Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-27T21:43:58.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mercury Contents of Soil, Mosses, and Conifers, Along an Urban-suburban Transect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Mark Mondano  and
William H. Smith
Mark Mondano
Affiliation:
School of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05401, U.S.A.
William H. Smith
Affiliation:
Assistant Dean and Associate Professor of Forest Pathology, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Soil, moss, and conifer twig and needle, samples were collected along an urban-suburdan transect in Connecticut. All samples were analyzed for mercury content. In general, both the mosses and tree tissues contained higher concentrations of mercury than did the soil. Except for the plant samples collected at the origin of the transect adjacent to an electric generating facility, where the mercury in a moss exceeded that in a Juniperus virginiana tree, the floral components that were sampled proved comparable. Moss sampling would probably give the more reliable indication of urban-industrial mercury contamination.

Information

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1974 , pp. 201 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Applequist, M. D., Katz, A. & Turekian, K. K. (1972). Distribution of mercury in the sediments of New Haven (Conn.) Harbor. Environ. Sci. Technol., 6, pp. 1123–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakir, F., Damluji, S. F., Amin-ZAKI, L., Murtadha, M., Khalidi, A., Al-RAWI, N. Y., Tikriti, S., Dhahir, H. I., Clarkson, T. W., Smith, J. C. & Doherty, R. A. (1973). Methylmercury poisoning in Iraq. Science, 181, pp. 230–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curley, A., Sedlak, V. A.Girling, E. F.Hawk, R. E. & Barthel, W. F. (1971). Organic mercury identified as the cause of poisoning in humans and hogs. Science, 172, pp. 65–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, N. (1971). Mercury in Man. Environment, 13, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Harriss, R. C., White, D. B. & Macfarlane, R. B. (1970). Mercury compounds reduce photosynthesis by plankton. Science, 170, pp. 736–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hatch, W. R. & Ott, W. L. (1968). Determination of sub–microgram quantities of mercury by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Anal. Chem., 40, pp. 2085–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, W. W., Daines, R. H. & Hindawi, I. J. (1970). Other phytotoxic pollutants. Pp. 8–9 in Recognition of Air Pollution Injury to Vegetation: A Pictorial Atlas (Ed. Jacobson, J. S. & Hill, A. C.). Air Pollution Cont. Assoc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: [vii + 104] pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Hinkle, M., Leong, K. W. & Ward, F. N. (1966). Field determination of nanogram quantities of mercury in soils and rocks. U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper No. 550-B, pp. 135–7.Google Scholar
Klein, D. H. (1972). Mercury and other metals in urban soils. Environ. Sci. Technol., 6, pp. 560–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinert, S. J. & Degurse, P. E. (1972). Mercury levels in Wisconsin fish and wildlife. Dept. Nat. Resour., Madison, Wis., Techn. Bull. No. 52, 22 pp.Google Scholar
Lambou, V. W. (1972). Problem of Mercury Emissions into the Environment of the United States. EPA report to the Working Party on Mercury, Sector Group on Unintended Occurrence of Chemicals in the Environment, OECD 27 January 1972, 81 pp. (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
Shacklette, H. T., (1965 a). Bryophytes associated with mineral deposits and solutions in Alaska. U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. No. 1198C, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Shacklette, H. T. (1965 b). Element content of bryophytes. U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. No. 1198D, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Shacklette, H. T. (1970). Mercury content of plants. U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper No. 713, pp. 35–6.Google Scholar
Smith, W. H. (1972). Lead and mercury burden of urban woody plants. Science, 176, pp. 1237–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, G. (1970). Moss Analysis—A Method for Surveying Heavy-metal Deposition. Second International Clear Air Congress, Washington, D. C., 6–11 December 1970, 8 pp. (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
Warren, H. V. & Delavault, R. E. (1969). Mercury content of some British soils. Oikos, 20, pp. 560–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, H. V., Delavault, R. E. & Barakso, J. (1966). Some observations on the geochemistry of mercury as applied to prospecting. Econ. Geol., 61, pp. 1010–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeaple, D. S. (1972). Mercury in bryophytes (moss). Nature (London), 235, pp. 229–30.Google Scholar