mercury in austrian forest soils - theseus

Tampere University of Applied Sciences Environmental Engineering Piia Kuusinen Final Thesis

Mercury in Austrian Forest Soils Within the Frame Work of BioSoil Supervisor Head of the Degree Programme, Environmental Engineering,

Marjukka Dyer Commissioned by The Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards

and Landscape, Austria Company supervisor Head of the Unit, Forest Soils, Dr. Franz Mutsch Tampere 5/2010

Tampere University of Applied Sciences Environmental Engineering Author(s) Piia Kuusinen Name of the report Mercury in Austrian Forest Soils Number of pages 54 Graduation time May 2010 Thesis supervisor Head of the Degree Programme, Environmental Engineering,

Marjukka Dyer Commissioned by The Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards

and Landscape, Austria ____________________________________________________________________________

Abstract Mercury and its emissions have become a burning question. The purpose of this thesis is to

report and discuss the results of the European Union’s BioSoil –project in Austria regarding

mercury content in the forest soils. Introduction gives the specifics of the project and some

knowledge on Austrian forests.

The paper also includes scientific information on the characteristics of mercury and its behavior

in the environment as well as remediation ways of mercury –contaminated sites and health

effects of it.

The phases of the project are explained and results of the study presented and analyzed. More

detailed results are included in the appendices.

____________________________________________________________________________ Keywords Mercury, BioSoil, Austria, forest soil

Tampereen ammattikorkeakoulu Environmental Engineering Tekijä(t) Piia Kuusinen Työn nimi Itävallan metsien maaperän elohopea-pitoisuus Sivumäärä 54 Valmistumisaika Toukokuu 2010 Työn ohjaaja Head of the Degree Programme, Environmental Engineering,

Marjukka Dyer Työn teettäjä The Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards

and Landscape, Austria ____________________________________________________________________________

Tiivistelmä Elohopea ympäristössä on tänä päivänä vakava ongelma. Tämän työn tarkoituksena on esitellä

Euroopan Unionin BioSoil –projektin tulokset Itävallassa, liittyen elohopea –pitoisuuksiin

metsien maaperässä. Johdanto-kappaleessa kerrotaan projektista tarkemmin.

Lopputyö sisältää myös elohopean ominaisuuksien tarkempaa tarkastelua, mukaanlukien sen

käyttäytymistä ympäristössä ja sen terveysvaikutuksia.

Työn pääpaino on projektin vaiheiden ja tuloksien esittelyssä sekä analysoinnissa. Tarkemmat

tiedot tuloksista löytyvät liitteistä.

____________________________________________________________________________ Avainsanat Elohopea, BioSoil, Itävalta, metsien maaperä

Foreword It’s been a long and great way from finding BFW by Google and applying there to do my

practical training to writing this report for them. I got to spend three and a half months in Wien in

spring 2009 doing the best job I’ve had so far. I’d like to thank BFW for giving me the

opportunity to handle this project and to work with such great and talented people. Especially I

want to thank Dr. Mustch, Jenny and Raffaela for their kindness and help, and eagerness to

teach me and patience when I was a slow learner. I couldn’t have finished my work without

them.

Not to forget my rock, Mika, thank you for all the support and advice.

Tampere May 2010

Piia Kuusinen

Tampere University of Applied Sciences Environmental Engineering Piia Kuusinen

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Austrian Forests ..................................................................................................... 6 1.2 BioSoil project ........................................................................................................ 6

2. Mercury ...................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Characteristics of Mercury ..................................................................................... 7 2.2 Mercury Emissions ................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Remediation of Mercury-contaminated Sites ......................................................... 8 2.4 Health Effects of Mercury ....................................................................................... 8

3. Description of Work ................................................................................................ 11

3.1 Sample Collection ................................................................................................ 11 3.2 Sample Preparation ............................................................................................. 12 3.3 Analyses of the Samples ..................................................................................... 13

4. Results ..................................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Carbonate Soils ................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Silicate Soils ......................................................................................................... 21

5. Discussion ............................................................................................................... 35 6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 36 References ................................................................................................................... 37 Appendices .................................................................................................................. 39

1. Mercury Content in Carbonate Soil –samples taken 2006-07 ............................. 39 2. Mercury Content in Silicate Soil –samples taken 2006-07 ................................... 42 3. Changes of Mercury in Carbonate Soils .............................................................. 49 4. Changes of Mercury in Silicate Soils ................................................................... 51

1. Introduction

1.1 Austrian Forests

When it comes to climate, geology, soil and vegetation Austria is very diverse. All these factors

have affected to the country having very various forest types, in overall 93 different forest

biotypes. Austria has almost 40 000 km2 of forest, 47,2 % of its surface area. 67 % of all the

forests are coniferous, most of it spruce, and 24 % broadleaved, beech being the most common

species. /1/

1.2 The BioSoil Project

The BioSoil project is a study conducted in Europe in connection with the Forest Focus EC

regulation n°2152/2003. Forest Focus, adopted by the European Commission, aims to monitor

the conditions of forests and to protect them from atmospheric pollution and forest fires. The

main goal of BioSoil project is to find out whether systematic forest soil monitoring on European

scale is possible and effective. The study started in November 2006, planned to last for three

years. The Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape (BFW)

was responsible for handling Austria’s part of the project. /2,3/

This report focuses to the Austrian part of the BioSoil project and only to the mercury

concentration in Austrian forest soils. Also other elements were studied but were handled in

separate reports.

7(54)

2. Mercury 2.1 Characteristics of Mercury

The fact which makes mercury emissions every country’s problem is that when emitted it can

disperse around the world. Thus even if there is no mercury released locally the plants, soil and

food supplies can still be polluted by it. Mercury has the tendency to cycle and accumulate in

the food chain for a long time after being emitted in the environment. This is due to the fact that

mercury is persistent and doesn’t degrade; once accumulated to the land it tends to re-emit to

the atmosphere. Mercury’s long life expectance also causes a considerable amount of it to

accumulate in the environment due to new emissions every year and contaminate the food

chain. /4/

Mercury is the only metal which is in liquid form in room temperature and boils below 650°C.

Mercury appears in different chemical compounds with varying properties. One of the most

dangerous is methylmercury (CH3Hg+) in which mercury is in organic form. Other important and

common chemical compounds are inorganic elemental mercury (Hg0), divalent inorganic

mercury (Hg2+) and organic dimethylmercury ((CH3)2Hg). /5/

One of the most alarming features of mercury is its ability to be oxidized by bacteria especially

in aquatic ecosystems from inorganic form to organic methylmercury. When this is taken up by

planktons which are eaten up by fish the methylmercury enters the food chain. / 6/

2.2 Mercury Emissions

The annual release of mercury to atmosphere is estimated to be 6,500 tons globally. 2,000 tons

of this is emitted from natural sources; volcanoes, evaporation from soil and water surfaces and

forest fires. The rest is emitted from anthropogenic sources, such as intentional use of mercury

in industry and mining. The latter includes both mining mercury-containing ore and other metals,

such as zinc and nickel, where mercury occurs as byproduct. It might be the biggest emitter of

mercury pollution is coal combustion. Its share of annual anthropogenic emissions of mercury

might be as big as two thirds. Mercury is released when coal is burned since it occurs naturally

in coal as a contaminant. It is sometimes hard to draw the line between natural and human-

based mercury emissions. For instance, certain mercury emitting from natural sources was

originally released from anthropogenic sources. /4/

A classic example of how serious problem mercury pollution is and how wide it can spread are

the people in Quaanaag, Greenland who have mercury in their blood 12 times the amount U.S.

Government has recommended. Since there is only little industry in the area the people get their

8(54)

mercury dosage from fish, whale and seal they eat. The health effects of Hg are discussed later

on chapter 2.4. /4/

2.3 Remediation of Mercury-contaminated Sites There are only few possible techniques for treating mercury-contaminated sites. The ones being

used are physical treatment by wet separation, thermal treatment and immobilization of the

contaminated soil. /7/

In physical treatment the contaminated soil is excavated and then treated in several steps. This

technique can usually be applied to various ionic and organic mercury compounds as well as

elemental mercury. Regarding the soil type physical treatment can only be used to soils with

high quantity of sand and gravel and only small amounts of silt, clay and organic substances. /7/

Thermal treatments are based on vaporizing mercury. The technique naturally requires high

temperatures. The contaminated soil is excavated before treatment. /7/

When the contaminated soil is immobilized the mercury is not removed but it is immobilized,

isolated, solidificated or stabilized in order to minimize the risks it causes to the environment.

These actions are required when due to several possible reasons it is not possible to treat the

contaminated site. /7/

2.4 Health Effects of Mercury

The amount of mercury in the environment has increased considerably because of human

actions. This and certain cases involving large-scale exposure incidents of mercury for instance

in Minamata, Japan has forced the scientists to study more of mercury’s health effects. /4/

Even small amounts of mercury can endanger human health. According to the World Watch

Institute “mercury is a potent neurotoxin that interferes with brain functions and the nervous

system”. As mentioned earlier, one of the most dangerous chemical compounds of mercury is

methylmercury. Two factors which define the severity of the exposure are the length of it and

the dosage. /4,5/

As often is the case with toxins, pregnant women (fetus) and children are the most vulnerable to

mercury. Exposure to it can affect for instance to the child’s fine-motor function and visual-

spatial abilities or in high-level exposure even mental retardation, cerebral palsy and blindness.

Adults exposed to mercury can suffer from memory and vision loss, tremors and numbness on

fingers and toes. /4/

9(54)

Perhaps the most common way people are exposed to mercury is through their diet particularly

when eating fish. There is also mercury in dental amalgams, thermometers, compact

fluorescent lights and even in vaccines as a preservative, just to mention a few. /4,5/

10(54)

The main uses of different types of mercury compounds, their toxicity and ways to be exposure

to them are discussed in the table below (see Figure 1.).

Figure 1. Use, exposure roots and toxicity of mercury and its compounds. /8/

11(54)

3. Description of the Work 3.1 Sample Collection

Samples from Austrian forest soils were collected when working with the BioSoil -project in the

years 2006-07 altogether from 139 plots. From each plot there were samples taken from three

pits, at least five meters apart from each other. From every plot the samples were taken from

the following depths (see Figure 2.):

- L –layer

- FH –layer

- 0-5 cm

- 5-10 cm

- 10-20 cm

- 20-40 cm

- 40-80 cm

L - and FH -layer both are part of the O-horizon. L stands for litter and includes all the

identifiable leaves and needles which are yet not decomposed. In F –layer all this material is

partially decomposed and in H –layer totally decomposed which makes identification of leaves

etc. difficult. Due to a number of reasons, one is the size of F – and H –layer being less that 1

cm, it was decided for this project to combine F – and H –layers and to study them as one layer,

FH. Samples were placed in plastic bags, sealed and transferred to the research center. /9/

12(54)

L

FH

0‐5 cm

5‐10 cm

10‐20 cm

20‐40 cm

40‐80 cm

Figure 2. 312707 Neuhaus soil profile. /9, modified by Piia Kuusinen/

3.2 Sample Preparation

Samples were first air dried. In second phase they were homogenized and sieved to 2 mm by a

sieving machine. The dry mass factor was determined with the Halogen Moisture Analyzer

which can be used to define moisture content of basically any substance. The instrument works

on thermo gravimetric principle which means that after determining the weight of the sample it is

quickly heated up by the integral halogen heating module which causes the moisture to

vaporize. During this process the instrument continually measures the weight of the sample and

shows the reduction in moisture. Once analysis is finished the moisture of the sample is

displayed as final result. /10/

13(54)

3.3 Analyses of the Samples

Samples were analyzed with LECO AMA 254 (Figure 3.), which is designed specifically for

mercury analyses from soil and liquid samples. It uses basic combustion to determine the

amount of mercury in the sample. Samples were first measured to a sample boat on the scale

where the information transferred to the computer software. With L - and FH –layer samples 50-

80 mg was measured, and 100-200 mg with mineral soil samples. After sample boats were

placed onto the sample plate it took approximately 10 minutes for the machine to set the sample

inside and analyze it. The results were transferred to the computer where the software

calculated the final results. /11/

In addition to the analyses of the BioSoil samples similar kind of analysis was done for samples

taken from the same plots in years 1987-89. The results were then compared with each other in

order see the development.

Certain samples from some plots were unable to be analyzed due to high particle size (samples

being leaves, rocks etc.) or due to the fact that there was not enough material. This was the

case especially with some old samples from the first investigation.

In certain cases samples were analyzed at least twice. Mostly this meant that there was so

much of mercury in the sample that it was necessary to be sure of the results but there were

also cases when samples had to be reanalyzed due to technical problems with the LECO AMA

254 apparatus.

Figure 3. LECO AMA 254 (Photo by Piia Kuusinen)

14(54)

4. Results

The results were multiplied with the dry mass factor and organized into tables in order to make it

easier to read the results. Average and standard deviation was calculated for each layer

including all three pits of the same plot. The average values of each layer of every plot are

presented in appendices 1-2. To be able to find out the temporal changes of mercury

concentrations in the soil between the first investigation (‘Old’ – sampling period 1987-89) and

the second investigation (‘New’ – BioSoil 2006/07) the results were compared. However, the

used sampling depths were different in first and second investigations so in certain comparisons

the a as used. This was done in the following way: verage of two layers w

1. –

2. 0 10)

3. 10 20 10 20

4. 20 40

The results of the comparison of each plot can be found from appendices 3-4.

The studied samples were divided into two groups based on very different and important

properties of soil from which they were collected from: carbonate soils and silicate (acid) soils

(see also the map Figure 4.). These are the two main soil groups in Austria, carbonate soils

consisting approximately 1/3 and silicate soils 2/3 of them. They differ in many ways. Carbonate

soils have higher pH (>6) and are more active. They are also often warmer and more arid.

Silicate soils have lower pH which makes heavy metals, including mercury, more mobile in it

than what in carbonate soil. For planning the nutrition for plants it is important to know whether

the soil is carbonate or silicate since the differences between the properties have caused some

plants to adapt either to carbonate or to silicate soil. /9/

The results were compared to the Austrian reference value 0,5 mg kg-1. /9/

15(54)

Figure 4. All the plots divided to carbonate and silicate soils. /9/

When studying the results of new (BioSoil) samples the analysis is made of the average of the

three samples taken from three different pits in each plot. Old samples refer to the mixed

samples taken approximately 20 years ago.

Approximately in 10 first analyzed plots the F - and H –layers were analyzed separately. This

was soon discovered to be unpractical so later on the samples were combined and analyzed as

FH –layer.

4.1 Carbonate soils

A soil which contains salts or esters of carbonic acid is called carbonate soil /12/. In total 39

plots of all 139 were located in carbonate soil area.

204750 Linsendorf All the samples had very small traces of mercury. There were no analyses made for the old

samples from the first investigation.

16(54)

205703 Lölling All the values in this plot were close to and some even exceeded the reference value 0,500 mg

kg-1. Variation in the results between the pits was big in certain layers. In FH –layer there was a

drop of 0,133 mg kg-1 in mercury content but in the mineral soil the value increased in a way

which was biggest increase of all carbonate soil samples in layers 0 – 10 cm and 20 – 40 cm.

207705 Kreuzen Mostly this plot was not badly contaminated but some layers had relatively high mercury

contents. Old FH –layer had Hg concentration of 0,380 mg kg-1 which then subsided through

time to mineral soil. On FH –layer the mercury content decreased 0,225 mg kg-1.

208705 Globasnitz In the FH –layers and top of mineral Hg –levels exceeded 0,200 mg kg-1, otherwise the amounts

of mercury were rather low. All the new samples had lower mercury levels than the old ones.

301704 Grosshollenstein

The values in the new samples were rather high, since in layer 0 – 10 cm the mercury content

was 0,403 mg/kg and in layer 10 – 20 cm still over 0,300 mg kg-1. New FH –layer wasn’t

analyzed. The mercury levels increased in the upper layers but decreased in the lowest one.

302702 Hernstein; Lindabrunn

This was one of the plots where the new F – and H –layers were analyzed separately. This plot

was not very badly contaminated; all the samples had mercury less than 0,200 mg kg-1. Mercury

levels dropped in each layer over time, though biggest decrease happened in FH –layer.

307703 Kleinzell The new FH –layer had mercury content of 0,345 mg kg-1 which decreased towards deeper

layers. The old samples were from surface layer to the depth of 20 cm in the range of 0,228 –

0,337 mg kg-1 after which there were no analyses made. There was a slight increase in mercury

content from surface layer to the depth of 10 cm, after which Hg –level dropped. The results

from spot B were discarded.

307710 St. Aegyd a, NW In both FH –layers and from the depth of 0 cm to 10 cm the mercury levels exceeded 0,200 mg

kg-1. In other layers Hg –amounts were rather low. There was a minor increase of mercury in FH

-layer but Hg –levels decreased in deeper depths.

17(54)

307711 Horasek - Ramsau Both new and old values had low mercury contents. The changes over time were varying since

Hg –levels decreased in FH –layer and the lowest layer of mineral soil, but slightly increased in

the layers in between.

310704 Warth All results were low with the exception of FH –layer having Hg –content of 0,216 mg kg-1 in the

new sample and 0,330 mg kg-1 in the old one. There was a significant drop of mercury content in

all the layers.

310707 Schwarzau im Gebirge / Rax This plot was quite badly contaminated by mercury. In both old and new samples the FH –layer

had the highest Hg –concentration, over the reference value in new sample, but there were also

high mercury contents in the mineral soils. The total change of mercury contents over the years

was variable and almost plus minus zero.

310709 Puchberg/Scheeberg The new samples had very low mercury levels highest value being 0,060 mg kg-1 in layer 0-5

cm. In the old samples there was more mercury, results varying in the range of 0,210-0,310 mg

kg-1. There were no analyses made from 0 to 20 cm deep.

311703 Kirchberg / Pielach Both new and old samples were rather high in mercury contents, highest results being 0,404 mg

kg-1 in new 0-5 cm layer. Values even increased, though very little, in mineral soil. In FH –layer

the amount of mercury decreased by 0,165 mg kg-1.

312707 Neuhaus All the new samples had quite low mercury contents, causing a drop when comparing samples

to old ones, but there’s Hg –concentration of 0,203 mg kg-1 in layer 0-5 cm which caused an

increase of 0,103 mg kg-1 when comparing layer 0-10 cm. In the 20 year old samples the FH –

layer had Hg –value of 0,301 mg kg-1 which could have descended to a lower level on the

mineral soil causing the increase of Hg in layer 0-10 cm.

314701 Waidmannsfeld From the FH –layer to the depth of 10 cm the mercury content range was 0,100 – 0,343 mg kg-

1. Due to the lack of analyses of certain old samples the comparison between new and old

samples could be done only with FH - and the deepest layers. In latter one the changes were

insignificantly small; in FH –layer Hg –content decreased with 0,060 mg kg-1.

18(54)

315704 Breitenfurt All values were low, less than 0,080 mg kg-1. There were no analysis made from old samples of

layers FH and 0-10 cm so comparison could not be done. With deeper layers there was slight

decrease on Hg.

403708 Oberlangbath Every value was quite close to the reference value 0,500 mg kg-1. Still, there was some a drop

in mercury values compared the old samples to new ones.

404701 Steyrling 1 Except for the layer 0-5 cm which exceeded 0,200 mg kg-1 in Hg –content, all the layers of new

samples had rather low amounts of mercury. From the old samples there were analysis done

only for FH - and 0-10 cm –layers so the comparison between new and old samples could be

done only in those layers. The mercury content decreased in both layers quite significantly. Spot

B’s samples were discarded.

404702 Steyrling 2 The samples of this plot had rather small traces of mercury in them though the results of certain

layers did exceed 0,200 mg kg-1. Excluding the FH –layer all the other new samples had higher

mercury levels than old ones. In layer 20 – 40 cm the increase was second highest in all

carbonate soils.

410712 Neustiftgraben Both old and new samples had mercury content of approximately 0,1 mg kg-1 which is rather

low. Hg –values decreased but quite insignificantly.

410713 Kleinreifling From the depth of 0 cm to 20 cm the results both in old and new samples were approximately

0,300 mg kg-1 which is reaching to the reference value. The new samples actually had, though

only a little, higher mercury content. In new samples the mercury content decreases when going

to deeper layers. New L –and FH –layers had rather low results. Hg –values decreased in FH –

layer. It could be that through time mercury subsided some but it doesn’t seem to be enough to

cause the increase. There was no analysis made from old samples from layers 20-50 cm so it

can only be guessed how much mercury would have been there.

412750 Schwanenstadt All the samples had very low mercury concentrations. New FH –layer and old samples were not

analyzed.

19(54)

502701 Weissenbach Both new and old samples had the highest mercury levels in layers 0-5 and 0-10 cm, 0,260 mg

kg-1. On higher and deeper layers the Hg –content increased, more or less. When compared old

and new samples mercury content decreased in first two comparisons and increased in the next

ones. Still, changes were minor.

504750 Mauterndorf The mercury levels of this plot were considerably low though the results of certain layers

exceeded value 0,200 mg kg-1. There was no analysis done for old samples.

601713 Aschbach New samples excluding L –layer had all quite high mercury levels. In FH –layer the Hg –content

even increased by 0,057 mg kg-1 being in new sample 0,355 mg kg-1. Though there were no

analysis made to old samples of layers 0-10 cm and 20-30 cm, those samples that were

analyzed had also rather high Hg –content. When layer 10-20 cm was compared Hg –content

decreased by 0,054 mg kg-1.

604709 Hörgas Almost all the samples had high mercury content; some even exceeded the reference value

0,500 mg kg-1. In the old samples the highest value was in layer 30-50 cm 0,733 mg kg-1. The

new samples varied between 0,304 and 0,520 mg kg-1, excluding the L –layer. There was a

drop in the mercury content from old to new samples but still there was too much mercury.

606705 Unterzeiring All new samples except for litter were close to the reference value being in the range of 0,300-

0,419 mg kg-1. Also old samples had similar results. Comparison of the results showed quite

typical drop in FH –layer mercury content and increase in mineral soil, though layer 10-20 cm

could not be compared since it was not analyzed from old samples.

610707 Landl Both the old and new samples had high mercury content, old samples varying between 0,461

and 0,851 mg kg-1, and new ones from 0,248 to 0,710 mg kg-1. In the FH –layer there was a

significant increase of 0,218 mg kg-1. In mineral soil amount of mercury decreased in a way

which was among the biggest drops in carbonate soil samples. Many of the samples had to be

analyzed twice to have reliable results.

610714 Weng All the new samples were in the range of 0,135 – 0,258 mg kg-1 having quite steady mercury

levels. There were old samples only from layers FH and 0 – 10 cm (both exceeded value 0,300

20(54)

mg kg-1) so the comparison could be done only in those layers. There was quite significant drop

in Hg levels over time.

612703 Oberwölz The results of new samples were quite low with the exception of FH –layer having mercury

content of 0,313 mg kg-1. Comparison to old results could be made only with upper layers since

there was no analysis done for lower layers of old samples. There was a significant drop in the

results.

613712 Mitterndorf 1 All samples were approximately in the range of 0,100-0,400 mg kg-1. Again, the results showed

how mercury subsided from FH –layer to mineral soil within 20 years. L –layer was not

analyzed.

613714 Mitterndorf 2 In FH –layer there was quite high amount of mercury, in both old (0,303 mg kg-1) and new

(0,277 mg kg-1) samples. In litter and mineral soil there was not that much of it. There was also

a drop in the amount when results were compared.

705703 Erl In the mineral soil of the new samples there were extremely high Hg –values. In pit C there was

as high value as 1,306 mg kg-1 in layer 40-80 cm. There were also big varieties between the

pits, since pit B had only quite low Hg –values but C again really high. There could not be done

any comparison between old and new mineral soil samples since there was no analysis made

for the old ones. In FH –layer there was significant drop in Hg.

707704 Pfafflar Both new and old values had low mercury content, only FH –layers had results exceeding value

0,200 mg kg-1 in Hg. When comparing the samples there was a drop in Hg –levels in each layer.

710701 Reutte Excluding FH –samples the mercury levels in this plot were not high. FH –layer however did

have mercury quite much. It was also noticeable that in pit B there were higher Hg –levels than

in A or C. When the results were compared it could be seen that amounts of mercury dropped in

FH –layer but increased in mineral soil.

713703 Eben Almost all the values, both new and old, had higher Hg –content than 0,200 mg kg-1. Both were

lacking results from deeper than 20 cm. There was a moderate drop in Hg –content in each

layer.

21(54)

713704 Steinberg Most of the samples had extremely high mercury concentrations. Variation between different

pits was also great. The fact that amounts of mercury seemed to increase when going deeper in

the mineral soil was a bit unusual. No analysis was made from old layers between 10 and 50

cm, and from new 40-80 cm layer.

717704 Zirl Basically all the samples had rather low mercury concentrations. Only FH –layer in old samples

had Hg –content of 0,380 mg kg-1. Changes over time were mostly descending.

801702 Nenzing The mercury concentrations in this plot were mostly very low. Old FH –sample was only sample

which had a bit higher value, 0,283 mg kg-1. Amounts of mercury dropped significantly in FH –

layer but increased some in mineral soil.

801703 Nüziders Almost all the values, both new and old, were moderately low; only old FH –sample exceeded

value 0,200 mg kg-1. There was a drop in Hg –values in upper layers but a slight increase in

lower ones which could be a cause of mercury subsiding in the soil over time.

4.2 SILICATE SOILS By silicate soil is meant a soil which has silicate minerals in it. Silicates have crystalline structure

which is based upon the silicate tetrahedron (SiO44-) /13/. From 139 plots 100 were located in

silicate soil areas.

101703 Mattersburg All values were low in mercury content, except FH –layer had in old sample 0,330 mg kg-1 and

in new sample 0,216 mg kg-1 mercury content. In all layers the content decreased.

101708 Piringsdorf Every sample had low mercury content. In FH –layer the amount decreased but in the mineral

soil there was increase though small. Still, the amounts of mercury in the studied spot were

almost insignificant.

102701 Hochart The results were quite typical as the Hg –levels were low except for the FH –layer where there

was 0,203 mg kg-1 in new sample and 0,322 mg kg-1 in the old one. This could also explain why

when compared layer 0-10 cm there was an increase in mercury. Probably mercury has

22(54)

subsided through time which makes it seem there is less Hg in FH –layer but more in the top of

mineral soil. In deeper layers the amount again decreased.

102703 Olbendorf This was one of the plots where new F – and H –samples were analyzed separately. Every

sample had very low mercury levels except for the old FH –sample which had the concentration

of 0,292 mg kg-1. The drop in mercury content in combined F – and H –layers was almost the

same amount. Many layers from different pits were left unanalyzed. Changes in mineral soil

were insignificantly small.

102704 Rettenbach - Dreihütten The results of this plot were quite interesting. In old samples there were low mercury levels but

some of the new samples had rather much mercury in them, and it seemed that the mercury

concentration kept rising towards deeper layers in the mineral soil. There was also big variation

between the pits. Changes over time were so that in FH –layer there was a drop in mercury

levels but in mineral soil the concentration rose significantly.

102707 Bernau This was one of the plots where new F – and H –samples were analyzed separately. In overall,

the plot was not too badly contaminated. Old FH –sample was the only one with a bit higher

mercury content, 0,280 mg kg-1. There were many layers in pits A, B and C that were not

analyzed. Changes over 20 years were variable.

201701 Albeck Except for the litter – and bottom mineral soil samples the mercury concentrations in the

samples were quite high. There was also variation in the results between different pits in certain

layers. Mercury levels decreased in every layer.

201705 Zedlitzdorf In the old samples there was rather high mercury content in FH –layer, 0,400 mg kg-1. The

content descends towards deeper layers in the mineral soil. In the new samples Hg –

concentration in FH –layer dropped some but increased in top of mineral soil due to mercury

subsiding over the years. In overall, there was still quite much mercury in this plot.

202704 Strassburg Except for FH –layer which had in both old and new samples more than 0,300 mg kg-1 of

mercury the plot was not badly contaminated. In both cases the amount of mercury decreased

when going deeper into the soil. The comparison showed that there were quite minor changes

to both directions.

23(54)

202705 Bairberg In old samples only FH –layer had high mercury content, 0,390 mg kg-1, but in mineral soil there

were very small traces of it. In the new samples however there was more mercury in each layer.

The amounts of mercury were not alarming in mineral soil but in litter and FH –layer there was

already quite much of it.

202706 Metnitz This plot displays quite common type of a plot; otherwise the Hg amounts are considerably low

but in FH –layer there is quite much of it. Through time there has been a small drop in the

content on surface layer but in mineral soil there is increase seen to some extend which should

be able to be explained by mercury from Hg subsiding within 20 years.

205705 Pflausach Mostly the samples of this plot had very low mercury concentrations. However the FH –layer

and top of mineral soil had rather high Hg –levels in both old and new samples. Highest value

was in old FH –sample, 0,420 mg kg-1. Amount of mercury dropped in every layer over the

years.

206707 Trebesing Mostly all the samples had small amounts of mercury in them. Only old FH –layer had mercury

content of 0,238 mg kg-1 which could be seen in new FH – and 0-5 cm –samples which were

approximately 0,130 mg kg-1 in mercury concentration. Except for the drop in Hg –levels in FH –

layer the changes were insignificant.

206709 Kremsbrücke Most of the samples had rather low mercury concentrations. Only FH –layer had Hg –content of

0,240 mg kg-1 in both old and new samples. Changes over 20 years were variable but quite

minor.

206712 Fragant This plot had rather low mercury levels. Only the FH –samples had a bit more of mercury than

mineral soil and litter samples. The amount of mercury decreased in every layer over time.

206713 Teuchl All the new samples had very small amounts of mercury in them, 0,124 mg kg-1 (FH –layer)

being the highest value. Comparison to old samples could be done only with FH –layer,

difference being -0,174 mg kg-1, since mineral soil samples were not analyzed.

24(54)

207710 Winklern Most of the samples of this plot had rather low mercury levels. Only FH –layers and new 0-5 cm

samples had a bit higher Hg –contents, old FH –sample having highest value, 0,350 mg kg-1.

Amount of mercury decreased significantly in FH –layer. Changes in mineral soil were variable.

208702 St. Kollmann Both old and new samples were only little bit contaminated by mercury, with the exception of FH

–samples which had mercury the amounts of 0,292 mg kg-1 (new) and 0,401 mg kg-1 (old).

Basically in every comparison group the new samples had less mercury than the old ones.

208704 Priebelsdorf All mineral soil and litter samples had very low mercury concentrations. FH –samples were

considerably high in Hg –contents and there was a slight increase in the results. This would

indicate mercury been emitted within those 20 years but still the difference was not extreme.

301750 Sattlerhütte All the samples had very small traces of mercury in them. New FH –layer and old samples were

not analyzed.

304702 Doberndorf; Mödring Litter and mineral soil samples had small amounts of mercury in them. Both old and new FH –

samples exceeded 0,300 mg kg-1 in mercury concentration. In new FH –samples there were big

differences in the values between the pits. There were some layers in pits B and C that were not

analyzed. Changes over time were descending.

304704 Eggenburg There were very low mercury content levels in this plot. Only old FH –layer had mercury more

than 0,100 mg kg-1. New litter - and old 0-10 cm –layer were not analyzed. Hg –content

decreased in every layer that was possible to be compared.

304706 Weierburg All new samples had very low mercury contents. There was no analysis done for old samples.

306701 Schiltern The litter and mineral soil samples had very low mercury levels. Old FH –layer had Hg –

concentration of 0,304 mg kg-1 and new one 0,152 mg kg-1. Changes were descending, though

quite insignificant in deeper mineral soil layers.

25(54)

306706 Rastenfeld Except for FH –samples this plot had very little amounts of mercury in it. Both FH –layers had

approximately 0,300 mg kg-1 of mercury in them. Hg –levels descended over 20 years in every

layer.

306707 Egelsee The litter and mineral soil samples had very small traces of mercury. The FH –samples however

had mercury more than 0,200 mg kg-1. There was a lot of variation in FH –layer between the

different pits. Hg –levels descended over time though changes were minor in mineral soil.

308702 Aschelberg The samples of this plot had quite or very little amounts of mercury in them. Only old FH –layer

had mercury content of 0,290 mg kg-1. Amount of mercury dropped in every layer.

310710 Aspang - Markt The litter and mineral soil samples had rather low mercury levels but FH –layers were quite

badly contaminated by it. The old FH –sample had Hg concentration of 0,405 mg kg-1 and new

one 0,350 mg kg-1. The amounts of mercury decreased in every layer.

311704 Lauterbach The litter and mineral soil samples were not badly contaminated. However the FH –layers had

very high mercury levels, both approximately 0,600 mg kg-1. Changes in the mineral soil were

descending and in FH –layer quite insignificant.

311705 Probstwald The mineral soil samples had very little amounts mercury in them, each sample less than 0,100

mg kg-1. FH –layer samples were 0,490 mg kg-1 which is almost the reference value 0,500 mg

kg-1. Changes over time were mostly descending.

312702 Mitterau - Gaming The samples in this plot were not badly contaminated by mercury. There was some drop in Hg

in FH –layer; in mineral soil samples the changes were quite indifferent.

312704 Gresten The results showed that there was quite low mercury content in the samples. Changes over

time were mostly descending.

313701 Reinberg-Dobersberg Basically every mineral soil sample had very low mercury content in this plot. Values were even

smaller in new samples. The FH –layer samples however had very high results what comes to

26(54)

the amount of mercury, new sample being 0,451 mg kg-1 and old sample exceeding the

reference value with the result of 0,578 mg kg-1.

315701 Stangau This plot was not badly contaminated. Mostly the values were approximately 0,100 mg kg-1.

Highest value was old FH –sample with Hg –concentration of 0,276 mg kg-1. When compared

the amount of mercury decreased in every layer.

315705 Gablitz This was one of the plots where new F- and H –samples were analyzed separately. Almost all

the samples had very low mercury contents. Only old FH –sample had mercury concentration of

0,500 mg kg-1. Amounts of mercury decreased in each layer, most significantly in FH –layer.

316702 Freitzenschlag Litter and mineral soil samples had very little amounts of mercury in them. FH –samples had

0,402 mg kg-1 (old) and 0,334 mg kg-1 (new) mercury concentrations. Changes over time were

mostly decreasing.

316703 Waldhams This plot was not badly contaminated by mercury. FH –sample was only one to exceed value

0,100 mg kg-1. There was no analysis made for old samples.

316706 Bärnkopf Litter and minerals soil samples were not badly contaminated. However FH –samples had

mercury concentrations of 0,433 mg kg-1 (old) and 0,330 mg kg-1 (new). As can be seen, the

amount of mercury dropped in FH –layer but probably due to it accumulating to the soil the

levels increased in mineral soil.

402703 Windhagmühl This plot had mostly quite low mercury levels but especially the FH –samples had rather high

Hg –concentrations, both old and new approximately 0,400 mg kg-1. Mercury levels dropped in

FH –layer, though very little, but increased in mineral soil too much to be explained by the

decrease in FH –layer.

406705 Bodendorf The old mineral soil samples had reasonable amounts of mercury in them but in FH –layer there

was 0,752 mg kg-1 of it. Within 20 years the amount of mercury dropped in FH –layer by over

0,550 mg kg-1 but increased in top of mineral soil due to subsiding of mercury.

408702 Schindlau

27(54)

The litter and mineral soil samples had small traces of mercury but FH –samples however had

both approximately 0,400 mg kg-1 of mercury in them. Hg –concentrations increased in each

layer which indicates increase in emissions.

410703 Lumpelgraben This plot was not badly contaminated. Every sample had lower mercury content than 0,200 mg

kg-1. Changes over time were varying; Hg –levels dropped in FH –layer but increased in the top

of mineral soil due to subsiding of mercury.

411701 Oberweißenbach The old mineral soil samples had rather small traces of mercury in them but in the FH –layer

there was already Hg –content of 0,366 mg kg-1. When compared to new samples the amount

of mercury dropped some in the FH –layer but increased more in top of the mineral soil than

can be explained by subsiding. This indicates increase in emissions. Deeper in the mineral soil

the changes were minor.

412701 Forstern Results show that this plot was quite contaminated. In new samples the FH –layer had mercury

content of 0,519 mg kg-1 and also the top of mineral soil had quite high values. The change over

time was ascending, even in FH –layer which would indicate increase in mercury emissions.

501703 Fischbach The amount of mercury was high in both old and new samples in the FH –layer, approximately

0,400 mg kg-1. Deeper layers had Hg –concentration more or less 0,200 mg kg-1 amount

decreasing towards deeper layers. In every comparison the Hg –levels rose.

501704 Russbach New samples were in the range of 0,171 mg kg-1 and 0,262 mg kg-1 in mercury content, except

for litter being 0,041 mg kg-1.There was some increase in the values of mineral soil samples. In

FH –layer there was a drop since old sample had Hg –content of 0,346 mg kg-1.

502705 Oberndorf There was rather much mercury from FH –layer to the depth of 10 cm in the new samples,

0,317 mg kg-1 at highest in layer 0-5 cm. In litter and deeper than 20 cm there was less than 0,1

mg kg-1. In the old samples there were 0,400 mg kg-1 of mercury in FH –layer and 0,106-0,162

mg kg-1 in mineral soil. It seems that since mercury in FH –layer decreased but increased on top

of mineral soil that mercury subsided during those 20 years.

28(54)

502707 Schwaighofen New samples did not have much mercury in them. Also the old samples were low in mercury

concentration except for the FH –layer which had Hg –content of 0,203 mg kg-1. Change over

20 years showed some decrease. Only in comparison between layer 0-10 cm indicated a slight

rise but this can be explained with mercury from FH –layer subsiding.

503704 Höch In old samples there was mercury in FH –layer close to the reference value, 0,423 mg kg-1. In

mineral soil there was 0,200 mg kg-1 on the top and towards deeper layers amount of mercury

decreased. In new samples the highest result was 0,155 mg kg-1 in 0-5 cm. All layers showed a

fall in Hg –levels. Litter was not analyzed.

503706 Neuberg Mostly the samples of this plot had quite low mercury concentrations. As an exception, in old FH

–sample there was 0,372 mg kg-1 of mercury. Apparently mercury from this layer subsiding

caused mercury levels in mineral soil to increase when compared. There were no litter samples

analyzed.

504701 Mitterberg The litter and mineral soil samples had rather or very low mercury levels. Both FH –layers had

Hg –content of approximately 0,250 mg kg-1. Changes over time were variable but quite minor.

504704 Vordermuhr The litter and mineral soil samples had rather or very low mercury levels. Mercury

concentrations of both FH –samples exceeded 0,250 mg kg-1. Changes over time were variable.

505702 Saalbach Almost all the samples of this plot had quite or very low mercury levels. The highest value was

in the FH –layer 0,235 mg kg-1. In every comparison layer amounts of mercury increased,

though in mineral soil the changes were minor.

505703 Bucheben All the samples of this plot were quite low in their mercury content. Only new 0-5 cm –layer

exceeded 0,200 mg kg-1. The changes over time were variable. FH –layer was not studied.

505707 Fusch Every sample had low mercury levels except for the new samples of layers 0-5 cm and 5-10 cm

which exceeded 0,200 mg kg-1 in amount of mercury. Litter and old FH –layer were not

analyzed. Changes in mineral soil were variable.

29(54)

505708 Lengdorf From new samples the litter and FH –layer were not analyzed. In both old and new mineral soil

samples there were low mercury levels though there was variation between different pits.

Changes within 20 years were variable.

505710 Mühlberg All the samples had rather or very low mercury levels, highest value being 0,180 mg kg-1 in FH –

samples. There was some increase in the values in mineral soil.

505716 Dienten The new samples excluding litter were very consistent in the Hg –concentration; all samples

were within the range of 0,182-0,255 mg kg-1. From old samples there were only mineral soil

analyzed. The results varied in the way of Hg –levels first decreasing towards deeper layers and

then rising again. Changes in mineral soil were variable.

601704 Halltal Except for the old FH –sample which had mercury concentration of 0,425 mg kg-1 the samples

of this plot had low Hg –levels. The amounts of mercury mostly decreased within 20 years. 601706 Frauenberg The old FH –sample in this plot had mercury the amount of the reference value 0,500 mg kg-1.

Mineral soil concentrations were considerably low. In new samples the FH –sample had still

high mercury levels though the amount dropped in 20 years which lead to the increase of Hg –

values in mineral soil. However the increase of mercury amounts in mineral soil were greater

than the drop in FH –layer so Hg subsiding over the years does not explain the increase

completely.

601709 Bruck/Mur The litter and mineral soil samples had rather or very little mercury in them; it was the FH –layer

which had the most noticeable results. Both FH –samples had mercury more than 1,100 mg kg-1

which is over twice as much as the reference value. There were quite remarkable changes

within the three different pits but since they all had very high concentrations the variation

between pits is not that important. Changes over time were descending

601711 Fölz The layers FH and 0-10 cm had rather high Hg –values in both old and new samples; for

instance old FH –sample had mercury content of 0,469 mg kg-1. It seemed that some of the

mercury had subsided over the years since FH –layer showed drop in Hg –levels but mineral

soil an increase when comparing the results. Still, the increase of mercury amounts was bigger

than the drop which indicates an increase in pollution as well.

30(54)

602702 Krumbach In old samples there was quite much mercury in FH – and 0-10 cm –layer. Compared to new

samples the amount of Hg decreased in every layer though there still was 0,309 mg kg-1 in FH –

layer.

602705 Sallegg The litter and mineral soil samples had rather low mercury contents. Both FH –layers however

exceeded 0,300 mg kg-1 in mercury concentration. Amount of mercury dropped in FH –layer.

Changes in mineral soil were minor.

604701 Premstätten The mineral soil and litter samples included small amounts of mercury. The FH –layer however

had 0,293 mg kg-1 (new) and 0,384 mg kg-1 mercury content. Changes over time were overall

very minor and mostly descending.

604703 Freßnitz The results from this plot were very variable. For instance, in the old samples the mineral soil

had mercury more or less 0,200 mg kg-1 but in the FH –layer there was almost 0,600 mg kg-1 of

mercury. In the new samples FH –layer’s concentration decreased almost 0,200 mg kg-1 and

apparently the subsiding of Hg caused certain mineral soil layers to have rather much of it

instead. In the range 10-40 cm there was more than 0,200 mg kg-1 of mercury in every layer,

0,348 mg kg-1 in layer 20-40 cm in pit B.

604708 Laufnitzdorf There was very little mercury in litter and mineral soil samples but very much of it in FH –layer,

almost the reference value in the new sample. The changes within 20 years were quite minor

but in FH –layer amount of mercury increased by 0,136 mg kg-1.

605701 Lindegg The litter and mineral soil samples had very low mercury concentrations. FH –layers had Hg –

contents of 0,300 mg kg-1 (old) and 0,257 mg kg-1 (new). Amount of mercury decreased in each

layer.

606701 Lavantegg Most of the new samples had quite much mercury in them, except litter and the bottom mineral

soil samples. In FH –layer mercury content dropped but in other comparisons it increased

significantly. The noticeable fact was that with new and old samples in both cases the amount of

mercury dropped from the 0,220-0,230 mg kg-1 in FH –layer to 0,085-0,100 in 0-5cm (new) / 0-

10 cm (old), and rose again when going deeper in the mineral soil.

31(54)

606709 Pusterwald All the litter and mineral soil samples had quite low mercury content, less than 0,200 mg kg-1.

The FH –layer had the highest mercury levels, both exceeding 0,220 mg kg-1. The amount of Hg

rose in FH –layer and in the top of mineral soil and decreased in deeper layers. Amounts of

changes in mineral soil were minor.

606711 Möderbrugg All the samples were low in mercury, FH –layer again having highest content but still below

0,200 mg kg-1 in both new and old samples. Mercury content decreased in every comparison

though changes were really small.

609702 Niklasdorfgraben The litter and mineral soil samples were not badly contaminated. However in FH –layer there

was very much mercury, over 0,710 mg kg-1 in both samples. Changes over time were mostly

descending.

609706 Kraubathgraben All the samples had low mercury levels FH –layer excluded. In new samples litter had 0,091 mg

kg-1 and mineral soil 0,071 mg kg-1 at highest. In old mineral soil samples the variation was

between 0,025 mg kg-1 to 0,061 mg kg-1. There were basically no changes through time. Like

already mentioned FH –layer was anything but low in Hg -content. The old sample had Hg

concentration of 0,569 mg kg-1 and the new sample 0,390 mg kg1. Like can be seen there was a

drop but still the amount of mercury was almost the reference value 0,5 mg kg-1.

609708 Schattenberg All samples were rather low in mercury, except old sample from FH –layer which had Hg –

content of 0,535 mg kg-1. There was no analysis done from new FH -layer so it can’t be know if

there would’ve occurred similar results. In mineral soil the amount of mercury decreased 0,040-

0,060 mg kg-1.

610709 Lassing Mostly the samples were not badly contaminated by mercury but in both FH –samples and in

new top of mineral soil samples the concentrations were already higher. Old FH –sample almost

exceeded reference value 0,500 mg kg-1. Through time the mercury in the FH –layer had

subsided to mineral soil, as the results show.

610712 Unterhall The profile of old samples was quite interesting; all the samples were rather high in mercury

content, more or less 0,300 mg kg-1, but the sample from layer 10-20 cm had mercury 0,482 mg

kg-1. Sample was analyzed twice to be sure of the result. In new samples FH – and 0-5 cm –

32(54)

layer had approximately 0,300 mg kg-1 of mercury and from there the amount increased when

going deeper into mineral soil but in the lowest layer the values again increased some. In some

layers there was a lot of variation in the mercury concentrations. The changes over time were

mostly descending.

611701 Krieglach The litter and mineral soil samples had low mercury levels but the concentrations in the FH –

layers were very close to the reference value 0,500 mg kg-1. Changes of mercury contents over

time were mostly descending.

612702 St. Marein In every mineral soil sample there was less than 0,160 mg kg-1 of mercury. In both FH –samples

there was mercury amount of approximately 0,400 mg kg-1 value being higher in the new

sample. The changes in mineral soil were insignificantly small.

612704 St. Lorenzen This plot was relatively badly contaminated by mercury. Though the amount of it decreased in

most of the layers that were possible to compare to, the concentrations of new samples were

still quite high.

612705 Rinegg Most of the samples of this plot had quite low mercury levels. Only the new FH –layer and old 0-

10cm and 10-20 cm layers exceeded 0,200 mg kg-1. Amounts of mercury decreased in mineral

soil but increased in the FH –layer.

613702 Erlsberg; Gatschen The results from this plot are not alarming but some samples were rather high in mercury

content. For instance, old FH –sample had concentration of 0,325 mg kg-1. Changes over time

were variable. 613703 Donnersbachwald Mostly the samples in this were not very badly contaminated by mercury but FH –layer had

considerably much of it, approximately 0,300 mg kg-1 in both old and new samples. Hg –levels

decreased in FH –layer but increased in top of mineral soil almost the same amount. Deeper in

the mineral soil the changes were insignificantly small.

613711 Preunegg Almost every sample of this plot had rather low Hg –levels but especially in the FH –samples

there was quite much of it already, 0,358 mg kg-1 in the old sample and 0,299 mg kg-1 in the

new one. Change within 20 years was mostly decreasing.

33(54)

614703 Lobming Every mineral soil and litter sample had either very or quite little mercury in them. Only the FH –

samples being 0,398 mg kg-1 (new) and 0,451 mg kg-1 (old) had almost the amount of the

reference value of mercury in them. Change over time was descending.

614704 Oswaldgraben All the new samples had mercury at maximum 0,155 mg kg-1 except for the FH –layer which

had concentration of 0,308 mg kg-1.There were no analyses made for the old samples hence it

cannot be know how the values changed over time.

614706 Pack Except for the FH –samples the Hg –levels of the samples were not too high. In FH –samples

however there was over 0,300 mg kg-1 of mercury in both old and new samples. Changes within

20 years were mostly descending.

615701 Kathrein The samples had very low mercury levels and results decreased when going deeper in the

mineral soil. There were no analysis made for old samples of FH –layer and top of mineral soil

hence it can not be known if there would have been higher Hg –levels but at least when

comparing bottom layers the results were smaller in new samples.

615705 Inneres Kaltenegg This plot was not badly contaminated but still in FH – and top of mineral soil samples had more

than 0,200 mg kg-1 of mercury, 0,330 mg kg-1 (old FH) being the highest value. Changes

through time were variant but mostly decreasing.

615706 Fischbach Certain samples in this plot had quite high mercury concentrations. For instance, old FH –

sample had the content of 0,501 mg kg-1 mineral soil values decreasing from there. When

compared to new samples the mercury levels decreased well, mostly by 0,150 mg kg-1.

702703 Arzl This plot was not severely contaminated; only FH –layer exceeded the concentration of 0,200

mg kg-1. Hg –levels decreased over time.

704702 Brixen This plot had extremely high mercury levels. Basically every sample was analyzed at least twice

in order to gain reliable results. In old samples the highest value was 3,515 mg kg-1 in layer 20-

30 cm. Though there was some descending in mercury levels over time the new samples still

had very high concentrations, even over three times as much as the reference value. Also the

34(54)

variations in different pits were sometimes high but when mercury contents are this extreme the

changes from pit to another hardly make any difference.

709703 St. Veit im Def. Samples in this plot had very little mercury in them. Only FH –samples had concentrations of

0,105 mg kg-1 (new) and 0,203 mg kg-1 (old) but those values are not alarming. Changes over

time were descending.

711702 Kaunertal All new samples were below 0,100 mg kg-1 in mercury which is low. Also, amount of mercury

dropped within 20 years quite much since in the old samples there was mercury at least 0,122

mg kg-1, in FH –layer even 0,430 mg kg-1.

712750 Fieberbrunn This plot was not too badly contaminated by mercury. Pit A’s results were discarded and there

were no analysis made from old samples.

713702 Gallzein Both old and new samples had extremely high results. Many of the samples had to be analyzed

twice to be sure of the results. The highest value in new samples was 0,901 mg kg-1 (0-5 cm)

which is almost twice the reference value. All the old samples were in the range of 0,429 and

0,732 mg kg-1. Except for FH –layer the mercury values increased when comparing old and new

samples. The rise in Hg levels is so high that there must be an external reason for it.

714701 Obertilliach FH –layers had the most mercury, 0,349 mg kg-1 (new) and 0,293 mg kg-1 (old). In new samples

litter had mercury 0,146 mg kg-1 and the mineral soil 0,138 mg kg-1 at highest. There was either

no change or insignificant increase in mercury levels in mineral soil through time.

802702 Au Every sample was low in mercury, highest value being 0,100 mg kg-1 in both new and old

samples. In mineral soil the amount of mercury dropped. Comparison could not be made in FH

–layer since there was no analysis made from old FH –sample.

35(54)

5. Discussion

When studying the results of the mercury analyses it was clear there were two dominant types.

The first case included plots where mercury levels were otherwise low but in the FH –layer the

concentration was even very high. This might be the cause of mercury having high bonding

strength to the organic matter /9/. The other type presented a case where in the FH –layer there

was a decrease in amount of Hg but due to subsiding of mercury from the first to the second

investigation the concentration increased at least in the upper part of mineral soil.

There was no significant difference between the results of carbonate and silicate soils.

Even though the general trend was that mercury amounts decreased over the years there were

also plots were it could clearly be seen that they had been exposed to Hg –pollution during

those 20 years.

According to Alfred Fürst (BFW) the largest source of mercury emissions in Austria is the

process of sintering mercury containing iron ore. This is also a huge polluter globally. Another

source is chloralkali industry, and the contaminated process plant sites, which was the largest

user of mercury in Europe in 2005. Mercury is one of the possible fuels to be used in chloralkali

process to conduct electricity /4/. Also cement and brick works which might process mercury

containing materials or use them as a fuel and soil gas emissions from sites which used to have

mining activities own a great share of mercury emissions. /8,14/

36(54)

6. Conclusions

When studying Figure 5. it can be clearly seen, though the map only includes four out of seven

studied layers, that there are several plots where mercury concentration does not exceed 0,100

mg kg-1 or even 0,050 mg kg-1. But what is also noticeable is that there are perhaps even more

spots which exceed 0,200 mg kg-1 in mercury concentration and as it became clear when

analyzing the results there are also plots which have extremely high mercury levels. And, as

mentioned in section 5, there were plots where Hg –concentration did increase.

In Austria the situation of mercury content in the forest soils may not be alarming but the results

state that there are areas even severely contaminated by Hg and some precautions against

further mercury pollution and contamination should be taken. Also, there should be further

studies made and the monitoring of mercury contents in the soil and biota should be continued.

Figure 5. Hg content in Austrian forest soils in four selected depth layers. /9/

37(54)

References

1. Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management. 2008. The

Forest Ecosystem. [online] [referred to 26.4.2010]

http://forst.lebensministerium.at/article/articleview/63305/1/14174

2. European Union. 2008. BioSoil: General Presentation. [online] [referred to15.2.2010]

http://biosoil.jrc.it/

3. Forestry Commission. Forest Focus – BioSoil project. [online] [referred to 15.3.2010]

http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/biosoil

4. The Worldwatch Institute 2006; State of the World 2006, Special Focus: China and India;

Washington DC, United States of America; Worldwatch Institute; ISBN 0-393-

06158-2.

5. Pirrone, N.; Mahaffey Kathryn R. 2005; Dynamics of Mercury Pollution on Regional and

Global Scales, Atmospheric Processes and human Exposures around the World;

New York, United States of America; Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.;

ISBN-10: 0-387-24493-X.

6. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Mercury Reduction and Education

Campaign. Bioaccumulation of Mercury. . [online] [referred to 11.5.2010]

http://www.mercvt.org/environ/bioaccum.htm

7. Ebinghaus, R.; Turner, R.R.; de Lacerda, L.D.; Vasiliev, O.; Salomons (Eds.), W.; 1999;

Mercury Contaminated Sites; Characterization, Risks Assesment and

Remediation; Germany; Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; ISBN 3-540-63731-1

8. Health and Environment Alliance [online] [referred to 14.4.2010]

http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/mercury_chapter2.pdf

9. Dr. Mutsch, Franz, Head of the Forest Soils –Unit. [e-mail message 14.4.2010, 27.4.2010]

The Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape

10. Wettl, Raffaela, engineer. [e-mail message 17.3.2010] The Research and Training Centre

for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape

11. LECO. AMA 254. [online] [referred to 12.2.2010]

http://www.leco.com/products/organic/ama_254/ama_254.htm

http://forst.lebensministerium.at/article/articleview/63305/1/14174

http://biosoil.jrc.it/

http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/biosoil

http://www.mercvt.org/environ/bioaccum.htm

http://www.leco.com/products/organic/ama_254/ama_254.htm

38(54)

12. Merriam-Webster Online. [online] [referred to 24.5.2010]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carbonate

13. White, Robert E.; 2006; Principles and Practice of Soil Science, The Soil as a Natural

Resource, 4th Edition; UK, Blackwell Publishing; ISBN-10: 0-632-06455-2.

14. Fürst, A. 2009. Assessment of Mercury in Needles of Forest Trees. [online] [referred to

22.4.2010] http://bfw.ac.at/rz/bfwcms.web?dok=7806

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carbonate

http://bfw.ac.at/rz/bfwcms.web?dok=7806

39(54)

Appendix 1. Mercury content in carbonate soil –samples taken 2006-07. 1/3

0,000

0,020

0,040

0,060

0,080

0,100

0,120

0,140

0,160

0,180

204750

207705

302702

412750

801703

315704

502701

208705

801702

310704

707704

311703

403710

606705

710701

403708

404702

410713

307711

404701

717704

504750

205703

604709

310709

613714

312707

314701

713703

612703

713704

601713

307703

410712

301704

610714

610707

705703

310707

307710

Hg in L ‐layer (mg kg‐1)

0,000

0,100

0,200

0,300

0,400

0,500

0,600

0,700

0,800

204750

315704

801703

307711

310704

302702

404702

312707

311703

410713

207705

404701

502701

801702

504750

717704

610714

403708

310709

707704

713703

613712

705703

710701

613714

307710

403710

612703

205703

208705

314701

307703

601713

604709

606705

713704

310707

610707

Hg in FH ‐layer (mg kg‐1)

40(54)


0,000

0,100

0,200

0,300

0,400

0,500

0,600

0,700

0,800

0,900

204750

412750

315704

804701

612703

707704

302702

310704

801702

307711

314701

410712

613714

710701

801703

208705

312707

504750

713703

717704

404701

307710

404702

207705

610714

310709

502701

403708

307703

310707

601713

410713

403710

606705

613712

301704

311703

705703

604709

205703

610707

713704

Hg in 0‐5 cm (mg kg‐1)

0,000

0,200

0,400

0,600

0,800

1,000

1,200

1,400

412750

204750

707704

804701

315704

612703

613714

310704

801702

302702

314701

307711

710701

410712

312707

208705

801703

717704

404701

504750

207705

307710

610714

404702

502701

713703

310709

307703

403708

601713

310707

613712

410713

301704

606705

311703

604709

403710

610707

705703

205703

713704


0,000

0,200

0,400

0,600

0,800

1,000

1,200

1,400

204750

412750

707704

312707

804701

315704

302702

314701

612703

613714

307711

310704

710701

801702

410712

208705

801703

207705

613712

717704

404701

404702

713703

307710

307703

504750

610714

310709

502701

403708

601713

403710

301704

610707

410713

311703

606705

310707

604709

705703

205703

713704


41(54)


0,000

0,200

0,400

0,600

0,800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

204750

312707

412750

315704

302702

804701

207705

208705

710701

307711

801702

314701

613714

612703

310704

410712

310707

613712

801703

717704

610714

404701

301704

504750

502701

307710

310709

601713

403710

404702

610707

403708

410713

311703

604709

606705

205703

705703

713704


0,000

0,100

0,200

0,300

0,400

0,500

0,600

0,700

204750

312707

412750

208705

613714

302702

307711

315704

717704

314701

207705

710701

801702

310707

612703

613712

804701

310704

801703

410712

307710

301704

502701

310709

404701

410713

504750

601713

403710

311703

606705

705703

604709

205703


42(54) Appendix 2. Mercury content in silicate soil –samples taken 2006-07. 1/7

0,0000,0100,0200,0300,0400,0500,0600,0700,0800,090

102703

202706

615701

206712

501704

205705

604701

802702

208704

306706

411701

602702

102707

304706

505703

201705

306701

606701

201701

308702

306707

316703

614706

316702

101703

101708

102701

208702

315701

402703

502707

505710

605701

610712

206707

504701

505716

606711

301750

316706

614703

313701

406705

410703

Hg in L ‐layer (mg kg‐1) 1/2

0,000

0,050

0,100

0,150

0,200

0,250

0,300

0,350

612705

611701

408702

412701

604708

312702

312704

502705

601704

609706

612702

207710

709703

712750

501703

304702

604703

102704

615706

202704

609702

614704

505702

615705

504704

601711

612704

613702

713702

311704

702703

206709

311705

606709

602705

610709

601709

613703

613711

714701

310710

601706

609708

202705

704702

Hg in L ‐layer (mg kg‐1) 2/2


0,000

0,050

0,100

0,150

0,200

0,250

0,300

Hg in FH ‐layer (mg kg‐1) 1/2

0,000

0,200

0,400

0,600

0,800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Hg in FH ‐layer (mg kg‐1) 2/2


0,0000,0200,0400,0600,0800,1000,1200,1400,160

Hg in 0‐5 cm (mg kg‐1) 1/2

0,0000,2000,4000,6000,8001,0001,2001,4001,600

Hg in 0‐5 cm (mg kg‐1) 2/2


0,0000,0200,0400,0600,0800,1000,120

3067

0770

9703

3067

0120

8704

6047

0831

1704

6057

0130

4706

6047

0161

1701

1027

0130

4702

3067

0660

9706

1027

0331

6702

6147

0331

3701

3157

0531

1705

3047

0461

5701

1017

0830

1750

3167

0310

1703

4087

0250

5710

7117

0231

2702

6097

0820

6707

2087

0250

3706

1027

0740

6705

5027

0730

8702

2067

1360

9702

6147

0680

2702

3157

0150

4704

6017

0441

0703

6147

0460

1709

Hg in 5‐10 cm (mg kg‐1) 1/2

0,0000,2000,4000,6000,8001,0001,2001,4001,6001,800

5057

0331

2704

2067

1261

2702

7127

5061

2705

5057

0860

6711

7147

0120

2706

2067

0931

0710

6027

0270

2703

2057

0560

6709

5037

0450

4701

3167

0620

2704

2077

1020

2705

5057

0260

4703

6027

0561

2704

6107

0961

3702

6137

0361

3711

5017

0360

1706

4027

0350

5707

2017

0161

0712

6157

0661

5705

4127

0141

1701

5017

0450

5716

1027

0460

1711

5027

0520

1705

6067

0171

3702

7047

02

Hg in 5‐10 cm (mg kg‐1) 2/2


0,0000,0100,0200,0300,0400,0500,0600,0700,0800,090

Hg in 10‐20 cm (mg kg‐1) 1/2

0,0000,2000,4000,6000,8001,0001,2001,4001,600

Hg in 10‐20 cm (mg kg‐1) 2/2


0,000

0,010

0,020

0,030

0,040

0,050

0,060

0,070

0,080

Hg in 20‐40 cm (mg kg‐1) 1/2

0,0000,2000,4000,6000,8001,0001,2001,4001,6001,800

5047

0171

1702

6017

0920

6713

3157

0160

1704

6017

1120

6709

3167

0661

3703

5057

0261

5705

7147

0150

2707

6127

0520

2704

5057

0360

6709

2067

1240

2703

1027

0720

1701

5037

0461

2702

2077

1031

0710

6107

0920

2706

4117

0141

2701

2017

0520

2705

6027

0570

2703

5037

0661

3711

5017

0461

3702

6107

1250

5716

6017

0650

1703

6157

0660

4703

1027

0461

2704

6067

0171

3702

7047

02

Hg in 20‐40 cm (mg kg‐1) 2/2

0,000

0,200

0,400

0,600

0,800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Hg in 40‐80 cm (mg kg‐1) 2/2

0,000

0,010

0,020

0,030

0,040

0,050

0,060

0,070

Hg in 40‐80 cm (mg kg‐1) 1/2


49(54)

Appendix 3. Changes of Hg in FH –layer from 1987-89 to 2006-07 in silicate soil –samples. 1/2

‐0,3

‐0,2

‐0,1

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

310709

207705

717704

710701

311703

312707

403708

801703

610714

302702

705703

205703

801702

404701

613712

404702

403710

707704

604709

410713

612703

606705

713703

307711

310704

613714

208705

502701

307710

307703

713704

601713

310707

314701

610707

Change of Hg in FH ‐layer (mg kg‐1)

‐0,4

‐0,3

‐0,2

‐0,1

0

0,1

0,2

610707

604709

713704

613714

705703

403708

610714

404701

307710

612703

208705

804701

302702

713703

801703

707704

502701

310707

410712

801702

717704

301704

403710

307703

307711

311703

410713

710701

207705

606705

404702

312707

613712

205703

Change of Hg in 0‐10 cm (mg kg‐1)

50(54)

Appendix 3. Changes of Hg in FH –layer from 1987-89 to 2006-07 in carbonate soil –samples. 2/2

‐0,25

‐0,2

‐0,15

‐0,1

‐0,05

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

604709

610707

403708

613712

312707

601713

804701

717704

307703

310704

208705

707704

315704

613714

713703

705703

302702

307710

410712

307711

205703

710701

502701

801703

801702

311703

410713

404702

207705

301704

310707


‐0,2

‐0,15

‐0,1

‐0,05

0

0,05

0,1

0,15


51(54) Appendix 4. Changes of Hg in FH –layer from 1987-89 to 2006-07 in silicate soil -samples. 1/4

‐0,6

‐0,5

‐0,4

‐0,3

‐0,2

‐0,1

0

Change of Hg in FH ‐layer (mg kg‐1) 1/2

‐0,1

‐0,05

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

3167

02

2017

01

3127

04

6137

02

6137

11

3107

10

6147

03

6107

12

1017

08

3067

06

7027

03

6027

02

6027

05

6057

01

2027

04

3067

07

6067

11

6147

06

3047

02

6137

03

6097

02

1027

04

4117

01

6067

01

5047

04

3117

04

4027

03

5057

10

6117

01

3117

05

2067

09

5047

01

4087

02

6067

09

2027

05

6127

02

5017

03

7147

01

4127

01

2087

04

6127

05

5057

02

6047

08

Change of Hg in FH ‐layer (mg kg‐1) 2/2


‐0,7

‐0,6

‐0,5

‐0,4

‐0,3

‐0,2

‐0,1

0

0,1

Change of Hg in 0‐10 cm (mg kg‐1) 1/2

0

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,1

0,12

0,14

0,16

6027

05

3167

02

6047

08

6127

02

5057

02

4087

02

1017

08

1027

01

2027

04

2067

07

4127

01

5027

07

5047

01

6137

03

2027

06

6137

02

2067

09

6107

09

4107

03

5017

04

2077

10

5017

03

6157

05

1027

07

6017

04

5057

10

6107

12

3167

06

5057

03

5047

04

7137

02

5037

06

2017

05

5057

08

6017

06

5057

16

2027

05

4027

03

5057

07

6017

11

4117

01

6067

01

1027

04

4067

05

5027

05

Change of Hg in 0‐10 cm (mg kg‐1) 2/2


‐0,7

‐0,6

‐0,5

‐0,4

‐0,3

‐0,2

‐0,1

0

Change in 10‐20 cm (mg kg‐1) 1/2

‐0,020

0,02

0,040,06

0,080,1

0,120,14

0,16


‐1,4

‐1,2

‐1

‐0,8

‐0,6

‐0,4

‐0,2

0


‐0,05

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

6017

04

1027

01

3157

05

4107

03

1027

03

5057

08

6137

03

3067

07

5037

04

6067

11

2077

10

6047

03

3127

04

5057

02

6027

05

2087

02

4087

02

6097

06

4027

03

7027

03

5057

10

6027

02

1017

08

5037

06

6097

02

6107

09

6127

04

7147

01

2027

06

6117

01

6137

02

5017

04

6137

11

5057

03

2027

04

3167

06

1027

07

6017

11

5017

03

6157

06

6017

06

2027

05

7137

02

1027

04

6067

01



mercury in austrian forest soils - theseus

Documents