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
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
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)
Appendix 1. Mercury content in carbonate soil –samples taken 2006-07. 2/3
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
Hg in 5‐10 cm (mg kg‐1)
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
Hg in 10‐20 cm (mg kg‐1)
41(54)
Appendix 1. Mercury content in carbonate soil –samples taken 2006-07. 3/3
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
Hg in 20‐40 cm (mg kg‐1)
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
Hg in 40‐80 cm (mg kg‐1)
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
43(54) Appendix 2. Mercury content in silicate soil –samples taken 2006-07. 2/7
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
44(54) Appendix 2. Mercury content in silicate soil –samples taken 2006-07. 3/7
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
45(54) Appendix 2. Mercury content in silicate soil –samples taken 2006-07. 4/7
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
46(54) Appendix 2. Mercury content in silicate soil –samples taken 2006-07. 5/7
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
47(54) Appendix 2. Mercury content in silicate soil –samples taken 2006-07. 6/7
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
48(54) Appendix 2. Mercury content in silicate soil –samples taken 2006-07. 7/7
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
Change of Hg in 10‐20 cm (mg kg‐1)
‐0,2
‐0,15
‐0,1
‐0,05
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
Change of Hg in 20‐40 cm (mg kg‐1)
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
52(54) Appendix 4. Changes of Hg in FH –layer from 1987-89 to 2006-07 in silicate soil -samples. 2/4
‐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
53(54) Appendix 4. Changes of Hg in FH –layer from 1987-89 to 2006-07 in silicate soil -samples. 3/4
‐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
Change in 10‐20 cm (mg kg‐1) 2/2
‐1,4
‐1,2
‐1
‐0,8
‐0,6
‐0,4
‐0,2
0
Change in 20‐40 cm (mg kg‐1) 1/2
‐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
Change in 20‐40 cm (mg kg‐1) 2/2
54(54) Appendix 4. Changes of Hg in FH –layer from 1987-89 to 2006-07 in silicate soil -samples. 4/4