INTRODUCTION
Mercury is an important safety issue in the
environmental, medical, and social aspects. In fact,
mercury-related issues are one of the most urgent
contemporary challenges. Mercury (Hg) and mercurycontaining
compounds are toxic substances that pose
danger to all living organisms. According to preliminary
estimates, about 4700 tons of mercury is discharged
worldwide every year [1–3]. Mercury-related water
pollution is especially dangerous, since water-soluble
toxic methylmercury [CH3Hg] accumulates in the fish as
a result of activity of sediment microorganisms.
Mercury affects land and water plants, animals,
fungi, and microorganisms, which constantly interact
with each other in food chains, symbiosis, and etc. [4].
Many studies recognize the essential role of terrestrial
plants in the biogeochemical cycle of mercury [5–7].
For instance, Leonard et al. tested five plant species
for absorption, distribution, and subsequent release
of mercury into the atmosphere, namely Lepidium
latifolium L., Artemisia douglasiana Bessin Hook,
Caulanthus sp. Watson, Fragaria vesca L., and
Eucalyptus globulus Labill [8]. The research featured
various ecological and physiological profiles of plants
in a mercury-contaminated area. In the arid ecosystem,
mercury emissions proved dominant in the mercury
cycle, while plants functioned as channels for the
interphase transfer of mercury from the geosphere to the
atmosphere.
Asati et al. also examined the effect of heavy metals,
including mercury, on plants and their metabolic activity
in areas with high anthropogenic pressure [9]. Heavy
metals appeared to have a severe toxic effect on plants,
animals, and other local living organisms. Jameer
Ahammad et al. claimed that even low concentrations
of mercury has a negative effect on plants, e.g. stunted
growth and many other adverse consequences [10].
Copyright © 2021, Prosekov et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix,
transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2
E-ISSN 2310-9599
ISSN 2308-4057
325
Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334
High levels of mercury in soil demonstrated various
adverse effects on plant growth and metabolism, e.g.
poor photosynthesis, transpiration, water absorption,
chlorophyll synthesis, and high lipid peroxidation
[11–15].
In plants, a high content of mercury affects most
enzymes. Zhou et al. studied the global database for
about 35 000 measurements of mercury [16]. They
examined the distribution and absorption of mercury
in deciduous and coniferous ecosystems. The scientists
believe that an effective monitoring of the impact
of vegetation on the global mercury cycle requires a
better parameterization of models and more consistent
observational data, while recording the exchange of
mercury in the entire ecosystem is especially important.
Obrist et al. investigated the role of sedimentation in
the global cycle of mercury [17, 18]. The precipitation of
mercury compounds occurs all year round. However, it
is much higher in summer because the metal is absorbed
by vegetation. Absorption of gaseous mercury by the
tundra increases its concentration in the soil. The
authors predict an increase in the impact of mercury
on various ecosystems and human life, which requires
further multifaceted research.
Ranieri et al. discovered that phytoextraction is
an effective and affordable technological solution
for the removal of metals, including mercury, from
contaminated soil and water [19]. Jiskra et al. confirmed
the severe effect of mercury isotopes on mercury
absorption by vegetation [20]. Greger et al. studied
six plant species that translocate and release mercury
into the air [21]. They used a transpiration chamber
to monitor the absorption of mercury by the roots,
its further distribution over the shoots, and the final
release through the shoots. The research featured garden
peas, spring wheat, sugar beets, oilseed rape, white
clover, and willow. All the plants were able to absorb
significant amounts of mercury from its nutrient solution
(200 μg/L). However, the translocation to the shoots was
rather low (0.17–2.5%).
Juillerat et al. examined soil and ground litter in 15
locations covered by northern deciduous trees or mixed
deciduous and coniferous forests [22]. Their research
objective was to determine how mercury content
depended on the tree species, forest type, and soil
profile. Twelve tree species from two sites demonstrated
significant differences. The research proved that the
peculiarities of a particular territory are important for
mercury studies. The differences in the mercury pools
from ground litter correlated with the differences in
carbon pools.
These global issues are relevant for Russia and the
Kemerovo Region. Komov et al. studied the content
of mercury in soil, water sediments, and animals on
the banks of the Rybinsk Reservoir [23]. The recorded
mercury concentrations varied by more than two
orders of magnitude. As for aquatic invertebrates,
the concentration of metal appeared to be high in
heterotopic species: larvae and adult insects had 0.85 mg
of mercury per 1 kg of dry weight. However, homotopic
species had a lower concentration of mercury, e.g. for
mollusks, it was 0.11 mg per 1 kg of wet weight. As for
predatory arachnids, aquatic and semi-aquatic species
proved to have higher concentrations of mercury: for
hydrocarina, it was ≤ 0.68, and for raft spiders, it was
≤ 0.33 mg per 1 kg of dry weight. On the contrary,
spiders that lived far from water sources revealed much
lower concentrations of mercury: crab spiders ≤ 0.07 mg
per 1 kg of dry weight. Creatures that feed on vegetation
or phytophagous animals also demonstrated lower
mercury concentrations.
Gremyachikh et al. studied the content of mercury
in the muscle tissue of river perch fished in different
areas of the Rybinsk Reservoir in 1997–2012 and
registered an increase in mercury concentration in recent
decades [24].
Gorbunov et al. assessed the increase in mercury in
the tissues of fish caught in the Volga [25]. They focused
on how the accumulation of mercury in the muscle
tissues of perch, bream, and pike depended on the mass
of fish. The research registered a directly proportional
dependence for perch (correlation coefficient r = 0.881,
p = 0.018) and an inversely proportional relationship
for pike (r = –0.653, p = 0.029). For bream, no such
dependence was revealed.
Komov et al. studied the content of mercury in five
species of amphibians and seven species of leeches [26].
The average values for amphibians were 0.007–0.101, for
leeches – 0.014–0.065 mg per 1 kg of wet weight. The
concentration of mercury depended on the taxonomy,
habitat, and tissue type. The experiment established
some consequences of the alimentary mercury intake
on several biological parameters, i.e. metamorphosis
rate of toad larvae, behavior pattern of tadpoles of frogs
and leeches, etc. The results delivered new data on the
mechanisms of migration and distribution of mercury
compounds in aquatic, near-water, and terrestrial
ecosystems.
Golovanov et al. studied in vivo the effect of
accumulated mercury on the maltase and amylolytic
activity of glycosidases in tadpoles of the common toad
(Bufobufo L.) [27]. The research revealed changes in
the activity of glycosidases depending on the level of
accumulated mercury and the timing. The activity of
the glycosidases decreased, whereas the sensitivity of
starch-hydrolyzing enzymes to heavy metal ions (Cu,
Zn, Cd, and Pb) increased.
The physicochemical properties of mercury
allow it to circulate, accumulate, and redistribute in
environment, depending on the particular conditions of
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Most of the mercury
is dispersed and creates a natural global geochemical
background, superimposed on man-induced mercury
pollution, thus forming areas of antropogenic pollution.
Until recently, the accumulation of mercury by
hydrobionts attracted most scientific attention because
aquatic environment is optimal for the formation of
326
Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334
the most toxic organomercury compounds. Methylated
mercury compounds accumulate in living organisms
more intensively than inorganic ones and are slowly to
excrete. As a result, the transport of mercury along the
food chain is faster than in cases of direct absorption of
the metal from the environment.
The content of mercury in living organisms increases
at the tops of food webs and reaches maximal values in
predatory fish, fish-eating birds, and mammals.
Terrestrial ecosystems attract less attention regarding
the issues of mercury accumulation and distribution.
More research is needed to establish the accumulation
patterns of mercury compounds by living organisms
in terrestrial ecosystems. The best way to establish
the patterns is to determine the level of mercury
accumulation in organisms of different trophic groups.
The present research objective was to study the
mercury accumulation and its effect on various
components of terrestrial ecosystems near the
Beloosipovo mercury deposit (Kemerovo region,
Russia).
STUDY OBJECTS AND METHODS
The research featured such components of the
terrestrial ecosystem as soil, herbaceous plants,
herpetobiont insects, and small mammals harvested in
the vicinity of the Beloosipovo mercury deposit in the
Kemerovo region, Russia (55.196730 N, 86.970065 E).
The sampling involved standard methods. Regardless
of the wind pattern, all samples were taken at four
cardinal points (Fig. 1) at three radii:
1) 0.5 km from pollution source;
2) 1.5 km from the pollution source;
3) 3 km from the pollution source.
The sampling points:
Point 0 (Сontrol) – N 55°10.920ꞌ, E 087º00.959ꞌ
Point North 1 (N1) – N 55°11.180ꞌ, E 087°00.980ꞌ
Point North 2 (N2) – N 55°11.798ꞌ, E 087°00.954ꞌ
Point North 3 (N3) – N 55°12.561ꞌ, E 087°01.244ꞌ
Point South 1 (S1) – N 55°10.654ꞌ, E 087°00.958ꞌ
Point South 2 (S2) – N 55°10.189ꞌ, E 087°01.146ꞌ
Point South 3 (S3) – N 55°09.654ꞌ, E 087°01.123ꞌ
Point West 1 (W1) – N 55°10.915ꞌ, E 087°00.605ꞌ
Point West 2 (W2) – N 55°10.918ꞌ, E 086°59.920ꞌ
Point West 3 (W3) – N 55°10.940ꞌ, E 086°58.496ꞌ
Point East 1 (E1) – N 55°10.866ꞌ, E 087°01.333ꞌ
Point East 2 (E2) – N 55°10.939ꞌ, E 087°02.427ꞌ
Point East 3 (E3) – N 55°10.876ꞌ, E 087°03.705ꞌ
The territory of the Beloosipovo mine was
considered as the main source of pollution and marked
as Point 0 (C).
The control sampling was carried out at N 55°13.291ꞌ,
E 086°35.294ꞌ. It was located more than 30 km away
from the Beloosipovo mercury deposit, which means it
had no effect whatsoever on the background indicators.
The soil sampling followed State Standards R 56157-
2014 and State Standards 17.4.3.01-2017 using the
Figure 1 Sampling points and boundaries of mercury zones of the Beloosipovo deposit
Legend:
0.72
– sampling points;
0.72
– adit entrance;
0.72
– border of the Beloosipovo mercury deposit;
0.72
– border of the Pezass-Beloosipovo mercury ore-bearing zone.
327
Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334
envelope method at a depth of 0–20 cm and 30–60 cm.
The total sampling weight was ≥ 2 kg. The soil samples
were put in separate plastic containers and labeled.
The eight herb samples were taken in the same areas
as the soil samples. The combined sample wet weight
was ≥ 2 kg (natural moisture). The plants were removed
together with the rhizomes, which were thoroughly
cleared of soil. The samples were placed in plastic bags
and labeled.
Invertebrates are the main link by which mercury
from the environment enters the organisms of
vertebrates. Herpetobiont insects inhabit the soil surface
and are widespread in terrestrial ecosystems. They play
an important role in food and soil chains.
The main group of herpetobiontic insects was
represented by four families of Coleoptera (Coleoptera
L.): dung beetles (Geotrupidae L.), lamellar beetles
(Scarabaeidae L.), ground beetles (Carabidae L.), and
istafilinids (Staphylinidae L.)
The herpetobiont insects were caught using Barber’s
traps. At one point, 50 traps with a volume of 0.3 l were
dug in one line at a distance of 1 m from each other.
The traps contained 5% acetic acid solution. The insects
collected at each point were packed into containers,
labeled, and stored in an automobile refrigerator at –4°C.
The small mammals were represented by
insectivores (Eulipotyphla L.) and rodents (Rodentia L.).
They were caught using crushers. At each point,
50 crushers were installed at a distance of 1 m from
each other. The captured animals were placed in plastic
containers, labeled, and stored in a car refrigerator.
The species composition of the mammals:
Byinsectivores (Eulipotyphla)
Shrews (Soricidae L.):
– Common shrew (Sorex araneus L.);
– Even-toothed shrew (Sorex isodon L.);
– Pygmy shrew (Sorex minutus L.);
– Masked shrew (Sorex caecutiens L.);
– Water shrew (Neomys fodiens L.).
Rodents (Rodentia)
Hamsters (Cricetidae L.):
– Red-backed vole (Clethrionomys rutilus L);
– Grey-sided vole (Clethrionomys rufocanus L.);
– Bank vole (Clethrionomys glariolus L.);
– Root vole (Microtu oeconomus L.);
– Common field vole (Microtus agrestis L.).
Mice (Muridae L.):
– Field mouse (Apodemus agrarius L.);
– Jerboa mouse (Dipodidae L.);
– Birch mouse (Sicista betulina L.).
The sampling of water in the Belaya Osipova river
was carried out 0.5–1 km above the mouth (Fig. 2)
in five replicates in 2018–2021. The samples were
poured into two-liter vessels and were delivered to the
laboratory within no more than 18 h from the moment of
water intake.
The concentration of mercury in soil, plants,
herpetobiont insects, and small mammals was carried
out in an accredited laboratory of the Kemerovo
State University (Russia). The tests followed Federal
Environmental standard PNDF 16.1:2:2.2.80-2013
(М 03-09-2013) “Quantitative chemical analysis of
soils. Methods for measuring the mass fraction of total
mercury in samples of soils and grounds, including
greenhouses, clays, and bottom sediments, by the atomic
absorption method using a mercury analyzer RA-915M.”
The samples were prepared using wet mineralization
and concentrated nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, and
hydrogen peroxide. The samples were dried to obtain
biosubstrates in an EKPS-10 electric chamber furnace
at 520°C. The obtained white ash was used to determine
the content of mercury.
The method for measuring the mass fraction
of total mercury involved thermal decomposition
accompanied by the atomization of mercury. After that,
the atomic mercury was transferred to the analytical
cell of the analyzer by air flow. The atomic absorption
Figure 2 Concentration of mercury in the soil (horizon – 0–20 cm) in the area of the Beloosipovo mercury deposit
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
3 2 1 S 1 2 3
0.118
0.338
0.45
0.249
0.073
0.132 0.131
0.051 0.048 0.055
0.44
0.72
0.252
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
3 2 1 0.249
0.073
0.9
1.0
0.96
0.07
328
Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334
of mercury was measured at a resonant wavelength of
253.7 nm. The mass fraction of mercury in the sample
was automatically determined by the peak area value
(analytical signal). The process was based on the preset
calibration characteristic using the software for the
analyzer (RAPID software). The calibration was carried
out using standard samples of a solution of mercury ions.
It involved a calibration sample that contained mercury
adsorbed on activated carbon.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
According to the e-catalog of geological documents
from the Russian Federal Geological Fund, the mercury
deposit of 124 tons is located in the river basin of the
Belaya Osipova. The ore-bearing mineral is cinnabar
(HgS). Mineralization is extremely uneven, and areas
of high concentration are replaced by barren ones. The
deposit has a hydrothermal low-temperature origin and
is confined to the zone of deep and echelon faults. The
study area has manifestations and mineralization points,
as well as placer and geochemical aureoles of mercury.
The deposit was developed in 1969–1975. A small
plant extracted mercury from ore by evaporation. No
exact information on the volume of mined mercury is
available; according to unofficial data, it mined only
several tens of tons.
The area under study is covered by black forests of
Siberian fir (Abies sibirica Ledeb.), Aspen (Populus
tremula L.), birch (Betula pubescens Ehrh., Betula
pendula Roth), and tall grasses, which can reach three
meters in height.
The lush undergrowth is represented by such
shrubs as goat willow (Salix caprea L.), cranberry bush
(Viburnum opulus L.), pea shrub (Caragana arborescens
Lam.), Siberian mountain ash (Sorbus sibirica Hedl.),
and bird cherry (Padus avium Mill.). Some areas have
scarce undergrowth.
The most typical herbaceous plant species are
melancholy thistle (Cirsium heterophyllum (L.) Hill.),
millet grass (Milium effusum L.), dissected hogweed
(Heracleum dissectum Ledeb.), wild chervil (Anthriscus
sylvestris (L.) L.), Siberian cacalia (Crepis sibirica L.),
northern wolfsbane (Aconitum septentrionale Koelle),
black meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria (L.) Maxim.),
Siberian globeflower (Trollius asiaticus L.), giant fescue
(Festuca gigantea (L.) Vill.), etc.
The area has a big population of large ferns, which
often dominate the herbaceous cover: adderspit
(Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn.), male shield fern
(Dryopteris filix-mas (L.) Schott), female fern (Athyrium
filix femina (L.) Roth), and ostrich fern (Matteuccias
truthiopteris (L.) Tod.).
Nemoral tertiary relics are represented by alfredia
(Alfredia cernua (L.) Cass.), giant fescue (F. gigantea
(L.) Vill.), whitespot betony (Stachys sylvatica L.), male
shield fern (D. filix-mas (L.) Schott), sweet woodruff
(Galium odoratum (L.) Scop.), and slender false brome
(Brachypodium sylvaticum (Huds.) Beauv.).
The area is dominated by forest phytocenoses,
mostly tall-grass forests with a forest stand of birches,
aspens, and firs (2Os3B5P): drooping birch (B. pendula
Roth.), Siberian fir (A. sibirica Ledeb.), aspen (Populus
tremula L.), and Siberian spruce (Picea obovata
Ledeb.). Siberian fir and silver birch have a good seed
reproduction; as a result, the forest canopy is rich in fir
undergrowth, while the open areas demonstrate a thick
population of young birches. The average diameter of the
birch is ≤ 40 cm, the average height is 25 m. The average
diameter of the fir is ≤ 30–40 cm, the height is 28–30 m.
The average diameter of the aspen is 40–50 cm, the
height is about 30 m, and the crown density can reach
0.7–0.8.
The composition of the forest stand differs in the
ratio of fir, aspen, and birch: birch-fir-aspen, fir-aspen,
or aspen-fir with a few birches, while some areas are
entirely fir or birch forests. Some areas have a rich
undergrowth: goat willow (S. caprea L.), cranberry
bush (V. opulus L.), pea shrub (C. arborescens Lam.),
red raspberry (Rubusidaeus L.), Siberian mountain ash
(S. sibirica Hedl.), downy currant (Ribes spicatum
Robson.), black currant (Ribes nigrum L.), and bird
cherry (Padusavium Mill.).
In the open and birch-dominated areas, raspberries
grow in lush thickets. Some forest parts have a steeplysloping
terrain with areas of higher moisture, where
willow thickets proliferate. Willow patches and firor
aspen-predominated areas also host vines, usually
represented by wild hop (Humulus lupulus L.).
The grass stand is represented by tall grasses.
The projective cover is over 85%. The maximal
height of the grass standcan reach 3.5 m in cases of
alfredia or hogweed, while the average height is 1.5 m.
The list of tall grasses includes: melancholy thistle
(C. heterophyllum (L.) Hill.), millet grass (M. effusum
L.), northern wolfsbane (A. septentrionale Koelle),
dissected hogweed (H. dissectum Ledeb.), meadow rue
(Thalictrum minus L.), golden thoroughwax (Bupleurum
aureum Fisch. ex Hoffm.), great nettle (Urtica dioica L.)
wild chervil (A. sylvestris (L.) Hoffm.), meadowsweet
(F. ulmaria (L.) Maxim.), cacalia (Cacalia hastata L.),
and Siberian hawk’s beard (C. sibirica L.). In some
places, especially those dominated by fir trees, the
thickets are formed almost entirely by nettle, infested by
dodder (Cuscuta sp.).
Other perennial herbs also play a significant
role in the composition of the phytocenosis: alfredia
(A. cernua (L.) Cass.), four-leaved Paris herb (Parisqua
drifolia L.), wood geranium (Geranium sylvaticum L.),
Dahurian chickweed (Cerastium davuricum Fisch. ex
Spreng.), Bunge chickweed (Stellaria bungeana Fenzl.),
wood sorrel (Oxalisa cetosella L.), Siberian globeflower
(T. asiaticus L.), wild leek (Allium microdictyon Prokh.),
lungwort (Pulmonaria mollis Wulf. ex Hornem), spurge
(Euphorbia pillosa L.), touch-me-not (Impatiens nolitangere
L.), Urals peony (Paeonia anomala L.), northern
bedstraw (Galium boreale L.), sedge (Carex macroura
Meins.), Greek-valerian polemonium (Polemonium
329
Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334
caeruleum L.), violet (Violauni flora L.), whitespot
betony (S. sylvatica L .), a nd s nakeflower ( Lamium
album L.).
Ferns make up part of some grass stand areas:
female fern (Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth), adderspit
(P. aquilinum (L.) Kuhn.), ostrich fern (Matteuccia
struthiopteris (L.) Tod.), and male shield fern (D. filixmas
(L.) Schott). Adderspit and ostrich grow in thickets.
The herbaceous layer also includes species from the
spring synusia, which have completed their growing
season (Corydalis, Anemone s. L., etc.), including
Siberian trout lily (Erythronium sibiricum (Fisch. et
C. A. Mey) Kryl.). This flower is endemic to the Altai-
Sayan ecoregion and is protected by the federal and
regional law.
Herb-dominated patches appear in some open
spaces, depending on the moisture and some other
factors. They form tall-grass-grassland patches, grass
meadows, and motley grass-grasses associations.
The tall-grass-grassland meadows consist of the
same species as the herb layer in the forest: melancholy
thistle (C. heterophyllum (L.) Hill.), northern wolfsbane
(A. septentrionale Koelle), dissected hogweed (H. dissectum
Ledeb.), meadow rue (T. minus L.), golden
thoroughwax (Bupleurum aureum Fisch. hastata L.),
wild chervil (C. sibirica L.), wild leek (A. microdictyon
Prokh.), soft lungwort (P. mollis Wulf. ex Hornem),
spurge (E. pillosa L.), etc.
The grass meadows and motley grass-grasses
associations develop on sunlit and warm areas, e.g.
forest edges. Some species grow both in the forest
and in the open, e.g. meadow rue (T. minus L.), golden
thoroughwax (B. aureum Fisch. ex Hoffm.), wild chervil
(Anthris cussylvestris (L.) Hoffm.), meadowsweet
(F. ulmaria (L.) Maxim.), cock’s-foot (Dactylis
glomerata L.), bluegrass (Poa sp.), timothy grass
(Phleum pratense L.), common tansy (Tanacetum
vulgare L.), lousewort (Pedicularis incarnata L.),
bladder campion (Oberna behen (L.) Ikonn.), etc. More
humid areas are home to other kinds of bluegrass
(Poa remota Forsell.), water forget-me-not (Myosotis
palustris (L.), white hellebore (Veratrum lobelianum
Bernh.), Siberian globeflower (T. asiaticus L.), buttercup
(Ranunculus sp.), marsh orchid (Dactylorhiza sp.),
wood bulrush (Scirpus sylvaticus L.), clump speedwell
(Veronica longifolia L.), groundsel (Senecio sp.), etc.
Many meadows are gradually overgrowing with
willow and birch. Willow thickets predominate in the
floodplain of the river and represented by goat willow
(S. caprea L.), woollytwig willow (Salix dasyclados
Wimm.), basket willow (Salixvim inalis L.), almondleaved
willow (Salix triandra L.), etc. The list of herbs
that proliferate in the willow patches includes fireweed
(Chamerion angustifolium (L.) Holub), wood horsetail
(Equisetumsyl viaticum L.), common loosestrife (Lysim
achiavulgaris L.), sedge (Carex sp.), etc.
In addition to willow thickets, floodplain meadows
are also widespread along the river banks, where grain
grass prevails, e.g. smallweed (Calamagrostis sp.),
cock’s-foot, timothy grass, etc. The floodplain areas also
include white hellebore (V. lobelianum Bernh.), sorrel
(Rumex sp.), marsh orchid (Dactylorhiza sp.), wood reed
(S. sylvaticus L.), clump speedwell (V. longifolia L.),
ragged robin (Coccyganthe flos-cuculi (L.), dissected
hogweed (H. dissectum Ledeb.), marsh cress
(Rorippapalustris (L.) Bess.), lousewort (Scrophularia
sp.), scouring horsetail (Equisetum hiemale L.), sedge
(Carex sp.), common loosestrife (L. achiavulgaris L.)
angelica (Archangelica decurrens Ledeb.), and coltsfoot
(Tussilago farfara L.). Angelica grows in lush thickets.
Birch and bird cherry also grow on the floodplain
meadows.
In shallow water, there are thickets of butterbur
(Petasites radiatus (J.F. Gmel.) J. Toman) and rush
flower (Butomusum bellatus L.).
Figure 3 Concentration of mercury in the soil (horizon – 0–20 cm) in the area of the Beloosipovo mercury deposit
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
3
0.051 0.048 0.055
0.252
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
3 2 1 S 1 2 3
0.118
0.338
0.45
0.249
0.073
0.132 0.131
0.051 0.048 0.055
0.44
0.72
0.252
0.06
0.07
0.064
330
Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334
Figure 4 Concentration of mercury in soil (horizon – 30–60 cm) in the area of the Beloosipovo deposit
Figure 5 Concentration of mercury in plants in the area of the Beloosipovo deposit
Figure 6 Concentration of mercury in herpetobiont insects in the area of the Beloosipovo deposit
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
3
0.051 0.048 0.055
0.252
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
3 2 1 S 1 2 3
0.118
0.338
0.45
0.249
0.073
0.132 0.131
0.051 0.048 0.055
0.44
0.72
0.252
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
3
0.041
0.317
0.241
0.319
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
3 2 1 S 1 2 3
0.0053
0.0053
0.0054
0.0061 0.0058 0.006
0.0052
0.0059
0.0058 0.0055
0.0078
0.064
0.0052
3
2
1
E
0.0
0.1
3 2 1 S 1 2 3
0.0
0.1
3 2 1 3
2
1
E
1
2
3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
3 2 1 S 1 2 3
0.098 0.077
0.291
0.089
0.058 0.070
0.5
0.041
0.317
0.241
0.0092
0.96
0.319
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
3 2 1 0.0053
0.0061 0.0058 3
2
1
E
1
2
3
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
3 2 1 S 1 2 3
0.0073
0.0088
0.0056
0.0059 0.0075
0.0052
0.0062
0.008
0.0055 0.0074
0.0071
0.063
0.0065
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
3 2 1 S 0.0055 0.0058 0.0064 0.007
0.06
0.0560
0.0007
0.0007
0.0008
331
Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334
Figure 7 Concentration of mercury in rodents in the area of the Beloosipovo deposit
Therefore, the study area boasts a significant
biological diversity. In addition, it is home to a species
protected at the federal and regional levels, namely
Siberian trout lily (E. sibiricum (Fisch. Et C. A. Mey)
Kryl.) and several nemoral tertiary relics, such as
alfredia (A. cernua (L.) Cass.), giant fescue (F. gigantea
(L.) Vill.), whitespot betony (S. sylvatica L.), male shield
fern (D. filix-mas (L.) Schott), and slender false brome
(B. sylvaticum (Huds.) Beauv.). No invasive species were
registered.
Fig. 3–8 demonstrate the mercury concentration
in soil, plants, insects, and small mammals near the
Beloosipovo mercury deposit and in the control zone.
The highest concentration of mercury was observed at
point North 2 (N 2), which was located at 1.5 km north
of the deposit: in soil – 0.72 mg/kg and 0.96 mg/kg,
in plants – 0.064 mg/kg, in insects – 0.063 mg/kg,
in rodents – 0.091 mg/kg, and in insectivores –
0.056 mg/kg.
According to regulatory documents, the maximal
permissible concentration of mercury in soil is 2.1 mg/
kg. As the maximal value in the soil samples was 0.96
mg/kg, it means that no dangerous concentration
of mercury was detected. However, the e-catalog
of geological documents specifies the average
concentration of mercury in the soils of the Kemerovo
Region at the level 0.16–0.22 mg/kg [28]. Thus,
the concentrations of mercury in the soil near the
Beloosipovo mercury deposit proved to be by 3–4 times
higher than the average values, despite the fact that the
mine was closed more than 40 years ago.
The high concentration of mercury in the samples
taken the north was presumably related to the terrain
peculiarities: the altitude decreases from north to south,
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
2 3
0.0056
0.008
0.0055 0.0074
0.063
0.0065
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
3 2 1 S 1 2 3
0.0053
0.0055 0.0053
0.0058 0.0064 0.007
0.0057 0.0056
0.0056 0.0059
0.0220
0.0910
0.0063
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
2 3
0.008
0.0062
0.0070 0.0058
0.0560
0.0054
0.0007
0.00056
0.00068
0.00061
0.00074
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
0.0007
0.0008
dec 2018 may 2019 july 2019 oct 2020 jen 2021
Test result (mass fraction), mg/l
Figure 8 Concentration of mercury in insectivores in the area of the Beloosipovo deposit
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
3 2 1 S 1 2 3
0.0073
0.0088
0.0056
0.0059 0.0075
0.0052
0.0062
0.008
0.0055 0.0074
0.0071
0.063
0.0065
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
3 2 1 S 0.0055 0.0058 0.0064 0.007
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
3 2 1 S 1 2 3
0.0057
0.0085
0.008
0.0090 0.0081 0.0092
0.006
0.0062
0.0070 0.0058
0.0170
0.0560
0.0054
0.0007
0.00056
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
0.0007
0.0008
dec 2018 may 2019 Test result (mass fraction), mg/l
332
Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334
dropping from 407 to 214 m. Points North 2 (N 2) and
North 3 (N3) were located directly in the deposit zone,
while point North 1 (N 1) was on the borderline.
As for the control point, the concentration of
mercury in all components of the ecosystem was much
lower than in the area under analysis: in soil and small
mammals, it was lower by 1–3 orders of magnitude; in
plants and herpetobiontic insects – by 2–4 times.
While the soil samples demonstrated a permissible
concentration of mercury, the samples from the Belaya
Osipova river exceeded the permissible value (Fig. 9).
The maximal permissible concentration of mercury for
water bodies is 0.0005 mg/L. In the Belaya Osipova
(2018–2021), the concentration exceeded the permissible
value by 5–20% and reached 0.00056–0.00074 mg/L.
The high content of mercury in the Belaya Osipova
may be associated with the Beloosipovo mercury
deposit: mercury compounds might be washed out by
groundwater and surface spring floods. Further studies
require additional tests of the water biocenosis, which
will be one of the tasks of subsequent research.
The concentration of heavy metals is believed to
increase up the food chains. To test this presumption,
we compared the concentration of mercury in the food
chains at points North 2 (N 2) and North 3 (N3) with
the highest mercury concentration in the soil. However,
it was the soil samples that demonstrated the highest
concentration of mercury, and further up the food
chains its concentration dropped by one or two orders of
magnitude, depending on the collection point (Fig. 10).
The greatest drop was observed at North 2, where the
concentration of mercury in the soil was the highest:
from 0.72 to 0.022 mg/kg in the soil – plants – mice
chain and from 0.72 to 0.017 mg/kg in the soil – plants –
insects – shrews chain.
CONCLUSION
The mercury concentration in the soil near the
Beloosipovo mercury deposit did not exceed the
maximal permissible concentrations. The maximal
mercury concentration in the soil was 0.96 mg/kg
while the permissible value is 2.1 mg/kg. In the control
zone, the research registered a decrease in the mercury
concentration by 1–3 orders of magnitude for individual
components of the terrestrial ecosystem, namely soil
and small mammals. However, the water samples from
the Belaya Osipova exceeded the maximal permissible
Figure 9 Concentration of mercury in the Belaya Osipova river
Figure 10 Changes in the concentration of mercury along the food chains
2 3
3 2 1 S 1 2 3
3
2
1
E
1
2
3
2 3
0.0085
0.008
0.0062
0.0070 0.0058
0.0560
0.0054
0.0007
0.00056
0.00068
0.00061
0.00074
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
0.0007
0.0008
dec 2018 may 2019 july 2019 oct 2020 jen 2021
Test result (mass fraction), mg/l
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
North 2
North 3
0.72
0.252
0.064
0.022 0.0052
0.0063
Mercury concentration, mg/kg
Soil Plants Mice
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
North 2
0.72
0.064 0.252
0.0052
0.063
0.0065
0.017
0.0054
Mercury concentration, mg/kg
Soil Plants
North 3
Insects Shrews
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
North 2
North 3
0.72
0.252
0.064
0.022 0.0052
0.0063
Mercury concentration, mg/kg
Soil Plants Mice
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
North 2
0.72
0.064 0.252
0.0052
0.063
0.0065
0.017
0.0054
Mercury concentration, mg/kg
Soil Plants
North 3
Insects Shrews
333
Prosekov A.Yu. Foods and Raw Materials, 2021, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 324–334
concentration by 5–20% in 2018–2021, which means
that mercury compounds may go with groundwater and
surface spring floods.
The detected mercury concentrations proved to
produce no negative effect on the ecosystem, which
was confirmed by the rich biological diversity. The
area is home to the critically endangered species of
Siberian trout lily (Erythronium sibiricum (Fisch. et
C.A. Mey) Kryl.) and several nemoral tertiary relics,
such as alfredia (Alfredia cernua (L.) Cass.), giant fescue
(Festuca gigantea ( L.) Vill.), w hitespot b etony (Stachys
sylvatica L.), male shield fern (Dryopteris filix-mas (L.)
Schott), and slender false brome (Brachypodium
sylvaticum (Huds.) Beauv.). The research revealed no
invasive species.
The mercury content decreased up the food chains,
which means that the Beloosipovo mercury deposit has
no negative impact on the local ecosystems.
The present article is the first part of a series of
related publications. Further publications will feature
the impact of technogenic centers on the local ecosystem
and its individual representatives.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interests regarding
the publication of this article.

1. Selin H, Keane SE, Wang S, Selin NE, Davis K, Bally D. Linking science and policy to support the implementation of the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Ambio. 2018;47(2):198-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-1003-x.

2. Zhou J, Du B, Shang L, Wang Z, Cui H, Fan X, et al. Mercury fluxes, budgets, and pools in forest ecosystems of China: A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 2020;50(14):1411-1450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2019.1661176.

3. Karimi E, Yari M, Ghaneialvar H, Kazemi HR, Asadzadeh R, Aidy A, et al. Effects of dust phenomenon on heavy metals in raw milk in western Iran. Foods and Raw Materials. 2020;8(2):241-249. http://doi.org/10.21603/2308-4057-2020-2-241-249.

4. Zhu W, Lin C-J, Wang X, Sommar J, Fu X, Feng X. Global observations and modeling of atmosphere-surface exchange of elemental mercury: A critical review. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 2016;16(7):4451-4480. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4451-2016.

5. Gustin MS, Ericksen JA, Schorran DE, Johnson DW, Lindberg SE, Coleman JS. Application of controlled mesocosms for understanding mercury air-soil-plant exchange. Environmental Science and Technology. 2004;38(22):6044-6050. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0487933.

6. Fantozzi L, Ferrara R, Dini F, Tamburello L, Pirrone N, Sprovieri F. Study on the reduction of atmospheric mercury emissions from mine waste enriched soils through native grass cover in the Mt. Amiata region of Italy. Environmental Research. 2013;125:69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2013.02.004.

7. Mazur M, Mitchell CPJ, Eckley CS, Eggert SL, Kolka RK, Sebestyen SD, et al. Gaseous mercury fluxes from forest soils in response to forest harvesting intensity: A field manipulation experiment. Science of the Total Environment. 2014;496:678-687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.058.

8. Leonard TL, Taylor GE, Gustin MS, Fernandez GCJ. Mercury and plants in contaminated soils: 1. Uptake, partitioning, and emission to the atmosphere. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 1998;17(10):2063-2071. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620171024.

9. Asati A, Pichhode M, Nikhil K. Effect of heavy metals on plants: An overview. International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering and Management. 2016;5(3):56-66.

10. Jameer Ahammad S, Sumithra S, Senthilkumar P. Mercury uptake and translocation by indigenous plants. Rasayan Journal of Chemistry. 2018;11(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.7324/RJC.2018.1111726.

11. Nagajyoti PC, Lee KD, Sreekanth TVM. Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters. 2010;8(3):199-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-010-0297-8.

12. Cargnelutti D, Tabaldi LA, Spanevello RM, de Oliveira Jucoski G, Battisti V, Redin M, et al. Mercury toxicity induces oxidative stress in growing cucumber seedlings. Chemosphere. 2006;65(6):999-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.03.037.

13. Marrugo-Negrete J, Durango-Hernández J, Pinedo-Hernández J, Enamorado-Montes G, Díez S. Mercury uptake and effects on growth in Jatropha curcas. Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2016;48:120-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2015.10.036.

14. Teixeira DC, Lacerda LD, Silva-Filho EV. Foliar mercury content from tropical trees and its correlation with physiological parameters in situ. Environmental Pollution. 2018;242:1050-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.120.

15. Fuentes-Gandara F, Herrera-Herrera C, Pinedo-Hernández J, Marrugo-Negrete J, Díez S. Assessment of human health risk associated with methylmercury in the imported fish marketed in the Caribbean. Environmental Research. 2018;165:324-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.001.

16. Zhou J, Obrist D, Dastoor A, Jiskra M, Ryjkov A. Vegetation uptake of mercury and impacts on global cycling. Nature Reviews Earth and Environment.2021;2(4):269-284. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00146-y.

17. Obrist D, Agnan Y, Jiskra M, Olson CL, Colegrove DP, Hueber J, et al. Tundra uptake of atmospheric elemental mercury drives Arctic mercury pollution. Nature. 2017;547(7662):201-204. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22997.

18. Obrist D, Kirk JL, Zhang L, Sunderland EM, Jiskra M, Selin NE. A review of global environmental mercury processes in response to human and natural perturbations: Changes of emissions, climate, and land use. Ambio. 2018;47(2):116-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-1004-9.

19. Ranieri E, Moustakas K, Barbafieri M, Ranieri AC, Herrera-Melián JA, Petrella A, et al. Phytoextraction technologies for mercury- and chromium-contaminated soil: a review. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology. 2020;95(2):317-327. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.6008.

20. Jiskra M, E. Sonke J, Agnan Y, Helmig D, Obrist D. Insights from mercury stable isotopes on terrestrial-atmosphere exchange of Hg(0) in the Arctic tundra. Biogeosciences. 2019;16(20):4051-4064. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-4051-2019.

21. Greger M, Wang Y, Neuschütz C. Absence of Hg transpiration by shoot after Hg uptake by roots of six terrestrial plant species. Environmental Pollution. 2005;134(2):201-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2004.08.007.

22. Juillerat JI, Ross DS, Bank MS. Mercury in litterfall and upper soil horizons in forested ecosystems in Vermont, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2012;31(8):1720-1729. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.1896.

23. Komov VT, Gremyachikh VA, Udodenko YuG, Shchedrova YeV, Yelizarov MYe. Mercury in abiotic and biotic components of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in the urban settlement on the shore of the Rybinsk Reservoir. Transactions of Papanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters RAS. 2017;77(80):34-56. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24411/0320-3557-2017-10003.

24. Gremyachikh VA, Lozhkina RA, Komov VT. Spatial-temporal variability of mercury content in the river perch Perca fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758 (Perciformes: Percidae) of the Rybinsk Reservoir at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. Ecosystem Transformation. 2019;2(2):85-95. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.23859/estr-180816.

25. Gorbunov AV, Lyapunov SM, Okina OI, Sheshukov VS. Bioaccumulation of mercury in tissues of freshwater fish. Human Ecology. 2018;(11):23-31. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33396/1728-0869-2018-11-26-31.

26. Komov VT, Ivanova ES, Gremyachikh VA, Lapkina LN, Kozlova LV, Zheletok EN, et al. The mercury content in the organism of amphibians and leeches from waterbodies of Vologda and Yaroslavl oblasts and experimental verification of its biological consequences. Transactions of Papanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters RAS. 2017;77(80):57-76. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24411/0320-3557-2017-10004.

27. Golovanova IL, Filippov AA, Komov VT, Urvantseva GA, Evdokimov EG. Effect of mercury accumulation on the activity of glycosidase and their sensitivity to heavy metals in toad tadpoles. Transactions of Papanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters RAS. 2015;72(75):60-65. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24411/0320-3557-2015-10012.

28. Ehlektronnyy katalog geologicheskikh dokumentov [Electronic catalog of geological documents] [Internet]. [cited 2018 Jan 18]. Available from: https://rfgf.ru/catalog/index.php.

29. Doklad o sostoyanii i okhrane okruzhayushchey sredy Kemerovskoy oblasti v 2018 godu [Report on the state and protection of the environment in the Kemerovo region in 2018] [Internet]. [cited 2018 Jan 18]. Available from: https://www.ecoindustry.ru/gosdoklad/view/523.html.