Many streams along the Minnesota coast of Lake Superior have been listed as impaired from either high turbidity or high fish mercury concentrations or both. Both turbidity and total mercury have been shown to be strongly correlated to total suspended sediment in many disturbed watersheds. Turbidity and total mercury concentrations and loads were estimated in four western Lake Superior watersheds from 2005–2006 using automated in-stream turbidity measurements. Regression models were developed relating this near-continuous turbidity data to grab sample measures of mercury during differing flow regimes. Total mercury values ranged from 1 to 28 ng l−1 throughout the open water season and showed a close relationship to total suspended sediment (r2 = 0.85, n = 23; p < 0.001) and a less robust but still significant relationship with turbidity (r2 = 0.40, n = 34; p < 0.001) for all four streams. Mercury loads to Lake Superior were estimated to range from 8 to 97 g yr−1 with watershed yields ranging from 0.5 to 4.3 μg m−2 yr−1. Continuous turbidity monitoring appears to be a reasonable surrogate for both suspended sediment and total mercury concentration, providing information when manual sample collection is cost-prohibitive or logistically difficult, and across a wide range of flows.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
October 1, 2011
Research Article|
October 01 2011
Estimating mercury concentrations and loads from four western Lake Superior watersheds using continuous in-stream turbidity monitoring
E. M. Ruzycki;
E. M. Ruzycki
Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota Duluth, 5013 Miller Trunk Highway Duluth, Minnesota 55811-1442, USA
*Corresponding author: eruzycki@d.umn.edu
Search for other works by this author on:
Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management (2011) 14 (4): 422–432.
Citation
E. M. Ruzycki, R. P. Axler, J. R. Henneck, N. R. Will, G. E. Host; Estimating mercury concentrations and loads from four western Lake Superior watersheds using continuous in-stream turbidity monitoring. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 1 October 2011; 14 (4): 422–432. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2011.624863
Download citation file:
Advertisement
Total Views
84
76
Pageviews
8
PDF Downloads
Since 3/1/2021