Metal(loid)s in surface sediments of the middle and lower basins of the Usumacinta River (southeastern Mexico): variability and selenium enrichment


Abstract

Background: Large tropical rivers remain largely undiscovered compared to the widely studied large temperate rivers. The Usumacinta River in southern Mexico is North America's most extensive tropical fluvial system. The increasing anthropogenic activities in the Usumacinta basin (e.g., agriculture, cattle raising, forest fires, deforestation, and urban development) threaten the ecosystem's health. However, our understanding of the characteristics of the basins, especially on metal(loid) concentrations, remains limited. To address this, we investigated metal(loid)s in the sediments along the Usumacinta River.

Methods: Thirty-four surface sediments from 17 stations within the Usumacinta’s mainstream and principal tributaries were sampled for metal(loid) analysis during the rainy and dry seasons. The sediment grain size and organic matter were analyzed by conventional techniques, and the concentrations of Al, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Li, Mg, Mn, Ni, Ag, Se, Sr, Sb, Tl, Sn, V, and Zn were analyzed by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). The indices Enrichment factor (EF), geo-accumulation index (Igeo), contamination factor (CF), and pollution load index (PLI) were used to assess the health status of metal(loid)s in the surface sediments of the middle (M) and lower (L) basins of the Usumacinta River.

Results: Metal(loid) concentrations (µg g -1 ) ranges were Ag 0.07-0.40, As 1-6, Ba 8-103, Be 0.1-0.3, Cd 0.1-0.8, Co 4-10, Cr 21-150, Cu 1-6, Li 3-10, Mn 105-400, Ni 18-198, Pb 3-13, Sb 0.01-0.50, Se 0.1-2.0, Sn 0.2-1.7, Sr 22-180, Tl 0.04-0.19, V 7-22, and Zn 19-79. The enrichment factor (EF) of Ag, Ba, Be, Cu, Sr, Tl, and V was <1.5, indicating that these were not enriched and can be associated with natural weathering processes. Conversely, the average EFs of As, Co, Mn, Pb, Sb, Sn, and Zn were 1.0 10 in various cases; Se was consistently >10 in all stations, seasons, and in the M and L basins, evidencing that sediments are Se-enriched. Using four pollution indexes, we concluded that the sediments of the Usumacinta River are either uncontaminated or moderately contaminated (enriched) with As, Cd, Cu, Cr, Ni, Pb, Sb, V, and Zn. They are consistently enriched with Se through natural sources in both basins and seasons.

Conclusions: In general, results showed that metal(loid) concentrations were higher during the dry than in the rainy season and that such concentrations in the L basin were higher than in the M. Generally, the enrichment factors (EFs) of most elements and stations were <1.5, indicating that such metal(loid)s are derived from natural weathering; only the EFs of Se were >10 in all stations, seasons, and in both basins, evidencing that sediments are enriched. The Igeo values confirmed this, as Se exhibited Igeo > 5 in twelve sites in the rainy season, indicating anomalous conditions.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].