2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2006.08.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of constructed wetlands with four different experimental designs to assess the potential for methyl and total Hg outputs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Malcolm et al, 30 , found it to be a weak methylator, however, the genome sequence is not available. These predicted Hg-methylators include strains from freshwater wetlands and wastewater treatment sludge (Table S3); known locations of MeHg production where iron and sulfate reduction may not be dominant [32][33][34][35] . 36,37 , and metabolize methylamines, MeOH, and dimethylsulfide.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Malcolm et al, 30 , found it to be a weak methylator, however, the genome sequence is not available. These predicted Hg-methylators include strains from freshwater wetlands and wastewater treatment sludge (Table S3); known locations of MeHg production where iron and sulfate reduction may not be dominant [32][33][34][35] . 36,37 , and metabolize methylamines, MeOH, and dimethylsulfide.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a recent study investigating the production of MeHg in constructed wetlands operating with Hg contaminated water or sediment, it was observed that temperature and SO 2− 4 correlated well with MeHg concentrations in the effluents (Gustin et al, 2006). In laboratory experiments with anoxic wetland sediments, Mehrotra and Sedlak (2005) reported that the addition of Fe(II) reduced the net rate of mercury methylation due to the decrease of dissolved sulfide.…”
Section: Mercurymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Below are the citations to the papers that the above paper does not reference [1,2]. The fact that they were published prior to this paper and that both corresponding authors on the Hazardous Materials manuscript were aware of these manuscripts leaves no excuse for their lack of citation in the Chavan et al paper.…”
mentioning
confidence: 89%