4.8 Article

Two Centuries of Coral Skeletons from the Northern South China Sea Record Mercury Emissions from Modern Chinese Wars

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 50, 期 11, 页码 5481-5488

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05965

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Basic Research Program of China [2013CB956102]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program, CAS [XDA05080301]
  3. National Science Foundation of China [41572148]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, CAS [SKLLQG1411]
  5. Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation [1608085QD73, 1408085MD69]
  6. NSERC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The contemporary mercury (Hg) cycle in the world's oceans has been greatly affected by human activities. However, we are still lacking reliable, long-term, and continuous records of Hg in seawater. Here, we report for the first time on using annually banded Porites coral skeletons from the northern South China Sea (SCS) as an archive for recording changes of seawater dissolved Hg spanning the past two centuries. We developed a combustion-trapping method to preconcentrate ultratrace Hg concentrations from coral aragonitic skeletons for highly accurate total Hg measurements. Results show that Hg in the coral skeletons ranges from 0.3 to 5.1 pmol/g and is discriminated against Ca during coral skeletal calcification. Preindustrial (1798-1832) Hg levels in coral skeletons were found to be approximately 0.5 pmol/g. The highest Hg concentrations (3-5 pmol/g) were observed during the WWII period (1933-1942). Other distinct Hg maxima (similar to 3 pmol/g) are observed for the periods 1833-1847, 1858-1862, 1918-1927, 1978-1982, and 1988-1992, with the first four coinciding with contemporary Chinese wars. Our study suggests that the production and use of ammunitions in those wars likely account for the primary Hg emission sources in the northern SCS before 1950, and coral is potentially a robust indicator of historical, regional Hg contamination events.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据