Cited by 83Mercury impact and mitigation studiesHeavy metals in environmentMine drainage and remediation techniques

The source and fate of sediment and mercury in the Tapajós River, Pará, Brazilian Amazon: Ground-and space-based evidence

Telmer·2006·Journal of Environmental Management

Abstract

We present results of mercury (Hg) in surface waters and soils and an analysis of satellite imagery from the Tapajós River basin, Brazilian Amazon, and the Reserva Garimpeira do Tapajós, the legal gold mining district of the basin. Hg bound to suspended sediment was roughly 600 and 200 times the concentration of dissolved Hg per litre of water, in impacted and pristine areas, respectively. Suspended sediments thus represent the major pathway of river-borne Hg. Median concentrations of Hg in suspended load from both impacted and pristine waters were 134 ppb, and 80% of samples were below 300ppb-in the range of naturally occurring surficial materials in the tropics. Regionally, riverine Hg fluxes were proportional to the concentration of total suspended solids. This shows that the dominant source of Hg is the sediment itself rather than anthropogenic mercury discharge from the small-scale mines. To independently test this conclusion, a mass balance was performed. A conservative calculation of the annual export of mercury (Hg) from the Creporí River (a minimum) was 1.6 tonnes for the year 1998-it could be significantly larger. This amount of Hg is difficult to account for by anthropogenic discharge alone, confirming that enhanced physical erosion caused by sluicing and dredging operations is the dominant source of Hg. We therefore conclude that gold mining operations are primarily responsible for elevated Hg concentrations. The dominant source of contamination is not, however, t…

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.09.027

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Telmer
Venue
Journal of Environmental Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
81
Issue
2
Pages
101-113
ISSN
0301-4797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1977211050
Cited by
82
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Environmental Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Mercury impact and mitigation studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Heavy metals in environment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Mine drainage and remediation techniques
Keywords
mercury contamination, Tapajós River, gold mining, suspended sediment, mercury mass balance, soil erosion, satellite imagery, mercury remediation, Amazon basin
MeSH terms
Brazil, Mercury, Soil, Time Factors, Satellite Communications, Geologic Sediments, Rivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review