Next Article in Journal
Potential Hepatoprotective Effects of Allicin on Carbon Tetrachloride-Induced Acute Liver Injury in Mice by Inhibiting Oxidative Stress, Inflammation, and Apoptosis
Previous Article in Journal
Adapted Sequential Extraction Protocol to Study Mercury Speciation in Gold Mining Tailings: Implications for Environmental Contamination in the Amazon
Previous Article in Special Issue
Human Health Risk Assessment for Exposure to Heavy Metals via Dietary Intake of Rainbow Trout in the Influence Area of a Smelting Facility Located in Peru
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Toxics
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/toxics12050327
toxics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Spatial Variation in Mercury Accumulation in Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Southeastern U.S.A.

by
Mackenzie L. Griffin
1,
Colleen E. Bryan
2,*,
Tara M. Cox
1,
Brian C. Balmer
3,
Russell D. Day
2,4,
Laura Garcia Barcia
5,
Antoinette M. Gorgone
6,7,
Jeremy J. Kiszka
5,
Jenny A. Litz
6,
Robin M. Perrtree
1,
Teri K. Rowles
8,
Lori H. Schwacke
3,9,
Randall S. Wells
10 and
Eric Zolman
3
1
Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences, Savannah State University, Savannah, GA 31404, USA
2
Chemical Sciences Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Charleston, SC 29412, USA
3
Conservation Medicine, National Marine Mammal Foundation, Charleston, SC 29405, USA
4
Marine Science and Nautical Training Academy, Charleston, SC 29412, USA
5
Institute of Environment, Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Biscayne Bay Campus, Miami, FL 33199, USA
6
Marine Mammal and Turtle Division, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Miami, FL 33149, USA
7
Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33149, USA
8
Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
9
Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
10
Sarasota Dolphin Research Program, Brookfield Zoo Chicago, c/o Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL 34236, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2024, 12(5), 327; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12050327
Submission received: 1 March 2024 / Revised: 16 April 2024 / Accepted: 22 April 2024 / Published: 30 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Impact of Heavy Metals on Aquatic Ecosystems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) inhabit bays, sounds, and estuaries (BSEs) throughout the southeast region of the U.S.A. and are sentinel species for human and ecosystem-level health. Dolphins are vulnerable to the bioaccumulation of contaminants through the coastal food chain because they are high-level predators. Currently, there is limited information on the spatial dynamics of mercury accumulation in these dolphins. Total mercury (THg) was measured in dolphin skin from multiple populations across the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and the influence of geographic origin, sex, and age class was investigated. Mercury varied significantly among sampling sites and was greatest in dolphins in St. Joseph Bay, Florida Everglades, and Choctawhatchee Bay (14,193 ng/g ± 2196 ng/g, 10,916 ng/g ± 1532 ng/g, and 7333 ng/g ± 1405 ng/g wet mass (wm), respectively) and lowest in dolphins in Charleston and Skidaway River Estuary (509 ng/g ± 32.1 ng/g and 530 ng/g ± 58.4 ng/g wm, respectively). Spatial mercury patterns were consistent regardless of sex or age class. Bottlenose dolphin mercury exposure can effectively represent regional trends and reflect large-scale atmospheric mercury input and local biogeochemical processes. As a sentinel species, the bottlenose dolphin data presented here can direct future studies to evaluate mercury exposure to human residents in St. Joseph Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, and Florida Coastal Everglades, as well as additional sites with similar geographical, oceanographic, or anthropogenic parameters. These data may also inform state and federal authorities that establish fish consumption advisories to determine if residents in these locales are at heightened risk for mercury toxicity.

1. Introduction

Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) are sentinels for human and ecosystem-level health due to their high degree of site fidelity, long lifespan, and high trophic level, including consuming some of the same diet items as humans [1,2,3]. As such, the bioaccumulation of contaminants in dolphin tissues can reflect localized sources of pollution [1,4]. Bottlenose dolphins can reflect some of the greatest levels of bioaccumulation seen among wildlife [1,5,6,7]. Bottlenose dolphins along the coasts of the southeast U.S.A. that inhabit bays, sounds, and estuaries (BSEs) include two closely related species, Tamanend’s bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops erebennus) and common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), which were recently genetically delineated [8].
The main transport of mercury into marine ecosystems is through atmospheric deposition and surface runoff [9,10,11,12]. Inorganic mercury is methylated into methylmercury (MeHg) by sulfate-reducing bacteria and biomagnified through the food web via dietary consumption [12,13,14,15,16,17]. The rate of methylation and MeHg release from sediments increases with temperature, salinity, and the availability of organic carbon [12,18]. Methylmercury is the most toxic and most common form of organic mercury in the environment and can cause deleterious health effects in both humans and dolphins [12,19,20]. Mercury toxicity in humans can cause diminished cardiovascular health, endocrine disruption, motor and sensory abnormalities, visual and hearing deficits, and fetal abnormalities [21,22]. Similarly, elevated mercury levels in dolphins and other organisms have been correlated with negative effects on the hepatic, renal, and endocrine systems [23]. Bottlenose dolphins from the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), along the east coast of Florida, have four times greater mercury exposure than bottlenose dolphins in Charleston, South Carolina (CHS), and human residents within IRL have elevated mercury exposure relative to the CHS reference population [24]. Residents who consumed most of their seafood from local recreational sources had significantly greater mercury in their hair than those who consumed seafood that was not from local waters [24]. The elevated mercury exposure of both bottlenose dolphins and humans further demonstrates the suitability of dolphins as a sentinel species for human and public health [24]. Mercury exposure in bottlenose dolphins can be attributed to atmospheric deposition from anthropogenic activities (i.e., coal combustion, industrial uses, waste incineration, and mining), low freshwater input, or low tidal flushing in the area of residency. Low freshwater input can result in increased salinity, and greater salinity increases mercury binding to sediments with the potential mobilization of mercury [25,26]. Enclosed bays can experience minimal tidal flushing, facilitating the accumulation of mercury [25]. In the Florida Coastal Everglades (FCE), one cause of mercury deposition hotspots is the slow water movement and greater dissolved organic carbon that enhances methylation [27,28].
The goal of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of mercury in free-ranging bottlenose dolphins throughout BSEs in the southeast region of the U.S.A. and investigate the spatial variation in mercury exposure in bottlenose dolphins throughout the region. Dolphin skin tissue was used to quantify baseline mercury in individuals and evaluate possible relationships between mercury exposure and biological factors, such as sex and age.

2. Materials and Methods

Sampling locations. This study encompasses BSE bottlenose dolphin sample sets measured for mercury from Georgia and Florida and published data sets from South Carolina and Florida [7,28,29,30] (Table 1). Sampling sites measured for mercury in Georgia BSEs included the Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), and Brunswick (BRU); Florida BSEs included Biscayne Bay (BBF), St. Joseph Bay (SJB), and Choctawhatchee Bay (CBF). Sites with previously published data included Charleston, SC (CHS), Indian River Lagoon, FL (IRL), Florida Coastal Everglades (FCE), Lower Florida Keys (LFK), and Sarasota Bay, FL (SAR).
Sample collection. Population monitoring efforts during skin sample collection can use dorsal fin features and photo-identification to identify individual dolphins to track life history events, fine-scale habitat use, and health outcomes throughout their lives [31,32]. Skin samples from individual dolphins were used as a proxy for overall exposure because mercury levels in the skin have a significant positive correlation to mercury measured in internal organs, including the muscle, liver, and kidney [7,30,33,34]. Dolphin skin samples were collected from 2005 to 2019 via catch-and-release health assessments [1,35], remote biopsy [25,36], or both. Skin samples were placed in a cryovial and frozen until analysis. Additional sample collection details are in the Supplementary Materials. Several individual dolphins were sampled more than once (determined via genetic and/or photo-identification matches). In turn, the mercury value from the most recently collected sample was used in data analysis.
The sex of the dolphins was determined using molecular methods for samples collected via remote biopsy [37] and physical examination for dolphins sampled during catch-and-release health assessments. Lower Florida Keys and CBF dolphins were excluded from the analysis of the influence of sex on exposure due to low sample sizes with determined sex (n < 5). The ages of dolphins sampled during catch-and-release health assessments were estimated by postnatal dentine layers from an extracted tooth [35,38] or known birth year. When a tooth was not available for aging or the birth year was not known, age class was estimated based on the measurement of the total animal length. Age classes were defined as calf < 2 years or <200 cm in length; subadult ≥ 2 years and <10 years or ≥200 cm and <240 cm; adult ≥ 10 years or ≥240 cm [35]. For SRE dolphins sampled by remote dart biopsy, only female adults were identified from reproductive history data via photo-identification and sighting history. Biscayne Bay, LFK, and CBF were excluded from the age class comparison because this information was not available.
Mercury analysis. Total mercury (THg) measured herein is a proxy for the toxic form, methylmercury (MeHg), in cetacean skin since most (89% to 97%) of the mercury in the skin is MeHg [30,33]. Before mercury analysis, any residual blubber was trimmed from the skin sample. Mercury measurement methods varied among sites because mercury analyses were conducted by several of the coauthors (Table 1). However, mercury measurement results utilizing isotope dilution cold vapor inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ID-CV-ICP-MS) [39,40], atomic fluorescence spectroscopy (AFS) [7,41,42], and direct combustion atomic absorption spectrometry (DC AAS) [43,44,45] were fully comparable among analytical methods and validated using reference materials [46]. For further details on mercury analysis methods and control materials, see the Supplementary Materials. Mercury was measured on a wet mass (nanogram per gram mass fraction) basis. All measurements are reported in ng/g wet mass (wm) THg and are referred to as mercury in the rest of this paper.
Statistical analyses. The authors from previously published studies [7,28,29,30] shared individual animal mercury and life history (sex, age) data for statistical comparison among all dolphin BSE sample sites in this study (Figure 1; Table 1). All mercury data were tested for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Data that failed the normality test were log-transformed prior to statistical analyses to meet the assumptions of normality and equal variance. A full factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the relationship of mercury exposure to the collection site, sex, and age class for dolphins (RStudio 1.2.5003). A Tukey’s honest significance test was used to determine significant differences between the factor levels (p < 0.05).

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Spatial Variations

We measured mercury in 175 individual dolphin skin samples from six sites along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts (Table 2). These individuals were then compared with published data from 239 dolphins (a grand total of 414 dolphins). Mercury in dolphins was significantly higher [F (10, 403) = 72.41, p < 0.05] in SJB, FCE, and CBF and significantly lower in CHS and SRE (Figure 2). Mercury in dolphins from CHS and SRE was significantly lower [F (10, 403) = 72.41, p < 0.05] than at all other sites but not significantly different from each other (p = 1; Figure 2). This spatial pattern was also found among different sexes and age classes (Table 3 and Table 4).
Greater mercury exposure in dolphins can be attributed to locality, anthropogenic activities, methylation rates, low freshwater input, and/or low tidal flushing. Additionally, the distribution of mercury within estuaries can be influenced by the tidal regime [47,48,49]. The Port of St. Joseph Bay has a history of paper mill operations that produced mercury waste. From 1938 to 1974, operators discharged mill wastewater into an unlined impoundment, which went directly into nearby wetland areas and SJB [50,51]. Consequently, low levels of mercury were found in soil samples from SJB [50,51]. Also, SJB is an enclosed bay dominated by Spartina sp. salt marshes and has low tidal energy [52]. Spartina can distribute mercury by accumulating within the root system, transferring it to the leaf tissue, and subsequently, environmental release through hydathodes (salt-excreting organs) [53,54,55]. While this movement of mercury from the Spartina root system to above-ground tissues is limited [56], in combination with the anthropogenic source and the fact that it is an enclosed bay, could have caused elevated mercury exposure within SJB.
Greater mercury exposure within the FCE is likely due to the natural biogeochemical processes of mangrove forests [28]. Unlike Spartina, mercury readily adsorbs onto the surface of mangrove sediment particles with organic matter and dissolved organic carbon, which is then tidally pumped into the surrounding waters [27]. In addition, mangrove mud is acidic (pH 3 to 4) and promotes mercury availability for anaerobic bacteria that are developed from higher organic content and enable methylation [28].
Similar to SJB, CBF is a Spartina sp. dominated saltmarsh ecosystem with untreated stormwater runoff, agricultural activities, and municipal wastewater that flows into the Choctawhatchee watershed [52]. Choctawhatchee Bay is also a largely enclosed embayment with low tidal energy that is not substantially influenced by freshwater inflow; this combination of factors may allow for greater mercury accumulation within the bay [25,52,57]. Altogether, mercury exposure in dolphins was greatest in SJB and CBF, likely due to anthropogenic sources and low freshwater input, and in the FCE as a result of natural biological and geochemical processes.
Mercury in dolphins from CHS and SRE was significantly lower [F (10, 403) = 72.41, p < 0.05] than at all other sites but not significantly different from each other (p = 1; Figure 2). Charleston Harbor has an active shipping channel and coal-burning power plants located within the watershed, which may contribute to mercury in the coastal environment. However, there is high freshwater flow and tidal flushing that may result in low mercury exposure to the dolphins [58]. Dolphins within CHS may have low mercury exposure due to increased freshwater flow from the nearby river basins and an effective tidal exchange that carries mercury out of the harbor and into the Atlantic Ocean.
Similarly, SRE has high freshwater input and large tidal flushing in addition to relatively low anthropogenic sources of mercury. The SRE is part of the relatively unpolluted Ogeechee River basin [59]. The nearest power plant to the Ogeechee River basin is 22.5 km east of the headwaters of the basin [60]. This power plant shut down coal-burning operations in 2016, and the predominant wind direction is from the west and south; therefore, atmospheric mercury may be carried away from the watershed [60]. Additionally, SRE has the maximum southern Atlantic tidal amplitude range of 2.1 m [61], which may be transporting mercury out of the estuary and into the Atlantic Ocean.
The mean mercury exposure in dolphin skin from SAP, BRU, IRL, BBF, LFK, and SAR was significantly higher than CHS and SRE (Figure 2). Additionally, SAP, IRL, LFK, and SAR were all significantly lower than SJB, FCE, and CBF. See Figure 2 for the statistical mercury relationship among sites. There are some potential anthropogenic sources causing the chronic exposure of mercury to the dolphins in these areas, but not acute and primary sources. Brunswick was the only site with known and confirmed elevated mercury exposure due to an anthropogenic source. In BRU, there are four Superfund sites resulting in the surrounding marsh being severely contaminated by metals and organics from contaminated waste, which is improperly discharged into the watershed [62]. One of the Superfund sites, LCP Chemicals, operated as a chlor-alkali plant from the 1956s to 1994 and is a source for mercury and other contaminants within BRU. LCP Chemicals discharged over 1 kg of inorganic mercury daily for approximately 40 years, along with other contaminants, into the nearby estuaries, and high levels of residual mercury still exist today [62,63,64,65,66,67]. Sapelo Island is the closest sampling site to BRU and may be receiving some mercury from the LCP Chemicals site despite SAP being 30 km north of BRU and within a sparsely populated National Estuarine Research Reserve [68,69,70]. Similarly, BBF has a natural mangrove shoreline and shares the watershed with FCE due to its close proximity. Overall, SAP, IRL, BBF, LFK, and SAR had varying amounts of tidal ranges and flushing with potential sources for the mercury effluent, but there was no clear pattern of mercury exposure to the dolphins in these BSEs.

3.2. Influence of Sex and Age

Skidaway River Estuary and SAR were the only two of eight sites that had a significant difference in mercury within each site between female and male dolphins. Skidaway River Estuary and SAR female dolphins had significantly higher mercury levels than males within the same site (F (1, 43) = 9.733, p = 0.003 and F (1, 53) = 6.343, p = 0.01, respectively)(Table 2). Charleston, SRE, and SAR were three of six sites where adults had significantly higher mercury levels than subadults (F (1, 72) = 10.03, p = 0.002; F (1, 21) = 20.23, p < 0.001; and F (1, 47) = 18.5, p < 0.001, respectively) (Table 3). When comparing sex and age class with mercury exposure within the same site, significant differences were found in CHS and SAR but not IRL. Female adults in CHS had significantly higher mercury levels than male adults (F (3, 70) = 6.48, p = 0.048) and female subadults (p < 0.001), but not significantly higher levels than male subadults (p = 0.075). Female adults in SAR had significantly higher mercury levels than all other SAR dolphins (F (3, 45) = 12.9, p < 0.001).
Age and sex can influence mercury levels in individual dolphins. Dolphins are considered a “closed system” because they lack hair and surface glands, and mercury is primarily obtained through their diet with limited capabilities of excretion [13,14,15,16,41]. Adult female dolphins may have increased mercury exposure compared to males due to increased prey consumption during gestation and lactation to fulfill energy requirements [71]. Mercury is only minimally offloaded to the offspring through placental transfer or lactation [72,73,74,75]. Adult dolphins are likely to have greater mercury exposure compared to younger age classes because mercury is also significantly positively correlated with the age of dolphins due to the continued consumption of prey and lack of significant mercury excretion [7,29,30,76]. For sites not exhibiting significant differences between sexes, it may be that females and males are consuming prey at a similar rate because there may be a lack of actively reproducing females or that males are continuing to grow, whereas females reach an asymptotic length by approximately 10 y to 12 y [77,78]. Similarly, there may not be a significant difference in mercury levels between subadults and adults because subadults may be consuming more prey than adults to maintain energy demands for growth, thus masking significant differences among age classes. Along the central west coast of Florida, subadults have altered their foraging and ranging patterns in response to environmental changes and prey availability [79,80]. Lastly, age determination for individuals may differ from fine-scale differences in animal size and sexual maturity. However, regardless of sex or age class, mercury spatial patterns were consistent geographically.

4. Conclusions

Dolphins serve as sentinel species for human and ecosystem health, and analyzing mercury via skin samples can help identify localized sources of mercury contamination in their environment over time [1,2,4]. The mean residence time for mercury in the ocean is from 20 y to 30 y [12], and spatial comparison for mercury may identify the most vulnerable and heavily affected areas, where dolphins, humans, and other high trophic level organisms might be at greatest risk from exposure [12]. This was the first study to compare mercury exposure in dolphin populations along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Mercury exposure is driven by a complex mix of biogeographical characteristics in the study areas and the anthropogenic activities in these areas. Regardless of sex or age class, spatial patterns were significant and consistent. Dolphins in St. Joseph Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, and the Florida Coastal Everglades had significantly greater mean mercury exposure than most sites; dolphins in Charleston and Skidaway River Estuary had significantly less exposure. Dolphins can effectively represent regional trends and reflect large-scale atmospheric mercury input and local biogeochemical processes. Dolphins are sentinels for human health, and this study informs state and federal authorities evaluating mercury exposure to human residents in St. Joseph Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, and Florida Coastal Everglades, as well as additional sites with similar geographical, oceanographic, or anthropogenic parameters to determine if residents in these locales are at heightened risk for mercury toxicity.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/toxics12050327/s1, The following supporting information includes additional method details for the remote biopsy and catch-and-release sampling, and mercury analyses.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L.G., C.E.B. and T.M.C.; Formal analysis, M.L.G.; Funding acquisition, M.L.G. and T.M.C.; Investigation, M.L.G., C.E.B., T.M.C., B.C.B., R.D.D., L.G.B., A.M.G., J.J.K., J.A.L., R.M.P., T.K.R., L.H.S., R.S.W. and E.Z.; Project administration, M.L.G., C.E.B. and T.M.C.; Resources, C.E.B., T.M.C., B.C.B., R.D.D., L.G.B., A.M.G., J.J.K., J.A.L., R.M.P., T.K.R., L.H.S., R.S.W. and E.Z.; Supervision, C.E.B. and T.M.C.; Visualization, M.L.G.; Writing—original draft, M.L.G.; Writing—review and editing, C.E.B., T.M.C., B.C.B., R.D.D., L.G.B., A.M.G., J.J.K., J.A.L., R.M.P., T.K.R., L.H.S., R.S.W. and E.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by NOAA SEFSC, NOAA LMRCSC (NA05OAR4811017, NA16SEC4810007, and Environmental Entrepreneurship Program), EDGE (NSF grant #0914680), Title VII (Dept. of Ed. P382G090003), NSF GK12 (award # 0841372), REU (NSF OCE-REU 1156525, 1460457), the Oak Foundation, Savannah State University Marine Sciences Program, and the Center for Aquatic Chemistry and Environmental (CREST/Institute of Environment) at Florida International University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act under NMFS Letters of Confirmation #14219, #18605, and #22807 issued to T. Cox. Remote biopsy sampling was obtained under permits #14450-01, #14450-02, #14450-04 and #779-1633 issued to NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center; permits #18786-03 and #18486-04 to the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approvals were granted under the U.S. Animal Welfare Act by NOAA (to T. Rowles; Atlantic IACUC-2005-15) and SSU (to T. Cox; 09-01-15 and 08-09-17).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the corresponding author on request.

Acknowledgments

We are incredibly grateful for the collaboration of all the scientists and field teams to collect and process these samples. We thank Penn Clarke, Barbara Danielson, Larry Fulford, Clay George, Suzanne Lane, Kate Sabbe, Shawn Smith, Todd Speakman, Lance Garrison, Larry Hansen, and Zach Swaim for their sampling efforts. We thank Adam Schaefer, Hui-Chen Stavros, and Todd O’Hara for sharing their publication data. We also thank Christopher Hintz for their extensive review of this manuscript. Finally, we thank Emily Griffin and Patty Rosel for their genetic analysis of dolphin samples.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wells, R.S.; Rhinehart, H.L.; Hansen, L.J.; Sweeney, J.C.; Townsend, F.I.; Stone, R.; Casper, D.R.; Scott, M.D.; Hohn, A.A.; Rowles, T.K. Bottlenose dolphins as marine ecosystem sentinels: Developing a health monitoring system. EcoHealth 2004, 1, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bossart, G.D. Marine mammals as sentinel species for oceans and human health. Oceanography 2006, 19, 134–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wilson, R.M.; Kucklick, J.R.; Balmer, B.C.; Wells, R.S.; Chanton, J.P.; Nowacek, D.P. Spatial distribution of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) inferred from stable isotopes and priority organic pollutants. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 425, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kucklick, J.; Schwacke, L.; Wells, R.; Hohn, A.; Guichard, A.; Yordy, J.; Hansen, L.; Zolman, E.; Wilson, R.; Litz, J.; et al. Bottlenose dolphins as indicators of persistent organic pollutants in the Western North Atlantic Ocean and Northern Gulf of Mexico. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 4270–4277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aguilar, A.; Borrell, A.; Pastor, T. Biological factors affecting variability of persistent pollutant levels in cetaceans. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 1999, 1, 83–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aguilar, A.; Borrell, A.; Reijnders, P.J.H. Geographical and temporal variation in levels of organochlorine contaminants in marine mammals. Mar. Environ. Res. 2002, 53, 425–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bryan, C.E.; Christopher, S.J.; Balmer, B.C.; Wells, R.S. Establishing baseline levels of trace elements in blood and skin of bottlenose dolphins in Sarasota Bay, Florida: Implications for non-invasive monitoring. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 388, 325–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Costa, A.P.B.; McFee, W.; Wilcox, L.A.; Archer, F.I.; Rosel, P.E. The common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) ecotypes of the western North Atlantic revisited: An integrative taxonomic investigation supports the presence of distinct species. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2022, 196, 1608–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to Congress; EPA-452/R-97; Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
  10. Morel, F.; Kraepiel, A.M.L.; Amyot, M. The chemical cycle and bioaccumulation of mercury. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1998, 29, 543–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fitzgerald, W.F.; Lamborg, C.H.; Hammerschmidt, C.R. Marine biogeochemical cycling of mercury. Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 641–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gworek, B.; Bemowska-Kalabun, O.; Kijeńska, M.; Wrzosek-Jakubowska, J. Mercury in marine and oceanic waters—A review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2016, 227, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Atwell, L.; Hobson, K.A.; Welch, H.E. Biomagnification and bioaccumulation of mercury in an arctic marine food web: Insights from stable nitrogen isotope analysis. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1998, 55, 1114–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Das, K.; Debacker, V.; Pillet, S.; Bouquegneau, J.M. Heavy metals in marine mammals. In Toxicology of Marine Mammals; Vos, J.G., Bossart, G.D., Fournier, M., O’Shea, T.J., Eds.; Taylor and Francis, Milton Park: Oxfordshire, UK, 2003; pp. 135–167+656. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dehn, L.A.; Follmann, E.H.; Thomas, D.L.; Sheffield, G.G.; Rosa, C.; Duffy, L.K.; O’Hara, T.M. Trophic relationships in an Arctic food web and implications for trace metal transfer. Sci. Total Environnent. 2006, 362, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nigro, M.; Campana, A.; Lanzillotta, E.; Ferrara, R. Mercury exposure and elimination rates in captive bottlenose dolphins. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 44, 1071–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wentz, D.A.; Brigham, M.E.; Chasar, L.C.; Lutz, M.A.; Krabbenhoft, D.P. Mercury in the nation’s streams-levels, trends and implications: U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 2014, 1395, 90. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ullrich, S.M.; Tanton, T.W.; Abdrashitova, S.A. Mercury in the aquatic environment: A review of factors affecting methylation. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 31, 241–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Reif, J.S.; Schaefer, A.M.; Bossart, G.D. Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) as a sentinel for exposure to mercury in humans: Closing the loop. Vet. Sci. 2015, 2, 407–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Reif, J.S.; Schaefer, A.M.; Bossart, G.D.; Fair, P.A. Health and environmental risk assessment project for bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus from the southeastern USA. II. Environmental aspects. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2017, 125, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bakir, F.; Rustam, H.; Tikriti, S.; Al-Damluji, S.F.; Shihristani, H. Clinical and epidemiological aspects of methylmercury poisoning. Postgrad. Med. J. 1980, 56, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zahir, F.; Rizwi, S.J.; Haq, S.K.; Khan, R.H. Low dose mercury toxicity and human health. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2005, 20, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Schaefer, A.M.; Stavros, H.W.; Bossart, G.D.; Fair, P.A.; Goldstein, J.D.; Reif, J.S. Associations between mercury and hepatic, renal, endocrine, and hematological parameters in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) along the eastern coast of Florida and South Carolina. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2011, 61, 688–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Schaefer, A.M.; Jensen, E.L.; Bossart, G.D.; Reif, J.S. Hair mercury concentrations and fish consumption patterns in Florida residents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 6709–6726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Balmer, B.; Ylitalo, G.; Watwood, S.; Quigley, B.; Bolton, J.; Mullin, K.; Rosel, P.; Rowles, T.; Speakman, T.; Wilcox, L.; et al. Comparison of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) between small cetaceans in coastal and estuarine waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 145, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lindberg, S.E.; Andren, A.W.; Harris, R.C. Geochemistry of mercury in the estuarine environment. Estuar. Res. 1975, 1, 64–108. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bergamaschi, B.A.; Krabbenhoft, D.P.; Aiken, G.R.; Patino, E.; Rumbold, D.G.; Orem, W.H. Tidally driven export of dissolved organic carbon, total mercury, and methylmercury from a mangrove-dominated estuary. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 1371–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Damseaux, F.; Kiszka, J.J.; Heithaus, M.R.; Scholl, G.; Eppe, G.; Thomé, J.; Lewis, J.; Hao, W.; Fontaine, M.C.; Das, K. Spatial variation in the accumulation of POPs and mercury in bottlenose dolphins of the Lower Florida Keys and the coastal Everglades (South Florida). Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 577–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Stavros, H.W.; Bossart, G.D.; Hulsey, T.C.; Fair, P.A. Trace element concentrations in skin of free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from the southeast Atlantic coast. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 388, 300–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Woshner, V.; Knott, K.; Wells, R.; Willetto, C.; Swor, R.; O’Hara, T. Mercury and selenium in blood and epidermis of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from Sarasota Bay, FL: Interaction and relevance to life history and hematologic parameters. EcoHealth 2008, 5, 360–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wells, R.S.; Tornero, V.; Borrell, A.; Aguilar, A.; Rowles, T.K.; Rhinehart, H.L.; Hofmann, S.; Jarman, W.M.; Hohn, A.A.; Sweeney, J.C. Integrating life-history and reproductive success data to examine potential relationships with organochlorine compounds for bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Sci. Total Environ. 2005, 349, 106–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yordy, J.E.; Wells, R.S.; Balmer, B.C.; Schwacke, L.H.; Rowles, T.K.; Kucklick, J.R. Life history as a source of variation for persistent organic pollutant (POP) patterns in a community of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) resident to Sarasota Bay, FL. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 2163–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wagemann, R.; Trebacz, E.; Boila, G.; Lockhart, W.L. Methylmercury and total mercury in tissues of arctic marine mammals. Sci. Total Environ. 1998, 218, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Aubail, A.; Méndez-Fernandez, P.; Bustamante, P.; Churlaud, C.; Ferreira, M.; Vingada, J.V.; Caurant, F. Use of skin and blubber tissues of small cetaceans to assess the trace element content of internal organs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 76, 158–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schwacke, L.H.; Twiner, M.J.; De Guise, S.; Balmer, B.C.; Wells, R.S.; Townsend, F.I.; Rotstein, D.C.; Varela, R.A.; Hansen, L.J.; Zolman, E.S.; et al. Eosinophilia and biotoxin exposure in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from a coastal area impacted by repeated mortality events. Environ. Res. 2010, 111, 548–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sinclair, C.; Sinclair, J.; Zolman, E.; Martinez, A.; Balmer, B.; Barry, K. Remote Biopsy Sampling Field Procedures for Cetaceans Used during the Natural Resource Damage Assessment of the MSC252 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill; NMFS-SEFSC-670; NOAA Technical Memorandum: Springfield, VA, USA, 2015.
  37. Rosel, P.E. PCR-Based sex determination in Odontocete cetaceans. Conserv. Genet. 2003, 4, 647–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hohn, A.A.; Scott, M.D.; Wells, R.S.; Sweeney, J.C.; Irvine, A.B. Growth layers in teeth from known age, free-ranging bottlenose dolphins. Mar. Mammal Sci. 1989, 5, 315–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Christopher, S.J.; Long, S.E.; Rearick, M.S.; Fassett, J.D. Development of isotope dilution cold vapor inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and its application to the certification of mercury in NIST Standard Reference Materials. Anal. Chem. 2001, 73, 2190–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Christopher, S.J.; Pol, S.S.V.; Pugh, R.S.; Day, R.D.; Becker, P.R. Determination of mercury in the eggs of common murres (Uria aalge) for the seabird tissue archival and monitoring project. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 2002, 17, 780–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bryan, C.E.; Christopher, S.J.; McLellan, W.A.; McFee, W.E.; Schwacke, L.H.; Wells, R.S. Application of ICP-MS to examining the utility of skin as a monitoring tissue for trace elements in bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. Open Chem. Biomed. Methods J. 2010, 3, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Garcia Barcia, L.; Argiro, J.; Babcock, E.A.; Cai, Y.; Shea, S.K.H.; Chapman, D.D. Mercury and arsenic in processed fins from nine of the most traded shark species in the Hong Kong and China dried seafood markets: The potential health risks of shark fin soup. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 157, 111281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bryan, C.E.; Davis, W.C.; McFee, W.E.; Neumann, C.A.; Schulte, J.; Bossart, G.D.; Christopher, S.J. Influence of mercury and selenium chemistries on the progression of cardiomyopathy in pygmy sperm whales, Kogia breviceps. Chemosphere 2012, 89, 556–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Holbert, S.; Bryan, C.E.; Korsmeyer, K.E.; Jensen, B.A. Mercury accumulation and biomarkers of exposure in two popular recreational fishes in Hawaiian waters. Ecotoxicology 2023, 32, 1010–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hoguet, J.; Keller, J.M.; Reiner, J.L.; Kucklick, J.R.; Bryan, C.E.; Moors, A.J.; Pugh, R.S.; Becker, P.R. Spatial and temporal trends of persistent organic pollutants and mercury in beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) from Alaska. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 449, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Domanico, F.; Forte, G.; Majorani, C.; Senofonte, O.; Petrucci, F.; Pezzi, V.; Alimonti, A. Determination of mercury in hair: Comparison between gold amalgamation-atomic absorption spectrometry and mass spectrometry. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2017, 43, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bothner, M.H.; Jahnke, R.A.; Paterson, M.L.; Carpenter, R. Rate of mercury loss from contaminated estuarine sediments. Geochim. Et Cosmochim. Acta 1980, 44, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Airey, D.; Jones, P.D. Mercury in the river mersey, its estuary and tributaries during 1973 and 1974. Water Res. 1982, 16, 565–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Silva, L.F.F.; Machado, W.; Filho, S.D.L.; Lacerda, L.D. Mercury accumulation in sediments of a mangrove ecosystem in SE Brazil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2003, 145, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Garrett, C.; Merchant, R.; Freed, J. Health Consultation: Mill View Subdivision-City of Port St. Joe, Gulf County, Florida; EPA Facility ID: FLN000407304; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2005.
  51. Garrett, C.; Merchant, R.; Freed, J. Public Health Assessment for Former St. Joe Forest Products Site (a/k/a St. Joe Paper Mill) Port St. Joe, Gulf County, Florida; EPA Facility ID: FLD004056602; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Springfield, VA, USA, 2006.
  52. Northwest Florida Water Management District (NFWMD). St. Andrew Bay Watershed Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan; Northwest Florida Water Management District: Havana, FL, USA, 2017.
  53. Sutherland, G.K.; Eastwood, A. The physiological anatomy of Spartina townsendii. Ann. Bot. 1916, 30, 333–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kraus, M.L.; Weis, P.; Crow, J.H. The excretion of heavy metals by the salt marsh cord grass, Spartina alterniflora, and Spartina’s role in mercury cycling. Mar. Environ. Res. 1986, 20, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Windham, L.; Weis, J.S.; Weis, P. Patterns and processes of mercury release from leaves of two dominant salt march macrophytes, Phragmites australis and Spartina alterniflora. Estuaries 2001, 24, 787–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Breteler, R.J.; Valiela, I.; Teal, J.M. Bioavailability of mercury in several North-eastern U.S. Spartina ecosystems. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 1981, 12, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Saunders, R.; Krebs, W.; Wrenn, J.H.; Bryant, V.M. Coastal dynamics and cultural occupations on Choctawhatchee Bay, Florida, U.S.A. Palynology 2009, 33, 135–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Guentzel, J.L. Wetland influences on mercury transport and bioaccumulation in South Carolina. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 1344–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Meyer, J.L.; Edwards, R.T. Ecosystem metabolism and turnover or organic carbon along a Blackwater River continuum. Ecology 1990, 71, 668–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR) Environmental Protection Division. Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Two Water Bodies in the Ogeechee River Basin for Selenium; TMDL Action ID GAR4_20_02_02; Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR) Environmental Protection Division: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2020.
  61. Dame, R.; Alber, M.; Allen, D.; Mallin, M.; Montague, C.; Lewitus, A.; Chalmers, A.; Gardner, R.; Gilman, C.; Kjerfve, B. Pinckney and N. Smith. Estuaries of the South Atlantic Coast of North America: Their Geographical Signatures. Estuaries 2000, 23, 793–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kannan, K.; Maruya, K.A.; Tanabe, S. Distribution and characterization of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners in soil and sediments from a superfund site contaminated with Aroclor 1268. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 1483–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Windom, H.; Gardner, W.; Stephens, J.; Taylor, F. The role of methylmercury production in the transfer of mercury in a salt marsh ecosystem. Estuar. Coast. Mar. Sci. 1976, 4, 579–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gardner, W.S.; Kendall, D.R.; Odom, R.R.; Windom, H.L.; Stephens, J.A. The distribution of methyl mercury in a contaminated salt marsh ecosystem. Environ. Pollut. 1987, 15, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Winger, P.V.; Lasier, P.J.; Geitner, H. Toxicity of sediments and pore water from Brunswick Estuary, Georgia. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1993, 25, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Horne, M.T.; Finley, N.J.; Sprenger, M.D. Polychlorinated biphenyl- and mercury- associated alterations on benthic invertebrate community structure in a contaminated salt marsh in southeast Georgia. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1999, 37, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Blanvillain, G.; Schwenter, J.A.; Day, R.D.; Point, D.; Christopher, S.J. Diamondback terrapins, Malaclemys terrapin, as a sentinel species for monitoring mercury pollution of estuarine systems in South Carolina and Georgia, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2007, 26, 1441–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Newell, S.Y.; Hicks, R.E.; Nicora, M. Content of mercury in leaves of Spartina alterniflora Loisel in Georgia, U.S.A.: An update. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 1982, 14, 465–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mercado-Silva, N. Condition index of the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, in Sapelo Island Georgia- effects of site, position on bed and pea crab parasitism. J. Shellfish. Res. 2005, 24, 121–126. [Google Scholar]
  70. Sutton, K.T.; Cohen, R.A.; Vives, S.P. Evaluating relationships between mercury concentrations in air and in Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides L.). Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 392–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Worthy, G.A.J. Nutrition and energetics. In Handbook of Marine Mammal Medicine; Dierauf, L.A., Gulland, F.M.D., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001; pp. 791–828+1087. [Google Scholar]
  72. Endo, T.; Kimura, O.; Hisamichi, Y.; Minoshima, Y.; Haraguchi, K.; Kakumoto, C.; Kobayashi, M. Distribution of total mercury, methylmercury and selenium in a pod of killer whales (Orcinus orca) stranded in the northern area of Japan: Comparison of mature females with calves. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 144, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. de Moura, J.F.; de Souza Hacon, S.; Vega, C.M.; Hauser-Davis, R.A.; de Campos, R.C.; Siciliano, S. Guiana dolphins (Sotalia guianensis, Van Benédén 1864) as indicators of the bioaccumulation of total mercury along the coast of Rio de Janeiro State, Southeastern Brazil. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2012, 88, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Rosas, F.; Lehti, K. Nutritional and mercury content of milk of the Amazon River dolphin, Inia geoffrensis. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A Physiol. 1996, 115, 117–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Storelli, M.M.; Marcotrigiano, G.O. Environmental contamination in bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): Relationships between levels of metals, methylmercury, and organochlorine compounds in an adult female, her neonate, and a calf. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2000, 64, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Miller, D.L.; Woshner, V.; Styer, E.L.; Ferguson, S.; Knott, K.K.; Gray, M.J.; Wells, R.S.; O’Hara, T.M. Histologic findings in free-ranging Sarasota Bay bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) skin: Mercury, selenium, and seasonal factors. J. Wildl. Dis. 2011, 47, 1012–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Read, A.J.; Wells, R.S.; Hohn, A.A.; Scott, M.D. Patterns of growth in wild bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus. J. Zool. Lond 1993, 231, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wells, R.S.; Scott, M.D. Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821). In Handbook of Marine Mammal; Book of Dolphins and Porpoises; Ridgway, S.H., Harrison, R., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1999; Volume 6, pp. 137–182+486. [Google Scholar]
  79. Gannon, D.P.; Berens, E.J.; Camilleri, S.A.; Gannon, J.G.; Brueggen, M.K.; Barleycorn, A.; Palubok, V.; Kirkpatrick, G.J.; Wells, R.S. Effects of Karenia brevis harmful algal blooms on nearshore fish communities in southwest Florida. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2009, 378, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. McHugh, K.A.; Allen, J.B.; Barleycorn, A.A.; Wells, R.S. Severe harmful algal bloom events influence juvenile common bottlenose dolphin behavior and sociality in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Mar. Mammal Sci. 2011, 27, 622–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Toxics 12 00327 g001
Figure 1. Mean mercury (ng/g, wet mass) in skin from bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) sampled along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Sampling sites included Charleston (CHS) [29], Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), Brunswick (BRU), Indian River Lagoon (IRL) [29], Biscayne Bay (BBF), Florida Coastal Everglades (FCE) [28], Lower Florida Keys (LFK) [28], Sarasota Bay (SAR) [7,30], St. Joseph Bay (SJB), and Choctawhatchee Bay (CBF) The number of dolphins sampled within each site is represented as n.
Figure 1. Mean mercury (ng/g, wet mass) in skin from bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) sampled along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Sampling sites included Charleston (CHS) [29], Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), Brunswick (BRU), Indian River Lagoon (IRL) [29], Biscayne Bay (BBF), Florida Coastal Everglades (FCE) [28], Lower Florida Keys (LFK) [28], Sarasota Bay (SAR) [7,30], St. Joseph Bay (SJB), and Choctawhatchee Bay (CBF) The number of dolphins sampled within each site is represented as n.
Toxics 12 00327 g001
Toxics 12 00327 g002
Figure 2. Mean mercury ± SE (ng/g, wet mass) in skin from bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) sampled along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Sampling sites included Charleston (CHS), Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), Brunswick (BRU), Indian River Lagoon (IRL), Biscayne Bay (BBF), Florida Coastal Everglades (FCE), Lower Florida Keys (LFK), Sarasota Bay (SAR), St. Joseph Bay (SJB), and Choctawhatchee Bay (CBF). The mean mercury of all dolphin individuals at each site is displayed in the top graph. Sites with different letters above the error bars are significantly different (p < 0.05) from each other.
Figure 2. Mean mercury ± SE (ng/g, wet mass) in skin from bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) sampled along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Sampling sites included Charleston (CHS), Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), Brunswick (BRU), Indian River Lagoon (IRL), Biscayne Bay (BBF), Florida Coastal Everglades (FCE), Lower Florida Keys (LFK), Sarasota Bay (SAR), St. Joseph Bay (SJB), and Choctawhatchee Bay (CBF). The mean mercury of all dolphin individuals at each site is displayed in the top graph. Sites with different letters above the error bars are significantly different (p < 0.05) from each other.
Toxics 12 00327 g002
Table 1. Summary of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) sampled along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Sampling sites included Charleston (CHS), Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), Brunswick (BRU), Indian River Lagoon (IRL), Biscayne Bay (BBF), Florida Coastal Everglades (FCE), Lower Florida Keys (LFK), Sarasota Bay (SAR), St. Joseph Bay (SJB), and Choctawhatchee Bay (CBF). Information includes the year(s) sampled, number of individuals (n), sample collection method, and mercury analysis method. Sample collection methods included isotope dilution cold vapor inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ID-CV-ICP-MS), atomic fluorescence spectroscopy (AFS), and direct combustion atomic absorption spectrometry (DC AAS).
Table 1. Summary of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) sampled along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Sampling sites included Charleston (CHS), Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), Brunswick (BRU), Indian River Lagoon (IRL), Biscayne Bay (BBF), Florida Coastal Everglades (FCE), Lower Florida Keys (LFK), Sarasota Bay (SAR), St. Joseph Bay (SJB), and Choctawhatchee Bay (CBF). Information includes the year(s) sampled, number of individuals (n), sample collection method, and mercury analysis method. Sample collection methods included isotope dilution cold vapor inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ID-CV-ICP-MS), atomic fluorescence spectroscopy (AFS), and direct combustion atomic absorption spectrometry (DC AAS).
SiteYearnSample CollectionMercury Analysis
CHS [29]2003–200574Catch-and-releaseDC AAS
SRE2015 & 201745Remote biopsyDC AAS
SAP2007–200937Remote biopsy and catch-and-releaseID-CV-ICP-MS
BRU2006–2007 and 200940Remote biopsy and catch-and-releaseID-CV-ICP-MS
IRL [29]2003–200576Catch-and-releaseDC AAS
BBF201917Remote biopsyAFS
FCE [28]201324Remote biopsyDC AAS
LFK [28]200810Remote biopsyDC AAS
SAR [7,30]2002–200555Catch-and-releaseAFS
SJB2005–200624Catch-and-releaseID-CV-ICP-MS
CBF200712Remote biopsyID-CV-ICP-MS
Table 2. Mean mercury ± standard error (SE) (ng/g, wet mass) in skin from bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) sampled along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Sampling sites included Charleston (CHS), Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), Brunswick (BRU), Indian River Lagoon (IRL), Biscayne Bay (BBF), Florida Coastal Everglades (FCE), Lower Florida Keys (LFK), Sarasota Bay (SAR), St. Joseph Bay (SJB), and Choctawhatchee Bay (CBF). Sites with fewer than five individuals were excluded from the sex analysis and labeled NE (not examined). * Sites with significant differences (p < 0.05) between female and male mercury levels (ng/g, wm).
Table 2. Mean mercury ± standard error (SE) (ng/g, wet mass) in skin from bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) sampled along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Sampling sites included Charleston (CHS), Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), Brunswick (BRU), Indian River Lagoon (IRL), Biscayne Bay (BBF), Florida Coastal Everglades (FCE), Lower Florida Keys (LFK), Sarasota Bay (SAR), St. Joseph Bay (SJB), and Choctawhatchee Bay (CBF). Sites with fewer than five individuals were excluded from the sex analysis and labeled NE (not examined). * Sites with significant differences (p < 0.05) between female and male mercury levels (ng/g, wm).
SiteTotal nHg
(ng/g, wm)		Female nFemale Hg
(ng/g, wm)		Male nMale Hg
(ng/g, wm)		Unknown Sex n
CHS [29]74509 ± 3229509 ± 5245509 ± 420
SRE *45530 ± 5818687 ± 9227425 ± 700
SAP371773 ± 165111570 ± 338251894 ± 1921
BRU403483 ± 349143257 ± 621263605 ± 4280
IRL [29]762206 ± 210252756 ± 477511936 ± 2020
BBF174595 ± 60043949± 1313135058 ± 6840
FCE [28]2410,916 ± 1532811,460 ± 31561310,048 ± 18413
LFK [28]102779 ± 6410NE92936 ± 6941
SAR [7,30] *552090 ± 203292665 ± 343261448 ± 980
SJB2414,193 ± 21961215,585 ± 34001212,802 ± 28740
CBF127333 ± 140547949 ± 357087024 ± 13730
Table 3. Mean mercury ± standard error (SE) (ng/g, wet mass) in skin from bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) sampled along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts by age class. Sampling sites included Charleston (CHS), Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), Brunswick (BRU), Indian River Lagoon (IRL), Sarasota Bay (SAR), and St. Joseph Bay (SJB). Sites with fewer than five individuals were excluded from age analysis and labeled NE (not examined). * Sites with significant differences (p < 0.05) between subadult and adult mercury values (ng/g, wm).
Table 3. Mean mercury ± standard error (SE) (ng/g, wet mass) in skin from bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) sampled along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts by age class. Sampling sites included Charleston (CHS), Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), Brunswick (BRU), Indian River Lagoon (IRL), Sarasota Bay (SAR), and St. Joseph Bay (SJB). Sites with fewer than five individuals were excluded from age analysis and labeled NE (not examined). * Sites with significant differences (p < 0.05) between subadult and adult mercury values (ng/g, wm).
SiteCalf nCalf Hg
(ng/g, wm)		Subadult nSubadult Hg
(ng/g, wm)		Adult nAdult Hg
(ng/g, wm)
CHS [29] *0NE25391 ± 3349568 ± 44
SRE *0NE8291 ± 4315758 ± 100
SAP15975882 ± 738978 ± 243
BRU0NE31107 ± 9291172 ± 126
IRL [29]0NE302377 ± 410452039 ± 221
SAR [7,30] *6662 ± 99241592 ± 210252910 ± 323
SJB210,540 ± 89279010 ± 22351417,407 ± 3389
Table 4. Mean mercury ± standard error (SE) (ng/g, wet mass) in skin from bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) sampled along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts by sex and age class. Sampling sites included Charleston (CHS), Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), Brunswick (BRU), Indian River Lagoon (IRL), Sarasota Bay (SAR), and St. Joseph Bay (SJB). Sites with less than five individuals were excluded from sex and age analysis. * Sites with significant differences (p < 0.05) mercury (ng/g, wm) among sex and age class values.
Table 4. Mean mercury ± standard error (SE) (ng/g, wet mass) in skin from bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) sampled along the U.S. Southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts by sex and age class. Sampling sites included Charleston (CHS), Skidaway River Estuary (SRE), Sapelo Island (SAP), Brunswick (BRU), Indian River Lagoon (IRL), Sarasota Bay (SAR), and St. Joseph Bay (SJB). Sites with less than five individuals were excluded from sex and age analysis. * Sites with significant differences (p < 0.05) mercury (ng/g, wm) among sex and age class values.
SiteCalfSubadultAdult
nHg (ng/g, wm)nHg (ng/g, wm)nHg (ng/g, wm)
CHS [29] *
Female0 17363 ± 38.512716 ± 81.1
Male0 8452 ± 61.837521 ± 48.7
SRE
Female0 125415758 ± 100
Male0 7296 ± 48.90
SAP
Female15974934 ± 66.72843 ± 170
Male0 167461023 ± 326
BRU
Female0 31107 ± 91.721652 ± 176
Male0 0 71035 ± 108
IRL [29]
Female0 122984 ± 796122378 ± 597
Male0 181972 ± 426331916 ± 214
SAR [7,30] *
Female4683 ± 10991866 ± 524163609 ± 408
Male2619 ± 270151428 ± 12991666 ± 104
SJB
Female19648510,919 ± 2701521,995 ± 7152
Male111,43124238 ± 86.0914,857 ± 3543
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Griffin, M.L.; Bryan, C.E.; Cox, T.M.; Balmer, B.C.; Day, R.D.; Garcia Barcia, L.; Gorgone, A.M.; Kiszka, J.J.; Litz, J.A.; Perrtree, R.M.; et al. Spatial Variation in Mercury Accumulation in Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Southeastern U.S.A. Toxics 2024, 12, 327. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12050327

AMA Style

Griffin ML, Bryan CE, Cox TM, Balmer BC, Day RD, Garcia Barcia L, Gorgone AM, Kiszka JJ, Litz JA, Perrtree RM, et al. Spatial Variation in Mercury Accumulation in Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Southeastern U.S.A. Toxics. 2024; 12(5):327. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12050327

Chicago/Turabian Style

Griffin, Mackenzie L., Colleen E. Bryan, Tara M. Cox, Brian C. Balmer, Russell D. Day, Laura Garcia Barcia, Antoinette M. Gorgone, Jeremy J. Kiszka, Jenny A. Litz, Robin M. Perrtree, and et al. 2024. "Spatial Variation in Mercury Accumulation in Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Southeastern U.S.A." Toxics 12, no. 5: 327. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12050327

APA Style

Griffin, M. L., Bryan, C. E., Cox, T. M., Balmer, B. C., Day, R. D., Garcia Barcia, L., Gorgone, A. M., Kiszka, J. J., Litz, J. A., Perrtree, R. M., Rowles, T. K., Schwacke, L. H., Wells, R. S., & Zolman, E. (2024). Spatial Variation in Mercury Accumulation in Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Southeastern U.S.A. Toxics, 12(5), 327. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12050327

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop