Bioconcentration factors of mercury by Parasol Mushroom (Macrolepiota procera)

Abstract

To examine bioconcentration factors (BCFs) of mercury by Parasol Mushroom (Macrolepiota procera) roughly similarly sized (a cap diameter) fruiting bodies of this fungus and underlying soil (0-10 cm) samples were collected at 15 sites in Poland between 1995 and 2003. The total mercury content of the individual caps and stipes of Parasol Mushroom ranged from 0.05 to 22 mg Hg/kg dry matter (d.m.) and from 0.05 to 20 mg Hg/kg d.m., while the means were from 1.1 to 8.4 mg Hg/kg d.m. and from 0.83 to 6.8 mg Hg/kg d.m., respectively. The caps generally contained higher concentrations of mercury when compared to stipes, and the means of the cap to stipe mercury concentration quotient ranged from 1.3 to 4.6. The range of mercury concentration in topsoil samples collected at the sites where the fruiting bodies were collected was from 0.01 to 0.54 mg/g d.m. (means ranged from 0.022 to 0.36 mg/g d.m.). The BCFs factors for total mercury varied from 0.52 to 470 for individual caps and 0.52 to 360 for stipes, while average values, depending on the site, were from 16 to 220 and from 7.6 to 130 for caps and stipes, respectively.

The trace element content of top-soil and wild edible mushroom samples collected in Tuscany, Italy

“…On the other side, mushrooms can pick up considerable amounts of soil metals even in uncontaminated green regions, without anthropogenic influence (Isildak et al 2007) and a within-species variance in metal content, linked to geochemical and ecological factors, has been observed (Nonnis Marzano et al 2001;Nikkarinen and Mertanen 2004;Chudzyński and Falandysz 2008;Zhang et al 2008;Chudzyński et al 2009). This was reported also for toxic mercury (Hg) in two species, Boletus edulis and Macrolepiota procera (Falandysz and Chwir 1997;Falandysz et al 2007a, b;Falandysz and Gucia 2008) and what seems to limit the use of mushrooms as reliable bio-indicators. Also, a variability has been reported in certain trace metal content of fruiting bodies of the same mushroom species (B. edulis, Paxillus involutus) collected at the same stands over several years (Zhang et al 2010;Brzostowski et al 2011b).…”

Multivariate analysis of mineral constituents of edible Parasol Mushroom (Macrolepiota procera) and soils beneath fruiting bodies collected from Northern Poland

“…Mercury The BCF values of mercury in the literature have been reported to be in the range from 16 ± 6 to 220 ± 110 (total range from 0.52 to 470) for the caps and from 7.6 ± 2.6 to 130 ± 96 (total range from 0.52 to 340) for the stipes (Falandysz et al 2007a; Falandysz and Gucia 2008). The PTWI for Hg is 300 μg (equivalent to 5 or 0.7 μg kg −1 bw per day), and a reference dose is 0.3 μg kg −1 bw per day (JECFA 1978; US EPA 2005).…”

“…For mercury, the method limit of detection was 0.005 μg g −1 dw. Data on total mercury in these mushrooms and soils were reported elsewhere (Falandysz et al 2007a; Falandysz and Gucia 2008). In Table 1, the median values of mercury concentration in the cap, which were used for risk assessment, are cited.…”

Macro and trace mineral constituents and radionuclides in mushrooms: health benefits and risks

“…Mercury can be efficiently bioaccumulated by many mushrooms and especially when it is present in small concentrations in forest soils, e.g., for caps of M. procera, the BAF values vary from 16 ± 6 to 220 ± 110 (total range from 0.52 to 470), and for B. edulis , these were from 41 ± 6 to 130 ± 39 (total variation between 13 and 170) (Falandysz et al 2007a; Falandysz and Gucia 2008). The problem of Hg in mushrooms has been evaluated in detail for many species from different countries in recent times (Falandysz and Chwir 1997; Falandysz 2002; Falandysz and Bielawski 2001, 2007; Alonso et al 2000; Falandysz et al 2001a, 2002a, b, c, d, 2003a, b, c, d, 2004, 2007a, b, f, 2012c, d, e, f, 2013; Tüzen and Soylak 2005; Cocchi et al 2006; Falandysz and Brzostowski 2007; Chudzyński et al 2009, 2011; Melgar et al 2009; Nasr and Arp 2011; Pilz et al 2011; Reider et al 2011; Chojnacka et al 2012; Drewnowska et al 2012a, b; Giannaccini et al 2012; Maćkiewicz and Falandysz 2012; Nnorom et al 2012a).…”

“…A (Falandysz et al 2007a, 2011; Frankowska et al 2010; Zhang et al 2010); B (Cocchi et al 2006); C (Giannaccini et al 2012); D (Melgar et al 2009); E (Falandysz et al 2007b; Falandysz and Gucia 2008); F (Jarzyńska and Falandysz 2012a); G (Jarzyńska and Falandysz 2012b); H (Falandysz et al 2007e); I (Falandysz et al 2012d) h hynenophore, rfb rest of fruit body a 95 % confidence interval…”