators report that hair mercury strongly
correlates with concentrations in internal tissues (Farris et al. 1993; Nielsen et al.
1994; Evans et al. 2000; Mierle et al. 2000). However, a recent study on mink in
South Carolina and Louisiana found that no correlation existed between Hg con-
centrations in hair and other tissues, or among Hg concentrations from hair taken
from 3 locations on the same carcass (Tansy 2002). Additional standardization of
hair collections from carcasses and assessment of relationships between hair and
tissue Hg concentrations is necessary to ensure comparability among geographic
locations.
5.6.2 FEATHERS
Feathers are useful indicators of heavy metal contamination, particularly for mercury.
However, they are not useful for other contaminants. Birds sequester heavy metals
in their feathers during feather formation, and the intact feather is a record of
exposure during that time. The proportion of the body burden that is in feathers is
relatively constant for each metal, and a relatively high proportion of the body burden
of certain metals is stored in the feathers (Burger 1993). For mercury, about 70%
(Honda et al. 1986) to 93% (Braune and Gaskin 1987) of the body burden is in
feathers, and greater than 95% of the mercury in feathers is MeHg (Thompson and
Furness 1989a, 1989b). Monteiro et al. (1998) demonstrated that there is a high
correlation between levels of mercury in the diet of seabirds and levels of mercury
in their feathers; thus, feathers can be used as indicators of food chain effects. Evers
et al. (1998) showed that inter-compartmental relationships, such as between loon
blood and feathers, are complex and are heavily influenced by lifetime body burdens
and throughput; in the continental loon study, the annual increase for males was 9%.
Feather collection is a nondestructive, noninvasive method of obtaining mercury
exposure. It is thus especially useful for threatened or endangered species (Gochfeld
and Burger 1998). Feathers can also be used to examine age and gender effects
(Thompson et al. 1991). Because feathers are stable, and do not break down over
time, they can be archived for later analysis, providing the opportunity to analyze
temporal trends using the same instrumentation. Feathers in museum collections
have proven particularly useful for examining changes in mercury levels over cen-
turies (Berg et al. 1966; Walsh 1990; Thompson et al. 1992). Furthermore, there are
several archived collections of feathers for several species in university collections,
as well as in museums. Care must be taken to consider the preservation method for
feathers, as mercury and arsenic were sometimes used.
The use of feathers as an indicator of mercury exposure requires understanding
the life cycle and ecology of each species. Because some species migrate, the location
of exposure can be problematic. However, this disadvantage can be eliminated by
using nonmigratory species and young birds nearly ready to fledge (Burger 1993).
Local exposure can be compared to exposure on the wintering grounds in adults
that incubate for at least 3 weeks by collecting breast feathers at the beginning of
incubation, and then collecting the regrown feathers after 3 weeks (Burger et al. 1992).
5.6.3 EGGS
Eggs are important indicators of adult exposure and effects of environmental con-
taminants on embryos, usually the most sensitive stage for effects (Rudneva-Titova
1998; Bellas et al. 2001; Kiparissis et al. 2003). Eggs of reptiles and amphibians
(Bonin et al. 1995; Burger et al. 2000a), fish (McMurtry et al. 1989; Rudneva-Titova
1998; Tatara et al. 2002), invertebrates (Canli and Furness 1993), and birds (Scheu-
hammer et al. 2001; Champoux et al. 2002; Evers et al. 2003a) have been collected
from the field to determine exposure to environmental contaminants. Eggs have been
collected from the field and incubated in laboratories to determine the effects of
contaminants on reproduction, survival, teratology, biochemical markers, and egg-
shell quality (Burger and Gochfeld 1988; Leonzio and Massi 1989; Eriksson et al.
1992; Bishop et al. 1998; de Solla et al. 2002; Cifuentes et al. 2003; Evers et al.
2003b). Eggs are collected either as fresh eggs (Becker et al. 1993) or as abandoned
or addled eggs (Koivusaari et al. 1980; Steidl et al. 1991; Ruelle 1992) for residue
studies. Maternal transfer of mercury to eggs represents body burdens and dietary
uptake. In loons, eggs and female blood mercury levels were strongly correlated
(r2 = 0.79), establishing recent dietary uptake as the pathway most responsible (Evers
et al. 2003b).
5.6.4 ORGANS
5.6.4.1 Blood
The blood compartment provides a method for determining recent MeHg uptake.
Nearly all mercury (>95%) in the blood of mammals and birds is in the form of
MeHg (Thompson 1996). The half-life of MeHg in the blood of juvenile common
loons is 114 days (Fournier et al. 2002). However, if an organism travels from a low
mercury risk site to a high mercury risk site, mercury levels from the latter site will
be reflected. For example, adult common loons migrating from marine areas (blood
mercury levels range from 0.1 to 1.1 ppm, ww) to interior freshwater systems (blood
mercury levels range from 0.3 to 9.5 ppm, ww) are moving from generally low to
high risk areas and therefore their blood mercury levels quickly reflect the increase
in MeHg availability. Further evidence is the strong relationship between prey fish
and adult blood mercury levels on breeding lakes (r2 = 0.80) (Evers et al. 2004).
5.6.4.2 Brain
Brain is a key tissue to analyze for mercury concentration because it is the site of
MeHg toxicity. The neurotoxic effects of MeHg in adult mammals include ataxia,
difficulty in locomotion; neurasthenia, a generalized weakness; impairment of hearing
and vision; tremor; and finally loss of consciousness and death (Eaton et al. 1980;
Wren et al. 1987b; Heinz 1996). Methylmercury damages primarily the cerebellum
and cerebrum (Chang 1990). Methylmercury accumulates preferentially in the pos-
terior cortex. Lesions in the cerebral and cerebellar cortex accompany these clinical
signs. Necrosis, lysis, and phagocytosis of neurons result in progressive destruction
of cortical structures and cerebral edema. O’Connor and Nielsen (1981) found
necrosis, astrogliosis, and demyelination in the cerebral and cerebellar cortex of the
otters that received 0.09, 0.17, and 0.37 mg/kg/d MeHg for 45 to 229 days. In adult
mammals, MeHg is preferentially taken up by glial cells; these appear particularly
susceptible to MeHg damage (Takeuchi 1977). Low concentrations (10–5 M) of
MeHg inhibit the ability of cultured rat brain astrocytes to maintain a transmembrane
K+ gradient, resulting in cellular swelling (Aschner et al. 1990). Methylmercury is
readily transferred across the placenta and concentrates selectively in the fetal brain.
Hg concentrations in the fetal brain were twice as high as in the maternal brain for
rodents fed MeHg (Yang et al. 1972).
In birds, a brain mercury concentration of less than 2 ppm wet weight was
associated with reduced egg laying, and impaired nest and territory fidelity in
common loons (Barr 1986). Black duck embryos with brain mercury concentrations
of 4 to 6 ppm failed to hatch (Finley and Stendall 1978). Brain mercury concentra-
tions of 20 ppm caused 25% mortality in mercury-exposed zebra finches (Scheu-
hammer 1988).
5.6.4.3 Liver
Liver is 1 of the tissues most frequently analyzed for contaminant residue in wildlife,
but maybe 1 of the least useful because of the poor correlation between liver mercury
concentration and effects, and because of the tendency of the liver to accumulate
mercury over time (Stewart et al. 1999; Scheuhammer et al. 2001). Liver is a major
site of demethylation; therefore, the proportion of liver mercury present as MeHg
is not representative of exposure to MeHg. Moreover, most mercury in liver is bound
to metallothionein or other sulfydryl-bearing proteins, which immobilize it (Med-
insky and Klaassen 1996; Yasutake et al. 1997; Aschner 1999). Therefore, liver
mercury residue values must be used with caution, and only when more suitable
tissues are unavailable.
5.6.4.4 Muscle
Most of the mercury in muscle is present as MeHg. Barr (1986) reported that adult
loons from a site closest to a mercury source with 1.87 ppm Hg in fish, resulted in
a muscle Hg concentration of 4.57 ppm ww and a brain Hg concentration of
1.49 ppm. Those loons had only 20% of territories successful (Barr 1986). Mallard
hens receiving 0.5 ppm dietary mercury for 18 months had a muscle Hg concentration
of 0.82 ppm compared with brain Hg = 0.50 ppm. Mallard hens receiving 3 ppm
for the same period had 5.01 ppm in muscle and 4.57 in brain (Heinz 1976). Based
on these assessments, muscle Hg concentration is more representative of brain Hg
concentration and correlates better with effect than the more commonly measured
liver residue. It is also possible to sample muscle tissue nonlethally via biopsy, in
situations where internal body tissue is needed in addition to or instead of feather

or fur (Anderson 1997; Dickinson et al. 2002).
5.6.4.5 Kidney
Kidney residue analysis is used primarily for inorganic mercury because that is
where inorganic mercury exerts its toxic action (Nicholson and Osborn 1983, 1984;
Goering et al. 1992). Analysis of mercury in kidney tissue was, along with liver,
relatively common in earlier field studies of mercury contamination in bird popula-
tions (e.g., reviewed in Heinz 1996; Thompson 1996). The kidney is a major repos-
itory of inorganic mercury in both birds and mammals, and a site where toxicity
can be manifested (see review in Wolfe et al. 1998). Both liver and kidney mercury
analyses have been common in studies of marine mammals (e.g., Law 1996; O’Shea
1999). As with liver data, interpretation of kidney mercury levels in marine mammals
can be challenging, due to the potential for both demethylation and sequestration
(e.g., as a mercury selenium compound) in the organ (e.g., Das et al. 2003; O’Hara
et al. 2003).
5.7 PHYSIOLOGICAL, CELLULAR, AND

MOLECULAR BIOMARKERS
Subcategories of bioindicators at suborganismal levels are generally referred to as
biomarkers. Biomarkers may reflect either exposure, effect, or susceptibility; of
these, biomarkers of effect are both more valuable and more difficult to find. An
ideal biomarker of mercury effect would be:
• Predictive (that is, it would reflect very early response to contaminant

impact, before functional damage has occurred) (Kreps et al. 1997)
• Specific for Hg or MeHg
• Based on samples that can be obtained nonlethally and noninvasively, and
that can be sampled repeatedly in the same individual
• Validated in wildlife species
Reported impacts of mercury on individuals can be categorized into physiological/

functional, morphological, behavioral, reproductive, and demographic.
Recent advances in molecular ecology and genetic analysis have increased our
ability to examine the effects of mercury. The replicability of genetic assays makes
them particularly attractive.
In this section, we discuss reported endpoints of mercury exposure and effect
at the sub-organismal level, and evaluate them as to their potential usefulness as
biomarkers, either alone or in combination. Although numerous mercury effects have
been documented in the ongoing effort to explicate the biochemical mechanism of
mercury toxicity, no known mercury endpoint fulfills the desirable criteria for a
biomarker. Given current knowledge, the most promising approach may be to iden-
tify not a single endpoint, but to combine a suite or panel of easily measured
nonspecific endpoints that occur together, and may in aggregate indicate MeHg
toxicity (Basu et al. 2006). A meta-analysis of existing published data may be a

fruitful first endeavor toward discovering the best candidates for such a fingerprint
(Bailar 1995; Ioannidis and Lau 1999). Next, because most sub-organismal endpoints
are studied in vitro, suitable mechanistic methods must be employed to predict which
are the most likely candidates to be verified in vivo (Ponce et al. 1998; Lewandowski
et al. 2001).
The work of Hoffman and Heinz illustrate how this approach can be applied in
wildlife species. They exposed mallards to MeHg, with or without selenium co-
exposure, and then measured hematocrit, hemoglobin, and plasma chemistries;
reduced and oxidized glutathione and activities of several glutathione pathway
enzymes, G-6-PDH activity, brain lipid peroxidation and thiobarbituric reactive
substances as an indicator of oxidative stress. These laboratory measurements con-
stituted a profile of cellular and biochemical MeHg and MeHg/Se effects, which
they then compared to those from wild-caught waterfowl from San Francisco and
Suisun Bays, and to tissue residues of mercury and selenium (Heinz and Hoffman
1998; Hoffman and Heinz 1998; Hoffman et al. 1998).
More recently, Henny et al. (2002) have applied this same profile approach to
double-crested cormorants, snowy egrets, and black-crowned night herons from the
Carson River system, demonstrating its across-species applicability. Henny and co-
workers expanded the profile to include histopathological parameters.
Specific biomarkers of mercury toxicity may well emerge from investigations
that employ technologies from outside the toxicological sciences to elucidate some
of the unique characteristics of mercury’s toxic mechanisms. For example, mercury
is 1 of the few environmental contaminants known to affect the visual system (Fox
and Boyes 2001). Electroretinography was used to measure visual changes in great
egrets and juvenile double-crested cormorants that had been experimentally dosed
with MeHg (Loerzel et al. 1996; Loerzel et al. 1999). Although the concentrations
of mercury in the ocular tissue were very low, retinal morphology was affected by
systemic exposure to MeHg.
Wildlife toxicologists should be attuned to developments in human health mer-
cury, as assays that have been used successfully on humans may be suitable or
adaptable for other vertebrate species. Echeverria and co-workers (Echeverria et al.
2005, 2006; Heyer et al. 2006) have characterized a gene encoding coproporphy-
rinogen oxidase, a gene in the heme biosynthetic pathway. Polymorphism in this
gene predicts differential response to elemental mercury exposure in human subjects.
Plans to modify this assay for other mercury species in matrices from wildlife are
under way.
Table 5.2 summarizes sub-organismal endpoints reported in the literature,
roughly categorized as hematological, enzymatic, immunological, and neurological,
although necessarily, there is much overlap.
5.7.1 WHAT IS IN THE PIPELINE? FUTURE AND PROMISING BIOMARKERS

Current work directed at elucidating the mechanism of mercury toxicity will be a
fertile area of research into potential sub-organismal biomarkers. Techniques including
TABLE 5.2
Mercury endpoints that may be useful as biomarkers
Endpoint Tissue or cell Species Nonlethal? Effect Ref.
Enzyme activity
Glutathione (GSH) Liver Mice No Decreased Balthrop and
Braddon
(1985)
Liver Greater scaup, surf No Decreased Hoffman et al.
scoter, ruddy (1998)
duck
GSH-S-transferase Liver Cormorant No Decreased Henny et al.
(1998)
Liver Snowy egret No Increased Henny et al.
(1998)
Liver Great egret No Increased Hoffman et al.
(2005)
GSH peroxidase Liver Surf scoter, ruddy No Decreased Hoffman et al.
duck (1998)
Liver, plasma Mallard duck No Decreased Hoffman and
Heinz (1998)
Liver Great egret No Decreased Hoffman et al.
(2005)
GSSG/GSH Liver Mallard duck No Increased Hoffman and
Heinz (1998)
Na+/K+-ATPase Ethyrocytes Rat N/A In vitro, not Maier and
in vivo Costa (1990)
Lactic Serum Harp seal Yes Increased Ronald et al.
dehydrogenase (1977)
Alkaline Serum Harp seal Yes Increased Ronald et al.
phosphatase (1977)
gamma-GC Kidney Mouse No Increased Yasutake and
Hirayama
(1994)
glucose-6-phosphate Liver Cormorant No Decreased Henny et al.
dehydrogenase (1998)
(G-6-PDH)
Liver Snow egret No Increased Henny et al.
(1998)
Liver Surf scoter No Decreased Hoffman et al.
(1998)
Liver Mallard duck No Decreased Hoffman and
Heinz (1998)
gamma- Brain Mice No Upregulated Li et al. (1996)
Glutamylcysteine in resistant
synthetase regions

Acetylcholinesterase Plasma Coturnix quail Yes Decreased Dieter and

Ludke (1975)
Benzopyrene Midgut gland, Carcinus crab Induced Fossi et al.
monooxygenase haemolymph, (1996)
gills
Blood
Hemoglobin Whole blood Mallard Yes Decreased Hoffman and
Heinz (1998)
Whole blood Mouse Yes Decreased Shaw et al.
(1991)
Erythrocytes Whole blood Harp seal Yes Decreased Ronald et al.
(1977)
White blood cell Whole blood Harp seal Yes Increased Ronald et al.
count (1977)
Inorganic Whole blood Yes Decreased Elbert and
phosphorus Anderson
(1998)
Monoamine oxidase Platelets Rats Yes Decreased Chakrabarti
activity et al. (1998)
Apoptosis, via Peripheral Human Yes Increased InSug et al.
reactive oxygen monocytes (1997)
species (ROS)
Blood cell ratio Whole blood Rainbow trout Yes No change Niimi and
Lowe-Jinde
(1984)
Great blue heron, Yes See text Wolfe and
Cliff swallow, Norman
Red-winged (1998)
blackbird
Packed cell volume Whole blood Rainbow trout Yes Increased Wobeser (1975)
Decreased Rogers and
Beamish
(1981)
Bass Yes Decreased Dawson (1982)
Flounder Yes Decreased Calabrese et al.
(1975)
Mallard Yes Decreased Hoffman and
Heinz (1998)
Mouse Yes Decreased Shaw et al.
(1991)

Packed cell volume Whole blood Great egret Yes Decreased Spalding et al.
(2000b)
Serum cholesterol Serum Quail Yes Decreased Leonzio and
Monaci
(1996)
Cortisol Plasma Rainbow trout Yes Increased Bleau et al.
(1996)
Plasma Walleye Yes Suppressed Friedmann et al.
(1996)
Thyroxine (T4) and Plasma — Bleau et al.
(1996)
Triiodothyroxine — —
(T3)
Immune function
Natural killer cell Lymphocytes Rat (prenatal and Yes Reduced Ilback et al.
lactation 42% (1991)
exposure)
Oligoclonal CD4+ Spleen, thymus Balb/c mouse No Increased in Heo et al.
T-cell response splenic, not (1997)
in thymic
White blood cell Whole blood Chicken Yes No change Holloway et al.
Phagocytosis (2003)
Isolated cells Depressed
Whole blood Loon No change
Calcium influx Immune Teleost fish — Increased Burnett (1997)
Monocyte Monocytes, Human * Decreased InSug et al.
phagocytosis in vitro (1997)
Apoptosis, via ROS Increased InSug et al.
(1997)
Macrophage centers Macrophages Pike (Esox lucius) No Increased Meinelt et al.
of liver, (1997)
kidney and
spleen
Hemagglutination Whole blood Mouse Yes Suppressed Blakeley et al.
titers (1980)
B-cell production Whole blood Mouse Yes Suppressed
t-cell apoptosis t-cells, in vitro Human * Increased Shenker et al.
(1998)
Tyrosine Lymphocytes Rat No Induced Allen et al.
phosphorylation (2001)

Genetic
Induction of Gadd45 Embryonic Mouse No Induced Ou et al. (1999)
and Gadd153 genes neuronal cells expression
of DNA
damage
genes
Gene expression of Peripheral Human (in vitro) Perhaps Down- Kishimoto et al.
monocyte blood regulated (1996)
chemotactic protein mononuclear
cells
DNA breaks, Exposed in vivo Mussels No Increased Bolognesi et al.
micronuclei (Mytilus (1999)
galloprovincialis)
DNA breaks Loon Increased Evers et al.
(2003)
DNA damage Cultured Hamster N/A Increased Costa et al.
fibroblasts, (1991)
cultured
neurons
delta- Exposed in situ Oyster (Ostrea Increased Brock (1993)
Aminolevulinic edulis)
acid
DNA synthesis Immune Teleost fish Yes Suppressed Burnett (1997)
Nervous tissue/cells
Monoamine oxidase Brain Rat No Decreased Chakrabarti
activity et al. (1998)
Serum antobodies to Serum Rat Yes Increased El-Fawal et al.
5 nervous tissue (1996)
proteins
Muscarinic receptor Brain Mink No Increased Basu et al.
binding (2006)
Dopaminergic Decreased Basu et al.
receptor binding (2005b)
Intracellular Ca2+ Cerebellar Rat No Increased Rossi et al.
concentration, granule cells (1997)
apoptosis
Cytosolic Cultured Mouse No Increased Shanker et al.
phospholipase A2 hippocampal (2002)
expression → neurons
arachadonic acid
release

Cystine uptake Cultured Mouse No Inhibited Allen et al.

astrocytes (2002)
Glutamate uptake Cultured Mouse No Inhibited Aschner et al.
astrocytes (2000)
Other
Microtubule Cultured neural Mouse N/A Increased, Miura et al.
depolymerazation cells inhibiting (1999)
cell growth
Ocular teratogenesis Optic organs CD-1 mouse No Increased Nemeth et al.
(microthalmia) embryos (2002)
Ocular development Suppressed
regulatory gene
function
Visual impairment Optic organs Great egret ? Increased Loerzel et al.
(1996)
Visual impairment Optic organs Double-crested ? Increased Loerzel et al.
cormorant (1999)
16s rRNA Embryo p53-deficient Decreased Knudsen et al.
mouse (2000)
Retinol and retinyl Liver Common eider No Increased Wayland et al.
palmitate (2003)
Retinol/ retinyl Increased Wayland et al.
palmitate ratio (2003)
Plasma/liver retinol Decreased Wayland et al.
ratio (2003)
Myosin ATPase Myocardium Rat No Inhibited Moreira (2003),
activity Moreira et al.
(2003)
Morphological Feathers Loon Increased Evers (2004)
asymmetry
Micronuclei Skin fibroblasts Beluga whales Yes Induced
Testicular atrophy Testes Walleye No Increased Friedmann et al.
(1996)
Glycogen storing Liver Yellow perch No Increased Hontela et al.
(1995)
molecular, electrophysiological, biochemical, and digital imaging are being

employed to define the action of mercury on specific nervous cell types and ion
channels. Other ongoing research addresses the developmental impacts of in utero
exposure to mercury, such as its role in causing high-frequency hearing impairment,
slowing the rate of information processing, and causing impaired spatial memory.
Investigations into the mechanism by which MeHg inhibits cell proliferation may
yield changes in MeHg-induced cell cycle regulatory proteins such as p21, GADD
45, and GADD 153, which can be measured in nonlethally-derived tissues by
RT-PCR.
5.8 ELEMENTS OF A BIOMONITORING FRAMEWORK

There has been increasing attention in the literature to concerns surrounding the
design and evaluation of environmental monitoring programs (e.g., Olsen et al. 1999;
Vos et al. 2000). Components discussed by Vos et al. (2000) that would cut across
the various aspects of a mercury monitoring network include identifying monitoring
objectives, objects, and variables; sampling strategy; data collection; data handling,
maintenance; and organization. (Additional general concerns regarding the estab-
lishment of a monitoring network that would also be applicable to wildlife moni-
toring are discussed in Chapter 6.)
While there have been numerous environmental monitoring programs developed
over the past several decades (for example, see Olsen et al. 1999) for review of U.S.
programs), there have been relatively few efforts that have included systematic
monitoring of mercury in wildlife.
5.8.1 MONITORING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

In designing a mercury monitoring network that includes a wildlife component, a
principal objective would be to document changes in mercury exposure (and poten-
tially effects) relative to changes in mercury loadings to an ecosystem. More specific
objectives might include the ability to:
1) Discern spatial differences and temporal changes in mercury exposures

(i.e., an assessment of concentrations in wildlife, as well as, potentially,
effects) in wide-ranging individual species.
2) Discern temporal changes in exposures (and potentially effects) in more
limited range species in specific locations of interest.
3) Identify the role of loadings versus other factors (e.g., food web changes)
in mercury exposure changes;
4) Identify the impact of changes in mercury releases from specific sectors
and/or geographic areas on exposures in specific locations.
The development of such a network must take into account the numerous vari-
ables and factors affecting mercury exposure and effects in wildlife species addressed
in this chapter, including geographic and habitat differences (both the broader dif-
ferences between the 4 major habitat types considered — terrestrial, freshwater,
coastal/estuarine, and marine — and differences (including trophic changes) within
each habitat type, and host factors (including species migratory status, home range
size, functional niche, diet, sex, and age). A mercury monitoring network for wildlife
must be integrated into the broader mercury monitoring context, taking into account
sources and atmospheric transport, deposition and watershed transport (Chapter 2),
cycling within a water body (Chapter 3), and uptake within the aquatic food web
(Chapter 4). Because wildlife (in particular, top-level predators) are the integrators
of a mercury signal that has already been integrated across several media (air, water,
sediments, and fish), the fourth objective is most challenging, and will require careful
attention in overall network development.
A number of medium- to long-term environmental monitoring networks and
programs have been developed over the past 4 decades in the United States, all of
which have had to deal with network design issues noted here. Some of these efforts
are summarized in Table 5.3. As indicated in Table 5.3, some programs have empha-
sized random or partially random designs, whereas others have utilized nonrandom
designs but based on specific site criteria.
Issues of sampling and analysis protocol development have arisen in environ-
mental specimen banking (ESB), which has been the subject of 2 international
conferences in the past 15 years (e.g., Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 139/140,
November 1993; Chemosphere, Vol. 34 (9–10), May 1997). Several programs using
the ESB approach in North America, and including mercury in the suite of chemicals
analyzed, include the Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project (AMMTAP)
(including analysis of beluga whale, and ringed, bearded, and harbor seal tissue)
(Becker et al. 1997); the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program
(MMHSRP) (initially involving sampling of marine mammals outside Alaska, and
now incorporating AMMTAP within it) (Becker et al. 1997; Becker 2000); and the
Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project (STAMP) (a newer program involv-
ing sampling of common and thick-billed murre and black-legged kittiwake eggs
from 12 colonies in Alaska) (Christopher et al. 2002). Other ESB and related con-
taminant monitoring programs for wildlife have been developed elsewhere, including
in Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Germany (see Chemosphere, Vol. 34
(9–10), May 1997). These existing ESB programs and other long-term research and
monitoring efforts can potentially assist in the development of a broader mercury
biomonitoring effort through both experience in sampling design and storage pro-
tocols as well as through the availability of tissue data (and potentially tissue
samples) for some species and regions that may be of interest in the development
of a new monitoring network.
A program of particular relevance to a continental mercury monitoring network
is the Global Loon Mercury Monitoring and Research Cooperative (GLMMRC),
which is a long-term monitoring program for levels of mercury in North American
freshwater bird species begun in 1991 (Evers 2004). A related but broader effort is
the Northeastern Ecosystem Research Cooperative (NERC), formed in 2000 with a
goal to promote collaboration among scientists in the northeastern United States and
Canada on landscape-level environmental issues (Evers and Clair 2005). Part of this
effort has entailed compiling and interpreting a large data set of more than 4700
records of avian mercury levels in northeastern North America. Based on consider-
ation of a number of the factors known to affect mercury levels, the researchers
identified 16 bird species that would be suitable as bioindicators for various habitats
(Evers et al. 2005). An additional model long-term trend program for wildlife
contaminants is the Canadian Wildlife Service’s Great Lakes Herring Gull Monitor-
ing Program, which has involved annual collection and analysis of eggs (including
for mercury) for the past 3 decades (Pekarik et al. 1998; Hebert et al. 1999).
TABLE 5.3
Selected U.S. environmental monitoring programs involving water quality
or wildlife
Sampling
Program Agency Resource sampled Design features frequency
Biomonitoring FWS Fish in rivers, Great Spatially Every 2 years

Status and Trends Lakes distributed using
Program — Fish site criteria
Biomonitoring FWS Starlings in terrestrial, Stratified random Every 3 years
Status and Trends riverine habitats
Program —
Starlings
Environmental USEPA Coastal waters Systematic grid Annually, with
Monitoring and (including fish, with random 4-year
Assessment benthos) start alternating
Program — panels
Estuaries
Environmental USEPA Streams, lakes Systematic grid Annually, with
Monitoring and (including fish) with random 4-year
Assessment start; 2-phase alternating
Program — Surface unequal panels
Waters probability
sampling
National Status and NOAA Estuaries, coastal Spatially Annual
Trends waters, Great Lakes distributed using
(including sediments, site criteria
mussels, fish)
North American NBS/CWS Birds (including in Stratified random Annual
Breeding Bird Alaska and portions (with access
Survey of Canada and restrictions)
Mexico)
National Stream USGS Major rivers Site criteria Annual
Quality Accounting
Network
National Water USGS Rivers, streams, Priority basin 9-year cycles;
Quality Assessment aquifers selection; site 20 basins
Program criteria within every 3 years
basin
(Adapted from Olsen et al. 1999). Abbreviations: CWS: Canadian Wildlife Service; USEPA: US Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency; FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service; NBS: National Biological Service; NOAA:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; USGS: U.S. Geological Survey.
Assuming limited resources, the wildlife component of a mercury monitoring

network would likely have to rely on analyses of tissue from a small subset of
candidate species identified earlier in this chapter, so identification of key species
that both meet the criteria as good current indicators (see Section 5.5) as well as
addressing some of the more specific objectives above would be necessary. Addi-
tional criteria would include species that have a strong aquatic link, small home
ranges, and be ubiquitous across ecosystems.
In addition, a decision would need to be made whether one is targeting bioin-
dicators of exposure or of effect and/or susceptibility. In the latter case, the ecoep-
idemiological approach advocated by Gilbertson (1997) could be pursued in the goal
of inferring causality, with 7 criteria to be used in demonstrating a causal link,
including strength, consistency, and specificity of association, time order, biological
gradient, experimental evidence, and biological plausibility (Adams 2003).
5.8.2 TREND DETECTION: THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES CASE STUDY

With the finding of high levels of mercury in Everglades fish and wildlife in 1989,
Florida began science, policy, and control initiatives to understand, and, it was hoped,
ameliorate, this problem (Figure 5.3). How to do so was all the more mystifying,
given the remote and seemingly pristine character of the Everglades. A key element
was a program of monitoring, modeling, and research into the sources and cycling
of mercury. The importance of trend information was recognized at the outset,
including retrospective information and prospective monitoring to assess the efficacy
of control policies.
In 1993, Florida began mercury pollution prevention efforts, adopting model
legislation to minimize mercury uses in commerce, followed in 1994 by the first
emissions limiting rule on mercury emissions from solid waste incinerators (the
forerunner of the USEPA Incinerator Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standard), and in 1995 by adopting the EPA MACT for medical waste
incineration. Together, these actions greatly reduced the high concentrations of
reactive gas-phase mercury (RGM) from incineration sources, the form that tends
35
GE MeHg
Great Egret or Great Blue Heron
30 GBH MeHg
25
MeHg (mg/kg)
20
15
10
0
1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Year
FIGURE 5.3 Increases in mercury concentrations of feathers of great egrets and great blue
herons in Florida.
to deposit on a local scale. Further pollution-prevention activities focused on mini-

mizing mercury uses in commercial, industrial, and hospital settings, realizing addi-
tional reductions in mercury use, and tighter controls on releases.
5.8.2.1 Retrospective Studies
To understand the antecedents of this problem, however, the first task was to put
contemporary data in historical perspective. Had mercury burdens in fish increased,
or were the high levels in bass from the Everglades a natural mercury condition of
the soils of the area? Investigations elsewhere had found atmospheric deposition to
have increased 3-fold at remote sites since the Industrial Revolution, and 5- to 10-fold
near cities or industrial centers. Analysis of Everglades sediment cores showed that
mercury accumulation rates at the surface were approximately 5-fold higher than in
1900 (Rood et al. 1995), indicating that Everglades sediments reflect the increasing
flux of mercury in the environment.
Monitoring mercury in the atmosphere has not been conducted long enough in
Florida or the United States to see unambiguous trends, but European studies have
documented increasing atmospheric mercury through the 1980s but trending down-
ward for the past decade. This is a hopeful sign that decreasing use of mercury and
control of emissions have begun to show the desired effect. How long it will take
to detect and evaluate trends in Florida waters and water bodies is not known.
5.8.2.2 Prospective Studies
Upon the initial findings of high levels of mercury in largemouth bass from the
Everglades, Florida began trend monitoring of this species that continues to the
present. Standard protocols were developed for sampling, testing, and normalizing
samples collected from 2 Everglades canal and marsh sites (Figure 5.4).
L-67A Canal
L-35B Canal
2.5
EHg3 (µg/g Wet Weight)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
FIGURE 5.4 Mercury concentrations in axial muscle tissue of largemouth bass from 2 canals
in the Florida Everglades.
35 1.20
30 Adult 1.00
Nestling
Great Egret MeHg (mg/kg)
Great Egret Nestling Hg

25
0.80
(Relative to 1994)
20
0.60
15
0.40
10
5 0.20
0 0.00
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
FIGURE 5.5 Reconstruction of time course of great egret feather mercury concentrations as
a result of mercury emissions changes in southern Florida, from 1940 through 2003. (Source:
From Frederick et al. 2004.)
Atmospheric deposition measurements (Guentzel et al. 1995, 1998) in compar-

ison with surface water inputs indicated that deposition flux dominated the mercury
budget of the Everglades by about 50:1. Direct measurement of deposition reductions
was not possible as deposition collection did not commence until 1992. However,
in conjunction with soil accumulation rates, trends in several matrices support the
view that mercury deposition increased steadily throughout the 20th century, at an
increasing rate post-World War II, peaking around 1991, and declined thereafter, at
least in part as a consequence of general reduction of mercury use in the developed
world with more accentuated declines in southern Florida.
Collectively, these pollution prevention and control policies have minimized the
local-scale problem (hot spot) of mercury emissions and deposition from sources
within south Florida, resulting in substantial declines (ca. 80%) in mercury in
Everglades fish and wildlife (Figure 5.5). Additional factors have also influenced
the bioaccumulation of mercury in Everglades fish and wildlife (including changing
sulfate levels), thus indicating the importance of measuring ancillary parameters in
assessments of biota response to changing mercury releases, as discussed in previous
chapters.
5.8.3 RECOMMENDED WILDLIFE INDICATORS

Concerning indicator species, as a preliminary assessment in describing the wildlife
component of a mercury monitoring network, based on criteria evaluated in Section
5.5 and studies cited herein, additional concerns noted above, and professional
judgment of the authors, candidate wildlife species for inclusion in such a network
have been selected and are indicated in Table 5.4.
TABLE 5.4
Candidate wildlife species for inclusion in a mercury monitoring network
Habitat type Species Age Tissue Rationale
Terrestrial Bicknell’s Adult Blood Ability for significant uptake of Hg in

thrush montane habitats; high priority for
conservation; blood levels related to
atmospheric deposition models
Raccoon Adult Hair Widespread distribution and easily studied;
prey for endangered species (Florida
panther)
Lake Common loon Adult Blood, Widespread distribution and easily studied;
egg large existing database; sensitivity to Hg;
existing database for continental Hg
exposure and lab and field effects
Lake/coastal Herring gull Adult Egg Widespread distribution and easily studied;
large existing database documenting
trends in Great Lakes
Bald eagle Juvenile Blood Widespread distribution; large existing
database; apparent reproductive effects
Common tern Adult Feather, Widespread distribution and easily studied;
egg large existing database; sensitivity to Hg
Estuarine Saltmarsh Adult, Blood Obligate estuarine species; high
sharp-tailed juvenile conservation concern; existing database
and seaside on exposure; small home range
sparrows
Riverine Mink Adult Fura Widespread distribution and easily studied;
existing database on exposure and effects;
sensitivity to Hg
Marine Harbor Adult Musclec Widespread distribution; some existing
nearshore porpoiseb data; concern about immunological
effects
Marine offshore Leach’s Adult, Blood Widespread distribution, common, easily
storm-petrel juvenile sampled at nest site, potential connection
with global Hg signal
Comparison Belted Adult, Blood, Widespread distribution across habitat
across aquatic kingfisher fledged egg types; large and consistent clutch size;
habitats young ease of capture; relatively high mercury
exposures
Notes: a) May require better understanding of relationship with internal tissue mercury concentrations
(see discussion in Section 5.6). b) Harbor seal or gray seal would also be candidates for similar
reasons, and ringed seal would be appropriate marine mammal target for Arctic biomonitoring, due
to wide distribution, significant uptake rates for Hg and importance in diet of polar bears. c) Liver
and kidney are more typically analyzed in marine mammal species; but due to both accumulation and
detoxification as discussed previously, muscle tissue may be more appropriate indicator, in particular
for shorter-term exposures, assuming methodological issues are resolved (see Becker 1991).
Concerning the frequency of sampling, in most cases, sampling could be done

annually. However, an important factor to consider in wildlife sampling would be
season, as discussed in Section 5.2. Additional ancillary data to be collected on
individuals, as previously noted, include whether live or dead specimen, age, sex,
and site of collection on tissue.
Most of the species indicated above share key criteria identified earlier (including
widespread distribution, relatively easily sampled, sensitivity to changes in mercury
availability, and a generally good existing database). As noted earlier in this chapter,
numerous wildlife species could potentially serve as bioindicators for mercury expo-
sure and effects. For purposes of this exercise, the authors limited choices to 1 or 2
species per habitat type. As noted previously (Section 5.5), in some cases our
assessment found relatively small differences (whether within taxa or by habitat) in
suitability of various species to serve as mercury bioindicators. Due to the much
larger database on piscivorous wildlife, most priority species we have identified fall
within this category. The more recent findings on elevated mercury levels in some
passerines, however, indicate the value in incorporating 1 insectivorous species in
the network. Additional research on mercury biouptake or sensitivity to methyl-
mercury for individual species, as well as broader considerations of overall network
design, may indicate higher value in choosing other species as bioindicators. Assum-
ing resource constraints limited wildlife monitoring to even fewer than the 12 species
listed above, at a minimum, we believe 1 species (generally a piscivorous bird) per
habitat type (i.e., terrestrial, lake, riverine, and coastal/marine) would be warranted.
Regardless of species chosen in the final design, it is assumed that in most cases
sampling would be done annually. In addition, sample collection protocols (including
considerations of season/time of year, age, sex, tissue, and sampling location within
tissue) would have to be clearly specified.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
JB would like to thank Michael Gochfeld for helpful comments on the manuscripts
and the following agencies or organizations for funding: USEPA, NIEHS (ESO
5022), DOE through the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Partici-
pation (AI # DE-FC01-95EW55084, DE-FG 26-00NT 40938), New Jersey DEP,
and Wildlife Trust. The results, conclusions, and interpretations reported herein are
the sole responsibility of the authors, and should not in any way be interpreted as
representing the views of the funding agencies.
MFW would like to thank JoAnn Bradley, Miriam Library, California State
University – Chico, for heroic document retrieval; and Greg Linder, Jack Campbell,
and Glen Lubcke for assistance with reptile and amphibian discussions. Special
thanks to Michael Murray and David Evers for manuscript editing.
DE would like to thank Chris DeSorbo for compiling much of the section on
the osprey.
MM would like to acknowledge and thank several funding sources that helped
support time spent on this project, including the Beldon Fund, the George Gund
Foundation, and the USEPA. Perspectives expressed in this chapter should not be
interpreted as representing the views of the funding agencies.
REFERENCES
Abernathy AR, Cumbie PM. 1977. Mercury accumulation by largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides) in recently impounded reservoirs. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol
17:595–602.
Adams S. 2003. Establishing causality between environmental stressors and effects on aquatic
environments. Human Environ Risk Assess 9:17–35.
Aihara M, Sharma RP. 1986. Effects of endogenous and exogenous thiols on the distribution
of mercurial compounds in mouse tissues. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 15:629–636.
Albanus L, Frankenberg L, Grant C, von Haartman U, Jernelov A, Nordberg G, Rydalv M,
Schutz A, Skerfving S. 1972. Toxicity for cats of methylmercury in contaminated
fish from Swedish lakes and of methylmercury hydroxide added to fish. Environ Res
5:425–442.
Allen JW, Shanker G, Aschner M. 2001. Methylmercury inhibits the in vitro uptake of the
glutathione precursor, cystine, in astrocytes, but not in neurons. Brain Res 894:131–140.
Allen JW, Shanker G, Tan KH, Aschner M. 2002. The consequences of methylmercury
exposure on interactive functions between astrocytes and neurons. Neurotoxicology
23:755–759.
Allen P. 1994. Distribution of mercury in the soft tissues of the blue tilapia Oreochromis
aureus (Steindachner) after acute exposure to mercury II chloride. Bull Environ
Anderson DW, Cahill TMJ, Suchanek TH, Elbert RA. 1997. Relationships between mercury
and yearly trends in osprey production and reproductive status at Clear Lake. In: First
Annual Clear Lake Science and Management Symposium, September 13, 1997,
Proceedings, p. 66–70.
Anderson JR. 1997. Recommendations for the biopsy procedure and assessment of skeletal
muscle biopsies. Virchows Arch 431:227–233.
Aoki H. 1970. [Environmental contamination by mercury (Hg series No. 14). 3. Inorganic
and organic mercury in human hair and marine fish]. Nippon Eiseigaku Zasshi
24:556–562.
Arnold BS. 2000. Distribution of mercury within different trophic levels of the Okefenokee
swamp, within tissues of top level predators, and reproductive effects of methyl
mercury in the Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). PhD dissertation, University of
Georgia.
Aschner M. 1998. Blood-brain barrier: physiological and functional considerations. In: Hand-
book of developmental neurotoxicology, p. 339–351.
Aschner M. 1999. Astrocyte response to chemical/physical stress with respect to metallothio-
nein expression. J Neurochem 72:S43.
Aschner M, Aschner JL. 1990. Mercury neurotoxicity: mechanisms of blood-brain barrier
transport. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 14:169–176.
Aschner M, Eberle NB, Miller K, Kimelberg HK. 1990. Interactions of methylmercury with
rat primary astrocyte cultures: inhibition of rubidium and glutamate uptake and
induction of swelling. Brain Res 530:245–250.
Aschner M, Yao CP, Allen JW, Tan KH. 2000. Methylmercury alters glutamate transport in
astrocytes. Neurochem Int 37:199–206.
Ashpole SL, Bishop CA, Brooks RJ. 2004. Contaminant residues in snapping turtle (Chelydra
s. serpentina) eggs from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin (1999 to 2000).
Atwell L, Hobson KA, Welch HE. 1998. Biomagnification and bioaccumulation of mercury
in an arctic marine food web: insights from stable nitrogen isotope analysis. Can J
Fish Aquat Sci 55:1114–1121.
Aulerich RJ, Ringer RK, Iwamoto S. 1973. Reproductive failure and mortality in mink fed
on Great Lakes fish. J Reprod Fertil Suppl 19:S365–376.
Aulerich RJ, Ringer RK, Iwamoto S. 1974. Effects of dietary mercury on mink. Arch Environ
Bailar JC III. 1995. The practice of meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:149–157.
Baker RH. 1983. Michigan mammals. East Lansing (MI): Michigan State University Press.
Balthrop JE, Braddon SA. 1985. Effects of selenium and methylmercury upon glutathione
and glutathione-S-transferase in mice. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 14:197–202.
Baron LA, Ashwood TL, Sample BE, Welsh C. 1997. Monitoring bioaccumulation of con-
taminants in the belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon). Environ Monit Assess 47:153–165.
Barr JF. 1986. Population dynamics of the Common Loon (Gavia immer) associated with
mercury-contaminated waters in northwestern Ontario. Canadian Wildlife Service
Occasional Paper 56.
Basu N, Stamler CJ, Loua KM, Chan HM. 2005a. An interspecies comparison of mercury
inhibition on muscarinic acetylcholine receptor binding in the cerebral cortex and
cerebellum. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 205:71–76.
Basu N, Klenavic K, Gamberg M, O’Brien M, Evans D, Scheuhammer AM, Chan HM. 2005b.
Effects of Mercury on Neurochemical Receptor-Binding Characteristics in Wild
Mink. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:1444–1450.
Basu N, Scheuhammer AM, Rouvinen-Watt K, Grochowina N, Klenavic K, Evans RD, Chan
HM. 2006. Methylmercury impairs components of the cholinergic system in captive
mink (Mustela vison). Toxicol Sci 91:202–209.
Batel R, Bihari N, Rinkevich B, Dapper J, Schaecke H, Schroeder HC, Mueller WE. 1993.
Modulation of organotin-induced apoptosis by water pollutant methyl mercury in a
human lymphoblastoid tumor cell line and a marine sponge. Mar Ecol Progr Ser
93:245–251.
Becker PH. 1992. Egg mercury levels decline with the laying sequence in charadriiformes.
Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 48:762–767.
Becker PH, Schuhmann S, Koepff C. 1993. Hatching failure in common terns (Sterna hirundo)
in relation to environmental chemicals. Environ Pollut 79:207–213.
Becker PR, Wise SA, Koster BJ, Zeisler R. 1991. Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival
Project: Revised Collection Protocol. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Insti-
tute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 4529, 33 pp.
Becker PH, Sommer U. 1998. Current contamination of Common Terns (Sterna hirundo)
with environmental chemicals in Central Europe. Vogelwelt 119:243–249.
Becker PR. 2000. Concentration of chlorinated hydrocarbons and heavy metals in Alaska
arctic marine mammals. Mar Pollut Bull 40:819–829.
Becker PR, Wise SA, Thorsteinson L, Koster BJ, Rowles T. 1997. Specimen banking of
marine organisms in the United States: current status and long-term prospective.
Chemosphere 34:1889–1906.
Bellas J, Vazquez E, Beiras R. 2001. Toxicity of Hg, Cu, Cd, and Cr on early developmental
stages of Ciona intestinalis (Chordata, Ascidiacea) with potential application in
marine water quality assessment. Water Res 35:2905–2912.
Berg W, Johnels A, Jostrand BS, Westermark T. 1966. Mercury content in feathers of Swedish
birds from the past 100 years. Oikos 17:71–83.
Birge WJ, Just JJ. 1973. Sensitivity of vertebrate embryos to heavy metals as a criterion of
water quality. NTIS Pb Report (Pb-226 850):20 p, 1973 Tax — Carassius Auratus Tax
— Rana Pipiens Tax — Gallus Domesticus, White Leghorn Tax — Rana Catesbeiana.
Birke G, Johnels AG, Plantin LO, Sjostrand B, Skerfving S, Westermark T. 1972. Studies on
humans exposed to methyl mercury through fish consumption. Arch Environ Health
25:77–91.
Bishop CA, Koster MD, Chek AA, Hussell DJT, Jock K. 1995a. Chlorinated hydrocarbons
and mercury in sediments, red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) and tree
swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) from wetlands in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River
basin. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:491–501.
Bishop CA, Lean DR, Brooks RJ, Carey JH, Ng P. 1995b. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in early
life stages of the common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentina) from a
coastal wetland on Lake Ontario, Canada. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:421–426.
Bishop CA, Ng P, Pettit KE, Kennedy SW, Stegeman JJ, Norstrom RJ, Brooks RJ. 1998.
Environmental contamination and developmental abnormalities in eggs and
hatchlings of the common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentina) from the
Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River basin (1989–91). Environ Pollut 101:143–56.
Bishop CA, Rouse JD. 2000. Chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations in plasma of Lake Erie
water snake (Nerodia sipedon insularum) and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon
sipedon) from the Great Lakes Basin in 1998. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol
39:500–505.
Bjorge A. 2001. How persistent are marine mammal habitats in an ocean of variability? In:
Evans PGH, Raga JA, editors, Marine mammals: biology and conservation. New York
(NY):Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Blakeley BR, Sisoda CS, Mukkar TK. 1980. The effect of methylmercury, tetraethyl lead,
and sodium arsenite on the humoral immune response in mice. Toxicol Appl Pharm
52:245–254.
Bleau H, Daniel C, Chevalier G, Van Tra H, Hontela A. 1996. Effects of acute exposure to
mercury chloride and methylmercury on plasma cortisol, T3, T4, glucose and liver
glycogen in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquat Toxicol 34:221–235.
Block E. 1992. Contaminants in great blue heron eggs and young from Dumas Bay and
Nisqually heronries, Puget Sound, Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service OFO-
EC93-1.
Blus LJ, Henny CJ, Anderson A, Fitzner RE. 1985. Reproduction, mortality, and heavy metal
concentrations in great blue herons from three colonies in Washington and Idaho.
Colon Waterbirds 8:110–116.
Bodaly RA, Hecky RE, Fudge RJ. 1984. Increases in fish mercury levels in lakes flooded by
the Churchill River diversion, northern Manitoba (Canada). Can J Fish Aquat Sci
41:682–691.
Bolognesi C, Landini E, Roggieri P, Fabbri R, Viarengo A. 1999. Genotoxicity biomarkers
in the assessment of heavy metal effects in mussels: experimental studies. Environ
Mol Mutagen 33:287–292.
Bonin J, Desgranges JL, Bishop CA, Rodrigue J, Gendron A, Elliott E. 1995. Comparative
study of contaminants in the mudpuppy (Amphibia) and the common snapping turtle
(Reptilia), St. Lawrence River, Canada. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 28:184–194.
Bornhausen M, Hagen U. 1984. Operant behavior performance changes in rats after prenatal
and postnatal exposure to heavy metals. Ircs Med Sci 12:805–806.
Bouton SN, Frederick PC, Spalding MG, McGill HC. 1999. Effects of chronic, low concen-
trations of dietary methylmercury on the behavior of juvenile great egrets. Environ
Bowerman WW, Evans ED, Giesy P, Postupalsky S. 1994. Using feathers to assess risk of
mercury and selenium to bald eagle reproduction in the Great Lakes region. Arch
Environ Contam Toxicol 27:294–298.
Bowerman WW, Roe AS, Gilbertson M, Best DA, Sikarskie JG, Summer CL. 2002. Using
bald eagles to indicate the health of the Great Lakes environment. Lakes Reservoirs:
Res Manage 7:183–187.
Braune BM, Gaskin DE. 1987. Mercury levels in Bonaparte’s gulls (Larus philadelphia)
during autumn molt in the Quoddy Region, New Brunswick, Canada. Arch Environ
Brisbin IL, Jagoe CH, Gaines KR, Cariboldi JC. 1998. Environmental contaminants as
concerns for the conservation biology of crocodilians. In Proceedings of the 14th
Working Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group of the SSC of the IUNC — The
World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, p. 155–123.
Britson CA, Threlkeld ST. 1998. Abundance, metamorphosis, developmental, and behavioral
abnormalities in Hyla chrysoscelis tadpoles following exposure to three agrichemicals
and methyl mercury in outdoor mesocosms. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 61:154–161.
Brock V. 1993. Effects of mercury on physiological conditions and content of the biomarker
ALA in the oystery Ostrea edulis. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 96:169–175.
Burger J. 1990. Behavioral effects of early postnatal lead exposure in herring gull (Larus
argentatus) chicks. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 35:7–14.
Burger J. 1993. Metals in avian feathers: bioindicators of environmental pollution. Rev
Environ Toxicol 5:203–311.
Burger J. 1994. Heavy metals in avian eggshells: another excretion method. J Toxicol Environ
Health 41:207–220.
Burger J. 1995. Heavy metal and selenium levels in feathers of herring gulls: differences due
to year, gender, and age at Captree, Long Island. Environ Monit Assess 38:37–50.
Burger J. 2002. Food chain differences affect heavy metals in bird eggs in Barnegat Bay, New
Jersey. Environ Res 90:33–39.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 1988. Metals in tern eggs in a New Jersey estuary: a decade of change.
Environ Monit Assess 11:127–135.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 1991. The common tern: its breeding biology and behavior. New York
(NY):Columbia University Press.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 1993. Heavy metal and selenium levels in feathers of young egrets
and herons from Hong Kong and Szechuan, China. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol
25:322–327.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 1995. Heavy metal and selenium concentrations in eggs of Herring
Gulls (Larus argentatus): temporal differences from 1989 to 1994. Arch Environ
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 1996a. Family Sternidae (terns). In: DelHoyo J, Elliott AA, Sargatal J,
editors, Handbook of the birds of the world, Vol 3. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions, p. 624–667.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 1996b. Heavy metal and selenium levels in birds at Agassiz National
Wildlife Refuge, Minnesota: food chain differences. Environ Monit Assess 43:267–282.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 1997. Risk, mercury levels, and birds: relating adverse laboratory
effects to field biomonitoring. Environ Res 75:160–172.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 2000a. Effects of lead on birds (Laridae): a review of laboratory and
field studies. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 3:59–78.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 2000b. Metals in albatross feathers from Midway Atoll: influence of
species, age, and nest location. Environ Res 82:207–21.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 2000c. On developing bioindicators for human and ecological health.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 2001. Metal levels in feathers of cormorants, flamingos and gulls from
the coast of Namibia in southern Africa. Environ Monit Assess 69:195–203.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 2002. Effects of chemicals and pollution on seabirds. In: Schreiber
EA, Burger J, editors, Biology of marine birds. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 2003. Spatial and temporal patterns in metal levels in eggs of common
terns (Sterna hirundo) in New Jersey. Sci Total Environ 311:91–100.
Burger J, Gochfeld M. 2004. Bioindicators for assessing human and ecological health. In:
Wiersna B, editor, Environmental monitoring. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press,
p. 541–566.
Burger J, Gochfeld M, Rooney AA, Orlando EF, Woodward AR, Guillette Jr LJ. 2000a. Metals
and metalloids in tissues of American alligators in three Florida lakes. Arch Environ
Burger J, Kannan K, Geisy JP, Grue C, Gochfeld M. 2002. Effects of environmental pollutants
on avian behavior. In: Dell’Omo G, editor, Behavioral ecotoxicology. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, p. 337–375.
Burger J, Lord CG, Yurkow EJ, McGrath L, Gaines KF, Brisbin Jr IL, Gochfeld M. 2000b.
Metals and metallothionein in the liver of raccoons: utility for environmental assess-
ment and monitoring. J Toxicol Environ Health A 60:243–261.
Burger J, Nisbet IC, Gochfeld M. 1992. Metal levels in regrown feathers: assessment of
contamination on the wintering and breeding grounds in the same individuals. J Toxicol
Environ Health 37:363–374.
Burger J, Shukla T, Dixon C, Shukla S, McMahon MJ, Ramos R, Gochfeld M. 2001. Metals
in feathers of sooty tern, white tern, gray-backed tern, and brown noddy from islands
in the North Pacific. Environ Monit Assess 71:71–89.
Burger J, Snodgrass J. 1998. Heavy metals in bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) tadpoles: effects
of depuration before analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:2203–2209.
Burger J, Woolfenden GE, Gochfeld M. 1999. Metal concentrations in the eggs of endangered
Florida scrub-jays from central Florida. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 37:385–388.
Burger J, Campbell KR, Campbell TS, Shukla T, Jeitner C, Gochfeld M. 2005. Use of skin and
blood as nonlethal indicators of heavy metal contamination in northern water and snakes
(Nerodia sipedon). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 49:232–238.
Burgess N, Beauchamp S, Brun G, Clair T, Roberts C, Rutherford L, Tordon R, Vaidya O. 1998.
Mercury in Atlantic Canada: a progress report. Sackville, New Brunswick (Canada):
Environment Canada.
Burgess NM, Braune BM. 2002. Increasing trends in mercury concentrations in Atlantic and
Arctic seabird eggs in Canada. SETAC poster.
Burgess NM, Evers DC, Kaplan JD. 2005. Mercury and other contaminants in common loons
breeding in Atlantic Canada. Ecotoxicology 14:241–252.
Burnett KG. 1997. Evaluating intracellular signaling pathways as biomarkers for environmen-
tal contaminant exposures. Am Zoologist 37:585–594.
Butler RW, Whitehead PE, Breault AM, Moul IE. 1995. Colony effects on fledging success
of great blue herons (Ardea herodias) in British Columbia. Colon Waterbirds
18:159–165.
Cahill TM, Anderson DW, Elbert RA, Perley BP, Johnson DR. 1998. Elemental profiles in
feather samples from a mercury-contaminated lake in central California. Arch Environ
Calabrese A, Thurberg FP, Dawson MA, Wenzloff DR. 1975. Sublethal physiological stress
induced by cadmium and mercury in the winter flounder (Pseudopluronectes amer-
icanus). In: Koeman JH, Strik JJ, editors, Sublethal effects of toxic chemicals on
aquatic animals. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Campbell KR, Campbell TS. 2001. The accumulation and effects of environmental contam-
inants on snakes: a review. Environ Monitor Assess 70:253–301.
Campbell KR, Ford CJ, Levine DA. 1998. Mercury distribution in Poplar Creek, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:1191–1198.
Canli M, Furness RW. 1993. Toxicity of heavy metals dissolved in sea water and influences
of sex and size on metal accumulation and tissue distribution in the Norway lobster
(Nephrops norvegicus). Mar Environ Res 36:217–236.
Caurant F, Navarro M, Amiard JC. 1996. Mercury in pilot whales: possible limits to the
detoxification process. Sci Total Environ 186:95–104.
Chakrabarti SK, Loua KM, Bai C, Durham H, Panisset JC. 1998. Modulation of monoamine
oxidase activity in different brain regions and platelets following exposure of rats to
methylmercury. Neurotoxicol Teratol 20:161–168.
Champoux L. 1996. PCBS, dioxins, and furans in hooded merganser, common merganser,
and mink collected along the St. Maurice River, near La Tuque, Quebec. Environ
Pollut 92:147–153.
Champoux L, Masse D, Evers DC, Lane O. (In press). Assessment of mercury exposure and
potential effects in common loons in Quebec. Hydrobiologia.
Champoux L, Rodrigue J, Desgranges JL, Trudeau S, Hontela A, Boily M, Spear P. 2002.
Assessment of contamination and biomarker responses in two species of herons on
the St. Lawrence River. Environ Monit Assess 79:193–215.
Chang LW. 1990. The neurotoxicology and pathology of organomercury, organolead, and
organotin. J Toxicol Sci 15:125–151.
Chen CY, Stemberger RS, Klaue B, Blum JD, Pickhardt PC, Folt CL. 2000. Accumulation
of heavy metals in food web components across a gradient of lakes. Limnol Oceanogr
45:1525–1536.
Christopher SJ, Vander Pol SS, Pugh RS, Day RD, Becker PR. 2002. Determination of
mercury in the eggs of Common Murres (Uria Aalge) for the Seabird Tissue Archival
and Monitoring Project. J Anal Atomic Spectrom 17:780–785.
Cifuentes JM, Becker PH, Sommer U, Pacheco P, Schlatter R. 2003. Seabird eggs as bioin-
dicators of chemical contamination in Chile. Environ Pollut 126:123–137.
Citterio S, Aina R, Labra M, Ghiani A, Fumagalli P, Sgorbati S, Santagostino A. 2002. Soil
genotoxicity assessment: a new strategy based on biomolecular tools and plant bio-
indicators. Environ Sci Technol 36:2748–2753.
Clark Jr DR, Bickham JW, Baker DL, Cowman DF. 2000. Environmental contaminants in
Texas, USA, wetland reptiles: evaluation using blood samples. Environ Toxicol Chem
19:2259–2265.
Clark Jr DR, Hill EF, Henry PF. 1991. Comparative sensitivity of little brown bats Myotis-
lucifugus to acute dosages of sodium cyanide. Bat Res News 32:68.
Clark Jr DR, Hothem RL. 1991. Mammal mortality at Arizona, California, and Nevada gold
mines using cyanide extraction. Calif Fish Game 77:61–69.
Clark KE, Stansley W, Niles LJ. 2001. Changes in contaminant levels in New Jersey osprey
eggs and prey, 1989 to 1998. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 40:277–284.
Costa M, Christie NT, Cantoni O, Zelikoff JT, Wang XW, Rossman T. 1991. DNA damage
by mercury compounds: an overview. In: Suzuki T, Imura N, Clarkson TW, editors,
Advances in mercury toxicology — Rochester Series on Environmental Toxicity.
New York (NY): Plenum Press, p. 255–273.
Counard CJ. 2000. Mercury exposure and effects on Common Loon (Gavia immer) behavior
in the Upper Midwestern United States. University of Minnesota. MS thesis.
Cumbie PM. 1975a. Mercury in hair of bobcats and raccoons. J Wild Manage 39:419–425.
Cumbie PM. 1975b. Mercury levels in Georgia otter, mink, and freshwater fish. Bull Environ
Custer CM, Custer TW, Rosiu CJ, Melancon MJ, Bickham JW, Matso CW. 2005. Exposure
and effects of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in tree swallows (Tachycineta
bicolor) nesting along the Woonasquatucket River, Rhode Island, USA. Environ
Cuvin-Aralar M, Furness R. 1990. Tissue distribution of mercury and selenium in minnows,
Phoxinus phoxinus. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 45:775–782.
Dansereau M, Lariviere N, Du Tremblay D, Belanger D. 1999. Reproductive performance of
two generations of female semidomesticated mink fed diets containing organic mer-
cury contaminated freshwater fish. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 36:221–226.
Das K, Debacker V, Pillet S, Bouquegneau JM. 2003. Heavy metals in marine mammals. In:
Vos JG, Bossart GD, Fournier M, O’Shea TJ, editors, Toxicology of marine mammals.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Davis LE, Kornfeld M, Mooney HS, Fiedler KJ, Haaland KY, Orrison WW, Cernichiari E,
Clarkson TW. 1994. Methylmercury poisoning: long-term clinical, radiological, tox-
icological, and pathological studies of an affected family. Ann Neurol 35:680–688.
Dawson MA. 1982. Effects of long-term mercury exposure on hematology of striped bass,
Morone-Saxatilis. Fish Bull 80:389–392.
De Solla SR, Bishop CA, Pettit KE, Elliott JE. 2002. Organochlorine pesticides and poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in eggs of red-legged frogs (Rana aurora) and north-
western salamanders (Ambystoma gracile) in an agricultural landscape. Chemosphere
46:1027–1032.
Delany M, Bell J, Sundlof S. 1988. Concentrations of contaminants in muscle of the American
alligator in Florida. J Wildl Dis 24:62–66.
DesGranges J-L, Rodrigue J, Tardif B, Laperle M. 1998. Mercury accumulation and biomag-
nification in ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) in the James Bay and Hudson Bay regions
of Quebec. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 35:330–341.
DesGranges J-L, Rodrigue J, Tardif B, Laperle M. 1999. In: Lucotte, EA, editor, Breeding
success of osprey under high seasonal methylmercury exposure. New York: Springer.
Dickinson PJ, LeCouteur RA, Anderson JR, O’Rourke KS, Ike RW, Pearl GS, Ghatak NR,
Braund KG, Edwards RH, Round JM, et al. 2002. Muscle and nerve biopsy: recom-
mendations for the biopsy procedure and assessment of skeletal muscle biopsies. Vet
Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 32:63–102.
Dieter MP, Ludke JL. 1975. Studies on the combined effects of organophosphates and heavy
metals in birds. I. Plasma and brain cholinesterase in Coturnix quail fed methyl
mercury and orally dosed with parathion. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 13:257–262.
Dock L, Rissanen RL, Vahter M. 1994. Demethylation and placental transfer of methyl
mercury in the pregnant hamster. Toxicology 94:1–3.
Doi R. 1991. Individual difference of methylmercury metabolism in animals and its signifi-
cance in methylmercury toxicity. In: Suzuki T, Imura N, Clarkson TW, editors,
Advances in mercury toxicology. New York (NY): Plenum Press.
Doka SE, McNicol DK, Mallory ML, Wong I, Minns CK, Yan ND. 2003. Assessing potential
for recovery of biotic richness and indicator species due to changes in acidic depo-
sition and lake pH in five areas of southeastern Canada. Environ Monit Assess
88:53–101.
Duvall SE, Barron MG. 2000. A screening level probabilistic risk assessment of mercury in
Florida Everglades food webs. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 47:298–305.
Eaton RDP, Secord DC, Hewitt P. 1980. An experimental assessment of the toxic potential
of mercury in ringed-seal liver for adult laboratory cats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol
55:514–521.
Echeverria D, Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Rohlman D, Farin FM, Li T, Garabedian CE. 2006. The
association between a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase, dental
mercury exposure and neurobehavioral response in humans. Neurotoxicol Teratol
28:39–48.
Echeverria D, Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Rohlman DS, Farin FM, Bittner Jr AC, Li T, Garabedian
C. 2005. Chronic low-level mercury exposure, BDNF polymorphism, and associations
with cognitive and motor function. Neurotoxicol Teratol 27:781–796.
Echols KR, Tillitt DE, Nichols JW, Secord AL, McCarty JP. 2004. Accumulation of PCB
congeners in nestling tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) on the Hudson River, New
York. Environ Sci Technol 38:6240–6246.
Eisemann JD, Beyer WN, Bennetts RE, Morton A. 1997. Mercury residues in South Florida
apple snails (Pomacea paludosa). Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 58:739–743.
Eisler R. 1987. Mercury hazards to fish, wildlife and invertebrates: a synoptic review. US
Fish and Wildlife Service Contaminant Hazard Reviews 10, 90 pp.
Eisler R. 2006. Mercury: hazards to living organisms. Boca Raton (FL): Taylor & Francis.
El-Fawal HA, Gong Z, Little AR, Evans HL. 1996. Exposure to methyl mercury results in
serum autoantibodies to neurotypic and gliotypic proteins. Neurotoxicology 17:267–276.
Elbert RA, Anderson DW. 1998. Mercury levels, reproduction, and hematology of western
grebes in three California lakes. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:210–213.
Ellegren H, Lindgren G, Primmer CR, Moller AP. 1997. Fitness loss and germline mutations
in barn swallows breeding in Chernobyl. Nature 389:593–596.
Elliott JE, Butler RW, Norstrom RJ, Whitehead PE. 1989. Environmental contaminants and
reproductive success of great blue herons, Ardea herodias, in British Columbia,
Canada 1986–1987. Environ Pollut 59:91–114.
Elliott JE, Machmer MM, Henny CJ, Wilson LK, Norstrom RJ. 1998. Contaminants in ospreys
from the Pacific Northwest. I. Trends and patterns in polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
and -dibenzofurans in eggs and plasma. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 35:620–631.
Elliott JE, Machmer MM, Wilson LK, Henny CJ. 2000. Contaminants in ospreys from the
Pacific Northwest. II. Organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and mer-
cury, 1991–1997. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 38:93–106.
Ensor KL, Helwig DD, Wemmer LC. 1992. Mercury and lead in Minnesota common loons
(Gavia immer). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Water Quality Division.
Eriksson MOG, Johansson I, Ahlgren C. 1992. Levels of mercury in eggs of red-throated
diver Gavia stellata and black-throated diver G. arctica in southwest Sweden. Ornis
Svecica 2:29–36.
Escher BI, Hermens JLM. 2002. Modes of action in ecotoxicology: their role in body burdens,
species sensitivity, QSARs and mixture effects. Environ Sci Technol 36:4201–4217.
Evans RD. 1993. Mercury and other metals in bald eagle feathers and other tissues from
Michigan, nearby areas of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Ontario, and Alaska 1985–89.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Wildlife Division 3200.
Evans RD. 1995. Mercury levels in otters. Proc 1995 Canadian Mercury Network Workshop.
Environment Canada. http://rese.ca/eman/reports/publications/mercury95/part2.html.
Evans RD, Addison EM, Villeneuve JY, MacDonald KS, Joachim DG. 1998. An examination
of spatial variation in mercury concentrations in otter (Lutra canadensis) in south-
central Ontario. Sci Total Environ 213:239–245.
Evans RD, Addison EM, Villeneuve JY, MacDonald KS, Joachim DG. 2000. Distribution of
inorganic and ethylmercury among tissues in mink (Mustela vison) and otter (Lutra
canadensis). Environ Res 84:133–139.
Evers D, Lane O, Savoy L, Goodale W. 2004. Assessing the impacts of methylmercury on
piscivorous wildlife using a wildlife criterion value based on the common loon,
1998–2003. Biodiversity Research Institute (Report BRI2004-05).
Evers DC. 2004. Status assessment and conservation plan for the Common Loon (Gavia
immer) in North America. US Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Report.
Evers DC, Burgess N, Major A, Champoux L, Goodale W, Taylor R. 2005. Patterns of mercury
exposure in the avian community of northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology
14:193–221.
Evers DC, Clair TA. 2005. Mercury in northeastern North America: a synthesis of existing
databases. Ecotoxicology 14:7–14.
Evers DC, Jodice P. 2002. Winter population dynamics of Common Loons on the Florida
gulf coast: a preliminary report. Unpublished report, alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/
loons/pdf/Common_Loon_Status_Assessment.pdf.
Evers DC, Kaplan JD, Meyer MW, Reaman PS, Braselton WE, Major A, Burgess N, Scheu-
hammer AM. 1998. Geographic trends in mercury measured in common loon feathers
and blood. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:173–183.
Evers DC, Lane OP, Savoy L. 2003a. Assessing the impacts of methylmercury on piscivorous
wildlife using a wildlife criterion value based on the Common Loon, 1998–2002.
BioDiversity Research Institute, Falmouth, ME.
Evers DC, Reaman P. 1997. A comparison of mercury exposure between artificial impound-
ments and natural lakes measured in Common Loons and their prey, sediments, and
game fish. BioDiversity Research Institute, Falmouth, ME.
Evers DC, Taylor KM, Major A, Taylor RJ, Poppenga RH, Scheuhammer AM. 2003b.
Common loon eggs as indicators of methylmercury availability in North America.
Ecotoxicology 12:69–81.
Eyl TB. 1971. Organic-mercury food poisoning. N Engl J Med 284:706–709.
Faber RA, Risebrough RW, Pratt HM. 1972. Organochlorines and mercury in common egrets
and great blue herons. Environ Pollut 3:111–122.
Farrington JW. 1991. Biogeochemical processes governing exposure and uptake of organic
pollutant compounds in aquatic organisms. Environ Health Perspect 90:75–84.
Farris FF, Dedrick RL. 1993. Absorption of methylmercury from hair ingested by rats. Life
Sci 53:1023–1029.
Farris FF, Dedrick RL, Allen PV, Smith JC. 1993. Physiological model for the pharmacoki-
netics of methyl mercury in the growing rat. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 119:74–90.
Fenton MB. 1992. Bats. New York (NY): Facts on File.
Fevold BM, Meyer MW, Rasmussen PW, Temple SA. 2003. Bioaccumulation patterns and
temporal trends of mercury exposure in Wisconsin common loons. Ecotoxicology
12:83–93.
Fimreite N. 1971. Effects of methylmercury on ring-necked pheasants, with special reference
to reproduction. Canadian Wildlife Service, Occasional Paper 9, 37 pp.
Fimreite N, Fyfe RW, Keith JA. 1970. Mercury contamination of Canadian prairie seed eaters
and their avian predators. Can Field-Nat 84:269–276.
Fimreite N, Holsworth WN, Keith JA, Pearce PA, Gruchy IM. 1971. Methyl mercury in fish
and fish-eating birds from sites of industrial contamination in Canada. Can Field
Natural 85:2211–2220.
Fimreite N, Karstad L. 1971. Effects of dietary methyl mercury on red-tailed hawks. J Wildl
Manage 35:292–300.
Finley MT, Stendall RC. 1978. Survival and reproductive success of black ducks fed methyl-
mercury. Environ Pollut 16:51–64.
Finocchio DV, Luschei ES, Mottet NK, Body RL. 1980. Effects of methylmercury on the
visual system of the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta). I. Pharmacokinetics of chronic
methylmercury related to changes in vision and behavior. In: Merigan WH, Weiss B,
editors, Neurotoxicity of the visual system, New York: Raven Press, p. 113–122.
Fitzgerald WF, Mason RP. 1996. The global mercury cycle oceanic and anthropogenic aspects.
In: Baeyens W, Ebinghaus R, Vasiliev O, editors, Global and regional mercury cycles:
sources, fluxes and mass balances, Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, p. 85–108.
Fitzgerald WF, Mason RP. 1997. Biogeochemical cycling of mercury in the marine environ-
ment. In: Sigel A, Sigel H, editors, Metal ions in biological systems, Vol. 34, Mercury
and its effects on environment and biology. New York (NY): Marcel Dekker, p. 53–110.
Fleming WJ, Pullin BP, Swineford DM. 1985. Population trends and environmental contam-
inants in herons in the Tennessee Valley USA 1980–1981. Colon Waterbirds 7:63–73.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. Integrating atmospheric mercury
deposition with aquatic cycling in South Florida: an approach for conducting a total
maximum daily load analysis for an atmospherically derived pollutant. Tallahassee,
FL: Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Foley RE, Jackling SJ, Sloan RJ, Brown MK. 1988. Organochlorine and mercury residues in
wild mink and otter. Comparison with fish. Environ Toxicol Chem 7:363–374.
Fossi C, Lari L, Mattei N, Savelli C, Sanchez-Hernandez JC, Castellani S, Depledge M,
Bamber S, Walker C, Savaa D, et al. 1996. Biochemical and genotoxic biomarkers
in the Mediterranean crab (Carcinus aestuarii) experimentally exposed to polychlo-
robiphenyls, benzopyrene and methyl-mercury. Mar Environ Res 42:29–32.
Fournier F, Karasov WH, Kenow KP, Meyer MW, Hines RK. 2002. The oral bioavailability
and toxicokinetics of methylmercury in common loon (Gavia immer) chicks. Comp
Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 133:703–714.
Fox DA, Boyes WK. 2001. Toxic responses of the ocular and visual system. In: Klaassen
CD, editor, Casarett & Doull’s toxicology: the basic science of poisons, 6th ed. New
York (NY): McGraw-Hill, p. 565–595.
Fox GA. 1976. Eggshell quality: its ecological and physiological significance in a DDE-
contaminated common tern population. Wilson Bull 88:459–477.
Fox GA. 1992. Epidemiological and pathobiological evidence of contaminant-induced alter-
ations in sexual development in free-living wildlife. In: Colborn T, Clement C, editors,
Chemically-induced alterations in sexual and functional development: the wildlife/
human connection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton Scientific Publishing Company,
p. 147–158.
Fox GA, Yonge KS, Sealy SG. 1980. Breeding performance, pollutant burden, and eggshell
thinning in Common Loons Gavia immer nesting on a boreal forest lake. Ornis Scand
11:243–248.
Frederick PC, Hylton B, Heath JA, Spalding MG. 2004. A historical record of mercury
contamination in southern Florida (USA) as inferred from avian feather tissue. Envi-
ron Toxicol Chem 23:1474–1478.
Frederick PC, Spalding MG, Dusek R. 2002. Wading birds as bioindicators of mercury
contamination in Florida, USA: annual and geographic variation. Environ Toxicol
Chem 21:163–167.
Frederick PC, Spalding MG, Sepulveda MS, Williams G, Nico L, Robins R. 1999. Exposure
of Great egret (Ardea albus) nestlings to mercury through diet in the Everglades
ecosystem. Arch Environ Contamin Toxicol Chem 18:1940–1947.
Friedmann AS, Watzin MC, Brinck-Johnsen T, Leiter JC. 1996. Low levels of dietary methyl-
mercury inhibit growth and gonadal development in juvenile walleye (Stizostedion
vitreum). Aquat Toxicol 35:265–278.
Furness RW, Camphuysen K. 1997. Seabirds as monitors of the marine environment. Ices J
Mar Sci 54:726–737.
Furness RW, Lewis SA, Mills JA. 1990. Mercury levels in the plumage of red-billed gulls
(Larus novaehollandiae scopulinus) of known sex and age. Environ Pollut 63:33–39.
Furness RW, Muirhead SJ, Woodburn M. 1986. Using bird feathers to measure mercury in
the environment: relationship between mercury content and moult. Mar Pollut Bull
17:27–30.
Gaines KF, Romanek CS, Boring CS, Lord CG, Gochfeld M, Burger J. 2002. Using raccoons
as an indicator species for metal accumulation across trophic levels — a stable isotope
approach. J Wildl Manage 66:811–821.
Gawel JE, Trick CG, Morel FM. 2001. Phytochelatins are bioindicators of atmospheric metal
exposure via direct foliar uptake in trees near Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Environ Sci
Technol 35:2108–2113.
Gilbertson M. 1974. Seasonal changes in organochlorine compounds and mercury in common
terns of Hamilton Harbour, Ontario. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 12:726–732.
Gilbertson M. 1997. Great Lakes forensic toxicology and the implications for research and
regulatory programs. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:1771–1778.
Gilbertson M, Kubiak TJ, Ludwig JP, Fox G. 1991. Great Lakes Embryo Mortality, Edema
and Deformity Syndrome (GLEMEDS) in colonial fish-eating birds: similarity to
chick edema disease. J Toxicol Environ Health 33:455–520.
Gochfeld M. 1980. Tissue distribution of mercury in normal and abnormal young common
terns. Mar Pollut Bull 11:362–366.
Gochfeld M. 1997. Spatial patterns in a bioindicator: heavy metal and selenium concentrations
in eggs of herring gulls (Larus argentatus) in the New York Bight. Arch Environ
Gochfeld M, Burger J. 1998. Temporal trends in metal levels in eggs of the endangered roseate
tern (Sterna dougallii) in New York. Environ Res 77:36–42.
Goering PL, Fisher BR, Chaudhary PP, Dick CA. 1992. Relationship between stress protein
induction in rat kidney by mercuric chloride and nephrotoxicity. Toxicol Appl Phar-
macol 113:184–191.
Golet WJ, Haines TA. 2001. Snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) as monitors for mercury
contamination of aquatic environments. Environ Monit Assess 71:211–220.
Grandjean P, Weihe P, White RF, Debes F. 1998. Cognitive performance of children prenatally
exposed to “safe” levels of methylmercury. Environ Res 77:165–172.
Grandjean P, Weihe P, White RF, Debes F, Araki S, Yokoyama K, Murata K, Sorensen N,
Dahl R, Jorgensen PJ. 1997. Cognitive deficit in 7-year-old children with prenatal
exposure to methylmercury. Neurotoxicol Teratol 19:417–428.
Grasman KA, Scanlon PF, Fox GA. 1998. Reproductive and physiological effects of envi-
ronmental contaminants in fish-eating birds of the Great Lakes: a review of historical
trends. Environ Monit Assess 53:117–145.
Grue CE, O’Shea TJ, Hoffman DJ. 1984. Lead concentrations and reproduction in highway-
nesting barn swallows (Hirundo rustica). Condor 86:383–389.
Guentzel JL, Landing WM, Gill GA, Pollman CD. 1995. Atmospheric deposition of mercury
in Florida: the FAMS Project (1992–1994). Water, Air Soil Pollut 80:393–402.
Guentzel JL, Landing WM, Gill GA, Pollman CD. 1998. Mercury and major ions in rainfall,
throughfall, and foliage from the Florida Everglades. Sci Total Environ 213:43–51.
Guillette LJJ, Crain DA, Rooney A. 1994. Endocrine-disrupting environmental contaminants

and reproductive abnormalities in reptiles. Comments Toxicol 5:381–399.
Guillette LJJ, Pickford DB, Crain DA, Rooney AA, Percival HF. 1996. Reduction in penis
size and plasma testosterone concentrations in juvenile alligators living in a contam-
inated environment. Gen Compar Endocrinol 101:32–42.
Hart CA, Nisbet IC, Kennedy SW, Hahn ME. 2003. Gonadal feminization and halogenated
environmental contaminants in Common Terns (Sterna hirundo): evidence that
ovotestes in male embryos do not persist to the prefledging stage. Ecotoxicol Environ
Saf 12:125–140.
Hays H, Risebrough R. 1972. Pollutant concentrations in abnormal young terns from Long
Island Sound. The Auk 89:19–35.
Heaton-Jones TG, Homer BL, Heaton-Jones DL, Sundlof SF. 1997. Mercury distribution in
American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) in Florida. J Zoo Wildl Med 28:62–70.
Hebert C, Nordstrom R, Weseloh DV. 1999. A quarter century of environmental surveillance:
the Canadian Wildlife Service’s Great Lakes Herring Gull Monitoring Program.
Environ Rev 7:147–166.
Heinz G. 1975. Effects of methylmercury on approach and avoidance behavior of mallard
ducklings. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 13:554–564.
Heinz G. 1976. Methylmercury: second-year feeding effects on mallard reproduction and
duckling behavior. J Wildl Manage 40:82–90.
Heinz G. 1996. Mercury poisoning in wildlife. In: Fairbrother A, Locke LN, Hoff GL, editors,
Non infectious diseases of wildlife. Ames (IA): Iowa State University Press, Wildlife
Disease Association.
Heinz GH. 1979. Methylmercury: reproductive and behavioral effects on three generations
of mallard ducks. J Wildl Manage 43:394–401.
Heinz GH, Hoffman DJ. 1998. Methylmercury chloride and selenomethionine interactions
on health and reproduction in mallards. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:139–145.
Heinz GH, Percival HF, Jennings ML. 1991. Contaminants in American alligator eggs from
Lake Apopka, Lake Griffin, and Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Environ Monit Assess
16:277–285.
Henny CJ, Blus LJ, Thompson SP, Wilson UW. 1989. Environmental contaminants, human
disturbances and nesting of double-crested cormorants in northwestern Washington
(USA). Colon Waterbirds 12:198–206.
Henny CJ, Hill EF, Hoffman DJ, Spalding MG, Grove RA. 2002. Nineteenth century mercury:
hazard to wading birds and cormorants of the Carson River, Nevada. Ecotoxicology
11:213–231.
Henny CJ, Kaiser JL, Grove RA, Bentley VR, Elliott JE. 2003. Biomagnification factors (fish
to osprey eggs from Willamette River, Oregon, U.S.A.) for PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs
and OC pesticides. Environ Monit Assess 84:275–315.
Heo Y, Lee WT, Lawrence DA. 1997. In vivo the environmental pollutants lead and mercury
induce oligoclonal T cell responses skewed toward type-2 reactivities. Cell Immunol
179:185–195.
Heyer NJ, Bittner Jr AC, Echeverria D, Woods JS. 2006. A cascade analysis of the interaction
of mercury and coproporphyrinogen oxidase (CPOX) polymorphism on the heme
biosynthetic pathway and porphyrin production. Toxicol Lett 161:159–166.
Hilmy AM, El Domiaty NA, Daabees AY, Moussa FI. 1987. Short-term effects of mercury
on survival, behaviour, bioaccumulation and ionic pattern in the catfish (Clarias
lazera). Comp Biochem Physiol C 87:303–308.
Hindell MA, Brothers N, Gales R. 1999. Mercury and cadmium concentrations in the tissues
of three species of southern albatrosses. Polar Biol 22:102–108.
Hoffman DJ, Heinz GH. 1998. Effects of mercury and selenium on glutathione metabolism
and oxidative stress in mallard ducks. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:161–166.
Hoffman DJ, Ohlendorf HM, Marn CM, Pendleton GW. 1998. Association of mercury and
selenium with altered glutathione metabolism and oxidative stress in diving ducks
from the San Francisco Bay region, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:167–172.
Hoffman DJ, Spalding MG, Frederick PC. 2005. Subchronic effects of methylmercury on
plasma and organ biochemistries in great egret nestlings. Environ Toxicol Chem
24:3078–3084.
Hoffman RD. 1980. Total mercury in heron and egret eggs and excreta. Ohio J Sci 80:43–45.
Holloway J, Scheuhammer AM, Chan HM. 2003. Assessment of white blood cell phagocytosis
as an immunological indicator of methylmercury exposure in birds. Arch Environ
Honda K, Nasu T, Tatsukawa R. 1986. Seasonal changes in mercury accumulation in the
black-eared kite, (Milvus migrans lineatus). Environ Pollut 42:325–334.
Hontela A, Dumont P, Duclos D, Fortin R. 1995. Endocrine and metabolic dysfunction in
yellow perch, Perca flavescens, exposed to organic contaminants and heavy metals
in the St. Lawrence River. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:725–731.
Hothem RL, Roster DL, King KA, Keldsen TK, Marois KC, Wainwright SE. 1995. Spatial
and temporal trends of contaminants in eggs of wading birds from San Francisco
Bay, California. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:1319–1331.
Houpt KA, Essick LA, Shaw EB, Alo DK, Gilmartin JE, Gutenmann WH, Littman CB, Lisk
DJ. 1988. A tuna fish diet influences cat behavior. J Toxicol Environ Health 24:161–172.
Huckabee JW, Cartam FO, Kennington GS, Camenzind FJ. 1973. Mercury concentration in
the hair of coyotes and rodents in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Bull Environ Contam
Toxicol 9:37–43.
Hughes KD, Ewins PJ, Clark KE. 1997. A comparison of mercury levels in feathers and eggs
of osprey (Pandion haliaetus) in the North American Great Lakes. Arch Environ
Ilback NG, Sundberg J, Oskarsson A. 1991. Methyl mercury exposure via placenta and milk
impairs natural killer (NK) cell function in newborn rats. Toxicol Lett 58:149–158.
InSug O, Datar S, Koch CJ, Shapiro IM, Shenker BJ. 1997. Mercuric compounds inhibit
human monocyte function by inducing apoptosis: evidence for formation of reactive
oxygen species, development of mitochondrial membrane permeability transition and
loss of reductive reserve. Toxicology 124:211–224.
Ioannidis JP, Lau J. 1999. Pooling research results: benefits and limitations of meta-analysis.
Jt Comm J Qual Improv 25:462–469.
Jaffe D, Prestbob E, Swartzendrubera P, Weiss-Penziasa P, Katoc S, Takamid A, Hatakeyamad
S, Kajiic Y. 2005. Export of atmospheric mercury from Asia. Atmos Environ
39:3029–3038.
Jarvinen AW, Ankley G. 1999. Linkage of effects to tissue residues: development of a
comprehensive database for aquatic organisms exposed to inorganic and organic
chemicals. Pensacola (FL): SETAC.
Jenkins DW. 1980. Biological monitoring of toxic trace metals. Vol 1, Biological monitoring
and surveillance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 600/3-80-091.
Jenkins DW. 1981. Biological monitoring of toxic trace elements, Vol 1, Biological monitoring
and surveillance; Vol 2, Toxic trace metals in plants and animals of the world, Parts I,
II, and III. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Systems Laboratory
EPA-600/S3-80-090.
Kelly CA, Rudd JWM, St. Louis VL, Heyes A. 1995. Is total mercury concentration a good
predictor of methyl mercury concentration in aquatic systems. Water, Air Soil Pollut
80:715–724.
Kendall RJ, Brewer LW, Lacher TEJ, Whitten ML, Marden BT. 1989. The use of starling
nest boxes for field reproductive studies. Institute of Wildlife Toxicology. EPA/600/
8?89/056. National Technical Information Services publication number: PB89 195
028/AS, i–vii + 82 pp.
Kenow KP, Gutreuter S, Hines RK, Meyer MW, Fournier F, Karasov WH. 2003. Effects of
methyl mercury exposure on the growth of juvenile common loons. Ecotoxicology
12:171–182.
Kerper LE, Ballatori N, Clarkson TW. 1992. Methylmercury transport across the blood-brain
barrier by an amino acid carrier. Am J Physiol 262:R761–R765.
Kim CY, Nakai K, Kasanuma Y, Satoh H. 2000. Comparison of neurobehavioral changes in
three inbred strains of mice prenatally exposed to methylmercury. Neurotoxicol
Teratol 22:397–403.
Kim EY, Murakami T, Saeki K, Tatsukawa R. 1996. Mercury levels and its chemical form in
tissues and organs of seabirds. Arch Environ Contamin Toxicol 30:259–266.
King KA, Custer TW, Weaver DA. 1994. Reproductive success of barn swallows nesting near
a selenium-contaminated lake in east Texas, USA. Environ Pollut 84:53–58.
Kiparissis Y, Akhtar P, Hodson PV, Brown RS. 2003. Partiton-controlled delivery of toxicants:
a novel in vivo approach for embryo toxicity testing. Environ Sci Technol 37:2262–2266.
Kishimoto T, Oguri T, Ueda D, Tada M. 1996. Methylmercury modulation of monocyte
chemotactic protein-1 mRNA expression in human peripheral blood mononuclear
cells. Hum Cell 9:371–374.
Knudsen TB, O’Hara MF, Charlap JH, Donahue RJ, Craig RC. 2000. Mitochondrial mechanisms
of developmental toxicity: critical events and intervention. Toxicologist 54:69–70.
Koivusaari J, Nuuja I, Palokangas R, Finnlund M. 1980. Relationships between productivity,
eggshell thickness and pollutant contents of addled eggs in the population of white-tailed
eagles Haliaetus albicilla L. in Finland during 1969–1978. Environ Pollut 23:41–52.
Komsta-Szumska E, Czuba M, Reuhl KR, Miller DR. 1983. Demethylation and excretion of
methyl mercury by the guinea pig. Environ Res 32:247–257.
Krabbenhoft DP, Gilmour CC, Benoit JM, Babiarz CL, Andren AW, Hurley JP. 1998. Methyl
mercury dynamics in littoral sediments of a temperate seepage lake. Can J Fish Aquat
Sci 55:835–844.
Kraus ML. 1989. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in pre-fledgling tree swallows (Tachycineta
bicolor). Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 43:407–414.
Kreps SE, Banzet N, Christiani DC, Polla BS. 1997. Molecular biomarkers of early responses
to environmental stressors — implications for risk assessment and public health. Rev
Environ Health 12:261–280.
Kucera E. 1983. Mink and otter as indicators of mercury in Manitoba waters. Can J Zool
61:2250–2256.
Law RJ. 1996. Metals in marine mammals. In: Beyer WN, Heinz GH, Redmon-Norwood
AW, editors, Environmental contaminants in wildlife: interpreting tissue concentra-
tions. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, p. 357–376.
Lee S, Yang RS. 2002. Interactive effects of methylmercury and PCB mixtures on neuro-
development in mice. Toxicologist 66:132–133.
Leonzio C, Massi A. 1989. Metal biomonitoring in bird eggs. A critical experiment. Bull
Leonzio C, Monaci F. 1996. Multiresponse biomarker evaluation of interactions between

methylmercury and Aroclor 1260 in quail. Ecotoxicology 5:365–376.
Lewandowski TA, Bartell SM, Ponce RA, Faustman EM. 2001. Mechanism-based comparison
of in vitro and in vivo data on methylmercury toxicity in developing rodents. Toxi-
cologist 60:258.
Lewis SA, Becker PH, Furness RW. 1993. Mercury levels in eggs, tissues and feathers of
herring gulls (Larus argentatus) from the German Wadden Sea Coast. Environ Pollut
80:293–299.
Li S, Thompson SA, Woods JS. 1996. Localization of gamma-glutamylcysteine synthetase
mRNA expression in mouse brain following methylmercury treatment using reverse
transcription in situ PCR amplification. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 140:180–187.
Lind B, Friberg L, Nylander M. 1988. Preliminary studies on methylmercury biotransforma-
tion and clearance in the brain of primates. II. Demethylation of mercury in brain.
J Trace Elem Exp Med 1:49–56.
Loerzel SM, Samuelson DA, Sepulveda MS, Spalding MG, Lewis P, Smith PJ. 1996. Initial
evaluation of mercury toxicity in the eye of the great egret. Investig Ophthalmol Vis
Sci 37:s349.
Loerzel S, Samuelson D, Szabo N. 1999. Ocular effects methylmercury toxicity in juvenile
double-crested cormonants (Phalacrocorax auritus). Investigative Ophthalmology &
Visual Science. Annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Oph-
thalmology. Fort Lauderdale, FL, May 9–14, 1999.
Loftus WF, Trexler JC, Jones RD. 1998. Mercury transfer through an Everglades aquatic food
web. Dept. of Biol. Sci. and SE Environ. Res. Prog., Florida International University
Final Report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, December 1998,
contract SP-329.
Lord CG, Gaines KF, Boring CS, Brisbin ILJ, Gochfeld M, Burger J. 2002. Raccoon (Procyon
lotor) as a bioindicator of mercury contamination at the U.S. Department of Energy’s
Savannah River Site. Archiv Environ Contam Toxicol 43:356–363.
Louis VL, Barlow JC. 1993. The reproductive success of tree swallows nesting near experi-
mentally acidified lakes in northwestern Ontario. Can J Zool 71:1090–1097.
Maier WE, Costa LG. 1990. Sodium, potassium-ATPase in rat brain and erythrocytes as a
possible target and marker, respectively, for neurotoxicity: studies with chlordecone,
organotins and mercury compounds. Toxicol Lett 51:175–188.
Mallory ML. 1994. Notes on egg laying and incubation in the common merganser. Wilson
Bull 106:757–759.
Martin AR, Reeves RR. 2002. Diversity and zoogeography. In: Hoelzel, AR, editor, Marine
mammal biology: an evolutionary approach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.
Mason CF, Ekins G, Ratford JR. 1997. PCB congeners, DDE, dieldrin and mercury in eggs
from an expanding colony of cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo). Chemosphere
34:1845–1849.
Mason RP, Laporte J, Andres S. 2000. Factors controlling the bioaccumulation of mercury,
methylmercury, arsenic, selenium, and cadmium by freshwater invertebrates and fish.
Mayne GJ, Bishop CA, Martin PA, Boermans HJ, Hunter B. 2005. Thyroid function in nestling
tree swallows and eastern bluebirds exposed to non-persistent pesticides and
p, p′-DDE in apple orchards of southern Ontario, Canada. Ecotoxicology 14:381–396.
McCrary JE, Heagler MG. 1997. The use of a simultaneous multiple species acute toxicity
test to compare the relative sensitivities of aquatic organisms to mercury. J Environ
Sci Health Part A: Environ Sci Eng Toxic Hazardous Substance Control 32:73–81.
McMurtry MJ, Wales DL, Scheider WA, Beggs GL, Dimond PE. 1989. Relationship of
mercury concentrations in lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieui) to the physical and chemical characteristics of Ontario lakes.
Can J Fish Aquat Sci 46:426–434.
Medinsky MA, Klaassen CD. 1996. Toxicokinetics. In: Klaassen CD, editor, Casarett and
Doull’s toxicology: the basic science of poisons. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Meinelt T, Krueger R, Pietrock M, Osten R, Steinberg C. 1997. Mercury pollution and
macrophage centres in pike (Esox lucius) tissues. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 4:32–36.
Meyer MW. 1998. Ecological risk of mercury in the environment: the inadequacy of “the
best available science.” Environ Toxicol Chem 17:137–138.
Meyer MW, Evers DC, Daulton T, Braselton WE. 1995. Common loons (Gavia immer) nesting
on low pH lakes in northern Wisconsin have elevated blood mercury content. Water
Meyer MW, Evers DC, Hartigan JJ, Rasmussen PS. 1998. Patterns of Common Loon (Gavia
immer) mercury exposure, reproduction, and survival in Wisconsin, USA. Environ
Meyers-Schoene L, Walton BT. 1990. Comparison of two freshwater turtle species as monitors
of environmental contamination. Govt Reports Announcements & Index 24.
Meyers-Schone L, Shugart LR, Beauchamp JJ, Walton BT. 1993. Comparison of two fresh-
water turtle species as monitors of radionuclide and chemical contamination: DNA
damage and residue analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem 12:1487–1496.
Mierle G, Addison EM, MacDonald KS, Joachim DG. 2000. Mercury levels in tissues of
otters from Ontario, Canada: variation with age, sex, and location. Environ Toxicol
Chem 19:3044–3051.
Mineau P, Fox GA, Norstrom RJ, Weseloh DV, Hallet DJ, Ellenton JA. 1984. Using the
herring gull to monitor levels and effects of organochlorine contamination in the
Canadian Great. Adv Environ Sci Technol 14:425–452.
Miura K, Koide N, Himeno S, Nakagawa I, Imura N. 1999. The involvement of microtubular
disruption in methylmercury-induced apoptosis in neuronal and nonneuronal cell
lines. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 160:279–288.
Miura K, Koyama T, Nakamura I. 1978. Mercury content in museum and recent specimens
of Chiroptera in Japan. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 20:696–701.
Monteiro LR, Furness RW. 1995. Seabirds as monitors of mercury in the marine environment.
Monteiro LR, Furness RW. 2001. Kinetics, dose-response, and excretion of methylmercury
in free-living adult Cory’s shearwaters. Environ Sci Technol 35:739–746.
Monteiro LR, Granadeiro JP, Furness RW. 1998. Relationship between mercury levels and
diet in Azores seabirds. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 166:259–265.
Moore DR, Teed RS, Richardson GM. 2003. Derivation of an ambient water quality criterion
for mercury: taking account of site-specific conditions. Environ Toxicol Chem
22:3069–3080.
Moore DRJ, Sample BE, Suter GW, Parkhurst BR, Teed RS. 1999. A probabilistic risk assess-
ment of the effects of methylmercury and PCBs on mink and kingfishers along East
Fork Poplar Creek, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:2941–2953.
Moreira CM, Oliveira EM, Bonan CD, Sarkis JJ, Vassallo DV. 2003. Effects of mercury on
myosin ATPase in the ventricular myocardium of the rat. Comp Biochem Physiol C
Toxicol Pharmacol 135C:269–275.
National Research Council. 1989. Biologic Markers of Air-Pollution Stress and Damage in
Forests. National Academies Press: Committee on Biologic Markers of Air-Pollution
Damage in Trees.
Nemeth KR, Charlap JH, O’Hara MF, Craig RC, Knudsen TB. 2002. Microarray analysis of
developmental toxicity: ontogenetic profiles of susceptibility in the mouse embryonic
eye. Toxicologist 66:28.
Newland MC, Paletz EM. 2000. Animal studies of methylmercury and PCBs: What do they
tell us about expected effects in humans? Neurotoxicology Little Rock [print] Decem-
ber 21:1003–1028.
Newman J, Zillioux E, Rich E, Liang L, Newman C. 2004. Historical and other patterns of
monomethyl and inorganic mercury in the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi).
Nichols J, Bradbury S, Swartout J. 1999. Derivation of wildlife values for mercury. J Toxicol
Environ Health Part B 2:325–355.
Nichols JW, Larsen CP, McDonald ME, Niemi GJ, Ankley GT. 1990. Bioenergetics-based
model for accumulation of polychlorinated biphenyls by nestling tree swallows,
Tachycineta bicolor. Environ Sci Technol 29:604–612.
Nicholson JK, Osborn D. 1983. Kidney lesions in pelagic seabirds with high tissue levels of
cadmium and mercury. J Zool London 200:99–118.
Nicholson JK, Osborn D. 1984. Kidney lesions in juvenile starlings Sturnus vulgaris fed on
a mercury-contaminated synthetic diet. Environ Pollut Ser A 33:195–206.
Nielsen JB, Andersen O, Grandjean P. 1994. Evaluation of mercury in hair, blood and muscle
as biomarkers for methylmercury exposure in male and female mice. Arch Toxicol
68:317–321.
Niimi AJ, Lowe-Jinde L. 1984. Differential blood cell ratios of rainbow trout (Salmo gaird-
neri) exposed to methylmercury and chlorobenzenes. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol
13:303–311.
Nisbet ICT. 1998. Trends in concentrations and effects of persistent toxic contaminants in
the Great Lakes: their significance for inferring management actions. Environ Manage
Assess 53:3–15.
Nisbet I, Montoya J, Burger J, Hatch J. 2002. Use of stable isotopes to investigate individual
differences in diets and mercury exposures among common terns Sterna hirundo in
breeding and wintering grounds. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 242:267–274.
Nocera JJ, Taylor PD. 1998. In situ behavioral response of common loons associated with
elevated mercury (Hg) exposure. Conserv Ecol 2:10–17.
Nordenhall K, Dock L, Vahter M. 1998. Cross-fostering study of methyl mercury retention,
demethylation and excretion in the neonatal hamster. Pharmacol Toxicol 82:132–136.
Norseth T, Clarkson TW. 1970. Studies on the biotransformation of Hg-labeled methylmer-
curic chloride in rats. Arch Environ Health 21:717–727.
O’Connor DJ, Nielsen SW. 1981. Environmental survey of methylmercury levels in wild mink
(Mustela vison) and otter (Lutra canadensis) from the northeastern United States and
experimental pathology of methylmercurialism in the otter. In: Chapman JD, Pursley
D, editors, World Furbearer Conf Proc. Frostburg, MD, p. 1728–1745.
O’Hara TM, Woshner V, Bratton G. 2003. Inorganic pollutants in Arctic marine mammals.
In: Vos JG, Bossart GD, Fournier M, O’Shea TJ, editors, Toxicology of marine
mammals. London (UK): Taylor & Francis, p. 206–246.
O’Shea TJ. 1999. Environmental contaminants and marine mammals. In: Reynolds JEI, SA
Rommel, editors, Biology of marine mammals, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Insti-
tution Press, p. 485–563.
O’Shea TJ, Tanabe S. 2003. Persistent ocean contaminants and marine mammals: a retro-
spective overview. In: Vos JG, Bossart GD, Fournier M, O’Shea TJ, editors, Toxicol-
ogy of marine mammals, London (UK): Taylor & Francis, p. 99–134.
Odsjo T, Roos A, Johnels AG. 2004. The tail feathers of osprey nestlings (Pandion haliaetus
L.) as indicators of change in mercury load in the environment of southern Sweden
(1969–1998): a case study with a note on the simultaneous intake of selenium. Ambio
33:133–137.
Olsen AR, Sedransk J, Edwards D, Gotway CA, Liggett Rathbun S, Reckhow KH, Young
LJ. 1999. Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in the
United States. Environ Monit Assess 54:1–45.
Olsen B, Evers DC, DeSorbo C. 2000. The effect of methylated mercury on the diving
frequency of the common loon. J Ecol Res 2:67–72.
Omata S, Kasama H, Hasegawa H, Hasegawa K, Ozaki K, Sugano H. 1986. Species difference
between rat and hamster in tissue accumulation of mercury after administration of
methylmercury. Arch Toxicol 59:249–254.
Omata S, Toribara TY, Cernichiari E, Clarkson TW. 1988. Biotransformation of methyl-
mercury in-vitro in the tissues of wild and laboratory animals. Fifty-ninth Annual
Meeting of the Zoological Society of Japan, Sapporo, Japan, Zool Soc Tokyo, Japan.
Ou YC, White CC, Krejsa CM, Ponce RA, Kavanagh TJ, Faustman EM. 1999. The role of
intracellular glutathione in methylmercury-induced toxicity in embryonic neuronal
cells. Neurotoxicology Little Rock Oct 20:793–804.
Oxynos K, Schmitzer J, Kettrup A. 1993. Herring gull eggs as bioindicators for chlorinated
hydrocarbons contribution to the German Federal Environmental Specimen Bank.
Sci Total Environ 140:387–398.
Pekarik C, Weseloh DV. 1998. Organochlorine contaminants in herring gull eggs from the
Great Lakes, 1974–1995: change point regression analysis and short-term regression.
Pekarik C, Weselo DV, Barret GC, Simon M, Bishop CA, Pettit KE. 1998. An atlas of
contaminants in the eggs of fish-eating colonial birds of the Great Lakes (1993–1997),
Vol 1 and 2. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Region Tech. Rep. Series Number 322.
Pennuto CM, Lane OP, Evers DC, Taylor RJ, Loukmas J. 2005. Mercury in the northern
crayfish Orconectes virilis (Hagen), in New England, USA. Ecotoxicology
14:149–162.
Pierotti RJ, Good TP. 1994. Herring Gull (Larus argentatus). In: Poole A, Gill F, editors, The
birds of North America. No. 124.
Pingree SD, Simmonds PL, Woods JS. 2001. Effects of 2,3-dimercapto-1-propanesulfonic
acid (DMPS) on tissue and urine mercury levels following prolonged methylmercury
exposure in rats. Toxicol Sci 61:224–233.
Piper WH, Paruk JD, Evers DC, Meyer MW, Tischler KB, Klich M, Hartigan JJ. 1997. Local
movements of color-marked common loons. J Wildl Manage 61:1253–1261.
Piper WH, Tischler KB, Klich M. 2000. Territory acquisition in loons: the importance of
take-over. Anim Behav 59:385–394.
Ponce RA, Bartell SM, Kavanagh TJ, Woods JS, Griffith WC, Lee RC, Takaro TK, Faustman
EM. 1998. Uncertainty analysis methods for comparing predictive models and bio-
markers: a case study of dietary methyl mercury exposure. Regulatory Toxicol Phar-
macol 28:96–105.
Poole AF. 1989. Osprey: a natural and unnatural history. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Porcella DB, Zillioux EJ, Grieb TM, Newman JR, West GB. 2004. Retrospective study of
mercury in raccoons (Procyon lotor) in South Florida. Ecotoxicology 13:207–221.
Quinney TE, Smith PC. 1978. Reproductive success, growth of nestlings and foraging behav-
iour of the great blue heron (Ardea herodias herodias L.). Canadian Wildlife Service,
Final contract report KL229-5-7077.
Rattner BA, McGowan PC, Golden NH, Hatfield JS, Toschik PC, Lukei Jr RF, Hale RC,
Schmitz-Afonso I, Rice CP. 2004. Contaminant exposure and reproductive success
of ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) nesting in Chesapeake Bay regions of concern. Arch
Rimmer C, McFarland K, Evers DC, Taylor T. 2005. Mercury levels in Bicknell’s thrush and
other insectivorous passerine birds in montane forests of northeastern United States.
Ecotoxicology 14:223–240.
Risebrough RW. 1986. Pesticides and bird populations. Curr Ornithol 3:397–427.
Roberts TM, Hutchinson TC, Paciga J, Chattopadhyay A, Jervis RE, VanLoon J, Parkinson
DK. 1974. Lead contamination around secondary smelters: estimation of dispersal
and accumulation by humans. Science 186:1120–1123.
Roelke ME, Schultz DP, Facemire CF, Sundlof SF, Royals HE. 1991. Mercury contamination
in Florida panthers. Eustis, FL: Florida Panther Interagency Committee, p. 54.
Rogers DW, Beamish FW. 1981. Uptake of waterborne methylmercury by rainbow trout
(Salmo gairdneri) in relation to oxygen consumption and methylmercury concentra-
tion. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:1309–1315.
Ronald K, Tessaro SV, Uthe JF, Freeman HC, Frank R. 1977. Methylmercury poisoning in
the harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus). Sci Tot Environ 8:1–11.
Rood BE, Gottgens JF, Delfino JJ, Earle CD, Crisman TL. 1995. Mercury accumulation trends
in Florida Everglades and savannas marsh flooded soils. Water Air Soil Pollut
80:981–990.
Ross K, Abraham K, Gadawski T, Rempel R, Gabor T, Maher R. 2002. Abundance and
distribution of breeding waterfowl in the Great Clay Belt of Northern Ontario. Can
Field-Naturalist 116:42–50.
Rossi AD, Viviani B, Zhivotovsky B, Manzo L, Orrenius S, Vahter M, Nicotera P. 1997.
Inorganic mercury modifies Ca2+ signal, triggers apoptosis and potentiates NMDA
toxicity in cerebellar granule neurons. Cell Death Differentiation 4:317–324.
Rowe CL, Kinney OM, Nagle RD, Congdon JD. 1998. Elevated maintenance costs in an
anuran (Rana catesbeiana) exposed to a mixture of trace elements during the embry-
onic and early larval periods. Physiolog Zool 71:27–35.
Ruckel S. 1993. Mercury concentrations in alligator meat in Georgia. Annual Conference of
Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 47:287–292.
Rudneva-Titova I. 1998. The biochemical effects of toxicants in developing eggs and larvae
of Black Sea fish species. Mar Environ Res 46:499–500.
Ruelle R. 1992. Contaminant evaluation of interior least tern and piping plover eggs and chicks
on the Missouri River, South Dakota. GRA & I Issue 4 residue NTIS/PB92-106210.
Rumbold DG, Niemczyk SL, Fink LE, Chandrasekhar T, Harkanson B, Laine KA. 2001.
Mercury in eggs and feathers of great egrets (Ardea albus) from the Florida Ever-
glades. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 41:501–507.
Russell D. 2003. Evaluation of the Clean Water Act Section 304(a) human health criterion
for methylmercury; protectiveness for threatened and endangered wildlife in Califor-
nia. Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service DW-14-95556801-0.
Scheuhammer AM. 1987. The chronic toxicity of aluminum, cadmium, mercury, and lead in
birds: a review. Environ Pollut 46:263–295.
Scheuhammer AM. 1988. Chronic dietary toxicity of methylmercury in the zebra finch,
Poephila guttata. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 40:123–130.
Scheuhammer AM. 1990. Accumulation and toxicity of mercury, cadmium and lead in
vertebrates. In: Workshop to Design Baseline and Monitoring Studies for the OCS
Mining Program, Norton Sound, Alaska — Workshop Proceedings, US Dept. of the
Interior: Minerals Management Service, OCS Study, mms90-059.
Scheuhammer AM, Atchison CM, Wong AHK, Evers DC. 1998a. Mercury exposure in
breeding common loons (Gavia immer) in central Ontario, Canada. Environ Toxicol
Chem 17:191–196.
Scheuhammer AM, Wong AH, Bond D. 1998b. Mercury and selenium accumulation in
common loons (Gavia immer) and common mergansers (Mergus merganser) from
eastern Canada. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:197–201.
Scheuhammer AM, Perrault JA, Bond DE. 2001. Mercury, methylmercury, and selenium
concentrations in eggs of Common Loons (Gavia immer) from Canada. Environ
Monitor Assess 72:79–74.
Schreiber BA, Burger J. 2002. Biology of marine birds. Boca Raton (FL):CRC Press.
Schwarzbach SE, Henderson J, Albertson J, Hofius J. 1997. Assessing risk from methylmer-
cury in tidal marsh sediments to reproduction of California Clapper Rails (Rallus
longirostris obsoletus) using target diet and target egg concentration approaches.
Poster for Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, November 1997, San
Francisco, CA.
Seegal RF, Bemis JC. 2000. Polychlorinated biphenyls and methylmercury synergistically
alter dopamine and intracellular calcium. Neurotoxicology 21:243.
Seigneur C, Vijayaraghavan K, Lohman K, Karamchandani P, Scott C. 2004. Global source
attribution for mercury deposition in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 38:555–569.
Sepulveda MS, Poppenga RH, Arrecis JJ, Quinn LB. 1998. Mercury and selenium concen-
trations in free-ranging in tissues from double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax
auritus) from southern Florida. Colonial Waterbirds 21:35–42.
Shanker G, Mutkus LA, Walker SJ, Aschner M. 2002. Methylmercury enhances arachidonic
acid release and cytosolic phospholipase A2 expression in primary cultures of neo-
natal astrocytes. Brain Res Mol Brain Res 106:1–11.
Shaw BP, Dash S, Panigrahi AK. 1991. Effect of methyl mercuric chloride treatment on
haematological characteristics and erythrocyte morphology of Swiss mice. Environ
Pollut 73:43–52.
Shenker BJ, Guo TL, Shapiro IM. 1998. Low-level methylmercury exposure causes human T-cells
to undergo apoptosis: evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction. Environ Res 77:149–159.
Shipp AM, Gentry PR, Lawrence G, Van Landingham CF, Covington T, Clewell HJ, Gribben
K, Crump K. 2000. Determination of a site-specific reference dose for methylmercury
for fish-eating populations. Toxicol Ind Health 16:335–438.
Sillman AJ, Weidner WJ. 1993. Low levels of inorganic mercury damage the corneal endo-
thelium. Exper Eye Res 57:549–555.
Slotton DG, Reuter JE, Goldman CR. 1995. Mercury uptake patterns of biota in a seasonally
anoxic northern California Reservoir. Water, Air Soil Pollut 80:841–850.
Spalding MG, Frederick PC, McGill HC, Bouton SN, McDowell LR. 2000a. Methylmercury
accumulation in tissues and its effects on growth and appetite in captive great egrets.
J Wildl Dis 36:411–422.
Spalding MG, Frederick PC, McGill HC, Bouton SN, Richey LJ, Schumacher IM, Blackmore
CG, Harrison J. 2000b. Histologic, neurologic, and immunologic effects of methyl-
mercury in captive great egrets. J Wildl Dis 36:423–435.
Stafford CP, Haines TA. 2001. Mercury contamination and growth rate in two piscivore
populations. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:2099–2101.
Stalmaster MV. 1987. The bald eagle. New York (NY): Universe Books.
Steidl RJ, Griffin CR, Niles LJ. 1991. Contaminant levels of osprey eggs and prey reflect
regional differences in reproductive success. J Wildl Manage 55:601–608.
Stendell RC, Ohlendorf HM, Klaas EE, Elder JB. 1976. Mercury in eggs of aquatic birds,
Lake St. Clair — 1973. Pestic Monit J 10:7–9.
Stewart FM, Phillips RA, Bartle JA, Craig J, Shooter D. 1999. Influence of phylogeny, diet,
moult schedule and sex on heavy metal concentrations in New Zealand Procellarii-
formes. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 178:295–305.
Struger J, Elliott JE, Weseloh DV. 1987. Metals and essential elements in herring gulls from
the Great Lakes 1983, USA Canada. J Great Lakes Res 13:43–55.
Sundlof SF, Spaulding MG, Wentworth JD, Steible CK. 1994. Mercury in livers of wading
birds (Ciconiiformes) in Southern Florida. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 27:299–305.
Takeuchi T. 1977. Neuropathology of Minimata disease in Kumamoto: especially at the
chronic stage. In: Roizin L, Shiraki H, Grcevic N, editors, Neurotoxicology. New
York: Raven Press.
Tansy CL. 2002. A comparison of contaminants in tissues of mink (Mustela vision) from
South Carolina and Louisiana. MS thesis, Clemson University.
Tatara CP, Mulvey M, Newman MC. 2002. Genetic and demographic responses of mercury-
exposed mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) populations: temporal stability and
reproductive components of fitness. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:2191–2197.
Teigen SW, Andersen RA, Daae HL, Skaare JU. 1999. Heavy metal content in liver and
kidneys of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) in various life stages correlated with
metallothionein levels: some metal-binding characteristics of this protein. Environ
Thaxton JP, Parkhurst CR. 1973. Abnormal mating behavior and reproductive dysfunction
caused by mercury in Japanese quail. Proc Soc Exper Biol Med 144:252–255.
Thompson DR. 1996. Mercury in birds and terrestrial mammals. In: Beyer WN, Heinz GH,
Redmon-Norwood AW, editors, Environmental contaminants in wildlife: interpreting
tissue concentrations. Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers.
Thompson DR, Becker PH, Furness RW. 1993. Long-term changes in mercury concentrations
in herring gulls Larus argentatus and common terns Sterna hirundo from the German
North Sea coast. J Appl Ecol 30:316–320.
Thompson DR, Furness RW. 1989a. The chemical form of mercury stored in South Atlantic
seabirds. Environ Pollut 60:305–318.
Thompson DR, Furness RW. 1989b. Comparison of the levels of total and organic mercury
in seabird feathers. Mar Pollut Bull 20:557–579.
Thompson DR, Furness RW, Walsh PM. 1992. Historical changes in mercury concentrations
in the marine ecosystem of the north and northeast Atlantic Ocean as indicated by
seabird feathers. J Appl Ecol 29:79–84.
Thompson DR, Hamer KC, Furness RW. 1991. Mercury accumulation in great skuas, Cathar-
acta skua of known age and sex and its effects upon breeding and survival. J Appl
Ecol 28:672–684.
Timken RL, Anderson BW. 1969. Food habits of common mergansers in the northcentral
United States. J Wildl Manage 33:87–91.
Toschik PC, Rattner BA, McGowan PC, Christman MC, Carter DB, Hale RC, Matson CW,
Ottinger MA. 2005. Effects of contaminant exposure on reproductive success of
ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) nesting in Delaware River and Bay, USA. Environ
Tsuchiya W, Okada Y. 1982. Differential effects of cadmium and mercury on amino acid and
sugar transport in the bullfrog small intestine. Experientia (Basel) 38:1073–1075.
[USCOE] US Army Corps of Engineers and [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency.
2005. Environmental Residue-Effects Database (ERED).
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1993a. A protocol for evaluating historical
contamination of mercury in the Florida panther and other Florida wildlife. USEPA,
Ecological Effects Branch KBN Engineering, Gainesville, FL; Final report 13341B1.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1993b. Wildlife exposure factors handbook,

Vol. 1. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Method EPA 600-R-93-187a.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Final water quality guidance for the
great lakes system. Fed Reg 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, 131, & 132 60:15366–15424.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Mercury study report to Congress, Vol
VI: An ecological assessment of anthropogenic mercury emissions in the United
States. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-452/R-97-008.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Water quality criterion for the protec-
tion of human health: methylmercury. EPA-823-R-01-001.
Van Der Molen EJ, Blok AA, Graaf GJ. 1982. Winter starvation and mercury intoxication in
Gray Herons (Ardea cinerea) in the Netherlands. Ardea 70:173–184.
Vos P, Meelis E, Ter Keurs WJ. 2000. A framework for the design of ecological monitoring
programs as a tool for environmental and nature management. Environ Monit Assess
61:317–344.
Wagemann RE, Trebacz G, Boila G, Lockhhart WL. 2000. Mercury species in the liver of
ringed seals. Sci Total Environ 261:21–32.
Wagemann R, Innes S, Richard PR. 1996. Overview and regional and temporal differences
of heavy metals in Arctic whales and ringed seals in the Canadian Arctic. Sci Total
Environ 186:41–66.
Wagemann R, Trebacz E, Boila G, Lockhart WL. 1998. Methylmercury and total mercury in
tissues of arctic marine mammals. Sci Total Environ 218:19–31.
Wallin K. 1984. Decrease and recovery patterns of some raptors in relation to the introduction
and ban of alkyl-mercury and DDT in Sweden. Ambio 13:263–265.
Walsh PM. 1990. The use of seabirds as monitors of heavy metals in the marine environment.
In: Furness RW, Rainbow PS, editors, Heavy metals in the marine environment. Boca
Raton (FL): CRC Press.
Wayland M, Gilchrist HG, Marchant T, Keating J, Smits JE. 2002. Immune function, stress
response, and body condition in Arctic-breeding common eiders in relation to cad-
mium, mercury, and selenium concentrations. Environ Res 90:47–60.
Wayland M, Smits JE, Gilchrist HG, Marchant T, Keating J. 2003. Biomarker responses in
nesting, common eiders in the Canadian arctic in relation to tissue cadmium, mercury
and selenium concentrations. Ecotoxicology 12:225–237.
Webber HM, Haines TA. 2003. Mercury effects on predator avoidance behavior of a forage
fish, golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas). Environ Toxicol Chem 22:1556–1561.
Weech SA, Wilson LK, Langelier KM, Elliott JE. 2003. Mercury residues in livers of bald
eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) found dead or dying in British Columbia, Canada
(1987–1994). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 45:562–569.
Weiss-Penzias P, Jaffe DA, McClintick A, Prestbo EM, Landis MS. 2003. Gaseous elemental
mercury in the marine boundary layer: evidence for rapid removal in anthropogenic
pollution. Environ Sci Technol 37:3755–3763.
Welch LJ. 1994. Contaminant burdens and reproductive rates of bald eagles breeding in Maine.
Master’s Thesis: University of Maine. Orono, ME.
Wiemeyer SN, Bunck CM, Stafford CJ. 1993. Environmental contaminants in bald eagle
eggs: 1980–1984 and further interpretations of relationships to productivity and shell
thickness. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 24:213–227.
Wiemeyer SN, Lamont TG, Bunck CM, Sindelar CR, Gramlich FJ, Fraser JD, Byrd MA.
1984. Organochloride pesticide, polychlorobiphenyl, and mercury residues in bald
eagle eggs — 1969–1979 — and their relationships to shell thinnings and reproduc-
tion. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 13:529–549.
Wiemeyer SN, Schmeling SK, Anderson A. 1987. Environmental pollutant and necropsy data
for ospreys from the eastern United States, 1975–1982. J Wildl Dis 23:279–291.
Wobeser G. 1975. Prolonged oral administration of methyl mercury chloride to rainbow trout.
J Fish Res Board Can 32:2015–2023.
Wobeser G, Nielsen NO, Schiefer B. 1976. Mercury and mink. I. Use of mercury-contami-
nated fish as a food for ranch mink intoxication. Can J Comp Med 40:30–33.
Wolfe MF, Kendall RJ. 1998. Age-dependent toxicity of terbufos and diazinon to European
starlings (Sturnis vulgaris) and red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Environ
Wolfe M, Norman D. 1998a. Effects of waterborne mercury on terrestrial wildlife at Clear
Lake: Evaluation and testing of a predictive model. Environ Toxicol Chem
17:214–227.
Wolfe MF, Schwarzbach S, Sulaiman RA. 1998. The effects of mercury on wildlife: a
comprehensive review. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:146–160.
Wood CM, Adams WS, Ankley GT, DiBona DR, Luoma SN, Playle RC, Stubblefield WC,
Bergman HL, Erickson HL, Dorward-King EJ. 1997. Environmental toxicology of
metals. In: Reassessment of metals criteria of aquatic life protection, Berman HL,
Dorland-King DJ, editors. Pensacola (FL): SETAC, p. 31–51.
Wood PB. 1993. Mercury concentrations in blood and feathers of nestling Florida bald eagles.
Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Inc, Charlotte, NC, November
28:68.
Wood PB, White JH, Steffer A, Wood JM, Facemire CF, Percival HF. 1996. Mercury con-
centrations in tissues of Florida bald eagles. J Wildl Manage 60:178–185.
Wren CD. 1984. Distribution of metals in tissues of beaver, raccoon and otter from Ontario,
Canada. Sci Tot Environ 34:177–184.
Wren CD. 1986. A review of metal accumulation and toxicity in wild mammals. I. Mercury.
Environ Res 40:1737–1744.
Wren CD, Hunter DB, Leatherland JF, Stokes PM. 1987a. The effects of polychlorinated
biphenyls and methylmercury, singly and in combination on mink. 2. Reproduction
and kit development. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 16:449–454.
Wren CD, Hunter DB, Leatherland JF, Stokes PM. 1987b. The effects of polychlorinated
biphenyls and methylmercury, singly and in combination, on mink. I. Uptake and
toxic responses. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 16:441–447.
Wren CD, Stokes PM, Fischer KL. 1986. Mercury levels in Ontario Canada mink and otter
relative to food levels and environmental acidification. Can J Zool 64:2854–2859.
Yang MG, Krawford KS, Gareia JD, Wang JHC, Lei KY. 1972. Deposition of mercury in
fetal and maternal brain. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 141:1004–1007.
Yanochko GM, Jagoe CH, Brisbin Jr IL. 1997. Tissue mercury concentrations in alligators
(Alligator mississippiensis) from the Florida Everglades and the Savannah River Site,
South Carolina. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 32:323–328.
Yasutake A, Hirayama K. 1994. Acute effects of methylmercury on hepatic and renal glu-
tathione metabolisms in mice. Arch Toxicol 68:512–516.
Yasutake A, Nakano A, Miyamoto K, Eto K. 1997. Chronic effects of methylmercury in rats.
I. Biochemical aspects. Tohoku J Exp Med 182:185–196.
Yates DE, Mayack DT, Munney K, Evers DC, Major A, Kaur T, Taylor RJ. 2005. Mercury
levels in mink (Mustela vison) and river otter (Lontra canadensis) from northeastern
North America. Ecotoxicology 14:263–274.
Yediler A, Jacobs J. 1995. Synergistic effects of temperature; oxygen and water flow on the
accumulation and tissue distribution of mercury in carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Chemo-
sphere 31:4437–4453.
Yuska DE, Skelly JM, Ferdinand JA, Stevenson RE, Savage JE, Mulik JD, Hines A. 2003.
Use of bioindicators and passive sampling devices to evaluate ambient ozone con-
centrations in north central Pennsylvania. Environ Pollut 125:71–80.
Zillioux EJ, Newman JR. 2003. Bioindicators — essential tools for realistic assessment and
remediation cost control. Soil, Sediment and Water 9:11.
Zillioux EJ, Porcella DB, Benoit JM. 1993. Mercury cycling and effects in freshwater wetland
ecosystems. Environ Toxicol Chem 12:2245–2264.
6 An Integrated
Framework for Ecological
Mercury Assessments
Tamara Saltman, Reed Harris, Michael W. Murray,
and Rob Reash
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Environmental data capable of demonstrating changes and trends in contaminants
of concern to scientists and policymakers are crucial to understand the benefits of
past and future regulatory and voluntary actions. While there will always be uncer-
tainty associated with observed trends and the potential benefits of remedial actions,
high-quality environmental data will enhance management and policy development
capabilities. In addition, defensible environmental trend data are needed to assess
the benefits society receives or can expect to receive in return for the resources
invested in pollution control measures. In short, without good environmental mon-
itoring, we may never know if we are making sound stewardship decisions.
Mercury (Hg) contamination is widespread in water, in surficial soils and sedi-
ments, and in the tissues of plants and animals in ecosystems around the globe. Once
deposited to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, some inorganic mercury is trans-
formed into methylmercury (MeHg), a highly toxic compound that bioaccumulates
efficiently in food webs (Wiener et al. 2003). As a result of the toxicity of MeHg to
wildlife and humans, many nations are interested in reducing environmental mercury
contamination and associated biotic exposure (UNEP 2002).
While mercury is a naturally occurring element that cannot be eliminated from
the environment, human activities and processes have greatly increased its abundance
in the atmosphere and in terrestrial and aquatic environments (Jackson 1997; USEPA
1997; Fitzgerald et al. 1998), primarily by transporting this mercury from geological
strata to the surface of the Earth and atmosphere (e.g., due to mining and coal
combustion). One approach for reducing exposure to mercury in the industrialized
world is to reduce anthropogenic emissions of the metal into the atmosphere. This
has been done in some instances. For example, in the United States, regulation of
medical waste incinerators and municipal waste combustors and steps taken to reduce
use of mercury in products, as well as some reductions from power plants as a co-
benefit of SO2 emissions control, have already reduced mercury emissions. As a
result, decreases in the accumulation of total Hg in depositing sediments have been
measured in some lakes (Engstrom and Swain 1997; Kamman and Engstrom 2002).
191
Trends in mercury concentration in freshwater fish and loons as a result of changes

in mercury deposition have also been reported (Fevold et al. 2002; Hrabik and Watras
2001). However, as the biogeochemical cycling of Hg is complex, it is necessary to
comprehensively examine temporal patterns in mercury deposition, contamination,
and bioaccumulation over susceptible ecosystems in many parts of the country to
determine if the goal of reducing exposure has been met at regional, national, or
international scales. There is currently no monitoring network or group of monitoring
networks that can answer these questions. The purpose of this book is to provide
guidance toward the development of such a network.
The 4 preceding chapters identify the indicators considered to be most useful
for measuring trends in mercury contamination in specific ecosystem compartments:
airsheds and watersheds, aquatic ecosystems, aquatic biota, and wildlife. Each chap-
ter discusses the appropriate use and measurement of the recommended indicators.
The chapters also discuss the application of monitoring data for defensibly assessing
whether observed changes in mercury concentrations are associated with changes
in mercury emissions and deposition. Factors confounding the ability to make such
links are included in the discussions. The purpose of this chapter is to integrate the
information in the 4 preceding chapters into a single set of indicators within a
monitoring framework capable of assessing national or continental trends in mercury
contamination in relation to observed trends in anthropogenic emissions.
6.2 RECURRING THEMES

In each chapter, the question of how to measure changes and trends in mercury
contamination in the environment is approached from a similar perspective. This
chapter discusses 5 unifying themes that emerged from the preceding chapters.
The first theme is integration. Each group of chapter authors recognized the
importance of integrating the information from indicators across multiple ecosystem
compartments and sampling locations. Individual indicators may provide informa-
tion about concentration changes in a specific ecosystem compartment, but an
integrated program involving mercury measurements and ancillary supporting data
is needed to critically evaluate possible relationships between mercury emissions,
deposition, and concentrations in key ecosystem compartments.
The importance of setting a baseline as promptly as possible from which to
assess future changes was also recognized as an important component of the mon-
itoring framework. It is important to be able to compare environmental conditions
before and after emission reductions begin to fully capture the ecosystem changes
that may be attributable to the emission reductions. If ecosystem monitoring does
not begin until after emission reductions occur, the full benefit of the emission
reductions may not be quantified directly (although indirect estimates from cores or
archived samples may still be possible). In addition, although there is uncertainty
regarding the time lags before detection of measured responses in an ecosystem,
there are indications that in at least some ecosystems, detectable changes begin
relatively quickly (Chapter 3, Chapter 5, Atkeson et al. 2003). Due to the need to
compare future monitoring results to conditions before emission reductions begin,
An Integrated Framework for Ecological Mercury Assessments 193
the chapter authors agreed that existing data and monitoring frameworks should be
utilized whenever and wherever feasible and appropriate.
Perhaps most importantly, there was strong agreement on the need for standard
monitoring protocols. This was one of the driving forces behind this book. Without
standard monitoring protocols, it will be difficult — or impossible — to compare
data collected from different locations or at different times, a capability that is
absolutely critical for determining temporal and spatial trends. The scale, location,
timing, and frequency of sampling are all important considerations that can make
or break a monitoring strategy. While this book does not provide detailed sampling
methods, the preceding chapters have provided important general guidance on
approaches to sampling. Adherence to a coordinated sampling framework, similar
to that presented here, is critical to ensure that the information gathered is useful
for addressing key policy assessment questions. While the authors recognize that
standard monitoring protocols can be difficult to implement and may complicate an
organization’s or researcher’s ability to develop ideal site-specific monitoring pro-
tocols, the benefits of standardization into a single integrated monitoring network
should far outweigh their limitations.
The fourth theme is the importance of ancillary data to go with each mercury
indicator. The preceding chapters discuss many of the factors that can affect mercury
concentrations in ecosystem compartments, including atmospheric and aquatic
chemistry, hydrology, climate, and trophic conditions. Mercury loading rates can
also affect mercury concentrations. The effect of inorganic mercury loading on MeHg
concentrations in biota has been documented in cases of extreme contamination
(e.g., chlor-alkali facilities), but the relationship is more difficult to isolate for cases
involving smaller changes in loading, such as variations in atmospheric deposition
to remote areas (USEPA 1997). This is partly because of the confounding effects of
other factors (Chapters 2 through 5, Schindler et al. 1995). Therefore, the scope of
the proposed trend-monitoring program should include measurements of the neces-
sary ancillary data that can provide linkages between mercury emissions, atmo-
spheric deposition, and concentrations in biota.
The fifth and final theme is the importance of models. The chapter authors support
the appropriate use of models and co-located research programs to complement
monitoring efforts. Models can help interpolate monitoring results between data
collection points; for example, statistical models can be used to create smooth cov-
erages of atmospheric deposition rates from a set of monitoring points (e.g., Grimm
and Lynch 1991). Models can also be used to predict future changes based on existing
data to inform policy decisions or actions (USEPA 1997). Mechanistic models can
be used to simultaneously consider a range of factors affecting mercury concentrations
and help to isolate the effects of mercury loading rates from other variables. Data
from intensive monitoring locations can be useful for model development, and mod-
eling data needs should be considered when designing a monitoring strategy.
6.2.1 DESIGN OF THE MONITORING NETWORK

The indicators presented in this monitoring framework are meant to function as
pieces of an integrated assessment program. An integrated program is essential for
FIGURE 6.1 Integration of indicator framework.
defensible interpretation of linkages between atmospheric Hg deposition and MeHg

concentrations in biota. While some of the indicators recommended here have stand-
alone value as endpoints of concern, others are most useful when trying to understand
the links and pathways between atmospheric Hg deposition and MeHg in biota. The
interpretation of many of the indicators proposed here will rely in part on the
collection of ancillary data, such as water chemistry (e.g., pH, dissolved organic
carbon (DOC), and sulfate), as well as information on the mercury indicators them-
selves. In addition, atmospheric deposition monitoring must be coordinated with
water and sediment sampling, and both of those must be coordinated with sampling
of biota. Such integration is considered the foundation of the monitoring framework.
Figure 6.1 is a conceptual framework of how these indicators can be integrated into
a comprehensive assessment of ecosystem status and its response to changes in
atmospheric mercury loadings as well as other influences.
It would be simpler to design monitoring programs if we knew a priori how
quickly various environmental compartments are likely to respond to changes in
mercury loadings. The indicators recommended in this book are based on current
understanding of mercury cycling and transformation processes, which may be
revised as more data become available, as well as the current state of methods for
sampling and analysis. This long-term monitoring program should be designed to
adapt in response to new information and to incorporate new methods without
compromising the continuous long-term nature of the data collected. A discussion
and synthesis of the criteria for selecting the indicators recommended in each chapter
are presented below.
6.2.1.1 Criteria for Selection of Indicators
The recommended priorities of the monitoring program are to 1) establish a set of

indicators that could be monitored to determine whether mercury concentrations in
air, land, water, and biota are changing systematically with time, and 2) provide
guidance regarding additional monitoring needed to help determine whether
observed changes in mercury concentrations are related to reductions in mercury
emissions. It is not the intent of this monitoring program to provide a complete
understanding of mercury behavior in the environment or to measure mercury con-
centrations in every conceivable compartment in the environment.
To this point, this book has not addressed one of the primary barriers to com-
prehensive environmental monitoring: the limited funding available to implement
and sustain such a program. Therefore, this chapter identifies the indicators for 2
levels of assessment that differ in the resources needed to implement and sustain
them. One level focuses on documenting changes in mercury concentrations in the
environment, while the second is expanded in scope to explore mechanistic linkages
between changes in atmospheric mercury emissions, deposition rates, and soil, water,
or biotic concentrations. Both programs have been developed with economic effi-
ciencies as a consideration.
The first assessment program, termed the “trend only” approach, would deter-
mine trends in mercury contamination without focusing on causal factors. These
indicators are here identified as “A” indicators. This approach would apply a core set
of indicators to document mercury concentrations in key environmental compart-
ments and would include minimal supporting ancillary data. These initial indicators
simply answer the question “Has there been a change?” The second assessment
program includes the A indicators but would be expanded in scope to more critically
assess the role of emissions changes in observed changes in environmental mercury
contamination. The indicators used to answer the question “What is causing the
changes?” are identified here as “B” indicators. The purpose of this more scientifi-
cally rigorous question is to develop a suite of indicators that can more fully capture
ecological changes and identify the probable cause for those changes. These indi-
cators would significantly enhance our ability to defensibly interpret the trends
identified with A indicators.
This framework represents a group consensus of the best way to transform,
expand, and develop new and existing monitoring programs into an integrated
assessment framework. The previous chapters in this book identified and discussed
many attributes of a successful indicator (Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5). The following
attributes were identified:
• Relevance to public or ecological health

• Sensitivity to changes in mercury loading
• Availability of historical data
• Part of an existing data collection infrastructure
• Feasible methods for standard data collection

• Important link in the pathway between mercury emissions and methyl-
mercury in biota
• Ability to isolate impacts of confounding factors other than changes in
mercury emissions and deposition
For biological indicator species, several additional criteria are pertinent. The
chosen indicators should:
• Have a broad geographic distribution, especially if comparison of ecosys-

tem changes in different regions of the country is desired
• Have a well-known life history
• Show reasonable response time(s) to changes in mercury contamination
• Have resilience within the population to repetitive sampling, due either
to the large number of individuals in the population or the availability of
noninvasive sampling techniques
The indicators recommended in each chapter are compiled in Table 6.1. The criteria
used by each set of chapter authors to rate their indicators have been summarized and
the degree to which each indicator meets those criteria are identified. It should be
noted that there is no perfect indicator, but the recommended indicators meet enough
criteria that, in the opinion of the authors of these chapters, they are useful for
assessment purposes. Detailed descriptions of the indicators and, in some cases, addi-
tional specific criteria are included in Chapters 2 through 5. The indicators are further
subdivided according to their ability to measure environmental changes (A indicators)
or to help assess the influence of atmospheric deposition (B indicators) on changes in
other biotic and abiotic mercury concentrations in Tables 6.2 and 6.3, respectively.
6.2.2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR SAMPLING

As pointed out by numerous authors, detecting both spatial and temporal trends in
environmental data is no trivial task, and numerous factors must be considered both
in designing a robust sampling scheme and in interpreting data (e.g., Stow et al.
1998; Urquhart et al. 1998; Olsen et al. 1999; Larsen et al. 2001; Griffith et al. 2001;
Kincaid et al. 2004). A central issue is having the statistical power to detect trends
across time. The framework described by Urquhart et al. (1998) and Larsen et al.
(2001) identified 4 types of variability in data that can influence the ability to detect
spatial and temporal trends: 1) within year (i.e., short-term temporal, spatial, and
measurement variation seen at an array of sites during a sampling window; 2) across-
year concordant (variation seen at all sites in a region due to yearly changes in
regional phenomena); 3) across-year independent (or interaction variation, capturing
site-specific phenomena that can vary annually); and 4) among site (capturing fun-
damental differences between sites, due to, for example, landscape differences).
The primary considerations discussed in this book for sampling the indicators
include the scale of measurements needed; the type of sampling location (e.g.,
undisturbed sites, clustered sites); the frequency of sampling (e.g., hourly, weekly,
annually, biennially); and the duration of sampling needed to detect trends.
TABLE 6.1
Matrix of indicators identified as having the best potential for use in the context of measuring changes in environmental
mercury contamination
Criteria
Indicator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Type
Chapter 2
THg Wet deposition * ***** **** ***** ***** **** **** ***** NA ***** B
THg in throughfall * ***** * ** ***** **** **** *** NA **** A
THg in litterfall; MeHg in litterfall and throughfall * *** * *** ***** **** ** *** NA ***** B
THg in snowpack * *** * *** *** **** **** * NA ***** B
Continuous speciated atmospheric Hg * ***** ** ** **** ***** **** ***** NA **** B
Soil (THg and MeHg) * * * * ** *** ** ***** NA ** B

Soils solutions (THg and MeHg) * * * * * *** ** ***** NA ** B
Forest floor surveys * * * ** ** *** ** *** NA *** B
Chapter 3
Streamwater (THg and MeHg) *** *** ** **** ***** *** *** ***** NA ***** A
THg in sediment ** ** **** **** **** **** **** ***** NA ***** B
MeHg in sediment **** *** ** **** **** *** *** **** NA ***** B
% MeHg in sediments and soils **** *** ** **** **** *** *** **** NA ***** B
An Integrated Framework for Ecological Mercury Assessments
Instantaneous sediment methylation rate ** **** * * * ** ** ** NA ***** B

THg accumulation in cores *** ** **** *** *** **** **** ***** NA ***** B
THg in surface water ** *** *** **** **** **** *** **** NA ***** B
MeHg in surface water (still water: lakes, reservoirs, wetlands) **** *** *** **** **** *** *** **** NA ***** B
Chapter 4
MeHg in estuarine benthic invertebrates ***** * ** *** ***** * *** ***** ** ***** B
MeHg and THg in prey fish **** ***** ***** *** ***** **** ***** ***** ***** ***** A
Piscivorous fish ***** *** ***** ***** ***** *** **** ***** *** **** A
197
198

Matrix of indicators identified as having the best potential for use in the context of measuring changes in environmental
mercury contamination
Criteria
Indicator 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Type
Chapter 5
(Terrestrial) Raccoon: THg in hair of adults *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** A, B
(Terrestrial) Bicknell’s thrush: THg in blood of adults ** ***** *** ***** ***** **** ** ** *** ***** A, B
(Riverine) Mink: THg in hair of adults **** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** B
(Lake) Common loon: THg in blood of adults, also eggs ***** *** ***** ***** ***** **** **** *** ***** ***** A, B
(Lake/coastal) Herring gull: THg in feathers and blood of adults; eggs *** *** *** **** ***** *** *** **** ***** *** A, B
(Lake/coastal) Common tern: THg in feathers, blood of adults; eggs **** *** *** *** ***** **** **** *** **** *** A, B
(Wetland) Tree swallow: THg in blood of adults * *** **** **** ***** **** *** ***** ***** ***** B
(Estuarine) Saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow and Seaside sparrow: THg in **** **** *** **** ***** **** *** ** *** ***** B
blood of adults
(Marine nearshore) Harbor porpoise: THg in muscle of adult *** ** **** **** *** ** ** *** **** ** A, B
(Marine offshore) Leach’s storm-petrel: THg in blood of adult and juvenile ** ***** *** *** ***** **** ** ***** *** ***** A, B
(Comparison across aquatic habitats) **** *** **** ***** ***** **** *** ***** *** ***** B
Belted kingfisher: THg in blood of adult and fledged young; eggs
Criteria: 1) Relevance to human health endpoints. 2) Sensitivity to change in loadings. 3) Overall historical data quality. 4) Data collection infrastructure. 5) Feasibility
of data collection and analysis. 6) Ability to adjust for confounding factors. 7) Understanding of linkages with rest of ecosystem. 8) Broad geographic distribution. 9)
Well-known life history (for fauna). 10) Nonintrusive sampling.
Legend: * = Low; ** = Low–Medium; *** = Medium; **** = Medium–High; ***** = High
Type A = for trends assessment.

Type B = for causality assessment.
TABLE 6.2
Group A: Measuring trends
Location
(intensive, cluster,
Indicator or both) Frequency
Soil solutions (THg and MeHg) Intensive Quarterly

Sediment (THg and MeHg) Cluster and intensive Annual and quarterly, respectively
Percent MeHg in sediment Cluster and intensive Annual and quarterly, respectively
Instantaneous methylation rate Cluster and intensive Annual and biannual, respectively
THg accumulation rate in sediment Cluster Every 5–10 years
Surface water (THg and MeHg) Cluster and intensive Annual and quarterly, respectively
Stream Intensive Weekly
THg in prey fish Cluster and intensive Annual
THg in mammal blood and fura Cluster and intensive Annual
THg in bird blood, feather, and egga Cluster and intensive Annual
aSpecies of birds and mammals vary in distribution and habitat preferences and of course can only
be used as indicators if present.
6.2.2.1 Sampling Scale
This monitoring framework should be applied across broad geographic regions. This
book recommends a national or (preferably) continental scale of assessment. The
data collected in the United States should also be comparable, to the extent feasible
and appropriate, with other North American and global mercury monitoring efforts,
particularly monitoring of atmospheric transport and deposition.
To monitor a region as broad as the continental United States, it is recommended
that a nested sampling approach be taken. A nested approach combines frequent,
intensive monitoring for many parameters at several intensive study locations, with
less frequent monitoring for additional parameters at cluster sites surrounding the
intensive sites. This design is regarded as the best trade-off between collecting
detailed accurate measurements at all locations and sampling in many different types
of locations. To estimate regional temporal trends, at least one representative intensive
site should be located in each ecoregion or type of ecosystem. The extent of human
disturbance (e.g., land-use changes) in the ecosystem, as well as the atmospheric
load of mercury, are also both important considerations. The cluster sites surrounding
each intensive site should imbed a variety of parameters that are critical to estimating
mercury transformation processes, such as dissolved organic carbon and pH for aquatic
environments, and throughfall and litterfall in terrestrial environments.
This nested approach is similar to both the one used by Danz et al. (2005) to
develop a stratified sampling design for general environmental indicator monitoring
in the Great Lakes and the framework used in the Temporally Integrated Monitoring
of Ecosystems and Long-Term Monitoring (TIME/LTM) programs. The TIME/LTM
monitoring sites were carefully chosen to allow extrapolation of data on lake and
stream acidification trends to surrounding areas or regions, and are resampled
TABLE 6.3
Group B: Assessing causality
Location (intensive,
Indicator cluster, or both) Frequency
Atmospheric Hg Intensive Continuous

Wet deposition (THg) Intensive Weekly
Throughfall (THg and MeHg) Intensive Weekly
Litterfall (THg and MeHg) Intensive Weekly
Snowpack (THg) Cluster Annual
Soil (THg and MeHg) Intensive Once to characterize pools
Soils solutions (THg and MeHg) Intensive Quarterly
Forest floor surveys Intensive 10 years
Sediment (THg and MeHg) Both Quarterly
% MeHg in sediments and soils Both Quarterly
Instantaneous sediment methylation rate Intensive Biannual
THg Accumulation in cores (THg and MeHg) Intensive 5–10 years
Groundwater (THg and MeHg) Intensive Quarterly
Surface water (THg) Both Quarterly
MeHg/THg ratio in surface water Both Quarterly
Raccoon Cluster (when feasible) Annual
Mink Both (when feasible) Annual
Harbor porpoise Cluster (when feasible) Annual
Common loon Both (when feasible) Annual
Herring gull Cluster (when feasible) Annual
Common tern Cluster (when feasible) Annual
Leach’s storm-petrel Cluster (when feasible) Annual
Belted kingfisher Both (when feasible) Annual
Tree swallow Both (when feasible) Annual
Bicknell’s thrush Cluster (when feasible) Annual
Saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow Cluster (when feasible) Annual
Note: Species of birds and mammals vary in distribution and habitat preferences and of course can only
be used as indicators if present.
regularly to provide information on regional trends (Kahl et al. 2004). The authors
believe a similar monitoring framework would be effective in assessing trends in
mercury contamination of the recommended indicators.
While an exact number of site clusters has not been proposed, the authors
consider from approximately 3 to 10 clusters of sites to be appropriate. These clusters
should represent different ecoregions with different ecological characteristics as well
as different loadings (both in amount and source) of mercury deposition. Care should
be taken to monitor different types of water bodies and watersheds (e.g., seepage
lakes, drainage lakes, old reservoirs, rivers, and estuaries). Areas that should be
considered as potential cluster site locations include lakes in northern New
England/the Adirondacks, lakes in the upper Midwest, rivers and streams in the
southeastern coastal plain, lakes in south-central and southeastern Canada, western
mountain lakes, streams and reservoirs, the Arctic region of Alaska, and large coastal
estuaries (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Mobile Bay). The monitoring locations within each
geographic region should represent the most common type(s) of ecosystem (e.g.,
lake, river, estuary) within that ecoregion.
Each cluster should contain a minimum of 15 to 20 monitoring sites. Several
criteria should be considered when selecting individual monitoring sites within each
cluster. First, the sites should represent the range of important ecosystem character-
istics that determine ecological response rate to changes in mercury load (e.g., pH,
DOC, presence of wetlands in the watershed, and for lakes, hydrologic type). Highly
contaminated and recently disturbed sites should be avoided for the most part,
because they introduce large numbers of confounding variables in assessing the data,
although some authors recommend that some monitoring take place in urban sites.
In addition, sampling of biota should take into account known fishing and hunting
pressures. For example, sampling of fish in water bodies subject to high fishing
pressure (where the largest and most contaminated fish are frequently removed from
the system) may not be the most reliable way to assess changes in fish tissue mercury
(Chapter 4).
The number of intensive monitoring sites should depend on the number of
ecoregions selected, with at least one intensive monitoring site included in each
cluster. Monitoring at intensive sites should focus on mercury concentrations in the
multimedia indicators identified in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 (atmospheric deposition, soils,
sediments, water, and biota), as well as ancillary measurements needed to interpret
the mercury data collected. Most of these sites should be located in areas where
change in loads (and therefore ecological contamination) are expected. For compar-
ison, however, at least one site should be located in an area where small changes in
Hg loadings are expected.
Finally, the number of monitoring sites must provide sufficient statistical power
to detect expected trends. The ability to detect concentration trends over time is
sensitive to the magnitude of year-to-year variation, and awareness of the different
components of variance in a system of multiple sites can aid in designing classifi-
cation systems for sites that increase trend detection power. The power to detect
trends in a network of multiple sites with established variation among individual
components is determined by the number of sites and length of sampling time. The
number of sampling sites proposed in each ecoregion (15 to 20) approximates the
minimum number required to detect trends of a few percent per year as long as year-
to-year variation is small (Larsen et al. 2001).
6.2.2.2 Sampling Location
The selection of monitoring sites depends on a variety of factors, from the practical
aspects of access and maintenance of sites to the assessment question the sampling
must answer. Given that one of the purposes is to assess responses to reductions in
atmospheric load, it follows logically that some sites should be located in areas
where large changes in mercury loadings are expected. Other sites should be located
in areas where smaller changes in mercury loadings are expected, to provide a
comparison and to minimize the impact of confounding factors. In addition, different
ecosystems are expected to respond at different rates based on their biogeochemistry

or other factors separate from mercury load. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 contain the details
of the proposed type of sampling location (intensive, cluster, or both) for each
recommended indicator. The authors recommend that clusters of sampling sites be
distributed across the United States and the Canadian provinces and represent the
major ecoregions currently known to be affected by mercury contamination.
6.2.2.3 Sampling Frequency

The recommended sampling frequencies in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 are based on several
factors. The first, and most important, factor to consider is the question being
addressed. Some questions require very frequent sampling, whereas others require
much less frequent sampling.
The second factor is the temporal variation in concentrations in different eco-
system compartments. For example, sediments and prey fish exhibit less temporal
variation in mercury concentration than do air or water, and thus statistically valid
estimates of their status can be collected with less frequent monitoring (e.g., annual
sampling for prey fish vs. daily or hourly sampling for atmospheric concentrations
of mercury).
The third factor is how quickly changes are expected to occur in the monitored
ecosystem compartment. For example, the concentration of mercury in water varies
substantially through the year, whereas concentrations in large fish or piscivorous
wildlife, such as otters, change much more slowly. The assessment program should
conduct sampling often enough to capture most of the important changes taking
place in the ecosystem compartments (indicators) of greatest concern.
The fourth factor affecting sampling frequency is efficiency, that is, to collect
the minimum number of samples needed to address the key questions. The costs of
collecting and analyzing samples are substantial, and the “oversampling” of a par-
ticular indicator would reduce resources available for monitoring other indicators or
other sites.
6.2.2.4 Overall Duration of Sampling

How long should monitoring programs continue? For the purposes of specifically
answering the question “What is the ecosystem response to changes in atmospheric
loadings of mercury?”, some specific timeframes should be considered.
Reductions in U.S. mercury emissions from medical and municipal waste incin-
erators and other industrial sectors have already occurred. Additional emission reduc-
tions from some coal-fired power plants have also already begun as co-benefits from
technologies used to control SO2 and NOx emissions. These mercury emissions from
power plants are, however, expected to be reduced further over the next few decades.
Meanwhile, changes in mercury emissions in other parts of the world may also affect
some U.S. ecosystems.
There is uncertainty concerning the length of time it will take for ecosystems
to respond to reductions in mercury deposition. It is agreed, however, that it is
important to continue monitoring until the majority of the ecosystem responses have
been documented. If monitoring is discontinued before that point, the full response
and benefit of the mercury emission reductions will not be known. The authors
believe this monitoring should occur for at least 15 to 20 years to capture most of
the changes expected from existing and expected U.S. reductions in atmospheric
deposition of mercury. It is expected that this estimated timeframe will be refined
as the monitoring progresses and the response of ecosystems is assessed.
6.2.3 MONITORING FOR TRENDS AND MONITORING FOR CAUSALITY

The indicators recommended in the previous chapters and identified in Table 6.1
have been assigned to 1 of 2 categories: A indicators (to measure trends) and B
indicators (to examine the role of changes in atmospheric mercury emissions and
deposition). The purpose of this categorization is to provide guidance to policymak-
ers and other stakeholders regarding the most important environmental mercury
monitoring needs. It is also designed to provide guidance regarding which types of
indicators are most useful for answering specific policy questions.
Given that atmospheric deposition is only one of several factors that control the
amount of methylmercury accumulated in fish, a monitoring program focusing only
on indicators such as Hg deposition and fish mercury levels cannot explain the
differences that will undoubtedly arise when the data sets are compared. It also
cannot explain ecosystem contamination in higher trophic levels (e.g., piscivorous
birds and mammals). To fully understand the extent to which reductions in atmo-
spheric deposition are responsible for reductions in fish tissue concentrations of
mercury, process-based studies and modeling are needed, as well as additional
monitoring information. These additional data are identified as B indicators. The
ancillary data (e.g., precipitation, pH) that must be collected to interpret both types
of indicators are identified in Table 6.4.
6.2.4 INTEGRATION OF MONITORING WITH MODELING CAPABILITIES

This book proposes a monitoring program that will help determine trends for mercury
concentrations in the environment and assess the relationship between these con-
centrations and mercury emissions. Environmental models are also often used to
predict trends and examine relationships among variables. Models can facilitate the
interpretation of data emerging from monitoring programs recommended in this
book and that the data will help develop better modeling tools.
Our understanding of mercury cycling and bioaccumulation has advanced mark-
edly in recent years, but gaps still remain (USEPA 2002). The same can be said for
the application of that information to mercury simulation models. Resolving some
key issues, such as those regarding atmospheric cycling, terrestrial export of mercury,
and factors governing methylation and bioaccumulation, would result in stronger
models (Atkeson et al. 2003). The scientific understanding and models of mercury
behavior in terrestrial catchments (including wetlands) are currently both less devel-
oped than their aquatic and atmospheric counterparts.
Results from the monitoring approach recommended by this book, particularly
from intensively studied sites, offer the potential to further advance the development
of models of mercury cycling. The data from these sites can provide critical information
TABLE 6.4
Ancillary monitoring parameters
Location
(intensive, cluster, Type
Parameter or both) Frequency (A or B)a
Atmospheric deposition of sulfate Intensive and cluster Weekly B

Rainfall Intensive and cluster Weekly B
Watershed area Intensive and cluster Once B
Land cover Intensive and cluster Once B
Percent wetlands in watershed area Intensive and cluster Once B
Lake morphometry Intensive and cluster Once B
Water chemistry (pH, DOC, sulfate, TSS, Intensive and cluster Quarterly A, B
chlorophyll, temperature, ANC, color,
nutrients, DO, stratification status)
Characteristics of fish (size, age, stomach Intensive and cluster Annual for prey A, B
contents, sex, condition) fish; 1- to 3-year
intervals for
piscivorous fish
Characteristics of mammals (size, age, sex, Intensive and cluster Annual A, B
condition) and tissues for nonlethal
sampling (fur and blood) and lethal
sampling (fur, brain, muscle, liver)b
Characteristics of birds (size, age, sex, Intensive and cluster Annual A, B
condition) and tissues for nonlethal
sampling (blood, feathers and eggs) and
lethal sampling (feathers, brain, muscle,
liver and eggs)b
a Type A = for trends assessment; Type B = for causality assessment.
b Species of birds and mammals vary in distribution and habitat preferences, which will determine their
suitability at particular sites.
to test hypotheses and improve the models. Data from the larger number of sites
involving limited sampling would probably be less well suited to model development,
but could in some cases be used to test the predictive strength of models that have
been already developed and calibrated.
It would also be prudent to consider opportunities to use models to interpret results
emerging from intensively studied sites. Models can provide frameworks to integrate
and examine complex data sets in multidisciplinary studies, and can identify key
information needed in field programs. Models have been successfully used in this
manner in several comprehensive mercury research programs — for example, the
Mercury in Temperate Lakes program in the early to mid-1990s in Wisconsin (Hudson
et al. 1994) and the Aquatic Cycling of Mercury in the Everglades (ACME) research
program in the Florida Everglades from the mid-1990s to the present (Atkeson et al.
2003). Models may also help isolate the effects of a single factor, such as mercury
deposition, among the many factors that can affect the fate and transport of mercury.
6.3 COMPLEXITIES/CONFOUNDING FACTORS

As noted many times in this book thus far, there are many confounding factors
related to the complexity of ecosystems that complicate the interpretation of monitoring
data. For example, inter-annual weather and population variability (e.g., droughts,
cold winters, plankton blooms) can significantly affect ecosystem processes and
mercury cycling. Anthropogenic disturbances, such as deforestation, urbanization,
and the creation of reservoirs, can all significantly complicate our ability to identify
trends in mercury contamination. Human activities that directly affect biota, such
as fishing and the introduction of exotic species, can also complicate the assessment
process. Finally, changes in mercury loads are taking place against a background
that includes changing rates of regional sulfate deposition and global climate change.
The monitoring framework should be designed to minimize the influence of such
factors or to control for them in the analysis process. While no monitoring strategy
can account for all possible complexities, the authors believe this monitoring frame-
work has identified the best currently available solutions to address problems created
by these confounding factors.
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
This book has identified the most useful indicators of environmental changes in
mercury contamination in 4 compartments of the environment: 1) airsheds and
watersheds, 2) water and sediment, 3) aquatic organisms (with emphasis on fresh-
water ecosystems), and 4) wildlife that live in freshwater, terrestrial, and/or coastal
ecosystems. The indicators identified in this book are wide-ranging and involve
measurements made at several different scales of time and space. The authors believe
that these indicators will provide the best information to policymakers, as well as
other stakeholders, as to whether environmental concentrations are changing (A
indicators) and what the reasons for those changes might be (B indicators).
To assess changes in mercury concentrations in the environment, it is important
to have a baseline from which to measure change. Due to the fact that mercury
emissions have already been reduced from a number of sectors in the United States,
and that further emission reductions are expected from power plants over the next
few decades, it is critical that an assessment program be implemented soon.
Therefore, it is strongly recommended that federal and state agencies and other inter-
ested partners begin the process of designing and implementing an ecological mercury
monitoring program as soon as possible.
To adequately assess ecological changes in mercury concentrations, it will be

necessary to make a long-term commitment to ecological monitoring. The assess-
ment questions will not be answered in 3 years or even in 5 years; rather, it will
likely take at least 15 to 20 years before the full scope of the impacts of the emission
reductions are measured, depending on the types of systems being monitored. For
this reason, it is critical for federal agencies and other cooperators to make a firm
commitment to support this monitoring effort for many years into the future. The
authors recognize the fiscal realities that limit long-term planning but do believe
that it is possible for federal agencies, states, private-sector organizations, and others
to provide long-term support for the proposed monitoring program.
It is recommended that all organizations participating in the ecological mercury assess-

ment program make formal commitments, subject to budget constraints, to recognize
and support the long-term continuation of this monitoring program.
The monitoring program described in this book is a substantial undertaking that

will require a sustained commitment and substantial resources. The authors view
this monitoring program as too large and complex to be housed in any one particular
federal agency or academic institution. Rather, it will require participation from
many federal and state agencies, as well as Indian tribes and universities. A good
model for the monitoring program may be the National Atmospheric Deposition
Program (NADP), a consortium of more than 250 sponsors that depends on sub-
stantial funding support from at least a half-dozen different federal agencies and
departments as well as guidance from a management committee composed of sci-
entists from a wide range of backgrounds and organizations
It is recommended that federal and state agencies work with each other and with other
interested organizations to develop a broad consortium to support and guide this
monitoring and assessment program.
REFERENCES
Atkeson T, Axelrad D, Pollman C, Keeler G. 2003. Integrated atmospheric mercury deposition
and aquatic cycling in the Florida Everglades: an approach for conducting a total
maximum daily load analysis for an atmospherically derived pollutant. Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. 95 p.
Danz NP, Regal RR, Niemi GJ, Brady VJ, Hollenhorst T, Johnson LB, Host GE, Hanowski
JM, Johnston CA, Brown T, Kingston J, Kelly JR. 2005. Environmentally stratified
sampling design for the development of Great Lakes environmental indicators. Envi-
ron Monitor Assess 102:41–65.
upper Midwest. Environ Sci Technol 31:950–967.
Fevold BM, Meyer MW, Rasmussen PW, Temple SA. 2002. Bioaccumulation patterns and
temporal trends of mercury exposure in Wisconsin common loons. Ecotox 12:83–93.
Griffith LM, Ward RC, McBride GB, Loftis JC. 2001. Data analysis considerations in pro-
ducing ‘comparable’ information for water quality management purposes. Available
at: http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/monitoring/pubs/tr/nwqmc0101.pdf
Grimm JW, Lynch JA. 1991. Statistical analysis of errors in estimating wet deposition using
five surface estimation algorithms. Atmos Environ 25(2):317–327.
in Little Rock Lake. Sci Tot Environ 297:229–237.
Hudson RJM, Gherini SA, Watras CJ, Porcella DB. 1994. Modeling the biogeochemical cycle
of mercury in lakes: the mercury cycling model (MCM) and its application to the
MTL study lakes. In: Watras CJ, Huckabee JW, editors, Mercury pollution: integration
and synthesis. Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers, p. 473–523.
Jackson TA. 1997. Long-range atmospheric transport of mercury to ecosystems, and the
importance of anthropogenic emissions — a critical review and evaluation of the
published evidence. Environ Rev 5:99–120.
Kahl JS, Stoddard JL, Haeuber R, Paulsen SG, Birnbaum R, Deviney FA, Webb JR, Dewalle
DR, Sharpe W, Driscoll CT, Herlihy AT, Kellogg JH, Murdoch PS, Roy K, Webster
KE, Urquhart NS. 2004. Have U.S. surface waters responded to the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments? Environ Sci Technol 38(24):484A–490A.
Kamman NC, Engstrom DR. 2002. Historical and present fluxes of mercury to Vermont and
New Hampshire lakes inferred from 210Pb dated sediment cores. Atmos Environ
36:1599–1609.
Kincaid TM, Larsen DP, Urquhart NS. 2004. The structure of variation and its influence on
the estimation of status: indicators of condition of lakes in the Northeast, U.S.A.
Environ Mon Assess 98:1–21.
Larsen DP, Kincaid TM, Jacobs SE, Urquhart NS. 2001. Designs for evaluating local and
regional scale trends. Bioscience 51:1069–1078.
Olsen AR, Sedransk J, Edwards D, Gotway CA, Liggett W, Rathbun S, Reckhow KH, Young
LJ. 1999. Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in the
United States. Environ Mon Assess 54:1–45.
Schindler DW, Kidd KA, Muir DCG, Lockhart WL. 1995. The effects of ecosystem charac-
teristics on contaminant distribution in northern freshwater lakes. Sci Tot Environ
160/161:1–17.
Stow CA, Carpenter SR, Webster KE, Frost TM. 1998. Long-term environmental monitoring:
some perspectives from lakes. Ecol App 8:269–276.
[UNEP] United Nations Environment Programme. 2002. Global mercury assessment. Geneva,
Switzerland: UNEP Chemicals. 270 p.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Mercury study report to Congress.
Washington, D.C.: USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office
of Research and Development. EPA 452/R-97-003.
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Proceedings and summary report,
workshop on the fate, transport, and transformation of mercury in aquatic and ter-
restrial environments. EPA/USGS workshop; 2001 May 8–10; West Palm Beach, FL,
USA. USEPA Office of Research and Development. EPA/625/R-02/005. 171 p.
Urquhart NS, Paulsen SG, Larsen DP. 1998. Monitoring for policy-relevant regional trends
over time. Ecol App 8:246–257.
Wiener JG, Krabbenhoft DP, Heinz GH, Scheuhammer AM. 2003. Chapter 16: Ecotoxicology
of methylmercury. In: Hoffman DJ, Rattner BA, Burton Jr GA, Cairns Jr J, editors,
Handbook of ecotoxicology, 2nd ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, p. 407–461.
8892_Idx.fm Page 209 Saturday, January 13, 2007 3:24 PM
Index
A MeHg in water, 75–78
methylation, 108
ACME project, 63, 73, 204 point-source discharges, 105, 106
Air pollution, 26, 39 recommended water indicators, 52–54
Air quality response to altered mercury loading, 47–50
ambient, 18, 20, 21 temporal trends of HgT, 72, 73
Hg intensive sites, 32–33 trophic levels, 108–109
Airsheds, 13–14; see also Atmospheric mercury water chemistry, 80–81, 199
concentrations of Hg species, 24 Atmospheric deposition, 130; see also
defining, 22 Atmospheric mercury; Temporal response
response to changes in Hg emissions, 14 climatic factors, 16, 17, 18
sampling, 25–26 estimation of total deposition, 33, 34, 35
spatial variations, 35,37 in Florida Everglades, 163
Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project geographical patterns, 29–31
(AMMTAP), 159 at high latitudes, 130
Albatrosses, 146 measurement sites, 32–33
Algae, 98–100 Atmospheric mercury, 17, 196; see also
Alligators, 142 Atmospheric deposition
American dipper, 142 existing monitoring networks, 27–31
Amphibians, 143, 145 modeling, 27
Ancillary data, see Data residence times, 22, 26
Anthropogenic emissions, see Emissions sampling, 26–27
Aquatic biological indicators, 88, 91–92; see also sources, 15
Fish; Trophic position species, 22–23, 24
ancillary data, 107
confounding factors, 88, 90, 94, 108–110
enhancing interpretations, 110–113 B
fish, 92–95
intrinsic co-variables, 90 Background levels of Hg, 22, 30
periphyton, 99–100 Bald eagles, 131, 137
phytoplankton, 98–99 Baselines, 9, 192
recommended, 100, 101–103 Bass, 73, 104, 162
selection criteria, 90–91 Bats, 135–136, 144, 145
trend monitoring, 104–107, 111–112 Belted kingfishers, 124, 128, 140–141, 145, 146
zooplankton, 97–98 Benthic invertebrates, 88, 91, 95–97, 100
Aquatic biota, see Aquatic biological indicators trophic status, 106
Aquatic Cycling of Mercury in the Everglades Bicknell's thrush, 141
(ACME), 63, 73, 204 Bioaccessibility, 74, 77, 125–126
Aquatic systems; see also Aquatic biological Bioaccumulation, 2, 87, 89, 91–92, 203; see also
indicators; Reservoirs; Rivers; Surface Aquatic biological indicators
waters; Watersheds adult survivorship endpoints, 134
controlling factors of Hg concentrations, 70, 77 in benthic invertebrates, 96
and dissolved organic matter (DOM), 71–72 factors in water quality criteria model, 147
disturbances to, 81 and mercury burden, 106
estuaries, 88, 96, 97 models of, 9
exotic species, 109 and sediment-based indicators, 55
historical data, 106–107 watershed influences, 112
209
Bioavailability, 17, 125, 126, 132, 147 D

Bioindicators, 91, 133, 151, 161; see also Aquatic
biological indicators; Wildlife Data; see also Modeling; Trends
Biomagnification, 87, 88, 92 ancillary, 80–81, 107, 193, 194
Biomarkers, 135, 151–152, 158 comparisons, 70, 112, 193, 203
mercury endpoints, 153–157 expression with ratios, 69
Biomethylation, see Methylation historical, 21, 106, 107, 195
Biosentinels, 137, 140, 143 management, 21
Biouptake, 125, 126 types of variability, 196
Birds, 137–139, 144, 146 DDT, 139
brain mercury concentrations, 150 Deforestation, 16, 205
feathers, 73, 148–149 Demethylation, 57, 81, 108, 110
fish-eating, 93 in aquatic systems, 81
insectivorous, 141–142 in kidneys, 151
seabirds, 139–141 in liver, 132, 150
Black bass, 95 measurement of rate, 64–65
Blackbirds, 142 Deposition, 3–4, 203; see also Atmospheric
Blood, 149 deposition
Brains, 132, 149–150 dry, 23, 25
Bullfrogs, 143 ecosystem total, 33, 34, 35
relative to Hg emissions, 15, 20
wet, 23, 25, 110
C Detoxification, 126, 130
Dimethylmercury, 52
Canadian Wildlife Service, 159 Dissolved organic carbon (DOC), 17, 199
Causality, 18, 20, 195 Dissolved organic matter (DOM), 71, 72, 73, 81
criteria for demonstrating, 161 Double-crested cormorant, 140
indicators for assessing, 200, 203 Dry deposition, 23, 25, 32
Clams, 96
Clay Lake (Ontario, Canada), 49
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), 1 E
Clear Lake, California, 136, 141, 142
Cluster sites, 18, 78, 79 Eagles, 131, 133, 137, 146
Coal combustion, 191, 202 Eggs, 131, 149
Coastal environments, 16, 201, 205 Egrets, 141
candidate indicators, 100, 136, 139 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 3
conversion of Hg(0) to RGHg, 14 Elemental mercury (Hg(0)), 15, 22, 23
and foraging birds, 128 EMEP, 30
transport of Hg to, 16, 80, 127 Emissions, 1, 3–4, 7; see also Atmospheric
Common loons, 95, 131, 132, 138 deposition; Causality; Temporal response
Common merganser, 138 anthropogenic sources, 3, 4, 5, 6, 191, 202
Common terns, 139–140 controls, 1, 3, 15, 27
Common yellowthroats, 142 global versus local, 14, 15
Confounding factors, 9, 48, 56, 80, 205 meteorological factors, 19
for Hg in aquatic biota, 108–110 quantification, 18
minimizing, 110–112, 201 reductions, 74, 162, 192, 202
recognition of, 51, 90 regulations, 1
Cormorants, 133, 139, 140, 152 relative to deposition, 20
Cycling of Hg, 2, 72, 110, 128, 192; see also Endangered species, 148
Temporal response Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 3
in aquatic ecosystems, 78, 79, 96 advisories, 1, 28, 88, 90, 93
atmospheric, 22 incineration standards, 161
Hg retirement, 49 water quality criteria, 146, 147
models, 10, 39, 40, 50, 203–204 Environmental specimen banking (ESB), 159
relevant land disturbances, 38, 205 Environment Canada, 148
Index 211
EPA, see Environmental Protection Agency G

(USEPA)
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), 3 Gaseous elemental Hg (Hg(0)), 13
Estuarine systems, 88, 96, 97; see also Aquatic Glacial ice, 107
systems Global Loon Mercury Monitoring and Research
Eurasian perch, 95 Cooperative (GLMMRC), 159
Euthrophication, 73, 80, 81, 129 Great blue herons, 141
Everglades, see Florida Everglades Great egrets, 141
Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), 37, 72 Great Lakes, 159, 199
bird indicators, 137, 139, 140
chlorinated hydrocarbons, 140
F HgT in the water column, 69
Lake Michigan tributaries, 71
FDA (Food and Drug Administration), 93 water quality, 135, 137, 146
Feathers, 131, 148–149 water snakes, 143
Finescale dace, 94 Great Lakes Herring Gull Monitoring Program,
Finfish, see Prey fish 159
Fish, 88–89, 91–93; see also Piscivorous fish; Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLWQI),
Prey fish; Shellfish; Walleye 135, 136
commercial versus recreational, 93 Groundwaters, 37, 38; see also Watersheds
concentrations of Hg, 4, 6, 7, 92, 104, 105
consumption advisories, 1, 80, 88, 90, 93
Hg levels and deposition, 203 H
human consumption, 1, 22, 80, 88, 93
mercury-length relations, 104–105 Hair, 147
in Minnesota Lakes, 104 Hawks, 146
recommended indicators, 100–103 Health, see Human
seasonal variations in Hg, 94, 95, 106 Heavy metals, see Metal contamination
storage of MeHg, 92 Herons, 141
total mercury determination, 92, 93 Herring gulls, 140, 146
toxicological effects of MeHg, 107 Hg, see Mercury (Hg)
trend analysis, 104–107 Hg(0) (elemental mercury), 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 70
whole-body burden, 106 Hg(II) (ionic Hg), 14, 16, 17, 24
Fishing pressure, 93, 109, 111, 201 Hg sensitivity, 77, 79, 195
Florida Everglades, 7, 104, 161–163, 204 HgT, see Total Hg (THg)
MeHg trends, 57, 63, 76–77, 78 Human
total Hg concentrations, 73, 135 activities affecting biota, 205
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 93 biomarkers in, 152
Food webs, 55, 74, 125 disturbances, 205
biomagnification, 88 exposure pathways, 1, 4, 21, 88, 89, 96
trophic transfer, 91, 108–109 health risks, 89, 90
Forage fish, see Prey fish Hydrologic flowpaths, 15; see also Watersheds
Forest
clear-cutting, 38
disturbances, 109 I
HgT in runoff, 72
studies of Hg fluxes, 33 Indicators, 197–198; see also Aquatic biological
surveys, 37, 41 indicators; Sediment; Wildlife indicators
versus urban, 15, 16 assessing causality, 20, 200
Freshwater systems, 79, 88, 128, 130, 192 limitations, 18, 20
bird species, 139, 140, 141, 159 selection criteria, 195–196
drainage to marine systems, 130 terrestrial, 17
indicators, 96, 97, 99, 100 Industrial pollution, 72
marine mammals, 136 Inorganic Hg, 1, 48, 74, 132, 151; see also
sampling, 104 Methylation
Insectivorous birds, 141–142, 144 in products, 191

Intensive sites, 16–17, 201 retirement, 49
International Cooperative Programme on species, 52
Integrated Monitoring of Air Pollution transformations, 15, 17
Effects, 39 Mercury in Temperate lakes, 204
Ionic mercury (Hg(II)), 14, 16, 17 Mercury sensitivity, 77, 79, 195
Mergansers, 138–139
METAALICUS, 61, 72, 74, 77
K Metal contamination, 41, 140, 142, 146, 147
Meteorological factors, 18, 19
Kidney, 151 Methylation, 38, 52, 55, 203
Kingfisher, 124, 128, 140–141, 145, 146 effect of climate change, 110
efficiency, 77
factor in water quality criteria model, 147
L rate measurement, 64–65
sites for, 96, 99
Lakes, see Aquatic systems; Great Lakes; variables affecting rate, 57, 80–81, 108
Sediment; Watersheds Methylmercury (MeHg), 1; see also Aquatic
Largemouth bass, 73, 104, 162 biological indicators; Methylation; Toxicity
Lead, 41, 140, 146 in aquatic food webs, 87–89, 91–92, 95
Litterfall (LF), 23, 33, 34, 35, 199 bioaccessibility, 80–81, 125–126
Liver, 132, 150 bioavailability, 125, 126, 132
Loading rates of Hg, 193 biouptake, 125, 126
Long-Term Ecological Research (LETR), 39 concentration in sediment, 57–62, 63
Loons, 95, 131, 132, 138 correlation to change in Hg load, 57–59
endpoints, 153–157
half-life, 126, 132, 149
M maternal transfer of, 136, 149, 150
percent, 63–64, 77
Macrocrustaceans, 88, 97 relation to HgT, 57
Mammals, see Marine mammals; Wildlife relative to Hg emissions, 8, 9
indicators trophic transfer, 91
Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response in water, 75–78
Program (MMHSRP), 159 in watersheds, 14–17
Marine mammals, 136–137 Mimic shiner, 94
Marine systems, 128, 130; see also Aquatic Mineralization, 38
systems Mining, 69, 72, 111, 127, 136, 161, 191
Maximum Achievable Control Technology Mink, 124, 134, 144, 198, 200
(MACT), 161 hair, 148
MDN (Mercury Deposition Network), 3, 14, 27, water quality criteria for, 146, 147
28–29 Modeling, 10, 203–204
Measurement, see Protocols; Sampling; Surveys atmospheric Hg, 23, 27
MeHg, see Methylmercury (MeHg) cycling, 40, 50
%MeHg, 63–64, 77 geochemical speciation, 74
MeHg/Hg ratio, 48 importance of, 193
Mercury Deposition Network (MDN), 3, 14, 27, of metal effects, 140
28–29 scale, 21–22
sites, 28 sediment accumulation rates, 67
Mercury (Hg), 21; see also Atmospheric mercury; testing, 17, 20
Cycling; Toxicity; Transport water quality, 147
burden, 106 Monitoring, 1, 9, 25–26; see also Sampling;
effects, 133–134, 149, 151 Surveys
excretion, 125, 126, 132, 138 air chemistry measurements, 39
global background levels, 21–22 co-location, 21, 27, 39, 107, 193
Index 213
cost limitations, 20–21, 52, 195, 205–206 Prey fish, 93–95, 100, 138
critical endpoints, 74 mercury burden, 106
existing networks, 21, 27–31, 160 sampling, 104, 106
general recommendations, 205–206 Protocols, 28, 51, 159
geographical distribution, 78, 91, 196 lake-sediment Hg, 65, 66
indirect, 3 for MeHg in water, 75
integrated framework, 158, 159, 193–196 standardized, 193
priorities, 195 trace-metal, 55, 70, 75
program objectives, 79, 158 wildlife sample collection, 165
site selection, 17–18, 20–22
standard protocols, 193
strategy, 17–18, 78–80, 195 R
time frames, 112
of watersheds, 38–41 Raccoons, 135
Muscle, 150–151 Rails, 141, 147
Mussels, 95 Reactive gaseous mercury (RGHg), 14, 15, 22–23,
24, 70
Reactive gas-phase mercury (RGM), 161, 162
N Receptors, 25
Recommendations, see Indicators
National Atmospheric Deposition Program Re-emissions, 3, 18
(NADP), 27, 28–29 Reptiles, 142–143
National Science Foundation (NSF), 39 Research programs, 33, 50, 112, 204
Northeastern Ecosystem Research Cooperative Reservoirs, 38
(NERC), 159 bioindicators, 95, 100, 129, 138, 139
Northern pike, 95 impoundment, 38, 50, 110
Northern waterthrush, 142 response to changes in Hg, 111
variations in Hg, 72
Residence times
O atmospheric, 22, 26
hydraulic, 37, 129
Organs, 149–151 RGHg (reactive gaseous mercury), 14, 15, 22–23,
Osprey, 137–138, 146 24
Otters, 134–135, 146 RGM (reactive gas-phase mercury), 161, 162
Oversampling, 202 River otter, 134–135
Rivers, 16, 88
transport of Hg, 80
P variations in Hg, 8, 72
wildlife indicators, 138, 139, 141, 143, 160
Particulate mercury (PHg), 14, 15, 22, 23, 24
PCB's, 139
Peat, 4, 58, 65, 89, 107 S
Percent MeHg, 63–64, 77
Perched seepage lake, 15, 16, 112 Salamanders, 143
Periphyton, 88, 91, 99–100 Sampling, 193, 196; see also Protocols
Pharmacokinetics, 130 contamination, 55, 70, 75
PHg (particulate mercury), 13, 14, 21, 23 duration, 202–203
Phytoplankton, 88, 91, 98–99, 100 equipment, 28
Piscivorous fish, 88, 91, 93, 100 frequencies, 17, 26, 202
historic data, 105 homogenization of samples, 56
nonlethal sampling methods, 111 impact on target population, 91, 93, 193
sampling tissue, 105 method variability, 51, 56
temporal trends in Hg, 104 nested approach, 199
Policy decisions, 20, 94, 193, 203 scale, 196, 199–201
site selection, 17–18, 20–22, 79, 201–202 in Florida Everglades, 73, 77

strategies, 9 reduction, 80
tissues, 147–151 Superfund site, 142
Seabirds, 132, 139–142 Surface waters, 15, 17, 89
Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project colloidal association of HgT, 70
(STAMP), 159 Hg integration time, 69, 74
Sediment, 47, 48, 55, 56, 81 historic data for fish, 106
accumulation rates in dated cores, 65–69 MeHg dynamics, 75–76
contact with benthic organisms, 96 MeHg trends, 76–77
core collection, 48, 56, 66–67 non-loading related factors, 73
criteria for indicators of Hg, 51–52 response to change in Hg loading, 74, 76
dating, 67 sampling for MeHg, 75
historic records, 107 sites to exclude, 111
as indicator of Hg loading, 55 variations of HgT, 70–71
interpretation of core data, 68–69 Surveys
MeHg concentration, 57–62 population based, 37
mobilization, 65, 81 snow, 35, 36
near-surface, 48 soil, 41
percent MeHg, 63–64 surface water, 37, 38, 41
recommended indicators, 52, 53–54 Swallows, 142
relic contamination from, 49, 77
response dynamics, 48–50
resuspension, 70, 75, 77 T
spatial heterogeneity, 56, 59–61
Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems
total Hg concentration, 55–57 and Long-Term Monitoring (TIME/LTM),
variability with depth, 56, 61–62 199
Seepage lakes, 15, 16, 72, 73, 112 Temporal response, 8, 9, 18, 81, 196
Sequestration, 37, 130, 151 in aquatic biota, 91, 93, 104, 109, 111–112
SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology to Hg in water, 71, 72, 75
and Chemistry), 3 in lake sediment, 68, 69
Shellfish, 88, 96, 97 long-term, 82, 199
SNOTEL (SNOpack TELemtry), 35 and wet deposition, 28, 29, 35
Snowpacks, 35–36 of wildlife indicators, 137, 148
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Terrestrial environments, 110, 112, 127, 128, 199;
Chemistry (SETAC), 3 see also Soil; Wildlife indicators
Soil as an exposure pathway, 125
historical Hg, 38 export of Hg, 203
sequestration, 37 THg, see Total Hg (THg)
surveys, 41 Throughfall (TF), 23, 33, 34, 35, 199
terrestrial processes, 38 Total gaseous Hg (TGHg), 26
Songbirds, 141–142, 144 Total Hg (THg)
Sparrows, 141, 142 in aquatic biota, 92, 105, 106
Sport fish, 100 comparisons across ecosystems, 56
Starlings, 142 confounding factors, 56
Statistical analysis, 20; see also Causality; export, 16
Confounding factors; Modeling loss mechanisms, 70
descriptive, 112 as predictor of MeHg, 57, 74
with historical data, 90, 112 in sediment, 55–57
sample size, 104–105, 196, 201 in water, 70–75
significance, 73, 76 watershed retention, 14, 16
Streams, see Rivers Total maximum daily load (TMDL), 50
Sudbury River (Massachusetts), 142 Toxicity, 52, 55, 149, 152
Sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB), 80 expression in tissues, 130
Sulfates, 7, 17, 107, 110, 205 Toxicodynamics, 132
Index 215
Toxicokinetics, 132 Water quality criteria (WQC), 146–147

Trace-metal-clean protocols, 55, 70, 75 Watersheds, 13–14, 17; see also Sediment;
Transport of Hg Surface waters
atmospheric, 127, 139, 199 acidity, 110
in the body, 132, 136 cluster site locations, 200–201
from soil, 109 current ecosystem measurements, 40
in watersheds, 15–16, 35–38, 55, 129 disturbances, 16, 38
Trends, 193, 195, 199, 203; see also Confounding drainage, 37, 38, 66, 129, 130
factors; Statistical analysis; Temporal flowpaths, 15, 37
response ground water, 37, 38
analysis in aquatic biota, 104–107 Hg transformations within, 15, 17
detection, 18, 19, 20, 196, 201 indicators, 17
global, 3, 4 inputs, 34, 37
spatial variations, 9, 41, 48, 130, 193 intensive monitoring, 38–41
Trophic position, 91, 92, 107, 108–109 leaching of soil Hg, 38
of benthic species, 106 losses, 34, 37
estimating, 106 mass balance studies, 65, 69
of fish, 92, 93, 94, 95 response to changes in Hg deposition, 15–17
Tuna, 93 response to changes in Hg emissions, 14, 16
Turtles, 143 retention of inputs, 14, 55
runoff, 35, 38, 72, 77
soil surveys, 41
streams, 37, 71, 72, 79–80, 200
U total Hg, 70
transport of Hg, 15–16, 37, 55
Urban ecosystems, 15, 16, 22
urban versus forest, 15, 16
Urbanization, 9, 70, 205
Water snakes, 143
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, see
Wet deposition, 23, 25, 29, 33, 110
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Wetlands, 37, 38, 72
USEPA, see Environmental Protection Agency
ancillary data, 107
(USEPA)
high-risk areas, 128, 141
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 147
mercury sensitivity, 79
U.S. Geological Survey Watershed Energy and
modeling, 203–204
Biogeochemical Budgets, 38
photochemical Hg(0) production, 69
U.S. Park Service, 39
research projects, 38
sediment, 60, 61
sediment variability, 61
V watershed monitoring sites, 39, 112, 201
Wet scavenging, 25
Vegetation, 15, 33 Wildlife indicators, 123–124, 146; see also
aquatic, 99, 135 Biomarkers
measurements of, 40 amphibians, 143, 145
uptake of Hg, 37, 38 birds, 137–142, 144
Volatilization, 37, 38 desirable characteristics, 144, 145
effects of Hg on wildlife, 124
exposure pathways, 23, 89, 125–126
W exposure versus effects, 133–134
gender differences, 148
Walleye, 49, 95, 104, 105 habitat variability, 127–130, 158
Warblers, 142 host factors, 131–132, 158
Waste incinerators, 161, 191, 202 identification through water quality criteria
Water indicators, see Aquatic systems development, 146–147
Water quality, 135, 137, 143 mammals, 134–137, 144
criteria development, 146–147 monitoring program design, 158–161
existing programs for, 160 recommended, 163, 164, 165
reptiles, 142–143, 145 Y

samples of individuals, 147–151
sampling methods, 130–131 Yellowfin tuna, 93
selection criteria, 126, 144, 145, 161 Yellow perch, 94, 95, 138
suitability rankings, 144, 145
threatened or endangered, 130, 148
timing of samples, 165 Z
trend detection, 161–163
uses of, 126 Zooplankton, 88, 91, 95, 97–98, 109
7\PMZ<Q\TM[NZWU\PM;WKQM\aWN-V^QZWVUMV\IT<W`QKWTWOaIVL+PMUQ[\Za;-<)+"
?WZSQVO-V^QZWVUMV\QV4QNM+aKTM)[[M[[UMV\
8W]T[MVIVL2MV[MVMLQ\WZ[

4QNM+aKTM)[[M[[UMV\WN5M\IT[
,]JZM]QTMLQ\WZ

4QNM+aKTM5IVIOMUMV\
0]VSMTMZ;I]Z:MJQ\bMZ.QVSJMQVMZ;KPUQL\2MV[MV;\ZIVLLWZN+PZQ[\QIV[MV

;KMVIZQW[QV4QNM+aKTM)[[M[[UMV\
:MJQ\bMZIVL-SÎTTMLQ\WZ[

4QNM+aKTM)[[M[[UMV\IVL;-<)+"!!v!!!
4+)X]JTQKI\QWV[WV+,:75

+WLMWN4QNM+aKTM1V^MV\WZa8ZIK\QKM
LM*MI]NWZ\4IVOM^MTL*ZM\bÎV0WWN0Q[KPQMZ2MIV<IVVMZ0]QRJZMO\[MLQ\WZ[

4QNM+aKTM)[[M[[UMV\QV*]QTLQVOIVL+WV[\Z]K\QWV
3W\IRQ-L_IZL[;P]]ZUIV[MLQ\WZ[

+WUU]VQ\a4M^MT)Y]I\QK;a[\MU;\]LQM[w1V\MZXZM\I\QWV+ZQ\MZQI+4);;1+
/QLLQVO[*ZWKS0MOMZ0MQUJIKP5I]VL6WZUIV:I\\M;KPŃMZ[;\ZMTWSMMLQ\WZ[

1V\MZKWVVMK\QWV[JM\_MMV0]UIV0MIT\PIVL-KWTWOQKIT>IZQIJQTQ\a
,Q/Q]TQWIVL*MV[WVMLQ\WZ[

4QNM+aKTM1UXIK\)[[M[[UMV\";\ZQ^QVO\W_IZL[*M[\8ZIK\QKM
=LWLM0IM[.QVV^MLMV/WMLSWWX0I][KPQTL0MZ\_QKP0WN[\M\\MZ2WTTQM\
3TÅXNNMZ3ZM_Q\\4QVLMQRMZ5ËTTMZ?MVS7T[MV8MVVQVO\WV8W\\QVO;\MMVMLQ\WZ[

;QT^MZQV\PM-V^QZWVUMV\"<ZIV[XWZ\.I\MIVL-NNMK\[
)VLZMVIVL*WJMZMLQ\WZ[

<M[\5M\PWL[\W,M\MZUQVM0IbIZL[NWZ;XIZQVOTa;WT]JTM5M\IT+WUXW]VL[QV;WQT[
.IQZJZW\PMZ/TIbMJZWWSÎV;\ZIITMV<IZIZbWVIMLQ\WZ[

)^QIV-NNMK\[)[[M[[UMV\").ZIUM_WZSNWZ+WV\IUQVIV\[;\]LQM[
0IZ\*ITT]NN*IZNSVMKP\+PIXUIV0I_SM[2WMZUIVV4MWXWTL4]\\QSMLQ\WZ[

*QWIÎQTIJQTQ\aWN5M\IT[QV<MZZM[\ZQIT-KW[a[\MU["
1UXWZ\IVKMWN8IZ\Q\QWVQVONWZ*QWIÎQTIJQTQ\a\W1V^MZ\MJZI\M[5QKZWJM[IVL8TIV\[
)TTMVMLQ\WZ

-KWTWOQKIT>IZQIJQTQ\a";MXIZI\QVO6I\]ZITNZWU)V\PZWXWOMVQK+I][M[WN-KW[a[\MU1UXIQZUMV\
*IQZLIVL*]Z\WVMLQ\WZ[

1UXIK\[WN4W_,W[M0QOP8W\MVKa0MZJQKQLM[WV6WV\IZOM\IVL=VQV\MVLML8TIV\;XMKQM[
.MZMVKMLQ\WZ

:Q[S5IVIOMUMV\"-KWTWOQKIT:Q[S*I[ML,MKQ[QWV5ISQVO
;\IPT*IKPUIV*IZ\WV+TIZSLM.]Z-TT[8Q\\QVOMZ;TQUIS?MV\[MTMLQ\WZ[

,M^MTWXUMV\WN5M\PWL[NWZ-NNMK\[,ZQ^MV+]U]TI\Q^M-NNMK\[)[[M[[UMV\=[QVO.Q[P8WX]TI\QWV["
5WW[M:Q^MZ8ZWRMK\
5]VSQ\\ZQKS5K5I[\MZ>IV,MZ3ZIIS8WZ\\/QJJWV[.IZ_MTT/ZIaI]\PWZ[

-KW\W`QKWTWOaWN)UXPQJQIV[IVL:MX\QTM[
;XIZTQVO4QVLMZ*Q[PWXMLQ\WZ[

-V^QZWVUMV\IT+WV\IUQVIV\[IVL<MZZM[\ZQIT>MZ\MJZI\M["
-NNMK\[WV8WX]TI\QWV[+WUU]VQ\QM[IVL-KW[a[\MU[
)TJMZ[0MQVb7PTMVLWZNMLQ\WZ[

-ÎT]I\QWVWN8MZ[Q[\MVKMIVL4WVO:IVOM<ZIV[XWZ\WN7ZOIVQK+PMUQKIT[QV\PM-V^QZWVUMV\
3TMKSI*WM\PTQVO.ZIVSTQV/ZILa/ZIPIU0W_IZL3IVVIV4IZ[WV5IKSIa5]QZÎVLM5MMV\MLQ\WZ[

5]T\QXTM;\ZM[[WZ[QV-KWTWOQKIT:Q[SIVL1UXIK\)[[M[[UMV\"
)XXZWIKPM[\W:Q[S-[\QUI\QWV
.MZMVKIVL.WZIVMLQ\WZ[

6I\]ZIT:MUMLQI\QWVWN-V^QZWVUMV\IT+WV\IUQVIV\["
1\[:WTMQV-KWTWOQKIT:Q[S)[[M[[UMV\IVL:Q[S5IVIOMUMV\
;_QVLWTT;\IPT-TT[MLQ\WZ[

-ÎT]I\QVOIVL+WUU]VQKI\QVO;]J[Q[\MVKM;MINWWL;INM\aQVI+ZW[[+]T\]ZIT+WV\M`\"
4M[[WV[4MIZVMLNZWU\PM-``WV>ITLMb7QT;XQTT
.QMTL.ITT6QOP[_IVLMZ8MIKWKS>IZIVI[QMLQ\WZ[
!!!
6(7$&
)8ZWNM[[QWVIT;WKQM\aNWZ-V^QZWVUMV\IT;KQMV\Q[\[IVL-VOQVMMZ[IVL:MTI\ML,Q[KQXTQVM[
+WVKMZVML_Q\P-V^QZWVUMV\IT9]ITQ\a
<PM;WKQM\aWN-V^QZWVUMV\IT<W`QKWTWOaIVL+PMUQ[\Za;-<)+_Q\PWNÎKM[K]ZZMV\TaQV6WZ\P)UMZQKIIVL-]
ZWXMQ[IVWVXZWÎ\XZWNM[[QWVIT[WKQM\aM[\IJTQ[PML\WXZW^QLMINWZ]UNWZQVLQ^QL]IT[IVLQV[\Q\]\QWV[MVOIOMLQV
\PM[\]LaWNMV^QZWVUMV\ITXZWJTMU[UIVIOMUMV\IVLZMO]TI\QWVWNVI\]ZITZM[W]ZKM[ML]KI\QWVZM[MIZKPIVLLM
^MTWXUMV\IVLUIV]NIK\]ZQVOIVLLQ[\ZQJ]\QWV
;XMKQÎKOWIT[WN\PM[WKQM\aIZM"
u 8ZWUW\MZM[MIZKPML]KI\QWVIVL\ZIQVQVOQV\PMMV^QZWVUMV\IT[KQMVKM[
u 8ZWUW\M\PM[a[\MUI\QKIXXTQKI\QWVWNITTZMTMÎV\[KQMV\QÎKLQ[KQXTQVM[\W\PMMÎT]I\QWVWNKPMUQKITPIbIZL[
u 8IZ\QKQXI\MQV\PM[KQMV\QÎKQV\MZXZM\I\QWVWNQ[[]M[KWVKMZVML_Q\PPIbIZLI[[M[[UMV\IVLZQ[SIVITa[Q[
u ;]XXWZ\\PMLM^MTWXUMV\WNMKWTWOQKITTaIKKMX\IJTMXZIK\QKM[IVLXZQVKQXTM[
u 8ZW^QLMINWZ]UUMM\QVO[IVLX]JTQKI\QWV[NWZKWUU]VQKI\QWVIUWVOXZWNM[[QWVIT[QVOW^MZVUMV\J][Q
VM[[IKILMUQIIVLW\PMZ[MOUMV\[WN[WKQM\aQV^WT^MLQV\PM][MXZW\MK\QWVIVLUIVIOMUMV\WNW]ZMV^QZWV
UMV\
<PM[MOWIT[IZMX]Z[]ML\PZW]OP\PMKWVL]K\WNV]UMZW][IK\Q^Q\QM[_PQKPQVKT]LM"
u 0WTLIVV]ITUMM\QVO[_Q\P[\]LaIVL_WZS[PWX[M[[QWV[XTI\NWZUIVLXW[\MZXIXMZ[IVLIKPQM^MUMV\IVL
UMZQ\I_IZL[
u ;XWV[WZUWV\PTaIVLY]IZ\MZTa[KQMV\QÎKRW]ZVIT[IVM_[TM\\MZIVL[XMKQIT\MKPVQKITX]JTQKI\QWV[
u 8ZW^QLMN]VL[NWZML]KI\QWVIVL\ZIQVQVO\PZW]OP\PM;-<)+;KPWTIZ[PQX.MTTW_[PQX8ZWOZIU
u 7ZOIVQbMIVL[XWV[WZKPIX\MZ[\WXZW^QLMINWZ]UNWZ\PMXZM[MV\I\QWVWN[KQMV\QÎKLI\IIVLNWZ\PMQV\MZ
KPIVOMIVL[\]LaWNQVNWZUI\QWVIJW]\TWKITKWVKMZV[
u 8ZW^QLMIL^QKMIVLKW]V[MT\W\MKPVQKITIVLVWV\MKPVQKITXMZ[WV[\PZW]OPIV]UJMZWN[\IVLQVOIVLILPWK
KWUUQ\\MM[
;-<)+UMUJMZ[PQXK]ZZMV\TaQ[KWUXW[MLWNUWZM\PIVQVLQ^QL]IT[NZWUOW^MZVUMV\IKILMUQIJ][QVM[[
IVLX]JTQKQV\MZM[\OZW]X[_Q\P\MKPVQKITJIKSOZW]VL[QVKPMUQ[\Za\W`QKWTWOaJQWTWOaMKWTWOaI\UW[XPMZQK[KQ
MVKM[PMIT\P[KQMVKM[MIZ\P[KQMVKM[IVLMVOQVMMZQVO1NaW]PI^M\ZIQVQVOQV\PM[MWZZMTI\MLLQ[KQXTQVM[IVLIZM
MVOIOMLQV\PM[\]La][MWZUIVIOMUMV\WNMV^QZWVUMV\ITZM[W]ZKM[;-<)+KIVN]TÎTTaW]ZXZWNM[[QWVITINÎTQI\QWV
VMML[
)TTUMUJMZ[ZMKMQ^MIVM_[TM\\MZPQOPTQOP\QVOMV^QZWVUMV\IT\WXQK[IVL;-<)+IK\Q^Q\QM[IVLZML]KMLNMM[NWZ\PM
)VV]IT5MM\QVOIVL;-<)+[XMKQITX]JTQKI\QWV[)TTUMUJMZ[M`KMX\;\]LMV\[IVL;MVQWZ)K\Q^M5MUJMZ[ZMKMQ^M
UWV\PTaQ[[]M[WN-V^QZWVUMV\IT<W`QKWTWOaIVL+PMUQ[\Za-<+IVL1V\MOZI\ML-V^QZWVUMV\IT)[[M[[UMV\IVL5IV
IOMUMV\1-)5XMMZZM^QM_MLRW]ZVIT[WN\PM;WKQM\a;\]LMV\IVL;MVQWZ)K\Q^M5MUJMZ[UIa[]J[KZQJM\W\PM
RW]ZVIT5MUJMZ[UIaPWTLWNÎKMIVL_Q\P\PM-UMZQ\][5MUJMZ[KWV[\Q\]\M\PM^W\QVOUMUJMZ[PQX
1NaW]LM[QZMN]Z\PMZQVNWZUI\QWVKWV\IK\\PMIXXZWXZQI\M;-<)+7NÎKM
6WZ\P\P)^MV]M )^MV]MLMTI<WQ[WVLr7Z
8MV[IKWTI.TWZQLI=;) **Z][[MT[*MTOQ]U
< !. !! < .
-[M\IK([M\IKWZO -[M\IK([M\IKM]WZO
___[M\IKWZO
-V^QZWVUMV\IT9]ITQ\a<PZW]OP;KQMVKM

Ecosystem Responses To Mercury Contamination PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecosystem Responses To Mercury Contamination PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecosystem Responses To Mercury Contamination PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8892_C000.

fm Page i Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33 AM

Coordinating Editor of SETAC Books

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

No claim to original U.S. Government works

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-8493-8892-9 (Hardcover)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

Andrew Green, International Zinc Association

Chapter 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................1

1.1 Mercury Emissions and Deposition.................................................................3

Chapter 2 Airsheds and Watersheds ...................................................................13

2.2.6Air Quality Mercury Intensive Sites..................................................32

Chapter 3 Monitoring and Evaluating Trends in Sediment and Water

Chapter 4 Monitoring and Evaluating Trends in Methylmercury

4.3 Aquatic Biological Indicators ........................................................................90

Chapter 5 Wildlife Indicators ...........................................................................123

5.5.2.4 Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) .......................138

Chapter 6 An Integrated Framework for Ecological Mercury Assessments ...191

6.3 Complexities/Confounding Factors .............................................................205

About the Editors

David Krabbenhoft, PhD, is a research

Robert P. Mason, PhD, is a professor

Michael W. Murray, PhD, has been staff sci-

Robin J. (Rob) Reash is a principal environ-

Tamara Saltman has an MS degree in marine studies

2 Ecosystem Responses to Mercury Contamination: Indicators of Change

mercury concentrations, as can year-to-year, seasonal, and even daily variations in

1.1 MERCURY EMISSIONS AND DEPOSITION

4 Ecosystem Responses to Mercury Contamination: Indicators of Change

inventories of anthropogenic emissions that suggest substantial global emissions

1.2 MERCURY CONCENTRATION TRENDS IN FISH

6 Ecosystem Responses to Mercury Contamination: Indicators of Change

FIGURE 1.4 Change of global anthropogenic emissions of total mercury to the

150 Chlorine Production

Utility Coal Boilers

mercury concentrations in standardized 1-kg pike declined by 20% on average

mercury loading. De-acidification was also suggested to account for an additional

1.3 BOOK OBJECTIVES

1) Establish a set of indicators that could be monitored in the United States,

Geographically, this book focuses on the continental United States, although a

Each chapter recommends indicators to monitor as a measure of changing mercury

8 Ecosystem Responses to Mercury Contamination: Indicators of Change

• Challenges establishing baseline mercury concentrations and temporal trends

1.3.1 ESTABLISHING BASELINE CONDITIONS AND TEMPORAL TRENDS

1.3.2 ESTABLISHING CAUSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS

1.3.3 SAMPLING STRATEGY

1.3.4 MONITORING DATA AND MODELING

10 Ecosystem Responses to Mercury Contamination: Indicators of Change

2 Airsheds and Watersheds

14 Ecosystem Responses to Mercury Contamination: Indicators of Change

might ultimately be implemented at cluster sites. We strongly endorse that continued

Airsheds and Watersheds 15

The pathways of Hg transport and sites of Hg transformations within watershed

16 Ecosystem Responses to Mercury Contamination: Indicators of Change

FIGURE 2.2 A conceptual diagram illustrating the response of Hg in watersheds to changes

Airsheds and Watersheds 17

18 Ecosystem Responses to Mercury Contamination: Indicators of Change