| Abstract: | Distillation was re‐evaluated for the formation of artifacts arising from increasing naturally occurring mercury(II) concentrations, as opposed to previous identification of artifacts by spiking standard mercury(II) into samples. Naturally occurring mercury(II) concentrations lower than 2 µg g?1 were found not to affect methylmercury (MeHg) results. However, when the natural concentrations of mercury(II) were greater than 2 µg g?1, in contrast to standard mercury(II) spiked in samples, the MeHg concentrations measured were found to decrease (not increase) with increasing naturally occurring mercury(II) concentrations. This indicated that standard mercury(II) spiked in samples behaved differently from naturally occurring mercury(II) in the formation of MeHg artifacts during distillation. As a result, spiking standard mercury(II) into samples to identify the formation of MeHg artifacts is not adequate. It is difficult to explain why high naturally occurring mercury(II) suppresses MeHg measurements during distillation. In comparison with HNO3 leaching/solvent extraction (and other existing techniques), distillation was found to generate results comparable for samples containing less than 2 µg g?1 mercury(II). The HNO3 leaching/solvent extraction showed significant advantages over other procedures, as this technique generated the highest recoveries with good precision for all samples analyzed, and the results were found to be independent of mercury(II) concentrations for both naturally occurring and spiked standard mercury(II). Thus, except for samples from high mercury‐contaminated fields, distillation is still a good choice. Both the positive bias (possibly caused by artifact formation of MeHg) and the negative bias (due to incomplete leaching, back‐adsorption, and/or decomposition of MeHg) were investigated. Geologically, physically, and chemically different samples were used for the investigation. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
