mercury for experiment

All About Mercury

Any vacation on Mercury would be ruined by extreme temperatures. During the daytime, the Sun would appear three times larger and more than 10 times brighter than it does here on Earth. During the day, temperatures would be as high as 800 degrees F, and at night temperatures could sink to -300 degrees F. Brr! Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Mercury is the smallest planet in our solar system. It’s just a little bigger than Earth’s Moon. Mercury itself, though, doesn’t have any moons. It is the closest planet to the Sun, but it’s actually not the hottest. Venus is hotter.

Along with Venus, Earth, and Mars, Mercury is one of the rocky planets. It has a solid surface that is covered with craters. Instead of an atmosphere, Mercury possesses a thin exosphere made up of atoms blasted off the surface by the solar wind and striking meteoroids. Mercury's exosphere is composed mostly of oxygen, sodium, hydrogen, helium, and potassium. Mercury doesn’t have any moons.

Explore Mercury! Click and drag to rotate the planet. Scroll or pinch to zoom in and out. Credit: NASA Visualization Technology Applications and Development (VTAD)

Mariner 10's first image of Mercury taken on March 24, 1974. Credit: NASA/JPL/USGS

This small planet spins around slowly compared to Earth, so one day lasts a long time. It takes 59 Earth days to make one day (or one full rotation) on Mercury. However, a year on Mercury goes by fast! Because it’s the closest planet to the Sun, it doesn’t take very long to go all the way around. It completes one revolution around the Sun in just 88 Earth days. If you lived on Mercury, you’d have a birthday every three months!

A day on Mercury is not like a day here on Earth. For us, the Sun rises and sets each and every day. Because Mercury has a slow spin and short year, it takes a long time for the Sun to rise and set there. Mercury only has one sunrise every 180 Earth days! Isn't that wild?

Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Structure and Surface

• Mercury is the smallest planet in our solar system.
• Mercury is a terrestrial planet. It is small and rocky.
• Mercury has a thin exosphere.
• Mercury’s surface can be as hot as 800 degrees F during the daytime and as cold as -300 degrees F during the nighttime. (But Mercury is not the hottest planet in the solar system. The hottest planet is Venus.)
• Mercury’s poles have water-ice.

Time on Mercury

• A day on Mercury lasts 59 Earth days.
• A year on Mercury lasts 88 Earth days.

Mercury’s Neighbors

• Mercury does not have any moons.
• Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun.
• Venus is Mercury’s neighboring planet.

Quick History

• Mercury has been known since ancient times because it can be seen without advanced telescopes.
• Because it is so close to the Sun, Mercury is hard to study from Earth. No people have ever gone to Mercury, but two robotic spacecraft have visited. The spacecraft were called Mariner 10 and MESSENGER.
• MESSENGER mapped Mercury by taking pictures of the planet's surface, including some areas that had not been seen before. It also collected information about what the surface and insides of Mercury are made of.

What does Mercury look like?

This image shows a beautiful view of Mercury's cratered southern hemisphere. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington

The many craters of Mercury. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington

The MESSENGER spacecraft is the first ever to orbit the planet Mercury, and the spacecraft's seven scientific instruments, like the MASCS instrument used to create this colorful illustration of Mercury’s surface, are unraveling the history and evolution of the innermost planet. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington

Color differences on Mercury may be hard to see, but they reveal important information about the planet's surface material. A number of bright spots with a bluish tinge are visible in this image. These are relatively recent impact craters. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington

For more information visit:

Planet Mercury Overview

Explore the Solar System

If you liked this, you may like:

• Free Resources
• Project Search
• Featured Projects
• Member Benefits

1059 Main Avenue, Clifton, NJ 07011

The most valuable resources for teachers and students

(973) 777 - 3113

[email protected]

1059 Main Avenue

Clifton, NJ 07011

07:30 - 19:00

Monday to Friday

123 456 789

[email protected]

Goldsmith Hall

New York, NY 90210

• Why We’re Unique

Introduction: (Initial Observation)

While Mercury is one of the most useful of the heavy metals found in our daily lives, it is also one of the most deadly. When carelessly handled or improperly disposed of, Mercury gets into drinking water, lakes, rivers and streams and becomes a clear threat to human health and the environment.

This project guide contains information that you need in order to start your project. If you have any questions or need more support about this project, click on the “ Ask Question ” button on the top of this page to send me a message.

If you are new in doing science project, click on “ How to Start ” in the main page. There you will find helpful links that describe different types of science projects, scientific method, variables, hypothesis, graph, abstract and all other general basics that you need to know.  

Project advisor

Information Gathering:

Find out about what you want to investigate. Read books, magazines or ask professionals who might know in order to learn about the effect or area of study. Keep track of where you got your information from. Following web sites can be reviewed for information about mercury.

http://www.calpoison.org/public/mercury.html

http://www.pp.okstate.edu/ehs/training/mercury.htm

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

What is Mercury?

Mercury – known as “Hg” to chemists, is a naturally occurring element. It is a metal and conducts electricity. It is a liquid at room temperature, combines easily with other metals and expands and contracts evenly with temperature changes. Because of these properties, mercury has been used in many household, medical and industrial products.

Although mercury performs many useful functions in our workplaces and homes, it is toxic and can impair our health. Mercury acts as a poison to the central nervous system in humans. Children, especially those under the age of 6, are more susceptible to mercury poisoning. Mercury evaporates slowly at room temperature. If spilled or improperly stored, this evaporation will cause continuous contamination of the air we breathe.

How Mercury Enters the Food Chain

Improper mercury disposal includes pouring it down the drain, putting it in the trash and burning it in barrels and incinerators. These improper disposal methods can elevate mercury contamination in the environment.

Fish Advisory

Mercury and how it is used

Mercury is a metal that occurs naturally in small amounts in the environment in several forms. Metallic mercury is a shiny, silver-white, odorless liquid. Because it remains liquid at room temperature, mercury is used in many consumer products. Mercury is used in barometers, blood pressure instruments, thermometers, and other pressure-sensing instruments. Batteries containing mercury are used in some small electronic devices. Mercury is also used in outdoor lighting, thermostats & light switches, motion picture projection and the making of some medications. If heated, mercury is a colorless, odorless gas. Source: Illinois Department of Public Health

Health issues associated with mercury exposure

Health issues caused by mercury depend on how much of it has entered the body, how it entered, length of exposure and how the body responds to it.

Mercury is harmful to both humans and animals. Children are more susceptible to mercury poisoning than adults. Exposure to even small amounts of mercury over a long period of time may cause negative health effects including damage to the brain, kidney, lungs and the developing fetus. Brief contact with high levels of mercury can cause immediate health effects including loss of appetite, fatigue, insomnia, and changes in behavior or personality. Depending on the length or degree of exposure, additional symptoms such as nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, eye irritation, weight loss, skin rashes, and muscle tremors may occur.

When exposure to mercury stops, most symptoms usually go away; however, effects on the brain and nervous system may be permanent. Once mercury has entered the body, it can take months before it is eliminated, mainly through the urine and feces. Levels of mercury can be measured in blood, urine and scalp hair. These tests may help to predict possible health effects. Source: Illinois Department of Public Health

Chemical reactions of the elements

Reaction of mercury with air.

Mercury metal reacts in air at about 350°C to form mercury(II) oxide.

2Hg(s) + O2(g) 2HgO(s) [red]

Reaction of mercury with water

Mercury does not react with water under normal conditions.

Reaction of mercury with the halogens

Mercury metal reacts with fluorine, F2, chlorine, Cl2, bromine, Br2, or iodine, I2, to form the dihalides mercury(II) fluoride, HgF2, mercury(II) chloride, HgCl2, mercury(II) bromide, HgBr2, or mercury(II) iodide, HgI2, respectively.

Hg(l) + F2(g) HgF2(s) [white]

Hg(l) + Cl2(g) HgCl2(s) [white]

Hg(l) + Br2(l) HgBr2(s) [white]

Hg(l) + I2(s) HgI2(s) [red]

Reaction of mercury with acids

Mercury does not react with non-oxidizing acids but does react with concentrated nitric acid, HNO3, or concentrated sulphuric acid, H2SO4, to form mercury(II) compounds together with nitrogen or sulphur oxides.

Mercury dissolves slowly in dilute nitric acid to form mercury(I) nitrate, mercurous nitrate, Hg2(NO3)2.

Reaction of mercury with bases Mercury does not react with alkalis under normal conditions.

Decomposition Reactions

Essentially, decomposition reaction are the opposite of combination reactions. A compound decomposes (i.e.,”splits-up”) into two or more compounds and/or elements. For example mercury(II) oxide will, upon heating, decompose into mercury metal and oxygen:

Question/ Purpose:

The purpose of this project is to demonstrate some of the mercury applications.

Identify Variables:

When you think you know what variables may be involved, think about ways to change one at a time. If you change more than one at a time, you will not know what variable is causing your observation. Sometimes variables are linked and work together to cause something. At first, try to choose variables that you think act independently of each other.

Hypothesis:

Based on your gathered information, make an educated guess about what types of things affect the system you are working with. Identifying variables is necessary before you can make a hypothesis.

Experiment Design:

Because of many know applications of mercury, different experiments can be designed and performed using mercury. Among those experiments are:

MAKING A BAROMETER (Adult supervision required)

• Glass barometer tube 36″ long, closed at one end
• Small glass or beaker
• Ring stand with clamp
• Cardboard strip, 2″ x 10″
• Scotch or masking tape

Pour the mercury into the barometer tube, filling it completely. Pour the remaining mercury into a beaker. Place a finger over the open end of the tube and invert the tube, lowering it carefully into the beaker containing the remainder of the mercury. Clamp the tube upright on the stand.

Mark a scale of inches and half inches on the cardboard, and label it from 24 to 36 inches. With the yardstick, measure the actual height of the mercury column and attach the scale to the proper spot on the tube.

Watch the day-to-day variations in the height of the mercury. Record your readings. Compare them with radio and newspaper reports of local barometric pressure conditions.

NOTE: Wear rubber gloves and be very careful that the mercury does not come in contact with any jewelry you may be wearing.

Materials and Equipment:

List of material can be extracted from the experiment.

Results of Experiment (Observation):

Experiments are often done in series. A series of experiments can be done by changing one variable a different amount each time. A series of experiments is made up of separate experimental “runs.” During each run you make a measurement of how much the variable affected the system under study. For each run, a different amount of change in the variable is used. This produces a different amount of response in the system. You measure this response, or record data, in a table for this purpose. This is considered “raw data” since it has not been processed or interpreted yet. When raw data gets processed mathematically, for example, it becomes results.

Calculations:

You may not need any calculation for this project.

Summery of Results:

Summarize what happened. This can be in the form of a table of processed numerical data, or graphs. It could also be a written statement of what occurred during experiments.

It is from calculations using recorded data that tables and graphs are made. Studying tables and graphs, we can see trends that tell us how different variables cause our observations. Based on these trends, we can draw conclusions about the system under study. These conclusions help us confirm or deny our original hypothesis. Often, mathematical equations can be made from graphs. These equations allow us to predict how a change will affect the system without the need to do additional experiments. Advanced levels of experimental science rely heavily on graphical and mathematical analysis of data. At this level, science becomes even more interesting and powerful.

Conclusion:

Using the trends in your experimental data and your experimental observations, try to answer your original questions. Is your hypothesis correct? Now is the time to pull together what happened, and assess the experiments you did.

Related Questions & Answers:

What you have learned may allow you to answer other questions. Many questions are related. Several new questions may have occurred to you while doing experiments. You may now be able to understand or verify things that you discovered when gathering information for the project. Questions lead to more questions, which lead to additional hypothesis that need to be tested.

Possible Errors:

If you did not observe anything different than what happened with your control, the variable you changed may not affect the system you are investigating. If you did not observe a consistent, reproducible trend in your series of experimental runs there may be experimental errors affecting your results. The first thing to check is how you are making your measurements. Is the measurement method questionable or unreliable? Maybe you are reading a scale incorrectly, or maybe the measuring instrument is working erratically.

If you determine that experimental errors are influencing your results, carefully rethink the design of your experiments. Review each step of the procedure to find sources of potential errors. If possible, have a scientist review the procedure with you. Sometimes the designer of an experiment can miss the obvious.

References:

List of References

It is always important for students, parents and teachers to know a good source for science related equipment and supplies they need for their science activities. Please note that many online stores for science supplies are managed by MiniScience.

Testimonials

" I called School Time and my husband and son came with me for the tour. We felt the magic immediately."

- Robby Robinson

" My husband and son came with me for the tour. We felt the magic immediately."

- Zoe Ranson

Contact Info

Our address, working hours.

Week Days: 07:00-19:00

Saturday: 09:00-15:00

Sunday: Closed

Science Project

Planet Mercury Unit Study

Please note, Year Round Homeschooling uses affiliate links. For more information see our disclosure policy .

I love sunrises too much to even consider living on Mercury if it were possible. Your kids will enjoy learning about Mercury sunrises, its speed, layers and more using this Planet Mercury Unit Study. 

The solar system is a great way to study science in your homeschool. Spending time together with your kids studying the planets, their moons and view them in the night sky make amazing memories. 

Mercury may be small, but there is a lot to learn about this “little” planet. Enjoy learning new things with your children as you complete this unit study together. 

Did you know? Mercury has the shortest year, the smallest axis tilt and has the most craters? It also is the fastest planet though it spins slowly! 

It was first explored in 1974 by NASA’s spacecraft, Mariner 10. They later completed the first orbit around Mercury using their spacecraft, Messenger, in 2008.

While on Earth we see the sunrise every single day, if you lived on Mercury, you would only see the sunrise every 180 days!

Mercury is a terrestrial planet, like Earth . However, it is only 1/3 the size of our home planet. 

The planet Mercury was named after the messenger god of the Romans. 

Mercury is the smallest planet in our solar system.

The radius of Mercury is 1,516 miles. You can easily figure out the radius of any planet on your own by using the distance from the center to the edge of the planet. 

Mercury’s diameter is an average of 3,031.67 miles. Finding the diameter of a planet is easy once you know its radius. Simply take the radius and multiply it times two. 

The mass of Mercury is 330,000,000 trillion metric tons, making it the least massive planet in our solar system. 

Mercury’s volume is 14,593,223,446 miles 3 . Do you know how to measure volume? You’ll need this mathematical formula, V = 4/3 pi x r^3,  and the radius of the planet. The measure of volume determines how much space a three-dimensional object such as a planet occupies. 

• Surface area

The surface area of Mercury is 28,879,000 square miles. Finding the surface area requires you to determine what number of square units will exactly cover the surface of a sphere. You’ll need this formula to determine Mercury’s surface area, (or any sphere) on your own. 

At 5.427 g/cm 3 , the planet Mercury is the 2nd most dense planet in our solar system. 

• Location in the Solar System

Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun.

• Distance from the Sun

All planets in the solar system are always moving, but on average Mercury is 32,983,125 miles from the Sun.

• Light time from the Sun

It only takes light from the Sun 3.03 minutes to reach Mercury. 

Mercury has 3 layers; the core, a mantle and a crust. The core is 1,289 in radius and is made of metal. The outer shell is made of the mantle and crust and is approximately 250 miles thick. 

• Temperature

The temperature on Mercury is very extreme with ranges from -290 degrees Fahrenheit up to 800 degrees Fahrenheit due to its lack of an atmosphere to help retain the heat.

Mercury travels at the average speed of 105,946 mph. That means in one 24 hour day on Earth, Mercury travels about 2,542,704 miles!

It takes less than 3 months, 88 days on Earth, for Mercury to travel around the Sun. Mercury travels through its orbit at approximately 29 miles per second.

• Axis Rotation

Mercury spins slowly on its axis, so a complete axis rotation or day on Mercury is equal to 59 Earth days. 

Since Mercury is so close to the Sun, it doesn’t really have an atmosphere, instead, it has an exosphere. Mercury’s exosphere is made up of oxygen, sodium, hydrogen, helium and potassium. 

Please note, that some of the resources below may include evolutionary information. I encourage you to have a conversation with your children or preview these resources prior to assigning them as part of your homeschool studies. 

Mercury: The Tiny Planet Causing Big Problems for Evolution

The Planet Mercury

Planet Mercury

All About Mercury

Mercury Facts and Information

Interesting Mercury Facts

Mercury Facts

How to Draw Mercury

Cute Mercury Drawing

Mercury Oil Painting

Oil Pastel Mercury Painting

Mercury Art Poster

Mercury on a String

Impact Cratering  

Mercury Notebooking Pages

Planet Mercury Facts

Mercury Worksheets

Planet Mercury Coloring Page

Mercury Quiz

Fill in the Blank Mercury Facts

Mercury is an amazing little planet and its size doesn’t keep it from amazing us. The wonder of this planet and the rest of the solar system truly point to the majesty of God. 

What did your kids enjoy learning the most through your Planet Mercury unit study?

Sign Up to Receive Free Resources, Encouragement and Tips.​

Misty Leask

Sign up to receive free resources, encouragement and tips..

About Me  |  Privacy Policy  |  Cookie Policy

© 2018 All rights reserved​

Designed by Stephanie​

• Book Activities
• Rhymes/Songs
• SCIENCE/STEM

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Planet mercury preschool science experiment | solar system space theme.

Space Activities for Kids

Solar system science experiment:.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

A Dinosaur Made Me Spill-- a new picture book!!

Email Newsletter

Subscribe to our {FREE} weekly newsletter to get the latest updates to your inbox!

Your email address is safe with us!

Connect With Us

Search this blog.

Popular Posts

Amazon Affiliate

Please note, awesome affiliates.

Designed By Blogtipsntricks . In Association With Tozilnutpam and Praverb Dot Net .

© 2012 Preschool Powol Packets

Browse Course Material

Course info.

• Physics Department Faculty, Lecturers, and Technical Staff

Departments

As taught in.

• Atomic, Molecular, Optical Physics

Learning Resource Types

Experimental physics i & ii "junior lab", the franck-hertz experiment, description.

The Franck-Hertz experiment equipment.

These experiments measure two phenomena encountered in collisions between electrons and atoms: quantized excitation due to inelastic scattering, and ionization. The excitation potential and ionization potential of the mercury atom are determined from measurements of the critical accelerating potentials at which electrons lose energy by inelastic scattering in mercury vapor.

The Franck-Hertz Experiment Lab Guide (PDF)

Franck-Hertz Experiment References

Bohm, David. “Square Potential Solutions.” In Quantum Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1951, pp. 229-263.

Bleuler, Ernst, and George J. Goldsmith. “Charged Particle Spectra.” In Experimental Nucleonics. New York, NY: Rinehart, 1952, pp. 342-346.

Melissinos, Adrian C. “The Franck-Hertz Experiment.” In Experiments in Modern Physics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1966, pp. 8-17.

———. “Thermionic Emissions of Electrons from Metals.” In Experiments in Modern Physics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1966, pp. 65-80.

Schiff, Leonard I. “Ramsauer-Townsend Effect.” In Quantum Mechanics. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1968, pp. 108-110.

Harnwell, Gaylord P., and J. J. Livinwood. “Experiments on Excitation Potentials,” and “Experiments in Ionization Potentials.” In Experimental Atomic Physics. Huntington, NY: R. E. Krieger, 1978, pp. 314-320. ISBN: 9780882756004.

Rapior, G., K. Sengstock, and V. Baeva. “ New Features of the Franck-Hertz Experiment .” American Journal of Physics 74 (2006): 423-428.

Ramsauer-Townsend Effect Experiment References

Bohm, David. “Ramsauer-Townsend.” In Quantum Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1951, pp. 564-573.

Richtmyer, F. K., E. H. Kennard, and T. Lauritsen. Introduction to Modern Physics. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1955, pp. 274-279.

Mott, N. F., and H. S. W. Massey. “Ramsauer-Townsend.” In The Theory of Atomic Collisions. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965, pp. 562-579. ISBN: 9780198512424.

Kukolich, Stephen G. “ Demonstration of the Ramsauer-Townsend Effect in a Xenon Thyratron .”  American Journal of Physics 36, no. 8 (1968): 701-703.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

• Become A Member
• Gift Membership
• Kids Membership
• Other Ways to Give
• Explore Worlds
• Defend Earth

How We Work

• Education & Public Outreach
• Space Policy & Advocacy
• Science & Technology
• Global Collaboration

Our Results

Learn how our members and community are changing the worlds.

Our citizen-funded spacecraft successfully demonstrated solar sailing for CubeSats.

Space Topics

• Planets & Other Worlds
• Space Missions
• Space Policy
• Planetary Radio
• Space Images

The Planetary Report

The search for life.

How life on Earth shapes the hunt for life out there.

Get Involved

Membership programs for explorers of all ages.

Get updates and weekly tools to learn, share, and advocate for space exploration.

Volunteer as a space advocate.

Support Our Mission

• Renew Membership
• Society Projects

The Planetary Fund

Accelerate progress in our three core enterprises — Explore Worlds, Find Life, and Defend Earth. You can support the entire fund, or designate a core enterprise of your choice.

• Strategic Framework
• News & Press

The Planetary Society

Know the cosmos and our place within it.

Our Mission

Empowering the world's citizens to advance space science and exploration.

• Explore Space
• Take Action
• Member Community
• Account Center
• “Exploration is in our nature.” - Carl Sagan

Mercury, world of extremes

Highlights Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun, with surface temperatures of up to 430°C (800°F), but  Venus is still hotter. Like the Moon, Mercury has water ice in craters at its poles that almost never see the Sun. Scientists study Mercury to learn about rocky planets throughout the galaxy, especially those orbiting close to their stars.

What’s Mercury like?

Mercury is the smallest planet in the Solar System and the closest one to  the Sun . It's also a little-explored world, full of mystery, with a surface split into extremes and an interior that puzzles scientists. 

Mercury is only slightly larger than Earth’s Moon. Similar to  the Moon , the parts of Mercury lit by the Sun can get extremely hot, with temperatures on the planet reaching as high as 430 degrees Celsius (800 degrees Fahrenheit). But also  like on the Moon , there are craters around Mercury’s poles that get extremely cold because they always remain in shadow — so cold they can even host water ice. 

The surface of Mercury is covered in ridges and craters like the Moon, too. These impact craters trace billions of years of collisions with asteroids and comets. Some ridges are also caused by impacts, while others come from Mercury shrinking as its core cools, the  same as on the Moon . The biggest crater on Mercury, Caloris Planitia, covers about one-tenth of the entire planet’s surface. 

Beneath its surface, Mercury also has an enormous core. While Earth’s core makes up just 15% of its volume, Mercury’s core takes up about half of the entire planet. Scientists aren’t sure why this is the case. But there is evidence that part of the core is still molten, churning and driving a global magnetic field. Besides  Earth , Mercury is the only rocky planet in the Solar System that sustains its own magnetic field like this. 

Why study Mercury?

Mercury can teach us about how planets work, how the Solar System formed and evolved, and what types of  planets are possible throughout the galaxy. 

Scientists have discovered thousands of planets that orbit close to their stars like Mercury, but none of them are as easy to study. By sending probes to Mercury, we can learn what it’s like on fast-orbiting, hot planets elsewhere. 

Solving the mystery of Mercury’s gigantic core would also help shape our understanding of the wider  history of the Solar System . For example, it’s possible that Mercury was once larger until a giant impact — or just the bright young Sun’s radiation — threw off the planet’s outer layers and left behind mostly core. But data from past missions currently hint that neither of these explanations is right. Instead, Mercury may have originally formed with its core the way it is now. Finding out how and why will open us to new ideas about the early Solar System and how it shaped planets, including Earth, over time. And to do that, we have to  send spacecraft to visit .

Mercury Facts Surface temperature : -180°C (-290°F) to 430°C (800°F) Average distance from Sun : 58 million km (36 million miles), more than twice as close to the Sun than Earth orbits Diameter : 4,880 km (3,032 miles), 1.4 times bigger than the Moon Volume : 61 billion km 3 (15 billion mi 3 ) Gravity : 3.7 m/s², 38% of Earth’s Solar day : 176 Earth days Solar year : 88 Earth days Atmosphere : Extremely thin, with pressure at the surface roughly one-quadrillionth that on Earth

Exploring Mercury

Studying Mercury is a challenge — it actually takes more energy for a spacecraft to reach Mercury than Pluto. Since Mercury is the fastest-orbiting planet in the Solar System, every mission to visit Mercury has had to fly past other planets, like Earth and Venus, to gravitationally slingshot themselves toward Mercury..

Only three spacecraft have ever made the trip. In the 1970s, NASA’s Mariner 10 made three flybys of the planet, revealing its crater-ridden surface and magnetic field. Over 30 years would pass before NASA’s  MESSENGER became the first spa

MESSENGER  gave us a more complete picture of Mercury than ever before. The spacecraft took images, mapped the planet’s surface, studied its exosphere through UV emission, and measured its composition through gamma-ray emission and X-ray emission. The results revealed that Mercury had a much larger core than expected,  an offset magnetic field, and ample evidence of water ice at the poles. 

Lastly, the  BepiColombo mission is currently on its way to Mercury and will arrive in 2025. BepiColombo is a joint Japanese-European effort made up of two probes, both launched together in 2018. Once in orbit around Mercury, they will characterize the planet’s magnetic field, exosphere, polar ice deposits, and internal structure.. 

Why is it called Mercury?

The English name for the planet Mercury comes from the Romans, who named the planet after the fleet-footed god Mercury (to the Greeks, Apollo) because it moved across the sky faster than any of the other planets. The planet Mercury is not named after the element mercury — the substance often used in thermometers — instead, the element is also named after the Roman god because it flows so quickly and easily. Hence the element’s other name, quicksilver.

Learn more Every Mercury mission, ever BepiColombo, studying how Mercury formed How big is Mercury compared to our Moon?

Action Center

Whether it's advocating, teaching, inspiring, or learning, you can do something for space, right now. Let's get to work.

For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Here are instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your web browser .

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 15 December 2021

Experimental evidence for recovery of mercury-contaminated fish populations

• Paul J. Blanchfield   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0886-5642 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• John W. M. Rudd   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4805-4337 1   nAff17 ,
• Lee E. Hrenchuk   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6194-094X 1 , 3 ,
• Marc Amyot   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0340-3249 4 ,
• Christopher L. Babiarz 5 ,
• Ken G. Beaty 1 ,
• R. A. Drew Bodaly 1 ,
• Brian A. Branfireun 6 ,
• Cynthia C. Gilmour   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1720-9498 7 ,
• Jennifer A. Graydon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5243-6891 8 ,
• Britt D. Hall 9 ,
• Reed C. Harris 10 ,
• Andrew Heyes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7855-8512 11 ,
• Holger Hintelmann   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5287-483X 12 ,
• James P. Hurley 13 ,
• Carol A. Kelly   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2473-7560 1   nAff17 ,
• David P. Krabbenhoft 14 ,
• Steve E. Lindberg 15 ,
• Robert P. Mason   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7443-4931 16 ,
• Michael J. Paterson 1 , 3 ,
• Cheryl L. Podemski   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6168-7326 1 ,
• Ken A. Sandilands 1 , 3 ,
• George R. Southworth 15 ,
• Vincent L. St Louis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5405-1522 8 ,
• Lori S. Tate 1   nAff18 &
• Michael T. Tate   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1525-1219 14  

Nature volume  601 ,  pages 74–78 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

22k Accesses

50 Citations

154 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Boreal ecology
• Ecosystem ecology
• Environmental impact
• Freshwater ecology

Anthropogenic releases of mercury (Hg) 1 , 2 , 3 are a human health issue 4 because the potent toxicant methylmercury (MeHg), formed primarily by microbial methylation of inorganic Hg in aquatic ecosystems, bioaccumulates to high concentrations in fish consumed by humans 5 , 6 . Predicting the efficacy of Hg pollution controls on fish MeHg concentrations is complex because many factors influence the production and bioaccumulation of MeHg 7 , 8 , 9 . Here we conducted a 15-year whole-ecosystem, single-factor experiment to determine the magnitude and timing of reductions in fish MeHg concentrations following reductions in Hg additions to a boreal lake and its watershed. During the seven-year addition phase, we applied enriched Hg isotopes to increase local Hg wet deposition rates fivefold. The Hg isotopes became increasingly incorporated into the food web as MeHg, predominantly from additions to the lake because most of those in the watershed remained there. Thereafter, isotopic additions were stopped, resulting in an approximately 100% reduction in Hg loading to the lake. The concentration of labelled MeHg quickly decreased by up to 91% in lower trophic level organisms, initiating rapid decreases of 38–76% of MeHg concentration in large-bodied fish populations in eight years. Although Hg loading from watersheds may not decline in step with lowering deposition rates, this experiment clearly demonstrates that any reduction in Hg loadings to lakes, whether from direct deposition or runoff, will have immediate benefits to fish consumers.

Similar content being viewed by others

The fate of nitrogen in the Zarin-Gol River receiving trout farm effluent

New insights into the food web of an Australian tropical river to inform water resource management

Dissolved organic matter thiol concentrations determine methylmercury bioavailability across the terrestrial-marine aquatic continuum

The Minamata Convention on Mercury is an international treaty that aims to protect human health and the environment from adverse effects of MeHg by controlling Hg emissions, which should then decrease deposition and loading of anthropogenic Hg to aquatic environments 10 . Yet there is little direct evidence for how quickly fish MeHg concentrations will decline following reductions in current rates of Hg loading owing, in part, to a range of ecological factors that can influence both the microbial production and the bioaccumulation of MeHg in aquatic food webs 9 , 11 . Further complicating this relationship are human activities such as commercial fishing, introduction of exotic species and enhanced nutrient additions that trigger large-scale trophic disruptions 12 , which can in turn substantially alter fish tissue MeHg concentrations 13 , 14 , 15 , because fish acquire most of their MeHg through their diet 16 . Changing climatic conditions can also influence MeHg production 8 , as well as restructure food webs, alter the dominant pathways of energy flow and cause size-dependent changes in fish growth rates that shift population size structure 14 , 17 , 18 . In addition, until now there has been no way to evaluate the relative contribution of newly deposited Hg to contemporary MeHg production. Consequently, it is exceedingly difficult to unambiguously assess the recovery of contaminated fish populations due specifically to Hg control measures 9 .

Over a 15-year period (2001–2015) we conducted a whole-ecosystem Hg loading and recovery experiment (Mercury Experiment To Assess Atmospheric Loading In Canada and the United States (METAALICUS)) in a pristine boreal watershed 19 . METAALICUS addresses the relationship between changes in inorganic Hg loadings to a lake and MeHg concentrations in fish using highly enriched inorganic Hg isotopes (termed ‘spikes’) that enabled us to specifically follow a change in loading against a background of previously deposited Hg and present-day, relatively constant, Hg inputs from direct deposition to the lake surface and from the watershed. In our experiment, these are defined as ‘ambient Hg’. By adding a different spike Hg to the lake ( 202 Hg), wetland ( 198 Hg) and upland ( 200 Hg) compartments of the Lake 658 watershed (52 ha in total) during a 6- to 7-year addition phase (Fig. 1a ) we could follow the uptake of MeHg in fish derived solely from newly deposited Hg 19 . We then ceased all experimental additions to determine the magnitude and timing of reductions in fish MeHg concentrations to reductions in Hg loading to the lake, which we tested by tracking the decline in spike MeHg in fish, their prey and other compartments of the lake ecosystem over an eight-year recovery phase. The diverse fish community of the METAALICUS lake enabled assessment of contaminant bioaccumulation and recovery across different trophic guilds and different exposure pathways (that is, sediment versus water) for three species important to freshwater fisheries across the boreal ecoregion 20 (planktivore: yellow perch ( Perca flavescens ); benthivore: lake whitefish ( Coregonus clupeaformis ); and piscivore: northern pike ( Esox lucius )).

a , Location (inset) of the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), Canada, where Hg enriched with different isotopes was applied to the wetland, upland and lake surface of Lake 658 to simulate enhanced wet deposition of Hg (dark blue shaded area). b , Inorganic Hg added to the lake was methylated and measured as MeHg concentration in water (in ng l −1 ; n  = 516), sediments (in ng g −1 dry weight; n  = 1,627) and invertebrates (in ng g −1 wet weight; n  = 211), and as total Hg in fishes (in ng g −1 wet weight; n  = 1,052). Mean annual concentrations for the open-water season are shown for all lake components except for fish populations, which were collected each autumn. Concentration data for large-bodied fish are derived from body-length standardization (pike, 475 mm; whitefish, 535 mm). c , Hg loading to the lake increased MeHg concentrations (per cent increase = [lake spike MeHg]/[ambient MeHg] × 100) during the addition phase (2001–2007), then decreased during the recovery phase (2008–2015), when experimental Hg additions to the ecosystem ceased (light blue shaded area in a ). Dotted lines indicate missing data.

Source data .

The METAALICUS watershed is in an undisturbed remote region of Canada, such that our experimental addition rate increased wet Hg deposition approximately fivefold (from approximately 3.6 to 19 µg m −2  yr −1 ), to levels similar to more polluted regions of the world 21 . Most of the Hg added to the wetland and upland areas of the watershed either remained bound to vegetation and soils or evaded back to the atmosphere 22 , 23 . The wetland spike was below the detection level in all fish species. The Hg applied to the upland catchment accounted for only a small fraction (less than 1%) of all Hg in runoff to the lake 19 and consequently contributed little (less than 2%) to the changes in MeHg concentrations of fish populations throughout the study (Extended Data Fig. 1 ). Hence, after six years of increased additions to the watershed (Fig. 1a ), the observed increases in fish MeHg were due almost entirely to Hg added directly to the lake surface. This did not appear to be caused by preferential methylation of lake spike Hg. The evidence for this is that the seasonal production of lake spike MeHg, all of which had to be formed within the lake because it was added as inorganic Hg, varied synchronously with ambient MeHg in the lake and in biota 19 . This finding also indicates that in this headwater lake ambient MeHg is mainly derived from in-lake methylation of inorganic ambient Hg, most of which came from the upland catchment.

Delivery of lake spike Hg to the sediments and anoxic bottom waters, which are the dominant sites of methylation in the study lake 19 , 24 , resulted in formation of spike MeHg in these compartments, from where spike MeHg also migrated to surface waters. Lake spike MeHg rapidly accumulated in all lake biota (Fig. 1b ), with concentrations in fish muscle increasing with continued loading for all species (Extended Data Table 1 ; linear regression, P < 0.05), apart from young-of-year (YOY) yellow perch, which showed high inter-annual variability in spike MeHg concentrations after an initial increase (Fig. 1b ). By contrast, ambient MeHg concentrations in all fish species did not show any consistent trends during the addition phase (Fig. 2a–c ), nor did they in a nearby reference lake (Extended Data Table 1 ; P > 0.05). Steady ambient MeHg concentrations in fish through time are indicative of relatively stable watershed inputs of Hg, which is the main source of ambient inorganic Hg for methylation in both the experimental and reference lakes 19 , 25 .

a – c , Annual fish muscle MeHg concentrations (total MeHg = lake spike MeHg + ambient MeHg; grey circles) increased above background concentrations (ambient MeHg; white circles) during the addition phase (dark blue shaded area) from uptake of isotope enriched Hg added to Lake 658 (lake spike; black circles) for planktivorous (age 1+ yellow perch; n  = 140) ( a ), piscivorous (northern pike; n  = 442) ( b ) and benthivorous (lake whitefish; n  = 189) ( c ) populations, then declined during the recovery phase (light blue shaded area). d – f , Biomagnification factors (BMF = [MeHg predator ]/[MeHg prey ]) of lake spike MeHg and ambient MeHg from dominant prey items for each of these fish species were as follows: zooplankton ( n  = 127) to yellow perch ( d ); forage fish ( n  = 421) to northern pike ( e ); and Chaoborus ( n  = 62) to lake whitefish ( f ). Fish data are means from autumn sampling (sample sizes in Extended Data Tables 2 , 3 ). Concentration data for pike and whitefish are derived from body-length standardization; dotted lines indicate missing data.

A critical question for the addition period was how much higher were MeHg concentrations than they would have been in the absence of the experimentally increased loading of Hg. The addition of lake spike Hg was roughly equivalent to all ambient Hg inputs (runoff plus direct deposition) to the lake, resulting in a doubling, or about 100% increase, in Hg loading to the lake 19 . In response to seven years of experimental additions to the lake, per cent increases in lake spike MeHg concentrations were highest in water (60%) and least in the upper 2 cm of sediments (30%) where large stores of ambient Hg existed (Fig. 1c ). The response of food web organisms was intermediate to that of water and sediments, such that spike Hg additions to the lake raised MeHg concentrations by 45–57% in invertebrates and forage fishes and by more than 40% for large-bodied fish species (Fig. 1c ).

Temporal patterns of biomagnification for spike MeHg relative to ambient MeHg inform how quickly the different fish species came into equilibrium with their respective prey. For small-bodied yellow perch (1 year of age) feeding on zooplankton, it took three years before the biomagnification of lake spike resembled that of ambient MeHg (Fig. 2d ), and a further two years for both the apex predator, northern pike, feeding on forage fishes (Fig. 2e ), and lake whitefish feeding on Chaoborus (Fig. 2f ). Relative to planktivorous yellow perch, final addition phase concentrations of spike MeHg were slightly higher for benthivorous lake whitefish (1.2×) and further increased for piscivorous northern pike (3.9×), similar to ambient MeHg (whitefish (1.5×) and pike (3.9×); relative to perch; Fig. 2a–c ) and consistent with expectations of contaminant biomagnification among trophic guilds 5 , 20 . These findings imply that the key in-lake processes leading to the formation and trophic transfer of MeHg to the different fish populations became comparable for spike Hg and ambient Hg during the addition phase.

To then directly test the hypothesis that MeHg concentrations in fishes would decline following reductions in Hg loading to the lake, we ceased all experimental additions of enriched Hg isotopes (Fig. 1a ). This resulted in a 100% reduction in loading of lake spike. Average concentrations of lake spike MeHg in fish populations rapidly declined (within less than ten years) in concert with the decline in the availability of spike MeHg through dietary and waterborne pathways (Fig. 1b ). Within the first 3 years, the relative amount of lake spike MeHg declined by 81% in water, 35% in sediments, 66% in zooplankton and 67% in Chaoborus (Fig. 1c ), leading to marked reductions (85–91%) in the concentration of spike MeHg in forage fish species by the end of the recovery phase (Fig. 1b ). Eight years after addition, lake spike Hg contributed just a small fraction (approximately 6%) to MeHg concentrations in forage fishes and invertebrate prey (Fig. 1c ). The more rapid decline in per cent spike MeHg in water compared with sediments, even in this relatively long water residence time lake (about 6 years), emphasizes that the magnitude and timing of responses by fish to Hg loading reductions could be influenced by their relative reliance upon pelagic versus benthic dietary pathways 26 .

The notably fast response of the lower food web to the cessation of lake spike Hg loadings initiated rapid recovery of large-bodied fish species. Within 8 years, lake spike MeHg concentrations declined by 76% in the northern pike population and by 38% in the lake whitefish population (Fig. 1b ). During the recovery phase, spike MeHg concentrations for these large-bodied species initially increased for both populations before showing steady declines (Fig. 2b, c ). The rate of decline in spike MeHg for northern pike, however, was roughly twice that of lake whitefish (Fig. 1c ).

Differences in the lifespan of the fish populations had a key role in the rates of recovery following the reduction of Hg loadings to the lake. Lake whitefish were much older (median age = 17 years versus 3 years for pike) and larger (Extended Data Tables 2 , 3 ) than northern pike, and more individuals in that population would have lived through some or all of the addition and recovery phases of the experiment. Lake whitefish had the coldest thermal preferences and greatest association with benthic habitats of any fish population, which probably also contributed to their delayed recovery.

Boreal fishes are known to eliminate MeHg very slowly once accumulated 27 . To further explain the recovery of the apex predator population, we tracked changes in the body burdens of spike MeHg in individual northern pike over time while also monitoring the population as a whole. As expected, individual responses were variable, but lake spike MeHg burdens in northern pike mostly increased during the early recovery phase with overall little to no loss of the spike MeHg 6–8 years after cessation of spike additions (Fig. 3 ). These findings parallel those observed for lake spike MeHg in individual northern pike moved from the study lake to a nearby reference lake 28 and underscore how the prolonged retention of MeHg in fish muscle tissue can delay recovery of some fisheries 7 , 29 . Thus, it was the annual recruitment of new fish with low MeHg concentrations into the population, along with the loss of older fish (as evidenced by a stable population size structure; Extended Data Fig. 2 ), that enabled the swift recovery of the population from Hg contamination as a whole. Consequently, average burdens of spike MeHg in the northern pike population were reduced by 50% in less than five years, in spite of the efficient retention of spike MeHg by some older fish (Fig. 3 , Extended Data Fig. 2 ).

Comparison of changes in body burdens of lake spike MeHg during the recovery phase for the northern pike population (annual mean, black circles) to that of individual northern pike (grey lines and triangles). Individual northern pike were sampled at the end of the addition phase (in 2007; n  = 16) and subsequently recaptured during the recovery phase (each line represents an individual fish). Population data are based on all fish captured each autumn ( n  = 280). All northern pike were sampled using a non-lethal biopsy (represented in images) in the autumn of each year and returned to the lake. Fish body burdens of lake spike MeHg (body burden = lake spike MeHg (ng g −1 ) × fish mass (g)) were normalized to concentrations in the autumn of 2007 ( t 0 ; the final time isotope-enriched Hg was added to Lake 658 and the beginning of the recovery period). Exponential decay regression starting in the second year of recovery estimated a 50% reduction in lake spike MeHg burden in the population in 4.2 years (data are mean (black circle) ± 95% confidence interval (shaded band); line fit: y  = 1.7439 × e −0.2928 x , R 2  = 0.95, F 1,6  = 95.5, P  = 0.0002).

Differentiating the relative importance of present day inputs versus previously deposited Hg to overall fish MeHg concentrations is a key uncertainty when predicting the efficacy of Hg pollution reduction 29 , 30 . Here we demonstrate that within a few years of abatement, the experimental Hg added previously to the lake was no longer an important source of MeHg to the lower food web or to forage fishes (Fig. 1c ). Long-lived fish species of subsistence, commercial and recreational importance lagged behind their prey, but the contribution of recently deposited Hg to fish MeHg steadily diminished for these populations as well. There was a similar, rapid response for the upland spike when loading ceased, even though only a small amount appeared in the fish during the experiment (Extended Data Fig. 1 ). The small contribution of the terrestrial spike to fish MeHg supports our former conclusion 19 that lakes with large watersheds will respond more slowly to changes in atmospheric deposition.

The most important outcome of this whole-ecosystem experiment is the demonstration that a decrease in a single factor (Hg loading to the lake) has a clear and timely effect on average MeHg concentrations in fish populations, even for long-lived species that eliminate MeHg slowly. The spike MeHg data show that fish populations will respond quickly to any change in loading rates—whether from direct deposition to the lake (Fig. 1 ) or runoff (Extended Data Fig. 1 ). Decreases in loading to the lake from these two sources will follow different time courses in response to lower atmospheric deposition 19 . However, as these two loads decrease, the fish populations in the receiving lake will soon afterwards have lower MeHg than they would have if nothing were done, thereby reducing human exposure.

Mercury additions to the study catchment

METAALICUS was conducted on the Lake 658 catchment at the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA; now IISD-ELA), a remote area in the Precambrian Shield of northwestern Ontario, Canada (49° 43′ 95″ N, 93° 44′ 20″ W) set aside for whole-ecosystem research 31 . The Lake 658 catchment includes upland (41.2 ha), wetland (1.7 ha) and lake surface (8.4 ha) areas. Lake 658 is a double basin (13 m depth), circumneutral, headwater lake, with a fish community consisting of forage (yellow perch ( P. flavescens ) and blacknose shiner ( Notropis heterolepis )), benthivorous (lake whitefish ( C. clupeaformis ) and white sucker ( Catostomus commersonii )), and piscivorous (northern pike ( E. lucius )) fishes. The lake is closed to fishing.

Hg addition methods used in METAALICUS have been described in detail elsewhere 19 , 32 , 33 . In brief, three Hg spikes, each enriched with a different stable Hg isotope, were applied separately to the lake surface, upland and wetland areas. Upland and wetland spikes were applied once per year (when possible; Fig. 1a ) by fixed-wing aircraft (Cessna 188 AGtruck). Mercury spikes (as HgNO 3 ) were diluted in acidified water (pH 4) in a 500 l fiberglass tank and sprayed with a stainless-steel boom on upland (approximately 79.9% 200 Hg) and wetland (approximately 90.1% 198 Hg) areas. Spraying was completed during or immediately before a rain event, with wind speeds less than 15 km h −1 to minimize drift of spike Hg outside of target areas. Aerial spraying of upland and wetland areas left a 20-m buffer to the shoreline, which was sprayed by hand with a gas-powered pump and fire hose to within about 5 m of the lake 32 . Average net application rates of isotopically labelled Hg to the upland and wetland areas were 18.5 μg m −2 yr −1 and 17.8 μg m −2 yr −1 , respectively.

The average net application rate for lake spike Hg was 22.0 μg m −2 yr −1 . For each lake addition, inorganic Hg enriched with approximately 89.7% 202 Hg was added as HgNO 3 from four 20-l carboys filled with acidified lake water (pH 4). Nine lake additions were conducted bi-weekly at dusk over an 18-week (wk) period during the open-water season of each year (2001–2007) by injecting at 70-cm depth into the propeller wash of trolling electric motors of two boats crisscrossing each basin of the lake 32 , 33 . It was previously demonstrated with 14 C additions to an ELA lake that this approach evenly distributed spike added in the evening by the next morning 34 .

We did not attempt to simulate Hg in rainfall for isotopic lake additions because it is impossible to simulate natural rainfall concentrations (about 10 ng l −1 ) in the 20-l carboys used for additions. Instead, our starting point for the experiment was to ensure that the spike was behaving as closely as possible to ambient surface water Hg very soon after it entered the lake. Several factors support this assertion. By the next morning each spike addition had increased epilimnetic Hg concentrations by only 1 ng l −1 202 Hg. Average ambient concentrations were 2 ng l −1 . Thus, while the Hg concentrations in the carboys were high (2.6 mg l −1 ), the receiving waters were soon at trace levels. Furthermore, we investigated if the additions altered the degree of bioavailability or photoreactivity of Hg( ii ) in the receiving surface water. We examined the bioavailability of spike Hg( ii ) as compared to ambient Hg in the lake itself using a genetically engineered bioreporter bacterium 35 . On seven occasions, epilimnetic samples were collected on the day before and within 12 h of spike additions. The spike was added to the lake as Hg(NO 3 ) 2 , which is bioavailable to the bioreporter bacterium (detection limit = 0.1 ng Hg( ii ) l −1 ), but we never saw bioavailable ambient or spike Hg( ii ) in the lake, presumably because it was quickly bound to dissolved organic carbon (DOC). This indicates that, in terms of bioavailability, the spike Hg was behaving like ambient Hg soon after additions. Photoreactivity in the surface water was examined on seven occasions, by measuring the % of total Hg( ii ) that was dissolved gaseous Hg for spike and ambient Hg, either 24 h or 48 h after the lake was spiked 36 . There was no significant difference (paired t -test, P > 0.05), demonstrating that by then the lake spike was behaving in the same way as ambient Hg during gaseous Hg production.

Lake, food web and fish sampling

Water samples were collected from May to October every four weeks at the deepest point of Lake 658. Water was pumped from six depths through acid-cleaned Teflon tubing into acid-cleaned Teflon or glass bottles. Water samples were filtered in-line using pre-ashed quartz fibre filters (Whatman GFQ, 0.7 µm). Subsequently, Hg species were measured in the filtered water samples (dissolved Hg and MeHg) and in particles collected on the quartz fibre filter (particulate Hg and MeHg).

From 2001 to 2012, Lake 658 sediments were sampled at 4 fixed sites up to 5 times per year. Sampling frequency was highest in 2001, with monthly sampling from May to September, and declined over the course of the study. Fixed sites were located at depths of 0.5, 2, 3 and 7 m. A sediment survey of up to 12 additional sites was also conducted once or twice each year. Survey sites were selected to represent the full range of water depths in both basins. Cores were collected by hand by divers, or by subsampling sediments collected using a small box corer. Cores were capped and returned to the field station for processing within a few hours. For each site, three separate cores were sectioned and composited in zipper lock bags for a 0- to 2-cm depth sampling horizon, and then frozen at −20 °C.

Bulk zooplankton and Chaoborus samples were collected from Lake 658 for MeHg analysis. Zooplankton were collected during the day from May to October (bi-weekly: 2001–2007; monthly: 2008–2015). A plankton net (150 μm, 0.5 m diameter) was towed vertically through the water column from 1 m above the lake bottom at the deepest point to the surface of the lake. Samples were frozen in plastic Whirl-Pak bags after removal of any Chaoborus using acid-washed tweezers. Dominant zooplankton taxa in Lake 658 included calanoid copepods ( Diaptomus oregonensis ) and Cladocera ( Holopedium glacialis , Daphnia pulicaria  and Daphnia mendotae ). Chaoborus samples were collected monthly in the same manner at least 1 h after sunset. After collection, Chaoborus were picked from the sample using forceps and frozen in Whirl-Pak bags. Chaoborus were not separated by species for MeHg analyses, but both C. flavicans and C. punctipennis occur in the lake. Profundal chironomids were sampled at the deepest part of the lake using a standard Ekman grab sampler. Grab material was washed using water from a nearby lake and individual chironomids were picked by hand.

All work with vertebrate animals was approved by Animal Care Committees (ACC) through the Canadian Council on Animal Care (Freshwater Institute ACC for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2001–2013; University of Manitoba ACC for IISD-ELA, 2014–2015). Licenses to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes were granted annually by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Prior to any Hg additions, a small-mesh fence was installed at the outlet of Lake 658 to the downstream lake to prevent movement of fish between lakes. Sampling for determination of MeHg concentrations (measured as total mercury (THg), see below) occurred each autumn (August–October; that is, the end of the growing season in north temperate lakes) for all fish species in Lake 658, and for northern pike and yellow perch in nearby reference Lake 240 (Extended Data Tables 2 , 3 ). Fish collections occurred randomly throughout the lakes. Forage fish (YOY and 1+ yellow perch, and blacknose shiner) were captured using small mesh gillnets (6–10 mm) set for <20 min, seine nets, and hoop nets. A small number of fish (up to n  = 20) of each species and age class (determined by visual inspection) were euthanized immediately following capture in an overdose bath of 0.25 g l −1 tricaine methanesulfonate (TMS; Syndel Laboratories). After transport to the field station, fish were measured for fork length (FL; in mm) and mass (to 0.1 g), then immediately frozen (at −20 °C) in individual WhirlPak bags. A year class failure of yellow perch resulted in a single YOY collected in 2008 (data not presented) and no age 1+ fish in 2009 (Extended Data Table 3 ).

Large-bodied fish were captured by angling and multi-mesh gill nets (2.5–11.4 cm mesh) set for 20–30 min. Upon capture, each fish was anaesthetized with 0.06 g l −1 TMS, measured for FL (mm), weighed (to 1 g), tagged (Passive Integrated Transponder; Biomark), and a small biopsy of dorsal muscle (0.091 ± 0.002 g wet weight (mean ± s.e.m)) was collected using a dermal punch 37 . Only fish large enough for the biopsy procedure were sampled, such that our analyses include very few juveniles (pike: 317–850 mm FL; whitefish: 344–874 mm FL). Muscle samples were inserted into 0.6-ml polypropylene vials (Rose Scientific), immediately put on ice, and frozen within 4 h (−20 °C). This non-lethal method permitted repeated sampling of individual fish over time 28 , 37 . The first ray of either the pectoral or pelvic fin was collected for aging purposes upon first capture. Fish recovered from anaesthesia in a tub of fresh lake water (~15 min) before being released back into the lakes. From 2001–2015, we collected 690 biopsy muscle samples from 390 fish (238 northern pike, 114 lake whitefish and 38 white sucker) in Lake 658; 149 fish (90 northern pike, 38 lake whitefish and 21 white sucker) were biopsied more than once (2 to 6 per individual). Because of consistently low annual catches of white sucker (<10 individuals) across sampling years, we have excluded them from our analyses, but note here that their patterns of lake spike MeHg accumulation and recovery were similar to those of lake whitefish. We were unable to sex most fish because they were either immature or captured outside of their spawning season.

Sample processing and analytical methods

Detailed methods on sample preparation and MeHg or THg analysis, as well as interlaboratory calibrations, have been reported elsewhere for the METAALICUS project 19 , 38 , 39 . In brief, MeHg was distilled from water samples and from sediment using atmospheric pressure water vapour distillation and measured after aqueous phase ethylation using sodium tetraethylborate (NaBEt 4 ). Volatile Hg species were purged and trapped onto Tenax and MeHg was measured after thermodesorption and GC separation using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) detection (Micromass Platform or Perkin-Elmer Elan DRC II, respectively) 39 and quantification by species specific isotope dilution mass spectrometry. The MeHg isotope dilution standards were synthesized and calibrated in-house. Isotope-dilution spikes were added prior to distillation, and MeHg external standards were routinely calibrated against degradation by measuring the standard against inorganic Hg before and after BrCl digestion. The QC strategy include the regular analysis of blanks, laboratory duplicates and certified reference materials (CRMs) IAEA 405 (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria) and NIST 1566b (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland) for MeHg. No CRMs are commercially available for MeHg in water.

All biota samples were handled using clean techniques with Teflon or stainless steel tools cleaned with 95% ethanol 19 , 38 . Zooplankton and Chaoborus were freeze dried, ground with an acid-washed mortar and pestle, subsampled, and weighed to the nearest 0.00001 g. For determination of MeHg concentrations (ambient, lake spike, upland spike and wetland spike) in invertebrate samples, MeHg was solubilized by treatment with a solution of KOH in ethanol (20 % w/v), ethylated by additions of NaBEt 4 , and the resulting volatile Hg species were purged and trapped on carbotrap 39 . Samples were thermally desorbed and separated by gas chromatography before quantification by ICP-MS as above 39 . Samples of CRMs (TORT2 (2001–2013), IAEA452 (2014–2015); National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario) were subjected to the same procedures; measured MeHg concentrations in the reference materials were not statistically different from certified values ( P > 0.05).

Prey fish were kept frozen to maintain consistent wet weights. Approximately 0.2 g of skinless dorsal muscle was removed from each fish, weighed (0.0001 g), and placed in an acid-washed glass vial with a Teflon-lined cap (National Scientific Company). Muscle biopsy samples were weighed to the nearest 0.00001 g (Sartorius BP211D, Data Weighing Systems) before and after freeze-drying (Lyph-lock 12-l freeze dry system Model 77545, Labconco) to obtain wet and dry sample masses, and dry weight proportion 28 . Fish samples were analysed for THg, which is the sum of organic and inorganic Hg. Because we had previously determined that >90% of the Hg in muscle tissue from yellow perch in Lake 658 is MeHg 40 , 41 , here we report fish mercury data as MeHg.

THg concentrations (ambient, lake spike, upland spike and wetland spike) in fish muscle samples were quantified by ICP-MS 39 . Samples were digested with HNO 3 /H 2 SO 4 (7:3 v/v) and heated at 80 °C until brown NOx gases no longer formed. The THg in sample digests was reduced by SnCl 2 to Hg 0 which was then quantified by ICP-MS (Thermo-Finnigan Element2) using a continuous flow cold vapour generation technique 41 . To correct for procedural recoveries, all samples were spiked with 201 HgCl 2 prior to sample analysis. Samples of CRMs (DORM2 (2001–2011), DORM3 (2012–2013), DORM4 (2014–2015); National Research Council of Canada) were submitted to the same procedures; measured THg concentrations in the reference materials were not statistically different from certified values ( P > 0.05). Detection limit for each of the spikes was 0.5% of ambient Hg.

Calculations and statistical methods

Analyses were completed with Statistica (6.1, Statsoft) and Sigmaplot (11.0, Systat Software). We present wet weight (w.w.) MeHg concentrations for all samples, except sediments which are dry weight (d.w.) concentrations. For zooplankton, Chaoborus , and profundal chironomids, d.w. MeHg concentrations were multiplied by a standard proportion (0.15) to yield w.w. concentrations for each sample 42 . The resulting w.w. concentrations were averaged over each open water season to determine annual means. For fish muscle biopsies, d.w. MeHg concentrations were multiplied by individual d.w. proportions to yield w.w. MeHg concentrations for each sample. To avoid any size-related biases, we calculated standardized annual MeHg concentrations (ambient and lake spike) for northern pike and lake whitefish by determining best-fit relationships between FL and MeHg concentrations for each year (quadratic polynomial, except for a linear fit for lake whitefish in 2004), and using the resulting regression equations to estimate MeHg concentrations at a standard FL 43 (the mean FL of all fish sampled for each species: northern pike, 475 mm; lake whitefish, 530 mm). Square root transformation of raw northern pike data was required to satisfy assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity prior to standardization. The resulting data represent standardized concentrations of lake spike and ambient MeHg for each species each year.

We used the ratio of lake spike and ambient Hg in each sample as a measure of the amount by which Hg concentrations were changed with the addition of isotopically enriched Hg:

where [lake spike Hg] i is the concentration of lake spike MeHg in sample i , and [ambient Hg] i is the concentration of ambient MeHg in sample i . For northern pike and lake whitefish, we calculated the mean annual relative increase from all individuals (not the size-standardized concentration data).

Biomagnification factors (BMF) were calculated to describe differences in Hg concentrations between predator and prey 5 :

where [MeHg] predator is the mean (forage fish) or standardized (large-bodied fish) concentration of MeHg in the predator (ng g −1 w.w.) and [MeHg] prey is the mean concentration of MeHg in the prey (ng g −1 w.w.). MeHg concentration of prey items were averaged from samples collected throughout the open-water season immediately prior to autumn sampling of fish species to represent an integrated exposure for calculation of BMF. We used a dominant prey item to represent the diet of each fish species. For age 1+ yellow perch, northern pike, and lake whitefish, dominant prey items were zooplankton, forage fishes (YOY and 1+ yellow perch, and blacknose shiner) and Chaoborus , respectively.

To assess loss of lake spike MeHg by northern pike during the recovery period (2008–2015), we calculated 28 whole body burdens (in μg) of lake spike MeHg for the standardized population and for individuals that had been sampled in autumn 2007 ( t 0 is the final time spike Hg was added to the lake) and again in at least one subsequent year during annual autumn sampling ( n  = 16 fish, of which 1–9 individuals were recaptured annually from 2008–2015). This calculation of MeHg burden is a relative measure of whole fish Hg content because MeHg is higher in muscle tissue than in other tissue types 28 , 40 . For the standardized population data, we used best-fit relationships between FL (in mm) and body weight (in g; quadratic polynomial) to determine body weight at the standard FL. We multiplied this body weight by standard ambient and spike MeHg concentrations (in ng g −1 w.w.) in muscle tissue for each year to determine body burdens over time (in ng). For individual fish, we multiplied spike MeHg concentration (in ng g −1 w.w.) by body weight (in g) to yield individual body burdens (in ng). To account for differences among individuals and between individuals and the population, we normalized the data to examine the mean proportion of original ( t 0 ) lake spike MeHg burden present in northern pike each year of the recovery period (2008–2015).

We used a best fit regression (exponential decay, beginning in the second year of recovery) to estimate the half-life (50% of original burden) of lake spike MeHg for the population.

Northern pike and lake whitefish ages were determined by cleithra and otoliths, respectively, if mortality had occurred, but most ages were quantified using fin rays collected from live fish 44 (K. H. Mills, DFO or North/South Consultants). Northern pike of the sizes selected for biopsy sampling had a median age of 3 years (range: 2–12 years; n  = 305); the median age of lake whitefish was 17 years (range: 3–38 years; n  = 86).

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this paper.

Data availability

Datasets generated in this study are available at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.nzs7h44sf .  Source data are provided with this paper.

Streets, D. G. et al. Five hundred years of anthropogenic mercury: spatial and temporal release profiles. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 , 084044 (2019).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Fitzgerald, W. F., Engstrom, D. R., Mason, R. P. & Nater, E. A. The case for atmospheric mercury contamination in remote areas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32 , 1–7 (1998).

Article   CAS   ADS   Google Scholar  

Driscoll, C. T., Mason, R. P., Chan, H. M., Jacob, D. J. & Pirrone, N. Mercury as a global pollutant: sources, pathways, and effect. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 , 4967–4983 (2013).

Mergler, D. et al. Methylmercury exposure and health effects in humans: a worldwide concern. Ambio 36 , 3–11 (2007).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lavoie, R. A., Jardine, T. D., Chumchal, M. M., Kidd, K. A. & Campbell, L. M. Biomagnification of mercury in aquatic food webs: a worldwide meta-analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 , 13385–13394 (2013).

Sunderland, E. M., Li, M. & Bullard, K. Decadal changes in the edible supply of seafood and methylmercury exposures in the United States. Environ. Health Perspect. 126 , 017006 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Munthe, J. et al. Recovery of mercury-contaminated fisheries. Ambio 36 , 33–44 (2007).

Krabbenhoft, D. P. & Sunderland, E. M. Global change and mercury. Science 341 , 1457–1458 (2013).

Eagles-Smith, C. A. et al. Modulators of mercury risk to wildlife and humans in the context of rapid global change. Ambio 47 , 170–197 (2018).

Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, Emissions, Releases and Environmental Transport, http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/Informationmaterials/ReportsandPublications/tabid/3593/Default.aspx (UNEP Chemicals Branch, 2013).

Clayden, M. G. et al. Mercury biomagnification through food webs is affected by physical and chemical characteristics of lakes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 , 12047–12053 (2013).

Vander Zanden, M. J., Casselman, J. M. & Rasmussen, J. B. Stable isotope evidence for the food web consequences of species invasions in lakes. Nature 401 , 464–467 (1999).

Kelly, E. N., Schindler, D. W., St. Louis, V. L., Donald, D. B. & Vladicka, K. E. Forest fire increases mercury accumulation by fishes via food web restructuring and increased mercury inputs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103 , 19380–19385 (2006).

Schartup, A. T. et al. Climate change and overfishing increase neurotoxicant in marine predators. Nature 572 , 648–650 (2019).

Lepak, R. F. et al. Mercury source changes and food web shifts alter contamination signatures of predatory fish from Lake Michigan. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 23600–23608 (2019).

Hall, B. D., Bodaly, R. A., Fudge, R. J. P., Rudd, J. W. M. & Rosenberg, D. M. Food as the dominant pathway of methylmercury uptake by fish. Water Air Soil Pollut. 100 , 13–24 (1997).

Guzzo, M. M., Blanchfield, P. J. & Rennie, M. D. Behavioral responses to annual temperature variation alter the dominant energy pathway, growth, and condition of a cold-water predator. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA , 114 , 9912–9917 (2017).

Gårdmark, A. & Huss, M. Individual variation and interactions explain food web responses to global warming. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375 , 20190449 (2020).

Harris, R. C. et al. Whole-ecosystem study shows rapid fish-mercury response to changes in mercury deposition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104 , 16586–16591 (2007).

Depew, D. C. et al. An overview of mercury concentrations in freshwater fish species: a national fish mercury dataset for Canada. Can . J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 70 , 436–451 (2013).

St. Louis, V. L. et al. Atmospheric concentrations and wet/dry loadings of mercury at the remote Experimental Lakes Area, Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 , 8017–8026 (2019).

Graydon, J. A. et al. The role of terrestrial vegetation in atmospheric Hg deposition: Pools and fluxes of spike and ambient Hg from the METAALICUS experiment. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 26 , GB1022 (2012).

Oswald, C. J., Heyes, A. & Branfireun, B. A. Fate and transport of ambient mercury and applied mercury isotope in terrestrial upland soils: insights from the METAALICUS watershed. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 , 1023–1031 (2014).

Eckley, C. S. & Hintelmann, H. Determination of mercury methylation potentials in the water column of lakes across Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 368 , 111–125 (2006).

Sellers, P., Kelly, C. A. & Rudd, J. W. M. Fluxes of methylmercury to the water column of a drainage lake: The relative importance of internal and external sources. Limnol. Oceanogr. 46 , 623–631 (2001).

Vander Zanden, M. J. & Vadeboncoeur, Y. Fishes as integrators of benthic and pelagic food webs in lakes. Ecology 83 , 2152–2161 (2002).

Madenjian, C. P., Chipps, S. R. & Blanchfield, P. J. Time to refine mercury mass balance models for fish. FACETS 6 , 272–286 (2021).

Van Walleghem, J. L. A., Blanchfield, P. J., Hrenchuk, L. E. & Hintelmann, H. Mercury elimination by a top predator, Esox lucius . Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 , 4147–4154 (2013).

Knightes, C. D., Sunderland, E. M., Barber, M. C., Johnston, J. M. & Ambrose, R. B. Application of ecosystem‐scale fate and bioaccumulation models to predict fish mercury response times to changes in atmospheric deposition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28 , 881–893 (2009).

Chen, C. Y. et al. A critical time for mercury science to inform global policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 , 9556–9561 (2018).

Blanchfield, P. J., Paterson, M. J., Shearer, J. A. & Schindler, D. W. Johnson and Vallentyne’s legacy: 40 years of aquatic research at the Experimental Lakes Area. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66 , 1831–1836 (2009).

Sandilands, K. A. et al. Application of Enriched Stable Mercury Isotopes to the Lake 658 Watershed for the METAALICUS Project, at the Experimental Lakes Area, Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci . vol. 2597 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2005).

Sandilands, K. A. et al. Application of Enriched Stable Mercury Isotopes to the Lake 658 Watershed for the METAALICUS Project, at the Experimental Lakes Area, Northwestern Ontario, Canada, 2001−2007. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci . vol. 2813 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2008).

Bower, P. M. et al. Simultaneous measurement of primary production by whole-lake and bottle radiocarbon additions. Limnol. Oceanogr. 32 , 299–312 (1987).

Golding, G. R. et al. Evidence for facilitated uptake of Hg( ii ) by Vibrio anguillarum and Escherichia coli under anaerobic and aerobic conditions. Limnol. Oceanogr. 47 , 967–975 (2002).

Southworth, G. et al. Evasion of added isotopic mercury from a northern temperate lake. Environ. Technol. Chem. 26 , 53–60 (2007).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Baker, R. F., Blanchfield, P. J., Paterson, M. J., Flett, R. J. & Wesson, L. Evaluation of non-destructive biopsy methods for the analysis of mercury in fish tissue. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 133 , 568–576 (2004).

Paterson, M. J. et al. Bioaccumulation of newly-deposited mercury by fish and invertebrates: an enclosure study using stable mercury isotopes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63 , 2213–2224 (2006).

Hintelmann, H. & Ogrinc, N. in Biogeochemistry of Environmentally Important Trace Elements (eds Cai, Y. & Braids, O. C.) 321–338 (ACS, 2003).

Van Walleghem, J. L. A., Blanchfield, P. J. & Hintelmann, H. Elimination of mercury by yellow perch in the wild. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 , 5895–5901 (2007).

Hrenchuk, L. E., Blanchfield, P. J., Paterson, M. J. & Hintelmann, H. H. Dietary and waterborne mercury accumulation by yellow perch: a field experiment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 , 509–516 (2012).

Howmiller, R. P. Effects of preservatives on weight of some common macrobenthic invertebrates. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 101 , 743–746 (1972).

Tremblay, G., Legendre, P., Doyon, J.-F., Verdon, R. & Schetagne, R. The use of polynomial regression analysis with indicator variables for interpretation of mercury in fish data. Biogeochemistry 40 , 189–201 (1998).

Mills, K. H. & Beamish, R. J. Comparison of fin-ray and scale age determinations for lake whitefish ( Coregonus clupeaformis ) and their implications for estimates of growth and annual survival. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37 , 534–544 (1980).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Robinson for aircraft support, M. Stainton and R. Hesslein for the preparation of mercury isotopes, M. Lyng, J. T. Bell, R. Burrell, B. Dimock, M. Dobrin, K. Fetterly, C. Miller, M. Rearick, J. Reid, G. Riedel, J. Shead, J. Zhou and staff and students at the Experimental Lakes Area for assistance with field collections and analysis of samples. K. Kidd, D. Orihel and J. Smol provided reviews of this manuscript. We thank the following agencies for their financial support for this study: Electric Power Research Institute, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, National Science Foundation Grant DEB 0451345 (C.C.G.) and DEB 0351050 (A.H. and C.C.G.), Southern Company, University of Alberta, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Wisconsin Focus on Energy Program Project Grant no. 4900-02-03 (J.P.H.). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

John W. M. Rudd & Carol A. Kelly

Present address: R&K Research, Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada

Lori S. Tate

Present address: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, USA

Authors and Affiliations

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Freshwater Institute, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Paul J. Blanchfield, John W. M. Rudd, Lee E. Hrenchuk, Ken G. Beaty, R. A. Drew Bodaly, Carol A. Kelly, Michael J. Paterson, Cheryl L. Podemski, Ken A. Sandilands & Lori S. Tate

Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Paul J. Blanchfield

IISD Experimental Lakes Area, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Paul J. Blanchfield, Lee E. Hrenchuk, Michael J. Paterson & Ken A. Sandilands

Département de Sciences Biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Environmental Chemistry and Technology Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

Christopher L. Babiarz

Department of Biology, Biological and Geological Sciences Building, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

Brian A. Branfireun

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, USA

Cynthia C. Gilmour

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Jennifer A. Graydon & Vincent L. St Louis

Department of Biology, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

Britt D. Hall

Reed Harris Environmental, Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Reed C. Harris

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, MD, USA

Andrew Heyes

Water Quality Center, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Holger Hintelmann

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Environmental Chemistry and Technology Program, Madison, WI, USA

James P. Hurley

US Geological Survey, Middleton, WI, USA

David P. Krabbenhoft & Michael T. Tate

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA

Steve E. Lindberg & George R. Southworth

Department of Marine Sciences, University of Connecticut, Groton, CT, USA

Robert P. Mason

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

P.J.B., J.W.M.R., M.A., K.G.B., R.A.B., B.A.B., C.C.G., R.C.H., A.H., H.H., J.P.H., C.A.K., D.P.K., S.E.L., R.P.M., M.J.P., C.L.P. and V.L.S.L. contributed to the design of the whole-ecosystem experiment. The METAALICUS project was overseen by J.W.M.R. and R.C.H., who along with C.L.B., R.A.B., J.A.G., H.H., J.P.H., C.A.K., D.P.K., K.A.S., V.L.S.L. and M.T.T., applied mercury to the lake and watershed. P.J.B., L.E.H. and L.S.T. conducted the fish sampling. Water, sediment and lower trophic level data were collected and prepared by C.C.G., B.D.H., H.H., C.A.K., M.J.P., C.L.P. and K.A.S. Field samples in this study were analysed for mercury by C.C.G., H.H., D.P.K. and M.T.T. Data analyses were performed by P.J.B. and L.E.H. All authors collected and discussed project-level data that contributed to the interpretation of the data presented in this study. L.E.H. produced the figures and wrote the methods. P.J.B., J.W.M.R., C.A.K., and V.L.S.L. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul J. Blanchfield .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review information

Nature thanks Bridget Bergquist and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended data fig. 1 temporal dynamics of upland mercury in fish..

Isotopic 198 Hg added to the upland area of Lake 658 was above the detection limit (0.5% of ambient MeHg; dashed line) in all fish species, but contributed little (<2%) to overall MeHg concentrations (percent increase = [upland spike MeHg]/[ambient MeHg] × 100). Mean annual MeHg concentration data for each species or age-class is presented and based on fish collected during fall population sampling ( n  = 1,052; sample size details in Extended Data Tables 2 and 3 ); dotted lines indicate missing data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Comparison of individual and population body sizes of northern pike.

Mean (± s.e.m.) body size of all northern pike sampled in the fall of each year (population, black circles; n  = 442) for muscle MeHg concentration using a biopsy method was stable over time. Individual northern pike (grey triangles) captured in 2007 and again in at least one subsequent year ( n  = 16 fish with 1–9 individuals recaptured each year 2008–2015) were used to determine individual losses of lake spike MeHg during recovery (see Fig. 3 ). These individual fish, which were also captured prior to 2007, showed an increase in body size over time (linear regression: y  = 17.43 x −34470.0, R 2  = 0.55, F 1,51  = 61.1, P < 0.0001)

Supplementary information

Reporting summary, peer review file, source data, source data fig. 1, source data fig. 2, source data fig. 3, source data extended data fig. 1, source data extended data fig. 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Blanchfield, P.J., Rudd, J.W.M., Hrenchuk, L.E. et al. Experimental evidence for recovery of mercury-contaminated fish populations. Nature 601 , 74–78 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04222-7

Download citation

Received : 15 January 2021

Accepted : 09 November 2021

Published : 15 December 2021

Issue Date : 06 January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04222-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Biomimetic mercury immobilization by selenium functionalized polyphenylene sulfide fabric.

• Fanyue Meng
• Jianping Yang

Nature Communications (2024)

A SYBR Green I-based aptasensor for the label-free, fluorometric, and anti-interference detection of MeHg+

• Xiaoyan Wang

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry (2024)

Differential accumulation of metals in the lacustrine and fluvial Alpine bullheads (Cottus poecilopus) and recovery of fish from metal contamination after a flash flood

• Marián Janiga
• Martin Janiga
• Tatiana Pitoňáková

Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2024)

Methylmercury in commercial fish species from the Erhai Lake Basin, Southwest China: concentrations, health risk assessment, and implications for future monitoring

• Jingrui Chen
• Jiachen Sun

Global change effects on biogeochemical mercury cycling

• Jeroen E. Sonke
• Hélène Angot
• Amina Schartup

Ambio (2023)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging

Mission End

The first spacecraft to visit Mercury in 30 years, and the first ever to orbit, MESSENGER mapped the entire planet, discovered abundant water ice in shadows at the poles, and unlocked knowledge about Mercury's geology and magnetic field.

What was MESSENGER?

NASA's MESSENGER spacecraft orbited Mercury for more than four years. Among its accomplishments, the mission determined Mercury’s surface composition, revealed its geological history, discovered details about its internal magnetic field, and verified its polar deposits are dominantly water-ice. The mission ended when MESSENGER slammed into Mercury’s surface.

Aug. 3, 2004: Launch

Mar. 11, 2011: MESSENGER finally entered orbit around Mercury nearly seven years after launch

Apr. 30, 2015: MESSENGER plunged into Mercury at end of is mission

In Depth: MESSENGER

MESSENGER (Mercury Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry and Ranging) was the seventh Discovery-class mission, and the first spacecraft to orbit Mercury. Its primary goal was to study the geology, magnetic field, and chemical composition of the planet. It was the first mission to Mercury after Mariner 10, more than 30 years before.

MESSENGER was launched at 06:15:57 UT Aug. 3, 2004, into an initial parking orbit around Earth. After that, its PAM-D solid motor fired to put the spacecraft on an escape trajectory into heliocentric orbit at 0.92 × 1.08 AU and 6.4 degrees inclination to the ecliptic.

The six-and-a-half-year road to Mercury was punctuated by several gravity-assist maneuvers through the inner solar system, including one flyby of Earth (Aug. 2, 2005), two flybys of Venus (Oct. 24, 2006, and June 5, 2007), and three flybys of Mercury (Jan. 14, 2008, Oct. 6, 2008, and Sept. 29, 2009).

The gravity-assist maneuvers allowed the spacecraft to overcome the problem of massive acceleration that accompanies flight toward the Sun: the flybys helped to decelerate MESSENGER’s velocity relative to Mercury and also helped conserve propellant for its orbital mission (although it prolonged the length of the trip).

The Earth flyby allowed mission controllers to properly calibrate all of the spacecraft’s instruments while also returning spectacular images of the Earth-Moon system.

During the second Venusian flyby (at a range of only 210 miles or 338 kilometers), MESSENGER relayed back a vast amount of data, including visible and near-infrared imaging data on the upper atmosphere. Some of the investigations, especially its study of the particle and fields characteristics of the Venus, were coordinated with ESA’s Venus Express mission.

The three Mercury flybys further slowed the spacecraft, although, during the last encounter in September 2009, MESSENGER entered a safe mode and, as a result, collected no data on Mercury. Fortunately, the spacecraft revived seven hours later.

MESSENGER finally entered orbit around Mercury at 00:45 UT March 18, 2011, nearly seven years after launch. It started formal data collection April 4.

The vehicle’s orbit was highly elliptical, approximately 5,800 x 125 miles (9,300 × 200 kilometers) with a 12-hour orbital period.

One of MESSENGER’s most remarkable images was its mosaic of our solar system, obtained Feb. 18, 2011, with all the planets visible except Uranus and Neptune—a visual counterpart to the image of the solar system taken by Voyager 1 on Feb. 14, 1990.

The spacecraft completed its primary yearlong mission March 17, 2012, having taken nearly 100,000 images of the surface of Mercury.

Among its initial discoveries was finding high concentrations of magnesium and calcium on Mercury’s night side, identifying a significant northward offset of Mercury’s magnetic field from the planet’s center, finding large amounts of water in Mercury’s exosphere, and revealing evidence of past volcanic activity on the surface.

In November 2011, NASA announced that MESSENGER’s mission would be extended by a year, allowing the spacecraft to monitor the solar maximum in 2012. The extended mission lasted from March 18, 2012, to March 17, 2013.

By April 20, 2012, with the help of three engine firings, the orbital period was reduced to eight hours. It was also during this period, in early May 2012, that MESSENGER took its 100,000th photograph from orbit. By this time, the imaging instrument had globally mapped both in high-resolution monochrome and in color, the entire surface of the planet.

It was also during this first extended mission that the spacecraft found evidence of water ice at Mercury’s poles, frozen at locations that never see the sunlight (made possible by the fact that the tilt of Mercury’s rotational axis is almost zero.)

A second mission extension was soon granted that took the mission to March 2015.

On Feb. 6, 2014, NASA reported that MESSENGER had taken its 200,000th orbital image, far exceeding the original expectation of at least 1,000 photographs.

During the second extension, MESSENGER photographed two comets: Comet 2P/Encke and Comet C/2012 S1 (also known as Comet ISON).

Beginning the summer of 2014, controllers began gradually moving MESSENGER to a very low orbit for a new research program.

By Sept. 12, 2014, just after the 10th anniversary of its launch, the spacecraft’s orbit was down to a mere 15.5 miles (25 kilometers).

Mission controllers implemented at least two orbital maneuvers (Sept. 12 and Oct. 24) to raise the spacecraft’s orbit to continue its latest extended mission.

By Christmas Day 2014, it was clear that the spacecraft’s propellants were running out and that MESSENGER would impact the planet in late March 2015. On Jan. 21, 2015, mission controllers carried out one last maneuver to raise the spacecraft’s orbit enough to continue science activities into early spring.

On April 16, 2015, NASA announced that the spacecraft would impact the surface of Mercury by April 30, 2015, after it ran out of propellant.

As expected, on April 30, 2015, at 19:26 UT, MESSENGER slammed into the planet’s surface at about 8,750 miles per hour (14,080 kilometers per hour), creating a new crater on Mercury.

Impact coordinates were probably close to 54.4 degrees north latitude and 149.9 degrees west longitude, near the Janácek crater in Suisei Planitia.

Siddiqi, Asif A. Beyond Earth: A Chronicle of Deep Space Exploration, 1958-2016 . NASA History Program Office, 2018.

MESSENGER site at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laborarory

MESSENGER Stories

MESSENGER – From Setbacks to Success

Mercury’s Strange Hollows

The Moon and Mercury May Have Thick Ice Deposits

NASA Team Studies Middle-aged Sun by Tracking Motion of Mercury

Small Collisions Make Big Impact on Mercury’s Thin Atmosphere

Discover More Topics From NASA

James Webb Space Telescope

Perseverance Rover

Parker Solar Probe

See New Detailed Photos of Mercury From a Spacecraft’s Closest Flyby Yet

BepiColombo, a joint European-Japanese mission, completed its fourth close pass of the innermost planet last week, and it will enter Mercury’s orbit in 2026 to learn more about its mysteries

Daily Correspondent

A joint European-Japanese spacecraft has made its closest flyby of Mercury yet, offering new snapshots of the rocky planet’s surface.

The BepiColombo spacecraft, which launched in 2018 , made its fourth pass by Mercury on September 4. At its nearest point, the vessel flew 103 miles above the planet’s surface, snapping highly detailed photos of its cratered crust along the way.

BepiColombo is a collaboration between the European Space Agency and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. The spacecraft is equipped with three monitoring cameras, or M-CAMs, that captured black-and-white images of the innermost planet of the solar system. As the spacecraft approached Mercury from its so-called “night side,” the cameras took photos of its south pole and craters becoming increasingly lit by the sun.

The new images caused Johannes Benkhoff , the European Space Agency’s project scientist for the BepiColombo mission, to “shout for joy,” as he tells the New York Times ’ Katrina Miller.

“It is such a relief when you find out that everything worked as planned,” he adds.

Strange, blasted little fireball. We've never seen planet Mercury better than the pictures just taken by @BepiColombo , a mere 100 miles/165 km above the distant, rocky surface, so near the Sun. info: https://t.co/p38tUgPg28 images: @esa @JAXA_en pic.twitter.com/92tq0QXWj2 — Chris Hadfield (@Cmdr_Hadfield) September 5, 2024

BepiColombo captured some of Mercury’s craters—including Stoddart and Vivaldi—that have rings of peaks on the otherwise flat crater floor. With a ring inside the crater’s rim, the impact site looks something like a bull’s-eye. These areas are particularly intriguing to scientists—it’s not clear exactly how peak ring basins formed, but they are thought to originate with a comet or asteroid colliding with the planet. Studying these sites might also offer clues about Mercury’s past volcanic activity .

Vivaldi, which was named after Italian composer Antonio Vivaldi, measures 130 miles across. It has a “visible gap” in the ring of peaks, which scientists say formed when more recent lava flows flooded the crater, according to a statement from the European Space Agency.

Stoddart, meanwhile, measures 96 miles across. It was just recently named in August after Margaret Olrog Stoddart , a New Zealand artist who died in 1934 and was known for her paintings of flowers.

“Mercury’s peak ring basins are fascinating, because many aspects of how they formed are currently still a mystery,” David Rothery , a planetary geoscientist at the Open University in England and a member of the BepiColombo imaging team, says in the statement. “The rings of peaks are presumed to have resulted from some kind of rebound process during the impact, but the depths from which they were uplifted are still unclear.”

BepiColombo also took measurements of Mercury’s magnetic, plasma and particle environments, collecting data that will not be possible for it to get in the future, when the vessel goes into orbit around the planet. That milestone is slated for November 2026, which is roughly a year behind schedule. The delay was caused by issues with BepiColombo’s thrusters .

As one of the least-studied planets in the solar system, Mercury is still largely a mystery to scientists. They hope the BepiColombo mission will unveil new insights into the roughly 4.6-billion-year-old planet’s geology, magnetic field and composition, which might in turn shed light on its origins.

Reaching Mercury’s orbit is not easy. As the spacecraft approaches our sun, the star’s gravity makes it travel faster . To compensate, it must pass by Mercury, Venus and Earth several times to lose some speed before entering orbit around the innermost planet. BepiColombo will make two more flybys of Mercury—one in December and another in January—before flying around the sun for two years. Then, if all goes to plan, it will maneuver into Mercury’s orbit.

From there, the vessel will begin using other scientific instruments, including a high-resolution color camera, to make observations of Mercury over the course of a year or two. In total, the spacecraft contains 16 instruments between two orbiters, which will split off from each other once it’s successfully orbiting the planet, per Space.com ’s Andrew Jones.

Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Sarah Kuta | READ MORE

Sarah Kuta is a writer and editor based in Longmont, Colorado. She covers history, science, travel, food and beverage, sustainability, economics and other topics.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

New Images of Mercury Show Speckled Surface in Sharp Detail

BepiColombo, a joint European-Japanese mission, completed its latest flyby of Mercury, sending back a sneak peek of the cratered planet it will begin to orbit in 2026.

By Katrina Miller

On Thursday, a spacecraft operated by the European Space Agency and Japan made its closest approach yet to Mercury, sending back sharp, black-and-white images of the planet’s barren, speckled surface at sunrise.

The spacecraft, BepiColombo, gave scientists their first clear view of Mercury’s south pole. It also captured several of the planet’s craters, including those with unusual rings of peaks within the basin’s rim.

David Rothery, a volcanologist at the Open University in England, refers to Mercury as “Lord of the Peak Rings.”

The latest flyby “was perfect,” said Dr. Rothery, who is a member of BepiColombo’s science team. “It was exactly what I hoped to see, but better quality, showing more detail than I’d hoped.”

Johannes Benkhoff, the project scientist for BepiColombo at the European Space Agency, wrote in an email that the new images made him “shout for joy.” He added, “It is such a relief when you find out that everything worked as planned.”

A joint mission between the European and Japanese space agencies, BepiColombo launched in 2018 . It will go into orbit around Mercury in 2026, about a year after its original arrival time. The delay was prompted by efforts to overcome problems with the spacecraft’s thrusters .

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

After a Major Overhaul, Has Portland's Clean Energy Fund Found its Footing?

Pcef will invest nearly $92 million in climate projects around the city. leaders say nonprofit grantees were thoroughly vetted and the projects align with the city's climate goals..

Energy efficiency upgrades in low-income housing complexes, an urban forestry internship program, and a plan to get more kids to walk to school: These are just three of the 71 projects that will receive support from the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) in its latest round of community grants, intended to reduce local carbon emissions at the grassroots level. 

On Wednesday, Portland City Council approved PCEF’s recommended allocation of nearly $92 million in community grants. The vast majority of the money will go toward implementation of 65 carbon reduction projects in categories including energy efficiency and transportation. About half a million dollars is allocated for planning grants. 

PCEF has held two competitive funding cycles in the past, distributing a combined $108 million for more than 100 projects in 2021 and 2022 . But PCEF’s third grant cycle, which opened to applicants last November, was the program’s first since going through a massive overhaul last year . The program is housed in the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS), now part of the Community and Economic Development service area. 

The program, approved by voters as a 2018 ballot measure, is funded by a small surcharge on large retailers in Portland, and its financial success vastly outperformed initial estimates. But PCEF has taken a few years to find its footing, in part because it had trouble getting all that money out the door. The fund has also been criticized for a lack of oversight of nonprofit contractors. 

Despite some lingering skepticism, program leaders maintain the program is now on track to deliver real climate and equity results for the city—and they say this latest round of grants is the perfect example of what’s possible through PCEF. 

“Through the incredible response we received to our third request for [grant] proposals, we have witnessed the growth in capacity of our community organizations,” Sam Baraso, PCEF program manager, said in a press release. “This shows us the urgent need for climate action projects that increase resiliency in our communities. That need is not tomorrow, but right now. And our partners are eager to keep this positive momentum going.” 

Changes at PCEF 

When PCEF was first adopted, the program was heavily reliant on grant contracts with nonprofit partners to carry out carbon reduction work in underserved communities. But the program’s structure has significantly changed over the past few years. 

During PCEF’s first grant award cycle in 2021, the fund awarded nearly $12 million to an organization whose leader had a history of financial impropriety . The funding was rescinded, but PCEF received significant backlash for its perceived lack of due diligence when awarding grants. Community concerns about the program’s rollout were validated by a 2022 city audit , which said its performance metrics and standards were unclear. The audit advised PCEF leaders to set transparent, clear goals for project implementation, and to be more specific about how the fund is aiding Portland’s carbon reduction goals. 

Program leaders apparently took the feedback to heart . The fund’s programming is now centered on a $750 million Climate Investment Plan, which is mainly dedicated to specific strategic initiatives to be overseen by PCEF staff. 

After receiving an unexpectedly optimistic financial forecast late last year , the fund has also been able to bail out struggling city bureaus, with the caveat that the money will help with carbon reduction projects. For example, the money PCEF allocated to the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) will pay for projects to boost bicycle use and reduce carbon emissions in the transportation sector. 

However, it’s evident by the recent $92 million investment in nonprofit projects that community grants are still a program cornerstone. 

PCEF leaders were sure to emphasize the transparency and accountability present throughout this round of grant applications and awards. 

“As this process moves forward, we are committed to ensuring that every dollar allocated through PCEF is spent responsibly and delivers real, measurable outcomes for our communities,” Donnie Oliveira, interim deputy city administrator for Community and Economic Development, said at a City Council meeting on September 5. “This means we are continuously strengthening our oversight mechanisms to track the progress and performance of projects that receive funding…Grantees have clear, measurable targets and report requirements so that everyone can see exactly how the funds are being used.” 

The program has begun using Webgrants, the new grant tracking system that will soon be rolled out for the rest of the city’s outgoing grant process . Members of the public can view all PCEF grant applications on the Portland Map App. And earlier this year, PCEF released its program dashboard , which tracks money the fund spends and other metrics, including climate benefits and workforce development. 

Despite improvements in process and oversight, at least one city commissioner still has doubts.

At the September 5 City Council meeting, as PCEF leaders introduced the recommended grantees, Commissioner Mingus Mapps appeared skeptical about the program’s ability to cut carbon emissions to the extent necessary to meet Portland’s climate goals. 

PCEF has estimated the $91.9 million it spends on this round of grants will result in a lifetime reduction of roughly 85,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). However, according to Portland’s Climate Emergency Workplan , this is a mere fraction of the millions of metric tons of CO2e necessary to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. 

“That makes me awfully concerned. This is one of our major investments in the climate space, and it gets us about 3 percent of where we hope to go in the next six years,” Mapps said. “It seems we have a scale problem.” 

In response, Oliveira said while PCEF is making a major investment in carbon reduction projects, it was “never designed to meet all the city’s climate goals.”

“PCEF was originally intended to provide an avenue for resources to communities, for resiliency, and to spur innovation as well. When we talk about the major reduction goals that we have as a city, as a state, and globally, we're talking about systemic shifts,” Oliveira said. “I don’t want to minimize [PCEF’s investments], but the big maneuvers we’re looking at are going to require multi-jurisdictional investments that are much bigger than PCEF.” 

In other words: PCEF won’t solve everything. But leaders maintain it’s a good start, and could have far-reaching benefits beyond carbon reduction metrics. 

Where is the money going? 

In its third round of grant funding, PCEF will dole out 71 implementation and planning grants to local organizations for climate action projects that prioritize under-resourced populations in the city. In this way, the projects have multiple proposed benefits: In addition to their carbon reduction potential, a project may also set out to reduce energy costs for low-income households or increase job opportunities for people of color.  

“Project benefits provided to households and individual community members goes well beyond greenhouse gas reduction and includes improved indoor air quality and comfort in homes, climate resilience, reduced utility bills, training, connection to living wage jobs, access to high quality fresh foods, and connection to community,” PCEF’s funding recommendations report states. 

PCEF split the grants into several categories, which align with the program’s Climate Investment Plan. These categories include energy efficiency, transportation decarbonization, regenerative agriculture and green infrastructure, and workforce development. Here’s a look at some notable projects from each category. 

Energy efficiency: 

• $5.2 million to Northwest Native Chamber for a project to conduct energy efficiency retrofits on 210 homes, with funds targeted toward Native households and Native-owned clean energy construction companies. 
• Nearly $2.9 million to Verde for a project to install more than 1,200 residential heat pumps, at low or no cost, to priority populations in Portland (specifically BIPOC and low-income communities). The project is a partnership with the Energy Trust of Oregon. 
• $3.46 million to Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church for a project to build an energy efficient resilience hub at a church in the Cully neighborhood, which would serve as a place for community refuge during extreme weather events or other emergencies. 

Renewable energy: 

• $1.09 million to Bridges to Change for a project to install solar energy infrastructure in recovery housing complexes. 
• $6 million to REACH Community Development, Inc for energy efficiency projects at three affordable multifamily housing sites in Portland, through installing rooftop solar panels, heat pumps, and completing air sealing. 
• $4.1 million to APANO Communities United Fund to install solar panels and energy efficiency upgrades for low-income residents along 82nd Avenue, as well as to install five electric vehicle charging stations on the corridor. 

Workforce development and contractor support: 

• Nearly $1.5 million to the Blueprint Foundation for an urban forestry internship program designed to help communities of color access careers in urban forestry and environmental restoration, increasing local tree canopy cover and enhancing local green spaces in the process.
• $1.5 million to Oregon Tradeswomen, Inc to provide training and employment for women in the clean energy construction trades. 
• Roughly $1.4 million to Growing Gardens to provide regenerative agriculture workforce training to people in correctional facilities, with the aim of helping people find post-incarceration employment opportunities, reducing recidivism rates, and building up the green agriculture workforce.

Regenerative agriculture and green infrastructure:

• $1.3 million to Bird Alliance of Oregon for restoration of the organization’s Wildlife Care Center on 82nd Avenue, with the goal of improving habitat conditions for local wildlife, increasing biodiversity, and helping the community connect with natural resources. 
• $1.04 million to Equitable Giving Circle for a project to create a hub for distribution of fresh, locally-sourced produce. Project goals include supporting local farms and helping educate community members about nutrition and sustainable agriculture.
• $1.2 million to Depave for turning underutilized paved areas into green spaces at five sites, with the goal of reducing urban heat islands, improving stormwater management, and adding more urban green space in underserved areas. 

Transportation decarbonization:

• $965,000 to Oregon Walks for a program to develop more walking school bus programs in underserved communities, helping students’ health and safety and reducing traffic congestion around schools by increasing active transportation options for children.
• $310,700 to BikeLoud PDX to expand its “Bike Buddy” program, which aims to connect experienced volunteers with people who want to start riding their bikes for transportation in Portland, with the goal of increasing bicycle usage among underrepresented communities through connection and mentorship. 
• $2.2 million to Forth Mobility Fund to increase community electric mobility in Portland through installing electric vehicle charging stations at affordable housing sites, helping community organizations electrify their transportation operations, and more. 

A complete list of all 71 approved grants can be found here.

Taylor Griggs

Taylor Griggs is Portland Mercury 's news reporter. She is interested in all of your ideas, comments and concerns, but particularly those related to transportation, climate, labor and housing/homelessness. Send Taylor an email at [email protected] , and find her on Twitter @taylorjgriggs . 

More In News

Women Across Portland and the US Encouraged to Strike on June 24

Suspicious Deaths at Oregon Prison Signal Alarming Rise in Inmate Drug Use

He Isn't the DA Yet, but Nathan Vasquez Already Secured More County Money for Drug Prosecutions

What Would You Do With $15 Million of City Money? Petition Would Give Portlanders a Say

Frustrated with Biden’s Stance on Gaza, Activists Want Voters to Write “Uncommitted” on Their Ballots

Portland Approves New Public Camping Ordinance, After Facing Legal Pressure

Editors' picks.

Christmas Movies I'd Like to See, That One Guy, That Other Guy, and My Favorite Celebrity Gossip Conspiracy Theory About Brad Pitt

POP QUIZ PDX: It's the Very Best of Our "KNOW THAT PORTLAND" Trivia Questions!

Climate Change and the Housing Crisis are Burdening Portland’s Emergency Shelter System

POP QUIZ PDX: Obama's Sneaky Visit, a Dragon Is Eating the Sun, and Lotsa Music Trivia for You Nerds!

What the Supreme Court’s Ruling Against Homelessness Means for Portland and Oregon

THE TRASH REPORT: Pudding Fingers in Iowa, Crocodiles Want to Eat Babies, and the Importance of Headline Writing in Web-based Media

Popular articles, meet your portland 2024 mayoral candidates, meet the portland city council candidates: district 3, meet the portland city council candidates: district 1, police id officer who shot a man in the portsmouth neighborhood, after years of grant discordance, portland adopts centralized policy for doling out funds, just can't get enough, sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more.

• Good Morning News (Monday through Thursday)
• Week at a Glance (Monday)
• Ticket Alert and Event News (Thursday)
• Get ART SMART (Friday)
• Weekend Guide (Friday)
• POP Quiz PDX (Saturday)
• The Mercury Sunday Reading List (Sunday)
• Promotions and Partners

Support Portland Mercury

Handpans For All (2nd ed.) project by Mercury Handpans

In Progress

View on Kickstarter

Offering high-quality handpans at the best price, backed by our experience of hammering with love and passion since 2015 in Spain.

last updated 19 minutes ago

Funding Progress on Kickstarter

Daily Funding on Kickstarter

Daily backers on kickstarter.

• Subscriptions

By clicking Sign In, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Sign In Up with your social account

We won't post to any of your accounts

Your password must include:

• Min 8 characters
• Min 1 lowercase character
• Min 1 uppercase character
• Min 1 number

Woman's World

• Mental Health
• Heart Health
• Pain Management
• Supplements
• Celebrities
• Alzheimer’s
• Joint Health
• Spirituality
• Relationships
• Online Learning
• Online Fitness
• Online Finance
• Online Cooking
• Give a Gift
• Accessibility Statement
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Cookie Preferences

Your 2024 Mercury in Virgo Horoscope: What’s in Store for Your Zodiac Sign From September 9 to 26

Here’s how communication and connection will be affected as Mercury moves through the practical, intuitive earth sign

Share this:

The way in which you’re inspired to share your thoughts and ideas and possibly even your perspective on the world around you are about to take a more service-oriented, analytical and down-to-earth tone, thanks to Mercury entering Virgo. This energy can support any efforts to lend a critical eye to ongoing projects, help and support others through information-gathering and showing your nearest and dearest you care by making gestures that show you pay attention to the details. This is thanks to the planet that rules Virgo — Mercury itself. We’ve already gotten a sneak peek of what Mercury in Virgo season is all about, as the planet has already entered the sign and retrograded back through it this year. But on Sunday, September 8 at 11:50 p.m. PT/Monday, September 9, at 2:50 a.m. ET, Mercury, now direct , will kick off full forward motion journey through the pragmatic earth sign.   

Here, all you need to know in order to make the most of Mercury in Virgo 2024.  

What does Mercury in Virgo mean? 

Mercury, the planet of communication, transportation, and technology, influences how we connect with others, express ourselves, and think. So, to get a sense of the tone our collective communication and thought processes might take on at any given moment, consider pinpointing the zodiac sign that the messenger planet is making its way through. You can check out my new book, Mercury Magic: How to Thrive During Retrogrades and Tap Into the Power of the Messenger Planet All Year Long , to learn more about this, so you can make the most of Mercury’s moves. 

  Annually, in August and/or September, Mercury spends time in Virgo, the sixth sign of the zodiac symbolized by the Maiden. The mutable earth sign is ruled by Mercury itself, making it one of the most cerebral, communicative, intelligent conversation-adoring signs of all. And given Virgo’s Mercury rulership, it’s no surprise they value gathering the most valuable information and sharing it as best they can in order to be useful to others.  

In turn, when Mercury moves through Virgo, we tend to be more grounded and interested in being of service to others. You can be more meticulous and organized when pursuing your goals. At the same time, you might also notice an amplified tendency to be a bit more pedantic, perfectionistic and worrisome. Still, this also happens to be a wonderful time for any self-improvement endeavor or committing to a wellness goal, given Virgo’s association with the Sixth House of Health and Daily Routine. You can get on top of your everyday hustle and foster better work-life balance or explore a new fitness plan. And because the sign of the Maiden is so adept at finding magic in minutiae, you’ll be able to examine the details that you often lose sight of when looking at the big picture — or that you never even considered in the first place.  

What can you expect during Mercury’s trip through Virgo in 2024? 

Although Mercury visits Virgo annually, all of the other planets move at different rates through the zodiac, so the messenger planet’s meetups with other celestial bodies varies from year to year. A few key dates in 2024:  

On Thursday, September 11, Mercury will form a friendly sextile to go-getter Mars in Cancer, which serves as something of an invitation to talk through and then hit the gas on aspirations you’ve been musing about. Health and family-related goals might be particularly top of mind. 

On Wednesday, September 18, Mercury opposes Saturn, which makes it easier than usual to have serious talks and face reality checks, but this transit’s energy can feel negative, causing you to see any glass as half empty. The key to navigating this moment is to lean into mentally stimulating activities you enjoy the most and perhaps take a step back from your daily grind. 

You can look forward to a planetary meetup that almost has the complete opposite effect: Mercury squares off against lucky Jupiter on Saturday, September 21, which can actually overinflate your optimism and eagerness to dive into grand projects. Adopting a more measured approach might serve you best. 

And on Tuesday, September 24 and Thursday, September 26 (ET), Mercury forms harmonious trines to both game-changer Uranus in Taurus and then powerful Pluto in Capricorn respectively, magnifying your ability to think beyond what’s conventional and then step into your power by expressing your ideas.  

  Here, how Mercury in Virgo 2024 will affect you based on your sign. (Be sure to read both your sun and your rising sign if you know it. If you don’t, you can find it in your birth chart or by using this CafeAstrology calculator .) 

You’ve already done some work on reimagining your everyday routine and wellness approach, thanks to Mercury retrograde kicking off in your health zone. Now that it’s back there and moving full speed again, you can finally gain traction on your vision for a new day-to-day game plan that brings you more balance and vitality. Even slight tweaks to your schedule could end up boosting your productivity and sense of centeredness on a regular basis.    

  Click through for more on Aries .  

Thanks to the retrograde, Mercury has already spent time in your romance and self-expression zone, which is activated when it’s moving through Virgo, but now you can fully apply any lessons that you learned around going with the flow and being more playful, creative and spontaneous — especially alongside your nearest and dearest. Although you tend to be quite pragmatic, this is a moment made for listening to your heart and infusing your day-to-day with more joyful lighthearted fun.  

Click through for more on Taurus .  

Because Mercury was retrograde throughout August, you’re no stranger to what it feels like to have your ruling planet moving through your home sector. But while you might’ve been taking more walks down memory lane last month, and now, you can kick off new traditions and blaze new trails with your loved ones. This is also a wonderful moment to push forward on healing old wounds and caring for your inner emotional well-being, which is also covered by this sector. 

Click through for more on Gemini .   

Mercury has spent some time in your communication sector already this year, thanks to its retrograde, but its powers were certainly compromised back then. Now, as it forges ahead in this sector, you can make headway on projects you’ve been wanting to tackle with friends or colleagues, plan productive brainstorms, dive into learning experiences and opportunities to pick up new skills and possibly even enjoy fulfilling short-distance travel. Your mental energy soars!    

Click through for more on Cancer .   

Mercury moves forward in your money zone, where it’s already spent a bit of time during its retrograde, helping you to be familiar with the themes associated with its time there. But while you might have previously been reflecting and reviewing your moneymaking game plans, you can now implement a whole new strategy or way of thinking about earning, saving and investing. Additionally, it’s a more ideal time to make high-ticket item purchases that you’ve been researching, given that this is the sector of material possessions as well. This period is also a wonderful opportunity to nurture your self-worth. 

Click through for more on Leo .   

Mercury is now moving ahead in your sign and self-image zone, allowing you to feel like you have a completely clear runway for fostering your confidence and purpose and stepping into the spotlight to present your perspective, goals, aspirations and big picture dreams in a more public way. You’ll be feeling more self-assured and prepared to go to bat for the bold proposals you’ve been perfecting over the last few weeks while your ruling planet was retrograde. This transit feels like a concrete, empowering step into the future — and there’s no looking back!  

Click through for more on Virgo .   

Mercury’s retrograde last month hit your spirituality zone, encouraging you to rest and recharge more than usual. As it moves forward there now, you can get more active with your work in this area of life — perhaps by working one-on-one with a therapist or committing to a more regular mind-body practice that supports your mental and emotional well-being (think mindfulness, journaling or yoga). While this behind-the-scenes work isn’t nearly as lively as you might ideally like it to feel, it can set the stage for feeling more centered as you make your way into your next chapter.   

Click through for more on Libra .   

Mercury has already been in your networking and long-term wishes zone for two short periods of time, thanks to its retrograde, and it moves ahead there now, allowing you to build momentum on whatever it is you were reflecting on related to your friendships and team efforts over the course of August. If you’ve realized that associating with a particular community simply isn’t working for you anymore, or certain friendships aren’t as reciprocal as you thought, you might have the chance to forge exciting new connections with people who truly understand and support your goals. 

Click through for more on Scorpio .   

Sagittarius  

The messenger planet plows ahead in your career and public image zone which might’ve felt a little rocky over the course of the recent retrograde. If there were slowdowns or confusing interactions with higher-ups, you can rest assured that now, you’ll be able to enjoy smoother sailing and make the impression you’ve been dreaming of. Fully embrace your need to command more recognition and respect, and you’ll be well on your way. 

Click here for more on Sagittarius .   

Capricorn  

Mercury’s trip through Virgo means it’s spending time in your higher education and adventure sector — a zone it has already visited a couple of times, thanks to its retrograde. But in those previous moments, you might’ve felt like it was tougher to act on your restlessness and desire to soak up knowledge and get out of your comfort zone, whereas now you can make concrete headway with any of those pursuits. You might have challenging feelings about stepping away from your regular work to follow your gut but know that getting out into the world will only enrich your professional endeavors. 

  Click through for more on Capricorn .   

With Mercury moving ahead in your emotional bonds, you’ll feel the wind in your sails when it comes to nourishing your closest, most intimate relationships and making progress on financial aspirations you share with a loved one or significant other. While there’s no need to look in the rearview mirror anymore (as there was during Mercury’s retrograde in this zone last month), apply anything you’ve learned about this area of life over the last several weeks. In turn, you’ll feel more connected to your nearest and dearest and prepared to make bold moves to further joint resources. 

Click through for more on Aquarius .   

Deal of the Day

Mercury moves forward in your partnership zone, where it’s spent a bit of time over the last few weeks, thanks to its retrograde. You likely spent quality time reflecting on what you desire out of a one-on-one relationship — be it romantic or platonic — and now, you can confidently make your needs known. Be sure to allow plenty of room for a two-way street, even if that requires extra mediation or negotiation, and you’ll feel like you’re on the same page in a way that bolsters harmony and productivity. 

Click through for more on Pisces .   

For more horoscope content keep scrolling!

Best Beauty Tips and Products for Every Zodiac Sign During Virgo Season

Venus conjunct south node horoscope: what’s in store for your zodiac sign, mercury retrograde post-shadow: your zodiac sign until september 11.

Conversation

All comments are subject to our Community Guidelines . Woman's World does not endorse the opinions and views shared by our readers in our comment sections. Our comments section is a place where readers can engage in healthy, productive, lively, and respectful discussions. Offensive language, hate speech, personal attacks, and/or defamatory statements are not permitted. Advertising or spam is also prohibited.

More Stories

September 16 to September 22 Horoscope Forecast: Your Zodiac Sign's Week

Fall Equinox Horoscope 2024: Astrologer Shares Your Zodiac Sign Forecast

Top 5 Designer Purses for Fall: Borrow (Or Buy!) These Trending Handbags

Venus Trine Jupiter Horoscope 2024: What’s in Store for Your Zodiac Sign

Bluemercury’s 25th Anniversary Event Starts Today!

What’s Coming for Your Zodiac Sign September 2 to September 8, 2024?

Uranus Retrograde in Taurus: Zodiac Signs From September 1 Through January

The Importance of Wide Toe Box Shoes (Plus Expert-Recommended Styles)!

New Moon in Virgo Horoscope: Your Zodiac Sign's Forecast Come September 2

• Español (Spanish)
• Français (French)
• Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Brasil (Portuguese)
• India (English)
• हिंदी (Hindi)
• Feature Stories
• Explore All
• Subscribe page
• Submissions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Advertising
• Wild Madagascar
• Selva tropicales
• Mongabay.org
• Tropical Forest Network

The future of extractive industries in the Pan Amazon

Share this article

If you liked this story, share it with other people.

• In Brazil, Peru and Ecuador, reliance on extractive industries for local livelihoods and state revenue could indicate that mining will remain the dominant economic activity for decades to come or, perhaps, more.
• Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) requirements will also play an increasing role in the industry’s decision making and project approval, especially in the case of publicly-traded companies.
• As the application of free, prior and informed consultation concept evolves, it will also play a key role in deciding on the future of mining projects.

In January 2023, the federal government of the United States issued landmark decisions affecting two controversial projects to exploit mineral resources on public lands. One was an industrial-scale copper mine, the Pebble Mine in south central Alaska, and oil drilling program in the Willow Concessions on the North Slope of Alaska. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) vetoed the Pebble Mine citing its potential impact on an economically important population of salmon, while the Interior Department approved the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for drilling in the Artic Petroleum Reserve that will, coincidentally, prolong the useful life of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System.

In each these decisions, the Biden administration balanced the advice of environmental scientists with the economic and political power of corporations, while taking the pulse of disparate stakeholder groups via a consultation process influenced by regulatory provisions and public relations campaigns. The veto was catalyzed by a fight for Indigenous rights, while the oil drilling permit will favor a well-established industry that pays hundreds of millions of dollars in tax and royalty revenues to local and regional governments. If this type of regulatory and public relations confrontation is common in an advanced economy, such as the United States, then no one should be surprised that similar battles are being waged in the Pan Amazon. The specifics are different but the outcomes will probably be similar. Some will move forward and some will not.

Industrial minerals and corporate mines

The investments most likely to proceed will occur in jurisdictions where corporations already have a large spatial and economic footprint. The Carajás Mining District, for example, is clearly the domain of corporate miners and it will remain so for the foreseeable future. The local population is dependent upon the industry for their livelihoods and elected officials at the state and local level unequivocally support brownfield mining investments. The mineral resources are so vast that mining will continue to expand over the short term and, in all likelihood, will remain the dominant economic activity for decades or, perhaps, a century or more.

Corporate miners can be expected to prosper in other municipalities in Pará, as well as in states with significant mineral resources such as Mato Grosso and Amapá. Elsewhere, particularly in Peru and Ecuador, the need for export revenues to support foreign exchange policies will place enormous pressure on central governments to favor an industry that is increasingly dominated by international giants.

Environmental and social advocates will oppose many (most) extractive investments, but they will confront corporations armed with abundant technical information provided by environmental specialists pursuing mitigation and compensation strategies devised by astute legal advisors. Regulatory systems are designed to allow projects to move forward after (allegedly) addressing impacts that critics argue should actually terminate a project. Nonetheless, opponents to industrial-scale mines have one, increasingly powerful, regulatory tool: The obligation to have the free prior and informed consent (FPIC) of communities with long-established customary rights as a precondition for obtaining an operating license.

The full impact of FPIC on the regulatory process is still unfolding. Governments argue that mineral resources belong to the nation and should be monetized to finance economic development that benefits all sectors of society. In contrast, social advocates hope to expand the FPIC concept to include all types of local communities, including Indigenous communities who have yet to obtain legal recognition of their territories, as well as traditional communities whose livelihoods depend on renewable resources but whose identities are not explicitly ethnically Indigenous. Societies have yet to decide which communities have the right to FPIC and governments are maneuvering to maintain control over the consultation process. This is a major source of contention and it will be adjudicated in regulatory agencies, the courts and on the streets (and highways) of the Pan Amazon.

The other major factor that will influence corporate sector is the emerging concept of ESG investing. Publicly traded mining companies are particularly exposed to this risk management framework because of their need for financial capital, particularly for greenfield projects that do not benefit from the cash flow from an existing operational asset. All three components of the acronym weigh heavily on the industry. Environmental and social programs are obvious components in the current system of ‘responsible’ mining, while legitimacy of their claims depends on transparency, a core criteria of corporate governance. In contrast, private companies, particularly closely held domestic companies, are non-transparent by design, while Chinese companies have demonstrated, repeatedly, they have minimal concern for mitigating social and environmental impacts. ESG investing will not change the behavior of these types of corporations, which highlights the importance of robust regulatory oversight.

The success of the corporate sector to organize greenfield projects will be determined, increasingly, by their ability to adequately compensate the communities impacted by their operations. This should include more generous royalty regimes and, in nearly all cases, a less corrupt distribution of royalty revenues and taxes (e.g., the Canon in Peru). Some companies have tried to overcome these systemic deficiencies by directly compensating communities without the mediation of the state; all too often, however, these efforts fall short, because the improvement of health and educational services, the most common programs, alleviate but do not address the underlying grievances.

If companies would actually listen to communities, they might learn that opposition to their projects are rooted in a deeply held resentment of the state. The most common complaint is usually about land. Corporate mines may exploit a below-ground resource but they also appropriate an above-ground landholding. A corporation’s ability to obtain legal title lies in stark contrast to hundreds of thousands of families who lack formal recognition for their family landholdings. If the mine is a massive open-pit and tailings pond that infringes on what they perceive as pertaining to their community, the unfairness is provocative in the extreme. Companies that recognize this injustice have succeeded in advancing their projects; in contrast, companies that resort to divide-and-conquer tactics, or intimidation, often suffer from regulatory fights that delay their project. Projects overwhelmed by public protest and civil unrest have been canceled after their promoters have invested tens of millions of dollars.

Although mine start-ups attract the most attention, mine closures can reveal if corporations have fully embraced the concepts of responsible mining. Current regulations and ESG criteria obligate companies to develop an integrated closure plan; however, executives often underestimate the true cost of effective remediation.

This practice, which some describe as creative bookkeeping, is actually a breach of corporate governance, because those obligatory future expenditures are a long-term financial liability that should be reported on corporate balance sheets. Most companies did not make mine closure a priority, nor did regulatory agencies pay close attention — until the tailings pond disasters at Mariana (2015) and Brumadinho (2019). Those two events demonstrated the very real financial risk of inadequate mine closure and, in the process, illustrated why ESG is good for business. Environmental activists would be well-advised to critically dissect the financial models associated with remediation and closure plans.

Peru is the only Pan Amazonian country that requires corporate miners to set aside funds to finance mine closure. Referred to as ‘financial assurance,’ these can be bonds, insurance policies, or other forms of financial securities. Their value, however, is based on cost estimates reported by the company in its periodic filings to the government. Thus, if the company underreports the true cost of mine closure, they have every incentive to walk away from both their commitment to execute a responsible mine closure and their financial guarantee. When that happens, the state must assume the cost of remediation and, if the state refuses, communities near the mine will pay the price.

Banner image: Sumaco volcano at sunset in Ecuador. Image by Rhett A. Butler.

“A Perfect Storm in the Amazon” is a book by Timothy Killeen and contains the author’s viewpoints and analysis. The second edition was published by The White Horse in 2021, under the terms of a Creative Commons license ( CC BY 4.0 ).

To read earlier chapters of the book, find Chapter One here , Chapter Two here , Chapter Three here and Chapter Four here .

Chapter 5. Mineral commodities: a small footprint, a large impact and a great deal of money

• Mineral commodities: the wealth that generates most impacts in the Pan Amazon | Introduction March 21st, 2024
• The environmental and social liabilities of the extractive sector March 26th, 2024
• Mining in the Pan Amazon in pursuit of the world’s most precious metal April 4th, 2024
• Illegal mining in the Pan Amazon: an ecological disaster for floodplains and local communities April, 9th
• The environmental mismanagement of enduring oil industry impacts in the Pan Amazon April, 17th
• Outdated infrastructure and oil spills: the cases of Colombia, Peru and Ecuador April, 25th
• State management and regulation of extractive industries in the Pan Amazon May 2nd, 2024
• Is the extractive sector really favorable for the Pan Amazon’s economy? May 8th, 2024
• Extractive industries look at degraded land to avoid further deforestation in the Pan Amazon May 15th, 2024
• Global markets and their effects on resource exploitation in the Pan Amazon May 21st, 2024
• Sustainability in the extractive industries is a paradox May 29th, 2024
• In the Pan Amazon, environmental liabilities of old mining have become economic liabilities June 5th, 2024
• Solutions to avoid loss of environmental, social and governance investment June 12th, 2024
• The most prominent mining companies in the Pan Amazon – a review June 21st, 2024
• Mineral hotspots in the Pan Amazon June 27th, 2024
• Brasil, Venezuela and Peru: the geography of industrial metals July 5th, 2024
• Industrial minerals in the Pan Amazon July 12th, 2024
• Minerals for agricultural use can already be found in Amazonia July 19th, 2024

To wipe or to wash? That is the question

Toilet paper: Environmentally impactful, but alternatives are rolling out

Rolling towards circularity? Tracking the trace of tires

Getting the bread: What’s the environmental impact of wheat?

Consumed traces the life cycle of a variety of common consumer products from their origins, across supply chains, and waste streams. The circular economy is an attempt to lessen the pace and impact of consumption through efforts to reduce demand for raw materials by recycling wastes, improve the reusability/durability of products to limit pollution, and […]

Free and open access to credible information

Latest articles.

Hooded vultures in Ghana and South Africa on the brink, study says

In Chile, a copper mining project tainted by environmental damage sues 32 locals

Maasai women struggle to survive amid forced evictions in conservation area

Wildcat miners: will cyanide displace mercury?

Honduras taps armed forces to eliminate deforestation by 2029. Will it work?

Malaysian court shuts down hydroelectric dam project on Indigenous land

Why I quit the film industry to work on ecological restoration (commentary)

Report links killings to environmental crimes in Peru’s Amazon

you're currently offline