Comparison of total mercury and methylmercury cycling at five sites using the small watershed approach.
The small watershed approach is well-suited but underutilized in mercury research. We applied the small watershed approach to investigate total mercury (THg) and methylmercury (MeHg) dynamics in streamwater at the five diverse forested headwater catchments of the US Geological Survey Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical Budgets (WEBB) program. At all sites, baseflow THg was generally less than 1ng L(-1) and MeHg was less than 0.2ng L(-1). THg and MeHg concentrations increased with streamflow, so export was primarily episodic. At three sites, THg and MeHg concentration and export were dominated by the particulate fraction in association with POC at high flows, with maximum THg (MeHg) concentrations of 94 (2.56)ng L(-1) at Sleepers River, Vermont; 112 (0.75)ng L(-1) at Rio Icacos, Puerto Rico; and 55 (0.80)ng L(-1) at Panola Mt., Georgia. Filtered (<0.7microm) THg increased more modestly with flow in association with the hydrophobic acid fraction (HPOA) of DOC, with maximum filtered THg concentrations near 5ng L(-1) at both Sleepers and Icacos. At Andrews Creek, Colorado, THg export was also episodic but was dominated by filtered THg, as POC concentrations were low. MeHg typically tracked THg so that each site had a fairly constant MeHg/THg ratio, which ranged from near zero at Andrews to 15% at the low-relief, groundwater-dominated Allequash Creek, Wisconsin. Allequash was the only site with filtered MeHg consistently above detection, and the filtered fraction dominated both THg and MeHg. Relative to inputs in wet deposition, watershed retention of THg (minus any subsequent volatilization) was 96.6% at Allequash, 60% at Sleepers, and 83% at Andrews. Icacos had a net export of THg, possibly due to historic gold mining or frequent disturbance from landslides. Quantification and interpretation of Hg dynamics was facilitated by the small watershed approach with emphasis on event sampling.
Shanley
James B
JB
US Geological Survey, PO Box 628, Montpelier, VT 05601, USA. jshanley@usgs.gov
Alisa Mast
M
M
Campbell
Donald H
DH
Aiken
George R
GR
Krabbenhoft
David P
DP
Hunt
Randall J
RJ
Walker
John F
JF
Schuster
Paul F
PF
Chalmers
Ann
A
Aulenbach
Brent T
BT
Peters
Norman E
NE
Marvin-DiPasquale
Mark
M
Clow
David W
DW
Shafer
Martin M
MM
D002244:Carbon; D003120:Colorado; D004784:Environmental Monitoring / Q000379:methods*; D005845:Georgia; D006812:Humic Substances; D008628:Mercury / Q000032:analysis*; D008767:Methylmercury Compounds / Q000032:analysis*; D052638:Particulate Matter; D011647:Puerto Rico; D045483:Rivers; D012995:Solubility; D013054:Spectrophotometry, Atomic; D013995:Time; D014197:Trees; D014707:Vermont; D014872:Water Movements; D014874:Water Pollutants, Chemical / Q000032:analysis*; D014922:Wisconsin
D006812:Humic Substances; D008767:Methylmercury Compounds; D052638:Particulate Matter; D014874:Water Pollutants, Chemical; D002244:Carbon; D008628:Mercury