International Journal of Marine Science, 2017, Vol.7, No.26, 260-271
266
present. The locations 7, 8, 9 and 13 are away from these points and having fine grained sediments which can
adsorb more mobile mercury and it was confirmed by the high concentration observed at site 7.
The various fractions indicated that the source of mercury in Kongsfjorden system was anthropogenic and very
recent in nature. It is substantiated by the presence of high Hg content in the bioavailable fractions (F1 and F2).
Based on the potential to induce toxic effects in marine organism, the effects range low (ERL) and effects range
median (ERM) for THg are 150 and 710 ng/g respectively (Long et al., 1995). In the present study, the mean
concentration (228.5 ng/g) of Hg in the bio accessible fractions (F1 to F3) was between the ERL–ERM, therefore
biotic effects are expected and the mercury concentration in the sediments of Kongsfjorden is not negligible.
The minimum, maximum and mean values of geochemical parameters were given in Table 4. The sediment was
slightly alkaline and the mean OC was 1.2%. The mean concentration of Fe was 28785.58 mg/kg.
Table 4 Mean values of geochemical parameters
Min
Max
Mean
Fe (mg/kg)
23120.18
38351.36
28785.58
pH
7.21
8.13
7.77
OC (%)
0.36
2.17
1.2
N (mg/kg)
0.014
0.056
0.029
The correlation analysis showed that different fractions were positively correlated each other except between F3
and F5 (Table 5). F5 has not showed any significant correlation with other fractions. F1, F2 and F3 have a
significant positive relation with F4 (p=.01) indicating common source of origin. These results indicate a
significant influence of elemental mercury on the bioavailable fractions. There was no significant correlation
observed between OC and various mercury fractions including F3 fraction. This result can be interpreted in two
ways; 1) the low mercury concentration nullify the significance of organic carbon, and 2) the mercury entering
into the system is not forming any bond with organic ligands and mainly prefer to be in F1, F2 and F4 fraction.
Table 5 Correlation between geochemical parameters and various mercury fractions
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
Fe
pH
OC
N
F1
1
F2
.841
**
1
F3
.242
.549
1
F4
.809
**
.924
**
.637
*
1
F5
.135
.520
-.059
.067
1
Fe
.031
.506
.175
.386
.498
1
pH
-.150
-.602
-.267
-.273
-.344
-.614
*
1
OC
.016
.048
-.219
-.021
.041
.057
.192
1
N
-.294
-.435
-.403
-.314
-.083
-.193
.560
*
.717
**
1
Note: **: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *: Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
The insignificant correlation of F3 with carbon indicates that the mercury present in this fraction is not directly
linked to the permafrost thawing. The thawing of permafrost is a major source of carbon in the form of humic and
fulvic acids along with other elements, hence there should be relation with F3 fraction. However there could be
other sources for F3-Hg like glacier melting and historical release at Ny-Alesund.
The results suggest that biogeochemical reactions of mercury in the sediments of Kongsfjorden are mainly
involved between non-cinnabar mercury forms (F1–F4). Iron has not showed any significant correlation with
other parameters. However it was positively related with mercury fractions especially with F2. No significant
correlation was observed for other parameters with mercury fractions.
