The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methyl-Mercury Degradation Pathways: A Comparison among Three Mercury-Impacted Ecosystems
Abstract
We examined microbial methylmercury (MeHg) degradation in sediment of the Florida Everglades, Carson River (NV), and San Carlos Creek (CA), three freshwater environments that differ in the extent and type of mercury contamination and sediment biogeochemistry. Degradation rate constant ( k deg ) values increased with total mercury (Hg t ) contamination both among and within ecosystems. The highest k deg 's (2.8−5.8 d - 1 ) were observed in San Carlos Creek, at acid mine drainage impacted sites immediately downstream of the former New Idria mercury mine, where Hg t ranged from 4.5 to 21.3 ppm (dry wt). A reductive degradation pathway (presumably mer -detoxification) dominated degradation at these sites, as indicated by the nearly exclusive production of 14 CH 4 from 14 C-MeHg, under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. At the upstream control site, and in the less contaminated ecosystems (e.g. the Everglades), k deg 's were low (≤0.2 d - 1 ) and oxidative demethylation (OD) dominated degradation, as evident from 14 CO 2 production. k deg increased with microbial CH 4 production, organic content, and reduced sulfur in the Carson River system and increased with decreasing pH in San Carlos Creek. OD associated CO 2 production increased with pore-water SO 4 2- in Everglades samples but was not attributable to anaerobic methane oxidation, as has been previously proposed. This ecosystem comparison indicates that severely contaminated sediments tend to have microbial populations that actively degrade MeHg via mer -detoxification, whereas OD occurs in heavily contaminated sediments as well but dominates in those less contaminated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sulfate stimulation of mercury methylation in freshwater sediments
Gilmour, C. C., Henry, E. A., & Mitchell, R. (1992) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es00035a029 · Cited by 1,124
Self-citation
Cited by
Bacterial mercury resistance from atoms to ecosystems
Barkay, T., Miller, S. M., & Summers, A. O. (2003) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0168-6445(03)00046-9 · Cited by 1,054
Marine Biogeochemical Cycling of Mercury
Fitzgerald, W. F., Lamborg, C. H., & Hammerschmidt, C. R. (2007) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr050353m · Cited by 1,048
Role of organic amendments on enhanced bioremediation of heavy metal (loid) contaminated soils
Park, J. H., Lamb, D., Paneerselvam, P., Choppala, G., Bolan, N., & Chung, J.-W. (2011) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.09.082 · Cited by 936
Geochemistry of Mercury in the Environment
Fitzgerald, W. F., & Lamborg, C. H. (2014) · Treatise on Geochemistry · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-095975-7.00904-9 · Cited by 275
Metadata
- Authors
- Marvin-DiPasquale, M., Agee, J., McGowan, C., Oremland, R. S., Thomas, M., Krabbenhoft, D., & Gilmour, C. C.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2000-10-14
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 4908-4916
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2008224475
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methyl-Mercury Degradation Pathways: A Comparison among Three Mercury-Impacted Ecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es0013125
- The paper
- Marvin-DiPasquale, M., Agee, J., McGowan, C., Oremland, R. S., Thomas, M., Krabbenhoft, D., & Gilmour, C. C. (2000). Methyl-Mercury Degradation Pathways: A Comparison among Three Mercury-Impacted Ecosystems. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0013125
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.