Skip to main content
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 1994 Sep;102(9):772–778. doi: 10.1289/ehp.94102772

High levels of mercury contamination in multiple media of the Carson River drainage basin of Nevada: implications for risk assessment.

M S Gustin 1, G E Taylor Jr 1, T L Leonard 1
PMCID: PMC1567156  PMID: 9657709

Abstract

Approximately 5.5 x 109 g (4.0 x 105) of mercury was discharged into the Carson River Drainage Basin of west-central Nevada during processing of the gold- and silver-rich Comstock ore in the late 1800s. For the past 13 decades, mercury has been redistributed throughout 500 km2 of the basin, and concentrations are some of the highest reported values in North America. This article documents the concentrations of mercury in the air, water, and substrate at both contaminated and noncontaminated sites within the basin and discusses the implications for risk assessment. At contaminated areas, the range of mercury concentrations are as follows: mill tailings, 3-1610 micrograms/g; unfiltered reservoir water, 53-591 ng/l; atmospheric vapor, 2-294 ng/m3. These values are three to five orders of magnitude greater than natural background. In all media at contaminated sites, concentrations are spatially variable, and air and water mercury concentrations vary temporally. The study are in situated in a natural mercuriferous belt, and regional background mercury concentrations in all environmental media are higher than values typically cited for natural background. As a mercury-contaminated site in North America, the Carson River Drainage Basin is unusual for a number of reasons, including its location in a natural mercuriferous belt, high and sustained levels of anthropogenic mercury inputs, long exposure time, aridity of the climate, and the riparian setting in an arid landscape, where biological activity is concentrated in the same areas that contain high levels of mercury in multiple media.

Full text

PDF
772

Images in this article

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bakir F., Damluji S. F., Amin-Zaki L., Murtadha M., Khalidi A., al-Rawi N. Y., Tikriti S., Dahahir H. I., Clarkson T. W., Smith J. C. Methylmercury poisoning in Iraq. Science. 1973 Jul 20;181(4096):230–241. doi: 10.1126/science.181.4096.230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fitzgerald W. F., Clarkson T. W. Mercury and monomethylmercury: present and future concerns. Environ Health Perspect. 1991 Dec;96:159–166. doi: 10.1289/ehp.9196159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Huckabee J. W., Feldman C., Talmi Y. Mercury concentrations in fish from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Anal Chim Acta. 1974 May;70(1):41–47. doi: 10.1016/S0003-2670(01)82908-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Swain E. B., Engstrom D. R., Brigham M. E., Henning T. A., Brezonik P. L. Increasing rates of atmospheric mercury deposition in midcontinental north america. Science. 1992 Aug 7;257(5071):784–787. doi: 10.1126/science.257.5071.784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES