1997
DOI: 10.1016/s1352-2310(97)00207-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Atmospheric deposition to the Chesapeake Bay watershed—regional and local sources

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
31
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These differences are probably not entirely due to differences in Hg deposition. Mercury deposition rates vary by perhaps a factor of two to three across Maryland and are highest near urban areas (Mason et al 1997). Mercury concentrations in fish did not follow this pattern.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These differences are probably not entirely due to differences in Hg deposition. Mercury deposition rates vary by perhaps a factor of two to three across Maryland and are highest near urban areas (Mason et al 1997). Mercury concentrations in fish did not follow this pattern.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…The mid-Atlantic states (with the exception of New Jersey, which has a statewide ban in fresh waters) currently have few or no advisories despite relatively high levels of Hg deposition. Wet deposition of Hg in the lower Chesapeake Bay watershed ranges from 10 to 25 g Hg/m 2 year, depending on distance from sources (Mason et al 1997). This rate is similar to deposition in south Florida, a region with very high levels of Hg in freshwater fish (Ware et …”
mentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Mercury (Hg) is a pollutant of concern primarily due to the toxicity and bioaccumulation of methyl mercury in aquatic environments, where atmospheric deposition is the major input route (Mason et al 1994(Mason et al , 1997Landis et al 2002;Lai et al 2007). The deposition of mercury at a specific site will depend on the individual concentrations of Hg 0 , Hg(II) and Hg(p) and the presence of other atmospheric constituents involved in the removal processes (Sakata and Marumoto 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mercury (Hg) was also a pollutant of concern mainly due to the toxicity and bioaccumulation of methyl mercury in aquatic environments, where atmospheric deposition is the major input route (Mason et al, 1994;Mason et al, 1997;Landis et al, 2002;Lai et al, 2007). Moreover, in urban SDSs, Zn, Ni, Cd, Pb, Cu and Cr were related to traffic and industry; coal combustion increases Hg levels.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%