The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modeling the Past Atmospheric Deposition of Mercury Using Natural Archives
Abstract
Historical records of mercury (Hg) accumulation in lake sediments and peat bogs are often used to estimate human impacts on the biogeochemical cycling of mercury. On the basis of studies of lake sediments, modern atmospheric mercury deposition rates are estimated to have increased by a factor of 3-5 compared to background values: i.e., from about 3-3.5 microg Hg m(-2) yr(-1) to 10-20 microg Hg m(-2) yr(-1). However, recent studies of the historical mercury record in peat bogs suggest significantly higher increases (9-400 fold, median 40x), i.e., from about 0.6-1.7 microg Hg m(-2) yr(-1) to 8-184 microg Hg m(-2) yr(-1). We compared published data of background and modern mercury accumulation rates derived from globally distributed lake sediments and peat bogs and discuss reasons for the differences observed in absolute values and in the relative increase in the industrial age. Direct measurements of modern wet mercury deposition rates in remote areas are presently about 1-4 microg m(-2) yr(-1), but were possibly as high as 20 microg Hg m(-2) yr(-1) during the 1980s. These values are closer to the estimates of past deposition determined from lake sediments, which suggests that modern mercury accumulation rates derived from peat bogs tend to overestimate deposition. We suggest that smearing of 210Pb in the uppermost peat sections contributes to an underestimation of peat ages, which is the most important reason for the overestimation of mercury accumulation rates in many bogs. The lower background mercury accumulation rates in peat as compared to lake sediments we believe is the result of nonquantitative retention and loss of mercury during peat diagenesis. As many processes controlling time-resolved mercury accumulation in mires are still poorly understood, lake sediments appear to be the more reliable archive for estimating historical mercury accumulation rates.
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
Cited by
Updated Global and Oceanic Mercury Budgets for the United Nations Global Mercury Assessment 2018
Outridge, P. M., Mason, R. P., Wang, F., Guerrero, S., & Heimbürger-Boavida, L. E. (2018) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b01246 · Cited by 438
Metadata
- Authors
- Biester, H., Bindler, R., Martinez-Cortizas, A., & Engstrom, D. R.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2007-06-16
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 4851-4860
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2076164228
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.29
- 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: Modeling the Past Atmospheric Deposition of Mercury Using Natural Archives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es0704232
- The paper
- Biester, H., Bindler, R., Martinez-Cortizas, A., & Engstrom, D. R. (2007). Modeling the Past Atmospheric Deposition of Mercury Using Natural Archives. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0704232
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.