Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · ofr20051030

Determination of total mercury in biological and geological samples

Abstract

The analytical chemist is faced with several challenges when determining mercury in biological and geological materials. These challenges include widespread mercury contamination, both in the laboratory and the environment, possible losses of mercury during sample preparation and digestion, the wide range of mercury values commonly observed, ranging from the low nanogram per gram or per liter for background areas to hundreds of milligrams per kilogram in contaminated or ore-bearing areas, great matrix diversity, and sample heterogeneity1. These factors can be naturally occurring or anthropogenic, but must be addressed to provide a precise and accurate analysis. Although there are many instrumental methods available for the successful determination of mercury, no one technique will address all problems or all samples all of the time. The approach for the determination of mercury used at the U.S. Geological Survey, Crustal Imaging and Characterization Team, Denver Laboratories, utilizes a suite of complementary instrumental methods when approaching a study requiring mercury analyses. Typically, a study could require the analysis of waters, leachates or selective digestions of solids, vegetation, and biological materials such as tissue, bone, or shell, soils, rocks, sediments, coals, sludges, and(or) ashes. No one digestion or sample preparation method will be suitable for all of these matrices. The digestions typically employed at our laboratories include: (i) a closed-vessel microwave method using nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide, followed by digestion/dilution with a nitric acid/sodium dichromate solution, (ii) a robotic open test-tube digestion with nitric acid and sodium dichromate, (iii) a sealed Teflon? vessel with nitric acid and sodium dichromate, (iv) a sealed glass bottle with nitric acid and sodium dichromate, or (v) open test tube digestion with nitric and sulfuric acids and vanadium pentoxide. The common factor in all these digestions is that they are very oxidative to ensure the conversion of all mercury forms into Hg (II). Each method of digestion has its advantages and limitations. The method of detection used in our laboratories involves a combination of an in-house, custom, classic continuous-flow cold-vapor atomic absorption spectrometry (CVAAS), a commercially available, automated, flow-injection and a continuous flow cold-vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry (CV-AFS) systems, and a relatively new, automated and integrated approach where solid or liquid samples are thermally decomposed under an oxygen atmosphere (a nitrogen atmosphere is used for coals) and the released mercury vapor trapped onto a gold gauze and then thermally released into an AAS system. Other less frequently used instrumental methods available for the determination of mercury include inductively coupled plasma ? optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES), inductively couple plasma ? mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) (both solution nebulization and laser ablation), and instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). Results from two case studies involving the determination of mercury in the challenging matrices of biological materials will be presented. These will include fillet, liver and stomach-content samples from grayling for a baseline/background study in Alaska, and samples of meat tissue and shell material from Tanner crabs from Glacier Bay, Alaska. These studies show that the method of digestion is more important than a very sensitive detection limit for mercury.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

James G. Crock. 2005. Determination of total mercury in biological and geological samples. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20051030

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 2, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 2 (April–June), 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov.

Open-File Report↗

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 1, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 1 (January–March) of 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov . One specific activity that the ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team closely monitored was a Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor encoder alerts anomaly. On March 18, 2026, the Thermal Infrared Sensor instrument’s mechanism control electronics board reset, driving several parameters to default power-on values. Subsequent telemetry and analysis determined that no persistent hardware misconfiguration was present and no radiometric or geometric degradation was observed.

Open-File Report↗

Floods of June 20–July 6, 2024, in the Big Sioux River, Rock River, Little Sioux River, Ocheyedan River, and Floyd River Basins, northwestern Iowa

Major flooding occurred on June 20–July 6, 2024, in northwestern Iowa affecting the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd River Basins. Heavy rain fell in northwestern Iowa, southwestern Minnesota, and southeastern South Dakota on June 20–22, 2024. Parts of northwestern Iowa recorded 2–6 inches of rainfall and localized amounts exceeding 12 inches. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 175,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Big Sioux River at Akron, Iowa (06485500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at four locations along the Big Sioux River between U.S. Interstate 29 at Sioux City, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 north of Hawarden, Iowa, a distance of 75.7 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 157,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Rock River near Rock Valley, Iowa (06483500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability of less than 0.2 percent. High-water marks were measured at eight locations along the Rock River between County Road B30 east of Hudson, South Dakota, upstream to Iowa Highway 9 at Rock Rapids, Iowa, a distance of 39.3 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 63,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Little Sioux River at Correctionville, Iowa (06606600), was recorded on June 24, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at 11 locations along the Little Sioux River between Iowa Highway 31 west of Correctionville, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 north of Spencer, Iowa, a distance of 134.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 24,500 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Ocheyedan River near Spencer, Iowa (06605000), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at three locations along the Ocheyedan River between County Road M38 west of Spencer, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 west of Everly, Iowa, a distance of 12.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 41,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Floyd River at Alton, Iowa (06600100), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 1–1.99 percent. High-water marks were measured at six locations along the Floyd River between Iowa Highway 3 at Le Mars, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 at Alton, Iowa, a distance of 27.5 river miles. The high-water marks were used to develop flood profiles for the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd Rivers.

Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota↗